hiatus announcement
hey, everyone.
so, um. you may have noticed things have been very on and off here for a couple months. it wasn't deliberate of course, but we've been struggling.
changing interests, creative struggles, burnout, irl stuff. its been a lot for all of us.
i guess what i'm trying to say is, thank you all for being awesome. we recently hit 600 followers, the highest we've ever gotten on a blog here. and that, we're sorry we won't be able to do anything to celebrate it.
we're planning on going on a hiatus again, and most likely making a new blog for new content.
we can't thank you all enough for your support. editing was our escape for the last years, and made us feel incredibly useful in a time where we felt so useless.
we'll share any new blogs we create here, if you'd like to follow us elsewhere.
thank you,
gladiolus system.
21 notes
·
View notes
"I should've seen the signs" I feel like Stoick was basically reliving the way he lost Valka.
To him, after a lifetime of wanting nothing but to kill a dragon, Hiccup's suddenly and inexplicably changed his mind. To him, Hiccup saying he can't kill them is just like when Valka refused to and tried convincing others as well, then as a result was 'killed' by one herself.
To him, way Hiccup tossed his weapon and shield to the side then approached Hookfang while speaking about how dragons aren't what people think they are probably bares an uncomfortable resemblance to the way Valka put down her weapon and stared a dragon in the eyes and as a result was taken.
To him, attempting to do anything but preemptively defend yourself against a dragon will only end in tragedy, so he has to do anything he can to stop Hiccup before it's too late.
(And just like with Valka, he unintentionally escalated the situation by trying to protect Hiccup but only agitated the dragon, causing it to panic and react, inadvertently putting someone he loves in danger. again)
Stoick of course, wasn't acting rationally, but it makes sense when you think about how traumatizing Valka's 'death' must've been for him (and how much Hiccup reminss him of her); he watched her get taken, presumably killed, and couldn't do anything about it.
46 notes
·
View notes
I have mixed feelings about Wally possibly dying in Lights Out- cause like he's my absolute favorite, my baby!!!! ... but then i also think that him dying after watching over everyone as they slept is just *chefs kiss* He's finally getting rest!!! lmao
Also i wanna see Barnaby go apeshit hehe
oh i missed this ask! hm. this is funny
45 notes
·
View notes
queer characters are allowed to die in media. and it isn’t inherently A Problem or homophobic when they do.
i understand that it hurts seeing queer people die in shows and books and movies, especially if you’re queer and you saw yourself in those characters.
but the thing is, if you want better queer rep in media you have to be ok with queer characters being treated the same way cishet characters are treated. and that means letting them die sometimes.
Bury Your Gays is a problem, I’m not going to pretend like it’s not. but Bury Your Gays isn’t synonymous with every death of a queer character that happens. you’re allowed to be hurt and devastated by a character death, but i don’t think it’s fair to act like that character death is part of some wider issue just because that character is part of a minority group.
not every queer story is sunshine and rainbows with a happily ever after. some queer stories are violent, some are devastating, and people die in some of them. and that is OK.
if we act like queer people can’t die in media we’re contributing to the othering of our community. it’s saying “queer people are this special group you can’t ever do a bad thing to in media because if you do it’s homophobic.” which is not a true statement.
we can’t act like every death of a queer character is homophobic or has capital I Implications about the writer’s opinions on queer people. if we keep pushing that specific narrative queer stories are going to be stifled. writers need to be able to tell the stories they want, even if that includes a queer person dying. and acting like they can’t is doing more harm than good.
you can dislike a writer’s decision, you can stop watching a show because of that decision. that is OK. but you don’t get to go around saying the writer is homophobic because they did something you didn’t like to a character you loved.
21 notes
·
View notes
My finished piece for my art trade with @g0giro ! (≧◡≦)
For the theme we were going for how we view eachother's characters/personality or something close to first impressions in a sense. I always thought Nate was very posh, and has a hand in literally everything. But also, just have this eerie sense of calmness to any situation even when threatening someone like their beneath him. So I decided to draw him in a very boss like setting and ofc a gun becos you cant go without a gun in LS but also just for making people uncomfortable... anyways this is my first ever art trade and I was super nervous at first cos I'd never done this before and ur art I've looked up to for a while. I also didn't want to let someone down especially for my first art trade. Anyways- I hope you enjoy your Nathan ♡
8 notes
·
View notes
There’s an interesting parallel between Arjuna and Ekalavya that comes up towards the end of the Mahabharata. At the beginning, Ekalavya suffers a hand injury to secure Arjuna’s destiny as “the best archer.” But once Arjuna has fulfilled his major purpose in the world and larger story/Krishna leela, he too suffers a hand injury, marking the beginning of the end of his status as “the best archer” and the loss of all his famed combat ability.
During ashwamedha after the war, Arjuna follows the sacrificial horse and fights the rulers of the kingdoms it enters. Right at the beginning, an arrow pierces his hand as he’s fighting the Trigartas, and he drops his bow Gandiva for what I think is the first time ever.
This is the point at which Arjuna, like Ekalavya after cutting off his thumb, is never as good as he once was.
While he’s fighting the Saindhavas, he’s overcome by their arrows to the point where he actually freezes, becomes confused, and drops Gandiva again. It’s only the prayers of rishis that give him the power to collect himself again and fight again. Later in Manipur, he takes a very painful shot from his son that penetrates his shoulder, and then takes an arrow to the chest that pierces his armor and actually kills him. Arjuna only survives because he’s revived through the power of his naga wife Ulupi.
Arjuna would have lost the first encounter were it not for outside intervention and he literally dies in the second, again only coming back because of outside intervention. His skill is fading, but he still has to watch the sacrificial horse, so powers outside of himself (the rishis and Ulupi) step in to ensure that he can do this.
Once the sacrifice is complete and after Krishna has departed this world, that’s when Arjuna is truly no longer needed. In a massive contrast to the caliber of warrior he used to be—what his entire identity is predicated on—he’s now completely unable to protect the women of Krishna’s decimated clan as they travel away from Dwarka. He can barely lift Gandiva anymore, all its inexhaustible arrows are gone, and he’s unable to do anything effectual as bandits attack them, kidnapping women and stealing supplies.
It’s like the story is telling Arjuna—and us—that his skill is no longer needed anymore; his part to play in life as a fighter is finished. But that might be hard for Arjuna to accept; after all, he still carries the now useless Gandiva around until Agni himself appears and tells him to return it.
91 notes
·
View notes