#the writers really did this

[respectthepetty]

Home always talks to ghosts

It's the trust between Home and Peach that really solidifies that they are partners.

Because this is how it started:

And now they look at each other for permission to put themselves in danger, yet they trust each other enough to face it together.

Because trust is the foundation for any relationship.

But what makes them the best partners is they complement each other.

Peach sees the ghosts, but Home is the only one of the team who has consistently tried speaking to them.

Home tries really hard to communicate.

Because his family never did.

So the show giving him the gift to finally hear the ghosts he keeps trying to talk to is a beautiful moment.

Since he has never been heard.

He is the piece that he felt they were missing all along.

And now he gets to help the ghosts in the exact way he has been trying to help the living.

By having a conversation.

[tumblydove]

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-25/hollywood-screenwriters-reach-tentative-deal-to-end-strike#xj4y7vzkg

WE DID IT JOE

[molinaesque]

Astarion: I think he likes us. Tav: I like him, too. But I'd never say it to his smarmy face. Raphael has a crush on Tav and tries real hard to act cool about it.

[nibbelraz]

A writer and His number one fan hater

[douche-canoe-regatta]

The Locked Tomb doesn't just feel as though it was written especially for me and my own personal enjoyment. It's also the series I always dreamed of writing when I was a kid... only to be told I was "way overthinking" my stories. I remember so clearly what they said.

"Don't obsess over the meanings of character names. don't make silly, 4th-wall-breaking references. what are these jokes doing here?don't make it so complicated. are you drawing your characters' clothing designs over and over again? shouldn't you be writing? why does it matter which numbers your weird character is assigned?" (6249D, btw.)

or: "This is too close to (movie, TV show, book). you're stealing. you're ripping it off. christ, knock it off with the thesaurus already. it's too weird. god, why are you so weird??"

eventually I stopped writing sci-fi/fantasy. it wasn't much fun as a 12-year-old being pushed to write like a 45 year old. I was constantly being praised for my writing ability, yet encouraged to remove anything that made it uniquely "me."

decades pass. I pick up GtN. love at first sentence. cleared my schedule. never looked back.

y'all, I can't explain how VALIDATING it is to read a writer who probably heard that shit over and over - likely her entire career! - and still said "Fuck you, I'm doing it however I goddamn please." Here we are, 3 bestselling, award-winning novels and 1 rabid fanbase later. fuck them indeed.

In the end, I never did become a writer. but reading TLT was something of a transcendental experience, feeling Seen in that way. like being told, for the first time,

"They were wrong. you can do anything you want. and it can be amazing."

so yeah. we do bones, motherfucker. choke on it.

[bixels]

The Ryoko Kui interview's reception is such a disaster over a pretty normal (yet still flawed) interview between a non-Japanese fan and Japanese artistic. This is discourse for discourse's sake, and it's no surprise that almost every Twitter user I've looked at who's using this interview to parade Kui around as a goated mangaka standing strong against Western ideology is anti-trans.

Like, I do think the interview was kinda wonky with its focus on fandom culture, which Kui clearly didn't have much interest in. But sometimes that happens. Sometimes interactions between two people, especially a fan and a creator, two people who view and interact with a piece of media in completely opposite perspectives, don't click. Does this really need to get blown up into a "West vs. East culture war" issue.

Anyways, Kui saying "I don't consider my audience's interpretations when writing. I leave it to their imaginations, but I have my own read on things too" is the healthiest, most normal thing an artist/writer who wants a non-parasocial audience could say. Artists and writers use this line all the time. If Kui didn't enjoy autistic Laius or Farcille headcanons, she would have probably voiced/signalled her discomfort, like she did on the topic of Senshi fanservice. Overall, Kui handled the interview really well. Props to her to sticking to her guns and keeping a healthy disconnect from the fandom. While I think the interviewer could've/should've been more tactful and restrained, the flaws in their questions is not a symptom of the woke mind virus trying to wriggle its way into the pure Japanese psyche. It's the sign of an over-eager fan who sees a piece of fiction differently than its creator.

[jasonsbruce]

[imminent-danger-came]

2x02 // 3x01 // 3x03 // 3x13 // 4x12

Team huddle!

[isagrimorie]

Did you not see the imminent impalement in your future?!

Agatha All Along 1x07 - Death's Hand in Mine

[sherbet-requiem]

My piece for @2023legendoflinkzine!!! Big huge massive thanks to @seekingseven for being such a great leader and organiser for this whole project!!! I had such a great time

[batcavescolony]

Ok let's go back to this line from Agatha All Along

"it's underwater! There's a boy. It's a prank. They tricked him. He's gonna drown. it's a bad place. And the people, the family, there's no one to love him! He's got no one!"

Guys we're getting some Tommy lore and it's heart breaking💔 (we knew it would be).

[magnetic-rose]

i don’t think the jokes are ~offensive or anything but i do think it kind of goes to show how fandom is completely unaccustomed to any character above the age of 28 because emmrich don’t even look THAT old. like he looks to be in his 50s, early 60s max and y’all write about him like he’s pushing 90.

[sevenines]

i saw this tweet and found it interesting for two reasons. one is that some people base how good cartoon network would be to toh by how it treated su, and despite the fact that su’s treatment by the network was considered poor at the time, now its thought to be exceptionally good in comparison to modern shows.

two is how exactly su got impacted by a limited budget. a common criticism is how characters like connie, peridot, and lapis are left out of missions. but balancing a lot of characters is not only hard but also costly (extra animation, extra voices—it’s been revealed that the show is limited to a set number of characters per episode otherwise they’re over budget). animation mistakes are not uncommon since retakes cost extra. the entire reason the original show got cut short was due to loss of funding!

[butchlesbiancosmo]

but for real though. if I think too much about the way timmy and hazel approach their own shows differently I’ll just make myself sad.

the biggest example for me is like. how almost every new character introduced becomes an enemy: remy buxaplenty, norm the genie, darth lazer, etc. even minor ones like tom sawyer and miss stormbringer. there was even that one time he befriended the founding fathers AND THEN they betrayed him too. obviously this didn’t apply all the time (mark chang) but Timmy really ended up with more enemies than allies going after him and that really sucks man

compare to hazel, whose biggest hurdle at the beginning of the show was fitting in and making friends in the first place. since then she’s befriended a dinosaur, rock people, a possum animatronic, mother nature, the nmusic phairy, her favorite manga character, a trash monster, DEV????? even jasmine and winn (who cannot be in the loop about Magic Hijinx) are ride or die with Hazel vs aj and chester just growing apart from timmy bc they could barely be included in his adventures without risking breaking the rules. she’s still made pretty bad enemies (cookie and dale) but she’s also got a lot of people who genuinely like her and support her

which is fine bc she is baby and deserves everything good but also. timmy :(

[fairuzfan]

For Liefer to pull up a Camus quote like this is quite laughable because of how the dynamics mirror each other. In the modern day, we have a status quo where Palestinians continue to be imprisoned and murdered and raped and segregated, denied basic medical care for years on end, all on their own land — while Jewish Israelis (to make distinction from Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, as many liberal zionists love to point out) suffer no consequences for anything, even if they play a direct role in the continued erasure and genocide of Palestinians. So if given a choice between suffering no consequences while benefiting from the status quo (that will not change unless the oppressed take it upon themselves to change their circumstance) and suffering consequences in the form of direct personal loss (with the strategy of forcing things to change by ennacting the same type of violence that the occupied experience on a daily basis onto the occupiers), of course someone who stands to lose nothing from the continuation of the status quo would rather the status quo continue if he has something to lose otherwise. Camus, when he said this quote, was not being righteous or overly sensitive. If anything, it shows how little he understood at the time of saying this quote. Because he didn't understand that an Algerian will suffer in both scenarios even if he (Camus) is safe, and for him to say something like this when people lived generations worth of violence for his and his family's (social) benefit is annoying and just plain offensive. Who is he, as a Frenchman born in occupied Algeria, to say what is worth justice when he only stands to lose anything in one scenario but not the other? He did not experience life as an Algerian native in French occupation. He might have observed it, growing up poor, yes, but he never LIVED it. Liefer might have observed the horror of settler colonialism, but that's nothing like experiencing it firsthand. To be the object of hatred to people who have higher status and more rights than you. It's just not his place as a person with nothing to lose if the status quo continues to comment on anything like this. What's the underlying meaning of this quote? "I'd rather others continue to suffer than myself experiencing suffering once."

I'm not saying Liefer doesn't have a right to mourn whoever. Im not even saying he has a duty to accept the consequences he experiences. But to say something so heartless as "I prefer the safety of my own rather than justice" within the larger, nearly century worth of context, is just insensitive and really belies his true opinions of the liberation of Palestine if he's so comfortable saying this outloud with moral authority in the middle of what is an outright bloodbath of Palestinians across Palestine. It's the timing of saying something like this because to say it now of all times when the entire world ignores or even encourages the violence in Gaza but mourns the death of Israelis? An Algerian born Frenchman and Israeli are going to be mourned on an international scale... but Palestinian and Algerian natives? Their deaths are regarded as facts of life by the rest of the world.

This makes it seem like I hate Camus, but I honestly don't, but I think the way Leifer is holding this quote up at face value and as the height of reason really is annoying. People like to mention Camus' "if" in this case as proof that he's actually saying "this is not real justice so therefore I do not have to accept it," but who is he to say what is or is not justice? The point I'm getting at is the people who benefit from occupation, in this case, Camus and Liefer have no right to determine what is or is not justice, despite their personal beliefs. The occupier has no right to tell the occupied what they should do to get freed. That alone is an arrogance in assertion that is so offending — the assertion that the occupier knows how to free the occupied in what *he* considers justice and the occupied just need to do whatever the occupier tells them to do. Because whether they both like it or not, they still benefit from and are part of the occupying force, and therefore have no real reason to fight the occupation at their own expense — the occupation is a violence that they are alright with inflicting if it means they cannot lose anything or anyone.

Also the idea that liefer indirectly compares himself to Camus is a little funny to me.

[mzminola]

On the one hand yeah, Tim faking a temporary disability to get Vicki Vale off his back as she tries to prove he’s Red Robin is ethically dubious. But like... vision impairments are a disability, which means in continuities where the glasses don’t block out his excessive sensory input and he’s not claiming they’re a fashion statement, Superman is faking a disability every time he goes out as Clark Kent. So if we’re gonna be all “Tim wtf” we should also go “Clark wtf”.

On the much more interesting hand, asplenia is also a disability, which the writers canonically gave Tim. While he totally can be a vigilante with it, he needs to take more precautions than he would otherwise, and it wouldn’t be too hard to convince the general Gotham public that actually no, Tim Drake-Wayne being asplenic means he’s definitely not Red Robin, Vicki, what are you smoking, don’t you know how often the vigilantes get tossed in Gotham Harbor? Do you know what’s in that water?

Which means that now I want an AU in which instead of faking getting shot, Tim just has Wayne Enterprises launch an Asplenia Awareness campaign in conjunction with the Martha Wayne Foundation starting a program to get other asplenic Gothamites their antibiotics, throws a bunch of fundraisers for it, and stares Vicki Vale dead in the eyes while taking his new meds on camera.