13 Year Old Peter Quill To Go W/ The Yondu I Did Yesterday. He’s A Little Moody. For That Mini Comic

Ah Vander...

I'm still cracking up over this one line!

Vander has seen Silco turn a teen into a monster who killed 5 armed enforcers, the sheriff and then Benzo, got knocked out and dragged here, heard Silco's passionate speech, and he still seems to think that Silco could possibly be satisfied with just killing him.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, VANDER??

What have you done to Silco, that you believe that he might stop everything he's got going and call it quits after killing you?

The more I look at this sentence and the more it feels like Vander has this sort of... self important perception of who he is, or what he means to Silco.

Vander betrays a massive lack of understanding for Silco's dreams and passions, which is sort of heartbreaking, and feeds my perception of a young Vander who was always more in on it for himself than for ideals or true beliefs.

Vander would settle for personal revenge. Vander understands revenge more than anything else, because even after Silco's speech, he *still* believes that deep down it's all this is really about.

It hints at a young Vander who was full of rage and violence, but devoid of ideals. Silco thought he'd shared his dream with him, but he only gave him a direction to channel his anger, a conduit for his violence. Vander, I think, never really cared for a free Zaun, or never believed in it. That probably made betraying Silco that much easier, back then.

Silco asks him if he's forgotten, and he hasn't. He simply never really believed.

Siebren in Overwatch drabble (I can’t think of a name, again) 

Contains: Not translated Dutch, emotional turmoil, near death.

Keep reading

This might be a weird idea but

What if Sans’s telescope prank wasn’t only a prank, but also a test?

Normally, the kind of prank where you trick someone into getting a mark on their face is a stealth one. The embarrassment is through them not realising the mark and going on with their lives until someone else decides to tell them, or they look in a mirror eventually. They also realise they were the ones who participated, unknowingly, in getting a silly mark.

In this scenario, everyone basically yells SANS and tries to call him on it, resulting in him joking about a refund. But there’s no way Frisk would know about the eye blotch. The normal run of the joke would be for Frisk to obliviously carry on until they find a mirror somewhere. Instead, most people confront Sans immediately.

Maybe he was testing to see if we, the player, really were there. Frisk could’ve turned on him and called him on the prank… despite having no way to know they’ve got a pink eye. That’s what WE know. We outed our existence to Sans.

Yeah, about that plate...

I think everybody has felt the punch of feels because of Bruno’s plate drawn on his little table, but there’s something that caught my attention since the first time I watched the movie and I wanted to talk about it: where he drew that plate.

Bruno’s table is a direct extension of the family table, it’s in perfect alignment with the one his family uses every day. And he didn’t draw the plate beside that crack in the wall to actually see his family while he’s pretending to be sat with them. He didn’t draw it at the head of his table to face the wall either, which would be like sitting right behind Alma. He drew it on the right side.

Except Alma, who always occupies the head of the table (obviously), there’s no way to know if they always sit in the same order or not. We only see them eat two times: breakfast in the morning of the fateful day and dinner with the Guzmán for Isabela’s proposal, and both times the table has a different arrangement. But I think each Madrigal has indeed a specific seat assigned, and their usual order is this:

Antonio, Dolores, Isabela, Camilo and Agustín at Alma’s right, and Félix, Pepa, Mirabel, Luisa and Julieta at Alma’s left (let’s remember that in this moment abuela had moved Mirabel to her side, but she was originally sat between Pepa and Luisa).

During the dinner, there’re guests there occupying two extra seats and altering the order, but each movement can be easily tracked.

Mariano and his mother have to sit next to Alma, and Isa has to sit beside Mariano, so Pepa and Félix move to the opposite side of the table. Julieta, as the bride’s mother, sits in front of Mariano’s mother too. Luisa could’ve kept her seat, but Mirabel has to sit in front of Dolores to keep an eye (or both eyes) on her, and Agustín sits beside Mirabel for the same reason. But everything else is more or less the same. Camilo, Dolores and Antonio remain in their side of the table, as well as Mirabel; in fact, Camilo is occupying his seat, he hasn’t moved at all.

During the breakfast outside (and during dinner), they’re not using their plates, but we can see Mirabel setting the table with them at the beginning of the movie, right before the Family Madrigal song. And she’s arranging the plates in the same order. More important: in this moment, after the disastrous dinner, we can see the plates arranged in that same order again.

Those plates are there for no reason, the Guzmán just left, everything’s a chaos, it has no sense that the family has removed the dinner to set those plates and leave them there. This is just a narrative device, because Mirabel is peeking through the crack from Bruno’s hideout, she’s seeing what he sees, and she’s seeing a table in which every member of the family has a specific seat with their name.

And what’s Bruno’s seat?

At Alma’s right. He has always sat at his mother’s right, and he has kept doing it even from inside the walls, because that’s his seat (probably the one Antonio occupies now).

To be honest, it’s not just about Bruno’s plate. What I love the most about this thing is all those combos with the rest of the family: if that was Bruno’s seat, that would mean Dolores used to sit right beside his tío; Dolores and Isa always sit together; Antonio always sit beside his big sis; Pepa and Félix always sit side by side, and Julieta and Agustín always sit face to face; Mirabel always sit beside Luisa. Agustín was the one who took care of Camilo when they were eating, and Pepa was the one who took care of Mirabel. And I think every single one of these combinations, as a reflection of their family life, is just wonderful.

what some players think the occultist is like: -evil -religious extremist -time for my 4:00 human sacrifice brb -praise cthulhu!! -ending the world is cool and good and your confusion about why someone who thinks ending the world is cool and good is even on the team is definitely not a sign of being mistaken what the occultist’s barks and campfire dialogues are actually like: -i’m a university professor with tenure and still haven’t paid off my student loans -who wants to sing some super cool CAMPFIRE SONGS?! - /stupid teacher quips -god is evil, humans rule and monsters drool, come at me you eldritch FUCK i will yeet your malformed ass back to the VOID YOU SPAWNED FROM you little BITCH -oh fuck oh fuck why did i have the hubris to think i could play games with star-satan and win, curse my lack of genre awareness -HELP I’M SEALED WITHIN THIS MORTAL FLESH PRISON AND I HATE IT HERE. STOP SINGING HIS STUPID SONGS! YOU’RE JUST ENCOURAGING HIM! -whoops it got weird for a minute but it’s all out of my system now, brb making dramatic speeches about the united human intellect -i’m too old for this shit :| what the occultist’s hero shrine story is actually like: -yes hello my hubris led me to make only the worst life choices and i’m not allowed to host book club anymore

How to Handle Having TOO MUCH To Do

So let’s say you’re in the same boat I am (this is a running theme, have you noticed?) and you’ve just got, like, SO MUCH STUFF that HAS to get done YESTERDAY or you will DIE (or fail/get fired/mope). Everything needs to be done yesterday, you’re sick, and for whatever reason you are focusing on the least important stuff first. What to do!

Take a deep breath, because this is a boot camp in prioritization.

Make a 3 by 4 grid. Make it pretty big. The line above your top row goes like this: Due YESTERDAY - due TOMORROW - due LATER. Along the side, write: Takes 5 min - Takes 30 min - Takes hours - Takes DAYS.

Divide ALL your tasks into one of these squares, based on how much work you still have to do. A thank you note for a present you received two weeks ago? That takes 5 minutes and was due YESTERDAY. Put it in that square. A five page paper that’s due tomorrow? That takes an hour/hours, place it appropriately. Tomorrow’s speech you just need to rehearse? Half an hour, due TOMORROW. Do the same for ALL of your tasks

Your priority goes like this:

5 minutes due YESTERDAY

5 minutes due TOMORROW

Half-hour due YESTERDAY

Half-hour due TOMORROW

Hours due YESTERDAY

Hours due TOMORROW

5 minutes due LATER

Half-hour due LATER

Hours due LATER

DAYS due YESTERDAY

DAYS due TOMORROW

DAYS due LATER

At this point you just go down the list in each section. If something feels especially urgent, for whatever reason - a certain professor is hounding you, you’re especially worried about that speech, whatever - you can bump that up to the top of the entire list. However, going through the list like this is what I find most efficient.

Some people do like to save the 5 minute tasks for kind of a break between longer-running tasks. If that’s what you want to try, go for it! You’re the one studying here.

So that’s how to prioritize. Now, how to actually do shit? That’s where the 20/10 method comes in. It’s simple: do stuff like a stuff-doing FIEND for 20 minutes, then take a ten minute break and do whatever you want. Repeat ad infinitum. It’s how I’ve gotten through my to do list, concussed and everything.

You’ve got this. Get a drink and start - we can do our stuff together!

insert bitter caption

Trivia from Encanto (2021) dir. Byron Howard, Jared Bush (insp)

Hi! I’m part of the lgbtq+ community and Severus is my favorite HP character and I was wondering (if you have the time and feel obliged) if you could please give me a few examples of how he’s queer? It’s been a few years since I reread the books, and def before I came out, so I’m a little in the dark here lol Thanks!!

First of all, I just wanted to apologize for how long it has taken me to properly respond to your ask. I’ve been dealing with some ongoing health issues that have turned me into something of a moody writer. I’ll get random spurts of energy and inspiration and then hit a wall of absolute writer’s block assisted by a major case of executive dysfunction every single time I try to respond to the multiple asks languishing in my inbox. Fortunately, I found myself involved in a discussion just today that addressed your ask so perfectly that I wanted to share it with you.  In the very least, that discussion has also managed to shake off my writer’s block temporarily so that I have found myself in the right head-space to finally be able to give this lovely ask the thought and attention that I feel it deserves. 

Although, in regards to the Snape discourse I linked above, I feel that I should warn you in advance that the discussion was prompted by an anti-Snape poster who made a rather ill-thought meme (I know there are many in the Snapedom who would rather just avoid seeing anti-Snape content altogether, so I try to warn when I link people to debates and discussions prompted by anti-posts) but the thoughtful responses that the anti-Snape poster unintentionally generated from members of the Snapedom (particularly by @deathdaydungeon whose critical analyses of Snape and, on occasions, other Harry Potter characters is always so wonderfully nuanced, thought-provoking, and well-considered), are truly excellent and worth reading, in my opinion. Also, as I fall more loosely under the “a” (I’m grey-ace/demisexual) of the lgbtqa+ flag and community I would prefer to start any discussions about Snape as a queer character or as a character with queer coding by highlighting the perspectives of people in the Snapedom who are actually queer before sharing any thoughts of my own.

In addition, I also wanted to share a few other posts where Snape’s queer coding has been discussed by members of the Snapedom in the past (and likely with far more eloquence than I could manage in this response of my own).

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Along with an excellent article in Vice by Diana Tourjée, in which a case for Snape being trans is convincingly argued. 

Importantly, you’ll notice that while some of these discussions do argue the possibility of Snape being a queer or trans character others may only discuss the way that Snape’s character is queer coded. That is because there is a distinct but subtle difference between: “This character could be queer/lgbtq+” and: “This character has queer/lgbtq+ coding” one which is briefly touched on in the first discussion that I linked you to. However, I would like to elaborate a bit here just what I mean when I refer to Snape as a character with queer coding. As while Rowling has never explicitly stated that she intended to write Snape as lgbtq+ (although there is one interview given by Rowling which could be interpreted as either an unintentional result of trying to symbolically explain Snape’s draw to the dark arts or a vague nod to Snape’s possible bisexuality: “Well, that is Snape’s tragedy. … He wanted Lily and he wanted Mulciber too. He never really understood Lily’s aversion; he was so blinded by his attraction to the dark side he thought she would find him impressive if he became a real Death Eater.”) regardless of her intent when she drew upon the existing body of Western literary traditions and tropes for writing antagonists and villains in order to use them as a red-herring for Snape’s character, she also embued his character with some very specific, coded subtext. This is where Death of the Author can be an invaluable tool for literary critics, particularly in branches of literary criticism like queer theory. 

Ultimately, even if Rowling did not intend to write Snape as explicitly queer/lgbtq+ the literary tradition she drew upon in order to present him as a foil for Harry Potter and have her readers question whether he was an ally or a villain has led to Snape being queer coded. Specifically, many of the characteristics of Snape’s character design do fall under the trope known as the “queering of the villain.” Particularly, as @deathdaydungeon, @professormcguire, and other members of the Snapedom have illustrated, Snape’s character not only subverts gender roles (e.g. his Patronus presents as female versus male, Snape symbolically assumes the role of “the mother” in the place of both Lily and later Narcissa when he agrees to protect Harry and Draco, his subject of choice is potions and poisons which are traditionally associated more with women and “witches,” while he seemingly rejects in his first introduction the more phallic practice of “foolish wand-waving,” and indeed Snape is characterized as a defensive-fighter versus offensive, in Arthurian mythology he fulfills the role of Lady of the Lake in the way he chooses to deliver the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry, Hermione refers to his hand-writing as “kind of girly,” his association with spiders and spinners also carries feminine symbology, etc.) but is often criticized or humiliated for his seeming lack of masculinity (e.g. Petunia mocking his shirt as looking like “a woman’s blouse,” which incidentally was also slang in the U.K. similar to “dandy” to accuse men of being effeminate, the Marauders refer to Snape as “Snivellus” which suggests Snape is either less masculine because he cries or the insult is a mockery of what could pass for a stereotypical/coded Jewish feature, his nose, Remus Lupin quite literally instructs Neville on how to “force” a Boggart!Snape, who incidentally is very literally stepping out of a closet-like wardrobe, into the clothing of an older woman and I quoted force because that is the exact phrase he uses, James and Sirius flipping Snape upside down to expose him again presents as humiliation in the form of emasculation made worse by the arrival and defense of Lily Evans, etc.). 

Overall, the “queering of the villain” is an old trope in literature (although it became more deliberate and prevalent in media during the 1950s-60s); however, in modernity, we still can find it proliferating in many of the Disney villains (e.g. Jafar, Scar, Ursula, etc.), in popular anime and children’s cartoons (e.g. HiM from Powerpuff Girls, James from Pokemon, Frieza, Zarbon, the Ginyu Force, Perfect Cell, basically a good majority of villains from DBZ, Nagato from Fushigi Yuugi, Pegasus from Yu Gi Oh, etc.), and even in modern television series and book adaptations, such as the popular BBC’s Sherlock in the character of Moriarty. Indeed, this article does an excellent job in detailing some of the problematic history of queer coded villains. Although, the most simple summary is that: “Queer-coding is a term used to say that characters were given traits/behaviors to suggest they are not heterosexual/cisgender, without the character being outright confirmed to have a queer identity” (emphasis mine). Notably, TV Tropes also identifies this trope under the classification of the “Sissy Villain” but in queer theory and among queer writers in fandom and academia “queering of the villain” is the common term. This brings me back to Snape and his own queer coding; mainly, because Rowling drew upon Western traditions for presenting a character as a suspected villain she not only wrote Snape as queer (and racially/ethnically) coded but in revealing to the reader that Snape was not, in fact, the villain Harry and the readers were encouraged to believe he was by the narrator she incorporated a long history of problematic traits/tropes into a single character and then proceeded to subvert them by subverting reader-expectation in a way that makes the character of Severus Snape truly fascinating. 

We can certainly debate the authorial intent vs. authorial impact where Snape’s character is concerned. Particularly as we could make a case that the polarizing nature of Snape may well be partly the result of many readers struggling against Rowling subverting literary tropes that are so firmly rooted in our Western storytelling traditions that they cannot entirely abandon the idea that this character who all but had the book thrown at him in terms of all the coding that went into establishing him as a likely villain (e.g. similar to Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, Snape is also coded to be associated with darkness/black colors and to represent danger and volatile/unstable moods, while his class status further characterizes him as an outsider or “foreign other,” and not unlike all those villains of our childhood Disney films which affirmed a more black-and-white philosophy of moral abolutism, such as Scar or Jafar, the ambiguity of Snape’s sexuality coupled with his repeated emasculation signals to the reader that this man should be “evil” and maybe even “predatory,” ergo all the “incel” and friendzone/MRA discourse despite nothing in canon truly supporting those arguments; it seems it may merely be Snape’s “queerness” that signals to some readers that he was predatory or even that “If Harry had been a girl” there would be some kind of danger) is not actually our villain after all. 

Indeed, the very act of having Snape die (ignoring, for the moment, any potential issues of “Bury Your Gays” in a queer analysis of his death) pleading with Harry to “look at him” as he symbolically seems to weep (the man whom Harry’s hyper-masculine father once bullied and mocked as “Snivellus”) memories for Harry to view (this time with his permission) carries some symbolic weight for any queer theory analysis. Snape, formerly portrayed as unfathomable and “secretive,” dies while pleading to be seen by the son of both his first and closest friend and his school-hood bully (a son that Snape also formerly could never see beyond his projection of James) sharing with Harry insight into who he was via his personal memories. For Harry to later go on to declare Snape “the bravest man he ever knew” carries additional weight, as a queer theory analysis makes it possible for us to interpret that as Harry finally recognizing Snape, not as the “queer coded villain” he and the reader expected but rather as the brave queer coded man who was forced to live a double-life in which “no one would ever know the best of him” and who, in his final moments at least, was finally able to be seen as the complex human-being Rowling always intended him to be. 

Rowling humanizing Snape for Harry and the reader and encouraging us to view Snape with empathy opened up the queer coding that she wrote into his character (intentionally or otherwise) in such a way that makes him both a potentially subversive and inspiring character for the lgbtq+ community. Essentially, Snape opens the door for the possibility of reclaiming a tradition of queer coding specific to villains and demonstrating the way those assumptions about queer identity can be subverted. Which is why I was not at all surprised that I was so easily able to find a body of existing discourse surrounding Snape as a queer coded or even as a potentially queer character within the Harry Potter fandom. At least within the Snapedom, there are many lgbtq+ fans of his character that already celebrate the idea of a queer, bi, gay, trans, ace/aro, or queer coded Snape (in fact, as a grey-ace I personally enjoy interpreting Snape through that lens from time-to-time). 

Thank you for your ask @pinkyhatespink and once again I apologize for the amount of time it’s taken me to reply. However, I hope that you’ll find this response answered your question and, if not, that some of the articles and posts from other pro-Snape bloggers I linked you to will be able to do so more effectively. Also, as a final note, although many of the scholarly references and books on queer coding and queering of the villain I would have liked to have sourced are typically behind paywalls, I thought I would list the names of just a few here that I personally enjoyed reading in the past and that may be of further interest should you be able to find access to them.

Fathallah, Judith. “Moriarty’s Ghost: Or the Queer Disruption of the BBC’s Sherlock.” Television & New Media, vol. 16, no. 5, 2014, p. 490-500. 

Huber, Sandra. “Villains, Ghosts, and Roses, or How to Speak With The Dead.” Open Cultural Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2019, p. 15-25.

Mailer, Norman. “The Homosexual Villain.” 1955. Mind of an Outlaw: Selected Essays, edited by Sipiora Phillip, Random House, 2013, pp. 14–20.

Solis, Nicole Eschen. "Murder Most Queer: The Homicidal Homosexual in the American Theater.” Queer Studies in Media & Pop Culture, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016, p. 115+. 

Tuhkanen, Mikko. “The Essentialist Villain.” Jan. 2019,  SBN13: 978-1-4384-6966-9

friends