"I have seen the cage you are weaving for me; it is a very pretty one and I shall sit, hereafter, in my cage among the other singing birds but I—I shall be dumb, from spite" (Carter, 1979)
hold on actually i have a question that comes from pure morbid curiosity
please rb this i am so fucking nosy i wanna know how many of you are homewreckers
for clarity: by "messed around" i mainly mean dated, spoken with in an explicitly romantic or sexual way, or hooked up with someone already in a relationship. whether you count an emotional affair is up to you.
Shoutout to mean aros. Aros that are a hard pill to swallow. Aros that aren't palatable. Aros that are angry, cold, and distant. Aros that don't want to be "good representation". Aros that don't love and don't care what's said about it. Aros that do love and don't care who understands it. Aros that don't sit right with alloromos. Aros that want to be left alone and don't want to talk. Aros that are loud and opinionated and refuse to shut up. Aros that are bitter. Aros that don't want to answer questions about their labels. You shouldn't need to be warm and approachable to earn respect for your aromanticism and avoid harassment from arophobes.
Have you heard of the "Crowley is Malleus' dad" theory going around? Where Prince Levan (or whatever his name is) didn't actually die and just went out to get some milk and is now known as Dire Crowley, the silly man? The implications of that theory is absolutely hilarious when you think about it
hold on, we can figure this out, we just need LISTS
PROS THAT CROWLEY IS SECRETLY REVAAN/LEVAN/LAVERNE/WHATEVER:
unspecified fae of some kind, with similar coloring to Mal
the animal masks are apparently a Briar Valley thing
has some kind of big blackmailable secret that was alluded to in episode 4, and then as far as I know never brought up again
(unless this was just Azul bullshitting, which is extremely possible)
based on Diablo, which...maybe means something?
has canonically worn Dad Shorts
CONS:
(gestures to Crowley's entire personality)
NO LISTEN Revaan was the guy they sent off on diplomatic missions and to take care of delicate political situations, and...look, I love this dweeb, but would you trust Crowley to be in charge of negotiating your war treaties
despite my brain insisting on reading his name as "Raven", Revaan's title does imply that he was also a dragon (or super into longan berries, I'm not ruling that out)
currently unclear why Lilia "my closest friend Revaan...he is no longer with us...I used to make fun of him for being kind of a priss about eating jerky..." Vanrouge has somehow not noticed or said anything
Malleus' Aloof Anime ~Aristocrat~ vibe had to come from somewhere, and by all accounts it was NOT his mom's side of the family
???:
turns into a bird in the opening, I don't know if that means anything but it's kinda cool, I guess
all that aside, if Malleus and Yuu are any indication, then the Draconias have...questionable taste in their social choices. so anything is possible!
Look I don’t think Nightmare and Error would pick a fight with each other (I think they both acknowledge that the other is not someone they want to have to fight) but if they did?????
Could Sorrelkit have gotten an honor title for surviving being poisoned like Honeysnake? Or is that not given to babies?
There's a few factors here;
No, babies aren't able to earn Honor Titles yet. They're for warriors-only. You can go from Apprentice to Honor Titled Warrior but that's very rare.
Sometimes kits ARE named for deadly circumstances. They receive their First Name upon seeing the full moon for the first time, so there are kittens who end up being named for something like that; such as Adderkit, who was rescued from an adder by Talltail. Sorrelkit was already named.
A poisoning like that wouldn't be honored due to its horrific nature. Honeysnake survived an adder bite, venom, after saving Briarkit's life. She wasn't tricked into eating nightshade by someone she loved and trusted.
Make sense? Honor Titles are things of honor, achievements. This wasn't an honor to ThunderClan at this time, it was just sickening.
Must have been extra rough on Sorreltail, though, to go through a nightshade poisoning as a kitten, and then watch her baby desperately fight to survive an adder bite. So soon after losing Brackenfur, too.
“Look I talked to your Ma while you was out-” and suddenly they were shouting again.
“YOU TOLD MY MOM?”
“Davey I-”
“Oh no, don’t you fucking ‘Davey’ me!”
“I-”
“You had no right to tell her! You don’t even know what’s going on! You always rush into everything like this!”
“I don’t know? I’se pretty sure that you’se been not eating, and you’se been so hungry that you just lost consciousness in the street and almost got trampled to death! But if that ain’t sound right to you then tell me what’s going on Dave!”
There are absolutely valid critiques to be made about the writing of TBHK but I keep seeing teenagers on TikTok make the most mind-numbing takes about how the manga is problematic because it has toxic relationships. Sure there are some questionable scenes that I hate but of all the things to bitch about, you choose the relationships??? And not even a take about the way they’re written, you think a manga having toxic relationships in any capacity makes it bad???
I specified teenagers because I wanted to cut them a little bit of slack but I’ve seen grown ass adults make similar takes. Do ya’ll not watch adult shows with adult themes??? Where the relationships are much worse than what you find in a ghost romance manga aimed at tweens???
I wouldn’t even say the toxicity is glorified, they just don’t tell you how you’re supposed to feel about it 24/7. Like when Hanako says he wants Nene to live the life he gave her, or when Kou wants Mitsuba to be completely reliant on him, you’re supposed to understand that these are severely traumatized characters who’s baggage is going to weigh down their relationships. They don’t give a disclaimer every chapter that you’re not supposed to agree with them because they expect their audience to be sensible enough to come to their own conclusions on how they should feel about those scenes.
I hate to break it to ya’ll but mentally ill people have relationships irl, whether they’re ready for them or not. These relationships may go poorly or they may turn out to be very beneficial depending on how they’re handled. All types of people, whether they deal with trauma/mental illness or not, have flaws that sometimes follow them throughout life. Not all of these flaws will go away, because no human being is 100% perfect. Sometimes we hurt the people we care about even if we’re generally good people. Fiction that falls under the category of magical realism (aka TBHK) is meant to reflect reality, so we’re often going to see characters deal with flaws that they may or may not overcome.
Not to mention, half of these characters are dead, they’re not going to be capable of having normal healthy relationships. They behave realistically for their circumstances, it doesn’t have to have a moral tied up with a pretty pink bow. Most of the ships are doomed to fail anyways so them being toxic is a relevant part of the natural decline of their development. The toxicity doesn’t automatically make the series bad, in fact I’d argue that element is well-written and necessary for the progression of the story. If HanaNene weren’t a little bit toxic, we wouldn’t have gotten the Picture Perfect arc or the Severance arc
It’s perfectly fine to dislike toxic ships in fiction, but don’t ridicule authors for wanting to depict more complex themes in their work. AidaIro have certainly included some weird fan service scenes/official art in their series, but those criticisms should remain separate from creative choices you personally dislike.
people have gotta stop referring to my interests as hyperfixations even though i don’t use that term because they are not hyperfixations dndjkdksjdks like i don’t even call them that so why do people assume (rhetorical)
Sometimes people criticize popular media because there are actual things that may be bad or need addressing, and sometimes people criticize popular media because they have a personal grudge against either the media or the creator of said media and just want to have something to be angry about. And it’s important to analyze our own motivations each time to make sure we haven’t slipped into the second one, which isn’t healthy for anyone involved.
[...] I tend to err away from this dichotomy of villain-hero and subsequent selfless-selfishness in general. The hero “saving a loved one vs the the world” is an age old conflict and also an inherently fantastical scenario, as it’s a literal trolley problem on a level no real life person will ever experience (there can certainly be similar things in IRL war when a lot of hard, otherwise unfathomable choices have to be made). And, traditionally, most villains cover up their schemes with notions of doing things for the Greater Good (hi Viren!) even if their actions are also things that are conveniently benefitting themselves. And typically, the hero is the Hero precisely because they understand that recognizing the personhood of the individual and that it’s important to always value the individual (of which the many are made of) is a crucial cornerstone of well, valuing life at all. However, because this is TDP, even this dichotomy isn’t Simple or clear cut.