#Mary Sue done right

[poetfrancis]

Behind the bookstore

Chapter One - word count:967

From Andrew Hozier-Byrne’s point of view, he meets Y/N at a speakeasy and is instantly hooked. When Damian Haas shows up, things get awkward as the two men compete for Y/N’s attention. Y/N, however, stays clueless about the weird tension between them.

(it has been a hot minute since I have written a fanfiction...I am so sorry if this sucks)

She slipped into the speakeasy like a whisper, barely disturbing the air yet transforming the room with her mere presence. Her hair, a cascade of midnight and mahogany, framed a face that seemed hewn from moonlight. Though she never sought attention, the room paused, caught in the soft glow of her aura.

The speakeasy was hidden behind an old bookstore, its creaky door groaning as it opened. A haven for poets and dreamers, it was a place not meant to be found, yet she had a knack for uncovering such sanctuaries—places where smoke curled like poetry and silence held secrets.

Her name was Y/N, though she wore it lightly, as if it might drift away with the night. She was an artist or a poet, or perhaps both, though she never claimed the titles. She simply created, leaving traces of herself in every brushstroke, every verse, every lingering smile. She carried her beauty like a gift for others, even as it made hearts ache.

She settled into her usual spot at the bar—a worn wooden stool where the light was soft and the music seemed a private whisper. Her usual order—a glass of red wine, deep and rich like the verses she penned—was prepared without question by the bartender, a man with knowing eyes who had seen her here before, always alone, always with that distant look.

As she sipped her wine, her gaze fell upon a figure at the piano. Andrew Hozier-Byrne’s fingers danced over the keys with a grace that belied the rough world outside. Tonight, his music was a lullaby for the stars. When he noticed her, his smile radiated more warmth than summer sun. She returned it, her smile soft and unaware of its effect on him.

Andrew had watched her since her first visit, a night creature who seemed to blend with shadows and light. Torn between speaking to her and preserving the spell she cast over the room, he hesitated until tonight, when her open, trusting gaze urged him to act. He finished his piece with a flourish and approached her.

“Do you mind if I join you?” he asked, his voice low and respectful.

Y/N looked up, her eyes meeting his with a softness that made his breath hitch. “Of course,” she replied, her voice a melody he wanted to hear forever.

They spoke, or rather, Andrew spoke while Y/N listened, her head tilted, capturing every word as if it were a treasure. He shared stories of the piano, his solace and voice. She nodded, understanding in her eyes, and responded as though weaving a tale just for him.

“You play like the night sings,” she said, and Andrew’s heart stumbled. “It’s like... you tell a story without words, and it’s the most beautiful thing.”

He smiled shyly, unused to such praise. “And you, Y/N, what story do you tell?”

She looked down at her wine, a faint blush coloring her cheeks. “I’m not sure I have a story worth telling,” she said. Andrew longed to tell her otherwise, that she was a story, a poem, a painting deserving to be seen. But before he could speak, the door creaked open again.

Damian Haas entered, his presence as commanding as a storm. Despite his casual attire—a skeleton shirt—his eyes held depths of someone who had seen much yet still found joy. He saw Y/N at the bar, illuminated by dim light, and felt a pull he couldn’t name but knew he needed.

Y/N greeted him with a smile that blossomed like a secret flower. “Damian,” she said, and Andrew felt a sharp pang in his chest.

Andrew smiled crookedly and nodded as Damian took the seat beside Y/N. “Have you two met?” she asked, her voice lively and sweet.

“We were just talking,” Andrew said, his voice deep.

Y/N sipped her wine, seemingly unaware of the tension between the men. “You both have the same kind of soul. Like you’re made of music and stories, and the world is waiting to hear what you’ll say next.”

Andrew and Damian exchanged a glance, an unspoken understanding—or rivalry—passing between them. Y/N remained blissfully unaware, her warmth wrapping around them like a gentle embrace.

They spent the evening talking, laughing, and sharing. Y/N’s affection was light and innocent, yet it sent shivers down their spines. She didn’t notice how they leaned closer or how their gazes lingered on her.

As the night wore on and the speakeasy emptied, Y/N finished her wine with a contented sigh. “I should be going,” she said, her voice tinged with something. “But I’m glad I ran into you both tonight. It’s nice to be around people who understand.”

She stood, slightly unsteady, and both Damian and Andrew reached out to steady her. Their hands brushed, and they froze, acutely aware of each other’s presence.

“Let me walk you home,” Damian offered gently, his eyes meeting Andrew’s with a silent challenge.

Andrew hesitated, then smiled sadly. “Yes, let Damian walk you home,” he said, though his heart ached to be the one by her side.

Y/N looked between them, her smile bright, oblivious to the tension. “Thank you,” she said sincerely. “You’re both so kind, but...”

Damian took her arm, and Andrew watched, his heart heavy. Y/N started walking to the door. “I can get home alone,” she said with a smile, as the door closed behind her. The room sighed, the echoes of their conversation lingering like a song that hadn’t yet ended.

Andrew turned to Damian. “Are you two... together?” he asked, frowning.

Damian met his gaze, sadness and irritation evident. “No,” he said firmly, signaling the bartender for a tab Andrew hadn’t realized he had. Andrew sensed a rivalry forming for Y/N’s affection or attention, and as he daydreamed, he didn’t notice Damian leaving quietly.

[takethelx3]

Tim I'm sorry I keep drawing you like an anime boy (and also accidentally)

[unopenablebox]

can you believe it took me until now to learn that angmar is in the far north of middle-earth. like well north of rivendell. i swear i really did read the appendices as a kid but clearly i did not retain from them a damn thing

[brilliant-psywurm]

Result of being asked to do whitney over discord... my favorite toxic vampire man <3

[neverendingford]

.

[pruneunfair]

The internalized sexism in remarried empress, (for an ask)

*this is going to be a long one so hold on tight*

It's no question that remarried empress is one of the most popular manhwas on webtoon and being so popular it holds a lot of influence, unfortunately, that influence promoted the internalized misogyny in not just the readers but in other works as well.

In the first chapter, Navier is presented as this baddass perfect woman, during her divorce trial she brings in a hot rebound who also happens to be another Emperor so she wont have to give up her life as empress, sounds pretty feminist right? Unfortunately that's only one of the few times we see anything related to feminism at all.

We are soon sent back a few months before the trial and right away, Naviers ladies in waiting are tearing another woman down and already believe this new woman is a threat to Navier because the Emperor Sovieshu is attracted to this newbie

We are shown the basic concept of how the narrative wants us to view these two characters. Navier is perfect empress who is being wronged by her husband and this unnamed woman who's only crime so far was existing is a wench and a homewreaker, the ladies imply it as some sort of extreme act of disrespect for having to bathe what they believe to be a slave, proceeding with sucking up to the lead by saying they only wash their hands to bathe her as they don't even wash themselves and even when they admit this mystery woman to be beautiful they backtrack to making sure Navier is supported. You might think that this is just friends supporting friends but it goes beyond on that later on.

Later on we are introduced to this mystery woman, Rashta, a former slave found by Sovieshu in the woods who is immediately portrayed as rude, stupid, and a crybaby

The reason she cries is because she was struck and referred to as "the slave" while she wasn't very polite it's clear Rashta isn't doing this on purpose, rather it is sheer ignorance and an unusually large optimism

now, a lot of people like to say that Rashta must've done something on purpose to get Laura imprisoned and that she knew what she was doing, therfore justifying the hatred for her existence. However, Laura hit Rashta for reaching out to Navier and calls her a wench in the process

Some fans use the excuse that she smirked after Laura got sentenced to 3 days imprisonment and yes while that is excessive for Laura, Rashta was a slave only a few days ago and she's been mistreated by nobles her entire life plus I don't think she's smart enough to pull off Hannibal levels of planning like that, I personally think her smirk here is meant to be more of a "that's what she gets for treating me like that." Then a "hee hee my evil plan worked!"

the rest of the comic goes the same way, Rashta is continuously portrayed as a whore who ruined Naviers life by turning her husband against her, and she's written to be hated as a pick me who won't know her place. Rashtas pretty much every part of those "other girls" in those not like other girls templates. She's girly, loves the attention, emotional, dainty, overly sweet but secretly only has ulterior motives, and in the novel, she acts extremely childish even referring to herself in 3rd person, even when she makes good points it's all intended for the reader to laugh and jeer at her.

Shes practically designed to be the pick me archetype for baddass mary sue fans to despise and she sadly only gets worse as time goes on, not just in morals and personality but also in her writting

And how is Navier perceived?

Shes endlessly perfect, everyone loves her including several different powerful men from all different countries. Even her cheating ass husband is given the cheapest redemption arc in the end just for being sorry that he cheated and realizing how much he wants her. All the characters your meant to view as good adore her and anyone who doesn't is written as the meanest bad guy on the planet worthy of death. While she isn't the worst character I've seen, the narrative tries so hard to make her more amazing that Navier looks worse as a result, such as not caring about slavery despite being described as kind and devoted to all her subjects. Ergi even says it straight to us that there will always be that invisible wall between her and the poor.

The characters we're supposed to see as good are:

Heinrey: A king who planned on going to war with Naviers country and only stopped when he fell in love with her at first sight, who also tortures and threatens anyone who even so much as inconveniences or talks shit about her all while he puts up an innocent front to appear non threatening (wonder who that sounds like)

Kaufman: A grand Duke who drugs other people with love potions which are essentially date-rape drugs and gets away with it once another woman takes the blame

Kosair: Naviers brother who violates Rashtas autonomy by slipping abortion drugs in her food and it's never talked about again.

Lebetti: One of Rashtas slave owners who still continues to harass Rashta and views anyone lower than her with contempt including her own nephew and so on

And who are the characters we are supposed to hate?

Besides Rashta and Sovieshu, the only other characters so far are Krista, the former queen of the west and her father

Ironically Krista is hated for the same reason readers supported Navier for: not wanting to replaced as queen, which isn't helped by Heinrey asserting that Navier is the one and only queen and anyone who objects will face serious consequences but they fix that by dumbing her down and blaming her for Kaufman drugging Heinrey. As for her dad, the old Duke. While he is the only man actively against Navier so far the only ways he has been punished is being told that Krista killed herself. (In the novel the old Duke does face serious consequences which involved him being murdered along with innocent people after his son attempted a hit on Navier)

But overall you get the message, most of the characters you are supposed to love are men and ladies with no personality, men who do atrocious shit yet we're supposed to look past it and conveniently the only man who is punished is an ugly bastard.

The ladies in waiting are the biggest contributors to the internalized misogyny, often they support it by insisting any new woman who shows up must be an evil whore, even Krista's ladies in waiting do this

Not like it matters though anyway since Navier basically wins most of those girls over on her side and they're never seen again

You see what I mean? Every other woman in this story has little to no character, they exist solely to push the FL up and punch down at any woman they don't like which usually consists of women that either dainty "other girls" or ironically women in a situation similar to Naviers and any woman who opposes Navier is affectly an idiot who gets girlbossed back into place. Meanwhile almost all of the men who commit absolutely horrible acts get away with it since they all essentially go awooga for Navier, with the only exception being less than conventionally attractive dudes like Krista's dad.

for fucks sake even Alan, one of Rashtas other masters who 🍇ed her, got her pregnant and participated in keeping her child away from her until she got successful is viewed as this sorrowful wittle baby who got taken advantage of by the evil Rashta and was "wrongfully" told to screw off by her. It took an episode where Alan was so unfathomably stupid to get readers to realize they shouldn't side with a rapist, and yes, while the narrative will try to push the idea that Rashta took advantage of him to raise her status and that she consented. News flash: a slave cannot consent to someone who owns them, it's like a student-teacher relationship.

Now the hypocrisy. Navier can do one thing and it's viewed as such a girlboss power move but when someone else like Rashta does something similar, it's embarrassing and pathetic. For example, Rashta is mocked by nobles mind you, for wearing an expensive and flashy wedding dress. Meanwhile Naviers wedding dress is literally weaved with thousand of gemstones

Hey, it's their words not mine.

Or how Rashta was considered evil for stealing Naviers spot as empress (even though Rashta didn't even want to be empress at first and Sovieshu gave her the offer, it's not like she held a gun to his head) but when Krista shows distress over being replaced as queen, the comments basically tell Krista to suck it up because Navier deserves it more. Everytime a man does something wrong in this story, the characters and even the readers trace it back to somehow being a woman's fault.

Readers are even encouraged to laugh at Rashta for not being able to learn as fast and eventually having a breakdown from the stress (not to mention she's also pregnant here so those hormones must be going wild)

yeah let's just blame a pregnant woman who wasn't educated in reading until a few months ago for not being able to be as smart or stoic as Navier and then crying from the stress.

finally, how this promotion of internalized misogyny affected other works. The Trashta nickname has become so popular that it is used everytime a woman who doesn't support the MC or even just inconveniences her is introduced, constantly the comments never shut up about the "new trashta." Even women who don't mean harm like Helena from kill the villainess was treated horribly because she's the "other woman" it erases any attempt at creativity in these stories and dumbs down any other woman who isn't constantly worshipping the FL as an evil bitch who needs to go.

Conclusion:The Remarried empress isn't the feminist power book with complex characters, maybe in season 1 but not anymore. Women who even think about being rude to Navier are punched down and killed if they don't change their mind while almost all the men are excused for their cruel actions because their hot guys with abs who only wanted to protect the one and only goddess Navier.

[arceus-insanity]

A Moral Scapegoat for who?

All For One is a shit character, he is presented as a massive threat, but we never see him get a win, similar to the dissonance between the All Might we see and the context in universe.

And in the end, he becomes a moral scapegoat... for the heroes.

What is a moral scapegoat?

A moral scapegoat is (usually) a character used to excuse the actions of other characters or a system. Character A may have done XYZ but Character B was the one manipulating them and/ or is so much worse, so we can excuse A's actions. Or helping defeat B acts as pence for their past actions. Etc. And to a degree it makes sense, getting people to believe a character has changed and should now be considered good both by the characters and the audience is hard. So having some bigger bad to blame takes the pressure off the desired character(s).

While the term is typically only brought up negatively, like the use of Mary&Gary Sues, there are good ones. Commander Zhao in Avatar of the Last Airbender is an early moral scapegoat, used to say yeah Prince Zuko may suck, but there are a lot worse out there. My Little Pony Friendship is Magic has a moral scapegoat, right in the pilot, Nightmare Moon for Princess Luna, sure Nightmare came from Luna but it is presented as a curse, something that was cured, fixed. The Hobbit uses Dragon Sickness as a way to both corrupt and excuse King Thorin's actions when they have retaken the mountain; he is not in his right mind, and shouldn't be considered solely responsible for his actions

In certain ways, Pink Diamond (due to the audience learning her arc in reverse, when it has such an effect on the plot of Steven Universe) is a scapegoat for the remaining Diamonds, even though it makes a lot less sense for her to be the scapegoat when considering the actual sequence of events in universe. And while most people don't think Pink/Rose's actions excuse the Diamonds (especially White), she does work with Spinel. Another rocky moral scapegoat is Horad Prime from She-ra & The Princesses of Power, he is the big bad of the show and is meant to be a scapegoat primarily for Horadak who was the previous big bad, and mildly a scapegoat for Catra. The big problems with his sacrificial slaughter is that there isn't enough time to really settle in that this is the true big bad, and both Horadak and Catra's issues were both way more on screen and show up well before we ever hear of Hoard Prime, with them operating separately.

And All For One is a worst example of all of them (that I mentioned)

For starters the more we saw of him the less ultimate intimidating evil he portrayed, nor did we get a satisfying he was actually pretty pathetic. Really trying to have your cake and eat it too. Looking back he's very cartoonishly evil, but lacks the presence, he's boring. I've seen many good portrayals of him in the fandom, but canon is just boring. His background of miscellaneous evil deeds, don't really go into how they were evil, just that Yoichi (& AFO) clearly believes them to be, both come across as very childish to me, seeing the world as black & white.

He lacks the moral complexity of complex villains (like Magneto), meant to be an ambitiously evil man, whose evil for the sack of being evil. But he lacks the presence found in Classic evil Disney characters like Jafar, Clayton, and Ursala. In a way he's like King Magnifico (from Wish, the only recent hated animated Disney movie, that I agree deserves to be shat on), trying to have both but failing to capture either

In the present, he has little involvement on screen, and once he's out of the picture, Shigaraki (& the League) really bloom as villains and characters. The story could have had a slow realization (for Shigaraki, the League and the audience) that he was holding the League back, and that meant either he was nowhere near as competent as he was portrayed, or he wasn't actually helping Shigaraki, setting up for the body suit plan

But my biggest issue is who he's the sacrificial goat for.

And who is he the scapegoat for? The fucking Heroes and their shit-ass society, including the H PSC crap.

The ending reveal that he was behind everything that happened to Tenko, from him being born, his name, the kids he chose to play with, the issues with his quirk, and only having him; fails. It doesn't work! Mainly because of what that scene ignored the walk, and the complicity of the family. It ignored that the family were directly ignoring that Tenko was being abused, trying to placate him after the fact. It ignores that Kotaro Shimura chose to follow his friends advice, over his wife too. It ignores that even though AFO would have killed anyone who tried to help Tenko, no one tried. It also doesn't make sense either, normal kids are shit actors, not to mention Tenko was the one to reach out to them, not the other way around. And with the sheer amount of heroes, and cops, and regular citizens, how was it literally no one tried to help him, it's not AFO.

What else does it ignore, oh yeah, Tenko isn't truly unique in having a tragic backstory. Sure he was planning on taking advantage of the Endeavor's awful legacy plan, but we never see that AFO has done anything before kidnapping Touya. It's implied that he helped stroked Heteromorphic discrimination for his own gain, but that doesn't change that Spinner had pesticides thrown in his face, by 'innocent' civilians, that Shoji was mutilated as a child, for saving a child, by 'innocent' civilians, that the Ordinary Lady was attacked and denied shelter in the middle of an active warzone, by 'innocent' civilians. Himiko's abuse was enabled and furthered by quirk counselling, we don't even get a he was secretly to blame all along for this one. The commission has assassins, ignore. The homeless have to resort to villainy to survive, ignore. Once someone is considered out they are abused by this society until they have to lash out, ignore. The big bad was taken down, so nothing has to be done about these systemic issues, cause the heroes say so

There's a pattern, he was only able to do this, because the society he was in was already doing it.

And AFO being a moral scapegoat could of worked.

IF the Hero Public Safety Commission was similarly a scapegoat.

To begin, AFO should have been the scapegoat for the League, and the villains as a whole. The heroes would instead have the HPSC as their scapegoat.

Hawks should not have been made president of the totally different PSC, not only is he a known murderer, he doesn't regret it, he has never criticized the Commission's (or any other hero's) actions. If he's not going to see the issues, and hypocrisy right in front of him, he shouldn't have any role at all in it, and a very small one if he does recognize them. Giving this to Hawks screams nothing is actually going to be fixed, any changes are going to be for the worse.

Going into the final Deku vs Shigaraki battle, as well as the dreamscape crap, I had hope in this series. I thought that Deku would finally be forced to have the long over reality check of the Villains are right, what are you going to do about it. So instead of hyper-focusing on one tiny moment that with any and I do mean any additional context would show that it's not just this tiny shit moment. Rather than murdering Tomura for not abandoning the League (the same reason Hawks murdered Twice), have Deku convince Tomura that they can make a better society. That Deku's peaceful(ish) method is what's better for the League we have seen he loves.

From there they could have come up with a deal where either (these are simplified) everyone is held accountable for their past actions (as in the villains, Endeavor, Hawks, the Commission, everyone responsible for the sky coffin, etc). Or the clock is restarted, and everyone is hence forth held to the same standard. The villains are around to make sure the actual issues to their problems are dealt with, hint; Himiko's problem wasn't lack of access to quirk counselling. Happy satisfying ending for everyone

[butwhatifidothis]

I think the main thing that makes Edelstans' version of Edelgard so annoying is that she ultimately has every ounce of agency stripped out of her, by people who insist that they're "making her grow" into a character they already made her out to be from the start. We get told that Edelgard has this amazing character arc, and then are presented with a Mary Sue with no discernable flaws and/or who makes no substantial mistakes.

This Edelgard is perfect out the box, no discolorations or tears to be seen. She just has a bit of dust, but the doll itself is flawless. And that is, in the end, what ruins her. She’s not prideful and arrogant, she’s not stubborn and narrow-minded, she’s not manipulative and deceitful, she’s not violent and abrasive, she’s not nationalistic and imperialistic, but nor is she fearless and confident, she’s not ambitious and resolute - she has none of her character flaws or boons, because they make her too full of agency. They drive her to choose to do anything; they're not forces outside of her control that make her do things that she would just never, ever do were the WORLD not so broken and flawed.

The few "flaws" Edelstans begrudgingly allow her are only meant to further endear her to the player. She’s childish, but only because she’s oh so traumatized and that should be accepted as who she is and not something to grow out of (nor something that is truly wrong of her to be even in her 20's). She’s self-unaware, but only because the world made her unsure of who she really is, which is a perfect little angel. The only "mistakes" she makes are because others failed her; Byleth and the Black Eagles fail Edelgard in the Holy Tomb, that wasn't her fault, they didn't ensure her that they could be trusted, for example.

Claude and Rhea have flaws - real flaws, that aren't "they just don't wove themselves enuff." Dimitri makes mistakes - real mistakes, that aren't "he twusted the wrong people and got hurt fwom them." They are allowed to misstep and stumble, to steer off of a purely good path due to actions that they chose to make, they get to grow as characters. But any imperfection found in the Edelstan Edelgard is only due to her environment, not her own nature. Narratively, she never does any wrong; anything bad she ever does is really someone else's fault.

She’s just a little flower plucked of all her thorns, safe and easy to pick up and admire, weak, meek and too innocent and pure for this dirty dirty world, coveted by all for her perfection and beauty.

Which is just so... boring? And annoying? That literally no matter what happens to her or what she herself does, it's never a result of Edelgard doing something but something being done to Edelgard? UNLESS it's a purely good action, then suddenly she has all the agency in the world and should be responsible for it? It's so clear that this Edelgard is one that is sanitized of any pesky little flaw that could make people dislike her or like her in the "wrong" way (because liking villains for being villains Is Wrong), and that is ironically the exact reason why she's so insufferable.

Like, it's almost kinda hard to explain why having a character choose to be an asshole is so much more engaging to watch than having a character be entirely reactive UNTIL they can get Good Noodle Stars because.... yeah? Of course? Because there's more meat to bite into whenever a character makes a choice - whether kind or spiteful, whether good or bad - over someone else forcing a character to do something.

"Edelgard believes in imperialism because she has been raised in and agrees with a culture that believes itself to be the rightful 'owner' of the continent due to it being the progenitor country, and she genuinely believes Fodlan would be better if back under this 'glorious' reign of Adrestia, even despite her being around those outside of Adrestia for almost a year" says so much about her AND Adrestia. "Edelgard DOESN'T believe in imperialism, it's just that everyone else is doing so badly that they FORCE her to kill them or otherwise get rid of them" says things about the ones DOING things badly, MAYBE, but all it says about Edelgard is that she Doesn't Like Bad Things. Or, oh so much deeper, it says she likes *gasp* Good Things! How brave, how stunning! And before you can try to say "Well maybe Edelgard went to violence so quickly because she views fear and control to be the best way to force a society into being 'good' over trying to convince people peacefully," the Edelstan Edelgard is already packaged with "Edelgard went to war first because literally everyone MADE her go to war because THEY wouldn't let anything else work."

"Edelgard tried to assassinate Dimitri and Claude at the very beginning of the game because she wanted to make her eventual war go way easier" turns into the infamous "Edelgard was just trying to scare THE TEACHER away to get JERITZA installed in their place, and CLAUDE ruined it by running away; she wasn't ACTUALLY trying to hurt anyone." "Edelgard let Remire be massacred because - like she literally said she would - she was willing to sacrifice her people's lives in service of her higher cause" turns into one of "TWS forced her to be compliant" or "Edelgard definitely didn't know anything because she would have stopped it had she known." "Edelgard directly assisted in Flayn's kidnapping because TWS having more tools to work with means she gets more weapons to fight with" turns into "She was forced to do that." "Edelgard helped hide Kronya among the student populace even as she kidnapped students and mutated them into Demonic Beasts because it will help in giving her Demonic Beasts to work with in the war" turns into, you guessed it, "Edelgard was forced to do that." "Edelgard sent her army and Demonic Beasts onto either her direct Black Eagle classmates or otherwise innocent students to stop them from stopping her from getting Crest Stones to use in her upcoming war"? Oh, a surprise! "She HAD to do that, because OTHER PEOPLE were going to take the Crest Stones if she didn't!"

She was forced to, she wasn't hurting/trying to hurt anyone, she didn't do anything wrong - if her actions lead to people getting hurt and/or killed, those are the exclusive reasons allowed as to why she did it. These reasons being excuses to alleviate her of any accountability, not genuine explanations that still demand her to take accountability.

Meanwhile, Rhea distorted history to keep her and her family safe - which in verse is said to be something she was still wrong to do, and which in verse she ADMITS was wrong of her to do. Dimitri was absolutely willing to torture Randolph because he viewed the guy as less than human and felt him getting such inhumane treatment was justice - which he directly takes accountability for to Randolph's remaining family. Claude weaseled up to Byleth because he felt he could use them for his own ambitions - which he owns up to and grows out of doing. Regardless of context explaining why they did this or that, they did this and that. They own their actions and are responsible for them, no one else. And, you know, because they own their actions, they can, uh. Grow from said actions? Look back on what they did and go "huh, shouldn't have done that, I will choose to not choose to do those actions again"?

Like I'm sorry but you can't choose to not get fucked by literally the entire damn world and that's what makes Edelsue so fucking boring and uninteresting and annoying. All of that meticulous planning Edelgard did for years to enact this war, in this interpretation, boils down to "she didn't do shit, everyone else did, she was just forced to be the fall guy." Any action that isn't squeaky clean in moral whiteness has nothing to do with her agency and that sucks ass

[physalian]

The Dos and Don’ts of Giving and Receiving Constructive Criticism

Some of these should be painfully obvious and yet. They come from experience.

Receiving feedback:

Do

Understand that a criticism of a character’s thoughts, actions, morality, and choices are likely not a criticism of you as an author, unless the character is an author insert

Understand that they are being paid to critique how successfully you told an entertaining story, not pander to your trauma dumping

Understand that critiquing a book’s success as an entertaining story means that how much you yourself connect with or love a character or scene or plotline is irrelevant if it doesn’t make a compelling narrative

You might have written your book for yourself. Your editor is a different person with their own human biases and perspectives. If you just want to pay someone to stoke your ego, make that 100% clear up front.

Stand up for yourself and clarify where necessary if some details were overlooked or if explaining outside the narrative can better contextualize anything confusing or lacking detail.

Stand up for yourself in what feedback you are expecting, and what degree of criticism you’re willing to endure. An editor can let more or less of their own views show depending on what you ask for.

Stand up for yourself if your editor delivers inadequate or useless feedback. You’re paying them for a job, and you deserve to have it done properly.

Try to separate dislike of a book from dislike of yourself. It’s not easy, but the goal is to fix your book that you’ve already spent a lot of time writing, and they’re only trying to help.

Remember that your author insert is subjected to the same level of criticism as any other character, and that you asked for this.

Keep an open mind and be prepared for feedback that you don’t like, because you can’t please everyone. Your editor should be able to tell you whether or not a scene or character, or plotline works separate from their own personal tastes.

Don’t

Argue with your editor over their religiosity or lack thereof and insist that adhering to genre expectations means they “worship the god of [genre]”. (really, argue with your editor over anything like this, e.g. their own sexuality, religiosity, gender, socioeconomic status).

Argue with your editor while still expecting more work from them as if your aggression will in any way positively impact their perception of your book.

Insult your editor’s intelligence for not understanding your jargon and attempts to sound smarter than you are.

Get mad when your editor sees right through your BS and calls it like they see it, specifically your self-insert Mary Sue protagonist.

Insist that the solution to better understanding your book is for that editor to do extensive homework on your niche topic. If it’s a niche book for niche audiences, hire an editor who’s already knowledgeable about that niche topic.

Equate a bad review and opinion of the book with unprofessionalism. These can overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

Forget that your book is probably meant for leisure and entertainment, and your audience is under no obligation to read “until it gets good,” when they can go do literally anything else. Your first job is to entertain, if you write fiction.

Giving Feedback:

Do

Pay attention to your client’s wants and needs and expectations. If they’re more sensitive to bad feedback, do your best and stay as objective as possible. You can’t please everyone, either.

Helpful feedback includes an explanation of why an element needs work and how it can be improved. Saying “I hate this” with nothing else helps no one and just makes the author feel bad with no direction of how to make it better.

Communicate beforehand how much of your own personality your author wants from you. Do they like personal opinions and your personal reactions to the text, or do they want it as impersonal as possible and solely focused on the structure of the narrative? This might avoid a mess.

Remember to leave notes of where things worked well to balance the criticism. Even a simple “this is good” highlighting a line or a paragraph or two helps keep authors motivated to keep writing. I firmly believe that no book is completely unsalvageable.

Make it painfully clear with no room for debate that criticism of a character is not criticism of the author, unless it's an author insert, in which case the author absolutely asked for it.

Make it clear that you are just one person and these are all suggestions, not laws.

Don’t

Let your own personal opinions cloud your judgment of whether or not someone with different tastes could enjoy the book.

Unless given permission, get too personal with the narrative and reach beyond what’s written on the page.

Do more than what you’re paid for. You’re an editor, not a therapist for the writer’s trauma dumping.

Forget to wrap up all your thoughts in a condensed format that the author can reference, as opposed to endlessly scrolling through the manuscript trying to summarize your points for you.

Walk away with absolutely nothing positive to say about the manuscript. Even if it’s awful on every front, the writer still tried and that deserves merit.

This is from my personal experience beta and sensitivity reading, and dealing with other beta and sensitivity readers. We are all human and these jobs are not one-size-fits-all and there aren’t really hardline rules as every author, editor, and manuscript is different with different needs.

Just some things to keep in mind.

But also, for the authors who do write self-insert Mary Sues: You are in for a very rude awakening if you expect anyone other than yourself to adore your book with zero criticism. If you really just want someone to proofread and look for typos, tell them.

[captainuranium543]

Thing I've noticed about the Fairy tail fandom misogyny problem (I'm about to sound like such a nerd)

Not to be the loser of the year but the easiest way to see the bad treatment of women in the ft fandom is by imagining what would happen if you swapped the genders of gray and erza.

As we all know gray has a running gag of taking off his clothes, however while people clown on him for this it's also well known and obvious that he is more than that. He has depth and character beyond just that gag. In the more recent 100 year quest he really hasn't done that much by comparison to natsu Lucy erza or even Wendy. This has been (reasonably) upsetting to some fans arguing that he deserves better. I agree with this but I need you to imagine what the reaction would be if he was a women because it would be a completely different story.

If gray was a character who didn't get a lot of development and was always taking off his clothes as a women people would not be saying he deserves better then would be absolutely dog piling this dude calling him useless and fanservice only completely ignoring all his previous development.

How do I know this? Because that is literally what happened to Lucy. Back in the 2010s people WOULD NOT GET OFF HER ASS. people were constantly calling her useless (completely ignoring the fact that she's a brand new wizard being compared to guys who've been doing this since before puberty and NO SHIT SHES NOT THAT GOOD YET. THATS WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT COMES IN). It made sense for Lucy to be weaker than the others she was brand new to this and that was literally the point of her entire story to watch her grow as a wizard and become more independent and powerful. In some instances Lucy was written to be a damsel in distress character but rather then looking at her as an obvious victim of bad writing it was treated like it was somehow her fault. Gray and Lucy are very similar characters but gray is treated far more favorably right now than Lucy ever was back in the early days.

As for erza, people cannot stop calling her a plot armor character. All I see online is none stop hating, some people even claiming it's worse than natsu. The things is, to a degree they are right erza does have plot armor, the issue is that so does literally everyone else. As much as you don't want to accept it erza fights more so it's more noticeable with her but every single fairy tail fight outside of a few will have an element of plot armor ESPECIALLY for natsu.

The issue I have isn't that people are wrong it's that they completely ignore the fact erza is literally only being treated the same way male anime characters have been since the dawn of time but now suddenly it's a problem. Being overpowered and winning by punching things harder is fine as long as you're a dude ig.

It's even worse when people argue she's a Mary Sue because she objectively isn't. She not only has so many flaws that come to mind easily, she had probably one of the strongest character arcs I've ever seen. She's gone through more character development then 99% of the cast the only problem is that it happened very early and afterward Hiro didn't really know what to do with her.

That being said, even if she had no character arc at all I STILL WOULDN'T SAY SHES A MARY SUE. BECAUSE A MARY SUE IS A CHARACTER WITH NO FLAWS. AND NOBODY IN THIS SHOW IS MORE FLAWED THEN ERZA IS. I've heard people argue that all her flaws are comedic and, ignoring the fact this is just not true she has plenty of flaws that are genuine problems she needs to grow from (ie galuna island, tower of heaven and edolas), who cares if they are comedic? Natsu is also a very flawed person and has not had to change even a fraction of the amount Erza has and does that make him a Mary Sue? No. Do I still love him? Absolutely, he's funny as hell.

This post was not made to complain about gray or natsu btw Its not that I think they're useless or Mary sues I just don't think any of these characters are at all and I think people who do think that should all explode. Anyway this is just what I think feel free to disagree but don't try to argue with me because nobody is changing my mind on this one.

[noel-fielding-web-page]

‘The fact that I’m still here is amazing’: Noel Fielding on Bake Off, booze and the Boosh

He has gone from cult niche to smash hit and he still can’t believe it. As Bake Off returns, the comic talks about his ‘feral’ upbringing, his party years – and the day Hammond fell out of a hammock

Noel Fielding’s highlight of the new series of The Great British Bake Off wasn’t a show-stopping cake. In fact, it wasn’t any type of baked goods. It wasn’t even a shot of a squirrel with outsized testicles. It was his co-host Alison Hammond falling out of a hammock.

“I’ll never be able to unsee it,” he says. “What I love about Alison – and I mean this with the greatest of respect – is that she’s an absolute klutz. If anyone’s going to fall out of a hammock, it’ll be her. She also fell backwards off one of the workbenches while showing off. Don’t worry, she was OK. No Hammonds were harmed in the making of this series.”

As the autumnal fixture returns to our screens, Fielding promises a 15th series on peak form. “It’s a belter,” he says. “There are some very special bakers in the tent this year. Somehow the standard keeps getting higher. These unbelievable young bakers are way better than they should be for their age. It’s a vintage year. One of the best yet.”

By stealth, the surrealist goth has become a Bake Off veteran. This is Fielding’s eighth series at the helm, meaning he’s now served a longer stint than original hosts Mel Giedroyc and Sue Perkins. “Who knew that was going to happen?” he marvels. “Maybe Paul Hollywood’s hypnotised me. I can’t escape the tractor beam of those blue eyes. I loved that original lineup, with Mary [Berry], Mel and Sue, as much as anyone. When me and Sandi [Toksvig] took over, we were terrified. We knew it was a massive risk. We said: ‘Let’s see if we can last one series.’ The fact that I’m still here is amazing.”

A family affair? … (from left) Fielding, Alison Hammond, Paul Hollywood and Prue Leith. Photograph: Mark Bourdillon/Channel 4

Toksvig later admitted “I felt my brain atrophying” after three series of glazes and ganaches. How does Fielding keep it fresh? “Sandi, as we know, is a massive brain. She went to Cambridge, she’s super-smart, she writes, she does politics, she needs to be stimulated. She never stays anywhere too long, except QI which is the perfect show for her. The difference between us is that I’ve always really enjoyed hanging out with the bakers. I befriend them and get them to open up. Nobody expected that to be my strength. I assumed it’d be the sketches and banter. In fact, I’m fascinated by the people. I feel protective of them. If Paul and Prue [Leith] are hard on them, I’m absolutely livid. It’s devastating when they leave. This year I was particularly fond of one baker. When I had to send them home, I cried.”

Hammond is his third co-host. “It feels like I’ve done three different shows,” he says. “First with Sandi, under enormous pressure but we pulled it off. Then with Matt [Lucas], which was a privilege because he’s a comedy genius. Now I’m enjoying it more than ever. Alison’s not a comedian, so she’s not as neurotic about jokes as I am, but she’s a brilliant improviser and instinctively funny. She slotted right in. Paul and Prue are very fond of her. Even my kids adore her. We’re having a blast.”

Judges and presenters refer to “the Bake Off stone” – a tendency to gain weight during each 10-week run. In her sophomore series, Hammond valiantly attempted to resist. “She tried to eat less this year but Alison’s quite childlike. She said: ‘Noel, stop me eating cake, I want to be good.’ The next time I saw her, she was literally like [he mimes shovelling in cake]. Alison has a good time all the time. You don’t want her to not be eating the cakes.”

Fielding, now 51, had a “feral” upbringing in Croydon. Hammond was raised in a Birmingham council house. He relishes these “two working-class kids galloping around Welford Park”, the Grade I-listed Berkshire estate where the marquee is pitched each summer. “If you’ve grown up in a working-class environment and go to a stately home, you’re like: ‘Woah! This is like Willy Wonka’s factory.’ We’re like urchins in front of Dame Prue. I permanently feel like I’ve come to sweep Prue’s chimney.” He describes Bake Off’s star quartet as “a funny old family”. Who’s who? “Prue and Paul are Mum and Dad, obviously. Alison’s the wild daughter. I reckon I’m the cat. Or am I the dog? Paul would say I’m the teenage son who’s secretly a vampire.”

‘We knew it was a massive risk’ … Fielding with Sandi Toksvig on the 12th series of The Great British Bake Off. Photograph: Channel 4/Love Productions/Mark Bourdillon/PA

The last time we spoke, Fielding reflected on his 00s era as a hedonistic scenester. “I took partying to its logical conclusion,” he said. “When you’ve been partying with Kate Moss and Courtney Love, you’ve gone as far as you can go. A few friends ended up in rehab. I was sick of partying anyway and lucky enough to have my family at the right time [he has two daughters with wife Lliana Bird]. It was like: ‘This is what I was looking for!’”

He returns to the theme today, pondering how Bake Off arrived at the right time. “When I got this job, I’d just had my first child, I was painting a lot and had a different lifestyle. This show fitted that phase. You want to match your career to where you are in life. It’s mainstream, family-friendly and my kids love it, so it suits me. I love not partying – and I never thought I’d say that.”

A fellow comic turned artist provides career inspiration. “I’d love to concentrate on art more as I get older. I love what Vic Reeves [Jim Moir] is doing, making art documentaries and his Painting Birds series. Vic and Bob [Mortimer] were a big influence on me. Now he looks genuinely happy. I’d love to do something similar.”

Claudia Winkleman jokes that she gets mistaken for Fielding. Does it happen the other way round? “I did see a trailer for The Traitors out of the corner of my eye and go: ‘I swear I didn’t film that.’ But no, Claudia looks like a beautiful 60s model. I look like a melted candle. A wax model of Roy Orbison that’s been left too near the radiator. It’s flattering for me but harsh on her.”

Earlier this year, Fielding scored a streaming hit with The Completely Made-Up Adventures of Dick Turpin. After wrapping filming on Bake Off, he’s off to shoot the highwayman sitcom’s second series. Has he learned to ride a horse? “I can get on and off, that’s all I need. Luckily it’s a comedy, so I don’t need to look impressive. One thing I enjoyed was that it’s made by Apple, so there’s a bit of a budget. With The [Mighty] Boosh, it was always a financial struggle to bring your vision to life. If you do fantastical stuff, you’re forever going: ‘We want an underwater race with people riding porpoises but that’d be all the budget gone.’ We’d end up using bits of animation to work around it. With Apple, they go: ‘Yeah, we can do that. Fine, let’s blow up a carriage.’ I’m like: ‘What, really? It won’t be a model?’”

He has formed an unlikely double act with Hugh Bonneville, who plays Dick’s thief-catching nemesis. “You can never predict who you’ll have chemistry with. I’ve learned a lot from Hugh. He’s a really skilful comic actor. And Mark Heap, who plays my dad, has the best timing of anyone ever.” As well as starring, Fielding has a writing credit. In the pilot episode, Heap tells him: “You always were a bit weird. Drawing, coming up with funny ideas, wearing strange outfits.” Was that line autobiographical? “I did write that scene, yeah,” admits Fielding.

Slice of history … Fielding (left) with his Mighty Boosh co-star Julian Barratt Photograph: Martin Argles/The Guardian

He also drew the amusingly rubbish “Wanted” posters that appear in the show. “I’d send them to the director and he’d go: ‘No, not bad enough, do another, make it more ridiculous!’ I’d end up doing them left-handed in about 10 seconds.” There’s even a role for his brother Michael, who played Naboo in The Mighty Boosh: “I put my brother in everything I can. He’s not only very funny but it means I get to hang out with him all day.”

While we’re on the Boosh, was he aware that this year marks the 20th anniversary of the comedy troupe’s TV incarnation? “Does it? Oh wow. Me and Julian [Barratt, his comedy partner] were proud of everything the Boosh did – the live shows, radio series, TV show. We probably should have made a film. People wanted more and that would’ve been a nice way to finish. Julian’s the funniest person I’ve ever worked with, hands down.” Of today’s comedy crop, he rates James Acaster highly.

Would the duo ever reform? “What we had together was so special. Comedy double acts are such rare beasts, like unicorns. I’ll probably never meet anyone like that again but I loved it while it lasted. We stopped at the right time, before the quality dipped. The Boosh was all-consuming, like being in a band. It’s difficult to recreate that when you’re older. You don’t have the same drive and energy. As much as I’d love to get back together, I wouldn’t want to do something that wasn’t as good.”

Going from Boosh to Bake Off has been an unexpected journey. “When the Boosh ended, because it had been a cult hit, I wanted to make something more avant garde and experimental to satisfy my art school side. So I did [Channel 4 sketch series] Luxury Comedy. After that, I didn’t know what to do with myself, then Bake Off came along. It was a huge curveball for me. I love that it’s old-fashioned TV. Millions watch it weekly. People come up and talk to me about the latest episode. It feels like being part of British culture. There’s so much choice now, thousands of shows on streaming, but shows like Strictly, Gogglebox and Bake Off somehow still cut through.”

After dismal weather all series, the sun even came out for this year’s final. “It had been raining and storming but as soon as we went to announce the winner, sunshine started beaming down.” Fielding grins. “Bake Off’s like that. There’s something magical about it.”

Guardian, 14.09.2024

[dfwbwfbbwfbwf]

I think I figured out part of why I don't like the Doriath characters.

I think part of it is because of how much Jirt emphasizes how great they are and why we should like them, but rarely actually SHOWS it. I decided to do a thing on the main few Doriath characters who are the center of much controversy. I listed out various things. If I thought the thing is a positive, I gave it a positive mark. If I thought the thing is a negative, I gave it a negative mark. I also kind of put my opinion of the character at the top, so it's a bit of a spoiler.

Thingollo - very dislike

Only Incarnate to marry an angel. Good for him, I guess, but the Ainur aren't always quality judges of character. +0

Focused on his kingdom's security. +1

Tried to help Denethor out. +1

He welcomed the Laiquendi, but not the Noldor. I get keeping Doriath safe is a priority, but there's no indication that he invited any of the Noldor princes to Doriath until he learned the Arafinwions were his kin. Wasn't Finwë his supposed to be a very good friend? This was before he learned about Alqualondë, mind you. -1

Graciously granted the Noldor lands he didn't actually have any say over anymore, as he had stopped trying to protect them due to an inability TO protect them. +0

Acted like he had authority over the Noldor (Quenya ban) when there was no lord-vassal relationship between them. At least, he wasn't keeping his end of the bargain. -1

Demanding a Silmaril, a SILMARIL, which his "friend" Finwë had DIED for, was incredibly insensitive. He could have asked for something else to get Beren to run away or die, but, no. -1

Tried to use other people to kill a man. -1

Refused to give the Silmaril back to the Fëanárions, whose grandfather, his "friend", died for it. -1

Didn't listen to his wife. -.5

Refused to take part of an alliance that, ultimately, resulted in this destruction of Doriath. He had understandable reasons, though. -.25

Adopted a cursed child. He's also part of the reason that child is cursed, but he's not directly responsible either. +1

Let refugees in, even Noldor. Granted, all the Noldor came from Nargothrond, his nephew's kingdom. Still, better than nothing. +1

Didn't listen to his wife again. -.5

Ultimately destroyed his kingdom through his actions, but not directly. -.25

Total: -2.5

---

Melian - Like

Not as much of a Mary Sue as Lúthien. Melian is more like Cassandra. +1

Has a brain cell. +1

The worst thing she did, abandon Doriath, could be because she actually died. -.5

Total: 1.5

---

Lúthien - Dislike

Exhibits many Mary Sue traits - impossibly beautiful, smart, clever, the best at dancing and singing, and all of her plans work, and she even manages to get the dog who stood by Celegorm through worse things to defect to her. While these aren't necessarily bad when done right, she doesn't really have a personality other than "FREEDOM!" (yes, you must imagine William Wallace) and "I really love this scruffy hobo dude". More than anything, she's BORING. -1

Disappeared to the farthest place away from Morgoth to chill with her family. Screw the rest of Beleriand. Sure I riled up Morgoth, but I don't have to deal with the consequences. -1

Total: -2

---

Dior Eluchíl -

Killed some guys when it wasn't self-defense. The Dwarves were fleeing, and Beren and Dior chased them. That is, technically, murder, even if the Dwarves started it. -1

Sacrificed his kingdom for a rock. -2

Total: -2

---

Eluréd and Elurín - like and pity

Died. +0

Are cute babies. +1

Total: 1

---

Elwing - dislike, but also pity

Traumatized. +1

Sacrificed her kingdom for a rock. -1

Left her children at the mercy of people she believed killed her brothers, knowing that if the Fëanárions didn't get them, Morgoth would. -1

Gave the rock to her husband. +.25

Is a bird. +0

Total: -.75

[anxresi]

They're absolutely right...

...It's the writers that deserve the lion's share of the backlash, for poor, innocent, boring-as-hell Zoe is merely a tool of the oppressor, aka Mr Astruc. What's being oppressed, you may well ask? Well, interesting storylines, proper continuity, two-dimensional personalities... I could go on. Everything that makes a show compulsive and rewarding viewing that Miraculous Ladybug conspicuously and utterly lacks in every department due to his increasingly destructive machinations, basically.

This pink-streaked plot device masquerading as a serious character can (along with another equally pointless individual called 'Soquerline' who was so unmemorable I almost forgot she was ever a thing) exists for one reason and one reason only: to diminish Chloe's relevance and role in the show to the sum of precisely nothing. Well after S5, job done I guess guys. Well done. Well done indeed. (Although apparently not... they're bringing Miss Bourgeois back for more torture in the London 'special'. Guess Tommy Boy just can't keep away from his favorite punching bag, can he?)

The irony is though, having such a super-sweet but dull-as-ditchwater Mary Sue to replace a well-established and multi-layered person such as Chloe actually sends out a seriously awful message. Why? Because if I was a bad kid and saw S1-3 Chloe, I'd think 'what a fascinating redemption arc, I can inspired by that and do better.' But after seeing S4-5 Chloe and what an arguable downgrade as a replacement the incredibly tedious Zoe is, I'd be more like 'well, obviously there's no point in trying to be good, because you'll probably turn into a psychopath overnight with no explanation in the middle of your genuine efforts to improve. And if what the show is presenting to me as the ideal for a teenage girl to be is the waste-of-blank-space that Zoe clearly is... then a life of deliquency sounds more tempting with every passing minute! Now, where did I put my spray can?'

The most shameless aspect to this whole argument though, is by those trying to paint the hapless Zoe as some kind of lesbian icon. Pardon? She got a plot-mandated crush on Marinette in one episode and somehow that makes her insipid and needless presence an asset for the gay community? Somehow a few people have got it into their heads if you 'dare' to make someone non-straight in cartoons these days you deserve a big pat on the back for that 'risk' alone. WRONG. They should also be fleshed-out, complex, necessary characters whose sexuality isn't just define them or deflect from deserved criticism as to what the hell they are doing there if they turn up in the middle of proceedings with no prior explanation. See: The Owl House for how it's done.

And that's all Zoe being gay is... an irrelevant trait Mr Astruc can point to cynically and say ' you're a bigot for disliking her whatever your reasons are, so I'm not listening to you' instead of engaging with the actual argument which is SHE IS NOT AND WAS NEVER NEEDED IN THE SHOW. Everything you required to make Chloe the brilliant character she could've been was RIGHT THERE in the script but you CHOSE to rub it all out and scrawl some hastily scribbled doodle with no personality other than being 'very nice' in her place. A tragedy. The worst case of self-vandalism I've ever seen. No wonder Jeremy Zag wants to start from scratch with his rebooted movies. More power to him, IMHO.

Needless to say, nearly all the above in the quoted post about her father loving her (we haven't met him yet, it's DEFINITELY not Andre Bourgeois, his name ends in 'Lee' for a start) her supposed growth (the only 'growth' she's had is when she turned into that giant golden Chloe after being akumatized) her alleged pansexuality (all in the desperate mind of the OP) her 'abusive' family (I think you'll find Chloe had it FAR WORSE over the course of the show in that regard, so why not idolise her?) is complete bunkum. and to be frank I couldn't compose a much delusional post if I tried. Sometimes I wonder: what planet are some people on to reach such implausible conclusions? I don't understand it, I'll never understand it and quite frankly I feel quite sorry for the arbiters of such risibly deluded takes.

Last but not least though, we have...

Now this I ALSO agree with 1000%. And I know just the place to 'flush' her... ;)

[wakeywakeyjakey]

to batjokes or not to batjokes

so now that i'm on tumblr and interacting with the fandom i (a batjokes shipper) am seeing all the anti-batjokes shippers lol hey. one of the biggest arguments i'm seeing against batjokes is the whole he killed jason/paralyzed barbara/etc. and batman "wouldn't do that" because he's a "good person" and it "goes against his moral code" and like okay, i see where our wires might be getting crossed—

because you're operating under the belief that batman is a good person and i am not. personally i don't think that he can be a "good person" being batman and doing what he does but more than that—that's just not how goodness works. it's not like being a good person = you only do good things. good and evil are multi-dimensional and nuanced and complicated. it's not black and white, it's not just a theory or something that can be done "by the book" and as much as batman is a symbol, he's also a man.

i think we can objectively agree that from a moral standpoint, fucking the person that killed your son falls under the "bad" category. but thing is, batman goes to the extremes. this dude took the normal desire to do good in the world and became a vigilante who spends all day and all night on this crusade to do good. so yeah, i fully believe that when he leans into the "bad" category it is also just as extreme. like, batman does bad things too because we all do, that's literally what being human is. and y'all are trying to tell me that batman being evil is just... what? him getting a parking ticket? yelling at a waiter? no! good and evil balance out in the end (even sans joker/within ourselves) and if that's meant to foil all the good he does, it has to be pretty fucking awful.

and so that's also part of it—personally i think batjokes makes him a more compelling character. batman is already the only superhero i can stand because he's more morally ambiguous and less mary sue than the rest. and hey, if you like your heroes mary sue i can totally respect that bc i don't police what people enjoy in fiction. but batjokes gives us an entire realm of possibility beyond the traditional one-dimensional portrayal of good and evil. joker is a mirror because he puts batman's hypothetical goodness to the practical test. he doesn't just exist to show us what batman is not, but also what batman is.

what does it say about batman and his humanity if he loves joker and still chooses to be batman? what does it say about joker and his humanity if he is able to be the object of affection to someone who is as "good" as batman is?

personally, i really like the fics and portrayals that actually address what happened with jason or where the batfam find out. because then we get to see beyond what batman thinks about himself (which is often way too self-deprecating regardless) and can see how the world he's most aligned with sees him. then it's about how much humanity can be offered to a good person who does bad things (ha) and i've seen it go both directions. it's the answer to all the aforementioned hypothetical questions and it's so cool to see creators unpack the reality of human existence beyond the fantasy we’re provided.

batjokes takes batman out of this infallible narrative, this children's story about right and wrong, and brings it to a level we can understand by taking it somewhere we could not otherwise comprehend.

to me, that's what good fiction is. that's what make a good story.

the fact that i also get sexual gratification out of it as someone with pretty extreme kinks that are already overrepresented in canon is just icing on the cake.

[mirageofadesert]

Female Power Done Right: A closer look at Pian Ran from TTEOTM

The seductress: regulating sexual morality

Female characters have always been stereotyped in popular media. While this isn't limited to the portrayal of women, it has affected them disproportionately and usually in a negative way. There are a number of common stereotypes of how women are portrayed, such as the virtuous woman, the seductress/femme fatale, the Mary Sue and more. While I don't want to say that TTOETM doesn't rely on these kinds of stereotypes to tell its story, the show does get some things right when it comes to its female characters. Pian Ran is the best example of this.

Most temptress are villains, because female sexuality is often framed as something negative, something dangerous. Sexual morality serves to regulate gender relations, for example through various sexual taboos and prohibitions on premarital and extramarital sexuality or homosexuality. In the major religions and many cultures, sexuality is traditionally placed in the service of procreation. In the ascetic-monastic traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity, which are characterized by sexual renunciation, sexuality is equated with ignorance, desire, attachment or sin and is considered an obstacle to salvation. As women are identified more strongly with physicality than men, sexuality and instinctually in all the religions mentioned, the widely received stereotype of the sexual seductress emerges, which has been used to justify a wide range of discrimination.

Therefore, seductresses are not about female sexuality, they are (through the male gaze) objects of sexual desire for men, while also being a negation point of sexual morality. Virtuous women, especially protagonists, are often sexualised, but not portrayed as sexual beings. In contrast, sexual women are often the competition of the main character. They tend to use their physical attractiveness to attack or steal the main character's love interest, or to overpower the hero with their evil tricks. For this reason, they are often associated with animals that are seen as deceitful, cunning, poisonous or dangerous (e.g. snakes, scorpions, foxes).

At the first glance, Pian Ran fits this archetype well. She is a fox demon, who feeds on the life energy of men. She seduces them, using their sexuality for her own gain and entertainment. Pian Ran also dresses "provocatively" and doesn't conform to social conventions. When we first meet her, she is playing the historical version of strip poker, not just for the money, but because the desperate men amuse her. In the same episode, she forces Ye Qingyu to accompany her to the market and uses her sensuality to throw him off balance.

However, Pianran also subverts this trope. Her sexuality isn't portrayed as something negative, it's accepted by the people around her. Ye Qingyu never judges her for it, even though he is the polar opposite. Ye Xiwu never looks down on her either, instead she comes to him for advice and even flirts with her.

Sun Zhenni's performance deserves a lot of praise. Her sexiness doesn't feel "sticky" or "creepy" to me, like many other characters of similar type do. She has a natural sensuality that isn't over the top, more sassy than naughty. You can tell that she studied her character a lot and tried to portray her as nuanced as possible.

Pian Ran is also much more than just another fox demon and seductress. She is a complex character. But her main theme isn't really seduction - it's working life.

Pian Ran vs. work life

This theme runs throughout the drama, from Li Susu offering her a letter of recommendation for a particular sect when they first meet, to Pianran's work for Tantai Jin - and her resentment of it.

She has to work to survive - literally, as Tantai Jin tricks her into believing she has swallowed a pill that will give him control over her life. "Take the pill", which will change your life and take away your freedom, is also a reminder of how certain drugs and their side effects work. While she's not without a certain amount of freedom and has her own command within the Jing Kingdom, she's tied to Tantai Jin's command and rigorous work schedule.

Our girl is a for sure a regular on r/antiwork...

This theme makes her a relatable and likeable character. It also shows how her character is a comment on current social issues, beyond gender roles. This is one of the strengths of TTOETM, it’s strong social and moral message that goes beyond the plot of the drama.

Pian Ran vs. love life

As a character, Ye Qingyu is the opposite of Pian Ran: Virtuous, very righteous and rigid. But he never judges her for her behaviour, he always understands her and gives her space. And most importantly, neither of them changes who they are as their relationship progresses. She doesn't suddenly become a modest woman, he doesn't turn away from his ideals - except maybe in that cut arc in Jing Kingdom in the 3rd arc.

In many ways, Ye Qingyu and Pian Ran embody the classic trope of the seductive and virtuous hero: she affects men in a certain way that causes them to stray from the straight and narrow or interferes with their domestic arrangements. For example, when he spends the first night with her and thus neglects his duties as head of the family, or when she contributes to his changing sides and joining Tantai Jin. In short, she is disruptive.

When she advises Ye Xiwu/Li Susu on how to seduce Tantai Jin, she suggests various manipulation tactics to gain his attention and favour, but Pian Ran also gives genuine advice - to both of them, actually (although sometimes it's my accident).

One could make the argument, that they were aiming to frame her initial strong sexuality as a coping mechanism due to the loss of her husband and love threads. The absence of her love threads manifests quite different to Tantai Jin, mainly in form of attachment issues.

However, the show doesn't try to make a point about female sexuality by emphasizing a change in Pianran's behavior based on finding the right man. If anything, it's Ye Qingyue who meets her halfway by having a premarital affair. What I like most about their relationship is that they are each other's equals. They both have high ranks in Tantai Jin's kingdom and army, and he listens to their advice and treats them equally. Moreover, Pian Ran is never a damsel in distress. Even when Ye Qingyue dies for her, it is because she was blindsided by the attack while she was winning her own duel. In the end, she shares the fate of most seductresses who disrupt the social order - she dies (if they don't join a convent). The difference is that her death is a tragedy and not framed as a regulation of sexual morality and gender relations.

Female Friendship

Before I dive into the relationship of Li Susu and Pianran, I want to comment on the common dualism of the sensuous vs. the virtuous woman. Li Susu (or Ye Xiwu) is not the virtuous heroine, it’s (again) Ye Bingchang mirroring Pian Ran. This is something that subverts the whole trope! It's the virtuous woman who become disruptive and falls from grace, while Pianran becomes a righteous heroine. However, while Pianran doesn't become virtuous, Ye Bingchang tries and fails to use seduction to manipulate Tantai Jin. She also has an additional set of love threads that make her seductive to men without using her sensuality or sexuality. It's a fascinating dynamic. As I said, TTEOTM is not a perfect show with a feminist message, but it certainly tries to subvert gender stereotypes - and not just with its women, but that's another issue.

Pian Ran's third important role in TTOETM is that of Li Susu's friend, who supports and guides her. What makes their dynamic so interesting is that while Pian Ran looks younger than Li Susu, she is considerably older (well, if you count age by years lived, not by date of birth). They are flirtatious, they share a horse and a bed, and they pass the Bechtel test! Li Susu even risks her health to cure Pian Ran of Tantai Jin's blood curse.

Both subvert gender expectations in their own way. They are strong characters without abandoning their femininity. The empowerment and the feminist ideas, they are embodying, also come natural to the storyline and are not just tropes. Therefore, they are relatable characters for a modern audience (except when they are not).

Edit: Got rid of some spelling mistakes!

[sonicjustbecause]

A small pet peeve on current Shadow

(Nothing serious, but it disappoints me a bit).

I often stress about Shadow being left handed. It was very clear in Sjhadow 205 and sonic 2006. You could read it in his profile back then.

Attentive left handed Sonic fans also noticed how Shadow literally moves like a leftie even without having anything in his hands. Not just wielding weapons or the shepter to seal Mephiles with his left hand. Even his body language and his postures - the way he crosses his arms - were typical of left handed people

Clear also from ShTH artworks (no mistake, cosnsistently left handed).

And this ended up in the game too.

Then this came:

And that was, metaphorically, the chain that tied Shadow's (and several other characters) left hand behind his back.

Because people though righties can't adapt, then, rather than let you choose, just 'fixed' characters such as Shadow or Link.

The Wiimote is gone now, so, why not going back to the origins?

Unfortunately evidently, somebody though that because 'Shadow was not cool enough' (Trying to mimic Iizuka's style)

'As the ultimate lifefeorm, Shadow is not tied to things such as right handedness or left handedness. It depends by the situation.

- Before misunderstanding, since people often don't pay attention to what they read I underline is just my assumtion and Iizuka never said anything! -

The italic quoote was said by VEI-6 Vesuvius attempting to imitate Iizuka!

In Dark Beginnings and in Shadow Generation, Shadow is ambidextrous.

right...

In the third episode of Dark Beginnings he only uses his left.

Left

Left handed body language - he looks at his left first, the right later.

right...

And so on...

I saw the same issue on Sonic.

Personally I think making a character ambidextrous is lazy, most of the time. Simply because most people just not care to those details, so they slap body language and tools where is convenient for the scene. To me, it removes character relatability/life (And I'm saying this as somebody who can use both hands for most things, including the usage of scissors). I can give only two example of ambidextrous character done right:

Your avatar from Skyrim. when you equip the weapons, you can choose wich hand he or she will use to wield the sword and which one will use for the shield at your please, without any setting. To make things even cooler, you use the right side of your controller for the right hand and the left side of your controller for the left, with your actual right and your actual left. Customization in real time. Is great.

This character from Soul Calibur, Siegfried. He switch from right to left handed stance with a spontaneity that feels just right. Is beautiful.

For those two there is a purpose. most is lack of care for the details.

Why I like Shadow being a lefty?

Left handedness is peculiar and if some character is meant to be cool, that's a nice and harmless detail (the character will not turn into a Mary Sue). Is not to common and if not overdone (and isn't) it adds a layer of realism and relatability.

Is also all in Shadow's name. Among all meanings there is 'reflection of'. Since most people are right handed, of course a reflection is most of the time left handed.