#Justification of their actions or apologizing for their behavior

[iguessitsjustme]

I like that Rak's dad apologized to Fah and that did that before he gave official permission for them to date. Like he already apologized to Rak and it was basically clear that he wouldn't stop them but before he ever gave them the 100% go ahead he made sure to apologize.

He did not need to apologize but he did. He owned his mistake. He made sure that air was clear so Fah would know he was welcomed. And then when Fah told him that he was never angry with him? You could see the way his heart melted and how in that moment, he truly understood why Rak fought for that relationship. And how he knew that Fah was Rak's happiness and that's all any of them ever wanted. It just took Rak's dad a bit longer to see what that happiness was and how it was different than the way he always imagined it. But that moment? When Fah said there was nothing to forgive? Any residual doubts were swept away.

It was a rough journey to watch happen and it hurt to see that pain. But it also was a healing journey. Love overcomes prejudice. And the fact that the show knew it was important for him to apologize to Fah too because it wasn't just his son that he hurt with his words and actions, it was Fah? Truly amazing. It takes strength to apologize. Even when it would have been perfectly acceptable to only apologize to his son. Despite everything he put them through, it makes sense that is the man that raised to adoring children.

[godnectar]

Yandere himbo? >:)

・✶ ｡ﾟ𝐘𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐌𝐁𝐎 ;

cw: toxic behavior, bae's hot, oblivious and delusional asf, kinda manipulative, jealousy, violence, guilt tripping,,,, justifications + probably a big ass etc. ( inbox )

𖣠 YANDERE HIMBO who possesses a genuinely warm and friendly demeanor that, along with his looks, easily draws people to him. the pure, charming, and easygoing smile he usually wears making it extremely hard for others to suspect anything about his hidden, darker tendencies — reason why you didn't really made a big deal out of his sudden but innocent looking crush towards you and just felt flattered.

𖣠 YANDERE HIMBO whose loyalty absolutely knows no bounds once you two got together after countless of sweet, sincere compliments, some appealing winks, and a few wholesome dates. he's hopelessly devoted to you, willing to go to extreme lengths to ensure his darling's happiness and safety twenty-four seven.

𖣠 YANDERE HIMBO who's cheerful facade is fast to crumble the next second he perceives someone as a threat to your lovely, fairy tale looking relationship, no matter if it's because of one of your friends getting to touchy or just one of your relatives making a disapproving comment about your choice of a partner. even though, he's also quick to apologize whenever you get mad as the familiar, beefy arms that hold you at night get covered with scratches after he holds your acquaintances in a chokehold deep inside an alley hours prior. unsurprisingly, guilt overcomes you as soon as you glance at his pouty lips and furrowed eyebrows, pained by your anger over his instinctive jealousy.

𖣠 YANDERE HIMBO who as much as he lacks intelligence, probably also lacks comprehension for his actions' severity most of the time, leading him to justify some disturbing things such as his hostility, surveillance and obsessive keepsakes by saying it all comes from his undying love towards you, the light of his eyes.

𖣠 YANDERE HIMBO who genuinely thinks there's nothing wrong with what he does. sure, he might not be the brightest bulb in the box, nor the man with the healthiest mental state you'll meet — the latter being pretty noticeable, especially when you catch on the fearful stares some people send among all the praising others unawarely give — but at least he's trying his best at showing you that his... heart throbs only for his sweetling, right?

𖣠 YANDERE HIMBO who desires with all his heart for you to be as head over heels for him as he is for you, never giving up on trying to make you let down all of your guards to share his innermost yearns, fantasizing about an intense, exclusive and unique connection between you two where both seek to become the other's one and only.

"tell me how much you love me, my dear. need to hear you saying there's absolutely no one in your heart but me."

© godnectar 2023. please do not modify, translate, or repost my works on any platform without my permission.

[homuraakemis]

I find it quite ridiculous when people hate on Caitlyn for hitting Vi and say that Caitlyn was "abusive" to Vi while at the same time saying that Vi should have ran after Jinx and stayed with Jinx and put Jinx above everyone else. Because if we actually compare how these two characters treat Vi, Jinx is the one that has been constantly violent towards Vi.

Let's make a list of how each of these characters has treated Vi.

Caitlyn

Violent behavior towards Vi:

Hits Vi in the stomach.

I'm not counting Caitlyn ambushing Vi, because Caitlyn didn't even know that was Vi, and I'm not counting Caitlyn hitting Vi to sell their ruse against Ambessa, because Vi is the one that asked and clearly that was part of a mutually agreed plan.

What Caitlyn did to make up for it:

Helped Vi in her attempt to save Vander and risked her life by betraying Ambessa;

Allowed Vi to set free her mother's murderer and the woman who kidnapped her (no matter how much you hate Caitlyn, you have to recognize what a huge sacrifice and proof of love this is);

Is honest with Vi before they get intimate (telling her about Maddie), and stops to silently apologize when she sees Vi's wound (yeah, she doesn't say the words, but Vi very much understands what she means. During that moment, Caitlyn acknowledges what she did to Vi all those months ago).

Jinx

Violent behavior towards Vi:

Threatens Vi with a gun during their reunion, even though Vi had just apologized for "leaving" and is trying to reconcile;

Shoots at Vi at the bridge because she sees Vi with Caitlyn, almost killing Vi out of jealousy;

Hits Vi after Vi's fight with Sevika and knocks her out;

Kidnaps Vi and ties her to a chair;

Psychologically tortures Vi with mementos of her dead family and with the thought that she might have decapitated Caitlyn, and smiles at the torment she's inflicting on Vi;

Demands that Vi kills Caitlyn, someone she knows Vi cares about, as a proof of love (once again, out of jealousy. Demanding that a person should love only you and no one else and threatening violence if that person refuses is classic abusive behavior).

I'm not counting their fights against each other in Janna's temple and in the tunnels, because a fight is a fight, and in Janna's temple, they were explicitly enemies. However, it's important to notice that all of the things listed in the bullet points above were not fights in which they were mutually hurting each other: they were one-sided aggressions from Jinx towards Vi, without Vi doing anything to justify said aggressions done by Jinx. In fact, all of them happen before Vi becomes an enforcer, so at this point, Vi hadn't initiated any aggression towards Jinx. And no, Vi slapping Powder and calling her a jinx all those years ago is not a justification for Jinx's actions, because not only did Vi apologize for what she did, but Jinx's retribution towards Vi is completely disproportionate. Nothing that Vi ever did to Jinx warrants the retribution Jinx gave her, the physical and psychological violence Jinx inflicted on her. (And Vi becoming an enforcer and going to fight Jinx in season 2 only happens as a response to Jinx's own actions and after Jinx had already hurt Vi in plenty of ways; so Vi fighting Jinx in season 2 is not an argument as for why Vi "deserved" to be hurt by Jinx in season 1)

What Jinx does to make up for it:

We never actually see Jinx explicitly acknowledge any of these things she did to Vi. But I guess Jinx's best attempts to reconcile with Vi in some way are:

Coming to get Vi to rescue Vander. Jinx doesn't do this as any kind of apology to Vi. In fact, I'd say Jinx still doesn't recognize all the harm she caused Vi, considering that right after getting Vi, Jinx throws all kinds of accusations at Vi in the tunnels without ever recognizing her own actions against Vi. But it's also clear she does it as some attempt to reconcile with Vi. Not exactly an apology, but I guess I will count;

Leaving Vi behind so that Vi could be with Caitlyn. This one does actually seem to be a decision made by a recognition of all the harm she caused Vi as well as realizing how despite all that, Vi never gave up on her. So I do consider this as an attempt to apologize/make up for what she did to Vi. However, the way Jinx goes about this apology is still all kinds of messed up: she punches Vi (so more physical violence), locks her in a cell (without thinking of how this might affect Vi, even though she knows Vi spent seven years in prison), and fakes her own death, without ever considering Vi's own opinions or feelings about this (I think Vi would clearly have preferred if her sister simply talked things out with her and explained why she wanted to walk away). It's a step in the right direction, considering that she finally seems to recognize that Vi is hurting as well instead of only focusing on her own suffering, but it's still a very flawed apology that still causes Vi a lot of suffering.

So looking at all that, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could say that Caitlyn is abusive towards Vi, while at the same time saying that Vi should have stayed with Jinx instead. If you don't hate Jinx despite all that she did to Vi, then why would you hate Caitlyn for hitting Vi once? Caitlyn shows no pattern of violence against Vi that could be called abuse: she hurt Vi once, and she did absolutely everything she could to make up for it (letting her mother's murderer go free is no small thing). Jinx, on the other hand, does show a pattern of violence against Vi, and her apology, while well meaning, comes with more violence and disregard for Vi's own feelings and opinions.

Also, of these two women, only one of them has been constantly caring for and supporting Vi in every way she could throughout the show, and that person is Caitlyn: she freed Vi from Stillwater, risked her life by staying with Vi while Silco's goons chased them when Vi was stabbed (she could have abandoned Vi to save her own skin but didn't), gave up her rifle (the only way she had of defending herself) to heal Vi, offered herself to the Firelights in Vi's place, tried to use her body as a shield to save Vi from Jinx's bullets, comforted Vi about her guilt and told her that what happened to her sister wasn't Vi's fault, got Vi an audience with the council and defended Vi in front of them, spared Jinx's life when Vi asked her (which cost her mother's life), betrayed Ambessa and risked her life to save Vi's father, and let Vi free Jinx. Caitlyn is a light in Vi's life, the person who cared the most for her ever since Vander died.

[graceraindrops-blog]

How much of a terrible mom was Cordelia? A full explanation.

It's a shame that the first post of my blog is dedicated to a rather ''interesting'' take @yuikomorii showed me, but taking into account that I've done my research involving the mothers, I find it a perfect opportunity to make a full explanation of Cordelia's abusive behavior.

Before I start, I would like to talk about why Cordelia acted the way she did (I AM NOT JUSTIFYING HER ACTIONS).

We know that Cordelia's father was neglectful towards her after the death of her mother which made her lack the ability to understand love.

Karlheinz manipulated Cordelia into marrying him and giving him children FORCEFULLY (because Cordelia did not want to have children). He also convinced Cordelia that it was okay for her to have many lovers and to have sexual relationships with FAMILY members

Cordelia's abusive behavior towards the triplets also comes over the fact of her jealousy and obsession with Karlheinz and surpassing Beatrix and Christa.

Getting this out of the way I will now start explaining why Cordelia was NOT a good mother despite her traumas.

It's not strange to view Cordelia negatively if she's one of the antagonists of the franchise. NEVER did Diabolik lovers ever paint Cordelia as a good person and constantly tell us about how shitty she was towards her children and how much it affected them.

2. I'm not denying the fact that around those times parenting was more strict, however, you're forgetting that Cordelia didn't just slap, ground, or yell at her children, she put intense waves of pressure on Ayato, and drowned him, she sexually abused Laito, manipulated him and groomed him when he was a KID, forced Kanato to sing until he bled and made him watch her have intercourse with other men. This was the abuse the triplets went through until they finally had enough and attempted to kill Cordelia, which they succeeded.

3. Yes, it's true that Beatrix wouldn't give the triplets much attention or love, she would probably neglect them due to not being her biological children and belonging to her rival, however, Beatrix WOULD NEVER do the messed up stuff Cordelia did. Yes, she was a terrible mother to Shu and Reiji, yet she would've never stepped down at Cordelia's level.

4. A normal mother doesn't drown and threaten her child due to personal issues, A normal mother doesn't sexually abuse her child and grooms him to make him depend on her, and a normal mother doesn't force her child to watch her have sex with men and doesn't use his singing voice to get horny. If she was an affectionate mother ayato wouldn't have found the need to HIDE himself from her and the triplets wouldn't have considered killing her.

5. I would also like to add, that no matter how badly influenced Cordelia was, and no matter how much childhood trauma she went through, that would never be a justification for the way she treated her children. This does not only apply to Cordelia, this applies to every character and to real people as well. It's a reason why they behave that way, but never a justification. Also, Cordelia doing the bare minimum and behaving like an actual mother for a few moments does not mean she cares about her children. I don't think this is explicitly told, but I believe in those particular scenes she's grooming Kanato to become dependent on her like she did with Laito and Ayato.

6. ''She never spoke that way to her children'' I'm sorry but I have to laugh?? I would've understood if you were an anime only (not really) but taking into account that you do know about the games this is really really wrong lol. I don't why it's difficult to understand that Cordelia didn't love her children. Cordelia is such a bad mother that when she was resurrected in Ayato's DF route, she didn't even apologize to him or to his siblings, and yet he still forgave her! She even told Ayato to APOLOGIZE to her and continued to insult him

(Credits to @dialovers-translations)

I understand (I think everyone in the fandom does) that Cordelia had her reasons to behave this way (childhood trauma and manipulation) but that doesn't excuse her actions. I don't agree with people hating on Cordelia and loving Karlheinz but I also don't agree with people defending Cordelia and saying she did nothing wrong when she did.

Cordelia isn't a black-and-white character and she's not a bad character either, she's very well-written for her purpose (an antagonist) but she's not a good person or mother. She never regretted what she did and if she was still alive during HDB she would've still been abusive to the triplets.

This is my problem with morally grey characters/Evil characters. They can't exist in media if people ignore their wrongdoings and actions and try to justify said actions. I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist but I'm tired of people painting them as good people or justifying their actions when their whole purpose as a character is to show that they're not good people and their actions are/were wrong.

To finish off the post I would like to say that I love Cordelia's character and I consider her to be one of the best-written characters in Diabolik Lovers. In my opinion, I would've liked to know more about her in further games but even if I feel this way about her I don't justify her actions and that's something we should all do. I'm glad the fandom no longer justifies the actions of the characters (with some obvious exceptions). And even if I like Cordelia as a character I don't shame others for not liking her, at the end of the day she was a horrible person lol.

[annakaspring]

Officially the longest rant I've ever posted

Snater mauraders fans literally being the most shallow people on earth.

I will see them saying Snape deserved to be targeted and bullied. And the reason is always the same.

"he was creepy" how was he creepy? "He was obsessed with Lily and possessive of her."

oh, you mean like how James threatened to physically assault Lily if she didn't go on a date with him while simultaneously bullying her friend? While Severus did as Lily asked and left her alone when she said their friendship was over.

"He was racist." No, comparing the word mudblood a fictional slur to a real life racial slur is so ignorant, problematic and also completely disregards that there could be actual racism in the Harry Potter universe. And Snape is not a pureblood in fact he is way more muggle born than half blood as he grew up in a muggle neighborhood, wearing muggle clothes. Is what Snape called Lily right? No. could she have still been hurt? Yes. But I see the same people who bash Snape, Stan Malfoy who is canonically a pureblood who hates muggle-borns. Like be so for fucking for real rn.

"He was a nazi" Again, comparing a fictional "cult" to real life devastating history is ignorant and frankly ridiculous. But let's just humor that idea for a moment. Then why do I see maurader fans idolizing characters like Barry Crouch Jr? Or Regulus Black? Who not only joined the death eaters just like Severus did but were privileged purebloods who unlike Severus had money, a proper home, family. And in Barty Jr's case he is literally canonically evil.

"He was a bully." So was James, so was Sirius.And both James and Sirius are canonically described as being obviously well loved and privileged while Snape "so obviously lacked" that. Severus had reasons to be cold, stand offish and rude. had a terrible home life, neglectful if not straight up abusive parents, a single friend, depressed and was poor. What was James's excuse?

And I will see ppl who loooove Draco Malfoy yet despise Snape. Draco Malfoy, who is repeatedly voiced his pureblood prejudice so much as saying he wished death upon Hermione Granger simply for her blood status, was a HUGE bully, surely bigger than Snape ever was if he did ever bully (he didn't). Severus Snape used a slur once, once when he was a child while he was being SA'd and regretted it so much he never used the word again. While Draco literally never even apologized for his fanatical white supremacist behavior. "Well he didn't want to kill Dumbledore" I'm sorry but being too cowardly to kill someone does not equal being a good person.

"Oh well they changed, they grew up and became better." Did they? Where's the proof? Where's the evidence? I never saw Sirius own up to his actions. Remus still excused his friends bullying. "Well actually Draco actually liked Hermione the whole time. And that's why he was so mean to her" So? If anything that makes even worse. If a guy wished me dead, was openly vile to I wouldn’t suddenly be okay with it because he was actually attracted to me the whole time.

So what arguments do the Snaters have left?

Nothing, absolutely zero justification other than shallow, half baked reasons.

Severus Snape commits the most unforgivable sin. Being poor, morally grey AND ugly.

Because being poor can be forgiven as long as you're hot i.e Remus Lupin. But forbid they actually show signs of their class. Being malnourished, having hand me clothes, not being able to have proper hygiene. These are all things that actually happen to severely lower class individuals. Being a pureblood snob can be forgiven as long as you're hot. Being actually evil with zero justification is forgiven as long as you're hot.

People will twist and headcanon characters we get two pages of information on into fully fleshed out people with intricate backstories and believable justification for all their evil behavior.

Meanwhile bashing Snape who is one the most complex, dark, interesting character in the series. All because Snape is "ugly".

Because god forbid a character does not fit their rigid beauty standards and is actually complex and human.

And we're not gonna get into how literally not once was Snape ever explicitly described as ugly or how Draco Malfoy in the books described as having a pointed, rat like face.

And just to clarity I'm not trying yuck anybody's yum. Love the characters you love, stan evil ones, ship all the characters you want. I do! I ship character who make absolutely no sense in canon. create intricate stories for background characters all you want That's what fandom is all about. But don't act you have an actual reason for hating Snape while simultaneously stanning Voldemort and Barty Crouch Jr.

Be straightforward and say you don't like him because he does not fit your rigid cookie cutter beauty standards and you have no compassion.

Cheers,

[livlum]

Realistic EPIC Odysseus and Calypso relationship

tw: SA mentioned

This is a man who was held captive and abus3d by a goddess for 7 years. A goddess he could do nothing against, he could not fight, she could do whatever she wanted to him.

There are many who justify Calypso by saying that she had good intentions and that she loved him, but even if she loves him that is no reason for SA and to hold him captive.

Not only that, but she also manipulated him, "took care" of him, treated him with "affection" and in "I'm not sorry for loving you" he even says that he loves her anyway (Stockholm syndrome, which makes sense because she was the only person he could interact with for almost a decade).

One of the most striking elements in the artwork is Odysseus' expression—a gaze filled with exhaustion, detachment, and quiet resignation. His eyes are dark, almost lifeless, his face unshaven, and his posture slouched, giving the impression of someone who has long since accepted their fate. This expression contrasts sharply with the vibrant surroundings and the apparent affection Calypso shows him, creating a visual representation of forced luxury and emotional imprisonment.

His resignation is not the peace of a man who has found happiness but the numbness of someone who no longer fights against the inevitable. This is a common reaction in victims of prolonged captivity or manipulation—they become emotionally drained, too tired to resist, and too isolated to find a way out.

The song "Not Sorry for Loving You" is key to understanding the emotional abuse Calypso exerts over Odysseus. In the lyrics, she expresses her love in a way that completely ignores his suffering:

"If I pushed you, if I came on too strong, I'm not sorry for loving you."

These words reflect a justification for possessive and controlling behavior under the guise of love. Calypso refuses to apologize for "pushing too hard" or for being "too intense" because, to her, the love she feels excuses any action. This is a common tactic in abusive relationships: the abuser positions themselves as a victim of their own love, making the other person feel guilty for wanting to leave.

Another significant line is:

"You're mine."

This is not an expression of love but of possession. True love involves respect and freedom, while possession strips the other person of autonomy. Calypso does not see Odysseus as a man with his own desires and rights—she sees him as someone she can keep simply because she loves him.

On the other hand, the song "Love in Paradise" showcases Odysseus’ experience of captivity. While he is surrounded by beauty and material comfort, he remains a prisoner. This is a recurring theme in discussions about manipulation: the idea that if someone gives you "everything," you should be grateful—even if they are depriving you of the most important thing: freedom.

Odysseus likely develops what is known as Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological mechanism in which a victim starts to feel attachment to their captor because they depend on them emotionally. I mention that Odysseus tells Calypso he loves her, but this can be understood not as genuine love but as a result of his isolation:

"She was the only person he could interact with for almost a decade."

This detail is crucial. The human mind is wired to seek connection, even in extreme circumstances. Odysseus does not love Calypso on equal terms—he "loves" her because she is his only source of companionship and affection for years.

[rickktish]

Some unsolicited Harry Potter Thoughts and Headcanons

Ron Weasley is one of my favorite characters. Ron Weasley should have died from the poison in Slughorn's office when he was 16 so that y'all would treat him with the respect he deserves instead of shitting on him and replacing him with Draco in Leather Pants.

The entire reason Dumbledore is so fucked up actually has nothing to do with his sordid past; it comes from the (Doylist) fact that he was a plot device in a children's book until the main characters (and thus the audience) got old enough that it needed to become a YA series, and then had to find ways to justify is plot device-ness after being magically transformed into a character. The justification did not succeed.

Harry and Ginny were fine as a ship. Not spectacular, but fine. But if the series had come out 10-20 years later than it did I would be frothing at the mouth that Harry ended up with Ron's sister instead of Ron.

Draco Malfoy was a victim of circumstance in that he was raised by racists to be a racist. Draco Malfoy did not change his mind about his racism by the end of the series, but he did change his mind about the cult leader his parents had raised him to worship, and he deserves credit for that. Do not give him credit for what we do not have evidence of him doing, namely becoming not racist. No one in his family did that. Don't pretend that they did just to make them look shinier.

Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all bad friends at different points in the series, but as far as I can recall only Harry and Hermione exhibited actively toxic behavior. Ron had his disagreement with Hermione in book 3 and with Harry in book 4, but he had valid points in PoA (owner of a pet is responsible for that pet's actions) and was operating under false assumptions which he clearly communicated in GoF ("I thought you might've told me if it was the Cloak... because it wouldn't covered both of us, wouldn't it? But you found another way, did you?") before getting his head out of his ass ("Harry," he said, very seriously, "whoever put your name in that goblet -- I -- I reckon they're trying to do you in!") Followed by a sincere apology, interrupted though it was ("Ron opened his mouth uncertainly. Harry knew Ron was about to apologize and suddenly found he didn't need to hear it. "It's okay," he said, before Ron could get the words out. "Forget it." |"No," said Ron, "I shouldn't've--"| "Forget it," Harry said. Ron grinned nervously at him, and Harry grinned back.) Ron also apologized after leaving in DH. If anyone can remember a single instance of either Harry or Hermione apologizing to Ron for something they did that was wrong or for direct harm rather than accidental harm they've done, would you please add it to this post? I'm hoping it's just been too long since I did an in-depth read of the series and I've forgotten something, because I genuinely can't remember a time and I haven't been successful in locating one by my cursory searches through my ebook editions. I would genuinely like to be wrong about this, please and thank you.

I believe with my whole soul that the reason Dumbledore didn't get Sirius out of prison was because he was having Grindelwald flashbacks. Person I trusted with my whole soul turned out to be pro-enslavement/genocide? Person my students trusted with their magically concealed location appears to have turned out to be pro-Voldemort (and everything he uses to justify his pursuit of power)? He literally did not believe any doubts he might have held about Sirius' guilt, because he hasn't trusted his own judgement since he was 18 and his little sister died. also he 1) canonically did not know that Sirius wasn't the secret keeper and 2) probably did not know that Sirius never had a trial, so there's also that.

Harry and Ron 100% should have gone to the Yule Ball together. I would forgive their not ending up together so long as they had gone and had a fantastic time. Unfortunately, GoF was written in 2000, and we missed out for it.

Hermione would be an emotionally (and potentially physically) abusive spouse to Ron, not because I feel any need to put her down or bash her in any way, but because she wasn't willing to tell him that she was into him and instead conjured birds to attack him when she caught him kissing another girl. I think with time, effort, and a decent dose of humility, they could work it out, but at some point their kids are going to be chatting with friends and reveal the most casually fucked up shit about their parents' relationship to someone who's going to look utterly horrified and poor Rose and Hugo will have no idea why because to them it will be completely normal.

Childhood is thinking Dumbledore is the good guy and Snape is the bad guy. Angsty teenhood is thinking Snape is the good guy and Dumbledore "raised Harry like a pig for slaughter." Maturity is realizing that Snape did good things for really fucked up reasons like "I'm obsessed with the woman whose husband and child I would have seen killed so I could have another chance to get in her pants but unfortunately she's dead so I guess I have to keep her child who I hate alive" while also actively causing (directed) severe harm to the children under his care, and that Dumbledore did fucked up things for some good reasons like "I can't let this person who tortured animals as a child and committed murder in his teens destroy the world" and for some bad reasons like "I would literally die right now but unfortunately I have shit to do" (I honestly think everyone somehow missed the fact that Dumbledore was suicidal?? in spite of the fact that he committed assisted suicide?? I'm not quite sure how, but I suspect it has something to do with the woobification of Snape, so. there's that) while also causing (mostly indirect) moderate to severe harm to all who were in his care including, but not limited to, the government officials who asked him for advice, the staff and children at the school he ran, and his own family. The essential difference comes because Snape acted as he did toward others because he hated the world and everything in it, especially children, whereas Dumbledore acted as he did toward others because he couldn't make up his mind whether or not the ends justified the means and his life was entirely defined by the practice of both intentional and unintentional self-sabotage.

This absolutely might be giving Rowling too much credit, but I grew up with fairy tales of goblins who stole and guarded gold and didn't learn that goblins were a racist caricature based in antisemitism until I was in my late teens or early twenties by reading a post about how writing goblins as bankers meant that Rowling is antisemitic. I also genuinely didn't believe it at first, because I grew up in a culture that reveres Judaism and the Jewish people as God's chosen and the source for the foundation of mankind's relationship with God, and I had to seriously work to believe that the slightly goofy, slightly gross fairy tale creature I was familiar with could have such a disgusting connotation. I strongly suspect that Rowling herself had no idea until she started being accused of racism, at which point she pulled her classic schtick and doubled down, radicalizing rather than being open to being told she might be wrong. Sometimes you grow up with something being so normal and part of the regular zeitgeist that it never occurs to you that it could have its origins in racism. (I experienced this myself recently from a post about the origin of the popularity of private pools in the US, which I always thought were just a rich people status symbol. Even though I've known about the issue of pool discrimination since my mom, who attended a formerly black-only middle school in Alabama as a child, read me picture books about it when I was in elementary school, I didn't put it together until I read the post.) The quality of your character is determined then by how you respond to the criticism rather than whether or not you knew before the accusations began. The end result is the same, but I feel like holding her responsible for knowledge we have no way of telling if she knew before she started being accused of having it is bad-faith criticism, and I'd much rather hold her accountable for wrongs I know she's committed rather than ones I can only speculate about.

Dudley Dursley deserved his redemption. He grew up with the rule "Don't be like Harry" and figured out by the end of the series that Harry was a person, which is better than either of his parents managed. I honestly think a good dose of the real world-- maybe university or something-- would give him the foundation he would need to separate himself from his parents' beliefs and become a halfway decent human being. I wish the best for Dudley Dursley.

Neville Longbottom deserved better. In every possible way.

[glowettee]

Hello!! This ask is more of a confession, I wanted you to answer me about what you think. In short, I ended up hurting someone a lot in the past, because I was insecure, very insecure. Now I'm in therapy and I've matured, and today I decided to write a message to that person asking for forgiveness for my past behaviors. What do you think? I'm very unsure about what this person will think about this, I know this person will send it to all their friends (who also don't like me for my past behaviors)... I'm restless!

🫧

✧・ healing whispers to a wounded past :・゜✧

hey angel! ✧

oh my heart literally did a little flip when i read this. first of all, i want you to know that i'm sitting here feeling so proud of you for even asking this question. growth is such a beautiful, messy thing and recognizing your own journey? that takes real courage.

honestly? i think reaching out to someone you've hurt is one of the bravest things a person can do. it's not guaranteeing forgiveness, it's acknowledging your impact on someone else's heart. that vulnerability is so powerful.

the fact that you're in therapy and have been doing the inner work to understand your insecurities shows how much you've evolved. we all have those shadow parts that sometimes lead us to hurt others when we're hurting ourselves. recognizing that pattern is the first step to breaking it.

about your worries that this person might share your message with friends… that's a completely valid concern. when we open ourselves up, we can't control how others receive our truth. but i want you to consider something: what matters most here is your intention. are you reaching out for your healing or theirs? the purest apologies come without expectations attached.

sometimes the most healing thing isn't necessarily reconnection but the act of taking responsibility. you're not asking them to be your friend again or to absolve you, you're simply acknowledging the hurt you caused and offering them the gift of knowing you recognize it now.

before you send anything, maybe try journaling about these questions:

what exactly am i apologizing for? (be specific about behaviors)

am i truly ready to accept any response, including no response?

have i processed my own feelings enough that i won't be devastated if they reject my apology?

is there anything i'm secretly hoping to get from this exchange?

the most authentic apologies don't include justifications, even when there are reasons behind our actions. "i was insecure" is understanding yourself, but make sure your message focuses on their experience, not explaining yourself.

at the end of the day, sending that message isn't erasing the past, it's showing that you've grown from it. that growth is yours to keep regardless of how they respond.

remember that forgiveness is never owed, but honesty is always a gift, to yourself and to others. whatever happens, you're honoring your journey by acknowledging where you've been and showing who you've become.

i'm sending you the softest, warmest energy as you navigate this. being human is complicated and messy, but there's something so beautiful about trying to make things right, even when it's scary.

xoxo, mindy 🤍

p.s. no matter what happens, be gentle with yourself after sending it. healing isn't linear, and brave acts deserve tender aftercare.

[david-talks-sw]

So I just talked about how these mysteries were all predictable, which is tied to the decision to structure this show like an investigative thriller. The crazy part is... while the long-term twists are being "telegraphed", the short-term ones aren't even hinted at.

Because of how this is structured, I don't understand half these characters' motivations, as they're not doing what a character in their position would do, they're just following the plot beats of a series structured like an investigative thriller.

Characters are just doing stuff, I don't understand what they've got on their mind, then the next episode after it clarifies... but like, what hints had I received that X character was gonna do this?

Here's an example:

Sol is established as wise and balanced, someone who is open to the possibility of being wrong.

Episode #6 ends with Sol imprisoning Mae. Ominous music plays and he's about to tell her what's up. What will he tell her? I have no idea. I just know something happened on Brendok that was so bad that Torbin killed himself over it.

Episode #7, we're shown that Sol fucked up. His self-righteous behavior and impetuousness essentially caused a genocide and that he's partially the reason why Osha and Mae suffered so much. We can see this pained him.

So I don't think it would be far-fetched to assume that in the next episode, Sol will be trying to apologize, get Mae to see his point of view, explain that "Look, you're mother turned into a smoke demon and you began to dissolve, I did the maths and concluded wrongly. I'm sorry."

Episode #8: Nope. Instead he's being this ultra obsessive guy who is more interested in justifying the reckless actions of his youth than just apologizing.

How did we get there? Organically, I mean.

We didn't.

Because the series is dogmatically following the investigative thriller structure, and this is the point where the police detective who mentored the protagonist reveals he did what he did for the greater good. So that's what we're doing now. Even if it means Sol is out of character.

Now, I can buy that Sol's tragic flaw is that he's never able to shed that self-righteousness. But you gotta give me reason to do so, show me hints, here and there.

If the justification is just "well Sol repressed his never darkness and never acknowledged it"...

"Sol is just in full-on repression mode at this point. He’s deluded himself into thinking that he has achieved balance." - Leslye Headland, Entertainment Weekly, 2024

... this wasn't shown to us.

It's literally just Qimir stating as much and that's it.

Everything else can be waived away as "he was angry", which I honestly get because he just saw like five people get slaughtered, some of whom he had a strong bond with.

In Falcon and the Winter Soldier, they do a better job at hinting that John Walker has a repressed darkness. Let's get some hints that Sol could lose his shit at any point even before he suffered great losses. Let's see him lose his shit when he's trying to probe Mae's mind to find her master.

[merwgue]

The anti-ACOTAR (A Court of Thorns and Roses) fandom is not merely a group fueled by blind hatred towards Rhysand and the Inner Circle. It’s far more nuanced, rooted in thoughtful critique of the moral issues embedded within the narrative. The common misconception that anti-ACOTAR fans are wielding pitchforks against Sarah J. Maas or irrationally hating Rhysand fails to grasp the deeper concerns that they are pointing out—concerns about accountability, moral dissonance, and problematic portrayals of power and relationships.

The Core Problem: Cognitive Dissonance and Moral Blind Spots

Let’s start with cognitive dissonance—a psychological phenomenon where a person holds two conflicting beliefs, causing discomfort. In the case of the Inner Circle, readers are presented with a group of characters who are written as heroes but who consistently engage in morally questionable actions. Rhysand, in particular, is portrayed as a figure of justice and fairness, yet he perpetuates authoritarian behavior, often violating basic moral principles.

For example, Rhysand's actions under the Mountain, particularly his treatment of Feyre, included scenes of sexual assault, manipulation, and degradation. But where is the self-reflection? Where is the apology? Moral development theory suggests that as people (or characters) grow, they recognize when they have wronged others and seek to make amends. Rhysand never truly apologizes for the harm he caused to Feyre, which leads to discomfort for readers because the narrative tells us he’s the hero while his actions tell a different story. Psychologically speaking, this is a classic case of moral disengagement, where Rhysand justifies his harmful actions through the lens of doing what’s "necessary" for the greater good. He never engages in genuine introspection, nor does he attempt to change.

If They Were Villains, This Would Work—But They're Not

This brings us to a central frustration of the anti-ACOTAR community. If the Inner Circle—Rhysand, Mor, Cassian, and the others—were written as morally grey or even villainous characters, this would make perfect sense. In fact, many readers argue that it would make the story even more interesting. If Rhysand’s actions were framed as morally ambiguous, and if the narrative reflected that, it would add depth to his character. But that’s not what we get. Instead, these characters are positioned as champions of justice, as beacons of righteousness who never face any real moral consequences for their actions.

Let’s take the Illyrians as an example. Rhysand segregates them into warrior camps, a decision that reeks of elitism and classism. The Illyrians are portrayed as lesser beings in comparison to the fae of Velaris, and the way Rhysand controls them reflects a severe moral blind spot. Moral hypocrisy emerges when a character believes they are the moral authority but acts in ways that are deeply harmful. Rhysand’s control over the Illyrians—treating them like tools for war while never allowing them to integrate into Velaris—is an abuse of power, plain and simple. And yet, the narrative presents it as if he’s making a hard but necessary decision for the greater good. This moral justification makes him no better than the leaders of the oppressive systems he claims to despise.

Accountability and Apology: What’s Missing in ACOTAR

One of the key tenets of growth and development is the capacity to acknowledge wrongdoing and apologize. Apology, according to psychologists, is a critical step in maintaining healthy relationships, rebuilding trust, and achieving personal growth. When we harm someone, we apologize and strive to do better. The anti-ACOTAR fandom isn’t asking for perfection; they are asking for accountability. They are asking why characters like Rhysand and the Inner Circle never apologize for their actions, even when those actions cause immense harm.

Consider the contrast between Rhysand and Tamlin. Despite being portrayed as a villain later in the series, Tamlin is one of the few characters who attempts to make amends for his mistakes. He apologizes to Feyre, he reflects on his behavior, and he faces consequences within the narrative. Rhysand, by comparison, rarely faces any significant repercussions. His behavior under the Mountain is dismissed as a necessary evil, rather than acknowledged as abuse. And this is what leads to fan frustration: it’s not the mistakes themselves, but the lack of acknowledgment and the absence of true growth.

Imagine, for a moment, if Rhysand apologized for his actions under the Mountain—if he faced his moral failings head-on, admitted that he had been wrong, and worked to make amends. That would be compelling. It would humanize him. But without that, readers are left with a character who moves through life as if his actions have no real consequences. It’s a dangerous message because it implies that those in power can do no wrong, as long as they believe they���re doing it for the “greater good.”

The Inner Circle: Power and Elitism

This brings us to the deeper issue of elitism in ACOTAR. The Inner Circle consistently portrays themselves as morally superior, as the ones who know what’s best for everyone else. And yet, their actions—segregating the Illyrians, imposing their will on others—reflect the very behaviors that they claim to oppose. In authoritarian regimes, leaders justify their control by claiming it’s for the greater good, but this is simply a way to maintain power. Rhysand and the Inner Circle behave in much the same way. They impose their will on others without consulting those affected, assuming that they alone know what is best. It’s a deeply flawed form of leadership, and yet Maas writes it as if it’s heroic.

It’s not just Rhysand. The entire Inner Circle is complicit in this elitism. Mor treats the Illyrians as lesser beings. Cassian perpetuates a warrior culture that is both brutal and stifling. None of them truly work toward equality or justice; instead, they maintain a status quo that benefits them at the expense of others. Again, if they were written as villains, this would make sense. But as heroes? It’s deeply troubling.

Rhysand’s Moral Disengagement

Finally, let’s talk about moral disengagement again. This term refers to the ways individuals rationalize harmful behaviors to avoid guilt. Rhysand’s treatment of Feyre, the Illyrians, and even Nesta (locking her up with no professional help) are all instances of moral disengagement. He justifies these actions by telling himself and others that they are necessary for the greater good. But in doing so, he avoids any real accountability. This is what makes the anti-ACOTAR fandom uncomfortable: the fact that Rhysand continues to engage in morally harmful behavior while the narrative asks us to believe he is always in the right.

If Sarah J. Maas had written the Inner Circle with more nuance—acknowledging their flaws and allowing them to face real consequences—then the criticism would be less intense. But by framing them as untouchable heroes, Maas forces readers into a space where they must either accept this moral dissonance or push back against it. The anti-ACOTAR fandom is pushing back, not out of blind hatred, but out of a desire for accountability, for depth, and for a narrative that doesn’t gaslight its readers into believing that harmful actions are justified simply because they’re performed by characters we’re supposed to love.

In conclusion, the anti-ACOTAR fandom’s criticism of Rhysand and the Inner Circle isn’t about irrational hatred. It’s about recognizing the deep moral failures of characters who are written as heroes and calling for accountability, growth, and self-awareness. The critique isn’t that these characters are flawed; it’s that they never acknowledge their flaws. And that, more than anything, is why the anti-ACOTAR community pushes back so hard—because real growth comes from acknowledging your mistakes, apologizing, and striving to do better.

IN MY PSYCHOLOGY ERA??? SOMEONE GIVE ME LAW IDEAS I NEEEEEDDDD TO WRITE ABOUT LAWWW

[chaifootsteps]

its really hard to take any comparisons of stolas to other abusive characters seriously because i genuinely dont think viv comprehends shes written an abuser, the same way other authors can comprehend theyve written abusers. she self projects so heavily onto him and acts like his sass is justified to the point pretty much everyone, even fans and critics, knows that s3 will just end up with him living with blitz and working for IMP (which was foreshadowed just oh so subtly in the helluvababies season 2 premiere,) after losing everything (oh no, the consequences of my actions!) because of the full moon deal HE decided to start. he started out doing something bad, acknowledged it once (didnt even apologize to blitz for the deal btw,) and got go back to his life of luxury after his former sex slave said no to his love. he took advantage of the main character in the very first episode and will still be rewarded with him presented as stolas's knight in shining armor, a family who will unconditionally love him because of fucking course they will even though they know their boss had to fuck him or else they wouldnt have their "meal ticket", and eventually, most probably, his daughters forgiveness after she cut him out of his life for.. taking antidepressants. not for neglecting her, not for not teaching her anything about the book she was solely created for, for 17 years, before letting someone else have it without a single worry of what could happen to it, and certainly not because she cheated on his mom with some "weird red dickhead" i can watch other shows with the understanding (most of the time) that that character probably will receive some kind of growth, karma, acknowledgement, or change of their terrible behavior if theyre intentionally written as toxic. or, if their toxicity is supposed to be the point, for them to go full ham with it. helluva boss is neither to me; its abuse tactics and toxic patterns presented as good, like gaslighting, triangulation, and codependency. and an audience like vivs will digest these ideas subconsciously as good if they have no critical thinking skills of their own, which most of them dont. and all while being too afraid to actually hold abusers accountable in a setting like hell of all places. thats why none of the characters even acknowledge the actually shitty things stolas does and arent allowed to not forgive him- because the creator herself is an abuser who doesnt understand, or doesnt want to understand, that being held accountable is about ALWAYS acknowledging the mistakes you made and STILL trying to be better, even if the people you hurt still hate you. not apologizing once, and then getting pissed someone didnt automatically forgive you, as if your remorse means you're entitled to forgiveness. thats how stolas thinks, because thats how she thinks, and thats terrible. i cant even watch these shows in a "im a messy bitch who lives 4 drama" way as much as i want to because watching an abuser get everything he wants after a season of straight up cloaca sucking is NOT drama. its just incredibly depressing and makes me think about the piles of money that couldve been used to make anything other then this, instead of the creators self insert fanfiction of "no one is allowed to judge my character based on my past selfish actions: the overpriced, overstuffed with expensive celebs while i claim i cant fairly pay my animators i force to work exclusively on my shows the musical!"

I think you're spot on, unfortunately. If it weren't for the fanbase slavishly, cultishly lapping up everything Viv gives them and making it a point to incorporate it into their own lives, it would be a fascinating look at how an abusive person sees themselves. Stolas's justifications really are Viv's justifications, and she'll never see him as an abuser for the same reason she'll never see herself as one.

[theweeklydiscourse]

Your ACOTAR takes are so valid. I love Feysand and the IC in general, but they also annoyed me. One thing was that the IC members were eventually portrayed as almost perfect beings, and their mistakes were waved off. Meanwhile, mistakes of those outside the IC were presented as unforgivable or irredeemable. Especially with Tamlin. I absolutely understand why Feyre left him, no question here.

I just have the feeling that Rhysand in ACOMAF and ACOWAR is portrayed as this perfect partner, perfect friend and ruler whose actions, even back under Amarantha’s rule, shouldn’t be questioned because he had his reasons. Whereas Tamlin, even after fighting side-by-side with the IC, still is presented as an irredeemable asshole. Instead of someone who clearly made huge mistakes and now should take their time to heal and work on themselves.

Long story short, I’d love to hear your take on this if you want to. Thank you in advance. ☺️

You’re spot on with your point about the Inner Circle’s portrayal. In the eyes of the narrative, they can do no wrong and are justified in most things they do. Their mistakes are sympathetic and usually underlined by a sad story that makes the reader pity them and forget about the other bad things they did. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if it weren’t for the fact that they are written to be incredibly self-righteous and hypocritical. Rhysand had numerous instances in ACOTAR where he harmed Feyre unnecessarily and never apologized for it. His “good reasons” are supposed to be justification enough, which feels extremely dissatisfying from a reader standpoint.

It’s not like I even care for Tamlin all that much. It’s just maddening that Feyre takes a moral stance against Tamlin’s bad behavior and maintains that stance long after he apologizes, only to overlook similar behavior in Rhysand and the Inner Circle. In ACOMAF, Feyre objected to having her identity reduced to being a wife and broodmare to be paraded around his court like trophy and that made sense because being objectified that way would be extremely dehumanizing. Yet it is only a few books later where that exact sequence of events occurs when Feyre announces her pregnancy. Rhysand literally flaunts her pregnancy in front of a “preening court” as if to boast about his reproductive prowess and the narrative never realizes that hypocrisy.

As a reader, I often feel like I’m being deprived of potentially great character arcs and emotional complexity due to the author’s lack of interest in exploring certain characters’ flaws. This lack of exploration allows for the aesthetic of moral ambiguity when in actuality, the Inner Circle is considered morally white in the eyes of the narrative. Their mistakes or unsavoury actions are softened by excuses or flimsy moral justifications that let the reader know that we should forgive them (and that other characters would be wrong NOT to forgive them).

Sorry this ask took so long @lady-iskra !! I’m glad I got it and I love rambling about my ACOTAR takes.

[aceattorneywhispers]

I don’t like Aura and I’m so sorry I’ve tried several times to like her but I just find her so unlikable and unsympathetic

I think I have two main reasons to dislike her the first of which being her not taking any accountability for her horrible actions. I felt that the game itself was kind of trying to justify the fact she chose to kidnap several innocent people (including Trucy which is unforgivable) and threatened to kill them (and even went through with it in the bad ending meaning that she was completely serious about killing the hostages the entire time) and the game just retroactively decides that she was sympathetic in doing this because “it was all for her brother” which no it isn’t but that brings us to my second reason for hating her:

Her unjust and insane hatred of Athena. Blaming her for Metis’ death when she was literally a child.

I don’t care what anyone says this is the reason she kidnapped and threatened to kill all those people and I am tired of pretending it’s not. She literally didn’t even suggest the retrial for Simon it was Phoenix was the one who had to suggest it because it was never about Simon it was always about getting Athena proven guilty her demands from the very beginning were not “release my brother and I’ll let the hostages go” it was “give me Athena” Phoenix literally thinks that if he gave her Athena she’d probably just kill her. Even if you don’t believe that’s true the fact it was thrown out as a possibility is concerning and seriously if getting Athena proven guilty wasn’t her first priority and it was actually about Simon all along why the hell does she STILL try to pin the blame on Athena even after her AND SIMON are already proven innocent

And what does she do after they figure out it was neither of them???? Does she apologize for the way she acted? Maybe own up to her actions??? No she literally GLOATS about it and says that everyone should thank her for what she did because it “got them closer to the truth” like girl you DIDN’T EVEN SUGGEST THE TRIAL and then the game has the AUDACITY to have everyone act all sympathetic to her with Miles AND Simon even apologizing to her and Phoenix WHOSE DAUGHTER SHE KIDNAPPED going “yeah her actions were unforgivable but it was all for her brother so it was ok” like NO SHE SUCKS AND SIMON WASNT EVEN HER REASON

But to be honest I think the biggest thing keeping me from liking her is the fact that I felt like the game tried to gaslight me into making me believe she was sympathetic because even though I’ve gone on and on about how I don’t find her sympathetic at all I honestly don’t really think that would matter to me if the game OWNED UP to it and called her out for being the villain that she was like I don’t need a character to be sympathetic for me to like them or think they’re a good character and she could have been so so interesting and cool to me if the game had just LET HER BE EVIL instead of trying to tack on some bullshit justification for her actions that makes absolutely no sense in my opinion given her heinous behavior

Anyways I hate her and I’m sorry I have no problem if people like her she just did not click for me but more power to you if you disagree

.

[wenellyb]

This is probably gonna be a bit of a ramble, I hope it makes sense.

Personally, I tend to say Eddie behaved absuicely/his actions are abuse tactics, while refraining from calling Eddie himself an abuser.

Friend abuse is a thing, and what Eddie did in that episode absolutely ventures into it, especially because he didn't apologize and instead light gaslit Buck (him effectively calling Buck stupid for thinking the note meant he went back to Texas) and love-bombed him by throwing Chris and Pepa at him instead.

The slightest acknowledgement of fault he makes is vaguely calling himself a dick, which can be an abusive tactic as well.

As someone who got massively triggered by that plotline to the point where I wasn't sure if I could go to work the next day, people calling that behavior normal or not abusive stings and feels massively invalidating, which is why I tend to push back on it.

I understand that isn't your or other people’s intention, and I get where you’re coming from in regard to racist stereotypes, but outright denials feel like a dismissal of what I’ve lived through.

That’s why I call Eddie’s behavior and actions abusive while not calling him an abuser if that makes sense.

Hi!! Thank you for sending me this and first of all, I hope you know that you don't have to justif how you felt while watching the scene. I'm so so so sorry you experienced that.

Second of all, everything you're saying is correct.

I hope I didn't imply that his behavior was ok. What I was saying is that is is surprising to talk about domestic abuse when Eddie and Buck aren't even living together and are not a couple. But you're right friendship abuse definitely exists, it's just not the same thing. Eddie saying the same things as Buck's best friend or as Buck's lover doesn't have the same implications.

I think the biggest problem in the 911 fandom when discussing the fight scene is that they think that 2 things can't be true at the same time.

It is true that Eddie has been displaying a behavior associated to abusers (gaslighting, verbal and almost physical violence) but people also have to admit that a lot of people's view of that scene can be heavily influenced by racist stereotypes.

Let me give you an example: Most of us remember the Will Smith slap during the Oscars ceremony. Nobody can deny that fact that he was out of line and shouldn't have done what he did.

That being said, the reactions to that slap were blowing things out of proportions, with some celebrities saying that Will Smith could have killed Chris Rock. The man got a 10-year ban from the Oscars.

People who were calling out the racism in the reactions to that slap weren't condoning Will Smith's behavior, they were trying to highlight the difference in treatment he got.

Back to the 911 conversation.

I haven't been following the discussions about Ryan Guzman's (or Eddie's) ethnicity. For all I know, Ryan is a White man and Buddie has always been a White M/M ship but what do I know?

This is just an input from European me trying to understand why people are talking about racism and instead of talking about xenophobia.

White or not. There is this stereotype of Latinos being portrayed as extremely agressive in canon but especially in fandom. So the points from Eddie stans calling that out still stands.

And the point from people in the fandom calling out Eddie's actions and saying he was displaying abusive behavior also still stands.

Both can be true.

I think it's important to step out of shipping for these kind of conversation because it's very important to listen to everyone's point of view, like you just did.

I appreciate you sending me this and I appreciate you. Thank you!

[bellaaldamas]

Hope you have a well deversed rest! Your edits are awesome as always! 💕💕💕

Also fun question: I remember reading one of your conversations with stupidrant that someone made a scenario where it's possible for Freya & Baldur to reconciled(?) Would like to know how this could work since he's one of the the few Aesir I sympathized the most. Baldur in Norse Mythology comes back from Hel after Ragnarök. Would be fun to see how he turns out since it possible for SMS to push this direction. :)

Thank you again for the kind words. And I'm grateful that you, through the playlist you had shared with me earlier, familiarized me with the song I used for the edit. It is not only remarkably fitting for Angrboda and Atreboda in terms of lyrics but is well constructed and competently performed in it's own right.

Regarding Baldur, it's fair to say that he is that exceptionally rare example in popular media of a tragic villain done right. Unlike certain whitewashed villains and antagonists apologized either by the narrative or by their respective fan-bases (or, typically, both; this usually applies to male villains but female ones and toxic female characters in general also tend to get away with their abusive and violent behaviors, especially when they come from privileged background) Baldur was treated exactly the way he deserved to. He was shown for someone who was, from beginning to end, a product of his upbringing, circumstances and personal choices influenced by said circumstances.

It would've been exceptionally easy to portray Baldur as a wayward and lost son of a virtuous woman - Freya - who chose the wrong path because due to Odin's genes he was "inherently evil" as well as "ungrateful" towards his mother for her misguided but genuine attempts to protect him.

That's not how Gow18 and GowR (where, notably, Baldur wasn't present at all in the current timeline) portrayed him. The narrative allowed him to vocalize and express every single valid concern he had with the way Freya went about keeping him safe. It was made clear that it were the ways in which he himself chose to express it that were wrong rather than his feelings or experiences.

What stands out the most is that Gow18 events are set in motion precisely because Baldur tracks down Kratos and confronts him on Odin's orders (even that small bit of information already reveals Baldur's characterization as that of a broken individual desperate for parental approval). As the gamer starts learning new fighting mechanics through their battle - the second boss fight in the game and the first one between Kratos and a fellow god - the audience is introduced to Baldur's emotional turmoil, albeit without context. Not through third parties or through Freya (whom Kratos, Atreus and the gamer meet and bond with later and become biased in her favor) but through Baldur's own heartfelt screams about how he doesn't feel a thing and Kratos struggling against him is "pointless" (as he baits Kratos/the gamer to give him their best punch).

That's how the narrative establishes that, on one hand, Baldur's aggressive behavior is inexcusable and unprovoked and, on the other hand, there are underlying psychological reasons for that which need to be examined. From the writing standpoint it's a perfect set up for providing an explanation rather than a justification for villain's actions.

Another noteworthy point is that we get more background on Baldur and learn of his being Freya's son after - as mentioned above - getting to know Freya personally. As Kratos, Atreus and the gamer come to sympathize with and respect her. Unlike Baldur, an obvious antagonist, Freya is, from the get go, introduced as an ally character and as a caring, kind and nurturing person (her determination to save Hildsvini, then in his boar form, after he's shot by Atreus, her love for animals and plants, her saving Atreus's life, her giving Kratos the comfort and support even after he lashed out at her for keeping the very same secret about her deity background that he did in regards to his own son). Which further ensures that Kratos and Atreus as well as the gamer end up taking Freya's side once the faithful information about Baldur being her son is revealed and he attempts to kill her to get even for taking away his feelings. Such framing could've been an opportunity for the writers to only show the situation through Freya's lens and completely rob Baldur of any agency or voice.

But that doesn't happen either. Instead, Baldur is framed as an antithesis for young Atreus. Both had parental issues and estrangement from said parents (despite the emotional closeness to Faye, Atreus eventually finds out she, much like Kratos, also lied to him about vital things and not just her own but Atreus's background as well, for the sake of protecting him - wrong thing done for the right reason, not unlike Freya regarding Baldur). Both Atreus and Baldur aspired to prove their worth to their respective, emotionally distant fathers (as we learn in GowR from Freya herself; who goes out of her way to compare Baldur and Atreus and offers Kratos to become a mentor and motherly figure for Atreus in order to make up for her failures with Baldur).

In Gow18 Atreus has his low point when he finds himself on the verge of losing his morals and compass upon finding out about Kratos's and his own deity heritage. But eventually comes back on track, both due to Kratos breaking the emotional distance between them in order to become the authority figure and positive influence in Atreus's life that he failed to be from the start; as well as due to Atreus's own realization being a ruthless killer is not who he is or wants to be. The latter is the most important part of that arc, showing that Atreus choosing to stay on the right path was, first and foremost, for his own sake. Rather than a part of him wanting to please Kratos and earn his approval, the way Baldur aspired to earn that of Odin. The theme of personal choice over imposed circumstances or mistakes of one's parents is, thus, further highlighted through parallels and contrasts between Atreus and Baldur.

Upon the "family reunion" in the end of Gow18, Baldur gets to spell out his frustrations with Freya and she fully accepts the blame and responsibility. Down to her willingness to allow Baldur to kill her as a penance for robbing him of his ability to feel. However, this is also when the narrative, through Kratos and Atreus, shows that while Freya undeniably is one of the fundamental reasons Baldur turned out the way he did and got consumed by aggression and anger (other reason being Odin and it is in GowR that the audience gets more in depth information about that - along with said audience being prompted to check themselves on placing the full responsibility for bad parenting and it's consequences on a woman), Baldur, ultimately, is his own person. And is just as responsible for his own choices as Kratos, Atreus and Freya are.

The above point continues to be emphasized more boldly in GowR and is the reason Freya escapes being reduced to a misogynistic stereotype of a broken woman consumed by bitterness. Said stereotype is often framed as "feminist" in mainstream media and juxtaposed against soft and vulnerable female character types who maintain their cheerfulness and inspiration in spite of the adversities, like Angrboda. GowR subverted that false juxtaposition as well when it paralleled not only Freya and Angrboda but their interactions with Kratos and Atreus respectively.

As I noted many times, the most subversive point of Freya's arc in GowR is that her vindictive quest against Kratos ends prematurely and permanently less than halfway into the story. Rather than perpetuating the cycle of toxic motherhood by making Baldur's tragic but logical demise (because of his own actions and the route he chose to pursue) about herself and her pain Freya chooses to redirect her anger onto the real aggressor which is Odin ("you're [Kratos] not the one who needs to die"). Essentially diverting said anger away from herself and Kratos; whom Freya initially aspired to kill even if it required irreversibly destroying herself in the process and giving up on everything and everyone she used to hold dear (another part of the toxic parenting cycle).

Her further bonding with Kratos is also remarkable: while Freya recognizes Baldur as "not perfect but hers" she, as noted above, delves more into his background, his dangerous determination to impress Odin at any cost and his similarities with Atreus; whom Freya aspires to shield from the same fate as Baldur's. Atreus, in the meantime, continues to prove himself a parallel/antithesis to the aforementioned by actively seeking interactions with Odin and trying to trick the latter by winning his trust - something Baldur failed to attain either in life or in death.

Through those conversations (particularly in Vanaheim and during Freya's Missing Peace quest) Freya and Kratos realize how numerous factors affected Baldur's worldview, ultimately resulting in the man he became and his eventual death at the hands of Kratos, in defense of Freya. In the scene with the Norns Freya actively jumps to Kratos's defense when they mention his love for god killing being the cause of Baldur's demise ("it was not out of hate!"). Even though she said nothing in defense of herself or Baldur when the Norns mentioned their own choices determining their fates.

As far as Baldur's potential return, I have conflicting feelings about that though consider the idea interesting as well as having potential for SMS to come up with new "mythology with a twist" plot points and give the characters more development. On one hand, Baldur's come back could provide Freya with a closure that, in GowR, she had not yet found with herself (even when Freya was no longer blaming Kratos for Baldur's death she continued beating herself over it, including in the optional scenes and side quests, causing Kratos to emphasize that she did what she though she must do to protect Baldur).

Additionally, regardless of whether the writers take a romantic route with Freya and Kratos' relationship (my preferred scenario) or a platonic one (your preferred scenario) getting to face Baldur again, for both of them, could strengthen their bond and result in them working through that issue completely. The narrative made it a point to never gloss over it and that's what made Kratos and Freya's partnership and alliance so productive, strong and positive.

An anti-parallel to that would be Thrud's unhealthy reaction to Atreus killing her brother, whose death she outright dismissed by saying they were "better off without him" (because at that stage Thrud was mindlessly parroting her father and grandfather's propaganda and didn't have a mind or analytical thinking of her own; her "treacherous ex wife" comment about Freya is a product of that same mindset). Followed by her inviting Atreus, said brother's killer, to enjoy his stay in Modi's room and explore Asgard with her. That is, in between showing distrust or even contempt towards Atreus not for legitimate reasons (as Freya did towards Kratos for killing Baldur and as Thrud should have done towards Atreus for killing Modi) but because of Atreus's independence and unwillingness to tow Odin's line. In Helheim Thrud either prides herself on being supposedly stronger than Atreus - though constantly needs his help and aid with "almost budging" doors - or outright tells him she should have never trusted him. And that her mother was right about him all along when Atreus makes an honest mistake out of good intentions.

There where Angrboda and Atreus's interactions serve as a parallel to that of Kratos and Freya (see above) Atreus and Thrud's dynamic is an anti-parallel to both. That said, as I mentioned before, the most fitting scenario for Thrud's development would be to have Freya as her mentor (something that was hinted at by Lunda) and, in the process of bonding with her, reconsider her misguided perceptions imposed by Odin.

Concerning favourite Aesir characters, in my case it would be Sif whose determination to better herself, overcome her addiction for the sake of her daughter and a brighter future for her family and her willingness to embark on diplomatic missions to restore peace deserves far more credit than she tends to get.

[quins-makeshift-menagerie]

My perception of their (in my interpretation) toxic behavior came from the fact that they never really stopped being demeaning and dehumanizing (de-personizing?) Towards the other cast members, especially Fuji and Calli. Their language hasn't really changed at all to show any sort of respect or dignity to the rest if the cast, not just in terms of being "polite" but in the fact that they've continued to be rude and cruel and verbally insensitive??

Like I might be reading this wrong, but if I was put into Fuji's shoes I'd NEVER want to speak to Janus again given they haven't really gotten "better" in how they actually seem to behave???

Also from my perspective, Janus' godlike status doesn't really. Give ANY justification. It makes their actions WORSE in my eyes.

But honestly that might just be from my own perspective, but in general Janus acts very... entitled and self-righteous, and doesn't seem to ever really accept their own responsibility in how others are affected by them. Knowing your intentions now makes me at least hopeful that you do plan to address this, and not just brush it off, but I don't know. I love the cast, I love the story, but I've been operating under the idea that Janus was going to be "revealed as a villain" to Fuji and Mnemosyne, to be a dramatic/upsetting moment later down the line, so I'm kinda thrown for a loop now?

I still like your comic I'm just... confused now, I guess.

I understand what you’re saying but as I said, they’re still learning. Their personality and mannerisms aren’t going to instantly change just because they’ve made peace with their family. They’re learning to consider other people’s feelings in their actions. Their status and age do not justify their actions. It’s an explanation, not justification or an excuse.

Again, apologies for how negatively you feel towards Janus and understand I’m not trying to change how you view them via my words, just explain them the best I’m capable. Unfortunately I can’t get into the deep of it due to spoilers, but I also can’t force you to stay and continue reading if you feel upset beyond enjoyment.