#unconventional ways of living

[financialfreedomforever]

[catboymoments]

So like, I gotta ask, how come you don't mind creating something like hotel purgatorium as a Christian? Like even if you don't believe it is a sin, doesn't just writing about hell, sinners and the devil feel wrong or even weird (especially with them being written in a pos light)?

It’s cuz I know that these characters are fictional and separate from real life. these interpretations of figures from abrahamic lore don’t have any real life power nor do they affect what I believe or practice- it’s playing touys!

However evil is real and I do think that fictional manifestations of evil and corruption are a good way to explore it. It’s okay to write characters that are evil and antagonistic. It’s okay to not deny that there are bad people in this world. However there’s something to be said in this particular story about nature vs nurture and if people who- maybe in different circumstances- wouldn’t have done the harm they did- truly deserve eternal damnation.

[angy-grrr]

I can't believe Horikoshi decided to parallel togachako with shigaraki and deku, but also with kacchan and izuku, because there are multitudes into their relationship.

Ochahimi has this obvious textual side going on for a long time that its meant to be seen along Shigaraki Tomura and Midoriya Izuku: a hurt villain and a hero who feels the need to stop the pain. Two sides of the same coin. Will they take their hand? How could they reach out? Is there any hope for the rejected? We have different scenes in which its clear Uraraka and Midoriya have this idea of saving someone who is hurt even if they are a villain, the flashbacks of their conversation before the war, but surprisingly Ochako doesn't think of it as much as Izuku in this final battle -clearly stated, is when Himiko is giving her own blood to save her and explaining how she felt like her heart was floating when Uraraka touched her. The flashback reminds us of Izuku talking about how "maybe theres no way to avoid a battle, but I cant ignore what I saw deep inside him".

But Ochako isn't happy even if she got there, even is Toga tells her she made her happy. She's tired, sad, and desperate to stop her when she cant even move.

Its difficult to analyze Izuku's emotions, but once again, we can try to work with what we currently have! As far as we know, Izuku isn't really having that much of a conflict in terms of if he should save Tenko or not -the problem was external. What would the OFA users think? He challenged them by staying true to his inner core, and they accepted him, but we don't see him struggling with the idea of him reaching out to Tenko in itself like Ochako, who actively tried to forget about Himiko.

I interpret his flashbacks to his conversation with Ochako as a reminder of the person behind the villain, because he is also feeling something else: anger. Izuku was really hurt during this battle both physically and, I would argue mostly, mentally. As he himself said, he can't forgive Shigaraki, just try to stop the crying child from hurting, and the reminder of Ochako's own goals and words are a reminder of his own intentions; lets not forget, moments later he took control after seeing Katsuki's dead body, he attacked Shigaraki in ways that would cause severe damage -like in the middle of his chest, causing a hole.

Uraraka doesn't actually try to hurt Toga, but use her martial arts training in order to both dodge and tackle her, so she can hear what she has to say. I re-read the chapters around Katsuki's revival, because I was wondering, "does Izuku remember this before or after he locked eyes with Bakugou?", and the answer is after*. The other time he thought about it was before leaving the togatsuchako battlefield, when Ochako encourages him to not worry and go get Shigaraki.

So, what I mean by this is, Ochako Uraraka and Izuku Midoriya are not the same person, and they don't feel the same way for their main villains, just like Tomura Shigaraki and Himiko Toga don't feel the same for their main heroes, and are not the same. Izuku actually feels resentment and anger for Shigaraki, he cant forgive him, but he also doesn't want to kill and punish like that; he is a savior, if he has to fight he will, but in his heart he knows what he prefers' maintaining peace, and help the ones who are vulnerable. He sees the villain, and he sees the child who grew up abused and sad; he is a sweet boy, ofc he would try to stop the crying somehow. His conflict with him now, Im guessing, is that he doesn't really feel like he actually saved him -after all, he disappeared after the last punch, and he still considered himself the leader of the league who wanted to destroy everything. He gave him his autonomy back and tried his best, but his last words and request feel like a completely different "task" than what he envisioned; it makes him think, about what heroes and villains even mean in their society, and who gets to decide those things. How can he continue with Shigaraki's legacy?

In another hand, Ochako's conflict don't come from her own moral compass, but from what she is supposed to do; before she even saw sadness in her face she thought positive things about her -she has a cute smile, she is really honest with her feelings, and isnt scared to be open with others, and she envies that. She envies the villain Himiko Toga, and relates to her, and feels connected to her. So her pain feels even more personal when it shouldn't; she isnt her family, she is someone who has tried to hurt her and her friends over and over while being so happy about it. She is weird!

Besides the thoughts about society and who helps both heroes and villains, which are really important for her character and goals, the other side of their problem is... the way Ochako was refusing to see and accept her own weirdness. Interacting with Himiko was chaotic, confusing, and left her full of doubts about herself and what she wants, because isnt she even weirder if she wants to be more like her? How can she admit those thoughts out loud? Anyone would agree that behavior is disgusting, but... she can't hate her. She can't try to punch her, or hurt her, and she never was able to no matter how much she tried to convince herself this is the only way.

Her conversation with Izuku opened her mind and heart to start accepting what she truly wants to do to Himiko instead of what she has to do as a hero. What does she want? To stop her. Her hurt. Her tears. To make her happy, and to keep her alive. She wants to see everyone happy, to get peace.

This is why her conflict is both related to Shigaraki and Deku, and Katsuki and Izuku; in one aspect its about morality, heroism, villainy and society as a whole. Himiko will question how things works constantly, and she can't ignore it. And at the same time, there's an emotional side to it; she has multiple confrontations with her, where miscommunication and holding back hurts them both. She pushes herself to be more like others, but it doesn't feel right anymore; Himiko makes her see her own self hatred, and jealousy and care grow more and more. Why can't see just do the right thing to maintain peace?

Just like Izuku was surprised by Katsuki's tears during their second fight, Ochako gets concerned by Himiko's, when she interpreted Uraraka's words as her rejecting her love -and therefore, whole self. Is not until the second war that she even realizes Toga actually loves her in the same way she loves Izuku, being a little clueless herself.

It doesnt sit right with her to do the "normal" thing, because she isn't normal at all; she thinks about making a villain happy, and how lovely her smile is. Her honesty and openness to be unapologetically herself, no matter how much others try to push her down or change her attitude; she hurts others, she knows that's wrong and agrees with that generalized sentiment... but hate her for it? She tries to do it, but it doesn't work. Inside of her heart, she knows what her emotions are telling her, and its not anger.

This is messy, my head hurts, but Im hoping I can write something better and longer in the future. I guess it makes more sense that drawing of Shigaraki, Izuku, Ochako, Himiko and Katsuki all together. I always wondered, if this is about heroism and society, Katsuki shouldn't be there, and if it is about emotions and rivalries, then it would be Tomura.

If you read this far, thank you for your time, and apologies for the confusion the writing could have caused you.

*My internet is going really slow, so im not re-reading all of the chapters after Izuku's arrival in the battlefield, so I cant 100% say this is the very first time he does remember it. Once im able to, or someone checks it for me -wether im right in my statement or not-, I'll edit it to be accurate with the material.

[thewhizzyhead]

I know how hard its gonna be for warriors at its current state to realistically be moved to theatre because well um it's very actiony and that'll be very hard to portray on just a standard stage so perhaps it'll be better off as a movie or an animated project (!!!),,,but I do want to see it on stage mainly to laugh my fuckin ass off at the bizzies and the we got you sequences please those are so fucking funny I wanna see them live

[fromtheseventhhell]

Arya offering Sam food and helping him + executing Daeron for being a deserter is so Lady of Winterfell-coded

[alien-ally]

parallel universe, alternate timeline or world traveling, whatever it is. yeowoon and sangwon seem to be besties in this world and everyone should dwell on that longer

[its-no-biggie]

hey guys who was gonna tell me that bocchi the rock contained the single most autistic scene in anime history

[thepoisonroom]

What's the most recent thing you've been obsessed with? x

my girlfriend being, like, a cis woman of they/them experience

[david-talks-sw]

I'm reading through the book Star Wars on Trial and it's interesting. I completely disagree with almost everything I've read in it so far, but at least it's well-argued and written light-heartedly, it doesn't take itself that seriously.

The book is framed as a court hearing in which the prosecutor and defense attorney - both hilariously pompous and petty - debate their points and hear from witnesses. David Brin speaks for the prosecution, and Matthew Stover (author of the Revenge of the Sith novelization) speaks for the defense...

... and the thing is, I find myself disagreeing with both of them.

Example: Brin doesn't like or get the Jedi's rule of non-attachment, sees it as cutting off any and all relationships or emotions.

"In order to be a skilled and good and worthy warrior, you must cut yourself off from the very attachments that make a decent coworker, lover, spouse, parent and citizen. [...] One can understand demanding that a young adept avoid undue distraction while focusing hard on his training. But to cut off all thought of loved ones, even when they are suffering? Where is the "wisdom" in that?"

But when you look at his whole argument, at least it's clear that his real issue is with the narrative itself, he's disagreeing with (what he thinks is) Lucas' message regarding attachments.

What really surprises me, however, is Stover's response:

"One can hardly hold the Saga accountable for teaching that the "skilled and worthy warrior must cut off all attachments, etc." because this is explicitly defined in the Saga as the primary error of the Prequel-Era Jedi. With apologies to Opposing Counsel, he simply missed the boat here. That's all there is to it. Not only is that "cutting off all attachment" business defined as exactly what drives Anakin Skywalker to become Darth Vader, but it's precisely the error that Yoda is determined to correct by allowing Luke and Leia to be raised by real families."

His argument is "you misunderstood the narrative, the 'no attachment' rule is intentionally framed as bad."

I mean... no? It's not.

And, like... you know this @Matthew Stover. I know for a fact that you get what the whole "no attachments" deal is about and what the intended narrative is (not just because you spent an afternoon talking to George Lucas), because I've seen you explain it:

What he says in the above video perfectly aligns with the many comments Lucas made on the subject of attachment.

So what's with the 180° in Star Wars on Trial?

And, btw, that's how the whole book goes, so far.

First, the prosecution will nitpick by ignoring or misinterpreting the intended narrative, and point out something they don't like about the Prequels, eg: the Jedi as retroactively reframed by the Prequels, heartless, detached and callous.

The defense (who should know the narrative) will counter with "you're missing the point, it's supposed to be perceived badly because:

the Prequels are actually this subversive commentary about how the good guys are actually not that good,

Anakin was destined to wipe the Jedi out and the Sith to bring Balance to the Force

the Jedi's rules are dogmatic and Luke triumphs because he rejects them."

Instead of defending the message of the movies and standing up for it, he clearly implicitly agrees with the prosecution's argument and thus reframes the message by stating that the films actually agree with what the prosecution is saying.

Again, the arguments are interesting and well-researched in some cases, and I get that the whole book is playful in tone (the judge is a friggin' droid for crying out loud 😆) but I feel like if you're gonna defend your client, defend the damn client, right?

[nadiaerre]

“Some birds can’t be caged. We’re on borrowed time… Our sins catch up to us all eventually. While you were kidnapped, I walked in your shoes: I sat in the FBI, felt the camaraderie. It’s compelling. It’s also an illusion.”

[karinyosa]

this uquiz really went off with this quote choice

[ftl-faster-than-life]

Honestly I would've loved to see Permissive Grandpa Barry and Strict Dad Max on page because Barry would absolutely undermine a lot of Max's teaching without meaning to or understanding why Max is so insistent on things like having Bart sleep all night, or do chores slowly. He'd also have taught Bart the trick of talking to people in two different personas seemingly simultaneously. It would drive Max crazy.

[shsl-writer]

What if Kaede and Shuichi both died so Kiibo could be the true protagonist. What if Miu was our support character?

[androidcharles]

I think I'll be doing an art stream soon 👀

Not this Saturday, but the next one. If you could vote on the poll below and tell me which time is best to start streaming please do so! I don't wanna stream at a time that no one is available, as this will be a RQ stream. I'll prob only stream for an hour at most.

[crowties]

thinking about when i cited calvin and hobbes in my philosophy term paper

[calware]

every time someone brings up the banana taped to the wall as a way to complain about unconventional forms of art it takes every once of strength within me not to say "it's been 5 years and you're still thinking about that banana. that banana lives in your head rent free. the banana owns you now"