thinking about how eiji's a pole vaulter and how ash talks about eiji "flying" and how eiji's associated with bird imagery and how eiji's free (unlike ash) and how eiji comes in on a plane and leaves on a plane and how ash cannot fly, ash cannot be free, how nyc is ash's prison, and how ash is the leopard who dies climbing the mountain, unable to live at such elevation, how he was trying to reach the sky and be free but was always stuck to the earth, how he chose to die instead of climbing back down, how he chose to die where he could see the sky and hope and freedom almost like a bird with eiji's letter right in front of him rather than letting everything go wrong and ruin it once again, how eiji's a failed pole vaulter anyway, how a bad fall ruined his career and grounded him (physically and emotionally), how it took flying to america and meeting ash and needing to save him and skip for him to try flying again, how he landed hard and harsh and still the thought of that escape compelled ash to protect eiji at all costs because if he could fly that means something to him, even if he doesn't think he can fly, how eiji is the manifestation of his hope and how when he breaks and asks eiji to stay with him a while he folds himself over his legs and weighs him down and traps him and grounds him, how ash fights like hell to keep eiji alive not because he thinks he can be like him (hopeful, flying, innocent), but because he makes him forget the gravity of his situation, and so he can see eiji fly again. how he wants to see him escape. how eiji is a bird and ash is a wildcat and how ash never once saw eiji as prey. how eiji never saw ash as a predator. how it is eiji's naivete that first endears ash to him, how it is his freedom and flight and removal from darkness and his ability to leave that darkness that really roots eiji in ash's blood as something essential to him keeping on living in this hell of nyc. how it is that distance from the violence and that hope for the future that ash chooses to surround himself in as he dies. how ash dies in a dream because he feels more than anything that he can't fly like eiji, that he can never leave. how his violence is a part of him and will be forever, how it weighs him down. how he wants to enjoy the view from the mountainside rather than looking up from the ground below. as if they can both fly. as if he is with him up there and not grounded. eye-to-eye with what he can't have, seeing eiji's homeland: the sky. how he dies trying to reach the top because he couldn't take retreating and trying again. how ash, tired and tired and tired and convinced it will go on forever if he crawls back down the mountain, chooses to close his life deluged in eiji, in eiji's insistence that they can fly together, in eiji's hope for him and for them, in eiji's beautiful dream. how ash dies without trying to realize that dream. how ash, in dying, destroys it.
182 notes
·
View notes
Do you have any pre genocide air nomad thoughts? I've been rlly fixated on them and was wondering if you had anything to fuel it
yeah I actually think that the kyoshi & esp yangchen novels do a pretty good job of expanding on the air nomads’ role in the world, how they were treated, how they were viewed, how they treated one another, what functions they performed, various details about their culture and beliefs, etc etc. so if you haven’t read those I would recommend doing so! (they’re very quick reads btw, I finished each within a day easily.) something that really stood out to me in the novels is the way that air nomads are sort of the envy of the other nations because they have the privilege of keeping their hands clean, and never have to worry about making decisions that might weigh on their conscience. which is super fascinating wrt to air nomads like yangchen, kelsang, jinpa, and aang, who do have to get their hands dirty in world affairs for whatever reason (avatarhood or proximity to the avatar is fundamentally a burden and an injustice as much as it is a privilege!) and the way they are either figuratively or literally excommunicated from their temples for causing harm in any way, even if such violence is necessary for the greater good. yangchen also points out that the sort of enlightened tranquility and peace that the air nomads are revered for cultivating also comes at the cost of labor (especially to maintain the temples), rigorous study, no guaranteed stability, and very few material comforts — which, perhaps condescendingly, she assumes that non-air nomads couldn’t actually handle. the novels provide a really interesting tension, expanding on a lot of problems aang faces but in subtler ways. they also further elucidate why the air nomads were considered unfit to exist in sozin’s ideal fascist imperialist society, as their way of life is fundamentally antithetical to his ideology. not because it’s a perfect utopia beyond reproach, but because their values exist in direct opposition to any sort of hierarchizing force that seeks dominance through power and violence.
94 notes
·
View notes
dressrosa/donquixote brothers brainrot incoming
i feel like the reason that a lot of rosi-focused fan content doesn't hit for me is that he's so woobified. like yeah he's definitely the better father figure to law but he also beat kids (even if his intentions were good in a weird shounen logic way lol) and repeatedly retraumatized law out of what was imo an ultimately selfish desire to prove his brother wrong--i genuinely cannot see a way that path would have ended well, even if doflamingo never intervened.
plus in light of doffy's grooming by vergo and trebol et al i think it's a lot more narratively interesting to ask how being raised by the navy would affect rosinante, possibly in a similar way. like we see him die *just* as he's getting a taste of the personal agency that his brother's had for years so we never get to fully see him through the repercussions of his own trauma, but even though from what i understand we don't really *know* whether sengoku raised rosi with the intention of sending him back to the donquixotes as a spy, it does create an interesting contrast where both brothers are being played against each other by outside parties using their respective senses of justice.
not trying to downplay that doflamingo is a fucked up guy who does fucked up things but i think it's weird that so many fics treat him as this utter monster while rosi gets to be, like, a normal dude. and i think that's because we see doffy at his absolute worst while rosi has always been filtered through law's grief and nostalgia. but at the end of the day they're way more interesting to me as narrative foils to each other, brothers who have been manipulated for most of their lives by forces outside of their control. it's not that they don't have agency but their relationship is so deeply defined by the terms of their separation as teenagers and i want to see rosi's side of that period and its consequences explored more.
idkidk not really sure what i'm getting at here i just wish that rosi was more interesting to me than he is lol. i know it's just because he wasn't around for long but imo he has so much untapped potential compared to the rest of the whole doffy/law/rosinante triangle. if you know any good darker/psychological, corazon centric fics please send them my way <3
75 notes
·
View notes
i'm here with more npd headcanons <33
☆ zenitsu agatsuma from demon slayer
1) he believes he's The most pitiful, The most weak person in the world, therefore he deserves all pity and saving (self-centered, believes he's "special" so he should get "special" treatment). he craves external validation & strives to meet expectations of others. during the entertainment district arc when he played the samishen he tried to be perfect at it from the first try. something else (i forgor)
2) im projecting <3
3) he's pathetic sopping wet beast of a guy & i like him for it
might edit it later & add / tweak some things
9 notes
·
View notes
I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.
So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."
I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?
It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.
Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.
So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.
Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.
44K notes
·
View notes