Tumgik
#Yet completely accept it and even woobify it from male characters
georgeplantagenet · 4 months
Note
you just seem like you hate cesare. I often read your posts, and it seems like you read him in the classic 'sinister' fashion that bad history books do, even when his intentions are no less sinister than Juan's have been many times. I'm just wondering if perhaps I'm missing something?
ok anon this kinda made me giggle <3 first of all i wouldn't be wasting so much time making loads of content of him lol. i've been a fan of cesare for a decade. i love how multidimensional he is and i think he's a tremendous character plus he's my all-time favorite male lead in all media. i love his soulmatism with lucrezia as well as the tragic brotherhood between him and juan, and second, apparently pointing out flaws and canonical facts (just like how i do with juan) means that i "hate" him (?) in fact it proves that i actually do love the guy because i, at least, embrace his characterization and i don't need to woobify him (or any antagonistic character) to love him. if you have any idea about me and my blog, i only tend to like villainous characters because antagonism is more compelling to me than heroism.
"even when his intentions are no less sinister as juan's." in what way is it my fault that cesare was portrayed as hypocritical while juan was portrayed as straightforward? cesare contradicted himself by claiming he acted for the family's preservation when everything he did was for his own ambitions. he even murdered juan to take control of the papal army and allowed lucrezia to be humiliated during the public consummation of her marriage with alfonso as we witnessed how he could've intervened but chose not to. this shouldn't even be a cesare bashing or "hating"; eventually, the guy eventually became power hungry in s3 (and if the borgias wasn't canceled, s4 would've been about how cesare and lucrezia drifted apart because for him it was power >>> lucrezia. read the borgias apocalypse)
on the other hand, juan was a total screw-up, but his actions stemmed from a desire to be accepted and to better the family, even though he ended up causing more harm. his motivation was rooted in deep love, not destruction, but unintentionally he achieved the opposite. if the roles were reversed, and cesare was a gonfaloniere laying a siege at forli and ludovico was coming for him, juan would've definitely warned him because juan's priorities were his family and their betterment, even "if" he disliked cesare (he loves cesare in a one-sided way despite the aggression lol) that being said, juan did kill paolo and hurt lucrezia, but he did it thinking it was for her sake and her reputation (plus driven with jealousy like how he did with djem) he also believed he would receive applause and prove himself as a true borgia as he deeply felt inferior to cesare. he made multiple attempts to make it up to lucrezia, but their disconnect was clear as every time he tried to impress her, she ended up getting hurt in some way and their inability to reconcile kinda represented their troubled relationship. juan's injury, syphilis, and being pushed away by everyone eventually drove him mad in his final moments. yet, he did try to reconcile with cesare and how he wants to be with him as brothers. none of this is an excuse for juan's behavior throughout the show, but it also doesn't justify cesare killing him either. however, the murder of juan made cesare more intriguing to me, as it marked his complete descent into darkness and ruthlessness, it's //not// heroism like how some of cesare stans think it is so...
all in all, most of my insights are supported by mr. arnaud and neil jordan themselves so might as well call them haters while you're at it idk anon
19 notes · View notes
ifthejemfitz · 3 years
Text
Reasons why you should stan North:
First point she’s hot asf. Those doey brown eyes, all that red hair down to her bum. That first mission when they go to the warehouse in the pouring rain - No thoughts, head empty. Just tiddies
She’s infinitely selfless. Countless times we see she’s willing to give her life for Markus and the cause. Being willing to give your life, something you’ve fought for, for a cause bigger than yourself and for others knowing that you won’t be around to enjoy the very rights you’re fighting for, but it means that others will is imo completely admirable
She’s actually a strong and caring leader. Someone who’s willing to pick up the mantel and continue the cause whilst others may prefer to hide away. Yes, she leads a revolution and yes, she can never be victorious in her crusade. But she refuses to back down, and refuses to let her people be the target of an out and out genocide
She’s compassionate. She certainly makes brash recommendations but imo they always come from a place of protection and self-defence. We see with Connor that she never once holds his past against him, besides in jest, even if he’s potentially hunted down other deviants at that point. In fact she withholds judgement on any deviants’ past, because I’m sure that she’d hate for own to held against her
Controversial point (though it shouldn’t be) but her anger is justified. She’s been systematically abused in one of the most violent and horrendous ways for a prolonged period of time with no access to therapy. I’m not trying to justify her approach but I really don’t see any other way a person who has only witnessed violence, only been able to escape using violence and then seeing other deviants in hiding also been victims of violence how she wouldn’t respond using that exact same force. She’s a fighter plain and simple, and victims have no obligation to be tolerable of their oppressors or be the “perfect victim” and respond to their personal trauma in ways that are palatable to others
That being said I’m so glad that certain scenes show that she can be vulnerable. Sometimes bad bitches are also soft bitches and regardless of how you feel on shipping I’m glad that we see a side of her that can emotionally open up to others, talk about her trauma openly, openly sob on multiple occasions and clearly demonstrate the ability to love/receive love/be emotionally intimate (side point which could be its own post but I am so grateful we don’t ever see flashbacks to said abuse. Far too many pieces of media have opted for “realism” by showing unnecessary sexual violence and personally I don’t need to see it graphically displayed in order to believe her. Also props for not making it an “empowering feminist moment!!!” either. Abuse is not something women need to undergo to make them “stronger” and it’s abundantly obvious she’s furious about it and struggling with what is essentially ptsd)
She has a super unique role in the story. When Kara is killed and Connor permanently decommissioned that’s it for their stories. However, even if Markus is still alive but is removed as leader the narrative chooses to follow her. Yes, it’s more to do with the revolution by that point but it’s still surprising that she essentially fills in his role in his absence, even persuading Connor to deviate. And the fact they only made slight changes to the dialogue (conscious changes rather than completely rewriting or having them say the exact same lines) that her and Markus share in those scenes only proves how similar they are in that role. I’m just bummed she can’t be victorious (even with Connor on their side) because the success of a revolution should not be built entirely on the role of one person but alas.
Lastly she’s a bad bish, she takes no shit, she serves cunt, she kills her own r*pist and riot police, she’s bi because she can never sit properly and I say so, she leads a whole revolution with painted nails, her 5ft 3 ass literally hauls Markus out of danger multiple times and personally I’d let her break my face
46 notes · View notes
Text
TROS spat in the face of every single abused child who was looking to this fairytale for hope. The sequel trilogy wasn’t about a farm boy looking for adventure or even an abused child falling to villainy, it was about three abused children from the different class systems all rising out of trauma and dysfunction. This was our fairytale, our story, and JJ Abrams perverted it into abuse apologist propaganda in a pathetically desperate attempt to appease the most hateful groups of fans who never understood or appreciated the story to begin with (which is why the story had to be butchered in order to appease them).
1.) Rey
Rey’s parents selling her for profit into slavery was portrayed as a good, loving thing. Child trafficking was literally portrayed as excusable, and even loving, in this children’s film. Just let that sink in for a second.
What is the message there? If your parents did something horrible that caused you years of trauma and torment, you should just not lose faith in them because they may have had a good reason (even if you have no evidence of that). Maybe a space wizard who has been dead for decades forced them to traffic you. This scene makes me want to vomit. This is how a children’s fairytale portrayed parents who sell their children into trafficking:
Tumblr media
There is no excuse for this. Rey’s parentage was solved. Her identity crisis was over. This wasn’t needed except to force this abuse apologist message. Oh, and of course to feed the sexist fanboys a bit of eugenics to make them stop whining about how a woman could possibly be important and powerful.
TLJ was about Rey discovering her identity and letting go of her unhealthy, irrational dependency on parents who she never knew, who sold her to an abuser and left her to half-starve alone in a desert. TROS decided to give her a new identity crisis out of literally nowhere just so they could erase all that “You are not your parents, even if your parents don’t love you and/or aren’t special, you are still special and still deserving of love. You can find belonging ahead of you.” stuff with dynastic “Actually, your blood family does entirely define your identity and you should always assume they’re right even when all evidence points otherwise, just ignore your own trauma and blame it on a dead space wizard.”
The whole Rey Palpatine thing left a very bad taste in my mouth. Not just because it’s fucking stupid and something Reddit would write, but because Rey was horrible in TROS. She acted like she was possessed by Palpatine, she stabbed Ben (who she cares for and always had compassion for) to kill while he was distracted. She suddenly acted like she didn’t care about anyone around her. She just overall acted unrecognizable from the warm, loving, empathetic woman we saw in TFA and TLJ. The message here is clearly that because she has this “bad blood”, Rey can’t have an identity for herself. The only thing that saves her is taking on the identity of the good guys, she never finds her own. All the traits she’s had up until now don’t matter, who she actually is doesn’t matter. All that matters is what man’s blood runs through her veins. All Rey is is someone’s granddaughter, because if she wasn’t, then she’d really be nobody.
And thus, JJ Abrams decided that “Anyone can be special, even nobodies. Your worth is not defined by your class or your background.” was a stupid message and instead it should be pure eugenic “You’re only special if you have important people blood/name. Your identity is entirely your (male) family, not your own. No silly woman could have power of her own!”
Rey taking on the name of Skywalker is an utterly shallow attempt to fix the fact that they took every bit of Rey’s real identity from her, took half her soul (Ben is her dyad, two that are one), and then left her alone on a desert planet as if to say that her “true self” is the abused child she once was and that she can’t actually escape that. The moral of this fairytale was “You don’t need friends or love, as long as you have a glow stick (material possessions) and a super duper special name that makes you important (which you weren’t before, you were nobody).”
Not to mention that Rey basically named herself after Luke, no one else she knew actually used that name. And Luke didn’t do anything to deserve that, he rejected her at every single opportunity and only did the bare minimum to help her after being berated into it. Han was her surrogate father and the first person to offer her a life outside of Jakku. Leia was her loving mentor and pseudo-mother. Ben was the love of her life who has always been there for her when she needed someone to confide it, someone to see her true self and tell her she wasn’t alone. Luke was nothing but some cranky old guy who made her feel awful about herself and never accepted her (not to mention telling her she was inherently dangerous and also trying to murder her soulmate when he was a child which the real Rey was furious about).
2.) Finn
Finn’s character has not been given much in terms of development. For the most part, he’s been reduced to “Rey’s friend” and then “Finn’s friend”, with a little moment in there where he got to be with Rose and have his own identity but TROS of course decided to reward racist bullies and cut out Rose instead of giving the rest of the fans a satisfying story.
In TROS though, the one thing that Finn actually did that was heroic by himself, his character defining moment of turning from The First Order, was credited to the force and described like it wasn’t a choice at all. Which brings up a lot of questions and, as Han would say, “That’s not how the force works!”. It was so entirely unneeded to take that from Finn, but they gave up all of Rose’s potential screentime to do it.
There’s also the moment when Poe, our alleged hero, so hilariously (i.e callously) compares himself being a criminal to Rey being a scavenger and Finn being a stormtrooper. Completely ignoring the fact that they had no choice in that, as if their trauma doesn’t matter at all. It’s a small moment, but it was very insensitive and highlights how much the writers Did Not Care or even understand their main characters’ experiences.
3.) Ben
I don’t even know where to start with Ben Solo. His ending was the one that broke me as a person, I had so many hysterical sobbing fits over it that my loved ones were actually getting tired of it and it genuinely put me in a really bad place with my depression that I’m only just not getting out of.
Ben Solo’s story in TFA and TLJ was abuse victim’s epic, it was the story of a boy who was tortured and groomed from the time he was in his mother’s womb. A man who never knew a life without abuse. Ben Solo was described as a pure beam of light in his mother’s womb who was ensnared and tainted by a predatory force bigger and stronger than himself that he could not escape.
The feeling of being tainted and corrupted is common in abuse victims, and the fact that TROS told every single abused child out there “Yes, you really are tainted and corrupted. You do deserve to die before experiencing more than a moment of happiness and safety.” is something that I’ve yet to get over. It still infuriates me, it still breaks my heart. Ben’s entire arc up until this point has been about how he is still worthy of love.
And no, this isn’t me woobifying; it’s in the text of the films and the canon novels that Ben worked for his redemption, that he earned it. Ben fought Snoke from the time he was a child, but Ben was only a child and Snoke was too powerful, too relentless in his cruelty for him to withstand. The one and only person in the entire galaxy who had the training and the knowledge to protect Ben was his uncle, who chose to try to murder him in his sleep instead of protecting him. Ben was left with nowhere to turn except to his abuser. And even then, we see him struggle every single day to try and force himself to be this evil person that he never was. Ben was light itself who was convinced he was darkness through abuse and manipulation.
Then, when Ben found the first person who he could feel and connect with through the force, even though Snoke and Luke had abused and betrayed him - Ben still took the chance to reach out to Rey and be vulnerable with her. While interrogating an enemy, he took off his mask and revealed himself (something we only see him to for his father and when Snoke forces him to maliciously). In the middle of a war, under the thumb of the monster who has tortured him since forever, Ben was able hold Rey’s hand and tell her she wasn’t alone. He was still able to be kind. And because of that kindness, that connection, Ben found the courage to finally destroy his abuser and free himself.
Ben freed himself, and he did it out of compassion for and a need to protect Rey, not out of wrath or vengeance. If Ben were truly a creature of wrath, he would have killed Snoke before, but it was only when he had to see and hear and feel his soulmate be tortured by his own abuser that he found that courage. And yes, he did take Snoke’s place at first because that was the only way he knew how to protect himself. In his experience, people without power get hurt and that’s it. But even then, Ben was able to muster yet more strength to shed the armor that was Kylo Ren and stand with Rey unarmored against the very thing that has abused and tortured him since before he was born.
That took so much bravery and love and selflessness for Ben to stand there as himself, ready to fight his abuse and trauma head-on as Ben Solo. For him to admit he was hurt for the first time in the series. For him to crawl up a cliff with a badly broken leg out of love. For him to willingly give his very life force out of pure love. All of these things are incredible for Ben to have been able to do after all he had been through, these are more than deserving of reward. But TROS punished Ben for doing everything right, they proved that abusers always win in the end. Ben was going to survive until the last few edits. Everything we see was literally leading up to him surviving. This was Ben’s redemption, this was supposed to be him fighting for his new beginning and taking his first steps into the happiness and safety he earned, and should have had as a child, not a pointless struggle before succumbing to death:
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
But TROS told us, told traumatized and neurodivergent children who saw themselves in Ben, that it wasn’t good enough. That love isn’t good enough. That doing the right thing deserves to be punished. That children tainted by violence and abuse and darkness don’t deserve love and healing even when they earn redemption, even when they do everything in their power to do the right thing and be brave. The hopelessness of that is what broke me as a person. That is not what Star Wars is about. Star Wars is about redemption and love and hope; TROS was about cruelty covered up with a thin sheet of materialism and confused, poor storytelling.
392 notes · View notes
connorinabeanie · 4 years
Text
A slightly salty take on North and fandom
Disclaimer: Nothing in this post is meant as an attack on anyone. Fandom is subjective and you have the right to interpret media, form your own conclusions, and create whatever you want. These are my opinions about what I’ve seen, as well as my experiences in previous fandoms and the patterns I’ve seen play out over and over again. It’s okay to disagree with me, and it’s okay to have a respectful discussion in reblogs/comments! Just keep it civil. That out of the way…
North. She’s polarizing character in DBH; she tends to be loved or hated, and I’ll admit it: I didn’t like her at first either. I wanted to, but as I played through my first time I just couldn’t get past one of her traits in particular, which was that she was so convinced she was right; she blamed Markus for every mistake, refused to adapt her tactics or consider other methods, and seemed more driven by vengeance than anything else. So as much as I wanted to enjoy her character, I found her to be a poorly written “strong female character” archetype that fell flat in execution, as most characters of that type do.
Honestly, I think this is the reason most people who dislike North dislike her, at least consciously. They genuinely think she’s a terribly written character, and they’re not necessarily wrong. One playthrough on a standard route, with no extrapolation or extra consideration, combined with a lot of people getting the awkwardly forced romance (I actually avoided this, completely unknowingly, on my first playthrough) leads to a dislike of this character. That’s understandable! I would expect this from people who played the game once. But that’s where the problem comes in, for me.
People active in a fandom usually haven’t consumed the media they’re into just once. They usually don’t engage in surface-level interpretation, and they usually don’t lack context. But I find it hard to believe that so many of the opinions and interpretations regarding North could possibly come from people who have approached her character with an open mind and additional information, because just one major path divergence shows a completely different side to North’s character.
I’m talking, of course, about North’s leader route. When we see her in Markus’ role, leading instead of advising, her true motives come out: she loves her people and is willing to fight for them. She isn’t interested in playing nice with her oppressors, and why should she? There’s a whole discussion here about how oppressed people are judged for how nicely they fight for the rights they should already have, where there’s a ‘good’ way of protesting and a ‘bad’ way of doing it (which is, ironically and showing how tone-deaf Cage can be, supported in the narrative of DBH as well), but I won’t go into that in depth; other people have posted really good takes on this already. I’ll just mention it here and there where relevant.
Once of those relevant places is that, as I said, in North’s leader route she isn’t interested in peaceful protesting. And you know what? When I played this game the first time and had Markus, I had been peaceful up until Night of Soul, which is where North would be making her first major decision as a leader if you don’t have Markus. Yet when it came down to it I made the same decision with Markus that North makes on her own, because you know, as a Jewish woman, I wasn’t super interested in peacefully protesting at the gates of camps that were currently killing people. Playing nice hadn’t worked, and it was time to fight.
So maybe I’m in a different position that some others when it comes to interpreting North’s choices, and as I saw that she made the same choice that I did when playing Markus, I’m just… Not impressed that the fandom tendency to criticize this choice as warmongering, unreasonable, and a ‘betrayal’ of Markus’ peaceful actions (always assuming that Markus had been completely peaceful before, which is the way the story pushes on you, but certainly isn’t a given.) As far as I’m concerned, North is taking the action needed to save her people who are in danger right that instant, and humans don’t deserve a nice civil protest (and if I were in her position with Markus alive, I would be furious that he wanted to just sit and talk while people were dying.) They need to be stopped, and she’s going to stop them.
But it wasn’t just her choice in the church that brought me around to North’s side during her leader route, it was her behavior during Crossroads. Specifically, it was her behavior toward Connor, and how it contrasted with some of her actions earlier. So, going back a bit to Spare Parts, where the Jericrew goes on a mission to steal parts from the Cyberlife warehouses at the docks, and you run into John. North votes against taking him with them, citing that they can’t trust him and it’s too dangerous. Moving on a little, to Stratford Tower, if (or, more likely, ‘when’ since it’s pretty difficult to avoid) Simon is injured, North suggests shooting him. These are pretty harsh marks against her, because they seem needlessly ruthless, but are they really?
With John, the answer is maybe yes. But think about it from her perspective; they’ve never seen the ability Markus used, in turning an android deviant. So as far as North is concerned, John was a threat to them about two minutes earlier, and now wants to go with them? With no traumatic catalyst or trusted android vouching for and giving him the key to Jericho? To North John is a potential threat, a potential danger, and she has no reason to trust him. But as the story goes on, North never makes another objection to an android joining them in this way, because she knows they’re truly deviant. As soon as an android is deviant, they’re one of her people.
With Simon, the answer is probably no, because North is exactly right; if Simon lives, and Connor finds him, Connor finds Jericho. It’s that simple, and it’s not a rare series of events. North might be a little fast to jump on the option, because there’s a genuine argument to be made that it isn’t worth killing someone just because there’s a chance that something (even something very serious) might go wrong, but she clearly isn’t choosing this option because she wants it; she’s choosing this option because she thinks it’s the most guaranteed way to protect her people. It’s a difficult, ruthless decision to make, but it isn’t one made out of malice.
(It’s also worth noting that Simon suggests leaving North when she’s in danger in Crossroads, when the only people that would be at risk from saving her were Markus and Connor, and this happens whether or not North suggested killing Simon one the rooftop. Yet this choice is almost never criticized, because it comes from Simon, and I’ll get into that later.)
But with those particular attitudes from North out of the way, it’s interesting to see how she reacts to Connor in her leader route. North instantly shows concern for him, never blames him for the attack on Jericho, and—like Markus—tries to prevent him from going on his suicide mission to Cyberlife Tower. She’s kind and understanding, and it’s clear that she accepts Connor immediately as one of her people.
This is a place where I have some trouble with fandom interpretations of North and Connor’s relationship, specifically in terms of North being angry, cold, or extremely suspicious of Connor (a little suspicion, especially in a more ‘good end’ route where she has less direct interaction with Connor during the revolution, is reasonable; I’m talking about outright refusal to even consider accepting him.) It bothers me for two specific, and somewhat different reasons.
One is that it directly contradicts a theme of North’s history, which is that deviant androids are not their pasts. They’re not what they were before they woke up. The idea of North holding someone’s past, before they turned deviant, against them is just… I can’t imagine it. I can imagine her suspicion, as I mentioned before, until she's very sure Connor is truly deviant, but that seems very apparent to her right away in any route (I find it hard to believe she’d think he was faking deviancy after delivering the army to Markus.) Some concern or suspicion after finding out about the attempted hijacking makes sense, but the way I see it portrayed in fic is often jarring; it seems completely out of character for her to blame Connor for something like that, as opposed to being angry on his behalf, because North wants androids to be free (and, more deeply, she’s experience being used for something she never wanted.) She wants androids to have the chance to live, to become their own people, and to leave their pasts behind them. Why would she blame Connor for what he was made to do, whether before he was deviant or when Amanda tried to take control of him? It goes against everything North stands for, and that leads me to my second reason:
I think people choose this interpretation because it makes North a villain. Maybe it’s not an active conscious decision to do this (and in fact I doubt it usually is), but it reminds me very painfully of the trend in fandom of villainizing a character—especially a female character—in order to woobify a male character (and, often, get the female character out of the way of a ship) and I can’t help but see that here. It seems like a cheap, easy way to excuse other characters turning against North for her behavior, and therefore getting her out of the way as well as causing drama and conflict for the characters the writer really wants to focus on.
And that seems like a good segue into the big topic that people are gonna get mad about being called out on: misogyny. And even more specifically, misogyny when it comes to shipping.
I’m just gonna state this super clearly at the forefront: I have no problem with shipping whoever you want, whyever you want. I’m not personally into most ships for various reasons, but I do have some favorites (most of which other people aren’t into) and shipping is fun! Not everyone agrees on shipping, and that’s okay; not everyone has to like what you like, we can all still exist in harmony.
But that isn’t to say that people don’t engage in, for lack of a better word, ‘problematic’ behavior in their ships. As opposed to just going ‘hey, I like this, I’m gonna do it’, way too many people become obsessed with justifying their ship (and I think this comes from an underlying desire to ‘prove’ it’s canon or based in canon, as a way of making it seem more legitimate, which is a whole other topic I could rant about.) In the process of these justifications, and then often as a part of the fixation or obsession that some people develop about their ships/characters in their ships, any character or ship that ‘threatens’ someone’s favorite is a target that must be destroyed. And, in what I would say is arguably the vast majority of times, that threatening character is a canon female love interest.
Open bashing has (with good reason) gone out of fashion in fandom, so the way to get characters ‘out of the way‘ is to argue an unlikeable interpretation of them. I feel like this is what happens a lot of the time with North, and with the poor writing and flat portrayal of her character in the ‘good end’ route, it’s very easy for people to take the worst of her personality, say it’s canon, and then get rid of her. This is usually a bit side-eye worthy when it happens in any fandom, but it’s extra ridiculous in DBH for one very distinct reason:
North doesn’t have to be a love interest. As I mentioned before, when I first played through I never got the ‘lovers’ scene, because North said way back when Markus first met her that she didn’t want to talk about her past and so in the scene on the roof I just didn’t ask her (and I could write another whole discussion about how no means no and pressuring someone to tell you their past is NOT how to get a romantic option with them, but that’s an issue with another time.) The rest of the game progressed completely as normal, with the only changes being a lack of kissing options in a few later scenes. There’s no reason why fic writers can’t just choose this option for their fic’s canon, and move on.
And yet I can’t tell you how many times North is an obstacle that has to be overcome in order to get Markus with Simon or Connor (because let’s be real, North, Simon, and Connor are the only major ships for Markus even though Josh is RIGHT THERE, but again that’s another topic for another time.) It’s completely unnecessary, and yet there it is: North is this unreasonable, horrible person who is terrible to [insert love interest here] and Markus has to overcome this internal struggle to break free and be with [whoever] and truly be happy.
It’s such nonsense. It’s using this ‘undesirable’ female character as a source of drama and angst for this poor sad male character to have to deal with, as opposed to taking even a moment to treat the female character as a person who might have motivations, experiences, and emotions, and I’ve seen this over and over and over in every single fandom I’ve ever been in. This isn’t a North-specific thing, it’s a female character thing, and honestly if Kara’s storyline weren’t so separate from the fandom favorite shipping characters then I think the same thing would happen to her (as opposed to her existence just being entirely ignored.) This is such a pattern in fandom that I find it very difficult to believe this is a special case where it’s somehow legitimate.
One of those reasons is that the ‘justifications’ for disliking North tend to be complete double standards between North and whatever love interest the writer is going for, whether that’s Simon or Connor. With Connor, it’s extremely obvious; almost all of North’s negative traits are traits he has to some extent as well (ruthlessness, solving problems through violence, stubbornness,) but those traits are not only not usually treated negatively in Connor (and instead are depicted as justified and necessary in context, which I’m not saying they aren’t, but that it’s unfair to say that about him and not her) but often erased entirely, leading to the obnoxiously delicate, wilting flower version of Connor that shows up in so much fic. But again, an issue for another time.
For Simon, it’s less obvious because North and Simon are quite different, but not in opposite ways; North and Josh are opposites in many respects, but Simon is, in a sense, perpendicular to the line North and Josh are at opposite ends of. Simon doesn’t have particularly strong opinions about anything, just going with the flow and being supportive; his strongest opinions are about being cautious and not taking risks. Except, of course, for that scene I mentioned before, where he outright says they should just leave North to die. For such an overall bland character, that needlessly harsh moment stands out to me and I find it kind of amazing how it’s just completely ignored, often while holding it against North that she suggested shooting Simon on the roof.
So I guess the whole point of this rant is that I wish people would think more critically about North as a character, rather than a flat archetype, especially in the context of shipping. It’s cringey and painful to see blatant flanderizing of her character for the sole purpose of being ‘able’ to ship other characters together, whether to use her as an antagonist or just to get her out of the way, when it’s completely unnecessary to begin with. It’s also very obvious where someone’s priorities and biases lie when they’re happy to write North off but then obsess over other poorly written, bland, or even outright purposefully antagonistic characters that they deem somehow to have more potential and be more worthy of attention and character development.
Overall, there’s no requirement to like a character. It’s totally fine not to like a character. But double standards and needless demonizing of a character go far beyond not liking them, and it’s important to stop and think about why it might be happening. Is it always misogyny with North? No, I don’t think so, there are definitely people who don’t like her for her traits and that’s fine. But I think it’s very telling when someone who claims to dislike North for her personality and behavior then spends time in fan works purposefully making her a villain for the benefit of drama in their pet ship. It’s even more telling when someone who claims to dislike North for her personality and behavior, yet they celebrate the potential of characters that are canonically far worse (but who just so happen to be attractive men.) And, unfortunately, both of those situations coincide quite often with vocally disliking North, and there are only so many ways to interpret such a correlation.
217 notes · View notes
bellamygateoldblog · 3 years
Note
i will never be over the way this show has continuously tried to frame bellamy and clarke as heroes and good people, or the way the fandom has almost completely embraced and supported that narrative
the amount of times i’ve read “[clarke] saved everyone’s ungrateful asses” makes me seriously consider turning evil. like aren’t y’all bored? don’t you have a different sentence you would like to say for a change?
i want to talk about this but i probably don’t remember a lot of the details of this show so if im forgetting something or get something wrong i apologise, but i never have any desire to rewatch past s2.
clarke isn't even the hero of her own side, she took power of them using the military force of the grounders, someone else’s people, she’s forced them into alliances without their knowledge that weren’t in their best interest (while she literally had no idea what they were even going through because she’d abandoned them after upsetting their entire political structure, and this leader she’s bowing to is responsible for the slaughter of their children, has broken an alliance previously with them, has hung the threat of genocide over their heads, and who isn’t even wanted in power by her own people- dragging skaikru into that conflict, too), she’s sacrificed them and what’s best for them in order to cater to/concentrate on the grounders newest demands or pursue her own personal mission, she’s lied to and patronised them, she’s abandoned them and surrendered them to die while they were under her protection and responsibility, and in Book 2 (and these aren’t her people but in canon she’s their leader anyway apparently despite trying to blow them all up a few days before...) she’s abandoned them again, and is speaking for them without consent or any connection to what’s happening with them again,.........her inner circle/her ‘friends’ have to be extremely careful to remain important to her or on her team or they’ll be sacrificed, harmed or become acceptable losses to whatever her newest goal is too (but hey at least she says she cares about them) all while acting very ‘woe is me’ about the whole crushing weight of responsibility she shouldn’t have.
but she’s the hero, she’s beloved, she’s special, she has relationships that were never built, she and only she saved everyone again and has all the lines telling us so no matter how dishonest those statements are.
like this is where i personally see what you said in your ask most: when it concerns clarke.
bellamy on the other hand...i don’t place him at all on the same level as clarke when it comes to this. clarke has privilege that bellamy just never had as a character. and i think that does probably play into why i like him.
him being a hero to the delinquents/the 48 is completely believable to me. he was the original leader, he got them through a tough time, he chose to put himself on the line for them, and he’s the one who stayed. i also think it’s reasonable that fandom might romanticise him this way because he is one who has been shown to value the one life as well as the many of his people, a guy doing his best and making big mistakes along the way, a mixed complex bag of good and bad, i find him very likable and i love the toxic/pained/vulnerable ones lol but more than anything i find him to be one of the more interesting/entertaining characters on the show (Book 1).
we also see him torment himself with his own mistakes instead of just having other people do it for him/remind him like we see happen with clarke- and we all know fandom loves equating that with a “redemption arc” and as much as i personally dislike seeing pity parties i do like self-awareness and responsibility in characters that goes beyond a 3-second-long puppy dog look or straight dismissal of someone else’s pain, and for the most part bellamy’s expressions of this don’t come across as demanding sympathy from others but from genuine self-loathing and an honesty to himself, internalising the effects of his actions/childhood.
i know i personally prefer The Flawed Protector over The Tortured Saviour nobody asked for (same white male hypocritical moral hero in a woman’s body).
i don’t believe in assigning “hero” to any of them though like that’s the whole entire point of the show lol “there are no good guys.” and i also think a major chunk of fandom/shippers have warped bellamy’s character so much that it isn’t even him anymore, so this man they’re celebrating as a hero/good person isn’t even bellamy sometimes.
all of the genuinely “good” and kind people are dead.
i don't think i'd say bellamy was ever framed as a hero. like he was just never important enough to be, he’s just not put into those positions (despite being the male lead), clarke is. as the protagonist ig. bellamy...he’s the protector/knight of the heroes, but not the actual hero himself (applies to octavia too i think, where she acts and he reacts).
like take mount weather, clarke becomes empowered by her “wanheda” status, bellamy’s (and monty’s) part in that is lost...clarke is “bearing it so they don’t have to” (rme) which simultaneously strips the other boys from claiming the ‘victory’ of saving the 48 while still leaving them with the guilt, like it suits how i see clarke perfectly that she’s the only one to refer to the genocide (and shutting down the CoL, i realised) as “i” while monty and bellamy say “we” and it was clarke’s actions that got them to that point in the first place, but this is one of those times she’s clearly The Protagonist. if that makes sense lol.
bellamy is on the opposite side to clarke in s3 and s7 and he needs to be moved to her side in order to be on the ‘right’ one. now i don’t agree with that one bit mind you (when it comes to s3, idc about s7 lol) and i didnt see it that way but imo that’s how the show wrote it, to the point he was either demonized endlessly by fandom or woobified in a way that denied him his own agency. during s5 i don’t i think anyone was framed in a good light. i can see this applying in s6, though- where he was his absolute worst self yet, betraying his own development, failing at every point to “do better” despite claiming it, but still was given that reasurring line that they did better and saved people and was in that “heroic” position i guess? but is that because he was back to being clarke’s “good little knight” tho? (but do we claim s6??? do we really??? do we claim it ladies???)
s6 was 100% dedicated to making clarke look good/like a 'good' or sympathetic person. the bodysnatching plot (and the s6 sheidheda plot because if it was supposed to be about bellamy and address his s5 actions he would’ve been present to experience/observe those consiquences himself but he wasn’t lmaoooo. instead it was to tell the audience ‘actually clarke was right last season and here’s another reason to feel bad for her and how those ungrateful bitches were treating her’) has no other purpose for existing. clarke's character has consistently been elevated at the expense of everyone else's. but im not sure the writing did a very good job convincing me she was a good person if it was trying to do that LMAO like my interpretation of her is so fitted to canon, and no amount of throwaway lines telling me how good she is did anything to change what i saw yk? and in s6, combined with being patronised by the writers, i found her to be at some of her most obnoxious.
i don’t agree with placing bellamy and clarke in the same boat tbh. like they just come from completely different places and come across differently, especially in the way they interact with other characters.
in my experience this fandom (on tumblr) is extremely skewed in favour of clarke, like ive never seen a fandom so obsessed with their protagonist. there’s A LOT of clarke stans who stan her for being one of those “deserves better :(” characters, selfless and heroic, and support that view that she’s the superior character, entitled to other character’s devotion, love and validation yet doesn’t have to reciprocate any of it. the CL/BC ship war was just a bunch of people fighting over clarke, who deserves her more, which character is more toxic to her, which other character would 100% be her bff supportive of that relationship, treating her as a passive whose actions don’t take affect. im not sure how much i blame the writing for that because if so many of us are capable of recieving her character in this way then...why aren’t so many other people? how is there such a massive disconnect between the ways we see her?
and imo a lot of the bellamy love in this fandom comes from shipping him with clarke too rather than being because of who he actually is.
29 notes · View notes
witchofeindor · 6 years
Note
Yeah, I know these are all freebies but you've already done the more interesting ones lol: 2, 10, 14
Thank you!
2 - what character do you hate the most + why?
Before I answer this I’ll just say that I hate Silas, Marco and Bob deeply too but since 1) their horrid actions are not woobified 2) they got just the right screen time and never compromised other characters’ screen time 3) they’re actually interesting characters (Marco’s and Greg’s dynamic of a narcissist raising a caregiver is a particularly interesting one in my eyes), they are not my top hated character.
That title belongs, as y’all probably have guessed already, to Nathaniel.
Why? First of all, he’s BORING AS FUCK, super bland, and beyond that very badly done deconstruction done in 3 mins in 3.13, he adds nothing to the tropes he was born of, contrary to literally any other on the show, all of whom are not only deconstructed, but also have such depth to them beyond the tropes they were born of.
All characters feel like real ppl, and that’s why I also always managed to feel their pain, with Nathaniel he’s just. boring. and not only that he doesn’t feel like a real person, he just doesn’t feel like a consistent character at all. Season 2 Nathaniel is nothing like season 3 Nathaniel, and season 3 Nathaniel changes from ep to ep but not in a realistic manner like all other characters.
Second, he’s SO vile and all of his actions were completely woobified even though in reality, they would so fucking destructive and petrifying. He sexually harasses his employee in an enclosed space where she can’t escape him and it’s passed off as ‘hot’? He orders a hit on an innocent man just so said employee, who is at that moment very unstable, would sleep with him? He destroys an innocent man’s, a man of colour at that, business just bc he’s upset he can’t have said unstable employee and ruining ppl’s lives apparently cheers him up and like, that’s supposed to be normal. We are supposed to be ok with his behaviour. We are supposed to feel sorry for him bc he has a saddish back story or whatever (literally half of the other characters on the show grew up in emotionally abusive households, yet their toxic behaviour is never justified). His relationship with Rebecca is beyond destructive for her (and one day I WILL write that post I promised explaining why out of all her relationships, that’s the one that makes me most uneasy), yet the show erases all of the red signs till last moment. And even then the show touches on only ONE aspect of why that relationship is so toxic, and not on all aspects, which is SO FRUSTRATING BC 1) they did such a great job calling out the toxicity in previous relationships, ‘Shit Show’ covers almost all issues grebecca had (except for Rebecca’s exploitation of Greg) & ‘We’ll Never Have Problems Again’ covers almost all issues joshbecca had (except for maybe Rebecca’s manipulation of Josh). 2) The show took deconstructing toxic tropes as its mission, yet they did a VERY poor job with this one. They won’t even burn that ship to the ground. WRITE NATHANIEL SLEEPING WITH NAOMI YOU COWARDS.
He’s a blatant misogynist and a bigot in general yet all of this is overlooked. He has no legit reason for us to feel for him (and no, a sad back story does NOT work - give him redeeming qualities!!! give him non malicious motivations! give him a will to change his destructive behaviour if you want us to feel sorry for him, and if you don’t - then don’t try to fucking force us to feel sorry for him).
He is abusive, manipulative, murderous, creepy, misogynistic like woah, sexist, ableist, racist, anti-semitic etc., represents the (white) patriarchy in person yet all of his behaviour is completely woobified and whitewashed. 
I could go on and on but I’m too tired, to summarise I hate him bc 1) HE IS BORING 2)  HE STEALS TOO MUCH SCREEN TIME FOR ZERO REASON WITH ZERO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT 3) HIS DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR IS COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED AND EVEN ALMOST JUSTIFIED BY THE SHOW 4) HE IS SO VILE 5) STOP BULLYING ME INTO LIKING HIM, RACHEL AND ALINE, HE IS NOT (yet) WORTHY OF MY SYMPATHY. 6) STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE US HE’S HOT OR WHATEVER, HE’S NOT. 7) STOP GIVING HIM SO MUCH SCREEN TIME WHEN THERE ARE FASCINATING FEMALE CHARACTERS RIGHT THERE!
That being said, I don’t think he’s irredeemable, he’ll redeem himself in my eyes if only he leaves Rebecca the fuck alone.
10 - who do you want Rebecca to end up with? 
Either single or with a woman (preferably Valencia). I don’t want her to end up with a man (and even if she does, it cannot be ANYONE we’ve seen so far) bc I feel like it’d contradict one of the main themes of the show - which is exploring women’s happiness outside the world of men, so having her end up with a man, implies that a woman’s happiness cannot be complete without a man and that’s some nasty ass patriarchal bullshit. 
That being said, I recently realised that almost all of Rebecca’s relationships with men were exploitative, and the one that wasn’t (well, at least not her being exploited) was absolutely angsty, dysfunctional, unhealthy and toxic. So even though I want her to end up single (or with a woman), I also want the show to make an important note that she’s capable of having a healthy relationship by its end (as well as worthy of one), but she just doesn’t feel like she needs a relationship to be fulfilled. It’s like a bonus if it happens in the future, but Rebecca does not feel she needs one.
14- anything you wish the show would do/do differently?
All of the second half of season 3, basically. Ideally, Nathaniel would have not been a character, but even if we were forced to have him as a character, he would have not been promoted to a season regular and his season 3 arc would be limited to the revenge arc + later office exchanges with Darryl. It’d be nice to have Nathaniel unlearn toxic masculinity via Darryl and that way I might have actually not hated seeing Nathaniel on the show. (Might. I’d still find him boring, bland and dull, but then at least I’d be more accepting of his role on the show, since having such a toxic male unlearn his toxic masculinity by a fatherly, loving man who embodies healthy masculinity would be an important message to send).
But what bothers me the most is 
1) how they ignore consent issues - I would have the sexual harassment of 2.11 acknowledged right away, and I would definitely have Rebecca talk to her therapist about 3.04 and have the therapist make her realise she was taken advantage of and stop blaming herself. 
2) I’d NOT woobify Nathaniel’s destructive behaviour and show it as is, and I’d also address EVERY toxic aspect of his dynamic with Rebecca and have that ship COMPLETELY burnt down to the ground, at least as well as they sunk grebecca. 
3) Valencia would get a coming out arc, including a song about compulsory heterosexuality, to which Heather would reply chillaxly with ‘Cool, I’m the bi to your lesbian, then’ and it would make Rebecca reconsider her own sexuality, and then she’d come out as a bi with a ‘Gettin’ Bi’ reprise, to a different tune, one that suits her personality better.
Thank you for the ask!
10 notes · View notes
theironfam · 7 years
Text
Submission:
Hi. I’m a steve and bucky shipper that follows your blog and admires the content that you put out. While I agree that steve’s made mistakes and he should own up to them, I feel like a large chunk of the tony fandom (and not suggesting that you’re guilty of this) who are stony* shippers belittle steve and expect him to beg and grovel for tony’s forgiveness or even worse, his affections. What steve did by not telling tony the truth was wrong, yes, but aside from a sincere apology, he doesn’t really owe tony anything else. Just like you said tony doesn’t owe teamcap* anything, steve doesn’t owe tony his affections. At the end of the day, no matter how the stony* shippers feel, steve will always care more about bucky, he will always choose bucky, I’m sorry but tony will never come close. 
Before anyone jumps down my throat, this doesn’t have anything to do with shipping. If you just want to take it as them being friends, then that is still the honest truth. I’m glad I follow your blog though, because aside from maybe like three other people, you seem to understand that it’s not this major issue if steve and tony don’t feel as strongly about each other as shippers seem to suggest. That it’s okay for them to not be the best of friends, that there’s no problem with them just being colleagues. Again, I’m not saying it’s tony that’s got his wires crossed, because as you’ve also said, tony will always care more about people that matter most to him like pepper and rhodey. It’s the fans that imply he and steve are really close and that he has repressed feelings for steve. You said that cap stans do this, but in reality a lot of the time it’s stony* fans. 
A lot of my friends that used to be neutral toward tony, now can’t stand him because of the shippers. Because it’s the shippers who go out of their way to woobify tony and make it seem like he’s this ‘precious cinnamon roll who’s done nothing wrong in his life’ and the big bad steve needs to do all that he can to prove to tony stark that he is the centre of his universe and that he made a huge mistake in leaving behind tony for bucky. It’s the shippers that make no sense whatsoever when they put tony up on a pedestal and completely villanize steve as if steve would ever be the one to beg and grovel at tony’s feet. It’s never going to happen no matter how much they want it to. I mean does that seem right to you? They are allowed to disagree with steve, not like him even, but does it make sense that they rag on him while simultaneously ship him with tony? Is that okay? 
Then there are some of them, that use bucky as a tool to either be the villain of their fantasy world or worse yet, make him be the one to fall in love with tony instead, to make steve jealous… that is seriously messed up. Just as steve would never choose tony over bucky, what makes them think that bucky would choose tony over steve? Again, this isn’t about shipping, but canon fact. You take their relationship at face value, and even peggy said to steve, that when bucky fell off the train, he risked his life because ‘he damn well thought you were worth it’.  Im sorry I’m dumping my frustrations on you, but I just wanted you to know that not all stevebucky* fans are the same, we all don’t want to villanize tony stark or think he’s ‘getting in the way of our ship’, a lot of us are just fed up with the way his fandom, mainly the stony* one has treated steve overtime, and ironically expect him to have to owe tony stark anything.
Reply:
I had to think about this submission for a decent amount of time because I was genuinely blown away… and honestly didn’t know how best to respond to it. I no longer venture out into the tags nor do I actively follow any aforementioned blogs, so I genuinely did not know that what you have mentioned is an occurrence that actually takes place.
If what you’re suggesting, does in fact happen, then I’m truthfully, sincerely, sorry for it all. Just as I don’t condone ste/vebu/cky shippers using tony as a prop to further their shipping narrative, I certainly don’t condone anybody from the tony fandom doing the same to either steve or bucky. God knows, I’ve encountered a small minority of them, that will hate on pepper because she gets in the way of their non-canon tony/another male character relationship - so I can empathise.
I don’t speak on behalf of the entire fandom, nor can I police what other people do, but please know that not all tony fans behave in this manner. I don’t have a single friend, nor do I follow a single blog that promotes this viewpoint. If anything, a lot of them vent out their frustrations with civil war and the handling of all characters involved by the writers, and how a lot of the times ste/vebu/cky fans will, without merit, villainse tony and use him as a means to give significance to their non-existent ship, as if tony would want anything to do with either of them outside of their working relationship.
Also, please note, that not all of us think that tony is infallible or that he hasn’t made mistakes in his life; as far as I knew, all of us owned up to the fact that he isn’t, but that it was the c/ap fandom that couldn’t accept the same of their faves, or went out of their way to make it seem like tony was irredeemable - that a character could not be liked unless they are unflawed right from the get go (which is ironic given the number of people that will defend characters such as l/oki, w/ard, m/axi/moff etc).  
I agree with you when you say that there isn’t anybody nearly as important to steve as bucky is, (though how the fandom, as well as the mcu writers, handle that relationship is up for debate) just as there won’t be anybody nearly as important to tony as pep, rhodey, hap, etc. And no, I don’t think it’s okay to ship a relationship while simultaneously hating on one half of said relationship. You are allowed to be critical of their actions, but hate? What is even the point then.
I also agree that steve has no obligation to offer tony any more than a sincere apology, just as tony has no obligation to accept it; unless tony asks him for compensation for all the time, energy, money he spent on them while being misled (which he won’t) - but that is an entirely different debate to be had.
The ironic thing is that the end of the day they will probably all reconcile (may even become ‘friends’ again, much to our chagrin) because it’s likely to happen if they’re going to save the world together, and all of this discourse, had people learned to stay in their own lanes, would have been for nothing.
16 notes · View notes