#I've seen such a 'the ends justify the means' mindset with how people try to make discourse-type posts gain traction

[torchickentacos]

Posts that are like "if you reblog without this condescending addition then [threat/guilt tripping/etc]" baffle me so much because like... how are you going to verify that someone purposefully reblogged without that specific thread addition? It's such an empty claim. You cannot prove that a person went out of their way to ignore a specific reblog addition. Posts go around with like 5 different post-addition variations, that's just how tumblr works??? forever confusing and mildly annoying honestly.

[bluebunnyears-08]

Why Nine is The Secondary Protagonist in Sonic Prime

I recently made an appreciation post about this edgy little fella, however, when I rewatch the show (yes I rewatch it several times daily, so what?) I feel the cogs in my brain turn and create several theories. Looking back at Nine, I realized he will be one of the BIG characters, not the big (relevant to the plot and development), but the BIG (really fucking important).

As in MIGHT BE THE DEUTERAGONIST type of BIG.

Sonic is the protagonist, as he usually is in his games, however, Nine is another huge character who is not only crucial to the plot but might also twist the plot as well.

A deuteragonist is an essential secondary character in a narrative, second only to the protagonist, and may act like a constant companion or someone who aids the protagonist. However, the deuteragonist can change from helping the protag to actively opposing them, depending on their own conflict or plot.

Nine already proves to be a huge character in Sonic Prime, however, in the first batch of episodes, Shadow does somewhat take up some of this role. However, he might change to become a tritagonist in future episodes. Someone who helps the protagonist, is the third most important character, and often the third member of the group.

So Nine might be the TRUE deuteragonist and I DO have a list of reasons why I think so.

So, with that said, let's begin.

1. He is already established to be an important character

From the first moment we meet him, we already know he's going to be a very important character in the plot. He fixes up Sonic's shoes and gloves figures out how to use a shard to open a portal, and is a very formidable ally. He is an important character to keep the plot going and to help explain the plot. However, it's not like those Sonic games, where he's just there to explain the plot. He HAS a character and personality, he's not just a cardboard cutout.

He HAS depth and complexity to him. Something I can appreciate considering the past media of any version of Tails the past years (not including Frontiers, that game was amazing). He's also obviously going to continue to be an important character in season two as well.

2. He's a very engaging character

Let's all admit it: Nine is the most interesting character in Sonic Prime. Not just because of his mindset of "get this however you can no matter what" and "do whatever it takes and needs to survive". Not just that but his snarky and cold personality combined with his nine-tailed badassery just makes him an engaging and enjoyable character.

The things he does can leave people scrambling for answers. Why exactly did he change his mind about helping the rebels? What is he planning? What is going on in that fluffy head of his?

So many questions that leave us waiting with anticipation for the next batch of episodes for answers.

3. People can relate to his trauma

Nine's backstory is what we expected, but that doesn't mean it holds back punches. Without Sonic to defend him from bullies, without Sonic to care for him and take him in, he learned to trust and look out only for himself. It's a sad backstory and it explains why he's so guarded and aloof all the time.

I've read posts that state they relate deeply to Nine and can immerse themselves in his character with empathy. I can confirm as being a victim of abuse. He's aggressive and snarky because he has walls, walls that he put up to never get hurt again. He doesn't try to justify himself in his backstory, stating he "wasn't minding his surroundings" instead of "I didn't know" or "it wasn't my fault" he shows signs of a sort of self-resentment. Again, I can relate SO MUCH to, thinking that I could've prevented it and holding myself responsible for not doing anything, that I could've stopped it from happening.

Those who suffer or have suffered can see themselves in Nine, and as a result, the sorrow we feel for him can hit harder if we know what it was like.

4. We don't know where his character is going to end up

Another bunch of posts I've seen about Nine is that we legitimately don't know where his character is going to end up. He's muddled deep in his mystery and inner turmoil that we can't see the deep end of what he's going to be. A hero? A villain? An Anti-hero?

Just what's going to happen to him?!

He has a plan but what is it?

5. He's the most controversial character

Nine's intentions and character have been put in many perspectives on what people think he's planning, what he's going to be, why he does certain things, whether he cares for Sonic or not, whether he trusts Sonic or not, and MORE.

He's been theorized and twisted into what people think about him and what he's going to do. In my opinion, if a character does this to a community, you KNOW you're doing something right. Controversial characters are very mysterious and morally ambiguous, you don't truly know why they do the things they do or what they plan, but you have your own ideas on what might happen and other people do too, despite them possibly being different from yours.

Controversy (WHEN NOT LEADING TO VIOLENCE AND DEATH THREATS) is very fun and interesting. Reading people's thoughts even if they differ from your own, with the possibility that they might change your own theories is a very enlightening and interesting thing!

6. He has a completely opposite goal to Sonic

It's very clear that Sonic and Nine have different goals that clash with each other. Sonic, being the all-loving hero he is, wants to return home and see his true friends again, not to mention help and protect the other shatter spaces. Nine on the other hand wants to make a new home, a world with just him and Sonic and nobody else, not caring for the other shatter spaces or anybody else.

Their goals clash with each other and can't be fulfilled at the same time. Nine's goal includes only him and Sonic and no one else. Sonic's goal includes others, not to mention these two are from two completely different universes.

It's clear these two, no matter how close they are, won't give up their goal for the other, so unless their willing to compromise, it might lead to something bigger.

7. His goal separates him from other variations of himself and others

While he is just another variation of one of the main characters, his goal of achieving something beyond his own universe along with keeping Sonic differentiated from the other main variations who want something within their own shatter space. Thorn wanted to keep the jungle from being destroyed, and Dread wanted the shard out of greed, the rebels want to put the council out of power and take back their land, the jungle variants wanted to eat and live among the jungle again, and the pirates are just typical pirates.

Unlike the others, whose goals can be achieved in their universes, Nine wants nothing to do with his own. Like Sonic, Nine's goal is related to the shatter space.

8. Nine truly has no one EXCEPT Sonic

Another thing to differentiate him from the other versions of himself and the main cast is how Nine has nothing to lose. Other versions of him have a group of the main cast, hell even Rusty Rose finds herself valued (not sentimentally but still) and useful to the council. Nine, however, has nobody until this bright blue hedgehog told him about a life he could've had, a life Sonic gave to his other self.

So it's no wonder he took the very person who can give him the same life to a new shatter space. He wants that desperately. It's no wonder he doesn't show an interest in getting Sonic home anymore, if he does that, the chance of having the life he always wanted, that hope, would be gone forever. I don't think Nine's going to let that happen easily.

9. Everyone roots for him and wants him to be happy

There are zero people that don't want him to achieve his goal of love and happiness. Not just for the fact that he's a version of a character we're already emotionally invested in, but also because Nine is his own person. He's still a person who was horribly abused to the point of being jaded and cold.

Seeing him smile or show comfort really melts my heart cause this kid deserves SO MUCH! I know you all agree. But it is depressing to remember that Sonic NEEDS to go back and restore his world, he'll have to leave Nine behind. I don't think they're going to go with Sonic taking Nine with him because of what might happen with the whole "they can't see each other" stuff.

And with how stubborn and desperate Nine is...

I'm curious about how they figure this out and resolve this.

10. He might affect the plot

A protagonist is not just the lead character who pushes the plot along, they also affect and can possibly change the plot as well. Sonic already kicked off the plot, it's possible for Nine to affect it in a BIG way. This can lead to a LOT of possibilities when you consider that. We KNOW he has a plan and it has something to do with the Chaos Council capturing him. This fact can lead to a LOT of interpretations.

Well, that was my list of how Nine might be the deuteragonist of Sonic Prime in the future. Thanks for reading and I hope you have a lovely day <3

[fandombead]

Misconception About Patton (SvS)

I think I've seen a lot of takeaways from this episode be that Patton pushed for what he wanted regardless of how the others felt. However, I believe this is ignoring first that he's a facet of c!Thomas and represents his core values and thus what Thomas ultimately believed was right as well, even if he wasn't happy about it.

Interesting quotes that I think get forgotten or removed from context about how SVS went down:

I find it interesting that people claim Patton manipulated the others, namely Roman. I dispute this because of the intent required for something to be manipulation vs misguiding someone and the word is thrown around carelessly. Janus, however, was the one to actually "manipulate" Roman to his advantage in the situation, and while you can justify it, I am simply pointing out that people do not get on his case as harshly for this thing they claim Patton did.

Patton is the product of c!Thomas's inner learned morality + his feelings, which makes the host as guilty as any of them for that representation of trying to break out of a learned mindset, which Patton is. He's changing as c!Thomas learns, and making mistakes such as not listening to the other parts of Thomas that may suggest he is not a perfect, "good" person by their original standards. Categorizing yourself as a "good" or "bad" person based on some scoring system is not something you want to do: people DO good and bad (and neutral) things, they aren't good or bad themselves.

Labeling yourself as "good" may just help you justify everything you do even when it's objectively bad because "well I'm a good person so this is good too". And labeling yourself (or others labeling you) as "bad" might just make you feel stuck and like you can never be anything more, and so you just become it with all your decisions. These are not the human experience. Nuance aside, everything is relative and you'll be picking apart every aspect of yourself trying to figure out "which you are".

Thomas is essentially trying to convince part of himself that it'd be okay to go against his morals for a beneficial reason. There was no right answer (going to the wedding or not) that would make everyone happy; Patton was doing what they asked and giving Thomas the moral answer based on c!Thomas's sincere priorities (like his friendships and being trustworthy).

(Pat's the emotional center AND the moral center of Thomas, which conflict more often than not, and are part of the reason this guy really struggled with separating the two while making his case-- he's unfortunately the holder of both.)

Where Patton was wrong was putting others first 100% of the time. Now, to be fair to Patton, he did agree that there are times when you should put yourself first, but they were circumstantial and in service to helping others more. This isn't healthy and is on the extreme end close to self harmful because you're prioritizing others even when you don't have the means to give, which can lead to burnout and neglect of yourself. The "opposite" end of this is only caring about your own means and using others as a means to an end. Both of these can lead to ruining your social and emotional connections to others.

And again, these are manifestations of the inner turmoil c!Thomas is having. These are his beliefs (read as "moral code") vs his wants battling it out and no matter what he settled on given the options, he'd have been unhappy. (note though: Roman did bring up simply asking Lee and Mary Lee about this directly and sometimes open communication is the best solution-- a lot of the time, actually)

At the end of the day in this part, Patton was defending c!Thomas ' character and relationships (which are important to them) while Janus wanted c!Thomas to not feel obligated to put his own goals behind the wants of others, especially with minimum benefit in both regards (Thomas's presence at the wedding was less impactful for them than the callback would have potentially been for Thomas, and it was a high Opportunity Cost).

Patton is essentially a representation of a religious upbringing sticking certain ideals in your core beliefs that even once you separate yourself from it, still for better or worse guide a lot about you. He's changing and evolving from that, and I do get why a character like this puts a bad taste in people's mouths and they associate him with that. That's entirely valid and I get it. This isn't about that-- I'm not over here arguing he did nothing wrong or that you can't hate him for whatever reason you want, that's not what I'm saying nor what I care about here-- I'm just clearing up what I've seen in canon versus how a majority neurodivergent fandom with certain life experiences might have warped the view of him in hindsight. This is not a malicious jerk trying to get his way and at the other extreme, he's not an innocent bean who wasn't ever in the wrong.

There ARE other examples of him pushing points associated with his roles and having to change throughout the series to this point. He just is the one looked at the hardest out of the sides (who all do this at some point in the series) because he's supposed to have all the answers when morality is one of the most difficult things you have to figure out in life. He didn't claim to have all the answers, but c!Thomas needs them from him to be the best person he can, and that will ultimately conflict and be more complicated than the black-and-white morality kids get taught and then have to alter as they grow up and see a complex world.

We all have to deal with that and it's uncomfortable to confront it. It manifesting in one character separate from yourself is easier than consolidating that that's a part of everyone, and one that isn't fun to examine all the time. I just really like how the show brings philosophies I studied into the next episode, but do think that a chunk of the audience did misunderstand / block out what Patton was actually saying/trying to do...I'm gonna rewatch the Redux episode and also keep an eye out for what people might be talking about when they specifically talk about his actions being problematic there, but I definitely believe the intent of this character (and how Thomas has presented him) does not get to the conclusion of him being willfully any more pushy or mistaken than the others at one point or another.

[ofmermaidstories]

1. Not really....? It's hard to figure out my actual thoughts on it but I guess, Self-inserting for me feels like it's designed for one person in mind (whoever is being inserted) when x reader can be anyone? And from what I've seen, the content is a bit different.

2. Probably? Definitely. But will I be the person criticizing it? No... I'm not really the type to be vocal about my grievances outside of the occasional personal aside. I usually just don't trust what I have to say is constructive. But I do love hearing what other people have to say.

3. Everything

Jkjk, um.... I'd say my motivation and writing style? (That doesn't fall under everything, right?) I just don't write very effectively. Like- I have a story in my head, but actually putting it down in writing, I kinda just wing it? Like write as I go. Which is fun for developing character lore, or short stories. It leads to a lot of stop and go with longer works, and the problem with that is that it looks clunky! If I'm an a completely different state of my mind than I was when I started a piece the words I put down don't really flow well with what came before. So I have to read and reread what's already been written and play mediator by finding a way to transition from one feeling to the next.

I mostly write for friends or for fun, though, so it's forgivable.

the content being different for self-inserting vs x reader is such an important distinction!! like. also in how you engage with it, too? like—i’m always interested in self-shippy stuff from a, best friend at brunch kinda way, you know? like “YESSSS tell me more, omg, you guys are sooo cute together 🥹” whereas if someone is like, bits&pieceing about an idea for a x reader setup, i’m engaging with it as a reader, like, oh, i am interested in whatever this this piece or fic is trying to lure us in with.

i keep running into i guess… fan-only spaces, for varying Big Fics? and they’re always so interesting to scroll through, because it’s just either people gushing about Said Fic, or like, recommending similar ones, OR it’s someone starting a conversation (a tiktok is the example i’m thinking of) being like, “deku wouldn’t wear fishnets” and then like, everyone who’s had similar grievances just like, jumping in LOL. none of it—the universal loving and the dismissal—is like.. in any way truly critical? it’s just people who’ve found each other agreeing over varying things. true constructive criticism (at least in fanfics) is hard… because you do have to seperate yourself from, “is this just not for me” vs. “i see and understand where this story is trying to land, but i don’t think it makes it” and even then you kinda have to… justify it, you know? like, is it not landing because it’s missed the mark, or do you just wish it did something different? and what i like about fanfic is that we (ideally) afford each other the—generosity of forgiving things, LOL. and i guesssss my original question is more… does becoming a mega, fandom-defining fic mean the fic then loses the privilege of that generosity? i think it must create a distance between it and the fandom it’s from, in a way… it sort of takes on the same… almost for-granted quality we might have with a published book? are we removing ourselves from it, by holding it up? HMMM. questions questions ig LOL.

with no. 3—flow is hard!!! 🥺 do you have any like, rituals or anything to get yourself back into the mindset you had, before picking up the piece again? if i leave off in the middle of a scene or whatever that needs to stick to a specific mood i listen to my playlist for the fic, or whatever. 🥹 it kinda helps to limber everything back up again. but—i mean!!! as long as you have fun with it, in the end. 🥺 the process of writing takes up so much time… we need to enjoy it, in some small way. especially if the end result is for friends and fun. 🥹

[xxmothangelxx]

Shady Rambles Dislyte Part 6: A Written Movie Sequal

So, I made this post yesterday, and after I was able to make a reddit post that I feel better summarized my point! It may be a tad pretentious in its writing and I do apologize for that, but still, I hope you enjoy!

As a lover of writing and Dislyte, I've always been unnecessarily invested in the story. Funnily enough, unlike most people the story and characters are really my main reason for not giving up on the game – in spite of all the less than favorable updates – so although many argue the story is sub-par, I quite enjoy it. This love of characters and story has made it so I try to keep up with most events. I'll be honest, I stopped playing the game after Valeria's event (and I have yet to read through the ones that I've missed) but I have since completed Cellblock Chaos so I'm making my way back into the game!

Needless context aside, I wanted to discuss the concept of grey morality and why it always bothered me when it was mentioned in reference to the Shadow Decree, it took me a while to figure out why but I feel that I can now put it into words. It is because the Shadow Decree are objectively an irredeemable terrorist organization that have committed human rights violations so extreme, that in a more realistic world Hyde would have been sentenced to death by firing squad upon arrest.

The issue with grey morality and the concept of an anti-hero is a lot of consumers and fans have the false mindset that if a villain has a 'point' then the villain is any less evil. Now, the issue with that therein lies with the fact that morality is less based on thought and more based on action, it doesn't matter if you have a "moral" way of thinking if your actions don't reflect that. This issue can be seen within the Shadow Decree in abundance, many of the characters have seemingly understandable reasons for being members, but their actions within the group contradict their so-called moral standpoint.

For example, many argue that the reason Hyde isn't a villain is because his research is all for the "greater good", he is an ends justify the means sort of person. However, you then have to take into account that Hyde actively partakes in and encourages human trafficking and non-consensual human experimentation. Does it really matter if it is "for the greater good" if you are actively allowing hundreds of innocents to die for experiments that lead to nothing at all?

I am brought back to two events in particular: Brewster and Yun Chuan's. In both events, it is revealed that the Shadow Decree's crimes run deeper than just bothering the Union and stealing their members.

With Brewster, we find out that Shadow Decree actively buys trafficking victims off what can only be described as a black market and experiments on them in an attempt to turn them into espers. These people do not consent, and are nothing more than cattle to them. Few are "successful" like Brewster, with a majority of them dying from the strain placed upon their bodies. Brewster himself was sold by his abusive father and still suffers immense trauma from his time under Kara.

Yun Chuan's hits closer to home however; as someone with many criticisms of the prison industrial complex – more specifically how inmates are treated – to hear that the Shadow Decree makes deals with prisons to experiment on inmates was incredibly chilling. It was one of the most true to life, realistic portrayals of how deep systemic corruption truly is, especially in how it mirrors the real life abuse of incarcerated people globally.

I simply do not see these as the actions of a "morally grey" group of people that only "want the best". I feel that the reason many are quick to slap the morally grey label onto the Shadow Decree is character bounties, most bounties are slice of life stories that show the characters going about their daily business, of course Ophelia and Catherine seem nicer and more likable. Though you then remember that they bombed an orphanage for virtually no reason and suddenly they seem less like good people.

Now, this isn't me saying that you cannot like them or that liking them reflect poorly on you as a person! I for one am definitely a Shadow Decree apologist haha, my top favorite espers are majority Shadow Decree, and I find them to be an interesting group of people with the potential for great storytelling. With that being said, I feel we as media consumers have a habit of becoming so attached to certain characters that we forget that their actions do indeed play a role in who they are.

To be a part of the Shadow Decree is to say that you are okay with human trafficking, human experimentation, terrorism, weapons smuggling, political corruption, prison industrial system corruption, child murder (remember the orphanage bombing that killed Stewart's lover and also a bunch of children?). The Union is certainly not free of skeletons, their rampant negligence shows this, however I cannot feel comfortable saying that they are in any way just as bad or worse than the Shadow Decree based on everything the Dislyte lore has told us.

TLDR: I believe the reason many argue that the Shadow Decree are morally grey, or that they're even a well-meaning group, is because many of the characters have sad backstories, attractive designs, and cute personalities. Though I cannot agree, because I feel that it disregards all the genuinely horrific (and mostly unnecessary) actions of the group; I don't see how people that bomb orphanages and experiment on trafficking victims can be any less than evil.

With all of that being said I would give my left kidney and run over a baby kitten if it meant that Catherine would blink in my direction.

[insertsacoolname]

Do you think Noah will ever make a genuine apology? I really hope he does make a genuine apology at some point and not one just to make people "move on" and "get off his back" or whatever. Even then, there's still blood on his hands, but the least he could do is show that he's trying to educate himself. It seems he's surrounded by a lot of ppl who have those views though, so I have a hard time believing he will truly do that (not saying it's impossible, I grew up with bigots and have completely different views than them). I know he is capable I mean... he's in an Ivy League school (though ppl may argue that's for other reasons aside from brains). IDK, I just see it backfiring either way. Rn complete silence is best and I believe it will be that way for a while.

I can't really say for sure, but still I believe that he will make a genuine apology not just to make us move on from his actions but an actual genuine one. There was a time when I was homophobic, I mean I didn't hate gay people but I still felt grossed out by them and now, I fully support their rights and don't feel grossed by their relationships. Even now, a few months back I was a pro Israeli supporter (since I only listened to biased news on my phone) but now I fully support Palestine over Israel (after listening to actual news about how conflict happened and what the Israeli government did to those poor people). I will not go into more details about this situation because it's a really sensitive topic for me to discuss but what I'm trying to say is that ur surroundings do affect your mind even if it's not deep. Now I'm not trying to justify Noah's action, he is practically an adult he should've known better but I still believe he was affected by his surroundings, I mean he literally grew up in a Jewish family and who knows what his family mindsets are? There might be a possibility that he is being taught about hating Palestine since his childhood, but who knows. I'm not blaming his family but I'm telling what might be the possibility of his current actions.

I've seen people sending him death threats which is disgusting, like it's not helping people who are suffering you are just being as down as him.

And yes you are right, it would be much better if we right now don't talk about this. Meaning complete silence is the best option now. And let's just hope that he makes a genuine apology and people's suffering ends for good this time. And everything went back to normal just like it used to :)

[sergeantsporks]

thinking abt a what if scenario where my golden guard oc was inducted into the gilded fam (bc you said it was ok to write abt them interacting). first off, his name was achilles, he lived during a time where belos was still trying to gain power, so he ended up doing a lot of bad stuff for him. like. “killing entire villages to end a rebellion” levels of bad. in terms of personality, he was a very honor-obsessed, noble, knightly type. bc of this, he didnt question belos like. at all. and while he did not enjoy the atrocities he was committing, he thought they were necessary and done for a reason. “the ends justify the means” sort of situation yknow

naturally, you can expect him to not react well when he accidentally finds out what the day of unity Actually entails, and goes and violently confronts belos abt it. they fight, achilles gets the upper hand and wrongfully assumes belos is dead, belos doesnt die for anything tho and cuts his achilles tendon as hes walking away and finishes him off

i imagine that suddenly waking up in the gilded house would. kind of actively make his mental health worse. suddenly having to live with the knowledge that everything he did was ultimately in vain would eat him alive. physically, hed have one of the easier recoveries, he has a limp and a lot of stab wounds & bruises, but its not the worst evelyn has seen. mentally, hes kind of on a downward spiral from minute 1. he feels incredibly guilty abt all the crimes hes committed and all the people hes killed, and he wishes that both belos and himself had died back then. he could absolutely be convinced to stay at the house and even bond with the others, but this is something hes never going to forgive himself for. or at the very least, he wouldnt get to that point in recovery for a WHILE

theres also the issue that theyd kinda have to break him from a soldier mindset (but i imagine hes hardly unique in that experience). like he thinks his life doesnt matter and can be thrown away for anything. he immediately clocks caleb and evelyn as the ultimate authority in the household and treats every request and question from them like an order that hes not allowed to disobey. which would cause some obvious problems. he even bows to them in their first meeting. which they wouldnt like for obvious reasons. hed definitely need to learn to have Some self worth and learn that hes allowed to make choices for himself. hed treat being asked to help in the kitchen with the same deathly seriousness as if he was being ordered to the frontlines in a war

tbh i could actually see him getting along well with jason. he doesnt understand Everything he talks abt, but he does genuinely enjoy hearing abt noble heroes vanquishing monsters and all the other stuff from his books. i could even see jason suggesting the name achilles to him in the first place (id say what his dynamic would be w/ the others, but its been a while since i read the fic n i dont remember their personalities that well)

uhhh. thats kinda all i got to tell you abt the mental rabbit hole i just went down. um. he knows how to swordfight too and would gladly teach the others if they wanted to learn. what do you think of this? sorry for this ask being an absolute wall of text btw

Hmmmmm I think he and Cherry would... idk, not "get along" per se (in a "besties" sense), but just. "Same trauma!!! I've done some stuff that I am very not proud of and oh gosh I was a monster!!!" bonding. Despite being from VERY different time periods. That, and he and Petro would both have the "big help in the rise to power" similarity.

Jason would absolutely go sparkle-eyed infodump on him the instant he said something about heroes. I hope Achilles is ready for the whole Illiad to learn about his namesake, because Jason is going to recite it for him. As was initially intended by the text.

[tumblingxelian]

Perhaps overthinking it, but there's something to be said of people's unwillingness to let go of the fantasy of Batman as a vigilante paragon, instead of recognizing him as the deeply screwed up mess of a man who desperately needs help. At least it FEELS like that; I'm not sure what needs to be said about it, but I FEEL like it's there.

Like, I know next to nothing about Batman outside of the Animated Series and Justice League, and bits and pieces of the Dark Knight Trilogy movies. But based on pop culture bits I've seen every now and again, it often feels like there's a tension between people wanting to expand on the character of Batman/Bruce Wayne, and those who aren't willing to really consider the really fucked up nature of Batman.

His role as a vigilante and superhero, and how it reflects real life's obsession with trying to find ways to valorize, whitewash, overlook, or take deeply disturbing interpretations of Batman as either some kind of pro-copaganda type of character, or lionizes him solely in regards to his superheroing without critically thinking about the implications of that superhero aspect of his life (and how it can come off as authoritarian-adjacent and whatnot depending on the circumstances), the nature of his trauma and how it fuels the darker aspects of his mindset and his relationship with everyone else, either from glossing over it to justify the end result of his actions at the expense of other characters or vice versa...

Like, I can't explain it because I don't have enough insight to be able to put it to proper words, but it just FEELS like it.

Mhm, I definitely think I get what you are saying there. Like I enjoy certain fics, memes and such as much as the next person, but that's in a birder line "This is like an abridged series" way, not as a serious exploration of the character. But a lot of people seem very attached to an idea of Batman who is anti police brutality, very progressive, super kind and socially conscious which ah, I'm not sure he's ever been that even at his peek niceness. Even in the 'best' Batman BTAS, he's an incredibly dysfunctional mane who destroys basically all his personal relationships and relies on brutality and terror to get information. I am idly reminded of a post that said "you people don't want Batman, you want Green Arrow" who does feel closer to the character they want.

I've engaged with a good amount of Batman media at this point and I think I get what you're referencing there.

Ooh very articulately put there! Yeah there's definitely a to of groups who want very different things from Batman, be it a progressive idealist, a cop, or some kind of man beyond all, who is better than the system and those against it. None of which really digs into what being Batman, what having those life experiences, what making the decisions he does, and what being like he is overall means for his character really... Means?

I think you've done well, thanks for sharing!

[katherinemckay]

elphaba and glinda's choices in defying gravity

or "glinda's choice to stay behind is very justified and objectively leads to more success by the end of the show": an essay

okay so i came across people discussing whether glinda or elphaba made the more difficult choice in defying gravity and the comments were overwhelmingly elphaba biased and as a glinda biased girlie i wanted to write my little analysis of this scene so this is my 1 am, hyperfixation-driven take on this show <3

so as the audience we spend all of act one meant to empathize with elphaba. she's your typical underdog protagonist; the world is basically against her and you root for her because she has good intentions and goals. so, when she decides to give up everything to fight for what's right, we naturally admire this choice and cheer her on. this tends to make people feel like glinda made the cowardly/weak choice to stay back, but i think it's more complicated than that.

first, we have to look at these choices in the context of their lives. glinda has presumably grown up in privilege and has spent her entire life striving to be perfect, as she's desperate for everyone to love her and will continue trying to put on this act even when it makes her miserable (see: all of thank goodness). in contrast, elphaba's life is the opposite: she's never really received love from anyone before her friendship with glinda, even her relationship with nessa is very strained. all that she has driving her forward are her own personal goals and ambitions (see: the wizard and i), so when she realizes what's going on with the wizard, she's naturally going to continue prioritizing these goals. however, they look different now that she realizes the wizard and her society in general are actually responsible for these problems- now, she has to center herself in achieving these goals, as she can't strive for the wizard's help anymore. this means that although it is still an incredibly bold and difficult decision, elphaba forging her own path is basically the natural choice for her going forward. however, when we look back at glinda, it's the opposite- impulsively uprooting her entire life is not at all a reasonable course of action from her perspective. she has everything (she thinks that she wants) to lose- her reputation, the opportunities the wizard is offering her (and we know she's been interested in sorcery and has wanted to do this for awhile), and even her relationship with fiyero that she's still trying to maintain. this is very different from elphaba's situation, who even points out she basically has nothing left to lose ("i've been afraid of losing love i guess i've lost"). so, going with elphaba would be a much more high-stakes decision for glinda in the context of her life and what she values at this point in the story.

additionally, i think a main theme a lot of general fans miss about wicked is the fact that glinda and elphaba do want the same thing (glinda not going with elphaba does not mean she actually supports the wizard!!!!!), but they are just fundamentally different in how they believe change gets made. glinda has always believed that how someone is seen affects the power they have. she explicitly states this mindset in popular- "did they have brains or knowledge?... they were popular", "it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed, so it's very shrewd to be very, very popular." because glinda has grown up in privilege, she understands that in her society, people who are widely liked hold the most power. in contrast, elphaba believes/wants to believe that change can be made by taking a stand and doing what's right; this is the mindset we see in defying gravity. the differences in how glinda and elphaba see the world very strongly explain the differences in how they act throughout the show. glinda choosing to run away with elphaba in defying gravity ultimately wouldn't make sense for her because that's not how she believes change happens. based on how important glinda deems popularity, i truly believe she thinks that staying back and finding a powerful position within the ozian government is the best way to slowly push for change. everything glinda does is so carefully calculated, while everything elphaba does tends to be more impulsive, and so this is seen in their methods for trying to fight against the injustice in oz. i don't believe it makes either of them weak or wrong; it's just two very different mindsets that reflect their very different life experiences.

finally, i think one of the most crucial plot points of the show that almost everyone seems to miss is the fact that ultimately, glinda was right. elphaba forging her own path results in her image becoming even worse in oz, to the point where no one besides glinda sees her as anything but wicked. because of this, she ends up completely unable to make any of the change she was hoping for, as her image as the wicked witch ruins her chances of any kind of public support. she even explicitly tells this to glinda in for good: "i'm limited, just look at me / i'm limited, and just look at you, you can do all i couldn't do, glinda." here, elphaba realizes she's limited because she is so widely hated... but glinda isn't. because glinda is widely loved, because glinda spent all of these years carefully constructing a perfect public image, glinda has earned herself power, which she can now use to make a difference. elphaba is admitting that glinda can do what elphaba can't, and that's because glinda made that choice to stay behind. as tragic as it is, glinda's outlook on the world was more realistic than elphaba's, and so it ultimately lands glinda in a position of power with the opportunity to make change.

tldr: glinda is the smartest character in wicked please stop being mean to her :(

[asexual-means-no-attraction]

This is regarding the long post you reblogged (with a Twitter thread about being tomboy, terfs etc). While I agree that being "boyish" has never really been acceptable for a girl, it still doesn't add up to me that trans people are "the good guys" of the "gender stereotype war". You are probably the only trans person I know of who can say that wearing dresses =/= being a woman lmao. The other trans people I see online... stereotypes on stereotypes, "saying makeup and dresses have nothing to do with being a woman is transphobic and invalidating", "if you don't like being treated like a girl you are probably not a girl", etc. Or all these "I'm a complex human being therefore I'm not a woman" celebrities coming out as non-binary. Or when people are whining that Vi from Arcane should be trans/is trans-coded (because how can a cis woman be muscular, unladylike, kick ass and be into women, indeed). At the same time, feminists, including radical-leaning ones, often say that you don't have to look or behave in any specific way to be a woman (or man for that matter), that there's nothing wrong with being a masculine woman. I'm not trying to change your opinion or start a quarrel, just sharing my experience, I guess.

I think this post would be a good read for you. It talks about different reasons some trans folk can be sexist and it does tie into gender roles (not justifying it. Just explaining).

I completely agree on the "I'm complex so I'm not a woman" nb bullshit that celebs pull. It's 100% a thing and it's really annoying.

For the trans coded stuff I can get the annoyance. But I'd also tread carefully on judging a group based on how they act in a fandom. Fandom spaces are all about head canons and having fun. Pointing out how a character comes off as trans because of x, y, z is just one way people like to relate to characters. That doesn't mean they should harass writers and artists like I've seen people in fandom do about all sorts of things (beyond being trans). But that's a discussion for how fandom culture has evolved not for the trans community specifically.

Just in general I do get shit from not just radfems but other trans folk when I talk about how gender is biological, clothes don't equal gender, and gender is not a feeling. I'm a man because I'm a man. I might have been born otherwise, but that doesn't change who I am. Science has backed me up and no matter what I wear I'll still be a man. Likewise gender isn't an emotion so you can't feel like a man. But being a specific gender/being trans or cis will effect your emotions. And I think that's an important distinction.

Any issue is really just like a horseshoe. The people on either end of the issue are gonna be a lot closer to each other then anyone in the center. I've met trans people that act like gender is about clothes like you discussed. I've seen them say a women is trans cuz she's tall, has muscles, etc.

But I've also met terfs (and honestly just rad leaning feminists too) see a women who won an athletic competition but had small boobs and call her a man. Because she wasn't feminine enough for them. She didn't have enough curves, enough of a chest, enough whatever. I've seen them talk about how scary it is when a tall women walks into the bathroom cuz what if she's trans.

Both ends of the mindsets are almost identical it's just whether they condemn the idea or not. Both are being not just transphobic, but really sexist and shitty.

However, I've also met plenty of feminist and trans folk who share my ideas. It's really just a matter of who you're lucky or unlucky enough to interact with. And if you're main interaction is online you're probably only gonna get the shitty ones. That said, it's definitely an important topic within the trans community cuz it's not doing anyone any favors.

[i-stand-with-survivors]

I'm glad you pointed out that even if someone reminds us of our abusers it doesn't mean THEY are, it's been grinding my gears the amount I've seen that said as a way to justify the amount of hate thrown ambers way. On another note, I am tired of people saying she doesn't act like a victim, everyone reacts so differently to abuse, just cause she didn't react the way someone else did doesn't mean she isn't a victim of it.

Mood, anon. 😭 I can sympathize with that argument because I know it's coming from a genuine place of pain and a need for validation, but at the end of the day, "this person reminds me of a bad person" is not evidence and should not be used in isolation to talk as though that person is their abuser. "This person reminds me of my abuser, so I'm going to laugh at and mock her recounting being abused and raped, call her a monster and all types of misogynistic slurs, wish harm on her, say she deserved to be abused, and harass anybody who supports her saying they are abuse apologists and all their evidence is lies" is a very frightening and warped mindset to me. People don't even talk like that about Epstein, Weinstein, or other men who were convicted of abuse.

And I very, very much feel you on that second point as well. I genuinely think people who try to police her emotions about it wouldn't believe her no matter how she acted.

"This time I wondered what behavior was acceptable for a victim. What tone? She warned me not to get angry. I learned that if you’re angry, you’re defensive. If you’re flat, you’re apathetic. Too upbeat, you’re suspect. If you weep, you’re hysterical. Being too emotional made you unreliable. But being unemotional made you unaffected. How should I balance it all?" -- Chanel Miller

As a survivor, seeing people discredit her -- or anybody for that matter -- on the sole basis that they think she doesn't "act like a victim" or because they think she expresses her emotions "wrong" in some way makes me feel really hopeless.

[haleigh-sloth]

Hello,

I just found your page and after reading some of your mha posts had a couple things I wanted to ask if that's ok.

1. Since you feel Hawks is not justified because he could have chosen options other than killing Twice, do you think he would have been had he genuinely been made to choose between killing him and saving others? I.e. do you think it's just this killing in particular that was not justified and thus murder, or do you think heroes killing can never be justified, even if in self-defense or defense of others? If we take the "Heroes save people" maxim to its limits, it might be reasonable to argue for a deontological approach to ethics rather than a utilitarian one, so that killing one to save others is not justified because you actively break your code (as opposed to risking not being able to save others, which would be considered a lesser moral wrong under this mindset).

2. This might very well be a stupid question, but if we consider that heroes shouldn't treat others as an it and put them down for the "sake of society", do you feel this ought to extend to AFO too? I really don't mean to use this as a gotcha moment or anything like it, but I feel like if MHA is trying to move away from a punitive justice system in favour of a rehabilitative/restorative one, we ought to consider where people like AFO fall into this system as well. AFO is seemingly entirely unlike any of the other villains in the show, but if we judge that he deserves a different fate for this it also feels like playing into the "Some people just can't be saved" notion that's been perpetuated by hero society. It is of course entirely possible, if not likely, that he'll fall in battle, or that Shigaraki himself will kill him eventually, but I feel like that skirts the issue rather than answer it. As someone who does not seem to show any remorse, desire or even ability to be saved, and in fact feels rather inhuman, what should a reformed society even do with him? Even if we could convincingly argue him to be fundamentally different and thus deserving of punishment, it is much easier for us readers who have more information to make this call, rather than in-universe characters whose judgement will inevitably be based on something less than the full truth. So even if AFO's case in particular was easily answered, it would set a precedent for cases that may appear similar, but in truth be less clear cut. Basically, I believe you feel the villain league deserves another chance because they were victims of their circumstances, and thus not necessarily beyond salvation, because they never knew normality to begin with, but what about those who were not victims, those who by their nature have insurmountable trouble fitting into a peaceful society? Perhaps it's just my mistaken assumption that such people exist and I'm reading AFO wrong, or perhaps it's the opposite and I'm giving people like AFO undue consideration, or perhaps my assumption that AFO ought to be treated as a person rather than a carocature, a symbol, is flawed to begin with, but I just really don't think a manga that wants to argue that villains are people too should go "but here's THIS vile piece of shit, let's kill him!". Am I making sense here?

3. On another note, what do you think of Endeavor's recent speech and general recent development? I've seen some people who were upset by his "Would it fix everything if we showed you our tears" line, but rather than him being dismissive or callous I just see it as him awkwardly saying that he doesn't think anything other than actions can help him atone for what he did. He's still got a lot to work through, but him recognizing that he's got something to atone for and freely talking about what he did to his family is, as I find, certainly a huge step in the right direction.

WHOO hey! Sorry for taking a while to respond. You gave me some really well thought-out questions and I wanted to return the favor with well thought-out answers. Also I was heckin busy yesterday when you sent this. So, here we go:

To answer this question about Hawks, I first need to clarify what it means to be a hero in the eyes of the story that is BNHA:

This honestly doesn’t even make a dent in the amount of panels in BNHA that reiterate time and time again that heroes SAVE people, but I don’t feel like I should have to spend too much time looking for them, these I used above should suffice. The one with baby Midoriya and baby Tenko doesn’t even have any words in the panel, and it’s still powerful enough to get the message across. And make me cry.

Almost every story has its own “heroes” in it. And every story’s definition of a hero is different. In Marvel and DC superhero comics and movies, the heroes usually end up killing the villains, yes? I can’t say I’m familiar with these stories because they aren’t interesting to me in the slightest, but from the ones I HAVE seen, the final boss at the end dies. But all of the heroes get to keep their title of “hero”. That’s not really the standard we have in BNHA.

“Do you think it's just this killing in particular that was not justified and thus murder, or do you think heroes killing can never be justified, even if in self-defense or defense of others?”

So this is a fair point and I feel that the best way to answer this is by asking what you consider self defense? Say Hawks is at home mad chillin and not prepared for a fight in the slightest, and somebody breaks into his house and starts trying to hurt/kill him. He’s unprepared and at this point just trying to keep himself alive. If he ends up killing the guy, is he wrong? In my opinion, no. In real life this happens to people, and they aren’t considered murderers, as they shouldn’t be. To me, self defense is a situation where:

It’s either you or me. It’s one or the other.

I think it’s fair to say what happened with Hawks and Twice was absolutely NOT self defense. I’m not going to go into detail about how deciding to kill Twice was absolutely 100% premeditated, because there’s a wonderful post by someone else that already explains that in great detail here. But I’ll end this thought by saying that Hawks was not committing an act of self defense.

Nothing about this says “self-defense” to me.

“If we take the "Heroes save people" maxim to its limits, it might be reasonable to argue for a deontological approach to ethics rather than a utilitarian one, so that killing one to save others is not justified because you actively break your code (as opposed to risking not being able to save others, which would be considered a lesser moral wrong under this mindset).”

To make it simple for some people to understand these terms:

“Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on OUTCOMES.“ In a nutshell, utilitarian ethics means you make a decision based on how it will affect everything else.

“In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.” In a nutshell, deontological ethics means you make a decision based on whether it follows rules or not.

So this is a complicated question, and my answer to this is....both? Throughout BNHA we’ve had this dilemma over and over again:

Break the rules and save the day? Or follow the rules and possibly suffer the consequences? Well, BNHA just says “Yes” lol. Do both. Break the rules and save the day. Make a decision based on the consequences of said decision, but also try to follow the rules as best as you can. Even in reality, people do this to get through life. You really can’t live life under a strict utilitarian approach or a strict deontological approach. If Midoriya hadn’t persisted against his classmates and the law to go save Bakugo, he WOULD have gotten kidnapped AGAIN. They were actively trying to take him with them. If Midoriya didn’t break the rules to save Kota, Kota would have straight up DIED. Muscular was actively trying to kill Kota, not to mention Kota had zero ways of defending himself. But here’s where I don’t think this is a fair comparison:

Hawks claims his killing of Twice was to save others. I don’t completely disagree with this logic, if the situation was more dire and dangerous for Hawks. The league was taking peoples’ lives. Somebody had to do something. The problem is that Twice was RUNNING AWAY when Hawks killed him. Twice wasn’t fighting Hawks back, he wasn’t endangering Hawks himself. Hawks stabbed him in the back. AND Hawks had Dabi to worry about, who was actively trying to attack Hawks. But Hawks chose to murder Twice instead of fending off Dabi. And if you refer back to the post I linked above about how it was a premeditated decision to kill Twice, you’ll see that Hawks had the capability of knocking Twice unconscious. He should have done this from the get go. And honestly? There are other heroes who could have captured Twice. There SHOULD have been other heroes to capture Twice. If Hawks was the only hope for the heroes in that war then jeez, the heroes suck at their jobs.

So TLDR for this question: Hawks’s circumstances were not drastic enough for him to be justified in killing Twice. As I said above, self-defense is one thing, where yes I could understand how if a life is lost while defending oneself is probably inevitable in some cases. But this wasn’t self defense. Twice was running away. Hawks should also be able to rely on his hero comrades to help him out.

Instead Hawks chose to be law-enforcement, judge, and executioner all in one moment.

I hope this answers your question? I tried my best. If I misunderstood or missed a talking point, feel free to shoot me a message or another ask.

Next question:

Believe me. I have thought about this! What about AFO? He’s human too isn’t he? You have a point. Should the restorative justice system extend to AFO? I would say yes. If I’m going to stick to my guns that the villains deserve restorative justice and not punitive justice, I should be fair and say it should extend to all villains.

The problem is not in the idea of exploring saving AFO, it’s just that there simply isn’t enough time to explore this in the story. If Horikoshi had said “I’m not going anywhere guys! We’re in this for the long haul!” I’d say it’s possible to explore that route. We don’t know anything about AFO except from what we’ve seen on screen, and what we’ve been told by All Might and the other OFA holders. Which still isn’t much to go on. You’re not giving AFO undue consideration. It’s definitely a deserved consideration. There are people in the story (and the real world) who may not be victimized in any way and end up being villains. Do they deserve a chance? I’d say yes. It’s in my nature as a social worker irl to give people the benefit of the doubt and give them a chance to learn. You’re right that in the end, the league being saved and the characters not considering what could have led AFO to villainy is just “skirting around the problem.” And honestly, that’s probably what we’re going to get. I wouldn’t be surprised for the thought to pass in Midoriya’s head. After saving somebody like Shigaraki, who everybody in the story (and many readers) considered to be “too far gone”, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Midoriya entertained the thought for a brief moment. ���What could have saved AFO from himself?” So honestly I don’t have an answer to this question that qualifies both sides. I can’t say that AFO is “too far gone” without undermining that fact that I never believed Shigaraki was “too far gone”, simply because we don’t get to decide what “too far gone” is.  All I can say is that in the eyes of the story, there are far too many differences between AFO’s circumstances and Shigaraki’s circumstances to compare the two, and say they deserve the same type of sympathy from us readers.

Truly I have no sympathy for AFO, because the story doesn’t ask for it. The story wants sympathy for Shigaraki, Toga, Touya, Spinner, and even a tiiiiiny bit for Overhaul. It asks for NONE for AFO.

Another post I’ll link here that isn’t by me but by another awesome meta blogger (@hamliet​) is this.

In a nutshell it says:

It’s not that AFO can’t be saved, it’s that he won’t. That’s the best answer I can give to that question honestly.

As for the third question:

That press conference was just...eh. I mean yeah, Endeavor not denying the allegations was good. Not that he really could anyway. It sucks for the rest of his family though. But at the same time Touya deserved his revenge, even though it was at the expense of his siblings and mother. It sucks, it’s a double edged sword because somebody is hurting no matter what was gonna happen. Endeavor was an asshole to that lady but I don’t really care too much. I’m really torn on what I think is going on inside Enji’s head because the Todofam is either extremely dense, or Horikoshi is writing their dialogue extremely vague on purpose to keep reader’s on the edge of their seats regarding what they want to do about Touya. I really don’t know. I’m not thrilled with the way the Todofam plot is being written right now, even though I’m 100% sure Touya is going to get his happy ending. But right now anything to do with the Todofam that isn’t Shoto and Touya just bothers me. I don’t think Enji really understands yet what he has to do for Touya. Yes he recognizes that he has to atone, but he’s not recognizing HOW he has to atone. Right now he’s still stuck in that “I have to be a hero to absolve my crimes against my family” headspace and I don’t think he’s going to get out of that headspace until he comes face to face with his son and realizes that he can’t just fight villains and go home to a happy family that he terrorized for 20 years. He’s going to have to let his family go, let them decide when to let him back in, if they ever do (I think they will just because of the way the story is being written.) As a reader, Enji is just a character that I cannot vibe with, no matter what happens. I definitely appreciate his role in the story. His role is vital to Touya’s saving and redemption. Touya is in my top 3 favorite characters from this series and I’m emotionally invested. So while I appreciated Enji’s role in the story, I don’t like his character or anything to do with him, at least until it comes time to help save his son. Also the trio of Hawks, Best Jeanist, and Enji just gives me major back the blue vibes and I just can’t read their chapters and be in a good mood lol.

Thank you for the ask! I hope I answered everything! This was fun to answer!

[repo-net]

Who is your least favorite Danganronpa character?

I've been asked this question a bunch before, and it took me a while to get to this ask because I've been mulling over who I want to answer it with.

Let me start off by saying that in basically every piece of media I've ever watched from start to finish, I have not found myself ever disliking or hating a character as a whole. Of course, I'll hate or be disgusted by characters who obviously do vile things with even more vile intentions, but if the writing is there - if the writing is supposed to make me feel that way, I can give even cookie points for that, and I can actually end up appreciating even morally horrible characters.

The only way you'd actually get me to dislike a character is if you wrote them to be so obnoxious on screen for no reason at all - they're just like that for the sake of it with no writing nuance behind it at all, and even then, if the point is to annoy me, then I guess I'll give it a point. The worst trait a character could have isn't to be evil, a mary sue, morally grey, or a disgusting being. It's being someone that annoys the viewer and makes them want to stop experiencing the piece of media.

That being said, my answer would have to be surprise surprise, it's a character from Danganronpa 3. It's going to go to Daisaku Bandai.

You wanna know the only thing I like about the dude? He's got a funny design and a funny voice that made me giggle when I saw him for the first time. He's a very gentle giant seeming kind of character.

And then he dies and is just used as a way to showcase the NG codes.

What?

Why did they even bother with this dude?

Honest to god right, I genuinely don't understand how anyone, and I mean anyone could really like this dude for more than what he was shown in the anime; because all of Daisaku's character were scraps you could find on your plate. There was barely anything to digest.

He didn't irritate me with writing issues like Juzo (a bunch of really dumb shit with him and his relationship with Kyousuke, kind or causing the end of the world because he didn't want to admit he's gay, and somehow being an Ultimate Boxer that loses to some highschool despair chick), or Tengan (poorly explained motives that constantly made my head hurt trying to really understand what even was this dude's plan), or Ruruka (to most people, she is understandably and justifiably seen as a bitch and annoying).

But he's just not memorable. It's ironic. The only reason I remember this dude is because of how little he matters at all.

If any actual Daisaku fan wants to tell me how much they like him and why, go on ahead, I'll happily listen - I believe that people talking about things they like is one of the greatest pleasures and enjoyments a person can experience when chatting with someone for the first time.

But to me, unlike Juzo, whose last moments were actually pretty cool where unlike a bunch of other people who'd claim to die for Kyousuke's sake, he actually does it in a valiant effort to help stop the killing game while he's in horrible pain, slowly dying too and me having a bit of sympathy for the guy despite all the genuinely infuriating shit he pulled throughout the anime.

Unlike Tengan, who's plan finally settled in on me and who I see as someone who kind of has (but much more poorly executed and written) a similar mindset to Nagito's in that hope can only be grown when despair is present, which can be an okay explanation to why Ryota got sucked into the game with his video in the first place (which was actually explained to me by an old friend who liked Tengan, shoutouts to him).

And unlike Ruruka, who I actually think is a solid enough character whose dynamic with Seiko is one of the few things I honestly really enjoyed throughout that anime, and her death and her killing Izayoi was actually tugging on my heartstrings a little and made me feel really bad for the girl (and heck, I think I actually like Ruruka more than I like Seiko).

Unlike the three I mentioned who annoyed me from time to time throughout the media I watched, the character I like the least is going to have to be the one who can barely even be counted as a character.

Thanks for submitting the ask, anon! Maybe you should ask me who my favorite character in the series is next, I can bet you that you wouldn't expect my answer there.

[philologer-mosaic]

Hey! Fellow writer here! I was curious as to how you learn to write characters and /keep/ them in character without it being overly stereotypical or stiff? I've read your work and I'd love to learn from you ;^;

Hi! Glad to meet you, and wow, I am so flattered to be asked this. Happy to help out a fellow writer, and I’m always down for rambling about writing-related stuff! I’m not sure how helpful some of this will turn out to be, but here goes.

I’m not sure if you’re asking about characterisation in general including crafting OCs or specifically about writing canon characters, and a lot of this advice will be relevant to both, but I will say this straight off: I’ve seen a fair amount of quibbling about how fanfiction won’t teach you how to worldbuild and maybe that’s true, but there is nothing like writing fanfiction for teaching yourself how to craft character voices. Especially when your source material is a movie/ TV show/ whatever definition RWBY falls under. So: rewatch! Pay attention to all the little details. What turns of phrase do they use? How do they stand, how do they move? What’s their usual emotional range? Pick a line they speak, think about what descriptors you’d use to get across their tone of voice or their emotional state if you were writing the scene in a fic. When you’re writing new dialogue for them, try to hear it in the actor’s voice (if that’s a way your imagination works; some people don’t have great auditory imaginations. Mine can be kind of hit and miss!).

Rest of this advice is going under a cut, because this got looong!

With canon characters: start from what you know, then extrapolate. Especially with characters we don’t see all that much of, boil them down to a handful of personality traits/ ways-they-present-themself first, then consider what might underly them. And in reverse: take the things we know about their status and backstory, consider what that implies about them as a person.

So, Clover: I think I boiled him down to ‘confident, friendly, professional’, and what’s underlying ‘confidence’ is really obviously his semblance: he’s never had to hesitate about anything, he always knows he can rely on himself. So in his internal monologue, he’s not going to second-guess his decisions. He calls Qrow out on deflecting compliments, so he’s good at reading people and also wants to help them; I assume that applies more broadly than just to Qrow. He’s leader of Ironwood’s flagship team of Specialists, and semblance or not I made the assumption he didn’t get there without working for it [that is an assumption, though! People less inclined to think well of Clover will make a different assumption, in-universe as well as out, and how he responds to that is also something to consider], so he’s got to be smart, dedicated, a good tactician, a good leader. And building from that: he’s smart and perceptive but we know he’s also loyal to the bitter end (very bitter); what sort of personality can we project that reconciles those two, what sort of person would respond like that? What I went with is that he trusts the system because he understands enough pieces of how/why it works that he trusts the bits he doesn’t understand are also created with the best interests of the people at heart. (Even when that’s really not true.) So then that’s a consistent philosophy-like thing that underlies a lot of how I write him: he understands the reasons for a lot of why things are how they are and then assumes the best of all the rest.

– This looks like a lot, now I’ve written it out. I thought all this out while working on the early chapters but I never put it some of it into words really. In coming up with the plot or story idea you’ll have made plenty of these assumptions and extrapolations already. Take a second look at them; take them further, find places to link them together or pit them against each other.

And remember, these are your interpretations. There’s not a right or wrong way to flesh these out. Work with semi-canon stuff like the mangas or discard it as you wish; follow fanon or argue with it or throw it out entirely. I interpreted Yang as ‘normal outgoing teenage girl in a non-homophobic world’ and wrote her as having dated people from Signal before she got to Beacon; the other day I came across a tumblr post interpreting her as “a rural lesbian”, by which standard she definitely didn’t have any romantic experience before canon; they’re both entirely plausible takes! Where we don’t know stuff for sure, slot in whatever your story needs, or whatever you think seems interesting. I settled on Clover’s backstory for Soldier, Spy mostly by going ‘ok, what’s an interesting way to contrast him with Qrow?’ And in some of my other fic ideas, he’s different.

Limited third person perspective (or first person, if you can pull if off) is the best for dropping in characterisation smoothly. Though I’m probably biased because I love it so much. Omniscient third person POV is when the narration’s impartial and uninvolved, and skips between person A’s thoughts and person B’s thoughts and pure description of what’s happening, objectively speaking; limited third person is – when the camera’s always over one person’s shoulder in a given scene. It’s less close in than first person, but we get the POV character’s thoughts and no others, we only see/notice what they notice and pay attention to, descriptions are coloured by the way the POV character thinks about the world. I don’t want to be setting you homework, but, a neat writing exercise, if you want it: pick an object, place or person, and consider how two different characters would see it differently. Write those two descriptions. For fun, pick something that at least one of the characters is going to really look down on or dislike parts of! (Qrow’s snark is so much fun.)

This is cynical, but: people lie to themselves a lot. When you put yourself into a character’s head, they’re going to be telling themself a narrative in which what they’re doing is the best thing to do and makes them a good person. (With a few exceptions, the big ones being depression- and anxiety-brain, which instead do their best to convince you you’re the worst.) Get your characters to justify themselves to you.

Goals, motivations, priorities. It feels like a massive oversight to write about how to characters and leave that one out, but honestly I can’t think of anything I can say here that hasn’t been covered better by tons of other writing advice. [Incidentally: https://www.writersdigest.com/ . Subscribe to their email newsletter, it’s free, they will try to get you to buy their how-to courses but there’s no need to, the website has all kinds of articles about the craft and details of writing and the newsletter will send you all the new ones plus curated picks of what’s already there. And also: https://springhole.net/writing/index.html . There’s some stuff specific to fanfic in there, and also general writing advice.] Just: keep it in mind.

Related to that, but a separate thing and one that I haven’t seen other writing advice talk about so much: how does the character try to achieve their goals? What are their skills and resources? And more than that, what’s their preferred approach? In the simplest terms. It’s a matter of mindset, and what options they see as available to them. So the things I would keep in mind for this are: Who’s got social skills/ is good at thinking in social terms, and who isn’t/doesn’t? (Not just interpersonally speaking. James “not really concerned about my reputation” Ironwood is a good example of a character who always thinks in terms of hard power over soft power; even when public opinion is an important strategic consideration he only thinks about it in the broadest and most simplified strokes.) Who would rather work within the system, and who prefers to do an end-run around it? (That doesn’t have to correlate with who’s actually got power, though obviously there are trends. I’m writing Clover as tending to take charge even when he officially shouldn’t because he’s more concerned with solving the problem than with rank, and that’s a case of circumventing the system, it’s one of the things he’s got in common with Qrow.) Who’s more analytical about their approach and what they’re trying to do (which means their failure mode is overthinking and decision paralysis) and who reacts with their gut instinct (which means their failure mode is getting in over their head)?

… I could talk about this one at length. There’s a whole framework I use to categorise characters in this way (I came across it in, of all things, the flavourtext of a supplement to an RPG no one’s ever heard of and it just stuck with me, and I’ve made it my own in the years since) and I could go into all sorts of detail about how it works/ what it means. But I think this is enough to be getting on with, on that topic. If you want to know more, send me another ask? But no one else talks about this thing in writing advice, it might be completely orthogonal to the writing process of anyone but me.

So! Related to the topic of characters’ skillsets, a really great tip I can’t remember where I picked up: how do you write someone who’s smarter/wittier/better at tactics than you? Spend minutes or hours turning something over in your head that the character is going to come up with in seconds. The great advantage of writing: it’s so much easier to be eloquent when you’ve got time to think. [If you had asked me this question in person you would have got ‘i don’t know?’ and then half an hour later I would have thought of half of this stuff and kicked myself. A week and change later, you’re getting the other half too :p ]

And lastly: you said you were worried about your writing getting “overly stereotypical”. And my immediate response to that was stereotypes bad, yes, but archetypes great. The difference being: stereotypes are lazy and offensive writing that let ‘membership of a social category’ stand in for ‘actual characterisation’ and if you’re asking for advice on characterisation you’re obviously too thoughtful to commit them; archetypes are pre-made sketched-out personalities that you can take as your own and flesh out into your own thing. Tropes are tools. No one ever said ‘They were roommates? Ugh, how unoriginal’. By the same token, ‘lone wolf who pretends he’s fine and doesn’t dare trust anyone no matter how much he secretly wants to’ is a fantastic trope that exists for good reason, the CRWBY used it for good reason, and when we found out Qrow’s semblance I went yes please I will have some of all that angst and then laughed at myself because when it comes to fictional characters I have A Type. I’m pretty sure I’ve never written the exact scenario ‘pushes themself way too hard and passes out, wakes up in unexpected safety and immediately condemns themself for not sticking it out longer’ before the opening of Soldier, Spy, but I know I’ve come up with plenty of things that were like it, and if they’d made it to a state of publication you’d be able to see that.

It’s like artists using references. Just because they looked up how to draw that hand and that pose doesn’t mean the final product’s not their own. There’s no reason not to start with your ideas of the character (no matter how ‘stereotypical’ they feel) or a collection of traits you’ve grabbed from other characters that seem like they’d fit – or, for OCs, an MBTI type or a roleplaying class/background combo or one of these or some other personality type you feel like you can find your way around the basics of – and just take it from there. When you start writing/outlining/daydreaming-about-ideas you’ll run into scenarios/setups you can’t copy across from but you can see what responses might come up, and that’s how the template becomes your own unique iteration of it.

… Because really all writing advice does come down to: just write. In your head or on the page, try things out, see what works, see how it goes. I’ve been doing this a long time; most of it never made it to words on a page, let alone to the internet at large. Read across genres, read things people write about themselves and how they live and think and feel, and just – go for it.

I hope this helps! Once again, I was really glad to be asked; feel free to ask me to elaborate on any of this, or about anything else you want advice about. I wish you all the best in your future writing!

[fuckyouclarke]

One thing I've noticed about the og!100 members of spacekru (and is one of the many flaws of the show) is that they all have outgrown Clack. Between Murphy, Raven, Bellamy and Monty (though some more than others bc shitty writing) they have learned to forgive and grow and work together. They apologize and actually change their bad behavior (Bell+Murph) they actively try to find ways in which to keep peace or problem solve without violence (Raven+Monty) all things C can't seem to do without 1/3

2/3 either victimizing herself "making the hard decisions *cry* *cry*", making backhanded apologies that's essentially "I'm sorry you were offended", or not apologizing at all then getting all pout-pout when people don't trust her. One of the main reasons why I don't like her is because she undynamic and unsympathetic for that same reason. She doesn't change so she doesn't grow so anything involving her is rinsed and repeated so she's boring to watch. And that's on the writers for not letting

3/? her be wrong. The characters hating her is ignored by many fans (foolishly) despite all the shit she put them through bc it all seems to work out in the end. The narrative doesn't hold her accountable so it makes C stans feel justified in saying that the ones affected by her actions are ungrateful. And calling her out is happening too late in the series so even though spacekru is right in their criticism of C the fans would rather double down on C than actually listen to the people who

4/4 have had to deal with the repercussions of her actions (torture, almost being killed, being manipulated, I would say dying in Monty's case since he sacrificed himself for C's betrayal). Everyone has surpassed her in emotional maturity and boy does it show. There is no sense of self reflection in C or accountability that spacekru has seen and suffered for and are better characters bc of it. At this point C seems like a plot device for shit to happen bc of her stupid actions.

I’m sorry it’s taken me a few days to reply, there’s a lot I want to say and now that it’s the weekend, I can sit down and take all parts of this message in!

See, this is one of the many reasons why I am, and always will be, Team!Spacekru. All 7 of them had grown and changed over those 6 years; they learned to rely on each other and became a family; those who used to be enemies became extremely close and forgave each other for past wrong-doings (Murphy/Bellamy, Murphy/Raven, Murphy/Monty, Bellamy/Echo, etc); they learned from those mistakes, grew from them, made apologies, became better people and got close. 

Clarke didn’t.

She was never a part of Spacekru, and was only w/ Madi for those 6 years, while her former “friends” that she knew for less then a year all got to know each other on a level that she never did.

So yeah, definitely they would no longer need her. Not anymore. She’s not their leader, she’s not even their friend anymore after what she did to them. They look to Bellamy as their leader; they have for those 6 years and still do. Clarke hasn’t made any fucking attempt to right any of her wrong doings, because she has believed herself to be in the right the entire time from the moment the Dropship landed on Earth in season 1 all the way up until the end of season 5. But even now, 3 episodes into season 6, she has yet to make any REAL apologies for any of her actions.

Even after Murphy literally spelled it out for her in 6x02 of all the ways she has hurt him!

Actually, people have been attempting to call Clarke out on her shit for seasons now - from Murphy to Bellamy to Octavia to Raven to Abby - and yet, Clarke NEVER listens, because she has this leader mindset that only HER opinions matter; nobody else’s feelings matter and what she’s doing is for the “greater good” and she “has no choice” (*cue pouty face*) Every single time a character has made any type of attempt to call her out in seasons 1-4 before the time jump, that’s exactly what she did. Fast-forward those 6 years (plus 125 years in Cryo), she’s attempting to make MURPHY - of all people - appear to be as bad of a person as she is, when Murphy worked his ass off for 4 straight seasons to get to where he’s at. He paid for his mistakes and he became a better person. Bellamy paid for his mistakes and became a better person - along w/ being a great leader and a great friend.

Clarke’s excuses are never-ending, and the more excuses she makes, the more her stans will jump all over Spacekru and make them out to be the bad guys...when we have LITERAL CANON EVIDENCE FROM THE SHOW that Clarke has been in the wrong - it was literally spelled out for us all throughout season 5, and now going into season 6. While yes, I definitely wish it was done sooner, because her stans are seriously out of control and I want to punch a brick wall the more I see them, it’s better late then never. But I for one don’t find her redeemable at all; I don’t trust her one bit, I hate her and I can never forgive her for any of the shit she pulled.

And I don’t think Spacekru should be forced to forgive her either; which is why I’m so glad that they’re not. Clarke can whine and complain and claim it’s “unfair” how she’s being treated, she can throw a tantrum and pout all she damn well pleases - it’s not going to fix anything! “Facing her demons” and actually owning up to her shit and making a REAL apology to the countless people she’s hurt is the only way that anything can even be remotely fixed!

Clarke’s last real apology was all the way back in episode 3x11 when she apologized to Jasper for Mount Weather and killing Maya - but even though she apologized, she added her usual “I had to save our people” at the end of it. Clarke has a LOT to learn when it comes to making apologies, because nobody will forgive her until she apologies for real and MEANS it.

She needs to take lessons from Murphy and Bellamy.

I did read somewhere a little while ago that w/ Jake Griffin reappearing in some shape or form this season, somebody came up w/ a theory that he will appear and he’ll be used to call his daughter out on what she’s done and show her how to make a real apology. I don’t remember exactly what the post said - I might have seen it on Reddit - but it was definitely an interesting theory. 

But then again, even if Clarke does pull her head out of her ass and get over herself, I still don’t find her redeemable. It just goes to show how little Clarke stans actually care about any of the other characters on the show and how they’ve been hurt; they’re feelings don’t matter to them. Clarke has gotten away w/ all of this for WAY too long and it’s time for her to face the consequences.

[pluralthey]

the "little kitten scratches" bit/comment is really powerful, i've never seen that kinda....mindset? thought? addressed before (sorry if this is too uncomfortable to bring up, it's just the first time i've seen that train of thought addressed- feel free to ignore if i'm overstepping tho)

the kitten scratches comment was interesting to me to reread because it directly precedes a threat to discourage the behavior from happening again. “you should have made it worse, but don’t do it again, or i’ll make it EVEN WORSE” is a weird sentiment to express, especially with such self-assurance.but since you mentioned it i’d love to talk for a second about why people might grow to on some level desire or enjoy their own pain, or just the concept of it, in a way that isn’t framing it as an ambiguous desire for “control” or “self-sabotage.”

liron’s clearly absorbed someone else’s sentiment that your pain will never be enough. if you are a form of comfort as a punching bag, or a scapegoat, this someone else benefits from believing that even if they can see you are indisputably in pain, pain can be quantified and qualified by this quantification. this kind of person might see your pain, or pain in general, as limitless, as a limitless commodity is very ideal for them (until they’ve pushed you past a point of no return). if they always could have been “worse,” then the level of pain they’ve made you feel is justified and acceptable, in some way, to them.now, why would someone internalize this mindset about their own pain? why would they feel proud of how much worse they can make it?

first: pain is rewarded on a structural level. diagnoses have criteria based on suffering. the fallacy of quantifying pain, and the desire to create superficial scarcity among resources, has compelled experts on pain to prioritize the most visible pain, because it’s the most easy to fit into a mindset of quantity.how much blood can you bleed into the measuring cup? reaching the level of “enough” can mean life or death, if those resources are on the line. you’ll get the added benefit of feeling superior to those who haven’t suffered as much (yet), and, yes, a sense of control over your suffering (insofar that you made it worse, you were the catalyst to the change in whether you received compassion or not).but very frequently, even with secure resources, a constructed model for self-respect, and a sense of safety in predictable control, people will continue to escalate their own pain, so there’s more to it, isn’t there? it can’t really just be a mounting desire for those chemicals, whatever part feels good, as you edge closer to an undefined precipice, right? people can internalize this mindset even if they weren’t directly abused, is that “enough” to explain their pain?

who knows, i’m no genius, i’m still figuring things out myself. most people get stuck in a cycle of unstable resources that they can only procure by recreating their own pain due to a process imposed on them by others, or they go on to start involving more others and reap the perceived benefits of inflicting this ideology (and pain, as it is an ideology of pain) onto them as a red badge of courage. it’s unfortunately harder to stop when you’re destroying your own resources, as well.

i think that, regardless of whether you’re, at any moment, inflicting emotional pain or physical pain on yourself, passively or actively, you’re trying to do something. i think this is always the first step to improving life for yourself in whatever way you can, but deprived of the energy, time, and resources to build something on top of the empty space left by the the bits of yourself that you habitually rip apart, you just end up accumulating something bigger than kitten scratches. the belief that it wasn’t enough to make it better last time and a pointed numbness to the sensation of pain grows in the place of safety. now there’s proverbial rubble that needs to be destroyed as well, next time.every one “scratch” has the fleeting chance to be the last one, though, and i have to believe that those kinds of urges ultimately “want” to be that last one, for the night, for the rest of your life, whatever it takes. or maybe it’s not that deep.