#they’re both fantastic for similar & different reasons

[shorthaltsjester]

thinking about the scene between vex and percy at the end of campaign one where after over a hundred episodes of the two of them as snarky assholes (affectionate but factual) helping to fight dragons and gods, they both buckle under the weight of just. missing their families in a way that’s fresh to both of them in different ways, where percy finally has the room to admit what’s been taken from him and what he let himself lose in his commitment to vengeance (the ability to actually Grieve) and where vex just watched her brother walk into death off towards their mother. and it’s been a horrible day, and percy confesses that he was going to be a clockmaker, once.

and then, three decades later, we see the two of them elevated to a less accessible status through the eyes of bell’s hells, where they’re to be the judges whether laudna gets to come back, where The De Rolos™ are leaders and percy is a hardass and vex is a lady, except there’s an intricate clock tower in this Whitestone’s cityscape, except ashton goes to punch a statue bust and several brown bears occupy his surrounding environment. and vex sees a face not unlike her own that was killed precisely for that fact and commits to helping her and percy sees a face too much like his own and gives them a hard time until he’s standing surrounded by the crushed glass of his home and offering genuine advice about how to move forward.

and to me what was so compelling about vex and percy both as individuals and as two people who fell in love with each other was that they both had walls for different reasons that functioned in very similar ways where they didn’t have to admit the things they knew/felt were missing in themselves. but by the end of their campaign those walls aren’t gone but they have, like, doors and windows now or something. and that’s present when we see them again from the more removed view of campaign 3, percy’s harshness softens for his daughter, vex helps bell’s hells but also ensured that should laudna bring delilah back then whitestone was protected and, god!!!! they’re perfect delicious characters genuinely and the way that matt makes the duality that defines those characters (and their relationship and whitestone itself) where they are stoic and cold and harsh but they’re also warm and kind and silly. that’s narrative that’s character creation and development that’s environmental storytelling that’s to be loved (and to love) is to be changed.

sorry but tonight’s 4sd has been fantastic and the group talking about the inherent shittiness of whitestone’s geographic and historic placement and the resonance of seeing vex and percy and percy’s advice to ashton has me thinking so many thought’s because. what if whitestone was already tending towards uninhabitability and what if it got worse when the briarwoods diminished even the warmth the sun tree could provide but. what if the last son of the ruling family returned and what if he fell in love and that was enough not to cancel out the harshness of whitestone but to amend it and add something to it. something something the mistress of the grey hunt protects whitestone from the harshness of the parchwood, something something percy’s speech to vex about why he gave her the one title she’d have to earn, something something vex was already doing the work of the mistress of the grey hunt simply by caring about and standing by percy — even before it was love — in the face of orthax and the briarwoods and death blast coffins and deals with devils.

[essycogany]

Amy Rose’s Quills

Yes, it’s that time again! Where I ramble about character designs and why I adore them so much. In this post, I want to talk about Amy’s quills and why I like the different ways it can be represented in official and none official media.

Just like Amy’s eye color. I’ll also make guesses as to why her overall design changed officially and in canon to make things interesting. Let’s get started!

Long Quills

This style is in Amy’s first design. Being the Minnie to Sonic’s Mickey, she had the same quill style as him. Aside from her bangs. While I do think the quills look cute, it almost makes Amy look like Sonic’s sister. I guess that’s why they changed it later on.

I say this only in comparison to her modern design. The Minnie inspiration is the reason she’s here. I’m only talking about her changing designs and making it less identical to Sonic.

My favorite iteration of her classic look is in Sonic Mania Adventures Christmas special. Just look at the differences. It may not be a HUGE change, but even her nose is slightly smaller. I just love the Mania’s designs in general. They’re awesome! I still do love the OG design too. Classic Amy is so precious.

Look at how Sonic’s quills are messier than Amy’s here. I think it gives them more dimension. Showing how one cares more about grooming themselves than the other. It’s kind of cool and I wish it was integrated in canon more. Not because it’s “important” but it’s a fun idea.

Short Quills

Ever since Sonic Adventure, Amy’s design changed immensely. Even Sonic himself noticed it in Adventure 1. Her outfit, eye color, nose, and quills (besides her iconic bangs) are different. Giving her an older more teenage look. I say this because Amy doesn’t look any older or younger then Sonic.

(Or any other teenage/young adult character for that matter)

They are sometimes even shown to have the same hight at times. Back to the quills, Amy now barely resembles her classic design and definitely looks less like a Minnie Mouse inspired design. Her classic design is still amazing, but I believe the change was a necessary one. The differences between her and Sonic are more apparent and noticeable and I think that’s a good thing.

Mixed

Here’s my own example, but there are many other fantastic fanartist who does something similar with both styles together.

Why do people like this quill style a bunch? I’d say it adds more flavor to her personality. Her having the classic long quills along with the short front dreads could symbolize her adventurous side along with her girly side. It blends the two nicely and overall looks visually interesting. While I will say her shorter quills does differentiate her better, I’ve seen plenty of artist change it up a bit in unique ways. It’s fun to create and see what ideas an artist could have for Amy.

Why Amy’s Quills Were Changed?

I’d say the official reason is because of the things I said before. But the in canon reason could be Amy wanting to look pretty enough for the next time she sees Sonic. Or perhaps she thought to change her appearance simply because she wanted to look cuter. Though I’d say the first answer is the most likely because her love for the blue blur was much more prominent in the past.

Conclusion

Did I use this as an excuse to gush about Amy again? Yep! I regret nothing. I love love LOVE Amy Rose and how interesting her design is in the past and present.

Stay Creative! 💜

[cealesti]

You sound so intelligent, how can you not realize that Voldemort and Harry could never work because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fall in love with your own REFLEX??!

Oh! Thank you? I think?

I'll give you this, anon: kudos for introducing me to a brand new criticism of Tomarrymort and also for having me scratching my head trying to understand what you meant.

I imagine that you're referring to my usage of "mirrors" in this post. If so, what I said was:

"I like [Tomarrymort] because they’re narrative mirrors who parallel each other blatantly and, even when they don’t, they always seem to rhyme, at least."

A "narrative mirror" isn't a 1:1, line-by-line reflection of another character. We use this term to refer to characters who have narrative similarities in their backstories, experiences, values, principles, etc, and whose similarities serve a narrative purpose. Harry and Voldemort, as narrative mirrors, illustrate one of the core theses of the books, namely the value of forgiveness and love ('love as sacrifice' in particular, as @saintsenara is, quite correctly, fond of pointing out). I'd also argue that, through Harry and Voldemort, the books more generally explore what it means to be human, through the aforementioned love and forgiveness, yes, but also through their drastically different views and experiences with death and grief.

If this is what you meant, then of course a character can fall in love with their narrative mirror (introducing here the obligatory disclaimer that, of course, love is unpredictable and fantastic and fanfiction is even more so, and neither has to bow down to what we consider "possible" or even "reasonable"). Of course narrative mirrors can "work" in a relationship.

The ways in which Harry and Voldemort mirror each other are also the reason why they understand each other so well, a fact that does not go unnoticed in canon by either of them or by their respective allies (as I also mentioned in their previous post).

There are strange likenesses between us, Harry Potter. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself. We even look something alike.

Their similarities, and this degree of understanding and grudging respect they develop for each other, makes for a very strong base from which a relationship, toxic or not, could easily spring forth.

It's free real estate, anon.

(That they're narrative foils as well only makes the whole thing juicier.)

[thewormformerlyknownasletojrjr]

The thing is they’re all foils of each other, you’re supposed to see each of them in everyone, Katniss and Peeta and Gale (though nobody really cares about him, sorry dude) in Sejanus and Lucy Gray and Coryo. There’s Katniss in Lucy Gray’s singing and the mockingjays, in the curtsy, in their similar looks; in Sejanus’s ‘act first think later’ reaction, in the way they honor the dead and how they want to protect the innocent; in Coryo’s distrust of people’s motivations, the way he second guesses everything, in their survival being the first thing in their mind in dangerous situations, in their food insecurity, there’s a reason that Katniss says the two of them have always understood each other. There’s Sejanus in Gale’s righteous fury, the fire he has, the fierce morality, there’s Lucy Gray in his loyalty and honesty, there’s Coryo in the way he gets taken under the wing of a powerful and prominent adult (Dr Gaul for Coryo, Coin and Beetee for Gale) as a teenager, manipulated and offered power and used to create atrocities in the name of a greater good. You see Peeta and Lucy Gray paralleled as performers in a hunt, using their charm rather than physical ability; Sejanus shown in Peeta’s compassion for others and in the symbol of bread, given to save Katniss for starvation, sprinkled over the bodies of the dead tributes; you see Coryo in Peeta’s determination to save his girl, to get her out of the games, the way he manipulates a crowd for his own gain, in their blonde hair.

And the thing is it’s absolutely brilliant because it only furthers the notion that none of them are set in stone.

Peeta is unfailingly good, even though his survival is predominantly thanks to those manipulation tactics. He uses them to sway the opinions of those in power without them noticing it, he even makes THE CAPITOL hate the games prior to the Quarter Quell. In the beginning of Mockingjay he uses it to sway Capitol favor towards Katniss in case the rebellion fails, at this point he is not focused on what the ‘right thing’ to do is, he’s looking to keep her alive at any cost. Katniss frequently describes Peeta as ‘playing the game’ even when they arguably aren’t in the Games, he knows what he’s doing, yet we never doubt in his goodness. The ability to manipulate people like that is pretty much never seen as a positive trait in any form of media, but we never doubt him, not when we’ve witnessed his compassion, his empathy.

Gale and Sejanus are both fiercely for the rebel cause from the beginning, even when they have no chance, the idealist, tho one who doesn’t care whether they get hurt to do the right thing, the paragon of morality, the ideal hero type. And yet still, by the end of the series, we cannot describe Gale as good anymore, even if what he did was for the right reasons. The power of taking the typical type of main character and showing how their ideals can be used against them, how they can get too caught up in the cause and fail to see the consequences piling up is fantastic, because there’s a certain point before Snow becomes an absolutely irredeemable monster where the two have a lot of similarities in their arcs, even though personality wise they couldn’t be more different. Snow is a fantastic villain because, in the end that cognitive dissonance overpowers the part of him that has misgivings, he is entirely convinced he is doing the right thing no matter the cost, a path we see Gale head down in Mockingjay. We even start to see Gale considering the Capitol citizens, including children and other innocents who played no part as ‘other’ and inherently monstrous. Coin and others in 13 wanting to do a Capitol Hunger Games illustrates that point as well, the escalation of it, the end result, when a revolution ceases to be a revolution and simply becomes a change in oppressors, but Gale is integral to that point because he is the early stages of it. Coryo is in the early stages of it for a large portion of his book. Obviously the difference is that Snow has 65 years to become very comfortable with this in his fascism and increasingly monstrous tendencies, but it’s the same beginning stage, and it’s incredible how Collins shows that a revolutionary type can quickly become something bad if they aren’t careful.

For Katniss as the reluctant hero type to never really willingly step up to the role, only be strong armed into it, is brilliantly done. Most ‘chosen one’ types don’t want to be, but eventually they do take it up with some willingness, but the Hunger Games is above all about using children in immoral ways whether for ‘good’ reasons or bad. Katniss only chooses to be their hero in the face of direct threat to herself or her loved ones, but that doesn’t undermine her actions. Even though she is supposed to be their tool, she exercises her free will time and time again, she makes calls that she know place her and her loved ones in political danger with 13, she makes herself their symbol on her terms. For someone who’s first thought is how to keep herself and the people she cares about alive, this defiance means a lot, particularly because she doesn’t trust people, she genuinely isn’t sure if there is going to be someone in her corner standing up for her, protecting her from the consequences of her actions, and most of the time when there is someone she’s surprised. She fully expects the worst case scenario, the worst in others, but unlike Snow she doesn’t hesitate to offer the best of herself in spite of having everything to lose and nothing to gain. Even though she fully expects everyone to have an ulterior motive, everyone to be lying, she cannot help but be anything but genuine, anything but true to herself. She doesn’t necessarily believe in any inherent goodness in others, oftentimes the opposite, but she still offers kindness rather than violence and that is all the more powerful.

In the frame of the Hobbes/Locke duality that TBOSAS really leans into, Peeta believes in an essential goodness in people, Gale sees it as us versus them, with his side as naturally ‘good’ and the other side as inherently bad, but Katniss by default thinks of people as self serving, something she still struggles with in the epilogue, having to remind herself of evidence to the contrary, she is consistently fighting that idea, disproving it with every action, at every turn, which is much more powerful than her just seeing the world in a positive light.

The thing is Suzanne Collins has them all start out as kids, each with a personality type, Katniss most like Coryo, Gale most like Sejanus, and a melange of other characteristics and traits—Peeta and Coryo most similar in their way of dealing with people, for instance—and through the choices they make she shows that they’re not set in stone. That it’s not some inherent goodness or badness in them from birth, it’s not just the way they behave around their peers. Every choice they make, every situation out of their control sets each of them on a path. Time and time again Coryo is only protected or assisted by the corrupt adults around him, he’s shown that only a very specific type of person will protect him, and they will always have something in it for them, and they will not tolerate him being anything less than like them, and in the end he chooses to have security in his survival, to have control, over everything else, and he lets that warp him into an atrocious human being. He takes the easy way in life, in contrast to Katniss and her uphill battle for the goodness in human nature.

Collins didn’t even try to be subtle about it, it’s very deliberate in the book in the way that he narrates as Coriolanus through the entire thing, but narrates the final chapter as Snow. It’s as clear as a marker flag, the way she says, ‘this is him crossing the line of no return’. Your sympathy for him in the book doesn’t come from him being sexy or charismatic, because you’re in his head and he’s an absolute disaster honestly. His internal monologue is basically just panicked screaming. The urge to root for him comes from the fact that Collins introduces him to us as a scared teenager, a kid. He’s not necessarily a great person, but it’s not yet in a ‘set to become a fascist dictator way’ it’s just in the way that a great deal of seventeen year olds are. There were so many times in reading the book that I laughed a loud because he was SUCH a teenager in his reaction to things. There isn’t any point to having a book with a character who was poised to be evil from the start, the whole point is watching what he becomes, it’s ‘be careful how you treat the children of the world now, they grow up to run the world, and who they are is shaped by who is kind to them and who isn’t’. Casca Highbottom didn’t see Coriolanus Snow for who he was from the start, he saw an adult who had wronged people in a child and mistreated the child according to his beliefs, and in doing so opened the doors for that child to become exactly what he feared and worse.

The whole point is that they’re kids, the whole point of all four books, they were all just children to begin with, some more similar than others but they all ended up in completely different places and who they ended up with wasn’t the same as the people they had been most alike when they were young. The point is that you can’t look at a child and decide they are more or less likely to be the world’s next great monster just because of their personality traits or how they see the world or who they’re friends with. Children are blank slates for adults to write on, and then they have to take all that writing and make a book of who they are out of it someday, and they might be the ones to make that book in the end, but it matters what you write. It matters when you give them kindness, or when you hurt them, it matters when you leave them to fend for themselves too young, it matters when you give them everything they could ever want and teach them that it’s not precious to have things and that they should always get them and that others shouldn’t and that it’s nothing less than what they deserve, it matters whether you starve them, or you bomb them, because whatever they make of themselves they make with the words that you write on that slate, and even though they might be able to turn it into anything if they want to, it’s far easier to write a horror story with violence than it is to write a gentle poem.

So they are all meant to mirror each other, every one of them, to show different roads taken with circumstances similar and different.

To show you two blonde boys who could part seas with the way their words affect people, and ask you to look at them when they are five years old, or ten, or fifteen, nameless, without context, just pretty boys with prettier words in their mouths, and ask you: which one will be the monster?

[the-likeable-wizard-mack]

In urban fantasy can you tell us about the hybrid children. And more about siblings hexing each other

Modern Fantasy Monsters: Hybrid Children/ Sibling Dynamics  

I don't know what you mean by hybrid children...unless you mean something like half-elves and or half-orcs or half... whatever race then I have a few headcanons on that! Sorry if this isn't as good as the other Modern Fantasy Monsters that I've done in the past but I hope you like it anon.

This is only a headcannon but, I believe that it’s a completely random chance for hybrid children and what they’ll get from their more fantastical parents. The only reason why I would think there will be a solid chance of that child having some more fantastical traits than most children is if the other parent is a different race than human or maybe born with magic or have magic then there might be a more likely chance that they will have more fantastical traits. Magical Punnett Squares can be confusing sometimes for some folks with how many traits are passed down from parent to child.

Half-elves who are self conscious about their ears. Their ears are not as long and graceful as elf ears that elves seem to take pride in. But, also their ears are pointy and not human like at all. So they get the worst of both worlds with how they look. They often feel like an outsider in both worlds.

Twins who’s magic intertwined with each other rather than opposed each other. They fight together against others in perfect sync. (I.e One twin having ice magic and another having water magic and both work together)

Half Vampires who have some traits of a vampire (i.e can transform or have fangs) but, instead of burning in the sunlight they just get a REALLY bad sunburn. Sunblock is way more effective for half vampires than full vampires.

Half Orcs who have to wear special braces due to the fact that their tusks come in at awkward angles. Some Half-Orcs tusks are either so small that it’s barely noticeable to regular teeth or they’re noticeable being a bit of a nuisance to the half orc due to not being able to have the correct mouth size to fit the tusk.

A human couple who encounter a fae who challenges them to a game to figure out if their baby is real or a changeling showing two identical babies side by side. Instead of choosing the couple just take both babies much to the fae’s confusion and raise them alongside each other as twins. They wanted to give the changeling a loving home and an amazing brother to grow up alongside them. 

Half-Dragon (Not Dragonborns) who have to deal with scales growing on their skin sometimes. The scales are harmless but can cause some irritation if not taken care of properly. Some half-dragons decide to keep their scales rather than pull them off maintaining their scales like a dragon would. Though not similar to dragonborns (Dragonborns are fully reptilian while Half-dragons are humans with some dragon heritage) they have some similarities depending on the dragon that’s their parent (i.e have the ability to breathe fire (Red Dragon).

[dragonflight203]

Mass Effect 3, Omega DLC:

-This DLC is fairly meh for me. It has many interesting concepts, but it primarily plays out as a long extended corridor shooter. That gets old fast.

That’s disappointing as Omega in ME2 adds a lot of flavor and lore to the Mass Effect universe. I would have loved to have seen more of that in the DLC.

Instead, you mostly just shoot your way through environments that are slightly different than the main game. There’s barely any additional world building.

-The excuse to have Shepard leave their squad mates behind is weak.

Aria has objections to them? Really? Aria, the queen of Omega has objections to what – a couple of Alliance soldiers, a turian ex-vigilante, an AI, the Shadow Broker (everyone else knows, I’m sure Aria does), and possibly a quarian Admiral?

Given the forces she’s up against, she should be insisting that they all tag along.

-I think one of the reasons Aria insisted Shepard come with her was for the psychological factor. It’d be a huge boost to the morale of the Omega people to know that Shepard had come to free them.

However, it’s hard to say for sure because after showing off Shepard to Petrovsky that angle is dropped. You’d think Aria would make a bigger deal of mentioning Shepard, say, in her speech to the Omega people about half way through the game.

-I do love how Aria is dead set on taking the station back or die trying. Her initial plan was to crash into it!

-Look, the upgraded defenses suck now but you’ll appreciate them once they’re yours.

-Why does Batarian State Arms have a shop on Omega? Given it’s a lawless station in the Terminus Systems, seems an odd location for a branch.

-Shepard asking about the rendezvous point and Aria answering is one of the most difficult parts of the DLC to swallow. Both are incredibly stupid. They must have known it was possible they were under surveillance.

If Aria had just kept quiet, a good chunk of the fighting could have been avoided.

-The game just throws medi-gel at you during this entire DLC. I gained multiple levels, and I credit at least one or two of those to the medi-gel alone.

-And here we see Cerberus’ human supremacist beliefs in full color. Nonhumans must be supervised, armed nonhumans will be shot on sight… Lovely.

The game keeps insisting Petrovsky has a code and is honorable, but I’m not seeing too many redeeming factors.

-Ugh. I’m not a fan of the female turian design. Why are their eyes shaped differently? Why is there skin around their eyes? Why doesn’t their crest cover their head? The crest serves a functional purpose on turians. It protects them them from the sun. It should be the same on males and females. The eyes are sunk into the crest to protect them.

For my sanity I assume this is a result of turians being dispersed across colony worlds for so long and crests can vary greatly across males and females.

As for the eyes… Ugh.

I suppose I should be grateful that the Bioware didn’t give them breasts. Bare minimum.

-That said, I do love Nyreen herself. She’s a fantastic character and it’s a shame she does not survive the DLC.

-Aria and Nyreen must have been very, very close for Aria to show her so many of her secrets.

Perhaps since Nyreen “oozes virtue” Aria felt she could be trusted with them.

-And Nyreen stayed behind even after they broke up, and managed to slip under Aria’s radar. Very impressive.

-I love the injured Talons. They remind me a lot of cats with the way they curl in on themselves.

For giant clawed birds they’re surprisingly cute.

-What’s up with the face paint on so many of the turian Talons?

Turian face paint is supposed to colony markings. However, many have paint that looks similar to the Talons symbol.

I suppose it’s possible that some take on gang markings to symbolize that they’ve abandoned loyalty to their world and belong to their gang now.

Very odd thing for Nyreen to do, however. And you’d think if her paint had changed that Aria would remark on it.

-The Talons include humans as well. Good. Hopefully in the future Omega will remember that not all humans were with Cerberus.

-I quite like the gun salute Talons do to Nyreen. Is that the only time the game features it?

-Aria’s midgame speech is okay. Not great, not awful.

Kirrahe’s hold the line speech was better.

-Aria’s a cynic, but she seems to want to believe in a better world. Why else would she have grown so close to Nyreen?

And while she bitches, she listens to a paragon Shepard.

-Nyreen says that when her biotics manifested she was practically locked away.

I’d love to know more about turian biotics. The game mentions that they’re isolated from other turians; I bet they have a very interesting subculture.

Such subcultures are often insular. How well do late developing biotics integrate into it? Is that one of the reasons Nyreen became so frustrated?

-Aria says the war will start when the force field comes down. Nyreen says the war started months ago.

Well, that’s probably the closes ME3 will ever come to giving us a time frame. The war takes at least a few months.

-Aria’s willing to sacrifice multiple wards to bring the force fields down. Not surprising, but disappointing.

Petrovsky attempts to use this to persuade me that Aria shouldn’t be in charge, but given the whole “human supremacy” agenda he has he can go fuck himself.

At least Aria’s equally shitty to everyone.

-I hate disabling the bombs. Easily the hardest part of the DLC.

And given my game crashed on the first attempt, it apparently agrees.

-Aaand we learn that Cerberus has been converting people into adjutants with control implants so they can create an army of them. Because of course they have. Cerberus loves trying to control monsters.

Petrovsky has a code, my ass.

-And what is with adjutants being able to convert any being into another adjutant via a virus?

The game just glosses over this, but that sounds very important.

It’s definitely Reaper adjacent, at least. It reminds me of the virus the Collectors spread on Omega.

-There’s a turian labeled as a “civilian” in full armor.

Did the team that created the Omega DLC just not have access to the casual wear assets for turians?

-The mad prophet is a nice call back.

I’d have loved to have seen the Patriarch, too. He should have been leading his own resistance cell.

-Nyreen dying is a damn shame. Excellently done, but I’d have preferred if she lived. She provided a nice balance to Aria.

-In the final battle, the Afterlife doors opened at some point. I charged through them to kill the enemy and the doors closed behind me. Couldn’t reopen them.

Bizarre bug I’ve never heard of before.

Game didn’t even crash. I had to reload my last save.

-If Petrovsky weren’t such a smug bastard, I’d let him live.

As it is, bastard’s dead.

You shouldn’t experiment on people.

-Aria’s ending speech is much better than the mid game speech.

Especially the last line – “We are Omega”.

Very good contrast to her ME2 line “I am Omega”.

[filmmakerdreamst]

How Jack Thorne's 'His Dark Materials' wanted it both ways

Despite the cast and crews open love for the novels, and the insistent diligence to stay as faithful to the source material as possible — even trying to fill in many of the gaps in the books, as seen in all three seasons of the show — the BBC adaptation never manages to capture the spirit (the only time I felt like it did was in the third season) because of the fact that every character is altered and changed. Not just adaptationally changed either like making a character dumber, softer or harder. They’re completely different characters, separated from the source material e.g. Mrs Coulter is changed from a seductive, calm character to a feral, suicidal character. I must admit, I did like the expanded self harm element that she causes her daemon. However I felt in the novel, if she were to harm her monkey, it would be ‘to keep her lust for power at bay’ rather than shame for herself.

The atmosphere was off yet the events were similar and the complete opposite at the same time. But you can’t have similar events play out with different characterisations, at least not with ‘His Dark Materials’.

Philip Pullman’s characters in ‘His Dark Materials’ are extremely charismatic, but to put it lightly, are not very palatable to say the least. As stated in @clarabosswald’s analysis, there seemed to be this weird need to make EVERY single character digestible or palatable in some way or another in the BBC adaptation, regardless of it making sense or not. I noticed this upon my re-read of ‘The Northern Lights’ that they even humanised the doctor that sexually assaulted Lyra by grabbing Pantalaimon, which was very troubling.

Now with the opposing ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ film, they changed the characterisations to make them more sympathetic and accessible to a contemporary audience. They even dug deeper with the character Edmund which I thought was a fantastic choice. But the reason why those character changes worked was because C.S.Lewis was not concerned with building character, he was much more concerned with the place of Narnia itself. He almost used his characters to explore the world of Narnia, e.g. some characters would leave one book and come back 5 books later — which is why some of the later adaptations of Narnia didn’t do as well in the box office as the first one.

The character changes in that film enriched the story without effecting it in a way, because ‘The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe’ and the other books are driven by the plot. Where as ‘His Dark Materials’ is primarily driven by characters.

Philip Pullman in total contrast to C.S.Lewis, built the world (you could say he used the world) around the characters in order for them to get to Point A to Point B. But he was not concerned about exploring the multiverse so you could see the entire picture, like with C.S. Lewis.

I heard once that he described writing as wondering through a forest on a path and the path is your story. Theres a difference between the story world and the storyline. And as an Author, your concern is the storyline. It would be easy to step away and stray from the path and explore the forest and admire all the trees, but for him the most important thing to do was to remain on the path and focus on the story rather than the details along the way.

I’m not apposed to different versions of the characters or different storylines. But with ‘His Dark Materials’, those books are driven by specific character traits. And the fact that they changed them, while still being faithful to the events in the story, the story beats either don’t land or don’t hit as hard or don’t make sense altogether.

More specifically with the main characters Lyra and Will, but mostly Lyra since she’s the heart of the story.

Lyra is first and fourmost a liar, which may seem a small part of her character but its huge. Her ability to lie and get her way out of situations is the cause of many events in the books. She’s feral. She’s wild. She’s manipulative. She’s described as a ‘half wild cat’ and a ‘greedy little savage’. She can’t sit still or behave herself. She’s impulsive. She’s a leader. She gets into fights. She gets dirty. She spends all her nights on the rooftops. She’s an extrovert. She’s street smart. She’s selfish. She’s brave.

She’s an emotional and passionate human being. Thats what makes Lyra a real girl, not just a character on the page. These nuanced character traits of hers is how she pushes everything forward in the story.

All of those negative/positive aspects of her character in the books were watered down so much in the series. To the point where alot of them were removed. Not only is that incredibly dehumanising but makes the plot points where “she lies” not land as well or plot points revolving around her “telling the truth” make no sense at all.

The whole reason why she’s called Lyra Silvertongue is because she tricked the bear king with her lies, a trait which is consistent throughout the entire story — but completely nonexistent throughout the show. Her tricking the bear king in the adaptation came off as a lucky experience rather something that comes naturally to her. Even the ironic plot point of her being given the Alethiometer “a device that tells her the truth” didn’t hit as hard. They tried to establish her as a ‘liar’ in the second episode of season one then gave up completely as the show continued on.

But the weird thing is, those flaws were still mentioned by other characters in the show, when it was not the character they were developing. Characters would mention that she’s a liar, insufferable, selfish or that ‘she doesn’t apologise easily’ — which seemed like an over exaggeration since the show version of her isn’t really any of those things. This applied when characters such as Lee praised her for being ‘brave’ and ‘good’. I heard a HDM podcast recapping season 2 saying that “her character in the show wasn’t hitting the right emotional beats” to be a child of a great destiny that every character seemingly falls over themselves to give their lives for her.

TV Lyra hasn’t completely lost her flaws, but she’s not as nearly as flawed as she was in the books. She felt so contained, rather than passionate. Which felt so odd because yes, Lyra grows out of some bad traits such as her rudeness, due to the influence of Will. But she isn’t naturally like that.

They changed her so much, but also tried to keep her “the same” that her character growth which is huge in the books felt like nothing had moved at all. It kind of got reduced to a simple thing like her innocence being taken away. It was like she wasn’t allowed to have any sort of loud, dislikable reaction in any way. It felt like they were taking away her agency.

And I know one of the biggest reasons why they changed her behaviour in the TV Show is because they aged the character up to 14–16 at the start. I get it. Theres a huge difference between 12 and 14 in terms of maturity . It works for the Will & Lyra romantic scenes as an adaptational choice later in the story (because she’s allegedly 12–13 in the books).

I think Dafne Keen was an inspired choice for the role of Lyra, since I saw some scenes of her in ‘Logan’ and I 100% believe she would of pulled off Book Lyra given the chance, but by the time they started filming she was already 13/14. And in all honesty, Lyra just becomes odd looking older. She’s just not convincing as a misbehaving little girl who can’t sit still, she just comes off as a really strange child thats immature or lacking in social skills. For example, there’s a scene between Mrs Coulter and Lyra in ‘The Idea of North’ where she’s telling a lie, but it doesn’t come off natural because 1. They didn’t establish her as a liar immediately and 2. Part of her ability to lie comes from her spontaneous nature of being a kid telling stories and using her imagination. Dafne Keen didn’t really look that age, for it to look like something she would do.

They also made her relationship with Roger more of a focus in the show, which makes sense as her motivation in the later half of the books comes from wanting to rescue him. However, they made him ‘the only friend that she has’ which I found to be a strange decision because Lyra in the books has tuns of friends. I would say their friendship is more balanced in the series, where as in the book it wasn’t so much.

She forgets him a few times while staying with Mrs Coulter in the book where as she remembers him constantly in the episode ‘The Idea of North’ which felt like a confused choice to me. They were trying to have it both ways; have her be seduced by Mrs Coulter while also actively asking her to look for Roger.

The imbalance in Roger and Lyra’s friendship is important because it adds to the need to set things right with him in The Land of the Dead. It goes to the core of how everyone thinks she is selfish. She needs to save Roger to prove to herself she’s a good person.

In the dreams she has of him in The Land of the Dead, her and Roger have constant talks of how much he’s suffering. In the show, she just has alot of ambiguous flash forward dreams of Roger, with the story not prioritising them as important as the main plot of ‘Asriel’s War’.

When she brings this up to Will in the episode, he dismisses it instead of agreeing to go (like in the book) because of his daddy issues, no I’m sorry, because of Asriel’s War which makes sense as it’s one of the main plots in the season — where it was more of a distracting B plot in the book — but it just kind of adds to the idea that “its unnecessary” or “why are they doing this?”.

The desire to get to Roger and apologise in the show doesn’t hit as hard because there was more of a balance in Lyra and Rogers relationship plus the changes to her character just made it seem like “she just wanted to do it” rather than it being the most important decision she ever makes, to try to better herself.

While they go to the suburbs of the dead, Will and Pan constantly question why she’s doing this (a conflict that was not in the book — Will is steadfastly loyal to her by this point and Pan is too shivery to speak) while Lyra just snaps at them, making her seem mean for no reason. When she has a chat with her death, she doesn’t lie that an angel told her to do it (because they didn’t establish her as a liar properly), she just says that she wants to be good which is not a convincing argument considering what happens next.

When Pan and her have the argument while she leaves him on the doc, which is a great scene on its own (it made me cry), it also adds to the unnecessary nature of it all. It’s a scene that makes sense in the book because of Lyra’s impulsive nature, but because of her seemingly calculative nature in the show, it just looks odd. It’s described in the book that if Lyra had heard Pan speak, she would have folded and never would of got on the boat, but since the show did the complete opposite of that, It makes the scene more harsh and cold.

I think what the writers were trying to do was make it more of a mystery like ‘why is she doing this’ ‘its not too late to turn around’ a mission that appears fruitless at first, but turns out to be the greatest act of humanity — but again, I still don’t think that works because of how much Lyra’s entire character is changed. The act is not just for everyone else. It’s a major step in her character growth, to care about others.

In the Land of the Dead, obviously they had to cut out the whole section where Lyra literally looses her ability to lie while she’s telling lies to the harpies, then learns to tell the truth to the dead. This is the final step for Lyra’s character, finally learning the power of telling the truth instead of lies. They didn’t replace that with anything, only with her telling the dead true stories, which was heartwarming on its own, but obviously those story beats don’t hit as hard in the same way because like I said, its not presented as the final step in her character growth, its presented as a one off scene. This is one of the reasons why her character is pretty static in the adaptation.

In the Land of the Dead, its Lyra for the most part (apart from one instance) that keeps a cool head, while Will looses his — which again, the complete opposite. In the books, its Lyra that goes off the rails and its Will that keeps her centred.

Which brings me onto how the character of Will is changed in the adaptation, and how that effects the story from the second book onwards.

Will was brought in by Philip Pullman in ‘The Subtle Knife’, to represent Lyra’s other half — in another parallel universe literally, and also to help her on her quest to fulfil the prophecy. If it was just her on her own with Pan, it wouldn’t work and would fail.

Though I was taken aback by his entrance in ‘The Subtle Knife’ — as it was such a jarring change coming from the suspenseful cliff hanger where Lyra walks into the new world after her best friend Roger got murdered — he quickly but surely became my favourite male literary character of all time.

I don’t have as a big of a problem with his character changes then I do with Lyra, because there were at least a few times in the show where he was allowed to act like ‘himself’. Amir Wilson was perfect casting as Will. It was like the character had just walked off the page it was that good. But all together, he’s a completely different character — which I can understand. Out of all the characters, I feel he’s the hardest to pin down and his development is done in a subtle and subconscious way.

Throughout the course of ‘The Subtle Knife’, he’s incredibly off putting as he’s mostly angry and tired and then he’s in pain because of his knife wound. It works in a book format, because your’e in his point of view and you understand that he’s a child thats at the end of his tether. But it would be hard to portray that in a nuanced way on screen, unless your’e clever with it.

They unfortunately took the easy route with his characterisation on screen by making him softer. Not only that, the writing for his character was incredibly inconsistent at times.

Will from the books is fierce. He’s frightening. He’s stoic. He gets angry. He’s a strategist. He does whats best for someone. He likes to stay invisible. He’s sarcastic. He's an introvert. He likes to stay hidden. He’s practical. He’s a child carer. He's naturally aggressive e.g. He beat up a bunch of boys at school because they were hurting his mother. He hardly smiles. At times, especially in the second book, he becomes incredibly depressed. He's pretty much a 35 year old man in a young boy's body. He’s incredibly soft, but the reader can’t tell until Lyra brings that out in him.

I would say Will is a more contained version of Lyra, yet the complete opposite of her. They’re like yin and yang. They both have something that the other lacks, and that helps them both grow up. Lyra brings out a softness out in him, brings out his impulsive nature where as he helps her strategise and learn not to just rush out and do things.

TV Will suffers from the same problem that TV Lyra does.

Every negative/positive aspect about him is watered down. Revealing a quite mild character. I feel that they didn’t touch on the fact that he was a child carer enough, which is a huge part of his character. It just came off as ‘he loves his mum’ more in the show. Will being a caterer is supposed to contrast Lyra whom didn’t grow up with parents and got to live out a childhood that he was never allowed to experience. This is a theme. Every character trait that contrasts Lyra in the books isn’t present so much. I would even go as far to say that they’re too similar in the TV Show.

I was wondering throughout the second season why the storyline was static and wasn’t going anywhere. Certain plot points such as Will being a murderer, Lyra helping Will find his father, The fight for the subtle knife and Will becoming the bearer of the Subtle Knife felt tacked on or weren’t hitting as hard as they should.

At first, I thought it was because the novel was ‘the weakest in the trilogy’. I often see ‘The Subtle Knife’ as a bridge between both ‘Northern Lights’ and ‘The Amber Spyglass’.

But since re-reading the book, I went ‘Oh my God, its because they changed Will’s character arc’.

TV Will, the more I think about it, does not suit becoming the bearer of the subtle knife. The only times we see him fighting is in the boxing ring. He expresses incredible regret over killing a man instead of brushing it off because he was protecting his mother. Even when he’s under threat, he says ‘I don’t want to hurt you’ He even has to be persuaded to fight. There’s even a moment in the show where he says “Maybe we’re better off not fixing the knife at all.” which kind of dismisses the practical nature of his character in the book. Plus the knife being a part of him, the same way as the Alethiometer is a part of Lyra. Even the remarks that Lyra makes about him being similar to Iorek the armoured Bear don't make as much sense, because of the fact that he's softer.

Book Will struggles with his warrior nature, and eventually learns thats not who he wants to be. But he isn’t naturally a soft person. He learns to be through his experiences and his relationship with Lyra. Which is why it was so odd to me that they included the line in the show where Will is saying to his father in the Land of the Dead “You told me that I was a warrior; That I can’t fight my nature. Your’e wrong.” I was just like, what are you talking about? That is so not the character the show had developed. TV Will had hardly been shown to fight anyone of his own free will — it didn’t make sense to me. They were trying to have it both ways. Completely ignoring his basic character traits and flaws, yet still going through the same arc (a somewhat watered down one) one e.g. idolising his dad for his whole life, realising his dad ain’t shit when he meets him, finding Lyra missing, ignoring the task his father set him etc.

Even the task that Lyra has to help Will find his father didn’t land as well because of the fact that the two of them were bonding straight away in the show, instead of it being like ‘oh no we’re stuck with each other’ to this slow process of her and Will learning to trust each other.

I understand that you have to translate Lyra and Will’s relationship alot differently in a Show format, because subconscious development doesn’t really work due to the lack of intimate point of views. The more something is changed in an adaptation, the more it stays the same.

I have openly praised the shows depiction of their relationship in another analysis I wrote (before i re-read the books) and how I loved how they gave them more soft moments. However, I will admit now that the soft moments that they had in season 2 felt off to me because they weren’t in character. I think, looking back I would of preferred more soft moments if they were in character.

Will’s initial softness towards Lyra in the show is partially to do with TV Lyra being much less feral and less of a threat. As a result their journey is warmer and far less angstier than it was in the books.

And that in turn messes with the tension.

The element of Will being slightly dismissive of her at the start, is important to how certain story beats land. It adds to the ‘OH SHIT’ when Lyra’s been taken and the task that his father set him that he’s been dreaming of his whole life suddenly isn’t important to him anymore. Thats why it’s such a big deal when he spends most of his time through ‘The Amber Spyglass’ looking for her.

But in the season 2 finale, it ends with Will going off into the sunset, presumably to fulfil is fathers wishes. Then in season 3, he finds her missing, goes ‘whoops’ and then there's a montage of him trying to find her. Then when he does (quite easily) — he goes on about how “since his dad died he’s done none of the things that he asked him to do’ which makes him looking for Lyra within the show feel even more anticlimactic.

Also, this is more of a personal opinion that an analytical one, I did not appreciate when Lyra brought up going to the Land of The Dead, TV Will went “I saved you. I did everything I could to save you. You told me not to but I did it anyway” which felt to me like ‘Wow brilliant, of course you had to save her’

And instead of agreeing to go to the Land of the Dead with her like in the book, they had to insert some tension from 'The Subtle Knife' (because they messed with the tension in season 2) and have Will go on a rant about what his dad wanted him to do, Asriel’s war, dismissing Lyra’s wishes and even having him suggest maybe her dad regretted killing her friend.

This is something that Will from the books would never ever say, let alone to the girl that he loves. He's fully aware how much her dad hurt her and he respects her too much by that point to ever suggest something like that. Even when he does think about ‘what his dad wanted him to do’ he’s still steadfastly loyal to Lyra. They were completely undermining the turning point in their relationship and Will’s character development by adding pointless drama to extend the episodes running time.

As mentioned in a very articulate post by @mamsellechosette24601 ‘the quest to find his father and fulfil his fathers wishes’ isn’t the point at all, its Will letting go of his childhood dreams, of realising what really matters is Lyra all along.

Now I’ve seen in another analysis of the adaptation that their path to falling in love in the show is alot clearer than in the books which I can understand and agree with (to a certain extent) because the books were much more concerned with philosophy than romance. This is true for the romance between Asriel and Marisa in the Book vs the TV Show as well.

The concept behind their relationship remains the same:

“Will and Lyra are very good people who learn to trust each other when they’re at their most vulnerable, they become the only thing they have in a terrifying world of enemies. By the end, when they realise they’re in love only to discover they can never be together, they make the mature choice, however hard it may be.”

But their relationship is totally different in the TV Show because of their character changes.

I would say Lyra and Will have more of a enemies to lovers storyline in the books - where as the adaptation version of them doesn't. The screenwriters clearly tried to iron out alot of the problematic elements, especially in the beginning and focus on them being "friends" more. I'm not apposed to them doing that, but the way they did it ended up muting a few of their scenes together.

I’ve actually made an argument in my other account (against the ‘His Dark Materials’ analysis saying that ‘the adaptation did a much better job at showing when Will and Lyra fell in love’) that their relationship development was a lot subtler in the books because the characters were alot younger and more immature. And that it was more ‘obvious’ in the tv show because they aged the characters up, therefore they could have more mature conversations and scenes together.

This was before I did my re-read.

After re-reading ‘The Subtle Knife’ and ‘The Amber Spyglass’ comparing it with how their relationship is handled in the TV Adaptation. I would actually argue the opposite .

In some ways, the growing romance between the two of them is much more mature (and makes more sense) in the books than in the show, at least to me. Unlike in the TV Show, their relationship never enters into neutral territory, even when they finally learn to trust each other. Theres much less emphasis on their ‘friendship’.

After their brutal first meeting — where they attack eachother — in ‘The Subtle Knife’ Lyra is immediately taken with Will and constantly thinks about him and what he thinks of her. There’s even a moment in ‘The Amber Spyglass’ where she’s trying to hide that she’s in pain while they’re walking (because of all that time she’s been asleep) because she doesn’t want to appear weak in front of him.

The way Lyra and Will meet in the show, is reminiscent of how children meet for the first time. Though quite skeptical of each other, they instantly bond and make friends after 5 seconds, because why wouldn’t they? They’re kids the same age after all. Even though there’s still an element of mistrust there, there’s hardly any conflict between them. They don’t play off each other as much. There is one moment where he gets angry at her for making him wait, but all that is solved in a minute because of Lyra’s ‘calm nature’

Even when Lyra gives Will away by accident and says that she lost the Alethiometer, he doesn’t shout at her. There are few comments here and there but theres no real tension between the two of them.

When Will and Pan have a conversation, its presented as Pan going up to him to have a chat after he had a bad dream rather than Will finding the courage to speak to him in the book and saying ‘I think Lyra’s the best friend I’ve ever had’. This is presented more as a statement in the show because their friendship has already been established and less of a discovery (as he wasn’t reacting to her that much in the book as he had alot on his mind).

Lyra and Will even have a talk about Pan’s conversation with him afterwards in the show. But in the book, that never happened. It’s mentioned later but never discussed, because of the fact that it was a private conversation between Will and Pan.

You could say this was another problem that the adaptation had. It’s mentioned multiple times ‘YOU CAN’T TOUCH SOMEONES DAEMON’ but not emphasised why thats the case.

In the books, it’s heavily implied that touching someone else’s daemon is the equivalent of touching someone’s genitals. There’s a moment in ‘Northern Lights’ where Lyra and Iorek find Tony in the fish house without a daemon and Pan wants to comfort him but holds back because of the taboo. Thats why it’s such a big deal when Pan comforts Will and starts licking him in the book.

In the show, its quite an underwhelming scene that lasts 5 seconds where Pan strokes Wills fingers and Lyra says in a quiet voice ‘In my world, your’e not supposed to touch someone else’s daemon but you didn’t do something wrong’

And don’t get me started on the 5 second panning away shot where they’re finally touching each others daemons, instead of the moving moment from the book. It didn’t feel like they really understood the gravity of what those scenes meant and what it meant for their connection.

Again, this is more of a personal opinion. Near the end of the final book, when they enter the world of the Mulefa, Lyra and Will trust each other more than they ever have, which shows how much they’ve both grown since ‘The Subtle Knife’. Mary even describes that she never saw ‘more trust on a persons face’. But in the show, there’s this weird forced tension between them for the sake of ‘romance’. They’re suddenly awkward teenagers with each other — which was not a choice that I liked because it didn’t come naturally.

And when they have to be ripped from each other, a whole page worth of them bargaining to be together is turned into ‘I didn’t think it was possible to feel this bad.’ and ‘This is all wrong’, plus Mary and Serafina being weirdly insensitive while Will and Lyra are in different locations rather than being with each other.

This is possibly why I didn’t feel anything when they had to be forced apart because, the way it was handled felt rushed and soulless.

Overall, despite there being more ‘soft moments between the two of them’ Show Lyra and Will’s connection feels alot more shallow and simplified.

In the books, I got the vibe that even though they were very young, you couldn’t imagine them being with anyone else but with each other. They were each others other half. They were essentially the only family they had in a world full of enemies. There was never a moment in the books, where they weren’t already in love with each other to some degree. It went beyond the typical romantic duality.

In the show, it felt more temporary. This is mostly due to their character changes (they were too similar in my opinion). Like a connection between friends that became romantic at the end of the journey. And it’s something they’ll get over because “It won’t always feel like this” or “Its much more romantic to live for love than to die for it” or “It might not seem like it now but you have a future”

I think that was one of my main problems with the TV Show, it lacked emotion. Not just as an adaptation, but in general.

More than anything, the adaptation felt too confused. It was trying to reimagine the story while also paying homage to the original material. And thats why overall — despite my enjoyment for some of the episodes especially in season 3 — it didn’t work as well as it should have.

[gayemeralds]

thoughts on sonic’s rivals and sega’s usage of them

knuckles: has been relegated to a very friendly rival. sonic and him are not fighting near as much as they used to. i think sega could benefit from making knuckles a bit more antagonizing, at least in regards to when angel island is in danger, but otherwise after all these adventures together it doesn’t REALLY make sense for knuckles to actively be an antagonistic force. so i don’t think knuckles should be classified as a rival anymore really. that said knuckles is also a character that should be used in specific circumstances- as in he should really only be in games when the master emerald is relavent (ie, missing). so knuckles should be limited based on that alone, but his friendship with sonic has also impacted his “rivalry”. all that to say knuckles isnt really a rival anymore and he shouldn’t be used often as an antagonistic force given that he’s already been tricked 100 times and has spent the past 30 years with sonic.

metal sonic: honestly when sega wants “antagonistic force for no real good reason” metal sonic should be the first thing to pop up. he’s a great rival for both racing and actual boss fights. sega just needs to use him more he’s a great foil to sonic, he has no limitations on his personality or circumstance, so he should be an active, repeated rival in the sonic games but for some reason he keeps getting ignored

shadow: complicated feelings on him. shadow can’t act like his sa2 self which is what sega tends to want from him. shadow should be more of an ally to sonic than an outright antagonistic force given that shadow also wants to save humanity. the only source of conflict that works is when sonic and shadow have different opinions on what “saving” means. sonic battle is a great example of this. so shadow can be a rival but it has to be done well and meaningfully. additionally shadow’s a pretty powerhouse character so im inclined to think he shouldn’t be involved in games unless eggman is trying to like, blow up the planet again.

blaze: blaze went through a character arc and isn’t really a rival to sonic anymore. she’s a bit like knuckles in that they’re too friendly to actually be antagonistic to each other, unless there was some sort of misunderstanding; but again, blaze has worked with him enough to know that sonic’s a good guy here to help. so blaze is a great friend but she’s not really a “rival” anymore. that said she’s also severely limited in appearances since she lived in another dimension; as such she should only appear when a game threatens her dimension/emeralds.

jet: jets a pretty solid character that should still be reoccurring. like he’s a fantastic option for a racing rival, if sega makes more racing games. why the fuck he isn’t in any racing games after sonic riders series is beyond me. but i think jet works best as a racing rival so i can’t see him being used as a boss fight or anything. anyway sega should use him more but specifically for racing games

silver: kind of not a rival any more either? he would probably only fight sonic again based on a misunderstanding but again, he’s fought with sonic long enough by now that he knows sonic isn’t going to actively try to destroy the world. his motivation is probably similar to shadow; sonic and him will agree to save the world, but might disagree on how, and that can cause conflict. that said silver’s more of an ally now than a true antagonistic force. plus he’s from the future so his appearances should be limited to only immensely severe threats.

bonus- mighty (& ray): honestly they’re not really rivals. they work a lot better as friends. plus mighty is limited to the classic games at this point and if they did bring him to modern games, he should be a friend. he honestly doesn’t have any major conflicts with sonic.

bonus- fang the sniper: again, only in classic games. honestly i don’t think he’s interesting enough to be a reoccurring rival in the main games. he’d be fine for side missions or one off boss fights but he wouldn’t be interesting for being a full on antagonistic rival

[dreemurr-skelememer]

Question for u— what do u think of fanon and canon dream? Do u think they’re two completely different characters as well as one or the other is mischaracterized more? I read ur opinion on ink and I agree and as a dream sans stan I gotta know

this is one of those instances where i........don't exactly enjoy both? LOL

a lot of dreamtale chapter 1 is good! the concept is fantastic but that's the most of what i enjoy about canon dreamtale and dream. like that's it

fanon dream, on the other hand, have a lot of problems that's similar to fanon papyrus and fanon blue (swap sans) so i don't exactly mind it but i don't enjoy it either

i've always been annoying (apologies to everyone who had to deal with my dreamtale "takes" at age 16. i know some of yall DETEST me because of my terrible "takes" then) about writing my own interpretation of dream and dreamtale LOL

but here's the kicker.

i don't think they're two different characters at all. i think canon dream is the same as fanon dream because i think canon dream was influenced by fanon and totally tainted him forever

if you think papyrus or blue is infantilized, god you are lucky because at least they're not canonly infantilized.

i have gripes with both canon and fanon but they share many traits and the infantilization is definitely one of them.

i think that's why i constantly just. analyze dream as tired and jaded and a bit of an asshole who wants to be the good he should be (along with a walking anxious white knight machine) because in canon he IS a hero but also for some reason the damsel in distress and also a itty bitty wittol baby???? there's a lot going on.

THOUGH. HERE'S ANOTHER KICKER.

i think fanon has two dream categories. crazy, i know.

one category is feminizing him (in very much an insulting and degrading way) and the second category is just making him the biggest asshole on earth just to make nightmare look better and more justified in his anger and hatred.

I HAVE A LOT OF OPINIONS ABOUT THE SECOND CATEGORY. OHHH BOY DO I HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT THAT AND THE FLAT CHARACTER WRITING THAT COMES WITH IT.

that's all i have about this right now i think

[ginnsbaker]

OH MY GOD

I KNEW I NEVER LIKED DANNY FOR A REASON

The ending this guy i swear to god idk who leigh is gonna kill first reader or him or should i say “nick”

I was wondering in the flashback who this nick guy was that got a number for matt uno a married man

The kiss on the cheek the flowing conversation over breakfast all progress gone

I see the seeds being planted with the dog not gonna like i can see leigh with either a husky german shepherd or golden retriever. Golden retriever cos its the opposite to her and kind of mellows her out a little. Or husky because with how active they are they would make an excellent running companion they’re stubborn but loyal and very intelligent (basically leigh if she was a dog) and german shepherd for similar reasons. But i just have a soft spot for these breeds huskies in particular so its just me 😂

Im so mad at danny knowing full well matt was married ik he has feelings for Leigh so i wonder if it was sabotage for selfish reasons or maybe he thought it was the right thing to do cos matt wasn’t happy or something either way he is gonna get his ass kicked by one of these two or possibly both

Once again you did a fantastic job (you always do) leigh is not easy ti capture she’s incredibly complex she’s not even that likeable on paper shes angry and bitter and snarky but i think thats why i like her so much shes so different to any other portrayal of grief especially for a woman ive ever seen and she has so many good qualities that okay maybe don’t come across as much as the bad but id love to see how you deal with these like her sarcasm and snark can be genuinely funny she obviously loves very fiercely and cares about people she’s stubborn and not afraid to speak her mind and the list goes on

Thank you for writing these masterpieces and as always i look forward to the next one

-🧃

Re: dog breed - haha! yeah, i bet. she'll probably get one more after we give her the shih tzu and she'll go for a larger breed. for now, let me satisfy my need to write about shih tzus as an ode to my own dog who is my baby forever :)) I have a soft spot for retrievers and the bernese mountain dog, but i also love huskies! those goddamn beautiful eyes!

re: danny - ohhhh we're going to talk about that in the next chapter. of course it's a mixture of both. i won't say more but we'll definitely address that.

re: leigh - she can be really mean and she gets away with it because she's conventional pretty and she has this no-nonsense attitude that challenges you. she doesn't pretend to be nice because she doesn't care about what people think, or if people will like her, etc.

you're welcome! thank you (as always) for reading my works :) take care!

[aucatgirl]

why do you dislike d*dbastian? I'm not into it either, I just like their difficult employer-employee, predator-victim relationship as is (not s*bciel tho, i dislike it). also, I don't hate the father son parallels, I'm just sick of strict nuclear family dynamics to describe non-romantic relationships in fandoms😅

MY CALL WAS HEARD thank you anon I feel less alone. My reasons are pretty similar, I’ve been in fandom long enough that I’ve grown super weary of the trad family default that so many people seem to carry. And yea, when people refer to their dynamic as familial I’m mostly chill with it because 1) it’s been alluded to in canon (though largely dismissed by canon as well because it’s more complicated than that) 2) I’ll take that over seb*ciel any day of the week, lol

I saw someone mention that d*dbastian is basically the opposite way from seb*ciels to deal with the hints that Sebastian cares about Ciel and that makes me lol because it’s so true. But I think both camps take it a bit far in the attempts to categorize them. I’m personally of the opinion that Sebastian was “traumatized” (as much as a demon can be) by the Campania and that’s why he acts the way he does around Ciel these days, because outside of Ciel being in danger he still doesn’t seem to care about Ciel’s feelings any more than he did at the beginning of the manga, but maybe I’ll be proven wrong by the investigation, I don’t mind either way. Otherwise, Sebastian cares in a way that someone cares about the pig they’re raising to slaughter

Their dynamic is so complex and fascinating and it’s frustrating to see it lumped into strict categories by the majority of the fandom, whether it’s romantic or dad-son. It all feels OOC in different ways. It’s frustrating to see their very often eerie, unsettling dynamic ignored and/or flattened into “omg he’s being a dad” (I saw comments like that on s4’s ED and it’s like uh, no), and it’s simultaneously frustrating to see shippers act like you can’t fully enjoy the series unless you like the ship and it’s like blech, no thanks

I would argue that this extends to the whole Phantomhive servants too because I often see them lumped into traditional dynamics when the whole dynamic is automatically strange because Ciel is both a child and their employer. They love Sebastian like family and he is also their boss. I love found family servants as just that, found family. Their canon dynamic is fantastic, no notes. There’s no need to apply strict specific labels to each and every dynamic because every single one is complicated by their circumstances

[waywardsalt]

my grievances with botw

Breath of the Wild is... undeniably a fantastic game, but it is very genuinely not the kind of game I like, and since I started playing it I’ve been enjoying it less and less so... I have a pair of problems with it that I’d figure I’d go into, as well as some stuff that, while weak in botw, were executed better in past loz games.

(small shoutout to @zeldanamikaze for encouraging this and having some points that i agree with and had some examples that i hadn’t thought about much initially)

Again, Breath of the Wild is an objectively impressive game, and I’m not trying to sit here and convince you that it’s a bad game. I’m just trying to point out things that detracted from my enjoyment of it, especially compared to my enjoyment of other Zelda games.

Before I get into the big stuff, I’ll just shoot off some quick little things that I think could’ve been improved:

- The dungeons generally felt like glorified shrines, and while they had cool mechanics and ways to access them, they were short and more or less pretty simple and all have similar visual and musical identities.

- Side quests and their rewards didn’t feel worth doing half of the time. I barely remember any notable ones off the top of my head and the longer ones just gave mostly generic rewards, which I suppose makes sense considering the limited amount of truly unique items in botw.

- Seeing the same enemies over and over again made the combat feel more like a chore than something to really engage with, not to mention that there is hardly any difficulty scaling beyond just making the enemies more durable.

- The story is fine, but in my experience, even seeing people go into more detail about the meanings of events, I never really cared for the events or the characters presented, since you don’t actually have to directly interact with any of that to play the game. Hell, you don’t even need to interact with the story at all to beat it, so the focus certainly doesn’t feel like it’s on the story.

- It would be a lie to call the soundtrack bad, but it’s sparse usage makes it hard to truly appreciate and the fact that most of it is meant to be more atmospheric generally makes them a bit less interesting to listen to on their own, though I will admit there are some fantastic tracks in botw, usually being some of the boss themes.

- While the Sheikah slate runes are cool, they feel very bland after a while, especially compared to the varied items seen in previous games. They’re good tools for an open world, but not much fun otherwise (the bombs were good though, since they had a variety of uses).

And that’s the quick stuff- again, mostly courtesy of @zeldanamikaze, since these are the examples I’ve seen her mention.

I have two big points that kind of encapsulate why I dislike this game and still adore the older games, that being: the minigames and the items and their relationships to dungeons.

Breath of the Wild is a very different game than what came past it, and I am very aware that it is a vast departure from those other games for a reason. However, this leads me to view it not only simply as a game not up my alley, but also as kind of inferior in some aspect to those previous Zelda games. Breath of the World is first and foremost an open world game, seemingly putting a focus on gameplay enjoyment above all else (not to imply that the ‘else’ is bad because of this, but I do think that the ‘else’ suffers in comparison to other Zelda titles.)

It may also be worth mentioning that the other Zelda games I have played is the following: LoZ NES, Link’s Awakening (Original and Remake), Ocarina of Time, Majora’s Mask, Phantom Hourlgass, Skyward Sword, A Link Between Worlds, and Triforce Heroes. I have also played both hyrule warriors games as well as loz 2, wind waker, and minish cap, none of the latter 3 i have finished or currently have access to.

1: The Minigames

Minigames are common in Zelda games, so of course botw has a few scattered around it’s world. Botw’s minigames are very different than the minigames seen in past Zelda games, mostly due in part to the limited array of items and unique gameplay gimmicks available in botw. Botw’s minigames usually focus on different forms of archery, gliding, or rune usage: all things integral to normal gameplay. At best you get rupees or cosmetic items from most minigames.

Botw’s minigames are just slightly altered situations of normal gameplay. The bowling is just using stasis except this time the game has a special little arena for it. Pretty much all of the archery games are either just counting how many deer you can kill or if you can just hit some targets on horseback. There’s one race I can think of and one gliding activity I can think of.

This makes sense, considering that there are a handful of other non-minigame activities to engage in, but these minigames feel... hollow. None of the minigames feature gameplay exclusive to those minigames or feature gameplay only used in certain parts of the game. They all make use of readily available mechanics in botw, so they’re like tests of skill- but otherwise not really any worth giving a second-thought unless you want to see how good of a glider or archer you are or grab some extra rupees.

But they aren’t very... worth it or generally fun within the context of botw. It’s just another way to do something that is available to you pretty much all game. They don’t feel unique, they just feel like a task.

Previous Zelda games (obviously) have archery minigames and allow you to use archery when you get the bow and from that point onward. And yet the archery minigames are made unique from the rest of the archery in the game; ocarina of time’s archery minigame is simply just shooting at targets, but the possible rewards and the simple fact that not often are you going to be continuously shooting arrows at enemies make it a bit of a novel experience within oot. The minigames in past zelda games take advantage of the items and area-specific mechanics: they usually include item-exclusive mechanics like bombchu games, or take advantage of more specific mechanics, like the minecarts in skyward sword, the masks in majora’s mask, or being able to control gongoron in phantom hourglass.

They also gave genuine rewards- empty bottles, quest items, ship parts, new masks, heart containers or pieces, kinds of stuff that are hard to get and very valuable. They’re worth doing for reasons outside of just a little activity. The minigames in other Zelda games do really enhance the experience by taking advantage of situational mechanics or giving a unique usage for some items.

You can probably get every item in botw without playing all of the minigames. They have little actual purpose. But in other zelda games, they have a purpose in the greater game and provide novel experiences within the game.

2: Items and their relationships with the dungeons

Obviously, compared to past games, botw’s ‘dungeons’ kind of sucked. They’re fine in a vacuum, with interesting gimmicks and the like, but they’re really little more than glorified shrines with four different-but-similar bosses at the end.

In my opinion, one of reasons why the divine beasts just... fell flat compared to other zelda dungeons is the lack of unique items in general. The runes in botw are cool and useful but you get them at the start of the game and never get anything new. You are give every tool you need to beat all of the dungeons the moment you finish the tutorial.

Older zelda games’ dungeons being tied to their respective items is a big part- to me- of what makes those dungeons so good.

Obviously, the theming, musical themes, and larger layouts and more varied puzzles make them objectively better experiences, but the way they interact with item acquisition makes the whole thing even better. 

Even in a link between worlds, where you can get every item whenever you want from Ravio, each dungeon is still tied to one of those items, and one of those items is needed to successfully complete that dungeon.

The dungeons in past Zelda games are practically complex tutorials on how you can use your new items. They are where those items shine and they are designed so that those items are used to their fullest potential within. And then you must then use that item to defeat that dungeon’s boss, and you usually have no chance of beating that boss if you don’t make use of the dungeon’s associated item. It’s like a final test for the item, seeing if you know how it works enough to complete the dungeon and use it against a boss’s weaknesses.

The most recent example, and probably one of the best, is needing to use the whip to tear off koloktos’ arms in the ancient cistern, but the classic scenario of the bombs for king dodongo works well enough, and the bosses of majora’s mask requiring you to understand how the transformation masks work. There are definitely some bosses that require no use of dungeon items (moldorm in the tower of hera, either ghirahim fights), but the item’s usage is still showcased prominently in their dungeons.

Outside of the dungeons, too, the progressive acquisition of items makes more areas and secrets available to you, giving a much more palpable sense of progression through those games’ worlds.

In botw, you get every tool the moment you are released into the rest of hyrule, so while figuring out what to do with those tools can be fun, the sense of progression is dampened by having every item from the start and nothing you gain beyond that being needed for anything aside from a nice little ability to make things easier.

I’m not really too sure exactly why I never found botw fun the way everyone else does, but I think lackluster minigames and the general lack of items that aid a sense of progression are parts of it.

[hrokkall]

feel like you've probably gotten him from someone else already but I want to hear about p03 for the ask game

I got a couple of requests for this guy, hell yeah.

Favorite thing about them: I really like its voice bytes, they really add a lot to the delivery of its lines that would otherwise just read as ‘flat’. Also the Act 3 bounty hunters. The Scrybes are all so full of shit but that was really the icing on the cake. “I don’t care about lore and aesthetics; that’s Leshy’s thing and he doesn’t know anything about running a game. Anyway, here’s one of my post-apocalyptic cowboys that you’ll have to fight periodically—” come the fuck on.

I’m also a big fan of mustelids in general but listing that as a favorite feels too easy.

Least favorite thing about them: Again, not going to say “telling its workers to throw themselves on the line” because that’s too easy. Instead I’ll say I wish the build-a-card event let you type anything. Granted, that wouldn’t fit its character (it wants control above all else and wouldn’t want the player to have complete jurisdiction over their own custom card. That would be completely counter-productive) but having one fill-in-the-blank spot along with the other two word selections would’ve been funny.

Favorite line: P03 has a lot of fantastic lines but I don’t think there’s anything better than reacting to hearing the ins and outs of the malevolent, reality-bending force that lives below your world with:

brOTP: I can’t really see P03 having casual friends for a similar reason that I can’t see Magnificus having casual friends—whereas with Magnificus it’s because he doesn’t want anyone getting in the way, with P03 it’s because he’s extremely hellbent on having every ounce of control he can—I can’t see him being willing to repeatedly give anyone else his time even if it was on his own terms.

The one exception to this is Luke because of his role as a challenger—he has to give Luke his time both to enact the Great Transcendence and because… well… playing against a challenger is more or less the Scrybes’ entire purpose. Sure, he puts up a good facade about it, but even P03 cracks and admits that it was fun to play with him right at the very end. I like to think that, had the disk been found in different circumstances, P03 would have been to Luke similar to what Leshy was to Kaycee. Obviously in canon they never had the opportunity, but if P03 wasn’t so laser-focused on its goal I think it and Luke would’ve genuinely become friends eventually.

OTP: I’m going to just keep putting the other Scrybes for this every time I’m asked about one of them. They’re pretty much my only Inscryption ship and it’s because I think it makes everything worse. The Scrybes settle into their roles, initially as rivals, but slowly—very slowly—begin to put their differences aside and come together. Initially for the sake of the game—hybridizing cards, swapping strategies, running through their challenges to pave the way for their coveted challenger—but eventually for the sake of each other. They were alone on an abandoned cartridge with no way out and only each other as company. Whether romantically or not, of course they’re going to become closer with the only ones who share their plight. All equally deprived of their purpose, left to their own devices and hoping, desperately, that maybe—just maybe—they can find a new purpose in each other instead.

I want to know how fast it fell apart when they learned there was a way out—a way to make and unmake a world of their own fully-realized creation. Was it like a switch had been flicked as everyone descended upon the opportunity with progressively more desperation? Or like a slow spiral full of broken promises because they know what they’re doing is heinous but they have to have to have to just for the chance of feeling alive.

I want to see them use everything they’ve learned about the others to tear them apart at the seams.

…Anyway, changing topic because I could talk about Polycards for a while if left unchecked. (I still don’t know if that’s their name. That’s just what I’ve been calling them and I’m not about to stop).

nOTP: Apparently there’s a ship with P03 and Pike Mage? That goes here.

Random headcanon: P03, on the surface, seems to be the only Scrybe without any “supernatural” ability (i.e. Magnificus’s premonitions, Leshy’s telepathy, Grimora’s body moving of its own accord even when her mind was in the Stinkbug card) but I don’t think that’s entirely true. His ability just happens to be more subtle—he can mentally diagnose and correct any system errors without having to physically open them up or plug them into an external piece of hardware to find and correct the error. Granted, this only really applies with software bugs; if one of his bots loses a finger he can’t think about it really hard and a new one will appear (he would immediately know what part they need though, but that’s moreso because he was the one to build them). I doubt he even notices he’s able to do this, or he might just assume it’s one of his abilities as the Scrybe of Technology and the others are able to preform a similar action with their own underlings (needless to say, they can’t).

Unpopular opinion: I’d say “where do I start” but I’m not writing another long ass paragraph so I’ll just say I don’t really care about the Uberbots. I think their designs + concepts are cool but not much beyond that. I’ve seen a lot of AUs where people make them into completely different characters and give them fleshed-out roles… they’re just kind of P03’s OCs to me (with G0lly being a possible exception, but even then I can’t really see her as a separate character from P03).

Anyway TL;DR on the “where do I start” some of you guys let it off completely scott-free despite all of the Terrible Things it did. It’s just as bad as the other Scrybes, just in a different way (again, they’re all villains—that’s part of what makes them so interesting). I wish people would be a little more privy to that.

Song I associate with them: A lot of the songs I associate with P03 would require too much explanation so I’m skipping them and going for the easy answers instead. Mad IQs by IDKHOW for an outside perspective, Necessary Evil by the Dresden Dolls (honestly fits all four Scrybes—I associate it with P03 specifically because of the “are they men or are they Memorex?” line) and possibly Death of the Cog by The Cog is Dead if you want something more about the contrast between Leshy and P03’s play styles.

Favorite picture of them: I like its act 2 dialogue portrait, but specifically the dialogue portrait where its face changes to the Stoat’s (and the regular one too actually. I like the act 2 sprites a lot in general).

[ruewrites]

Hey! So recently found your AU “The next Gen” and I saw that you mention something about Magic babies if I’m not mistaken? Can you give us some input on what exactly they are, I’m imagining they’re well…babies made with magic, but are there any difference between them and well for a lack of a better word regular babies?

Anyways I really enjoy your Au’s have a good day/night!

(@leviathanswingman I am once again tagging in case I miss something or if you want to add in)

Hey Anon!

First off I'm super happy you're enjoying our AU enough to ask about it! It is something I think is fair to say we enjoy brainstorming for!

So, essentially magic babies are another way to conceive and have well... babies (we've decided that demons at the very least can do this). When we say magic babies, I suppose they can also go along the lines of emotion babies, so like similar to how Satan was born. So in short, even in the AU people don't know much about it (hence why Solomon and Asmo had no idea that Lilith was even a possibility). Out of all of the kids (so far) only Solomon and Asmo's kids are magic babies.

But what exactly does this mean?

The differences mainly stem from how they develop. A magic/emotion baby "pregnancy" isn't going to be like a normal one (you ain't gonna find these babies on an ultra sound). They are born from emotion and rely on magic as a huge part of their development from the parental unit they are using to form. During this period they can affect both parents, but especially the one they are using to develop.

Symptoms we have discussed thusfar can include the following:

Nausea stemming from magic use/outside magical influence

Moodiness

Exhaustion

Enhancement of one's sin

Clinginess/Increased attatchement to other parent(s) of child

Seeking out additional comfort from partner and/or surroundings

Additional scents/magic traces that may attract other demons

Aches and Pains (varying in severity)

Occasionally cravings can also occur

Using Solomon and Asmo's relationship as an example, there have been a few times we've tried to hit on this. Asmo clings to Solomon (more than usual), he doesn't like it when Solomon leaves for long periods of time (which also plays into how magic babies are born) and experiences bouts of exhaustion. With Lilith the symtoms were more mild for a multitude of reasons. Asmo was not in a fantastic spot mentally when she was conceived and Solomon did have things to do (wizardy man that he is) and a multitude of other reasons led her to being a bit premature. Now with Ariel symptoms are a bit stronger. We get to see Asmo's lust amplified, in both his sexuality but also via blood lust. He has issues with another demon thinking he uses his charming abilities as well as family members commenting on his perfume, both of which are baby symptoms, not Asmo's doing himself. This also ties in to some of the danger in child rearing in that it is entirely possible that other demons may seek them out to eat them. Magic babies are rare, but they can give a power boost if consumed (especially one born from a demon lord and a powerful sorcerer) (it should be noted that non-magic born babies can also be targeted). With Ariel, Solomon's moods are also more affected. He has a harder time leaving Asmo alone, is (somehow) even more affectionate (somehow) towards his partner, and feeds into and off of whatever emotions Asmo may be emitting.

Once again, there is little known about these types of conceptions even in the Devildom to the point where people know certain conditions must be met, but the rest is a little murkey. Because of this these children are rarely planned and most of the time they are accidents. Even when planned, the best anyone can do is attempt to follow the conditions and hope something works.

In terms of being born... they're just kinda... uh... Athena'ed out? Kind of?

In short, the difference is you can just sex and

BAM!

BABY!

But you also can't just magic and

BAMB!

BABY!

The process is complicated, condeluted, and uncertain and also comes with it's own set of symptoms.

Thank you again for asking! I love talking about Obey Me and the AUs I post about! I'm happy you enjoy the AUs :D

(Seriously, thank you for asking, it means a lot to know people enjoy it!)

[yoongiblunt]

Blackbeard is historically a pirate known for not killing anyone or rising to violence unless he absolutely had to.

Being said, Ed’s character in ofmd is really interesting because of his relationship with violence.

He doesn’t see most of his actions as particularly violent, generally playful if anything.

He looks back at his time captaining while stede was gone moreso as him playing “games” with fang, and doesn’t even put together that fang was running away terrified— he just assumed he was laughing the whole time.

He doesn’t rise to violence until Stede is brought up or he feels that his crew no longer needs him. It’s selfish, in nature. He does go back to violence when stede is gone, he does revert to the man who he was before, but more than that he becomes the embodiment of the Legend Blackbeard. He fell into this idea that people had of him, because much like the real world counterpart blackbeard, he relied on being scary to prove a point over actual killing.

However, this blackbeard firmly believes he has killed Lucius, Izzy, and many others. Not to mention he’s carried out murderous rampages just for the sake of getting out the need to punch stedes lights out for leaving him.

It does go deeper than that. He’s sporting a new tramp stamp that says “don’t trust anyone”, he’s pushing his crew to die with him, he’s even going so far as to abuse those around him for the sake of feeling something. Blackbeard was DONE with being a pirate in season one, he couldn’t even carry out the murder he needed to in order to be free of that though because he fell for stede. He does blame stede for this. He does blame stede for him not being able to retire. He blames stede for who he has become. But he also blames himself for trusting anyone with him and all of his vulnerabilities. So he becomes brutal. Blood thirsty. Manically aggressive. He dabbled in SH as proven by bloody handprints on stedes portrait where he obviously tried to grab the man’s hands he likely fantasized about killing stede and himself in that moment just so it all would be over.

When the crew DOES finally break and think to put him out of his misery, it’s literally because he wants to kill himself but doesn’t want to die alone.

Stedes perception of him as a man who would “watch the whole world burn or die trying” was apt, but it overlooks that blackbeard is still gentle. He’s still human.

Stede does a good job of humanizing him, but also becomes an apologist for behaviors that others are unable to move passed. This is likely due to his own trauma with murder. While he never actually killed anyone with his own hands (see: Ed also saying he had never killed anyone himself aside from his father up until season 2) he still has two bodies that he had ties towards their death. That’s enough for him to spiral, go back to familiarity, and compartmentalize. Ed has a similar coping style. They both also go back towards familiarity in extremes, hence stede being an obnoxious husband and Ed being murderous. They’re playing the parts that they are required as they dissociate.

I find that their come up together is very interesting as the whole reason we started this mess was because stede was making waves as a goober of a pirate and Ed found it so charming and interesting he had to know what to do about him. Initially we are made to believe that stede was someone who he just wanted to kill, but even at the beginning he hadn’t formulated his plan to overtake stede. He simply was a burnt out old pirate who needed a lil something in his life. He then formulated a plan when Izzy put pressure on him to go back to himself. As we can see at the beginning he’s not a very serious person. He’s analytical, but silly about it. He’s a fantastic captain with the ability to battle plan and manage others. His crew seemed to be pretty happy with him and his leadership. It’s not until he meets stede that he is thrown off center by someone who is both so similar and so different to himself. Then, Izzy places all off this responsibility on him to be the man he knows and loves only for blackbeard to crumble under that pressure and the traumas that resurfaced with it.

He places every bit of trust in stede and with no reason, watches him leave. When stede comes back he is angry. He doesn’t trust him. But stede knows he’s gentle and knows he’s anxious and tends to him. Warranted I do think that rather than brushing off the others trauma, he should have reckoned with the fact Ed had done such horrible things. But ya know, pot kettle.

I’m excited to see where they go now that they’re on this self imposed slow burn. Because it’s clear that the girls comments about their relationship did get to them.

I think Ed’s 9/11 really is stede determining that he actually isn’t in love with Ed and out grows him. Bexause let’s not forget, Ed doesn’t want to pirate anymore and stede is just getting the hang of it. Ed probably completely believed that stede left him because he was no longer the handsome, scary pirate that he had idolized. He’s afraid that if he lets stede in to those parts of himself that he will eventually grow bored and leave. But also, he may also grow bored of him, leave, and surpass him.

Of course ed would want to take things slow with stede. They’re both guilty of a level of idolization for one another. Stede likely isn’t scared to the same degree as Ed. He’s bright eyed now, he’s experiencing the world as an unmarried man who’s sole interests rn are getting with his man and pirating. I’m sure he wanted to call head long into ed because he doesn’t have the same relationship with their breakup as ed does.

Ed was dumped, without a word, ghosted, and left with this get away plan for two that he had to put himself thru. He’s a guy that can’t sit with himself for 3 seconds but had to row himself to wherever the hell he was going for days likely, all by himself. All he Fuckin did was stew and hate. Then he tore apart every part of the ship that reminded him of stede, including his crew.

Stede doesn’t offer Ed much of an explanation either. All he knows is that stede ditched him and went to Mary and then he’s back.

The whim commentary was apt and interesting bexause they never actually worked it out, they just got equally annoyed with this angry couple for picking on them.

I don’t think that these relationships mirror one another though, as the girls are more violent in nature while the two of them actually can’t rlly lay hands on each other like that. Their love is more gentle and fragile. Still very new.

I think Ed wants it to stay that way. Obviously they need to go on and bone already, but they also need to talk some shit out.

Anyway that’s my thoughts on the show rn :)

Also I’m just super stoned and keeping my hands busy so this is likely unreadable

[coffeelovinggayidiot]

I wrote a short essay about my favourite gay villain ships for my whatsapp status (don’t ask) and I decided to post it here. Enjoy!

So… as I’m sure you all already know, Disney villains (at least used to be) queercoded. Now, obviously there was a lot of problems with this, and I do want to make an essay about that, but I’m sick right now so I’m instead gonna pick my favourite “they aren’t gay he’s just his evil sidekick” gay villain ships and talk about them. So, without further ado, let us begin. 

Number one: Honest John and Gideon

So… why is this number one? Well it’s for a few reasons. First of all, I haven’t seen Pinocchio in YEARS so I have less to say about it. It’s also the first to come out from the four pairings I wanna talk about. Finally, it’s the only one where neither character is the ”main baddy” (although Honest John is the “leader” of the two) which means they have less time on screen (since there are other villains to see). Despite their shorter run time, they do leave an impact as a conniving duo, one sneaky and one goofy. In fact, as the first duo of villains to ever appear in a Disney movie (at least as far as my very little research has led me to believe), they set the tone of every villain duo to follow. They both do follow a few homophobic streotyps in their relationships, such as the way they try to mislead a young boy (and as shown by their relationship with the coachman they did the same to a lot of other young boys), and that should be acknowledged, but they also show a deap “friendship” towards one another and seem to always be working on a new evil scheme side by side. 

Number two: Captain Hook and Smee

This pairing. THIS pairing. This pairing is one of the most iconic in Disney history, possibly all of cinematic history in general. Let’s start by talking about each of them individually. Captain Hook is a man chasing after a young boy (homophobic streotype), he smokes a long cigar (phallic imagery) and he has a lavender handkerchief (if you’re familiar with queer history you’d know why that’s… interesting). Now Smee is an effeminate man, who’s a bit of a mother hen towards Captain Hook. They’re relationship is in fact similar to the one between Honest John and Gideon, in the sense that they both have a “leader” and a “follower”. They also have a "sneaky villain" and a "not really that bad but on the wrong side" villain. However, there are some differences, such as their amount of screen time, the fact that Captain Hook isn't a minion to a bigger villain, and the fact that Smee… talks. If Honest John and Gideon are the beginning of this trend then Captain hook and Smee are what made it so popular. 

Number three: Shere khan and Kaa

A little bit of a not-so-fun fact for y’all, while the movie The Jungle Book was being made Walt Disney was rumoured to have been working with the FBI on some films designed to warn young boys of "the homosexual pedo". This is why there's a sudden shift with Shere khan and Kaa of male villains going from buffoons to be made fun of, to a genuine threat (female villains were always shown as threatening as they were middle aged, single women, and thus a threat to the "norm" Walt Disney believed in. They were supposed to both scare young girls into getting married and to be straight, as they were also portrayed as "chasing" after young girls). Kaa is portrayed as a predator who feeds on young boys (more homophobia!!). Meanwhile Shere khan is shown to also be a predator (one chasing after the same boy as Kaa) but is also shown as a threat, unlike Kaa who is still treated as a joke villain. Why are villains suddenly scary? Well it's because (at least in my theory) Walt wanted young children to fear queer peope, as well as queerness itself. This is honestly my least favourite duo (not saying that I don't think they aren't deliciously witty and evil, just that the homophobia leaves too much of a bad taste in my mouth) but they deserved a spot here because they DO make a fantastically wicked team.

Number four: Gaston and Lefou

This one is my favourite. I LIVE for this one. It's probably the most obviously queer coded one (or at least tied with Hook and Smee) and in fact it's so queer coded that the live action movie made Lefou openly queer (sorta) and pretty clearly in love with Gaston. However I'm here to argue that this love is reciprocated and that this is the best romance in all of classic Disney (not including Timon and Pumba). My proof comes in five parts.

Part one: the similarities

Let's go back to an earlier pairing, Hook and Smee and talk about just how similar Gaston and Lefou are to them. Both feature tall, dark haired men in red outfits, who have themselves a short, overweight (lover) sidekick. Said sidekick has the vibe of someone who wouldn't have been evil if it wasn't for them being "friends" with the taller of the two. Why am I bringing all this up? Because Hook and Smee were the ultimate lovers in Peter Pan, and if THEY were such a close duo, then so are Gaston and Lefou.

Part two: Belle

"But Gaston is in love with Belle," I hear you saying. "He even prepared a wedding for the two of them!" A very good point you raise there, and one which I had to think about for a while (which is hard to do when you're sick). BUT if you watch the film carefully you'll realise something quite obvious. Gaston ISN'T in love with Belle, heck he doesn't even like her. He only wants to marry her because of her beauty, and he really doesn't care for her as a person. You know who he DOES care for as a person? Lefou.

Part three: Gaston's design

Fun fact, while Gaston comes off as a straight dude all the way, he was in fact designed after gay man Greg Drollete, and the animator that designed him, Andreas Deja, was also gay. He was also supposed to look like the ultra masculine gay man which was popular at the time. 

Part four: the aids allegory

So this has less to do with Gaston and Lefou, and more to do with the story of Beauty and the Beast at large, but as a film made during the aids epidemic, and made by gay writers and animators, it's not hard to see the allegory to aids in the story. A young man is "cursed" with something that weakens him and will (in a way) kill him if he doesn't find a cure in the short time he has left. The "curse" causes fear in the town people who are unfamiliar with it, and who instead of helping try to "get rid" of those who have it.

Obviously I don't know that much about the aids epidemic, and if you're interested in a more indepth look into the subject here’s a link for a video on that.

Part five: Gaston- the song

This is pretty simple to explain. Lefou sings gay poetry about the man he loves to cheer him up. 

So what have we learned? I spend WAY too much time thinking about Disney villains, and I should take a chill pill. Also, Disney villains and queer icons, but they are also build of homophobic streotypes, and while we can marvel at how fun these characters are, we do need to think critically about them. Also I ship Gaston and Lefou so hard.