it just occurred to me, martin wilby is the alex rider tv show's ash. there's a line in season 1 where the department is talking about wilby being responsible for ian's death and how ian “thought the world of him.”
very similar to how ash was responsible for john (and helen's) death, but john very clearly loved the guy. enough to make him alex's godfather and save his life. another very interesting parallel for the rider brothers.
ash and wilby are different to each other however. at least ash had somewhat more of a reason to join scorpia? a vendetta against alan blunt. wilby just straight up wanted money. yassen gregorovich stabbed both of them though.
44 notes
·
View notes
LORDS OF WINTERFELL + THEIR BASTARD SIBING - Torrhen Stark & Brandon Snow
To say that Torrhen Stark's decision to bend the knee to Aegon I was an unpopular one was an understatment. The king had ruled for nearly twenty years by that point and had maintained a rare tenure of peace and agricultural prosperity before the arrival of the Targaryen invaders. But while the decision to give up his crown may have saved the lives of the people of the North, it cost him the respect of his sons, his lords, and his brother, Brandon Snow.
Brandon was nearly a decade younger than the king, only just older than Torrhen's sons. The two had been close all their lives, as Brandon was raised within the royal Stark family amicably. He was trained as a warrior, one of the finest archers of the land. And he was bold, too. But like the rest of the North, Brandon held on to his grudges. It would be many months before Brandon spoke to Torrhen again after bending the knee to Aegon, and many more years before he considered forgiving his elder brother.
Torrhen prevented Brandon from trying to kill the dragons of Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya. Before departing Winterfell, Brandon carved three arrows. He prayed over them, willed the power of the Old Gods to guide them true and slay the beasts. But Torrhen forbade him from using them. They argued and raged at each other before finally Brandon agreed to treat with Aegon, but left his bow behind. By the next morning, Torrhen handed his crown to the conqueror and Brandon spat at his feet.
It was not that Torrhen did not believe his brother could accomplish his mission, and for many years after it haunted him that perhaps he should have let the boy try. But he knew that Brandon would die a martyr in the attempt. Perhaps it as his selfishness to not see his brother, and eventually his sons to die pointless deaths. In the attempt to find a peace, he lost his brother's respect, and his sons struggled to even look at him. Brandon lived in his rage; anger at Torrhen's cowardice, anger at himself for listening to him. But Brandon could not fathom a king's responsability to his country, and did not bear the weight of it. Perhaps Torrhen was preventing his brother from an inevitable failure that which he would be blamed for. The bastard that could not kill a dragon. He gladly kept Brandon's resentment for the rest of his life, if meant saving him that.
458 notes
·
View notes
Hey! I know you’re never going to finish Leviathan, but I want to thank you for writing it! It’s genuinely one of the most comforting series I’ve read since I struggle with a lot of anxiety, and even if you were just 14 you did a beautiful job at writing these underwater scenes that were just so calming. I really appreciate all the work and effort you put into this and I hope that you’ll continue to put that love into everything you do :)
thank you anon!! i really appreciate this, i'm glad it helped you :)
37 notes
·
View notes
As someone who enjoys religion blogging/discussions, I've come to realize that it's a good practice to be aware of the general signs/symptoms of religious-OCD thinking (aka scrupulosity), because if the conversation is taking on all the hallmarks of scrupulosity, it's actually a definitive sign that we cannot meaningfully and compassionately engage in a conversation about religion in a healthy way. I've actually had this play out a significant number of times online, and when I realized what it was, I also began to realize that the intrusive thoughts/obsessive and compulsive thinking are only ever fed by continuing the discussion with that person.
[[ Important edit to clarify why I am saying it's not healthy — made after I went back to look for more concrete facts about OCD or anxiety (I have GAD, not OCD, but many resources overlap since they're both anxiety disorders):
When Reassurance is Harmful — this explains how/why reassurance-seeking specifically about an OCD fear is a compulsive behavior, and engaging with reassurance-seeking interferes with recovery/management/treatment.
This table from the Anxiety Disorders Center lists key differences between Information Seeking and Reassurance Seeking.
This IOCDF page on Scrupulosity info for Faith Leaders identifies "symptom accommodation" as enabling. Two of the examples of doing this by participating in the OCD behavior are: "Engage in excessive conversation focused on if-then scenarios (e.g., "If I did this, then would X or Y happen? And what if Z was involved? How about W?")" And, "Repeatedly answering questions about ‘correct’ religious or faith practices."
That page also goes on to outline more info about reassurance seeking. "Although providing answers to (often simple!) questions may seem harmless, providing reassurance serves to maintain the anxiety disorder cycle." (This BMC psychiatry article cites a lot of related studies establishing this.)
The IOCDF page on What is OCD and Scrupulosity? ]]
Imo, the responsible thing to do is to recognize that (even if the other person hasn't outright stated it/isn't diagnosed)* the conversation is not about religion, it is about needing mental health support from professionals and experts. Talking to me, the layperson who enjoys chatting theology and my religion — is not only not helping, but is actively harmful. I'm not just talking about the person who I replied to today, either. Like I've said, I've seen this happen dozens of times in various online forums.
*[while I am against diagnosing strangers on the internet, it's important to realize A) lots of people don't know what Scrupulosity is, so it's possible they've never considered this is a mental health concern that could be treated, and that B) for the purposes of my concern, it doesn't matter if they actually have diagnosed OCD. The only thing that matters is that their thought-process causes them genuine distress/fear, and every response given to them seems to only incite new/additional distressing questions/thoughts, or further entrenches the original distress.]
Ultimately, any discussion aside from "you might want to speak to a mental health professional about scrupulosity OCD" seemingly puts me in the position of feeling as if I am being used for their self-harm. I hate that feeling. I do not want to be leverage for fear and pain. I have GAD, I despise the idea that I am making things worse.
No matter how much I love religious discussion, the answer in these cases is always "please reach out to an OCD specialist/mental health professional. I am not qualified to discuss this." And then to stop there. I have never once seen anyone stuck in this compulsive thought spiral be reassured or feel any better by hearing from someone else's approach to theology handled with things like empathy, compassion, logic, or even atheism. It doesn't matter what we say, how we say it, or how we relate to our own religion. The urge to engage in this kind of conversation in order to chat about religion is a sign that we are not equipped to help.
You can't have a conversation here, because intentionally or not, ten times out of ten, you are adding fuel to the fire. Just like people can't simply tell me something that would erase/talk me out of my ADHD/depression/anxiety disorder, you also cannot simply argue/reassure/persuade people out of scrupulosity. We should not try. We have a responsibility to consider that it's outright harmful to do so, and to disengage.
94 notes
·
View notes
So like a normal person I got kind of curious and looked at the names of the petrified drow so I could try looking for possible name meanings, but I'm no drow expert. I could only look at the Drow Names site and hope for any similarities. These are my best guesses:
Dhourn (Dhaun: infested, plague. Houn: magic, trail, way)
Izwae (izz: hidden, mask, masked. Wae: heir, inheritor, princess)
Moy (May: beautiful, beauty, silver. Mol: blue, storm, thunder, wind. oj: aura, cloak, hide, skin)
Arcagh (word arc: curve, bow. Akor/Alak: beloved, best, first. agh: breaker, destruction, end, omega)
Tecothy (like Timothy? Teb: blade, sharp, sword)
Artimezt (Inspired by Artemis maybe? zt: finder, hunter)
Important to note that some of the similar words/names I found and used here are the feminine versions, and I remember seeing a detailed post somewhere in which someone took Kar'niss' name and tried to translate it, in which they also mentioned what it means if a male drow uses a feminine name version, but I forgot...
64 notes
·
View notes
When Robin was first introduced, she had been working with Crocodile in Alabasta for the past several years, so I could understand her skin tone being a little lighter than it used to be, but not this bad.
It's extremely fucked up. I would understand the "it was an animation error" argument if it wasn't because it happens with all the characters (not only Robin) and they're whiter and whiter each episode (even the characters that should be black).
If we follow irl reasoning as you say, then all of them should be tanned because they're pirates. They're constantly under the sun. But no, they go backward and instead, they lack melanin every episode. It was already bad, but Egghead fucked up big time.
And don't get me started on Usopp because people could use that excuse on any other character, but Usopp?? I truly, really, don't think it takes too much thinking to get that he's black and Toei just keeps making him paler than Sanji. It's ridiculous and racist and people who ignore it or say it's been talked "too much" (because people say it and apparently there's a limit for them as to how much you can complain about racism) always get on my nerves.
What Toei is doing is just disgusting and people defending it are always the ones who refuse to see any mistakes in the things they like. News flash! You can like something and admit it has mistakes.
40 notes
·
View notes