#but on 90% of life things are nuanced

[godsbox-a]

me n' my little gojou's larger than you realize compilation

#bc this is me still thinking about it #probably also like.... #90% of the times that we see him he's wearing that 'it's ok. make fun of me. that's what i'm here for' demeanor #he reduces himself for the people around him #he makes himself touchable in that way #less larger than life more grounded and human #but anyway the point of that whole thing is that sometimes some ppl could really use a little more nuance in their generalizations #in the ways they perceive certain characteristics #one trait doesn't automatically make one generalization true! y'know! that's weird pigeonholing! #but anyway! #i was listening to the spice girls the whole time i was doing this so i hope that shows through :peace: #. ☁️☁️ : 𝚜𝚘𝚞𝚛𝚌𝚎 𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚛𝚒𝚊𝚕. ⁀ . #also me holding in my little hands the way he subtly but firmly inserts himself between yuuta and getou....... good guy

[fruit-colored-ninja]

normally try to be a big believer in people being allowed to have different opinions and stuff but also i’m about to start blocking wu haters for real

#just. like 90% of the stuff people hate him for is bad writing on the shows part #got pissed and made a post about this on my main last week but like. its just openly admitting that you refuse to look at nuanced characters #WITH nuance. taking everything a character does in the worst faith possible. it's so boring and so exhausting #sorry i've seen Several things in the last few weeks that have made me want to punch a wall #like ninjago is a bit of a mess! but one thing they really do do their best at is acknowledging. this is wu he's been under a lot of pressur #his entire life he's made a lot of mistakes but he also cares so much and seeing people erase the fact that he Does care makes me feel batty #okay. rant over

[doberbutts]

The problem with the concept that there are trans men who don’t have male privilege is that it seems to imply that there are trans women who DO have it, which is a concept that is widely agreed to be unequivocally transmisogynistic. Any rebuttal for this?

My rebuttal is; I know trans women who have lived in my house and sat on my couch and watched movies and played videogames with me who have told me to my face that they did receive male privilege on a similar incredibly conditional, individual, and situational basis similar to how I am describing for trans men, how it relied on the closet and total stealth, and very aware they had to be of the line they were toeing, and how much worse they are treated now that they are out and transitioning, and how afraid they are to say it because of rabid people online who are looking for any excuse whatsoever to hurt them when they deal with that enough in their everyday lives.

I am forever reminded of this older interview (mid-90s early 2000s I think) of transgender Japanese citizens and this one person who was probably what we would call a trans woman. And, like my butch friend, was trapped in a situation in which there was absolutely zero room to breathe. They were amab, married to a woman with multiple children, working as a businessman to support the family. They said how they always felt like a woman on the inside, and how they knew that could never be a reality for them, so they didn't see much point in pursuing anything because it would break their family apart. The only thing they could do was make various cute needlework girly things during their daily commute to and from work. They had some cover story for their wife that they were buying them from a shop for their daughters or something.

Do you think that this person, who is perceived by everyone around them to be a cis man for several decades, does not benefit from male privilege in any way despite probably not actually being a man? Do you understand what I'm talking about when I say that this is a topic that needs to be discussed with far more delicacy and nuance than "man privilege woman not privilege"?

Do you think that all of the accounts of trans women out there saying "when I came out and started identifying as and passing for a woman, people suddenly started treating me much worse" and "I frequently have to boymode because otherwise my life is too dangerous" aren't discussions of exactly what I'm talking about?

Privilege is a tricky, complicated thing. It's also something bigoted society bestows upon you, and not a moral critique of your own existence. TERFs and MRAs both have poisoned the well, but that's not a reason to completely disregard the much-needed grace that has to be had during these conversations.

Personally I think any trans person's experience with "male privilege" is shakey at best and entirely contingent on a wide number of factors that you can't just point at their gender and say yes or no. I think it's way more complicated than that. And I don't think anyone is lesser for having or not having it, either. Gender is a morally neutral thing. Gender presentation is a morally neutral thing. It is okay to exist. It's okay to have a complicated existence.

[unclefathersantateddy]

One of my fave things about the Bob Burger show is how dynamic they write the children. In most shows, kids are just written to be small adults with a rare "remember this character is a child" line once a season or smn (e.g. Stewie Griffin is adult coded 90% of the time with a Baby Joke on the rare occasion). Whereas the Burger show CONSISTENTLY writes kids as KIDS. Flaws and all.

This scene just happened and it got me thinking.

Tina & Louise were having a ~moment~

Gene: hey Rudy shall we have a moment like that?

RS Rudy: sure I could go for a moment

Gene: pull my finger

Rudy: you got it, buddy :)

Whilst this particular example is mild, Bob's Burgers consistently writes kids as naive and juvenile (not to be conflated with "innocent", we are not touching on Purity Culture in this post), as well as being the only show with the titanium balls to write kids as gross.

Kids are gross, kids are fkn disgusting lmao. They're sticky and gunky and explorative and curious. But most universally, kids are GROSS.

I've seen a lot of the (admittedly Reddit side) fandom give backlash about the recurring fart/booger/etc. mentions in the show because they find them gross. But that's just it, kids ARE gross. Kids find fart/toilet humour hysterical, as well as booger or bodily fluid jokes.

The fact that the writing team consistently write nuanced, niche, yet very Real Life behaviours and mannerisms for the kids both individually and collectively shows they maintain a level of attention to detail that most other popular family cartoons seem to fall short on.

Does seem like Bouchard's rule of "Integrity comes before any Bit" has been loyally upheld by the writing team across the board, transferred onto characters of all ages to produce dynamic, age-appropriate behaviours, and will continue to give the Burger show the edge of depth that has propelled it into being one of the most beloved comfort shows of the 2010s.

#bobs burgers #bob's burgers #burger analysis #bob belcher #louise belcher #linda belcher #gene belcher #tina belcher #regular sized rudy #loren bouchard #adult animation #adult cartoons

[bewires]

oppenheimer criticisms I haven't seen but think would be fair:

-choice to have 90% of florence pugh's screentime being "hysterical topless woman"

-movie does not pass bechdel test at all; otoh it is a historical biopic representing the life of a man to whose field of study very few women had access at the time and the movie makes a point to show those women gaining access. like. it's not a movie about women at all, and I doubt I will see nolan make such a movie ever, but beyond florence pugh's character there are some good and nuanced moments in there especially with emily blunt but also with minor characters

-early sequences of tortured baby oppenheimer dreaming the beauty of physics are very overwrought

-choice to not shoot on location in germany (look this one is just for me I have been to all the places oppenheimer studied (I am not a theoretical physics fangirl but I know several) and the only place they chose not to actually film in person is göttingen which I take personal offense at)

-they cast matthias schweighöfer in a hollywood movie. no excuses for that one tbh.

oppenheimer criticisms I have seen and think are unfair

-"nolan can't make a good war movie" bc he will not make an intersectional war movie. potentially accurate in re dunkirk, which I didn't see bc I don't like war movies, but in this case he did not make a war movie, he made a historical biopic. the war is relevant, obviously, but the movie is not at all about the battlefield or the front, it is about the life of a physicist, and yes, it's not very intersectional.

-the effects of the a-bomb on the people of japan are not given due diligence. I understand people disagreeing about this but I have also seen several posts of people going "I won't watch this but I bet it doesn't" and uh. I think it does. I think every moment in this movie after the trinity test is entirely about oppenheimer realizing the impact of his research and it is shown several times, excruciatingly, how aware he is of what the effects of the a-bomb were. we do not see the bomb, nor do we see japan, because again, it is a historical biopic about this one dude and he wasn't there. this is also the first time I have seen a mainstream hollywood movie make repeat and pointed note of the fact that in a military sense the use of a-bombs in japan was not necessary.

-movie is pro-war/glorifies the a-bomb/glorifies oppenheimer. I think the strongest case you can make is that it glorifies the a-bomb because movie splosions are cool. but I also think the movie's biggest strength is its ambiguity. whose fault is it there was an a-bomb? is it oppenheimer's? he sure thinks so! is it einstein's? he sure thinks so at least indirectly! is it the american government's? they sure think so and they're proud of it (all of these according to the various chracters of this movie). is it a good thing they developed the a-bomb? several characters have several differing opinions on this! oppenheimer himself seems very divided and unsure by the end of the movie and cannot make a judgment call. in the end (much like with cillian murphy's other iconic character who wears a hat cough cough) if people walk out of this movie as fans of the character or his actions imo that's on them and not on the authorship of the movie

#oppenheimer #I think it was a very good movie that's all #the cultural impact remains to be seen #and there are grounds for concern there #but the morality policing I will not watch the impure movie tumblr posts #really grind my gears

[sixth-light]

I've been thinking a lot lately* about how artistic works are so intimately products of their moment and in conversation with it, and how easy this is to overlook both in terms of discussing a work and in terms of anticipating or considering new additions to an older work.

The first is important because so many judgements that can be made about a work are only meaningful when you know what their context was. What readers need or want to see, particularly in terms of representation, is hugely mediated by what else is available to them at the time. Yeah this is about stuff like "Rocky Horror was progressive when it was created" but also it's about stuff like "the John Carter movie bombed because it was regarded as derivative", when in fact the source material originated a bunch of the 'derivative' scenes and tropes that were then used by better-known movies before a John Carter movie ever got made.

The second is important because...even if you come back to a work, as a creator, you can only make new parts of it as the person you are now, in conversation with the world and genre as it is now, not as it was when you started. Taking a mildly-infamous-among-fantasy-fans example, Melanie Rawn's unfinished Ambrai trilogy; she's often said that she can't finish it because her life has moved on and...as sad as I am it was never finished, I think that's probably smart! She could write a third book one day, maybe, but it never could or would be the third book she would have written in the 1990s. And even if she did manage that somehow, the genre has moved on in such a way that it would feel weird and probably quite offputting to read a book doing with gender and feminism what the Ambrai books were doing in the '90s, because they are/were inherently in conversation with an era of fantasy that is now past.

All of which is to say that:

as a reader (or watcher) I think it's good to hold in mind, when engaging with a work from a time and/or place unfamiliar to you, the extent of what you don't know about the context of the work

as a creator, I think it's good to be very realistic about what you're going to actually achieve when you are making something over a long time period or coming back to something you left unfinished. You can totally do that! It can be incredibly rewarding! But the thing you make now is not the thing you would have made then, probably not even the thing you imagined you were going to make then, and that's just the nature of art.

*The reason I have been thinking about this is partly books I have been reading (Mara of the Acoma, you are my blorbo) and partly a very fun podcast I have been listening to which has re-read The Ruins of Ambrai and done a lot of discussion about its context, finishing up with a great interview with Kate Elliott about writing fantasy in the '90s (and writing it now, as she is still writing great but different books!). Anyway go listen to the Hot Nuance Book Club, it's a good time.

#meta #writing #fandom #melanie rawn

[radioactive-earthshine]

Hi. I really enjoy your analysis and I was wondering if you could explain why Wally is so mean to Bart? Maybe mean is too strong but as you read Impulse it gets hard to read sometimes because it comes off as just bullying and not just 90s sitcom teasing.

Hello!

The most direct answer for why Wally is the way he is with Bart is simultaneously simple and complex with nuance that any reader of Wally's run should have been able to catch onto pretty easily.

And no, the answer isn't just "he's a jerk" even though yes, he is a jerk (Bart is too) but there's more to it.

1.) He was a little incredibly jealous of Don and Dawn for existing and he felt like their existence threatened his status with his Uncle Barry. We all know blood =/= family in this circle, but to Wally it meant MORE to him.

It's also important to note that Wally and Barry's relationship is unique in the greater examples of DC as Wally refers to Barry thoroughly as his uncle, and their tether together was through marriage (Iris). Even so, Wally was as close to Barry as a son, and the feelings they had were mutual. Wally was not just assigning himself a position within Barry's life erroneously, he is family. Period.

The Flash (1987) #109

Wally knows that Barry had kids (Iris told him and Bart had to come from somewhere) but when Jenni shows up we finally see his true introspection and rumbling thoughts about the situation of them - that he is jealous of them even though he's learned that Barry dies when they are young and didn't even get to have a relationship with him.

The Flash (1987) #114

Later, Wally finally gets to meet Don and Dawn in the future and things are tense between all of them at first. Wally is self conscious of his thoughts concerning them, that he is jealous, and there is some mutual jealousy between all three because the Tornado Twins, while Barry's children, grew up without him when Wally did.

Wally got to have a father/child relationship with Barry and they didn't.

The Flash (1987) #114

The Twins let this go and Wally does partially but there are other instances where Wally persists there is a rivalry between them later. For Wally the biodetermination is very much a part of his insecurities in this situation.

(also this is a side note they are not the catalyst or inspiration to the Legion of Super-Heroes but they do need to die to make way for a future to have it, Wally doesn't know this and probably just assumes they were)

The Flash (1987) #148

Wally continues to be jealous but he's emotionally intelligent enough to know it's not appropriate. It never was, now or otherwise.

So Wally's jealously and deep desire to be as close to Barry as possible manifested in some redirected tension onto Bart who is blood related to Barry.

2.) Bart reminds him of himself when he was kid, and he is ashamed of how he was.

This point is something Wally admits directly as a reason why he is so short with him.

The Flash (1987) #92

It's also extremely necessary to remember that Wally grew up with Rudy West as a father who was verbally, emotionally and physically abusive. This is where we get meta about Wally and this is more speculation because we don't have Wally on panel saying this but; Bart reminding him of himself as a kid very easily could remind Wally of that house, that relationship, that abuse and it sets him on edge. This is something that is common among trauma survivors.

3.) Wally is young, insecure, traumatized, stressed, and Bart is a lot.

Wally here is in his early 20s, and while he was shown to be in therapy in a previous issue, he still has years of trauma built up to deal with - and not all of it is due to being raised in an incredibly abusive household with Rudy West.

When Wally gets stressed, he lashes out and gets short, Bart in particular in his introductory comics stressed him out on top of the stress he was already experiencing with Kobra.

Bart in his earlier comics was utterly feral - his own high energy and inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality led to some stressful situations between him and Wally. Wally is just not equipped with the tools to deal with Bart, mostly PATIENCE, so it led to mutual aggravation.

Bart pushes, Wally pushes, Bart pushes back and it's a pretty solid circle between them.

4.) He is in fact a jerk, and it's the result of the sum of his trauma and personality. Regardless of his status as a hero, regardless that Bart and him do have good moments.

The later issues of Impulse show this very clearly.

Impulse (1995) #82

Some people prefer to interpret Wally and Bart's relationship as sibling-like where the older sibling teases the younger one - and if you do prefer this relationship between them there is nothing stopping you from doing so, but there is more nuance behind Wally's shortness with Bart and it makes him 1000% more interesting of a character.

Impulse (1995) #84

Bart calls Wally out on his behavior in one of the last few issues of his series where it ties everything together with their relationship - Bart identifies that Wally's past is what drives him to behave the ways he does with him, and it is bringing up the past and reminding Wally that he is being a scroach that he finally talks to Bart.

It was a major step in their relationship, but unfortunately, as any Bart reader knows, it did not stay this good because of the next point.

5.) Conflicting personalities add more depth to stories and generally make a story better. Bart having a grating personality and a tough relationship with the current Flash of the time was the story the writers WANTED to tell and keep intact well into Teen Titans.

Wally doesn't KNOW Bart, not really, and he never really learns enough about him due to his chronic absences in his life - so he never got to SEE him in any real depth other than during the brief moments their comics intersected. He only sees him the way he thinks he is, not the way he ACTUALLY is.

Teen Titans (2003) #1

stfu wally

Having a beloved hero figure in a story simply not believe in one of the protagonists offers a growth subplot for the writer to focus on. Unfortunately, for Bart and Wally, it was a subplot that lasted a very very long time. This conflict between them could have ended with Impulse #84 but Geoff didn't want it to, so it didn't.

So that's the general reason why Wally is the way he is. He's not a villain to Bart and they DO get along plenty of times - but at the end of the day he was also a jerk to him (Max was too but we're not getting into that right now).

#bart allen #wally west

[youremyheaven]

A beginner's guide to Vedic Astrology

1. Vedic astrology is based on a very different way of perceiving the world. It will take some time to get used to it but be patient. Its not as quick and easy to compartmentalize as western/tropical astrology. it addresses the human condition in all its nuance and complexity. It will take you a lot of time to understand even one nakshatra but this is normal and part of the process. Avoid looking at twitter/tumblr posts that try to tropicalize Vedic astrology by giving really weird takes with 0 context or explanation. Read blogs and articles, do a google deep dive, there are many websites run by Indian astrologers who will provide you with good introductions to your chart/naks.

2. There are 27 nakshatras divided over 12 rashis, these come under the rulership of 8 planets and are further classified on the basis of their aim, tattva, ganas, yoni animal, function etc. Familiarize yourself with the mythology of your naks and their basic classification. This is the most accessible starting point for a newbie.

3. Zodiac does not automatically become redundant in the Vedic system. They are called "rashi" and each rashi houses 2 or more nakshatras.

4. 90% of the time the moon occupies only ONE nakshatra over the course of one day. its UNCOMMON for the moon to occupy more than one nakshatra in one day. if you don't have someone's birth time and use 12 noon as the standard time (which is common practice since its right in the middle of the day with 12 hours behind and 12 hours ahead) 90% their moon sign will be correct. Since the ascendant changes every hour or so, its hard to narrow it down unless you know the person and can make an educated guess.

ive seen people argue that xyz is ashwini moon instead of bharani moon etc and please go to a good vedic birth chart generating site (i recommend either astro seek or faraway) and you can check their birth chart for every hour of the day of their given birthday if you have the time. the MOON STAYS IN THE SAME NAKSHATRA OVER THE COURSE OF ONE DAY!!!! its RARE for it to be in the preceding or following nak and it usually only happens for a VERY small window of time.

5. if you can, just get your chart read by someone who knows their stuff. avoid consuming the misinformation rampant on twitter/tumblr.

6. approach Vedic astrology with an open mind. many websites will tell you you're a horrible person with zero luck , jealous and doomed to live in perpetual misery but please understand that these come from the narrowness of their own knowledge and understanding. any wisdom possessed by an individual has to pass through their filter of perception in order to be written down. astrology is not a doomsday machine tool condemning some and glorifying others. do not make a religion out of this. think of your birth chart as something that provides context as to why you are the way you are. don't let it be something that holds you back.

7. please don't randomly pick up tantric practices and chant mantras or perform rituals just because you know a little bit about vedic astrology. this is a whole new turf and these practices can be life changing if done right but disastrous if done wrong. trust your intuition, always. i hate that tiktok/social media etc has made witch craft/magick/esoteric occult rituals look like some quirky, "woo woo" thing that anyone can do. please stay safe ya'll <33 don't blindly follow others <33

#vedic astro notes #sidereal astrology #astrology observations #astrology notes #vedic astrology #astro observations #astro notes #astrology #nakshatras #astroblr #guide to vedic astrology

[theweeklydiscourse]

Why is nuance dieing?

The younger generation seems to be so much more obsessed with moral puritanism in fiction and irdk why. Could it be because kids these days don't interact with real people and are just chronically online so they repeat what they see on the internet?

Actually saw someone saying people who like fictional bad boys are the reason why men get away with sa & rape irl and countries are criminalizing abortion...

It's just so depressing to see that. This line of thinking is scary actually.

I don't remember people going this mad over morals when shows and movies like Vampire Diaries and Twilight saga were huge. It's like people have regressed.

The media we consume is becoming more and more didactic as we enter an age where it seems like every piece of popular media is obsessed with delivering their messages and themes like an after school PSAs. Media is becoming increasingly more sanitized and “family friendly” to appeal to the broadest possible audience to create more and more profits for corporations. This obsession with sanitized fiction has become commonplace with many younger people who parrot what they see online and on the media they consume and proceed to deliver underdeveloped takes on subjects they don’t fully understand yet.

It becomes even more interesting when people point to fictional narratives as the cause for societal problems when there are already larger institutions that have historically been responsible for what they claim fiction causes. They displace the blame for societal ills like SA, abuse, patriarchal violence and misogynistic legislation onto fiction, fan fiction and media that explores taboo subject matter. While I don’t deny that fiction has power, 90% of the time these people have no idea of the ways literary works influence our culture and default to a 1:1 “monkey see, monkey do” explanation for why people must consume the “correct media”.

Another factor is the way that people have become accustomed to moralizing their content consumption. They have convinced themselves that they need a concrete and righteous justification for their likes and dislikes and this has ruined the way fandom interacts with literature, film and other art forms. With this in mind, they can no longer dislike or even hate something without creating some moral justifications for why “hating this thing is actually progressive and righteous!” and in the process, conflate consumerism with activism.

The comparison to Puritanism is quite fitting in this case. After all, the principles of that religion were based in purity, obedience and censorious beliefs for self-indulgences and we can draw comparisons with the way people online discuss certain subjects. There’s a phenomenon where people will say something along the lines of: “It’s alright to like (insert problematic character here)! But you need to acknowledge that they are a bad person.” To them, it seems like a gesture at fairness and magnanimity when in reality, it is an attempt at exerting unearned moral authority over the tastes of others. It is a demand that a person proves their moral innocence to them in a performative manner that validates their need to feel superior. But it’s all performative purity because even if a person did explain/justify their fictional tastes, these people wouldn’t care and would continue to demand purity from others.

People can’t even discuss certain characters anymore without running into people accusing them of being terrible people who would approve of real-life violence and abuse. And I can’t shake the feeling that it wasn’t always like this, when did it change?

#fandom discourse #fandom musings #shadow and bone #reylo fandom #reylo discourse #reylo #darklina #s&b salt #s&b netflix #s&b critical #anti leigh bardugo #lb critical #zutara #shipping discourse #Puritanism

[zalrb]

Here Is The Thing About Movies Now Vs. Then

There is a certain darkness to ‘90s movies, which is just not the trend right now and as a child of the ‘90s, I prefer the former.

So, for instance, Hocus Pocus 1993 starts with the witches murdering a child by sucking her life force

like they dance in front of her corpse because they’re younger

her older brother failed to save her

and calls the sisters hags and so his punishment is to live forever as a cat so he can always remember his guilt for not saving his little sister

and when the mob from the village comes to burn them, they hide the dead child under a blanket while yelling that they aren’t witches

it’s HILARIOUS because it’s SO dark but also slapstick just like when they’re about to be hanged, the boy’s parents just want to know what happened to their son 

and she makes a joke

Like, if you think about it that’s pretty fucked up.

This Hocus Pocus starts with Winnie not wanting to marry a boy and setting some houses on fire

In the original movie when it’s current day, Max and Dani are being hassled  and get their candy stolen

Max gets merked

Thackery is murdered but then comes back to life because he’s an immortal human in a cat’s body

they kidnap Dani

like it’s a Halloween movie.

Hocus Pocus 2 is a movie that happens to take place on Halloween. There’s an undercooked storyline about friendship and an obligatory heavy-handed lesson about being sensitive to others’ differences with a dash of the power of sisterhood at the end. There are, like, one or two cool visuals and some atmospheric shots

but overall it’s very safe and very sanitary. It’s like what they did with Aladdin. From two other posts of mine:

So I watched the “A Whole New World” clip for the Live Action Aladdin

and I get that the live action isn’t going to be the exact same as the cartoon but one of the things that I really loved about the original animation is the dark sense of humour. So before Aladdin takes Jasmine on the carpet ride, I kind of love that Jasmine thought Aladdin killed himself because she told him to jump off a balcony

and the fact that they changed that is unsurprising but still has me like, eh.

[..] and one of my favourite parts of the animated version is that when they’re on top, we see Jafar and Iago humiliate the people, namely Jasmine

and the sultan, who they thought looked down upon and humiliated them, which included Iago shoving crackers down the sultan’s throat.

I do understand that the above scene might be considered too dark (it’s probably why I love it so much) but this Iago is just a parrot that literally did not need to be there.

Or it’s like the original Jumanji, I answered an ask about why I considered the original dark and the full post is here but an excerpt:

imagine being a kid who watches her friend being sucked into a game and then is chased out of the house by bats

And no one believes you when you explain that your friend is gone because he was sucked into a game so then you have to go to therapy to convince yourself that what you saw was impossible because it technically is impossible and you even change your name because you don’t want to be associated with ANYTHING about that night because it was the night you saw your friend get sucked into a GAME but then he comes back twenty years later and asks you to continue playing that game and you legitimately think you’re having a psychotic episode

and then you have the remake --- and don’t get me wrong I absolutely adored the first instalment of the remake, Jack Black was hilarious --- where, like, yeah you can potentially die in the game if you lose all of your lives but there aren’t really any nuances or implications that make you go, that’s pretty fucked up once you think about them, it’s just a fun movie

which is, I mean it is what it is but I definitely finished Hocus Pocus 2 thinking it left no impression

#hocus pocus #hocus pocus 2 #aladdin #jumanji #Youtube

[dare-to-dm]

Things D&D is Bad At

As a follow up to my post on things that D&D as a system does well and why I love it, here are some things that in my experience, D&D does not do well as a game.  I’m not saying it would be impossible to run and/or homebrew D&D in such a way to deliver some of these things, but you’d probably be better off finding a different game:

Horror: In general, D&D is too good at empowerment to really deliver well on horror.  I’m not saying you can’t do it, but it’s more of a challenge and certainly would take more thought on the DM’s part to pull off.

Low/No Prep Gaming: Even for DMs that are skillful at improv, D&D typically involves a lot of preparation.  And character creation is generally pretty evolved with most versions of D&D, so even the players have to do some preparation, not to mention the fact that learning to play the game usually take a fair amount of time.

Short form campaigns: Due to how much preparation is typically involved in D&D, it lends itself better to longer campaigns than one shots.  If you want to play a new character/story frequently, you can certainly find another system that’s better suited to it.

Combat-less Gaming: Like 90% of D&D’s mechanics are related to combat.  If you want a game without it you’re certainly barking up the wrong tree.

Robust Social Mechanics: I think skill checks work well enough for the kind of game that D&D is.  But if you want to play a game where seduction or debating someone or engaging in political intrigue is as tactical and nuanced as combat is, look elsewhere.

Survival Based Challenge: Depending on what version of D&D you’re looking at, there may actually be robust rules for things such as hunger, thirst, exhaustion, carrying capacity, illness, wilderness navigation and so on.  But in my personal opinion, D&D fails at making these challenges satisfying to overcome. 

Logical Economics: D&D has a really weird economy where your average adventurer spends the vast majority of their money on equipment, and yet can easily become comparatively wealthy in a short period of time.  There just isn’t much else for players to really do with their money unless the DM puts in the work to make something for them.

Life Sim Stuff: I think it’s logical that if you’re playing D&D you should want to be an adventurer.  But the game doesn’t really have much potential for following other pursuits, like if you want to open up a bakery or something.  Players technically can do stuff like that, but it will only be as rewarding as the DM is willing to build it up to be.

Anyway, I’d love to hear some suggestions on games that do each of these things well, since those would be good recommendations for if you ever want a game with these elements.  Feel free to let me know in the comments/replies!

#RPGs #Dare Original

[shadesofmauve]

Colors!

My thumb's been fucked up by a steroid shot to the point where I can't hold a pen to draw, but the light touch of a watercolor brush is mostly okay, and I had dot cards for Daniel Smith and DaVinci paints, so I've spent the last few weeks unleashing my manic color goblin.

Friends, I've painted so many happy little rectangles. And it has been a journey.

I've found that one of the most-referenced sources for pigment lightfastness is a hard-coded website straight out of the 90s that also talks about UFOs and human evolution. (I don't know what the guy says about human evolution, because I'm afraid to find out, but it makes me very happy that a site like that still exists).

I've learned you can make lovely purples with a cool red and phthalo green, which actually MAKES SENSE, I GUESS, but is still a bit weird and awesome even though I understand the color theory.

I've painted with the Danger Colors.

(Cobalt, manganese, chromium, and cadmium. DO NOT LICK).

I've finally spelled phthalo often enough that I can remember it!

And I've fallen deeply, desperately in love, then had my heart broken.

It's name was DaVinci Phthalo Turquoise (pigment code PB16). When I painted it out it was beautiful; smoothly flowing into a perfect fade, the deepest, most inviting pool of cool, saturated perfect teal. I burst into song. A choir of angels descended to sing backup vocals. I never used to believe in love at first sight, but I was wrong.

...then it dried.

It dulled so much. It was still fine. Nothing special, but fine. Whatever. I'm over it. I am a strong, independent artist. I don't need that kind of negativity in my life.

There's still all the other colors. Colors that didn't betray me. Much.

Here, Monkey is helping model the last swatch tests, which helped me choose which cool red to buy. The phone doesn't capture all the nuance, but they also started out fairly close. (I went with column 3, DaVinci's PV19 quinacridone rose madder).

So... if you're one of those tenacious, patient people who follows my fic, and you've been wondering why I haven't posted, I suppose I really just have one thing to say:

Colors go brrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

#watercolor #pigments #painting #color swatches #so many colors #so satisfying to line them up in rows #colors go brrrrr #Shades makes art #? #traditional art #danger colors #mmmm cobalt

[sparksly-mage-of-light]

Okay, I have thoughts about Leander and need to express them.

Now, I could very well end up being wrong and might be missing some things that make everyone else really suspicious of him, but I really don't think he's a bad person completely masquerading as a hero and trying to manipulate people. I do think his whole heroic persona might be somewhat performative, but I think he genuinely wants to help people and be seen as a good person. He at the very least strikes me as a people-pleaser.

I think the problem might lie in him over-extending himself and neglecting his own wants and needs (like sleep, if the dark circles under his eyes are anything to go by). Like keeping up a protection spell just so a certain cursed newcomer can hold his hand/feel him up whenever they want (magic has to take some kind of toll on the user). Or promising to cure said newcomer by claiming to be able to do the work of an entire organization on his own (we don't know what the Senobium's deal is, yes, but they have to have a decent amount of power to have the reputation they do).

There's also the little things, like Leander not complaining about Vere ordering expensive champagne even though the price does seem to concern him. The way he physically jumped in to diffuse the tension. How, if you take him up on the drink, he picks what sounds like the most palatable drink that also introduces you to more of Eridias' local culture. He won't even give us his opinion of the others without asking for ours first, as if he doesn't want to risk disagreeing with us.

He also just doesn't seem to make any decisions for himself in general. The people at the bar ask him to to perform, so he does. Kuras said Leander could help us, so he says he will. The Bloodhounds' reaction to us mentioning the Senobium makes us uncomfortable, so he talks them down; but also we made them uncomfortable, so he moves our conversation outside. We never see him order a specific drink for himself independently: when we first meet him, he just asks the bartender to surprise him, and during his section towards the end, he just orders whatever you order (when they all gather at the bar, we don't get an idea of what drink he ordered or how, but I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happened). Even when he grabs our wrist the first time we touch, I think he does it more to reassure us than out of any desire to touch us more (and I mean that even if you hesitate, because at that point you're like 90% of the way there and he wants you to know he can help. His whole freakout, as I've seen others point out, is probably just due to a stronger than expected reaction from our curse).

As for how that might tie in to what makes him monstrous, I think that might come down to what lengths he's willing to go to in trying to help people. Maybe he's willing to kill for other people, maybe he dabbles in some dark magic like necromancy or has some sort of magic patron he's made a deal with a la dnd warlock pacts, or maybe it's something more self-sacrificial and he's willing to risk his life or sell his soul.

Regarding his relationship with the MC, I do think he could get obsessive over them, but I don't think it would be in the stereotypical yandere fashion. Considering how submissive he acts (and how Ais describes him to be), I think Leander would rather be possessed by the MC than possess MC himself.

I don't know if this makes sense. I just think Touchstarved is doing a lot of interesting and nuanced things, and Leander just being a deceptive yandere feels too easy (no offense to the people making those headcanons, though. love a yandere headcanon. i just like to overthink things).

#touchstarved leander #touchstarved #leander theory #blorbo from my visual novel demo #i've just been rotating leander in my head since i finished the demo #the relationship bit is there mainly because i keep hearing I Wanna Be Yours by Arctic Monkeys every time i think of him

[jahiera]

I think there’s a definite problem though with the amount of art and fics being HEAVILY Astarion with cis women. That reeks of his queerness being erased. There should be a healthy balance of Astarion with different partners, but the “default” in the fandom is always him with a woman. As a gay man it’s very frustrating.

Okay so. in however much any of this matters. 1. Shoving this under a cut for people who are tired of seeing the discourse (I am too, I tend to scroll really really fast past it.) 2. I know the fandom discourse machine looooves super firm and snarky opinion jabs summed up in 169 words or less but I am literally incapable of not elaborating so. sorry YOU asked. since it’s also probably relevant, Im coming at this with the Mega Dyke with the fuck around and find out perspective irt my life experiences and queerness. I don’t generally care about niche queer internet discourse and I don’t generally care about fandom discourse, so you can tell how bored I am at work rn that I’m deep diving into this. tldr yeah you’re not wrong I agree that astarion’s queerness is erased in certain spaces but that has nothing to do with being attracted to women. my funny hot take is once again that astarion is a he/him evil femme to me so. let’s MOVE.

I received the second one within the first few minutes of the first, and I’m goingggg to proceed on good faith and with the idea that I think we’re all in agreement for the most part, because I think we are. But I’m going to address the most obvious thing that. I don’t really…. think is necessarily the point in this. first of all, I empathize that it suuuucks to not see as many works made for your main pairing of choice (there’s generally a deficit for literally everyone BUT astarion to boot too.) however ultimately fanworks are exactly that: fanworks, and they’re made For Free and posted by a Fan Author who has done this As A Hobby, “a problem nobody is addressing” in this context is……. you are one google doc and keyboard away from writing what you want to see in the world. or, I don’t know. encourage + comment + follow up on fic authors that write what you enjoy. fic is not paid content and the fic authors in bg3 are writing for themselves and what they put out, that they wrote for FREE, is up to them. I once again empathize with not seeing as much of a specific thing as you would like, and I definitely empathize with seeing a popularization of specific characterization that makes you want to scream, cry, throw up, etc. which brings me to what I can actually comment on and critique here. (general note: if you proceed to misread me on the basis of “people can do what they want!!” I assure you. you can do whatever you want forever. I do not care. I am not mad. I am minding my business 90% of the time. do I like domstarion? no. but it is NOT my concern nor my judgement.)

“That reeks of his queerness being erased. There should be a healthy balance of Astarion with different partners, but the “default” in the fandom is always him with a woman.” <- so! now that we have “it’s all for free man idk what you want me to say here” out of the way. we CAN critique something real in this that I do agree with. the sort of…. honestly kind of fascinating (derogatory) trends of what I’ll call Straightifying astarion for lack of a better word.

this brings me to the point I kind of offhandedly made in the previous post, about how there IS nuance to be said on astarion’s queerness getting erased. I do actually agree with you that in some spheres of the bg3 fandom, his queerness has been heavily sanitized and he’s become something of a placeholder for Sexy Vampire Boyfriend romance tropes. he’s mostly there to be a stand-in for a sexy dom vampire man; MANY of his complex character traits that have literally Nothing to do with romance have been basically entirely removed to serve a specific idealized idea of him that suit the scene. it’s frustrating! I find it frustrating. I also agree that within this specific Brand of Mischaracterized Astarion, he’s been so……….. reduced down to this that his more overt queerness is basically entirely removed. however, the issue is not that he’s with a woman in this? the issue is that the writer is not incorporating a sort of.. overarching queer lens, for lack of a better term, to the characterization they’ve got going on. you can write whatever you want forever, but it’s not written in a vacuum, I agree.

Since these are all popular straight romance tropes, he falls directly into the pit of Sexy Man (straight) very quickly, and his attraction toward others (let alone, good god, his complex relationship to sex, sexuality, desire? good fucking luck finding something thoughtful in there about that) tends to fall by the wayside as a result. It is what you would expect but it’s not without room for critique in what I think we’re aligned on; which is seeing astarion’s queerness erased is maddeninggg. And it is EXTREMELY frustrating to see if you’re someone like me, or possibly yourself, who’s into 1. really analyzing characterization and 2. really into exploring queer dynamics in writing + lit + media many different formats. THIS—the sanitization, the removal of astarion’s queerness—this is what is irksome as a queer reader.

however. the issue I’m seeing is that ^^^^^ this brand of mischaracterization is 1. being conflated with simply that he’s with women, and 2. the frustration of having less content (understandable) is turning into a very WEIRD dialogue in which the extreme of “well actually he wouldn’t even want to fuck women!!” is the stance to take (very weird) (kind of misogynistic) (kind of also reeks of continuing to talk about women as sex objects that astarion would not or would want to fuck) (astarion himself doesn’t even want to fuck for about 90% of his romance so maybe we should talk about that too) — rather than that it would be nice if his queerness would be addressed more openly and with more nuance and clarity than it currently is in That Particular Sphere Of Astarion Characterization. and, of course, the idea that it would be nice if he was portrayed with other kinds of partners! which I agree with and equally appreciate.

but there is no default. literally, there’s no default. what you’re seeing is what people are making of their own tavs, and maybe you would like to see more of another kind, but it doesn’t hold up as an actual fandom critique. what holds up is when we dive into how people write him; how do they write his personality, what traits are being exaggerated and what traits are being ignored; IS his queerness remembered within the text at all? and beyond that, how is that queerness treated when it is written? because I’ve seen the other extreme in which it’s The Homophobic Gay Stereotypes That Maybe We All Agreed At One Point Were Equally Offensive To Exaggerate To The Point Of Horror. half the discussion I see AROUND his queerness amounts to “omg he’s such a slutty flamboyant little fag” but in a quirky haha internet way. very “fruity is a nice alternative to saying queer!” “calling a gay guy fruity in the real world will get you punched out.” vibes in here sometimes and it is EQUALLY weird.

anyways. Astarion’s a multifaceted character which means the first thing everyone did was pick one or two traits to exaggerate and cling to and these color the entire reading of his character rather than taking in the whole. i agree that means his queerness got put to the wayside in some formats of him, and that’s deeply unfortunate + very frustrating. but fanfic is free, so I’m not with you that there’s a Problem That Needs Addressing so much as that’s what people are creating, and you should add to what you want to see in the world.

I’m not going to go on a tangent about how “oh let m/f be a thing!!” because I ALSO agree literally no one needs to be told “m/f is okay to do ❤️” we live in the real world here. and it’s really mindboggling how in some iterations he’s been turned into Straightstarion rather than his CANON QUEERNESS being applicable in every format of every relationship dynamic he could ever possibly be in. However. However. the answer to that is not? acting like the baseline attraction to women is the problem. if the way you’re talking about attraction to women feels rooted in upset about not relating to it and feeling like you’re forced to either relate to it or simply not engage, I do Get It, but at the risk of opening up an entirely different can of worms that needs an entirely different essay to address, gay men are not immune to misogyny and if the language used while talking about women is also objectifying or belittling women to some extent or acting as though attraction to women makes his queerness lesser. newsflash. that is still misogyny (and biphobia). it is not about defending straightness here, it’s entirely that reducing women down to sex objects even in the conversations about not seeing women sexually is alive and well (and repulsive), and that’s what I mean when I say I can hear the “lol I don’t fuck WOMEN that’s DISGUSTING” behind some of the other side of the conversation here. also this is an entirely separate essay but queerness will almost never exist in an easily consumable binary and trying to type him by his character traits is also. kind of weird. just as a thing.

#critical / #this feels like such a I will die on any hill. I am going to forget about this now #like again I’m not even disagreeing with some of you but other things in here. it’s a little bit deeper than that #or as deep as fandom discourse is anyways. #now that the high of soap boxing has worn off as I write these tags I’m like good lord. #I will NOT let inanities ruin this game for me. #sorry that’s once again not really directed at you anon but in general #good faith! we keep good faith!

[fairy-switchblade]

In light of random people suggesting my butch/femme dynamic is abusive, a special shoutout post for the butch lesbian community for actively ✨ protecting me ✨from abuse my entire life pretty much:

my dad was a bouncer, and he worked at a gay bar through the 90s. A lot of his work friends were gay people he met at work, including a lot of butch women. There’s a photograph of five queers and my dad painting my childhood bedroom pink with fairy stencils from when we got our first house. Apparently they worked really hard to protect that room from damp and brought me a proper mattress between them. My parents were doing their best but we relied on community support for a while. I doubt any of them ever suspected the two year old girl they were doing this for was going to grow up femme, but life is like that. A special kiss on the cheek for each of them.

The butch woman who was at the local convenience store when I was five years old, who let me borrow her phone and then waited with me outside for my parents to get there when a creepy man would not leave me alone. A hug for you.

Zir. Holmes, my middle school English teacher who let me hide in her office when the homophobic bullying got really bad, and who understood, and was a source of courage and inspiration for me. Another hug for you, a very tight one.

my first girlfriend Lianne who taught me a lot about boundaries and stood up to their family for me. A lil kiss on the cheek for you.

my ex Emma who taught me about safe queer sex, and more nuanced education on consent, and encouraged me when I wanted to pursue professional development so I could make better than minimum wage and have a real career. A lil kiss on the forehead for you.

my current partner who got me to read feminist and queer theory, has always taken my opinions seriously, who respects my identity and my ambition, and my boundaries, who has never once shied away from splitting the housework evenly between us, and has committed to learning new skills to support me, and consistently encourages and supports me to exercise properly and eat well, and stay in touch with my family, who is openly proud of our relationship, who works so damn hard to maintain their own empowerment and independence from me, who takes the time to observe and care about things I love, and who I trust 100% with my body, my time, my personal info, my thoughts and feelings. 1000 kisses be upon you, every day you live on this earth, my angel my man my blorbo.

And every other butch I meet, who reminds me to never accept anything less than my true self, and my own true happiness. ILY So Much, take care xxxxx

#butch #butch lesbian #Femme #femme lesbian #Abuse mention #Butch hype #Femme4butch

[zeroducks-2]

(I hope I worded this right and that it does not come across as rude or snarky, I genuinely want to hear your thoughts) So does that mean your interpretation of Bruce is that he is, how do I say it, “indefinitely fucked/flawed”? That there are not many moments where he did goodness for the pure sake of it? Or it’s something like, 90% flawed 10% good?

It actually depends on who writes him, and on the media we're taking into consideration. I know that this might sound contradictory with my previous post, but I honestly don't think there's one interpretation of a character who's 80+ year old and went through the hands of hundreds of writers.

There are a few things that only "happened once" if you understand what I mean, like Cassandra's story. That story has only one iteration, there are no variants to take into consideration or other Batman media that explore it, so we can judge it by what happened that one time, but this is a rarity among the most important Batman stories. Think of UTRH. Bruce is way less ruthless in the animated version and the ending is very different from what happens in the comics.

Bruce did a lot of good things for the pure sake of it, there's no denying that. He's able to offer a helping hand even to the most monstruous, he will help criminals because he genuinely wants them to better themselves. He will get down to his knees to hug and comfort a crying child, he will use his money and resource and do whatever he can to heal his city.

But he will also beat people to the point of crippling them, he will send folks to jail for the most minor of offences, he considers disabled and "mentally challenged" people as a burden for society.

He loves the kids he keeps around and would die for them. But he also hits Dick and will beat him into a pulp when Dick refuses to do his bidding. He suffered for Jason's death and wanted to kill Joker in the heat of the moment, but will also cut Jason's neck and leave him to die again in order to save Joker's life. As protective and sweet as he is with Tim, he used Stephanie to manipulate him into becoming Robin again, acting terribly towards both kids. And I could go on but you get the picture.

All of these things shouldn't coexist but they do because the character is written by different people with different opinions and understanding of right and wrong, of what is an isn't an acceptable behavior for a man and a parental figure to have, and of who the character is and stands for in general.

It might seem that I don't like Bruce all that much and I surely don't like him as a person, but I also love him as a character for what he represents historically, for the nuance of his many depictions. Though I rarely ever defend him when it comes to people criticising his actions, because those actions need to be criticised. And I will hiss at canon stuff that insists on making Bruce always look like the flawless hero because he ain't it, and at people who claim that nonsense takes are canon (like Cass being his favorite) because I have a personal issue with people taking a headcanon that comes from the fact that they didn't read the comics, and shoving it on everyone's face demanding they accept it as "what actually happened".

I hope it makes sense.

#My asks #Bruce Wayne #I don't really remember what I wrote in the other post I was barely even awake lol #my meta #And BTW you don't come off as snarky in any way no worries