#and you might write differently but that is not a value judgement

[mariana-oconnor]

I must not compare myself to others. I must not compare myself to others. I must not compare myself to others. I must not compare myself to others. I must not

#Sometimes you read a thing and you just know you could never do that or think of that #and the crushing weight of your own inadequacy threatens to bury you forever #and you have to remind yourself that everyone is different and just because your style is not the same it is not worse #and no one else could have come up with that story and told it that way because every story belongs to its author #and you might write differently but that is not a value judgement #because the stories you write could only be written by you #but still #*incoherent screaming* #and no I will not specify #because this is universal and happens to me at least once a month #Cleaning out my drafts #I Qd #also don't remember which fic this was about anymore

[linkspooky]

SHIGARAKI VS. YUBEL: HOW TO SAVE YOUR VILLAIN

The failure of Deku to save Shigaraki isn’t just a tragic conclusion for Shigaraki’s arc, it’s also My Hero Academia failing as a story. When I say the story failed, I mean the story has failed to answer any of the questions it asked its audience. It’s themes, character arcs, everything that communicates the meaning of the story to the audience is no longer clear. 

Saving Shigaraki was the central goal of not only the story itself, but the main character Deku. By failing in its goal you can’t call this a good ending. In order to illustrate why this goal of saving the villain is so important to both Deku’s character and the central idea of MHA, I’m going to provide a positive example in Yu-Gi-Oh GX were the main character Judai successfully saves their villain.  One of these stories fails, and the other succeeds. I will illustrate why under the cut. 

BROKEN THEMES = BROKEN STORY

When artists draw they have to consider things like perspective, anatomy, shading, light, coloring. Drawing has rules, and it’s hard to produce good art without knowing these rules beforehand. If I draw something that has bad anatomy, you can criticize me for that. 

Writing has rules, just like drawing. The rules of storytelling are important because writing is an act of communication. You can write whatever you want, just like how you can draw whatever you want, but if you break the rules the audience won’t understand what you are trying to communicate. 

When I refer to MHA as a broken story, I am referring to the fact that it has broken the rules of storytelling. As this youtuber explains.

“I guess we should first define what broke and broken even means in this context. Has the story turned into an unintelligible mess? Not really. Value judgements aside, the narrative is still functional and fulfills the criteria of being a story. So how can a story that still functions be broken? Maybe to you it cannot. But to me a story that is still functional isn’t enough. What I mean when I say MHA is broken is that it’s lost something crucial. A codifying style of structure, pacing and payoff that until a certain point was the core of its identity.” 

I could launch into a long-winded explanation of what themes are, but for the sake of simplicity I like to define themes in terms of “Ask, and answer.” The author asks a question to the audience, and then by the end of the story provides an answer. The audience is also invited to come up with their own answer which prompts them to think about the story on a deeper level.  The question both MHA and GX are asking both its main characters and the audience is “Can you save the villain?” with the additional complicated question of “Should you save the villain?”  This post will detail how both stories go about answering those two questions, and more importantly why those answers matter for the story. 

With Great Power… You know the rest. 

My Hero Academia and Yu-Gi-Oh Gx are actually similar stories once you get past their superficial differences. MHA is a story with way better worldbuilding, compared to a society where everything revolves around the trading card game, and people go to school to be better at a trading card game. 

However, if you get past that. They are both bildungsroman, stories about the main characters growing up into adults. They both have an academy setting where the goal is for the main character to graduate and enter the adult world. They are both shonen manga. GX is the sequel of Yu-Gi-Oh a manga that ran in Shonen Jump the exact same magazine as MHA.  The biggest point of comparison is their main characters, who both start out as young and naive who are driven by their admiration of heroes. Deku is a fan of All Might who wants to become a hero despite not having a quirk, because he loves All might who saves everyone with a smile. Judai’s entire deck archetype revolves around “Elemental Heroes’ and later “Neo-Spacians” who are all based on popular sentai heroes like ultraman. 

The central arc for both characters is to grow up. Growing up for both of them not only requires figuring out what kind of adult they want to be, but also what kind of hero they want to be. 

Now I’m going to drastically oversimplify what a character arc is. 

A character arc first starts out with the character being wrong. Being wrong is essential because if the character is right from the beginning, then there’s no point in telling the story. A character often holds the wrong idea about the world, or has some sort of flaw that hinders their growth.  The narrative then needs to challenge them on that flaw. It usually sets up some kind of goal or win condition. That flaw gets in the way of a character “winning” or achieving their goal, so they need to fix that flaw first. If their ideals are wrong, then they need to think about what the right ideals are. If they’re too childish, they need to grow up. If they have unhealthy behaviors or coping mechanisms, they need to unlearn it and require better ones. Otherwise, that flaw will keep sabotaging them until the end. 

I’m borrowing the word “win condition” from class1akids here because it’s an incredibly appropriate terminology. Midoriya needs to do “x” in order to win, otherwise this victory doesn’t feel earned. The “x” in this case is usually character development. As I said before, a story where the main character hasn’t changed from beginning to end feels pointless. Especially in Deku’s case, he was already a brave, strong hero who would charge right into battle and defeat the bad guys in chapter one, so him defeating Shigaraki in a fist fight doesn’t represent a change. 

The story sets up not only “What does the hero need to do to win?” but also “How does the hero need to change in order to win?” A character either meets these requirements before the end of the story, or they don’t and usually this results in a negative ending. 

MHA in its first half quite clearly set up both the final conflict of saving the villains, and also that saving the villains is its “win conditions.”  The hero shouldn't be allowed to win without first fixing this flaw.

From this panel onward the central question Deku is forced to answer shifts from “Am I strong enough to defeat ShigarakI” to “Can I save Shigaraki?” However, much earlier than that All Might goes on to basically set up the win conditions of what makes the ultimate hero as someone who “Saves by winning, and wins by saving.”

All might: You can become the ultimate heroes. Ones who save by winning, and win by saving.

Therefore the story has set it’s criteria for what kind of hero Deku needs to become. If he wins without saving, then he’s failed to become what the series has set up as the Ultimate Hero. 

Shigaraki and Yubel aren’t just narrative obstacles, or boss monsters to be killed like in a video game. They are narrative challenges, which means that the character can’t grow in any way if they don’t answer the challenge presented by the characters. They are villains who actively resist being saved, to provide a challenge for two heroes who define their heroism by saving others. The challenge they pose adds a third question to the story and the main characters. 

"Can I save the villain?"

"Should I save the villain?"

"If I don't save the villain, then can I really call myself a hero?"

In other words the decision they make in saving, or not saving their final antagonist defines what kind of hero they are. In Deku’s case it’s even more critical he defines what hero he wants to be because the MHA is also a generational story, and several of the kids are asked to prove how exactly this generation of heroes is going to surpass the last one. The kids growing physically stronger than the last generation isn’t a satisfactory answer, Deku getting strong enough to punch Shigaraki hard is not a satisfactory answer, because we are reading a story and not watching a boxing match. 

I’m going to focus on the last two questions though for a moment. Many people who argue against saving villains like Shigaraki argue he is a mass murderer and therefore isn’t worthy of salvation. However, the act of saving Shigaraki isn’t a reflection of Shigaraki himself, but rather the kind of hero Deku wants to be. It all boils down to Spiderman. In the opening issue of Spiderman, teenage Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider and suddenly gains super strength, the ability to stick to walls along with other powers. However, being a teenager he uses these powers selfishly at first. He doesn’t feel the obligation to use his powers for other people, and therefore when he sees a robbery happening right in front of him he lets the robber go. However, because he lets the robber go, the robber then attempts to hijack a car and kills his Uncle Ben in the process. If Spiderman had stopped the robber then he might have prevented that from happening. He had the power to stop the robber, but he didn’t feel responsible or obligated to save other people. As a result Uncle Ben dies. It’s not enough to have power, ti’s how you use that power that reflects who you are, therefore: “with great power comes great responsibility.” 

The choice to save Shigaraki actually has little to do with whether or not Shigaraki is redeemable, but rather how Deku chooses to use his power, and what he thinks he is responsible for reflects who Deku is as a person.  Deku himself also clearly outlines how he wants to use his power, that One for All is a power for saving, and not killing. 

How he uses his power reflects Deku’s ideal in saving others, and therefore if he doesnt use his power to save, then he’s failed to live up to his ideals. It's not whether it's morally right to save a murderer like Shigaraki, but rather the way Deku wants to choose to use his power. It's about whether he feels the responsibility to save others.

Judai explores an incredibly similar arc to Deku. They are basically both asked what kind of responsibilities a hero is supposed to have, which is also a metaphor for growing up to handle the responsibilities of adulthood. As both characters start out with incredibly naive and childish ideas about what a hero is. Therefore realizing what a hero is responsible for is key to them growing as a character.  However, Judai is different from Deku. In some ways he’s more like Bakugo. Judai is a prodigy who’s naturally good at dueling. He doesn’t duel to save others, but rather because duels are fun and he’s good at it. He’s very much like Bakugo, who admired All Might as a hero just as much as Deku did, but admired the fact that he was strong and always won rather than he saved others. 

However, I would say both Deku and Judai are questioning what a hero is responsible for. They are both asking if they have the responsibility to use their power to save others. If they have to fight for other people, just because they have power. His first big challenge as a character comes from Edo Phoenix, who calls out Judai for not thinking through what it means to be a hero, and what responsibilities heroes carry. Judai duels because he thinks it’s fun. He will show up to duel to help his friends, but that’s because he’s the most powerful person in the group. Even then it’s because he finds fighting strong opponents to be enjoyable. Bakugo will beat up a villain, but for him it’s more about winning then if the action will save someone or not. 

Judai is more often than not pushed into the role of being a hero, he doesn’t play the hero because he’s a particularly selfless person, and he’ll often avoid responsibility if not forced. He has power but no sense of responsibility and the narrative calls them out as a problem. 

Edo: Can you even fathom that, Judai?

For Judai, he can’t understand the responsibility of being a hero. For Deku, he idealizes heroes so much he can’t understand that there are people out there the heroes have failed to save. These two callouts towards Deku and Judai are discussing similar because they’re both discussing where a hero’s responsibilities lie. Is a hero responsible for saving everyone? Is someone strong like Judai responsible for using their strength to help other people? 

Judai’s arc continues into the third season where he’s not shown to just be naive but ignorant. He’s not just childish, he actively resists growing up because he doesn’t want to take on adult responsibilities. 

THe same way that Deku just decides not to think about whether or not All Might failed to save people in the panels above. However, in Judai's case he's actively called out for his choice to remain ignorant.

Satou: Now, which one is at fault? Judai: Isn’t it the guy who saw it, but didn’t pick it up. Satou: Not quite. If one is aware of the trash that fell, it may be picked up someday. But there is no possibility fo the unaware one ever picking it up. Judai-kun you are the foolish one unaware of the trash that has fallen. Judai: Are you calling me out for how I am? Satou: Your behavior towards me was atrocious. The worst was attending class only for credit, even if you were there you only slept. Judai: Yeah, I know. I was all bad, but it wasn’t that big a- Satou: It is important. You see, one by one, the students inspired by your attitude were losing their motivation. Now if you were a mediocre duelist, then this would not be an issue. Satou: However, you are the same hero who defeated the three mythic demons. Every single student in the academy admires you. You should have been a model for this academy. Judai: Me, a role model? Are you kidding? I just do whatever I feel like doing. Satou: Great power comes with great responsibility. Yet, as you remain unaware of that, you’ve spread your lethargy and self-indulgence. 

seems like a minor issue, but look how Judai responds to the accusations. “I just do whatever I feel like doing.” Satou is arguing that Judai should pay attention to the influence he has on others because of his power, because how he chooses to use that power affects others. However, Judai chooses to actively not look at the consequences of his actions because he doesn’t want to take on that level of responsibility, and therefore he’s looking away from the trash. 

While it seems like it doesn’t matter in Satou’s specific example, not thinking of the consequences, or how you use your power can have unexpected consequences. Spiderman doesn’t feel like it’s his responsibility to stop a bank robber, and that bank robber shoots his uncle. You could still argue it’s not Spiderman’s responsibility to stop every crime in the world, and I guess no one owes anyone anything from that point of view - but Spiderman failing to act responsibility had the consequence of directly hurting someone else. 

Spiderman has to live with that consequence because it was his own Uncle that was hurt. This is where we really reach the duality of Judai. 

In GX, Judai is, symbolically speaking, The Fool of the Tarot Deck, the Novice Alchemist — a person brimming with infinite potential, yet one who is also supremely ignorant, who walks forward with his eyes closed and often unknowingly causes harm in his great ignorance. In this, he is very much the embodiment of the faults we most commonly associate with teenagers — selfishness, recklessness, shallowness, a lack of dedication or empathy when it’s most needed. Like most people, he has good traits that work to balance out some of the above, but his narrative path through GX ends up being that of the flawed hero undone by his faults — and then that of the atoner, the repentant sinner. In his case, the mistakes of his teenage years are the catalyst for his growth from a boy into a man burdened with duty and purpose.  Judai is someone with infinite potential, with great power, but also ignorant on how he should use that power, and that makes him an incredibly flawed hero who needs to learn how that power should be used. 

Deku similarly exists in a society where heroes deliberately turn a blind eye to the suffering of a certain type of victim. Shigaraki’s speech heavily resmebles Satou’s speech about garbage on the side of the road. 

Shigarali: "For generations you pretended not to see those you coudln't protect and swept their pain under the rug. It's tainted everything you've built."

Deku shares Judai’s ignorance, because he’s not only a part of a system that doesn’t even see trash on the side of the road, but he also worships heroes so much that he’s incapable of criticizing them. If Deku saw the flaws of heroes, but at first didn’t have the courage to speak out, but eventually gained the courage that would be one thing. However, if he doesn’t see the flaws of heroes, then the problem will never be fixed. 

There are also consequences for both Judai and Deku failing to use their powers responsibly. These consequences take the form of the villains who came about because of all of society’s ignorance to the suffering of victims (Shigaraki) and because of the main character’s ignorance to their suffering (Yubel). Shigaraki and Yubel are also explicitly victims that the heroes failed to save, turned into villains who are active threats to the heroes. 

Should I save the villain?

The answer is yes, because the decision to save is reflective of the kind of hero each character wants to be. Each story clearly sets up that Deku and Judai aren’t punisher style heroes who shoot their villains, they are being set up as heroes who save. Deku needs to “save by winning.” As for Judai, a big deal is made of Judai’s admiration for another character Johan who represents a more idealistic kind of hero. Johan unlike Judai is someone who duels with a purpose, something Judai outright says he admires because he’s empty in comparison. 

Judai: Johan what have you been dueling for? See, it’s about fun for me… Well, for the surprise and happiness too. I guess I do do it for the fun. Sorry, I guess I put you on the spot by asking out of nowhere. Johan: What’s this about Judai? Judai: It’s nothing. Johan: I suppose there is one goal I have. Johan: Even if someone doesn’t have the power to see spirits, they can still form a bond with a spirit. That’s why I do it for people like him. [...] Johan: I'll fight for everyone who believes in me, and I'll do it with my Duel Monsters. Judai: I'm jealous you've got feelings like those in you.

Becoming a hero who uses their power to help others isn’t just a goal the story sets for Judai, it’s a goal that Judai sets for himself because of his admiration for Johan. Johan represents the idealistic hero Judai wants to be, but is also held back from because of his personality flaws. Johan represents the kind of heroic ideal that Deku is aspiring to be. 

Johan’s ultimate goal isn’t punishing the wicked, but to use his power to save others. 

Johan: Judai, it was my dream to save everyone through my dueling!

The story sets up the idea that it’s not enough for Judai to simply be strong, he’s also challenged to become a savior who uses his power to help others like Johan. Deku needs to “save by winning” and Judai needs to “Save everyone through his dueling.” However, Johan also adds another condition to what saving means. His idea of saving isn’t to defeat a villain, but rather his dream is to help connect spirits and humans together, even if there are humans who can’t see spirits. Johan doesn’t save people with the power of physical force, but rather the power of human connection. 

Should I save the villain?

Here the answer is "Yes",  because wants to become more like Johan someone who uses their power to help others not just for themselves.  Then we reach the third question

If I don't save the villain, can I really call myself a hero?

It once again comes to power and responsibility. Heroes have great power, and they are responsible in how they use that power, if they use it irresponsibly then there are consequences. Shigaraki wants to destroy hero society, because the heroes irresponsibly use their power to turn a blind eye to everyone’s suffering. 

People suffer when heroes fail to live up to their responsibilities. The entire conflict of season 3 is created by Judai failing to save Yubel. If Judai had helped Yubel when they most needed it, instead of abandoning them, then Yubel would never have been twisted by the light of destruction, would never have attempted to teleport the school to another dimension, would never have attacked all of JUdai’s friends. 

These consequences matter. Deku can turn his eyes away from Shigaraki’s suffering, but let’s say a hero failed to stop a robbery, or rather he didn’t even try, and because of that his mom was shot and died in the street. Would Deku consider the man who failed to stop a bank robbery a hero? When Spiderman let a bank robber go instead of trying to stop him, was he being a hero in that moment? Both the stories and the characters themselves have defined heroes as people who use their powers to save others, therefore if Judai and Yubel fail to save their villains then they can’t be called heroes by the story’s own definition. Now let’s finally return to the question of "Can I save the villain?"

Was there ever someone you couldn’t save?

m going to start with Yu-Gi-Oh Gx as a positive example of how to save your villain. Gx works for two reasons. One, it’s established from the start that Yubel isn’t beyond salvation, and two, it makes it so Judai can’t win without saving Yubel. The conflict of the story does not end until Judai makes the decision to save Yubel.  In some ways the writing is even stronger because Judai is directly responsible for the pain and suffering that Yubel went through that turned them into a villain in the first place. Yubel isn’t just a victim, they’re specifically Judai’s victim. 

Yubel is a duel spirit who is also essentially Judai’s childhood friend. A duel spirit just like the kind that Johan wants to save. During their childhood Yubel got too overprotective of Judai, and started to curse his friends for making him cry or upsetting him in any way. Until everyone Judai’s age started avoiding him and Judai became all alone with only Yubel for company. Judai’s decision was to abandon Yubel at that time. He took the yubel card and shot them into space, hoping that being bathed in space rays will somehow “fix” what was wrong with them. I know that’s silly but just go with it. Judai abandoning Yubel had the unintended consequence of Yubel being subjected to the light of destruction, a corrupting light that subjected Yubel to years of pain. This pain literally takes the form of Yubel burning alive.

Yubel connected to his dreams called out for Judai every night, only for Judai’s parents to give him surgery that repressed his memories of Yubel causing him to forget them entirely. Yubel then spent the next ten years alone in space, continuously subjected to painful torture, with their cries for help being ignored. 

"I was suffering even as you came to forget about me..."

Yubel is then met with the question of how can Judai treat them this way if they loved him so much? As from Yubel’s perspective, they’ve only ever tried to protect Judai, only for Judai to not only throw them away, but subject them to painful torture and ignore their cries for help. Judai effectively moves on with his life, goes to duel academy, makes friends while Yubel is left to suffer in silence all but forgotten. This is where Judai’s ignorance has serious plot consequences. 

It’s not just the pain that Yubel endured that made them snap. It’s that their pain went ignored. 

Yubel holds out the faint hope that Judai will answer their calls fro help until they finally burn up upon re-entry into earth’s orbit. At which point they’re left as nothing more than a single hand crawling on the ground.  Yubel who cannot fathom why Judai would cause them so much pain, and then forget about them, convinces themselves that Judai must be causing them pain, BECAUSE he loves them.

But you see, I couldn't possibly forget about you in the time that I've suffered...

Judai is allowed to move on with his life, to make friends, to spend the next ten years doing so while Yubel is subjected to ten years of agony. When they finally escape their painful torment, they see all the friends Judai has made while they’re left alone and forgotten. However, Yubel’s goal isn’t revenge. Rather, it’s to make Judai share and recognize their pain. WHich is why I said it’s not the fact that they were made to suffer, but their suffering is ignored. Yubel’s entire philosophy revolves around the idea that sharing pain is an expression of love, and that they and Judai share their love for each other by hurting each other. 

"That's why I sought to fill all those linked to you, your world, with both sadness and anguish..."

For Yubel, making all of Judai’s friends suffer and Judai themselves suffer is a way of making them and Judai equals again. They want to show “their love” for Judai, but it’s more about forcing Judai to recognize the pain he’s caused them by forcing him through the same pain. Yubel’s philosophy of sharing pain is actually a twisted form of empathy. 

They’re not entirely wrong either, that even people who love each other can cause each other pain, and that if one person is suffering alone in a relationship or the suffering is one-sided then there’s something wrong with that relationship. 

Yubel: I get it now… You weren’t in love, with Echo. Yubel: No.. you may have loved her just enough to clear the conditions in palace for you to control Exodia, but the you didn’t truly love each other. Yubel: You were only unfairly hurting her, while you stayed unharmed. You wouldn’t suffer. You wouldn’t suffer. You wouldn’t be in pain. Amon: What are you getting at? Yubel: I’ve been hurt! I’ve suffered! I’ve been in pain. That’s why I’m making JUdai feel the same things I did! 

Yubel’s twisted theory of love, is a pretty thinly veiled cry for empathy.

They break out into tears when talking to Amon about the way they’ve hurt and suffered. They clearly state upfront that their goal is for Judai to recognize their love. One of the first things they say to Judai is a plea for Judai to remember them.

Yubel is presented as a very human character suffering through a lot of pain throughout their entire villai arc, they break down into tears multiple times, they cry out in agony, they're visibly suffering and you see their mental walls begin to break down when Judai denies them any empathy.

Yubel is actually incredibly clear and straightforward about their desire to be saved by Judai. However, Judai doesn’t lift a single finger to help Yubel the entire arc, even though they themselves admit they are directly responsible for Yubel’s suffering but they helped create who they are today. 

Judai plunges into a different dimension and gives up everything to save someone, but it’s Johan, not Yubel they try to save. You have Johan, the perfect friend, and perfect victim that Judai gets obsessed over and will not stop at anything to save, and then you have Yubel, the imperfect victim that is actively harming Judai and all of his friends that Judai chooses to ignore. The whole season Judai only focuses on saving the perfect victim Johan, and this is clearly shown to be a flaw. Judai doesn’t just ignore Yubel to save Johan, he also ignores every single one of his friends. 

Judai only caring about saving Johan, and deliberately ignoring and abandoning the friends who came with him to help, essentially abandoning them the way he did Yubel leads to another consequence. After he abandons them they get captured, rounded up, and actually die and become human sacrifices. 

Losing his friends, causes Judai to snap. Judai becomes the supreme king and decides power is all that matters; he starts killing duel spirits en masse in order to forge the super polymerization card.  Which means being left alone, suffering alone, being abandoned by everyone causes Judai to snap the exact same way that Yubel did. 

In fact Judai is only saved from his darkest moment, because two of his friends sacrifice their lives, trying to get through to him and appeal to his humanity. At that point Judai’s friends could have just chosen to put him down like a mad dog, to punish him for the amount of people he’s killed, but instead they try to save him because of their friendship. 

I just want to save my friend. That is all.

By the time Judai is facing Yubel in their final fight, Judai doesn’t have the moral highground against Yubel in any way whatsoever. They’ve both lashed out because of the pain they endured and killed countless people in the process of lashing out.  The only real difference between them is that Judai is lucky. He had friends to support him at his lowest point, while Yubel didn’t. Does Judai learn from Jim’s example, and go out of their way to save Yubel the same way they were saved because Yubel is still a friend? Nope, Judai tries to kill Yubel at this point. 

I made a lot of friends... And they all taught me something… real love is wide enough, large enough and deep enough to fill the universe. Your so-called love is only a conceited delusion.

Like, Judai, sweetie baby honey darling. How was Yubel supposed to make friends when they were floating in the empty void of space?

Judai hasn’t learned, they are still ignorant, and still turn a blind eye to Yubel’s suffering. After all if his love is wide enough, large enough,and deep enough to fill the universe then why don’t thy have any room in their heart whatsoever for empathizing with Yubel?

Judai making friends while Yubel was trapped in space doesn’t make Judai a better person than Yubel, it makes Judai lucky. Judai doesn’t even appreciate that luck, because he treats his friends like garbage. It’s not about whether Yubel is worthy of salvation, because Judai is a mass murderer and his friends still went to great lengths to save them anyway. It’s that Judai doesn’t want to empathize with Yubel, because they still want to remain ignorant and irresponsible. Judai wants to continue playing hero, with a very black and white definition of what a hero is. By this point Judai’s killed lots of people, but if he makes Yubel the villain in the situation, he can keep playing hero. He doesn’t have to look at himself and what he’s done, because blaming everything that happened on Yubel and then putting Yubel down like a mad dog allows Judai to absolve his own guilt. Judai practically ignores Yubel’s cries for help, even when Yubel spells it out for them.

I couldn't have lived with the heartache unless I felt that I was being loved...

At this point Yubel themselves acknowledges that their love was just a delusion. That it was a coping mechanism, because they couldn’t live with all the pain otherwise. WIthout it they would have just died, which makes Judai unmoved. The implication here is that Judai thinks yes, Yubel should have just died in that crater. It would have been easier for Yubel to die a perfect victim, then for Yubel to crawl out of that crater and go on to hurt other people. While that may be true the same can be said for Judai - it would have been better if Judai died rather than become the Supreme King. His friends could have put him down like a mad dog, you could have even called that justice - but they didn’t. Judai making no attempt to save Yubel isn’t because he thinks it’s morally wrong to save someone who’s killed as many people as Yubel has, or because he thinks he can’t forgive Yubel, it’s because Judai is taking the easy way out. Johan is a nice, easy victim to save, because he’s Judai’s perfect boyfriend, while Yubel is a complex victim that requires Judai to understand their suffering. Even the act of saving Johan isn’t about Johan himself, it’s about the fact that Judai feels guilt over Johan’s disappearance. What Judai wants isn’t really to save a friend, but to stop feeling guilty over that friend. Judai isn’t just disgusted by Yubel’s actions towards his friend, he also wants to avoid the guilt he feels over causing all of Yubel’s suffering, because it requires acknowledging the complex reality that he is both victim and perpretrator in this case, just as Yubel is both victim and perpetrator. 

So how can an arc where Judai doesn’t try to save Yubel until the last possible minute, be better than an arc where Deku makes it his goal for the final act of the manga to save the crying boy in Shigaraki? 

It’s because the story does not let Judai get away with his continual refusal to empathize with Yubel. Yubel’s entire character revolves around empathy, in the form of sharing pain. As a duel monster, Yubel’s effect is that they are a 0/0 attack monster who is immune to all damage, but when you attack them they deal all the damage back to you. Which means that Yubel will respond to all the pain they feel, by causing you just as much pain in return. Yubel is not a character who can be defeated in a fight, or a duel. In fact they’re the only Yu-Gi-Oh villain who never loses a duel once. The most Judai can do is duel them to a draw, and they draw three times. Yubel wins against everyone else who challenges them.  In a way Yubel is like Shigaraki, the ultimate, unkillable enemy that can’t be done away with violence. Judai’s refusal to empathize with Yubel or attempt communication also makes them worse, every time Yubel is hurt they escalate. THe more Judai hurts them, the more they will hurt in return, it’s a cycle that will never be broken simply by killing Yubel, because Yubel is unkillable. 

Not only that but the story has gone to great lengths to show that saving Yubel is the correct course of action. If Judai doesn’t save Yubel, he’s basically spitting on the selflessness Jim showed in saving him. In fact if he doesn’t save Yubel, Judai is contradicting his own words on what makes a good friend. Sho once asks Judai after witnessing his brother change, what he should do if a person you lov ehas changed into an entirely different person. What if they're a person you don't even recognize any more? A person you don’t even necessarily like anymore? 

That's why if it were me. I'd probably just be looking after him until the very end, even if I didn't like him. I'd do it cause I think it'd prove that I care about him.

Judai doesn't even say that Sho is obligated to save his brother or morally redeem him, just that he has to keep looking at him instead of turning away or ignoring him.

Judai is being a bad friend, by his own definition. By choosing to deliberately look away from Yubel, Judai’s not living up to his advice for Sho for how you treat people you care about. 

Which is why the resolution for Judai and Yubel’s arc is so important, because it’s done by Judai finally acknowledging Yubel’s pain, and promising to watch over them from now on, words that are followed by the action of physically fusing their souls together so they’ll never be alone again.  Judai doesn’t just say pretty words about how they won’t ignore the crying child inside of Yubel, but instead he makes a sacrifice to save Yubel at risk to themselves to show their words are backed up by actions. Judai says Yubel will never be alone again, and then he commits. 

"And even if that means I won't exist anymore... I don't care."

Judai has resolved his character arc by this action, because Judai is finally taking on responsibility and that responsibility is watching over Yubel, so the two of them can atone together. Judai even says himself this isn’t an act of sacrifice on his part, but rather him finally accepting adult responsibilities. 

Judai: I wouldn't sacrifice myself for you guys. I'm just going on a journey to grow from a kid into a man.

Judai needed to save Yubel to complete his character arc and grow as a person. If Judai hadn’t saved Yubel, he would have still remained an ignorant child. By learning not to turn a blind eye to Yubel’s pain, and also smacking sacrifices and physically doing something to atone for the way they ignored Yubel up until this point they’ve not only saved Yubel they’ve also done something to address their wrongs. This also continues into the fourth season where Judai’s personal growth results in him learning what kind of hero he wants to be as in Season 4 in order to atone for the spirits that Judai slaughtered, he decides to leave his friends behind and walk the earth with Yubel helping spirits and humans get along with each other. In fact Judai’s final speech as a character isn’t even about how strong he is as a hero, but how weak he is as a person.

And I put my friends through some rough times. Form that, I figured a few things out... all I can do is believe in them.

The lesson Judai learned is because he’s weak, he needs to empathize and believe in other people the same way that his friends once believed in him when he was at his lowest point. Judai’s not the strongest hero, he’s the weakest one, but that gives him the ability to empathize with people who were lost just like he was, and guide them back from the darkness. 

The story of how Deku became the worst hero.

I’m going to say this right now it might turn out next week that Shigaraki is just fine, and he’ll use the overhaul quirk to reconstruct his body. However, even if that happens Deku has completely failed at his goal of saving Shigaraki for the reasons I’ll illustrate below. In theory, Deku’s arc of saving Shigaraki, and therefore winning by saving should be much easier for the story to accomplish and also much less frustrating to watch. After all, Shigaraki has been around since the beginning of the manga, he’s literally the first villain that Deku faces. He’s also the first villain that Deku talks to, where he brings up the idea that there were some people All Might failed to save. There’s also many intentional parallels between the two characters, the entire manga is about their parallel journeys of becoming the next generation hero and the next generation villain. Shigaraki even directly quotes the line at one point that all he wanted was for someone in his house to tell him he could still be a hero, the same line Deku said in the first chapter was that he wanted his mom to tell him to be a hero instead of apoalogizing to him for being quirkless. 

Not only is the setup for Shigaraki and Deku made obvious (Deku can redeem Shigaraki by telling him that he can still be a hero too), but Deku himself states out loud that he wants to save the crying child inside of Shigaraki. 

Judai runs away from Yubel the whole time, whereas Deku is running towards Shigaraki and actively makes it his goal to understand Shigaraki and continue to see him as a human being rather than a villain.  The story also makes it clear that saving Shigaraki is necessary to saving hero society as a whole. After all Yubel is just Judai’s victim. Whereas Shigaraki is the victim of all of society. He’s the crying child who was ignored. The cycle won’t be broken if heroes continue choosing to ignore people like Shigaraki, because more victims will grow up to replace him. 

Shigaraki: Everything I've witnessed, this whole system you've built has always rejected me. Now I'm ready to reject it. That's why I destroy. That's why I took this power formyself? Simple enough, yeah? I don't care if you don't understand. That's what makes us heroes and villains.

Shigaraki rejects the world because the world continues to reject him. THe solution to this problem is not rejecting Shigaraki, because Shigaraki won’t go away, the system will just continue to reject people like Shigaraki. As long as heroes and villains don’t understand each other, they’ll keep being forced to fight and the conflict won’t end, because hero society is what engineers it’s own villains.

clear as day by the story itself. If the objective of saving Shigaraki is clear, then how exactly did the story fail in this objective? What went wrong? In this case it’s a failure of framing, and breaking the rules of “show don’t tell.” Stories are all about actions and consequences. When a character makes a certain action in a story, the way other characters around them, the world, and whatever consequences that action frames that action in a certain light. It provides context for how we are supposed to interpret that character in that moment. 

For example, when a character does something wrong and another character directly confronts them over what they did wrong, that frames them as in the wrong. The story is criticizing the character for what they did wrong. Context is everything in a story. Stories are just ideas, so they require framing and context to communicate those ideas for the audience. Certain character attributes can be strengths or flaws depending on the context. My go to example is that if you put Othello in Hamlet, the conflict would be resolved in five seconds because Othello’s straightforward personality and determination would have him kill Hamlet’s uncle without questioning things. Whereas, Hamlet constantly questioning and second guessing himself would lead to the worst ending possible. However, if you put Hamlet in Othello, then Hamlet wouldn’t fall prey to Iago’s manipulations, because Othello doubts and questions everything so he wouldn’t believe Iago the way Othello did. 

Hamlet’s contemplative and introverted nature can be a strength in one situation, and a flaw in another. Othello’s tendency to act without thinking things through can be a strength in one situation, and a flaw in another. Context matters, because context tells you how you’re supposed to interpret a certain characters actions, and therefore tells you more about that character. This is why people repeat “Show don’t tell” as the golden rule of storytelling, it’s one thing to say something about a character, it’s another to us the characters actions in the story itself to show them something about the character. 

What’s even worse then breaking the rules of show don’t tell however, is telling the audience one thing, and then going onto show in the narrative something completely different. In that case the narrative becomes muddled and confusing to read. If I the narrator say “Hamlet is someone who overthinks everything” and then in the story Hamlet walks up to his uncle and kills him with no hesitation, then the narrator is straight up unreliable. It becomes impossible to tell as an author what message I’m trying to get across about these characters, because I’m telling you one thing and showing another. 

This is why the writing fails in the second half of My Hero Academia because we are constantly told one thing, but then the story shows something entirely different and sometimes even contradictory to the thing we are being told. 

Judai is a much worse hero than Deku, he always runs away from Yubel, and we’re never directly told that he’s supposed to save Yubel either. However, the narrative is incredibly consistent. Judai’s behavior of running away is consistent with his character. All the other character call Judai selfish for abandoning his friends (and they’re not even talking about Yubel). Judai is never painted in any positive light for his actions, therefore we as the audience understand Judai’s behavior is wrong and he needs to fix it. The narrative makes it clear that Judai needs to grow up, and Judai is never rewarded for his refusal to grow up, he’s ruthlessly chewed out, not by his enemies but also by his own friends. However, the narrative isn’t merciless on him either. Season 3 of GX is dark, but it’s not grimdark. Even when Judai loses his way, he’s still shown love and compassion by those same friends who go to great lengths for his sake. The narrative criticize Judai but it never insists that he’s beyond redemption and needs to be put down like a mad dog. 

The message is very clear, that not only does Judai need to grow up, but he also deserves the chance to grow and change, which is why he should give Yubel a similar chance. In comparison the story sets out this clear narrative arc for Deku of understanding Shigaraki, but it never challenges him for failing to understand Shigaraki. If you listen to what the narrative says, how other characters describe Deku, and what Deku himself says and only read it on a surface level then yes, Deku’s goal is to save Shigaraki. If you analyze actions however, he is in effect just like Judai he never takes any meaningful action or steps towards Shigaraki, nor does he think of what saving Shigaraki might look like or entail. 

The story describes Deku as someone who is possessed by a drive to save others that eclipses all common understanding, but does the story give us any examples of that behavior?

Judai is characterized as a selfish, irresponsible child, and the story gives us countless examples of his immaturity and how it hurts others. Does the story of MHA do the same for Deku's purported virtues? Let’s run through Deku’s actions, step by step, the actions themselves and how they are framed in order to find any evidence that Deku possesses this drive to save others. Does Deku reflect at all on the question of:

Can Shigaraki be Saved?

Deku leaves on a journey to try to understand villains. When he makes a perfunctory attempt to understand and empathize with Muscle, and Muscle replies that some people are just evil does Deku keep trying to reach his heart? Nope, he just punches him. 

Well, if he’s failed in his goal of understanding a villain then does the story call him out on his failure? Does Deku face any sort of narrative consequence for that failure? Is he framed negatively for failing to understand Muscle, the same way that Judai is framed for abandoning Yubel? Nope. Deku doesn’t express any frustration at all over is inability to reason with Muscle. There’s also no negative consequence for Deku just choosing to punch muscle, it turns out that there was no reasoning with Muscle and some people are just bad eggs so Deku was right. It’s okay for characters to fail, but if a character fails and it’s not framed by the story as a failure then the writing itself as failed. Why even bother to include this scene in the first place if it doesn’t advance Deku’s character in any way? This scene in spite of showing Deku failing to understand someone actively paints Deku in a positive light, because of how much stronger he is ow that he can OHKO a guy that gave him trouble all the way back in the camp arc.

This scene doesn’t tell anything about Deku as a character, it just makes him look cool. In fact that’s precisely the problem, Deku isn’t adequately challenged as a character, because he’s never allowed to fail. Even when he does obviously fail at the things the narrative set out for him to do, he’s never challenged on those failures, because the priority isn’t to make Deku grow, it’s to make Deku look good.  As I said before, Judai is the hero because he’s the weakest. Deku is the hero because he’s the strongest. Well, next a big flaw on Deku’s part is that he worshippd the same heroes that were making the world corrupt. Heroes like Endeavor who created people like Dabi. So, does Deku take action to either criticize the older generation of heroes, or separate himself from them in order to try to be better than them? Nope, he teams up with them. Not only that, Deku can’t do something as simple as tell Gran Torino out loud about his plans to save Shigaraki. If Deku feels that Shigaraki is worthy of salvation then he should at least try to make an argument here about his ideal of saving others.

Now here’s the thing, if Deku hadn’t directly looked at the camera and told us he wanted to save Shgiaraki, would we be able to deduce his intentions from his actions? If you took away all of Deku’s internal monologue, and just showed him punching Muscular and saying nothing when Gran Torino says he may have no choice but to kill Shigaraki would anything about Deku’s actions indicate that he wants to save Shigaraki? Let me use avatar the last airbender as a positive example for a moment. People say that Aang’s desire to spare Ozai’s life comes out of left field, but like if you analyze Aang as a character down to their bending, and the way they react in situations they always prefer de-escalation, or taking a third option as opposed to confronting things head on. It’s literally why Toph says Aang has trouble learning earth bending, because as an airbender, he always tries to look for some other way to solve the problem, instead of a direct confrontation with force. As early as season one, Aang tells Zuko someone who has tried to kill him several times that he was friends with someone from the fire nation one hundred years ago and in a different situation they could be friends. Aang’s desire to save the Firelord may not have been told to us until the last possible minute, but Aang’s aversion to violence has always been a part of his character from the beginning. However, Deku never shows any similar aversion to violence. There’s basically no example where he ever tries to de-escalate a situation, or he avoids a conflict by seeking a third option. 

Anyway, let’s move onto the next example. In the confrontation where Lady Nagant fights Deku, when Deku learns the fact that the heroes were employing government hitmen to attack people for uhh… exercising free speech does Deku give any reaction to this information? When Lady Nagant says that Deku is only going to bring back the status quo, does he show her any meaningful evidence that he won’t do that.

Deku’s response is because the world is so grey, he needs to extend a helping hand to others. Which you know what thay could be a response. Deku saying that his response to the corruption of the hero world is that he now understands that society led some people down the wrong path, so his way of addressing the wrongs of that society is lending a helping hand to as many people as possible even people he used to think was irredeemable. 

I will give Deku the benefit of the doubt, I think this is an acceptable answer. I can’t save everyone, but that’s not going to stop me from trying to save as many people as possible and maybe I can save people who were this society’s victims on the way too.  However, does Deku demonstrate his resolve to extend a helping hand in any meaningful way. 

Deku is met with an armless, insane Overhaul who’s begging for someone to help heal his father figure in the Yakuza from his coma. This isn’t like Muscular who insists that there’s no helping him, Deku is met face by face with someone asking him for help. Deku’s gotta extend a helping arm whenever he can, because he knows some people were abandoned and led astray by this society… Unless that person is someone he doesn’t like personally. At which point he only helps them on a conditional basis. We are told Deku will save anyone and everyone, but Deku is met face to face with an armless man who is begging for help and Deku’s does nothing to help him. Deku’s not criticized for refusing to help overhaul either, it’s never brought up again. When Deku begins to experience a mental breakdown because of all the people he’s trying to help in the Dark Deku arc, we are told this is the result of Deku trying to save everyone, but we do not see Deku attempting to save a single villain after Muscular and Nagant. 

He exhausts himself beating up villains that AFO sends after him, and only helping innocent civilians. Which would be fine if this arc were about how Deku is running away from his real responsibilities the same way that Judai was running, but that’s not what we’re being told. We are told that this is all part of an arc of Deku learning to understand villains and be a hero.

Deku is asked “Can you save Shigaraki?” by the story, but Deku never at any point has to deliberate on that question. Judai doesn’t deliberate on that question either, but him choosing not to think about things and stay ignorant is the point. 

It’s actually fine to make Deku stagnate as a character. It’s fine to have him take the easy way out by just punching villains and giving up on them after one conversation. It’s fine for him to be empathetic to other people’s suffering, or even self-righteous. It’s fine for him to be ignorant. 

He could be all of those things if it was a part of a narrative teaching him to unlearn his behavior. In fact the narrative might have been better if Deku started out by saying he didn’t want to save Shigaraki, that there was no choice but to kill him, because then at least his actions would be consistent with his words. Then his lack of empathy and his tendency to resort to violently beating up villains instead of avoiding violence would be character flaws he could work on. Deku however, is presented to us as this empathic hero who is always willing to give others a second chance though he never actually sticks his neck out in order to do so. Continuing on with our slow crawl through MHA, one of Deku’s friends is revealed as the traitor. Deku has a heartwarming scene fo saying that Aoyama can still be a hero, but look at his actions. He lets the adults in the room physically tie Aoyama in a straightjacket and imprison him, for the crime of… doing bad things while he was in a hostage situation. Apparently, if a bank teller helps the bank robber by giving them money when the robber has a gun to his head, the swat team should just snipe the bank teller. Not only does he not defend Aoyama against the adults, or stand up for him, or tell the adults they’re wrong to treat Aoyama a clear cut victim who had a gun to his head and was bing held hostage like he’s a villain - he also lets the adults use Aoyama an innocent victim as bait in order to lure out AFO.  Deku tells Aoyama he can still be a hero, but he doesn’t defend Aoyama as a victim of being taken hostage, nor does he stop the adults from further taking advantage of him and throwing him right into danger. Some people are just led the wrong way that’s why they need to be extended a helping hand, but fuck Aoyama I guess. He needs to earn the right to be sympathized with by physically putting his life in danger. 

Deku can’t even go out of his way to save a friend who he’s known for the better part of a year, when that friend is a complex victim forced to do bad things. 

Then Deku and Uraraka have a conversation where they both, kind of ruminate on the idea that maybe the villains are human beings who are worthy of sympathy.

In fact Uraraka is actively trying to dehumanize Toga by looking at the destroyed city, so she won't have to think of Togaas a person.

The language here is also a major fault of this arc. It focuses far too hard on “forgiveness” over and over again. As I said before, saving Shigaraki isn’t about Shigaraki at all, it’s about Deku, and how he wants to use his power as a hero. Deku has even stated himself that he doesn’t believe that OFA is a power that should be used for killing people. So why does whether Toga or Shigaraki are forgivable or not even matter? It’s the same with Deku refusing Overhaul any sympathy. If he’s so morally opposed to abusers, then why does he work with Endeavor and defend him at every visible opportunity, even in front of his victims? Whether or not Deku can forgive Shigaraki doesn’t matter, because Deku is not the moral arbitrator or right and wrong. In fact Deku doesn’t even have any morals, so how is this a moral debate? Is there any point where Deku gives a clear definition of what he thinks right and wrong is? Does he quot Immanuel Kant to the audience? 

Batman doesn’t kill people, not because he thinks that every last person on earth can be saved, but because Bruce Wayne an incredibly rich white man thinks that maybe he shouldn’t have the authority to decide who lives and who dies. When Bruce doesn’t kill the joker, it doesn’t mean he thinks the Jokers actions are forgivable, it’s because Bruce thinks it’s not his place to determine whether someone has the right to live. 

The whole conflict that MHA presents us is that heroes pick and choose who to save, and only save the ones they deem as innocent. So, how does Deku saying repeatedly they can’t forgive Shigaraki contribute to that theme in any way? In fact by focusing on forgiveness, rather than whether or not he personally has the right to pick and choose who lives and who dies Deku is ignoring the elephant in the room. The question isn’t about whether Shigaraki’s redeemable or if his deeds should ever be forgiven. The question is whether Deku has the right to decide who gets saved and who doesn’t. 

We are told that Deku as a character is someone who wants to save everyone no matter what, so Deku shouldn’t be focusing on whether or not Shigaraki is worthy of forgiveness, he should be making an idealistic argument like Xavier does in this panel. Why doesn’t Deku talk out loud with Uraraka on how he believes his power is for saving others, and not killing? If he’s meant to represent some idealistic hero, then why doesn’t he even talk about his ideals? Why don’t I as the reader know what those ideals are?

I think Xavier’s ideals of forcing the X-men to provide a good example to the mutant community, in order to try to earn the respect of other human beings is wrong, but at least he has ideals.  He tries to inspire the other people around him to live up to those ideals. The story can criticize him for his ideals and point out how they’re wrong, while it can also uplift parts of his idelogy like where he believes there are no evil mutants. Deku has a chance to do the same to Uraraka, to tell her clearly, “I don’t think we as heroes have the right to pick and choose who we help…?” but he waffles. Not only does he waffle, but this moment is meant to be read as an indication that both Deku and Uraraka are sympathetic individuals who want to save their villains. They are supposed to look good and idealistic here and they don’t. For Deku it just seems like a repeat of his behavior with Overhaul. The only villains that are worthy of sympathy, are the ones that he personally decides are forgivable. 

The story isn’t about whether or not it’s moral to save someone who’s killed as many as Shigaraki has. The story never seriously discusses any sort of complex morality or moral philosophy. Once again to bring up avatar, yes you can argue Aang sparing the life of a war crimminal is bad, but Aang mentions on multiple occasions that he wants to retain the cultural values of the airbending people. Aang has a morality, a consistent morality, it might not be a morality you personally agree with but at least he has one. Deku hates abusers, unless he’s next to Endeavor then he thinks abusers should be given the chance to atone. Deku doesn’t believe that One for All is a power for killing, but he never stands up to any of the adults who are blatantly trying to kill Shigaraki, he doesn’t even express out loud to Uraraka that he doesn’t think heroes have the right to decide who lives and who dies. In fact he’s given the perfect opportunity to, when Hawks kills a villain and it’s broadcast live on the news in font of everyone, but Deku never has anything to say about that. The reason Deku and Uraraka both put such an emphasis on “forgiving” their villains has nothing to do with the story itself. It’s because the author Horikoshi, is afraid that some people will misinterpret his story as saying that he actually thinks that saving a villain like Shigaraki means that he condones mass murder, so he has to have the characters talk about not forgiving Shigaraki. 

Judai doesn’t have any consistent morals either, but once again that’s the point and something the story relentlessly calls him out on.

Cobra: Fortune would never smile on a fool like you who fights while prattling on about enjoying duels.  Cobra: You are certainly a talented duelist. But you have one fatal flaw.  Judai: A fatal flaw? Cobra: Yes, your duels are superficial. Someone who fights with nothing on his shoulders, cannot recover once he loses his enjoyment. What a duelist carries on his shoulders will become the power that supports him when he's up against the wall! Cobra: But you have nothing like that! Those who go through life without anything like that cannot possibly seize victory.  Cobra: But I know that nothing I say will resonate with you... because you have nothing to lose but the match.  Judai: I...  Cobra: Afraid aren't you? Right now, you have nothing to support you. 

Judai’s regularly called out for his superficiality. Judai is only a hero because he’s strong and wins fight, he doesn’t feel any responsibility towards other people, and in fact he loathes having to feel responsible for others. Judai isn’t just naive, he deliberately chooses to remain ignorant. Since he’s ignorant of his own faults, he makes awful decisions when it comes time for him to lead, and his friends die because of choices he made. We are told that Deku doesn’t want to remain ignorant, that he wants to understand villains, but Deku’s actual actions are him continuing to ignore society’s ills and the suffering of victims. In fact if you take away Deku’s internal monologue and the narration, Deku’s actions almost exactly mirror Judai’s.

Deku is just as superficial as Judai, and he also doesn't want to spend any time thinking about what kind of hero he wants to be, but the narrative never punishes him for it.

Judai is asked what burdens he has to bear and he has to meaningfull answer that question, Deku is allowed to get away with not having to think about anything. Deku remains superficial. Both Judai and Deku spend the entire arc running away from their villain rather than confronting them in any meaningful way. They both never express out loud any sympathy for their villain, or try to empathize. THey both never step down from the role of hero, and only confront their villain as a hero, because they don’t want to think about themselves as complicit or in the wrong. Shigaraki and Deku’s final confrontation mirrors Judai and Yubel’s but without the same clear framing. THe entire time Yubel is trying to get Judai to empathize with them, and Judai only responds with physical violence, because they don’t want to stop being the hero and because they can’t see Yubel as anything other than the villain.  As soon as Deku arrives on the battlefield (by the way everyone else and their mom pointed this out, but Deku who doesn’t think OFA is a power for killing, is completely okay with a plan called the “Sky coffin plan” where every other hero was clearly trying to murder Shigaraki).

When Deku arrives he asks if Shigaraki is still in there, but he doesn’t do anything to try to reach Shigaraki, he jumps right to punching him. In fact he never tries anything besides punching him as hard as possible. How is punching Shigaraki with the force of a thousand suns saving him exactly? How is that different from how he tried to defeat Shigaraki the last war arc, before he saw the image of the crying child that made him want to try a different approach in saving Shigaraki?  In Judai’s final fight with Yubel, it’s made explicitly clear that Judai is not trying to save Yubel, and that’s a fault on his part. In fact Judai gives the traditional “I have friends, and you don’t” speech to Yubel but it’s a subversion of how that speech is usually used. Usually that speech is used to show that the protagonist won because of they valued friendship,while the villain treated their friends poorly and only cared about power. However, it’s ironic in this case because Judai got all of his friends killed. Judai treats his friends like garbage. This speech isn’t used to show that Judai is winning because he values his friends more than Yubel does, it shows that Judai is a hypocrite, playing the hero in this situation where they are just as bad as Yubel. Judai’s not morally superior, he’s just lucky that he has good friends. Friends that were willing to save him. The only connection Yubel has to anyone else, Yubel’s only friend is Judai and Judai is a shit friend. 

In fact, Mirio tries to give a version of the “You don’t have any friends” speech to Shigarkai, only for Shigaraki to get mad and tell Mirio that he does have friends and people he wants to protect. 

This fact is also something that is blatantly ignored by Deku, even though Mirio tells him about it… even though we are told that Deku is trying his best to see the humanity in Shigaraki. 

Judai blatantly admits they’re trying to kill Yubel. Which makes them a worse person, but a better character than Deku, because their actions are clearly framed by the narrative and consistent. 

On the other hand we are told that Deku doesn’t want to kill Shigaraki, and yet everything Deku does makes it look like he’s just trying to kill Shigaraki and put him out of its misery. If we didn’t have Deku stating out loud that he wants to save Shigaraki and wants to see him as a human, there’d be nothing in his actions to indicate that he’s trying to avoid killing Shigaraki. Deku says he can’t pretend he didn’t see Shigaraki crying, but like, does he ever hesitate to punch Shigaraki, does he ever think that causing Shigaraki more harm is wrong when he’s already suffered so much? Deku says that Shigaraki is a person but does he treat him like a person? Does he try to talk to him like a person? To use avatar again, Aang does talk to Zuko pretty early on. Deku doesn’t even give the classic “We could have been friends under different circumstances” speech. When Shigaraki resists Deku’s attempts to see him as a person or emapthize with him, Deku’s response is to just resort to punching harder. 

Which is in effect the same thing Judai does to Yubel, just kill them as a villain so they don’t hurt anybody else, but framed in an entirely different light. Judai is shown to be ruthless, and cold in his attempt to only settle the conflict with Yubel by violently putting them down. On the other hand we’re being told that Deku is compassionate and empathic while he punches Shigaraki with the force of a thousand suns. 

There’s another eerie similarity between both of these final confrontations. At the climax of the confrontation, both Judai and Deku have a psychic vision where they see events from Yubel and Shigaraki’s childhood. This vision is supposed to help both characters understand the good in the villain they’re facing.

Let’s see the contents of this vision and how the visions change each character. Judai is shown a vision of his past life where Yubel sacrifices their entire body, and even their humanity to go through painful surgery to turn into an ugly dragon, all for the sake of protecting Judai in a previous life. 

Judai is then forced to witness the good side of Yubel they’ve been ignoring all along to paint them as a villain. Yubel is simultaneously extremely selfish and willing to hurt people Judai cares about, but they’re also extremely selfless and will do anything to protect Judai and have made great sacrifices in the past for Judai’s sake. Deku gives lip service to not ignoring the humanity in Shigaraki, but Judai is literally forced to acknowledge the humanity in Yubel. Not only that, but Judai changes his behavior immediately after learning this new information. After seing the sacrifice that Yubel made for him in the past, Judai responds with a sacrifice of his own. A sacrifice that perfectly mirrors the sacrifice that Yubel once made for him. Yubel gave up their humanity for Judai, so Judai fuses his spirit to Yubel’s, becoming a human / spirit hybrid so Yubel no longer has to be alone. 

Judai also doesn’t just fuse their soul with Yubel’s in order to stop Yubel from destroying everything, it’s because both of them at this point need to atone together, and Judai is fulfilling his responsibility of watching over his friend until the end to prove that you care about them - as he said to Sho. Judai’s also fulfilling Johan’s dream of helping repair the bonds between spirits and humans, by reconciling with Yubel and repairing their bond. It’s also Judai atoning for his previous behavior of abandoning Yubel, by choosing to stay alongside them as they both atone together. Deku does sacrifice OFA during the fight against Shigaraki, but their sacrifice isn’t to help Shigaraki, but rather doing psychic damage to Shigaraki by using OFA is the only way to defeat them. He transfers OFA in order to break Shigaraki’s brain so he’ll stop reissting and Deku can beat him down. Judai fuses their soul together with Yubel out of empathy and a responsibility they feel to help their friend fater abandoning them, Deku transfers One for All to Shigaraki in order to hurt him and make him easier to punch. It's funny that Deku doesn't travel to Shigaraki's mind to learn more about him, but instead with the specific intent of harming him.

Once he's inside Shigaraki's mind, he doesn't take time to reflect on how Shigaraki used to stand up for bullied kids, or how he wants to be a hero to villains because no one else will stick up for the outcasts in society. No, he only care about Shigaraki when he takes the form of a child crying for help.

In the aftermath of the psychic vision Deku’s behavior doesn’t change towards Shigaraki in any way either. You could say he sacrificed his own arms in order to try to comfort Shigaraki within the depths of his own mind - but that’s not a real sacrifice either because his arms immediately come back.  When Judai learns about the sacrifice that Yubel made in a previous life towards him, he stops seeing Yubel as an enemy and finds a way to resolve things peacefully between them. When Deku lanterns that Shigaraki’s a victim of All for One, and that his entire life was a lie, when he sees Shigaraki’s suffering first hand does his beavior twoards Shigaraki change in any way? 

When he sees Afo has taken over Shigaraki’s body again, does he try to shout for Shigaraki, to tell Shigaraki to fight from the inside, to reassure Shigaraki that he’s still in there that there’s still good in him? Nope. He just punches Shigaraki some more.

What Deku needed to tell Shigaraki is so obviously set up by the narrative too. Shigaraki wanted just one person in that house to tell him he could be a hero. Deku wanted his mother to tell him he could be a hero if he was quirkless. Deku sees that Shigaraki started out as a boy who wanted to be a hero, and who was manipulated into being a villain but does he try to appeal to the boy inside of Shigaraki by telling him he can still be a hero? Does he now see the good in Shigaraki? Nope, he just tries to kill him by punching him really hard. 

I purposefully chose the images for the banner of this post, because it shows how differently MHA and GX treated its villains in the end. Yubel is embraced by Judai in the end, Shigaraki evaporates into dust.

"Judai, now that our souls have become one we will never be separated again. I have now been filled with your love and power. Let us fight together, against the wave of light leading this universe to destruction!"

Shigaraki could so easily have been given the love and empathy that Yubel was shown, but instead their life ends with no show of empathy from Deku, and with them dying believing that their long life of tragedy meant nothing in the end. Shigaraki realizes he's a crying kid, but he's never comforted.

Shigaraki: I only stole my body back from Master, and I didn't destroy anything. "In the end, I was just as you said... A crying kid, huh?"

Yubel is embraced and comforted, Shigaraki disintegrates into nothing.

One of these stories is apparently an optimistic story about heroes saving people, but it ends with the lifelong victim being killed in the most nihilistic manner possible, never receiving comfort, and never achieving anything with his long life.

The other story is a silly anime about card games, shows that when people are alone and suffering they can lash out and do terrible things. That all people are weak especially when they're alone, but the solution isn't to abandon them, or condemn them for their faults, but to believe in them and help uplift them the same way that Judai decides to uplift Yubel so they can atone together.

Which is why Deku gets an F in being a hero. Go directly to summer school. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $100. 

#mha meta #ygo meta #mha 423 #bnha 423 #mha 423 spoilers #bnha 423 spoilers #izuku midoriya #deku #shigaraki tomura #tenko shimura #judai yuki #yubel #soulshipping #yu gi oh gx #yu gi oh

[janesgms]

Astro Notes - 05

– Introduction –

[✨️] In this post I wanted to talk about my SR placements for this year and my experiences with them, and then in the next post I'm gonna try to predict my next year experiences basing them on my 2024 solar return chart and come back here next year to tell you guys what i got wrong and what i got right 😀 (is this a stupid idea?¿ idk). Btw, i've made it writing it in a way that makes you indentify with it in case you have the placement!

CAPRICORN ASC ♡ You're gonna show yourself this year like a more serious and mature person, you may focus on dressing more classy or just having more polites and elegant manners. You'll focus your appearance on aging better and even trying to look an age different from yours, in my case I think I wanna look younger lol. Your energy may be more grounded and even dense this year. You might look like you're always serious or deep in thought this year. Which is true because a friend told me that I look like I always want to punch someone when I was just with a normal face? Haahah and I never heard that bc I've also had a more calm vibe to my appearance lol.

14° DEGREE ASC/MC ♡ With the taurus degree on the ascendant and midheaven you may focus your appearance on venusian themes like makeup products, skin care, clothes!!!, accessories, anything that makes you feel prettier eith yourself. since the MC is in it too, people might compliment a lot on your physical appearance that year (or judge you too -_-)

LIBRA MC ♡ The SR MC reinforces how people are gonna perceive you that year and your reputation direction. With the libra MC, you might look like a person who focus a lot on appearance and love, even looking vain to some, you might appear to be someone who's constantly focusing on looking beautiful and being loved that year. It may be a year which your love life and personal cares with your appearance is gonna be very visible to others 😨 to my sadness, so it may indicate that you receive unwanted "advices" or judgements regarding these topics.

12H SUN ♡ you'll focus a lot on your subconscious mind that year. you'll focus on spritualism, the general occult. everything that's been hidden within yourself is gonna come out from yourself like an avalanche. this can also indicate your hidden enemies will be shown to you. you'll tend to isolate yourself more because of this or just because you feel like you're gonna be better this way.

AQUARIUS MOON ♡ your emotions will be focused and based more on your friends, who you want to get closer with, social settings (maybe parties), and things unconventional for you, or just new and exciting experiences, you'll see things in a new vision. think of your past years and habits and remember if this year you've started craiving or thinking on something unusual for you. You'll also focus on being more original and not following much the others, feeling like "I know my own worth and values and I'm not gonna change it easily for anyone". You might feel like you don't need to fit in anymore, like you're happy with your uniqueness. Also, idk if it's a coincidence but this year I got closer to someone who's an aquarius moon and this person taught me some really important lessons to me.

2H MOON ♡ you'll focus your emotions on physical sensations, your face, your food relationship, your physical posessions... this can make you crave financial comfort, luxury, relaxation, sensual intimacy maybe? you'll feel like you're more materialistic than in other years. this is so true, I was never someone to focus much in matters like money and posessions but this year I felt more inclined in wanting a better financial life, wanting more financial comfort, etc (I'm not proud of it lol), also a lot on my physical face - the 2H is also about it.

CAPRICORN MERCURY ♡ you'll focus your communication style on being more direct, solid and someone who imposes respect. you might also talk about financial matters lol. you'll also talk a lot about your future profession, your future ambitions, your mental security, your workplace (be it school, job etc). you'll want to talk about more mature themes. I feel like it specially because this is my last year in high school so all the "focus" and expectations are in how my professional career is gonna start when i finish it and what college I'm gonna attend too, so I tend to talk a lot about these topics specially this year. For ex: I have lost counts on how many times people asked me which job I want to do this year.

1H MERCURY ♡ means you'll focus on finding your true voice that year. you'll focus on being honest with yourself and be more direct in your conversations. you'll focus on imposing limits with communication. i feel like this year i'm being more direct in my thoughts and I don't let people have their way with me and keep quiet so this is great for a personal development.

SCORPIO VENUS ♡ I still have hopes this placement indicates that you're gonna pass through the humilliation first (check ✅️) and then through the new vibes of your love life with a fairytale boyfriend (waiting?... ❌️ not check). But being more serious, the scorpio venus in here tells that your love life is gonna be intense for you that year. You may go through a break up that year if you're dating or a new relationship if ur single (there's still hope for us single ladies), since scorpio is all about transformations and rebirths. You might feel like you're more posessive and jealous in your relationships (friendships, affairs, etc) than in other years. You might go through an acquaintence with someone that'll make you suffer like hell but will make you stronger in the end. Your relationships this year can be secretive or just mysteryous in general, but summing up, very transformative. This can also be an indicator of letting go of toxic friendships or affairs so if you lost someone this year and ur still suffering stop if girl, cause this person went away for your well being and not for your worst.

11H VENUS ♡ (Guys as I'm writing this I'm so tired and sleepy so forgive me any typo but I'll keep going bc if I bury this post in my drafts and say "I'll continue later", than I'll never end this post like the others in my drafts so I'm gonna keep writing it with the appearance of a corpse but let's go) I'm almost 101% sure this aspect is the friendzone one guys, and probably you're the one who's gonna be friendzoned or already was. Sadly but it happens. So... according to the universe laws, this indicates that you're not gonna focus on romantic relationships and more on friendships but this wasn't the case for me, maybe it was because it's in scorpio. Furthermore, I think this indicates that my love life this year influenciated a lot on my social circle, or badically that it made me isolate myself because of my romantic life and fuck up my social life/"friends". It also affected my only real friendship, where it became really exhausting to me bc of it.

SAGITTARIUS MARS ♡ you'll focus a lot of your energy in things that make you feel like you're free, truly happy and actively stimulated. you'll probably focus your energy and passion in: going to parties, learning about philosophic matters, learning about the higher meaning, the truth about the universe, being more independent, wanting to live somewhere else, wanting to travel a lot or just knowing more about other cultures, living alone or at least far from your parents to feel like you're free, learning new languages, etc. On another note, you may focus on being more physical active and doing exercises. This mars can also indicate having a more disperse energy which changes direction easily. I relate to that and I'm really experiencing all of that and more in the future I hope!

12H MARS ♡ you'll put a lot of your energy in the matters said in the 1st note (12H sun). probably you're gonna get closer to hobbies like: subliminals, law of attraction, meditation, tarot, astrology, psychology, sel reflection, the supernatural, past lives, connections to other dimensions, getting high and/or drunk (👀), having constant connections with water (like rivers, lakes, beaches), things that you do alone like reading, listening to music, etc. In a more realistic side, you'll focus your energy and passion on changing yourself in a transcendental way, it's like the 8th house but in a more mental way, which also influentiates on your physical manners obviously. this is so nice in my opinion, it's been such a nice year in this sense to me, i'm gonna enjoy the rest of this year to the max because these hobbies were the best thing that happened to me this year.

12H CERES ♡ this is getting repetitive but wtv, you're gonna develop a soft spot (if you don't already have one) or just create a very nurturing attachment to the 12H matters (things said in the 2 notes above), so you'll feel like you're at peace when you're focusing on these things. and this is true for me! as i said before, when i focus on these things, I feel at ease and healed.

– End notes –

[🩷] So guys, it was it for today. Maybe later I'll edit it and add the other planets house plafements but for now I'm gonna rest bc I'm literally dead and my hands are gonna fall, so byee! See ya and good night <3

#astrology #astro notes #astro observations #astro community #astrology notes #aesthetic #astrology observations #solar return chart #solar return

[choccy-milky]

Clora having an adorable mother and the world's most terrifying father makes so much sense. She's inquisitive, strong, brave and scary in her own right like her dad and yet she's small, adorable, sweet and a little naive like her mom, whom she looks just like. It makes sense.

Which means that Sebastian is in for it big time when they're older and it's time to ask for her hand. It's the 1800's, the late 1800's so technically he doesn't have to, Clora says, but Sebastian has met Clive and he knows that if he marries Clora and doesn't ask before hand for her fathers blessing that he might go mysteriously missing or be hit by a curse that causes erectile dysfunction. Which is so much worse.

Doesn't stop him from having a few nervous breakdowns, hyperventilating just a little bit, crying to Ominis that he thinks it's coming, the tea cup with the grimm truly was an omen and his time has come to die.

But, of course, when he asks Clive all he is met with is a long silent stare.

"My daughter has already informed me of your future nuptials. I don't understand why you're here."

Clive knows he doesn't need anyone asking for permission to marry his darling daughter, she's just like him she can definitely take care of herself. Also, I bet he's nicer than he lets on, his wife is the one to actually watch out for.

Sebastian: Your parents live on being contrary.

Clora: ???

He understands this, knows this and gets that his wife is exactly like her parents and that maybe he has bit off more than he could chew.

Ominis: You willingly married into this family. You've no one to blame but yourself.

Sebastian: I know. *puts down newspaper where his wife is on the front cover for taking out a ring of deadly dark wizards singlehandedly, proving just how dangerous Clora can be* I love her so much.

OMG???😭🥹💖💖I LOVED READING THIS!!! THANK YOU FOR WRITING AND SENDING ALL OF THAT AND PUTTING SO MUCH THOUGHT INTO THE CHARACTERS....😭you are so right, clora really is a combo of her parents just in different ways (and its also cracking me up, now that seb has met her dad, that he'll start to recognize clora's "clive mode" when she gets stubborn and serious and puts her foot down HAHA like omg...this is the same sort of feeling i get when her father stares me down...) AN ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION CURSE LMAOOO but youre also so right in that for as overprotective and 1890s as clive is and despite the way he tests seb, he also values clora + her judgement + her happiness, and as long as clora doesnt pick anyone who he actually deems to be a bad person, clive wouldnt feel the need to give his approval (even if seb THINKS he should get it/needs to get it) CLIVE IS A FEMINIST!!! and indeed also much nicer than he lets on🫠 (the only thing is that seb would have been WITH clora taking down that deadly ring of dark wizards. his overprotective ass may know shes capable but that doesnt change the fact that he protects her/treats her as if she isnt BAHHA he cant help it💕)

#seb also has clora-related ptsd from her always getting kidnapped/put in danger at this point LOL. poor seb dating the MC #he 100% even as adults still gets nightmares of when she was taken by ranrok/how she looked when he found her/if he hadnt found her #ask #also if that erectile dysfunction curse exists seb would 100% want to learn it for reasons LMFAOO #here clora wear this amulet #itll give every man (whos not me) erectile dysfunction when theyre near you LMFAOOO IM DEAD that would be so sane of him😍

[fluffydice]

I'm bored so I'm bothering you. Do you have any Saiki K psykickers headcannons you feel like sharing? It's ok if not 🥰

What have you done,,,

I don't have any specific headcanons, but I can talk a bit about their dynamics because I've thought (and written) about it more (and we'll inevitably get headcanons mixed in!)

The Pyskickers are interesting characters all on their own, but when you put them together, you get a mess that really shouldn't work as well as it does. Which is. The same for most ND friend groups asdfghjkl

A big thing that's important to me about them is that they have to be able to work without Saiki. Maybe not be functional, competent humans—especially because, like all of Saiki's friends, the more they group up the more braincells they lose—but they need to work as a friend group. Saiki, unlike with his other friend group, doesn't always feel the need to babysit the Psykickers. Toritsuka, maybe, but he's in a weird spot since he joined so early. Saiki and him were the only ones for a while, so he's kinda an in-between. But for the most part, Aiura and Akechi are usually actively helping Saiki with something. Toritsuka, too, even if 7/10 he's being threatened and/or bribed, 2/10 he's trying to help but failing—him succeeding that 1/10 already puts him in a separate category than most of Saiki's friends.

I went on a tangent there; point being, Saiki isn't constantly mother-henning and helicopter-ing them. Ergo, Saiki can't be the only reason they stick together. I don't want Saiki to be the only reason they stick together in my writing, mainly because I do like reinforcing the fact that not everything is about him—even if it's subtle. Things happen around him that Saiki is not always privy to, and this includes his fellow and honorary psychics' dynamics.

Akechi and Aiura are easy for me. Funnily enough, despite likely having the best relationship, even including Saiki, I have little to say about them. It's likely because they lack a lot of the complexity the others have: they're just really fucking cool with each other, and get along swimmingly. Honestly, when I write them, it's often with at least a hint of a romantic undertone. They're comfortable with each other physically and emotionally. Akechi trusts Aiura's judgement on when he should keep it short out of necessity, not because he's being annoying. Aiura thinks Akechi is wicked as hell, and also trusts his value judgements on people and situations.

From a literary standpoint, Aiura as a character tends to get in over her head and overly emotionally-invested in things—Akechi can provide a good counterbalance to ensure things can remain on track in the story, as well as help avoid any potential mini-conflicts that might arise from characters clashing due to simple communication incompatibility.

Speaking of communication incompatibility, Toritsuka and Aiura are full of it. Despite them seemingly being the most similar on the surface-level, their motivations, intentions, and moralities conflict. A lot. Take this scene I wrote of them, for example:

“Of course they were mad! You can’t just act like you don’t have emotions whenever you feel like it. Or, if you do, you can’t get depressed when they start treating you like it.” “If you don’t shut up,” Aiura hissed, grabbing a fistful of his sleeve. Toritsuka yanked his arm away to no avail, then settled for glaring at her. “I’m gonna—"

Here, we have Toritsuka actually making a good point about something; it's his wording that muddles it up. Aiura is quick to defend against him because she's protective of her loved ones, and is also aware that their beliefs differ sharply. Neither are quite in the wrong here; or, neither of them are any more right than the other. Aiura is right to assume the worst because that's typically what Toritsuka shows. Toritsuka is right to point things out about the situation. These are the mini-conflicts that Akechi smooths over by being essentially a bridge between their ways of communicating:

“Wait, Mikoto,” Akechi piped up. His fingers were in front of his mouth, his thumb cupping his chin, in a classic sign of thinking. “The wording was harsh, admittedly, but Reita is, in fact, not wrong.”

At the end of the day, though, they are friends. Aiura might be a tiny bit more willing to admit it, but both her and Toritsuka do care about each other. When they work together, big things happen. They just need a bit of oil to help smooth things along between them. Most of their dynamic, however, comes from their utility in stores:

From a literary standpoint, Toritsuka helps balance out Aiura's optimism to a reasonable point. Saiki's cynicism is often a big contributor to conflicts in my stories—he's unreliable, both in dialogue and in narration. Toritsuka is a milder version of that cynicism (albeit rough around the edges). Aiura can't always be right about the way of things, but Akechi is too prone to taking the middle ground; essentially, pointing out all the benefits to her way of thinking while also providing the downsides. Sometimes, though, it's necessary to just have someone completely shut it down, and fast. That's where Toritsuka comes in.

Also, Toritsuka and Aiura often act as the representation of the doubts and hopes of Saiki, respectively. They're essentially foils to each other, which is helpful when your main character is a hot-and-cold tempered little bitch. A sort of good-cop bad-cop for him, if you will. By having them verbally duke it out, it helps guide the reader a bit about what's true about Saiki's view and what's distorted by his way of thinking. Chances are, if they manage to agree, it's a lesson he's going to have to learn.

And finally, Akechi and Toritsuka. Though they're comfortable with each other to an extent, they lack the romantic undertones I put in for Akechi and Aiura. Akechi makes Toritsuka uncomfortable: it's hard to argue with him, for one, and he often calls out Toritsuka in a way that's hard to hide from. Akechi is the most successfully mentor-like to Toritsuka out of the rest of them—Aiura is too automatically competitive and Saiki can smother. There's also the fact that Toritsuka can sometimes trigger his trauma in certain ways, so Saiki tends to lash out. Akechi, however, is patient and steady. Anything Toritsuka says rolls off of him like water. Akechi is hard to catch off guard with words or actions, and deep down, Toritsuka really does need stability and an unwavering personality to help him grow as a person. I think Toritsuka is fascinating to Akechi as well, as I don't think Akechi is a naturally sexual being. He's not averse, but the kind of brain-rotted attraction and horniness that Toritsuka often exhibits can teach Akechi a lot about other people. The biggest thing that Toritsuka offers Akechi is a better understanding of other people. His down-to-earth nature can help Akechi connect his practical knowledge about psychoanalysis and anthropology to actual people.

From a literary standpoint, Akechi acts as a milder reign for Toritsuka. Aiura may be right to disagree with him, but sometimes a defter explanation is needed than Aiura's often emotion-driven responses. This is where Akechi comes in, especially because Toritsuka's language and laziness can make it seem as though he's not to be trusted as a rational view. He is, and Akechi helps uncover that.

Also, Toritsuka can sometimes act as the audiences natural reaction to Akechi's tangents. Akechi obviously likes to ramble, but Aiura won't interrupt him and Saiki won't confront people. Toritsuka cuts through a lot of that easily and naturally, which helps keep them both in character while still allowing the story to move on.

Overall, it's kind of easy to see what utility I get out of these characters. Akechi is an intermediary who bridges gaps of understanding, both between characters and the audience and the happenings of the story. Aiura is the outgoing one, the one to get things started. She provides a force against Saiki's heavily biased world-view and acts as a moral compass for her group. Toritsuka helps cut through a lot of bullshit and acts as healthy dosage of reality these personalities need to keep their heads on straight.

Plus, I think they're in an unofficial QPR. So.

#holy shit #maybe there’s a reason I make akechi similar to me LMAO #anyways thank you so so so much for asking <3333333 i love rambling #i was so scatterbrained earlier but this snapped me into focus #if anyone ever has questions about my fics or my decisions. you know where to find me... #saiki k #character voices #fluffy cooks a headcanon #fluffy writes a fic #fluffy writes an essay

[hero-israel]

--------------------------------------------------

Amazing how uncritically modern leftists, who won't even say "Rhodes Scholar," will leap to defend 150-year-old white Englishmen if they seem to be good on Palestine for ten seconds.

Fucking ARNOLD TOYNBEE. Really!

Toynbee uses the term "Judaic" to describe episodes of "extreme brutality," even where Jews themselves were not involved, as in the Gothic persecution of the Christians.  More generally, throughout the first eight volumes of his civilization series, Toynbee often refers to the Jewish people as a "fossil remnant," implying that Judaism was defined by its "fanaticism," its "provincialism," and its "exclusivity," whose value derived solely from its role as a seedbed for the superior civilization and moral code of Christianity.

By characterizing Judaism as a morally primitive belief-system based on the idea of Jews as a "master race," and then asserting that Jews' claim to Israel is based on this premise, Toynbee figures Zionism as "kindred to Nazism." On the other hand, Toynbee argues that by failing to accept their fate as a diaspora community and trying instead to replace the "traditional Jewish hope of an eventual Restoration of Israel to Palestine on God's initiative through the agency of a divinely inspired Messiah," Zionist Jews have the same "impious" relationship to their religion as Communists do to Christianity. Having thus equated Zionism with both Nazism and Communism, Toynbee asserts:

On the Day of Judgement, the gravest crime standing to the German National Socialists' account might be, not that they had exterminated a majority of the Western Jews, but that they had caused the surviving remnant of Jewry to stumble.

What was delightful was that an actual Jew made this colonizing motherfucker eat his words!

Toynbee explained that he did not intend to statistically equate the actions of the Nazis with those of Israel’s founders, but rather simply to draw a moral comparison: that individual massacres committed by Israeli forces in 1948 were no different than those perpetrated by the Germans against the Jews. “If I murder one man, that makes me a murderer,” he observed. “I don’t have to reach the thousand mark or the million mark to be a murderer.”

Herzog pounced on this point, turning Toynbee’s own scholarship against him. “Now, Professor, in volume four, page 128F, of your Study of History you say, ‘In the history of man’s attempt at civilization hitherto, there has never been any society whose progress and civilization has gone so far that in times of revolution or war, its members could be relied upon not to commit atrocities,’ ” Herzog recited. He then listed all the nations Toynbee himself implicated in this charge: the Germans in Belgium in 1914, the British in Ireland in 1920, the French in Syria, and many others throughout history—including, of course, the Nazis.

Herzog then added one group that Toynbee had omitted: “Do you agree that there were also Arab massacres of Jewish civilians?” Herzog made reference to such cases, asking, “Were these also in the category of Nazi atrocities? And if so, why don’t you say that both sides did things in such a category? Why do you choose us? Why do you single us out? Why don’t you write of Britain and of almost every country in the world according to your own definition?”

After several minutes of such questioning, Toynbee conceded the point. “I agree that most societies have committed atrocities, but I do not think that condones atrocities,” he said. “I agree with you on that,” Herzog quickly responded. “But do you agree that this comparison can be applied on the universal level to any country which in war its soldiers have committed atrocities against civilians?” Toynbee had to concur: “Yes, atrocities are atrocities and murder is murder, whoever commits it.” Herzog asked if Toynbee would similarly stigmatize “Arab atrocities against Jewish civilian populations,” and those committed by the United States. “Of course,” the professor replied.

With that admission, Herzog essentially disarmed the historian. After all, if every nation had behaved like the Nazis, then the charge was divested of moral meaning. “In other words,” Herzog concluded, “the Nazi pall lies across the world, before the Nazis came … and after they have gone.” Jews, then, were no more prone to immoral conduct than any other people, and Israel no more and no less guilty than any other modern state.

@laast-in-tranz-lay-shn

#leftist antisemitism #arnold toynbee #israel #palestine #nice to see an anti-zionist say “there is such a thing as too far” #but there are always others who say “no there isn't”

[antimony-medusa]

Hi! To preface: I don't think there's any one right or wrong answer to my question necessarily, but I value your opinion as a level-headed adult in this fandom who can probably provide sensible input on the issue I'm having, so I thought I'd ask.

If a CC asks for their character not to be drawn (specifically referring to fanart, which they likely saw on Twitter) in a sexualised way, what does that mean for written fanwork content? Is it "wrong" (putting this in quotation marks since that's a loaded word, to say the least) to write nsfw content about said character and post it on Ao3, considering the differences in visibility/CC knowledge of those platforms, as well as the general consensus/expectation that CCs don't generally read fanfic anyway? Where is the line between "you should respect the CC's wishes" (avoiding the word "boundaries" since that's also very loaded in mcyt spaces) and "you can do whatever you want forever; fanworks are created by and for fans, not for the creators" drawn? Does "just don't put it where they can see unless they go looking" (i.e. correctly tagged on Ao3, not on a CC-frequented site like Twitter) apply? Would it be better not to do it at all, or only create and share said content in private spaces like Discord? Or is this all a "there is no single 'morally correct' answer, make your own personal judgement" thing?

(Sorry for the long-winded question but this is genuinely something I'm struggling with right now, lol. As I said I value and respect your opinion and views about these kinds of things in fandom, so if you have anything to say on the matter I'd appreciate your input!)

Alright so, obligatory warning for discourse on this one right at the top, and possibly also long post. These tend to be me rambling.

This is a situation that I think it's fair that a lot of people disagree. Your personal comfort level with making NSFW content in general is not where my comfort level is, we can come to totally different equilibriums. And then you add in creators expressing that they don't like seeing NSFW content of their characters, and people end up in a whole lot of different places, whether that's a complete no on shipping or NSFW, or people feeling fine to consume it but not create it, or only if it's archive locked, or only specific ships or smps, or whatever. I think it's fine that we don't all agree on this, creation is a fickle beast and we are in a weird place as a fandom of being not rpf but kinda cousins, and we can get *really* close to the creators with twitch and twitter, so people's comfort level in meshing all the parasociality and roleplay and real life of it all can end up in a lot of different places.

I just think that the most important thing for the fandom being a healthy place to spend time on the internet is that we don't go aroud sending hate/abuse to those we disagree with. a) i don't agree with internet mobs or suicide baiting or anon hate in general, b) the number of times I have seen internet games of telephone happen when it comes to this subject is unreal. To use an example from literally today, I saw someone saying that Pac of qsmp pacmike was uncomfortable with shipping art and fic and we all should stop shipping immediately, and once I tracked it back to its source, it turns out that what had happened was the creator said that he wasn't a fan that all the art was of him in the jumpsuit that used to be his skin, he has a new skin now, which turned into sexy jumpsuit art was the problem, which turned into pac hates all sexy fan art, which turned into "pac is being bombarded with nsfw art and shipping and he hates it". Now he might actually also not like NSFW art, but that's not actually what he was adressing, but it was certainly what was being circulated! So like, people warning me off of certain subjects— how do I know that they're actually accurate or if twitter just went twitter on a passing mention of something someone said on a twitch stream?

So I think it's way way way healthier for us as a fandom to sometimes disagree on the subject of "what we're drawing/writing about" and when that happens we implement Don't Like; Don't Read, and we just ignore that, or block if necessary. Don't Want To See it? Simply Don't See It. It's a bad idea to start hate campaigns for sinners, and half the time it's based on bad information anyways.

But in cases that you do know that the creator doesn't want to see that, you found an accurate clip? So this is a case where I think that there's no single moral answer to this that everyone is gonna agree on. We're all coming at it from too many different cultural backgrounds and different streamers in mind and comfort levels with NSFW in general. I don't think there is a firm answer that is gonna make you morally safe. But my personal feelings is that in cases where we know the creators doesn't want to see that, I think the important part there is that the creator never sees that, not that we stamp it off the internet entirely.

I do think, personally, ymmv, that you are not necessarily doing anything morally wrong with drawing or writing NSFW of someone's character, even if they think it's weird. There's a long history of creators saying "you can't do [this] with my characters," and it happens to be you can't [make them gay] enough to make me uncomfortable in general principle with saying creator of the character gets to call the shots in all settings forever. This happened with Anne Rice and with the supernatural fandom and like— it's the internet, we get to make the characters be gay together. This is the making sex jokes about fictional characters website, and Ao3 is the making porn about fictional characters website. I think it's fine if it exists on the internet, the question comes down to one of what we're forcing the creator to see, or what we're putting where they'll stumble upon it. Like, examples from real life— if you have a friend who's vegan, it's polite to not spend time rhapsodizing about how good meat is around them, and if you know that meat makes them sick, it's polite to do a meatless meal around them. That's a human person you want to be okay around you. But that's their boundary for their life, not yours, so even when you're being polite you have no obligation to go vegan when they're not around. And they have a politeness obligation to not walk into a steakhouse and freak out because there's meat there. They have a boundary for their life, and I'm going to respect it, but my life is a different story, and they need to take reasonable steps to protect their boundaries and not just expect everyone else to conform to them.

Or walking by someone on the street and waiting till they're out of earshot and then going "jesus christ that guy was hot" to your friends— that's fine. That's normal human behaviour. What becomes rude is when you make it hot guy's problem and yell at him. Being attracted to someone in your own space is not a problem. I'm aroace, I am not going to be in a relationship with anyone. I'm not going to ban having crushes on me, as long as you don't make it my business. Talking about an attractive person in your own space is not a problem. Being sexual in your own space— and again we are talking about fictional characters, the way I see it, these are lies we're telling about folks that are not real, who live in little minecraft worlds— that's fine. The problem is if we start catcalling people about it.

When you walk into fandom spaces you are walking into a space where we all like taking fictional guys and telling stories about them and a good portion of those stories are going to include kissing. That is not necessarily baseline normal for like, all of humanity, but people talk about tv shows they watch as one of the classic work small talk techniques. Fandom takes the "I hope ted gets together with jessica" "no he needs to work on himself first" discussion and writes stories, is all, to share with each other. Privately. On our special private website where there's a button you can click to hide your work from search engines and another one to hide it from logged-out users. If you log into the website and search things up, no tags blocked, what you find is on you for saying "I will see literally anything that exists on this subject in a space meant for literally anything". You will find gore. You will find kissing. You literally just opted in to seeing it. That's on you.

So like, there's my little defense of nsfw work existing in general, I think it existing is not a problem. I do think that we should keep it FAR AWAY from streamers. They get to set the rules for their spaces, and if someone doesn't want to see sexualized fan art, I do think we should make sure that in a reasonable way, they never have to see sexualized fan art/fic.

So like me personally, I'm going to hit that Ao3 button to hide my work from search engines, and anything NSFW (or shippy, depending on the person) is not going to go into the main tags on tumblr or twitter or anywhere I'm aware that the creators ever check that tag, and I'd probably archive lock it if the creator had publically mentioned being uncomfortable with it, and if I was regularly posting NSFW I'd block the creators on social media with any account I discuss NSFW with. I want to make sure that I am talking to my friends about the cubitos, not catcalling someone.

And I would probably err on the side of caution when it comes to social media sites that creators are on? Okay so the fandom has a habit of saying that NSFW and Shipping is BAD and can't exist, on the one hand, but on the other hand it says that anything that isn't Bad Wrong Shipping/Explicit NSFW is fine, which leads to like— extremely sexy thirst trap art being drawn and then the creators are tagged. People putting family dynamic fics that really pushes that envelope in the main tag. Gahhhhhh????? No? Don't do that?

I think it would be healthier in the fandom if we did a lot more going "this is for the fandom, not the creator" and we don't tag creators on twitter, and we took our little kissing fics, or gore, or kidfic, or neurodiverse headcanons, or anything else it might be not for the creator to see, and we kept it in fandom spaces and away from creators. But Ao3 is that fandom space that you have to opt into, it's literally archive of our Own, for fans, in that space as long as you tag it you're good.

So the TL;DR of this all is that my opinion is that if you tag it correctly on Ao3 you're fine. Maybe archive lock it. Keep it off twitter. Don't make it the streamer's problem, and you're good.

#discourse #fandom meta #ask #anon #long post

[thana-topsy]

If you're up for sharing more writing tips, how can I tell if what I've written is actually any good? With writing I get stuck in a cycle of feeling like I'm the next Shakespeare while writing but then I'll look over my work a few days later and absolutely hate everything and think it's the most cringe shit ever, then I'll leave it a bit longer and think eh it's not as bad as I thought but still not great and so on. I feel like being forced to write for a grade during school and having everything be marked and assessed and assigned a particular value has robbed me of the ability to critically analyse my own work in a way that's objective and accurate but also fair and realistic. I can analyse other peoples' stuff till the cows come home but I lose all rational thought when it comes to my own stuff

Adding onto that, how do I get to the point where I can stop looking back at my old work and hating everything and wanting to delete it all? Realistically I know finding fault with my old stuff is good bc it means I've grown and improved from where I once was etc but at the same time I wanna enjoy stuff I've made in the past without cringing every time I read it

Hey there Nony, I wanted to let this one percolate a little bit before answering because I've been where you are. And it's a rough time for sure. But aside from my own experiences, I also wanted to get the opinions of some of my writerly friends in the fandom, too, since everyone is a little font of wisdom in their own right.

So I'm going to share their advice alongside my own, because this is kind of a complicated string of questions you're asking. Long post ahead!

@paraparadigm says to Keep Writing: "Write more. Write so much (and so many different things) that eventually the sheer volume bulldozes over self-devouring ego, comparison twitches, or feeling lost, because you don't yet know your own baseline. Coupled with "read more, read everything, read things you enjoy and things you don't, read for the craft as much as the entertainment." And: "I'd add that when revisiting old writing, it's helpful for me to differentiate between "ew the writing is not as technically solid as it is now" and "ah that's interesting, I guess that's where I was at then, emotionally and psychologically". Old writing is also a sort of archaeological record of your younger self, and that can, in fact, be a bit itchy to revisit, so learning to cherish that without passing judgement can be really helpful. I try to treat it like those little marks one puts on the door jamb to track a kid's height."

@mareenavee says "Part of it is writing more, as Para said and I will always second that. Another part is, honestly, the hardest part. It's to try very hard to get out of the habit of negative self-talk.... There's so much work involved with this but normalizing being proud of your work and having some grace with yourself is part of that answer."

@archangelsunited says "Early on, instead of going “this has to be a masterpiece” I would tell myself my only job was to tell a story. I couldn’t tell a story if I was deleting it. Also, talking about your work helps. The less ashamed I was of my writing, the more people wanted to read it. There is a need to hide your work, and that can lead to a downward spiral all its own. And, 90% of the time, you have to suck at something to learn to be good at something. The work you already wrote shouldn’t be the sum of all your skill, it should be one of those measuring sticks for the moment. Despite previous thought, you won’t be stuck at the same level forever."

@polypolymorph says "In addition to accumulating experience via reading and writing, you also have to be willing to reinvent the wheel. Unfortunately the Process™️ is unique to everyone, and even when you are deliberately mimicking a voice as, say, a ghost writer, you can't expect that 2+2=4 for you. Your process might look more like a Lotka-Volterra equation for the same type of work and that's okay. Trial and error is the best way to figure out what advice actually works for you--and if it doesn't, it doesn't mean you're wrong. Don't get stuck on pop writing advice like a sad roomba does on an upturned rug. Learn when to throw it out."

So there's some advice from some other excellent writers! I hope you've been able to find some value in their advice, because it certainly kicked me in the pants a few times.

As for me, I think, having been where you are, my biggest piece of advice is: Find joy in the craft. Get curious instead of critical. An artist shouldn't down themselves over a rough sketch when they're working out a drawing, so why would a writer do such a thing? Everything you write is practice. Everything you make has value because it builds up to the next thing you make.

At the end of the day, you are the only one who is capable of telling the stories that are in your head. This fact alone gives whatever you put onto paper value, regardless of quality. You are creating magic, in the most literal sense! Creating something out of nothing, conjuring images into someone else's mind from hundreds of thousands of miles away, transcending space and time. It's amazing!

Lastly, my final piece of advice is to just write for fun. Write things nobody else will ever see just because you wanted to get words onto paper. You have to unlearn what was drilled into you in school. You are more than a content creation machine. You are an artist, a wordsmith. And just know that there will never be a day when you look at your own work and say "That's it, I have achieved perfection."

Writing is a life-long journey. Just enjoy the ride!

#topsy's asks #writing #on writing #writing advice #writeblr #fanfiction

[avelera]

What kind of stories would you say are better suited to be written as fanfic? What kind of ideas work better/worse as such — for both long (to incredibly long) and short (to incredibly short) stories?

I'm going to take a step back because your questions requires a definition of fanfiction.

Fanfiction, in my opinion, is a derivative work that requires knowledge of another author's work in order to be effective to the audience.

This is why, in my opinion, protestations that John Milton's "Paradise Lost" and Virgil's "The Aeneid" not being fanfic are based on a value judgement towards fanfic that I find inaccurate. People who protest that those are not fanfiction have a value judgement in which fanfiction inherently means "low quality", which is a separate paradigm of understanding than my own. However, in order to derive the full enjoyment and understanding of "Paradise Lost" the author John Milton assumes deep knowledge of Christian dogma. The story does not work if you have no idea who God, Satan, and Jesus Christ are on a fundamental level and why Salvation is a good thing and Damnation a bad one.

Likewise, "The Aeneid" assumes and requires familiarity with the story of the Trojan War. The impact is severely lessened if the audience does not know what the Trojan War is, who the major players were, and why Aeneas would be fleeing Troy with his father and son. Characters they meet along the way lack impact if you don't know them as figures from the Iliad and Odyssey by Homer, a separate author.

As a note, a writer cannot create fanfiction of their own original work. An original character in an original universe cannot be a Mary Sue, unless we change the definition (which I believe we should, to one better understood as "an unconvincing power fantasy" but I digress). The Odyssey is not fanfiction of the Iliad unless we believe that Homer did not write both of them. This gets convoluted when we start talking about things like mythology and shared universes.

However, "Fifty Shades of Gray" though it began its life as fanfiction, is not fanfiction, wild as that may sound. That is because though Fifty Shades in its original form was "Twilight" fanfiction, a reader does not require knowledge of Twilight to understand and enjoy the story in its current form. They might derive some deeper enjoyment from knowing its origins but that falls more into the category of "reference" at this point, in my opinion, than "derivative".

"Referential" is different than "derivative" by the way, in my mind. "Shrek 2" might make visual gag references to other works like "Lord of the Rings" that are more effective if the viewer has seen Lord of the Rings, but the story itself does not require you to have seen Lord of the Rings to follow it or to enjoy it. The story stands on its own without requiring you to stop what you're doing, watch Lord of the Rings, and come back.

So, to your question, first and foremost story length has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a story is better told as a fanfic.

What determines whether a story makes more sense as original fiction or as a fanfic is depth of knowledge of another work by a different creator in order to fully appreciate it.

A story about a high school girl falling in love with a vampire that ends in tragedy does not inherently need to be a Twilight fanfic. You can start from scratch with new characters in a new setting and no knowledge of Twilight would be required, though an audience familiar with Twilight might better understand the author's frame of reference.

A story by someone other than Stephanie Meyer about how Bella Swan came to regret her choice to become a vampire is a fanfic, even if the above mentioned original story and this fanfic cover many of the same emotional beats. Because the story relies on the audience's emotional connection, positive or negative, to the specific character of Bella Swan and the events of the Twilight series in order to follow this imagined sequel where she realized she made a mistake.

Now, that's a pretty canon-adjacent fanfic. I, personally, am not a huge fan of fanfiction AUs like Coffeeshop AUs where very little is kept of canon except the bare minimum of character appearances. I truly do think the author would be better served to saw off the serial number and just write an original work if the only they're keeping is the character appearances and a largely fanon interpretation of the characters. If you take out the vampires, and the high school, and you have Bella working for Edward in a high powered corporate setting and they decide to enter into a contractual BDSM relationship, I think the correct thing to do is to just adjust the story and publish "Fifty Shades of Gray" as an original novel, because you're so far away from Twilight at that point that all you're really keeping is the audience's attachment to that property and some elements of the power dynamic between Bella and Edward, which are easily transposed onto another fictional couple.

However, I am not representative of all fanfiction readers or writers. To some people, presumably, the fact that these characters aren't Bella and Edward makes the story not worth reading, even if their names are the only recognizable shared element with the original work. To each their own.

Finally, to fully answer your question I would say this:

A story that should be a fanfic is one where your goal is to specifically draw upon the depth of emotion and shared understanding of a character with the audience to make the story work. If it would require half the book to explain who these characters are and what they've done and why we should care about their past adventures in order to read this current exploration, you probably have a fanfic on your hands.

Ex. "I want to explore Bella learning she made a mistake by becoming a vampire." But in order to do this anguished character exploration you have to explain who Bella is, who Edward is, how they met, what her other options were, what events occurred to drive her to her decision, etc etc. Basically, a whole separate book before you can open to what you want to write which is her staring out the window realizing she hates her life.

But, if you want to write about a character who hates being a vampire and then embarks on other adventures, and all we really need to know is that at some point their high school crush turned them into a vampire and they now regret it...? No references to the Cullens, no Jacob, no Forks, no battles over Bella and Edwards love? Then you can probably just do an original story. And eventually, after you establish your new characters and world, you might be able to circle around to the moody emotional deep dive with your original character that you wanted to do with Bella.

It's a really nuanced question. It's hard to anticipate everything someone might mean. It's really dependent on the story. But I hope this makes sense!

#fanfiction #writing #maggie rambles

[volturilovers]

Shadows of one’s past pt.2

English isn’t my first language so the grammar might not be the best.

Part 1

Caius POV:

I sat in my office reading some paperwork, I feel my love, my mate being anxious through the bond. She has been avoiding me for a couple of days. I don't really understand why. Did I do something wrong?, wasnt't she comfortable with me being there?. I am not the person who usually question themselves, nor do I usually question my actions, thats something that Aro and Marcus does. Most of the time.

Today, however I, against my usual judgement, decided give her some peace and let her come to me when she feels ready, despite my irritation of her avoiding me and not knowing w---

*There is a knock on the outside of the door*

I was once again brought out of my thoughts, just like last time in the throne room.

The difference?.

Nobody knocks on my door in the middle of the day, especially in my private office. It made me, quite frankly, more than a little annoyed. I made sure to speak loudly to the vampire standing outside my door.

State your name and the reason for knocking on my door. Everyone who value their life should know that in the castle they aren't allowed to disturb me or my brothers in their private offices unless it's something really important. State your reason for disturbing your KING and I might not rip your head from your miserable shoulders and burn your body and simultaneously putting the head in front of the fire, forcing you to watch your own burning corpse dissolve into ashes. I stated very calmly but the last part of the threat in a very spiteful and threatening manner, which to many is even more scarier than me being “angry”. I wasn't in the mood to humour anyone today.

Y/N POV:

I was sitting in my bed deep in my thoughts. I miss Caius. I didn't know how to face him, he has questions, without a doubt I don't know what will happen, how will he react when I tell him. He has made me more happy than I have ever been in a very, very, very long time. Just thinking he might decide to not believe me sends pain through my chest. I know the right thing is to tell him. I must tell him about it eventually, otherwise he will find out from other sources and I need to do it soon or I will never have the courage to do it.

*I sighed and opened the door to the chambers to see Demetri and Magnus guarding it*

"Lady y/n do you need me to get you anything?"

I took a deep breath before speaking. Can you tell Caius to meet me in our shared quarters this afternoon?

"Of course my lady" Demetri said before walking away to rely my message to Caius.

I shut the door and leaned against it. Now it's done, how do i tell him?Where do I start?

————————————————————————

Posted this that was sitting in my drafts while I Work on the Demetri imagine.

Part 3?

Requested by: @inner-sparkle-inner-writings

Bye lovelies ❤️

#caius volturi #the volturi #the volturi kings #demetri volturi #caius x reader #caius volturi imagine

[polyamorousmood]

How do people handle when a partner says something along the lines of...oh, what, I'm not enough? I don't feel like the notion of polyamory is about anybody not being enough. But not quite sure how to articulate that in a helpful way to reassure another person. Thoughts?

There is no in-the-moment fix to this that I've found.

That is a big concern that requires a lot of work to address. Your partner has to have an open mind, and you have a lot of explaining to do. It's a process, and you'll probably have to explain it several different ways, several different times for it to sink in.

I would caution against directly saying "you are enough" because... your partner alone won't satiate you, in one way or another. If they could, you likely wouldn't be trying/doing/asking for poly stuff (in such a mono-centric world as we live in). But I'd also be likely to bet no ONE person would satisfy you either.

Here's as good a place as any to put the very necessary read-more. There's specifics and stuff below the cut

Okay, I'm having a hard time organizing what I'm trying to get across as flowing prose so we're just doing bullet points of general advice. You know your life better than I do though so these are not hard-and-fast rules so much as consider-this-es.

🔍Find the specific worries your partner has. Without judgement work with your partner to get to the heart(s) of the issue. Are there any precise worries your partner has? When you go out to eat, your partner isn't scared their cooking isn't to your standards. So what ways are they actually worried about being "not enough for you." Sexually inadequate is a common fear, but so is the fear that they're not providing enough for you emotionally or materially, they might worry you're discontent because your hobbies don't overlap enough, or a thousand other things. There's likely general anxiety there as well, but know as much as you can about what worries your partner has.

👇Be specific with your reassurance. As discussed, saying "you are enough" is too easy to ✌️"disprove"✌️ (these are air quotes). But that's in part because its too broad. Any one thing you prefer to do with someone else can serve as "proof" the partner in question "isn't enough." So focus on what you value about your partner, what you get out of that specific relationship, what is special and un-replicatable that you enjoy. "I will always want to do [activity] with you" and "I love your way of seeing the world. When we were talking about [subject] you mentioned [interesting point]. I never would have considered that. I want to keep hearing your insight" and "I NEVER thought I'd like [whatever], but the way you love it makes me love it". You should also (if applicable, do not lie) probably assure your partner you are still committed to a long term relationship with them, including working through problems together.

🤝Help your partner build security in the relationship. Have dedicated time that's just for them Even if you're living together so everything you do is "together", make quality time. Those specific reassurances? Write them down on fancy paper and give them to your partner, so they can refer back to it when they need to. Thank your partner for coming to you with concerns, even when you're not sure what the fix is. In your daily routine you should be telling your partner things you're grateful for about them.

🧍Help your partner feel confident as an individual. The worst way to transition a relationship to polyamory is to go straight from spending every minute together to seeing other people. Perhaps counter-intuitively, you need to have separate lives, preferably before you add other people to the mix. You should spend at least a couple hours a week with friends or on hobbies away from your partner and vice versa. If you're everything to your partner, the fear of not keeping you is the fear of losing EVERYTHING, so your partner needs to see they have value outside of the relationship. And that WILL make a good relationship STRONGER, and less dependent.

⏲️Take time to work through problems.Don't let stuff fester. If you notice your partner is feeling off, say so in as many words. If they aren't ready to talk, its still helpful for them to know you notice and care about their feelings. If they do want to talk, talk. Even if you don't know how to proceed, take real time to sit together and brainstorm. If you don't reach a possible solution, establish a time to revisit it. Don't. let stuff. fester.

💭Know what you mean. "I don't feel like the notion of polyamory is about anybody not being enough" okay, what is it about? What's the draw for you? For me, whose very kitchen table, its about freedom and trust, sure, but its also very much about exploring new things and sharing that experience with my partner. I feel our love is stronger when it is not bogged down by petty mortal notions of exclusivity.

📘📗📙📕Explain your needs multiple different ways. Find several metaphors that describe how you feel. "My favorite meal cannot be my breakfast, lunch, and dinner." "It doesn't feel different to me than friends. You're my best friend but I wouldn't say no to hanging out with a work friend for my best friend's sake." "The sun is beautiful, I cannot live without it, but its also really important I get to see the stars". "I can't do monogamy. I tried really hard in the past, but it felt like cutting off a limb. I wasn't wholly myself, I could still feel phantom sensations of what wasn't. It drove me mad" Whatever you feel suits the situation. Be prepared to go into detail, be prepared to explain the shortcomings of your metaphor, and be aware of what negative associations your metaphors my have (for example, the food metaphor listed here may be misinterpreted as "so you're sick of me"). Make it personal.

🙋Its not you, its me. but like fr. DO NOT use that wording, but emphasize that your wants and feelings and needs are not caused by your partner. They are yours (and you're asking your partner to help you meet those wants/feelings/needs by allowing you some poly freedom).

📑Further reading. I talk about how to communicate effectively here. Here's a little workbook about "jealousy" but I think it also applies to in/security so it may be helpful for your partner to do independently or with you. Some explanations as to how your partner might be hurt by you having other partners. And lastly, I haven't read Polysecure (yet!) but uhhh, gonna go out on a limb here and say might be applicable (my library has a copy! so you might check yours if you don't want to purchase). And last but certainly not least, though again, nominally about jealousy, I think this article really suits your situation and offers some reframings your partner may find helpful.

As a final word of advice: hear your partner out. Your goal, ultimately is not to change your partner's mind, but to reach an understanding. You both will have to work toward understanding each other for there to be any hope of success.

#ask box is always open #jealousy #insecurity #feeling insecure #poly relationship advice #now to do some finger stretches to keep the carpal tunnel away cause oo boy that was a lot of typing

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Hey! I hope this isn't weird but I thought you might be a good person to ask. Are there any good movie adaptations of Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights? I've never seen any movies based off of them and don't want to dive into one that isn't half-decent. Thank you!

Hi!!! Not weird, not weird at all, very welcome!

Problem, though. What "good" means in this case is contentious XD

Related problem: I did start a series of reviews of Jane Eyre adaptations... two years ago? Did 83' and 96' and got stuck on 97' (the plan was to do 73, 2006 and 2011 afterwards, then do Wuthering Heights 78-92-98-09).

The thing is that they are all different, and counted the exceptions I DNFed or just outright disliked, I have enjoyed them all in their own ways, even ones that the fandom at large thinks are bad. My recommendation in terms of my value judgement of the things is probably not to be trusted XD But I'll give you a summary of what I think are the strengths and weaknesses of each, and maybe that helps?

Jane Eyre

Movies:

1943: it is acclaimed for its visuals, which are really interesting and Gothic. Did not care at all for the writing or the casting or the acting.

1970: DNFed, but I wish I could have finished it. I think the most fitting description of the core of this adaptation is how someone in a podcast characterized the main couple as "a cute middle aged couple". The budget is low. "that woman is wearing a reject Sound of Music costume" low. George C. Scott and Susannah York in the leading roles are... a choice. Even the John Williams (yes, THAT John Williams) score is kind of underwhelming.

1996: If you have watched the 1996 Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow, this is kinda sorta the same thing for Jane Eyre. But it has more substance. It is transformative in a very intentional, commentary way, there's an interesting play with the imagery of portraits-true character and mirrors-anxiety, it focuses on the concept of tenderness for the romantic plot, and highlights more than any of the others the themes of providence and compassion/mercy. But... well, because of all that, it is very... ungothic. So if you love Jane Eyre because of the gothicness and the Rochester shenanigans then you'll probably hate this one.

Check out the OST, though. It's wonderful. I'd say it's the best Jane Eyre score so far, and it's at the very least severely underrated.

Charlotte Gainsbourg is probably my favorite Jane. She embodies really well the "nunnish on the outside, a storm of passions underneath" thing, even if she's tall (and yay for a non-supermodel in the role!), and I also really like the expanded role for Adele.

1997: the Cinderella of Jane Eyre adaptations. Yes, Ciaran Hinds has the mustache of horrors, and for some reason his Rochester here is so much more exaggerated and cartoonish than the one he did in the 1994 radio drama. Yes the modernized dialogue is painful at times. It deserves some of its bad reputation. But I cannot hate it because it has some fine things that I think are often downplayed:

-It's the movie adaptation that manages to cram in the most plot, even if it sometimes does it in a kind of ridiculous way (the worst offender is Jane leaving Thornfield for Gateshead and returning on the very next scene.): it has the rendering of the veil and the trip to Milcotte, for example.

-It has a really great Adele. You can tell how someone like Charlotte Brontë would see this girl as a mini-slut in the making because FRENCH, but she's actually just a lively, charming little girl.

-the sunrise scene after Mason is attacked is not noticed enough. The work of filming and editing a sunrise scene so that the continuity of it works... is definitely more than the writing of this one deserves.

-The portrayal of Bertha. Curiously enough, this is the Rochester that shows the most compassion and understanding for Bertha, and in general it is done so that the audience also feels the same.

-The reunion scene is good. "I am reminded that Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton are great actors" good. The way Hinds delivers "My heart will burst for want to see your face" almost makes up for the rest of his acting in the movie XD

-I honestly think that "St John Rivers but with the vibes of a manic crazy cult leader" is kind of inspired translation??

The score on this one is really pretty too.

2011: What can I say about this one, on Tumblr dot com of all places? it's really atmospheric and moody and pensive. If you are a Gothic vibes girlie, this one is for you. It is a movie I like the most when it's been a long time since I have watched it XD It's weird, but it is what it is. The whole thing plays with this concept of sleep and the sleep of death, and of being in love as being awake, so that both Rochester and Jane are asleep until they fall in love with each other, and they feel so alive once they become engaged, but it is the "alive" inside a strange, twilight dream, unlike the very end when they are both alive and awake with the freshness of an early morning, and it ending with the exchange "-I Dream! -Awaken, then." muaaah, *chef kiss*

It is a dem' vibes movie. If you are not a dem' vibes person, I don't think it will be for you. Fassbender makes for a rather dour Rochester, and many pieces of dialogue and plot are sacrificed to this dreamlike concept (which I'm not mad about it. There's so many adaptations it is good that there's the room to play with that).

The series:

1973: Listen, I love 1973. It is the most complete adaptation (some people will contend 83 is more complete, but 83 omits the whole of Helen Burns' death and that's such a huge omission in my eyes I cannot concede). It takes its time to do Lowood and do it well, with a really good Helen and a really good Miss Temple. But the crown of the thing is Michael Jayston's Rochester. He just embodies Rochester's pathetic, unhinged, impish and at the same time dead seriously emotional character SO WELL. I know people love Toby Stephens, and who doesn't, but he's helped by being a very athletic and handsome man who looked younger than he was. Jayston has none of that going for him, and he still manages to deliver a fascinating and touching performance.

What can be a stumbling block with this adaptation is... Jane. She's not a bad actress, not at all, and she has the most delicious chemistry with Rochester, they are very much on the same wavelength and play off each other really well. But this Jane is a happy go lucky creature, and it cannot be helped XD woman goes through life experiencing the horrors and most of the time reacting to them with a smile and a "LOL", and I get how that could be disappointing for some people.

But in the end, I feel the combination of "really good Lowood" "Really good Rochester" "fidelity to the novel language" and "thoroughness with the plot" is a rare one and puts this adaptation on the top.

1983: This one has many, many fans. I'm ambivalent about it. It is a pretty complete series, and I know a lot of people find Timothy Dalton really good as Rochester. I personally feel that this is the one adaptation where Rochester and Jane are being directed and portrayed in such a way as to never really connect or play off each other. Even 1997 with it's mustachioed shouting, personal effects throwing, arm grabbing Rochester is matched by a Jane who is never afraid of him and who swears she will POUND DOWN A DOOR if he throws her out, and then proceeds to grab his jaw tight to deliver the rest of her line. Truly crazy x crazy in that one. 73 is fun x fun, 96 is tired x tired, 11 is depressed x depressed... in 83 Dalton is larger than life, and Zelah is at turns confused, apparently hurt, or straight out bewildered at him.

And it isn't the actress fault! Because here is the thing I love in this adaptation: the Rivers plot. The Rivers plot is excellent. The way Jane and St. John's actors play off each other is so so so so good. How she starts by being very free and independent and contestatarian, and how his influence creeps on her and subjugates her bit by bit. It's wonderful. So well done.

So, hm, overall, it goes pretty low on my list but be fully aware this is an unpopular opinion XD

2006: What to say about 2006? It is beloved for a reason. I'd characterize it as the romance novel of Jane Eyre; it cares very little for anything that isn't the Jane-Rochester romance, and it does a lot to sand down the less likeable aspects of it in the original story (for example, Rochester is characterized as younger and Jane as older).

It is somewhere halfway between Emma (2009) and North and South (2004) in the Sandy Welch screenplay scale in terms of the bold choices that sometimes pay off and sometimes don't. They addition of contexts in natural science, the fascination with phrenology and heredity, those are well done. The twin metaphor is not. The modernization of the language works really well, and Welch has always been really good at that (I mean, she sneaks a star wars reference in a st. John line, and then there's the literal red flag, how does she do it).

It is a very enjoyable period drama, and has all the touching bits, but personally I sometimes feel like I am cheating the novel when I watch it XD Well, and of course it has the advantage of modern filming techniques against both 73 and 83.

Wuthering Heights! This one is trickier Because the adaptations are fuzzier in my mind, so it will be shorter, but something is something (?)

1970: It's only the first half, and I. Did. Not. Like. It. Someone would maliciously say that it is because I hate Timothy Dalton, but that's not true, he's a riot in Hot Fuzz, and I have even considered watching his James Bond movies because of him. It just... IDK. Didn't care for it. I remember it has a very long, very uncomfortable kiss scene that makes the one at the almost-end of Persuasion 2007 feel quick and breezy.

1978: This one has the advantage of being a miniseries. For the BBC in the 70s, they really splurged on this one for sets, cast, and it even has some interesting camera work in it, which wasn't common. I do have the idea that it is, of the filmed adaptations, the one that seems to be overall most liked. I remember I really liked the kid actors, but didn't jive with the older actors at all.

1992: This one is kinda sorta similar to Jane Eyre 1996 in that it is a very softened, stylized, "prettied" adaptation of the story. I remember Cathy I being kind of a manic pixie girl but with a bit of a temper? And Binoche played Cathy II as well, which was A ChoiceTM?

But I cannot say I disliked it overall, because it IS pretty (and if you are a costume person then it is for you). The score was gorgeous, and I like Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes a lot. But definitely get why if you are a big Wuthering Heights fan it wouldn't be your cup of tea.

1998: I remember really liking this one, specially in terms of the atmosphere. It departs from the novel in some significant ways that don't always land, it gets a bit silly several times, but I felt it was dynamic and grim enough without being unbearable, and I really liked the cast too, specially Orla Brady's Cathy, and think Robert Cavanaugh would have done really well with less flanderized characterization.

2009: This one... this one is... not good XD It cannot agree with itself which is the time setting, the opening in media res is a very confusing choice, and the recourse to adding some sex scenes to make it hip (it has that "made for high school classes" vibe to it) is *something* as well. The poorly modernized language doesn't help.

BUT

Tom Hardy as Heathcliff. He may not look the part, but he plays it deliciously well in every part of the story. It is truly inspired and mesmerizing to watch, and that alone would make it worth watching. And there's also Andrew Lincoln as Edgar, and who can resist Andrew Lincoln?

2011: I DNFed this one. It has a very Terrence Malick sort of style going for it, minimal dialogue and lots of long moody shots, and I cannot explain enough how I don't have the patience for that.

Now, Unlike Jane Eyre, for which I haven't found a radio drama that I like, the 1995 BBC radio drama for Wuthering Heights is just excellent, one of the best they have ever made, IMO. So while I know when someone asks me for an adaptation they mean an audiovisual one, I cannot help but recommend this one as the best I know, just in case.

#silvermarmoset #ask #Wuthering Heights #Jane Eyre #adaptations

[pebblysand]

Heyyyy im dying for an update on castles!! Any hope of getting one soon?😭💗

hi anon! thanks for your message! the tl;dr answer to this is: no.

or, i don't know. maybe? sigh. it's just been a lot lately.

it's a funny one, you know? most of you will not remember this, but there used to be a time when i would share (maybe overshare - is that a word? i've always wondered why that is a word when it's your platform and your rules and people can just choose to ignore you) on tumblr. not just about fics and writing and peaky blinders, but also about me. the stuff i felt. the stuff that was going on in my life. lots of things.

i grew up in an era of blogging and livejournal (seeing dreamwidth make a comeback lately is oh-so-bizarre, btw) where people opened up online - sometimes too much. this was before doxxing, before cancel culture, before it became dangerous to do so. people would complain about their jobs, their mates - the internet was an outlet. and, i don't know if it was better or worse, i'm not here to make value judgements and i've always thought people who say "things were better in my day" sound like absolute twats, but it was undoubtedly different. i've had this conversation with someone on discord lately, about the dreamwidth comeback actually, when this person said: 'people get real personal on there, though' and i was like: 'yeah, i suppose it's just the culture of the place.' a place where, unlike tumblr and everything that came after it, most of the content produced was through words, rather than images. when the internet was still made for writers and you weren't afraid of "clogging" someone's dash with posts that were too long to be digested in less than ten seconds.

the thing is: i like writing. it makes it easier to organise thoughts. and, up to 2020 (2021, even) i used to post monthly updates on my writing, but also about my life, for you. remember how i told you when i passed my bar exam? how i quit my job, found another job, and then another one. i told you about the boy and hinted at my break-up. i told you about how one of my best friends sank into a very toxic relationship, from which i couldn't save her. i told you when my dad died. it wasn't even that long ago. and, i explained to you that for these reasons, and maybe others, i didn't have a chapter out as early as i would have liked. and, you understood. you were kept up with what was going on. it was the pandemic and a different time.

but then, gradually (oh-so-quickly and oh-so-slowly), "you" became "many." i like that word - "many" - it's what my hairdresser said the first time she cut my hair: "they are very fine, but there are very, very, many of them." i suppose that between the first chapter of castles and the latest, my follower count grew into the hundreds and i got - well, scared. scared to share: what i thought, why i wasn't posting, how much or how little i was writing, how i was feeling. because there were too many of you. because i started to hold myself up to higher standards, too.

the truth is that no one wants to listen to anyone on the internet complain. it's not fun. and, specifically, no one wants to listen to fanfiction writers complain. why would they? why would they moan about how busy they are? about how creatively drained they might be? about how maintaining a healthy balance between real life, a job, and writing, is hard, if you do it seriously. because it's a hobby. because it's not "real" writing. because it doesn't matter.

well, anon, i'll tell you something. the voice in my head, it goes like this: why are you tired? it's just fanfiction. stop taking yourself and your little stupid story so seriously. stop thinking this is Important because you're writing about something you feel is important. no one cares. and: you only wrote 80,000 words last year, people write full-blown nanos in a month, calm down. it's not that bad, you don't have children. it's not that bad, you don't have dying parents. it's not that bad, you have money. you're a white cis privileged girl who can afford to spend her free time on writing because you don't have to work multiple paying jobs to foot the bills. so many people do. people who are much busier than you write a lot more than you do. shut up, what are you crying about? why are you responding to this poor anon with anything other than "soon, i hope." they weren't even mean about it.

and, i like the word "many" because it encompasses the realness of it, the repetition of it. many, many, many. it's less theoretical than "a lot". you can't say: a lot, a lot, a lot. it's morning as i write this, irish drizzle blown in by the wind against my window, thin droplets like static and i wonder: could i isolate thirty thousand? count up to thirty thousand little drops of rain against glass and imagine what that would look like as people. that's a small stadium, isn't it? and, it's also almost how many people have clicked on castles, in the past three years. it's also how many people, in my head, are telling me to just suck it up and write the next chapter. it's been a month already, hasn't it?

to tell you the truth, i still overshare with some people. there's a very small discord i'm on which is more like a group chat with my best internet friends. it's a lot of fun. and, i'm not going to tag them here for fear that you might come at them with pitchforks, but after i was explaining this to them, how exhausted and drained and lost i've been feeling lately, i had some, last week, tell me i should just give up castles. just stop, recharge, take care of myself. it's just a fic, it doesn't matter. let it go, you know?

so, yeah. you read that right, anon dearest. people who i really love, and trust, told me i should put your beloved on an indefinite hiatus and move on with my life. how's that for an update? and, they didn't say it in a "this is a bad fic and it's not worth continuing" kind of way, but in a "it's not worth working yourself into the ground" kind of way. in a "fanfiction is a hobby" kind of way.

i typically count years from september to august (i'm still in school, in my head, sue me) and this past one has been long and hard. for reasons that i won't explain because of the "very many" issue i mentioned above. for reasons that i also won't explain because as i also mentioned above, i can't help but always compare myself to people who have it worse. but, the fact of the matter is that whilst i'm not really asking for sympathy, i do want to say this, as i hope it will help provide a bit of context to how i'm feeling right now, in terms of writing.

anon dearest, i'm exhausted. i'm bored. i'm turning thirty in 24 days. i'm sick and tired of putting everything in my life on hold "until i finish castles". i would estimate that right now (and for the past three years) castles has eaten up about 75% of my free time. i think the first couple years, i didn't really mind. because it was the pandemic. because there wasn't much else i wanted to do. but now, when i see my friends, i try to schedule it on weekday evenings because i want to keep my weekends for writing. when i travel at the weekends, take holidays, do anything that will take me more than a couple hours, it's a compromise made against writing time. a compromise i often feel guilty about because it delays the next update and because ultimately, it delays the moment when i do finish castles. when i am able to move on to something else. move on with my life and also maybe another story of my own.

these past few months, i wrote almost every day from late march until last week because i knew i'd be going home to france in august and wouldn't be able to write there, so i needed to get ahead. everything in my life is planned around writing and updating and i'm a little bit burnt out, anon. it's typical summer me, nothing to really worry about, i felt the same last year (those who were already here will remember) but it doesn't make it suck less. and, that's why people are telling me to give up. because i keep getting stuck in this cycle of overworking myself, getting burnt out, taking a month off and diving back in again. it's fanfiction and it's a hobby and it's meant to be fun and it's just not fun anymore. it feels endless and draining and like a vampire eating my "good" years. time my mates are spending getting married and having children. and, even if i don't think that's what i want for myself, precisely, i still don't feel like the life i'm currently living is one i want to be living in five years' time.

i don't want to be exhausted. i don't want to be working all the time. this groundhog day of getting up, opening up my (work, or personal) laptop, deliveroo-ing my meals, working until 9:30 pm, and repeat. i have seven chapters left to go to the end, which will take 12 to 18 months, and i don't think i can go on like this for another year. i don't want to. something's gotta give: my IRL life, my job, or this "hobby", and it is logical (oh-so-logical) that it should be the latter.

and, yet. when my pocket friends suggested this, i came at them with pitchforks. i said: no. no, no, no, no. i can't give up. i don't want to give up. i love this story. it's unnerving and draining and exhausting, but haven't touched it for a week and i already miss it - it's crazy. and, it's true: it's not fun, but writing, to me, has never been "fun". it's: fulfilling, exhilarating, meaningful, it gives me the chills and a sense of peace but it's not "fun". i don't know who the fuck writes for "fun". you can enjoy things that aren't "fun", you know? i definitely do.

and, if i had to pick one thing to give up on that list, honestly, it would be my job - 100%. i'd finish castles in six months, if i could give that up. but, i can't, lovely anon. because fanfic doesn't pay. because writing doesn't pay. and whilst i do have a savings account that i intend to use someday to take time off to write, i don't think i could justify using it for anything other than original fiction. because at least, there would be a tiny bit of hope that the book might get picked up and i could make my money back. i can't, like, quit my job to write fanfiction, can i? even if i did set up a patreon, i doubt you all would want to fund me, lol.

so, i don't know. i don't know what to do, anon. i don't want to give up castles. realistically, i probably won't. realistically, i'm probably going to keep ploughing through and overworking myself and feeling like i'm throwing my youth and my free time away into this project that everyone will most likely forget the moment it is finished. right now, to answer your question, i have about 6,000 words on the new chapter. right now, i'm also taking august off writing. to recharge, to sleep, and only write if i feel like it. later? i don't know. i think i'm in a place where i've just got 30,000 words out in three months and i'm too brain-dead to think clearly. i am acutely aware that this issue doesn't have a solution (or at least one that i like) but i might be more willing to compromise my life again after a bit of rest and holidays.

anyway, sorry for being a debbie downer, anon. and sorry i don't have an update for you. i'm dying for one, too.

#asked and answered #castles #i might delete this later cause it's so depressing and it's not *me* but it's also how i feel right now #i just don't know what to do lads

[hxhhasmysoul]

As a writer, can you see the appeal of self-shipping? I don't mean to be negative, but I just don't understand that concept. Like, I just got block because I wrote fics about Endeavor/Hakws and Sukuna/Yuuji by my group of fics writers.

Before I was blocked some member criticize me by saying "how could you ship age gap like that, that is wrong in so many way". And I answered, "at least better like me than wrote self shipping like some of you guys. Gojo/reader and Sukuna/reader is just weird in so many ways". Then I was blocked.

Do you think I'm wrong?

Idk if this will answer your question, anon. I hope it's not too rambly and at least a bit helpful.

I have never considered self-shipping from the perspective of being a writer, but that makes sense to me, I only write things that I want to read and can't find, or not find enough of.

And self-shipping doesn't appeal to me as a reader. The second person makes me uncomfortable as a pov, possibly due to my history of abuse. My abuser very often assumed what I must've thought in a given situation and berated me for it and didn't accept me telling her what I actually thought. The second person pov feels too much to me like a stranger trying to tell me what I'm thinking.

This is also why I hate people policing ships in any way, because it’s always assuming what is in a stranger’s head based on confusing discomfort and lack of understanding with morality, and often based on some strange inability to separate fiction from reality. It's very far right fundie coded.

As much as a lot of stuff doesn't appeal to me, including self-shipping and several other things, some of them generally uncontroversial, it doesn't have to appeal to me because people enjoy whatever they enjoy and I can't care less about it. If it makes me uncomfortable like the second person pov or abo or real person shipping, I just avoid reading it. And I also don't have to understand why it appeals to people, it's their thing. 

Nowadays I try not to tell people that they are weird or wrong for doing stuff that is a personal preference. Shipping or most other fandom activity isn't activism or a reflection of someone's character but a personal preference. It only turns into a mark of character when people use fandom to express or try to hide their bigotry. Or use it as an excuse for actual harassment. 

Basically it's okay to find things weird, or react with discomfort. But I've learned to interrogate my repulsion or discomfort. And often it stems from internalised societal or cultural bull shit, that is about policing people and trying to fit everyone into some artificial norm. It doesn’t mean that understanding the roots of your reaction must lead you to liking the thing, but it might help you remove the value judgement. One of the best skills to have is: thinking “this is not for me” and moving on to things you actually like. I’m working really hard on honing this skill. 

For me it’s very freeing to just accept that everyone experiences the world differently and has different needs and as long as their need isn’t to harm others then it’s okay not to understand them and just say okay and move on. You can’t have all the experiences, a lot of stuff people will talk about will never be relatable because their life experience is so incomparable to yours. It’s best to accept that understanding everything and everyone is impossible but also unnecessary.  You don’t need to give everything your mental energy.

As to the person blocking you. Good riddance, they will thankfully not expose you to their shitty opinions anymore. They acted in a shitty way towards you and then couldn’t take a strong reply from you. I’m of the opinion that one should only start shit if they are ready to get the same kind of energy back. I feel no sympathy for them.

Also I’m a huge supporter of blocking people, I block at least one person every time I go into the JJK tags. Either for tag spamming or not tagging so my tag blocking doesn’t work, or just for shitty opinions so I don’t have to see them and sigh.

And their opinion is shit because shipping isn’t wrong or problematic, it’s just people imagining things. What's problematic in the JJK fandom is the racism, the misogyny, the transphobia, the harassment, the graphic vitriol towards the author and so on.

#answering asks #fandom #thank you for the ask #it will take time for me to get to all the asks #my life isn't great and i have little time and a shit ton of anxiety #sorry #i'm not ignoring anyone

[thesherrinfordfacility]

jesus christ the way you and your followers went after that person is so uncomfortable. fandom means not everyone is going to enjoy every single take you have. please start removing yourself from being SO EXTREMELY ATTACHED to your tumblr blog because in no universe should you have gotten THAT upset about someone disagreeing with a point you made. this is fandom. it’s a public forum. the audacity to think you can control what others say is simply mind boggling to me

what if they agree with 99% of your takes but not this one? should they still block you? is fandom not allowed to discuss and joke about the metas that missed the mark? i think the obvious answer is yes but maybe my metas have been picked apart so much that i quickly learned not to take everything personally. if you felt like you were misrepresented you should have just said “here’s the link, educate yourself” and go about your day. instead you replied with one of the most tonedeaf responses i’ve ever seen in fandom and WENT ON TO REBLOG BITCHY POSTS ABOUT IT. i enjoyed reading your takes but now i am put off for good.

also i’m all too aware you won’t admit you’re wrong but. that was a very bizarre thing you did and i hope you learn how to put some healthy distance between yourself and your tumblr blog

by 'that person', im assuming that you mean the op; i have spoken to the op, and made clear that them getting the ask, them responding/posting, and their comment, was not the issue. i'd like to think that i was clear to them that their post was not at all the problem, but if not, i welcome them to come speak to me again.

one follower of mine reblogged that post with their opinion on rinsing out other people's work. i reblogged it twice, the second with the post you're referring to, and another follower reblogged without any opinion passed. that's as far as im aware - i hardly sicc'd my followers on anyone. i then shared a post about blocking people etc where you disagree with them etc., which - bitchy? yes. well timed to come across my dash? also yes. so i reblogged it.

but please do not presume to tell me what i should and shouldn't be upset about, or what i should and shouldn't be attached to. i spend a good deal of time on sharing my thoughts and opinions, and writing up stuff that others may enjoy. i enjoy it too, it's a hobby, and it means a lot to me. it gives me a good sense of pride, of confidence, and of enjoyment - no different to any of the other hobbies i have and engage in. what may not be upsetting to you might be upsetting or meaningful to someone else; you do not get to police what other people's emotional response is.

being vague-posted about didn't necessarily feel personal, because it absolutely wasnt, but it still hurt. it wasn't ever about people disagreeing with my take - which i point out very clearly in this ask, and here in the reblog:

just to reiterate, in case my clearly spelled-out point gets missed again, the issue is not people disagreeing with me. im aware my takes largely exist in the minority, and that's fine! i do not mind! i welcome anyone who wants to challenge me on it! you'll even notice, perhaps, on the original meta, that plenty of people have disagreed with me in the tags; i have not 'gone after' any of them, because people disagreeing with me is not what upsets me.

but being vague-posted about, in a way that some of those tags somewhat suggest that i am stupid, or idiotic, or ignorant - that fucking hurts. i responded - yes, cattily, i will admit that, i was pissed - to the post, and laid out where i felt the tags took the ask at face value, instead of perhaps reserving judgement and instead potentially asking the asker to share the post in question and make an 'educated' judgement.

the crux of the matter is, lovely anon, that people are absolutely entitled to their opinion - does that entitlement stop at me defending myself and my original post? does that mean that my tone should be policed? people are entitled to vague-post about someone's take as if that person won't see it. i can't stop people from doing that, and i wouldn't want to - no matter how much it personally upset me and felt that my efforts and time were reduced to something worthy of ridicule. it's not about my fucking blog, it isn't - it's about when people add their thoughts into the public forum, as they should, they should be aware that someone else may have a follow-up reaction to it. it's about being, what a lot of people could interpret, plain mean about an actual person and their work.

im sad to see that you've been put off reading my stuff for good, but tbh, i think that's for the best.

#good omens #ask

[fadebolt]

This blog is many months old by this point, and it seems like I'm slowly but surely being noticed by more and more people, sooooo I'm thinking a pinned post might be in order.

----------------------------------------------------------

~ Hello! Hi! Sup!

Welcome to my lil space!

Name's FadeBolt, but feel free to call me Fade. (Yes, that is the name of a DotA ability. No, I did have more creative name ideas, I just did stuff under this one, so I'm sticking with it)

~ I'm an anxious 21 year old Hungarian wreck that is currently doing college in the northern parts of this small hellhole in the middle of nowhere that we call Serbia.

~ I like to gush and ramble about media. I like to interact with media. I like to make stuff about media. I like to look at, and take part in stuff that other people make about media.

~ Most of this blog is about my hyperfixation that has lasted for almost two entire years by this point, which is, you guessed it - Rain World.

~ Obviously, I still like other stuff (most notably Warcraft 3, as well as League of Legends and its wonderful lore/universe), and I might make posts about them on some occasions, but they're not my main interests, and considering how much I've entrenched myself in the RW community, that likely won't change anytime soon.

~ I don't really have a central thing that I intended for this blog. It's just simply - if I get ideas and I like them enough, then I'll do them. And if I stumble into something that really peaked my interest, or if I feel like I could add something onto it, then I'm reblogging it. (Though I do have a bit of an anxiety over that, cus whenever I reblog something, I always feel bad for the stuff I didn't reblog, but I can't just keep reblogging everything all day every day, so I often end up not reblogging good stuff. Help me. Please xd)

~ But the main things that you can expect here are long writings about my opinions, (mostly) fun drawing, voiceovers, and occasional ramblings about stuff.

~ I want this to be abundantly clear - I really value constructive criticism, no matter how unsolicited it might be. So if I said something you don't agree with, made a mistake somewhere, or just have some general issues with my stuff, don't be afraid to point them out. (Just make sure that it is actually constructive. The goal here is to improve, but there's not really much I could take away from something like "Your art sucks" or "Your opinions are stupid", is there?)

~ Due to recent, uhm... let's just call them 'events', I want to note that online discussions around politics and stuff related to that makes me extremely stressed and uncomfortable, especially after seeing what Tumblr can do to people that said stuff most folks didn't like.

This doesn't mean I'm making a strict 'no politics' rule or anything, I'm just looking to minimalize that stuff, and preferably keep it in private 1 on 1 conversations where I won't feel like I'm being judged by hordes of onlookers. This applies to any other contentious topic, too.

~ With that being said: I am not tolerating problematic stuff or asshole behavior here. I'll be somewhat lenient on this, but "I want this space to be nice and happy and welcoming" will always take priority over avoiding being judgemental of others. Just please don't bother me with stuff that's obviously messed up, don't be a cunt, and don't send NSFW my way, that's all I'm asking.

~ Unlike a lot of folks, I will not be having a DNI list. I know that this sounds a bit weird, but I want this space to be nice and happy and welcoming, and I do believe that media should be used as a way to unite us in spite of our differences (so this idea of saying "If you have these political opinions I don't like, then GTFO!" just doesn't sit right with me, though I completely understand why some people do that).

I also believe that instead of locking out and trashing on people who said and did stuff we didn't like, we should instead try and help make them understand why that stuff is wrong, so they can learn and grow, because people can indeed change for the better, especially with how many young folks are roaming around on this website. I won't force any of you to hold yourselves to these ideals, but I will stay true to them myself.

----------------------------------------------------------

Aaaaaaaaand I think that's about all the important info for now. I might update this in the future, if need be.

Anyways, I'd like to quickly thank everyone who's ever supported me, taken part in positive interactions with me, or have even just quietly appreciated at least one little thing I have made/done at some point!

I was super scared that nobody's going to care even a little bit about anything I'll do, but I'm very thankful to have gotten proven wrong again and again and again by this wonderful community!

Have a wonderful day and night, everyone! Cheers! :D

#pin #fade rambles