Install Theme

Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

It's Only the End if You Want it to Be

Posts tagged replies

Oct 22 '14

Anonymous asked:

Hey, I noticed that you marked Percy and Annabeth as an OTP, which I didn't know you felt about them, and since I adore your blog, and the way you explain things, and since I'm the only member of the PJATO fandom indifferent to Percabeth, I was wondering if you could explain why they're a good couple and you ship them, the way you did so gloriously with Dick/Babs (who are also an OTP of mine :) It's totally cool if you don't want to though. Thanks!

It’s true, I don’t really post much about Percy and Annabeth, do I? Truth be told, I don’t really post about Percy Jackson/Heroes of Olympus as much as I should, considering I’m quite a fan.

As for Percy and Annabeth: I honestly think they’re one of the healthiest and most stable couples I’ve encountered in YA fiction (which often tends to feature really unrealistic or dysfunctional romances). I often see fandom criticizing them for being “codependent”, which - aside from being a complete misunderstanding of what the term “codependency” actually means - is seriously misrepresenting their relationship, IMO. Percy and Annabeth are very mutually supportive and make each other a top priority in their lives, which is a good thing, but they’re still two fully independent individuals with relationships and interests outside of each other.

The first thing I really like about Percy and Annabeth is that their relationship was such a slow build. So often you see couples who go straight from having just met to being “in love” without the author taking the time to develop their relationship properly - Riordan himself can be guilty of this, with other couples in the series. But Percy and Annabeth get to know each other over the course of years, and multiple books, before they become a couple. By the time they actually get together, their relationship has developed a really solid foundation of friendship (and those are the kinds of relationships I love most). They know each other really well, they’ve gotten each other through some really tough times, and they’ve bonded over years of shared experiences and adventures. And all this is before they’ve ever so much as kissed.

The second thing I like: They are absolute equals. There are times when Percy’s had to rescue Annabeth, but she’s rescued him at least as many times, and they’re the strongest when they’re working together as a team. And Percy has tremendous respect for Annabeth’s strength and intelligence, which is something you really don’t see enough in the world of controlling “I have to protect you from yourself!” YA boyfriends. Percy is protective of Annabeth, but he’s never controlling and he never doubts her ability to protect herself. 

I also love how completely they wear their hearts on their sleeve about how much they adore each other? I know some of the fandom finds it annoying, but personally I like how open and expressive they are. Especially when you consider how many guys in this genre are all brooding and keep their feelings hidden and blah blah blah, I actually love how Percy is just like “LET ME TELL YOU HOW AMAZING MY GIRLFRIEND IS OMG HAVE I MENTIONED THAT SHE’S BRILLIANT AND BADASS AND HAS PERFECT PRINCESS CURLS, WELL LET ME TELL YOU MORE BECAUSE SHE’S AWESOME *heart eyes*” Like, honestly? That’s awesome. He never stops gushing about how great he thinks she is and how much he loves her, and it’s so important that we see guys in fiction who wholeheartedly and vocally appreciate the women in their lives that way.

I know I mentioned this at the beginning, but MUTUAL SUPPORT MUTUAL SUPPORT MUTUAL SUPPORT. This is probably the #1 thing I look for in a couple, and Percy and Annabeth have it in spades. They’re always there for each other, they talk things through together, they face problems as a team. They survived Tartarus because of the way they were able to lean on each other for support! The fact of the matter is, they’re stronger because they have each other, and that’s something I really love.

Lastly, this is a much more shallow point than most of my others, but… THE SNARK. I have such a weakness for snark (as my blog can attest), and in addition to being incredibly snarky separately, Percy and Annabeth are basically a goldmine of snark and banter when they’re together. I just can’t resist that. ;-)

(PS. Thanks so much for the compliments! <3)

Oct 18 '14

Anonymous asked:

here's something ive been thinking for a while, especially after your convo with jonsei93 about that scene w/ wonder woman: have you seen at4w? if you have, what do you think of linkara's view of feminism, especially in regards to ww or other female superheroes? cause, i remember seeing a post about him saying that she's a warrior first and believes she has no real "no-kill policy" (at least, that's how i remember it...)

"Whereas Batman is a mental giant and Superman a tower of power, Wonder Woman is best known for her honor, spirit, and the depth of her compassion." - Linkara’s review of the unaired Wonder Woman pilot

Oct 13 '14

iconuk01:

drakefeathers:

im not looking forward to gotham tonight bc in the previews bby bruce wakes up gasping like he had a nightmare and I don’t want to see my bby having bad dreams he deserves to be happy I’m gonna cry poor child ;_____;

I suspect “watching Gotham” and “seeing a happy Bruce” are pretty much mutually exclusive goals.

This suspicion is incorrect thanks to the awesomeness that is Alfred Pennyworth:

I mean, it’s momentary happiness to be sure. But I’ll take what I can get.

Oct 13 '14

theandysar replied to your photoset

May I ask what is this Robin Hood AU?

Just a thing I’m working on. Basically re-imagining Robin Hood as a webseries set in the modern era. Diversifying the cast and using it as a platform to examine social issues (which people forget was the point of Robin Hood in the first place - and many of those issues are still very relevant today).

I’m really only publishing these posts on my blog for convenience’s sake, so I can keep track of them easily. If it bothers anyone I could start a side blog for it.

Oct 12 '14

Anonymous asked:

Most days I feel like the only thing I can identify with is being broken when it comes to sexuality and attraction. I can't even get asexuality right. (Sorry, you didn't need to know this, I just saw your last post, and I don't even know. Sorry)

oxers:

No, I feel you. There’s even toxicity in the asexual community for those of us who do occasionally experience sexual or physical attraction, or who identify as gray-a or demi or aren’t sex repulsed or.. anything, really. I identify as somewhere between demi and gray-a because I have only experienced the desire to be physically intimate with two people in my life (one of whom I’m not even dating,) and even then, I never experience the desire to actually have sex with them. Just be physically close. Does the fact that I want to kiss this one specific person make me sexual or non-sexual? Does the fact that I’m sex-positive but frequently sex repulsed make me asexual or not? I’ve been told by asexuals that I don’t exist, I’m a picky polysexual and I’m damaging the cause by appropriating the label, and, I mean, that makes me feel like I can’t even get this right. I literally have no idea what the hell is wrong with me.

So, yeah. The idea that you’re ace or not or aro or not or only one or both simultaneously or you’re not real, not ace enough or aro enough or that you’re not doing it right (???) really needs to be destroyed. I want to see MOGAI folks closing ranks and protecting each other, no matter gender or sexuality expression, not tearing each other down to protect the sanctity of their own label.

It all just feels really fucked up to me.

People need to stop treating sexualities as clubs that you need to ‘qualify’ for somehow, IMO. There’s a lot of talk about people ‘just doing it for attention’, ‘just wanting to be different/cool/a special snowflake’, etc., but here’s the thing, I think: I’m not going to make some blanket statement and say that never happens. But, on the whole, identifying as anything other than normative heterosexual still comes with a lot of negative consequences. If someone is taking the risk of identifying as something else, they know those possible consequences. If it’s still worth it to them to take that risk, there’s probably a reason for that. It’s probably because society has made them feel that their sexuality is in some way not “normal”.  If their sexuality were treated as normative and fully accepted by society, I doubt many people would take the trouble labeling themselves as something which could threaten that status. 

In short, I don’t think the “they’re labeling themselves as something other than straight to get attention” mentality is one that could possibly be true in the majority of cases, because it simply wouldn’t be worth it to complicate one’s life that way without a good reason.

But I think we also need to understand that even though labels are useful and important and we need to strive for the greatest possible accuracy with them, no labeling system is ever going to be perfect. People aren’t always going to fall neatly under one label. They might fit into multiple categories, or not fit any one label perfectly. Sexuality is not neat. It’s messy, it’s confusing. What’s true on one day might not be true on a different day. What’s true with one partner might not be true with a different partner.

Labeling sexuality is important, but there shouldn’t be the expectation that everyone is going to be able to label themselves perfectly. Or that you don’t ‘qualify’ if you don’t pass some kind of 100-question test proving you meet every possible criterion. If someone labels themself one way, it’s not really anyone’s place to argue with them. And if they’re still searching for a label, or can’t find any label that fits perfectly, there should be support for that, too.

Oct 2 '14

avataraandy:

Share with me the songs that you associate with Dick/Barbara! You can tell me by replying to this post, via askbox or whatever with as many songs as you please. I can’t tell you what this is for just yet, but all will be revealed soon! 

I actually have a playlist for this! (It’s only 5 songs so far, don’t worry.)

Oct 2 '14

writeroffates asked:

Hey, I don't know if you've ever made a post about this or something, but I want to read some Teen Titans stuff, but I don't think I have the time or patience to read all of the New Teen Titans or something like that. Do you think Titans was a good series, and what would you suggest for someone who wants to read stuff with the Fab Five.

I actually have made a somewhat related post, when someone asked me where a good place to start reading Teen Titans would be. You can check out that post here.

As for Titans, the first run was quite good when Devin Grayson was writing it, IMO. But being that this is Devin Grayson, I do have some issues with it - I don’t really like how she wrote Roy and Donna’s relationship, for one. But still, I think the book was quite good when she was writing it. (She wasn’t at her Devin Grayson-iest yet.) 

After she left, the book got less and less good, IMO, and I am really not partial to the second volume of Titans at all. I’d give that one a pass.

If you’re looking for Fab Five stuff, the Devin Grayson Titans is definitely not a bad place to go. Also, I don’t know if you’re looking for trades or individual issues, but if you’re shy of reading the entire NTT (and believe me, almost no one’s actually read the entirety - I certainly haven’t) I’d recommend picking up the Who is Donna Troy? trade. It contains not only the original Who Is Donna Troy? arc but also her wedding issue, both of which are absolutely fantastic. (Also some later stories which I don’t like nearly as much, but YMMV.)

The Return of Donna Troy is also a really good arc to read if you’re looking for something more recent. Phil Jimenez has an incredibly good grasp of the characters, and the interactions between them are beautiful.

JLA/Titans: The Technis Imperative is a great self-contained Titans story with some fantastic interaction between the Fab Five.

If you wanted to go really vintage, of course, you could try the first volume of the original Teen Titans run.

A more modern take on the early days of the Fab Five is Teen Titans: Year One. It’s not a perfect take in my eyes, but it definitely wins points for cuteness!

These aren’t specific to the Fab Five, but if you’re looking to get into the Teen Titans then The Judas Contract and The Terror of Trigon are both absolute must-reads. Both are currently available in trade.

While this isn’t involving the whole Fab Five, I absolutely love the arc where Dick helps Roy get Lian back. More than any other interaction between them, this is the story that defines their relationship to me. It’s currently available in the trade Nightwing: Old Friends, New Enemies.

Lastly, New Teen Titans: Games is a great self-contained Titans story. Just remember that it’s not part of the main continuity, but a little bit of an AU!

Oct 2 '14

Anonymous asked:

What do you think of David Mazouz as Bruce Wayne?

I LOVE him. Absolutely spot-on casting, IMO.

Sep 24 '14

Anonymous asked:

navyandorange(.)blogspot(.)com/2014/02/zac-posen-fall-2014(.)html

Ah, I just went back to check the OP’s original tags, and it seems you’re right! Thanks for the correction.

I’ve updated the post now.

Tags: replies anons
Sep 21 '14

fanbingblink replied to your post:

And also because being overly aggressive is a “”Strong Female Character”” trait.

That too, but to me that goes back to the same root problem of our culture glorifying aggression and violence. I think the writers who write those kinds of “”Strong Female Characters”” are genuinely trying to have them come across as strong and awesome women, but they are doing it in the laziest and most juvenile way possible as opposed to bothering with complex characterization.

Sep 21 '14

jonsei93 asked:

Hello <3 I was wondering.... have you ever read the 5th issue of the new Sensation Comics? If you have, then... what did you think about the scene where Wonder Woman "takes care of" (i.e. murder) a man who shot her, even though there were so many other ways this situation could be handled?

jonsei93:

idratherbeloislane:

fanbingblink:

luanna255:

Haven’t read it yet, but I definitely don’t like the sound of that! To me, killing is something Diana would do as the absolute last resort only. 

There’s this fantastic quote from the Gail Simone run (it’s from WW #25) - "We have a saying, my people. “Don’t kill if you can wound, don’t wound if you can subdue, don’t subdue if you can pacify and don’t raise your hand at all until you’ve first extended it.”

That’s who Diana is to me. I think some writers just get so excited at having a DC hero without an explicit no-kill policy that they want to show her killing left and right. But to me, not only does that betray what Diana stands for, it actually makes her look less competent. Defeating enemies without killing is harder. Diana should be able to easily defeat most people she goes up against without the question of killing even coming up. 

The bottom line is that if your Diana doesn’t value mercy, you’re writing her wrong. She’s a warrior, yes, but she doesn’t enjoy hurting people, much less killing them. What she really wants is peace.

I found the scene mentioned, and I seriously hope that it was shown afterwards that she was just messing with him and broke his arm or something non-fatal.

Because Diana killing someone over that? Bull.

Y’know, I was wondering when I first saw that scene posted if anyone would assume that she killed the guy. For the record, she did not. 

Here’s the next page:

image

…. Like I said, it’s slightly better, but still… the fact that she threatened him at all is still really OOC for her (at least that’s how I think…)

Not to mention… she still could’ve just grabbed him by the collar and handed him to the officers instead of throwing him like a rag doll.

Ah, I’m glad to know that it was just a fake-out! Thanks for providing the full scene, idratherbeloislane :-)

Sep 21 '14

Anonymous asked:

if you ask me, it seems like that kind of wonder woman is pretty popular amongst fans and writers; the wonder woman who always carries a sword around, who always jumps in to attack/kill without question and seems to love the battle rather than spread peace. it's actually pretty sad, considering her original creator william moulton marston designed her to be the opposite of that kind of hero. i wonder what are your thoughts on this?

*nods* I have a lot of thoughts on it, actually. In the first place, I think our culture often equates aggression with strength, when to my mind they are two very different things. That’s why I think you see heroes like Superman and Captain America being called “boring” and “lame”, etc., while gritty and violent heroes are the ones who are glorified. People confuse kindness and mercy with weakness, which to me is a very dangerous mentality.

So I think when writers are struggling to have WW be taken seriously, their answer is to try and make her more “cool” and “strong” by making her more violent and aggressive. 

The thing with Diana is that there are two sides to her nature - the warrior side, and the peace-loving side. They’re both true parts of who she is, but you have to keep them in balance. If you only write her as peace-loving but forget that she’s a formidable opponent in battle, that’s wrong, too. But on the flipside, when these writers take the “warrior” side of her to an extreme and lose the kindness and mercy, I think they lose the core of what makes Diana special. 

"She’s not mean or cruel, and by no means is she the hard bitten warrior some make her out to be, but she’s no pushover and she’s nobody’s fool… In a world where people are murdered regularly, beaten to a near pulp etc., I find that I require at least ONE character that doesn’t stand for revenge, or violence, or “ass kicking” in the way I think most people mean it (which generally involves intimidation and threat of bodily harm) to invest in and root for. Someone who represents the way I see the world, and fights its ugliness as opposed to giving into it." - Phil Jimenez

 

Sep 21 '14

jonsei93 said: 

Thanks <3 In fact that scene is pretty much all over tumblr…. and people are mostly praising it (ugh). God, doesn’t it make you angry that certain fans are actually happy to see Diana kill somebody?

TBH, a lot of people on this site seem to love the idea of a really violent, aggressive Diana which is not how I see her at all. Like this post, for example? I have seen that post on my dash multiple times, and I just make a face at it every time. The quote is great, but that panel under it? Are they really implying that Diana “deals with” all of her enemies by killing them? That this is her go-to method as a superhero? That is NOT the Diana I love.

Or this scene that everyone was loving so much? Orion deserved it, no doubt, but I don’t see Diana as the type to go around threatening to castrate every guy who makes stupid comments at her. I think it actually makes Diana looks more impressive when she can shut that kind of idiot up with a simple glare.

Sep 21 '14

jonsei93 asked:

Hello <3 I was wondering.... have you ever read the 5th issue of the new Sensation Comics? If you have, then... what did you think about the scene where Wonder Woman "takes care of" (i.e. murder) a man who shot her, even though there were so many other ways this situation could be handled?

Haven’t read it yet, but I definitely don’t like the sound of that! To me, killing is something Diana would do as the absolute last resort only. 

There’s this fantastic quote from the Gail Simone run (it’s from WW #25) - "We have a saying, my people. “Don’t kill if you can wound, don’t wound if you can subdue, don’t subdue if you can pacify and don’t raise your hand at all until you’ve first extended it.”

That’s who Diana is to me. I think some writers just get so excited at having a DC hero without an explicit no-kill policy that they want to show her killing left and right. But to me, not only does that betray what Diana stands for, it actually makes her look less competent. Defeating enemies without killing is harder. Diana should be able to easily defeat most people she goes up against without the question of killing even coming up. 

The bottom line is that if your Diana doesn’t value mercy, you’re writing her wrong. She’s a warrior, yes, but she doesn’t enjoy hurting people, much less killing them. What she really wants is peace.

Sep 21 '14

Anonymous asked:

What are your thoughts on the Young Justice TV show?

I never watched much of it, honestly! 

From what I’ve seen, there are some things I really like about it, others not so much. (The characterization of certain characters - like Dick and Clark - is so different from the versions I love in the comics that it’s a bit hard for me to adjust, for example.)