#dare to fail

[anonymitie]

[fivestarhuman]

Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.

John F. Kennedy

[sadgayeddie]

What's up with the Spider-Man routine? I don't know. I just did it.

[mipmoth]

It's only me and you in this cruel world walking radiator

[urbest2day]

Insight 3149

“Dream big and dare to fail.” Norman Vaughan – 1905-2005 – Dogsled Driver-Explorer

[tsukiglitch]

Dilulu and his young Younger brother kae

When I look at that image I picture kid Kaeya trying to scare something/someone off and Diluc just silently watching, do any wrong move and you're dead.

honestly I spend so much time on this than I expected x]

inspired by this tweet:

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Tis but a flesh wound!

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[frodo-a-gogo]

Let us be brutally honest with ourselves and with eachother for a moment. If he weren't obese you motherfuckers would be capable of percieving evrart claires sexy sexy moral ambiguity and complex charms

[moonlit-dreamers]

drew this last night in a feverish haze after watching the (un)lucky block video

can we get some F's in the chat for moon?

reblogs appreciated

[thatshadowgastwhore]

I come bearing Tim, Jason, and Bruce angst.

Ever think about the fact that Jason had to be the adult when it came to his relationship with his mother? That the roles were reversed and the child had to look after the parent when she was at her most self destructive, had to be the one looking out for her to try to keep her safe from herself, and from his perspective, he failed. He wasn’t enough. Catherine died. (Obviously Jason bears no actual fault in her death, he was a child, but that doesn’t mean he believes that)

And with Bruce, pre death, Jason and Bruce had an excellent father/son relationship. At no point pre death were those roles reversed and Jason had to be the adult for Bruce. Bruce was a loving father, he wanted to keep Jason safe and it allowed Jason to be more of a child. It showed him what a parent should be for their child, unlike what he learned from Willis and later Catherine as she devolved.

You know what Jason does not witness? Bruce in the aftermath of his death. He doesn’t see Bruce spiral and become violent like Willis or self destructive like Catherine. He never has to witness Bruce as less than an ideal parent. He also never witnesses that the person who steps up to emotionally support Bruce and pull him out of his spiral is another child. A child taking on the role of caretaker for an adult.

Jason’s greatest trauma is his death, but his first trauma is Willis and Catherine. Bruce would never tell Jason the extent to which he fell apart. Tim would never divulge the information willingly. Bruce was so grief stricken, he barely remembers his time after Jason’s death, he blocks it out.

Jason may hate Bruce for not killing the joker, but he’ll never hate Bruce for becoming (briefly) like Willis and Catherine. Because he’ll never know. He’ll hate Tim for taking his place in the family, and never know Tim became like him in so many more ways than becoming Robin.

Tim knows on an informational level what Jason’s time was like pre-Bruce. He studied the family, he’s a researcher, his pattern recognition skills (literally how he unmasked Batman) are too great for him not to know the basics, but he doesn’t know the emotional level it would have scarred Jason. But even without that, he’ll never tell him what happened while Jason was dead. Even if it means Jason resents him. He’s going to take that secret to his grave.

Jason will never know that they have that in common. He doesn’t need to. It’ll only hurt more. (He can never tell anyone)

[zephyrins]

I want Luka to believe Till is absolutely broken and depressed but Till casually walks onto the scene and blows everyone up with the most heavy metal song ever

[ganondoodle]

okay now, im a little pissed off- i wont be reblogging the post bc its and old shitpost and i dont want to attract more notes on it but

i am so fucking, and i mean FUCKING, tired of all the shit ass excuses some people try to make to defend ganondorf being a nothing burger character

this dumb ass comment really goes all in too, and here i painfully see how much damage skyward sword has done to him bc people cant fuking think i guess "as of skysw he doesnt have an true motivation of his own- hes evil just bc he is there nothing else to it" shut the fuck up man oh my god, you dont think thats a problem? you just accept that? no no OOT also already showed hes nothing but evil tm uwu he doesnt have a reason - AND THATS A PROBLEM YOU ABSOLUTE BUFFOON

if you think that giving ganondorf a miniscule amount of ANY sort of sensical reason to do what he does, a backstory, fucking anything 'changes him into a different character'- HOW in the FUCK do you not see the problem here

and my favorite (refernceing a different character) "If hes evil, like ganondorf, which means an absolute evil, then his backstory wouldn't matter a lick" HELLO??? HELL FUCKING O???? "absolute evil" do you know how you sound like??? also EVERYTHING MATTERS oh my god, but no no of course it wouldnt matter and make no difference if you knew more about a character, no, actually, knowing less of a character is better even! why even write anything tbh? you just give them a label of good or evil and then you dont need anythign else heehoo i cannot believe this shit is now hanging on one of my posts, im struggeling to even dismantle it bc its just so goddamn stupid what do you mean it woudnt matter???????? if i knew ganondorf had a personality (especially totk bc its the worst case), if i knew he had loved ones once upon a time, he laughed and was allowed to feel like a person, whatever made him go down a bad path to end up making you defeat him would mAKE IT ALL HAVE MORE OF AN IMPACT (this is assuming that whatever path it is leads him to oppose you but also .. it doesnt have to mean hes evil or done all bad deeds, guess what, you the player could also be playing the real "villain", wouldnt that be a change of pace .. or it wouldnt, depending on how you look at it (oh NO shift of perspective???) it already is, even if i personally prefer it ALL being a spectrum and not just a label of good and bad and just rolling with this badly definable bunch of words)

do you know why i didnt give a flying fuck about the final battle in totk?? bc its all fucking NOTHING, ganondorf is a goal post with a face that got "BAD GUY" written on it in big red letters stapled on it and nothign more, you cant care about nothing and the point of any story at all is to fucking CARE

honestly a reason why i hate both "redeemable" and the good and evil descriptor is that its so ... limiting, redeemable, what does that even mean really?? it just sounds like you are applying some weirdo christian sins to make up for with good deeds shit onto characters that are, or should be, meant to make you feel something and be a pinnacle of jesus instead, like a checkbox, a scoreboard, and now its being mainly used as a negative word to dismiss legitimate criticism of boring or shitty writing bc giving any character any depth at all now automatically means you want to redeem them and thus absolve them of their sins or some shit, make them uwu perfect little good guys which is not the point (even if there are people like that, sicne guess what, theres lots of different ideas of things all around, inlcuding this hellhole- and yes there are shitty ways to give a character depth! the problem then isnt the motivation to give them depth, its the WRITING of it)

the whole good and evil thing also is just so darn limiting, what does evil even mean, who defines it matters alot, what does good mean, the definition is also really really bendable- link kills more living things than ganondorf ever has yet he isnt evil (bc hes on the side of hyrule, the designated good gouys uwu which means anythign they do is okay), the royal family having a torture dungeon and persecuting the shiekah into submission doesnt make them evil uwu but the gerudo have to suffer for the "crime" of having birthed ganondorf at some point for all eternity i guess

(as well as the very very obviously stupid turns and things ganondorf does and doesnt do literally just bc they needed him to do soemthign you could call bad even if it makes no sense at all, why would he attack his own fucking people out of nowhere, why destroy everything, literally what for, why give himself up if he wants to rule its jsut as stupidly nonsensical as the dumb magic pebbles that just gives random powers out just to force the outcome they wanted to happen)

redeemable, saveable, whatever, giving a character depth doesnt have to mean you want them to join the good tm guys either and im so fucking tired of this way of thinking, EVEN considering that hey ... it would be cool actually to have a ganondorf as the main guy, but we all should know that would only happen if he is a servant of hyrule, which i would consider to be more out of character than ... GIVIING HIM ANY SORT OF DEPTH??? to sympthaize, be conflicted or see the guy you need to defeat has a point is like, not a bad thing?? you can make someone be the most sympathetic guy of all time and still make you fight him ??? and i will repeat again, ganondorf being a nothing burger (espeically in totk) hurts EVERYTHING, everything suffers from shitty writing and lack of writing, the thing that link and zelda are almost just as flat istn .. isnt good either?? its also bad but hes got it way worse (and the racism oh bOI)!!! (there is a reason why ww ganondorf is widely seen as the best one and itse literally bc he says ONE or two lines that may make you think omg .. he is person.... he might FEEL OoO- man the bar really is below the ground isnt it)

and they dont even care to try to make him actually be dislikable, he doesnt tease zelda with killing her father or soemthing, he doesnt have any sort of connection to any of them, every line he says (in totk) is like a prepackaged microwave villain line, you could apply it to anyone, even rauru and it wouldnt seem out of place tbh (which is BAD), more depth would have connected him to the story, the world the literal everything which means people care which means a better story i dont know how to explain to you that you should be able to care about characters??????? he gets the stamp of "evil guy" on his head and they expect you to be happy with that, accept any stupid thing they make him do and others say about him without question? do you NOT feel at least a little insulted???

and like, this is still written, this is a piece of fiction, they had to sit down and write all that, or .. well, NOT write it, they decided to do it like this, despite the ocean of potential in front of them, you could do so many itneresting thigns with this world and they jsut dont and then theres people like this that are so entrechned into this boring ass writing they think that its the point, liek the point is its bad hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

"but hes not meant to be a person he jsut ev-" SHUT the hell up, nevermind the whole curse thing is an englsih trnaslation thing and also perhaps not meant to be taken literally, you think that makes it ok? that well there was a demon once (who also doesnt get any sort of depth btw!!! problem shoved one place over but still the same problem!) so that means hes not actually a person but idk a demon puppet or soemthing- doesnt change anything imo, are you not bored? are you not tired? are you happy with not thinking? not being engaged with at all? to see chaarcters to utterly flavorless you fall asleep and choke on them? i am not, i love thinking, im addicted to it even, i think every day even, right now too, they got a convenient excuse to put not even the barest fucking minimum of writing care into a character and you are jsut going with it!! where are your tastebuds buddy??

[carlyraejepsans]

"mouthwashing fandom" and "people who complain about mouthwashing fandom" currently at an arms race for most insufferable people on my dash

[caffeinatedattorney]

Thinking about Harvey's little

"...be safe and b-be good, Bruce Wayne..."

So, to overanalize it: I don't think text can convey how big of a confession that is? I don't mean romantic. I mean like, this is Harvey's most personal, hardcoded language. This is the stuff he tells himself all the time. Survive. Be a good person. It's him showing his inner machinations, his innermost thoughts and fears, and maybe, just maybe he regrets saying it halfway through bc of it and he trails off.

Bruce says "I love you," pretty nonchalantly and tries to play it off as casual ("knock it off") and it's clear he's more used to treating ppl this way. But of course, Bruce knows Harvey and how he is, he understands. Of course he does. He'll do anything for Harvey.

[kindahoping4forever]

AshtonIrwin: The new hip hop Madonna @ Doechii

[meglosthegreat]

Let's talk about "cozy" stories for a second, and while I am in particular talking about Veilguard here, this also applies to a lot of other media this phenomenon has been cropping up in. Because I think a lot of the defensiveness from the direction of Veilguard fans is coming from a place of what a "cozy" story really is, and how that actually manifests in a piece of media.

When I think of "cozy" media my mind tends to jump to things like Animal Crossing or Stardew Valley or whatever: games designed to be unchallengingly fun, that have soft and cute graphics; that steer away from any intense subject matter. And those games have their place! I'm not out to get any of that stuff, because sometimes what you do need is to turn your brain off for a minute.

But here's the thing: I wouldn't call Animal Crossing or Stardew Valley stories. They have story elements, to be sure, but the story isn't really the point. They serve the same sort of function as like, crocheting - something relaxing and semi-mindless and often social. When we engage with a story, on the other hand, we're doing something completely different.

Why do we tell stories? What purpose do they serve?

In broad strokes, we tell stories to experience things that we can't or don't want to experience in life. They provide a framework; a space, if you will, in which it is safe to experience things might otherwise hurt us. And yeah, humans are so good at using stories to contextualize life in this was that sometimes we do it a little too well, and that's why things like content and trigger warnings exist.

Stories are safe spaces. So what does that make "cozy" stories, in particular? A safe space inside a safe space, where not even the idea of something harmful can reach you? What purpose, exactly, does that serve?

Back to Dragon Age, which was never conceived of as the fantasy video game equivalent of crochet. Dragon Age told a story, with themes and messages and complicated emotions. By putting these things (albeit imperfectly) in the context of a fantasy world with fictional characters, we, the audience, are given a place to explore these ideas without bringing harm upon ourselves. And to take this story, with Veilguard, and wrap it up in layers of soft, unchallenging mindlessness is not only to insult the legacy of the series but also to go against the entire purpose of telling a story at all.

A "cozy story", then, does not truly exist. Because what we have come to know as "cozy" - unchallenging, mindless, digestible - is antithetical to the very concept of stories themselves. You can either spend time doing something relaxing and semi-mindless, or you can engage with a story. You can't do both, and this is what Veilguard failed to understand.