#they are really contradict with each other

[fortunxa]

Do you think au powder is comphet or just bi

With me saying that actually it kinda reminds me of something Elena Gilbert says in the vampire diaries? 😭😭😭 which is something like “her basically feeling pressured in way because of their history and their family’s in a way expecting it because boy!!! Girl!!! they are soo gonna be with eachother because of childhood bestfriend trope or wtv.. and also she felt as if she owed it to him because of their history”

But that’s stupid to compare the situations I guess idk I feel stupid

ALSO girl girl childhood best friends to lovers is more unique than boy girl AND boy boy because two girls can kiss in front on someone and people would think their straight also the term “girlfriend” to describe just a friend sometimes for girl.. boy girl is just expected and happens a lot!! And boy boy two boys could hug and people would call them gay

Sorry for the lack of punctuation and grammar (none) in general this needed to get out there

woah i read this when i woke up at the ass crack of dawn and had to reread a few times for it to sink in properly but i think i have an answer now. BIG YAP AHEAD ‼️

Powder’s sexuality will always be open to interpretation, and whether or not she’s comphet is a bit harder to tell. recognizing if someone is experiencing compulsory heterosexuality is tricky because it’s something that often happens subconsciously. since we don’t have access to Powder’s direct thoughts regarding Ekko, i won’t be able to provide a clear-cut answer for that.

but in my opinion (and don’t hate me for this), she didn’t seem comphet (i say this basing myself on proper visuals only). god knows how i feel about main timeline t*meb*mb, but Powder did seem happy with Ekko in the AU episode. we see it in the sketches, the subtle tells throughout her hideout, the way she interacts with him, etc.

yes, the boy/girl childhood friends to lovers trope is starting to feel less like romance and more like a script. it romanticizes familiarity over genuine attraction (“i must love him because i’ve always known him” and attachment ≠ attraction). it offers a convenient, comfortable path to heterosexuality, framing it as the natural next step and thus delaying/erasing queerness. the “best friend becomes boyfriend” pipeline is so good at hiding queerness behind safety. it tells you that if you wait long enough, the ‘right’ kind of love (read: heterosexual) will just click into place. no space left to question, no room to unravel—just comfort mistaken for desire. and for a closeted queer person, that path is tempting, because once you start asking the hard questions, your whole world can shift. it’s easier to fall for the story that’s already been written for you.

[side note for the “i owe it to him” part: boy/girl childhood friends to lovers trope often feels like a transaction. “i’ve invested years into that friendship, now it has to become romance.” or “he’s been good to me, so this must be what love is.” comphet dressed up as loyalty. obligation dressed up as fate. it convinces you that emotional labor = romantic debt.]

so, is the boy/girl childhood friends to lovers trope inherently bad? no, but it is overdone at times and it can be a trap for people navigating comphet. it’s kind of the comphet’s perfect disguise when that trope is considered the default.

that being said (and going back to Powder and Ekko): it doesn’t seem like that was the case here, but with all the subtleties in relation to experiencing comphet, it also wouldn’t be a reach. they grew up side by side, he’s always been there, and they care about each other deeply. will we ever actually know if Powder is comphet, though? no, unless we have full access to her personal thoughts (which i don’t see happening).

bonus regarding the girl/girl childhood friends to lovers trope you mentioned and the contradiction with the boy/boy one:

girlhood is deeply homoerotic by default, but never really allowed to be gay. girls grow up sharing beds, holding hands, kissing each other on dares, calling each other soulmates, and it’s all brushed off as “just friendship.” emotional intimacy and even physical affection between girls is normalized to the point of invisibility. there’s so much plausible deniability. girl/girl closeness is encouraged, even fetishized (i’m looking at you, porn addicts). so when two girls actually fall in love, or one starts questioning? it’s way harder to tell what’s real and what’s been packaged as ‘harmless’ intimacy. comphet lets it thrive by never taking it seriously—the girl/girl childhood friends to lovers trope hits different because it exposes that. it’s about realizing that the thing you were told was ‘just friendship’ was actually everything and no one noticed. not even you.

meanwhile, boy/boy friendships are policed the opposite way. two boys hug and it’s instantly, “haha, that’s gay” (just like you said). there’s no room for softness, no ambiguity. if they fall for each other, it’s a rebellion against hyper-visibility and stigma. boys grow up terrified to express tenderness because even platonic closeness gets sexualized, mocked, or punished (contrasting with girl/girl friendships). there’s no space to explore softness, let alone queerness QUIETLY. when two boys do fall in love, the world already suspects it—but they’ve been taught to fear it. the boy/boy childhood friends to lovers trope never got the luxury of hiding in plain sight like the girl/girl one.

it’s not that one trope is better than the other—it’s that queerness shows up differently depending on how society treats affection, and both suffer under the same system: heteronormativity punishes boys for closeness and disguises queer girlhood as innocent play.

[mrsterlingeverything]

Sabrina carpenters album cover spawned 5000 thinkpiece posts all of them contradicting each other and i think thats awesome and she really fucking nailed it

[logan-but-not]

A Theory about Susie and The Last Prophecy

The biggest question left by Deltarune CH4 was the last prophecy. And there have already been a lot of theories of what exactly it entails. But the thing is, I think it's actually the opposite of what everyone is expecting.

Keep in mind, this is purely speculative, and just my personal theory. But I do have a decent amount of actual evidence and narrative theming to support my claims. So just keep an open mind and hear me out for a second. 

Let's actually do a brief recap of the prophecy so everyone is on the same page. From what we can tell, most verses can fall into one of three categories: The Heroes, The Villains, and the Narrative.

The narrative prophecies are the full version of the Legend that Ralsei told us. Depicting the worlds of light and dark, the Roaring, and the three heroes to meet the challenge. The Last Prophecy also falls into this category, as it's literally meant to be the end of the tale. 

The second category is the predictions of each chapter's primary antagonist or most noteworthy character. Lancer, Queen, Tenna, and an unused icon depicting Gerson.

From this pattern, as well as all the evidence to point to a Flower King Dark world, we can pretty confidently assume that the Asgore mural is also a part of this category. Leaving only Chapters 6 and 7 without a mural.

The last category is the specific prophecies about the three heroes. Kris, Susie, and Ralsei in that order (as far as we know). We can assume that each of them goes in depth about their depicted hero, like what we saw with “The Girl”.

It's worth pointing out that there are a few outliers. Such as the music notes, Gallery, Roots, and Jockington. But even they can still pretty easily be explained away. I think it just goes to show that the prophecy speaks in riddles and not everything said should be taken at face value.

But out of these murals, one in particular stands out to me. “And Last, was the Girl. At Last, was the girl.” 

That specific wording is really interesting. Because unless there are four heroes, and two of them both just so happened to be labeled as “the girl”, this seems like a contradiction right? Well, it would be… if it was referring to the heroes. 

I propose this. What if the girl from the rude buster mural, is instead depicting an antagonist from a later chapter. Maybe even the final one.

And that antagonist is Susie.

This is what I believe that Susie was shown at the end of the chapter. She was shown that she is going to be the villain. 

And there's a lot of little details and context clues that point to this conclusion.

MURALS - Like I mentioned before, there are already two murals relating to the girl. And the one with the silhouette with the sword fits with the heroes far more than the rude buster icon does.

But the Rude Buster icon actually does fit with the antagonists and how they are often described. Short verse with prose and describing the major characters of a chapter. Which would potentially explain the “And last, …”.

It's important to remember that the order of these murals is completely jumbled, so key positions like last have to serve as our fixed points. This is why I don't believe that this girl is being referred to in the same context as the heroes.

GERSON - So much of Susie's interactions with Gerson focus on her learning to be who she wants to be, instead of just fulfilling her prophesied role. And how she's naturally an embodiment of hope that Ralsei and Kris desperately need right now.

So think of how crushing it might be to see Susie come to the realization that she's not really a hero. That no matter what she does, she'll always just keep hurting people. We see this insecurity play out in her personal dark world.

She thinks that she's a massive screw up. And she doesn't know how to take failure very well. It leads to her occasionally self doubting herself and it leads to her lashing out at others. It's been a character trait literally since the beginning. So what happens when she is pushed to her limit?

And that's not the only thing that Gerson has to say on Susie.

DRAGON - Gerson specifically called Susie “The Dragon” when referring to which Dragon Blazers character she was. This could just be an unimportant detail but I actually think it matters a lot. 

Gerson describes all the chapters of Lord of The Hammer, and they all parallel the chapters of DR. But there really isn't a “dragon” equivelant in chapter 1. Not in the traditional sense. 

But who else had been a violent, insatiable wild card? Who else wreaked havoc among the fantasy world? And who else had to be subdued and eventually came around to work with the heroes?

Ms. Violent Axe Susie

And think about Dragons in most literature. Looming monstrous threats that are the ultimate menace to the protagonists. Hell, there's even a trope in writing called The Dragon that refers to secondary antagonists.

I think The Dragon could represent what Susie is going to become. A wrathful monster pushed to the brink by the actions of the Knight, and the continued violation of her trust. Only to be quelled by the heroes.

THE TRUE MEANING OF LOVE - One of the other murals depicts The Girl with love. I draw attention to this because almost everything about the prophecy up until this point has had significance. So why would the prophecy specifically call out Susie's affection?

Well, maybe because it plays into the final tragedy. If susie truly does have affection for someone (probably Noelle), it would make her inevitable fall to darkness all the more tragic. Or maybe it even means that “the love” is what breaks her out of it. Again, I just feel like it's important because it's called out explicitly, and given a lot of focus. Along with Susie's whole status as a hero in general. She wants to be the savior of the world, and that might blind her to who she truly is.

LAST PROPHECY MURAL - Which brings us back around to the Last Prophecy. Before Susie reads the final verse, we see a depiction of the Deltarune shattered. However, the way it is shattered is very telling. 

The angel is completely broken, as is the leftmost triangle. But the center and right triangle remain intact. Is it a coincidence then that Deltarune in Kris’ room, made by Ralsei, depicts the left triangle as Susie?

SUSIE'S REACTION - And here's the big one, and the thing that got me started on this theory in the first place. Why did Susie react the way she did when she saw the prophecy?

You could say it's a sacrifice, and there is evidence to support that. The most prominent being Ralsei's panic. And Susie definitely would be pretty shaken learning that one of her friends, or even herself, is destined to die.

But that wouldn't explain why she gets so defensive. And why she feels the need to confirm with Kris that she does want to keep being friends with them. Whatever Susie sees shakes her to her core. She doesn't even entertain for a second that it might happen, almost like it's an insult. And then… she laughs. She's just been faced with her entire world crumbling to dust… and she smiles in response. This is something deeper, something personal.

So let me posit this. What if the reason Susie gets so aggressive… is because the prophecy just confirmed her worst fears about herself? 

She's so excited to be a hero, to have friends, and find a place she feels like she belongs in. Kris, Ralsei, Noelle, Lancer, Gerson, they all mean everything to her. She would never want to hurt them.

And now she's just learned that she is destined to never change. To always just break everything she touches. To always hurt those she cares about. To always just be a freak.

THAT would break her.

I WANT TO KEEP BEING FRIENDS WITH YOU - This is why I think that the moment after is so important. Susie has just met all of her insecurities face to face. And the first thing she does after learning it is tell Kris that she wants to stay friends. That no matter what happens, everything can go back to the way it used to be.

It's a display of hope that flies in the face of everything logical. That even after everything, it's still just you.

I think it's meant to represent not just reassurance to Kris, but reassurance to herself. A promise that she will never allow what she saw to come to pass. The girl is starting to realize the meaning of “Love”.

CHARACTER ARC - And just… think about this from a narrative point of view. Susie right now is at her worst mentally. She learned something that made her question if her friends will always be with her. Her unbreakable will has started to show signs of cracking. And if this keeps up, I don't see her taking it well. She's already had to deal with so many lies and false promises. One more bad revelation might be enough to make her snap. 

A revelation such as… Kris is working with the Knight.

So where does that leave us? Well here's my take.

I believe that Susie, in an attempt to defy prophecy and break the predestined story laid out for her, is going to inadvertently follow it to the letter. She's going to either willingly or unwillingly be put into conflict with us. Whether that “us” means Kris or the Player will depend. But regardless, she will stand in our way. And because of this, our quest to seal the fountains will fail.  Seeing this, Susie will come around and make amends for whatever she did. This could potentially include a heroic sacrifice to save the world, hence her being shattered in the mural. And that is the final tragedy.

But I don't think that's where the narrative ends. Susie is just too strong of will to accept a destiny like that. And we've seen before that she is the one who can break control. That's what I believe her character is building up to. I think that through sheer willpower and determination, Susie is going to break the prophecy. Whether to save her own life, or inspire one last act of divine intervention.

She's going to prove herself the hero of this story. Just not in the way she thinks.

[alligatorcarapace]

first if all I love your blog, really thoughtful interesting analysis

secondly omigosh I'm obsessed with the 03 City at War arc, especially the ways it shows the differences in the boys' moral compasses! Because they were all raised to be true to their values but they each take those lessons really differently

Anyway, if you are up for sharing, I would love to hear more of your thoughts about Raph's morality through that arc

Man that's fanciest way of complimenting my autism [light hearted joke]

But for real, thank you so much, it means a lot to me. I love analysis and really getting into the weeds of stuff, I blame the fact that some of the first shows I fully completed were Avatar the Last Airbender and Death Note, so now my brain loves the long term connections and consequences.

Now time to answer this hard ball question as I am not the 03 Raph expect and I best understand his morality by what he's not(I don't have time in this post but there is an internal rant about how none of the Raph's can be swapped and thus fics claiming any iteration will fit, that while no hate towards them; do not understand the implications of what their saying. The point is mostly demonstrated by showing how 07 Raph is more closer to 03 Leo as shown by 03 City At War arc, but that doesn't tell us about 03 Raph. So that's a rant another post) However even with this frame I can make a few observations.

I will note however, if you want more elaboration on his morality outside of the City At War Arc, check out his interactions with Traximus, the Tribunal, the glimpses we see of him and Angel, and of course the staples for Raph's character's of Tyler, and Mrs. M. Which shows how he interacts with those who are not his peers but instead are in either more vulnerable or powerful situations then him. It also shows where his fuse is long vs short.

Now onto this arc.

One of the first things that it establishes as far as Raph's mindset is a lot more intuitive than Leo. While Leo can give you reason's justifying everything down to the over top gymnastics, something that both impresses and worries Raph(Though in true Raph fashion he show's it with banter about him needing to relax). Meanwhile Raph listens to his heart more.

Not to say he's a meathead, but instead he's less concerned about the exact law and more about what feels right or wrong. Something that's establish in the episode where he meets Casey Jones, when he stops Casey from commuting murder and or brutal assault.

He has a strong sense of morality, lines he won't cross, however it's not coupled with duty towards strangers. The best way I can word it is that it's not a universal blanket like Leo's is. Raph has right and wrong, but for him Right is survival first then honor. While Leo is honor above all.

As it should be obvious with the preamble I am having issues articulating it. So I am going to go through all three episodes and see if I can make some actual conclusions that don't contradict and backtrack on each other lol.

So the first peak of morality in this arc is him being the one to pull back Leo from trying to get in the middle of gangster v ninja street warfare. Leo is only thinking about how it's his duty to stop this, meanwhile Raph is doing odd calculation and knows that just Leo or even the two of them would not end well. So for the sake of survival he wants Leo to back off rather than following this self-proclaimed duty.

"Right or wrong, it’s not our fight."

Raph also does not follow or fit well into collectivist thinking despite half of his bi-cultural background(It is not as important to the 03 crew as it is to the 2012 crew, however they still were raised in a partial traditional[like really traditional since even in a world where the Shinobi Clans are very active, the 03 world shows they try to be very lowkey meaning they have to have strict codes to keep their traditions alive without revealing themselves, something that would blend well with the mutant's needs to survive] Japanese household and it's something to keep in mind. As well as how that blends and clashes with the Northern USA New York Cultural). Instead he's more of an individualist, tending to prioritize and better understand immediate threats to direct targets rather than more vague concepts like "The Entire City Population" and doing things for the "Greater Good".

It's a morality built on both his ninja training and own life experience. Safety of his family first, then his friends, then everyone else. It's why both Leo and Mikey are bothered about the gang wars, but not Raph.

"I-- I’m confused, Master Splinter. I guess I hoped things would change when we finally got rid of the Shredder, you know, for the better. But it seems like everything just got worse.""Are you out of your green gourd? We did the city a favor." "Did we? Did we really? Raph, don’t you see what’s going on up there? This city’s at war. Don’t you feel just a little bit responsible?""No. It’s not our deal.""It is! Even if we didn’t mean to make things worse, we did. Don’t ask me to explain how, but it feels like our fault.""I kind of know what he means."

For Raph he knows it's impossible to stop crime forever, people are going to do bad things.

"You can’t save a whole city, bro, but you could make it worse by trying."

"The Purple Dragons, the mob, and the Foot Ninjas are all squabbling over the pieces of Shredder's empire now that he's gone and Leo says it's our fault 'cause we're the ones that knocked out the Shredder in the first place. And for some reason, he thinks we're responsible for a whole lot of innocent people getting caught in the crossfire."

The power vacuum is an example for that. Raph doesn't want his brothers to endanger themselves and get pulled into a war they can't win.

"We shouldn’t be here, Leo. This ain’t our war".

"First, I ain’t running. Second, it wasn’t our fight to begin with."

Of course when Leo doesn't listen and they pay the price, it hurts him. The protective anger comes back.

"I hope you’re happy, Leo. I hope doing the right thing was really worth it."

Therefore I can safely conclude his morality is survival over heroism. But not survival of himself, like I thought it would be with his individualist tendencies, instead it's group survival. Togetherness. A willingness to takes risks for members of the group, but not at the help of strangers. He's willing to help save Leo from being stupid by riding alongside his questionable choices, however he does not want to get in between the gang wars of two parties he rather suffer anyways.

Which leads me to my next observation: Hypocrisy.

Raph hates its. I am not sure if being a hypocrite breaks his own moral code, or if it's a thing that just grates his nerves. But it's something to note either way.

"Oh, so it’s okay when your mistakes blow up in our faces.""Getting involved in this gang war was not a mistake." "Right. This was a noble, heroic effort. Thank you, Leonardo The streets are so much safer now ‘cause of you."

Of course this could just be stressing him so much becuase he's already pissed at Leo for endangering them, so it's just one more thing that causes him to build and build, until he explodes.

But even then he still jumps in front of his brothers when rocket launchers fly, so once again, group safety above all.

This mentality means that when Leo signals Raph is not wanted in the group as right now his anger is causing more danger, well Raph goes and cools off. He always runs off to cool down, and up until now Leo gives him the go ahead. It's always done in a moment of controlled safety. An honestly sweet thing, signaling that they still care even if they need to be away.

But here it's more bittersweet at best. Here, while Leo most likely meant it as a quip to deal with his frustration at what he perceive as immoral behavior that causing Raph to do more and more reckless actions is starting to boil over Leo's anger as well.

"Who needs you, hothead? "Yo, say the word and I’m out of here." "Since when do you need my permission? "You know what? You’re right. Good luck on your one-turtle crusade, Leo. Just try not to get these other guys iced."

However even in this moment of explosive anger, Raph's main concern is Still Safety of The Group.

It's this concern for safety we see with his hatred of Karai and why he dislikes the concept of teaming up with her. She's hurt them, she most likely will hurt them in the future. Helping her gain power will only guarantee this. Raph's always been better at people than Leo and so he understands that someone like her will always pick the Shredder. And that's at best. She's a wild card, one covered with the Shredder' might be dead from their understanding, his's ideals and quest for power are not. She's a threat to the group.

"You are impudent! If you were my retainer, I would have you beaten!" "Oh, yeah, you’re Foot all right. You even sound like The Shredder!"

And so now it's time for Leo's perceived immoral action: Betrayal of the group to side with the danger.

"Raph, listen to me! We all know this thing is too big for us to fix." "Listening to you is what got us into this mess in the first place!" "We have to take this opportunity!" "Oh, is that the “honorable thing” to do? You guys can be the Foot’s little toes if you want. But not me. I’m outta here!"

So with that he fully leaves.

After all he's not going to willing endanger the group, both by working with the betrayer and of course ruining said plans by letting his anger get the best of him. Leo had already given him the get go to leave earlier anyways.

As usual when he calms down and has someone to talk to Raph can better self reflect. So upon meeting up with Splinter, Splinter most likely points out him leaving the group for more danger, how Leo in stress is not a reliable source of opinions(Man consistently makes the worst choices under emotional stress, this realization would of course better prepare Raph to do his best to help Leo in season 4) and thus came back to help

And that's Raph's last big moment of morality in the City At War arc.

So what are my conclusions about Raph's morality?

He believes in the safety of his family above all, then his friends, then himself, then everyone else. He and Leo are on opposite sides of the Trolly problem here and it causes so much friction.

Hypocrisy, while not the worst thing you can do, is very anger racking.

And Raph can smell a rat a mile way, from Karai in this arc, to Dark Leonardo in Fast Forward, Raph has a good judge of character, something to further hone his protection based mindset.

Over all Raph prefers individualism and small scale collectivism over mass collectivist moralities.

But yeah as I said I tend to look over this arc as a fun way to understand 07 Raph of all characters. Different universe, different guy, but there are parallels that make me go crazy

[cudoredan]

the addition to the joke and its continuity brings a smile to ethos' lips. he flashes will a grin, briefly visible in the motion of their bodies settling together.

“ i am keeping track, actually. ” the last word is said in an adoring impression of will. “ it's good we're calling them attempts, though. that shawl is getting back to me one way or another. ”

he concludes, an amusing realization that will hasn't successfully stolen anything yet, as well as an empty threat.

but it is still a gift.

the acknowledgement of that kind of thought pattern relaxes ethos some more, speaking up his mind. the other's voice is closer from where he now rests his head, increasingly sentimental.

“ i think, descriptively, i have them. ” the host looks down at their bodies as it speaks. “ having been able to summon wings has been a constant for far longer than not, broken only since arriving here. ”

they both know ethos is relatively new to this place. they've met on its first night in spirale and are now leaning comfortably against one another. his laugh on its skin, a sensation, like a caress, like the gentle vibration of falling sand.

the grip around him tightens. do humans get angels to keep? he calls his words sappy, and ethos finds them comparable to ones he used himself. if he gets will as a muse, he supposes, it is only fair.

he presses a sealing kiss to the side of will's forehead when he brings the bottle to his lips for the last time, right before settling it on the grass. the words come right after.

“ i forgive you. ”

forgiveness comes out of ethos easily, freely, like it is not its to keep. there's never any harm done, so it wouldn't require time to reflect on.

but in the silence that follows, he feels himself beginning to. head filled with the sound of the word promise. he thinks of what he's said to himmel. of what he's said to willem. how they're contradicting statements. thoughts which shift on beat to the drum of fingers along his skin.

the poet seems to get it better than he does, as when additional weight is pressed against his back, in the most clear display of affection, the following words come with a sharp contrast.

it stuns him for a moment. but like clockwork, will goes to explain his use of words next. it's additional context to wrap his mind around.

ethos needs time to contemplate it, so he quiets. his knee comes to hook over will's own at the same time his arm goes to wrap around the back of will's head, like a cushion. the movement puts more of their torsos together, resting on each other.

“ i'm starting to get it, that it isn't so literal. ” his eyes seem to have been fixated on a spot on the other's shoulder, which his hand now holds, before he finds blue eyes again.

“ how you say you've stolen my heart, but it is still here. ” beating on the side that isn't leaning on willem. “ it's a way to explain the affection that i feel for you. like having taken it. ”

and that assessment is correct, real. but it was not taken. just like how everything else he's 'stolen' from the host was given freely. although, are all of them? this is where such an unbudging statement, painting both parties as knowing they won't see each other again, stands out.

ethos has sensed this to not be the case, the feeling powered by desire to connect more coming from the other. is he just giving him an example, and this is the exception? or is it assumption?

“ that doesn't apply here, though. ” the antennae jump the slightest amount, as if frustrated by the sight of pieces that don't fit. “ i promised you a next time and you promised me a play, i think the chances of us seeing each other again are high. ”

they don't both have to be held to it, but that piece of fabric is really pulling its weight. the grin on his face can be seen now, as he goes to press his forehead against will's.

“ but 'cool' is definitely one of the things that was. ”

" it's a three time thing, actually. " will jests in return. " first your shrooms, then your heart, now your shawl. if we're keeping count. "

his arms welcome ethos back into them, body engulfing the aasimar quickly, as if it had laid upon a riverbed. the current laps at his shoulder in the form of a kiss.

ethos splays before him its reasoning, and it's still far from what will himself would've said on any other one night stand. perhaps that's why it's nature is far more interesting than any mattress talk the poet has experienced for himself ; it's distinctively ethos. " ah, i understand now. but, have? i thought you said you could no longer manifest them. either way, "

he curves his body rather awkwardly, spine diagonal so he may rest his chin on the shoulder before it. " you're my angel. there, got the sappiness out of the way. "

a snicker is muffled against the warm skin in front of him. will's arms squeeze around ethos' form. whether to hide the amusement felt at his own cliché line, or the uneasiness of being so easily read by another is uncertain.

" i'll try not to, " he's going to worry even more now, is what he means. the truth across his face is masked by the sight of a bottle raising to his lips. soon after, he concludes, " but i'm sorta bad at keeping promises, so you know, if i still do once in a while .. forgive me. "

the drink is settled on the grass, hands wrapping around ethos' waist. whether the influence of the alcohol and mushrooms combined, or his body asking to be laid, overcome by haziness-led tiredness, will's next answer brews for longer than the last, a lot of thought clearly being put into it.

" i don't know. ' hey, that was cool. i'll see you around ', but we both know we won't. " his head turns, temple pressed to shoulder blade. when he thinks the conversation may quieten down there, a series of questions is shot out, like a flock of arrows. his fingers dance on the hips below them in thought.

for how long the answer is postponed, the tension is deflated in a simple comment. " it has to do with the fact i'm a poet and i exaggerate things. it comes from strong romantic emotion. i want to crawl inside you - does that mean i want to take a dip under your skin? not really, it's just the best way to explain it. "

[o-sunny-day]

im bout to die yet the thing on my mind seems to nearly be nothing but you

IM SERIOUSLY PUNCHIN THE AIR RN idk why I cant decide between shitpost and actually sad stuff but enjoy this emotional whiplash doodle page and leave me be

again these are usually not on my main art account cause- i wanna save that for like FINISHED STUFF and SERIOUS CONCEPTS not shitposts and angst indulging stuff like this

Sans holding Papyrus’ head in place

“Papyrus, Do You Want Anything?”

imna sob cause like WHY DID HE DO THAT. IS HE TRYING TO MAKE ME HAVE A BREAKDOWN??? probably

There was this great video dubbing the entirety of the Sans fight, and for that line they made him sound like he wasn’t in his right mind and like he was gonna drift off to sleep any second AND I JUST CANT TAKE THAT

love it, highly recommended

[missescalientee]

Blue eyed people….

[smartzelda]

Sorry guys I gotta speak my truth on this one

I'm not kidding when I say that I think that blaming shit media literacy from fans on shipping/shippers avoids the actual root of the problem to throw people you can easily throw under the bus (simply because it's not unpopular to consider people who post about ships or ship characters in media as having lesser or derivative tastes by default)

And here's why.

I think when you blame people who are "shippers" or "consume media through shipping lenses", the true root of it all is a mindset problem.

In actually, putting on shipping lenses can be helpful when trying to analyze a piece of media. When analyzing media you're supposed to approach it through a number of mindsets and put on different lenses (both to deepen your personal understanding of the media, and to pick it apart and see what you can find there (whether intentional or not on the author's part)), and different ships can be some of those lenses

When it comes to ships between main characters (for those who are genuinely willing to see what the narrative is showing with their relationship and what it's doing), there are times when analyzing it from a shipping lens may be helpful. As someone from KH fandom, I have seen people come to deeper understandings and pick canon apart in the process of analyzing a relationship that is genuinely integral to the story (platonic or not). I've also seen people get into rarepairs of characters who barely interact or who just suffer little screen time, and I've seen them come to better understandings of those side characters and how they potentially fit into the world of the media simply because people are now focusing on these characters and how they fit into the narrative.

Frankly, I resent the idea that the only way to truly objectively analyze a piece of media is by turning off the part of your brain that gets excited over relationships and individual characters. Don't get me wrong, that is a way to approach a piece of media and a valid one at that, but the truth is that we cannot be free of bias.

For instance, I was watching House MD with my parents circa last year. At some point I started heavily tuning into what was going on with House and Wilson's relationship. My parents, on the other hand, were largely watching casually. They're not thinking of character relationships or getting heavily invested in most characters, they're watching because they like watching. One of them in particular did try to analyze things that were happening in the show as they happened. However, when it came to the scene late in the series where House threw out Dominika's letter approving her American citizenship, my parents could understand that he was doing that because he didn't want her to leave, but not much beyond that. I ended up explaining to them that House's fake marriage for Dominika was an explicit parallel to when Wilson was living with House in the early seasons. Both situations started with House being none too happy about it but ultimately letting them stay, spending a considerable amount of effort getting them to leave/getting this situation to be finally over so he didn't have to deal with it anymore, and then by the time a piece of news comes through that would mean the person in question actually leaves, House hides this news as long as he can. Because he doesn't actually want them to leave and has grown attached. And by doing this he became a self fulfilling prophecy. By reacting to the truth of Wilson and Dominika leaving him the way he does, he seals his fate and they ultimately leave anyways. Maybe I ship Hilson, but becoming open to how their relationship was handled allowed me to transition to doing character studies and recognizing patterns/parallels that I wouldn't have noticed if I didn't particularly care about the characters or their relationship.

Likewise, I've seen mutuals complain about how people who don't like or don't care about certain characters often overlook these characters (what they're actually like and their place in the narrative), while the mutuals in question (by default) are able to come to deeper understanding of what the writers/story is trying to do because they care about this funky guy

You can't eradicate bias when you're engaging in media analysis, but you can consciously put on a range of lenses and observe the media through different povs with the goal of understanding the media better or bolstering your reading of it. And those lenses/povs can include focusing on specific relationships or the perpective of certain characters

And this is why I say it's actually a mindset problem. Shippers and people who have this one blorbo they like a lot aren't inherently terrible "fandom brained individuals" who are the root of media analysis problems. The problem only arises when people's readings/analysis of a piece of media are inherently restrictive/narrow and self centered. Your problem is with people who view a piece of media through a ship they like but don't keep an open mind about it, and whose "media analysis"/views on canon cannot be split from fanon and their comfortability levels. These are the people whose "media analysis" starts and ends with justifying their fanon as canon, whose views on media revolve around sorting characters and relationships into categories they personally enjoy rather than trying to understand what's going on.

Here's another example.

Here we have a fictional ship we'll call uhhhh...Blanebin. this fictional ship I made up on the spot for characters that don't exist named Blane and Corbin

Person A is super into Blanebin. They're part of the main cast of characters and canonically childhood best friends, so person A (as much as they enjoy fanart and fic) is also enjoying analyzing how narratively important to each other they are. Recently, Corbin started dating another character in canon, but Person A is enjoying watching how Blane is reacting to this. "Is this potentially a tell that Blane is jealous or is having complicated feelings about this? What if he was, how would that contextualize his behavior this season? Here's what I think based on how Blane dealt with explicit jealousy last season in a different situation". It's not impossible that person A is still missing further understanding due to their obsession with Blanebin, but at the end of the day this obsession has allowed them to start picking through the characters both in and outside this relationship. It has allowed them to see potential subtext and theorize on what might happen next with these characters' relationship. Not to mention that with addition of Corbin dating someone else, instead of trying to erase this fact or state that Corbin canonically isn't into that person, Person A is trying to factor in how Corbin's current dating life affects his relationship with Blane (irregardless on personal views on the nature of Corbin's relationship with the person he's dating).

Person B is also super into Blanebin. They really enjoy fanart and fic of the characters, love obsessing over their moments together, and just feel like there's really something between the characters. To person B, every moment between them is just further proof that the writers are ship teasing them. But Corbin getting together with someone else this season? Oh that pissed person B off. They cannot believe that even though Corbin and Blane are CLEARLY gay for each other the writers had Corbin get with someone else this season. Perhaps, they think, it was even a decision specifically made to spite fans. How evil of the writers to tease a perfectly good ship and then have them not get together first? They must have been just doing those teases to get views from Blanebin shippers those scoundrels. To Person B, since Corbin started dating someone when he obviously has some chemistry with Blane (even though the series is far from over) means that Blanebin can never get together now and Corbin x person he's dating is ruining Blanebin by existing. In fact, they think, this is terrible writing for Corbin to be dating someone else because they don't like that relationship and don't see the point. Obviously if the writers were good then Corbin would have started dating Blane instead because this was supposed to be the Blanebin show.

Person C despises Blanebin. Don't get them wrong, they've always enjoyed the character's childhood friendship, but they actually have always thought Blane would have been better off with Victoria. They have a lot of moments too! But they're tired of seeing people ship Blanebin. Corbin just got together with someone else, so obviously that's not gonna work out. Plus Corbin and Blane totally has always given person C bro vibes. In fact, person C thinks, sure Corbin and Blane have a close friendship, but people shouldn't be shipping them. Person C likes Blanetoria and Blanetoria can't be canon if Corbin is in the way of it. So Person C likes to read Blanebin as siblings anyways. Sure they're canonically friends, but obviously their friendship turned into brotherhood. This means that nothing can be in the way of Blanetoria and Corbin can keep dating the person he's already canonically dating. Actually, now Blanebin just straight up makes Person C uncomfortable. Don't the pesky shippers understand that Blanebin are sibling coded because they're childhood best friends and that they're important to each other because they're brothers? It's obvious to anyone with eyes.

Sure, ships are involved here, but is the root of this problem shipping? Character A isn't as knowledgeable of other characters in the plot due to this lens they're using, but at the end of the day they're dedicated to analysis. Their love of the characters is pushing them beyond what they like or dislike to try to understand what might be happening through their lens. Not perfect, but they are slowly broadening their horizons. But Person B and C's problems here are their restrictiveness. What is or should be canon to them is tantamount to what they personally like or find comfortable. Is person C actually analyzing the this fake show when they decide to "read" Blanebin as basically canonically siblings (and this all of their moments are totally a bro thing) just because they don't like Blanebin and the idea of them getting together over Blanetoria makes them uncomfortable? Is person B actually analyzing this fake show when their "analysis" of Blanebin goes only as far as asserting it's being ship teased and deciding anything short of canonizing Blanebin is a targeted attack or "bad writing" because it's not what they wanted personally to happen?

This is what I'm talking about. This is the mindset. Shipping isn't the problem. The problem is when people marry fanon and canon to the point where they have a vested interest in superimposing their fanon over canon as "a reading" and trying to make "collective decisions" on what is canon (or what canon is trying to say) based on what does or doesn't make them uncomfortable. The problem is people being restrictive and centering their own likes and dislikes in the conversation, so they can only interact with canon "analysis" wise by deciding what is canon or should be canon "as obviously agreed on by everyone". You can't simply claim you like media analysis. To be able to analyze media and bolster your views on any given canon, you must be open to looking at it through multiple povs, to studying characters without trying to pretend things you don't like don't exist or do like do exist. There is a balance that must be kept between trying to keep objectivity and putting on specific focus/bias based upon the lenses you're putting on. You have to be willing to try to figure out what a media is doing or saying, not saying you're trying to figure out what it's saying while in actuality trying to define the narrative around what people believe it's saying in ways that suit you.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

[i-am-a-fan]

I got sad and made some dumb doodles to cheer myself up.

Based very loosely off of this post

[faewaren]

Handy infographics for wangxian feat. whoever you want to put in there. Rubbing my polyamorous hands all over them.

I THINK this must be the three most common ones. Who else do people put in there?

I am not a photoshop professional. This is obvious. However I must spread my agendas.

[thanatika]

people on that child support post are talking as if patho classic daniil is great with kids and it's pathologic 2 daniil that people are getting this negative idea of him from, which got me thinking...

daniil's main characterization of how he treats kids in patho 2 comes from artemy's POV of him, which is biased against daniil due to daniil making a really dickish first impression, and is also based off of unreliable narrator accounts:

first by some kids outside of rubin's house who lead artemy to believe that daniil refused to treat poisoned children when it was actually just dying dogs, which can be followed by artemy confronting daniil himself where he continues to misunderstand the situation and assumes daniil is calling children animals, until he finally visits the kids' warehouse and learns it was just the soul-and-a-halves' pets. which, obviously it would be a nice thing to save pets from dying, but he really ISN'T a veterinarian and there's a deadly plague starting. he's doing triage.

and then another early incident with the kid in the warehouse dying of sand pest, where notkin passes along a message telling artemy not to bother trying to save him that makes him sound very dismissive ("Don't waste your time on Patches, it's over for him"). reading between the lines though, it's pretty clear that he came to that conclusion not because he doesn't want to save people from the sand pest, but because this is a seemingly incurable disease with no medical cure, and at that point he probably hasn't had the chance to test the schmowders on himself so would have no reason to believe in their effectiveness, and assesses that loading patches up with drugs will just kill him. which, he's literally correct! whether you treat him with tinctures, pills, or a whole schmowder, patches dies that night. obviously trying to treat him or at least ease his suffering is a morally good dead, but you can also see the implied basis of daniil's actions, that every second is precious in the early stages of trying to prevent a widespread outbreak, so you shouldn't waste time on a patient who ultimately can't be saved. (which fits in really well not only with his arc in both games where he comes to the conclusion that the whole town is unsalvageable, but with the bigger emphasis on time management and manipulation that his remake has been described as having. hell, maybe from daniil's POV he knows for certain that patches will die due to whatever time manipulation that's going on with him, and that spending the time on that patient allows for a larger disaster to happen elsewhere). so, the situation is framed by notkin (understandably, because he's just a kid and that's his friend dying) and artemy (because he's honestly pretty petty about daniil) as just "the bachelor is an asshole and abandoned these kids" when it's more of a genuine ethical quandary.

he's also pretty rude and dismissive in how he talks about grace to artemy later on, but again, it's pretty clear that he's not just being a hater to a 15 year old for no reason, the point he's making is that she shouldn't be left in charge of a graveyard filled with potentially bio-hazardous corpses.

all that to say, the main canon info about how he treats children in patho 2 basically comes from the fact that a lot of kids end up disliking him, because he's extremely pragmatic to the point of being heartless, but still ultimately pretty understandable in what he's trying to do (stop a plague).

meanwhile when we do get to see his POV in the marble nest, i would say the way he treats children is pretty much consistent with how he talks to them in pathologic classic -- if anything, he's a bit nicer to them? he has some fed-up, yelling sort of dialogue options to the kids, but pretty much all of those are based on being upset that they're out breaking quarantine and putting themselves at risk of death. meanwhile other dialogue options make him come off very much willing to humor them and talk to them on their level. and when another adult is much harsher about the kids being irresponsible, he defends them, with no dialogue option to agree with corporal punishment:

meanwhile in pathologic classic, i do think that on the whole daniil is pretty nice to kids and willing to go out of his way to protect or help them (to the point of risking death, such as the late game sidequest where he can agree to go take on several soldiers to keep the father of two children from being wrongly executed). but he does also have some really unkind and spiteful dialogue options, like some of what he says to clara both in his own route and hers, and on the topic of corporal punishment...

[bpdpenguin]

I had to go back to this scene in case I was remembering wrong and he actually said "I love you"—he doesn't! what he says is much more interesting.

ed is still convinced at this point that oswald is fully selfish. he figures that if he's going to be used anyway, there's comfort in knowing with certainty HOW and WHY. he's operating from "love is weakness": his love for penguin makes him weak. it's clear what lee is using him for and he can work from that. he can actually become stronger, he's repeating his past mistakes from season 3 and betraying penguin made him stronger. there's the potential here—maybe even inevitability—that if he does the same thing, get someone he looks up to to approve of him and then flip that on its head, he can prove himself again.

it's interesting that he's "the riddler" here, especially with the broader context of penguin giving up his revenge for ed and giving his trust to him. riddler is thinking logically: penguin is a master manipulator. giving up his revenge MUST be a tactic, but how? what does he want from him? what will he take? therefor riddler MUST betray before he's betrayed. he's blind to emotional truths and so can't wrap his head around the real reason, that's why what eventually gets oswald's devotion through to him is something physical, something tangible. REAL PROOF. something much more like ed's own willingness to be tortured without giving him up, even to die for that. it's why he questions oswald whenever he spares his life or does something out of character for the sake of ed: ed's trying to figure him out from a logical point of view—like a puzzle—there must be something he's missing, it must be a trap. the love he's offering can't possibly be real.

that was PENGUIN'S revenge, that was the clear-cut motivation he had before he gave it all up for ed!

another thing about ed's repression is that he over complicates and over compensates! he is always compelled to leave hidden messages that implicate himself, like when he left kristen the "nygma" clue. a lot of it is his ego: who but him could ever figure it out? who could match his intellect? but he's also LOOKING for that someone! but it's more than that, it's PARANOIA. when jim knew nothing of his crimes, nygma overthought everything and that's what led to his downfall.

i think the clue here is that he's focusing on penguin's initial revenge. and the overthinking is leading him into a self-destructive relationship with lee.

he loves "it": the change in her that resembles penguin.

from what we've seen before with how oswald dodges ed's leading questions of why he keeps ed safe—and with how he brings up "friends" and "brothers"—he's def not comfortable enough to say "i love you" first anymore. ed would have to be the vulnerable one, and at the end of the series he's faced all truths about himself: he's the riddler, he's a villain, he loves oswald. he's moved past the traumatizing night where he said "i love you" to someone for the first time, when he was actively killing her. he understands now that killing her was JUST AS MUCH HIM as mourning her, and it's the same as what he experienced with oswald. the two personalities—if they were not one and the same the whole time as ed manifesting his own battle between repression and truth—are at least fully integrated with each other at the end of the series.

[askblueandviolet]

Are you two dating?

MASTER POST

Asks Start 💙💜

Previous 💙💜

Next 💙💜

[magdabuena]

bad day today. need me a hug. :((

[unopenablebox]

i'm going to be honest i do sometimes nowadays find myself explaining to 22-year-olds why i think it's probably not ideal to use an AI summary podcast of a paper as a substitute for reading the paper

this is majestically cringe but i do try to limit myself to only doing it to people who have already applied to grad school and are deliberately trying to have the "critically reading the actual contents of the literature" job. i also think it's bad if an 18-year-old does it and never learns whether they could be good at reading papers but i don't think i have a good argument for them on why i have a meaningful perspective on its benefits that they should consider placing over their own prioritization of their time

[momentomori24]

Thinking about that one Wolfgang family post I made back in January (hours before Wolfgang's echo art with his mum dropped fun fact lmao) that I never posted. My perspective on his family and their dynamic shifts every Wednesday, but I might finish it and dump those jumbled thoughts on here, maybe. Gimme like. A month.