Markerbirthday - MarkerBirthday - Tumblr Blog

more book of bill doodles!

love this freak

A timeline of my tumblr sexyman Bill Cipher drawings (not all of them, but the ones i could scrounge up in 5 minutes)

This was in grade school, I believe. Maybe early middle school. 31 almost consecutive pages. (chose Cipher by kevin mcleod as the background music, thought it would be fitting)

And here are the others, progressively getting more recent.

most recent one was done on procreate and the shading is not the best because i am new to procreate lol. I love experimenting with this guy’s design. I don’t CARE if he’s the “imposter”, i need this for my well-being

I am Imtithal from northern Gaza. I live in very difficult conditions because of the war and I struggle to provide basic necessities. I was displaced with my children 17 times in search of a safe place. There is no safe place. We suffer from a shortage of water, food, medicine and milk. Because of the famine war that we have been going through for 10 months, I need your support so that we can survive. Even if the support is simple, it helps my family a lot. Please donate and participate.

I have donated and I encourage all of my followers/mutuals to donate.

Please boost, reblog, share, say something, if you’re unable to donate.

Hot take? probably lukewarm at best tbh?

I don’t like billford not because it “promotes or glorifies abuse” (although that’s something that people can unfortunately do through it as people are good at just making shit bad)

But because i just… don’t see them that way? At all? Ford’s always seemed very aroacespec to me, and the relationship between the two has never had any “romantic” elements that stand out to me at all. A lot of the language Hirsch uses around the two of them does not necessarily make it a romantic relationship! “Will-they-won’t-they” and such stuff is intentionally a joke and also is able to have meaning behind it that ISNT necessarily romantic!!!!! BECAUSE! May I remind you!!!! People can be close and even intimately connected in ways other than romantic!!!!

plus there’s the whole power dynamic between them that makes it seem way more “i give this guy an unhealthy amount of attention religiously” than “i give this guy an unhealthy amount of attention romantically” like it’s a religious relationship i feel like, not romantic

thanks for coming to my soapbox ted talk show

I don’t know man it’s 2 in the morning i’m sorry this is incoherent

I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT THE DOUBLED SELVES THING! THAT IS A REOCCURING THEME!!! ITS ALL COMING TOGETHER (in my head)!!!!! THANK YOU!!!

like I am definitely enjoying the references to archives and I'm intrigued to see how this world matches up to the last one, but I cannot stress enough that gwen and alice are being stalked by a tape recorder monster that keeps leaving living corpses all over the place. and we keep getting cases about physical transformation and doubled selves. does anyone remember when that finance guy got eaten by a weird metal bug at the end of his case for no reason and sam just sat there humming happily to himself in post-date afterglow.

Eye-ssac Newton

hear me out

TMAGP EP 19 NOTES

ep19

ALCHEMY REFERENCE ALCHEMY JUST LIKE THE ARG ALCHEMY

How does Sam know stuff about alchemy?!?

MAGNUS INSTITUTE WAS DEEP INTO ALL THIS STUFF? 🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨

Chesta 

“That most regrettable protocol”

Note Robert Boyle, might be important later (Scientist in the late 1600s)

WHAT IS ISAAC NEWTON DOING 😭

WHAT PROTOCOL

“Purgation of all that most dangerous and unfit knowledge was both necessary and good”. Okay. So. What if there’s a big ol conspiracy, DARK related? THINK ABOUT IT. Alice could be involved? Just think about it think think think 

“Dread emission”…

Theory: Because the Web’s plan won’t provide an end to itself or the other powers, and The End desires an end, perhaps it’s a form of The End trying to wipe out all of the other dread powers through “the protocol”, and that protocol continues on through OIAR, with externals being used to essentially pit the dread powers against one another? Maybe it’s some sort of web-end agglomeration, because that much planning and manipulation might require some web involvement? 🤨🤨🤨

Is Isaac Newton dealing with… Alchemy?

DUUUUUDDEEEE ISAAC NEWTON CREATED SOMETHING LIVING OUT OF METALS, IM TELLING YOU THIS IS GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH FR3-D1 

AND THE BIBLICAL REFERENCES?! THANK YOU LORD FOR THIS EPISODE

“Knowledge of good and evil” (the translated latin) THIS REFERS BACK TO MY DARK THEORY

Another statement about something taking root?

THE EYE THE EYE THE EYE THE EYE THE EYE THE EYE THE EYE THE EYE GUYS THE EYE

I did not have “Isaac Newton the Eye Avatar” on my Magnus Protocol bingo card

This “Protocol” is definitely Dark related, or at least reactionary to the Eye

“Are the computers listening to us?” YES SAM YES SAM THEY ARE DONT LISTEN TO ALICE

Lena is MADDDD at Gwen’s classism

Colin what is happenniiiiing

We can’t let “him” know how much we know WHO IS HIM

“Doing mummy and daddy Stasi proud” Stasi is slang that refers to the German secret police. WHO IS HIM COLIN WHO IS HIM?!!?!??!? WHO IS WATCHING YOU

“As long as it all balances” ROBERT SMIRKE GUYS ROBERT SMIRKE AND ALSO WHAT LENA SAID ABOUT BALANCING THINGS AAAA

ALCHEMY AAAAA

I DO NOT CARE WHAT Y’ALL THINK TEA THEORY IS REAL TO ME

Also, conspiracy theorist Georgie??? We need to know more!!!!!! why are you so scared of the government Georgie?!?!?!?!??! Tell us your secrets!!!

Ghost sleepwalking

Okay, I’m liking all of these theories about Celia… but what if she’s just sleepwalking?

Okay, I’m liking all of these theories about Celia… but what if she’s just sleepwalking?

This is how helen distortion can still win

relistened to the bifrost incident, just HAD to draw this little guy!

Genuinely loved that episode, particularly the statement part! Snakes don’t scare me, but my jaw was unhinged (pun intended) in revulsion at that description /pos

What’s your opinion on the contrast between “silly” and “serious” spaces? Do you think people can have very serious interpretations about a genuine piece of media and also be goofy about it? I’m asking this particularly because I’ve seen people in the Magnus podcast fandoms fight about people “misinterpreting” characters you, Alex, and the many other authors have written. Are you okay with the blorbofication or do you really wish the media you’ve written would be “taken seriously” 100% of the time?

And follow up question, what do you think about the whole “it’s up to the reader (or in some cases, listener) to make their own conclusions and interpretations and that does not make them wrong”, versus the “it was written this way because the author intended it this way, and we should respect that” argument?

This is a question I've given a lot of thought over the years, to the point where I don't know how much I can respond without it becoming a literal essay. But I'll try.

My main principle for this stuff boils roughly down to: "The only incorrect way to respond to art is to try and police the responses of others." Art is an intensely subjective, personal thing, and I think a lot of online spaces that engage with media are somewhat antithetical to what is, to me, a key part of it, which is sitting alone with your response to a story, a character, a scene or an image and allowing yourself to explore it's effect on you. To feel your feelings and think about them in relation to the text.

Now, this is not to say that jokes and goofiness about a piece of art aren't fucking great. I love to watch The Thing and drink in the vibes or arctic desolation and paranoia, or think about the picture it paints of masculinity as a sublimely lonely thing where the most terrible threat is that of an imposed, alien intimacy. And that actually makes me laugh even more the jokey shitpost "Do you think the guys in The Thing ever explored each other's bodies? Yeah but watch out". Silly and serious don't have to be in opposition, and I often find the best jokes about a piece of media come from those who have really engaged with it.

And in terms of interpreting characters? Interpreting and responding to fictional characters is one of the key functions of stories. They're not real people, there is no objective truth to who they are or what they do or why they do it. They are artificial constructs and the life they are given is given by you, the reader/listener/viewer, etc. Your interpetation of them can't be wrong, because your interpretation of them is all that there is, they have no existence outside of that.

And obviously your interpretation will be different to other people's, because your brain, your life, your associations - the building blocks from which the voices you hear on a podcast become realised people in your mind - are entirely your own. Thus you cannot say anyone else's is wrong. You can say "That's not how it came across to me" or "I have a very different reading of that character", but that's it. I suppose if someone is fundamentally missing something (like saying "x character would never use violence" when x character strangles a man to death in chapter 4) you could say "I think that's a significant misreading of the text", but that's only to be reserved for if you have the evidence to back it up and are feeling really savage.

I think this is one of the things that saddens me a bit about some aspects of fandom culture - it has a tendency to police or standardise responses or interpretations, turning them from personal experiences to be explored into public takes to be argued over. It also has the occasional moralistic strain, and if there's one thing I wish I could carve in stone on every fan space it's that Your Responses to a Piece of Art Carry No Intrinsic Moral Weight.

As for authorial intention, that's a simpler one: who gives a shit? Even the author doesn't know their own intentions half the time. There is intentionality there, of course, but often it's a chaotic and shifting mix of theme and story and character which rarely sticks in the mind in the exact form it had during writing. If you ask me what my intention was in a scene from five years ago, I'll give you an answer, but it will be my own current interpretation of a half-remembered thing, altered and warped by my own changing relationship to the work and five years of consideration and change within myself. Or I might not remember at all and just have a guess. And I'm a best case scenario because I'm still alive. Thinking about a writers possible or stated intentions is interesting and can often lead to some compelling discussion or examination, but to try and hold it up as any sort of "truth" is, to my mind, deeply misguided.

Authorial statements can provide interesting context to a work, or suggest possible readings, but they have no actual transformative effect on the text. If an author says of a book that they always imagined y character being black, despite it never being mentioned in the text, that's interesting - what happens if we read that character as black? How does it change our responses to the that character actions and position? How does it affect the wider themes and story? It doesn't, however, actually make y character black because in the text itself their race remains nonspecific. The author lost the ability to make that change the moment it was published. It's not solely theirs anymore.

So yeah, that was a fuckin essay. In conclusion, serious and silly are both good, but serious does not mean yelling at other people about "misinterpretations", it means sitting with your personal explorations of a piece of art. All interpretations are valid unless they've legitimately missed a major part of the text (and even then they're still valid interpretations of whatever incomplete or odd version of the text exists inside that person's brain). Authorial intent is interesting to think about but ultimately unknowable, untrustworthy and certainly not a source of truth. Phew.

Oh, and blorbofication is fine, though it does to my mind sometimes pair with a certain shallowness to one's exploration of the work in question.

Forgot to mention that if the insectoid chittering in ep13 isn’t Annabelle Cane I’ll eat my hat

Hear me out

Jack (Celia’s baby) is Jon and Martin’s lovechild because the stabbing was a metaphor for penetration

OR he’s the baby of the Panopticon and Hilltop Road (Refer to the phallic and yoric imagery post)

his name is orion

They should make a straightjacket that lets you pick at your skin

The yuri is interdimensional

Last song: The Devil Went Down To Georgia by The Charlie Daniels Band (Me listening to something NOT made by Will Wood? Shocking!)

Favorite color: Purple!

Last movie/TV show: Just finished rewatching Clueless with my sister

Sweet/spicy/savory?: Sweet for SURE! Though I can be a fan of spicy sweets. One time I had an entire jar of atomic fireballs, I stuffed it all into my coat pockets and ate them for like the next month

Relationship status: It’s complicated

Last thing I googled: “How long has Tajikistan been a country for” cause I saw something about it on the news

Current obsession: The Magnus Archives, SCP foundation, D&D, Will Wood, My Little Pony

Tags: @twiigbranch , @dilfsrdestructive , @annabelle--cane , @explodingegg123 , @centricide7 , @static-scribblez , @s1montheweirdo , @mothmanwouldnever , @kazooyay

sorry if i tagged people who didn’t wanna be tagged just lmk, ummmm hai <:)

Nine people I'd like to get to know better

Tagged by @meghawhopp <33

Last song: Down by the River by Borislav Slavov from the Baldur’s Gate 3 Soundtrack (or more specifically the cover of Down by the River by Nerissa Ravencroft)

Favorite color: Blue and purple!

Last movie/TV show: Seinfeld, I’m currently on season four!

Sweet/spicy/savory?: I have a huge sweet tooth, so sweet things

Relationship status: Single

Last thing I googled: I searched up the show “Arthur” because I was trying to find that one meme where Buster was like “You really think someone would do that, just go on the internet and spread lies?”

Current obsession: Fragaria memories and tears of themis mostly^^

Tag Nine People: @kyaruun @xinieeee @deadmansbistro @florapot @hunita812 @scuffle-with-spirals @rexonalapis @maxellera @manicpixiedoomedgirl

I feel like there is a point where it gets annoying, but so far these are only developing characters and sometimes TMA is a good reference point for understanding the ideas being introduced in TMAGP. Especially if those parallels are intentional! Maybe Sam is “the new Jon” in the way that they are both likely going to be tied to a tragedy they could have prevented. It’s not a bad thing to compare characters at all, although I don’t think that is the point OP was trying to make.

Also, Smirke’s 14-15 Entities may not be applicable to the TMAGP stories, but they weren’t entirely applicable to TMA. They’re a useful framework/lens for understanding horror, that can both help and hurt understanding of the concepts. If someone wants to say that Mr. Bonzo is very hunt-coded, that’s okay, because it helps them interpret the character in their own way.

I mean this in the nicest way but watching people try to fit every single story into a TMA entity and relate every protocol character to a TMA character is making me lose my marbles. I find it weird when people constantly say Alice is "the new Tim" and say Lena is "the new Elias" because they're clearly new characters that just share 1 similarity...

.