just a bit of fun really
d e v o n
art blog(derogatory)
Peter Solarz
Stranger Things
cherry valley forever


oozey mess

shark vs the universe
KIROKAZE
macklin celebrini has autism
Not today Justin
trying on a metaphor
ojovivo
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
NASA
taylor price

tannertan36

Origami Around

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from Ukraine

seen from Hong Kong SAR China

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Israel

seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Germany
seen from Maldives
seen from United States
@entertainmentforgods
just a bit of fun really

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The latest Tweets from Keiid (@keiidakamya). hi, I’m Mya ! / Canadian artist / 2D animation student / She/Her / Fluent in french, english &
ATTN : not my art! - It was just so beautiful & I needed to share it. 😭👏🏻 PLEASE support the artist ! They are keiidakamya on Twitter OR you can click on the link above ⬆️
THIS IS AMAZING
Some ideas just occurred to me …
—————
I have to say it again PLEASE do not post my art on any other social media platform without my permission. It’s so frustrated to see someone actually did that.
And down here is my Twitter. You are welcomed to follow it if you like my art.
https://mobile.twitter.com/vig_rous
Thank you.
(I also have Instagram @vicious012 but not often use it.)
Oh wow, I love this style!!
look, I’m a lokius shipper, but saying that Loki and Sylvie were portrayed as having a strictly platonic/sibling-like dynamic in episode 3 and that they did a whole 180 with romance in episode 4 is just…not it
the moment I first watched that episode I raised eyebrows at certain scenes because the way they were framed, shot, it was very suggestive and pointed towards marvel exploring their dynamic in a different way.
this happened exactly 5 minutes into the episode 3, after Loki ran after her. before this scene, Sylvie checked him out and then slowly leaned into his personal space, put her hands around his neck (which we know she didn’t have to bc she can enchant without literally breathing into someone’s mouth), all while both of them were panting. the way this was framed, the soft background light illuminating the room, their silhouettes forming a heart…all this made me go “wait a moment” upon first watching it, because this is not how you want to portray a sibling-like dynamic. this had very obvious romantic undertones
like, we all adore the famous lokius tie-fixing scene, right? so saying that that scene was filled with romantic/sexual tension, but this one with Sylvie enchanting Loki is just ‘classic sibling behaviour, no tension or chemistry whatsoever here’ is kinda hypocritical and that’s a lot coming from someone who favors lokius.
and even later on, they talked about love, love is hate, love is mischief, they dropped the subject but Loki, unprovoked brought it up again.
which not only was a huge foreshadowing but also a hint that this convo about love would have some deeper meaning later on in season. and it did. why would two characters who were set to have sibling type of dynamic insist on talking about romantic love (yes, it was romantic because their love convo started because of that old woman), if marvel didn’t have certain other plans for them?
I don’t think I even have to bring up the serenading scene because that one moment was sus from the start as well. I know people try to pass it off as a platonic/sibling moment because Loki tried to remind Sylvie of home yada yada, but if it was intended to be platonic, why did they have Tom (a class A actor who knows full well how to emote) as Loki stare at Sylvie with completely besotted look in his eyes.
there were some scenes that were more subtle like “you’re my way.”, the fireworks between them, Loki saying “love is a dagger” to Sylvie and then a few moments later using that very same dagger to throw it at her to save her, the way certain scenes were framed etc, but some of these scenes were straight up loud. even in the interview after this episode came out, Michael Waldron said that this was intentionally filmed as the most romantic episode of the season, and it was based off Before Sunrise (two people meeting and getting to know each other, spending the night together, talking and exploring the city, falling in love in a couple of hours)
like, close your eyes for a moment and imagine Loki saying “you’re my way” to Mobius, or Mobius trying to enchant him the way Sylvie did, Loki and Mobius discussing love the way he did with Sylvie, Loki serenading a song to Mobius instead of Sylvie…
we’d be having a blast right? we’d definitely view those scenes very differently then. and that’s the trick, because our favouritism of a certain ship sometimes clouds our deduction of what’s truly happening on screen.
why do you think there were so many “don’t ship these two!” posts after episode 3 came out? because people noticed this developing chemistry. You can look up reaction vids on youtube, or even actual reviews or articles that came after this episode came out. “are they falling in love?” “is this headed towards romance?” “wow, flirty Loki” were some of the most spoken words.
so saying “everyone saw them as siblings” is simply not true. it was there, very, very openly so, when even those who were objectively watching the show without any shipping goggles on noticed that.
same goes for those who say “yeah but Sylvie and Loki were just bickering and fighting all the time so that must mean they had a sibling like dynamic.”
ummm, sorry to break it to you, but two people meeting each other, starting off as enemies (?), fighting/bickering but ultimately falling in love is one of the most common tropes.
and let’s not pretend there aren’t other mcu canon couples who started off pretty similar.
Tony and Pepper bickered all the time. Are they siblings too?
Gamora and Peter bickered/fought but ultimately fell in love. Are they siblings too?
point is that no, Loki and Sylvie were never portrayed as having sibling like dynamic, and no matter what you ship,be it lokius, lokixravonna, lokixcasey etc, you can admit that (trust me, it will feel good, therapeutic almost), and it still doesn’t invalidate your chosen ship. like, take off your shipping goggles, do a rewatch and try to not let your favouritism of a certain other ship cloud what’s in front of you.
saying the romance came out of nowhere, that they had no chemistry, not even the slightest hint of it is just deluding yourselves at this point and let’s not do that. with second season coming in two years there’s a huge chance we’ll be doing plenty of clowning later on.
Just the vibe I wish the whole fandom had..
Hot take: Actual literary analysis requires at least as much skill as writing itself, with less obvious measures of whether or not you’re shit at it, and nobody is allowed to do any more god damn litcrit until they learn what the terms “show, don’t tell” and “pacing” mean.
Pacing
The “pacing” of a piece of media comes down to one thing, and one thing only, and it has nothing to do with your personal level of interest. It comes down to this question alone: Is the piece of media making effective use of the time it has?
That’s it.
So, for example, things which are NOT a example of bad pacing include a piece of media that is:
A slow burn
Episodic
Fast-paced
Prioritizing character interaction over intricate plot
Opening in medias res without immediate context
Incorporating a large number of subplots
Incorporating very few subplots
Bad pacing IS when a piece of media has
“Wasted” time, ie, screentime or page space dedicated to plotlines or characters that are ultimately irrelevant to the plot or thematic resolution at the cost of properly developing that resolution. Pour one out for the SW:TCW fans.
The presence of a sidestory or giving secondary characters a separate resolution of their personal arc is not “bad writing,” and only becomes a pacing issue if it falls into one of the other two categories.
Not enough time, ie, a story attempts to involve more plotlines than it has time or space to give satisfying resolutions to, resulting in all of them being “rushed” even though the writer(s) made scrupulous use of every second of page/screentime and made sure every single section advanced those storylines.
Padding for time, ie, Open-World Game Syndrome. Essentially, you have ten hours of genuinely satisfying story….but “short games don’t sell,” so you insert vast swathes of empty landscape to traverse, a bunch of nonsense fetch quests to complete, or take one really satisfying questline and repeat it ten times with different names/macguffins, to create 40 hours of “gameplay” that have stopped being fun because the same thing happens over and over. If you think this doesn’t happen in novels, you have never read Oliver Twist.
Another note on pacing: There are, except arguably in standalone movies, at least two levels of pacing going on at any given time. There’s the pacing within the installment, and the pacing within the series. Generally, there’s three levels of pacing–within the installment (a chapter, an episode, a level), within the volume (a season, a novel, a game), and within the series as a whole. Sometimes, in fact FREQUENTLY, a piece of media will work on one of these levels but not on all of them. (Usually the ideal is that it works on all three, but that’s not always important! Not every individual chapter of a novel needs to be actively relevant to the entire overarching series.)
Honestly, the best possible masterclass in how to recognize good, bad, and “they tried their best but needed more space” pacing? If you want to learn this skill, and get better at recognizing it?
Doctor Who.
ESPECIALLY Classic Who, which has clearly-delineated “serials” within their seasons. You can pretty much pick any serial at random, and once you’ve seen a few of them, you get a REALLY good feel for things like, for example…
Wow, that serial did not need to be twelve episodes long; they got captured and escaped at least three different times and made like four different plans that they ended up not being able to execute, and maybe once or twice they would have ramped up the tension, but it really didn’t contribute anything–this could have been a normal four-episode serial and been much stronger.
Holy shit there were WAY too many balls being juggled in this, this would have been better with the concepts split into two separate serials, as it stands they only had four episodes and they just couldn’t develop anything fully
Oh my god that was AMAZING I want to watch it again and take notes on how they divided up the individual episodes and what plot beats they chose to break on each week
Eh, structurally that was good, but even as a 90-minute special that nuwho episode feels like it would have worked a lot better as a Classic serial with a little more room to breathe.
How in the actual name of god did they stretch like twenty minutes of actual story into a four-episode serial (derogatory)
How in the actual name of god did they stretch like twenty minutes of actual story into a four-episode serial (awestruck)
If you’re not actively trying to learn pacing, either for literary analysis or your own writing…honestly? Just learn to differentiate between whether the pacing is bad or if it just doesn’t appeal to you. There’s a WORLD of difference between “The pacing is too slow” and “the pacing is too slow for me.”
“I really prefer a slower build into a universe; the fact that it opens in medias res and you piece together where you are and how the magic system works over the next several chapters from context is way too fast-paced for me and makes me feel lost, so I bounced off it” is, usually, a much more constructive commentary than “the pacing is bad”.
And when the pacing really is bad, you’ll be doing everyone a favor by being able to actually articulate why.
Show, Don’t Tell
This is a very specific rule that has been taken dramatically out of context and is almost always used incorrectly.
“Show, don’t tell” applies to character traits and worldbuilding, not information in the plot.
It may be easier to “get” this rule if you forget the specific phrasing for a minute. This is a mnemonic device to avoid Informed Attributes, nothing more and nothing less.
Character traits like a character being funny, smart, kind, annoying, badass, etc, should be established by their behavior in-universe and the reactions of others to them–if you just SAY they’re X thing but never show it, then you’re just telling the audience these things. Similarly you can’t just tell the audience that a setting has brutal winters and expect to be believed, when the clothing, architecture, preparations, etc shown as common in that setting do not match those that brutal winters would necessitate.
To recap:
Violations of Show Don’t Tell:
A viewpoint character describing themselves as having a trait (being a loner, easily distractable, clumsy, etc) but not actually shown to possess it (lacking friends, getting distracted from anything important, or dropping/tripping over things at inopportune moments.)
The narration declaring an emotional state (”Character A was furious”) rather than demonstrating the emotion through dialogue or depicting it onscreen.
A fourth-wall-breaking narrator; ie, Kuzco in The Emperor’s New Groove directly addressing the audience to explain that he’s a llama and also the protagonist, is NOT the same! This actually serves as a flawless example of showing rather than telling–we are SHOWN that Kuzco is immature and egotistical, even though that’s not what he’s saying.
A fictional society or setting being declared by the narrative to be free of a negative trait–bigotry, for example–but that negative trait being clearly present, where this discrepancy is not narratively engaged with.
(For example: There is officially no sexism in Thedas and yet female characters are subject to gendered slurs and expectations; the world of Honor Harrington is supposedly societally opposed to eugenics, yet “cures” for disability and constant mentions of a nebulous genetic “advantage” from certain characters’ ancestry are regular plot points that are viewed positively by the characters and are not narratively questioned.)
A character declaring that their society has no bigotry, when that character is clearly wrong, is not the same thing.
The narrative voice declaring objective correctness; everyone who agrees with the protagonist is portrayed as correct and anyone who questions them is portrayed as evil, or else there is no questioning whatsoever. For example: in Star Trek: Enterprise, Jonathan Archer tortures an unarmed prisoner. What follows is a multi-episode arc in which every person he respects along with Starfleet Command goes out of their way to dismiss the idea that he should bear any guilt, or that his actions were anything but completely necessary and objectively morally correct. No narrative space is allowed for disagreement, or for the audience to come to its own conclusion.
NOT Violations of Show Don’t Tell:
A character explaining a concept to another character who would logically, within that universe/situation, be the recipient of such an explanation.
An in-universe explanation BECOMES a SdT violation if the explanation fails to play out in reality, such as a spaceship being described as slow or flawed in some way but never actually having those weaknesses. Imagine if the Millennium Falcon was constantly described as a broken-down piece of junk…and never had any mechanical failures, AND Han and Chewie weren’t constantly shown repairing it!
Information being revealed through dialogue, period. Having your hacker in a heist movie describe the enemy security system isn’t “telling” and thus bad writing. Having information revealed organically through dialogue is what “show” means.
The “as you know” trope is technically a Show Don’t Tell violation, despite being dialogue, because it’s unnatural within the universe and serves solely to let the writer deliver information directly, ie, telling.
Characters discussing their own actions and expressing their motivations and/or decision-making process at the time.
The existence of an omnipotent narrator, or the narration itself confirming something. Narration saying “there was no way anyone could make it in time” is delivering contextual information, not breaking Show Don’t Tell.
Keep in mind that “Show, don’t tell” is meant to be advice for beginning authors. Because “telling” is easier and requires less skill than “showing,” inexperienced authors need to focus on getting as much “show” in as possible.
However, “telling” is also extremely important. Sometimes, especially in written formats, the most appropriate way to deliver information to the audience is to just say it and move on.
Keep in mind that a viewpoint character in anything but…a portal fantasy, essentially…is going to be familiar with the world they’re in. Not every protagonist needs to be a raw newcomer with zero knowledge of their new world! In most cases, a viewpoint character is going to know things that the audience doesn’t. Generally, the ONLY natural way to introduce worldbuilding in this situation is to just have the narration point them out. (It makes sense for Obi-Wan to have to explain the Force; it would make no sense for Han to explain the concept of space travel to Luke, who grew up in this universe and knows what the hell a starship is. So, if you’re writing the novelization of A New Hope, you need to just say “and so they jumped into hyperspace, the strange blue-white plane that allowed faster-than-light travel” and move the hell on.)
For that matter, in some media (ie, children’s cartoons) where teaching a moral lesson is the clear intent, a certain level of “telling” is not only appropriate but necessary!
The actual goal of “showing” and “telling” is to maintain a balance, and make sure everything feels natural. Show things that need to be shown, and…don’t waste everyone’s time showing things that would feel much more natural if they were just told.
But that’s not nearly as pithy a slogan.
(Reblog this version y’all I fixed some really serious typos)
This is just neat

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Post-finale Sylki makes people uncomfortable because they're not used to see a man do emotional labor for a damaged and complicated woman, and go out of his way to try to fix her and bring her out of the dark. It's always the other way around. Men are allowed to be complex and fucked up, and there will be always a kind and compassionate woman with no turmoil of her own to tend to his emotional wounds and be his personal balm, the light to his darkness, the beauty to his beast, and similar gendered imagery. Sylki inverts those poles and now people are angry and confused. They can't conceive that there's hope for Sylvie, that she deserves to be saved. To be taken care of. Women only exist on a binary of saints and harpies, and the failure of fitting the first category will throw her straight to the second. There's no room for greyness and complexity for female characters. And that's because, unlike Loki in previous movies, and unlike many other male anti-heroes and anti-villains, Sylvie never did anything out of malice. She committed a honest mistake. She did what she thought was the right thing for the good of the universe and did not consider the consequences because she was too tunnel visioned in her pain. This is nowhere near what other morally grey fandom darlings have done out of actual ill intent.
Imagine being such a misogynist that you just straight up ignore the amazing story and potential of a character because she’s a woman.
Thanks for saying this. Sylvie killing people and Loki killing people is not exactly the same either. They have both killed innocent people in a way, but Sylvie did it because she was chased by the TVA, not allowed to have a life of her own, she was backed into a corner.
Loki, while it was big emotional trauma for him, was merely slighted and could have choosen not to go on such a violent rampage and the consequences for him would not have been as severe as they would have been for Sylvie if she stopped fighting the TVA.
Furthermore, Loki has killed innocent people in the purest sense, looking at the attack on New York, no chance he didnt kill any civilians, you cant tell me that they all got away. While the TVA Agents were innocent in a way, they were also soldiers actively hunting Sylvie.
Sylvie had taken her free will and freedom taken away for thousands of years, it is to me, more understandable even that she would want to free the world from such a cage and that she believes this to be the right decision. Where Loki and Sylvie stood, there were only morally grey decisions available, not right and no wrong. Sylvie just took one of those paths.
This is going to be an unpopular opinion in Loki fandom. First, let me say that Loki has always been my favorite mcu character and i have always loved him as a character.
But if we are being completely honest, up until the series he was pretty much, um, a caricature. Maybe not in the Marvel standards but generally speaking yes, he was.
The creative team of Loki TV did a great job at making him more "real", more "human" even. They fleshed him out just perfectly.
Another thing, and I'm saying it not as a shipper but from a completely objective perspective, his relationship with Sylvie is definitely the most interesting part about his character's story. His relationship with her is what makes him unique amongst the countless other "sexy bad guys".
No, this is not "reducing" him to the role of a love interest. This is my honest opinion that Loki as a character happened to fit perfectly into a role of the romantic hero in a love story. People forget that Romance is not some trope, it is the whole Genre that could be just as compelling, complex and fulfilling to its characters as any other genre.
⬆️ THIS RIGHT HERE ⬆️
NEEDS A BOOST.
Dare I say, even Mobius says to Loki in Ep1 in regards to what his role in the Sacred Timeline is supposed to be, “You weren’t born to be king, Loki.You were born to cause pain and suffering and death. That’s how it is, that’s how it was, that’s how it will be. All so that others can achieve their best versions of themselves.”
That last bit is pretty relevant to the post above, in that up until this series, Loki has always been a side character, as compelling and as tragic as his story was.
Now, understandably, Mobius goes through a change of character and tells Loki, “You could be whoever, whatever you wanna be, even someone good. I mean, just in case anyone ever told you different.”
And in this series, Loki grows as a person, an individual, free of the constraints that typically held him, free of the box that everyone keeps trying to stuff him into. And once you take a person out of the box, or even remove the box entirely, well, the person can grow.
And Loki did. By escaping 2012!NY, he inadvertently sent himself along a path to becoming a better person, and being in touch with who he really is and who he can really be, in all honesty.
It’s also refreshing to see Loki express more or less the widest possible range of emotions, from carefree and happy to downright heartbroken and in tears. We see him behave like a teenager who doesn’t know what to do when he’s crushing on someone (yes, it’s Sylvie), and we also see him with an increased emotional maturity that sees him put the needs of not just the love of his life but also the universe before his own.
Loki, through the series, was never reduced to anything. His drastic change of outfit in Ep1 was only largely symbolic, to bring out his vulnerability. Ep2 sees him in office-wear, including a jacket, which he loses in Ep3. Interestingly enough, the loss of the jacket serves as another “wall” being torn down as he becomes more vulnerable yet stronger with Sylvie, and this is further shown in the same episode when he rolls up his sleeves. And as the season progresses, you see his shirt no longer remain so clean and pristine but instead, it’s scuffed, slightly dusty, and even has a cut on one sleeve. It’s all symbolic of Loki learning to be more open, more honest with not just himself but also with Sylvie and also those around him.
(Same could be said about Sylvie about how she first loses her one-horned headpiece before losing her cloak in the same episode.)
And that right there, is character development. Props to OP @bisexual-characters-nation 😌
Yes yes and yes! Thank you bOth.
Loki was not "reduced" in any way in this series, he's always been a great villain, dare I say, one of the best if not THE best Marvel villain in my personal opinion, but this show gave him the leeway to grow into something MORE than that. As @thevibraniumveterans has so aptly pointed out, in Episode 1 it is outright STATED that Loki's "purpose" on the timeline was to push OTHERS to achieve their best selves, whilst he was never supposed to become his (best self).
Whilst I ship Sylki like crazy, her role is honestly not even remotely close to JUST being his love interest, nor his hers. She, and his resulting feelings for her, are the catalyst that make him want to improve himself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we've ever seen Loki GENUINELY comfort or show such deep care for ANYONE in the decade of movie's we've had with him. THAT is development. And that's so realistic to how in life, when we start to love someone truly, it makes us want to be better and makes us want to improve ourselves because of that person, or for that person. This series made Loki even more HUMAN than ever, and that is a good thing.
Just because he is no longer on his own doesn't mean he's reduced to a side kick or in this case, a romantic interest for another character. In the previous movies, Loki has more often than not been acting alone, with help from an authority figure (Thanos) or an army to command, but we've never seen him with a companion or equal that he didn't intend to betray in some form (sorry Thor), or use to accomplish some ulterior agenda of his own. With Sylvie, we finally see how he starts becoming this more selfless, caring character, more and more of a hero. Shouldn't that be credited as good character development and a wonderful character redemtion arc (don't forget this is 2012 Loki who got taken to the TVA) rather than criticised for "reducing him to a love interest"? No, he is not reduced, he is growing and changing as all people do, for reasons that would feasibly change anyone.
Honestly, I think his redemtion arc in the Loki series might even be better than his Ragnarok redemtion arc as it feels much more personal and after viewing his "proper" life (and death) and meeting and finding out about Sylvie, the drive behind his change feels much more deeply rooted within him (and with less ulterior motive of wanting to be revered as a hero by the Asgardians). Not to discredit the Ragnarok team, the movie was still absolutely incredible and deserves all the hype it got.
The creative team of Loki Season 1 is an immensely talented and skilled one, every single detail is so well thought out and you can analyse the hex out of the show and its many elements. Honestly, I think this series MORE than did Loki's character justice, and the creative team deserves more credit and less hate. Whether you ship Sylki or Lokius or none or both, I'm pretty sure we all love this character (or we honestly wouldn't get so heated about who he canonically should or shouldn't have a romantic connection with), and if you could put your feelings about the romance plots aside and just LOOK at his character arc, I think you'd agree.
Sylvie was RIGHT.
This is the classic fascist dilemma. “Don’t overthrow the dictator because someone worse may rise up in their place” is an age old problem. Essentially what you’re saying is that you think dictators are right to control everyone and everything, in exchange for safety.
This is the problem that the show is laying out for us. What’s more important, freedom and free will, or losing that freedom for a false sense of safety under a dictatorship?
The dialogue throughout the season lays this out more than once…
Fans that are claiming 2012 Loki wouldn’t kill Kang are right, because Loki *didn’t* kill Kang. Sylvie did. Loki is taking in the feeling of responsibility for what Sylvie did because in his mind maybe he thinks he could have stopped her. While Loki has grown throughout the series, he is still Loki.
Love changes people. It’s okay that Sylvie is a partner in his emotional growth. That’s normal and HUMAN. Thor didn’t grow alone, Tony didn’t grow alone, not even Steve grew alone (remember Natasha? Sam? Bucky? They were all his partners in his emotional growth.)
From the most recent Empire interview:
The actors know what’s going on, they’ve repeatedly said the same things over and over. What is so confusing for people? Let characters have complicated, confusing feelings. Let’s let this play out.
I will never understand why some people dont like this. This cliffhanger is actually brilliant because it sets the characters up to deal with complex and interesting emotions in season 2
Me when Sylvie did her thing and is now ready for her character development.
Oh god, imagine how good this character development could be...im just praying they do it right.
"I'm Sylvie now"
Is this like...Sylvie being born from her child versions shadow? :(
✨Holding out for a Hero✨

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Sylvie was RIGHT.
This is the classic fascist dilemma. “Don’t overthrow the dictator because someone worse may rise up in their place” is an age old problem. Essentially what you’re saying is that you think dictators are right to control everyone and everything, in exchange for safety.
This is the problem that the show is laying out for us. What’s more important, freedom and free will, or losing that freedom for a false sense of safety under a dictatorship?
The dialogue throughout the season lays this out more than once…
Fans that are claiming 2012 Loki wouldn’t kill Kang are right, because Loki *didn’t* kill Kang. Sylvie did. Loki is taking in the feeling of responsibility for what Sylvie did because in his mind maybe he thinks he could have stopped her. While Loki has grown throughout the series, he is still Loki.
Love changes people. It’s okay that Sylvie is a partner in his emotional growth. That’s normal and HUMAN. Thor didn’t grow alone, Tony didn’t grow alone, not even Steve grew alone (remember Natasha? Sam? Bucky? They were all his partners in his emotional growth.)
From the most recent Empire interview:
The actors know what’s going on, they’ve repeatedly said the same things over and over. What is so confusing for people? Let characters have complicated, confusing feelings. Let’s let this play out.
I will never understand why some people dont like this. This cliffhanger is actually brilliant because it sets the characters up to deal with complex and interesting emotions in season 2
The fact that Loki was originally spared from judgement/pruning in order to help hunt down and catch a "dangerous" (superior???) variant of himself and then:
1. Immediately tries to help her, though mostly for his own ends
2. Runs off with and fully becomes a friend and ally to her
3. Falls in love with her
you know something really hit me while I was rewatching Loki
Sylvie basically had to grow up by jumping from apocalypse to apocalypse and if you really think about it it’s even more tragic than as it sounds for the first time.
she had to grow up without any kind of constancy or stability
everyone she met was destined to die
imagine coming to terms with that at a young age: you think you have friends, or at least people who help you staying alive? yeah they won’t be there for you 5 minutes from now because they’ll be dead. I mean that’s brutal.
no wonder she turned into the person she was when Loki met her.
no wonder she immediately clocked Loki’s discomfort after she asked him about love. they had a common ground there, agreeing that they never had anything real . If you think about how Sylvie had to operate her life ever since she was a child it makes total sense that she couldn’t have a real relationship. Any kind of relationship not just a romantic one.
And I bet you, that before Loki she never met a single soul who understood where she was coming from.
Sylvie is such an amazing character with so much potential to grow. I would love to see how her life was before Loki and what habits she may have because of it.
I do hope we will get to see some of that in the next season...
Neil Gaiman has some advice for those taking the fan fiction game a bit too seriously: “Make fun fan fiction. Enjoy yourself. Make things up. Share them. That’s the point.”
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
Additional Tags: Slow Burn, Mystery, Adventure, World Travel, Interplanetary Travel, Sylvie gets to go on a journey of self exploration, Loki and Sylvie keep missing each other, Sylvie avoids meeting Loki, slow comfortable story with lots of meandering, Mobius accompanies loki on the search, lots of talking, Like in the show
Summary:
After three days of scouring the expanding universe for Loki, Sylvie collapses from exhaustion.
Sylvie finds a new home for herself on a planet by the name of Mani. The people are kind and they quickly grow on Sylvie. But there is something rotten, beneath the turquoise glimmering earth at night. At night she also dreams of Loki. He is looking for her, but every time he's close she flees.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Kinda Loki, kinda not…
Kinda Loki, kinda hot.
Reference: Sophia Di Martino
Oh...this is beautifully done! It caught my eye immediately but I cant even pinpoint what it is that draws me to this so much, her eyes are really beautiful and gentle and I like that you have made exactly the right places very detailed while leaving others like her cape so rough
lol the plot begins
1/???
hello this is loki how may i help you today