#(just because a character is morally flawed doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to like them)

[can-of-w0rmz]

THOSE Frankenstein fans when both Victor and the Creature have positive and negative qualities, and the story is a tragedy where both characters involved are flawed and it’s not a morality battle between who’s the innocent one and who’s the Bad Guy™️ (and then get pissed at anyone likes one of those characters and labels them as problematic like we’re in the fucking 2020 Danganronpa fandom):

Just while we’re at it, Frankenstein is not a weak whiny bitch and the Creature doesn’t have no moral compass and didn’t emerge from the operating table murderous

Frankenstein IS vastly immature and incapable of communicating his emotions and considering the consequences of his actions bar a few instances and the Creature is basically an incel serial killer

Now shut the fuck up with the “who’s the victim, Victor or the Creature?” bullshit arguments and agree they’re both pathetic morally flawed babygirls and collectively up the fan content for our best girl who deserved so much better Elizabeth Lavenza my beloved wife

[olis-inkwell-symposium]

How to Write Multidimensional LGBTQ+ Characters with Authentic Emotional Journeys & Moral Complexities

As a fellow proud member of the alphabet gang, when building LGBTQ+ characters in fantasy, it’s essential to push beyond surface-level representation and craft characters that are fully realized—characters with rich emotional arcs, intricate moral dilemmas, and personal journeys that go beyond their sexuality or gender identity. To do this, the character's identity should be one part of who they are, not the only thing that defines them. Below are some strategies for creating multidimensional LGBTQ+ characters in your fantasy stories.

1. Give Them Full Emotional Arcs

LGBTQ+ characters should have complex emotional lives that don’t just revolve around their sexuality or gender identity. It’s important to explore their hopes, fears, ambitions, and personal struggles just as you would with any other character.

Ask yourself:

What do they desire most in life?

What internal conflicts are they grappling with?

How does their identity shape their view of the world, but also, how do their experiences in this fantasy world impact their identity?

A lesbian warrior who’s conflicted about war may wrestle with the toll it takes on her spirit, her duty to protect her community, and her desire for peace—not just her love for another woman. These internal tensions create depth, making her more than a “token” character.

2. Place Their Identity in Context with the Fantasy World

How does your fantasy world view LGBTQ+ identities? Are they accepted, ignored, or misunderstood? Is there a specific cultural, political, or even magical significance to being queer in your world?

For example, in a world where shape-shifting is common, could gender be seen as fluid, or would rigid gender norms still exist? These questions not only affect how your character navigates the world but also how their identity interacts with the story’s larger themes. A gender-fluid sorcerer might find their powers misunderstood or even feared because of their shifting identity, adding layers to both their personal and external conflicts.

3. Move Beyond Stereotypes

Avoid fully focusing on tired LGBTQ+ tropes like the “tragic queer,” “gay best friend,” or “sassy queer sidekick.” Instead, allow them to occupy spaces where their queerness informs, but doesn’t limit, their roles in the story.

This means allowing LGBTQ+ characters to be:

Heroes and not just mentors or sidekicks.

Villains with moral complexities rather than simply “evil” because they are queer.

Leaders with the same flaws and virtues as any other character.

Relatable without relying on typical stereotypes.

Focus on their unique personalities, decisions, and values, allowing their identity to be one aspect of a multifaceted whole.

4. Explore Moral Complexity

One of the most compelling elements of character-building is the moral struggle. Allow your LGBTQ+ characters to face tough moral choices that aren’t just black and white. This shows that they aren’t infallible paragons of virtue or simplistic villains—they are people with the capacity for light and darkness.

For example, a gay knight may find himself torn between loyalty to his kingdom and the corrupting influence of power. His struggles are not centered on his sexuality, but on how his personal identity interacts with the external pressures of war, duty, and justice. This complexity makes him someone readers can empathize with, even as they wrestle with his choices.

5. Authentic Emotional Journeys

Many LGBTQ+ characters experience moments of personal discovery, whether coming out, finding community, or struggling with self-acceptance. However, these stories shouldn’t be reduced to a single “coming out” narrative.

If your character undergoes a journey of self-discovery, ensure it’s nuanced. Think about:

What are their internal emotional struggles?

What external pressures do they face from society or other characters?

How do their personal discoveries impact their relationships, goals, or views of the world?

6. Build Relationships Beyond Romance

Romance is often one of the main focal points when writing LGBTQ+ characters, but building meaningful, non-romantic relationships is vital. Focus on their bonds with friends, mentors, family, and enemies. These connections give them more texture and depth, allowing readers to see different aspects of their identity.

Develop these bonds to show how they shape your character’s motivations and emotional growth throughout the story.

7. Subvert Expectations

Fantasy offers the perfect space to subvert real-world biases and expectations. Maybe in your world, queerness is the norm, and being straight is the thing that raises eyebrows. Or, perhaps gender identity is fluid, and strict binary definitions are seen as old-fashioned.

This allows you to play with audience assumptions and opens the door to explore LGBTQ+ identities in new and innovative ways. By breaking the mold, you give your characters space to be fully realized individuals within a fantastical, yet meaningful, framework.

Crafting Characters with Complexity

Ultimately, the key to writing multidimensional characters lies in treating them with the same care and attention you would give any other character. Give them goals, flaws, emotional depth, and moral struggles that transcend their identity while still allowing their queerness to enrich their journey. By doing so, you create characters that readers can relate to and root for, regardless of their background.

The goal is not just to create LGBTQ+ representation but to craft complex, authentic characters that will resonate with your audience, making them unforgettable figures in your fantasy world.

[bloomeng]

I made a post talking about my frustration with Lxc mischaracterization and several people mentioned in the tags the adjacent fanon Lxc problem, aka the “himbo” characterization.

Himbo is now just one of those internet words that has been so overused and thrown out of its original context that to me it almost has no meaning. My eyes sort of just glaze over it, which might be why it doesn’t bother me as much. But as far as mischaracterization goes— oh definitely Lxc is not at all a himbo.

Definitions vary but in my opinion to be a himbo one must be three things:

1) Obviously strong

To be a himbo it’s not enough to just be strong, you must be visibly strong. Bimbo and himbo’s were originally negative descriptors given to hot people who were supposedly stupid. What I’m getting at is it’s a visual aesthetic. If a character’s strength isn’t immediately identifiable then they’re not a himbo. I’m not talking “has to have a six pack,” I’m talking clothing that inadvertently reveals their strength. It’s about how they present themselves the same way bimbo is about how you present yourself. To be clear the majority of characters aren’t aware of the himbo label but they are conscious of the way they dress. They’re not dressing to fit a mold they’re dressing to show off in a way they think is cool. (Ex: characters like Itto and Galo walking around shirtless for the vibe)

2) Dumb in an oblivious way

Himbos aren’t book smart, nor are they great at grasping highly technical things, but they do shock everyone around them with their emotional intelligence. This trait comes from the newer, more positive interpretation of the label that the internet has created. Himbos are no longer flat out stupid, no they’re just a little dumb but they have a big heart. It’s the simplicity in their logic that allows them to be so straightforward and cut through the bs to the humanity of any given issue. However, it also means a lot goes over their heads. The obliviousness is the key to their dumb characterization because it’s what allows them to be so open and loud about what they believe in.

3) Kind

I already partially touched on this in the previous blurb but apart of the new understanding of a himbo is their capacity for kindness. Usually himbos are written to have strong internal moral codes that are very simple, but it’s the simplicity that allows them to see past the cultural norms and politics and just be respectful to everyone regardless of their background. That’s why people often say himbos can’t be sexist, racist, etc. Which I mostly agree with, but I do think that there are levels to this. I think if we’re discussing characters, himbos are allowed some minor prejudices as a flaw that they then work through. Sokka, while not a himbo, is a good example of a character who starts a series with a flaw (sexism) that comes from a well meaning place but grows from it. The important thing is the capacity to respect everyone.

Now Lxc does have some of these traits but he doesn’t display them in a way that matches what a himbo is.

Stength:

He’s very strong both in his cultivation and physically. Too bad we can’t see that just by looking at him.

Oblivious:

Lxc’s whole thing is that he’s literally book smart. Never once is oblivious to a situation. He purposely allows himself some blissful ignorance when it came to the situation between Jgy and Nmj but that was his one selfish act. He’s well adept when it comes to handling politics more so than anyone in the book. If you think that Lxc’s internal logic is simplistic that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of his character. The dumbest he ever gets is tied to class, where he struggles to do daily chores, and even then he’s never shown to be oblivious to the social hierarchy.

Kindness:

This is probably the trait Lxc embodies the most. He is very kind. That being said his internal logic system is not simplistic at all. Lxc is a lot more morally grey than he seems at first glance. While he feels strongly about not judging others based on their backgrounds he also has a deep understanding of exactly why certain people aren’t accepted in the first place. He understands his status and accepting Jgy was absolutely a calculated move on his part. It was coming from a good place but he also understood the delicacy of the situation. If he were actually a himbo he would’ve had none of that delicacy and pitched a very loud fit over it.

All of this is to say he’s no where near the realm of himbo. I think the only types of people who refer to him as one are typically the same people who only engage with his character on the most surface level. They mean well because it’s supposed to be a compliment— which might be why I don’t mind it as much— but it’s also just fundamentally the exact opposite of his character. He’s a passive reserved artist who’s been forced into a leadership position where he has to navigate politics.

[veliseraptor]

I don't know what hopepunk is and at this point I'm too afraid to ask

well anon, part of your problem here is that hopepunk is in a lot of ways a meaningless descriptor that means whatever people want it to mean.

took a bit of digging but I found the post that broke down a lot of my issues with hopepunk as a concept/subgenre, here; to quote from that:

You may notice that the philosophy is incoherent, mainly boiling down to “the things I like are hopepunk and the things I don’t like aren’t.” It builds a philosophy out of opposition to a strawman of “grimdark” that doesn’t really exist. So hopepunk means you keep fighting for what you believe in regardless of what that is, and violence isn’t the answer, except when it is. Hopepunk is about being kind and soft but also about punching the bad guy with the gun. Hopepunk is a morass of FEELING REALLY STRONGLY ABOUT THINGS!!! without a fundamental core of… anything concrete.

[...]

Hopepunk in practice is unbearably twee.  The goal is to be to inspire a feeling of hope in the reader, which means that nothing bad is allowed to really happen, characters aren’t ever allowed to mess up or be mean or have flaws, and any mistake is well-intentioned and quickly & easily resolved by talking about your feelings.

and I could just leave it at that because, like I said, pretty good summation of my perspective, but sometimes an ask hits me at the exact right time for me to go off about something that consistently irritates me but I usually keep my mouth shut about for one reason or another.

and I feel like the first thing I want to say is. look. it's not like I'm out here going "hope is for losers and all I ever want is tragic stories where everything is awful forever." but the thing about hopepunk, at least in the ways I see it described, is that, in its dedication to be "the opposite of grimdark," shies away from representing darkness at all, except maybe in the most cursory, glancing ways. there's nothing to confront, nothing to push back against. villains are easily identified and unproblematically evil. protagonists are unimpeachably nice and good, and always have perfect politics. moral complexity is to be avoided, because raising too many questions might interrupt the positive feelings the author hopes to evoke.

not only does this create, in my opinion, really dull stories about very uninteresting characters, it also blunts anything the book is trying to say. if you don't want to confront any kind of conflict or struggle in depth then you've kneecapped your ability to talk about the full range of human experience. if the only antagonist you allow is a hollow caricature, then there's only so much room your protagonists have to express strength in opposing them.

the whole framework results in a kind of tepid, anodyne storytelling that expresses meaningless platitudes that the audience is presumed to agree with, often with a side helping of didacticism and "teachable moments." it's weak storytelling.

there's a world in which "hopepunk" is referring to a kind of story that I actually really like; for instance, there's a world in which one could call Malazan: Book of the Fallen "hopepunk." I am tempted to do that, just because I think it would drive people nuts. I think hopepunk wants to be doing something like the line from The Silmarillion that opens the tale of Beren and Luthien: "Among the tales of sorrow and of ruin that come down to us from the darkness of those days there are yet some in which amid weeping there is joy and under the shadow of death light that endures."

but out of a fear of representing anything actually ugly, or possibly making people feel kinda bad about something, or challenging the reader in any way, everything that might have been interesting gets stripped out and what's left is literature that feels like cotton candy: maybe it's sweet, but there's nothing to bite into, and nothing that lingers.

[horizon-verizon]

In the book, Aemond seems to have quite an obsession with Daemon. Where do you think it comes from, and how would you interpret/characterize it ?

I’m still thinking about it in ways that aren’t already know or talked about in the current fandom and here on Tumblr. So bear with me here. I might do many edits on this post in the immediate and far futures.

*Update* I was right.

In all and of the two, Daemon acts more out of love than Aemond does, even with him being as violent and brutal as he is. Daemon is flawed and cruel, while Aemond is evil and cruel, though both are ambitious. They both acted out of a lack of love or attentions or recognition at some point.

By and large, Aemond is a character who finds his personhood only through disenfranchising others. He is the potently evil shadow of Daemon. Aemond is a character who lacks love or a true understanding of respect and considers Daemon the beast to slay to solidify and validate his own existence, worthiness, and masculinity.

A)

Aemond is Daemon’s narrative and literary foil. 

A foil is:

a literary device designed to illustrate or reveal information, traits, values, or motivations of one character through the comparison and contrast of another character. A literary foil character serves the purpose of drawing attention to the qualities of another character, frequently the protagonist. This is effective as a means of developing a deeper understanding of a character by emphasizing their strengths and weaknesses. In addition, a literary foil allows writers to create a counterpart for the protagonist that puts their actions and choices in context.

B)

Both

They are both fighters with skill. Both are brutal and willing to get violent (but in different ways and reasons). Both are Targaryens and proud of it. Both want the throne or a strong claim to it. Both are second sons tasked with the role of supporting their older, not-very-competent or completely incompetent brother to keep or gain the throne and are passionate about it (for different reasons). Both squirm with the thought that their existence and purpose is to support such brothers but for different reasons.

And as @theblackqveen says, they even both have a connection to Visenya the Conqueror through her dragon and her sword.

Daemon

1)

Daemon is uncaring of not-family people. Not hateful, just uncaring and thus willing to spill their blood if that will bring him results (Jaime Lannister).  Canonically (not HotD), he is a charismatic, violent, and ambitious man.  He creates the gold cloaks and inspires the preexisting city guardsmen into believing in their own validity and strengths by revamping their looks, etc.

His mother died when he was 3 from labor complications. Unlike Viserys who seemed to have responded to this by being too much a people pleaser, Daemon sought to completely look out for a small set of people he would think of as his family or “close ones”. 

Baelon’s grief would have inspired such reactions from his sons--Viserys to be eager and affectionate, obviously caring. He wants to believe that hospitality and following a sense of duty to those around him will bring him love or contentment. He may have found it difficult not to judge Daemon for taking a “misguided” approach or path, so when Daemon disagrees with him or disobeys his order or does something that is conventionally upsetting, he may have found it difficult to relate to Daemon or see things from his persepctive. While Daemon would, in my mind, is outwardly or superficially crotchety and unwilling to seek/initiate obvious intimacy but needing to be validated through his family and loved ones. However, he doesn’t think words or hugs brings comfort or favorable outcomes--he depends on action. 

So he develops his own moral compass that is just adjusted to “do these people act like I matter to them and do they matter to me” all the fucking time because he comes from a dwindled, fraught lineage (Rhaenys' death in Dorne; Aenys' conflicts and stress with the Faith; the Faith; the conflict with Maegor and threat towards Jaehaerys/Alysanne; the internal issues in Jaehaerys' early reign and Rogar Baratheon; Aemond, Baelon, Alyssa, Viserra, Daella, Daenerys-- nearly all Jaehaerys and Alysanne's children die & Jaehaerys' political focus on the Targ's dominance-survival). That plus he wants to, in some way, bring glory, prosperity, and more power to his house.

Daemon and Viserys would have still received the genuine love of their father, Baelon, and would have grown up together as caring brothers, enough that they would know they loved each other. We have reason to believe that his upbringing was still loving and that he maybe thought himself his brother and father’s caretakers. If not in traditional sense, in that he is the one who will do “what it takes” to keep them afloat. In his mind. Especially after his father passes form a “burst belly”, leaving him and Viserys alone. Seeing how Viserys is so eager for validation and willing to have others have a say in what he does, it makes sense that he falls into this protector role even deeper.

2)

He also wanted to be an example of excellence and make a name for himself, especially with being a second son and without a clear, solid inheritance of authority. Second sons in this feudal society are thought of as “spares” in one sense, since if their older brothers die they can take their place and inherit the family resources and the authority over the house. so he’d have felt more pressure to prove himself in the shadow of his brother (while he wasn’t much of a warrior or inclined to develop physical prowess, Viserys was also considered quite attractive before he gained weight).

3)

He supports Viserys in that he was wiling to use a group of fighters to go against Corlys and his group for Viserys’ claim before Jaehaerys I called for the Great Council of 101 A.C:

Reports had reached the court that Corlys Velaryon was massing ships and men on Driftmark to “defend the rights” of his son, Laenor, whilst Daemon Targaryen, a hot-tempered and quarrelsome young man of twenty, had gathered his own band of sworn swords in support of his brother, Viserys. A violent struggle for succession was likely no matter who the Old King named to succeed him.

(Fire and Blood; A Question of Succession)

Yet, at 16 Alysanne marries him to Rhea Royce (the Runestone heir), and while this was a good practical marriage for creating more ties to the Vale and setting up Daemon with some money through his wife’s properties, etc., Daemon did not like the atmosphere, look, anything of the Vale, probably how far away it was from King’s Landing/Viserys--thus the emotional and physical isolation. That he was basically sidelined by his family, kept apart.

He likely thought that since Viserys already had Aemma Arryn (the person who even was the scion of the Lord of the Vale, he himself didn't need to also marry another Vale woman not of his choosing). [headcanon]

Viserys did not let him annul his marriage to Rhea despite its failure. Viserys is directly involved with Mysaria losing her child with Daemon when he forced Daemon to bring back the dragon egg and send her off to Lys:

When he learned that his concubine was pregnant, Prince Daemon presented her with a dragon’s egg, but in this he again went too far and woke his brother’s wroth. King Viserys commanded him to return the egg, send his whore away, and return to his lawful wife, or else be attainted as a traitor. The prince obeyed, though with ill grace, dispatching Mysaria (eggless) back to Lys, whilst he himself flew to Runestone in the Vale and the unwelcome company of his “bronze bitch.” But Mysaria lost her child during a storm on the narrow sea. When word reached Prince Daemon he spoke no syllable of grief, but his heart hardened against the king, his brother. Thereafter he spoke of King Viserys only with disdain, and began to brood day and night on the succession.

(Fire and Blood; A Question of Succession)

4)

He was also not at all attracted to his new wife. So now he knows what it’s like to be a political tool, or he feels like more of a device than a person part of something “great”? (I say somewhat facetiously, he still is a feudal man who is very proud of his aristocratic lineage throughout all 3 of his marriages)

And so their marriage becomes barren (no kids). She comes to hates him too for not loving her home, for openly showing his disdain for it and for her, and perhaps she feels he is unwilling to do his duty like her and she feels resentment towards him and his ability to just fuck off while also being happier with him gone [headcanon].

Daemon doesn’t and never has considered her “family”, is the point nor ever to be in the same league as him, not just because she wasn't royal. Partially because Targs are and have been considered unique and nation-movers right from the Conquest in broader Westerosi culture. She is not a Targ or someone he can think of as his match or someone he thinks could do as much a a Targ can, which presents very interesting questions as to whether or not his pride can be equated to Lannister exceptionalism...I'd say that, eh. The Targs have put their money where their mouth was in most of their generations (and we the readers know that like the Starks but more apparent, the Targs are the closest to being magical beings or have the closest access to real magic) while the Lannisters are more famous and powerful in the main storyline bc of Tywin's reputation gained from the Rains of Castamere/friendship with Aerys II (a Targ) and Steffon Baratheon [the allegiance gives power trio for a while that reflected back on Tywin]. So there's a level of him not believing that they could ever relate to each other. He might have thought it was like trying to get an elephant to mate with a zebra.

I don't think that we should tell people they shouldn't dislike him for that bc yes his person can read as arrogant and he's still a prince/male who has a lot of benefits over a woman like Rhea (but not the authority she has over her own men as a female ruler in her own right, which some might argue grinds his gears more as a second son and this is actually a very interesting and valid thought...but I also doesn't think it bothered him for long to have a wife who has more practical power over others than him since his marriage to Rhaenyra saw no attempts of him barrowing over her, so that would support the idea that Rhea having this wasn't really the issue). But considering how

Still, it's not because of anything she did to him, but because she was someone who enables him to be in a position that he really does not want to be in and he believes it’s unlikely that he’d ever get any sort of glory or power all the way in the Vale, away from King’s Landing, away from the throne. It’s also probable that she also had a very different--sort of "duty is everything, sacrifice your pleasure and making compromises aside"--personality than his, thus convincing him even less to actually try to forge some sort of bond with her. Stern, but too serious, punctilious, and [for him] overly tradition-bound and scrupulous. But who knows?! [headcanon]

Laena and Rhaneyra, though? They both obviously had a lot more in common with him other than being dragonriders than he ever did with Rhea. Laena has her adventurous-ness and some daring, and Rhaenyra has pride and that “restlessness” that Viserys of HotD mentions, that unwillingness to accept a lot or assignment. They are also both his closer blood relatives, real family (remember that he grew up alone with his brother and father, a small set emotionally dependent on each other but also probably not that expressive). Those marriages were better for him, both personally and politically.

Daemon also named his kids after loved people in his life or people who will give love to his daughters.

“Baela” -- “Baelon”. “Rhaena” -- “Rhaenys”.

Viserys (II) after Daemon's own brother, Rhaenyra after her father, and both to spite/oppose Alicent & give their son the cloak of Targ-ness and kingliness: out of pride/love, the latter the stranger reason while the former the icing on the cake.

Aegon (III) after Aegon the Conqueror (king-liness and house pride) & to spite/oppose Alicent.

"Visenya", after the woman who loved her siblings and son and put them first over herself or the realm.

5)

He strategizes more logically than Aemond does and is less prone to act on his anger. Contrast this QUOTE with THIS and THIS.

6)

He specifically distrusts other houses and nonfamily bc the Targs are the pinnacle of power with their dragons, conqueror past, and prestige. He knows other lords--like Otto and pretty much all the mentioned Hightowers (think Maegor, Ceryse Hightower, and the High Septon at the time)--will always have their own agendas.

The reason why Valyrian dragonslords literally kept it in the family was to keep their control of the dragons within their respective families so people like the Lannisters (Queen Dowager Rhaena, Jaehaerys' and Alysanne's older sister) or some nondragonlord Vlayrian family couldn't then acquire dragons to use them against them.

Again, bc he and his brother and father became their own unit--and then it was just him and Viserys--that sense of needing to stick together against others would and did only strengthen.

Aemond

1)

Aemond, by contrast, has little justified reason to hate Rhaenyra like Daemon hated or grew emotionally distant from Viserys. 

While Alicent taught him to hate her, he still grew up with the assumption that he could and should destroy/rape people because his male, trueborness allows him to. His preoccupation with his maleness makes him think that he should usurp the heir, even though the law and precedent of “King’s word is law” (Viserys naming Rhaenyra as his heir and never straying) justifies his & the Greens’ treasonous actions. 

Daemon, though he hated that Viserys named Rhaenyra as heir and not him, never actively tried to depose her or his own brother. Does Daemon have his own classist entitlement and ambitions, of course! He's a very proud prince in a feudal system with a family/house with a relatively short but twisted past as monarchs. He is also the person who walked around with non-nobles like a smallfolk in KL, like those in the City's Watch and inspired people to want to follow him.

2)

While Aemond grew up dragonless for 10 years, he was surrounded by family and Hightower supporters since birth who show no sign of mistreating him, at all -- unlike in the show. He does claim Vhagar he at 10, which is impressive (while cradle-bonding is not as impressive, nor did he surpass Rhaenyra, who claimed Syrax at 7. Just saying).

He has a history where his mother teaches him and his siblings to see Rhaenyra as unfit because she has extramarital/maybe premarital sex with unassigned men and gave birth to illegitimate children. The V boys, in Alicent’s eyes, don’t deserve to live or inherit the throne because of what the Faith says about bastards and because they are in the way of her own hous, herown, and her children’s power. Bastards are socially stigmatized and unfavorable because they are believed to be inherently untrustworthy and evil (Faith of the Seven). 

By having bastards, Rhaenyra acts “unwomanly” and against the standards set for her gender–how can she be a good ruler?! 

To him, Rhaenyra is a whore and an inferior person, her sons lesser than himself because their bio parents weren’t married (rumored but we know who the daddy is, not that it matters), and duty and custom goes above everything else, as Alicent teaches him.

3)

So it is Aemond’s duty to make sure that Aegon gets the throne, and for that to happen, Rhaenyra needs to go. Preferably violently. Alicent and Otto both emphasized this to him and Aegon practically since birth, and he would have grown up with this being understood as his main and single purpose. Daemon is what he sees as the obstacle to that goal.

However, Daemon supported more out of love and regard for what he believes would maintain his family's lives and power than duty and to prove his own male privilege. But Aemond sees in Daemon a competitor and his only worthy rival because of those similarities I just listed under “Both” as well as being the person who supports the enemy of the Greens (maybe not the Visenya bit...I doubt Aemond ever seriously thought about how they share a piece of her or her beyond the idea that she was a “witch”, even though he rode her dragon and they both have a strong hand in usurping a rightful heir [Maegor vs Aegon the Uncrowned]).

And with Aemond, perhaps following duty and acting out his role, like Daemon, is a way for him to claim some sort of love from his family, but as @hamliet says, I think love is a transaction for the Hightowers and reinforced that lack in Aemond, creating a cycle of dependency and focus on gaining power through his privilege.

EDIT #1 (inspired by mononijikayu's reblog HERE):

Daemon grew up knowing Alysanne was a huge part of making policies and supporting Jaehaerys' rule; his mother, Alyssa, was a Targ woman known for her actively practicing agency, and his father Baelon never married again after her, preferring to keep the memory of her close and continue to make sure she lived on; and he grew around Rhaenys since they were both children.

Part of his deal with Rhea Royce, therefore, was that he disliked that she was totally emotionally incompatible with him (his own parents were Dragonriders and we as people/humans can and often try to find partners that match the arrangement our *healthy* parents had...if he wants to marry in the traditional Targ way [we remember that Westerosi lords are allowed and did marry first cousins], it is not discriminatory as much as it is almost typical of a nobleman to want to marry within traditions...there is no real indication that he hated Rhea's entire person just because of her looks in the book and after inspecting the context but it certainly was his excuse).

[girl4music]

An episode that was really good of ‘AtS’ and that had a really frustrating but compelling ending was ‘Lullabye’.

I really didn’t understand why Darla believed that - if she had the baby even while soulless and could love him while he was inside her because he had a soul - she couldn’t love him when he wasn’t. She had learned to love that baby. Developed a love for him. The explanation for it being because the baby had a soul and so she had a proxy soul for the meanwhile she was pregnant. So it was the baby’s soulful influence on her that allowed her to love him as long as that baby was inside her. This essentially meant that she would be completely soulless again when he wasn’t and so she would no longer be able to love him as his mother.

But the thing is that the baby was human and therefore would always have a soul and would always have a soulful influence. Why would that no longer have any influence on Darla’s love for him? It should because she developed into having that love for him even while she was a soulless being herself. It shouldn’t make a difference that baby being in her or not. That influence would still be there because maternal instincts don’t just disappear like that. Darla made the ultimate declaration of motherly love for her baby in sacrificing herself while pregnant with him. If her love for him was that strong then, why wouldn’t it be when he was born? I don’t understand. Well,… I do but I just think it’s completely flawed logic. It’s as if the soul isn’t just the conscience in the lore but also the determination and this just isn’t how it works. Having an internal moral compass doesn’t determine anything being good or evil. It just makes it easier to choose good over evil because it weighs against you. But surely Darla’s love for her baby should eclipse a change of perspective on morality could do to her. You don’t just suddenly stop feeling love for something or someone because you no longer understand right from wrong or good from evil. It shouldn’t determine what your feelings are or aren’t. It’s just a conscience. A way of understanding right from wrong or good from evil. It doesn’t dictate that you actually do one from the other. I mean what?! 😖

Darla should have been capable of feeling love for that baby regardless whether it was inside her or not because she ultimately had developed that love for him. It should have changed her completely. Turned her away from evil and darkness even when soulless. Having her baby should have developed her character. She shouldn’t have had to kill herself for her son’s life. Sure it was a tragically devastating and compelling end but, to me, it made absolutely no sense at all that she wouldn’t have been able to love him the same way.

If the soul in the Buffyverse represents a conscience - an internal moral compass (and I certainly would hope this is the case otherwise the entire synopsis to ‘Angel the Series’ falls completely flat if it doesn’t) then Darla should have still been able to love Connor even when she’s a vampire that doesn’t have a soul because her being soulless shouldn’t determine her personhood.

It’s extremely flawed logic and an inconsistent narrative and biased ideology to make it out that a soulless vampire or demon cannot grow or develop when they’ve had experiences that have made it possible or cannot have feelings or emotions a human or animal can. Yes, they can’t understand right from wrong because they don’t possess an internal moral compass, but that shouldn’t determine and dictate their actions or choices while as soulless. It should make it harder for them to act or choose in the service of good over evil. But not make them do only evil. It shouldn’t compel or control their nature completely.

Now I know Darla is a particularly more evil and sadistic vampire than most soulless vampires. But again - that’s external influence. It’s all she knows based on her experiences both in her years as a human and as a vampire. She LEARNED to BECOME that way. As did Angelus, as did Druscilla, as did Spike. It wasn’t just because their soul from when human was removed because if that was the case then the soul isn’t just a conscience. It’s your entire being. Your nature and your identity. Your personhood. Your “self”. Who and all that you are or can ever be at all.

This isn’t what a conscience is or does. This is an extremely misconstrued understanding of it. And if this is the case - now I understand why Whedon went with the demonic possession interpretation instead of demonic corruption. To him - the human and the demon are not the same entity despite being fundamentally influenced by both the human and the demon. Proxy ensouled Darla isn’t the same entity as soulless Darla despite being informed by her. She’s just being possessed by the same demon as before she was pregnant with an ensouled vampire’s baby. Which means that her love for the baby just disappears because it’s not the same entity anymore.

I don’t know how to wrap my head around this because to me Darla is Darla no matter what. I don’t think of it as demonic possession at all because it doesn’t look like demonic possession at all. Demonic possession is an entirely different thing that requires so much more than just losing an internal moral compass. Losing/gaining a conscience doesn’t make you an entirely different entity from what you were before. It just changes your perspective on morality. But if you have learned and developed through experience and external influence - then it shouldn’t just automatically change what you do, how you act or the way you feel. That’s not how a conscience works.

It’s just completely flawed logic. I’m sorry. It just is.

This episode is great. But it’s just completely wrong. Having a baby that has a soul should change Darla but not just while the baby is inside her. But - for good or at least for awhile. I’m sure eventually because of the loss of an internal moral compass her actions and choices would become selfish and malevolent again but it wouldn’t just be a switch on/switch off situation. It only works that way with Angel/Angelus because he was cursed by a gypsy spell. He was forced to have a conscience to remind him of all the evil he has done and to feel as much guilt and regret as possible over it. This is not the same situation or circumstance at all but it’s treated that way because “demon possession”. Nope. A conscience on its own is not a lights off/lights on situation. A conscience just helps you understand right from wrong. It does not compel you to do either.

Great episode and ending to watch but - it’s all wrong. As beautiful as it is that Darla made the sacrifice she did for Connor - she should never have had to because it should have never made a difference to her feelings. If anything - Connor being born should have made her fall even more in love with him and made her extremely protective over his well being because - soulless vampire or not - she’s still his fucking mother! She - and Angel - really thought that her love for him would suddenly just disappear just because her proxy soul did? But this negates all the positive influence the experience had on her. It erases all her positive development. It essentially just makes her an empty vessel again with a random demon taking her identity, removing her personhood and autonomy completely.

No. Jiminy Cricket going bye-bye shouldn’t do that. I am adamantly against this demonic possession interpretation because this makes no fucking sense. Humans and ensouled vampires still do evil, wrong, selfish and malevolent things despite having a soul. Them having a soul determines nothing about the way they act or choose. It’s just easier because they understand right from wrong and good from evil better than an entity that doesn’t possess a soul. On the flip side - again, it doesn’t determine that a soulless entity will do only evil. It just makes it easier.

A conscience doesn’t compel you to do anything because it’s the experience of free will it cultivates. The only thing it can possibly determine is that you have more of a chance to do good over evil on your own - without any external influence at all. That’s it. Your actual actions and choices may vary depending on what that experience and external influence is. And I would say having a fucking baby would be HUGE! Falling in love in any capacity would easily eclipse being suddenly racked with the urge to do some evil.

The soul is obviously not just a conscience to Whedon. It’s either that or he just doesn’t know what one is and that checks out when you see the way he views Spike.

I’m sorry but this canon soul lore in the Buffyverse doesn’t work for me. The writers are telling us one thing through the writing one moment but then showing us something completely different in the visuals next. And then they refer to it as a “loss/gain of conscience” which muddies the apparent message we’re supposed to get and learn from it even more. They’re telling us that having a conscience is the same thing as having humanity or being capable of experiencing and feeling like a human. But then they’ll put those characters that don’t have a conscience in situations where they’ll attempt to test the waters of this being true and then immediately undermine the attempt by removing the possibility of it completely.

Well, the thing is that you’re not proving anything by doing that. You’re just expecting people just to accept the belief that it’s not possible because they’re not human or ensouled. You’re not even allowing the opportunity to prove you in the right or wrong about that belief and therefore the audience cannot learn that for themselves either. Then you give us human characters that are just as bad as any soulless supernatural entity (one of which is a main core protagonist) and tell us that because they have the capacity to understand right from wrong and good from evil fundamentally that they should be given chances to redeem themselves because all it is for them is corruption and they’re not fundamentally evil like an actual soulless supernatural entity would be.

What’s the difference? It can’t be just a “loss/gain of conscience” because having/not having a conscience cannot determine actions and choices being on either side of good or evil. All it can determine is that it’s much more likely that good happens with a conscience and evil happens without a conscience. But it can only determine that to be much more likely when factors and conditions of huge life-changing experiences and heavy external influences don’t come into play. Otherwise it’s just rudimentary rhetoric that’s based off of your own misinformed sources. But the human (and I would presume non-human) condition is far more complicated and layered than that. There are situations and circumstances that make or break the basic thematic narrative of good vs evil or right vs wrong or peace vs war. It’s not simple. Things get messy and blurry in morality and I prefer it that way because that’s more realistic and compelling. If you remove this messiness and blurriness, you remove nuance and depth that has a lasting impact on the heart, mind and soul of your HUMAN audience.

I think I’m going to stop watching ‘AtS’ - at least for a little while - because I am getting very frustrated with what it’s trying to tell me through its soul lore. And a great character and actress has just been killed off for no legitimate reason as far as I’m concerned all to appease Whedon’s very flawed logic and ideology. 🙁

The episode was written and directed by Tim Minear but I’m not stupid. That ending had Whedon all over it.

[call-me-double-trouble]

I keep seeing bad takes and negativity about DT, and I have no desire to start beef with people or draw attention to individuals*, but seeing criticisms that are just so awful and lacking in nuance irritates me, so instead, I’m going to start combating it with DT positivity! Keep in mind, I’m not talking about criticisms that are valid, I’m talking about the silly stuff that’s clearly just someone trying to take the moral high ground just because they happen to dislike a character and you’re not allowed to just dislike things anymore, apparently. *(No, I will not be naming names, please don’t seek out or bully anyone. Let’s just celebrate why we love this character and ignore those who can’t enjoy them for one reason or another).

This will be a long post (an essay, it’s a freaking essay) because I want to go in-depth and explain my viewpoints. I’m not going to chastise someone for lack of nuance without practicing it myself.

Today, I will discuss why I think DT is good non-binary representation (not PERFECT, no rep is without flaw—things are allowed to be complicated). Keep in mind also that I am not non-binary myself, but I’m no stranger to the identity, and although I can’t speak on behalf of the community, I’ve seen some of the arguments for and against DT by enbies, and I think I can still add to this conversation.

I see two main arguments pop up most often. One is that since DT is a morally gray criminal that worked for the antagonists, they’re making enbies look like villains. In my opinion, this argument is pretty weak because it hinges on the idea that because one enby character wasn’t a perfect angel, this means all enbies are evil and bad. It stereotypes heavily and is a bad way of thinking—you should never judge a community based on how one person or character acts. I know that some works of fiction, especially in the past, have done this to uphold the discriminatory values of the time, but SPOP was made by queer people, for queer people. Clearly they weren’t trying to stereotype enbies as bad. DT is just an enby who happens to do bad things. Characters should have flaws, and that goes for queer and trans characters, too. It’s okay if you’d prefer an enby character to be firmly on the side of good—everyone has preferences! But DT not fitting yours doesn’t make them inherently bad rep.

The other argument is that since DT is inhuman, it portrays enbies as “other” or insinuates that DT is an enby BECAUSE they’re inhuman and/or a shapeshifter. This argument is stronger than the first, and I totally understand the need for human enby characters (we just need more enbies in fiction, period—more variation means more people sees themselves and less get mad over a character not fitting their exact experience). However, DT is far from the ONLY inhuman character in SPOP (they’re not even the only reptile), and the other inhuman characters of prominence aren’t non-binary, so there’s no link between gender and being inhuman in this world. There’s also no way of telling why DT identifies as non-binary. We have no idea if their shapeshifting played any part in that, either to them or those in charge of designing the character. I don’t think it’s ever implied that it did, especially because their choice to play characters who are men or women doesn’t impact their gender identity, but this point is more up to speculation.

I’d also like to add that plenty of enbies DO identify with inhuman characters. Some people (self included) would rather be an inhuman creature than a boring old human, and DT’s design is SO fun—especially the sideways blink and those adorable ears! (Side tangent, DT was made reptilian to resemble a chameleon because, y’know, shapeshifter. You can also see the influence from their original design. The original DT wore all green and had a long ponytail that, in some depictions, went down to their feet much like current DT’s actual tail).

With those arguments aside, let’s get into what makes DT so great (in my opinion)!

For starters, I’ve seen so many people say that seeing DT made them realize that they themselves were non-binary or validated their gender identity, and I think that’s a beautiful thing! DT may piss off some enbies, but they’re very important to others, and that shouldn’t be taken away just because they’re not everyone’s cup of tea. Obviously not everyone is going to relate to them, but once again, that’s why we just need more rep in general.

Secondly, DT helped people practice using they/them pronouns. I can attest to this myself! At the time, I didn’t have any friends who were non-binary, so I didn’t have a habit of using they/them pronouns except when someone’s gender was unknown. Of course, I supported enbies and their preferred pronouns, but slip-ups happen before you get used to thinking of someone as they/them, even if you’re supportive and accepting. DT, being fictional, is a great way to practice using them to get better at adjusting when you eventually do meet an enby. Not only does it sound completely natural to say, but you also get used to correcting mistakes when you make them. It gave me an immediate, “Wait, no, that’s the wrong pronoun, it’s they,” which came in handy when one of my friends wanted to explore their gender and experiment with they/them pronouns. I know some enbies may be rolling their eyes at this, but for allies, it’s important to build these habits to avoid misgendering someone, especially when you knew them by different pronouns previously. DT also gave me and others practice on correcting someone who made a mistake without making it sound like we were accusing them of doing it on purpose. DT, and other fictional enbies for that matter, are just great in general for getting people and kids used to enbies and the use of they/them pronouns.

Third, DT’s AGAB is a mystery! You can make arguments one way or another (voice points one way, original character and pronouns on storyboard point another), but we can never say for sure because they’re a shapeshifter! Is that their real voice? Who knows! Is that their exact appearance? Who’s to say! What’s in their pants? Anything they want, they’re a shapeshifter! They’re so wonderfully androgynous, too—A+ design. And on that note, I’ve also seen people happy that DT is an enby with LONG hair, since most enby characters have short hair, and it added some much needed variety. Honestly, DT is the epitome of “Everyone finds me hot and that makes everyone gay.” Gay men like them, lesbians like them—hell, even ACES like them! (Side note, my praise of their androgyny is not to put other enbies down, as enbies can look however they want, and that’s very cool and sexy of them. Real enbies don’t have to be androgynous, and not all fictitious enbies need to be, either. But I’ve read that when portraying trans and genderqueer people, especially as an ally, that it’s best not to describe or identify features that may point to an AGAB—even if it is known—as that can be considered disrespectful to their identity and may make real trans and non-binary people feel self-conscious about those traits. It’s a complicated issue, and there are right and wrong ways to go about it when portraying trans characters.)

Fourth, DT is never misgendered by any of the characters—not even by Shadow Weaver! Everyone is shown to treat being non-binary like it’s normal (because it is) and worthy of respect, just like any other gender. I also saw someone say that it shows kids that even if someone is your enemy or you don’t like them, you should still use their preferred pronouns, because you don’t have the right to misgender someone to hurt them.

Fifth, DT is a complex character. They’re not one-note, they’re a person who has their own motivations and drive, their own passions, interesting interactions with other characters that bring out more from the others, good humor, and a complicated relationship with good and bad and the ability to do both (sometimes even simultaneously). DT isn’t a good person, but they’re not entirely a bad one, either. They’re complicated. Their motivation isn’t to do bad things, it’s just to survive, get paid, and cause chaos while doing that. I can go more in-depth in another post, but the point is, they’re interesting, they have depth, and they’re well-written.

Sixth, they’re extremely plot-relevant. They’re very important and impactful to the story. Hardly anything in the fourth season would have been accomplished without them! They kept tension high and raised the stakes, making the story that much more compelling to the audience. Before I got my friends to watch SPOP, I wanted to tell them all about my favorite character, Double Trouble, but couldn’t find a single spoiler-free clip to show them! Seriously, try to find one. I’ll wait. Maybe their introduction, but even then, you’d be taking away the grand reveal that the suave-Scorpia wasn’t Scorpia at all, and it’s more fun to let that be a surprise. They had such a prominent role and have garnered so many fans, and that’s especially wonderful for a non-binary character. They weren’t a background character offhandedly mentioned to be non-binary, they were an important character that stole the show every time they were on screen.

Basically, Double Trouble is just a wonderful, complex character who had a positive impact on lots of enbies and allies. Not everyone likes them, and not everyone has to, but there’s nothing wrong with liking or identifying with them, and they shouldn’t be labeled as inherently bad rep when their existence did so much good for so many viewers. They don’t have to represent everyone to be good rep, and they certainly don’t, but those they DO represent shouldn’t be made to feel as if they’re betraying the non-binary community.

[sparkletastic-cookiedough]

I’m making a point, even if it’s not in your style of writing. Don’t dismiss me just because my style isn’t quite what you’re used to.

I get it, communication is an imprecise art. I can word out my thoughts clearly, and a reader can get the wrong idea. There’s a lot written on the subject (encoding and decoding), and I’ve had professors talk about it to me, to the extent that whenever people misunderstand something I say, I tend to picture diagrams and wonder what exactly went wrong.

I, personally, like to use humor in order to make my points. I think it’s more interesting than long blocks of essay text. Unfortunately, it also means that people can misunderstand me and I’ll have to clarify.

So here’s some elaboration on what my point means, and the implications of those ideas:

Not every iteration of Batman is doomed to the same flaws.

I point out the non-canonical and fan-work since it tends to be very exaggerated.

Fanwork allows creators to take the existing idea of Batman and shift it into something slightly different. The character is still Batman, but written to fit the fans interpretation of the character.

This means there can be versions of Batman that are good dads.

You could point out that Batman’s flaws are intertwined with the character, and that a less media-savvy author might replicate the same abusive situation without realizing that it’s abusive. People replicate unfortunate media dynamics all the time in stories, often not realizing they’re using tropes based on beliefs that are racist or sexist.

I could argue that the use of these tropes and themes isn’t inherently meant to convey the problematic beliefs, and that separating these themes from the source, you can get a different picture of the situation- one that might be closer to the authors intention.

You might say “screw the authors intent, it’s not possible to completely separate the associations that people have built up over time between an idea and the thematic meaning behind it. Whether or not they realize it, they’re replicating the same dynamics again and again. Only education on these themes is the cure- people need to understand which things are based in problematic ideas so they can avoid them in the future”

And to that I could say “completely contradictory meanings can coexist. What matters isn’t the themes themselves but how the author uses them”

I kinda slipped away from Batman there, but hopefully you get the point. If not, ask me to elaborate again and I’ll do so.

A flawed dynamic doesn’t always mean a character is abusive.

With the sheer variety of Batman content, it’s easy to get lost in your point specifically.

There are absolutely Batman and Robin dynamics that are written in an abusive way, intentionally or not. I’m not arguing on that.

But is that true of all versions of this dynamic?

I’d say no.

A character can have flaws or exhibit problematic behavior without being entirely abusive.

Arguably, there could be a version of Batman who relies on his kids, but is able to do so in a more healthy way.

People feel contradictory things. They do things that aren’t perfectly moral or logical. Even good characters can do bad things.

However, how the story builds on these ideas is important.

It’s not the presence of Batman’s dependency on Robin that is the problem. It’s how Batman deals with it.

Does he do his best to ensure his kid is free to make his own choices? Does he treat his kid protectively, but with respect and agency? How does he treat his kid when arguments happen?

I am commenting on your points, you don’t need to throw me in writing jail.

Jokes always have a point to them. Media analysis means looking past the surface joke, and determining the meaning behind it. It’s not easy, and it’s not natural, but it can be necessary to criticizing the media we come across.

Look, people might not always perfectly understand my points. Especially in causal writing and speech, where I’m not having things proof-read or anything. Misunderstandings are bound to happen.

Im sure it’s disheartening to read a comment that may seem so dismissive on a serious subject. But you can’t control the way people write their thoughts, or the way they read yours.

I’m always willing to engage with people, but it really hurts to have people tell me I’m being disrespectful or inappropriate when I don’t understand what I’ve done wrong.

Maybe my words could’ve been written better, but I think yours could’ve too.

Hear me out, hear me out. The reason why I think the dynamic of Batman and Robin is abusive is not because of the concept of child sidekicks.

Whenever you see other heroes with their respective sidekicks, their dynamics are about mentorship and being a guiding hand, most times about teaching the younger generation how to understand their powers better and how to use them for good. Child sidekicks are most commonly for the benefit of the child, not the adult.

That is not the case with Batman and Robin.

B&R's dynamic is for Bruce's benefit. Robin is the light to Batman's darkness. Robin is the one who saves Batman from himself. Batman needs a Robin. This is widely a result from Tim Drake's introduction as Robin, when Bruce was passively suicidal and causing more harm to people than he should. Tim and Bruce, in a vacuum, are not that much of a problem. It's still kind of messed up that Bruce would depend on a 13-year-old to get his mental health sorted out, but it makes sense in the context it exists in, where Jason had just died and Bruce blamed himself for it while simultaneously being in denial about his pain. The problem is that the idea that Batman can't function without a child to help him with his mental issues stuck.

It means that, between bad writers and good writers and wildly different interpretations of Bruce as a father, Bruce starts being painted as obsessive. He needs Robin to always be happy -- the guiding light -- he needs Robin to always be funny and upbeat but still mature and skilled and ready to die for Their Cause, that wouldn't have been Robin's cause at all if Bruce hadn't introduced the idea of it to them. Needing your child to never express a Bad Emotion or act out of line (like Jason was, for example, in the events leading up to ADITF) or else you're going to make them feel like they're undeserving of their place in your family (I'm not your father, Jason, I don't need teenage rebellion) is, in fact, abuse.

And the worst part is that this dynamic gets retroactively attributed to every Robin!!! Even though it really originated (or, rather, became truly ingrained in the text) with Tim!!! Because we keep getting more and more Robin Dick and Robin Jason stories written post-Robin!Tim and it gives them a dynamic with Bruce that they didn't have before!! Which sucks !!!

[cominy-kiwami]

just read a steam review that said that judgment forces its own moral conclusion onto the player. that it presents the philosophical conundrum of how many people you can kill for a good cause and then discards any interpretation other than “none” once all the cards on the table. the fact you had room to interpret the answer as something other than that means that did not happen in the story man. inspector morita was literally there as a justified believer in shono’s actions, and you can still argue that shono’s only crime was his inability to move forward once he knew for an actual fact that the medicine wasnt going anywhere.

yagami is not just The Truth Personified he is a character with flaws as much as the rest of them. he is willing to let a potential alzheimer’s cure fall through on his principle alone, generally takes black and white stances on issues and doesn’t much listen to people who aren’t saying what he already believes is true. it makes him a good protagonist of a story where he has to go against every authority to discover the truth, and i find him charming regardless in the akiyama sort of way, but it leaves him a little less than optimally equipped to tackle a complex nuanced situation like the one presented in the game.

rgg studios is obsessed with the conflict between principle and pragmatism but its your own mistake for thinking that the protagonist is somehow exempt from taking part in this struggle in a meaningful way or that a protagonist is not allowed to not be morally upright. kiryu is not morally upright either, just because he beats up people who are mostly worse than him doesn’t exempt him from the fact that he consistently chooses to uphold and maintain the existence of the yakuza. he believes in simply barring the WRONG people from taking part in the yakuza even though his so called right people such as daigo still contribute to this entire SYSTEM that propogates the strife. doesnt mean i dont like kiryu in fact in fact i like him a lot and i ultimately think he does a lot of good in the world, same with yagami, but the characters are made more interesting for having stances i can disagree with.

you gotta think more about what youre seeing on your screen

[ellesliterarycorner]

What My Followers Want to See More of in Female Characters

My favorite thing in my WIP is all the badass female characters I have. I love writing about the bonds, friendships, relationships, and rivalries between them. It makes my little heart so happy! And, I will be the first person to admit that I hadn’t even thought of some of the things you guys suggested on our little instagram poll, but I cannot wait to add some of them to my story! Even though we’ve made so many leaps and bounds with the way female characters are portrayed, I still think we’ve got a long way to go, and if you guys include half of the stuff you suggested in your stories, then I think we’re gonna be okay. Once again, I didn’t change anything that you guys wrote, so there are gonna be some repeats on the list, but this time just because the list was getting so long, I did take out a few things if I saw that several other people had suggested it!

“Nerdy” or sporty girl who gets a love interest without a makeover or changing herself 

super girly femme characters shown as a complex person

making her own decisions, if good or bad

a strong female character without a tragic backstory 

gender non conformity!! 

Being openly children and not changing her mind about it

chubby and flaws and not having a crush with every cute boy they see 

girlie girls who are still really powerful 

self reliance but still having emotion, not being ice cold but not needing a a man 

lesbians who’s entire character arc isn’t about them being a lesbian 

having body insecurities eg wanting to be flat-chested

women in politics and women that have classic “man” as well as “woman” characteristics 

independence 

be less oblivious lol and more like real people who pick up hints 

not dead caring moms.

comic relief female characters

not minding about liking “girly” things/ having a bunch of friends who are boys but there is no romance between them 

being a mother doesn’t mean giving up ur dreams and settling for less,

having mcs that actually make smart decisions 

a bad ass character that loves kids and wants to have them in the future

not taking abuse cause they think it’s love 

ball gowns and pretty stuff for themselves and not for a mission or anything 

more bold female characters since many females are shown as shy 

having a big appetite 

female characters who can be cool without having to wield swords 

willingness to do domestic work with a cheerful heart 

women whose strength is their intelligence 

women who are not afraid to be feminine or strong 

strong mother figures 

girls that are the lead in their relationship over the boy 

more actual girly interests 

the women you least expect to sing the best 

strong women who like feminine stuff 

being happy without a romantic relationship 

black females being protected or vulnerable for once 

ending up single 

hanging out with male friends with no romantic subtext 

females who aren’t super pretty

ultra femininity (pink, dresses, glitter, makeup) that isn’t seen as bad/evil/weak 

allow them to look up to/admire male peers rather than feel inferior or as if they have something to prove 

traditional “femininity” isn’t regarded as weak! Can cook/sew/clean and it’s normal : )

Female characters who are funny and make quips 

soft, kind women, who are still powerful. I don’t like the mean strong girl stereotype : (

Not forced strong women. Just relatable and human ones. We all have strengths and weaknesses 

less insecurities. Yes, we all have those, but it’s becoming stereotypical, mostly in YA 

I want them to be strong without being upright bossy 

strong women who also embrace their feminine side 

a girl with menstruation

ego actions- I feel like only male characters can throw ego actions while fem characters are classified selfish 

nonbinary female characters 

has a twin 

sarcasm and general impoliteness without making them the bady guy 

them being warriors or soldiers and that’s normal, nobody questions it 

villains and manipulating 

autistic female characters 

being single throughout the story. Some people like being single, thank you very much 

not being the perfect pretty little thing. Having an interesting personality and thoughts, dreams outside of relationships and being a badass 

a morally grey female character like y r those only men 

girls and women in healthy relationships with personalities aside from their S/O

girls who can be strong and confident while still being emotionally vulnerable 

also, girls who own huge “aggressive” dog breeds

groups of girls doing really impulsive things together like all guy friend groups do 

strong, but not jerks about it and not looking down on things like sewing/cooking/etc 

shyness that doesn’t need to be “fixed” or overcome 

well written romances- straight and gay (ie not ones that objectify one partner or the other) 

“strong female characters” who are gentle and caring! Tough doesn’t mean heatless! 

women who care more about the plot than their inconvenient love life 

girls who empower other girls and don’t play into internalized misogyny 

i’d love to see women putting forward their ideas and having their voices heard more : )

Strong in their own way, not just hands on fighting stuff. Like mentally strong 

less who are arrogant and rude to the male protagonists who they fall in love with anyway 

More LGBTQ+ women! 

Oh and more female protagonists who stay single 

being average looking, not a hot model and being okay with it 

Not falling for “bad boys” 

saving herself or another character from a dangerous situation 

not wanting marriage or children and people being okay with it 

not obsessed with  looks 

being good at math and sciences 

not being sexualized constantly (or at all) 

being just friends with straight male characters 

being like other girls 

having a life outside of romance 

to not need a man, but also not to be a stereotypical “bad girl, I don’t need man” authors need to find a medium between the two 

drinking, swearing, anything deemed “masculine” 

confident women who embrace both their femininity and masculinity

empowering other women

somebody with variety of interests and skills that are shown to be important to her badass female characters who are genuinely kind/even loving 

strong women who don’t discredit the model of the ideal woman of the time in historical fiction 

older women protagonists! I’d love to read about middle aged female heroes

females that aren’t afraid to be themselves 

strength without being a “baddie” or at the expense of others 

emotional sensitivity that isn’t linked to mental illness, men, or a weakness in character 

a chaotic neutral female protagonist 

physically strong/skilled female characters that remain feminine and aren’t femme fatales 

female characters that don’t particularly fit into a trope as that’s not really realistic

[mbti-notes]

hi i’m an istj. i fear the problem im going to describe is resolved by being more Te proactive and taking on more leader responsibilities and failing. just typing that out makes me feel burned out and miserable. anyway i get involved with groups that align with my values to get things done but it always feels like i somehow join things that aren’t as efficient as i’d want them to be or stagnate. at the same time that i have strong opinions about what to do i resent having to take on more responsibility to enact it. i want to be part of an established, moral, process/group but it seems like everything is in flux all the time. just making sure: is this Te-Ne dysfunction ?

Your question is about type development. An important aspect of type development is understanding the weaknesses and flaws of your type, in terms of the ways that your type tends to misuse functions. You seem to believe that your problem boils down to a simple lack of desire to lead in group situations (weak Te?), but it probably goes far deeper than that.

Si-Ne problems often manifest as a general aversion to change, specifically, unwillingness to change how one looks at a situation, which would then significantly alter one's approach to it. Imbalance between Si and Ne becomes a very unhealthy stubbornness when one is also prone to Si-Fi loop that thinks in terms of pure absolutes. In essence, you believe what you believe and you want what you want, and nothing and nobody can break through that mental wall. Perhaps not even you.

Auxiliary development is meant to help with Si extremes and Si-Fi loop stubbornness by making you care more about empirical facts (Te) than your frustration (Fi). It isn't always easy to develop the auxiliary function when you come to believe that it interferes with what makes Si feel most comfortable (e.g. "just typing that out makes me feel burned out and miserable"). If using the auxiliary function feels so "tiring", it doesn't mean that you should avoid using it. Quite the contrary. It's an indication that you haven't yet learned to use it properly, which means further development is necessary.

Te wants efficiency, that much is true. However, what separates immature Te from mature Te is how exactly one conceptualizes "efficiency". When Te is immature, one has a very rudimentary understanding of how to be efficient. For example, one is likely to believe that efficiency is achieved through assertiveness or even brute force, i.e., "making" things happen despite all the obstacles in the way. Is it any wonder that using Te feels tiring, then? You're essentially forcing yourself to swim against the current. Si doms are painfully aware that their energy is finite, so they quickly run out of steam.

However, Te isn't really about mustering up energy. This is not what makes TJs smart, strong, and formidable. Mature Te conceptualizes efficiency as reducing the amount of energy required whenever possible, which is why they have a lot of energy to take on very heavy workloads - some people call it "working smart". This is done through facing the empirical facts of a situation head on and learning to work closely with them, which makes it far easier to make them work in your favor.

Your problem requires a two pronged attack:

Are you able to change how you look at situations in order to improve your approach (to address Si-Ne imbalance)?

Are you able to face the empirical facts of the situation and work with them rather than against them (to develop better use of Te)?

Wanting to be part of a process/group that aligns with your values in order to enact some good in the world is an admirable thing to strive for. Presumably, the other people involved in the group have the same sense of mission, otherwise, they wouldn't have joined. However, what you fail to take into account is that people aren't generally single-minded.

Human beings are complex because they are motivated by a multitude of factors, whether they realize it or not. They are full of psychological conflicts, contradictory desires, irrational impulses, old baggage, and unconscious bad habits. And when you bring people together, all that stuff comes out and creates complicated entanglements. A "group" only becomes a "team" when it is able to overcome those psychological obstacles together, and it can be a very long process of learning how to maximize strengths and mitigate weaknesses in every individual member. That's why a lot of groups simply fall apart. While your intention to join the group seems simple and straightforward (because Si-Te is admirable in its ability to keep things simple and straightforward), other people's intentions might not be so simple. If you fail to take into account the irrational aspects of human nature, you will cause yourself needless suffering.

Your frustration with people is likely a manifestation of your unrealistic expectations of them. Perhaps you aren't able to understand people who don't resemble you, let alone work with them. And you will certainly be doomed to fail if the only way Te knows to deal with individual differences is to force everyone to become more like you. That's an impossible task, not because it requires the energy of a thousand suns as you assume, but because you're choosing to fight against reality. Mature Te would advise that you should first face down the empirical facts of how people operate if you hope to discover the most effective way to influence them. Your repeated experience of feeling disenchanted with groups tells you that you're missing an important piece of knowledge about groups and how they operate.

I'll give you a very simple example from my own life. I used to gather with a group of 30-50 people once a week to conduct planned discussions. The discussions never really started on time despite everyone being in their seats because people weren't focused enough at the start of the session. There was often whispering and sidetalking and such that would go on for about half an hour before the room felt settled and focused.

One method of addressing the problem arose organically. Whoever was the main speaker simply started shushing people and it became a thing. Sometimes, it would even escalate to calling people out, like a teacher scolding a student in a classroom. This definitely made the social atmosphere less inviting and more tense. Sure, people would shut up after being called out, but they became less focused due to seething with resentment. Power struggles aren't great for group morale, especially if it's supposed to be a group of equals coming together for a common cause.

It all sounds quite childish, but these kinds of judgments are useless. You can call people childish, inefficient, incompetent, etc etc, but it doesn't solve the problem. And, worse, being judgmental blocks you from understanding people better and working with them. Perhaps an ISTJ would see this as a "mess", an "inefficiency" that wastes time, and evidence of bad character when people break the rules.

However, if you change the way you look at the situation, you might not be so quick to make such judgments. Actually, it's kind of weird for a bunch of people who know each other well to enter a room and immediately sit down quietly. Humans have a natural tendency to socialize as a way to strengthen interpersonal bonds. Isn't group cohesiveness a good thing, since it encourages better cooperation? If you are able to see the benefits of their chatty behavior and how it contributes to group cohesiveness, then instead of fighting against it, you would think of ways to harness it.

The real problem wasn't inefficiency; inefficiency was merely the symptom. The more primary problem was that a lot of people joined the group not just to "get things done", but also to make friends. The structure of the event denied them from fulfilling that important need and then they were more likely to act out. This problem was discovered when people had a chance to talk about what was frustrating them, which meant that the group had to make space to conduct some uncomfortable conversations.

To address the problem, the group eventually decided that the first 15 minutes would be devoted to socializing and allowing people to catch up, with the explicit promise to get down to business when the time was up. Some people brought drinks, others brought snacks. Some even showed up early to have more time to socialize. It enlivened people and enriched their relationships. Being "officially" allowed to get the chattiness out of their system, they were better able to sit down and focus on the planned agenda. The meeting felt like fun rather than a chore. And if you're interested in a cause, don't you want to recruit more people to support it? Making things more fun is one good way to attract support. You can look at it as wasting 15 minutes OR you can look at it as a 15 minute investment.

Solutions to human problems require:

cognitive empathy: figuring out what's really going on inside people's heads (in Te terms it means working only with the empirical facts of the situation, rather than indulging negative Fi judgments)

strategy: taking the time to work with people and figuring out the best way to help them get over obstacles (in Te terms it means investing energy early and wisely to maximize your returns later, rather than putting effort into the wrong places or only stepping in to tackle mere symptoms of the problem)

creativity: harnessing natural human tendencies to produce something useful or worthwhile (in Te terms in means taking what's already there and transforming it into a NET positive, rather than getting too fixated on every little negative detail and losing sight of the bigger picture)

Te can be a great function for dealing with human problems as long as you overcome the immature aspects of it, such as impatience, bluntness, or inflexibility. Every person is unique, so every group is different. Let go of the idea that there is only one way to approach a problem/conflict and you will start to be more creative in your approach. By accepting the fact that things are always in flux and using empirical evidence to understand and predict how change works, TJs become much more effective and efficient at everything they do. When it comes to people, meeting someone different from you is an opportunity to learn how to deal with that kind of person. The more knowledge you have of human psychology under your belt, the better you get at dealing with people's weird or negative tendencies. If a strategy works, use it again. If it doesn't work, adjust it to fit their psychology better.

In your situation, you see the problem as people being inefficient, so your inclination is to step forward and do something to "make" them more efficient. Humans aren't built with the prime directive to be efficient. They're not machines. Their psychology is messy, so trying to force them to behave like a machine is to force them to go against their psychology. In other words, you're choosing the least efficient approach. The more efficient approach, though it requires more intelligent thinking on your part (you want to become more intelligent, right?), is to properly understand the more primary problem of what's really causing them to be so inefficient in the first place. That is the way to discover the right strategy. If you are able to target those obstacles at the very root, efficiency improves more naturally.

Oftentimes, working smart doesn't require you to step up and be THE leader for everyone. As an introvert, it's probably more comfortable for you to work behind the scenes to talk to people, get a better idea of what they need and/or what problems they're experiencing, and incrementally remove the obstacles that are preventing them from focusing on what they should be focused on. You can't fix everything all at once, so just do what you can to fix what you are able to fix at any given point in time. It's a process and some progress is better than no progress.

[nobodyfamousposts]

What would your ideal tikki be?

I'm of the opinion that the best kwami/human duo setup would be one where they work off each other and both can benefit and grow from their time together. Not just "the kwami is always right" (Tikki) while never actually doing anything helpful or supportive for their chosen/mentee/an actual teenager.

I'd say that it'd work better for the kwamis to have different mindsets and morals that fit different periods of time. After all, aside from possibly Wayzz, they've all been in the Miracle Box for years if not decades if not CENTURIES. There would be bound to be a disconnect from that alone. And add on top of that, these kwamis are beings older than the universe whom are all either based on or the basis FOR certain animals, so that needs to matter for more than just their appearance.

For Tikki in particular, this would mean that she is a being of WAR.

She is a Ladybug, which are natural predators, particularly known for eliminating and devouring garden-destroying pests. It's part of the reason they're well regarded and even considered lucky. While not poisonous to humans, they are red for a reason, and can be toxic to smaller animals. They also show some intelligence and ability for tactics, such as playing dead to deter predators.

On top of this, let's bear in mind that Tikki has been noted to have past users of importance who were involved in some pretty major conflicts and war, like Jeanne D'arc and Hippolyta, both of whom were noted as warriors or involved in war.

Given all this, I'd imagine Tikki would best work more similar to the Evil Tikki concept. Not where she's "evil", per say, but where she's definitely more pragmatic and used to war and fighting as an acceptable answer to resolving conflicts. A Tikki who accepts lethal means as necessary at points and shows a tactical mind that is both equal to and opposite of Marinette's own. She can be mature, calm, and reasonable while still horribly out of touch. And she can give advice and support while having that advice be unhelpful not because of her own refusal TO help, but simply due to nature of the advice she knows how to give vs the current situation and what Marinette actually needs to do. That way, we could have Marinette still needing to figure out how to resolve problems on her own without Tikki directly telling her the answer, but also avoid Tikki being self-righteous over it despite essentially abandoning Marinette to potentially make the wrong decision without telling her what the "right" decision is supposed to be (looking at you, Reflekta).

This would be a Tikki who doesn't get emotional-based decision-making. Do what works, not what "feels good", because it's all about survival and competition. How different would the lesson in Gamer have come across regarding considering other's feelings if Tikki's stance/advice was to support Marinette that she didn't do anything wrong by competing and winning because that's what competitions are for? Winners win and survive while losers lose and get eaten. That might have done more to add to Marinette's guilt over hurting Max's feelings because hearing such blatant and dare I say heartless statements from Tikki would make her question herself more. Ultimately, she would need to be her own self control when it comes to trying for what she wants.

This would go a long way to display the disconnect between kwamis and humans. They don't GET humans. They aren't around them often and when they are, they're only really bonding with their specific chosen. Their ideas of morals or "right and wrong" would be vastly different from what people nowadays would consider. This would open up Tikki and potentially other kwamis to lessons and growth, allowing them to change from their time with their users just as much as the users would change from their time with the kwamis.

This effect can and probably should be achieved without making the kwamis have the personalities and mentalities of children. Because the way canon does it, the kwamis come off as horribly naive and irresponsible for beings who are supposed to older than the universe and major players in bringing about the world as we now know it. Especially as beings that the characters and even we as the audience are supposed to respect, listen to, consider to be the moral authority of any situation, and just in general take seriously. If the kwamis don't feel or understand love (as Tikki takes FOUR SEASONS to reveal), then WHY are we supposed to take their input regarding the love square as valid?

My take on Tikki would be as a warrior. Someone who THINKS she knows best but isn't always right. Someone who does understand and is able to give decent advice on love more on the basis of love being an emotional war of attrition of the heart. Someone who learns that sometimes new, different or at least more subtle tactics are needed to deal with problems. Someone who supports Marinette even if she doesn't necessarily know how. Someone who admits to the influence of the Lucky Charms and gives Marinette items that aren't completely random or silly, but have clear and more dangerous purposes that Marinette by her own personality and beliefs refuses to use them for and instead uses her own cleverness to find alternatives to—something that Tikki could both be put out over but also impressed by. This would also allow for a subtle indicator of their growing bond when Tikki's influence eventually makes Lucky Charms that fit Marinette's specific needs in a non-lethal way instead of her usual method.

This would allow for a greater dynamic between Marinette and Tikki, and one that would change over time. Instead of Tikki just lecturing without offering anything useful other than what NOT to do or why Marinette should feel bad. Or Tikki just serving as a prop for Marinette to talk to about her problems or feelings instead of any of the multitude of people she already has to talk to—or better yet, SHOWING rather than TELLING.

All in all, I'd go for a Tikki who is flawed. One who would over time learn and grow from her time with Marinette just as Marinette would from her.

[qqueenofhades]

Hi. I’m curious. What did you mean by “women who read fiction might get Bad Ideas!!!” has just reached its latest and stupidest form via tumblr purity culture.? I haven’t seen any of this but I’m new to tumblr.

Oh man. You really want to get me into trouble on, like, my first day back, don’t you?

Pretty much all of this has been explained elsewhere by people much smarter than me, so this isn’t necessarily going to say anything new, but I’ll do my best to synthesize and summarize it. As ever, it comes with the caveat that it is my personal interpretation, and is not intended as the be-all, end-all. You’ll definitely run across it if you spend any time on Tumblr (or social media in general, including Twitter, and any other fandom-related spaces). This will get long.

In short: in the nineteenth century, when Gothic/romantic literature became popular and women were increasingly able to read these kinds of novels for fun, there was an attendant moral panic over whether they, with their weak female brains, would be able to distinguish fiction from reality, and that they might start making immoral or inappropriate choices in their real life as a result. Obviously, there was a huge sexist and misogynistic component to this, and it would be nice to write it off entirely as just hysterical Victorian pearl-clutching, but that feeds into the “lol people in the past were all much stupider than we are today” kind of historical fallacy that I often and vigorously shut down. (Honestly, I’m not sure how anyone can ever write the “omg medieval people believed such weird things about medicine!” nonsense again after what we’ve gone through with COVID, but that is a whole other rant.) The thinking ran that women shouldn’t read novels for fear of corrupting their impressionable brains, or if they had to read novels at all, they should only be the Right Ones: i.e., those that came with a side of heavy-handed and explicit moralizing so that they wouldn’t be tempted to transgress. Of course, books trying to hammer their readers over the head with their Moral Point aren’t often much fun to read, and that’s not the point of fiction anyway. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.

Fast-forward to today, and the entire generation of young, otherwise well-meaning people who have come to believe that being a moral person involves only consuming the “right” kind of fictional content, and being outrageously mean to strangers on the internet who do not agree with that choice. There are a lot of factors contributing to this. First, the advent of social media and being subject to the judgment of people across the world at all times has made it imperative that you demonstrate the “right” opinions to fit in with your peer-group, and on fandom websites, that often falls into a twisted, hyper-critical, so-called “progressivism” that diligently knows all the social justice buzzwords, but has trouble applying them in nuance, context, and complicated real life. To some extent, this obviously is not a bad thing. People need to be critical of the media they engage with, to know what narratives the creator(s) are promoting, the tropes they are using, the conclusions that they are supporting, and to be able to recognize and push back against genuinely harmful content when it is produced – and this distinction is critical – by professional mainstream creators. Amateur, individual fan content is another kettle of fish. There is a difference between critiquing a professional creator (though social media has also made it incredibly easy to atrociously abuse them) and attacking your fellow fan and peer, who is on the exact same footing as you as a consumer of that content.

Obviously, again, this doesn’t mean that you can’t call out people who are engaging in actually toxic or abusive behavior, fans or otherwise. But certain segments of Tumblr culture have drained both those words (along with “gaslighting”) of almost all critical meaning, until they’re applied indiscriminately to “any fictional content that I don’t like, don’t agree with, or which doesn’t seem to model healthy behavior in real life” and “anyone who likes or engages with this content.” Somewhere along the line, a reactionary mindset has been formed in which the only fictional narratives or relationships are those which would be “acceptable” in real life, to which I say…. what? If I only wanted real life, I would watch the news and only read non-fiction. Once again, the underlying fear, even if it’s framed in different terms, is that the people (often women) enjoying this content can’t be trusted to tell the difference between fiction and reality, and if they like “problematic” fictional content, they will proceed to seek it out in their real life and personal relationships. And this is just… not true.

As I said above, critical media studies and thoughtful consumption of entertainment are both great things! There have been some great metas written on, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe and how it is increasingly relying on villains who have outwardly admirable motives (see: the Flag Smashers in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) who are then stigmatized by their anti-social, violent behavior and attacks on innocent people, which is bad even as the heroes also rely on violence to achieve their ends. This is a clever way to acknowledge social anxieties – to say that people who identify with the Flag Smashers are right, to an extent, but then the instant they cross the line into violence, they’re upsetting the status quo and need to be put down by the heroes. I watched TFATWS and obviously enjoyed it. I have gone on a Marvel re-watching binge recently as well. I like the MCU! I like the characters and the madcap sci-fi adventures! But I can also recognize it as a flawed piece of media that I don’t have to accept whole-cloth, and to be able to criticize some of the ancillary messages that come with it. It doesn’t have to be black and white.

When it comes to shipping, moreover, the toxic culture of “my ship is better than your ship because it’s Better in Real Life” ™ is both well-known and in my opinion, exhausting and pointless. As also noted, the whole point of fiction is that it allows us to create and experience realities that we don’t always want in real life. I certainly enjoy plenty of things in fiction that I would definitely not want in reality: apocalyptic space operas, violent adventures, and yes, garbage men. A large number of my ships over the years have been labeled “unhealthy” for one reason or another, presumably because they don’t adhere to the stereotype of the coffee-shop AU where there’s no tension and nobody ever makes mistakes or is allowed to have serious flaws. And I’m not even bagging on coffee-shop AUs! Some people want to remove characters from a violent situation and give them that fluff and release from the nonstop trauma that TV writers merrily inflict on them without ever thinking about the consequences. Fanfiction often focuses on the psychology and healing of characters who have been through too much, and since that’s something we can all relate to right now, it’s a very powerful exercise. As a transformative and interpretive tool, fanfic is pretty awesome.

The problem, again, comes when people think that fic/fandom can only be used in this way, and that going the other direction, and exploring darker or complicated or messy dynamics and relationships, is morally bad. As has been said before: shipping is not activism. You don’t get brownie points for only having “healthy” ships (and just my personal opinion as a queer person, these often tend to be heterosexual white ships engaging in notably heteronormative behavior) and only supporting behavior in fiction that you think is acceptable in real life. As we’ve said, there is a systematic problem in identifying what that is. Ironically, for people worried about Women Getting Ideas by confusing fiction and reality, they’re doing the same thing, and treating fiction like reality. Fiction is fiction. Nobody actually dies. Nobody actually gets hurt. These people are not real. We need to normalize the idea of characters as figments of a creator’s imagination, not actual people with their own agency. They exist as they are written, and by the choice of people whose motives can be scrutinized and questioned, but they themselves are not real. Nor do characters reflect the author’s personal views. Period.

This feeds into the fact that the internet, and fandom culture, is not intended as a “safe space” in the sense that no questionable or triggering content can ever be posted. Archive of Our Own, with its reams of scrupulous tagging and requests for you to explicitly click and confirm that you are of age to see M or E-rated content, is a constant target of the purity cultists for hosting fictional material that they see as “immoral.” But it repeatedly, unmistakably, directly asks you for your consent to see this material, and if you then act unfairly victimized, well… that’s on you. You agreed to look at this, and there are very few cases where you didn’t know what it entailed. Fandom involves adults creating contents for adults, and while teenagers and younger people can and do participate, they need to understand this fact, rather than expecting everything to be a PG Disney movie.

When I do write my “dark” ships with garbage men, moreover, they always involve a lot of the man being an idiot, being bluntly called out for an idiot, and learning healthier patterns of behavior, which is one of the fundamental patterns of romance novels. But they also involve an element of the woman realizing that societal standards are, in fact, bullshit, and she can go feral every so often, as a treat. But even if I wrote them another way, that would still be okay! There are plenty of ships and dynamics that I don’t care for and don’t express in my fic and fandom writing, but that doesn’t mean I seek out the people who do like them and reprimand them for it. I know plenty of people who use fiction, including dark fiction, in a cathartic way to process real-life trauma, and that’s exactly the role – one of them, at least – that fiction needs to be able to fulfill. It would be terribly boring and limited if we were only ever allowed to write about Real Life and nothing else. It needs to be complicated, dark, escapist, unreal, twisted, and whatever else. This means absolutely zilch about what the consumers of this fiction believe, act, or do in their real lives.

Once more, I do note the misogyny underlying this. Nobody, after all, seems to care what kind of books or fictional narratives men read, and there’s no reflection on whether this is teaching them unhealthy patterns of behavior, or whether it predicts how they’ll act in real life. (There was some of that with the “do video games cause mass shootings?”, but it was a straw man to distract from the actual issues of toxic masculinity and gun culture.) Certain kinds of fiction, especially historical fiction, romance novels, and fanfic, are intensely gendered and viewed as being “women’s fiction” and therefore hyper-criticized, while nobody’s asking if all the macho-man potboiler military-intrigue tough-guy stereotypical “men’s fiction” is teaching them bad things. So the panic about whether your average woman on the internet is reading dark fanfic with an Unhealthy Ship (zomgz) is, in my opinion, misguided at best, and actively destructive at worst.

[crystalmemoria]

Crystal’s Opinion on Season 4 of the OG Cardfight!! Vanguard

Time for Legion Mate!

Once again, this is stream of consciousness-esque.

These opinions aren’t necessarily in line with the popular opinion, so please bear with me!

SPOILERS FOR CARDFIGHT!! VANGUARD (OG AND REBOOT)

Legion Mate: Great premise, not so great execution. Kai’s entire demeanor shift felt extremely sudden from his personality at the end of Link Joker, IMO. It needed to be a bit more gradual.

The plot was good. I really enjoyed the fact that Aichi got a cool outfit, I loved the plot of Aichi being erased from everyone’s memories and how he has to be saved (from himself!), I enjoyed the Quatre Knights (barring Serra, but there’s good reason for that)...

I’m glad at least one person acknowledged that Kai did a lot of harm, and had good reason to feel angry with him. IIRC Gaillard was never necessarily portrayed in the wrong for this, and I think that’s a good thing. Kai did do a lot of damage. He hurt a lot of people. Gaillard experienced the damage he did, and had to struggle during the darkest hours of Link Joker’s invasion. It makes sense that he’d feel that way. And he doesn’t just magically LOSE that dislike of Kai at the end! He’s learning to move on, but he still has issues with him to a degree!

Aichi’s character flaw of keeping things to himself playing such a huge role is absolutely awesome. Despite how much he’s grown by this point, he still has flaws to work off of, and it’s an incredibly relatable flaw to me. The desire to keep all of your problems and loneliness to yourself so you don’t hurt others. The moral Aichi learned was something that he needed to learn, the fact that he should reach out to his friends. They WANT to help him, they WANT to hear him out and do whatever they can. He’s not just some burden, he’s their friend, and they love him.

Downsides though... The only heroes allowed to win were Kai and Naoki (And Kamui got one whole win). The losses against the heroes were similarly meanspirited to how Asia Circuit was, but I can forgive it here a little more because at least it’s just the literal antagonists doing it this time. In Asia Circuit it was allies, antagonists, and people completely neutral.

I, being the Aichi fan I am, wish Aichi got to do a little more. Whether it was while directly controlled by the Seed or of his own will. However, I get why this couldn’t happen. The plot itself just doesn’t have that room.

Another thing is that so many things are left unexplained. How did Aichi wipe everyone’s memories? Are the Quatre Knights’ prison powers literally manifested from Aichi? How did Aichi even discover that he could hide his sanctuary (Not to be confused with the OTHER Aichi’s Sanctuary) on the moon? How did he even make it?

Is it related to PSY Qualia? Is it related to the Seed’s own power fusing with/corrupting his own? Why did he choose the moon (This is another thing that makes more sense in the reboot than the OG anime, as the reboot establishes that the moon is like a weird conduit between Earth and Cray, IIRC. So in theory Aichi could be drawing from that power or something).

And heck, why WHERE there magical transporter ruins near some random town anyway?

Similar to the issues with Takuto, it feels like people just magically got powers that aren’t explained (Vanguard -if- in the reboot is also guilty of this).

I also find it kind of weird Shingo wasn’t included among the Mates. I mean I kind of get it since Shingo isn’t exactly the most popular from what I understand (I don’t like him), but it’s a little unfair that Naoki gets to be in the group while Shingo doesn’t. They have a dynamic going on, and Naoki doesn’t feel the same without Shingo.

Also Naoki gets this sudden interest in Japanese history that I don’t remember him having in Season 3. I mean it’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it came out of nowhere.

On the note of the Quatre Knights, I DID like how there was conflict among them thanks to Serra. I hate Serra, but he’s a love to hate character, and his actions definitely caused chaos. I like Gaillard and Rati quite a bit, but Neve is... kind of just there. I don’t hate him, and I don’t feel especially drawn to him.

[sxfik]

Why is hanseok considered the greater evil, and vincenzo the lesser evil?? I genuinely dont understand, can you explain it to me please??

hiii thank you so much for sending me an ask!! i'm not going to lie, i saw this ask a long while ago when you originally sent it but it took me a long while to answer it because i really had to think about it and also it's kind of a hard question for me to answer. but, i will attempt my best to kinda give my thoughts on why we consider vincenzo as the "lesser evil."

first, i need to say that both vincenzo nor han seok are good people and i am not saying that either of them are good people. i am simply comparing their evil levels and explaining why we as viewers often find vincenzo to be the lesser evil than han seok.

second, we need to define what evil means in this context (which is kinda hard because it depends on each person's perception but aaa) if we're considering someone evil for purely their actions, excluding motivations, then both vincenzo and han seok are the same level of evil. han seok brutally murders, and psychologically and physically abuses people. vincenzo's actions (aka setting people on fire, abusing and murdering people, torturing people, etc.) also makes him evil.

BUT if you define evil through motivation, then vincenzo and han seok are still evil but not on the same level of evil. yes, both characters commit bad actions but their motivations are different. vincenzo kills only when given a reason to. for example, we know that a robber killed his foster parents so when he joined the mafia he both psychologically and physically tortured him for almost a year (now whether the method of killing is a justifiable or an equal punishment for the crime is an entirely different question and i just won't be able to answer that because it's just so hard and complex of a question.) he sets the warehouse on fire to get revenge on behalf of the victims of the drug produced in said factory. he kills the two people who killed cha young's father and he kills the people who set up the family of the dead researchers to look like a suicide. he only kills or tortures people who have done a wrong against him or the people he cares about.

on the other hand, han seok kills and tortures for his own amusement and gain. he kills the prosecutor with the hockey stick because he didn't get his way and they annoyed him. he allows and gives the resources to choi myung hee to kill or maim anyone that gets in the way of his plans. han seok murdered his classmates for no reason other than he didn't get what he wanted. and most of all, he tortured and abused han seo just for his amusement. han seo was his punching bag, where he would belittle and abuse him in order for han seok to get his anger out. he does bad actions without a given or justifiable reason. he would play with han seo and keep him on the edge at all times, because he got a power rush from it. so when you compare vincenzo and han seok's motivations for their actions, i don't think you can say that vincenzo is the same level of evil as han seok.

we also don't see vincenzo attacking someone beloved to the person who has done wrong in order to get revenge. for example, in order to hurt vincenzo, han seok kills vin's mother, who has not done anything wrong this situation. but with vincenzo, we never see that happening. even though we see vincenzo hanging out with prosecutor jung's family after he betrays them, there's not a moment that he actively threatens or attacks prosecutor jung's family. he doesn't threaten prosecutor jung or tell him he will kill his family because in his mind, it's not justifiable to take the life on another person who hasn't done wrongdoing in order to hurt the person who has. for han seok this is not true, he has killed or attacked innocent people to make his enemy hurt.

another reason we are bound to consider vincenzo 'a lesser evil' is because of remorse. despite vincenzo's motivations or actions, he displays remorse and regret for the killing he has done. han seok, on the other hand, does not. Vincenzo is haunted by the killings he has done, by the blood he has spilled and we don't ever see that ending even when he gains a family and gains love. even if he can justify his actions, he is still regretful of what he had to do. han seok does not show the same remorse as him, only feeling bad when it is his life that's under threat in the very last scene. not to mention that he brags about killing, he gets power and happiness from his killings both when he killed his classmates as well as when he killed the prosecutor. han seok takes pleasure in his actions, as he is shown dancing and being gleeful as he kills vincenzo's mother and many others. he has no regret or shame in what he has done.

in so many law and crime shows we see a "morally" good hero who "spares" the villain in the end because it is the "right thing to do" despite a) killing all their side minions that helped the villain and b) all of the villains evil actions and harm they have caused the victims. we, as viewers, often aren't satisfied at the end because we're not seeing the punishment match up to the crime. this show's main thesis is showing that han seok is so evil that no law or justice system can properly punish him for the pain and abuse he has inflicted on his victims AND because this system that is supposed to punish him is just as cruel and corrupt as he is. it's highlighting the injustice to the victims of babel as a corporation, victims of the justice and law system and victims of han seok himself. vincenzo is showing that he is the best punishment for han seok because vincenzo is a mirror to him and han seok in the end is getting a taste of his own medicine.

all of this is why that last monologue of the show is important. we, as viewers, are watching a show that frames vincenzo as the main protagonist. his actions and him are framed in a way to make us root for him, with the music and the cinematography. but we're also given small reminders of who he actually is throughout the show: through the nightmares he faces, through mr. tak telling him not to change into a lighter person, through the scene where he faces han seok in jail. and finally, that ending monologue is showing that no, he is still a bad person. he is still an evil person who is committing bad actions and us rooting for him to punish the villains in this show does not change the badness of his actions. really, that last line in vincenzo is making us question whether his actions are justifiable and can we actually root for him.

feel free to disagree with me or start a conversation below because i feel like this is a really interesting question but the answer to this changes based on each person's perception of morality and what constitutes a good person and a bad person. i feel like this is such a deep question and there's so many ways and angles that you can look at this from so i don't think i've done a great job in explaining everything but this was just what i came up with for today. there's also every chance that my line of reasoning or logic is flawed so i'm open to any criticisms to this so i can acknowledge and correct it!

(also if you want a good kdrama that asks these same questions and has that same energy as vincenzo then please watch taxi driver! it’s a great show and it really makes you think about the earlier questions of “does the punishment given out by vigilante justice match the crime committed by these people? to what extent is vigilante justice justifiable? where does the law draw the line between giving the victims of brutal crime justice vs protecting the criminal from cruel and unusual punishments?”)

[dreamteamspace]

We hit 400 so here’s a- ✨ DREAM APPRECIATION ESSAY ✨

(by Yours Truly. Much thanks to the one, innocent anon who just wanted to ask a small talk question but hit my serotonin-providing hyperfixation.)

1. Self-esteem

I love the way he’s confident in his abilities when it’s become such a “trend” to either be completely and utterly self-depricating about your own skills out of fear of being labelled an asshole or overconfident nowadays.

At the same time you can still tell he doesn’t want to pull anyone down ever, and will always be really careful with that and take every oppertunity to lift up the people around him. Dream has a very emotional voice that gives him away a lot, so you can really tell he genuinely admires the people around him and he’s never afraid to say that they could totally easily beat him in something if he doesn’t have practice with it.

He tends to be a bit too hard on himself, so his friends always encourage him in his abilities, and that’s just. So nice. He celebrates his victories! He gets so so excited and happy when he wins in the manhunts, and I think celebrating your hard-earned victories isn’t something that should be villanized.

He won, and we should KNOW by now that doesn’t mean he thinks he’s somehow better than everyone. He has a pretty good eye on his abilities, and that allows him to really use them to the max.

2. Morality

He isn’t afraid to change the game! His adhd picks out a Cool New Thing and he just goes, You know what? Why not! His adhd goes “do this thing repeatedly another 3847 times” and he’s like, yeah sure!

Nobody expected him to release a song, but he just went for it! He’s been speedrunning so much, but he isn’t afraid to stream it every day 5 days in a row for hours while his friends bicker in the background.

Dream genuinely does the things he finds fun, but at the same time puts in so much effort to make them good and entertaining to watch and never forgets about his viewers.

He’s kidfriendly because he wants to be! Fame-wise, at this point he could definitly swear more if he wanted to (and he does when in other people’s content who don’t care about swearing), but despite that he doesn’t swear on his main because he wants his content to be accessable for everyone.

Sure, on one hand it could be for clout/money, but consider: Dream doesn’t stream the DSMP because he doesn’t want to take attention away from other people. He participates in the videos of his friends. He lets compilation channels and the like do whatever they want and even monetize his content. He lets his friends stream Road Trip on twitch as much as they want for free.

Dream doesn’t not swear just for his fanbase, but he does it because he has so so much respect for people. No matter how high he goes, he’s always consciously focused on respecting and admiring the people around him.

He has genuine respect for creators so much smaller than him, and he has respect for people in his fanbase that are younger than him. He isn’t afraid to go against the norm and STAND for that, either (see the video where he defends his stans).

And he defends his friends so much too! So much so it could almost be a little bit of a flaw sometimes, but I feel like he truly wants to learn from his mistakes. He apologizes for things even when nobody asked him to, and that just shows that he does it out of genuine guilt and fear of hurting someone.

He’s always seemed like someone who is genuinely willing to change to be a better version of himself, who isn’t afraid to challenge what he thinks and what other people think and what the norm thinks in order to improve everything for everyone.

Dream also doesn’t let any of the fame get to his head! As I said before - he’s confident in the things he’s good at, but in a way that doesn’t pull other people down, and he still remains firmly admirable of other people.

And even when OTHER people let fame get to their head (it was a while ago, but there was a video he made about five block jumps, where he added in a clip of a video of another guy doing it complete with credit and link etc. The guy was 100% alright with it at first, but when his video started getting more views because Dream’s video blew up, he started accusing Dream of “stealing” his content (when dozens of other videos of the 5 block jump already existed, and Dream could’ve just put in a clip of himself doing the jump)),,, but he insisted in his reponse that fame gets to people’s heads sometimes, nobody should blame anybody, he genuinely was never upset at him and just said that this just... happens sometimes.

He’s a very forgiving person all around, in part due to being willing to challenge his own norms and give people the benefit of the doubt JUST in case he’s wrong. He lets people enjoy things so long as they aren’t hurting anybody, like allowing people to ship him w people who are also alright with shipping, but at the same time taking a hard stance on, say, how shipping minors is absolutely wrong and should not be done ever (and he’s right).

3. Fandom

He appreciates said fanart and fanworks as well! He thinks dnf fanart is cool and he even appreciates the fanfic part of his fandom, something many ccs wish to ignore or forget it exists altogether (and it IS ofc in their right to do so or be uncomfortable with such content!), but Dream sees the work put into it and how people find connections and friendships through the fandom and appreciates it all the same.

He loves his fandom. So much. But not in the overdone, fake-feeling way I’ve seen other ccs be,,,, he’s just. Quiet and shy and genuine about it but not afraid to defend it.

He’s said before - and I QUOTE - “If you send hate to people or have sent hate to people, in the form of hateful comments or DMs, you aren’t welcome in my fandom. You’re no fan of mine”, which is the HOTTEST take he’s ever uttered and I love that. He really just went and said that. And he’s right. I like that despite how he’s usually more held back and waits things out before taking a stance, he chose this topic to really take a hard stance on and not budge and stick to it.

Pmbata has also said that he believes his fans have his back no matter what!! And that he really loves them a lot!!! And I am!! Emotional!!!!

4. ND/Adhd

He has adhd which is something I relate to personally (I have it as well sdlkfj). He gets excited sometimes!! I love how he shows being fidgety in mc, always pacing and parcouring around,, the way that in manhunts you can SEE when he’s thinking or bouncing back and forth between two options,,, or the way he gets close to people in mc to laugh with them.... He shows so much with his movements by them being quick and daring and calculated (and it’s especially hilarious to watch other people react to it in the video “mc but three people control one player”, where he’s the one moving and Sapnap and George will gasp or go “Dream!!” in surprise when Dream was THIS close to falling off a ledge, but he just laughs sdlkfjsdf).

When he’s not moving around he stands perfectly, perfectly still (which, idk if thats what all adhd ppl have, but I know I have something similar? Like when I’m nervous I’ll sometimes just. Freeze in place. No movement at all). He’s just relatable sdkjf.

There was one Manhunt extra scenes where he,,,,, stims by clapping,,,,,, the lil excited clap in the background,,, I’m gonna cry. I’m so soft for excited Dream that one is such a comfort clip for me!

He also tends to stim by getting under trap doors and then jumping back out of them, or jumping up a block and then walking back down over and over (especially noticable in The Village Went Mad tftsmp episode, where they were all discussing who the murderer could be and he was the only one moving, hopping up the log and then running back down again).

Also it is. Really Soft when he starts rambling and overexplaining something. What’s even better is that George, who is usually present at such moments, will laugh a little at his antics, and Dream will automatically laugh with him.

5. Rp/Uplifting other ccs

Dream wasn’t all THAT into the rp at first, but his server has been so strongly supporting and giving attention to smaller creators that he’s since completely rolled along with it. Being a villain in the RP is a difficult role because you will, inevitable, as much as it is just roleplay and all scripted, always get some amount of dislike from people for it.

Despite that, he’s basicly the main big villain on his own server where he let a bunch of theater kids beat him up in character and imprison him on his OWN SERVER. He wasn’t as into the rp at first, but has obviously been practicing and joins every Tales of the SMP when he can, despite getting zero clout for it.

What Dream also tends to do is find small content creators, see their talent and lift them high. His entire discord server is dedicated to give smaller ccs a place to grow, and when he first found Tubbo, Tommy, Ranboo, etc., they were much much smaller than they are now. He truly wanted to help them make it big.

He’s also added Foolish Shark and Hannah onto the SMP, both much smaller ccs (not tiny, but you get what I mean), allowing them to grow. He doesn’t stream on his OWN SERVER. He let himself get imprisoned to let the good guys win on his OWN. SERVER. He’s willing to play the villain and everything.

An interesting thing though! A lot of people used to/still do clown on Dream a bit for his sometimes uncertain acting,,, but when he’s around people he knows well (Sapnap and George, Tubbo and Tommy) we’ve seen him go ALL OUT. I have the theory Dream might be genuinely afraid to accidentally be mean to someone in character and have them misinterpret it sldkfjsdf,,, so he’s rly careful when he goes into the rp, and sometimes even when he’s in it he goes quiet, especially with other people around.

But also the fact that he needs time to feel comfortable around ppl is,, a mood,,, and adorable,,, sdlfkjsdf-

Apparently he’s also shared his youtube algorithm secrets with Tommy?? Which he had only shared with Sapnap and George before?? Dream took one look at that chaotic kid and immedietly adopted him as his little brother. He literally got up super early to rp the prison visit. Idk about ya’ll but I would die for someone first and get up horribly early for them second-

6. Friends!!

Dream?? Considers so so many people his friends?? And despite having so many friends, he also has his few closest friends (George and Sapnap) whom he would absolutely die for in a heartbeat. He WILL defend them with everything he has and loves them so so much.

He listens to them and really, truly wants them to succeed. He respects them so much and will go OFF about how good they actually are and how talented they are and how important they are to him.

I can’t even COVER everything about how much he is SOULMATES with Gorg. They live in each others heads rent-free. He mentions him all the time. They get!! So happy when they’re around each other!!! Their voices get so soft,,

And I can’t even BEGIN to explain the energy of Sapnap and Dream just moving together permanently. Imagine moving together with your best friend. Like, permanently. Into one house. They’re best friends Your Honor,,,,

Also,, remember the Techno and Dream rivalry? And Dream has recently said that he’s hesitant to make a serious manhunt against Techno because he doesn’t want there to be any feud between them or have them be compared to each other. He said that while he absolutely wanted nothing more than to beat Techno at first, now that he knows him better he just wants to be friends with him. He wants to be FRIENDS. With his, essentially, mc RIVAL. Friendly rival, but still. He doesn’t even wanna fight Techno or have ppl compare them cause he,,, wants to be friends with him,,,,

7. Vulnerability

What I feel like really sets Dream apart from some other ccs for me is that he’s willing to be vulnerable. He will tell George he loves him. He defends his friends. He sounds so, so genuine when he tells his fandom that he loves them.

What’s just really rare to see, especially in male ccs, is that vulnerability. It’s becoming more acceptable as time goes on, but it’s certainly not easy, and a lot of people become and stay long-term fans BECAUSE they can see how genuine he is.

I know Dream looks up to Mr. Beast a lot, for example, but honestly? I think he’s a little better than Mr. Beast. Because he feels more genuine, more bound to what he believes is right. I’m sure Mr. Beast isn’t a bad content creator! But ultimately they have different target audiences and I’m very glad Dream is the way he is.

Less of that insecure masculinity and more willing to be vulnerable, to care about things, to get emotional and to encourage and uplift the people around him.

8. Pure Brainrot

Green boi has nice deep calm soothing voice. Little shy laugh. Wheeze laugh. Gorg live in his head rent-free. He lov friends. He lov block game. He good at block game,,, a little shy but confident,,, big heart,,,, soft voice,,,,, rambles sometimes....

He also Gender. He’s so gender. I don’t know how else to describe it. I want That. Whatever That is. My gender is Dreamwastaken