#but it's like bc greg is always around tom so he only sees tom's side | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gregoftom · 11 months

Note

there's just Something about how greg's constantly asserting himself and being his own advocate for his worth here and that he is deserving of all these higher positions and money and respect…and yet when it comes to tom's affection of him he's completely doubtful

there's not a, 'yes of course he Loves me I deserve to be Loved!'

when tom asks him out, after tom kisses him, a million other times after tom's shown affection for him, greg's always filled with a, 'is this real?' reaction. something he just doesn't have for his up-and-up career status. like, for how awkward he is, he's not shy about pressing to get things.

but Love from tom? it makes him so shy to the point of lack of believing whether it's true, whether he could possibly actually be the recipient of such a thing. he doubts it all.

and even in s4 after they're best friends!!

(and I hope hope hope tom's sticker and double 'I got you,' that was like a cradle, put an end to all that doubt! because what a beautiful end to that arc!!)

hhhhhhhhnnhhf 😩 yeah god it huuuurts and like, you can understand it when you think about greg’s past and how ppl treat him - even ken is neutral at best towards him and he’s the nicest one to him apart from tom lol so it’s no surprise he starts to think he’s unloveable. ppl will just use him and his only worth is what he can give them. his grandpa and mother hold him to an impossible standard in that they’re always shifting the bar, obv more so the former bc we don’t see much w marianne, and act like he’s in the wrong every time. most people come to him when he can give them something, tom is the only exception and even then at least at the start he’s still asking things of him and enjoying the information he can provide. though the difference is tom’s affection is not dependant on it… even if greg wasn’t good at sponging info tom would still love him and keep him around. but greg cannot comprehend that bc why is this time any different? why would someone just… love him, without terms and conditions attached? i think he only starts to realise in 3.09. still not 100% in s4 but i think like, there’s definitely more of a hopefulness that maybe tom means it bc greg tries a lot harder and acts like tom’s literal partner because he wants to be more than just his side piece - he wants to be the sporus who is married to nero. he wants to take care of tom but not in a serving way, in a relationship way. but tbf to him tom is suddenly being cagey and keeping stuff from him and withholding affection and giving him only scraps of info and this rattles greg bc he thought they were progressing? that they were best friends and partners? hell tom acts like his mf husband. and then you’ve got tom and shiv screwing again and on possible reconciliation terms so that probably adds to greg’s fears - it all comes together to shake his faith. he even asks tom in america decides “where we are in terms of us”, referencing matsson and the poor way he treats him but that he likes the trust, which sounds like where his relationship with tom started out and where it has come to and also letting tom know he can trust him, don’t shut me out.

tom is much the same in that he thinks he needs status and power and money to secure greg when greg has genuine affection for him. he doesn’t notice how greg doesn’t pull rank in america decides bc he’s too focused on keeping his position, and later on he’s too set on becoming ceo to realise he’s actually pushing greg away, frightening him into making that call he did to ken in the finale. the fight in the bathroom is the culmination of their frustration in how much they love each other and how the other just doesn’t understand that they do. tom can only see it as mistrust and disloyalty when it was a move for survival and attacks greg. greg can only see tom getting mad at him as ignoring all the hard work and love he has been putting in for him the entire season and that’s why he fights back. it is not fair to him that tom only notices when he does something wrong, when he makes a mistake, not when he does things right, not when he supports and cares for him like an ideal spouse.

i do think the sticker scene was laced with something - it felt different. special. i’ve said before but tom’s forgiveness was not by way of the materialistic this time, he didn’t offer money. he only offered his compassion. he told greg that regardless of his mistakes, he still has him. and greg probably realises then that the reason tom has been acting how he has is bc he’s been fighting for this position so hard to keep greg safe. i think this moment they realise that actually they love each other very much and it’s actually like. for real. greg’s sheer happiness, plus the way he checks tom out again like he has multiple times throughout s4 lol, indicates not only his relief but feeling comfortable and confident enough to act around tom like he has before - like his best friend and partner.

#tomgreg #yeah the sticker scene i never fucking get tired of i won. i won i don’t care

52 notes · View notes

tomwambsmilk · 2 years

Note

“And has a tendency to want to be good in this world. And she can be pretty harsh on Tom and I think Greg’s gut would be like, “You know what, leave her you’ll be less tortured.” taking out the buzz worthy quotes, i don’t think morality always has to be an overall picture of the world. maybe it can just be that he wants to see his friend have better. i just feel like that is a valid theme for both tom and greg, they tend to be the most open and probably think with their hearts because they don’t have to be as guarded or are as traumatized as the roy siblings

So I didn't answer this right away because I wanted to roll it around my brain for a bit. I don't necessarily entirely agree, but at the same time, you are kind of getting at some interesting ideas so I want to break it down a little.

But first - I'm going to drop the screenshot just so we're clear on what Nich actually said in its full context. Because he did say Greg was "on the side of morality in the show”. We don't have to talk about it but that did come out of his mouth, and if we take it at face value I do think it's a questionable statement:

Nich Braun is really the one who brought morality into this particular conversation. Yes, we can absolutely analyze the end of season 3 and Greg's potential response to Tom's actions through other lenses, but the reason we're talking about morality is that Nich started talking about morality, and his explanation for why Greg would be supportive of Tom hinged on the idea that Greg "wants to be good in this world" which… is a position that implies that either Greg sees himself as a moral actor or Nich sees Greg as a moral actor, depending on whether we take this at face value or assume Nich was implicitly speaking from a “Greg headspace”. (I do think there’s some real ambiguity in that.) And that's a really fascinating statement given how rarely his actions seem to reflect that on the show, hence the other post I wrote breaking down what we can assume about Greg's understanding of morality and what it means to be good from this. I do think a lot of people are overly fixating on the “Greg is on the side of morality” and “Shiv can be a real bitch” without considering the wider context - but we also can’t discount that he said those things just bc they’re kind of uncomfortable.

(And now that you mention it and I've been chewing on it for a while, it's extra interesting that Nich decided to bring up morality when he clearly didn't need to... He could've just said "Tom is Greg's friend and he wants better for him" and that would've been true and valid. So his need to morally justify it - or his reading that there is a moral dimension to this - is extra fascinating. But I'm getting sidetracked.)

So. Depending on exactly what it is you mean by "I don't think morality always has to be an overall picture of the world" I'm not sure how much I agree with that. I do agree that morality isn't the only lens through which to analyze the Succession characters and their actions and motivations, although it is one I keep coming back to because it is interesting to me personally. That being said, I do think it is an omnipresent dimension, even if we aren't actively analyzing the show through that lens. Most actions do have a moral dimension to them, and that's especially true on Succession. It's not always a clear-cut dimension - there are a lot of nuances involved in the choices the characters make - but I do think the questions of "are these choices morally good? are they morally bad? are they somewhere in between? what does this say about the characters?" are inescapable. It's very valid to have a conversation about "was it morally justifiable for Tom to betray Shiv, and is it morally justifiable for Greg to support him in that", even if the characters themselves aren't using that as a decision-making framework, because there is a moral dimension to those decisions, even if the characters don't think of it that way. And that conversation is especially valid because it is a complex question, and while I do have my own opinions on the subject there are a lot of different viewpoints that I think have some degree of validity to them.

It's also perfectly valid to say "tbh I don't really care and that isn't a lens that's super interesting to me personally". Morality is only one of the issues Succession grapples with, and you aren't required to hold an equal interest in every single facet of the show.

I also want to touch very briefly on the end of your ask because the idea that Tom and Greg are "thinking with their hearts" is REALLY interesting to me. I think you probably aren't gonna like the rest of my answer, so I'll say upfront that I do think analyzing the end of Season 3 through the lens of Tom and Greg's particular relationship, and the ways in which their lesser degree of attachment to the Roys proper allows for a greater degree of openness and emotional intimacy is absolutely a valid take. That's a very real thread, and holding the two of them (and I think Tom in particular) up as a foil to the Roy siblings is certainly interesting. But... I do think you have to go a bit deeper because while that idea is true, it's definitely not quite as straightforward as all that, and I don't think it can be entirely divorced from the question of how you're approaching morality.

On the one hand, you're right that they aren't as guarded as the Roy siblings are... On the other hand, they are still very guarded. Tom isn't very guarded with Shiv in season 1, but he is pretty guarded with Greg - at least in terms of actually expressing affection for him, hence all the bullying (that and the power trip involved, of course). By season 3 this has flipped somewhat, and we see him being more guarded with Shiv and more open with Greg, which is a really fascinating development in the Tom-Greg power dynamic - by being more open with Greg, Tom is effectively giving him a degree of power over him. But it's not as simple as Tom being open so much as - a) Tom seems to have a greater capacity for openness than Shiv and the Roy siblings do, likely as a consequence of not being brought up in the Roy family, and b) who he is open with and when is contingent upon a myriad of different factors. (On top of that - I don't know that Tom is all that open with Shiv at the beginning. We see him eating his emotions quite a lot - in the fight with her at the beginning of 1.06, on their wedding night, Ternhaven - hell, most of Season 2. There's a selective openness there which could be a whole point of analysis on its own.)

And I think I actually would characterize Greg as being pretty guarded, but he's also desperate for connection and affection, and that desire is constantly at odds with his fear of vulnerability. He's anxious that he's going to get burned by Ken, but he gives Ken the papers anyways. Tom is his best friend but he still feels the need to have leverage over him. So yeah, comparatively speaking Tom and Greg are more open than the Roys are, but they are still in the same cutthroat world, and so they can't really be all that open and unguarded. But there is a very interesting arc in terms of how their relationship with each other evolves in this context.

The idea that they think with their hearts is interesting, and if you weren't on anon I'd probably DM you to get some clarification on what exactly it is you mean by that because there are a couple of possible interpretations that come to mind for me. On the one hand, if you're talking about being driven primarily by a desire for love rather than being strategy minded, you're absolutely right - but in that case, this definitely is a trait they share with the Roy siblings. Every single character on this show is primarily motivated by love, even if they aren't admitting that to themselves.

(Another reason that's interesting to me is that I'd actually characterize Tom's arc as learning not to love, as becoming increasingly calloused and self-serving and strategic rather than prioritizing the people he loves. We see that death knell hit his marriage first - understandably, to be sure. I don't think it's going to stop at his marriage, though. I don't think Tom and Greg's relationship is coming out of this unscathed. I think Tom is increasingly starting to think like a Roy, and I think his new partnership with Logan is only going to enhance that, and I think that Greg has proven himself slimy and untrustworthy in the past and that he may end up as collateral damage because of this. But those are just my personal predictions, so who knows how it will actually play out.)

Anyways. To circle back, the one way Tom and Greg are different from the Roy sibs is Logan has spent the Roy kids' whole lives pitting them against each other. That means that in their pursuit of Logan's love, they have no choice but to go after each other. That's why they're only able to unite at the end of Season 3 after they've each individually despaired of receiving Logan's love and approval. They can either have Logan's love or they can have each other's, but not both.

Whereas Tom and Greg aren't stuck in that kind of dichotomy. Tom also wants to be loved, but his primary target is Shiv, and she isn't asking him to sacrifice any of his other relationships. She does ask him to sacrifice his career ambitions, which he does until he realizes it likely still will not result in the kind of marriage he wants. Greg wants to be loved by anybody, frankly, and Tom is the one who's most consistently validated him (as Nich pointed out), so by Season 3 Tom is the target of Greg's affections. And by the end of season 3, we get the sense that Tom does love Greg and will continue to do so even if Greg continues to try and fuck him over (although obviously, he'd prefer for that not to happen), if only because he doesn't hold Greg's momentary jaunt with Kendall against him. So yeah, in a sense both of them are able to pursue love more freely and openly because they don't have Logan pitting them against each other. (I do think this is likely to change at some point, but again, we're wading into my predictions here).

There's another dimension to the idea of them "thinking with their hearts" though, which is that it could also refer to the idea of them thinking with their desires. And this is where we circle back to the question of morality, I think, because... It sounds lovely and romantic to think with your heart, but if you want to be a good person you also need to think with your actual head. You kind of need both. Yes, I think a general state of willing the well-being of other people (which can be characterized as 'thinking with the heart') is important, but the thing is you also have to contend with the fact that your desires and your emotions can mislead you. In the course of your life, you will want things that do harm to others, or to yourself. This is part of being human. Your emotions, if not properly managed, will cause you to misread situations and react inappropriately. Desires and emotions are tools, important tools, but that can't be all you're running on because you will get into trouble.

And that's where I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head, albeit possibly accidentally if your end goal was to examine this through an amoral lens. I think it's one of the reasons why people struggle with the relatability of the Succession characters. They aren't good people, they keep doing things that are morally reprehensible, and yet... we find them compelling because we get it. We understand their desires and we recognize them in ourselves. We understand their emotions and we relate to them ourselves. What they're doing is wrong but we see how they got from point A to point B. The extent to which this is true for you personally for each character depends on your particular personality and traumas and issues, but I think it is true for everybody and that's part of why there's so much rancid discourse in the fandom. You see a character that's relatable and you either become a blind apologist for them, or you despise them because they remind you of what you hate in yourself. And I do think that instinct is there for everyone, even if you've learned to temper it, and if you don't think it's there for you that might be because you're lying to yourself just a bit. (Or maybe you're a normal well-adjusted person who finds all the characters abhorrent, but I think most people who are part of the Tumblr succession fandom don't fall into that category.)

To bring it back to Tom and Greg - yeah, I think they might actually be "thinking with their hearts", and I think that's part of the problem. They're being driven by their emotions and their desires, and they aren't thinking about the moral qualities of their actions, and that's why they keep making morally dubious choices, and it's why they're likely to continue making increasingly morally dubious choices. I think on some level that goes for all of the characters on the show, it's just that "thinking with their hearts" looks different for each of them.

(TBH there is a little more to it than just that, if we're going to analyze the moral dimension of these characters, but I'm saving that for a different post because that'll be the tangent to end all tangents.)

I imagine this is a manifestly unsatisfying response because it is basically the opposite of how you want to analyze the show. And at the end of the day - yeah, I do think "Tom is Greg's friend and he wants better for him" is an accurate assessment of the core of what's going on. Where the morality discussion comes in is a) Nich Braun positioning this as a morally good act, or at least a morally good act in Greg's mind, and b) the wider context of Tom betraying Shiv. Because it is possible to say that yes, Tom should leave Shiv, and yes, Shiv has been terrible to him, and no, betraying her like that was not a morally justifiable thing to do, depending on what your moral framework is (side note: personally I do think there is one convincing argument for it being justified, which I don't see laid out very often, but I am restraining myself from getting into it here). So the fact that either Nich or Greg (depending on what Nich Braun actually meant in the interview) thinks what Tom did is morally justified tells us a lot about Greg's moral framework (or possibly Nich's), and if, like me, you already spend a disproportionate amount of time thinking about how the Succession characters approach the concept of morality than that is exceedingly fascinating.

#asks #anon #I do see what you’re saying. I do #and you aren’t necessarily wrong… but the morality conversation is a very valid one #especially because nich brought it up #which is kind of haunting me now bc your ask is what made me realize that he didn’t have to make this a moral question. why did he do that #also I didn’t get to this in the piece bc it would reiterate a lot of what I said yesterday. but Greg’s primary motive being #‘I want what’s best for my friend’ does tell us a lot about how he approaches moral situations #so the two themes - morality and their relationships - are very linked

2 notes · View notes

wingheadshellhead · 7 years

Note

hey wheadshead (or winghshellh, whichever u prefer) what would u say the best comics for black widow and thor are art-wise

lmAO that’s barely shorter than my full url but i empathise with that level of can’t be bothered to type out the full thing.

first: black widow vol. 4: the name of the rose for that daniel acuña art combined with marjorie liu’s writing. if you’ve been around the 616 natasha side of tumblr at all you’ve probably heard abt notr non stop… but… the hype is true. i don’t think acuña is that recognised or praised as being one of marvel’s best artists but i personally really love his crisp style of inking and his work w/ notr has some of the most iconic natasha LooksTM and aesthetics. i also Love the way he’s drawn natasha, and his brief run on avengers vol. 3 as well.

@kevinwada draws some of the Best concept art in the comics industry imo. he’s done some Fantastic natasha artworks and it’s a known fact she’s one of his personal faves to draw.

have to give credit to john buscema for creating the og natasha outfit in amazing adventures. the thick red hair, catsuit and gold belt combo is natasha’s 1st and most easily recognisable look. with gold / silver / bronze age comic art you either Love it or you Hate it, and buscema’s natasha is one of those designs that conveys everything abt the character’s themes and aesthetics with the sharpness and clear-cut simplicity retro art is so good at.

ignoring the covers… (which have greg land, aka has never seen a human woman in his life, and adi granov, whose art is really only suited to the dark gritty grimdark vibe which only works about 50% of the time) john paul leon, but also tom raney / matt milla / scott hanna to lesser degrees, is responsible for the gorgeous art in black widow: deadly origin. honestly: look at this. LOOK @ THAT complimentary colour scheming !! idk why but modern comic artists that aren’t of the very artistic expressionist vibe school (ribic or del mundo come to mind) don’t make enough use of color and it Kills me bc that’s the entire fun of comics ??? seeing artists experiment and have Fun with breaking or subverting genre conventions to create smth exciting and interesting to read is 90% of the joy derived from comics as a visual medium. creators are Sincerely missing out if they think dark tragic storylines all abt angst and misery have to be dim washed-out greyscale, like Lmao look at the whole watchmen universe and it’s number of eisner and hugo awards.

for thor, esad ribic and dean white on thor: god of thunder like whom else…. WHOMST ELSE could it be for creating the art behind one of thor’s most critically acclaimed and well-loved runs of all time. literally the art from this run makes me want to become a 616 thor stan just so i can bask in it 25/8.

marco checchetto takes the cake for drawing some of the most attractive marvel characters ever tbh. his absolute Best work will always be thor in avengers world, but if you’ve seen his clint or frank c astle it’s a pretty close tie. the thirst is real, and ridiculous.

again, my guy kevin wada has drawn some Stunning thor artworks if you haen’t seen them already. we are Blessed by his entire existence.

olivier coipel is a Bit of a hit-or-miss depending on the character and his thor art especially is kind of inconsistent, he’s prone to drawing thor (and other Tol Swol Beefy types like steve for e.g.) as just a giant block of muscle. but idk if it’s the storyline or the rugged cast-from-disgrace look thor’s got going in the unworthy thor but i really loved the art from what i saw in the issues so far.

#mod: answer #anonymous #i wish i had more thor recs but ?#i feel like he's a hard character to draw well #in the same genre as steve #like they're often the ones that tend to fall somewhere on the spectrum of rob liefeld monstrosity #legit thor stans might know some lesser-known mini comics or smaller runs with good thor art tho idk #feel free to comment if so

10 notes · View notes