maybe lesbians ship so much m/m stuff not because they are “sexualizing” the gender that they aren’t even remotely attracted to, but because they want to navigate and explore the narrative of a gay relationship they care about.
and maybe because female characters are so monumentally underwritten across the board – in terms of relationships with each other and sheer personal character development – said lesbians cannot muster the investment they can for two male characters. maybe thats why there isn’t as much f/f content out there. it’s not some moral failing or internalized homophobia, it’s a sheer lack of well-rounded content
but u know. don’t ask me i’m just a girl math is hard!!
Breath of the Wild is still one of the most unique and gorgeous takes on a post-apocalyptic world in modern games, in my opinion. A lot of games with post-apocalyptic settings are very stark and colorless and alien and while those are interesting in their own right I still think that BotW’s take on it is just as fascinating and makes it stand out.
Hyrule was utterly destroyed. No matter where you believe it lands on the Zelda timeline, it’s undeniable that it came thousands of years after well established kingdoms we’ve seen within games in the franchise, and that’s before we even discuss the Sheikah technology that predated this iteration of Link. We know that the wild and open Hyrule we have now is a far cry from the established kingdoms we’ve seen. People were killed. Civilizations were ravaged, destroyed, and left empty. Existing towns are small, scattered, and isolated by a violent wilderness full of monsters.
Enormous mechs with land-altering properties and minds of their own threaten the livelihood of those remaining.
There are fields littered with the remains of nigh-unkillable robots, and some of them still prowl the forests and mountains. At the very center of it all, the apocalypse-bringer itself is only barely restrained from releasing its absolute fury on what’s left as it continues to bring monsters back from the dead time and time again.
And yet… the world is still so alive in spite of all its struggles. The dust has settled, but instead of being dark and devoid of life, nature has crept over the ruins and roads. Wildlife thrives, birds sing, and plants grow, including the rarest flower thought to have been nearly extinct making a slow return. The sunrise and sunset are still beautiful, even if that light is cast mostly on empty, grassy fields as far as the eye can see. Wild horses frolic among the remains of guardians. Strange and beautiful spirits soar through the air or shine between the trees. Great fairies watch over towns. Even though the terrain is dangerous, people have made roads and paths for merchants and adventurers who connect the towns and villages. Monsters and guardians haven’t stopped them from exploring, scavenging, and pioneering the wild. Yes, the people know that the world is full of danger which threatens to engulf them- it’s hard to ignore that when Hyrule Castle is so visible- but that hasn’t stopped them from gathering the remains and making the most of it. It isn’t the shining kingdom it once was, but the people have a newfound appreciation and respect for the wilderness that now spans it.
There’s just something so lovely and humbling about a setting which looks at the fallout of a magical kingdom and the new lives its people lead in the midst of a world that’s dangerous, seeing how they’re working on stringing themselves together again, and watching as they rekindle their hope… and all the while, the rest of the world keeps breathing. The sun still rises and the sun still sets.
pride and prejudice wasn't written as a resistance to the patriarchy djdjfhdhsj what
i mean i’ve been staring at this message for a solid minute now pondering how to reply, trying to figure out how ro reply, but honestly it boils down to one question: have you read it?
because literally the prevalent theme of pride & prejudice as well as other works of Austen—perhaps most visibly, sense & sensibility—is the ironic social commentary on the degraded role of women, as subjected and dependent on the way of whether they would marry well as they used to be?
like, honestly, what did you think it was about? sure it has a romance in it, but it’s probably one of the the most politically designed and carried out romantical arcs in literature, as it relies not so much on mutual affection, but rather darcy aknowledging his fault of diminishing elizabeth as an intelligent human being. at first, we see him as quite obviously set upon taking her for granted and applying stereotypes; startled with her outspoken attitude and clueless as to why she would reject him. because it IS surprising, that’s the point, given the context of Austen’s novel, the commonly praised choice would be to accept not only darcy, but mr collins without another thought. what do you think is the reason mrs bennet was so distraught all the time? there was no way of securing the future of her daughters other than marriage, we hear it being repeated over and over again—they cannot inherit their father’s fortune.
and—good grief. that’s the romantic ‘main plot’ concerning darcy and elizabeth alone, because the whole point is that he changes his beliefs and acknowledges elizabeth as an equal in the end. darcy isn’t exceptional for being surly and broody, he’s exceptional because he listens and learns.
but all the rest? the whole arc of charlotte, and her unhappy and dull marriage to mr collins, and the stark contrast with elizabeth. charlotte is not WRONG, she does the only thing she knows for certain will allow her to live in a respectful way without becoming ‘a burden to her parents’. the arc of lydia, basing off her portrayal against wickham? even with all his debt, infamy and faults, wickham’s opinion is at no point more blemished than lydia’s. that’s the point, that’s reiteraring the original notion of the disparity between men and women in regency England. the radiating, stinging paternalistic attitude of mr collins towards elizabeth when he marries charlotte and TELLS her that she would probably get no better chance. his absolute belief—corresponding with darcy’s, and contrasted with the latter’s rehabilitation later on—that elizabeth has no choice but accept him.
and elizabeth herself—for all the composition and impeccable manners, she IS a controversial figure in the novel. take the scene when she’s bashed by lady catherine de bourgh, the ongoing commentary on her being too forward with her opinions, the continuous bashing coming from her mother—the lingering threat that lizzy’s ‘stubbornness’ will cause her much trouble and, above all, prevent her from securing both her and the other sisters from absolute poverty when their father dies.
and, just … of course it’s written subtly, it’s conveyed in elizabeth’s wit, in austen’s slightly ironic narrative. the problem with the situation of women is not EXPLICITLY named and stated. it’s not modern times where we’re accustomed to forward addressing of feminist issues. no: it’s shown. it is not only the consistent theme in her works, it’s the prevalent theme of them. i mean, come on, there’s tonnes and tonnes of books that were NOT written with a purpose of targeting partiarchy. fuck, there are much MORE of such books than there is of the latter kind. But to choose Pride & Prejudice specifically, a novel which became one of the most famous books in the world, renowned for e x a c t l y t h i s … i cannot comprehend. please, at least consider this: do you really think the purpose of austen writing p&p was writing a romance? really? why would it become so much of a literature landmark, then?
i don’t mean to be nasty and honestly, go and have your opinion, you’re perfectly entitled to it, but it does make me sad that a novel that is a witty, outsanding and one of a kind social commentary on the plight of women in a specific time period written by a woman IN the time period is turned into something as common as a novel with a romantic plot. that’s all.