ordinary people are

anonymous asked:

I read your ackerbond metas and if I really think of it Mikasa and Levi's lieges are like a temporal fix. Maybe it makes sense for a knight to dedicate your life to a king's ideology forever but ordinary people aren't like this. You change, your perception changes, and people lie. Erwin is not who Levi thought he was, and if Kenny knew Uri was a slave to his powers he wouldn't have followed him. Mikasa wasn't fully grown when she dedicated her power to Eren and Isayama says she'll depart him

Temporary* forgive my auto correction I’m on mobile Dx

I sorta liked “temporal” :) 

If you ascribe to Death of the Author, I can see where there could be some room for “what ifs”. What if that person dies, what if they change their mind? The manga hasn’t, and probably wont, cover all possible details of the Ackerbond.

But if you accept supplementary material like interviews with Hajime Isayama, we’ve gotten a clear picture of his authorial intent - that is the bond is the most important relationship if their life, one involving choice, instinct and lifelong devotion. Ackerman are not “ordinary people”.


I’ve discussed this here.  Mikasa bonding with Eren as a child does present some unique challenges. Isayama considered a separation so Mikasa can develop individually, but knows that is something canon Mikasa wouldn’t want.

I think it is pitiful if Mikasa’s life is only about staying together with Eren. However to Mikasa, it is a wonderful thing to be with Eren forever.

So according to the interview, canon Mikasa would never want to separate from Eren. Even though it was a childish decision, her life is devoted to him. 

Isayama did mention having her face a choice between “the right thing” and “the eren thing”. Mikasa giving up in the fight for Armin on the roof may have been what he was hinting.


We have a full life story in the manga. Kenny chose Uri and followed him the duration of his life. When Rod made a disparaging comment about Uri, Kenny nearly slit his throat. The bond was still there.

As far as any regrets, we can look to the manga. As Kenny lay dying, he was remembering Uri and talking to him, even telling Levi about him. Kenny didn’t seem regretful. He seemed inspired. 

In the recent Guidebook interview, Isayama says that giving the serum to Levi was the first selfless thing Kenny had done. In doing so, I’d like to think it was a moment where he attained something close his goal of reaching Uri.


Levi was an adult man when he made the decision to “devote himself Erwin”, the person “whose existence exceeds that of Levi’s own” The interviewer specifically asked about Levi’s mindset once Levi learned Erwin’s goal had an element of selfishness.

From the Answers book (source: @fuku-shuu​)

To Levi, they had shared a promise to “save humanity together,” so his first thought is, “This guy’s words…why are they different from before?”

And even though Levi still didn’t understand things fully after discovering how Erwin had childlike motivations, he leaned towards the attitude of, “Alright then, let me help you anyway” rather than distrusting Erwin.

From the more recent Guidebook

When he discovers that Erwin actually has a selfish goal like his “dream,” it can be said that he felt betrayed. However, he also recognizes that this person whom he cannot hope to surpass actually has “an innocent, childlike side that chases dreams.”

The interviews have let us know that Levi accepted this part of Erwin and continued to support him unconditionally.

There’s also this - the face says it all.

All of this being said, you’re absolutely welcome to believe what you want. Many people choose to view the Ackerbond within the confines of the manga. That’s fine. The manga provides solid indication of the intense and powerful dedication each Ackerman feels towards their chosen person.

Thanks for the ask!

Okay I get that Drake let his emotions get the better of him and got protective seeing this man who’d broken his sister’s heart, but Bertrand did nothing to have this kind of treatment coming at him. In fact, Drake and Bertrand were in a similar situation- both had been wilfully kept in the dark by Maxwell and Savannah. Bertrand…did not do anything wrong. He wasn’t at fault- in reality, he has as much to blame Maxwell and Savannah for as Drake does.

That being said, I feel like we should also take into account Drake’s frame of mind: he has been hit by waves of betrayal over a very short period of time, and by those most closest to him- despite the fact that he’s so guarded. Between Maxwell not telling him about Savannah’s condition and whereabouts and Savannah herself keeping him away, Drake must feel pretty rattled. Not to forget Bertrand broke his sister’s heart, yet again proving Drake’s conviction that the nobles simply use ordinary people like him and Savannah for their ends, and then dispose of them. Add to that the fact that Bastien, someone he’s always looked at like a brother, is part of a malicious plot- Drake has to feel really, really hurt and beaten after all of this. His sudden aggression towards Bertrand was clearly the culmination of all these factors amounting to his anger, and that materialised into him having a go at Bertrand. It was not directed at Bertrand necessarily as much as it was the bubbling over of the overwhelming frustration and stress he was feeling, all at once. And I just feel like we should consider this when chiding Drake for his actions.

anonymous asked:

Any prompts for a serial killer in love? I'm writing a story about this guy who has really many problems and a girl helps him to overcome them, he is so possessive but at the same time he is very kind, broken, and unhappy person until he meets her, love all your ideas!

Alright. I watch a lot of documentaries on serial killers. Weird thing to admit, but it’s true. Now, Romance or love in a serial killer, incredibly rare. Serial killers have like, a whole different set of emotions and thought processes then ordinary people. There are serial killers who have been married, been in relationships, but that doesnt necessarily mean they were in love. Hell, ordinary people don’t always marry for love. 

What Im trying to say here is that the chances of an actual serial killer falling in love are very slim. I also feel like this idea falls a bit into the idea of romanticizing mental illnesses. Now you, or others might disagree with me, there may be more to your story I don’t know about that would prove that idea wrong, but from what you’ve asked of me, I feel uncomfortable writing prompts for it. Im very sorry that I can’t help you, and I hope this doesnt offend you; but I highly suggest you really look into serial killers, and mental illnesses, as well as the romanticizing of mental illness and why that’s wrong, before you continue such a story. Again, so sorry, and I don’t mean to offend you.  

I’m reading James Woods’ The Conservative Revolution in the Weimar Republic, which is about one particular strand of rightist intellectual in that period, and one thing that comes through is the sense that a lot of these guys were more interested in participating in something glorious and beautiful and self-transcendent, a sacrifice of the self before ideals, without particular care for what the actual ideals are or what the individual is being sacrificed for. Many of them were pretty explicit in saying this.

Woods is less explicit upfront about what his central thesis is than I would like, but to reconstruct it, it seems to be that in the wake of the nihilistic experience of war - which a lot of these guys were very upfront about, unlike a lot of traditional conservative propagandists they seem to have no interest in denying that traditional heroism in war means little, everything was caused by venal and ridiculous politicians/generals condemning ordinary people to death over little scraps of land, and so on - they turned to an existentialist understanding that ennoblement through struggle in is its own end, and so were able to reconcile the obvious nihilistic horror of their war experience with their human need to see horrific experience as justified. “If nothing we do matters, all that matters is what we do,” if you will, just instead of trying to justify the intuition that we should all be nice to each other, it’s trying to justify the intuition that blind obedience, killing and being killed, and utter devotion to a vague concept of the nation are all worth it. They say they want socialism, but clarify that they don’t actually mean any kind of economic program, but the restoration of the kind of intense comradery that they had with their units in the trenches, transposed to society as a whole.

I may just be relying on stereotypes and individual experience, but I imagine there are age components to this as well. Most of these guys were not just middle-class, veterans, etc. but also men in their twenties. (Were they married? I have no idea.) One change I’ve noticed with both positive and negative aspects over the last couple years, as I’ve moved out of my twenties, is that I am much less interested in participating in something for its being truly Great, over and above its making my or someone else’s life easier or more enjoyable. This was never my primary motivation - as attested for instance by the fact that everything I’ve ever actually accomplished is quite mediocre - but it was there, and if circumstances were different I could have seen myself drawn to extremist politics quite different than I was in actuality. (And as for my own extremist politics, I don’t know how much they’ve changed at, like, a doctrine level, but several years ago there was a lot of appeal in joining a cadre org if it wouldn’t have been socially proscribed by other relationships I’ve had, whereas now it just sounds exhausting and probably not very effective, and there are lower-intensity and normier activities/orgs I can work with.) Once the thought of being in the news would have been appealing, now definitely not (except if it somehow resulted in my getting a job or something lmao lmao). And so on.