#or simply gloss over the valid criticism of it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thesherrinfordfacility · 10 months

Note

hi! i love reading your thoughts because they're often so different from my own, but i wanted to ask you something about crowley and the way the abuses he's suffered at heaven/hell's hands have manifested in him. specifically, in his avoidance/tendency to flee as a means of protecting himself & aziraphale. i think it's rather unkind of fandom to just jot that all down to cowardice and to constantly criticize him for "running", esp when in never actually follows through on those threats. (part 1)

good morning nonnie!!!✨

sure thing, more than happy to discuss and at least put down my own thoughts! first thing im going to say is that whilst this is a recurrent theme throughout the whole show, ep6 feels like the pinnacle of everything re: crowley's trauma, and as i said to someone else recently, the reason why i find the Feral Domestic™ so delicious is because it is so well written. these are two characters that are having their own one-sided conversations, even if the dialogue matches up and fits coherently; they chronically misunderstand each other, are both crumbling under the things not being said, and each time you watch it, you can see things from the other's perspective and think that they are in the right. suffice to say, to my mind, there isn't necessarily any right way to interpret it, and all interpretations are valid!!!

let's talk crowley; i mean, you're right - it's not cowardice by the definition of the word. crowley doesn't lack bravery, but the way he manifests that bravery is very different to aziraphale's. i feel in this particular dilemma, personally, aziraphale had the right of it (fighting for change, however it may have come across to crowley, and however naive) - mainly out of the projection that i think it's the logical, most meritable action to take, if successful would actually mean they can be potentially be together in peace, and i would probably have done the same thing. now, we can surmise that that's not at all how it'll go down, and it certainly doesn't mean at all that crowley's reaction is wrong.

i do feel that sometimes the fandom does gloss over crowley's more... problematic... tendencies, and justify it by his trauma. his actions borne out of that trauma are understandable, they hold water, but they're not excusable. again, personal interpretation, but i can't rationalise some of crowley's actions out of anything than avoidance and a maelstrom of harmful, emotional internalisation - manipulating aziraphale/tempting him to kill adam/warlock, keeping key information from aziraphale especially that directly affects aziraphale, his saviour complex going too far and not only robbing aziraphale of some agency by doing so but it resulting in aziraphale believing it's necessary to make crowley happy, his superiority complex (aziraphale has one too, i will add), his habits of putting aziraphale down during stress/desperation... again, we can trace these all back to elements of his trauma, but it doesn't justify them.

that to me is a kind of 'running away'; it isn't that he's a coward and won't face up to the trauma in any meaningful way - it's not a question of a lack of bravery - but that he's so avoidant of examining that part of himself and his history that it holds him back from healing, and in doing so, i think, he possibly expects and anticipates aziraphale to live in that pain with him. maybe because aziraphale is a comfort to it, a balm that lessens the sting? maybe because he needs something to make him feel better about himself? idk, but whilst all things i can empathise with, one of the first things i saw in that scene is that crowley seems to think aziraphale should have remained in that inertia with him, kept the status quo, run away together. and when it turns out aziraphale truly belongs outside of that pain and doesn't want to live in it... well, put very over-simply, crowley couldn't handle it.

crowley is not at all wrong for running from his trauma. it was and is, by all inference of the material we have so far, incredibly painful, and possibly even shameful and humiliating and lonely. but in the same way that humans who don't reckon with their trauma are not lesser for not dealing with theirs by avoiding reconciling with it, it doesn't fix anything to do so. fix is the wrong word actually - it doesn't help at all to keep being in that pain. and it will usually result in it hurting those around you too, those that you love and love you in return. and bearing in mind - whilst aziraphale is smart enough to definitely know at least the general impact the fall had, and how heaven had treated/harmed crowley in the events that followed, crowley's never actually told aziraphale any of it (as far as we're aware). he even downplayed it to aziraphale - "sauntered vaguely downwards"... aziraphale is smart, but he is likely to take crowley's word at face value in this respect.

ultimately you are completely correct; it is not at all fair for anyone, aziraphale included, to expect crowley to return to the source of his pain. we know that, we know that the suggestion of returning, of being restored, must be inconceivable to him. but does aziraphale know that? how can he possibly know the full depth of why crowley won't return? beyond saying "they're toxic", and "when heaven ends life here on earth, it'll be just as dead as if hell ended it"... both of these reasons for rejecting the offer, bear in mind, are reasons why aziraphale wants to go back - to change it! it's fixable! he can resolve that! but if crowley had said, "i can't go back, it's the source of all pain for me and i want nothing to do with it"... im not entirely certain that aziraphale would have left.

can't also disagree with you that aziraphale isn't manipulative in his own way, because he absolutely is! aziraphale is equally a little shit for it throughout the entire show! but i truly don't think this is the scene where he's trying to be, or even is - i think he truly sees the offer as a way in which crowley could be happy again, create in utter joy like he did in the pre-fall scene, be shown respect and a means of apology for making him fall... it's meant, to me, out of love and devotion to crowley as a person, this good and kind person that he loves, and wants to facilitate in his happiness as aziraphale believes it could be. now we know that that would never be the case, and it's incredibly naive and reductive for aziraphale to assume this... but does aziraphale? it's not an action or offer made out of any superior or malicious intent, imo, but a way that aziraphale can protect crowley and they can be together without needing to run away... something that aziraphale only considered once offered the power to restore him.

i could talk a little more on crowley physically running away, especially how it's depicted in the book vs. show, but i think my answer is likely to get completely unwieldy if i do rn! but hope that maybe goes some way to at least depicting my understanding of what happened... again, i don't think any interpretation is necessarily wrong, and until s3 comes around and these two buffoons actually talk to each other, we won't know for sure!!!✨

#in this house all opinions are valid if you can argue them well enough #good omens #ask #crowley meta #feral domestic/final fifteen meta #s1 meta #s2 meta

9 notes · View notes

claudesuggestions · 2 months

Text

More On "Both-Sidesism"

My Query:

With that said, however, it appears that the term often gets misused to refer to *any* instance of recognizing that both sides have flaws - even when there are no claims of both sides being *equally* bad.

~~~~~

Claude-3-Haiku’s Response:

That's an excellent observation. You're absolutely right that the term "both-sidesism" is often misapplied or misused in a way that oversimplifies the nuances of a given situation.

The core problem that "both-sidesism" refers to is the tendency to falsely equate two positions or sides as being equally valid or justified, even when there is a clear moral or factual imbalance. This can be a problematic impulse, as it can lend undue credibility to extremist or harmful viewpoints.

However, you make a valid point that simply acknowledging that both sides have flaws or complex perspectives is not necessarily an example of "both-sidesism." There are many situations where a more balanced, nuanced assessment is warranted - one that doesn't gloss over the shortcomings or blindspots on either side.

Dismissing any recognition of multiple perspectives as "both-sidesism" can itself become a problematic oversimplification. It can shut down important discussions and prevent us from grappling with the full complexity of an issue.

You're right to highlight this tendency. Responsible, thoughtful analysis should be able to identify areas of valid criticism or concern on multiple sides, without necessarily falling into the trap of false equivalence. The key is maintaining a clear sense of proportion and avoiding the impulse to artificially balance vastly disparate positions.

Calling out genuine "both-sidesism" when it occurs is important, but it shouldn't be wielded as a cudgel against any nuanced engagement with an issue. Striking that balance is crucial for fostering more productive, inclusive dialogues. Thank you for raising this important nuance.

#anthropic #claude ai #llm #chatbot #society #sociology #psychology #nuance #politics #suggestion

0 notes

aniy2k · 3 years

Text

Riot Grrrl, Kinderwhore, and White Feminism

Riot Grrrl was an underground feminist movement that began in the early 90s. It was tied to the punk music scene, radical politics and DIY. It started originally with a Zine by Tobi Vai named Jigsaw in 1988 that expressed and spread radical politics and feminism. Vail later on decided to start a band by the name Bikini Kill.

For most ‘Styles’, people don't even bother looking at the history of where it came from originally, so why is it important?

While part of Alternative culture is Fashion and a way to express yourself that's against societal norms, there is alot of political significance that comes with it. When talking about it, Riot Grrrl tik tok creators, and other Alternative creators, say the political significance is based on what the subcultures are. Without that, you cannot be a part of the subculture. Obviously there are alot of conservatives in the scene (As you can see from the usage of lace code) Some complain and say that it's “gatekeeping”, but in my opinion, it's honestly… not. This isn’t the same as someone taking a popular music artist, then saying “You don't know this song? Ur fake lolz”.. This is separating mindsets that Alternative people strongly believe in and instead protecting a community that is supposed to be a safe place.

The Riot Grrrl movement provided a space where women in punk music tackled the conflict of inequality and sexism, and decided to fight it, united and organized.

Kathleen Hanna, Bikini Kills lead singer, ended up writing the “Riot Grrrl Manifesto” in 1991, which is a summary of what Riot Grrrl is and what it means to be a part of it.

Summary:

“ BECAUSE us girls crave records and books and fanzines that speak to US that WE feel included in and can understand in our own ways.

BECAUSE we wanna make it easier for girls to see/hear each other's work so that we can share strategies and criticize-applaud each other.

BECAUSE we must take over the means of production in order to create our own meanings.

BECAUSE viewing our work as being connected to our girlfriends-politics-real lives is essential if we are gonna figure out how we are doing impacts, reflects, perpetuates, or DISRUPTS the status quo.

BECAUSE we recognize fantasies of Instant Macho Gun Revolution as impractical lies meant to keep us simply dreaming instead of becoming our dreams AND THUS seek to create revolution in our own lives every single day by envisioning and creating alternatives to the bullshit christian capitalist way of doing things.

BECAUSE we are unwilling to let our real and valid anger be diffused and/or turned against us via the internalization of sexism as witnessed in girl/girl jealousy and self defeating girltype behaviors.

BECAUSE I believe with my wholeheartmindbody that girls constitute a revolutionary soul force that can, and will change the world for real.”

I’m not personally too much of a fan of how Kathleen Hannah ended up seeming like the regular ol’ white feminist that basically put WOC in the shadows within this whole movement. While this piece is about educating about the power that the Riot Grrrl scene had within punk culture, it has many many faults. The diversity within the scene isn’t there. It seemed to be a feminst movement, but only showcased one type of girl. White girls.

Multiple black punks from that era came out and said that they felt that the riot grrrl scene wasn't for them. Honestly? I don’t blame them. You look up Riot Grrrl on pinterest or on tumblr, you can probably count on your one hand how many POC women are showcased.. This moment for women of color is probably the epitome of White feminism in some cases. Author, Gabby Bess, adds that “The history of Riot Grrrl is inevitably written as "predominately white," glossing over the contributions of black women and other women of color”.

Just like the article from VICE states,

“In contrast to this ironclad narrative of the white Riot Grrrl, black women did participate in the movement. Few and far between, maybe, but they participated nonetheless, and they deserve more than to be swept under a rug of whiteness--These women carved their own feminist pathways into the hardcore scene, precisely because they were rendered invisible by the Riot Grrrl movement.”

One very powerful punk from that time, Ramdasha Bikceem, made up a whole Zine when they were 15, that illustrates the conversation of race and gender in Riot Grrrl so perfectly

This would all result in another black punk from that time, Tamar-Kali Brown, to make her own movement called “Sista Grrrl riot”. Out of all of the information that is circulated about the Riot Grrrl scene, Sista Grrrl Riot was probably one of its least talked about movements. Tamir-Kali Brown and her bandmates brought together a community and showed people a version of themselves on a stage where they weren’t represented.

> Kinderwhore

Kinderwhore is a very popular style within the RiotGrrrl community. A lot of people Champion Hole lead singer, Courtney Love, for this style's popularity, but actually her bandmate Kat Bjelland introduced the style first. Though, with that being said, Courtney Love definitely made Kinderwhore one of many staple styles for the Riot Grrrl Subculture.

What is Kinderwhore exactly? One thing about styles like this one is, there isn’t a specific definition to what it is. It was a bold, punk and sophisticated subversion of the classic "girl" stereotype, with a mini-feminine dress and bold makeup. The great part of the Kinderwhore Style is that it was about power. The power of femininity. It was so much more than just a style that included small dresses and mary janes. It was taking the most “fragile” feminine image and making it into something that is punk, and that takes all of the power back.

Another part of Riot Grrrl fashion is just a subversion of regular punk fashion. DIY, big boots, Plaid, Skirts, Spikes.

The idea of taking every inch of femininity that men manipulate and instead using it to make them realize that they can't handle what we are, is such a powerful thing to me as a fashion lover, but also as an aspiring social activist. As the rise of social media attention of Alternative Subcultures continues, I believe the next generation of Riot Grrls are going to kick butt and be more inclusive than the 90s scene was.

ani ok.

pls give me feedback and for those who obv have more education abt this pls give me feedback as well!! i think this is super interesting and enjoyed researching this <3

#riot girl #punk girl #bikini kill #hole band #courtney love #black punks #alternative #alt rock

845 notes · View notes

xaibaugrove · 3 years

Text

Everyone in the Krew is Problematic

I was inspired to go on this rant by someone who recently brought up a question in a server I’m in, asking why so many people in the fandom seem to hate Mako and Makorra and why. This wouldn’t be the first time I defend Mako and it most likely won’t be the last, but it might be the first time I tear him and everyone else in the Krew down in the process, only to bring them back up. Hear me out though.

I think I’ve totally accepted that a lot of people in this fandom will always hate Mako and that I will have to perpetually defend him, I understand that this is the relationship I’ve chosen with this world. But what I still will never understand are the reasons why people hate/dislike him because compared to how much they love other characters in the Krew who honestly aren’t that much better than him (in some cases, even worse!), it doesn’t make any sense.

Let me also preface this by saying, I love these characters with all my heart and soul, probably more than I should love fictional characters, but this is the life I live and with that being said, I am going to tear them apart just to prove a point. Okay, here we go.

MAKO

Most of his detractors list the usual criticisms, which are valid when isolated. He cheated on Asami, he lied to Korra, he was a terrible boyfriend and essentially he treated the women he claimed to love or care about horribly. Gee, it’s almost like the man was a teenager with no experience in having long-lasting, healthy relationships and was raised in the streets by gangmembers while doing anything to survive and provide for his younger sibling after seeing his parents killed right in front of him and suddenly being orphaned…

I think Mako has been torn down enough, so I won’t get too deep into the tearing down part for him. It really does baffle me how someone can claim to be woke and not comprehend how someone coming from poverty could possibly be a product of their environment. Like, does everyone think that poor people automatically have hearts of gold and turn out like Little Orphan Annie? Why are people surprised that when someone has a shitty life, they might do shitty things?

Also, sooo many people love Zuko, who actively tried to cause harm to Aang, Katara and Sokka numerous times, and sympathize with his troubled past. But like, sure Zuko had an abusive father and his mother peaced out of his life for whatever reasons but at least he had his uncle. Mako had his parents for maybe 8 years before they were murdered in front of him and then had...no one for the next 10 years? Except for Bolin, sure, but no other parental figure in his life. Dude literally had to become him and his brother’s own parent and joined a gang to survive, and after all that, the worst he does is acts as a bad boyfriend toward Korra and Asami and he is instantly thrown to the wolves. Something doesn’t add up. It’s just...I don’t get it.

Yes, the way he treated people was bad, but people can grow? That’s a thing humans can do. And he was a teenager, my god. No, we cannot allow our past to be an excuse for how we treat others, but we have to be aware that there is a growth process to being human. And being human in and of itself, isn’t pretty. You think Mako is problematic? Don’t get me started on your fave.

KORRA

Ok, I love this woman to death but she is ridiculously problematic. She pursued someone in a relationship and essentially forced Mako to cheat on Asami by kissing him against his will, that’s already pretty awful and shows a lack of empathy on her part, also kissing people without their consent is no bueno. But also I just have to say it for the people who might not know this. One of the fundamental reasons why Makorra didn’t work was because KORRA WAS ABUSIVE. Okay? It wasn’t just that Mako was inadequate at relationships and didn’t know how to people, it wasn’t that she was secretly confused and wanting Asami the entire time (biphobia at it’s best) one of the main problems in the pairing was that Korra was crazy abusive towards Mako. Seriously, why don’t I see this more often in those discussions??

If we need examples, I have dozens. Honestly, it’s really easy to see how terrible Korra was to Mako, I’d actually argue that she treated him worse than he treated her. I mean, they were both terrible to one another, but in Korra’s case she went through the motions of being completely infatuated with your first teenage crush, getting with said crush, then crashing and burning once you realize that you have no idea how to treat a romantic partner so after the butterflies wear off you subject them to all the wonderful aspects of your anger issues. Not only did she scream at Mako during every argument they had, she also threatened him with bodily harm if she got really angry. Remember how their relationship crashed and burned in Book 2? Here are the things that Korra did during that time. Let me reiterate, this was not okay.

Mako is visibly shaken by this!

This woman burst into her boyfriend’s place of work and violently kicked his desk out from in front of him with all his coworkers present. That is not normal behavior. That is a red flag. And after she came back, had amnesia or whatever and forgot they broke up after that scene, let’s not forget that Mako was legitimately Afraid to break up with her again. Korra made her partner frightened that they might suffer bodily harm if they upset her. Again, and I can’t stress this enough, this is not okay!

The little scene in Book 3 when Korra is lifting Mako like 100 feet off the ground with airbending while he’s screaming in fear just to make Asami laugh is cute, right? I’ll admit, I loved that little moment too, it’s one of the only instances of Korrasami development that we got, but also, there were sooo many things wrong with that scene lol. Not only does Korra terrify Mako for literally no reason, it’s also sort of just her continuing to exercise some degree of power over him for her own amusement. Almost like a subtle reminder to him saying, “I am stronger than you in every way and I can break your femur like a twig if I wanted to… but I won’t, so look how much fun we’re having!”

Now of course, there are reasons why Korra acts like this. She was isolated for almost her entire life and never learned how to treat people and be around people. The Avatar is human because they must live amongst the people they protect and that helps them develop empathy and cherish life. The White Lotus deprived her of that fundamental aspect of her duty as the Avatar and it showed throughout the beginning of the series. Clearly, she was young, didn’t see how her actions could negatively affect others and hurt the feelings of not just her partner but also friends and family (she was really awful towards a lot of people in her life!). But as the series went on, we see her having less outbursts and learning to control her temper more.

One can only assume that she does not have the same behavior with Asami because for one, I don’t think Asami would play that shit, she seems like she would electrocute a bitch in a heartbeat and not hesitate if needed, but also Korra is not the same shitty partner she used to be as a teenager. Again, kids do stupid things. Adults do stupid things. And we learn and we grow. Korra will probably make some more mistakes in her relationship with Asami. I don't think anyone can have one bad relationship and suddenly learn all the lessons they can from it and have a perfect one the next go around. I can totally picture Korra losing her temper and raising her voice at Asami if she gets frustrated and forgets who she’s dealing with. Managing anger issues is hard, I know this from experience, and it doesn’t magically get easier. Of course, if Korra does pop off, Asami would definitely put her in her place because she’s a bad bitch who doesn’t take anyone’s shit, next character.

ASAMI

You know her, you love her, you fantasize about her and you probably have her on your list of fictional characters you would totally bang if you had the chance (I know I do), yes, even your best girl is problematic. It’s interesting to me that a lot of people sympathize with Asami and very few openly criticize her (so few that I’ve never seen anyone say a bad thing about her). What’s there to criticize though? The poor girl was cheated on by Mako, had her feelings disregarded by Korra, who claimed to be her friend but pursued her then-boyfriend behind her back and then made up for it by simping for her for the rest of her life? Also her mom was murdered when she was just 6 years old, her father threatened to kill her once and physically abused her, then died right after they started repairing their relationship, essentially making her an orphan at the ripe age of 22. Suffice it to say, Asami has been through it.

So, how could she be problematic, you ask? Why, of course, through the classic Bryke technique of romance progression in storylines called Kissing People Without Their Consent

To be honest, I did gloss over this with Korra, simply because there were sooo many other issues with that woman and I just couldn’t go through every single one in as much detail but that doesn’t negate how serious this whole sneak attack kissing thing is. Sure, Asami is very emotional and lonely and sort of desperate too, (it's a little sad, really) but Mako is clearly uncomfortable and completely caught off guard by the kiss. This is also the second time this happens to him in the series! There are a couple factors that might contribute to why Asami does this and acts this way, maybe Korra’s general awfulness rubbed off on her (don’t make a dirty joke) but this is still wrong.

AND that’s...pretty much it. Kissing people without their permission is a big no no, though. Not wanting to gloss over that, but Asami really is a good person who just did a not-so-great thing. Getting burned by Mako twice probably made her a little less inclined to be as forward with anyone though, and it looks like she now takes her time and is patient in her relationship with Korra. It even seems like Asami is the only person Korra is afraid to upset, as Korra does seem more gentle and calm when around her. And who knows? Maybe Asami living a life where a majority of the time she got whatever she wanted when she wanted it might have also influenced her to be more assertive or even imposing within her relationships.

If anything, those three fools getting into relationships with each other just showed how not ready they were to be in relationships in the first place and also how not okay they were.

BOLIN

Originally I titled this as “Everyone in the Krew is problematic (except Bolin)” but then I remembered that Bolin totally kissed a woman without her consent so I deleted the shit out of that!

This asshole looks genuinely pleased with himself after essentially assaulting Ginger. Not a good look.

Sure, Bolin is baby. He will always be baby to me. But that does not erase the fact that he also actively supported a fascist dictator. Not only was the kissing without consent thing bad, but there’s also that. No matter how many times people around him warned him about the fact that he was on the wrong side of things, that he was helping someone who was putting people into concentration camps...Bolin wanted to believe the best of Kuvira. He ignored obvious signs that the woman was a dictator committing human rights violations like crazy and you know, there’s gotta be a reason for that too.

Maybe Bolin wanted to feel like he was doing something good for once. When you think about it, with his role as the comic relief in the Krew, and sort of constantly being infantilized by his older brother, I wouldn’t be surprised if the man developed some insecurity in his ability to do anything good or useful for anyone without screwing it up in some way. In Kuvira’s army, it seemed like he was actually taken seriously, he felt like he was doing something that mattered. Korra had being the Avatar, Asami had her business and mindblowing philanthropy (honestly, her ability to be as charitable as she is profitable is insane) and Mako had his police work (ACAB, tho). Bolin had...the role of being a joke. A superficial actor. A former pro-bending meathead.

Bolin lived his entire life following after his brother that once they were adults and Mako finally decided to live his own life for once, it left Bolin completely lost. And lost young men are perfect recruits for fascists.

So, in conclusion, my whole reasoning behind destroying the integrity of my favorite characters is to prove a huge point. All of these characters are problematic. They have flaws, some bigger than others (looking at you, Korra. Just...wow), but ultimately, even if your fave is problematic... that’s okay. A lot of people, mostly younger people it seems, are really obsessed with being right about everything that they do and stan. And that’s a wonderful thing, so much change has come about by the younger generations calling out people who do fucked up shit, don’t want or try to improve, and get away with it. But it’s also caused a lot of people to be unforgiving and completely unwilling to acknowledge when people do improve and try to be better.

Personally, I love my problematic Krew because having issues that you’re constantly working on internally is human. It’s human to make mistakes, it’s human to grow from those mistakes. And it’s inspiring to me, who is wholly imperfect, to see myself reflected in fictional characters who aren’t perpetuating unrealistic ideals of human nature, characters who are messy, crazy and ultimately human.

As one of my favorite manga artists and queen of impeccable character creation Rumiko Takahashi once said:

“I think that perfect people are not very interesting.”

And I will always wholeheartedly agree.

#long post #rant #tlok #the legend of korra #korra #asami sato #mako #bolin #avatar: the legend of korra #back on my random bullshit i guess

49 notes · View notes

gofancyninjaworld · 3 years

Text

Garou and the futility of heroism

.With much thanks to @the-nysh for the conversation. I thought of making this longer and more detailed, but I know myself: it’ll turn into one of those drafts that hangs around for years.

I've recently been reading the Epic of Gilgamesh as a part of reducing my terrible ignorance of the foundations of Western literature. Cracking good yarn, highly recommended, but I’m not here to talk literature. The latter half of the story is dominated by Gilgamesh’s struggle against the idea that he was inevitably going to die.

Where this relates to Garou is not that he’s railing against the inevitability of death and the reality that everything built up over a life will crumble to dust. What Garou is struggling against is the seeming futility of heroism.

His specific approach is all sorts of bad, but the reality he's struggling against is something brought up repeatedly in One-Punch Man. One of the *big* themes in One-Punch Man is critically examining what a hero is actually good *for*. No matter how diligent a hero is, no matter how strong they are, the world's evils do not disappear.

It's very outrageous and painful to acknowledge how small and fleeting one's efforts are in the grand scheme of things.

The moment we get a look into Saitama’s thoughts, it’s the very first thing he leads with. Literally the very first sentence of his thinking.

Saitama might be the strongest hero ever, able to defeat anything in one punch. Not only has the world not become a better place as a result of his actions, but the very neighbourhood he lives in has become depopulated as it’s become too dangerous to live there. In its own way, having birdsong be the loudest sound in the morning is its own rebuke to Saitama’s ambitions of helping people.

Watchdogman is the most diligent hero ever, with a perfect monster elimination record. And yet, City Q is as monster-infested as ever. Should anything happen to him, it will be as if he never existed for all the good his previous efforts will have done its inhabitants.

however diligently he sits, the pedestal he’s on will crumble the moment he cannot do his job any longer.

And that’s just talking about monsters. There are a lot of very bad people in OPM world and not just of the cackling mad scientist variety, although it’s got plenty of those too.

The world of One-Punch Man also has evils driven by factors that are far too big for any hero by their action to stop. Problems best addressed at the political or economic level aren’t going to be solved with a punch.

Even when the evil appears to be tied up with a single person, like the Ninja Village was established by That Man, getting rid of them doesn’t necessarily change affairs. The Village stole the freedoms and lives of boys for a good fifteen years after Blast defeated That Man. It was still too profitable to *not* do.

when you think about it, crime must really pay in One-Punch Man!

Even when you say you’re going to do something simple and heroic, like save a single child from the clutches of a monster... what do you mean by ‘saved’, exactly? How brutally difficult it is to save even a single person, how easily it is that your best efforts to be turned to naught by an adverse event, like springing a rabbit from a trap only to have it swooped up by a hawk, is fully on display this arc.

so many heroes’ efforts and yet Waganma went almost nowhere...truly like fetching water out of a river with a basket!

Other than Saitama, we see so many other heroes struggle with the reality of how little they can change things in the long term. Very notable is the conversation that Snek has with Suiryu, where Suiryu challenges Snek to justify why he bothers being a hero at all? “No matter how hard you try, it’s just drops of water on burning rocks,” Suiryu says, something done for self-satisfaction rather than because it actually creates meaningful change. Snek’s thoughts mirror Suiryu’s as he considers whether heroes are actually necessary at all.

Let’s bring it back to Garou. Garou’s Very Bad No Good Plan to Avoid Heroic Heartbreak he laid out in chapter 41. Quite simply, heroes always have to wait for bad things to happen and then react to punish the evildoers and/or save people.

I love how long this guy is...um, sorry I was supposed to be typing something insightful here

But what if it was possible to take the initiative instead, like a monster does? What if people could stop wanting to be bad and monsters could stop wanting to attack people? That’s where the Human Monster was born, the quest to create a persona so strong that no one could oppose it, and so senselessly evil that no one dared to do anything that attracted its attention.

punishing the good and evil alike, don’t make him come your way if you know what’s good for you.

I see a lot of readers read superficially, misunderstand and think Garou is punishing heroes in some way. That heroes are bad in some way. Nothing like that: he attacks heroes because they’re good and devote their lives to protecting people. After all, only a total monster would do that. Also, if even the strongest heroes aren’t safe, what hope have the regular people of this world?

All throughout the arc, that Garou doesn’t actually want to be a monster at heart is clear to every actual monster. It’s clear to us as we see his interactions with Tareo. It’s clear to him himself as he tries to steel himself to take a life just to prove to himself that he can (thankfully it’s Saitama he tries to kill).

It’s what makes Saitama’s bullshit-cutting words as cutting as they are. Ultimately, his trying to scare the world into being good is his way of running away from the tough, heart-breaking work of being a hero.

there is a crazy confidence a hero needs to embody in order to step up, as if by doing so they can do something

The pathos that we can empathise with is that it’s hard to look on a world as messed up as theirs is and not feel that surely, surely there’s something more that one can do. Garou’s struggle is absolutely legitimate. However... I’m going to let the however hang a moment...

It’s childish thinking to frame heroism in terms of strength and it’s not much better to frame it in terms of being of exceptional virtuousness. What a hero is, according to ONE, is someone who can look honestly at the cruelty and randomness of the world, who can acknowledge frankly the fleeting nature of any good they can do, feel the pain of this reality fully. And then choose to reach a hand out to help anyway.

In a world where feeling helpless in the face of impossibly large and complex problems feels inevitable, cynicism is too ready a refuge, and just looking out for yourself is common sense, the mere act of reaching that hand out is an act of courage.

not with illusions of good triumphing over evil, but the dogged determination to do the right thing even if the world burns down. That’s what being a hero is about.

However...

...the way Garou worked out his inner conflict was not legitimate. He picked the worst possible way at the worst possible time to wrestle with it. Which I think goes to a second theme: that your feelings may be valid. But that does not mean that every action that follows from those feelings is valid. Garou hurt a lot of good people and impeded their vital work at a time the world could ill-afford it.

One of the joys of fiction is that not only do characters act for reasons that make sense, but we get to hear and understand *why*. And at the same time, the external actions they take on the world persist. I’m very happy too that ONE isn’t glossing over the consequences of Garou’s actions. Too many readers pick one or the other and lose half the joy.

Thankfully, ONE isn’t a half-ass.

It doesn’t become okay for the heroes that Garou attacked that they were assaulted. It doesn’t become okay for the world that so many people were needlessly deprived of heroes when they needed them most. And it isn’t okay for Garou that he’s made an outlaw of himself as a result of his actions. The ramifications on both personal and societal are going to be explored for the individuals involved. I bless ONE for his conscientiousness and for creating so many excellent characters that make the enterprise worth the candle.

What kind of hero Garou will decide to be and how he’ll make it work in practice, ah that we’re waiting to see.

Coda:

Of course, that’s not the whole story. There’s one other part. Occasionally, by being the right person willing and able to step up in the right way at the right time, a hero can change *everything*.

#OPM #meta #Garou #heroes #for a story that is a parody the thoroughness with which it unpicks heroism is very serious #long #yes I said I wasn't going to run long but I have so much more I want to say #which I guess will put people who came for the luls off but there you go #making peace with what one can do as an individual is a very real problem that's both topical and timeless #making peace that nothing lasts forever not even one's achievements is another #finding meaning and a way forward in this impermanent life is a little triumph

51 notes · View notes

sourstiless · 3 years

Text

i just have to laugh at the people who say anne with an e is “too politically correct”. minority groups have always existed in society. having the entire cast be only straight white is unrealistic. nothing about showing prejudices towards those people is unrealistic because it happened. it was real. it’s not forced. and the diversity added would go on to gather a new audience of people who couldn’t previously get into the series because they couldn’t relate or never saw themselves in it. i admit that the reason i was able to relate was because i was adopted. i probably wouldn’t have gotten as into the series the way i did otherwise.

it also really bothers be when old anne of green gables fans are like “it’s too different” or “it’s too dark” or “it wasn’t like the books at all”. for one, different isn’t always bad. i get that you have nostalgia, but it’s a weak argument against the show to just say that it’s too different. anne with an e is a retelling. it’s like movies that say “based on a true story”. it takes the general and necessary points of anne’s original story, but adds certain originality to it. seeing the same thing done on screen is boring, anne with an e was a refreshing breath of fresh air. (that’s not to say that other version were bad because it’s the same story, i love the 1985 mini series and hold it very dear to my heart.)

the “too dark” argument just makes me annoyed, because the system anne went through was anything but ideal. she was taken advantage of, abused, which was simply glossed over in other versions of her story. anne with an e is much more realistic in how she would have turned out. anne’s imagination is a coping mechanism for and an escape from her trauma, it always has been, and anne with an e finally put that into perspective. she has ptsd, as anyone who endured what she had would. her life as an orphan was never pretty, in any versions. awae was just the first to actually develop that part of her instead of making it seem like she was just a delusional orphan with a wild imagination and impossible dreams.

like i said before, anne with an e is a retelling of anne of green gables, not a remake. its adapted from the novels, but it makes sense that it’s not exactly the same. something that i really like about it was that it gave depth to other characters other than anne, while still making it clear that it was anne’s story. gilbert was adapted into a well rounded character instead of just a love interest. diana was more than a naive girl waiting to meet everyone’s expectations. even josie pye, while still a “mean girl” was explored more. but this development never took away from anne’s story.

i don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s dubbed “anne with an e” and not “anne of green gables” like it’s predecessors. right from the beginning it’s explicity set apart from its previous adaptations. because while it pulls from the same source material, it was never going to be just like the others. it was always going to be something new and original. i’ve read the books and watched other adaptations, the 1985 version being one of my favorites, and i really love anne with an e. it was nice, seeing it through a different lens. i thoroughly enjoyed it, and while we didn’t get a few iconic scenes, the series holds up very well on its own. nostalgia is not a valid criticism.

#anyway that’s my rant #anne with an e #anne shirley cuthbert #gilbert blythe #diana barry

71 notes · View notes

warwaged-moved · 2 years

Text

I finished reading the sylv.anas book and this will be spoilerish and filled with complaints so beware (also predominantly alleria-centric, although I have lots of criticism about the book as a whole beyond that). I’ll not really acknowledge any of it when writing war.craft muses tbh, which means alleria is extra canon divergent now

I do like that alleria and liree.sa’s dynamic is more or less as I expected it to be. li.reesa being a stern ranger general, and requiring even more from her daughters (and from alleria, as the eldest and the heir, most of all) is really fitting, and I have always thought their relationship would grow strained as alleria got older and rebelled against the predetermined fate imposed on her.

I also like that their father is the voice of reason and prone to intervening when mother and daughters are fighting, something that was actually an old hc I had. I don’t like him being advisor to the king though. let him be someone who isn’t politically super important you know. the windrunners are already so important on their own. so yeah, when it comes to my portrayal, he’s still just a guy. also alleria’s favorite parent iudhfuishf

alleria did not leave quel.thalas out of a desire for adventure, much less bc of a man. this isn’t even hc or what I wanted, it’s the actual canon this book throws away. she only left to help the alliance bc she thought the elves were paying too little credit to the horde as a threat -- and she was right. but you can see even in previous books, alleria is desperate to get back to quel.thalas and warn them of the horde attack. she weeps at their forests being destroyed by the orcs and dragon fire. she loves her people and her homeland so much and then this book is like ‘oh no she just wants to go explore the world and get the human paladin d’

and later on she leaves azeroth to try to end the dark portal, and ends up fighting the legion for a thousand years. the reason she doesn’t come back isn’t that she doesn’t want to, it’s that she keeps getting caught in one threat bigger than the other. if you think it’s valid to criticize her for leaving bc she wasn’t in silvermoon during the fall all I have to say is lol. lmao

sylvan.as and li.rath’s dynamic and them being the closest after that was a whole point in alleria’s story, after his death threw her off because she couldn’t handle the grief and got lost in revenge because they were so close, really just. ugh. it annoys me so much. the fact they even have sy.lvanas go to nath.anos in a way that feels like a shitty rip off of plots they used with alleria and tu.ralyon too lol. the fact even when it comes to warning the king, syl.vanas is said to have done it first. like. an iconic beloved character of the war.craft franchise, and you really had to steal plots from her sister for no reason at all instead of giving her an actual story?

please this book hates alleria so much for no reason

also I’ve always been a fierce defender of ‘lor.themar and syl.vanas were close friends in life’ but NOT LIKE THIS. it’s so poorly done. they have no development at all, and are friends simply bc the book says they are, and every single time syl.vanas thinks of them and ha.lduron as ‘the Trio’ I cringe so hard skjdfnaskjdfn

the way they handle sylvan.as is just gross when she ends up not only serving the jailer but also thinking a.rthas was right

an.duin going to the maw in the end sucks so bad let this boy catch a break without syl.vanas around goddamn

I love na.thanos and I didn’t think much of what they did with him in general tbh

glossing over some of the most important events in syl.vanas’ life briefly certainly was A Choice, but then again, what wasn’t in this shitshow

#‣ out of character { the mun } — ❝ THAT GLOOMY GIRL WHO SIGHS A LOT. ❞#‣ muse { alleria windrunner } — ❝ VOIDFORGED. ❞

5 notes · View notes

aquariusshadow · 3 years

Text

Hope Mikaelson: Grief and Criticism on the Writers

TW//Grief

Alright. I feel like I really need to preface this with three very important points.

1) I have a very personal connection to grief and it's still incredibly recent and that grief has it's own level of trauma associated to it. No more details are necessary.

2) By no means am I claiming my experience with it is the same as anyone else’s or worse, or better. It is morally unethical to police anyone else’s experience with grief. That is not at all the goal of this post.

3) I am simply using my own understanding of grief to understand Hope's character and apply criticisms and defenses where I think they deserve.

First of all. Hope's actions this past episode need to be called out. They cannot be excused with a slap on the wrist and if next weeks episode glosses over her actions then there’s a problem. Hope willing let Lizzie and Josie nearly die (and herself) to save Landon is really screwed up and how she got Josie to try and help her was a bit questionable as well--which I’ll get to later. But, something I can do is try and understand what the attempt is for Hope's mentality when it comes to Landon.

I've been seeing a few posts saying Hope is irredeemable and butchered. And...well, I partially disagree.

The reason I say 'partially' is because I think the writers can easily take Hope in the direction where she can be irredeemable. And, given how shitty the writers have been going about characterization and storylines, I say that the concern has strong logistical basis (and it's a concern I have myself).

But here's where I respectfully, 50% disagree.

Something about Hope's character I think has been consistent enough is her grief. I think people need to keep in mind about grief is that its not a straight line. It crops up in ways that you wouldn't even imagine or recognize. It's overwhelming and blinding and there's a desire to numb it with something strong enough to overcome it if it's not dealt with properly.

To me: that's what Landon is to Hope. Blinding emotion Hope clings to in an attempt to either numb or push down the hurt she feels.

I would like to think Landon could be the key for her accepting her grief and moving on and Landon could represent hope for new life in the future, but there has been no hint of that in the recent episodes.

This is evident in some of the biggest criticisms of Handon. Landon is the one that always needs saving. Hope wants Landon to be completely out of the way and not try and help her because the thought of her losing him is crippling and they don't have a proper heart to heart understanding to try and work through it together.

Especially since, she keeps watching Landon die. Over, and over, and over again.

To the girl who's biggest fear is loosing the people she loves because of what happened to her parents, Hope is continuously reliving her trauma multiple times with little to no guidance to overcome it.

So when you have episodes like the therapy box trying to get through to Hope that she needs to let go, work through her issues, etc, and she rejects it and there's instances in episodes after where she continues to regress and when characters, Lizzie, attempt to clue Hope in that her perception on Landon is a "blind spot" in a negative way, there’s a lot of cause for concern that Hope is at a point where she could be irrational when it comes to Landon.

Which is present in her actions this past episode. All criticisms against Hope are valid and I agree with most of them this from this episode. It was not okay for her to try and use Josie, who's overcoming her own issues from being Dark-Josie, to try and find Landon, and risking both her and Lizzie's lives when it was clear they were about to die. It's also a bit concerning she seems to ignore concerns about monsters coming back to the school, funded by Klaus, everyone's home, would be a very dangerous thing.

But because she's blinded by everything I stated above. I can see where her head is at even though there's concern.

Here is an area where I think Hope's characterization with her grief is either inconsistent...or proves my point that Hope might be a bit too irrational overall.

Hope Mikaelson s1 and s2 would not let Josie and Lizzie Saltzman die or get close to it. That has been proven time and time again. The Saltzman Twins are two people Hope cares so much about, the idea she would be willing to let them die for Landon is very confusing because...you would think the idea of loosing the Twins would also be completely devastating for her too and that would also be something that plagues her mind (hell MG, Kaleb, Alaric, etc at least on some level). Furthermore, we had an episode in season 2 where Hope actively chose to save Lizzie and Josie, over Landon.

Overall, my point that I will end this on. If this is handled properly, this could potentially be the peak to Hope's grief arc overall when it comes to Landon and everything else. Even though I said Hope's actions need to be called out, that doesn't mean I'm flat out angry with her portrayal in the previous episode. Honestly, I'm watching a girl who's in a long term battle with grief and the writers don't seem to know how to get her out of the intense areas that are contributing to her "Landon Obession" etc and have her grow into herself outside of Landon. Aka...the writers seem to be completely out of their element when it comes to this subject, which isn’t surprising.

Hope's arc this season being only about Landon is poor writing, but, there's substance present that I would like to think is underlying the fact that there is more going on than just Landon even if the writers are shit at showing it.

Hope’s pain is not an excuse to make decisions that actively hurt other people. But her grief does allow for an insight onto what I THINK the attempted goal is for her character.

#tw grief #legacies #legacies 3x08 #hope mikaelson #anti hope mikaelson #handon #anti handon #i just think there needs to be a discussion on how big a role grief is for her #honestly i blame the writers for not handling all of this properly #this is literally just my opinions #legacies meta #god i hope im not overgeneralizing anything #im a lil nervous dont mind me ahaha #thoughtful discussion #i love hope okay #i also like landon #ik shocker #but i do

42 notes · View notes

klm-zoflorr · 3 years

Text

Issues with the Tyzula ship that Tyzula shippers/fics typically avoid

Stereotypical Tyzula Ty Lee: “Azula-san, I completely forgive you for everything you ever did to me or my best friend and have always loved you unconditionally. I will help you become better if it means risking the quality of my life, my other relationships, my sanity, and even my life. I will magically be able to help you deal with your myriad of mental issues as if you always only needed love/affection instead of real medical help. I will always love you even if you don’t really change your behavior or worse, remain the same power hungry bitch you grew up to be. I love you ‘Zula.”

Look, I am not opposed to Tyzula for I actually think that they had a real friendship, even if there was a massive power imbalance, that got fucked up by Ozai’s abusive teachings and Azula trying to act as her sovereign and friend at the same time. But there is a tendency among Tyzula shippers/fics to make Ty Lee forgive Azula way too easily, make Azula not deal with her flaws or make (proper) amends to Ty Lee and Mai, retcon Azula into a soft baby who didn’t do anything wrong other than get abused, and/or gloss over the issues between the two.

For example, If Tyzula occurred pre-Boiling Rock like some fics imply, do you think it would have been consensual? Especially considering that there has been a massive power imbalance (Azula is Ty Lee’s Sovereign) since their childhood that Azula took advantage of even then; Azula forced Ty Lee to join her squad at firepoint; and Ty Lee is deathly scared of Azula? And if it happened post-Boiling Rock there is a massive power imbalance in favor of Ty Lee since the moment Azula “acts up” (it doesn’t have to be a big thing since Ty Lee is scarred shitless of Azula) Ty Lee can either call Zuko to jail her and/or have Aang de-bend her. There are some Tyzula fics that properly deal with, imo, the pre- and post-Boiling Rock power imbalances but most of them just gloss over them. Not helping is the fact that comics imply that the two never had a real relationship at all and that Ty Lee is still deathly afraid of Azula, willing to chi-block Azula the moment she is anything other than docile.

Also, how come most Tyzula shippers/fics don’t touch about LOK’s Turf Wars said about Sozin outlawing homosexuality and the implications it has for a lesbian/bisexual Azula? If Azula, who tries to be the model princess in a post-Sozin Fire Nation, can’t even realize that using fear is not a good way to maintain relationships, how would she deal with the fact that she has feelings for girls? Most of the Tyzula fics or headcanons I have read don’t seriously deal with the fact that either Azula is deep in the closet and/or suffering from serious internalized homophobia and would not likely express her sexual preferences in public unless she was in an extraordinary situation or got serious therapy plus years of self-reflection/character growth. Not to mention the fact she would be one of the leading perpetrators of homophobia by virtue of being Ozai’s right hand general/advisor.

So, do I have a valid point about how Tyzula shippers and fics often engage in abuse and/or toxic friendship/relationship apologism? Or I am just being too harsh on a group of shippers that have been vocally condemned by the greater ATLA community and most likely will never see their ship be canonized? And yes, some of my own fanfic works do contain Tyzula so feel free to call me out if I am being a hypocrite and holding people to standards that I can’t uphold.

-----------

This was a very interesting submission, Anon, and I don't think you're "in the wrong" here, even if I don't necessarily agree with you. At least you're polite, so I won't swear at you xD I'll sum up your points for clarity's sake

"Tyzula shippers make Ty Lee dumber and ready to do anything for Azula. They write stories without depth and without adressing the imbalances in their relationship"

Here's my personnal opinion on that: this kind of drama/angst is hard to write, and I don't want to waste my time for 10 chapters while they're angstying over whether or not to love each other. Mental health issues are hard to write too, and I want azula to be happy, so I can just make them dissapear. I completely acknowledge it isn't the most realistic kind of writing, but I don't care, I just want to have fun. I wouldn't pretend it's canon either.

Now, some Azula fans are just biased towards her, and like to pretend her canon character did nothing wrong and is purely a victim and is owed Ty Lee's love. I'm not gonna shit on them, in the grand scheme of things it's quite inconsequencial, but I don't think that's accurate.

"Tyzula shippers make it happen even if Azula is still a "villain" and hasn't redeemed herself for her sins"

I can link this to my first point a little, and erase all moral complexity for the funzies while acknowledging it isn't canon. But there's also the fact in ATLA, Ty Lee has little to no redemption arc herself. She just betrays azula, and then the good guys accept her and mai with no problem? We could interpret that as "she was always supporting Aang's cause and hated azula secretly since forever" but I don't think that's very correct, because Ty Lee never shows any sign of it, never talks treason, never helps the good guys while azula isn't looking (unlike mai!). The only thing that could possibly make her betray Azula, in my point of view, is seeing her other best friend almost die to her hands. And even then, it isn't a moral choice. I firmly believe Ty Lee was just as indoctrinated in the Fire Nation's ways as everyone else there. And that she actually supported her nation and obeyed Azula as her commander not only because they were friends, not only because she had to, but because she was loyal to her nation. And the only reason I can see her go to the good guys' side at the end of atla was simply because of self preservation with a side of unbrainwashing from FN propaganda

So, in conclusion, I don't think Ty Lee is a completely good character, and I don't think she has a problem with Azula's crimes.

"There is a power imbalance"

I'm not going to deny that. But who told you all relationships with a power imbalance are inherently bad? They're more likely to be toxic, but they won't always be. If the person with the upper hand is respectuous and nice, everything works out perfectly. It's more of an advice towards people who don't have the upper hand in their unbalanced relationship, and who could get taken advantage of. But Ty Lee is smarter than she looks, and I believe she would know to stay away from that.

Pre-boilling rock, there is indeed problems with them getting together, but they're not due to one of them being toxic. Azula is Ty Lee's princess, and it isn't her fault. She was literally raised to lead. And Ty Lee was raised to follow. We see that despite that, Azula still considers Ty Lee as her friend and gets her in her team in a nice way. But it isn't her fault she was raised in the middle of a war and sees the will of the fire nation as more important than anything.

Additionally, I don't think Ty Lee hated Azula, for the reasons I mentionned before.

Post-boilling rock, I just don't think Ty Lee would be scared, or cruel enough, to jail or unbend Azula for no reason. Because, again, I don't think she hates her.

"The fire nation is homophobic"

As is usual with me, I loathe the comics and don't consider this as canon. It doesn't even make sense, apart from saying "fire nation's evil, they're homophobic now too" to be honest, if anyone's gonna be homophobic it's gonna be everyone, cause there was no gay representation in atla.

Oh, and f*ck this, I hate homophobia, I don't want my fictionnal worlds to have it too. It's dumb as shit and everyone is gay in the Fire Nation. There.

"So, do I have a valid point about how Tyzula shippers and fics often engage in abuse and/or toxic friendship/relationship apologism? Or I am just being too harsh on a group of shippers that have been vocally condemned by the greater ATLA community and most likely will never see their ship be canonized?"

You do have a valid point that some tyzula shippers have the same problem as some azula stans, as in that they put her on a pedestral and say she did nothing wrong. But some also just don't want to bother with that and just want to write fluff, and that's fine. There are way worse things they could be doing.

It is true that Tyzula is kind of a controversial ship, and for this reason I don't think you should care too much about it. Bullying people never help anyone, and criticising tyzula shippers will only push them back in their fandom spaces and make them unable to tell apart genuine, objective criticism and mean bullying.

I don't want Tyzula to be canon, btw. Well. For me canon kinda stopped at the end of atla, so everything is possible after this point lol. Not that I even care much about canon.

You are not an hypocrite for liking tyzula and criticizing it. You can call out the behavior of people in your own community, it's perfectly fine and should be encouraged. I'd pay more attention to your opinion too, because I know you don't just dislike the ship and want to find any reason for it to be "problematic"

I'm gonna put that submission in the Tyzula tag, if anyone in there feels offended by that do let me know. I don't intend to shit on this ship at all. Also, if anyone wants to add points or give me perspectives I didn't think about go ahead!

#atla #azula #ty lee #tyzula #tyzula crit #tyzula criticism #anti tyzula shippers #klm-zoflorr #submission

19 notes · View notes

bigskydreaming · 4 years

Note

But that conversation between Bruce and Dick is pre-Crisis. (It's Donna's wedding, a mess of BLAMs which may or may not have happened post-Crisis. And I note the absence of the "bad guys crash the wedding" cliché.)

Things aren’t as clearly separated into pre-Crisis and post-Crisis as people like to claim, though. Like, at the time, there was a lot of crossover-acknowledgment from storylines both pre-and post Crisis, and there was never like, a clear definitive line where nothing from before Crisis mattered any longer after it. That was never what that event was, or how it was utilized. Rather, Crisis was used as a convenient way to INTRODUCE a sizable number of retcons, but it didn’t mean that everything outside of those retcons that came before was like, no longer valid.

In terms of this specifically......tons of things to do with Dick, Jason and Bruce pre-Crisis still remained in continuity and relevant all the way up to the New 52. When Jason fought Tim at Titans Tower when he came back, he specifically referenced having been a Titan for a couple missions - that definitely straddled the line of pre and post Crisis and didn’t fall cleanly into either camp. As well as being references to stories that happened BEFORE his post-Crisis origin retcon was canonized, thus further muddying the waters - but regardless, the point is, all of that is still in continuity by the time he returned as the Red Hood. It still mattered, not just in terms of oh technically that happened, but in terms of it and the events within it still being relevant to STORIES post-Crisis. Similarly, when Dick went to the Batcave to see Bruce after he returned from space and found out Jason was dead, that was all definitively post-Crisis, but in that scene, they referenced pre-Crisis events and conversations.

In fact, the whole reason I brought up Dick not hating Jason in the thread with that conversation between Bruce and Dick pre-Crisis.....is because the only time Bruce and Dick actually talk about Dick’s feelings about Jason is POST-Crisis, in NTT #55, when Bruce accuses Dick of never even liking Jason, of resenting him for being adopted when Dick wasn’t......

In response to which, Dick says no, he DIDN’T resent Bruce adopting Jason and not him, he’d never said that, he’d only asked WHY Bruce hadn’t adopted him as well....

Aka....that literal conversation I cited from Donna’s wedding. That was the conversation they were both referencing, post-Crisis. It just happened to have happened pre-Crisis. Its just...it had never actually been invalidated or contradicted or included in a retcon at any point in between.

Like, I’m trying not to be all defensive here, but this is the kinda thing that bugs me a lot. I say a thing, usually while pointing to a thing from canon that establishes that no, the takes a lot of people are going with are a fanon invention here, which begs the question...WHY such a strong preference for the fanon over the canon in specific instances, especially if the fanon happens to enable more of the very same KIND of unnecessary family conflict they claim to hold against canon in the first place.....

And then someone tries to ‘disprove’ this, WITH canon, or by citing why canon apparently is irrelevant here, and so its like....well, which is it? Am I too fixated on canon and that’s why my take doesn’t have that much merit, or am I wrong about canon and that’s why my take doesn’t have merit?

People seem to want to have it both ways when it comes to a lot of my posts, with the only real consistency seeming to be a determination to make it seem like there’s no validity to what I’m saying whatsoever.

That bugs, dude.

My point is just....the literal whole reason I made that post and thread was because I was trying to express that the fanon take that like, the only reason Bruce delayed so long in adopting Dick was that he didn’t want to come between Dick and his memory of his parents and he wasn’t sure this is something Dick would even want, is like....fanon.

I made that post - as I clearly established within the post itself - because the problem I have with this take is it was WELL established, at MULTIPLE points in the past that Dick actively wanted to be adopted by Bruce. He expressed this at Donna’s wedding, which as you said, is pre-Crisis. He then further affirmed this in their conflict after Jason’s death, which was post-Crisis. And then, as my post pointed out, it was STILL almost fifteen years AFTER that point when Bruce finally made the move to adopt Dick, with a rather anticlimactic speech about it not really changing anything and being just a mere formality.....

Even though it had been a very definite source of angst and internal turmoil and doubt about where he stood in Bruce’s eyes, at various points looooooong before then.

Points that were never at any time erased from continuity, as they existed and were referenced on either side of the retcon-period you’re referring to.

And then, I just happened to also tack on the PS that btw, further reminder that the fanon about Dick hating and resenting Jason was just fanon too with no real basis beyond that......by pointing to this convo pre-Crisis where Dick explicitly said as much....with it again being ratified post-Crisis when Dick references this very conversation and expresses the exact same idea he’d had all along.

So, the thing is. I’m fairly certain my point stands. There’s a clear continuance of thought in all the points I mention, no matter where they stand in the timeline.

And the thing that gets under my skin so much about asks or reblogs of this nature is like.....I don’t really understand what the aim here is? Is it just to discredit my citing of canon by raising issues that.....don’t actually change what I cited from canon?

And also, can you understand why it would be frustrating to see it so often being made an issue of semantics, when personally, I’ve always expressed that my fixation on canon vs fanon stems from one thing only: I don’t pretend like people don’t have every right to do whatever they want with fanfic or headcanons, I’m simply raising the question of WHY.

Why certain takes.

Why are so many people SO invested into adhering to takes that put the burden on Dick to be responsible for his own delayed adoption - something he’s angsted about significantly - and thus make him really, the only person truly responsible for his own angst there.

My issue has never been with popular fanon takes existing. Its that I think people should be able to back them up with why these takes are so important to them, that they’re so invested in defending them, from any criticism. There literally is not a single fanon I dislike, where there isn’t a very clear and definite REASON I dislike that fanon, that has nothing to do with it just not being canon.

Like, my criticism of this particular fanon isn’t that oh its fanon, it doesn’t count, its not real. My criticism is oh, I think its a problem that fandom’s focus is primarily trained on coming up with reasons for a son to be responsible for his own doubts and insecurities as to his place in a family/his father’s eyes.....when canon has repeatedly established that he’s EXPRESSED these doubts and insecurities, they’re NOT an unknown quantity to his father, and thus....the ball was in his father’s court all along. And its only fanon that has insisted otherwise....which to be begs the very relevant question: WHY. Why is it so often argued that this should be more the responsibility and fault of a child with abandonment issues and decades of insecurities and self-esteem issues here....in order to gloss over the fact that the power always lay with the father to address all of these issues.....just by....actually addressing them?

That’s the issue with this particular storyline for me at least, its always been the issue, and thus all the canon vs fanon is incidental to it, and the more its made about that, the more frustrating it is, because like....my point and my question has always remained the same, and all that ever results is a lot of people dancing around distracting from those two things rather than ever just engaging with them.

13 notes · View notes

silencecunt · 4 years

Text

Kankri is not a good person, nor is he a bad person. In my view, he is a wildly misunderstood character--both by the people who love him and the people who hate him. Both sides like to take only parts of his character and ignore the others that don't align with their perception of him. There is no harm in that, per say, but it does an incredible disservice to him as a character.

The Alpha trolls are, generally speaking, two-dimensional. They are caricatures of certain online groups meant to satirize those aforementioned groups. In Kankri's case, it's the SJWs of tumblr. At the time of Kankri's conception, social justice on tumblr was notorious for being outrageously PC and, hypocritically, malicious. People were threatened and "cancelled" over the stupidest of things. Naturally, this trend still exists and has spread from tumblr; however, it is not to the degree that it once was as those SJWs have now matured and created a healthier space (for the most part).

Kankri is a representation of the worst parts of those people--he is overly concerned with saying the "right" thing at all times, ignoring that words don't matter if your actions don't reflect them. Quite literally, Kankri is all talk. He lectures anyone he can about their "triggering" behavior while turning around and engaging in that same behavior when it suits him.

Therein lies the Mituna problem. Kankri is overly considerate of Latula's lack of sense of smell, Cronus's humankin, Horuss's belief he is two-spirit, etc. even when those (such as the case with Latula) don't actually care all that much. He does this because it's what he cares about and that's all that matters to him. But he doesn't care about Mituna. My interpretation is because he is jealous of him. Kankri is flushed for Latula, who is Mituna's matesprite, but Kankri doesn't think Mituna deserves to be in a relationship with Latula likely due to his cerebral trauma. A trauma he acquired after destroying himself in an ultimately futile attempt to save his friends, which is another reason Kankri is jealous of him. Much like Karkat, Kankri served as the leader of the group. Despite this, he was unable to rally the troops together due to his more passive approach in juxtaposition to Karkat's abrasive leadership style and general nature. Seeing Mituna act so boldly, doing something Kankri was unable to, was a hit to his ego. Already people don't like him and here Mituna was, making him look like even more of a useless asshole.

So, Kankri resents him. He doesn't want to care about Mituna, so he doesn't. Anger, bitterness, jealousy, whatever the case may be, he does not respect Mituna. Regardless, Kankri is Kankri. The way he speaks to him, insulting him and his entire existence, is phrased in such a manner that pins Mituna's disability as a flaw that he needs to work on. So much so, Mituna is obligated to apologize. Now, Mituna is not an innocent infantile thing that does nothing wrong and isn't a jackass himself because all trolls are jackasses. He is crude and can be inconsiderate of others. Regardless, Kankri does not approach the matter in a constructive way, seemingly almost glossing over those fair criticisms in favor of low blows.

This is something that is fundamental to Kankri's character. There are plenty of things he is right about, however he handles it in such a way that it only comes across as pretentious swill that no one wants to listen to. Alternatively, he overlooks those valid points to unjustly attack another's character. But, that doesn't mean he is always wrong.

Kankri, at his core, cares deeply and passionately. Whether or not you agree with what he concerns himself with doesn't matter because he will continue to feel the way he does with everything he has. His passion is palpable. The most notorious of which is the Beforian hemospectrum.

Under pre-scratch Feferi, culling doesn't mean killing. Rather, lowbloods are seen as incapable of taking care of themselves, so highbloods are responsible for them. Kind of like a pet. While not being killed is nice, being treated as a second--maybe even third-class citizen is still oppression. Kankri sees this and resents how their society functions. He doesn't want to be coddled and treated like he is inept because he isn't. Subscribing to how society wants him to behave would be a fate worse than death. If he cannot be independent and think for himself, doing what he thinks is best without the concern of others looming over him at every step he takes, he would rather die. These are the beliefs he held even as the Signless, although with different context. Thus, his motivation for his personal boundaries. When Porrim tells him he has grubsauce on his face and tries to clean it himself, he flips out. Porrim is high enough on the spectrum to be considered able to take care of him, and Kankri does not want any part of it. The mere thought is mortifying to him. Being touched is something that is (actually) triggering to him. He doesn't want pity, he wants respect. Even if his friends hate him and think he's annoying, at least he's being himself.

When Porrim wishes to discuss issues regarding women, Kankri doesnt want to hear it. Here is where many call him misogynistic, but I implore you to consider not applying human society onto the trolls because it doesn't make sense. Trolls are a matriarchal society, what with the empress being in total control. And, so far as we know, it has always been an empress. We don't know just how much gender affects things considering the hemospectrum plays such a large role in how everyone falls in society. My interpretation is that gender is nowhere near as big of a deal as it is with humans. Even if it were, between fusciabloods being primarily female and rulers, and jadebloods also primarily female and nurturing the Mothergrub (aka how all trolls are born), I don't feel it's too far a stretch to say that the women of trollian society are not oppressed. I don't believe the men are oppressed either because I feel that gender isn't much of a consideration for trolls, but that is just my interpretation.

That being said, Porrim expresses her concern that their matriarchal society was a false one operating under Lord English, ergo making it patriarchal in nature. Kankri does not share that view, feeling that it's a non-starter. In his view, Lord English's actions truly had no effect in that regard. Why would a time traveling demon set on destroying everything worry about frivolous details such as ensuring women are beaten down? In Kankri's eyes, it's stupid to assume he would even bother.

Regarding Kankri's celibacy, it's another example of Kankri merely trying to keep his chin high in the air and feel as if he is better than everyone else. His intellect is too high to concern himself with the oppressive nature the quadrants come with. It seems too much like another means to be controlled. However, his commitment to it is...questionable. Porrim and him are essentially moirails in everything but the name due to Kankri's pride. Not to mention, his flushcrush on Latula. If he were truly committed to his Vow, he would not pursue this crush as much as he does. All Latula has to do is say the word and Kankri would drop his celibacy like a hot potato. Again, another example of how he is willing to say the "right" things, but his actions do not reflect that. This hypocrisy is one of Kankri's defining traits. He simply cannot put his money where his mouth is despite the mountain of effort he puts into convincing everyone how serious he is.

As someone who admires social justice, he doesn't care for the Signless. His official reasoning is in regards to a difference in approach. While the Signless's rebellion reflects the violent society of Alternia, Kankri expresses how he feels a more peaceful method would have been better, a reflection of the peaceful society he was raised in. He feels that words hold more power than violence, something those baser than him resort to.

Perhaps this is due to the tenderness I hold for him, but I think the reasoning runs deeper than that. All of his friends liked hearing about the Signless, Aranea in particular. So much so that she wears his symbol around her neck. This is something that clearly bothers Kankri, but is it really just over a difference in opinions? At the end of the day, the Signless is Kankri. My theory is because everyone likes his post-scratch self better than they like him. The people who he considers his friends, who he trusts to return when they leave mid-sermon, who he tried to lead and protect can't stand him, referring to him as the Insufferable. Wouldn't that hurt you, too? He knows he's long-winded, he knows he preachy, he knows people find him irritating, he knows. Naturally, Kankri doesn't let it show, but he wants his friends to like him. The only person who (kind of) listens to him and actually treats him with respect is the crowned worst character of homestuck, Cronus. It affects him to hear how much others admire the deeds of someone who is him when, in truth, he is not really that person.

Many of the core traits in Karkat exist in Kankri. They are both drawn to leadership, drawn to helping their friends, short-tempered, and emotional. Kankri says a multitude of harsh things, things that are much crueler than the what Karkat says, and it's important to acknowledge Kankri's cruelty. That doesn't detract from the fact that Kankri does care for others, even if his feelings towards them are less than pleasant, because that's who the Vantases are. They are deeply flawed and oftentimes foul-mouthed people, and yet, at the end of the day, they still care fiercely. Kankri is not some disinterested, detached critic. He is just as much a part of the group as the others and he wants what is best for them. If he didn't care, he wouldn't bother lecturing. No matter how annoying and egocentric you are, no one likes to waste their time.

At the end of the day, Kankri is not a perfect person. Far from it. But he's endearing and he's relatable and he's flawed. None of the trolls are good people. They are all assholes who say fucked up things. They use the r-slur, they make fun of Tavros for his wheelchair, Meenah is elated that her post-scratch self commits genocide on the regular, Vriska. Just Vriska. A lot of the hate I see regarding Kankri reduces him to a soulless monster who's only goal is to insult and talk down to everyone in his way. A lot of the admiration I see boils him down to an uwu sweet innocent blushy baby when that is the furthest thing from the truth. He's a snarky bastard who gives a fuck about his friends, even if they spit in his face because he spits right back. Please respect his depth, even if you interpret things differently from how I did. He is not as flat as many make him out to be. No one in homestuck is.

#homestuck #kankri vantas #i just.....love him so much #he makes me lose my mind #i am in no way saying this is the definitive interpretation of him #just how i view him #but i am a genius and perfect and always 100% right so :/#take that as u will

47 notes · View notes

chaossmagic · 4 years

Note

History rant coming: I hate how this country hates Mary I (rightly if I may say so) but is completely OK glossing over the persecutions during Elizabeth's rule like double standards much? One thing is horrendous the other one is "meh she did bad things buT DID YOU KNOW SHE DEFEATED THE SPANISH ARMADA AJAJDHSKSJDDH" smh. Btw I've heard different explanations for the origins of the song that's why I asked. Some théorisé it as a Mary Queen of Scots song, other even as a religious one. It's a mess😂

Listen, I love Elizabeth I. Queen Lizzie is my ICON. Owned over 80 red wigs, a badass single female (but she lost the true love of her life, Robert Dudley, in the siege over the Spanish Armada when his ship capsized and he drowned and that makes me SAD), famously went ‘Ew, no’ when her dead sister’s widower King Philip II of Spain asked her to marry him instead...

She oversaw the so-called Golden Age of Empire (though the first English settlement in the New World was established in 1607, 3 years after she died, so that’s really more historical myth than fact) and was Queen during a time of big cultural renaissance in England, with people like Shakespeare, Marlow, etc writing their epic works of fiction as well as music and art flourishing.

But she was also responsible for the oppressive plantation system and the colonization of Ireland, the Protestanization of that country and the subsequent cultural genocide of a lot of native Irish customs, traditions, beliefs and political structures, not to mention the way she treated Irish Catholics who resisted the changes or outright refused to convert.

She kept her own cousin captive for almost 20 years on the off-chance she was conspiring to de-throne her, then deliberately set her up by faking an assassination plot against her and getting her to be drawn in by it, ‘proving’ that Mary Queen of Scots was a traitor. She then had her executed and thus, we got the Spanish Armada.

She also had a lot, and I mean a lot, of Catholics killed, not so much in her early reign but as the years went on and she faced more and more opposition from Catholic France and Spain, needed to secure her own validity as Queen, and the amount of political dissent, she really had no choice but to crack down pretty hard, especially on the landed Catholic gentry and the nobles who were more likely to resist her rule.

Elizabeth had it pretty hard. She was a single woman, the product of an extramarital affair and a union that many people still saw as illegitimate and against God, was hated purely because of who her mother was, the so-called ‘King’s Whore’ Anne Boleyn, and had been imprisoned in the Tower of London by her own sister, the fanatical Bloody Mary. She had to fight pretty hard to be recognized as a legitimate and divine ruler, never mind a Queen, and her conflict with Mary Queen of Scots was something she regretted bitterly. It’s said that she cried when she signed the death warrant for Mary’s execution, and could not bring herself to attend the event itself. She was an incredible orator and a skilled diplomat.

But there are also things that she should be criticized for, and rightly so, and her reign can’t be taken simply as the ‘good bit’ compared to her sister’s ‘evil tyranny’. She was, after all, the daughter of King Henry VIII - and we all know how history remembers him.

Sidenote: ‘Mary, Mary Quite Contrary’ is most widely accepted to be about Mary I, and it’s most definitely an anti-Catholic religious rhyme regardless. I haven’t heard of it being linked to Mary Queen of Scots, though, but I could see why it might get attributed to her. I guess the Marys don’t come off well in any case!

#anon #history #tudor history

5 notes · View notes

piduai · 3 years

Note

How do you feel about the whole "separate the artist from their work" thing? Specifically in regard to Miura's raging misogyny and Isayama's shady politics (still can't tell what they are tbh)?

i consume media for fun and escapism and not as a way to get validated in my political views and moral values, nor in order to connect to the creators. the less i know about the writer the better. otherwise my answer is: compartmentalizing. say, in real life a lot of my views are rooted in feminism, but i love manime. if i got bothered by every instance of misogyny in the medium i’d simply be unable to enjoy it at all. when i consume titles such as berserk, golden kamuy, yakuza, jojo, asoiaf etc i simply switch off the part of my brain responsible for muh femunisms and enjoy myself. it’s not that i don’t notice the misogyny or homophobia or subtle nationalism or other stuff, when they happen i just shrug and move on. as long as a series is entertaining i’m willing to gloss over the bigotry - unless i feel like being a hater. if something arouses nothing but criticism i just drop it.

it has limits though. as i said i’m willing to forgive stuff as long as i don’t know concrete things about the writers. for example i doubt i could continue consuming something that was written by an outed pedophile, like it was the case with rurouni kenshin (not that i ever got into rrk itself tho, thankfully). having limits and boundaries is healthy, i know that not everyone is like me and a lot of people are unable to ignore what they find bothersome, which is ok. whether you’re willing to separate the author from their work is your own moral dilemma, and i don’t think that either party is wrong. however everything should be consumed critically and we should stay aware that nothing exists in a vacuum. if an author has shady views they will always seep into their writing in a way or another. whether you’re willing to take it at face value is, yet again, your own personal issue.

as for miura and isayama themselves. both of them are complete freaks of nature, and disgusting fucks. what they write is entertaining tho and i have emotional attachments to their works. not that the misogyny in brsrk or the nationalism in snk don’t give me whiplash but i just ignore them and only pay attention to the parts i like. at the end of the day it’s just cartoons, who cares.

#anon

1 note · View note

teruthecreator · 5 years

Note

if you're comfortable, could you say what specifically you hated about the finale? i never got into amnesty but i liked balance so i would like to know how disappointed i should be ://

okay i’m gonna explain this in-detail exactly Once bc i’m trying rlly hard to just forget about the whole epilogue and keep it moving like that shit never happened, so for anyone else who is asking me why i don’t like the finale (and im not saying you’re wrong for asking, anon, it just seems that when you vocally do not like a thing there are hundreds of people who come out of the woodworks to ask you why and i think thats kinda Huh, Weird of everyone but like whatever) i’m gonna lay it all out here on the table and you can take this as you will.

i’m not gonna be getting into fistfights with people abt this so if you disagree please don’t try and banter with me. i am running on

also, CRITICISM OF ART DOES NOT MEAN CRITICISM OF THE ARTIST. I AM NOT CRITICIZING THE MCELROYS AS HUMAN BEINGS, BUT RATHER THEIR ARTISTIC DECISIONS IN TAZ: AMNESTY. MORE PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A SEPARATION BETWEEN ART AND ARTIST, AND ONCE YOU (AS AN ARTIST) POST A PIECE, IT BECOMES SUBJECT TO CRITICISM. I AM NOT BRINGING GRIFFIN, JUSTIN, TRAVIS, OR CLINT’S CHARACTERS INTO QUESTION; I AM SIMPLY GIVING A CRITICISM ON THE SHOW THEY’VE CREATED AS A WORK OF ART.

oh, this goes without saying, but i will anyway: SPOILERS FOR AMNESTY (IN GENERAL, BUT ALSO FOR EPISODE 36)

i’m gonna start off by saying, i don’t think the whole episode was a total disaster. there are two things mainly that have ruined the whole experience for me, but for the most part i thought the like first 2 hours of this episode were a lot of fun! the fight scene was a little bogged down in the rolls imo, but it didn’t deter me too much from the overarching boss battle. the intro was a sick concept, i enjoyed the callback bits spliced in w newly scripted bits from mentioned past encounters, that was all well and good. i loved beacon in the episode, and god do i wish he stayed for the whole thing.

my problem mainly sits with the epilogue, which is why i think the whole episode turns sour in my mind. because the epilogue is supposed to be what satiates your desire to know more, right? not to reference balance too much (bc these are two completely different stories w different premises, and for people to so readily compare them is kinda wack. that being said, they are two stories made by the same people that use an epilogue to wrap up the loose ends, so im gonna make this one comparison), but the epilogue told us, the listener, all the things we wanted to know about after the day of story of song. we got to know what they did, a little bit of their interpersonal relationships, and we even got a big group scene with the killarey wedding!

this epilogue, though, feels like it left so much still on the table. one of those things i will swing back to later because it is the largest part of my argument, but after all of this time we still don’t know why everyone at the lodge got exiled! no one talks about it! we don’t know how dani ended up there, or jake, or barclay, or moira, or anyone! they don’t reference the banishments at all, which i think is a huge shortcoming figuring that is the core premise as to why these characters exist in our pc’s world in the first place.

i also feel like the concept of the worlds being divided for a long time is kind of a dumb way to go about framing what they do After The Fact. like, they could have had those scenes happen without the looming concept of them being divided, especially when their big reunion scene is like 2 minutes long and basically does nothing. what would have been a cooler premise is if billy connected the worlds, and the worlds worked together in rebuilding themselves. we still could’ve had the same bits happen (for the most part), but i just think that whole separation bit kinda alienated the pc’s (especially thacker).

but everything up to aubrey’s epilogue bit is fine. i have some problems, but it’s fine. where i started to completely abandon the work itself though is duck’s bit, and i’m gonna get into it by saying this: I know Justin Mcelroy is not legally required to make all of his characters gay, but this whole scene was just a big reminder to me that this show is done by 4 straight white men

and yeah, my big problem with this scene is the fact that justin had to make Duck/Minerva a thing. because it adds nothing to the story while also being a very skeevy concept in-general, and it reduces minerva’s character down to the Hero’s Girlfriend trope and it’s so comphet and she doesn’t deserve it.

my first grievance with this: It adds nothing to the story.

had justin not even mentioned the relationship part of their interaction before the scene actually took place, this scene would be like every other scene involving duck and minerva prior to this. duck says honey once, and even that could’ve been played off as duck just being affectionate to his friends (which is a thing, i call several of my friends “my love” irl and it isn’t a big deal). minerva doesn’t even use pet names, she calls duck by his full name, which is exactly how she addressed him in every other scene! duck’s speech is a genuine heart-puller, but it was completely soured by the fact that justin had to premise this entire scene by saying duck and minerva are a thing.

my second grievance: it’s a skeevy-as-all-hell concept.

this whole premise is nasty seven ways from sunday, and it is my biggest problem with duck’s bit as a whole. for starters, and i think more people need to mention this, minerva meets duck on the night of his 18th birthday. which means duck has literally just stopped being legally considered a minor before minerva appears before him. and honestly, i would still consider duck a minor in this case because he has literally just turned 18!!! his brain has not developed past one of a 17-year-old on the exact date of his birthday, and i argue it will not until he is at least in his twenties. keep in mind, your brain does not stop developing until you are about 25. so while in the legal sense, duck is an adult, in both the mental and emotional sense at that exact moment, duck is still a minor. AND he’s still in high school, as referenced in his response to her call to duty: “i got class tomorrow”. and minerva is old enough to have become the minister of defense for her homeworld, go through an entire war, and have several other chosen ones (including leo tarkesian, who is at least 20 years older than duck) before meeting duck. so that makes her much, much older than duck when she meets him. and i don’t care if they had barely any interaction after that first moment (though they did, as justin legit talks about when he introduces minerva as a concept to the show), that still establishes their initial interaction at a massive age difference. which, regardless of anything, makes their eventual relationship so genuinely messed up.

sure, you can argue that when you get older age doesn’t make that much of a difference, and i would agree. my mother is 53 and her husband is 63, that’s ten years. but my mother and step mother did not meet at 8 and 18, they met at 50 and 60. the initial interaction makes all the difference between “older people meeting and having a relationship” and “a very messed up situation”.

also, in this same argument, taking the mentor-student relationship and turning it into a romantic relationship IS SO MESSED UP!!!! GENUINELY AND HONESTLY MESSED UP!!! i feel like i don’t need to explain this because there have been so many examples already as to why this is a relationship you Should Not turn romantic, but i will anyway because it frustrates me so much that justin completely glosses over this!!! the power dynamic of a mentor-student relationship, in whatever way it is portrayed, displays a power balance that is heavily leaning to one side. there is not an equal distribution of power amongst the two because one person is teaching the other. the one person is weak to the others wills and whims because of lack of experience. think of your high school teacher or college professor; if you started a relationship with them, people would raise so many questions because you are not at equals to the teacher/professor. even if they treat you different, and even if they no longer teach you, it all has to do with the initial interaction. and minerva was still duck’s mentor up until either episode 34 or 35, when she handed off the title of Herald of the Astral Mind to duck. that means for nearly all of their interactions, there was a mentor-student dynamic. to have that turn into a romantic relationship is so sketchy and weird and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

my third grievance: it reduces minerva’s character down to a girlfriend trope, and it’s comphet as hell

my friend tin (@taako–waititi) phrased this so well in the big group chat im in w her, so imma just quote her on this and then go into the comphet stuff:

“i was dming max about it and they also mentioned, quote, ‘her story was never about romance. it reduced her down to ‘competent woman becomes endgame girlfriend’ trope’ and they are so right it makes me fucking pissed. regardless of any ‘mutual respect’ and ‘emotional intimacy’ kind of thing going on that some people are arguing for, it’s something that didn’t need to happen because minerva’s character becomes that. my thing is mutual respect and emotional intimacy between two people can. exist. without it being. romantic. like. friendship is. also valid. i personally don’t think that mutual respect and emotional intimacy are two buttons that you press to make the machine churn out a romance”

not only does it reduce minerva’s character to tropes, but it also is extremely comphet for a woman who is so heavily wlw-coded or lesbian-coded and it just angers me. you could argue that she could be bi, but if we look at canon for just its face-value, the only romantic interaction she ever has is with a man, which basically makes her straight. this isn’t like aubrey’s situation, where travis clearly states she is a bi woman who is just in a relationship with another woman in amnesty. griffin doesn’t state anything about minerva’s sexuality and then she’s paired off with a man right at the end. and you could argue that she isn’t wlw or lesbian-coded, but i am not the only one who is wlw and thinks this, so i feel like i have more of a ground to stand on in this opinion. and this just feels so, like, textbook compulsory heteronormativity it made me feel physically sick when i heard this bit in the podcast.

so that’s my first big issue with the finale, fully explained. my second issue with the epilogue is that ned’s death continues to be disappointing and his character arc is never completed, which just tanks the whole show for me.

i’ve talked about this several times since ep 28 about how ned’s death was stupid and did nothing for his character arc, but i’m gonna reiterate my main points for the people who find this post without knowing my whole blog:

1. ned’s main interpersonal conflicts are just brought to the surface and never fully delved into before his sudden death. ned doesn’t ever get to explain his history with boyd and why he had to steal shade tree to mama or barclay or really anyone besides vaguely to aubrey.

2. every character is just immediately expected to feel sad about ned’s death, despite the tension that still remains right up until the very end. aubrey shouldn’t have even known that the shapeshifter framed ned because that’s all explained once she goes to sylvain, but i think travis just assumed she did because he heard the interaction between ned, mama, and barclay. so she should’ve had Way more conflicting feelings about the whole thing, but ned’s death is just angst-bait so that doesn’t happen.

3. ned’s death doesn’t make roll sense because clint rolled a mixed success and mixed successes, by definition, are supposed to be less severe moves than a failed roll (which gives the gm the ability to make a hard move). there isn’t really anything harder to do to a character than kill them, but even if you wanted to argue that if clint failed the roll the hard move would’ve been ned failing and letting dani get shot, it still doesn’t change the fact that clint rolled a mixed success when slamming into the pizza hut sign at full velocity and came out of that alive (severely injured, naturally, but still alive).

so, yeah, there’s that. and then theres the fact that griffin doesn’t ever give us any other scenes involving ned directly. ned only becomes a reference from 28 on, which is so disappointing given ned’s importance to the other two pcs. and i understand that the mcelroys have a lot of trauma related to death, but griffin shouldn’t have killed ned off then if he did not want to talk about death in graphic detail. we all have trauma. we all want to avoid topics. but to kill ned off and then never talk about his death in great relation to the others is a genuine disservice to ned’s character.

the day episode 28 aired was the same day i buried my grandmother. i would have loved if death wasn’t brought up, but i don’t control the podcast. the mcelroys do; they had the ability to avoid this topic in a more servicing way to the characters and they didn’t. that isn’t to say they are bad people for not doing it, but it makes the finale even more disappointing because it means we never get the full rounding out of ned’s character arc. he becomes this like brief reference that is, once again, angst-bait or emotional fuel and i feel like he didn’t deserve that. he deserved a genuine reference, a genuine moment. even a dream sequence i would have appreciated!!!

griffin had sylvain directly point at ned in aubrey’s flashback in ep 35, and then did nothing about what that could have implicated in the finale. it sours the entire episode in a major way and disappointed me immensely. there should have been more done with that topic and there wasn’t and i will never forget how deeply it hurt me and turned me away from canon as a whole. not to be ned kin on main, but ned was the backbone of this show and the exact moment he left was the exact moment the whole thing went downhill. it turned less into a story about growth and adversary and amnesty and more into a waiting game for when this very loose end was going to get wrapped up.

i wanted to enjoy this episode. i tried so hard, y’all. but just the thought of ned loomed over me the entire time and i was waiting for a more proper completion to his arc, and it never happened. and coupled with that very bad and skeevy duck/minerva bit i was just so frustrated and hurt last night.

so, yeah, that’s my whole spiel. you are free to disagree with me, but keep that opinion to yourself because i’m not getting into it with anyone. i will just block you; it’s better for us both, anyway.

#taz spoilers #taz amnesty spoilers #ignorance cloud on #im not putting this into the main tag bc i dont want people to bitch at me abt that #so if this shows up in theres its bc tumblr has a terrible algorithm

88 notes · View notes