Hey homie
Just wanted to just check in, hope your doin well!
I love the blog and get so excited to see your art, have a sparkly day my g 👌
Thank you for your kind words, it's so nice to see people genuinely excited each time I post the blorbos <3
Also I'm currently sick (am good), but my boyfriend keeps me entertained so it's all good !
6 notes
·
View notes
I might've already said this but I feel it needs to be said again.
Multi-Fandom fanfics are such a funny idea to me. Because yeah. Multiple blorbos from multiple fandoms in one place. Nagito from Danganronpa and Sans (do I need to say where he's from??) kiss, why not? Captain Spaceboy from Omori and Space Outlaw from Bee and Puppycat could be brothers. Callie from Splatoon could get into a fight with White Lily Cookie from Cookie Run Kingdom only to have the fight broken up by Henry Clerval from Frankenstein. Anything can happen and I fucking love it. Like.. give me more please.
13 notes
·
View notes
thinking about my au where after the trial the dads are actually just transported into another universe where jodie was transplanted and they replaced their alt-universe selves.
so there are small details that the kids notice (except for nicholas) that are kinda... off, but it's not big enough of a shift to notice until reminiscing about childhood memories and like it doesn't matter (it does matter but that's only half of the story)
point is that without them, their home universe kinda crumbles, as the narrative is about Them and why even exist if there's no purpose? so everyone kinda just fades away over a short span of time (thinking around a week) as the world loses its flavor.
....buuuut nick's still there.
because the dads are The Dads, right. it's their defining characteristic. they need to have children to be dads (if the child is dead it doesn't matter, just needs to exist in the universe). the children are... kind of like anchors.
so if their children stopped existing, what then? well, it was a simple solution-- they got linked to the new verse kids. done done. new anchor, continued existence, "forever" relevance, hoorah.
only problem is that glenn doesn't have a kid. and he's not a dad anymore. so like, what's the point of his being there? nicholas is technically completely unrelated to him. in the new verse, it's said that he's darryl's friend who's just. there. in-auniverse and in a more meta concept sense, he really shouldn't have been there.
(eventually, glenn won't need an anchor anymore because of the relationship he develops with nicky but for now he needs a weight to assert his existence in the narrative)
erasing him from existence kind of goes against the court ruling because then why all the shenanigans. so he still has an anchor, though the new universe is unaware of it
so nick is still there.
nick is... not fully what he used to be. he seems overall the same, but he's in a sort of... stasis? like the most obvious effect is not aging but there are mental effects too. his and glenn's relationship and place in the world can't really change, so he doesn't.
he's like an ice sculpture now metaphorically-- fading like the rest of the world, but his process is slower because he's connected to glenn and he's still important to the story. he has approximately until the s1 finale until he starts getting into the danger zone. the worlds aren't exactly synced up time-wise, but time shifts and flows and the universes drift so there's never a concrete ratio-- usually worlds sync by story beat but. yea
so he's just wandering the world as it breaks apart. he's the only reason that it's still there, actually-- it becomes weaker as he does, as it loses its purpose completely.
by some chance, nicholas manages to contact nick then Stuff Happens.
cue shenanigans, primarily with nicholas and nick but several other people come into play too like glenn and jodie and morgan
(yes nick still dies in the end but there is Closure with the family okay. can't spell closure without close. do you get it)
11 notes
·
View notes
Something else that makes me sympathetic to Pharma's situation is like. Idk if there's an actual term for this or if someone smarter and more academic wrote it about some real life context that actually matters.
But, so we've already established among Pharma stans that the circumstances at Delphi were blackmail/torture with no real way out that wouldn't involve Pharma being responsible for people getting killed (either killing patients for the deal or having everyone die bc he failed his end of the deal).
And I feel like while "he's still in the wrong because he killed people" is part of it, another sort of implicit part is the idea that Pharma should've been willing to take more personal risk, maybe even risk dying? I mean, Ratchet does ask "why didn't you just detonate it near the DJD" (to which Pharma responds that he did try to get Sonic and Boom to do it, but they refused) so like
Idk I feel like we do have this social notion of martyrs as a very romantic ideal, people you can praise for being so brave and strong and righteous that they ended their own lives for their cause, while you can also coo about how sad and tragic it is that dying is what it took for them to do the right thing. But at the same time I feel like in reality, having an expectation that people become martyrs is kind of a toxic social norm bc like. It's very easy to demand that others sacrifice their lives for some Ultimate Moral Good when you yourself aren't experiencing the same hardships as they are. And ultimately it is kind of fucked up to tell someone "the moral thing you should've done was risk your life/kill yourself" because asking someone to pay their life to do the right thing is no small request. And sure, the typical response would be to call them a "coward" for caring more about saving their own skin instead of doing the right thing... but again, death is a really scary thing and self-preservation is a really strong instinct, so it kind of feels like having this binary view of "you're either a Brave Hero who sacrifices your life for everyone else or a Dirty Coward who's too scared of dying to do what's right" is kind of fucked up?
I guess the best way to describe it is that if someone willingly gives up their life as a sacrifice to others, it can be a noble thing because it's a choice they made willingly, but if it becomes a Moral Standard that in order to be a Good Person you have to be unafraid of throwing your life away and if you aren't willing to die you're a Cowardly Bad Person, that's when it becomes toxic.
Idk, I guess how this ties back to Pharma is that he was never in a position where he expected to make these kinds of moral decisions/ultimatums. He's a doctor who doesn't even get into combat, his job is to heal and not to kill, he's behind the front lines in a hospital that's supposed to be a safe, neutral place for him to heal people. So in the face of suddenly having a "murder people on behalf of me, or I murder everyone you swore to protect" ultimatum thrust upon him, I understand why Pharma wasn't """"""""""brave enough"""""""""" to "do the right thing" (whatever that would've been in the case of Delphi). You could argue that maybe a frontliner soldier accepted the burden of possibly dying for their cause and they've become used to it as someone who lives that reality every single day, but I feel like for Pharma, who's a doctor and a protected non-combatant (from what we can tell), that sort of risking of his life/living with the fact his life could be snuffed out any day isn't something he would've been prepared for at all.
And for me personally, from an outsider's perspective, it strikes me as kind of unethical to go "oh well he should've just detonated the bomb himself even if it killed him" bc again, there's a difference between witnessing a moral conundrum as a bystander versus being the person living with it and being under time pressure where it's do-or-die. Just as part of my personal standards, I feel like death is such a huge consequence/burden of someone's actions (literally you are no longer alive, any potential you had left is cut short, you cease to exist on this plane) that it feels rather callous to go "Well you should've just been willing to die for your beliefs if you really cared that much!!!"
10 notes
·
View notes
90% of you are great, and I cherish you. But the things like 10% of you will say to each other over fictional characters living in fictional universes,,,,,
12 notes
·
View notes
i think people try REALLY hard to justify jason’s actions and views regarding bruce’s refusal to kill joker, but i think in turn that waters down jason’s character a little.
bc like, expecting someone to kill the person who killed you would be considered excessive by most standards, even if that person is perfectly capable of doing it. and with bruce—who’s trauma is informed by the act of murder—is not going to look at the context of ANY type of murder and think it’s okay. his morals in that regard are black and white.
jason is of course entitled to his anger towards bruce and his trauma. and THATS THE THING!!! trauma twisted jason’s worldview. it twisted how he viewed what happened to him. he is right for wanting the joker dead, but he’s not right for expecting bruce, who’s also traumatized by what happened, to be the one to kill joker. and that makes him interesting. that gives jason depth—because no character should always be 100% right in their convictions ALL the time.
40 notes
·
View notes