#posts with a lot of characters and their consequences

[ofbreathandflame-archive]

there's a lot wrong with the pregnancy plot points - but one of the things it showed to me is that sjm does seem fatigued by the morality standards she established in maf. and i always said that. that, in the end, sjm would only continue to become sloppier with the morals in the series purely because she wasn't trying to be that serious. ultimately - sjm prioritizes drama and shock value. making tamlin an abuser was purely for that intention, she wasn't like...trying to make a statement. but like - it's a heavy topic so of course it ultimately...made a statement. and i truly believe she just rode the coattails of that. it's like literary rage-bait. like - i think that's a much simpler explanation for why we get what we get. like a lot of our analysis are very deep and complex, and i stand by those analysis, but i also believe the immediate reason the pregnancy plot happened is for...plot. that's why it happened. it's shock value, it's 'entertainment' -- and given the success of maf, sjm knows that shock value sells.

what i mean is: though the narrative does hate tamlin -- it also doesn't hate him...that much. sjm wants everyone to like rhysand - or to perceive him in the way she wants him to be. tamlin is just a means to that end. like does sjm actually hate tamlin...no. i would even take it a step far and say she wrote him in a way that -- if she wanted to -- he could be redeemed by the standards of the story. like -- there's a lot of contingency writing with tamlin. he's abusive, but the story also writes a lot of caveats to that abusive behavior. it was something i noticed in war, where, the story started to walk-back the seriousness of tamlin's actions in a weird way. like - the pendulum has shifted so far with tamlin in the ten years since these books came out.

sjm isn't interested in maintaining the rhys's virtuousness - she doesn't care. she wants rhys to be that 'roar-stay-away-from-her-alphahole.' like - ultimately the fantasy is that rhys is a 'alphahole' (think about the definition sjm presents - and think about who that statement actually applies to). the alphahole conversation isn't trying to demean men like tamlin, beron, etc., it's to absolve her mmc's. it's to break the fourth wall, to acknoledge to criticisms of her character without ever having to do so.

we're also in a post-booktok literary environment with ya/na book, in which, the mmc in the books have gotten so progressively abusive, that tamlin (and even rhysand)'s actions seem small in comparision. and this is partly (in my opinion) a consequence of sjm's own writing. what im saying is - maf standards are...outdated. it's why rhys will progressively become worse - sjm has to write to the times. like twilight was considered 'bad' by our standards in 2008 -- and compared to more recent fantasy mmc, even edward and jacob seems like angels. the reality is that people have become desensitized to a lot of the weird behaviors in this genre - and its interesting that sjm now has to contend with a different literary landscape that she is the progenitor of: the idea that intention negates action. and now - every dark-haired NA male protag has the same MO, with progressively worsening behavior. and again - since i believe that sjm writes for shock value - she will swing the where the literary space is.

and that's where i've been getting with sjm; she knows that this ragebait sells, hence why sf ends with the introduction of a whole other 'ship' with no tangible lead-up. i think sjm cares more about how popular these books are than she cares for the integrity of her character, themes, and story. that one chapter generated enough talking points for three years. and now - she's radio silent. that tactic alone tells me that some of these points might have some merit. idk - you can just tell sjm just wants to say f this. i also think nesta character is a very good example of what i am trying to say. sjm wants us to think of nesta as abusive, in a vacuum. for the plot, but the story...doesn't take it seriously. it doesn't care. we're supposed to hate the sisters when feyre does, and love them when feyre does. like - sjm doesn't want us to actually take the abuse between nesta and feyre seriously...she just wants us to like feyre. nesta (and elain) were just means to that end. and once the story feels confident that we all love feyre, or rhysand, it begins to walk back the seriousness. sjm wasn't trying to craft what familial abuse might do to some one, it just wanted us to sympathize with feyre at that moment.

[avery-braindump]

Giving tgaa characters dnd classes time

Barok - oath of the crown paladin

Herlock - alchemist artificer. Maybe with one single level in bard (he can play the violin and also I need him to have vicious mockery)

Ryunosuke - college of eloquence bard

Kazuma - samurai fighter. However he also has warlock vibes for reasons I cannot and will not explain. Idk what patron I'd give him tho.

Gina - thief rogue

Susato - I'm thinking a monk of some description (way of mercy perhaps?) Or aberrant mind sorc (miktobas are psychics)

Iris - artillerist artificer. Partially bc I want her to have the same main class as sholmes, partially because she does invent that smoke gun, and partially just because I think a 10 y/o artillerist would be funny

Stronghart - Clockwork soul sorcerer

Klint - oath of vengeance paladin

[vigilskeep]

the thing that interests me about kidquisitor is that if you have like a 12 year old fantasy protagonist that’s kind of normal but if you have two installments of dark fantasy about adults and then you open up the third installment with a 12 year old then you know shit is fucked even if the characters themselves, both the 12 year old and those around them, do not necessarily know or want to recognise that they are in the wrong genre for this

[meglosthegreat]

Let's talk about "cozy" stories for a second, and while I am in particular talking about Veilguard here, this also applies to a lot of other media this phenomenon has been cropping up in. Because I think a lot of the defensiveness from the direction of Veilguard fans is coming from a place of what a "cozy" story really is, and how that actually manifests in a piece of media.

When I think of "cozy" media my mind tends to jump to things like Animal Crossing or Stardew Valley or whatever: games designed to be unchallengingly fun, that have soft and cute graphics; that steer away from any intense subject matter. And those games have their place! I'm not out to get any of that stuff, because sometimes what you do need is to turn your brain off for a minute.

But here's the thing: I wouldn't call Animal Crossing or Stardew Valley stories. They have story elements, to be sure, but the story isn't really the point. They serve the same sort of function as like, crocheting - something relaxing and semi-mindless and often social. When we engage with a story, on the other hand, we're doing something completely different.

Why do we tell stories? What purpose do they serve?

In broad strokes, we tell stories to experience things that we can't or don't want to experience in life. They provide a framework; a space, if you will, in which it is safe to experience things might otherwise hurt us. And yeah, humans are so good at using stories to contextualize life in this was that sometimes we do it a little too well, and that's why things like content and trigger warnings exist.

Stories are safe spaces. So what does that make "cozy" stories, in particular? A safe space inside a safe space, where not even the idea of something harmful can reach you? What purpose, exactly, does that serve?

Back to Dragon Age, which was never conceived of as the fantasy video game equivalent of crochet. Dragon Age told a story, with themes and messages and complicated emotions. By putting these things (albeit imperfectly) in the context of a fantasy world with fictional characters, we, the audience, are given a place to explore these ideas without bringing harm upon ourselves. And to take this story, with Veilguard, and wrap it up in layers of soft, unchallenging mindlessness is not only to insult the legacy of the series but also to go against the entire purpose of telling a story at all.

A "cozy story", then, does not truly exist. Because what we have come to know as "cozy" - unchallenging, mindless, digestible - is antithetical to the very concept of stories themselves. You can either spend time doing something relaxing and semi-mindless, or you can engage with a story. You can't do both, and this is what Veilguard failed to understand.

[northern-passage]

clementine

[riggedbones]

ok now that chapter 2 of my fic is out I can finally share nearly everything consequence related I've been drawing over the last two months. so let's start with my design process!

it's probably pretty obvious, but I wanted consequence's design to pretty closely mirror loop's. I don't want to go into all of the reasoning behind what I decided to keep similar and what I decided should be distinct (some of it is spoilers for my fic), but generally I kept a lot of the more general design elements that seem to be a result of whatever the fuck wish craft did to make loop Like That. loop is naked? consequence is naked. loop has an objecthead? consequence has an objecthead. loop has a shape on their chest? consequence has a shape on its chest.

this all being said, I did also want to make sure that consequence was distinct. of course. my initial focus was pretty resolutely on the objecthead, as you can see in my first page of concept sketches, but I did explore some other elements early on as well!

you can also see my first concept sketch for odile's death screen, and just a smidge for the looping animation that is something i might also animate for a chapter, who knows.

more drawings and discussion under the cut, i'm realizing this is getting a bit long.

i had the node object head concept on that first page, but it was definitely something that needed iteration. which is where this page came in. i settled on the diamond shaped geode at around this point too, but was still struggling a tad on what to do with the general body texture. this was also, clearly, WAY too many squares. my beta kris told me as much.

i may be an animator but by god i love making my designs as animation unfriendly as possible sometimes. still wouldn't call consequence animation friendly at all, but i've done a lot since to cut back on the sheer volume of squares.

this was my second pass in an attempt to cut down on the complexity, still way too many squares, but this is when i started drawing the head as a foreground later of nodes with a more abstract cloud of squares behind. for the most part, just shading behind the foreground layer is still how i draw the head traditionally.

aaand then i started playing around digitally and i realized i did not like how that looked digitally. these are both doodles i did via mouse (for the second one i traced an odile sprite to help with proportions), so they're a bit looser in general, but this exercise generally let me know that i needed to slightly rethink how i was going to express the idea digitally.

because this, the final talksprite design i landed on, looks more complicated, but between the smaller amount of foreground squares and the fact that the ones in the background were just made with the rectangle tool, it's honestly not that bad. a pain to replicate? sure! but id5 reused loop's head shape for all of their art in the game, so i can do that too.

i think i solidified the idea of its body having strata before the talksprite (not sure which doodles that would be), but doing the talksprite really helped solidify the idea of a gradient in my mind, and also is where i decided on the textural element. i also decided to look at a reference image for the geode. that helped a Lot.

...i still do like drawing a more simplified consequence though. the key in my eyes is to just get the general shape of the head down, make sure you get a few of the squares floating in the air, and emphasize the nodes around its eyes. also make sure the eyes are offset vertically, it REALLY helps with the character of the design, sometimes i'll doodle a connie quence and think it looks a bit mid, move the eye on its left up, and then boom it's fine.

or you can just not do that because you drew it 2 crumbs big lol

[taravangians-storming-balls]

btw have we all talked about how kaladin was in the middle of having a panic attack and then adolin walks in and kaladin is immediately checking out his outfit and how nice his hair is

[ingihasextra]

toby fox and co youve done it again

[quatregats]

I've been thinking about how to push Hornblower to his breaking point recently and I think the best way to do it would be to put his compassion and his duty in conflict in a way where he could either be a good person and put his naval career in jeopardy, or be a tyrant but maintain his position. I think that these often come into conflict in the narrative, but he always finds some sort of loophole and manages to worm through without having to sacrifice either ideal. I think that it would be really fun to push him into a corner and make him choose, though. I can see both scenarios leading to interesting results.

[incesthemes]

"their relationship is romantic" "their relationship is familial" "their relationship is platonic" you're thinking too narrow. their relationship goes beyond labels. the family is inherently queer. their platonic love is romantic. the erotic is familial. each one is the other and the other is them

[savage-rhi]

...some other pink variant but within the magenta category

[henry-fox-biggest-stan]

Out of curiosity: why do you think Philip hates Alex specifically? (cakegate aside) Do you think he'd just be okay with Henry dating some upper-class English guy?

Why I think he hates Alex

He has no been kind to him once in the book. Also Alex ruined his wedding cake. Not a great first impression.

I don’t think there’s more to it tbh. Alex hasn’t been kind to him either, and Philip sees Alex being so “open” with the public, having fun with it, his public persona completely different to their (Philip, Bea, and Henry’s) public persona, and just being the compete opposite to what monarchy considers proper, so he doesn’t like him, let alone want him dating Henry.

Answering your second question,

I think it’s not based on Alex not being an upper-class English guy, but more based on how Alex is as a person, as in his personality. And also the fact than he’s the son of the president of the states.

“I don’t care if you’re gay,” Philip says, dropping that big fat if like Henry hasn’t already specifically told him. “I care that you’ve made this choice, with him”—he cuts his eyes sharply to Alex as if he finally exists in the same room as this conversation—“someone with a fucking target on his back, to be so stupid and naive and selfish as to think it wouldn’t completely fuck us all.”

Alex is, since the start of the book, very different to Henry. Interests and family aside, Alex kind of enjoys being in the public eye. At least at the start of the book. He likes being in front of a crowd, make them scream. Is true than Alex is probably the most private one out of the White House trio, but just because he doesn’t share his private life to the public, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t get along with them. One of the first scenes of him we have is him talking about how he and Nora like creating rumours and being in magazines and all.

I have a point I swear, just wait.

Monarchy (Philip, Henry, Bea), is the complete opposite to this. They stay out of directly interacting with the public, they don’t have fun with it like Alex does. Not because is a personal choice (which that too) but because they can’t, because they have a reputation to uphold. And isn’t everything about monarchy based on reputation?

Alex, Nora, and June, also have reputations, but theirs are handmade, you could say, while Philip, Henry, and Bea’s and premade, they had no choice on them, they are just something they have to do, something the have to look like.

Alex, Nora and June chose their own reputations, they decided how they wanted people to see them. They had control over that.

All three of them—himself, June, and Nora—have their roles.

Nora is the cool brainy one, the one who makes inappropriate jokes on Twitter about whatever sci-fi show everyone’s watching, a bar trivia team ringer.

He looks at June—ahead of him now, caramel highlights in her swinging ponytail catching the midday sun—and he knows her place too. The intrepid Washington Post columnist, the fashion trendsetter everyone wants to have at their wine-and-cheese night.

But Alex is the golden boy. The heartthrob, the handsome rogue with a heart of gold. The guy who moves through life effortlessly, who makes everyone laugh. Highest approval ratings of the entire First Family. The whole point of him is that his appeal is as universal as possible.

For example Alex is not his public personal (aside from heart of gold). That’s something he created. The whole point of him is than his appeal is as universal as possible.

Stopping myself here because if I don’t I’ll go on yet another rant about Alex (I love my boy so much).

But basically in the book there’s a deep contrast between Alex’s family and Henry’s family, one is warm the other is cold. Alex has, and has always had, a choice. Sure, being on the public eye was not something he chose, it just happened because his mother wanted to be president, but he could choose everything else. His public persona, his decisions, who to date and who to not date. They didn’t even stop him from dating Henry. Just told him than he has to know what he wanted, to choose. But they didn’t stop him.

Henry is the opposite. He can’t choose how to present himself, how the world sees him. He can’t even wear ties with patterns.

Patterns are considered a “statement.” Royals aren’t supposed to make statements with what we wear.

They aren’t supposed to make statements.

The Royal Family are, as a rule, expected to stay out of politics, and refrain from giving their personal opinion on certain topics, so as to remain impartial.

Dating Alex, son of a political leader, is a statement. Is saying “I support this and I do not support that”.

And, Alex wants to be involved in politics, he talks about how he wants to make a change, how he genuinely cares, and the fastest way to make a change is making it while being on positions of power, somewhere people can hear you.

Alex’s whole reason for wanting to go into politics, when he knows so many past presidential sons and daughters have run away screaming the minute they turned eighteen, is he genuinely cares about people.

He has a very visible political position. People know what he supports and what he doesn’t, what he wants to do and what he doesn’t. And since he likes being on positions of power, because that gives him the possibly to make a change (even if at the end the change he did was unrelated to politics but about who he was as a person), he doesn’t get out of it. He continues being on it, he doesn’t mind attention on him, as long as they see what he wants them to see.

Philip sees Alex always on the public eye for one reason or another, a photo shoot, a new rumour, etc, and sees how his public persona is different to theirs, “wilder”, not so formal.

And, conservatives hate Alex. He is everything they stand against, even before knowing he was bi. He’s a grandchild of immigrants, he’s mixed race, he’s brown, he’s outspoken about his views (which are opposite to theirs), he’s the son of the first president who’s a woman, and who is also a democrat, he comes from a mixed race family, etc etc. Monarchy is supposed to be neutral. Alex is the opposite from neutral.

Philip’s main problem with Henry being gay is than he wanted to come out. Henry’s gay? Ok but he can’t come out. And that’s not based on homophobia (no matter if it sounds like it), is deeper, Henry coming out would challenge everything. First, he wouldn’t be neutral anymore. Monarchy is built upon manipulation upon privilege upon capitalism, etc. Henry coming out would threaten everything, all the rules, all the stuff would have to change, people would be asking why he didn’t come out before, and if Henry said the truth, their reputation would be dammed. And many many people would stop liking them. Some would not like them for being homophobic, other wouldn’t like them because Henry is gay. People from both sides would be against them. Their reputation (as mentioned as repeatedly through the book as repeatedly as I’m mentioning it now) is something that must be perfect. They can’t make statements, they’re perfect, formal, they’ll continue the bloodline, etc. If Henry is gay and people know, it no longer affects him, but all of them.

And many people see queerness and something political. Again, Henry wouldn’t be neutral.

I think than if Henry married a woman (hopefully a beard, someone who knows he’s gay and doesn’t care to cover for him) and had affairs with men, and Philip knew (than he was gay), he wouldn’t mind. He did what he had to do. Henry’s reputation is good, their reputation is good, they’ll continue the bloodline, etc. Because Philip, like Henry, was taught to leave their wants aside, and focus more on monarchy and what’s good for it.

The thing with Philip is, he isn’t evil. And many seem to forget that. He did bad things, and I’m holding him accountable for them, but at the end of the day, he was just brainwashed by Mary, specially after Arthur’s death. He was vulnerable after his father died, his mother wasn’t there mentally, he felt like he had to step up, be the “man of the house”, and he clung to his grandmother (the only adult in his immediate family who was physically and mentally there for him), and Mary took this opportunity to make him into the version of him monarchy wanted him to be (rule follower, defends their reputation no matter what, cares more about monarchy and what people think of them than what he wants to do.), which is just what Mary tried to make Henry to be too.

But he was on about Martha, and land holdings, and the hypothetical heirs they have to start working on, even though Philip hates children, and suddenly it was as if . . . as if everything you said last night came back to me. I thought, God, that’s it, isn’t it? Just following the plan. And it’s not that he’s unhappy. He’s fine. It’s all very deeply fine. A whole lifetime of fine.”

She probably tried with Bea, but Bea saw the manipulation right away and it didn’t work, or she didn’t get to try because with Arthur alive, that man would have never let her do that to his children, and with Arthur gone, Bea was like Catherine, mentally somewhere else. After rehab, she was still mourning, but she had Henry, she didn’t need her like Philip did. Because I think Henry and Bea were closer than Philip and Henry/Bea even before Arthur died, after it and Mary’s manipulation, they just drifted more apart.

If Casey wanted us to believe Philip was bad he would have made him be bad until the end, made him not change. Philip did change. Henry is even trying to make amends with him. Maybe he hasn’t fully forgiven him, which makes absolute sense and just because Philip was a victim it doesn’t he mean he was a victim inside their relationship, than he couldn’t continue the cycle of abuse. But Philip realized the cycle of abuse, realized he was continuing all this time. And tried to stop. That’s growth. Maybe not forgivable, not after everything, but he’s trying.

Philip came to Kensington two weeks ago to apologize to both Henry and Bea for the years since their father’s death, the harsh words, the domineeringness, the intense scrutiny. For basically growing from an uptight people- pleaser into an abusive, self-righteous twat under the pressure of his position and the manipulation of the queen. “He’s fallen out with Gran,” Henry had told Alex over the phone. “That’s the only reason I actually believe anything he says.”

Mary isn’t trying, Mary didn’t decide to support Henry at the end, didn’t try to do better. No one forgives her, and we are not supposed to see than she’s trying to be better, because she isn’t. “Isn’t Mary also a victim of this cycle of abuse, wasn’t she like Philip, brainwashed by her own parents probably (and her parents by their parents and so on), and continued the cycle?” Yes, but she doesn’t actively try to be better, doesn’t realize that, doesn’t even feel bad about it, different to Philip.

Answering again with shorter answers.

Why does Philip hate Alex specifically?

Because Alex is the whole opposite to what they stand for, he’s a walking statement, and he’s so himself, different to monarchy with their perfect flawless formal public personas.

Would Philip be fine with Henry dating some upper-class English guy (before coming out and everything than happened after he did)?

As long as he kept it secret, Henry could date whoever he wanted as long as he didn’t want to make it public, as long as he planned on marrying a woman and following his duty, as long as that someone was responsible, and didn’t have a “target on his back”, and Philip says Alex has.

Again, holding Philip accountable for everything he did, just explaining the reason why he did it.

Does this make sense? Because in my head it does but I don’t know if it does when I write it down

[codycodybobody]

late night/early morning thought is that there are many things i dislike about fanon obi wan, but the biggest thing people seem to miss is that uh. he's a kind of a jerk.

[skrunksthatwunk]

miraculous world: new york asks the bold question: what if batman and superman were lesbian married with children

[russeliarat]

Hey guys, busted this lil thing out for fun. Coloured sketch of two characters for my alien stage actor au (Ad Lib) I'll prob get around to talking about.

Left is Byeol Jin (Mizi's adult actress) and right is Seojin Yoon (an oc playing the adult version of my oc Bomi in a hypothetical 'Season 2' of AlnSt).

[fo-enjoyer]

I get it that you're following me but I'm sorry for my shenanigans