#I don't even argue these days

[hinamie]

...........slips gege ¥2000

[yume127]

I find it interesting how Roxas is often described as the “angry one” or “short-tempered one” when compared to Sora or Ventus, mostly because I always felt Sora and Ven have a shorter fuse than Roxas.

The association between Roxas and anger is understandable, because many of Roxas’ most poignant moments in the series happen when he is very (and understandably) angry, but I also feel like it’s a disservice to his character to only reduce him to his anger, especially when it’s far from who he is in normal circumstances.

For example, during Days, many Organization members treat him poorly and insult him to his face and, for the most part, Roxas doesn’t react at all. In Halloween Town, Lock, Shock, and Barrel throw bombs in his face multiple times before Roxas finally snaps at them. He senses that many people around him are keeping things from him, but it takes him months before he confronts someone about it. That’s far from someone I’d consider short-tempered or easy to anger.

The only situation I can think of when we see him get upset quickly is if anyone does or says something bad to Xion and, even then, the most of his reaction is verbally snapping at Saix to make him stop disrespecting her. In Axel’s case (when Roxas is upset with him for attacking Xion), Roxas doesn’t confront him at all, he just avoids him altogether. Also, I think it’s important to note that every moment in which Roxas is very angry happens when his entire life is falling apart, which is a situation in which, I believe, everyone would be upset.

Roxas seems the kind of person who bottles everything up without much reaction until it becomes too much and he explodes, and that’s when he has a hard time controlling his anger/emotions. Having spent most of his life in the organization probably plays a part in it as, every time he brings up any emotion, his feelings are invalidated and suppressed. That’s not an environment that gave him the tools to process strong emotions in a healthy way.

Let’s compare that to Ventus. Ven is the definition of short-tempered in BBS. He’s ready to throw hands with Vanitas the moment he says something remotely bad about Terra, which was minutes after he met him for the first time. He fought the dwarves without a second thought just because they refused to talk with him. His first reaction when he becomes small and is trapped in a mousetrap is to shout. These are just some examples from the top of my head, but it’s clear Ven has a shorter fuse than Roxas.

Ventus usually expresses how he feels in any given situation and has a short fuse. On the flip side, he doesn’t seem to hold on to these feelings at all. He externalises them the moment he feels them, but then he lets it go and it doesn’t bother him anymore. Out of the three of them, Ventus seems the most open about his emotions and, from what I remember, when he opens up about feeling a certain way with his friends, his feelings are usually not invalidated nor brushed aside. In UX, Ventus seems calmer and doesn’t have much anger in him, but he’s still open to expressing his feelings of low self-worth and sadness with the other union leaders.

Sora, I think he falls in the middle? He seems to have a shorter temper compared to Roxas, which was especially clear in KH2, where he snaps at the Organization multiple times, but he also bottles up his emotions more than Ven, especially around his friends. This happens mostly with his sadness, which he always tries to hide or brush aside, but in KH3 we can also see, for example, how much he’s bothered by everyone constantly bringing up him not passing the Mark of Mastery, even if he tries not to show it.

I think Sora feels like he should always be happy for his friends’ sake, and even during the rare moments when he tries to express his sadness, his feelings are not truly welcomed (“No frowning. No sad faces. This boat runs on happy faces”), so he just tries to brush it off as a joke. He’s loud in expressing any kind of positive emotion, and he openly expresses his anger against his enemies (and to his friends too, sometimes), but he also doesn’t hold on to that anger and is pretty forgiving. However, he usually bottles up his sadness, low self-esteem and other negative feelings, and then explodes when he can’t hold it together any longer (like it happened at the Keyblade Graveyard when he thought all his friends were gone forever).

[the-way-astray]

The Keefe Sencen Infantilization Argument (because I've seen people say that saying he infantilizes Sophie is a bad-faith argument):

(Note: This post is a repost. I had my thoughts scattered out over a few posts, so I wanted to put them all together in one cohesive post. If you've already seen all the original posts, then aside from like two sentences being reworked and the format being better now, there's like nothing new here for you. Sorry.)

Examples of Keefe infantilizing Sophie and my explanations as to why this is infantilization and not okay:

Lodestar, chapter 4. What I originally said: “There you go, rocking the whole adorable-when-you’re-angry thing. I think that’s what I’ve missed about you the most.” Keefe infantilizes Sophie by saying she’s cute when she’s angry. She is trying to express her feelings, and all Keefe can do is be all Awwwwww. Isn’t that so cute? She’s angry! How adorable. It’s a form of invalidating someone’s feelings, by treating them like they’re just entertainment or by brushing them off like that. It’s some of the most manipulative behavior out there. It also saves Keefe from having to actually take Sophie’s feelings into account. His infantilization of her also shows up in his incessant need to protect her. It’s icky and gross, and authors should stop encouraging this behavior.

Sophie and Keefe are having a mental conversation and Keefe starts talking about Sophie's love triangle/square situation and Sophie doesn't want to talk about it. Not a fan of this, because Keefe butts into Sophie's personal business, then when she gets worked up, he heavily implies that he thinks it's cute. But this one isn't particularly bad compared to the others. Don't get me wrong, I still think this is infantilization, but the best I can say about it is it's not the worst example.

Lodestar, chapter 46. What I originally said: “You’re so cute when you worry, he told her.” More classic Keefe infantilization. He once again invalidates Sophie’s feelings by dumbing them down and acting like they’re this cute, quirky, inconsequential thing.

Sophie is obviously incredibly worried. Keefe clearly knows this. And his comment is to be like Yeah, but don't you know that makes you sooooo cute??? Like, sir.

Lodestar, chapter 65. What I originally said: “Is this going to be another one of those nights where you spend the whole time yelling at me to come home? Keefe asked, making her sit up straighter as his thoughts filled her head. Because as much as I love it when you get all feisty on me, now’s really not a good time.” God, Keefe is so subtly invalidating. He treats Sophie like she’s just his personal worry machine, not a person with valid concerns and ideas. The flippant way he talks about her worry for him makes me so mad. He takes her worry for granted and throws it back in her face, without a care for how it would affect her mental health. He brushes her off and invalidates her because he thinks he’s so much smarter than everyone else. Not to mention he calls her worry “feisty” and further infantilizes her feelings and ideas.

This one honestly stands alone. Context doesn't really do anything to it. The infantilization for all these quotes is in the quote itself, because it is invalidating to treat someone's outburst of negative emotions as entertainment. Keefe basically just says that he finds it cute when she insists he comes home because she's worried about him??? He's like, yeah, Sophie's worried about me, tearing up her mental health over me, but like. She gets feisty when that all becomes externalized and she begs me to come home! Again, it's just a way he's able to brush Sophie's feelings off and disregard her opinion entirely.

When I say Keefe acts like Sophie is his personal worry machine, I'm saying he acts like her worry only exists for his amusement. He doesn't see the deeper feelings behind that worry (or if he does, he certainly doesn't respect them), and only see it for what he sees it as: something cute and adorable.

Nightfall, chapter 24. What I originally said: “‘I know! Our little girl is growing up and getting so snarky!’ Keefe pretended to wipe his teary eyes. ‘I’ve never been so proud.’” “Our little girl” . . . that totally isn’t creepy or infantilizing at all. The way Keefe talks about Sophie here is genuinely so gross, even if it is a joke. 

This is a joke. 100%. But it's a joke that sat very poorly with me because of the way Keefe verbalizes this. The problem for me is in the quote itself, again, because I feel like saying these sorts of things constantly is just so weird.

Nightfall, chapter 32. Wouldn't say what I originally said adds anything new, so I'm just gonna move past that. The larger problem here is 100% the fact that Keefe is clearly trying to joke to deflect Sophie's anger away. My argument isn't about that. My argument is that saying that someone's anger is adorable is textbook infantilization. In context, Keefe uses it as a way to deflect or joke. But the simple act of saying that is a form of invalidation where Sophie's emotions are made out to be some silly, inconsequential thing.

Anyway, about this quote in particular. Sophie is obviously freaking out, and she is clearly and seriously trying to tell him that his joking behavior is unacceptable. Keefe responds, not by listening at all to what Sophie said or what she's feeling, but by instead saying this. This invalidates Sophie's very real feelings as well as saves Keefe from having to confront what Sophie's telling him. And yes, this is a product of his deflection, but my point here is that saying someone's anger or worry is adorable or cute when they are trying to be serious is textbook infantilization, because it treats that opinion they have as a silly, child-like tantrum. "Awwww, isn't that anger adorable???" is what you say about a tantrum-throwing toddler who just got their favorite toy taken away, not someone your age presenting a valid, serious opinion. My issue is with the statement "Your anger/worry is adorable/cute" itself, not how Keefe uses it to deflect. It also presents Keefe, subtle as it may be, as the only one with valid opinions on things because Sophie's adorable little feelings get in the way of her rationality.

And before you say Sophie calls him out on this, yes, but he doesn't change. I'm not going to talk about it at length here, but Keefe apologizes to Sophie in the Nightfall scene after his bed rest more out of a desire to make up with her than a desire to change his bad habits. You can see this because he continues to do it into Unlocked.

Nightfall, chapter 34. Again, I don't think what I originally said adds anything relevant, so I'll skip that here.

The famous scene. I do admit that Sophie calls Keefe out this time. However, as I've already said, this doesn't stick, so it hardly matter. Keefe continues with this behavior through the series and into Unlocked, where he doesn't necessarily say these things out loud, but you can see he still thinks them.

Nightfall, chapter 70. What I originally said: “‘Much as I’m enjoying this sudden overflow of adorable Foster-rage—it’s not worth it.’” Ah, more of Keefe infantilizing Sophie and invalidating her feelings. If someone finds your anger or worry “adorable” and acts like it’s this cute little quirk, then that’s never a good thing. Especially if they enjoy it. Someone who cares about you should never enjoy seeing you angry or worried.

Sophie's having a serious, key word here is serious, discussion (we'll call it a discussion, even though that's not particularly correct) with Cassius, and even though her rage isn't aimed at him this time, Keefe telling Sophie her rage is adorable when she's being serious is still dumbing down her emotions to that of a toddler throwing a tantrum, not a grown-up (at least relative to Keefe) having a very valid reason to be angry. Just because he agrees with her anger, doesn't mean he can't still infantilize her.

Flashback, chapter 1, page 12. I think what I said in my original post just about sums it up: “‘You’re so adorable when you worry. I’ve told you that, right?’” (12) Yes, you have, and saying it more doesn’t make it any less icky and gross and infantilizing. It’s like he’s dumbing Sophie down to this object who only exists to entertain him with her adowabuw wittle feewings, instead of a person with very real, very complex emotions.

Keefe fans the air, so we have physical evidence he knows exactly how worried Sophie is. And his response is to be like, so cute! So adorable! Once again, this is serious, and Keefe is acting like Sophie's worry exists only to amuse or entertain him. I don't know else to communicate that that isn't a good thing. Someone being worried usually means they have something they're worrying about, worry doesn't just manifest out of thin air for entertainment's sake. Sophie also responds poorly to his writing her off, with what and the glare and all.

(Side note: When I was looking for that quote, I found a quote where Fitz says the exact same thing, I'm talking word-for-word "adorable when you worry" stuff. Like I mentioned in my disclaimers, I'm not saying he's more right for this and I'm not letting him off the hook. It's icky when Keefe does it and it's icky when Fitz does it. But I'm solely focused on Keefe, which is why I'm not bringing that up. It's also worth it to note that Fitz doesn't say this over and over again, the way Keefe does.)

Flashback, chapter 17, page 304. I think I'm just going to copy-paste exactly what I said in my original post because it's exactly what I'm trying to say: “‘Hear that, Ro?’ he interrupted. ‘She’s giving me her serious voice.’” (304) Another example of Keefe infantilizing Sophie and dumbing her feelings down for the sake of a joke. Awwww, isn’t her serious voice so cute? She only does that when she thinks she has something important to say to us grown-ups! Awwwwwww. 

Apparently, people don't get why this is a bad thing, so: acting like someone isn't being serious when you can literally feel their emotions and know they're being serious just because you don't like what they're saying is not just invalidation, but infantilization, because you are dumbing their emotions and the complexities behind them down to that of a child attempting to be serious.

I'd also argue that this shows Keefe's true colors: he only really listens to her opinions and respects them when he agrees with them. Disagreeing with someone is all fine and good, but you can still respect the other person's opinion and not dumb it down and act like it's lesser than your own. If Keefe said "Sophie, I hear you, but I think you're wrong" (in Keefe jokester language, obviously, not word-for-word what I wrote) then I wouldn't call this infantilization, I'd call it respect. My problems arise from when Keefe acts like Sophie's opinions are stupid because Sophie is the one saying them with that adorable little pouty voice.

Flashback, chapter 21, page 355. What I originally said: “It’s always fun when you get feisty.” (355) I’ve said this about a gajillion times, but Keefe’s infantilization of Sophie is so horrific, it’s like he doesn’t care about her at all. He just sees her emotions as amusement for himself.

This is a sad scene, and Keefe has every right to be emotionally . . . off in this scene. But it still doesn't change the fact that he calls Sophie's anger "feistiness" and then says it's fun when she gets angry. You could say that's not exactly what he said, but it's likely that's what he meant given the past few quotes I've shown. Keefe has demonstrated a pattern of thinking Sophie's anger is amusing or adorable or fun. Anger is a negative emotion. When Sophie feels anger she doesn't feel good. And Keefe is like, yeah, but it's cute! Do you see how that's not the greatest thing to say? It says a lot about his internalized beliefs about Sophie, and is essentially confirmed by Unlocked. And even if that didn't represent the way he saw Sophie inside, that's still a really shitty thing to say because it still carries the invalidation.

Legacy, chapter 3, page 70. What I originally said: “‘Tell me why you have that cute little crease between your eyebrows.’” (70) You already know what I’m going to say. Keefe finding Sophie’s worry cute is textbook infantilization. But also, if he finds her worry and anger so adorable, what’s he gonna do when the Neverseen are defeated and Sophie doesn’t have as many things worrying her?

So, the crease between the eyebrows is obviously because of worry. So by saying he finds it cute, Keefe indirectly says he finds Sophie's worry cute, though I'm sure I don't have to spell that out because he's already flat out admitted he finds Sophie's worry cute several times. I'm going to sound like a broken record if I repeat what I've been saying this entire post about why this is infantilization, so instead I wanna talk about that last paragraph there. Keefe literally knows how queasy Sophie's worry can make her sometimes, and he has expressed this before, as well. So he knows exactly what Sophie's going through when she worries. And still, he acts like her worry is amusing, funny, cute, or otherwise a quirky little thing. I don't understand how Keefe can be so invalidating, having had firsthand experience with Sophie's emotions.

“But I was only half listening because she gets this cute little crinkle between her eyebrows when she’s trying to be serious, and it makes me want to reach up and smooth her forehead with my fingertip—and I’m betting she’d think I was super weird if I did that, since it’s not like she’s my . . . ” (Unlocked, very first paragraph of Keefe's diary entry, 481)

Don't have an e-book of Unlocked, unfortunately (boooooooo). So the context is that Keefe is giving us (or himself???) an intro to what he's doing here, which is writing about his drawings. He explains that Sophie gave him the idea and gives a general overview of what she said to convince him. Then he says this quote.

Here's what I said, which I stand by: I hate the way Keefe talks about Sophie. She’s just this soft, kind of ditzy, child-like sort of figure in his head. He admits that he doesn’t care what she has to say, he just cares about how adorable she looks while she says it. This is a textbook sign of a toxic relationship. You should care about what your partner/crush says, because that shows that you see them as a person, not as your personal cover model. Also “trying to be serious” paints Sophie as this impudent little child who’s trying to get the attention of the older, more experienced adults and it very much implies that Sophie is not serious, but awwww, look how cute she looks trying to be serious, isn’t it adorable? Except Keefe and Sophie are the same age. So this is another case of textbook infantilization.

Personally, I think I made it fairly clear why I think this is infantilization. Keefe did not listen to the latter half of what Sophie said because he was too busy imagining how adorable she must've looked as she said it. I don't know how to make it more clear that Keefe does not respect or care about Sophie's opinions. He did what she asked, sure, but he did not actually listen to her. Again, implying Sophie was not being serious when she was is infantilization. It takes away the weight of what Sophie is saying and makes it out to be a thing of like, Oh well, Sophie told me to, so I guess I'll humor her adorable little wishes and give it a shot, but let's get back to what's more important here, which is how cute she probably looks! I don't know how else to explain that that's not an attitude you want in someone who claims to listen to you and respect you.

Addressing some other things (Keefe calling Sophie herself cute [1], Keefe's deflection [2], Keefe praising Sophie's prowess [3], Sophie not seeming bothered [4], and The Real Problem [5]):

I don't think Keefe calling Sophie herself cute or adorable by itself is infantilization. That's just a cute, fluffy teenage crush. 100% cool with that. My problem is with Keefe dumbing Sophie's negative emotions that have complexities behind them down to something cute or inconsequential by calling them adorable. There's a quote in the diary entries where Keefe describes Sophie's blush as adorable and proceeds to describe it in vivid detail. I don't like it for personal taste reasons, but I would never argue that this is infantilization. Because. It's not. There is no dumbing down of emotions here, no shrugging off experience or maturity. There's just a kid with a crush.

As for Keefe's habit of deflecting stuff through jokes, yes, it's a flaw and yes, some of the times Keefe infantilizes Sophie, he's using it as a joke to deflect. Yes, that's the larger issue. But the point still stands that the way in which he thinks of Sophie's worry and anger is infantilization.

There are moments where Keefe talks nonstop (sometimes in a very unnatural way, in my opinion) about how powerful and amazing and brilliant and talented and spectacular Sophie is and how he respects her choices and whatnot. I don't see this as particularly contradictory to his infantilization. Keefe can dumb Sophie's emotions down to cute, inconsequential little playthings while also insisting that he thinks she's amazing and powerful. I do think he does think that she's incredibly talented, but he also invalidates or disrespects her choices because he sees her emotions as adorable and unserious. Sophie is objectively powerful and talented and smart, I'm not really sure how saying those clear facts out loud changes the fact that Keefe still sees Sophie as very juvenile in his head. He can respect her prowess and capacity for talent while still disrespecting her opinions and emotions. The two can coexist. This is why I say Keefe pedestalizes and infantilizes Sophie simultaneously.

As for saying this doesn't bother Sophie (except in that one instance where she glares at him), I'd hardly say it matters. People can be the object of toxic behavior without realizing it. Sophie doesn't really seem to care past a handful of seconds when Keefe reads her emotions without her permission (on purpose, with intention), but I think most of us would agree that that doesn't make it acceptable. And Keefe's infantile views of Sophie say more about him than they do Sophie, which is the argument I'm trying to make. My point is that Keefe sees Sophie's emotions as inconsequential little things that don't need to be taken into account. This is all mapped into how he sees her internally. Again, just because Sophie doesn't seem bothered by Keefe's comments, doesn't mean they're acceptable, especially considering it gives us a view into the way he truly sees Sophie. And if Keefe thinks of Sophie is such an invalidating way, how are we supposed to believe he'll respect her when she argues with him, instead of just writing it off as "that adorable rage"?

And last but not least (as this is literally the reason people are annoyed with Keefe, regardless of what flaw you're talking about): the infantilization isn't the problem. Not really. What the problem is is that it is never called out by the narrative and when it is, it lasts two seconds, doesn't stick, and Keefe continues with it having not learned a thing. He doesn't change, and I can give you a thousand explanations for why Keefe may be so prone to infantilizing Sophie based on his childhood, trauma, and everything else, but none of that is an excuse. And I'm certainly not a fan of the way we're constantly told that Keefe respects Sophie when he's clearly so ready to undermine her emotions or dumb them down. If you're going to have him say things like this, it should be understandable that it's not a good thing.

I think it all comes down to this: Imagine you were trying to get a very serious point across to someone or otherwise feeling very emotional over something and then you look over and the other person's reaction is like, Aw, you're so cute when you're all worked up trying to be serious! Anger so adorable! Worry so cute! I love it when you get feisty! Wouldn't you feel like they don't respect what you're saying? Is that not incredibly icky and weird?

Here is the definition of infantilization. I think it's very difficult to make an argument that Keefe is not doing this to Sophie. And if you think that's bad, oh boy, is it so. Much. Worse. In the actual Unlocked novella. It's very difficult to deny that Keefe only sees Sophie as an adorable little cute thing that amuses him when you read it. But I'll get there . . .

Anyway I'm leaving it off with this because these are the vibes I get from Keefe every time he makes an infantilizing comment about Sophie (minus the yelling, Keefe doesn't really yell):

[wonder-worker]

I've been thinking about the tragedy of Elizabeth Woodville living to see the end of her family name.

I don't mean her family with her husband, which lived on through her daughter and grandson. I mean her own.

Her sisters died, one by one, many of them after 1485. When Elizabeth died, only Katherine was left, and she would die before the turn of the century as well.

All her brothers died, too. Lewis died in childhood. John was executed. Anthony was murdered. Lionel died suddenly in the peak of Richard's reign, unable to see his niece become queen. Edward perished at war. Richard died in grieving peace. For all the violence and judgement the family endured, it was "an accident of biology" that ended their line: none of the brothers left heirs, and the Woodville name was extinguished. We know the family was aware of this. We know they mourned it, too:

“Buy a bell to be a tenor at Grafton to the bells now there, for a remembrance of the last of my blood.”

Elizabeth lived through the deposition and death of her young sons, and lived to see the end of her own family name. It must have been such a haunting loss, on both sides.

[carnivalcarriondiscarded]

Hi, I hope you don't mind this message, and idk if anyone else has told you, but there's this troll going around on Tumblr named @/freethepuppet. They claim to be “fighting for justice in the puppet industry”, but really they're just sending hateful and threatening messages to Welcome Home and My Friendly Neighborhood artists/fans.

I myself have receive multiple death threats from this person, and they have sent threats to many of my friends over the matter, some of which are minors.

Because of this issue, I have decided to keep myself and my friends anonymous, especially considering the fact that @/freethepuppet intends to send threats to PartyCoffin himself, along with the creator behind My Friendly Neighborhood.

I just wanted to warn you about this person, so that you can block and report them, as well has tell others in the community about the troll. If you decide to ignore this, then that's fair and I respect your decision.

In any case, I hope you and your friends stay safe. Best of luck!!

blocked! thanks for letting me know! to add on to this, a little advice for everyone:

Don't Engage With This Person At All!

Don't Look At Their Stuff, Don't Respond To Messages, Don't @ Them Or Give Them The Time Of Day. Just Go Block Them And Let Them Exhaust Their Own Hate

[rapidhighway]

Ahahaaaa oh my goddd can you not make "ADHD undereating" and "ADHD overeating" into a competition of who has it worse and who has nothing to complain about, that'd be awesome

[lovethatmakingcoffee]

Tired Dad Philza catches the eyes of the recently moved-in Brazilian neighbors

*

Someone suggested an au a while back where qsmp would be located in a small town instead of an island where everyone's just small-town locals. And spooky stuff happens where they have to protect their kids.

Phil's basically a single parent but is married to Missa who is very busy and hardly around. Hopefully, no new potential suitor infiltrates the nest >:)

[lastoneout]

Like that patent seems broad enough that they could use it against the fucking Persona series. And I mean it wouldn't be infringement since it's Nintendo but you could argue Echoes of Wisdom violates it by having Zelda use her staff to collect creatures she can summon in battle. Nintendo is way outta line on this one. They could have had something of a stance on the design front if they could actually prove the models or other assets were taken from their games and only edited slightly but trying to say they own the concept of a creature collection game where you use an object to collect and battle with creatures is like SquareEnix saying because they made Final Fantasy the own the rights to the concept of a fantasy JRPG, like this is an insane president to set that will have lasting negative impacts on the gaming industry. I can think of like five hugely popular games where you collect and battle with creatures, like are you gonna go after Dragon Quest and Digimon now??

Like I am iffy on Palworld and the company behind it for the AI shit and I will admit the designs are uncomfortably close to Pokemon, like they are def dancing pretty close to the copyright line visually and it's on purpose, but Nintendo/Game Freak choosing to ignore all that and instead say they own the rights to creature collection as a concept and claiming Palworld made them lose money when Pokemon is one of the most profitable IPs in history and there is NO WAY Palworld could come even remotely close to pulling in the kind of money even one single generation of Pokemon games could is genuinely concerning.

I'm not trying to defend Palworld, but I am saying Nintendo is going way too far and pulling some legal tomfuckery here and you shouldn't excuse it just because it's against a game/studio that you already don't like. This is very quickly going to stop being about Palworld and I do not like most of the directions it could possibly go down.

[stop-breaking-my-heart-dragonage]

who do you think are the most annoying companions from each game?

Hmmmm, that's kind of tough. All of the companions have annoyed me one way or another at some point, but most annoying? in general?

For DAO, I'd say Oghren. I love all of my DAO companions, Oghren included. I think he's a more compelling character than people give him credit for, but his grossness does grate on my nerves easily. Actually, I think he's the only companion I've ever sent back to camp after a party banter triggered because I was like "....alright, that's enough of that, I'm bringing the dog instead."

It's especially bad in Awakening when you have him in a party with Sigrun, but I keep them together because it's worth it to hear her take him down a bunch of pegs while accusing him of being terrified of women.

For DA2, at this point I think it's on brand for me to say Aveline, though Sebastian's a close second. Sebastian's only in second because I straight up forget about him for long periods of time... but then when I do have him in a party, so much of what he says makes me stop and go, ".........Sir, if you could stop talking, that'd be great."

I use Aveline a lot, however. I've talked about my beef with her in several posts, usually when it comes to her dynamic with my Hawke and Carver. But she's also in a position of power while saying things like "people choose to live here? it amazes me" about the people of darktown, and what happened with the elves, I just.... I want to grab her by the shoulders and shake her, she annoys me.

For DAI, that's a hard one... I think most people would say Sera, but honestly? Sera doesn't annoy me any more than the other companions??

I'm really wracking my brain here to remember if anyone annoys me above the others... I don't know! I almost want to say Blackwall solely because of the Thom Rainier thing but that would make me a massive hypocrite! My Lavellan lies about her original identity, too; she's Surana from DAO who escaped the tower with Jowan! I can't be annoyed at Blackwall for lying!

Cassandra annoys me with her Chantry bullshit, Bull annoys me with the qun bullshit, Solas annoys me when he shit talks about the Dalish, Dorian gets fed to a high dragon every time I hear him talk about "well slavery's not ALL bad-", Vivienne and Blackwall are made to wear The Armor of Shame every time I get sick of their bickering, I threaten to take Bianca away every time Varric talks about Anders, like.... y'know what? Everyone but Cole.

Cole is the only companion in DAI who doesn't annoy me, let's put it like that because I can't honestly decide.

But this could change, like it's been a hot minute since I've replayed DAI and I'm currently replaying the series soooo.... we'll see.

[welcometogrouchland]

Wait crying again bc I was rewatching The Intruder today (episode 4 of season 1) and I realized that like. The glyphs represent a few things in the narrative but one thing that's consistent is they're always there when Luz doesn't feel like she's good enough on her own. They appear to her as comfort in moments of self depreciation or self doubt, or she coincidentally learns them in episodes where she faces her fear of rejection or makes a mistake (at least this is true in terms of the first four base glyphs she discovers). It's the titans way of saying "you may have to do things differently, but you can do anything they can do" to Luz bc he cares about her

AND THEN. IN WATCHING AND DREAMING. WHEN THE TITAN PASSES ON AND THE GLYPHS DON'T WORK ANYMORE. IT'S BECAUSE NOW LUZ FINALLY FEELS LIKE SHE'S GOOD ENOUGH, ALL ON HER OWN. SHE'S LEARNED THAT SHE HAS INTRINSIC WORTH AS A PERSON AND SHE DOESN'T NEED TO MAKE UP FOR WHO SHE IS. SHE MIGHT DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY BUT SHE CAN DO EVERYTHING ANOTHER WITCH CAN DO- THIS TIME WITH HER OWN, MORE PERSONAL ACCESSIBILITY TOOL (HER PALISMEN) INSTEAD OF THE ONE THE TITAN GAVE HER. MAN!!!!!

[silusvesuius]

g*lmar rly has to be the best skajrim character on the real like even if you don't like him he just is . literally The best one i think......... on dat note i also imagine that he and ulfr*c despite being fairydust BFFs for lyfe genuinely have the worst communication skills ever seen

[maddy-ferguson]

using intersectionality to discredit feminism and downplay its reach and essentially weaponizing it when it was coined to describe black women's experience of racism and sexism is nasty work...

[wayfinderships]

I'll be so doomed the day I ever get a girl f/o

[pardonmydelays]

favourite lyrics from paladin strait?

paladin strait is honestly so special to me... the melody, the lyrics, the music video... and that fucking ending that i will never recover from??? (to quote tyler robert joseph: when you hear the end of paladin, you tell me, does it sound like the end?). i don't know, i'm getting emotional. thank you for this series, my lovely anon. it was fun. i love this album so goddamn much. here's my favourite lyrics:

i would swim the paladin strait without any floatation just a glimpse of visual aid of you on the other shoreline waiting expectations that i'm gonna make it

here's my chance, time to take it can't be sure that i'll make it even though i'm past the point of no return i'm all in, i'm surrounded put my money where my mouth is even though i'm past the point of no return

on the ground are banditos fighting while i find nico even though i'm past the point of no return climb the top of the tower "show yourself" i yell louder even though i'm past the point of no ret- *nico's evil voice* ...so few, so proud, so emotional hello, clancy

ok, i'm not gonna teach you the lore right now, but just so you know where exactly is paladin strait, here's a map of trench:

(where you can probably see shit but paladin strait is between that part of trench surrounding the walls of dema and the voldsøy island.)

[tanicus-caesareth]

guarana drama, damage control

[theprinceandthewitch]

I don't think I mentioned this... but in Ashes of Memory, Alice receives a letter from Orpheus addressed as "Eury Lamb"

Lamb is the last name of the man who adopted her and experimented on her. It also serves as a reference to Little Girl's "Source of Evil" cosmetic, which is lamb themed.

"Eury" is a reference to Eurydice. People have theorized "Eury Lamb" is the name her adoptive father, Villhelm Lamb gave to her to keep her true identity a secret. But that's not rlly relevant...

What is relevant is that this makes Orpheus' alias choice even MORE obvious he loves Alice... this mans got romantic interest in her...

People who use that adoption letter as proof that the writers want you to view their relationship as sibling-like are so cringe. That letter is literally the direct opposite of "sibling-like".

Folks missed the part called "context": Orpheus [who was 17 at the time] knew she was being abused at the orphanage and tried to get her out in the least stressful way possible... and he couldn't even adopt her to begin with because the orphanage thought it would be best for her to be taken in by a blood relative. Which was a lie, because they ended up giving her to Villhelm Lamb to be used as his lab rat.

Like idk man... the writers have made it so abundantly clear Orpheus doesn't see her as a sister. That One letter doesn't prove he sees her as a sibling because if they wanted to make them siblings... then.... they would have... ya know, made them siblings... but they don't because.... they're not siblings and they're writing a tragic romance LMAO.

As for Alice, in AoM she calls him a playmate... granted she doesn't know Orpheus and her playmate are the same person, but she remembers him as her friend and not her brother... because.... they were never adopted siblings...

But yeah It's so crazy to think Orpheus doesn't love her... I'm over here losing my mind at That Scene in AoM where Orpheus asks Alice if she could play a song for him on her father's favorite piano.

What gets me is that this scene shows how much Orpheus missed her. He buys everything her relatives sold off so he can rebuild the mansions' interior to how it was when they were children. He also goes out of his way to fix her father's favorite piano. The piano didn't just need fine tuning - it was straight up destroyed during the raid. It was a really, really expensive thing to repair. Even though Alice's father had other pianos, some of which could have survived the raid, he rebuilds the one which holds alot of sentimental value to her... LIKE???

REALLY... You guys really want me to think Orpheus did all this JUST out of a sense of guilt for unintentionally causing the raid? You are rlly gonna look me in the eyes and tell me Orpheus using "Orpheus" as his alias while addressing Alice as "Eury" is totally platonic?

Are u rlly gonna say that to me knowing this official artwork made Norton and Melly wear their Pluto and Proserpina/Persephone outfits while Frederick, Orpheus, and Alice are dressed normally? My brother in Christ... will you rlly look me in the eyes and tell me Orpheus [AND THE BIRDS] holding flowers is platonic symbolism...

THIS ISN'T EVEN SUBTLE LOOOOL

How much more evidence do people need that these two aren't siblings AND they're on a whole romantic journey together...