#I got a womb. I don't want a child. but this story is realistic. I can empathize with it because I don't have internet brainrot

[kargaroc]

going through the jade shadows tag reveals a lot of people that should go and talk to a woman in real life

[reginarubie]

I respect that you didn't intend to have Rhea as a hypocrite. And I've tried to understand and it and I not saying she is a complete hypocrite or anything but I do see why she can come of as that.

There are some ways her situations is similar to r/l and there are different but there are parallels all the same. Parallels don't have to be exact and I thing that's where most people are getting the idea from?

She and lyanna ran away to marry the man they love both abandoning their "duties" as ladies of noble house. Now there are differences for sure but the motive remain the same. They ran away to marry for love. (Side note I saw someone comment that R was a man of prophecy and therefore Elia if unable to give him another child was allowed to marry and I just want to make it clear I do not stand with that statement. Elia is more than her womb and has provided two healthy children one of them is a male which is good by the realm standard since they're sexist but and way R was no "man of prophecy" what did he did exactly? Tear the realm apart? Insult his wife and children, let civilians suffer under his father's rule till he was forced to step out and even then the peace was being held by a string by the starks that bent the knee? Like what prophecy was he fulfilling? There is no Nk etc?)

And I think people think of her poorly because, she says she doesn't blame Jon for what his mother had done but she still looks down on him and feels threatened by him because of something he can't control. The schemes and whispers of others. Which is fine she is allowed to be paranoid and be spiteful since she clearly idolize her mother. To me that makes her more realistic.

Additionally she seems to blatantly ignore that house stark lost a lot and also was insulted by house trag. I can get her scorn for Lyanna but the hatred for starks when they too lost and have forgiven the lost of Ned stark brother and father caused by her grandfather. And he never met his nephew or sister again after the wars. And she sees no issue in that. Seeming to see it as a fitting punishment even. Which I enjoy since I'm hella petty and would probs be the same to someone who hurt my mother even if logically I know it's not completely their fault the human heart is not so easily convinced which is why I liked that she can be petty and hold her grievances since it's very rare that a person can be that forgiving. And I think this also highlights the difference between Sansa and Rhea really well. Sansa who is more mindful of the thoughts and effort of others as someone who was raised by a loving family and Rhea who was raised to believe by her trag family that she is above others and in the court of politics is untrusting. Given that her fam is pretty toxic it's no wonder she will point at others asides from her family. Her family is all she has in the court of snakes so could you blame her for being blind to some of their faults? For defending her family, maybe it's a trauma response or maybe it's the environment that forced her to placed her family above all else like her the starks put the pack first. Anyways my ask is spiraling and I bet most don't make sense since I'm still learning English as well. But I can't blame some readers for seeing the unintentional hypocrisy in this chapter although whether or not that changes as the story unfold remains to be seen since this is just her first chapter and we're only a couple chapters in. 😂 Look what you've done, you got people so emotional over your writing that they're making parallel and headcanons about them truly as skilled writer to invoke such a response from your readers

This actually made me feel much better, thank you nonny 😊 I hadn’t thought about it that way, and I do feel very much appreciated both for this sweet message and the fact, as you pointed out, that have invoked such a response from the readers.

Thank you, here’s to me giggling away after you put a smile on my face!

Also don’t worry about your English, I am not a native speaker and I know how confidence it takes to share a comment or say their own when one not yet sure about their language skills and makes me appreciate you and this message all the more — PS the message was perfectly understandable. So good for you! Good job! ❤️

Also, I am not denying the parallels, I am saying that all things considered it’s human that Rhaenys would not see the similarities as the circumstances and effects are much different. We as readers we have a better outlook to the whole picture and it doesn’t mean Rhaenys is an hypocrite that she doesn’t have the same big picture, because she’s not an outsider, she’s an insider. This is why I think it would be okay to point out the parallel us, as outsider can appreciate, and still don’t think an insider character should be held accountable of things she has no way to know.

That’s why I think describing her as hypocrite in my opinion is a bit too much. Especially because as a lawyer and training judge I know circumstances make the difference and the devil is in the detail. We can stay here and discuss the single detail it still doesn’t change that we can’t know for certain if Rhaenys would’ve done the same as Rhaegar and Lyanna did put in the same circumstances. Indeed we can almost guarantee that she would not, since she has idolised and is so protective of her mother, and it is improbable she would repeat the same behaviour that caused all of that, especially considering how she worries for her people and doesn’t take their loyalty for granted and actually takes care of them.

The parallels are there, but instead of being a parallel I think of Rhaenys more as a foil confronted both to R and L as well as E.

She’s not as not considering of duty as Rhaegar and Lyanna were and not as kind and over generous as Elia remained until her death.

Plus, she’s not guilt-tripping Jon about what the courtiers think, you all seem to assume that Jon did nothing to show interest in the Iron throne and I wonder what gave you the idea. Everything from Tyrion commenting on Jon’ stint in the black cells — we know Lyanna’ side, her son is innocent; we don’t know what actually happen and Jon is the same Jon who in canon said at a little younger age he would be lord of Winterfell and he himself admits he was ferocious at that time without minding the circumstances — and of how everyone has seen how skilled he is and that Jon shone despite his birth when Rhaegar pit him and Aegon against one another, to Jon himself saying in the summary he always hungered for the chance to have Aegon’s life and possibilities would lead us to believe that not everything as as easy as meets the eye. It is explicitly said that until the dragon were born and after Jon’ stint in the black cells Rhaegar showed much interest in Jon and that Jon proved his worth and that only the fact that no dragon bonded to Jon made the interest in him diminish somewhat.

So I ask again, all the evidence we have until now (from several POV) points in the direction that Jon might have been somewhat responsible about the fact that people keep considering him an alternative as he posed himself as such; thus who is to say Jon did nothing that would warrant Rhaenys’ distrust in his motives? And, as you said, it’s realistic that Rhaenys would be biased about Lyanna and Jon.

Is she right about them 100%? No. But she is entitled to think what she thinks without that making her an hypocrite, or a bad person.

Also I don’t stand by Rhaegar had reasons because prophecy in canon, let alone in this AU were there no WW e no NK. He humiliated and put in danger not only himself but also Elia, Lyanna, Aegon, Rhaenys and Jon with his behaviour.

On the top of that if you consider that Aegon seems to have idolised Rhaegar because he brought peace to the Realm and won the war, Rhaenys seems to have done the same for Elia and may feel like she’s the only one who defended her mother in the Targaryen family, as a woman myself, who literally took out a chunk of a boy’s hair because he called me “son of a bitch”, I emphasise with that and thinks it makes her behaviour much more tridimensional and realistic, and not hypocritical.

She doesn’t ignore the abuse House Stark suffered through, but as a member of House Targaryen who has lived clearly in a toxic environment she is lead to believe they are better than any other House, additionally Rhaenys felt the burn of Aerys’ hate almost as much as House Stark did, she isn’t ignoring what Aerys did to them, but since she’s defensive of her mother and brother — who she feels is too trusting in the name of peace — she is clearly suspicious of House Stark’ motives and we as readers know she’s not off mark there, because House Stark is not being honest with them and is using their cultural differences to ensure they will get independence instead of the peace of the realm Aegon is advocating for. It is human that she is petty and defensive of her family with all that happened, i don’t deny it. I characterised her especially that way.

And I agree with all the rest you analysed about the differences between Sansa and Rhae especially considering that I always said that the Starks have an enormous advantage to the others even in canon they were raised in a loving house by Ned Stark and that’s hella of an advantage, plus they have inherited Catelyn/Lyanna’ ferocity.

So above all I adore you analysation of Rhaenys as a character and I agree with almost everything beyond the parallel/foils matters on which I believe Rhaenys to be more of a positive foil against R and L and a neutral to negative foil against Elia.

And again thank you, I appreciate this message more than I can say, and it made me feel very seen and appreciated so thank you, lovely anon!

[bondsmagii]

i think i saw you mention reading the little stranger once..? if not disregard this but if you have, im curious as to your interpretation of the ending and the ghost's identity 👀

[MAJOR spoilers in this: I go into intense detail of the whole plot. if you're thinking about reading this book please DON'T read this until you're done! it's such a good story and it should absolutely be read with as little prior knowledge as possible.]

OK [rubs hands together] first of all let's look at the part of the book that its title comes from:

The subliminal mind has many dark, unhappy corners, after all. Imagine something loosening itself from one of those corners. Let's call it a---a germ. And let's say conditions prove right for that germ to develop---to grow, like a child in the womb. What would this little stranger grow into? A sort of shadow-self, perhaps: a Caliban, a Mr Hyde. A creature motivated by all the nasty impulses and hungers the conscious mind had hoped to keep hidden away: things like envy and malice and frustration…

I think the clue is right here. the ghost is Faraday, our narrator.

from an early age, Faraday has been obsessed with Hundreds Hall. he attended a garden party there as a child, and in fact was only born because of its existence -- his parents were staff at the house, and met there. he is fascinated by the house, by its grandness, by his forbidden access when he was a child; immediately he wished to possess a piece of it so badly that he vandalised it, taking a small piece of the wall with him.

later, as an adult, he gets intimately entangled with the family there. he is overly concerned with their business, and is very protective of the legacy of the house. the book focuses a lot on legacy and grief; of changing times and the inevitability of decay -- not just of buildings (quite literally; Hundreds Hall is collapsing around their ears) but of entire time periods. the Ayres are of a vanishing generation, a class of people who were already becoming obsolete but whose exit was hurried by the Second World War. they, and their grand house, are outdated -- but Faraday has a profound attachment to the place, and feels that this natural decay (as all things must, eventually, cease to be) is a threat to the house. he wants to protect it, and everything it stands for for him (his past; his childhood that he seems to idealise at least a little; and of course his personal attachment to it -- and his possessiveness) and this manifests in concern for the family.

gradually, over the course of the story, the ghost gets rid of all threats to Hundreds Hall. Roderick, the heir, is mentally unstable because of the war, and also has no loyalty to the house past a duty that he feels he cannot escape from. the ghost begins by tormenting him into insanity and driving him from the house. Angela, the aging mother, seems to gradually come around to the idea that this way of life is useless, and seems to slowly lose her own attachment to the place -- and the ghost torments her in the form of her small daughter who died young, and whose death she never got over. she kills herself, and it's strongly implied that her daughter's ghost encouraged her to do this under the guise of them being together. even the dog, which, after biting a neighbour's child, could have opened the Ayreses up to lawsuits that would have cost them the house, is killed directly by Faraday when he puts it down.

Caroline, the daughter and sole heir after her brother is deemed mentally unfit, escapes this fate for some time. despite the fact she's perhaps the harshest and most realistic about Hundreds Hall, Faraday is in love with her, and therefore she's safe because, if he marries her, he will be the master of the house. Faraday thinks he can save it; that the two of them can do something with it, and I believe that his infatuation with Caroline has nothing to do with her. she represents the house to him -- ownership of it, and its future. he loves her for what she is and what she represents, but not for who she is. Caroline initially accepts his proposal because she does have some feelings for him herself, and also because she's under pressure to wed (such was the time then, where a woman was expected to marry), but she obviously senses that it isn't right. she breaks things off with Faraday (who has naturally not noticed her reluctance at all, being literally delusional with happiness), Faraday is heartbroken and jilted, and shortly afterwards Caroline encounters what appears to be the ghost on the stairs, and falls (or is thrown) to her death.

let's look at that quote again. the subliminal mind has many dark, unhappy corners; a shadow-self; a creature motivated by all the nasty impulses and hungers the conscious mind had hoped to keep hidden away: things like envy and malice and frustration.

is not the ghost often described as a shadow? on the stairs; outside the nursery -- was it not a dark shape, a shadow-form? and it's beyond doubt that Faraday harbours all of these things: he is profoundly unhappy, even if he doesn't acknowledge it himself; he has a lonely, unfulfilled life; he is envious of those who own the house, envious of those outside his class, self-conscious of his working class background. this in turn leads to frustration, and then to outright malice -- but he is a controlled man, for the most part, and all of these urges go somewhere deep. as soon as he starts becoming intimately involved with the house, the haunting begins. and look at the nature of the haunting at first: fire. destructive and purifying: "if I can't have it, no-one can!" once Roderick -- his biggest threat as an umarriagable (for Faraday) heir -- is out of the way, the fire ceases. the haunting turns to the form of the little girl, the dead daughter, in order to torment the mother. it could even be argued that the dog was tormented into violence because Caroline was so close to it, and Faraday wanted to remove her entire support network and drive her closer to him. the haunting shifts, targeting each of the Ayres family individually and personally, often using private information that Faraday knows because of his position as a friend of the family. then, finally, when his last chance fails, it rises up as one final act of malice and kills Caroline ("if I can't have her, no-one can!").

and still Faraday wanders the abandoned house, long after the occupants are dead or otherwise gone. the house has a reputation for being haunted, but he never experiences any of these things for himself. is this because the work is done, now there are no human threats to Hundreds Hall, and Faraday can technically wander it whenever he likes? or is it because he is the ghost, if unaware he is so, and only trespassers -- anyone who is not him -- are terrorised out? there could be an argument for either, but I think the question of the ghost's identity is beyond doubt.

[infinitesimalyerkesdodsons]

Me: okay im feeling kinda good about the el noli au time to work on i--

Motivation: JANUS SILANG AU CONCEPT

Some messy bullet point explanations for the characters under the cut (since they contain spoilers and might get too long to read and scroll past lmao)

Warnings: death mention, cannibalism, gorey descriptions, betrayal

Thank you for considering reading this explanation lmao ��� have a cookie!!!

- so what i wanna say here is that the janus silang stuff has themes that revolve around twins and duality

- I'll also refer to janus sanders as deceit here so as not to cause confusion with his namesake

- there are three sets of people that have something to do with twins: miro and mira, the tiyanak and tala, and probably Janus himself, given his name and some stuff about his character that gives him this sort of dual nature thing

- i was actually tied between whether I make thomas or janus as Janus Silang in this, because thomas' red shirt with the star on it looks similar to the one Janus usually wears, but Deceit and Janus are essentially namesakes

- i decided to go with both of them because of how i saw Janus as a character. His duality in my opinion is brought by the fact that he used to know and be super close the main baddie of this story, the tiyanak, and was used by the tiyanak to gain important information (sorry remus!!!) and yet he's also the only one that has the power to help the counterpart of the tiyanak, tala (roman)

- it's also interesting to note that I also think that Janus' duality will fully come out in the fifth and final book in the series

- during the fourth book he was fated to die in order to set the world right, however this death wasn't just physical death, but an existential death in which his sacrifice reset the whole timeline and created a world wherein he never existed in the first place.

- only one person, who used to be a diwata, now human, remembered him. I hope that Janus returns in the fifth book and things are set back into place.

- anyway, the fact that this happened shows a big duality; his past existence saved the world and his nonexistence created an alternate world in the future that didn't need saving at all

- the timeline where Janus existed (2015 when things went down), I assume is simply an alternate universe where magic exists and is based on Philippine Myth and belief. The nonexistent Janus timeline (which is 2018), I assume, is this world we live in right now, a more realistic version of the original timeline.

- i want to think that janus, tala, and the tiyanak disappeared permanently from existence in order to set the world right

- it was said that only tala and the tiyanak can match each other in power, but in order for one to die the other must die as well.

- meaning that whatever happens, both tala and the tiyanak will disappear to save the world, but janus still has to die permanently in order to make tala's existence possible.

- which brings us to the other twins, tala and the tiyanak

- some important stuff in this is that the tiyanak and tala were twins born from a curse from humans in the Tabon cave.

- the tiyanak was cursed as a baby to be a man eating baby who eats the innards of people who neglect their family (or so i remember???)

- their very existence as cursed magical twins was a mistake, so bringing back to the saving the world part, in order to set the world right they both have to yeet out of existence

- as for their duality

- the tiyanak as i said earlier is a cannibal, and can create creatures to do his bidding. These creatures are from Philippine Mythology and each have their own abilities. He emerged from his mother's womb fully able to walk and talk, and can shapeshift into a child. (He cannot shapeshift into an adult though, so his underling creatures, the do-ol, do it for him)

- the tiyanak during the first book, disguised as Janus' brother in order to gain information about his twin, since Janus was supposedly the only one that can help Tala reach maturity to counter her twin.

- tala on the other hand was born without enough physical maturity, and is said to age by one year every 1000 years. When the events of the story play out tala is nearing her true maturity and only needs janus to do so.

- interestingly, before she appeared as her true form, before Janus' whole dying from existence thing, she looked like the tiyanak.

- anyway this is an abrupt end to this part of the explanation but let's get to the third set of twins

- miro and mira

- the thing with miro and mira is that they're not polar opposites unlike tala and the tiyanak. they have the same ability of switching and seeing between a purely magical world and the lesser magical earth.

- i chose logan and patton based on their personalities and the dynamic of the duo

- miro is more extroverted of the two, which seems like a good fit for patton

- mira is more reserved and quiet, and less open with talking about her ability. She preferred to figure things out on her own, retreating into the pure magic world in order to experiment with her ability.

- they die tho, miro by literally getting vertically cut into half in the middle of teleporting to the pure magical world, and mira by the hands of a mambabarang in the fourth book.

- the thing about these twins is that they don't necessarily completely oppose each other, and only their personalities seem to be different.

- i can see a similar thing happening with logan and patton, how they're not moral opposites but differ with how they work.

- next up is mica and renzo

- they're not twins but their characters are really important to the story

- mica is janus' crush, who gave him a usb necklace in the shape of a star (at the same time, star can be translated to "tala" in Tagalog, and the usb necklace played an important part throughout the series as well.

- she also played an important part in the third and fourth book, being a regular human without any power gave her advantage to magic (and lack thereof) related problems.

- And finally renzo

- did i mention that janus was orphaned? Well he was and another important character took him in. Renzo was also an orphan and he and janus had a brotherly relationship.

- that is, until janus got stuck in a dilemma where he could only save either Mira or Renzo from falling off a literal cliff, at the very end of the third book. Janus saved mira and renzo was left hanging and eventually fell (Well that was a cliffhanger amirite heheehe)

- one bit of lore about renzo is that he was a creation of the tiyanak as well. The tiyanak saved renzo from his doom and revealed this and I dont exactly remember why but it definitely had something to do with Janus as well.

So uh that's it i think hsjdjs this is kinda messy but yea if you made it here 🍪 have a second cookie!!!

[wesavegotham]

I fully agree.

I guess one problem is that a lot of people who either aren't fans of Damian or even hate him don't know (or do know, but don't acknowledge) that Damian was supposed to die in the explosion at the end of the Batman and son arc. Which means neither Morrison nor DC had a big interest in making Damian more likable to the audience as they usually try to when they want to introduce Batman's next ally/student/sidekick/child. In fact making him unlikeable would mean less backlash for blowing up a child (knowing the comic crowd a lot of them probably even cheered when it happened) and if some people still didn't feel at ease with the whole storyline they could always let a paternity test later say that the kid wasn't Bruce's afterall, distancing him even more from the whole thing.

And even if they didn't, the origin Morrison gave Damian basically made him the most "illegitimate" child one could think of. In complete contrast to the child seen in Son of the Demon Morrison's Damian was born out of a mostly sexual relationship ended by Bruce long ago that Morrison!Talia had only entered to get access to Bruce's "superior" genes for an heir via drugging, in-vitro-fertilisation, putting the embryo in an artificial womb and further manipulation of Damian's DNA to make him "perfect". All without Bruce's knowledge or approval. Which in a lot of peoples minds means Damian is not Bruce's responsibility and it's okay if he (and the reader) doesn't care about his child (to this day, might I add).

(The unnatural conception and gestation of Damian also distances Talia from all the positive associations society usually connects with "natural motherhood" and makes Talia appear cold and unmotherly to many readers, as well as making Damian's whole existence feel like a crime against nature to some)

It was only after the arc was done that DC asked Morrison to bring the character back and expand on him, which lead to them slowly making him more likeable over time because their intended role for Damian changed. Now he was supposed to become the sidekick Robin to Batman and THEN die during the climax of Morrison's run. Meaning in order for the story to work emotionally they needed readers to care about Damian now. So some previous character traits got thrown out the window and others were toned down.

But yeah, even if they didn't change his character later on, considering the context Damian grew up in (plus traits inherited by his parents and grandparents), why the hell would Damian be a happy "easy" child? Why are so many people pissed off when a character shows somewhat realistic traits that often come with trauma or mental illness? It's like society telling you it's okay to talk about mental health issues more openly nowadays, but please don't ever let them affect you in a way that is noticeable or stopping you from "working". You are only worthy of sympathy and help if despite everything you went through you are still a "perfect victim"

So many Damian haters are so offended he's not Tim 2.0 like. he's bratty, he's arrogant, w/e. First of all, not everyone is obligated to fanboy fan-favorite characters and it's boring if it's a universal character trait. secondly tim had plenty of bratty and arrogant moments, he just never applied them to fan-favorite male characters. he saved his arrogant moments for female characters and poor people he thought were trying to scam his dad by being poor.

[roxannepolice]

Well, fili, for all my this meta is built on hope I must confess I'm getting confused with Disney's game too. I too think that it would make most sense for OTrio's mental states in ST to be PTSD-related and on a realistic, non theatrical level theirs indeed are believable means of escaping if not coping from problems (the same goes for Rey). But having seen Endgame (and while I don't use MCU as message/plot reference for Star Wars, I see both franchises as adopted daughters of the same Thanos Mouse and as such I think it's safe to refer them to each other in terms of acting and directing choices), I'm not sure they DLF consciously present it this way. Without spoiling too much, Thor is depicted as having a very regressive PTSD and while some don't like it, I found it rather well executed: Chris Hemsworth is doing a really good job of showing him as grotesque, comical even, yet there are clearly intended moments when the laughter dies away: he gets triggered by trifles, gets lost in his wounds and is actually hindered by his problems. Do we have that in ST? Well, we have Rey crying a bit when her family is directly referenced and we have Leia being apparently triggered by the presence of Han who reminds her of Ben though tbh she looks irritated by literally everything else more than Han. But they're not once hindered by their problems. Now, one could argue that Luke got majorly hindered by what happened between him and Ben - but honestly, for all of emotional analysis, Luke gives a clear reason why he doesn't act in the war: he believes he (and jedi in general) will do more harm than good - it's not a 'selfish' breakdown.

I kinda have to agree with your statement that DLF are having some daddy issues: they want to kill their past and create great new stories but they also want to crawl back into mommy's womb and go on playing with their superhero figurines - and so they end up keeping a family photo in a very visible place but don't even call their parents on Christmas. They want to honour and discuss while also keep on playing. If you think of it, now it looks like Han's arc will be the best one of OTrio after all - and I'd say it's by virtue of Ford's acting on the one hand (somehow I didn't need BTS, EU and structural analysis to understand that this was the first time Han's seen his son as a man) but also keeping his character's simplicity - Han remains the same cowboy/noir gangster he was 40 years ago and it's within this frame that his character is discussed. Yes, a cowboy/noir gangster upon losing his child would go on six years drinking away/rathar smuggling away his sorrows and then die for this child. Is it healthy? Is it what the story presents as the right solution? No it's not healthy, it's not recommended, but it's painfully human and it's that humanity that gets explored. But Luke... he's a mentor who's also an uncle but his relationship as a mentor appears to override his relationship as an uncle but it's wrong yet it doesn't change by the end... I got nothing. And finally there's Leia who's a mother but also a general because it's more badass and I think that Disney has bitten off more than they can chew here: they're trying to change an archetype while avoiding discussion with it. Speaking in purely symbolic terms, a general is an archetype masculine par excellence, but a mother is an archetype feminine par excellence. Those two archetypes should be clashing the hell of each other. Leia should be torn between love and duty, similarly to Rey, yet the movies not for a moment question the obviousness of love being part of duty and vice versa, but because this ends up looking rather grotesque (Leia is totally aching but keeping up hope for her son and it's perfectly in tune with her soldier who probably knows him shooting at him; Rey will fight for her love but will fight by waiting for her man to figure things out while she keeps making sure he'll get overthrown/imprisoned/executed/banished and that's also the best strategy possible), it results in making it look like this philosophy is indeed a tacit paradigmatic problem to overcome.

So yeah, I can see 140 000 000 possible developments here and only one of them is neither a well executed but bitter subvertion, nor a poorly executed but pleasant story.

At this point I'm that petty that if Rey killing Kylo would be a way for her to feel really bad and having lost the only person who could understand her because of her self-righteousness, I would be satisfied. I want her so much to regret something trully. It's terrible because the more they are making her this parangon of Jedi virtue and all, the more I want her to fall into despair very badly. Like I would feel satisfaction. And I'm not sure it's what DLF want to make us feel for her...

That’s right, anon, resist the mind control superimposed by culture industry giants.

Again - it’s the same reaction as people who would rather see anyone redeemed than Ben and that’s definitely not what DLF want us to feel. But, idk, maybe if you go on telling people things (Ben is oh so redeemable unlike anyone else in FO, Rey is oh so emotional and learning from her oh so deep failures) while everything non-textual contradicts those statements (Ben apparently really only wants power, Rey is immediately jumping to woohoo I like that mode)… maybe you’re not doing a stellar job of writing the characters you claim to be writing.

I get the sentiment, though for me it has less to do with Rey as a character, really. It just that this trilogy feels… unemotional. Or at least not of the emotional level one would expect of a space opera. We have this supposedly mourning family busy smuggling rathars, running a war and apologising in a way which sounds like a joke, supposedly damaged heroine who looks a little sad if you pause at the right microsecond and some microacting behind a mask. Which, I get, it’s supple, 2 supple 4 you philistines, but if you have characters reacting in subtly realistic ways no wonder people look at fictional warfare as to be taken seriously.

Gimme you were my brothers, I couldn’t live without hers and furious slashings, dammit.