#ed is a nuanced and complex person

[urproblematicfav-arsonk]

Let's talk about ep 4 and how Edward is kinda a huge dick.

It's entirely possible other people have talked about this but I haven't seen it and I'm an opinionated autistic person so fuck you here we goooo

So something I think is really interesting about this episode how actually very cruel and mean Ed is towards Stede.

The beginning of Ed's fuckary is seen first when he brings up the clouds to Izzy and then later when Lucius confirms the threat of the Spanish closing in on them. After that Ed tells Lucius to start the Dramatic Countdown™ that fucking exactly matches the fog nearly to the second which is completely insane btw. I don't think it was part of Ed's original plan to the identity swap but the intent was always the same

To publicly humiliate and hurt The Gentleman Pirate.

The plan was always to dramatically appear on The Revenge in blood and smoke. The Gentleman Pirate already humiliated and half dead only for the Great Blackbeard to show mercy for a time. Then because The Gentleman Pirate is clearly incompetent, when the Spanish arrive does he have a plan? No of course not, but wait,

I think when the identity swap happens the plan becomes a lot more cruel. Ed clearly likes Stede and is being open with him(largely because he knows he's going to destroy/leave him soon and thus no consequences)and then we get our cute moment of them pretending to be each other. Ed gets to have fun for a moment before shit goes down(like he planned)

Specifically I wanna walk about this scene.

And more specifically lol the noise Taika makes. Ed makes such extremely condescending "hmm :(" at Stede when his attempt at a plan clearly won't work. This whole scene is Ed pressuring and hurting Stede. He knows Stede isn't prepared as a pirate and he's known that before he even met him. He wants Stede to feel the pressure and fear he feels, to emotionally break him in so to say. He's mocking and belittling him and honestly seems to find it funny. And not only that it was all fucking premeditated because Lucius shows up to finish the countdown adding onto the extremely elaborate psychology torture that Ed has devised.

And then Ed's plan comes to fruition. Blackbeard comes in with his genius plan and saves the day. The crew cheer and praise him and The Gentleman Pirate stands a coward and a failure.

Of course that doesn't happen.

And I think its really fucking interesting that in the end it's actually Izzy who does to Ed what he was trying to do to Stede.

He humiliates him in front of the whole crew and proves that The Captain was incompetent with no plan.

Unlike Edward who never seems to show any remorse for how he treats Stede this episode, Izzy seems pretty fucking guilty after embarrassing Ed like that.

And no point during any part of the Fuckary does Stede seem to realize this was all Ed's plan. He's upset and stressed in the moment but seems to forgive and forget pretty quickly. I assume this is mostly because Stede is still starstruck by Ed and isn't going to be confrontational about it even if he knew.

AND NOW PART 2: Izzy Apologisim

I think its really fucked up of Ed to dangle Izzy future in front of him like that.

Izzy is so flustered and happy that Ed would pass down the mantle like that to him. That Edward would see Izzy insubordination and say "No you're right, thank you for calling me out" and then offer him the best possible promotion only to then say "lol nah" and walk away.

The immediate heartbreak on Izzy's face when he realizes that Ed was just fucking with him is so sad to me but what's even worse

Is the fucking pride he feels when he realizes that Ed's "needs him". In that moment being Blackbeard's first mate is a life far better then any chance at captaincy ever was. And I think that's honestly awful.

Repeatedly throughout the episode Izzy is shown to be extremely anxious and worried about their plan. Edward has at no point before or after the initial raid on The Revenge has shared his plan with Izzy. Izzy calmy asks over and over for Edward to just talk to him, to work with him and come up with a plan and EVERY time Edward shoots him down and then gaslights him like Izzy was the problem here and not Ed. There's no real reason for Ed to be hiding this. And the second Izzy realizes that Ed does in fact have a plan during the Dramatic Countdown™ he visibly calms down and is even upset with Pete for ruining Ed's moment.

"Once again I'll come up with a plan and when we barely get by" implies this is absolutely not the first time they've gone ass first into a situation that Edward didn't secretly have a plan for and Edward similarly here, didn't wanna come up with one leaving Izzy to panic and be forced to try to save them and their crew. Edward lies, avoids blame by being the hero and kills his crew for the chance to play dress up. I fully don't think Izzy is being irrational here at all. He's working with what he's got and Edward refuses to cooperate like Iz needs him too.

A lot of people seem to think that Ed is a tragic hero trapped by his own reputation and masculinity. But the thing is, Edward himself is always the one enforcing that concept.

He's the one who made a elaborate plan to fuck with one guy.

He's the only reveling in The Revenge's adoration and praise

He's the one who comes up with a completely unnecessary murder plot "for Izzy" when Izzy would've most definitely been ok with just Ed leaves and he becomes Blackbeard.

Edward's toxic masculinity is a idea he perpetuates himself for his own benefit. And in the very end it was Edward's choice to fall back onto that violence instead of what he had been trying to create

#the point is #ed is a nuanced and complex person #this isnt slander i do really like him #but i wanna talk about all parts of his character ya know #ofmd #our flag means death #my meta #character analysis #long post #ofmd ep 4 #edward teach #stede bonnet #izzy hands

[piratecaptainscaptainpirates]

Alright, so there's been a lot of chatter about some of the most common racist takes in the fandom lately, and I know most people aren't engaging in good faith but I'm gonna spell some things out anyway. Here's a handy-dandy White Fan's Intro to Racist Fanon 101

Why is it racist to depict Ed as uncontrollably violent?

Because he's not actually depicted that way in the show. OFMD goes out of its way to depict Ed's relationship with violence as complex and intensely traumatic for him. Because he has so many hangups around violence, Ed is one of the least violent characters in a show full of violent characters. He is always shown giving people many chances before they're able to push him into reacting with violence.

Even if you think you're just doing a character study on a guy who is really very complex and nuanced, please take the time to consider if you're assigning more weight to Ed's violent actions than those of other characters or assuming he's worse than he actually is (for example, Ed never physically hurt the crew during his kraken spiral, just Izzy. His crime was being a shitty boss, not going on mindlessly violent rampages).

What do other common fanon depictions of Ed that are racist look like?

The biggest ones are depicting Ed as untidy/messy, as illiterate, and as needing a white man (most often Izzy) to clean up after him. I hope I shouldn't have to spell out why these are racist, but please keep an eye out for them in the fanon you consume so you can be critical of how you respond when they pop up.

Are you saying that all Izzy fans are racist?

Liking a character is morally neutral. Insisting that the viewpoint of an antagonistic character is the lens through which the show should be understood, though, especially when that antagonistic character's whole deal in the first season of the show was trying to control the behavior of the brown lead so he could gain power for himself, however...

Just please consider - why do you find Izzy's tears more deserving of sympathy and compassion than Ed's?

But my hot take/fic/meta doesn't say anything about Ed's skin color!

It doesn't have to. Most of the racist takes/fic/meta out there don't mention Ed's skin color explicitly. Racism doesn't just look like saying "this character is a brown man so he's bad." Everyone who grows up in a racist society (that's everyone on the planet, btw, you included) has biases to unlearn, and those biases impact how you interact with the world around you, including with the media you consume.

The thing is, OFMD isn't a subtle show. It's very consistent with telling us who Ed is, how he responds to situations, and why he behaves the way he does. If you find it easier to throw all that aside in favor of believing what a white antagonistic character tells you about him, then you should really take a bit to examine that.

And here's the most important thing to keep in mind:

This is not about you.

Trust me, it has to be pretty damn bad for fans of color to call out racism in fandom. Every time we do, we know we're gonna harrassment and just some truly awful shit in our inboxes. But you, random white fan who Did A Racism? No one is out to get you. No one thinks you're an awful person for including a racist trope in your stuff, we just wish you'd examine it so we can make this fandom a better place for everyone.

I have had amazing discussions with white fans who saw my posts on fandom racism and wanted a sensitivity read or a check so they could fix an instance where they uncritically included a racist trope. But most people who make similar mistakes will just double down and insist they didn't do anything wrong, and that makes fandom a worse place for all of us.

Fans of color deserve to feel safe and included in this fandom, and we're just tired of feeling like we have to beg to get some circles to see poc as people. You can do your part by being critical of these tropes and your reactions to them when they pop up.

#ofmd #our flag means death #fandom discourse #fandom racism

[plantsjustwannahavefun]

I keep seeing so many people here getting angry that this season is "vilifying Ed", and it's depressingly fascinating to see how others can watch the same show and somehow see something completely different. Is it simply the lack of media literacy? Is it the inability to appreciate and enjoy complex, nuanced, morally grey characters without willfully blocking out anything even slightly unpalatable about them to the point where the character they think they love isn't really that character anymore?

Because, uh... Season 1 already "vilified" Ed plenty. Except "vilify" is the wrong word, of course. It wasn't in any way malicious or mean-spirited, quite the contrary, it was often played as comedic (until the end of episode 10 when it was anything but) - Ed was always meant to be a sympathetic character, he's a protagonist after all, and the show's portrayal of him is very compassionate. It merely refused to sugarcoat or shy away from his darker side. He's literally history's most famous pirate, you don't become one by being nice and treating everyone gently. He ambushed and strangled his own father to death when he was like 9 years old (100% deserved and justifiable ofc, but it still bears saying it out loud like this just to comprehend how unhinged this actually was). He loves torturing and maiming people for fun, and sometimes even animals (that scene with forcing a turtle to fight a crab). He didn't give a fuck about his crew members dying to satisfy his whim to meet Stede. He entirely failed in his role as a captain in ep 4. He effectively played a double agent with Izzy and Stede for a while before changing his mind. He attempted to murder Lucius. And while you could try to argue his punishment of Izzy was at least to some degree deserved, not only cutting Izzy's toe off but forcing him to eat went beyond punishment, it was sadistic torture.

So, yeah, please just read all that and take it in. And then remember once again that Ed is also a traumatised, lonely, depressed, sensitive, creative, curious, deeply passionate person yearning for true love and for something different in life... just like Stede. He loves music and can play the piano. He wrote a very vulnerable song and sand his heart out. He likes his tea with seven sugars. He enjoys fashion and dressing up. He has such a limitless sense of wonder for the world. He went on a trek with Stede just to make him happy, even though he hated nature and was in a shit mood that day. He wants to host a talent show. He wants to become free. He's clever and funny and fascinating. I love Ed.

Yes, it's possible to reconcile those two sides of him and accept both sides as the "real" Ed. You have to reconcile the two sides if you want to enjoy him as a character, because if you don't, you're going to either detest him to the core (which would make enjoying the show practically impossible since he's sort of a main character...), or you'll only be able to enjoy a diminished, crippled, cardboard cutout version of his character, which would be such a pity and a massive disservice to the creators of this show who worked hard to create interesting, multidimensional characters.

Not to mention you'd be missing one of the core messages of the show - the idea that people still deserve love and can be loved even if they're imperfect, or not necessarily good people. Because love is a human condition. It's not a sole dominion of "good" people. "Bad" people can fall in love too - even if, just like them, that love isn't exactly "nice" or "pure", and neither are the relationships that stem from it. They can be messy and exasperating. But "bad" people can also grow and change because of it. That's what OFMD is ultimately about - growth and change, learning to accept yourself but also become better. That can't happen if the character is already 100% perfect the way they are.Ed is far from that. So is Izzy. They can both become better, and they both still deserve compassion and understanding, because that's the environment people need to become better.

So, if you're mad that at the start of S2 the crew are sympathetic to Izzy's suffering and want to help him instead of kicking him when he's down, and what Ed did to him is being acknowledged as cruel and wrong... congratulations, you have completely missed what OFMD is all about.

#normally I hate fandom drama and hate getting involved but I've seen too many of those posts #so unfortunately it needs saying #and tbh there seem to be a few Izzy fans out there who are unreasonably hateful and unsympathetic towards Ed too #so they need to hear this as well #izzy hands #blackbeard #ofmd ed teach #ofmd #our flag means death #our flag means death s2 #ofmd s2 spoilers

[five-thousand-loaves-of-bread]

…something been in draft for while:

idk how say this exactly but often like. use what look like binary clear cut dichotomy that have set definition this is this that is that. because oftentimes call “cake” “cake” instead of “flour milk egg baking powder salt etc etc” that kind language faster simplier and nuance can easily put word count 10k+. and. with language communication disabilities not always able translate all nuance into tangible word on paper/screen/type sometimes have to call something with imperfect blanket word. and then you find out other people not really hold as much nuance as you & still simplify your nuance into something binary this this that that

but reality rarely that binary— say on here that nonverbal mean not mouth speak at all all time & semiverbal is struggle all time but can mouth speak some & verbal but actually more nuanced than that like some severely apraxic people who mouth do say thing but not in their control not what they want say & they still call self nonspeaking because it not intentional meaningful speech; or someone labeled nonverbal who actually do commmunicate with mouth words just not full sentence & not full clear pronounce but still labeled nonverbal anyway as almost like microaggression of not recognize their single or two word mouth word phrase as valid enough communication worth listen to; or someone with echolalia that not mean anything with it (vs someone with echolalia that is use echolalia as communication (think gestalts, etc)); or some research showing even able say 1-2 words more ability than those with 0 word; or research debate about where minimally verbal end is it 20 words 30 words 50 words

when combat “go nonverbal” crowd often say there is clear cut about what nonverbal and what isn’t and yeah there is clear cut but also is there

many not ready for this level muddiness & nuance because some take bring nuance as invite to say like “i nonverbal but can still (intentionally) mouth speak” or gateway to claim nonverbality as if fun new identity collect instead of some complicated complex experience with mixed emotion but often some level of grief at some point that get lot targeted awful ableism & discrimination like denied education refuse accommodation like IEP or put in segregated classroom without even consider accommodation in general ed to isolate away from peers n not actual to help nonverbal person where they best thrive, or secluded or restrained, or denied healthcare, denied communication, which all still happen now btw it still common now it not rare obsolete it majority still

which make me feel like this image

[id: meme. left side is philosophers (school of athens painting) with caption “talking about nonverbal nonspeaking with other nonverbal people”. middle say “vs”. right side image is parent guiding infant to look play at toy and captioned “talking about nonverbal nonspeaking with not nonverbal people. end id]

because sometimes really is that but also even this is binary. thinking about how some motor nonspeaking people without intellectual disability who language okay say their mind intact that they not stupid thus deserve education and not deserve abuse and throw people with ID & language impairment. or how nonverbal nonspeaking from autism so different from (but so similar to) from motor apraxia from cerebral palsy from intellectual disability from genetic or chromosomal disorders from stroke from TBI from aphasia from vocal cord dysfunction from dementia from from from… how talking to someone nonspeaking from primarily motor reasons without cognitive intellectual language disabilities as someone nonverbal because high level autism cognitive language disabilities, we not guarantee understand eachother experience, same with talk someone from acquired things vs mine neurodevelopmental, how what i say about nonverbal here may not apply to someone who not speak not because autism etc

but “if words so meaningless if experiences so boundless let abolish all” not helpful because for all kind way be nonverbal there experiences that 100% not nonverbal there experiences so different from nonverbal “not able meaningfully intentionally speak all the time” for every meaningless there meaningful reason nonverbal people use nonverbal and deserve word “nonverbal” for ourselves and how this difference in experience is intracommunity issue issue within nonverbal nonspeaking community something we have to grapple with and not invitation for people outside to talk about how “if nonverbal so wide, drawing line at going nonverbal & say that isn’t nonverbal is ridiculous and gatekeep” because as much vast different experience there is reason why there community why there this word we all call ourselves and. not one. of the reason is we can slide in and out of not speak and speak daily or weekly or monthly or regularly. there still common theme to what we call nonverbal despite different

wide word isn’t “functionally useless” it just you not know how n when use it

& this conversation not just apply to nonverbal but many other words n other things as well

#loaf screm #nonverbal

[ourfag]

i think part of the resistance i’ve seen in response to the view of ed as an abuse victim—not just the view of izzy as someone who abused ed, but of ed as someone who was abused by him, as opposed to interpretations that pursue an image of Nuance and Complexity (unnecessarily, because their dynamic has heaps of both, but there seems to be a popular impulse to conflate complexity with shared culpability) by characterizing their relationship as being toxic/unhealthy in equal reciprocity, or as “mutually abusive” (oxymoron)—i definitely see the influence of racism there, but i think the racism is also working to amplify an adjacent issue where we tend to receive very specific cultural messaging about What An Abuse Victim Looks Like, and ed is excluded from a lot of that criteria.

he’s outspoken. he’s boisterous. he’s Very Cool and he Wears Leather. he’s physically bigger and browner than the person mistreating him. he spends the first season with a big grey beard, he’s covered in tattoos, he projects the image of A Man’s Man, to say nothing of his being a man in the first place. we see him get aggressive and we see him get angry (and sometimes we even see both at the same time). we see moments where he’s surly, prickly, insensitive, arrogant. his survival techniques and trauma responses incur collateral damage to other people, and in the second season this extends into affecting people we actually sympathize with. he’s extremely private about expressing fear. without examination, his professional relationship to izzy seems to position him as the one with the power slanted in his favor.

most damningly, we see him react multiple times to izzy’s abuse with physical violence. this is behavior that gets referenced all the time in the construction of narratives condemning subjects of physical abuse, let alone emotional abuse. which is why writing that intends for its audience to interpret a character as being unambiguously A Victim Of Abuse will often, for simplicity’s sake, avoid showing the character regularly engaging in anything of the kind.

and again, all of these departures from the image of The Model Victim are compounded by his being a man of color.

without any of the shorthand designed to point a big flashing arrow at his mistreatment, all we have left to work with are the words and actions we see from ed and izzy onscreen. who instigates conflict, and how does the other respond? how are they able or allowed to respond? how do we see them speak about each other to outside parties? does one go out of their way to control or isolate the other? what consequences does either party stand to face in saying “no” to the other? in acting against the other’s wishes? in trying to leave the relationship? when either of them attempts these things, how do we see the other respond?

i realize and appreciate what people are driving at when they garnish their analysis with disclaimers that they’re not saying ed’s just a poor innocent abuse victim, they’re not saying he’s a perfect angel who’s never done anything wrong, and that’s true, but these are points already contained implicitly in statements like “this show’s protagonists act like human people” and “ed’s emotional struggles are portrayed in a realistic and believable way.” my assumption is that these disclaimers are anticipatory responses to worst-faith interpretations of any discussion that attributes any victim status to ed whatsoever, so i definitely sympathize with their inclusion, but a (very small) part of me still worries about them potentially reflecting or reinforcing a belief that there is any way for someone to behave towards their abuser that imparts a responsibility for them to make right whatever damage the abuser receives, or for that matter any degree of ambiguity over their status as an abuse victim in the first place.

part of what i find so gratifying about ed as a character is that i don’t feel like the show’s writing is pressuring me to consider that ambiguity at all. which was a really nice thing for me to discover!

and tbh—did using ed to deconstruct The Model Victim even factor into the writers’ agenda?? ive got no clue. im guessing no? ??maybe?? probably not?? but if you create a main character whose central premise is that he feels trapped in a performance of exaggerated masculinity that he’s desperate to escape, and then you set him up with a character premised on embodying a tangible obstacle against that escape, then i guess that’s the natural shape your story’s gonna be inclined to take

#man thats a lot of words when i couldve just said ‘im not an ed apologist bc he has nothing to apologize for’ and yalld get the message #had to get it off my chest though #abuse tw #sorry about the verbosity Im Aware. Its An Ongoing Issue #this is actually after i went through and edited to make it as concise as possible #the good news is ive finally managed to limit myself to a mere half dozen commas per sentence #the bad news is all these words are mush in my brain now and i can barely tell if theyre actually saying anything #are any of these paragraphs related to one another? i dont fuckin know #i do know i agreed with them when i wrote them though #am i procrastinating in the tags because im nervous about posting this? maybe. shut up #im gonna go do todays wordle

[b4g3lbit3s]

i think people should realize that it isn’t just ed who’s abusive or just izzy who’s abusive. it needs to be accepted that they’re both incredibly toxic for one another. they aren’t just black and white characters, they’re complex and nuanced with traumas and personalities. they’re both toxic and abusive to one another and it doesn’t need to be a fight over who’s worse.

#both of them are such amazingly written characters #i love them #and ofc it’s totally okay to like one of them more or not like one of them at all #but it shouldn’t be an argument as to who’s worse since they are both incredibly fucked up idiots #affectionate #ofmd #our flag means death #izzy hands #edward teach #edizzy

[let-us-cultivate-our-garden]

Just wanted to second that notion you were saying to the previous anon about growing up and realizing that some of the stuff you loved as a kid does not carry through as you age into an adult. I use to have no problem with Vlad's ending in Danny Phantom, and didn't bat an eye to the corruption of Jack Spicer's character in Xiaolin Showdown. Now that I've' grown up and am a writer myself, I see how much potential they had to be great characters and so many ways they could have been used for great storytelling and themes in their shows but were ultimately wasted by some, imo, poor writing direction. As well as a long list of many other flaws I've seen jumping out of their shows now that I'm seeing them again as an adult (that doesn't mean I don't still have fondness for them, I just see them through a different lens now). So far I feel like Kim Possible, Ed Edd n eddy and Avatar are some of the few millennial cartoons that I can list on the top of my head right now that's actually aged well in terms of character and story development, as least imo, and I think it's because the writers and staff members just weren't afraid to bend the status quo and actually took challenges to bring out some amazing stories and nuances in their characters.

I really wish TOH had gone that route, and it looked like it was but tragically for some reason decided not to . That's why I'm forever grateful for cartoons like Steven Universe and Amphibia. Those shows were not afraid to challenge the status quo or show their characters having flaws and toxic habits that they had to face. Something that you begin to relate to as you grow older, and ultimately it's those types of shows that shine like diamonds throughout the millennia's.

Here is the previous anon ask. Yeah, what makes toh so disappointing is that it promised early on that it was going to challenge its protagonist and had such an interesting premise and world to play around in. Only for all that potential to be thrown out or heavily watered down.

My only hope is that future creators will look to see what toh faltered at but also what it successfully managed to pull off. What made shows like Amphibia and Steven Universe successful is that they had a core of strong characters that let their personalities bounce off (and occasionally clash with) each other. They both explored the potential and complexities of their worlds and made their characters grow instead of making excuses for them.

Toh is excellent at introducing tantalizing concepts but terrible at the execution.

#asks #toh critical #toh criticism #the owl house

[xoxoemynn]

hey marianne tell us about the wip you're most excited about in as much detail as you want

HOO BOY WOULD I LOVE TO. And I have yet to consolidate this into an elevator pitch so it'll definitely be long. It started off as an Old Hollywood/Broadway AU and now has spiraled into what I'd say most simply is a dimension travel AU that's also a bit of a meta commentary on OFMD's cancellation.

I'll put it under a cut because this DID actually get annoyingly long.

OKAY SO. We have 1990s Ed. He's a legendary Broadway performer known mostly as a dancer but he's been getting a bit sick of it, but also doesn't know what he'd want to do next since he's still relatively young. He keeps putting it off until he injures his knee in a show and can no longer dance, and now he's forced to actually figure out what he's going to do next.

While he's depressed and recovering, he passes the time watching old black and white musicals. He discovers the dance team of Stede Bonnet and Mary Allamby (loosely inspired by Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, who were baby's first hyperfixation as a pre-teen, making this a VERY exciting project for me personally) and is immediately in awe of Stede, although surprised he's never heard of him before.

Through some hand-waving, Ed eventually realizes he's able to talk to Stede through the TV, and then later that he's actually able to enter the TV itself and exist in Stede's world. Except it's not just the 1930s. Stede's literally been living in a kind of grayscale purgatory that looks like his film sets. He has no concept of the passage of time, or even exactly what happened that caused him to be stuck there, and he's the only real person existing there, until Ed shows up.

Naturally they quickly fall in love, but they have a bit of a star-crossed lovers thing going on because they can't FULLY be together, and they also have different wants in life. For Ed, he LOVES being in this black and white world. He's in love with Stede, his knee doesn't bother him there, he gets to explore these really cool art deco film sets, he doesn't have to think about what he's going to do with his life. He gets to just be happy. For him, being in a black and white world cut off from everyone else but Stede is a small and worthy sacrifice for all that.

But Stede's been trapped there for 60 years with no sign of escape, and he misses being in the real world. He loves having Ed there and loves Ed, but he also wonders what else is out there. He misses being out in the real world and seeing everything in color and experiencing life off a Hollywood film set that was specifically designed to be entirely escapist for filmgoers looking to get away from their problems during the Great Depression.

So the bulk of the story is about Ed and Stede navigating their relationship and how they can really be together, as well as uncovering what happened to Stede in the first place that caused him to be trapped. It's got big themes of authenticity, acceptance, the temptation of avoidance, and being comfortable in the unknown. Influences that have wormed their way in include The Giver, Pleasantville, The Red Shoes, Barbie (lol), The Haunting of Hill House, Zaslav being a fuckhead, and an experimental art film called The Afterlight. It's taken me a LONG time to plan it because the world-building was really complex and there were a ton of little nuances to sort out, but I'm finally in a good place to really start writing it. I'm very excited because there are at least two REALLY sad scenes in it that I am 😈 about. But DEFINITELY a happy ending with a huge thread of hope running throughout, and is ultimately about creating a life for yourself where you can be your most authentic self, as terrifying as that may be.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME AN EXCUSE TO RAMBLE I LOVE YOU. 💕

#ask #fakestgeekboy #I have been ITCHING to find a way to blend my current pirate hyperfixation with my OG old Hollywood hyperfixation #and naturally I couldn't make it easy #but I am VERY excited about it

[youwearlavenderwell]

same anon as before

YESSS EXACTLY

i love steddyhands because they have such an interesting balance of personalities esp with ed and izzy's history and the tension and the initial jealousy that turns into a softer love because stede helps balance them out (plus stede and izzy's slow friendship -> relationship) and it's just sad because it's clear DJ never viewed izzy that way (he said izzy was a mentor/father figure???)

and it had so much potential to be so interesting and complex and instead they went with the most cliche and boring route

yessss that’s exactly what i love about steddyhands too. if i was a writer, i’d have so much fun with that dynamic and as you said it’s nuanced and complex and interesting and so rich in potential. i love the idea of Stede softening the rough edges of Ed and Izzy’s relationship and leading them into new territory, coupled with the slower burn of Stede and Izzy's enemies to friends to lovers dynamic.

it’s very strange that Jenkins made comments about it being a love triangle and then switched up to mentor/father figure… like, Izzy literally declared his romantic love for Edward mere episodes ago. are we supposed to forget about that?

unfortunately, as a cishet man, Jenkins isn’t all too familiar with the queer fan experience. as shown in season 1 when he couldn’t believe anyone would think he would queerbait (he had no idea it was such a widespread issue in mainstream media). i fear this is why he also dropped the ball, because. we’ve all been traumatized by the bury your gays trope. because we’ve seen it countless times. keeping gay characters alive is an act of rebellion in itself. so you’re right, this major character death was bland, cliche and incredibly ignorant of the audience.

#asks #steddyhands #izzy hands

[sarucane]

OFMD Spiral Parallels 21: Executions of Stede Bonnet and Ned Lowe

Intro: What I love most about how season 2 builds on season 1 of OFMD is the spiral narrative structure. Ground is repeatedly and explicitly re-trod from season 1 to season 2, but in season 2 everything goes deeper than season 1. Meanings are shuffled, emotions are stronger and truer, and transformation is showcased above everything. The first season plucks certain notes, then the second season plucks the same ones--but louder, and then it weaves them together to create a symphony.

---

There are two executions in OFMD, one in each season. In the first season, the British try to execute Stede Bonnet, but fail because of Ed's intervention. In the second season, Stede executes Ned Lowe, despite Ed's attempted intervention.

The stagings of these scenes are remarkably similar. Ned is standing a few feet away from where Stede nearly died. Stede is in the middle of the dramatic action, with Ed behind him telling him not to do it--in season 1, Ed was in the middle, with Izzy telling him not to intervene. But the first execution is emotionally and personally fairly straightforward, while the second is nuanced, complex, and morally ambiguous.

In season 1, Stede is being executed because his insecurities make him overcompensate sometimes. He doesn't just say he was responsible for Nigel's death, he claims he murdered Nigel in cold blood. When he's sentenced to execution, he tells Ed he deserves it. This all happening because of his own reactions against his fears of inadequacy, his desire to prove his father wrong or his desire to somehow correct the wrong he made when he left his family.

In season 2, Ned Lowe is being executed because he's The Worst. He tries to kill everyone, painfully, and he was a net negative on literally everyone and everything. This time, Stede is the one doing the executing. And he's not really doing it for himself--when he "sentences" Ned Lowe, he talks about what Ned did to the people he cares about, not to him. That said, he's still reacting to some extent to his insecurities, his fears that he isn't tough enough to be a pirate, that he isn't worthy of love.

In the first season, Ed is the one who is making the decision about whether this execution will go forward. He knew about the Act of Grace from the beginning, but he doesn't pull that card until the last possible moment. In the second season, Stede is the one making the decision.

Each of them is advised by someone who thinks they shouldn't do what they are clearly about to do. At Ed's shoulder is Izzy. Izzy here is acting as a sort of demon from Ed's past, a person called to Ed by his hardcore-pirate past. The fact that Ed has made a choice to change doesn't matter: his past actions are why Izzy is here, to the point that Izzy even quotes him to himself. And his past actions are why Ned Lowe is here too. Just like Stede's insecurities put him in the position of nearly dying, and then becoming a killer, Ed's past sometimes echoes into the present and threatens the people he cares about.

Izzy and Ed both advise against intervention. Both do so out of concern. They think Ed in season 1 and Stede in season 2 are about to make a mistake, are going to feed something "bad" in the person they care about. But the nature of the mistakes are opposite: Izzy fears Ed will become less of a "pirate," less of a toxic person, while Ed fears Stede will be psychologically poisoned by embracing this part of piracy. Thus, when Ed ignores Izzy and prevents Stede's execution, it's a heroic act. He had real (if misguided) reasons not to make this decision, and he embraces it anyway, refusing every opportunity to turn aside. But when Stede ignores Ed, the result is genuinly ambiguous. On the one hand, no one on OFMD has ever deserved to die quiet as much as Ned Lowe. But on the other hand, Stede is taking a step down a path whose end lies in darkness. That doesn't mean he's end up in the dark himself, but he's closer than he was before.

Finally, both these executions highlight the fault lines in Ed's and Stede's relationship. Stede's insecurity is dangerous because of how he sometimes overcompensates for it, judges himself for not being "tough," the kind of man his father thought he should be, and at the same time fears himself for being too capable of harm. That led to him almost getting executed in season 1, and leads to him executing Ned in season 2.

The fault line related to Ed is the consequences of his past actions. In the first season, Stede is nearly executed because of Izzy, because Ed's past as a bastard almost consumes Stede's life and Ed's soul. In the second season, Ned Lowe is here because he's chasing Ed--because Ed out-pirated him. Thus Ned Lowe embodies how that Ed's past might one day catch up with him and destroy his relationship with Stede.

But Ned is also a warning of how Stede's insecurities might drive him to become something dark and evil. Ned, like Stede, is cultured and driven. He and Stede aren't pirates because of necessity, like most pirates. Stede chose to become a pirate for fun, and as Ned tells Stede, "I'm just doing it for the lolz." And, like Stede, Ned is driven by insecurities rooted in his family. Stede's father made him feel inadequate, Ned's brother made him feel like second-best. Ned is a warning about what Stede might become.

Still, despite the way these executions both highlight the ways Ed's and Stede's relationship could be destroyed, that's not the immediate effect of them. Instead, these executions bring Stede and Ed closer together. Because all relationships can break, that's just how life works. That doesn't mean they're not worth trying.

#ofmd #ofmd s2 spoilers #our flag means death #ofmd s2 #ofmd spoilers #ofmd meta #ed teach #stede bonnet #blackbonnet

[uselessheretic]

one thing that i feel like is annoying with villain discourse is this weird insistence that if you like villains then you MUST like then exclusively because they suck and want nothing more than that and for them to be evil. like? not all villains are flat out evil! sometimes villains can have nuances! it's weird when people say they hate when villains are given backstories or made sympathetic because i love it when they are? an evil villain whos evil for no reason can hit p hard esp if they have the cunt aesthetics to back it up, but the ones that stick with me are often the ones with detailed characterization who are sympathetic.

like i love killmonger! i love that he does bad things! i dont think hes evil though. i empathize with his struggles. i can understand how he got to where he is and i feel mournful that he never got to have a happy ending.

i think hisoka hxh is a fun villain, but mereum, when he was given human emotion and changed from pure evil to a person with the capacity for love, that's what made me sob in hxh! is he evil? whos to really say hes just an animal doing what his nature tells him to. thats not an important thing to dwell on for me though when im more impacted by being able to see his character show compassion and receive it in return.

"if youre going to like izzy like him because he sucks dont make him sympathetic" okay but i dont want to. i love that ofmd challenges our perspective, that stede himself is a morally ambiguous character that occupies the role of the villain in another persons story. izzy to me is more interesting and a better written character when hes given complexity. being mean to ed for no reason is dull. trying to hold on to someone you love so hard it hurts you both though? thats the good shit.

i like when villains are given redemption arcs. i like when heroes look at someone that hurt them and can still feel compassion. i love any story where the love for another person compels a person to make bad decisions. its more fun for me this way at least partially bc if i wanted black and white morality at all times i would turn on PBS!

[evangelust]

Endlessly fascinated by the ways HRT and transsexuality play with arousal, both mentally and physically. I haven’t done any kind of formative research on this, although it’s on my list of rabbit holes to go down eventually (hole joke lol). Just, bear in mind everything I’m saying is derived from personal and second-hand experience.

To begin with, it’s so fucking cool how hormones change the feeling of your orgasms. The testosterone orgasm is described as a very condensed, high-intensity physical release; the word “expulsion” comes to mind when trying to describe it. Conversely, the estrogen orgasm is famously more nuanced; the rising action determines the state of climax, which often manifests as a panoramic experience of pleasure felt in the whole body.

Before staring testosterone, I never had a particularly strong relationship with orgasms. It was never the big climatic event that it was made out to be, instead it was just the point when I felt like I’d had enough. Frankly, looking back, I’m not even sure I ever had an orgasm before hormones.

The first six months of HRT were really interesting because I could distinguish the new physical sensations from what I’d felt before. It was cool to see the in-between stages of that particular aspect of transition. Now, after two years on testosterone, I get the distinct physical finish that comes with it, but I haven’t lost all the nuance that comes with estrogen either.

That’s the other point I set out to make when I started writing this: hormones affect the way you experience arousal in all facets. My partner and I have joked about the “dick-horny vs girl-horny dichotomy,” names we made up to distinguish between physical and mental arousal. There’s so much room for depth and subtlety even in the most carnal, animal needs you have.

Coming back to my personal experience, as testosterone changed my physical experience, it also added to my mental arousal. The overwhelming physical need for sensation and release was something I never experienced until I’d started hormones. You don’t just forget what it’s like to be girl-horny though, and my desire for emotional and psychological play was only augmented by the new physical drive.

Reminding you once again that I’m aimlessly writing all this as a way to reflect on personal experience and procrastinate the food sovereignty op-ed I have due next week. That being said, I do actually wonder if there’s some merit to what I’ve been saying here. Is this the reason t4t sex is like that? Not every trans person is a freak, but even then, a community of people who experience sex and gender in all their complexity have surely put in the legwork to transcend the normative experience of arousal.

#GOD I love semicolons #t4t #sex hypothesis #trans #gockposting #I wanted to include the phrase ‘there’s often more pleasure in the plateau’ somewhere but it wouldn’t fit (rip) #It’s been ZERO days since the last hole joke #I should really go write that op-ed now. Does anyone know anything about chickens in Belgium?

[rrr-is-gay]

Working on my Dosti fic, and I wrote a whole thing about Ram “always loving Sita like a sister, never a lover,” but naahhhh, that doesn’t sit right with me. That’s not even how comp het works.

Like, I’m a lesbian, but I genuinely cherish/ed my last boyfriend. We were in love in our way, it wasn’t like I ~always knew it wasn’t right.~ It took years of being together, being treated very well by him, trying my hardest to be the girlfriend he deserved, and ultimately accepting that my unnatural urges (lmao) were not gonna go away. It was a slow realization over literal years, and I had to wrestle against my enduring love for him as a person. It wasn’t simple. I didn’t “always love him like a brother,” even though I very much love him like a brother now.

And not to be like, Ram and I are exactly the same, but uhhh… Ram and I are exactly the fucking same, lmao. He has genuine love for Sita, and it absolutely was romantic at some point. He always loved her in the ways he was capable of. It took meeting Bheem, his fucking twin flame soulmate, to realize that his unnatural urges were not gonna go away. And it wasn’t a clean break like “lol Sita is basically my sister, nbd.” I think it causes him a lot of pain to realize that he can’t be the man Sita deserves. He tried to be that man. And she wanted him to be that man. They’ve been through so much together, her dreams of building a life with him are 100% understandable.

I think I was subconsciously trying to de-complicate Ram and Bheem’s love by writing about Sita that way. And that’s very interesting. Like, I literally know firsthand that it isn’t so simple. I’ve read fic where Sita and Jenny get together while Ram and Bheem are off fucking in the woods, and as fun as that is, I don’t resonate with it. I think Ram has a lot to grapple with when it comes to Sita. And I think Sita herself has a lot of healing to do around her hopes & dreams for Ram, not to mention her relationship with Bheem himself. (That’s a whole fic in itself.)

I really can get lost for days in these characters, these dynamics! They are so rich with complexities and nuances, I feel so lucky to engage with them. Once again, RRR is keeping me well fed and adding enrichment to my enclosure.

#hc #rrr #rambheem #ram/bheem

[actofgrxce]

Why I still think Ed Teach is a sympathetic character

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[blood-starved-beast]

Have been discussing this with a friend who's currently reading the books atm but I really like how Wells presents the culture of the Raksura in her books. In that it is an a flawed and inherently biased society.

So the Raksura operate on the base concept of inverted gender roles. Queens are the head of the colonies, and female warriors have more respect/say than male warriors. Consorts are expected to be woo-ed by Queens and are "married off" to Queens of other colonies usually. Said friend who reads a lot more romance media than I do pointed out often and when characters are involved in certain tropes associated with either male or female characters in romance works, but are inverted in the case of the Raksura. Chime is Moon's lady-in-waiting, consorts and male warriors engage in catty behavior over Queens (Moon and River's drama). Jade being the Quintessential Male love interest. Among other things. What I really like though, is how this is not just something that exists in the story, but explored within.

Moon being an gender-expectations defying Consort, is both admired and an outcast. He flounders social norms. Jade accepts him, but it's clear that it's only to an extent - she tells him that only Queens fight other Queens, never to touch consorts that way in book 2 for ex. Moon showing that he's capable doesn't necessarily "change" the system. He's just one person in a culture that has long since predated them and is strongly enforced.

And what I love more is how Wells presents a culture with a caste system goes in turn continues to "think" in the same caste system with regards to other things. How it's an "us vs them" with the Fell, who're scavengers and an entire different species with their own things. How they disparage them and have their biases towards cause of their very complex and difficult history with one another. Things like how the Fell "stink" to Raksura (smell is very sensitive for the Raksura), Stone saying how Raksura are supposed to "kill Fell" among others. And you get where it's coming from cause the Fell have destroyed colonies and kidnapped and raped Arbora and Consorts before. At the same time, it doesn't stop people from having negative assumptions about the Hybrids trying to do better such as Consolidation and her Flight and Hybrids who're just living such as Shade and Lithe.

Idk, I love to see it when fictional societies are written in way with nuance and flaws. And more specifically, those flaws are explored and discussed within the narrative.

#books of the raksura #Moon Raksura #my meta #Wells has a degree in anthropology and it shows in these books #the Raksura #the Fell #something I'd love to see if Wells ever comes back to this series #is how toxic 'femininity'? or the Queen's version of toxic masculinity #is experienced by Queens #with a Queen's POV of course

[spicybylerpolls]

a lot of bylers seem to think that mike and will fell in love when they were younger and that developed into a more adult love in this pure way. but surely sexual attraction (an extension of romantic attraction) is the primary thing that turns a friendship into a romance most typically?

you love someone platonically as a best friend, and then you start being physically attracted to them (esp as a horny teen). byler werent attracted to each other first then fell in love with each other's personalities. it was the other way around. so sexual attraction is a really important component of what turns their friendship into love. esp at the age they are, in that era, i just dont think it can be more complex than that in this particular show. i dont think the duffers are doing a sex ed season 4 super progressive type of thing. (what theyre doing IS progressive in its own way tho)

so, do you agree that sexual attraction is the thing that threw byler for a loop and turned their platonic love into Love?

yes! it's their whole arc

yes - the hosegate and other visual metaphors show this is whats happening

no, its purely romantic and asexual attraction/love

other

Please note that the purpose of this blog is not to be creepy or to make anyone uncomfortable. That's why I created the #spicy byler tag (I will tag all polls with this). If you don't want to see this blog or anything related to it on your feed, please block that tag. Not everyone is comfortable with this sorta stuff, and that's okay.

#byler #spicy byler #will byers #mike wheeler