#I'm the kind of person who talks about Deconstruction

[littleapocalypsekitten]

#idk I read some of his old Sandman stuff and I'm not sure how much warmth and humanity was in that diner scene#there was a hell of a lot of depravity though and now we know where it came from!

I've not read Sandman, just saw that scene in the Netflix-version, which I never finished watching (It had been one of those things I was watching with a family member who died not long ago that I have trouble bringing myself to get back into watching because it was an "our thing to watch together" thing). That was... pretty gnarly. And on the note of "things my nephew loved that turned out to be made by shitty people doing shitty things that weren't found out about until later" - I JUST found out that Dr. Bright of the SCP Foundation is now verboten and is being re-written / written out of stories by the collective because of character-creator-is-a-shitball reasons. He never saw his favorite stuff ruined... It seems like every time I turn around, there's a predator. Dammit! As far as reading goes, in my "Let's see if I can get into Gaiman because he's wildly popular" I picked up The Graveyard Book and was nearing the end of it. It's pretty warm and human, but it was a young readers story. I don't know the nitty gritty details of everything he's been called up on doing - just a lot of "the usual reasons." *Sigh* It's kind of like the Joss Wheedon stuff all over again. I feel okay still liking Firefly because it was the only thing of his I was really into and Firefly was a show that had many writers and actors and was a group effort sort of thing. I basically decided not to let the producer/director ruin it for me because of that - the "this was actually made by lots of people who weren't even involved with the bullcrap" thing. Also, it's not like I didn't pirate it in the first place. It remains a disappointment when people seem to put a lot of humanity in their work and profess certain values and then are shown to actually be awful behind it all.

This tweet lives rent-free in my head now. Hands-down the best comment about the relationship between art and artist.

[reserwrekt]

How do you get adopted as an adult? I imagine the first step is to talk to other adults but what if that's part of my problem?

[yououghtaknow]

hard thing about Being Me is i will write things that are So Good but i cannot show them to people because it will mentally destroy them

[adamantine-ribbon]

the thing about certain demographics being considered Ugly (e.g. darkskins, fat people) for bigoted reasons is that people always just call them pretty and think they're done when they haven't unpacked the bigotry

[emeryleewho]

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.

[multigenderswag]

I'd like to talk for a bit about the genre of post that's like "sure you're a boygirl fagdyke genderfreak but do you respect [trans identity]?" I think these sorts of posts do address a lot of important points, such as:

Even if you're genderqueer and going "gender isn't real! smash the binary!" there's a real possibility you haven't unlearned or might still be upholding some very transphobic sentiments, and you should do some introspection about that

Some people only want acceptance for their trans identity but don't want to do the work to deconstruct what gender looks like, stop holding other people to their own gendered expectations, and unlearn their internalized bigotry about different trans identities

Sometimes the [trans identity] is specifically relevant to the identities referenced, such as people who will do surface level acceptance of "boygirls" but then call multigender people problematic for using "contradictory" terms like male lesbian, or asking "are you normal about intersex people?" to point out the prevalent intersexism in the multigender community.

But if the [trans identity] or intersex identity being asked about isn't related to multigender community issues, it seems a little strange to consistently single out labels like boygirl and fagdyke that tend to be used by multigender people in these posts. All kinds of trans people can be transphobic about other trans identities. All kinds of trans people are capable of fighting for their own acceptance but not anyone else's. But these posts are pretty frequently just about boygirl fagdykes.

It reminds me of posts about a "theyfab named Sock being transmisogynistic." Are there transmisogynistic FTX nonbinary people? Yes, no one is immune from perpetuating transmisogyny. But these types of posts are still exorsexist.

Similarly, though I'm not saying the pattern of "sure you're a boygirl fagdyke genderfreak but do you respect [trans identity]" is necessarily exorsexist or transmultiphobic, since like I said they do address important points, some of which actually are multigender community issues. But people do use those types of posts to be really transmultiphobic and exorsexist, but in an "acceptable" way, because the boygirls are transphobic so it's okay to hate them.

Some examples in the notes of this sort of post asking 'are you normal about trans women?":

This assumes that multigender identities are only an online thing, only a young person thing, that all multigender people look cis in real life, that no multigender person has experienced real transphobia.

Again, this assumes that no multigender person "looks like a freak" for their gender, that they never struggle with transphobia offline. And straight up saying they have a "huge issue" with girlboy genders.

Multigender labels aren't "performative titles," they're our genders. This person is just straight up admitting they think our genders are fake, that they're only "titles" and not real fucking identities.

"I tend to Not like multigender people" okay so we're just saying the quiet part out loud now

By all means, keep talking about intracommunity transphobia. It's important. But don't throw multigender people under the bus to do so.

[mytheoristavenue]

MHA Mezo Shoji x Reader - Smile with your Eyes

Summary: Who knew one compliment would turn Shoji's whole world on its head?

Warnings: Fluff, light angst, short, not proofread, gn!reader

"You should smile more, you have a lovely smile." The comment caught Shoji so off guard, he stopped in his tracks, doing a double take as you passed by. He wasn't even fully convinced his mind hadn't made it up to torment him over his crush on you.

"Did you say something?" He asked, paused in the hallway, tilting his head when you looked back at him with a warm smile.

"I said you have a lovely smile, Shoji." You repeated sweetly before turning back to go on your way.

Little did you know, that small compliment set Shoji's world on fire. When had you seen him without a mask? He couldn't for the life of him remember. He racked his brain trying to figure it out, deconstructing the praise until it turned onto an insult. Were you mocking him? You'd never do that, right?

Regardless, Shoji continued to stew on your comment for days. He began to avoid you, look over his shoulder, even when he knew he was alone, worried you might be spying on him. He was so paranoid.

"Shoji," You stood in front of him, his back against a wall- literally. "Are you mad at me?" You blinked up at him, head tilted slightly.

"W-Well-" He started, feeling heat creep up the column of his neck. "I-I..."

"I'm sorry if I did something to hurt your feelings, just tell me what it was so I don't do it again," you explained matter of factly. "I care about you, you're my friend and I want to make sure I'm not accidentally repeatedly hurting your feelings. You had always been a very straightforward person, not seeing the point in beating around the bush. This was the most efficient way to fix the issue in your mind.

Despite your frankness, Shoji was further confused by the conviction behind your words. You can't possibly be this oblivious to his reasons for avoiding you unless he'd misunderstood everything all along. "Y-You said I had a lovely smile..." He finally confessed, rigid against the wall, feeling silly for letting someone half his size pin him without even physically touching him.

"I'm sorry," you promptly apologize. "I didn't think saying so would upset you," you admit with a serious but kind expression. "I actually still don't but my mother always says 'it doesn't matter how your words hurt someone, if they do, you just apologize.'"

Your reaction caught him by surprise. So it wasn't a prank then. Boy, did he feel silly. He raised a dupli-mouth to explain, only to be interrupted by your index finger against his lips. "I don't have to understand how what I said hurt you, just that it did and that I shouldn't repeat it."

"Wait," he finally said, hands finding your shoulders, yanking away when you jump in surprise. "D-Did you mean it...?"

"Of course I did," you answered bluntly, peering up at him, relaxing under his touch. "I wouldn't have said it otherwise. I think you have a bright and genuine smile. It lights up my day when I see it."

You could almost see the blush rise up over the hem of his mask as he swallowed, eyeing you cautiously. "But you've even seen me without a mask," he argues weakly. "Y-You haven't have you?"

"No," you confirm, feeling the tension release from his muscles. "But I don't see what that has to do with it." Shoji was beginning to wonder if you were stupid, or if you were talking about his dupli-mouths when suddenly, you shifted, raising the textbook in your hands to cover your face from the nose down.

He couldn't keep from melting at the warm, kind grin that cracked across your face from behind the book. Though he couldn't see your lips, he didn't miss the way your eyes sparkled and the corners of your eyes crinkled, pushed up by your glowing cheeks. "When someone smiles, you can see it in their eyes." You explain, not that it was needed. Tucking the book under your arm, you reach up, fingertips brushing his tan skin, feeling just left of his eye. "You don't have crow's feet, so that means you don't smile often, or you didn't used to, at least. But I've noticed lately you smile a lot. I can tell because your eyes always light up when you do."

Shoji's breath hitched as you deconstructed him. Had you always been this smart? Or were you just really observant? "I don't know much about you, and that's okay," you continued. "But I know you must have had a time in your life where you didn't have anything to smile for." How could you possibly keep hitting the nail on the head? It unnerved him how you unknowingly unravelled all his secrets, giving him the warmest smile all the while.

"I said what I said because I wanted to know that I like your smile, and I appreciate seeing it," you gently reassure. "But I understand it made you uncomfortable, so I won't-"

"No, please," he finally choked out, glancing away nervously. "I-I don't want you to stop saying it." He finally confessed, confusing you further. "It...means a lot from you, and I'd like to hear it more often, actually..."

Your shoulders finally slump and you beam up at him, joy radiating from you as you nod in understanding. "I love your smile, Shoji, please let me see it more often!"

He had no idea what compelled him to do it, but he glanced around, checking that the coast was clear before reaching up and very briefly yanking his mask down, flashing a sunny grin, eyes closed and brows furrowed. It was the type of smile you'd seen multiple times on the likes of Kirishima or Kaminari, but never on Shoji.

Your eyes wet, you took him in, trying to memorize his visage for the few seconds he showed it. His smirk was all scar tissue and straight, perfect teeth. "Shoji..." you whispered, breath swallowed. "You're smile..."

For a moment, Shoji could feel the guilt of a grave mistake crawl up his back and sit on his shoulder like a little devil. His hands retracted from your shoulders finally and his fist balled anxiously.

"You have the most beautiful smile in the world!"

[fireflysummers]

Good Omens S2

Okay so.

Excellent Job, Gaiman

Ouch???

I don't like to publicly talk about my personal life. My academic life is my professional life is my artist life. But my personal life? Not so much, outside of vignettes.

But for the past several months, I've been deconstructing a lot of personal baggage and trauma surrounding both family and religion, after leaving the cult I was raised in (mormonism).

It's terrifying to realize that the framework you built your entire self on is false. It's exhausting and painful to deconstruct that framework, to disentangle your identity in the way that won't destroy you.

And it's slow.

Nobody ever tells you how slow it is to heal. You can't control the rate you heal either. You just have to be patient with yourself, and give yourself an environment where that healing can occur safely and naturally.

Anyways.

Good Omens, and its weird tendency to be exactly what I need when I need it.

I first read Good Omens in high school. And honestly, I didn't quite get it, at the time. I only knew it was different from every other book I've ever read, one that didn't treat religion as stupid or trivial, but also one that called out the blatant hypocrisy and control tactics involved. It helped me safely challenge a status quo I hadn't even realized existed.

I first watched Good Omens partway into my Master's Degree. It was everything that I could've hoped for. I understood the book a lot better, but the TV adaptation captured my struggles with mental dissonance, trying to understand and accept the parts of my identity that I was taught God didn't want.

I watch S2 a year into my doctoral program. I'm out of the cult, and it's exhilarating and painful and scary and fun, but I can still feel the scars its hooks left when they were torn out.

I feel like S2 Aziraphale is in about the same place. He's exploring his freedom, but also trying to reorient himself. He's trying to let himself be. He's healing, but his boundaries got overridden due to circumstances out of his control (naked Gabriel). He's been pulled back into the gravity of the abusive system he tried to escape, given a carrot on a stick, and isn't yet healed or strong enough to resist.

On top of that, Aziraphale is still holding onto the hope that the problem was bad individuals, not a corrupted system. He thinks if the leadership is different, things can change. He thinks if he had more authority in the system, he could make things change. And... that's not how it works.

And Crowley. Dear Crowley.

He wants Aziraphale to be farther along in his healing than he is. Honestly, Aziraphale wants it too. But again, you cannot force this kind of healing, even when it results in a loved one making some truly stupid decisions.

Crowley sees the system for what it is. He's already deconstructed that part. But he hasn't really started addressing his own trauma. He's hinged his entire existence on Aziraphale, on being what Aziraphale needs, that he hasn't allowed himself to heal either. And Aziraphale, who is vulnerable and healing, is not able to provide the support that Crowley would need to recover safely.

Which is why them separating is probably the best thing for both of them.

It won't be permanent.

But they don't communicate, and their relationship while delightful and beautiful risks unhealthy codependency that prevents either from really growing or healing.

Anyways, what I really hope to see next season is Aziraphale's realization that the system never had his back. That the system is what's wrong, and that he can't win by playing at respectability politics or gaining a higher status within it.

I want Aziraphale to get angry.

He deserves it. He's tried so hard. He thinks he's lost Crowley over it.

I want him to feel the gut-wrenching despair of realizing how conditional and fleeting the system's version of love is, and I want it to turn into a rage.

But not a destructive rage--the sort of anger that Pratchett ascribes to himself and many of his works. The sort of anger that fueled Discworld and Good Omens. The sort that can be finessed into a weapon and a shield, that can be used to protect the people who truly love you.

For millennia we see Crowley fighting for Aziraphale.

For Season 3, I want to see Aziraphale fighting for his demon.

For him to apologize, without the expectation that Crowley will come back, but because he was wrong and Crowley needs to know it. To not expect forgiveness, not even think he deserves it.

And then for Crowley--who is trying to hide his heart eyes at seeing his avenging angel coming to save him for once, who he can tell immediately has changed, and is finally going Crowley's speed)--for Crowley to give that forgiveness, without strings attached.

[purpledemonlilyposting]

Lorch is talking about writing again...

[Lily's Post]

Where do I even start here?

Okay first lets define what subtext is. Subtext is when a detail or meaning is conveyed indirectly through tone, dialog, character actions etc.

I talked about gay icon Gus Fring in relation to Lorch's thoughts on villains recently. Him being gay is entirely subtext. Even his final scene in Better Call Saul that practically hits people over the head who didn't pick up on him being gay is still subtext.

Gus is not the kind of man to come out and say "I'm gay", you won't see him at a Pride parade, you won't see him decking Los Pollos Hermanos in rainbow flags during June. That's just not in character for him. And yet both shows still, through subtext, communicated to us that Max was not just his friend and business partner but his lover.

(even the name of their restaurant Los Pollos Hermanos is a clue. It was not unusual for old school gays to just claim to be siblings in order to explain away why they live together)

And Gus' final scene in BCS shows him very much mooning over the sommelier he seemingly often chats with at his favorite bar. But we can also see him decide at the last moment to not get involved as his cold, dangerous drug and revenge filled lifestyle won't allow for love to spring anew. None of this needs to be stated aloud.

Okay with that out of the way lets dissect Lorch's nonsense:

So as usual Lorch's opinions on writing all absolutely come down to her not getting it and being bitter that other people do.

Whenever she talks about writing or fandom it becomes clear that the one thing Lorch absolutely can't stand is not being the smartest person in the room. But she has never been the smartest person in the room. So instead she has to decide that things other people understand that she doesn't are just worthless and overused and need to be done away with.

Subtext, worldbuilding, metaphor, lore, they're all just stupid things people use to SEEM smart, because LORCH doesn't understand them and so they must not matter.

Notice she doesn't give a single example of these things. She just starts with the assumption that people only use subtext because they think they have to or are trying to "look smart" and not because, you know, most audience members don't want to read or watch something that's basically the cliff notes of a story like you do, Lily. Subtext can aid in immersion and believability, especially when it comes to dialog.

You don't understand how to make an analogy either I see.

How the fuck is Lorch putting serialization in the same category as subtext and metaphor. Serialization is a method of story delivery, Lorch. It goes all the way back to dime novels and penny dreadfuls.

Something could be completely absent of subtext and metaphor and still be serialized. The fuck are you even talking about?

People don't "understand your point", Lorch, because you don't know what you're talking about and every single one of your opinions just comes back to your inability to understand narrative and your annoyance that other people do. But instead of expanding your understanding you try to control how people engage with and discuss narrative. You haven't deconstructed shit you just rage like a child at writing techniques that have been refined over centuries.

[genericpuff]

I was kind of curious: What do you think of Persephone's therapy scenes in episodes 160-161?

I personally liked them, but you and many other LO critics always seem to see things that totally flew over my head (I mean that in a positive way).

I think the idea behind them was fine, just the execution that felt really half-baked. Rachel doesn't like scenes to sit too long so the therapy scene, of course, wound up being rushed in the course of 2-3 episodes (meaning she had to have Persephone dump everything all at once) and while Persephone's dialogue is handled relatively well, the direction of the scene itself feels entirely mismanaged (which is both a side effect of Rachel's directionless writing and the fact that she clearly doesn't want to do more than one of these kinds of episodes so she needs to speedrun it).

TRIGGER WARNING: Discussion concerning sexual assault ahead!

Like, let's start with Persephone's intent in going to therapy. Wanting to pursue therapy doesn't just happen suddenly, there's usually a "trigger event" to make someone realize "I need help", whether it be hitting rock bottom or even just going "I feel like I don't have the skills or tools necessary to deal with what I'm dealing with, I need a professional opinion".

Despite Eros advising her to go to therapy all the way back in S1 to address her assault-

-she actually finally goes to therapy in S2 not to address the assault, but to address... how she feels insecure in comparison to Hera who she just found out Hades had a long-term affair with??? At least that's definitely the implication.

And then of course the therapy session itself segues immediately into "Persephone is a high achiever and it's because of her mom being overbearing" which Rachel doesn't connect at all to either the SA or her feeling insecure compared to Hera (which, by the way, barely even has anything to do with her, but she didn't - and still doesn't - have the emotional maturity or self-respect to realize that Hades is a serial cheater-)

That's where the first therapy episode cuts off, and then the next episode immediately opens with Persephone writing her entire backstory on a whiteboard, so we can assume time has passed and she's talked about everything from her childhood up until this point.

Then we get Chiron asking Persephone... what could go wrong if she leaves TGOEM??

Even though we never saw any of the actual sequence so it just feels like a question that's coming out of nowhere? Like did Persephone say during that schpeel that she wanted to leave TGOEM? Isn't that something we should have seen to connect these two trains of thought?

Ah, right, because we have to get into Hades. Because this comic fails the Bechdel test so hard it can't even have a character talk about their trauma or childhood without it seguing into "well there's this one specific main character guy I just really wanna sleep with-"

Don't get me wrong, if Rachel is trying to "deconstruct purity culture" here, I can get her angle with this, if Persephone has been "groomed her entire life" to be an eternal maiden then there's clearly some thought processes about sexual attraction there that are being challenged by her attraction to Hades. But it just feels so rushed purely for the sake of getting her through her trauma and childhood problems and everything that Rachel tacked onto her backstory (in an attempt to make her seem more than just a self-insert) so that Rachel can get her back on track to sleeping with Hades, the one and only man she's clearly ever felt sexual attraction to enough to want to leave TGOEM and question her entire childhood.

And then we get this and I just-

Like first of all, again, Persephone being a complete airhead and not realizing that it has less to do with her possibly being an inadequate partner and more to do with Hades being a serial cheater who also used her as an emotional affair partner;

but ALSO the fact that the conclusion is some "eureka" moment of "you're a bad decision maker" ??? I was a fan of the comic still when this scene happened and even I went "huh?"

Like she doesn't bother to try and connect it to everything she just learned and said about her childhood and how she wants to be the "perfect daughter" who will make everyone happy, Chiron just reduces it to "oh you just suck at making decisions". As if "sucking at making decisions" isn't like, a reactionary extension of deeper problems. She's treating it as if Persephone is some "puzzle" to be solved and her being a "bad decision maker" was the answer when it's undoubtedly just one of many side effects of her upbringing. It feels like she's addressing the cough and not the virus.

Also a little off topic but-

Gotta love how we've never seen Persephone actually employ this homework from her therapist because she's constantly stapled to Hades and the only thing she cares about is his happiness. Literally, I don't think Persephone could possibly answer that question because she's never been independent enough to even learn what makes her happy - she's jumped from wanting to make her mother happy to wanting to make Hades happy but we're supposed to condemn the former and celebrate the latter.

Buuut of course we don't get her answering that question because again, Rachel can't spend more than 30 seconds on a single scene because that would demand too much writing and thought from her. So we cut to Hera having a discussion with Asclepius regarding her scars re-opening, yadda yadda.

By the time we cut back to the therapy session at the start of the next episode (that's three episodes that have been spent basically accomplishing nothing because none of the thought threads tie together in a meaningful way beyond what the audience has to assume) Chiron is conveniently wrapping things up and it's then and only then does Rachel try to actually incorporate the SA plotline that was Persephone's ORIGINAL MOTIVATION in going to therapy.

Now, the scene for the most part is fine, I don't really like how the therapy session was written leading up to it, but her describing her freeze response and how she feels guilty she couldn't "fight back" is a very real feeling that I can definitely say was well written.

My one gripe with it though - and sure, this might be nitpicky, but here me out - is this:

I don't particularly like that Chiron the therapist just found out about her patient being a rape victim - someone who's also said she doesn't like people grabbing her / touching her without her consent - and then decides the best course of action is to comfort her... while touching her.

Now I want to make it perfectly clear, it's not against the law or even the code of ethics to make physical contact between a therapist and their patient. Loads of patients have made breakthroughs with their therapists that have called for hugs and while some therapists may not be okay with it, there are definitely therapists who are who fully understand that hugs in those moments are the best thing for a person. But it's still a general boundary that is there and even with patients who aren't victims of SA, consent needs to be asked for / given.

So Chiron just... coming over and touching Persephone on the knee, while undoubtedly seen as a "warm and comforting act" by those who have had similar sessions with their own therapists or even just those who have no clue and see it on the surface level as being "sweet", really irks me, because it just seems so tone deaf to do with a character like Persephone who is supposed to be a victim of having her bodily autonomy taken away from her.

Again, it's a small criticism, and undoubtedly a nitpick in the eyes of some, but a simple "can I give you a hug?" from either Chiron or Persephone would have gone a long way in accomplishing Persephone's need for consent and bodily autonomy a lot more than just having Chiron come up and touch her leg without her consent. Please, for the love of god, let Persephone have some autonomy, asking for consent doesn't ruin the moment.

And that's pretty much it, Persephone talks about how she feels like she's tethered to Apollo, and Chiron assures her that's not the case, session over, Persephone goes outside to Hades aaaand notice how we never actually tackled that "I feel insecure because of my partner having former partners?" thing? Notice how the best we got was her talking about her fears of being an "inadequate partner" which focused entirely on her not being "enough" for Hades and being a "bad decision maker" rather than pointing out 1.) Hades' own faults in being a serial cheater that would undoubtedly contribute to her insecurities and 2.) what Persephone could do for Hades rather than what Hades could do for Persephone? It's always "I don't know if I'm good enough for him" and never "I don't know if he's good enough for me."

Yet another F-- on Lore Olympus' Bechdel test. Every single thing tacked onto Persephone's backstory is meant purely to get her with Hades - TGOEM is just an obstacle preventing her from having sex with Hades, the assault is just a framing device to show how much "better" Hades is for Persephone than Apollo, her overbearing childhood is just to show how much more "free" she is now that she's not living with her mother and is living with Hades instead, etc.

No agency, no autonomy, no character, even when it tries.

[loveandlegacy]

ngl i think there are a lot of cool/interesting things to say about the sex scene between jayce and mel, but i am not wild about justifying it by pointing to its plot relevance. its presence IS justified, i just think the furthering-the-plot argument is using the wrong framework to understand the function of sex in media at all and kind of belies a deeply conservative impulse about what sex is or does or what it's for in art. and like i don't really blame anyone for this. i think this attitude of 'well it has to be plot relevant to be present' particularly in film is born partly out of a reaction to a long history of film & tv having gross attitudes about women and very unpleasant assumptions about roles in sex.

in tv in particular, hbo comes to mind as having been the only prestige network for a really long time where nudity/semi-explicit sex was permissible. and like while it was/is permissible, a lot of hbo productions deploy sex in a way that feels deeply unimaginative and misogynistic. obviously hbo isn't the sole culprit. the whole concept of the male gaze was developed bc of film's treatment of women, and the games industry stacks on top of that by being so misogynistic in its sexualization of women that it feels like a joke. so i get why people balk at that — i do too — but these media properties and outlets shouldn't be the gold standard for sex in media anyway and the solution to them shouldn't be "well sex is only Allowed when it serves the very utilitarian and quasi-calvinist purpose of furthering the plot".

if nothing else, sex is an important part of life and connection for many people. including it in art to demonstrate or reflect that fact is ideally something normal, or could be if we in the united states could at least deconstruct our neuroses about sex. my one friend always says that sex in itself is a kind of character study, which is valuable regardless of how much it furthers the plot. you can even see this with jayce and mel! people joke a bunch about jayce being the little spoon and not to be like too annoyingly into close readings of a sex scene but the entire arc of his encounter with mel tells you a lot about both of them as people that arguably could not really be presented in any other context. mel initiates but she does so in a moment of vulnerability, right after talking about her family, a major pain point in her life (and not lol after she supposedly like...bamboozled him with Sexual Allure and alcohol or whatever people say). jayce follows her lead for a while (she kisses him first, he is happy to have her push him onto the bed) and eventually breaks from this pattern to go down on her, not to demand something for himself.

either this says something about him as a person or says something about gender and expectations for sexual courtship overall in the world of arcane. like in our world men who "submit" (lol) to women's sexual desires or who give primacy to a woman's sexual interest are still framed kind of as a joke in mainstream US culture even though 'mean mommy dommy' jokes abound on the internet. but is that also true in piltover & zaun? is jayce the exception to the rule or is he in keeping with the rule? we kind of don't know ironically bc we have no other information about in-world sex in the whole of season 1. even with the brothel, there are open-ended questions: is trading sex for money illegal? is it illegal in piltover but a weird grey-market activity in zaun? what kinds of sexual mores exist in piltover, zaun, or both, and what relationships to people have to them? vi describes the brothel as 'the one place where all the secrets are spilled' and that seems like it's in keeping with how civilian clients are about sex work irl in the united states but that's more or less all we have to work with.

i'm not saying arcane should seek to answer all these things or to deliver a complete taxonomy on in-world sex and sexuality. the story is dealing with other themes. it just seems strange to me to laud arcane for it's skill in efficient but well-textured worldbuilding and then to abjure the possibility of the presence of sex outside of plot-relevant reasons when sex would tell us as much about the world as the touch that smoking is a sign of power in the undercity.

if the concern is that somehow any non-plot-sex would be too gross in its treatment of women, i guess i would say that it was amanda overton who advocated for the sex scene in the first place, not alex yee or christian linke. so like why not trust that she may be capable of writing/directing further instances of sex without defaulting to something unpleasant?

and if the objection is "well i don't want to be made to feel horny in an otherwise non-horny experience" my answer would be that the point of sex in media can be communicative sometimes, not always titillating. going back to jayce and mel and character studies, i wasn't (and i don't think most people were?) suddenly horny during that scene. i thought the literal art direction was weird, but mostly what i took from the scene about these two characters was that their mode of relating to one another was actually very tender. it cemented that mel was falling in love with jayce, and that the we the audience were supposed to understand their sex as sweet, not particularly provocative or designed to fulfill an assumed sexual fantasy on our behalf.

but there's also no reason to assume that any two other characters in the story would have sex in that tenor, even if they were in love. there's no reason to assume that any two other characters might NOT have sweet sex outside the context of love. the only way we could know that is if it were to occur on screen, and getting a greater diversity of sex and sexual encounters on screen requires the audience to be open to sex not just as a normal part of life, but as a semiotic object in art that has value beyond driving the plot forward.

tl;dr it's nice that the sex in arcane had some greater impact on the plot mechanics, but i don't think that's the primary value of its presence and i'm glad it's there with or without it mattering to the plot. it's unlikely but i hope s2 can give us a fuller picture of how other characters relate to sex as well.

[xxavengingangelxx]

Graves Defragged 1/?

As promised, here is the first part of deconstructing Graves. This part touches on the first half of the psychopath traits I want to discuss. Below is my take! I am NOT licensed to make these decisions. This is just for fun. It also touches on why I write Graves like a heartless mf'er in my longer fics. Because Graves is a heartless motherfucker.

Not proofread. I'm posting this before going to bed cause it's the only time I got between working 60+ hours a week, house chores, keeping hubby fed, etc.

To touch on my sociopath vs. psychopath post earlier, there are some in the field who argue that a sociopath is made and a psychopath is born. We don’t have enough information on Graves’s background to see whether or not he’s shown the same callous disregard for human life, disregard for rules, and narcissism earlier on. But he certainly shows those traits now.

And we do have this:

Graves: "That uniform was a limitation. I shed that skin..." Soap: "Like a fuckin' snake-" Graves: "Like a fucking soldier, son." — Soap confronts Graves about his past.

Let’s assume Graves was born a psychopath. It’s certainly possible. And if Adler is his father, then he’s got the genes for killing, anyway. Yes there are theories that say there are genes for criminality but I can post more on that later if y’all are interested.

How many traits of a psychopath does he actually have? Based on the behavior, we’ve seen, quite a bit!

Robert Hare, a Canadian psychologist, created the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (known today as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised). Let’s go through the items with our crush man Graves in mind. Each of these items is rated a 0 if it does not apply, a 1 if it kind of applies, and a 2 if it definitely applies. They are added up at the end. Max score is a 40.

Item 1: Glibness and superficial charm = 2

You’re kidding me, right? Graves is the man of charm and glib. His good fuckin’ looks certainly help him out.

Image credit: @Vault21 on Tumblr

Remember Dark Water? Yeah…they trusted each other like brothers. Soap even hugged Graves! Graves had them  (and us) fooled because not much later he betrayed them like they were enemies.

Item 2: Grandiose sense of self-worth = 1

Graves is narcissistic. We can all agree on that, right? He thought he was too good for the Marines, that the Marines were not good enough for such a special person like himself. And I could be wrong here, but he is massively successful, likely a billionaire so doesn’t he get to be a little narcissistic?

Item 3: Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom = 2

Graves was so bored in the Marines, one of the toughest branches of the military, that he saw his uniform as a limitation and sought out to make his own company of mercenaries who don’t really answer to anyone. Also, how many CEOs do you see in the field like Graves is? Close to none. He lives for getting shot at and chased. He has a scar on his face to prove it!

Item 4: Pathological lying = 2

Is this even a question? Graves lied so well to 141 that they trusted him and saw him as a brother in arms. Also, remember the scene from Congress?

Image credit: BabyZone on YouTube.

Which leads me to…

Item 5: Conning/manipulative = 2

Phillip Graves is a conman. If you look up conman in the dictionary there’d be a picture of Graves or there should…it’d make the dictionary less boring. According to Google’s dictionary, the definition of conman is, “a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true.” I can think of a few examples. Again, Dark Water

Image credit: Wallpaper Cave

Also, the Congress scene where he lies (about WAR CRIMES) like he’s talking about the weather.

And when he pulled the rug out from under 141 in Las Almas.

Which in turn takes us to…

Item 6: Lack of remorse/guilt = 2

Graves betrayed 141, the men he had fought next to, defended, befriended all while gaining their trust.

All while smiling about it!

Image credit: halgalvv on TikTok

Look!

Image credit: Call of Duty Wiki

Which also reminds me of the war crimes Graves committed in Las Almas. Some argue that Graves cleaned house by killing off people who were supporting the cartels but based on what I’ve been told there were children in this town as well.

This also brings me to the topic of Graves’s Shadows. These men are okay with war crimes. Shadows are okay with killing people just because Graves said to. In one (or more?) of my fics I portray Shadows as I see them: callous and even sadistic with how they agree to torture a prisoner of war (POW), going so far as using rape as a weapon if Graves gives the word.

Are there some Shadows who can’t engage in this kind of behavior? Perhaps. So Graves knows which men to pick to carry out war crimes. At least that’s how I see it.

Psychopaths have physical differences in the make up of their brain that make them UNABLE to feel guilty, remorse, or fear. So when I hear people asking how serial killers and other criminals deal with their guilt, I say they do not because it doesn't exist to them. They have no idea what guilt is.

Remember: It’s not that psychopaths choose not to feel/ignore guilt. It’s that their brain is completely INCAPABLE of this emotion.

You might be asking why/how: Psychopaths think the same thing about you…how can you feel guilt? Why would you want to?

Item 7: Shallow affect = 1

Only because we are unable to see how Graves functions emotionally away from the battlefield. My forensic psychology professor said that psychopaths have 2 emotions: rage and joy. Have you seen Graves portray anything else, really? In another fic, Graves supposedly says he loves OC. Like he even knows what that means. He doesn’t. He loves controlling her and abusing her, yes.

If Graves had a kid like he does in the same fic, he doesn’t feel much affection towards him. He just likely sees him as an extension of his partner. A future soldier, someone Graves can start training from young. Something he can use to control and keep his partner in line.  That child, from the moment he was born is seen as an asset by Graves. Plus, there are some good chances that kiddo might have inherited Graves’s genes that pass on his psychopathy. And even if that child does not, there’s a good chance he could develop as a sociopath because he’s not likely to see much more other than Graves continuing to abuse and control his partner and battlefield conditions.

Item 8: Callousness/lack of empathy = 2

This relates to a lack of remorse. You might ask how can Graves not feel empathy for how 141 must feel after he betrayed them? Because, like the shallow emotions and lack of remorse, Graves’s brain cannot do it. He doesn’t have the neurons for it. He doesn’t have the brain structure for it. It’s not that Graves chooses not to feel or ignore empathy. He CANNOT. It’s almost like asking someone with very low math ability to do a PhD in physics. It’s not that they’re lazy. They do not have the aptitude for it.

Graves does not have the aptitude for remorse or empathy because he doesn’t have the brain structure that makes that happen.

He think's it's funny.

Image credit: Einstein Ibraheem on YouTube

Item 9: Parasitic lifestyle = 0

Finally, one that does NOT apply to Graves. This man refuses to depend on anyone. He’s a fucking billionare that can get whatever the hell he wants whenever he wants it.

Item 10: Poor behavioral controls = 0

Hear me out! Graves is not impulsive. Lots of psychopaths are due to limitations in a part of the brain called the prefrontal cortex as well as other parts to include the limbic system. Graves is not limited in that manner. He plans, he’s meticulous, he’s detailed, and he gets away with a lot of shit because of it. Graves is not impulsive. Get him mad and he might smack the shit out of you (more than once if you make him mad enough) but when it comes to important decisions, he takes his painstaking time.

So fear we are up to the score of 14! He has scored positive on 14/20 possible points.

More to come!

[xjulixred45x]

Big Bro Gojo! Reader find out about Megumi and Tsumiki. Ft Kugisaki and Itadori!

This part is pretty long!

First part for context

first of all, thanks to @shootinglove14 for giving me the idea for this adorable drabble, thanks sweetie!

Now, moving on to the topic, I think Big Bro Reader would know about Megumi's existence shortly after he has his talk with Satoru (after the breakup of KFC) and confesses that, that Touji told him that he had a son, as if He would wait for his brother to tell him what he should do. Big Bro at first, I'm not going to lie, is too angry at Touji for almost killing his little brother to think clearly, so he tells him to do what he thinks is right.

which in Satoru's mind translated to: "do what your brother would have done" and knowing that under normal circumstances Big Bro Reader would not hesitate to take in a child in need (ESPECIALLY if Big Bro already has children of his own) Satoru He decides that he will do the same.

so, he goes to get Megumi (and additionally Tsumiki), takes them with him and introduces them to his older brother as the children he had been telling them about :D (completely ignoring the fact that he warned him with, like, 5 minutes of before they arrived and that it was supposed to be just ONE SON)

but as soon as Big Bro Reader sees them, any kind of dislike towards Touji or resentment IS CRUSHED and replaced with pity when he sees how small they are, he very much regrets having thought the way he did when he saw how they lived, and begins to treat them like his normal friendly self, almost like his own children.

As Megumi and Tsumiki grow up, Big Bro reader is a very important figure in their lives, mainly because he has the tact that Satoru doesn't have, he is cuddly without being annoying, he is much more respectful, how could they not love him? especially in the case of Megumi, who tries to help him with his abandonment issues.

With Tsumiki he becomes close through things like housework, Reader is a deconstructed man, he helps his wife and Tsumiki in everything he can😤 and even teaches her some tricks that he has learned in the Gojo house (cooking, laundry, embroidery, self-defense, the man is a box of surprises).

overall Tsumiki sees her friendly personality supported by someone like Big Bro reader who is almost the same. She sees him as a great man and definitely a good example of a man, father and husband.

Megumi, as I already said, likes Big Bro Reader more in the sense that he has much more tact and respect for what others say, that already gives him many points, but he also gets attached very quickly to him because of how good he is. general that he is, but he doesn't take shit from anyone. Big Bro reader will be gentle, yes, but he can't stand disrespect and is definitely someone who can hold a grudge, can empathize with it.

but Big Bro's fatherly and uninterested attitude was definitely what made him love him so much, they can bond through things like board games, Big Bro teaches him how to be a gentleman, go out to parks together with the Divine dogs, teach them Gojo clan techniques, etc.

By the time they grow up, they see Big Bro Reader as a kind of secondary father, but if Big Bro already has children, they will be their guardians and help Reader take care of them. when Tsumiki happens, Reader is the FIRST to run to the hospital and comfort Megumi, he is the one who occasionally prepares her a homemade lunch for school, he is the one who Megumi goes to visit when she has the opportunity (aside from Tsumiki) to tell him of his day.

Big Bro reader is one of the few people (if not the only one) who feels like he will never abandon him, and gives him a genuine and warm feeling of security that he wishes he had before. He loves it very much.

Megumi becomes an unofficial part of Big Bro's family, his wife even has a guest room tailored to his tastes (and for his divine dogs), she has some of his favorite snacks in the pantry, and MY GOD, when he comes over of surprise and Reader's children are going to greet him with "welcome home Megumi-nisaaaaaan!" Megumi could DIE THERE AND DIE HAPPY.

They even leave him a space at the table (Big Bro's wife always gives him extra portions because according to her "he is very thin") and he can feel calm. simple peace of mind.

Gojo's brother is amazing.

and eventually thanks to this and being the fucking sensei's brother, he would also meet Nobara and Itadori.

Itadori would meet Big Bro reader before Nobara, he would probably even be either 1- one of the people Itadori would go on his first missions with or 2- one of the few people Gojo trusted to let him know that Yuji wasn't dead.

Let's go for both.

Itadori was VERY surprised to see the difference in attitude between his Sensei and his brother, but he still saw that Big Bro Reader was someone very respectable, even adorable! always bragging about his family and Gojo-sensei also started showing him his own photos of his nephews/nieces (Big Bro's children) and even some photos from when they were young, it was very wholesome.

I can see Big Bro joining Itadori in his movie marathons (especially after the incident with Junpei), inviting him to his house to meet his family, even staying for dinner. For Yuji everything is so...NEW, a whole family, functional and happy, how does he do it? but ends up thanking him very much for the experience (even giving him a hug that Reader gladly returns).

Itadori goes with Big bro reader if he needs more sentimental or emotional advice, since Big bro is something like his guide in that sense, his reference point for what he would like to have, and although Itadori is a walking green flag , sometimes doesn't understand certain situations, and wants to become as friendly and supportive as big bro reader.

Imagine Itadori and Megumi babysitting Big Bro reader's children! I imagine that they are half angels and half Gojo(xd) so they would have to be very careful with that. Megumi would absolutely LOVE to see children drawing pictures or talking about their family, if they draw him a picture of him, he will cry (even if it is the ugliest thing ever drawn, he will hang it on the refrigerator, NO BUTS)

Itadori stays more with Big Bro reader's wife (if she is there) and helps her with things like shopping bags and wanting to know more about the children to be a better babysitter with Megumi (although he knows them better so not much problem).

And when Big bro reader comes Back and the kids go running to give their dad the "welcome home!" Call, Itadori swears his heart MELTS.

Sensei's brother is very kind. Is what he thinks whathever the topic of Big bro is bring up.

Nobara would probably meet Big Bro after Itadori's "death", and at first she didn't think much of him (except that he dressed VERY well) until she learned that he was Gojo-Sensei's older brother. and honestly? She didn't believe it.

It couldn't be!! IT HAD TO BE A JOKE! How did someone like his sensei have someone so friendly as a brother? Or was Reader hiding his own idiotic side? It took photos from when they were young and a lot of insistence for her to finally believe that they were even related.

Definitely at first she was a little alert because of the friendly way Big Bro Reader acted, but eventually she was able to let her guard down when she realized that he wasn't planning anything shady, on the contrary, he wanted to be with them in a difficult moment like what he was doing. It was losing a partner. Nobara could respect him for that.

and he believed that he must be the proudest man in the world, because he always showed off his family, especially his children. At first Nobara found him somewhat annoying, but it didn't take long before she got on the train of enthusiasm for the achievements of Big Bro's children.

If Big Bro has a bad fashion sense, Nobara is ON A MISSION to change that, no ifs and buts. They won't go away until you at least know basic color theory.

Overall Nobara is happy to be a girl around Big Bro reader and have good mental support at this school. Sensei's brother is great.

Thank you for reading!❤️

[beloved-of-john]

So. This is a personal life update of sorts.

Hello everyone, I'm trying to think of how to word what I need to say. I'm going through a big life transition of the spiritual kind, and it's forced me to think more deeply about where I am in my religious journey and where I want to be. As such, the content of this blog is likely going to change a little.

That is to say, there's probably going to be a lot less queer Christian specific content for a while. Don't panic! I'm still here and I'm still queer! But I want to avoid confining myself and my spiritual growth and understanding.

When I look around spaces like this, most of the people I see are queer people who have been raised religious and are deconstructing that framework to find a more liberating path, and that's amazing and empowering. However, I'm walking down this road from the opposite direction. I'm constructing. I'm completely acclimatized to being queer and out and loud about it, but it's being Christian that's the new frontier for me. At the moment, that's what I need to learn how to do. I know that my Christianity will always be inextricable from my queerness, but now I want to get to the stage where my queerness is inextricable from my Christianity. I want to grow and develop that part of myself and deepen my understanding of Christianity before I talk any more about its relationship to queerness and lgbtq+ experience. I need to learn what it means to me to be a Christian in its own right.

This blog will unequivocally remain a space of safety and solidarity for queer people and queer Christians though. I love all of you and I will always believe wholeheartedly that God does too. ❤️

I'll still do my best to answer any lgbtq related asks or comments and offer my support to anyone who needs it, just bear in mind that there's a good chance I don't know what I'm doing anymore than you.

If you've read this far without judgement, thank you for your patience and understanding. I'm going through this struggle right now, but I have faith that I will come out the other side of this a better rounded person.

[raayllum]

Chessmaster Ezran

It's no secret by this point that Aaravos is a chess master. He has literal pawns, his game motif is consistent across seasons (though mostly carried by the Key of Aaravos in arc 1), is associated with black and white, "eight in a line" from the 6x08 poem could reference 8 across as that's the number of pawns/pieces in a line in chess, and he's been referred to as a chess player, literally:

After more than a millennium of careful planning, moving and manipulating generations of humans and elves like pieces on some cosmic chess board, the machinations of the Midnight Star known as Aaravos are finally coming to bear.

The symbolism behind chess itself also talks about a "cyclical nature," the "unavoidable consequences" of each movement, the relationship in chess "between will and fate, but likewise between liberty and knowledge" and ideas of foresight and knowledge. (Meta here.) These are all things, of course, that Arc 2 is increasingly interested in exploring, looking at the ways characters are trapped by circumstances and choices and also deconstructing the idea of having "no choice".

I don't think at this point we have to prove, then, that Aaravos is a chess master of sorts; this is just the text, particularly because moving pawns around isn't that dissimilar from moving puppets around.

What is far more questionable, then, is Who exactly is Aaravos playing chess against?

Now, there's a few answers that could be the case. As displayed above, Aaravos lost one match against the Archdragons and was subsequently imprisoned, but it seems like maybe he was totally aware they were in the game, per se ("he let his guard down" / "as the day you betrayed me"). And while Aaravos hates the archdragons accordingly ("I'm glad you took down that arrogant monster"), they're very clearly not who his endgame victory is against. If he'd wanted to just destroy only them, he probably could've done so a long time ago.

At the same time, I don't think we can directly say the Startouch elves themselves. While they're the people he seems angriest at ("and when everything they have built lies shattered, I will savor their fall from the sky"), and therefore probably the people he wants revenge against the most... It doesn't seem like the Stars have been aware of what's going on down here in Xadia in centuries, and therefore, haven't been 'responding' to any of Aaravos' moves since he was banished and left behind. I wouldn't that it couldn't be him and Leola in some kind of proxy war, but if First elves like Aaravos are at the top of the magical hierarchy, and magic-less humans are at the bottom, it makes sense for a human to ultimately upend said hierarchy (with or without magic), don't you think?

Additionally, none of this is to say being cognizant of the Game is required to be Aaravos' opponent, but that Aaravos needs an active and reoccurring adversary to respond to. The good news is that he has one.

Now let me explain.

Set Up

While Ezran may not seem like an obvious choice — he's not a mage, he's not even one of Aaravos' current pawns to reward a 180 turn around if they turned against him, nor has he directly foiled Aaravos' plans the way Rayla has (at least once) — I think that's precisely why he's the one who's potentially in this role, symbolically at least.

While other characters are tied to the game motif in being pieces (Avizandum, Harrow and Sarai's graves, Callum and Viren's intros, the wooden Rayla doll from 1x04 of all episodes), Ezran is tied to being a piece mover and recognizing that the game and puzzle exists, each time. One that he can solve; one that he can win.

Now, part of that is helped by Ezran inheriting Harrow's status of being a thematic opposite to Aaravos. Aaravos 'serves' in order to gain control and power, and Harrow tries to even out of the scale of his control and power by serving the people: a servant king. Where Aaravos doesn't seem to see anyone as a person, in line with the way he literally uses his pawns, encourages dark magic, and dismisses his enemies, Ezran sees everyone — including animals, elves, dragons, enemies, etc. — as people (re: his sadness in 3x09 as he has to fight and kill people he wanted to save, because they literally won't stop attacking and have been robbed of their own humanity wilfully).

Piled on top is Ezran's own dichotomy of being both a child and a king ("A child is freer than a king") that mirrors Aaravos deriding the group as "pathetic children" while also relying on Claudia (whose the same age) to free him, and that he's playing a game at all that likewise involves his key ("It's a toy, a piece from a children's game" / "The whining child king, in over his head, and he knows it").

And more than that, Ezran has his own game motif. So let's talk about it:

Hide and Seek (Truth telling and Game Motif)

What begins as a little boy's favourite game, in addition to heartbreakingly always reminding you of just how young Ezran is in canon, evolves into a hide and seek game of world altering proportions. Arc 2 is largely about searching for / the acquirement of fully actualized knowledge (befitting of a mystery, mind you) and subsequently, the game of hide and seek is on for that knowledge. They just have to beat Claudia to the finding, first of the map, and then of the prison.

Knowledge of where the prison is hidden that Ezran uniquely carries and uniquely puts him at risk for. This is, of course, a call back to Ezran being the one to uncover the initial mystery of the egg (similarly to how Callum uncovers the truth behind primal magic and the fates of Rayla's parents). He discovers the egg in the dungeons, he advocates for telling the truth and being open and honest, and he is the Truth Teller of the series in so many ways, even if that doesn't mean he's infallible.

I had a speech planned for today. It was about peace and love and hope. But I think I left something out. I ignored something that was true. I denied something that is undeniable. 

Ezran bears witness to the things that other people don't see, or the other things that people don't understand, as while usually we're let in on the loop ahead of time, Ezran's actions and discoveries — finding the egg, retrieving it, showing up the Bookery in the nick of time — are kept behind closed doors until the reveal. Much like Aaravos, I might add. Ezran wears the blind fold like is father did (screams in Celestial elves) properly, but can see clearly at the same time by extending it to all peoples simultaneously.

If the stars are evil because they are indifferent and potentially ignorant, if Aaravos is evil because he is aware of what's going on but unsympathetic, than Ezran is their true opposite in being 1) consistently and constantly thematically and literally aware of what's going on (i.e. his brother's sadness, Rayla's feelings upon her return, the feelings of dragons, Claudia's fight with Ibis) and 2) holding sympathy regardless (even for Aaravos).

If the truth is hidden, Ezran will find it. And that's exactly why he's uniquely fit to go up against Mr. I never lie in a thematic chess match across the whole series, so let's start unpacking it.

Kingship and Clarity (2x08, 2x09)

I'm not going to touch on S1 that much as the majority of what I would've noted is already in the previous sections, so with that in mind I want to talk the back half of S2, specifically Ezran finding out about Harrow onwards.

Upon receiving the news, Ezran is cruel to both Rayla and himself.

E: You knew? I'm such an idiot! I should've figured it out. When we met you, you had two of those assassin-y ribbon-y things. But one of them fell off that night! R: Yes. That must've been when he fell. E: Fell? Fell?! R: Yes. E: He didn't fall Rayla, he didn't trip and fall on the ground, he got killed!

Now there's parallels here about how Moonshadows will dress things up in prettier language than what's actually happening, and in Harrow's rejection of the same thing from Viren ("Call it what it is: dark magic") and Callum's critique in 3x08 ("You've got a nicer word for it?"). But the most overt thing is what we know about associations with falling and death from the elf we just recently got the name of: Aaravos.

Moving on, I want to talk about how Ezran's realization and acceptance of his father's death causes him to realize that he likewise needs to go home: "Maybe I can help the world better from the throne. I can do whatever I can to stop the war". (Something something Aaravos giving humans magic because he believed they could be 'better'.)

Aaravos was cast out of power and 'heaven' and Ezran ascends, yes, but Aaravos' descent caused him to lose clarity in childish revenge, whereas Ezran acquires clarity by moving into altruistic adulthood. He's not being radically changed morals or principles wise, but he's not stagnating. Furthermore, Ezran's bond with Zym that he acquires in 2x09 is like a 'healthy' version of Aaravos' channelling through Viren.

Ezran and Zym find that, due to their bond of love and understanding, they can see where the other person is, embodying the principle of the blindfold's basis being that you can see through another person's eyes and perspective. Here, Ezran's empathy / compassion is made completely literal, and helps Zym achieve the victory of flight in order to likewise save his brother and friend. Aaravos, meanwhile, channels power through Viren, and subsequently withdraws it entirely when it no longer suits him; Aaravos is seeing through Viren's eyes only, and they don't even win. Aaravos is eagerly participating in the fight at the beginning, but when he realizes his pawn may die, he switches tactics and "stays" with him. In contrast, Ezran and Zym achieve their aims and maintain their literal separation while being emotionally closer than ever.

This is all just set up for the Game, though. The first match that Aaravos and Ezra have, of course, is in 3x04 with

An Exchange of Kings (3x04)

As a game, chess is all about exchange and sacrifice. When Ezran is pushed into a corner of treating people like pawns (like symbols), he hates it.

What follows, then, is an exchange. In chess, if you get a pawn to the end of the board, you can exchange it for another piece that's already been taken (with the sole exception of your king, as that's checkmate). We see Aaravos do this slightly with Sir Sparklepuff and Viren in theory in 5x09, but we also see it here more directly with one king (Ezran) being swapped for another (Viren).

This is also, currently, the closest we see Ezran be a 'pawn' in any conceivable way. He's at the end of the board, he's being exchanged, except this time it's for the benefit of the opposing side. The main reason I mandate, then, that Ezran is still an Opponent rather than a piece is because of how this trade is inverted on an even broader scale later on this season:

The Final Battle (Or Not)

As king, and this is the particular piece of Chessmaster Ezran I think I adore above all else, he is fundamentally encouraged to treat his subjects like pawns.

Now, Ezran doesn't want to treat anyone this way. He doesn't view anyone, animal, human, elf or otherwise, as Not People. Even when the human armies are decidedly no longer literally human, and raging fiery monsters attacking him and everything he has left, he still holds sympathy for them and compassion for Claudia.

Claudia — and Viren — meanwhile, don't see their pawns that way at all. Claudia has yet to ever see Rayla as a person, only recognizing the elves who conveniently help her (Terry, Aaravos) as worthy of identified personhood; Viren and Aaravos' overall "plan" was to kill a baby dragon and use all the human army as "distractions". They never cared about anyone's personhood, once they'd gotten that far.

It is Ezran's distaste for seeing people as pawns ("Bait's not for sale, he's my friend!" / saving the baby glow toads) — preferring to see himself, like his father, as a servant king — versus that being all Aaravos has seemingly done for centuries that makes me feel like Ezran is the personal perfect opponent to eventually triumph in the end.

And going forward into S4, we see a few more of their matches take place:

S4 Ezran as the decision maker (4x04, 4x06)

One of the things I was most excited going into S3 was that Ezran, who'd been decisive but largely passive in the first two seasons, was going to be forced to make some difficult decisions. I was extra pleased, then, when we see Ezran step even more into that leadership role in S4 and S5; no longer is he mostly going along with Callum and Rayla's plans. Often times he's the one ultimately setting things up or making said decisions when the group is together.

It's his idea to tackle things together, and help Zubeia after all, in 4x04 (though he looks to his brother to receive an encouraging nod) and to bring Rayla along when she expresses doubts.

It's his idea to go find the puzzle pieces and express those next steps.

It's even his idea to bring Zubeia to Katolis that helps free up the Storm Spire for Claudia, as she takes the dragons leaving "as a sign" (unintentionally on Ezran's behalf, of course). But if Ezran is the stealth opponent here and there to Aaravos' mini matches, this is also something has happened before and will likely happen again, thanks to

The Orphan Queen

Chaos and confusion erupted and war threatened to tear Xadia apart, as now the elves suspected that the dragons had killed their queen. But truth came from an unexpected source. A young human girl discovered a great secret of history. A dangerous deceiver was revealed.

The last time Aaravos' plans firmly fell to pieces, and what led to his imprisonment, was ultimately the Orphan Queen. I've talked more about her potential parallels to Ezran in my Mirrored Trio theory post (as well as Callum's potential parallels to the Jailer) so I won't repeat too much here, but is an option if you'd like to see more.

The important thing to note here, though, is that Ezran's arc will 1) probably parallel the Orphan Queen's in ultimately being part of Aaravos' permanent defeat and 2) perhaps being one of the first to recognize the full scope of Aaravos' plans. I'd love it in particular if in S6, while at Katolis, Ezran does research into his ancient royal ancestor and learns more about her. Too late maybe to pass on the relevant information to keep Callum and Rayla from disaster, but... I expect this:

I should have seen it before. Ha! Long ago, it was a human who saw through the Fallen Star's schemes and helped Xadia put an end to them. You look so much like her.

to come to fruition eventually, in S7 probably. Aaravos may win his chess game in S6, after all, but he will eventually lose.

Season five, of course, also offered more evidence aligned with this reading:

Season Five Set Up

In S5, we see Ezran continue to be the Retriever and finder of objects in ways that thus far no else has really achieved.

Claudia tries and fails to retrieve objects, mostly; Viren probably comes closest, and it'll be more of an aim for Callum and Rayla in S6, I still expect Ezran to ultimately pull ahead in future seasons.

He's also associated heavily with light in the TDP short stories in ways we've largely only seen given to Rayla in canon as well, highlighting another similarity between them, and placing Ezran in a similar position as Zym as the world's hope ("Look at them, playing together. That's hope. They're the ones that are going to break the cycle"):

Even the waning moonlight struggled to pierce its veil. Somewhere out there were his friends. His duty. His king. Two years before, when the world had seemed darkest, Soren began to imagine Ezran as a kindling flame, a bright little light holding back the abyss. When he’d named Corvus a Crownguard, he’d told him that the young king was not only Katolis’ hope, but all of Xadia’s, too. Soren had sworn to protect and tend that light. To nurture it. And in his darkest moments, that oath gave him a reason to feel strong again, a way to keep smiling.

Ezran also acknowledges outright in 5x01 exactly what Aaravos is doing and is the first in canon to use language that references Aaravos' game as a chess game with it, too:

The Archmage Aaravos is trying to escape his magical prison. His pawns are working, even as we speak, to find him and release him back into our world. We need to stop them. Can you please help us find his prison?

Ezran's Plans

In the latter half of s5, we also see the group routinely go with or accommodate Ezran's plans as well, even if they don't all necessarily agree. This is true in 5x05, in which we see Ezran reiterate that violence is a last resort:

E: If Akiyu made it, then she must know where it is. Then we can stop Viren and Claudia from releasing Aaravos. C: Or, hear me out [...] How bout we hitch a ride up there, borrow this Novablade, then we wait for Aaravos to get out, and just stab stab, buh-bye bad guy! E: Wait, slow down. Shouldn't that be the last resort? If we can stop Aaravos from getting out at all, we can solve this without any violence.

and in 5x06 with talking to Finnegrin and saving the Baitlings.

R: But he's not known for doing favours out of the goodness of his heart. E: It's not a favour. The fate of the world is at stake. I'm going to go talk to him. C: I'll go with Ezran while you and Soren try the docks.

5x09

That said, I think about this line from 5x09 when it comes to all of the above:

E: One step ahead is okay. Because Domina Profundis told me something they don't know: the secret of the prison.

We find out, of course, that this is the prison is a pearl in a clam's mouth... something that Soren seemingly knew on account of travelling with Ez, but that Rayla and Callum did not. This puts a target on Ezran's back in the confrontation scene — she primarily attacks and interrogates him ("You know, don't you? Tell me everything you know little king, or I'll squeeze it out of you!") — and Ezran nearly gives the game away to disaster, so it's, again, not like he's perfect.

It does however showcase yet another example of Ezran knowing something that other characters discover after the fact, and more rarely in TDP, that the audience discovers after the fact (compare this with how we know Harrow is dead well before the princes do, for example, or that Claudia and Viren are already up to no good in early S4).

I also don't think I have to spell out that Ezran knowing the Secret of the Prison — the very thing he set out to find in 4x05! — in seasons called the Mystery of Aaravos is noteworthy, either. While there are certainly more secrets to uncover — how, for example, the prison was built exactly; how was Aaravos trapped within it; how did two humans like the Jailer and the Orphan Queen get involved — I think those are firmly moving into Aaravos backstory territory alongside the rest of his mysteries (cube included) than just relating purely to the prison's construction, per se.

Ezran received the last pieces of the puzzle, and he carried it through to the end to what, technically speaking, should be checkmate.

I can't wait to see him do it again some day, successfully this time.

Values and Gift Giving Subversion

I've already said that Ezran primarily takes on Harrow's mantle in being the the clearest thematic opposite to Aaravos thus far. That doesn't mean Callum and Rayla don't have their oppositions and parallels to Aaravos as well (they absolutely do; Rayla is currently a pretty strong foil!) but again that Ezran is the certified Opponent.

A few final ways we see this manifest is in Ezran's values. We've already seen the ultimate difference in their views on personhood, but one of my favourite ways that heavily intersects it that Ezran loves all his friends for the exact reasons Aaravos berates them in 4x04.

Aaravos taunts Rayla over her seeming inability to kill, but Ezran is the first to tell Rayla that's unequivocally a good thing: "You do realize I'm an assassin who hasn't killed anyone?" "I think that's a good thing."

Soren is a failed son 'unloved' by his father, but Ezran reaffirms time and time again how much he loves Soren, and the two always have a kind word or look for each other ("I just don't want to fail you too" "Thanks Soren [...] You're the best crownguard a king could ask for").

In a season where Callum learns his path of magic may have gotten him in a world of trouble, Ezran reminds him of the positive effect magic has had on his life, even if it's difficult: "Lots of things are hard, Callum. Like magic. But you figured that out".

We also see that Aaravos is prone to false gifts and dangling carrots. He gave Ziard a staff that couldn't ultimately protect him. He gives Viren another month of life mostly to bait Claudia into helping him. He uses and discards; these people don't mean anything to him. Not anymore.

Ezran, meanwhile, is nothing but sincere, particularly in his presentation of his crown to Finnegrin and Rex Igneous ("It's not worthless, it's made of my father's sword" / "I wanted to carry that strength with me") while also recognizing the error in his thinking: "We've got it all wrong. We offered gifts that meant a lot to us, but the truth is, they don't mean anything to you." He then realizes what Rex Igneous truly needs, and it is successful; we see this again in how his speech in 4x03 helps heal Zubeia. Ezran sees emotional scars clearly, especially after 4x03, and he responds accordingly and sensitively to them most of the time. He knows what people truly need, and that's why he's a good gift giver.

Conclusion

In the final season I think it would be Neato if Ezran had to spearhead an army against Aaravos' forces and send his brother and friends in as generals and soldiers because he doesn't want to treat them like pawns, he loves them, but to beat Aaravos at his own game he has to do so (until maybe Callum can flip the board on its head, thematically, anyway). Thank you bye

[jesncin]

I appreciate most of your takes but don't understand how you look at a character like livewire, a character created in the middle of a 90's feminist movement and come to the conclusion she's supposed to a be a caricature of classical racist conservatism

?? huh is this an elaborate joke I'm missing out on?? Like you're roleplaying as a Shockateer? There's no tone indicators so I'm left to my own perception that you're being serious so I'll have to respond in seriousness. I'm gonna be so embarrassed if this is a joke :(((

So...just because a character is made "in the middle of the 90's" or "feminist movement" doesn't...mean they're a feminist character? Like with that logic, Tana Moon is a feminist icon I guess. Also "caricature of classical racist conservatism"? man, I kinda envy how people think the way I write her is Cartoony Evil Racism and not a toned down depiction of how personalities like Posie Parker, Matt Walsh, and Blaire White talk. I suppose I'm glad you haven't encountered anyone that awful. Good for you! 👍

Livewire meta under the cut fellas

I feel like you don't have a very holistic view of Livewire's character. Because while yes, she has been used for feminist critique in the show and comics, that's not all there is to her character. My take on Livewire is a commentary on how white womanhood intersects with parasocial internet grifts and the larger way identity gets filtered online. It's a take influenced by how she literally started out as a controversial provocative shock jock in STAS.

There's so much potential to re-imagine her hatred of Superman as a commentary on how white women feel justified in harassing marginalized men because it looks like a punch-up to misogyny. The way she uses the accident Superman caused as a way to white-woman-victimize herself and prime her audience to hate him more. You can take the spinoff comic where she only lets women speak on the air as her presenting a black and white, non-intersectional view of social progress. Kind of like how TERFs keep fantasizing about a world without men as a utopia? In CW Supergirl, Livewire plays into internalized misogyny and homophobia to jab at Supergirl. Not showing up for her fellow women if you ask me.

Because while yes, Leslie has been shown to be a character who had to deal with sexism, she's also a really compelling narrative for an imperfect victim. Just because a character deals with sexist hardship, doesn't mean it makes her a feminist ideal y'know? Leslie lashes out and weaponizes her victimhood, she uses her audience to bully others.

I think one of the flaws to the longevity of her character as a villain is because her narrow hatred of Supes makes her themes short lived. So I really want to expand it through Satoshi Kon-style deconstruction of how people juggle having multiple identities in the modern era. In the (bleh) Batgirl Burnside comic Livewire shows up in, she returns as a being of energy who doesn't remember who she was before. In STAS, it's left ambiguous whether she actually believes what she says about Superman or if it's all part of an act that "pays the bills!".

Imagine the opportunity to make it so she pieced together a sense of self from the fractured way her audience viewed her! What a great way to talk about how parasocial relationships make us think we know a person from the bombastic way they present themselves (Casually Comics thought of this brilliant take). DCSHG has been the most competent reimagining of Livewire. A perfect update of her shock jock origins into the internet era that revitalizes her attention-seeking traits into the clout-chasing grind of social media personality.

All this to say, Livewire's way more that just "sassy woman on the radio fighting against The Man!" I think making her a punk appropriating, rebellious, internet personality who uses her privilege to marginalize others for clout and money is a natural, more political progression of what DCSHG built with her character.

I don't really understand how you can look at a character whose most prominent iterations involve her bullying and targeting people (including other women) and tell me she's "feminist" unless you actually believe in Leslie's version of White Woman Girl Power. Any kind of "feminism" that touts Hating Men as a major point should be something to be critical of.