#Izzy Critical

[crimson-and-clover-1717]

Seriously. What is with Izzy’s pronunciation of ‘Edward’, twice, in this scene!? He replaces the schwa /ə/ (‘Edwuhd’) with /ar/ (‘Edw/ar/d’).

No native English speaker pronounces the name ‘Edward’ in this way. I teach English as a foreign language, and do a lot of work on pronouncing the schwa. A non-native speaker might understandably pronounce forward as ‘for-w/ar/d, emphasising the ‘ar’, and placing the stress on the second syllable. We practise ‘forwuhd’ instead.

Izzy’s just pissing about with Ed’s name. It really jars when you hear Roach (a non-native speaker) pronounce his name correctly in between. I can’t help thinking it’s partly linked to this:

It’s a microaggression out of earshot to make himself feel better after being corrected publicly. Izzy thinks he’s the only one allowed to use or hear this name. It’s their ‘special name’. He’s affronted that Ed has done this. So he thinks, I will use ‘Edward’ with the crew, but you can’t make me say it correctly. Oh, it’s so passive aggression.

But it’s a mocking of Ed too. Especially when he follows up with the idea that Jim is with Edward discussing ‘feelings or something’. ‘Edward’ doesn’t deserve his respect for being such a ‘namby-pamby’. Only Blackbeard deserves that. ‘Edward’ is being erased now, and one option is screwing around with the sound of the name. Izzy knows exactly what he’s doing. It’s power-play. It’s ownership.

The pronunciation of bipoc people’s names as accurately as possible is really important. I come across difficult names on a daily basis, and spend a good few minutes explaining name challenges for anglosphere teachers, and trying so, so hard to get the students’ names correct. I tell a student to correct me if I get their name repeatedly or significantly wrong.

And Edward isn’t even a traditional bipoc name! It’s Anglo-Saxon in origin. I just can’t with a deliberate mispronunciation of a name Izzy knows only too well. It’s dehumanising and deliberately so.

“Ed-w/ar/d…”

Piss off, Izzy.

[ourflagmeansgayrights]

honestly tho. the balls of izzy to suggest talking it through as if he didnt literally threaten to kill ed the last time ed openly shared his feelings

[dimplyowl]

Okay has anyone written any meta about the differences between our two first mates, Auntie and Izzy? Because I just finished rewatching s2 and was struck by how similar their situations are, and their temperaments, and yet how very completely opposite they behave in nearly identical situations.

Cause like. Both their captains are insanely infamous, badass pirates who have an image to uphold, Ed as Blackbeard obviously, and Zheng as the pirate queen who conquered China. They both become romantically interested in someone who honestly has no business being a pirate: oluwande and Stede, both described as soft, not masculine, yes in the end willing to do violence if necessary, but it’s not their preferred way of handling conflict. People who, maybe rightly, the respective first mates consider potential threats to their captain and crew.

But just the way that auntie handles the situation compared to Izzy. Auntie doesn’t meddle. She is vocal about what she thinks of Oluwande, about her concerns about Zheng being distracted, “compromised”, not focused on the mission. But she’s ultimately acting as an advisor for Zheng, which is exactly what her role is. She doesn’t try to control Zheng, she doesn’t remove Zheng’s agency, she doesn’t threaten Zheng or tell her that she’s pathetic for mooning over Oluwande (I know we never get to see any mooning onscreen but cmon, there has to have been some). When the Revenge crew escapes her ship, and she knows she fucked up, Auntie doesn’t run salt in the wound the way that Izzy would take pleasure in doing. She starts to say “I told you so,” and Zheng very firmly tells her “Don’t”, establishes a boundary that Auntie respects, because ultimately Zheng knows she fucked up and she’s not a child who needs to be taught a lesson or managed. Auntie respects her and her personhood.

And compare that to Izzy, who consistently manipulated Ed to get in between him and Stede, threatened Stede’s life on multiple occasions, essentially mutinied against him, sent the cops after them, and then berated and threatened Ed over being heartbroken.

Like, even down to nearly dying. Auntie has a severe gunshot wound in her shoulder that she will clearly die from if she doesn’t accept help. She’s spent the entire season being tough, unwilling to show weakness, equating softness to weakness, but in the end she decides to accept help, to accept a little bit of softness, to change and accept that softness can be good. Izzy in contrast, declines help, knowing that he’s done. He knows he can’t fit in to this new world, this new piracy, where people can be soft and vulnerable and still fucking kick ass. He’s been resistant and outwardly aggressive to this idea, and he chooses to die rather than accept that softness. Ofmd is ushering in a new era of pirating, and Izzy doesn’t fit in it, and doesn’t want to fit in it, and ultimately, narratively, that’s why Auntie survives and Izzy doesn’t.

[o-wild-west-wind]

you know, I’m just gonna come out and say it. reason 182639302 why I’m sad ofmd was canceled: I would’ve liked to see a post-Izzy world.

you can stab me in the face now.

[our-flag-means-love]

as someone whose abuser is very beloved and respected locally because no one but me and one other person know what they're like behind closed doors, seeing the way the crew treats izzy vs how they treat ed in the first half of s2 is both frustrating and all too familiar.

yes, izzy deserves support, and i believe that everyone, no matter what, should have an opportunity to grow and change, but god, hearing jim say "he was your friend" just hurts. especially bc it's not their fault. they didn't know. they knew he was a dick, but they didn't see the emotional abuse we all saw. no one but ed did. so he ends up being painted as the bad guy who flew off the handle and nearly got everyone killed while izzy only gets sympathy. and yes, ed did nearly get everyone killed, but i think the balance of blame vs sympathy would've been severely shifted if anyone else had witnessed the "i should've let the english kill you" scene. or anything else that izzy's been doing to ed for years, which he openly admits on his deathbed.

so it's just frustrating and disheartening to see ed get banished from the ship while izzy gets a new leg crafted and painted gold by the crew. i'm not saying that ed didn't deserve any criticism or that izzy didn't deserve a new leg. it just hurts that no one else Knows.

[piratecaptainscaptainpirates]

Finally left Twitter for good because I couldn't stop seeing the "Ed is irredeemable" takes. Like, yeah, in the real world cutting toes off is a bit much, but this is the same show where Ed begs Stede to stab him just because he wants to be held. The show doesn't ask us to take this violence the same way we would irl.

Plus, like. I'm on Ed's side here, obviously. S1e10 frames Ed as the victim in the whole situation. If someone told me to stop fagging it up or they'd call the cops on me again, I don't think I'd react half as patiently. Frankly, I applaud Ed for his restraint. I feel bad that Ed's obviously triggered and deeply hurting, but it still is definitely satisfying to see him get to fight back against a man who abused him and not be a perfect victim, and I'm tired of pretending it's not.

[blakbonnet]

love this izzy analysis lmao

[the-fandom-finder]

Not liking a a character ending or some plot points does not always make it problematic. just cause Izzy had an arc and died doesn’t make it kill your gays. It’s not problematic just because you don’t like it. somethings are problematic. This just ain’t one of them. I really do some people need to realize it’s OK to just not like something and don’t gotta make a big thing out of it. just because Con says something does not make it the word of God.

[fahbee]

"their entire dynamic was izzy trying to make ed happy" "izzy was always just trying to make ed happy" "everything izzy did was for ed's happiness"

LMAO WHEN??

I've seen variations of the above repeated over and over again by izzy stans and what i want to know is - when??? when did izzy "try to make ed happy" in season 1??? Because there's example after example after example of Izzy acting against Ed's explictly stated wishes and desires, in other words, acting in ways that izzy knows will not make Ed happy.

Ed wanted to meet the guy traveling with a brigade of imbeciles who nevertheless managed to best izzy at swordplay. Meeting the Gentleman Pirate was Ed's explicitly stated wish. In fact he tasked Izzy with the invite because it was important to Ed and he didn't want someone less competent to fuck it up. If Izzy was just trying to make Ed happy, then why did izzy lie to ed about telling stede that 'blackbeard' desired stede's company? How was this deliberate attempt to poison Ed against Stede meant to make Ed happy?

Once they're on the Revenge, Ed tries to get Izzy to play along with identifying the cloud shapes as frankfurters. Izzy is completely humorless about it. "It's like pulling teeth with you, man." Ed is visibly delighted by Stede's ragtag crew. Ed is fascinated by Stede's trinkets, by the model of the ship. He shows it off to Izzy! Ed is plainly showing interest and joy at Stede's crew and possessions. Izzy shuts him down. Yes, Izzy is worried about the Spanish catching up to them. But if Izzy really was "all about" making Ed happy, why doesn't he play along, even a little, with something that is clearly making Ed happy in this moment??

Izzy admits in the s1e6 opening voiceover that Ed appears to be "seduced" by Stede. We see the montage of Ed and Stede talking and Ed is having a great time! He's smiling, he's laughing! As Ivan (or Fang?) says, "this is the most open and available i've ever seen him. look at him, he's telling ghost stories!" Ed is HAPPY. Yet Izzy hates this. He refuses to engage with the crew. He pushes Ed to kill Stede even though Ed is clearly reluctant to do it, even though Izzy himself knows that Ed feels fondness ("seduced by") for Stede. How can this possibly interpreted as Izzy "just trying to make Ed happy"???

When Izzy challenges Stede to a duel, Ed flat out says "We're not doing this, Iz!" and Izzy couldn't care less. "No. You're not doing this. So I must." Must? Must??? Why "must" you, Izzy?? Why MUST Izzy duel Stede in an attempt to either kill him or banish him from the ship - the end result being to separate him from Ed - if Izzy's driving motivation is ensuring Ed's happiness? Taking away the person who has made Ed smile and laugh, who has improved Ed's mood and behavior so noticeably that Ivan comments on it?? How will this "make Ed happy"???

And then when Izzy is himself banished from the ship instead, he tells Ed "You will rue the day and you will rue it hard." If Izzy just wants to make Ed happy, wouldn't a better response be for Izzy to say "sorry, boss, i didn't realize how much this fop meant to you." Even if he's still banished from the ship, he didn't have to depart in anger. If he really cared about Ed's happiness, he would have been fine leaving Ed with the person who he knows has been making Ed happy lately. Instead he goes and teams up with the British in order to KILL Stede. Because that will make Ed happy??? That makes no sense!!!

Of course Izzy doesn't do any of this for Ed's """happiness."""

At BEST, he knows this will make Ed unhappy but he assumes Ed will get over it eventually and things will go back to how they used to be. At WORST, he does this out of anger, spite, and jealousy, and he doesn't give a single shit about how he knows killing Stede will make Ed unhappy.

So where did this belief that Izzy was only trying to make Ed happy come from? Why do people repeat it as if it were established fact? As if it were the obvious interpretation of Izzy's behavior in season 1?

Because to me, it looks like fanon run amok. It looks like a blatant headcannon rewrite of the show. It looks like a complete lack of visual and auditory comprehension and the inability to follow a story at the most basic level.

[bougiebutchbitch]

This fandom continues to be the absolute worst.

Just because a character is canonically a kinky masochist does not mean they 'want' to be abused.

Masochism =/= deserving abuse.

Even if Izzy got off on The Toe Thing (which I certainly believe he did in the first incident!) it was in no way consensual. It happened while he was sleeping.

I hate to break it to you, but people can orgasm while being raped or assaulted. Physical bodily response is NOT the same as consent, and I really hoped we were at a stage in 2023 where that was common knowledge. Apparently not.

As a one-off in Season 1, Ed's mutilation of Izzy was immensely fucked up, but still not a pattern. In Season 2 it became........ blatantly acknowledged on-screen as repeated physical abuse from a guy in a position of power over his subordinate? That Izzy did not enjoy in the slightest, but couldn't escape? That made him break down crying in Fang's arms while Frenchie held his hand? Like...??? How do you see that and interpret those scenes as proof that Izzy 'wanted it'?

Sometimes I'm reminded forcefully of how uneducated people are about kink, abuse, victim blaming, and consent in general. If you think people who enjoy pain in the bedroom are inviting abuse and 'deserve what they get', then frankly, I think your ignorant, kinkshaming, puritanical bullshit shouldn't be welcome in this fandom. It's genuinely harmful.

[wistfulcynic]

a non-izzy-centric reading of the events of season two

i didn't really want to get into this because it's so, so tiresome and i'd rather talk about the things i loved about this season. Poison, positivity, etc. But.

reading this post about people doubting their own judgement due to the overwhelming noise from Izzy stans along with a rewatch of season two from start to finish made me realise that i too had been influenced by a year and a half of being intensely frustrated by people insisting so loudly that OFMD was in fact the Izzy Hands Show. My initial issues with S2 mostly stemmed from overcompensating for that by resenting any development of Izzy on the screen because i did not want it to feed those people. Which meant that i also was centring Izzy in a way that he should not be centred! i was letting their noise lead me to read him as far more important than he actually is.

So i looked back at several points from the season that had me feeling uncomfortable and which, from a cursory browse through the Izzy tag i've concluded his stans see as a contradiction or a betrayal or something and re-evaluated them from the perspective of Izzy not being a main fucking character.

point one: "He's our dick."

When Archie (a newcomer and therefore a fairly effective audience stand-in for anyone not balls deep in fandom bullshit) asks Jim why they're going to so much trouble for Izzy, who she has immediately clocked as "kind of a dick", Jim gives this response. Which, if you think Izzy is important, may read as an expression of reluctant fondness. But then, Jim continues: "There was a time when life meant something on this ship. When we lived for each other, not just to survive." These lines are punctuated by a flashback to the famous Revenge crew found-family Renaissance-painting moment. Jim is nostalgic for the "good old days" of the Revenge under Stede's people-positive management style. It is out of respect for that (seemingly) lost way of life that they take the trouble for Izzy, not for Izzy himself. They'd have done the same for anyone, because they desperately want life to matter again. Izzy, as the person whose gamy leg is a direct result of his threatening Ed and bringing the kraken era down on all of them, is simply the one whose life happens to be on the line.

(honestly, i love this from Jim, who was one of Stede's boldest detractors in season one and still the crew member most likely to call him out on his bullshit. That's your "reluctant fondness" moment right there.)

point two: the new unicorn

apparently Izzy stans see the gift of the unicorn leg prosthetic as a symbol of deep love and respect from the crew to Izzy. Which is an absolutely wild reading when you look at what led up to it.

There's tension on the ship. Divisions. Lucius is chain-smoking and jump-scared by his own shadow. Jim, Archie, Frenchie, and Fang are overcome by guilt over their mutiny and frantically scrubbing nonexistent blood from the deck in what is a fantastically darkly funny Lady Macbeth moment for them. Izzy is sloppy drunk and yelling nonsensical abuse at the unicorn masthead. Roach, Pete, Oluwande, and Wee John make a well-intentioned but ill-conceived attempt to bring everyone back together (i say "everyone" but Izzy, significantly, is not included) which leads to them all being at each other's throats in the sort of mutually-assured-destruction configuration that starts world wars. It's a great scene. Izzy is not a part of it.

until he interrupts them, throws the unicorn legs at them and in his drunken clumsiness breaks his prosthetic. He then pointedly refuses their offers of assistance and drags himself away along the floor by his arms.

my friends. This is peak pathos. The crew do not respect Izzy in this moment, they feel sorry for him. They realise that he's worse off than any of the rest of them and that knowledge brings them back together. Making the unicorn prosthetic is barely about Izzy at all. It's about the crew coming together, repairing the rifts in their found family and as a bonus helping out their grumpy second cousin who doesn't really want to be there but has nowhere else to go. It's also a very generous offer of a new place on the ship--as the new unicorn--and a fresh start. Because that's what life on the Revenge is. For everyone.

point three: la vie en rose

much has been made of Izzy putting on drag makeup and singing at the Calypso birthday party, and fair enough. That's a big character development point for him. i don't hate it, though i wish there'd been more build-up to it, a longer conversation between Izzy and Wee John at least (insert obligatory "fuck Max" here) but regardless, if we accept Izzy's amputated leg as cutting off his old self and replacing it with the unicorn then we can arrive at a place where he's able to participate in a drag performance without too much cognitive gymnastics.

i've written before about the curious choice to have Izzy sing La Vie En Rose in French (after he initially sang it in English) at the very moment when Ed and Stede are having sex for the first time. On first watch i felt viscerally troubled by it, it felt like a validation of the obsessive psychosexual reading of Izzy's feelings for Ed. Looking at the season as a whole, it feels more like a (cringy, creepy, waaaay over the line) attempt on his part to signal approval for Ed and Stede's relationship. Especially when taken in conjunction with his (super creepy, like wtf who greenlit this) interruption of their breakfast in bed the next morning to make a ham-fisted innuendo. Weird but okay i guess, it's not like Izzy and social niceties have ever gone hand in hand.

many people point to the drag scene as the crew embracing Izzy and welcoming him as one of them. Again, i don't disagree. But, also again, this is not specific to Izzy. This is just what they do. They also embraced Archie with her snake-cult stories, they re-embraced Ed (who yes, they do love, refutations of arguments that they don't love Ed are a whole other essay though) and later they embrace Zheng and Auntie and also Jackie who once stole their savings jar and threatened to cut off their noses. That's what they do! They embrace people! That's what the show is about!

point four: the death scene

i have to be honest, i still hate this. i don't hate that Izzy died, i hate that he died in Ed's arms with Ed calling him his only family. That still feels unearned to me, and alas was probably another victim of the shortened season. But even with this extremely kind and forgiving death scene, the stans are not satisfied! They feel that the entire crew should have been gathered round, assuring Izzy of their profound love for him. There should have been weeping at the funeral, wailing and gnashing of teeth, rending of garments etc. It's what he deserves as such a beloved member of the crew!

except he wasn't beloved. He was accepted, yes. Welcomed, even. But acceptance is a far cry from love. Cheering as someone sings a song at a party does not mean you feel ready to weep at their deathbed or proclaim your undying affection for them.

yet even so, the crew are visibly distraught at his death scene. There are tears in many eyes! But effusive declarations of feeling from any one of them other than Ed would have felt (to anyone not convinced Izzy is the main character) completely wrong and very weird. You can headcanon what you like to fill the gaps in canon but on screen we have seen very few meaningful interactions between Izzy and any of the existing crew aside from Fang and Lucius and to a lesser extent Wee John. Izzy's primary relationship with another character is with Ed and so, as much as i still don't like it, Ed is the only one who has any real reason to be at Izzy's side as he dies.

as for the brevity of the funeral and the fact that they went straight from it to Pete and Lucius's wedding instead of having, idk, a prolonged wake at which everyone speaks at length about how important Izzy was to them, i mean. Obviously that wasn't going to happen. More than enough screen time had already been given to a side character who spent most of it either being miserable himself or making others so. It was time for the rest of them to find some moments of joy. As Izzy himself said, not moving on is worse.

in conclusion, i'd like to address the people saying that Izzy should have lived so he could continue his arc of self-discovery and sure, that would have been great--on the Izzy Hands Show. But OFMD is about Ed and Stede and Izzy had served his purpose in their story. i feel certain there will be copious fanfics to soothe anyone who feels Izzy was shortchanged.

on the show, though, he was treated in a very logical and foreseeable way as the antagonist who was able to see the light at the end but not necessarily to thrive in such a well-lit environment. Literature (by which i mean also films and tv) abounds with examples of this sort of character. They see the error of their ways but they are too stuck in them, shaped by them, to exist comfortably in any other way. They help bring about change to benefit others and not for themselves, that is the bittersweet beauty of their endings.

Izzy let Ed go. He embraced the softer parts of himself. He died surrounded by people who may not have loved him but at least accepted him as one of their own and felt genuine sorrow about his passing. That is a satisfying narrative end for a reformed antagonist! If you truly feel that he was shortchanged by it then you have forgotten what show you're watching and what sort of character he was.

Izzy Hands: not the main character, still an interesting one, absolute nightmare, what a guy.

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

Here's my thing not to always be complaining about bad interpretations BUT I genuinely do not understand how anyone at all can see the scene that established the Kraken where Ed is subjected to abuse by his father and then kills him, and then see a character attempt to force Ed to kill the first person hes ever gotten close to, attempt to kill the first person Ed has ever gotten close to, call law enforcement to come in and kill the first person Ed has ever gotten close to, and then when he succeeds in driving that person away and Ed tries to open up to even more people tell him he's better off dead and threaten his life. And then see Ed choke that character with a lighthouse painting positioned in the background just like how he choked his dad with a lighthouse in the background and declare himself the kraken like he did when he was talking about his abusive fathers death and not read all that information as leading back to Izzy abusing him. Like season 1 actually sends a very clear message if you're not into incel apologia.

And yes I have seen season 2, season 2 did three things in regards to this arc. The first thing it did was call the relationship toxic and unhealthy which affirms this reading, the second thing season 2 did was clarify that Izzy's intentions in doing all this were in fact to have Ed all to himself out of a psychosexual obsession rather than out of a hunger for power or even as a hate crime or whatever, so those are Izzy's two "this only looks like abuse but actually is about something else" alibis down, which reaffirms this reading, and the third thing it did was have Izzy take it all back and decide he's actually better now which, the redemption arc doesn't contradict any of that. And no I'm not ignoring Ed's violence against Izzy, he did all of that violence fully after four times trying to isolate Ed violently from other people and I think it's acceptable to kill your abuser, so Ed's violence doesn't factor into my read aside from how it relates to how he handled his first abuser, his father, and how he handled his second abuser, Hornigold, in the dream scape.

So basically last time I made this meta I said "guys I think Izzy might be abusing Ed, but Idk he could just be power hungry as fucked up little henchmen often are." But now that I have season 2 I'm rewriting it and saying that I know that Izzy is one of Ed's abusers, so thank you season 2 for clarifying this for me. He changed his mind and, well all I have to say about that is that I hope Ed feels safer now that he has changed his mind, but I still don't much care for him.

If you comment on this to argue with me without adding a 🦜emoji I'll assume you haven't read the whole thing before getting mad at me and delete your reply.

[ourflagmeansgayrights]

they did not have to have izzy say “for years” on his deathbed. they also did not have to have izzy say he knew full well that his actions were harmful to ed. i was so ready to buy in to the idea that izzy was always a jerk but he wasn’t actively trying to enforce specific behavior from ed until stede bonnet showed up, and i was ready to believe that izzy genuinely thought he was doing some of it for ed’s own good, and then in the finale he looked into the camera and said “you outgrew blackbeard years ago and i’ve known this and i have been knowingly and intentionally cruel to you for my own personal gain this entire time.” i’ve always been very firmly against the jerk with a heart of gold reading for izzy but they made him even worse to ed than i thought for way longer than i thought. they did not need to do that. but they did it and they did it on his deathbed meaning this was the last word we got on izzy hands, the thing they had the character speak into canon with his literal dying breath.

izzy was intentionally hurting ed for his own self interests for years before the show even began and that’s not just my interpretation that is the goddamned TEXT

[dimplyowl]

Today I want to talk about intentions. A while ago I made a post about why Izzy's toxic masculinity and internalized homophobia doesn't give him a free pass to treat other people like shit and then not try to atone for that. A lot of the Izzy apologists I see seem to be of that opinion: that because we take into consideration Ed's past trauma when thinking how his actions have hurt the people we care about, we should give Izzy the same grace.

Well, I don't actually think we should, and I'm going to tell you why.

First, though, I want to say that this isn't about attacking people who enjoy characters who are pieces of shit. Please, by all means, enjoy your grubby little shitstain characters (I absolutely have some of my own that I love). This is about discussing why it's problematic to twist the canonical narrative to label Ed as abusive and Izzy as a victim.

And, in my opinion, it comes down to intentions.

"But dimplyowl," you say, "someone's intentions don't matter when the result is harmful to the people around them!" And I think, to a point, yes, that's true. People who hurt others through careless or reckless behavior need to bear the responsibility of their actions and own up to it (something that imo Izzy does not do). But I think there's also a distinction that needs to be made between people who hurt and control others because they take pleasure in feeling powerful over them, and those who don't.

If we take a look at Izzy's actions in season one and compare them to Ed's actions in season two, in my personal opinion, it becomes clear that one of these men is someone who has repeatedly taken pleasure in mistreating the people around him, both insubordinates and people that he claims to "have love for." And that man isn't the dread pyrate Blackbeard.

Does Ed enact violence on other people? Yes. Does he "love a good maim?" Also yes. Does he enjoy hurting people? Mm, debatable. The thing about Ed is that he has a complicated relationship with violence. To him, it's a tool to be utilized when necessary. I think he certainly gets a sense of vindictive pleasure when instructing Fang to skin the French captain or when the people at the French party descend into chaos and set themselves on fire. But, importantly, it's because those are people who wronged him. Those are people who hurt him, who dug at his race and his background and took pleasure in using those things to hurt him.

But Ed doesn't enjoy violence for violence's sake. There's always a reason, whether it's in reaction to being insulted, belittled, or threatened, or whether it's because it's literally just in the job description, he has a reason.

In season two, his reason for mistreating the crew is that he's trying to provoke them into mutinying on him. And, like, honestly, he does a pretty shitty job of it. Up until we rejoin them, his big crime is overworking them. The crew is tired emotionally and physically, but for the most part they're unharmed. They lost Ivan on a raid, but any one of them could die on a raid at any time, because it's literally just a hazard of the job. Not a single one of them is even considering mutiny at this point.

Ed hits his breaking point when Izzy suggests that they try and "talk it through," and imo completely understandably. It's his fault that the morale on the ship is low, is it? It's his fault because he was sad and heartbroken and vulnerable? It's his fault because he was healing in his own way, but that wasn't acceptable to Izzy at the time, but now because the ship isn't fun for Izzy anymore, because Izzy is on the verge of losing his position of power as Blackbeard's first mate, now is when Izzy decides that maybe talking it through might actually be helpful? Yeah, if I were Ed, I would fucking shoot him too.

But not once do we get any evidence that Ed is taking any pleasure in wearing down the crew. When he hits his breaking point, he is very clearly not having a good time. He realizes that if he wants this to end, he needs to up the ante. He hands Izzy a loaded gun and offers himself up as an easy target. Izzy laughs at his suicidal boss, friend, someone that he "has love for", and tells him to do it himself. He prolongs Ed's suffering. He puts the crew in even more danger. And even as Ed is trying to make the crew kill him, he doesn't touch them. By this point, we've seen this crew turn to mutiny twice, once because of Stede's ineptitude and once because of Izzy's abuse when he took over as captain. It shouldn't take much to get them to act, and yet it takes Ed threatening to get them all killed in a storm for them to finally act. Because up until that point, he's been unstable, he's been clearly going through a crisis, but he hasn't hurt them, he hasn't been abusive. He's clearly not enjoying any of this, he's going through some shit, he's hurting, and they love him, and until their lives are imminent danger, they're discussing how to help him.

If Ed wanted to hurt them, if he wanted to push them into mutiny sooner, there are so many things he could have done to terrorize them. Instead until the point he decides he can't live anymore, his only hope is that either he'll get killed in a raid, or he'll overwork them enough that they'll kill him themselves. This is not about abusing his crew, this is about abusing himself.

In contrast, when we look at Izzy's behavior throughout season one, we see someone who very clearly enjoys his position of power over other people, and who gets pleasure out of abusing that power. In 1x2, he sows distrust and uncertainty in Ivan and Fang about Ed's decision-making, telling them that he's half-mad, keeping Ed separate from the crew, and discouraging any questions by asserting himself physically over Fang. (He then claims in 1x4 to have reassured the crew when they've doubted Ed's leadership, when in fact he seems to be the cause of that doubt). In 1x3 he blatantly lies to Ed about having "explicitly" (his word) told Stede that "Blackbeard wants a word with him." He is practically gleeful when he passes on Stede's message to go suck eggs in hell, clearly expecting that to get a rise out of Ed, certainly to get him to drop his fascination with the Gentleman Pirate, and probably intending for Ed to attack Stede himself for disrespecting him.

In 1x4, he flip flops between caring that some of their crew died while fighting the Spanish to get Stede and his crew, and telling Ivan and Fang to kill anyone who refuses to fight the Spanish. Intending to fight the Spanish warships that have caught up with him is absolutely going to get everyone slaughtered, when there are other options. Ed actually advises anyone who can to leave, knowing that that's their only chance for survival, and similarly he tells the Revenge crew to surrender when cornered by the British. In 1x4, he clearly considers every death that would occur to be his responsibility when he tells Stede that being Blackbeard means that everyone's going to die, and it's going to be all his fault. Who's the one who actually cares about what happens to his crew here?

In 1x5 Izzy attempts to exert control over Lucius and punish him for, apparently, not working on his day off? Never mind that there are two other people in that room who are slacking off. Izzy targets Lucius, who is an effeminate unapologetically gay man, who Izzy clearly believes will be an easy target. He attempts to mock his sexuality (which actually winds up being more telling on himself), decides that it's his right to tell someone else's crew what to do at all, and attempts to use Lucius as an example to show the rest of Stede's crew that their "days of doing fuck-all are over", but then doesn't give jobs to the rest of the crew? He catches one of his own crew members fucking off with Lucius, and from what we can extrapolate, decides to only punish Lucius, because clearly Lucius as the "seductress" is to blame. He threatens to blackmail Lucius into obeying him, is visibly enjoying threatening him and manipulating him, and leaves like a pissy toddler when he doesn't get his way. And by "get his way", I mean successfully gains control over someone through threats and manipulation.

In 1x6, he once again decides that an effeminate gay man needs to be punished for his existence, but this time it's Stede he sets his sights on. He decides that he needs to take action only after hearing Ivan say that he's never seen Ed so open and available. Izzy can't have that, because he needs Ed to be dependent on Izzy, so that Izzy can continue to isolate Ed from the rest of the crew, can remain the only source of contact between Ed and the crew, and thereby easily control and manipulate both parties. He pressures Ed into finally acting on what he said he would do, belittling Stede and Ed's connection to Stede by referring to Stede as Ed's pet. (It is not an accidental choice that the writers will later have another antagonist refer to Stede as Ed's pet; it's deliberate mirroring to Izzy as an antagonist). He uses Stede's ego to manipulate him into insisting on putting on the fuckery so that they can get rid of Stede today--almost as if he knows that putting immediate pressure on Ed to act won't give him time to reconsider, to rethink, to back out, to maybe consider why Izzy is so adamant about this--and then uses Stede and Ed's relationship to further manipulate Stede into doubling down on doing the fuckery when he's doubting himself. And doing it in possibly the creepiest way possible?? Stede literally puts up a physical barrier between them, and Izzy pushes against that, actually literally pushes up against the curtain to push against the boundary that Stede has put up.

And then when it's clear Ed isn't going to kill Stede, Izzy decides that he's going to take that decision out of Ed's hands. He decides he knows better than Ed what's best for him, places more value in his own decisions than Ed's, essentially mutinies on Ed by disobeying him, and on Stede by challenging him to a duel. He clearly believes he's going to win, and easily, in the process forcing someone he again claims to "have love for" to watch as he destroys the only thing that's brought hope and life and light and enjoyment back into Ed's life. He's embarrassingly easily goaded into losing his temper, relishes the moment he thinks he's won, the moment he stabs Stede, loses his temper again when his sword is stuck. Canyonites love to talk about Ed having anger problems, but this episode clearly demonstrates who actually has the anger problem. He looks to Ed when he realizes he's lost, as if Ed is going to forgive him, let him stay, when he just tried to kill Ed's friend and (only in Izzy's mind at that point) lover.

Izzy then turns to the fucking cops to turn Stede in. He reinforces his belief that Ed isn't capable of making his own decisions when he refers to Stede as having "done something" to Ed's brain, as if Ed is a weak-willed, easily manipulated child. He sends Jack in because he knows that Jack will put a wedge between Ed and Stede, and hopefully to get Ed out of there before the navy shows up. He apparently doesn't consider the fact that Ed is the most wanted pirate in the world, and if Jack doesn't succeed, will be in life-threatening danger. But maybe he doesn't care about that, considering what he tells Ed later.

He arranges for Ed to be put into his custody. Like, I shouldn't have to say anything about that, because it's fucking disgusting. Like Ed is property to be handed over to Izzy. He tries to convince Ed that Stede's execution is actually a kindness, despite knowing what it will do to Ed. When that fails, he tries to convince Ed not to take the Act and sign the contract, but...isn't that what Izzy himself just did?

In 1x9 we get more of his control and manipulation over the crew. Taking away a week of Wee John's rations for making a comment about Izzy's terrible name for his ship, as he is actively eating in front of him. Making Ivan and Fang serve him, telling them his food needs more salt, and then not even eating more of it when they salt it? Fucking gross. That move is all about control.

And then 1x10, which I shouldn't even have to talk about, but the fucking horrible way he treats Ed apparently is still something that goes over some peoples' heads. Once again keeping him secluded from the crew, refusing to give them answers about what's going on, keeping them busy by literally spitting on their clean deck, when he could have just dumped the coffee out on it. Watching Ed grieve and bond with the crew, once again deciding for Ed that he knows what's best for him, interrupting his grieving process, telling him that what he's become is worse than death. Threatening him that if he doesn't return to the very specific image that Izzy says Blackbeard is, that Izzy will kill him. Later on his deathbed apology admitting that he knew that being Blackbeard was harmful to Ed, but that he kept pressing because Izzy needed him, needed Blackbeard in order to feel powerful, to keep the level of respect and fear that other people had for him.

All of this paints a picture of a person who enjoys feeling powerful, who enjoys using that power to hurt and abuse and control the people around him, who will do anything, even at the detriment of someone that he has "love for", to keep that power for himself. A person who takes pleasure in hurting people, physically and emotionally.

I see a lot of people trying to say that what Ed did was worse than what Izzy did. I personally don't think it was, when you add up the consistent way that Izzy mistreats every person around him. But I think that what's even more important in this discussion are the intentions behind the hurt.

Ed did everything he could not to harm his crew until it became evident that the only way he could be successful in getting them to kill him would be by giving them a very present, very real threat. And even then, the way he went about doing it was very distant. Making Jim and Archie fight each other. Sailing directly into a storm. Damaging the ship to make an already dangerous situation even more dangerous.

Izzy repeatedly enjoyed exerting his control and physical and emotional violence on other people. He displayed a pattern of believing himself to be the only person capable of making the right choices, of removing the agency from the people around him, specifically of removing Ed, a person of color's, agency. He hurt every single person around him, all for his own benefit, for his own gain.

Maybe it comes down to value systems, maybe intentions behind someone's behavior really don't matter to you, but I know that I am much more forgiving of someone who hurt me as a byproduct of hurting themselves than I am someone who knowingly, repeatedly hurts people because they enjoy it.

[electric016]

Idk, I mean the crew already tried to give Izzy a burial at sea in season 1, and he didn't seem to want it, so 🤷‍♀️

[our-flag-means-love]

a lot of people very strongly oppose the idea that izzy is jesus-coded, and i just have to say that i disagree.

i mean, jesus seems pretty cool from what i've heard, and i think his story is interesting. but 99% of my problems with jesus stem from a vocal minority of his fanbase who wildly misinterpret his words and actions to a harmful extent.

seems like a perfect match to me.