it does make me a little sad that feasibly emrys and astarion probably can’t spar often… their fighting styles are too different. when sparring is a STAPLE of my cliches.
Calling golden age Clark an anticapitalist/socialist paragon is only true for prewar golden age Clark (1938-42). The instant the US entered the war and the character started to be used to sell war stamps, he couldn't act as anti-authoritarian; destroying a car factory for its use of unsafe, inferior materials (action 12), trapping a mine owner in his own mine to force him to improve conditions for his workers (action 3), or tearing down tenement housing in order to force the government to build better, safer apartments (action 8) are all actions that would be seen as actively traitorous in the wake of Pearl Harbor. The Superman office contributed enthusiastically to war propaganda in all the forms of media the character was appearing in (comics, newspaper strips, radio show, and the Fleischer animations). By the end of the war Superman the Character was firmly established as Establishment. Postwar golden age Superman is still devoted to doing the right thing, of course, but now he helps raise money for charity, donates his time and labor to build orphanages, that sort of thing. He's not trying to tear the system down... much as I wish DC would let him try.
Instead of Siegel's original justice cryptid, the furiously kinetic Champion of the Oppressed outsider Superman, postwar to modern day we get a Clark who shifts back and forth on the spectrum of establishmentarianism depending on the writer, but who is generally not allowed to act directly against institutions (Wolfman, Morrison, Waid, Byrne, and Maggin for example all have WILDLY different takes on the relationship between superman and Authority). My personal favorite Take is that Clark as a person is not establishmentarian, but the establishment of superheroes and their conduct codified (or calcified, if you prefer) itself around him and his personal conduct. Both in a Doylist sense and in the continuities where he's the First Superhero a Watsonian one. How does your behavior change when you know people are looking to you to determine what's right and what's allowed for themselves? How does that constrict you, when your actions are dissected and taken for justification? That's why I always think of him as a person whose natural inclination is to be chaotic good, but who restrains himself into being lawful good. Clark would sure LIKE to Solve Capitalism. But he both can't, and will never be allowed to... and that tension, far from being a bad thing, can fuel a good interpretation.
YOU think MK is a selfless forgiving good boi mc. I think he's self-centered, but that doesn't devalue the good deeds that happen as a result. We are not the same
Hey I was stalking ur page just now and tripped over the “dick and tim and food” posts and it made me think of how, during the “Robin in keystone city” arc, pizza is brought up at least twice, and both times tim specified that he doesn’t want pineapple on the pizza. BUT iirc tim normally enjoys or at the very least tolerates pineapple on pizza, and I wanted to know if you thought maybe tim was avoiding pineapple pizza bc it’s a tim and dick thing for him and he’d miss his brother or something
Or maybe I’m just being weird or something idk
HEADCANON ACCEPTED I LOVE THIS
(the context of the panel is that dick ordered pizza, and alfred told him that he could've made food, so dick is saying "uh huh but i bet you wouldn't willingly make anoudille and pineapple pizza though" and alfred is all "no i would NOT and i can barely tolerate that you're eating it in front of me")
anyway so YES clearly tim can't eat andouille or pineapple pizza without Dick!! it'd be lonely
— usagis jealousy during bmc, and if it really is just that? a meta
(read more bc i anticipate this getting very long)
before we talk about bmc lets set the stage a bit: usagi has just defeated the dark kingdom no more than a week ago (its unclear how much time passes btwn the two arcs but i can’t imagine its longer than a week, or even a couple days, as we see usamamo exchange their keepsakes at the end of act 14, something they promised they’d do the next time they saw each other during act 8, which means that this must be the first time theyve seen each other since defeating the dark kingdom, which again, i cant imagine took longer than a couple days) which means she has just experienced: watching her boyfriend die in front of her, being overloaded with a host of tragic memories from her past life (one of them including watching her boyfriend die and killing herself), her boyfriend getting brainwashed, having to kill her boyfriend because there was no getting through to him, killing herself due to the aforementioned trauma, and finally finding out her friends died— sacrificing themselves for her to bring her back. so thats all Crazy we can agree that is crazy for a 14 year old girl to go through? right? okay? good.
now that we’ve agreed on that can you imagine a little girl falling out of a large portal in the sky then threatening you with a GUN (fake sure but she didnt know that originally) and demanding you hand over the overpowered magical artifact you JUST endured all that trauma trying to protect? and then that same girl brainwashes your family? obviously usagi isnt going to trust chibiusa right away. i mean look at what she’s working with, and then when she tries to bring up these concerns no one believes her. i mean sure WE as the audience know chibiusa isnt a threat, and the others think she isnt because they cant see a little girl as particularly threatening but when you look at things from usagis perspective, then OBVIOUSLY she’d be suspicious— i mean she repeatedly refuses to answer any sort of questions (obviously this is not chibiusas fault, shes a scared child and the questioning terrifies her further, but again, think about this from usagis perspective). and again id like to reiterate that all of this is directly after the dark kingdom, usagi hasn’t had any time to heal from those fresh fresh emotional scars Of Course she’s a bit irrational.
now, to the topic at hand, was usagis jealousy really just that? regular jealousy at seeing mamoru spending time with someone who isnt her (even if the person in question was a small child that logically posed no threat to her relationship)?
obviously i dont think so, but let me prove to you its not just simple irrational jealousy but also usagis ptsd and specifically her abandonment issues that are what cause her to react in the way she does.
again, id like to remind the jury of the shit usagi has just gone through and how that all has caused usagi to develop some very serious abandonment issues. we see usagis worst fear(s) represented in nightmare sequences a handful of times throughout the series. exactly twice actually, once in infinity and once in dream and each have the shared theme of her loved ones leaving her in some way. in infinity they turn against her and berate her before ultimately dying, and in dream they’re simply dead. again both times it is very clear that the root of what she fears is abandonment.
these abandonment issues however, first begin to present themselves in arc 2. we even get a nightmare sequence in arc 2 similar to those of arcs 3&4. most interpret this as usagi just being jealous usagi. however really look at it, its not that she’s just afraid of mamoru being taken away by chibiusa, she’s afraid of them both abandoning her. look at what she says “wait! where are you going? dont leave me behind!” (or “wait! where are you going? dont leave me here!” in the eternal edition, i prefer the crystal translation simply because it makes it more explicit her issue is them leaving her alone) if it truly truly was an issue of jealousy why would she be afraid of them both leaving her behind? why say something like that? wouldnt it make more sense to say something like…. i dunno “chibiusa? dont take him from me!” instead?
once again, everything she goes through in arc 1 is a big contributor in this, however recall arc 2 begins with the senshi being picked off one-by-one (all except minako), and usagi can do nothing but watch and it eats her up inside. she quite literally begins to lose everyone dear to her all over again even while the last time is still so fresh in her mind.
and during most of this what does chibiusa do? she stays secretive, doesnt give usagi any information even when usagi tells her she cant trust her if she doesnt. (again i wanna reiterate that this is no fault of chibiusas however its not usagis fault either) so of course usagi begins to register chibiusa as a threat, and again with the information she has + her inarguable connection to the black moon clan this isnt a logical leap in the slightest.
thus when mamoru begins to spend more time with chibiusa instead of her it causes two things to happen. a) usagi is left without the emotional support she desperately needs in all of this (through no fault of mamoru, he completely misreads what usagi needs in this particular situation, he thinks that by helping with chibiusa it’ll ease her stress to have one less thing off her plate, however of course we know this does the opposite) and b) she begins to register chibiusa as a genuine threat to mamorus safety. usagis terrified of losing him all over again when she just got him back. look at this scene, i mean really truly look at it. look at what usagis saying, this doesnt sound like the ramblings of a jealous girlfriend it sounds like someone who’s terrified of losing their most important person all over again. “stay here with me. never go away. ill do everything i can to protect you…” (or “…i wanna be with you. dont go away. ill protect you with everything i have” in crystal, here i prefer the eternal edition again bc i think it more explicitly defines usagis problem) these lines just don’t make sense under the simple jealousy interpretation, what does protecting him have anything to do with envy at the time hes spending with chibiusa and not with her? nothing. shes not upset at that, she puts emphasis on protecting him because thats the true root of the problem, shes afraid of losing him again to yet another supernatural threat after the crystal.
and to close out id like to show everyone the viz dub version of this scene because i think it sums up my points incredibly well, as well as making it abundantly clear what the root of usagis problems Really are, specifically through the inclusion of the line “i wont lose you again”
Jacobi and Eiffel both externalize all their problems, but Jacobi projects his own flaws and failures to be other people's fault, while Eiffel thinks his redemption/solution is only in other people's opinions and out of his control, discuss.
i've said before i think the most interesting thing about jacobi is that the finale is the start of a character arc for him, not the culmination of one. and i think this is a big part of that. in things that break other things, he says, "it wasn't anybody's fault. everyone was doing their jobs right, but it just... two guys died. good guys." and i think that line makes a lot of sense if he actually was at fault, or at least feels that he was and can't admit it to himself. in dirty work, he realizes he blames himself for maxwell's death. and then: "i was wrong and people died. and the only thing i can do is not be wrong again."
it creates a perfect loop from his recruitment to where he's at in the finale: two people are dead, but he survived. he's out of a job. what now? i think that's an interesting set up for how jacobi's storyline post-canon could mirror and intersect with lovelace's - they're both people who have been blinded by hurt and anger and desire for revenge, and have had to step back from that ledge. they've both lost "their" people - the only survivors of their respective missions. i don't believe jacobi will ever willingly stay in contact with the rest of the hephaestus crew, but lovelace...? narratively, it could work. "i've got this friend" about lovelace in the finale is an opening. if jacobi's arc so far is a loop, and he's finally open to change, then he and lovelace could also share a thematic link re: breaking cycles.
as for eiffel, i would go so far as to say he completely removes himself from the equation. he projects his desire for redemption onto other people - people like hilbert, who absolutely don't share that desire - but he doesn't want to be in the story. it wouldn't matter if someone told eiffel he was a good person - he wouldn't believe them - and when people do call him out, like in shut up and listen, he takes that as confirmation he's irredeemable and everyone is better off without him. both jacobi and eiffel are treating themselves as passive actors to avoid accountability, in some way, but what eiffel really needs to accept is that he's the only one who can live his life. he isn't a uniquely bad person doomed to harm and failure; he's just like everyone else.
(maybe worth noting in eiffel's view of himself as a bad person vs. the antagonists of the show, including jacobi, is how eiffel sees it as an inherent character flaw that he doesn't want but can't escape, while "let's go be monsters" etc. is an active choice and rationalization from someone who signed up to be the bad guy, who decided he could compartmentalize and live with that.)
another kinda interesting place i'd say jacobi's worldview clashes with eiffel's is that they are both centered on people first. unlike maxwell and kepler, i don't think jacobi really believes in his own version of The Big Picture - he just believes in people who believe. it's progress for the sake of progress, but the nature of that progress isn't his to define; he's not even pretending it is. "because people like me - and people like him - make it possible for people like maxwell to do their jobs." and where eiffel's perspective necessitates recognizing the humanity in everyone, jacobi rationalizes his actions through a strict us-versus-them mentality. so much of how he operates is explained by that line: "there aren't sides. there are just people you'd do things for and people you'd do things to."
tell me why the first ep of the opla has me in NEAR TEARS it's just smthn about the /genuine-ness/ of it? the lack of tired snarky fourth wall breaking jokes? it's an objectively silly plot about pirates and friendship and it is played completely straight and it is SO refreshing? for things to be allowed to be genuine and full of heart? these actors giving it the gravitas of shakespeare?
there's a time and a place for meta humour ofc, but recent trends spurred on by a franchise which shall remain nameless have resulted in so many movies/books/shows that are completely soulless because they can't take themselves seriously. there always has to be a joke, a snarky remark, a fourth wall break, god forbid we experience emotions deeply and genuinely and guileless-ly. idk if it's a reflection of societal fear of vulnerability or simply a cash grab in appealing to the lowest common denominator by avoiding strong (and therefore possibly alienating) emotion
J.L. Laynesmith taking the 'Buckingham Did It™' route for the murder of the Princes in the Tower AND the rumors of Edward IV's bastardy ... I have to laugh
i wanna transplant a lot of how ive written botw/totk link into my og one i think..... mostly just because writing for him last year made me realise how much i enjoy seeing how far you can go with using minimal dialogue + actions and expressions over words to convey thoughts and feelings, both from that pov and from others
"we want more weird queers" there are weird (/pos) queers. everywhere. there's the transhets, the cisgays, the aro/ace cishets, the aspecs who are involved in kinks or anything related to sexual acts — especially the aspecs who are involved in sex work. there are cis people who use pronouns that aren't associated with their sex. there are trans people who use pronouns associated with their sex. transhet t4t exists, it's somewhere and everywhere. transfem butches exist. fem transmasc exist. alloace people exist. alloaro people exist. queerplatonic relationships exist between various people of the entire fucking spectrum. don't forget about the trans queers who don't wanna go on hrt or get top/bottom surgery, who want to present themselves in their own way. the queers who look wildly different from their past selves, the queers who look the same. there are so much of us here, and we all exist on a spectrum. we are hiding but we are also open.
there are so much more of us here. support the weird queers that already exist. please.