#most of the social commentary is on point

[novlr]

Weird question here: do I need to describe my character's clothes? Obviously I need to if it's important to the story or setting (if they're wearing a beautiful ruby gown at a ball, or maybe dirty and torn to indicate a fight) but just on a normal day? Do readers need to know what characters are wearing?

As writers, we often get caught up in the details of our characters. We describe everything from their eye colour to their favourite breakfast cereal, and it can be so easy to go overboard with unnecessary description. Describing a character’s clothes is a danger zone for too much description. It’s incredibly easy to get lost in the minutiae and forget the most important element when writing for readers; will they find this interesting?

The short answer

No, you don’t need to describe every piece of clothing your characters wear throughout your story. Like all elements of writing, clothing descriptions should serve a purpose.

Just like clothing in real life, descriptions of a character’s clothes serve a function. This means that your chose in when to describe things should be intentional; usually for the purposes of character development, world-building, setting a mood, social commentary, plot advancement, or symbolic representation.

When should you describe clothing?

Every plot is different, but there are some key moments in a story when knowing what a character is wearing or how they are dressed could be important:

When it reveals a character’s personality or status (e.g. do they favour muted tones or bright, bold colours? Do their clothing choices signify wealth?).

During important story moments or turning points if it highlights that moment’s significance (e.g. wearing black at a funeral, or an academic gown at graduation).

If the clothing affects the plot or action (e.g. Cinderella losing her glass slipper).

When establishing the time period or setting (e.g. historically appropriate clothing descriptions to put readers into the right headspace to appreciate your setting).

If it shows a significant change in the character (e.g. a shy character who likes to blend in suddenly switching to bright colours to display their newfound confidence).

When it symbolises something deeper in the narrative (e.g. a meaningful piece of jewellery, or a bride wearing her mother’s dress for her wedding).

When should you skip clothing descriptions?

Readers don’t need to know what your character is wearing at every moment of every day. The best way to think about it is, if it’s not important to the story, don’t describe it in detail. Usually it’s enough to know that someone is wearing a jumper on an overcast day, and it won’t actually enhance the scene to know it’s a plain black one. Here are some moments when it’s probably not all that important to go into too much detail:

During routine daily activities.

When the outfit doesn’t add meaning to the scene.

If it interrupts the flow of important action.

When it feels like “outfit cataloging” rather than storytelling.

If you’re describing clothes just to fill space.

Tips for how to effectively describe a characters’ clothes

Make it matter: Make sure your descriptions reveal something about the character, whether that be a personality trade, social or economic status, or their cultural background.

Illustrate change: Highlight a change in your character, whether that be something external or a internal, emotional change.

Create uniqueness: In the case of a protagonist, especially, the way they dress can make them unique. It can contrast them with other characters.

Set something up: Describing a character’s clothes can be used for foreshadowing a future plot point.

Be selective: You don’t need to describe a whole outfit. Instead, you can focus on one or two distinct pieces, items that have significance, clothing that affects movement or action, or elements that reflect the character’s state of mind.

Don’t info-dump: You should try to seamlessly weave descriptions into the narrative. Describe actions and interactions, use sensory language, have other characters react, or let clothing be a part of a scene’s atmosphere.

Common pitfalls to avoid

There is a fine line to tow when describing a character’s clothes in a way that is effective. And essentially, the pitfalls happen on either side of that line. You will either over-describe or under-describe. So what does that mean?

Over-description

Listing every item of clothing, regardless or relevance or usefulness.

Describing outfits for every scene. We rarely need to know what all characters are wearing at all times.

Including brand names unless relevant. Sometimes, a character’s brand loyalty might be important to the plot, but if it’s not, it’s unnecessary, and potentially alienating to readers.

Getting too technical with fashion terminology. Most readers won’t be au fait with the specifics, so make sure you write in a way that most readers can follow.

Focusing on clothes at the expense of action. Nothing will bring an action scene to a screeching halt faster than a detail dump.

Under-description

Don’t ignore clothing when it would be significant. If a character has undergone a significant personal change, then it would make sense to describe how that might also affect how they look on the outside.

Don’t miss opportunities for characterisation. A lot of a character’s personality can shine through their clothes, so if you’re telling the kind of story where that could be relevant, make sure you don’t miss those opportunities.

Don’t forget period-appropriate details in historical fiction. Research and authenticity are essential in certain genres, and clothing can go a long way to setting the scene.

Don’t overlook clothing that affects movement or action. The clothing a character wears can hugely affect the believability of a scene. If a character has just stepped out of a coronation and is dripping with heavy jewellery, it wouldn’t make sense for them to go for a leisurely swim.

Don’t skip descriptions that could build atmosphere. If it’s cold and dark, make sure your characters fit into that setting. Or you can use it to contrast your character and invert expectations (like a character who only ever wears shorts, even in winter).

When in doubt, ask these questions:

Does this detail reveal character?

Will it matter later in the story?

Does it help readers understand the world?

Is it necessary for visualisation?

Could the scene work without it?

Like all descriptions, clothing is a tool that you can use. Describe clothing when it serves your story and skip it when it doesn’t. The key is to make every detail count, whether you’re describing a ball gown or a worn-out pair of sneakers.

The bottom line is that you must trust your instincts and your readers. They don’t need a detailed inventory of every character’s wardrobe, but they do appreciate thoughtful details that enhance their understanding of your characters and story. When in doubt, less is often more, but make the descriptions you do include count.

[gremlin-pattie]

man i forgot what a good show tawog is

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[torchickentacos]

Okay, I've spoken to several of you who like both of these things and I need to know how deep this runs because it's an 'if I had a nickel for each time this thing happened, I'd have (x) nickels, which isn't a lot but it's weird that it's happened (x) times' thing-

[wttcsms]

i feel so bad for all my girlies who won’t read my blue lock fics bc im popping my pussy for these fics 🙁🙁🙁 you’re missing out on peak wttcsms content coming soon!!?

[cinnabunney]

i think my issue w a lot of umineko fandom takes is the lack of empathy in a story that was structured very much around empathizing with your explicitly shitty family

[roguelemon]

The thing with arcane s2 leaving so much blank space / rushing through plot points means that people have managed to get VASTLY different takes, certain characters especially, from the exact same source material.

Some people are basing their opinions only on what they saw, shallower interpretation but less 'made up'. However 90% of the all the 'anti-character' or 'pro-character' takes are clearly very reliant on what people thought would have happened in between the gaps.

Cait, for example, as a highly controversial character in a season where the political undertones set up in s1 were so blatantly sidelined, is analysed in so many different ways, and I'm yet to see something that I dont agree with at least part of.

She used Vi for her own gain and her rise to dictator was always going to happen given her terrible opinions of people in Zaun. Vi deserves better than being 'one of the good ones'. True. 100% true this analysis is often backed up by legitimate reasoning, but also assumes that what happened off screen did not involve any internal conflict, did not involve anything of her trying to help Zaun but being pushed by Ambessa to be more harsh than she wanted. It assumes that her character is supposed to reflect the oppressor that is both capable and GLADLY WILLING.

Cait acted poorly because of her trauma and upbringing, she learns, though not in a linear fashion, from her mistakes. Also usually backed up by sensible analysis, however assumes what happened offscreen DID involve more manipulation on Ambessas part, and that the offscreen interactions with Vi both pre and post dictatorship were more supportive and understanding than what we saw on screen. An interesting thing I myself thought is, we never find out what Cait does between the end of the fight and the council being reinstated, maybe there's more going on than offering Sevika a (performative and clearly frowned upon) seat at the table. Again, what she did in this mid period could be both '"cait is a bigoted opressor' or 'cait doesn't understand her privelage, but at least now shes TRYING.' In this, she is capable due to her weak moral compass and status, but not gladly willing to cause harm.

Season 2 being so rushed means that almost all of the scenes we see are characters in high pressure scenarios, they are reduced to their worst and most desperate often out of no fault of their own. There is as much reason in saying certain characters are awful people as there is in saying they did awful things but can be better.

S2 is a skeleton of a show, it's what you think happened in the flesh of it all that will affect your view of the characters both as individuals and their relationships.

Next time you see somebody and think 'they've mischaracterised my blorbo' or 'he would NOT fucking say that'. Consider that your blorbo is barley a fully functioning character and that the character you think they are is affected by your OPINION as much as it is fact.

Terrible takes exist, especially when a show gets this popular, but can you really call it a terrible take when the 'good takes' use as much assumption to gapfill as the 'bad' ones?

I have my own takes on the main characters, but I ENJOY seeing ones I completely disagree with because seeing other people thought processes is INTERESTING AS FUCK. We were given the same barebones, stripped down season 2 and we both imagined what could have been in different ways, that's cool.

I have more examples, and more I'd like to talk about but that's aside from the main point of this. Provided you haven't just pulled something out of nowhere and decided to ignore what DID actually happen in the show, your takes and theories are as good as anyone's else's.

[askshivanulegacy]

Watching someone have an absolute meltdown over the difference between technical terminology and common usage. They seem unable to distinguish that "the friends who vouch for them" are no different than the hundreds to thousands of people using the non-technical term already, or that there's nothing special about this particular term compared to any other term that has differences in technical vs common usage. Welcome to science. Nothing about this situation is new or interesting. Words ABSOLUTELY have different meanings based on context and speaker intent and you cannot remove those or your arguments are straw with no substance.

Just because YOU operate in circles that have deep-dived your special interest knowledge groups doesn't mean everyone else has. What's "common knowledge" to YOU is not the same thing as REAL common knowledge, and even that varies depending on background.

The shift in meaning of this particular term has already sailed by years. Nothing about it is new, so seeing someone complain this late in the game is ... special. Not to mention the inconsistency in the meltdown rage over this term but no others.

It would be one thing to simply inform people about the term as a matter of trivia, but this bad-faith approach that puts words in people's mouths and calls them stupid for having a different opinion and a broader perspective is two-year-old behavior.

[whereisthedamndaddymanual]

Arthur: I'm not coughing up blood

Me: oh? Been slamming cherry Kool aid?

Arthur: *points up* my parents must be there because I was a pain in the ass child

Me: what the fuck is up there sir? Your ass died in 1987 and here you are.

Talking about his 25 year old granddaughter needing to find a good man and get married

(interjection...just shut up)

Me: I don't know sir, you've given some awful marriage advice to your daughter.

Look, I don't even know for sure who wanted us all here. Traveling to New Jersey is no vacation, Florida is the vacation he says.

[bradleysbradshaws]

I am just *deep sighs* about most things now.

Look - I do believe I am on the right side of history for what I am doing. I have zero ill intent, but I have been put in an impossible situation, and I am surviving on sheer intrinsic mental fortitude at this point. I have managed to "stay in" the Roosmav fandom - barely - when anyone else who this has happened to has been long gone.

It's probably not going to happen, but I wish the Roosmav fandom could be like any other fandom that I have ever been in - open and welcoming to all who want to participate in it. It disturbs me that just because I and others are not privvy to a certain gated space, that we are not able to engage meaningfully with it. I do make the posts I make on tumblr because I do hope against all hope for some sort of honest interaction one day. I know it's not going to come from anyone who knew me last year because...I don't know...I don't know why people who happily treated me as a friend treat me like a ghost now, but it's their prerogative to do so. It makes me sad, but I am used to it; I have been used to it for a very long time now.

I will speak on this more another day, but I do find it concerning that more fandoms are becoming gated spaces it seems, nowadays - not just Roosmav. We all just want to enjoy something together...I don't know why it should have to be such a struggle for some of us.

[wethotcrazy]

CAN'T CONTROL IT

pairing: Franco Colapinto x Fem! Driver! Reader

word count: 739

just something a little short and sweet for franco colapinto. also i think the can't control their mouth and can't control their face would suit him well?! idk bro

The F1 social media team had a new favorite hobby: catching YN's reactions to everything Franco Colapinto did.

It started during pre-season testing in Bahrain. Franco, fresh in his Williams racing suit, had spun on his installation lap – a rookie mistake that had the paddock chuckling. The TV director, whether by instinct or divine intervention, cut immediately to YN in the Alpine garage.

Her expression was poetry in motion: eyes rolling skyward, lips pressed together to suppress a smile, followed by a head shake that somehow conveyed both "I can't believe this" and "that's my idiot" in one fluid movement.

The clip went viral within hours.

"Have you seen this?" Franco bounded into the Alpine hospitality area, phone already extended. "'Every Time YN Dies Inside Watching Franco Colapinto: Testing Edition' – they even put sad violin music over your faces!"

YN didn't need to look. She'd already seen the compilation – a masterfully edited collection of her various reactions to Franco's testing adventures. Her personal favorite was the slow-motion zoom on her face when he'd described his first F1 car as "spicy."

"I'm starting to think you do these things on purpose," she muttered, but her treacherous face was already softening at his enthusiasm.

"Maybe I just like seeing your reactions," he winked, dropping into the seat beside her. "Remember in F3 when you said your face wasn't that expressive?"

"Remember in F2 when you said you'd learned to think before speaking?"

His laugh echoed through the hospitality area. "Some things never change, no?"

The Australian GP brought new material for the ever-growing collection of "YN Can't Control Her Face" content. As Alpine's reserve driver, she was in the garage when Franco scored his first F1 points – a remarkable P8 in a chaotic race.

His radio message was pure, unfiltered Franco: "P8! P8! YN, are you watching? Better than that time in F2 when you said I'd never score points because I was too busy talking!"

The cameras found her instantly: pride blooming across her features before she could school them into professional neutrality.

"Every time they show your face, the comments explode," Esteban teased later. "I think you've got more screen time than some of the actual drivers."

YN groaned. "Don't remind me. Someone made a TikTok trend out of my different 'Franco Reactions.'"

"At least you're not 'Can't Control His Mouth' Colapinto," Pierre chimed in. "Did you hear him in the press pen? He spent five minutes explaining how you once bet him he couldn't qualify top 10 without talking on team radio."

"Did he mention he lost that bet?"

"No, but your face when they asked you about it said everything."

Monaco was where things reached new heights. Franco, running in P6 during practice, had been providing commentary that somehow always circled back to YN:

"YN's watching, no? Tell her this is how you take the hairpin properly—" Franco spoke through team radio confidently before scraping through the hairpin.  "Ah. Maybe not like that."

The camera cuts to YN's perfect face-palm, followed by a head shake that somehow conveyed both "I knew it" and "why am I even surprised" in one swift motion.

The resulting clip went viral on Tiktok and became F1's most-watched social media post of the weekend.

"You know what I think?" Franco asked one evening, as they shared takeaway in the quiet of the paddock after everyone else had left. The cameras were finally off, but YN's face was as expressive as ever in the dim light.

"That's a dangerous start to any conversation with you."

He grinned, nudging her shoulder. "I think you like that I can't control my mouth."

"And what makes you say that?" she asked, trying and failing to keep her expression neutral.

"Because every time I talk about you, you make this face – like you're trying not to smile but can't help it. It's my favorite one."

"I do not have a special face for when you talk about me."

"Si, you do! You're making it right now!"

She threw a napkin at him, but her smile – soft and genuine and completely uncontrolled – gave her away.

The next day, during the drivers' briefing, Alex caught Franco staring at YN with an expression that mirrored all of hers – soft and fond and entirely unguarded.

The photo went viral with the caption: "Looks like neither of them can control anything anymore 💕"

[elodieunderglass]

On the topic of the monarchist animals I'm just really curious. What makes the winnie pooh real animals bourgeois? It's not like they own much more than the others. Do they just have bourgeois energy?

(In reference to my addition on this post; https://www.tumblr.com/elodieunderglass/748488762087047168/hold-on-lets-do-this-properly-paddington)

In the post I state that none of the stuffed/toy animals in the Winnie the Pooh series are monarchists, but that the real animals are bourgeoisie. Obviously this is tongue in cheek, but it’s still politically interesting to me because nobody ever reads Winnie the Pooh as an actual book. They just draw depressed Disney Eeyore and think they’ve done something.

Owl and Rabbit are real wild animals that live in the Hundred Acre Wood. The other characters in the story are Christopher Robin’s stuffed animals.

The “real” animals (reasonably) consider themselves to be separate from the stuffed ones, but where it becomes unreasonable is how they assume superiority and how they use this to exert authority.

(A charming response about how the stuffed animals view this: Piglet points out that Rabbit is both clever and Has Brain, and Pooh replies that this is why Rabbit “doesn’t understand anything.”)

Owl is characterised by being a bit of a fraud. The stuffed animals respect him for his presumed education and literacy, but even a preschooler understands that Owl can’t actually read. he actively deceives the other characters in order to maintain a higher social status over them. (Actually, Rabbit’s the most literate character in the Wood.) Owl gains relatively little advantage from this status, apart from his belief that he is superior and the pleasure in everyone deferring to him. A notable theme throughout the written series involves characters approaching Owl for advice, based on his self-made reputation of being wise and thoughtful, and him giving explicitly bad advice, rather than admit that he has no idea how to help. Also, they forcibly give him someone else’s house, in such a way that the actual possessor of the house (Piglet) feels he can’t speak up. Pooh immediately offers to Piglet that he move in with him, which even as a kid felt like an incredibly unsatisfactory solution to having the shyest character’s actual house given away to the character who casually lies about everything just to feel superior.

Rabbit is a grown-ass adult real wild animal. He is the social leader of a massively large family and an extended group of hangers-on (he has fifteen or seventeen close relatives, and the extended Friends-and-Relations are a sort of army); he is the only actually literate person in the narrative, so it is understandable that he feels this (although he also believes Owl can read.) literacy and Brain are considered very important in the Wood.

Rabbit believes in his own superiority and believes himself to serve as a sort of cadet to Christopher Robin. In the series Christopher Robin is the ultimate judge, and a kindly ruler; Rabbit positions himself constantly at Christopher Robin’s right hand and wants to be his enforcer. Christopher Robin, who is five and a fairly distracted God, does not really enforce anything. This does not stop Rabbit from trying to organise the entire Wood. It’s frequently mentioned that Rabbit wants to feel important, he wants to be the Boss. A beautiful, beautiful commentary on his character is when he wakes up feeling “important, as if everything depending on him… it was a Captainish sort of day, when everybody said “Yes Rabbit” and “No Rabbit” and waited until he had told them.” Fantastic!

However, we can see where this leads him. In the first book Rabbit is shown being hostile and actively anti-foreign in his approach to other people. When kanga and roo arrive in the forest - sanctioned by Christopher Robin who has received new toys - Rabbit instantly says they have to get rid of them. Like there is NO friendship in Rabbit’s heart here. There is no “god has placed a new friend in the wood so we have to get on with it.”

Rabbit’s anti-immigration stances are funny, and in-character, and shown by the narrative to be wrong and unfair. But they’re pretty unleashed.

His plan is to kidnap the baby and hold it hostage until the mother agrees to “leave the forest forever and never return.”

This is not a normal response to a new character. It is in fact fucking unhinged. Coming from the most normal-adult real animal in the story, it comes out of nowhere. “We have to eliminate them instantly. Take the baby hostage, blackmail the parent and deport them” Rabbit these are war crimes.

Anyway it’s all very heartwarming as Rabbit learns that he likes Baby Roo. (Their relationship grows warmer as Baby Roo says “yes rabbit” and “no rabbit” better than anyone else.) We never really learn why Rabbit is so violently anti-immigration that he instantly jumps to doing crimes, but it’s possible that he doesn’t like the threat to the status quo. Baby Roo, by deferring politely, thus turns out to be a valuable social inferior for Rabbit’s power base.

But in the next book we also get another new character introduction: Tigger. rabbit does not like tigger. In fact, he stops visiting Roo because Tigger lives with them. Rabbit, frustrated by Tigger’s bounciness, also decides to deliberately trick and bully Tigger in order to make him “small and sorry.” The fact that this comically backfires on Rabbit is part of the Pooh-lore storytelling style, of course, but it’s still something obvious even to the preschool audience - that isn’t how you treat your friends.

In conclusion, due to their hoarding of (social) capital and behaviors that prop up an unjustly unequal social system, I think the real animals in Winnie the Pooh are a bit bougie.

[im-totally-not-an-alien-2]

Danny, after running away moving to Gotham a few months ago begins making little commentary videos on a social media app.

It was fine and all with mostly friends viewing them up until his meta gene activated. He didn't even know he had a meta gene and kinda figured any of the ghost stuff he did as Phantom would have activated it if he did have one. Nope!

His newest video started out with him wearing a red beanie, "Hey guys! You know how I just moved to Gotham a few months ago? Well, turns out I have the meta gene!" He takes a moment to let that sink in before continuing, "Most people get there abilities or whatever through a lab accident or an explosion or something and end up with like telekinesis."

"I, however, am hated by the universe and got scratched by a cat," he then yanked off the beanie to reveal two large cat ears, "and turned into furry bait. On that note if you have any tips on how to avoid Catwoman please leave them in the comments section. For my sake."

Dick stared down at his phone in shock. He needed to show his siblings this

In the meantime Danny has to deal with his channels popularity skyrocketing. "This is not what I want to be remembered for."

Bonus points if Danny gets one of those FMK questions that are all bats and he responds with, "Kill? A bat? Listen, if I get put into a death match with a bat the only one dying here will be me. I cant even do a backflip, what makes you think I could even touch one of them???"

[orionsangel86]

I watched X-Men 2000 tonight. Yup the Deadpool and Wolverine brain worms got me - at least for a little while - so I figured I'd rewatch the old movies that I havent seen in over a decade and have basically forgotten entirely at this point.

You know what really stunned me? Even more than the slow pace, serious tone, actual dedication to telling a coherent and interesting story with layers of meaning and social commentary attached to it, as well as a sincerity that's been missing from most superhero films since the MCU was born (thanks Josh Whedon).

Nope, what shocked me most was this:

This is a perfect specimen of a man. Look at him. He's gorgeous. But look at his chest? His arms? He's muscular, he's pretty well toned, he's hairy. He's definitely got a six pack - but it's nicely covered by a healthy layer of fat. His skin is plump, he has a bit of squish to him. He'd probably be great to hug (Jean Grey certainly gives him a good squeeze lol).

When he sits down he looks like his stomach will roll just nicely. Like a stomach should.

I know my point here is obvious. It's just that scrolling the Deadpool and Wolvering tag is basically 50% "oh they definitely fucked in the Honda Odyssey" (yes lol) and the other 50% is just horny posting over Wolverine's topless scene like the entire site suddenly adopted Deadpools horny brain.

I gotta give props to Hugh Jackman for his dedication to turn himself into an actual comic book character - because that's what this new movie does. It gives us a comic accurate Wolverine in practically every way (except for his height lol) the suit is amazing, the cowl was a joy to see brought into live action. The body too though was straight out of a comic book artists male power fantasy.

What I wanted to emphasise was that this:

Is extremely tough on the human body. What I wanna know is how long he starved and dehydrated himself for before filming this scene? How long before they shot this did he last drink some water? Because damn that must have been tough. The oil and the lighting probably help further emphasise the muscle, vein, and sinew definition. It's probably similar to how body builders prepare before a show.

Nothing about body building is healthy though. So in the coming weeks as the whole entertainment industry rides on the coat tales of this movies success, and everyone goes crazy over Hugh Jackmans physique, please don't feel pressured into thinking that his 2024 physique in the movie is remotely realistic - or realistically attractive. Like I get the fantasy sure, but come on. I'd personally rather lie on a cushioned bed than a concrete floor.

Deadpool may disagree with me, but he's a masochist lol.

Oh and whilst I stand by the shade I threw at the MCU above, I think Wolverine's different physiques in the movies is a good standard of comparison for how much superhero movies have changed. Because when superhero comics first started getting adapted I think a lot of the choices made were about how to bring them to live action realistically and believably and the attitude was to try not to make them look ridiculous. The first X-Men movies definitely do this.

It was about bringing the comics to life in a way that fit in our world. But over the years, as audiences got more and more used to comic book movies the movies became more and more like comic books and less like a realistic adaptation of a comic book. Does that make sense? So as the movies attempted to bring the comics to life in a way that was less realistic and more comic accurate, the demands on the actors to sculpt their physiques to meet the standards of comic book art became normalised.

I think Deadpool and Wolverine is the MOST comic book accurate of all superhero movies made in the past 2 decades. Half the time the images from the movie look like they could be literally pulled from the pages of the comic books. The story is convoluted and stupid, the plot is barely there and is full of gaping plot holes and elements that don't fit any past stories. The action is ridiculous, extremely fast paced, gratuitous, and violent to a hilarious level. But it's so entertaining, joyful, exciting, and laugh out loud hilarious throughout.

It reminded me a LOT of my attempts at reading through the Deadpool comics (I've read a lot of them but no where near all of them).

To sum up this rambling message with multiple points, I'll say that Deadpool and Wolverine is a really fun movie that I thoroughly enjoyed, but make no mistake there is nothing real in it at all. It is almost literally a comic on screen. Don't expect anything more than that and you'll enjoy the experience.

[avelera]

Arcane's Jayce & Viktor: A Tech Industry Perspective

I've been wrestling with whether to make a short and sweet post about these points or to just have another long-winded meta and clearly since I'm incapable of being brief, I guess we'll just dive in.

I work in tech. What I see in this industry colors a lot of how I see Jayce and Viktor in Arcane. I'll try to be brief about a few of the things that stand out to me the most and that I think are intentional.

1 ) Jayce and Viktor are references to Alfred Nobel - This is a historical reference so direct I genuinely don't know how people grasp Jayce and Viktor's characters if you don't know about it.

Alfred Nobel is known for two things: inventing dynamite and bequeathing his subsequent fortune to founding the Nobel Peace Prize. These things are very much related.

Nobel was brilliant but socially naive. When he invented dynamite, he intended it to make life easier and safer for working in mines. Sound familiar? That is literally what the Atlas Gauntlets and Hex Claw Jayce and Viktor invented with Hextech was posed to be. It is a direct reference to Alfred Nobel and dynamite, there is no question about it in my mind whatsoever that they pose the benefit to society as specifically being useful to miners.

Nobel also believed that the awesome destructive power of dynamite would mean the end of warfare. Literally. He thought it was so disgusting and unthinkable that people would use explosives on each other that it would grind violence to a halt. He was very, very wrong about this. So wrong, in fact, that he spent the rest of his life in horror and remorse at how explosives were being used to kill people and created the Nobel Peace Prize to promote innovations aimed at peace, a prize which annually recognizes those who "conferred the greatest benefit to humankind".

Likewise with Jayce and Viktor, they are both horrified to imagine Hextech used for warfare and we think they're incredibly socially naive for thinking this, because they are. Maybe in another universe, there'd be the Talis Peace Prize to try to make up for what they unleashed on the world. Which brings me to my next point:

2 ) Jayce and Viktor have typical engineer blindspots to society's ills - As I've discussed in-depth in another meta, Jayce and Viktor both desperately needed some non-STEM or scientific classes in their life because their worldview is so naive and stunted as a result that it's the source of a dizzying number of their problems. Neither of them could even consider that Hextech, like dynamite, would be weaponized immediately. But they have other huge gaps too as a result of their narrow focus on science, and I do believe this is intentional by the writers as a commentary on engineers and tech people in general.

Short version, Jayce desperately needs some understanding of history and of rhetoric. When Ambessa asks him if his school teaches military history, he doesn't even know if they offer it. She was testing him with that question and as a canny manipulator and general, she clearly takes that to mean she can run circles around him, and she is right. Because with incredibly simplistic plays to his male ego, like calling his leadership "impotent", Ambessa immediately gets Jayce riled up and not thinking clearly. She blindfolds him, spins him around, and shoves him headlong into taking violent military action in exactly the direction she wanted him to go in to kick the nest and set off a war.

Jayce is also easily manipulated by Mel for more benevolent but still self-serving reasons with appeals to his life's work with flattery, his male ego with sex, and his dreams for a better world to make him fall quickly into step with the city's corruption with only a little nudging because he has no strong civic understanding of his own to fall back on. As Cait notes, he's never taken an interest in the Council or politics before until he becomes a Councilor himself.

Short version for Viktor, he wants to make the world a better place but he's never actually had to think through human nature before. He's literally never bothered. We know this because of his blindspot towards Hextech weaponry where he truly believed they could avoid it being used for warfare, and the fact that later in his cult, he's somehow shocked to learn that people will do bad things for the ones they love and won't just slice pieces of their own nature and personality off to fit into his little Utopian commune.

Literally cracking any kind of history or sociology book or heck, a Pratchett Discworld book, would have told him that there's a straight fucking line between deciding people are the problem when it comes to fixing society's ills and eugenics. He falls headlong into that trap and it requires his older, wiser self to beat him over the head with the truth of the horrors of his own simplistic worldview would lead to before he literally annihilates all life in his home city in his attempt to save it.

Which brings me to my next point:

3 ) Jayce and Viktor as oblivious tech nerds who have never cracked a book open but suddenly thinking that because they're great engineers, they have the solution to all of life's problems.

This is a somewhat shorter point, but I think in modern society we all know about the proverbial tech bro who keeps reinventing things like public transportation and taxes because they've never read a book in their life that doesn't have equations in it.

To be clear, they aren't bad people! I'd even hazard to say that young tech bros trying to make public good-based startups with a laughable lack of social awareness aren't bad people either! If anything, the education system has failed them, and they're pouring their intellect and earnest, human desire to help others into endeavors with the narrowest possible world perspective, which happens to be their field of expertise and thus it makes sense they'd see that as the greatest value that can offer, it's just too limited a view so they end up reinventing things that already exist or making worse, more dangerous versions of things that already exist. Tragically, their naive but well-meaning worldview often leads to:

4 ) Viktor and Jayce, but mostly Jayce, as tech bros being beholden to billionaire interests to make their dream come true:

Like Jayce, we see how these tech bros have their vision co-opted by people with a broader vision and understanding of the world, by billionaire investors who turn their inventions into making a quick buck for themselves, to warmongers and dictators who turn the creations of their mind into surveillance state horror stories. Some of that is a lack of wisdom on their parts when it comes to building in safeguards, sure, but part of that is there is a class divide too between the powerful and bright-eyed young inventors who just want to improve the world. As Singed notes, no one in power is ever innocent. And those in power have the capital to make a young inventor's dream come true and thus, tie them to their demands and interests. As Jayce said, they built the Hexgates, "Like [the Councilors] asked." Specifically this indicates that their vision has already been co-opted to serve financial interests. It also, again, makes it almost laughable how naive they are that they didn't realize warfare was next after trade.

Like many tech bros with billionaire investors, Jayce relied on the Kirammans, who were one of the wealthiest people in the city and literally on the Council that represents the State, and on Mel who is also part of the State, who is the wealthiest woman in Piltover, and who comes from a family of world-conquering warmongers, to make his dream come true from the very start.

From the beginning, Jayce was at a losing disadvantage when it came to keeping his dream ideologically pure and free of the influence of the wealthy and powerful.

And finally, just to point out that I'm not making this up, that these parallels are in fact intentional and built into the story:

4 ) Jayce and Viktor as parallels to Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, founders of Apple. Christian Linke, co-creator of Arcane, specifically noted them as inspirations for Jayce and Viktor's relationship, with Jayce (Jobs) as the face of the company and Viktor (Woz) as the real brains behind the invention.

This caused a lot of sturm and drang on Twitter with people misinterpreting that he means Jayce isn't the actual inventor of Hextech, which I think is an overreaction. Jobs, unlike many tech bros who have earned society's ire lately like Musk, was actually an engineer too. It's completely common in tech spaces for partnerships to be made up of one partner who is able to handle being the public face of the company, and one introverted and socially awkward genius who prefers to sit in a dark room and actually tinker with the problem and who would literally rather set themselves on fire than talk to a non-technical human being. I know because I've been in such partnerships before myself as the public face.

Where Jayce and Viktor rather charmingly buck the stereotypes of that relationship and so in turn actually make it more like what I've seen in the real world, is the fact there isn't resentment between the two as a result. Viktor is glad that Jayce is willing to be the public face and doesn't want to get in the way. This is actually very common with the engineers I know! It's not seen as glory stealing, it's seen as sparing them awful, painful work they don't want to do, like networking.

Yes it means Jayce needs to sacrifice some time in the lab, but it's a simple division of labor that he's happy to do, especially if it frees Viktor from the responsibility so he can focus on what he loves, because Jayce loves him. And you'll note that Jayce is very above-board academically speaking on this front, he always cites Viktor as his partner and is scrupulous in giving Viktor credit, in conversation at least, even if he doesn't forcibly drag Viktor on stage to take credit there.

Anyway, when I write meta or even fic for these two, this sort of background is always on my mind, and I thought it might be valuable for others who maybe aren't as familiar with the tech space as I am.

[wishlikes]

you know, when i started rewatching leverage for the first time in years last month, i noticed right away that i was understanding more things than i had when i'd been watching it a lot as a teenager. the bigger words, social and political things, cause and effect, interpersonal dynamics

and like. this was my favorite show! for many years! i rewatched every episode dozens of times! i rewatched the audio commentaries dozens of times! it's been years, but i have thus far remembered most of the plot points of each episode as soon as i start them up. so it's an incredible treat to have, with age and experience, unlocked entirely new layers to what's going on with these characters

Anyway, i just finished 4.04 The Van Gogh Job, and i'm crying like a baby. inconsolable. devastated. holy shit. Like, 4.01 The Long Way Down Job got me yesterday, but this is... wow.