#and while it doesn't mean they have to be redeemed or forgiven by those they hurt they are not barred from the possibility

[admirableadmiranda]

Honestly, the argument of WWX being morally gray, I understand. At the same time though, he's also not that morally gray. Every time he used Demonic Cultivation, it was either in self-defense or because he couldn't control his emotions.

First time was during the war itself, and while I don't think anyone will side with Wen Chao and Wang Lingjiao, whether or not they deserved to be tortured before dying may be up for debate (I don't think I've seen anyone say otherwise, though). Second time was when he was helping the Wens escape, third time was a complete accident, and fourth time was during the Conference.

I think TV Tropes said it best when describing him as an Anti-Hero:

"After he became the Yiling Patriarch, Wei Wuxian was more ruthless in nature and even exhibited sadism towards some of his enemies. But he's firmly on the side of good, even stating that he took up demonic cultivation to protect his loved ones and so no one else would have to. He's notably the only character in the story who took morally dubious—but never evil—actions either for good reasons, or because he was repeatedly pushed into a corner and he could find no other way out."

Tl;dr, I don't think there's anything wrong with describing WWX as morally gray, but people tend to really exaggerate his actions without taking the context into account. There are plenty of other characters in general that would better fit the description of being morally gray than he does.

Hello Anon. I took a long time to sit on this ask because I do and don't agree with it and needed time to decide how best to answer it.

Under your definition of morally gray, I think I could agree that Wei Wuxian is not completely a perfect shade of white, as no one is in Modaozushi and he does make a few choices that later on he regrets. I don't agree with TV Tropes's description of his actions and I wouldn't call him an anti-hero, but if we are using morally gray to describe Modaozushi's sliding scale and point out that for the most part he really is the moral ideal of the story with Lan Wangji and the few times they do err, they both make amends and grow from it, I wouldn't disagree. A pale shade of grey is still not white, but it can be nearly indistinguishable.

The problem is that's not how the fanbase is using the term. When they call Wei Wuxian morally gray, or talk about the characters being morally grey, they are doing the same thing as black and white morality but in the opposite direction. No one's actions are better or worse than others, so Wei Wuxian is no better than the antagonists and the antagonists have their terrible actions excused, explained and rationalized away. It is used not to talk about how everyone is capable of good and bad actions, but to shut down debates on how the antagonists are antagonists because whoever is reading it doesn't like that Jiang Cheng is a canonical torturer and serial killer, or that Jin Guangyao killed so many people all for his pride that eventually he pissed someone off enough that they went to incredible depths to not only murder him, but his reputation built on a house of corpses so thoroughly that no one would ever believe that he had done anything but evil again, or that Xue Yang is directly responsible for the deaths of the Yi City Crew and being sad that Xiao Xingchen is dead does not change the fact that he drove him to suicide out of spite and anger for Xiao Xingchen holding him accountable for killing people.

They take actions where, as you said, sometimes he made the best choice when there were no good options to take, and conflate them with the worst of antagonists and go "They're morally gray, look at them! Wei Wuxian isn't better than anyone else, he killed these Wen Supervisory Offices, so stop claiming that Jiang Cheng killed innocents." In short, morally gray is not used as a sliding scale where Lan Wangji and Wei Wuxian are at the top, being nearly always at moral ideals but for a few mistakes in their youths where they grew up and improved, and Jin Guangyao at the bottom where there are a few things that he did that were perhaps better than the person he often was, but it wasn't enough to stop him from being blackened, but to paint everyone the same color and still miss the damn point of the novel.

In Modaozushi, no one is bound by genre convention to be wholly good or bad. Jiang Cheng did willingly sacrifice himself to stop the Wens from spotting Wei Wuxian. That is an action he took. But it does not exonerate every action that he does in his life and cannot make his later decisions to torture and kill not only Wei Wuxian, but anyone who reminds him of Wei Wuxian any better. Similarly Wei Wuxian dug up graves to get angry corpses to fight a war that would have been lost without him, only to look back and decide that he did go too far and he wouldn't do that again and he accepts that part of the cost of those actions is the Wen remnants being scared of him for a while and them being tied to his reputation. These actions once taken and later do not change the fact that he as a person is able to look beyond the name of a person and see where he wouldn't do the same action again. People can always grow and change. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. No one is without the ability to try and change themselves. It will not erase the blood on their hands and no one is obligated to stay close, but there is always the chance to change and only those who refuse to change are the ones who are dead at the end of the novel.

So I guess in conclusion, you are right in the sense of how morally gray should be used, to talk about a scale of characters in a story who all make both good and bad choices over the course of the story where the shades are clear. But that is not how Modaozushi fandom uses it and I will never agree with a post that just blithely tells me that Wei Wuxian is morally gray because while villain defenders are here, it will never be used in good intentions.

Thanks for the ask, anon! You gave me a lot to think about.

#mdzs #wei wuxian #jiang cheng #canon jiang cheng #the never-ending morally gray debate #this ask gave me a lot of food for thought #including on why seeing it applied to Wei Wuxian bothered me and how MDZS fanbase was different in this #and it came to me that they literally use it differently than a lot of fanbases would #instead of talking about it as a scale in which characters can sit on any level and thus good people can commit bad actions #and bad people can sometimes do good in their lives #and while it doesn't mean they have to be redeemed or forgiven by those they hurt they are not barred from the possibility #of growing and changing and finding that they are not the same person they were before #they use it to flatten everyone down into the same color #one monotonous shade in which everyone is judged by #and somehow wangxian end up on the bottom because they reflect on their actions and grow #but jin guangyao who cries over being persecuted for murdering hundreds of people is excused because he didn't actually say #that he wouldn't do it again #so if this argument were the one I was seeing; wei wuxian is morally gray but a very light shade of gray #I wouldn't really disagree #the problem is that it's not #and the words themselves have become tainted by association #asks #anon #anon asks

[sokkastyles]

I've heard that Azula was meant to be male originally. I wonder how different the writing would be for the character and how different the fans would react to it. I am glad that they made Azula female tho.

I remember hearing that male Azula was also supposed to be the older sibling, which does change the story quite a bit. It makes Ozai's favoritism into a simple issue of succession. Male!Azula would be naturally favored because he would be the crown prince. Zuko would be raised to be subservient to his younger brother and that would be considered normal. Even Zuko being sent on a quest to find the Avatar becomes much more reasonable from that perspective as a practicality. Historically, second sons often went on those kinds of quests because it gave them something to do that wasn't "usurp my older brother for the throne."

Ozai would be even more aware that this was a issue, since he himself usurped his older brother. Actually, now that I think of it, it's really rather odd that Iroh, as crown prince, was the one out campaigning while Ozai stayed home, and that gave him an opportunity to stage a coup against his brother. A politically savvy Azulon would have sent Ozai out to man the siege of Ba Sing Se while Iroh was at home preparing to inherit the throne.

As for how fans would receive Zuko's older brother? I know a lot of people might argue that male characters are more easily forgiven than their female counterparts, and I have no doubt that a male version of Azula would have people ready to excuse his every move (see the inexplicable fandom that has sprung up around the likes of Billy Hargrove), but I also think the ways in which he would be excused would be vastly different.

Because with Azula there's a lot of "oh, she didn't really mean it," especially when it comes to the way she treats her brother. This idea that she actually really loves him, she just doesn't know how to show it, or twisting the things she does and says to him in canon so that they're actually proof of her love. I've been thinking about this a lot in terms of people saying they want to see Azula be "humanized," and what they usually mean is that they want to see her given redeeming qualities. Which to me reeks of a misogynistic double standard because most male characters aren't required to show kindness or be really loving deep down to be recognized as human. Being cruel and arrogant and sadistic are also human traits, and women are just as capable of these things as men.

I also think that because Azula is female and Zuko is male, there's a certain perception that she can't hurt him that much, either physically or emotionally. And the first one can be dismissed because the show takes place in a world where bending eliminates most differences related to physical strength. The second one is just wrong and relies on misogynistic beliefs about boys being less emotionally vulnerable than girls.

I do think that the Ursa blame would still be present if Azula were male, and possibly worse, because there would be that Freudian current about how Ursa damaged her son by not being the perfect madonna figure.

If Male!Azula were still the younger sibling, I think it would flatten the character in a way because it makes his cruelty and resentment of Zuko about envy for the throne. One of the most interesting things about Azula is that the fact that she is younger and girl makes her cruelty towards her older brother less expected, and more personal. And it takes something away from the character to try and excuse it away or soften it.

#azula #zuko #iroh #azulon #ursa

[antianakin]

I think something a lot of fans of Anakin tend to forget about him is that his story is told and looked at in reverse: the effect of his actions (Vader and the Empire) were shown an written before the cause (him being a Jedi and then falling). Vader, the irredeemable monster, being forgiven by Luke, is supposed to be a statement on Luke’s character, not Anakin’s. Vader isn’t post Anakin, Anakin is pre-Vader. Framing him like that, it’s suddenly clear just how flawed and terrible Anakin was even before he took a nosedive off the diving board of common sense (if he was ever on it)

The redemption that so many fans want to give Vader, then, is framed in film less as Vader realizing he’s wrong and doing a 180. It’s Luke recognizing how close he is to becoming Vader, choosing a better path, and getting tortured for it. Honestly, as far as Vader’s actual redemptive moment, it’s a fairytale moment of “death equals redemption” that holds up in the narrative of Luke’s story, but wouldn’t actually accomplish anything for Vader.

All that to say… Anakin should be recognized as being Pre-Vader, and if someone wants to do a fixit good ending story with him they either need to kill him off or spend a LOT of time getting him to actually recognize his failures and then turn away from them.

(Unfortunately, that’s a LOT of *work*, so most people just woobify him and call it a day. Thank you for your work of correcting this misunderstanding, and sorry for the long ask 😅)

In fairness, Lucas had a pretty good amount of the story from the Prequels WRITTEN already, he just ended up having to make the story in reverse, which is why there's references to Anakin having been a Jedi who fell and the Clone War. But most of it is just that... references. We ARE focused on Luke's story and so Anakin's background is there to, as you say, highlight LUKE'S choices and struggles and triumphs. We never find out why Anakin did the things he did in the OT (aside from Obi-Wan's comments about his own arrogance in trying to train Anakin which the Prequels retconned anyway), so Anakin's choices are a reflection on Luke more than anything else because Luke is the character we actually know.

And... yeah. Anakin's redemption is difficult for me because I get why it happened the way it did in the OT. Anakin's biggest crimes within the context of JUST what we see in the Original Trilogy are against Luke himself (chopping off the arm, killing Obi-Wan) and so the fact that he dies by saving Luke means he's fairly directly addressed those crimes and made amends for them. He can die having fixed those mistakes and forgiven by the person he's hurt the most. It works. But adding in the Prequels means now there's the Tuskens he murdered, Padme who he manipulates and betrays, the Republic he's dismantled, and the Jedi Order that he betrays and genocides (and adding in TCW means we can also include the clones that he betrays and enslaves). And now all of the sudden there's a LOT more that we have directly seen him do that needs to be redeemed and a lot more amends he needs to make and a lot more people whose forgiveness he doesn't have and will likely never get. There's a lot of things that killing Palpatine can never and will never fix or undo. It doesn't directly address almost ANY of those sins. And so this sudden redemption via death stops feeling so satisfying because it just... doesn't actually mean anything in the face of what we've now seen him do.

Like you say, it holds up if you just look at Luke's narrative, but it falls apart when you look at Anakin's own.

Redeeming Anakin while taking into account everything he has done over the Prequels, TCW, Rebels, the Obi-Wan Kenobi show, and anything else that's been written for him in other media would be a difficult story to write. It WOULD take a lot of time, he may never actually completely redeem himself for what he's done because he may never truly be able to let go of some of those fears or some of his guilt and grief. He may never quite lose the instinct to react to things with violence. It SHOULD be messy and complicated, but that's not always the most satisfying story to write or even to read, so that's where we end up with woobified Anakin who just gets to do one slightly goodish thing and call it a day.

#star wars #anti anakin #anti anakin skywalker #anakin critical #anakin skywalker critical #luke skywalker #never apologize for a long ask!

[lenievi]

I decided to translate the Czech version of Javert's Suicide from the musical.

[translation of Stars]

---

What is this? Oh, God, who is that fool? He could get rid of Javert and yet he rid him of the shackles. He already had me in the palm of his hand, why didn't he use it? The Redeemer, now to be in his debt! He let me live/go****, the bullet cut through the air, whether it was a trick, whether he renounced (his) revenge, (let) the God judge.

No! If I owe a debt to a thief then all laws are smoke. Either it will be night or light and day, [right or left]* and nothing in between. We go after each other, take it as it is, either Valjean or Javert!

Why was it he who took actions with me** as if he was something more than me, as if he was washing away my sins when he gave me my life, that long-time rival. And at the same time he took my life, it was his right. I wanted to die and I'm still here, yet only a little step away from hell.***

If the wrongdoer should become honourable, (if) crime should be forgiven where would the moral order be?

Why do I have doubts today? When I have never known them before. Such a tough guy and now I'm reeling and my certainties, those are gone today. And what if I've lied to myself and the God is with him? That man gave me life just like that, and with that he killed me, just with that.

I've failed, unfortunately, you know it, stars in the darkness. I wanted to soar too but I did not reach you. I'll leave this wretched/sinful**** world, where Jean Valjean is a saint. There is nowhere else to go,***** stars, I'm coming (there) to you.

*in here words that are used on horses to tell them to go to left or right are used, and because it's either left or right, they're used as an idiom to mean complete opposites, people who can't agree with each other, who have opposite points of view

**this line is the same as the one Valjean sings after he meets the Bishop for the same melody

***I'm not using the capital letter here because it doesn't refer to the literal Hell but to "the place of the dead". In Czech, the plural for "hell" is used here and that indicates that it's not the literal Hell (blame the Bible for that). In my opinion, Javert himself doesn't sing that he's a step away from the literal Hell, but that he's a step away from the death anyway (while suffering because Valjean let him live). After all, at the end, he'd going up to the stars. (the plural for "hell" in Czech is used to mean the underworld as well, hence not real Hell... so maybe I should have used "a step away from the underworld" idk it might carry across the meaning a bit better) But anyway, the English "Instead I live, but live in hell" also doesn't mean the literal Hell here (imho anyway), so it's like that-ish (probably an unneeded explanation but anyway)

****there are tiny changes depending on a theatre.

*****literally:

There is no other there / stars, I'm coming there to you

#les miserables #javert #don't make fun of him for calling himself a tough guy #it's not supposed to flow well. i wanted to carry across the meaning #idk if i always chose the right equivalent #translation notes are under the read more #anyway thinking about the words so much to be able to translate them makes me (hopefully) really digest them #also the lyrics always force me to look up phrases and they always lead to some quote in the bible kshdkhfkjhsjhgj #translation

[grimalkinmessor]

Ranting about the Death Note amnesia trope below, if you like the No-Memories ending scroll past because this is just me expanding on why I don't like it

I think that the reason I tend to despise the Memory Loss ending is because it's framed as a happy one. I can understand it when it's written as a sad or bittersweet end, but not when it's written as a hopeful or wholly happy one.

Not just because I don't think it's happy, but also because it just seems disingenuous, especially when framed as a loving ending.

I don't know, it just—it takes away a lot of what I like about Lawlight as a ship. Enemies to Lovers at its core is about seeing the darkest parts of someone, having someone know every nasty, cruel bit of your soul, and falling in love with them anyway. Not even in spite of it—with Lawlight specifically, I see them as people that fall in love with each other BECAUSE of those parts of themselves. The parts that they hide away from the world, the parts that no one else accepts.

The memory loss trope just,,,wipes all of that away. It takes away the struggle of getting better. It's cutting out the parts of your lover that you don't like or that don't fit your narrative to "fix" them.

I think, at its core, what bothers me most is that it takes away the choice.

Without his memories, Light is stripped of his choice to decide whether or not he wants to better himself. Personally, I don't see L as someone who can redeem him (that's also another reason I dislike this trope), so for L to yoink Light's memories of being Kira and say "All fixed!" is like someone sticking a bandaid over a gaping wound. Because he's not someone who can stitch it closed, who can help it heal, because he is an intrinsic part of Kira's story. As an antagonist. An equal.

It rubs me viscerally the wrong way, especially when it's framed as the only way for them to be happy together. L isn't a good person. Light isn't a good person. If they were I wouldn't be nearly so invested in their relationship.

Don't get me wrong, I also hate it when L just,,,,magically gains a moral compass. If he wants to be a good man I need him to work for it, I don't want him OR Light to have an easy way out, to have a magic Get-Rid-Of-The-Difficult-Things-About-My-Lover-Free button.

But also, just. Let them be fucked up. They're toxic and awful and perfect for each other and I want them at each other's throats hand in hand for the rest of their lives.

I think that's my bottom line—I don't like the memory loss ending because it makes them both out to be something they're not.

L is not a good man with pure intentions. If he wants Light to give up his memories I take it to mean he wants the easy route. He wants to be with a Light that doesn't remember that he hated him or why, that doesn't remember all the bad things he's done, that's still an innocent child in a lot of ways—because it's easy. It's fast. He doesn't have to work for it. He doesn't have to work for forgiveness or try to give it because the man that he needs to forgive and be forgiven by doesn't exist anymore.

Light isn't an innocent little boy that's been corrupted by an evil entity. He's a man who's made mistakes, who's arrogant and closed-minded and stubborn and in denial, who calls himself evil but refuses to believe it, who smiled while he killed a grieving woman, who smiled while he killed a friend and held them close, who was so terribly lonely that his first friend was a monster.

And, if you're going to go that route, acknowledge that it's toxic too. Acknowledge that Light is going to struggle and he won't remember why. Acknowledge that underneath everything he's still Kira, because Kira was just a set of decisions that Light made, not a malevolent entity that possessed him. Acknowledge that Light giving up his memories is him giving up attempting to redeem himself, or attempting to exist in certain capacities completely.

An add-on—personally, I don't see L as someone who would want Light to give up his memories. Because L doesn't usually take the easy way out. It's a game between them, and he's playing to win and win completely. While he DOES play dirty, he still wants his opponent to acknowledge that he won, and he wants them to remember it. Light losing his memories would be a loss for L too, in a way, because then he's lost his playmate. He's lost his equal. He's lost the person that's going to fight him on everything that matters and yet agree with him on everything that doesn't. He's lost the person that can appreciate every move he makes.

Plus... there's something to be said for evil husbands that are on opposite sides, isn't there? ;3

#grim rants #death note #lawlight #the fucking. memory loss trope. #yagami light #l lawliet #neither of them have the moral high ground #its not a happy ending its not a happy ending its not a happy ending #i understand where people come from with this trope because they see kira as an obstacle instead of part of light #an obstruction to be removed so the Love Can Bloom #but also fuck this trope i hate it #it takes away everything i like about them and it has harmed me personally it mugged me in a backalley and stole my family photos #tw trope bashing #ig #no it is #ignore me im yelling

[cawcawbak]

I have already said it but I want to clarify :

Warning, this is a rant, but why do Zelda fans feel the need to mock those who dare to offer a critical opinion about their favorite game or character?

Especially when it comes to Ganondorf. I can't count how many times I've seen people mocking those who criticize the storyline of TOTK and how the antagonist is portrayed, saying completely narrow-minded things like "duuuuuuuuh, but Ganondorf is pure evil," "those who think he's redeemable are easily manipulated," "he's the villain, and the others are the good guys, end of the story, haha, I'm so much smarter than you, LOLLOLOLOLOL."

Let's make this clear: NO ONE SAID THAT TOTK GANONDORF IS GOOD OR THAT HIS ACTIONS ARE JUSTIFIED.

The problem is that the storyline of TOTK is poorly written, and many people expected a WW Ganondorf but ended up with a TP version of him.

While personally, I didn't expect anything, I understand why some people are frustrated. Once again, let me repeat it:

Critiquing Rauru and Hyrule doesn't mean Ganondorf's actions are forgiven.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing ridiculous about complaining about how Nintendo treats Ganondorf (or any other character, for that matter). I've already made a post about this, but WW Ganondorf is one of the best antagonists they have ever written in the Legend of Zelda franchise. That's because they gave him a more human and realistic dimension compared to his other versions. I'd also like to add that originally, Ganondorf was meant to have a good side, much like Raoh in Fist of the North Star, and therefore, he wasn't meant to be 100% evil. But unfortunately, they changed their minds.

Is it really that hard to grasp? I'm sorry for being so upset, but this is really beyond me

#my best bet is those people are trolling #but even though I wanted very badly to say it #and the lore and universe in loz tend to be inconsistent #but it's actually an extraordinary sandbox #everything could be canon even good ganondorf or evil zelda! #the only limit is your imagination #and I don't see the problem if you want to write a fic or draw a comic making totk ganondorf good #like why not #that doesn't make you gullible #rant #my thoughts

[actofgrxce]

Why I still think Ed Teach is a sympathetic character

1) He doesn't know the full story of why Stede left him; as such he fills in the blanks with the worst case scenario (the one he addresses to himself in the Gravy Boat): "I am unlovable and I hate myself; it makes sense that he would abandon me."

This has already been articulated brilliantly HERE. The reason for this knee-jerk reaction? Trauma, trauma, trauma. Keep reading.

2) Ed didn't have some of the social advantages Stede had as a child, when their respective fundamental outlooks on the world and human relationships were being established (NOT to establish a "who had it worse" discussion, but to explain that it will create two very different adults).

'Stede had a fucked up childhood and ended up kind!" Yes he did, but he also had his basic needs met, he was white and affluent and passed as straight (for a while) in a Europe that implicitly rewards those identity markers, his life was not constantly endangered by a violent substance abusing parental figure who was also the only breadwinner, and he never had to live with committing the murder (while still a child!) of a primary caregiver in order to stay alive. Stede learned to play a role--that of the placating, cultured and witty gentleman-- in order to obtain safety (within the nuclear home, and within the conventional European gentry as an adult); he still does this. Ed, on the other hand, learned how to destroy the source of danger at all cost; pair that need to always seem scary with his positive caregiver (his mother) telling Ed quite unequivocally, "we weren't mean for fine things," and the violent, thrill-seeking, substance-abusing monster who results from this is no surprise. Ed's playing a role, too. Is Stede braver and kinder? Yes, and it could be that a great deal of that is inherent, but we're not arguing who is the better person, because not all sympathetic characters are good people. We're only dealing here with whether Ed is worth our time: whether he is still redeemable.

3) There are different KINDS of trauma response; Stede is Fawn, and Ed is Fight.

See above. Fawn responses look like overly placating everyone even at your own expense. They look like doing favors, compulsively centering your identity on helping, pleasing, assisting. Fight responses look like aggression and hostility, denying any trace of vulnerability or guilt, going on the offensive before your perceived "threat" can go on the defensive.

4) The biggest reason: this has always been who Ed, as an adult, is, and the Larger Narrative™ is being told from STEDE'S POV and perception of Ed and of the world of Piracy. The audience is in Stede's shoes. To quote @captainbonnetslog , "And [ Ed's ] always kinda been like this just minus the suicidal tendencies. The show is kinda developing with Stede. As his naivete fades we see darker things with more nuance." I suspect each season will reveal an Edward Teach of greater complexity. It's not just Ed, either; we sense greater depth and complexity in the personality and motives of the entire og crew (particularly Oluwande, Jim, and most notably, Izzy). The season opens with Stede's (rather charmingly, like our own) naive and romantic fantasy of killing Izzy on a beach at sunset and dramatically rushing into damsel!Ed's arms, apologizing and being instantly forgiven. It's not like that in his reality, or anyone's. Relationships are messy. We're meant to see the worst of Ed. We're meant, if we identify with Stede (who is the best of us all), to love Ed anyway. 5) Related to the above: the INCREASED sympathy we feel toward Izzy Hands, one of the previous antagonists, is a brilliant way to open our eyes to the more nuanced problems in the Ed, Stede, and Izzy triangle. It is NOT a reason to feel LESS sympathy for Ed.

it just means that Ed has hurt Izzy as much as Ed has been hurt, and as much as Izzy has, in jealousy, hurt Stede. Hurt people hurt people. Each viewer will sympathize more with, to return to point 3, a different specific character's way of coping (or failing to cope) with that pain.

#Our Flag Means Death #ofmd spoilers #meta #Edward Teach

[bookofmirth]

Personally, I never saw Nesta to be verbally abusive towards Feyre. Mean and difficult 100%, but there was nothing Nesta was giving that Feyre wasn't capable of serving up herself.

As for the post about Nesta feeling the need to deserve love, I agree that love isn't something that needs to be deserved or earned. Though I can understand how the sisters would need to re-establish trust between them after everything that has happened.

My issue with Nesta's healing journey was how one-sided accountability had been. Nesta has some things to answer for 100%. But for every insinuation that Feyre or Elain or others have wronged Nesta, there has never been accountability on their end.

As mentioned in ACOSF, Feyre isn't perfect and has made her own mistakes. And in light of this, I don't think its fair to say that Nesta is abusive or that she alone needs to face reckoning for her actions.

And it doesn't just stop at Feyre and Elain. Does Rhysand get a free pass as well? Amren? Even Cassian?

I dislike Nesta's healing journey mainly because it shows that once a character has been designated as "abusive", everyone else is justified in their treatment towards them. And once "redeemed" those actions are forgiven and never addressed.

I've never had a problem with Nesta realizing that she has hurt others and that change needs to happen. But it was never fair to me that those who have hurt her can avoid owning up to their own part in the problem.

I don't delve into the whole "was Nesta abusive" discourse myself because I think the fandom throws that word around pretty casually without understanding what it means. Mainly in an attempt to discredit ships or characters they don't like, but nonetheless, that word is losing meaning in this space.

I do take issue with the idea that Feyre (or almost anyone else) was equally cruel to Nesta, though. She absolutely was not. Everyone is mean sometimes, yes. But Nesta was intentionally, purposefully cruel and came up with insults that she knew would touch on insecurities. They are not the same.

*This post is not anti Nesta, I enjoy her character for her complexity and I feel like I have a good understanding of who she is, especially after rereading acosf. However, I do not and never will excuse her behavior or try to act like it was something different than it was, just so I can show why Nesta would win the "Who Was More Right" war. If I had to choose a side, it wouldn't be hers, but then again I'm not in the business of choosing sides. Also anon, a lot of my response here are not to you directly, but about how I see people talking about Nesta in the fandom, and these thoughts have been in my head for a while now.

I've been having these thoughts about intentions for a while because that's the biggest difference in how I see Nesta's behavior, and how I see other characters'. It was rare that people (if they weren't supposed to be villains or evil) said or did anything with the intention of hurting Nesta. It was very, very common for her to say or do things with the intention of hurting them, though.

I just cannot stress this enough. Nesta INTENTIONALLY was cruel to people. Nesta INTENTIONALLY hurt people. There are so, so many examples of Nesta being intentionally cruel to people that I can't even list them all. She wasn't just mean. She wasn't just rude. She looked for people's weaknesses and used those weaknesses against them, often for no good reason.

You can come up with every reason and excuse in the world for Nesta to have acted the way she did, and none of it will be good enough for me because personally, no amount of reasons for someone's behavior would make me okay with that person treating someone else like shit. We can't control our feelings, and those emotions are valid, but that's not the same thing as our behavior.

Saying that Nesta needed to atone for her actions is a statement about Nesta. It's not a statement about anyone else, so saying "Nesta needs to atone" and then someone saying "well what about this other character", well that's a lovely red herring you picked up at the market but your statement about character B does nothing to discredit the fact that yes, Nesta needed to atone. She still does, because she and Elain haven't worked out anything between the two of them yet. TBH I think that Nesta still has work to do because a few actions don't make up for a lifetime of cruelty. In the post you responded to, I said that I think there is still ground to be made in terms of people trusting Nesta because they have had their support and their love thrown back in their faces over and over for years. You don't just get over that.

Part of owning up to her actions is realizing that her feelings do NOT excuse the way that she was treating people. IMO, saying "well other people were mean to Nesta too" is completely beside the point. Her healing was about her emotions, her actions, her consistent pattern of behavior for YEARS. It wasn't about other people. Her relationships with other people is certainly part of it, but not because there was equal culpability. There absolutely was not because other people did not set out to wound Nesta in the way that she intended to wound them. And it would be counterproductive to Nesta's healing if she were to point fingers (or even if the narrative were to), rather than look inwards at herself. Nesta needed to look inward to better understand why she behaved the way she did, because her actions were symptoms of deeper hurt - they were not (always) the result of what other people did to her. I think that's my main point. Nesta's healing is about Nesta in ways that other characters' healing arcs have not been. She has had some bad shit happen to her, yes. And she reacted in ways that were not only self-destructive, but detrimental to her relationships, too. No amount of "well what about when Feyre said this thing that one time" negates those facts.

#not even going to tag this #stay back satan fandom #I feel more comfortable talking about how much I dislike e*riel #than I do talking about Nesta at this point #ask #anon #I'll delete rude asks #don't even try

[hanako-san]

How does the number position of the 7 mystery work if obviously not age chronologically then what? The amount of regret, popularity, how much they are feared, or just similar to the inspired real 7 wonders of the school

I don't know if I understood correctly… here.

Well… When it comes to a human soul… soul doesn't grow old. At this age when a person dies at this age the soul stops. Amane stopped at the age of 13, although chronologically, he may be a grandfather. His time stopped at the moment of his death. It is so sad. So literally Amane is a middle schooler as we see that he has antiquated behaviors that he occasionally shows in the manga or official arts.

supernaturals have rumors. Rumors play a big role. Rumors are the core of their existence as shown in the manga. 7 mysteries are also gossip dependent. When Hanako's rumor changes, he will have to adapt. Yako is the perfect example that she had to attack the students because her rumor was changed.

Amane explained it and more.

Like Amane said "Scary things are more remembered", which is absolutely true, but also Amane said that they can't exaggerate… just like Yako did.

Rumor is the source of the existence of ordinary supernaturals as well as those with great power.

So Hanako-san is not that different from the other supernaturals in school that much, although I think Amane as Hanako is kind of the closest thing to God

Amane's grief keeps him in the human world. His role is for God to forgive him. Which means that filling the role of "Hanako-san" Amane will be forgiven for what he did.

It is unknown whether Tsukasa forgave him or not. It's hard to tell after chapter 95 that Tsukasa was really happy giving Amane this knife… while Amane is clear that he hasn't forgiven himself and considers himself the worst person all the while protecting his younger twin who is the most important to him.

His role is tied to his grief, but as Hanako he has responsibilities and it is rumors that are the core of the supernatural's existence. The soul as an ordinary soul with regret, could disappear / disappear from the world of people and go to the other side if someone filled his grief

If Amane destroyed his own Yorshiros, he would still exist and lose his powers and control over his border. That's how it happened with Yako,only Amane's role is greater than the other supernaturals in the school.

-

In short: Amane doesn;t age because he died at the age of 13. Time stopped for him on the day he died. He may be chromnological much older, but he will stay in the body of a 13-year-old middle schooler. The soul does not age… Amane as an ordinary soul is in this world with regret for killing his brother. He regrets it, and the role of Hanako is to help him make God forgive him by fulfilling this role. Which means that grief keeps Amane in the human world to redeem Hanako's deed is a role to help Amane get God to forgive him. Rumors are what makes the supernatural exist.People need to remember them and that's important for any supernatural.

I hope I answered your question well

#jibaku shounen hanako kun #toilet bound hanako kun #hanako kun #yugi amane #amane yugi #my answers #scar-eyejolteon14

[mariemariemaria]

OH MAN DONT GET ME STARTED ON NATE AND REDEMPTION. i so badly want nate to be redeemed!!! i was all for jamie being redeemed. all of season 1 i was wondering when and how it was going to happen. and then in the last ep of season 1 when he makes the extra pass for the win against richmond it was such a bittersweet moment because like HE IS CHANGING BUT RICHMOND LOST. but it gives you hope! and then jamie finally got that redemption in season 2 and i was so happy for it. and all through season 2 watching nate just getting lower and meaner and angrier was so rough but in the time between season 2 and season 3 i have been anticipating a nate redemption. and once season 3 trailers came out and more people started talking about predictions i heard so many people say shit about how much they hate nate and how they DONT WANT a redemption for him?? like i started feeling like i was the only one REALLY HOPING for nate’s redemption. which SHOCKED me because isn’t this whole show about kindness??? and forgiveness and all those warm fuzzy feelings? we got a rebecca redemption and a jamie redemption and so WHY would we not get a nate redemption?? it makes no sense to me and it frustrates me to no end. part of what made his descent so painful to watch was because he was so endearing in season 1. and i want to see him become a better person! i want all of them to become better people!! SO DOES TED. once again, isn’t that like. part of the point of the show. it’s not about soccer and the winning and losing (except when it sometimes is) it’s about the characters and their relationships and lives and overcoming hardship and trauma and getting better? anyway thanks for letting me take over your inbox for all that. i just saw your post and had to agree and RANT.

I agree with you about EVERYTHING. Watching Jamie be redeemed (though I do think he still needs to apologise to Nate) was brilliant and it was so emotional to watch that process, especially as it was revealed that his behaviour was largely due to his abusive father. Him working through that toxic relationship and getting support from team members like Roy, Higgins and Ted was so imporant to his development, and I am sure that this season we will also see Nate stand up to his father and start defining himself outside of what other people think of him.

I am honestly still shocked when I see people hating on Nate so much, and saying that he is beyond redemption. I have no idea how someone could watch the show and think that, because to me it's very obvious that there will be a Nate redemption arc. I mean, series 1 ended with Rebecca being forgiven so quickly by Ted that it pleasantly surprised me; Higgins was forgiven by Rebecca; Keeley forgave Rebecca (and Nate); as you said Jamie has been improving throughout both seasons, as have the other members of the team. Though I think we need to remember that while it's great that Jamie, Colin, Isaac and everyone else have been evolving as people, they still bullied Nate and never apologised. And the other players watched and let it happen; Roy only intervened when Ted "manipulated" him into it, and he was the Team Captain! I'm not hating on them here, I like them all, but this all contributed to Nate's insecurities and subsequent actions. I mean, can you imagine working with people like that for God knows how many years, making a hell of a lot less money than them, and then seeing them all go on their own ~personal journeys~ and not apologising to you once??

Nate has so many unresolved issues, to do with his father, with the players, and the misunderstanding around the picture he gifted to Ted. I understand not liking him, because betraying Ted like that was nasty, but that doesn't mean he is beyond redemption. I mean, Trent Crimm didn't have to write that article just because he was given the power to, but he did face the consequences of his actions and seems to have been forgiven. Ted definitely wants to talk to Nate, and wants to forgive him, and I don't think Nate really understands that. I think he wants to feel powerful, and to make people know how much power he has over them, because he was so belittled and disempowered for so long. He's going to be a very unpopular coach at West Ham, even if they are successful in the League (which they may not be, seeing as loyalty and compassion are important in teambuilding, and Nate also doesn't explain to players what they did wrong, instead just calling them stupid).

Also I'm lowkey nervous for him. If West Ham don't do well Rupert will turn on him so fast. Perhaps Rebecca will play an important role here, seeing as she clearly still hasn't fully recovered from her relationship with Rupert? (I wonder if Rebecca will forgive Rubert this season, not because he deserves it or is seeking forgiveness, but in order to allow herself to truly move on and be happy?) I also think/hope Jamie will be integral to Nate's redemption, seeing as he's partly responsible for his fall in the first place.

So yeah you are most definitely not alone in your Nate appreciation. There's a a good few people who like him as a character and believe he will be redeemed. That's what the show is all about.

#nate shelley #ted lasso #this is SUCH a messy response sorry i just spilled all my thoughts out and havent even read over it #tbh rn im just on my hands and knees begging nate to get off twitter. hope he gets a hobby. maybe starts baking or something. #ask

[bookishfeylin]

hi! hope you’re having a good day! if you don’t mind, i’d love to pick your brain — do you think tamlin, if written by a proper author, could have a legitimate redemption arc? do you think the things he’s done in the past, especially to feyre, can be forgiven or healed enough to justify a reunion between feyre and tamlin? I only ask this because I really love tamlin as a character, however I don’t want that affection for him to cloud my judgement of him. if he’s messed up on a level a certain other high lord has, i want to at least acknowledge that so i’m not insensitive to people who are triggered by him.

Hi anon! I explained my thoughts on Tamlin getting redeemed here, but the tldr is that at this point, I don't think he canonically should get a redemption arc, and that'd be true if he were written by any author. Now fanon is a different story i mean my first fanfic and the actual bane of my existence currently as I struggle to write its next chapter is ACOHAS, a Tamlin atonement (i hesitate to use redemption) fic among other things, because I have a THING for him groveling at Feyre's feet which... may or may not be a spoiler muahaha

But I'll actually just copy and paste some of what I said there, because I believe I articulated it best then:

Redemption arcs in fiction aren’t about morality and what characters “deserve them”, imo, but rather how it works thematically and if it fits the message the story is trying to convey. Rhysand being redeemed/having his assault of Feyre swept under the rug in ACOMAF was bad enough for this series’ own themes about abuse and SA, but Tamlin being redeemed completely spits on them. It sucks, because as I’ve said time and time again Rhysand and Tamlin are the same in how they act and it’s incredibly hypocritical to not call out Rhysand for abuse while calling out Tamlin, but Sarah has decided Tamlin is the embodiment of the abuser™ just as Feyre is the embodiment of the victim™ and Rhysand is the embodiment of the healthy love interest™ so Tamlin narratively can never truly gain “redemption” without screwing up the story’s themes or questioning those labels, and frankly, allowing him to be redeemed would be incredibly insulting to this series’ themes and message about abuse. In my fanfic ACOHAS Tamlin's redemption/atonement only works because I go the route of “everyone sucks” and call out everyone’s abuse, Feyre and Rhysand’s included, so as to even the playing field and Tamlin’s arc ends in a way I THINK is narratively satisfying all things considered. But Sarah will never acknowledge that anyone aside from Tamlin is abusive, so a redemption cannot work for him in canon. So I don’t think a Tamlin redemption will ever occur in the books, nor do I truly think it’s a good idea from a narrative viewpoint.

Now you could argue that another author might just go that "everyone is abusive and everyone sucks because this is *gasp* a FANTASY WORLD so no one should be unduly critiqued for it or EVERYONE should be called out for it" route, but it's admittedly way less powerful than what Sarah was trying to do in ACOMAF, so... it doesn't work if the author is trying to stick to Sarah's (intended but not fully delivered) message of "battered woman becomes empowered." So. Yeah.

This is why we just stick to book 1 here because the rest of this series is a MESS

#ask #anon #anti acomaf #acotar analysis #tamlin critical #anti tamlin

[vimbry]

Moominpappa for the ask meme I want to hear hot takes

so! alright, I should really say that a lot of those squares are my thoughts on the mv19 incarnation in particular lol. I think the novel characterisation of pappa, more so in the later works, is certainly deep and definitely horrible at times, but I like him as a character. being a flawed person doesn't mean I find him uninteresting, he serves in the penultimate story as the central source of the conflict and he does it well.

but if we're talking throwing every pappa into the pot at once, uh.

also this got lengthy. I mean LENGHTY lmao idk why pappa inspired so much analysis but! here we go (there’s a tl;dr at the end)

basically, as much as I don't really want to make any arrogant assumptions about the writers behind that adaptation, because all sorts of creative differences could’ve arisen during production, in execution their version of pappa shows what seems to be a very weak understanding of his character in the books. mainly with the "island/at sea" arc. it's known that a lot of his traits were influenced by tove's own very bigoted, misogynistic, right-leaning - and by some accounts, unsurprisingly abusive - father. like the rest of her writing, he's not a 1:1 copy of people in her life, and she herself had mixed views on him as most people with deeply difficult parents do, so he's ofc portrayed as a far more sympathetic person than his inspiration.

but there's still elements of him being the forceful patriarch who, in their last appearance in the series, uproots his family out of selfishness and disregard for their own wants and needs as individuals. he thinks finding and maintaining this island will fill an empty part of him, be his purpose. he’s almost driven mad with how his self-appointed duty consumes him and comes to believe the island is alive, something taunting him that needs to be tamed, and through his growing ego is convinced that he can. throughout the book he belittles and almost alienates himself from his family, ignoring their own problems that have developed since living on the island, because he’s too wrapped up in his own opinions and vision. and while he hasn’t fully turned over a new leaf by the end, he does come to his senses somewhat, and his behaviour is at least treated contemptuously enough by the text that you understand his actions are always framed critically. (the tone, at least to me, sort of implies that altho it’d stated that he and mamma understand how to compromise, something in their relationship has irreversibly changed. sorta up to you as a reader how you take it I suppose!)

(seriously everyone who hasn’t yet READ this one it’s so good, it’s not just focused on pappa, mamma and moomin, and of course the fisherman, have their conflicts too).

whoever signed off on mv19!pappa seems to have "wow cool robot!”’d their way through the book(s). none of that depth is present there. instead, he's just a guy going through your standard mid-life crisis plot. he’s a buffoon with anger issues who got this idea about playing lighthouse keeper, and to me, that’s not as deep as they might’ve thought it was lmao. they do have the characters clash with him at points, but they never really fully commit to how damaging his actions are supposed to be, and he’s forgiven far too easily without even having had to develop as a character. pretty much every negative thing he does, he does in the book, too. with a fun mv19-exclusive moment where the family, rather than the mixture of concerned, frustrated, or mentally checked out they are with pappa/his goals in the book, are actively Afraid and flinchy around him. but because this is a condensed, watered down cartoon adaptation for small children (insultingly so imo, kids deserve better), they have to explicitly redeem him by the end, which is brought on by nothing more than him being self-deprecating and saying he doesn’t deserve his wife’s love, after never once apologising for his behaviour. he’s right, he doesn’t, get in the bin.

the rest of his characterisation throughout the show is similarly weak, but then everyone seems to have gone through the same process of flanderization. he doesn’t ever care about his son beyond seeing him as an extension of himself, he doesn’t treat mamma well except for when the writers throw in a shallow horny flirt in the place of actual chemistry, and none of this is really treated as a problem. and because we’ve yet to see “memoirs” adapted, the only other story where he’s the main focus, there aren’t enough postives to make him at least the slightest bit endearing to me. just a lot of stories where they rehash him being some boring, brash dude full of hot air who needs to learn a lesson about respecting his family and never does. this wouldn’t be problem if these flaws were treated as what they are, but the show’s incongruous tone presents these more as lovable comedic quirks. we’re told he’s supposed to be a good father to moomin and a likeable character, but nothing in the text ever backs that up. they basically just recreated a sanitised version of the actual viktor jansson without any awareness that they did.

anyway, going back to novel pappa - while there’s no explicit mention of any war in the books, the impact of both world wars is baked into the general world of the moomins. tove’s life was affected by her father’s experience fighting in the finnish civil war, and the very first story was being written during the final years of wwII. both this and “comet” function as a not-so-subtle allegory of the trauma and upheaval it caused. I’ve mentioned this many times before haha but it bears repeating, I think the mention of pappa disappearing before the events of “great flood” while travelling with the hattifatteners, a group of mindless wandering creatures who “tricked him” into going with them, is about the families who lost their men to war, spurred on by their governments’ propaganda to demonsrate their loyalty to their nations, to explore and fight alongside their friends. this deeper subtext of his character never really turns up again outside of a slight reworking in “tales”, not even in memoirs, but I do think shades of it are evident in his troubled personality in “island/at sea”. (it’s also noted that tove’s father was.. difficult after his time at war, and had quite a temper. I think the same influences can be seen in a lot of fictional fathers around these generations).

also '90s pappa tried to invent the dishwasher for mamma's birthday to make her life easier, and then helped plant a field of flowers in her image when he wasn’t able to, so you know he's done nothing wrong in his life ever

tl;dr uh book!pappa is a deceptively simple father figure on the surface with an interesting subtext and inspiration behind him which actually deconstructs the image of the powerful patriarch who got absolutely bungled in the new cartoon and I don’t like him there.

#mv critical I guess! under the read more #yes this is about the hippo in a top hat yes it is that deep ghgh #asks #character opinion bingo #long post #in case read more breaks

[utilitycaster]

I was wondering if you had any thoughts on what "redemption" means to Zerxus? In particularly how his difficulty with forgiving the people of Avalir and himself either conflicts with, agrees with, or has nothing to do with his views of redemption? I'm new to D&D, so my exposure to Oath of Redemption Paladins is based only on what I've read online. I feel like my lack of understanding of the subclass is causing me to misunderstand him. That or I'm just projecting. Hope this makes sense, and you find it interesting enough to examine. Thanks for your time either way.

A few things are going on here:

I have no idea what you're referring to regarding him not forgiving the people of Avalir; is this a specific line? He says "I hate this place"; that's nonspecific, has nothing to do with the people, and anyway it doesn't matter because...

You have conflated forgiveness and redemption which are two very different concepts. Forgiveness is the act of letting go of your anger or vindictiveness towards someone; redemption, when you strip out all the specific real-world religion aspects and talk about a redemption arc, is the act of moving past prior misdeeds and becoming a better person. You can forgive a person who is still a bad person, but they are not redeemed; a person can redeem themselves through their actions, but might not be forgiven by all. Forgiveness is a thing others give to you; redemption is a thing you achieve for yourself. The Oath of Redemption does not once mention the word "forgiveness". It's not about that.

Paladins strive to embody their oaths; they do not always succeed flawlessly and in most cases are not expected to, provided they are indeed striving.

But also, I am personally of the belief that in D&D actual play, while understanding D&D absolutely gives you more insight into the story, if you need to go to the subclass sourcebooks to understand a character's motivation, that actor has failed - and I don't think Luis has failed.

Zerxus believes in redemption. He believes that within everyone there is a capacity to become better. The problem is that he believes this so hard that he forgets the caveats of his oath - that even if you believe everyone can be redeemed, if someone refuses redemption and is threatening others, it is a disservice to favor their hypothetical redemption over others' literal lives. (And, while this is in the subclass, listed in the flavor text and literal oath, this is also just common sense). Redemption means exactly what it always means to him; he is just too arrogant to admit that he can't keep forcing it when someone is refusing redemption; or to acknowledge that the gods are, contrary to many of the attitudes of those in the Age of Arcanum, actually more ancient and vastly more powerful than mortals, and do not need their worship. He keeps pushing well past the point of failure. That's Zerxus's story. It is, like the others' a story of hubris.

#hubris all the way down #critical role #exu calamity #zerxus ilerez

[whencallstheheart]

Taking this long anon message and breaking it up so I can respond easier. Most of it's under the cut.

--

I agree about the Elizabeth/Lucas storyline being a waste of time. It was obvious what the decision was.

If her Aunt said something like testing Lucas. To make sure that he had Elizabeth's and Little Jack's best interests at heart, then maybe it would redeem it a little.

Yeah, there was very little substance to it. Aunt Agatha has always bene supportive of Elizabeth and her choices so it felt really odd for this to be happening now. Surely Elizabeth has been writing to her and calling her so she knows of the relationship and what kind of guy Lucas is. She's also shown zero interest in moving back to Hamilton so to sort of ambush her with that was strange. Of course they'd like to have her home but the train goes both ways. I doubt Agatha is up to much. She could've visited several times by now.

The whole Nathan & Faith storyline is just weird. Their so called relationship happened off screen. All I saw in S9 was Doctor/Patient relationship and unrequited feelings on her part. A Nathan/Faith pairing makes no sense to me.

The fact that we're supposed to just believe all this stuff happened really doesn't work for me at all. I didn't want to see it in the first place so I definitely don't want to imagine it.

Mike is basically all puppy eyes for Faith. I wanted him to Man Up. Ned and Florence pushing(matchmaking)Nathan to escort Faith on he patient rounds. He's the town's Mountie, and is needed in town. Faith is not exactly a damsel in distress. Another missed opportunity for Mike.

Yeah, I'm hoping this means it's not 100% for Nathan and Faith now. Mike and Faith would be really cute and they'd make sense. Hopefully he'll talk to Lucas or Fiona or someone about his crush and they'll give him the push he needs to be more forward with Faith.

Then, there's Mei looking jealous/rejected. She's the one who friendzoned him. The writers/showrunner were probably going for drama/angst. But, it felt more like playing games to me.

Nathan is written as a serious character when it comes to love. I would rather he stay single or paired with Fiona.

She's an outgoing extrovert, while He's a guarded introvert.

I think it would be fun watching Fiona breakdown Nathan's walls. Maybe it's just wishful thinking.

I could definitely see Mei taking a step back to not get in Faith's way which is probably where the tension was coming from with those two. She has to still have feelings for Nathan but that hasn't been how it's been portrayed in these 2 episodes so I don't know. If it's not Mei then I'd totally love a Nathan and Fiona pairing. They'd be a lot of fun.

The preview for next week looks amusing. Rosemary is the most observant person in Hope Valley. She has a talent for finding out secrets. How will the ladies hide the surprise baby shower from her? Can't wait to see this!

Yes, looks like a comical one next week. It seems like they're just telling her it's happening on a different day so the fact that they're throwing a baby shower isn't actually a surprise. They probably know they can't pull that off.

Finally, why is Henry's storyline the only consistent storyline on this show?! I love how he just said guilty, then walked out of the room. The whole town has his back, so why isn't he fighting for his freedom?

Maybe they will bring Christopher back. His son may be the only one to get through to him, and find out why Henry is acting like this. I would love to see more Father/Son bonding between them.

We will just have to wait and see.

Henry continues to be the best. I think he's struggling to find his place in the town and doesn't think he's needed there despite everyone supporting him. He'd be content to go sit in jail because he still thinks that's where he should be. The town might have forgiven him but he hasn't forgiven himself.

It would be nice to see Christopher again but I doubt we will. Henry has a lot of people looking after him so I imagine we'll be getting more scenes with Joseph, Bill, and/or Elizabeth. It'll be interesting to see what comes next for Henry.

[rainboq]

RE: the anon who just talked about how ass david is

you are the rightest person on earth. I fucking despise david i hate him he's quite literally an abuser and joyce just LETS IT HAPPEN, and i dont like how they tried to redeem him in lis 2. not to say abusers can't get better but it felt, at least to me, like they were trying to sweep it under the rug and say "nah nah the chloe abuse is fine bcuz he's helping other people now!"

chloe's like, 12, and her dad just died and her bestfriend left and rachel is missing and she's Going Through It, of course she's gonna be a little snippy snarky or whatever. and like they said, david is just a fucking bastard, it doesn't matter if chloe listened or not, he's a powertripping (mildly misogynistic) jackhole who would've hated chloe no matter what.

more david slander 2k22

(and he's shit at fighting too. i mean, what was that "fight" against jeffershit?)

Dontnod really expect you to forgive incredibly shitty guys after they do the bare minimum (or not even that in Nathan's case). I'm so frustrated by media that expects men to be given a pass for bad behaviour after they do one good thing. David gets to play hero by saving Max, and suddenly all is forgiven with him???

There's a pretty deep undercurrent of misogyny in Life is Strange that is thankfully absent in True Colors (Go Alex beating the shit out of Mac!). Women and girls are never really afforded the capacity for violence, rather it is something inflicted on them, or a world they are trespassing into that they regret (see Chloe shooting Frank). Why is Warren the character who beats the shit out of Nathan, rather than Chloe who he drugged? And don't even get me started on Rachel's character and how people treat her.

Meanwhile we're expected to overlook everything David has done, the years of hell he inflicted on her, because he managed to save Max after Max and Chloe literally laid it all out for him. Not only is he hilarious incompetent at being a soldier, it's such a fucking unsatisfying way to resolve that situation. Why the shit can't Max get out under her own power? Why can't Max get help from Victoria if she's there in the first place, thus meaning befriending her and being kind to her is actually rewarded instead of needlessly punished?

If I were in charge, the escape from the dark room would have looked like this:

If Victoria is in the dark room and Kate is alive, Victoria helps Max free one hand with the last of her strength, and from there Max is able to free both of them. Using Max's powers, they overpower Jefferson and Kate arrives with the cavalry because Max sent her all the details before they arrived at the party.

If Victoria is present, but Kate is dead, then the two subdue Jefferson and then are left with the difficult decision of leaving him alive or not. Regardless, Victoria volunteers to stay in the dark room while Max heads out into the storm.

If Victoria is not in the dark room, but Kate is alive, she arrives with cops in tow and rescues Max. There is much rejoicing and Kate is proud to have saved Max in turn.

If neither of those are the case, then Max is able to get a hand free and get some of Jefferson's drugs into a syringe. She's not strong enough to overpower him on her own, so instead she goes back into the chair and pretends to be helpless just long enough for Jefferson to get within reach... then she gives him a taste of his own medicine. Once she's free, David arrives, only to find that Max has freed herself and the rest can play out how it did in the game.

Would that have been a lot more work? Yes. Did they have the budget? Probably not. But it would have been much better than what we got.

#axe me a question #life is strange

[tonya-the-chicken]

I mean though Enji could have been a little less OTT and not done everything wrong. Its just too much really. Like his predecessors being Gaara's dad or Shinji Ikari(or Zuko's dad) more or less were just fated to be villains who die or get a redemption that now feels quite deserved for Erina's dad but none of them did anything as much as Enji. At this point Endeavor has more number of villainous acts depicted than AFO and his kids together.

I feel like it's less about what he objectively did or didn't and way more about the way it is depicted, ye

Some bad fathers are written in a way that hints they are meant to be perceived as the flattest most one-sided dudes out there. And I think it's ok because sometimes you just can't dwell on the character for too long, you have to make priorities. And when you make more complex characters you have to prioritize where you spend your time too

In Horikoshi's case FOR SOME REASON the need to balance between "Enji did all those horrible things and tormented all his family members" and "Enji is capable of growth and has some genuine care for his family and is a person with his own struggles" is resolved by gently writing how his desires overshadowed any care he had and how he had bad ideas he might've not registered as *that* bad and how he didn't necessarily have intended to cause all that harm but he did anyway and he is analyzing he is growing he is finding new priorities trying to become better REMEMBER HOW HE BEAT UP SHOUTO???? LOOK AT THAT. IT IS SO CRUEL HE IS A MONSTER and the way he felt he can't stop if he went so far already and how he once took a genuine interest in his wife and he remember it for years HE IS A VIOLENT ABUSER DO YOU REMEMBER THAT???? OK???? MAYBE A RAPIST TOO and the way he tries to fix things that can be fixed and we see him worrying about Natsuo and others... And how he cried after finding out Touya is alive. Like, he is so deeply human A LITERAL MONSTER LOOK AT THIS FACE

I don't think anyone else receives this kind of treatment. Dabi almost caused Natsuo's death and openly says he wants to kill Shouto but that doesn't influence the way he is treated by the narrative. There are no constant throwbacks to him hurting someone. No trauma in our protagonist, whom he attacked and Shouto has no hard feelings, only a desire to save him. Enji is trapped in the past he can't fix but none of the literal villains terrorists mass murderers are treated this way. Sure, their storyline is different but how come the things THEY did in the past can be forgiven and forgotten but with Enji we have to constantly keep in mind all the evil he did. Like, if the manga doesn't end with him alive and moderately well while redeeming someone like Shigaraki or Dabi I'll tell you honestly I think it would be the most trash writing ever. You can put all the effort into becoming a better person and all you get is "past never dies" or you can put zero effort but have sad childhood so of course you will be saved!!! Let's forget everyone who ever suffered from your treatment. We are not mad at you

It's confusing and inconsistent. It reminds me of the way people would write something and then get mad if others don't see certain characters as bad/good enough. Like, why do you love this and not that? And so they start being aggressive at fans. How dare they liked someone I created not in the way I want it!

But then, I don't want to be too mean to Horikoshi. Maybe he is just that shit at keeping a balance. A sorta straight line between past Enji and present Enji though I feel like it would be easier if we had his motives explained in detail. Past Enji and present Enji don't feel consistent with each other enough which makes little sense when he is the one telling the story of his past. "I didn't mean to neglect you" but no sign of him thinking about not neglecting them in the past? You have the opportunity to confirm every Enji's word. Idk man

It's a lot about perception and depiction and what is important to the plotline. If you are going to drag the backstory so much and keep on returning to it, then shape it out nicely, show new details, change perspectives. We don't dwell on anyone's backstory for as long as todofam

Sometimes I just feel I like the idea he wanted to write but not what he actually wrote you know? But then, how do I know what was his idea

#asks #bnha #local girl can't shut the fuck up #todoroki enji