#in any meaningful or nuanced way imo. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

chubs-deuce · 3 months

Note

I read your post about Chaggie and it reminded me of how I recently made a rewrite of Vaggie to make her more interesting.

For one, NOT make her a love interest right off the bat since it's been shown that by doing so it doesn't allow her to be her own character.

Play more into what being an exorcist was like for her, what made her have a change of heart and how she hates herself for what she's done in the past.

Perhaps during one of those exterminations she witnesses a family getting murdered or at least the husband sacrificing himself to let his wife and children get away, seeing how despite being sinful creatures they still have hearts in their own way.

She would look at herself, her sisters and Adam and how they don't act like that at all and wondered if what they were doing is really right.

And from there everything could be the same with the exception of her and Charlie being best friends instead of lovers and have her arc being more focused on wanting to make sure the hotel works so maybe one day SHE could get redeemed herself and feel like a real angel.

sorry ik this response is hella late I just haven't had the brain juice for it until now

Right?!

Tho imo making them an established couple from the get-go isn't even really the issue so much as Vaggie just constantly being sidelined and reduced to "Charlie's protective girlfriend" and their couple dynamic refusing to be anything but wholesome.

It just feels way too much like Vaggie makes being Charlie's main source of support her whole entire identitiy and at times it even feels a little bit one-sided imo?

I completely blame the fact that the narrative lets Charlie be her own character who deals with situations that don't involve Vaggie directly in any capacity, whereas Vaggie's problems all entirely come back to wanting to help Charlie or the hotel (so... in extension, also Charlie)...

And imo anytime they do interact in a romantic way it feels a bit much like the narrative is just pointing at them going "look! They're using pet names and holding hands! Aren't they cute??? Ship them please" and then... do almost nothing with them beyond that, even when given some great opportunities.

One thing that would've actually saved this ship for me would've been if the writers actually allowed them to have a proper fight about the whole former exorcist reveal.

Like why bring that up if it's not actually going to contribute anything to the narrative?!

They could've easily included the fact that Charlie jumped pretty recklessly into a deal with Alastor as something Vaggie is upset over (reasonably so imo), and then have both of them argue about it for a bit, before putting that whole thing aside for the moment because protecting the hotel is more important right now.

Charlie can still have her talk with Rosie about that whole mess and come out of it with a more forgiving mindset, while Vaggie has her little mini-arc with Camilla (tho imo she should've also been established to want revenge way more in order for the song's message to actually hit right).

Then later, when the battle is about to begin, her and Vaggie could sit down and talk about it and then mutually apologize.

THEN they can have their little duet (which - if you ask me - should've been a reprise of Whatever It Takes, not the father/daughter song...)

In canon there was never even? An apology? Charlie was angry about it for like half an episode and then brought Vaggie a souvenir and suddenly everything's fine? I honestly hated that. They had so much potential to finally add something meaningful to the pairing with this plotpoint and yet chose to omit that, and for what?

To keep them 100% wholesome? It removes any nuance that would've helped make their dynamic more interesting to follow along.

I'm just... so disappointed with how painfully bland this pairing is just because canon refused to take any kinds of risks with them :')

#anti chaggie #I am so sorry for anyone who likes the ship that has to read this bc tumblr's tagging system is wack like that just block the anti tag <3 #chubs answers

95 notes · View notes

randomnameless · 2 months

Note

To continue the woobified view of the Elites and my comparison of them to the Black Eagles :

Same for me regarding the BE, especially because they also literally fought Edelgard's troops in WC when you choose their house, and even if you don't, they definitely still would know that Edelgard dus nasty shits in WC.

The idea that media literacy is dead is quite fitting, because the idea that even rotten persons have loved ones/that having loved ones doesn't mean you're not rotten is a known thing, yet the Eagles and elites get a pass solely because "they genuinely believe in the cause" and "they love and care for each other"

Probably Fraldarius was as devoted to Nemesis as Ingrid to Dimitri, Lamine very well may have been as sassy as Dorothea, perhaps Goneril was as brave and endearing as Caspar, or Maurice was as loyal to his clan's interests as Petra to Brigid's happiness (through a strong bond to the Empire) but like the BE, they are butchers, who relished in the destruction of everything those against them hold dear, lap dogs and rabid curs of someone they definitely know have crushed innocents and scorn the very idea of peace except under their domination.

The only meaningful difference between Edelgard-following BE and the elites is that we can know more about the BE and we are forced to dislike cutting them down even as they refuse to let northern Fódlan alone.

Honestly I need a fanfiction where the BE are called out for that bullshit.

Yep!

That's the tone deaf feeling I got from Nopes, the Deers are hunting someone bcs their leader wants her dead for no reason, but Raph only comments on how hungry he is.

Uh, sure Raph, you're not the most thoughtful character in there, but come on? Some commentary or exposition on what you're doing? Hello KT? Can we have characters be challenged or even react to the events of screen instead of wondering what's for dinner/teatime?

No??

I wouldn't say it's an issue of media litteracy being dead, but more something in the lines of people being more and more "all or nothing" nowadays, without any nuance and conflating liking a character with the idea/image that might project on you : if I like ASOIAF's Cersei, I don't think everything she does is "justified", but modern fandom, I feel like some people would categorize you as a "good" or "bad" person based on the characters you like, and it's just... not what fandom is or was supposed to be imo, I'm here to nerd and gush about favourite characters, not write litteral essays about the Geneva Convention.

Corollary is what, imo, made the Fodlan fandom hell : some people really take "criticism" against a character personally - sure the way FE16 was written invites projection, but at the end of the day, making a Berning Fire Joke is, just, making a joke about a bunch of pixels, nothing more.

Back to the BEs, they can have a sense of camaraderie and genuinely support each other... as they tear apart "people because Supreme Leader told me to" and fight side by side with Bob the Carpented who was turned into Waldi the demonic beast.

Ferdie can skewer Flayn on her father's lance because she is "a creature that has plagued humanity for ages" even if they reached a C support before shit hit the fan - and still protect Mercedes and Bernie from their abusing Fathers. Does that make him a great guy? A nuanced guy?

I think the trope is called "even evil people have loved ones" or something like that?

I don't think so, but he is no random one note villain sycophant either - now, what is the more annoying with the Fodlan games is how this dichotomy is never called upon : everything is just a giant blob or Hresvelg Grey ("morally grey" but only applied to Supreme Leader) where no one really is angry at her, and all the "sacrifices" she's making are off-screen while the characters on-screen always moan about her "ReFoRmS" and "IdEaLs" without talking about the cost bar some milquetoast "but war bad". And no one, in the game, will ever throw this hypocrisy to their face - Gallant Ferdinand will dream about the Opera as he wipes off the blood of a young woman who just wanted to return to the only home she had.

Yay.

FWIW, some mutuals and I have nothing but pure lols about Doro's line in the non-CF routes being "we killed Ferdie professor :'(" because, hey, why should I care more about Ferdie than about random loldier 55 ? Rhea? Felix? Claude? Ignatz?

Maybe the Elites were really friends and became """"nice""" persons with time, to their families and loved ones ?

Does this magically erase what they did before? Will that "good" they did erase all the "wrongs" they have previously done? Will theyr forever escape the consequences of their actions?

In a game that depicts Flamey as a terrorist for 11 chapters only to drop that plot point by the window to moan, again, about her "IdEaLs", "consequences" are maybe something you can eat as a snack, or throw in a trashcan.

So following the rules of this verse, given how Supreme Leader never receives flak for her Flamey stunts, why should the Elites receive any for what they did? Look, Maurice calls Daphnel his friend, surely he is not that bad of a man? Well yeah, he might have seduced women and planted a lot of wild oats here'n'there, but he cares about his friends!

Jeritza likes ice creams and cats! Surely it's more important to paint him as a cat lover than to deal with all the consequences of his stunt as the Death Knight, kidnapping and implied rekting young woman while he was in GM, under Flamey's orders, right?

Calling it now, after eviscerating Seteth's older brother, Goneril might have melted in front of one of Rhea's kittens, and adopted the cat asap. Surely that makes Goneril a "good" character right? And forget the entire "genocided a bunch of hippies living isolated in their village" stuff?

I don't have fanfics recs where the BEs are called hypocrites, but I confess I don't read a lot of fanfics in the FE16 fandom because of all of the aforementioned issues.

#maelor321 #replies #i don't even know if i replied to your ask lol #i disgressed and ranted #fandom woes #FE16 was designed as a game where you'd feel bad for fighting against 'your loved ones' aka precious students #the writing and execution is so artificial that they couldn't even make it believable for a second #so instead we are hit with giant signposts that read 'plz be sad now'#like Doro's we killed Ferdie sad uwus #or even Billy's choice in SS/VW of i don't want to kill Supreme Leader/I want to walk with her uwu #she is revealed to be Flamey she has been warring for 5 long years she caught Rhea #she had so many randoms peons killed #and yet the game has the nerve to give us this?#evening salt #SW!Anakin loves his fiancee so much uwu #sure he murders a bunch of babies and toddlers but don't you want to walk with him to create a galactic empire and kill #people who don't agree with him? including his beloved wife?#people conflate nuance and 'grey' with 'my fave did nothing wrong'

17 notes · View notes

storkmuffin · 4 months

Note

Hi there! I really like your liveblog!!! And I love seeing your analysis of the characters, Silver especially.

Still, I agree with one of the other asks about the fact that, while I understand why you hate him, Silver is very complicated and messy, even if we’re never shown the root cause of his being like this.

We don’t know anything about his story, his family, his past (and I could argue that he doesn’t either, as he seems to be refusing to acknowledge any of it. He’s blocked it). But one of the things that Black Sails really tries to communicate (imo) is that every character, every person, always has reasons for their actions. And that these reasons are more often than not complex, and deep, and emotional, and trauma-related, and often unconscious.

And I kinda believe we would be doing Silver’s character a disservice by denying that he operates in the same way (as a messy, human, problematic person!), even if he hasn’t explicitly shown us his mind and memories. He’s much more interesting if we assume that he has reasons for his behaviour (even if buried and unknowable), instead of deciding that he’s simply a “low calibre human”, one incapable of feeling love or pain to a meaningful degree. That’s kinda simplistic (in my opinion) and takes away some of the depth and humanity of the writing.

ANYWAY, everybody interprets both stories and people differently and that’s great! Hope this ask wasn’t uncalled for; I’ll keep looking forward to your liveblogging! :)

I appreciate pro-Silver asks like this SO MUCH. I really do. I know it doesn't come through at all when I'm shooting off reactions to each provocation by the show but I genuinely WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE APPEAL OF JOHN SILVER even if I can’t fully buy into it. I really really do. He's weirdly designed to set off all my antipathies which is low-key upsetting bc I know there is so much great fanart and fanfiction and lore to be enjoyed in this fandom for which being at least able to tolerate John Silver is a base requirement! Unforrtunately, every time I am close to warming up to him, John Silver does the worst possible thing in my eyes and sets me right back to 0.

I am looking forward to the Silverflint fics giving him some of the nuance and color you're talking about, assuming I'm not blanket blocked by everyone who loved Silver enough to flesh him out.

Like - Charles Vane let Max get gang raped and sexually tortured and yet I eventually came to see him as someone to mourn! I keep HOPING to do this with Silver (which again isn't gonna come through on the off the cuff posts) and then get super pissy because he disappoints me.

p.s. This fandom is SO CIVIL. Which is so funny bc the show is so violent and merciless lol. Thank you for sharing your thoughts in such a kind way.

#black sails asks #storkmuffin liveblog

9 notes · View notes

vakarians-babe · 11 months

Note

Sorry if I came off as rude, I guess I’m just looking for a little clarification. You say you like Cullen bc you enjoy his redemption arc, but how can he have a redemption arc if you think he did nothing wrong? You’re free to have your own opinion, but isn’t the whole point of a redemption arc that a character grows and rights their past wrongs?

I don't think you came off as rude, so don't worry about that! I also get what you're saying, but my about post actually doesn't say that I like Cullen's redemption arc, but that "I personally find his struggles with addiction, trauma, and the typical notion of ‘redemption’ to be really relatable." I personally have come to think that Cullen has already redeemed himself and needs no 'arc', and here's a little bit of why (it's long, sorry).

Cullen goes to join the Templars as a child, around 12-13. At that age, Templars are the heroes for a lot of kids--nuance is not really a thing a preteen understands, or at least not any preteens I knew, myself included. From that point, though, he's raised in what is, for all intents and purposes, a militant arm of a cult. He is trained as a child soldier, fed propaganda about mages, ultimately fed lyrium in what we know to be a method of control. By the time he's 17-19, his approximate age range during Broken Circle, he nevertheless still does not see mages as inherent enemies. He doesn't buy into the propaganda--until, that is, the Circle falls, and he is ultimately tortured in many different ways by people he thought he was protecting.

After this, reeling from the trauma of this experience, he is forcibly isolated and sent to Kirkwall in a move by the Order to shape him into something malleable and hateful. The letters from his family are kept from him, which, imo, is a standard tactic of abuse and manipulation. The Order wants him to feel alone. They want him to feel empty. And he does. He arrives in Kirkwall and, I would argue, descends into a lyrium spiral, wherein he takes more lyrium to drown out the nightmares and to feel safer from another Kinloch, which requires in turn more lyrium, and more, and more. But he still never really says things that...aren't true. Even 'mages aren't people like you and me' is....uhh...right, and I think people interpret this line in a way that is deliberately scrubbed of nuance. To me, it reads as Cullen saying that mages are different from other people, that they are not like non-mages. Him not knowing he might be talking to a mage Hawke is just game mechanics, and if we can excuse dwarves being able to dream in DA:I against all of the worldbuilding, I'm fine with Cullen not being able to tell that Hawke is a mage.

But I digress a bit, sorry. By the time Cullen gets to the final battle with Meredith, his worst nightmares are repeating. The Circle is falling all over again, just like Kinloch. He has spent nearly a decade in Kirkwall being fed this hatred and kept from any real meaningful route to therapy or healing, which, in addition to being fed religious fanaticism and tethered by drugs, does irrevocable damage to a person. And then, when it comes down to it, when he is presented a choice between Meredith, the Order, her hatred, and quite literally anything else, he chooses 'anything else.' That, in and of itself, is enough 'redemption' for me, even though I don't think he needs redemption after breaking out of this cult that has controlled him for the better part of 15 years. He does clearly spend more time grappling with the guilt he feels and the question of 'have I done enough to better myself? have I done enough to deserve a future?' Which I think is a common trauma response that says already that this person is changed, and also a marker of long-lasting issues like PTSD.

In the end, I can't bring myself to blame him or fault him for the things inculcated in him by the Templars and the Chantry. He's right about mages, he's traumatized by his experiences, and still he ends up seeing through the Order's propaganda and freeing himself, after which he struggles with the idea that he has not redeemed himself enough to deserve living the life that the Templars tried to take from him. That's what I mean when I say I enjoy his struggles with the typical notion of redemption. For Cullen, and I think for many people who have experienced trauma that led them to hate, anger, and pain, this sisyphean task of redeeming oneself according to the outside world will never be enough, because it always feeds back into the question of 'do i deserve to be good.'

Cullen did nothing wrong in being failed and abused by a predatory order that attempted to shackle his mind through drugs. He broke through that of his own accord the first time he was presented with a choice, and every moment since he has been wrestling with the fear instilled in him by his very real trauma and his desire to be different. Whatever hurt he caused, I still can't fault him. And maybe that's because of my perception of shared trauma, but it's my take.

Ty for reading!

#cullen rutherford #dragon age meta #before anyone comes for me i do literally have a ptsd diagnosis i am not throwing words around #dragon age #anonymous

30 notes · View notes

bigskydreaming · 2 years

Text

Child heroes are always gonna be a complicated and murky topic that NEEDS to be handled with nuance, don’t get me wrong.

But that said, I will always hate edgelord takes that try and make Robin, the boy hero, a helpless victim of Bruce’s manipulations, who pushes him into vigilantism or just views him proprietarily or as a tool to be used.

Because to me that ignores the entire point of what Robin CAN stand for.

Since, after all - Robin is not actually a child capable of being endangered. He’s a character whose narratives are defined entirely by what narrative choices a writer CHOOSES to go with.....

And half the point of fiction, especially fiction that springs from genres that have no real-world equivalent for their settings, characters, tropes, etc....

Is to use fiction as a vehicle to see what results when not hindered by the limitations of reality. Anyone who’s followed me long knows that by this I don’t actually mean to use fiction to try and pretend its DIVORCED from reality, that it doesn’t reflect reality to any degree or say anything meaningful about reality that reflects it.....no. Not my point.

I’m saying that fiction is IMO best utilized as a tool not for how its capable of being lesser or more finite or limited than reality, but as a tool for how its capable of TRANSCENDING reality, and opening up avenues to explore MORE than we’re capable of exploring in strictly reality-based mediums.

“What if everything we know to be true of reality is still true, if all the emotions are still present, if the cause and effect of how actions beget consequences and emotions and these in turn beget more actions....what if that’s all still the same as reality....except for this ONE SPECIFIC way in which we eliminate that stricture, just to see what happens when we take that limitation off the table thanks to the fact that we know these characters don’t exist just to live their own fully autonomous lives, but rather are created, with intent, to tell a specific story for a specific reason.”

And THAT’S the distinction, IMO, that allows us to not say ‘oh stories about children who are heroes shouldn’t encompass the fact that children SHOULDN’T be in these situations, and can be hurt by them, and hurt in ways that will carry lasting impact and consequences that no child should ever have to contend with, if there’s any other option whatsoever’.....

But rather, to say ‘stories about children who are heroes SHOULD encompass the fact that children shouldn’t be in these situations, and can be hurt by them, and hurt in ways that will etc etc etc blah blah you get the point I’m literally just copying and pasting that last paragraph”.....

BUT. In ADDITION to all that.....

Fiction, and the opportunities afforded by writers innately having stewardship over where their own narrative takes the fictional characters they craft TO be steered through a particular narrative maze, in pursuit of a deliberately chosen endpoint and message.....

Also lets us craft stories where a child character, put into situations where any real world equivalent is likely to be harmed and traumatized due to the vulnerability that situation carries....

Can also at the same time be MORE than just a probable victim.

Because fictional characters have an innate power that no real world equivalent has:

Fictional characters, by their nature, have the innate power to beat any particular odds their author wants them to beat.

And thus fictional characters, even ones who are put into positions that yes, agreed, no one should ever HAVE to be in.....WHILE aware that like it or not, there are always going to be real world individuals who relate to that positioning and DO see parallels to their own lives....

Thus fictional characters can become not just mirrors, or analogs, or proxies.....but actual symbols that inspire, that represent and stand for things that resonate with readers on multiple levels. Show glimpses of reality or our own lives not just as they are, but as we’d like them to be, as we might hope for them to be, as we sometimes NEED them to be.

For example:

Robin, a fictional child hero in the hands of narrators who make specific narrative choices with intent, in pursuit of guiding an over-arching story into a specific shape of their own choosing, to be whatever they want it to be, look like what they want it to look like.

That child hero, in the hands of a writer who wants to push a child endangerment narrative about how Robin’s very existence as a vigilante is child abuse, because there’s no real world equivalent in which he would have the power to fight Bruce’s choices for him here, if Bruce were determined to exploit his guardianship over Dick Grayson and MAKE him be Robin?

Well that gives us Robin, a traumatized orphan who is pushed by a guardian into doing things he doesn’t want to do and that aren’t for his benefit. And I mean, that’s a story, alright. Its even a story you can write if you want to. Its just not a story I want to read, because I’ve read that story a million times, a million ways.

That’s every story about someone with power looking at someone younger, smaller, weaker, more vulnerable than them and saying ‘here’s how I choose to exploit power over this other person, because I want to and I can’.....just dressed up in a Robin costume.

But take that same child hero, in the hands of a writer who wants to push a narrative about how Robin’s very existence as a hero can speak to any number of readers who have ever empathized with being a traumatized child who feels alone, outmatched, surrounded by danger and dangerous people, and who wants to give said readers a narrative where they can look at that child they see parts of themselves in, and see that child against all odds, still somehow finding, taking and using power on his own behalf and that of others?

Well that gives us Robin, a traumatized orphan who is looked at by everyone stronger, older, bigger, more enfranchised than him....and seen as nothing BUT an inevitable victim, an easy mark, prey to be further traumatized, used, exploited, etc.....

Only to get their ASS handed to them by that kid instead. As he laughs in their faces for being so fucking dumb as to look at characteristics like ‘small’ and ‘vulnerable’ and ‘hurt’ and make the expected but faulty assumption that anyone described by those labels must also inherently be ‘weak’ and ‘helpless’ and ‘exploitable.’

And see, THAT’S the story that I look to Robin for. That’s what has me drawing from the well of Robin narratives in search of, or to create more of.

THAT’S a story that I’m always gonna think we can use more of.

Because yeah. In real life? There’s no scenario in which what a kid in that kind of position MIGHT be able to stand for or represent, on the off chance that he somehow manages to beat the odds and win the day or not get traumatized to hell or back by the experience....is worth the risk of ever putting them in that scenario when there’s any possible way to avoid it, whatsoever.

And that’s what makes it so that in real life? Its absolutely true that even with the logistics of vigilantism and superheroes aside, you can NEVER have a figure like Robin, child hero, without that child’s heroism quite literally being child abuse and endangerment at the same time.

But in a fictional world?

The rules are different, because of the one ultimate narrative rule to rule them all (just in my personal ranking, to be clear. YMMV):

And no, its NOT actually ‘because these are fictional characters, and thus they can’t REALLY be hurt, and thus their hurts don’t matter.’

That take is bizarrely counter-intuitive and self-defeating IMO, because of fucking COURSE fictional characters’ hurts STILL MATTER, even though a fictional character isn’t actually ‘real’ and thus isn’t ‘really hurt.’

If fictional characters’ hurts DIDN’T MATTER, the entire genre of hurt/comfort quite literally WOULD NOT EXIST.

Because if readers didn’t perceive those characters’ hurts and comfort as mattering in any way, shape or form....what even would be the appeal of that genre?

Why would readers and writers be pre-occupied with hurts they see as ENTIRELY meaningless, on the grounds that they’re fictional hurts attributed to characters who aren’t real, y’know? It makes no sense. Fictional hurt and comfort don’t matter in the specific WAY that real world hurts and comfort matter to people experiencing nonfictional versions of those things, sure. Absolutely true.

But its not inherently a one to one comparison. Those fictional hurts of fictional people STILL MATTER to readers, just in different ways and to different degrees, and the very fact that they DO matter, do resonate, do mean something relatable, is the entire reason people read and write those kinds of stories in the first place.

If fictional pains didn’t matter, full stop, stories revolving ENTIRELY around fictional pains wouldn’t be any more marketable than stories that are several hundred words dedicated just to describing a tree that doesn’t exist.

And I mean, idk about you guys, but I’m pretty sure I can’t remember the last time I came across an AO3 story where a one chapter ode that simply says ‘here’s a tree. Its pretty. The end’ somehow racked up several hundred comments and kudos.

Death to this idea that fictional characters can’t really be hurt, and that’s the difference between reality and fiction because like a) you’re not TECHNICALLY wrong when you say this, but b) you’re not actually saying what it sounds like you’re saying and c) in all practicality, you’re not actually saying anything productive whatsoever, usually all while acting like you’ve just definitively won an argument BY saying this.

BUT I DIGRESS.

Anyway. Point is. So, like, no. That’s not the narrative rule that makes a child hero able to be more or other than JUST an inevitable child endangerment narrative.

The narrative rule that ACTUALLY makes all the difference here is:

A narrative is ALWAYS shaped by whatever choices the narrator CHOOSES for it.

The very odds that are an untenable risk that no one can justify expecting a real world equivalent of a character to take, or risk?

Are an entirely different beast, in the realm of fiction.

Because in fiction, those odds and whether or not a character gets to beat them, is one hundred percent ENTIRELY in the hands of the person shaping that narrative....as is the reason WHY a narrator might choose to let any given character beat particular odds, or be beaten by them instead.

THAT’S the difference.

92 notes · View notes

bthump · 1 year

Note

Hi there, I just wanted to say your analyses are really thoughtful and eye opening, and I think they’re quite rare in this fandom, bc most berserk enjoyers I’ve encountered don’t really tend to look at it with the same angle you do. Do you maybe know of any youtubers that have similar outlooks on the story?

Anyways most of the viewpoints I see there and on other platforms either deny the homoeroticism between guts and griffith/deny it’s mutual or say it’s one sided, + push gutsca as the endgame and approve of Casca’s eclipse/ post eclipse treatment. If they do defend and genuinely like Griffith a lot of them do it in a pretty misogynistic way (“casca enjoyed it” or doing this weird ass shit where they try to use Casca as a moral centre between guts and griff or something, idk if I’m explaining that well lol). Like a lot of them will get so close to *getting* it, for example they will talk about a scene where pot Casca is clearly traumatised/ disturbed by Guts’ presence, or see a scene where pot Casca is neutral/ comfortable around neo Griffith and instead of thinking about it like “hmm, she isn’t really getting/ never really got a chance to do anything for or by herself around these dudes or develop outside them” they will be like “SEE POT CASCA IS SCARED OF GUTS AND DOESN’T WANT TO BE WITH HIM THAT PROVES SHE DOESN’T DESERVE GUTS/DEEP DOWN IS STLL IN LOVE WITH GRIFFITH AND WILL BETRAY GUTS, SHES FOR THE STREETS/ CASCA PREFERS GRIFFITH GRIFFITH IS GOOD”or they will do this insane thing where they say that guts is a “simp” for doing so much for casca and that casca doesn’t deserve him. And that Casca owes him big time when she does gain her mind back and that if she leaves him after she’s healed then she’s an ungrateful **** and all that unpleasant stuff. Which is just as r**ey in its own right tbh, she doesn’t owe anyone anything except basic gratitude for looking after her after being in that state but these ppl can’t seem to comprehend that and it’s just like ughh why do y’all gotta be that way.

Alternatively, when some of these people defend Griffith, they just leave no room for nuance and try to pretend Griffith has no flaws at all and that guts does everything wrong. (Some of them feel like trolls tbh). I do get it, as this fandom really loves to excessively hate on Griffith and glorify guts to the point where it just gets tiring and gets in the way of any meaningful discussion. But these analyses just swing entirely in the opposite direction to counteract that, and completely miss the nuance they could have imo.

Especially with regards to Griffith. I feel like a big part of the problem is that due to the nature of what he does to Casca during the eclipse it makes him quite a polarising character. People either want to completely hate on him and not discuss anything good about him at all or they overcompensate by trying to turn him into a saint to defend him. And imo both parties completely miss the point of griff, or at the very least are missing the complexity of his character.

Well even that isn’t the entire truth because I think on a level the majority of the fandom is in a consensus that Griffith is a brilliantly written character, many of them call him the best manga villain period. So it’s not like him being recognised as complex or well written is the issue, but I think even a lot of these supposedly “neutral” deep dives into griff seem to lean more in the direction of depicting him as a calculating sociopath, someone who needs to feel in control of his pawns and never felt any love for the BoTH including/except guts (depending on the individual). And that the eclipse and whole GH thing just revealed his “true nature” and what he was all along. And even if they do portray Griffith more sympathetically and recognise that he did have strong feelings for guts and the BoTH they either ignore or deny the extent of the griffguts relationship and just default to saying that gutsca is the best path forward for guts and that griff is root of all evil / has to be killed by guts in a bloody epic battle for the end to be satisfying.

I also saw the ask which was saying something to the effect of how a lot of the more dudebro-esque berserk enjoyers only really appreciate Casca to the extent they do because she showed that she’s Guts’, she’s *his* woman. And that’s something I also believe, i think there’s a lot more to be unpacked there too. but in general with the tendency the same people I’ve been talking about have to do this too, one guess I have is that due to berserk being their fav/one of their fave mangas and guts being their fave protagonist by extension, these ppl will be very defensive over all/most aspects of it. And I’ve seen this in the way they react to any criticisms of it, especially involving criticisms regarding misogyny/ Casca’s and other FC’s treatment. They often stress that Casca is one of the best/ if not the best female character in fiction, and whilst I love casca myself, I think that this is a rather bleak statement lol. Plus it’s so true what you said about them seeing Casca as Guts’ narrative reward. Idk, I feel like these kinds of takes that seem to push Casca being a prize for guts and the ones that are against discussing Guts and Griffith’s relationship in a romantic context tend to go hand in hand.

Anyways sorry this turned out to be a bit longer and more of a rant than I hoped but ig I just wanted to convey some of my thoughts and frustrations surrounding the discourse about berserk. Of course, I get that many of these opinions will be very popular and having them doesn’t make anyone less of a fan. I just think some of them can often come from some misguided interpretations. Though who knows where the manga is headed now lol I could be completely misreading things

Yeah lol you've pretty much detailed why I ignore 90% of the fandom and just do my own thing in this little griffguts-y tumblr circle here. Can't blame you for wanting to rant about it if you spend any time on like, the Berserk reddit or whatever. Glad you could get that off your chest!

Wrt youtubers, you might want to check out this guy. I can't personally rec him because I don't have the attention span to watch fandom-related youtube videos myself, but some of the same people who follow me like him, and it sounds like we share some similar opinions.

ETA: a more critical take on his channel, and some more youtube vid recs here

And just as a quick heads-up, I think the 'potato casca' nickname is pretty derogtory in an ableist way so if you send any future asks I'd appreciate if you just said post-eclipse or regressed Casca or something like that. It's no big deal, I know it's super prevalent elsewhere in fandom and if you've never really thought about it it's easy to just use the same terms you've seen everywhere else, but yeah that one kinda sucks imo. Yet another reason I find the Berserk fandom mostly distasteful and obnoxious lol.

#i assume that's what 'pot' casca is short for at least #ask #anonymous #b #theme: fandom #feel free to go through that tag if you want to see similar rants and complaints and feel some solidarity lol #other ppl's meta

20 notes · View notes

marcspectrr · 2 years

Text

@luke-o-lophus I hope you don't mind a mini moonlayl brain dump brought about by your lovely addition (this got a little lengthy so I'm putting it here instead lol)

This!! I absolutely love this and my brain kind of exploded as I read it. I think the most meaningful layer of Marc and Layla's relationship is the respect they have for each other. It's so mutual and reciprocated in every scene they have together, in the slower ones but especially in their fight scenes!

In the slower moments, it's when they're on the boat in ep 3, Layla offers her hands for comfort. Later, Marc offers his hands for support. When they're trying to piece together the cartonnage, Layla suggests Marc give Steven control. In the tomb, Marc accepts her anger maybe a bit too much since he's already got plenty. These all show the respect these two have for each other -- nothing is forced.

Now with the fight scenes, I think it's definitely understated how well they work together and respect is what pulls their strings. They trust and rely on each other just as much after Layla becomes Taweret's avatar as before, which I love a stupid amount. In a way, it shows how Marc sees Layla in this type of setting -- just as capable with her powers as without. And it shows that Layla views Marc as an equal, no matter the extension of his strength and whether it equates to hers or not. And that's thoroughly beautiful imo.

(They know when to rely on each other and how to adapt and respond while on their own. Marc listened when Layla told him to back down as soon as they were caught in the glass pyramid. Layla knew running up to Moon Knight in that moment meant protection inside the cape. As soon as she took out the guy in the pyramid, she immediately moves to go help Marc. As soon as she's in the line of fire again, Marc runs to toss her (I mean literally toss her) out of harms way, right before offering her his arms for support. And in ep 6, there's a bunch of maneuvers and instances where their rhythm really comes through, both together and independently. They both go up against Harrow a handful of times, but notably Marc knew to focus on Harrow individually in the end after he shot at the van because Layla was there to help the people.)

Both are the kinds of respect I feel they've nurtured as they learned each other. Their nuances and facets and moments of weakness and moments of strength always informing what to give to each other. It's unconscious, most times, and comes with so much ease. Marc sees this woman, who's just as strong as she is compassionate and it's all in that first glance he gets of her he sees this, the second one in which he's crushed with the realization that he's profoundly and perfectly and utterly screwed. Layla sees this man, who has just as many good intentions as he has walls, who's as guarded as he is caring and it soon becomes a little hard to ignore, how what they've started is beginning to feel a lot like love.

Now. I've seen the argument of Marc's actions towards Layla showing a level of disrespect and being unforgivable and irredeemable, etc., and to be fair, it's a pretty harmful take, not to mention an ignorant one. It's an argument that completely disregards Marc's struggle with his mental illness and the unrelenting grip it has on his life/relationships. It's quite literally the whole point of the show. Marc isn't happy with his actions towards Layla, and while this does not condone them in any way, it certainly illustrates the severity of his disorder. It shows the complexities and the extent of it through the conflict it causes in his marriage, one of the more real-world situations that is touched on in the show. It's not meant to be clean or black and white, it's meant to be a bit messy and ugly. Despite his connection with Layla being one of the better things in his life, being with her doesn't cancel out his struggles, they're still very much there and are perhaps even magnified at times, sadly enough. It just further depicts how his disorder manipulates even the good things he has, a very real thing that happens that shouldn't inevitably give rise to an end to those good things.

He still fights for her and she still fights for him, and if anyone deserves good things it's these two.

#moon knight #marc spector #layla el faouly #marc spector x layla el faouly #marc/layla #moonlayl #marclayla #moonscarab #am i even cohesive when talking about them in my head its just keysmashing and heart emojis #i like how my brain read 'it might be small' and went 'well i must think about it for hours then' ahdjfk #i really cant even keep my thoughts straight on them anymore all i know is i love them your honor #and all i wanna do it talk about them #screaming into the void i know #moon knight meta #mk meta

129 notes · View notes

hopeswriting · 2 years

Text

i still really don’t get why amano changed the fact that haru knew about the mafia from day one. like, that’s--and i can’t emphasize it enough--literally what her introductory chapter was about, coming to terms with the fact reborn and tsuna were, in fact, dead serious about reborn being mafia and tsuna being made to become mafia. and not only she got over it immediately, but she made it her goal to become vongola decimo’s wife. and i get and agree that even then she was taking it lightly, not realizing just how dead serious the whole mafia thing was, but still, she was definitely aware of it all the same.

and i’m asking why amano changed that, because i can’t figure out just how changing it added anything to the story in any way at all? or to haru as a character or to the relationships she had with other characters? or anything you can think of, really, because this is a genuine question and i’m personally coming up empty. especially because amano could have let it be just as it was, and the “haru & kyoko demand to be told the truth about everything” storyline in the future arc literally wouldn’t have had to change. like, at all. haru could still have taken that stand with kyoko, and would still have needed to be told the truth too because tsuna & co would definitely still have hidden from her just how serious the situation was, etc, etc. that storyline literally could have still gone the exact same way it did even if haru still already knew a little about the mafia, so what was amano’s intention in making her just as ignorant as kyoko about it?

but wait, because letting haru have that head start so to speak about already knowing some about the mafia would actually have changed that storyline and made it more interesting imo. or more nuanced at the very least. as it happened in canon, the point of that storyline was asking “is ignorance truly bliss?” from the girls’ pov, and “is ignorance truly protection?” from the boys’ pov, but having haru being in the middle of that spectrum, not totally ignorant of what was happening (kyoko) but still unaware of everything that was happening (the boys), could have been the opportunity to ask and explore other questions. i’m thinking mostly, “how much knowledge is too little and how much knowledge is too much?” and all the other questions it implies. (i actually had concrete examples of those questions, but i forgot them. 😭)

it could also have been the opportunity to flesh out haru’s character more!! to have her reflect over her romantic feelings for tsuna as she comes to the realization that this is what being vongola decimo (to be) entails, and what vongola decimo’s wife would sign up for. to have her challenge her friendship with tsuna and the other boys, and make it stronger and closer and more substantial for it, because if the girls want to know it’s mostly so they can really help and support the boys in a meaningful way, and is it that the boys don’t think they can do that? that they don’t trust them enough, don’t think they’re reliable enough, don’t respect them enough to at least give them the opportunity and choice to do that? is it that they think they don’t care about them and don’t want to protect them in any way they can too?

you could even have thrown chrome into the mix too then in a more meaningful way! because she’d have actually been in the exact same spot as haru, just starting to be acquainted with the mafia world. i mean, when the future arc happens she’s only known mukuro for a month or two i think? and only was involved in the varia arc so far, so she was still pretty new to the whole mafia thing. meaning they could have talked about how it feels to be be in that spot where you know just enough to be aware of the much bigger picture out of your reach, and yet be denied any more information than that.

and kyoko too, of course. they could have had their own sub-plot of “should they really demand for the truth and do they really want it?” because sure, it sucks and it’s scary not knowing and they want to help and they can’t do that if they don’t know what’s going on, but they know the boys know exactly what’s going on, and, well... they’re much more miserable than them. and much more terrified when they manage to catch glimpses of it before they can put on a brave front for them again. and maybe knowing will change them in a way they can never turn back again? in a way that’ll scar them forever? in a way that maybe will make them resent having been told the truth?

but back to haru specifically, but she could also still have felt guilt and remorse about believing she was going through struggles as painful as the boys’ after being told the truth, even if she couldn’t possibly have known, which was the whole problem and 100% the boys’ fault. but she would have been a little less overwhelmed about all that knowledge, and just enough maybe she could have kept talking with tsuna, making him reflect over his decision to keep them in the dark until then. because maybe if he’d have kept them in the loop as things kept happening, they wouldn’t be so scared and overwhelmed now because they’d have come up with way to cope with it, you know? and for always having known just what exactly was going on, he was still terrified every time, and he can’t even imagine just how scarier it would have been to go through all of this blind.

(talking about that scene, this is irrelevant but when haru gets to actually react to being told the truth, and put on a brave front for tsuna because she felt guilty about already having troubled him so much with this when he was going through worse things, and express her feelings about that, and being comforted by bianchi, all in a way that added a little more substance to her character, this is what kyoko gets:

[ID: A manga panel from Katekyo Hitman Reborn, showing Tsuna talking to Kyoko. It reads, “Kyoko complained about how we’d deceived her.” /End ID]

and that’s it. well, that, plus Tsuna saying “her eyes were full of tears” as he was telling her everything. but that’s literally it.

and i’d say it’s hilarious, but honestly it’s just super sad. kyoko is literally the main female protagonist and the love interest? not that it got her anywhere in the manga or that anything was done with that, but still.

ryohei literally gets to react more and was shown reacting about kyoko learning about the whole mafia stuff when it literally doesn’t even have anything to do with him. i mean, obviously it does and we were bound to see his reaction to that, but not in that way, and just. idk, at the very least amano could have spared a little talk with ryohei and kyoko about this--i mean, this is about kyoko after all, but you know.

and just. like, wow. speechless tbh. kyoko deserved so much better than that, but anyway.)

okay i didn’t expect this to be so long, but what i’m saying is that by letting haru know the little she already knew about the mafia, that whole storyline could really have been about a much broader and nuanced conversation. within the girls alone too, which would have been super nice to see, them going through some growth without it being linked or related to the boys in any way at all, because god knows khr needed that lol.

but okay, amano didn’t do that, but like i said she could still have let haru have this without changing anything to what she actually did, especially when it’s not like she let haru have much to begin with. but she didn’t, and i just can’t figure out why?

#katekyo hitman reborn #khr #khr text post #miura haru #khr reread #image id

59 notes · View notes

monstersinthecosmos · 2 years

Note

(1/2) hi i'm liking your more nuanced take on amc lestat/louis! most of what i've seen in the tags is about how cute they are as a couple, or talking about how completely in love lestat looks with louis, and like... y’all are forgetting that lestat is at this point a vampire and louis is a human; there’s a power imbalance there from the get go, and lestat being oh so infatuated with louis is actually him hungering for louis’s blood lol. like lestat is completely my favourite but he’s a vampire

(2/2) and therefore first and foremost a predator. that scene where lestat watches make out with the girl? assuming that this scene takes place when louis is still human, the only thing lestat would care about in that situation is blood. and he looks fucking MENACING in that scene, and sam reid played that perfectly. and louis looks appropriately wary!

Ahh thank you!

This isn’t exactly what your ask is about but I do want to take this moment to say for context that I am *not* complaining at all about any of this stuff in the show. I've gotten a little bit of shit about it lately because people keep taking me out of context and acting like I'm complaining LOL. I’m really into it, actually, it’s one of the redeeming aspects for me because I’ve felt very suspicious about how heavily they’ve restructured the characters. I’ve seen a lot of conversations on different social media that are praising the show for watering down the problematic elements in the novel(s) and like. I’m just not seeing that for Loustat really? It’s been a little confusing to see people talk about how romantic they are while simultaneously criticizing other ships in the series or AR herself for being a monster.

In fact, even the small bits from the trailers & interviews tell me that perhaps Loustat is EVEN WORSE than the book. (Minus the Claudia thing, we’ll see how that shakes out!)

Like having said that, I am hoping that there is nuance to the way they portray abuse because it is being marketed as a romance. This team has a history of making shows about evil protagonists and toxic masculinity so it’s probably in the right hands hahaha but it’s always worth trying to figure out which of the bad stuff is the writer and which is the character. IE: Make Loustat toxic as fuck, but be intentional. I would hate to see them create this relationship without understanding how awful it is, and I was a little concerned about that because of some of the comments RJ has said about who Lestat is as a character.

For example, one of the red flags I got was the comment that the show is going to be more faithful to the characters than the movie was because they have a bigger picture for Lestat and have all the books to draw on? I don’t think that makes a difference.

Lestat is already charming in IWTV, it’s why Louis falls for him. Being charming is how abusers get their foot in the door. We get those moments in IWTV and we also see the complicated grief that Louis deals with when they go to Europe. Idk how Show Louis is gonna be but Book Louis is a person who is often driven by feelings of guilt as well as pressure to take care of others, so I think this really tracks with people who grieve after abusive relationships because when you love your abuser you always wish for the best and want them to grow out of it.

I think especially after what he goes through with Paul that there are parts of Louis that feel responsible for fixing Lestat or making the situation better. I would say we even see this when they reunite at the concert. IMO Lestat hasn’t really done anything extremely meaningful to deserve Louis’s forgiveness at this point, but Louis is roused by the sense of danger or the threat that he might truly lose Lestat forever again. If my thoughts about Louis wishing Lestat the best and wanting him to heal are true, of COURSE it would get him right in the heart when he reads Lestat's book and finally understands why he's like that. It sort of hits refresh on the resentment and now Louis can attempt again with more context. IT'LL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME, HONESTLY!

And we see this during many of Lestat’s adventures (his suicide attempt, the body swap, Memnoch, Amel) so Louis is constantly being reintroduced to that danger and guilt. And even in TOBT when Louis tries to have boundaries with him and do the right thing, Lestat burns his house down!

Louis has spent 200 years trying and trying and trying to help this poor dude and be there for him in whatever ways he can and he does it at his own expense because Lestat never really changes.

So to say that the other books tell us more about who Lestat is doesn’t make a ton of sense to me; I think they offer us his backstory, which is certainly more information about him and adds context to WHY he behaves the way he does, but his trauma and baggage are not an excuse to harm people. And he continues to harm people, even up until the droit du seigneur line in Prince Lestat. Abusers often want to apologize loudly and publicly to OTHERS aside from the people they’ve hurt because they don’t truly feel remorse but simply don’t want others to think badly about them. It’s about ego. Lestat framing himself as a victim in the other books or making excuses for his own behavior is not a meaningful apology as much as it’s about his ego and not wanting people to think he’s a bad person. If he felt remorse he’d knock it off, and it’s important to me that he’s still acting this way up to the new trilogy.

But I’m firmly on team LOUIS IS TELLING THE TRUTH and I think Lestat tells on himself many many times in the rest of the series, and when you read IWTV as being a story about surviving abuse it always kinda rubs the wrong way when people accuse him of lying. It starts leaning into some really nasty tropes & real world stigmas that FEEL BAD, MAN.

ANYWAY I bring that all up to say that I’m really pleased by how they look in the trailers because I’ve been nervous about the showrunners engaging in LESTAT APOLOGISM with some of these comments. They said that they’re trying to keep it character faithful even though there’s so many radical other changes to the structure of the story and to me I think this is like really integral to who Lestat is as a person. It’s something he struggles with and to me I feel that all his books are about how he still wants to be loved even though he’s imperfect and fucks up and is a brat and breaks rules and hurts people. So like what’s the conflict if he’s not an asshole? Of course we’d just love him.

I know a lot of the book stuff isn’t extremely relevant because the show is so unrelated anyway, but again as far as character beats go I think this stuff really matters. Even if they remix the stories, I’m hoping this is the source they stick to. Lestat is a mess who makes it everyone else’s problem, Louis is a romantic guilt-riddled Catholic who will always chose hard paths for himself because he thinks he deserves it.

So I’m not complaining at all about it ! I want to see this on screen because it’s true to who they are. Some of the conversations about it just really surprised me.

But OMG! !!

It’s same with Hannibal LMAO like that show was RADICALLY different from the books except it made the Hannigram ship EVEN WORSE HAHA. I want that for IWTV, honestly. It’ll be wild! But I just hope it’s intentional and we’re not like creating more victim blaming on survivors by insisting over and over and over that Louis was lying or that he’s unreliable. It’s very fine and excellent to show that Lestat doesn’t think he did anything wrong and different to tell the audience that he didn’t do anything wrong.

Whew.

I’m so happy for all the excited shippers LOL I hope everyone is having fun! I’m still over in the corner crying about Daniel, don’t let me ruin the party.

24 notes · View notes

willel · 8 months

Note

Why is twitter so toxic? I think you wrote something about it some time ago, that on tumblr, for instance, there’s no immediate incentive to write a hit post and then to come up with the most outrageous claims that create "engagement"? Or because it’s not really about direct conversation made of short messages when everyone wants to "win" the argument, but favors calm analysis instead. Anyway, I just can’t go there anymore right now, too much hate and stupidity, I’m glad there’s still blogs like you and a few others to enjoy some ST escapism.

Twitter's short form context was pretty great when it came out years ago. "Tweets" were generally someone putting random thoughts out in the aether or a quick notification or an alert to check out news on this site or that site. I feel like it wasn't meant for what it is today, for people to be interacting with each other in a meaningful way. Like, what are you gonna talk about in 100 characters or less? That's why you'll sometimes see old tweets of celebrities floating around of the most random nonsensical statements with no context. That's what twitter was as its core.

Now combine that with people starting to use twitter for more than just random thoughts that popped into peoples head. It started to be used for political activism (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) and fandom activities.

We all know how bad politics fandom can get on long form sites like tumblr and reddit. Imagine how much worse it is when you cut away all context and nuance to fit in a tweet.

Imo, it set twitter on a downward spiral. Doesn't matter how much they increase the character limit, the culture now is tweet fast. React fast. Argue fast. If you lose, resort to other means. Anything to win. Anything to get your tweets more attention that the other person.

It's like a game. I'm sure that plays into the desire to be "famous" that a lot of social media enjoyers crave.

I'm not saying tumblr is much better, but I feel the culture here is more like "take your time" or "time doesn't matter, old stuff is good". Tumblr does have an issue with people not reblogging content, causing good posts and content to go unnoticed given there is no real algorithm here, which is sad. But for the most part, ain't nobody here trying to get famous. Everything is talking and creating stuff for the sake of it.

Most of the time even the people arguing here are arguing about stuff that happens off site or they stay in their corners and tag correctly. (if you don't tag correctly and start fights on purpose, I immediately assume you must be from twitter)

People who have been here on my blog for a while are probably thinking "Tch, what do you know about fandom conflict?" and let me tell you, in my youth I participated in a ship war. It was just one,but still. I didn't resort to name calling or doxing people though, that's for sure. I wrote essays and essays in response to people, defended my ship, made stuff for my ship (which I still do), the whole shebang. It was all here on tumblr and deviantart. I do have a twitter for that fandom but I don't use it for any drama. I can say the drama on twitter is MUCH WORSE than anything I experienced on tumblr.

That is the ST fandom on twitter in a nutshell. No one can mind their own business. They're constantly spying on each other, posting using common search terms of the people they don't like and then acting surprised when the people they don't like respond to them. It's all like a game. Every blue moon when I go there to see if there's WillEl things, inevitably I will see shippers using it to fight against each other or crap on Will or El.

Once a week it's the same suspects saying the same things over and over again. Finding something pointless to be mad about. Sending angry anon messages. Never actually sitting down to enjoy the ships/relationships they claim to be a fandom of. Cannot mind their business and always have something negative to say. Denying what is literally in the show because they personally don't like it. Literally the worst kind of people to have in your fandom. (I associate that kind of behavior with like.... Riverdale drama or something. Sorry if you're a Riverdale fan. Lol)

In conclusion, yeah. I think twitter is that way because the short form context has breed a culture of "win or lose". Mixed with a little bit of celebrity idolization and a desperate desire for people to interact with you even if it's negative.

#ask #Anonymous

3 notes · View notes

that-thing-that-feeling · 2 years

Note

My philosophy is that no character is ever inherently boring, it’s all about how you use them + investment from whoever is the writer. Combine that with the fact that there is always at least one story or plot idea out there waiting, where you can give the character an opportunity to shine and have visible depth if you let them.

That’s kind of why although I have high hopes for the supernatural plot for s5 (fingers crossed for Jonathan finally getting to explore the UD too), my expectations for any nuanced character writing aren’t as high. Hell, even when Steve is one of their favorites, I’d still joke that they’re probably struggling to choose between giving him an actual meaningful character scene vs. trying to find ways to cram three more exploitable oneliners about being a damn babysitter

I completely 100% agree with this. They’re all v interesting when the writers give them time and care. And with Jonathan it’s been baffling to make him such a fleshed out character and then not see them use it in subsequent seasons. And that’s v true what you say abt Steve—that captures how they write him imo. I’d really like for them to come back to character moments in s5 since they’re hopefully not adding new characters, and maybe can focus on characterization more

9 notes · View notes

nicnacsnonsense · 2 years

Note

hi! so, i just wanted to say i really appreciated your meta about stede and mary's relationship. i feel like it approached them with a sort of nuance i don't usually see applied to mary's character; i think sometimes people act as though ep10 absolves her of any wrongdoing whatsoever in regards to their relationship, but imo i feel like that is patently not true. i've always regarded mary and stede as being parallels, and more alike than not. she can be petty and cruel in the same ways he is; stede fucked up royally by leaving the way he did, but i don't think her rushing to remove all traces of him from their lives was necessarily the right decision either, not in regards to the children or their development. painting him out of the portrait was something she did for herself and herself alone, not for alma or louis. especially if she told them he was dead. it serves no purpose to anyone but her, and it seems cruel to do to a little girl who thinks her father has died (and even if she knows he disappeared! i could understand taking the painting down, but there's no consideration for whether the kids might want it later in life).

another thing is that they also both enjoy the trappings of wealth, and while i've often seen criticisms leveled at stede bc of his class privilege, i rarely see the same directed at mary. imo, they are both similar in that their class largely afforded them entry and some sense of notoriety into a world that poorer people need to fight their way into (painting/piracy). granted mary isn't the same kind of clown about it all that stede is, and yes, the painting and piracy within the show are more meant to be simply allegorical than anything else, but why is stede deserving of class criticism and not mary? just because stede's boastful? they're both two extremely privileged people with power dynamics between them that are constantly shifting (mary being a woman; stede being a queer man). i think some of the disconnect here comes from the fact that their story in particular is almost entirely modern and anachronistic; the only real connection to the 1700s they have is the arranged marriage, so i understand where people are coming from, in a sense, when they place all blame almost entirely on stede (barbados as it is portrayed in this show might as well be a random east coast suburb in the 1980s), but some of the stuff she does is still weird and bonkers from a modern context (like trying to erase him from their lives entirely, and slot doug into his place), just like stede is weird and bonkers too.

and while i would say he's definitely the guiltier party in ep10, they're both openly hostile to each other. stede tries to ask her about doug and mary immediately gets defensive. even before stede left, neither of them gave a shit about each other, and it really was an equal opportunity sort of thing. he didn't listen when she spoke about painting, she didn't care about anything he had to say about the sea. 'we just can't seem to stop hurting each other' is a statement of fact, and i feel as though people often forget the 'we' in this context. i honestly hadn't even thought of how that conversation, where she's sort of attempting to extend an olive branch to him, would appear to stede. another way they seem similar to me is that at this point in their lives they're both probably repressed in the same way, with similar childhood trauma (by way of their parents, the homophobic bullying probably did not happen to mary), and this stunts their ability to have meaningful conversations with each other. mary is not all knowing as i feel like people sometimes treat her, and coming to the conclusion that she was in love with doug was likely the same sort of uphill battle stede experienced while realizing he was attracted to men.

anyway, um, i hope it was okay i just blurted this out all over your ask box lol. i just don't often see people in this fandom who have a similar read on mary as me (i feel like attitudes regarding her tend to be either visceral dislike or blatant apologia, neither of which i'm interested in honestly) so i wanted to let you know i agree and appreciate you sharing your thoughts!

Absolutely it's okay that you blurted that all out all over my ask box! Both because I spent a lot of time on that meta and was starting to get down on myself for the lackluster response, and because I too get frustrated by the pronounced tendency in fandom to treat Mary like she was a saint in their relationship.

That's a great point about how removing Stede from that painting was unfair to Alma and Louis! I had never considered it from that angle before, but you're right, that was selfish of her.

With regards to class, I assume people mostly aren't bringing it up because it's not really a factor in her story line, aside from in resulting in an arranged marriage. The only person she interacts with that's (possibly) of a lower class than her is Doug, and that doesn't seem to have particularly impacted their relationship. I think you're right in that any class based criticism that can be leveled at Stede are probably also true of Mary to some greater or lesser degree, but I can see why people wouldn't be bringing her up in that context all that often.

For me I consider both Mary & Stede to be equally at fault with regards to their marriage in the backstory. There is a part of me that wants to put slightly more of the blame on Mary, but I'm also aware that I have some personal experiences that make me biased, so I leave it at equal fault. Then Stede abandons his family, making him the one who is significantly more in the wrong. While I wouldn't generally categorize his behavior in episode 10 hostile, and from what I recall he only really pushes back against Mary with regards to things that reasonably fall under his purview, he isn't really as apologetic as he should be considering. And Mary is hostile, but she also has a right to feel that way. Up until the point she tries to murder Stede, at which point she becomes the guiltier party, but they end up resolving things soon afterward and it becomes moot anyway.

#ofmd #stede bonnet #mary bonnet

10 notes · View notes

luanna801 · 2 years

Note

If we're going for a controversial character for bingo, Jack Seward seems to fit the bill! Or if someone already asked for him, Satoshi Hiwatari/Hikari maybe?

HAHAHAHA OHHHHH BOY, HERE WE GO

... Okay, but let's start off with Satoshi 'cause that'll probably be less controversial. (Also, any excuse to talk about my boy!)

"everyone but me is wrong about them" - There are very few characters where I'm LITERALLY out here like "I AM THE AUTHORITY ON THIS CHARACTER ACTUALLY, ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG." Satoshi is one of those characters.

"wasted potential" - I mean, he honestly probably was LESS wasted than some other characters in canon (Riku got SO badly effed over by canon, godammit), but that doesn't mean there wasn't still a TON of wasted potential here. I think one of the most disappointing aspects of the ending is that after spending pretty much the entire series suffering and being abused... there's never any meaningful confrontation or catharsis between him and either of his abusers? There's so much more that needed to be explored and addressed there.

"they're like a blorbo to me" - As with Dick Grayson, he's a strong contender for my #1 blorbo.

"deeper than they seem" - I should really just add this one automatically.

"I like them enough to project my own issues onto them" - this is interesting because on the face of it, I don't consider myself particularly similar to Satoshi. I guess it's more that... I connect with his character in a very personal way? And also I think that when you really love a character, there's always a certain danger of projection.

"they got done DIRTY by the fans" - So, fun story. Did I ever tell you guys that I was once so fed up with the DNAngel fandom that I made up a "Victim-Blaming and Abuse Apologism Bingo Card" with all the worst takes I'd seen? No?

... Yeah, I think that says it all.

"didn't get enough screentime" - I mean, he got a fair amount, but there's still SO MUCH MORE I WANTED TO SEE DEVELOPED AND DEALT WITH W/ HIS CHARACTER, GOSHDANGIT.

Jack Seward:

"everyone but me is wrong about them" - I have this very particular reaction to the Jack Seward Discourse where it's like, I hate seeing people say they hate him and he's evil, but I also hate seeing the people who make excuses for him about things that IMO they really shouldn't? Like NO, you are NOT allowed to say you hate him and he should be kicked out of the polycule. But NO, you also should NOT be acting like it's totally fine and non-comment-worthy that he thinks letting Renfield eat kittens is a tempting scientific prospect. Goddamn!! Get it right!!

(Necessary disclaimer that in actuality everyone can and should feel however they like about his character and there are multiple valid takes, etc. etc. But also, mine is the correct one.)

"they're deeper than they seem" - I think there's honestly ENDLESS material to explore with Jack, from the way he interacts with his patients (to both the good and bad), what he represents in terms of the development of psychology, his depression and fears about his own mental health, his low-key mad scientist tendencies (and yet the fact that he has a strong enough conscience to hold himself back from going down that path)... there's SO much there.

"I like them enough to project my own issues onto them" - I honestly relate to Jack a lot, as someone who's struggled with depression for years, and decided to go into psychology partly as a result of that struggle. That doesn't mean I'm down for his dubious psychological ethics, but there's a lot about his core struggle that resonates with me,

"they got done DIRTY by the fans" - I should note that there are also a lot of fans writing really balanced, nuanced, thoughtful posts about him. But hooooo boy, some edges of the discourse can get... interesting.

"Didn't get enough screen time" - in terms of the actual story of Dracula and the need to balance all the different characters, he probably got the correct amount of screentime. But like, I would've been happy for more! He's kind of the polar opposite of what I said about the Joker, in that I probably would happily read a spinoff about whatever shenanigans he gets up to running the asylum and joining a 12-Step Program for Staying on The Mad Scientist Wagon or whatever, even if the rest of the Dracula cast only briefly showed up in it.

#replies #peachsunset #character bingo meme #this was a fun one!

7 notes · View notes

hamliet · 2 years

Note

Hey I love the way you talk about Qaf I was curious what your thoughts were on Mel and Lindsay's relationship did you enjoy them together, think they should of ended up together in the end?

Yes and yes. I loved them. Their relationship was lovely, and Melanie in particular was a character I resonated with. But, admittedly, the writing of their relationship in season 4-5 was probably also my biggest writing complaint for the show as a whole. The affair plotline was a rehash of season 1, and as I've said before, it's to the show's credit that it did not ruin their characters because it absolutely could have. But, it still wasn't handled well.

Basically, for Lindsay and Melanie, the writing just wasn't as tight as it could have been. Sometimes the themes and character moments just weren't given the nuance and breathing room they needed to resonate. It was a lot of... well, lazy "and then" connections between plot beats. "Lindsay starts working, and then she meets this man who hits on her" when you could actually connect the plot points with "but" or "because" explicitly, which is what the writers did with other plotlines. It doesn't even have to be a direct plot reason, but instead a thematic one, and you've got to highlight these thematic connections instead of leaving them implicit. "Lindsay's struggles with her identity and how she fits into society continue because she starts working again, where a white man with a fetish for lesbians starts hitting on her" is a lot more compelling. QaF was not a thematically subtle show, so make it explicit instead of implicit.

Lindsay's arc was about her grieving her not being the daughter her parents wanted while forming her own family, which is a lovely arc and set her up as a great foil for Justin and for Brian. She was constantly struggling with the idea of what she should have and what a family looks like. Think the plot with Guillaume, where she almost marries him for visa/financial reasons but without any real love. Lindsay's struggles with what a family should look like continue in season 2, but she's more assured and confident. She doesn't take her sister's insults and proposes to Melanie at her sister's third wedding, marries Melanie, and tells her parents off after they reject her yet again. Season 3 Lindsay has her sharing some wisdom with Brian about working to get Justin back, helping Melanie get pregnant, and establishing her own career in art... but then we get sidetracked.

Her brief affair with Sam--which is founded in having to play the sexist game--could have worked for her arc. But it just wasn't given the breathing room it needed. Her choosing to have sex with a man--a man who viewed her as a conquest, as a goal to change her sexuality--was degrading and upsetting to see, and this could have been explored with empathy and nuance... but this aspect isn't ever explicitly addressed.

Kind of a side note, but I promise it ties back in: Lindsay's insistence that she is a lesbian despite having had sex with two men at that point (Sam, and years ago Brian) isn't really debatable imo. Labels are just--what we use to communicate. They don't always fit in certain circumstances. I do wish the option of bisexuality had been brought up in the show instead of treated like Lindsay had to choose one or the other, but if Lindsay says she's a lesbian, she's a lesbian.

There could have just been a lot more done with this. Lindsay's final confrontation with her mother about her sexuality in season 5 is good, but if the writers wanted to, they could have explored this label issue, could have explored Lindsay's fears of not fitting in with what constituted a nuclear heterosexual family or even her worries about what having sex with a man meant (granted, this would have been a bit ahead of its time, but it could have been done). Her self-hatred could have been dealt with more directly, which would have been more meaningful.

Melanie, as I said, was kind of a favorite of mine. The butch lesbian lawyer turns out to be actually extremely sentimental and bighearted. She helps everyone out legally no matter the request, wonders about the existence of their child before they're born, etc.

Mel's drive for success made her a good foil to Ben and to Brian, and again, more could have been done here (especially given Ben's arc in season 4 with the bug-chaser and pushing Michael away when facing rejection over his writing). They also could have done a lot more with the whole "playing the game" arc, and with Mel's own career issues and drive to keep working despite having a risky pregnancy. They could have directly foiled Melanie's desire for professional success and acceptance with Lindsay's for social acceptance. To an extent they did, but it just could have been more explicit and thus resonated more. They also could have maybe more directly addressed the issues with misogyny even in queer circles and how that affected both Mel and Linds in their careers and family choices.

Melanie being so hurt by Lindsay cheating with Sam didn't quite sit right with me because, well, Mel cheated in season 1, so where was her empathy there? You could explain that--again, I actually think it makes sense--by showing how Melanie, too, was afraid of not being chosen, but you do have to actually explore this instead of leaving your audience to connect the dots. It just--could have been explored more. Instead of the ensuing custody battle in season 5, I would have liked to see Lindsay and Melanie try to work out their issues a bit more directly, with talk about what Lindsay's affair did to Melanie's self-esteem and her own identity.

The ideas weren't bad, but the execution was just way less rich than it could have been.

#ask hamliet #qaf #queer as folk #melanie marcus #lindsay peterson #lindsay x melanie #sam auerbach

7 notes · View notes