trying on a metaphor
One Nice Bug Per Day
Xuebing Du
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Product Placement
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
shark vs the universe
No title available
No title available
Kaledo Art
wallacepolsom
No title available
noise dept.
#extradirty
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
AnasAbdin
titsay
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
seen from Netherlands
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Kyrgyzstan
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Poland
seen from Italy
seen from Germany
seen from France
seen from India
seen from Brazil
seen from Brazil
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Egypt
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Oman
@myloversnameiscoffee
Betrayal fight concept
been thinking about this one for awhile so i just drew up a brief sketch about it so i dont forget LOL
its a corny concept where the rings and gold chain act as a collar/leash for UF sans gaster blasters or gaster dogs???idk
Ill dive into it more once im all rested up
Why Sans hates women tho
here take this because i dont want it to live in my head rent free
This like a year old but now that im aware both you and sour are fans of eachothers au's nows a perfect time to directly show this
THANK YOU SO MUCH I FUCKING LOVE THIS TO DEATH
he is high key the easiest to draw on Drawpile
Undertale is cool again and I’ve found this audio in my fan folder, wanted to do a little something.
Audio from crashboombanger (deactivated)
IM SCREAMING THANK YOU SO MUCH I AM SCREAMING I LOVE IT AND I WATCHED THIS SO MANY TIMES
being accidentally funny has its rewards
How did you feel when Fell died in Underverse? Like, did it suprise you at all?
Underfell Riverperson when
MY OLD TWITTER .. HAD MORE INFO…
UNDERFELL STARTED FROM THIS INTERACTION
Hi! I like your little UF Dog. Does he have a different name or is he still just "Annoying Dog"?
I’d like to think it’s just Fella.
“ you have too many Fellas in your pocket!”
Hot Take 2.0: Papyrus is way more likely to be in control than Flowey is when it comes to, well, just about anything.
Insult Papyrus all you like during your date/hangout. It won't change the outcome. Call him a loser after your fight with him and he turns the insult back on YOU. On No Mercy, he believes in you, whether or not you eventually decide to kill him. He might not be able to stop you, but damn he isn't going to let your choices change him.
He's the adult here. He has the situation under his control. Your choices don't matter with Papyrus.
Flowey, on the other hand, is way more impressionable. You can get a reaction out of him several seconds into his "tutorial" by dodging his bullets. How you decide to play the game greatly determines his actions and demeanor. Kill him at the neutral ending and he never shows up again, spare him and he begins to learn from your actions.
It's understandable, because he's young and lost and confused. And arguably, player choice matters so greatly in Undertale precisely because Flowey is at the narrative center.
Now you look at the exact opposite message in Deltarune where your choices don't matter, and suddenly Knight Papyrus Theory makes a lot of sense, doesn't it.
hey folks, I’m gonna introduce you to two very important fandom terms and they are watsonian and doylist
they come (obviously) from the sherlock holmes fandom, and they are two different ways of explaining something in a story. say I’m a fan and I notice that, in the original books, watson’s war wound is sometimes in his leg and sometimes in his shoulder. the watsonian explanation is how watson (that is, a person within the story) might explain it; the doylist explanation is how sir arthur conan doyle (a person in real life) would have explained it.
sherlock explains the migrating war wound by making the shoulder wound real and the limp psychosomatic. the guy ritchie films explain it by having the leg wound sustained in battle before the events of the film and the shoulder wound happen onscreen. the doylist explanation, of course, is that acd forgot where the wound was.
this is very important when we’re discussing stuff like headcanons and word-of-god. I see this when people offer watsonian explanations for something, and then a doylist will say something like “it’s just because the author wrote it that way,” and I see it when a person is criticizing bad writing/storytelling (for example, the fact that quiet in metal gear solid v is running around the whole game in a bikini and ripped tights) and someone comes back with “but there’s an in-story reason why that happens!” (that reason being she breathes through her skin).
there’s nothing wrong with either explanation, and really I think you need both to understand and analyze a text. a person coming up with a watsonian explanation has likely not forgotten that the author had real-life reasons for writing something that way, and a person with a doylist interpretation is likely not ignoring the in-universe justification for that thing.
but it’s very difficult (and imo often useless, though there are exceptions) to try to argue one kind of explanation with the other kind. wetblanketing someone’s headcanon with “or it could just be bad writing” is obnoxious; dismissing someone’s criticism with “but have you considered this in-universe explanation” is ignoring the point of the criticism. understanding where someone is coming from is important when making an argument; acting like your argument is better because you’re being doylist when they’re being watsonian or vice versa is not.
it’s been 5 million years but this thing still gets notes with like “can someone explain this to me in a shorter, easier way” so here it is:
watsonian: the enchantress cursed the eleven-year-old prince from beauty and the beast and all of his servants because fairies don’t understand why humans would think that’s insane and unfair. I am using in-universe evidence to explain why the character might think or act a certain way, as if belle and the prince and the enchantress are real people.
doylist: the writers didn’t realize that the prince would have been eleven when he was cursed until it was too late to change it, and the servants are also cursed because talking furniture is funny and allows for unique character design. I am explaining this plot point based on an outside knowledge of how writing works and how writers think.
Dear AO3 readers please know that if I do not reply to your comment it is because I am laying it on the ground and rolling in it like a cat in a flower bed
