[ID: a digital illustration of three D&D characters drawn by @sadfishkid. Anouk belongs to me, Sean belongs to @livingchancy and Jace belongs to @cordyceps-fungus. The illustration shows the three characters lying side by side in the grass surrounded by pink and blue forget-me-nots and blue and pink hydrangea bushes. Anouk lies on the left, Sean in the middle and Jace on the right side. Both Anouk and Jace are holding Sean’s hands and have their heads turned towards Sean with a smile on their faces. Anouk is a black skinned half-orc half aasimar with small wings at the side of their head, five eyes on their forehead and white eyes. They have long, straight, black hair and pointy ears. They’re dressed in white and gold armor. Sean is a white human with dark blonde, short curls, a long face and closed eyes. She is wearing a black corset, fishnets and a black frilly skirt as well as a black leather choker. Jace is a brown human man with dark hair, many piercings and dressed in warm orange, yellow and brown tones. His chest is exposed and he has one hand behind his head. The viewer looks down on them. End ID]
Blessed polycule of my heart <333 Haunted/cursed angel paladin, goth autistic cleric and an alcoholic monk who can’t feel pain. This is the birthday present for my two beloveds Liz and Ella 🍉🍑 🫐
219 notes
·
View notes
clones' independence from the Republic and the Empire would have stood on its own as a series, but the writers for YEARS have been hesitant to have any singular clone go "too far" because they either don't understand or don't want to go into the implications of having a member of a slave army call a spade a spade. then they'd have to admit that the CIS is shit but also the Republic is worse than previously presented. that's why they keep acting like the clones have as much and as equal a choice in what they do as any other character in star wars. Any decision they make is stifled by their upbringing and the violent consequences of going against the grain. this isn't to undermine characters that do make difficult choices, good or bad, but come on.
ive seen random people in this fandom make the most poignant and beautiful analyses and arguments about the clones, how they're written, how they should be written. never shying away from the moral dilemmas of the Jedi helping to run a slave army but also being the only option that wouldn't dehumanize them entirely. the moral dilemmas in honor, duty, pride, loyalty, but also individuality and inner peace and autonomy. not wanting to be used. not just following orders.
but what happens time and again when a clone is given the opportunity? they choose to fight. every single time. they say "this is what i was made for!" as they die in battle or rebellion. and i understand that choosing to fight for the rebellion is leagues different from choosing to fight for the republic, i understand that fighting for the rebellion is a noble cause regardless, but at the same time...the only clone who doesn't want a life of warfare is cut? and then before that, slick? who killed his brothers?
48 notes
·
View notes
My favorite MASH thing is when they have to do field surgery with even less resources, sanitation, and time than they have at the unit. Charles longing to be back at the 4077 as he stabs a guy in the chest with a pocketknife to alleviate pressure on his collapsed lung. Hawkeye dipping bloodied hands in an almost empty basin of alcohol for half a second between patients at the aid station and knowing it doesn’t do any good. Father Mulcahy being talked through a tracheotomy over the phone. Margaret delivering a baby on a dirt floor. It just raises the stakes and shows how much these people both need and want to help, no matter what.
171 notes
·
View notes
Hi! I understand if you don't feel like sharing it ,but i really would like to read your meta about that Henry/Anne scene in BSR ''Isn't that enough?''. I hope you have a nice day.
"is it enough for you?" , but yes, i actually elaborated on this a little more elsewhere in other tags because i used that shot of that scene again for another edit.
so, expanding where i left off:
the images chosen are more the vibe for the quotes but the one from BSR is very specific
it's a great scene and it's so well-acted bcus she feels BAD for him here.
she pities him. she feels bad for him because he's losing her bcs she's not going to settle for these terms
because she knows she's amazing
and she's so self-posessed in the scene
and he cannot handle this and so it manifests in the reaction(you're making a big mistake; except that is his own big projection)
she's willful and knows her worth and won't diminish herself for anyone
...and i chose the reaction from the scene bcus it's not necessarily at odds with these descriptions (of her 'prudence')
bcs it takes a lot of dignity and self-worth and inward grace to stand one's ground enough (to withstand the 'tide of their prince')
...to give that rejection that by all social and cultural norms and graces she was simply not supposed to give. or was at least supposed to couch in more self-effacing terms.
but yeah anyway i know people thought BSR was 'trashy' but i actually thought the acting and chemistry between them was really great and maybe even lifted the writing from its weaker points.
because just the way he reels back at the line 'is it enough for you?' in all its pity-wrought glory...firstly, because it seems like it's a question no one has ever thought to ask him before, and secondly, so it gives way into that transformation from the shock into anger (how a 'lesser' person is daring to pity him, how he doesn't want her pity, he wants her love) which is just...chef's kiss. she absolutely obliterates his dignity here, not only in her rejection but in this eloquent explanation as to why this is her answer, and in the finality of her conviction. it is delicious. they could have this scene anywhere, in this darkened staircase for its the tudors copycat setting in this lithuanian palace, or on a fucking greenscreen, and it would still be just as powerful if these were its actors.
(im realizing that if anyone who is reading this hasn't watched they're going to think i'm an insane person based on this description... so hopefully the actual beats of the scene below will reveal what i mean, lol:
there's also a compelling subversion of (modern) expectation here, because...the only different thing in this equation is the status of the man asking to love her, asking why love is 'not enough'. for most 16c women of anne's status, no, 'love' wasn't enough. security was preferred. and, actually, it's very anachronistic how much this opinion is villianized (see, tobg:
...when it's like...yeah, a man's love was considered worthless. if it wasn't, they wouldn't have considered betrothal contracts to be a necessary evil!). it's very easy for him to say that she would 'want for nothing' (households, jewels, etc, one assumes), and she isn't allowing his ease: she's contradicting him, and pointing out that there is little security in the position of royal mistress.
herein lies the constant counterfactual moralistic tutting: anne 'should've just become a mistress,' always paired with 'this would, in the end, have made her 'safer.'' and it would have, as we know (not anne), but it would also, as she points out here, likely lead into her being a nonentity (a voice on the pillow, a woman hiding underneath the sheets and behind the bed curtains, an ornament for dancing), and she didn't want to be one: she wanted to be partner and collaborator of her future husband, not the diversion and darling of someone else's.
tl;dr the scene is powerful because she feels bad for him (she feels bad for herself, too, but she only allows him to see the former:
7 notes
·
View notes