Tumgik
#he is my beloved
beanghostprincess · 2 months
Text
One of the reasons why I like Usopp so much is that out of all the men in the crew, he is the most normal around women.
And by "normal" I mean he does like women. He has shown interest in them a few times and feels attracted to them. But he isn't like Sanji, Franky, or Brook, who are, um, straight-up perverts or extremely dramatic about their love for women. He isn't like Zoro and Luffy, who basically don't show any attraction/interest to women at all.
Usopp is just. Like. He's just a guy. He literally is just an average, normal guy who's best friends and gets along with every woman he meets because he... Treats them... Like people. Like actual human beings! Go king give us the bare minimum!
594 notes · View notes
knight-engale · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
behold, the project i've been working on for the last several days: an art nouveau-inspired phone wallpaper! i love him sooooo much
one down, four more to go. hopefully everyone else's outfits are easier to draw...
142 notes · View notes
mutantmayhems · 6 months
Text
underrated moment: when raph is aiming at superfly with the demutanizer and everyone’s being loud so he just says “SHUT. UP.”
86 notes · View notes
starlightoru-gojo · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Oh, I'm falling in love again
You looked like a babyyy, babee. Baby angel Satoru~
78 notes · View notes
jarofalicesgrunge · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media
Rare picture Cliff and James at backstage with John Marshall who replaced James on guitar when he had broken his arm in a skateboard accident, circa 1986.
134 notes · View notes
oriiduckko · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
My Shitty P03 shitpost I made in today
376 notes · View notes
heretherebedork · 1 month
Text
I am thinking about how Do Han and how he is torn between two halves of himself. He so desperately loves Korea, the food and the people and the home... but he cannot be himself there and so he loves his life in New York because there he can be himself, be the gay artist and not the straight businessman that he is expected to be.
But he loves his family and he loves the food and he leaves a part of himself behind every time he goes back to his life but he leaves so much behind in New York as well, so much freedom and so much comfort.
Do Han is trapped between two worlds but he has made his choice and he has chosen the version of himself he gets to be in New York even if he regrets not being the best brother, even if he regrets not being a good grandson, even if he regrets that this is the choice he has to make.
And that's why I love him.
This man trapped in the closet at home but knowing, knowing, what freedom feels like but also knowing what he is giving up for his freedom as well... ugh, I adore him. I hope the story ends with him being able to combine the sides of himself into one.
47 notes · View notes
crystallizedcheese · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
Papyrus!!!
699 notes · View notes
le-fandom-prince · 25 days
Text
hmmm, tell me, Doctor Who fandom, how did YOU get into Doctor Who? was it David Tennant? Matt Smith? maybeee Christopher Eccleston??? or was it some else?? OH! was it the timey wimey stuff??
in all honesty, i never watched Doctor Who until i saw David Tennant and i'm not ashamed to admit David is what got me into it...ANYWAYS! how about you?
Tumblr media
22 notes · View notes
sabotourist · 2 months
Text
Donut has definitely reached critical blorbo status for me. Wash may be my favorite, but man, Donut is my little meow meow.
Personally, I like the idea that he makes his innuendos intentionally, and also feigns ignorance deliberately. Maybe it was his way of gaming the homophobia system back home. Where he could still be himself and not get called out on it. Because he'd act like he didn't know what it meant. Present himself as innocent. So someone that doesn't like that wouldn't *want* to tell him what it means to "beat a man off" because then that would mean *he* knows what that means and drag the attention away from Donut regardless. Who presents himself as so "pure" that it comes back around to being dirty. He's not that, but the plausible deniability was enough to keep himself safe. And from there it just became a habit he kept into Blood Gulch.
I love him so much you guys I am shaking all the donut content in my mouth like a chew toy
22 notes · View notes
saintsenara · 9 months
Note
What do you like about Voldemort/Tom Riddle as a character? What elements of the character do you find fascinating?
thank you so much for this ask, @sarafina-sincerity
i have received a flurry of asks about my main boy, lord voldemort, which form a neat triad, so this is part one of a three part meta on him:
1. what do i like about voldemort as a character? 2. what is my preferred way of writing voldemort (a character analysis deep-dive)? [here] 3. what does dumbledore get wrong about voldemort? [here]
Tumblr media
what do i like about voldemort as a character?
my general principle as a reader, both in fanfiction and original fiction, is that villains are more interesting than heroes. i prefer the complexity of characters the audience is not supposed to root for, and i enjoy the confrontation of realising that people who are capable of astonishing brutality and evil are also simultaneously capable of beauty. indeed, one of the most heart-breaking passages in literature, in my opinion, is humbert humbert’s final encounter with lolita, in which the reader is forced to sit with the fact that a violent, sadistic, and dangerous paedophile is also a creature hollowed by grief and loss, and that they feel nauseatingly sorry for him.
the canonical voldemort’s complexity in these aspects isn’t entirely drawn out in the narrative - although voldemort’s own struggle with anger, grief, and loss is discussed in details in the third part of this series of meta - but thinking of him in these terms provides something that i think is of considerable value to me as an author.
as might be hinted by the nabokov, my favourite subgenre of original fiction is undoubtedly the american literature of the mid-twentieth century, for its portrayal of the sinister ennui which lurks under the quaint picture-postcard of the american dream life (that i like voldemort for what he reveals about the rot in the wizarding world is expanded upon below). the authors i have felt speak most profoundly to this apart from nabokov are shirley jackson and - and i recommend this enormously not as pulp fiction but as a sincerely raw look at the america of the 1940s and 1950s - jacqueline susann’s valley of the dolls. voldemort has a lot in common with jackson and susann’s famous anti-heroines: he has the jealous, isolated relationship with family and lineage of merricat blackwood and the childhood trauma leading to obsession, manipulation, and greed of neely o’hara. 
all of which is to say, he is a character whose complexity can be used to challenge the reader, to force them to have to sit uncomfortably with their own views and biases (the fact that he’s a self-hating sectarian terrorist has always hit me like a body-blow, given that i live in northern ireland…), and to provide a window into the broader commentary on the world of the story (and the world of the author).
voldemort as a narrative tool
indeed, voldemort is the character who most interestingly straddles the harry potter series’ various different genres and their subtypes - no mean feat, given that the difficulty of reconciling these separate genres is what drives many fans’ complaints about plot-holes in the series.
after all, the series literally wouldn’t function as children’s literature without him; in the first two books he provides that scooby-doo villain-turns-up-in-disguise-at-the-end flavour which drives the narrative and allows harry to conform to his own children’s lit archetype of the wise-cracking everyman hero who is constantly getting into wacky mysteries.
but voldemort is, of course, at his most interesting after the books undergo their tonal shift following the conclusion of prisoner of azkaban:
he is the series’ most significant and most complex character within the genre-types it borrows from noir and political thrillers - in goblet of fire, we get the hint of him as a paramilitary kingpin, whose supporters wished to incite terror into any members of the wizarding population who did not support blood-supremacy and who targeted state institutions and political figureheads who stood in their way. voldemort’s own hypocrisy - he is a supposed pureblood champion despite not being pureblood himself, although his anti-muggle views are undoubtedly sincere - serves as a concentrated metaphor for the ministry’s corruption, which harry uncovers throughout this book.
he is the series’ most interesting folkloric archetype - the fate-driven hunter-villain, whose belief in the mystical value of the prophecy (within a series in which all the other characters - except harry, who we’ll come to below - are surprisingly rational. for people who can do magic.) drives the series towards its conclusion. it is impossible for harry to go on his hero’s journey without voldemort, and given that many of the other characters fit more obliquely into their folkloric archetypes (ron is very different from many folkloric sidekicks - the boy is no samwise gamgee - and hermione’s folkloric archetype is closest to the non-human gift given to the hero by a donor-figure), this aspect of the narrative depends on voldemort entirely.
he is, perhaps, one of the less interesting characters within the series’ purpose as christian allegory (the award for the character this applies to most interestingly, for me at least, is either dumbledore - the word of god revealed in a twist to be the john the baptist - or snape - the paul who thinks he’s a judas), since he is the satan allegory. the catholic-coded nature of many of his behaviours, however, does fascinate me, and contribute to my headcanon - discussed in the next meta - that he is raised in a church orphanage.  
and the use of voldemort within these narrative confines changes many of the other characters in ways which move them beyond genre archetypes which might otherwise not allow them to grow as the narrative tonally shifts (a fate which befalls hagrid, who cannot stand up to the nuancing of harry’s character as he goes on his hero’s journey). dumbledore’s similarities to voldemort, for example, hint at the reversal of his omniscience and infallibility before deathly hallows hits; snape’s relationship with voldemort as a terrorist leader, and particularly what voldemort’s terror says about the social structure of the wizarding world, provides an explanation for his actions which is more complex than ‘tee hee mudblood’ and which gives the reader a space to think about how deprivation drives radicalisation in our own communities.
above all, voldemort’s narrative relationship with harry is fascinating - and not simply for shipping reasons - since, within a story which ends with harry in the guise of the resurrected christ and voldemort-as-satan dead and buried, they are never actually portrayed as black-and-white enemies. indeed, they are the only pair of narrative mirrors in the series whose relationship is portrayed not as diametric, but relational; the only two whose relationship is described as fraternal (something made explicit in their ‘brother’ wand cores); and the only two whose relationship is described - by a figure no less powerful than the prophecy itself - as equal.
for example, that their shared backgrounds, their views of their own orphanhood, their relationship with their fathers, and their physical appearances are similar is lampshaded by several characters - not least both of them themselves. but the narrative actually goes deeper, drawing out ways in which their differences appear stark, but then loop back to become another similarity they share: their mothers come from opposing blood classes, but both form the key to understanding their characters; their wand woods are both associated with death and resurrection, albeit with different folkloric values of luck and purity attached to them; and voldemort is the series’ ‘true slytherin’ and harry the series’ ‘true gryffindor’, but they both have numerous personality traits connected to the other house.
in contrast, if we take the narrative mirrors of ron and draco malfoy, we find a pairing whose differences stem from similar attitudes and insecurities, but manifest themselves in ways which are polar: both serve the crucial narrative purpose of explaining the wizarding world to harry and, therefore, the reader, but ron exclusively shows its positive aspects and malfoy its more negative ones; their material circumstances are opposites; they both heavily physically resemble the rest of the family, but ron is one of many siblings and strains against that and malfoy is an only child and strains against that; and they are defined in the text by the diametrically opposed nature of their relationship with harry.
harry and voldemort, on the other hand, are defined by the divergence of their similarities - like their wands, they have the same core, but their choices affect them profoundly - and they are, therefore, the series’ clearest examples of the value of choice.
voldemort as a social mirror
i also think that voldemort’s childhood and background is one of the series’ most interesting looks at britain and its social dynamics, which i think many readers miss. how i prefer to write voldemort’s childhood is discussed in the second part of this series of meta, but he provides - like hermione - a look at the profound irony of the class system (after all he is an aristocrat in both worlds - and an example of both types of aristocrat, the rich and snooty in their luxury manor and the impoverished clinging to a name and a lineage - who has no access to the social advantages this should bring because he was born in an orphanage in the muggle world and he has a muggle name and face in the wizarding one).
but, above all, voldemort spends the first six books of the series as the best cipher for how state brutality and corruption only begets more violence. his unusual tolerance of non-human magical creatures (and his openness in his brutality to slaves - which, as i have argued, is one of the things that shocks regulus, who clearly conceives of himself as a ‘good’ slave-owner, a thing which does not exist) is at odds with the ministry’s benign oppression. his rejection of the patronage networks which sustain wizarding society (he rejects slughorn’s offer to set him up in the ministry because he wants a job he got himself, and good for him) only serves to emphasise that these still exist (the fact that voldemort would not want to rely on patronage canonically never occurs to dumbledore); while his use of patronage networks for his own ends shows how easily structures considered to be ‘right’ or ‘normal’ can turn malign. his brilliance, but the fact that his name and background would clearly constrain him in an ordinary career, underlines the fate which befalls many characters, from snape to the weasleys. he has a complex relationship with gender in a series which otherwise doesn’t (not only in the fact - outlined in the second meta - that his own gender identity is incredibly interesting, but in that bellatrix is the only married woman in the seven-book canon who has both a speaking part and a job). the ministry’s reaction to him - particularly the suspension of due process in the trials of death eaters (a reference to operation demetrius, one of the british government’s most degrading extra-judicial decisions during the troubles) - deepens anti-government resentment, which - since the wizarding world is clearly not a democracy - has nowhere else to go but revolution.
voldemort causes himself, obviously, but the ministry enables him to exist, and this provides so many avenues in fanfiction to explore.
why we need fanon voldemort
this said, there are, of course, things which frustrate me about the canonical voldemort - and this drives many of the traits in my own writing of him which i am completely aware do deviate from canon (my preferred characterisation of voldemort is addressed in the second part of this series of meta).
i dislike the portrayal of the canonical voldemort - or, at least, the canonical adult voldemort, the canonical teenage voldemort is more layered - as a sociopath, largely because i think it’s quite lazy writing to have a villain whose evil is caused by just not getting human emotion. in particular, this absolves the reader from noticing our own similarities to voldemort and considering how that challenges our own views and biases - as the enormous amount of ‘the class system is good, actually’ in death-eater-centric writing shows.
above all, i loathe the argument that voldemort can’t feel love (i am hopelessly wedded to the idea that he does love bellatrix, in his own little way), not least because it is an extremely cruel interpretation of what is clearly enormous childhood trauma (although the series’ weaknesses in its approach to that topic go far beyond voldemort), and because it fails to open space for a critical look at dumbledore’s own idea of  love; that is, not as something which can be luxurious, pampering, and restorative to the self, but as something which depends on sorrow and sacrifice. i detest the fanon - which, i think it’s important to note, is based in something jkr never actually said - that voldemort’s conception is the cause of his attitude to love. i also think the way the text treats both tom riddle sr. - who is never acknowledged as a rape victim - and merope - who, if we take dumbledore’s implication that she could have survived voldemort’s birth at face value, directly justifies voldemort’s view on death by not bothering to stay alive for him - is horrifying.
i think the voldemort of deathly hallows is the weakest, not least because the fact that he is never shown in the previous six books to have an interest in running a government (he spends most of the early books as a paramilitary leader, not a dictator in waiting) means that he has to be shunted off in other directions when he takes control of one. 
and, with the greatest of respect to the wonderful ralph fiennes, who i’ve just paid a huge amount of money to go see in macbeth, the film version of voldemort is terrible. indeed, film!voldemort is the source of so many of the worst fanon readings of the character, especially the idea that he only knows one spell, that he’s insane (the statement of canon is that the creation of the horcruxes does nothing to damage his mental capacity, since the soul exists independently of our free will and rational thought - although clearly the voldemort of the second war becomes considerably more paranoid than his earlier incarnation), that he loves to shriek, that he isn’t very scary, and that he doesn’t come spectacularly close to winning.
up next, then, how do i like to write voldemort?
64 notes · View notes
nodrug-plz · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
Mr.bastard man
I kinda love this man you know
-My human design of abel
25 notes · View notes
ladyevol · 5 months
Text
I think that there is a pretty clear difference between last life Scar and Secret Life Scar. In Last Life, Scar's one alliance (Joel) was immediately forced away from him due to the rules imposed by that reds could only ally themselves with reds. So while Joel was off planning his villainy, Scar was left alone by the greens and yellows of the server. The main difference being *no one wanted to be allied with Scar.* Adding to the fact was how in LL Scar was seeing as someone who died easily, thus making him seem less like a threat and more like a burden. People would also use Scar constantly, forcing him to give them his lives. Scar seemed to be also particularly keen on teaming up with Grian and Mumbo's team which ultimately cost him a life.
In Secret Life, things are quite different. For starters, while Scar is still known for dying, he is also known for killing and destroying in general as well as his ability to manipulate people. He is certainly a lot more respected in SL. No, the reason why Scar ends up alone in SL isn't because he is shunned by the server. It is his own hubris. The Heart Foundation spent an entire episode trying to get Scar to join them to scam other people. Mumbo was hanging around him quite frequently, hell, even Grian, who originally loathed the idea of being allied with Scar was willing to partner up with him, but Scar refused (and yes, Ik that with Grian's case Scar was made to refuse by his task, but he didn't even try to go to him the following session.) Point is, Scar was more interested in building his own town and himself until it was too late and the whole server was already allied. Even in the 8th session, we see how Scar is still not willing to fully commit to anyone as he is first trying a partnership with Scott, then Pearl, then even Bdubs. Scar still doesn't fully want friends. He wants people who aren't going to kill him. Which is why, while yes, the secret keeper is certainly trying to make Scar a villain. When it comes to being alone, he somewhat sowed what he planted.
In truth, secret life feels almost like the successor to last life. He was originally so desperate for allies in that season and no one wanted to be with him, and now that people realized he was a threat, they tried to team up, but because he originally refused, he was ultimately villanized (you can say that the watchers and the secret keeper were the ones who villanized him due to his refusal to make meaningful bonds)
25 notes · View notes
paondya · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
he deserves to be happy again
220 notes · View notes
Text
hey remember when we all gave bill cipher twink human designs and the creator went "that is simply not what he would look like"?
helluva boss just did the opposite of that.
189 notes · View notes
blitterblues · 1 year
Text
forgot how much the GA hates mike well I hate them all back</3
87 notes · View notes