#selfless? check

[olasketches]

two sides of the same coin

[satoruxx]

who do you think would be more devoted, satoru, suguru or shoko?

oh em gee hi nonnie :333 it's been a milennia since i got a sashisu ask so i'm VERY sorry for the novel !!

well.... i think they all have their moments but most devoted would probably be suguru. AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY !!!!

i just think suguru tends to be very selfish when it comes to love. not like.. in a bad way... but to him love means that he has already given himself to you completely. he expects it to be understood that his love runs so deep he physically cannot fathom letting you go. suguru has always been extremely loyal to what's his—whether that be his morals or his friends. i think he puts a lot of value into making connections. so for him, when it comes to love, i think he would be very steadfast in it—often finding it difficult to disentangle himself from those emotions. and i feel like that depth is what makes him the most likely to become obsessive over devotion. (like... cult leader suguru would become so fixated on the idea of devoting himself to you that it can start becoming almost parasitic) basically, suguru could absolutely devote himself completely to you, and in a normal relationship that translates into extreme and fierce loyalty. but any kind of toxic or twisted dynamic and that's turning obsessive and probably too emotionally dependent.

satoru is definitely devoted but in a very generous way. he can love you so deeply but be alright with letting you go. to him, that's the biggest act of love he can commit. he sees a lot of drawbacks in letting you be with him, so he would much rather devote himself from afar and let you live a life he probably cannot give you. in other words, his emotional investment in you may not always come across as fully attentive because his perception of dedication can be too focused on what he deems is best. satoru's devotion plays on a fine line between his loyalty to you and his loyalty to his own ideas. he has such a strong connection to his own ideals that once he perceives something, he will always do what he feels is best in that situation. the problem is that might not be the most pleasant thing for you—but if he thinks you're better off with someone else he will let you go. (see i don't think suguru would be able to do that. suguru will never be able to give you up.)

shoko's devotion is the most subtle, but i think it would be the most stable. it might take her a while to get to that stage (i don't think it's as easy for her to fall into obsession compared to the other two) but she will be dedicated to you. shoko may not be the most expressive, but she is the most emotionally grounded. she has always shown consistent loyalty to things she values, so i think her devotion to you would be dependable and pretty nurturing. i also think she has a very mature perspective on her relationship with you, and she'd be more concerned with creating and maintaining that bond. so basically... i think she'd be the most consistently devoted if that makes sense.

so yeah, suguru is the most intensely devoted, but his devotion is easy to become entangled with other emotions. satoru is devoted, but it's more external. he tends to do things for you that he feels is right. and shoko is the devoted in the most stable way.

[elizabethan-memes]

Imma say it: Charles Brandon is Thomas Seymour with better PR.

Charles Brandon is a Thomas Seymour who got away with it.

[touchd0wn-boy]

sorry to be a hater but matt skiba it's on SIGHT why are we rewriting history and pretending he was an integral part of the band now years after he became obsolete when 99% of what he contributed was stand awkwardly on stage and badly sing tom songs while mark did one-sided banter that didn't land. like...... he was their touring guitarist and that was pretty much it. he didn't even write the guitar parts for the songs they wrote together and he was literally the only guitarist in the room. he contributed a handful of lyrics and some mediocre to good enough-ish vocals and that's IT, and that was in an era when every songwriter in the LA area with some time to spare got to come into the studio and add their two cents to the album. every single fan account creaming themselves over him appearing on stage with them now is honestly so weird and pathetic why do we care about him

[jon-sedai]

I really don’t think we should be treating morality as a linear thing in ASOIAF because what often happens is that we start to stray from the actual conversations that we need to be having regarding the depths of making a moral choice and even the circumstances involved. To try and blankly paint any one character as the “most morally good” isn’t really taking us anywhere. And it certainly isn’t helpful when people in this fandom want to try and prove that characters are “grey” but not moral (what does that even mean??) because they did one “bad” thing. If ASOIAF stans were to have their way, then:

Jon is not a morally good person because he threatened Gilly

Dany cannot be considered to be compassionate because she sanctioned torture against the wine seller’s daughters

Arya cant be good because she has killed people

and so on, and so on….

But this is such a draining, and oft times frustrating, conversation to have because you see just how shallow the above listed examples are? Readers are listing only singular instances across a narrative that spans thousand and thousands of pages, and there’s absolutely no context involved. Why did Jon threaten Gilly? Why did Dany resort to torture and at one point did she do it? Who did Arya kill and why? And why do those singular instances negate everything else in their arcs?

What usually happens when we have the 12847647282th unnecessary conversation about who is the “most good” character in ASOIAF is that we start getting blanket statements with no elaboration. And the only people ever considered are Ned, Brienne, and Davos, and sometimes the children like Shireen or Tommen. Mind you, Ned and Davos are not perfect or without their own faults either; much has been said about Ned’s abilities as a father and it’s implied that Davos was not entirely faithful to his wife. And based on her current arc, Brienne will surely have to make morally tough choices regarding oaths and knightly honor. Plus theres the irony of including literal children when they have not been put in situations where they actually have to make morally difficult choices and live with the consequences.

ASOIAF shows us that people who are capable of incredible kindness and compassion are also capable of doing unpleasant things.

Jon threatened Gilly….because he was trying to save another child whom he believed to be at risk of human sacrifice(!!) and was stuck between a rock and a hard place. But why does that singular instance negate the fact that his arc has been about him standing up for the “lesser than”? Why does that negate the fact that he stood up for Sam against a superior when there was nothing to gain for him? Why does it negate the fact that he went out of his way to equip Arya in a way that society would have deemed inappropriate? Why does it negate the fact that he dedicated the entirety of his time as Lord Commander to fight an institution that had upheld racism/xenophobia for millennia? Why should we filter out all those moments of kindness, compassion, and deep empathy that Jon has even without him thinking?

Dany sanctioned torture….but she was trying to solve the murder of an innocent victim AND this brought her no joy. But why does that negate the fact that when she gained unimaginable power, she could’ve high tailed to Westeros to use it to her benefit and become queen, but instead chose to stay in Essos where she has no personal responsibility just so she could fight the institutional evil that is slavery? Why does it negate Dany who went to personally treat plague victims at great risk to herself?

Arya has killed some….but it’s in self defense or in defense of others who are disenfranchised. But why does this negate that she is one of the few people in the series how goes out of her way to show kindness and friendship to those who are not as economically or politically advantaged as she is (e.g., Mycah)? Why does it negate that she took fellow slaves under her protection when she herself had little power to fight for her own survival at Harrenhall? Why does it negate that when she saw those caged soldiers whom she was angry with for their actions, instead of leaving them to die instead offered them the only kindness she could at the moment: a drink of water?

Trying to have arguments about morality but stripping everything down to ‘x character did y bad thing (regardless of context) and that’s why they can’t be good’ is, to be blunt, ridiculous. And it isn’t a particularly interesting way to engage with the text. Character journeys, especially well written ones, are rarely ever in a straight line. There’s amazing highs and terrible lows. GRRM gives us so many characters like Jon, Dany, Arya, Sansa, Ned, etc. who even in their lows, have gleams of compassion and exceptional kindness. It doesn’t do anyone any good to filter those moments out to make the books more digestible; and I’m being a little generous here, because so many readers have a very shallow level of engagement with the series and it shows in conversation. And we also shouldn’t pit these characters unfairly against those who have never been in similarly difficult situations that required them to make hard choices. Because when we do, we start to completely miss the point all together.

[loveridden1999]

dad won't send me the reports i feel like ripping my hair out

[cowlovely]

i truly do think that clara oswald is one of the characters of all time i’m sorry.

[science-lings]

dipping my toes back into the zelda/LU fandom bc there's some good ass fanfiction that I haven't reread in a couple years and remember when people got pissy when Wild's child soldier status was explored as if that isn't an extremely fascinating thing to consider about the character.

Like sure some of the links were young on their adventures and that's great trauma for them but for some reason it was annoying when people mentioned that Wild pulled the sword way before the calamity struck and was forced to train and be very visibly in the public eye from a young age. Like the pressure of being the hero everyone needed him to be impacted him so much that he went mute, he was a weapon the king was trying to forge to face the calamity and his mere existence is an omen for oncoming disaster and even with all that time to become the best warrior the kingdom has ever seen, it was still not enough and he didn't even make it to the castle.

That's amazingly devastating, it's such an interesting subversion of the zelda formula of 'surprise, normal kid gets a sword and is sent off to save the world'. Sure, at some point he was just some guy but it wasn't like completely a surprise attack like it usually is. There was a prophecy and warning signs and time to try to prevent the calamity and it was all destined to not be enough. No matter how much he trained or how many weapons they had on their side it wasn't going to be enough and that's so important to the story.

My only pet peeve about the stories that do touch on Wild's past is the implication that he's somehow worse than the Link that fled the calamity. As if his work to regain his former strength and skills really meant nothing and the guy before, who remember, DIED BECAUSE HE WASNT STRONG ENOUGH, because that guy has years of training and a more soldier-y disposition he's a better fighter than Wild, who has the same skills but isn't restrained by protocol or proper technique.

[reikunrei]

"we'll fix it together. okay?" and then the only time we see el fixing the diorama, she's doing it by herself while will sits at the kitchen table nudging at his breakfast

[impossibledial]

i’m so intrigued by dannyclara despite not shipping them. i think that relationship is an interesting addition to clara’s character arc and i’m still trying to to figure out it’s purpose.

[cryptosexologist]

the misbegotten are sooo underrated its insane

[vultursvolans]

i love iruka sm like i’m glad i had no following when i was the most unwell about him

[deservedgrace]

i took sermons of self-sacrifice and putting god and others above yourself and not being "selfish" really seriously and when that burned me out and i learned it's not sustainable to pour from an empty cup all the time i brought it up to this highly respected xtian couple in the church and the first (and pretty much only) response i got was "the verse is 'love your neighbor AS YOURSELF'" as if it was my fault for not "reading the verse properly" when the reason i was like this in the first place is because the church puts so much fucking emphasis on not being "selfish" and viewing others as above you and taking care of others above yourself and glorification of self-sacrifice while never having a single sermon that even says "it's okay to take care of yourself too" and the people who told me that don't know it but their response (and noticing how others respond the same) helped me realize how much this is all just bullshit and is one of the reasons i left

[gods-favorite-autistic]

Just watched a yt vid abt the divergent series and Jesus Christ I forgot how much fucking eugenics is in the third book what the hell??

[thebirdandhersong]

I didn't expect I'd develop any affection for Clark Kent but he's literally such a good boy. That child tries very hard to do the right thing and even when tempted and swayed by temptation, he chooses the hard way. The kind, selfless, seeking-the-good-of-the-other thing to do. You think I'm immune to that???

[ask-the-rag-dolly]

edit : i'm sorry but this post is messy i don't like how this is the ramble that got the most attention shhffs please check out the addendum in the reblogs if you want a more clearer analysis

-

FIRST OF ALL the thing about the paint huffing - Other than that it's funny - is that we were getting ragatha at her most honest . she's more reflective and reveals her mind more which is a Lot considering that she has shown herself to be a people pleaser trying to avoid conflict . this is Literally The Last thing she wants

and honestly it would be fun to see the fallout of this in episode 5 when she would inevitably sober up and be Mortified about that fact considering she said This to gangle here

like . interesting ragatha . is that why you Do Not Stop Jax when he goes to bully gangle . other than not wanting him to hate you you also prefer it if gangle is in her tragedy state . is that it . Is That It -

also you guys don't know how much i fucking screamed at these scenes okay . there's nothing i love more than nice characters that show their less than desirable traits . my favorite thing about ragatha is not that she's a sweetheart but that she's Dishonest . even to the point that gangle mentions it in her talk with pomni

like my ongoing theory right now for the ' evil ragatha ' comment gooseworx made for episode 5 is that ragatha's going to say or do the Most Morally Ambiguous thing possible that will send the entire fandom on fire . like we're talking Arguments on whether she's in the right or wrong Even though this is a show that invites nuance instead of black and white views , and it'll be so fucking marvelous to witness

NOW . i really don't think she's faking being nice ! i believe with all my heart that ragatha's inherently Good and i will throw hands at anyone who thinks otherwise . it's just that she's just Repressing What She Thinks About The Others because , again , Avoiding Conflict ! which is shown by how annoyed she got with pomni talking to gummigoo ( gayass ) , what she said to gangle , and what she said to zooble

yes i screamed about the toybox interaction i knew that ragatha was going to not like zooble's grouchiness But I Digress .

all of this is interesting because . again , ragatha's a people pleaser trying to avoid conflict . i think her reasons for being nice and helpful are both selfless and selfish . selfless - she doesn't want anyone to go through the stress and pain of feeling alone , and selfish - she doesn't want anyone to hate her . they're like a smoothie , she's not one or the other . it's just that the latter reason ... has a lot more influences on her thought processes than she'd like to admit .

and that's showcased if you look at episode 2 with her conversation with kinger . she was worried about pomni going through something traumatizing , yes , but she added that she thinks pomni doesn't like her that much . which . it's a small piece of dialogue but it really shows how much ragatha's Gripping That Fucking Fawn Response . yes , her concern is everyone's wellbeing , but she also Would Not Like It If Anyone Hates Her , to the point that it'll stick to her . and she'll try So Hard to compensate for it .

like . she is really a nice person but she's dishonest because she doesn't want to be hated which is very much a selfish reason . she's falling into that pitfall of ' a friend to all is a friend to none ' . argh . why is she so complicated god i'm going to put her in that deepfryer again