#metas | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

brenda-cast · 4 months

Text

Cosas que me gustaría que hiciera el amor de mi vida si algún día lo encuentro:

1.- Quiero que me agarre de la mano a donde sea que vayamos.

2.- Que me diga y me demuestre todos los días que me ama.

3.- Quiero ir al parque con el y hacer un picnic.

4.- Quiero ir al mar con el.

5.- Aprender a convivir con su familia y el con la mía de manera sana, respetuosa y tolerante.

6.- Quiero salir a mil citas con el.

7.- Llevarlo de compras.

8.- Que me lleve de compras.

9.- Que me de Flores sin importar el día, la hora o la ocasión.

10.- Que me abra la puerta, me jale la silla, me pase del lado de la banqueta. Que sea un caballero.

11.-Que yo lo acompañe a todas sus fiestas de sus amigos y el a las mías y nos divirtamos.

12.- Bailar con el.

13.- Viajar con el.

14.- Llenarlo y que me llene de detalles, como cartas, canciones flores, dulces chiquitos.

13.-Ver la puesta del sol con el.

14.- Caminar por un campo de flores gigante el y yo.

15.- Darnos de comer en la boca.

16.- Demostrar cada día que nos seguimos queriendo y amando como las primeras veces.

17.- Que me agarre y me bese como si no hubiera un mañana.

18.- Que no me coja, que me HAGA EL AMOR.

19.- Darnos sorpresas.

20.- Cambiar algo malo uno del otro si la relación empieza a ir por mal camino.

21.- Tenernos confianza en todo y respetar nuestras ideas.

22.- Desearnos todos los días.

23.- Hacer tonterías para reírnos entre nosotros mismos, sin pasar el límite del respeto.

24.- Tener los mismos intereses, sueños y metas.

25.- Que me trate como una princesa.

26.- Que sea empatico conmigo y mis sentimientos.

27.- Que nunca dudé de mi nunca por ningún motivo.

28.- Que cuando discutamos, nunca nos gritemos y tratemos de resolver las cosas, o darnos un tiempecito en lo que se nos baja el coraje y después resolver juntos.

29.- Que cuando le cuente algo malo, o triste me escuche, me apapaché y me consuele. Y después de un tiempo me diga si estuve bien, mal o que puedo mejorar.

30.- Que sea una persona comprometida.

31.- Que me consienta.

32.- Que me haga sentir confianza hacia el.

33.- Que me motive a ser mejor persona, y no tenga prejuicios de ningún tipo.

34.- Que me proponga matrimonio de la forma más bonita que el pueda imaginar.

35.- Que no tenga ningún vicio malo o nocivo.

36.- Y que todos los días de su vida cuando me de un detalle, me haga reír o me vea feliz diga “Mereces esto y más princesa”

Confío en la vida en que un día nos encontraremos 🫰🏻✨

#amor #perfection #algun dia #sueños #metas #relacionship #amor bonito #cielo #eden

289 notes · View notes

linisiane · 7 months

Text

The Self-Aware Player of Harry Du Bois

It's fascinating to me to think about how satire is used as the 'touch grass' or 'be fucking for real' genre. Oftentimes it's making fun of tropes/conventions by humorously contrasting them with reality, which is exactly what Disco Elysium is doing with the RPG!

It goes hand in hand with the idea of RPGs as escapist power fantasy. RPGs are often thought of as the ultimate self-insert fantasy by its detractors or worst players, ahem looking at all those DND horror stories about entitled mangsty murderhobos.

One of the most infamous criticisms of Disco Elysium is its lackluster combat.

ID A screenshot of a random forum discussion post by dungeon master Zed Duke of Banville. It reads: "Disco Elysium has neither combat nor exploration, and therefore is missing two of the three fundamental components (or sets of components) that define the RPG genre." End ID

The game has essentially bordered off your ability to make Harry into a power fantasy murderhobo because you just are physically unable to equip an longsword or cuisse to murder your average citizen on the street of Martinaise.

But even on a less mangsty level, it subverts a lot of the basic expectations of RPGs.

Like the encounter with the racist lorry driver! You never get the ability or quest to change his mind, you only choose how you react to him.

Where other RPGs might let you act as the white savior or the white knight of chivalric romance, no questions asked, you're changing the minds of everybody who's wrong so we can all get along, Disco Elysium really makes you confront your ability to whiteknight, makes you confront if whiteknighting is even helpful, and why you wanted to whiteknight in the first place.

It’s part of the fun/humor experience of Disco Elysium that you at first expect to solve the world’s problems with a couple quests and lines of ‘good’ dialogue and then get socked in the faced with the fact that yeah, you can’t do much, you’re one person, what did you expect, asshole? Cuno doesn't fucking care!

By subverting our RPG expectations, it forces us to become more aware that these expectations even exist and how they fall short of reality. Yet, despite this subversion, the world of Disco Elysium feels so much realer to us.

ID a screenshot of Disco Elysium dialogue YOU - "Don't call it a dump, you've made it nice and cosy here." NOVELTY DICEMAKER - "Yeah." She stares out of the window, not really hearing your words. "Or maybe it's the entire world that's cursed? It's such a precarious place. Nothing ever works out the way you wanted." "That's why people like role-playing games. You can be whoever you want to be. You can try again. Still, there's something inherently violent even about dice rolls." "It's like every time you cast a die, something disappears. Some alternative ending, or an entirely different world...." She picks up a pair of dice from the table and examines them under the light. End ID

Like, Neha is highlighting this little meta element of how you can stack your Harry in any RPG to pursue a certain ending or situation, but the actual outcome is still influenced by a dice roll out of your control.

A lot of the satirical humor in Disco Elysium comes from the absurdity that you can do everything right or everything wrong, and the dice can still fuck it up or save it for you—not just for things like high-fantasy attacks, but mundane things like remembering your name.

The dice are, at their core, about how RPGs aren't just for the control fantasy, of winning high-fantasy battles, but also can represent life as it is, mundane and uncontrollable.

Similarly, Harry is clearly written—complete with all the 'lore' that this would entail—to couch his RPG protagonist nature in the real.

If RPG characters are blank slates? Let's give ours amnesia! Need fast travel?! Kim teases the 41st Precinct for constantly running everywhere by calling it the Jamrock Shuffle. He needs to have deep and intimate conversations with everyone, even when they're strangers? Yeah, that's so weird we gave him the name 'Human Can-Opener,' and everybody remarks on his uncanny manipulation skills.

It's commenting on difference between controlling an RPG avatar and navigating in a human body.

As Kurvits said: “In reality we do not have control, or complete control, of our minds. Just like our body, it is something that we give-not even commands wishes to, and we hope it's gonna do it. We hope it's not gonna break down, we hope it's not gonna rebel against us.”

In one type of RPG fantasy, we don't even question our total control and even assume the joy is from the control.

But in Disco Elysium, we lack control and find joy in it anyway. That is the fun of the game making us, the players, 'self-aware' about its RPG elements, and it especially resonates with anybody not able-bodied, anybody neurodivergent.

#disco elysium #metas #My thoughts #harry du bois #harrier du bois #human can-opener #jamrock shuffle #yeah so im reposting my meta because i worked really hard but i feel like it was too long for anybody to appreciate :')

332 notes · View notes

armed-with-a-waffle-iron · 8 months

Text

Stephanie Brown ACTUALLY having the character arc that fanon pretends Jason Todd had (plus a defence of canon Jason)

What I'm really saying is that Stephanie Brown is underappreciated, Jason Todd is often misinterpreted, and, though it should go without saying, ignoring canon is poor media literacy. So let's actually analyse canon and get to the bottom of what the stories are trying to say and how they use their characters to tell this, as opposed to just which character should we stan.

I'm arguing that Stephanie Brown's story actually features a redemption arc that sees her transform from a violent, almost murderous teenager into the most unwaveringly hopeful of heroes and that Jason's story is about a villain who we're meant to empathise with to expose the cracks in the Batman's heroic facade; a Frankenstein's monster if you will. Here's a numbered list:

Part 1: Outgrowing Violence, Anger and Murder

A big part of Stephanie Brown's growth in canon is her learning not to kill or use excessive force. But it's not as simple as just killing is wrong, don't question it.

Let's begin with the narrative's relationship to violence, anger and murder. Why doesn't Batman kill? Because "[those] who [fight] with monsters might take care lest [they] thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you". If he kills, he's playing god, choosing who gets to live and die. No one deserves that kind of absolute power and absolute power also corrupts. Batman doesn't want to lose sight of himself or his cause. Deliberate murder is treated VERY negatively in the Batman mythos.

Enter Stephanie Brown.

Stephanie was a working class latchkey kid who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. She had an abusive, criminal father, who was in and out of jail, and a mother struggling with addiction, who Steph became a carer for at just 15. Steph also became pregnant with the child of her horrible ex. At 16, she gave birth to that child and had to give her up for adoption. Steph is also a survivor.

The world was never kind to Steph and left this teenager with a hell of a lot of bitterness and rage which her vigilante career became an outlet for. You can tell by the way she fights since Steph fights DIRTY; she'll tug hair and spit in your eyes and strike below the belt and catch a kick to twist your ankle and dislodge your already broken nose. On the one hand; the narrative tells us Steph is resourceful. She's 5'5", 130 lb and has zero powers, but can always find an opening even when going up against Gotham's grizzliest. It's telling that quick thinking, savviness and spontaneity become her thing when she becomes Batgirl; Steph is the wild card. On the other hand, she was a real diamond in the rough and a complete loose canon. In her first arc, it's Batman who stops her from making the biggest mistake of her life; killing her dad. To deliberately kill; to play god, is to lose yourself, remember. Her first arc is about not being defined by who your parents are and about not giving up on yourself. Batman basically tells her, there's hope for you yet Stephanie Brown, by getting her to spare her dad. And she does. And so began her superhero career.

Nonetheless, it's never that simple. Steph is still a bitter, angry teenager, no matter how many jokes she cracks. It becomes a personal crusade when she, now Robin, discovers that The Penguin is using children as runners. It takes Cassandra Cain to stop her from inflicting anything she may regret.

The narrative wants to show us how cruel the world can be and that it isn't black and white, either. The story ends with an angry Stephanie lamenting "why". It's a "why" she is asking herself too. Why does she do what she does? And it informs us that she, and maybe us the reader too, still have a lot to learn. Murder's not the answer but what is?

Stephanie later saves Bruce by almost murdering serial killer Victor Zsasz. Bruce reprimands her and she cries, quite honestly, "I don't get it, I really don't", following on from where we left off in Batgirl. "There are always other options than to kill" asserts Bruce, forget not being on the same page, they're reading different books. The thesis of the story is what Bruce should have told Steph when she was an angry 15 year old about to murder her dad; "[those] who [fight] with monsters might take care lest [they] thereby become a monster". The world's cruel, Steph, but that doesn't mean you have to be too. "Are you firing me?" "No, I'm teaching you".

Over 2 years down the line, an around 19 year old Stephanie, establishing herself as the new, hoping-inspiring Batgirl, is now teaching a brash Damian Wayne what she's learned.

"To murder or not to murder" is just a plot device to the themes of overcoming your own anger at the world's cruelty to contribute good, coming to terms with shades of grey, not giving up on yourself and staying hopeful in the face of adversity and horror. These are Stephanie's arcs and as a consequence, she goes from would-be-murderer to Gotham's cheeriest caped crusader.

Part 2: Double Standards and Second Chances

Another huge part of Stephanie's story is her overcoming double standards and doubters, to earn her own second chances. Her resurrection and rise to the role of Batgirl were choices made to hammer home this theme; it's never too late to turn things around.

There's some juicy metatext to analyse here too. DC editorial's treatment of Stephanie during War Games was horrific and panned by both fans and writers. To reperate for these harms, Steph was retconned back to life and then made Batgirl during Batman: Reborn. Here's a quote by Batgirl (2009) author Bryan Q. Miller on what his run aimed to bring out of Steph:

The whole point of Stephanie's resurrection and take over of the Batgirl title was to give her a redemption arc.

In text, Stephanie was unfairly treated too, notwithstanding that she was brash and had a massive violent streak in her Spoiler and Robin days. Tim Drake constantly condescends her and tells her to give up vigilante life, even though she was ALWAYS a match for Tim according to Convergence: Batgirl. Cassandra Cain constantly underestimates Steph. Bruce Wayne tells his allies to cut off ties with Steph and then later fires her as Robin for DISOBEYING HIM as if that's not the first thing Dick Grayson ever did as Robin. Barbara Gordon tells Steph she has a death wish. Dick deems Steph too reckless (moments before he resurrects a zombie Batman). And Damian is an entitled brat who gives her a hard time for no reason. Everyone doubts Stephanie and it generally says more about the doubter than it does Stephanie.

Stephanie was never great with authority or criticism so she still went out there and earned her second chance. And it felt rewarding when her doubters came around too.

Stephanie was brought back from the dead to be redeemed and man did she take that chance!

Part 3: What is Jason Todd's Story Meant to Tell Us and My Defence of Canon Jason

Jason Todd returns from the dead as a ghost of Batman's past; he is the living embodiment of Batman's greatest mistake who couldn't stay buried and is back to haunt him. He's a character we are meant to empathise with but he's a villain nonetheless. He's not irredeemable but for the most part his story is not really about redemption. Succinctly, it revolves around the idea that "we are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell” to quote Oscar Wilde.

When we first meet the resurrected Jason, he's a cold-blooded murderer who's slinging guns and using The Joker's old moniker. These choices are made to emphasise that he went down the wrong path; he's breaking Batman's "don't play god" rule and his actions become eerily closer to those of the Clown Prince of Crime than Batman's. In fact Nightwing and Batman spend some quality time together in the next two issues because Nightwing is the foil to the Red Hood; he's what Bruce considers his greatest success. Remember that thing about "those who [fight] with monsters might take care lest [they] thereby become a monster"? Well Jason DID become a monster. And if he's the monster, then Bruce Wayne is Frankenstein.

We're not supposed to think "yes, kill the The Joker, Jason", we're supposed to think "good god, please Jason, it's not too late to turn your life around". Here's Dick and Jason being the exact opposite of each other, an issue apart.

So what was Jason's villainous return trying to say? For one, that people are the products of their circumstance, lest we forget Jason was once an eager and studious Robin who just wanted to be part of something greater when life, but specifically Bruce, sent him awry. This is also a story about Bruce which tells us says that our mistakes have consequences that don't stay buried, and that we will always be forced to reckon with our histories or it becomes everyone's problem. This next panel shows this best. All of Jason's killing and torture and fear-spreading and chaos does not come down to some "murder or not to murder" debate, it comes down to his relationship with Bruce. He is the monster that Frankenstein created who's back to haunt him and no one is safe.

Jason's initial Red Hood arcs were never supposed to pose the question "should Batman kill The Joker or not?". The answer is no and always has been. They are supposed to show us how Bruce's poor fatherhood of and partnership with Jason Todd led to all this horror. And Bruce can't turn back the clock, he has to reckon with the consequences of his actions in the present or more people will get hurt. It's significant that these first arcs don't end with Jason returning to the manor and seeking help surrounded by family.

We then see Jason and his issues with Bruce threaten the lives of others like when he beat Tim half to death twice, tried to blow up Mia Dearden and then tried to become a murderous, gun-touting Batman after Bruce's "death".

Once Dick Grayson becomes Batman, the narrative sheds a bit more light on how Bruce's Frankenstein created a monster in Jason; Bruce wanted Jason to be another Dick Grayson.

The red hair is a perfect metaphor. Jason is naturally red-haired and he is now balding because Bruce made him dye his hair black so he'd look like Dick as Robin. That sums it up for me. Bruce really created his own demon here and Dick, as the new Batman, is trying to make amends with the sins of the Batman's past. Jason's a great choice for a Dick Grayson villain because of their histories, considering Dick Grayson is the legacy Batman.

"I tried really hard to be what batman wanted me to be...which is you." Jason tells Dick.

That line is so painful and way more recognisable and relatable than anything fanon has produced.

"But this world...this dirty, twisted, cruel and ugly dungheap had...other plans for me."

Look no further, this is who Jason Todd is.

That's a powerful story if you ask me, and this is why I like Jason Todd as a character; a villain I pity deeply, who is portrayed as a product of their circumstances without diminishing their agency and who makes me see the cracks in the hero's facade because they are the monster our "hero" created. He's also a very nuanced foil to the ever-shining light that is Dick Grayson. The appeal to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein isn't that the monster murdered people. I also would never swap canon Jason out for, I dunno, Wayne Family Adventures Jason who's the amalgamation of 3 or 4 common fanon tropes. This is my two cents.

#stephanie brown that ball of anger and vengeance that we saw grow into one of the most well-rounded capable and cheerful bats around #stephanie brown #vengeance is purple #fanon vs canon #jason tood #robin #batgirl #the spoiler #red hood #batman and robin #dc comics #comics #metas #batman #batfam #wayne family adventures #bruce wayne #dick grayson

343 notes · View notes

elmundoestahechodefrasesyletras · 2 months

Text

Cuando te dan una oportunidad de cambiar tu vida, debes estar dispuesto a hacer lo que sea con tal de lograrlo. El mundo no te da cosas: tú debes tomarlas.

#libros #notas #frases #citas #escritos #los siete maridos de evelyn hugo #taylor jenkins reid #evelyn hugo #oportunidades #vida #metas #cambiar #mundo

90 notes · View notes

andreal831 · 3 months

Text

Esther "Mikaelson" and Misogyny

The misogyny in TVDU, in both the writing and the fandom, is exhausting. It comes out so much, especially when it comes to complex women versus complex men. Esther (yes, I know her last name is not Mikaelson), is not one of my favorite characters, she's not even a character I particularly like. But to act like she is an absolute villain with no redeeming qualities is a best misogynist, and at worst blaming a victim of abuse.

Most of the hate for Esther tends to come from certain character stans because they don't like how Esther treated their favorite character or want to shift the responsibility of their favs to Esther so that they don't have to deal with a complex, morally grey character.

Esther is a survivor many times over and we cannot talk about her without first acknowledging that. When she was just a teenager/young adult, her entire family was slaughtered and she and her sister were kidnapped. I know there is a lot of debate in the psychology community regarding Stockholm syndrome, but her falling for Mikael screams a manipulated, traumatized, naïve, young woman.

Esther and Mikael

Whether it was Mikael's intent initially or not, he took advantage of the mental place she was at when they met. People recently have wanted to argue whether or not Esther was abused, but this is not a debate. First, there are many different types of abuse, mental, physical, emotional, financial, etc.

During this time period, while Norse communities tended to give woman more power, Esther was from "outside" their community. Her rank in the community would come directly from her marriage. I personally don't know if she went into her relationship with Mikael in order to gain security or if she was just truly that naïve and wanted love and a family. There is nothing wrong with either. It reminds me of why Hayley decided to try and actually have a relationship with Jackson. Woman have historically had to make hard decisions in order to gain protection. And even if she just wanted to get married and have kids, that is fine. Esther reminds me of Meg March. Her dreams may have been different than Dahlia but that doesn't make them less important.

We see very little of their human lives and it is told from everyone else's perspective except for Esther. We also know that everyone's stories are not accurate. Klaus lied about Esther's death for a thousand years. He also has a tendency from not seeing things through other perspectives. Klaus, and even Elijah, when they talk about their human lives, focus on Mikael's abuse on Klaus because the show centers around Klaus and doing everything they can do to redeem him. There is no benefit to making Esther look complex or going into how living with Mikael impacted her. But it is naïve to say she didn't suffer abuse. She lived in a household with a violent, angry man. Even if he didn't physically hit her, which we honestly don't know but I would find that extremely hard to believe, it is clear he verbally, emotionally, and financially abused her.

People love to say she is a powerful witch and could have stopped him or left, but this is shifting the blame from the abuser to the victim. First, abuse isn't about who is stronger. This logic is completely dismissing so much abuse that happens, especially women abusing men. Yes, Esther is a powerful witch, but if she had no other options outside of Mikael, being powerful doesn't matter. We know she would put Mikael to sleep for long periods to protect her and her children. We don't know if she did anything else, but we have at least one example of her using her magic to intervene. We also know she stopped practicing for a long time because of her fear of dark magic and how the community treated Dahlia.

We also have to acknowledge that Esther had very few choices. Sure, she could kill Mikael but she would have gotten sentenced to death for that. Again, her position in the community came from her connection to Mikael, otherwise she was just another enslaved person from a village they raided. We know how Dahlia was treated. Maybe she could have run off with Ansel and they would have protected her from Mikael, or if he was dead, the villagers, but this is putting her, her children, and the pack in a dangerous situation. Potentially starting a war between the pack and the village for aiding and abetting a kin-slayer. She would also be acknowledging her affair and adultery by woman was met by serious punishments, usually death. After committing matricide, she also wouldn't have claims to Mikael's money or land as an outsider. Maybe in the "new world," but she would have to hide her involvement in his death. Esther would have no money or land of her own as her familial land and money would have been claimed when it was raided.

While women in Norse communities did experience more freedom than other areas of the world at that time, they were still far from free. This is especially true considering how Esther came to this community. While she wasn't enslaved in a way Dahlia was, it is wrong to say she wasn't still enslaved. Her entire village was killed and her and her sister were forced to come to their village and live amongst them as hostages. Esther was kept as a way to keep Dahlia in line. She was not welcomed into the community. This was a common practice during these raids.

The reason I get so angry when people attack Esther as if she wasn't a victim is because real-life victims hear this everyday. Esther's situation perfectly exemplifies the "non-perfect" victim and the fandom perfectly exemplifies how many of these victims are treated.

Esther and Dahlia

Dahlia gets way more slack than Esther because she is a "more perfect victim." But again, we are getting the story from everyone's perspective but Esther. Yes, what Dahlia went through was horrible, but what she put her sister through was also horrible. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Dahlia had no right to expect Esther to give up her dreams for her, even though she did sacrifice a lot for Esther. She made that decision and took it on. Yes, it was noble, but again, she cannot expect anything for a choice she made. It is just like Klaus expecting his siblings to never leave him and punishing them when they do. Siblings do not owe each other their lives. I would also not blame Dahlia for leaving Esther behind to protect herself.

On top of that, when Esther went to Dahlia and asked for help, she took advantage of the situation and stole her child. I don't care what Esther promised or how much she understood of the situation, clearly at the moment Dahlia came for Freya, Esther did not want to give her up. If we look at it in a modern perspective, a mother who puts her child up for adoption has the right to change their mind because, morally, we understand it is impossible to understand how you will feel until that moment. If a person than steals the child after the mom changes their mind, that's kidnapping. If we look at it from a historical perspective, Norse communities were patriarchal and the children belonged to Mikael. Meaning Esther did not have the ability to "sell" her children.

Dahlia is given a lot of sympathy in the fandom because they relate her story to Klaus, who they spend a lot of time victimizing. So it makes an easy leap to paint Dahlia as the victim and Esther as the "evil" one. But again, we never see how Esther reacted to her sister casting her aside because she wanted love and a family. or how Mikael treated her throughout their relationship. Even if Dahlia ended up being right about Mikael, whether he was always evil or turned evil losing Freya, Dahlia doesn't get to make that decision for Esther. It is hard to watch someone you love get into an abusive relationship, but you can't tell someone what to do with their life. All you can do is try and be there for them when they need help.

Esther and Klaus

Another reason people hate on Esther is because of her relationship with Klaus. I personally think Esther loved Klaus the most because of who his father was. She babies him in a way she never did with the other's. We even see Finn resenting her treatment of Klaus because of it.

Yes, she does give him the necklace which ends up making Mikael target him to "make him strong." But, one, let's blame the abuser and not shift blame to a fellow victim. And two, what would you have her do? Sure the answer is probably, don't have an affair, but then your fav character wouldn't be there. Also, again, she was young and naïve. She also gets more blame for having an affair than Mikael does for beating a child. She made a mistake and did everything she could to protect Klaus from that mistake. Was it misguided, maybe, but her intention was good. She wanted to protect Klaus from Mikael finding out.

The fact that Esther can forgive Klaus for brutally murdering her shows how much she loved him. Her wanting to kill her kids later is honestly understandable. She never knew the side affects of the spell she performed. She watched her children become the worst versions of themselves for a thousand years and felt the guilt for every life they took. She also knew peace existed since she had been on the other side. When she first tried to take their lives, they would have all just gone to the other side. She didn't want them to suffer but wanted the pain they inflicted on the world to end.

The Misogyny of it all

The reason I say it is misogyny, is because every favorite character in this show has done absolutely terrible things. Klaus, and all of the Mikaelsons, are serial killers. It doesn't matter what reasons they had for doing it. Esther had her own reasons for her actions. The fact that people can't acknowledge Esther as a complex character but can do so for Klaus, Damon, Elijah, Stefan, etc. shows that it is based on misogyny. Even the fact that Dahlia, someone who kidnapped and abused a child, gets more love than Esther because Esther isn't a "perfect victim" shows it is rooted in misogyny. Men are allowed to be messy and complex but when it's a woman they are either a victim or pure evil.

I'm not saying there aren't things you can't hate her for. I hated her treatment of Elijah in Season 2 of TO and her plan to harm Hope. But to ignore the complexity of the character and pretend she wasn't a victim is just harmful rhetoric. Women are allowed to be complex and morally grey.

#esther mikaelson #this fandom cant handle complex women #I may not agree with everything she did but ill always defend victims #no one is all good or all bad #stop blaming women for everything #tvdu #the originals #the vampire diaries #tvd #the mikaelsons #klaus mikaelson #tvdu metas #metas #dahlia

75 notes · View notes

aenreth · 1 year

Photo

King Allant led Boletaria with a round table of brave knights. The royal Twin Fangs, Vallarfax and Biorr, Alfred, the knight of the tower, Metas, the knight of the lance, and the brave tribesman, Long Bow Oolan and his fearsome legions.

But today, Boletaria is an abysmal mess. Vallarfax was lost and Biorr slipped through the fissure, never to be heard from again. All the rest, along with Boletaria, have been devoured by the fog, and will soon be prey for the Demons.

The Boletarian knights are no longer.

564 notes · View notes

chica-cristiana-mmm · 3 months

Text

Tú ritmo, tú tiempo, tus preocupaciones, tus afanes todo eso es innecesario cuando aprendes que el dueño del universo también toma el control de tu vida.☄️

69 notes · View notes

stellasolaris · 10 months

Text

Why Stella should not have been rebranded as the Fairy of the Shining Sun

After nearly a year, I have finally decided to write a second part to my previous post in which I said I was not a fan of the writers rebranding Stella as the Fairy of the Shining Sun.

To start, let's first take a look at her family background. Her parents are the King and Queen of Solaria—the proverbial sun and the moon. It is apparent from their distinct color palettes and the origins of their names that they represent the sun and the moon. Stella, with her original title as the Fairy of the Sun and the Moon, naturally has qualities and powers from both her parents. To take away her moon powers would be a disservice to her character, as it means taking a piece of her identity away.

While I subscribe to the idea of her having access to solar and lunar powers, I don't mind her lunar powers being secondary to her sun powers. Here's why.

Her moon-based spells, which she rarely uses, tend to be more defensive and tamer than her sun-based spells. (3.14, 3.26) For someone like her, who is bold and daring, and prefers offensive tactics over defensive ones, it makes sense that she would lean more toward using her combative solar powers. (1.21) It's what comes naturally to her.

Her relationship with her father, despite the neglectful behavior of both her parents, appears affectionate. (3.19) I like to think her strong connection with her father and home planet is in part why she prefers and is more in tune with using her solar powers than her lunar powers.

There is some debate over whether or not she should have a secondary power, with some suggesting that she would be too powerful if she had two powers. I disagree.

Her powers make narrative sense when you think of them from the standpoint of light rather than separate celestial bodies. In technical terms, moonlight is reflected sunlight. These two are not separate. In a way, her solar and lunar powers are essentially the same, just in different fonts.

It would be logical for her powers to be influenced by the level of light in her surroundings, allowing her to draw either from solar or lunar energy. We already know from canon that she becomes weak and powerless in the absence of sunlight. (2.04) In such situations, her lunar powers could become activated. This limits her abilities and prevents her from becoming too powerful.

Recall that one of the motifs regarding her character development is the use of mirrors. It serves as a symbol of her personal growth and self-awareness, particularly in seasons two and three. In 2.21, she earns a mirror-shaped pendant for being vulnerable and sharing her feelings of loneliness. In 3.04, she breaks her curse by realizing her beauty isn't skin deep. Every time she reflects on her life and grows as a person, there is a reflective item (the lake, the pendant) present. If we consider that the moon reflects the sun and acts like a mirror, we can interpret her mirror-based spells to have an indirect relation to her lunar abilities.

To be fair, her mirror spells could easily have a category of their own as the moon is not exactly like a mirror in its reflectivity power; the moon only reflects about 3–12% of the sunlight, while a mirror typically reflects anything between 70%–99.9%. However, based on the fact that the sun produces its light, whereas the moon and mirror do not, we can conclude that her mirror spells are more likely to fall under the moon category than the sun category.

From a narrative standpoint, it seems the writers had no idea what to do with her lunar side. It's likely why they changed her title and erased almost every trace of her lunar side, including the blue accents in her transformation outfits. It's a shame because there are so many ways they could have explored her moon powers in the later seasons, but no; instead, we get the displeasure of witnessing her turning into a toddler, putting fairy animals in silly costumes, and wearing an atrocious salad dress to the stage for everyone in the audience to mock. Which, for the record, she would absolutely never wear.

#winx club #winx #winx stella #winx headcanons #winx meta #winxmeta #metas

271 notes · View notes