#seems like were the same:>

[shadowtraveled]

"mithrun is the only real monsterfucker in dungeon meshi" is objectively the funniest bit you can get out of his everything, but in all seriousness i think his attraction to his love interest is deliberately overstated—and that makes sense, because romantic jealousy is a classic and digestible motive, which is explicitly what kabru was aiming for in condensing mithrun's backstory, and also because until chapter 94, mithrun wasn't willing to admit to the true nature of his desires.

but because romantic envy is both classic and digestible, it probably isn’t a unique enough or complicated enough desire to tempt a demon’s appetite. mithrun’s wish, as far as we can figure from kabru’s reduced retelling, was to have a life in which he had never become one of the canaries, and that carries like 3857 implications and desires within it. that’s delicious. his love interest acts as sort of a red herring to his motivation for making it, though. (side note: i'm saying "love interest" here because, keeping in mind that i barely speak japanese on a good day anymore, "想い人" is something i'd usually take as just kind of an old-fashioned and romantic way to refer to a lover, but in context i wonder if both the connotation of yearning and the vagueness are intentional, and i think this phrasing gets those aspects of it more effectively. anyway.)

mithrun considered his love interest to be untrustworthy. there was a minute where i thought that comment might be about a similar-looking elf (yugin, one of his squad members), but comparing the two…

the "sketchy" arrow is definitely referring to the elf we know as his love interest—the bangs go toward her right, she only has the one forehead ornament, and, most notably, her ears aren't notched.

every time she’s given a full-body depiction in his dungeon, she’s drawn as a chimera, with the body of a snake from the waist down. (side note: the “what if a dungeon has chimeras before reaching level 4?”/“then the dungeon lord is unstable” exchange just being mithrun grilling his past self alive is so funny. he’s so. but anyway) there are a couple things about this.

first, the snake part of the chimera appears to be modeled after some species of coral snake mimic

which, in the biology-for-fun manga, i… doubt is a coincidence, especially with the added context of the “untrustworthy” comment. the dungeon’s conjured illusion of mithrun’s love interest was a harmless copycat of a venomous original. for whatever reason, he felt this person was a threat and made up a "safe" version of her to be in a relationship with, and while it’s definitely possible to be attracted to or even love someone you find to be toxic and/or intimidating, when you take that into consideration alongside the configuration of her body, you get some interesting implications.

which brings us to our second point: if we assume that mithrun was not in fact fucking a snake, then sexual attraction, at least, was so far removed from his idea of a relationship with this person that he did not even bother to keep her dungeon copy human enough to maintain the illusion of the option of a sexual relationship. this is somewhat echoed in the depictions of their interactions, which also imply a frankly unexpected romantic distance. she kisses his cheek and he doesn't seem to react; she's at the edge of a narrow bed with only one set of pillows, on top of his blankets while he's underneath them.

the kiss is particularly interesting because it seems to contrast the text. kabru's narration tells us this was everything mithrun could have asked for, but mithrun is there looking unreadable to pensive, likely because this is right before the panel that makes it clear things in the dungeon are beginning to go wrong.

walking through this backwards for a minute, we have the physical barrier of his bedding and the spatial separation inherent in a bed made for one person, the emotional barrier of his mounting anxiety getting in the way of his ability to enjoy the affection he sought, and... the snake, which historically carries the connotation of temptation, yes, but also mistrust, barring physical intimacy. okay. ok. if a dungeon reflects the mentality of its lord, all of this might suggest that mithrun was not able to have any real desire for a relationship with this person. his unwillingness to be vulnerable or let another person in was insurmountable. but in that case, why was she such a focal point that she remained to the end, after his dungeon had stopped creating iterations of his friends to come and visit him? why would he get so upset over her meeting with his brother that he became lord of a dungeon about it?

well. mithrun's brother was also interested in her, probably genuinely. and mithrun had to win.

you have an older brother who your parents completely ignore, probably in part because he is chronically ill/disabled and almost definitely in part because he received a ton of recessive traits that resulted in rumors that he was an illegitimate child. you are aware, most likely because those same parents fucking told you, that you actually are an illegitimate child. but they keep you around because you had the good fortune of looking just like your mother. what can that possibly teach you but that you, like your brother, are disposable?

it's utterly unsurprising that mithrun, under these circumstances, developed a pathological need to be better than everyone around him. people don't keep you otherwise. i'd argue this is also why he says he looked down on everyone he knew while milsiril claims his dungeon reeked of feelings of inferiority—he sought out people's worst traits and prioritized them in his mind to protect his already extremely fragile sense of self-worth, and all the while he tried to be as likable and high-performing as he possibly could be. his parents disposed of him anyway, but even then he tried to keep up the performance. he was kind to everyone. he never once lost to a dungeon.

when he saw his "love interest" meeting up with his brother, what he saw was himself being replaced by a person his parents had always treated as worthless, and if that was what they thought of the child they'd kept, what value could anyone possibly see in the bastard they'd given away to die? mithrun and kabru tell the story like he wanted to win this unnamed elf's heart, but it was never about being with her. it was about cementing his worth, proving that he didn't deserve to be thrown away.

and so it's particularly cruel that his demon discarded him, too. but maybe it's also particularly gentle that, in the end, there was someone who refused to even consider giving up on him.

kui laid it out in three panels better than i could hope to.

yeah. it's love. you wanted to be loved, even when the only way you were able to understand it was through the desire to be wanted, and you wanted that so badly that the idea of being consumed felt like the promise of finally mattering to someone.

[artgletic]

case study of the self-identified god

[clairenatural]

me: I wonder if r/supernatural celebrated the 5th

r/supernatural:

[ofswordsandpens]

I'm sincerely very happy for anyone who is enjoying the show but every time I see takes that the show has improved the book characterizations or that the book characters are underdeveloped in comparison to the show...

[batfamhyperfixation]

On Tim's Boat

*Tim and Bernard are laying in bed sleeping, limbs entangled as Bernard sleeps on Tim's chest*

*at 3:47am Bernard is awoken*

Bernard, swatting Tim as he is squinting in the dark: Hey grasshopper? Is that a sleep paralysis demon-

Tim, shifting slightly, eyes still shut, basically sleepy mumbling: you wouldn't be hitting me, you'd be paralyzed

Bernard: then I think someone is stealing clothes from our closet

Tim, running his hand through Bernard's hair so Bernard knows he is listening: don't know why, we are the pits of fashion, they should be stealing from Sophie and Louie's closet, or even Tammy and Lauren's closet

Bernard: is that... Robin?

Tim, wide awake now, swiveling his head towards the closet: WHAT?

Damian, standing there in a Robin outfit looking through their clothes in the closet, gathering a pile on his arm: Your father wants you to call him, Drake

Bernard: Robin works for Bruce? Actually, that's not surprising.

Robin, walking out with a pile of clothes on his arm: I am confiscating these *walks out the door*

Bernard:

Tim:

Bernard:

Tim:

Bernard: Guess you could say he was... Robin us.

Tim: You're lucky I love you

Edit: Part 2

[carnivalcarriondiscarded]

i don't know what order to start Dissecting, so i'll just start with:

it's absolutely fascinating how the dynamic Wally & Barnaby had - to my knowledge - before the update, and a dynamic i'd seen speculated elsewhere and generally accepted, has been completed turned on its head

see, given that Wally is the "main character" and Barnaby is classified as "his best friend", i got the feeling that Barnaby kind of... tags along on Wally's 'shenanigans'. that he's the sidekick, the best friend. especially since their dynamic has been previously & briefly described as "Barnaby is very polite to Wally." he's the Companion.

but the audios sorta paint a reverse picture. in the Interview, when Barnaby enters stage right, he completely bowls over Wally's introduction and dominates the interview. when the interviewer asks how the two of them are handling the fame, even outright asking Wally, Barnaby doesn't hesitate to answer the question himself, and only about himself. Wally doesn't get another word in edge-wise until the interviewer explicitly singles Wally out.

(now, an argument could be made that Barnaby knew that Wally was somewhat overwhelmed with all of the questions, and tried to take the reins to give him a reprieve. but, considering that the interview seems to be very early on the possible timeline - like, very soon after Welcome Home debuted - i don't think this is likely. i doubt Barnaby and Wally would've had the time to solidify their dynamic or really get to know each other that well yet)

and Barnaby continues to take point in pretty much all of their other conversations, too. like in the mystery Howdy/Barnaby/Wally audio, their interaction gives off the vibes that Wally is Barnaby's sidekick, his tag-along.

(on a related tangent, it's fascinating how the website described the episodes as "[beginning] with Wally introducing the focus or theme for the day before coming across other characters who would join him on his escapades until the end of the day." but from pretty much everything we've seen so far, it seems like He's the one who's just along for the ride, bouncing from neighbor shenanigan to neighbor shenanigan instead of having his own adventures.

of course, if the 14 audios are present time, which is honestly somewhat likely, this could be because the show isn't running. they aren't doing episodes - they're just existing, doing their things. no need for Wally to take point in any way shape or form. tangent over)

in the 14 audios with Barnaby, he doesn't even acknowledge Wally until the very end - which, of course, could be because that's how the scenes are set up. except that in some of them, the characters do directly acknowledge Wally's presence outside of the endings. Eddie in 5-14, Howdy and Poppy in 1-14, and Frank in 4-14 (technically, since he was infodumping to Wally at the very start before Barnaby interrupted). you'd think that a guy would try to include his best friend a little more!

maybe i'm reading into it too much. & given what we know about Wally as a character, it would make sense for Barnaby to be the go-getter Main Guy of the two. but it really seems like its Barnaby & Wally instead of Wally & Barnaby. he's just kinda... there. going along with whatever Barnaby is up to.

but also, on the other side of things - & it's occurring to me as i type this, it's interesting how in a lot of audios, Barnaby seems to seek Wally out. in "Just So", he shows up to fetch Wally. in 4-14, Barnaby interrupts Frank and Wally's gardening session, almost as if he's stopping by to check on his little buddy. in 7-14, Barnaby calls Julie's house (presumably) searching for Wally, or at least checking in once again. something to consider in all of this!

[thunderboltfire]

I have a lot of complicated feelings when it comes to what Neflix has done with the Witcher, but my probably least favourite is the line of argumentation that originated during shitstorms related to the first and second season that I was unlucky to witness.

It boils down to "Netflix's reinterpretation and vision is valid, because the Witcher books are not written to be slavic. The overwhelming Slavic aestetic is CDPR's interpretation, and the setting in the original books is universally European, as there are references to Arthurian mythos and celtic languages" And I'm not sure where this argument originated and whether it's parroting Sapkowski's own words or a common stance of people who haven't considered the underlying themes of the books series. Because while it's true that there are a lot of western european influences in the Witcher, it's still Central/Eastern European to the bone, and at its core, the lack of understanding of this topic is what makes the Netflix series inauthentic in my eyes.

The slavicness of the Witcher goes deeper than the aestetics, mannerisms, vodka and sour cucumbers. Deeper than Zoltan wrapping his sword with leopard pelt, like he was a hussar. Deeper than the Redanian queen Hedvig and her white eagle on the red field.

What Witcher is actually about? It's a story about destiny, sure. It's a sword-and-sorcery style, antiheroic deconstruction of a fairy tale, too, and it's a weird mix of many culture's influences.

But it's also a story about mundane evil and mundane good. If You think about most dark, gritty problems the world of Witcher faces, it's xenophobia and discrimination, insularism and superstition. Deep-seated fear of the unknown, the powerlessness of common people in the face of danger, war, poverty and hunger. It's what makes people spit over their left shoulder when they see a witcher, it's what makes them distrust their neighbor, clinging to anything they deem safe and known. It's their misfortune and pent-up anger that make them seek scapegoats and be mindlessly, mundanely cruel to the ones weaker than themselves.

There are of course evil wizards, complicated conspiracies and crowned heads, yes. But much of the destruction and depravity is rooted in everyday mundane cycle of violence and misery. The worst monsters in the series are not those killed with a silver sword, but with steel. it's hard to explain but it's the same sort of motiveless, mundane evil that still persist in our poorer regions, born out of generations-long poverty and misery. The behaviour of peasants in Witcher, and the distrust towards authority including kings and monarchs didn't come from nowhere.

On the other hand, among those same, desperately poor people, there is always someone who will share their meal with a traveller, who will risk their safety pulling a wounded stranger off the road into safety. Inconditional kindness among inconditional hate. Most of Geralt's friends try to be decent people in the horrible world. This sort of contrasting mentalities in the recently war-ridden world is intimately familiar to Eastern and Cetral Europe.

But it doesn't end here. Nilfgaard is also a uniquely Central/Eastern European threat. It's a combination of the Third Reich in its aestetics and its sense of superiority and the Stalinist USSR with its personality cult, vast territory and huge army, and as such it's instantly recognisable by anybody whose country was unlucky enough to be caught in-between those two forces. Nilfgaard implements total war and looks upon the northerners with contempt, conscripts the conquered people forcibly, denying them the right of their own identity. It may seem familiar and relevant to many opressed people, but it's in its essence the processing of the trauma of the WW2 and subsequent occupation.

My favourite case are the nonhumans, because their treatment is in a sense a reminder of our worst traits and the worst sins in our history - the regional antisemitism and/or xenophobia, violence, local pogroms. But at the very same time, the dilemma of Scoia'Tael, their impossible choice between maintaining their identity, a small semblance of freedom and their survival, them hiding in the forests, even the fact that they are generally deemed bandits, it all touches the very traumatic parts of specifically Polish history, such as January Uprising, Warsaw Uprising, Ghetto Uprising, the underground resistance in WW2 and the subsequent complicated problem of the Cursed Soldiers all at once. They are the 'other' to the general population, but their underlying struggle is also intimately known to us.

The slavic monsters are an aestetic choice, yes, but I think they are also a reflection of our local, private sins. These are our own, insular boogeymen, fears made flesh. They reproduce due to horrors of the war or they are an unprovoked misfortune that descends from nowhere and whose appearance amplifies the local injustices.

I'm not talking about many, many tiny references that exist in the books, these are just the most blatant examples that come to mind. Anyway, the thing is, whether Sapkowski has intended it or not, Witcher is slavic and it's Polish because it contains social commentary. Many aspects of its worldbuilding reflect our traumas and our national sins. It's not exclusively Polish in its influences and philosophical motifs of course, but it's obvious it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

And it seems to me that the inherently Eastern European aspects of Witcher are what was immediately rewritten in the series. It seems to me that the subtler underlying conflicts were reshaped to be centered around servitude, class and gender disparity, and Nilfgaard is more of a fanatic terrorist state than an imposing, totalitarian empire. A lot of complexity seems to be abandoned in lieu of usual high-fantasy wordbuilding. It's especially weird to me because it was completely unnecessary. The Witcher books didn't need to be adjusted to speak about relevant problems - they already did it! The problem of acceptance and discrimination is a very prevalent theme throughout the story! They are many strong female characters too, and they are well written. Honestly I don't know if I should find it insulting towards their viewers that they thought it won't be understood as it was and has to be somehow reshaped to fit the american perpective, because the current problems are very much discussed in there and Sapkowski is not subtle in showing that genocide and discrimination is evil. Heck, anyone who has read the ending knows how tragic it makes the whole story.

It also seems quite disrespectful, because they've basically taken a well-established piece of our domestic literature and popular culture and decided that the social commentary in it is not relevant. It is as if all it referenced was just not important enough and they decided to use it as an opportunity to talk about the problems they consider important. And don't get me wrong, I'm not forcing anyone to write about Central European problems and traumas, I'm just confused that they've taken the piece of art already containing such a perspective on the popular and relevant problem and they just... disregarded it, because it wasn't their exact perspective on said problem.

And I think this homogenisation, maybe even from a certain point of view you could say it's worldview sanitisation is a problem, because it's really ironic, isn't it? To talk about inclusivity in a story which among other problems is about being different, and in the same time to get rid of motifs, themes and references because they are foreign? Because if something presents a different perspective it suddenly is less desirable?

There was a lot of talking about the showrunners travelling to Poland to understand the Witcher's slavic spirit and how to convey it. I don't think they really meant it beyond the most superficial, paper-thin facade.

[merp-blerp]

Hamilton will be 10 years old next year…

[lunarin64art]

I was doing fanart of kokichi drawing/writing on the whiteboard he had. And i got to shuichi’s and i was trying to write the japanese version. And i was struggling there so i used google and it DOESN’T say "trustworthy?" I know google translate isn’t 100% accurate. BUT NEITHER IS THE DUBBED! WHAT DOES IT SAY?! (´༎ຶོρ༎ຶོ`)

The specific word on his whiteboard in Japanese is: 油断ならない

If you look up a translation for that you get these:

"Be vigilant"

"Don't let your guard down"

"One must be on one's guard with…"

"One cannot be too careful"

Also here's this translation image i usually use that has some other translations:

Its weird tho because, you don't get the same results if you look up the translation of "yudannaranai". Though, it always seems to be the case that you get better translations when translating from kanji rather than from the Roman lettering of Japanese terms.

(The NISA translators likely changed it to add sa*ouma propaganda...)

Hope this helps! :D

[maeamian]

Actually research skills are hard to learn especially unsupervised so maybe telling people to just "Go figure it out" especially if you already know they've been failed academically in other ways, might actually be a great way to just send them to a PragerU video on the topic.

[crabsnpersimmons]

Who has the other pair of his shoes. I don’t believe you can buy a red and black pair

good question! i hadn't thought about it until you asked so here's the answer i came up with:

he got them at a discount at the thrift store

the cashier just saw his excitement and couldn't bear to charge him the full price

they aren't even the same style of slides, this silly guy just marches to the beat of his own drum

[faunandfloraas]

...🔎

[p0th]

[poorly-drawn-puppet-history]

so let me get this straight, watcher:

An unknown party is planting VHS tapes on your own set weekly, containing ad reads by:

a self-proclaimed professor

who mentions unfortunate encounters with horses

who has an 'estranged wife'

whose jacket is tan and tie and red

who is a 'gamer'

whose image flickered in like a hologram in an earlier ad read,

and you want us to just like, not think Something Smells Fishy. OK...

[spacedlexi]

people who think clem surviving makes no sense are so funny. "they were literally foreshadowing her death the entire season" let me introduce you to the concept of a red herring. she tells lilly she isnt lee and shes right. the narrative was forcing her down that path, a path she saw as an inevitable fate waiting to take her too, but its a narrative broken by aj, who is also his own person and not S1 clem

"it happened to lee, and itll happen to you" lilly tells clem she'll die protecting aj from some mistake he makes, when in reality his defiance of her will is what saves her life after she had already accepted her fate. he breaks clem free from the lee cycle and they get their relatively happy ending. good for them

[dollya-robinprotector]

Average delulu at 1 a.m in the morning with @glutominnn