"but isn't it also darlin and sam"
@grim-has-issues Know I love you but I'm gonna take the utmost pleasure in explaining to you why you're wrong cause that doesn't work the way you think it does.
So why don't Sam and Darlin work in my Achilles and Patroclus comparison like David and Asher. Well it's actually a very simple reason. Sam and Darlin lack the history.
Achilles and Patroclus grew up together, they trained together, they were soldiers together. They basically lived in each other's pocket since they were kids. Sam and Darlin don't have that kind of connection. They grew up in two separate worlds, in two separate times. David and Asher do. They grew up in the same pack, they've been best friends since they were little, they have that deeper sense of connection.
It's because of their history together that makes the story of Achilles and Patroclus so heart-wrenching. It's because of their history that sets Achilles off the way he does when Patroclus dies. This wasn't just some soldier that he got close to, this was his best friend, someone who he'd known and cared for and loved since he was just a boy. And we only find that in David and Asher (most poignantly in Imperium but it works in Prime too with the catalyst being Inversion rather than the Quinn fight).
Sam and Darlin as Achilles and Patroclus only works at surface level. If you just look at "hothead soldier who would lose it if they lost their partner" and "calm and collected partner that wants to protect their soldier" then yeah, it works. But it lacks depth, it lacks detail, it lacks the structure that makes this hit so hard. And this is me so you already know surface level just won't cut it.
David and Asher have the full setup. They grew up together, they were extremely close, and losing one would set the other off because of how deep of a loss it would be. In Imperium, we see Asher go full Achilles. He finds David dying and rips Quinn apart in revenge. He becomes a cold-hearted monster that just wants blood in return for the world taking his best friend and lover from him. Everything just works so much better.
Trust me my friend, I considered Sam and Darlin for my comparison. But when you look below the surface, it just falls apart. The only characters this really works with are David and Asher. I put far too much thought into all of my posts cause it's not angst if it's not accurate.
But thank you for allowing me to actually explain why this doesn't work with other characters. I mean I was going to eventually but you let me get it done nice and early before all the thoughts dribbled out of my ears.
28 notes
·
View notes
Thinking about the weird camaraderie that exists between demons but not angels in GO.
Have we ever seen two angels who are actually friends? Or even friendly to one another? We have met angels with a capacity to be friendly in general, but I think the closest we've come to two angels actually getting along would be Gabriel making a point to laugh at Sandalphon's terrible "can't have a war without War" line in S1.
Most scenes between the angels actually seem to have an undercurrent of absolute hostility. Teeth-clenched teamwork. No wonder it took them so long to notice that Aziraphale wasn't on the same page as the rest of them! The rest of them are barely on the same page as one another, either! When Gabriel goes against the majority vote, no one bats an eye at demoting him and wiping his memory. Michael and Uriel immediately begin vying for his job. The only times we've seen angels team up is when they're working together to bully someone else, like when they're trying to intimidate Aziraphale in S1 or going to the aftermath of the bookshop raid in S2.
Saraqael's overall neutrality towards Muriel is the closest we get to two angels in Heaven getting along, and it's more a lack of hostility than any kind of friendliness. At least until Gabriel loses his memories and Muriel shows up to spy on Aziraphale, and Aziraphale decides to be kind to both of them.
Demons, on the other hand, actually seem to form alliances and even friendships among one another. Hastur and Ligur are awful, but Hastur seems genuinely distraught over Ligur's death, not just fearful of suffering the same fate. Shax and Furfur conspire together and even though the 1940's investigation into Crowley's fraternizing doesn't work out for Furfur, it's not due to any double-crossing on Shax's part. Unlike the angels, who stick almost exclusively to making threats until the Metatron decides to try dangling a carrot at the end of the season, demons actually offer rewards to other demons when trying to work together. Beelzebub offers Crowley a promotion if he can bring them Gabriel, Furfur offers to back Shax up politically if she goes for the Duke position opening, and Crowley successfully stalls Hastur in S1 by pretending everything was a test and he's going to be put in charge of a legion as a reward for passing. They're still not great at socializing, but they're significantly ahead of the angels.
Of course, it's a fact that demons are awful to one another (Eric's treatment is really bad, they throw that random demon into holy water just to test it, "it'd be a funny world if demons went around trusting one another", etc) but they still seem more capable of forming friendships than the angels do.
I think that's because Hell cramps and crowds everyone together to try and increase their suffering and hostility, whereas Heaven isolates angels to decrease the odds of questioning or rebellion. Hell's methods are unpleasant, but it still ends up putting demons together, and some of those demons inevitably forge alliances and make friendships. Because as Crowley and Beelzebub demonstrate, demons are still social creatures with the capacity for love and affection, even if it's strongly discouraged and buried under nine million layers of trauma and a cultural mandate against kindness.
Angels are the same, but isolation makes is harder to form connections than overcrowding. Muriel and Jimbriel are both so eager to make friends, but Muriel's spent the past millennia shut in an empty office, and Gabriel has been distanced from his peers both through his position and also through Heaven's culture of fear and surveillance. He only breaks away from it when he finds something that's stronger than "choosing sides" (stronger than the fear of being rejected by Heaven and Falling, in fact strong enough that Falling seems worth it if he gets to be with someone he loves). Both Muriel and Gabriel are only able to start forming connections when they're away from Heaven.
I just think it's interesting that demons, despite being supposedly devoid of love, have an advantage in forming relationships compared to angels. Angels are supposed to love, but have far fewer opportunities to actually do so. Demons aren't supposed to love, but they make connections anyway.
569 notes
·
View notes
the chaipunk vs. "he has a girlfriend" debacle can be fixed by one simple thing (like almost every love triangle ever); a polycule.
even if Gayatri and Hobie stay platonic, you wanna tell me that man isn't gonna treat her like a goddamn goddess? you wanna tell me he's not gonna stop in her dimension just to spend time with each other? you wanna tell me he's not gonna gush with her over Pav? cause your dead wrong, and lord help me if they're not smiiten for each other to, the romance would be too much for me. like we've already sorta agreed as a fandom that hobie is the softie, so he's always gonna be going out of his way to be a gentleman to her, holding doors, throwing his jacket over puddles (like a dumbass), kissing her hand, all that mushy stuff.
Gayatri is gonna be so romanced up by those two she wouldn't know what to do with herself. let her have two perfect amazing sweet loving male wife puppy dog boyfriends ok? she's earned it.
755 notes
·
View notes
My name is [BRUTUS] and my name means [HEAVY]
so with a [HEAVY] heart I'll guide this dagger
Into the heart of my enemy
Something about having absolutely no choice in who you marry. About being literally forced by the law to spill blood - to accept this stranger as your husband over a man you truly care for or accept the fact that the man you love might die because you put him in danger. Something about risking becoming the wife of a man you've never even seen before a few minutes prior because you know anything would be better than putting your beloved in harm's way. Something about the trust inherent in that decision and in the way she speaks of it after.
Truthfully, T'Pring doesn't know the captain and she doesn't know Spock. Either one of them could have taken her as their wife but she does know Stonn. She knows that Stonn will remain by her side no matter what. They made a plan together. They have an agreement which T'Pring believes will be upheld even though the plan changed with the arrival of Kirk. Stonn will always be there, always, and Stonn will be hers.
Something about the language used around T'Pring: Ownership, subservience, non-personhood. T'Pring is an object that Spock can win. She cannot reject him, she has no say in the matter other than having Stonn 'claim' her instead. Even when Spock leaves after being very clearly rejected by T'Pring he says "Stonn, she is yours." as if despite her clear rejection he still owns her and is must formally 'give' her to Stonn. But the language T'Pring uses around Stonn is a break from that: "There was Stonn who wanted very much to be my consort, and I wanted him."
Stonn who wanted very much to be HER consort and she WANTED him. The language here is very particular - It's not, for example: "Stonn wanted me to be his wife" - he is HERS. And she WANTS him. There's a mutual affection there and a strong trust - a trust which seems to be well founded since Stonn (though silent) stands by her side at the end of the episode. <- That might seem small but if Spock would reject her for 'daring to challenge' (again, the language is not 'because I don't want you' but more of an implied disgust at her having the AUDACITY to reject him) then it's not a stretch to assume that it'd be considered an insult in the TOS Vulcan society to NOT choose Stonn as her champion after a prior agreement.
Anyway T'Pring was a woman in an impossible situation within a society which saw her as more of an object than a person and she wanted Stonn and Stonn wanted to be hers and she trusted that he would understand if she had to publicly pick someone else to ensure his life would be spared and he did understand.
255 notes
·
View notes
Hello ranger’s apprentice fandom can we talk real quick about the stupidest thing Flanagan ever wrote
It’s about the bows. Yanno, the rangers’ Iconique™️ main weapon. That one. You know the one.
Flanagan. Flanagan why are your rangers using longbows.
“uh well recurve arrows drop faster” BUT DO THEY. FLANAGAN. DO THEY.
the answer is no they don’t. Compared to a MODERN, COMPOUND (aka cheating) bow, yes, but compared to a longbow? Y’know, what the rangers use in canon? Yeah no a recurve actually has a FLATTER trajectory. It drops LATER.
This from an article comparing the two:
“Both a longbow and a recurve bow, when equipped with the right arrow and broadhead combination, are capable of taking down big game animals. Afterall, hunters have been doing it for centuries with both types of bows.
However, generally speaking and all things equal, a recurve bow will offer more arrow speed, creating a flatter flight trajectory and retain more kinetic energy at impact.
The archers draw length, along with the weight of the arrow also affect speed and kinetic energy. However, the curved design of the limbs on a recurve adds to its output of force.”
It doesn’t actually mention ANY distance in range! And this is from a resource for bow hunting, which, presumably, WOULD CARE ABOUT THAT SORT OF THING!
Okay so that’s just. That’s just the first thing.
The MAIN thing is that even accounting for “hur dur recurves drop faster” LONGBOWS ARE STILL THE STUPID OPTION.
Longbows, particularly and especially ENGLISH longbows, are—as their name suggests—very long. English longbows in particular are often as tall or taller than their wielder even while strung, but especially when unstrung. An unstrung longbow is a very long and expensive stick, one that will GLADLY entangle itself in nearby trees, other people’s clothes, and any doorway you’re passing through.
And yes, there are shorter longbows, but at that point if you’re shortening your longbow, just get a goddamn recurve. And Flanagan makes a point to compare his rangers’ bows to the Very Long English Longbow.
Oh, do you know how the Very Long English Longbow was mostly historically militarily used? BY ON-FOOT ARCHER UNITS. Do you know what they’re TERRIBLE for? MOUNTED ARCHERY.
Trust me. Go look up right now “mounted archery longbow.” You’ll find MAYBE one or two pictures of some guy on a horse struggling with a big stick; mostly you will actually see either mounted archers with RECURVES, or comparisons of Roman longbow archers to Mongolian horse archers (which are neat, can’t lie, I love comparing archery styles like that).
Anyway. Why are longbows terrible for mounted archery? Because they’re so damn long. Think about it: imagine you’re on a horse. You’re straddling a beast that can think for itself and moves at your command, but ultimately independently of you; if you’re both well-trained enough, you’re barely paying attention to your horse except to give it commands. And you have a bow in your hands. If your target is close enough to you that you know, from years of shooting experience, you will need to actually angle your bow down to hit it because of your equine height advantage, guess what? If you have a longbow, YOU CAN’T! YOUR HORSE IS IN THE WAY BECAUSE YOUR BOW IS TOO LONG! Worse, it’s probably going to get in the general area of your horse’s shoulder or legs, aka moving parts, which WILL injure your horse AND your bow and leave you fresh out of both a getaway vehicle and a ranged weapon. It’s stupid. Don’t do it.
A recurve, on the other hand, is short. It was literally made for horse archers. You have SO much range of motion with a recurve on horseback; and if you’re REALLY good, you know how to give yourself even more, with techniques like Jamarkee, a Turkish technique where you LITERALLY CAN AIM BACKWARDS.
For your viewing enjoyment, Serena Lynn of Texas demonstrating Jamarkee:
Yes, that’s real! This type of draw style is INCREDIBLY versatile: you can shoot backwards on horseback, straight down from a parapet or sally port without exposing yourself as a target, or from low to the ground to keep stealthy without banging your bow against the ground. And, while I’m sure you could attempt it with a longbow, I wouldn’t recommend it: a recurve’s smaller size makes it far more maneuverable up and over your head to actually get it into position for a Jamarkee shot.
A recurve just makes so much more SENSE. It’s not a baby bow! It’s not the longbow’s lesser cousin! It’s a COMPLETELY different instrument made to be used in a completely different context! For the rangers of Araluen, who put soooo much stock in being stealthy and their strong bonds with their horses, a recurve is the perfect fit! It’s small and easily transportable, it’s more maneuverable in combat and especially on horseback, it offers more power than a longbow of the same draw weight—really, truly, the only advantage in this case that a longbow has over the recurve is that longbows are quicker and easier to make. But we KNOW the rangers don’t care about that, their KNIVES use a forging technique (folding) that takes several times as long as standard Araluen forging practices at the time!
Okay.
Okay I think I’m done. For now.
73 notes
·
View notes
imposter syndrome is a bitch
it can happen to artists you think are already enough or are skilled and great in your eyes
as much as it motivates us to improve ourselves and do better, its still not a pleasant feeling at all
its a persistent cycle of admiring someone who doubts themselves and i dont think its selfish to think that "you're not good enough"
because life has been cruel to us and for most of our lives we've been taught to "suck it up" or that we fear that our outputs are invalid in some way or mean nothing to anyone- the outputs that have parts of ourselves in it, even if it isn't meant to take a part of ourselves- it still came from us nonetheless
posts can easily say that you should be kind to yourself more but when it comes to trauma and something that's been with you since childhood, it's not as simple to shake off
it can take years and years- varies for every individual- and even then the people around you, the world and even yourself will change
as much as its awkward or a downer to see, be kind to artists who are hard on themselves. its not your obligation to give them attention. no, i dont think every single person who sees a vent post should come up to the person and be there for them to cry on their shoulder.
i just think at the very least we should understand that every single person you meet and the artists you admire are imperfect, and they will continue to think crappy thoughts about themselves- unlike in fantasies where its some simple character arc that is a story obstacle that can be overcome and forgotten about- fantasy is meant to be a fulfillment- a desire.
we are real human beings, but we can learn and grow and live.
115 notes
·
View notes