#[ analysis ]

[spn2006]

i doubt anyone will pay attention to this addition, but i do think it’s funny how i posted this thinking about like. succession and supernatural and ginger snaps and stuff that has actual incest subtext in it but the stuff yall are tagging this with,, you might be a bit delusional

i bring a real "this piece of media has incest subtext that you're ignoring" vibe to the function that nobody really likes

[raayllum]

The thing (or one of the things) about Ezran in early S7 is that while he's not being unreasonable, he is being hypocritical and unproductive ("You forgave Zubeia"). 7x01 is his breaking point after seasons of trying to keep everyone else together and weathering each conflict in as most an unaffected manner as possible, and he quite simply couldn't do it anymore.

Zubeia sent an assassin to kill your father? You long for your mother so deeply, you don't know your dad is dead yet, you do everything you can to get Zym back home because you love him (you can literally see through his eyes) and because it's the best chance for peace. Forgive her for killing your father and trying to kill you because she was grieving and Zym's dad for killing your mother because he's dead and they miss him. Put all your anger in a box at the one person who actually did kill him, because Zubeia saw her baby and changed her mind, and your found family sister (who is also missing) defected and spared your life that night, and he didn't.

Deny the ugly truths as long as you can by focusing on peace ("I ignored something that was true. I denied something that is undeniable"). Why should you have to acknowledge anger? Can't you just get past that? And then you can't, with the picture. (Then you can't, later, with yourself.)

Rayla comes back and Callum is fighting with her? Forgive and welcome her back unconditionally and try to counsel Callum through his big feelings. Rinse and repeat when Soren and then Zym goes missing. Advocate for and refuse to give up on Rex Igneous until he sends you sprawling into a wall.

Take on the responsibility of negotiating with the dragons. With Finnegrin (you offer up your hand, and so do your friends, your family). Talk your brother out of a more violent solution, and Rayla sides with you. She does again about hiding with the pearl and you save each other's lives. You look after home while she and Callum leave to save the world, and tell Soren the hard truth and deal with Viren till you don't. You try to spare Karim and his forces. You believe in peace. You believe in breaking the cycle.

"I am a king, and as a king, I choose love over strength."

"King of what? King of ashes?"

Ezran looks at what two years of trying to do the right peaceful thing has earned him — a destroyed kingdom while he was away — and he desperately, angrily, grasps at any semblance of control. This can't be all it was for. He feels like he's failed as a king, and is therefore a bad king. He needs to punish Sol Regem for it, but he can't. It needs to be Runaan's 'fault' because Runaan made him a king, even though keeping Runaan chained up in the Banther Lodge basement doesn't do anything but keep another family (Rayla's family) apart and make him feel in control. His pendulum swings so hard and strong, the target of his anger constantly changing to the most recent wound stacked upon themselves. After 7x02, he's not visibly angry at Runaan again until the finale; he's angrier at Callum than he is at Rayla because he thought he had control over his brother ("Callum. High Mage. We need you at this council meeting") even if that shouldn't be the goal or the focus at all anyway.

Callum doesn't betray him just because of Rayla, but because Ezran is perpetuating the cycle in a way that is antithetical to everything all three of them have striven to break, which is exactly what Callum points out to him. (If Rayla had surrendered or Callum had stayed, they just all likely would've been arrested, as it's unlikely Rayla and Runaan would've made it in the boat with Callum's magic, either. Would that have made Ezran, or anyone, feel better, hunting down his brother and friends, bringing them back in chains? No, and only Aanya is brave enough to say it out loud after Ez proves he values his bond with his brother / Callum's life over destroying Runaan's and Rayla's by proxy.)

"Because pain and loss feel so terrible inside, you want to hate. You want to hurt someone else."

What would killing or imprisoning Runaan (again) really have done?

"Hasn't he already been punished enough? Viren trapped him in a cursed coin for years. It's time to set him free." / "How much suffering is enough to pay for the mistakes we've made? No amount of suffering, yours or mine, will ever bring him back."

("As a father, I have a selfish wish, and that is for you and Ezran to be... free.")

"A life for a life. Is that justice?"

We also see that his scene with Runaan is one of the very last in the season. It's been months, if not nine, before Ezran was ready to have that conversation, ready to do with Runaan what he willingly did with Aaravos ("A king must look into the face and hear the words of those he judges"). A few days or a week by Callum's estimate wouldn't have been enough.

Ezran set Terry free to see if they could really trust him. He refused to do the same with Runaan even when it was causing clear pain and fracturing within his own family unit, nor did Runaan come to Katolis to face justice; it was just happenstance. But in Runaan being freed, he was then able to choose to come back to face Ezran's verdict. And then Ezran makes his own conscious choice.

"I'm going to forgive you. I don't know how, but I have to try."

He told everyone else that they had to acknowledge the weight of the pain and loss in their hearts while also holding love. It was hard before. It was hard now. But he has to try.

(Nor does Harrow being in the bird erase the two years of mourning hell that Ezran went through, remove the crown from his brow, make things with Runaan any easier tbh, or mean he's 100% getting his father back.)

[luanna801]

I love all versions of Wednesday, but I have to say I think there's something really special about her original comic incarnation that I don't think any adaptation (that I've seen) really manages to capture. Addams does such a good job of giving us a sense of her as a solemn, quietly sweet kid, a poetic soul as he says, and yet in her own subdued way just as deadly as the rest of her family.

The "Wednesday's child is full of woe" reference also fits a lot better when you look at her original incarnation. Lisa Loring's Wednesday on the 60s show was a pretty cheerful kid on the whole, and Christina Ricci and Jenna Ortega's Wednesdays seem to be more about causing woe than being woeful. But you look at og comic Wednesday and you're like "Yeah, that is a woeful kid."

The evolution of Wednesday Addams (1)

We did the mother and the grandmother, now we need to talk about the daughter. In this month leading up to an entire television series centered around her, we cannot ignore who became one of the favorites of the Addams fans: Wednesday Addams, the only daughter of Gomez and Morticia.

Wednesday’s original appearance in the cartoons of Charles Addams was iconic enough for it to never change across adaptations. A little girl dressed in a white-collared black dress that would be perfect for a funeral, with a thin body, pale face and sleek black hair. Note that while in all adaptations Wednesday has braids, here she does not: her hair simply parts and falls around her head neatly as if she had braids, even though she has not. Her appearance is very reminiscent, in miniature, of her mother’s - she inherited a pale complexion, black hair and a tight black dress, but all the morbid glamour of Morticia is gone to rather have a sort of mournful innocence with Wednesday. One unique trait however, which makes her stand out among the rest of her family, is the way her eyes are drawn. Two black dots, as if we were in a Belgian comic book. This makes her look much “cuter” and more “cartoony”, reinforcing again this sense of innocence and somehow setting her a bit apart from the rest of her grim-looking family… But we’ll come back to that later. 

It might surprise you to learn that Wednesday wasn’t originally a cold, stoic, cynical and emotionless girl. This is what the adaptations built through time but originally, Wednesday had… emotions! And not just quiet emotions, open and visible ones! In fact Wednesday smiled - and quite a lot. She showed through the cartoons a true childful glee and youthful energy in all her games and activites, be it wielding a crossbow, shooting the recreation hall monitor with arrows, or digging up bodies in the graveyard. Not only did she show joy, but she also showed anger: we have one notorious drawing of Wednesday screaming and kicking her bed due to being put on the roll of honor at school. Yes, in the original cartoons, Wednesday was able to throw a tantrum. She only shows in a few drawings a blank expression, but it seems to be usually in answer to things she doesn’t like much (such as being dressed up as an angel on Christmas). 

Wednesday is seen throughout Chas’ cartoons partaking in various typical childish or girlish activites, but always with a twist. She reads books - but the book turns out to be “A werewolf in Paris” and briefly turns HER into a werewolf. She cut paper dolls - but mysteriously one in the row has three legs. She keeps watch for a bird-house in the tree… except the bird-house is a miniature replica of the Addams house, and it doesn’t attract bird but bats. Her father pushes her not on a swing-tire ; but on a broom-swing. And she is often seen playing with her dollhouse, be it for putting skeletons in a small closet or decorating the house for a funeral - sometimes, you can even see actual miniature human people living INSIDE the dollhouse. Chas often depicts Wednesday’s private bedroom (well, what seems to be her private bedroom, even though Pugsley sometimes sleeps with her in bed) - a lovely little decrepit room with an octopus painted on the bed, a cobweb-filled window, a private staircase to the attic and a bizarre mural depicting some sort of… humanoid-bird-like-child being… chased by a weird friendly spiky lizard and a snake… on what seems to be a beach? There must be some reference I am missing.

Wednesday’s childhood however is far from being all gloomy sunsets and heavy rains, so to speak - she could be considered the least “lucky” of the family members. “Wednesday, child of woe”, and indeed in Charles Addams cartoons, instead of being a true predator like in future adaptations, Wednesday is often… a victim. She seems to be the “weak” link of the chain, a bit too soft and gentle for the habits of her own family. As seen in the tantrum cartoon, she gets on a roll of honor at school while her brother is a perfectly horrible brat. Several time she seems puzzled by her own abilities, such as the bizarre paper dolls. She is seen distinctively worried when Pugsley drives his toy car alongside the family’s car on the big road - while everybody else smiles and cheers. And Pugsley is seen actually trapping his sister alive behind a wall as part of his “games”… It shows that when Charles Addams did a grim parody of Mother Goose’s Nursery Rhymes (with Grandma Addams as the Mother Goose), Wednesday appeared as Miss Muffet, scared and distraught by the sudden apparition of a disturbing giant spider… She can’t even take a break on holiday, as a drawing of her on the beach shows her scared when a hand pops out of a seashell. It seems that poor little Wednesday is a magnet for weird, surprising and disturbing things.

Now, despite all of this, one shouldn’t think that Wednesday isn’t a happy child. Far from it: she seems to be showered in love by many members of the family. Her father is especially close to her: he plays with her on the broom-swing, he does creepy shadow-puppets before she goes to sleep ; he sings the “This little piggy” rhyme to her when she goes to bed (note: it is canon that in this incarnation Wednesday has six toes on one feet)… Wednesday’s relationship with her mother seems much more distant and cold. Beyond one drawing where she is seen eating with her mother at a restaurant only for Morticia to ask for the leftover meat (in order to feed the vultures), there isn’t really any intimate, playful or loving actions between her and Wednesday. In contrast to Wednesday’s closeness to her father, this is quite jarring - but again, Morticia was designed as a cold, aloof, stern mother locking her own children in a chest when they need to be punished. The coldness of Morticia is perfectly expressed in one specific drawing: Wednesday, who just has been poisoned by Pugsley, comes rushing to her mother, only for Morticia to answer “Well don’t come whining to me. Go tell him you’ll poison him right back!”. Again, we see here how Wednesday, with her mind “too soft”, doesn’t fit immediately within the deadly and morbid logic of the family.

When talking about Pugsley, Wednesday seems to have a conflictual relationship with him (as all brothers and sisters do). As seen above, Pugsley is a bit of a bully-brother towards her, poisoning her or walling her in without Wednesday being able to do anything. He also seems to mock her when she gets on the honor roll at scholl… But at the same time, they appear very close in many other drawings, companions in mischief. They sell together poisons at a lemonade stand. They are seen tripping together the mailman, and she helps Pugsley put on a fake shark suit to frighten swimmers. They are even seen playing together at Christmas - be it warming the fire to burn Santa Claus if he ever comes down the chimney, or playing together at beheading dolls on Christmas Eve. To complete the family portrait, Grandmama is seen telling Wednesday lovely fairytales and bedtime stories where the dragon gobbles up knights and princesses before living happy ever after. Wednesday even seems to be somehow close to Lurch, as in some drawings she is seen holding his hand - while no other member of the family has any physical contact with the butler. 

Charles Addams named Wednesday after the popular rhyme “Monday Child” that went as such:  “Monday’s child is fair of face, / Tuesday’s child is full of grace. / Wednesday’s child is full of woe, / Thursday’s child has far to go. / Friday’s child is loving and giving, / Saturday’s child works hard for a living. / And the child born on the Sabbath day / Is bonny and blithe, good and gay.”

As for the description he gave of her for the upcoming television series, here is what he had to say:

“Child of woe, is wan and delicate with her mother’s black hair and white complexion. Sensitive and on the quiet side, she loves the picnics and outings to the underground caverns often planned by Morticia and Gomez. She is a solemn child, prim in dress and, on the whole, pretty lost. Gomez is wild about her. Secretive and imaginative, poetic, seems underprivileged and given to occasional tantrums. Has six toes on one foot.”

A last interesting note: before Wednesday became the daughter of the “family”, she was originally conceived for a series of specific drawings about a little girl playing at jumping rope all alone in a city street - two drawings to be exact. One had the little girls completely exhausted, murmuring numbers beyond the two thousand as she kept jumping and jumping, with a passing by couple giving her worried looks. The other had the little girl jumping under a streetlight alone at night in an empty street, with a disturbed or distraught look on her face.

[catras-breakup-song]

x / x / x

original thread 1

original thread 2

[flipflopmaster]

Young Ford literally shoved that journal in Stanleys hands, giving him no other choice other than accept it and just do what he was told, while later on Ford held out their childhood picture, waiting till Stan accepted it himself.

"can you give me one more chance?"

Ford pulling out that journal from the left side of his coat which represents logic, but then after the development - pulling out their childhood picture from the right side, which represents feelings.

I'm talking about brain Hemispheres, whose side of the brain is responsible and dominant for one exact action.

Yes, this topic can be arguable, because, from viewers perspective their right is our left and the opposite, BUT

above I spoke from our perspective, but even in such switched around context you can easily adjust this statement.

Young Ford pulled out that journal from HIS right side because he was acting up on his feelings. He was in pain, he was suffering simply for trusting someone, which resulted in getting pathenically used and manipulated, and only hope he had left was to reach out to his brother, whom he openly loved and cared about at some point.

Older Ford reaches out their childhood picture from HIS left side, because believe it or not he's finally rational. He sees the full picture and decides to make the RIGHT decision.

THAT'S the result of making the right choice. The difference in the reaction is everything for me.

(it took him lil over 40 years + to witness and get tortured at the end of the world by one eyed demon...... that man is too much of a stubborn and vindictive hoe.)

This post is getting too long but I wanna address my opinion towards Fords "right" choice/desicion I mentioned above.

Right choice wasn't to go sailing with his brother, but rather than to make up with him.

None of them were fully right and none of them were fully wrong, it's complicated and that's what I adore about their characters.

Ford is flawed in the head, which was supposed to represent his brilliance and superiority

While Stan is flawed in the heart, which was supposed to represent his so on "grumpy" and "unloving" nature for the whole show.

Both of them were hurt, and none of them knew where to properly direct it, which at the end caused the incident with the portal.

Bonus:

Stanley raised his hand to reach out for his bro only AFTER Stanford closed the curtains on him, which means Ford probably continued looking at the whole thing, quietly peeking from his window, not to dare and go against their fathers desicion.

He basically has the image of his strong, firm, and hotheaded brother looking at him full of heartbreak, imprinted in his head, and won't even allow himself to forget it. Even after 10 whole years.

He can't forget, he didn't deserve to forget it.

Guilt does a lot to a person, both of them were guilty, and also both of them were stubborn, which means that none of them will or would ever admit it.

I HAD to get this out of my system even if someone probably said it before me I deeply apologize you had to whitness that

[room-surprise]

All excellent points!

I want to add that Thistle doesn't need to have ever met other elves to know what a half-elf looks like. His parents may have told him while they were still alive (look out for half-elves, they're bad people, this is what they look like), and/or he may have read about half-elves in books.

It's also possible that however he was "acquired" by the royal court may have put him into contact with other elves and half-elves, if Thistle was being trafficked, it's likely the person selling him would have had other elves or half-elves that they were also trafficking.

Thistle may also have heard a lot of negative things about half-elves from the tall-men around him. A real elf is valuable, a half-elf is just a cheap imitation.

There's also a few other features Marcille has that sets her apart from full elves that I haven't seen mentioned:

She's taller and wider, with a heavier body than most elves. The average height of an elven woman is only 150cm, and the men are 155cm. Marcille is 160cm which makes her taller than most elven men.

She has green eyes, which don't seem to be the most common eye color (silver, gold, purple and blue all seem more common)

Her hair is a dark yellow-gold color. All elves seem to have light hair, and the majority of them have a much paler, and less saturated shade than Marcille.

Her chin and cheeks are rounder and fuller than other elves.

We've never actually seen an elf that is ethnically from the Eastern hemisphere (Northern, Eastern or Southern continents) so we don't know if they look different from elves of the West. Logically they should, but it's possible that all elves are descendants of Western elves and thus share ethnic traits. Kui does not make this explicitly clear.

This is, incidentally, also the case with dwarves and gnomes. We don't know if they look and live differently in the Western hemisphere, or if they're just the descendants of colonists from the East that have moved West.

Also, this may seem obvious but I think is worth mentioning:

Thistle and the Canaries don't know that Marcille is a half-elf. They aren't able to magically look at her and know with 100% certainty that she's a half-elf.

They are racially profiling her based on her appearance.

They assume she is a half-elf because of how she looks... and part of the reason for the discrepancy of how they treat her is because saying she "looks like a half-elf" would be an insult, because being a half-elf is an insult.

Thistle doesn't care that he's insulting her (and in fact, wants to insult her), so he just says it outright with no hesitation.

The Canary group is a little bit more complicated:

Mithrun is suspicious that Marcille is a half-elf because of her appearance. She claims to be a court mage, which, if she is a half-elf, would be impossible. He doesn't want to insult her by directly saying he doesn't believe her in case he's wrong, so he leads her into a conversation where she proves that she's lying about her status.

The rest of the team all suspect she's a half elf, and weren't saying anything because they were waiting to see what Mithrun would do, since Marcille claimed to be a very high status person.

Pattadol doesn't realize Marcille is a half-elf. This may either be because Pattadol is so young and innocent that she isn't aware of the stereotypes around half-elves, or that she's too polite and kind to assume someone is a half-elf just because of how they look. Remember, saying someone is a half-elf is more or less the same as saying they're ugly or that they're a bad person.

It should be noted that Pattadol might also not think Marcille is a half-elf because Pattadol looks a lot like Marcille. She has darker hair than a lot of other elves, she's taller, her body is thicker, and she has a big nose. Pattadol knows that she isn't a half-elf, so why wouldn't she give Marcille a benefit of a doubt, and assume she's a full elf?

(I would not be surprised at all if Kui someday told us that Pattadol gets teased and accused of being a 'half elf' as an insult.)

I have to wonder, how did thistle know marcille was a half-elf? Like. I don't think he's really seen that many elves, right?

No but apparently to other elves the fact she's a half-elf is pretty obvious, even if Thistle hasn't seen many other elves Marcille has rounded ears and round eyes, which is pretty unusual for elves as you can see by the race portraits. I imagine just from the ears it would be super obvious to him? Or even maybe just the fact that she looks so different from him would make he think that

And he's a studied guy, since he knew about how half-elves work he has probably studied about elves at some point? Or heard about elves from tallmen, there's an extra where Delgal is reading about elf cake with Thistle, maybe it has happened about other elf subjects too

And Thistle also has some elf preferences like how he keeps his hair long and "feminine" different from the male tallmen in the golden kingdom, so I can only guess he does know about how elves are supposed to be to some extent? (I would assume it was influence from the tallmen around him wanting to keep him more 'elf-like' but he had long hair when he arrived that was then cut short)

Anyway, idk, I can only make assumptions

[emiliapuffs]

More (rambling) on Pencil and Book's Parallelisms + TPOT 15...

If you hadn't seen my other post on about Book and Pencil, please check it out!

Before getting into this post, I just want to say that TPOT 15 was good! I really liked it, especially the talk with Pencil…which is something I want to talk about and how I think it can oddly connect to Book, in some way. 

I specifically want to talk about the line of Pencil saying “Now…now everyone I knew is trusted is gone. And the people I do know won’t even talk to me”.

I find this line having some connections to how Book was like during her time in TPOT before episode 10. 

In TPOT 10, it is revealed from Pillow that Book’s nightmare was about being alone.

We get pieces of dialogue of how Book lost most of her friends, her having baggage with the people around her, pushing her friends away, and not sure where to go on from there.

I feel like this is something Pencil is dealing with right now. 

Pencil is on a team (CloudYAY) where she’s not even familiar or/and doesn’t get along with. 

Her friends are all gone (not with her) and the people who she considers friends don’t want to talk to her. 

I think also how Book pushed her friends away can be like how Pencil, unintentionally, pushed her alliance as well. 

I also want to mention, as well, how they deal with their teammates in TPOT quite differently as well.

I’ll just send my discord messages about the contrast between Book and Pencil dealing with their team in TPOT (it’s a bit messy, please forgive me): 

These two seem to have a connection, an understanding on how it feels like pushing away your teammates and the effects it can cause thanks to that.

While Book seems to try to move on from her past by trying to be a better person to others and herself.

Pencil is stuck in the past. Thinking that maybe changing her past will help improve her future.

(Feel free to discuss with me about this + I’m still hoping for these two to interact in the future + Book to be safe as well!)

[valenteal]

The way everyone seems to think about Mori and Dazai’s relationship really annoys me, okay? It’s like… everyone thinks Dazai always hated Mori and I just don’t understand where people got that idea from? Dazai was more indifferent to him at first and there was certainly anger, disappointment, and distrust because Mori never gave him the quick and painless death he promised in return for Dazai’s testimony of his innocence, but there was also respect and attachment. I wouldn’t say affection, not on Dazai’s end, but Mori was the only person he knew and interacted with for a year. They were tied together in this crazy scheme to take over the port mafia, they were partners in crime, even before Dazai officially joined the mafia.

For at least four years Mori was there, taking care of him, keeping him alive. Dazai probably didn’t appreciate that, but still, Mori risked his own life to save Dazai when he tried to blow himself up. He knew he was important to Mori, and I think he felt like he owed him in a very abstract way. He did so much to protect Mori in Storm Bringer. He manipulated Verlaine into killing some of the most important people in the Mafia just to buy Mori more time. He set up an ambush for Verlaine that ended in the mafia loosing a huge chunk of their forces and put his own and Chuuya’s lives in unimaginable danger. All to protect Mori. For four years his life’s purpose was to help and protect Mori. He became exasperated when Mori made his job harder but he still gave it everything he had. Until Oda gave him a new purpose he was completely dedicated to Mori, even if he hid it well. He never resented Mori for that, I don’t think, because he gave him his reason to live, pushed him towards Chuuya, gave him drugs to make him less miserable, let him do whatever he wanted. It wasn’t until Mori became the cause of his misery that Dazai turned against him. For the longest time Mori had brought him something like joy, albeit in very unconventional ways, and he saw it as a betrayal when Mori took away something that made him happy, Odasaku. And because he’s someone with severe emotional dissregulation and probably a mixed cluster b personality disorder with a lot of bpd traits, he went from being incredibly attached to Mori to absolutely despising him and never wanting to see or think about him again.

The animosity he shows towards Mori didn’t build gradually over time due to multiple factors or slights. It came from betrayal, from years of feeling like Mori cared about him suddenly being put into a new perspective after Mori hurt him deeply without any remorse. But he doesn’t hate the mafia or Mori’s methods or what he stands for, in fact he still shares many of Mori’s beliefs and ideologies. He still holds professional respect for Mori, even if he will no longer do anything to protect the man.

[raayllum]

Was thinking about 7x02 again because it seems that's the episode hyperfixation of the day, specifically that it's the first time we've seen Soren and Rayla fight since 2x07... and then it hit just how much 7x02 is just a more matured, complicated version of 2x07 in a lot of ways.

Rayla is following her heart, even when the consequences could be severe and there is good reason to be angry at the Xadian opponent who is trapped/chained down. This leads to her fighting a losing battle against Soren and other human soldiers. Callum shows up to magically bail her out, and the two escape together after successfully freeing the 'monster'/murderer. But Ezran takes Claudia's place of being stubborn and perpetuating the cycle: the dragon / Runaan being taken down by an arrow, "how are we going to move it?" "in pieces" / "my family has been broken for too long". And it leads to another split, as when Soren is injured for his hubris Claudia runs to him, versus Callum who takes a stand against his brother, and subsequently leaves.

[srslylini]

there is "surprise the fans" and there is setting a story up and not delivering. A surprise was Jinx bombing the council in season 1. A surprise was Silco dying in season 1.

A surprise in storytelling is taking what is set up and honoring it. There is also good surprises and bad surprises and genuinely media wants to surprise their audience in a good way, in a way that makes sense. That means narrative sense as much as character driven sense. Subverting a story for an audience only works if the stories set up is kept in line. Just as a different route only works with the set limitations a story gives us and the creators. While yes, creations may seem endless, the act of writing a story limits said endlessness.

The character creation you make sets limits to your story. By story creation you set limits to said story. That may sound dumb, but the act of creating does limit you. There are boundaries to be put to your own work otherwise it falls apart. By straying away from said boundaries you create a thin line of what works and what doesn't. If that is done it has to make sense.

Why would a character suddenly act out of their limits that their characteristic set? Why is a story suddenly straying from its purpose? If that isn't explainable, it doesn't work.

to your other points, I definetly agree. There are always nasty people in every fandom. The homophobia, the racism, the ableism- there is so much shit going on

And yet here I am, seeing them on the Arcane positive side more than on my side, what does that say? It says that it isn't something you can generalize like you do for one side of this fandom. It is about perspective and what you do with that. There is very likely about as much weird people being haters as there is weird people overly praising Arcane (I am NOT saying it is actually 50/50 I do not have numbers). I saw people on here saying CaitVi is oversexualized and that is just ridiculous, as is the take of arcane lovers who ship jayvik and have the weirdest take on Mel.

And I am not talking about bigoted people being haters because those aren't critics, those are idiots.

It is important to differentiate here.

I also want to add that I am german and in dire need for you to not compare this with nazis.

Though I also see from your other reblogs that I misjudged you and how you are up for discussion.

"Caitlyns redemption arc isn't very good."

Maybe she doesn't have a redemption arc.

May be Arcane isn't about redemption.

May be Arcane is about flawed characters who are neither good nor bad.

May be Arcane is a show that shows us that good people can do horrible things and how our society and the people we have or don't have as support can shape that.

Good people can become horrible. Not because it is innate within them. But because of their life experiences.

[ponkydraws]

BBC Johnlock rant;

What? A rant on a show that was popular in 2014 tumblr in the year of 2025? Yes, I’m an autistic queer 16 year old with a passion for literature and art, what else would I get up to?

Here’s a couple things that have been itching at me and I feel like I need to scream into the void seeing if anyone will listen. Yes, this is Johnlock.

Spoilers ahead, obviously.

1. Sherlock’s attraction to Molly and Irene. Now, I see a lot of fans of the show under the impression that Sherlock is attracted to either Molly or Irene, and personally I think the show made it very clear that’s not what’s going on.

Molly - Sherlock possesses the ability to mimic romantic attraction at need (see Janine), although even in those cases he won’t go any further than kissing, i.e “waiting until marriage” despite being an atheist. Molly’s attraction to Sherlock is evident from their first encounter, Sherlock seems to be aware of said feelings but actively and purposefully refuses to acknowledge them. When Molly asks if he’d like coffee he simply takes advantage of the wording of the question to reject her proposal without directly addressing the actual question - “black, two sugars please”.

He tries to use Molly as a John substitute but finds that he cannot stop thinking about John anyway, and even in that situation he makes Molly appear more like John rather than keeping her acting like herself. In The Final Problem Sherlock is forced to make Molly say the words “I love you” or she (allegedly) blows up. This is a manipulation tactic of Eurus’, where she exploits her brother’s emotional attachments. But the challenge is meant to upset Molly - not Sherlock. Sherlock is distraught because despite having a different set of emotionality he doesn’t want to hurt his friend. He breaks her casket because he is upset he has hurt his friend. And despite having only 3 minutes to make her say “I love you”, he buffers for an unnecessary long time to actually say it himself. This is because he DOESN’T mean it.

He feels bad for having to reopen a wound of Molly’s because he is not telling her the truth, he is being forced to taunt her with a flicker of hope that’s not there.

Irene - this is just my own personal interpretation of their relationship so you don’t have to agree with me but I found it quite clear that Sherlock is not attracted to her romantically. He strives to impress her. He feels intimidated and fascinated, he’s so keen on their conversations because he has found an equal and he’s testing her intellect (and she’s doing the same to him). Irene uses seductive techniques to try to throw Sherlock off his rhythm, and successfully so. Except it appears that she’s using them for shock factor, not to actually seduce Sherlock. Again; throwing him off his rhythm. He is still objectively trying to deduce her and even says “if I wanted to look at naked women, I would borrow John’s laptop” implying that he doesn’t want to see her naked, but the situation is what it is.

There’s a clear difference between Sherlock’s reaction and John’s reaction to Irene being naked. John feels exposed and uncomfortable because he recognizes the situation as sexual. He immediately looks down, either out of embarrassment, shock or because he doesn’t want to be caught staring down a naked woman. Even when she directly addresses John, he seems to make a point to look her in the eyes. Sherlock, despite understanding the motive of her method, is still viewing her from an objective perspective. He is looking everywhere, not because of attraction, but because he is trying to understand what she’s doing. When trying to deduce her, he finds that he can’t find anything out - so he switches back to John and has no trouble deducing him at all.

Sherlock is not comfortable around Irene, but he is drawn to her intelligence. He feels a need to prove himself to a fellow genius, and to detect what she’s got in return. Even Irene points out how John and Sherlock supposedly are a couple, insisting she’s right even when John denies. Later in the show, John brings up Irene a couple of times in an attempt to peak Sherlock’s interest but it still seems like John is more interested in the relationship between Sherlock and Irene than Sherlock actually is.

All of these women acknowledge either Sherlock and John’s relationship or Sherlock’s lack thereof with them

“You look sad. You look sad when you think he can’t see you.” - Molly

“Somebody loves you” - Irene to Sherlock, and looks at John, “we’re not a couple” “yes you are” & “I’m not actually gay” “well I am. Look at us both.”

“I wish you weren’t…whatever it is you are.” - Janine to Sherlock

Even John’s girlfriends acknowledge how John prioritizes Sherlock over them, i.e “you’re a great boyfriend. Sherlock Holmes is a very lucky man. No, it’s heartwarming. You’ll do anything for him.”, “don’t make me compete with Sherlock Holmes” and even Mary taunts both John and Sherlock for their clear affection towards each other - “I don’t shave for Sherlock Holmes” & “see, neither of us were the first”

In conclusion, Sherlock can be manipulative when it favors him and he can mimic attraction if needed, but it is not genuine. In all of these cases, the care displayed for them was directly tied to a case, as to where the affection he displays towards John is unwavering and unaffected by whether or not there is a case. Why? Because he doesn’t view John as a tool, nor does John view him as one.

John makes a difference in Sherlock’s life because he is not getting anything out of him other than genuine human connection. He praises Sherlock when he’s impressed and scolds him when he does something wrong. Sherlock, who is clearly not used to being addressed as a regular person, is obviously surprised by this behavior as displayed in the first episode, i.e “fantastic..” “are you aware you’re doing that out loud?” “Sorry” “no it’s…fine..” & “that was…amazing” “really?” “Of course it was” “..that’s not what people usually say”

John treats him like a person, he doesn’t tiptoe around his intellect worried he’ll do something wrong, no, he grabs him by the collar and redirects him when he’s not acting properly. And John is the one to uncover his flaws. Sherlock prides himself on being this genius detective whose intelligence cannot be penetrated by the weak forces of emotions - but that’s not right. He’s very emotional. Both John and Mrs Hudson are aware of the fact that Sherlock is emotional, and acts emotionally. “Not Sherlock, no, he’s more…emotional, isn’t he?” - Mrs Hudson

What emotion does Sherlock display when John gets married to Mary or talks to his commander? Jealousy. He’s obviously distraught about the whole marriage thing, so much so that both John AND Mary are aware of it. When John meets his old commander, Sherlock seems skeptical of him and doesn’t like how John is acting around him. Mary says how “he’s the most unsociable man he’s ever met” to which Sherlock replies “HE’S the most unsociable man he’s ever met? Well that explains why he’s prancing around him like a puppy” which kind of implies that John finds himself drawn to unsociable people - and that Sherlock has actively noted that trait because he does it around him, too. He also leaves the wedding early, and like Molly says, he looks sad once John is not looking at him.

Another case of emotional behavior is when Moriarty tells Sherlock “I’ll burn the heart out of you” to which Sherlock replies “I’ve been reliably informed that I don’t have one”. Moriarty counters with this with “oh, we both know that’s not quite true.”

And what happens a few episodes later? John ends up in a bonfire. “I will burn the heart out of you” and then the show tries to burn John. Hm. This can also be tied to Sherlock’s previous statement of “funny how fire exposes our priorities”.

Moriarty is aware of how much John means to Sherlock and actively uses him as a tool to manipulate Sherlock. He tries to make Sherlock feel bad by telling him how many people will be upset by his death, but Sherlock does not react until John is mentioned. He tells Sherlock how his friends are in danger and Sherlock immediately goes “John!”.

In the final problem, Mycroft tries to manipulate Sherlock into making shooting him a lot easier, so he starts berating John. Not Sherlock. John. He tries to rile up Sherlock enough to get him to pull the trigger so he insults John in front of Sherlock. Sherlock recognizes the technique which means that he’s well aware that Mycroft is using his relationship with John in an attempt to manipulate him.

Romantic or not, Sherlock clearly loves and values John more than anything or anyone, even more than his own life. He would die if it meant John could live. I can easily write like 15 of these but I’ll start with this bite sized analysis. Thank you.

[artbyblastweave]

i don’t know whether you’ve talked about this before but i’ve been reading the kirby run on superman’s pal jimmy olsen that features the DNA project, which later became Project Cadmus post-crisis. What do you think the odds are that Cauldron was based on Cadmus? I feel like there are a lot of parallels.

I think there's basically zero chance that Amanda Waller and Cadmus didn't have an influence on the writing of Cauldron- Cadmus and things like Cadmus were pretty prominent in the shows and comics when Wildbow was doing the pre-writing. The distinction, of course, is that while Big-Two works that play in this space tend to end up mumbling into their fists a lot when trying to refute the core arguments of groups like Cadmus about cape accountability, Worm is able to concede much more to the idea that Waller and all the characters like her aren't entirely tilting at windmills, even if their response to those windmills end up equally part of the problem. Piggot is the site of some of this energy; Cauldron is another.

It is, on some level, a genuine against-the-genre-grain twist that Cauldron actually does turn out to be working in reaction to an extremely specific threat, instead of just using the nebulous rhetoric of superhuman threats in general as a fig-leaf over a naked power grab. Which in turn makes many of the ways in which they completely suck at their jobs significantly more interesting than if they were just another Weapon X program- the ways in which the nebulous conspiracy turns out to actually be incredibly small and thus inextricably bound up in the specific neuroses and foibles of its incredibly-personally-powerful, deeply traumatized membership. If they were doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons no one would care enough for threads to get locked over it

[alsmediadissection]

˗ˏˋperception of good and evil in Wicked analysis ´ˎ˗

!! i want to preface this by saying i'm not a professional critic, and this is not a 100% guide to anything either. do not take anything i type online to absolute heart, this is simply my personal interpretation of this piece of media !! (i also want to mention that i did not read the Wicked novel/series by Gregory Maguire)

! CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR ACT 2 IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THE WHOLE MUSICAL !

In Wicked, the dichotomy of good and evil is a central theme, but it is deliberately deconstructed and redefined throughout the story. Rather than adhering to a simplistic binary, Wicked portrays morality as subjective, fluid, and deeply influenced by societal narratives and power structures. By examining the characters, their choices, and the propaganda of Oz, Wicked challenges audiences to reconsider what it truly means to be "good" or "evil."

Wicked explores the subjectivity of morality though out the entire musical. In the world of Oz, the labels of "good" and "wicked" are not inherent truths but are assigned based on perspective and propaganda. Elphaba, labeled as the "Wicked Witch of the West," is far from the villain her title suggests. Her actions—defending the oppressed, resisting corrupt authority, and seeking justice—align more closely with traditional notions of heroism. However, because her resistance threatens the established order, she is vilified.

Conversely, Glinda, known as "Glinda the Good," gains her title not necessarily through moral superiority but through aligning with the dominant powers of Oz. While she performs acts of kindness and ultimately grows into a more compassionate figure, her initial rise to prominence is steeped in self-interest and complicity in the Wizard's regime. This contrast between public perception and personal morality highlights the constructed nature of good and evil.

As well as the role of propaganda can warp the perception of good and evil. The Wizard’s regime uses propaganda to manipulate public perception and maintain control. Elphaba’s defiance is framed as wickedness, and her physical difference—her green skin—is used to other her further. The Wizard and Madame Morrible craft a narrative in which Elphaba becomes the scapegoat for the problems in Oz, distracting from their own oppressive policies, such as the silencing of Animals and exploitation of the populace.

This use of propaganda mirrors real-world historical and political strategies, where those in power vilify dissenters to solidify their authority. The portrayal of Elphaba as "wicked" becomes a convenient tool to suppress her revolutionary ideals and maintain the Wizard’s façade of benevolence.

The characters in Wicked embody the blurred lines between good and evil, challenging the audience’s preconceptions and signifying the complexity of people : beyond black and white.

Elphaba: Elphaba’s moral compass is unwavering—she fights for justice, protects the marginalized, and prioritizes truth over personal gain. However, her means of resistance sometimes involve morally ambiguous actions, such as using forbidden spells. These complexities humanize her, making her a symbol of how "good" people can be demonized for challenging systemic injustice

Glinda: Glinda’s journey from superficiality to wisdom reflects the complexities of moral growth. While she initially prioritizes her image and societal approval, her experiences with Elphaba force her to confront her complicity in the injustices of Oz. Her eventual choice to stand up for what is right, even within the constraints of her role, illustrates how goodness is a process, not a fixed state.

The Wizard: The Wizard’s charm and charisma mask his true nature as a manipulative and self-serving leader. He embodies the archetype of a "benevolent dictator," someone who uses the guise of good to justify exploitative policies. His character underscores how power can corrupt and how evil can hide behind a veneer of kindness.

Wicked also explores how context and intention influence moral judgment, , the fluidity of good and evil. For example, Elphaba’s use of magic to save others is seen as dangerous and unnatural, while the Wizard’s far more destructive actions are normalized as necessary governance. This discrepancy reveals how morality is often judged not by actions but by who performs them and the narrative constructed around those actions.

The relationship between Elphaba and Glinda further illustrates this fluidity. Their bond transcends societal labels, showing that goodness is often found in personal connections and shared humanity rather than grand gestures or public titles. Both women make mistakes, but their ability to learn and grow from them highlights the dynamic nature of morality.

By deconstructing the good/evil binary, Wicked warns against the dangers of oversimplified moral frameworks and the dangers of binary thinking. Binary thinking fosters division, scapegoating, and dehumanization, as seen in the treatment of Elphaba and the Animals. The musical advocates for empathy, critical thinking, and understanding as tools to navigate the complexities of morality.

In Wicked, good and evil are not fixed categories but constructs shaped by perception, power, and context. Through its characters and narrative, the musical invites audiences to question societal narratives and recognize the humanity in those who are labeled as "other." By rejecting simplistic moral binaries, Wicked delivers a profound message about the complexities of justice, the power of resistance, and the transformative potential of compassion.

this does not mean that right and wrong is not real, but it does mean that the ideology of thinking that things are only either GOOD or EVIL is extremely dangerous.

[2astralightthestoryteller1]

I somewhat agree to think honestly

The Truth About Horrid Henry

Nobody asked for it, but here it is.

Now that I’m an adult, I can try and analyze his character a bit better now. When I watched it when I was younger, I naturally assumed he was just a bad kid because that’s what the show wants you to think. Though now, whenever I watch it, I feel kind of sad. Pitiful even. Truth is, my headcanon for Henry is that he’s got a lot going on in his head. A lot of stuff that the show will never address because a) it’s a kids show and b) it’s episodic. Whenever I watch the show now, I’m filled with sympathy for this bratty kid that I’ve grown up with.

I’m obviously no psychologist, but I believe that his bad behavior is due to his parents’ favoritism towards his younger brother, their slight emotional neglection, and possibly low self-esteem. He lashes out so much as a means to gain attention and as his own form of cultural capital. He earns support and praise from his friends, such as Ralph. For him, he acts this way to gain approval among his friends as he can’t get this at home. How many times have you seen his parents scold him compared to the times they praise him? Too many, I think. Henry is clearly a bully, and I think he ticks a lot of the boxes for the things that cause bullies to act the way they do. By bullying people such as Margret and her friends and primarily Peter, his main verbal punching bag, he likely feels as if he has gained a bit of power and attention. This stems from low self-esteem, as this would be his way to cover for a low sense of self-worth. He’s jealous, that much is very clear. But can you really blame him? He’s called Perfect Peter for a reason. I can’t imagine how it must feel to be compared to your sibling like that, especially when there are stark contrasts between you and them when they’re everything you’re not, and you’re everything they aren’t. I’ve found that everything about Peter’s personality is condescending. I dare say Peter is kind of cocky about his parents’ attention and many achievements, and I think Henry may secretly know this. Fuel to the fire likely.

(I also imagine the bullying Henry gives to Peter will also cause him to become a bully later on. Sibling bullying can lead to bullying at school. When an older brother or sister taunts and torments a younger sibling, this creates a sense of powerlessness. To regain that feeling of power Peter would then bully others, sometimes even emulating Henry.)

Henry’s parents aren’t terrible. They provide for him and try to do what’s best for him, despite how much he would disagree with this notion. However, there have been a lot of times when I just watch his interactions with his parents and feel very sad. Although not obvious at first, Henry is an underdog. His parents are very quick to rebuke him and punish him, but not once do they stop and question their own treatment towards him. Not once do they ever talk to him, listen to him, and ask him why he acts so ‘horrid.’ I honestly believe Henry is a very lonely child. Not physically, but emotionally. I think he needs some friends who are a better influence on him (not Perfect Peter 2.0, but someone who could help him grow as a person), and I think his parents need to bond with him more and re-evaluate their parenting. But hey, that’s just my 9 pm headcanons after binging some episodes. Just something for fans of the show to think about!

Oh, and Peter is transgender.

[pomribs]

people dumbing jayvik down to flanderised nerd x jock is so upsetting bc they could be focusing on their real and much more interesting dynamic: nerd x nerd but one is upper class, socially apt and conventionally attractive and the other is poor and disabled and writing the parallels that come from this and how the circumstances of their upbringing fundamentally developed who they are and how thats divided them up until their meeting point, only for it to just bring them closer together in the end, a sign of their strength of characters