#I don't think there's anything inherently sinister about

[cardentist]

I think sometimes we allow people to act this way specifically Because "this is a funny joke." because the idea is that the target (in this case men) is perceived as fair game specifically for not being Able to be hurt.

it's funny to objectify men because men are the ones who do the objectification of course. let them get a taste of their own medicine, it's not like it can hurt them.

but it Can, because the problem is the behavior, not the target. and normalizing and giving a pass to that behavior unchecked allows for people to be toxic and harmful in plain sight.

and while I think it's worth pointing out that allowing this behavior to be pointed at Anyone is bad, it Is the marginalized who are hurt most by it. because there Are men who are marginalized, and marginalized people who are wrongfully considered to be (or treated as) men. and They are the most affected by being dehumanized or othered.

a person doesn't have to Be marginalized to be hurt by another human being, but not recognizing that seemingly privileged groups Do have marginalized people within them (people whose gender can even be a factor in their marginalization) is part of what helps to normalize the behavior. by pretending that there are no vulnerable people within the group you can feel good about "punching up" and ignore the ramifications of what you're saying.

I Also think people get away with a lot of open (if casual) bigotry pointed specifically at marginalized people by Being funny. to the point people will share said bigotry without even realizing it

here's the thing. I don't think that men and women can't be friends. I do think, however, that some men can't be friends with women. bc they are misogynists and don't see women as people. so if you as a man say men and women can't be friends I think you're telling on yourself

[gay-artificer]

Honestly the idea of slugcats existing in a sort of space where they are capable of 'moral' thought but not having a full structural concept of it in like, slugcat culture is kinda an interesting thought. Like they have sympathy as a personality value that governs a willingness to do harm, particular in terms of slugpups being unwilling to eat live food like centipedes if it has high enough values, if i recall right.

Which does seem to at least a basis for slugcats having an internal capacity (or lack of) for violence, and at least some understanding of what the 'weight' of choosing to harm something is- enough to potentially have a discomfort with it just by their personal nature. The idea of experiencing guilt for a natural, accepted and expected behavior without otherwise having a full understanding of what guilt is even is interesting.

[nekropsii]

Aww. On one hand, I'm glad my words touched you. On the other, it makes me so deeply sad knowing even the smallest glance towards granting one basic human dignity is enough to drive one to tears. I wouldn't even call my words the bare minimum - I don't think that countering the common idea that a group isn't inherently abusive should be the bare minimum. The bare minimum should be casual respect, the same that's afforded to any other person. The bare minimum should be me not even needing to say any of this in the first place.

NPD is so heavily demonized, especially right now. There's wave after wave of people claiming "Narcissistic Abuse" is a valid term and viciously attacking anyone who breathes in the direction of contradiction, every single search adjacent to NPD results in almost nothing but article after article on, specifically, how to hurt people with NPD, or protect yourself against them... There's conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory posted online quite literally painting them as actual real demons, like, Demons, from The Bible, or linking them to the Jewish Reptilian conspiracy theory, and it's just completely and utterly gut-wrenching. Even in spaces that proclaim themselves as safe, or progressive, or bigotry-free, these unjustified, bigoted snap judgments occur. It's the worst.

NPD is not something that I have. I don't have any Cluster B Disorder, actually. But I'm sympathetic because they're all fucking human beings the world has decided is socially acceptable to turn into a Sinister Other, a Walking Otherworldly Threat, like this is a fucking fiction novel or a video game. I'm sick of it.

There's a few people in my immediate circles who have NPD. They're all good people. They're nice, they're funny, they have perspectives on things that I deeply value, they're smart, and I treasure their proximity so much. They've never done anything wrong, and certainly haven't done anything wrong purely on the basis of being some Evil, Conniving Super Villain. They're literally just hanging out, and I'm glad to know them. My life is better and more enriched having known these people. They have never wronged me, and I don't think they ever will. And even if they do, it would not be because they have NPD, it would be because they're a living being. As people, we all have the capability to harm others. Animals have the capability to harm other animals, too. Plants can harm you. This is not a trait unique to the Disordered.

Us people without NPD need to do better, to listen to our friends and siblings with NPD, to help boost them up so that we can help end this wretched fucking curse - or, at the very least, quell it. We need to help them speak louder, and amplify their cause with our vocal support. Ableism will never go away, but the least we can do is try to move towards making it not as socially acceptable to be bigoted. None of us need a Sinister Other to combat. This is not war, this is not the medieval times. We do not need this. We do not need to beat a persecution complex into ourselves to excuse persecuting others. We do not need to live in constant fear of the idea of the line cook who just wants to go home and play Dark Souls, or the office worker passing the time by thinking about their 3 cats, or the high schooler at home reading their favorite shoujo manga, or the guitarist driving home tapping their fingers on the steering wheel to the beat of the radio. These are not your enemies. They are people going about their lives. They've literally never hurt you. Stop projecting your fear of abuse onto strangers - onto minorities.

My message to people without NPD is to fucking check yourself if you believe in Narcissistic Abuse, or automatically assume that people with NPD are up to something. Especially right now, that is a very, very vile, dehumanizing form of absolutely rampant ableism that we needed to take extreme steps to mitigate fucking months ago. Years, even. The best time to shoot this bigotry and burn it's corpse was the moment it started rising. The second best time is Now. Interrogate yourself. Realize that people with NPD are literally just human beings. Stop being awful to your fellow person. The way people think and speak about people with NPD is just absolutely disgusting, and everyone needs to apologize to them right now.

My message to people with NPD is simple: You deserve one billion dollars for having to put up with all of this shit. It's actually deranged. Trust me, there are others out there that think this is horseshit. You are not alone.

[joelswritingmistress]

You Scare Me, Professor: Chapter 24

Summary: The reader is taking graduate classes at a local university in the wooded upstate New York. She is drawn to her professor, Dr. Joel Miller, though she is also inherently aware that he has something dark about him that she can't quite put her finger on. As the reader's attraction grows deeper, she has to decide whether to endure the danger or run away as fast as possible.

Pairing: Professor Joel Miller x f!reader

“He asked me to move in with him.” I couldn't keep the word vomit from leaving my mouth as I settled into a little booth across from Tori with a coffee between my hands.

Her eyebrows seemed to raise about three inches and she didn't say anything at first.

“It's crazy, I know.” I shook my head.

“How long have you been with him?”

“A month.” I made a face.

“Does he, like, ejaculate gold coins or something?” Tori asked, laughing as she spoke.

I laughed with her and shook my head, looking down. “I don't know. I've never been like this. He's just got this way about him.”

“What's his house like?”

A small smile crept onto my face and she cut in before I could answer.

“He's rich, isn't he?”

“He lives in this, like, mini castle.”

“A castle?”

“Well, that's what it looks like. It's really cool.”

“Okay, so my suspicions are correct.”

I swallowed hard, eager to hear her theories. “What suspicions?”

“He ejacs gold coins.”

I laughed again, actually pleased she hadn't said something serious. I wasn't in the mood for sinister scenarios that would only heighten my internal anxiety over the situation.

“I don't even care about the house or whatever. I just.. I'm falling way too fast for this guy.” My eyes met here across the table. “Do you think I'm crazy?”

Tori gave a half smile and a shrug. “A little.” She smiled fully and sipped her coffee. “It is a little fast.”

“It's very fast.”

“Okay, it's very fast,” she agreed. “But, it's your call. What's your gut telling you? I'd ask what your heart’s telling you but I'm pretty sure I already know that. And the heart can be misleading.” Tori motioned to me with her drink as she emphasized the last part.

“Yeah.” I sighed and reached into a small paper bag for the muffin I’d ordered with my coffee.

“Well, how about this?” Tori went on when I broke off a piece of the muffin top. “If things work out with Mr. “Joel Gold Coins”,” she used her fingers to do the air quotes and I snickered, “Then I better be the maid of honor. And if it ends up not being what you thought, then there's always a room for you at 355 Ellie Drive.”

I looked toward my friend and let out another exhale through my nose. She was so understanding and not judgmental. I had disappeared off the face of the earth for a month since meeting Dr. Miller and she never questioned a thing.

“I'm sorry if I've been a bad friend,” I started but she reached for my hand and wagged a finger.

“You haven't been a bad friend,” she disagreed. “We’re at pivotal points in our lives. And I guess the lucky part is that we've kind of both found the same thing in the same time frame.” Tori shrugged, “It happens. We’re.. growing up.”

I smiled, “Adulting?”

“Ugh, you know I hate that word.”

I laughed and then sighed again with a more serious expression. “Thank you, Tori.”

“You're welcome.”

“I mean it. Thank you.” I sipped my coffee again. “Now, I'm done making this all about me. Tell me about Derek.”

My friend bit her bottom lip and spilled all the recent tea about her beau. I knew Derek. I liked him. The fact that he would be there with her full time took away some of the guilt I was experiencing. Tori appeared excited and happy and light as air. Getting a chance to sit and talk was rejuvenating. As much as I enjoyed the intensity of my time with Dr. Miller, I appreciated the lighthearted feeling I had being in Tori’s company.

“Once a week,” my friend pointed at me as we finally left the little coffee shop, “And that's nonnegotiable.”

“Once a week. And I'll be back soon to get my clothes and stuff.” I nodded and we exchanged a hug. “I'm going to head into LL Bean,” I said motioning to the store a few doors down on the little street.

“I have to go to work or I'd gladly spend a good hundred bucks in there with you.”

“Okay, be safe. I miss you.”

Tori blew a kiss. “See you soon.”

I waved goodbye and headed into the store, mostly in search of a good pair of winter boots.

If I happen to walk out with a sweater or two, so be it, I thought internally with a smile. Or maybe a hat for our ski wedding weekend.

An older man greeted me with a friendly, “Hello,” from behind a cash register off to the left. I smiled and waved before making the trek up a flight of stairs to the second floor where I knew the women's shoe section was.

A rack of on-sale sweaters and shirts conveniently greeted me near the top of the stairs and I gave it a lengthy browse. A knee length blue and white sweater dress caught my eye and I draped it over my arm before moving on toward the shoes.

“(Y/N)?” A female voiced my name quietly and I turned my attention away from the wall of boots in front of me.

When I glanced over my left shoulder I froze. Christine, Dr. Miller’s ex-wife, had just exited the dressing room. She was dressed more casually than our first meeting, sporting jeans and a sweater with a winter hat.

“Hi,” I said awkwardly.

“How are you doing?” She asked, as if we were friends or acquaintances that hadn't seen one another for awhile.

“I'm fine.” I forced a smile. “How are you?”

“Good.” Christine smiled back and bluntly asked, “Are you still seeing Joel?”

I gave a little nod, hoping that would be the end of that. Of course it wasn't.

“Look, woman to woman,” she said, beginning to pace in my direction. “I don't want to see you get hurt the way I did. Just.. be careful. Joel has this charisma that can really be..” She took a few seconds as she searched for the correct word, “Blinding.”

“I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.” I didn't want to have this conversation. People broke up all the time and could easily list off the reasons why their former partner was terrible. It didn't mean those two people couldn't move on and find someone more compatible for them. Everyone has flaws.

“I fell for him,” Christine nodded and stared at me, “Fast. Hard.” She shook her head and maintained eye contact, “He has secrets, (Y/N).”

“Don't we all?” I tried to sound casual and glanced down at the sweater on my arm.

“Not these kind of secrets.”

“Well, what are these kind of secrets?” I asked.

Christine sighed, looking around as she did before finding my eyes again. “That's something I'll take to my grave.. but also something I couldn't live with.”

I wasn't typically one to speak up, but I couldn't help myself now. “So, woman to woman you came here to warn me, but you can't tell me about what? You just want me to be careful because of Joel's secrets but you won't tell me what those secrets are?” I shook my head, “If you were actually looking out for me, you'd tell me.” I wandered away from the boots section back toward the staircase.

“It's the least I can do,” Christine called out.

I took the stairs back to the bottom floor. All the life that Tori had breathed into me, Christine had sucked out. I was so taken aback that I almost walked out with the sweater without paying for it. Hell, I hadn't even tried it on.

I stopped myself before closing in on the door and made a hard right toward the register.

“Find everything you were looking for?” The old man asked with a friendly grin.

I wanted to match his cheeriness but I just couldn't. Still, I managed a smile. “Yes, thank you.” He scanned the tag, I swiped my card and then headed back out onto the street.

I was going to tell Dr. Miller about bumping into Christine. I wasn't about to accuse him of anything but I needed to at least ask what she was referring to. Of course he had secrets - or at least some unknowns he promised to tell in due time. As much as I needed to know, I wasn't going to bombard him simply because his ex-wife bombarded me.

She hated me, Dr. Miller had claimed. I was sure at least part of her approaching me had something to do with sabotaging him.

I shook my head and hurried across the street to an ATM. Having a little cash on me at all times was something my parents had always advised me to do, and it was a habit I'd carried into adulthood.

I looked around the immediate area and then back to the doors of LL Bean to see if Christine had come out. I wanted to get out of the area as soon as possible and cozy up by a warm fire, as Dr. Miller had promised.

As I slipped my card into the machine, I envisioned it for a moment, trying to push away the negative thoughts that had been bestowed upon me. It worked - sort of.

I punched in my four digit code and selected to remove sixty dollars. Again, I looked over my shoulder as the ATM worked its magic. When the screen instructed me to remove my card, I did just that and then tucked it away back into my purse.

The money dispensed and upon collecting it, I looked at the screen again. If it had been a cartoon I swear my eyes would have popped right out of my head.

This has to be a mistake. I looked at the balance. It was all wrong.

“What the hell?”

The receipt shot out next as the screen switched to a simple, THANK YOU, in bold letters. I ripped the receipt from its place and studied the numbers. The balance on the thin piece of white paper matched that of the balance on the screen.

This has to be a mistake.

As I stood in disbelief, staring at the fifty-seven thousand dollars that was now said to be in my account, my eyes glanced up and I saw Christine staring at me from across the street. I felt like she knew exactly what I was staring at on that money slip.

When she shook her head, I crumpled the paper and forced it into my coat pocket before rushing to my car and driving away from that quaint, little street in the center of town.

CLICK HERE FOR THE NEXT CHAPTER

@untamedheart81 @suttonspuds @cesspitoflove @michilandcof @grogusmum @morallyinept @akah565 @brittmb115 @magpiepills @poodlebae @gobaaby-blog-blog @mermaidgirl30 @mandijo17 @jiminstinypinky @shotgun-shelby @itscatrodriguez-thepearl @macaroni676 @acciowolfstar1

[heretherebedork]

And here we get to the real heart of why Yoh doubts his relationship with Segasaki constantly and why he cannot face or accept the idea that he might truly like him, care for him and love him.

Because Yoh looks at himself and goes why.

And then the rest of it is just insulting all his possible talents and all the issues inherent in his attempts to be a manga artist and we really get to see how poorly he views himself, how badly he thinks he of his own life and how he looks at his relationship with Segasaki as absolutely impossible in reality.

I mean, just look at him. This is literally how he describes himself. And then when he gets mocked he can't even argue but we know he doesn't feel loved and isn't convinced that Segasaki cares at all most of the time. It's that insecurity, that certainty of how much he's failed as a person that leaves him like this, trapped in a place that could make him happy but isn't.

And then we get to the peak conflict of the episode... when Yoh's insecurities meet what Segasaki wants for him and both of their struggles with words come to a head.

And this was when Segasaki fucked up and had absolutely no idea because he has no idea how Yoh takes that statement. None. Absolutely not a clue. Not even a hint of knowledge.

Segasaki fucked up because he is trying to tell Yoh that he wants to support him and take care of him and spoil him and love him but instead, because of Yoh's insecurities and doubts and misunderstanding about their relationship, he comes across as insulting and belittling what Yoh is trying to do.

Way to take the exact opposite of what he means in the moment but it also makes sense in a way. Because Yoh doesn't believe that Segasaki loves him or cares for him but rather than Segasaki is just using him, taking advantage of him, tricking him in some way. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Yoh simply cannot trust Segasaki.

Segaski is trying to say "I just don't want you to overwork yourself or worry about anything and I don't care about your success because I want you to be safe and here and loved." but all Yoh hears is "I don't care" because Segasaki never says the part about love outloud, only through actions, and so Yoh basically starts the seven stages of grief and lands squarely in anger.

And this is the ultimate breakdown in their really bad communication. Because now Yoh isn't just hurt or insulted, he's hurt and insulted and he feels like he doesn't matter, like his dreams were just ignored and that everything Segasaki has been saying came from a place that suddenly is much more sinister and hurtful. Yoh feels devalued and insulted and like his dreams don't matter to the one person he thought was doing this to support him.

Just the absolute shock on Segasaki's face here, the way he cannot believe what is happening and doesn't have any idea why Yoh went from snuggled in his arms to yelling at him about making fun of him. Segasaki genuinely does not know what just happened. He was trying to be supportive and loving and making sure Yoh knew he didn't have to take risks or overwork himself or put himself in danger and suddenly Yoh is just losing his shit at him.

And then Segasaki decides to track him. To follow him and see where he goes. It's meant as protection because he sees how upset he is and he believes he's desperate enough to do anything but also, dude, why do you have their airtags just lying around? I love Segasaki because he's fucked up but I wasn't sure I was expecting this.

Oh, next week is about how this all actually started three years ago and what happened that lead to what we see now.

[emeraldkarma]

Without warning or explanation here are my omegaverse headcannons for the x men (and brotherhood) with my own x men cannon.

X-men

Scott: omega, i don't think any one's going to argue with me on this, the mans never fucked anything he's always been fucked and he enjoys it.

Jean: alpha again I don't expect any arguments on this but she is power incarnated so...

Logan: alpha, this I do expect some arguments on, I've seen you guys head cannon him as a spitfire omega, but really he's just a short alpha who enjoys getting his ass fucked sometimes.

Xavier: omega but he's not happy about it, he's fine with omegas as long as he isn't one of them.

Rogue: alpha.

Storm: alpha. (It's not my fault most of the x men women give off big dick energy 😤)

Jubilee:beta but it's hard to tell sometimes.

Roberto:beta but he's a bottom.

Gambit: beta or an alpha who would totally let rogue fuck him if she wanted to.

Morph:.. I don't know actually? Like they can probably change it? Its probably what ever they currently feel like but I feel like the lean towards beta/alpha? Maybe they were more omega leaning before sinister but I imagine the need to feel more powerful and incontrol would lead them to be more gaurded

Warren: omega, but the public doesn't know because his dad is omegaphobic and he can't let the board know an omega will inherent the company.

Bobby: ... I'm leaning towards alpha.

Todd (Taod): beta with a scent disorder related to his mutation.

Beast: the sweetest well mannered alpha you have ever met.

Kurt: omega, he likes a good cuddle pile and a nest, him, Warren and Scott get together for a nice snuggle and morph comes along sometimes if they feel up for it, probably more often after sinister.

Kitty: beta.

Brotherhood

Magneto: omega as well, things didn't work out with Xavier because of Xaviers internationalized omegaphobia.

Pietro (quick silver): omega he's not thrilled but it does explain some things.

Wanda: alpha who is intensely protective of her brother.

Lance(avalanche): alpha.

Fred (blob): beta as well him and Todd hang out while everyone else is busy with gender things.

[mdhwrites]

Do you think it's a bit odd how muddy the premise of TOH is?

I can sum up the premise of other similar shows I've watched in one sentence to any hypothetical viewer going in blind. SU: A chubby boy struggles to master his own power, identity, and goodness while navigating complex family dynamics, old wounds, and sick sci-fi technomagic. Amphibia: Three girls search for each other, stretch their friendship to its limits, and find a way back home in a wacky land populated by amphibians. She-Ra: An imperialist soldier turned rebel fights to free her homeland from occupation whilst struggling with the unique bond she shares with her frenemy.... etc!

I'm just not sure what I could say for TOH. A girl runs away from home to be mentored by a wild witch? But she doesn't really get mentored, and she didn't exactly run away either (she just... didn't go home until it was too late.) A girl leaves her home dimension to enroll in a magic school - hm, but that wasn't really something she super duper cared about, it was just part of the witch gimmick for her.

What else?? A human enters a land of witches, only to discover sinister scheming from the only other human to genocide - which - he's 400-ish too, so, uh, that proves that... colonialism... um.. religion... Let's restart. A human enters witchland and discovers things are not as they seem - no, things are pretty much as they seem-

A closeted girl is thrust into a new world in which she can be herself, and catches the eye of a popular rich girl? Hey, that's not too bad, except it ignores a whole lot of other shit that went down.

How about: A girl enters a wacky land that fulfills her dream of living a fantasy to a T, including the unpleasant parts of the genre.

...Yeah, I guess that's the closest I'm getting. Anyway, what d'you think about TOH's premise? Is it clear to you?

So when I bring up that TOH has a split personality problem, this is what I'm talking about. It effectively is trying to tell three different stories, with three different tones. Any one would be good on its own. Any two would need some finesse but they had plenty of time. All three? Well, even disregarding time constraints, you would have had to be really smart in mixing all three elements in order to make something cohesive as keeping them all separate for longer would simply create the same problem as keeping them apart for a short time does.

And TOH doesn't even fucking try. The literal only element that consistently ties all three story ideas together is Luz. I'll get into it more in a second but this is part of why when you pitch the show to someone, you kind of just have to focus the entire description on Luz in one way or another. To mention any of the other elements causes you to inherently imply one is more important than the others and TOH never chose anything to prioritize.

But of course, what were the three stories trying to be told and with what tones? And I'll talk about how it handles each of them weaving into one another once I've just established a baseline for each.

Well, first we have the slice of life, comedy, coming of age story that is Luz, Eda, King and Lilith. Especially in S1, most hijinks with them are focused around blunt morality, hijinks and just dealing with a problem of the day. It is the most bluntly kid's show of any of them, adopting a lot of the tone of Amphibia. This is why we get so many B plots with King that are the same thing over and over again. It's why Lilith and Eda are on opposite sides of the law but they don't fight until the end but instead are just nice, silly sisters here for hijinks. It's also part of why Lilith is made into a joke in S2 because that is more keeping in line with the tone of this storyline than if she were to actually what happened to her seriously and mixed in with:

The second is a fantasy epic about the corruption of a world by hate and prejudice. Of one man's corrupted beliefs of religion and want for control ruining a land. It is a much darker toned story, meant to reflect the horrors of the real world and its prejudices. This is the plot of Belos and Hunter. It is also the plot that is the smallest part of TOH but should have been the most omnipresent due to how so much of it is tied strictly into the worldbuilding. A lack of world building easily makes this sort of story, like most dystopians, fall completely apart. It also is the one that requires the most adherence to it as conflicting elements makes this story feel all the weaker each time someone treats this existential threat as nothing to be worried about.

The third is the most obvious: The school drama/romance story. This one is probably the one actually trying to be the most concise due to how almost every element for a season and a half of this plot is dedicated just to the weird girl/serious girl romance. It's a classic and one I've iterated on multiple times myself as it's just a fun concept to handle.

So there you go. Three ideas that are each on their own a good story but have their own complications. Each one of these could have easily taken two seasons to properly explore and tell. With more efficient storytelling, any of them could have taken a single season or less.

But then you get the exponential problem of mixing them together. Because mind you, tonally you have a comedy slice of live, a romantic drama, and a dark epic. Those are VASTLY different genres for each tonally and in narrative intent.

The easiest combo is actually the first and second. This is actually what Amphibia is effectively. The show starts in a somewhat isolated part of the world so its lighter tone can not contrast with the darker epic that is to come, giving it a safe space for character development, relationships, etc. Then with each threat, it gets a little more serious with its tone. There's a reason Hop Pop buries the box in S1 but the confrontation about what that means isn't until S2. There's a reason why S3B of Amphibia is MARKEDLY more serious than anything that came before it. The strength of this combo is that when the darker elements show up, the contrast of what came before makes them hit all the harder and makes you care about the stakes.

So what about how TOH handles it? Well, Lilith and Eda are theoretically a blend of the two but Lilith is never treated quite seriously enough. Also, rather than it being ideological, it comes across more personal with those two and it kind of leaves Belos out of it for the entirety of the first season, especially due to how wishy washy the show is about the covens being a big deal. Then in S2, Lilith absolutely SHOULD be the connective tissue. Her and Luz share a similar anger towards Belos and the two acting on that anger is a way to show that hate in any form is destructive, playing on the grander themes of the epic side of it while bringing in The Owl Family.

Instead, Lilith is just kind of flicked away, rendering any connective tissue from S1 to just evaporate, especially as no one actually seems to have cared about Belos almost murdering Eda. Rather, Raine is the connective tissue for the two plotlines. You know, the character who never gets to meaningfully interact with Luz or King, nor actually has a role in potentially pulling Luz to different ways of learning like Lilith might have, meaning they don't interact with the mentor side either. Even in their first episode, Raine is entirely self contained away from the other two. Eda and King's closest contribution to the plot before S3 is honestly in trying to get info out of Warden Wrath and that's really it. Otherwise, they're entirely divorced from Belos, his philosophy and his machinations.

So next easiest combo: The grand epic mixed with the school setting. This is how you get things like S3 of RWBY, My Hero Academia or Harry Potter (Though HP sucks dick at it too because good old Joanne sucks both at being a good person and actually writing anything serious.) The school setting is used as a kind of safe space for drama, romance and teenage shenanigans while the dark elements allow those things to come to a fever pitch as well as a way to test the bonds made at school versus the grand threat's hate and evil. It's hard to make smooth though, if the fact that I listed two things with... questionable plot writing to put it mildly isn't indicative. It at least has been done before. Oh, Naruto pre-Shippuden could possibly also be counted as this.

And TOH mixes these two by... Hunter? That really is the closest it ever comes to mixing them. The school is easily the part that obliterates taking Belos' regime or themes seriously as it constantly, CONSTANTLY undermines the worldbuilding of the show and struggles to actually feel like a part of the grander society. None of the Hexside Squad members ever properly face what being a wild witch or ditching the coven system actually means after all. Amity literally treats it as something that will mildly disappoint her parents but isn't a big deal.

So all you really have is Sport in a Storm and Labyrinth Runners as at least those episodes are using the school setting to give Hunter a chance to make friends and become a better person, theoretically, and he's important to the epic storyline so that kind of counts. If you REALLY want to stretch it, Eclipse Lake is another point of crossover before all three plotlines are mashed together starting at Clouds on the Horizon but the only justification there is that Amity is from the school stuff, though it's closer to fitting the tone and tropes of the mentor's storytelling than that of the school's.

But that is still three... In almost 38 episodes.

The last one is easily the most awkward and the one I don't have examples for: Mixing the Mentor and School plotlines. It's actually pretty easy to see why this would be hard. Both are about teaching the main character but in different ways. I think you could claim some works have done this by having a specific teacher be the primary teacher/mentor for the main character while the school is just where that mentor is accessed.

So how does TOH mix the-

Error 404.

Huh...

I'm not over exaggerating that much. Besides Teenage Abomination, VERY WEAKLY, the two never actually mix. Eda comes to Hexside once. King interacts with the Hexside kids a couple times but always in episodes or B plots that are much closer to the silly slice of life stuff than anything trying to mix the two tones. Even when it does, you get Really Small Problems where neither story is progressed and it all feels bad. Remember the closest that Eda comes to ever being a part of fixing a school problem is in Understanding Willow where she's just a spell dispenser before then being an idiot for Gus. It doesn't make her look better or play with any of the themes. The next closest is during The First Day where she is isolated entirely in her own plot so it's not actually mixing it besides the fact that Eda is at the school.

And for all three?

Well... I think the best way to point this out is that the best example of all three plots coming together is Edric deciding to expand his knowledge of magic. He actively chooses to reject what society has told him, tries a new method endorsed by the mentor figure but does at least acknowledge that his old schooling didn't prepare him for it. It's not strong and it's still hamstringing the epic storyline because he's already practicing two types of magics and so is mostly just nervous about being any good at this but it's SOMETHING.

But otherwise? The three shall never meet. Even once Clouds on the Horizon happens, they never meet. Eda literally never spends time with the Hexside Squad, especially as a whole. King is barely a part of the mentor stuff by then and is purely in the Epic territory and he's still not interacting much with them. Even in the final episode, the Hexside members are entirely on their own while Luz, Eda and King properly take out Belos, rather than everyone trying to protect Luz or having to fight by her side.

This sequestering of characters, themes, plotlines, etc. causes the show to waste a LOT of time and never have a proper focus. You never know what the point to a scene is because what it's serving is unclear, if it's serving anything at all. The show, by the end, can still have cut Amity and Hexside out entirely and lost literally nothing except much of what made the fandom engage with the show. And a reminder: Disney SUGGESTED Hexside. Dana said yes. It wasn't forced on her.

And that fits the show's entire storytelling ethos. It never feels like it is actually focusing on a single point. Instead, individual episodes will present interesting ideas or statements that immediately conflict or need to be retconned by other episodes because nothing is properly congruent. It is all conflicting against each other because each part is acting entirely independent of the rest.

It is an ever growing leviathan but rather than bringing in more of what is around it to make it stronger, it only ever hurts itself more and more as the details that once shone on its surface are made murky and unclear by all it has piled upon it until there is nothing but a rancid sludge. Unclear, unfocused and hard to describe except in the most blunt way possible. So what is the most blunt way to describe TOH?

The only factor that gets to cross all three storylines: Luz. So the only way to describe the show is "A story of a teenage girl going into a fantasy story." What type of fantasy story? Who knows. The writers didn't seem to after all so why should we?

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[donnerpartyofone]

I signed up for this online class co-taught by a woman I find maddeningly brilliant, where she lectures on her experience working with and studying people who are on the cutting edge of whatever their professional field is. She discovered this common thread where many of them claim that they don't come up with their innovations on their own--supposedly, ideas just enter their minds spontaneously, or even in a dream, and they follow these disciplined lifestyles (versions of monastic practices, generally) that they believe make them more receptive to those kinds of messages. A good clarifying example is that of a mathematician (Pattie Maes I think? I forgot to write it down) who claimed that as a young student, she would just-know the solutions to math problems without being able to explain the reasoning, so she was always in trouble with her teachers; eventually she got into analytical philosophy, which helped her reverse-engineer and understand the answers she mysteriously received. So anyway the class I'm taking allows you to offer up your own projects for feedback and advice about how you can invite a breakthrough to happen. There are some extremely interesting people in the group, including a couple of guys who are doing futuristic-sounding sustainable farming projects, someone who studies black holes, and just all stripes of scientists and artists. I'm hearing some pretty interesting things, but...

The class is co-taught by this woman who is also obviously brilliant, she has these insane credentials I barely understand involving venture capital and AI, she works with and for extremely high level companies and luminaries and her self-selected title is something like "singularity expert". And like, all of that is inherently interesting whether or not it sounds somewhat sinister to your ears, but I quickly realized that she's one of these people who is just fundamentally excited by the basic concept of Success, and she automatically thinks that any measure of fame and fortune, no matter what it's in aid of or where it came from, is evidence of genius. Which to me is like this incredibly dangerous trap, for what I think are really obvious reasons.

So one of us students brought up a manuscript she's been working on for decades that isn't going anywhere, and the singularity expert told her to just throw it out and do something else, basically. And in her justification for this, she started saying "I know a lot of you probably don't like Elon Musk, BUT" in this really bitter, cold tone of voice that let you know immediately that she's a huge fan and she thinks the resistance to him is just a bunch of ignorant liberal bullshit. And her example of his genius, which we should all imitate, is that when he wanted to make a big update to Tesla/Twitter/(some other shit he acquired from actual innovators), he found that the update was incompatible with all of foundational code, so he just threw out millions and millions of dollars' worth of code to force his new thing into place. And I mean, on one level I heard something useful and true: Don't sacrifice your future for the comforting stability of the past, beware of the sunk cost fallacy, etc. But the fact that Elon Musk did something that *appears* to represent that, depending on how you spin it, does not mean that he is a genius you should seek to imitate. First of all, I didn't leave knowing exactly what the consequences of his actions were, and second of all...millions of dollars doesn't mean anything to that guy. He's impossibly rich and he basically started out that way, and he's never going to wind up homeless or whatever even if he drives every single company he bought into the ground. He's just not a good example of someone with a high risk, high reward mindset that we should all emulate because he could lose hundreds of millions of dollars almost without noticing. The fact that he did this thing that in isolation looks heroic, that's only a tiny part of the picture with him.

(And that's without even getting into the impact that it has on the rest of the world, that he has so much power; like personally I think he's such a negative presence in the world that it's beyond just material effects, actually he's so corrosive that even talking about him is bad. Just contemplating the idea of him brings out the absolute worst in people, it's bad for people's moral fiber to even argue about him, but ANYWAY)

Unfortunately I find that a lot of people who have some kind of overlap with the self-help field will eventually come around to admitting that they're so blinded by the glamor of public, lucrative success that they don't really care where it comes from or who gets it or what people do with it. Damien Echols is someone I really enjoy, I just think it's undeniably interesting to hear from someone who spent almost 20 years on death row studying spirituality (to be glib about it) and pursuing all kinds of monastic disciplines; I mean that guy has things to say that you don't get from circulating in normal society. He practices something that has roots as far back as ancient Sumeria, he's not rich and he's not trying to get rich, but he often reminds people that poverty doesn't have an inherent moral quality and it's not inherently evil to pursue financial success. He'll say that if you have a phobic attitude toward money, if the very idea of it is tainted by guilt and fear in your mind, then it becomes a destructive force in your life--but if you think about money as energy, a resource you can channel into doing what's important to you, then it becomes something positive and supportive. And I can totally understand that. But then Echols will extrapolate that to the point that he's praising megachurch guys who are absolute crooks and scam artists and who definitely rob people through a form of psychological blackmail that tells them they're going to hell if they don't help buy Jim Bakker or whoever a private jet. And I'm like, man...ok so it's worth while to say that having a positive mindset about money can change your life for the better. But that doesn't mean that we have to then lionize every single person who ever got rich no matter how they got there and no matter what they did with their power, that's just fucking insane, right?

I could go on and on actually, about various people I've heard speak about how to break through your subconscious limitations and take a more authorial role in your own life, and how often even the most apparently well-meaning one of these speakers will come around to praising like the Monopoly guy, or some tepid pop star with an incredible marketing machine behind them, as ground-breaking geniuses who we all need to emulate. I mean a lot of people who are visibly successful get there by accident, or nepotism, or coattail riding, or plain ruthlessness. Many people in the big-success category turn out to be inarguably, unfathomably stupid (ironically I spotted the Elon Musk Pop Tart story the morning before I took this class), and some of them are only geniuses insofar as they have an abnormally well-developed predatory instinct that makes them able to think thoughts and perform actions that you really can't conceive of if you aren't, you know, a psychopath. Someone recently posted a bunch of advice on teaching from John Cale, and one of the things he said was "Suspect charisma", and I think THAT is a much more important piece of advice than like, "find someone who is rich and famous and do whatever that person appears to be doing without asking yourself how they got where they are, or just what is the real reason that you personally are so compelled by them." It seems like a lot of people respond to the aura of "success" so intensely that they just don't want to have to question it, and they'll bend over backwards crafting these speculative backstories and dialectic arguments to make their animal reaction to the spectacle of power sound like something intellectually sound. It smacks of stockholm syndrome, of people who fall in love with their own bullies. There's complicated reasons for that, some of which are what got Trump elected I think, but I don't wanna talk about that. I have to go to the doctor's now anyway, and stop thinking about this.

[teamloyalty]

look how football players who are for some reasons not classified as "GENDER CONFORMED" based on some toxic masculinity standards are being treated...jules koundé dares to wear boots with heels or experiment a bit with his outfits and sense of style in a somewhat more fluid way and the french call him julia. pavard gets outed by a paparazzi who said he's gay (true or not, we don't know) and because he perhaps looks slightly more elegant/soft than average he's made fun of or called the f word. those rumours of mbappe dating a trans woman as an excuse to drag him or call him freak.

if I were a queer footballer I would never ever come out. never ever.

i'm with totally with you, anon. truly i see no reason why a queer footballer should risk any semblance of peace for the rest of their lives to come out lolz it really is that dire. and its all SO wrapped up in sex like

not sure i'm going to say this well but - what makes an athlete a successful representation of the ideal man is his ability to perform hegemonic masculinity in all facets of his life; because these men are high performing athletes (the peak expression of masculinity) they're also expected to perform masculinity at an elite level in all other respects as well. these toxic norms of masculinity emphasize domination, over most other men and over ALL women (and anything perceived as feminine).

and the minute an athlete transgress the boundary into anything NOT distinctly male, they're called gay -- or at the very least treated as though they are gay. queerness indicates an inherent wrongness about the male body, something sinister in the way gay men use their male bodies for acts outside the realm of acceptability for real men.

and this is a problem because by definition elite male athletes model for the rest of society the most successful, most masculine, perfected use of the male body.

look at the way that people responded to just the SUGGESTION that declan rice would love his [white, blonde, VERY beautiful] girlfriend because she's midsized. (they'll call her fat and she's not. she's midsized at most.) she does not conform to the highest possible beauty standards so ppl think that he could do better, find some prettier, skinnier woman to fuck (because that's all he could possibly want in a partner: the hottest woman to fuck, and to demonstrate to the world that he's fucking her). i've seen people wonder if he's not attracted to women at all. why else would a famous young athlete want a fat, ugly girlfriend? (she is neither of these things). he MUST be gay.

THIS IS A STRAIGHT RELATIONSHIP.

idk man its just sooooo darksided. maybe out players wouldn't receive direct in-person harassment from fans at games, but anyone who knows anything about how homophobia actually operates in society at large and isn't a fucking idiot knows that homophobia isn't solely damaging in the form of physical in person violence. football fans online can't even handle someone wearing fucking rainbow shoe laces. FUCKING SHOE LACES.

and that's not to mention the myriad of ways that implicit bias would impact out players, negatively affecting their ability to make connections in the game, acquire brand deals, move to the right clubs, etc etc.

well-meaning people in the football world will say that for forward progress, a few brave footballers just need to come out and normalize queerness in the sport. they're too entrenched in that world to recognize that its very foundations are rooted in homophobia.

[infiniteglitterfall]

Ugh I hate this.

So, a friend of mine I haven't talked to in ages, because they're always busy/traveling, posted something to Facebook that said:

It hit me very hard on a Jewish kind of level. I knew I was likely to be told I was derailing if I said so. But I kind of hoped I wouldn't be, just because the friend and I met in trans spaces something like 25 years ago and are both nonbinary.

What I ended up commenting was, "Ditto for Jews, IMHO. Ughhh, what a time to be alive."

What I hate about it is that my friend gave me the Jew version of the boilerplate response you'd give Aunt Nancy. List a fuckton of marginalized groups, add Palestinians here and in Palestine first, close with a line about how focusing on one group doesn't mean anything about the other groups but raising another group is intentionally redirecting.

adhdsskklllljsshjklfff I KNOW. And I know that you "had" to specifically add Palestinians in there to redirect away from antisemitism even while telling me I'm redirecting.

I wrote back,

I'm not trying to redirect. I'm saying yes, it's going to be fucking hell for us as trans people. And also, some of the specific things that are the most terrifying for me as a trans person are likewise going to be fucking hell for me as a Jew.

I fall into five of these categories (trans, poor, disabled, Jewish, have a reproductive system) but I'm fucking terrified of another Trump round on these two specifically.

I'm terrified of having to live through this man once again smacking the metaphorical button that turbo-charges everybody's latent belief that we're pedophiles, morally corrupting society, and/or inherently shady and deceitful and Bad.

I have been watching people cast both trans people and Jewish people that same way since Trump's first run.

I mean, yes, that's been the core of most cissexist and antisemitic tropes for a long, long time. But it's so incredibly open and accepted now.

Trump fucked over disabled poor people, and people with reproductive systems, in a LOT of ways. But I didn't also see a major increase in people publicly demonizing us, and politically weaponizing that demonization.

I'm sure that if he gets the chance, he'll once again defend crucial services, leave them unstaffed, and generally make them a lot harder for anyone to access. He'll tax the poor and waive everything for the rich. He'll strip funding for disabled student services of all sorts. It will be HORRIBLE.

It's just that, while that stuff may affect me personally, it doesn't feel personal to me in the same way that it feels personal when a lot of regular everyday people see people like me as sinister and disgusting.

(And yes, too many people are disgusted by poverty, mental illness, and disabilities of all sorts, and see disabilities, government aid, and any kind of accommodations as a sneaky cheating lie. Maybe I'm wrong, but IME it's become much rarer, instead of much more common; and it's not taken to a "you corrupt society" kind of level.)

Looking back at the original post, I feel like the real issue is that what I was saying WASN'T "Trump will be awful for these specific two groups," or even, "Trump will be awful for Jews, stop thinking about trans people(???????)"

It was specifically that I think most outsiders won't know why this is so scary unless (or even if) they're close friends with us.

And I think, on the left, that's far more true for Jews than for trans people.

I feel like my cis friends understand that Trump would be a nightmare for us. Maybe that's specific to my friends though, idk.

But it's clearer than ever to me that my goyish friends generally don't know the first thing about antisemitism.

Worse yet, the reason I haven't talked their ears off about it on Facebook is one specific close friend not only doesn't get it, but pushes back pretty hard against it. I could still post about it, I could even hide the post from her; it's just got me feeling intimidated and weird and defensive about how others might respond.

[animehouse-moe]

Chainsaw Man Chapter 142: Denji Fan Club

So not quite the chapter where we'll see the hybrids let either devils or themselves loose, but still a really really great chapter nonetheless. Not a world of stuff to talk about, but Fujimoto continues to drill deeper and deeper into Denji's core, and I absolutely love being able to explore that.

Right off the bat, Fujimoto's setting the tone, letting Nayuta run wild and play and enjoy herself, while Denji is relegated to sitting and watching while he chats with Fumiko. I don't think it's anything crazy, but you have to consider the context of the chapter. Exploring Denji's character at this little amusement park really separates him from what both supporting characters say this chapter.

Before we get to that though, Fujimoto had to pull out a funny and most certainly gross moment for readers. Just to lighten up the mood a little before we get into the nitty gritty of the chapter.

Which we get right here. Fumiko's parents were killed by the gun fiend.

It's a great addition, and one that pretends to strike at the core of Denji's character. But just think for a second. Is it the truth? Is it an experience that she herself had? Or is it one that's being used by Yoshida, similar to how Fumiko's first introduction was? I think if we didn't have that first piece, the credibility of her statement here would be much better, but that's not the case.

Because of that, it adds an even more "sinister" feeling sentiment to the statement. Fumiko's intent was never to sympathize with Denji as a whole character, but to force her own assumptions on him. That he's just a boy, that he's just Denji. That he could never be anything else than the child in front of her, and that she has to save him. Even with the most pure of intentions, she refutes and denies an entire facet of Denji without meaning to, and at worse she's explicitly trying to separate him from Chainsaw Man.

And then in comes Barem, doing something similar but with far more crass. Rather than the subtlety that Fumiko employs, Barem uses fear and anger to drive Denji.

These two supporting characters represent two aspects of Denji. Not Denji himself, not anything that is inherently "true" about his character, no. It is all about perception. We continue to build up and up and up, and then topple down the tower of how Denji's perceived. How people view him, Chainsaw Man, and both. How they place their own ideals and interests on whichever piece they fancy and force it on Denji. They make him a helpless child that can only cry, they make him a monster that is stuck in a cycle of death and rebirth. They all look past what's in front of them to see what they wish, and use that to their advantage. They try to change the shapes of Denji and Chainsaw Man, take advantage of him like Makima to use him to their benefit.

Arguably, it presents a more terrible plot line than Makima. What Makima did was undeniably awful, but from where she did it differs from people. These people, however, have no desires that match Makima's. No cause that illuminates their behaviors. They are humans that are treating Denji like Makima did, but for arguably worse reasons. And to put a nice and neat little ribbon on the whole affair, the only person that sees Denji wholly for who he is, is the reincarnation of Makima. The people alongside him in life are unable to see the Denji in front of him, but the Control Devil can.

[a-small-batch-of-dragons]

I saw your tags on a post about becoming the mc in one of your novels. Gothic, where the character is more monster than damsel and i am 👀

Would you be willing to talk about it? The story, the character, anything?

(for those of you who did not see my tags on the post anon is referencing, the post prompt was basically 'you are now the main character of your most recent WIP' and my tags were: #technically I think this would put me as the MC of my novel#in a gothic mansion that houses a monstrous lord said to steal people’s souls#in a village the inhabitants view as a cage#after faking my death to escape an abusive arranged marriage#discovering that I am more monster than damsel)

so i talked about it briefly when i ran this poll a while ago asking which one of these two novels you'd all like to see first. it is the one that won, the gothic found family: Of Beasts and Wretched Things (working title). feel free to click through to the poll if you want to see what the results were, what the other option was, and what people's initial reactions were!

Of Beasts and Wretched Things is an inverted 'Beauty and the Beast' coming of age story that wrestles with the monstrosities of girlhood and the inherent horror of self-creation.

When the Lord of Crosswell Estate plans to wed his niece to a brutish lord to save his wealth, she runs away and stumbles upon Illthern, a forgotten trading village under the control of the monstrous Theodoric Gaut, whom she deceives in order to gain his protection from her wrathful uncle; but when she finds herself face to face with Lord Gaut, who is not what the stories would have her believe, she must wrestle with the monstrosity of her own making before he discovers that his supposed long-lost relative is not what she claims to be.

(More under the cut bc wow I...got a bit carried away.)

working on this project has helped me work through some of the trauma i have around my own relationship to femininity and womanhood. the MC struggles with the legacy of abuse inflicted by her blood relatives and what it means to be the person they tried to make her into. the inherent fear of things labeled 'monster' and the consequential fear of being monstrous is a predominant theme, as well as questions of how many of the monsters are things we make ourselves.

what really drew me to the gothic genre was the emotional weight i wanted to give these characters and this world; so often in gothic works it is the characters' own emotional turmoil that drives the plot and shapes the setting, you are the ghost haunting the house even though you still draw breath, etc. even in this real world, there are these weights of what society things a woman should be, the pressures of girlhood especially during adolescence, and these weird half-mourning periods of killing the person you used to be. i think because i wanted these characters to be steeped in the emotions they have about their situations in life and themselves, i found myself drawn to gothic conventions just because it fit so well with what i wanted to explore

with regards to the characters themselves, and particularly the MC, i really wanted them to feel like they were driving the story. the MC has the brilliant and terrible certainty that I know at least I had when I was a teenager. Theodoric is very similar to most characters you'd expect to see in a gothic setting: ominous, more than a bit sinister or mysterious, yet I wanted it to feel like he was always hiding a bleeding heart just under his coat. did i mean to make him autistic? no, but when I was proofreading i was like whoa yeah this man has the spicy brain. i'm a sucker for monstrous things that treat others with tenderness first, what can i say. i don't want to talk too much about any other characters just yet, I don't want to spoil anything :)

WIP-wise, I'm in the midst of getting the manuscript ready to submit to agencies and publishing houses. it's funny, as i'm doing the research to see what that entails, the other story seems to be way easier to market. who knows, maybe i'll self publish OB&WT the way I did Tales from Thicketdown Forest and then go the traditional route for the other one. we'll find out, i guess.

i did sort of know this was going to get long but jfc i went way harder with my prose here than i thought i was going to. uh, hope this answers your question????

Tl:dr; gothic found family h/c, heavy on the comfort, with tender monsters and monstrous girls :)

[hellzyeahwebwielingessays]

@poke-maniac

I am making this post because it was too frustrating replying in the comments section of the original post.

“ I said that money was a mean to make his company more successful as he himself admits, not just for power's sake.”

Yes, but I wonder what making his company more successful would do to the amount of power he wields. Could it be that it would generate MORE power for him??????????????

“Which is more or less confirmed in sinister war, but since you ignore everything that happens after post OMD as if nothing was canon anymore, I guess you don't see it as a valid argument.”

It’s more than just that I discount it for being post-OMD. From what you have described of Sinister War I do not see how this goes against anything I have said. Norman wanted to money to make his company more successful. But in doing this he makes himself more powerful.

The priority is ALWAYS power. In fact, few people who are rich assholes as you put it are in it for the sake of money alone, but predominantly for the POWER that money grants them.

But even if we argue that there those who really are JUST in it for the money, Norman isn’t one of them as he literally told us that in ASM #40:

Oh look, Norman EXPLICTELY saying that he needed to become wealthy because that was the only way he could become POWERFUL!

“We shouldn't apply real life psychology to fictional people,”

This is, simply put, one of the most astronomically bad takes I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

There is so much to unpack with this, but let’s just get down to the basics. If we aren’t going to apply real life psychology to fictional people what the fuck does the term ‘believable character’ even mean. How are they believable if not in terms of who they are, what they think, what they feel, how they act is psychologically realistic. Because that is what psychology boils down to ‘what is happening inside of a human being to make them behave the way they behave’.

Second of all, there is a GIGANTIC overlap between the mental muscles and psychologists and good writers flex for the very obvious reason that both jobs entail getting inside people’s heads. Its just that for writers those people happen to be fictional.

The proof in the pudding of this is Carl Jung, perhaps the second most famous psychologist behind Freud himself, and indeed was at a time viewed by Freud as his heir in the field of psychology. Jung’s works are massive and complicated to explain but one of the things he often brought up was the connection between psychology and  mythology/fairy tales/folklore.

“Like Freud, the psychologist Carl Jung also took myths seriously. Jung believed that myths and dreams were expressions of the collective unconscious, in that they express core ideas that are part of the human species as a whole. In other words, myths express wisdom that has been encoded in all humans, perhaps by means of evolution or through some spiritual process. For Jungians, this common origin in the collective unconscious explains why myths from societies at the opposite ends of the earth can be strikingly similar. ”-

This school of thought is eventually what led literature professor Joseph Campbell to study myths from various cultures and write his landmark book ‘The Hero with a Thousand Faces’. Here is a wikipedia excerpt about the book:

“The book includes a discussion of "the hero's journey" by using the Freudian concepts popular in the 1940s and 1950s. Campbell's theory incorporates a mixture of Jungian archetypes, unconscious forces, and Arnold van Gennep's structuring of rites of passage rituals to provide some illumination.[4] ”-

So psychology and storytelling are inherently intertwined and ALWAYS have been.

Third of all, there is no end of examples of critically acclaimed works of fiction that DO apply real life psychology to fictional people. Breaking Bad is one seasons long epic exploring the realistic psychological change of Walter White into a drug kingpin.

The Sopranos stemmed from creator David Chase’s psychological struggles with his mother and the therapy he went through to try and deal with it. Not only was it applying psychological realism to these fictional gangsters (and their families) but it went so far as to have a psychologist as a main character and make her sessions with Tony Soprano integral to the plot/character exploration of Tony himself.

And, just in case you were trying to say ‘fictional comic book people’, Batman’s villains are regarded as the best villains in mainstream comic book history in large part because because of their psychological complexities. There is literally a podcast hosted by a real life psychologist where they review and apply psychological realism to every episode of Batman the Animated Series:

The fact that she was able to do that at all speaks to how clearly the writers WERE applying real life psychology when writing Batman the Animated Series, the most transparent example being ‘Mad Love’, the origin of Harley Quinn. not only was Harley a psychologist herself, but her origin story stemmed directly fro co-creator Paul Dini's experiences with therapy and includes one of your so called 'Freuduan excuses' for why Harley is the way she is:

"Paul Dini: I’m no stranger to therapy. I was spending some time in therapy and was in my head a lot around that time. Bruce and I were discussing her origin one day over lunch, because I had been approached by DC to do a special issue of the comic, and we were talking about what if there was some sort of surprise to her origin? What if she’s not just a hench girl? We came up with the idea that she had been a doctor at Arkham Asylum and the Joker had gotten into her head and worked her into being his follower. … Then we thought, what if Harley’s in the role of the long-suffering girlfriend?

There was also an element of the fans who write to a prisoner who committed a terrible crime and say, “I understand you… I see the good in you,” and sometimes develop a relationship."

Bill Mantlo literally name dropped a psychological term during one of his 1980s Spider-Man stories. They got the term wrong, but the desire to use it at all when it wasn’t necessary ever so slightly hints that comic book writers frequently DO try to apply psychological realism to these fictional people.

Iconic Iron Man writer/prolific Spider-Man writer/co-creator of Venom and Carnage David Michelinie featured a psychologist character in at least two of his Spider-Man stories and used his insights as a way for Spider-Man to defeat both Doc Ock and Venom.

Bruce Banner/the Hulk is a character who hinges upon psychological realism. The entire premise of the character is that he has disassociative identity disorder and that the famous green savage Hulk everyone knows is an expression of his traumatised inner child throwing a gamma fuelled temper tantrum.

Peter David, who has written MANY Spider-Man stories including the iconic ‘Death of Jean DeWolff’, literally wrote an issue that took place inside Bruce Banner’s mind and where his fragmented identity (Bruce banner, Green Hulk, Grey Hulk) is made whole; an issue outright called 'Honey I Shrunk the Hulk' (as in head shrink).

(Oh look, an abusive father who hit Bruce. Guess the Hulk's origin doesn't make sense and is shit now too).

PAD’s Hulk yarn wasn’t the only Marvel story in the 1990s that literally dives into the head of a fictional person (i.e. the most blatant example of trying to apply psychological realism to them). There was also two stories that did exactly that with symbiotic serial killer Carnage:

One of those characters was Dr Ashley Kafka, a psychologist supporting character introduced for Spider-Man stories.

Hmmm…why would Spider-Man comics introduce a psychologist as a supporting character? Well, there could be various uses for a character like that but perhaps one of them might be to offer realistic psychological insights into these fictional people. Fictional people like Venom.

Or Vermin.

Or the Chameleon.

Hey, who created Ashley Kafka anyway?

It was prolific comic book writer J.M. DeMatteis. I wonder why he was so prolific, I mean what sort of stories has he done over at DC?

Oh…a story that acts as a psychological exploration of the Joker and his relationship to Batman. Fun fact, this story was originally rejects by DC because it was too similar to the Killing Joke…because it was also a psychological exploration of the Joker and his relationship to Batman.

Over at Marvel though, other than creating Ashley Kafka, what did J.M. DeMatteis write?

Oh, that’s right….

And...

And...

And...

He wrote many of the stories we’ve been talking about this whole time. He was the guy who retconned the origin of Norman and Harry Osborn and explored Norman’s childhood in the first place.

Now it is a sad reality that there isn’t a single direct quote from DeMatteis proving he did in fact try to apply psychological realism when writing fictional people…

"We write about the things that obsess us. The themes in a writer’s work are the themes of a writer’s life. The Big Theme that has always obsessed me is the search for meaning, for personal, and cosmic, identity. Who are we? Why are we here? What’s the meaning of it all? Exploring those ideas, from both a psychological and spiritual perspective, is the driving force behind many of my stories, whether they’re more personal projects like Moonshadow or more popular ones like Spider-Man."

"I enjoy reading books about psychology and spirituality, books that explore the shadowed caverns of our psyches and the luminous castles of our souls."  

"All the clever plotting in the world won’t help if it’s not grounded in psychologically real, relatable, characters."

"Peter Parker is one of the most psychologically and emotionally real characters in the history of comics"

"Harry and Peter are both very complex people, which meant that while the superhero action played out there was lots of room for psychological and emotional exploration."

…there are MULTIPLE direct quotes proving exactly that.

So YES we categorically should apply real life psychology to fictional people!

“ especially that nothing suggests in canon that his [Norman Osborn’s] dad was beating him to "feel powe[rful]”

I’ve said before and I will say it again, that is EXACTLY what is suggested by Spec Annual 1994 and Revenge of the Green Goblin.

Norman's Dad loses the business and lashes at his son but this had NOTHING to do with him feeling powerless?

What do you think it means when someone feels powerless?

What do you think it means when someone of the old school tries to reaffirm that they are still 'a man'?

It is about power!

“All that's textually said is that he was lashing out on his family, in rage like many people irl when they lose everything.”

Yes but why would someone IRL lash out when they lose everything.

*gasp!*

You don’t possibly think they do that because losing everything makes them feel powerless and bullying someone else in turn makes them feel powerful, do you????????????? Feeling powerful couldn’t possibly be the root cause of why anyone bullies anyone else ever could it????????????????????????????????????????

Its almost like in textually saying he was lashing out because he lost everything it made him feel powerful or something?

Oh and by the way, ever so slightly undermined your own argument there. “We shouldn't apply real life psychology to fictional people,” vs. “…was lashing out on his family, in rage like many people irl when they lose everything.”

Which is it?

(not to mention if we aren’t supposed to apply real life psychology to fictional people why were you doing exactly that with your avatar examples?)

“Yeah the amnesia part never made any sense to begin with. It's said that the formula made him worse yet it doesn't seem to affect "amnesic" Norman all that much.  Maybe it does? Because we don't see him all that much during his amnesia periods.”

We see PLENTY of Norman when he has amnesia.

So no the formula does not affect norman when he has amnesia.

But an idea slightly suggested in ASM #40 and then eventually confirmed in Revenge of the Green goblin was that the formula made norman worse because in giving him powers it acted as proof he was superior to everyone else, in other words it sent him on a huge ego trip.

You know what would be interesting? If this Norman Osborn guy who is on a big ego/power trip formed a rivalry with a superhero who began his career on a big ego trip before being humbled. Especially if that hero’s defining philosophy was ‘with great power there must also come great responsibility…

“It honestly looks like a cheap excuse to keep him from telling the truth more than anything”

And as originally written by Stan, it was exactly that. It was taboo for a villain to know the hero’s identity back in the 1960s, or at least for them to go on living with that knowledge. Later stories however addressed this.

“But anyway, it just makes weird that his amnesia would make him a completely different guy if he was the same ashole during this specific time period he remembers (before Harry high school years).”

You haven’t been listening to me at all. You have never once addressed what I have said on this subject.

But I will repeat it again:

WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR MEMORIES! IF YOU CHANGE THE MEMORIES YOU CHANGE THE PERSON!

You want a quick fictional example of this? The Arnie movie Total Recall.

In other words, the ONLY logical explanation for Norman becoming nice is because he DIDN’T just forget his memories after he became the Goblin. He forgot MORE than just that. Which is what happens with real life amnesia. You don’t just forget a set time period.

Yes the narrative has Spider-Man claim it is just everything after the accident that turned him into the Goblin, but how the fuck does Spider-Man know that for sure?

What we have is an objective flashback showing us exactly what Norman was like before the accident, we have objective on the page evidence of what he was like after the accident and we have objective on the page evidence of what he was like post amnesia. Post-accident is basically a bigger jerk of who he was pre-accident. Post-amensia is at odds with both versions.

The ONLY explanation that makes sense is that he didn’t simply forget the last few years, he forgot more than that. he forgot whatever life experiences shaped him into a bad person, or at least he couldn’t remember them clearly. Perhaps he could remember events but not the feelings associated with them.

This syncs up with how IRL amnesia works and reconciles everything, whether you look at the stories in the 1960s on their own or look beyond that decade.

“One could argue that he gradually became more and more neglectful. If Harry is just in denial as he can't see faults in his dad's parenting why did he spot a difference then? If his dad was acting the same as he always did, why would he be only in denial over how his dad acted prior to accident?”

Yeah MAYBE he did become more and more neglectful, but there is nothing on page suggesting that. We just know he WAS neglectful.

But alright, the idea that from Harry’s POV there was a time when things were better but got way worse before the accident, that could fit with the original story.

You know what else could fit just as well? That Harry is in denial. Because he wants/needs to believe at some point he and his Dad had a positive relationship when they actually never did.

Denial doesn’t work on the basis that it is 100% consistent all of the time. Norman was MUCH worse after the accident and Harry was also older and less impressionable and that change occurred within the last few years of his life circa ASM #39. All those factors combined make it entirely possible that he found it harder to deny that his Dad had changed. He’d gone from neglecting him and palming him off to almost entirely isolating himself and become more outspokenly verbally abusive and belittling.

Both were bad situations, but one was much worse.

Oh and be careful, because you almost sound like you are trying to apply real life psychology to counter my points. I thought we weren’t supposed to do that with fictional people?

“Why only complain about his dad's recent outbursts? It's clear that his dad is acting differently towards him. They had some good time together (despite his dad's obssesion over work) before the accident then his behavior towards Harry changed.”

No they didn’t. That’s the point of the story. They DIDN’T have good times together, but by the end of ASM #40 they now hopefully can have good times together.

The ASM #40 flashbacks are the deal breaker on all this. These aren’t simply flashbacks from Norman or Harry’s POV, these are from the omniscient POV as what they are depicting is not in line with what Norman is claiming. And they are not in line with what Harry was claiming in ASm #39 either.

Harry was NOT having a good time ever in those flashbacks and Norman was NOT being a good father.

Thing simply got WORSE after the accident.

Why is it so hard for you to buy into the idea that Harry is in denial?

Your approach is ‘Harry made this claim in a piece of dialogue therefore it MUST be completely true’. Even though the very next issue disproves it. Norman even says ‘I tried to be a pal to Harry’, he uses that exact word ‘pal’. And we see from those flashbacks that, no, he was not being a pal to Harry. He was being a shitty father. He was neglecting him, not talking to him, not engaging him or spending time with him.

So Norman is in denial and that was the point of the scene. BUT Harry, who has his DNA, couldn’t POSSIBLY be in denial also? There simply MUST be these magical phantom scenes we coincidentally never got to see where in fact they were BFFs?

Why is that more believable than ‘both father and son are mentally messed up’.

“Also bad person =/= bad father.”

That lacks nuance. You can be a good parent but in other ways a bad person, that is true.

But if you are a bad parent (specifically abusive, neglectful, putting yourself ahead of your child) you are as a matter of fact a bad person. There is nothing more important than raising a child.

“I'm just arguing about his parenting, not his morality,”

In this situation they are one and the same thing.

The things that make Norman a bad person are in turn what led to him being a bad father. He doesn’t have the ability to be a good father because he is a bad person.

During the Stan run, Norman pre-accident was also a bad parent and a bad person but to a lesser degree. That’s all there is to it. he railroaded his partner. He stole his innovations. He was after money and power. He neglected his son and priotised his pursuit of power ahead of his son’s wellbeing.

That is a BAD person, it just isn’t a total fucking monster which is what the retcons developed him into.

“we don't see much of him during his amnesia period to conclude that he was an all around a good person, just that he was a better dad.”

*pinches bridge of nose*

During his amnesia period (and excluding the period where he was in the process of remembering he was the Goblin) was Norman neglecting his son? No. Was he railroading his business partners? No. Was he stealing their inventions? No.

Oh, he WASN’T doing the things we saw him doing in the pre-flashbacks. But you know what he WAS doing? Being nice to his son. Spending time with his son. Making his son happy.

Hmmmm…its almost as if the things ASM #40 showed us about how pre-accident Norman was a bad person were either absent or directly the opposite with amnesiac Norman.

“But yeah, you're right, this amnesia plot device makes no sense no matter how you look at it but to me it looks like the implications is that his personality was reset before his accident. But to each their own, I guess .”

A story can imply one thing but show another or contradict itself. What is actually happening is more important than implications.

“I agree that Norman abusive background explains why he treats Harry so horribly as it was textually explained, as well as why he's so comfortable with his own darkness, his toxic masculinity but it doesn't explain as well why he became so obsessed with restoring his family's name, wealth, having social power.”

BECAUSE HIS DAD LOST THAT!

Do I actually need to explain that children are heavily influenced by their parents? That they subconsciously look to their parents as role models, that they seek their approval, that how their parents treats them shapes who they grow up to be?

If Norman’s Dad LOST the family’s prestige and was obviously upset about it and that in turn led to him hurting Norman OF COURSE Norman would want to restore it. He would have learned that prestige was important.  Thus in restoring on some subcionsious level he’d:

Be making his father proud

Proving himself BETTER than the man who was his physical superior

Avoiding becoming like his father who he saw broken down and rendered weak by losing the company

Making himself powerful and therefore not weak, not like his father who was rendered weak/the helpless weak little boy his father bullied

“It's not about real life psychology, it's all about WRITING.”

THOSE AMOUNT TO THE SAME THING!

You can’t BE a good character writing without applying real life psychology! Because to be a good character writer you NEED to make your characters psychologically convincing, otherwise nobody would buy into them.

See above when I disproved your bullshit about not applying psychology to fiction.

You don’t NEED to have a psychology degree to write good characters but you do NEED to be able to get inside a fictional person’s head and render them as believable. And that would entail making them psychologically realistic.

William Shakespeare never studied psychology. He literally couldn’t have. But he was nevertheless able to write psychologically convincing characters that we CAN successfully apply real life psychology to.

Because writers and psychologists have this gigantic overlap in their respective fields, namely, getting inside people’s heads!

“Writing a proper Freudian excuse that doesn't require ton of meta analysis, real life psychology, conjecture.”

THERE IS NO CONJECTURE! The narrative SPELLS this all out explictely!

“And I'm not denying that it might be one of the factors, but it unlike his abuse of his own son, it's not used explain why he became so fixated on restoring his family's name,”

If Norman’s Dad abused him because the family business was fucked there would obviously be an inherent link between restoring the family business and the abuse he suffered.

This isn’t a Freudian excuse, it is basic bitch literary analysis. High schoolers could grasp this.

Norman didn’t want to be weak as he was when his dad hurt him. Norman didn’t want to be weak as his father was upon losing the business. His dad hurt him because he was upset about losing the business.

Therefore, in hitting Norman, in abusing him, it acted as a powerful motivator later in life to restore the family business.

It. Is. All. There.

“obtaining social power (not just physical) expanding the Osborn legacy”

You need to understand this, not just for the sake of this argument nor for your future reading of fiction, but just plain old navigating through life itself.

Power is power.

If you are made to feel physically powerless you 100% could go on to seek social power.

If a boss makes someone feel powerless at work they could leave work and make themselves feel sexually powerful by having sex with a hooker who they ask to call them ‘boss’ in the bedroom.

If your business is failing and your money is running out so you feel financially powerless and are losing social power there is a strong possibility that you’d hit your own child to feel powerful! Just as Norman’s Dad did.

You keep belligerently REJECTING the idea that there can be a link between social power and physical power but that is the truth of the matter. Not only have I known this for years through, you know, common sense, not only have I read up about this, but just to make 100% certain I am not wrong on this I asked someone I know personally who is a professional psychologist. She confirmed exactly what I’ve been saying.

Norman’s situation is entirely realistic. Which again, is no surprise, since it was written by a DeMatteis who was heavily into psychology and was himself friends with a professional psychologist who he based Ashley Kafka upon.

Oh, but I forgot, we don’t apply IRL psychology to fictional people right? But…if we aren’t doing that…why are YOU insisting that there can be no link between social and physical power??????????????????????????

And furthermore, expanding the Osborn legacy? Yeah, powerful people have wanted to insure they have a legacy to live on after they die since time began. That hasn’t even got anything to do with abuse or psychology. That is just how most animals are wired. We want our offspring to survive us and thrive. For Norman that meant his son and company would be strong

“, why he's a psychopath who loves killing people when we he doesn't get any benefit from it (like this guard's wife) .”

*groans*

He likes killing people because it is an exercise of his power. He is a power addict. He wants more and more power and wants to use it. No one takes power and DOESN’T use it.

Killing people makes him feel powerful.

He wants to feel that way because as a child he was made to feel powerless and saw his dad lose his power.

It is as simple as that.

And you seem to be ASKING for a psychological explanation there? I thought we don’t apply that to fictional people?

Why are you asking why someone is a PSYCHOpath but reject the PSYCHOlogical explanations I’ve been providing for it?

“It doesn't automatically explain IT ALL.”

It literally does. You are just being blind to that reality.

“It's not expanded on.”

There were 3 stories exploring it across nearly 10 years.

That expands upon it pretty well.

“It's not used to explain HOW it shaped his view on power, how it shaped his ruthless and psychopathic, personality (well unless you claim it's unborn ).”

I’m so exhausted at this point. It HAS been used to explain it. It explained it blindingly obviously. I have repeated it multiple times in this post let alone all the other ones I have made during this argument.

I have to ask now if you are trolling or if you are honestly just this blind?

And, again….asking for HOW something shaped someone’s view on power, HOW it shaped their personality? Gosh…that sounds like you are asking for a psychological  explanation…but one where we cannot apply real life psychology apparently.

“I just wished that this backstory was more expanded on to show HOW it shaped him”

You literally admitted you haven’t read all the stories I mentioned so how can you possibly complain about all that.

You are complaining that something wasn’t explained when

It was explained IN Revenge of the Green Goblin

RotGG itself was an expansion of Spec Annual 1994, which you said you hadn’t read

“Like, there's so much things going on with him and the authors did the minimum they could,”

They wrote THREE stories exploring Norman and Harry’s childhoods and how those shaped them!

Roger Stern.

J.M. DeMatteis.

Paul Jenkins

Howard Mackie.

FOUR people between 1993-2000 wrote THREE different stories exploring this subject and this is the ‘minimum they could’?

Fucking Hell, what more do you want?

“as if we as readers are automatically supposed to connect all dots just from the knowledge alone that his dad beat him up and that it made him feel weak, so viewed toxic masculinity as "strength" and that it made him accept his own darkness.”

The. Story. Literally. Spells. This. Out!

Go. Read. The. Above. Pages!

But also, I, as a TEN YEAR OLD, understood this from Revenge of the Green Goblin alone. I didn’t even need the Child Within or Spec Annual 1994 to GET it!

It was REALLY obvious.

I’m not saying it should have been subtle…but also it was absolutely NEVER subtle.

To say readers are supposed to automatically connect the dots is saying ‘I have REALLY limited reading comprehension skills and need to be spoon-fed info.’

“Just how are we supposed to expand it to explain his psychopathy, his obsession with restoring his family's legacy which is primary motivation for most of what he does that's not connected to Peter (like the Gathering of five).”

See above. I’ve explained how it is all connected. Better yet read the stories. Though I doubt in this case it will make much difference.

“ This is made even more confusing with Sinister war”

A post-OMD story making things confusing? The shock I have. Its almost as if there was a reason I cut off with 2007

“Not to mention, that most of his much more prevalent roles happen post OMD compared to pre OMD which you entirely reject.”

No they don’t.

His most prevalent roles are his roles as a Spider-Man villain. Most of his appearances as a Spider-Man villain are PRE-OMD to my knowledge.

“Is his backstory still supposed to explain why he acts the way he does post OMD even though you said it made him a different character,”

It is irrelevant to this argument because I was never talking from a post-OMD POV to begin with.

But frankly, if post-OMD Spider-Man was well written (which it isn’t) yes his backstory SHOULD explain whatever he does. Or, more accurately, whatever he does should be written to be consistent with his established backstory in the first place.

The major reason I reject post-OMD is precisely because whether it is Norman, Harry, Venom, Doc Ock, Black Cat, J. Jonah Jameson, Aunt May, Mary Jane or Peter Parker himself, the stories are rarely consistent with their pre-OMD characterisations, whether that’s their backstories or simply older stories they appeared in. Peter doesn’t act like Peter. Mary Jane doesn’t act like Mary Jane. Harry doesn’t act like Harry. And Norman doesn’t act like Norman.

Peter wouldn’t become a paparazzi photographer.

Mary Jane would never break up with him because aunt anna’s life was endangered.

Jameson would never accept Peter upon learning he is Spider-Man.

Black Cat would never want Peter to be her fuck buddy and nothing more.

Doc Ock would never try to rape mary jane.

Harry would never be blasé about not remembering his own son Normie.

Aunt may would never blame peter for abandoning her the night uncle ben died.

These are merely one example for the above characters but you get my point.

If the characters aren’t behaving the way they should be in the context of the situation they functionally are not the characters anymore. And since the characters are the entire point of why we read Spider-Man in the first place, why the fuck should you, me, or anyone factor them into our analysis of those characters? Especially since, last I checked, OMD established that we are literally in a different timeline altogether, one where Peter and MJ never got married, where MJ was never pregnant but somehow, magically, despite this making 0 sense, every 1987-2007 Spider-Man story happened exactly the same way.

“even though it gave another explanation that I won't spoil you (read Sinister war) ?”

In other words Sinister War is bullshit. The new story is obliged to fit with the older one. In other words, if Sinister war has contradicted the origin and the origin doesn’t explain what he does in sinister war, it means sinister war is at fault not the other way around.

Norman in Sinister War SHOULD have been written in sync with his established origin.

“Also Otto was evil even before his ex fiancee died,”

Yes he was, but he WASN’T evil before they broke up. They broke up, he later became Doc Ock and later still she died. I never said otherwise. I said his MOTHER died.

“it only solidified his rivalry with Spider man as he wanted to prove that he's superior foe than Green Goblin.”

Not as originally written he wasn’t. His ex-fiance’s death was originally just AIDs, the idea that Norman infected her with AIDs was a retcon made 20 years later. As originally conceived Norman and Otto had never met face to face before Norman returned in 1996.

But that’s a big tangent that has nothing to do with my point, which was that in one issue it was established that Doc Ock became a villain due to MULTIPLE factors shaping him, not just one thing.

You never addressed my point.

“(Freudian excuse is basically a backstory that's supposed to explain how it shaped a villainous character. Don't know if it's an academic term but It's the term used by tv tropes)”

Then I am complete confusion.

You want an explanation for why Norman is the way he is…but ANY explanation by definition would be a Freudian excuse which is bad????????

But also we cannot use real life psychology?

The only thing I can conclude is you want a reason for Norman being evil that doesn’t involve his Dad hitting him even though in this specific case HOW that shaped him to be evil and twisted his world view is very clearly laid out.

It is just YOU who can’t see it.

But I am not surprised by this if you are also so insistent that we shouldn’t apply real life psychology to fictional characters. Frankly, that alone is a fucking joke of a take

"Norman hating spider man for his amnesia was never expanded on before or after this one throwaway line , that's what I'm saying. His hatred in other comics is never tied to it, directly or indirectly"

That.

Doesn't.

MATTER!

Him saying it ONCE is enough for us to confirm that it IS one of the reasons he hates Spider-Man. And it wasn't even a throwaway line either!

It was him explaining WHY he hates Spider-Man? In a story that was planned to be important, though no one knew HOW important it would go on to become. That is NOT a throwaway line. YOU think it is a throaway line but it is not actually a throwaway line.

You know what line was also only uttered ONCE for over 15 years worth of Spider-Man comic books?

"With Great Power there must also come Great Responsibility"

The most famous line of piece of writing in Spider-Man history, the line that is the defining philosophy of Spider-Man and his universe, was mentioned ONCE at the end of his first appearance in 1962 and was never repeated again until the late 1970s.

So, was THAT just a throwaway line?

Should we discount that as a motivation for Peter Parker?

Why does a line need to be REPEATED or EXPANDED upon to be relevant?

If it was said the once and so long as it doesn't contradict anything else, then it COUNTS. Deal with it.

[peacefiction]

@pach1-pach1 left this reply on my post about avoiding using words like "degenerate," so I wanted to talk about it a bit more in depth.

Quick disclaimer that I am not black, and my opinion on words that were specifically used as anti-black slurs should be taken with a grain of salt because of this. Additionally, I'm from the U.S. and English is my only language. This is likely an influential factor in my takes. Not everything I say may be relevant to other languages or cultures.

Personally, I think that it's kind of difficult to make a one size fits all rule about an ever-shifting language and culture. Something that was offensive a long time ago may not be offensive today, and vice versa. Time stops for no one, and it definitely doesn't stop for language; language will naturally alter significantly over time.

I'm going to use the specific words from my previous post and the reply—"degenerate" and "spooky"—as examples. When you take a step back from it and look at the history, yeah, it's pretty sinister that a word we know to mean "scary" was used as an anti-black slur. I think it would be ignorant at best to deny that. But it's also true that the directly offensive iteration of the word has mostly fallen out of use in modern times. Many people aren't even aware of the word's racist history. When a slur falls out of use, but the words it inspired remain in the language under a new meaning, what do you do?

With the gradual shift in language over time, it's hard for me to say when exactly it crossed the line from antiquated slur to being mostly detached from its previous context. But I generally believe that once a word becomes so detached from its offensive roots that the majority of people would never make the connection between the current word and the old one, it has pretty successfully taken on a new life. (This isn't to say that it's never used as a slur these days, just that its pretty rare, and in those cases there's sort of an element of surprise that the bigot would choose such a dated term.) The argument could be made that it shouldn't have, but it's the kind of incredibly common word that would be hard to eradicate from the vocabulary of society at large by this point.

I also think that it's relevant that the origin of the word spooky predates its use as a slur. The word "spooky" can be traced back to the Dutch word for apparition, or specter, and this use was common before it began to be used as a racial slur during World War II. You could argue that it's less that the word is inherently racist, and moreso that racists took a word that meant something scary and supernatural and then applied it to black people.

Again, I'm not black, but I was aware of this history, and I have yet to meet a single black person who believes that the word "spooky" shouldn't be used at all by its modern definition. (Which doesn't mean no black people feel that way! Fell free to chime in on this post if you're black and disagree.)

The more obvious problem with words like degenerate, to me, is that the harmful usage never actually went out of style or got replaced by a new meaning. "Degenerate" has seen consistent use by conservatives for a long time, most often to refer to anything kinky or queer, OR as a tool to lump kinkiness and queerness together with something like pedophilia. Think about how conservatives have been using the word "groomer" in recent years–they're trying to alter language at will to push their bigoted political stances. Most people would consider themselves anti-grooming, I'd say, but they're not all defining "grooming" the same way. Laws they push as "anti-grooming" are really just anti-queer, like saying that drag queens shouldn't read books to children, or that teachers shouldn't ask students their pronouns.

(There is also more than one definition to the word degenerate. I don't think there's anything wrong with utilizing the other definitions, such as to say that a crumbling building is degenerating.)

Words like "degenerate" are somewhat intentionally vague: "someone who is morally corrupt." With no context for what the speaker personally deems morally corrupt, this could mean anything. It's meant to put an idea in your head of what the supposed degenerate in question is like. You may be picturing "a degenerate" as a pedophile, or an incel, or a racist. They're more likely picturing "a degenerate" as someone kinky, queer, or polyamorous.

The non-specificity of the word "degenerate" is why conservatives love it so much. They can trick some of their opponents into agreeing with them if they claim to be anti-degenerate instead of anti-queer, or anti-groomer instead of anti-trans. "I'm not a bigot, I just believe we need to think of the children." That's why I think it's usually for the best to replace it with something more specific. It's only uniquely useful as defamation if you're hoping to obscure exactly what you're talking about.

"Degeneracy" was adopted by the Nazis in the 1920s to refer to art by Jewish people, Freemasons, or communists. In 2024, Trump still refers to his opponents as degenerates.

Tl,dr; I think this is a super case-by-case basis issue when it comes to different words with questionable histories. Some are distanced enough from their past that it could be mostly a futile waste of time and energy to try and convince others to stop using them. Some are far too fresh and active to ignore. It's an important conversation to have, about which words are worth the battle.

Maybe I'm missing information, or my perspective is flawed, and we shouldn't be using "spooky" anymore, either. I'm open to that possibility, should someone teach me otherwise.

[historia-vitae-magistras]

Forgive me for imposing my own headcanons on you but I like to think your characterization of Arthur was greatly regretful and mournful of his mother's sacrifice for him UNTIL Alfred is born. Only then does he completely understand her decision to give herself for him because he knows he would have given absolutely anything for his son

Respectfully disagree! When I write about Brittania's death or Eirian's death, her sacrifice was not her death but how long she endured and strove to survive before meeting her end. Rhys ending her life was her choice, not a sacrifice. It is a choice many people make when survival no longer outweighs the losses of independence, identity and dignity. Her son spearing her through the heart with her own sword is the final sacrifice to the woman who was once a patron goddess in her own right. Her death was a release from her sacrifice.

Every moment she survived was another moment and another chance for Arthur to grow and mature before her death. Every harvest she saw was another year to teach her children how to survive her end. I don't think any nation will willingly go to their permanent deaths on behalf of another. And even if she had, Arthur's co-opting of the human term 'parent' is not the same to his children as it was to him and his mother. Arthur replaced her on their land as a result of cultural changes and a breakdown of what fueled her existence. His own children came into being as the direct result of something far more sinister, and there's a very inherent difference. Kill for his children? Yes. Endure the temporary damage of a human death? Occasionally. Volunteer his permanent national destruction for them? Never.

[nanamiscocksleeve]

idk why but I'm absolutely terrified of yuta. 😭😭 Like whenever i see him in the comic panel I'll be literally nervous idk why, i have this reaction towards a few other men in real life (for example, Jacob Elordi) too but they didn't even do anything bad, i don't even have any trauma regarding men tbh. I guess that's my weird confession......

Sometimes we just have weird reactions to certain things. Like how I can't stand seeing lotus seed pods without getting a creepy crawly feeling (tryphobia, I think it's called?)

Your feelings are valid, the brain processes so many faces in a day that perhaps there's something inherently sinister about these men to you but not anyone else. A weird locked memory maybe.

Thank you for your confession.