#than the nuances and complexities of a character who most people don't think did anything wrong

[greenfinchwriter]

Okay so I debated posting this for a long time but it won't stop bothering me. Before you come for me,all I ask is that you hear me out, and that my intention with this post is NOT to not to attack anyone.

Here we go: Alana Bloom is not a good person. That is pre-moral-decay arc.

Why am I saying this?

It is NOT because:

She's a woman

queer

Female professional in a male dominated field

Somehow "standing between Hannigram"

It IS because,in my very subjective opinion as 1 autistic person, she is a prime example of a self-righteous "Autism Speaks/Facebook Autism Mom" with a degree.

Personally the most insidious kind of allistic ableist to encounter. It took me a long time to recognize that this kind of person is not any less harmful,or bigoted,and they are by far the most difficult to call out. Why? Because they are what neurotypical people see as "nice,well-intentioned,altruistic,allies, compassionate,self-sacrificing" etc, this goes double if you have a degree to cement your authority. Trying to even gently explain to them how and why their behavior is not okay from an actual neurodivergent point of view will always be met with more outrage by other neurotypicals than calling out someone who is outright,loud and proud hostile in their ableism. A similar concept to other subtle, covert forms of bigotry.

Alana is a worse therapist than Hannibal, and hell,even Bedelia. She's on par with Chilton.

Because she is "normal", "nice", and "sweet" it is easily overlooked just how not only ableist but emotionally manipulative she is. She is just as bad as Sutcliffe,or any other professional who sees Will as an exotic case study,and her "fascination" with Will echoes Freddie's. I don't doubt that she genuinely thinks of herself as a "good person who cares about/for Will", and that she firmly believes to be "well-intentioned",and "morally surperior". But she really isn't. Her behavior towards Will is NOT okay. She did and does use,and infantilize him,she does manipulate him,be that consciously or subconsciously. But whereas we make "excuses" for Hannibal, and don't really expect him to act differently because of his pathology,his "nature",his way of thinking etc. We do not hold the "normal" people like Alana to the same measure.

That's why I get angry when people regurgitate Chilton's talking points about Will,and demonize him.

It is far more nuanced,and complex than that.

Imho, in this show (apart from the dogs) there are no "pure" characters. And to deny Alana is not fundamentally flawed,and yes ableist character because "feminism!" could in and of itself be misogynistic. A person can be a bigot regardless of gender,race/ethnicity/culture,religion etc. They can be so without actively meaning harm,or even being really all that aware that their 'good intentions' are destructive. If such a person is willing to learn and change,than that's good. No such thing as doomed. But most of her "with a degree" types will die on their hills,and be affronted by the accusation that their oh so "noble" attitudes might actually be anything but.

I am NOT bird app accusing anyone who likes her character of being any of those terms,to stop liking her,or that she is "worse" but I am saying that just as we acknowledge Hannibal's flaws,can (meta) decry his actions,and still call him Blorbo and fiercely ship Hannigram,we should also be able to do so with Alana.

The "normal" ones aren't always the "good ones".

That is why I dislike Alana,and I just don't like being accused of merely disliking her for being a queer woman,or the infantile notion that she was "in the way of Hannigram". I have my HIGHLY PERSONAL,SUBJECTIVE BUT TO ME VALID,UNRELATED REASONS I dislike her. Not because she read a weird book to Abigail. Or anything else that has recently come up in the fandom.

You don't have to dislike her. It's okay if you like her. It's okay if she's your favorite,your obsession,or you just find her sexy. It's perfectly fine if you ship Marlana,or ship her with Hannibal. I'm not posting this to lecture,or convert anyone. I couldn't be happier for you if you like her and/or find comfort in her character.

What I do have issues with is seeing her idealized without legitimate discourse about her character.

No,I don't think of Will or Hannibal as pure cherubs without fault but I have had enough about the angel-ification of Alana,and reimagining of Will as darker/more monstrous/misanthropic than he is.

That is my perspective. You don't have to agree with it - not if you are autistic/neurodivergent as well,or if you are neurotypical. You really don't have to. That's okay! I respect that,and you!

So respectfully,gently,please let one autistic person of many explain her discomfort with her character,or maybe offer food for thought to some.

There is more I could say but I'll leave it at that.

Sorry if I upset anyone,and for not being more eloquent about this,I hope what I was trying to express came across well enough.

#nbc hannibal #hannibal #hannibal meta #alana bloom #text post #im sorry #actually autistic #autistic experiences

[sunlit-haruka]

I've been trying to find the right way to word this for a few days, but it's a really big pet peeve of mine when discussions of Fuuta and Kotoko and them as a duo that's narratively foiling is watered down to just their crime and comparing which of their murders are more justifiable, which usually leads to the same conclusion of "Kotoko is more right and completely justified in her murder, Fuuta was wrong and bad for his murder, #girlboss #slayhimqueen". And to put it bluntly, I find this conclusion to not only be lacking in nuance, but does a massive disservice to not only 0310 as a duo, but them as respective characters as well, and is missing a huge piece of why they are so fascinating The thing about this argument is that, to an extent, it's right. Kotoko killed an adult man who kidnapped and abused a child with the intent to kill her, and that child is now saved thanks to Kotoko. Fuuta helped lead a harassment campaign against a middle school girl who did barely anything to deserve it (not that anyone deserves to be harassed, but you get what I'm saying), and it led to that girl committing suicide. When you look at their murders side-by-side from that description alone, Kotoko's does seem like the more virtuous murder compared to Mr. Twitter User over here. But that is exactly the point. There is a very good post by @weather-cluddy and very good discussion below it detailing what I'm about to talk about, but to put it shortly: Fuuta is portrayed as a lot more physically violent and unsympathetic than Kotoko is in their MVs. Both are portrayed as physically violent, but the way it is framed through their lense and portrayed to the audience differs from the other. Fuuta is not just portrayed as violent and brutish, he is portrayed as pathetic. Kotoko is not just portrayed as violent and brutish, she is portrayed as cool while doing it (which I mean, she is cool, but that's not the point. Well it is the point but-) Fuuta's violence is aimed towards an innocent child, so it's deemed as repulsive and unjustified. Kotoko's violence is aimed towards a child kidnapper so it's deemed as justified and girlboss. Fuuta is portrayed as a wannabe hero, Kotoko is portrayed as the long-awaited hero. I could go on, but I think you get my point. Fuuta is portrayed in a much worse and harder to sympathize with light than Kotoko is, which also highlights how they themselves feel about their murders (Fuuta's guilt and Kotoko's elation). There is a very big reason as for why Fuuta was not forgiven in Trial 1 meanwhile Kotoko was the most forgiven. Because Fuuta's murder is generally thought to be worse. But here's the kicker: I think people are missing the point by putting focus onto which murder is 'worse', because that's not what makes them so comparable. What makes them comparable is the fact that they share a mindset. A mindset of vigilante justice, of a hero complex, of eliminating the bad people in the world in a faux revolution. And that mindset is exactly the one that got them into this place in the first place. And that's why it irks me when people put so much focus into deciding which murder is worse / who is more unjustified, especially since the majority of people I see this from are Kotoko fans. Your girl is literally doing the same thing you're criticizing Fuuta for in this very prison, and you aren't giving her the same amount of flack for it !!! Like- I don't know. I think putting Kotoko on a pedestal of being "morally better" than Fuuta is not only a really boring way to see things, but it misses a big piece of their characters and why they're so often paired up in the first place.

#haru chats about milgram #I am writing this at 1AM and I am not proofreading it we die like killcheroy and kidnapper man #I hope I got some points across #And I hope I wasn't too pretentious lmao #all of this is also a big reason why I really like the idea that Lucky is Kotoko's true victim #not only would it (in my opinion from what we've seen) wrap Kotoko's narrative in a very twisted and fitting bow #but it would also wrap up the constant parallels with Fuuta as well and really bash in the point that they are not any different #but that's just me #milgram #milgram project #fuuta kajiyama' #kajiyama fuuta #milgram fuuta #kotoko yuzuriha #yuzuriha kotoko #milgram kotoko

[orkbutch]

So I've been seeing A Viewpoint within the bg3 fandom occuring. And I gotta be honest. I disagree that the characters being bisexual in Baldur's Gate 3 means you cannot headcanon them as other sexualities for your own fandom content purposes. I think that's not reflective of how queer people and their sexual identities actually work, and its just antithetical to how fandom has always functioned, which is an exercise of imagination. I wanna clarify up front: I agree that someone saying that a character Can't or Shouldn't or Was Not Meant To Be bisexual because of whatever reason IS biphobic sentiment. The characters in Baldur's Gate 3 are canonically bi/pan, thats made pretty damn clear when you look through all their content. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about headcanons, au's; the kind of imaginitve play that is very much what fandom creativity is about. If you set a standard in fandom that depicting a character as a certain sexuality is Not Allowed, 1. you're kinda flattening sexuality in a weird way, like personally my sexuality is complicated as fuck and has changed over time, and 2. you're limiting creativity. And I think creativity in fandom is extremely important. It's the whole fun of fandom. Creativity is worth protecting and its worth establishing the nuance between Depicting A Version of Character who is X and Insisting That Character Should Be X in canon. Because like... we meddle with character's identities in fandom all the time. That's what headcanons ARE, they change appearance, social position, career, faith, species, traumatic experience, moral and political alignment, and SO much more. I think limiting what people can headcanon within fandom... is less fun! It's just less fun. Imaginative scope lets you do more, weird fun stuff. It lets you depict more complex interesting characters. Example: my Bad Nun AU. In that, Shadowheart identifies as a lesbian. Why is that? Because I wanted Shadowheart's experience within Bad Nun to specifically explore the history and context of lesbians within nunneries, especially how that manifested post Vatican II. These were also eras when 'lesbian' was more ubiquitos, had a different context and more flexibility; a lot of women that would probably consider themselves 'bisexual' now were identifying as lesbians, were in lesbian communities and events and spaces.

On that note: Flattening sexuality. You're gonna say people CANNOT depict these characters as ANYTHING but bisexual? That is not how most queer people's sexualities work. It simply isn't. I've identified as tons of different shit in my sexuality. I'm still not sure about it. For me half the time my "sexual identity" is just the words I use to communicate what I'm looking for, and that changes depends on What I Want at that time, what I'm looking to explore, my social context, ect. ect. like what. This isn't how sexuality works for real people. How are artists meant to be Creative and imaginatively depict real, complex, queer sexuality if they are restricted to depicting only what is within canon?? This is not how any other part of fandom works. Fandom art should work how all art works. If someone makes shit art, it gets dunked on and ignored for being bad or lazy or lame. If someone did Heterosexual Karlach fanfic, I would be like "what the fuck why" because they made Karlach less fucking cool. Het Karlach would be boring and thats More Egregious because they DECIDED to make her heterosexual DESPITE canon. But even then, EVEN THEN, I don't think that should be looked at as off limits shit, because I don't believe art should have many things off limits. Any limits must be very nuanced, because art and creativity is nuanced. Obviously my brain would go "het karlach? you deserve jail time and thats queerphobic", but I honestly believe creative license is more important than those feelings. I WOULD happily comment on their thing, "heterosexual karlach is boring, thats a shit idea" because I'm right

If you want good art and good writing, you need to protext creative license.

#bg3 #I think I'll get shit for this but. I'm right lol

[lady-shadow-and-darkness]

I need people to stop acting like Arlecchino was intended to be a one dimensional character. In my opinion, she is both cruel and caring in her own aspects.

Cruel as the product of the environment she was brought up in, fought to survive, to change the system, but she couldn't change it entirely and this is the best possible situation for children raised in a fatui environment. But still undeniably cruel in that she's still raising them in a system which promotes them more as weapons rather than people, manipulation, etc. even though she never tries to hide it.

Caring as the product of the former knave being deceitful about her care and using that image to exploit her children. She saw what it did to them, to her friend. And she most likely vowed to stop it. She is a character foil to her "mother", as many people have previously pointed out. When I say "heavily implied", I expect people to read through the lines and understand that her care for the children is in fact genuine.

You can call me biased. You can say that Childe's and Scaramouche's lines about her are contradictory to the image that is painted so far. But I don't think so. And this isn't to say that Childe or the Balladeer were lying per se, in fact, I fully agree with "there isn't a sane bone in her body." Because she is quite literally described as cursed and mad.

But that doesn't mean that she is incapable of being a complex character. She isn't black and white, despite what her appearance suggests. She can be caring to a specific group of people and put them in a system which actively destroys them. She can be condescending. She can be cruel. She can be nice. She can be rational. She can be insane. She can be all of those things, because of nuance.

So please, before you start tapping something online about how her character was horribly executed and she is walking contradiction, keep in mind that she was always intended to be playable and any voicelines about her were made while being aware of that fact. They didn't change anything to make her more likable. Stop consuming fandom content about her being a completely loving and devoted parent who's completely fine and come back to reality.

#genshin impact #SO sick and tired #Let the woman be. #God forbid women do anything (have complexity) #arlecchino

[dirtytransmasc]

I think it's so silly when TB fans are trying to slander the greens, but then immediately go with the "don't bring Daemon into this" line. like if you need to ignore such a prominent character (if not the most prominent after Rhaenyra, who he is integral to her storyline and character) to make you point that the TB is better then TG, then maybe, and think about this for a moment, your argument has little standing... wow, shocker.

"oh but the greens did this this and this" they say, ignoring any and all nuance or context for those events, "the blacks never did anything like that" they say, ignoring the fact that everything they did was almost always worse and/or had no backing or reason (that justifies it to any extent), "and don't even try to 'but daemon' me, I don't wanna hear it." I've seen this argument made more times that I can count, and it never ceases to drive me mental.

also, the wishing for the downfall of an entire family, celebrating their terrible deaths and horrific trauma's all because of aegon. like yeah, the botched show version of him deserves some of the best he's in, he is a rapist no matter how much it doesn't make sense and how much it discredits his whole character. but they take it as justification to just dance on the graves of the whole family, which is like... so fucked in so many ways. one man does not damn a whole house.

like listening to (most) TB fans is just like jamming my ear full of glass. they have no logic, no media literacy, hinge their whole arguments on udder bullshit, (attempt) bully those who disagree into submission (the amount of TB fans I've had because me for being stupid and many other words I do not wish to say, because I had a different opinion then them is insane), and all the while they can't even attempt to sound logical. like they're always missing the point, always simplifying characters cause apparently having complex, layered, morally grey characters is the devil. than TG fans are "the problem with this fandom" like??? hello??? your the one defending Daemon for being... Daemon, the one defending the cold blooded maiming and murder of people all cause they stated a fact, defending robbing girls of their claim to their houses thrones. not the Greens, we may defend our characters, but we don't pretend like it never happened or that it was 'cool' and 'bad ass'.

#I need a break from seeing the awful takes TB comes up with #anti team black #more specifically #anti team black fans #they're fucking crazy 90% time #hotd #house of the dragon #I'm probably gonna get flamed for this post 🤭🤭🤭 #oh well #pro team green #pro letting characters be morally grey and complicated and not fitting them into little boxes and harassing people who disagree with me

[arcadiabaytornado]

How do you feel about those who have rather strong oppositions towards Rachel? It seemed as if she gets more hate compared to the people that did her wrong like Frank, Jefferson, and Nathan.

I have SO many opinions about the way people view Rachel because I think she's treated so unfairly by some of the fandom.

While Rachel wasn't the perfect angel Chloe thought she was, it does feel like some people shoved their fingers in their ears and went "LALALA" anytime anything even slightly positive was brought up about Rachel. I mean, people were MAD when "Before The Storm" came out and Rachel was shown as nuanced instead of evil. There were some people that acted she should have had a scene where she threatened to drop Chloe over a tank of piranhas. It was a rough time.

However, certain frustrations aside, I do think there are a lot of reasons people dislike Rachel. Some are very valid. Some...I have thoughts on. Some people judge her overly harshly because she's a woman and she's....brace yourself...flawed. As we all know, if a women has a single flaw some people in fandom will decide that she deserves death.

But misogyny isn't the only reason people take issue with Rachel. As for the complex reasons, I get some of them. A big point I hear a lot from the "Rachel sucks" camp is that she cheated on Chloe or at least wasn't honest with her. I understand why that would be too much for some people, and cheating is one of the quickest ways to make an audience dislike a character because a lot of people have experienced cheating firsthand. Some people are also uncomfortable with how Rachel lies and manipulates, which is fair. Some people just don't like her vibes, and that's also fine because sometimes a character just rubs you the wrong way.

I do think there are more reasons she's judged super harshly. A lot of her character is up to interpretation, and we never get to hear her side of the negative parts of the story. Then there's also the rabid Pricefield fans that will look at her with most critical eye possible, because they think if she or her relationship with Chloe was good in any way then that somehow undermines their OTP.

So my overall thought is that she is judged way to harshly, but also I can understand why some people take issue her character. I just wish people spent as much time analyzing her character as they do with Nathan because some people really think drugging and kidnapping women is more forgivable than maybe cheating on your situationship or getting in the way of a ship.

#life is strange #lis #rachel amber #asks #serainds

[katapotato55]

how to write teenagers

disclaimer: i am in my 20's. it wasn't too long ago that i was a teenager, but admittingly i am not perfect and there might be errors.

Edit: yes i used psychonauts 2 as an example, this does not mean all examples apply to psychonauts 2. This is a GENERAL writing advice post for people who need help, and this is a collection of tropes that personally annoy me. I am playing psychonauts 2 for the first time (no spoilers not finished with the game yet ) i wont spoil anything but i will say this: the interns are fucking awful. which is bizzare because the child characters from the first game were still side characters, but had so much personality. so here is me ranting about badly written teen characters (In general media) in hopes to prevent this annoying trope

1- teenagers are not sociopathic monsters yes some teenagers are terrible. yes high school bullies are a thing. but guess what? people don't magically become horrible once they turn 13. most teens who put down and bully people have hard home lives. stop with this annoying "lol lets just bully a random stranger for no reason" trope. Its lazy. if you want a good bully character give them a deeper reason then "well teenagers are just awful!" (looking at YOU psychonauts 2)

2- actually talk to teenagers/ write for the era it takes place in while teens have simmular attitudes than previous generations, a lot of how kids in that age group think are dependent on trends. being a teenager is a very sponge-ey time in their lives. Its the part where you are old enough to understand deep topics, but not the nuance of it all. at that age, kids re often trying to learn about the world and... you guessed it, become adults. not all teenagers are rebellious "i am going to do this specifically cus i was told not to" types either. stop writing teenagers like how you saw them in the 80's. not every kid is gonna act like the cast of footloose. In my high school experience, a lot of kids my age were very chill and tended to themselves.

3- did you know that you actually retain your personality when you turn 13 ? and that not every kid is a tik tocker attention whore with a phone? who knew? did you know that SHY teenagers exist? that not all teenagers are insecure mentally insane fucks who have to bend their entire personality and thoughts JUST to get attention and to fit in? its almost as if teenagers are people with different interests and personality traits and not identical mannequins with a self image complex not every teenager is a hot topic dweller who does illegal and stupid shit for no reason. Like adults, teenagers are a tad deeper than that.

4- Teenagers are also naive and stupid sometimes. yes i know I just talked about how old people just write about the parts of teenagers they hate and nothing else, but bear with me. don't write your teen like a shorter adult. instead use this opportunity to grow the character ! this is such a malleable age for them to grow as people and i rarely see anyone utilize this! they are young and dumb and learning about the world! that is perfect breeding ground for writing! why don't people use this more?? good example of this: Homestuck. no i am not going to explan homestuck's plot. I dont have 5 years to write this post. Just know that the characters in that comic utilize the age of the characters well without making them stereotypical "ugh smartphones amirite fellow zoomers?"

5- the age of the kid MATTERS a 13 year old acting like an immature prick? yeah thats normal. people in that age tend to be edgy and annoying. 17 year old acting like an immature prick? that guy is well beyond "immature kid" age and is just a prick. The older the kid, the more impactful their actions are. A tween is more likely to grow out of traits more than a 17 year old. I roll my eyes when i see "bully teen group" trope in shows when the kids are seniors and then they expect me to forgive the kids at the end. NO. you kids are almost 18, that isn't teen angst you are all damn near adults. let me say this again: talk to teenagers if you are unsure how they act. there is a reason why its problematic for a 17 year old to date a 13 year old even though there is only a 4 year gap. teenagers develop QUICKLY as they age. a 13 year old and a 17 year old will have vastly different maturity level while a 30 yr old and a 35 year old will probably be the same level of maturity. age matters. and finally

6- stop being a condescending douche. yes. we get it. its cringe that the 14 year old kid thinks referencing death and depression is "deep" but also fuck off. this kid is growing and trying to become an adult. show some sympathy. yes. i know you think your kid's date isn't as important because said kid is going to grow out of it, but don't condescend your audience: they are at a developing age and while it doesn't matter to you, IT MATTERS TO THEM. I have always hated stuff like the hunger games and divergent. I think they are terrible series specifically made to pander to kids looking for an escapist fantasy. But you know what? these shows were not made for me, because i am not a teenager. let these kids have their fun. and if you are making a show/book/etc for teenagers, then you need to put your contempt for kids aside to actually write for them instead of acting like you are all high and mighty. (an example of this done wrong: every bad boomer comic in existence) and honestly ? if you are middle aged and you are putting down someone 1/4 your age for just exiting, it's not impressive. It's sad and pathetic and you need to rethink your life. and yes, i know people put down homestuck for being... homestuck, but homestuck has a wonderful portrayal of teenagers and how they really act. give it a read if you have literally all the freetime in the world. don't read beyond the epilogues tho. HS^2 is dead to me. thank you for reading my bullshit homies.

#writing advice #character writing #character building #teenagers #writing tips #writing #creative writing #writers #psychonauts 2 #writer on tumblr #how to write #writer tips #writing help #fanfic #fanfiction

[sweetestpopcorn]

How do you feel about Snape from Harry Potter? Do you think that he is similar to Ser Criston Cole in some ways?

Hi there and sorry for this huge delay... I wish you a very I live in shame.

I am going to begin by making it clear this answer concerns ONLY the asoiaf canon (books), so any redacted fans kindly move along. Thank you.

So, I don't see how anyone would think that Snape is in any significant way similar to Criston Cole. Yes both are ambitious, cunning in a sense, and brave, but who they are at heart, their journey and their ending is world's apart.

The whole point of Severus Snape as a character is that he starts of being presented to us as a villain of sorts - from Harry's perspective - even looks wise, he is a typical villain. The way he dresses, the greasy hair, not very handsome (to be kind), his beak of a nose. His House, Slytherin, another token of his evil ways if you would. Another clue that he's bad. What we come to find along the way is that actually, it's not as easy as that.

Severus Snape is a grey character, perhaps as grey as it can get. He has done some very selfish and reprehensible things, and at the same time, there's a lot of good in him, bravery as well. The beauty of it is that it does not erase any of the bad that he has done, or it is if people can understand nuance it only adds to the complexity of his character, because you can do good things and have qualities and still choose wrong at times and be a less than good person. It's good. It's human. It's amazing writing and understanding of the human heart at conflict with itself.

That's not the case with Criston Cole. Unlike with Snape, there's no redemption for him, and besides his skill as a fighter and military commander, and his bravery since he never once backed down from a fight, there's really no redeeming qualities to him. He's not a character who changed but rather one who revealed himself and didn't reveal anything good. He's not grey, he's a villain. A good villain for sure, as his physical appearance - at least when he was young - does not let on about his rotten nature. Unlike the villains we are used to reading about, he's young at the start, charming, handsome. He has black hair and green eyes, very much a Baratheon look, and Robert too was once described as being a maiden's dream. Criston's occupation would also speak of honour and high character, he's a man of the Kingsguard. His death, however, and his decisions, speak for themselves and he's a very good example of a "show don't tell" sort of villain. Nothing bad about him is ever told, but everything is shown -> using a child to move up in the world, being a creep to said child, turning on a woman he was said to love when she does not live up to his twisted version of her, spending the rest of his life trying to destroy her, and lastly dying in a pathetic way.

About their relationships with the women they "loved", there's very little if anything in common.

Snape and Lily started out as friends. They were the same age and went to school together. Snape knew what Lily was, he knew that she was like him, and he liked her. It's finding another like him that first draws him to her. They became friends but for the most part, they had a very clear view of who the other one was, there was little delusion. Lily liked Snape but she was not afraid to call him out when she thought he was in the wrong. For the most part I would say they have a healthy friendship. Lily was maybe at times not the friend Snape wanted but the one he needed. Their final break in a sense shows this and how much Snape had lost himself, and to this, Lily was never blind. Even then though, and even through his humiliation, Snape never stops loving Lily, in a selfish way sure, but he never tries to harm her directly and he continues to try to protect her, again in a selfish way, but he does. It's only love from him to her, and Lily liked him very much, as a friend yes, but she did until she realised, or decided, he was going down a path she could not condone.

Criston and Rhaenyra are a completely different story. They were "friends" of sorts once, but more like in a companion sort of way and they were certainly never similar, this is not what first draws either of them to the other. Criston starts of as a grown man who takes advantage of a little girl - Rhaenyra was 8 and he was 23 - and tries to woo her to get a position at court and later on as a member of the Kingsguard, by means of being a favourite of the King's daughter. He watches Rhaenyra grow, being very clear that she had a major crush on him, uses this to his advantage and later on starts to develop feelings for her as well. Then, when she destroys his image of her - by either not being a poor maiden and rejecting the saviour that the white knight wants to be, or by trying to seduce him, depending on the version you believe - he turns vicious and starts to hate her. I would not call it love turned hate as much as I would call it a sort of obsession turned hate. And between them, I would say there was a mutual deception much more than a true friendship. Once it vanishes, Rhaenyra forgets about him and cuts him off and he hates her and tries to destroy her until the end of his days.

The dynamics between the Criston and Snape could not be more different. The development of the two characters are worlds apart as well, and where they start too.

I see nothing in common or at least nothing that is worthy of note, or of creating parallels between them that are not hollow and cheap - like most parallels are tbh.

Characters who resemble Criston and his obsession would be much more along the lines of Frollo (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) or Leôncio (Escrava Isaura). There is something of bookJorah Mormont in him as well, though the two start in opposing ways in a sense, and there's also definitely something of Humbert Humbert (Lolita) about him with how different his version of Rhaenyra is from the real her. But in a way Criston is none of them, I think he's more complex still in a way that he's a villain. It's very subtle and not said, and it's important to note he would never be painted in too bad a light since he was on the side who got to write history - though it's pretty clear Eustace doesn't like him as he was willing to throw him under the bus, which is very interesting - which leads too many people to thinking there has to be more.

No, there isn't. There's doesn't need to be. Not every twisted person is deranged and in your face evil, and some villains - the best ones - think of themselves as doing the right thing, as the heroes of their story. As a Kingmaker, giving the crown to the one they deem worthy. And not every villain needs something to have triggered him to "become" evil, something many seem to think needs to have happened with Criston Cole. And if I can add, this idea that there's a switch that turns us evil or good is quite dangerous. Like I said before, from the start he knew what he was doing, he was ambitious, he knew what he wanted, and whatever his reason for turning on Rhaenyra was, it has to do with how she affronted him and destroyed his image of her.

In a way perhaps Snape and Criston can be a lesson of sorts. In the first you have someone you would naturally think a villain, in the second, you have someone you would naturally consider a hero. But the twist is, that the hero might be a bitter not very attractive man who did a lot of wrongs, and the villain might be the once charming and handsome white knight who used a little girl and then wanted to destroy the woman she became.

#severus snape #criston cole #asoiaf criston cole #harry potter #the princess and the queen #fire and blood #asoiaf #valyrianscrolls #popcorn answers

[houseofzoey]

Overall Thoughts on the House of Night Series

By my standards, this series failed in basically every way possible - except monetary success.

The characters are poorly developed, the majority of them fulfilling shallow archetypes or offensive stereotypes with minimal nuance or meaningful exploration. This is true even of major characters, particularly Damien, Stevie Rae, Shaunee, and even Aphrodite.

Much as Aphrodite is beloved by haters and fans alike for her hardships and ability to actually tell off Zoey on occasion, she's ultimately just the lovable bitch/mean-girl-turned-best-friend trope and sees little thoughtful development. We're told that she changes, such as when she declares that she doesn't want to be like her mother and opts not to mix Xanax and wine - but then she's back to the same "substance abuse for laughs" shtick in the next book. Aphrodite's only actual, consistent change is that she stops hating Zoey and considers her a close friend. But otherwise? She's still a quintessential mean girl. She insults people for how they dress, looks down on the poor, bickers and picks fights with everyone, and - oh yeah - is racist, ableist, and queerphobic. Because it's "funny".

Personally? I think Aphrodite is one of the most despisable characters in the series, specifically because a) she has all the makings of a great character with huge potential for complexity and development, b) we're told she goes through incredible growth and change without really being shown it, and c) she's a raging bigot and that's meant to be funny/charming.

I've talked at length about how Zoey, Kalona, and Neferet are giant disappointments as characters, so I won't harp on that here. The main takeaway is that P.C. Cast doesn't know how to establish interesting, nuanced characters, and she certainly has no idea how to develop the cardboard cutouts she does introduce.

It doesn't help that this series has so many characters. A lot of them introduced once and then promptly forgotten. Remember Hannah Honeyyeager? Red? Montoya? Ant? Enyo? Sappho? Kaci Crump? Yeah, I don't blame you if you can't recall more than one detail about any of these characters - if you can even remember anything about them at all.

I can understand wanting to make the series feel well-populated, seeing as it is set in a school in a major city. But there are ways to do that without it feeling like the author just picks fifteen names out of a hat at the beginning of each book and throws them into the text at random intervals. The end result is that the HoN doesn't feel well-populated; it feels cluttered.

The overabundance of meaningless characters leads to other problems, too. Namely... well, names. One great example of this is Shaunee Cole having a thing for Cole Clifton. That's ridiculous, especially because no one ever comments on it, despite this being the exact sort of oddity that these characters would banter about for at least a page. P.C. Cast just didn’t notice she did that. There's plenty of other examples of identical or extremely similar names throughout the series, such as:

Zoey's brother Kevin and Detective Kevin Marx

Erik and Erin

Neferet the person and Nefertiti the cat

Shaylin and Shaunee

Drew (human) and Drew (fledgling)

Kaci Crump, Cassie Kramme, Casey Young, and Kacie Lockwood (from the Other World spinoff)

Even Damien and Darius are a bit close. The author mixed up their names in narration at one point, and it was never caught during the editing process.

(It's also worth noting that P.C. and Kristin have stated that, if the HoN TV show ever comes to fruition, Shaunee and Erin's names will be changed to Monique and Misty.* Monique is already the name of a Priestess working under Damien at the NYHoN in Loved.)

This is only made more absurd when you remember that every single fledgling and vampyre - all these people who got Marked as teenagers - have complete freedom to change their name to whatever they want. Why are there three fledglings named some variation of Cassie (only Casey is human)? Where are all the kids naming themselves Destiny and Ebony and Serendipity? Why aren't more kids named after their favourite celebrities or characters? You're telling me not a single teenage boy named himself Mike Hawk? Where are the kids who gave themselves four middle names because it sounds fancy, or who made their initials into an acronym?

The number of characters who did something like this is very small: Aphrodite, Jack Twist, James Stark, Venus, and Thor are the only ones I can immediately think of. Frankly, that's absurd.

I know exactly why it's Iike that, though. PC Cast isn't thinking about world-building and internal logic when she names her characters. Instead, she regularly names her characters after real people she knows. Here is a non-exhaustive list of such names:

Shaunee Cole

Erin Bates

Damien Maslin (specifically the last name)

Seoras

Cassie Kramme**

Chera Kimiko

Adam Paluka

Mr. Shaddox

Bryan "Dragon" Lankford

Anastasia Lankford

(On a somewhat related note, both P.C. and Kristin both have multiple self-inserts throughout the original and spinoff series. For P.C., it's Sgiach and Tina. For Kristin, it's Zoey and Kacie. This is mostly harmless - except Tina. Tina is literary brown face, because the white author made her self-insert indigenous, specifically Creek. Otherwise, these self-inserts just end up glorified and coddled.)

This kind of offhandedness and carelessness with world-building plagues the series. It's why historical figures are casually mentioned to be vampyres with no thought to how that would actually impact history. It's why the author says, "yeah, all the best actors and singers are vampyres" but then never considers how different media would look if all the most famous entertainers were nocturnal and allergic to the sun. It's why only a handful of countries have large vampyre populations and many of them (such as Italy and Greece) are known to be incredibly sunny and have long days and long summers, while places like Canada are far less populated despite vampyres being minimally affected by the cold. It's why there's 25 HoNs in the world, seven of which are in the US, while only three are in Asia, one is in Africa, and there are none mentioned in Russia or South America. It's why there's only one HoN in Canada despite it being an enormous country that is difficult to travel because of terrain (mountains, wetlands, tundra), weather, and sheer size.

And the thing is, I can excuse Rule of Cool world-building, or world-building that is shallow/poorly thought out. But the execution and context matter. All throughout the text, there's this very clear vibe that the author thinks she has built this incredibly rich, detailed world that is well-researched and grounded in reality while still being fantastical. In reality, the world-building is about as deep and sturdy as a list of bullet points on a wet napkin: It's not detailed, half of it is unintelligible, and it's gonna fall apart if you put even the slightest pressure on it.

I think a great demonstration of both poorly thought out world-building and poorly developed characters is Nyx. She is a loving goddess who prizes free will and thus operates under the principle of non-interference - but she spent eons gaslighting Kalona and all of vampyre society; regularly pops in to give special powers, helpful hints, or immediate solutions to specific fledglings/vampyres if she likes them enough; openly plays favourites; and gives fledglings extremely cruel, painful, or confusing gifts with no explanation as to why said gifts work the way they do. Why is Stark able to accidentally kill someone because of a metaphor he didn't intend to use? Why do visions cause Aphrodite's eyes to bleed? It's also fundamentally unclear what she wants at numerous points throughout the series.

Much of Neferet's descent into evil and success in committing horrific atrocities comes down to the fact that a) Nyx decided that this was the situation in which she wasn't going to give Zoey or anyone else clear warnings or visions about specifically what Neferet was doing, and b) she refused to rescind any of Neferet's gifts, even when she was using them to hurt people and create undead abominations, and had completely turned her back on Nyx in favour of Darkness.

(This is only compounded by the events of the Other World spinoff, wherein Nyx responds to OG Neferet's crimes by erasing her soul from existence so she can never reincarnate or be resurrected. So, I guess she can interfere where she sees fit? She also reduces Other Neferet and a bunch of her soldiers to children so they can have a second chance [horrifying], and causes a bunch of people to instantly complete the Change - including Other Lynette, who was a human. That seems like a lot of very direct interference.)

I also need to acknowledge how absolutely nonsensical the plot of this series is. Like, even just looking at the (intended) core premise of each book, it's all over the place.

Marked: Zoey is Marked and must learn to navigate her new life as a fledgling, which includes discovering she is the Chosen One and ousting mean girl Aphrodite from her position as glorified Student Council President.

Betrayed: Neferet is acting suspicious, which includes accusing Aphrodite of lying about her visions, and being connected to undead fledglings Zoey has spotted around campus.

Chosen: Zoey must heal undead Stevie Rae while also juggling three boyfriends and lying to her friends about all of it.

Untamed: Creepy ravens are all over campus. Aphrodite gets a vision that reveals these are Raven Mockers and Neferet intends to free Kalona from his earthly prison.

Hunted: Kalona and Neferet have brainwashed pretty much everyone at the Tulsa HoN. Zoey and co. need to figure out how to break the spell or get rid of them.

Tempted: After being banished from Tulsa and unable to continue their reign over the HoN, Kalona and Neferet tell the High Council that they are Erebus and Nyx incarnate, and thus Neferet should be the new High Priestess of all vampyres. Zoey goes to the High Council to say they're lying.

Burned: Zoey is shattered in the Otherworld and everyone is trying to save her.

Awakened: Neferet murders Jack so Zoey will stop frolicking on the Isle of Skye and return to Tulsa. Once Zoey returns, Neferet pretends she's a good guy and asks for her forgiveness.

Destined: Zoey's mother had been ritually sacrificed by Neferet to create a living weapon, so Zoey and co. perform a reveal ritual to show how Zoey's mother was murdered.

Hidden: After being shunned by the High Council, Neferet kidnaps Zoey's grandma as vengeance. Neferet is also working a smear campaign against the HoN on local news, which Zoey and co. counteract by doing an interview badmouthing Neferet and announcing an open house on campus.

Revealed: Neferet murders the mayor outside the gates of the HoN, so the school is on lockdown until they can prove that no one living/working there killed him. The Seer Stone is making Zoey increasingly short-tempered and violent.

Redeemed: Neferet takes over a fancy hotel and declares all the hostages her worshippers. Zoey and co. need to figure out how to use Old Magick to stop an immortal without it making Zoey go mad.

Does any of that seem like a logical progression/escalation of events? This isn't even touching on all the random boy drama, abandoned subplots, or nonsensical digressions that only serve to pad the text.

What the author seemingly intended to craft was a Chosen One coming-of-age narrative about a young girl who always felt out of place finding belonging at the HoN while navigating romantic relationships, learning to be a leader, and joining the battle against Darkness.

What we got was a spoiled, selfish brat who complains about every privilege and inconvenience that falls into her lap, who refuses to do anything hard or unpleasant to the point that she repeatedly cheats and leads on her boyfriends, who never takes initiative, and who largely has her problems solved by her subservient friends or a literal goddess.

But it shouldn't be surprising that the plot is all over the place and fails to fulfill the intended themes/messages of the series, because information about P.C. Cast's writing process for the series is also quite inconsistent. Originally, the series was only meant to be a trilogy, but got picked up for more books. However, in a Reddit AMA***, Kristin Cast claims:

We plotted out the story arch, and it naturally ended with twelve books. We also had a per book word count we had to follow, which is why our books aren't as long as other YA novels. However, I don't think anything was rushed. It was all planned from the beginning, and was executed amazingly!

But in several interviews (can only find a couple**** because they were audio/video, not text), P.C. Cast has referenced going rogue - meaning she deviated from the outline. Stark was meant to be Stevie Rae's love interest, Rephaim was supposed to die when Stevie Rae found him, etc. These represent HUGE alterations to the plot, so obviously the whole plot couldn't have been planned from the beginning, nor could everything be executed as intended.

P.C. Cast has also stated that she hates outlining, but Kristin makes her do a detailed chapter-by-chapter outline when they actually co-write. When P.C. writes solo, she knows the beginning, the end, and a bunch of pieces in the middle, and then figures it out from there (which sounds like a plantser style). Given that Kristin wasn't involved in the planning process - she didn't even look at the outlines of the original series because, as an editor, she wanted completely fresh eyes for the text - she couldn't have been the one pushing for a thorough outline of the whole series before P.C. began writing.

And that's not even getting into the fact that P.C. has stated the series was originally planned as a trilogy, which is evident from how the first three books were written. She couldn't have planned a twelve book series because she had no reason to assume she would be able to publish more than three books.

I wish I had a more satisfying conclusion to offer here, but... that's kind of the problem with talking about this series. The problems both span so wide and run so deep that it feels impossible to actually cover everything. I've made tens of thousands of posts - including in-depth analyses of plot, character, world-building, and writing - for every single book in this series, and I still feel like I haven't covered everything.

*Discussed here, around 17:00

**Google searches show this is a real person who attended the same school PC taught at

***Reddit AMA

****PC Cast interview, q&a

#house of zoey #redeemed #final thoughts

[booktomoviebrawl]

We are not judging how bad the movie is, we are judging which adapted the book the worst. There are good movies that are bad adaptions.

Propaganda below the cut (spoilers may apply)

Animorphs:

Didn't have the budget to do literally anything the books were doing, and it shows. Also the central theme of the books wasn't even touched on.

A low-budget kids' show was absolutely the worst and most embarrassing way to adapt a semi-serialized, somewhat serious (but, y'know, in a YA way) drama about war and how it changes those who participate in it. It never goes into the ethical questions or moral issues that the original book series brings up, and the violence is toned down a lot. They just didn't have the money for the special effects you'd need for a story with so many different alien races (Taxxons, one of the main types of alien employed by the enemy yeerks, are never even mentioned!), nor for the animal training/handling for so many different species that the characters are constantly morphing into. I get that they were doing the best they could for the time and medium, but it ended up being a giant embarrassment. :(

Only one season, poorly written

Tales from Earthsea:

I don't think it could have been better, but it was just so off from from the books it was mainly drawing its inspiration from (I mean, I had no interest in seeing that weird weaver guy decide to off himself in the boat, but still).

Studio Ghibli is the perfect studio to capture the Le Guin vibe and yet Goro torched it so hard for no reason

To give credit where it is due, the film has some good settings and animation. Unfortunately, its beauty is only on the surface, and it is the worst Studio Ghibli movie I’ve seen. (I’ve seen almost all of them but Earwig and the Witch.) The plot is a collage of random bits of context from the first four books of the series, as well as its own stuff. It really is not the same story at all. I may have enjoyed it more if I had seen it as a child before reading the books, but not covering all the events exactly isn’t the only issue, it’s just worse. It takes the moral complexity and sensibility of the original and turns it into a typical fantasy war between good and evil (the Japanese title even translates to Ged’s War Chronicles) with emphasis on physical violence, in which evil is personified as a goth queer-coded villain whose death resolves everything. It completely misses the point of the books, which gives no such simple answers and is more focused on the darkness within everyone than an external battle. Where is the nuance? It also whitewashes everyone: most of the characters in the book are dark-skinned, but in the movie…

I was also bitter that they did my favourite character, Tehanu/Therru, dirty. She’s supposed to be horribly scarred and disfigured on half her body and reviled by people as a monster but in the movie she’s just a pretty girl with a red mark on her face. In the books, she doesn’t appear until the fourth book, Tehanu, which takes place after Lebannen is grown up and ruling a kindgom, and in which she is a mostly-nonverbal child. But here she’s aged up and thrown into the earlier story to give the protagonist a love interest and the film has him stay with them so it can focus on their romance. Even though a plot-relevant part of his character as well is his lack of interest in women and not settling into a relationship despite the people’s wishes.

Basically, they whitewashed, heteronormatized, macho-ified, and de-nuanced the narrative, and also took out the feminism.

On top of this, trying to cram the whole series into one movie is just not a good idea, and it would have been better to just decide on one book to adapt and do more justice. And yet they still added in so much that didn’t happen. When you have that much material to cover, you don’t have time or budget to be putting other things in, mate. Turning four books into one results both in a mess. Abridgment is one thing; taking particular aspects of different parts of the timeline and combining them in different ways is another. It doesn’t make a lot of sense. It’s in an unfortunate middle area where it doesn’t follow the source material but also doesn’t give enough context that people unfamiliar with the source understand. For Earthsea fans, it’s infuriating; for others, it’s confusing. Also, why did they name it after the fifth book, which is a short story collection that it doesn’t reference whatsoever?

The failure of the movie is upsetting because the books are sooo good. Yet, it was the highest-grossing Japanese movie of the year, and did win a couple awards… The Bunshun Kiichigo awards for “Worst Director” and “Worst Movie”.

#tournament poll #animorphs #anitv #tales from earthsea #earthsea #a wizard of earthsea

[crossdressingdeath]

Gale: It is no small thing to be a god's Chosen. Whatever life you once claimed to lead, it only follows from now on. Where Bhaal leads, you will be forced to go. You know this for yourself, of course.

Shadowheart: You accepted Bhaal, after everything we've been through? I can only hope this is part of some clever scheme I'm not privy to. Otherwise you might as well have stayed with the Absolute.

Karlach: Gods. You've really done it now, haven't you. I need you to finish what we started. I need you to remember me - our mission - long enough for that. If you try anything else, I'll kill you. Understand?

Lae'zel: Lord Bhaal's Chosen. You must think yourself mighty for it. Yet you were already mighty. And you would have been mightier still if you'd defied him and your 'urges'.

Wyll: By the gone gods. It isn't the blood you've spilled or the lives you've snuffed out that horrify me most. It's the pride you take in it, as if you've done all sixteen planes a great favour. When the Absolute falls, I wager our alliance falls with it.

Halsin: I had hoped you would shun Bhaal's overtures... but those hopes are dashed. To be a vessel for murder itself? I can think of few things less natural.

Did you guys enjoy Durge having nuance? Moral complexity? Interesting themes? Yeah, that's done now. If you become Bhaal's Chosen you are Evil McEvil doing Evil for the sake of Evil like the villain from a Saturday morning cartoon with more murder. I spared Isobel and took every dialogue option that followed the theme of "I'm scared and desperate and don't want to do this but Bhaal will kill me if I don't" and it is still this response. I genuinely don't know if I should be angry at the companions or Larian's writing team! In-universe Bhaalspawn don't seem to be treated great by the people of Faerûn (After the Bhaalspawn reveal Halsin mentions that if you tell the wrong people what you are you're liable to get lynched and I know BG2 mentions witch hunts, although I don't know the details since I... haven't reached BG2 yet) and the companions all either lived through the Bhaalspawn crisis or likely grew up hearing stories about it (if Astarion's comment that more parents scare their kids with stories about Bhaalspawn than about vampires is to be believed, anyway), so it wouldn't be strange for the companions to believe on at least some level that Bhaalspawn are inherently evil! It would make sense for them to subconsciously be holding Durge to a much higher standard than they do the other companions and as a result responding much worse to them making the evil choice (even though unlike the other companions their life is explicitly on the line if they refuse)! And that is what they're doing; I don't have the companion reactions to every bad personal quest ending, but no one's saying their alliance with ascended Astarion will end when the brain falls and as far as I'm aware there is no other origin quest ending that will lead to a companion trying to kill the character whose quest it is the way Jaheira, Minsc and I believe potentially Wyll do with Chosen Durge. But all of that makes sense and fits with the lore if we assume that the companions are all assuming Durge became Bhaal's Chosen because Bhaalspawn are evil regardless of what Durge says. However if that is the case the fact that there's never a chance to get into it is a massive misstep, because it turning out that all your friends who insisted that you being Bhaalspawn doesn't have to change anything do in fact think you are inherently more evil than the rest of the group is... a huge deal, actually! I mean, I guess you could say that it's because Bhaal is the group's direct enemy or Durge was his Chosen before this, but none of them mention that aspect of it at all so it's hard to say whether or not we're supposed to take it that way (and even if we are that opens up a whole other can of worms regarding Larian's failure to engage with how awful it must be for Durge to have to fight their father and old master, even though "it's really hard to face your abuser" is a central theme of most of the companions' quests).

But of course the lack of discussion means it's also possible that this is just Larian forgetting that their game is supposed to have moral nuance again. Maybe they've forgotten about all the chances they give Durge to be scared and desperate and only obeying Bhaal because they feel like they have no other choice and decided that the only reason why anyone's Durge would ever become Bhaal's Chosen is because they really like killing. In general they seem to regularly forget that Durge's relationship with Bhaal is also part of the cycle of abuse theme and treat their choices regarding him as a straightforward, binary moral choice. It's entirely possible that the companions' refusal to consider that maybe the choice between serving Bhaal and dying wasn't as simple for the person making it as it is for the heroes on the outside who don't actually play any part in it is actually just Larian forgetting that it's not that simple and the whole thing isn't supposed to say anything about the companions' views on Durge. But it's impossible to tell with how slapdash Larian's act 3 writing and especially Durge's writing is.

Also, I didn't know where else to put this, but Halsin calling Durge becoming a vessel of murder "unnatural" makes no sense. I mean... that's what they are. Even redemption Durge is called murder incarnate by the netherbrain (although only if you side with the Emperor). As a Bhaalspawn and more specifically a piece of Bhaal's own gore given life they very much are a vessel of murder and always have been. It's another moment where I don't know if we're supposed to see this as Halsin having Opinions on Bhaalspawn and their ties to their father or the writers not really thinking about what it actually means to be connected to a god of murder. The whole thing is just a real mess.

#bg3 #durge

[tyrantisterror]

Since you've written so many essays about nuanced monsters, can you give advice on how humanize a monster while keeping the fear-factor?

My re-imagined versions of Strickler and Nomura (named Carter and Nakamura to keep the trend of book and show characters having different last names) are supposed to be more gross and horrifying than their show counterparts, but still with enough humanity in them so the audience can sympathize.

So, one of the dark truths about humanity is that while we can be taught that all humans are complicated feeling creatures like ourselves, it's very hard to truly understand that fact. It takes at least eighteen years of developing the brain to even be able to grasp that concept on a case by case basis, and there's an argument to be made that it's impossible for us to truly fathom that EVERY human on the planet is as complex and sensitive as we are. It's why we curse out people when they cut us off in traffic instead of thinking, "Man, maybe they're just nervous and late for work and didn't see me in their blind spot." If we don't have an explicit reason to think of other humans as human, we treat them as an enemy outgroup by default.

In regards to fiction, this manifests by audiences generally not caring when characters die if they weren't sufficiently humanized for us. A lot of comedy operates on this principle - there's the old adage that "tragedy is when I stub my toe, comedy is when someone else falls down a manhole and dies," i.e. the difference between whether we find something funny or tragic depends on whether we see ourselves in the person who's experiencing misfortune.

Horror stories work with this in mind too. If you want to give people a "fun" thrill, you make sure not to humanize the victim of your killer/monster - that way you're still scaring people on a shallow, human level, but not so deeply that they're truly emotionally affected by it. They're entertained in a cathartic way - scared, but safely disconnected from the subject so they can also enjoy it. Lots of horror stories work with this making up the bulk of their scares - i.e. disposable, one-dimensional victims falling prey to whatever horrors the writer concocts.

If you want to hit your audience deeper, though, you have to humanize the victim - put someone we like and relate to in peril and it hits much harder. That's what shifts the horror into the truly effective, and it's often something most horror stories don't do until the second act at the earliest for exactly that reason. It ups the stakes.

So, to finally address your question: you can have a sympathetic monster do all sorts of rancid shit so long as their victims are people we don't have a reason to care much about - i.e. shallow, one-dimensional bit characters. While on a moral level we should view that as just as evil as harming the characters we do care about, the simple quirk of humanity's limited and conditional capacity for empathy means that most people will not find it hard to sympathize with your monsters so long as they're only eating nameless background extras or total assholes.

I mean, if you get popular there WILL be people on tumblr who argue that anyone who likes your monsters is guilty of war crimes and fascism, but there will also be people who say your monsters never did anything wrong and it's actually the heroes who are fascist war criminals for opposing them, so it evens out in the end.

[alovelyburn]

I was wondering who your top five favorite Berserk characters are and why you like them? My bad if you’ve gotten this ask before.

Not in a few years! 1-3 are easy for me, it just gets tough after that because at that point there are a lot of characters I like without any of them standing out as particularly more amazing than the others.

...this is very long.

Guts Despite I guess being more of a vocal Griffith advocate, Guts is actually my favorite character not just in Berserk but in Manga as a whole, and arguably in..... fiction. I mean I can't think of anyone I like more offhand, anyway. As for why... I'm generally fond of the kind of character that he is: a complex personality with a lot of heavy issues, rage and emotional struggles. If you look at any media with a Guts-like character I probably like them - Auron, Senji Kiyomasa, Jason Todd, whatever, they're just my kind of thing but Guts is really the granddaddy of that type and he's more nuanced and interesting than any of the other ones I've personally run across. Jason kind of skirts close sometimes but it depends on the writer... and Western franchise comics are just less consistent by nature. There's also the Punisher but he's a homicidal maniac.

So, even though I like this type in general, it's sort of rare that they're the actual protagonist right, like usually the protagonist is some teenager and the broody complicated guy is like the mentor, or a scary guy they have to deal with or, in the case of a romance usually the love interest. That doesn't stop them from being fun characters that I like, but it does tend to limit how much exploration they get.

I appreciate that he's a protagonist who isn't always a nice or admirable person - that he makes mistakes and hates himself for it, that he sees his own monstrousness and struggles to control it and sometimes gives in to it (or even makes use of it). And the coexistence of his sometimes seemingly contradictory traits - his protectiveness vs the way he hurts people, his desire to belong vs his tendency to abandon, his insecurity and his cocky swag, his uncertainty vs his steel will - also makes for a multifaceted personality. Miura said he designed characters with a mind toward what they'd bring out in Guts and as a result, Guts has a lot brought out in him, I guess. Generally speaking the more complicated a character is the more interested I'll be in them anyway. This is something that's going to come up with Griffith as well, but I also have an attraction to moral ambiguity. I genuinely believe he's capable of being just as cruel, just as monstrous, as Griffith ever was (and vice versa) - and in a lot of ways we've already seen him do that - it's just that I guess a lot of people don't register it that way because his specific priorities better align with their sympathies and also he's the protagonist so people will tend to side with him anyway. But that... doesn't change that he's a person who will use a child as monster bait, or that he sexually assaulted a woman he's supposed to be protecting, or that he let the pilgrim camps around the tower of conviction get sucked into hell in order to get his ex back. It doesn't change that he's selfish and cruel sometimes.

Traditionally I also tend to be drawn to characters who kind of defy I guess stereotypical gender...norms? Guts in a lot of ways is a classic masculine type, but I appreciate that he isn't the no-emo badass that, I guess, he gets perceived as by some people. I love that he cries more than most of the characters in the series, or that his primary motivation is heartbreak over Griffith betraying him. That his rage is more cope than anything else.

I always say he'd reconcile with Griffith if he had a chance, as we know, but if you think about it that's kind of a dick move, I mean Griffith did feed the Hawks to demons and rape Casca in front of him. But that doesn't mean I dislike that I feel he'd do it, on the contrary, that just makes his emotional workings more interesting to me because it's a little desperate and sad, and a little selfish and monstrous, and I think he'd... know that it was a dick move and that he's a little pathetic for being willing to do it. And I think he'd struggle with it and hate himself for it. But I still think he'd do it. Which is interesting to me.

I also love that he's not motivated by romance. It's a rare gem of a thing, and I mean I do obviously believe he has romantic feelings for both Casca and Griffith, but even with that being the case I don't think his romantic feelings for either are his true motivators - he's not attached to Casca just because she's the woman he was planning to be with, he's attached to her because she represents the Hawks in his head. And while his feelings for Griffith have a romantic component I do think it's just one color in a massive storm of feelings. I always think Griffith is in love with Guts, whereas Guts loves Griffith which includes also having romantic feelings for him but it's not necessarily the primary driving force in those feelings.

Also, I really love a stone-cold badass. I've never been a person who automatically gloms onto the underdog, I guess; I know a lot of people are inherently turned off by overpowered characters or characters who rarely lose or whatever, but that just doesn't bother me, I love watching a character cut through an army solo, it's just fun for me.

Along the same lines, I love that he's relentless and can't and won't be stopped. This is kind of an interesting one because I feel like for a lot of people a big chunk of his appeal is that he is always kind of struggling against larger forces and he gets fucked up and he takes hits but keeps going. Whereas for me, the part that appeals to me is just... that he keeps going, whether that means fighting and fighting and never taking a hit or taking hits and getting back up is less important to me than the fact that he's always continuing to go.

And I like the way he mouths off to gods and demons.

Griffith Even though Guts is my favorite, I do actually think Griffith is Miura's master creation. The subtlety of his characterization, the ambiguity that sometimes ripples back just enough to reveal the edge of this vast and complicated personality and the way the reader is left to connect the dots is really fascinating to me - though I do wish people were better about connecting the dots instead of drawing over them.

I say this a lot, but Griffith is the one who actually embodies the reasons I love Berserk the work itself, the world, the philosophy behind it, etc. That someone like him can break is evidence that anyone can break. That someone as good as he is can be cruel is evidence that anyone can be cruel. That someone as terrible as he is can be kind is evidence that anyone can be kind. He encompasses the breadth and depth of humanity in Berserk's world, in all its beauty and all its hideousness.

I love every Griffith, though I do think all of them are distinct in their own ways.

During the Hawks Era, there is a certain innocence to him that persists despite the things he sees and does. He is... childish, I mean honestly, when I think about Griffith in the Golden Age this is maybe the main thing that comes to mind? Because he can be the adult in the room, he can be the genius strategist, the brilliant combatant, he can be serious when he needs to but these are all roles, and when his guards are down (mostly around Guts) his reserve melts and he's expressive and silly and playful and ultimately his self-image is literally that of a barefoot child.

That kind of informs a certain earnest purity that comes through in the way he sees the world and the feelings he has about things or people, and the specifics of the ambitions he holds. Even some of the things that people use against him - the piles of corpses you could say - are things that by the standard of the day really aren't anything he needs to feel bad about, but he's tormented by them to the point where guilt ultimately becomes arguably the driving force behind his actions more than the original ambition that created those corpses to begin with.

I think in the end, what drove Hawks Griffith was still a kind of kid looking at the castle kind of idealism - the dream of self-discovery intermingled with the yearning to build the kind of world that wouldn't make people go through the things he did. The issue is that in a more realistic world, as Berserk has tended to be (magic and stuff aside), that is hard to sustain.

You know what he reminds me of? For anyone familiar with Fate/ there's a thing about Artoria/Saber where she became a martyr to her own Kingdom because she ended up living for the country and sacrificing for the country which made her increasingly dehumanized and Gilgamesh, charmer that he is, realizes she's trying to carry the world on her shoulders he basically determines that she's inevitably going to be crushed under the weight of her own self-imposed burden, which he thinks is hot. Aside from the hotness of it, that always reminded me of Hawks Griffith - the way he tried to carry the Hawks on his back and never let them see that he was imperfect, the way he lived to maintain that image so they had something to believe in, and the way it strained the man underneath.

And that! Is! FASCINATING, look as much as I love Guts for being basically made of steel, I also love Griffith for not being as mentally resilient as Guts is - in fact so many of the reasons I glommed onto Griffith are the direct opposite of reasons I love Guts - so much of Griffith's character is driven by his feelings for Guts, especially during the Golden Age, and I find that to be just as fascinating as Guts' romantic ambivalence. In so many ways Griffith seems larger than life and inhumanly perfect - invincible like he can withstand anything, but all that strength can't hold him up when his heart breaks. In the end its his fragile human heart that is his downfall every time. And the breakable interior underneath his epic hero exterior makes for an interesting cocktail.

This is getting too long so I'm going to try to be brief with Neo - obviously he embodies the larger cosmic themes of Berserk even more than Hawks Griffith does - but I also find him fascinating as the fallout from everything that went on with Hawks Griffith. Because Griffith tried so hard to be a person who lived for his dreams and wasn't battered about by his emotions but he couldn't manage it and so when he's remade in the image he desires he becomes the thing he wanted to be, and its beautiful and epic and inspiring but also kind of hollow and sad. Griffith lives in the fallout from making the wish with the consequences he didn't expect, and it's interesting because it's not wholly clear how much he realizes what he's lost - how much he feels it - until the external imposition of factors that bring his emotions back full force for those shreds of time between transformations.

Farnese She's been my third favorite for... ages. That said, she's not Guts or Griffith so I don't have as much to say about her. I just think she's an interesting character - the changes that take place in her as she tries to reinvent herself are really cool to me.

If you line the events we know up chronologically you get a pretty cohesive story about this emotionally abandoned girl who cycles through various forms of trying to locate herself and her place in the world and forming kind of frantic dependencies on various copium flavors until she is ultimately forced to face the lie that her life had been, at which point she has to start over from nothing. I think that's a cool and very human story. Also, it's interesting to me to see this person who, when we first meet her, seems so powerful (in a political sense) and determined have all those masks torn down until you see the terrified lost person inside all the trappings... and then to see her build herself back up, but in the way she chooses and through the means she desires, having finally been untethered from the obligation and demands of her family or the church.

Farnese is kind of a normal person to me, you know? Like Guts and Griffith are Epic Heroes - they're Made Differently in that heroic form. And people like Serpico are kind of skirting the edges between normal and epic - I'd call him kind of a normal hero as opposed to an epic hero and then there's Farnese who is very cool yes, but ultimately also a basically normal person. And watching her grow and adjust in this world that is deeply hostile to normal people - not just the Berserk world as a whole but the specific path that she goes onto by following Guts - is A+ entertainment for me. It also makes her admirable, because she was born to such extreme wealth and could have had such an easy life if she decided to put her tail between her legs and run home, but she didn't.

So... yeah I mean I think it's a good arc.

From here the short list was Charlotte, Serpico, Zodd and Rickert.

Charlotte I talked a lot about why I like her so much pretty recently, but to quickly recap... I enjoy watching her develop from a sheltered shy shrinking violet into someone who is, while still very gentle and quiet, far stronger and more resilient than one would have expected. I love that she has these progressive views - I assume she got most of them from her father who was quite progressive as well before he lost his damn mind, but it means she and Griffith are aligned on a lot of political views.The risks she takes to save Griffith, the way she loves him even when he's lost everything and can't talk anymore, the way she's able to fight off the King without assistance and protect herself for the year that follows... it works for me. She's a different type of character than someone like Guts or even someone like Farnese, and of course she doesn't get a lot of screentime since she's a relatively small character, but I've seen a lot of growth in her. I also think she's adorable and her romantic fantasy version of the world is kind of... just. Interesting. It's interesting when one character is in a different genre of story than everyone else, I don't know.

Rickert He stole Zodd's spot. Mostly because I always like that "last of the old Guard" type of character, and I find his emotional struggle where Griffith is concerned really interesting. In a lot of ways it echoes Guts' struggle, albeit without the UST. The bit where he smacked Griffith - that whole scene and everything leading up to and after it, is one of my favorite parts of the series - I love that despite knowing what Griffith has done, he still wavered on the edge of whether to stand with him or not. I also love that he decided not to, and that at the same time he still holds his reverence and love for the Griffith who used to be, even though he can't accept the Griffith who is. Even then after that, he's still reluctant to believe Griffith would have him killed - which I think he's right to doubt, because I'm so sure it was Locus who did that. Anyway, he doesn't do much - rather he does a fair amount but he does it in spurts and then vanishes for years at a time - but I'm always glad to see him when he shows up.

Serpico is still on the edge for me right now, but I've been warming to him more during the current reread, I guess because I had to think about him more than I normally do. So I wouldn't be shocked if he eventually overtook Charlotte or Rickert - not sure which. I just need to see more of him/think more about him to get a sense of where he falls for me.

I also think that if we get the full backstory on Skull Knight and Void there is a high chance that they'll just knock the bottom two off entirely and give me a legitimately solid Top 5 instead of, honestly, a Top 3 + extras.

#ask #hawkfawun #ariel talks about berserk

[jaigeye]

everyone is forgetting that saw gerrera was taught by anakin and obiwan (white) lol

i do take some issue with sw writers plopping characters of color into villain/antagonist/not working with the ‘heroes’ role and the fans making incredibly racist memes, i just wanted to point out the fact that he was already on the edge of being a radical and anakin’s presence and training shoved him over the edge along with the death of steela. as a nonwhite person who has seen their own friends radicalized in Very similar ways, i dont think there’s anything necessarily wrong with how he’s being portrayed. i think he’s a good mirror of real life circumstances. the problem inherently lies with the fans, although again as i said it has disappointed me that fascinating, complex characters who are also poc or poc coded (barriss, saw, Reva, for some examples) are mishandled by sw writers and fans.

I think you're misunderstanding me here. Sure, it's a good point that yes, Anakin and Obi-Wan played a role in his life, but I don't think TCW is even a significant enough piece of media to base judgment of his character off if; Rogue One is where he really began to take shape as the character he is, not just a one-off arc character that was quickly forgotten. The nature of the clone wars anthology style is that unfortunately most characters motivations and actions are molded or influenced by the main trio, so I don't know if that argument holds up, although it is an interesting one I hadn't thought about.

My argument is not that characters of color cannot or should not ever be villains... Yet I would strongly disagree with categorizing him as an antagonist. Even in Rogue One he felt like a sort of indelicate attempt to show the political complexities of the Rebellion. That is both where my praise and issues with his writing begin.

Isolated, he himself is a very nuanced and interesting character. Placed in a space with the other Rebel leaders, however, it quickly becomes frustratingly clear that the only Black leader of great significance in the plot, on the same level of narrative importance as Mon Mothma, is a politically radical and aggressive Black man, plagued by delusions of victimhood/paranoia. This is as some might say, not cool. Imagine a sheet of paper with all the rebels and imperials on it. Who are the aggressive, intense characters who are ruthless? (Outside of Andor, because although flawed I feel they did a better job,) that list would include Saw Gerrera, Reva, and Moff Gideon. The good, harmless Black characters? Finn. Jannah, with a few minutes of screentime. Maybe Lando, but he too is always sidelined and we don't get a really good look at his motivations or character. Who else? There are others, but none with enough plot significance to really make up for this imbalance. Plus, a lot of those characters die.

If he were one among many Black Rebel leaders of varying political mindsets, I think my personal gripes with his writing could be resolved more. (However, Black fans opinion here would matter more than mine.)

The basic thing is that Star Wars writers do not know or care about your friends. They don't seem particularly tapped into the political realities of young radicalized minorities right now. We have to be more serious and objective here than this.

Their points of reference were most likely Che Guevara and Malcolm X, so on and so forth. i could handle that under certain circumstances. Andor did a pretty great job portraying him. The Rogue One book did a good job. Then the animations get their hands on him and, as is kind of inherent to the nature of kids shows, they have to pick someone to make the bad or scary decisions to show kid viewers that actually, changing the world through any means possible is a bad thing, and that you should usually use your words, be polite, and not be aggressive or demanding like these ~scary~ people performing direct action. Why did TBB and Rebels choose to take the one Rebel Black guy and make him try to win by putting children&other marginalized people at risk and using explosives and shit? in a real life context, when we focus on the motivations of the writers and not the content of the character, it gets concerning. It is not all, but many of the writers. It is not all, but I'd say most of the fans. The problem is a pretty big one. When u write him in such a way that people r blaming him for character's deaths and accusing him of parental abuse, the writers did something wrong too, not just the fans

Saw Gerrera is one of my all time favorite characters in star wars, because I think he's fascinating and full of potential. But it's really important to be objective about the inequalities in writing here, and pay attention to the way the very few Black characters in a narrative are portrayed.

#saw gerrera #antiblackness #racism

[hanna-kin]

The Kristina post you didn't see coming

Or maybe you did.

I have so much to say about Kristina. I know in the fandom she tend to bring alot of strong opinions but I also think there's a heavy sense of fanon when it comes to her.

Often she's viewed as the villian of the story but in my opinion she's alot more complex.

In fics she's often portrayed as homophobic, racist and classist and most of all not giving a shit about Wilhelm. In my opinion she's none of those things but we'll get to that.

She's portrayed as someone who only cares about the image of the crown and while every author has the creative freedom to do portray her in anyway they want I much prefer a more nuanced portrayal of her.

I also strive to create her as a nuanced character with many flaws but also capable of love and compassion.

When we first see her she comes off as controlling and strict. From the way she checks Wille’s to the way she's already decided Wille's fate. She doesn't care about his opinion and the only thing that matters to her is covering up her sons scandal.

Never once does she ask how he is. If he's okay. It's all business.

She's annoyed with him and doesn't do anything to comfort him even when he shows distress.

So really it's not that strange that people get the view of her that she lacks compassion and that she doesn't care about Wille.

I mean she sends him off to a new school but can't even be bothered to send him off herself.

What we need to remember is that she's literally the queen. She's grown up as a public person, just like her own children are now being raised in front of the whole nation. Her childhood is now Erik's and Wilhelm’s.

Her parents where probably even more absent as the monarchy has become more and more progressive by every generation (if we go by the IRL family)

It's safe to say that she's been absent and that she hasn't been there for a huge part of her children's childhood. But is it all by choice? I don't think so.

Look being a royal is a full time job, basically your whole existence is being a representation of your countries culture. It seems unpopular but we have to admit that the royals work hard, they are not allowed bad days and they have more travel days than any of us can imagine. And it's a job, it's a duty.

I don't think Kristina wanted to be away from her children . I really don't. But she grew up like that and has to accept that. Not only missing important every day moments with her children but also a deeper bond with them that she'll probably never have.

I don't think she wanted that. But again it's her duty. She probably had moments where she could be a normal mum, especially before she became the queen but she's been away alot and even if she could have done a better job but I don't think she did all that by choice. It's just one of the dark sides to the monarchy.

We see this absence in the beginning of the show. Like I said, she's not there for Wille’s first day, Erik is. It might be by choice or she might have other commitments. I find the latter one very likely since they have a busy schedule.

Apart from a text we don't really her from her. She doesn't come to parent's day. Again due to other commitments. She's not even in the country it seems like. Again we don't know if it is by choice or not. Maybe she really would have liked to be there but simply couldn't.

Then of course we have Erik's death and I think this is something that highlights her love for Wille because if she didn't love him, would she really be the one to call him?

If she didn't really care surely she would have someone else call? She's experiencing the worst moment of her life and she also has to call her son so that he gets to find out from her and not some random person.

Erik's death also adds another layer to her because at the very core she's a grieving mother who's trying to come to terms with a shocking loss.

But she can't grieve at her own pace and at her own terms. She's the most public person in Sweden and everything about this families tragedy is made a public matter. The funeral is live sent, their are probably hundreds of articles published and expectations on her in particular. I think she's not allowing her or her family the time to grief properly. She just wants to move on.

But that might just be her personality. Maybe that's not just her being a queen. Maybe her coping mechanism is to not cope (I'm a bit like that which is why I adress it like this)

While I hate the way she treats Wilhelm in all this I don't think she knows another way. She tries to be strong, she tries to cope. We see her at the funeral trying to support him and afterwards I just think it's her way to deal. Sadly, Wille needs something else and as a parent she should acknowledge that and focus on his needs.

Instead the whole family kind of just sweeps everything under the rug. Had they not been the royal family I'm sure they would have delt with it differently and it feels like here the Queen takes precedence. However, I think she's trying. We see it during the dinner. She's trying but it ends up with her going on about Wilhelm having to step up which does nothing to comfort him. He needed his mother but she simply wasn't there for him.

We doesn't see her again after that. Wilhelm is left grieving by himself without any real support. It kind of feels like Kristina just shut down as a coping mechanism and it left Wille without the support he needed.

The next time we see her is after the tape is released. And in this moment I think we see that she cares for her son. Her touch is tender and comforting and I truly believes she feels for him.

As we know it doesn't last long though. She has to be the queen to and she is not good with finding that balance. All too soon she switches to business mode, leaving Wille to comfort himself. It's probably one of the most heartbreaking moments seeing Wille hugging himself like that while she sits next fully focused on "cleaning up" after him as if he's done something wrong.

Once again she's made up her mind on how they will adress it but I don't think it has anything to do with homophobia or Simon being a poor person of colour. A sex tape is a sex tape and it's a huge scandal.

I think that's the main thing. It's yet another scandal they can't afford. Yes it wouldn't have been as serious if it was with a girl but I don't think that the queen nor the royal court are homophobic.

They just need to find a solution to the problem and the easiest and most obvious solution is to make a denial. It doesn't matter what Wilhelm wants to do. The bigger picture is more important so while I think she feels deeply for her son she chooses to prioritise the public image, the monarchy and the legacy. She thinks it's more important in the long run.

But she does care for her son and I don't think she would have had any issues had Simon been a normal boyfriend introduced in a normal way. I want to believe that at least.

She's set on the denial and even manipulates Wille into giving in. It's probably my least favourite moments of her. But I also kindof think she is trying to protect him, just like kept from him that it was August

Like I said, she's spent her whole life in the public eye. She's been criticised, scrutinised and followed her whole life. I don't think she wants that for him but it's their legacy so they don't have a choice. She's trying to protect him because she knows it will only get worse. But rather than listening to what Wille wants to do and prioritise his needs she just follows what's best for the monarchy as a whole and while she probably thinks it is the best it falls short when she has to fall back on very manipulative tactics to convince him.

Maybe she should just have respected her sons wishes and found another way even if it would be more difficult.

It's such a complex situation and my biggest issue is probably the way she handled August. Not letting Wille know is just a jerk move. He deserved to know and have August punished. But clearly she couldn't allow that to happen so she let her son down and betrayed him.

I think Pernilla August does a great job adding that little bit of softness and gentleness. The small details in the way she caresses Wille’s cheek or rubs his back make it feel genuine to me. So while she's mostly absent and more often than not is unable to provide the physical and emotional comfort her son needs, these little moments shows us that she loves her son, so so much.

To sum it up, she's stuck in her life, just like Wilhelm is stuck. She doesn't complain but I do think she hates her life some times. I think she wishes things were different. I think she would want a different life for her children. I think wants to get away from it.

I think she sees it as a punishment sometimes.

I can't wait to see where season 2 will take us when it comes to Kristina and her relationship with Wille. I think we'll see a huge rift between them after the huge betrayal but I hope we'll see her grow and realise that she needs to do better if she doesn't want to lose another son. I hope we'll see some nice scenes with them together where she is more supportive and loving.

Both Pernilla and Edvin are so good so I'm really looking forward to see their new scenes. I'm sure they'll be amazing and emotional and bring out alot of feelings from us all.

#young royals #edvin ryding #Pernilla August #wilhelm young royals

[grendelsmilf]

I find it interesting you note Amphibia to push the envelope more than the TOH since I've seen others consider the latter to push more into serious topics and tones than the former. I've seen some people point to Luz's depressed state in the 1st S3 special as to how 3A Anne should have been written, but I feel like people ignore whether what works for one character would really fit for a very different character, even withstanding the series differences.

i mean, luz is someone who loved her life in the demon realm and hated her home, whereas anne loves her home and certainly did not go to amphibia by choice, so there was a part of her that was clearly just happy to be back with her family, even if she knew that she had to return. but it's not like anne wasn't shown to be stressed and upset, we see that she spends as much time as physically possible trying to build a portal back to amphibia. i enjoyed luz's depression though, i don't mean to undermine that.

and yeah, i can obviously see why people say the owl house explores more serious topics, i just happen to disagree? i don't really know how to explain it, but i feel like the owl house sort of... lacks nuance? it's a show that's really good for kids and i'm glad it exists and have nothing against it, but it's not a show that particularly concerns itself with moral ambiguity (i can only assume the horror show that dana terrace initially wanted to create would have been more complex in that regard). like, amity is a mean girl, but she's pretty harmless and almost immediately shown to be sympathetic. hunter gets compared to zuko a lot, but we never actually see him do anything particularly bad, and he's sympathetic and redeemable and morally pure for most of his screentime. eda is an outlaw but we never actually see her commit serious crimes, she's literally the most ethical and morally upstanding character in the show. even lilith really only made one mistake her whole life and spent the rest of it trying to make up for it. i think there's potential for the collector to be interesting as a completely amoral entity, as opposed to belos who is pure evil in every possible way, but i'll guess we’ll see.

but what i love about amphibia is that anne, sasha, and marcy are all deeply, realistically flawed. after watching the first episode i literally turned around to my brother and said to him, "oh i love anne already. i love that she's mean." what makes anne such a better character than luz (in my humble opinion) is that anne consistently makes bad choices due to her many, many flaws. while luz goes around making friends through helping people out of the goodness of her heart, anne has to be forced kicking and screaming into doing any kind of work for the betterment of anyone else. anne is a friendly and caring person with a big heart, but she's also selfish, lazy, entitled, petty, impulsive, careless, irresponsible and ungrateful. so when we see her grow over the course of the show into someone who doesn't hesitate to help others, it feels significant because we've seen every step of her journey of personal growth. sasha and marcy, while given less screentime, are also characters whose flaws are established and challenged over the course of the show. but i think the fact that anne isn't a perfect person by any means is what makes the show work so well. luz being depressed for half an episode is quite literally the most interesting thing she's ever done, meanwhile anne was out here fucking up left and right, nearly getting her adopted family killed every other episode because she wanted to adopt a cat or eat a pizza.

i'm not saying the owl house is bad because its characters aren't morally grey, but personally, i have absolutely no investment in it or its characters, whereas i still find myself thinking at least once a day "oh god it's crazy how good sashanne is" even though the show ended like a year ago. amphibia also has multiple instances of cannibalism, suicide, and an entire episode parodying midsommar even though there's absolutely no way any of the children watching that episode got the reference (i had to explain it to my brother). i wouldn't call either show dark or nuanced, but amphibia definitely feels darker and more nuanced than the owl house. to me, at least.

#ask #anon #frogshowposting #like anne boonchuy is a girl of all time and none of those owl bitches even come close except for maybe eda #and even then its like. well you may have eda but you will never have toxic homoerotic teenage girl best friends #the closest they get is the willow amity friendship which is honestly one of the best aspects of the show #but even then its clear that amity was wrong and willow wasnt #whereas w sashannarcy its like. theyre all flawed and need to be held accountable for that #so it's just. well it's better.