#they become changed people but the idea of the redemption arc is this thing fandom holds up but doesn’t actually apply in most cases | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bonefall · 2 months

Note

You can ignore this but I was just curious. What are your thoughts on redemption? I know modern day it means "character gets absolved of all wrongdoing and sin, and everyone forgives them yay!" But I'm talking more like, redemption as "Character acknowledges their actions and worldview was shitty, has apologized to all harmed parties, some forgive and some don't, but regardless character works on their issues and strives to become better"

I know characters are writing tools, so the message here would, in short, be "No matter what you can still work to be a better person". So I suppose I'm asking to what extent you agree. Sorry if this ask is everywhere I'm very sick at the moment.

I speak harshly of redemption arcs because I am actually an aficionado. I love them. I can't get enough of them, honestly. They're like eggs to me, I like 'em in all sorts of ways, devilled, omeletted, scrambled, but rotten ones are so bad you've gotta get rid of them immediately.

What often ends up setting me off about how redemption arcs are approached (and discussed) is the pervasive fact that people are more interested in sorrowful abusers than messy victims. They'll turn out to gush about how wonderful it is that Clear Sky cries about how sad murdering women made him, while not even recognizing Star Flower is self-destructing or Thunder is deflecting and misplacing.

It's like... even in fandom you will never get away from it. Your abuser is compelling and complex (meaning "was mean and sad at the same time"), and you're whiny and annoying ("ugh why is this traumatized person doing irrational things?! Don't they ever learn?!")

So when I write and when I talk, victims are always forefront in my mind. I'm really tired of stories that center Good Intentions or "but they loved you"

But anyway, digressing,

I agree. It really is never too late to work to be a better person. It's not even about apologizing, or making up for it, because sometimes you can't. "Sorry" will never undo what happened, and "sorry" doesn't even promise that real change is behind it.

So to me, a good redemption is just about exploring change.

Not suffering, I don't entirely like the idea that pain fixes pain, because it really doesn't. Reflection does. Genuinely understanding what was wrong and why you did it does. In spite of how cathartic it is to see someone get karma, I do hope that 99% of all people could be rehabilitated.

It's why I'm not fond of the phrasing where people want to deny redemption arcs because "they don't deserve it.' The WORLD deserves it. The people they will HELP deserve it. The person they will be deserves it. The question really is-- WOULD they change?

And the answer for powerful people is usually no. Power feels good. Gets you what you immediately want, makes it easy to surround yourself with yesmen who reinforce your excuses.

I think most people want to see others get better, but it's cathartic to me when some characters don't. Redemption arcs are wonderful things, but shouldn't be seen as the IDEAL ending for every villain, y'know?

#bone babble

150 notes · View notes

bakasara · 6 months

Text

Trying to parse my thoughts on Izzy's death and why I had a different reaction to it than I thought I would. To summarize: I thought I wouldn't like it, but also that they wouldn't do it; the opposite happened– they did it but I'm ok with it.

I'm also feeling like talking through some mourning for an amazing character, so follow along if that's you, too 😌

(I should probably clarify the following thoughts are coming from someone who deeply enjoyed this season.)

I first wondered what would be of Izzy around the end of season 1. I expected him to have a heel-face turn – which I object to calling a redemption arc and I'll get into why, because the distinction ties into his death imo. A lot of antagonistic characters' changes of heart end directly in death, but I thought they'd subvert that trope. And they... did, actually, despite Izzy dying. Not an option I had imagined.

What the show avoided is the logic, the set of tropes attached to the deaths of this kind of character. These deaths usually come as a consequence of the character's changed ethics or "redemption". My being against that scenario came from the diverging natures of traditional redemption arcs and OFMD's rhetoric.

A traditional redemption arc functions by a kind of catholic logic, if you will: the villain can become one of the good guys by balancing out his "sins"/bad deeds with enough good deeds to tip a moral scale. This often involves a purifying suffering, which acts as an agent to expiate one's faults. To the viewer, this suffering can serve to activate our empathy and make the character more sympathetic. It can also legitimize his quest: our trust in the character's good intentions comes from seeing that the character is ready to make sacrifices to become better and he isn't deterred by the hardships of doing the right thing.

The death occurring at the end of a traditional redemption arc acts as the ultimate sacrifice and/or purification. A number of ideas might be at play behind it, depending on each story: only in death can the soul become fully pure, or a final sacrifice is "needed" to demonstrate the change once and for all, or change was only possible up to a point after which there is no viable/acceptable future – the character deserves moral points for changing, but not so many that he also deserves a full life, or past crimes make him more expendable, etc.

But these are all ideas that aren't evoked in any of the crew's journey in OFMD. For starters, the show isn't interested in "catholic" redemption; its focus is on reintegration/rehabilitation into the community. Rather than appealing to the more traditional (in Western media) and more christian principle of "purification of the soul through mortification of the body", it plays with notions of restorative justice.

We see it especially this season with Ed and Izzy. Ed's arc is a whole little lab for it. We have the community being made to decide whether he can stay or should leave; catbell!Ed is made to apologize to the people affected – which he initially does abysmally, with what fandom has dubbed his "CEO's/YouTube apology". Later, he's given the opportunity to have a more honest and genuine conversation with Fang where he learns about how he hurt him. He's made to repair some of the material damage his behavior caused. Some members feel repaid by the idea that they did to him the same he did to them (Fang) while others don't (Lucius), and the show touches on what this means for each/legitimizes both feelings. Arguably, Ed using his treasure to throw Calypso's birthday party – a much needed refrain and moment of social (re-)connection within the community – is an additional form of reparation. While Stede's belief in Ed has a clear role in helping Ed change for the better, Izzy's s2 journey focuses even more intensely on the role of social support within an individual's constructive (re-)integration into their community. The show is condensed by choice of format, but the beats are all there.

With that kind of rhetoric set up, I'd never be able to accept Izzy dying in a way that feels like a punishment for his past crimes, nor in a way that should "confirm" his positive change/"purify" him for good. And he doesn't! By the time he dies, we know full well he's deeply changed, it's already established to completion. How it happens has nothing to do with proving himself – he's randomly shot in battle. It's never questioned that the time he got to live surrounded by affection mattered. The speech he gives Ed is only possible because he's changed, accessing a completely different perspective on piracy/life than before, like we see when he talks to Ricky earlier. The reason the whole crew is paying respect and crying is because he became "the new unicorn", a treasured member with a defined role. But his death itself is the show going back to the initial symbolism of Izzy as ultimate pirate. The narrative function of his death is underscoring that the age of piracy has come to an end. It's nothing to do with his change. It's posited as the "natural conclusion" (again, by symbolic function) of a character that represented piracy through-and-through, not the "natural conclusion" of a process of becoming better.

And for me, that difference changes everything. I can see and accept the logic behind it, even as I mourn Izzy as a character. It makes the grief feel like a catharsis I experience within the context of the story I'm watching, rather than a grief I feel from a show "betraying" me.

It's also a difference that completely changes how Izzy's death relates to his queerness. Izzy's change is intertwined with being able to express queer affection openly. Becoming "a unicorn" is this extremely queer imagery already – a magical rainbow creature. His role becomes akin to a mother to the crew (the mother hen!Izzy many headcanoned last season, tapping into his potential), a position that isn't extraneous to older queens, including our honored real-life mean-old-queer men. Last season he threatened another queer man for showing too much delicacy, effeminacy, vulnerability. Now, his change is a process that culminates in him singing a tender love song among the crew in drag. He's given the privilege of playing the soundtrack to our protagonists making love for the first time, which ties him symbolically to the event in a way it does no other crew member. Suffice it to say that insinuating his process of change should end in death would have been disastrous, as far as I'm concerned. Antithetical to the show's supporting ideology.

But that's not how it went. Grief occupies a big role in the queer community, but it's so rare that we get to experience it cathartically. In real life, we often have to contend with the ways queerphobia causes us trauma or even shortens our lives, or the lives of our friends. In fictional narratives, a lot of characters that get to express queerness unabashedly still die for the transgression. They're still usually the only queer character with relevant screen time or at all, at best one of two that formed a tragic couple.

We almost never have the opportunity to just mourn some motherfucker who died because they meant something else as well that was central to their character. To mourn and know we're mourning someone who wasn't ever punished for being queer-as-in-fuck-you and going all out. To mourn and not feel like it's another message of queer doom, because for once the character is surrounded by an entire crew of other queer characters that go on to live and be happy. To know the story is saying something about life, not about being queer. To know this kind of crafting was deliberate, too, because the creator has talked about working to avoid those tropes. I struggle to remember another time I had the opportunity to grieve for a queer character like they're a human being, without the implication that it's queerness itself that's a death sentence.

And honestly? It feels good. It feels like a form of catharsis I do not dislike. That I'm maybe kinda glad for. OFMD is and stays a magical world. Beyond that, in a show full of queers, one of them dies after getting some extraordinarily meaningful happiness, and it's peaceful, and I get to just be sad for the fucker without the gutting of being reminded that if you're gay, better not shoot too high. It feels like a completely different emotion that no other show, for now, would give me, but OFMD. To me, it's yet another thing it's pulled off.

As it's been known to do.

#ofmd #having warm izzy thoughts in this chili's tonight #ofmd meta #my meta

225 notes · View notes

raymusterio · 1 month

Text

Just a little rant.. no spoilers

I always think it's really irritating when people try and say Bakugou is irrelevant to the story, like what? Did we read the same thing? Cause Izuku would not have received ofa if it wasn't for Katsuki being the person attacked by slime. Izuku was literally like "oh gee poor guy, I hope a hero with the right quirk shows up, cause All Mights out thanks to me" until he actually looked up and saw that it was his Kacchan being suffocated and it was *no thoughts. head empty.* he fucking sprinted. That wouldn't have happened the way it did if it had been anybody else. It had to be Katsuki or the story would have been completely different because All Might wouldn't have seen Izuku's (seemingly random) act of heroism despite being quirkless and thus never choosing him to be ninth. Katsuki plays such a huge role in the plot of the story and has since the very first page.

It also boggles my mind how quick people are to label Katsuki an irredeemable abuser, and honestly, people who demonize he like that give me the ick. Like, he's just a kid who's so scared of his own emotions and how his friend makes him feel, that he lashes out in the only response he knows how. He's a kid with anger issues, who makes mistakes just like the rest of us. I'm not excusing what he said, cause it was fucked up, but he recognized that it was fucked up and worked hard to apologize to Izuku and make it up to him. Even if Izuku had already forgiven him.

And I really do think Izuku had already forgiven him, because that's who Izuku is. Izuku never victimized himself. He couldn't. Because he wanted to be a hero, just like All Might. And he can't be a hero if he's a victim. That's a double edged mentality to have and it definitely came into play during the vigilante arc. Izuku is the kind of person who breaks himself to help others, he has little to zero self preservation skills mixed with overwhelming kindness and compassion. When Katsuki told him to take a swan dive, his response was essentially "You're an idiot Kacchan, what would you have done if I was the kind of person to take you seriously? Can't be a hero like that, nope!" He really didn't entertain the idea of himself jumping, and instead focused on berating Katsuki's rude and insulting behavior. He didn't like it and doesn't approve of a future pro acting like that, because he still holds no doubt that Katsuki will become a pro hero. Because "Kacchan's amazing".

Izuku and Katsuki's character arcs are so heavily intertwined that you really can't talk about one without mentioning the other. They know each other's habits, behavior, and mannerisms better than anyone else, yet misunderstanding is such a present theme in their relationship. It's so complex that I don't see it as a stereotypical victim×bully ship, it goes so much deeper than that.

In a story about hope, change, and redemption it's disheartening seeing parts of the fandom completely miss the point.

#i have more to say but im tired #bakudeku #bkdk #izuku midoriya #bakugou katsuki #kacchan #deku #katsudeku #greenade #bnha bakudeku

122 notes · View notes

androgynoussublimeangel · 11 months

Text

One of the biggest bummers for me with Monkie Kid fandom is the unequal idealization of Wukong and villianization of Macaque. I think it downplays the incredibly deep and interesting dynamic that comes from people who have hurt each other but are learning and growing as individuals coming back into orbit of each other and relearning who they are to each other.

It also goes to say that while Lego Monkie Kid is derived from JTTW it can definitely stand on its own considering what they've modified or adapted to work better with what they were aiming for.

Objectively when the series begins Wukong is a better person but he wasn't when his life was more intertwined with Macaque.

In fact they're both pretty bad at the begining. And often even enabled each other to be worse.

Wukong made lots of rash decisions that even if he claims was for "us" was often motivated by selfish ideals for glory pushed by the brotherhood as he disregarded Macaques opinions and worries.

Whereas Macaque has always been focused on perceived slights, essentially victimizing himself more than he actually is and using this to justify his harmful behaviors. He often prods when he should be understanding or aloof when he should be sympathetic. He's quick to lash out because he's always on the defensive.

They both have done things wrong but I'm tired of the fandom always siding with Wukong when the idea is that they're BOTH in the wrong in different ways and most of the turmoil in their relationships stems from simple miscommunications that are escalated by the fact that neither had really faced their past (until season 4 obviously)

And most of the animosity they feel towards each other is leftover from a close relationship now in shambles and being forced back together in order to survive.

(Some people irl can't even handle being in the same room in a cordial setting with someone they aren't friends with anymore. Like come on not crazy that they both instinctivly become defensive. Not to mention we see that they often teased and bickered playfully so not odd to fall back into the pattern just with more animosity. )

We've been following Macaques slow redemption, his willingness to fight LBD despite not knowing if they'd succeed and could result in them all being destroyed. As well as his misguided attempts to mentor MK in his own emotional stunted way.

And Wukong himself has made his own major mistakes as a mentor as well that's like the entirety of the 3rd season but again he's had more character growth thus admitting his wrongs and reflecting on them comes much easier to him, out of the two Wukong is currently the more emotionally intelligent as odd as that sounds. He's more willing to face the reality of his actions than Macaque is but this aligns with their character types. Wukong often being blunt, straightforward and headstrong compared to Macaque who is hesitant and holds his cards close to his chest quick to hide his true intentions behind attitude and misdirection. Along with this Wukong is predictably bitter when trapped under the mountain especially when Macaque escaped the consequences which once again plays into his self-serving attitude but at the same time Macaque had always been hesitant about crossing the Jade Emperor and warned Wukong that in classic Wukong fashion, he wasn't thinking it through and considering the consequences.

(Side note I find it incredibly odd for people to not consider all of elements on both Wukongs and Macaques separate experiences. As well as the odd skew on Macaques motives during the Samadi fire arc, since his resurrection his one goal has been to escape and protect his second chance at life, stealing Wukongs power from MK is a measure to protect himself and its easier to trick MK than Wukong (this isnt to say its justified, hurting MK was wrong plain and simple because again Macaque is heavily flawed as well and hasn't had the time or guidance Wukong did to reflect and change cuz he was ya know, dead (but his death is another interesting conversation when considering the context of the original vs LMK which might play it off in a different way or have to avoid it altogether due to rating issues)and when he is forced to work with LBD once again his life is on the line, that's called coercion. AND he still fights a possessed Wukong at MK behest, despite the likely traumatic fear that would be triggered by fighting Wukong again and that LBD might not stop a possessed Wukong from killing him again. Doesn't mean what he did was right but if you consider from his perspective along with the fact that he died before he got to have his own "journey to the west" or journey of growth and self-reflection. We're seeing the Macaque that Wukong killed all those years ago. It makes understanding his motives a little easier.)

#lego monkie kid #lmk #lmk macaque #six eared macaque #wukong #sun wukong

152 notes · View notes

esther-dot · 4 months

Note

Idk how to explain it in better terms but the fact that Jaime focuses more on wanting to be perceived as good than actually doing good is a huge turn off for me and the reason why I don't believe grrm is writing a redemption arc for him.

So, here's a definition of redemption arc,

What exactly is a Redemption Arc? It's a type of character development in which your protagonist starts bad and becomes good in the end, often culminating in a heroic act that atones for their past

And I agree with you. His story won't fit the above. Jaime is bitter that doing the right thing is viewed the way it is by Westeros, and we can understand why he's angry, but I haven't seen any genuine regret about trying to kill Bran, for example, and kid killing is a big no-no, so imo, the flow of the story hasn't been to move Jaime from morally bad to morally good the way that expression implies.

In fact, in AFFC, he's talking about how he would have killed Arya and threatens to trebuchet a baby. When we have Ned's horror over Elia and her kids' deaths, over how the Hound murdered Mycah, his refusal to participate in the assassination of Dany, and his decision to risk his life/jeopardize his family by committing treason to protect Jon, I think we know Martin hasn't moved Jaime over into his "good" column. Our perception of his infamous act evolves, but that's not the same thing as Jaime changing.

What I think is so often perceived as a redemption arc is merely that Martin engaged our sympathy for Jaime later in the series and fans equate understanding/caring for a character with moving them into the "good" category rather than accepting that Martin routinely does this. The Hound, Tyrion, Theon...he calls them all villains, but at one point or another, we get tragedy and suffering in their lives That leads fans to conclude that the Hound and Tyrion are actually decent people, when by any objective standards, they aren't. The point isn't to move them from villain to hero, it's to offer believable explanations for why they are who they are, do what they do, and make them dynamic characters. Embracing the idea that good and bad impulses can exist in the same person, that the same person can be brave and kind as well as murderous and cruel, that's not too big of an ask. And imo, it's a shame fans want to use one to negate the other.

Even Jaime killing Aerys which kinda seems heroic is shaded by not only his greater loyalty to his family, but his own feelings about Aerys, and part of his memory is how he stood by while Aerys committed other cruel acts. In killing Aerys, he saved countless people, familial loyalty or no, it was the right thing to do, but we have all the rest of the series showing us, doing what is right really isn't of the utmost concern to Jaime. His loyalty is to his family of origin, he has an obsession with Cersei, and doesn't even seem to care much for his own children which again, I think indicates that as layered as he becomes with each new book, it's a misread to settle on the idea of redemption/good guy.

Fans think he's gonna kill Cersei as that final redemptive act, but to me that feels like looking at things from a Cersei hater perspective, not Jaime's. The man has been written as rather, disinterested in acting on a right/wrong spectrum, and is generally more concerned with family, it seems a little unreasonable to think a suitable ending for him is to reject that because how would such a man continue? He needs peace with his decisions, what he does has to flow from the essence of who he is, so it seems more likely to me that his end is dying with Cersei. That isn't redemption in the eyes of the fandom, but I think it could very well be redemption for himself. He has that nightmare about Rhaegar blaming him for Elia and the children's deaths, his own children may all die, there is nothing he can do about that, but going to their mother, the person he was faithful to his entire life, who is essentially his life partner/wife, it allows him to be truly loyal when all others think him faithless, and as annoying as some will find it, I think it gives him his own form of honor.

I wrote once about thinking he would die with Cersei:

I'm ok with Jaime deciding his fate is to be with Cersei, in birth, in life, even in death. As I thought it worked in the show, returning to Cersei in the books will likewise mean he is able to have some self-respect. I don't think you can read his, I mean, I would say Cersei obsession and believe he'd ever have any peace of mind if she died alone while he had to go on living. (link)

In that post I linked to meta about that and a great write-up on Jaime that I think you'll enjoy!

#dot chat #anti jaime lannister #(just to be safe)#anti asoiaf fandom #asoiaf speculation

47 notes · View notes

myths-tournaments · 7 months

Text

Awful Characters Round 1 Part 2 (3/8)

Propaganda under the cut!

BEN LINUS

One of my fave characters of all time! Also a prolific liar. Almost every single thing this man says is a lie. He lies, manipulates, murders, and feels very little remorse, all in the name of “protecting” the magical Island where he and his people live. Ben is fueled almost exclusively by bitterness, stemming from an entire childhood’s worth of abuse from his alcoholic father, who blamed Ben for his mother’s death in childbirth (Ben did eventually kill his father, along with the whole community he grew up in). Additionally, Ben is desperate to have some great destiny or higher purpose, and his bitterness toward the fact that he’s just an “ordinary” man and jealousy toward the man who DOES have a higher purpose drives Ben to commit various acts of cruelty and murder. Ben does act as a villain for most of the story (save for the last season, in which he’s more of an anti-villain and eventually an anti-hero), but he has two redeeming qualities: his love for the Island and his love for his adopted daughter, Alex. The latter is complicated by the fact that he kidnapped Alex as a baby from her biological mother, a woman stranded alone on the Island. However, when forced to choose between protecting the Island and saving Alex’s life, Ben ultimately chooses the island and deeply regrets this decision for the rest of his life. He’s eventually forced to reckon with his many, many mistakes and undergoes something of a redemption arc, but he spends enough of the show establishing himself as a villain that I can easily see the good denizens of Twitter attacking his fans.

IANTHE TRIDENTARIUS

Her number one hobby is ruining every person's that she knows life. Her second hobby is being soooo slutty about it despite looking like a literal wet rat. Her third hobby is having an extremely unhealthy relationship with her twin. Her other hobbies include cannibalism, wearing a maid outfit, being extremely convinced she is the main character, the badboy sexy love interest and the villain. 'Why', you may ask. Well, the answer is, for shits and giggles #justgirlythings i, aswell as literally everybody else in the fandom have gone through the pipeline from hating her to desperately wanting to fuck her. expect for i still fucking hope she dies and doesn't come back for good. (that would literally solve all of everybody's problems) as god intended (EXPECT FOR. one of her hobbies literally is gaslighting god) She is fucking horrible i will love her until i die and even after that

parks and recs jean ralphio voice she's the woooorst!! The moment she learns she has to kill someone to become a Lyctor (aka a more special necromancer), she doesn't hesitate to kill and cannibalize the guy who has been her cavalier since childhood… cavalier who she also totally bullied as kids, she was allowed to choose one guest for her and her twin sister's birthday party each year, and she would always pick whoever she thought her cavalier didn't want to see there! While other characters are shown to regret the process of becoming a Lyctor (which involves someone close to them dying)/were forced into it because of circumstances, Ianthe has absolutely no regrets, she believes she did what she had to do

The author once said of Ianthe: "I don't think she's been nice to anyone, if she has I'll go back and change it." She killed and ate the soul of someone she has known all her life so that she could become a necromantic saint and tormented him plenty before that. General negging, ganging up against him, always inviting people he didn't like to their birthday parties. She doesn't regret killing him. I think she is repulsed by the idea that his digested soul is affecting hers. She helped her crush lobotomise herself so she would be in Ianthe's debt, and later lied and said she didn't see the corpse of a woman her crush killed under her bed (why did she do that? I do not know). She has a bone arm because her original arm was cut off, she hated the replacement so her crush cut THAT off and grew her a new one out of just bones. She had it gilded and only after that did she decide to help her crush deal with the person who had been repeatedly trying to kill her. She wants so badly to be the main character but people keep interrupting her villain monologues.

she has her own content warning tag pollrunner's note: this is the most compelling propaganda I've ever seen for a character, thank you for submitting

She's such a bitch to everyone all the time, she causes nothing but problems, she tries to do a villain speech but fumbles it because her tummy hurt, she is the awfulgirl of all time

#awful characters tournament #tournament poll #awful characters round 1 #lost #benjamin linus #the locked tomb #tlt #ianthe tridentarius

38 notes · View notes

princeescaluswords · 10 months

Note

I know you're not the biggest Derek fan but I just rewatched some of his scenes with Scott and I got cracked up by how consistently he campaigns for the title of President Of The Scott McCall Fan Club.

He brings this energy every time he mentions Scott to somebody:

Really weird that people think he'd *ever* badmouth him to prop up characters he canonically doesn't give a single thought to.

First, I know you sent this as a three part message, but I found things to talk about in each one, so I'm going to answer them separately!

Second, I may not be the biggest Derek Hale Fan in the world, but I am a fan. I love a well-crafted redemption arc, and Derek's story is one of the better ones I've seen. In fact, I wanted more of it. But, for me, the key to a good redemption arc is that it is an arc. For Derek to grow and change and become a better person and for it to have meaning, he had to start out in a state that, frankly, wasn't. That's why I insist in my analyses that Derek was an antagonist in Season 1 and an outright villain in Season 2.

I do have seven pages of posts on Tumblr marked anti derek hale. I wish I wouldn't have to label them that, because I do not hate Canon Derek Hale. I simply recognize that he did terrible things, and that while they were understandable within context, that doesn't make them not terrible. Yet, his manipulative treatment of the teenagers of Beacon Hills, his embrace of lethal violence as his primary strategy, and his trauma-induced selfishness all served to fulfill his role as a foil to the heroic protagonist, Scott McCall, and fans shouldn't shy away from discussing this, but I have learned that Tumblr etiquette, when it is followed, demands that negative evaluations of a character's behavior be tagged properly so people can avoid it.

I wish some of the fans who hate Scott McCall would remember that, but I digress.

But I do recognize the weirdness you are describing. To me, Derek's admiration for Scott McCall is a natural evolution. He starts out in Season 1 trying to sell Scott on the realities of his life as a werewolf (even as Derek is using him): Scott's fate is to become like him. "So you and me, Scott - We're brothers now." Derek wants a new family, one that won't be destroyed, but through tragedy, pain, and violence he learns that you can't create one using brute force -- by coercively reshaping others into versions of himself. He sees that when Scott forms his pack, his family, Scott does it by accepting his friends as they are. Scott accepts Stiles with his sarcasm and insecurity. Scott accepts Allison, with her family and all that demands. Scott doesn't want Isaac to get hurt, remembers Kira's name, and tells Liam that he's not a monster. And Scott accepts Derek, even after Derek manipulated him, beat him, sold him out to Peter, and tried to kill innocents. So by the end of Season 6, Derek has instead sold himself the idea that his goal is to become like Scott. "You came back for Beacon Hills? No. Came back for you."

And that is what parts of the fandom can't stand. With all the tragedies Derek undergoes (manipulation by Peter which causes Paige's death, manipulation by Kate which causes his family's death, manipulation by Peter again which causes Laura's death, his execution of Peter, the disasters of his attempt at a pack), they want Derek to be redeemed without the necessity for change. In other words, Derek deserves nice things, not because he earned them, but as some sort of cosmic balancing for what he has suffered (and, frankly, his identity as an attractive white man and a 'bad boy').

But this misguided empathy runs counter to the themes of the show. Scott's the heroic protagonist not because he suffers more than anyone else (and he absolutely does suffer a lot, a fact that fandom uselessly tries to deny) but because he doesn't let that suffering, that injustice, determine who he is or who he cares about. This is what makes him a True Alpha, because he could have let Peter or Derek or Gerard or Deucalion determine his nature. He could have rejected Derek and Stiles and Liam and Theo and Malia and Jackson after they attacked and hurt him. He could have wallowed in the pain caused by his mother's rejection, or his father's absence, or Allison's death, or "Some of us are human!" He could have placed his own safety and well being first, and hid or ran from Kira or the Dead Pool or the Doctors or the Beast or Monroe. But he didn't. And that's what Derek saw, and that's what Derek learned.

Instead of acknowledging that learning, those choices, and that growth, certain parts of the fandom decide that what Derek should have done is resented Scott for not allowing Derek's pain to control Scott's life. They decide that Derek thinks Scott is stupid for not thinking of the world in terms of "us vs. them." They decide that Derek's repeated submission to the tragedies of his own life couldn't possibly have made him weak -- after all, he's rich, good-looking, white, and werewolf "nobility" -- and instead of what happened to him being the consequences of his own choices, he was bedeviled by the metaphysical forces known as 'the writers.' Oh, and Evil Tree Wizard Deaton and his Moron Tyrant Protege, Scott McCall.

Yeah. It's very weird.

#derek hale #scott mccall #teen wolf meta #teen wolf fandom problems #fandom racism #scott mccall defense squad

40 notes · View notes

greenerteacups · 9 months

Note

I'm "cool about Lionheart" in the same way Draco is "cool about his relationship with Hermione" in Lionheart, which is to say, not at all... it's freaking epic! You're doing an epic service to the Dramione fandom and you should know!

I want to ask so many questions about what's coming up in your rewrite of canon but I know that would be asking for spoilers so I won't...

Instead, as I'd also love to hear your thoughts on canon as this story is such an amazing canon rewrite, I want to ask at what point in canon, based on the way his character is portrayed, do you think Draco could have realistically had a turning point and switched sides / become friends with the trio / fallen in love with Hermione etc.? Or do you think that Draco in the original story wouldn't realistically be able to change enough for that to happen? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this as a Dramione fan and writer as I think it's something a lot of people struggle with with his character in canon.

this is such a wonderful ask! i am happy to discuss anything about the fic, and i will do my best to talk about its future without spoilers! questions are an indulgence for me, not a task. (fun fact about this question in particular: originally, when i was thinking of the idea for Lionheart, i wanted to do something with a draco-switching-sides rewrite starting around book 5 or 6, only to realize that the way I wanted to write draco in that fic just wouldn't be in-character without a lot of backstory that would be terribly clunky to try and exposit in media res. which prompted me to start thinking about ways that his character could be changed to reach that point, which made me think... you get the idea.)

To your point, I think Draco is a highly reluctant Death Eater — he's a pureblood supremacist, sure, but he's not dedicated to the cause or anything. mostly he's just a selfish fifteen-year-old kid who does what he's told and gets swept up in his parents' mistakes. if there's one thing about draco, it's that he does not make calls based on a moral compass: he makes calls based on what is best for Draco Malfoy, and possibly a very small circle of people beyond that (all of whom share his last name). it's one of the fundamental tenets of Draco's character: he's not a humanitarian. Even four years of relentless moral reformation in Lionheart can't really beat that out of him. It's just not how he thinks.

But that's actually a pretty convenient thing, if you want to start a redemption arc, because the thing is: if at any point the Order of the Phoenix had been able to offer Draco a better deal than the Death Eaters could, I think he'd have jumped on it. Draco does not want to be part of the war. he doesn't want his parents to be part of the war. arguably Lucius does, but by the time we see them in Book 6, both Narcissa and Lucius seem to be clearly horrified and regretful about the situation they've put themselves in. this is why I think fics like Disappearances and A Season for Setting Fires are such natural springboards for Draco's character — because both of their premises are fairly simple: "what if we just let Draco leave the Death Eaters?" That's all it takes! And that could happen at any time. Realistically, it probably wouldn't happen until Book 5 or 6, because that's the first time the Malfoys are actually called upon to serve Voldemort. But I think if anyone had been willing or able to put Draco in witness protection, he would've changed a lot as soon as he was removed from an environment where performing an earnest and violent belief in blood supremacy was literally necessary to his survival.

For instance, I've sometimes toyed with the idea of a canon divergence AU where Draco goes into Witness Protection at the end of Book 5 — Bending Light kind of has shades of this, though the sequel takes it in a very different direction — and ends up doing what he's doing for the first act of Disappearances, which is bumming around Grimmauld Place and basically annoying everyone until the horcrux hunt kicks in and his Black lineage creates a pretext to haul him along on the quest. That kind of environment is really easy to do redemption arcs in, because the characters are in a constant pressure cooker of stress and hormones and near-death experiences, which will trauma-bond the fuck out of them really quickly and get them fairly comfortable having Big Conversations after like, the third or fourth time they save each other's lives. It also makes for a much easier environment to fall in love, because it removes them from the normal context of Hogwarts and pureblood society and makes the stakes of socializing across class/House lines much, much lower — both for Hermione and for Draco. In fact, talking about this has kind of made me realize why Disappearances is such an incredible fic for me; I think it's possibly the most realistic Draco arc I've ever read. But anyway, if it were to happen earlier, then I think it would have to be outside the Hogwarts context — or maybe a Hogwarts where Draco's not in Slytherin. (Hey, speaking of which...)

#greenteacup asks #dramione

37 notes · View notes

sweetcloverheart · 1 year

Text

Clover Rants Miraculously: “Just Do It”

I often see the adage “Character X isn’t obligated to help Y be a better person” echoed in the fandom quite a lot (especially when it comes a certain blonde bully). Not that I disagree with it, mind you - heck, I’m a huge proponent of the idea of not forcing a character to forgive/absolve an enemy or someone that hurts them just because it’s what a “good person” does. I think it’s very important for anyone to learn “I can fix them” is not an obligatory reaction to someone being in a mood.

The problem I do have with this attitude is that it’s often hitched to the other idea that “X should just be good” (often also accompanied by “Well so-and-so has a similar backstory (except it’s often just a very surface level similarity) and they’re nice! Chloe has no excuse”). And while that attitude isn’t wrong, I feel like it doesn’t really address the issue with how Chloe’s “attempts” to be good could have been done/handled better

So I have to ask - how? How is Chloe supposed to just “be good” despite years of having it internalized to her that being a self-serving narcissist is the best way to live life? What steps should she take? How should she better herself?

Like, this is a show aimed at 7-8 year olds. Kids aren’t stupid or cruel from the jump yeah, but if often goes a long way to actually give them tools/advice on how to achieve the kinds of behavior/attitudes parents want them to embrace. Sometimes just saying “Just be nice” isn’t enough and some people do need the extra help/guidance.

“But you just said no one’s obligated to help someone that hurts them become a better person?” Yes I did - however, these two attitudes are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. Marinette isn’t obligated to act as Chloe’s therapist and hold her hand the whole way towards her redemption, true, and taking the steps forward is mostly on Chloe herself - but that doesn’t mean the former can’t try if she wants to, nor does it mean Chloe must be blocked from any and all people willing to give her the tools/instructions necessary to make these changes if they want to. There’s nothing wrong with a character receiving help to be a better person (especially if it can lead to them eventually continuing to improve on their own once the training wheels are gone). It doesn’t need to be “Oh all’s forgiven just don’t do it again okay!” or something along those lines. You can have Chloe being directly helped into being a better person than she is and emphasize that this is something she has to choose to do while showing that Marinette and co aren’t insta-forgiving her for all the bullying and torment for all those years.

Honestly, the majority of the issue comes solely from how the show set up the whole thing. I mean, let’s look at Chloe’s “arc” in seasons 2-3 for a bit - we had so many characters telling Marinette she needs to simply “be the bigger person” and give Chloe another chance because it might help her be nicer, but I don’t ever recall anyone actually giving...genuinely actionable advice on how to achieve this goal through these acts. No “maybe make her do some volunteer work and see if that helps”, or “Maybe help encourage nicer behavior by showing her the benefits of being nice and have her emulate you”, or “Maybe use your role as student president (or as Ladybug) to force Chloe to actually help out the class (even if it might fail because of her using her dad to get out of it)”, or even “Ask for help from her childhood friend who should be more involved in this plotline considering he is, y’know, her childhood friend”. Just keep “forgiving” the mean girl when she goes out of the way to humiliate you and give her a magic haircomb, and then hope for the best (and if it fails, we’ll blame you for not doing more/preventing her fall from grace even though we did nothing too and likely could of helped)! Yeah, Chloe only acted like a hero because of the Bee Miraculous and helped out, but what about being Queen Bee encouraged better behavior from her outside of “Well, Ladybug likes me! :)”. Who and what was encouraging her to bring out that same attitude in her civilian life? Why make the whole onus on Chloe’s self-improvement be on only her and Marinette’s shoulders when the folks pushing the former to play redeemer for the latter “clearly” saw good in her could have directly assisted? Having the cast “Give chances” can only go so far - they also need to give actual goals (or at least smaller achievable daily actions) for whosoever is being redeemed before we can say “Well, they tried”.

Also, why is it that only Marinette is making these efforts - where’s Bustier, who keeps claiming she thinks there’s good in Chloe when she prompts Marinette and the rest to turn the other cheek, to assist by reigning in Chloe’s bad behavior? Where’s her father, who’s totally willing to defy her order to send her half-sister back to New York but will still gladly shut down half the city because one particular person irked his daughter or stand back while she and his wife mistreat her, to finally put his foot down and stop using his position as mayor to allow her to act however she likes without repercussions? Where’s Adrien, who sees his childhood friend mistreating his classmates and friends (and future girlfriend), yet will defend the behavior with “that’s just how she is” and won’t intervene until it actually directly affects him (“Despair Bear”) or he learns about an event from years ago and only cares since that’s interfering with his relationship now (“Derision”)? Where’s Master Fu, who encouraged Marinette to let Chloe have the bee and stood to the side as the entire thing broke down and lead to “Miracle Queen” happening?

There were also no actions taken by the narrative to force reflection on her behavior - Situations like “Rogercop” (Getting her “best friend’s” dad fired), “Maladictator” (Causing her father to get akumatized over her flipflopped decision to leave the city), and “Miraculer” (intentionally hurting her “best friend’s” feelings/getting her targeted by Hawkmoth because of the ID reveal) should have been major changes for Chloe and put a halt on her status quo. Even “Despair Bear” (despite how much I like the episode), really only scratched the surface by having Adrien threaten to end their friendship and force Chloe to actually consider her behavior for 10 secs before going “LOL just kidding, she’s still awful” and sacrificed that small moment of potential character depth for the sake of a joke. Imagine how much more interesting it would have been if Chloe had gone for an insulting compliment to show she’s still mean but at least is trying maybe? Or have Adrien get upset that she went right back to bullying everyone and eventually made good on his threat at the end of season 3? Why not actually have more situations like that, that lose her friends and the privilege of her status that either forces her to reflect on her behavior or doubledown until she loses everything. Why can’t there be effort put in to try and make Chloe seem like she was trying (or not trying) and failing to be a good person - or having it actually look like the cast was failing to reform her by showing them actively doing things to force her to be nice and her failing at them/being a hero and refusing to help/be better despite Ladybug’s attempts to steer her in the right direction and have her lose her miraculous because of that (instead of the eventually made moot “hAWkmoTh kNoWS YouR iDEntIty” thing). How hard was it to show Chloe and everyone actually trying instead of just going “Well Marinette said Bustier and everyone tried to give her a chance (and no, I’m sorry - standing back while Chloe torments her classmates while also blocking Marinette/others from making any open opposition because they think that eventually the magical nonexistent switch in her brain will flip to “good little angel” if they just do nothing is not “trying” in any universe) so clearly she’s just evil” after spending a majority of the 4-5 season demanding the MC and audience take the “be the bigger person” approach while claiming Chloe has potential to stop being a brat.

#Clover Rants Miraculously #ML Salt #ML Spoilers #I spotted a queuety

54 notes · View notes

faelapis · 2 years

Text

White Diamond analysis: post-SU future

i've spoken about why i like white diamond before, but i want to update it. i've made a mediocre little video ages ago (i think its called "white diamonds cognitive journey" but i don't wanna link it here because while i stand by a lot of the conclusions, i was very bad at youtube and cringe at my editing)... but that's somewhat outdated now. because SU the movie and SU future happened.

so i will summarize my old thoughts, and add new ones.

i will say that i don't think white's arc, whatever you feel about it, is meant to read as "complete." i think that's where a lot of fandom cognitive dissonance comes from. i think it's meant to read as a continuous, breathing thing that could change more now that steven is gone. i wanna thank future for that, both problematizing white's current mindset and giving her a jumping-off point - along with jasper and the other diamonds - to keep changing.

so. what do i mean by this?

in CYM, white falls apart. then the movie, and future, are extensions of the mindset she gains at the end of CYM. people complain about an "offscreen" redemption but i don't think that's true. what i will explore is how white submits herself to what steven wants because she doesn't trust herself or her own judgement anymore if she's not perfect. the movie and future are just natural extensions of that.

let's start at CYM.

by the end of it, white finally questions herself, to perhaps an extreme degree because she'd built herself up around the idea of having to be perfect. to her, perfect means being wise, correct, unquestionable. she's kept watch over gemkind, she's always looking from afar. how its played, its ambiguous as to whether she could Literally see everything pink did, or if she just put herself in denial that of course pink was alive, of course this was all one of her games.

but if its the former, if she can Literally see all of gemkind through her divine light, i think the reason she can't predict steven is that he's half-human. she can't see him as clearly. she knew he was human from the get go, calling pink "hiding" and "embedded in that human child", so perhaps part of her obsession was not being able to see.

anyway, what others say they feel isn't that important, she knows what they "really" need and feel. she can see them, better than they can. she's their creator, their goddess "mother", after all.

and if she can, in a meta sense, see everything, she is the opposite of steven and the audience - they are subjective, and they know that. "we" can only see from steven's pov. white is a challenge to that, someone who represents the standard tv drama where an omniscent audience gets to see everything. we don't, we are limited to steven. because the point is that no one can truly be objective.

but anyway - white styles herself as being objective. she's facts and logic, she doesn't care about feelings (tm). so yellow and blue's emotional pleas don't matter. what matters is if she can be logically proven wrong. if she SEES that steven isn't pink, then she is objectively wrong. that's something she can't handle. she can't justify it, so her worldview falls apart. she's not perfect.

the question then becomes how she responds to this. and the answer is, well, like someone whose world has fallen apart! someone who trusts her own judgement so little that she has to follow someone else. so she acts like most homeworld gems, at some point.

as we see at the end of CYM, and made more explicit in the movie and future... she starts following whatever steven wants. the era 3 diamond symbol is flipped on its head - steven is the "highest" diamond, and white sees herself as the "lowest."

i don't think white, personally, has reached a conclusion on how she feels about corrupted gems. i don't think she has anything but gut feelings - some base disgust (as drawn throughout CYM, there's a great shot about getting into the pool but looks conflicted, that i think someone in the crew described as her "hesitantly getting into a public pool", which can be read through several different lenses of prejudice.) , but also wanting to help because she feels bad enough about herself to do whatever someone else tells her is helpful.

and that someone else is steven. even if she herself is conflicted, she spends the end of CYM looking to him for approval. its only through his joy and acknowledgement of her that she allows herself to hesitantly, awkwardly smile. despite everything.

and then the movie shows this at its logical extreme. like white, yellow and blue are also following steven - they are almost obsessed with him. he's made things better, after all! he's a hero! he even guided them at their worst, the way white was supposed to do. he's surely worthy of worship as the superior diamond.

when steven understandably wants to leave, they beg for him to stay! they whine about how they've done everything he asked. they're clearly doing it for him. because of him. just let us worship adore you.

in a way, they are extremely childish. they're not really changed in the sense of a mature understanding of the world based on their own experiences and moral compass, but they know they are flawed. and they love and adore steven, so HE will tell them what to think. what to be. what to do.

we'll do it all. whatever you say. you know better than us!

then future happens.

our heroic, superior steven isnt the perfect golden child anymore. perhaps he never was. he's no longer able to hide it, at least, because now that the war is over, he's not able to focus on a life's purpose ("living up to rose quartz" first, "being a hero" later), so he is haunted by his PTSD. everything catches up to him. he even questions his own relationships - a lot of them having formed around him being that "good," helpful person. someone who needs to be needed. someone who doesn't know who he is when he isn't perfect.

are we really surprised he went to the diamonds, at his worst? of course he did. on some level, i think he hoped they could heal him... but failing that, maybe he would find a fellowship of flawed, broken people who had abused others high opinions of them. instead, he found them doing good things, being useful, being better than him, despite how he himself was still suffering. suffering because of them.

another huge reason steven was "set off" by white was by literally seeing himself in her body, right after shattering jasper and making a bunch of other mistakes. the fear of becoming like her, an ignorant or cruel person in an abusive chain. but the poison was already in him. and in trying to hurt white, he was literally hurting himself. trying to focus on destroying everything imperfect around you, you become incapable of accepting the imperfections within.

anyway. this is still about white!! i just wanted to "catch us up" on my interpretation of steven in future, and also lay some groundwork of the parallels between white and steven here. i think steven, in all of future, is a disharmonic, symbolic mix of white and pink.

anyway, now this messed up, openly broken steven has to meet the diamonds. and of course, when they fail to heal him, despite his pain being partially their fault, and seeing himself "as white", fearing being like her, deluded instead of a true hero... he doesn't take it well.

and that brings us back to white. while she's clearly scared in this scene, "i am my monster" clarifies that she doesn't hate him, and certainly doesn't blame him. she and the others still come to call, they still help him however they can. even if he doesn't love them (as spinel puts it, he never writes or calls), they still love him. he still helped them. he still made them better.

and i think that's a crucial bit of progress, because it shows them putting the pieces together. yes, steven isn't the perfect diamond they hoped would guide them, he isn't their holy "father" the way they tried to be authoritarian "mothers" to gemkind, but they don't turn on him for that reason. blue and yellow aren't disgusted with steven "turning pink" like white did. and white isn't even mad at him for trying to kill her. she knows why:

spinel: this is my fault!

white diamond spinel! don't be silly! everyone knows that all of this is because of me!

spinel: NO, it's because of ME! i tried to wipe his friends memories so he could die alone on a barren world!

white: but that was because you were angry with pink, and if pink hurt you, it was because i hurt her! like i hurt yellow, and blue, and steven, and everyone in the entire universe! *sobbing* this is all my fault!

and after that, of course, chad connie comes in and focuses their attention on the fact that yes, they did hurt him. but this pity party - this obsession with self-punishment - is just making it about themselves. like the way some parents respond to their children hurting with "where did i go wrong?!" instead of actually helping.

but what's crucial is that despite the diamonds following steven almost blindly, it wasn't completely blindly. they understand the concept of generational trauma: it wasn't just spinel, and it wasn't just pink. it was all of them. and white may in some ways be the "source", but connie still insists they all try to help anyway.

the diamonds are not fully "there yet" in terms of emotional development, but they did learn one thing - you can't abandon or destroy people because they are flawed. through steven, and through being there for each other, they have seen how even they, themselves, can help despite their own flaws... and so, they are forced to accept that part of steven too. that is something they're able to process and turn into practice by the end of future.

so then... steven leaves.

earlier, when he left homeworld, he told the diamonds the exact same thing he told jasper: don't follow me.

that can be interpreted literally, but also figuratively. with jasper, its explicitly about looking up to him: "find something better to do with your life." so that leaves them all - white diamond, yellow, blue, jasper... adrift. but now, with some morals and experiences to guide them. they're not children anymore, they can't rely on steven to tell them what to do. maybe they'll even have PTSD and existential crises of their own! we don't know, because we are bound to steven - someone who has decided that's not his business anymore. he has to heal himself, regardless of what everyone else does.

so the show prompts us to accept that no, we don't really know whether the diamonds (and jasper) will "fully" heal, what the world will look like to them in 10, 100, 1000 years. but it gives them all hope. it gives them a starting point, recognizing that their flaws are not the end of the world. jasper goes to little homeworld. the diamonds have each other. they just have to keep going without an authority to guide them... the same way all of gemkind must find a way to exist without the diamonds.

i'm not the first to say a lot of this. there’s been a lot of digital ink spilled to say the diamonds are only doing what steven wants, and that steven is "using" them... but that’s usually in the service of saying they're not “really” redeemed, end of story. because steven doesn’t like them, the show ITSELF must hate them and have no real desire to redeem them. it’s usually a reactionary stance to “defend” SU against “soft on crime” allegations lol.

but i don’t care about that kind of punitive bs, nor do i think that’s the shows intended message. they could’ve had steven actually shatter white, but it would’ve been at the cost of the societal goods of rehabilitation. this is a show where revenge and healing are contradictory - rehabilitation is necessary for true structural change (literal and figurative healing). people are flawed and they can change. they could’ve written revenge to be more important or equal, but no. steven doesn’t need to kill them, he needs therapy.

as i’ve hopefully shown, while the diamonds are far from perfect, they HAVE learned something. they accept steven despite his flaws, they’re well on their way to accepting the concept of flaws in general. they seem happy with their new powers to heal and find meaning in helping people. and in future, they continue to do good despite how steven never calls or visits. even humbling yourself and admitting you’re wrong is, i think, more than many of us could do.

#steven universe #white diamond #su theory #su analysis #gif /#steven #jasper #yellow diamond #blue diamond #spinel #the diamonds

391 notes · View notes

emperorhyperi0n · 10 months

Text

How Did We Get Here: Choices

*metalpipefalling.mp4*

I'm genuinely so confused at some of the opinions of people in the Geats fandom. It feels like I'm watching the fan response to a completely different series, and the lack of understanding here is something I want to address. Namely, to the concept of "redemption", or at least how it's being used right now.

It seems like there is a central lack of understanding on what one of the core themes of the show is: choice, choices and how we can choose to act. It's an entirely different rant, but it's present in everything, and nobody can see it.

There's something oddly visceral about the rejection of the writing in these recent episodes, and it's tied to this weird idea of everybody getting a sudden "Resurrection Arc" out of nowhere. And it's... honestly kind of strange to me.

Michinaga chose to try and fight the Jyamato, not because it would automatically redeem him or something, but because he saw people in danger, and for the first time in-series he actually did want to help (albeit what happened after he did so was the opposite, and it's kind of amusing how he keeps fucking up.)

Kousei chose to become a Kamen Rider, not because it would automatically redeem him or something, but because of him not wanting to lose another daughter, regardless of if he's already burned the bridge of their relationship a thousand times over.

Their actions still had consequences!!! The relationships are still not healed because of them spectacularly fucking up!!!! But regardless of all of that they finally chose to maybe try and fix the mess they've made, and while it doesn't redeem their previous actions, it shows that there is something human enough underneath to change, to make good choices. To move on from the trauma that led them here. And maybe to try and repair the bonds they severed.

That is not redemption (at least, not yet.) There is still a very long road ahead, but what matters is that, for once in their lives, they made the right choice and realized how much of a bitch they were. That's not a fucking Redemption Arc, that's character development, it is fleshing them out, it is making them develop, and it is making them realize that what they chose to do matter. To say that they are magically forgiven for all of their actions because of this is a wild misunderstanding of the concept.

There is such a thing as changing, of deciding to do the right thing and maybe to try and atone for what you've done. There is such a thing as forgiving yet not forgetting. Maybe it doesn't feel """earned""" for some people, but I think there's something about that idea that I enjoy, and for as clumsily implemented as it may be I feel like it's still a theme worth having in-series.

I'm not gonna press my luck, but for anyone out there, I hope this makes ya think a little bit.

#kamen rider geats #kamen rider #jesus this is a long post. kinda wild.#i'm biting metal wtf are y'all saying #i feel like ive been locked in a room with rubber rats

16 notes · View notes

distort-opia · 2 years

Note

do you ever think that joker's character would be hated less if harley was never created? dont get me wrong i love her, its just that her inclusion in the first place was for joker to beat the gay allegations and the abuse isnt rlly fun imo. whining about this is kinda pointless since we cant change the past but i just wanted to hear how you feel about this topic

Mm. This is a bit complicated. I know that it's a popular belief, the idea Harley Quinn was created to make Joker appear less queer, but that's not entirely rooted in fact. Not saying this motivation didn't play a role at all, but if you read up on Harley's origins, some writers involved were against her becoming a regular character on BTAS because it would humanize Joker too much to have a love interest; that was a significant concern. When introducing her to main comic continuity, Dini specifically had Joker be as dark and murderous towards her from the start, and this persisted in most comics featuring them afterwards.

It's not Harley's sheer existence that contributed to the hatred for Joker's character in recent times, in my opinion. It's three combined factors: her redemption arc for the past decade or so, Joker's abusiveness towards her, and the fact she was given a female love interest in Poison Ivy (which turned her into explicit queer representation). The draw of Harlivy as a ship and of Harley being depicted as an abused woman standing up for herself was understandably massive, for a big segment of fandom. And unfortunately, many were eager to forget about Harley's past crimes and choices because of this; after all, it's not difficult to just blame Joker for all the "evil" parts of Harley in order to justify her actions. Joker undoubtedly had a big influence, but it really takes away from her character if her agency is denied entirely (I do hate this recent cross-fandom tendency to take conflicted darker characters and sanitize them). And there is something to be said about Joker being written as a one-dimensional abusive asshole, in order to uplift Harley's character arc and make her triumphs over him more impactful. It is a pity... while I can't say I am a fan of Harley, I find her interesting, and her relationship with Joker has some fascinating aspects to it that get downplayed and ignored in this wave of oversimplification. The main reason she stayed with him was because she thought there was humanity to him, and that she could be the one to bring it out. The tragedy of it, of course, is that she's not wrong-- it's simply that Joker is pretty much incapable of seeing anyone other than Batman as an equal and a fellow human being. Joker does care about her in his own twisted way, but as an extension of himself; a possession, something he created. He also treats her as an extension of himself, which is to say... badly. Because despite how contradictory it might seem at first glance, Joker is suicidal and self-loathing.

Anyway, an analysis of Jarley isn't the point of this :)) To make a long story short, it's true that Harley never being created would've led to none of this happening... but thing is, I do think a female sidekick was inevitable. If they didn't give Joker Harley Quinn, they would've come up with a different character like her eventually, and then who knows where that would've gone. And even if you try to imagine a world with Joker having no one like Harley in his story... the current hatred towards Joker in Tumblr and Twitter circles is quite intertwined with the rise of purity culture and with Joker fatigue (due to DC's overuse of him). Joker as a villain is associated with alpha male toxicity and the whole "we live in a society" mindset, which instantly makes fans on this side of the fence wary; although, even leaving aside the fact Joker has killed countless people in canon, it's more that he shot Barbara Gordon and killed Jason Todd that gets him the biggest amount of hatred. Of course that his abuse towards Harley plays a big part as well, but personally, I don't think it's the main cause. Batman has so many villains, but few of them have harmed Bruce and his Family as personally as Joker has. Seeing as the fandom for the Batfamily is the biggest one, it's not surprising that Joker is disliked within it. (Which is perfectly fine. Issues only arise when fans don't make the distinction between reality and fiction and begin to harass each other over make-pretend non-existent people.)

#I do specifically say Twitter and Tumblr because #the more mainstream Batman fandom (on Reddit for instance) is a different beast #Joker is disliked there too but for different reasons and not as badly #anyway. hope this satisfied your curiosity anon!#asks #batman #joker #joker meta #my meta #discussion of abuse

58 notes · View notes

tae-shimura-is-my-wife · 1 year

Text

!Long post!

Ulquiorra and Orihime relationship didn't started as the cutest or nicest thing ever and i can recognize that, but i don't ship them because he kidnapped her (by Aizen's order) or for saying distateful things to Ori.

Ulquiorra it's not a human, he doesn't have moral and lives in a cruel world, which makes sense of why he's so nihilistic, Ulquiorra didn't treat her like a princess at the start and tried to break Ori spirit, but at the moment she didn't acted like anyone else he got surprised and then wanted to understand her and what she is feeling, she literally changed his world view! Only with her feelings Ori made Ulquiorra, a hollow, a "bad creature" question everything what he thought was right.

Ulquiorra not only tried to understand her, but also was slowly chaging his behaviour to her, especially after he listened to her crying because of him, he even protected Ori from Ichigo's attacks when she wasn't necessary to Aizen anymore.

That's the reason why i don't feel uncomfortable, because despite they having a rowdy start, Ulquiorra a corrupted soul was willing to understand and change for Ori. No she didn't fixed him or need to, Ori didn't forced him to anything! He did it HIMSELF! Kinda in a unconsciously way, but because of her!

The idea of this ship for me is them living a peaceful life together after his redemption, not this dark and edgy "omg he kidnapped her so s3xy!" or "he atormented her so many s#xual tension!". Especially because Nel is an example that not all hollows are bad! And a Hollow having a rendemption arc would be amazing c'mon!

I don't speak for everyone in the fandom, because people have different interpretations, but this is how i view them.

This is why they often paralled to Beauty and the Beast, a nice and kind girl changed Beast worldview and willing to change his behaviour, because of her! She didn't fixed him, he did it himself! And after he become a actually good person, he could live a wonderful life by her side.

#ulquihime #ulquiorra x orihime #pro ulquihime #personal rant #i just wanted to have this post on my blog #one of the few enemies to lovers that i like #his relationship with Ori only showed that he wasn't bad #but that he was struck in a mindset #i don't even need to mention how interesting would be a human and a hollow having a relationship #he cared about what Ori thought about him #it was clear since he last phrase was if she feared him #we literally had two pages of him thinking Ori before he vanishes from existence #for me it what matters the most #it's that he was willing to change #she affected him so much #that he was literally chaging his behaviour without even perceiveing #even ichigo himself stated that ulquiorra was becoming more human #comparing ulquiorra to when he was introduced #to his last chapters #we can see how much he has changed #there's more reasons to why i ship ulquihime btw #this is just a few bit #i need to censor very silly words in order to my posts appearing to public

19 notes · View notes

tgammsideblog · 2 years

Text

On Bill Motz’s thread on Scratch, cartoon fandom has weird idea of how redemption arcs work, which they think it consists in a character learning a lesson and becoming a complete different one without barely making the same mistakes again or having setbacks.

The true is that a person doesn’t change in a day and stops being what they are, they are going to make many mistakes along the way. They are going to have moments when they fall back in their old habits because getting over behavior you have had most of your life is difficult.

I think one of the few shows i watched that really gets this is Bojack Horseman, which is adult animation. The main character Bojack tries changing multiples times in the series and he fails miserably more than one time. He ends up pushing people away and completely ruining relationships forever. It takes him a long time until he starts to work on be better himself.

Speaking about that, i have watched very few animated shows with semi-episodic format that dion’t have the characters learn a lesson multiple times before they start changing. Not only that but older cartoons used to make the character learn lessons that rarely sticked to them and i don’t see people saying that they are bad series because of it. Look at Anne from Amphibia, it took her almost a season to really start seeing her changing and had to learn tons of things along the way.

#The Ghost And Molly McGee #tgamm #TGaMM Scratch #That doesn't mean i'm a big fan of the plot B in the internship episode #I still think its quite lame lol

26 notes · View notes

theundeadelf · 1 year

Text

I'm not tagging this because I don't really want to cause drama (lol) but I just wanted to write out a few thoughts I'm having about the current show discourse 🧛🏾‍♂️🧛🏼

This is probably a terrible idea, so here we go! Multiple book spoilers below the cut, the usual.

First of all, I'm not sure why people are surprised and angry about the likelihood of s3 being heavily based on TVL.

I do understand being worried Louis' role will be reduced, but as far as I can tell, regardless of whatever contracts he may or may not have signed, the writers seem to be planning to keep Jacob and Louis around. Plans change y'know? If the contract rumour is true, Jacob likely signed it when AMC wanted IWTV to be one season only. We now know it's divided into two. Scripts can get reworked easily - take a look at the original script for the pilot episode. It's a work of art and I mean that in a "oh hell no" kind of way 😂

What I can't understand is this: although AMC does have the right to do whatever it wants with the franchise (and some would argue it already has), Lestat is the protagonist of the Vampire Chronicles. He has been for nearly forty years. Being angry that his POV will be shown later, that his backstory will be shown, that he may get a redemption arc - all of that is in the books, the books that AMC has the rights to. I'm not saying the writers couldn't change things to make Louis the protagonist instead, but then they will basically have to rewrite the whole book series. Sure, I guess they could make Louis meet the Devil, have his body swapped, go into a coma and become the prince of vampires, but at that point he may as well be called Lestat instead. Louis de Lioncourt or Lestat de Pointe du Lac, take your pick 😅

Obviously, I know there is a history of Black characters being upstaged unjustly by white ones, that changing the protagonist from Louis to Lestat would be yet another example of that happening. The only way I can see the writers staying somewhat faithful to the books whilst avoiding this is to make them co-protagonists instead. For all we know that's what's happening - and obviously, I hope that it does! I really love this version of Louis and I want to see ten seasons of him at the very least.

And as for Lestat's possible redemption arc..... Look, I will be the first person to say that AMC handled episode 5 extremely poorly (understatement of the century there). I can vaguely see why it was *necessary* for the very specific plot the show set up, because they had to bridge the gap between "show Lestat is somewhat nicer than the book Lestat (to Louis)" and "Louis and Claudia need to murder him at the end." But the lack of trigger warnings was absurd, and all it really succeeded at was splintering the fandom forever. It was done, I think, for shock value, because they'd backed themselves into a corner, and it was incredibly gratifying to see that Sam had similar worries.

I do think a "redemption arc" is still possible. I'm just not sure if it'll be believable for everyone.

I don't think it'll be at Armand's expense - look, I do think expecting Armand to be the hero to Lestat's villain is wishful thinking. I don't say that to demonise him. Outside of the odd meme, I don't think Armand's some mastermind editing all of Louis' thoughts and memories to make Lestat look bad (something's definitely off about the situation in Dubai though). However, the 514 year old vampire is not a good guy, I promise you. He wasn't good in the books, nobody is good in the books, and I think people should manage their expectations accordingly - that way, if characters end up being *better* or *well-adjusted* in the show it's a pleasant surprise.

And this is what I mean - what does a redemption arc even look like for a vampire? What would a Lestat redemption arc even look like? At the end of the day, he still has to drink blood and he still inflicted horrific violence on the man he was in love with. Sure, you can drink blood without killing people. You can argue that vampires cannot be held to the same standards as humans, and that over hundreds of years there may be the possibility for forgiveness.

But honestly I'm not convinced we'll get all that. Lestat is Lestat, he's never going to be good. What I do think we'll get is - like Sam said - "a massive dose of humble pie." He's stuck in a landfill. He's feeding off rats to survive. We'll see his backstory where his boyfriend and mother leave him, and he was turned into a vampire by a deranged creature obsessed with blond boys and men. We may see everything with Akasha. He'll be bodyswapped with a human and beg Louis to turn him back. He'll fall into a coma. He'll become the prince of vampires and long for the days when nobody saw him that way, for the times he saw Macbeth with Louis and Claudia and they lived in New Orleans together.

I guess the showrunners like a challenge?

10 notes · View notes