SAEKA RIKIHISA + ANZU ADACHI - Jujutsu Kaisen [anime style]
more art || commissions || saeka page || anzu belongs to my bby @risingsh0t
tag list (ask to be added or removed): @bbrocklesnar @carrionsflower @risingsh0t @statichvm @marivenah @confidentandgood @unholymilf @florbelles @thedeadthree @simonxriley @shellibisshe @roofgeese @aezyrraeshh @faerune @tekehu @arklay @jackiesarch @timdownie @minaharkers @captmactavish @carlosoliveiraa @rosenfey @queennymeria @shadowglens @nightbloodbix @riikugan @heroofpenamstan @fenharel @alexxmason @malefiicarum @perpetuagf @gearvmac @gwynbleidd @delzinrowe
31 notes
·
View notes
Since writing my last post about how Vanitas understands "salvation" as the preservation of one's self, even at the price of death, I've been thinking about how that plays into Vanitas's thoughts on resurrection. It's only two short lines, but I find the view he expresses in this scene absolutely fascinating.
Vanitas tells Misha that the dead "don't come back," and the fact that he phrases it that way stands out to me. He doesn't say that resurrection is impossible on a physical level; he implicitly concedes that maybe Misha could "bring back" something that looks and acts like Luna. He doesn't quibble about the practicalities of reanimating someone whose body turned to ashes or bring up whatever concept of the afterlife he may have.
Instead, Vanitas says that a resurrected Luna would simply be "something else that looked like her." A resurrected Luna would lack some fundamental part of whatever it was that made Luna who they were in their first life.
But what would they lack? I don't think he's implying that a resurrected Luna would lack their soul—not really. Setting aside the absence of souls as a conceptual presence in VnC, I think that would be too concrete and specific for what Vanitas is gesturing toward. Rather, he's conceiving of the Self in a somewhat ineffable way. On a metaphysical level, a version of Luna brought back from the dead simply Wouldn't Be Her, and he can't put it in more concrete terms than that.
So why does he think this way?
I think the concept of resurrection is awful enough to Vanitas that he has to reject it outright for his own stability. He cannot even slightly entertain the notion that resurrection might be possible, because that would destroy one of his main coping mechanisms.
Resurrection is nightmarish to a man that relies on death as an escape. Vanitas is suicidal, but beyond his self-hatred, his relationship to death is very particular. He's someone whose body and being has been corrupted and violated several times—through violence, through experiments, and through Luna's bite, and he's desperate to retain control of himself in the aftermath. He's desperate for control in regards to everything in his life, but especially his body and his death.
Vanitas is being slowly transformed into something inhuman, and he plans to die someday to escape that fate. The idea that after he's gone, someone could override that decision and force him back into living a life he doesn't want must be unacceptably horrific to him. He dismisses it out of hand because he has to.
Vanitas says a resurrected Luna would, on some level, not really be Luna. Whatever comes back might look like them, but it would lack some fundamental self that makes Luna "Luna." Thus, if Vanitas himself were ever "resurrected" after his death, it would be the same. Death remains an absolute escape for him, and even if someone contrives to bring back something that looks like him after he's gone, it won't be him. That life won't be his problem.
In addition to whatever beliefs Vanitas might have about death and afterlives the feasibility of resurrection, I think this is a key part of his relationship to the concept. He lives his life knowing that death waits for him as an escape valve. He needs that looming death as his salvation. Thus, faced with the concept of resurrection, his argument basically boils down to "nuh-uh." He shoots down the concept and declares that a resurrected person wouldn't be themselves in some nonspecific way, because the possibility of anything otherwise isn't something safe for him to consider.
110 notes
·
View notes
I gotta say, I’ll read just about any fic where Spider is getting shown love and acceptance, but I’m not the biggest fan of fics that will go out of their way to make Quaritch worse to Spider than he was in canon. Because to me, the fact that Quaritch is kind to Spider is one of the things that makes his character interesting. Making him worse just isn’t compelling. And it’s almost always used in fics where he gets adopted by Jake and Neytiri, so it’s just kind of like… did you have to make Quaritch awful so the Sully’s prior neglect doesn’t look as bad in comparison?
TW; r4pe, child abuse, violence against children,
oh thank you, someone said it.
I have seen so many fics where recom quaritch was made to be worse than even human quaritch just for the sake of making the sully's look good. I have seen more than one r4pe fic, multiple fics where quaritch beat spider bloody, and that's only the tip of the iceberg just so spider can scurry home to the sully's and have everything go 'back to normal'. the neglect, abuse, neytiri almost killing spider situation, the sully's abandoning spider with the RDA situation, etc all gets ignored and they're a happy family. it boggles my mind how that makes sense to anyone.
I get that not everyone likes him, but, changing his entire narrative just to fit your own non canon narrative is just kinda annoying. especially cause like, the whole purpose of their characters were to show the complexity of healthy father/son relationships, even if they are on opposing sides, even if one is on the wrong side to begin with. it's the duality of quaritchs role within the movie that make it worthwhile.
the day the majority of people within any given fandom space can actually have critical thinking and analysis skills will be the day I live in peace.
61 notes
·
View notes
I hate how the movies didn’t incorporate the extent to which the bombs/Coin’s execution physically and mentally damaged Katniss (her burn scars, her muteness, her singing for days then resolving to kill herself by starving) or the long process of recovery (her not taking care of herself when she makes it back to 12 and not hunting for months until she sees Peeta again/Peeta needing to attend months of therapy in the Capitol before he could come back to 12) or the ever-lasting trauma in the epilogue like the books did.
I mean, Katniss does mention still getting nightmares during her monologue, but I feel like they could have shown Peeta dealing with one of his flashbacks or something. Cause they make it look like he’s all happy and dandy as if he wasn’t tortured and hijacked.
25 notes
·
View notes
I'm me when I'm gone
I'm here but I'm not
I'm tired almost all of the time
I don't remember getting older
I still feel so much younger
Yet sometimes I forget I'm alive
Time passes and I forget
Keep forgetting and I won't be able to remember what I haven't forgotten yet
I'm sleeping but not dreaming
Dreaming while I'm walking
I just can't seem to wake up
Days spent lost in haze
Stumbling through
A mind-numbed daze
Nights spited searching for them
Before I know it
I'm gone again
4 notes
·
View notes
there is something to be said though abt how through HW estinien, knowingly or not, systematically kills nidhogg's mate and children (tioman's death in sohm al angers and upsets nidhogg deeply and directly) one by one in a way that mirrors the way nidhogg killed his family.
maybe it was intentional. maybe not. but it is an interesting angle and it makes me really wish estinien wasn't so flat in HW bc a rampage of revenge against nidhogg that, like him, is understandable even if it isn't morally justifiable, that has estinien dipping into the same overt, self-destructive cruelty that drives nidhogg and prolongs the war would've been an actually great story arc had they been willing to actually make estinien unlikable and in the wrong for a minute.
2 notes
·
View notes