#like the narrative need not even DISagree

[buddiebeginz]

I keep seeing posts about how us Buddie fans are just being delusional. How we need to stop reading so much into what’s being said during interviews and oh also how it’s offensive to the current ship.

First of all let’s be clear here Buck is NOT in a relationship with Tommy. I feel like this is something you Buck/Tommy shippers are failing to grasp because I constantly see posts about how Buck shouldn’t cheat on Tommy. They have kissed once and been on 2ish dates they are not a couple yet. Being exclusive requires a conversation or at least some acknowledgment by the characters and we haven’t had that yet. They still barely know each other.

Second we have always theorized about Buddie when the characters were with other love interests. We did when Buck was with Taylor. We did when Eddie was with Ana. Is it somehow different now because Tommy is a guy? Is it different now because Buck and Tommy aren't straight? Or is it just because Buck is dating the guy you want him to be with now? I don't know there's just something very strange about how some of you are responding to Buddie/Buddie shippers with all of this.

What's even crazier to me is that so many of you who are all about Buck/Tommy now used to be Buddie shippers or still say you'll be happy if Buddie happens down the line. Yet you're still attacking Buddie and our meta and speculation because it threatens the current ship you want at the moment.

No one is saying that every one of our theories and speculation is 100% correct but we have always speculated on the show and the interviews this isn't something new people are doing. I feel like the response some you have is that we're somehow seeing/hearing only what we want to and or twisting the words of the actors/etc to fit some kind narrative we have about Buddie.

It's not like we're seeing interviews where Oliver, Lou, Tim, etc are saying Buck and Tommy are going to be together 4eva and then immediately twisting that to mean oh they must be lying Buddie is so obviously happening tomorrow. We're inferring what we think might happen based on spoilers and what the actors (and Tim) have said combined with what we hope might happen. We know not everything we think will happen will. We had a ton of theories on 7x04 and 7x05 (many of which turned out to not be true) and despite what some of you think we didn't all collectively lose our shit because they didn't come true.

You can dislike Buddie and us all you want and can disagree with us or our theories all you want but these posts talking about how we're just seeing what we want and setting ourselves up for disappointment come across as hypocritical (considering most of you used to be Buddie shippers) and patronizing. We don't need or want you to save us from our fandom experience. If we're disappointed by the storyline that's our business but right now we're having fun with where things in the show are and are going.

---

I also really don't like how some of you are trashing Buddie to prop up Buck/Tommy. Basically saying that because Buck and Eddie's feelings haven't been verbally confirmed on screen (like in an I'm in love with you kind of way) that we're making it into something it's not and it's not fair to Buck/Tommy because they are canon.

Buddie isn't in a romantic relationship at the moment but they have loved and supported one another and always been been more than friends since basically the beginning. Even Oliver just confirmed that Buck was attracted to Eddie from the first scene. And no attraction alone doesn't equal love but if you can look at the six seasons of history shared by these two characters and only see two bros being the bestest friends you really need to take some media literacy.

I feel like some of you don't understand that not every part of a fictional story is spelled out super literally nor should it be. We know how deep Buck and Eddie's love goes because we can infer that based on their scenes. On all the ways they are there for one another, on how they treat each other, on how their relationship differs from the other friendships on the show. On all the things they say and don't say to one another. A big reason we want to see them in a canon romantic relationship is because of how clear the show has already made it that these two men love each other.

As for Tommy even though I'm not a multishipper I get Tommy's significance in the storyline. I'm also more thankful than I can put into words that Oliver and the show have decided to do Buck's bi awakening storyline epecially considering I'm bi myself. Buck being bi and his journey is incredibly important all on it's own but Buddie being canon is equally as important not because we need to see these guys together but because of what they represent. We have never had a slow burn same sex love story like this and the way it would change media forever if Buddie were to be canon cannot be understated.

#buddie #911!

[waltwhitmansbeard]

so i just read a post explaining why the op (and, according to the op, a lot of other people, even tho the post in question only had 32 notes, some of which were from people who disagreed with them) didn't like the cut to the crown keepers in last week's episode. while i'm totally on board with people not jibing with stuff that just doesn't work for them, i wanted offer some reasons why this seemingly hard pivot to people who are not the main characters of the story being told was a good decision to make (note good decision, not inherently the best decision, which i believe no one, including the dm, at a ttrpg table should ever be expected to make).

matt had an extremely powerful, extremely unexpected character decision dropped in his lap in the final moments of the previous episode. we don't know exactly how much time matt has between recordings, maybe a full week, maybe not, but either way, there's a very real chance that matt just did not have enough time to fully prepare a session to deal with fcg's death and what comes next.

sam now has to create a new character that a) is of a level with the rest of the party and b) makes narrative sense for him to be there. that takes time for both him and matt, and they might just need some space to work on that. when laudna died, marisha was willing to sit away from the table for several weeks because she knew that she wanted laudna to be resurrected, but sam may not want the same thing, and that's okay!

matt may want to fold the crown keepers into his main story, some or all of them—particularly dorian, whom both liam and the fans have been asking to return for a while now. dorian is clearly important to orym and the story that liam is trying to tell, and bringing the crown keepers in may be matt's way to do that.

matt—and dms generally—has always had to straddle a very fine line of making sure that his players are the main characters of their story who feel like their actions have real consequences and effects on the world, while also understanding that in reality, it doesn't make sense for half a dozen chucklefucks to have such an outsized effect on major cosmological goings-on like *checks notes* the potential release of a god-eater. this becomes especially true when you're on your third campaign set in the same world, and your players' previous ultra-powerful pcs are still around and definitely more adept and connected than their current pcs are. i, personally, think matt does a great job at walking that line, and one of the things he does that i appreciate is that he doesn't shy away from the fact that a) his players are powerful but not the most powerful and b) his players aren't the only one who care about what's going on in the world and who are taking actions to effect change. the current plotline re: ruidus is absolutely world-shaking and is causing all the divine girlies to cower in their demiplanes, so of course even the evil ones are going to be calling on their champions to help out. it makes more sense for opal to be involved (which, btw, matt has been hinting at for a while now) than not.

matt might need a fucking break! he's been doing this consistently for nine years now, and shit is complicated! handing over the reins to aabria for a week or two or three may be what he needs to not get burnt out.

dnd is an emotional game, and the entire cast might have been rocked hard by fcg's death. some space away for a week or two could help them process and regroup to get back into a story that is otherwise very stressful and action-packed.

or it's none of these! what do i know! i'm a random idiot on the internet! matt doesn't consult me on these matters! (though my dms are open if he wants to chat, i do have ideas)

i think it's tempting to think of the decisions made in and around critical role (or any ttrpg show) like those made for a television series, because the episodes are serialized and we love them so much. but this show is, first and foremost, a group of friends playing a game together, and not a carefully constructed narrative with the primary goal of entertaining an audience. the audience always has been and, frankly, always should be second to the wishes and fun of the people around that table. matt would not have asked aabria to step in and dm a crown keepers side arc if he didn't think it was a good decision for him and his players, and that priority is the correct one. we are being invited in to watch these friends have fun together, and that's a privilege that we're super lucky to have. as long as the cr story isn't doing things that are outright abusive or harmful to the cast or the audience, i don't think we should begrudge them the choices they make in the name of their own game.

again, it's okay if you're not vibing with the crown keepers! i didn't love the aeor arc of c2! not everything is for everyone! but i think accusing matt and the cast of narrative malfeasance is a bit much when, tbqh, they don't answer to us. they answer to each other.

#me #critical role #cr meta

[utilitycaster]

Apologies, but can you elaborate on what you meant with

"As of late, the banner of those wronged by the gods has shifted from any of Bells Hells to those of Aeor, and that is a bad sign in a D&D campaign. If you need to set aside the PCs in order to rely on NPCs who have not shown up in the current narrative? You are clinging to a melting iceberg, my man."

Sure, so...among the people who are advocating that the Only Good And True Solution is for Bells Hells to kill the gods (a position that has already required frantic backpedaling from "what if the Vanguard is good" due to the murders), the poster children for "those wronged by the gods" are now "the people of Aeor."

Now. I do not deny that the gods destroyed Aeor. I think if you are holding the gods to the standard of "They should have prevented Calamity", and the two things they've banded together about have specifically been "stop Predathos" and "destroy Aeor" and Aeorians were creating a god-killing weapon the plans of which are being used now in the Predathos plot, I think it's worth considering whether you believe that self-defense is inherently unjust if your reason is "but i really wanna fucking kill them" but that's a whole other discussion.

The point at hand is that as a rule, in a D&D game, the enemies of your D&D party are, uh, going to be the enemies in the story. And so:

Chetney: wronged by some random werewolf and by a dude named Drixlitch; killed by Otohan, a Vanguard general

Laudna: wronged by and killed by Delilah Briarwood; killed by Otohan, a Vanguard general

FCG: arguably, made to be an unwitting killing machine by Aeor. Sacrificed himself when the unwitting killing machine abilities took over, depriving a nearly TPK-ed party of their healer; took themself out to kill the Vanguard general (Otohan) that was going to kill all of them.

Fearne: specifically designed to be Ruidusborn by Zathuda, working with the Vanguard; Zathuda's relationship with her mother has some really worrying veiled portions re: how consensual it all was while we're at it. Killed by Otohan, a Vanguard general

Imogen: Honestly Predathos's relationship with the Ruidusborn seems rather predatory and manipulative but that's another conversation; abandoned by and generally treated like a morality pet by her mother, a Vanguard general. Otohan would have killed her too, regardless of her Ruidusborn status.

Orym: Father and husband permanently killed by Otohan, a Vanguard general. Killed by Otohan, a Vanguard general.

Ashton: nearly blown up/sent to a faraway desert and orphaned by elemental titan-worshiping parents; nearly killed by magic possessed by or committed by Jiana Hexum, who was at minimum collaborating with the Ruby Vanguard on imports.

In case you noticed, unless you hold the gods accountable for all bad things happening...none of them have been wronged by the gods. They have, at best, been ignored by the gods (which was earlier on an argument against the gods but people gave that up, on account of it being dumb as dogshit stupid). On the other hand, man, sure feels like that Ruby Vanguard did a whole bunch of killing. If you have to ask the viewers to ignore the feelings of the main PCs in favor of the [dead, can't disagree with you although uh, FCG sure did] people of Aeor*...you have, quite literally, lost the plot.

*You know what's interesting? There's people stuck in stasis bubbles in Aeor, and there's a growing number of Aeormatons, too. If the issue is "Aeor was an incalculable loss" why is your focus "we should plunder the Malleus Factorum - something that was controversial and caused massive unrest within Aeor itself even it its time - and awaken the god-eater, which had long been sealed by the time of Aeor" and not "holy shit we could seek out and interview and assist the Aeormatons and revive a bunch of Aeorians!" If your issue with the Calamity was "there was an incalculable loss of life" why is your solution "create a murder cult"? If your issue with Vasselheim is "they are hiding crucial information about Ruidus and they are colonizing small towns in central Issylra" why is your murder cult murdering all the moon researchers who also worked against Vasselheim and why are you allying with the empire that took over the entire moon and wants to do the same to Exandria? If the issue is "the gods have too much power and use the power of others" why is Predathos any different, and frankly, Ludinus looks pretty fucking fishy too.

#cr tag

[dicenete]

Hey, I'm rambling about IkePri again

Okay, I just need to get these thoughts I have about Gilbert von Obsidian out because I enjoy predicting stuff and overthinking design and narrative choices even tho they might not be right. :P But there really isn't that much predicting other than me overthinking about narrative and design choices. This time there will be most likely spoilers of Gilbert's route so far, and route of Clavis and some thoughts I have just gathered while playing the game in general. I try to put these thoughts in cohesive order, but well... I don't know if I can really, because I just need to get these out of my head. These are my thoughts, ramblings and opinions. Feel free to form your own and certainly disagree with me! I apologize about the lack of art in this post. I'm busy with work currently so no fanart for a while. I'm also not native English speaker, so there might be grammatical errors and such. Sorry about that. Everything under the cut.

To start with Ikemen Prince is a romance visual novel first and foremost. That doesn't mean it can't be deep (and it certainly has been deeper than I initially expect, which left me positively surprised). I suppose there is somesort of thematic vibe that there is no prince whose ideals are the main thesis of the game itself. But that also kinda leaves that fact there is no huge catharsis regarding the world and it's state. Everything so far has been left quite open. And the more I have learned about lore of the world, I really feel like anti-monarchist here xd Clavis really sold me the idea for real. Or atleast throw away the absolute monarchy. That's where I think things should go, but that's my own belief. (really, the last king of Rhodolite... He umm... I have some opinions.) Chevalier and Gilbert First things first: I don't hate or dislike Chevalier as a character. There are just some things that give me Deus Ex Machina feels. But I know it is what they are going for with him. This genius that so far ahead of everyone that it is so alien concept to rest of the people. And well that is a very hard concept to pull off without being a genius yourself as a writer. Or that is what I feel like. But what I do love is what the writers are doing with him and Gilbert in thematic sense! (Hence why Chev x Gilbert sounds so juicy to me)

I really took steps to the deep end as I started to think about why I have enjoyed Gilbert's route or was interested in his story to begin with, but have little interest in trying Chev's one. Because they are so similar but they really aren't.

How I would describe it is that where as Clavis is the complementary to Chev, the purple to his yellow, the emotionality vs rationality, the heart vs the brain, Gilbert is more like right brain to Chev's left brain. If it makes sense like that xd Their color schemes are harmonious. Not opposite. Almost like how Nokto and Licht's color schemes are harmonious with each others.

(Nokto (Blue + white + gold) vs Licht (Blue + black + gold)) Not to mention that their names clearly are meant to mean light and dark. (Licht: variant for light, Nokto: comes form latin nox or noctis, meaning night = dark) But that is a rambling for another time.) Both their crests are tigers. White and black tiger. Chev's color scheme is White + gold and black. Whereas Gilbert's is Black + gold and white. But then the overall color that game devs use to signal about the characters baffles me a bit. Gold/Yellow vs Black/dark red. They don't seem to have too much connection or that of which comes to my mind quickly and without digging deeper. (because I believe that if you dig deep enough, you have digged yourself into a trap of overthinking about things. (Justifying things because you want to justify them, which I'm not big fan of. And sometimes things don't need meaning and we have to live with that. As much as it pains my overthinker brain.)) But here is my impressions about Gilbert so far. I'm at the point where MC has left the Clavis's party (I loved it btw). Gilbert really does give me toxic INFJ villain feels, but let's not get too hang up on terms such as that. But he is someone who is driven forth by his own ideals and desire to change the world better. He, like Clavis, seems to cloak himself in this idea that he is the villain and is okay, even happy, to take that role. He is the one who, like Chevalier, has thrown away emotional attachment out of the window (or so they say) unlike Clavis who makes his choices based more on emotion rather than rational thinking. Maybe that's why I like Clavis and Gilbert, they push MC out of their black and white thinking. That things are not so easy peezy as "choose a right king and everyone will be happy". There will always be someone who is mad about it. That's why I really loved the scene with Gilbert with the orphaned kids and the Clavis's party. He seems to enjoy the company of children (who are not morally corrupted or tainted) and he really empathically listens to those who are angry. He believes in the idea that "no one remembers what you said, but they will always remember how you made them feel". (A quote with debatable origin, people say that it was coined by Maya Angelou. But I really love this quote, because I think it is the truth.) Gilbert isn't trying to rationalize against someone's choices with pure intellect. He uses empathy to guide him to the most rational outcome in that emotional scope. But he also uses this to manipulate people with fear. He uses fear extensively and he does it actively. Where as I feel like Chev just has that aura about him automatically. Hence my next thought: Action vs Stasis!

Gilbert and Clavis are action oriented. They shake the gameboard, they make the first moves. Gilbert probably more than Clavis. They both want change. Is it change for the better, we will see, I still haven't finished Gilbert's route but he really gives me this "I'm willing to become the greatest threat so that people unite to defeat me." or "I will conquer all so there will no longer be wars.". Chev, on the other hand, symbolizes stasis. His goal is to keep the kingdom of Rhodolite going. That's his duty and he is willing to take it. (even tho we can debate if that is something he really really believes in or even thinks about that much. I feel like it is out of obligation rather than of personal ideal. But alas, I have not played Chev's route yet.) Chev is reactive rather than proactive. He waits for the opponent to make the first move and reacts accordingly. (I'm not saying he is not reactive once game is on. More like "if there was not threat to deal with, he wouldn't create one".)

Chev doesn't care what you think about him. Gilbert does. He might seem like he doesn't but he is really there to prove a point. (I will pick up his dislike for lying later >.>) Chev is not. Chev knows that his way is the right way for him and that is enough for him. Chev also actively makes a "gettaway plan" for himself in Clavis. He knows that Clavis is the final thread that keeps him from going overboard because he understand that he has to be blind for "individual people" aspect to be a good ruler. Gilbert probably understands this about himself too, but he is trying to prove a point. So he needs to go overboard. Because masses of people need absolutes to react to. If it is something banal, it won't do. His evil actions need to shake the very foundation of ideas. The people have to face those things head on and see it for themselves. They cannot be sheltered. Gilbert gives me the vibes that he is willing to sacrifice himself not for the kingdom, but for the betterment of all mankind. He is happy to become the villain #1 if that means that other people will rise and take down the corrupted Obsidian or the corrupted idea. I would say that he is Lawful Good going on about things like Lawful Evil.

Gilbert asking questions means that he wants you to think, he wants to challenge your opinions and how you look at the world. Same as Clavis. They yearn for change. They want to change the world. Where as Chev wants to maintain things as they are. Chev "If it is not broken, we don't need to fix it" Michel. Where as Clavis and Gilbert want to improve the system. They are idealistic. Gilbert and lying

This is something very interesting. At first I thought that he was all "I dislike when people lie to me." but he really is "I dislike lying in all its forms." And he does say that he doesn't lie. And I'm starting to believe that is really the case. All the things he says are true. But because how other people see him, they are suspicious anyway. Like MC is. Like we all probably are when we start the route and think "So what is your trauma, baby girl?" When he is unsure or knows that he shouldn't say the thing he really thinks or that is true, he will deflect or give a very vague response. Which makes me quite happy to replay his route at somepoint with this in mind. In conclusion: Welcome to my TED talk, with no head or tail, just me overthinking about things about a otome gacha game. If you read this far, thank you for your time. Remember, if I ramble about it, it just means that I'm invested. Have a good day~

#me rambling about ikepri #dicenete rambles #ikepri #thoughts #gilbert von obsidian #clavis lelouch #chevalier michel #is this what they call a character study #or analysis #TED talk #ikemen prince

[twinstxrs]

the gorgug-porter conversation is interesting to me because like. yea for the overwhelming majority of the conversation porter’s being shitty & trying to fit gorgug into a box that gorgug just does not fit into by trying to make gorgug’s relationship with his rage more focused on the aggression aspect of it. but then there’s also this specific thing that brennan brought up again in the ap, which is that gorgug’s relationship with his rage is wholly “this is a tool i use to protect my friends.” which isn’t a bad thing! but that’s his Whole relationship with it, & gorgug seems to place next to no value on his rage in relationship to himself. which is problematic, because it’s first & foremost his rage.

being raised in a household with a sort of toxic positivity largely meant that, whether or not it was his parents’ intention, gorgug internalized the message that more traditionally “negative” emotions such as anger are the wrong response to something. part of the reason he prioritizes his artificing is probably because it’s “fixing” things. in comparison to being a barbarian, which gorgug associates with “breaking” things. good vs. bad behavior, in his eyes.

it’s a totally unacceptable bar to measure a 16 y/o by, but i do think part of porter’s reasoning for not letting gorgug multiclass is him recognizing that gorgug generally does not value anger as a valid emotional response to something, at the very least for himself. & that directly conflicts with what being a barbarian is, because whether you like it or not, that rage is what fuels you. but again, barring a kid from pursuing something they deeply care about in part (not entirely, porter has a lot of more bullshit reasons) because of their fundamental values & world outlook is crazy.

so yes, 98% of porter’s reasoning is pretty shitty, immature, rife with a toxic view that there’s only one proper way to access rage, & generally not a good thing to do as a teacher, but also within that reasoning is the 2% of ‘there is a fundamental part of yourself that you only value if you can use it to take care of other people & you need to accept that as something that can take care of you, too.’ but that’s something to discuss with a therapist or a guidance counselor, not something that should hugely impact gorgug’s academic future.

#gorgug thistlespring #fantasy high #dimension 20 #fhjy #fhjy spoilers #btw these r just my personal opinions u r 100% free to disagree #gorgug & his rage interest me so deeply because of how deeply that rage existing seems to be against gorgug’s own will #like mechanically classes are choices & you can switch stuff around any time. but gorgug as a barbarian always felt like an unwilling choice #like that 14 y/o kid did not want to have rage. & that really interests me. #i’ve seen people before be like ‘what if gorgug dropped barbarian & went full srtificer’ but i feel like that simply can’t happen?? #mechanically yea sure but it always felt like a core part of gorgug that the rage will always be there & it’s a matter of how you channel it #idk. dnd classes narratively being treated as ‘you can not lose this part of you’ even though you technically can #gorgug could be lvl 19 artificer & he’d still have 1 level of barbarian. because that is part of who he is. #btw i don’t think porter truly cares about gorgug valuing his rage only as a way to be a human shield #i think porter just sees that as ‘wrong’ but like. not as in ‘you need to take care of yourself’ & more ‘you aren’t conforming’ #he thinks it’s wrong for the wrong reasons. the nastier ‘this is how you should be’ reasons #ppl being like ‘we r being too hard on porter. it’s an 150% courseload gorgug will be overwhelmed’ i think r missing the point bc like. #that is 100% a valid reason to not approve gorgug for multiclassing! but that’s also 100% not the reason porter rejected him. #that whole interaction was basically porter shoving his percieved version of conformity down gorgug’s throat. was v neurodivergent kid coded #no hate to anyone saying that last point btw these r all just opinions #thinking about last ep wilma & digby being like ‘you’re a great barbarian. you’re so great at it. but look at what you made!!!’ like. #they would never mean it like that. but when you only understand half of your son he is going to prioritize the half you do.

[essektheylyss]

I have a theory that a lot of the dissatisfaction with the end of campaign 2 stem from a lack of functional acknowledgement, in society and in narratives, that healing does not have an end and is more about learning to discern what can be changed (and what you want to put the energy in to change) compared with what you can learn to live with (and keep deciding to live with)—and that a narrative about healing isn't inherently about working through everything you can change, but instead reaching a place where you are able to make those decisions with confidence and grace.

This is not to say that this is the only reason for dissatisfaction, and you can also fully understand this and still feel like you would've preferred different courses of action! It's possible to say that you would've wanted to see Trent killed, or watched Fjord kill Uk'otoa, or any number of other endings for a given character.

But all of that is immaterial to the question of whether the narrative is complete or not—because it doesn't matter what the characters each individually choose to do going forward. What matters is that they're able to make those choices and feel confident enough to do so on their own terms, which every member of the Nein does feel capable of doing by the time of their epilogues.

#like it's not like getting to that point precludes a person from making bad choices or even choices that other people would disagree with #imo it's also the biggest misunderstanding with found family narratives (which are often about healing) in general #found families going their own way isn't a sign of 'we don't actually care about each other' #it's a sign of 'we feel capable of living confidently without relying on each other 24/7 but are there for each other when it's needed' #ANYWAY I'm going back to work but I did have this thought #cr meta #critical role

[madeimpact]

Y'know I think it could be interesting to write a thread where my little man just gets to go completely apeshit. The problem is it takes a LOT to get him to that point. But it can be done

#like we have SEEN what angry sora looks like in canon #and that would be so juicy to write in a thread #but like.......i think smth i see a lot of in fanon that i disagree with is like #“hm. this sunshine boy needs more brooding!” #which like.............can a protag just be allowed to hold onto their hope in spite of all the shit they've gone through? #i'd say that's what MAKES sora sora yanno? #and like he ABSOLUTELY can have and has had his low points. but narratively he IS that light that never goes out #even if it flickers from time to time and threatens to go out completely sometimes #anyway this is a very long winded way of saying it's so hard to straddle that line LMAO #i sometimes worry that i'm too vanilla on this blog and my portrayals come off as one-dimensional bc of that #but i don't wanna veer too hard in the other direction either #i've got shinji for that /j ( he's JUST as complex but that's a diff rant ) #anyway hi i'm neg and i find protags that find hope in spite of all their bullshit WAY more compelling than brooding for its own sake #this turned into a WHOLE tag rant sorry. this was meant to be a wishlist post KWJHEFLKAJWSKGLBHFLHJKG #❛ ooc: wishlist. #rant in tags #❛ meta: sora. #yeah this can go into that tag for the. tags rant.

[robbyykeene]

Long rant about season 4, Johnny Lawrence, and the deterioration of the writing below so feel free to ignore this, but I just feel like I haven’t actually coherently expressed my main gripe with season 4 here.

In season 1 johnny is introduced and he’s racist, misogynistic, bullies kids based on their physical appearance, etc. etc. etc. And these are clearly his Bad Traits that are explicitly condemned by the narrative. When not portrayed as something that has explicit negative consequences (ie basically causing Hawk to go full incel), at the very least the story mocks and pokes fun at him for having such backwards ideals. And as the character grows through the story, so do his values. The show explicitly shows him moving past his racism in regards to Miguel, his sexism in regards to Aisha and then Tory. The story clearly articulates that these are all things Johnny learned from Kreese, and as he distances himself more from Kreese and his teachings, he learns and grows and leaves a lot of that ignorance behind.

And then season 4 comes along, and all of that just…goes away. And I don’t mean to say that Johnny necessarily regresses. But the way the narrative depicts him has completely changed. Johnny goes to Piper talking about how Karate can empower women, but it just turns into a joke about how he “learned feminism for this.” This is not meant to poke fun at Johnny, but to poke fun at feminism. The entire joke is as basic as “haha, of course Johnny’s not a feminist! Why would he be?” Later on, he makes a gendered statement to Sam and apologizes and corrects himself. But then the narrative literally undoes that by having Sam validate him! Tells him it’s fine, she understood what he meant and he didn’t need to change. Later this season we are even explicitly told that we should just accept Johnny as he is. Johnny’s ignorance has gone from being something explicitly condemned by the narrative to something they want us to love and accept him for.

And you know what? I don’t. Because Johnny Lawrence is not a real person. He’s a character in a story. I don’t have to accept the negative parts of him, because as an individual I don’t care about him at all. And that’s not to criticize him for being a flawed character, a flawed protagonist is fine—it’s great, actually! But when the show itself goes from criticizing those flaws to treating them as anything but, that’s where I take issue. Because I really don’t care about any of these characters as individuals. I care about the story that’s being told, a story I used to love about toxic masculinity and radicalization and cycles of abuse and how they all interplay with each other. A story that actually seemed like it was trying to say something important. But season 4 watered it all down so much to the point where I can’t even find a coherent central theme in the show anymore. At least not one the writers seem to have a solid stance on.

#so yeah theres a bunch of shit i didnt like season #but this is my main gripe bc it all ties back into this #the story has now decided it wants us to acfept johnny for who he is #and thats why characters felt so off and made decisions that seemed insane #because the central theme of the season may have been that johnny and daniel need to find a middle ground #but the actual narrative didnt even back up that perspective #whatever #this is why i wont watch season 5 #also you’re allowed to disagree w me obviously but this isnt smth i feel like debating bc these are just my thoughts and if you feel #differently thats fine but i dont care enough anymore to listen to other peoples perspectives on this #bc thats all ive been doing since s4 came out and ive really tried hard to see what some of yall are seeing #and i just dont see it #so lets agree to disagree and keep the commentary off this please #which is why im not tagging it as anything either #except #ck negativity #just to be safe #im just sick of getting messages everytime i post or rb smth critical of the show accusing me of hating johnny or daniel or robby or miguel #etc. etc. etc. #bc it literally isnt about that #I’m annoyed by all of those characters stroylines this season sure #but at the end of the day they’re characters. not people. i dont dislike the characters i dislike the writing #and how its all become so warped this season

[demilypyro]

So I've seen a few too many people on twitter talking about The Kiss Scene from the new Scott Pilgrim anime. People saying it's fetishistic and indulgent, people calling it male gazey, etc. And while the kiss itself is certainly a bit exaggerated, I felt like writing a bit about why I disagree, and why context is important, like it always is. But it basically turned into an extended analysis on the metatextual treatment of Roxie Richter. So bear with me. It's a long post.

What really matters about this scene is not the kiss itself, but what precedes it. Not even just the fight scene just before it, but what precedes the whole anime series, really. And that's the Scott Pilgrim comic book, and the live action movie. Because in both, Roxie is a punchline.

She's a joke. Her character starts and ends with "one of the exes is actually a girl, I bet you didn't expect that." Jokes are made about Ramona's latent bisexuality, the movie especially treating it as funny and absurd, and her validity as a romantic interest is entirely written off by Ramona as being "just a phase." There's a fight scene, she's defeated by a man giving her an orgasm which implicitly calls her sexuality into question (come on), and the movie just moves on. It sucks. It really, really sucks.

The comic fares a little better. It never veers into outright homophobia like the movie does, and while the line about Ramona having gone through a phase remains, Roxie actually gets one over on Scott when Ramona briefly gets back with Roxie. But Roxie is still only barely a character. Like all the other evil exes, she's just a stepping stone towards the male protagonist's development. She barely even gets any screentime before she's defeated by Scott's "power of love." But Roxie stands out, since she's the only villain who is queer, or at least had been confirmed queer at that point (hi Todd). In a series that champions multiple gay men in the supporting cast, the single undeniable lesbian in the story is a villain. She's labeled as evil, made fun of, pushed aside in favor of the men, and then discarded. Her screentime was never about her, or her feelings for Ramona. It was about the straight, male protagonist needing to overcome her. And that was Roxie Richter. An unfortunate victim of the 2010s.

Fast forward to current year, and the new anime series is announced. Everybody sits down to watch the new series expecting another retelling of the same story, and.... hang on, that straight male protagonist I mentioned just died in the first episode. And now it's humanizing the villains from the original story. And there's Roxie, introduced alongside the other evil exes in the second episode, and she's being played entirely straight, without a punchline in sight. No jokes are made about her gender, no questions are made of her validity as one of Ramona's romantic interests. The narrative considers her important. In one episode, she already gets more respect than she did in either of the previous iterations of Scott Pilgrim. And this isn't even her focus episode yet... which happens to be the very next one.

The anime series goes to great lengths to flesh out the original story's villains and to have Ramona reconcile with them. And I don't think it's a coincidence that Roxie gets to go first. While Matthew Patel gets his development in episode 2, Roxie is the first to directly confront Ramona, now our main protagonist. This is notable too because it's the only time the exes are encountered out of order. Roxie is supposed to be number 4, but she's first in line, and later on you realize that she's the only one who's out of sequence. She's the one who sets the precedent for the villains being redeemed. She's the most important character for Ramona to reconcile with.

What follows is probably the most extensive, elaborate 1 on 1 fight scene in the whole show. Roxie fights like a wounded animal, her motions are desperate and pained. Ramona can only barely fight back against her onslaught. Different set-pieces fly by at breakneck speed as Roxie relentlessly lays her feelings at Ramona's feet through her attacks and her distraught shouts. And unlike the comic or the movie, Ramona acknowledges them, and sincerely apologizes. And the two end up just laying there, exhausted, reminiscing about when they were together.

Only after this, after all of this, does the kiss scene happen. Roxie has been vindicated, she has reconciled with the person who hurt her, the narrative has deemed that her anger is justified and has redeemed her character. And she gets her victory lap by making the nearest other hot girl question her heterosexuality, sharing a sloppy kiss with her as the music triumphantly crescendos.

It's... a little self-congratulatory, honestly. But it's good. It's redemption for a character who had been mistreated for over a decade. And she punctuates the moment by being very, very gay where everyone can see it, no men anywhere in sight. Because this is her moment. And then she leaves the plot, on her own accord this time, while humming the hampster dance. What a legend. How could anything be wrong with this.

#scott pilgrim #spto #scott pilgrim takes off #roxie richter #roxanne richter #scott pilgrim spoilers #spto spoilers

[ursie]

Brennan’s statement on Palestine :

[ ID: Statement from Brennan Lee Mulligan, on Instagram. It consists of three black squares with plain white text. The text reads as follows:

"I'm calling on my government officials to immediately demand a ceasefire and de-escalation in Gaza.

I applaud anyone and everyone calling for peace, with the understanding that real peace only exists if it deeply and honestly accounts for and fully ends violence in all its forms. Real peace addresses and corrects wrong-doing in the past and guards against it in the future. It goes hand in hand with justice and requires truth, restoration, reconciliation, reparation.

Peace cannot co-exist with collective punishment, ethnic cleansing and forced displacement. It cannot co-exist with blockades, embargoes, or with 2.2 million people, half of which are children, trapped with no hope of escape or political recourse. it cannot co-exist with murdered journalists, bombed hospitals, or years of protesters being shot and killed at the border. it cannot co-exist with illegal settlements, segregated roads, and the silent, imperial chill that settles over the gaps in the violence - the unspoken geopolitical consensus that a group of people need to unflinchingly accept permanent subjugation and occupation.

My hear breaks for every Israeli person who lost loved ones during the attacks of October 7th. It breaks for every Ukrainian person who has lost their loved ones. It breaks for every Congolese person who has lost their loved ones. I do not speak on behalf of Palestinians now because some lives are worth more than others. I speak on their behalf because I, and all Americans, have a responsibility to pressure our government because we are responsible for this. Some have said that this situation is complicated. The Unites States government clearly disagrees. It has definitively, categorically, militarily chosen a side, and I do not agree with that decision.

In wiring this, I have been wrestling with what I am sure many people like me wrestle with: There is a powerful narrative surrounding violence in the Middle East that asserts and ever-moving goalpost of self-education and study in order to even be qualified to have an opinion. As someone with a love of research, I have at times in my life fallen into the trap that I am not educated enough clever enough, or aware enough to have a worthwhile perspective, and that three more articles and two more lectures and one more book will do the trick. Unfortunately, democracy doesn't work that way - we, the citizens of any democracy, cannot possibly be experts on every aspect of the policies of our governments, and yet if we do not constantly weigh in an make our voices heard, the entire experiment falls apart. Not only do people constantly doubt themselves and the things they can see with their own two eyes, but old shortcuts for political action can fall apart as well: This specific issue exists along a raw, charged and unique faultline in American Politics. Nobody I grew up with has ever challenged me on my support for abortion rights, LGBT rights, Black Lives Matter, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, none of it. The people in my country who would despise me for those positions are, for all intents and purposes, strangers to me. But there are people who I've broken bread with and shared honest affection with who will see the words I've written here and incorrectly conclude that I do not wish for the security, dignity and happiness of them and their loved ones, and that breaks my fucking heart. Full-throatedly condemning the actions of the Israeli government while battling rampant anti-semitism at home is an urgent moral necessity, and doing so is made unnecessarily challenging for the average person to navigate by the pointed obfuscations of cynical opportunists, bigots, and demagogues on all sides of the political spectrum who see some advantage in sowing that incredibly dangerous confusion.

So, I'm calling my representatives. I'm having hard conversations with friends and family. I'm here, talking to you. I should have done it sooner. If you're Israeli and hurt by this statement, know that I want freedom, dignity, security and peace for you, and that every ounce of my political awareness believes whole-heartedly that the actions of your government are not only destroying innocent lives, but doing so to the detriment of you and your loved ones' safety. If you're American and feel lost and confused - I understand and empathize. This, the whole country, only works when we get involved. I am constantly haunted by the specter that maybe I missed some crucial piece of information on this, or any, important world event. I'll just have to make my peace with that self-doubt and trust my gut by going with Jewish Voice for Peace, Amnesty International, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations, etc. And if you're Palestinian and reading this: I unreservedly support your right to life, to freedom, to happiness and human flourishing, to full enfranchisement and equal rights, to opportunity, prosperity and abundance, to the restoration of stolen property and land, and to a Free Palestine." End ID ]

#if anyone wants to do the id I will love you forever btw #brennan lee mulligan #d20 #dropout #free palestine #dimension 20 #I babble

[subway-tolkien]

Okay, this is 1600 words of (positive!) meta regarding the OFMD finale. Included is character analysis and a treatise on why a certain trope people keep throwing around does not apply here.

This is of course just my take, and I'm sure people will disagree, but I needed to get this out. Apologies if it comes off disjointed, I've had like no sleep.

Spoilers within, obviously. You have been warned. Heed the tags. I didn't tag any characters because I consider it a spoiler, but you know who this is about.

Listen. Listen.

Let me start off by saying I have been where you are. I’ve had beloved characters die, either because it was important to the narrative or for shock value. I’ve been there, so I’m not coming at this without empathy. I’m not an Izzy hater. I loved him as a character. I’m truly sad to see him go.

But from what I’m seeing around Twitter and tumblr, some of you do not understand the role of an antagonist in a story.

Izzy was always meant to die. The moment he said, in the first season, “the only retirement we get is death,” I knew he was meant to die in the end. The foreshadowing ran through both seasons. Izzy was the true antagonist of S1. He was there to keep Blackbeard tethered when he started pulling away, and yet he also set the plot in motion. He inadvertently introduced Blackbeard to the person who let him be just Ed. He put Ed on his own path to redemption without even knowing it.

S1 ended with Izzy getting what he wanted as Ed lost everything he had. S2 was about Izzy coming to terms with the fact that he’d gone too far, he’d turned Ed into a monster. It wasn’t what he wanted. He wanted Blackbeard back, just like old times. Instead, he got the Kraken, and it was more than he bargained for.

Especially after it cost him his leg and he realized how far gone Ed really was. The conversation that ended with Izzy’s half-assed suicide attempt was the final blow to Izzy—Ed really didn’t seem to care anymore. Where Izzy wanted him to stop giving a shit about his silly boyfriend, he instead got a Blackbeard who didn’t care about anything, and he was apparently now included in that category.

(I said half-assed suicide attempt because Izzy wasn’t meant to die then, THAT would have been an empty, pointless death. It wouldn’t have taught Ed anything—in fact, all it did was make him more self-destructive, which was Izzy’s purpose to the narrative, but not his endgame. That Ed thought Izzy killed himself pushed Ed to the brink. Ed wanted to die and take every scrap of Blackbeard with him. Had Izzy successfully killed himself, Ed and the Revenge would be at the bottom of the ocean.

It wasn’t until the crew left Izzy the unicorn leg that he realized the power of compassion, the incredible act of grace from a crew that suffered so much from Izzy’s own machinations and didn't need to forgive him. It moved him to tears, and it moved him to accept that maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea to let people in, to let himself be cared for. It was a foreign concept and something Izzy likely hadn’t experienced since losing his family (I fully expect a shit ton of fanfic of Izzy’s life before piracy).

Israel Hands found the capacity to let love all the way in and by god, did he pursue it.

But, again, Izzy was always meant to die, and I’m glad they stuck to the narrative they set out with instead of placating fandom and letting our influence dictate how they told this story That’s never good, trust me. Fandom should not influence a creator’s decisions regarding their own characters. It rarely if ever ends well.

[Stares in Voltron S8]

And I see a lot of people out here throwing the “bury your gays” phrase around—I beg you, please look up the definition of the trope. Izzy didn’t die because he was queer, he didn’t die because of his disability. He wasn’t one half of the only queer couple in the show fridged for shock value. He wasn’t killed off due to pressure from conservative viewers. He wasn’t the only queer, disabled character.

They didn’t kill off Lucius, or Jackie, or Wee John. Would you be as outraged if it was any of them?

Killing Eve is bury your gays. Supernatural is bury your gays. Pretty much any film, book, TV show, whatever, where a queer character dies because they’re queer, of AIDs, to further the narrative for a straight person, etc—that is burying your gays.

Izzy’s death was none of those things. Izzy’s death had meaning.

Izzy’s death freed Ed from the Blackbeard persona. It finally forced Izzy to say the things he couldn’t say until he realized it was his last chance. Izzy was also tired. I honestly think he stuck it out for Ed’s sake, because he was afraid to let Blackbeard go without making sure Ed would be ok.

He loved the idea of Blackbeard, but over time, he learned to love Ed. He finally understood what Ed tried to tell him the whole time.

“Fuck off, you twat. You’re surrounded by family.”

You’re safe. You’re loved. You don’t need me anymore. You don’t need to be reminded of who you’re capable of being, you need the people who will guide you to who you will become, and I’m not one of them.

I know a lot of Izzy fans are stung by his death, some of you are deeply upset. I get that. Like I said, I’ve been there. Sirius’s death made me throw that fucking book across the room. That Fucking Woman™ killed off my entire OTP, purely for shock value and, imho, a direct response to shippers. Trust me, I have felt betrayed by a creator for their decisions.

But I need you to understand that no, this was not a personal attack, this was not malicious, this was not “bury your gays." A show that celebrates queerness and diversity is not suddenly homophobic and ableist because your favorite character died and happened to be both of those things. But when the majority of your cast of characters is different in some way, and they’re in a show about 18th century pirates, you have to accept that one of them could, in fact, die. “Anyone Can Die” is also a trope and the more accurate one to describe E8.

If only being queer and disabled made you invincible.

Spoiler alert: it doesn’t.

And no, I’m not an Izzy hater. I loved him, I loved him as an antagonist, and I loved his redemption arc. He was fascinating and Con put his whole O’Nussy into that part. I’m sorry to see him go, but as a mystery writer who often has to kill off beloved characters, I understand that he served the purpose he had from the beginning.

I swear, if some of you had your way, there’d be no conflict at all in any form of media. This what a steady diet of nothing but fanfic gets you. This is not a fluffy one-shot with magical healing dick and a happy ending where everyone sails off into the sunset. If that’s what you wanted, what you headcanoned, you did this to yourself. It’s not David et al’s fault that we took that character and babygirled him. That’s the risk we take when we decide to love a specific character, when we take a genuinely terrible person (in S1) and woobify him.

So, please stop harassing and attacking David, Alex, et al. David did not and should not change his story to placate us. The fact he went ahead with it despite the backlash I’m sure he expected makes me respect him as a creator even more.

Anyway, I’m going to revel that we have three (!) queer relationships with happy endings where one or both didn’t immediately die (again, the actual definition of “bury your gays”) and that we got at least two seasons of a little show that celebrated individualism, diversity, queerness, compassion, and love.

In the end, it all came down to love.

“There he is.”

Goodbye, Blackbeard.

Hello, Ed.

#ofmd spoilers #ofmd season two spoilers #ofmd finale spoilers #ofmd finale #Meta #ofmd s2 spoilers #our flag means death

[thearchercore]

I’m a relatively new f1 fan so loving your commentary about early lestappen days. in hindsight, wtf was in the air during 2023 las vegas gp weekend that lead to max/charles interacting so much more??? not sure if you talked about it when it went down live but the amount of lestappen content im now learning came from that gp weekend alone is wild to me 😭

oh yeah! vegas was a fun one.

to fully grasp the context of their interactions, we need to understand what was going on behind the scenes. at the time, ferrari was in post-singapore era where they "sacrificed" charles to help carlos get his win. and it was straight after brazil where charles' car gave up in the formation lap.

charles seemed to lose control over the entire narrative at ferrari, and carlos' gang was trying their best to use it to their advantage.

it was also right when the contract negotiations were going on so a lot of pressure on both ends.

and so charles decided to play PR games with ferrari. he stopped tagging them, posting about them, mentioning them on social media. dropped wearing most ferrari sponsors, truly gave ferrari the silent treatment. that happened between the triple header and ended in abu dhabi where the agreement of the contract was most likely reached.

during that time, charles was offered a seat at red bull. we don't have confirmation how seriously he took the offer, we just know it went as far as max having to agree with the possibility of having charles as a teammate if it came down to it (which he approved).

so we have two separate scenarios going on, charles with max after they got visibly closer (most likely due to the teammate conversation) and charles ignoring ferrari as much as he could to increase pressure on them.

that resulted in max and charles basically hanging out whenever they could around the paddock, max inviting charles into his interviews, max's apology tour after his turn 1 mess up, and everything around that.

during that time, max also was in his full on hater era -- FIA wasn't handling the las vegas gp situation well and he called them out on it. charles disagreed with some of his points but eventually agreed with max's overall opinion. max got dragged by multiple other drivers for being so vocal (even the ones closer to him like daniel) so charles respecting his opinion definitely was a welcomed support.

and finally, before vegas, max and charles seemed to be much closer than before, and the journalists picked up on it and they were asked multiple times about each other and their joint history which got them quite sentimental about their past and the present.

TLDR: there was this little conspiracy called "lestappengate 2023" which precisely covered this era if you want to fall into a rabbit hole!

#charles leclerc #max verstappen #lestappen #lestappen gate 2023

[qqueenofhades]

I'm a little confused by the left's repeated assertion that they're "trying to hold Biden accountable" and push him left, things they've been talking about since before he was elected, and the ramifications of that at this point in time. I do think we need to be calling out things we disagree with and making our feelings known, but seeing people like Nina Turner complain about student loan forgiveness when it's been made abundantly clear Biden is doing all he can and he can't actually cancel anything as just the President (without being sued or having it reversed by Republicans - please correct me if I'm wrong and there's more he could do here?) doesn't feel like it's that? I just don't understand the logic behind people on the left adding to this narrative that he isn't trying hard enough on what we want, rather than the Republicans are preventing things from being done. We need to not sit back and get complacent, yes, sure, but I feel like the line where it goes from helpful and necessary to harmful and more beneficial to the right was crossed a while ago.

The thing is, you're confused by it because it's a bad-faith argument. Actually "holding someone accountable" means honestly assessing what they can do, what they have done, what they can be expected to do in the future, and if they haven't done it, what's stopping them (i.e. have they just not done it or are they being actively stopped from doing it by factors beyond their control)? It doesn't mean "constantly moving the goalposts to constantly criticize someone if they don't magically get everything done immediately, regardless of reality." The way Online Leftists use it, "holding Biden accountable" means "relentlessly criticize him every instant he doesn't magically transform into the Socialist Messiah overnight, the end." That's not actually a useful, honest, reliable, or constructive metric.

This is also the case because their version of good policy is "someone thinks the Correct Thoughts all the time and any failures to achieve it means they are not thinking the Correct Thoughts hard enough." I'm not sure how anyone could have missed what SCOTUS is doing right now, but Online Leftists remain determined to discount, minimize, or otherwise totally ignore its role, because that would mean a) there is in fact a difference between the parties, b) Hillary Clinton would not have made the same appointments Trump did, and c) they might therefore have some responsibility in not voting for her, none of which can be countenanced. As such, if Biden has failed to wave a magic wand and get all student debt erased for everyone overnight, He Is Just Not Trying Hard Enough. SCOTUS very notably outlawed his first forgiveness program? BIDEN'S FAULT!

Even though Biden extended the Covid-era payment pauses as long as he could (it was Congress that passed the law mandating an end to them, because THE PRESIDENT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE MONARCH!), and even though he's now rejiggered the entire repayment program so that your monthly payments can get lowered to $0, these count as payments, and no interest accumulates as long as you "make" them, which in practice adds up to full forgiveness -- this still isn't good enough for the Online Leftists, because it happened after trial and error, is a partial solution, doesn't snap its fingers and erase everything, and relies on slow and careful policy work. And yet, it's going to be a lot harder for SCOTUS to overturn than just "the president forgives your debt," which was the first thing he tried to do and it didn't work! With a different SCOTUS, it might have! But we have this nightmare court BECAUSE OF TRUMP, and all the Pure Thoughts in the world won't get rid of it!

Biden is the most liberal president we have ever had, period, full stop. It's not sexy and it's not exciting and it's not something the Online Leftists will ever acknowledge, but it's the truth. And whenever he is actually and extensively pushed, he goes more left, not less. I suspect at least part of the recent negative press barrage he's gotten is because he's openly come out with a plan to raise the tax rate on billionaires to 25%, and the corporations and oligarchs that own the mainstream media Really Don't Like That. (They've always been unfair to Democrats, but look for it to be especially so.) That would be, BY FAR, the highest the top-rate tax bracket has been since Reagan. Biden is the first president ever to actually address the scam of "Reaganomics" and take credit for "Bidenomics," which actually does represent a major rearrangement of the way capital is envisioned and distributed in this country for the first time in the 40+ years since Reagan wrecked it. That's why the capitalist media is really, REALLY determined to muckrake him as much as possible, and to do Kamala even dirtier than they did to HRC in 2016.

Anyway also: Holding someone accountable also implies that you're working with them and will reward them (i.e. voting for them, engaging with them) if they do the things you expect, which is another thing the Online Leftists won't do. So yes. This. The end.

#anonymous #ask #politics for ts

[dee-morris]

Finally We're Going to Talk About Crowley

I really do love them equally but you wouldn't know it from my posting history because I constantly feel the need to ride to Aziraphale's defense every other week.

Anyway we talk incessantly about Aziraphale's behavior in the last scenes of season two for obvious reasons, but I think Crowley also needs some deconstructing. His behavior is less shocking; he appears to be reacting to Aziraphale more than taking the reins of the narrative himself. But there are a few key moments I want to look at more closely.

The first thing I thought of was how nonchalant he appeared to be about his only friend going off to have a private conversation with a powerful angel who clearly loathes the sight of him. "Go ahead, the day can't get any weirder" YES IT CAN YES IT CAN but anyway, I was deeply mistaken.

The second they're out of sight he jumps to his feet and stares out the window after them, then he starts to pace around the bookshop. He stops dead when he sees Muriel and goes back to nonchalant mode. "They'll be back soon."

(In the tone, imo, of a parent waiting for their kid to come back from a date and it's past curfew and they're not answering their cell.)

And then--he immediately tries to get rid of Muriel. Who doesn't want to leave, bc "The Metatron might need me!" And you can see the "oh my sweet summer child" expression cross Crowley's face. He's still his usual casual demonic No Fucks Given self on the outside, but he doubles down on getting Muriel out of the shop.

I don't want to spit in anyone's crepes with this next bit, but I don't think the "us time" portion of this conversation was intended to be romantic. I hypothesize that Crowley had just about made up his mind to have an honest conversation with Aziraphale about his Fall and whatever tf he's got going on with the Metabitch. And the "extremely alcoholic breakfast" was what he needed to get through the conversation.

I'm wandering into the realm of speculation at this point, but I think my hypotheses are based on canon events. Crowley does not talk about his Fall with Aziraphale and discourages any mention of his angel identity. That could just be a trauma response, but you don't see the same reticence when it comes up in conversation with Beelz or Muriel or even Jim. I think he's been protecting Aziraphale from something all this time, maybe for his own safety or maybe because he doesn't want Azi to lose faith in heaven/God. The way he tries to send Muriel away makes me think it's a physical safety thing.

But then Metacunt shows up in the flesh and Crowley goes, Yeah it's time to have The Talk.

So then what changed?

This next extrapolation is a bit tenuous so feel free to disagree, but I don't think Crowley was as lost in the woods as he seemed to be. Crowley is impulsive and emotional, but he's not stupid. My friend leaves with the most dangerous angel I know and comes back acting weird. We are not getting that breakfast at the Ritz, are we?

I think the confession and the kiss were sincere, but I also think they had a purpose. I think he was trying to snap Aziraphale out of whatever was making him act like a marionette on crack. But, "It's too late. It's always too late."

#aziraphale #good omens #crowley #ineffable husbands #aziracrow #good omens meta #crowley good omens #Crowley meta #the final fifteen #fuck the metatron #The kiss #It worked for sleeping beauty #You sit on a throne of lies Disney

[the-badger-mole]

How old do you think Katara and Zuko would be if they did get together in canon?

Personally, my gut says mid to late 20s (25-27 at the earliest and 27-29 at the latest) because I can't really visualize them getting together in their late teens.

Let's pretend that Kataang and Maiko didn't become endgame in the season finale for the sake of this ask, as well as ignoring the comics entirely.

Depends on the story. I could see them getting together at any age. I even like the idea of Book 1 Zutara. I have written stories where they get together right before the comet, right after the Agni Kai, a few years later. I even have one where they don't get together until they're in their late 40s/early 50s. Their chemistry is good enough that I think they just need one halfway decent reason.

I firmly believe that had the show ended with them, it would've still made narrative sense. Had they kissed at the Agni Kai, it would've felt earned, and it would've matched their impulsive streaks. I know there are those who felt it would've been rushed, but I disagree. The only reason I think it might have felt rushed is because of how recently they became friends, but I don't think it would've taken them that long to realize they were attracted to each other. Especially not Miss Heart-On-My-Sleeve Katara. which is why I absolutely think that she was trying to let Aang down gently in eip, but Bryke wanted their baby boi to have his prize🙄😒

#atla #zutara #anti aang #anti kataang

[entryn17]

people can interpret my art however they like and frankly it's not that big a deal but when i made that comic with chara talking to the player about it being its/their/our nature to be curious about undertale i got people calling the player the game's ultimate villain and chara truly innocent. and i heavily disagree with that perspective, especially since in my art i like portraying both as chaotic, complex forces. i don't remember if i've talked about it in more detail here but i guess i'll do it anyways. (for the record before i go on with this - no, i don't think chara is evil or a literal demon.)

undertale intertwines game mechanics with its worldbuilding; it's integral to the story it's trying to tell and how it delivers its messages. often we portray saving, loading, resets and files as very literal and concrete things that exist in that world and while i think that portrayal is correct we seem to sweep the player's involvement under the rug no matter how we interpret the story.

in the first few years of the game's existence the framing of chara as a villain was practically inescapable. that coincided with people firmly rejecting undertale's premise of your choices having consequences when we made shit hit the fan. the player had all the agency in the world until we did something to destroy that world and got called out for it and then suddenly it was chara's fault. nowadays we've moved on from that (thank GOD) but have resorted to pointing the finger to ourselves and while yeah, we do tend to pick through everything with a needle to satiate our undying curiosity, i don't really like how fans tend to portray themselves as the ultimate evil that needs defeating, cause here's the thing

undertale doesn't need a villain. it doesn't really have one either. even if you searched for it.

the game intertwines game mechanics with its worldbuilding and the player is a part of it as well. without us there would be no undertale in a literal and story-wise sense, because we're the force that drives the main events, for whom the mechanics and worldbuilding were created. it's a symbiotic relationship. the game has things for us to do, to see, to try and in return we keep it up and running. it was meant for us and i don't just mean this in a "toby fox made a game for people to play" i'm more approaching this from an in-game, canonical perspective.

the player isn't evil, they/we just are. we're a part of this game.

and chara? well, i think they're a reflection of the player. someone to mirror us and that's why in turn they're also a chaotic force of nature. we name them, they haunt the narrative and we give them a life and finish their story. they aren't evil either. chara is just chara, flawed and complicated. that's it, really.

undertale doesn't have nor need a villain because it's not about "good vs evil". it's about choice and consequence which can be taken in every single direction. i really don't know what else to say