#I'm not the kind of person who believes the hero of a story should be morally impervious at all times in fact I hate it

[alicepao13]

I feel like this is about Charlie Hudson in Capital Punishment.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Character Development

Rick Riordan's Writing Tips

Rick Riordan:

Character development is paramount for me. I firmly believe that plot and character development must occur simultaneously. Plot cannot be left to chance. Neither can characters be automatons who carry out actions envisioned in the author's master plan. Below are some things I try to keep in mind when developing my characters:

RICK RIORDAN'S TOP 5 TIPS ON CHARACTER

Define a character first through action, second through dialog and description, never through explanation.

A character should be primarily defined by the choices he makes, and the actions he takes.

How does he respond to violence?

How does he respond to love?

Secondly, a character must be vividly but deftly describe through his speech, and through the initial view you give the reader.

Never stop to explain who a character is when we can watch him in action and decide for ourselves.

Be impressionist rather than realistic.

Describe characters as Dickens did – with a single deft stroke.

A laundry list of physical traits is realistic, but it is neither memorable nor compelling.

A jarring metaphor for the character, or a focus on one mannerism or physical trait, can be very compelling.

Example: She was a human tornado.

Do not be afraid to use real people as models, but do not be constricted by your models.

It is very natural to use parts of ourselves or the people we know when creating characters.

Do not be afraid to do this because someone might get mad at you.

At the same time, let your character develop.

Do not force them to do what the real-life model would do.

Characters seldom end up exactly like the real people they are based on.

The reader does not have to be told everything you know about the character.

It may be critically important to you that your character has blue eyes, or went to Texas A&M.

But if these details have no part in the story, the reader will not care.

Leave them in your subconscious.

If you are having trouble figuring out a character, fill out a character profile, or do some journaling in that character's voice.

Your character must act, not simply be acted upon.

We care about characters because we are interested in the choices they make.

We want to boo the villain, cheer the hero, and cry with frustration when the tragic figure makes the wrong move.

A character who does not act, but simply receives information and is acted upon by outside forces, is not a character who will compel the reader.

Remember, plot is what the characters do next.

If the characters do not create the plot, the plot is hollow.

Here's a character profile worksheet I sometimes fill out if I'm having trouble understanding a particular character I've created:

Character Profile

Name:

Height:

Age in story:

Birthplace:

Hair color, length, style:

Race/nationality:

Regional influences:

Accent: (include voice, style of speech, slang, signature phrases or words)

Religion:

Marital status:

Scars or other notable physical attributes:

Handicaps: (emotional, physical, mental)

Athletic? Inactive? Overall health?

Style of dress:

Favorite colors:

How does the character feel about his/her appearance?

Brothers/sisters:

Relationship with parents:

Memories about childhood:

Educational background: (street smart? Formal? Does he/she read?)

Work experience:

Occupation:

Where does the character live now? Describe home (emotional atmosphere as well as physical)

Neat or messy?

Sexual preferences/morals/activities:

Women friends/men friends:

Pets?

Enemies? Why?

Basic nature:

Personality traits (shy, outgoing, domineering, doormat, honest, kind, sense of humor):

Strongest trait:

Weakest trait:

What does the character fear?

What is the character proud of?

What is the character ashamed of?

Outlook on life (optimistic, pessimistic, cynic, idealist)

Ambitions:

Politics:

How does the character see himself/herself?

How is the character seen by others?

Do you like this person? Why or why not?

Will readers like or dislike?

Most important thing to know about this character:

Present problem:

How it will get worse:

What is the character's goal in the story?

What traits will help/hurt the character in achieving this goal?

What makes the character different from similar characters?

Why will readers remember this character vividly?

Source ⚜ Writing Notes & References

[artsekey]

Disney's Wish

Look, Disney's Wish has been universally panned across the internet, and for good reason.

It’s just…kind of okay.

 When we sit down to watch a Disney film—you know, from the company that dominated the animation industry from 1989 to (arguably) the mid 2010’s and defined the medium of animation for decades—we expect something magnificent. Now, I could sit here and tell you everything that I thought was wrong with Wish, but if you’re reading this review, then I imagine that you’ve already heard the most popular gripes from other users across the web. So, let me focus in:

The biggest problem with Wish—in fact, the only problem with Wish—is Magnifico.

Whoa, that’s crazy! There’re so many things about Wish that could’ve been better! The original concept was stronger! The music was bad--

I hear you, I do. But stay with me here, okay? Take my hand. I studied under artists from the Disney renaissance. I teach an adapted model of Disney’s story pipeline at a University level. I spent a ridiculous amount of time getting degrees in this, and I am about to dissect this character and the narrative to a stupid degree.

First, we need to understand that a good story doesn’t start and end with what we see on the screen. Characters aren’t just fictional people; when used well, characters are tools the author uses (or in this case, the director) to convey their message to the audience. Each character’s struggle should in some way engage with the story’s message, and consequently, the story’s theme. Similarly, when we look at our protagonist and our antagonist, we should see their characters and their journeys reflected in one-another.

So, what went wrong between Asha & Magnifico in terms of narrative structure?

Act I

In Wish, we’re introduced to our hero not long into the runtime—Asha. She’s ambitious, caring, and community-oriented; in fact, Asha is truly introduced to the audience through her love of Rosas (in “Welcome to Rosas”).  She’s surrounded by a colorful cast of friends who act as servants in the palace, furthering her connection with the idea of community but also telling us that she’s not of status, and then she makes her way to meet Magnifico for her chance to become his next apprentice.

Quick aside: I'm not going to harp on Asha as a character in the context of Disney's overall canon. Almost every review I've seen covers her as a new addition to Disney's ever-growing repertoire of "Cute Quirky Heroines", and I think to be fair to Asha as an actor in the narrative, it serves her best to be weighed within the context of the story she's part of.

As Asha heads upstairs for her interview, we're introduced to the man of the hour: Magnifico. He lives in a tower high above the population of Rosas, immediately showing us how he differs from Asha; he’s disconnected from his community. He lives above them. He has status. While the broader context of the narrative wants us to believe that this also represents a sense of superiority, I would argue that isn’t what Magnifico’s introduction conveys; he's isolated.

Despite this distance, he does connect with Asha in “At All Costs”. For a moment, their goals and values align. In fact, they align so well that Magnifico sees Asha as someone who cares as much about Rosas as he does, and almost offers her the position.

… Until she asks him to grant Saba’s wish.

This is framed by the narrative as a misstep. The resonance between their ideals snaps immediately, and Magnifico says something along the line of “Wow. Most people wait at least a year before asking for something.”

This disappointment isn't played as coming from a place of power or superiority. He was excited by the idea of working with someone who had the same values as he did, who viewed Rosas in the same way he does, and then learns that Asha’s motivations at least partially stem from a place of personal gain.

Well, wait, is that really Asha's goal?

While it's not wholistically her goal, it's very explicitly stated & implied that getting Saba's wish granted is at least a part of it. The audience learns (through Asha's conversation with her friends before the interview) that every apprentice Magnifico has ever had gets not only their wish granted, but the wishes of their family, too!  Asha doesn’t deny that this is a perk that she’s interested in, and I don't think this is a bad thing.

So, Is Asha’s commitment to Saba selfless, or selfish? I’m sure the director wanted it to seem selfless, wherein she believes her family member has waited long enough and deserves his wish granted, but we can’t ignore the broader context of Asha essentially trying to… skip the line.

Then, we get our first point of tension. Magnifico reveals his “true colors” in snapping at Asha, telling her that he “decides what people deserve”. This is supposed to be the great motivator, it’s meant to incite anger in the audience—after all, no one gets to decide what you deserve, right? But unfortunately for the integrity of the film and the audience's suspension of disbelief, at least part of Magnifico’s argument is a little too sound to ignore:

Some wishes are too vague and dangerous to grant. Now, there’s visual irony here; he says this after looking at a 100 old man playing the lute. The idea that something so innocuous could be dangerous is absurd, and the audience is meant to agree.

... But we’ve also seen plenty of other wishes that might be chaotic—flying on a rocket to space, anyone? The use of the word vague is important, too—this implies wording matters, and that a wish can be misinterpreted or evolve into something that is dangerous even if the original intent was innocuous. His reasoning for people forgetting their wish (protecting them from the sadness of being unable to attain their dreams) is much weaker, but still justifiable (in the way an antagonist’s flawed views can be justified). The film even introduces a facet of Magnifico’s backstory that implies he has personal experience with the grief of losing a dream (in the destruction of his home), but that thread is never touched on again.

              What is the audience supposed to take from this encounter? If we’re looking at the director’s intent, I’d argue that we’ve been introduced to a well-meaning young girl and a king who’s locked away everyone’s greatest aspiration because he believes he deserves to have the power to decide who gets to be happy.

              But what are we shown? Our heroine, backed by her friends, strives to be Magnifico’s apprentice because she loves the city but also would really like to see her family's wishes granted. When this request is denied and she loses the opportunity to be his apprentice, she deems Magnifico’s judgement unfair & thus begins her journey to free the dreams of Rosas’ people.

              In fairness, Magnifico doesn’t exhibit sound judgement or kindness through this act of the film. He’s shown to be fickle, and once his composure cracks, he can be vindictive and sharp. He's not a good guy, but I'd argue he's not outright evil. He's just got the makings of a good villain, and those spikes of volatility do give us a foundation to work off of as he spirals, but as we’ll discuss in a bit, the foreshadowing established here isn’t used to the ends it implies.

              While I was watching this film, I was sure Magnifico was going to be a redeemable villain. He can’t connect with people because he's sure they value what he provides more than they value him (as seen in “At All Costs” and the aftermath), and Asha’s asking for more was going to be framed as a mistake. His flaw was keeping his people too safe and never giving them the chance to sink or swim, and he's too far removed from his citizens to see that he is appreciated. Asha does identify this, and the culmination of her journey is giving people the right to choose their path, but the way Magnifico becomes the “true” villain and his motivations for doing so are strangely divorced from what we’re shown in Act I.  

Act II:

His song, “This is the Thanks I Get!?” furthers the idea that Magnifico’s ire—and tipping point—is the fact that he thinks the people he’s built a kingdom for still want more. Over the course of this 3:14 song, we suddenly learn that Magnifico sends other people to help his community and doesn’t personally get involved (we never see this outside of this song), and that he’s incredibly vain/narcissistic (he's definitely a narcissist). I think feeling under-appreciated is actually a very strong motivation for Magnifico as a character-turning-villain, and it works very well. It’s justified based on what we’ve seen on screen so far: he feels under-appreciated (even though he’s decidedly not—the town adores him), he snaps and acts irrationally under stress (as seen with his outburst with Asha), and he’s frustrated that people seem to want more from him (again, as seen with his conversation with Asha in Act I).

              But then… he opens the book.

Ah, the book. As an object on screen, we know that it's filled with ancient and evil magic, well-known to be cursed by every relevant character in the film, and kept well-secured under lock and key. But what does it stand for in the context of the narrative's structure? A quick path to power? We're never told that it has any redeeming qualities; Magnifico himself doesn't seem to know what he's looking for when he opens it. It feels... convenient.

I think it's also worth noting that he only turns to the book when he's alone; once again, the idea of connection and community rears it's ugly head! Earlier in the film, Amaya-- his wife-- is present and turns him away from taking that path. In her absence, he makes the wrong choice.

This decision could make sense; it contains powerful magic, and if it were framed in such a way that the people of Rosas were losing faith in Magnifico’s magic, as if what he can do might not be enough anymore after what they felt from Star, going for the book that we know contains spells that go above and beyond what he can already do would be logical. Along the lines of, “If they’re not happy with what I do for them, fine. I, ever the “martyr”, will do the unthinkable for you, because you want more.”

            It would keeps with the idea that Magnifico believes he's still trying to help people, but his motivation has taken his self-imposed pity party and turned it into resentment and spite.

 But, that’s not the case. Instead he talks about reversing that “light”, which has had no real negative or tangible consequences on Rosas. Everyone had a warm feeling for a few seconds. Again, it’s meant to paint him as a vain control freak, but… he hasn’t lost any power. The citizens of Rosas even assume the great showing of magic was Magnifico.

Act III

              Then, we get to the consequences of opening the book (and perhaps my biggest qualm with this film). The book is established as being cursed. Magnifico knows it, Asha knows it, and Amaya—who is introduced as loyal-- knows it. The characters understand his behavior is a direct result of the book, and search for a way to save him. This is only the focus of the film for a few seconds, but if you think about it, the fact that his own wife cannot find a way to free him of the curse he’s been put under is unbelievably tragic. Worse still, upon discovering there is no way to reverse the curse, Magnifico—the king who built the city & “protected it” in his own flawed way for what seems to be centuries—is thrown out by his wife. You know, the wife who's stood loyal at his side for years?

              It’s played for laughs, but there’s something unsettling about a character who’s clearly and explicitly under the influence of a malevolent entity being left… unsaved. If you follow the idea of Magnifico being disconnected from community being a driving force behind his arc, the end of the film sees him in a worse situation he was in at the start: truly, fully alone.

              They bring in so many opportunities for Magnifico to be sympathetic and act as a foil for Asha; he’s jaded, she’s not. He’s overly cautious (even paranoid), she’s a risk-taker. He turns to power/magic at his lowest point, Asha turns to her friends at her lowest point. Because this dichotomy isn’t present, and Magnifico—who should be redeemable—isn’t, the film is so much weaker than it could’ve been. The lack of a strong core dynamic between the protagonist and antagonist echoes through every facet of the film from the music to the characterization to the pacing, and I believe if Magnifico had been more consistent, the film would’ve greatly improved across the board.

I mean, come on! Imagine if at the end of the film, Asha—who, if you remember, did resonate with Magnifico’s values at the start of the film—recognizes that he's twisted his original ideals and urges him to see the value in the people he’s helped, in their ingenuity, in their gratitude, & that what he was able to do before was enough. Going further, asking what his wish is or was—likely something he’s never been asked— and showing empathy! We’d come full circle to the start of the film where Asha asks him to grant her wish.

Pushing that further, if Magnifico’s wish is to see Rosas flourish or to be a good/beloved king, he'd have the the opportunity to see the value in failing and how pursuing the dream is its own complex and valuable journey, and how not even he is perfect.

 The curse and the book (which, for the purposes of this adjustment, would need to be established as representing the idea of stepping on others to further your own goals/the fast way to success), then serve as the final antagonist, that same curse taking root in the people of Rosas who’ve had their dreams destroyed, and Asha works with the community to quell it. Asha’s learned her lesson, so has Magnifico, and the true source of evil in the film—the book—is handled independently. Magnifico steps back from his role as King, Amaya still ends up as Queen, and Asha takes her place as the new wish-granter.

This route could even give us the true “Disney villain” everyone’s craving; giving the book sentience and having it lure Magnifico in during “This is the Thanks I Get!?” leaves it as its own chaotic evil entity.

All in all, Magnifico's introduction paved a road to redemption that the rest of the film aggressively refused to deliver on, instead doubling down on weaker motivations that seem to appear out of thin air. Once the audience thinks, hey, that bad guy might have a point, the protagonist has to do a little more heavy lifting to convince us they're wrong.

Look at the big-bad-greats from Disney's library. There isn't a point in the Lion King where we pause and think, "Wait a second, maybe Scar should be the guy who rules the Pridelands." Ursula from the Little Mermaid, though motivated by her banishment from King Triton's Seas, never seems to be the right gal for the throne. Maybe Maleficent doesn't get invited to the princess's birthday party, but we don't watch her curse a baby and think, Yeah, go curse that baby, that's a reasonable response to getting left out.

What do they all have in common? Their motivation is simple, their goal is clear, and they don't care who they hurt in pursuit of what they want.

Magnifico simply doesn't fall into that category. He's motivated by the idea of losing power, which is never a clear or impactful threat. His goal at the start seems to be to protect Rosas, then it turns into protecting his own power, and then-- once he's corrupted-- he wants to capture Star. The problem is, there's no objective to put this power toward. Power for power's sake is useless. Scar craves power because he feels robbed of status. Ursula believes the throne is rightfully hers. Maleficent wanted to make a statement. Magnifico... well, I'm not really sure.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Hello! Someone genuinely trying to understand and perhaps unlearn some reactionary tendencies. With the response to that anon about "not asking if you're a pro or anti", the response about "imagine if they put this much effort into protecting real kids" definitely got me thinking. So... Is an adult shipping children and finding that hot NEVER a red flag? Or is it case by case on seeing how that person handles the distinction between fiction and reality in other things? And bringing the issue of real kids into it, if a real kid who has been abused sees someone shipping kids and finds that a red flag in that person, that... No, no I juicy answered my own question on that one. Block them and cultivate your own experience.

hi there anon, and congrats on trying to unlearn some things! and great job catching yourself at the end there, that's exactly correct.

I will start by saying this right out of the gate: fundamentally, I do not really give a shit about what made up scenarios about fictional characters people are jorking it to in private. I am, first and foremost, interested in how they are interacting with actual, real people.

"but Makenzie are you saying people who look at sexually explicit images of real human kids should be allowed near children?" no I'm not. please note that I was specifically talking about people engaging with fictional characters who are, you know, not real and do not have feelings and therefore cannot actually be hurt, traumatized, abused, etc, in any way that actually matters. I want to be so clear about this: you can genuinely think whatever vile things you want about fictional characters. you can enjoy any problematic shit you want with little guys who don't actually exist.

like, here's an example I use a lot: I'm kind of a huge Batman fan. don't know if you could tell that or not, I'm pretty subtle about it. if you spend any time in the Batman mythos, you know that this is a story where you just kind of have to take for granted that our hero is a billionaire using his vast wealth to dispatch vigilante justice with military grade weaponry and a small army of child soldiers and cop friends to help him put people in prison. these are moral quandaries that are discussed and acknowledged within the story, but fundamentally the universe is always going to involve billionaire vigilantism and child soldiers and the so-called carceral justice system. that's just the price of admission if you're gonna read Batman.

and like. I spend a lot of time in that world. I love Batman, I love his child soldiers. he's my little blorbo or whatever. but like, at no point have I said "yeah, fuck it, preteens should be learning martial arts to fight domestic terrorists, actually. I think Elon Musk SHOULD be allowed to put on a fursuit and beat up criminals. cops need more funding." no amount of Batman comics can make me believe or act on any of those things because, you know, I'm a person with a brain and I know the difference between "thing that makes a good story" and "thing that should actually happen for real."

and the thing is that genuinely, honestly, if someone thought that it was a red flag that I like Batman, and that enjoying Batman comics was somehow a red flag indicating that I'm fine with violence being done against real, actual children? I would think that person was a nut, if I can be super real. like, I'm thinking about somebody trying to make the case that I shouldn't be allowed to hang out with my nephew because I enjoy the fictional character of Robin so clearly I'm going to kill my nephew's parents in front of him to try to get him into vigilante justice. or if someone attempted to bar me from teaching my 4th-6th grade sex ed classes on the grounds that I was obviously going to teach them to do karate to clowns instead of how their reproductive systems worked.

(although, lets be real, there are a lot of politicians who would MUCH rather let little kids cage fight each other than learn anything about safer sex.)

this doesn't just apply to morally bad things, either, btw. I also read a lot of romance novels, especially hetero romances. and the thing is, not one of those books has made me want to fall in love with a ruggedly handsome but condescending straight man. hell, none of them have made me want to fall in love with anybody, period. that's not really something I'm interested in for myself, it's just a fun and frequently funny dynamic to explore. I'm hardly the first queer person to point out that the allegations that queer media "turns kids gay/trans" is obviously bullshit since the vertible mountain of cishet media evidently failed to turn any of us straight/cis, you know?

my point being: no, I genuinely don't think it's often, if ever, reasonable to judge someone's actual, real life morals by how they interact with fiction.

I'm going to say something so vulnerable right now, because we're in a safe space here: since you asked me this very reasonable question, you evidently value my judgment and perspective at least a little bit. and I once read and thoroughly enjoyed a fic in which Dr. Horrible, from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, gets fucked by a sapient evil horse. and I don't think that makes me a morally reprehensible person, or a person who advocates for real human beings having real sex with real horses. I think it just makes me kind of a weirdo with a bullshit tolerance.

if you want to hear a MUCH more thorough take on this, complete with addressing the issue of shipping fictional children, I cannot recommend Princess Weekes' video essay enough:

[c-is-for-circinate]

It feels like there's this narrative that fandom keeps wanting to explore, with Steve Harrington, about this very specific type of martyrdom where self-sacrifice is an expression of a lack of self-worth. And, like, yes, write the narrative that's meaningful to you, and yes ok Steve does admittedly get beaten up a lot, but -- legitimately I do not think this narrative is actually Steve's story.

Like, without gendering things too much, there is something in the Steve fanon that I keep seeing that's so reflective of the specific kind of sacrifice and societal pressures exerted on girls, specifically -- this story of 'you make yourself worthy and worthwhile by carving pieces out of yourself', of believing that you must always give and never receive to justify the space you take up in the world. Yes, boys can experience this same pressure (and obviously trans and nb people of all genders run into it as well! sometimes a lot!), but especially in the mid-1980s cultural context where Stranger Things takes place, it's just...really not likely to be a dominant narrative for Steve to be operating under? It doesn't even really match the Steve we see on screen -- who is happy to make sacrifices for the sake of others, yeah, when needed, but who's not particularly kind or giving unless somebody asks first.

And Steve does get hurt a lot on other people's behalf! And this is a problem! It's just a completely different problem than the one fandom keeps writing.

Steve, and I'm going to say this forever, is a story about toxic masculinity, which the show may or may not even know it's writing. The archetypes influencing Steve's character as it shows up on the screen (and the stories and messages that Steve would actually be surrounded by in his actual life) are not deconstructions of suffering heroes who never should have had to fight in the first place and were destroyed by it. That's the Buffy the Vampire Slayer story. Steve's not Buffy. Steve's cultural context is Indiana Jones.

Steve is The Guy! And part of being The Guy is that you're expected to take the hits -- not because Steve is less important than the women-and-children he's supposed to protect, but because, the story says, he will get less hurt. Why should Steve get in between Billy and Lucas? Because Steve is an eighteen-year-old athlete and Lucas is in middle school, and of the two of them, Steve actually stands a chance. (And yes, Steve got badly hurt there, and Max had to save him -- but if Lucas, if Max had taken that beating they would not have been running through those tunnels later.) Was somebody else better-qualified to dive down to the uncertain bottom of a cold lake in the middle of the night? Steve doesn't list his credentials there as a way of justifying some ideal of martyrdom; he is literally the most likely person on the boat not to drown.

And make no mistake: when Steve's pulled into the Upside-Down, he survives the bats long enough for backup to get there. Realistic or not, he's apparently tough enough that he's physically capable of hiking barefoot through hell without much slowing down. Steve is the tank for the same reason as any tank: because he literally has been shown to have the most hit points in the group. You cannot honestly engage with Steve in this context without dealing with the fact that he's right.

AND THIS IS A PROBLEM! This is still a problem! But it's not the same problem that fandom seems to expect. It's not an expression of caretaking or the need for self-sacrifice; it's not an issue with Steve valuing himself less. It's an issue of toxic masculinity so ingrained that Steve doesn't even recognize he's suffering from it, because one of the tenets of toxic masculinity is that Big Strong Guys don't suffer. It's just a concussion, it's fine, he'll walk it off. It's not that Steve thinks he deserves to get hurt, or even that he's less deserving of safety than the others. It's that absolutely nothing in his cultural context allows him to admit that he can be hurt in a significant way.

There's still so much tension that can be gotten out of this situation, I swear. There's so much that can be explored in writing! Hell, the show itself is deconstructing some of this trope, believe it or not, by giving us a Steve who absolutely can take all the hits thrown his direction but still doesn't know what the fuck he's doing with his life. It turns out that doing his job as The Guy is only mildly helpful in horror movie situations (mostly by buying time for smarter, squishier people to do the damage from behind him), and somewhere a little worse than useless in everyday life.

But Steve does not go out of his way to self-sacrifice, he really doesn't. He just does his job. He's The Guy. Of course he's not going to let a kid or a girl or some scared skinny nerd who just learned about monsters yesterday take the hits. Of course Steve's got this.

[st0rmyskies]

What Your Favorite Link Says About You

A.k.a. The Links as tarot cards/your rising sign/your blood type.

Time

You're likely an older Zelda fan. Ibuprofen has become a food group for you. Anyone who thinks OoT isn't the greatest Zelda game has you clutching your pearls and tutting. Kids these days don't know how good they have it.

You are a person to whom young people come for advice, either in your career or in life in general. You're happy to give it, especially because you love to help, but on the inside you're silently screaming, What?? Why me???

You may have trouble sleeping through the night. Even if it's not every night, there are some where you just can't turn your brain off and worries or worst-case scenarios just keep playing and replaying ad nauseaum.

You enjoy time in solitude to appreciate the beauty of nature. I bet you know how to braid a mean daisy crown.

“The flow of time is always cruel...” - Some event in your life took your innocence from you, perhaps much too early. You grew up quickly because of it.

Legend

Either you had a crush on the emo kid in high school or you were the emo kid in high school.

You might be jaded by the world, but you still have a solid work ethic and a soft heart despite it all. Even if you hide it all beneath a healthy layer of sass.

You possess a multitude of skills, not all of which are related. Anytime a friend needs a piece of clothing mended or a picture frame hung on the wall or a leak in a faucet addressed, you have the tools and the willingness to help.

Either you have a history of moving frequently when you were young, or you have a restless spirit. You may never quite feel 'at home' in any given place.

"But, verily, it be the nature of dreams to end." - You’ve suffered a meaningful loss in your life and you have a hard time opening up again because of it. 

Hyrule

You root for the underdog, or perhaps you are the underdog. Any of those "against all odds" stories just hit you square in the chest.

Somewhat quiet by nature, you do vital work behind the scenes but you aren't the type to seek out a leadership position. Leave the limelight to somebody else, please.

You might sell yourself short when it comes to your skills and abilities, but you should believe in yourself, man! You can do it!!

You have a capricious streak in you that rears its head now and again. That smile can look sharp and devilish in the right light.

"It's dangerous to go alone!" - You either already have or are destined to find 'that one person' with whom you can open up and truly be yourself. 

Twilight

I'm willing to put money on the fact that Twilight Princess was your first Zelda game.

You have a strong sense of justice and get really bent out of shape when you encounter unfairness or flaw in the system, whatever that may be. You might be considered an outsider in some way because of this.

You're the friend who scoops spiders up in a cup and sets them outside. Live and let live.

You were the 'wolf kid' in middle school. Come on, those amazing tie dye shirts? Wolf Woman? Julie of the Wolves?? Even if you kept it inside, it was there in some way.

"Your current power would disgrace the proud green of the hero's tunic you wear." - You put a lot of stock in the opinions of others and hold yourself to a higher standard because of it. Sometimes that standard isn't achievable, though, so try to be kind to yourself. 

Sky

You, my friend, have a soft heart. You're generally a happy-go-lucky sort of person. You're likely to make excuses for those who've been mean to you in the past and come out as friends on the other side.

You're crafty, or at the very least good with your hands. You're the type to give someone a handmade gift rather than go buy something for them for their birthday, a holiday, etc.

You have a strong affinity for your friends. If anything bad were to happen to them, you'd turn violent at the drop of a hat.

You may have some level of chronic illness that affects you. Although you might do things in a different way or at your own pace, though, you still come out on top.

"You fight like no man or demon I have ever known." - You have the capability for great things. World-changing sorts of things. Don't give up!

Wild

You're some flavor of neurodivergent, if I had to guess I'd say ADHD. You have 42 tabs open in your brain at any given time and you have no idea which one the music is coming from.

You're an incredibly creative person, although you might have trouble finishing tasks/works-in-progress. Doesn't mean you didn't learn something along the way!

Rigid guidelines or deadlines stress you out. You'd rather be given a goal and decide for yourself when and how to get there. When you do have a deadline, you're a bit of a procrastinator.

Sometimes you don’t get the 'right' way to do things, but you carve your own path--although sometimes it's unorthodox--and get there in your own time.

"Courage need not be remembered, for it is never forgotten." - In spite of how your life changes you, for better or for worse, you have a driving inspiration or ethic or vocation that moves you forward at all costs.

Warriors

Those who don't know you well tend to boil you down to one or two trite traits. In reality, you contain multitudes. Most people couldn't handle all of you, not that they deserve to know even part of you.

You tend to lay it on thick--be that your charm, attitude, or whatever else your social shield might be--because you're hiding some deeper secret or insecurity at your core.

You're the mom friend or the planner in your group, or perhaps you're the oldest child. You’ll pass on an authority role if and when you can, but likely you’re still involved in some supervisory capacity in a given situation. 

You kill spiders with fire. Show NO mercy.

"You dare raise the blade of evil's bane to me? So be it. Hyrule's blood will be on your hands." - You have strong convictions and you aren't afraid to take risks, major risks, to do what you know to be right.

Four

Babe, if you ain't short, you've got short person energy. You scare me a little bit tbh.

You were praised for not being a problem child growing up, or for being very responsible at a young age.

You have a vivid imagination! You may have had an imaginary friend as a child or lived in your own little world altogether. I bet your notebook pages were strewn with little doodles in school.

You're a lover of information. If you could choose between an afternoon at the library or a movie matinee, it would be the former.

"Hanging around with you fools is dangerous for my health." - You're the snark friend, aren't you.  

Wind

You are extroverted to a fault. You need the company of others to recharge that social battery. The quintessential golden retriever friend.

You had active involvement in the music and theatre department. I'd be surprised if you weren't in at least one show in high school.

Having adventures is where it's at! You're a big fan of travel, either cross-country road trips or international flights. You could happily live out of a suitcase.

You tend to make friends easily wherever you go. If everyone in this classroom/workplace/bar doesn't know your name already, they will pretty quick.

"I have been waiting for you, boy... Do not betray my expectations.” - Against all odds, you've proven yourself to be worthy of great things. Screw what fate has in store! You're the type to take your own destiny by the 'nads.

[ennn]

I expect Billy is going to be an antagonist for a while and that's OK

Anti's for either Agatha or Billy are probably going to get more intense as I predict our boy Billy's gonna be antagonistic for a bit. And let's be clear, I'm not hating, or saying either are evil, or in the wrong.

That's way too simple a take for this show. In the words of showrunner Jac Schaeffer:

...we populated the show with similarly flawed individuals who are also selfish and self-serving, who are self-sabotaging, who are constantly standing in their own way. And then they were just in conflict.  Everybody is kind of an anti-hero in the show. That was really fun and felt very truthful there. 

No one here is meant to be a pure "good guy", which is I think kind of Billy's arc -- but more on that later.

And when I mean antagonist I'm talking about the characters roles in the story. An antagonist isn't necessarily a villain. Agatha is the show's protagonist as well as its main antagonist: as much as she claims she wants only power, deep down she wants a coven, a community, a family. But she is as Schaeffer puts it, "in the way of her own thing."

Billy being an antagonist simply means that his goals – or some of them at least – conflict with Agatha's. Rio has been described as a "romantic antagonist" as well because some of her goals are also in conflict.

Long text speculation post and mild promo spoilers under the cut:

Let's first get this out of the way: Why do I think Billy's going to take on an antagonist role? Aside from well, all the things that happened at the end of Episode 5, there's some clues Billy's not all who he's been saying he is:

There's a promotional video with audio lines, and you can hear Billy saying things like "Agatha Harkness can never be anything but a covenless witch" and "I do not trust you".

Billy claiming to be "obsessed" about Agatha and her biggest fan and going on the road for power should know that she is the world's most notorious witch-killer – why is he appalled about her killing and so against it? And if episode 5 is any indication, power is not what he's lacking.

Joe and Schaeffer have mentioned that Billy will be different in the back half of episodes.

A quick clip from a trailer has Agatha (covered in mud) telling Billy "Last one there is a nice person", implying that Billy at this point doesn't want to be nice. I assume, at this point, he wants Agatha to pay for her misdeeds. The yellow tint of the clip also matches with the current Road area they're on.

Now at this point I do not know if Billy was involved in what I believe is a fake trial in episode 5. I'm inclined to think it's the Salem Seven, and we get this truth of Billy as fallout. I believe he definitely didn't want Alice dead.

Now for reasons why I think it'll be okay–even interesting–to have these two in conflict and everyone should put away their pitchfolks:

They are going to come to an understanding

You know how in Hawkeye series Yelena wants to kill Barton because she blames him for Natasha's death? I think we'll get a broadly similar arc or vibe for Agatha and Billy here. And they will design it in a similarly emotionally satisfying manner.

Right now Billy's basically like everyone–including the rest of the coven–who believes that Agatha is truly what her reputation says. And that's not surprising! Agatha is masks and layers and theatrics and she's not opening up unless she absolutely has to.

It may take a few episodes but I expect we'll get that before the series end, with this sobering exchange we have from a trailer:

Why do you let them believe those things about you? Because the truth is too awful.

I don't think Billy will be the Big Bad simply because I expect at the end Agatha's going to have to choose between wanting her coven, her community of witches, and something else—power perhaps, or her son, and go back to her old ways.

And for that to happen Agatha will need to have formed enough bonds with her coven, including Billy, to make it a difficult choice.

Power, darkness, and anti-heroes

Look, Agatha is my babe and she definitely needs a win after all that awful that happened in episode 5, but if you think about it Billy being a lot like his mom is really interesting? More interesting than him just being a cute innocent fanboy.

Because if he is an anti-hero, with some darkness in him, it's an opportunity to explore some of the themes or ideas we touched on in Wandavision with Wanda and her power, and her sense of self.

Heroes don't torture people.

Agatha recognises the darkness in people, delights in it even: as touched on in interviews, it's one of the reasons why she saw herself as Detective Agnes in that spell, as an investigator exploring the darkest aspects of humanity. She's seen the worst in people, and knows how to play the villain.

For Billy to avoid making the same mistakes as his mom, he needs to understand not just his power, but his potential for darkness.

Power corrupts, and when you're born with that reality-warping level of power, it's dangerous. It's so tempting to make people do what you need them to. And it's a slippery slope once you start killing, even if it's for good reasons.

Agatha never wanted to kill her first coven, in that moment she only wanted to live. But she did, with a power she never asked for, that made it so easy to keep taking and taking.

It is kind of tragic given the circumstances that Agatha couldn't have been a mentor to Wanda at the end of Wandavision, given the events of Multiverse of Madness, because she made some valid points and they could have been a coven, given Agatha's deep-deep-buried desire for one.

And looking at all the mentor-kid pairings we've seen in the MCU so far (Parker and Stark, Clint and Bishop, Strange and Chavez, etc.), I don't think we've ever had this kind of dynamic.

Interesting power dynamics

I think Agatha is at her most interesting when she's on the back foot. As we've seen in episode one, she's not one to give up when physically outmatched, quite the opposite. She's a survivor, she's stubborn, and she's a performer.

Billy has been revealed to have the magical equivalent of a gun, and is capable of taking this entire coven hostage.

They're going to have to interact in new ways now. But now it's going to be more of a dance.

It's new danger, new complications, but also new ways to connect, and also the opportunity for a more honest relationship.

Knowledge, history, community

This point isn't specific only to Agatha and Billy but I'm reminded of Billy taking it out not just on Agatha but Lilia and Jen as well.

It's not surprising that Alice and Billy, the two youngest coven members are also the most idealistic and noble. The world has not been kind to witches over the centuries—Lilia's been chased out of villages for her visions, Jen has been attacked—and the older members of the group have done what they can to survive: How much can you blame them for being selfish in a cruel world?

Power isn't your problem, it's knowledge.

In this case I mean not just the knowledge of witchcraft, but lived experience as well.

Younger witches have to learn their community's history, and the older ones have to be challenged in their set ways of thinking, in how they've adapted, because they're not always good.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an allegory to be made here to the queer community as well. Schaeffer has mentioned there is a large overlap between the history and persecution of witches and that of the LGBTQ community.

--

Good lord this post ran away from me. If you actually read all of that you do deserve a cookie.

[weebsinstash]

You can totally correct me if I'm wrong but I'm kinda sitting here thinking like

Did anyone actually ever... have a conversation with Bakugou about how he treated Midoriya. Did anyone ever actually like learn more details about how Izuku was abused and called Bakugou out. Did anyone ever actually comfort Izuku for being bullied even one time

Was it ever addressed in any sort of way that Bakugou's competitive and aggressive behavior was a direct result of how his mom is. Did anyone ever side-eye his mom for being physically and verbally abusive. Was it ever discussed that her behavior was inappropriate and is actually abuse and that she's greatly responsible for the antisocial behaviors her son has.

Were any of Todoroki's classmates ever depicted as like, mildly upset at finding out their classmate is abused. Were any of them horrified to learn his birth was literally eugenics. Did anyone ever display any sympathy for him besides Izuku. Did any of his classmates hold anger or resentment for Endeavor or did they think it was ok he kept being a Hero. Was there ever any consequences for Endeavor. Did he ever even like, go to jail, or, lose his job, or was the only consequence that Dabi, the other abused eugenics child who was so traumatized by it all he started basically burning himself to death, lost his life

Did Tomura literally just die without getting to say good bye to any of his friends, who were also victims and most of whom also died. Did he ever get to learn it was AFO who made him kill his family and that it wasnt his fault. Did he ever get any closure for literally anything at all.

Did anyone from the Hero Association ever actually like, get in trouble for the whole "we've been adopting kids to turn into weapons of the state including making people like Lady Nagant assassinate people" thing. Is Hero Society fundamentally being changed at all after all these huge enormous reveals.

I'm just kind of sitting here wondering why, in a conversation about heroes and ethics and being morally righteous, Horikoshi also sort of quietly normalized or, at least didn't deeply discuss some things that were actually pretty important and directly related to conversations the story was already trying to have. I think though it might also be in part to certain Japanese cultural practices where they believe certain personal and family matters should be kept private, but it's just sort of like. Golly gee there's sure a lot of normalizing and accepting of abuse in this supposedly heroic power fantasy manga! I kind of find it hard to believe there's not a single single person in class 1A who doesn't like Bakugou and that everyone is just best friends! Maybe I'm just a hateful bitch but I'd be glaring at Endeavor every single time he entered my line of sight and I'd be outspoken on how he should quit his fucking job and go to prison! Maybe it's just weird I think more students would be dropping out to get jobs that are heroic but isnt actual costume wearing vigilanteism after finding out that the people who are their bosses are corrupt pieces of shit who basically control society from the shadows! Maybe it's just me!

[linkspooky]

Okay, so I received an ask in response to an MHA critical post I received last night that I originally responded to, but then decided to delete the ask and the original post because I didn't want to get into an argument.

However, I feel like I should address one of their complaints about a post I made last night. That I was being too dismissive on the cultural reasons for some of the writing choices Horikoshi made because I am obviously not a part of the culture that Horikoshi grew up in and is commenting on in his piece of work.

I tried not to dismiss the cultural reasons entirely in the post though, I just said I don't think you can entirely blame Hori's writing choices on them. My cited example was there are other shonen jump mangas that don't go out of their way to gruesomely kill their villains (which is what I'm taking fault with.) I understand that the death penalty is a common response to murder in japan, but within the realm of fiction of shonen manga doesn't have a trend of killing all their villains.

But yeah, that might have been a shallow argument.

So there are different lenses of fiction you can criticize Horikoshi's writing on, because every piece of fiction is in fact influenced by the culture it's in, as well as obviously the author's personal life and unconscious biases but that's not all. There's also genre to consider, and influences / inspiration the author might have taken from other works.

For example, there is also genre in particular MHA is written as a response / commentary to both western comics and classic shonen jump manga. Horikoshi said in an interview:

“Probably have to be Goku and Spiderman. To me, when mentioning heroes, these two are the ones that I think of. In Goku’s case, it’s the reassurance that everything is going to be fine he brings when arriving.” 

There are multiple critical analysis lenses that you can analyze a story from. If you're talking about MHA from a feminist lens then you're likely to stick to topics relevant to that, like say japanese feminist movements. If you're talking from the sociopolitical angle then it's relevant to discuss collectivism, and especially how it inspired the Todoroki Family. However, my intent wasn't to dismiss sociopolitical reasons as why Horikoshi chose to write the story this way, but to say it's not the only reason that informs Hori's storytelling choices. MHA isn't just one thing it's multiple thing, me deliberately choosing to talk about MHA as a response to both eastern shonen manga and western comics is a valid critical lens to apply to the manga. You can talk about both obviously, but that was a pretty short post. Perhaps I didn't word my post the best but please try to be understanding that I can't make a post covering all of my bases on leaks night.

For a manga where Horikoshi cited his concept of heroism comes from Goku and Spiderman, they both don't kill their villains, Goku specifically let Vegeta live so if those are his inspirations the choice to kill every villain is weird to say the least.

I can make the argument that MHA fails as any kind of meaningful commentary on comics in general because it doesn't seem to understand the comics it is taking inspiration from. The X-Men are the underdogs in their story, not members of the privileged class they are the outcasts. Batman doesn't kill people because he believes that most of his mentally ill victims turned villains deserve a second chance and he can't dictate who deserves recovery and who doesn't.

If anyone reading this post is curious, here are posts by @siflshonen that discuss both the manga influences and comic infleunces easter and western infleunces on MHA, and also the cultural ones. They are also really long posts because those topics require a great length to discuss critically. This one is about MHA's manga DNA in regards to Bakugo's character, and specifically references Yu-Gi-Oh and Kaiba's character as well as Jonouchi as response for Bakugo's development arc from bully to best friend. This one discusses more about the nuances of collectivism. This one is in reference to the Todoroki family, it discusses both collectivism / japanese family roles / honnae and tatamae concepts that the Todofam is critiqueig, and also how Enji is inspired by eastern ideas of heroes while All Might is inspired by western ones. (Therefore it's not a wrong critical lens to compare MHA to other shonen manga and western comics because that is literally what the manga is taking inspiration from and commenting on).

Here's a powerpoint presentation by @sans-san that discussed Hegemonic Masculinity in Tokyo Ghoul in terms of work culture and how the CCG is inspired by that, which I think also applies to Enji's character as well.

This post by @bnhaobservation spoke about how the Todorokis decision for not disavowing or abandoning Toya after he was sentenced to life in prison would still be a progressive ending to the TODOFAM arc, and while I still wouldn't have been satisfied by that ending I'd at least be able to accept it. That is however, not what we got, we got Toya dying a slow agonizing death while hooked up to life support. So we could have still gotten a slightly softer ending where Toya's at least allowed to live that would have still been in line with the values of the culture that produced MHA.

This post by @bnhaobservation also talks about how the Todofam plotline can still be seen as progressive in some ways in regards to his criticism of Enji's parenting, because of certain outdated attitudes of parenting that still exist about Enji pushing Shoto to his absolute limits.

However, I don't want to debate the person who sent the ask, I just wanted to clarify I'm not trying to make a reductive statement that sociopolitical circumstances have nothing to do with Hori's writing choices, but that you can also analyze it from a lens of genre, commentary on comics and shonen manga, and also the predecessors he's taking inspiration from. All of these things have an inspiration on Hori's storytelling choices.

Since I'd rather not debate, now that I've gotten clarifying things out of the way I'm actually going to use this post as a book reccommendation.

Here's Shigaraki with Underground, one of my favorite books. It is a non-fiction work from famed fiction author Haruki Murakami about the Saren Gas attacks.

On a clear spring day in 1995 five members of a religious cult unleashed poison gas in the Tokyo Subway system. In an attempt to discover why, Haruki Murakami talks to the people who lived through the catasrophe and lays bare the Japanese Psyche.

For those who are unaware the Saren Gas attacks were a terrorist attack where members of the Aum Shirikyo cult released saren gas in the public subway system. It is the biggest japanese terrorist attack in modern japanese history and at the time and even the modern day it was a great shock to them as a whole.

The book consists of several interviews with the victims of the attack, and they are incredibly harrowing to read I remember crying while reading this book multiple times. However, at the end of the book after giving considerable time to let the victims share their stories Haruki Murakami also devotes space in the book to interviewing former members of the Aum Shirikyo cult.

Haruki clarifies his intent in his decision to include testimonial from the cult in the afterword of the novel. "As I worked on this book I attended several of the trials of the defendants of the Tokyo Gas attack. I wanted to see and hear those people with my own eyes ad ears, in order to come to some understanding of who they were. I also wanted to know what they were thinking now. What I found there was a dismal, gloomy, hopeless scene. The court was like a room with no exit. There must have been a way out in the beginning, but now it had become a nightmarish chamber from which there was no escape. [...] To all of them I posed the same question, that is, whether they regretted having joined Aum. Almost everyone answered: "No, I have no regrets. I don't think those years are wasted" Why is that? THe answer is simple - because in Aum they found a purity of purpose theycould not find in ordinary society. Even if in the end it became something monstrous, the radiant, warm memory of the peace they originally found remains inside them and nothing else can replace it. [...] However, as I went through the process of interviewing these Aum members and former members, one thing I felt quite strongly was that it was't spite of being part of the elite that they went in that direction, but because they were a part of the elite. [...] However, we need tor ealize that most of the people who join cults are not abnormal; they're not disadvantaged; they're not eccentrics. They are people who live average lives (and nmaybe from the outside, more than average lives), who live in my neighborhood and yours.

Haruki interviews members of Aum Shirikiyo because he wants to make the point that the people in these cult aren't from a dangerous fringe element of japanese society, but rather they are normal people, some of them even highly educated. The capacity to commit those crimes exists in normal people, and also the capacity to fall victim to a cult.

The Ikuhara anime Mawaru Penguindrum is heavily inspired by both the Saren Gas attacks and the questions that Haruki Murakami asked in the Underground. Fully covered here in this article: Exploring Mawaru Penguindrum 2011 from a historical, cultural and literary perspective here.

Underground was Murakami’s attempt to interview survivors of the Sarin Subway Attack. Apart from learning the perspectives of ordinary citizens involved in that shocking incident, he also managed to interview several members of Aum Shinrikyo and tried to get their point of view on the matter. (In the Japanese edition of the book, the interview with the cult members were published in a separate book, titled The Place that was Promised.) It was an important piece of journalistic work that criticized the public’s attitude of questioning what happened, instead of asking the proper question of why it had happened. In the anime, viewers knew that an event took place in 1995 that affected all the characters, but what exactly was the event about? Why did the people do that? What social factors attributed to the occurrence of such event? These are the questions that Mawaru Penguindrum asked, and one that we were left to ponder on.

Ikuhara and Murakami both exist in the same culture as Horikoshi, Haruki is an incredibly prolific japanese author and he was born in 1945 but both of them are able to ask more meaningful questions about the society they live in then Horikoshi accomplishes with the league of villains and the todoroki family. Haruki Murakami emphasizes the humanity of the aum shirikyo members and that they are not lunatic fringe members, and Mawaru Penguindrum is about the extreme social pressures that people especially children can be a victim of.

Literature is influenced by the culture it takes place in, but it's also a response to that influence and the piece of art that Horikoshi wrote just isn't as thoughtful of a response than what was written by both Ikuhara and Murakami.

More book recommendations if you're interested. The Setting Sun, by Osamu Dazai. Pachinko by Min Jin Lee. How do you Live? by Genzaburo Yoshino. In the Miso Soup by Ryo Murakami. People who Eat Darkness by Richard Lloyd Perry. Night on the Galactic Railroad by Kenji Miyazawa (I'd argue this is an example of good collectivism). The Memory Police by Yuko Ogawa. Out by Natsuo Kirino. There was a couple more I wanted to include but they had cannibalism in them so I thought it better not to reccommend them.

[whineandcheese24]

just watched Batman vs. Superman for the first time and was filled with an intense and visceral rage at the complete bastardization of Superman's character and story. the first actual meeting of Batman and Superman made me so mad I had to pause the movie and just breathe for a second, so to heal myself, I'm going to share how I think the two should meet.

(be warned, it get's long)

This isn't with any particular iteration of Clarke and Bruce in mind, but think mid-twenties for both of them. Bruce is a CEO by day, a playboy socialite by night, and The Batman by later night. He's rich, attractive, and nice enough for people to like him/want to be around him, and he's perfected his social persona, but he's honestly kind of a loser. Think Bruce from Gotham but older (personality-wise, not necessarily backstory-wise). He doesn't really have any friends or anyone important in his life except for Alfred and maybe Dick.

Clark is an up-and-coming reporter for the Daily Planet, with a friendly and sunny, if slightly shy, disposition, and most people like being around him because of that. He does his best to appear non-threatening, and this can cause him to shrink in on himself sometimes. Think Clark from My Adventures With Superman, but a bit older and wiser, and a bit more experienced as both a superhero and a reporter. He very much has people in his life who he loves and who love him.

Now for how Bruce and Clark meet. Batman and Superman have both been around for a bit now, maybe a couple years at this point, but between having to save their respective cities, and needing to get their bearings as superheroes, and most people still being skeptical about the existence of Batman at all, they haven't met yet. Bruce knows of Superman, and despite Superman's good actions and behavior, Bruce doesn't trust him. He thinks that Superman is dangerous, not to a malicious hatred point, but he's wary. And he knows that if Superman wanted to, or if someone else was able to manipulate him or harness his powers, Superman could destroy the world.

He wants to confront Superman, but he knows that if he does it as Batman, Superman will be able to see under his mask and figure out his identity. So instead of approaching Superman as Batman, he decides to approach Clark as Bruce. He invites Clark to a charity fundraiser, ostensibly so Clark can cover the fundraiser for The Daily Planet. In the time leading up to their first meeting, Bruce thinks that Clark is probably a fraud who's only pretending to be a hero and he's actually a conceited attention-whore who loves power.

But then Bruce meets him, and he's just... He's so damn nice. Bruce doesn't have any friends, and here's this guy who's the epitome of sunshine and everyone around him loves him, and Bruce doesn't quite believe it's real. He asks about Clark's thoughts on Superman in a loaded and slightly hostile way. Clark's initial response is very defensive but then shifts to earnest as Clark explains that he thinks Superman is just a man trying to do his best with what he was given. and Bruce just, doesn't know what to do with that.

The two of them exchange numbers and hang out whenever they're in each other's respective cities, all the while talking about Superman and superheroes and vigilantes, with Clark learning more about Batman every time he's in Gotham. Clark disagrees with Batman's methods, but Bruce argues that maybe he's just doing his best with what he has. Bruce gets to know Clark's friends and family, and he himself even becomes more outgoing and friendly just by being around Clark. Clark learns to be more strategic and skeptical by being around Bruce and seeing the tragedies in Gotham.

When Clark learns of Bruce's alter ego, it's not because of x-ray vision during/after a fight, or suspicious snooping. It's because Bruce chooses to tell him. In this version, Batman and Superman never start out as enemies. They often clash over methods and opinions. Sometimes, Batman can be too dark for Clark, and Superman can be too optimistic for Bruce. They argue and debate, but they don't fight. Because here, they've always been friends. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and admiration for each other's strength from the very beginning.

I just really want a world where despite their misgivings, they never start off as enemies, antagonists, or even rivals, but instead, from the moment they meet, they're friends.

[theloganator101]

The Great BNHA Review: How do you fuck up teaching a moral THIS badly!?

Ah themes and morals... not every story or show needs to have these kind of things. Not every story needs to be deep or thought provoking, but for stories that do, it's important to have them correlate well with the story so we can understand what it's trying to say.

Like Ratatouille's moral of "Anyone can cook" or even the first Spongebob Movie's message of "You are who you are" is told really well.

And what is the moral BNHA tries to convey to it's audience?

"Anyone can be a hero!"

Okay, fine, that can be a good message to tie into a story about heroes. And how does this message get conveyed into the story?

"Oh the main character starts off quirkless but obtains the Number One hero's power."

... So literally by making him like everyone else around him? Wouldn't it make the message hit harder if he strived to be a quirkless hero to prove everyone that called him weak or worthless wrong?

"Oh but if he stayed quirkless then he wouldn't be able to partake in the final fight!"

Oh is THAT why All Might came in to fight AFO with a mecha suit!? If technology is SO advanced to where this kind of thing can exist, then why can't Izuku have the same courtesy huh?

For real I blame the narrative for making people believe a quirkless hero is impossible to be in this show when it's clear that it can be a thing! For whenever I bring up this idea, I ALWAYS get hit with the same quote of:

"Well the plot wouldn't be the same if Izuku stayed quirkless! Izuku can't go up against AFO or Shigaraki that way!"

And that's the thing! I'm not asking for the same plot but with Quirkless!Izuku, I'm asking for a story where the main character proves he can keep up with his classmates with quirks! You can't exactly tell that kind of story when you make the main character like everyone else!

And on top of that, it also twists the message of:

"Anyone can be a hero...! But only if you fit in with the majority!"

Which is kind of fucked up when being quirkless can be compared to having a disability in real life... so the story is basically saying you won't amount to anything worthwhile if you're not like everyone else.

But enough about the whole quirkless thing, let's move on to another thing the series tried to shove down our throats and treat it like a meaningful message...

"Win to save, save to win"

A saying that you and I have grown familiar with, something that was only created for the sole purpose of bringing Izuku down to Bakugou's level and solidify them as rivals... Even if the saying fucking sucks and SHOULDN'T be hero material.

I mean SERIOUSLY!? Winning isn't everything, and while it could be somewhat true... it's seriously a bad message considering that this is supposed to be a series where the main character teaches that there's more to being a hero than winning and getting fame and glory all the time.

Ah yes, and that one moral I keep saying...

"If your abusers are sorry, you should forgive them and keep them in your life! And if you refuse their apology then you're just as bad if not worse than them when they hurt you."

This moral... this goddamn moral is what stood out to me the most throughout BNHA. It is flat-out terrible and I'm honestly surprised NO ONE on the writing or illustrating team caught on to this and brought it to Hori's attention. It's enforced with Izuku and Bakugou, it's enforced Shoto and Endeavor, and it's somewhat enforced when Overhaul was begging to see Eri but luckily the other characters were like "No."

And the thing is none of this would be a problem if it didn't have the victims forgiving them and instead tells them to fuck off because they screwed up enough of their lives already. Why would you ever give the person who hurt you a second chance? Why would you risk letting them repeat the same mistakes?

I just wanna say one thing regarding all this...

You are NOT responsible for your abuser's actions or things they choose to do, it is NOT your job to "make them better" nor should it fall on your shoulders to keep them in check, you do NOT owe them your time, your efforts, your patience and kindness...

You 👏 Do 👏 Not 👏 owe 👏 them 👏 SHIT!!

So for the next part I'm actually gonna go off track and talk about the other characters in BNHA and just how utterly wasted they really were in this story, and hopefully it won't take as long as this one!

[avelera]

I know that the Gaiman "word of God" on Dream of the Endless's romantic history is, "He has had many more lovers than the ones we see" with regards to Killalla, Alianora, Nada, Calliope, and Thessaly (ugh) and as someone who will absolutely incorporate word-of-god canon , it's the height of hypocrisy to just dismiss this.

And I will accept that probably Dream has had some sexual encounters outside those five canonical relationships, like the implied Lucifer and Titania flings.

But I just can't escape the sense that the whole, "Oh yeah, he's had tons of other lovers like, just loads of them, believe me, the dude is definitely not billions of years old and only had a half dozen romantic encounters all of which ended in tears, that would be crazy, right??" is just more... something a dude would say about their super cool dude character?

Because I personally like to, in this one instance, rigidly stick to canon as we see it on the page. And that canon is: Dream was deeply lonely and never even officially hit a half-dozen long-term lovers in his life and he only married once. He is a divorcee and he is sad and he is lonely and he would love to find someone to be with and be in a relationship and just continuously eluded him. And our evidence for this? The Wake.

We have some of Dream's past lovers show up at the Wake. Bastet specifically notes that they could have been lovers, probably should have been, but it never happened. Titania implies a relationship but won't say anything more and obviously it was not long-lasting romantically speaking, whatever it was.

But basically, if we take the Wake as an on-the-page canonical account of the living beings who were Dream's lovers and who had enough of a connection to actually show up, it's still a depressingly small number for so long a life, for a character who is defined by his romanticism and loneliness. Even if we say, give or take, there might have been a few more, none of those after Nada could be mortal, so we can't just say they're all dead. That means the other immortal lovers either didn't show up or didn't bother to speak. And sure, if there's other immortals in the mix, sure, we could "Doylist" say the comic just doesn't have room for them all but really, to me, the more compelling take is... there just weren't that many for Dream, and that it's deeply sad. Some of it was, yes, his own fault, probably a lot of it. But it's still sad.

And more importantly, it's a more interesting character. Anyone can say their stupidly powerful godlike character who is beautiful and magical and can craft dreams and stories and is this Byronic hero of poetry and darkness is also someone who had a bunch of romantic partners and can definitely hook up with anyone he wants, psshh, obviously but... a character who is all those things and can't get this one major part of their life together to the extent that he's demonstrated to want a loving partner which he is repeatedly shown to want, is just... it's a certain kind of unique for that character and I'm here for it.

[dinarosie]

Snape’s Legacy Goes Beyond His Flaws: part 1

I wrote this post to highlight moments when, despite his personal wounds, Snape still chooses to save the lives of the Marauders. My goal was to show how, no matter how flawed, Snape acts as a brave hero who prioritizes human life. The comments below genuinely surprised me, and they actually make me want to quote specific passages from the books to showcase Snape’s actions. I'm splitting this post into two parts, as including all the quotes from the books makes it quite long.

It’s honestly hilarious when some people keep telling: 'read the books,' while they seem blissfully unaware of how things actually go down in the story. One can only hope that one day they’ll realize fanfics aren’t the original books. Shocking, I know—but those are just fans playing with their own imagination, not a hidden version of the canon.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, THE PRINCE’S TALE: dark night: He was accompanied by other hooded Death Eaters, and ahead were Lupin and a Harry who was really George. . . . A Death Eater moved ahead of Snape and raised his wand, pointing it directly at Lupin’s back — “Sectumsempra!” shouted Snape. But the spell, intended for the Death Eater’s wand hand, missed and hit George instead — Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, HERMIONE'S SECRET: “I don’t know — Harry, look at Snape!” Together they peered around the bush at the other bank. Snape had regained consciousness. He was conjuring stretchers and lifting the limp forms of Harry, Hermione, and Black onto them. A fourth stretcher, no doubt bearing Ron, was already floating at his side. Then, wand held out in front of him, he moved them away toward the castle.

Let me lay it out clearly: in this scene, Snape’s priority is to save the lives of four people and uphold justice:

Snape is taking the most honorable approach here. He knows that three of his students have directly disobeyed him, put themselves in harm’s way, and even teamed up with Black, a known fugitive, against his warnings. Yet he controls his anger because his first priority is their safety and getting them back to school unharmed.

Snape believes at this moment that Black has conspired with Voldemort, betrayed the Potters, orphaned their son, killed Pettigrew, and murdered twelve innocent Muggles. It’s no wonder he feels Black deserves the Dementor’s Kiss. Even Harry, when he believed these things about Black, felt that justice should be served and saw no issue in Black paying the price for such crimes. And remember, when Black learns the truth about Pettigrew, he’s furious enough to try to kill him on the spot. Yet, Snape has the composure and discipline to restrain his rage and sees it as his responsibility to bring Black back alive. He leaves the punishment to the legal system and to justice, refusing to take it into his own hands.

And let’s not forget: just an hour before, Sirius was openly willing to drag Snape’s unconscious body to the castle, fully prepared to bash Snape’s head against the ceiling—purely out of lingering childish hatred for Snape’s appearance and background. Sirius had no regard for the injuries he might inflict on Snape.

Barbara: I was very disappointed to see harry use crucio and seem to enjoy it his failure to perform that kind of curse in the past has been a credit to his character why the change, and did harry later regret having enjoyed deliberately causing pain J.K. Rowling: Harry is not, and never has been, a saint. Like Snape, he is flawed and mortal.

His character flaws don’t erase all the good he’s done or the impact he’s had. If you believe that being “flawed” or “grey” prevents someone from being a hero, then you’ve missed one of the core messages of the Harry Potter series. By that standard, no one in the books would be a hero because nearly every character has their own set of flaws. Even J.K. Rowling herself draws parallels between Snape and Harry, calling both of them imperfect. If you find Snape unforgivable, then logically, you’d have to find Harry Potter unforgivable, too.

Snape is a hero because he spends his life atoning for his mistakes. He stays on the right side even when there’s no personal gain, saving lives, healing others, and standing by his principles despite losing his way in darkness. He has the strength to return to the right path and stay loyal to it for years. Thanks to his courage and sacrifices, the wizarding world is freed from a dark wizard’s crimes. Because of him, innocent children like Harry aren’t left orphaned, and young mothers like Lily don’t lose their lives and families. Because of Snape’s loyalty, teenage souls like Draco Malfoy’s don’t get lost in darkness.

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

What if that night in Godric's hollow Lily chose to let Voldemort kill Harry and stepped aside when Voldemort asked her to?

Self-preservation kicked in! No one knows how they will react facing death. She should not be blamed for protecting herself.

Would she be honest and tell people what really happened or make up some believable story? What would happen to her after that night? Does she leave England? How would the Order/Sirius/Dumbledore react to the events? Would Severus go after Lily and tell her he is her hero? Would this be a better AU for Lily and the wizard world?

Woof.

Well.

It's not good.

Would She Be Honest and Tell People What Happened?

We don't really know much about Lily's character is the thing. I make a lot of things up for my own benefit, but that's my taking and running with the very little we see in canon.

We really don't know how she'd react.

The way I characterize her? Feeling guilty over her husband's death (who died for her and Harry) and the fact that she survived her son (who she perhaps could have protected) she'll confess to what happened. She wants people to blame and hate her so she can punish herself for this.

And judge and punish her they do as this is something the Order and the greater public just can't understand. I'm sure rumors of how and why Lily was spared also fly and soon Lily goes from the truth of simply stepping aside (and being spared because of Snape) to having slept with Voldemort to save her life to being his spy the entire time.

What Would Happen to Her After that Night?

The gossip against her is massive and I imagine the Order never quite trusts her again. They may not kick her out, though I'm sure some (certainly Sirius who is mad with grief over James's death) vote for it. Lily may leave of her own free will out of guilt and so as not to give the Order a black eye.

The Prophet may or may not run smear campaigns against her both to distract from the realities of the Ministry not managing anything against You-Know-Who and because this is such a shocking awful story.

Lily becomes persona non grata but is presumably left alone by the Death Eaters as Voldemort chose to spare her life and the order has been passed down through the ranks (and as Voldemort is alive he keeps Bella and the Lestranges and Barty in check in a way he didn't at this point in canon).

Lily lives a miserable life in which her husband and son are both dead, she's of no help to the cause, and she's trying to get on with it.

How Would the Order/Sirius/Dumbledore React?

See above but I imagine ostracization.

Sirius would never forgive Lily for James having died and Lily just selfishly allowing Harry to be killed. I imagine he'd blame her in his mind and believe that she had betrayed James personally by doing this. Not to mention what kind of a person/Gryffindor steps aside to let her baby be murdered?

The Order at large would likely have mixed opinions but the Weasleys for example would vocally condemn Lily and despise her for this.

Dumbledore would, I imagine, think much lesser of Lily and start saying things he says about Merope about how Lily just didn't love her son enough/wasn't a very strong woman. He wouldn't condemn her quite as much as Sirius or Molly but there'd be an undertone of "this happened because you are weak".

Would Severus Go After Lily and Tell Her He's Her Hero?

Severus is home free, you bet your ass he does.

Lily's probably out of the Order, James Potter his greatest enemy is dead, Sirius is out of the picture because of James's death, even the hellspawn Harry Potter is dead and out of the way.

They can now go back to exactly what they were and the Dark Lord did hold to his promise after all (and oh dear god Severus betrayed him behind his back, hope he doesn't find out about this).

I imagine Severus would try to reconnect and either:

lie about being a Death Eater entirely (probably won't work)

say he's realized the error of his ways, admit to giving the information to Dumbledore to save Lily's life, but he can't leave the Death Eaters because of the mark/he'll certainly be killed

Probably he goes with option 2 as he can't exactly pretend he never held his views or wasn't a Death Eater at all and he firmly believes that he took this huge risk, saved her life, and he's completely redeemed now.

Would This Be a Better AU for the Wizarding World and Lily?

Well.

Lily's son and husband died horribly, she's haunted by survivor's guilt forever, all her friends hate her and she's completely isolated, Snape is back on her doorstep believing she should be grateful to him for his actions and he deserves instant forgiveness, and the Dark Lord is still alive and well, has the future minister's son in his pocket, has infiltrated the government completely, and can take over any time he pleases with one out of two prophecy children dead (and Neville... probably doesn't last long after this).

So.

No.

It's better for 0 people.

It's actually much worse for everyone except Tom.

Tom is enjoying not being a wraith in Quirrel's head, thank you very much.

[carriesthewind]

I can't stop thinking about the notes on this rage-bait post about To Kill a Mockingbird.

Some of it is the sheer number of people falling for the bait and believing that the school district in question banned the novel:

But there's also this...tone to so many of the notes that I find fascinating. And I think two sets of comments illustrate why:

Every time I look at these tags I feel like there is something more to unpack. If I am being kind of flip, I can roll my eyes at someone "sigh[ing] at the lack of reading comprehension" while falling for outrage bait.

But more seriously, I feel like this comment is completely right about needing to be uncomfortable and leave sterile environments in order to grown and change...but that comment exists in the context of the writer being so deeply uncomfortable at the mere idea that an over 60 year old book will no longer be taught to some children that they completely fail to interrogate the underlying story. There's a failure to take the next step. It's possible the writer was uncomfortable when they first read the novel, but to quote a tag I didn't capture here, it's "one of [their] favorite books." The book doesn't make *them* uncomfortable at all. The writer is not willing to interrogate that the school district might have had good reasons for switching the book out of the curriculum. Instead, they assume that the reasons are because "people don't understand" the book - the writer "see[s] what they look for."

I love To Kill a Mockingbird. (Hell, I'm one of those white future-public defenders who read the book and saw the movie and watched Atticus with my soul in my throat and, while I was not directly inspired by him, he resonated with a deep part of me.) It would be an uphill debate to convince me to remove it from a teaching curriculum - but then again, I'm not in charge of any teaching curriculum and have zero relevant expertise. I've read now a number of different articles and reactions to this incident, and the reactions rarely have anything to do with the reality of what decisions were made and why. You have to jump through numerous links to find what appears to be the original parent complaint:

Yolanda Williams said she found out that students were saying the N-word and laughing in the classroom, and it was offensive. “Students were laughing out loud at the teacher’s response. That’s unacceptable to me,” she told the board. “Is there not a better way to teach about that era and the horrors of that era, other than having kids laughing in class when the N-word is said? It should not be required reading for all students. My child shouldn’t have to sit in that class like that.” “It’s not a conducive environment,” Yolanda Williams said. “It’s not just the book, but supplemental material that had the N-word.

(How much do we value, how do we weigh, one way of learning about the history of racism, against the pain of a black child? Whose comfort are we willing to sacrifice, and for what?)

The second comment I come back to is much shorter, but I feel like it's where everything fell in to place for me:

Were the people made uncomfortable by the book white people? How many of them? I don't know for sure - although I know at least one of the parents, as quoted above, was black - and neither do any of the commenters.

Why do we read "people" and see "white people?" And in a way, I'm asking a rhetorical question - because of course we do, because the tweet is set up that day. And, even more so, of course we do - because the people the book is for are white people.

To go back to the previous comment, the one I can't stop unpacking: the writer quotes a famous line from the book, "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view...until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."

And yes, I love this quote.

But.

But.

To Kill a Mockingbird was written by Harper Lee, a white woman.

The narrator of the book is Scout, a white child.

The hero of the book is Atticus, her white father.

The embodiment of the theme, the person whose skin Scout tries to step into, is Boo Radley, another white man.

Do you remember, the man who was murdered? Do you see him in that picture at the top of the post? How long does it take you to remember his name?

When do we step into his skin? When do we walk around with his perspective?

I love To Kill a Mockingbird. But if a school district wanted to teach a book to embody this quote, aren't there so many better ones?

Another commenter on the post appears to have actual lived experience with this book being removed from the teaching curriculum.

[impactrueno]

I don't think the crew's comments about Lydia and Beetlejuice being endgame should be taken seriously. If that was seriously considered I feel like the movie would have gone on a different direction, they were pretty consistent with Lydia being disgusted by Beetlejuice and he's the villain all the way to the end

yeah that's kiiind of how i feel too. i would not say he's the villain though? i think he's more of an anti-hero type of character in this one. definitely not a good guy though lol not by a long shot

ultimately the cast isn't the one who's making the story here, however they do have some insight the audience might not have. like i feel like they know something we don't and that's why they feel that way, because they were all VERY sure about it.

this is just my guess so take this with a grain of salt, but i feel like the cast might be a little biased because they know michael personally and he's nice to everyone behind the scenes, you can tell everyone has a lot of love for him. i don't like assuming stuff like this so AGAIN don't take this as fact, but i remember winona saying something along the lines of like, him making sure she wasn't uncomfortable while filming the first movie, so maybe that kinda stuck with her and she conflated it with beetlejuice's character. she speaks of the whole thing in a very shy fangirl manner (which is honestly kind of adorable winona youre 52 and acting like this) like she knows it's silly and she knows she shouldn't want them to be endgame but she does anyway. so THAT feels like it really is her own personal opinion that hasn't much to do with what's planned for them (if there's anything planned at all because we don't know anything for sure, we can only guess and hope there'll be a third one)

tim burton has talked about how he wanted the whole macarthur park scene to be straightforwardly romantic and emotionally intimate, in its own fucked up beetlejuicey way of course. i think it can be all that and still be pretty one-sided idk i personally enjoy the one-sided aspect? macarthur park IS a breakup song after all. so i think i kinda see where he was going with that. it's uh. kind of an enigmatic scene once you stop laughing at the ridiculousness of it all and try to analyze it lol

sorry i lost my train of thought there i got interrupted many times while typing this

i think what i was trying to say is that, even with the one-sidedness and breakup song and all that, there could still be a possibility that things take a strange turn in a third movie if it happens. it's just. wow. how would they even make THAT work, you know? because this movie didn't push hard enough in that direction. it's not impossible but if they do go for it, it will be insanely hard to pull off successfully. fics are one thing, you can do whatever you want in fanfiction, but canon can't be approached like that.

who knows man. lately i've been thinking about how i would've reacted to learning about the events of the sequel if i hadn't been eased into it with trailers and promos and through the movie and its storytelling, and i just know i would've thought "that's insane and would not happen, ever, come on" and now here i am. accepting it. breaking it down and analyzing it. enjoying it! i love this crazy ass movie.

at this point i think anything could happen even if i'm also very skeptic about everything. i won't believe anything until i see it.