contact / hmd
» you could call me jillie. but that could be wrong. you could just as easily call me thom-mun. i dont think that ones wrong. heck, you could call me HEY, YOU. i'll still answer
» harakan. but theres only find HM dorkings on there ( Read more... )
» harakan. but theres only find HM dorkings on there ( Read more... )
Comments 2
Okay seriously? I have played against and/or seen a few Thoms written in my time, and you are by far my favorite. I absolutely love your characterization, from his sort of derpy booksmart-but-not-world-smart personality to his overabundance of vocabulary. I also am really fond of the way you balance his desire for knowledge with his own personal boundaries, and how he tests those boundaries for science! and learns things. It's probably weird playing him at a sex game, since he's such a non-sexual character (comparatively speaking, put up against Rook and Royston/Hal), but you're doing an awesome job ( ... )
Reply
;A; ! Favouritism. aaaa /flails. AAAAAAAA
I'm glad you think his vocabulary's alright. I don't... personally think I have a huge vocab so like. I try my best with it but sometimes I feel like I'm falling short. For science! But, yeah. It is kind of weird playing him in a sex game. Sometimes. He's like, barely got that much interest in sexuality (I mean, aside from book-study of sexuality in human behaviour. the most exciting it gets for Thom is when he watches Isobel-Magritte and Rook :|) so evolving him into someone who obviously has to be more sexual to survive, at the very least is... really weird, sometimes.
fffffff I like it, too! ;A; It kind of feels a little different to me from the book, sometimes, but that's only because it's a lot less harmful to Thom now (which dynamic we didn't get to see too much of, in the book). I feel like sometimes I still really want Thom to start up the "but we are siblings!" thing by calling him John at. uh. a really ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment