#another fuckin one

[thatgoddamngingerundercut]

‘Butter’ Jacket Shoot Sketch Day Three - j-hope

[front-facing-pokemon]

[dovesick]

no more stars

[redhotarsenic]

@nowfallc PICTURE!! FOR YOU!! PLEASE TAKE IT!! <3

[trustiskingandqueen]

[cynicallyneutral]

who’s got you blushing like that?

(hint: it’s sasuke)

[luck-of-the-drawings]

[<==PREV PAGES] [NEXT PAGE==>(not out yet.wait a year.or maybe more.imagine.]

saw alot of comments on prev pages; saying 'i HATE that mean teacher! im gonna FIGHT HIM!!' & i LOVE the energy!! it WOULD be nice. to have that catharsis. but the story of young tidestrider is Not one of catharsis. it is a story of being so small and so special and sucking so bad.

[eldritchamy]

I'll tell you what I want what I really really want

I wanna- (my adhd interrupts me with a new idea) I wanna- (my adhd interrupts me with a new idea) I wanna- (my adhd interrupts me with a new idea) I wanna- (my adhd interrupts me with a new idea)

[dysfunctionalcreature]

i am once again thinking about Andrew/Jean parallels, and the potential for how Andrew could help and comfort Jean, since in some ways they went through quite similar traumas

there's that scene in The King's Men where Renee, Kevin, Neil and Andrew are talking about what to do with Jean now that Renee's gotten him away from the Ravens, and Andrew makes it clear that he's not willing to help protect Jean, "And I'm not taking in any more refugees" Andrew said. -page 326 TKM (which is completely fair on Andrew's part given all the bullshit he's already dealing with)

But like, I can't stop thinking about how things might have gone if Andrew had agreed to help, to protect Jean just like he's been protecting Kevin and Neil for well over a year now, to take another "refugee", like how might things have turned out 🤔

[varyathevillain]

you know what I really like in season 2? how Jim Jimenez, who was not exactly part of the comedy in S1, which was most probably the reason why Blackbeard got them into the new crew in the last episode of S1... is now hamming it up as much as they can.

they used to be the silent support (posing as literally silent, mute) of the crew, someone who'd be on the fringes of both conflicts and comedic situations. and then, when Jim realises what exactly the good old days were to them, things they miss, the stories Stede told... they re-enact the wooden boy story the best they could. bring up the "toxic environment" to Izzy, refuse to let good things go, don't run from them, kiss Archie when she allows, ham it up with jokes and needlings, have a curly moustache drawn onto them and are the life of the party, and then Jim's the one to help Olu out with his new romantic partner. you'd think S1!Jim would be called "nosy interferer"? personally, wouldn't think so.

as much as we call a certain other character "person amongst Muppets", Jim Jimenez had also escaped their own genre, of "Hispanic revenge thriller", into queerness and acceptance of it wholeheartedly. with Jim being themselves, nonbinary and poly and breaking as many stereotypes as they can.

[hazellvsq]

this is a departure from my regular posting but. thalia and luke was not a pairing i gave any thought to as a kid back when the books were coming out but now that i’m older...do you think he poisoned her tree himself? with his own hands? do you think if their positions were reversed she would have done the same thing? do you think he would have rather killed her rather than let her exist as a monument to the half assed methods the gods use to protect their kids (the tree and the camp itself)? like he’s either going to rescue or murder her through these actions but he’s not going to leave her like that? he’s going to end it one way or another?

[wander-over-the-words]

as if Augustus "Man of Opportunity" Sinclair didn't stare at the Big Daddy's tits on that train ride. what kind of man do you take him for.

[front-facing-pokemon]

[footballshowrot]

pretty sure i saw jamie's reaction drinkin dani's mezcal in season one in a post one time compiling moments of him being adverse to drinking booze, and while i get what they were goin for, i always saw that moment with him stickin his tongue out as a cute character detail linking back to the fact that he opts to drink vanilla vodka and blue wkd or whatever and can't really handle hard booze, prefers fruity drinks and bog standard beer

[ourfag]

i think part of the resistance i’ve seen in response to the view of ed as an abuse victim—not just the view of izzy as someone who abused ed, but of ed as someone who was abused by him, as opposed to interpretations that pursue an image of Nuance and Complexity (unnecessarily, because their dynamic has heaps of both, but there seems to be a popular impulse to conflate complexity with shared culpability) by characterizing their relationship as being toxic/unhealthy in equal reciprocity, or as “mutually abusive” (oxymoron)—i definitely see the influence of racism there, but i think the racism is also working to amplify an adjacent issue where we tend to receive very specific cultural messaging about What An Abuse Victim Looks Like, and ed is excluded from a lot of that criteria.

he’s outspoken. he’s boisterous. he’s Very Cool and he Wears Leather. he’s physically bigger and browner than the person mistreating him. he spends the first season with a big grey beard, he’s covered in tattoos, he projects the image of A Man’s Man, to say nothing of his being a man in the first place. we see him get aggressive and we see him get angry (and sometimes we even see both at the same time). we see moments where he’s surly, prickly, insensitive, arrogant. his survival techniques and trauma responses incur collateral damage to other people, and in the second season this extends into affecting people we actually sympathize with. he’s extremely private about expressing fear. without examination, his professional relationship to izzy seems to position him as the one with the power slanted in his favor.

most damningly, we see him react multiple times to izzy’s abuse with physical violence. this is behavior that gets referenced all the time in the construction of narratives condemning subjects of physical abuse, let alone emotional abuse. which is why writing that intends for its audience to interpret a character as being unambiguously A Victim Of Abuse will often, for simplicity’s sake, avoid showing the character regularly engaging in anything of the kind.

and again, all of these departures from the image of The Model Victim are compounded by his being a man of color.

without any of the shorthand designed to point a big flashing arrow at his mistreatment, all we have left to work with are the words and actions we see from ed and izzy onscreen. who instigates conflict, and how does the other respond? how are they able or allowed to respond? how do we see them speak about each other to outside parties? does one go out of their way to control or isolate the other? what consequences does either party stand to face in saying “no” to the other? in acting against the other’s wishes? in trying to leave the relationship? when either of them attempts these things, how do we see the other respond?

i realize and appreciate what people are driving at when they garnish their analysis with disclaimers that they’re not saying ed’s just a poor innocent abuse victim, they’re not saying he’s a perfect angel who’s never done anything wrong, and that’s true, but these are points already contained implicitly in statements like “this show’s protagonists act like human people” and “ed’s emotional struggles are portrayed in a realistic and believable way.” my assumption is that these disclaimers are anticipatory responses to worst-faith interpretations of any discussion that attributes any victim status to ed whatsoever, so i definitely sympathize with their inclusion, but a (very small) part of me still worries about them potentially reflecting or reinforcing a belief that there is any way for someone to behave towards their abuser that imparts a responsibility for them to make right whatever damage the abuser receives, or for that matter any degree of ambiguity over their status as an abuse victim in the first place.

part of what i find so gratifying about ed as a character is that i don’t feel like the show’s writing is pressuring me to consider that ambiguity at all. which was a really nice thing for me to discover!

and tbh—did using ed to deconstruct The Model Victim even factor into the writers’ agenda?? ive got no clue. im guessing no? ??maybe?? probably not?? but if you create a main character whose central premise is that he feels trapped in a performance of exaggerated masculinity that he’s desperate to escape, and then you set him up with a character premised on embodying a tangible obstacle against that escape, then i guess that’s the natural shape your story’s gonna be inclined to take