Search Results

YOU PEOPLE ALWAYS WANT MOIRAILS TO BE MATESPRITS

NO ONE RESPECTS THE SANCTITY OF THE IDK MY BFF JILL



GAAAARGRARAHGRGHGAHRARGHARHGR

NO. Not yet. It's not yet time. [/don'trushsepulchritude]

Well, is there no one who is your equal? Someone you couldn't surpass, but not someone who renders you inadequate by comparison?

I believe I'm on the path, because I'm having my own journey, and I've already begun to share the wealth from my experiences. It's one of my greatest pleasures. I suffer my own trials in the form of immense, sporadic doubt. But I usually come out of the mire and (hopefully) inspire others with my confidence. I'm also actively seeking to improve my writing, and I intend to become published and gain recognition of my own. I'm not on the same level as Derek, but I don't consider it beyond me at all, and it is always a goal of mine; not to know all the same things or to develop the same talent, but to fine-tune my own lifestyle and beliefs. I believe I already carry on the essence of his work, I'm just not in overdrive the way he is. It's a skill to be developed. So if there are degrees of heroism, I am a lesser hero; if there are none, we are the same.

Right. I simply don't consider anyone to be on unreachable levels, nor do I consider lucky ones worthy of praise or heed. Perhaps it is that we were presented with the same erroneous conception of the hero, and one of us chose to critique it relentlessly, while the other chose to search for and refine a different definition altogether.

Dare threads aren't fail threads

By their very existence they are successes

I agree. But not everyone is. Anyone can be. Regardless of potential, it is still something that must be striven for, and while the credibility of one man's hero may be disputed by another, rarely can a case be made for one who does not strive at all.

I can really only give you examples with which I identify, but here goes...

Derek Menchan is a hero to me. He is the advisor of a local philosophy club. I've known him for two years. He's always telling stories about where he's been, what he's done, and from whom he's studied in his life. He has a talent and passion for music (particularly the 'cello), he is knowledgeable on a wide variety of eastern religions, he is always active in whatever community will accept him, and he speaks profoundly and with an open mind on topics that have shaped my own world views. He's able to find signs and symbols in even the most mundane subjects, bringing out the interconnectedness of life around him. From fighting tooth and nail to be recognized as a musician, exploring the effects of numerous psychedelic drugs, and constantly seeking new ideas and information from his peers, he has forged a unique identity which he shares with his students whenever they're ready to listen. It's not something I can explain fully, but he seems to have an aura about him, as if he's lived a dozen lives. And through it all, he can still crack a good joke or twenty. His lifestyle, his artistic ability, his attitude and his wisdom were all choices he made, choices he continues to make; they mark him as a man who never stops moving, never stops learning, and he sets a shining example for me and many others. He is actively heroic.

Without trying to excel in their lives, without setting out for new horizons, without thrusting themselves into harsh trial in order to strengthen themselves, people are merely surviving and not living. They waste space. Their only hope can be to raise a child who will herself become exceptional. I am contemptuous of the notion that people are unequal in ability, which is what I can only assume you mean by the word "special." My brand of "special" is not someone who simply is excellent, but someone who bothers to be. This is the highest order of excellence and specialty; anything which professes to be higher is a sham.

Whoops new version just came out let's all go see

Keep on winning baby

You know what time it is

...God damn it

We all just lost to Graxe

Except no that's not true at all

Ventus is much more fretful and clingy than Sora and Aqua is much more of a maternal figure, not to mention the two are emotionally remote from each other in a romantic sense. Hell, even Aqua and Terra's relationship barely has romantic connotations.

I guess what I should really be saying is why do as many people as possible have to get paired off

Where's the Geezernort x Eraqus while we're at it jeez

Or how about Maleficent x That Weird Totem Pole in Neverland

ARE WE LEAVING NO STONE UN-SHIPPED IS THAT HOW WE'RE PLAYING THE GAME

I will believe that when I see it

Nomura also wants to brainwash us into thinking Riku is a nice guy

but I FOR ONE WON'T FALL FOR IT

DON'T EVEN GO THERE

HE LOVES HIS FRIENDS AND WANTS THE BEST FOR THEM AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM WAS TRAGIC AND WRONG

HE IS A GOOD MAN CHARLIE BROWN

That's no excuse for it making zero sense

It wouldn't even be healthy for either of them

You can do better >:E

look at the tree

One of these days you're gonna get clocked for talkin' like that

Y'all are in some fierce denial. Ven would make more sense as Aqua's adoptive son than as her lover. Hell, VenxTerra makes more sense than VenxAqua.

Take it from the harbormaster, that shit ain't fit to sail

Oh don't worry, it'll live.

Pretty sure What? already knows how it will end, actually.

Never thought I'd hear you, of all people, utter a phrase like "I don't have to..."

Sure it does. It's at least as clear as yours--and quite clear to those who use it. It can apply at times and it can not; to certain persons and not. It's subject to interpretation, though less so than the deificatory definition, I believe. The trouble with pinning down a hero in the real world is that they have to make you buy it. If someone relates their tale to you and you're well enough convinced that they have been transformed, or you witness or recognize a definitive shift in a close friend or other associate, you may be witnessing the fruits of a hero's journey. The difference in naming a Campbellian hero is that you are not deifying a god; you are evaluating the progress of a fellow mortal. There is no implication of inferiority or disparity of circumstance.

I suppose a "normal person" would be someone who is not actively journeying, transforming, or spreading wealth. Someone living day to day, not striving to achieve or to excel. The villain is a tad fuzzier, but taking it as a relative term to the hero, the villain is the person or force acting against the hero.

Does it need to be understood as such? The term exists, and so do examples; it is simply better known by its narrative counterpart, with the actual word being appropriated to different uses than it has been historically. Of course, most (if not all) language is subject to change over time, but if it's a detestable change, then an evaluation would be in order.

Exceptional on a small scale. Hardly godlike.

It is essentially what we know as the protagonist of a work of fiction: the subject of trial and transformation, one who is changed by his/her journey and, often in tradition, shares his/her new-found wealth with others, no matter the form it takes. In the most liberal sense, the "sharing of wealth" may apply to the perpetration of wicked deeds as well as righteous ones, to simple and subtle gestures as well as sweeping displays of power.

It is not so simple as making a choice, though that is often a component; and heroism necessitates no praise, though it may indeed be praiseworthy. It is unattainable by gods, though far lesser beings than gods have been worshiped, depending on the exact beliefs of the culture. Again, what remains at the core of the definition is the transformation of mortal man into something greater than he once was.

>Sforzato?: All of the above. At the same time.

I worry when people say they want the nostalgia.

Part of the nostalgia is the fact that some levels had a tendency to be "Hold right to win" and others were brutal trial-and-error torture chambers.

Granted, trading that for controls that lead to more deaths than actually being defeated or making mistakes it not exactly a step up, but I'd prefer a third option personally :L

Wait, GENZOMAN did that?! Yeesh. Didn't think he was that violent.

Also not quite sure how making it a one-off T-shirt design and re-purposing it for a macro are terribly different