#I don't like how characters like Jack are treated in that context

[jacksintention]

I'm thinking again on the fact that so often comments, criticism and readings on Jack dwell a lot on how he is barely human/a person/doesn't have a personality at the point of the story and, while I somewhat understand these points, I find them so lacking. I find them... ableist? I'm always doubtful to use the word here because I'm not sure if it's applied in this kind (mental health) of context, but something like that. And I find them extremely simplistic.

However, honestly, a big part of the reason for these readings being so popular is that the manga itself words it that way. But that's one of the problems I find in the manga. When I say P.andora Hear.ts is very good but unfortunately it is very manga-like at times, besides the 2000s homojokes and the like, I'm usually thinking about things like this. I feel like often characters and situations that are (potentially) very intricate instead of getting insightful deep overviews often get screwed by the writing itself, which falls into very manga tropes a lot in a bad way (not that every manga has to fall into them, or that every manga trope has to be bad or written badly).

I don't know... For instance, I'd argue R.askolnikov's capacity for love in Cr.ime and Punishmen.t is debatable, but it's never treated as if it made him less of a person, a human being or made him not have a personality. I'd say not even Svidrigailo.v, who is as much a Bad Guy™ as a character can be, gets that treatment by the writing. I'd say that even him or Mikol.ka are written as fully fleshed human beings with their intricate internal lives and feelings. Svidrig.ailov's last scene with D.unya is fascinating for both characters and spins the whole dynamic and makes you question the entire narrative and veracity of not only those two characters, but brings to mind several other conversations among different characters and throws light (and doubt!) on the main plot between R.askolnikov and Porf.iry.

In similar situations, Jack's humanity, personhood and personality are debated, doubted and even full on accepted as vanished. No one reads Crim.e and Punishmen.t and comes to the same conclusions about Raskolni.kov, Svidrig.ailov, Sony.a or Razu.mikhin. The writing doesn't allow it. The writing doesn't allow you to forget that humanity is diverse and multifaceted, that it can be sad and cruel and loving and monstrous, even all at the same time, or that a person may struggle with feeling at all; and one is still a person.

[linkcharacter]

Really like the recent analysis. I know I speak of curly in a more defensive way than most but I generally try to get the point you made across at the end of the day with my analyses on him and his behaviors.

People love to lock analyses around Curly solely based on what he could’ve done as a physical action and have this avoidance to acknowledging the realistic barriers at play when it comes to those solutions. It’s. The game tries to treat the pre-crash section as if they are grounded in social and organizational realities. So the what if he did this questions about the situation always fall short when the real answer is he either couldn’t or it wasn’t an actual viable option. But then when they talk about what he actually did do it’s surrounded by such bad faith interpretations that his actions were completely intentional or still not affected by outside sources. He’s a very much “road to hell is paved with good intentions” character. He cared too much and that’s a big part of his problem.

There’s such a “perfect victim or nothing” mindset in the fandom where people can’t admit that there are no such things as perfect victims but that also shouldn’t mean that even if there were it would absolve them of the mistakes they made. People want to moralize every action of every character that they don’t realize that some actions are done without any specific morale factor. People just do things, like you said. People assumed failed intentions immediately flip the thought process behind them “he meant to do good but bad happened, he must be bad” and that just is not how people work. It’s how perceptions work but only of the observer.

It’s such a sensitive topic because, yes, you are supposed to be frustrated, even mad, at what Curly didn’t do, but you have to acknowledge the fact these were good intentioned acts even if that good intent did jack squat in the end. That his responses are human and it’s supposed to be uncomfortable and hurt that they were realistic faults of his.

He enabled his friend and it ended bad for everyone including him. No one really tries to argue this fact but everyone seems to think it has to be tied to the morale dilemma and not certain human natures and social factors.

This is all to ask, why do you personally lean towards thinking Curly wouldn’t turn Jimmy in? Are you speaking in the short term of realizing how bad he got or long-term/overall? I feel like he could but it would not be easy and no matter the necessity he’d always have this guilt at feeling bad for doing it.

Ah yes Curly the most imperfect human man character.

Yep yep yep absolutely, people love to assign morality onto characters and call them good or bad and diminishing the depth and nuance of Mouthwashing, filling discussions with bad-faith interpretations or speculating on inconcrete understandings of the incomplete, intentionally vague, context. I adore Mouthwashing to no end for having this oppressive suffocating and constant atmosphere surrounding everything in the game. Really shows off that the environment festers, no one well-meaning guy could create a happy ending with individual actions alone because it's all systematic.

To elaborate from your question tho, at the point Curly was in (if Anya wasn't pregnant scenario), definitely no don't think so (would depend on Anya a too on whether or not she would go to the authorities outside). Curly knew Jimmy was a danger, and I do believe that subconsciously Anya's report to him on Jimmy gnaws at him, but not vividly enough. I want to point out a moment where Anya tells him about the pregnancy, he begins asking "Who would you-", then he's nudged by Anya that she told him and he should know who it is, and he does, instantly saying he's known him a long time and will talk to him. That moment of, for a second not connecting that Jimmy is the assaulter responsible just makes me drag my palm across my face for how much of a man (derogatory) Curly acted like for one dialogue line. Like he just 'forgot' for a brief moment that Jimmy harassed Anya prior? Granted, he instantly believes and takes Anya seriously, immediately dropping the search for the gun he was on in that scene, realizing the severity of the situation and of Jimmy. We also don't know what Anya has told him specifically, how long ago it happened, etc. but the 'implications' of the scene make me believe Jimmy's known sexual harassment on the ship slipped Curly's mind due to him being more invested in "the bigger picture" of Jimmy, not latching onto a harmful and a very serious fucking trivia fact about Jimmy because of his perception of who his friend is as a whole (and with his foggy sleep-deprived mind at the moment), 'losing a needle in a haystack' with how much unknown history Curly and Jimmy shared, so to say.

Maaaybe in some other circumstances, like if Jimmy didn't crash the ship or smth long term I could see him doing it, it would take a lot effort like you said, no matter the necessity. We will never know. If we're going into speculation and imaginary scenarios though, if Anya HERSELF were to try and get justice, Curly would be backing her up undoubtedly (still not disconnecting himself from Jimmy though and feeling guilt on his behalf). But that's all suppositions from my reading of the characters.

[tfp-is-my-lifeblood-lol]

Reasons Why I Think TFP Jack is Underrated:

Welcome to my organized bullet list of why I think Jack is cool. I used to think he was boring too, but now I think he's the goat and here's why:

-He has Main Character Energy, but he's more snarky than most cliche main characters

In fact, he is a petty king:

-He doesn't wanna be on Team Prime at first, but eventually accepts it...

...He then proceeds to BURN Airachnid's ship to the GROUND with a stupid survival kit for babies

-HE DEFEATED THE ALIEN SPIDER QUEEN WITH NOTHING BUT A LIGHTER AND A POCKET KNIFE, BRO

-HE WAS DONE WITH HER BULLSHIT LOL

-Plus he tricked Silas by pretending to beg for mercy, when really, he was stealing his walkie talkie.

-Jack is boring, BUT the fact that Jack has nothing special about him IS his superpower; Miko has the Apex Armor and her brave personality, Raf has genius level computer smarts, and Jack has PURE SPITE. It's beautiful.

-He has zero skills, but he'll figure out how to defeat his enemies anyway, SOLEY because he's tired and doesn't get paid enough for this shit.

-For example, in one of the Titan Magazine comics, Jack literally kicks Silus in the balls

Evidence:

Iconic✨

Apex armor? Cybertronian technology?

Screw that. How about I KICK you in the balls?l

-A true legend

-He's also a mess though, and I relate so hard

-He's so petty he talked two aliens into helping him cheat at street racing to piss off his classmate

-His romantic subplot is treated like a complete joke, and I love that. Normally, the Main Character✨ is awkward, but gets the girl in the end. Not Jack, though. Nope. He just constantly looks stupid in front of Sierra, nothing ever happens between them, and Arcee is just watching with popcorn as his life falls apart. It's hilarious.

Also, if I'm correct, isn't the last time we see Sierra when she sees Arcee's homoform, and thinks Jack has a girlfriend, and then Jack is like "She's my mom😅." And Sierra's all like: "Your mom looks good in leather😐...on your bike😐😐😐😐..." Maybe I'm wrong, but if that's the case, it's funny. Jack is a simp and it gets him nowhere.

-His sarcasm works perfectly with Arcee's sarcastic attitude.

-Also Tailgate is voiced by Josh Keaton (Jack's voice actor) in the flashbacks, so I headcanon that Jack reminds Arcee of Tailgate, and that's why she has such a soft spot for him.

Tailgate and Arcee's dialogue had the same vibe as her and Jack's

Also, it gives more context to why she was so scared to lose him when Airachnid showed up. It would've literally been like losing Tailgate all over again.

-Jack is Team Prime's designated Good Ideas Guy

It was Jack's idea to hijack the spacebridge to send him to Cybertron

It was also his idea to drain the dark energon out of The Nemesis when it came alive and froze everyone

-I'm probably just projecting, he has generalized anxiety disorder vibes

-I feel like he prefers a comfortable, predictable life because he gets nervous easily

-He's always the first to freak out, and overthink, and Arcee always has to calm him down

-And she's so patient with him it's so sweet😱

-I agree the writing behind his existence is meh, and a lot of the cool stuff about him is probably unintentional, but I don't care, so take that!

Anyway, the moral of the story is:

Jack is just an angry little harmonica boy. Leave him alone. He's trying his best😭

Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

About Malleus new years card, given how heavily Japanese culture it goes into. It might be a hagoromo, a white cloth/scarf that floats in the air around a goddess. Given that Malleus is the strongest mage, it might be a symbolism of that. Even so it's used for goddess, Vil and a few others worn clothing meant for women. It wouldn't be unusual to be used for Malleus.

[Referencing this post!]

These asks are all about the fashion of the New Year’s Attire cards and how they relate to Japanese culture, so I thought to combine them ^^

Since I’m responding to three asks in one post and it takes a while to explain things, I’ve placed everything under the cut :> There’s a lot of discussion of Japanese clothing, culture. and folklore in this, so if you’re interested in those topics then you’re in for a treat!!

To the first ask: Though Twst is fairly gender fluid when it comes to dressing its characters, I'm certain that's not a 羽衣 (hagoromo/"feather garment/cloak"; typically worn by celestial women in Japanese mythos). Hagoromo are thinner, longer, and more scarf-like than what is depicted in Malleus's initial card art. You can tell that he's clearly got a sheet that covers his entire body there. The fabric also doesn't appear to be floating like a hagoromo would.

The first two images depict 被衣 (kazuki/katsugi); the latter two images depict 羽衣 (hagoromo); you can see there is a notable visual distinction between them.

To the second ask: It’s possible that the artists looked at kabuki fashion for inspiration, but they most likely did not base the entirety of the New Year’s Attire outfits on that alone. As Yana states in one March 2023 interview, she and her team try to avoid creating outfits that too closely resemble a single real-world culture or brand. To that end, they seem to pull their inspiration from many different cultures and time periods, which is why you'll see a mixture of traditional and modern Japanese elements in the New Year’s Attire.

歌舞伎 or Kabuki, for those who don't know, is classical form of Japanese theatre which mixes dramatic performances with traditional music and dance. I consulted with a few friends who are familiar with Japanese culture (hereby referred to as A-ko, B-ko, C-ko, and D-ko) about the topic and they had some enlightening information to share. Because I am not familiar with the art form or how to gauge it myself, I will be relaying the information provided by those friends in addition to my own research. A-ko informed me that kabuki used to be co-ed (or at least did feature women; the first kabuki troupe formed was all-women) and modern kabuki is all-men. As for the poses, B-ko remarked that they can be considered common "festival dance poses", not strictly kabuki poses. C-ko added, "[...] There is very little, if anything, kabuki-like about the New Year’s cards apart from possibly SOME of the poses [...] Jack is probably the most kabuki we’re going to get because of the dynamic palm thrust and gaudy composition of his attire." The eye makeup being red and of that design also invokes the image of kabuki makeup without it fully committing to its extravagance!

Overall, the group seemed to agree that the New Year’s Attires lack the over-the-top expressions and elaborate costumes of kabuki. There’s also the more obvious lack of full-face stage makeup, but it’s kind of a given that Twst is wouldn’t go this route, especially since the context of these cards is helping out in a store and not putting on a dramatic performance.

On the topic of Malleus and oni (Japanese yōkai, demon, orc, ogre, or troll), I don't think he's intended to look like one??? Sure, he has the horns, but as B-ko said, "[Malleus] always has those horns." Very little in his actual outfit resembles the costume a kabuki actor playing the part of an oni would wear--unless you count the excessive black, as that's a color typically used for oni, but that black is usually paired with red. As for the hair styling, D-ko explained, "Oni usually don't have hair [...]". I find it interesting that some oni masks I found do seem to have hair, but it's usually very sparse omg balding!Malleus real???? and/or a middle part and not the sideways part that Malleus is sporting. Additionally, while oni do have horns, the shape of them is nothing like Malleus’s.

It's true that fur is rarely seen in historical Japanese clothes, but they don't seem to be that common in kabuki either?? According to C-ko, "fur and pelts [...] were a luxury few could afford. Thus, only those people decorated with furs would be royalty or individuals vying for power.

B-ko suggested that the reason why Jack wears fur in his New Year’s Attire isn’t to emulate Kabuki—which tends to feature fluffy wigs, like the one pictured below—but to emphasize his “wolf”-ness and to keep him warm from the cold. C-ko pointed out, however, that “[…] fur accents (like what Jack has) became the trademark for popular and celebrated figures [...] towards the end of the warring states period; when kabuki came into vogue, many plays were inspired by the lives of such personae as well as the legends surrounding them. This is why much of kabuki is characterized by the term basara—of grandeur and ostentatious eccentricity. The actors themselves would not have had access to furs, so they focused instead upon conveying that same sort of energy through their theatrics and outlandish couture. They still used substitutes, of course.” C-ko also added, “The most memorable kabuki roles feature things like fur—which many associate with kabuki.”

Finally, the group altogether said that, “Vil isn’t [dressed like] a geisha. His outfit bears no resemblance to what geisha wears.” 芸者 or Geisha are highly trained Japanese hostesses who entertain guests with song, dance, and conversation—furthermore, there’s a rigorous training process and a very specific appearance they take on. Makeup aside (if Twst is not doing kabuki makeup, why would they do geisha makeup?), a feminine figure and long, flowing kimono is not enough to get the “the look”. B-ko commented, “[…] Calling Vil [dressing like] a geisha just because he wore a feminine kimono […] Like, damn. Does that mean every woman who wears that style [of a] kimono is a geisha now?” It takes considerable time and dedication to achieve this to earn the title; it’s not meant to be taken lightly!

From D-ko, “Overall Vil’s outfit is kinda westernized.” This is due to the hat, gloves, bows, fishnets, and laced collar. A traditional geisha’s outfit lacks the bells and whistles that Vil’s design boasts. The silhouette also seems to be wrong. Why? “Because technically you try to make your silhouette as not curvy as possible when wearing a kimono,” but Vil’s silhouette appears more hourglass-like. The devil is in the details!!

Lastly, to the third ask: Going to skip over talking about Jack's umbrella pose and the kabuki inspiration, since I already addressed that earlier in this post! I'll briefly add that it's not for sure that Malleus is meant to be a certain thing unless Yana and/or her team come out and say it. B-ko agreed, saying "I don't think you can say Malleus is definitely [Ushiwakamaru], since I literally gave [other examples of what] he's dressed like [...] I can understand 'taking inspirations from', though..."

In the final ask, Anon remarks that Jack and Malleus's looks may be inspired by that of 弁慶 (Benkei) and 牛若丸 (Ushiwakamaru), two characters from Japanese folklore. Ushiwakamaru is the nickname of Minamoto no Yoshitsune, who, according to C-ko, "[...] fought and recruited his loyal vassal Benkei in a fabled confrontation on a bridge." While some elements of Jack and Malleus's New Year's Attires resemble what Ushiwakamaru and Benkei are usually depicted wearing--especially Malleus's veil--not all of it matches up. For example, as B-ko notes, "[...] what Malleus is wearing under the veil isn't what Ushiwakamaru is wearing, but looks [like] more of a kannushi (神主/"divine master (of ceremonies; often Shinto clergy)")." B-ko linked this site and recommended checking it out to make clothing comparisons; the kannushi garb was just an item they picked out for similarities on a cursory glance. This brings me back to a point I mentioned in the second ask: Twst's fashion takes inspiration from many sources and blends them.

"I think it really boils down to [Malleus and Jack] evoking the atmosphere of that famous [Ushiwakamaru and Benkei] print," C-ko continues. They drew comparisons between Malleus, a character twisted from Maleficent (commonly depicted with her raven Diablo), and Usiwakamaru, who is the disciple of a tengu {crow/raven yokai). They also compared Jack, a steadfast and virtuous individual, with Benkei, who is a monk with similar traits. Furthermore, in the famous folklore story, Benkei is depicted as having felled 999 men before facing off against Usiwakamaru, a supernatural force. So, like Jack, Benkei is a powerful combatant up against an even more powerful supernatural force, Usiwakamaru/Malleus.

jxxbisbsjJvsjsb I didn’t think we’d be talking about Japanese fashion, history, and folklore to this extent, but here we are 🤩 I hope that, if you’re reading this, maybe you learned something new and interesting from the post!! I know I certainly did while chatting up my friends.

P.S. Thank you to A-ko, B-ko, C-ko, and D-ko for their knowledge and perspectives! Couldn’t have written this without you.

[angelsdean]

like i'm sorry but show me a time sam spends genuine quality time with jack? cas beyond like connect four? dean takes him fishing. teaching him how to drive. gives him the perfect day when everyone else decided against jack's own wishes that he should stay put. spends countless hours together off camera showing him movies and giving him his pop culture education. half the time cas is off on some mission, but dean is there. and jack looks up to him and values his honesty. they both have the same views on self-sacrifice. both decide to turn themselves into bombs for the greater good. they get each other. and i will just never understand how people watch this show without seeing how good of a bond dean and jack actually have. people get so blinded by their rocky start, which jack is actually more hurt by how sam initially treats him--seeing him as a tool to be used to get mary back--than dean's frostiness. and then the soulless stuff getting so misinterpreted and blown out of proportion. jack WAS a threat! to the world! and dean was not the only one who agreed he need to be stopped / contained until they could figure out how to save jack / get his soul back. the whole POINT of "jack in the box" is that they don't want to kill him, they want to be able to save him, but he's going around killing innocent people and he's the most powerful being in the universe after chuck and amara. he IS the supernatural threat to the world at that moment and needs to be contained. and sam was on-board with containment. cas even suggested the cage. rowena was afraid of soulless jack. sam asked rowena to figure out how to stop / kill him. dean didn't get on board with the idea to "kill" jack until chuck started putting that in their heads, which was exactly what chuck wanted, it was his plan, his storyline. he was manipulating the outcome. but then dean crucially thwarts his plan and refuses to go through with it. but people refuse to remember that, and instead just focus on the fact that dean picked up the gun in the first place. disregarding the context that brought him there. also a few bad moments don't negate all the good either. especially when you consider the context, literal god manipulating the situation, god bringing these characters to their breaking point again and again. that context does matter and influences the actions characters make.

[sophiemariepl]

Honestly, there are days in which I would like to enjoy HotD and GoT in peace, but then some idiots gain incredible popularity and remind me of how much I’m done with THE FANDOM.

And yes, I’m talking about this meme.

For the context: in HotD S2E2, Ewan Mitchell (Prince Aemond Targaryen) has a naked scene. Not much is revealed in it, but apparently some idiots out there decided that bodyshaming the actor is just so-so funny 💀

I’m not even talking about the fact that actors (usually male actors, but not only) have to either loose weight or dehydrate themselves for nude or semi-nude scenes in order to expose their muscles (Henry Cavill also dehydrated himself for the bathtub scene in the Witcher season 1, from what I remember).

Like, people, how old are you even? Can’t you even understand the difference between disliking/being critical of a particular character and hating on the actor playing the role? And even openly bodyshaming them?

I’m seeing similar tendencies in the way a large chunk of the fandom treats Olivia Cooke (Queen Alicent Hightower) and Fabien Frankel (ser Criston Cole). Olivia is being harassed with blatantly misogynistic texts. Fabien had to limit his Instagram comments under some of his posts because of how much hate he has received.

Have you guys forgotten how people harassed Lena Headey just because she played Cersei Lannister on Game of Thrones? How someone even publically called Lena a “b*tch” during an actual fan meeting?

Or how Jack Gleeson, despite his obvious talent and great job prospects after GoT, resigned from acting for several years, specifically after he received waves of hate for playing Jeoffrey Baratheon?

Like, people, allow actors and actresses to do their f*cking jobs without being harassed.

Lena, Jack, Ewan, Olivia, Fabien and many other actors out there are not criminals by earning money through their jobs. There are far worse people in the film industry who don't receive even half of the hate that actors and actresses who play disliked characters do.

It should be obvious, I’m so ashamed that I have to explain this to an audience composed of mostly adult people.

[sapphicsigh]

I don't want a 3rd szn without Izzy. I just don't. Call me dramatic or whatever, but I'm so genuinely heartbroken by his death. I feel so betrayed. Izzy was the heart of the show, and now he's gone.

The aftermath of his death felt rushed, he wasn't buried at sea (like what the fuck, a lifelong pirate like Izzy would've wanted to be buried at sea) and the crew was just happy to get back on the revenge and set sail without their unicorn? Everyone just gets a happily ever without Izzy? Izzy died a painful death shot by a pompous asshole and for what? Some metaphor about the end of the golden age of piracy? Piss off. Closure for Ed? That could've been achieved a number of other ways. Izzy couldn't get any assurances that HE was loved? Even on his fucking deathbed? The man who protected the crew with life and limb? It doesn't feel right, and it never will. Izzy deserved so much better, and so did Con.

And worst of all, perhaps, is that Djenkins was planning on killing him all along. The whole time, while we were falling in love with the little angry man, rooting for him and rejoicing when he wore makeup in front of the crew and was vulnerable with them...he was a dead man walking.*

*I've seen ppl make rlly good points about how death was treated throughout the show and I wanted to add that context here. If I can find whose post I'm thinking of, I'll tag them

**Edit: Izzy's death was an incredible shock. EVERYONE ELSE IN THE SHOW survived their near death experiences!!! Stede got choked near to death, stabbed (twice!), and survived all of that unscathed. Ed got his head smashed in by a FUCKING CANNONBALL, pumbled by the crew and made it out with barely a scrape. Even Calico Jack could've (apparently) escaped death after being shot with a goddamn cannonball. The Swede was poisoned but was already immune to it. Wow! We (at least I felt this way), as an audience, believed that there wouldn't be any character deaths due to the overwhelming evidence we'd been given thus far. So after alllll the in show evidence that the laws of medicine or physics don't apply to ANY of the pirates, why suddenly apply it when it comes to Izzy? Hmmm??? It makes no fucking sense. It's cruel and unusual punishment. They really killed off the queer disabled elder??? Jesus christ. Did not a single person in the writer's room have a qualm about it? The optics alone are bad. But more importantly, killing off the queer disabled elder is inherently political, whether djenkins thought of it that way or not (& i dont think he did). The mere existence of queer people is inherently political in a society (the US), which wishes for our eradication. So killing off a beloved queer disabled elder, on a show which seemed to promise us queer joy and a happy ending, IS POLITICAL. it's a slap in the face and a punch through the fucking gut.

It feels doubly awful because we, as an audience, were given something we've never had before, an unapologetically queer show. One that didn't soften or censor itself for straight viewers. It was created with such love, at least it felt like, for us. So to be given that gift, and to feel recognized and seen and appreciated, only to have it snatched away...

I can only speak for myself, of course, but it's genuinely heartbreaking. I'm so utterly disappointed. I wish so badly that Con got more time with Izzy. I think Izzy means a lot to him, and he means a lot to us, too.

❤️‍🩹🦄❤️‍🩹I love you, Izzy, and I always will. Rest in peace, my little meow meow, you were and are so loved.❤️‍🩹🦄❤️‍🩹

[queermania]

hi i recently came across your blog and have been reading a lot of your posts about dean - your analysis is incredible. i was wondering... in your opinion, which arc is the worst when it comes to deancrits misunderstanding/critiquing dean unfairly?

so i'm 50/50 on whether this is genuine or bait. if it's not bait, i'm so sorry. you did nothing wrong. it's just that i get a lot of messages that are so very clearly not in good faith. if it is bait, well, joke's on you because i'm about to say a bunch of words and a bunch of people are gonna read them. so.

i think the most obvious answer to your question is the jack situation but i'm not sure it's the correct one. i think by the time we even get to jack (especially to the soulless!jack part of it all) a lot of people have already sort of lost the plot on why dean is ever behaving the way he is. there's this tendency to view his behavior as if he wants to control the people closest to him, not always because he's inherently malicious but often because he wants to keep them safe and keep them close to him to the detriment of himself and everyone around him (see look! it's not deancrit! we know he's not a bad guy. we're just being objective and he's just an abusive asshole who should burn in hell). and i get it. i see how they got there.

but it's frustrating because how they got there is by 1. taking every single thing the characters say at face value despite all evidence to the contrary 2. viewing every single thing dean does or says in a vacuum, removed from any and all context and 3. forgetting that supernatural is a fantasy show, not a family drama or sitcom.

take the demon blood story line for example. what we actually see is:

sam going on a mission for revenge regardless of the costs or consequences (which he's aware exist even if he doesn't know the exact details)

dean trusting his brother until he finds out his brother's been lying to him

sam being told that what he's doing is wrong on multiple occasions by multiple people

dean offering ruby his gratitude for saving sam's life and an apology for the way he's been treating her since he got back from hell

sam continuing to lie and act shady

dean telling sam that he doesn't care about the demon blood/sam's powers, he just cares about sam's behavior

sam draining an entire nurse and killing her

sam almost killing dean on purpose and telling him he's not strong enough, not like sam is

dean still being the one to offer an apology when all is said and done, twice

but all of that gets rewritten into a narrative that dean's just never trusted sam ever and sam was only doing something he thought was right because all he ever wanted to do was save people. how could he have possibly known something bad would happen? and now, even after the fact, even after sam's said he's sorry, dean still won't let it go and holds it against sam forever and ever.

this narrative persists throughout the fandom. why? because sam threw a few tantrums in which he rewrote what was happening and dean didn't protest and the fandom took it at face value. (1)

on top of that, deancrits treat each of dean's actions like they happened in a vacuum. one of the things deancrits fixate on the most regarding the demon blood plot is dean saying, "You walk out that door, don't you ever come back." in 4x21. they treat it as if dean was being controlling and manipulative; abusive, even. they treat it as if, out of nowhere, dean just decided to throw john's words in sam's face because sam simply wouldn't do what dean wanted him to do.

what actually happened, however, was that sam had been lying to dean for twenty-one episodes about what he was doing, despite the continued warnings not to do what he was doing, and now sam had beaten the shit out of dean, left him bruised and bloodied on the floor, to go do something that dean had been told repeatedly, from a source they all thought was the authority on the subject, that sam absolutely should not do. what actually happened was dean made a last-ditch desperate effort to stop his brother from doing something dangerous that would get himself and possibly a lot of other people killed. (2)

the deancrits also tend to magically forget they're watching a genre show, not a family drama, when it comes to analyzing dean. the source of conflict wasn't that dean just didn't like sam's new girlfriend because sam trusted her more than him. it was that sam's new girlfriend was a demon and dean had just gotten back from forty years in hell being tortured... by demons. it was that dean had angels of the lord, before he really knew that the angels couldn't be trusted, telling him he needed to stop sam. it was that the angel that rescued him from an eternity of torture and becoming a demon himself told him that he needed to stop sam. (3)

so the deancrits frame this conflict between sam and dean as if dean just didn't trust sam, for no reason other than sam was hanging out with somebody else, and dean was being irrational about it. after all, sam was only trying to stop lilith, right? dean was being irrational and controlling. and it sounds reasonable when you look at it from their perspective. but their perspective is not anywhere near the reality of what was actually happening.

and that happens over and over and over again. we see it with the idea that dean is the one who is codependent to a toxic degree, despite all evidence to the contrary*. we see it with the idea that dean thinks all monsters should die and sam wants to save/help them. we see it with the conflict in s6 being framed as dean just being angry that cas dared to do something without his permission. we see it with the fractured relationship between the brothers in s8, both regarding dean's return from purgatory and the trials. we see it with the gadreel arc and then the one with cas leading the angels. we see it with the mark of cain and the darkness. we see it with mary's return. and then we see it with jack, and most especially we see it with soulless!jack.

it's all so exhausting. by the time we get to jack, the deancrit has piled up the same way the narrative circumstances weighing on dean have, and so it feels like deancrits are fundamentally misunderstanding the situation more severely than they have anything else but i think in reality it's just the last straw.

so i guess what i'm trying to say is that the misunderstanding isn't necessarily about the individual arcs but about the way a genre story is told in general. they're not just unfairly critiquing an arc. they're mischaracterizing a whole ass dude and fifteen seasons of a show.

*dean dragged sam back into hunting. how do we know that? because sam said it. what did we actually see? dean bringing sam back to stanford for his interview. sam going back to hunting because of the fire that killed jess. dean wanting to take a break from hunting several times while sam kept pushing them to keep going. dean wanting to split up and stay away from each other for awhile after the demon blood thing. sam leaving amelia before he even knew dean was alive/back from purgatory. dean telling sam to go back to amelia. sam choosing, all on his own, not to go back to amelia. sam basically threatening suicide because dean had other friends. sam unleashing the darkness because he didn't want to be alone. etc. etc. etc.

**also i think there is a conversation to be had about dean's coping mechanisms and trauma responses being less palatable though not anymore harmful than both sam's and castiel's but that's a different conversation for a different day

[scoobydoodean]

Honestly I think that a lot of the reason why people view dean as abusive towards jack is because they genuinely think of him as a baby/toddler and not someone with the cognitive abilities of an older teenager/young adult who just happens to not really know much about the world. Obviously there's more to it because people ignore that cas wanted to put jack in the cage and sam wanted to use his power, but I stumbled across a post the other day about how they (the writers and the characters) should've given jack a capri-sun instead of a beer because he's a "literal toddler"... which is just completely incorrect and considering he has the body and brain development of someone who's older, there's no reason to not give him a beer. (also is anyone really a dad unless they give their 3 yr old a beer /j)

Context

It's funny because the whole point of the beer scene is to establish that Jack is not a child and that treating him like one would be ridiculous.

[DEAN grabs and opens a bottle of beer. JACK imitates him.] DEAN Wait, wait, wait, wait. How old do you think you are? JACK 3 days, 17 hours, and 42 minutes.

(From 13.02)

When Jack proves that he has such an advanced understanding of communication and time and such an unusual awareness of exactly how much time has passed, Dean immediately realizes that treating him as if he's a baby makes absolutely no sense because he clearly isn't one. Treating him like a child would be infantilizing, and we see Jack rebel against the notion that he's a baby a few times.

There's some push I think to separate Jack's intellectual abilities from his emotional coping abilities, but even these I think are more or less on track with other young adolescents around the age he presents himself to be when controlling for traumatic experiences. Jack's initial emotional regulation abilities don't read like those of a toddler, but of a young adult who's confused and upset and has been through a lot. Without powers in the mix that he doesn't know how to control, his emotional regulation abilities seem fairly standard for boys his age (at least to me). I don't think for example, that the anger he experiences and the reasons he experiences that anger can be equated with toddler-like tantrums, and any other person whose been around a toddler and sees what kind of things make them furious knows what I mean.

Granted, there are things Jack is naive about that are probably connected to him being "born yesterday". We see this early on when Asmodeus tries to manipulate Jack into opening a hell gate. At the same time, this interaction also highlights Jack's innate sense of right and wrong as a counterbalance. I personally find it frustrating when people try to take away Jack's understanding of right and wrong (rooted in his love for others) and cast him as a baby to the extent that he isn't even capable of understanding the golden rule, when Jack shows over and over how seriously he takes the personhood of other people and the weight of their lives. This is what allows him to see through Asmodeus's trickery in a very confusing situation, simply realizing, "you're hurting my friends". Jack using his care for others as a foundation to navigate Asmoedus's trickery also serves as excellent contrast to soulless Jack in 14.19. Soulless Jack was not able to grasp that Dumah was manipulating him because he was missing this crucial piece of himself—his love for other people including strangers. Because he was lacking that part of himself at that time, he was unable to grasp that filling someone's body with worms for not wanting to be turned into an angel is horrible and cruel and couldn't be a good thing. His naivety played a role in what happened, but it was the crucial missing soul that actually allowed this situation to transpire. I think a lot of people just straight up think normal Jack also would have been manipulated into killing people for Dumah in this circumstance and I really just don't think that's true at all.

[onbearfeet]

Kat watches Moon Knight

Okay, so with the encouragement of several people on here and the emotional support of my roommate, I have finally (in February 2024) started watching Moon Knight, a show whose basic concept scares the shit out of me.

Context: I had an adopted older brother with DID. Note that I said "had". That's past tense because life treated him so appallingly poorly that he died (horribly, in prison) when I was 19. Part of that abuse was enabled by pop-culture depictions of DID in the 1980s and 90s that convinced everyone who knew about his condition (including the court system) that he was a walking time bomb.

One of my earliest memories is of my brother as a young adult, playing Super Mario Bros with my toddler self. Another is of him patiently teaching me how to make friends with a large dog. I never met any of his alters, afaik; I was small and cute and safe for him to be himself with, so he probably didn't need them around me. He was a profoundly gentle man when he was allowed, and it hurt like hell to see him turned into a monster in movies and on TV. I've turned off a lot of "psychological thrillers" in sorrow and disgust.

Ironically, I loved Moon Knight comics as a kid in the 90s, BEFORE he was retconned to have DID circa the mid-2000s. Because those comics came out right after my brother died in 2002 and leaned HARD into making people with DID seem like violently unstable monsters (for reference, see the cover of Moon Knight: God and Country), I stopped reading them around 2008, when I couldn't take being poked in the trauma by a comfort character anymore.

But I do love Werewolf By Night, and there's been a lot of good fic mashing Jack up with Moon Knight without dehumanizing anyone, and several people have encouraged me to try the show. So this post will be a place for my thoughts as I try to work my way through with my Essential Editions in one hand and my memories of my brother in the other. I'll add to it as I watch.

If this entertains the Moon Knight fandom or provides useful fic reference, so be it. Just don't be jerks on my post.

Also, anyone who chooses to be shitty about my brother will be eaten by bears. I don't make the rules.

Episode 1

Okay, we open with Steven as our POV character, and he's...convinced he's a sleepwalker. All right, not terrible. Steven is now a bumbling nerd, which is probably an improvement; good luck making a billionaire playboy sympathetic in the 2020s. Jake would be the logical everyman POV from the comics, but I understand from fic that he's got a different role now. I'm confused about the accent, but it's only episode 1, and Steven clearly doesn't yet know who Khonshu is, or that Marc exists, so obviously there's a ways to go here. (Is Marc ... undercover inside Steven? Ugh, this is a trope I have seen and do not like.)

Did Marc kill Steven's fish? Did Khonshu kill Steven's fish? I'm baffled by the fish. Which is a nice break from the larger anxiety. I'm gonna try to worry more about the fish.

The bits with Steven losing time and finding himself in odd situations were distressingly close to the old tropes, but both of those happened to my brother, so I'm not going to bitch about them quite yet. I want to be as fair as I can.

Oh, hey, I recognize Harrow from the comics. What up, dude. How's the cult biz treating you?

The end of the episode, with the jackal thing chasing Steven into the bathroom, came RIGHT up to the line for me. I realized that what I was most afraid of was that the story would assign "good" and "bad" labels to the alters--make Steven the sweet, innocent one and Marc (or maybe Jake, I guess) the monstrous killer. The early flashes of Steven covered in blood didn't really help allay that anxiety. And now Marc is demanding that Steven let him have control in a pretty threatening manner. But so far, it seems like the contrast between Marc and Steven is one of competence--Marc is better at fighting and Steven is better at ... panicking? Unclear. At least Oscar Isaac is playing the protagonist, so his character(s) might remain sympathetic. Nobody has been monsterized quite yet.

I finished the episode with every muscle in my body locked up, waiting for the emotional punch in the face. But I did finish it, and I think I'm gonna try episode two.

[herzspalter]

Rise of the Beasts spoiler thoughts:

I had a guy next to me who got really nitpicky with their buddy about Elena being stupid for standing so close to Airazor going rogue, but I genuinely don't think that was the character being dumb for the script. That felt like an impulsive bad decision to me that someone might do in her position. She wanted to help and didn't think twice about how small she is. I don't know, characters doing something stupid isn't always bad writing, sometimes people do dumb shit irl too because they got tunnel vision and, in her case, just wanted to help because someone was in distress.

I personally never enjoy ultra violent Optimus Prime killing people left and right, but it didn't bother me as much here as it does in the other live action movies. He's not presented as the perfect guy, he's flawed and frustrated, and even though I prefer Optimus being a gentle but stern guy, I don't mind him Scorpion-Fatality-killing a dude in this because I think within the context of the movie, it makes sense. I always hated him in the Bay-directed movies because he's presented as this perfect hero, but he also kills people who are defenceless and begging for their lives, and that just doesn't work for me :) Crazy, I know!

This movie wasn't a big jack off session for America so I liked that a lot, the other live action movies are a fucking propaganda fest (I havent seen Bumblebee so I dont know about that one)

I like that the US military isn't a part in this movie at all thank god, but I'm worried about the GI Joe stuff at the end. GI joe is extremely stupid and can be a lot of fun if treated with the silliness that the original cartoon is, but man I hope they don't turn this into military propaganda :( I know they very likely will because that's what GI Joe is, but I can still wish hahaha

I like Noah, he reminded me of Raoul from G1, I think both him and Elena are likeable, I didn't mind hanging out with them

Mirage is MVP I'm so happy Mirage finally gets to do something

[agenderpunked]

just finished lost. will not be recovering, ever, me thinks...

I'M GONNA RAMBLE BECAUSE WHAT WAS THAAAAT OUUUUUGH I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY FOR IT ALL TO END BUT THE FACT THAT IT *IS* WHAT THEY WENT WITH hURTS

I have so many thoughts and many of them are spoilers so if you haven't watched Lost (2004) stop reading this and go watch it instead.

- Jack dying in the same place he started. The cinematography and spiritual implications of making a trek back to the beginning and finally closing his eyes... DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON VINCENT LYING DOWN NEXT TO HIM I CRIIIIIIIIIIIED. THE DOG KNOWS "LIVE TOGETHER OR DIE ALONE" AND HE MAKES SURE JACK DOESN'T DIE ALONE IM IN SHAMBLESSSSS DONT TALK TO ME

- rose and bernard. i care you so bad. i want a bob ross energy survival show spin off that just follows them making their cabin and garden and traps and such and exploring the area around their cabin. Unproblematic favs, truly. THE FACT NO ONE BELIEVED ROSE WHEN SHE SAID SHE KNEW HER HUSBAND WAS ALIVE???? who visited you and told you that? are you just that faithful??? Did that hope, faith, and love protect both of you from dying on the island before you found each other??

BC ALSO. sorry but i view faith as energy, and when you focus and devote that energy to something it becomes concentrated, and what do our brains run on? electricity. what is everything about Lost about? electromagnetism. What can spirits fuck with? electromagnetic frequencies. That energy can be used to attract what you're searching for. Rose is such a necessary character ESPECIALLY for Jack's development because of how she displays such radical acceptance when she knows there are things she cannot change, ie. cancer, being trapped on the island, being surrounded by danger, and focuses instead on what she can, confirming her husband's status, creating an environment that feels safe, and enjoying the time she has left with the people she loves.

- Boone and Shannon getting into a bar fight at the end??? Boone walking up to Hurley and chatting??? Boone and Shannon are severely underrated characters in my opinion, and it's 100% from the emotionally incestuous aspects of them, which is a shame because I truly believe they are one of the most realistic depictions of relationships like that that I've seen in media. I didn't immediately like Boone. I thought he was an asshole because the show presents Shannon and Boone to you as they would an unhappy romantic relationship, but they never confirm it, even joke about it, to the point I nearly immediately realized 'They're not dating at all. They're siblings that were emotionally neglected by their parents and are codependent as all hell.'

Watching further, I was so scared to think I'd find Boone slander all up and down in the fandom while Shannon gets victimized and absolved of her fucked up actions, because of the way we immediately see Boone treat her without the context for understanding their relationship and that Boone was only on 815 to bail her out of another abusive relationship. But what I actually got from the fandom was NOTHING. ABOUT EITHER OF THEM!!!!

HOW ARE WE NOT TALKING ABOUT BOONE HALLUCINATING SHANNONS DEATH AND ADMITTING THAT HE WAS UTTERLY RELIEVED 😭😭😭 IM GONNA BLOW MYSELF UP ABOUT IT GOOD GOD.

The fact that Shannon also does find a potentially healthy relationship with Sayid, and that Sayid can allow himself to feel and care for someone and have gentle and tender moments in such a hostile environment while serving as the groups main mercenary, and make her feel safe, regardless of her clearly morally skewed history of dating. Sayid has morals, and he wants to stick to them, but he's been put in environments that do not allow him to adhere to that. He has restraint, and emotional intelligence. The glimpse we get into Shannon's life shows she hasn't been around men of those qualities, at least recently, save for Boone, who even then, doesn't compare next to Sayid. Imagining how Shannon would have felt about Sayid being brought back in the temple and seeing how extremely empty and different he is 😟

- Thinking about the general implications of what the island is, as well... Did they ever survive the initial crash? When they leave the island, were they alive? or was it merely an illusion of life? Is death on the island equivalent to someone accepting that they're dead and moving on for realsies? Is the island symbolizing purgatory? The themes of duality and shadows and light and twins are also not lost on me and rank this media even higher because these were not on my bingo card or prior knowledge of the show and they are damn near a critical criteria for intriguing me and getting me into a media.

Are the souls whispering in the forest of the island trapped there? Michael says they can't move on, but is it a personal choice grappling with what they did? Or is it related to actions done after death, while passing through purgatory, that decides whether you are bound to a place or able to move freely???

Oooooooough.....

[wallbeatjournal]

Have you ever noticed there are loads of surface level plot similarities between the pilots of riverdale and dawsons creek. Also mr honey is the actor who played jack and greg berlanti worked on both projects. Just a topic i used to like to think about a lot….

yes yes yes omg yes!! sibling shows!! and this is intentional for sure, i was looking at articles about riverdale from pre-series (circa 2015-16) yesterday to cite the perks of being a wallflower movie as a core inspiration for s1 and roberto mentioned dawson's creek regularly, too. actually way before the twin peaks pastiche started getting promoted, dawson's and perks were coming up.

it's really really wonderfully apparent if you're into the gay-auteur genre of teen dramas or the intersection between teen dramas and gay horror media. dawson's creek ran so riverdale could soar (lean in even harder on genre-archetype-and-trope-as-social-construct, not be hung up by don't-ask-don't-tell era tv writing restrictions...except by choice for queerbaiting fun and spite). and even failing to soar, dawson's creek season 2 might remain a perfect season of television for me.

(note for the readers who aren't operating in the 5th dimension like me and anon, yet: kevin williamson made our favorite genre-aware homoerotic slasher movie, scream, and dawson's creek both, and the only functional difference between them is what genre conventions he was allowed to play with to make it. in scream he got to have his repressed closet cases do murder. in dawson's creek, dawson must pick up the camera and make his friends into Characters, instead.)

dawson's creek and riverdale are suuuuch spiritually similar shows, at least the parts of DC that williamson was involved with - so for sure seasons 1-2, and then his comeback many seasons later for the finale (which i think the riverdale finale also riffed on heavily. mwah). you've got:

the original controversial "teenagers don't fucking talk like this omg cringe" ft. heightened theatrical hyperstylized dialogue full of movie references

comphet camp. no character is truly coherent unless you pepper in the fact that they're lgbt and repressing it as hard as they can. barchie, meet dawson/joey. it sucks here sooo bad but it's certainly in the social script and legacy expectations. might try to make it last a lifetime!

meta plot about the whole show possibly being the creation of the most repressed and judgmental (and asexual) control freak main character. plus many in-universe metaplots where said character makes autobiographical work romanticizing/projecting all over his friends

titular location (riverdale, the creek) is both a story setting AND a narrative mousetrap that the characters are trapped in.

there are tons of direct DC<>rvd plot and character riffs and web-weaves. like anon mentioned, principal honey really does play like a later-in-life continuation of kerr smith's role as jack in dawson's creek, with dawson creek jack's values and beliefs. most of the s1 rvd characters make more sense in the context of dawson's creek archetypes, too (especially jughead, veronica, kevin imo). many plots seem yanked off a teen drama tropes bingo card that dawson's creek filled out for them (complimentary!!!!).

they also both just have a really similar character writing approach to their campy genre pulp. the shows are very arch and into their coding games and doublespeak, the text is a fluid thing never taken too seriously or held too dearly. but the characters are nearly always treated earnestly and with love, we're allowed to grow so fond of them as an audience bc the narrative is one of love (sometimes an oppressive love full of meta-projections from its unreliable narrator-creator, but LOVE!!). it's a priority that while the weird tropey shit is happening, we still really are allowed to care about how it feels to be archie or pacey or jen or betty, and the emotional repercussions of any weird tropey happenings are carried through fairly consistently*. dawson is THE WORST. but he's beloved. he's vivid. he's coherent. his feelings are wrong but they're real and we do care. we do!! we must!!

anyway. you made me go back and look at posts from when i went back and rewatched dawson's creek in 2022. here's an assortment of random hot takes and fawning fond adorationisms, if you even care. look at my closeted friends from the creek. they're stuck like this!

PS: i made a list one time of the 6 essential dawson's creek episodes (i would add the 2-part whole series finale to this list in retrospect, so 8 episodes total) that one could watch out-of-context to open their <understanding gay-auteur camp teen drama comphet-lamenting queer-coding tropes and conventions> third eye. it's here on my personal blog! most recommend the daddy/mommy issues fishing trip ep (parent<>child dynamics and gender...riveressentials) and the gay two-parter (principal honey!!).

PPS: @kevin-keller-artistic-director used to post about rvd and dawson's creek semi regularly and probably would have great thoughts about this topic beyond what i just dredged up <3 also interested if anyone else wants to riff on the topic of riverdale as a successor/sibling to dawson's creek 👀

*pacey's CSA plot (DEROGATORY) a notable exception to this. but that's because dawson's creek isn't trying to depict abuse, it's trying to do a queer closet metaphor, where "being in high school but dating an adult woman" is the same as "having a same-sex relationship with a peer" in terms of secrecy and shame and social impact...just NO thought to power dynamics or trauma AT ALL. it's basically the kevin/moose plot from riverdale and pacey is impacted by it like kevin is. gross!!!!

[gunnerkriggcritical]

The ambiguity in Annie's love life has always been really compelling to me. I'm gonna discuss some of the facets of this below.

First off, Annie responds to Mort's supposed romantic "claim" on her (via the blinker stone) with a level of anger that shocks both Mort and Kat. That's such a fascinating scene to me. I think it's the first time in the comic that we really get a taste of Annie's temper, and it's in the context of her not wanting to be claimed by a suitor against her will.

Then there's Jack. Annie doesn't seem to know how to act around him, while the question of whether she genuinely has a crush on him is left unanswered; she veers between acting awkwardly and not seeming to know how to treat him, to deliberately manipulating him to hurt him after hearing about her mother doing the same to Renard (and based on Irial's advice), to - this is my interpretation, anyway - offering him a kiss because she thinks that's what you're supposed to do in such situations, not because she genuinely wants to. The way Jack refuses her kiss and gives her a hug instead always seemed to me like, to a certain level, pity? He's learned over the course of the chapter that Annie is a mess who has no idea what she's doing, least of all romantically, and he doesn't want to take advantage of that. At least, that's how I always interpreted that moment.

"The Torn Sea" really makes a point of emphasizing that Annie has no partner while most of her friends have paired off. I'm still not sure why - and it's possible, I guess, that the chapter only does this for comedic effect. It's also more than possible that we haven't reached the point in Annie's arc that will make all these past moments make sense in retrospect. There's also, of course, the moment in "Dealing With HER" where the Annies briefly discuss having a crush on someone. And the moment in "Annie and the Forest" when Annie is asked if she has a "love back home," misunderstands the question and says "Yes, my friend Kat," and then, when it's clarified, mentally scrolls through the list of boys she knows before settling on Jack with a confused look on her face. And speaking of "Annie in the Forest," there is, of course, her crush on Kamlen, which is also contrasted with a (maybe?) crush on Jones in "Divine," hinting that Annie might be bi.

A lot is going on here, but it all fits into the broader context of who Annie is. This is way more apparent in earlier chapters than later ones, but socially, she's a strange, underdeveloped girl who was raised in isolation and doesn't quite know how to navigate the world of school-age drama. Her awkwardness and lack of experience in romance are part of a broader character arc that highlights her social ineptitude; while her peers pair off, she's left alone, and attention is drawn to this by the narrative, both in terms of friendships and romantic relationships (although she does have a small group of friends other than Kat by the later days of the comic).

She learns how to behave based on mimicry, which, in the romantic context, is especially apparent in "Faraway Morning," when she mimics her mother's behaviour and Irial's advice to manipulate Jack, to disastrous results, before eventually relenting and admitting she regrets it. She does have crushes, but she doesn't know how to act on them properly. In fact, since the question of whether she actually has a crush on Jack or was just trying to manipulate him for revenge is left unanswered, I don't know if we've ever really seen Annie acting on a crush at all.

With all this in mind, I don't really have a concrete opinion or theory on "who Annie will end up with," only my personal opinion that I would rather she didn't end up with anyone at all.

It's very very common for main characters to "end up with" somebody, but the way the comic has treated Annie's love life has, so far, been much more complex and nuanced than that. I don't think she's aromantic (although I totally understand and respect why someone would headcanon that) - I do think she has romantic crushes, that there's canon evidence for her being bisexual, and that the comic wants us to pay attention to everything it's doing in regards to her romantic leanings. I also think, and hope, that Gunnerkrigg intends to subvert the "who will the main character end up with?!" question that every other piece of media in history has asked, by saying: "No one." That answer is, to me, far more in keeping with the nuance the comic has managed towards Annie's romantic leanings than "she ends up with Kat," or any other possible pairing, would be. I would rather the answer be left cryptic instead of made concrete, like many other concepts in the comic have been.

To finish: I have long thought Gunnerkrigg is about the fierce, loyal, powerful platonic love between Annie and Kat. The dyadic friendship that unites forest and Court, technology and magic, fantasy and science fiction. The idea of them being in love with each other is nowhere near as compelling to me as the idea of them caring about each other so deeply they would do anything for the other, without being in romantic love.

(If Annie and Kat do get together, I would also question how quickly and unceremoniously Paz got booted out of the comic to make way for this pairing, but that's neither here nor there, lol.)

[antigonewinchester]

sam 🔥

Sam's most interesting as a character when he's given agency (even if limited) in the choices he makes, both for bad and for good.

I don't think the writers disliked Sam in later seasons. imo a major factor in his characterization later on, esp Dabb era, is the writers leaning on Dean as the 'messed up one' who needed to learn emotional lessons, in contrast to Sam having better emotional skills, but which then made Sam into more of a static character w/in the narrative. the later seasons writers also pulled their punches w/ Sam, for whatever reasons -- in an attempt to keep him always as a good guy? to contrast him w/ Dean's harshness? because they only knew how to write simplistic character dichotomies? see the earlier 14x19 script vs. the aired version, where there's much more emphasis on Sam being upset w/ Jack & wanting him in the Ma'lak box that's not there in the actual episode.

don't agree w/ everything in this post but IMO their underlying argument is right: Sam's deepest hurt w/ the Gadreel situation in S9 is that Dean lied to him when he helped Gadreel trick Sam into possession, and that if Dean had come to Sam and told him the truth in 9x01, there's a world where Sam would've said Yes. which gives an interesting way to read Jarpad changing Sam's line in 9x23 from "I didn't know this was going to happen" to "I lied" -- Sam has (very understandably!) lashed out at Dean by saying he wouldn't have saved him, hurting Dean with a lie the same way Dean hurt him.

there's also how the Gadreel situation then fits into Sam's childhood wound of being lied to by John about hunting, monsters, and John having Dean lie to Sam, etc. which leads into the pattern w/in the series of 'Dean keeps something from Sam and Sam gets upset because he feels like Dean won't trust him / is still treating him like a child' that the writers repeatedly use to create conflict. fandom loves to talk about bodily autonomy w/ Sam but I find equally fascinating Sam's struggles w/ knowledge and what he does or doesn't know, esp in the context of his childhood and growing up w/ such a deliberately limited perspective. no wonder Sam became the lore guy; he wants to know everything.

Send me a " 🔥 " for an unpopular opinion.

[immaturityofthomasastruc]

I once saw someone say that Jack Horner is an example of what Astruc wanted Chloe to be but failed to execute properly. Do you think there's any validity in that statement?

I think it's down to how their backstories and actions are treated.

With Jack, he was meant to be a parody of the villains of Disney's recent animated movies that were either sympathetic, misunderstood, or capable of redeeming themselves (some examples include Professor Callaghan, Namaari, and the live-action versions of Maleficent and Cruella). The difference was that they subverted it by showing that despite having a good childhood and loving parents, Jack was still a selfish man who wanted to gain control of all magic after being upstaged by Pinocchio.

Jack also works as a character because of how he contrasts with the other characters in the movie. The blatant selfishness of his wish later ties into the revelation that the wishes Puss, Kitty, and Goldilocks all want are just as selfish when they already have what they want in some way, where Jack is unable to learn his lesson.

Here's what makes Jack work compared to Chloe: There's a semblance of self-awareness in the way Jack is portrayed. Jack is a character who is fully aware of how evil he is, mistreating his men, being willing to shoot a puppy in the face, and breaking the spirit of a bug who just wanted to help him change his ways. He acts in a similar way to Chloe by acting over the top to show how selfish he is, but because we know we're not supposed to sympathize with him or his backstory, Jack admitting how evil he is with no excuse to justify his actions is what makes his sadism charming.

With Chloe, they tried to do something similar by downplaying how terrible both of her parents were by having her "make up" with Audrey, but because they tried to play her backstory and tenure as a hero seriously in the first place, that's what made her betrayal and subsequent transition into a full-time villain, you don't really find any sort of entertainment out of Chloe's evil moments because of how hollow the attempted deconstruction of a redemption arc played out. The show just expects us to ignore any sympathetic moments Chloe had and act like she never had any good inside her.

For context, imagine if Jack actually had a tragic backstory. Imagine if Pinocchio actually ran his family's pie enterprise out of business, and dedicated time to showing how the Horner family had to deal with living in poverty... only for a later scene to just ignore all of that and keep Jack's motivation to gain control over all magic while ignoring how important his family was to him like in the actual movie. It'd be pretty jarring, wouldn't it?