#sorry just. I've seen things
Getting back into comics is fun. Minus the Getting Back Into Comics part of it all
13 notes
·
View notes
zolu is maybe one of the easiest ships i've ever liked. they're dating, except when they're not, they're best friends even when they're kissing and they're still captain and first mate when they aren't. they hold hands, they hug. they have sex. they don't.
Luffy can hold Zoro's katanas and Zoro can hold Luffy's strawhat and no one bats an eye. one says "You're so cool!" and the other says "You're strong" and it's just another way to say "I see you, this is why I follow you/this is why I trust you". it's not seeing each other for a long time and still knowing how the other's steps sound like against wood and sand. the captain runs and the first mate follows. it's always "Zoro and the others" and "Where's Luffy?"
if they're just friends, if they're something more, if they don't have a label for it, at its core, it's just about how they get each other. they understand how the other's mind works. however you view them, it doesn't erase they fact that they love each other in a way they don't love other people.
409 notes
·
View notes
literally nobody asked for it, but here's my list of saltburn essays that i've slowly been drafting over the course of the last week which WILL be required reading for anybody trying to engage with me about this movie. my very personal saltburn 101 syllabus just dropped
A Wolf in Deer's Clothing: Saltburn's Attempt at Innocence
an examination of party costumes and our character's last attempts to masquerade as something they're not: felix—an angel, all-forgiving and all-knowing, something to be worshiped; and oliver—a prey animal, prey to class-divide, prey to saltburn, prey to felix.
thoughts about oliver specifically are loosely organized in my #bambi tag
A Midsummer Night's Mare: Farleigh Start as the Ultimate Victim of Saltburn
a farleigh character study, about the ways he was mistreated and manipulated at saltburn, about fighting to stay alive and the scars left behind by knowing when to give in
alternatively titled "QuickStart", may be adapted into a conclusive essay specifically focusing on oliver and farleigh's relationship
The Eye of the Beholder: On Saltburn's Voyeurism & Violence [working title]
how wealth and class pushes the catton's toward the volatile reality of being able to look, but not touch. on desire and the lack thereof, and portraying yourself as an object to be desired
may end up as two separate essays on wealth and aestheticism but i'm pushing toward a conclusive essay about the intersection of the two, which i feel is at the heart of saltburn
alternatively titled "Poor Man's Pudding: A Melvillian Approach to Saltburn's Class", again, may be adapted into it's own essay
Gender-Fluid: A Study in Sexuality and Saltburn's Desire to be Dry
a deep dive into the bodily fluids of saltburn and how oliver upsets the standard of men who are just so lovely and dry. on the creative choice to lean into the messy wetness of sex and desire and the audience's instinct toward repulsion
a celebration of the grotesque and an examination of why we would label it as such
least developed of the four, heavily inspired by @charnelpit's lovely post about the fluids in saltburn
if anybody is actually interested in any of these, i can work toward something closer to a finished piece instead of just bullet points and quotes in a google doc, but mostly this is so i can share my very brief takes on a multitude of themes in saltburn that have been haunting me
edit for people seeing this in the future: all posts about my essays are being organized into my #saltburn 101 tag if you’re interested in following these through to development!
339 notes
·
View notes
you all know that one vine. i couldn't stop thinking about it while doing this storyline
(tobe clear sozo is my wife)
193 notes
·
View notes
can't believe a show based on a videogame (usually games adaptations are notoriously bad, which isn't the case here tho) gave me the beauty and the beast/twisted mirrors/enemies to traveling companions/ruthless antihero+optmistic but still badass heroine who takes none of his shit/age gap but make it sexy dynamic of my dreams. as much as i love maximus and i think he deserves the best writing ever because 1. he's a clever deconstruction of the aspiring Knight bro who's actually a bit of a loser and, as much as lucy, sees the world in black&white at first and then doesn't get what he thought he wanted but what he needs (or at least i hope he'll eventually get it), and 2. he's a cutie and i want an epic love story for him too, it's very funny how they tried to give us a puppy kind of romance and the tumblr girlies still fixated on the "toxic ~she bites his finger off and he cuts hers off and sews it on his hand in what we'll pretend it's a symbolic marriage rings exchange or whatever~ asshole who used to be a nice guy/good girl™ with a lot of spunk and hidden anger but unshakeable morals" kind of relationship.
134 notes
·
View notes
Friendly reminder that romance negativity isn't a real, societal issue, and conflating it with sex negativity is abhorrent. I get why people do this: we’ve linked the aro and ace labels in our minds. They are both labels that describe lacking something that most people view as intrinsic to personhood. There are people within both communities that show a heightened level of negativity toward this drive that they “lack.” So, if sex negativity is bad, romance negativity must be equally problematic in the same way, right?
Except sex negativity falls fully into purity culture and has a real-life impact on our lives. It’s given birth to poor sex education, restrictive dress codes in schools, atrocious reactions to SA survivors. The list goes on.
In contrast, romance negativity largely affects no one on a societal scale. In fact, romance culture often fits within the blueprint of purity culture, i.e. the expected life of marriage between a man and a woman who only have sex to reproduce. If anything, romance negativity is actively going against the general grain of what’s already acceptable to polite society. Not looking for your spouse, and living your life without the constraints of romance? Horrifying!
Equating these two things just doesn’t work. At all. When the negative of the one (sex negativity) works with the positive of the other (romance culture) to prop up the axis in which purity culture functions. I’m not saying romance negativity can’t be harmful in an intra-community sense, because I’m sure it is to some aromantic people. But, we’ve gotta stop confusing those community issues with the way society already functions, otherwise we’re going to start kicking down.
Honestly, another point those posts never touch on is where aro and ace people already sit on the political ladder – we flat-out don’t have enough power or standing to influence society or ever become oppressive. Like at all. So honestly, you could argue that it’s intra-community issues all the way down.
228 notes
·
View notes
Hey, for real? Can we stop using "biting" to describe what Wilbur did to Shelby? Because I think "assault" is a much better word. She explicitly revoked her consent, and then he hurt her more. Wilbur assaulted Shelby.
The problem isn't the biting. That's a neutral action that can be loving, can be gentle, can be consented to.
He fucking assaulted her. There are memes about it because it apparently seems childish and funny, and it's not. She asked to stop being hurt and he did not stop.
117 notes
·
View notes
Hiiii, if it's not too much, can you describe the biggest differences between the live action characters and the novel characters in MDZS? They are a lot, so I will love even the difference between few of them! I haven't seen the live action and I don't know if I will ever, but I am curious, considering all the meta. Anyway, thank you in general, even if you don't answer!
Hello anon! This has been in the inbox forever because there are soooo many ways to answer this! However, let me be transparent that I've watched maybe like 1/10 of CQL. Among other obstacles, I simply do not care that much about Lan Wangji and he's always there (even though Wang Yibo is giving it his all... it's not his fault I'm a hater...). Chewing through a book with Ms. Mxtx's commentary was just more enjoyable to me, and even then, to be honest, I still liked SVSSS better. (I just love Shen Yuan/Shen Qingqiu so much. That dude is wild.)
Still, the live action definitely affected how I understood certain characters (...primarily Nie Huaisang) and made me interested in relationships that I didn't pay any attention to in the novel. (I freely admit that the nieyao brainrot is 100% CQL's fault.) Also I found Wang Zhuocheng's Jiang Cheng very cute and loveable. It definitely contributed to my Jiang Cheng Brain Disease.
LISTEN. HE HAS BIG SAD EYES AND THE MEANEST SNEER AND HE MIGHT BURST INTO TEARS AT ANY TIME. HE IS A BABY. A baby who could kill you with his terrifying lightning whip! But a baby nonetheless, to me.
So if you want someone with a real and knowledgeable opinion on the live action, I'm probably not the right person for that! However, here's one difference that changed a bunch of stuff about the characters that I found compelling in the novel: the second flautist.
CQL adds Su She as a second flautist doing unorthodox cultivation in a couple of different places, including at Qiongqi Path, where he seizes control of Wen Ning and is therefore responsible for Jin Zixuan's death. Removing the responsibility for Jin Zixuan's death from Wei Wuxian creates a bunch of cascading character and relationship implications that I don't love.
Firstly, all of the people who cautioned Wei Wuxian against his unorthodox cultivation are now... wrong. If he never lost control, then actually his assessment that he could maintain control wasn't overconfidence, it was just true, and he was persecuted because the Jin needed a scapegoat and wanted the Yin Tiger Tally, not because his cultivation path actually involved significant risks and drawbacks. (To be fair, the Jins actively exploited those drawbacks, the public perception of his cultivation, and Wei Wuxian's failure to manage his reputation. But it matters whether the risks exist or are just made up.)
Secondly, removing his responsibility for Jin Zixuan's death transforms both Wei Wuxian's character and how we understand his relationships with Jiang Yanli, Jiang Cheng, and Jin Ling. Because, in the novel, he kills Jin Zixuan under duress but also after a lifetime of conflict with him. Like, he hates the dude, he doesn't think he's worthy of Jiang Yanli, and he's not willing to examine his hatred and resentment even though Jiang Yanli loves Jin Zixuan and wants to marry him, even after she marries him and has a child with him. (I would argue that a lot of the resentment is because of the eventual marriage; by marrying Jiang Yanli, Jin Zixuan becomes legally recognized family to the Jiang siblings, while Wei Wuxian's relationship with them has no social recognition; I think Wei Wuxian is deeply threatened by that but can't articulate it.) It's a huge failure! Like, dude, you loved someone and you killed that person's beloved spouse. That points to a certain degree of repressed jealousy, possessiveness, longing, arrogance, the list goes on... I am so compelled by that conflict, and the adaptation just erases it.
This also affects how we read Jin Ling's relationship with Wei Wuxian. In one scenario, a teenage Jin Ling is (eventually, minus one little stab) ending the cycle of violence by not seeking vengeance for his father's murder. In the other, it was actually someone associated with Jin Ling's paternal family that killed his father, and he's maybe just... coming to terms with that? One of these scenarios is so much richer and more interesting.
How it affects the relationship between Jiang Cheng and Wei Wuxian is a little more subtle. It locates the responsibility for a lot of the harm done to the Jiang siblings with the Jin sect, not with Wei Wuxian, removing some of Wei Wuxian's culpability in the devolution of his relationship with Jiang Cheng. If Wei Wuxian isn't guilty of wronging the Jiang family (and instead is also a victim of the Jin sect), then all of Jiang Cheng's rage and betrayal was misdirected. They were both tricked. In some ways, maybe that's easier to patch up after canon? (I wonder if this is why many CQL yunmeng shuangjie reconciliation fics have Jiang Cheng apologize to Wei Wuxian, but not the other way around?) But it's so much less interesting to me!
Finally, it removes Wei Wuxian's tragic flaw! Dude is legitimately a genius but he's got hubris coming out of his ears and it fucks him up big time! This is classic stuff. Please stop flattening my boy!!
92 notes
·
View notes
insert coin out here with some new merch, Saejima parka and Majima socks ✌ notably the parka has the typical tiger on the back but also Saejima's clan emblem on the right shoulder
123 notes
·
View notes
Girl, help, the book authors are trying too hard to be "hip" with the fleeting "teen lingo" and trends again, immediately dating their works before they're even released
367 notes
·
View notes
once i get to michael's backstory, i'm absolutely gonna write an essay of at least 1000 words about how much of michael the distortion is michael and what that means and how tragic it is (because i'm sure it is), and i'll post it on here, and you will all have to read it. sorry, i don't make the rules...
45 notes
·
View notes
between so many truths and so many lies
are we taking a proper look at the world?
the difference between fact and fiction
between incitement and substance
what do i stand to gain?
the world’s bullshit but you don’t have to be
so open your eyes and see the real world
the other side of justice is just another kind
there’s no such thing in the world as good intentions, you know
they’re not interested in facts
if you’re not on their side they’ll kill you, that’s justice now
left and right, black and white
at the end of a staged play
the audience tear into each other seeing blood
it’s a war without gunshots
material malady
if you’re not on the same side, we’re enemies
an extreme choice
political correctness whenever it suits me
but keep my mouth shut when it’s too bothersome for me
selectively hypocritical, an uncomfortable attitude
interpretation just to fit my mood
fact and fiction, whenever it suits me
and don’t let my eyes wander from my clique
selectively hypocritical, an uncomfortable attitude
interpretation just to fit my mood
between so many truths and so many lies
are we taking a proper look at the world?
it is all dirty (am i even clean?)
it is all dirty (are you even clean?)
between dark questions and blind accusations
what are we fighting for?
it is all dirty (am i even clean?)
it is all dirty (are you even clean?)
극야 (polar night) - agust d
(lyric translations from suga: road to d-day)
202 notes
·
View notes
i've been thinking a lot about the word "representation" and what it means and how it's changed over the last few years, particularly when it comes to the writing/publishing landscape but also in movies and tv shows… and i really don't like it anymore. to be clear, of course i think it's important to have diversity in your work, i'm not saying i hate the concept of representation. but i do really dislike the way it's used now, and i really just hate the word itself
in a broader sense it's just become a marketing tool. i'm not impressed by any publisher or author who just describes their book by listing all of the minorities/identities the characters represent as if that should be enough. it feels very gross, very exploitative and disingenuous. it also really bothers me because it's always marginalized identities- which i understand Why, but it feels very othering to me (and again. Very exploitative as an advertisement). you would never list out "cishet able-bodied white man" as a character description to pat yourself on the back over. so why do it to everyone else? why insinuate that one is the "default" and the other one is "special"? (and when i say this i'm mainly talking about advertisements/marketing. i understand why people would specify about characters in descriptions with the plot, but i don't like to see an ad that's just "this book has gay people!" with nothing else)
which then leads me to my other point, which is that a lot of people treat "representation" as if it's "too hard." like "oh i don't know enough to write about that, i don't have that experience, etc" which is a fair way to feel! however… it's weird that people only say this about writing trans characters or characters of color. i'm writing a story right now with a character who is really into motorcycles. i personally do not know that much about motorcycles, so i researched what parts are what & what different kinds of models there are & what basic bike care looks like. i guarantee Most people will have to google something at some point in their writing process. so what's the problem? it also, again, feels very othering when authors treat certain groups of people as "impossible" to write, "too hard" to understand. they are just.. people. you write them as a person. and then you figure out the rest later.
and i think part of the refusal or fear to write something outside of your experience is because of the way representation is treated as So Special. these characters are So Special that they aren't allowed to be anything other than "representation." they're Not allowed to be characters with complex emotions and interesting motivations, they have to just be Trans or Gay or Disabled or whatever. they're not allowed to be people. which means, at the end of the day, we loop right back around to where we were at the start….
there is bad representation. there are depictions of certain marginalized people that are harmful and that are damaging, i'm not trying to minimize that or argue against it at all, in fact we should all be mindful of that while writing and reading. but i also think it's possible to swing too far in the opposite direction as well and put certain groups of people on a pedestal and not allow them to do anything at all but be Perfect Representation, if that makes sense.
269 notes
·
View notes
So apparently after the Tallinn gig, Jere and Bojan went inside the tour bus together and stayed there for a while. Then Jere came out, bantered with the fans a little from further away but did not stay and left the venue. Then the other JO members came out to greet the fans but Bojan stayed inside the bus.
What do you think happened with these two?
Lots of tears, foreheads pressed together, hugs so tight a few ribs were crushed, head scratches, neck kisses, vows of eternal bro-ship, some feels were copped, next facetime date confirmed, obviously.
And then Bojan needed a moment to have a bit of a cry I MEAN SAVE HIS VOICE OF COURSE.
36 notes
·
View notes