#does ANY of this make ANY sense

[zombiecowboy65]

I find this paragraph curious because Jeremy never actually tells us he’s attractive himself. I’m sure he knows, but when he tries to get Jean’s attention, it’s by taking off his shirt. Like his face isn’t enough. Like he isn’t enough. And that shows further here because this time, Jean’s looking at Jeremy’s sister. And she’s a girl. And I think Jean’s age? So already more societally acceptable, already favored by their parents. But on top of that, there’s the fact that Jeremy refuses to acknowledge his jealousy. “He didn’t know why the laundry basket was digging into his fingers”. Because Jean refused to look at him, and Jeremy’s only ever been looked at. But I think it’s more possessive than that, actually. I’m sure the other ppl Jeremy hooks up with look at countless other men. But none of them ever wanted him for more, so he never hoped for more. And then Jean comes in and does the opposite of what ever other man has ever done (know Jeremy has worth on his own, defend him against his family without even knowing much about them, let Jeremy have boundaries, etc etc) and Jeremy wants.

[“you and me against the world,” Jeremy mused, delighted despite himself. / “I will choose you every time.” —his head was an echo chamber, spinning Jean’s words out of context on repeat.]

[“Jean wanted this new life as much as he feared it.”]

Jean wants Jeremy as much as he fears him. & Jeremy wants Jean as much as he fears him , too

[frommybedroom]

thinking about how nick nelson has an issue with being a people pleaser and making sure his loved ones are okay and how that probably stems back to a childhood with a bully for an older brother and a bully for a father which then makes me think of a scenario where stéphane and sarah were fighting and nick tried to intervene or maybe he comforted sarah after stéphane storms out of the house and sarah thanks nick for always making her feel better and suddenly nick goes hey i’m pretty good at this whole comforting people thing and then begins to internalize that as his way of being useful to people

[leveebreak-s]

if you know me in real life KEEP SCROLLING i'm so serious. look me in the eyes. please ignore this one. if you read this and i find out i'll probably block you i'm sorry (that includes you nemo)

jimbert nonsense under the cut. zeppelin mutuals if you have thoughts please share them, especially @incredifishface and @tangerina24 i'd be very happy to hear from you.

Tea For One becomes so loaded when read through a Jimbert lens. I'm not saying the song IS a jimbert song, only that it COULD be, and that reading it that way is compelling and at times confounding

first of all, genius says the song is about robert missing his family while he's on tour, which seems valid on paper, but given the context in which it was written doesn't seem like the most logical interpretation to me. presence as an album was written when robert was recovering from his accident, wheelchair bound, and unsure if he would ever be able to tour again. there was very much an atmosphere hanging over the band and robert especially that this album might be their swan song. he was staring down the barrel of an end to life on the road, life in the band, life with jimmy. it's a very melancholy song and i would describe the tone as...defeated?

Like, given that the man is newly homebound, I think it's safe to say that what is making him feel "this way" is not the carnival of life on the road but the isolation and loneliness brought on by pain and temporary disability.

Sittin' lookin' at the clock

Time moves so slow

I've been watchin' for the hands to move

Until I just can't look no more

How come twenty four hours

Baby sometimes seems to slip into days?

A minute seems like a lifetime

Baby when I feel this way

I guess this is the part of the song that leads people to the conclusion that the song is about missing his wife and children while on tour, but "now I can't get back again" ? Again, on this album he's confronted with the idea that he might never tour again. He's very much about to get back again.

There was a time that I stood tall

In the eyes of other men

But by my own choice I left you woman

And now I can't get back again

I have more thoughts on this but for the purposes of this post i digress. This song could be about Maureen. I'm not trying to prove that it is about Jimmy, I'm just trying to prove that reading it that way is interesting.

the idea that their glory days are coming to an end are all over this album. hell, the first song is called achilles' last stand. and that song is definitely about robert and jimmy, as fishie and leds have already so eloquently proven. the end of the dream. time to ramble on. by my own choice i left you. "and now i can't get back again" does indicate that robert has some pretty mixed feelings about the possibility that this is the end. on the one hand, he's ready to assert himself independently, break free from their covenant, prove himself beyond the band. on the other hand, having his autonomy in the matter ripped away from him is not what he wanted. and i'm not just talking about the injury keeping him from life on the road, but from his partnership with jimmy which is, in jimmy's eyes, inseparable from their working together.

this is my favourite part of the whole song and also the one i find the most confounding. BY THE BY the chord progression is the same as on "since i've been loving you," which according to jimmy was done on purpose, as an exercise to see how different of a song they could make with the same chords and many years of songwriting behind them.

To sing a song for you

I recall you used to say

Oh baby this one's for we two

Which in the end is you anyway

is it: i recall you used to say "oh baby this one's for we two" which in the end is you anyway? or is it: i recall you used to say "oh baby this one's for we two anyway which in the end is you anyway?" this stanza really invokes jimbert for me. I am thinking about the dynamic between the two of them in the beginning. jimmy as a sage who plucked robert from relative security, found him, saw him, made him who he was at this time. robert as an acolyte but also as a young god in his own right, once a student and still a devotee but now an intellectual equal.

"this one's for we two, which in the end is you anyway."

in the end, "we" are something that you created. you birthed this, turned our lead into gold, created me in your image, and you will be the one to tend to it for all time. maybe "we" weren't even real to begin with. maybe "we" were only ever a product of your vision for world domination and eternal life. if THAT's not about the end of jimbert (the first season anyway) i don't know what is.

idk if anyone will bother to read all of this but please know that i wrote it in like 10 minutes off the cuff so if it's a bit incoherent i apologize i just have a LOT of feelings about this song. if i got anything wrong please let me know or *hope beyond hope* if anyone wants me to say MORE about it let me know because i could go into a LOT more depth

[heartsdefine]

think i'm gonna headcanon that it was actually uncommon for grisha to merge bodily with their amplifiers, and rather that most wear them as jewelry like in the books. merging the collar to alina's body was something the d*rkling told david to do to ensure she could never remove it, and her ability to absorb it entirely was the result of a unique power combined with unique circumstances and one of the three most powerful amplifiers known to grisha.

as such, when alina gets rusalye's scales, she wears them around her wrist as a bracelet, and does not have them merged into her body. when the time comes to kill mal for the power of that third amplifier, the bracelet breaks at the explosion of power much like in the books. alina also feels a surge from the collar in her bones as it loses its connection to the other two amplifiers.

i also favor mal being saved by some expert heartrending rather than dabbling in merzost on alina's part, at least as far as my main verse is concerned. so i'm drawing a lot more from the books in terms of how the trilogy ended (alina experiences an explosion of her power upon killing mal and her power still spreads to the soldat sol around her; in the process she still sacrifices both mal and rusalye's amplifier), with the main exception being that alina "keeps" the collar as it's been merged with her body, and both its power and her power to call the sun come back slowly over time.

[petshopbutch]

submissive in the way a livestock guardian dog is submissive to the sheep it kills wolves for

[mochasucculent]

Was looking at refs and since Viktor has two different leg braces I was wondering, do we think he wears them simultaneously?? The refs don't perfectly line up perspective-wise so it's hard to tell but parts of the one he wears during the Hexcore scenes look like they could maybe line up with the brace that he wears over his clothes, but also some parts really don't and look like they'd be super uncomfy. Also HOW does he take these on and off. Experts weigh in

[renewashere]

this reminded me of them

(text under cut)

[electrikorg]

always have many thoughts about pre-gorillaz stuart, the most average british lad there is. (2D with eyes jumpscare)

[blahlahblash]

so basically, umm... Movie Sonic feeling the feels for Movie Shadow, just a tiny bit. And Knuckles unknowingly crushing on Rouge, but not just a tiny bit. Ykyk

[bamsara]

I think that one thing people fail to understand is that unsolicited literary criticism coming from an online stranger who is reading with no knowledge of what the authors intended goal is, is not going to be received the same as say: the authors beta reader or friends who know what the authors intended goal and has the sufficient knowledge and input to help the author reach that desired outcome.

"But I'm only trying to be helpful" How do I know you have the knowledge and literary skill for you to be able to actaully do that when we don't know each other and you are essentially a stranger to me? Are you applying this criticism based out of personal biased experience and desire to see the story or characterization be driven in another direction or tweaked, or do you know the author's intentions for the character? If the story is incomplete, are you basing your criticism of a character on the incomplete narration with only partial information available of them or are you building up a report until the story's completion? Did the author provide you with the information needed to make a fully informed criticism?

Have you discussed with the author what their plans are or are you assuming them based off the narration, especially if the narration is proven or implied to be unreliable or missing key points of the plot? Are you unbiased enough to help them reach their desired outcome for the characters and story regardless of your personal feelings towards the characters/antagonists and setting? Can you handle being told your specific input isn't wanted because you're a reader and/or have no written anything relating to their genre or topic? Do you understand and respect that the author's personal experiences might influence their writing and make it different than how you would have done it personally? Do you understand if an author only wants input from a specific demographic relating to their story?

If it's for fanfiction or other hobby media, are you holding a free hobby to a professional standard? Are you trying to give criticism because you feel like the author has produced 'subpar job performance' of their fic? Are you viewing their work as a personal intimate outlet or something that must conform with mass media? Are you applying rules and guidelines when the fic is shared for simple sharing sake? Is your criticism worded appropriately and focused on the parts where the author has requested input on rather than a general dismissal and or disapproval?

Have you put yourself in a place where you assumed you have the input needed for the story to evolve better, or have you asked what the author needs and what they're having trouble with? Can you handle having your criticism rejected if the author decides their story doesn't need the change and not take it as a personal offense against your character? Are you crossing that boundary because you think you are doing the author a favor? Are you trying to be helpful, or do you just want to be?

I think sometimes when people hear authors go 'please don't give me unsolicited writing advice or criticism' they automatically chalk it up to 'this author doesn't want ANY constructive feedback on their stuff at all' and not "i already have trusted individuals who will help me with my writing goals and- hey i don't know you like that, please stop acting so overly familiar with me'

[idontmindifuforgetme]

lived my whole life in guilt bc i thought i was responsible for people's feelings. newly realizing that other people are responsible for their feelings and reactions, even if they make it seem like i'm the problem. a lot of the time it really has to do w them and their own emotional regulation. i can't keep thinking i'm not allowed to have space bc of other people's insecurities. like i literally refuse to dim myself. other people are responsible for their feelings just as i'm responsible for mine.

[linguistics-and-lesbianism]

i love the two genre of mountain goats songs are like “i shot a guy in the face. and id do it again if i had to. that’s what loving you is like” and “i saw a monkey through the window. he waved at me. i didn’t know monkeys knew how to do that”

[fence-time]

Giving him multiple arms to maximise ADHD fidgetage

[plaguedocboi]

I have wildly different feelings about underwater caves vs caves on land. Underwater caves are the domain of the Water (capitalized in the same way one would capitalize God) and humans should not be in there. If you dare to enter such a place the Water will strike you down for your hubris. Going down there will subject you to a force far more powerful than you can imagine and you may never come back out. But a cave on land? Brother they didn’t call my ancestors cavemen for nothing. If I crawl into a hole and die that’s on me.

[manichewitz]

watched sk8 the infinity for the blue/red yaoi, but nobody told me to watch out for whatever the fuck the pink and the green guy have going on

[eveningdawn222]

people who act like batman isn't "judge jury and executioner" because he doesn't kill people are like. genuinely so funny to me because. they're very obviously thinking of "executioner" as like. the stereotypical guy with axe who chops people heads off, and not, yknow, the literal definition of the idiom itself, which is about someone who has the ability to judge and then subsequently punish someone unilaterally. which is quite literally what batman does.

he has the ability to decide what is a "crime" to him, he is the one who decides whether people are guilty of those crimes, and he is the one who executes their punishment. the severity of the punishment doesn't matter - he is unaccountable to anyone else, and indeed is allowed to commit as many crimes as needed to reach his arbitrary ideal of "justice."

the ideal of batman is this: a man who is so fundamentally changed by an act of senseless violence that he takes it upon himself to fight back against the rot and corruption in the world. he does this not through political activism, not through ridding himself of his wealth in favor of a greater good, not through community outreach, but through an individualistic fantasy of being a hero.

and you'll say: charlie, but he does do that !!! he donates his money all the time, he funds social programs, hospitals, orphanages, gets people jobs -

and i will say this: so why don't things get better?

because here's the base of it. gotham, at its core, can't get better. no matter what bruce wayne does, there will always be more crime, more villains, more death, more people for batman to beat up in back alleys. because that's what sells.

reoffending rates don't matter in gotham, prison reform doesn't matter in gotham, what actually causes crime doesn't matter in gotham because that doesn't sell books.

and so here it is; dc has unintentionally created a world where batman can't win, but can't be wrong, and where thousands of nameless, faceless, only-created-to-die civilians must be pushed into the meat grinder that is gotham, to fuel bruce wayne's angst and vindicate his constant, tireless, noble fight against the forces of evil.

and then: a new robin, who is poor and who's parents are dead or gone because of this cycle; who is happy go-lucky and hated by editors and fans for being robin, for not being dick grayson, for being poor.

and this robin is written, unintentionally or not, to be angry at the ways in which batman's (the narrative's) idea of justice is detached from its victims. bruce seems perfectly fine to allow countless unnamed women to be at risk from garzonas in his home country, yet robin is the one who is portrayed as irrational and violent.

this robin is not detached from gotham in the way bruce wayne is: this robin is a product of gotham.

(and here's the thing. you can't punch aids. you can't fight a disease with colorful fights and nifty gadgets. and how would robin dying from aids add to batman's story; it would call into question the systemic changes that haven't been made in gotham. how does a child get aids, in batman's city?)

so robin dies, and then bruce (the narrative) spends the next couple of decades blaming it on him. it is jason's fault; he was reckless, he just ran in, he thought it was all a game. if only bruce had seen what was coming, if only he could have known that jason wasn't rich enough or smart enough or liked enough to be robin.

batman gets a little more violent, a little more self destructive. he hurts people more and almost (!!) kills a couple guys. this is bad because it's self destructive and "not who he is." it is not bad because batman should not be able to just beat people up when he's angry.

and then he gets a shiny new robin - who is all the things jason "wasn't": rich and smart and rational and he doesn't put who batman is into question. batman and robin are partners, and jason is a grave and a cautionary tale, and (crucially here) never right.

the joker kills thousands and it doesn't matter because they were written to be killed.

batman beats up thousands and it doesn't matter because they were written to be criminals.

and then jason comes back, and nothing has changed. there is a batman and a (shiny! rich!) robin and the joker kills thousands. (because it sells)

and jason is angry - he has been left unavenged - his death has meant nothing, just as willis' had, just as catherine's had, just as gloria's had, just as -

thousands. ten of thousands. hundreds of thousands. written to be killed.

but one of them gets to come back.

and he is angry - not only at the joker, but at bruce (the narrative) - because why is the joker still alive (when thousands-)

here is the thing - jason todd is right. not because the death penalty is good, not because criminals deserve to die, not because of everything he says -

but because of what he calls into question. why is the joker alive?

because he sells books.

and dc has written a masterful character, through no fault of their own, because jason knows what is wrong, and he knows who is at fault - batman. (the narrative)

so the argument that bruce can't kill because he's not judge jury and executioner; the argument that jason is a cop or that jason is insane or that jason is in the wrong here; they hold no weight.

batman can't kill the joker because the joker sells comic books.

and jason can't kill the joker because the joker sells comic books.

so he will beg and plead and grovel - he will betray everything that is himself, he will forsake his family and his city and kill himself - just so that bruce (the narrative) will let the joker die.

he was condemned to death by an audience, and after he came back he has spent his whole life looking us in the eyes and screaming, asking, pleading; why is the joker still alive?

why are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands (the number doesn't matter, see, because they're just a number. not people. not real.) why are we expendable for his story? why did i have to die just for nothing to change?

and the answer is money. and the answer is the batman can never be wrong. and the answer is shitty writing. and the answer is -

nothing jason can ever change.

which is the worst of it all. he is a victim with no power, and no one else in the world can see it. he is raging and crying and screaming at his father and his writers and you - and it doesn't matter. jason doesn't matter. and he knows it.