#a good look of entitlement vs kindness

[2-lines-and-a-circle]

Naive vs kindness

So as everyone has been unveiled for the new event, I was excited to see an event focusing on Kalim, Ortho, and Ace. I feel as though this is going to be a fun group. However, I’ve also noticed these three have some strong traits that tie into each other. Once again this is just my thought, so feel free to disagree or agree. 

Kalim is undoubtedly kind, but that often can be overlooked as him being naive. I personally don’t see his kindness as him being too naive, rather I see it as his truth. Kalim is someone who takes things as people say, he puts trust into other’s words and believes them earnestly. However, the problem here is that he’s surrounded by people who know how to use this trait of his to their advantage. Instead of it being an honest truth it’s now tied to him being naive because he isn’t aware of what others are doing to him. Quite a problem, but it doesn’t seem like those closest to him truly try to tell Kalim he’s being taken advantage of. You could argue Jamil tries his best, but most of the time he tends to divert the situation. One could also argue that it’s Kalim’s fault as he’s blind to it. In the upcoming event story, I have a feeling Kalim will get lured to the circus on the account he believes he’s doing something good. On another note, Kalim has a piano behind him in his card, but it’s broken which is unusual for Kalim. Especially since he’s a member of the light music club and values music greatly. 

Now for Ace, I think he’s both kind and naive, even if he’s not the nicest. Ace has a very roundabout way of being kind, which is kinda similar to Lilia. They won’t say it straight up, but it’s enough to tell what they want to show or mean. As for him being naive, I think it’s his ignorance. He often forgets to read the fine print especially if he got involved with Azul when he was warned several times from Riddle. This would be the only way I could really see him getting involved in the circus. It’s that or maybe we’re getting Ace’s brother!!! I highly doubt it though, but it would be interesting if Ace’s brother was there as a magician or something. I’m only saying this because he learned magic tricks from his brother, and you often see them at circuses. But you know what you also see? Showmen. Ace’s outfit looks more like a showman than anything else and with his pose it looks like a show is going on. So maybe he’s playing a role which entitles him to be a puppet for the performance? Like is he tricked into performing??? Plus, with all the clocks I think there’s going to be something to do with time, maybe there's a time limit. 

Lastly, Ortho! I have high hopes for what we’re going to see with Ortho, especially since he’s going to be with Ace in another event! Otho is naive in the sense that he is learning about the world. Other than that aspect I can’t really see him being naive otherwise. For his kindness I would say I think he has just as much as the average person, but it’s a little selective. I can’t see Ortho being nice to those who have done him or those closest to him harm. Nor do I think Ortho is the most forgiving character. It’s a little tough to say where he truly lies on the meter for me. In regard to his card and the connections to the story, I wonder if he’s trapped. Ortho is the only character who is visually upset in his card. Plus, there’s a bird cage near him and with the solo spotlight, it looks like he’s trapped like a doll. Which is why he could possibly not have his heart flame visible. 

#twst #twisted wonderland #kalim al asim #new event #just a theory #ortho shroud #ace trappola #i hope we get ace's brother soon #i've been waiting #heartslabyul #scarabia #ignihyde

[sneakyboymerlin]

I’m tired of the escalation and growing frequency of this fandom trend where people believe that any unique loyalty that Merlin earns from, say, Gwaine or Lancelot, is somehow an offense to Arthur, or taking from him the loyalty and companionship he is ~entitled~ to. He is not actually entitled to anyone’s friendship because he might be “lonely” or jealous or what-have-you.

Posts like this also stress that Arthur would be put out by his knights choosing Merlin over him in the case of a magic reveal, which I find ridiculous since they’ve lowered the stakes from Arthur is committing a genocide against Merlin’s people down to… Arthur will be sad if their companions pick Merlin over him. Regardless, Merlin earned the friendship and loyalty of these people through his own kindness and understanding. Arthur is not entitled to the same just because it feels ~unfair~ that Merlin might have more friends.

More recently, I found a post that, intentionally or not, specifically downplays Gwaine’s friendship to Merlin in favor of casting his loyalty to Arthur as greater than it is in reality. I understand that it’s easy to see a post like that and, without knowing the proper context, conclude that it must be accurate, but most posts on here are working backwards through confirmation bias to prove a point, and therefore will disregard any context that does not fit the argument being made.

Because people believe that the king is entitled to an equal amount of love from Gwaine as his servant is (I wonder what subconscious bias that idea comes from…), they will look at the series through whichever lens fits their objective. But this is the crux of the argument: no one is entitled to anyone else’s feelings, in friendship or romance or sex or duty or any other relationship type.

In truth, Gwaine gains a begrudging respect for Arthur towards the climax of his introductory episode, not a friendship. While he considers Arthur to be a “brat,” he recognizes that Arthur does not apparently base a person’s worth on their background. By Gwaine’s standards, this makes him an exception among nobles.

Despite this, he does not become close with Arthur as far as canon proves, and he still explicitly regards Merlin above Arthur, both in words and in actions, consistently so even after he is knighted. Again, his sense of duty to Arthur does not automatically make them friends, nor does it necessarily conflict with his loyalty to Merlin. Most importantly, there is nothing wrong with Gwaine placing Merlin above Arthur.

Overall, Gwaine does have a sense of loyalty towards Arthur. Is he shown to actually be friends with him, though? In short, no. Although Gwaine already shows four episodes prior to the events of 3x08 that he is willing to die to defend Arthur based on his sense of morality, he explicitly does not consider Arthur a friend (to Merlin: “You’re the only friend I’ve got.”). Rather, he feels duty-bound because he believes that Arthur is decent (for a noble) and actually worthy of his title. In truth, Gwaine is closer to Gwen than he is to Arthur, despite their shaky start.

Arthur is someone who Gwaine has deemed good enough for his position as a leader, but it is Merlin who he is utmost loyal to. This is imperative to understanding Gwaine as a character, and it is ultimately an overarching motif that defines who he is—someone who defies classist expectations, who sticks to his own sense of right vs. wrong, and who is deeply loyal to those who he believes deserve that loyalty. But there is no such thing as “deserving” someone’s love. Gwaine offers that to Merlin freely, and it’s never a conscious choice to feel that way. Arthur cannot be “owed” the same. Gwaine feeling duty-bound to Arthur does not mean that they have the same emotional connection or depth between them that Merlin and Gwaine have. It doesn’t have to mean that.

Arthur is not entitled to Gwaine’s friendship or loyalty, and it would not make sense for Gwaine to place Arthur above Merlin to begin with, for all of the aforementioned reasons and more. If Gwaine chose Merlin over Arthur in the case of a magic reveal, this would not be “unfair” to Arthur, and it wouldn’t matter if it made Arthur feel “lonely,” because in this scenario, Gwaine is doing what he believes is right, rather than standing by Arthur based on a sense of duty—one that is dependent on his belief that Arthur judges people based on their actions instead of their birth circumstances. And if Gwaine was forced to choose between Merlin and Arthur, at the end of the day, the answer to that is fairly obvious:

#jealousy is a disease 😔🤒🤧 #bbc merlin #merlin meta #sir gwaine #merlin emrys #merlin and gwaine #merwaine #mergwaine #my meta #tw genocide mention

[irenespring]

Rewatching both House and ER and I have been thinking about why I find House to be a far more sympathetic character than Robert Romano.

To be clear: I know House's behavior is horrible. He should have been fired. There is no moral justification for his actions. However, as my favorite history professor constantly says: "context is not justification."

Words vs. deeds: House says a lot of terrible things, but his actions paint a different picture. He says antisemitic nonsense, but it never alters his attitudes towards Taub, Wilson, and Cuddy. He says he will sexually harass Cameron and Chase, and definitely does sexually harass Cuddy--but he never touches them without permission, and doesn't want to date an employee even when Cameron really wants to date him. Romano, on the hand, engages in verbal sexual harassment, and then does act on it. He tries to get Elizabeth deported because she won't sleep with him. He tries to get any out lesbian fired.

Backstory: House is the main character of the show titled House. As such, though we don't learn a lot about him, we are provided insights into his past. A big part of helping viewers empathize with a character is helping them understand why he is like this. You get a sense of House's tragic backstory, and how that backstory forged him into the kind of person he is. Romano, on the hand, is never fully expanded on. All we really know about him is that he has a good relationship with his mother. There isn't enough data to understand, and thus connect, with his overall character. He was intended to be a villain, rather than an anti-hero.

Self-reflection: House is a terrible person, and he knows it. He hates it. When he talks about the world with patients (I've noticed this particularly in season 1) he sounds really fucking sad. He wants the world to be better, he wants to be better, but this is how the world works and therefore he can only present himself one way and stay safe. This self-knowledge makes him a more conflicted character, and shows he has empathy. He wants to change, but doesn't think he can. On the other hand, Romano is deeply arrogant, not superficially arrogant. He thinks he's the shit. He truly believes he is the world's greatest man and entitled to act however he wants to the "little people" as he calls them. This removes a certain depth from his character.

Show tone: House is a show about terrible people. Everyone is crazy in their own unique ways. The show is about looking at the good in those terrible people. In order to enjoy the show, you have to stop yourself from analyzing the morality of the characters' actions. ER, on the other hand, is at least supposed to be about good people (don't get me started about how the protagonists treat Kerry, and whether that actually makes them good people). People are supposed to be heroic. The characters face deep ethical dilemmas the audience is supposed to consider. This makes Romano's heinous actions stand out and force the viewer to analyze them.

Pain: House is in pain. He is in pain all the fucking time. When people are in pain, they are less patient, more likely to snap. There's a standard view that when people are in a huge amount of pain, they say things they don't mean. They try to hit people where it hurts because of how much they hurt. This doesn't excuse his actions, but does create further separation between House's words and his innate character.

Anyway both ER and House are good shows, but suffer from being from the early 2000s (or mid-late 1990s in ER's case). You should watch them! But yeah, Romano bothers me way more than House, who I think would be an interesting foil for Kerry.

#house md #hatecrimes md #er tv show #er #gregory house #robert romano #character analysis #television analysis #character comparison #This is not to say anyone who likes Romano should feel bad about it #People are allowed to like immoral characters!!! #I know he has a following of people who sometimes find him amusing and that's all good #He definitely has his moments #I always laugh when Dr Greene gets into a fistfight and Romano enters and addresses him with “The lean Greene fighting machine!!!” #I'm just analyzing my personal character feelings

[gay-mafia-stickball]

I have mixed feelings about the red white and royal blue movie (red white and royal bluevie, if you will).

let me preface this by saying two things: one, you are entitled to your opinion and so am I so civil discourse is welcome, but hate speech is not, and two, I am a firm believer that book vs movie argument is pointless as long as you enjoy the media, so take the following with a grain of salt. I enjoyed the movie a lot, and if you don’t want to see anything negative, you can scroll past this, but these were things that caught my eye. that all being said, here are my thoughts.

first things first: the change from Raphael Luna to Miguel Ramos felt like it detracted from the story. in the rwrb book, the Alex looks up to Luna and considers him an ally and a role model in the political field, seeing him as a goal to shoot for. this makes his betrayal (working on richards campaign) hurt a lot worse, and it makes his subsequent redemption (him bringing up dirt on richards that not only effected him as a queer man but as a politician) feel a like a big triumph and a loose end that has been tied up. Alex’s relationship with Ramos is already a different kind of relationship, since Alex wants to be a politician, not a journalist, and their connection feels a lot less secure since their only tie is that they’re friends who have hooked up, so when he starts to publish aggressive and harmful stories toward Alex, it feels less like a betrayal and more like pettiness over being rejected. this is only reinforced by the fact that he isn’t given any redemption, and his loose end remains untied and without closure. Lunas story is, in my opinion, just as much a part of the main plot as Alex and Henry’s, because he reflects the struggles of older queer generations fighting the good fight behind enemy lines and the thankless battle that a lot of younger people take for granted. without Luna, President Claremont’s win feels more arbitrary, and a lot of the stress that motivates Alex and his character development as a person and as a politician is flattened.

another thing id love to address is the so called “side characters”- pez, bea, nora, and june. starting with pez, who is meant to be Henry’s best friend and lifeline: he got barely five minutes of screen time, and it felt like he was sidelined as unimportant and a supporting cast member instead of an actually important member of the group. Bea as well was sidelined, and kind of pushed into the role pez had in the books. by ignoring Beas history with substance abuse and her moniker of “powder Princess”, it takes away from her depth as a character and the struggles her and her family have gone through, not even mentioning the fact that their mother isn’t even in the movie. the same thing is true with the lack of Alex’s parents divorce; the trauma from that event led to a lot of important character development and growth, as well as some pretty important plot points (such as the first phone call). Nora and June I can do in one fell swoop: they should not have been combined into one character. they both played different and significant roles in Alex’s life, June as a steadying factor and a shoulder to lean on, and Nora as an experienced confidant that unwinds Alex and allows him to live a little. not only did the combination of their characters take away a healthy polyamorous relationship with pez, but it took away a big piece of Alex’s support system and the factors to a lot of his character growth.

a final thing that I’ll mention in this post is specifically about Alex- sorry, I can’t help it, I love him so much 😭 I just feel like the decision not to focus more on his work life and his personal life was poorly made. the movie did a phenomenal job of outlining Henry’s stressors and backstory and of course I’m so glad that he was given the closure and attention he needed (though I’m a little pissy that his mother wasn’t involved), but without mentioning Alex’s admittedly shitty work-life-balance and his stress as a newly discovered queer biracial politician and the stress from his parents (apparently nonexistent) divorce, the relationship feels toxic and a little one-sided. im not here to throw any pity parties for any characters, but all of the previously mentioned factors, among others, play into Alex’s decision to go to law school and start taking his time with his life, and the fact that that wasn’t even mentioned put Henry and Alex into a position where Alex seems unreasonable and insensitive while Henry is the only one with a good, albeit traumatized head on his shoulders.

like I said, these are just my opinions, and obviously I like the show a lot, though maybe more as a romantic comedy than a true adaptation of rwrb, so if you have thoughts to share, I’d love to see them! be kind and gracious and don’t start stupid fights over book accuracy, I don’t care that there were no monogrammed kimonos or that a different song played in the museum ❤️

#spoilers #red white and royal blue spoilers #red white and royal blue movie spoilers #rwrb #rwrb movie #red white and royal bluevie #alex claremont diaz #henry mountchristen windsor #henry fox mountchristen windsor #firstprince #henry and alex #alex and henry #ellen claremont #oscar diaz #bea fox mountchristen windsor #june claremont diaz #nora holleran #pez okonjo #percy okonjo #raphael luna #miguel ramos #casey mcquiston #red white and royal blue #queer #gay #mlm #queer books #mlm books

[eastgaysian]

Sincere question: I don't understand your reaction here: "also the fact i had to look up lottie's actress to be like wait is she mixed. it's just a bit silly to me tbh" . Are you saying the show should have explicitly discussed her ethnic background? Is it because you think her possible powers are related to her being Maori, or like in general it should have been more obvious?

this is a complicated one to answer because i feel like i have to go macro -> micro to get all my thoughts out sensibly. but we'll get there i promise

the genre of survivalist fiction, more specifically the deserted island/stranded in the wilderness narrative, is racially loaded. sometimes this is patently obvious, ie robinson crusoe and the character of friday, but even with a cast of entirely white characters the concept of uninhabited and untamed wilderness (which the white characters either tame or are degraded by) is tied to colonialism*, as is the tension between what is viewed as civilized or uncivilized behavior, good christian morality vs primitive/barbaric 'savagery', etc.

(* this isn't necessarily constant throughout history/a global context but is absolutely a part of this genre and the american context of yellowjackets)

yellowjackets seems to promise a deconstruction of the genre by focusing on the psychological horror angle with a diverse cast of teenage girls, as well as reflecting on how the trauma of that event would carry on into life after rescue. and like, i like it! i think it's fun to watch, it succeeds at entertaining me. but i really think it drops the ball when it comes to examining the racial implications of this kind of story.

it's clear that there's some degree of thought and significance put into taissa as a Black female character: her conversation with van about Black characters dying first in horror movies, the conversation with that potential donor who feels entitled to her trauma because of All She's Done For You People, her being the first Black female senator of new jersey.

...so what exactly are we supposed to make of the fact that she has an Evil Personality that first emerged after the crash, who eats dirt and bites people and makes shrines with broken dolls and dog heads, just lurking under the surface waiting until she loses control? the other characters are definitely psychologically disturbed, but the regression to this 'wild' state is extreme and reserved for taissa. why? it doesn't critically examine or deconstruct the ways in which the behavior we view as 'feral' is racialized. at best it's thoughtless, at worst it's actively engaging in racist tropes.

on the other hand you have lottie, whose racial identity isn't brought up in the text, but is at least a consistent casting decision for teen/adult lottie and her parents. the role she fills of being converted (to a point?) and baptized by a devoted white christian girl and then becoming an occult mystic who communes with the wilderness and wears deer antlers to try and lead a ritual human sacrifice is extremely racially loaded. i wouldn't have been irked by the lack of acknowledgment if this wasn't her role. but because it hasn't been brought up and it's not critically examined, i'm not sure whether the show wants me to think her possible powers are related to her being māori, and either way the implications are really troubling to me.

i'm not #cancelling the show i'm just disappointed by what feels like a huge oversight with regards to the racialized aspects of the genre. narratively i also think the build up of the maybe-supernatural elements was kind of all over the place which doesn't help but that's not really here nor there. it just doesn't sit well with me!

#mingbox #yellowjackets

[t470n]

One thing that's becoming increasingly obvious is the running theme of Old vs New and how Team New is definitely winning. The whole thing about Jonathan and Mina being very young, like early twenties or something, and their youth being clearly reflected in their behaviour and this clashing with how immensely old Dracula is from his withering body to his ancient castle to the implied centuries of history he has lived through and personally participated in.

Dracula holds onto old ideas about useless peasants being nothing more than an endless supply of cannon fodder that he used to use as meat to throw at his enemies and now uses as food for himself (and his roomies) and there is also his thing about wistfully looking back on the history of his great house. He's happy that the house Jonathan found is old because a new one would have been impossible for him to live in. He has a grossly inflated sense of his own entitlement due to his noble status despite the fact that he is considered a dead man from an extinct lineage. He still considers himself as noble and respectable as he would have been hundreds of years ago, hence why he is so concerned about not being respected/revered in England, his predatory feasting on the local peasants as well as his treatment of Jonathan. Jonathan is a working man who is there in service of Dracula and therefore beneath him. Dracula can barge into his room whenever he wants, destroy his property, force him to acclimate to nocturnal life for Dracula's comfort and use him as a means to an end that will eventually die, in a way using him up just like he does with the local peasants. The way I see their relationship is that Dracula is possessive of Jonathan, not protective. To him, Jonathan is an object for his use that he has taken a fancy to, little more than an entertaining puppy or jester who means nothing in the grand scheme of things because he is hardly his own person, he is Dracula's. It's the same "I am noble therefore I matter and if you aren't noble you are here to be used" mindset that would have been acceptable in the ancient past he comes from but not in the modern day.

On the contrary, Jonathan and Mina are aggressively modern to the point where Jonathan explicitly mentions this when he's afraid ("19th century up to date with a vengeance"). They are young, they write in shorthand and (*SPOILERS FOR LATER ON IN THE BOOK*) there is one point in the story where Good Guy Squad needs to do a lot of blood transfusions which, at the time, was the Hot New Science and extremely modern, hence the complete disregard for blood types which weren't really a thing back then. Jonathan mentions that writing in shorthand would have confused the Count and therefore allowed him to send messages or keep writing that Dracula wouldn't have been able to decipher and being able to keep his shorthand diary does help keep Jonathan sane. Mina also mentions in her letter practising shorthand so she can keep diligent notes on the conversations she hears and oh boy I sure do wonder if that's going to be useful when someone needs to take notes on what happens in the rest of the book. The relationships between the heroes are also very, for lack of a better word, modern. Dracula and his roommates have a clear hierarchy that is very traditional but doesn't exist with the heroes. There is no one person in a position of power over everyone else in the group, including in the individual marriages. Neither Mina nor Jonathan have any more power over the other than the other has over them. They are equals, both mutually in love and mutually intelligent and productive. At the same time, it's fairly non-traditional for three suitors of the same woman to become very good friends. In most traditional narratives of gothic fiction you'd probably find a dual for the Lady's hand, a secret love, some kind of tragic heartbreak or something like that but these are "19th century up to date with a vengeance" young men who will not be so silly. Not to mention the fact that the group mostly comes together because of the relationship between two women which is refreshingly modern. The technology, attitudes, and relationships of the heroes are what set them apart from the Count as well as what lets them succeed.

I just love the dichotomy between the withered villain trying to relive the glory of the ancient past while desperately holding onto expired ideals of bygone days vs the modern and up-to-date heroes making full use of modern technology and stereotype-breaking to defeat him. In a way it almost spits in the face of the very common romanticisation of the past that is especially common in gothic fiction where the pretty old castles and cathedrals make people forget about the endless supply of downsides to those time periods and how horrifically nightmarish it would have been to live in those times if you weren't part of an extremely tiny group of extremely powerful people

#dracula daily #bram stoker #I'm so using this for my dracula dissertation next year #lmao catch me in the SQA headquarters bitches

[faithfromanewperspective]

sugar coated brain (the fluid ain’t to blame): unraveling Conor Aurelian

I don’t know if this is me admitting to have read embarrassingly little in terms of Actual Books since I turned 18 but. Wow. I loved sword catcher, and for once I was there eating up the plot rather than only relating to the characters so much I was obsessively hoping for a happy ending for them. 

I’ve said before that sword catcher was good, so good it’s almost above fandom discourse (like a Beethoven symphony perhaps, you think twice before making arrangements of a masterpiece like that) but even the best symphonies deserve, actually they’re honoured by, critical analysis of the phrasing and melodies and that which are used. And this is a Cassandra Clare book after all. The beauty comes from beautifully (read: realistic, somehow more human than real humans idk I’m blown away every time) constructed characters, and then from the plot. Which was character-driven and so, so delicious, but we’re not talking those kind of spoilers this early in the game. 

While I’ll admit that Kel was the most relatable character, followed by Lin or maybe Ana, there were some things about Conor that just cut a little too close in ways I hadn’t thought about in years. Taking me back to some worldbuilding of my childhood, a ‘reluctant princess’ I came up with based on feeling trapped and overprotected and that fantasy world has long since been archived in my head and it’s entertaining to think this weird kid in western sydney who didn’t get to run quite as wild as some of the other kids (but still did get to run quite wild) felt like that when we were the furthest thing from royalty. I didn’t expect to be reminded of that in an adult fantasy book, but here we are, and I’m being entertained to see all the different takes on Conor: some driven to fascination, some to annoyance, and somehow in the 5 of us who’ve actually read sword catcher already everything in between. 

But let’s be real for a second: who hasn’t heard the ‘oh you can’t be depressed you have everything you need’ and been like. Really hurt by it?? Who hasn’t sat among know it all adults in their younger years who would just judge the hell out of other young people who supposedly ‘never got to hear no’ and now they have ‘no resilience’ and ‘no wonder they’re having problems’? Referring to people you actually relate to and thought, well this definitely isn’t a safe space to be vulnerable I’ll just suffer in silence? I’ve grown up enough now to see Lin’s trauma behind the way she says this about Conor but part of me is still a little mad at her. As for Conor?? He’s everything I’d expect from someone in his position and I actually don’t think the majority of it comes from ‘never hearing no’ and ‘getting everything he wants’ but rather the things that those try to make up for: a lack of real autonomy over his life, not being allowed to feel Normal Child Feelings, having no one he can relate to and see as an equal, a heavy burden of responsibility before he was ever old enough to understand it, and the many levels of fuckery that’s all done to his parents making them not just emotionally unavailable but frivolous, trying to maintain their own autonomy and connection doing silly little rich people hobbies that just make the divide between and resentment of them vs Every Other Person greater (constant stargazing or Decoration and Control). Sugar-coated brains: how could they not be when everything revolves around you but there’s so little you can actually do but pursue the pleasure you’re told you’re entitled to? 

I didn’t expect to be this mad at the royal family culture within SC but when I look back on it I’m not surprised. Not when the setting of the book is on the edge of a revolution, the unraveling of a society that feels so much like today and allows me to zoom out in a way that makes my little revolutionist heart happy. But oh, the angst and the bad decisions as the world teeters on that razorblade. The lives that are lost in the fray. I don’t know what’s happening in our world now but after Cast Long Shadows and an arc I know that she’s proud of (our dear Matthew Fairchild) I do trust Cassie. And in the meantime I’ll let her convince me of what I already know: the lives of nobility are simply pawns in a much bigger game no one (except maybe Ana) knows how to take the reins of, and the life of a pawn, no matter the luxuries, is a sorry life indeed. 

This little revolutionist brain of the 2000s had one thing right, and I feel vindicated to see it in such clarity here: the relationship between social class and genuine connection. From the stark contrast of the opening with Cas and Kel, even also Mari and Lin, against the disaster that is the royal family, it couldn’t be clearer to me: when you’re nobody, when there are no expectations of you, you can be who you really are. Maybe not in the eyes of the authorities, and that’s an important distinction to make, but there’s no need to pretend around your nearest and dearest and sometimes that’s worth so much more than hypothetical safety. Because yes you can get away with things when you’re rich but you’ve also got more people trying to assassinate you for who you are specifically rather than just running the risk of getting killed because you’re unlucky and too unimportant for anyone to think you’d be missed. When you’re royalty (or just have parents with really high expectations or are a gifted kid even) you’re given a mold to grow into and no one really asks if that’s who you really are: why would they, when their worldview depends on you being exactly who they want you to be? So if you’re not it you pretend and even with those, like your children, who are close enough to see behind the ruse, you never quite show them who you really are either. You can see how that would drive one insane. You showcase that the only way to exist is to mask until you snap, or lose the ability to be yourself at all. Which leads me to the second type of sugar coat. 

(And I’m quoting songs as my inspo behind this post as always, title quote is empty wallets by 5sos and I’m about to move onto sugar coat by little big town aka the band with an irl fairchild in it): this sugar coat is politeness and etiquette. There’s a quote somewhere in Kel’s narration I believe that I can’t find but basically views social etiquette and the like as you know. War strategy or something, which is another little segment of the reminder it’s cassie writing this and there’s a lot of accidental neurodivergence, or neurodivergence existing in a world so very different to ours, because that’s a very neurodivergent way of viewing it imo. And in this case, the sugar coat is like a constructed mask you spend your whole life trying to perfect, wear it as it’s handed down from your predecessors: in Conor’s case, lilibet (passed down from my mum, she wears it so well, put it on my shoulders said it’s colder out there than you think/would I recognise myself, would anybody else, if I took the damn thing off and burned it up?) who does make the frivolity and politics of being queen into her whole personality. She’s equally a pitiable and annoying character for that. 

But as for Conor? He’s a Cassandra Clare Created (TM) young man. Of course he can’t quite manage this kind of sugar coat business. The politeness, the etiquette, the little social dances: he longs for real connection (and now we’re back in empty wallets territory, get you high when I’m high, so we see eye to eye: to me this sums out how he makes connections with those who are nowhere near his equals but he wants to have some sort of equal footed connection with: Kel and *[redacted minor spoiler, see below cut]). He’s snapping from the pressure of it, and that’s exactly the kind of driving force for the narrative Cassie uses excellently. We see him coming undone, and hate it (or at least I do) but hope maybe, maybe it’s the path for liberation for him from the life that’s obviously making him (more) depressed (than he otherwise might be), and as the audience we don’t care if the kingdom burns down for this, as long as it doesn’t cause too much collateral damage. And we know it’s going to be a wild ride to get there. 

I don’t reckon this is obvious to everyone else but it is to me, with my experience of Christianity and life and just everything that if you’re a leader in any way, you’re a better leader for being liberated in yourself, having autonomy and appropriate boundaries and Conor has none of that and he’s coming undone and yes there’s a lot of other characters (who I will post about later) with their own arcs and A LOT going on (seriously it’s so deliciously complex and so much more so than tsc ever was with maybe the exception of tec which is kind of adult fantasy anyway). But oh. She really knows how to deliver, all through the first book and I can’t wait to see what the next one has to offer!! And to me the characterisation of Conor is just proof on how expertly the whole world of Castellane and it’s stories is being carried out. 

BIG GAP CAUSE CUT ISNT WORKING

*and Lin later on, kind of

tagging: @daisymylove and feel free to mention anyone who might like it in comments/reblogs!

#sword catcher #cassandra clare #conor aurelian #I TRIED SO HARD TO MAKE IT UNSPOILERY #and genuinely don’t think it is?!? #not spoilery #I checked again #sword catcher deep dives #<-is that a new tag I see?

[smolcinnamonchipmunk]

God, I'm probably going to rewatch the entirety of Hazbin for weeks, something I occasionally do with Helluva. Again, both mostly just passive interests away from my blog... until the actual show dropped and my absolute hyperfixation mode went haywire

Say what you want about the plot and designs themselves, I understand if it's not someone's cup of tea (Personally, I don't particularly like South Park, Family Guy, or Rick and Morty (anymore)), and the fact that it's pretty rushed, a fact I'll certainly agree with, but it is a fucking ACHIEVEMENT

I LOVE the busy designs and saturated colors, even if most are shades of red (If I had a show, it'd be mostly green and purple, lmao). I love the hand drawn and more cartoony style with fantastic VFX animation and backgrounds. I love the concept of Heaven vs Hell with demons and angels where angels can suck and demons can be good. I actually like that Adam was an entitled asshole because he didn't have to try for his wives, they were made FOR him

I don't go around looking for adult animation anymore because there's so many fucking Family Guy and Rick and Morty repetitive ass shows that use rigging and the same goddamn adult animation art style formula. Brickleberry, Paradise PD, American Dad, so on and so forth. Episodic drivel that KIND of teases a plot to keep you watching but it's the television equivalent of empty calories that you put on in the background. I stopped watching Rick and Morty after season 4 because it was just keeping the carrot on the stick way too far for me to care enough to keep watching (that and the whole Justin Roiland fiasco)

There's good adult shows, don't get me wrong, but almost nothing ANIMATED that's substantial and fun. There's a few, but it's smothered under Family Guy copycats and horribly stiff rigging that's cheap and bland by this point, and some are just downright depressing (Sorry Bojack and Tuca, I just couldn't handle you, I'm already sad half the time). To be honest, I almost didn't watch Inside Job because of the style, and even though it was mostly episodic it was fantastic!

Why can't I, for the decades of life I presumably still have past 18, have life in an animation made for adults? Charm? Pizzazz? Plot and color and FUN? Fucking anything more than the capitalistic weeds that choke the market just to turn a profit for the companies involved. I get it. Companies need to make a profit or they'll go in the red, lose money, yada, yada

But, in an already bleak fucking world where it's only getting bleaker and some corporations want to replace NINETY percent of an animated film/show process to AI eventually? I'm choked and burnout and everyday feels like there's no point in trying to make anything because the fucking programs will do it for us anyways, probably by stealing MORE from people who try. I don't need to see Meg from Family Guy get farted on or abused for no reason, or the Family Guy rip off equivalents that do it for shock value. I don't need copypaste stale material or IP revivals that beat over original ideas because they're safe and nostalgic, inevitably fucking up most of the time

Hazbin Hotel is far from perfect, but it got greenlit. It got picked up. It got to be written and MADE. I can almost guarantee you that Amazon only gave them eight episodes to start with, without certainty on whether or not it would be continued with them. I can almost guarantee you they had SOMEONE keep an eye on Helluva Boss's reception on YouTube to see if it would be profitable enough to continue Hazbin (After all, similar target demographic, right?) and the team wasn't informed until halfway through full production of season one that they'd get a second one. There may have even been the chance of them dropping Hazbin if Helluva's numbers didn't stay up

I love Hazbin and Helluva with so much of my heart because they're small oasis's in the corporate world that would prefer people work the warehouse and not the arts. Yes, I know Hazbin is on Amazon and 'Amazon bad', but if it's not encouraged by viewage (Which I'm sure it's doing well in right now) then original works will continue to be looked over in favor of shitty reboots or live action recreations

Ugh, anyways. I'm not sure how to end this. I just had to get my thoughts out

#cinntalks #unnecessary ramble #i love these two fucking shows #like way too much #cry happiness kind of love #didn't mean to talk this much again #long post #hazbin thoughts

[imperfect777]

Welcome All My 5 star babes ᯓ★

❧ Hi! I’m Armani. ❧

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊

Welcome to my blog. I call my blog a the 5 star blog because I see myself as 5 stars and nothing less. And you should see yourself the same way. I’m top tier in every criteria. I always win. Here we don’t doubt or speak negatively upon ourselves or others. So please follow the rules or you will be blocked. My rules are simple you can check them out here. Hope you enjoy.

Formerly Known As: Maninextdoor

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊

✮ ✮ ✮ ✮ ✮ A Little About Me ✮ ✮ ✮ ✮ ✮

✰ As I already stated, I’m Armani ( mani ).

✰ I’ve been consciously using the law in my favor for almost 2 years now. ( Since Summer/ Fall 2022 )

✰ I started out with subliminals in 2021 ( Aug. ), Not knowing what I was doing. Of course it worked, Then I found the law of attraction in 2022 ( Summer ), And then I found the law of assumption shortly after and life’s been great every since.

✰ My favorite color is black, because it looks good paired with everything of course.

✰ And I love manifesting, trying new things, helping others and so many other things ༯.

✰ My side blog for non loa things > @imsoheavenly

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊

✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ About this blog ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯

✰ This blog is law of assumption based

✰ I make affirmations ( I also take requests )

✰ I post law of assumption content of course

✰ I don’t discriminate, What works for you works for you. But that doesn’t mean it’ll work for others.

✰ And I would like to state that I can spell, I’m normally just in a rush when i’m posting or autocorrect butchers my sentences. So please bare with me because that’s embarrassing honestly lol.

✰ I’m also thinking about starting a subliminal channel soon, If you guys would be interested in that and making special requests do share your input with me.

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊

-`✮´- -`✮´- -`✮´- Rules -`✮´--`✮´--`✮´--

✰ Be nice and respectful. Just because you don’t do or support something doesn’t mean you have to be rude or talk down on it or someone.

✰ Submissions and messages are closed after 8:30 pm EST. You can send a Submission ( ask ) or message, But you will not receive a response until I am back active on here. Therefore I will respond as soon as possible.

✰ Please understand that I am human and I have a personal life and things to tend to. I’m still young in high school as well as working on college with a lot of other things on my plate outside of that. I hope you guys can understand that. So if I take a mental break or just need time to myself please be patient until I return, I will get back to you ASAP!

✰ If you have any questions or need any assistance, I will be happy to help. You can send an ask or message me if you’re not comfortable sharing certain things publicly or just want a 101 conversation. But please be mindful that I am not a coach nor am I a therapist.

✰ And once again. NO DRAMA! You can support whatever you want and you’re entitled to your own opinions, But don’t try to start something with others because they don’t have the same beliefs as you. You don’t have to agree with anything but be respectful towards others and their opinions and beliefs.

✰ Please leave that states vs. a+p ( or anything vs. anything ) mess at home. Do whatever works for you and be happy.

✰ There will be no homophobia, trauma dumping, transphobia, racism or any kind of hate of discrimination.

✰ If you cannot follow the rules then leave.

✰ No I cannot manifest for you or help you manifest, All I can do is give you tips and advice and you do as you please with the information I give you.

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊

⋆☆˖ ⋆☆˖ ⋆☆˖ Master List ⋆☆˖ ⋆☆˖ ⋆☆˖

༺☆༻ COMING SOON ༺☆༻

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊

⋆˙⟡ If you don’t agree with or like anything I do or say or with what anyone here says, Do, Or Post in general please check below.

ᶠYͧoͨᵏu ✮⋆˙.

CRY ABOUT IT

༝༚༝༚

#loa blog #law of assumption #Spotify

[freneticphoneticfanatic]

My experience with nonmonogamy has cracked my brain open in a way I don’t think I could turn away from if I wanted to. You can’t promise someone you’ll love them the same way forever, as the two of you grow and change. You can’t promise you’ll never want to pursue a connection outside of the two of you. Why should you? And if you choose to pursue a new connection as “just friends,” why should that relationship have a cap on how much you allow yourselves to deepen it? I feel like when I talk about this stuff, people’s minds go immediately to sexual intimacy, because that’s what our culture is obsessed with. But seriously, why are monogamous relationships held up on this pedestal above all our other relationships? Why is your capital-P Partner supposed to be the most important person in your life? Why do so many people expect ourselves to have just one “most-important” person in our lives?

I take issue with exclusivity, jealousy, and possessiveness. If I spend the majority of my time with one person, and one or both of us decides to start spending more of our time with other people, that ought to enrich our interactions, not take away from them. If these experiences are a net negative for a relationship, take a look at the people involved, including yourself, and their actions. In my experience, shallowness, dishonesty, cruelty, and entitlement are the issues, not un-exclusivity. If you care about someone, you should give them the respect of understanding them as wholly human… that includes respecting their right to be messy and have connections with other people.

I understand the fear that comes with letting go of exclusivity, of a traditional relationship narrative. People like security. But shouldn’t that security come from trusting your partner to be kind, dependable, and trustworthy, even when they’re not “bound” to you? To me, it’s the social equivalent of training a dog with treats vs. without. I can tell my partner I don’t want them to be intimate with other people, and if we agree on that and they’re trustworthy, they won’t do it. I see the value there. But it’s far more interesting to me and builds more trust and a stronger bond to see how my partner interacts with people they’re interested in outside of our relationship. If they treat someone else like shit, or start treating me like shit after connecting with someone else, I consider that a win because that’s clarity on their character. But if they don’t, if they still show up for me and make it known that they value me AND handle other relationships well… wow. What a beautiful thing that is, that I never would have experienced if I hadn’t given them that trust.

To briefly address the sexual aspect, SO WHAT? If the sex is positive and safe, and your partner is kind, honest, and dependable, is there any harm actually done? Or is it mainly an ego blow accompanied by insecurity—fear of a perceived threat to a relationship you value? In other words, a “you” problem that you have to decide whether or not you want to deal with. (Frankly, I think either decision is morally neutral. Just don’t be an asshole, that’s the bottom line.) If you’re going to be with someone, you should trust each other to make good decisions. And because we’re human and therefore flawed, you should also be prepared to be there to support each other if something blows up in your face.

I think the reason people act so different, “not themselves,” and irrational when it comes to capital-L Love, the reason people “struggle to differentiate” between platonic and romantic love, is because most people buy into a fucked up, broken framework for human relationships that’s fake as hell and ultimately rooted in men’s exploitation of women. That’s the standard. Marriage wasn’t even culturally associated with romance until the 18th century. And I only know that because I read a lot of feminist material. It’s not exactly common knowledge, and for good reason.

I recommend checking out Lesbian Ethics by Sarah Hoagland and A Passion For Friends by Janice Raymond. They both challenge our notions of what we consider “real” and valuable relationships. Sarah Hoagland wrote about relationships in Lesbian Ethics in a way that was eye-opening for me at the time. (I need to re-read.) I encourage everyone to let yourself and your relationships be messy. Following a script is easy but often unfulfilling. Trust yourself and your loved ones to create your own structures that work for you.

#mine #nonmonogamy #feminism #relationship anarchy #lesbian feminism

[aclosetfan]

Speaking of bad greens characterizations. I really fucking hate it when people characterize Butch as a predatory douche bro that only thinks about sex, especially when you're supposed to believe he's supposed to get in a relationship with Buttercup. It makes him so unsympathetic and it's not convincing at all that Buttercup would like him. It's lazy writing and I'm tired of how common it seems to be in fics. Buttercup would not put up with that shit at all.

Yesss, and on the flip side, Buttercup’s character is often reduced to being a physically aggressive bitch. I’ve read a good handful of fics where she’s frankly verbally and physically abusive to Butch literally only in response to general and socially acceptable flirting.

There’s a difference between chauvinism and normal flirting, and I think most people who write fics don’t know how to write the difference because chauvinism is hard to redeem. It’s easier to write Buttercup reacting poorly to someone checking her out because going “damn you look good when you fight” vs “I think of you as an object for my own sexual gratification because you are a woman and that is what woman are suppose to be because they are insuperior to men in all ways” isn’t easy if you’re a good person lol

Writing evil, ugly, or uncomfortable things is never easy, so people write only as far as they can go, and because they also want the greens to be together in the end, they don’t want their ship being depicted poorly, so instead of reacting to catcalling like “piss off man, that’s fucked up. Fix yourself” and establishing boundaries like “we’re a team now, so I need you to understand those comments trigger me” [in a not-therapy speech way lol]

Buttercup often goes, “you fucking dickless piece of shit I hate you everyone hates you! you fucking suck, tiny dick” and then hits him or some shit.

Which I could arguably see happening when your catcalled by a stranger or (more likely) your enemy, but in these fics they like . . . never get past that, they never become friends, she always continues to be verbally/physically abusive even after butch has been redeemed. And on top of it, their fights are ALWAYS about something he’s said about her physical attributes, but there’s no deeper “we’ve hated each other since we were six so we’ve got a LOT to hash out”

It’s “Butch thinks BC is hot, is a pig about it, which entitles Buttercup to beat him within an inch of his life and that’s it. And they never learn! That’s the gag. This is funny everyone because she’s sassy.”

Like he’s “redeemed” and then his whole life becomes this sad-boy, obsessive tribute to buttercup to highlight how badass and unaffected she is by his affection. they also continue to fight each other and I know some people irl are into those kinds of relationships on a kink lvl, but it’s just not sustainable to me, and also, her character just wouldn’t do that to someone she loves who isn’t hurting her back.

And I’m definitely not trying to say Butch’s behavior is ever okay, I’m just saying the amount of violence that he receives in return is so out of proportion, it’s uncomfy. Especially because these are always, like, high school fics?? so he’s literally 16 going “lol I think you’re hot” and she, a super hero whose seen/heard worse, goes “ill fucking kill you were you stand”

So basically, what I’m saying is if Butch is redeemed and learns to act normal about shit, Buttercup needs to too. Like Butch should be able to go “damn stop fucking hitting me all the damn time and calling me names,” and Buttercup should be able to confront that and change for the better because her behavior is abusive if she doesn’t! You can’t treat your partner like an unworthy dog!! And tbh her learning to confront why she reacts so violently to people hitting on her would make for a good story and allow the writer to critique society, forced super heroism, etc. it’s just as interesting as Butch learning to undo the toxic masculinity beaten into him.

Every character has room to grow!

Of course, if Buttercup being abusive is the story you WANT to write to explore that concept, go for it, but I don’t think that’s the vibe everyone’s trying to go for lol they just want steamy aggressive/angry sexual tension, which girly, I totally get, but if you let them fall in love ya gotta have them act like they’re falling in love.

#anon asks #you sent a tiny ask and I responded with a essay lol #it is what it is lol #take my opinions with a grain of salt tho #ppg greens

[ao3cassandraic]

Crowley the Maker, God the Wrecker, Part 2

(Part 1 discusses how angel!Crowley makes things and God wrecks them, and him as well.)

And then. She blessed damned bloody well goes right back on Her bullshit. Next time we hear about Her actually doing anything, it's the Flood. She goes and wrecks a whole region of the world, and everything and everyone in it.

And now, curiously, I must detour into speech-act theory. (Said I’d get there.) Speech-act theory grows out of the observation that under the proper circumstances, speaking is action — it actually makes a change in the world, all by itself. A classic example often used to teach this idea is an utterance we’ve seen already: “Let there be light!”

Angels aside, however, speech acts are pretty common among us humans, if you look. “I now pronounce you…” and then you are! The trick is teasing out the different kinds of speech acts (there’s a whole-ass taxonomy, but it’s not necessary here so I’ll bypass it), and working through what the necessary preconditions are for speech to turn into an action. If I say “I now pronounce you…” for example, you actually aren’t. I have no societal authority to marry people, so the necessary preconditions for the speech act have not been met.

Returning to the Flood... to add insult to horrific injury, She has graduated to inadequate fauxpologies! Talk is cheap. So are performative "rain bows," whatever those are. The "rain bow" is supposed to create a change in the world: the inability for Her to wreck it again. Does Crowley believe this? Does he hell -- just look at his face. To Crowley, actions are what counts -- and Hers are unforgivable (arc word!). Of course She's going to wreck stuff again -- it's what She does. So "rain bow" speaker-sincerity precondition has failed, ergo no speech act.

There's a fair bit of fic and fanon about Crowley rescuing whom or what he can from the Flood. I do think we've noticed that he's an action snek!

Next up, in our Ineffables' meeting chronology, is Job. God still can't be arsed to lift a divine finger -- too “busy” making disgusting bets through backchannels -- and She's even taught Heaven to be hypocritical too, by outsourcing evil actions to Hell! (How many times did She have to say "deniability" before Gabriel got it, I wonder?) And She’s out to wreck a largely-innocent family (bit entitled, but largely innocent), doubling down on Her hypocrisy by delegating the job to Hell Herself, via permit.

And Crowley thinks this is bullshit. So while Aziraphale wrings his hands reading the permit with Muriel and then the archangels, fixer Crowley does what he can to fix the situation -- by (re)making, because he is a maker at heart. He makes goats into crows! He (along with Aziraphale) loves Jemimah because she made a pot! He (re)makes a temporary refuge! He makes children into geckos! (After giving Ennon and Keziah the blessed good scare they deserve.)

He also pokes at be vs. do yet again: “You’re an angel. Angels can’t be tempted, can you? … Well, there you are, then. You’re free to try the food.” He’s not tempting Aziraphale into gluttony — well, he is, but only secondarily — he’s tempting the angel into hypocrisy, the same hypocrisy She routinely engages in. The sin where "do" is incongruent with "be."

Only it’s not, really, is it? Because eating isn’t anywhere near on the same level of unnecessary destructiveness as flooding whole civilizations or destroying a blameless family. So despite Crowley’s “see you in Hell,” he can’t follow through on it, any more than he can on murdering Ennon, Keziah, and Jemimah. He just can’t do it.

And then we get back to speech-act theory.

Poor distraught Aziraphale believes he committed a speech act when he gave his word as an angel that Job’s children are Job’s new children. He believes that solely on the basis of that lie — which, in its way, could qualify as a speech act; it made Job's old children into his new children — he has become a demon. After all, isn’t that how it worked with angel!Crowley? Say the wrong thing, get wrecked by God? Crowley knows there’s a precondition that hasn’t been met here, however: God has to actually notice someone’s tried to thwart Her will. God’s oblivious, fortunately, wittering on to Job about ostriches and whales. And Crowley won’t let on, so… failed speech act. Nothing’s changed. Nothing has to change.

But speech, in Good Omens as in the human world, is where “be” and “do” meet. And... I think... that was my point.

#gos2spoilers #gos2 spoilers #good omens season 2 spoilers #good omens #job minisode #good omens god is a horror #crowley #aziraphale #the flood #speech-act theory #(talk about tags I never thought I'd use on Tumblr)

[chvoswxtch]

i'm on my second rewatch of daredevil & I just finished season 2 and i have a LOT of thots about elektra so i'm going to rant under the cut so here's your warning or psa if you haven't seen the show or are in the process of watching it i am mentioning spoilers so beware !!!

first things first i feel like i need to preface with the fact that i was OBSESSED with the 2003 daredevil movie like i rented it so many times at the video store the guy working there fucking gave it to me LMAO and i remember thinking jennifer garner in that movie was THE baddest bitch and I wanted to be her so bad

that being said i fucking LOVE elektra natchios and i was so fucking beyond excited the first time i watched the show and she showed up and i especially love elodie yung's version i thought she was absolutely perfect

here's what annoyed the shit out of me though: they set her up for failure; let's get into it

i feel like a lot of people don't like her for whatever reason and i feel like a lot of that has to do with her history with matt so let me just say i think her and matt were super toxic and did not belong together because they were constantly trying to change one another and yes she did a lot of shitty things to him but she was literally "hired" by stick to ruin matt's life so that matt would come back to stick and in the end she left because she realized matt was way too good and didn't belong around her OR more importantly around stick because he would never be like either of them

from the second they introduced her in the show, they are trying to make you not like her by making her seem like this selfish entitled person who goes around ruining lives for fun. i've also seen a lot of people blame her as the reason that matt & karen never worked out but like that is straight up matt's fault in my opinion ok homeboy did that to himself

as far as morality goes, i think a lot of people gloss over the fact that elektra was literally trained to be a killer since she was a child. she was a young girl that was taken from her family, essentially thrown into a cult that brainwashed her and filled her head with horror stories about a war that was coming she needed to be ready to fight at all costs

we all know stick was an emotionally & physically abusive piece of shit (we saw the way he treated them both) but i think everyone forgets he was way worse with elektra and way harder on her and i don't know if what happened with her is what made him approach training matt differently but he was undeniably easier on matt (matt was getting pushed down in a basement, elektra was getting the shit beat out of her by grown ass men)

elektra was trained and taught to be what she was and constantly had people like stick and the hand telling her who and what she was and making her feel like she was some kind of evil monster over something that was totally out of her control

i think the only good thing that came from her and matt's relationship is that he made her believe in herself and that she could be good because he saw it in her and helped her decide who she wanted to be instead of what she was told to be

i truly think more people would like her more if she were a male character because she has a lot of the same characteristics as matt (tragic backstory, sarcastic witty drama queen, charming & overconfident, anger & daddy issues, total badass, hot) and even frank (has no problem killing when they think it's justifiable, will do whatever necessary despite the moral consequences, looks good covered in blood) which is bullshit in my humble opinion

let women go feral!!! let them be messy!! let them deal with things humanly & realistically!!!

i personally love characters like elektra natchios and jessica jones because i can relate to them like i can feel their anger and their internal conflict of being who you want vs who everyone expects you to be and drinking in excess to cope instead of dealing with your problems and having a short fuse (especially with annoying ass men who think they know better than you) and just being tragic fucking human beings trying their goddamn best

this is also why i love karen page so much because she is deeply flawed and has a dark past and acts impulsively (literally taunted fisk about killing wesley because she knew he would emotionally react like what a bad bitch) and refuses to take anyone's shit and calls everyone out when it's needed and tries so hard to do the right thing hoping it'll heal her from her mistakes

like every single one of these characters has been through so much shit and SO MUCH trauma and i just don't think it's fair to praise and accept one group for how they handle it and demonize another for doing the literal exact same thing

there was a very interesting foil in season 2 with frank & elektra that doesn't get talked about enough like frank castle owned what he was and admitted to being a loose cannon that would never stop until he got his revenge and everyone ate that shit up but elektra struggles with what she's being told she is and fights against all odds to control something inside of her that can't really be controlled and people trash her and it annoys the fucking hell out of me because it all goes back to her relationship with matt

women can be their own characters, they don't need to be plot devices used for a man's character development

in conclusion, elektra natchios is that bitch and i adore her and would absolutely love to see her (& elodie <3) come back in a future marvel project but not if they're just going to waste her incredible storyline and potential as being matt's throwaway love interest again because she is so fucking much more than that and deserves so much more than that

if you've made it this far, thanks for coming to my ted talk <3

we stan elektra natchios in this household, and I will hear no slander

these are all my opinions & if you don't like/agree with them, that's totally fine but no need to be a dick about it :)

#i will defend elektra natchios until the day i die #like how can you not love her #she delivered some of the best lines in season 2 #no one can annoy matt like her except jessica and i love them both for it #i think more women should go feral #be unhinged #enter your “villain” era #be the bad bitch i know you are #i support you babygirl #i'm not even tagging matt bc babygirl this isn't about you <3 #elektra natchios #elodie yung #jessica jones #krysten ritter #karen page #deborah ann woll #daredevil season 2

[horizon-verizon]

You said: '...their grand theme of "women-good-men-bad" plot (as in violence vs nonviolence).'

Not the same anon but I've been thinking a lot this week on that line of thinking.

On my first viewing I liked the show in general even if I didn't agree with several things but the more and more I thought about it the worse it became and now I feel that the show is MORE sexist and misogynistic than the original material.

It took me a while to realize that not only are women not allowed to gain any kind of power or have active decisions, but they purposely exchanged and eliminated things to create the dichotomy of man=violent and woman=pacifist.

Alicent is not only no longer the mastermind behind the entire movement but she is not even included in the plans, her only moments of power are when she exercises it in the meanest way and it really doesn't have much impact.

She actually just wants her children to be saved! She never wanted to govern! And she thinks Rhaenyra could be a good ruler (until 5 minutes pass and she changes her mind).

Her gloating line about Visenya dying and wishing Rhaenyra died in childbirth? Eliminated and even with all the anti-bastard prejudices that left her I doubt they would let her tell Rhaenyra that the death of their children doesn't matter as much because they were bastard blood.

Rhaenyra cries for a damn page instead of being allowed to be upset that the usurpation led to her having Visenya early. Revenge? Oh no, there is a prophecy and I must think about it. She also doesn't want power or rule, not even because it is a position that her father assured her was hers and she feels entitled to have it. Show!Rhaenyra has moments where she seems ready to quit or the weight of responsibility would crush her.

Rhaenys who fought to be recognized, campaigned for her son and then made sure it was ride or die with Rhaenyra? Well, she's allergic to any kind of female friendship, she's resentful of what she could never have forever, but she'll abandon ir in a heartbeat because her only ambition is to support her (biological) family in la la la, nothing happens here Land.

I don't see this Rhaenys dying believing it's for the best and will be defiant to the end and I certainly don't see her stopping Joff (who I don't think he likes that scene either) goes on a suicide mission.

Baela is the only one who remains more or less the same and yet she looked askance because... She and Rhaena miraculously appear.

On the other hand: Otto who was fired by Aegon for not being bloodthirsty enough? Yeah, I don't see that happening.

Daemon? A psychopath who will jump at the opportunity to kill in a heartbeat, even his wife who was too far away to commit the crime. Redeeming traits? Nope, there isn't. We also have child neglect and domestic violence, good change no?

Corlys is supposed to be the one to advocate for pardons later, here he doesn't see the big picture but instead becomes blinded by his own greed and goes to war because he is unable to talk to his wife.

They are not nuanced characters, they are tell me that the ambition is bad and we must not allow it to contaminate women and men are inherently violent.

Anon talks about this post.

I realized why I really couldn't totally like any of the characters beyond their looks (and only sometimes not even then, I'd say 25% of the looks in season 1 were good) when I read this one reblog by @rhaenyragendereuphoria HERE. They mentioned Robin Morgan and the terfness of the idea of women being the peacekeeping managers of male natural violence and it clicked for me. Goes to show how we can't exclude transphobia against trans women when talking about gender studies, violence, and anything to do with cis women bc as we realize that gender itself is a social creation and not dependent on genitals alone, the better we understand how the traits assigned to women (all but in different ways) are meant to be twisted according to the masculinized male's interests of control and domination. Homophobia also can't be totally discussed or fought against without understanding that it is about rejecting the "feminine" or anything coded as "of women". Such things require a sense of fixedness of gender and sexuality for masculinized male control.

This post by xenonwitch showing what others wrote about the male gaze can also help you out to understand how the HotD writers are writing in the male gaze--yes, even Sara Hess one of the women.

The show just feels too shallow BECAUSE they seek to reduce the idea and sense that this conflict is in feminist interest AND they do not invest or follow through with many proposed themes or potential motifs that they brought bc they don't really understand what they have to change nor its consequential implications in-world for the sake of bothsideism and checking boxes.

Plus, if you look carefully, even the most active persons in canon lose their activeness for the sake of the "theory of accident"--as Seth Abramson kinda calls it--where a major or critical character does not intentionally cause harm or prepare for the worst and the point is that we are supposed to see how they react to things happening to them.

Instead of making critical plot points happen through willful action! the "nuance" and intrigue of say, Aemond's killing Luke, is that he didn't mean to kill him, but it also wasn't an accident but also he was so mad about his eye and followed him for more than 5 mins in anger on a giant dragon in his big age of 19 versus a 14-year-old. Aemond has all the control until the very last minute when Vhagar goes ham and munches on Arrax and Luke; Alicent has no real control and "accidentally" takes Viserys' words the wrong way instead of her just ordering the castle shut down for the green council and actively trying to bring them to her side, being the spearhead of that anti-black function. Rather, it vacuums out all real stakes because the people feel like paper to write on.

The show makes a lot of their characters not have to make them confront some risks, build the right tension, or cross certain boundaries--example Alicent, doesn't have to confront her own long fears about her kids dying and the question of a woman ruling because she heard Viserys say that Aegon should rule. In other words, no accountability.

Finally, the characters also seem stupid as to how: Alicent thinks a page is going to stave off any threat of violence from Rhaenyra or herself, and Rhaenyra for reasons goes along with it!--she has been harassing Rhaenyra for years, and said page is of Nymeria (the woman who made her destiny and conquered regions...while Alicent is usurping Rhaenyra); when she accepts Rhaenyra's apology at the feast after the stain of her slicing her and almost causes the blacks/Luke to lose Driftmark but wouldn't listen to her before in episode 4 about not sleeping with Dameon AND again, sh's been trying to get Rhaenyra and her sons killed for 10 years from the belief that Rhaenyra would cause her oen kids deaths indirectly or directly!, basically just bc she now feels Rhaenyra respected her status as Queen and Viserys presented himself as a victim of their infighting...that he is actually largely responsible for...so she isn't protective of her kids and does have an severe inferirority complex or her main motivation is social power over protecting her kids, but the show would ahve us think that she hated Rhaenyra bc she was trying to prptect her kids.....her problems--as she saw it--remained the same after Rhaenyra's apology, wtf?!; Rhaenyra suddenly does not want to act at all against the greens, even give up -> based on violence and the prophecy, but said prophecy is actually all the more reason to stamp out the green usurpation bc her father couldn't have given Aegon that information and if he did he would have told her his plans long before he died...so why is she thinking of just giving it up if she were responsible?!!!!

no repercussions for Laenor's beau getting his face smashed in under the king's roof during a wedding feast (makes more sense during a journey, not a feast) --> lack of empathy towards Joffrey there, he couldn't die doing something considered honorable in his society, no he has to die like a dog [wanted to complain]

Because of this nonsense that one has to unpack while whatever episode is playing, I couldn't enjoy the characters and dialogue apart from the most superficial things. Apart from some scandalous behvior and Rhaenyra being savvy (episode 4 & daemyra in episode 5). Rooting and intrigued by the fashion of the wedding. I'm not even excited for Rhaenyra's maybe-bloodthirsty reaction to her son's death bc I know they will somehow ruin it, esp since they are only putting in 8 episodes for this coming season. They already didn't do enough for the first!

They also have a chance and when asked to explain take it to the most discriminatory level that turns you off if you have a modicum of respect for people. An example of this if claiming the Velaeryons being black is useful to make it "more obvious" that Rhaenyra's first sons were not Laenor's as if that means we should look at Rhaenyra's situation as being just her fault, that she should have just rolled over and "done her duty" when in fact the circumstances were almost set up against her...why? BC she is a woman! And why are we making the Velaryon's blackness or PoCness just a tool for denigrating another character instead of something for themselves?!

#asoiaf asks to me #hotd writing #hotd critical #hotd misogyny #transphobia #misogyny #male gaze #hotd male gaze #mini rant

[russilton]

Thanks for answering the Sainz question and even including links, I genuinely had no idea because I'm not so big on following their activities on social media... it's certainly eye opening. I don't like to put any celebrities on a pedestal for reasons like this, especially the richer/more entitled people because at the end of the day, we know nothing about them. These are things that came out publicly... so imagine what must be said off the record... anyway, thank you for your time!

Honestly it’s easy to miss some of this stuff- my first two years of f1 I was on Reddit and twitter— you can IMAGINE the kind of info I did see vs what slid under the radar. Shit Reddit LOVES hulk and I could never figure out why.

Almost all of this stuff I learned by being around on f1blr a fairly decent amount of time, slowly collecting info as it circulated around, thought it made sourcing some of it awkward as hell!

But I’ve also been caught victim to telephone whisper accounts of situations, so it’s important that before I PERSONALLY say something, to chase down the source and go “is this how you remembered it? did they apologise?”, etc.

I find it also helps to list a lot of stuff in one place like that because… it counts up. It’s really easy to sigh and move on from one offence with these guys because we’re SO used to expecting it with the toxic old environment around F1– but when you look at it in sequence it really does make you wonder what they say when the camera is off, like you said.

Ultimately I can’t stop anyone liking any driver, and everyone is entitled to draw a different line when it comes to what they will tolerate, you don’t get to be mad if what’s annoying but acceptable to you is a hardline for another person. I’ve acknowledged who say, George, hangs out with is no worse than Lewis, and while I wish they’d both change that, I’ve accepted what they do for the sport is more pivotal and I think they both CAN change. But if for someone else that makes them not like George, there’s nothing I can do to counter that.

This is the bargain of being a modern sports fan lol. But I can’t just turn off the political part of me, because my whole life is infuriatingly political, and I don’t want to support or cheer millionaires that would use their platform to purposefully hurt others.

You also don’t have to have a reason not to like someone, it can just be vibes. I just did infact have good reasons in these cases

#wank/rants #I hate more drivers than I like by a long shot #and that’s how I feel comfortable #asks #anonymous

[thelonesomequeen]

And here come the people acting like they’re entitled to any and all information, consequences be damned. Maybe one day they’ll get that they’re not. Thanks for sharing this stuff in a way you feel comfortable doing 💛

Trust me, I definitely understand wanting to know what information others have and it can be frustrating to only have some pieces of the puzzle when you just want the whole picture. I understand everyone’s curiosity. There are so many times we want to share all of the info that’s shared with us and we hate that we can’t always do that. The amount of times we get something and part of it is requested to be blocked off we’re like “AAAAAH JUST GIVE US INFO WE CAN SHARE WITH OTHERS FOR ONCE!” is kind of wild. And sometimes we hate it because we understand that it frustrates others to not have all of the info. It also sends a lot of hate our way most of the time.

But when we’re asked to not always share parts of an ask, we have to take that request seriously. As mods, we have to sometimes battle with the morality of doing what we believe is the right thing in those situations. Sometimes it means not sharing anything at all that was sent to us, and sometimes it means blocking off what was requested. To us, it’s gossip, but to someone else, it’s their life and what we share can have serious consequences for them.

We have to weigh out the pros and cons in these situations. What I personally found interesting is that the anon listed the restaurant and location prior to anyone knowing they were there through Chelsea. In this specific situation what does sharing the name of the restaurant really do for the fandom? I mean honestly. I think the people who believe he was in Bermuda with friends have seen enough to believe it. I also think that there is no form of evidence that can convince people he was there if they believe he wasn’t in Bermuda. Because the past has shown us that group of people always has excuses for that evidence when it does come out. People have made up their minds on whether Chris was there or not. If we were to share the restaurant name and website picture that matches a location in Chelsea’s video, and show the screenshot side by side I think it would only convince a very small amount of people who are unsure about what they believe right now. Because like I said, I think enough people have made up their mind. They either believe this was a big friends vacation or they don’t and they believe this was a big trolling event. The name of a restaurant isn’t going to change that because it adds no other information than that. But the consequence of sharing the name could mean trouble for the people who were working there while Chris and co. were there. It could mean a demotion or even loss of their job. And sorry, but people NEED their jobs. They have bills to pay and losing their income could be a serious issue for them. And we know this fandom no longer has an issue with overstepping boundaries and contacting businesses. I wouldn’t put it past some people in this fandom to harass that restaurant via review bombing, or calling in and making complaints about the workers all because someone said Chris was there with a good sized group.

I think you (specifically this anon) get that based on your ask. But for everyone else who doesn’t, I’m hoping this helps to explain things further when it comes to why we don’t expose all of the information people share with us when they ask us not to. We have to look at the benefits vs. the potential consequences in these situations. And again, we understand it’s frustrating for you guys when you want all of the info. But we have to also then balance the idea of whether it’s worth sharing some of the info, or none of it at all. We like to put it out there for you guys to see. It’s why we usually still choose to post these asks with the requested parts blocked off. Whether you all personally prefer if we kept it all to ourselves and shared nothing or only share part of what we’re told to us is really kind of a matter of personal opinion. 🦎