#I'd argue to an above average degree

[sherdnerd]

I am so fed up with hard binaries. A think must be wholly one way or wholly another. There is no grey. There is no "sorta". There is nothing in between. I fucking hate it. Things are complicated, you're not going to be able to look at anything meaningfully until you accept that

[haovcrse-a]

ZHAOYI IS CANON TO ME <333

— ✍️, 🤪, 🌦️, ☕️ , 🪐, 🎞️

DKJFSHK AWW :DD <33 ALÉXIOS IS VV CANON TO ME AND I CURRENTLY HAVE 'EM E6 TRUST LIKE THAT'S MY MAIN WDYM???? WHO EVEN IS BLADE !!

✍️: overall, how does the fandom trait you? are you a beloved character, or hated? are you popular, or a minor side character? anything in between?

both fandoms would be split pretty evenly!! some can only see me as one or the other, while a majority understand the complexities of my character! i don't think i'd be hated per say. there will always be those few that say im overrated / trash or wtvr and that's ok! i think i'd be maybe just above average likability hah!

genshin wise, im a side character for both versions! in hsr, i play a little bit of a bigger part in the pencaony arc for both sunhao and gallahao. for zhade, i think id be popular among the angst lovers for the most part hah!

🤪: what is your trait that fanon would exaggerate?

genshin fandom: they'd probably boil me down to my "tsundere" look to the point where i start looking genuinely mean in the eyes of new fans. media literacy becomes dead when it comes to my character <//33 my unwillingness to help heizou despite the subtext between the lines... the occasional light-hearted insults i'd throw ayato's way... or the unsureness of how to express gratitude toward's thoma's actions... guys it's so bad

or making my past the defining factor of my character!! saying that change isn't possible for a long-term thief or merc (though the latter would be argued with dehya's release)

star rail fandom: ooh ok so the ones people would make depend on which universe we're talking about !

zhade — mean doctor who's hogging people's husband TwT LMFAO no bc. i just think "those" types of fans would probably see me as such for sure. blade and i have a very strange relationship to people on the outside; it makes sense for people to think im being excessively blunt.

the other side to this is that they infantilize me. like like those "uwahhhh he's so smol 🥺🥺 must protect" kind of scenarios but isn't just for jokes and is fully serious... 'n when it comes to shipping... it's usually based off a gay stereotype for that reason TwT

gallahao — that gallagher genuinely finds me annoying, and therefore the fandom does too. g!zhao is more sly, teasing, & definitely more outgoing than the other two vers. id get sampo treatment to a degree where people find my fakeness to get what i want annoying (for the plot!!)

sunhao — stoic to the point where i don't—can't—even talk apparently LMFAO. would also probably turn me into a soft boy kfdjghkl.

🌦️: would you be accompanied by mostly fluff or angst fanfics? both? explain why.

hmm a healthy dose of both. genshin would probably have more fluff for sure—most of the angst would be hurt/comfort stuff based on the whole thomayato kidnapping plot. but my genshin s/i's aren't as sad as my hsr ones LMFAO.

hsr... is a toss up. gallahao would have the most fluff, while zhade would have the most angst. sunhao would be a good mix. ooh in general, there would be a bunch of sweet platonic found family stuff too !! angst for zhade for the sole reason of ppl playing around with how we both get possessed often lol. him the mara, me my own powers... also the whole. scared to get close in fear of hurting the other plot ive got going on for my character story!

gallahao would be treated as the sweet side couple. some occasional angst here and there of a case gone wrong, but a majority of it is just flirting and how people image we got together.

sunhao <33 hurt/comfort is the most common. the whole bodyguard x his assignment + childhood friends to lovers?? people go ballistic. lots of sweet moments, and also ofc ones where one of us has to be bleeding out 💀

☕️: what are the most common plots of shipping fics between you and your f/o?

thomayahao — always something to do with miscommunication of some sort.

yizou — they don’t tend to stray away from the whole thief x detective thing much; usually the setting is different (modern aus, cyberpunk, etc.)

kazuscarahao — amnesia. which is admittedly my least favourite trope. usually more canon compliant with things and the whole sumeru plot

sunhao — anything to do with the whole “protector x protected” trope!! doesn’t matter the au, that usually ends up being the plot.

zhade — one of us is injured or possessed and the other is trying to save or disarm the former without killing them. all. the. time. most of the fandom fixate on this point.

🪐: what would be your most popular au and why?

hmm i think modern aus in general would be a fan favourite. they’re versatile and have many sub-aus to fit with them!! those or royalty aus where many make me out to be the knight :DD

🎞️: what ‘canon’ scenes would the fandom point to as evidence for the validity of your ship?

i don’t remember a lot about genshin stuff so i’ll do my hsr ships for now TwT

zhade — hmm i don’t know about actual scenes, but our voice lines are what people point to!! at first glance, it looks like we don’t enjoy each other’s presence. he’s annoyed with my meddling and heals, while i grumble about him always getting excessively hurt. but when you take in the actual voice acting, people realize our words aren’t as sharp!!

there’s also ig a scene after the xianzhou arc. after karka and blade make their escape, at the very end of the last act, there’s a dark screen where it’s just the tow of us having a hushed conversation. it’s just me asking him about the mission and also tending to his injuries while he says my actions aren’t need.

sunhao — literally every scene LMFAO we’re almost always together and he always glances back in my direction throughout the story. ooh also the scene where him and robin are falling through the air… i’m standing on the platform looking at him worriedly, looking as if i’m about to jump to make it to him, before my eyes soften as robin cradles him. obv most people argue that i’m just in awe at the sibling bonds heh but why can’t it be both??

[violentferalcat]

Not an English major (I'm actually not even a native English speaker, but who cares at this point) but here's my attempt:

Anon is conveying a covert bioessentialism message under the guise of 'there is no female or male brain' argument (which is quite a researched and backed-up claim among neuroscientists). First, Anon is implying that gender does not exist and is equal to sex: "...you cannot actually change sex/"gender"..." [emphasis mine]. I'd argue that the Anon is not saying that people of different genders are different or the same, as the Anon seems to believe that there is no gender, but only [biological] sex, hence people of different sexes are intrinsically different (obviously, there are some sexual differences among people, but we have the least sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom [citation needed] and individuals of the same sex have more differences than the difference between the average female and male [citation needed]; and sex =/= gender).

Anon's reasoning is unsound as their points contradict each other. I can extract 5 points from their ask: A) There are no female or male brains; B) Therefore you cannot have a female brain in a male body (somewhat sound, so far, though quite odd); C) Radfems do not believe that genders are "different from the ground up"; D) Radfems believe that there are physical differences between men and women (somewhat contradictory to point C); E) You cannot change your gender (completely contradictory to point C; point E emerges from point D and also contradicts point A and B)

No, they have failed to see a reasoning hole in their post. Example is provided in the passage above.

Anon is a TERF pretending to be a person outside. They refer to radfems in third person, trying to indicate that they do not associate themselves with radfems, but their reasoning leads us to believe that their beliefs emerge from a radfem/TERF ideology. (I have used radfem and TERF interchangeably, please correct me if it's wrong to do so)

While it is impossible to know whether Anon has a medical degree from this post alone, what I have described above does lead us to believe that Anon is uneducated on gender-affirming treatments ("...you cannot actually change sex/"gender"..."), does not know that biological sex is a complex spectrum and therefore saying that all men are different from all women is incorrect ("They do see the inherent physical differences between men and women..."), does not know (I'd say they just don't believe) that biological sex is not related to gender. Therefore, we can conclude that Anon either has a medical degree, but is a very bad doctor, biologist, and researcher. Or, what is more likely, they do not have any medical education and speak from a place of ignorance.

I am not sure whether I have kept my paragraphs below five sentences. Also, for the Scientific American article, which is provided in point 5, you can use 12ft.io to access it for free.

uhh, radfems are literally the ones that say there is no such thing as a "male brain" and "female brain" and thus you cannot have a "female brain" in a male body or vice versa. Thats a long ways away from "different from the ground up." They do see the inherent physical differences between men and women and recognize you cannot actually change sex/"gender".... but so does anyone who isn't brainwashed.

Let's test our Analytical Skills!

What message is being communicated by Anon? What statement is Anon making about gender? Are they saying that people of different genders intrinsically the same, or intrinsically different? Explain your reasoning.

Is Anon's reasoning sound? Is their statement consistent, or contradictory? What do you think the difference is between "(genders are not) different from the ground up" and "...the inherent physical differences between men and women... cannot actually change." Show your thinking in a short statement below.

Do you think Anon is demonstrating strong critical thinking skills? Why or why not? Support your answer using examples from the original text.

Do you think that Anon is a TERF, or an outsider explaining TERF rhetoric from an objective position? Why or why not?

Do you think that Anon posesses a medical background? Is Anon familiar with the science of gender-affirming treatments? How do you know? Elaborate.

Please keep your answers between one and three five-sentence paragraphs each. Don't forget to use quotes and examples to support your conclusions.

This test will be worth 10 points.

[infiniteanalemma]

I'm glad to see more Karlach meta, and I agree with a lot of your points. That said, I do feel a need to push back on two points specifically.

I think that despite everything, Karlach is still good. She may not be a "good little girl", but she IS a good person. I also don't think she's selfish--at least, not any more selfish than any other person out there.

This reply got away from me. (I turn everything into an essay, apparently.) I'll put it under a cut, but the crux of it is that making "bad" choices doesn't mean you're not a good person, either in DnD or irl. Also, wanting to survive and prioritizing your own self-preservation isn't selfish--it's merely human.

To the main point, you're absolutely right that Karlach isn't a squeaky clean, innocent "good girl". She's made bad decisions, trusted the wrong people, and still makes bad decisions even now, despite having good intentions. That doesn't mean she's not good, though. On the contrary, I'd say she IS good because she's trying to be better, and keeps trying even when she's failed.

It's not easy to be good. That's the point. To be good means making constant sacrifices, to constantly fight against one's baser impulses. Karlach is impulsive--she is controlled by her impulses, especially rage. Sometimes she fails to keep those impulses in check, but that failure doesn't speak to her moral character.

Even from a utilitarian, outcome-based perspective, her problem isn't her morals, but that she doesn't really stop to think about long-term consequences. She does whatever feels right in the moment, and sometimes that blows up in her face. That doesn't make her a bad person, just rash.

Working for Gortash is actually a good example of that: 'this guy treats me nicely, so he must be an okay person. Sure he's a weapons smuggler, but this is Baldur's Gate, and we do what we have to do to survive. It's not like we're hurting any innocents!'

Stat-wise, this checks out: her Intelligence is below average, explaining her lack of foresight, while her Wisdom is slightly above average but not super high. Wisdom is what governs those gut-impulses of intuition. So, she recognizes when a situation is unjust, but doesn't always know the best way to address it. As a natural result, her well-intentioned actions sometimes actually make things worse. Her intentions are almost always to help the innocent and/or punish the wicked, but intentions don't equal outcome.

You hold Wyll up as her foil, which she herself acknowledges him as being a "better" person than she is. However, the thing to keep in mind is that Wyll is a hero. He's not just a good person, but someone who goes above and beyond what anyone would expect as a reasonable self-sacrifice. The thing that generally makes saints saintly is that they've reached a point where they're willing to sacrifice themselves to a degree that the average person can't. Wyll always seems to do the right thing, no matter the personal cost.

However, even Wyll isn't perfect. He can be tricked, or fall victim to misunderstandings. He was all set to kill Karlach herself, after all, not out of malice but because he was trying to do the right thing without full understanding of the situation. Wyll sort of has the opposite problem of Karlach: his intelligence is a little above average, but his Wisdom isn't. (It's a 10, which is exactly average.) This means that Wyll isn't too bad at figuring out the consequences of his actions (assuming he has all the facts), but his intuition for when he's being tricked or that the situation isn't what it seems isn't the best.

Karlach's not a Wyll, and she's not a lawful good type. (I'd argue that Wyll really isn't lawful good either. I see him more as a neutral good--he's willing to go along with the rules if they'll help the situation, and if they won't, he's more than happy to bend or break them. He does have a strong, internal code of conduct, but he's willing to violate even his own morals "for the greater good.") Instead, I'd class Karlach as chaotic good -- she doesn't care what the rules say, and she doesn't have any strong internal code of conduct. She tries to do good when and where she can, in whatever way she thinks is best in the moment. Chaotic, but trying her best to do the right thing.

Even if you assume she was Gortash's kneecap-buster, having a shady past doesn't make you tainted forevermore. Redemption is never easy, but she's clearly trying to be better. Of course, trying to be better doesn't wipe the slate clean. It doesn't make a decade of being used as a weapon evaporate. She likes to fight. She's good at it. Thrown into extreme violence, she leaned into it and learned to take some enjoyment in a horrible and traumatic experience. She had to, if she wanted to survive. Maladaptive coping mechanisms don't go away just because they're no longer necessary, even when you want them to and especially not when they're something that literally kept you alive.

As to her being selfish, I think it's helpful to distinguish between selfishness and self-preservation. Everyone wants to survive. That's a basic, animal instinct. It's primal. It's not selfish to want to live, or to want to avoid suffering or being tortured. Selfishness is going beyond that. It's being willing to go along with others' suffering and loss merely for one's own comfort, because doing something is inconvenient.

It's important to remember that Karlach is a trauma survivor. No, she didn't help the tieflings in Elturel, but not because she was so selfish that she didn't care about what happened them. That's the tragedy of it. She wanted to help, but didn't think she could. Karlach's regret wasn't that she didn't help, but that she didn't even try because she thought there was nothing she could do. After all, if she couldn't even save herself, how was she supposed to help them?

That's learned helplessness, one of the many ways abusers keep their victims under control. When you convince someone their chains are unbreakable, they stop trying to escape. It's a trauma response, and it's only in retrospect that Karlach can even consider that maybe there were other options. And it's not like she was in a position to act freely. Zariel would have punished her, and the likelihood she'd have made a difference was pretty slim anyway. She was too visible, had too many eyes on her, and she's not exactly the most subtle person to try to help them stealthily.

Now she's free to try helping others without fear of immediate punishment, but that doesn't mean she suddenly knows how, or what the best thing to do is. The soul coins are a case in point. DnD lore says that souls bound in soul coins can be freed to go to whatever afterlife they deserve, but does Karlach know that? She seems to believe they're trapped until they're destroyed, based on her "better I use them to fight evil than to let a devil use them" dialogue. If those were the only two choices, then from her perspective, it'd be easy to see using a soul coin to be a kind of mercy kill. The soul in the coin is trapped in a state of agony. Can you really call it a kindness to leave them in that state?

She's not indifferent to their suffering. She'll freely admit that it's horrible to sacrifice them, but if that's something that's just going to unavoidably happen anyway? Better to end their suffering and give it a "good purpose" than to let them suffer, only to be inevitably sacrificed by a devil anyway for evil purposes.

Does this mean she doesn't occasionally choose "selfish" comfort over action? No! She's willing to bury her head in the sand for a moment's comfort. Can you blame her? I can't. After all she's suffered, I can understand wanting to deny painful truths and hold on to a moment's happiness. She's had precious little of that for the last decade. Of course she wants to make every scrap of it last. And I can also understand her asking herself who it hurts to ignore reality, convincing herself it's harmless. It isn't, of course. It hurts herself and those around her to pretend everything's fine when it isn't, but the immediate gratification of indulging feels better in the moment.

But that's human. We all do things like that. We all tell ourselves comforting lies to make ourselves feel better. When we do things wrong, we try to rationalize it and make it less bad, if only to ourselves.

So, all this to say: Karlach is not some innocent ingenue. She's a morally complex person with some bite to her, but that doesn't stop her from being good. She's still a good person, even when she doesn't always get it right.

Karlach isn't a good girl

Listen, LISTEN. I love her, okay? Now that's out of the way. I see many people reducing her personality to the "big friendly labrador dog" thing. And while it's cute and all that, I disagree. Let me get into why I think Karlach isn't the goodie nice girl she puts a lot of effort to be. She has just returned to Faerun when we meet her in game, and she IS trying her bestest to start anew, to be the best version of herself now that she is free. But it doesn't mean she was always like that, or that her past has not changed her. I think it did - quite a lot, in fact.

Let's start with Gortash. She worked for this fucker. Granted, she might not have known he was such an evil bastard at the time, but she was his bodyguard. And by bodyguard, it is implied that she was his bully, his enforcer and debt collector - you know, the kind that breaks knees and kills people. When she meets an old friend in the city, that friend asks her if she is still in "the business of intimidation", and offers her to come see weapons. Even though Karlach, in her mind, might have been convincing herself that doing such a job was to help someone she respected, she still did it. And that is FINE. She was a young orphan, a tiefling in a place where tieflings are discriminated against harshly, poor and without much perspective. Of course a guy coming over offering her a well paid job that she excelled in would seem like winning a lottery. Still, she was a pretty shady violent person doing it. Now, the Hells. Avernus. She was sold to Zariel quite young still, and went through all sorts of torture and other perks enslavement gets you. For 10 years. She was scared shitless while there, especially in the beginning - she says so herself (to Halsin). All the carnage she inflicted was not (very) voluntary. She HAD to, or she would be the one getting killed. But she enjoyed it - or grew to. She likes violence, the adrenaline of it, the rush of excitement. The thrill of it, she says, is second only to sex.

Continuing on. Avernus, as well as the other layers of the Nine Hells, is not like the Material Plane. The place itself influences you. It means that being in Avernus for any time changes/corrupts/influences who you are. The longer you stay there, the deeper it gets. It did so to Zariel who was a literal angel. Avernus (and it's Archdevil's personality) insidiously get in your body and heart. It is just the way it goes, lore-wise, in DnD. If a fucking SOLAR wasn't immune to it, Karlach - young and lost - certainly wouldn't be either. Even more so because she was near Zariel all the time. I strongly believe Karlach was getting more and more exactly like Zariel - who herself is a fierce berserker warrior who charges head first into battle. Zariel is KNOWN to be this crazy strong, insane, fearless and (in her mind) righteous demon-smiting war machine. Sounds similar to a nice red tiefling we know, doesn't it? Now, did Zariel chose Karlach beause she was already like this, or did Karlach took after Zariel while she fought with her? Hard to tell. In any case, Karlach's 10 years in the Hells did change her. Needless to say, Avernus doesn't change you for the better. It doesn't mean that Karlach became "evil" - she is obviously far from it. But she is chaotic, violent and bloodthirsty. She is also selfish. There are several situations where this personality trait of her comes up.

It may sound kinda wild considering how she offers to help everyone and even sacrifice herself (since she's already dying anyway) - when we meet her. But that's the thing: she is being as selfless as she can now because she has been very selfish for a very long time (proof she has a conscience). Perhaps, she is terrified of what she was becoming and is trying to make amends, to revert whatever evil was growing in her.

She mentions herself that she did not help the tieflings of Elturel when their city was pulled down into Avernus. She did not get out of her way to help them. Instead, she thought that if "she was living that nightmare, they'd have to live it too". She would not put her neck on the line to help another - which, not so coincidentally, is typical behavior in the Hells (again, proof that Avernus was indeed getting to her). The Hag's Vicious Mockery targeted specifically at Karlach mentions how she is willing to "sell everyone's soul's if it means she can save hers". We do not know exactly what it refers to - soul coins, throwing others under the bus, ignoring people in need - but it reinforces the idea that Karlach was not the nicest person for at least 12+ years. Granted, the devils around her were much worse - but they are DEVILS in HELL. So.

Generally, in game we notice that her effort to survive and stay alive has pushed her selfishness to grow. But it still is selfishness. Another example is how she disapproves (together with Astarion), if you say to healer Nettie that you "swear to drink the Wyvern poison". She wouldn't drink it. She'd rather kill Nettie (that gets hostile).

Another hint at her grey-ish personality is when she talks to/about Wyll after he is punished by Mizora for not having killed Karlach. She mentions that she would NOT have done the same in his place. That he was better than her. Again, she would not put her skin on the line like that. She would and has turned a blind eye to situations and persons if it meant it would guarantee her survival or avoid injury. (Mind you, I 100% belive she would do this sacrifice if she was in love with someone, though.)

She will ask to, and will use Soul Coins even though she knows it's morally a sus choice to do so. If you play as her she will repeat to herself "I won't use them, they are people's souls - and I am GOOD." like she is trying to convince herself. Because she would fucking use them to smash some big fuckers in a blink - and feel awesome while doing it. Even as her, she keeps insisting "But... maybe I can use them... JUST when I really need them." Additionally, when she talks to the bugbear merchant in Moonrise Towers and he offers her soul coins, she doesn't really feel guilty for the stories of the souls in them. She even says at some point "they are already doomed, so why not use them anyway", justifying that she will only kill evil bastards with them. In any case, the morality of her choice is debatable. It makes clear that Karlach is not "lawful good" by any stretch.

Let me reiterate that just because I am saying all this about Karlach, doesn't mean I dislike her. I think she is abso-fucking-lutely the best character in the game. But I hate to see her personality "flattened" to nice happy go lucky gal. I think she has a grey-tinged personality - she has good and bad aspects to herself; she has character flaws too.

But I also think that she is trying her damn hardest to be the best she can be right then. The opposite of what she's been. Maybe it is because she has so little time left, that she needs to be the absolute best version of herself while she can. Perhaps she is trying to be what she would have been if her parents did not die - because they seemed like great loving parents. And I think Karlach didn't turn into a broken evil maniac because of them, the way they raised her while they were alive. But she lost her mom at 6, her father around 13-15. After that, it was struggling on the streets, Gortash and Zariel - betrayal, violence, carnage, war and loneliness. It is too naive to think a person would not change after all this, that Karlach would not carry more scars than those she shows on her body. To her credit, she turned much MUCH better than anyone would have. She WILL kill with a grin on her face, seek violence, blood and even revel in it - she learned to relish it and now it's part of who she is. She is selfish, she will look out for herself and has no qualms about killing or throwing people she doesn't care for under the bus (if she sees justification for it). BUT she knows what evil is, and doesn't let shit happen to people who don't deserve it. She will side with those who suffer prejudice and fight against what she sees as injustice - but even she has a limit to how far she'd go.

If you raid the Emerald Grove, she will leave the party. To me, this screams of her trying to right her past wrongs. She left the Elturians to their fate once before, so she MUST save them now that she has another chance - and that it won't cost her her life. I love her being 1/3 brutal killing machine (and fucking LOVING it), 1/3 ptsd, fear and overcompensating trauma under a smile, and 1/3 just trying her best, really, and being lovely for it. Phew. That was a long rant. I guess I just wanted to organize my thoughts about it a bit :V

[sknolls]

Maybe you'll find this helpful? But I think the concept of intelligence sort of dissipates as you get older. Because everyone works by their own metrics and specialties. Like, I couldn't tell you the first think about biology, that doesn't make me less intelligent than a dedicated biologist. Just means they specialize in something that I don't. And applies to shit that I'm good with too. It's all just experience. Even within the same profession, you wouldn't look at two brilliant artists and go "yep that one's smarter," without coming across as extremely reductionist. It's sort of hard to have a good relationship with a false concept.

I think the main thing that made me dismissive of the concept is that I couldn't define a coherent metric for it. Even as an abstract concept. Is Intelligence a measurement of the amount of information someone knows? One's propensity to learn and accept new information? Is it a collection of general knowledge or is it specialized knowledge? What information constitutes one's intellect? Is it a static variable or one that's in constant flux? Like, I've generally been above average at math in elementary school, but then I hit a brick wall upon reaching higher levels of it, which involved invoking a different set of skills. So, what does that say about my intelligence on the matter? Another potential metric for the concept is one's propensity to think. But the act of thinking, itself, isn't a measurable concept either. Like, it's the closest approximation to how I'll use the words "smart" and "dumb." Basically as ways of saying "you gave me a lot to think about" or "I don't think you've put in enough thought." But there's a more accurate set of words for that: thoughtfulness, nuance, etc. For the sake of comparison, I'd argue that wisdom is an abstract concept, but still a real one. It's the measurement of one's life-experience. It is abstract because it cannot be objectively measured, but its components are commonly understood.

Also, when I coin the term false concept, I'm just saying it's a concept people invoke and attach meaning to despite the concept itself being rather meaningless. When I say an abstract concept, I mean it's a concept that lacks quantifiability and yet still holds meaning.

I personally find talking about concepts and philosophies to be rather annoying because language is fundamentally imprecise. I dont think thats a fault of English specifically. I think it's more that language is how a person translates their thoughts into a format understood by their peers, and I think my autism just gives me a heightened sense of awareness to its function as a translator. Every word carries a degree of nuance and air for interpretation that makes communicating ideals, especially with non-autistic ppl, tedious. That's also why I end up using a lot of big words and coining a lot of terms; feels more precise.

I want to be smart and be seen as smart by others, its one of the only things I latched onto as a pup that could make me feel like I had something that neurotypical people didn't. It's at best a silly fantasy, but since I'm white I don't really know if I can have a productive relationship with "intelligence" in the first place. Much to think about.

[otnesse]

Fully agreed that Belle got WAY too much credit, especially in respect to the other Disney Princesses (who got bashed, especially her predecessors). Hiring Linda Woolverton into the Disney company was a mistake, and the person to blame for that decision is the same guy who later formed the animation branch of Dreamworks and ran that and Quibi to the ground, Jeffrey Katzenberg (worse, he rejected two planned renditions that arguably had a LOT better quality [ESPECIALLY Belle's characterization] than the one we got for exceedingly petty reasons). And thanks to that, we even got a ruining of Maleficent, arguably to an even GREATER degree in fact, via her repeating the same messages (In fact, the depiction of Maleficent was so distasteful that even Angelina Jolie, the one who played the titular villain in the movie, tried to stop Woolverton from making her good but ultimately failed). Heck, I'd argue that garbage 2014 movie did far more than even the 2017 remake did to utterly ruin Belle as a character thanks to Linda Woolverton HAVING to drag Belle into her compulsive need to boast about forcing in a radical feminist message and implicitly comparing her to the Mistress of All Evil.

I guess the closest she has to her own song was Little Town, which is only because she was the subject of the song, and... well, let's just say it DOESN'T cast her in a particularly appealing light where she basically bashes her peers to prop herself up.

A bit of a correction, but the village was actually WITHIN Beast's kingdom. But fair point overall regarding that bit.

And hey, aside from Snow White and her showing more actual intelligence during the time she found the cottage than Belle ever did, Cinderella also was shown to be something of a historian based on her naming Gus upon rescuing him from that trap (she named him Octavian, but called him "Gus" for short, referring to Emperor Octavian and how he was originally known as Augustus), and while Aurora never really had any real opportunity to actually showcase intellectual potential, the scene in her bedroom showed a bookcase filled with books, implying that she was literate (and unlike Belle, who if we were to take into account the setting of the film was probably average even for her time since LOTS of women were literate in France at the time, having almost a quarter being literate, at least until Voltaire and Diderot wrecked things, Aurora was explicitly a 13th century girl who, until that point, believed she was merely a peasant. By 13th century peasant girl standards, she's well ahead of the game regarding literacy.). And Ariel, aside from actually spending time trying to research human artifacts to the best of her ability, was shown to read a book during Part of Your World and even read the contract in Poor Unfortunate Souls. Oh, and also enough street smarts to actually anticipate the possibility of encountering a shark based on her usage of reverse psychology to Flounder, and also enough critical thinking to actually QUESTION the logic behind Ursula's requested payment of Ariel's voice regarding how that would even help her goal at all. And that's not even counting extension media with her. By contrast, Belle's literally only shown to be reading children's books, and making deductions that even a kindergartner probably could figure out. It's funny how Belle's often propped up as "the smartest" when her predecessors had far more actual intellectual potential if you paid attention to the movies they were in. And even regarding expanded universe stuff regarding Belle, we see literally NO indication of her having any ACTUAL smarts beyond being a bibliophile. For goodness sakes, the so-called dumb blonde bimbettes in the Marvel Comics rendition were actually shown to be skilled enough at mathematics/arithmetic to count up to 783, all while watching Gaston use books as a barbell (I was actually considered fairly above average as a young kid due to counting very high. I actually drew the number 167 onto a wall and had enough grasp of numbers and colors to actually deduce what exactly they entailed, which shocked the Primrose staff, so being able to count up THAT high is not an easy feat that anyone can do.), not to mention had enough mechanical know-how to actually craft traps and were surprisingly effective planners (like the bear incident). Certainly far more effective than Gaston could EVER be. We never see Belle do anything even REMOTELY close to that until the 2017 remake which made her an inventor in her own right.

And yes, Belle didn't have NEARLY as much suffering and struggles as her predecessors did, got pretty much everything on a silver platter and even got away with some really bad things overall. Contrast that with Snow White, whom after her died croaked from something her stepmother may or may not have had a hand in was forced to act as her servant and then nearly subject to an assassination TWICE (and in fact, the Prince and those dwarves are probably the first people who EVER showed her any kindness). Also Cinderella, who had essentially the same situation as Snow White, not to mention a more overt victim of abuse (see how Lady Tremaine instigated Drizella and Anastasia's destruction spree on Cinderella dress as a subtle way of backing out of her end of the bargain. And it's implied that wasn't even the FIRST time she did something like that, and such was a common means of her parenting), not to mention her song just before being locked up by her stepmother implied that until the ball, she never got to experience ANY love since her father died. And then we get into Aurora who, while otherwise having a fairly stable life overall, nevertheless was implied to be the subject of helicopter parenting by the fairies and also had the bit about being subject to a death/coma curse purely because the one who cursed her, at best, was miffed with her father for not inviting her to the christening ceremony, and at worst purely for LULs. And Ariel you got the sense that she had to constantly hide her fascination towards humanity towards her father because he did NOT approve of it at all, and then when Triton went WAY too far by blowing up her grotto (which would have resulted in him potentially killing Ariel by ACCIDENT had she decided to take a bullet), she then had to make a deal out of desperation towards Ursula of all people and then had to REALLY struggle trying to meet her end of the bargain before Ursula sabotaged it because Ariel came extremely close to actually succeeding on her end. Then nearly got damned until her father took her place and then after a fight with Ursula that nearly resulted in her death, she ultimately got what she wanted, AFTER redeeming herself. Belle barely had any struggles, and heck, if anything, she helped CAUSE a lot of the problems in the film, including Beast's near death nearing the end (and only managed to succeed due to pure luck). And even came across as ungrateful multiple times. Makes me wonder how exactly Beast earned Belle's love in return, because it came across more like she used him ultimately. I'm willing to bet that the triplets probably could have removed Beast's curse MUCH easier (if they can be friends with Belle despite her technically being framed as an outcast, I'm pretty sure they can help Beast back to humanity in a much more easy manner.).

I used to like Belle but after seeing how hard BatB staff tried to prompt her like "Not Like the Other Girls" her character soured to me. I just bought a book called The Disney Princess - A Celebration of Art and Creativity (which is beautiful! I recommend it!) and when I came to Belle's part, director Kirk Wise said something about how Belle was very protective of her father "unlike Ariel" (as if Ariel didn't attacked Ursula in RAGE when she turned Triton into a polyp. That was the first time in the film where we saw Ariel at her angriest.), and it reminded me so much of when Linda Woolverton would say that she created Belle to no be "another insipid heroine" and really, is cool they wanted Belle to be an intelligent and independent young woman but why the need to tear down the princesses that came before her? This mentality behind her creation which is also shown in the movie by showing Belle against the Bimbettes to prove how "she's different from the other girls" really made me lose interest on her :/

See, that's ALWAYS been the thing about Belle and the general discourse that's permeated every extension of her character's existence (whether you're talking about the universe her film exists in or her fandom or her creators) for as long as I can remember. It's not enough that Belle is smart- she has to be THE smartest, and all the other princesses have to be idiots. It's not enough that certain people believe she wasn't looking for her prince- she has to be THE first who's never looked for a prince while the other princesses are all passive wimps who wait for a man to rescue them. I think her character and her creators- of these Linda Woolverton and Paige O'hara have inflicted the most damage- have really began the trend of pitting the princesses against one another. I mean, at a panel where there were four princesses a few years ago, each was asked what their princess contributed to the lineup and Anika Noni Rose spoke to how important Tiana was as the first black princess. Paige promptly interrupted her to say that Belle was the first brown-eyed, brunette princess...since Snow White. Like, what?! ALSO. Nothing about Belle if you actually think about it is revolutionary? In many ways I think she's a step down for princesses.

For starters, she doesn't even have an actual song in her movie? I guess you can count the reprise as one, but it isn't even a full song, so when Paige sings for events, she has to mash together Be Our Guest and other songs because Belle doesn't even have her own. Which is insane to think about considering Ariel, whose LITERAL plotline for an act of her movie is that she doesn't have a voice, and Aurora, who everyone discourages for not having many lines, have their own respective songs and reprises. Meanwhile, Belle doesn't have her own song, and Jasmine after her only has a duet (which shows Belle's trend/negative influence). Furthermore, Belle was the first princess who got half-billing. The previous films were Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (not Snow White and the Prince, and many times it's shortened to 'Snow White'), Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and The Little Mermaid. Belle's film is Beauty AND THE BEAST. After this, the movie was literally ALADDIN and omitted Jasmine altogether, and now we have movies like 'Tangled' and 'Frozen', where the titles are purposely not "too girly" so as to attract wider audiences that would otherwise be turned off by names implying a more female heavy cast. Also to note, this is the Beast's world, with his castle, his character arc, and his journey that we're tracking, not Belle's. Snow White is the princess everyone drags in comparisons to Belle, but I actually think Snow White fares so much better from multiple plotpoints?

Belle's passion is reading, and many bring this up as if it's completely relevant and proves her character is super intelligent, but it literally never comes into play or impacts the plot in any way? Meanwhile Snow White is also clearly literate (she can read the Dwarfs names on the bed) and she demonstrates her intelligence by being able to take the names on the bed and attribute it to each dwarf accordingly without even knowing them. When it comes to struggle, they're not even comparable. Snow White is an orphan, forced servant, who's grown up under an abusive stepmother who practices magic and can kill her at any time. Belle is the daughter of a wealthy landowner with no responsibilities. It's fine she doesn't want to marry Gaston, but she also has no trade or way for supporting her father. We don't even see her tending to her barn. She literally just goes into town for a book- which she gets for free-and then later leaves her house in search of the Beast's castle. Like? Whereas Snow White is literally the victim of a HOMOCIDE attempt by the monarch of her country, Belle is welcomed into the Beast's kingdom (whereas her father was imprisoned) just by virtue of her being beautiful. Everyone fawns after Belle in her movie. She goes from the village where she's idolized (I refute the idea that she's an outsider and find it, frankly, RIDICULOUS. They sing about how beautiful she is and Gaston- who has the most social clout in the village- wants to marry her. The Bimbettes even mentioning wishing they were like her. This is hardly being an outcast) to a castle where she's equally idolized for being a beautiful woman that can potentially break the curse. She never has to work for anything and, at multiple times in the movie, just ends up leaving because things are too hard. On the other hand, Snow White, as previously mentioned, is raised by an abusive stepmother who forces her to be a servant, tries to kill her, and then, when Snow White begs the Dwarfs for sanctuary in their cottage, they initially deny her. They're not taking her in because she's beautiful like Belle- she literally has to convince them to let her stay by offering that she could cook and clean for them (these being the only marketable traits she knows as she's been forced into servitude by another woman since childhood).

Belle has no consequences either. Which leads me to address the point about her father.

For everyone who says she scarifies herself for her father and it's this deep thing, her actions in the film actually say otherwise? While she does say 'take me in his place instead' she's barely in the jail for like 10 minutes. She's immediately swept off to a private chamber with a magic wardrobe and teapot. She refuses to go to dinner because she doesn't want to see the Beast, but 10 minutes later, Be Our Guest happens where an entire enchanted castle is cooking anything she wants from her. Then, she's told she can do anything she wants but just not to go to one room. And what does she do? She goes to that room, and not only does she go to it, but she lifts the glass protector from the rose and tries to touch it. How is that not stupid but Snow White eating the apple is??? Also I might add, everyone views Snow White as an idiot for helping the old hag, but no one thinks twice about the fact that the Beast was cursed for NOT helping a similar character in his film...but I digress. When she's yelled at for trespassing, she forgets she exchanged her life for her father's a mere 20 minutes ago and runs away...seriously lol this is the woman everyone said is so strong for sacrificing herself. Like it's ridiculous! Also, not to mention, but she rejects Gaston's proposal in the end of the movie where he says he could say her father if she marries him, so it's not like Belle is totally there to save her father time and time again. She promised to take his place but broke that promise SO EARLY into the deal. Also, the woods she runs into after breaking that promise? She has to be saved by the Beast after wolves almost kill her. Meanwhile, I didn't notice a man saving Snow White from the woods she had to flee into after almost being murdered by a court-appointed huntsman but...that's none of my business💅