I mentioned in this post that I thought it would take a life or death choice about Imogen for Liliana to flip, situationally, as opposed to the party being able to convince her to change her ideology (cult juice is strong), and it seems we may have gotten an element of that in Liliana flying to Imogen's aid against Otohan. I'd be very curious what Liliana would have done if she'd gotten there in time to fight, but we'll never know, so we have to digest the moment we got. I also think FCG's death adds another dimension both in-game and above the table. Since we dropped out literally mid-scene after her arrival this post may get stale immediately after the first few minutes of next week's episode, but for now I think it's safe to say that at least for the time Liliana spends with the party right now she will not be an active antagonist. Her daughter called for help and she answered, and her first act was trying to comfort her. Matt also wouldn't hit the players with another big battle fresh off the first (and with that outcome), so if they do have to face Liliana as an enemy it would be later under evolved circumstances.
To be clear I don't think FCG dying means Matt nerfs the threat of Liliana or that this situation means she has flipped permanently, but rather, it neatly interrupts the established dynamic between Liliana and Imogen thus far and creates a chance for new dialogue that doesn't just repeat all the same things as before. Imogen hasn't needed her mother - not really - and maybe still doesn't, but she called for help and is grieving now and the conversation doesn't necessarily have to be the same old "Liliana renounce your cause" but rather "help your daughter here and now" and to connect with her through that emotion. This is probably the best opportunity they'll ever get to flip Liliana in a more than "last ditch in a crisis moment" kind of way or lay the groundwork for that happening later. Now, the party - and Imogen in particular - may rightly be angry with Liliana as an ally of Otohan, and that FCG died because of the cause Liliana supports. Liliana may want to comfort her daughter while also believing that FCG's death was unfortunate but not ultimately a reason to doubt the cause or escape what she sees as inevitable. It's messy! But it's a very interesting situation and FCG's death is such a visible wound on Imogen that it may elicit Liliana to do or consider things she wouldn't, otherwise.
213 notes
·
View notes
This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard
I can't think of any hobby more wallet friendly than picking up a pencil and paper. Like this is just plain stupid.
Also, I'm not an artist and I don't have drawings skills, but sometimes I paint little watercolors for myself and I have fun even though they look awful, and that's the entire point.
Also also, since I can't draw and I still want to share my ideas, I write. And yeah it takes practice but THATS THE POINT. There's so many genuine ways you can share your ideas with the world.
Hell, model with clay, act out a dumb video, draw stick figures, do whatever. I promise all of that is a better rendition than a program that isn't actually intelligent and is just giving you results based on keywords like a glorified search engine
Just say you want recognition for something you stole and didn't care enough to put the effort in and shut up
552 notes
·
View notes
yeah fuck it i'm making this its own post. basically very long winded (but still not as extensively detailed as i'd like) thoughts on adam & ronan (sort of) & whelk & noah
i remember reading the raven boys back in 2014 (ten years of rot in my brain!) and being sooo disappointed that there was basically zero fandom interest in whelk & noah beyond "omg whelk is evil and awful and terrible, poor baby noah!" when that is not the narrative surrounding them, not really. i feel it's a disservice to both of their characters to do that, especially noah's:
there is nuance there. there are implications. like... it's ALL about the implications!!! we basically see nothing of whelk and noah beyond what's left after the carnage. and it's a theme in trc for characters to have irreparably changed before we ever meet them (gansey, ronan, whelk, noah). we don't know what they were actually like when noah was alive, when they were best friends. when they were tight as ticks.
what we do know is this: whelk was noah's gansey. whelk was cheating on his own girlfriend with noah's, which is a shitty thing to do for sure, but something we also have zero context for. we also don't know how true it is, because whelk has such a self-inflicted warped view of his past. he keeps rewriting his own memories to think lesser of noah, because his absence hurts that much! we know they were best friends, the same way adam & ronan are best friends with gansey. we know they did everything together
okay, changing gears a little.
i'll paste the part where adam is possessed, sorry for the amount of screenshots:
and this line from a bit further along the chapter:
then, from noah's possession scene:
compare this to whelk's recollection of killing noah, and the effects it had on him:
"red lines streaked in the corners of his vision" "in whelk's head, unearthly voices hissed and whispered, words blurred and stretched together" "dictated by something larger and more powerful than himself" "somehow invited into his body through czerny's death" yes i am going there, yes i am making that point. i think, to some extent, barrington was possessed when he murdered his best friend. neither noah nor adam get their own pov while possessed, so...
i mean, time is a circle. noah needed to die so that gansey would live. noah had already died, gansey had already lived. it needed to happen, and so it would.
where the difference lies, i think, is in barrington's reaction to being possessed, versus adam/noah. for all that i'm arguing possession, i don't think barry's a stand up guy, he's a kid who's never had good role models (need i pull out the quotes about his shit parents) and who was raised by money and objects and reputation, which is why i think the possession worked. the idea to kill noah might've seemed like his own in the moment, an escalation of the situation he was already in, but unlike adam/noah there was no one to hold him back (not to mention barrington isn't as familiar with magic things(?) as they are). in that moment, whelk did truly lost it. he did the unforgivable. but there is no universe in which he doesn't.
for every time we see noah reenacting his death, we also need to imagine barrington whelk, seventeen and shivering. realizing as he's committing the act that he can't go back. perhaps realizing too that he couldn't stop his hands from gripping onto that skateboard, no matter how much he wanted to after that first hit. ("But instead, he remembered the sound Czerny made the first time he hit him.")
there's also adam in this. both him as a parallel to barrington, and as a strange sort of part of noah in a way. adam and noah interact the least out of the main group, arguably, but they too are a two-headed creature; they started out as one singular character and you can sort of tell. something something hands and eyes, something something sacrifice. ronan sort of parallels noah, in that he is not the same lively person we hear about, and he never will be that person again. both are cabeswater personified (although in different ways).
some more things:
"he once had been tight as ticks with his roommate czerny" "only whelk and czerny, treasure hunters and troublemakers" "it was possible that czerny's death wasn't for nothing after all" "[...] his days a ribbon floating aimlessly in water" (in relation to: "he had been a swimmer himself, once") "czerny, you're in a better place than me, i think" "whelk, standing in the wreckage of his life, didn't laugh this time" "the dry, half-eaten burger on the passenger seat / the first fast-food burger he'd had in seven years" "these days, when whelk was trying to comfort himself, he told himself that czerny was a sheep, but sometimes he slipped and remembered him as loyal instead" "[...] took him back to that moment, the skateboard in his hands, the sad question gasped in czerny's dying sounds "we were friends like —"
also, whelk dying in the same place noah did. these lines:
both noah and barrington look the same in the end. broken, rumpled, forgotten. noah's family will never know his bones were reburied outside of their family plot. whelk's mother, however distant she is, will never be notified that her son has died. i think in a way barrington died at the exact same time noah did; something something invited into his body through czerny's death.
basically what i'm getting at is, noah and barry could've been ronan and adam i think, had the circumstances been different. they never will be, but i think about it sometimes.
and there's so many more things i'm not even gonna TRY going into, like noah and whelk both being parallels to gansey (the three of them kings in their own right), or the disparity between whelk talking about czerny vs adele talking about noah, or whatever the fuck is going on with whelk's backstory in general (what's the deal with his mother? how the hell did he get the aglionby job? a random headcanon of mine is that his and noah's search for the ley line lead them to fox way, seven years before the events of the book, and that's partly why whelk refuses to give out his name to maura, because barrington is hard to forget, and easy to trace back)
there is so much to talk about here and i'm so peeved no one is doing it properly... why are we still talking about declan bringing his weekly girlfriend over to monmouth for no reason when we could be talking about whatever the fuck kinda soul-fate-destiny bullshit noah and whelk have!
76 notes
·
View notes
people are saying he « led her on » because he did. the fact that he kissed her in the first episode set the tone for the rest of the season and if you can’t perceive the flirting I’m sorry but how?? he didn’t make anything clear he sent the craziest mixed signals in the world. there’s nothing revolutionary about claiming that Martha was being pushy toward someone who was clearly not interested it’s 1) weird to claim in what it suggests about her 2) factually not true.
I wasn’t gonna respond to this at first because the top half of this ask is pretty much just individual interpretation and I don’t really care about it. Like, no, to me, the Doctor doesn’t seem especially flirty towards Martha. He’s just sort of Like That. That’s his damage, you know, Mr. I need to traumadump on anyone who tolerates being around me for more than five minutes. Mr. If I don’t develop an intensely codependent emotional bond with the companion I have currently I’ll die. It doesn’t read to me as him trying to lead her on because that bit’s honest, and he does it with damn near every companion he’s ever had.
And if nothing else, because we do see Ten when he tries to flirt intentionally and he’s a fuckin dork about it. Kind of guy who looked up romance in the dictionary and took notes. Kinda guy who draws diagrams to maximize kissing potential. It would have been obvious even to me (<- romance-blind as all fuck) if he was flirting with Martha on purpose because he’s not smooth at all; he flirts like he’s gotten lines in a play and he’s super excited to be the main star.
But anyway, as I was saying, that’s just how I see it. And if you see it different, no skin off my back, I just disagree.
But I take umbrage with you putting words in my mouth. I never said Martha was pushy towards him. Because yeah, she’s not. If I implied that she was, then it was a result of poor phrasing on my part. Martha’s not at fault for what she feels, for wanting there to come something of it. No more at fault than the Doctor is for not returning those feelings. It’s a bit weird that you’re assuming that I think one of them has to be the bad guy here when that was the opposite of what I was saying. My point was: When it comes to their romantic subtext of their relationship, it’s weird to pretend like either of them are to blame for them not being in a relationship at the end of s3, and even weirder to assert that as part of why Martha supposedly wouldn’t like the Doctor afterwards when they’re. friends. they continue to be friends into s4.
Martha’s not pushy. She has a crush on her friend. It happens. He doesn’t return it. This also happens. Both of these facts are pushed to the extreme because he’s a time-traveling alien with poor emotional skills and she’s put herself in the position of needing to help him from minute one of meeting each other. That’s why it’s fun to watch, because the Doctor is both so open and so unavailable in turns, because Martha’s feelings for him grow and change as she knows more about her Doctor until she decides to step back.
I don’t know, man. You seem to be coming at this as if one of them has to be The Problem™️. I don’t think either of them is, not so definitively. I think boiling their relationship down to that is reductive and an insult to the way they both grow over s3, to Martha’s choice to continue to be his friend while also establishing her own boundaries, to the fact that the Doctor is able to let her go without immediately trying to kill himself afterwards when she’s not there to catch him.
45 notes
·
View notes
Hi! Big fan of your work and I love evil Rauru, now I'm curious what would Mineru & Sonias' role be in this rewrite? Like "Dam, my husbands a fuckin madman..."
Hi!! thank you!!
so .... as of now mineru basically doesnt exist (im sorry) and sonia only has a little somewhat appearance
theres no time travel in my rewrite (both the first one and new one) and with the new version that works with villain rauru there are no flashbacks aside possibly some illusions rauru shows you to tell you just how great it was before bad bad ganondorf showed up (so .. kinda like in canon but with the direct contrast of him telling you a verrrrrryyyy one sided perspecitve vs what you later learn)
so i considered having rauru mention that he had a beautiful perfect wife back in the day and ganondorf murdered her for her stone (unsure yet if hes telling more or less the truth or if its another lie ... i dont want to make him too one note evil either bc whats the point then) and perhaps, before the final confrontation, the true end fight against rauru have her appear
it being on the great plateau where he builds his castle towards the end of your quest- which is sort of a dungeon- and just before you are going into the final room you might encounter sonia ....... s puppet really, like an apparition rauru made of her as part of his plan to revive his old glorious kingdom but not able to literally revive the dead, her greeting you and asking if youd like an audience with king rauru- but in an unsettling way, robotic, always smiling and super nice, oblivious to what you had to fight through just to get here (or alternatively .. she greets you at the start and begins to lead you in until zelda tries to talk to her about what raurus doing thinking she might just be real, but since its just a magic trick of rauru she turns on you and throws you into the dungeon, quite literally, as soon as its clear you/zelda intent to stop him)
i feel a little bad about it but as of now i dont know how to make use of them, i want to keep the past as much of a mystery as i can while still have it all make sense, i want it to be about saving the world as you know it, which is different from the past, very different, but not different in a bad way, and the idea of there being only light with no shadow being bad bc a balance is needed
37 notes
·
View notes