#when you don't get that sense

[not-poignant]

hihi pia! youve said before that you like to leave a lot of the visuals up to the readers imagination with what you write, but i thought to ask can you explain maybe the layour of garys cottage? 😭😭 im so bad with stuff like orientation and space, and i struggle so much sometimes when i read and think ok, now where is that door they came from and where is that chair next to the table and that window. rereading the teacup incident & i just really cant make it work. its fine if not. ily!

Anon, very unfortunately, I am not an architect, and I just spent 30 minutes trying to draw this out which has highlighted to me that I know what the layout is but my job is actually writing and not...drawing the layouts of homes. (If only)

You can always just look up cosy cottages and then use that, anon!

The job of a reader (imho) isn't to imagine things exactly as they are, but go from the details they've been given and often relate that back to what they already know. Sometimes that might mean looking something up if it's genuinely something you've never seen before (karri trees), or relating them back to a tall tree you're familiar with (sequoias). In fact no reader imagines the same thing when they're reading. I could spend 1000 words describing a red cabinet and people will imagine 1000 slightly different variations anyway. Everyone has a different idea of 'red' and a different idea of 'wood' and a different idea of 'cabinet' and even if I lock down into the nitty gritty, if we're not living in the same country, our power sockets look different, our heating and cooling systems (and accommodations for them) are different, the fabrics we use are different (unless we all go to IKEA), the smells of the home are all slightly different.

I think even if I did draw it out successfully in two hours (which is not time I really have spare at the moment :/ I wish I did because I think it could be fun except that I don't want to download architecture software to make an actual blueprint of an entire cottage that's in scale but also shows exactly where the furniture will go which includes interior design as well x.x - and I do know exactly how it's laid out mentally, so I know I could make it work. (And I still might, maybe, but probably not while I have a 15 week old puppy I'm sorry anon D: ) But yeah doing it on paper has proven to me that actually writing out the location of like 50 different things means the blueprint becomes too small and messy to still tell what's going on. I wrote 'table and chairs' over the table and chairs and now you can no longer see the table and chairs in my sketch which is not useful!

There's a difference between the layout of a house and the layout of the objects and furniture in a house. I may have worked for an architecture firm, but I am not a house designer. *cries*

But! All you really need to know is that Gary can't see the kitchen cabinets from where he sits on the couch. Which means if someone crouches down and opens the cabinets, he can't see them either. There are a lot of houses that have layouts like this, especially houses that have a counter not just up against the wall, but in the middle of the kitchen.

For example in this image, if a couch was in front of the kitchen counter that's free-standing, and a person was sitting on the couch and looked at the free-standing kitchen counter, they would not be able to see the kitchen cabinets from the free standing kitchen counter, or what's in them. They can only see the counter. If the lounge was lower than the kitchen, they'd see even less.

In this image, if the couch was where the stairs are, you'd not be able to see what Efnisien was doing in the kitchen at all until he stoop and held up the teacup. If he kept the teacup low in his hands, you'd not be able to see it at all.

Because Gary's cottage is small, but open plan, the lounge has a view to the kitchen, but not directly into the kitchen.

There's lots of houses that feature this kind of architecture, so if you really want to go down that rabbit hole, you can just search different kitchens in cottages until you see one where if you sit on the couch, you can't see someone crouched in front of the kitchen cabinets.

Gary's free-standing kitchen counter is also multi-level like this is multi-level:

So someone could stand there and make a coffee and a person sitting on the couch wouldn't be able to see what they were doing. Ornaments and vases and notes etc. can go on the raised bit, and kitchen stuff can happen on the lower bit.

Ah marvel at my use of technical terms *cries again*

Anyway! I hope that helps somewhat. I'm mad that I can't draw this layout for you because I do wish I could just...mentally take people on a tour through this cottage. And it would be great to do that. But I am looking at the saddest most pathetic sketch in my sketchpad right now, and I used to work as an artist, but I'm just very very very very bad at this kind of technical drawing.

But maybe the teacup scene will make a little more sense now :)

[hajihiko]

💕

[teaboot]

One of the most bizarre feelings imo is finding out about a prejudice you didn't know existed

Like. I only recently found out that there's areas IN MY OWN COUNTRY where discrimination against Italian people is a genuine problem

Like

I definitely know WHY I always assumed Racism was a prejudice more dependant on differences in skin colour but holy shit damn yeah okay so there's also ultraviolet racism too huh, we're all just drinking the shitty bitch water then

[krysmcscience]

The Lamb is malicious in a funny way and the Goat is funny in a malicious way. No, I will not elaborate.

Anyway, everyone give thanks to the Lamb for interrupting what was sure to be a very boring and patronizing PSA from their grouchy cat hubby. Truly, they are doing God's work. Granted, the Lamb canonically is God now, so, uh. Mostly they're just doing their own work.

Speaking of their grouchy cat hubby, yes this is absolutely still Narilamb, Narinder is 100% into his goofy-ass spouse always no matter what and we all know it, he just wasn't expecting his brand new adopted kid to share the same single goofy-ass brain cell as the Lamb. :)

[vaguely-concerned]

having seen at least the rough outlines of all the romances now I have to say that I think emmrich's is probably objectively the best in terms of coherence and completeness of story arc (with the understanding that ultimately the 'best' romance is whichever one makes YOUR heart sing anyway so objectivity is a silly thing to claim that way, it just felt like it's the arc with the most well-paced focused content and the least dangling threads)... but lucanis' is my favourite haha. just. the whole kneeling before your beloved full of reverence but without any of the distance that usually implies??? his complete undramatic certainty and calm in every scene with rook after this, having spent the whole game caught between fear and longing???? mr. lives in a pantry but it says nothing about my psyche don't worry about it it's purely for tactical reasons that I keep myself contained in a small dark room not entirely unlike a cell, love among the parsnips -- finally coming to rook in their room and it's so comfortable and comforting???? after all the times rook supports and comforts him through the game he's finally able to return the same to them when they need it while being so calm and steady and it's so fucking sweet and feels so effortless and with no price attached?????? he basically assigns himself the role of your bodyguard and he WILL stab a god over it??????????????? the turn to protector (which was in his heart all along longing to get out and find a place) of it all????? he sounds like he's found himself unexpectedly stumbling into such a soul-lightening state of revelatory existential relief, full on 'you only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves' mary oliver style, and he goes and he shares that with rook and protectively envelops them in it when they're hurting??????????????????????????? hello for the maker's sake hello can anyone hear me?????

[phantom-of-the-501st]

"I don't enjoy solitude."

I was thinking about this line and I find the context of it really interesting because on the surface it suggests that Echo doesn't like being by himself, which is true, but the conversation wasn't about Echo being alone. Omega was asking him if he wanted to join in with some meditation, and that's when Echo said he doesn't like solitude. It isn't just being by himself physically. It's being left alone with his own thoughts that really gets to him.

And it's so much of why Echo never sits still. He's always with someone or doing something because it's how he escapes being inside his own head. The only time I can think of where Echo is just sat by himself, not actively doing something, is here

And it's not exactly giving "yay fun happy Echo times". It's more "depressed and thinking about all of his dead brothers times."

This is why he's always doing something. Not just to save his brothers but because the one thing Echo can't do is sit still and do nothing. He can't retire, he can't go and live a chill life on Pabu because this man hasn't found a way to temper his own thoughts. He just keeps going and going and going because stopping means confronting what's in his head and he is undoubtedly going to spiral.

And I think that's partly why Hunter is a little hesitant about Echo staying in the Rebellion. It isn't just about the fact that the Empire is too powerful, or that Echo has a chance of being KIA, it's also about the fact that Echo will just run himself into the ground. There's only so long he can keep it up for and one day he's going to hit his limit.

I don't know what the end is for Echo. The only way he's going to kick his feet up and retire is when he actually heals enough to not go into a depressive episode or a panic attack every time he isn't distracted. Yes, Echo is better than he was when he was first rescued, but realistically this man has done almost fuck all actual processing of anything he's gone through.

Because it terrifies him.

And that's so valid. But when everyone in the fandom is trying to work out where he is or what happens to him, I genuinely don't know. I strongly believe he will stay in the fight for as long as he can. But how his story ends? I can't say.

Edit: I want to clarify that I don't think Echo is only in the fight purely as an escape mechanism. I just think it'd definitely a big player in why he never seems to stop.

[almond-gallery]

i think yjh really likes that she can pick up hsy and kdj anytime she wants for whatever reason

[uncanny-tranny]

Social transition being seen (by some) as this super easy thing that isn't as hard as real transitioning (medical) is bullshit. Be critical of the idea that there are some trans people who just "have it easy" because they are trans or because they are trans in ways you may not be.

Social transition is just as difficult, hard, and rewarding as medical transition. Maybe it is not as hard for some, sure, but that is not the same as thinking that social transition is inherently easier or lesser. If you're socially transitioning, your voice still matters.

[linabirb]

milgram season 1 and season 2 mv art style comparison!

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Always a bit puzzled by people saying that anyone who wanted long-term consequences for TotK Zelda's sacrifice are "edgy".

I'm not even particularly in the camp that she should have remained a dragon forever (I think this should have been Ganondorf's fate, it would have been sooo much more impactful than to explode him and move on but anyway). To be honest, I wish the rules for turning back would have been 1) clear 2) active gameplay on the player so that it feels like it's something we have earned, and 3) not make her have amnesia about it and/or at least having her gain some crucial insight because of the experience.

(also: doesn't she crave knowledge? isn't that insanely mean to have her watch over every civilization and every bit of history ever and then take it away from her? kind of dislike how totk privileges the comfort of the player's feelings over what the characters would actually want or need tbh)

To be perfectly honest, I fully expected us needing to turn her back before engaging Ganondorf so we would fight him together, especially since Zelda as a compagnon exists in the game code already (though in a very subdued state). It feels very very strange to me that all of this mechanic of Sages following us existing and yet we never have the very climactic cool Zelda-staple moment of facing Ganondorf or Ganon together (OoT, WW, TP, ST and probably more that I'm forgetting all did this in some way --even BotW had Zelda more involved than in TotK). I'm not sure Mineru was a compagnon that was needed over Zelda honestly, especially given the kind of non-insight she gives us on the zonai (even if the idea of the mecha is cool, it really could have been Zelda using her zonai + sheikah knowledge to pilot one for us or something).

But anyway: yeah, even if this isn't what I would have wanted personally, I think wanting Zelda to remain a dragon is kind of arguably more respectful of her relationship to Link, in a way, that what the game ended up doing. When she enacted this sacrifice, Zelda decided to trust him to such a extent that she lost herself, reciprocated his trust in her and his devotion to her, and now the future of Hyrule exists beyond her and beyond what Hyrule once was, but she trusts them to follow through and be happy and she will watch over them from the stars moving on. It's fine if we manage to save her from that fate, but even if we don't, honestly this sounds like a beautiful story/tragic romance to me, if you want to read it that way. Tragedy doesn't necesserily involve edginess. Fictional pain isn't always mean, or out to get you.

[sysig]

The familiarity is not very comforting (Patreon)

[bonefall]

the worst parent poll made me realize just how many ppl in the fandom are willing to jump straight into abuse apologia. bc on one hand you have ppl dumbing down crow's abuse to "him just being mean" and on the other end you have ppl saying that curlfeather didnt abuse frostpaw because she sacrificed herself and frost + her siblings love her so she couldnt possibly be an abuser. truly mindboggling stuff take these serious topics away from the fandom asap.

Part of me feels like it's because many in this fandom have a feeling that if a character's actions are abusive, it means you're "not allowed" to like them. Like there's an impulse where if you liked a character, it MUST mean they weren't THAT bad, because you'd personally never like "an abuser."

As if it reflects poorly on your own morality, as a person, that you connected with An Abuser. Understood them, even. Even if it was just a character.

If it's immoral to Like Abusive Characters, of course your reaction is going to end up being abuse apologia. To enjoy something isn't logical, it's emotional, so you will get defensive about it when questioned. When you do, it's not going to be based on logic because you didn't reason yourself into that position in the first place. It's an attack on you as a person.

I feel like that's often the root of abuse apologia in this fandom, and sometimes the world at large; "If I admit that this character/person IS abusive, it means I was doing something bad by liking them, so I have to prove to everyone else that they weren't or it means I'm bad too."

And to that I say... That's a BAD impulse! Grow up and admit you resonated with a character that did a bad thing! If that's an uncomfortable thought, sit with it!

Sometimes abusers are likeable! They usually DO think they're justified in their actions, or doing it for "a good reason," or were just too preoccupied to care. MOST of the time, people who commit abusive actions are also hurt or traumatized in some way. You might even empathize with them. None of this means their actions have to be excused or downplayed.

"Abusers" aren't a type of goddamn yokai, they're people just like you and me. You don't help victims of abuse by putting the people who hurt us in an "untouchable" category.

In fact, all it does is make you less likely to recognize your own controlling behavior. You're capable of abuse. People you love are capable of it, too. People who love YOU can still hurt you.

In spite of how often people regurgitate "It's Ok To Like A Character As Long As You're Critical Of Their Actions," every day it is proven to me further and further that no one who says it actually understands what that means.

All that said; I think it's no contest which one's a worse parent, imo.

They both mistreated their children, but Curlfeather did it through manipulation without verbal or physical abuse. She politically groomed her into a position of power so that she could use her as a pawn. It can be argued if this counts as child abuse-- but it's firmly still under the broad category childhood maltreatment, which is damaging.

(though anon I'm with you 100% at seeing RED when "but she sacrificed herself" is used as an excuse. Curlfeather's death does NOT CHANGE what she did to Frostpaw in life. I think it's a valid point to bring up when comparing her to another terrible parent for judgement purposes, such as in the context of this poll, but I really hate the implication that redemption deaths "make up" for maltreatment.)

Crowfeather, meanwhile, is textually responsible for putting Breezepaw through verbal AND physical abuse, as well as child neglect. His motivations include embarrassment from a hurt ego, revenge on his ex, and being sad because of a dead girlfriend. This abuse drives Breezepelt towards radicalization in the Dark Forest.

You could argue Curlfeather is a worse person for Reedwhisker's murder, but as a parent? It's not even a question to me. Crowfeather's one of the worst dads in WC.

[swordsofsaturn]

early seasons spn homophobia is actually so crazy because they literally do not look gay. hamfisted gay jokes when the characters look straight as hell. "you look the type" they literally don't. is the thing

[vaguely-concerned]

on the one hand I think inner demons could stand to have a bit more romanced rook specific content, but on the other hand the underlying in-built implication that 'yours is the one true voice of comfort and safety in my inner world' is a sentiment and intimacy so way beyond the romantic or the platonic or any secret third thing you could care to name that it makes me lose my entire poor little mind a bit. it's so big and fundamental — near-existential — that in that exact moment at least the distinctions kind of seem irrelevant.

all the people lucanis' mind conjures up along the way are relationships he has that are unavoidably mixed and fraught in some ways even when they're also full of love (they are fraught BECAUSE they're full of love) — the good in them inseparable from things that hurt him at the same time. (it's about: the basic disorganized attachment patterns this poor guy is dragging around with him. careful with those, they're dellamorte heirlooms. what you love also inevitably hurts you and you won't be allowed to have one without the other, you have to surrender parts of your soul to hold on to what little you have left: this is the story up until now.) and the idea that rook isn't that to him — that beneath the fear of wanting them when romanced (which is more its own separate thing because within this psychology, actively wanting something and not just clinging on for dear life to even a meager status quo lest you lose it is in itself dangerous bordering on catastrophic), this is a relationship where there isn't resentment, or guilt, or shame, or dread, or rage, or self-hate, or any of the other emotions that keep him paralyzed, unable to move this way or that. no debts, nothing owed of yourself and your soul's substance except what you can freely and safely and happily give. love and freedom don't coexist — but, I mean, you're almost starting to make me think........... unless...👀👀👀. the unconditional and undramatic 'you are here and I am here with you, you can be exactly how you are right now with me and it's safe for us both even though you're afraid it won't be, I'm not going anywhere' acceptance rook shows him here that he returns to them in the big romance scene, when it's rook who needs it. the way he's just. standing there in the center of it all, like a child desperately helplessly waiting to be found, hiding in the place he hopes you'll know to look first. (rook does know. it's one of the first things they say in there.)

in short the most important room in his little mind palace for the romance is the very first room — the one where rook isn't. where, in fact, rook cannot be, because they disprove the entire structure of the place with their existence and presence in his life. with everyone else he's putting words in their mouths about what they think of him, and rook is the one who actually gets to come in to speak their own words to him — and have him listen. ('he'll listen to you, he always listens to you', 'your voice is a comfort'.) of course rook isn't present anywhere else in there — at the risk of stating the obvious to a tedious degree, they aren't one of the locks, they're bringing the key. in the very finest 'the messenger and the message' sort of way.

[clowningaroundmars]

so many mike chiltons in the motorcity tag!!! here are mine :D

[the-eclectic-wonderer]

"The podcast is about our neighbours being murdered." "Yeah, but you made it sound cozy."

That's it. That's the show.