dream0holder

[dream0holder]

[dream0holder]

Part 1:

Part 2:

...isn't that how it works? 🤪

[dream0holder]

Fiyero: Would you slap your best friend for a thousand bucks? Elphaba: I would slap Glinda for free. Glinda, tearing up: I’m your best friend??

[dream0holder]

Felt like I should make something silly after my last post

Also, Wicked fandom, who is responsible for the ship name for this OT3 being “Gliyeraba” when “Gelphiero/Gelphiyero” is right there and sounds so much better

[dream0holder]

look if the fucking mouse can change the ending of the little mermaid to have the mermaid marry the prince then universal can change wicked for good to have Elphaba kiss Glinda on the mouth and run away with her and Fiyero it’s 2025 let the witch have her single-braincell-sharing wife and husband

[dream0holder]

people who a) act like glinda would have been able to just leave comfortably after becoming a literal political prisoner and b) pretend like that hug with morrible was in any way comfortable for her and not her clearly being repulsed and going along with it for her own safety are the bane of my existence.

also I want to remind you seeing as I’m seeing some bs comparisons again: glinda was known to be elphie’s best friend whereas fiyero pretty much had no involvement. the wizard and morrible did not give a shit about him and he could have chosen to keep looking for elphaba. instead he willingly chooses to become part of the same system you demonise glinda for being a part of.

I don’t even dislike fiyero or f*yeraba (censored so it doesn’t end up in the tag and upset some people) but the way some of you put that man on a pedestal as some innocent angel is so annoying. he is just as complicit as glinda and only chooses elphie a week before glinda also chooses her!

[dream0holder]

I’m 25 now, can I admit that I had a teeny crush on Brainiac? Like almost all iterations but especially in Smallville

[dream0holder]

I think in Wicked (the musical at least – not sure about the novel), there's a bit of an uneasiness between the theme of "everyone is morally gray, no one is all bad or all good" and the fact that Elphaba is a freedom fighter against a fascist government that commits atrocities against a minority group.

Yes, the Wizard has some sympathetic qualities, Elphaba has some flaws and briefly turns to villainy toward the end, and Glinda is a mass of moral grayness under her perky pink facade. But for the most part it's clear who the villains are (the Wizard and Madame Morrible), Elphaba's stance against them is clearly heroic, and Glinda's choice to work for them is clearly a moral sell-out, with which she struggles and from which she eventually redeems herself. When the Animals' treatment parallels the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, you can't take a "both sides" view of the situation. But every now and then, the show seems to do just that – whether in the song "Wonderful" with the Wizard's talk of "moral ambiguities" (though of course in that song, he's trying to justify his actions and manipulate Elphaba into joining him), or Elphaba and Glinda's reconciliation in "For Good," where they paint themselves as having been equally at fault. And again, and again, I've heard people say "There are no real villains in Wicked: the whole point is that there are two sides to every story and neither side is all good or all bad." But if that's the intended message, does it honestly fit with a plot that involves fascism and racial persecution?

Another work of fiction that I think has some uneasiness between its themes is Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Namely between "the Beast as a suffering, misunderstood outcast" and "the Beast as a powerful bully who needs to be humbled and change." I think a lot of the controversy about that movie stems from the uneasiness between those two themes.

On the one hand, the Beast is a spoiled, selfish prince, who was cursed as punishment for shutting out a poor beggar woman, who has a terrifying temper, and who orders others around and throws tantrums when he doesn't get his own way. His beastly appearance and mannerisms can be seen as outward symbols of his bad behavior, which is based in toxic class privilege and masculinity. From this perspective, Gaston is his kindred spirit, which is emphasized by visual cues: e.g. their similar striking blue eyes, or Gaston's pelt-covered, horned chair in the tavern that looks like the Beast's silhouette. The difference between them is that the Beast finally realizes he was wrong and changes his ways, while Gaston only becomes more beastly. But on the other hand, the Beast is also an "other", who hides from the world, who struggles with basic social skills, who is full of insecurity and self-loathing, whom Belle bonds with because they're both misfits, whose bestial mannerisms and overpowering rages are at least partly because the spell is warping his mind (in other words, a magical mental illness), and whom a mob tries to murder just because he looks scary. Analogies have rightly been drawn between the Beast and victims of racism, homophobia, or other prejudice. From this viewpoint, Gaston is his opposite: the type of privileged boor who receives undeserved hero-worship just because he's handsome and charismatic, and who persecutes "others" like the Beast.

When people view it chiefly as a story about the taming of a powerful bully, you hear accusations of "Stockholm Syndrome" and of the dangerous fantasies of changing an abuser. Viewing the Beast as a misunderstood outcast, who finds acceptance in a fellow outcast and who overcomes his mental health struggles and bad coping mechanisms as a result, reduces those accusations. But if you view the Beast chiefly as a misunderstood outcast, then his character arc can feel disempowering: so much of it consists of learning to be more people-pleasing and self-effacing, not to mention re-learning "normal" human manners and behavior (as an autistic person, I know I've sometimes felt "He needs to mask to be loved"), and he becomes fully "normal" by becoming human again in the end.

Maybe there is no uneasiness between these different themes: maybe it's just complexity. Maybe my feelings on the subject shows that I'm autistic and struggle with things that aren't black-and-white. But in both of these works of fiction, I do sometimes feel as if the writers were trying to tell two different stories at once, which sometimes fit together, sometimes not.

Does anyone else feel that way about other works of fiction? Can you name any other stories with multiple themes that seem slightly opposed and uneasy together?

[dream0holder]

I just KNOW the fanfic girlies in 05-06 were going CRAZY over this

WHAT DID HE SAY!!!!!?????

[dream0holder]

Tbf everyone is a baby compared to Armand

[dream0holder]

Just because vampires can’t feel cold doesn’t mean you shouldn’t invite them inside when it snows…………… just a thought. Ahem..……..

[dream0holder]

I feel like both points have a place though. Whether Luigi is right or wrong, let’s not pretend as though the understanding of his act isn’t in part due to the fact that he’s white. History has and will see to that fact. We shouldn’t idolize any serial killers but how many of them that are thirsted after are black and brown men?

White cishet men are given the burden of understanding and empathy when it comes to their actions. Everyone wants to know the whys and hows. Their upbringings and mental health statutes. Black and brown men however, it’s just in their nature. Look at where they’re from and how they act? OF COURSE he hurt someone, right?

Luigi’s case is one that speaks to many people and a lot of pivotal revolutionaries were white men. But true class consciousness is acknowledging that his fame is in part due to his privilege 🤷🏾‍♀️

They're trying so hard to make this a culture war thing instead of a class consciousness moment.

[dream0holder]

[dream0holder]

[dream0holder]

[dream0holder]

[dream0holder]