#'it's not good representation if the characters are evil or act badly'

[asterdeer]

"actually it's not good ace representation if the ace character is a demonic mass murderer who is basically a homicidal maniac" WRONG. aces have put up with enough. we get to kill now.

[missfreija]

You have to love the hypocrisy of the show acting as though being a pimp is so much better than being a slave owner; like it isn't still human trafficking, and as though in that time and place, black women wouldn't have suffered the most from it. It's a seriously disgusting thing to pretend that it's this cutesy, morally fine thing to do: if they're fine with Louis being a sex trader, than they should have been fine with portraying the actual story of the books - he's meant to be a passively bad person. The story is about evil deserving empathy. It would be different if they used the fact that he's a pimp to explore the fact that he's always profited off of human lives and was passively evil in life, that would have been different (though that's exactly what the books do, so it still would have worked with the original story and then the show might have been good), but it was used as a way to make Louis a morally fine uwu baby. I fucking hate it. It's disgusting for the show runners to pretend sex trading is okay and doesn't harm people, it's dishonest to pretend the show is a discussion about the legacy of race in America without actually discussing the way in which black women suffered as a result of misogynoir and how they were sexualised and their sexual exploitation was ignored (but we all know how the show feels about black women given what they did to Claudia), and it's ridiculous to pretend that it's a gothic story when it veers away from the moral complexities inherent to the gothic genre. It's a poorly written, malicious, badly developed show with subpar actors, and I hate how popular it's become. It feel as though it's defiling the legacy of the books. And apparently Marius is a pimp now too. I hate even engaging with it, but I had to vent. I hope it gets cancelled as soon as possible and the fan base dies down, in the meantime, I'll try to enjoy the books and the circle of book fabs that remain here. Of which your blog is a wonderful example. Love to you, hate to AMC.

I absolutely agree with every single word lol. As a woman and as a iwtv fan i am disgusted by the treatment of women in this show, but apparently the show writers and the majority of audience don't care about women representation, neither black nor white. Also the fact that they portrayed the sex workers (in the few scenes where they appear) as 'relaxed' women that seem to have a friendly attitude towards Louis (who in this show possesses a strong ambition for business) is weird and gives to the viewer a distorted view of reality. The narrative focused a lot on the issue of racism, so why not showing briefly the suffering of black prostitutes? Because the male gaze doesn't want to recognize it? I don't know. And don't get me started on the other female characters.

What happened to Claudia was completely avoidable and unnecessary and still rj opted for this version and said that the r4pe was 'a horrible thing that happened to her, but it has toughened her up'. I guess it is a self-explanatory sentence. I can't even imagine how SA victims felt while hearing him say it. It completely downplays the trauma of SA and implies that women get something positive out of it. I felt that episode and the scene in one of the first episodes where Louis burns the tapes of the '70 interview (the book….) were disgustingly disrespectful towards Anne Rice and her fans.

Last year I got into a heated argument with some show fans on twitter because they kept reiterating that 'at least prostitution gives more freedom to women/people than slavery', 'louis is a good pimp, he treats his girls with respect', 'he defends the prostitutes from cruel men' , 'at least he didn't enslave my ancestors unlike book louis', it was annoying and i was astonished of reading all their statements, very misogynistic.

Regarding pimp Louis: not only this is a way to avoid probing into the character's psyche/moral (and not include one of the most important themes of the novel), but it is a way of de responsabilize (and deny) the past. Louis is a man of his time and, with an accurate work of writing, it would have made sense to contestualize his privileged position and explain what it meant for him to be in charge of a plantation, it would have been interesting to show what it meant to be a landowner and slave owner at the time and the consequences of his actions reflected on his slaves, maybe introducing some of them into the narrative in a more concrete way (or do the same with the pimp/brothel storyline in the show, because it's equally evil), since it is a topic basically not explored in the book. But the showrunner decided that nowadays one should not represent these issues on tv and you have to disregard the past. It is extremely hypocritical.

And it's awful that for this reason they chose another historical setting, changing century and not addressing the fact that there were just as many issues in 1910/20 as well; apparently for the writers the XX century was a historical period with minor social problems where no difficulties existed (aside from racism, it was pretty much the most prominent theme in s1). And I doubt that the reconstruction of the New Orleans society of the time is faithful lol (and where is the voodoo?). All this imo denotes great laziness in the writing.

And clearly this series does not belong to the gothic genre, it's more a teen drama. Beyond the surface level thrills, the gothic literature holds a profound mirror to the complexities of human psychology that here are totally absent. I also doubt that the show writers did extensive research on the figure of the vampire in literature.

We were all eagerly waiting for the cancellation of this garbage that is NOT iwtv/tvc and the immediate disappearance of the show fandom ahahah but unfortunately it has been renewed for s3 😔

Thank you for the compliments mwah! hugs!

[lord-squiggletits]

In the last salty asks post I unintentionally went on a tangent in the notes about how JRO wrote religious characters which is like actually something I want to bring up on its own so like

Is it just me or does JRO have some real misses when it comes to writing religious characters? Not like every religious character is badly written or evil, but like... several of the ones that are fall into really bad or unflattering/shallow stereotypes? It's hard to put my finger exactly on why I feel that way bc he does write some actually good religious characters (aka Cyclonus).

For example, characters like the Functionist Council and Star Saber are fine to me because I'm like. Well Functionism being religious in origin makes sense, it's an interesting interplay of how religion influences the state/how the state leverages religion to bend the populace to its own whims. Religious bad guys =/= all religious people bad. Star Saber is just some random zealot that wasn't meant to be that deep at all, and eh the Inquisition-type religious zealot can be cool even if it's just the vibes of it.

But then there's stuff like... Tyrest being a normal, rational, not particularly religious guy until he gets shot with a bullet that gives him brain damage, causing him to start ranting about Cyberutopia and thinking God is personally talking to him in his brain...? Like, idk, was it really the best idea for an antagonist to go "he is evil because he got brain damaged against his will w/o even knowing what really happened to him and also because he's brain damaged he's now literally delusional and became a religious (and genocidal) maniac." It comes off as really bad taste/not thinking the implications through as far as how it reflects on religious people (bc the whole "religious people are literally delusional and stupid to think that their gods could possibly exist" thing is tired and offensive). Not to mention kind of ableist w/ the whole "oh he became evil bc he got shot in the brain and now there's literally something wrong with his mind."

(Doesn't help that the MTMTE logbooks revealed that the original idea for Tyrest was to have his killswitch be about trying to identify and execute all of the criminals/"guilty people" on Cybertron, basically an extension of his role as Chief Justice which makes so much more sense and is way more interesting and compelling???? Certainly better than (gets brain damaged) "Ah I'm now going to genocide all cold constructs because God told me to")

And then Drift with spectralism which...which... basically the extent of that whole religion is the name of a single festival (the Lost Light festival the eponymous ship was named after), and some stuff about face/body paint and colors having spiritual symbolism, then the Guiding Hand/Primus stuff that's also shared with Primalism. But then you have Drift who's the main representative of this religion basically being written as a phony who doesn't even believe in the shit coming out of his mouth. Or if his beliefs are sincere, the way he acts is basically just "oooooh, I sense unclean vibes and read into the energy of the universe" which is played for laughs or mocked by the other characters most of the time. And Drift's character is written so inconsistently (and the general religious worldbuilding so one-dimensional) that it's hard to tell if Drift is supposed to be read as some kooky fake hippie type or if he's genuinely a representation of Spectralism in general. Like, idk, the best JRO could come up for for building a religion was "they wear certain colors and patterns on them and vaguely talk about sensing energy from the universe?" It literally feels like baby's first fictional religion or like, religion as understood by a non-religious/atheist person who sees religion as nothing more than an aesthetic or some quirky rituals.

I'm not saying the story had to be about religion or have religion be brought up in every conversation, it's just...... the way he wrote/did worldbuilding for it comes off as as very "non-religious person who doesn't have any particular understanding of religion/why people are religious tries to write what they think religion is about" and most of the time it's kinda cringe.

[sageandred]

The "Real" Message of The Show

No matter what, people will be determined to classify someone as "bad" when a new series drops. like people can't be viewed through the lens of being "neutral" or "good people who make bad decisions"...despite that typically being how people are???

When I watched season one, I only really paid attention to Wille and Simon, but when I did a rewatch, I really saw all the moving parts and how much YR was a super cohesive story with intertwining of all of the character's experiences. At the center this show deals with different societal classes, upbringings, etc and we do actually see how that affects who these people are and what they do as the show goes on, and it's not meaningless/out of the blue.

Because no matter how much people want to act like it's not as impacting as it is: People are a product of their experiences.

Wille- If we're being real we saw him for a very small portion at the beginning of the show before everything blew up-him being super adorable, sweet, and awkward. Since being under his strict lifestyle and pressure, he's been going on this downward spiral-he has literally been becoming more and more in the image of his royal family since season 1 (and season 2 he was a lot of the same as 3, it just gets glossed over by his thoughtful decision at the end).

Since I first watched the show, it was clear to me how all of the backstory with August's character was not throwaway information. Tbh, what we know of him in season 1 was never enough to make sense of where his bad decision came from (I guess his insecurity..). But this season, they just gave so much more. And it's strange to me how strongly people react for either argument- of August being actually evil, or having to identify him as a good person [tbf I never thought he was a "bad" person per say, which is my whole point of writing this because for every character of a series (look at the reaction to Wilhelm this szn) people immediately have to sort them into good and bad columns on the judgement of morality and not just take story for what it is: story]. Again, with August his backstory has always added reason to why he is the way he is, but now knowing what we know with Erik, and being 1? 2? years older than Wille, his experience does make sense of what he did (when it's almost exactly the same thing with Wilmon). Because hurt people hurt people.

And with Sara, it's never been warranted the amount of hate she gets that insinuate she is evil. The show tells you very early on what her arc is gonna be: she places value on external things-she wants expensive clothes and to live in the fancy school and will try to impress to fit in with her new group of girl friends. And the irony is she lost it all after everything came out at the shooting range. She wanted what she never had and made decisions, because she thought that was what was important. She's a product of her experiences and it's also her experience-because she was bullied-that August's letter means even more to her and results in her kissing him.

Simon- has literally done nothing wrong (we're not talking about his decision to sell, because that's not really a choice that badly affects ppl other than mostly only himself).

Felice- has literally done nothing wrong; had the biggest positive transformation between seasons 1 and 2, because she stopped caring about external accolades (and that is also a representation of her being a product of her environment because of her mother).

And, to be clear I'm not saying people can't change how they are. Because, yeah Felice is a good example. August has surprised many people this season. Maybe August continues to change; maybe he doesn't. Wille has surprised people in his own way. Maybe we'll get more shocks in the final act. This show has always dealt with the subtext of personal experiences that lead to how people react.

[canonmisogynyvictimstournament]

PROPAGANDA

HOLY KUJO (JOJO'S BIZARRE ADVENTURE: STARDUST CRUSADERS)

1.) She's treated badly by both the creator, Araki, and her own kid and father. When people start getting Stands (powers) hers tries to kill her, which functions as an excuse to start the plot of this arc of Jojo. The explanation is that she's too weak and gentle to control a Stand of her own, even though we see Stand users who are children, babies and even literal animals. Yes, animals. Holy's son Jotaro calls her a bitch and disrespects her for no real reason aside from establishing him as a rebel/delinquent, and Holy's father Joseph hates that she married a Japanese man and follows Japanese customs (Araki thinks xenophobia/racism is okay from a heroic character, apparently). Holy's saved from her evil Stand, but it's never explained why she couldn't have developed it into something useful- guess she was too much of a weak lady to have cool powers 🙃🙃🙃

2.) In the story, stands are developed due to Dio, who is in possession of the body of an ancestor of the Joestar family, stabbing himself with an arrow and developing a stand. In response, everyone in the family line begins developing them. Stands are supposed to be a representation of someone's "fighting spirit", and typically the stronger your spirit the more powerful your stand. Josuke(the main character's mom) develops a stand early on around the same time he does, except in her case she is too "weak willed" to develop a stand properly so she's dying from it. Part of the plot is that they have to defeat Dio to stop her from developing a stand in time or she'll die, even though everyone in the family keeps their stand but her after they defeat Dio??? This compassionate, caring woman who's practically a single mother is dying of being "weak willed" just what the fuck. There is 0 reason for this and It then takes multiple seasons for one of the Jojo's to be a woman and it's just a mess.

Also apparently when people try to justify it they put it as it needs to be a "fighting" spirit in particular but do NOT tell me Holy wouldn't have travelled to Egypt to throw hands with Dio for her son just do not she cared wayyyyyyyy too much about him.

POPPY PIPOPAPO (KAMEN RIDER EX-AID) (CW Mind Control)

1.) Poppy is a fully qualified nurse who magical girl transforms into a cutesy idol girl! Haha - yea you're never gonna see her act as a nurse. She's just a nurse because that's a Woman's Job and gives a reason for her to be supporting our Male Doctors. She'll provide some bedside manner because that's what nurses (women) do and that's their whole role. But better than that, she can scream really high pitched and sing songs because she's an idol! The other characters find this annoying and all make their annoyance at her doing this clear! But secretly (and this is spoilers) she's the villain's dead mother who he turned into a cute idol girl so she wouldn't be truly dead. She doesn't remember that that well but now she has a maternal instinct towards him! And also he kinda considers himself her father so… thanks for that. Well, since she's his mother, she can be in charge of babysitting him when he's caught for his bioterrorism time. Oh, and she'll sacrifice herself for the good of the world in an emotional scene where the writer forgot he literally already said that she has a revive button they can just press any time because who cares. Anyway here's a contrived reason she gets revived at the end to have an emotional scene with the male protagonist. Oh, but don't worry, we let her wear a superhero suit like 3 times.

2.) Despite working in a hospital for about 6 years, Poppy apparently isn't a nurse. Every male character around her is either a doctor, doctor in training, former doctor; but no. Poppy - who has been working here for 6 years - can't be a nurse. After all, she's just a rhythm game character! Yes, our female character isn't human, she's just a cutesy little rhythm game character who loves to sing and dance! She's our little mascot girl to sell the character song CD! Isn't she cute? She does all those cutesy idol girl things so you'll fall in love with her. Of course, it's not misogyny for a female character to be cute and girly, but the fact that she can work here for 6 years and not be considered a legitimate professional because she's an female idol-themed video game character, kinda rubs the wrong way. Also that the only exception for a male character being a doctor is the CEO that she gets stuck babysitting because she's technically his mother that he killed and turned into a cutesy idol video game character. Now she gets to play mother! That's what it means to be a female character we guess. Then we have how everyone around her treats her or reacts to her. We have Kiriya physically flinching away and looked annoyed when she talks too high pitched. We have her being told off that her personality is too "stressful" for patients to put up with. We have her being slapped by our protagonists. We have her being brainwashed to join the villains, who strangle her. And then she gets to die for the man pain and be brought back immediately. Then we get into the sequel movies where we put a collar on her to condition her into behaving in a way her master deems appropriate. She gets turned into a dress-up doll for them to play with.

3.) I'm just posting an image and would like to highlight the collar she's wearing in it

[misiahasahardname]

for the character bingo sheet:

- April and Mikey (did I spell that right?-) from TMNT Mutant Mayhem

- Any character from Duck Tales (sorry if I got the name wrong-)

- The Jomies from TMF

:)

MIKEY (mutant mayhem)

one of the mikeys of all time!!!!!

he’s a lot calmer and positive and yet still has this chaotic vibe about him (which is an iconic trait for any mikey to have)

i would so be friends with him if i knew him personally. i mean, how could i not?????? HE’S INTO IMPROV. THEATER KIDS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!!!!!!!

i own a plushie of him and it’s so goofy looking. 10/10, great to watch tv with, very strangleable. (should probably have marked the ‘SQUEAK’ square for that… oh well)

i saw theories that he may die or get badly hurt in the series or the next movie which. 1. crazy 2. if that happens i will start crying and never stop. hurt this man and you will have to face my wrath

also his voice acting is very good. him singing ‘hello’ very very quietly will never not be funny to me

APRIL O’NEIL (mutant mayhem)

SHE’S SO PRETTY YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND.

my loveliest lovely she’s so. lovely

i vibe with her soooo hard she’s such a great representation of an awkward teenage girl, i wanna hug her so bad 😭😭

IDK WHAT IT IS ABOUT HER BUT SHE’S MY FAVOURITE APRIL BY A LONG SHOT (though i do have a great appreciation for the glory that is 2003 april)

10/10 one of my favourite characters of all time. i would play minecraft with her. i would

you gave me the choice to talk about any ducktales character so of COURSE it’s gotta be dewey!

gotta get this outta the way. ben schwartz is such a great voice for him. like. this guy. absolutely greatest voice acting in the series, maybe tied with david tennant as scrooge mcduck

he feels a bit like me as a kid tbh. hyperactive, impulsive, needing constant attention, adventure and excitement, and also needing to be loved and respected by others so badly that he would put himself into danger. yep. that’s very me

literally just undiagnosed adhd in duck form i love him and i need like eight more of him to be happy

JAKE (tmf)

he’s such a pathetic little guy, what’s not to love about a pathetic little guy???

he sings, he’s easily flustered, makes life crushing mistakes and he simps for women??? literally me irl!!!!!!!!

i genuinely care so much for jake i could talk about him loads but i cannot find the words 😭😭😭

give him a fat dose of estrogen i think that could fix him

DREW (tmf)

banishing him. 10000 years of therapy for drew.

there’s something about him that’s just..,..,,,,,,, idk. i think he’s very not ok i needs help right now

he is DEFINETLY overrated to me, i do not care about him as much as most other tmf fans do, but those complex analysises of him i absolutely ADORE. yes keep getting under his skin!!!! study him and his brain!!!! figure out what went wrong!!!!

top characters i would use the head of as a pillow (i’d do it cus his hair gives me very soft and plush vibes. i’d also do it to fuck with him. i’m very evil)

LIAM (tmf)

i have little thoughts about him 😔😔😔😔 does give art freak vibes (lol just like me fr).

totally pretends he’s a vampire around gullible children because it’s funny

HENRY (tmf)

PATHETIC LITTLE LETTUCE BOY. LEAVE MY LINE OF SIGHT RIGHT THIS INSTANT!!!! I NEVER WANT TO SEE HIS SMUG ASS EVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!! (/j i love you henry!!!!)

look at him. he’s such a bastard. most bullyable character of the series

he’s so funny to me. like. hello????

his one crime is loving lettuce. that shit has the worst texture ever!!!!!!!!! lettuce enjoyers dni (another big fat /j)

would definetly kiss the homies goodnight. he doesn’t know he’s homosexual because he’s so unserious about it

ahem that’s all

[bethanydelleman]

Lady Susan Readthrough Letters 17 & 18

Summary: Frederica arrives and it turns out she's just very shy but certainly not perverse or as terrible as Lady Susan has claimed. Catherine feels sorry for her almost right away. Frederica can see Lady Susan walking with Reginald from her room's window. Reginald still thinks Frederica is stupid or badly behaved, despite having now met her.

In her next later, Catherine has formed a plan: Reginald ought to marry Frederica! She believes the girl is falling for Reginald and Catherine is smitten herself. She thinks Frederica is awesome and the children all love their cousin.

-+-

I find it interesting that Catherine completely distrusts Lady Susan and yet believed the worst of her daughter. She said before Frederica arrived that she must be "a perverse girl". I guess maybe she just thinks anyone raised by Lady Susan should be treated with suspicion.

Now that poor Frederica has arrived Catherine's already planning to marry her off to Reginald! Complete 180.

Poor Reginald was beyond measure concerned to see his fair friend in such distress, and watched her with so much tender solicitude, that I, who occasionally caught her observing his countenance with exultation, was quite out of patience. This pathetic representation lasted the whole evening, and so ostentatious and artful a display has entirely convinced me that she did in fact feel nothing.

Lady Susan is exalting in her triumph over Reginald and Catherine watches. This must be terrible for her! She knows Lady Susan is bad news but she just can't convince her brother.

Her mother has insinuated that her temper is intractable, but I never saw a face less indicative of any evil disposition than hers

Ah yes, judging character by how people look. Never problematic at all.

Yet Reginald still thinks Lady Susan the best of mothers, and still condemns Frederica as a worthless girl!... O Reginald, how is your judgment enslaved!

Reginald continues to be blind, Catherine to be mortified. This dynamic really mirrors Fanny and Edmund so much!

Thoughtful and pensive in general, her countenance always brightens into a smile when Reginald says anything amusing

That's it, they must marry! She must be in love if she smiles at jokes!

Lol, this is a wonderful resume:

I think, my dear mother, you would not disapprove of her as a daughter. She is extremely young, to be sure, has had a wretched education, and a dreadful example of levity in her mother

We also see the concept of "gratitude" come up here. This is further explained in Northanger Abbey:

She was assured of his affection; and that heart in return was solicited, which, perhaps, they pretty equally knew was already entirely his own; for, though Henry was now sincerely attached to her, though he felt and delighted in all the excellencies of her character and truly loved her society, I must confess that his affection originated in nothing better than gratitude, or, in other words, that a persuasion of her partiality for him had been the only cause of giving her a serious thought. It is a new circumstance in romance, I acknowledge, and dreadfully derogatory of an heroine’s dignity; but if it be as new in common life, the credit of a wild imagination will at least be all my own. (Ch 30)

and with Elizabeth Bennet:

If gratitude and esteem are good foundations of affection, Elizabeth’s change of sentiment will be neither improbable nor faulty. (Ch 46)

Seems like it might work Catherine!

Also, the children seem to have inherited Catherine's discernment, they were not mentioned as liking their aunt by they love their cousin:

There cannot be a more gentle, affectionate heart; or more obliging manners, when acting without restraint; and her little cousins are all very fond of her.

But then again maybe Catherine is biased.

[christophimer]

uno cards

A bunch of artworks of some of my characters for a set of Uno cards I'm making with friends.

Top row:

A representation of the 'two ladies', two divine sisters that embody opposites and are the main religion of Fin-es-mal.

Morrowmin Colt. Son and secretary to a powerful spirit known as 'the queen of all'. Half human Tall tall silly man who flits about the place.

Thomas Linn. Little immortal puritan man. Technically the true king of Sā-foer and kind of Hymire's wars.

2nd row

Hymire Hymire. Evil little vampire/bird thing who's powers stem around life/blood - and the pain of it (very nature red in tooth and claw energy). Delights in tormenting people and showing off how clever he is.

the silver herald. Part of the living statues of the earthen court. Self proclaimed righteous/moral/good person who tends to be protective over humans

the giant Yā-minteria, warlord type figure who likes fighting and all that and her husband (tiny moth man) Alithanthus.

3rd row

Conrad - one of Yā-minteria's two sons. Grumpy and proud prince who got his eye stabbed out by his brother and now can't do much magic

Daltin Keen. Serious faced eccentric wizard who thinks too much and not at all at the same time.

Robert Finch. Royal wizard to Fin-es-mal and nervous serious large eyed man who is way too stressed about most things

4th row

Bewarice Wren. A small and determined minded child who gains her confidence due to her isolated upbringing

Jaski and iolnus. A fire spirit and a weird forest man who are looking after bewarice for the time being. Possibly only they understand what they're saying half the time

Lacey Cotingir. Sweet voiced stubborn Noble woman who would fight a bear unarmed if you let her.

Last row

Faibius Cotingir. Wizard to the crown and general soppy sort of fellow. Will not think badly of anyone and is eternally sad that he cannot be friends with everyone.

Misenbough Hareing. Faibius' much older sister. Very much a force of nature within the family (in many ways everyone does what she says) very anxious and maybe overbearing but well intentioned

(Edward) Harrolds Hareing. Deeply wry and sarcastic man who talks in a really sinister drawl. Currently staying at his brother's (Westrowe) house he mainly hangs out with misenbough and often acts as her right hand man.

[medieval-canadian]

i keep thinking about that post that i’ve seen a few times so far this month about hallmark holiday movie villains. now don’t get me wrong—i’m NOT here to say that hallmark movies are good and right and faithful representations of the world. AT ALL. they have many, many problems, for sure. so many that i’m not gonna even try to list them out here, that’s not the point of this post.

i love hallmark movies, they’re terrible! that’s my answer when anyone asks me about it. it’s a cheerful one, too. i appreciate them for what they are, and what they are is terrible, low-budget, formulaic, (denominationally) seasonal tv movies. no one’s expecting them to be oscar-worthy.

but also, idk if op of that post just… hasn’t watched a hallmark movie from the past decade? bc most of them (the enjoyable ones, anyway—terrible acting, predictable storylines, awful, awful fake snow and all) don’t have anything resembling villains? antagonists, sure, in the proper sense of the literary term. these movies are always about interpersonal conflict and communication in various iterations. that’s… the whole point of the genre. the guy that the lead female character breaks up with is not usually (almost never, actually, at least in more recent movies) depicted as an evil monster person. it usually ends up being some variation on “our priorities don’t align anymore” and while yes, usually a somewhat more sympathetic representation is given to the woman’s side of that, that’s because she’s the main character. not because you’re supposed to hate the guy she broke up with, but because you’re supposed to keep watching to see the rest of her story or whatever. the movie is set up so that you can root for the “new” guy. and those antagonists are often depicted as quite nice and respectful, which op rightly notices, bc in the end these movies aren’t deep psychological dramas/horror movies about unhealthy relationships. they’re about looking at pretty people who have to be acting that badly on purpose because how did they ever make it as an actor otherwise, and getting to see them have a stupid, cliched, gag-inducing, sappy, happily ever after that is brought about in a shockingly unrealistic amount of time. which… would be difficult if the guy the main character breaks up with were not ultimately respectful enough to step aside when she asks him to, you know?

listen. i’m not defending the genre from legitimate and justified criticisms, but that post…. isn’t that? idk why it’s bothering me so much. maybe bc there ARE so many legitimate and justice things to criticize and that post just blows right by them to make up a problem that doesn’t actually exist? (not as a trend in the genre in the way op implies, anyway. i’m sure you could find exceptions to what i’m saying/what i’ve observed bc there are always exceptions.) maybe some of it is also a sort of internalized defensive reaction on my part bc i do enjoy watching these movies. but even so, idk. i just think if we want to criticize these movies, maybe we can focus on the actual real problems they present? there are a lot of them

[agathathetransmechapilot]

Congrats to all Silent Hill fans!

Your franchise was dead for ages and now its back! Now,with all that said, who is Ryukishi07? I'm glad you ask imaginary reader! Ryukishi07 is mostly known as one of the biggest visual novel writers ever mainly known for his when they cry series, specially Higurashi no naku Koro ni(chapter 1,onikakushi is free on steam go check it out if it is for you and there is a mod with console sprites and voice acting).

Higurashi and Umineko(the second one in the wtc series) are mysteries mainly and then have horror elements, they have a heavy emphasis on relationships, their sins and how it affects them related to the mistery and the horror aspect(sound familiar?). Now,why I think Ryukishi might be a fit writer for silent hill(vague spoilers for some of his works): -Ryukishi has a background as a social worker and has seen some stuff when it comes to traumatic experiences specially children(see Higurashi and umineko for domestic violence and Higanbana for bullying and suicide ideation) which I think his perspective might work for different arcs in a SH game. -Representation,probably most of Higurashi and Umineko readers will confirm that both Maria and Rena are somewhere in the autism spectrum and he has a background or writing lgbtq characters(most popular a couple of evil lesbians in umineko) -He doesn't spoon feed his readers,Umineko episode 8 was a bit controversial in the Japanese fandom for how vague it was in some of his answers(source is people on discord told me,sorry) but thats what made umineko a really great experience, how he played with mystery tropes and inviting the readers to solve the puzzle for themselves. -He doesn't hold back, the representation of cycle of abuse in umineko,the mental downfall of Higurashi characters, the aspect of bullying in higanbana can get pretty hard for readers to stomach, I personally have to stop my reading of Higurashi chapter 3 for how it represented domestic abuse and how no is being able to help. Overall,i think writing wise you are in good hands for Silent Hill F and hope this post doesn't age badly.

[stingchronicity]

okay ive got to talk about kō no mono, the episode where freddie lounds’ supposed body is desecrated and posed like “shiva.” im hindu and generally pretty chill about my religion, but this set me off so badly, and i’m angry that i havent seen anyone on tumblr talking about it

there are a handful of things wrong with the hindu motif of this episode. first of all, to use desecrated body parts to form a representation of a god? what the fuck! how can this not be seen as insensitive? idols in the form of pictures, statutes, and other iconography is essential to hindu worship. we set these idols up at an altar to show that that god is there with us, in the home. they’re an honoured guest. statue idols are cleaned and dressed and pampered, and showered with gifts. the idol is the central part of a hindu home or temple. to create an idol, mockingly, out of exhumed body parts is practically the biggest disrespect you could show to the hindu religion

if that wasn’t telling enough, it’s clear that the writers did little to no research on the subject of shiva. lets start with representation (which, as i’ve said before, is extremely important to hindus)

this depiction and the desecrated body are depicted with three arms on each side. what this says to a hindu is, “ah yes, they see multiple arms and think that’s all there is to it.” shiva and most other hindu gods are almost always depicted with either two arms on each side or one on each side. in fact, it’s more common to see shiva with just two arms than with four. i dont think i have EVER seen a depiction of shiva--or any other god--with six arms. i’m sure they exist, but the point is that it is not at all representative of the hindu image of shiva. that’s just blatantly laziness in their research (if they did any at all), as it would NOT take but a moment of looking at hindu depictions that they are almost always shown with four arms. this is a megalithic statue of shiva at the  shri murudeshwara temple in india:

in this episode, shiva is referred to as “the creator and the destroyer” and “the benefactor and the destroyer.” this is also just? completely incorrect? the three topmost hindu gods are brahma the creator, vishnu the preserver, and shiva the destroyer. the idea that the writers are trying to convey is that shiva is both good and evil. well, that’s just not right either. brahma creates mankind. vishnu protects mankind. shiva destroys mankind, but it is not an act of evil. shiva destroys mankind at the fated time, because the universe/mankind can only be regenerated if it comes to an end. shiva destroys so mankind can be born anew (reincarnation is central to hinduism, if you didn’t know). shiva does not destroy in malice, and he does not create. if you wanna read between the lines and twist it around all meta so the script actually DOES fit the correct info about shiva, fine, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s written in a blatantly misinformed way. if it was meant to convey the correct narrative of shiva, they would have done it correctly instead of twisting it into nearly incomprehensible meta.

i tried not to come off as super angry in this post, because i’m sure people just don’t know. but i can’t help how irritated i feel. if it was ANY other major religion, people would be infuriated by it. if it was antisemitic or islamophobic, it would (rightly!) ruffle feathers. hinduism is the 3rd most practiced religion in the world and yet hinduphobia is never spoken about. the biggest reason i’m upset is because this religious defacement simply doesn’t garner any attention. i’ve never seen anyone on here talk about it, which is surprising because tumblr usually has “problematic” things pinned the second they’re released. our gods are not just fairytale characters with which you can play with; they are sacred religious figures.

anyone can rb but i am begging you not to go off with that “well no one REALLY knows what he looks like bc he’s not REAL” or “all religions are fake/cults/etc” jargon because i will go feral

[butterflyeffectiveless]

I kinda feel wrong for disliking and scolding the show through and through so I got an idea to list and talk about the things that I LIKED in the show. Plus I think thats much healthier than looking for negative things to scrutinize

warning: trauma, abuse mention, propaganda mention

Russian character representation: It was very impressive to me how Buffrog was portrayed in the show and his development in general was very nice. Usually “Russian” characters are used as a means of propaganda against Russians and russian characters are either 100% irredemable villains or ridiculously erratic. Buffrog wasn’t crazy or evil, he was just a monster with personal things, and he was also rational and had a huge character development, 10/10 I never really paid attention but now I realize how great it was that there was zero bias or even zero stereotyping toward Buffrog’s character in the show. 

Well written domestic abuse victim (About Ludo) : When I watch older scenes with Ludo in them, I realize that there are many details in his behavior that hint on his unhealthy background. And that stayed sonsistent throughout the entire show, which is actually so..great? Ludo is one of the most consistently written characters? and he’s also relatable to viewers? That’s actually such an incredible achievement. Even in small gestures, in what he says, I can see the influence of his past. In season 1 Ludo acted the same way as Brudo acted toward him, Ludo treated his monster army like his children, but he constantly abused them because that’s what he knew. Even in a small scene when Toffee was talking badly about him, Ludo said in a stern voice “Toffee, What are you doing?” which is exactly how a strict parent talks to their child. ALSO the scene where Ludo touched Toffee’s arm and slightly pet it, it could also be interpreted as him trying to show “parental affection” toward the lizard aka “You did so well im proud of you” but because he doesnt know how to show pride in someone, it looks awkward. The way how Ludo tries to persuade his monsters to trust him over Toffee was the exact same way as abusive parents act toward their kids “I raised you. I took you in” when they want to win in an argument. The way how Ludo acted in season 1 fit So well in his backstory it blows my mind. Also because - according to his past, he was not independent and was stuck with his family for most of his life, meaning that, despite hating his parents (for very valid reasons), family was the only thing he knew. So essentially, Ludo sees everything and everyone in the prism of “family or stranger”. Anyone he wants to be a part of his life is essentially his “kid” but because of having never known parental love, he thinks others are his “items” that he “owns”. 

Just Toffee’s existence in the show: Toffee is an incredibly written villain who didnt follow the typical tropes aka “I will reveal all my plans to the hero because I know they’ll die by my hand anyway”. His design is also super good, its simple but recognizable. Just the fact alone that Ms. Nefcy created him makes me feel very much in awe toward her. And what was also so cool to me, was that Toffee was a serious character in a very comedic show (in season 1) and yet it didnt ruin neither the character nor the show’s flow. Also there was No any cliche where a villain waits too long or gets overly dramatic, he just finished his enemies off the second he got the chance to

Just Eclipsa’s existence in the show: I think I dont have to speak of this one because everybody would say the same as what id say about her..

Tom Lucitor’s development: It was just so nice and consistent(?), and it felt believable. Plus it makes Tom a good role model for people who struggle with anger issues and it is so great that the show didn’t demonize anger issues and people who struggle with being too possessive through his character. Btw it is also great that Tom showed emotions and was an emotional character, it did not feed into toxic masculinity trends which i find admirable

[itsclydebitches]

Why do people get hung up on whether a gay person in media is a good or bad representation of them? I'm gay and I can tell you we aren't all the same? Being gay is our 1 common trait. So as long as they're gay then you've done it. Gay people can be kind, mean, racist, open, kinky, reserved, shy, outgoing, sexist, and literally anything else under the human experience.

Because I am perpetually hungry, let's tell a story about cookies.

You are a bright-eyed, optimistic, baker in the making. Your goal is to wow the world with your culinary skills, so of course you head to The Best Baking School for your degree. Over the course of your studies you learn how to perfect a thousand different cakes, an equal number of pies, and more versions of brownies than most would even assume exist. But cookies... oh, cookies are your passion! You can't wait to learn about the wealth of cookies you can make too. Then, sure enough, that part of your education finally arrives.

Funny thing is though, it's just chocolate chip.

Surely there's been some mistake? The cookie experience is vast and nuanced! Why in the world are your instructors — supposedly the best in the world — reducing cookies to a single class about baking chocolate chip and chocolate chip alone? Hell, why are cookies so sparse in the curriculum as a whole? You're never asked to bake them as a demonstration, or practice with them, and they're definitely not a given across everyone else's baking experience. Cakes, pies, and brownies... they're the default. Cookies are comparatively rare and when you do get to study them, everyone is super focused on the chocolate chip.

Then you graduate and head out into the world, only to find that pretty much everyone is as cookie-blind as your school. A few years back you never would have found cookies in the average grocery store and yeah, the fact that there's a cookie section now is great, but it's, uh... all chocolate chip! Many bakeries still don't carry cookies at all, but when they do it's - again - chocolate chip. Chocolate chip out in restaurants. Chocolate chip at the bake sale. Your friend invites you over and proudly presents a massive sweets tray that includes a single, sad looking, chocolate chip cookie. They beam at you in pride. Isn't it so great?

"Uh..." you say. "Well..."

Every once in a while someone will switch out milk chocolate for dark chocolate, or add nuts alongside chocolate chips. One bakery was even crazy enough to exclude chocolate chips entirely! Crazy according to the press, anyway. Because for years now you've been shaking your head, wondering what exactly is so progressive about realizing that sugar cookies exist. You've found other bakers interested in cookies and, by god, there are thousands. So many flavors! Gluten free and allergy conscious! Someone even made a sweets tray that was predominantly cookies, can you believe it? The problem is, almost none of them are mainstream. Your friend baking cookies out of their personal kitchen is doing fantastic work, but their baking doesn't have the impact that those grocery chains and established bakeries do. Their work isn't going to fix your school's curriculum. Too many people still think that cookies are exotic somehow. They're not the default. And when they do acknowledge their existence, it's chocolate chip over and over. Until one of them adds those nuts and suddenly the whole country is losing its mind about how inspired, creative, progressive their baking is. Meanwhile, you're ready to scream because that baker doesn't even know that something as "exotic" as a gingersnaps exist!

The worst part? Most of these cookies are... bad. Like they exist, yeah, but good god most don't taste good. And that's the whole point of a cookie?? What is the point of buying cookies if the cookies themselves are awful? You go to these bakeries, these restaurants, your friend's house, and you try the very limited cookies on offer, only to find that they've been sloppily baked. Doesn't anyone care that the baker burned their cookies to a crisp? That another straight up forgot to add sugar? This one dropped his on the floor and still tried to serve it to you! But the overall sense is that you should be grateful for getting any cookies at all. "That cookie is an offense to my taste buds," you say and people shake their head at you, disappointed. "I liked the taste of it," one says. "If you don't like it, go buy a different cookie!" Well... easier said than done. "It's not that bad," another says, shrugging in defeat. "I mean yeah, I don't really like it, and the baker stopped making them two years ago... but I'm just happy to have had any cookie at all, you know?" You do know, but that doesn't mean it's any less frustrating. You look at the hundreds of cakes available, these bakers spending decades perfecting their recipes, and wish cookies had even a fraction of that work put into them. You find people who agree with you, absolutely, but there's this this prevailing sense that a cookie is a cookie. Any cookie will do. Supposedly.

Except go long enough and you feel like you're ready to lose your mind. You take some poor person by the shoulders and go, "Doesn't this bother you? Doesn't this make you furious? There is more to the cookie world than these three flavors, 90% of which is chocolate chip! And we deserve well-made cookies, not the crap they've been upholding as the next culinary masterpiece!"

But this person just shakes their head. "Well of course there's more to cookies than three flavors. There's a huge variety of cookies! I know that."

"Yes, but the world isn't selling that variety."

"Of course they are! Just last week I had an oatmeal raisin. That's amazing!"

"Yeah and how many years did it take you to find that?"

"Well..."

"And how did that oatmeal raisin cookie taste?"

Your prisoner pulls a face. "Ugh, not good. Oatmeal raisin is definitely not for me. It's hard as a rock! I really don't understand why someone would want to eat that on a regular basis."

"But it's not supposed to be hard as a rock!" you cry, waving your arms. "That's the problem! Oatmeal raisin is so goddamn rare and then the one time we get it, it was badly baked. Of course people are turned off by it. Everyone who already loves oatmeal raisin is getting pissed because their favorite cookie is misrepresented, they're unlikely to see more of them now, and everyone is still serving the most tasteless chocolate chip cookies I've ever had, acting like this is the pinnacle of cookie baking! Do you even know that a macron exists?"

The person pats your hand consolingly. "Of course I do. My roommate's sister's boyfriend used to bake macrons, you know. I don't know why you're so hung up on this. Cookies can be whatever the baker wants them to be. Provided they're a flat-ish sweet cake, they're still a cookie!"

You hang your head, giving up. "Yes, they can be so many things, but they're not. Let me know if you ever find a bakery actually making the variety you keep acknowledging exists. Bonus points if those cookies are edible. My soul if they're delicious, as a cookie should be."

"You know," they say, still patting your hand. "There's a bakery making chocolate chip with dark chocolate next year. Everyone is talking about it. You should think about buying one before they take it off the menu!"

You contemplate just walking into the ocean.

Now, incredibly long metaphor concluded... switch out "cookies" for "queer rep"! The representation matters because no, just making them gay isn't enough right now. You're right that queer people can be anything under the sun, but right now media isn't providing us with that variety. It's not enough to acknowledge that such variety exists, it actually has to make it into our books and onto our screen. Taking just characters who identify as gay and putting aside the HUGE variety of other identities for a moment (of which we are mostly lacking in terms of rep), where are the gay asexuals? The gay people of color? The disabled gays? Trans gays? Did your gay character appear for just a handful of episodes? Were they killed off? Are they nothing more than a stereotype or comic relief? Is this the only gay character in your entire story? We need to ask questions like this because though gay people can be anything under the sun, our media landscape has only shown a miniscule portion of that variety.

Today, even in 2021, our representation of gay people is still pretty limited to:

You are only coded as gay and evil

You are only coded as gay and queerbaited

You are canonically gay, but a cis, ablebodied, white person

You are canonically gay, but were written terribly/killed off/punished by the narrative/generally making the real gay people watching you feel awful about their identity

You are canonically gay, but you're not human. Gotta other the queerness by making you an alien/robot/fantasy being

You are canonically gay and that's your entire existence. There is one (1) narrative of how you knew by the time you were four, never questioned your identity after that, suffered through a family that rejected you, and now all your major arcs revolve around being gay. You are gay and that is it.

Despite being a list of six, that's still incredibly limiting. Are there exceptions to such a list? Always, but that doesn't mean the list isn't still dominating. We can look at any individual gay character and say, "Of course they can be evil/white/killed off/a joke/etc. because gay people can be anything at all," but when we look at the trends, when we look at ALL the media together, we see that gay people aren't actually depicted as being anything... they're depicted as being these handful of things, severely limiting how gayness is represented. Bad rep. If you hit up the bakery and question why there's only versions of chocolate chip available yeah, the baker can go, "But cookies can be any flavor! Including chocolate chip!" They are not, technically, wrong. The problem is not that chocolate chip exists, but that chocolate chip dominates and other flavors are rare, ignored entirely, or baked so badly it's actively damaging to that flavor as a whole. Yeah, your gay character can be mean. Or kinky. Or murdered by the story. But when so many gay characters are mean and kinky and murdered by their stories — when you're not getting other versions to balance that out and gay characters are still rare enough that it's just 1-2 characters trying to carry representation for an entire franchise — you start realizing that the claim of "Gay people can be anything else under the human experience" is an easy way to shut down the conversation of whether that variety actually exists in our storytelling yet.

It's not enough for the baker to acknowledge that yeah, of course there are hundreds of cookie flavors and of course cookies taste great! They've actually got to learn how to bake them properly and fill up their store with them.

[antiloreolympus]

5 Anti LO Asks

1. If Persephone was created by Demeter and “has no father” does that mean Demeter just created a fertility goddess without knowing or like what’s that deal? Like it seems like an accident but how do you accidentally do that?

2. One thing I hate about the new released chapter is how poor its written. Daphne just found out that the guy she had a fling with, r*pe her good friend, she’s shaking she’s crying it’s sekiro us, and how Apollo deals with it seems like comic relief to me. “Oh you’re crying hold on a minute while I cartoonishly go up on a cliff to yell at somewhere conveniently where you’re can’t hear me” like it was from looney tunes almost.

3. why is ares and aphrodite's relationship in LO depicted badly? its mocked at every turn and even ares doesnt seem to care for aphrodite all that much when he constantly simps for persephone around her, and even their kids are shown as neglected/ignored so eros has to parent them. rachel claims they're her second favorite ship yet she makes them a mockery. is it so they dont look better than hxp? bc if thats the case thats more on her not writing hxp well than on ares and aphrodite, tbh.

4. A while ago I saw a guy from Greece who said that the representations of the gods in LO more than being annoying, they were somewhat offensive. and I do not know whether to agree or not.

5. Okay so, every time I post some thoughts about LO there is always someone coming into my inbox to argue with me - so please forgive me for letting off a bit of steam on anon.

The most recent chapter (not fast past) - I think it was episode "run for your life part 5" or something? Has Psyche accidentally reveal to Daphne Apollo's true nature - and ive been having some thoughts.

So, what exactly IS the purpose of the arrow of hate?? Like if the purpose is to "reveal" the persons true nature (to someone else) then why does that extend to showing someone else the worst deeds that person has done? Like Psyche decided she was just going to go ahead and "reveal" Apollo's deeds to Artemis, and I just do not understand her logic.

If she Knew that the arrow of hate was going to reveal that Apollo was a rapist / show Artemis that her twin brothers "true nature" is being a manipulative rapist - why does she think that's okay, or justified?

She claims that she didnt see Daphne and therefore didn't want her to "see" or "know" about Apollo, just Artemis - but still. She doesnt even know Persephone! And she decided (without Persephone's knowledge or consent) that she was going to out what happened to her, to her friend (Artemis).

I just dont understand the writing here. Psyche somehow "knows" intuitively that Persephone was raped by Apollo (and yet other characters who actually know Persephone like Hermes + Artemis) are completely unaware - but psyche, who has never met Persephone decides its her 'duty' or something to take it upon herself and expose more people to Persephones trauma (of which she does not want other people to know about).

Honestly it feels like the way RS wrote the chapter is that the arrow of hate is less "reveal true nature / evil deeds" and more "plot trauma" at characters expense.

Like sure, psyche didn't mean for Daphne to see Apollo's true nature (and for some reason, I guess see the very graphic details of him raping Persephone) - but she still very much meant for Artemis to know - so not only is she violating Persephone's boundaries by taking things into her own hands, shes purposefully violating other peoples (like Daphne or Artemis').

Like lets say for argument sake the arrow of hate for some reason acts as a "show this persons worst deeds" to someone else - can you imagine how Artemis would feel in being forced to see her friend getting raped by her brother? (Because apparently its not a choice of what the viewer sees. The viewer - in this case Daphne - is shown the most horrible things that the person hit by the arrow has done, or at the very least, gives them that knowledge + details).

So either way, even if it was an accident (as the chapter makes it out to be) I don't really like that Psyche decided that Persephones secret trauma was her thing to share / force upon others (especially without consent from both parties - because I doubt Persephone would be okay with psyche deciding to show Artemis / Daphne her rape trauma + I doubt Artemis would want to see that, or have that knowledge forced upon her).

Really accident or not, it comes down to that was not psyche's choice to make and if Persephone wants to tell Artemis about what Apollo did, then that should be her choice + Persephone should be the one telling Artemis - it should not be Psyche deciding to freshly traumatize others + deciding that its okay for her to spill others trauma. 

[woolishlygrim]

So, like the Camelot arc films, the Fate/Grand Order Solomon arc film is actually really good, and like the Camelot films, it touches on the kernel of good writing that makes the rest of Fate so very frustrating for me.

Because both the Camelot films and the Solomon film have, at their core, these stories that are simultaneously really personal and humanistic but also really grand and epic, saying Big Things about the nature of humanity while also telling character-driven stories, something that Fate is uniquely positioned to do because all of its major characters are historical figures with sweeping, epic stories already attached, meaning that half the work is already done when you want to drill down into that and get both a personal character arc and a story that says Things about life and history and kingship and all that stuff.

The idea that Excalibur is a metaphorical representation of King Arthur’s humanity and attachment to the mortal world, the bridge between the mythic king and the flawed human, is a genuinely fresh, interesting idea. Building a story around that, where the goal is to return Excalibur, exploring ideas of personal connection and loyalty and devotion to people versus devotion to ideals is actually masterful writing, especially because those are all themes in the myths of King Arthur anyway. Devotion to people versus devotion to ideals is the soul of Arthur’s downfall, after all: He makes an enemy of Mordred because his ideal of law means he cannot act on his devotion to people and acknowledge Mordred as his son; he drives away Lancelot and Guinevere because his devotion to the same ideal of law means he cannot forgive or permit their adultery, no matter how much Arthur the person might want to. That conflict is the core of the Arthurian mythos, and the Camelot films explore it from a different angle but still in an interesting way.

The idea of Solomon seeing the suffering of people but being bound to do nothing about it, because that’s the nature of the world God created and he refuses to place himself above God, is a fascinating angle to take on his story. It’s not an angle the actual myths would ever take, but it’s an interesting interpretation, rich with moral and ethical questions, ripe with theological ideas. The idea that Solomon’s ultimate victory comes from the acceptance of himself as a mere mortal, imperfect and unworthy, works as a continuation of Solomon’s mythological story, where for all his wisdom he’s eventually brought low by his own imperfection. 

Fate/Zero has these really interesting philosophical ideas at play. There’s a richness to the idea of King Arthur, Alexander the Great, and Gilgamesh sitting down to drink together and discuss the nature of being a king, whether it means being a servant of the people and a vessel for their desires, or an aspirational figure whose excesses and larger-than-life presence inspires others to reach for power, or whether it means that you’re above the concepts of good and evil and above the judgement of others. There’s something genuinely compelling about seeing someone whose philosophy boils down to ‘it’s okay to kill one person to save two’ having holes picked in that philosophy just by following it to its logical conclusion.

... But also, because this is Fate, those interesting kernels of great storytelling are buried in just. Nonsense. If you want to get to them, you have to wade through some of the most incomprehensible, badly thought out worldbuilding, attached to a series that is about 50% some of the most cloying, weird fanservice (irritating at best, outright nauseating at its worst); and 25% people sitting around explaining a magic system that’s made entirely of exceptions to rules and exceptions to exceptions to rules; and about 10% utter inane garbage. 

[jupitermelichios]

Jupiter’s top 10 horror games for Quarantine (or any other time)

Disclaimer here, that I watch a lot more lets plays of horror games than I do play them myself, because I’m a big wuss, so these recs are based on atmosphere and story more than they are gameplay mechanics. That said, I haven’t recc’d anything where I know the actual mechanics to be miserable.

I’ve given a content warning for one game which deals with mental health issues in a way I know to be triggering for some people but it should go without saying that as horror games all of these contain at least some potentially squicky or triggering content. If you want more detailed warnings, hit me up and I’ll be happy to provide them. Oh, and I won’t say that there’s no jump scares in here, but there’s no games which rely on jumpscares as a regular mechanic, because that’s just lazy writing.

Soma

One of the rare games that really is as clever as it thinks it is, Soma is a hauntingly creepy slice of hard sci-fi with a lot to say on the nature of consciousness, hope, and nihilism. It also has an optional no monsters mode, which I’d recommend personally. It doesn’t detract from the atmosphere one bit, and it makes the game accessible for people with motor issues by removing the QTEs.

Resident Evil VII

I’m not usually an action-horror fan, but this is brilliantly atmospheric and charmingly weird in a way that’s uniquely Resi. Fun gameplay and a story that’s just the right balance of compelling and utter nonsense blend surprisingly smoothly with an atmosphere of old school horror.

Outlast

I know I know, horror set in asylums has been done to death and has some really fucked up origins, but hear me out on this one. Outlast takes genre tropes and character beats that have been done a million times before and elevates them. Mostly by having a main character who makes entirely reasonable decisions. Yes he sneaks into the creepy hospital at night (albeit for a good reason) but the minute he figures out he’s in a fucking horror story, his only motivation is to gtfo and that makes everything he goes through relatable in a way horror protagonists rarely are.

Little Nightmares

I have limited patience for the use of child protagonists in horror stories, but like Inside (below) Little Nightmares gets around this aversion by having some of the best art direction I’ve ever seen, no cutesy child dialogue (no dialogue at all in fact) and atmosphere by the bucket load. It’s Limbo by way of Gormenghast and I urge you to try it for the stunning art if nothing else.

Pathalogic 2

My mutuals will already know how much I adore the Pathlogic series (I may or not be planning to get a Pathalogic tattoo). Honestly the original is a more effective horror game, but it’s also badly translated and janky to the point of being more or less unplayable. 2 fixes most of the jank, and only those few weirdos who actually remember the first one would ever think it was lacking anything. This is a series totally unlike anything else you’ve ever played, and it’s worth your time. It’s unlikely you’ll ever play another game with quite this much thought behind it again.

Verde Station

This game was made in response to a challenge - to make a horror games that doesn’t use darkness. It’s also the only one of these recs that comes with a major content warning - if you suffer from false memories, lost time, or dissociation, take care when playing this game. It’s only a couple of hours long, but it’s probably the greatest use of gameplay mechanics as storytelling I’ve ever seen. The Charnel House Trilogy

This is probably the game on this list the least people have heard of, but it’s well worth checking out. Great voice acting, plenty of black humour, and the best representation of what it feels like to be at home by yourself with only your paranoia for company since Gone Home.

Deadly Premonition

Did you watch Twin Peaks and think “wait I thought this was supposed to super weird, and also I really wish the main character would stop hitting on highschoolers’? Good news, Japanese auteur game director Swery is here to show David Lynch how it’s done. It holds the Guinness world record for the most polarised game reviews ever, so when I say you’ll either love it or you’ll hate it, I really do mean that. Personally I love it.

Pony Island

Yes IMSCARED did the meta horror first, and Doki Doki Literature Club did the reveal better, but Pony Island is a brilliantly weird not particularly scary little meta horror game, full of nicely realised little details and fun puzzle gameplay.

Inside

The only other exception to my children in horror rule (don’t @ me Inside the Sleep fans), Inside is an absolute masterclass in non-verbal storytelling. From the first moment, when your player character cowers away from a threat you didn’t even know was a threat yet, this is a story told in lighting and body language. If you’ve ever wondered what ‘show don’t tell’ really means to writing, this is it.