#2 is that all discussion about flawed reasoning is- not the point. so wholly not the point. imogen is not chasing the reasoning. neither is

[sparring-spirals]

oh. so. this dream and this vision and this exchange after and everything that has been building to here.

All that rage, all that desperation, Imogen's knowledge that Liliana's judgement is flawed and searching for any reason to understand, searching for a way to bring her out of it. Bring her back.

"Show me" and she does and.

Its- beautiful, its wonderful. Its the unmaking of the world and of history and it feels- so good. For a moment Imogen feels something she hasn't for YEARS. A life and a possibility and a future full of peace she hasnt had for ages, hasnt even bothered hoping for. For a moment, Imogen sees it, but more importantly- she feels it- the freedom, the peace, the dream. Stronger than any vision. She sees it. She feels it.

And she wakes up, and she- unknowingly, perfectly, mirrors her own mothers words, looks around, asks- did you see it? Did you all see that? (I wish you all could see what I could see-)

They didn't- of course they didn't. They saw Liliana, too far gone, spouting nonsense, they saw her reach out, they saw the refusal to listen to reason. They did not see the vision. (They couldn't have. Even if they'd seen it- would they have understood? How could they? No beautiful vision would have captured the thing that left the awe in Imogen's lungs- the peace. The freedom. The finality of, finally, finally, being free of this gift that has only been a curse.)

They didn't see the vision. They saw their friend, tapped on the forehead after hopeless pleas. They've been seeing their friend make further and further excuses for someone they know is a danger, someone siding with people they are working so hard against. That has hurt them. They've seen the way she can't quite denounce Liliana. They've hedged around it: If she's not on our side, will you be okay- You know if she's not on our side, we'll have to-

They've been watching. They're seeing plenty. They did not see the vision. They couldn't have.

They saw a fruitless conversation. They saw their friend rebuffed by someone she loves. They saw her wake up with a strange kind of light in her eyes and- say.

What if its not so bad? (The world ending. Half of the world being eaten. Innocent lives lost. Our loved ones cut down for a fever dream and delusions of power and grandeur. Us, cut down, for some stupid plot for a moon and petty revenge against the gods and a desire to end the world.) They've been watching her, make halfhearted arguments, sidle away. Make increasingly desperate excuses. Ask: What if.

(Its so easy to ask, what if. Its so dangerous. Sometimes the if is used to hide away lives and lives of collateral, of blood red loss. Sometimes the if has already been answered and paid for, and the act of asking is its own form of violence, all over again.)

"Well Imogen, I wish my family didn't have to die for her brighter tomorrow."

And the way Imogen collapses, a little- presses her face into her hands and crumples under the weight of the reminder, like voices piling in after weeks of being in blissful quiet in a forest. Like reality breaking in after a beautiful dream. "You're right. I'm sorry. You're right."

"I swear, I wanna see this through, I do."

"She just presented this vision of- it didn't seem so bad."

And the Bells try to help, to be kind. They say: We understand why this must be hard for you. She's someone you love, its hard to deal with them thinking a different way. What did you see?

They are trying so hard, to reason through it, to balance their own hurt with kindness and sound arguments to lead her back. They want so badly, to lead her back. Have her back.

The problem however, is not the soundness of the argument, is not the reason or the logic- but the overwhelming allure of that sensation- of that promise- of the hope- of the ideal. Of a mirage that already drew Liliana in. That is pulling Imogen's gaze, despite. Despite, despite, despite.

Hope is such a tricky thing to kill.

[anghraine]

Despite my occasional gripes with Tumblr Austen fandom, sometimes I get recommended or linked to something and remember what Austen fandom off Tumblr is like.

I was checking a message from my mother on another platform and immediately was recommended a group discussing what were essentially headcanons about Lady Catherine. The OP was fine; her question was interesting and she kept gently pointing out that a lot of widely-held fandom opinions are neither stated nor implied in the book. But a good 80-90% of the fairly numerous comments were the same old "Lady Catherine is lying about her relationship with her sister" "she was jealous of Lady Anne for being sweet and beautiful" "she probably wanted to marry Lady Anne's husband herself" blahblahblah.

It wasn't complete consensus, but so near to total agreement that it was kind of astounding. Especially given that, for instance, the fanon of young Lady Catherine being jealous of Lady Anne is wholly fanon with zero evidence in the book or even the major adaptations. The insistence that Anne de Bourgh was not actually in her cradle at the same time as Darcy and should be significantly younger than him, that he wasn't really intended for her from the moment of his birth, that Lady Catherine saying so is further proof that she's exaggerating and/or lying, and that Lady Anne must have been completely different in personality, so much sweeter and prettier than Lady Catherine and Lady Catherine was super jealous and mean towards her—it's all entirely manufactured by fandom.

And while Lady Catherine is a flawed, petty, snobbish, deeply obnoxious, and rather silly person, I've always found something strange and unpleasant about this propensity for inventing so many more, and worse, reasons to hate her and frame her as an antagonistic polar opposite to her sister (a sister we know very little about). And I'm especially weirded out by the kind of desperate straining to dispute the Lady Catherine-Lady Anne marital scheming backstory that is a fairly minor element of the plot that no character in the book has any difficulty believing.

Here's Elizabeth's response to Lady Catherine trying to leverage the planned engagement against her, for instance:

"But what is that to me? If there is no other objection to my marrying your nephew, I shall certainly not be kept from it by knowing that his mother and aunt wished him to marry Miss de Bourgh. You both did as much as you could in planning the marriage. Its completion depended on others."

So it's like ... it's not just that I think there's no canonical basis for disputing this bit of backstory. The thing I've always found much weirder is why so many people want to dispute it. Where is all this discomfort arising from? A pair of aristocratic women married to wealthy, powerful landowners in 1770s/1780s England informally arranging the marriage of their only children is not particularly strange. Yet there is a ton of fannish discomfort around it and around the possibility that Lady Catherine and Lady Anne got on well enough to make such an arrangement.

The discomfort is even more conspicuous because we know so little about the sisters' relationship. It's like:

1) Lady Catherine's daughter and only child shares her sister's name, Anne.

2) Lady Catherine claims that she and Lady Anne planned their children's marriages when both were infants; Wickham also mentions the planned engagement in passing, apparently to reinforce his claims to special knowledge of the Darcys' concerns.

3) Lady Catherine is the only person in the novel who specifically mentions Lady Anne on more than one occasion.

4) more tenuously, Lady Catherine believes daughters, in general, are never all that important to their fathers, an opinion presumably encompassing herself and her sister wrt their father the earl.

The only other quality about Lady Anne suggested by anyone in the novel is Darcy's very carefully-phrased suggestion that his father (rather than Lady Anne) was extremely amiable and benevolent, more than his mother, though both were good people. So the idea of Lady Anne as this sweet and pure ideal mother figure who couldn't possibly have been on genuinely good terms with her awful sister or been party to dynastic scheming while Darcy's father was more reserved and standoffish like him is pretty much entirely manufactured by fandom as well.

I guess my feeling on seeing this still going at full throttle in 2024 is that the "Lady Catherine must have been mean to and jealous of her perfectly sweet sister who of course never agreed to any of this nonsense or was just trying to get her to shut up" thing is such a weird takeaway from pretty much every single thing we hear about Lady Anne and Lady Catherine. It seems completely non-intuitive as a take on what little we do know of this backstory and how the other characters react, and the version suggested in the novel is neither shocking nor central to the story, yet there's this palpable fannish discomfort about it and about Lady Anne potentially being fine with Lady Catherine and less of an idealized icon than her husband.

I know I've talked about this many times over the years, but running across it still going at full force in July 2024 was pretty surreal.

[annaizscribbling]

Why it is far more than just “Logan should be listened to” and a conversation on external vs internal flaws.

Firstly, it’s clear that the series is agreeing that Logan as a character is not heard, and that is is an issue. From the SKIP ALL button, to that little momentary sung debate Logan has with Thomas in the puppet episode, to the entirety of WTIT, Logan does not feel heard. 

I have thoughts, because the issue is more complex than just the other characters giving him more attention. Much like the series as a whole, Logan’s issue is far more of a multifaceted problem. I also am not one of those fancy essay writers who can cite philosophers and like research papers and stuff, but I sincerely wish I was, not gonna lie. This is just me making observations and having a decent grasp on how to write characters.

1. Logan is both Logan and Logic.

One of the less discussed points to Logan as a character is actually just how difficult his role is. Not just as in a difficult job for the character to fulfill, but in how hard it is to balance Logan as a character vs Logan as a writing tool. Logan is a fleshed out character within the sasi series, he is not a side character or one who is not meant to be analyzed. He’s a person, but he’s also a means of communicating information to the audience. The show usually defaults to Logan when trying to teach a lesson or handle a heavy topic from an informational stance. It makes sense. Logan is logic. He is information. He’s a steady stream of facts and stats. Logic as a character is extremely valuable when the series decides to tackle topics around various mental health issues, but this does temporarily mean Logan as a character has to take a backseat for Logic as a means of communication. You can’t have the character informing the audience about intrusive thoughts actively overcome by his own issues to the point of being unreliable or questionably biased. WTIT does the best job with balancing this, but it’s a fine line to walk. Logan can be emotionally charged, but cannot subtly manipulate facts, or lead the viewer to believe he is doing so. This actively limits how Logan is utilized. Again, the show balances this by making his biases obvious when necessary, and I think they’ve done well, but it can become tricky and I’m curious to see how it is handled in the future.

2. Logic can’t be the default solution (for C!Thomas).

Logan can’t fully embody his function. If so, he’d never be wrong. Then there is no show. Imagine if Thomas rationally and calmly asks Logan for a solution every single time he has a problem, and is given an easy solution every single time. It would kinda suck. A lot of fan interpretations of the ‘Logan isn’t listened to’ issue are resolved by simply defaulting to Logan’s opinion, and everything being solved right after. This is boring. But also impossible, because Logan as a character is quite human, and therefore flawed. Therefore, not really wholly Logic,. The other sides can fully encompass their traits while being irrational or contradicting their jobs because they are simply meant to represent pieces of C!Thomas, and since he’s human, he’s flawed, so they are flawed. But logic is not really a personality trait, it’s a method of reasoning and understanding facts. His job makes less sense than the others. Is he the level of logical understanding that C!Thomas is capable of? Is he supposed to be flawed human logic? Or is it just an umbrella term for whatever the hell he is? There’s no unbiased logic that is also human, so what is he really?

The whole point of the series is talking out issues from various perspectives within oneself. In everyday life, the ‘logical’ answer is probably the correct one, because I’d wager that decent everyday logic takes into account emotions and the human element. Logan is kinda that ... sort of. Well. At his core, Logan is flawed, which means he is human, which is rad, but then he’s not not pure logic. Which means he isn’t the only solution to Thomas’ problems, as it should be. Again, what’s the show for if he was?

3. Internal vs external flaws.

One of my biggest writing pet peeves are the characters without internal flaws. I mean characters who have ‘issues’ but all of the issues are entirely out of their control. Their environment is their biggest obstacle, and their internal flaws are practically non existent. Rey from Star Wars is unfortunately a good example of this, almost all of her problems are external, minus kinda believing in humanity too much (though this isn’t usually written as a legitimate flaw in most cases). This is not typically the mark of a well written character, it’s necessary at times and we can absolutely have a mix of external and internal issues, but it usually is not interesting as a main issue.

Now let’s talk Logan. I’m saddened when he is reduced to a character purely plagued by external issues. His sole issue is not that he is not listened to. His sole issue is not that he is sometimes treated badly by the other sides. I hate to see a complex character simplified to a few external flaws, because Logan is deeply flawed, like we said above. All the sasi characters are delightfully flawed, it’s something I love about the series. They’re all terrible people sometimes, they just love each other enough to try and be better. But seriously, these guys suck. Love em. But they suck.

4. Logan is flawed.

Deeply flawed. He is prideful. He is insecure. He is afraid of being wrong. He has anger issues. He doesn’t always trust the other sides to help. He thinks he can save Thomas singlehandedly (maybe if he was actual pure logic he could lmao). He has a complicated relationship with his function as Logic and his own emotions. He’s scared of not being taken seriously. His self worth is probably cripplingly low. He struggles to ask for help. And like thirty other things.

Logan is not perfect. If he was, he’d be boring as hell. he’s flawed, and his flaws are part of what make him complex. He’s no bad guy, but he’s also not solely a victim of circumstances either. He’s a lil fcked up in general, and that’s okay. Because they all are.

5. Still love him tho

This is less of an actual topic and more of a “he still needs attention and care to grow and mature while he overcomes these problems because this poor bitch is lonely” section. My boy is deeply flawed but it’s made worse by the current method of communication he, C!Thomas, and the other sides use. He’s being benched and clearly emotionally spent trying to be everything Thomas asks of him while unable to be what Thomas needs. He can’t do it alone, Remus is right. No matter how much Logan tries and tries to change and adapt and be what Thomas wants from him, it’s not going to work. Not when he’s working alone

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Hi! I stumbled across ur blog recently from the “Impact Disney has on TW”, and I agree w a lot of what u said in that post. I feel that maybe it’s bc Disney was a huge part of my childhood that I’m so drawn to these characters and world, and while I do love the game to bits, I have to admit that, when I take off the rose tinted glasses, there r flaws in the story that could have defo been improved. Like u said in the post, the existing Disney lore used in the game kinda restricts it from doing more and it’s kinda sad bc there is a lot of potential. Tho, personally, I will say that one thing twst did good on was making most of their characters interesting w diverse personalities, and even if they aren’t, there’s still opportunities in the future for the character to shine. Like I defo want to see more of Leona cause aside from being hot, he’s made up to be a pretty interesting character, especially w his intelligence, like in the endless Halloween where he understood Ace’s plan to avoid Floyd, and even respected Ace for being witty enough to pull off something like that.

Also, if it’s okay w u, I rly like talking about these kinds of things, like discussing the weak points of a well-made media, so is there another platform where I could talk to u more about or would Tumblr be ideal?

[Referencing this post!]

dbjsvshsvsjejej It was the opposite situation for me 😂 I feel like part of the reason I can critique TWST as much as I do is because I’m not a Disney kid and therefore I don’t have as much nostalgia for The Mouse (TM) and all the properties that his light touches.

I’d like to clarify that I don’t think the use of Disney lore in Twisted Wonderland is an issue; I think it actually adds a lot of creative flavor text and lore into TWST’s own locations, customs, cultures, characters, etc. When I start to see problems arise is when the main story tries to stringently follow the events of Disney movies. Lore ≠ Events, basically! (Using Disney lore to enrich the TWST world and its characters? Good, great!! Trying to perfectly recreate the events of the movie at the risk of creating plot holes and making TWST characters look bland or unintelligent? Er, not so good 😔)

I do think that TWST did an excellent job at taking inspiration from Disney characters but still made every character in its cast unique from their Disney counterparts. Even the dorm leaders, who so closely resemble and embody their respective Great Seven counterpart (to the point where people outside of the fandom mistake the dorm leaders as “children of Disney villains”) stand out as their own individuals, wholly unique from their inspirations. For example, Malleus is like Maleficent in regal composure and coolness, but he also has a lonely, curious, and childish side. Each one has their own interests and hobbies, strengths and weaknesses, vices and virtues. They’re all imperfect idiots in their own ways, and we love them for that, even if we may not have a connection to the original source material (like wow how did Yana make the generic evil hencheels so hot and yet so different from anyone else in the cast INCLUDING their own twin brother????).

Leona really got shafted with chapter 2 😔 I don’t even like the (cat) man that much and I still feel sorry for the entire chapter revolving around him being so poorly constructed. It does him such a massive disservice, which is sad because outside of chapter 2 he is pretty alright and actually quite interesting. Literally anything other than chapter 2 will show you how observant and sharp he is. In his Halloween vignettes, he instantly understands that Jade’s kindness is fake and that Jade wants something out of him in exchange for offering a drink. He can also tell that Jamil is suspicious and looks like he could “kill Kalim in his sleep” despite Jamil putting up a front. Leona guides his underclassmen in Vargas Camp to help them find magical gems more efficiently (because going by what is stated in a textbook is tedious). Even in chapters AFTER 2, we can see Leona offering his scheming wisdom to help himself (chapter 3) while also looking after his dorm when he knows he’ll be absent (chapter 6). OTL Man, compared to all of THAT, chapter 2 really does him dirty...

It’s great that you’re fired up to continue the discussion! ^^ Unfortunately, I wouldn’t recommend using Tumblr asks for prolonged conversations, as it could unintentionally lead to spam or it could take me a long time to respond (sometimes I queue up asks from months ago to go up now 💦). I do have a blog Discord server if you’re interested though! You can probably find me there.

[elfyourmother]

a lot of downer ship talk, very long, and  i am begging you not to reblog this bc i am just talking about my own feelings on my own blog and don’t want to put bees in anybody’s bonnets

hmm but like. talking about Gisele’s conception of love and her inherent polyamorous orientation and worldview here made me think again about Thancred and why I rarely discuss or write Gisele/Thancred fic despite shipping it like burning and having a lot of feelings about it

their relationship arc was very different than with most other wols I’ve seen shipped with him, as a start. there were some heavy (albeit unintentional) parallels with Imani/Kaidan’s relationship arc in Mass Effect, what with one believing the other was dead for ages until they suddenly popped up again, and with Heavensward being their “Horizon moment”, though it wasn’t hostile so much as...many things left unspoken and hurt on Gisele’s part when Thancred inexplicably took this “I want my beloved to be happy so I will let her go” tack totally unasked and undiscussed solely bc of his intense feelings of guilt and his insecurities. and they didn’t reconcile until he damn near died in Amh Araeng all that time later on the First).

of course different isn’t bad, and I have to keep reminding myself that. lord knows fandom would be boring af if everyone wrote ships in the same way and I’m sure there’s an audience out there for this sort of thing, even if niche. but like...I really feel like myself and my wol stick out like a sore thumb in a sea of small white/light wols who are 100% monogamous with him (but for an occasional fridged Haurche before they got together). there is nothing wrong with writing that sort of thing but as a poly femme it’s just really demoralizing sometimes to consider that so many people seem to view Thancred’s promiscuity as a flaw that needs to be overcome somehow, that it was a sign of his emotional immaturity and that with proper character development and growth (and True Love from the right person) he will necessarily “settle down” into being monogamous. I see this idea expressed so frequently in fic and art and it hurts so much because it reminds me of nothing so much as the way Zev and Isabela got treated in da fandom (Zev’s actual romance in the game codified it as canon even), and it dredges up a lot of very old, very bad memories.i mean that one infamous scene at the Stones gets pointed to a lot but it’s like...the multiple gfs weren’t the problem, it was his lack of honesty about it. and it’s always contrasted with him in the latter stages of ShB, especially when it comes to the uri/than shippers. Weary Dadcred is wholly incompatible with Suave Thotcred to these people.

it’s like people think poly and/or promiscuous characters are not allowed to have any kind of depth or complexity, their romantic/sexual proclivities are treated as either something for laughs or a defect they need to work on. and I wholly, emphatically reject that not just wrt him but with Gisele also, her entire characterization and story absolutely puts the lie to that sort of thing. they do not and cannot relate to each other in that way. their conflicts were entirely down to his insecurities and a lack of communication on both their parts, not because they didn’t love each other enough because polyamory. shit, the whole reason Thancred couldn’t hate Haurchefant even though he rather irrationally wanted to at first was because of the compersion he felt seeing Gisele with him. and Gisele had been telling him to shit or get off the pot wrt Y’shtola for actual years. 

but outside of like 1 or 2 people, I really don’t know anyone else who views him that way and so I feel like I need to make myself scarce in those corners of fandom. especially since I also highkey ship him and Minfilia W. like listen I never played 1.0 and went into ARR knowing fuck all about anything and thus them being all “ugh no we don’t feel that way about each other, why would you think that???” in that one “no hetero” scene made me feel like absolute garbage considering I had OT3′d them and Gisele literally right up to that point. It felt like the game itself was shaming me, and then I saw that it was very heavily frowned upon in fandom for Important Lore Reasons and I was quite new and intensely self-conscious about having Wrong Opinions so I just made myself stop and turned it into a V with Gisele as the shared point. And ftr ShB only made the angst worse because it reminded me of it and it was all I could read it as (romantic angst) and I started hurting about it all over again, in large part because I felt like I couldn’t discuss it with anybody at all for fear of being viewed as a freak. The only thing I permitted myself to do was mention OG Minfilia having unrequited feelings for him a la Phedre and Anafiel in the Kushiel books, with her never telling him because he would never have seen her that way. (Never mind that he did end up with Alcuin; and I know some view that as very, very sketchy given the circumstances but I take no issue with how it went down bc D’Angeline social mores were very clear on Alcuin’s agency as a free & consenting adult when he made that decision. But that’s apropos of nothing here bc Min was a grown ass woman in ARR so.)

anyway tl;dr i don’t feel like i or gisele especially belong in thancred enjoyer land bc of my weird and apparently controversial views about him as a character so I tend to stick with fussing over my painfully victorian & catholic elves in public instead. i don’t even have wips that don’t see the light of day, i just straight up don’t write them lol

[thevalleyisjolly]

Ok, I’ve rewritten this post several times because I really want this to be a productive and respectful discussion, but this is a conversation that does need to be started.  I’ve been thinking about the whole cultural appropriation story line in this season of The Unsleeping City so far, and of course I think it’s great that Cody is starting to realize why that’s wrong and that Murph is making it explicitly clear that it is wrong, but I want to reorient the conversation away from Cody now and talk about Ricky as a Japanese-American character.

Because when Zac went “Just to paint a picture for you...” during the museum fight episode, there was quite a bit of surprise from non-Asian people in the fandom that this was really a serious issue, and one that Ricky would be bothered by or speak up about.  But why wouldn’t he?  I mean, the character is Japanese-American, and so is the player.  Doesn’t it make perfect sense that he would at least be a little bothered by a white person appropriating Japanese culture?  Asian fans certainly noticed and pointed it out before that episode aired.  Ricky/Zac certainly noticed - go back through the episodes and observe how every time Cody pulled out a kunai or threw a shuriken, Ricky was cringing or facepalming with an uncomfortable laugh.  Even with seven different camera perspectives to watch at the same time, it should have been pretty clear in the fandom that this was an ongoing issue that would bother and was bothering Ricky.

And I think there are several different facets to this, but the one I want to address is how there’s a tendency in fandom to ignore or erase Ricky’s Japanese heritage.  Not literally (although there is a particular sting every time I see another Ricky fancast where the actor is of another Asian heritage than Japanese - Asian people are not interchangeable).  But especially prior to Season 2, there was a general trend in the fandom that liked to simplify Ricky’s character and overlook him as a complex player character because of traits that are very common in East Asian immigrant cultures.

Perhaps it’s because my heritage is East Asian and I’ve had more exposure to general cultural customs and behaviours among East Asian immigrants, but Zac’s portrayal of Ricky has always read as a very obvious Asian-American child of immigrants to me (and, y’know, Zac and Ricky are actually Asian-American children of immigrants).  Not expressing negative emotions out loud, not verbally articulating thoughts and feelings but expressing them through actions, deferring to other peoples’ needs first instead of expressing his own wants because it’s not about him.  With the caveat that I’m Chinese and not Japanese, these are common practices that I’ve observed in my own family, among friends and acquaintances (of various Asian heritages including but not limited to Chinese), in broader experiences with other East Asian immigrants.

(Asia is not a monolith and I’m not familiar with the immigrant cultures and experiences of people from other Asian heritages.  I specify East Asian here because that is broadly what I can speak on and because Ricky is Japanese, but other Asian people please feel free to discuss your experiences as well)

And obviously, these are not monolith traits observed at all times, I’ve definitely met plenty of East Asian immigrants who did express their emotions loudly, who used their words, who were assertive about their own needs and wants (this is not the post to be getting into different generations of immigration and the culture differences between those generations).  And it also depends on the context - from my own experience, in private within families, both emotions and words can get extremely loud (if you dare to risk the wrath of your elders by arguing with them!)  But my point is that the habits I pointed out above are still relatively common in East Asian immigrant cultures, even if not all individuals follow them at all times.

Particularly prior to Season 2, there was a common perspective in the fandom, usually couched in “uwu, I love that Zac is playing a hot dummy!!” that would go along the lines of “Ricky doesn’t have a character arc, he doesn’t get into conflicts with other people, he doesn’t say anything and is just happy to be there, he’s a shallow character who’s just a himbo.”  All of which I’d dispute, (*insert post here about Ricky as a character reclaiming Asian masculinity*), but I want to focus on how the main traits -refraining from overt emotions, remaining reserved in speech, not bringing up his own needs and wants- that were brought up and used to simplify and dismiss Ricky’s character were traits which are commonly found in East Asian immigrant communities.  The whole “remaining reserved/trying to avoid conflict” is something a lot of East Asian-American kids pick up at home because what you say or don’t say isn’t as important as what you do or don’t do.

And I mean, so much of Ricky is about doing things for people, showing his feelings through his actions, not his words.  Just because he wasn’t getting into PC conflict in Season 1, or expressing his emotions in the same ways as other PCs, doesn’t mean he was just a silent, cheerful himbo.  Which there’s nothing wrong with being a himbo, and it can be particularly empowering in Ricky’s case as an Asian man (see above linked post about Asian masculinity), but that’s not all there is to Ricky’s character!  And don’t get me wrong, I personally love that part of his ongoing character arc in Season 2 is speaking up about his feelings and expressing to other people what he wants (because there’s the “American” part of the Asian-American experience that’s not just about having Asian heritage but is also about negotiating that relationship in a place with different norms and customs).  But it doesn’t negate the “Asian” part of “Asian-American” either, which does impact and shape the way Ricky interacts with people and the world.

In hindsight, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that interest and meta in Ricky skyrocketed once he did start being more vocal and assertive in Season 2, which are common traits in many Western cultures.  And it’s not the only reason that there’s a deeper interest in Ricky now (shout out to all the Asian fans and allies who’ve been really diving into Ricky’s character this season!) and I choose to believe in good faith that it isn’t intentional or malicious (audiences do tend to gravitate more towards tangible moments of conversation and conflict rather than background acting).  But I think we as fans need to start questioning why as a whole, we really didn’t start giving deeper thought to Ricky until he began displaying more typically Western traits, because I think it’s emblematic of how, very subtly and unconsciously, we are used to privileging white “American” behaviour and ignoring or glossing over Asian (immigrant) traits.

In many ways, Ricky prior to Season 2 (and very arguably up until the museum fight), has been perceived in the general fandom as a sort of post-racial American-melting-pot character.  Fans don’t wholly ignore that he’s Japanese-American, you can’t really do that when his family name is “Matsui” and when the Season 1 finale showed that his interactions with the American Dream pretty strongly involved his parents’ immigrant experience.  But knowing intellectually that Ricky is Asian doesn’t always translate to actually perceiving him as an Asian person with all the implications and racial dynamics that entails.

An example of how this manifests: Ricky and Esther become a canon couple.  Numerous posts begin to appear (and periodically still do) that express opinions along the lines of Ricky/Esther being the only tolerable “het” couple.  Ignoring the fact that we don’t know Esther’s sexuality and we only have an offhand Ztream comment for Ricky, Ricky/Esther is a canonical interracial relationship between two non-white people, a Japanese man and a black woman.  Interracial relationships are already extremely poorly represented in media, to say nothing of interracial relationships between non-white people.   Yet we overlook the racial dynamics and only focus on the perceived queerness (or not) of the ship.

Or, for another example, taking the discussion on cultural appropriation and making it all about Cody’s flaws and character development, rather than considering how it affects Ricky as a Japanese man to see a white man disrespecting a part of his cultural heritage.

Anyways, I really urge D20 fans, especially if you’re not Asian, to start questioning and challenging how you really perceive characters, what kind of characteristics you tend to privilege and be drawn to and why, and what kind of fandom environment you shape in your interactions with the show and with other fans.  This is not to say that Ricky should be everyone’s favourite character or that you can’t dislike him, but it is important to think about why we have the preferences that we do.  I especially urge you to remember that Ricky Matsui is a Japanese-American character, that this was a deliberate choice which has been repeatedly brought up by Zac (who is a Japanese-American actor), and that you cannot and should not ignore Ricky’s heritage when you think and talk about him. 

(And if you think Ricky is being an “asshole” to Cody just for being, frankly, mildly perturbed in his direction because Cody spent most of the season so far being very offensive to Ricky’s cultural heritage, I really encourage you to think critically about your opinions and why you hold them.  And if, after thinking critically, you still don’t see why they’re wrong, please don’t let the door hit you on the way out.  Your conscious racism is not something that is welcome in this fandom, and Asian fans are not here to teach you better)

((White and non-Asian people can and should reblog this, but don’t clown around.  Productive, respectful discussion is welcome.  Asian fans are more than welcome to add their perspectives/agree/disagree, especially people with Japanese heritage))

[kendrixtermina]

Uncomplicating Tritype: Synergy vs. Conflict

I would actually not echo the common advice of "nail your core type first" because ppl often mistype within their tritype, & often when you have it its easy to find the core by triads or the dominant center speech patterns thing.

However, for tritype to bring illumination rather than confusion, it bears to keep a principle in mind:

Tritype is about Synergy, not Inner Conflict

What does this mean?

Look at the types in someones tritype as like a venn diagram of possible traits. A person of that tritype will have those overlapping traits in the center of the diagram. That which all the types in the trifix have in common.

You can also look at it as a modifier that describes where you are in the "range" of your core type.

Say youre a 7.

Slap a 2 fix on it, and the sociability & optimism of the 7 get enhanced, since those are traits that 2 and 7 share. Give them a 3 fix and they will be even more industrious, energetic 6 even better smooth-talkers than the average 7. Slap a 4 on it & it will enhance the artistic and intellectual side of 7 but also make them yet more prone to dissatisfaction & frustration.

Hence why some tritypes can have a wholly different vibe despite being just 1 number away, because the overlap is different.

So what's that bit about inner conflict?

There's that common scenario of a person being like "I probably have 8 and 4 in my tritype" because they feel a polarity or conflict between wanting to be strong but also identifying with the underdog... otherwise known as "being a 6".

But you also see the odd 9 explaining various facets of themselves this way, which they'r predisposed to see as facets because, well, theyre 9s. its that whole fragmentation thing.

But knowing this trap helps you evade it with the aid of this simple rule:

Assume that any big inner conflict you experience (especially if its one of the main things often causes you grief) would be part of your core type & hence an important hint about what it may be.

Attachment Types in particular (9,6,3) inherently experience some conflict between fitting ppl's expectations & being their true selves. Some comply most of the time, some try to defy or resist the expectations, most are somewhere in between depending on the situation - rebel 6 vs compliant 6, stubborn 9 vs yielding 9, the tough competitive 3 vs the approval-seeking side.

It came up in a discussion with @its-an-inxp-again and @jerdle-typology how we generally think of the "counter 3" as the default & overlook the gloomier 9s. Looking at 3 as only 'oily salesman' or 'ellbow mentality' is kind of like looking at cp 6 as only the aggression without looking at the underlying fear, doubt or questioning.

I would add that tough-acting in 3s can be compensation for being seen as flawed or a loser in early life (Tom Cordon's materials describe compensation in 3s pretty well - & a bunch of those then mistype as 4s because they feel 'flawed', but they're overcompensating for it agressively rather than pointing to it as a reason for why they dont have to do their homework.)

Asuka from Evangelion is a good example of a "counter 3" where the compensatory nature of it is actually adressed. She's introduced as very competitive, viciously aggressive to her co pilots & putting up this big front of not caring about anyone's opinion but her own. At first she looks like a shallow self-obsessed bitch who is just mean to the other main characters. But then, bam! big reveal! The whole time she was secretly desperate for ppls attention & love and she is only acting so proud as a compensation for her terrible family situation & actually pretty low self esteem. She only hates her 9  colleague/roommate whom she views as meek and servile because shes rejecting the part of herself that wants others approval very much. (& then her final monologue in the last rebuild movie went like - "Give me somewhere to belong! I just wanted a pat on the head" & ends with her being told that shes enough just being herself)

But if you look at many content creators that are 3s there's many that are quite recognizeable as heart types & wanting your approval & just wanting to hear that ppl are proud of them. They don't come off like oily salesmen at all but rather like overeager golden retrievers. (Ferdinand from 3 houses is a good fictional example. Or heck, Naruto of the eponymous anime)

MBTI feelers in general tend to be the less "onion layered" versions of their enneagram types, whatever the type is. Maybe because they are more talented in  & have more conscious control over processing feelings so they need less psychic shielding - or because it is harder for them to keep up & maintain it. Though given a tragic enough backstory you can get some very oniony feelers, and sincere thinkers are hardly nonexistent.

But pretty much any type is complex enough to have its own particular dilemmas.

Tl;dr: Any big inner conflict you feel is very likely to be a product of your core type. Tritype is less a conflict between the patterns but rather the overlap between them.

also, hug a 3 today

[veronicamarsconfessions]

Editor’s Note: TV moves on, but we haven’t. In our feature series It Still Stings, we relive emotional TV moments that we just can’t get over. You know the ones, where months, years, or even decades later, it still provokes a reaction? We’re here for you. We rant because we love. Or, once loved. And obviously, when discussing finales in particular, there will be spoilers:

There was a time when Veronica Mars’ legacy was that of a beloved cult show that was canceled too soon by network executives who didn’t understand it. With the arrival of a crowd-funded feature film in 2014, its legacy evolved as one of the first shows to see the benefits of a revival. Now, it simply brings thoughts of sadness, rage, and betrayal.

When Hulu first announced it was reviving the series for an eight-episode fourth season, the news was met with resounding joy from a vocal and passionate fanbase that had never given up hope it would return after the crowd-funded feature film reunited Kristen Bell’s Veronica, a pint-sized private eye with a sharp mind and even sharper wit, with her one true love, the reformed bad boy Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring). But the fire that had burned for more than a decade and twice-revived the show was suddenly extinguished in a single, heartbreaking, and wholly unnecessary moment when Logan was killed by a bomb left in Veronica’s car shortly after the couple exchanged wedding vows.

I can still remember the shock I felt when I reached the end of the screeners Hulu sent. The whole thing felt kind of surreal, like if I didn’t acknowledge what had happened out loud maybe it didn’t actually happen. But it did happen. And I’m still filled with a fiery rage and a deep sadness when I think about it now, nearly two years removed from the episode in question, because needlessly killing Logan was a betrayal of the worst kind. The character’s untimely demise felt engineered for nothing more than shock value, like it existed only to leave Veronica even more isolated and cynical. But the interviews that series creator Rob Thomas gave in the aftermath, in which he tried to defend the decision, revealed something much worse while only driving the knife he’d stuck in fans’ backs deeper.

“In order for us to keep doing these, I think it needs to become a detective show—a noir, mystery, detective show—and those elements of teenage soap need to be behind us,” Thomas told TV Guide of the decision to kill Logan, noting that he also hoped to take Veronica out of Neptune and on the road in potential future seasons. “I sort of viewed these eight episodes as a bridge to what Veronica Mars might be moving forward.”

Instead of being a bridge to the future, it was a bridge to a grave of Thomas’ own making. Not since How I Met Your Mother ignored literal years of character development to deliver a half-cooked series finale the creators had come up with several years prior has a show felt so out of touch with its characters, the story it was telling, and its fans. Thomas’ decision to kill Logan is the perfect example of a creator being unable to recognize their own biases to the detriment of their creation.

He wrongly believed that Veronica needed to be hardened by years of nonstop torment and trauma in order to prove she was a great detective whose story was worth continuing. In putting her through the emotional wringer (again) after spending the entire season attempting to dig into her flaws and determine the root of her problems, Thomas swiftly undermined his heroine and her trauma with one misguided act of devastating violence. The fact that Thomas then chose to also skip over Veronica’s grieving process entirely reveals how little he ultimately thought of Logan or Veronica’s relationship with him, which had pushed her to be better and work through her longtime trust issues.

It is common knowledge by now that Logan was not intended to be Veronica’s love interest when the show debuted, but the fans took to the character more than they took to Teddy Dunn’s Duncan “He Used to Be My Boyfriend” Kane, so the latter was jettisoned from the show after Season 2. And in the end, Logan turned out to be a much better partner and match for Veronica’s personality. So what’s truly unfortunate about Thomas killing Logan, and killing him so violently, is that his thought process during Season 4 has the potential to color everything that happened in the show up until the moment the bomb went off. There is also the issue that Thomas apparently believed that Veronica achieving some level of romantic happiness was a one-way ticket to the grave, as if shows like Friday Night Lights hadn’t already soundly debunked the myth that happy couples did not make great TV.

Obviously an emotional family drama does not play by the same rules as noir, but Veronica Mars had already proven that you don’t need to play firmly within the sandbox of the genre to excel creatively. So why should the more adult version of the show attempt to put itself back in the box to be confined to something more traditional or stereotypical? Furthermore, love and contentment are not character flaws or weaknesses. They are not an element of “teenage soap,” as Thomas put it. In fact, one could argue that by allowing herself to believe that she and Logan could have a happy future together regardless of everything she’d witnessed in her line of work, Veronica had shown more personal and emotional growth in the show’s fourth season than she had in the entire run of the series.

At the heart of the matter, though, is one simple, glaring truth: Logan’s death was a fundamental misreading of the entire Veronica Mars fandom and what they liked about the show. Storytelling should never be dictated by the fans and their desires—one of the loudest and most common complaints critics had about the movie was that it felt too much like Thomas was just giving the fans what they wanted rather than attempting to tell a good story—but when your fandom has dug their hands into the cold soil of the TV graveyard to raise your show from the dead, you should probably have a grasp on what exactly the fans like about it in the first place. After all, they’re the reason you still exist and will be one of the final arbiters of whether or not you get to continue to exist in the future. And the idea that fans would somehow be interested in watching a version of Veronica Mars in which Veronica was on the road, completely alone, and Logan was blown to bits is just a wild miscalculation.

This isn’t to suggest Veronica Mars could not ever survive without Logan. That would be to undercut the rest of the show and the woman Veronica has become since we first saw her cutting Wallace (Percy Daggs III) off the flagpole in the series’ pilot. But there is a difference in writing Logan out of the show’s ongoing story arc—his secretive Naval career offered the perfect out—and violently killing him in an attempt to shock viewers and show just how resilient your heroine is in the face of trauma. A survivor of rape who had to solve the murder of her best friend (Amanda Seyfried) while still in high school because the sheriff’s department was too inept to do it (or simply did not care to do it), Veronica had already been through more in her young life than anyone should ever have to live through.

Although Logan’s death led to her finally seeing a therapist, it seemed to be a one-time thing, so nothing has really changed. Veronica is still the same person she was before the show returned, except now she’s also a widow and Thomas has alienated an entire fanbase to the point that many fans, though likely not all, have no interest in revisiting her story. And they’re not likely to either, since Hulu chose not to move forward with another season.

So much for that bridge to the future.

[kiranatrix]

I feel like the nature of Light’s ideology and his methods get caricatured a great deal in the fandom (especially by those who only viewed the anime). I keep seeing popular memes about Light killing petty shoplifters who are only attempting to feed their family and I always get the sense that they’re largely inaccurate (for the most part). Light notices in the Yotsuba arc that Kira’s sentencing spares those: who’ve served their sentences and improved their ways, who committed justifiable crimes, and who have shown remorse. So it feels off to seeing portrayed that way, especially when Light’s elimination of innocents (such as the FBI agents, Naomi, etc...) are usually for strategic purposes, intended to help him progress ahead. Not to mention this pervasive belief that Light apparently didn’t know that he would be bound to sentence some innocents to death (with his large kill count per day). Wouldn’t it be more likely that Light knew that it was inevitable and was willing to sacrifice those lives for “the greater good,” in his view?

This is a doozy of an ask, anon. But it is GLORY bc these are all excellent things for me to ramble about Light (thank you!). I’ll take them point by point, strap in cause this is a bit long. *cracks knuckles*

You’re absolutely right that fandom often boils Light’s character and ideology down to a few basic elements that are distorted, mostly to drag him. Let’s be honest-- it’s fun to drag characters, even our favs-- and pretty much everyone in Death Note deserves it. But it does become annoying when its inaccurate, like with your example about who Kira focused on killing and some others I see. To be clear, this isn’t any kind of apology for the bastardly things Light DID do, but clarifying what he was and wasn’t about.

Did Light kill petty criminals?

The only time it is mentioned that Light kills criminals for non-serious crimes is when he was under surveillance by L (the infamous potato chip scene) and had to kill someone on the news right then, as well as the immediate coverup. In that circumstance, he couldn’t afford to be picky-- he needed L to see a signature Kira death (heart attack) when Light supposedly couldn’t be doing it. The crimes that appeared on the news that night (in his chip bag TV lol) ended up being non-serious criminals, and Light wasn’t so thrilled about this. 

Mainly because it meant he had to cover his tracks and kill a few more minor criminals so it really did look like Kira’s work. 

But his focus was putting himself in the clear with L; those minor criminals were incidental, and when he had choice/freedom again, he did not focus on them. The ruse didn’t completely work because L thought minor criminals dying was suspicious since it deviated from Kira’s usual MO. So, L knew the real focus.

This was a strategic move in service of, versus reflecting, Light’s ideology. This is something we see pop up again and again for Light. He is willing to do ‘wrong’ for the greater ‘good.’ We also see his distaste for killing petty criminals later when Light rebukes Mikami’s off-script killings in his thoughts. If Kira had been acting this way all along, then the Task Force wouldn’t have been surprised and Light wouldn’t have been pissed off that Mikami was doing it. 

Kira was looking for violent criminals who had escaped justice, that’s his main goal. He’s also disagreeing with Mikami’s methods of punishing wrong-doers who paid their debt to society (as opposed to the Death Row criminals I discuss below who haven’t ‘paid their debt’ yet). He doesn’t want people to fear Kira and thinks shooting fish in a barrel, so to speak, would do that. His ideology is not punitive; to him, its about prevention. Petty crime wasn’t on his radar until he had to make that a temporary focus for his safety.

Did Light focus on criminals already in prison? 

I’ve seen plenty of posts in the Death Note tag grousing about how Light was ‘dumb’ because he only focused on criminals in prison, but that’s not wholly accurate. The first two names he wrote were criminals he witnessed in the process of a crime with actual victims that needed help (a hostage scenario where the perp had already murdered people, and a man about to rape). Then he went for the Big Bads in the news- the most vicious criminals world-wide.

Other than criminals at large, he DID kill some criminals in prison. The times he did so were:

1) Killing criminals on Death Row who, in the eyes of law enforcement, “deserved the death penalty several times over.” These are criminals who had already been sentenced to die and Kira enacted the ‘justice.’

2) During Light’s ‘testing phase’ of the Death Note when he was trying to understand the rules in a population he could control 

3) When he was trying to be conspicuous about deaths for L’s benefit, like throwing off the assumption that Kira was a student. Light knew that those deaths would be found immediately and attributed to Kira. 

For 2 and 3, these criminals were likely to be on Death Row given what was said by INTERPOL about who Kira was killing behind bars. Ironically, even L thought Death Row criminals needed to die-- he chose Lind L Tailor from Death Row for his stunt, and said on TV he’d seek the death penalty for Kira. Hmm.

Why did Light kill innocent people?

The innocent people that Light killed include Raye Penber, the rest of the FBI agents in Japan investigating Kira, and Naomi Misora. L and Watari might be considered innocent per Kira’s ideology (Watari had probably murdered people but L had probably not, directly). Rem technically killed L and Watari, but Light certainly wanted them to die and orchestrated it that way. The innocent people that Light WOULD have killed include the Task Force (Mogi, Aizawa, Matsuda, Ide) and the SPK (Halle, Gevanni, Rester, Near,) if he’d won in the warehouse.

The main thread tying all these people together? They were all imminent threats to Light and were actively trying to stop and/or kill him. Killing them would never have crossed his mind if that hadn’t been the case. THAT DOESN’T MEAN HE DIDN’T ENJOY IT. Taking out his enemies was something Light did savor, he really loved that win. But it wasn’t like he wiped out the entire FBI or Japanese police force. Those were not his targets; these were individuals who threatened his goal and life, and he saw their killing as self-defense. 

Did Light kill any criminals who were innocent or wrongly convicted?

It’s certainly possible that he did but the manga never touches on it. Given that his MO for killing incarcerated criminals was limited to Death Row, he probably felt like those were safe bets (we know that’s not always the case in the real world, of course). But let’s say that Light, in canon, found out he’d killed someone wrongfully convicted. In the beginning of his journey as Kira (at 17-18), I honestly don’t think he’d given this a lot of thought. What’s funny is that Light was naively, and paradoxically, putting a lot of faith in the human justice system while simultaneously enacting his own justice that relied on having zero faith in the traditional channels. Makes my head spin, but Light is a fascinating character because of that kind of thinking. He championed sweeping ideals of right and wrong, but couldn’t be bothered with getting in the murky details. 

But by the time he’d grown up and matured some, especially after becoming part of the police force himself, he would have know it was a possibility. At that point, I agree that he’d view it as an inevitable sacrifice in service of, but not directly reflecting, his ‘greater good,’ like the previous choices he’d made. 

So why is Kira’s ideology so often distorted? For one thing, his thinking is kind of convoluted. The anime has less nuance about what Light’s about, and many people just watch that. Another common reason I see for this is that someone really, really hates Light for defeating L, and once we dislike someone it becomes easier to roll in more and more unlikeable qualities into a nasty villain pie. Any trait that is ‘bad’ can be overlaid onto Light because he is ‘bad,’ so it fits right?? Ha....no. He has plenty of bad traits and actions of his own to drag him for without inventing new ones. At the same time, I see L’s flaws and negative traits/actions being hand-waved away or justified because he is their fav. It happened with Minoru, too. 

[wrenhyperfixates]

Loki Series Thoughts—The Variant

With the release of episode 2, I’m back with another analysis. Spoilers ahead!! This will be a combination of personal thoughts, theories, and objective analysis. This is overall, a positive review, so if you do not want to see that, I would not recommend continuing to read. I am however more than open to some friendly debate and discussion over any and all of the following points, whether you agree or disagree with them.

With all that being said, let’s dive in:

I feel gypped on the Holding out for a Hero fight scene. I mean, I liked how the scene was shot, especially with the whole loudspeaker thing (it set the mood very well), but where’s Loki fighting to that song?

Alright, I might as well address the elephant in the room: Is Loki OOC? Well, for my money, the answer is both yes and no. And I don’t mean to be wishy-washy; it really kind of depends on how you define OOC and/or who exactly you take this Loki to be.

What does OOC mean? To me, the literal definition of “out of character” would be the character acting in a way unlike they’ve been seen acting before. Likewise, according to Collins Dictionary it would be defined as “not typical of the apparent character of a person or thing.” Now, that’s a bit too black and white. What if you have a character in a new situation, how do you know how they’d react? By analyzing their past actions and seeing if they line up. And if you stop at this point and deem Loki entirely OOC, well you’re allowed to and that’s valid. I, however, would not say entirely is the word to use. Somewhat, yes, but not terribly and not inexcusably so. I’ll come back to this in a moment.

Who is this Loki? He’s the one right after the Avengers, of course, but he’s something different too. Think about it, the whole series is centered around how different choices can shape the very fabric of the universe. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that changes in Loki’s story would cause him to behave differently than what we’ve seen before? This is, in essence, a different Loki, albeit one who’s own narrative is shaped by a shared backstory with ours. It even says it on his jacket in big, bright letters: VARIANT. So while he shouldn’t be too dissimilar from the Loki we know, I do not think we can entirely look to the old to determine the new.

Now that we have that out of the way, we’re back to my somewhat noncommittal answer of the original question. Loki has some moments that seem OOC, but almost always has a (valid) reason for acting that way, both in and out of universe.

Loki’s OOC moments:

◦ The Renaissance Fair: And I by no means think this applies to his whole spiel. In fact, I think it was largely in character. What got me was “Which is absurd, because my people are, by nature, gullible fools. A trait that I, the God of Mischief, exploited time and time again simply by listening.” And then again, right after B-15 announces they are one unit away from red line. Though, my issue with the latter is how rushed it is. This could make sense because he’s worried about having time to finish his ploy. It’s a small thing to harp on for sure, though, for the point I am trying to make.

◦ In the hallway: This is where I think he’s most OOC. It feels rambley and pointless. More a desperate plea than a calculated last resort.

◦ With the librarian: I was hesitant to put this one in, but he seemed a bit unsure at points in his dialogue here. The inflection of his voice in the middle just sounded, like I said, unsure.

◦ The cafeteria (both times): More so in the first. The metaphor was, like Loki himself said, clumsy. But what I really think is OOC here is how excitable and obvious he is after Mobius concedes, “Not bad.” And the only thing on their second cafeteria chat is at the very end. His response of “I know” to being called clever, once again has an inflection to it that I would not typically associate with Loki—it’s too pronounced.

◦ Pompeii (beginning of scene only): Loki seems pretty flippant about the whole thing in the immediate moments after their arrival. (As an aside, I don’t think he’s necessarily unsympathetic here; he knows what happens and to keep himself safe and prove his point, he can’t branch the timeline.) To be quite honest, I think he might just be goading Mobius as he’s done to our God of Mischief many a time already.

◦ Before Roxxcart: He seems nervous, and his speech is a bit rushed again. Then again, this is something he wants—to be better. I’d think he’d be a bit more calm about it, though. Then again, with everything that’s happened recently, maybe it’s a natural response?

The reasons why he seems OOC:

◦ It’s on purpose: He knows what they think of him. If he plays into that, even in an exaggerated way, they’re not going to call bs on it.

◦ He’s been through a lot/Not our Loki: Like I mentioned earlier, not only is this a new environment, it’s a new Loki. He’s been shaped differently from our Loki because of how he was immediately thrust into the world of the TVA after many traumatic experiences.

◦ It’s an acting choice: No, it’s not one you have to agree with. But I believe Tom could be doing it to highlight moments where Loki is saying things he personally does not actually believe or that he knows others believe. Just to distinguish from the more calculated lying he does.

So, are there moments when Loki acts OOC? Yes. Is it inexplicable? No. Are the answers to those questions always the same from person to person? No, because like so many things, it’s all about how you frame it. And, of course, every person perceives each moment of time through their own eyes, with their own thoughts, in their own ways.

Loki has plenty of moments in character, too. In fact, I’d say he was overwhelmingly in character, for my understanding of it. In the earlier parts of the Renaissance Fair he is witty and lying with ease. At all other points that I didn’t mention, I found his vocabulary and inflection perfectly fine. I can’t think of any one moment his hand gestures particularly stuck out to me as out of place. And during his impromptu magic lesson, he seemed so sure of himself. He has snark without being rude. His interactions with “the variant” are on point. Even in the majority of the Pompeii scene, he’s not acting OOC, he’s just acting. He wanted to make an over-exaggerated splash to test his theory. Between that and speaking Latin, aren’t we seeing his cunning and wit?

Well, with that divisive and slightly negative topic out of the way, let’s move onto Mobius, his character, and his role in the show. He’s a bit different than the Mobius we see last time. Don’t get me wrong, there’s still moments where he seems to be manipulating Loki, or at least attempting to (the walk to the elevator; dangling a meeting with the Time Keepers in front of Loki’s face). In episode two, he’s presented as a victim. Mobius is just as much a slave to the “sacred timeline” as those living in it. He can’t go into the world and do the things he wants to do. Even any questions about time that Loki has, he answers seemingly by rote (perhaps drilled into his brain through propaganda?) or he can’t explain well (note, two times he somewhat hesitantly deems what Loki says as “an oversimplification”).

We’re also told that Mobius has a soft spot for broken things. That seems like a bold thing to say if Mobius hasn’t done something big before. Has he possibly ever used a variant like this before? Could he even possibly have a deeper connection to the rouge variant? Probably not on that second one, but it’s not wholly impossible. Though, going back to “has he done this before?” (and get ready for me to get absolutely insane now) do the rings on the table have deeper symbolic meaning pertaining to this? Yes, it could have just been for comedy, it may have just been a cool shot, but why put so much focus and emphasis on it like that with the camera and dialogue if it has no significance. Basically what I mean is, it’s symbolic of Mobius messing up. He messed up Renslayer’s table, maybe he botched a mission. Or maybe he even screwed up when working with another variant. Regardless of whether that’s symbolism, we do see him have a soft spot for the people at the hurricane shelter.

Mobius’s role in episode 1 was trying to break down Loki and recruit him. In this episode, he was more of a guide, more of a friend. Yes, there are lines like at Roxxcart when he says he knows he can’t be trusted, but there’s also a lot of camaraderie between the two. By the time Loki and Mobius are having their second chat in the cafeteria, they seem familiar with each other, engaging in what seems to be a friendly bout of verbal sparring. They seem, at very least, fond of each other, and I believe Mobius is, to some extent, on Loki’s side.

In fact, Mobius and Loki share something in common; they want something more than what the time keepers have preordained for them, even if Loki is more ready to admit that. Mobius is still, however, playing the part he’s been assigned, his “glorious purpose.” And, yes that includes some digs like that at Loki, whether Loki’s in the room or not, and whether they’re subtle or not. Is “I’ll delete him myself. He’s really arrogant.” really a dig though? I mean, it sounds like he could just be saying what Renslayer wants to hear. And when he talks about Loki wanting something more, wanting to change, I don’t think he’s actually talking about Loki. With the inflection and stage whisper, it almost sounds like he’s projecting. Remind you of anyone? Mobius will likely end up helping Loki, or may even turn into a tragic hero, his fatal flaw being his unwillingness to admit the TVA is not infallible.

The TVA workers. Isn’t odd how some of them have names and others don’t? Do they name themselves? More likely, I think whoever is in charge of a branch of the TVA gets a name, and all underlings get the less than human mix of letters and numbers with which to identify themselves. It also seems that the people with the most personality are the ones with names. B-15 has a personality, sure, but it’s more just in line with “I work for the TVA. This is what they want. I will do exactly that.” It’s almost lacking something that the named characters have lying beneath the surface of their character arc.

And then she gets enchanted, and if Wunmi Mosaku wasn’t already shining with the limited story for the character, oh boy she is now. When B-15 comes to, she is scared. It’s on her face and in that little shuddered breath. And when asked what happened, she seemed so unsure, timid. I’m definitely interested to see how that progresses!

Back to the workers in general, they didn’t seem as sad about their coworkers this episode as in the last. Even with C-20 it seemed to be a respect thing. I mean, they reset the timeline with their colleagues lying dead on the floor. I think in a lot of scenarios, dead soldiers would be given a proper burial.

Ravonna Renslayer and the time keepers. Renslayer is even more steadfastly devoted to the sacred timeline and the time keepers than anyone else. Why? Well, I think it’s because she is the time keepers. Any time they’re brought up, it’s quickly explained away with a simple “they’re busy.” That’s because they’re not real. But Renslayer sure seems chummy with them, huh? What other reason then its her timeline she has everyone protecting.

Then again, she may only be second in command, but not to the time keepers. (I mean, omniscient and omnipotent beings who are relatively aloof and unreachable? They’re perfectly set up to be revealed as not real. Plus the constant non-answers when it comes to them, I’ll be more surprised if they’re real than if they’re not.) But in the comics, her plot line is interwoven with that of Kang the Conqueror, a time traveler, among many other things. Even more likely than her being in charge, is him being in charge.

And now for the variant. It’s not Lady Loki, we all know that right? Ok, that comes off a bit harsh, but she is listed as Sylvie in the credits for languages other than English. This was also who Sophia Di Martino was previously listed as on IMDb. I won’t get into her story in the comics now, but I’d bet we’ll take elements of that in her story in the series. And if you’re still not convinced that’s who this is, why have her blonde? It just doesn’t make sense to change that about her. Plus, Sylvie takes on the name of Enchantress. What does Loki say her powers are? Enchantments. She doesn’t want to be called Loki either. She does say the main Loki variant is her, but if she’s framing him or taking on his persona for her crimes, why stop now? Her language is distinctly un-Loki like, too. She also boldly declares “This isn’t about you.” And finally, there’s the foreshadowing in Loki’s line, “I would never treat me like this.”

I only wonder what her motives are. Is she looking for revenge on the Loki from her timeline? Or perhaps she’s working fo him? Maybe he’s dead and she’s avenging him? Or he’s alive and she wants to grab his attention? Maybe she has motives all her own. And what of Mephisto? Does he actually play a part in this? I’m just spitballing, I need more information.

When Loki finds the file. No. Like. Give a detailed description of this please!!!!! He thinks he’s evil. That he causes all that death with malicious intent. Even if he doesn’t, there’s clear pain over the destruction of Asgard. And look at his eyes, the only thing we’re shown as he process the information fully for the first time. He’s hurt, confused. Disappointed and angry with himself. The bit we’re shown of his face before it zooms in on his eyes portrays this too. He looks so lost in that shot. And he looks to be tearing up a bit.

Maybe I’m just being dumb, but what does it mean 9,719 casualties? Didn’t they all escape? His face as the scene zooms back out is... defeated. Scared. Scarred. He’s barely holding it together. Then something else catches his eye, giving him an idea. And I’m sure more than anything he wants to be distracted from the storm in his mind. So yeah, he’ll happily throw himself into his work. The epiphany on his face as he’s still recovering and discovering new things is just so perfect too.

The confrontation at Roxxcart. This was really well done, I felt. Loki felt in character, and he was fighting smartly, using what he could. Because clearly the enchantment also lent Sylvie’s powers to the person. But Loki manages to hang in there and dig for information while keeping the battle going.

He gets mad, too. He starts yelling. And that makes sense. He wants answers, and for so long he’s been denied them; it’s a recurring theme in his life. He’s losing control of himself a bit here. And that’s a large part of the reason why he goes through the time door. Loki doesn’t want to lose control again. I don’t even know if it was exactly a betrayal of the TVA. I don’t think he’s on their side, but I think he just saw that he couldn’t lose the variant again. Because for what he says his plan is, he wouldn’t have followed the variant. However, he does because he wants answers.

What about that plan though? I’m working a bit in reverse with this scene I realize, but bear with me. That look on his face as he stands, it’s calculating. I think he’s lying about his plan. I think he’s trying to bring the variant in, not work with them.

Also, I’m so concerned for C-20. What’s real? I want to know!! But we’re already getting a feel for Sylvie’s powers. The people she enchants live, but they’ve seen something they’d rather not. What other reason is there for the similar way B-15 and C-20 act? And I know she mentions telling Sylvie the time keeper’s location, but really, it’s their location to her knowledge. It doesn’t necessarily mean they exist. Or maybe it’s just Kang.

And Mobius at the very end of this scene, the very end of the confrontation, the very end of the episode. The last thing is him calling after Loki. And he sounds genuine, almost. It didn’t sound like he was fearful for his own life, but rather more worried for Loki. Though, maybe I have that confused and it’s worried about Loki. Whatever the reason, it sounded like genuine fear in his voice to me.

Finally, some random thoughts that didn’t fit anywhere:

Gugu Mbatha-Raw is so talented. I mean, I got a lot of emotion from Renslayer. Confident and proper at the beginning, panicked and afraid at the end. Even in her talks with Mobius, there’s many subtleties to pick apart. I think it’s heavily implied through her words and actions that she’s evil.

The casual magic use was great. Hope there’s more.

Why do setting off reset charges in the main timeline have a different effect than setting them off in the branch timelines? Like shouldn’t it wipe it, not make branches?

Loved all the rapport happening in the episode. There was a lot of good dialogue.

Despite the manipulations going on, I like the relationship forming between Mobius and Loki. I think they make a nice little duo.

I love all the Loki variants we’re shown. Very, very interesting. Just give us Jötunn Loki for real, please.

Loki was very clever this episode, particularly with figuring out you could hide in an apocalypse and at Roxxcart.

Does Roxxcart have a link to Roxxon?

Their little motto thing is a bit creepy. “For all time. Always.” Sounds like it’s just part of their propaganda.

“You see, I know something children don’t. No one bad is ever truly bad. And no one good is ever truly good.” I love this line. Seriosuly, why not use this sound bite in the trailers? Loki himself is morally gray, and I love that we’re addressing this fact of life; the world is not all black and white, not all good and bad.

CASEY!!!

In the second cafeteria scene, there is a guard in full armor just standing there. I guess they’re monitoring the employees. How likely does whoever is in charge think it would be for an uprising of sorts to happen?

Between sleepy Loki, him putting that jacket on, his hair, that talking to himself and that annoyed little shh in the library, and just being the happy goof that he is deep down (Miss Minutes scene and salad metaphor) Loki was just so adorable this episode.

I think it’s important Mobius said sorry when talking about ragnarok. He knows Loki cares.

Mobius does kind of understand Loki when saying he has an “insecure need for validation.” He’s right, honestly, albeit harsh. But that’s all he wanted throughout the Thor movies too, not to be looked down upon. To be treated as equal. As worthy.

Of Mobius’s two options for why he’s sticking his neck out for Loki, I think they both hold some truth.

Interesting how TVA agents like to keep souvenirs from lives they can never live. Though maybe Renslayer keeps them for a different reason. Like from timelines that were particularly a threat to order—her order.

The score is still on point. Loving the theremin.

Wow an explanation pertaining to time travel I’ve found no holes in. It’s unstable and they have to enter in real time (furthest point on the branch) because of that. Ok, yeah. Checks out.

I’m so glad they kept the title card from last week. I like it so much better than the one from the trailers, and it fits the vibe of the show better.

Is it bad I want all these new branches to red line? I think it seems a little too early into the show for that to happen, but maybe a few of them will? Perhaps improbable but not impossible. But think of the chaos! What better playground for the God of Mischief than a universe thrown into disarray.

And now, my final thoughts. A very good episode with a mainly in character Loki. I like how we’re slowly learning more with what’s going on, while still keeping an element of mystery. Though, Marvel’s twists aren’t landing as well as I think they were hoping (assuming I’m right of course. I’ve seen plenty of other people who were thinking along the same lines though, so). It’s lacking a certain je ne sais quoi that Glorious Purpose had, but I still enjoyed it. Overall, 8/10. Let’s just hope my rating doesn’t go down point with every episode.

Like something I said? Totally disagree? Really want to talk more about one point? Whatever it is, I’d love to hear! Reblogs and comments are appreciated. My ask box is always open, and anon is always on. I look forward to hearing your thoughts! Thanks :)

Me, after not liking one, but two episodes:

[it-sy-bit-sy]

The ending of Attack on Titan: a shallow analysis

(I don't think I should have to put a spoilers alert on a blog about the ENDING OF AOT, but in general if you mind being spoiled on a series, I advise you to refrain from attending discussions about the body of work until you've finished it in its entirety/come up to speed on the current chapter/episode. Screw hype dude, do you like being hurt? Also for the TLDR, it’s that Attack on Titan explores the cycle of hatred (Eren’s journey) AND love which is why Mikasa and Ymir become relevant at the end of the story.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREFACE

Since the newly added panels of AOT’s ending have been likened by some to the ending of Naruto, I'd like to say that Naruto's end truly hurt me; the way it flows into Boruto is so contrived it burns. A story that's always centered around powerful ninja bloodlines fighting political wars suddenly introduced aliens that harvest planets for energy as the super antagonist, and additionally they're the source of all our characters' powers as well as the jinchuriki and tailed beasts themselves. Then when you look at the plot of Boruto which heavily relies on the Otsutsuki clan as an antagonistic force, their whole existence feels like the transition from Dragon Ball straight into the first DBZ arc with Goku learning he’s really part of an alien race that was meant to destroy Earth.

I didn't detect so forced a role in the ending of AOT, but it's absolutely plausible to speculate that the alternate ending was influenced for this reason, as we know Attack on Titan wasn't produced through Isayama's involvement alone. Certain compromises are made when operating as a team, though it would be wonderful if the original intent of authors were more absolute in the world of production than they are known to be.

And as much as I don't enjoy half-hearted continuations of series for a royalty check, I ALMOST can't blame them for doing it...it creates (many) happy fans, more jobs, and Isayama gets his royalty check. The rest of us suffer but hey, artists need money I guess... 🥀 Moving on. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. Eren's development as a character

I never saw Eren's goal steered in the direction of breaking the cycle of revenge or hatred. He was acting wholly in his own interests. He's intensely selfish, doesn't want to change his views, and exists in the story to further the cycle itself. According to me, Chapters 129 and 131 perfectly explain his motivations for the rumbling.

Now before I go on, I'd like to bring a particular scene to mind. I do remember him saying this once (to Historia who had just told him killing the rest of the world is unjustifiable and wrong):

Yes, he said that, but I don't think that is what he ever intended the rumbling to be used for.

After he stated that 80% of humanity was wiped out so Paradis will be safe for the time being, he neglected to answer Armin's questions in 139: "Did you really need to go that far? Are you sure you did all of this for our sakes?" We may also consider the thoughts he chose NOT to share in chapter 131:

That combined with this excerpt from 129 is pretty much all there is to Eren's convictions.

Those are the same words he said in Chapter 2 after his mother died.

So despite his brief period of self-loathing when considering 1) the countless lives in survey corps sacrificed for his sake, 2) being confronted with his and his father's involvement in the Reiss family, 3) everything he learned about his enemy--that all titans are formerly human, that the titan shifters were just children deceived by their world--he even admits to Reiner during Tyburn's speech (Chapter 100) that they are indeed in the same boat--and on top of that, admitting that the rumbling will do nothing to fix the course of history, he settled with the same conviction he held the moment he decided to do something to change the world.

Again, here's his words from 139 showing us just how angry a boi Eren was.

This was Eren Jaeger...he didn't even really know what he was doing.

As a human being, Eren was very much in the cycle of revenge as much as everyone else was. His course of action never deviated too far from that path. He knew better, but he lashed out at the world to protect the few people he cared about anyway. He took freedom away from the ones who threatened him. He was a mass murderer, and so were the other soldiers in this series fighting for their own reasons, since titans were people. Survey corps were always slaughtering these people whom they saw as monsters. Marley viewed Eldians as monstrously and with as much hatred as Eldians viewed the titans. Eren did not try to justify his actions to everyone. He simply stopped seeing the value of life in others not important to him, as humans often do.

So what did he sacrifice 80% of humanity for? From 129 again:

Them meaning his immediate friends.

No, he didn't care about their children's children and beyond because there's no way to control what happens when you're gone from this world. It wasn't his problem. Eren had 4 years at most left to live, and he wanted to do what he could to ensure his friends were happy before he left.

And as jarring as it was to see Eren become undone in the last chapter, I didn't find it completely out of character, because for one he was talking to his closest friend moments before his own death, and secondly, Eren was just a stupid human like the rest of the people in this series. Obviously, most people just want a normal life that they can spend with people whom they love. Eren was the same way, but was denied that future (and happened to be able to do something about it). Very selfish goals, but those chosen few were his world. Along with a general distaste for humanity, that's how I understand his character motivations.

*Which is to say in relation to the extra pages, Ymir's curse returning a generation or two after the events of AOT doesn't entirely void his actions. I’m assuming the power of Ymir apparently exists as a force of nature on this version of Earth period, so I suppose this points us to an endless cycle of humans eventually finding the power and using it as they see fit *

#2 Why is Romance Relevant to Attack on Titan?

I wasn't expecting a romance factor to be relevant at the end of the story, however considering that Mikasa's affection for Eren WAS her most prominent personality trait as a character, then the events that followed, I was forced to look back to a few moments in the series that could lend light to why, in the end, a romantic subplot ended the curse of Ymir. My conclusions are as follows:

1. Quite literally, the cycle of hatred never ends. Humans will always have a reason to be unkind to one another. We are animals after all; this trait cannot be reasoned through with logic, bred out, or defeated. We are a self-aware species (Eren's even aware of his own hypocrisy in Chapter 131). There will always arise those who take what they want for themselves because they decide in the end they don't care about others as much as they care about their own interests.

2. To make this second point, I'm stealing these words out of a certain machine lifeform's mouth, but bear with me here:

"But the humans...? Now THEY are interesting. Because they are an enigma! They killed uncountable numbers of their own kind, yet loved in equal measure! It's fascinating, don't you think? What could possibly drive such behavior? We have dedicated ourselves to unraveling this riddle of humanity..."

--Adam from NieR:Automata

AOT uses Eren and Mikasa as a case study of humanity. Humans hate and love in equal measure.

In Ch. 129, Zeke's piece here foreshadows the significance of those two for the story, I guess?

Now everyone reading this series as well as the characters in it had noticed how much fondness Mikasa always had for Eren, and how aloof he always was towards her in return...that's something for them to work out.

Despite never really reciprocating Mikasa's feelings, Eren told Armin at the end of the series that yes, he enjoyed receiving her attention; he would have liked to live a happy life with her. So, Mikasa just liked Eren, Eren liked her... And similar to Mikasa, Ymir just liked King Fritz. It doesn't matter whether we think these feelings were sound or not; they did what they wanted with themselves. I suppose that explains the reason she was a mega simp for Eren in the whole story. Yes, this turn in the story reads like a different plot now, not one about war and killing monsters, but I'm pleasantly surprised that this trait taken as a flaw of Mikasa’s actually served as a necessary condition to end the conflict of the titans.

Eren wouldn't let go of his hatred of the world for his own satisfaction, Ymir wouldn't let go of her love of King Fritz for her own satisfaction, and Mikasa is the only one who decided to let go of her convictions in the interest of someone other than herself. That's what moved the curse.

I think Isayama used the characters of Ymir and Mikasa to demonstrate that while there is a cycle of hatred and revenge running rampant in humanity, the cycle of love doesn't stop either.

In closing, and I truly apologize for such a lengthy post; I hope I didn’t reiterate my point too often here...I didn't think about any of this until I heard so many readers upset with the way AOT ended. I'm not personally left with any disappointment in where the story went. I didn't know where it was going to go in the first place, and I think it could have been much worse for us in different hands. 

*shrugs*

AOT is a story about the nature of humanity.

*And in regards to Jean, if that is supposed to be him with Mikasa in the new panels, all I can say is dude likes his girl. He was a simp for her and she was a simp for Eren, but the fact that they shared their lives together means a lot even if Eren was never completely buried in her heart. He meant a lot to her man, idk...

[sepublic]

Gus Porter and Amity Blight

          It’s fascinating, really… Writing about Gus and the Blight Twins interacting, I realized more and appreciated just how similar Gus and Amity are, while still being different- Like two sides of the same coin! Which ties back to another post I made, giving Gus the elemental motif of Water, which led to my speculation on how this might character a relationship with Amity and her Fire (amidst Gus being a counter to Boscha’s Fire).

           Gus and Amity are both precocious kids, sure… There’s this idea that they DO enjoy learning, and have a family lineage they’re ‘proud’ of. These kids are intelligent, and they come across as confident… But admittedly, there’s a bit of loneliness, of not being heard/taken seriously. But despite having more family members, Amity’s loneliness was a lot more damaging and potent, and her issues of not being heard came from her family members dismissing Amity herself! Whilst with Gus, this mostly came from his peers, who were older than him anyway and thus had more ‘reason’ to underestimate the kid.

           Not to mention, Gus and Perry clearly get along, because even if Gus DOES have some insecurity, here or there… He IS a person and so of course he’s going to have ‘flaws’, just like anyone else! Not to downplay them or anything of course. But it’s obvious that ultimately, Gus is happy, confident, and self-assured, and he knows who he is and doesn’t have to hide it, or be different from it despite being an Illusionist… In contrast to Amity, who clearly isn’t happy with who she is, feels like she has to make up for it, and wears a ‘mask’.

           Gus uses his Illusions to bolster, to show off, and to enhance his own identity, while Amity hides who she is, telling herself to shut up and be a quiet and obedient kid who doesn’t stick out amidst the rest of her family, she’s ashamed of herself. Amity dyes her hair because of what Odalia told her, and she actively sees herself as someone to change and ‘improve’ upon, in order to live up to the Blight family standard… But Gus? Gus is happy with himself because the Porter lineage consists of dweebuses… They’re people who are happy with who they are, and they’ve transmitted the same sentiments towards their children!

           Gus looks up to Perry, but it’s a healthy relationship… He genuinely admires his father because of his own choice, because Perry was good and kind to him! But Amity, she looks up to her parents because they made her dependent upon them, they indoctrinated her… They made Amity base her self-worth upon their approval. The Blight name is a curse to Amity, a reminder that she’s never good enough; Whilst the Porter name tells Gus that whoever he is, that’s valid and he should be proud of it!

           How fitting then, is it, that Gus helps lead the rebellion against Belos alongside Willow and his father Perry, who seems intrigued by what his kid has to say; Whilst Odalia and Alador would never listen to what Amity has to tell them! Gus is the one who is reassured of his own self-worth, that he’s perfectly valid as is, by the Oracle Orb… while Amity still has doubts over herself, even if Luz IS helping her overcome this. Amity is of a higher-class, nobler status in life, she comes across as more presitigous as a top student and tries a lot…

           But Gus, who definitely DOES participate, is still a lot more talented, and managed to ascend a few grades when Amity couldn’t, and is still happy with learning at school. Gus’ life comes across as less glamorous, he had less friends with just Willow, and then Luz… But those friends ended up a lot closer and more genuine to him than Boscha and her group were to Amity. And in the end, Gus gained even more friends through Eda and King… And while Amity ‘lost’ Boscha and the others, she alsojoined in on the friend group with Gus! So they have each other in a sense, because actual friendships are reciprocal and two-way.

           They both had a passion for an extra-curricular activity that they were in charge of, too; Amity had the Hexside Banshees, Gus had the Human Appreciation Society! And both willingly ousted themselves from membership entirely from said group, despite their legitimate enjoyment of it. Gus and Amity did so because they ‘paid the price’ for hurting someone else… in Amity’s case, this was herself being too critical of herself for accidentally injuring Boscha and Amelia with the Thorn Vault.

          With Gus, he DID accept the consequences of his genuine mistake, and by doing so, allowed Luz to enroll in Hexside! Amity only hurt herself, but Gus ended up helping Luz and his relationship with her and others in the end. Finally, Amity’s departure was wholly her own decision, while Gus was somewhat forced to leave because of Mattholomule’s antics, and Principal Bump’s punishment. Either way, what Amity did was bad for herself, while what Gus did was a moment of maturity and growth!

          It works with how Water and Fire are polar opposites, but they’re also intertwined with one another… Gus is the ideal to Amity’s life. He’s not as extreme in his differentiation as Luz and her colder Ice, so there’s still plenty of similarities… Just as Luz reflects Amity in one way, so does Gus in the other! He’s an Amity who is happy with himself, who has a family lineage he can actually enjoy and be a part of, etc. The more I think of it, the more fascinating it is to me, how similar yet different the two are; Especially since Gus and his motif of Water provided unconditional friendship to Willow, in the wake of Amity and her Fire damaging the girl’s self-esteem.

          And while Amity and Gus have their academic skill and surprising ‘maturity’ acknowledged… Amity’s maturity is superificial, more blind and quiet obedience than anything else, while Gus’ maturity is real and applies to his self-worth. Not to mention, Amity’s ‘maturity’ causes others to not see her as a kid who still needs emotional support and has insecurities, whilst other people recognize Gus as still being young and needing help; But at the same time, they don’t infantilize him! Gus has needs, sure, but he also has a lot to offer. People generally seem more fixated on what they can do for him, VS Amity’s parents asking so much of her.

           Sadly, the interactions between Gus and Amity have been practically zero. I guess I can’t blame Gus, he’s seen how terrible Amity was towards Willow, so he might be reluctant to know her personally… And similarly, Amity is too shy and reserved to extend friendship readily, already has this with Luz, and might be afraid of disappointing Gus, amidst him having witnessed Willow’s abuse longer than Luz did. To Amity, who was likely afraid of losing Luz’s opinion of her when Willow’s memories came into play; She probably assumes that Gus has a bad opinion of her.

           Whether or not he does, I can’t say for sure… But the kid seems too good-natured and open to bear a grudge. At the very least, Amity has improved a lot, and Gus has been busy in other interactions, such as with Eda, King, and regrettably, Hooty. But if they DID interact in Season 2, I’d love to see Gus and Amity take note of the comparisons and dichotomy of their lives… Perhaps Amity becomes envious of Gus, or at least wishes she had what he does, while deciding to look after the kid- She doesn’t want him to become like her!

           Gus realizes that Amity is unfortunate… He better appreciates his relationship with Perry, as if he doesn’t already, and I can see him offering a lot of confidence to Amity! Maybe helping her relax, listen to what she has to say… We never see it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Gus was someone who listened a lot to what Willow had to say in the past, just as Luz does to Willow AND Amity! Gus becoming friends with Amity could help the girl make new connections and solidify them, to both her and Luz’s delight… And Gus is elated to have another audience member to entertain with his illusions, someone who will listen to him!

          Because like King, while he does have issues with feeling unheard… In the end, he makes a point of letting himself be noticed, hence his enjoyment of Illusions, self-confidence, and one-time stint as MC at Grom! Whilst Amity tries NOT to be noticed, at least not in the individual sense- She’ll draw attention to the façade she has the Blight Child, and as a faceless member of the Emperor’s Coven one day… And that’s another dichotomy; The Blights are covenscouts and support Belos’ reign, while Perry Porter works with the news, reporting on some of the less desirable parts of Belos’ rule, and his own role is used by Gus to help lead an uprising against the Emperor; To show the truth to Belos’ cruelty, which is ironic for a kid who specializes in Illusions!

           As the son of a reporter, Gus has likely heard a LOT of gossip… So it’s possible he’ll be a lot more privy than most to Belos’ corruption, in the event that Perry likely does some investigation, or at least a lot of reporting and inevitably gets assigned to a thing or two. Whilst Amity’s parents keep her shielded from the truth of the Emperor’s Coven, or at least try to justify it… But Gus, he could be someone who helps Amity realize how corrupt Belos is, and how a good relationship with a parent that discusses the family name actually looks like! He can help Amity realize the truth- Again, another ironic contrast to his Illusionist talents. Assuming what happened with Luz, Eda, and Lilith isn’t already enough for Amity…

           Obviously Gus doesn’t HAVE to be friends with Amity and vice-versa. I can understand if he wants to avoid her because of what she did to Willow. But I think if the two WERE to interact, there’s some potential… At the very least, there’s a lot of thematic connections, similarities, and differences that are worth noting and appreciating. I’m just imagining Gus seeing Amity as being all down and in the pits, cheering her up with Illusions… And Amity listens to and understands Gus when he has to vent a bit.

           Amusingly, he’s also a self-proclaimed ‘Human expert’! So I can see Amity looking to GUS of all people on guidance on how to woo Luz, and navigate her human culture… And Gus, despite meaning well, just sets up Amity for failure and antics as he teaches her all of the wrong things! Imagine Amity nervously coming up to Luz, dressed in a rain poncho because it’s apparently a ‘display of romantic affection’ while Gus unblinkingly flashes her a thumbs-up from behind a bush! And then that leads to his disappointment as he realizes he screwed up…

           Or, Luz is such a goober who loves Amity that she takes it all in stride and genuinely enjoys it, leading to Gus being triumphant in his knowledge, while telling Amity ‘I told you so!’ Amity can’t BELIEVE she actually listened to him- But it paid off in the end, didn’t it? And hey, maybe she can use her power as a Blight to nab a human artifact for Gus… Or at least show him of Azura, assuming Luz already hasn’t! But given that book series is about witches and not humans themselves, I can see Gus not being too intrigued.

           To Amity, Gus is this weird, unusual little kid with a lot of ideas, surprisingly precocious… But she appreciates his confidence in himself, and how sweet he can be! While Gus sees Amity as Willow’s former friend who REALLY hurt her, but has since improved… And he knows through Luz and Willow that her parents are outright abusive, maybe he’s even had past interactions with Emira and Edric, as members of the same track! Either way, Gus has a lot of natural curiosity that wasn’t quashed or taken advantage of by his father, but actually supported… Maybe he’ll be interested in interviewing Amity, getting to know the REAL Amity Blight, encouraging her to come forth! And Amity is uncertain, maybe flattered… Maybe she humors him and actually DOES open up a little, maybe not.

[spaceorphan18]

What would you say to people who believe Blaine manipulated Kurt into getting engaged? In the season 6 breakup's deleted script, Kurt said that Blaine did that and that he felt forced to say yes. Of course, it's a deleted scene, and there's no true canonical evidence that Kurt feels that way, but I've always been torn on the subject. Kurt's face throughout the proposal was also a little confusing, he looks very overwhelmed, though I can't tell if it's in a good or bad way.

What would you say to people who believe Blaine manipulated Kurt into getting engaged?

Nonny, I think you’ve been reading too much Kurt meta done by people who don’t like Blaine.  ;)

God, this is a total flashback to 2014 when the Better Boyfriend Olympics were alive and well, lol.  Oh, Nonny <3 

Alright, let’s pull up a chair and have a discussion.  

In the season 6 breakup's deleted script, Kurt said that Blaine did that and that he felt forced to say yes. Of course, it's a deleted scene, and there's no true canonical evidence that Kurt feels that way, but I've always been torn on the subject.

Okay, first, let’s talk about this thought.  I’ve bolded the part in this comment that matters -- you’ve hit the nail on the head, Nonny.  

Talking as a writer, I need to say something about scripts, deleted scenes, and other things not done in canon -- a lot of times, in drafts, people write things that may not work or fit -- that’s why they’re drafts.  There’s a reason the scripted break up wasn’t the episode -- because it wasn’t the best way to tell the story they wanted to tell. 

In addition, a lot of that speech in the script reeks of the writers listening to what Blaine-hating Kurt fans had to say about the whole thing.  Glee had a tendency to over do it when breaking the fourth way to address commentary and criticism.  They did this with Brittana fans when Brittany and Sam get together, basically telling the lesbian bloggers to shut up and deal with it.  Doing so in the episode went too far (imo) -- and leaving Kurt’s comments in would have felt out of character and too much meta-ish commentary.  

That said -- totally wasn’t in the episode, and as you’ve said, there’s not true canonical evidence that Kurt feels that way. 

***

Addressing a few more things -- 

1. Blaine being manipulative.  

He’s not.  He does like to be in control of things, but that’s not the same thing as manipulation (and there’s a firm argument about how Kurt has far more manipulative tendencies -- see season 1).  Putting this particular incident more in context... first of all, keep in mind that from the break up to hooking up in I Do is only six months, most of which, Kurt and Blaine I wouldn’t call fully, 100% broken up -- more so just broken.  Then, he’s part of a school shooting, and while it wasn’t a real school shooting, it still has an effect -- he wants to feel security from the love he and Kurt share.  

As for the proposal itself -- Blaine knows exactly how Kurt wants his proposal to be -- and is going a bit overboard on the romanticism.  It’s not motivated by manipulation though.  It’s motivated by the fact that he wants to prove to Kurt that he can meet all of Kurt’s fantasies and demands.  (Which he does btw.)  Blaine does not have a secret agenda -- his heart is most firmly on his sleeve a majority of the time.  

2. The idea that Kurt doesn’t want to be proposed to, married, etc, etc.  

This is a little more complex of an issue to get into in a single ask, but let’s see if I can boil this down to its essence: 

Kurt has stated multiple times to Finn and Rachel that he doesn’t believe in young marriages -- this belief is already embedded in his psyche before he and Blaine get engaged, and part of that stubborn belief (whether it be right or wrong) seeps into his later issues in his own relationship. 

Kurt got very, very hurt by Blaine cheating on him -- and by the time they got back together, Kurt was dipping his toe in the pool while Blaine had already gone into the deep end.  Kurt needed some time to work his way back out to the deep end of the pool, and Blaine pulling Kurt out to the deep end before he was ready didn’t mean that he didn’t want to go swimming there, just that he was going faster than he had expected, and wasn’t given enough time to adjust. 

A lot of time in media, the proposal/marriage is the end of the story.  Here - it’s the middle of the story, and plays a different role in said story.  Kurt has doubts - but not doubts about loving Blaine, or wanting to be with Blaine the rest of his life.  As said in point 2, he got very hurt, and he isn’t ready yet - that combined with his belief that people shouldn’t get married so young (along with a few other issues) is what leads to the second break up.  

That doesn’t mean that Kurt doesn’t love his proposal.  Kurt is very romantic minded -- and the proposal was everything he could have ever dreamed of.  He’s emotionally overwhelmed during the scene, because it’s more than he could have ever dreamed of.  And I’d like to reiterate that this isn’t out of nowhere -- not only have the idea that Kurt and Blaine previously talked about marriage and long term plans for their relationship, but it’s also been set up that Kurt loves surprise proposals, weddings, romantic gestures (see All or Nothing, the episode previous, for high examples.) 

The thing that always gets me about the manipulation argument though... Do people really think that Kurt would ever, ever be manipulated into something he didn’t want to do?  Kurt’s a very strong-minded character, and is not so easily swayed into (or out of) something.  If Kurt didn’t want to get married... if he didn’t want to be proposed to... if he didn’t want the thing, he wouldn’t have let it happen.  

3. The idea that relationships need to be perfect

The whole thing about the Better Boyfriend Olympics was the fact that each side of it felt the other wasn’t good enough for their favorite.  And it stems from this weird idea that in order to be good enough to be a romantic partner for said favorite -- the romantic partner must bow down at the alter of favorite and not ever do anything wrong.  The relationship, to maybe over simplify, must be perfect.  When it wasn’t -- people liked to point fingers and blame the other side.  And come up with anything they could to help prove their point that their favorite was the better one and/or deserved better. 

Man, it was the most annoying thing. 

The thing that I always liked, and appreciated about Klaine was the idea that we have two very flawed characters working through their issues.  Sometimes they sucked at it. Sometimes one of them wasn’t the greatest.  But that made them feel more fleshed out and well rounded as characters.  Relationships can be problematic, that doesn’t mean they’re wholly bad.  They have issues.  People aren’t perfect, and shouldn’t be held to such ridiculous standards.  

Look, Nonny, if you don’t feel the scene, you don’t feel it, and I don’t think anything I say or do can change your mind if it doesn’t. And that’s totally fair and fine.  But -- all I can say is keep in mind where your biases may lie and/or what kind of filters are overlaying your interpretation of the scene.  

If you’d like more reading on Love Love Love, I’d suggest my meta: Finding Kurt Hummel - Love, Love, Love

If you like podcasts, I know we go deeper into the subject on various TDB Podcasts: TDB Podcast List 

Tl;dr version - Blaine is not manipulative, the script should not be taken as canonical evidence of anything, and Kurt was emotionally overwhelmed and deeply touched by a very grand romantic gesture that was presented to him.  

[megmahoneyart]

why did you draw michael who is white as looking more remorseful and human on half his face than helen who you depict as a black woman who appears angry with both of her eyes spiraled? even despite michaels vocal insistence that he is wholly an inhuman monster and his cruel actions you draw him looking more innocent and human than a black woman who has not done anything nearly as monstrous as him and held onto her human identity more strongly?

Okay!  So, I use this blog to draw and not to talk, but I’m suuuper long-winded when I write.  And to spare the general public, I’ve put this answer under a read-more.  But it’s a good and valid question!  And I appreciate anon’s concern; I thought the question deserved as good an answer as I could give.  So that answer is below:

That’s a totally valid question!  I didn’t intend to convey “remorseful” so much as, upset, with Michael.  Angry wasn’t necessarily what I was going for with Helen either--so it sounds like my expressions overall aren’t reading super well. Helen was meant to be more, I think enthusiastic, is the word I’m looking for.

The big difference between Helen and Michael isn’t one of them being more innocent or more guilty than the other.  The difference is the amount of conflict.  Helen has repeatedly brought up how much better she is at being The Distortion than Michael ever was.  Michael had a lot of knowledge about the Fears, and The Spiral, in particular, before becoming The Distortion than Helen did.  And, along with that, he brought the baggage of being taught that his job was to fight the fears, and the baggage of being scarred by The Spiral before working for the Institute.  He kind of sucks at being The Distortion because his job was to stop The Distortion from performing The Spiral’s ritual--and that leaves both The Distortion hating Michael for fucking up its purpose, and Michael hating The Distortion because it’s the embodiment of what he hated and feared as a human.  Everything Michael Distortion does is double-minded--because part of him is like “Hey I used to work here, and these guys are technically my co-workers, and I kind of want to hang out with them, but I also hate this place” and part of him is “I want to Fuck Everything Up, and I hate All of these people and would be happy to see them dead.”  

Helen, on the other hand, doesn’t have the baggage of foreknowledge or hatred.  She’s Michael Distortion’s victim, at first.  But the second she has an opening to turn the tables, she jumps on it.  And the reason she had an opening is because Michael and The Distortion were at odds and schisming and in Conflict.  She’s set up in season 4 to be a kind of narrative foil for Jon--as they have both become avatars without really meaning to (like the majority of avatars that have showed up on the show).  In Season 4, Jon is constantly agonizing over what exactly he is now, and futilely circling around the morality of his continued existence.  Helen, in season 4, is beyond this point.  She has already accepted the Way Things Are now, and she’s dealing--constantly telling Jon he needs to deal with it (the reality of being a “monster” too).  By season 5, she’s not just dealing, she’s Thriving.  And in seasons 4 and 5, at any opportunity, she (Helen Distortion) is always down to remind Jon (and co) that she is So Much Better at being what she is (The Distortion) than Michael ever was.  

I think Helen Richardson probably had a stronger character than Michael Shelley did, as humans as well.  Not saying that one was better than the other. But Helen was a successful career-woman.  Michael started at the institute as a scared kid, who was then groomed by Gertrude and psychologically experimented on by Emma.  I could never see Helen Richardson ever being someone Gertrude Robinson could emotionally manipulate, or convince to “sacrifice” herself.

And all of that informs how I characterize these two characters’ personalities when I draw them.  And that doesn’t touch on the race issue.

Unfortunately, TMA doesn’t explicitly describe many characters’ race or ethnicity.  A Lot has been said about the few negative vs positive characters who are explicitly characters of color.  It’s kind of a black-and-grey-morality podcast.  But on the side of the protagonists/positively-portrayed you’ve got Oliver Banks, Adelard Dekker, Basira Hussain, Mikaele Salesa.  On the enemy-aligned side you’ve got Jude Perry, Tom and John Haan, Manuela Dominguez, and Annabelle Cane.  And those on the positive side are pretty flawed (aside from Adelard Dekker who is an anomaly on this show); and those on the negative side usually have at least some alternate-character-interpretations and can be viewed as sympathetic (lookin at you, Annabelle).  A lot of discussion has gone into their characterizations and how that relates to their respective races--and the problems therein (Jude Perry is startlingly devoid of family concerns--when culturally a large part of being a successful businesswoman would usually relate to how it benefits or affects her family; Mikaele Salesa’s setting up an Apocalypse Bunker without the crew he cared for is peak White behavior; bastard cops that are WOC (like Basira) absolutely exist--but should a story about a WOC bastard cop be written by a white guy?; the Haans being avatars for The Flesh is straight-up racist; etc).  

But again, the list of characters that are explicitly characters of color is Short.  And the fandom filled in some gaps.  Almost all of the characters get a variety of designs, and some characters don’t have a Uniform Fanon Race (like Melanie).  But some characters are almost always portrayed as a certain race (Jon is almost always portrayed as Desi or Pakistani, Georgie is almost always portrayed as black, Helen is almost always portrayed as black).  I came into the show late.  By the time I arrived, Desi/Pakistani Jon and black Helen were the only Jon and the only Helen I saw when I showed up.  (The first sketches I did for the show, I did before seeing any fan art, and before hearing any canon descriptors.  As such, Georgie would be unrecognizable to most of the fandom--because I drew her white the first time I drew her; and Martin is Too Small in my first sketches--because they were drawn before I got to episodes that described him as tall and chubby and before I saw the fantart--which gives us the Big Martin we deserve).  So that’s why my Helen is black.  (My Michael is white because he is physically described early in the show--and is one of the confirmed white characters).

That said, I accepted the generally-agreed-upon fan depictions of Helen (and other characters) without a whole lot of critical thought from Me.  I’ve since read a lot of good takes on why Jon is depicted as Desi and why his characterization has resonated with certain Desi listeners.  I haven’t read any dissertation on why Helen is black.  My guess is that, where there were no canon physical descriptions (like with Taz Balance before the graphic novels), the fandom Made representation because they wanted it and because they could.  Maybe there was discourse, back in the day, on why Georgie and Helen are usually depicted as black; but I didn’t see it.  My (completely uninformed) guess is that people liked Georgie.  And people liked Helen.  And if they could make the cool lady with a great cat that is incapable of being afraid black, and if they could make the cool lady who has sharp hands and set up her house in the Institute basement for fun black, why not do it?

If you, anon, do have strong feelings that Helen shouldn’t be black and why, feel free to pass that on to me.  I am Not the authority on Helen’s characterization or her appearance--especially as related to race--as I’m 1) white and 2) just another listener of the show.

If I were to start drawing Helen as white, she’d probably be unrecognizable to people that are looking through the tag for their sharp-handed wife.  And I like Helen.  So without additional information, I’m unlikely to change my depiction of her.  But!  If you (or anybody else) do have additional information, I’m happy to see/hear it, and will take any concerns raised with me into consideration.

[destiny-smasher]

“But I can't walk on the path of the right, because I'm wrong.”

So, The Last of Us Part 2 is out. It’s about 25 hours long. I’ve played it. I loved it, but it’s got its flaws. I think the hype buildup was overblown, and I think the zealous hate from the leaks was also overblown. This is a beautifully produced game that is trying to do much more than the typical AAA game tries to do, and in so trying, it’s messier, muddier, and more complicated than its predecessor. I love it for that, despite my issues with how the game ultimately resolves things.

I think Naughty Dog was either intentionally misleading audiences (which, given the marketing, is possible) or perhaps Neil himself has a different concept of the game he directed than what was actually delivered. Despite how it was advertised, The Last of Us Part 2 is not inherently about ‘hate’ or ‘revenge.’ It’s not just a revenge story.

It's a story about empathy, about how human beings and their interactions have layers, and how we are better when we extend blind empathy to others instead of blind hatred. I gotta talk about this. SPOILERS FOR THE ENTIRE GAME to follow.

--

.

.

.

.

.

Seriously, final warning for SPOILERS.

.

.

.

.

.

This game is simply too big, too complex, and has too much going on for me to write a single piece going over everything there is to talk about, but there are some things I need to say that inherently rely on discussing the entire game in a spoiler-filled way.

Let’s start with the most noticeable thing that has hit me over this game’s reception: people like Joel way more than I would’ve expected. SO much of this game’s negative reception seems to be over Joel’s character and the circumstances around his death. I was not at all surprised that he died - I was a bit surprised at when and how he died, in the moment, but even by the end of the next scene, it had washed over me how much sense it made. He died in the same way everyone else dies in this series. He had it coming in the same way anyone else in this world has it coming. He was never a hero. If you truly look at Joel as a ‘hero’ figure but don’t extend that same logic to Ellie and Abby, you do not make sense to me.

I’ve seen a LOT of hate getting thrown at Abby, and frankly, I do not understand it, and if you hate her but do NOT hate Joel or Ellie similarly, then I inherently don’t respect your opinion? You’re being blatantly biased and unreasonable in exactly the way this game is arguing you should not be. Straight up. Get your transphobic jokes the fuck outta here. Get your homophobic takes on Ellie and Dina the fuck outta here. Get your xenophobic complaints about the MUCH more diverse cast of characters in this sequel the fuck outta here. The ONE case where I could see a reasonable thing to be conflicted about is Lev’s character, because they are a transgender kid who gets deadnamed by some NPCs. As a transgender person, I personally found this to just...make sense and feel organic to the world, and none of the actual characters in the narrative with names or roles in the story ever deadname Lev. Lev is fucking precious and I love him, and I think his inclusion adds inherently more to this game than otherwise, despite the understandable conflict some might feel about his backstory. To ME, the fact that all of what Lev goes through and how Yara and Abby do what they can to look for him, that says to me, “protect trans rights” and I am glad it is there. Trans people have to deal with that shit sometimes, I think it’s fine having it be PART of a wider narrative. It doesn’t define Lev’s story, it doesn’t dictate the plot of the game, it’s a spark that sets some events off and I think that adds more than it could potentially take away, as does the overall representation in the game.

Getting back to this element of bias, though, I get that you “went on a journey” with Joel and Ellie in the first game. I get that. But you spend about as much time with Abby in this game as you did with Joel in the first game. And I see a lot of people are SOMEHOW totally fine and chill and cool with Joel going on a murder rampage in the first game, specifically killing at least one man who was specifically trying to save humanity - they cite that Joel is a morally gray person who has done bad things and is trying to become a better person. Sure, cool, OK. And Ellie, sure, ya’ll will think her going on a bloodthristy revenge quest is cool, fine, A-OK, because Joel was murdered. But somehow they are physically incapable of extending that same empathy to Abby, even after the game bends OVER BACKWARD in every reasonable way it could. Why is this? One person tweeted at me the simplistic, reductive idea, 

“ I know the sensible thing that naughty dog was aiming at was that we'd feel sorry for abby and eventually grow to like her, but for me I just don't. I loved Joel and I love Ellie. They didn't kill anyone who I loved as a character. Abby did. “

At least they’re being honest with themselves in that they literally missed the entire point of the game. You having personal bias you cannot remove yourself from does not make for “A DEEPLY FLAWED STORY” or whatever the fuck people have been tossing around.

I personally don’t buy any of that bullshit until we get into the final hours of the game during the epilogue, but we’ll get to that.

Everything in the first 20-ish hours of this game felt organic and believable and completely in line with the first game to me, and the fact that ALL OF IT happens as a direct after-effect of Joel’s selfish act at the end of the first game really contextualizes how/why it was called ‘Part 2.’ So honestly, all of this nonsense about this sequel being ‘badly written’ is just...bonkers. I will agree it’s not some master class in writing - neither was the original game. But both games are very similar in writing style, tone, and the world presented is consistent, while character motivations are realistically complicated. Naughty Dog has never been great at plot, but the real quality of their work comes through in how much effort they go to in order to present realistic feeling worlds and characters, and from the environments to the actors to the extra animations on top, I think the details and the context they create are where they shine.

To better understand where I am coming from with this game, let me lay this on you.

During the scene in that basement, when Abby shot Joel in the leg, and Ellie shows up...I realized what was about to happen. Ironically, it was exactly what I had originally predicted was the thing going on WAY back when the game’s reveal trailer was dropped -- that Joel was dead, and was motivating Ellie’s revenge quest. If you’ve read what I have written of Arcadian Rhythms, you will have some idea of my feelings on Joel and Ellie’s relationship -- in short, I think it is complicated, and just as damaging as it is good. That’s real life. That’s how reality is for many relationships, especially ones between parents and their kids, especially in my experience. When I realized Joel was about to be murdered, my feelings and thoughts were not jumping to ‘oh fuck what an asshole I wanna kill these people’ or ‘oh no not Joel’ but rather, my immediate gut thoughts were ‘yupppp Joel kinda deserves this, he literally did this to who knows how many other people, but why are THESE people, specifically, out to get him?’ 

When Ellie later cites to Dina that there’s ‘no point’ in speculating as to why these people murdered Joel, because it could be for one of many possible reasons, I found that to be interesting -- Ellie herself acknowledging that Joel had fucked over many other people, while still pursuing revenge herself.

I do think the theme of ‘the cycle of violence’ is very core to this game and arguably is its strongest central theme, specifically because violence in wholly integrated into its gameplay. But narratively and structurally, empathy is, I would argue, even more paramount. This game spends about 12 hours of its runtime (so about half of the entire game) actively trying to encourage you to understand, relate with, and empathize with Abby. The developers COULD have had you swapping back and forth between both characters, which might have resulted in better pacing, but I think it would’v taken away from what they were going for. It’s that long, slow burn that makes Abby’s side of the story work, in much the same way the long, slow burn of the first game does what it does, and the way the long, slow burn of Ellie’s revenge quest helps us see just how far gone she is.

But “arghh I hated Ellie she kept making bad decisions that made no sense” some of you say, “they did her DIRTY” some of you say.

No.

Joel did her dirty.

The Fireflies did her dirty.

And it’s this exact concept -- that our actions and choices have consequences and ripple outward beyond what we can initially imagine - that is at the heart of why I think I love this game so much. Most video games depict a pool of water that is either a constant whirlpool, a raging clash of waves, or stone dropped in the middle and the ripples spreading out. The Last of Us Part 2 is more like a series of ripples all happening simultaneously, and not all of them are as apparent or even important, but it’s just...a bunch of ripples all happening all over the place.

And it breaks my heart, during 2020, a year when human rights, systemic racism, a worldwide pandemic, late capitalism, and entire countries submerged in protests because their government is fucking them over...has people shutting off or refusing to turn on their empathy to anyone outside of their bubble. In 2020, when the world needs empathy more than any other year I’ve experienced in my life thus far, a game like this goes SO FAR above and beyond what most games try to do, in a very risky and controversial way, to actively invite its players to fucking STOP AND CONSIDER for a damn moment that there’s more to the world than JUST YOU and what you care about. That your actions have consequences beyond your singular perspective.

Ellie is fueled by rage for a number of reasons, and we don’t even understand all of them until literally the final moments of the game, which I found to be appropriate as it ends on a note of reminding us that there is ALWAYS something we don’t know, something we don’t understand, motivating someone else’s decisions.

Ellie was robbed of agency, of purpose, by both Joel and the Fireflies. Joel robbed both Ellie and the Fireflies of their purpose. And the Fireflies robbed Ellie and Joel of theirs. In return, Ellie is left without purpose, and all she’s really left with is a broken man who desperately wants to be a dad again, to the point that he will murder and lie to hold on to that. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t necessarily hold it against Joel that he murdered people to save Ellie. I will always defend the idea that it was a fucking selfish decision that would realistically lead to consequences. But in the same way Marlene points out to Abby’s dad, ‘What if it was your kid?’ ie ‘What if it was someone you loved?’ I get that, that’s the beauty of how the first game ended. It presents a zero sum game where there is no ‘correct’ choice that everyone can agree on, but in the back of our heads -- and Part 2 actually states this as a point of fact -- we all know Ellie would have CHOSEN to sacrifice herself, had she been asked.

So it was deliciously realistic to me to see Ellie grappling with the frustration, distrust, and anger of Joel having not only robbed that purpose from her, but having lied to her about it. And in the end, it was also wonderfully realistic that part of why she hated Abby so much was that Abby inadvertently robbed her of her chance to try and rebuild and repair that broken relationship.

But here’s the thing, though - the thing I see fucking NO ONE talking about, and I can’t decide if it’s because no one is picking up on it or what.

Both Ellie and Abby are haunted and driven by broken men making selfish choices. Their selfishness keeps both characters kind of locked in to desperately grasping at violent acts to justify a purpose.

Some will play the flashbacks with Joel and will feel warmth and nostalgia and admiration. Some will play the flashbacks with Owen and feel disinterest or disgust because ‘why should I care about these people?’

For me, I couldn’t help bu draw parallels to how both Owen and Joel were men trying to be good, you know, not being specifically evil people, but men who were a bad influence on the women around them, who were great and good and charming and all that until things didn’t go the way they wanted, pushing and prodding with passive digs and pressure to reaffirm their own hopes that despite their mistakes, they’re ‘good men.’ Owen is admittedly much less well developed in this regard, partly because his arc just isn’t as deep or interesting, partly because he didn’t exist in the previous game. But I still could not quite shake it. I grew up with men like Joel and Owen as my father figures, so there’s personal bias there.

I literally had an actual nightmare that woke me up in the middle of the night partway through playing through this game because Joel was in it and I said or did a thing he did not like, and his reaction spooked me awake, in part because I LIVED that growing up. (not murder, but violence, passive aggressive manipulation) I absolutely adore the depth given to Joel’s character, that he has LAYERS to him, and I loved seeing Tommy similarly expanded upon. (him passively prodding at Ellie to try and make good with Joel felt a little manipulative, given that he KNOWS what Joel did; and even his wife’s prodding at Ellie at the game’s outside to ‘make good’ with some old jerk who seems all expectant about being rewarded for basic apologizing, ech)

Last of Us is a horror game, Part 2 even moreso, but it was the feeling of men like Joel who do bad things and then try to justify them after the fact that actually creeped me out more -- all the more creepy because I KNOW Ellie and Abby will give up on better choices to try and ‘do right by them’. I was relieved when Abby began to break free from these old, poor choices, even shortly after making more fo them during her half of the story. This brings me to another fascinating aspect of this game: how Abby’s story is a combination of both Joel’s and Ellie’s.

Dunkey (of all people!) recently praised this game and compared Ellie’s and Abby’s narratives to TLOU1 and Uncharted 4, and I agree with him in a lot of regards, there, but I think what the team was more going for was for Abby’s story to feel like a combination of Joel’s and Ellie’s while simultaneously being directly impacted by Joel and Ellie’s story.

Abby grew up in a military community, even though she expressed an interest in science -- just like Ellie. The death of her father drives her on a quest for revenge -- just like Ellie. She does some horrible shit to people all in the service of trying to protect a kid as some desperate attempt to feel better about all of the bad shit she’s done -- just like Joel. She starts to let herself be empathetic to other people and tries to become a better person because of the kid she takes under her wing -- just like Joel.

In a way, you could argue Part 2′s overall story is kind of repetitious. Ellie’s quest for revenge is a bit too narrow-minded and blind in her rage, and Abby’s story kind of recycles many components we have already seen up until that point. I think what’s there still generally accomplishes what it set out to do: get us to question and try to understand why people do what they do, and consider our own place in that cycle, in those ripples.

I think many aspects of this game that look circumstantial on the surface are not accidents.

I think the recurring imagery of water is an allegory for how we can let rage, anger, and hate drown us. The game’s title starts with a boat drifting in water, and the title changes after the ending to a boat that is beached. The Seattle arc shows a gradually increasing focus on water flooding the environments, culminating in a big rainstorm with crazy waves. The final fight sequence (which tbh I hated but we’ll get to that) takes place literally IN water, involves Ellie trying to drown Abby, and ends with the two of them going separate ways in their boats.

I think it’s no accident that Abby and Ellie’s desire for vengeance is ultimately caused by the same specific moment, and I think it’s interesting that many people seem to skip RIGHT OVER the idea that Ellie feels such a deep sense of rage at Abby killing Joel only because Joel made the decision that caused Abby to kill him in the first place -- and the good and bad that came from that. It’s just a brilliantly complicated web, I think, and that further highlights that none of these characters are inherently good or evil, which is pretty much the entire point of this world in the first place.

I think it’s interesting that both Ellie and Abby grumble insults all of the time over the people they’re killing, and both try to justify their violence with thoughts like “well we’re better then that, we don’t do THOSE kinds of things,” which is, ya know, literally the kinds of mental hoops actual real human beings jump through to justify doing bad shit to each other.

I liked the idea of the trading cards until fairly early on when I found the ‘Dr. Uckmann’ card, which...made me roll my eyes a little at first, until I read the description, which then made me feel more actively uncomfortable than maybe anything else in the entire game, to be quite honest. Partly because it rang of entitled self-importance, but partly because of the reports of Naughty Dog crunch culture.

And on that note, let’s talk about how this game arguably crunched its employees way more than it needed to while simultaneously making its story more bloated than it needed to be.

Don’t get me wrong, I love indulging in more STUFF than it required. I can totally see the appeal of writing extra stuff to a story like because you can, because it’s interesting, because it’s fun to MAKE shit. But when you are a AAA game development studio who is potentially crunching your employees into burnout, maybe a fairly pointless epilogue on top of a game that is already arguably a bit too long in the tooth is...maybe not the best way to go?

On the upside, I enjoyed playing the Santa Barbara location, I loved getting some more Abby/Lev time, I liked seeing Ellie a bit older, I LOVED the scene at the farm with her, Dina, and JJ. I loved the gameplay challenge that was the Rattler’s base. I loved that this game had noticeably larger environments to explore.

But tbh a LOT of content could’ve been cut from this game to make a smoother, better paced experience while simultaneously putting less strain on the developers. I do think the extended flashback sequences focused on non-violent gameplay is important enough to justify itself, but I think a lot of the more violent or unnecessary parts of the game (like the entire sequence on the Seraphite’s island and the Santa Barbara sequence) all feel like...EXTRA? Which on the one hand is great because hot DAMN more beautifully rendered locations, content, etc. but on the other hand I’m not sure it adds as much to justify the real life pain and misery I’m sure some developers went through to create it all, and in a way, it doesn’t quite justify its own existence if we’re being critical.

I get what they were going for with the Seraphites and the WLF but neither group is developed enough to really accomplish the goals of empathy. I think focusing on specific members OF those groups is better, because that is ultimately how real life people break down their walls of bias, -isms, etc. -- they just interact with and befriend people from these groups and realize organically “oh hey we’re all...people, huh.” The game’s attempts at naming NPCs and dogs don’t do much when the game actively rewards you for killing them (speaking of which, I played on Normal and there were way too many items imo, we’ll see how that is on higher difficulties). We could get into the role of violence and gameplay but that’s a WHOLE other can of worms.

But the Rattlers in the final act are even worse. After this entire game of being actively encouraged to empathize with other people from other groups and let yourself consider they aren’t evil, the game just...shoves an objectively worse group of people at you, asks you to murder them, and then...discards the whole thing without a second thought. I found this to be fun from a gameplay perspective (sorry Neil, playing your game actually IS FUN when you put so much work into making the violence fun to engage with) but I found it weird and frustrating from a storytelling perspective, as if the whole thing was an undercooked, unfinished final act that they cobbled together because they just...wanted enemies with helmets and an environment depicting southern California. Hell, tbh I don’t even get why Ellie had to be there other than the developers didn’t think players would be OK just...letting Ellie live a life in peace on a farm or that players would be OK NOT playing as Ellie at the end and letting her beat the shit out of Abby.

I actually LOVED the farm sequence, it felt so...weird for a while. Like you’re just waiting for the hat to drop. And when it does...it’s just PTSD. And that felt right. That felt good, that even though Ellie was spared, after all the shit she did, because she let go and spared Abby in return, she got to live this peaceful life...except life’s not that simple and old scars can still hurt.

I loved when Tommy showed up and we got to see that darker side to him we KNOW has been there this entire time, but Ellie maybe hasn’t been forced to see it. All the way up until this point, I felt I could understand where the characters were coming from and what motivated their decisions.

And then Ellie decided “no, actually, maybe if I throw all of this away I can maybe get rid of this PTSD I got from throwing everything away before.” And then it got worse when after she breaks into this fucking slave house to free people, after she saves Abby and Lev from dying on posts, she STILL wants to fight. ANd Abby’s where I’m at -- that ‘fucking REALLY?’ feeling. I utterly disliked the fight scene in the water. It was the one time in the whole game that actually felt like misery porn to me. I was honestly going into it expecting that maybe Ellie’s stab wound from the trap would cause her to be too weak to fight, and she’d literally drown from bleeding out because of her own unrelenting pursuit of revenge. But nah, we’re put through a pointless, brutal fist/knife fight that...doesn’t really have purpose imo. WHatever you wanted to accomplish here, you could’ve done back in the theater in Seattle. (on that note I LOVED the Ellie boss fight, what a fun gameplay thing and also just tense all around since you really couldn’t tell what was going to happen, but I LOVE that Lev stopped Abby from killing Dina, even though she had every reason to)

I can imagine different versions of the Santa Barbara sequence that offer a more edifying conclusion while still working in the environmental and gameplay components they seemed insistent on working in. It’s the one major portion of the game that, now that I’ve had time to process, I feel the most conflicted about.

Neither Ellie nor Abby “deserve” a happy ending in much the same way Joel didn’t “deserve” a happy ending. This game has no true protagonists or villains (anyone who is presented as a ‘villain’ is minor, and we don’t find out much about them anyway). I think Joel was lucky to get the time he got to live in community once again, to rediscover his humanity (look at all of those flowers they left at his house, this man who fucked over humanity and murdered countless people had a chance to live a few years of peaceful life again), I think Ellie was lucky she got time to even live what she did on that farm with Dina and JJ, and was lucky to still be alive at the end of the story. I think Abby was lucky to have been able to break free from a life of militaristic bullshit and rediscover some of her own lost humanity.

I think a lot of people admire Joel as a hero when it’s clear he was never one.

I think a lot of people admire Ellie and try to idolize her as the smarmy kid she could never permanently exist as.

I think a lot of people hate on Abby for EXISTING (and being a woman -gasp- WITH MUSCLES) and I’m pretty pleased with Laura Bailey getting to play this role (and Ashly Burch getting a supporting role in this game, too, for that matter).

I think The Last of Us is not ‘about Ellie and Joel.’ I think The Last of Us is about humanity, and exploring it through different angle. Sometimes needlessly gritty and dark ones, but Part 2 gave us even more light-hearted, pelasant moments than I could have expected. I think people who look so reductively at this game -- now officially a ‘series’ -- as ‘Joel and Ellie 100x forever’ and literally anything outside of that being bad and a waste of time fundamentally missed the entire purpose of this game, ironically ignoring what it is trying to passionately to convey. I think Naughty Dog’s marketing of the game actively misled people in ways that are rare for the industry, and I do think that is a bit shady - but on the other hand, being misled actively improved my experience with the end product (which is arguably why they did it). I think the way Sony has latched on Joel and Ellie as ‘Playstation Icons’ and encouraged people to buy up TLOU merch depite there not being much TO turn into merchandise says something.

Also? Frankly?

I am SO FUCKING TIRED of “angry sad dad” games.

Like. I loved TLOU 1, I loved the new God of War, etc. etc.

But God of War took basically NO RISKS and had NOTHING TO SAY that countless other pieces of media have said to death. That’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with that, I really enjoyed it and look forward to the next. But this game actually has challenging thoughts, complicated things, it is trying to get players to consider, and most everyone I see shitting on the game either hasn’t played it or doesn’t seem interested in games that exist for something beyond making them feel good about themselves? I dunno.

I think at the end of the day, TLOU as an entire series, and specifically the sequel, isn’t about Joel and Ellie, that was just the more focused lens the original game had. For its messier, muddier experience, Part 2 strives for nothing more than many pieces of media have but for something that is still rare in the space of AAA video games.

It takes some risks, it makes some missteps in getting where it goes, for sure, and it’s by no means some holy gift to mankid, but it passionately goes to GREAT lengths to explore and express a fairly simple idea: 

empathy is a choice, understanding others is a choice,

and we are all inherently better off when we choose to blindly accept understanding than when we blindly choose hate and violence.

Just because we can’t walk ‘the path of the right,’ and just because ‘we’re wrong’ doesn’t mean we should let the phantoms in our lives continue to keep a hold on our future. Just because someone does some good things doesn’t erase the consequences and ripples of the bad they have done, and just because we do bad things doesn’t mean we can’t do good.

The way to end the cycle of violence is empathy.

It’s simplistic in concept, but if you look around at not just the reception to this game even before people could play it, but just the STATE OF THE WORLD IN 2020, you will see that maybe we still need such basic, simplistic concepts to continue to be explored in big budget media.

[wondereads]

Personal Recommendation (3/28/21)

The Winter Duke by Claire Eliza Bartlett

Why am I recommending this book?

I stayed up until 1:00 am to finish this book. I thought it was really good, and I think it avoided some of the pitfalls of YA very well.

Want something quick and short? Check out my tiktok

Plot 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

Ekata Avenko is ready to leave her ducal family behind for the comforts of university in the south. Not only are they haughty and affection-less, but they have a habit of trying to off each other so there’s less competition for succession. Unfortunately, just after her oldest brother’s brideshow, the day before Ekata is finally free, her entire family falls into deep sleep, and Ekata is the only one left to rule Kylma Above. Besides regular politics, Ekata also has to deal with her power-hungry foster brother, relations with the magic-producing Kylma Below, and discovering who put her family to sleep–and how to wake them up.

I loved the plot. I love stories that focus on the intricacies of politics, how trade agreements and social functions are just as important as the armies a country has. I also think The Winter Duke had some rather realistic political exchanges, including how Ekata was utterly hopeless at them. Her attempts to mold herself into the perfect politician were convincing and interesting, with real consequences. Also, it was interesting to see the various opinions presented by many different people, and yet none of those people were wholly good or bad. I also loved the idea of Kylma Above and Kylma Below. One kingdom has unlimited magic but no contact with the rest of the world with the other offers contact in exchange for refined magic. It also provided a reason for why the antagonists kept Ekata alive when they could just have planned a coup.

Bartlett did a very good job of surprising the reader. As I read the book, I suspected exactly who it was, but that was because I was suspecting everyone. I knew there would be a betrayal, but I had absolutely no idea who it would be. And it made sense! Looking back at what was written, I asked myself why I didn’t think of it before. In a world where “surprising the audience” increasingly means “doing something completely unreasonable and never hinting at it in the narrative”, it really was a breath of fresh air.

Characters 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

Ekata is so relatable. All she wants to do is pursue her passions and leave complicated politics and even talking to people behind her. She had absolutely none of the answers, but she was willing to work to find them. She was beautifully flawed, but in a way that didn’t make me hate her. Even when I knew she was doing the wrong thing I was rooting for her. Her struggles to protect her family and the duchy were both compelling and admirable. Also, her relationship with Inkar was so lovely.

Inkar, Ekata’s emergency political bride, was great. She’s everything Ekata wishes to be, but she still loves and supports her. I honestly don’t think Ekata could’ve found a better match. Also, I loved that even though Ekata was supposed to be making her feel uncomfortable, her and Inkar couldn’t help but bond over shared opinions and experiences.

Sigis. Ugh. He’s so horribly slimy and creepy. He was the perfect antagonist. I loved to hate him. His ambitions and conflict with Ekata also drove the story forward perfectly. Also needing to be mentioned is Eirhan, who was wonderfully annoying. As prime minister, he was Ekata’s closest advisor, and the whole book is spent wondering if he’s just trying to solidify his political position or if he’s after something more. Finally, Aino was so sweet, and her and Inkar’s rivalry, which resembled a subtle girlfriend vs. mother-in-law trope, added some conflict as well. The way her character arc ends was surprising, yet satisfying.

Special mention to the ministers for making Ekata’s life as hard as possible.

Writing Style 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

Ekata has a very distinctive voice. She’s a bit odd, a combination of period-appropriate vocabulary and modern tone. Her frustration and hatred really come bleeding off the page. Unfortunately, when it comes to love or passion, it isn’t as vibrant. Of course, that may be due to the abundance of the former and lack of the latter in her life, but I do wish I could feel more about positive things in her life. One thing I really liked was the nonchalant attitude about gender and sexuality. Ekata is attracted to girls, she knows that. No one protests to her and Inkar’s marriage because they’re the same gender (though they do have things to say about it politically), and one of the ministers had they/them pronouns that were never discussed. After all, why should a fantasy world have the societal limitations of ours? (Still, points off for not having a map, because I wish there’d been a layout of Kylma Above with a corresponding map of Kylma Below.)

Overall 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

In case you couldn’t tell by my gushing, I really liked The Winter Duke. I think it avoided some of the more typical YA tropes such as love triangles, main characters with special powers, and a lovely solution to everything. The plot kept me engaged, I love reading from Ekata’s perspective, and it had a perfect twist at the end. I would recommend this book to people who like politics, intricate magic systems, and lesbians.

The Author

Claire Eliza Bartlett: Born in the US, lives in Denmark, also wrote We Rule the Night and The Good Girls

The Reviewer

My name is Wonderose; I try to post a review every two weeks, and I take recommendations. Check out my about me post for more!