About my Dr. Ratio + Aven content…
Steal it, I’m so serious right now steal it. I’ve made several posts people have received really well and I want to post them to other sites really badly but TikTok has made it so difficult for me and I straight up do not have the motivation to try out other sites. So if you have liked what I have written and want to share it elsewhere, do it, honestly you don’t even have to credit me, I think the ideas themselves matter more than my ego. Besides it’s not like I own hsr, other people can easily come to the conclusions I do. So if you have ever been like “hey I wanna share this elsewhere but it’s not mine”, go ahead, if even only one of you exists go ahead, you have my full permission. Ideas are meant to be shared anyways and I don’t want people to think that if they have reached the same conclusions I have on their own they suddenly can’t talk about it either.
Thief, steal and take what’s not yours because it’s yours now and I would be delighted if my sh1t was on other platforms, I’m just gonna have to suppress my brains desire for praise while doing so 😭
52 notes
·
View notes
Pet Peeve of mine is when people treat the novel Dracula as a timeloop because of Dracula Daily.
While it's, well, a valid interpretation to have (as much as any interpretation is), I believe it's not an interesting, unique, or necessary one, and it doesn't add anything to the text.
If we do treat Dracula as a time loop, why not go up a notch?— Every artform that can be watched, read, or interacted with more than once is a timeloop. And while to some cases this may add to it (foreshadowing, in some cases. Or the art itself asks you to interact with it viewing it as a timeloop, or having previous instances in mind), I feel like in the case of Dracula it's just pretentious and it's just slamming two of tumblr's du-jour favorites together.
21 notes
·
View notes
I think you have best theories in the fandom about shanks. It’s like you see more than most of us. So that’s why to just have simple yes or no answer would be enough. I have this level of trust in you.
Do you believe makinos child is shanks or someone’s else?
I just can’t stop thinking about this, because for me I don’t see it, but it’s so popular I feel stupid or blinded by my other ships.
thank you for your kind words!! you probably shouldn't place this must trust in me though, LOL. i'm just reading and overthinking everything in the source material, like everyone else is.
is it possible that shanks has a child with makino? well.. yeah. to put it bluntly, the simplest answer is usually the right answer with oda. he's already established that makino and shanks are friendly from chapter one, and shanks is even seen dressed up for a wedding on one cover page, which oda sometimes uses to tell canon events that don't fit the flow of the current arc. (think of enel's journey to the moon, for example).
me personally, though? i've got beef with this idea, and not for the reasons you might think. makino and shanks as a couple is fine to me; i don't find their relationship all that compelling, truthfully, but they fit the mold for most of oda's canon pairings.
when it comes to shanks' characterization, though, the idea of him having a child at this point in the story strikes me as both offputting and irrelevant. shanks is an emperor, and given his actions, his current responsibilities are clearly the priority. so the thought of shanks leaving makino alone to take care of their child is... strange? his status has the potential to endanger them. he is surely too preoccupied to be sailing back and forth to see them.
you could argue that this parallels roger and rouge, but i also think that's the worst possible way oda could have shanks mirror his old captain. at least in roger's case, oda had ace become a relevant part of luffy's story. what narrative purpose does this serve? is it to humanize shanks? i'm not quite sure what oda's angle is, here.
we also have to consider shanks' past. shanks left uta behind, so i don't think he is "above" leaving his newborn child, so to speak, but his reasoning in that situation was far more complex. here, though? this would be shanks ACTIVELY choosing to bring a child into this world, knowing full well he cannot take care of it until he sees his goals through. (SHANKS? patient, protective shanks, unable to wait to start a family? the boy who was an abandoned child himself? does he not believe that he will live long enough to wait? if so, why would he leave makino with that responsibility at all? characters can make selfish decisions, but i can't see any reasoning from shanks' perspective. this is a problem to me.)
so, in short, no, i'm not exactly a fan of this theory. i just don't see the merit of adding it to the story, when the implications seem to contradict what we know about his character. and again, what is the narrative benefit that outweighs the faulty logic? what do we gain as readers? what does this do for the story? to me, it feels like nothing at all.
8 notes
·
View notes
If Mc were ever to meet Small Death in my opinion he would be the most skeptical of the three of Mc. He's the youngest but he's also one of the less...rational and wise I mean he is wise to a certain degree but not as much as his older brothers also reading about him you'll notice that he isn't also the nicest. Imagine that one day Small Death notices something wrong but rather than something someone and looking more carefully he notices something strange in them, this person has neither a past nor a future it was like they did not belong to this world they are an anomaly ,an irregularity which he and his brothers must get rid of after all their task was to keep order in the multiverse and this person could be a danger to the balance of the universe.
I do like the Small death x Mc ship tho
a person with no past or future, not to mention the fact that brothers death are basically omniscient and somehow they had no knowledge of MC until encountering them
23 notes
·
View notes
playing with fire (this scene contains denethor and faramir and a fruit and cheese plate. the conversation was going to happen anyway but the plate entered the scene because i was feeling bitchy and it is deliberately portrayed to be contrary to the common interpretation. its actually a lovely conversation. sometimes you can dislike your parent and have a perfectly normal cordial conversation with them. an emotional one, even, if most of your dislike actually stems from understanding them to a degree that makes both of you very very uncomfortable. however if someone subscribes to the common interpretation it may create the wrong vibe for the scene. thats not my problem though.)
3 notes
·
View notes