#basically portrayed as unsympathetic as they can be | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

open-sketchbook · 1 month

Text

on satire

that satire requires clarity of purpose thing fucking broke some people's brains i swear

like i know why it exists, its because some people will use 'its satire' as a blanket defence against criticism, but the problem here is you're having the wrong argument. you shouldn't be trying to say 'no, its not satire', because that is accepting the framing that if it were satire, then holding shitty positions would be acceptable, when the reality is that satire which holds shitty positions still fucking sucks!

but on the other side, like, you can in fact satirize or critique shitty positions through portraying them, its a normal thing that fiction does, there is no such thing as art which can perfectly convey its meaning to everyone because everyone is such a huge fucking category and, get this, people have different views about things

so often, if you portray an accurate vision of a bad thing to show why it is bad, the people who like the bad thing will like it because it portrays the thing they like, and the think the negative consequences of the thing are actually good, even when everyone not them understands it is not

and there's no way to write a thing that will get around that! its not how humans work!

a really good example of this is helldivers 2; the vast majority of normal people understand that the game portrays a fascist state, and does so because the nature of the gameplay involves dying a lot in silly ways, so they made you play unsympathetic idiot assholes so when it happens to you its funny

fascists like super-earth not because they didn't do a good enough job showing how awful super-earth is (it is a constant and blatant theme woven into basically every single mission, tutorial, and line of dialog) but because the things about super earth that are awful are things that they like

there's no clarity of purpose that defeats "i know you are showing me a bad thing, but i am a bad person who likes bad things", or, similarly "i know you are showing me the negative consequences of the thing i like, but i will simply ignore that part"

similarly, if you portray misogyny in something, and your portrayal of misogyny is accurate, misogynists will like it! this is not a flaw of the work, its a flaw of the misogynists!

the idea that this isn't true relies on the delusion that the reason people are fascists or misogynists is because they are ignorant of the consequences, and if shown the consequences, they will stop being fascists and misogynists. this is liberal garbage; they like the consequences.

misogynists think that men making women suffer is good, because it means that men have the unrestricted power over women to make them suffer, and they are in favour of having unrestricted power over women. you cannot portray it bad enough that they go 'oh i get it now'

fascists think that dying stupidly for their country is good, because it means their country is properly engaging in the never-ending darwinistic struggle between people groups they believe in and is unafraid of the consequences, and they are in favour of the never-ending darwinistic struggle because it appeals to their aesthetic sensibilities. you cannot portray it bad enough that they go 'oh i get it now'

portraying either of those things so that normal people understand what it looks like and can have discussions about it is still a valid thing that media can do! like, why the fuck are you allowing various strains of bigots final say in deciding if something acceptably portrays them?

76 notes · View notes

avelera · 9 months

Text

Man, having just written out how Pratchett writes Normal People as his protagonists and Gaiman writes Magical-by-Birth People as his protagonists, now all I can think of is what Pratchett would do with Hob Gadling's character.

Just, like... "Men of Good Fortune" in the original comic does not treat Hob kindly. The narrative is actually kind of nasty towards him being a Normal Guy. The show is lightyears away from that and Ferdie brings so much natural charm to the character, so it can be easy to forget this, but comic Hob really does receive sort of the brunt of some subtle classist attitudes, shown as coarse, rough, greedy, unpleasant, filthy, and disinterested in moral improvement until the far more aristocratically depicted Dream basically shoves it in his face that what he's doing is wrong.

But I'm first and foremost a Pratchett girlie at heart. I'd argue he's one of my most foundational authorial influences, I think I'm incapable of writing humor that isn't inspired by his comedy, and he was a formative influence on my personal morality with his strident egalitarianism.

Now, Pratchett isn't naive or bucolic about average, everyday people. He certainly doesn't say that normal people are never coarse, rough, greedy, unpleasant, filthy, and disinterested in moral improvement, but he says special people are too. No one is perfect in his world and being higher ranked definitely doesn't make anyone better than anyone else. Everyone is gray. Everyone is messy. And there is no absolute ideal of one-size-fits-all goodness other than minding how you go and not treating people as things (a gross simplification but I could wax poetic for hours on Pratchett's egalitarian morality).

Now for myself, I think one reason I fell in love with Hob Gadling's character is because he is such an unusual immortal character. He's not magical or aristocratic or in any way a superhero because of his longevity. He is Just A Guy who became immortal by chance and it takes him a long, long time to improve in even the smallest ways in terms of morality. Dream nudges him to examine his choices but we get the sense that Hob took it the rest of the way after that nudge and continued to improve as a person, not to saint-like levels necessarily, but resolving to move more mindfully through the world than he did before.

The narrative in the show is more gracious to him, allowing him a great deal more charm and more sympathetically implying that all of us could probably use a nudge at times to become better versions of ourselves, that it's not necessarily easy to do alone, but what's important is that upon receiving that nudge, we do try sincerely to change and improve, and might still fall short. The reimagining of Hob's character for the show feels much more mature overall than the comic source material, portraying in my opinion a more sympathetic and adult worldview.

The Hob Gadling we see in the show to me at least is a much more Pratchettian character in the sense that he is a Normal Person in an Extraordinary Situation. Now, I don't think Pratchett would necessarily go in a Dreamling direction, since Pratchett (like Gaiman) tends to shy away from Romance As Plot and he rarely focuses on it directly, at best it happens at the periphery in his stories. And in many ways I think he would treat Hob unsympathetically but it wouldn't be because of Hob's low origins. Pratchett just tends to have an even hand with making all of his characters ridiculous. No one is too high up or refined to avoid his satirical jabs. A Pratchettian Hob would probably not be the romantic hero that he's often portrayed to be in fanfiction (but then again, Aziraphale and Crowley were not the romantic heroes that fanfiction portrays them to be either when they were written by Pratchett).

Still, it must be said, that I find it fascinating to imagine what Pratchett's sensibilities would do if applied to our peasant-born immortal character who eventually, painfully, after over 500 years finally begins with a little help from a friend to bend his life towards trying to not be a complete shit head about how he operates in the world. I feel like it's a character that Pratchett would have a very unique spin on.

#hob gadling #sandman meta

66 notes · View notes

byzantine-suggestions · 5 months

Text

(explanations and sources under the cut)

Make-out session on Theodora's dead sister's grave: This one comes from Blue and Green: A Novel of Old Constantinople, a.k.a. the Victorian Theodora Novel (TM). Anastasia dies of consumption, and Theodora and Justinian's first kiss happens on top of her tombstone.

Justinian has strong opinions about 9/11: This is from a very obscure musical called Byzantium!, which was panned by critics because Justinian never shut up about the War on Terror (among other issues).

Justinian cheats on Theodora with the author's self-insert: This is kind of cheating because it's from a Wattpad fanfic, but yeah, there's a story out there where this happens. You can tell that this character is a self-insert because the character and the author are both named Kelsey.

Justinian threatens to strangle Theodora to death: This is from Samuel Edwards's Theodora, in which Justinian is basically an abject psychopath. The context for this is that Justin disapproves of Theodora, so Theodora volunteers to leave Justinian (at least until Justin is out of the picture), and Justinian has a sobbing meltdown and threatens to kill her if she leaves him because if he can't have her, nobody can. (This is obviously presented as romantic and correct.)

Hecebolus goes to Horse Jail: This is from Jack Oleck's Theodora. Hecebolus makes one snippy comment about how he's a stallion and Theodora is a helpless mare, and this obviously gets back to Justinian, who responds by throwing Hecebolus into a specially built jail cell outfitted to look like a stable. Then Justinian shows up like "oh, do you feel like a stallion now, asshole?"

Theodora abuses the telegram: Obviously, this is from that incredible alternate history Belisarius series by David Drake. They get access to the telegram in the fifth or sixth book, and Theodora exclusively uses it to spam Justinian with teary love letters begging him to come home whenever he leaves Constantinople.

Amalasuntha is Regina George: This is from Stephanie Thornton's Secret History, but it's pretty commonplace. Amalasuntha is often portrayed as a dumb blonde bully who shows up in Constantinople to steal Justinian away from Theodora, or just generally cause problems by being annoying and stupid. (I suspect this is because every decent Justinian story involves Amalasuntha dying, so authors always make her unsympathetic so readers don't feel like they have to mourn her.)

Sex scene in the palace tower: This is also from Stephanie Thornton. There's a pretty long sex scene in which Justinian and Theodora get so obsessively horny that they end up, like, tearing each other's clothes off and having sex on the stairs of some tower, and Narses kind of looks at them, shakes his head, and sends all of the staff home because they're just so horny that it's disrupting the whole household. You really get the sense that Narses does not get paid enough for this.

Sex scene in front of the doctor: This is from the John the Eunuch series. Justinian comes down with some mysterious illness, and Theodora decides to have sex with him on his sickbed in front of all his staff. Justinian is clearly very into it, too, and all of the doctors and servants are just standing around watching this happen, presumably feeling too awkward to leave.

Justin hits on Theodora: This is also from Samuel Edwards, but this is weirdly common too. Usually Justin is portrayed as an unhappily married older man or a grieving widower who wishes he could have Theodora for himself, so he hits on her constantly to the point of sexual harassment, and Justinian is always like "haha, that crazy old man!" and nobody ever acts like this is even a little bit weird

28 notes · View notes

lol-jackles · 5 months

Note

Have you seen the first episodes of the final season of "The Crown"? What do you think about it? How realistic do you think this is? There are many similarities of the events that happened after the death of Diana between the show and the movie "The Queen". Had you watched it?

Yes, as far as I could recall in 1997, the events portrayed are mostly accurate. I even remember Charles hosting Camilla's 50th birthday party as a way to non-stealthily slide her into Diana's previous place. Meanwhile Diana was showing off her fabulous self to the press in St. Tropez so that her son William can have a peaceful vacation. While The Crown shows the important role of media every season, by its final season it drives home the point that the media isn’t just reporting on events, it’s an active participant in the lives of these people and institutions. Later, William and Harry helped their father feed the media so they can enjoy their holiday in Scotland. Sad to think present day real William using these skills to alienate his own brother and sister-in-law ...... so anyways...

The Crown set up parallelism between Charles and Dodi as two men born to incredible privilege and wealth, both were instructed by their parents to get with Diana while they were already seeing someone else. Charles' courtship of Diana was handled with a lot more care in season 4 compared to the hasty and half-baked one in season 6 even though Dodi's feelings for her are more genuine than Charles.

Elizabeth Debecki really grew into her role as Diana. In the previous season she seemed to be imitating Diana, but this season she embodied the character and commanded every scene with a force of nature that the script clearly couldn't conjure on their own anymore. Debecki makes Diana very likeable yet with just the right amount of selfishness and immaturity. She is compelling, charming, beautiful, fun, and sweet, but also can be calculating. She was also incredibly shy and would tilt her head down, so as not to be inconspicuous due to her height. Debicki's Diana really feels like a child trapped in an adult's body, thrown into adult situations.

Then the 3rd episode. I was surprised how tense I was getting and then realized it was filmed and directed to give the audience a sliver of the anxiety Diana felt on a regular basis. When Diana and Dodi were hiding in a jewelry store and then had to run out back because fans where banging on the front window, it looked like a zombie apocalypse scene.

Diana was basically a hostage of the al Fayeds. She’s trapped with Dodi who desperately wants something from her, who is being hounded by his father, Mohammed, who desperately wants something from her. I don't think The Crown showed that Mohammed wouldn't send backup after he told her to leave her security in England, which is why security around Diana was ridiculously small. The French authorities didn't know Diana was coming to their city so weren't prepared.

Diana and Dodi's last private conversation in the Ritz hotel was obviously a wish fulfillment, nonetheless the actors did a great job and makes you really feel for them, especially Dodi who until now was unsympathetic due to being so weak willed with his father. Diana's interaction with Dodi explains why he, like many others, was attracted to Diana. With her encouragement, Dodi took the first symbolic step standing up to Mohammed. Like I said, wish fulfillment for the audience.

After their tragic death, the "ghosts" of Diana and Dodi visit their respective families. I understand that the ghosts were not representing Diana and Dodi but the yearning of the living for the last goodbye and make sense when a loved one is lost so prematurely. And also how the memory of Princess Diana looms very large in the minds of people for decades, even to future generation born after her death.

Overall the 4 episodes were well done. My main criticism is they should have shown unprecedented mass public grief over her death as a kind of bookend to the unprecedented mass public adoration from season 4. I believed had she lived, Diana would have moved to the United States and possibly settle down in California like what her son, Harry, did. Rest in Peace, Princess Diana

#the Crown

7 notes · View notes

lemonhemlock · 8 months

Note

Honestly I think I hate Cersei because she thinks she is some mastermind while she isn’t. Tywin and how he keep holding power for so long is very interesting, btw I love Tywin and Kevan dynamics. Jaime is my fave i just love his storyline. As for Tyrion, there are 2 of them. The book one and the show one. Show one I hate. Book one I kinda enjoy because he constantly flirts with darkness. I don’t buy show Tyrion poor misunderstood meow meow. And I hate that they did the same with show Aemond. That’s why I prefer Aegon and Daemon. From the beginning you know where they stand, there are no attempts to make them sympathetic bullshit. Stop whitewashing characters in order to make characters more sympathising for audience. The reason why the Joker, Soprano Family and Roy family from Succession are so great is because they aren’t portrayed as some poor people being victims of their circumstances all their life. Aemond wanting to console Jace at Driftmark? What the fuck is that? Also giving him sexual trauma made me laugh. The show made it clear I and everyone else is meant to feel sorry for him but I just laughed at how pathetic they are. Like you have weak Viserys, pedo Daemon, rapist and drunkard Aegon and traumatised and with only one eye Aemond. So yeah, the winner of who should be the fan favourite is clear. Instead of showing the 4 of them as bad and letting people choose who their favourite is, they create 3 of them in unsympathetic light and make one of them #1 victim and the other 3 as monsters or weak men. Sorry but I hate the narrative where I am being shown down my throat who I am supposed to love and who to hate. Especially if 3 out of 4 characters are doing terrible things and only one behaves properly until starting the war. I really can’t wait for Aemond to burn Riverlands, most stans would leave his fanclub and began to see Aegon is not the worst guy out there. I just hope TGC won’t stop playing Aegon until the moment Aemond will show everyone what a legit psycho he really is.

idk what to tell you, anon, this is not exactly the blog for cersei haters. i've always found this prevailing tendency of enjoying jaime as a character but disliking cersei to be very strange, bc their POVs are so intertwined and they are as delusional & "awful" as the other so i don't really see the point here. it's a choice i would personally interrogate bc more often than not it has some v unsavory roots. cersei can be just as funny as jaime and he can be just as unhinged as her. also cersei's dumbness is greatly exaggerated, she does have some good ideas and a knack for getting out of tricky situations (some of them of her own making, yes, but she's hardly the idiot fandom likes to paint her as). fans sure love to think they would have made better decisions had they been in her situation.

she also suffers from getting a POV so late in the game, in comparison to her brothers, and is way more affected psychologically by the death of her son than jaime is + the prophecy hanging over her head. she's basically having the worst mental health crisis in AFFC and getting judged for not being Machiavelli's Prince

as for the rest of the message, as i've said in a previous post, i see this desire to not allow characters to be anything other than cardboard villains very reductive and not smth i'm personally interested in fiction. narrative bias and needless demonisation at the expense of others is one thing, but, generally-speaking, why is it somehow superior if they only receive dark traits instead of being humanized & muddled? why is it better writing if aemond is only shown as a psycho killing machine? are the literature gods going to get angry if he tries to be polite one time? the roy siblings weren't coddled by the narrative but they were also shown acting like human beings (clumsily) trying to connect with people

also no actor is going to turn down hbo money and the opportunity to appear in one of the most viewed shows of the year, so i don't see why tgc would stop playing aegon, unless he were fired. these people are professional actors, they may not like or agree with certain character choices but they don't have the luxury of turning down jobs bc of their character is not "true to the text". they still have bills to pay.

#ask #anon #cersei lannister #jaime lannister #aemond targaryen #aegon ii targaryen

10 notes · View notes

padfootastic · 2 years

Note

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the fight between Remus and Harry in DH. Because throughout the series we see Remus manipulating Harry by bringing up James, but for the first time, Harry brings up James in a situation that is the most relevant, and Remus goes BERSERK.

hello 💜💜 i’m so sorry for how long this has been lying in my inbox but i’ve got so much to say and not enough time for it 💀

i don’t think anything i say re this will come as a surprise to anyone who knows me lol i feel like that fight was such a good opportunity to show, in narrative, remus at fault without excusing his actions and the text still missed the mark. i’ve talked before about this, but remus always gets off scot free with no consequences or even reproach for any of his shitty actions and i think this comes under the same banner. iirc even hermione’s like ‘wtf harry’ because of his response, right?

but here, we see him acting shitty in a manner u absolutely cannot ignore. i mean, there’s a point to which ur willing to ignore a grown man’s agency and actions, right? and i feel like ‘abandoning ur wife and unborn kid in the middle of a whole war’ is waaaaaay past that point. we can talk all day about how he thought he was in the right, how he might’ve actually brought misfortune to them by virtue of who he was, but that still doesn’t excuse what tonks would’ve been going through, esp considering her own dad pulled a similar stunt.

you bring up such a great point re james. remus had absolutely no problems invoking his name when he wanted to guilt trip harry (i keep saying this but their conversation in poa horrifies me every time i think about it) but the moment he gets it back? it’s all ‘oh woe is me how dare u’. kinda makes me think remus never had to deal w the consequences of his actions (which like,,,am i wrong tho) bc all the misfortune he has, he attributes to his condition and never his own actions. he basically operates on an external locus of control and the people around him keep enabling it. (ofc a lot of this is conjecture + influenced by what i’ve seen in fandom bc we (i?) don’t actually know that much about him & his motivations from the text) and i think when he actually is held accountable, he’ll go straight on the defensive bc he doesn’t know how to handle it.

imo remus is super, super self destructive and not that capable at maintaining healthy relationships. for all that people go on and on about james and sirius being assholes and bullies, remus is actually so much more insidious in terms of being ‘toxic’. i really think harry was so right for doing what he did, not matter how much shit he gets for it, because someone has to. his friends won’t, people in authority aren’t, and he gets to go through life blaming everything except himself.

i feel like this is super unsympathetic to him lol but that scene in dh is actually one of my favs just because someone is finally saying something to Saint Remus and the fact that it’s harry, of all people? u go bby!!! it was also such a thoughtless action on remus’ part bc he’s telling this to a literal orphan who grew up abused and neglected. also!! the way it portrays him on the complete end of the spectrum as james (who we know is the ‘embodiment of bravery’ in the text bc of his actions therefore, remus is an absolute coward which, self professed but now proved further) which really makes u understand harry’s pov too, i think. because he idolised his dad, ykno? and he’s heard remus talk about their bond before, and we know harry’s judged people by comparing (and associating) them to his parents right? so it just makes remus come off even worse.

ultimately, i think it was just another selfish + narrow minded action in a long list that we can attribute to remus. can we explain them? sure. but does that justify it? i personally don’t think so, but others can obv disagree. remus wasn’t thinking of tonks or baby teddy or harry when he offered to accompany them, no matter how much he tried to spin it that way and i think that lying (to both others & himself) is v characteristic of his personality throughout the whole series. he’s a serial manipulator and no one’s safe from it, not even him.

(i’m reading this and it’s so rambly gosh. i hope some of it made sense?)

#remus lupin critical #re ted doing something similar #i read a fic where that was explored #and andromeda was so angry and so hurt that ted left them #and it really changed my whole opinion on such a minisucle plot point lol #and then got me thinking about the parallels between his actions and remus’#something about people claiming to be selfless while actually being v v selfish #bc ultimately their actions didn’t (wouldn’t have?) help(ed)#but they would have eased their conscious #but fuck what the people who were left behind thought right?#and remus making harry godfather is another can of worms i haven’t even touched here lmao #that one bothers me ngl #only my love for teddy keeps it at bay lol #this one’s a bit…unfiltered bc i just wrote what came to mind #but yeah #differing opinions r always welcome ofc #we love discussions on here #pen’s asks

34 notes · View notes

ellenchain · 7 months

Note

I love Vampyr. My first run was a 'not even once' one with zero casualties. Then another where I turned the pillars only....and Geoffrey. Then one when I turned people I disliked....the murderer, serial killer, priest....and I'm currently in one where I try to have .....the most effect. Like you bite one character and then another obe does sth because of your actions, I love gameplay like that.

I agree that the gameplay could use some polish. Most of the fighting is sort of superfluous, you kill so many Priwen for basically nothing. Better to focus on the discovery and dialogue gameplay.

Geoffrey hits the perfect storm of classical antagonist, hunter vs monster, well meaning, modern knight, maybe even king arthur expy.....and relentless bastard. The interesting thing is that he's friendlier towards you if you turned him than if you spared him.

Elisabeth just wasn't explored enough, I almost feel like there's a part missing. In one mission she sends you dispatch her blackmailer, gives you no helpful information, scolds you if you get things wrong because of your lack of information and finally it turns out that her blackmailer was actually right and justified because she does kill helpless patients. And in the next mission Jonathan is in love with her.

Sorry for rambling, I have way too many thoughts about Vampyr.

Oh you've played it a lot more than me! Very nice! And since I'm fresh into the game, I love hearing your thoughts on it 🤩

I also think it's nice to see the effect that actions can have on the gameplay. For sure I'll give myself another run snacking on a few more people too. Just to see what happens! Some NPC were real dicks, it will give me great pleasure to make Jonathan bite them

I think it's a shame though that he immediately gets those bloodshot eyes - like, no other vampire has them, why does Jonathan immediately become a "bloodthirsty beast" haha (they suit him, don't get me wrong, it's just a bit strange)

I also noticed that Geoffrey isn't too sad as a vampire! Had almost thought he'd throw himself into the sun as his quasi-first official act as a vampire, but no - I think he actually likes it in the end. It would be cool if we got a second part (or a DLC) where Geoffrey as vampire helps us. Or he remains a human and helps us anyway, but we get to snack on him from time to time hihi

You're right, Elisabeth just wasn't portrayed well. Her character should have been given more depth. She came across as rather unsympathetic at the beginning, and suddenly Jonathan is head over heels for her. That didn't make sense in my head either. That's why the love story seemed a bit far-fetched to me.

In general, I also thought it was a shame that we didn't get to the East End and meet Jonathan's home until the very end. That part also came a bit too short for me. I'd have loved to learn more about his past. At the beginning I even thought he was "lying" about being a doctor because he introduced himself so hesitantly. The game opened so many barrels, but in the end didn't really close any of them and didn't really continue any of them... That was a bit sad. It could have been a great "Witcher" game (in terms of scale, you know what I mean)

But maybe I just need to play it a few more times, read some more fanfiction, search fan wikis and so on 🤭

#Vampyr #I really liked the game don't get me wrong #they gave us mcreid #I still need to figure out the fan canons #I'm sure there are many

2 notes · View notes

lilyaquarius · 2 years

Text

OK, look, there are a lot of issues to be had with Becoming Elizabeth but honestly, the problems I've seen were ones I fully expected. The thing with Thomas Seymour, saw it coming a million miles away. I was not shocked, I was disappointed, but I suspected they were going to handle it badly anyway. But the (other) thing that gave me this angry, visceral rage was the Kett's Rebellion subplot. Because the show wants you to think that it was about a poor, illiterate, mindless violent mob of catholic's rebelling against an (imperfect but not "bad") Anglican government, committing atrocities because they were poor, illiterate, violent, stupid peasants who are also Catholics.

The reality is the rebellion was the peasantry rising up in righteous indignation at the abuse of power from landowners cutting off the land from the common people. People couldn't let their animals graze in fields, and families were literally kicked out of their homes. All so rich landowners could close off land to do with what they wanted. With inflation and unemployment on the rise, some landowners also rose the rents of their tenants and wages also dropped. You can't afford to pay my increased rent with your decreased wages? Too bad, get out or I kill you. Everything benefited the rich landowners and they knowingly, intentionally fucked over the poor. Not unlike today!

The government's response to it was swift, violent, and brutal. Maybe 3,000 rebels total were killed to say nothing of the civilian casualties. To add further insult to grievous injury, after the rebellion was quelled it was decreed there would be a national holiday celebrating the rebellion's defeat and lectures were given on the sins of rebelling against your king and government.

I know why they didn't go with this subplot. Because no rich person with power wants the regular, ordinary person to see a rebellion that they can sympathize with and get it in their heads that they can too. Rebellions scare the rich because they know the "poor" outnumber them a million to one. We also live in a modern society where we can think, act, and band together to fight injustice. Why do you think the conservative right wing is so determined to remove as many rights as humanely possible from anyone who isn't exactly like them?

How they chose to portray Kett's rebellion to be as unsympathetic and as inaccurate as possible then turn it around to show how Lord Dudley is a prick while his son Robert can only look dumbfounded when he doesn't show mercy...it doesn't have any impact narratively speaking. We already don't like Lord Dudley. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Tudor history knows he dies. I feel like, a better team of writers could have portrayed the rebellion as sympathetic and Dudley killing the leaders and anyone else tied to it having a stronger emotional impact. There's plenty of material to use to show the divide between Catholics and Protestants.

Hell, go the extra mile and have it narratively tie in with Elizabeth being the victim of a powerful rich man taking advantage of someone who has no support or power of their own. Have her rebel against his attempts to cajole her into a relationship and marriage. My God, the Seymour's ousted her mother and her family from power! She shouldn't want to have anything to do with them!

But no, I guess have it be stupid peasants rebelling as an excuse to murder and steal because poor people are dumb and evil obviously and all non-evangelical Protestant religion makes you evil, and yeah, portray your groomer and abuser as sympathetically as possible.

I guess!

#Becoming Elizabeth #Kett's Rebellion #Tudor History #nothing and I mean nothing gets me more viscerally angry then seeing a historical drama purposely change facts to serve a narrative

22 notes · View notes

an-organized-confusion · 1 year

Text

I haven’t really yet explored a version of the Creativitwin dynamic where their relationship is broken beyond all repair.

Which makes me think of the how the darker timelines for iZombie and Begotten!AUs to play out.

HKA!Roman crosses some lines he can’t walk back on... but I want to portray his trajectory as not entirely “unsympathetic“ but more simply... pitiful.

Thanks to input from co-conspirator... Hero!Remus is just terrifying and awful. (Remus is some flavor of terror in basically any other AU - but whoo boy...)

But also hope I can write it all to be compelling. (As much as I love these two a lot, it would be a good exercise to be sure.)

#sanders sides #roman sanders #remus sanders #(tbh i'm also kinda in the 'reserved abt the 'un/symp' lingo' camp... in part 'cause it's flattening language/interpretation)#(also this language can get real subjectiive - like positivity/negativity can be alright?)#(idk man... i like exploring messiness)#('cause people are inherently mixed bags... just like life itself)

4 notes · View notes

stellocchia · 3 years

Text

You know, I don’t often do this as I prefer to focus on character analysis, but I’ve seen a lot of dissatisfaction and criticism directed at the revival stream (most straight up criticizing it as purely bad writing), so, you know what? You get a narrative analysis!

First of all there are 3 big complaints I see floating around:

- The pacing is off

- The tone is too bleak

- It greatly mischaracterizes c!Wilbur

Let’s look at them one by one shall we?

The pacing is off:

This would work perhaps as a criticism if we took the last 30 minutes streams as isolated streams with no context to them. As it stands however that’s not the case.

While it does feel a bit hurried in the sense that not everyone got to react to Tommy’s death while he was still dead he is, effectively, still trapped in the prison and it’s still unknown to others that he’s alive again. This gives any content creator that wants to do so the ability to delve into the grief aspect all the time that they need and it also takes away some of the pressure to perform from people like Tubbo who aren’t quite as comfortable with it. Remember these people aren’t professional actors, not all of them will be comfortable with acting every role.

Also there is to be said that one thing that has been built spectacularly throughout season 2 has been Dream’s and Tommy’s relationship, a fundamental aspect of which is Dream’s obsession. We knew Tommy was gonna be brought back to life because of this, but we also knew it wouldn’t have taken long for the same reason. Dream as a character has been constructed to quite literally always need to have some control over Tommy and he had none of that while Tommy was dead.

As a matter of fact if I had to give any criticism to the pacing I would say that it’s a bit slow. The content of Tommy’s death from other people perspectives has been already exausted a couple of days ago, now the plot needs to move along. There is no reason to drag this out longer.

The tone is too bleak:

Again, way to consider the two 30 minutes stream within a vacuum there...

Season 3 so far has given us quite the mixture tone-wise. We had a month of animal crossing roleplay with Tommy that introduced us to the character of Sam Nook as well as Tommy’s and Sam’s dynamic. We’ve had Tubbo finally showing some signs of healing by starting a family with Ranboo and having a mansion built for them. We’ve had the team Rocket duo that delivered both some rather light-hearted villanous content and some more serious introspection. We’ve had the Egg plot that can have a whole analysis in and of itself. And now, amongst all of this other decidedly lighter arcs we have the prison arc.

The tone of the whole season is decidedly not established by this 3 streams alone, but for people watching Tommy exclusively it may feel like it. Still every single season or big overaching arc so far has had it’s bleak moments, that doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll have a bleak ending to the story as season 2 has shown well, nor that all of it will keep that tone (again, one month of animal crossing). I have also seen some people criticize the fact that it was Tommy again to be put in this situation and that the Afterlife being a not pleasant place makes the tone unnecessarily bleaker and here’s the thing:

- No-one else would have worked in Tommy’s place because there isn’t a narrative build-up for Dream to care about anyone else (and I mean care in his twisted obsessive way here). There is also no build-up for anyone else to have the courage to question Dream on his claim. This two have been portrayed as fated nemesis since the very beginning it really doesn’t make sense for anyone but them to have an interaction like this that could force Dream to show the powers of the book that has been foreshadowed since the end of season 2...

- The Afterlife has been made a horrible place to keep some stakes on Death simply put. With Dream’s endless revival powers death would have felt extremely irrelevant to the story if it was a pleasant experience (it’s the danger you incur into when introducing revival to a story). Any life or death situation wouldn’t be high stakes anymore it would just feel kind of devoid of meaning. This is a simple way to fix that together with giving the power to the most unsympathetic monster in the story who’ll use it at his own discretion

Overall the tone isn’t unnecessarily bleak in it’s use of setting the scene for Tommy and Wilbur’s arcs this season, but it’s also up to personal preference wether someone enjoys it or not. It’s just not angst for angst sake it’s what I’m saying.

It greatly mischaracterizes c!Wilbur:

So, I already spoke character wise why Tommy reacted the way he did about Wilbur’s resurrection, but why does it make sense from a narrative point of view as well?

Wilbur died as a villain, there would be literally no reason for him to have changed while in the void of the Afterlife and we actually have pfoofs he didn’t from that whole speach he gave Tommy. He isn’t an unsympathetic villain like Dream, but he still is one. His and Tommy’s relationship also wasn’t a healthy one. He was manipulative and most probably the reason why Tommy was so susceptible to manipulation later down the line. We know that Tommy is still scared of him from him describing Wilbur as “not so poggers” to Ghostbur, from him having nightmares about him telling Tommy “let’s be the bad guys”, from him having to divide Wilbur in two when thinking about him for the longest time, from him getting extremely uncomfortable when he appeared after the Disck Saga Finale and from him getting a panic attack when Wilbur started speaking about them being “not good for that server” in the Afterlife.

Considering that this was all told from Tommy’s point of view and that Tommy isn’t entirely a reliable narrator together with not having an all encompassing knowledge about everything (like Wilbur’s moments of hesitation when he was alive) it honestly makes quite a bit of sense that he would think of Wilbur as someone who is as bad as Dream at this point. A wholesome reunion between them would have made no sense because there was no build-up for it story wise. I mean, Wilbur as a last act literally wanted to blow up Tommy’s L’Manburg specifically, that’s why he made him president. That’s the last we’ve seen of him basically.

Also, may I add that we’re literally only 3 streams in this arc and we really can’t discuss it as if it was a finished product? We don’t know what Wilbur will actually do, we don’t know if he’ll actually ally himself with Dream, we know nothing so far. They literally only just set it up for now, none of the main stuff happened yet. Let’s not jump to conclusions before anything happens.

#tommyinnit #wilbur soot #dreamwastaken #dream smp #/rp #narrative analysis #wilbur soot critical #I guess?#I just stated known facts about him but just to be safe #long post #but when are they not?#my post

144 notes · View notes

lulugeorge · 3 years

Text

idk if i’m the only one who feels this way, but i don’t like the way the writers are currently handling the ‘Ava vs Mailin, performative activism’ plot.

tl;dr - the writers are trying to dismantle a few stereotypes surrounding black women (ava) and teach a pertinent lesson regarding performative activism and being a good ally, but are failing to properly connect it to the target, white women, because they further enforce these harmful stereotypes through not-so-great writing.

if we start at the beginning, the main premise is that ava wants mailin to educate herself and not come to her to ask her about racism. this would be fine (great, even for the non-black fans who want to be better allies), except for the fact that the show has also told us that mailin has been reading and educating herself, and ava still has an issue with her. we do still have around two episodes left of the season, so maybe this can be better explained via COMMUNICATION, but mailin has done what ava wanted her to do - educate herself more on racism and not come to the only black person she knows for racism education - and ava is still unhappy with her.

this paints ava as unreasonable and having some sort of problem with mailin trying to be an ally, and this feeds into the already existing idea that black people are expecting too much from non-blacks when we tell them how to treat allyship. obviously, this shows in the primarily white female audience for druck and all other skam remakes. ava hasn’t properly communicated why she feels how she feels TO mailin, so white fans think she’s unreasonable, selfish, self-centered etc. ESPECIALLY because fatou isn’t shown to be affected by mailin’s allyship in the same way that ava has, it looks like ava is simply annoyed at petty things and she has a personal issue with mailin, rather than an issue with her performative activism.

my second gripe is that it’s obvious that they’re trying to dismantle the ‘strong black woman’ trope - ava is supposed to be a sort of mother to the group who puts everyone’s problems on her shoulders and deals with her own all the time. except ... they haven’t written her that way at all. she’s responsible, of course. she takes charge of the abi instagram account and merch, the flatshare, she tells the group BOTH TIMES that mailin suggests they do something risky (the camping trip and the cheating plan) that it isn’t a good idea and that she doesn’t want them all to get in trouble. but in terms of emotional burden, she’s shown to be a lot less considerate than other characters when the mains are having issues and they haven’t communicated anything. season 5, she was frustrated with nora for messing up the merch reveal and being generally distant. and now, she’s angry at fatou for messing up the inventory and being generally unreliable. it’s clear she favours being dependable and loyal, but she rarely takes what people are going through into account, and has been portrayed as angry, bitter and a bad friend at basically every point. on the other hand, they’ve shown mailin, a character currently in conflict with ava, to be considerate and empathetic towards both main characters when they are facing hardship, being the only one to see when something is going on with them, and defends them when she knows so.

now, who do you think the majority white woman audience, who mailin is supposed to be emblematising, are going to side with? ava, the unreasonable, unsympathetic, bitter girl who supposedly cares about everyone but never shows it? or mailin, the misguided but well-intentioned, considerate girl who’s a good friend and always has others’ backs?

to conclude, ava’s character as a whole hasn’t been handled very well, especially if the writers are using her to teach white viewers how their performative activism comes off and affects us, and if they’re trying to show a non-stereotypical portrayal of a black girl. it’s important that these things are tackled, especially now that many non-black youth want to be good allies to the black community. but if/when we get ava’s season, i really and truly hope there are several black (especially DARK SKIN) women in the writers room, because it’s clear the stereotypes that specifically surround dsbw are only being perpetuated more.

#druck #ava pereira #mailin richter #performative allyship #performative activism #druck s6 #the writing of black people in these remakes really needs work :/#sorry for the thinkpiece #god bless if you read the full thing though!

116 notes · View notes

vympr · 3 years

Text

maybe the reason bollywood is floundering and flopping is cuz there are licherally no roles with depth anymore unless ur a nepotism baby with 4 easy formulaic romcom blockbusters under ur belt already. darr wasn't even that good but can u imagine literally any up and coming actor nowadays taking on a role where they portray a creepy psycho stalker that is so unsympathetic? closest i can even think of in recent years is ek villain and they bent over backwards to make ritesh deshmukh sympathetic despite him basically being an incel serial killer. and siddharth malhotra could have been replaced by a tan old navy mannequin

#whatever. bollywood shud burn anyways

21 notes · View notes

moriphyte · 3 years

Text

people who are avid fans of (creator) dream that also HATE (character) dream are the only dream stans i trust. like i myself don’t even follow dream but y’all are alright. you get the difference between an actor and the character they play and don’t try to use any excuse you can find to blame c!dream’s actions on anything but him being a bad person just because you like his creator. when the creator himself has said multiple times that his character is intentionally written and acted to be an inexcusable villain. like if you really do like and respect dream as a creator (which i personally do) you shouldn’t try to erase integral parts of the character that he worked very hard to accurately portray. like it can’t be easy playing the villain, especially when that villain is an ultimately unsympathetic child abuser only out for his own desire of power. but cc!dream does an absolutely amazing job of it. he plays a character so realistic that real life abuse victims (including myself) are viscerally disconcerted by him. and i am both impressed by and respect that. trying to excuse c!dream’s actions only serves to basically ruin all the efforts cc!dream out into making his character not only nuanced but painfully realistic. doing so is not only an insult to all abuse survivors, but it completely discounts all the character building dream has put into acting this character that is an objectively terrible man.

#dsmp #dream smp #c!dream #c!dream critical #dreamwastaken #p #abuse tw #abuse

40 notes · View notes

kitkatopinions · 3 years

Note

So we’re getting a book on Neo and Torchwick’s backstories and that just makes me nervous. Just because it’s hard to say what they will over explain some things that didn’t need to be or add relatively important aspects of the characters that was never shown in the series and will probably never be shown going forward. And while I’m not that opposed to sympathetic backstories I just hope they remember that they were/are villains and that they can convincingly remember to get them to that point. To write them with the fact they assist with horrible things in the future that doesn’t go against type of moral rule that we wouldn’t know about.

It also make me scared in the terms of Ironwood (and AceOps) is using these novels to then provided him a backstory. And given the poor writing of James in 8 and trying to retcon any of the good he showed and ignore his complex they made him; if he got a book it would be a mess. Cause their only way to get to their contrived version of V8 Ironwood would be to double down on his backstory and try to write him as convincingly manipulative throughout. However another problem they had/have with Ironwood is despite their efforts they still unintentionally write him with understandable motives and logic and good emotional moments which forces them to get around these moments by making Ironwood a full on cartoonish villain. That also begs to ask if the AceOps getting any background how much they are going to hurt everyone’s characterization especially since V8 had this seemed to enjoy dragging Clover through the mud. Like posthumously trying to define his character more but in a way that’s I’ll handled and unconvincing just because he wasn’t flushed out in V7 outside of being a better version of Qrow.

Hey I’m pretty sure I’m overreacting, maybe. But I’m at such a crossroads with they writing.

Honestly, I'm real nervous about how the books are going to portray Neo and Roman. I don't like EC Meyers, I don't like how he writes or how he handles characters, and I highly doubt I'm going to like how he portrays my favorite partners in crime.

And the funny thing is, I'm with everyone who doesn't want Neo to be an abuse victim and doesn't want her and Roman to be portrayed as overly sympathetic, I agree with that, and I don't want Neo to be redeemed... But my headcanoned up backstory for Roman and Neo was specifically invented for a fanfiction where they were mostly redeemed, lol, and made them really sympathetic (including Neo having been an abuse victim.) And I've been writing for them that way for so long that I know that I'm going to be disappointed either way.

I don't want Neo to be redeemed or them to be portrayed as overly sympathetic, but I don't want them to be too unsympathetic either, because A. I love them, and B. I really don't enjoy the idea that Cinder was given this sympathetic backstory and sympathetic framing, but the people she used and employed who have at least slight hints towards having been partially coerced are the heartless, irredeemable ones. So basically it's a lose lose.

As for the Ironwood/Ace Ops thing, did I miss an announcement for a book about them? Or is this just generally talking about how you hope they don't use the new Roman book to push Anti-Ironwood stuff? Either way, I'd also be kind of nervous about that, because it seems very much so like something EC Meyers would do, actually.

#rwde #anti rwby #anti ec meyers #rwby bashing #rwby hate #pro ironwood

18 notes · View notes

thyandrawrites · 4 years

Note

I'm glad that you are able to return to doing things you enjoy! I can completely understand how draining it can be not doing them for awhile. I look forward to the zines and wip you're workin on! I was curious if you'd be willin to do a meta on the dynamics that the lov have w/ each other. I'm still tryin to play catch up with the manga, but they have my soul atm. I'm workin on a few wip as well as an LoV au, n' I wanted to know your input. (if u can, THANK U, if not, 100% understandable)

Hey there! Thank you for being so nice :’) I’m glad you’re enjoying the content I put on this blog.

Anyway, to answer your question. Simply put, the League has very deliberate found family dynamics. I think that’s the reason why so many fans warmed up to them once they actually got an arc of their own. Cause they’re not just cruel bad guys, they’re complex and layered individuals fighting for things that we can actually empathize with, and whose struggles that make them grow closer to each other are always portrayed on screen with lots of depth.

Basically, the Lov is set up as a group of outcasts - all the people that don’t fit in hero society or who for one reason or another fell through the cracks. Putting aside guys like Muscular, Moonfish and Mustard, who were all some degree of unsympathetic (and in fact were removed from the core League early on), everyone is pretty much a victim of their circumstances. Not only that, but they also are often part of some kind of marginalized group.

(from here on, I talk about manga events so please keep that in mind if you don’t wanna get spoilers)

Starting from Shigaraki, he was the son of a strictly controlling patriarch first and later became the brainwashed heir to a crime empire. He was gaslighted into believing he exists to destroy and kept away from human touch for all his formative years.

There’s Toga who was called monstrous by her own family, who couldn’t understand her fascination for blood and her wish to explore a part of her identity, her quirk.

There’s Dabi, whose disability brings new focus to the theme of quirk incompatibility with one's body. His backstory has yet to be confirmed, but he also so very clearly holds a grudge against heroes as rescuers, because he wasn’t saved.

There’s Twice who dropped out from school at 16 to work to sustain himself when he lost his family, and who was pushed into villainy by a series of misfortunes ranging from poverty, loneliness, and lack of empathy from the law enforcers who saddled him with an unfair criminal record.

There’s Spinner who was a hikikomori (a shut-in) because the prejudice and hate he suffered as a heteromorph (and as a weak one to boot) made him lose all aspirations in life and fall in a depressive slump.

There’s Magne, a trans woman who experienced discrimination, who became a villain to fight for a world that would accept her for who she was.

There’s Kurogiri who should’ve never ended up the way he did, if only people had paid more attention to youths and how to better pace their development to wait until they were ready to take on dangerous situations.

And there’s Compress… Admittedly we don’t know much about him, but allegedly lost status or wealth, since he pretty much still acts like it.

The reason behind this wordy introduction is simple. The League is where all these mismatched people found a place to belong, a group of individuals who were equally broken or equally determined to lash out against the establishment that ruined their life and then didn't help them when they most needed it. One thing I find interesting about them is that despite the fact that they did have a goal at the beginning of the story, it has changed and evolved with time, the longer they spent with each other and got challenged by their losses.

Compare all the above with how they evolved:

Shigaraki did become Afo’s heir, but also rejected his will; he chose to be his own master, and to use his new power for his own goals. He also rejected the kind of leadership Afo wanted him to embrace. Shigaraki doesn't lead the Lov like Afo did with his crime network; he's not a puppeteer behind the scenes. He’s always fighting on the frontlines along with the rest of his comrades, and often he’s bearing the brunt of the attack to shield them. Think of how during the highway scene after Chisaki’s arrest, Shigaraki chose to be the distraction, charging the police car (and the only hero there) head on to give the others room to stop the convoy.

At the beginning of the story, Shigaraki was very much a detached sort of leader. He bossed people around and threw fits when things didn’t go according to his plans. He still charged head on, but Afo’s influence on him was clear, because he didn’t think of his comrades as valuable people, only assets to defeat a boss.

That has changed drastically after Magne’s death. That loss made him face the reality that he was still lacking as a leader, and he grew immensely from it. Not only he devised a plan to destroy Chisaki’s empire by exploiting their “alliance”, but he also chose to do so specifically for his comrade’s sakes.

A far cry from the brat who let dozens of low-rank villains get arrested at USJ cause they’d already served the purpose of acting as decoy.

Shigaraki’s character growth is the best one depicted in the manga imho. A lot of his character is defined by his interactions with his peers. He’s like a sponge because he’s constantly absorbing things - both from his allies and from his enemies - and making them his new strengths.

What I find interesting about him is that Afo's gaslighting hasn't undone who he is deep down. Tenko was an aspiring hero and someone who made sure to include all the kids when he played, leaving no one out. Those traits of his show through to this day. A lot of the time, I feel like fans glide through the fact that Shigaraki isn't at all a bossy leader anymore. In fact, he keeps his comrade's wishes and complaints in mind at all times.

I think this misconception came from the fact that when he's challenged by an enemy he dislikes, he always retaliates tenfold until he completely destroys them by taking what matters most to them (he did this with Chisaki by stealing the quirk erasing drug, his life's work, and his hands, the only thing that made him a leader. He also did this with Redestro, dusting the tower that symbolized his power and dominance from above, and stealing his empire & network for himself).

But… with his comrades, he's not like that. We've seen him face insubordination twice so far, and he always took it stride without even getting mad.

When Twice and Toga threatened him after hearing that he planned on continuing the alliance with Chisaki even after Magne's death, Shigaraki replied evenly, with confidence, showing that he had thought of their feelings and this wasn't a rash, detached kind of decision. He had a plan, and he didn't intend on letting Magne's death mean nothing to him. For a character so greatly impacted by loss from a very young age (whose given name literally means "mourning"), you can probably gather why for yourself.

Another insubordination he faces calmly is Spinner's.

He lets him grab his collar and scream at him and he barely blinks. He doesn't make excuses, either. At this point, the Lov was broke and homeless, on the run with nowhere to crash, they'd just lost Kurogiri and any sense of purpose. It's not like Shigaraki acts brilliant and pretends like this was all part of the plan. Or that he urges Spinner to stay with them despite his doubts that they're after a goal anymore. Cause to Shigaraki, the rest of the League is a bunch of people with free wills. He does give them orders as any leader should, but at the end of the day, he's also always allowed them to have goals of their own.

On this topic, here's a post on why he's also cool with Dabi & Toga having separate agendas that don't align with his desire for systemic destruction. You could also argue that this chill and lax attitude towards leadership is also a subconscious way of rejecting Afo’s upbringing. Afo was controlling even when he set things out to make Shigaraki feel like he was taking his own decisions. Shigaraki is pretty much the opposite.

He even changed his own purpose a little (“destroying everything”) to account for Toga’s personal goal (“destroying everything except the things my comrades want to keep”). That’s because Shigaraki is aware that the League is a bunch of people that doesn’t really fit in anywhere else in hero society.

This found family aspect is also shown in a lot of other things. For example, it’s Toga finding true friends who accept her for who she is in the other League members. We are told early on that quirks are just another body function. Yet, hero society found Toga’s to be monstrous and demanded she repress it and forced her to wear a mask of normalcy that ended up only amplifying her desire for violent rebellion.

The thing about treating a kid like a monster all the time, is that at some point that kid is gonna believe you and start acting like one. What is labeled as “Insanity” in her case is just the reflection of the dehumanization that the adults in her life subjected her to.

As pointed out here, Toga is not an unsympathetic, bloodthirsty demon. She’s a layered individual, and she’s the protagonist of the the most empathetic scene of the story. It’s not a coincidence that she only ever shows that more human side when she’s with other lov members, while she is perceived as freaky and crazy by people on the hero side. Because hero society only ever treated her with violence, while the lov gave her a safe space to explore her identity without judgement. As a result, she treats the rest of the lov with kindness and acceptance too. This prompts her character development.

Toga’s character revolves around the theme of connection. As stated above, she never really fit in. She had no friends, and her own family shunned her. What happened then was that she internalized that to have connections, she needs to suppress her identity and take up a new one. She killed her classmate, Saito, in middle school because he was popular, smiling and friendly and she wanted to be like him. People, and children in particular, tend to copy the behaviours they perceive as successful, because emulation is part of a child’s normal process of learning the world. Hers is... an extreme case of emulation that ends up becoming literal because of the way her quirk works.

Without going too deep about it, basically suppression of the self is freedom to her because she can fit in better than when she tries to be “normal” as herself. This is shown in particular when she manifests jealousy towards Ochako as the subject of Deku’s trust. She too wants to be trusted unconditionally like Ochako is. Her character basically boils down to her desire to be close to the person she loves, the person she has a strong connection to.

The lov was the first group of individuals who never tried to mold her into something she wasn’t, and you can see how this impacts the way she forms connections with people. With Twice, she was able to form a meaningful relationship with another person that didn’t revolve around her obsession for blood, and that was full of empathy and companionship.

Now, I could go on and explain how the League is thematically the place that gives belonging and legitimacy to all the lov’s members reasons to resent hero society. I could because there’s so much more to say, particularly in regards to Twice & how Hawks fits in that, but it’s too hot to keep typing this on my pc without any a/c, sorry XD brain melty

The short version is that the lov is deliberately written as a group of outsiders - each in their own light - and each one of them explores a different ramification of the failures of hero society. The bonds that they form with each other then are not just born out of necessity, but often become a rebellion in and of itself. When Hawks then tried to pry them apart by offering Twice the chance of reformation in jail, he also unconsciously repeated the abuse they suffered at the hands of hero society: splitting them apart into “good” and “bad” victims, people who could still be saved and hopeless cases, when the truth is that none of them should’ve become a villain in the first place, if only heroes had been more competent and noticed the cracks of the system sooner.

#ali replies #bnha #bnha meta #meta:shigaraki #meta:toga #meta:lov #my post #bnha spoilers #lyrick-buffpuff

330 notes · View notes