#hope this was insightful!

[hattiestgal]

what’s your character design process (if you have one?)

which of your characters has changed the most in terms of design? and the least?

Oh, this is a super fun one!

To answer your first question, I haven't done a whole lot of character design super recently, but I usually go into it with either an animal, an idea, or both!

When it comes to going into something with just an animal, usually I have a vibe I wanna capture that I think the animal captures well, and sorta elaborate on that vibe as I go. For example, when I was designing Allison, I knew I wanted a woman shaped like a fridge. That was pretty much all I knew. So, I started with figuring out how to translate the animal into my style (which usually starts with figuring out the head)

Usually, I try to draw something more accurate to the animal I'm after first. Even here, you can see me experimenting with how I wanted Allison to act. Most of the time, this leads into an initial concept sketch where I do the most elaboration on the initial vibe.

So suddenly, the fridge shaped woman is a goofball (shown in the head sketches), but she's also confident and handles a weapon that can punch through a LOT. Also, see her gloved hand? That wasn't initially a prosthetic arm. I just didn't want to draw individual fingers to add claws there, thus birthing her asymmetric design. Sometimes laziness breeds creativity!

Much of the process from here is adding on ideas until you've got a solid base for your character!

She's in the same universe as Lucy? Awesome! She's a cool badass who sometimes wears a shoulder cape? Neat!

From here, you reach the point where the character carves their spot into whatever world you place them in. You establish their relationships, their feats, their past, and you carve the world out for their role appropriately!

The big thing to keep in mind is that you're never gonna nail everything down just right the first time.

Now, for your second question!

I'm sorta torn on who's changed the most. Riley has certainly seen the biggest evolution through my art style, but their design has mostly stayed the same, and theres a few others who have a similar case, but honestly, I think Violette takes the cake for most changed design.

I already made a post about just how much her prosthetic has changed over the years, but she's also gotten a new hairstyle, and honestly, just a new vibe in general. For example, here, she was a lot more... Indifferent? Even mean to a degree. She's a goth/cyberpunk gal who's not gonna take shit from anybody. She was the mean dom-y type, y'know?

And while a lot of that has stayed with her in later versions of her design, she's a lot more prone to being soft and flirty, and only letting Riley see her more dominant nature, though even that is a lot less mean now.

She's a lot more of a fully realized person than she was before. Part of that plays into her story, while another part of that was me realizing how desperately her character needed to be fleshed out. She's still goth, though that never really changed. I think I mighta leaned into a little more recently, actually.

As far as my least changed character, it's gotta be Harlow. I went in with a plan and pretty much never strayed from it.

Like apart from filling out their story more, they've pretty much always been the whole "black cats are voids with eyes" trope that I wanted to make them, the whole void thing playing into their interest in being as gender ambiguous as I could make 'em.

[kitoral]

Your original illustrations are really fantastic. I dig the colors and the anime girls. I feel like I resonate with them well, so I am curious about what creatively influences you. Like... Why do you color as you do? Why are your illustrations of anime girls? What do you think of when illustrating? Are there artists, pieces of media, or events in your life that inspire your stylings? Sorry if that seems like a lot or if I'm being intrusive! I just really want to know why your art is the way it is, but I feel that if I ask that so simply, I may not receive an answer with nuance, which is what I'm hoping for.

no worries about being intrusive, if anything, i appreciate the ask!

there's no clear-cut answer for a lot of these, but i'll try to articulate as much as much as possible. i started drawing from a very young age (~5 or so), and my preference was always cartoons/games/anime. i always enjoyed heavy stylization - not that i disliked realism, it just felt as if i had already seen so much of it before? and this isn't to discredit such works, just that they werent something i personally gravitated towards.

as i got older, i realized i wanted to pursue my goal of becoming an artist. things started to change when i entered college, though. it's a choice i dont regret, but i often felt a bit lost in comparison to my peers - because i didnt really draw [or study/learn] the way they did. i still struggle with insecurities regarding technical skill or talent because of this - and i actually stopped drawing for a year or so after i graduated. i kept thinking "its just another anime style anyways." (which is discrediting in and of itself, as all art has value regardless of how subjective it may be).

basically, i did a lot of soul searching - and the reasons i wanted to draw started to resurface. i loved drawing incredibly cute, yet somewhat outlandish looking characters. of course there's a sense of nostalgia with this, but i always preferred the art used for older anime (90s and early-mid 2000s specifically). i'm also really into hobbyani, which is basically hobby/kids media (precure, duel masters, beyblade, etc). i love the sense of experimentation that comes from designers who intentionally market stuff to a broader audience within restrictions, if that makes sense? it just seems to resonate with me.

i'm also heavily into old tech/computer graphics. a big example of this is the old (and still running!) chat program known as worldsplayer. i discovered it about a decade ago, and while a lot of people found it ominous or strange, it felt... comfortable to me. reminded me a lot of the stuff i used to play as a kid, but beyond that, a sense of style/texture i wanted to replicate in my artwork.

(as a sidenote: i actually run a sideblog dedicated to old chatroom media called digitalspacetraveler!)

as for specific inspirations/artists? i love the traditional sketchiness of van gogh, rembrandt, etc. a lot of classical painters during the renaissance era + beyond come to mind. for more modern artists, id say yoshitoshi abe, shigenobu matsumoto (duel masters mangaka), yoshihiko umakoshi (doremi, heartcatch precure, casshern sins), hajime ueda, and a plethora of artists on tumblr/pixiv/twitter.

basically, i love the idea of combining ridiculous amounts of texture with otherwise cutesy and/or 'smooth' styles, such as those found in anime/manga. the end goal is pretty different from the initial sketch, but that's what makes it fun to me. mimicking traditional mediums while also incorporating digital processing, overlays, and filters!

[in-tenebris-et-in-solitudine]

Master Your Emotions..

[love4hobi]

J-HOPE & BOOGALOO KIN Hope on the Street (2024)

[to-be-a-dreamer]

I just think that Kristen "I was my God's chosen one and I met him and he adored me but he wasn't what I needed and I didn't like the kind of divinity my church had turned him into so I left and created a pantheon dedicated to the lost and the confused and the hurt because no one should have to feel the way I did" Applebees and Ostentatia "My God barely knew my name and I met him and he was dismissive of me but he loved me and always provided what I needed and when I looked at him I only saw my father so I helped him because no one should be left to drown under their burden when all they need is a little help" Wallace should meet and be friends and maybe kiss on the mouth

[knightforflowers]

if you can’t tell what this is about, i’ve had enough and i want out

[fishofthewoods]

Oh my god I woke up this morning and my Stardew Valley meta post had almost 150 notes????? Hello?????????? Anyways I started writing this last night because @moon-is-pretty-tonight left nice tags on the original so thank you so much!!

We know from the starting scenes of the game that the farmer's grandfather loved Stardew Valley. So why did he leave? Pelican Town is a good place to grow old; George and Evelyn are just fine. It's a fine place to raise a kid, but maybe he just wanted to raise his child closer to real schools and other children.

Or maybe, just maybe, he understood.

Was there a day when he was in his thirties where he looked at his friends and realized they weren't like him? That he could run faster than them, work longer, explore deeper into the hidden places of the valley?

Was there a day when he went to the wizard to ask him for help, for knowledge if nothing else? Did he learn then that his family was different? Special? Chosen? And how did he react? He couldn't possibly raise a child in the valley if they would be as strange and fey as him. He had to leave. There was no other way.

But years later, on his deathbed, did he regret that choice?

Is that why he gave the farmer the letter?

Is that why they went back home?

When the farmer steps off the bus that first day, the valley is still on the cusp of winter, just barely tipping over into spring. The flowers are starting to bloom, but a chill still hangs in the air. As soon as the farmer's boots touch the soil there's a change. The air gets warmer. The trees get greener. Not by too much, not all at once, but it changes.

The junimos watch the farmer as they do their work. They're new to farming, but take to it with frightening speed; their first batch of crops is perfect. None of the townsfolk tell them that parsnips don't normally grow in less than a week, that cauliflowers don't grow to be ten feet tall, that fairies don't visit when the sun goes down and grow potatoes and beans and tulips overnight. The junimos talk amongst themselves in their strange, wild language, and agree: this is the one. They're back. The valley recognizes its own, even when they've left for a generation. The farmers have come home.

Things change fast in the valley. The community center, empty and decrepit for so many years, is rejuvenated. (Lewis says it was abandoned only a few weeks after the farmer's grandfather left. Strange coincidence, he says, that it both came and went with the farmer's family.) The mines and the quarry, similarly abandoned, are explored for the first time in ages. The town becomes cleaner, brighter, more vibrant, happier.

And it is happier. Not just the environment, but the people. It's the talk of the town for weeks when Haley does her first closet purge. Leah's art show in the town square is a huge success. Shane's smiling for the first time since he moved to the valley. All of them, when asked, say it's all thanks to the farmer.

People love to ask why Lewis didn't fix the community center on his own. Why Willy never repaired the boat to ginger island. Why Abigail or Marlon never went down to fix the elevator in the mines, or why Clint didn't fix the minecarts.

But isn't it so much more interesting to ask how those things were there in the first place? How they got so broken down? If the stories the townspeople tell are true, the valley was once a beautiful place, flourishing and full of life; why did that change? When did it change?

Was it when the farmer's grandfather, the locus of the valley, its chosen representative, left town?

And if so, what happens when the farmer comes back?

[alphacentaurinebula]

I need to talk about the Edinburgh minisode, because I have SO. MANY. THOUGHTS.

It's sort of an afterthought minisode in some ways. Before the Beginning gives us so much giddy joy (despite the ominous foreshadowing). 1941 gives us all the giddy romance. Job gives us so much insight into both characters histories and how they came to be who they are and work together...

The Resurrectionists gives us a morality play, basically, but also gives us Crowley high (and HIGH) on laudanum and plenty of bright shiny bits...

...so the morality side maybe doesn't get as much focus.

Which is a shame. Because the Edinburgh episode demonstrates perfectly the flaw in Aziraphale's understanding of the world that leads to him going to heaven.

When we start out in 1827, we are introduced to grave robbing and Aziraphale immediately decides that it is Bad (a sin). He does all he can to prevent the young woman he meets and likes from doing Bad (sinning), assumably to try to pave her way into Heaven. And Crowley tries to help her with her grave robbing, much to Aziraphale's chagrin.

Grave Robbing = Bad; Crowley supports Grave Robbing; Crowley=Bad

When they meet Mr Surgeon, and Crowley starts to ask some pointed questions meant to poke holes in Aziraphale's certainty, he flips entirely the other way, without noticing any of the other moral greyness (like the fact that Mr Surgeon would never take the risks or do the dirty work himself. Which is pretty important, since we learn in Edinburgh in the present that Mr Surgeon was so convinced of his own superiority and importance later on in his life that he started murdering people (probably "unfortunates" like Elspeth) when he couldn't get corpses fast enough).

Grave Robbing = Good; Crowley supports Grave Robbing; Crowley = Good

When he is then confronted with the idea of selling Wee Morag's body, and Crowley points out it is different when it's someone you know, Aziraphale is basically frozen in indecision. He doesn't know what the good thing is anymore.

He spouts the party line about the fact that starting off poor somehow gives Elspeth an advantage when it comes to Heaven, but is unable to explain why or how, not even to himself. And when he's put on the spot as Elspeth tries to kill herself, he doesn't have any arguments to offer.

CROWLEY: Say something! That... convinces her that poverty is ineffably wonderful and that life is worth living. Go on!

But despite all the moral ambiguity present throughout the episode, Aziraphale still sees everything as black and white. First, grave robbing is bad, then it is good. First, Crowley is bad (when he has the opposite position to Aziraphale), then he is good (when he has the same position). Aziraphale never understands Crowley's constant questions are a challenge to the very idea that there IS a 'good' in this situation. He never examines or questions the complex systems of class and sexism and capitalism which force Elspeth to this desperate recourse, or the laws which prevent Mr Surgeon from accessing bodies for research via legal means.

He doesn't see the systemic injustic. He just sees individual moral actors making either good or bad choices.

(and just to deviate slightly from the Edinburgh minisode -- while he says he understands that sometimes things are not just black or white but also grey, in 1941 - I don't actually think his grey and Crowley's grey mean the same thing. The 'greyest' thing that Aziraphale does in 1941 is help a showgirls theatre and hide information from Hell - this is not the same thing as truly seeing that some situations simply don't have a Right Thing to do, or understanding that systems shape and control individuals' decisions, so the idea that humans all have the same ability to choose Right is an illusion.

AZIRAPHALE: You know, they cannot be truly holy unless they also get the opportunity to be wicked.

So it is no wonder at all that when the Metatron offers him the opportunity to run Heaven, he doesn't see a broken institution or systemic oppression/injustice, but rather a series of bad actors preventing Heaven from achieving the Goodness it is meant to represent.

[occidentaltourist]

bbc: Some sweet #Silvacre content for your FYP ❤️

[ruporas]

Your zine is making me so happy its insane. I love your art sm and the way you draw vash and wolfwood gives me sm comfort whenever I’m having a hard day. Tysm for sharing your work !! (I hope you’ll be able to make physical zines soon!)

weeps, thank you so much for your kind words!!!! it makes me happy to hear that my work can bring u joy and provide comfort, that’s always what i hope for, especially when it comes to drawing vw🥺 thank you again for having supported me!!!

[kkoct-ik]

PLEASE ID LOVE REF SHEETS FOR YOUR SCARIAN..

I DID NOT EXPECT AN ENTHUSIASTIC RESPONSE ok :) here you go. i also annotated all the mental rules i have when i approach them i am So sorry about the tiny text

[collieii]

one line in trimax that's always stuck with me is from chapter 65, right after wolfwood's death. when vash is sticking the punisher by his grave and he says "it was part of his life". that phrasing is so interesting to me. the neutrality of it is one thing that gets me, i think. it was part of his life. for better or worse, whatever it was, the punisher was wolfwood's.

It's pretty easy to think that the punisher might represent violence, the eye of michael, the role of assassin that was forced onto wolfwood, the loss of childhood. but it's not really presented that way, not overtly anyways. we never see wolfwood shun the punisher, he's not conflicted by his use of it. he never considers abandoning it for some other weapon. it's his weapon. he doesn't discard it when he eventually decides to take a more vash-like approach and actually let people live. he pretty easily accepts it as his own, a tool he can use. (to be fair, at least part of that is probably because the punisher is a very good gun.)

the punisher can still represent the harsher aspects of wolfwood's character, the violence he's committed, that he's capable of. that's an important part of his life! and the idea of it as representative of his violent adolescence, childhood that was stripped away, goes along with this - it's literally a cross to bear. but besides showing his past as a burden, i think of the punisher as being a cross of responsibility. when you have a gun you have power, agency - you have a responsibility to make a choice. that's what wolfwood tells vash in chapter 4.

the ability to take a life, the burden of it, is literally his cross to bear. that ability - and that responsibility - was given to him by the eom, literally in terms of the gun, and in terms of his skills. but the eye doesn't think twice about killing people. for them it's not really a choice, a responsibility, it's just a given. but wolfwood can't accept that. he's constantly considering the choices he makes.

so the punisher isn't only a symbol of the eye of michael, of the path that he was forced onto. it's also a way of expressing autonomy. the eye gave wolfwood the gun, but he decides how to use it and what it means. for much of the story wolfwood struggles to decide what to do, he's a very conflicted character. but eventually he resolves to use it against chapel, against knives, to help vash, and protect the orphanage. the gun gives him agency.

so the punisher was part of his life. it was the tool that he used to commit acts of violence, acts that he was forced into, but also the tool he used to break free.

it's heavy for vash, too. he's not exempt from that idea, the idea of responsibility. as wolfwood said much earlier in the story, vash has always been able to sidestep the question of "what do i choose?", because he's only ever given himself one option - everybody lives. and he's always succeeded. but as wolfwood says, "the day will come when you'll have to choose". one day, it's not going to work.

and of course the story progresses, the stakes ramp up, and vash learns more, goes through more, and is pushed to his limits. i think by this point, by wolfwood's death, and maybe because of it, vash has realized that he might have to make that difficult choice in the near future. that's one reason why he wants to "do him proud". he has a lot of reasons to say this of course - to not let wolfwood's sacrifice go to waste, for example. but if we're thinking of the cross as responsibility, then vash is saying he doesn't want to forget the lessons he learned because of wolfwood. wolfwood has always grappled with responsibility, with what the right thing to do is. and the right thing is often not easy. vash hopes that when the times comes for him to make a choice, he'll make a good one, one that does right by wolfwood's memory.

[klavierpanda]

"Soulmates can't be an arophobic concept because they can be platonic" is not a take I thought I'd see but honestly I'm not surprised. Yes, a huge issue is that the way society views soulmates is a largely a romantic thing and the idea that "everyone has (a romantic) someone out there" is amatonormative bs and is arophobic. But extending it to "platonic soulmates exist too" doesn't fix or even address the actual problem. The fundamental assumption here is that there's someone for everyone regardless of whether it's romantic or platonic and that everyone must be connected to someone. How does making it platonic actually challenge amatonormativity? It honestly has the same feeling as "aro people aren't sad and lonely because they can have platonic partners!"

I'd like to be clear, people self-describing them and their partner(s) as soulmates isn't the issue here. That's on a personal level and that's fine. It's the assertion that everyone has a soulmate that is amatonormative.

That's the other major issue, there's usually the assertion that there is one soulmate per person which just completely throws polyam people under the bus. How is that challenging amatonormativity?

[jacky-rubou]

you guys ever really notice how casually suicidal Ford comes off sometimes? he constantly refers to himself dying without seeming to mind the idea or fearing it, always begs those around him to get away from danger rather than save him from said danger, is generally just... reckless beyond reason sometimes and even called his mission a suicide mission when the kids went to do practically the same thing he was going to do before the portal opened... and all that.

but also... maybe it's inconsequential and not something to look so far into, but Ford also jokes about suicide at least twice in the journal. Once, where he begs in code 'KILL ME PLEASE' in reference to the Leprecorn, and the other when he recounts his time in the M dimension. While yes, they are clearly jokes, with what we know about Ford's thoughts about death already, there seems to be something more there, you know? who knows, maybe he was feeling a bit suicidal by the time he got to the m dimension and when he got back to the journal to recount his time there, he joked about it with the 'muicidal' pun to make it seem less bad or something. who knows?

i know i'm probably looking way too deep into that stuff about the jokes, but you know what they say, jokes have some truth in them!

[bloggingboutburgers]

Allo anon again, I just wanted to come in here one more time to say that I didn't mean to make you cry, but I am happy that I have brought you and other people joy! I will take any chance I get to gush about my gf because she is a wonderful woman and deserves the world. :3

I don't know much about France, but I do know that in North America there is starting to be more asexual awareness in the medical field and outside of it. Many people still find it weird, but at least within LGBTQ+ spaces, I've seen it become more welcomed. I hope that within my lifetime, it can be far more accepted.

I may not fully understand the asexual experience, but as an autistic person, I know what it's like to know that you are in some way invisibly different from your peers. To have wants and desires that make people look at you sideways. To have people say to your face that they think you are a fundamentally broken person, and that your life is not worth living. I know how frustrating it can feel to be boxed in because of others' assumptions. But just because you do not fit into what is "normal" does not make your path any less worth taking.

The beauty of humanity comes from the diversity of its experiences. There are so many ways to make connections with other people, animals, and nature. No matter what others might tell you, I believe that the universe is not fundamentally cruel, but kind. The world DOES have a place for all of us in it, it just takes more time for some people to find their niche.

I also wanted to reaffirm to everyone out there that regardless of if you want sex, romance, or neither, and regardless of if you want a long term partner or not, you are valid. I'm friends with a couple other aces and aros, and they are amazing creatives, scientists, and friends. No matter what you want out of life, you, the person reading this, deserves people who will care for you and respect you in a way that honours your boundaries. You deserve acceptance and happiness. Even if things get difficult, I sincerely hope that you will find what you are looking for. And in the meantime, I am offering digital hugs, high-fives, and pastries of your choice :)

Have a good day or night, and even if it's only for 5 minutes, do something that makes you happy <3

I'm so sorry I'm replying to this so late, the past couple days have been a bit busy! But please don't worry about the tears, they were definitely happy ones, and this just almost brought up more of them 🫶

Thank you so so much for this, it's so uplifting to read and deserves to be shared widely. I hope you also have a wonderful day or night and I wish you and your gf all the happiness you can have!!

[craqueluring]

i want to talk about randall tier

hannibal draws a lot of inspiration from manhunter (1986), which was the first film adaptation of the hannibal books, and i want to talk specifically about the scene where randall crashes through will's window, because it derives from a scene in manhunter. i am going to compare these two scenes, and use this to further my discussion of hannibal, which will be the focus of this. (there is a TLDR at the end of this!)

in manhunter, at the end of the movie, will runs and crashes through dolarhyde's window, shattering it and directly jumping into a fight with him. now, there is a copious amount of imagery in manhunter depicting will talking to his reflection in glass, windows, etc as if his reflection is dolarhyde. we get the sense that dolarhyde is inside of will’s head, and they start to blur as will has to relate and empathize more and more with dolarhyde to catch him. 

will crashing through the window is him meeting the darkest parts of himself face-to-face – now, he and dolarhyde are on the same side of the glass. will kills dolarhyde, which represents will overcoming (or, at least, suppressing) his violent urges and the turmoil that comes with understanding killers so deeply.

so, will crashing through the glass to meet dolarhyde is him meeting the ‘bad’ part of himself, the part that understands killers and lets them inside of his head, and by killing dolarhyde, he defeats this darker part of himself. will graham, in typical 80s fashion, ends the movie stable in his morality and can return to his heterosexual family life and watch the sunset with his wife and child.

the scene in hannibal is a bit different. instead of the identity parallel being between will and dolarhyde, it is between will and randall tier. randall is (if i am not mistaken) the first patient of hannibal’s we meet that has undergone his “therapy” and is considered a success. this is when we fully start to grasp what it is that hannibal does with his “therapy.” and what will could Become if he accepted hannibal's guidance.

instead of solely will’s violent urges, like dolarhyde represented in manhunter, randall tier represents, in a way, what will could be: a 'balanced' person who embraces his violence and becomes one with it. randall tier has the same violent urges and the dissonance in his identity that will has, but he accepts it, embraces it, and revels in what he is. 

so, when randall crashing through will’s window, will not only comes face to face with himself, but the Higher Self that hannibal is guiding him to Become. this is why randall is depicted as the raven stag, and then the stag man: will is forced to come face to face with who hannibal is guiding him to be, hannibal's influence, and has to confront how to handle his violent urges once again by being forced to kill in self defense. however, his fight with randall does not represent him overcoming these violent urges, as was in manhunter. the fight does actually facilitate will’s Becoming. will throws his shotgun away and chooses to use his hands to kill randall, as hannibal suggested. through Will’s fight with and murder of randall tier, he actually becomes closer to his Higher Self and his Becoming.

this is furthered by will's choice to make randall tier into a tableau. will’s first tableau. in will’s pendulum conversation with randall, it is made even clearer: will says “you forced me to kill you” and randall replies “i didn’t force you to enjoy it.” !!!!!

TLDR: in manhunter, will crashes through the window to meet a man who represents the darkest parts of himself. by killing dolarhyde, will defeats this dark part of himself and fortifies his sense of morality. hannibal flips this completely around. in hannibal, randall crashes through will’s window. will comes face to face with him, who, in a sense, represents his Higher Self and who will could be if he accepted hannibal's guidance. his fight with randall marks the start of him beginning to embrace this intimate violence hannibal has been talking about. by killing and displaying randall in a tableau, will revels in his violent urges by killing him with his hands and enjoying it and becomes closer to his Higher Self and his Becoming. instead of will overcoming his violent urges through this fight between a him and a representation of his violence like in manhunter, will killing randall fuels these urges.