This comic deals in heavy spoilers of Across the Spiderverse!! Be careful <:)
Hang on a second, if you're really taking requests atm, then are there any actual rules or conditions that we should be aware of? Do they have to involve certain fandoms and such? And are crossovers also allowed?
I would say my only primary rules are 1) Nothing NSFW or suggestive 2) I won’t take OC requests.
Other than almost anything goes! Crossovers and various fandoms are welcome to request! Of course, I’d prefer if it’s fandoms I know, but I would still say be free to request because the odds are high that even if I’m not in certain fandoms I at least know a good amount. I’ll also list some fandoms I know/a part of in the tags for future reference. Thanks for asking! :D
Man as soon as I reply to Anon about requests, I get a suggestive Aladdin and Jasmine drawing request-
You taking art requests?
My inbox is certainly open for requests, but I’ll go ahead and say that I treat them as suggestions rather than a guarantee I’ll draw it. Sometimes I’ll ask for specific requests when I’m in a mood (like asking for disaster lineage prompts a week ago) where it’s more likely I’ll get to those. I hope I articulated that okay- long answer short: Yes! I take art requests, but I pick and choose what I like.
“Falling for you”
“Falling for you”
*force jumps onto Tumblr* Alright guys, shoot me clone wars era Disaster Lineage (Yoda, Dooku, Qui Gon, Obi Wan, Anakin, and Ahsoka) prompts/requests GO!
References for myself on drawing general Kenobi that I’ll more than likely tweak some more later
Colored a sketch of my Jedi OC Ralna I had in my files when she was a padawan.
one year apart blacked out and redrew these old drawings I made based on The Mand’alor and the Jedi series I edited the old posts to have these new drawings, you can find them here -> 1 2 3 4
Season 3 of the Mandalorian looks great-
So this didn’t age well.
Its not as simple as Din should or should not be Mandalore. It's that there has been absoutely no consistency. Nothing previously set up has been paid off, plot lines are skipped over entierly, the tone of this season is drastically different episode to episode. And characterization is all over the place.
Nothing was explored in a meaningful manner especially things set up in season 2. Season 2 basically didnt happen according to the plot of season 3 beacuse none of what mattered there had consequences here.
Its not we wanted Din to rule blindly.
Its that the journey to get to this point has been extremely poor storytelling and lacks any kind of consistent characterization or thematic focus.
Din doesn't have to rule, but we have had absolutely no exploration of how he feels about that beyond the very end of season 2 and this episode.
If you enjoy the choices made, fine. But I and others are perfectly valid in our disappointment. I don't need a story to do exactly what I want to like it.
But I sure as hell need it to be consistent.
And this is a scattered inconsistent season.
Felt nostalgic and wanted to remind myself that I draw for fun, so drew a favorite character of mine growing up.
Felt nostalgic and wanted to remind myself that I draw for fun, so drew a favorite character of mine growing up.
I certainly have thoughts about this season so far of Mando (which ya’ll are very much free to fire away at my ask box if there’s specific things you want to hear my thoughts on), but I also want to be careful in how I go about it particularly because the majority of my thoughts aren't... happy with the season. I want to make sure I can separate what are legitimate writing critiques vs. personal preferences and expectations not met.
I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.
So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."
I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?
It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.
Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.
So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.
Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.



