#a world without heroes

[k-i-l-l-e-r-b-e-e-6-9]

Kiss –  A World Without Heroes

[itsyouch]

Hehe ignore the DRASTIC art style change, I kinda forgor what I was drawing xp

[darrisgrove]

A World Without Heroes by Brandon Mull REVIEW

4/5 Stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐

"Indulgence is emptiness. -. There is no real fulfillment in meaningless rushes of pleasure. You try to conceal the emptiness with more extravagance, only to find the thrill becoming less satisfying and more fleeting. Most pleasures are best as a seasoning, not the main course." - Drake, A World Beyond Heroes.

I found this book interesting enough to finish it. The plot was entertaining, the characters were believable and diverse. The main villain was a surprise. My only gripe is the ending. I know this is a three book series, but it felt as though the ending would have been less of a plot twist than it was. I wasn't expecting it, but it felt more like a disappointment rather than an engaging twist. I don't think I will finish the rest of the series.

[haveyoureadthismgyabook]

Series info:

Book 1 of Beyonders

Book 2: Seeds of Rebellion

Book 3: Chasing the Prophecy

[penspagesandpulses]

How to write the first chapter (learning from examples)

I’ve been working on a super special WIP, and one day I got especially discouraged with my writing. It felt like I couldn’t even figure out how to construct a sentence, let alone a chapter. Like seriously, how do you even write a chapter? How long are they supposed to be? Is it just one scene or multiple? Of course each book approaches writing chapters differently, but I’d heard that the best…

[rabid-dog-steve-horn]

A World Without Heroes

[clumsypuppy]

wait for me

[bluerosefox]

Another DPxDC idea.

I love the ideas of Chef Danny and the AU's but what if Danny opens a small dinner/restaurant and sometimes people stop by for a quick bite but the thing is there is little to no real menu. Danny just comes out when he hears his doors open, greets them warmly, takes them to their table and asks for drinks gets them, before heading into the kitchen.

At first everyone is confused until a few minutes later Danny shows back up with food, food that is amazing and freshly made and HOW DOES IT TASTE LIKE MY -Insert childhood fav meal or preferred fav meal here- ?!?!?!

Danny's small place is at first very unknown but eventually blows up as a urban myth and when people try to find it, its very hard to find. Some people swear its outside of 'this' town, others say they found the place in 'this' city, others find it on long car rides in the middle of nowhere.

It changes location.

The only common real clues is you find it on foggy nights and the neon sign shining 'OPEN' is seen through the fog.

[softer-ua]

So I’ve been joking for a while about how Inko manages to afford all of Izuku’s AM merch

But I decided to nerd out and look closer, and I’m pretty sure the only expensive piece Izuku owns is the poster he got from Sir

You might think his dorm looks absolutely stacked

but that’s only because it’s a very small room and he brought every piece he owns

If you look in his old room it’s all the same posters

so he’s owned it all for at least a few years, he’s been working up to this for god knows how many years, just to be the proud owner of 5 posters so basic even he would put tape on them

All of his figures are less than 50$

One of which he’s had since he was a child

And it doesn’t look like the other unidentified figures are anything special either(except maybe AM in his yellow suit)

Izuku only has generic fanboy shit, like maybe one of the posters is a custom but I honestly I don’t think he owns a single special anything

The dead guy poster is 100% the coolest thing he has, no wonder he’s so reverent about it 💀

As for fits this is all we’ve really seen is

So yeah Inko isn’t dropping stacks on merch, I’m pretty sure those sweaters were a 2 for 1 deal because they’re almost identical 💀

[castielsprostate]

breaking the sign in two by how hard im tapping it

[bizzybee429]

[lurkerdemon]

Random DP x DC Thought #9:

The fight was desperately going on against the villains near a newly located Lazarus Pit, but despite the heroes best efforts they couldn't prevent one of their own suffering a fatal injury.

Per usual desperation to avoid having to go through life with that loss, the dead person is placed into the Lazarus Pit for revival. (The cost of a bout of possible madness could be dealt with, and at the very least it would remove another one of the pits from the world).

Except this time when the revived person comes back out of the waters, the Lazarus Pit doesn't leave. Shrinks certainly, but still roils and churns before a large, glowing creature with white fur looms over all those gathered. Their blue cape flutters slightly as it floats up above the waters.

"Greetings, I am Frostbite of the Far Frozen. I have come to request-"

A head of white hair and glowing green eyes pops up from behind the being's shoulder.

"STOP THROWING SO MANY PATIENTS INTO PORTALS! YOU'RE STRESSING OUT THE YETIS!"

[incomingalbatross]

So much of the angst over Traumatized Child Protagonists centers around responsibility, I think.

There's this idea that it's Unfair and Unjust for the protagonists to have had to suffer, fight evil, etc., in a particular way because they're children. Because of this, the narrative or the authority figures or, heck, the entire genre is treated as corrupt, and as having betrayed and victimized the children.

And sometimes that's fair and true! Sometimes it's actually part of the text. Sometimes it wasn't intended as part of the text but it probably should have been. But these criticisms of child-hero stories end up dismissing a few very important facts:

It is in fact universally the case that, for good to prevail, suffering has to be endured and evil has to be fought by people who had nothing to do with the problems, no culpability in them, and no responsibility other than Being In The Right Place At The Right Time. That's a responsibility that has to be accepted regardless. That's what heroism is.

This is unfair no matter who the hero is, but accepting an unfair burden is different than having it thrust upon you. (See: Frodo Ring-Bearer.)

Children and teenagers ARE, in fact, in possession of enough agency to take on such responsibilities of their own free will. They can also be the only people in The Right Place to accomplish a particular good -- just like adults -- without this meaning they're forced into it.

Children have a DESIRE FOR and a RIGHT TO stories where people of their own age and state of life are heroic!

TL;DR, choosing to do the job that's in front of you even when you could walk away -- to accept responsibilities you wouldn't have to shoulder in a just world -- is heroism, not victimization, and children are and want to be capable of that choice, just as adults are. Flattening all Child Heroes into victims takes that capacity away from them.

[thenamesapollo]

state of deltarune theories is so so bad cuz they all try to connect back to the theme of escapism without noticing that that theme isn't even in deltarune.

[randomness-is-my-order]

can’t stop thinking about how sieun starts the season with this monologue: “what i have to do... i have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff. i mean if they’re running and don’t look where they’re going, i have to come out from somewhere and catch them” and it beautifully summarises what sieun ends up doing during the entire season. we get an impression at the start that sieun’s wading through the living world in a numb stupor but the moment the cracks show up, the moment someone is about to go over the line, sieun steps up and stops the violence before it can cross the point of no return. last season, we saw sieun exact his revenge but this season, sieun is avoidant of conflict and deadset on forgiving people if it can prevent further escalation (note that this isn’t even a new trait, sieun forgives beomseok, yeongbin and yeongi when they initially wrong him in season one).

he doesn’t actively fight hyoman because his objective was not to defeat the guy but to stop him from irreversibly damaging juntae. he advises baku about the unbreakable cycle of violence and how they HAD to end it. he refuses to back out of their search for baku because come hell or highwater, he wasn’t going to let a friend of his fall off that cliff edge and we know baku was hovering a little too close for comfort after joining the union. it was sieun who approached and mended things with hyoman and seongje despite both of them having wronged him and his friends because again, sieun isn’t trying to seek revenge at all. not even in their fight with baekjin. his goal was sketched out to us, plain and clear: sieun is trying to catch all these students wrapped up in the casual and cruel violence of the union and give them as safe a landing as possible.

(even the purposeful shot of sieun stopping gotak and walking into the final fight himself shows this; gotak’s knees would probably not have survived the intense fight).

i think what’s really important about sieun’s arc this season is that it is not just his guilt over suho that haunts him but he also blames himself for beomseok going over the cliff edge and him not being able to help him. he forgives himself twice this season. first is obvious: juntae’s words rid him of his guilt over suho and it’s the decisive moment that we know he will now not consider himself at fault for suho being comatose. the second instance of sieun forgiving himself, imo, is during his imaginary talk with beomseok while he himself in a coma. the boxing ring earlier held memories of both suho and beomseok and now only beomseok remains there, holding him down. but now, sieun is finally able to unburden himself of beomseok’s presence and his guilt over him. i think it’s very telling that his dream version of beomseok asks him whether his new friends are more important to sieun than him because that is exactly what beomseok himself would have dwelled over, given his insecurities. it just reiterates how well sieun understood beomseok but at the end of day, sieun realises that he needs to reconcile his past with his present and overcome the guilt so he can act on the philosophies he wants to follow. sieun forgives himself once more and accepts that beomseok is now out of his life and he has other friends he needs to worry about, friends he holds dear.

sieun’s been through this once. he knows what the consequences of repetitive grudges and violence are. the “happy” ending we got for season two wasn’t a fluke but a culmination of every small and big effort sieun took to safeguard this very ending. he really did catch so many from falling off the cliff.

[taradactyls]

So I could be totally wrong but, I believe it was sort of expected that men/gentlemen lose their virginity before marriage in regency times. But I also there’s some fandom ‘debate’ about whether or not Mr Darcy would’ve had sex before getting married. So I was just curious about what your canon for Mr Darcy in T3W is. Is he a virgin or not?

I knew someone would ask me this eventually, haha. I've actually had really long conversations with my beta reader about this trying to figure it out. It sounds like this might all be stuff that you’ve already seen discussed in the fandom, but I’ve never thought about it deeply before and so these are new thoughts to me.

I keep going over the historical real-world likelihood, the authorial intent, and the text itself but I’m still not 100%. I’ll explain my thinking and what I find most likely, but here’s your warning that it’s not a clear cut yes/no.

Because on one hand, at that time period it was most common for men in his position to have seen sex workers or have casual encounters/mistresses with women from their estates. Though I do absolutely believe not all men did that, no matter how much wealth and power they had. To go back some centuries, William the Conqueror seemed to be famously celibate (no hints of male lovers either according to the biography I read) until his marriage, and there's no evidence of affairs after it either. The best guesses as to why are that it was due to his religious devotion and the problems that had arisen from himself being a bastard and not wanting to recreate that situation. Concerns over religion and illegitimate children would certainly still have been applicable in the regency to men who thought that way. And in modern times I've seen sex workers say that when an 18/21yo is booked in by his family/friends to 'become a man' often they end up just talking and agree to lie about the encounter. After all, it’s not like every man wants casual sex, even if they aren’t demisexual or something in that vein. But, statistically speaking, the precedent of regency gentlemen would make Darcy not a virgin.

On the other hand, just how aware was Jane Austen, the very religious daughter of a country rector, of the commonness of this? There’s a huge difference between knowing affairs and sex workers existed (and no one who had seen a Georgian newspaper could be blind to this) and realising that the majority of wealthy men saw sex workers at some point even if they condemned the more public and profligate affairs. The literature for young ladies at the time paints extramarital sex - including the lust of men outside of marriage - as pretty universally bad and dangerous. This message is seen from 'Pamela' and other gothic fiction to non-fiction conduct books which Jane Austen would have encountered. Here's something I found in 'Letters to a Young Lady' by the reverend John Bennett which I found particularly interesting as it's in direct conversation with other opinions of the era:

"A reformed rake makes the best husband." Does he? It would be very extraordinary, if he should. Besides, are you very certain, that you have power to reform him? It is a matter, that requires some deliberation. This reformation, if it is to be accomplished, must take place before marriage. Then if ever, is the period of your power. But how will you be assured that he is reformed? If he appears so, is he not insidiously concealing his vices, to gain your affections? And when he knows, they are secured, may he not, gradually, throw off the mask, and be dissipated, as before? Profligacy of this kind is seldom eradicated. It resembles some cutaneous disorders, which appear to be healed, and yet are, continually, making themselves visible by fresh eruptions. A man, who has carried on a criminal intercourse with immoral women is not to be trusted, His opinion of all females is an insult to their delicacy. His attachment is to sex alone, under particular modifications.

The definition of a rake is more than a man who has seen a sex worker once, it's about appearance and general conduct too, but again, would that distinction be made to young ladies? Because they seem to simply be continuously taught 'lust when unmarried is bad and beware men who you know engage in extramarital sex.' As a side note, Jane Austen certainly knew at least something about the mechanics of sex: her letters and literature she read alludes to it, and she grew up around farm animals in the countryside which is an education in itself.

We can also see from this exert that the school of thought seems to be 'reformed rake' vs 'never a rake' in contention for the title of best husband, there's no debate over whether a current rake is unsuitable for a young lady. And, from Willoughby to Wickham to Crawford, I think we have a very clear idea of Jane Austen's ideas of how likely it is notably promiscuous men can reform. This does not preclude the possibility that her disparaging commentary around their lust is based more on over-indulgence or the class of women they seduce, but it's undoubtedly a condemnation of such men directly in line with the first part of what John Bennett says so it's no stretch to believe she saw merit in the follow-on conclusions of the second part as well. Whether she would view it with enough merit to consider celibacy the only respectable option for unmarried men is a bit unclearer.

I did consider that perhaps Jane Austen consciously treated this as a grey area where she couldn’t possibly know what young men did (the same reasoning is why we never see the men in the dining room after the ladies retire, etc) and so didn't hold an opinion on men's extramarital encounters with sex workers/lower-class women at all, but I think there actually are enough hints in her works that this isn’t the case. Though, unsurprisingly, given the delicacy of the subject, there’s no direct mention of sex workers or gentlemen having casual lovers from among the lower-classes in her texts.

That also prevents us from definitively knowing whether she thought extramarital sex was so common, and as unremarkable, as most gentlemen treated it. But we do see from her commentary around the consequences of Maria Bertram and Henry Crawford's elopement that she had criticism of the double standards men and women were held to when violating sexual virtue. Another indication that she perhaps expected good men to be capable of waiting until marriage in the way that she very clearly believed women should. At the very least, a man who often indulges in extramarital sex does not seem to be one who would be considered highly by Jane Austen.

She makes a point of saying, in regards to not liking his wife, that Mr Bennet “was not of a disposition to seek comfort for the disappointment which his own imprudence had brought on, in any of those pleasures which too often console the unfortunate for their folly or their vice.” This must include affairs, though cheating on a wife cannot be a 1:1 equivalent of single young men sleeping around before marriage. However, the latter is generally critically accepted to be one of the flaws that Darcy lays at Wickham’s door along with gambling when talking about their youth and his “vicious propensities" and "want of principle." Though this could be argued that it’s more the extent or publicity of it (but remembering that it couldn't be anything uncommon enough that it couldn't be hidden from Darcy Sr. or explained away) rather than the act itself, or maybe seductions instead of paying women offering those services. I also believe Persuasion mentioning Sunday travelling as proof of thoughtless/immoral activity supports the idea that Jane Austen might have been religious enough that she would never create a hero who had extramarital sex.

So, taken all together this would make Darcy potentially a virgin, or, since I couldn't find absolute evidence of her opinions, leave enough room that he isn’t but extramarital sex isn’t a regular (or perhaps recent) thing and he would never have had anything so established as a mistress.

I’ve also been wondering, if Darcy isn’t a virgin, who would he have slept with? I’ve been musing on arguments for and against each option for weeks at this point. No romantasy has ever made me think about a fictional man's sexual habits so much as the question of Darcy's sexual history. What is my life.

Sex workers are an obvious answer, and the visits wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. Discretion was part of their job, it was a clean transaction with no further responsibilities towards them, and effective (and reusable, ew) condoms existed at this time so there was little risk of children and no ability to exactly determine the paternity even if there was an accident. It was a fairly ‘responsible’ choice if one wanted no strings attached. In opposition to this, syphilis was rampant at the time, and had been known to spread sexually for centuries. Sex workers were at greater risk of it than anyone else and so the more sensible and risk-averse someone is (and I think Mr Darcy would be careful) the less likely they would be to visit sex workers. Contracting something that was known as potentially deadly and capable of making a future wife infertile if it spread to her could make any intelligent and cautious man think twice.

Servants and tenants of the estate are another simple and common answer. Less risk of stds, it can be based on actual attraction more than money (though money might still change hands), and is a bit more intimate. But Wickham’s called wicked for something very similar, when he dallies (whether he only got to serious flirting, kissing, or sleeping with them I don’t think we can conclusively say) with the common women of Meryton: “his intrigues, all honoured with the title of seduction, had been extended into every tradesman's family.” And it isn't as though Wickham had any personal duty towards those people beyond the claims of basic dignity. Darcy, who is shown to have such respect and understanding for his responsibilities towards the people of his estate and duties of a landlord, would keenly feel if any of his actions were leading his servants/tenants astray and down immoral paths. Servants, especially, were considered directly under the protection of the family whose house they worked in. I think it's undoubtable that Mrs Reynolds (whose was responsible for the wellbeing - both physically and spiritually - of the female servants) would not think so well of Mr Darcy if he had experimented with maids in his youth. It would reflect badly on her if a family entrusted their daughter to her care and she 'lost her virtue' under her watch. Daughters/widows of others living on the estate not under the roof of Pemberley House are a little more likely, but still, if he did have an affair with any of them I can only think it possible when he was much younger and did not feel his duties quite so strongly. Of course lots of real men didn't care about any of this, but Darcy is so far from being depicted as careless about his duties that the narrative makes a point of how exceptional his quality of care was. Frankly, it's undeniable that none of Jane Austen's heroes were flippant about their responsibilities towards those under their protection. I cannot serious entertain an interpretation that makes Darcy not, at his current age, at least, cognizant of the contemporary problems inherent in sleeping with servants or others on his estate.

A servant in a friend’s house would remove some of that personal responsibility, but transfer it to instead be leading his friend’s servants astray and in a manner which he is less able to know about if a child did result. That latter remains a problem even if we move the setting to his college, so not particularly likely for his character as we know it… though it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to be more unthinking and reckless in their teenage years than they are at twenty-eight so I don’t think having sex then can be ruled out. Kissing I can much more easily believe, especially when at Oxford or Cambridge, but every scenario of sleeping with a lower-class woman has some compelling arguments against it especially the closer we get to the time of the novel.

Men did of course also have affairs with women of ranks similar to their own, though given Jane Austen’s well-known feelings towards men who ‘ruined’ the virtue of young ladies we can safely say that Darcy never slept with an unwed middle- or upper-class woman. Any decent man would have married them out of duty if it got so far; but if he was the sort to let it get so far, I think it impossible Jane Austen would consider him respectable. Widows are a possibility, but again, the respectable thing to do would be to marry them. Perhaps a poorer merchant’s widow would be low enough that marriage is off the table but high enough that the ‘leading astray’ aspect loses its master-servant responsibilities (though the male-female ‘protect the gentler sex’ aspect remains) but his social circle didn’t facilitate meeting many ladies like that. Plus, an affair with a woman in society would remove many layers of privacy and anonymity that sex-workers and lower-class lovers provided by simply being unremarkable to the world at large. It carries a far greater risk of scandal and a heavier sense of immorality in the terms of respecting a woman’s purity which classism prevented from applying so heavily to lower-class women.

I think it’s important to note here that something that removes the need to think about duties of landlords towards the lower-classes or gentlemen towards gentlewomen is having affairs with other men of a similar rank. But, aside from the risk of scandal and what could be called the irresponsibility of engaging in illegal acts, it’s almost certain that Jane Austen would never have supported this. For a devout author in this era the way I’m calculating likelihoods makes it not even a possibility. But if you want to write a different fanfiction (and perhaps something like a break-up could explain why Darcy doesn’t seem to have any closer friend than someone whom he must have only met two or so years ago despite being in society for years before that) it does have that advantage over affairs with women of equal- and lower-classes. I support alternate interpretations entirely – it just isn’t how I’m deciding things in this instance.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that, at the very least, Darcy hasn’t had sex recently and it was never a common occurrence. It wouldn’t surprise me if Jane Austen felt he hadn’t done it ever. Kissing, as we can see from all the parlour games at the time, wasn’t viewed as harshly, so I think he’s likely made out with someone before. But in almost every situation it does seem that the responsible and religious thing to do (which Jane Austen values so highly) is for it to never have progressed to sex. I also don’t think it conflicts with his canon characterisation to say that he wouldn’t regard sexual experience as a crucial element of his life thus far, and his personality isn’t driven to pursue pleasure for himself, so it’s entirely possible that he would never go out of his way to seek it. So, I’m inclined to think that the authorial and textual evidence is in favour of Darcy being a virgin even if the real-world contemporary standard is the opposite. (Though both leave enough room for exceptions that I’m not going to argue with anyone who feels differently; and even if you agree with all my points, you might simply weight authorial intent/textual evidence/contemporary likelihoods differently than I do and come to a different conclusion).

Remember that even if Darcy is a virgin this wouldn’t necessarily equate to lack of knowledge, only experience. There were plenty of books and artwork focused on sex, and Darcy, studious man that he is, would no doubt pay attention to what knowledge his friends/male relatives shared. Though some of it (Looking especially at you, 'Fanny Hill, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure') should NEVER be an example of appropriate practice for taking a woman's virginity. Darcy would almost certainly have been taught directly or learnt through exposure to other men talking to make sex good for a woman – it was a commonly held misconception (since Elizabethan England, I believe) that women had to orgasm to conceive. It would be in his interests as an empathetic husband, and head of a family, to know how to please his wife.

Basically, I’m convinced Darcy isn’t very experienced, if at all, and will be learning with Elizabeth. But he does have a lot of theoretical knowledge which he’s paid careful attention to and is eager to apply.