#i have not much writing ability

[nuttynutcycle]

Prompt 415

"I have not lived a long life," the teen said bitterly to their ragtag group of soldiers. Their gaze was steel, and their smile bloody. "But I will give what I have."

[seaweedstarshine]

“They engineered a psychopath to kill you.” “Totally married her. I'd never have made it here alive without River Song.”

Sources: Let's Kill Hitler, Diary of River Song: My Dinner With Andrew, Closing Time, The Husbands of River Song, Diary of River Song: The Furies, Diary of River Song: Animal Instinct, The Ruby's Curse, Time of the Doctor

[hypostatic-oath]

I've started playing Honkai Star Rail and I love how dramatically silly it lets me be. So far I have stolen mail, searched garbage cans, entered a closet to become one with the darkness, waxed on about how life is just a road to death to a terrified guy (somehow that seemed to make him less terrified), bowed in respect to a dumpster, investigated an inconspicuous lamp so many times it got mad at me, investigated a trash can so many times it insulted me, and felt bad for two different trash cans and several sandbags (I believe my Trailblazer is going insane from putting up with me). All this not counting with the countless dialogue options with NPCs around the world that allowed me to be incredibly dramatic (think almost Fischl style) for no reason (you can bet I took them). However, I cannot jump or climb, and fights are turn-based... we respect our opponents in Star Rail (and die. A lot).

What I conclude from this is that while the Traveler has a moral code (and some standards) when dealing with interpersonal interactions but isn't bound by physical restrictions or conventions (stairs? The Traveler does not understand that concept. Fair fights? Please, they don't have time for that), the Trailblazer is the exact opposite. The physical rules may hold them but their only ties to social rules or convention so far have been March and Dan Heng saying "hey, maybe don't fight the guards" and "hey, you can't just accept random jobs".

It also might be because the Traveler is a thousand year old entity that has been through A Lot (has learnt the power of friendship, but is too tired to take the long route) and is on a serious mission while the Trailblazer was quite literally Born Yesterday with the sole purpose of housing a massive problem inside their body (walks and fights like a Normal Person bc they're mimicking everyone else, but is absolutely unhinged) and is just having fun with tjeir newfound existence.

Either way I love both of them and they're basically cryptids but in different ways.

[hella1975]

it's been pointed out on here before that a lot of terf arguments are actually rooted in sexist idealology that feminists fought and died to unnormalise decades ago and that's its own kettle of fish but one thing i also find very frustrating about this so called 'radical' feminism is that it's so... defeatist? like the moment you categorically label an entire section of society as Bad and Inherently Evil then there's also the implication that nothing can be done about it, and it completely takes all accountability away. saying all men are evil is just another way of saying boys will be boys. he raped her because he's a man. he hit her because he's a man. he didn't listen because he's a man - it's almost offensively oversimplified. there's no point trying to fix this issue in society because men are just Like That, okay! so now what? it's not like they're going anywhere, so you just accept that 50% of the population are evil and will forever treat you terribly and there's nothing to be done about it bc they're biologically predisposed to it? like is that fr the argument here? you're soooo radical for that

[icewindandboringhorror]

Just curious what the average level of personal investment in these sorts of things is. Like, how much do people usually get into silly stuff like this their friends ask of them? etc. etc. Which I know, only surveying a small sample on a very specific website means I'm not getting an exact average idea lol, but.. curious nonetheless .. Maybe reblog for bigger sample size but also this is not very serious at all/not worth a call to action gbhjbhjb

[another-goblin]

2.0 SPOILERS

Some speculations about Dr.Ratio's role in the Penacony story.

I'm going to say something controversial, but I see him as a good person. Not just good but proactively good.

His scientific work is beneficial to humanity in many ways. He's a medical doctor. He advocates for (and personally provides) available education. In his quest, he doesn't just send us to do some dirty work for him, he actively includes us and makes the effort to make us understand what's going on (even his secret agenda that he omits from our dialogues is actually quite noble and idealistic).

His only negative qualities that I see are the fact that he's too abrasive sometimes and his tendency to honestly speak what he thinks, to the point of being rude (and despite that, he's slightly taken aback and feels the need to apologize when Aventurine decides to dump some childhood trauma on him).

His problem is that he needs IPC's financial and organizational support to continue his activities.

And then IPC sends him on this mission. I'm not exactly sure what they are trying to achieve on Penacony yet, but I'm sure it doesn't align with any of Ratio's goals or values. So they probably strong-armed him into participating. That's why he's more snarky than usual. That's why he's so eager to declare the mission a failure and leave as soon as something goes slightly wrong.

Also, that line about "thrall sentenced to death by IPC" seems to indicate that Aventurine's involvement is not 100% voluntary either (even though he seems quite enthusiastic about his job). And while in Ratio's case it's probably something like "do as we say, or we won't fund your new educational project", in Aventurine's case it seems to be "do as we say, or you'll be dead".

[jaggedjot]

“Louis de Pointe du Lac. That's an interesting name.” “Louis of Pointe du Lac Plantation. My great-great-grandfather owned one. All that remains is the name.”

“And a sizable trust to oversee as a consequence. Capital accrued from plantations of sugar and the blood of men who looked like my great-grandfather but did not have his standing.”

When introducing himself to Daniel both in 1973 and in 2022, Louis alludes to the ways that the legacy of chattel slavery in the United States remains present through his life. The ramifications of this history will be explored further in his interviews; it is intrinsic to the racism that Louis describes experiencing, and it is built into the economic and cultural foundations of the societies that Louis has and continues to navigate through. The way that this subject is broached however, in both the past and present, specifically centres the relationship between slave plantations and Louis’ own affluence.

Daniel’s remark being prefaced by Louis offering to “Get the boy whatever he wants”, before carelessly pushing a platinum credit card between them, implicitly correlates Louis’ response with that ostentatious display of wealth. It is not an intentional association made by the characters, and Louis immediately downplays the link when he recognises it (“All that remains is the name.”). Given his reaction, it seems likely that Louis did not talk about this topic during his subsequent interview with Daniel, though, again, that does not mean it would have had no bearing on other matters discussed. By contrast in the present day, Louis broaches the subject himself and fairly openly acknowledges the correlation. It was a slave plantation and the exploitation of enslaved people that created the sizeable trust that paid for the house and lifestyle that Louis and his family enjoyed. While Louis does not state it directly, the unavoidable implication of Louis clarifying that his great-grandfather was black and had a different social status to that of slaves (“[…] the blood of men who looked like my great-grandfather but did not have his standing.”) is that several generations of Louis’ black relatives have, at least indirectly, financially profited from chattel slavery. It is unlikely that this wealth was all inherited after the fact, considering that the abolition of slavery in the United States occurred only a couple of decades before Louis was born. These pieces of information seem to contradict then the implicit suggestion of Louis’ earlier explanation in 1973, that the only direct bearing the de Pointe du Lac plantation has had on his life is a shared name.

Both the dismissal and the acknowledgement are characteristic of how Louis describes the past; factual as a basic statement but carrying additional implications whose accuracy is more questionable and or left carefully unexamined. This is a rhetorical device that aids Louis in maintaining control of the narrative and its meanings while avoiding, as much as he can, outright lies. While Louis does view Daniel as a necessity for him to revisit his story, it needs to be stated that this does not prevent Louis from consciously and unconsciously tailoring it for his audience. It is possible that Louis only acknowledges the subject at all in the second interview because he is aware that Daniel has likely done some background research on his family. Considering how insensitive to racial issues Daniel can be, as well as his deliberately combative and contrarian approach to interviewing, it may be that this is a subject that Louis does not want to explore with Daniel specifically; it is perhaps notable that the penthouse Louis shares with Armand contains at least two pieces of art (Slave Auction by Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Transformation by Ron Bechet) which are about chattel slavery. Regardless of the reason for Louis’ selectivity, this context continues to hover on the periphery of Louis’ story, adding additional layers of meaning to the events that follow.

It contextualises the contradictory feelings Louis has about his work as a landlord and pimp, roles that may step outside of the shadow of sugarcane and slavery but are only made possible through investing the profits of them. When Louis confesses to the ways he treats his workers, tellingly he invokes plantation imagery with “[…] I lie to myself, saying I'm giving them a roof and food and dollar bills in they pocket, but I look in the mirror, I know what I am; the big man in the big house, stuffing cotton in my ears so I can't hear their cries.”. This conflict then deepens the resentment Louis has towards his family for criticising how he provides for them, with Paul being the only member who even entertains the idea that they should not spend the money at all (“We should tithe that o'er to St. Augustine's 'fore this house falls in on us.”). Whereas the family judges Louis for connecting them to an industry they view as sinful and lacking respectability, contrasting it to the seemingly fondly remembered family plantation (“Daddy was here, we'd still be in sugar cane.”), Louis is troubled by the exploitative nature of that work and capitalism as a whole. Yet there are also times when Louis exhibits pride towards his business dealings (“And I was now the owner of the brightest club in the district. My club, my rules. […] It was everything I had ever wanted or wished for. […] I made a mountain of money, enough to retire and be buried like a pharaoh.”). This could be suggested to be partly because Louis has moved away from the legacy of his family’s past to create something that he can try to believe is helping his, primarily black, workers (“I paid the staff better, paid the band better, all the while helping those who had been with me down the block to better themselves.”).

Most significantly of all, this context adds an additional lens through which Louis and the audience can examine some of the overarching existential ideas that Louis has been grappling with throughout his life, and that the second interview brings to the forefront. How does the past continue to define our present? Can we be considered in any way culpable for the actions of others? What reparations can we make for the harm, deliberate and unintentional, that we do? The open-ended way that Louis approaches the link between his inherited wealth and chattel slavery, as well as the subsequent ways that these have shaped his life, is reflective of those unanswered questions. Louis is desperately trying to find, if not a definitive answer to these philosophical quandaries, an insight that can give his existence purpose and direction. It is vital to Louis that his experiences offer some greater lesson (“That's the purpose. Our book must be a warning as much as anything.”), and ideally one that he can prove that he has already learnt. The different ways that Louis approaches the subject in 1973 and 2022 then reflect how he is revaluating the past and himself (“The passage of time and the frailties that accompany it have provided me perspective.”), but despite this, critically and symbolically, Louis still does not seem to have come to any conclusions.

[whoify]

list of my fanfiction pet peeves:

any epithet (“the brunet,” “the blue eyed man”). closable offense. you are not homer

similarly, just referring to a character as “the man,” “the woman.” i promise using their name or a pronoun one more time is less awkward

not enough commas. i feel like an auctioneer is reading your fic to me

that old man would not know the word pansexual

on the flip side, that jock would not take being gay in stride

“slow burn” and it’s 5k words

show vs tell failure. why are you telling me what this character thinks. have him SHOW me

this man is 30 not 16. he has more emotional intelligence than that

when ellipses are written like…this. have you ever seen words written down before

3rd person omniscient. this is fine if done well but it never is. you’re using it as an excuse to jump between character’s heads willy nilly

hey queen, your use of purple prose (that is actually just high school level vocab) isn’t as distracting from your lack of characterization as you think it is

hard stare into the camera to establish enthusiastic consent / validate some queer identity / etc. people don’t talk like that. he doesn’t use tumblr

[deoidesign]

.

[shiroganeryo]

Happy Mother's Day with the Bungo Moms! 💞

I'm very invested in my ships and their lovechildren, so I wanted to draw something lovely to celebrate today 😊

Profiles/credits: Omine Higuchi (higugin's lovechild) belongs to my spouse Fumiya Nakahara + Haruko, Sadako & Torao Kunikida are my OCS~ Yosano, Higuchi and Gin belong to Asagiri and Harukawa!

[robottheodorlasso]

Since I’m already dumping a bunch of sketches, here are a few more for the generic light fantasy au that lives inside my head rent free (aka my poor excuse to give Trent a sword) (read the captions and tags for a little more context)

[skitskatdacat63]

I don't know how I'd ever convey this in art but. Thinking very deeply about how in boy king au, a very crucial part of characterization is that Seb is a wolf in sheep(or lamb more specifically)'s clothing and Fernando is a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Seb is very unassuming, very delicate, seemingly very vulnerable and malleable. But, deep down, he can be very ruthless. It's in the the way he hesitantly declares war, with a spark in his eye and a suppressed smirk. In the way he challenges someone to a card game or a horse race, proclaiming that he's not great, but winning every round and prancing around the room and mentioning it ad infinitum. The way he's able to instantly turn the tide in a debate in one fell swoop. By showing all his cards constantly and letting himself be vulnerable, he's making himself invulnerable. No one would ever consider him to be able to make big moves, so he wins every single time, because no one even thinks to expect it from him.

Fernando on the other hand, is constantly committed to having a looming presence and harsh reputation, but deep down, he's soft. He knows what happens to people when they're vulnerable, and he's not going to let himself be taken advantage of. The way he keeps a brave face when being informed of the marriage proposal, but goes back to his room and cries. The way he proclaims that he was always going to be the rightful ruler of Spain, but confides to Flavio that he never thought there was any real chance of it ever happening. The way he takes himself so seriously in public, but inside feels so giddy whenever he can make someone laugh. Everything to him always feels unstable and ready to crumble at any moment, and he's not willing to contribute to that by letting himself relax.

I think thats why it's very difficult for them to get along at first, because they have completely different approaches to how they carry themselves and make their way through life. Seb is confused at Fernando because he feels that he's very bland and overly serious at first, but truthfully he's not really seeing the actual Fernando. And Fernando finds Seb to be naive and easily taken advantage of, but that's because he's never seen Seb at his most cruel. Seb really loves when he eventually gets to see Fernando being vulnerable, and Fernando really admires and respects Seb when he sees him being serious. I think it just takes a while for them to show the other their full and complete selves, even the parts they can sometimes be ashamed of. There's this very compelling dichotomy in Seb laying out all his cards, but still being very difficult to read, and Fernando keeping his cards to his chest, but his intentions often being easily seen through.

[fantastic-nonsense]

*takes you all by the shoulders* look at me. look at me. Kaz's true love isn't krugre, he's feigning because he doesn't want to admit "weakness" and acknowledge that he actually cares for people. Kaz pretending to care for nothing but money is a front. a facade. a lie.

if you genuinely think he loves money more than he loves his friends you're ignoring the entirety of Crooked Kingdom and buying into the persona he built for himself instead of seeing underneath the armor he wears

[orcelito]

Like OK so I've been reading a fic with trans wolfwood in it that is so. HONEST. About how it affected him and still affects him. In a way that's very much not an average cis writer portrayal of a trans character.

Like. Either this writer is trans or did plenty of research, but it just feels REAL to me. And it has me thinking about my own way of writing trans Wolfwood.

I'm not there yet. But I've been thinking about it. The ways that what the EOM did fucked him up... but it also acted as HRT that affirmed his gender. So what do you do when you're in a body you don't recognize, but looks much more like a man than ever before? There's some gender euphoria in a way, but dysphoria at the same time bc you didn't grow into this. You didn't watch yourself transition. Suddenly you just Were this, and it's not you, but also it's nice to finally be seen as a man, but it also feels wrong to feel grateful for any part of what they did to you...

On and on and on

You see? This is what I want to think about with him. This is why trans Wolfwood is so compelling to me. It's just so Complicated, he'd have such Complicated feelings about his body and the way he lives with it. He learns this new body, it starts to feel more like his, but he also mourns the fact that he didn't get to watch it grow into this like he should've.

That kind of thing.

[huxianposts]

I know what you are...

ATTACHED

[ruegarding]

hi! what are your thoughts on the calypso scene in botl? read your tags on the percy thoughts on gods post and wanted to know

short answer:

the scene w calypso exists for the audience and to foreshadow ethan.

long answer:

percy has never divided the world like this. percy as a character already knows the outcome of this conversation; things aren't black or white. percy is an incredibly empathetic, observant, and intelligent character, and in the post anon is referring to, he shows this by understanding why hades was bitter (third quote) while simultaneously calling the gods out for their behavior (last quote). percy has never done something bc "the gods are his family," and that includes retrieving the lightning bolt in tlt, the closest u could get to this. similarly, percy never hated luke bc he was leaving camp or betraying the gods, percy's feelings abt luke are personal, to the point where it's a bit blinding.

as a more specific example using this scene, percy doesn't leave calypso bc of the gods.

percy genuinely considers staying on ogygia and only leaves bc of his personal loyalty to his friends. no where in his decision to leave does he bring up the gods, as family or something good that needs to be defended.

this is one of the reasons he and athena have that conversation in ttc abt his fatal flaw. the gods are scared of percy bc his continued loyalty to them isn't guaranteed. percy's idea of good vs bad is very nuanced and personal and his loyalty is much the same. but the audience, primarily young since the books are middle grade, might not be on that same level of understanding. this conversation establishes to the audience what percy already knows but hasn't said. and the audience needs to understand this bc it's the crux of luke's character in tlo.

furthermore, this conversation foreshadows ethan's character. ethan's primary motivation is getting recognition for the minor gods, his mother, his family, himself. he's willing to sacrifice a lot for this.

ethan knows that nemesis isn't good. he's not siding w her bc she's good. he's siding w her bc she's family and she's the only one who paid him any attention, good or bad.

this is also why ethan switches sides. he's not loyal to a side bc it's good vs bad, he's loyal to whoever will help him and his goals, his family. calypso's words here perfectly set up ethan's character, and makes it easier for the audience to understand where he's coming from.