#Discussion is very welcome

[teapetal44]

TW: ABUSE, CHILD ABUSE

“He wants to air this dirty laundry to the world does he…? Dabi, you fiend…you’ve been waiting for this moment…when they couldn’t prevent mass destruction…and faith in heroes is wavering.” - chapter 292

I truly, wholeheartedly, believe that MHA as a story upholds the myth of the perfect victim. I do not want to discuss if Horikoshi did that on purpose, or subconsciously because of inner bias – I find no meaning in doing so. For me the execution of an idea, in the grand scheme of the narrative, holds more value than the intention of the author. I’ve also had my fair share of people infantilizing Asian authors in the anime community for their poor writing decisions for one lifetime. It’s patronizing to both the author and the people reading it. Whether or not Horikoshi intended for his themes of abuse to paint the picture they did does not matter, because that’s how it reads as.

MHA puts victims of abuse in narrow boxes and softly dictates what’s an acceptable reaction to said abuse. Victims are continuously walking a tightrope between being deserving of compassion and sympathy and being unredeemable monsters who are too far gone and are only good for martyrdom after being put down.  

Eri fits the clean cut depiction of abuse victims that media usually gears towards. She is untouched by the cruelty around her - she preserves her innocence and kindness. She isn't assertive, but rather meek and passive. She doesn't fight back with force. And when offered help, she is receptive to it. That is not to say that Eri's depiction doesn't have a place in fiction, or that her portrayal can't be representative of the experiences of some - as we all deal with trauma and the inhumanity people throw at us differently. We see the same thing in the portrayal of Fuyumi, who shares many of the qualities discussed above. The same thing applies to her - i personally love the idea of all the siblings having different reaction to their childhood trauma and abuse. It shows that victims are not some type of monolith.

But the narrative treats the "forgiving" or "receptive to help/support" victims of abuse with more grace and with much more kindness. if you are willing to forgive, or the very least be quietly tolerant, the story grants you a happy ending. Forgiveness isn't a bad thing, it is an individual choice - but an abuse victim shouldn't have to do it for them to have a happy ending.

In a vacuum Eri and Fuyumi's character arcs and depictions of abuse are good but it becomes a problem when that's the only experience and type of victim we ever hold in high value or recognize as valid and deserving of compassion. Which the story reinforces.

Touya and Tenko's backstories aren't pretty nor comfortable or easy to sit through. Their responses to abuse aren't either. Reactive abuse is very much real.

[trillscienceofficer]

These are highly subjective interpretations but to me Jadzia and Seven are two (opposite?) flavors of gender indifference:

Jadzia: gender depends on what's funnier in the moment/what allows her to commit further to the bit. Always aware on some level that she's putting on a show and she loves it, especially if other people get confused. Not her job to explain! Figure it out yourself!

Seven (Voyager edition): wants OFF this ride, it's already a concession that Seven is using I/my/myself pronouns instead of we/us/ourselves, why is being an individual tied so closely to gender in the first place. She/her is, for the moment, just the least exhausting option when interacting with others among pronouns that all feel alien to her

[aquitainequeen]

An important thing to remember about the changes in government in the UK and France:

Labour won because the Conservative vote was split between the Tories and Reform UK.

The Left leaning parties in the French government came in first, because they put aside their differences and ran together in opposition to the Le Pen party.

Keep this in mind for the US election this November. Stay focused.

[peaches2217]

I got SO many compliments on the shirt, it was incredible 🥰

[hanna-kin]

You know the hate Lisa gets in this fandom is so sad

Daily I see people hating on her, some even for things that are other people’s fault.

Likewise I see people credit other people for her work.

And it's completely fine to dislike season 2, it's fine to be unhappy with decisions she made but I think it's just escalated and at this point it's pretty damn sad to see how hateful some people are being.

They are just vile and cruel and yeah it actually makes me sad.

[catominor]

sulla/metellus pius fic be upon ye...

[jewishregulus]

do you think regulus would like passover popovers

i think he would willingly consume them for the duration of passover but ….. no he would not like them …….. i think the jewish marauders era freak who enjoys them is prolly remus . and i think sirius would rather die than consume one . lily just doesn’t make em

[deepseasmetro]

yeah that seems like tme 'ally' behavior. dismissing trans women when they tell you that they're concerned about violence. no one cares that you're a kinkster though the fact that you put that above the safety of trans women is telling. i hope every trans woman or trans femme who knows you now knows that you don't care about their safety.

is this true girls. be honest with me. are you scared of me and my poop mines :'(

[neuroticreno]

Big fan of your hc about Myron being a vault city citizen, do you wanna share more on it? No biggie if you don't wanna!

you have no idea the beast you have unleashed, anon.

ALRIGHT FAIR WARNING HERE it is. an extremely lengthy explanation and i've been meaning to share it here anyhow :] take this doodle of him as well for a little extra

As a preface, this headcanon is entirely for funsies (and autism). Some bits may seem like a stretch of the imagination, but it's fun to give him some kind of backstory, so take it all as you will.

I use dialogue from Myron's talking head segments, as well as the floating dialogue seen when Myron is in active combat (how canonical the combat dialogue is may be up for debate, but for the sake of this…essay? we'll say it's true).

To start, let us briefly examine Myron's character. Notably, the parts that relate most to this essay.

Myron is intelligent. To give him credit where credit is due, he is smart and thoroughly understands the subjects that he talks about. The people around him know this as well, and remark on it too (mostly at how wasted his potential is). He cares little for the well-being of others, especially slaves, whom he views as objects, and mutants are worth even less to him. He also has a very high opinion of himself, often referring to himself in the third person and boasting about his intellectual capabilities (calling himself a genius, a God, etc. etc).

So, we know he has not lived in New Reno for his entire life, only being there roughly a year or so. As he puts it, he came across the Mordino's way back when, so where was he before that? Just wandering the wastes? Or perhaps coming from another settlement?

Myron, compared to any other companion in the game, mentions Vault City quite a bit. Even more than John Cassidy, who has been tending to a bar outside the Vault City walls for a presumably long time. Though he shares the same distaste that many others do for the city, he also possesses what feels like insider's knowledge that the average wastelander would not have.

A lot of this knowledge presents itself when Myron's intelligence is threatened. If the Chosen One is smart enough, they can engage in a dialogue with Myron and demonstrate to him just how much they know about Jet and its chemical compounds. He will snip at the Chosen One for asking too many questions and interrogate them, asking where they learned all of this stuff anyway. Their understanding of pharmaceuticals is on a similar level to his own, which he may take as them learning it from the same place. Makes sense, considering during combat, Myron will mention he has not been in a fight since the fifth grade. Nowhere else in the game beyond a stray tombstone in Golgotha is any school mentioned or found. One can assume that Vault City would be the only settlement nearby with an established education system, thus reinforcing his belief.

Should the Chosen One pry him about a cure for Jet and suggest endorphin blockers, when asked where they could find such a thing, Myron will suggest Vault City first. He explains they have a 'pretty good' medical warehouse, and laughs when they want to try it as an option, saying they would have more luck getting a radscorpion to part with its tail than getting Vault City to give up anything. The city is widely known for its medical advancements, but Myron could have more of an idea of just how extensive their medical know-how is, having experienced it firsthand. Myron also proclaims that he is a 'natural', 'self-taught', and possesses 'none of that bullshit Vault City 'purer-than-thou' 'tude', which is funny since he spouts off his own 'purer-than-thou' 'tude every time he opens his mouth. Of course, he may have some level of natural intellect, but the rest of it likely stems from an education.

He also remarks that the citizens are a 'Buncha "genetically pure" humans. They got their noses so high in the air they'll drown when it rains'. Again, pretty humorous regarding his own high-and-mighty sense of self.

We can look at his propensity to look down upon slaves/servants. In Vault City, slaves are integrated enough into society to call for a Servant Allocation Center. Where citizens regard them with little to no respect, Myron, having grown up in Vault City, likely followed that ideology, too. The city's negative view of mutants could also explain his own distaste for them.

Myron also makes a lot of Dungeons and Dragons references, which is really just a funny haha 90s pop culture thing at the end of it, but it is fun to imagine that, at some point, he might have had his own little group when he was younger. This bit is just speculation for the sake of entertainment.

All of this raises more questions though; why did he leave? How did he leave? And how did he make it to New Reno without dying on the way there?

As for why he left, we know that Myron does not appreciate being hindered or being told what to do. Working for the Mordino's, he will complain that they only want him to focus on Jet when he wants to make new drugs instead. He complains as well about the lack of respect, so he could have left Vault City for similar reasons. Perhaps his talents were recognized, and he was allowed to experiment more in the field of chemistry. However, Myron could have found Vault City's restrictions less than ideal, giving him the incentive to leave and find somewhere with more creative freedom (he can leave New Reno for the same reasons, anyhow).

How he left and how he got to New Reno is difficult to explain. Myron has virtually no survival skills, and it is a considerable distance from Vault City to New Reno. Hitched a ride with a caravan, maybe? Him managing to escape a settlement covered in laser turrets and guards is also unlikely, but perhaps there was some kind of weakness he was smart enough to exploit and slip through.

Any additional thoughts on this bit would be appreciated :]

[illegiblewords]

SOME ILLEGIBLE RAMBLES AND REFLECTIONS: ON GALE AND MYSTRA

I've been on the fence about whether to make this analysis specifically, but after seeing a few other discussions floating around figure it's worth offering another viewpoint in case it resonates.

These analyses in particular are very subjective and offer an interpretive option more than anything. I might allude to discussions I've seen elsewhere that I have different views from, but different views don't automatically mean personal dislike for me. Life would be boring if we all thought the same way, you know? Anyway. Hugeass post ahead, proceed at your own risk lol.

One of the arguments I've seen cropping up recently is the idea that romance between gods and mortals is inherently unequal, abusive, and problematic. I am very much of the mind that Mystra abused Gale. The developers at Larian have stated that every companion in Baldur's Gate 3 is a victim of abuse in some capacity. Some of my favorite romances over the years have been between gods and mortals. Mystra/Gale is not one of those. I think blaming the divine/mortal dynamic for any abuse misses the point. Moreover, it absolves Mystra of a huge amount of personal responsibility in the abuse she committed. I think it makes the abuse focus on what she is rather than who she is, how she looks at others, and how she treats others. I reflected on the divine/mortal pairings I've enjoyed compared to the dynamic between Gale and Mystra. In every divine/mortal romance I've loved, the god found wonder and saw a kind of power they lack in their mortal partner. This power stems directly from their mortality. There are experiences and perspectives specific to being mortal that are invaluable. The god doesn't relate to those experiences and perspectives the same way. The god always needs not only humility but equal respect for their mortal partner in some capacity. Additionally, the god acknowledges that being divine does not equate to omniscience. This is not a god according to the monotheistic definition. It's closer to an immortal being who excels in a very specific area and has certain responsibilities weighing on them. The god sees the forest but may no longer see trees, while the mortal sees trees but may not see the forest. There is value in what is ephemeral and fragile, just as there is value in what is permanent. The god and mortal need to bring balance to one another in the sense that the god helps the mortal find comfort in a bigger picture while the mortal reminds the god what it feels like to be small, vulnerable, and intimately connected to the world/other lives. A healthy divine/mortal romance requires recognition of multiple forms of strength, intelligence, and value. That very, very much is not what Gale and Mystra had. Another layer to the 'divine/mortal romance is always problematic' argument ties to questions of power imbalance. I would argue that even among human beings--power imbalance always exists. Human beings are not identical or interchangeable with one another. One partner might be brilliant at math and runs finances where the other partner would be lost. The other partner might be brilliant at people and can navigate social situations the mathematician would feel helpless in. One partner may be physically larger or stronger than another. The other partner has the full weight of social/legal support in most conflicts. And this isn't touching on issues relating to mental health, physical health, economic stability, societal issues, etc. People are multifaceted. None of us excel at all things, find power in all things, or suffer all things. We each have our own pains and triumphs. We each have the ability to hurt each other if we want to. If we wanted to avoid any power imbalance in favor of 1:1 equality, the only answer we'd have would be to literally romance ourselves . And that's 1) narcissism 2) lonely 3) sad. Just ask Raphael.

But unhealthy power imbalances must exist, right? And there is a horrible power imbalance between Gale and Mystra. I would just argue it has more to do with them personally than because of Mystra being a goddess. I'd argue that we should be looking at Gale and Mystra not as mortal and god or man and woman, but as people above all else with their own experiences/motives driving choices throughout the relationship. Examine the ways they look at and treat each other versus themselves. If Mystra was the mortal and Gale was the god, if Mystra was a man and Gale was a woman, I would not change my stance regarding where abuse was committed. Imo people get too caught up trying to make sweeping generalizations instead of focusing on the individuals and how they specifically interact. This in-mind, what are some examples of unhealthy power imbalance as I define it?

A character is physically and/or mentally incapable of participating with proper awareness of the situation, as a partner with equal respect and sway within the relationship.

A character is dependent upon the prospective partner for survival and cannot refuse them without fear of retribution or withholding necessities to survival.

A character is being systematically isolated and made dependent on their partner for all socialization and self-worth.

And so on. Hopefully you get the gist. What I do want to draw attention to though is that these examples offer room to include a variety of circumstances or dynamics within their umbrella. Ex. An underage character with an adult would easily qualify for the first criteria, but an extremely, non-functioningly drunk character would also count. So lets have a look at Gale and Mystra's situation in particular again.

Gale has, by his own admission, been involved with the Weave for as long as he can remember. He sees Mystra as synonymous with the Weave, and with magic. These are things he explicitly states within the game. Gale also has notable reactions to say, saving Arabella from being killed over the idol of Silvanus or Mirkon from harpies. With Arabella especially, the idea of being treated as unforgivable or deserving death for a youthful mistake is something he talks about as if he has some experience with it. And while this is a video game with limited character models, I'm going to estimate that the tiefling kids are probably somewhere between nine and thirteen. We know Gale has been stuck largely alone in his tower with the orb for a year or so. The orb specifically is something that happened when he was an adult, but the way he talks about Arabella with implicit personal identification of facing older authority figures as a young person who didn't know better... I don't think this is the orb alone troubling him. Minsc also has a dialogue option where he talks about how in Rashemen, boys with an affinity for the Weave were hidden away and he suspects it was to keep them from being preyed on by Mystra. Not men, boys. I've seen people try to argue that Mystra would have been indisposed/dead and unable to take advantage of Gale when he was a kid due to the broader Forgotten Realms timeline. I'm inclined to say in this instance, with all evidence in the narrative pointing to a particular arc and theme for Gale and Mystra's relationship, it's more likely that the timeline was something Larian chose to fudge in the interest of storytelling opportunities. The alternative would be that none of those dialogue exchanges meant anything. The narrative is weakened if those moments are made meaningless, and the characters become flatter and less credible without them too. If it comes between trivia and the emotional core of a story, I'd argue the core wins. Gale claims to have slept with other people before Mystra, but that a romanced character is the first person he's slept with after her. I personally suspect it wasn't a lot of prior experience, and he was pretty young when his romance with Mystra began. Additionally, while it's pure conjecture on my part--given how Gale reacts to the tiefling kids it would make sense to me if Mystra started grooming him when he was between nine and thirteen years old. Other people have shared analysis pointing to evidence that Gale unknowingly dual-classed and was a storm sorcerer originally, but was told he was purely a wizard and then had all of his sorcerous abilities eaten by the orb without ever knowing they existed. I do think it makes sense for Mystra to influence Gale as a potentially very powerful sorcerer this way to 1) get him to self-limit through wizard spells so he's easier to predict and control 2) be completely dependent on and devoted to her, starting as early as possible. (For the curious, sorcerer Gale theory is here and here. Very well-done imo!) In any case, Mystra absolutely has personal motive to do what she did, that has nothing to do with Gale personally. That it turned into grooming for a sexual relationship isn't a huge leap in light of her apparent mindset either. But lets take a moment to review that.

This is a really good recap setting up Mystra's situation. Karsus too, by the by. This second video here helps explain Mystra's own situation. My understanding is like this:

Mystryl was the original goddess of magic. Mystryl was a born-goddess rather than an ascended mortal goddess, which is important to note because both exist in the Forgotten Realms. Mystryl was neutral alignment. The Weave, magic, and those casting magic all tied into her divine portfolio. Divine portfolios reflect deities' jurisdictions and callings, which empowers them through use in the world as well as mortal worship. With all this in-mind, naturally it benefited Mystryl to encourage experimentation, devotion, and arcane ambition. The more spellcasters pushed the limits of magic, the more powerful Mystryl became too. This was when the Empire of Netheril came about, with its floating cities and its magocracies. Worth noting, eleventh level spells were being used at this point in time. Cue a bunch of aberrations showing up, called phaerimm. Cosmic horror monstrosities that sort of looked like if you combined grubs and lampreys then made them way too big. On the one hand they were ridiculously powerful natural spellcasters themselves. On the other, they could straight up detect, deflect, and eat magic at will. Incidentally they were also extremely hostile to other life forms. So them existing at the same time as Netheril caused some massive problems. The wizard empire was at war, struggling, and panicking. Karsus was a prodigy and the one most people were turning to for protection at the time. Karsus decided the best way to solve the problem was to become a god himself using the first and only twelfth level spell (of his own design) then get rid of the phaerimm that way. The spell specifically required the caster to replace a god of their choice. Karsus, being a wizard, thought Mystryl was the strongest divine force of all time and chose her. The first video explained very well, but it basically sounds like as a born-goddess--maintaining the Weave was essentially an autonomic process for Mystryl. Basically required as much thought as beating your own heart. It wasn't like that for Karsus. Karsus might have been the best wizard in the sense that someone might be the best marathon runner of all time, but if you take that marathon runner and then tell them they have to pump their heart manually from now on they're not just going to lose any future races they attempt--they might just die on the spot. Which is kind of what happened to Karsus. Karsus became a god of ambition along with magic, then lost his divinity to become a Great Old One instead. These days he's a stone stained in the gore of his dead people who speaks in fountains of blood. (One of the reasons I'm not enabling Gale in his quest to become god of magic, by-the-by.) Mystryl died because of Karsus's spell. Mystryl probably hadn't considered mortals, let alone the wizards who gave her so much power as a goddess, a threat to her personally before. An incarnation of Mystra (not Gale's Mystra) was born from the ashes of Mystryl to become the new goddess of magic. One of the first things Mystra does after basically reincarnating from Mystryl is ban mortals from using magic at level ten or higher. Mystra is now aware that mortals can challenge the gods and straight up kill her personally. She still needs casters using magic at high level to empower herself as a goddess, but it's a double-edged sword that can absolutely kill her. And to make matters worse... this Mystra also gets killed later. The Mystra we have now was a mortal woman (Midnight) who kept Mystra's name to avoid confusing worshippers, who'd been chosen by Mystra previously and ascended into that role. Midnight-Mystra, from the sound of it, also got killed for a bit and had to get saved by Elminster.

Like I said before, I do think there were some timeline blips going on for Mystra with Baldur's Gate 3. As long as she's died and reincarnated twice, her psychological state is cemented. How long it took her to come back and whether there were even more deaths than that is less important. I'd argue the key ideas we're supposed to take away about Mystra from this are that she is a goddess who 1) at this point is an ascended mortal who may have certain inherited memories or experiences from born-deities 2) is hyper aware that mortals can kill her 3) has been killed and reborn multiple times, not just by mortals but the very wizards she draws power from.

This is absolutely a shitty situation. It makes sense Mystra has complexes around it. It makes sense Midnight-Mystra would feel especially afraid when it comes to wizards seeing as she herself is a former mortal, so her position likely feels even more tenuous. The way she interacts with wizards and relates to her own position as a goddess is not as someone secure in her own power, but someone who sees anyone coming close to her level as a direct threat to her life. She needs casters to be strong to fuel her portfolio, but if they're too strong they can challenge her. So she is using whatever tools at her disposal to keep them beneath her while maintaining her own strength. It's also worth remembering that Mystra has no pretense of being good-alignment. Her motive in confronting the Netherbrain wasn't to protect Toril from mindflayers, but to protect herself personally from the Crown of Karsus and protect the Weave from the Karsic Weave. If magic as a force is in danger (as per the Karsic Weave) she might try to do something, but what befalls mortals is irrelevant to her. I'd argue she's 1000% acting out of self-interest for Baldur's Gate 3. And again--it makes sense given her position. It makes sense given the track record for gods in the Forgotten Realms.

So, if we go with the in-game implications that Mystra is supposed to have been active across Gale's life and was active when Minsc was running around a century ago (referenced in his comments about Rashemen protecting boys from Mystra)... what kind of relationship has Mystra built with wizards in particular? This is heavy speculation here but I'm going off of Gale's experience, Elminster's behavior, a point of notable cattiness from Lorroakan, and Mystra's motives.

I think Mystra encourages wizards to compete for her favor, both through their arcane power and on a personal level. She encompasses their entire world and dictates everything they are capable of by holding the Weave in her portfolio. Casters are nothing without her. She is fickle in her attentions, moving between wizard paramours and chosen so they constantly feel the need to prove themselves worthy of her love. As their goddess, they have no room to question her or ask for loyalty born of personal affection. Mystra does not care. She is inherently more than they are and ever will be, and unless they have something to woo her through her portfolio specifically there is no reason for her to stick around. They're lucky she gives them the time of day. Even if she can't literally, physically, personally prevent a wizard from interacting with the Weave--she can seriously screw with them while they do. Mystra's first post-Mystryl act was to blanket-limit the spells wizards could perform, remember? And BG3 Mystra was able to pluck the orb from Gale's chest at any time, whenever she felt like it. She just didn't. Lifetimes of work, dedication, study, and innovation are not ultimately credited to the casters who built themselves through their art but to Mystra. Memorized spells, arcane gestures, the interaction of components. She can make all of that so much harder. And she takes credit for any advancement a wizard makes. Origin Gale has lines with Minthara where he struggles to see himself as capable of anything without Mystra's say-so and needs to be reminded that she can't claim everything he has ever done through magic, and she hasn't managed to stop him yet. The fact that Gale himself, as Mystra's former lover, doesn't believe this initially and needs someone who very much is not a wizard to remind him says a lot about the dynamic Mystra set up with him and (in all likelihood) other wizards. So how does all of this fit in with the grooming point? Well, magic users are going to be much easier to psychologically control if Mystra starts taking advantage of them when they're still children and don't know any better. She needs to feed off of their strength with no risk to herself, so she needs to make sure they are can't even fathom turning on her. Maximize the power difference, ingrain that shit early. And if it becomes a sexual relationship... Mystra can tell herself they're even less likely to consider turning on her because it's just one more way they depend on her for validation.

Mystra's own fear and trauma (like Cazador's) does not prevent her from becoming an abuser. And like Cazador, she's using it to fuel the abuse she commits herself.

Something else I want to highlight before I segue to focus on Gale further, is how wizards deal with each other and why policy differs toward wizards versus other casters.

Wizards are nerds with shared interests. They're fucking around to see what's possible with magic and seem genuinely excited when anyone innovates. Innovation is something they can learn from and incorporate it into their own art. But actual wizard friendships, at least in Baldur's Gate 3, seem to be rare. They undercut each other emotionally and often look for ways to elevate themselves above their peers. Gale's colleagues left him to twist alone in his tower for a year. Elminster prioritizes pleasing Mystra by passing on her message for Gale to kill himself, and defends her if the player condemns Mystra's behavior. He even gets angry for certain dialogue options.

(It bears saying, I think Elminster has been psychologically wrecked by Mystra too. He does seem to be trying in spite of that but guy's not well himself.)

Even if not all wizards look to become romantically entangled with Mystra, Mystra has definitely encouraged competition and mistrust between them. After all, if the wizards supported each other they might realize they're stronger than her and that she's been causing harm. Another potential death.

I suspect the reason Mystra focuses on wizards is because wizards are ordinary people who know they were born ordinary, and know how hard it was to build arcane power. They aren't as secure in themselves as sorcerers who use magic like a reflex. And warlocks manage to work around Mystra with patrons who aren't beholden to her. So best for Mystra to undermine, manipulate, or otherwise occupy sorcerers who are strong enough to pose threats and teach the wizards they'd be nothing without her.

... One of the other arguments I saw recently was that Gale was being disingenuous/lying to himself and the player when he claims he wanted to gift Mystra a part of herself back. That he only wants power for power's sake, is kind of a terrible person, and it would be boring if he was being genuine. I deeply disagree with this stance.

When it comes to motivation, I'd argue power is by nature a means to an end rather than the end itself. "If I'm powerful enough no one will be able to hurt me again," "If I'm powerful enough I can fix every terrible thing I feel the need to," "If I'm powerful enough I can push the boundaries of what is possible and find a sense of wonder at the results."

Power because power does not cut it as a motive. It's likewise with ambition. We're not 2-D mustache twirlers here.

Ambition includes experimenting with a project to see if you can pull off something new or particularly difficult. Finding joy in the process and challenge itself isn't evil. It isn't even unhealthy.

Competing with others isn't necessarily negative either, in the right context. Being an elite athlete at the Olympics for example, you're putting your own skills against those around you in the hopes of surpassing them. It doesn't mean you think poorly of your fellow competitors. If anything, one would hope you respect them deeply for the shared discipline and passion. (But you still want to win, course. ;P)

If you read my post about DnD's pantheon, it's pretty clear I'm not opposed to the idea of A. firing gods from positions they're neglecting or B. nominating others to oversee necessary-but-unused portfolios. There are established gods of the Forgotten Realms who need, urgently, to be sacked. Being born into divinity, set up through nepotism, or 'elected by seniority' is not enough to shield a deity from my judgment. Mystra is abusing her worshippers, and while her portfolio might be able to squeak by I'd argue she's been compromised and is committing unprofessional and detrimental behavior in her capacity as goddess of magic. ESPECIALLY knowing she's like this as an ascended mortal. Any other mortal would be well within moral bounds to replace her. She has no ethical high ground in that regard. Managing autonomic maintenance of the Weave is an issue, but if someone showed up to replace her with the argument that Mystra is unfit due to committing abuse... I don't think that person would be morally wrong. Ballsy as hell, but not wrong.

So what's going on with Gale?

Gale canonically, in dialogue, thinks he and the world might both be better off if he was dead. I'll go a step further and argue that before the game even starts Gale considers his personal self a net-negative. If he isn't offsetting that with magical skill, knowledge, achievements, material possessions, and overall usefulness--he doesn't think he has a reason to be alive. The universe is worse for his existing in it.

Gale brags because he's trying to show he has something of value to give other people when he sees nothing of value in himself. He's trying to prove he can be an asset so others will keep him around. He brags notably less as he gains a sense of self-worth, self-confidence, and general support as acts progress. The times he gets snippy with other casters are because if he isn't the only and most useful magic guy to get something done, Gale thinks he might as well be thrown away. He is replaceable. He's also terrified to admit anything about the orb in Act I because there is no way to see it as anything but a danger and a burden. When that's added to his depression, he's sure he'll get abandoned in the wilderness to explode by himself and it might even serve him right. No one will mourn him. They might even be glad to be rid of the burden he brought.

Gale wants others to like him, to see him as a good person, to see him as someone brave and smart and worthy of trust. He absolutely does not see himself that way. If he's trying to prove it to the party--he's trying to prove it to himself just as much. There's a line he can give with The Dark Urge where he comments that if people are being killed just for being annoying, he should be dead a thousand times over. If you get solid approval with him at the tiefling party, he'll admit he didn't have any friends before the game. And while I can only speak to a particular romantic route, in Act III he talks about having been told to his face at various points/in various ways that he's insufferable. He knows other people don't like him and don't believe in him. If bad things happen to him they probably think he deserves it. He might even think so too.

Gale doesn't see anything worthwhile in himself that isn't built through wizardry. It has to be because he was smart enough, worked hard enough, and showed enough character to earn his power. If it's sorcery (and this is only a standard he applies to himself) then all that effort he put in would become meaningless. He can't look at his personal self as having done anything deserving of value or respect if he's a sorcerer because magic was easier for him than other people. And if he can't provide any magic, knowledge, or resources at all then no one has reason to give him the time of day. People hate him. Mystra only paid attention for his abilities as a spellcaster. The mortal, personal aspects of him were things she put up with.

So forget power and ambition for just a moment. What does Gale as a person in that position, who feels that way about himself, actually want? I'd argue that he probably just wanted to know the person he loved most actually gave a shit about him as a person. That he wasn't disposable or only worth as much as his skills and material possessions. I'm pretty sure he'd have wanted that regardless of whether Mystra was a goddess. Mystra both being the kind of goddess she was and the kind of person she was kept telling him he should be satisfied, that he shouldn't want any more than she was giving him. He can't climb any higher than her. No one can give him more than her. She is divine, she is the world itself. Gale never felt loved in that relationship. Due to Mystra's abuse he got to a place where the idea of wanting to be loved back became sacrilegious. It meant there was something wrong with him, that he was arrogant and insatiable. How else could he feel utterly alone and unlovable with a goddess?

Gale desperately wanted to mean something to Mystra personally, so he tried to offer a gesture of love in her language. Something he thought would be valuable to her as an individual and something requiring a ton of arcane skill/strength to deliver. He wanted her to look at him like he was irreplaceable as a person. I genuinely don't think that's a power-hungry or ambitious thing to want.

Gale didn't understand the orb, and unfortunately for him he didn't understand Mystra either. She wasn't the wise and understanding goddess he thought she was. She never wanted an equal. She does not have it in her to love someone as such. The idea of equality, for Mystra, is something that must be crushed to preserve herself.

I figure that the Gale who ascends to godhood has accumulated a divine amount of stuff and power to compensate for his belief that lacking those things, he would be worthless. If Gale wasn't a wizard it might have been music, or writing, or fighting, or politics--any skill, influence, or resource could be used the same way. It’s not that ambition is inherently bad. It’s that for Gale, it’s unhealthy. The ambition isn’t for its own sake. He’s using it as a counterweight against his own sense of worthlessness. God Gale buries his problems instead of dealing with them. He will never know if a character who romances him only did so because they saw his potential and wanted to come along for the ride. He will never know if they'd have bothered to stick around if he was only Gale Dekarios, if he didn't have so much to offer them. He tells himself it's enough that they believed he could do it.

With the mortal Gale ending, we should note that Gale doesn’t need power to enjoy the study of magic if he’s healthy. His priority isn’t about pushing the limits of spells, making new ones, or making a name for himself. Given room to decide for himself, he just wants to uplift and share with others through teaching. His trends in approval and disapproval support this preference too.

For Gale, I really think ambition and power are crutches he uses to justify being alive because he doesn't see any other reason. Give him a reason and he genuinely doesn't need them. They're the means, not the end. He does not want power for the sake of power. Guy is sad and doesn't know how to live with himself. He's not a worse or less believable character with that being his motive. Stories are about people, and people don't move through the world with static 'flaws' and 'virtues' checklists that need to be balanced. There's nothing inherently deeper or more meaningful about villainous characters compared to heroic ones. People make choices and deal with situations according to their experiences moment to moment, trying to make sense of things as best they can throughout their lives. Gale fits perfectly within this. The other cast members do too.

And for the record, while I'd argue Karsus was far more ambitious in character than Gale--even for him, it wasn't just about power. The guy was trying to save his people. He fucked up in a horrible and traumatic way so he's a Netherese blood fountain now. (RIP Karsus but also someone please pact with him.)

And as one last, controversial section... what did Gale's experience with Mystra do to him when it comes to his relationship with sex?

From how Gale talks about and shows Weave-sex, I'd argue it's an extension of him feeling inadequate as a mortal. And knowing this is a controversial point + a lot of people have done and loved the Weave scene because it reflects Gale's love of magic, I offer this: Gale would not be less worthy of love if he didn't have magic. Gale does not know this about himself. He went from an archwizard with a tower and Mystra's chosen to a level one adventurer sleeping on the ground. His entire relationship with magic for much of the game is incredibly unhealthy because he sees the person left in its absence as worthless. For Gale to have a healthy arc, I'd argue he needs to learn how to look at himself as nothing but a man and know he's still precious and irreplaceable. He needs to learn that he doesn't need to prove he deserves to be alive. He isn't disappointing. He doesn't have to try to impress others all the time to have a place in their worlds. He doesn't need to bribe people with shiny things or unique abilities so they'll tolerate the rest. He can exist as no one and nothing but himself and be treasured just for that.

I think at some point Gale could potentially have sex in the Weave again as a repairing experience where he's confident that his physical body, his reactions, and his wants weren't anything to feel ashamed of. Reclaiming that from his experience with Mystra could be very powerful and sexy. But for the first time he has sex since Mystra, when he thinks he's going to need to kill himself any day now and has been struggling between terror and self-hatred, I personally think it's healthier for him to get the validation of being enough as just Gale. Not the Wizard of Waterdeep. His life isn't being advocated for because he's strong or unique in bed. Someone wants him alive as just a person.

And not for nothing... I'm saying this as a writer who can't not write. I've had to do my own share of reflection about how I look at myself if writing isn't the metric of my worth. I wouldn't think Gale needs to abandon all magic any more than I would need to abandon all writing. But it's really important to know we aren't empty trash without our callings, you know?

Before I end this post, I do want to invite readers to think back to those bullets I made before on unhealthy power imbalance.

A character is physically and/or mentally incapable of participating with proper awareness of the situation, as a partner with equal respect and sway within the relationship.

A character is dependent upon the prospective partner for survival and cannot refuse them without fear of retribution or withholding necessities to survival.

A character is being systematically isolated and made dependent on their partner for all socialization and self-worth.

If Mystra deliberately started grooming Gale from a young age, emphasized and exaggerated the power discrepancy rather than making any effort to close the gap, that's a pretty big deal. Gale definitely never had equal respect or sway in the relationship compared to her. She'd probably find the idea insulting in the face of her godhood. She didn't want a partner but a supplicant who obeyed her with no needs for himself. Mystra actively distorted Gale's sense of boundaries and magnified what she could take from him if he displeased her. His life's work, his ability to access parts of his own mind for spells, his means of functioning in the world, his ability to defend himself... but also? His health and survival, once the orb was brought into play. And socially, Gale was incredibly isolated. It sounds like he hasn't even seen his own mother in at least a year, which I have some thoughts on. He was friendless for a long time even as Mystra's chosen. And Mystra made sure other wizards knew when she abandoned him to the point that even Lorroakan was aware. Mystra's offense was something for others to look down on him for. And Gale struggles in-game with the idea that Mystra mistreated or neglected him--because how could a goddess, his goddess, do that? He's been gaslit so hard that he doesn't quite get a moment of fully realizing it wasn't his fault. In some dialogue options Mystra even tries to frame his trauma over her abuse, unaware even that he had the Karsic Weave inside him, as wallowing in self-pity.

Gale did make a mistake, but I'd argue it matters a lot that the mistake was innocent and that he's woefully misjudged Mystra's character. He's being told it couldn't have been innocent and he deserves to be punished for it. He largely believes that. Doesn't make it true.

[roxannepolice]

Rant 3/phantom pains of Schrödinger's lore in ChibnallWho/"the history between" doesn't mean much to the author. that is, it does. but it doesn't. but it does. but not really. but./can someone in the group chat please read my time sensitive questions I posted 25 hours ago?

Between bracing myself to finally open the advisors reviewed thesis, waiting for anyone at work to give a newbie a hint, and reading a fairly good criticism of the political stance in ChibnallWho, I guess it's a good time to let go off some steam about this era. Now, an important clarification for tumblr: when I criticize the show, I am not in any way bashing on people who enjoy it! Good for you, and that's why I try to tag these appropriately.

But yeah, this is going to go deep into what I mean when I say the writing in this era is just bad, something even its defenders sometimes concede. This often turns into dicussions of political/social messaging in seasons 11-13, which is as fair criticism as any. Yes, it often veered into confusing to downright appalling. But for me, that's not what "bad writing" means. You can make an excellent story about a likeable rapist and murderer. You can make compelling propaganda of pretty much any economic stance (well, maybe except for "the solution to problems with Amazon is to blow up their trucks so now everything has to be delivered on foot I guess", that's something straight from Monty Python). And of course, the "too woke" "criticisms" aren't anything valid like at all.

No, for me the bad writing in ChibnallWho lies in the general sense of confusion as to who exactly is the target audience here: someone who's very well acquaintanced with the lore(s), or someone who's completely new to the show. Now, this is also inspired by some criticisms of RTD2 is that it is too expository, leading into the show-within-a-show theorizing. And of course, exposition can be done well or not-so-well, and there's good argument some parts of exposition in s14 were on the nose. But the thing about a television series, especially one as long as Doctor Who, is that any episode can be someone's first - and the writer's job is to make it so it won't be their last. What this means is that the audience needs to be provided the information necessary to grasp at least the emotional level of the story, if not every bit of earlier lore logic. In the case of Doctor Who there's also a part of establishing which part of the lore is valid to the story at hand, considering that both within the show itself, but also the huge multimedia lore, there are bound to be contradictions. And that's ok! You have a good story idea that will require a retcon for a better pay off, go for it! Like, if you really think the Doctor should get to save Gallifrey for their 50th birthday, then go ahead, just reduce the Time War to a local conflict between Time Lords and Daleks instead of underlining just how widespread across time and space it was, and logistically impossible to contain by removing one party (this is one of the many cases of "I don't like what Moffat did, but I agree the execution is functional").

Basically, Lancelot having an affair with Guinevre isn't relevant to him storming a wedding and killing mortally wounding giving a fleshwound to the bride's father.

So, essentially my issue with ChibnallWho writing is simultaneously trying to cut itself off from lore/earlier seasons, while relying on it for any emotional pay off. To give a counterexample from this very era's one of best written episodes: when the Doctor goes on about what being turned into a Cyberman means and that she won't lose anyone else to that, that's bloody powerful! And it's powerful regardless of whether you know it's specifically about Bill, or just go on the information provided within the episode - that the Doctor lost someone to this. Unfortunately, The Haunting of Villa Diodati is an honourable exception in this and many other aspects.

So, to start from the beginning. There's a frequent criticism that team TARDIS was overcrowded in seasons 11 and 12 with three companions, to which an immediate defense is that it's not the first time there were three companions at once. Fine. But combine this with the following: it's not just three companions introduced at once, it's three companions introduced at once, plus a brand new Doctor, plus a brand new sonic, plus a brand new TARDIS interior (that's absent for nearly full two first episodes). So you're basically left with four strangers and no point of reference in your getting to know them. And by no point of reference, I mean something that I haven't noticed anyone else pointing out: Thirteen is literally the first Doctor since One to have no established elements in their first season, at all (barring the TARDIS and sonic, again, completely redesigned).

It's a bit hard to discuss One to Two regeneration relying only on stills and audio, but Polly and Ben are there to act as audience proxies for this Beatle-hairstyled guy with a recorder being the old man he was a moment ago. Three's first season all revolves around UNIT, established in Two's era. Four inherits UNIT and Sarah Jane. Five inherits Adric, Nyssa, Tegan and the Master for his welcome. Six has Peri. Seven has Mel, the Master and the Rani. Eight's movie is all about the Master. Even the reboot for Nine has the Nastene consciousness as a hello and the whole season revolving around the Daleks. Ten gets Rose and Tylers, and Cybermen, and Daleks, and Sarah Jane, and K-9. Eleven gets the previously established River Song and a Classic Who villain reunion in the season finale. Twelve gets Clara. Thirteen gets.... Twelve's suit that she should have stayed in and Daleks, nearly three months from her first episode.

And the thing is, I understand how this would have appeared to be a good idea on paper! Complaints about the show getting lost up it's own self-referential ass have been around for years by this point, and even Moffat tried to go for a soft reboot in s10. Chibs literally asking him to set the TARDIS on fire is as symbolic a new beginning as they get. A bold, intriguing idea. As is trying to explore Titanic with nothing but a snorkel.

Because in practice it had two fundamental flaws, one more general and one specific to the story as it unfolded. The general one has been hinted at: this is basically why there's the sense of overcrowding on the TARDIS, while also leaving the audience feeling they don't really know anyone on board. Are we getting to know the new Doctor from the companions' perspective? The companions from the Doctor's? The new villain (and a really unfamiliar one, Toothboy isn't a familiar threat like plastic pollution metaphor or pshysically inevitable end of the world) from an alien's or humans' perspective? The new worlds from all of theirs? We sort of end up relating most to Grace, except she dies in the first episode. The thing is, it is in confrontation with the established that we learn most about the characters. Nothing characterizes Nine more than his interactions with the Daleks, going from torturing one to deciding he can't commit another planetary destruction to stop them. Basically, between a kind straight Black navy officer and a White lesbian strangling her wife in a jealous rage, you're likelier to recognize Othello in the latter. Something tells me this is why RTD had Fifteen interact with another Doctor, Donna, Mel, Kate, UNIT, the Toymaker and even toothied Master before sending him on his own merry way.

The second problem has more to do with the direction the story actually went in. Because just from the above, and indeed after s11 it was a frequent praise of the era, it would look like Chibs is going for something easily accessible to new audiences. Great. But then comes s12 and basically all of the emotional pay off comes from the audience's attitude to the the lore! Or, maybe I'll put it this way: all charitable interpretations of it are rooted in not only lore literacy, but specific readings of established lore. And not only is the lore hardly established for the newcomers, but it's also not established which parts are to be cherry picked for the returning audience. Nowhere is it better visible than in Fugitive!Doctor's TARDIS being a police box. This was clearly meant to tell the audience yes, this is indeed the Doctor's TARDIS, but if you know how much of a deal pre-Hartnell Doctors would be, you'd also know the TARDIS doesn't just look like a police box, it was stuck looking like one in 1963. And so we end up with secret third Doctor theories between classic series 6 and 7.

And this is the fundamental problem with the timeless child. It shakes the lore to the core, but without establishing what this lore is, and how the audience is supposed to feel about it. Oh, you can go for post-colonial criticisms, but that relies on you reading the Time Lords as the british empire, a reading not clear to all of the audience, as exhibited by an actual academic article (because yes, I spent my hard earned money on a collection of academic articles about ChibnallWho and no I absolutely won't share a pdf should anyone dm me) written by an author more rooted in feminist than post-colonial critical theories seeing the new origin of Time Lords as replacing a masculine creatio ex nihilo ethos by that of a feminine explorer-scientist [appreciative]. You're basically supposed to get a phantom pain of a lore that's both alive and dead until observed, the presumed intention being that you will have a positive or negative feelings about the cat, without considering most people will be either abstractly impressed by the metaphor, or equally abstractly disturbed by animal abuse. It's criticising the roman empire by debunking it being founded by Mars's children raised by a she-wolf.

And this is also visible in the Doctor's own reaction to the revelation, which I guess you might argue is complex, but I would say it's more shifting from establishing moment to establishing moment. She goes from being shocked by it (again, no part of the text informed me I shouldn't cherry pick her characterization as including calling Time Lords the most rotten civilization in the universe, also is it even established that's the second time Gallifrey was destroyed?), to describing it as empowering, to apparently not thinking about it for 100 years, to having an identity crisis, to stating her identity is about what she does, to bemoaning the could-have-beens, to deciding she doesn't want to know, to her deepest desire being wanting to know it after all (the vision of ttc in potd). Like, come on, not finding your glasses means your room is messy, not complex. The effect is infantilizing more than anything else, I mean it's been what, three months since the last time a villain informed a heroine she has an epic origin that's also very horrible in The rise of Skywalker? Which impression is amplified by the only clue as to the Doctor's personal, not performed, attitude being that she apparently finds the cliche chosen one story of a boy abused by his adoptive family turning out to be a wizard, and a special wizard at that, comforting. Probably not the intended reading that wouldn't even be available if Rowling got cancelled earlier, but there as things are.

And of course, this has a lot of bearing on how thoschei dynamic is executed. On the one hand we have the entire emotional pay off rooted in the "history between them", on the other vague references to Classic Who and expanded universe, on the third characterization of the Master that is rooted more in fanon Freud-for-dummies woobification than anything this character's motivations have ever been established as. Like, between the charitable reading "Thirteen is hostile to the Master because of the events of s10" and the anti-charitable reading of "Missy's development was retconned in the Master's hostility", the answer is, it doesn't bloody matter to the story at hand, or else it's the writer's job to point to it as meaningful (again, as Maxine Alderton did with cybermenification in THOVD). Another case of "I don't agree with Moffat, but I agree the execution was functional", but you can juxtapose this with the way Simm!Master was presented in s10 - yeah, he got cured and kicked out of Gallifrey; that's really all you need to know, because his role in this story is being an unrepentant asshole and no amount of gifs slowing down John Simm turning his eyes down before saying "Eh, you wouldn't understand" will change that. The same goes for "see, the Master didn't destroy Gallifrey over everything that's been done to them, but over Theta being hurt uwu" interpretation - neither the reading this was the motivation, nor anything relating to the Master suffering from the Time Lords have been established in the text, neither as it unfolded nor as a pay off reveal! This basically relies on the attitude that the most charitable reading is by default the intended one, which is how you end up with "op means that Taylor Swift being gay shouldn't make you ignore all other gay women musicians".

A little bit of an aside, but people remember O was an actual person the Doctor met in unknown circumstances, not just a creation of the Master from the beginning, right? Like, this is taken into account in all "he's so desperate to be friends again uwu" readings, right?

So this is why "if the history between means anything" quote falls flat to me. The meaning is rooted in lore that's brushed aside in the same breath. The author relies on it being meaningful for the audience, while providing only the bare bones of "we were friends, but took completely different paths" background, and that by the end of the first act. Just as he relies on the audience having an emotional attachment to the lore without doing anything to create that attachment.

[dog-bonezzzz]

sometimes i feel like some of the hlvrai fandom needs to remember these are not corporate soulless characters owned by rich white guys made solely for profit. the science team (and the others) are a group of stranger's half life gmod improv roleplay characters. the cast members have shown they do check on the fandom from time to time these characters do belong to normal everyday people. be mindful

[two-corpses-in-the-burial-mounds]

It's interesting to me how much of the fandom seems to be convinced that Wei Wuxian has low self-worth, considering that I (having only watched the live-action, admittedly) see very little evidence of this in canon.

I assume this is because of his tendency towards self-sacrifice, which shows up multiple times in canon like with the golden core transfer, but I personally think this is a false equivalence. Yes, Wei Wuxian often makes decisions actively detrimental to his own health and wellbeing; he gives his golden core to Jiang Cheng, he takes a curse from Jin Ling, he takes the Wen brand for Liu Qingyang and he takes a whipping from Madam Yu and considers the loss of a hand for Lotus Pier.

However, in none of these circumstances does this choice seem to be made from a lack of care for himself. Instead, it is usually made because he thinks he can handle the situation better than the person in question. Wei Wuxian thinks that between him and Jiang Cheng, he can better handle not having a golden core. Between him and Jin Ling, he thinks he can overcome the course where Jin Ling cannot. The Wen brand is less premeditated, but again the pattern is clear in that Wei Wuxian makes the choice to take the brand because he thinks having it on his chest is better than Liu Qingyang having it on her face. At the fall of Lotus Pier, Wei Wuxian decides that his pain and his hand is an acceptable loss for the lives of everyone in Lotus Pier.

These acts hurt him, but that is a side effect of a larger goal. The choice to handle these events himself does not indicate a lack of value in himself, but rather a prioritization of other goals. However, there seems to be a common conflation of Wei Wuxian's prioritization of others with his not caring or valuing himself. However, if Wei Wuxian doesn't value himself, then why does he make such an effort to survive for as long as he does? If he does not value his own thoughts and opinions, then why does he argue with Lan Qiren in the Cloud Recesses study arc? The problem is not that Wei Wuxian has low self-worth, it is that Wei Wuxian's decision-making process weighs harm to himself as acceptable in the pursuit of his moral imperatives. He wants to live without regrets and stand with justice, and to stand with justice, sometimes he has to walk a single-plank bridge. Necessarily, that will sometimes hurt him.

I suspect this association of Wei Wuxian's sacrificial acts as indicative of low self-worth stems from modern Western storytelling practices, which are deeply interested in the psychology of our characters. Recent media has been interested in the consequences of heroism on the hero themself and fandom especially is heavily interested in the psychological ramifications of these actions on characters. There's an idea that's been popular lately that extreme heroism is inherently self-destructive, and the solution to this is to raise a character's self-worth to convince them that they, too, are worth saving.

Now, whether this applies to Wei Wuxian is up to interpretation. However, he views his actions as correct in many of the sacrificial cases indicated above and these choices are framed by the narrative as being in some way noble. I don't think it's radical to suggest that the above actions cause harm to Wei Wuxian's self; that is not in question. I do, however, doubt that increasing Wei Wuxian's self-worth would change any of these decisions. He isn't throwing himself into harm's way because he believes his life is worth less than those he is taking harm for, he does it because he understands the harm he is incurring and chooses to take it upon himself because he thinks it minimizes the harm that would be done.

Rather than leaving the Jiang sect leader without a golden core, or a child with a very dangerous curse, or a young female cultivator permanently disfigured, or allowing Lotus Pier to be attacked and slaughtered, Wei Wuxians chooses to accept consequences in their place. It is more difficult to replace a sect leader than a head disciple. It is more difficult for Jin Ling to overcome the curse, so Wei Wuxian does it in his place. It is less consequential for a young male cultivator to take that brand to the chest than for a Liu Qingyang to be disfigured unjustly, so he does. It is more important than him, as a singular disciple, that Lotus Pier is safe. This is how Wei Wuxian approaches these problems.

Raising Wei Wuxian's self-worth would not change the reasoning behind these choices. He would not revisit these situations and decide to take a different course of action due the inherent value of himself as a person. His value as a person has always been part of the equation, but it is not his priority.

Self-sacrifice does not inherently equal unwellness. Recent trends in Western storytelling suggest that self-sacrifice is both admirable, but an indicator that a person is struggling. However, there are other models of heroism. There are other sets of values. In some moral systems, the willingness to commit self-sacrifice, even when a person does want to live and does value themself, is an admirable virtue. This appears to be the framework that Wei Wuxian is working within.

Does self-sacrifice inherently mean that a person does not value themself? I don't think so. But it's interesting that a lot of people seem to think it does.

-- Right Corpse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm gonna briefly chime in Right Corpse's post here with my thought as an Asian person:

I totally agree with what RC said here. I don't think self-sacrificing should be conflated with low self-worth. A person can view themselves as noble, upstanding and honorable (which, inherently is a very confident mindset) and be self-sacrificing as a result of that mindset, because helping others in spite of yourself in a dire situation is essentially a very noble trait.

And I'm glad RC brought up Western storytelling practices, because I thought the difference between Western and Eastern's mentality is exactly where this discourse came from. Western mentality is individualism-based, and Eastern mentality is more collectivism-based. Western mentality values individual's well-being, rights and freedom, while Eastern mentality values the well-being of group/societal-unit as a whole. I'm not saying one is better than other, I'm simply pointing out that it makes sense for Wei Wuxian to act the way he did given the setting of the story, regardless of his own view of himself. No matter how much self-worth a person has, growing up in this setting means the expectation is that you'd always put the clan's well-being, your family's well-being above your own. Filial piety is a very heavy expectation in this society, clan loyalty is a very heavy expectation in this world.

A noble, morally-upstanding cultivator who pride himself as such should be doing what Wei Wuxian was doing. And a big part of the MDZS story is definitely a criticism toward all of the clans and cultivators, who call themselves all those traits and did the opposite. Wei Wuxian saved Jiang Cheng not only because he viewed Jiang Cheng as his brother, but also because saving the leader of your clan when you have the mean to was the right thing to do, both for your leader but most importantly, for the clan as a whole, for the region of Yunmeng. Hundreds of people rely on the Jiang family and Lotus Pier, and Jiang Cheng is the figurehead of it. You can argue that Wei Wuxian can take over if JC is indisposed, but that's not how it works, that's not how politics works. So Wei Wuxian made the best choice for the collective given the circumstances, even if that came as a cost to him, and to circle back to what RC said earlier, Wei Wuxian calculated the risk and believed that he can handle that cost, and he did.

Similarly, Wei Wuxian saved Jin Ling because he believed as an adult, he could handle the risk better than a child like Jin Ling, and as a man, he could live with a scar rather than a young woman like Mianmian. In fact, I think he took pride in himself in all of these instances. He didn't boast about them to other people, but I think he's proud of himself that he can live according to his principles and never fail them.

-- Left Corpse

[moongothic]

I know people often speculate about Crocodile and if that is his "real name", either implying he has a deadname or his name is another one of those Hidden Ds (much like Roger and Law)

And like. This is just me but personally I would prefer it if he didn't have a deadname at all. It already grinds my gears when people use Sanji's "real name" when he himself hates it and doesn't want to be called by it, and so god knows if Crocodile is trans then the fandom misgendering is going to be obnoxious enough, you don't need to add a """real name""" into that mix

So. Personally, I would prefer it if Crocodile really was his birthname. It would just help us avoid some toxicity, ya feel me? Like people can't deadname him if he has no deadname to begin with?

That said.

I do find it interesting how Crocodile never actually introduces himself during the story to like. Anyone. Like we never see him go "yes hello you may call me Sir Crocodile" or anything

In fact, like, very specifically, when we finally get Crocodile's face reveal in Chapter 155, he explicitly says

"Call me what you will"

Of course, the citizens of Nanohana had just been calling him a 'hero', 'desert king' and 'the Guardian Deity of Alabasta' in the previous page, so his comment is mostly just in reference to the various titles people were shouting out rather than his actual name

And to be fair, the dude is Extremely Famous, he doesn't have to introduce himself because everybody already knows who he is

But it's still an interesting detail, isn't it?

(Also tangentially related, but Crocodile never seems to object to people calling him by cutesy nicknames either? Like to be fair, he probably couldn't object to Ivankov calling him "Crocoboy" to begin with, but he never seemed to mind Bon-chan calling him "Zero-chan" repeatedly either, nor did he object to Buggy's "Cro-chan" 🤔)

If nothing else though, considdering even his former bounty was associated with the name we know him by, it's possible that even if he had a deadname, "Crocodile" could be his "pirate nickname" that he chose to roll with. Kind of like "Strawhat" or "Blackbeard" or "Hawkeyes" etc, a title people use so often you kind of forget the person's actual name

Or he might have that Hidden D. Which, if he did, I'd be more inclined to believe would be more like with Law (where he might've been told as a child to keep it a secret). Instead of the whole "names being merged into one to hide the D" like with Roger, since that one was a specific, intentional move from the World Government

The only thing about the Hidden D is that. I just. I think it'd be a little silly. Like. Crocodile doesn't have to be a part of the D clan in my mind. Like I don't need that twist. But to be fair, there is an argument to be made for Crocodile being a D. Like if his goal is to destroy the WG and the World Nobles (that being the reason he wanted military force and Pluton to begin with) then ARGUABLY it would be fitting for him to be a D, since the D clan are the "Natural Enemies of the Gods". Also, there's the whole trend of D clan members always dying with a smile on their face. Like sure Crocodile hasn't died (yet) but he definitely went to Impel Down (hell) with a big ol' smirk on his mugshot (chapter 413 cover), which is close enough. So there is an argument to be made for Crocodile having a fullname with a D that's been kept a secret

I dunno, these details are interesting to me

[rinbylin]

galaxy-brained mlc take of the day: mlc is wuxia, yes and maybeee not exactly? it very much is a wuxia aesthetically, but it's actually - conceptually - xianxia story in the core. (this is different from suggesting that it is a xianxia show.) however xianxia can (or should) be considered a subgenre of wuxia, not its own separate distinct genre despite the idea of 仙 xian being fundamentally at odds with the idea of 侠 xia, because they both stem from the same belief. (as seen in mlc, it works with the conventions of traditional wuxia aka li xiangyi the sigu sect leader, to get to the real bits of xianxia concept aka li lianhua's story.) so, mlc is wuxia through and through, inside out. send tweet 🫡👍

-

ok wait I can explain

so, this must be premised on the understanding that any discussion of "仙 xian/deities" in this context is only as its abstract idea of living a life distanced, detached from worldly, human woes instead of the possibility of immortality existing in mlcverse. (if you think about the deities in xianxia stories being basically human beings who have cultivated themselves into immortality.)

this is the explanation of xianxia as a wuxia subgenre (古仙武侠) in the baidu article of wuxia genre:

武侠中的侠，是脱胎于墨家“以天下为己任”的使命感；而仙侠的侠，通常是传达着“能力越大，责任也就越大”的朴素精神。侠乃入世，仙为出世，道教阴阳的无情大道（无情指寻求自我的不断体悟，以达精神的成仙，非没有感情之意）与武侠江湖的有情众生，即是矛盾也是循环，象征着太极之道，这也就是为何古仙武侠也属于正统仙侠流派的原因。

rough tl:

the xia of wuxia is born from the mohist ideal of bearing a sense of responsibility for the world

while the xia in xianxia focuses on the idea of "with great power comes great responsibility"

the idea of 侠 xia is secular. the idea of 仙 xian is beyond the secular - it is to pursue a life of suppressing/taming your own emotions (it does not mean to be completely removed of the ability to feel. it's a pursuit of self-realisation that makes one attain the status of a "deity" spiritually.) 仙 xian is then inherently at odds with wuxia jianghu's deep empathy and connection with the secular world, but it's also connected back to it. this is why 古仙武侠 is considered to be a part of the wuxia genre.

the relationship between xian and xia is conflicting because the former is all about distancing yourself from worldly issues while the latter necessitates an active effort to do something about them.

but it also means that both wuxia and xianxia acknowledge this weight of human emotions and connection to the world. it's just their respective responses and the outcomes they want that they differ in. what is the ideal person? wuxia says it's to be someone who can propagate and execute the ideal of doing something about this weight of your connection to the world, while xianxia says it's to learn to be at peace with that connection, and it's ok to not do anything about it actually - which might even be harder than trying to do something. (and focusing on your own cultivation can be a good thing for the world, in fact.)

with this, I hope it sounds less absurd that I'm connecting mlc's story to the concept of xianxia. lxy's life was a traditional wuxia archetype. (I've already harped on enough about how he fits into the quintessential mohist model of a xia leader.) what happens after, aka his journey as li lianhua, is the real story of mlc. it's a breakdown of that quintessential wuxia hero. it is a story in which the main conflict faced by the protagonist is to struggle with all the worldly woes including his own past and the cases' victims, in defense of the serenity he has found in the past 9 years. it is a natural battle to fight for someone such as llh because as long as you're still human, you will face the implications of human connections and the innate feeling of compassion and urge to do something about it (part of this, I guess, manifests physically in bicha breaking him down and the resistance to cure).

and relating that to an excerpt from an article discussing xianxia in relation to wuxia:

武侠剧的精神内核也是仙侠剧的精神内核，而“仙”实际上是实现新形式的“侠”的手段，由此扩展了“侠”的深度和其实施的时空范围。武侠之中的侠义精神，可以强调其自在，更强调其是自为的，前者是需要逐渐成长和觉醒的。然而对于高于人的仙而言，作为上位者的“侠”之精神，则应该是内在自觉且自为的。

rough tl:

the spirit of wuxia dramas should also be the spirit of xianxia dramas. xian should in fact be another way to bring out and explore the idea of xia.

the spirit of xia in wuxia can be an emphasis on the spirit of freedom, and even more so, the idea of agency and autonomy. the former is gained through growth and awareness. but for xian aka people who occupy a realm above the people on the ground, the xia spirit they embody should manifest in their inner awakening and agency.

it goes without saying that nobody is a deity in this show, and never will be. only in ep 40.5 it came so close to possessing that otherworldly, surreal edge, but that's all to it. deities do not exist in the mlcverse.

but but. it's interesting to point out in the ep 3 flashback when lxy walked through town in the aftermath of the sigu sect vs jym battle, commoners were heard describing it as 神仙打架 百姓遭殃 when immortals fight, commoners suffer. of course they didn't mean it literally but figuratively, that those people of wulin jianghu are high above, detached from the people on the ground. which is. contradictory to the idea of 侠 xia to begin with. so... it could even be interpreted that li lianhua living the spiritually "immortal" life embodied the xia spirit even more deeply than he did as li xiangyi the sigu sect leader, the "immortal" in the eyes of the commoners. actual immortals do not have any real attachment to the people, but a cultivated "immortal" does and is destined to feel and learn to deal with it over and over like llh did. it all comes back in a circle indeed.

[hella1975]

all hate to tiktok for taking 'having a space to more openly and actively talk about different cultures' to mean 'cultures are NOT to be shared and we must be vigilantly defensive of our cultures for fear of appropriation, a word that can be applied to any multicultural interaction'. like of course cultural appropriation is a very real problem but ive seen with the access to global multicultural conversation that tiktok provides it's made people TERRIFIED to even interact with cultures other than their own for fear of 'doing it wrong'. like at some point you have to acknowledge that in the real world of the great outdoors, the majority of people are eager to SHARE their cultures. yes there are ignorant questions and biases but also... how do you think those things get unlearnt? i dont understand how deciding that multiculturalism is an elephant in the room instead of a normal thing that should just be talked about and lived with is supposed to benefit anyone? and kids on tiktok are CONVINCED that it's a time bomb of a conversation to have and therefore must be avoided at all costs but like. people generally LOVE their home and their culture and are PROUD of it and want to share it. how have we made it so that showing genuine interest and a desire to understand something so integral to a person's identity is now feared and borderline demonised?