#and it's not hard to extrapolate things about him from what you see. his pacifism. the fact that he's not human. his past trauma etc etc

[blueskittlesart]

In defense of the original, while I do agree the episodic vibes were a bit much at times, and it was something I kinda had to work my way through slowly rather than binging all in one...

I do kinda prefer the more gradual approach to laying out the information; getting to know both the setting and who Vash is as a person and the different facets of both, before getting the context that lets it all click into place. Plus the main quartet having ample time to grow together so that later developments have stronger emotional weight.

I will agree that Knives definitely suffered in focus, and I am interested in how Stampede handles him, but admittedly he wasn't really what I watched Trigun for in the first place. ^^;

yeah my gripe is less with the way the setting and characters were handled and more with the way the. actual plot was handled. it honest to god felt to me like they realized about halfway through their run that they didnt have enough episodes left to get the backstory in in a cohesive way so they just shoved it all into one episode and pretended that that explanation didn't create more questions than it answered. you spend 20 episodes teasing your audience like "ooooh what is vash?? clearly hes not human!! clearly there's something going on!!! don't you want to know whats going on?? keep watching and you'll totally understand whats going on!!" and then your big reveal is that. He Is Not Human. which is something that any idiot who has watched the last 20 episodes has already figured out. the question the audience ACTUALLY has at that point in the runtime is what, EXACTLY, is vash, and what the context is behind the conflict he and knives are in. the backstory episode explains that Knives Is Here, and it gives context to the setting and everything, but it pissed me off that it STILL didn't answer the actual mysteries i cared about, i.e. vash's real identity and the thing with the gun and his fucking arm and knives's motivations and everything. maybe that gets answered in the last episode that i neglected to watch but personally I prefer a story where i UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON by the time the final confrontation hits. with trigun it got to a point where vash was going out for the final battle with knives and i STILL didn't know who vash was, who knives was, where they came from, or what the hell their motivations were. that just made that final confrontation seem so wholly uninteresting to me that i didn't even feel like watching it. it was like "hey look vash is fighting a cardboard cutout that he is Afraid Of. Why? lmao idk man. probably has something to do with that weird spaceship that shows up in one whole episode before this point. not going to tell you how tho." I think some writers have this tendency to think that mystery = good writing and that not revealing anything to your audience will consistently draw them in for more, but that only works for so long. after 20 episodes of virtually net 0 information it got to feel like I was being strung along and like my questions were never going to be answered, so I gave up on the show in the final hour. Again, i'm not saying it was BAD necessarily and i understand the context in terms of writing and production that led to the show being produced that way but i think it really noticeably suffers due to the fact that it refuses to give the audience ANYTHING but crumbs of information for about 80% of it's runtime. that being said. i did genuinely like a lot of it. it has its moments. im not trying to discourage anyone from watching it or anything lol i just think stampede is a little more successful in keeping the viewer engaged in the story throughout by constantly feeding you bits of information and actually answering your questions as they become plot-relevant.

#asks #wow hi. trigun essay intermission sorry everyone #this same thing applies to virtually every villain in the show. nick. zazzie. the guy with the blue hair whose name i dont even remember. #you get like. the barest snippets of information about them. you know theyre working for knives somehow #you know that they've been somehow modified? and that their titles identify them as relating to knives #in nick's case you know that his whole thing has something to do with the orphanage and the priesthood #but beyond that you get... nothing. and you're expected to just speculate?? figure it out somehow??? #nick especially pissed me off bc it got to a point where he was DEAD and i still didn't understand what the fuck his deal was #despite him being a supporting character for almost the entirety of the show. he still got only like half an episode dedicated to explainin #his backstory and motivations and EVERYTHING. and then he DIED #and like. to be fair. i think the lack of explanation worked in some places. it worked decently with vash #but it worked with vash BECAUSE vash is pretty much an open book as a character. you can easily tell what he's thinking and feeling #and it's not hard to extrapolate things about him from what you see. his pacifism. the fact that he's not human. his past trauma etc etc #you can get a good portion of that just by watching him throughout the show #but i think that only works BECAUSE he shows so much of himself. for a character like nick who is deliberately closed off #and NEVER shows his true self expecting the audience to be able to understand & empathize with him based solely on what he projects #just doesn't work. because it's made clear to the audience from the getgo that nick is not the person he claims he is #and that he takes steps to never show too much of himself. so when his backstory shows up randomly in one episode #and then he immediately dies. it leaves you kinda like. okay. what the hell was that. who was that guy anyway #you know??? #ok rant over fr

[oneatlatime]

Want to get your thoughts on something you've touched on in a couple places. A pretty popular idea in the fandom is that one of the (in-universe) reasons airbenders have gone so hard into the peace-and-love monk thing is a self-awareness that, if they didn't, there's not a whole lot anybody could realistically do about it.

Like, Southern Air Temple pretty strongly implies that Gyatso solo'd a room full of comet-roided firebenders. It killed him but he did it, and while he is a master Airbender, we're not given any real indication that he is uniquely so, right?

I have many thoughts on this! Sorry in advance for the long post! And sorry if this goes a bit off topic!

Short answer: I don't agree.

Long answer:

We've seen that nations' cultures tend to reflect their native bending styles. Or vice versa. It's probably a chicken and egg scenario. The Fire Nation chose to spread (like wildfire) and is full of hot headed, impetuous roid-rage sufferers who can't see or plan for the long term. Fire itself easily becomes ungovernable and is at best muzzled/leashed, always waiting for the next chance to bubble over in unplanned / unpredictable / generally unhelpful directions (Hi Zhao!). So an element shapes a culture shapes and element until you've got a positive feedback loop (or in the case of the Northern Water Tribe, a negative feedback ourobouros due to outside pressure). Importantly, neither culture nor element develops in isolation; I think they develop simultaneously.

The Earth Kingdom is probably the most rigid and unchanging, even when it would benefit them to change/innovate. We see rigidity and humourlessness in response to change or the unexpected (see Toph's parents) and we see an inability to let go of a bad idea, or mitigate the consequences / think on the go when things that were clearly bad ideas go bad in ways anyone with a non-earthbender brain can see coming a mile off (think The Avatar State episode). Earth digs in when it should retreat, stands solid when it should duck and weave. It is grounded to the point of stupidity (unless you're Toph or Bumi, although even Toph seems to be unbending so far). It's linear to the point of being unable to deviate from that line.

This is me guessing, but I figure since fire and water are opposites, air must be the opposite of earth, right? So while we'll never see airbending culture in a non-shrunk-down-to-one-person form, we can look at earthbending culture for its dark reflection. Well, probably not dark, but you get what I'm saying. They'll be opposites in world view. We can extrapolate.

So if earth is grounded, humourless, aggressively traditional, linear, then air must be constantly fluctuating, unchained, lighthearted, bonkers-all-over-the-place. The heaviness of earth would dictate that problems should be faced by digging in and facing them head on until the problem blinks first. The lightness of air would dictate that problems should be faced the opposite way: blinking first i.e. removing yourself from the problem entirely. The linearity of earth dictates that fights are solved by fighting - you punch me, I punch you. The non-linearity of air would seek to recontextualise a problem until it's no longer a problem because we all forgot what we were fighting about in the first place, i.e. throwing pies at it or busting out the marble trick. The heaviness of earth would cause excessive earthly attachment; the lightness of air would cause excessive detachment from worldly concerns.

To start violence is to make a statement that you wish to be involved. It's rooting yourself to a particular dispute, choosing a hill to die on. It stems from attachment. This is earthbendery behaviour (and Zuko-y, but let's not go there). To never start violence is to never invest, never dig in your feet and make a stand. To be detached. (I'm oversimplifying here.) It's clear from in-show examples that Aang's pacifism is of the "ladies don't start fights but they can finish them" variety; he's got no problem with self-defence (caveat: we have no idea how typical an air nomad Aang was). But he never attacks first that I can think of.

Violence is a very direct tool. If someone starts a fight with you, and you decide to continue it, you're choosing the most obvious action. Since when is airbending direct or obvious?

All this to say, I think that pacifism, peace and love, monkiness, etc., was more likely a natural and inevitable outgrowth of air nomad culture, caused by constant culture / element interaction, rather than a conscious choice.

So I think airbenders "have gone so hard into the peace-and-love monk thing" because the nature of their element creates a culture that discourages the traits required for effective offensive violence, and the inherent detachment and ever-changing nature of air naturally encouraged spiritual (i.e. monkly) pursuits rather than earthly ones, like whatever the conflict of the week is. I don't think self-awareness of the dangers of their element factors into it. Not to take away from Gyatso's accomplishment, but I think air is nowhere near the most dangerous element. From what I've seen so far that would be Fire or Earth, though I'd give the edge to Fire because they self-generate, and also because they've spent a largely successful century dominating the other elements. Waterbenders and earthbenders can be neutralised by taking away their element; airbenders - due to the very nature of their element - probably can't get past that initial avoid and evade instinct to become legitimate offensive threats.

As for Gyatso, I think he's an outlier. We know little about him so far, but we do know that: a) Aang says he's the best airbender (in I think the Southern Air Temple?); b) he's good enough that he was granted a statue while he was still living, learning, improving; and c) he's good enough that the monkly council (of which he is part) granted him the honour/responsibility of being the quasi-dad of the Avatar. These things tell me that Gyatso was the Spiders Georg of the Airbenders. I suspect Bumi is the same for the Earthbenders, and at least as far as the philosophy of bending is concerned, Iroh may be so for Firebenders. Even the example of Gyatso nuking the comet-enhanced firebenders is a case of defensive action in ultra extraordinary circumstances: he was staring into the teeth of a genocide while mourning the disappearance of his quasi-son and the likely loss of the world's only hope / chance at stopping the war. That's how far you have to push an airbender before they'll take a life. Unless the Avatar world pre-war is a lot more godawful than Aang has implied, airbenders probably wouldn't have been taking lives frequently enough for them to get to the point where they would have to start questioning whether they should consider pacifism.

I think what this fandom idea ultimately is, is a desire for the hidden badass trope. Everyone loves it when the most peaceful character in the story is revealed to secretly be a Rambo-level fighting badass, right? Who didn't love it when kindly grandpa Roku manifested in his temple and unleashed a volcano? But I think this trope fundamentally takes something away from the appreciation of Airbending, Air Nomad culture, and the concept of Pacifism as a whole. This is just my interpretation, but applying the "secretly the deadliest all along!" trope to airbenders undermines their commitment to pacifism and makes it performative rather than earnest. It's a cop out; an acknowledgement that violence actually is the answer, and even those head-in-the-clouds monks know to use it when the chips are down. This show goes out of its way to show that non-combatants have value and a place in this world that's worth fighting for, that fighting goes way too far pretty frequently, that non-violent solutions are valid, even preferable. It would kind of undermine that message if all of the elements were easily weaponisable.

Something I've loved so far about Avatar is the show's earnestness. There have been no Marvel-style fakeout bathos plots. I feel making airbending secretly the deadliest element or similar would be exactly that sort of thing. Can't my pacifists be peaceful not because they're secretly untouchable badasses who carry the biggest stick, whom the rest of the world leaves alone out of fear, who are not a threat only because they have chosen not to be, but because that's just who they are?

On the other hand: Aang's been a one-man-army plenty of times. We've seen that; that's undeniable. So air is stupidly powerful as an element. No denying that. Gyatso did murder a bunch of people trying to kill him, so air can be deadly. But I don't think your typical airbender could be deadly. If you gave a can of airbending to a firebender, an earthbender, or even a particularly provoked waterbender, I don't doubt that they could kill people with it. But the culture that the element generated - rather than a conscious choice by that culture's participants - prevents them from taking the direct, violent, solution. And I think that culture developed in tandem with airbending, so there could not have been a time when airbenders were deadly as a rule. Air shaped airbenders as much as airbenders shaped air, and it shaped them into non-violent people.

There's a lot of power in the idea of consciously choosing, and sticking to, something that is perhaps not in line with your natural abilities. Styling airbenders as deadly-but-choosing-peace is a great way to explore themes of agency, identity, strength of character, morals, maturity, etc. But, to me, there's also a lot of power in the idea that some people just can't - not won't, but CAN'T - fight their way out of things, and this doesn't make it any less wrong to genocide the crap out of them.

If the fandom wants to headcanon airbenders as secret badasses who consciously choose nonviolence, I say a) go ahead! there's more than enough evidence to support that conclusion; b) I respectfully disagree; and c) is Iroh not enough?

tl;dr in my opinion, air's pacifism was a natural outgrowth of, and restriction imposed by, the element rather than a conscious choice; airbending can be deadly but airbenders aren't; Gyatso is not representative; 'speak softly and carry a big stick' is all well and good as a philosophy, but those who speak softly and don't have a stick are of value too.

#atla #avatar: the last airbender #ask #PLEASE let this not start drama #just my opinion guys! #remember I'm not yet halfway through season 2 so maybe a later episode will disprove everything I've said! Who knows! Not me! #Also I don't know anything about Eastern Philosophy which this show undoubtedly references frequently #in a way that completely goes over my head #so I may have made some entirely incorrect assumptions in this post #oops!

[scripttorture]

Regarding ICURE, I have a character who is familiar with the process and a deep understanding of most of the mindsets and mental states involved in torture, interrogation, and captivity. Would that make resistance to the techniques easier? How would a willingness to engage and empathize with captors, combined with an awareness of their goals and methods and a greater than average degree of self-awareness and self confidence interact?

I’m mostly working without studies here extrapolating based on what I know.

 The only bit of this I can definitively answer is that knowledge of what torture does wouldn’t effect the high innate resistance we have to it. Resistance to torture is bound up in so many fundamental systems, like how our nerves physically register pain, that conscious knowledge wouldn’t make much difference to the outcome.

 It might make the character feel better or more confident though: ‘There’s no way you can force this information out of me’. It might also make the recovery process a little easier if the character is tortured. Knowledge about mental illness and how they’re treated can help people identify what they’re going through and process it more quickly. It can also make it easier to seek help.

 For those who are new to the blog ICURE is a combination of techniques that can be used to change someone’s beliefs over time. As with everything there is not a 100% success rate but unlike torture consistently applied ICURE can lead to a controlled change in the target’s belief system.

 It stands for Isolate, Control information, create Uncertainty, Repetition and Emotional responses.

 A group of characters attempting to use ICURE would isolate the target from other characters, ensure that the information/news the target gets lines up with what the group believes. They’d then attempt to create uncertainty about previously held core beliefs and respond in an overblown emotional fashion if the target attempts to challenge their own beliefs. Repetition of this, consistently over a prolonged period (months or years) can (but does not always) lead to change in core beliefs.

 For an example let’s imagine a story applying this to Bucky Barnes from the Marvel series.

 A group holding him might try to create uncertainty by underlining how long he’s been held and how his friends haven’t attempted to rescue him. They might give him news that his best friend has another group of heroes he works with now. Bucky has been abandoned, forgotten. And so forth.

 An emotive response in this scenario could be something like the primary care giver of the group (the person who most regularly interacts with Bucky, giving him food and trying to interact positively) flying off the handle when Bucky mentions his old friends. How can he be so ungrateful? Doesn’t he realise what the caregiver has risked and sacrificed to keep Bucky safe? Does he think persuading the group to ‘help’ Bucky and keep him alive was easy?

 You get the idea.

 My instinct is that knowledge of these techniques would make them less effective. These things are never 100% successful and I think consciously acknowledging the manipulative nature of ICURE would make it harder for the captors to achieve total success.

 However a lot of the reason these techniques work is because humans are social animals. We need interaction with other members of the species in order to remain healthy. And as a result we often change and adapt in order to fit in with new groups. We are geared to compromise in order to gain or maintain positive social contact.

 I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but I do know that there a lot of research papers which suggest personal opinions can gradually change over time when we’re surrounded by people with differing views in non-coercive settings.

 This does not necessarily mean full conversion to another set of ideals. The impression I get is that it mostly looks like a series of small and subtle changes.

 For the sake of avoiding internet insanity let’s make up an issue. Let’s make up a character who grew up in an area where no one wears red and the colour has a lot of negative associations.

 This character moves to a different area where the colour has different connotations and wearing red is a neutral act. Over a period of years the character’s attitudes towards the colour might mellow. They might never wear red themselves. They might not decorate with the colour. But they’ve met a fair few people who occasionally wear red now and they’re decent people. They don’t judge people who wear red the way they did when they first moved in to the area.

 What I’m trying to illustrate here is that it’s normal for people’s views to shift over time. Obviously this does not always happen. People can hold extreme or vastly differing views when compared to their community.

 From a certain point of view my views are extreme. Most cultures in our global society accept and legitimise violence to differing degrees. Pacifism is the absolute rejection of violence*. If you take a moment to think about how often violence permeates all aspects of our lives (from child care to religion to politics) you’ll see what I mean.

 What I’m trying to illustrate here is that while we do adjust and change to fit in with the people surrounding us we can also cling to things that are very much against the norm. And that makes it difficult to answer any of these questions with certainty. There is a lot of individual variation.

 A lot of the techniques to resist effective interrogation are essentially a refusal to interact. But the longer someone’s held outside their community the less viable that is as an option. We can choose to do things that are harmful to us (including avoiding needed social contact) but it’s hard. Because it’s unhealthy.

 I think the way I’d approach this as a writer is to start by identifying the core values of this character, the things that are most important to them. Try to think of things the character absolutely could not compromise without becoming a different character.

 Circling back to the example of Bucky Barnes, a core value might be his relationship with Steve Rogers, his oldest friend.

 Once you have an idea of the core values think of the next most important value. And keep going.

 I tend to do this pretty instinctively. For me it’s a part of my messy, sprawling character creation. If you need to take a more visual or organised approach to figuring things out then a list (with the most important values at the top) or a circle (with the most important values in the middle) might be helpful.

 Next think through the same process for the group that has captured the character. Since it’s a group rather then an individual it should be simpler. (Because a group is unlikely to be as nuanced and complicated as an individual.)

 See if there’s any overlap which might be grounds for grudging mutual respect. Values like loyalty to your own group and taking care of the people on your side are good things to use for this.

 I would then look at the more peripheral values the character has and shift some of them a little over time.

 Keeping Bucky as our example I might put something like ‘American cultural values’ as a more peripheral value. Bucky seems to prize the culture he was raised in and consider it the norm. But it’s not something he bases his personality on or something that motivates him through the stories. So shifting that, having him not see it as the ‘norm’ any more, or adopting things his captors did would be a good way to show that he has been influenced.

 Obviously the right choice, the right value to shift, depends on the characters and the story you want to tell. The degree to which you want to shift the character’s values is also up to you.

 Bigger shifts, or more obvious shifts, could serve to cause conflict later in the story. This could lead the character to feel rejected, like their loyalty is being questioned after everything they went through.

 Bigger shifts could also serve a practical purpose in the story though. If this character has gained a greater understanding for the group they’re opposed to that could make them a much more effective interrogator. They might know how to establish rapport more quickly and earn the trust of captured prisoners. Which could in turn lead to more accurate information.

 Greater understanding of the group they’re opposed to could also help with strategic thinking/planning.

 Smaller shifts add less elements to the story. But that could be a good thing too depending on your story. If you don’t have a lot of time or space to explore new conflicts or skills then this approach would save you narrative space while still showing the character has been effected.

 It would also work if the point here is to show the character as mostly unmoved, unchanged, despite coercive external pressure.

 I hope that helps :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

*In case anyone’s interested I personally define violence as harmful acts done without consent.

#pinctada1798 #writing advice #tw torture #manipulation #ICURE #effective interrogation #isolation #social pressure #social interaction #shifting views #prison #interrogation #character development

[fivestarglam]

Were George Orwell alive today he would be 115 years old. Despite this, nearly everyone purports to know exactly what the old Etonian would have thought were he still around.

I have exhumed Orwell myself on occasion. It is hard not to; Orwell is one of the great twentieth century writers. As such, his influence is everywhere. To mull over a certain set of political questions in print – war and peace, freedom versus authoritarianism, socialism or capitalism – is invariably to tread upon ground previously walked by Orwell. And so while it has become something of a cliché to quote Orwell, it is also a sin of omission not to.

Columns and polemics that begin by asking ‘What would George Orwell do?’ (WWGOD) are ubiquitous. To see what I mean, type ‘Orwell and Brexit’ into Google – you’ll find page after page of articles purporting to know what Orwell would have made of the 2016 referendum.

SUGGESTED READING

Ideologues miss Orwell's greatest lesson

BY GILES FRASER

Brexit is only the latest incarnation of WWGOD. Casting an eye back more than a decade ago to the eve of the American invasion of Iraq, pro- as well as anti-intervention pundits frequently sought to borrow Orwell’s perceived moral authority to push their own respective positions.

One of the favoured Orwell-isms deployed by proponents of the war was that pacifism was “objectively pro-Fascist” – a phrase Orwell used in his correspondence with Alex Comfort, a pacifist who drew parallels between Nazi concentration camps and the British wartime state. Yet Orwell himself recanted on the phrase, later describing it as one of the “propaganda tricks” that “I have been guilty of… myself”.

More recently, Orwell’s famous jibe at fellow socialists has been applied to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters:

“One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist and feminist in England.”

There is undoubtedly some truth to any comparison of Corbynism – with its conspiratorial thinking and flirtation with antisemitic tropes – to the cranks who flocked to socialism “like bluebottles to a dead cat” during Orwell’s day. One can also imagine Orwell being appalled by the gruesome communist apparatchiks that Corbyn has chosen to surround himself with.

SUGGESTED READING

Ideologues miss Orwell's greatest lesson

BY JULIE BINDEL

Yet Orwell remained a committed socialist until the end of his life, and his insistence that he “belong(ed) to the Left and must work inside it” has little in common with those who have chosen to ‘resign’ from the Left rather than stay and fight against a new generation of communist fellow travellers.

Orwell today is all things to all people. As Orwell himself wrote of Charles Dickens, but which might as easily be applied to himself, “The Marxist claims him as ‘almost’ a Marxist, the Catholic claims him as ‘almost’ a Catholic, and both claim him as a champion of the proletariat”.

In Orwell’s case this is partly a consequence of his political inconsistency. I do not mean this in a pejorative sense. On the contrary. The very worst quality in a political writer is an unwillingness to change his or her mind or to hold rigidly to some point of view or doctrine that has long since ceased to be applicable.

SUGGESTED READING

Ideologues miss Orwell's greatest lesson

BY JAMES BLOODWORTH

Orwell was “a type hated with equal hatred by all the smelly little orthodoxies”, as Orwell himself wrote of Dickens in the same essay about the great Victorian novelist, precisely because he was prepared to change his mind about things: “when the facts change[d]”, as his contemporary John Maynard Keynes famously remarked.

This is why communists detested Orwell; but it is also why neoconservatives feel able to distort the meaning of his two great novels – Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four – in order to adopt him as one of their own. If you look at Orwell long enough, you can find whatever you are looking for.

Orwell arrived late at many of his arguments. As the English were reconciling themselves to the prospect of war with Germany, Orwell’s position was about as “objectively pro-Fascist” as he would go on to accuse others of being. Until March 1939 he was in Marrakesh “writing a pacifistic novel in his shirtsleeves”, as Orwell biographer Robert Colls puts it.

For far longer than many of his more clear-sighted contemporaries, Orwell viewed fascism in orthodox far-Left terms as merely capitalism in extremis. This is hardly the visionary George Orwell we are so used to hearing about.

Yet this apparent inconsistency does not detract from Orwell’s qualities as a writer. Indeed, Orwell’s value lies in the fact that he held firmly to first principles, extrapolating his practical ideas – which he was notoriously reluctant to thrash out comprehensively – from these broader starting points: solidarity with the oppressed, opposition to totalitarianism, and the beauty of “solid things” over abstract teleology.

SUGGESTED READING

Ideologues miss Orwell's greatest lesson

BY JAMIE BARTLETT

Orwell was a pessimistic pragmatist at root – but one who was nevertheless given to ideological flights of fancy characteristic of the Left-wing literary intelligentsia of his day.

Thus Orwell detested poverty and sought to understand the experience of the lower classes – yet he knew from his own experience in Spain that a state espousing altruism could easily turn into a repressive Leviathan. (Orwell witnessed first-hand the Russian-backed communists crush a genuine working-class revolution).

He saw war as a “racket” – yet he came to understand that peace depended on defeating Hitler’s Germany with bombs and bullets. He hoped to see a “Socialist United States of Europe”, viewing it as the “only worthwhile political objective” – yet he had few illusions as to the likelihood of such a federation coming into existence during his lifetime.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Ideologues miss Orwell's greatest lesson

BY JAMES BLOODWORTH

For all his inconsistencies, we can, however, be fairly certain as to who Orwell would have been interested in were he alive today: the homeless, the working poor, those suffering under the auspices of fashionable dictatorships. But then, it is only the ideologue who is uninterested in such people.

Orwell was never one of those. Which is why those who try to claim his spirit in our own age are as misguided as those who tried to fortify their arguments back in Orwell’s day by resurrecting the ghost of Charles Dickens. We know who Orwell would’ve sided with in the broadest sense – the poor and downtrodden – but extrapolating a doctrine or policy position from this and seeking to apply it to the present day is a form of shabby demagoguery.

Orwell’s brilliance lay in his willingness to re-think arguments he’d made just a few years earlier. Such people are rare; their inconsistency is arguably their greatest strength, and they can never be truly claimed by anyone. In today’s ideologically tribal atmosphere, that is the greatest lesson we can take from Orwell the writer.

#orwell #George Orwell

[maiji]

On writing Hokushin 

(unrelated: WOW I just realized I can do headings in tumblr! WOw!!!)

I’m on a roll avoiding other work I should be doing lolll! Lately I’ve been super fortunate to have some great conversations with multiple lovely people about characterization of Hokushin. To probably no one’s surprise, I already think an embarrassingly lot about this and try to convey it in my fanworks, but I actually haven’t really sat down and articulated in depth. Shocking, I know. So here are some cleaned up/slightly more coherently organized version of thoughts!

Below the cut I basically ramble for a long time about understanding Hokushin's character with cultural/historical background and his relationship with Yusuke (and by extension Raizen). And some misc other stuff. I tried to break it out by topic, but a lot of it overlaps. One thing I don't really get into here is specific aspects of Mahayana (Zen) Buddhism, but it has an important underlying relationship with a lot of what l talk about below, and forms a significant part of Raizen and therefore Hokushin's narrative, how their characters are portrayed and framed, aaaand this is already really long. 

With all that in mind, this is one person’s interpretation! I’m no expert, I mostly just read a lot of stuff when I get obsessed with it (usually for storytelling/comics research, and then forget everything soon after lol). In any case, it'd be boring if my ideas on Hokushin were the only ones that exist, and the point of fanworks is to create for personal enjoyment/fulfillment, so please make of it what you will! All I hope is that this was at least somewhat interesting/informative and helps give people more material and more love for Hokushin =D

The loyal retainer archetype

Hokushin's character is very strongly tied to the perceived classic Japanese archetype of the loyal servant/retainer and samurai (bushi/warrior class) ideals. They come with a very distinct paradigm and set of principles. Here’s a simplified summary. 

Purpose, honour and thereby happiness comes from selfless loyalty and servitude. The fulfillment of your existence is to serve the will of your master. 

The ideal/collective whole is prioritized above an (your) individual existence. There is a greater goal that you are merely one small aspect of, and you may not even expect to understand it.

Death is not necessarily perceived as a worst-case scenario, and can be viewed as the most honourable alternative to violating your own or someone else's principles, particularly that of your master. And in some cases, it may even not be an alternative. Death is not an end, but a means to an end usually to support the beliefs held in the previous two points.

We can reference the 8 virtues of bushido - the way of the warrior, sometimes called the samurai code. Now, bear in mind nobody necessarily went around going “I’m a samurai, and this is the code I follow.” This is a list formalized in the late 19th century by writer Nitobe Inazo to explain a concept of bushido and Japanese culture for a Western audience, and then it basically got absorbed back into Japan. Thus, bushido is a pretty heavily romanticized thing, and... anyway that’s beyond the scope of this post lol. The virtues are:

Righteousness (also rendered rectitude, justice)

Courage

Benevolence/mercy

Politeness

Honesty/sincerity

Honour

Duty/Loyalty

Character/self-control

BASICALLY A HOKUSHIN RECIPE, AMIRITE?? There are also particular aesthetic sensibilities to the execution of this archetype partly based on how Japanese history and culture evolved. Bearing and sensitivity matters, more is said in what is not said, there’s stoicism and elegance and refinement and poetry etc. Mono no aware and transience of life and all that stuff.

Essentially, even if such a character disagrees fundamentally with their master's reasoning, it's not unusual for a "true" servant to still abandon their family or their lovers and follow or even precede their master to death in order to uphold their master’s principles. 

In the series, Hokushin says that he doesn't understand the king's reasons for his self-imposed abstinence, but that he still supports the king’s will. Later in the arc, he demonstrates the truth of his statement when he obviously doesn't agree with Yusuke's outrageous tactics regarding the future of their kingdom and the entire Demon World, but upholds it regardless. (As I noted in One and a Half Revolutions, the most "disobedient” Hokushin gets is when he plots strategy with the other monks for what they should do if they end up fighting each other during the tournament, and Yusuke is like YO KNOCK IT OFF NO THROWING FIGHTS. AND ESPECIALLY NOT TO MAKE ME EMPEROR. And Hokushin’s like, well you said you’re not our king anymore, so we don’t have to follow you and can do as we wish. And what we wish to do is make you Emperor. So what’s your issue. And Yusuke is like THAT’S NOT WHAT I MEANT)

This archetype is also NOTORIOUS for assuming a huge burden of responsibility and/or shame on behalf of their master, often in secret, for maximum service/honour value (and narrative/dramatic impact). The legendary Ako incident (the 47 ronin) is a famous historical example.

This intense commitment can be tricky to depict because you have to finely balance outward stoicism and emotional resonance, and you also want to temper things to make a character more nuanced and not just a flat stereotype - e.g., a "you say jump, I jump" personality or have readers going "omg why is this character so spineless/stupid", ridiculous levels of melodrama, etc. You still want people to be able to empathize with the character and to really feel for them when they make decisions that may otherwise seem extreme or incomprehensible. (Although in many ways there's an Eastern/Western philosophical difference in the perception and understanding of this. A simple modern example that comes to mind is in Pacific Rim, when Raleigh asks Mako why she's so obedient to Pentecost and she replies (paraphrased from memory), "It's not obedience. It's respect.")

The Hokushin decision-making flowchart

I use this very rough mental outline as a general guide if I’m struggling to decide whether or not Hokushin would do something significant. Bearing in mind interesting opportunities are usually not black and white, so “yes” and “no” below are usually more like, “yeah pretty much...” or “no, kinda not...” lol

Is it in accordance with his values? * If yes: go for it. * If no:

Is it in accordance with the will/principles of his master (Raizen, Yusuke, or whomever he’s committed to serve)? * If yes, go for it. * If no:

Does it ultimately aid the endgoals/ideals of his master? * If no: forget it. * If yes:

Can any negative consequences be minimized to affecting Hokushin only or mostly (e.g., punishment or humiliation or capture or whatever) with little to no long-term effects for his master? * If yes: DO IT!!! * If no: FIGURE SOMETHING OUT TO MAKE THIS ANSWER YES!!!!  

Situations of deceit must be handled carefully, especially as honour is a major element of this archetype. The above flowchart can sometimes help... That said, deceit can be particularly challenging to contrive within the master and servant relationship. While we don't see Raizen and Hokushin directly interacting in the series, there's extremely strong implied trust between them. We can see this from how they speak of each other to other characters, namely Yusuke. We can also extrapolate aspects of their relationship from how Yusuke and Hokushin interact, because it's repeatedly emphasized that Yusuke and Raizen are quite similar fundamentally, and Hokushin clearly assumes Yusuke will succeed Raizen.

Yusuke and Hokushin: the initial meeting

In their first meeting, Yusuke’s absolutely furious at being misled by Hokushin. The beautiful thing about the setup of this deceit is how it:

Allows us to see the values and personalities of both characters.

Enables Yusuke and Hokushin to evaluate each other.

Establishes and enhances the dynamics of their relationship.

The above lies in Yusuke’s reaction to a particular piece of information being withheld, and how Hokushin handles the situation after being called out. Remember:

Lying is generally not in line with the loyal retainer/Hokushin’s values.

Honesty and straightforwardness are also big for Yusuke.

With point 1, Hokushin deceives not by lying but by leaving out significant information: that he - and potentially by implication, some % of Raizen’s followers - still eats humans so that they don’t get weak and die. His rationale for doing so is that Yusuke, being formerly human and having lots of people close to him who are human, would have a hard time getting past that fact if he learned this on their first meeting, and would not be willing to follow them to the Demon World. Totally reasonable assumption. If Yusuke doesn’t know, he’s more likely to be receptive to joining their kingdom, which protects the interests of his king and the safety of his people. This passes our flowchart with flying colours. (I elaborate on this a bit more in A Song on All Sides.)

However, when Yusuke figures out what happened, point 2 makes this especially problematic for their relationship. We know Yusuke is all about gut feelings and first impressions, so this could’ve been an awful miscalculation on Hokushin’s part.

When I’ve talked about this scene in the past, I usually focus on how in the next few moments Hokushin’s actions allow him to pass Yusuke’s assessment of whether or not he’s trustworthy. But what’s especially great about it is that judgement is actually going both ways. Before Yusuke explains his position, Hokushin’s politeness is his professional courtesy - he’s doing his duty as Raizen’s retainer. As Yusuke speaks in both manga and anime, you can see the exact moment when Hokushin decides Yusuke is a worthy successor. When Yusuke finishes talking, Hokushin’s manner changes - I’d say subtly, but since he essentially gushes about how much Yusuke resembles Raizen for several lines that’s not really true lmao.

In any case, now that Yusuke’s been deemed worthy, Hokushin steps up immediately to rectify his mistake. And merely admitting an error and explaining himself isn’t gonna cut it in meeting Yusuke’s values - that’s just the bare minimum. A good retainer must know their master so well that they anticipate and go beyond what is merely being requested.

So when Yusuke asks for honesty, not only does Hokushin give that, he takes it one step further with his very succinct, very personal answer to Yusuke’s question of why he follows Raizen. (Paraphrased) "Because King Raizen is like you. Fighting at his side makes me happy. That's everything to me." I can't think of a more perfect reply to mollify, impress and intrigue Yusuke as quickly as that. And in both manga and anime they give Yusuke this little pause as he takes it in - the animation team makes this even more exaggerated than what Togashi did. What I also love is that the dialogue in this scene strongly implies that Hokushin knew how to respond because he knew Raizen so well.

Obviously more stuff happens in the year and a half they spend together in the Makai. Whatever happens, it's clear Yusuke comes to trust Hokushin a lot. He even tells him private, personal things of a nature we don't see him sharing with any other characters. To me, this signals that Hokushin did what a good loyal retainer does, which is to get what makes Yusuke tick and not repeat the same mistake again. (Which is why I always get annoyed at that unnecessary scene they added in the anime version of the tournament... ANYWAYS lol)

Yusuke and Hokushin: the duty of the master

Yusuke starts the series as a solitary delinquent. He despises convention and authority, and dependence on others is a pain. He generally puts on a disaffected attitude, and he often downplays serious emotions with distracting and emotionally shielding tactics like sarcasm. For a character like him, it’s pretty easy to imagine him being all “What the hell, I don’t want to be king! I don’t need a servant!! Go away”. To reject Hokushin’s presence or role totally wouldn’t be out of character. 

One of the things I love about the dynamics between Yusuke and Hokushin is that Yusuke clearly gets Hokushin's mindset, and because of it, steps up in order to be able to reciprocate the relationship. In the classic ideal, the existence of the master gives the retainer’s existence purpose. A warrior without a master is considered ronin, which is a very shameful status. The master’s duty is to be(come) worthy of the loyal retainer’s devotion and to recognize the latter’s value and loyalty, often in unspoken ways.

Yusuke doesn’t want to be king - he outright says that he doesn’t think himself smart enough to take care of everyone in his kingdom. But he accepts the responsibility of his role in his relationship with Hokushin.

Yusuke’s conversations with Hokushin tend to be discussions that are not only honest but also mature. He takes good opportunities to rely on, and to acknowledge, Hokushin as a retainer without hesitation and without pretending complaint. He actually behaves a lot like a lord in the classic relationship in terms of conveying authority, direction, and intimate concerns (in his Yusuke way lol). 

In the meeting with Yomi, Yusuke’s use of the rurimaru is shocking to Hokushin, but when you watch the way the scene is carried off, he bears himself really well in his role. He didn’t carve the rurimaru just because he couldn’t find paper for his lottery names - he specifically chose to do it to the rurimaru, and their value is clearly taken into consideration for his purpose. He also doesn’t crack jokes about having vandalized the gemstones, which, again, would not have been out of character for Yusuke. Instead, he merely presents them exactly the way they should be - as a gift - to ensure he gets Yomi’s attention about his proposal. His body language is dead serious, and he also doesn’t address Hokushin's shocked reactions through the entire scene. He only addresses Yomi. This is totally appropriate form as one ruler to another. 

And even after the kingdom is dissolved, Yusuke doesn’t abandon his people, nor shoo Hokushin off. Hokushin is nearly always at his side throughout the tournament. If we look back at the principles of the loyal retainer archetype, one of the things worse than death is to be told by their master "I don't want you for a servant. You’re a useless burden to me". Of course, another aspect of the archetype is that actions speak louder, so the worst would be actually doing things that reinforce/confirm that statement, but it would still be extremely wounding.

A very clear demonstration of the above is when the two of them arrive at the edge of Yomi's territory. The conversation is basically as follows.

Yusuke: OK thanks for guiding me here. You go home now. Dangerous I go alone you know the drill. Hokushin: No, I'm coming with you. You’re my king. It's my duty to protect you. Yusuke: *after a pause* OK fine behave yourself.

with no further argument from Yusuke. No complaints about being called king, no sarcastic remarks about having a tagalong, nothing. Which is not something we usually see or would expect from him. The emotionally downplayed way the entire conversation happens is also very typical. In light of his character and the dynamics of the master-retainer relationship, Yusuke’s behaviour is extremely thoughtful and kind. 

Yusuke and Hokushin: the duty of the servant

So Yusuke weighed Hokushin’s response and knew there there was no way Hokushin would have let him go into enemy territory alone. So? It’s not like it’s the first time he’s ever disagreed with someone over how something should be done. So what’s different about this situation, compared to how things might have gone down with any other character who is very close to/invested in Yusuke and has previously confirmed they WOULD be willing to risk death for him - Keiko or Kuwabara, for example?

The difference (aside from the fact that they’re civilians and Hokushin’s a warrior, and Hokushin’s obviously a lot stronger and more likely to survive in most situations) is that Keiko and Kuwabara are Yusuke’s friends. Or more, if you want. But even for other people close to Yusuke who ARE warriors, the biggest difference is that they are not bound in servitude to him. Again, the keyword here is duty - and that concept is huge. Yusuke’s friends want to help him. Hokushin wants to help Yusuke too, but not only that, he MUST help Yusuke. His very existence is an obligation to do so. In some cultures, especially modern ones where the emphasis is on the individual, this can be difficult to appreciate and/or seen as an illogical insanity, but it’s a matter of fact for the loyal retainer. They see themselves as an extension of the will of their master.  

Keiko and Kuwabara and any of Yusuke’s other friends mentally would have a normal person pause of “This is ridiculous, stupid Yusuke, you’re crazy!!” and still try to do self-preserving-type things in most instances. To some degree, there’s still an aspect of their decision-making that is not only about Yusuke. They still have a sense that in their relationship with him, they have roles of similar or equal value/weight.

That’s absolutely not true for the loyal retainer. The servant is not equal to the master and the servant firmly believes this because that’s what their existence is defined by. Plus those ingrained principles. For Hokushin, there’d be no normal person pause. We’d zip through that flowchart and he’d be like “You’re crazy. But you’re my king. Guess I’ll die” and like jump into an active volcano or whatever. He would be completely and unhesitatingly willing do something, whether it’s spur-of-the moment or deliberately planned, that would result in death if he thought it’d help safeguard Yusuke/achieve Yusuke’s endgoal. And obviously that's the last thing Yusuke wants.

With this character archetype, this is where a lot of stories end up going for the “and then one of them pretended to let the other person have their way before SURPRISE KNOCKING THE OTHER PERSON UNCONSCIOUS TO PROTECT THEM, and then they went on to do their selfless ‘getting killed in your place’ thing” which I’m super glad Togashi never resorts to. Since all the above builds up to a huge part of what makes the reveal of Yusuke’s gift to Yomi extra effective - Hokushin’s reactions. This is largely why the scene is so comical, because Hokushin’s manner grows more and more freaked out - and entertaining, being in direct contrast to his stoic retainer archetype. Meanwhile, as mentioned previously, Yusuke’s bearing (if not his manner of speaking...) is exactly as a lord in the midst of negotiations would be. (My favourite part is where Hokushin still tries his best to address Yusuke properly as king, before losing it when he finds out Yusuke vandalized the rurimaru. In the manga, his expressions are beyond hilarious. In the anime, his scramble to recover the appropriate body language is really cute. His constantly shifting expressions throughout the background of this entire episode are great too. I always really like the faces in the episodes directed by Enomoto Akihiro.)

Finally, food.

One more challenge with Hokushin is his diet. He needs to eat humans or will suffer from the same malnutrition that is sapping Raizen’s energy and killing him. At the same time, he’s depicted as a character of integrity and compassion, so I always feel obligated to think carefully about the topic of procuring a human for food. I take a stab at an idea in the prequel Mirror Most Dark. However, the approach isn’t very feasible for the time period of actual Yu Yu Hakusho.

From a writing perspective, the problem is one of scale. It goes beyond Hokushin as an individual to the situation of a reliable/sustainable food source in Raizen’s kingdom for the % of Raizen’s population that needs it. And whatever it is, Hokushin is likely highly involved as the main instrument of Raizen’s will. I have some ideas but haven’t really cared to flesh (haha) them out to a point that’s satisfactory to me yet, so it’s only barely touched on in One and a Half Revolutions. This is far less of an issue after the series ends, when you can easily come up with ideas on how they’re looking for or have found alternatives, but during the time period of the actual series your options are more restricted. 

I have lots more stuff around these themes and ideas planned for North Bound too I JUST NEED TO GET AROUND TO DRAWING THEM

In conclusion, thank you for reading this mess lmao.

#yu yu hakusho #hokushin #fanfiction #fanfics #writing #characterization #urameshi yusuke #raizen #yyh north bound #yyh ends of the earth #yusuke and his nanny

[starryoak]

What do you think is under Edd's hat? What are your head canons about the dodgeball incident?

… You’re starting out with the big, giant, mother lode of essay questions, ain’t ya? Well, I am TOTALLY OK with that. This is gonna be a FUN month for me; really! I’m actively being encouraged to share my thoughts on characters in a deep and meaningful manner!

First of all, let’s get some CANON up in this bitch; According, officially, to one of the storyboard artists of EE n E, during Ed Edd n’ Eddy’s Big Picture Show, there was going to be a scene explaining the Dodgeball Incident; it was cut for time. However, we have facts about it;  

 In Edd’s old school other students mercilessly targeted him in dodgeball. After “too many hits to the head” as he put it, he finally designed a dodgeball-shooting cannon to retaliate. The resulting injuries to all his classmates scarred Edd much more than any abuse he’d received to his own person. This would have been the origin of his pacifism and a hint at why he was so crushed by the events in A Fistful of Ed. It can also be interpreted as a reason that his family moved to Peach Creek and perhaps it could be responsible for some of the coldness he receives from his parents. Edd has always had an irrational fear of authority and even of himself in some situations. This back story was my attempt to rationalize that without changing the core of his character.Before he revealed this secret, he took off his hat willingly in front of his friends as a sign he was finally comfortable with them. When he did, a newspaper clipping spilled out–with a photo of him when he was younger, in handcuffs, giving a public apology to his school. Its played much like the other scene in the movie where it comes off–you never get to see it, but you get to hear about the dodgeball incident instead. The two things are unrelated.

So with that canonical information out of the way, LET’S GET TO EXTRAPOLATING AND MAKING THIS MISERABLE CANON INTO HORRIFYING HEADCANON!

So first, I do believe there is a scar under there; but it’s not nearly as bad as a lot of people say. It’s more likely that he’s ashamed of the reminder of what happened, and therefore, hides it, since people tend to ask ‘hey, what’s that scar from’, and considering that Edd gets paralyzing flashbacks when reminded of the incident, that’s just not a good idea. So probably a scar, and hair. Not a huge scar, just something that can’t be avoided. Ed and Eddy just overreacted because they like teasing Edd about it, since they don’t know the full story.  Ok, under the hat addressed! Done; onto the fun part. And by fun I mean painful.

First of all, we know, if we interpret the incident to be the reason that Edd moved to Peach Creek, that means that Edd would have been YOUNGER than he appeared in ‘Every Which Way But Ed’. To put this in perspective, look at him.

This tiny little baby was handcuffed and forced into public apology for hurting his classmates so bad that he had to move. THIS CINNAMON ROLL. Well, by appearances.

It’s likely, then, we can extrapolate that Edd was most likely ahead a grade or two when this happened, and probably a first grader, even though he probably belonged in preschool or at the most kindergarten. We know Edd is extremely, extremely intelligent, so this isn’t out of the question at all. We can guess it was 1st grade, since that’s when gym started for me, so there’s that.

Therefore, that places Edd in a situation in which he is much younger than everyone around him, much smarter than everyone around him, and if he’s still as Edd as he ever is, an emotional little kid. That’s just a big, giant painted target over his head screaming “MERCILESSLY TORMENT ME” to anyone mean enough to listen.to those kinds of signs. A giant kick me sign on him wherever he goes, really.

A little kid who’s a total teacher’s pet, who’s more intelligent than you, that’s outdoing you, and yeah, don’t underestimate a young child’s ability to be vengeful or a little asshole; they can and will be. So you’ve got this kid, who everyone dislikes for just being him, just because he’s smart, and the only time you can out perform the little guy is in gym, one that apparently allows dodgeball… it’s safe to say that he certainly got his share of dodgeballs to the face, for sure.

It does worry me how he apparently reacted to this torment; I don’t care about how many dodgeballs to the head one gets, and how I said little kids can be vengeful, the drive to pursue vengeance like one would have to have to build a Gatling gun  at his age, to stay focused on this task and finish it, not forgetting what happened, not abandoning it because it was too hard… that’s really not a normal response.

It’s one thing for kids to torment the smart kid, it’s another for a kid to react to this by deciding to build a freaking machine gun to punish them for doing that. That’s not a spur of the moment decision, it’s premeditated, he had to have felt like this was appropriate for the entire time he built the machine. Edd has a lot of anger issues that he’s been repressing, it’s scary. Double D’s dark side scares me.

I always assumed he messed with the school’s baseball pitching machine until it could shoot out dodgeballs rather than baseballs, and that actually brings me to something personal I headcanon based on the consultation of someone with experience, and also something I headcanon about the dodgeballs themselves; the traditional rubber ones were used at Edd’s school, the hard, over-inflated ones, since, regardless of him overreacting, Edd had to have been hurt by the dodgeballs, and the softer ones made of foam couldn’t have done that.

Anyway; I was actually talking to my dad about the Dodgeball Incident, because my dad is a fun dad who listens to me about nerd things, and he offered his own story about dodgeball that really influenced my interpretation of how the event went down. I told him about the Dodgeball Incident, and he brought up something from his childhood which made him not play dodgeball ever again. My dad was in 9th or 10th grade when one kid, who was literally 7 ft tall… which seems like it would make this analogy ruined, but the point is that this can happen with dodgeballs… the kid threw the ball so hard that it didn’t put a dent in the drywall….

It tore RIGHT THROUGH IT.

Yeah.

That was with the force of a human being tossing it. Building a machine to shoot out those things could achieve that speed and more; the kind of force that dodgeballs can achieve is terrifying. So likely, the damage that Edd did with that… put kids in the hospital. I don’t headcanon anyone dying, but with how damn hard dodgeballs are and how hard a Gatling gun would shoot them, it would probably have given kids broken bones and serious concussions, and probably a few drywalls getting punched through from the force, or dodgeballs embedded in the wall. I don’t think any of the kids besides Edd escaped mostly unharmed. If Edd aimed correctly, and considering Edd, he would aim correctly, the dodgeballs would have hit their targets. I do think the machine did get a single ball lodged in it when it stopped firing, that hit Edd and gave him the scar, but I don’t for a second believe it was anywhere near what the other kids went through.

Again, as mentioned, he was apparently arrested for a short period of time after the incident; whatever he did was serious enough that they considered it a priority to restrain a small, 4 year old child, and then force said terrified, tiny, emotionally unstable 4 year old to apologize to everyone in school who wasn’t in traction, That’s an incredibly cruel reaction, but it clearly shows just how bad what went down was. So again, I’m not pulling that far when I assume things went that terribly; he was outright arrested at 4. All the evidence points to something HORRIBLE happening, worse than what you would assume initially, as you analyze each element.

It’s likely he was expelled, if only because he did literally assault his entire class with a deadly weapon; 4 year old or not, the only reason Edd isn’t in juvy is because he was a toddler. The reaction to have all official (Read; not ran by Kevin) gym activities ban Edd from getting involved if they involve ball sports or bodily harm is completely rational, honestly; even if Edd is so traumatized that he abhors violence to the point of tears, he’s proven that when provoked by being hit by a dodgeball, his reaction is to plot revenge that puts his ‘assailants’ in the hospital. Risking that is not worth it.

It’s entirely likely Edd was in the same neighborhood as the children he put in the hospital, meaning that he would have been reminded of his mistake constantly, but more importantly (in this one case, and for different reasons), reminded his parents of what their child did. I doubt that whatever their job is, that anyone would want to hire the parents of a child so violent that he put an entire class in the hospital. They may have even got hate mail; there really was no other choice but to move somewhere where nobody else would know who they were or what happened.

And that obviously places Edd in a position where he knows, since children aren’t stupid, even ones who aren’t as smart as Edd, that he is the reason his parents are in financial trouble, that he’s causing them harm, that it’s his fault they’re moving… The event clearly left him, (as if I even need to say it) with a fear of disappointing his parents in any way; they take advantage of his fear of authority or disappointing them by making him their maid; he obviously feels he owes it to them to do whatever he can to make up for what he did, and that’s not ok.

He’s terrified of being the reason that his parents lives are anything but perfect, since he clearly already ruined their lives once; he didn’t run away in Big Picture Show just to hide from the angry mob of cul-de-sac kids; he did it so his parents wouldn’t have to live with his mistakes for the second time in their lives. Hell, his letters he tried writing sound distressingly like suicide notes; if his parents were in any way caring for their son, and they found those, it would follow that Edd committed suicide, not that he ran away. But I doubt they noticed.

Have I mentioned how much I hate Edd’s parents?

#edd appreciation month #double dee #eene #eene bps #big picture show #ed edd n eddy #ed edd n eddy's big picture show #edd #edd's parents #suicide mention #suicide #parental neglect #emotional abuse #ee n e #seriously fuck edd's parents #the dodgeball incident #dodgeball incident #dodgeball #baby edd #tiny child #scar #mentioned #deep analysis #analyzing too much #scratch that not too much #never too much #every which way but ed