#deer rambles

to make the happy ghast your essentially domesticating a wild baby you found right, acting as an outside force, bringing it to the overworld and taking care of it with water and snowballs. But how does it work without player intervention?

Are dried ghasts an exception where fate just ended up leaving the poor thing there? Or do all baby ghasts dry up like that as a part of their life cycle? And water can’t really exist in the nether so do they hydrate using lava instead? And they can’t eat snowballs there either so do they eat like- Magma cubes or something?

it’s also interesting to note how the baby happy ghast has those like red gills? You know how if you look behind fish’s gills you see the red underside. Is it like that with the ghastlings? You can see it on the babies but once they grow it’s gone, but not really? Maybe they just close their gills more so they don’t inhale all that excess air while flying or something? Or not to inhale that hot air and smoke in the nether?? And babies float low to the ground so they don’t really need to close their “gills”. If that’s even what they are (Although that brings up the case of the harness, because it almost seems to cover the gills so if they were actually gills that might inhibit their breathing)

OR

Do you think they’re just stripe patterns? red ones to help them blend a little better with their environment as babies because they’re bright white and easily visible amongst the red environment of nether. And as they grow they lose the stripes because they’re big enough to not worry about predators.

Or or or

Were ghasts originally overworld mobs but were banished there (or maybe introduced to that ecosystem and the overworld varient went extinct) and that’s why they’re so miserable because they’re really not built for that environment but essentially adapted to living there anyways??

It’s so interesting because it’s essentially adding lore to a mob we already know about! Some mobs don’t have variants that bring into questioning why they’re like that, Atleast not into the case as we see here.

I mean I know sometimes the costumes really don’t mean anything and they’re just for fun but this costume in particular doesn’t really fall under that. It’s one of the more story driven costumes, even if not a present day one

I’d love doing a full analysis of this costume, although aside from just pointing and theorizing I’d just be pointing out the obvious

The way it looks like Dark Cacaos awakened form from the use of white and purples, the sword, the gem on it looking like the soul jam of resolution. The dragon? As well as the water, and flower (some kind of orchid? Looks like it could also be a Dutch iris) imagery in the background and on his clothing. Not to mention the whole background as a whole. The way he stands on the water implies a thin solid surface (cause I doubt he just gained the ability to walk on water) but the way the columns descend into the depths and dragon underneath definitely imply there’s water or space underneath (a thin layer of ice maybe?) but as far as I’m aware the dark cacao kingdom is still very snowy and frosted, the new breakout map shows that.

out of all the hollyleaf chapters, this one from outcast has always really stuck with me in the way it resonated in constantly being taught that finding a husband and settling down to have kids was an expectation or even a path to happiness. squirrelflight's response isn't to tell her that she doesn't have to have children, that she doesn't need to become a mother if she doesn't want to - instead it's to assure her that her "path is marked out" and "she can have kits and still return to the warrior's den". hollypaw's pov chapter comes after lionpaw's and jaypaw's, neither of which have to deal with these questions and struggles. i'd be curious to hear the author's intentions behind the scene- it's interesting characterization - one that resonated with me obviously - but it's so strange to see in a children's book, one by authors who at the very least hold milquetoast liberal politics, be unable to outright have their authority figure in the scene, the one whom the child readers are meant to look to as guidance, say "you don't need to have children if you don't want to, you're not any less for not wanting them" and instead don't acknowledge the idea of not having kits and instead try and say, albeit in a less blunt way, "you can still have babies and a career! you can find a way to have children and still pursue your goals!" which isn't the Good Message shit approach they think it is.