#NO!! love does not justify its existence simply by being present!!

[valtsv]

i know we all talk about the silt verses being the aro podcast but this moment really encapsulates that particular theme for me. because the very existence of love-saints already sets up the implication that love is, like everything else in this world, something can be made a commodity, weaponised, and used to objectify you and make you a product, but VAL's interaction with them above makes that explicit. and it's just so refreshing to see love presented as this neutral value - as a tool - capable of inspiring both immense acts of kindness and reprehensible expressions of cruelty, like that. because love is the driving force behind many of the most uplifting moments in the story, but it's also the motivation for some of the most horrible, destructive, selfish, senseless acts of violence committed by people to each other and themselves. love will not save you, and it will not make you a better person, and it does not absolve you of the harm you enable in its name. it is not enough that the love was simply there - it's what you decide to do with it that matters.

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.16 Does anarchism require “perfect” people to work?

No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a “perfect” society. It will be a human society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be “perfect” for anarchy to work. They only need to be free. Thus Christie and Meltzer:

”[A] common fallacy [is] that revolutionary socialism [i.e. anarchism] is an ‘idealisation’ of the workers and [so] the mere recital of their present faults is a refutation of the class struggle … it seems morally unreasonable that a free society … could exist without moral or ethical perfection. But so far as the overthrow of [existing] society is concerned, we may ignore the fact of people’s shortcomings and prejudices, so long as they do not become institutionalised. One may view without concern the fact … that the workers might achieve control of their places of work long before they had acquired the social graces of the ‘intellectual’ or shed all the prejudices of the present society from family discipline to xenophobia. What does it matter, so long as they can run industry without masters? Prejudices wither in freedom and only flourish while the social climate is favourable to them … What we say is … that once life can continue without imposed authority from above, and imposed authority cannot survive the withdrawal of labour from its service, the prejudices of authoritarianism will disappear. There is no cure for them other than the free process of education.” [The Floodgates of Anarchy, pp. 36–7]

Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs, thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties, or community and workplace assemblies (see section I.5.8 for a discussion of how could be done for anti-social activities as well as disputes).

Like the “anarchism-is-against-human-nature” argument (see section A.2.15), opponents of anarchism usually assume “perfect” people — people who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of authority, people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting effects of hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make no such claims about human perfection. We simply recognise that vesting power in the hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people are not perfect.

It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a “new” (perfect) man or woman is often raised by the opponents of anarchism to discredit it (and, usually, to justify the retention of hierarchical authority, particularly capitalist relations of production). After all, people are not perfect and are unlikely ever to be. As such, they pounce on every example of a government falling and the resulting chaos to dismiss anarchism as unrealistic. The media loves to proclaim a country to be falling into “anarchy” whenever there is a disruption in “law and order” and looting takes place.

Anarchists are not impressed by this argument. A moment’s reflection shows why, for the detractors make the basic mistake of assuming an anarchist society without anarchists! (A variation of such claims is raised by the right-wing “anarcho”-capitalists to discredit real anarchism. However, their “objection” discredits their own claim to be anarchists for they implicitly assume an anarchist society without anarchists!). Needless to say, an “anarchy” made up of people who still saw the need for authority, property and statism would soon become authoritarian (i.e. non-anarchist) again. This is because even if the government disappeared tomorrow, the same system would soon grow up again, because “the strength of the government rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool, and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves.” [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, p. 355]

Hence Alexander Berkman:

“Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism.” [What is Anarchism?, p. xii]

In other words, anarchy needs anarchists in order to be created and survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that command-and-obedience relations and capitalist property rights are necessary. The implicit assumption in the idea that anarchy needs “perfect” people is that freedom will be given, not taken; hence the obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring “perfect” people will fail. But this argument ignores the need for self-activity and self-liberation in order to create a free society. For anarchists, “history is nothing but a struggle between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed.” [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 85] Ideas change through struggle and, consequently, in the struggle against oppression and exploitation, we not only change the world, we change ourselves at the same time. So it is the struggle for freedom which creates people capable of taking the responsibility for their own lives, communities and planet. People capable of living as equals in a free society, so making anarchy possible.

As such, the chaos which often results when a government disappears is not anarchy nor, in fact, a case against anarchism. It simple means that the necessary preconditions for creating an anarchist society do not exist. Anarchy would be the product of collective struggle at the heart of society, not the product of external shocks. Nor, we should note, do anarchists think that such a society will appear “overnight.” Rather, we see the creation of an anarchist system as a process, not an event. The ins-and-outs of how it would function will evolve over time in the light of experience and objective circumstances, not appear in a perfect form immediately (see section H.2.5 for a discussion of Marxist claims otherwise).

Therefore, anarchists do not conclude that “perfect” people are necessary anarchism to work because the anarchist is “no liberator with a divine mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards towards liberty.” As such, ”[i]f, then, by some external means an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and thrust upon the people, it is true that they would reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the other hand, the people develop their ideas of freedom, and they themselves get rid of the last stronghold of tyranny — the government — then indeed the revolution will be permanently accomplished.” [George Barrett, Op. Cit., p. 355]

This is not to suggest that an anarchist society must wait until everyone is an anarchist. Far from it. It is highly unlikely, for example, that the rich and powerful will suddenly see the errors of their ways and voluntarily renounce their privileges. Faced with a large and growing anarchist movement, the ruling elite has always used repression to defend its position in society. The use of fascism in Spain (see section A.5.6) and Italy (see section A.5.5) show the depths the capitalist class can sink to. Anarchism will be created in the face of opposition by the ruling minorities and, consequently, will need to defend itself against attempts to recreate authority (see section H.2.1 for a refutation of Marxist claims anarchists reject the need to defend an anarchist society against counter-revolution).

Instead anarchists argue that we should focus our activity on convincing those subject to oppression and exploitation that they have the power to resist both and, ultimately, can end both by destroying the social institutions that cause them. As Malatesta argued, “we need the support of the masses to build a force of sufficient strength to achieve our specific task of radical change in the social organism by the direct action of the masses, we must get closer to them, accept them as they are, and from within their ranks seek to ‘push’ them forward as much as possible.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, pp. 155–6] This would create the conditions that make possible a rapid evolution towards anarchism as what was initially accepted by a minority “but increasingly finding popular expression, will make its way among the mass of the people” and “the minority will become the People, the great mass, and that mass rising up against property and the State, will march forward towards anarchist communism.” [Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, p. 75] Hence the importance anarchists attach to spreading our ideas and arguing the case for anarchism. This creates conscious anarchists from those questioning the injustices of capitalism and the state.

This process is helped by the nature of hierarchical society and the resistance it naturally developed in those subject to it. Anarchist ideas develop spontaneously through struggle. As we discuss in section I.2.3, anarchistic organisations are often created as part of the resistance against oppression and exploitation which marks every hierarchical system and can., potentially, be the framework of a few society. As such, the creation of libertarian institutions is, therefore, always a possibility in any situation. A peoples’ experiences may push them towards anarchist conclusions, namely the awareness that the state exists to protect the wealthy and powerful few and to disempower the many. That while it is needed to maintain class and hierarchical society, it is not needed to organise society nor can it do so in a just and fair way for all. This is possible. However, without a conscious anarchist presence any libertarian tendencies are likely to be used, abused and finally destroyed by parties or religious groups seeking political power over the masses (the Russian Revolution is the most famous example of this process). It is for that reason anarchists organise to influence the struggle and spread our ideas (see section J.3 for details). For it is the case that only when anarchist ideas “acquire a predominating influence” and are “accepted by a sufficiently large section of the population” will we “have achieved anarchy, or taken a step towards anarchy.” For anarchy “cannot be imposed against the wishes of the people.” [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 159 and p. 163]

So, to conclude, the creation of an anarchist society is not dependent on people being perfect but it is dependent on a large majority being anarchists and wanting to reorganise society in a libertarian manner. This will not eliminate conflict between individuals nor create a fully formed anarchist humanity overnight but it will lay the ground for the gradual elimination of whatever prejudices and anti-social behaviour that remain after the struggle to change society has revolutionised those doing it.

[nikethestatue]

Something I find interesting and infuriating is antis are now saying to justify why they don’t like Elain or want her to be the next FMC is “there’s not much to her on the page” or she “barely has a personality,” or “Elain stans and Elriels simply self-insert and there’s not much substance to her.” They are so close to understanding ironically this is how most of them are with Lucien or Gwyn. What do you think of this take?

I also think it’s a weird one as we do know more about Elain than say Eris, but that doesn’t stop them from obsessing over him and wanting him to be the next MMC/love interest. Are they being dense or they genuinely just aren’t paying attention to what Elain say/does on the page?

Yeah, this argument is old and tired and holds no water whatsoever. You know why? Because we know as much about Elain as we know about Azriel.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

The dude's said 100 words across 5 books, we know next to nothing of his past, his present and what he actually does, and yet he's been shipped with every character in existence, whether dead or alive.

The self-inserts are the girls who think that Azriel-like guy will fall madly in love with them one day and will fulfill all their secret hopes and desires. Look at the proliferation of the Azriel x Reader fanfics! No need to even bother with a name for a female character, as long as she is fitted together with Azriel. THAT, my friends, is self-insertion at its finest. Its purest form. Commissioning 550 arts of Azriel with Gwyn in scenes that don't and never existed, with her taking on every single canon attributes of Elain is self-insertion.

90% of Eriels or Elain stans simply came to this place because they read the books and recognised that's where SJM was going with both Elain, and Azriel.

Many of us are either fed up or not particularly interested in yet another stabby sword girl as an FMC. Maybe we like her for her imperfections. She is not boring, she is rather complex and we are interested in the story she is going to tell--and is both brave and cowardly, quiet and social, conservative and rebellious, a people pleaser with an independent streak, calm and composed, fractured and weak, lazy yet helpful.

A good number of my friends have stepped away from romantasy as a genre because we are all tired of the same exactly FMC in every series. How many brave stabby girls with secret powers and trauma can we read about already? They are all the same. Some of us, prefer Elide to Aelin, or Yrene to Bryce. Personally, if someone told me: you can read a book about Danika Fendyr or Elain Archeron, I would always choose Elain Archeron. Because there are 50 Danikas out there, and maybe 3 Elains.

[aronarchy]

https://twitter.com/butchanarchy/status/1663942855746895875

Schools are sites of extreme social control and abuse, serve as state propaganda distribution centers, and are by and large focused on creating docile servants to capital rather than inquisitive learners. School abolition is a necessary radical demand.

If you got through the experience of schooling with your love of learning and self-esteem intact I’m honestly very happy for you but that is not reflective of how many youth experience school as an institution. Reach beyond your own experiences in your analysis please.

The idea that children can’t and won’t learn unless they are under power of centralized authority has the same roots as the belief that no one would ever labor if not under the coercive control of the state and capital. It’s a myth to justify control and domination.

If you find yourself scoffing at the idea of school abolition I hope you will see that reaction for what it is: a defense of something you have always been taught to see as natural and inevitable. As a radical such a reaction calls for analysis, not dogmatic acceptance.

Liberalism has taught many that politics need only ever be in reaction to what conservatives are doing. Right-wingers attack the institution of schooling? This must mean School = Good and that any critique of schooling = conservative. Radical politics require we step beyond this.

Teenage suicide rates fell when much of school turned to remote learning, and they rose again (by 18%!) when in-person schooling resumed. This is not an institution that needs your defense. It is an institution that inflicts frankly incalculable levels of trauma on youth.

Let’s go even further than just critique the authoritarian institution of school, keep digging up the roots! What would happen if we opened ourselves up to inquiring about the values laden in the conceptualization that education is something that can be “given” Teacher ➡️ Student

Let’s analyze the idea that the Teacher is someone who is Already in possession of Knowledge, who then pours that Knowledge into the Passive Vessel of the Student, who has no Knowledge. Is this the only way learning happens? Is it really the best way?

What other lessons are we teaching youth when we accept the above as true? What are they learning about their own worth, what about themselves and their learning process are they being taught to ignore and suppress because it does not align with the processes dictated by Teacher?

What wounds do we ourselves still carry by being taught in this way? Did this process teach us how to explore, how to be creative, how to drive our own learning process forward without the dictates of an Authority figure? How do we see these wounds reflected in our peers?

And what lessons are we missing out on when we believe that youth are simply receptacles of Adult Wisdom? When we devalue their agency so much as to outright deny its existence in our defense on institutions that control them? Could they not also be our teachers?

The beauty of radical politics is that they reveal that all forms of social relations are vulnerable to critique. Social structures are choices, not states of nature we cannot help but reproduce. We can keep digging, keep questioning. imo it is a moral imperative that we do so.

There are always more questions to ask! There are always more options for exploration than we are presented by authoritarian hegemony. That many of us are not accustomed to analyzing and exploring this way is, itself, a symptom of how our society approaches learning.

[zhe-awesome-me-blog]

Itoshi Rin and Sae: a story in three parts

alternatively: how having a brother complex can ruin your life (but it's mostly that you both just have terrible personalities)

So in the midst of the world cup finals last week, I remembered—in a frenzy or some state like it—of the existence of the edgy soccer manga Blue Lock. And so I read it. And it sure was edgy.

One of the things that stood out to me were the Itoshi brothers, Rin and Sae, and how most of their relationship, its highs and its lows, were predicated on Rin simply having the world's biggest brother complex.

By the way: general spoiler warning for the manga up until about the VS Japan U-20 match (around ch 147).

Prologue

Before we get any sense of backstory for them, we're introduced to the Itoshi brothers on different occasions.

In ch 4, we first meet Itoshi Sae, a genius soccer player who considered to be the best in Japan. The first impression we get of him is that he has a terrible personality. and a foul mouth. He has no interest in entertaining the media or giving any serious to interviews, and he does not hold back on his arrogant demeanor, though in his case, it's actually justified by his ridiculous skill.

Rin is introduced much later than his brother, during the second selection arc, and is someone who is also incredibly skilled. While most of his motivations seem shrouded in mystery, we know that Rin is self sufficient and dislikes to rely on others.

Oh and I guess there's also his deal with his brother.

oh yeah rin-chan seems weirdly more on edge at the mention of his brother? haha i'm sure this means nothing

Rising Action

In ch 123, the curtain is pulled back.

Itoshi Rin loves his brother very much, loved his brother very much; he admired him above all else, and strove to become just like him in the future.

Even as a little kid, Sae has had his terrible personality: he already tells his interviewers to eat shit and doesn't hold back his arrogant attitude. Most importantly, however, is how, above everything else, he hates to lose.

A young Sae takes it personally when Rin is the one to get the lucky ice cream. i'm with him on this one i would also try to justify myself too much when my brother would get the lucky items. curse him.

But those things don't mean much at this stage, where Rin and Sae stick with each other, as close as two coats of paint. Sae obviously dotes on his younger brother and treats him nicely, which contrasts with his demeanor with others. So when they both notice that Rin also has the skills in soccer, instead of being mad at Rin for intervening during his game, Sae proposes that he plays with him.

how heartwarming. im sure these siblings will keep their close relationship in the future haha

And so they do.

For the few years to come, the Itoshi brothers are an unbeatable striker duo. They share a dream: to become the best strikers in the world, with Sae as the number 1 and Rin as the number 2.

They're quite close, and have trust in each other's skill. When Sae comments negatively on Rin's play, it feels more like constructive criticism (and even playful banter), rather than insult.

Sidenote, it's interesting to compare the brothers' different approaches to playing soccer.

For Rin, he mostly relies on his instincts. It's something I may have not mentionned earlier, but one of the defining aspects of Rin is that he's a character defined by his incredible luck. It's present in the lucky ice cream he kept getting, in the fact that he was born as the younger brother to the talented Itoshi Sae, and of course, in his way of playing soccer.

a frustrated Isagi asks Rin what he's missing (ch86)

Sae, on the other hand, doesn't have as much luck. He keeps getting the wrong ice cream and he plays in a much more methodical manner: Sae actively works hard to reach his goal, while Rin allows himself to be caught along his brother's current.

dependency

Regardless, Sae eventually gets scouted for his skill and goes away to Madrid.

In the meantime, Rin keeps holding onto the dream, the promise, he had with Sae. Though, even when he works hard for his dream, he does so by playing as Sae's replacement, in order to catch up to his brother. All the while, he keeps holding onto the idealized version of his brother that he has in his head.

Turning Point

After four long years, Sae suddenly comes back and,

He's exhausted. Rin points out how he lost some weight, but Sae also has prominent eye bags, and his face is sunken. Most importantly, he lacks the vigor he had when he left Japan.

It's also important to point out that Sae had come back earlier than expected, yet his first thought was to go see his little brother and inform him of the change in his dream. Because to him, it's important that Rin knows this; because that mutual dream of theirs is what matters the most to them.

And so he tells Rin of his newfound realization and decision. The world out there is huge, and there are plenty of more talented players out there, even better than the unbeatable Itoshi Sae, as strikers.

So, Sae decides that he's now striving to become the number 1 midfielder in the world, instead of the best striker.

And Rin...

He takes the news very badly.

Because, to Rin, all he's hearing is that his unbeatable brother, the one who hates to lose above everything else, has resigned himself from his dream of becoming no 1 striker, simply because there are others that are better than him.

To Rin, his brother had basically admitted that he's not actually the best.

Understandibly, it shatters Rin, as well as his idealized and out-of-date image of his beloved, talented, cool, older brother. He can't bring himself to accept what Sae is saying, so instead, he aggressively rejects this "new" Sae in front of him, and he refuses to ackowledge him anymore.

The thing is, though, not much has actually changed.

His older brother is the same victory-loving, defeat-hating Sae as he was before he played in Madrid; he's still the same Sae who dotes on his younger brother and wants to see him grow; he's still the same Sae who wants to become the best soccer player in the world.

All that has changed is that he saw that he plays better as midfield, so he changed positions.

To Rin, it doesn't make sense that his unbeatable older brother would change this part of his dream. To him, the very fact that Sae altered his plan is the same as giving up. He's still childish and has an all-or-nothing mindset.

But Sae, who is a bit older and who has now experienced the world, doesn't understand why Rin is so upset. After all, he still wants to be number one, and he still wants his brother by his side.

Rin retaliates.

as a way to deal with their argument, sae challenges rin

Admitedly, the stakes of their 1v1 are ridiculous, but a part of Sae wants to keep on believing in this childish dream of them becoming the best strikers. After all, it's his talented younger brother. Maybe there is a chance.

But there is none.

And it's when Rin becomes so desperate that Sae finally loses his patience and tries to knock some sense back to him. Because Sae is exhausted at this point, and his younger brother is spouting childish things. Sae wanted him to realize that, sometimes, what you're best at may not be what you initially believed it to be: something which Rin seemed incapable of accepting.

admitedly, he's being very mean about it. I guess he finally got over giving rin nice treatment just for being his little brother

He gets angry at Rin. He tells Rin to quit, because to Sae, this dream he has is something that he's been actively working for and advancing in. Meanwhile, Rin tells him that he was his sole reason for playing all this time. And it's not enough, because it's such a fickle reason.

The world is large and there are so many better players out there, that such a lukewarm reason meant that Rin was never serious to begin with.

So now, it's Sae's turn to reject his brother.

Outcome

All that their interaction in the snow had showed Sae was that his brother was not actually serious about football, after all. And because he's not serious, because he's so lukewarm, Rin will never reach Sae's level.

The thing is, Rin does outsmart his brother in one critical instant, though neither one of them meaningfully acknowledge it

The main problem with Rin is, well, his huge brother complex.

Okay, well, more seriously, Rin's biggest problem is that he bases his self-worth on his brother. Even when they officially separate, Rin's motivation for playing football is still centered on Sae. Actually, I don't think you can say that his initial reason changed that much.

As easily as Rin could pretend it, he can't think that his beloved brother being nice when they were younger was all just a lie. Because it wasn't. So now he's mad at Sae for turning his life upside down and leading down this path.

He claims he wants revenge against his brother.

ch 125

Rin says that he wants to break Sae "into pieces" and that he wants to destroy his dream, but what is the dream that he's talking about? is it the one about being the number one player, regardless of position? Or is it just that Rin wants to go back to those days they were playing together?

I don't think even Rin himself knows entirely.

His reason for playing has always been Sae. It hasn't changed: it's always been his brother. And truth be told, all Rin really wants is to gain back the affection of his brother.

To come back to the Japan U-20 match, Rin says that he wants to be his own person, that he doesn't want to be defined by his relationship to others. But he also holds onto any bit of affection he may get from Sae.

So much for a guy who claims that he hates his brother.

He allows his hostile exterior to break a bit after the match against the Japan U-20 team. For God's sake, he's so hopeful and wide eyed that Sae finally, finally sees how far he's come. That he'd compliment him for the first time in a lifetime,

but no.

rip rin-chan I hope one day he actually compliments you

Epilogue?

Besides the fact that Rin's resentment towards Isagi has grown tenfold now that the latter managed to snatch a compliment from his brother, there isn't more that has been added to their relationship after their match.

Honestly, despite all this meta that I wrote,

I'm still not over the fact that Rin's mysterious and tragic deal was that he simply has the world's biggest brocon and heavily depends on his brother's approval and love.

[leeningt0werofpizza]

My Hottest Owl House Take Is That The Whole Show Would Be Objectively Better If Hunter Were Black.

Bear with me:

The Owl House is at its absolute least fun when Hunter is onscreen because from the moment that mask comes off, he’s a passive character. You can see it in his first scene with Luz in Hunting Palismen; she’s asking him all kinds of questions, giving all kinds of material with which he could engage and have fun banter with her like he’d done previously, but instead he just grumbles. Luz is over here being her deliciously funny self and her scene partner is giving her NOTHING. I feel like I’m back in High-School Improv doing a scene with that kid who simply cannot Yes And. I feel like Chappell Roan yelling at the VIP section:

He’s not fun.

Hunter’s only appeal in the story is your curiosity about what the fuck his deal is. And when you find out, there’s nothing else for him to do but discover new hobbies like flyer derby and Star Trek. Now, this would be great if the story were about him and these new hobbies were ever going to amount to anything, but... it’s not… and they won’t…. So Hunter ends up contributing nothing to the story, or the other characters, in fact, he takes away screen time from more developed, more enjoyable characters (of color) and leaches off of their likability.

It’s like there’s a different show with a completely different protagonist trying to staple itself to The Owl House. The problem is, a big portion of the fandom wants that show. Prefers it, even. There are whole essays giving Hunter all kinds of characterization that isn’t in the show. There are entire rewrites out there that remove Luz as the main character and replace her with Hunter, giving him all of her development.

WHY??

Because he’s a white boy.

And fandom loves their white boys.

Look, there are a million characters just like Hunter. Just as underdeveloped, just as pointless, and just as Not Fun. But of those characters, the non-white ones are always derided for these traits, while the white ones become fan favorites despite them. It’s a trend we’ve seen for years and The Owl House fandom is no exception to it: If a character, especially a male character, is white, and happens to be poorly written, underdeveloped, or just unimportant to their story, the fandom will rewrite them to not be that way and pretend their rewrites are the cannon thing, and that therefore that character is actually great. Fandom does not do this for non-white characters.

Because of this, white characters never need to have as much put into them to justify the screen time they get. If Gus were as frequently present and yet grossly underutilized as Hunter is, I guarantee you the fandom would not love him the same way. They would rightfully be saying “why is Gus here if he’s not contributing to the story?”

This is why The Owl House would be an overall better show if Hunter were black. Because all those scenes where he’s taking up screen time without contributing to any other characters wouldn’t be there. He would be onscreen a lot less, giving other characters more time to shine, and when he IS onscreen there would always be a reason. Like showcasing how much of an abusive dick Belos is, supporting Willow in her flyer-derby plot, or just being active and entertaining as a character, because as a black character, he would HAVE to be all those things to justify existing.

(Of course, this problem would also be fixed by creators and audiences just holding white characters to the same standards of quality we hold characters of color to, but now I’m just talkin’ crazy.)

Actually, I can prove this thesis, because it’s demonstrated in the show. There are exactly two scenes where Hunter’s interactions with the other main characters are actually fun: His debut in Separate Tides, and his scene with Luz on the airship in Hunting Palismen.

Y’know what these two scenes also are?? His only interactions with other main characters that take place before Hunter is revealed to be white.

Whiteness in storytelling is often seen and utilized as a replacement for characterization, which is why audiences tend to notice a lot more when a non-white character lacks that characterization than when a white character does. Because of this, whiteness becomes a crutch in character design. And we’ve seen it evident that Hunter would’ve been a much more enjoyable, less invasive character without that crutch.

Moral of the story kids is to always ask yourself: “Are They Really a Good Character, Or Are They Just a White Boy?” And you can do this.. by making them black and seeing if they’re still your fave!

Anyway that’s my spiel and I am correct 🫶

[welcomewithmetonight-thechaos]

The Evolution of Hob Gadling

(and Dreamling as its consequence)

This is inspired by this post. The person asked not to fight in the comment section and I want to respect their wishes. The premise was just too good to let it go entirely, they pointed out many accurate things; so I’d like to bring up some additional aspects I think are important to consider to understand the totality of the episode. (I’m drawing on the TV show, mainly, because I don’t have the comics present).

In their quest for immortality and defeating death there really is no difference between Burgess and Hob in 1389 and I’m pretty sure that if Hob had had the means, he, too, would have tried to capture Death and make a bargain, just as ruthlessly, might even have become greedy, same as Burgess. 

Hob is self-centred and ignorant at the beginning and stays it for a long time. I’ve thought a lot about the meetings once a century from 1489 going onward and how in the first conversation Hob asks if Dream is interested in him, while Dream only cares about Hob’s experience of the world. 

Dream pretty much intends to use Hob to prove a point, which is that Dream is justified in being tired of life himself. 

Hob appears as the personification and representation of Western European/White humanity in the comic, which means he will not be non-conformist or critical of society; he just goes with the flow, following the currents of shady justification that is Western thought and philosophy over the centuries. He is not a creative or great mind. He will probably never write a book or learn a musical instrument; he’s just some guy.

It took Dream pointing out the cruelty of the slave trade for him to even consider it. Trying to protect Dream against Lady Johanna is a matter of civil courage, which people show no matter their political beliefs – it is a key trait of humanity.

 In the 18th century, too, Hob just does things how they’re done. Calling Lushing Lou “the hospital” and thinking it funny, etc. However, I must point out that he is receptive to Dream’s assertions about her and beyond being quick to judge, as society is, he considers her as a person (if not becomes sympathetic towards her) when he learns more about her through Dream.

I do not think it is loneliness that motivates Hob to offer Dream friendship. Humans strive for connection, that is true, but in some way we can never totally achieve it. And Hob is not much more lonely then he was in the 14th century, before he became immortal: an age where death of close family was common and a force to be reckoned with; child mortality was high, plague was everywhere and people who got sick or hurt simply died. He probably grew up used to everyone around him dying. The loneliness that Hob might experience is simply the human condition of an individual that understands itself as a separate person/entity.

Just as instinctual is his reaching out to Dream for friendship, his need to connect with people. He sees human traits in Dream and relates to him.Hob basically says “I think I’m worthy of your friendship” to a clearly prideful eldritch being whom he knows nothing about.

It is simply the audacity of a humanity that considers itself worth of love, that considers itself equal. Hob is very much the personification of a life form that writes stories upon stories about their own cruelty and how it would be better if they didn’t exist at all but still found their right to existence on their capability to love, on their capability of creation, not least the creation of relationships of all kinds.

Whereupon Dream’s reaction is that of a god (I know he is not a god, but his role is very similar) who looks in disdain upon those he was meant to serve. Therefore, his acknowledgement of friendship is so important in 2022; he essentially deems humanity worthy of love. For this meta-level it is no importance if their relationship is platonic or romantic, what matters is their mutual respect and caring about one another.

As to why people ship Dreamling: Hob’s character is not only coined by his representation of humanity but by his love for and of life, his enjoyment of simple things (see: ale to drink, people to drink it with). Whereas Dream appears as simply fulfilling a duty, burdened by his role; depression is a recurring theme when it comes to his character. In loving Hob beyond the level of platonic friendship (again, it doesn’t matter if it’s queerplatonic or romantic) and seeking his company more frequently, Dream essentially ceases to be a tragically flawed character destined to bring about his own doom. He is in love with the love of life in a time where he struggles with loving life on his own accord. Hob is also one of the only characters in the TV show who is not either Dream’s enemy, his subject or his family; instead he appears as Dream’s opposite.

Hob in 2022 on the other hand is someone who lives in a pluralistic society, where go with the flow could be  many things, which means that he cannot serve as the personification of humanity anymore, because the complexity of humanity is finally acknowledged and cannot be represented by a single person. He is thus free to find his own way in a individualistic society as one amongst many others, is basically forced to think for himself and make his own decisions. (The existential dread as described by Sartre). This impression is reinforced by the closing of the White Horse and Hob being stood up in 1989. It is obvious that without the consistency of the centennial meetings Hob’s purpose for live – that of telling about it, is no longer relevant. Hob feels adrift, so he decides to cling to the closest thing that he has to a constant and waits for Dream in the nearest Inn. 

But it isn’t enough. Hob is forced to make a life in this new, everchanging world, so he becomes a teacher/professor (based on him grading papers). Now we do not know his profession in 1889 or 1989, but regardless this new position symbolizes the change Hob has gone through. It is his first profession over the centuries where its prestige is not based on the opinion of society (as were his previous knighthood or his status as a tradesman) but on respect and his own abilities. With teaching also comes responsibility which he previously preferred to brush off.

But still, he is anchorless, still he comes to the New Inn. When Dream comes back, he brings that needed affirmation with him. 

In conclusion, over the course of their acquaintance, Dream and Hob drift towards each other, Dream overcomes his sense of superiority and learns to enjoy life again while Hob learns to become responsible for his actions, a responsibility that is superimposed on Dream as the ruler of a realm.

Both have done horrible, unforgivable things in their pasts, but both find themselves changing and encouraging change within the other. Neither of them are good people, not even in 2022 (judged by current morality standards they may even be the villains of other people’s stories) but they’re good for one another as in they complete each other. (It is this complexity which makes it so difficult to write these characters accurately in fanfiction; much of what comprises them is a metaphysical undercurrent and never said out loud but cannot be disregarded in characterizations.)

And then there is of course the tension underlying of all their interactions, 1489 “are you interested in me?”, 1589 Hob being jealous, 1689 the sadness and first moment of compassion in Dream’s eyes when he thinks Hob wants to die (which is also sadness for himself, for having been right), in 1789 especially their facial expressions and body language (think of Hob nervously tugging at his ear), Dream’s willingness to open up slowly in 1889 and their sickeningly fond smiles in 2022. 

For Dreamling becoming a possibility, it is very important that we know nothing of how their conversation goes in 2022. We see only Dream’s relaxed posture and Hob’s broader than ever smile, which open a wide range of possibility for how their relationship proceeds. All of them are positive.

Do I think their relationship could have turned romantic anytime before 2022? No.

 But by 2022 both of them have evolved enough that love between them becomes not only possible but also very probable.

[aston1sh1ng]

𝐃𝐂 𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐄.

In an attempt to stop some anonymous corporation's illegal inter-dimensional research, Scott infiltrates their base and attempts to rewire their system, causing a small-scale explosion to take place. The pros? He does stunt their research by a mile. The cons? He's the newest addition to the gothic, unforgiving world of Gotham City. The avengers, fantastic four, x-men and other such teams simply don't exist. No Captain America to find hope in and certainly no Tony Stark to pester. Scott has, for all intents and purposes, lost his entire world to the displacement. Eventually, he comes to join Arkham Asylum's security department, doubling as Ant-Man whenever possible.

** This verse is heavily influenced by @cranetm's mind-bogglingly incredible portrayal of Jonathan Crane ( who really puts Scott through it ).

There are THREE ARCS in this verse, elaborated on under the cut.

ARC 1. SETTLING IN.

Being in a new world sucks, but a silver lining is to be found in the fact that his criminal record doesn't exist here. Which means Scott can actually get a decent job. And, to some degree, he does in the form of a job at Arkham's security department, gradually reworking the system and ridding it of its many kinks and quirks. ( It's a work in progress, but he's doing his best. ) All whilst grappling with the fact that he might never return to his loved ones. He's hoping to cope via forming new connections here, one of which is in the form of Jonathan Crane, a somewhat mysterious psychiatrist at the asylum who, through that very mystery in his cadence, intrigues Scott. As Ant-Man, he opts for more friendly neighborhood work, avoiding the unfamiliarity of Gotham's villain and super-hero roster to the best of his ability until he can settle in. His identity is not much of a secret considering his loved ones don't exist here - he has nothing and no one to truly lose.

ARC 2. THE GOTHAM EFFECT.

In Gotham-like fashion, Scott Lang soon discovers ( in the harshest of ways ) that his ( apparently ) one-sided friend, Jonathan Crane, is the notoriously toxin-happy villain: Scarecrow. Yeah, not a great feeling. Especially not after being blasted with fear toxin and having to relive the death of his daughter in 4k. So one could understand, then, why Scott grows somewhat disillusioned with his new world, realizing that any hope of 'new beginnings' and brighter days wherein his ex-con status doesn't haunt him is... less than probable. He's still his optimistic self, just less so, and while he's actively made the decision not to be Scarecrow's foe, his hero work takes an incline. Gone are the days of friendly neighborhood work; he's back to full-on life-saving. He familiarizes himself with superhero and villain databases ( might have hacked into the police system for this purpose... might have snuck into the bat-cave a few times. All for a good cause, he'll tell you. ) and even makes the occasional visit to metropolis on longer holidays for a breather from Gotham's insanity. Mostly, however, he coops himself up into finessing Arkham's security system. He'd quit, but he's flaked out on so many jobs in his world and doesn't want to repeat the same mistakes. So, he toughs it out. Doesn't reveal Crane's identity but tries to sabotage him when possible. (Batman'll get him someday. He knows. ) Scott can't hate him - he can't hate anyone that he's seen as a friend prior, so long as they've never actually hurt Cassie... which Crane cannot - but the disdain is present. Powerfully enough to motivate sabotages, but no turning-ins. This doesn't apply to the rest of the villains, however, whom he does strive to bring to justice unless he forms a complex personal connection or allegiance with them or comes to understand their motivations as justified or worth further exploration.

ARC 3. BE IT AS IT MAY.

So Gotham sucks. So he's not doing so hot in the 'not having my daughter over here' department. So he's got some trust issues. Scott's decided he won't let that get him down anymore. He realizes, after perfecting the security system, that he needs to make a change - in his own life, in everyone's. And so an active decision is made: No grudges. No regrets. Be the light you wish to see in others. More so on a social scale than anything else. He still keeps up his hero work, but mostly returns to his optimistic social outlook, mingling with others to the best of his ability and striving to form connections once more at the heart of Gotham city and during his vacations at metropolis. He keeps his hero work up and, perhaps most notably, makes a habit of visiting convicts in prison. For company, for motivation to reform - he does it because when he was imprisoned, he longed for anyone - anyone at all - to talk to from the outside. Granted, sometimes, he just kind of sits there and chats to them about such mundane things as ice cream flavors or the newest issue of a magazine he kind of liked. Some are confused, some are pissed, but some seem to be positively affected by it - and that's what he does it for.

[sionisjaune]

present day brocedes r like we need to have a carefully planned out casual threesome to prove we're ready to be parents (the step before Lewis joins the coparenting with Nico and Vivian)

cause if u can't even take care of a third person without it getting messy howre u gonna handle christmas in monaco new years in LA

Ok I am seriously thinking about the logistics of mick/lewis/nico fic and... on one hand the easiest way to make it work is if the mick/nico/lewis is just a transient thing on the way to a nico/lewis endgame. BUT in my mind I have set up a nico/lewis that are actually functional and mindful of other people (insane thing to consider). So YES as per usual you are right and a giant genius BUT on the other hand if I were to do mick/lewis/nico I would want the relationship to be travelling towards its own endgame. The problem of course is that I cannot imagine what that endgame would like like because mick/lewis/nico has no precedent or canon that I can work with...

ALSO (under the cut because this is only kind of related), now that I'm on my brocedes in 2023 soapbox, I want to talk about one of the main obstacles to brocedes endgame (at least as I see it).

Lewis has expressed a strong desire to HAVE KIDS. And RAISE HIS FAMILY IN THE HOUSE IN COLORADO. Nico on the other hand has already had two children who are installed in Monaco, and for the sake of brocedes endgame he must be a GOOD FATHER. If Lewis values family, there is no way that he (as he is now) could justify being with a Nico that is a negligent father. So okay. Lewis wants to have kids. Nico already has kids. There is no mpreg in this universe (sorry everyone). There are a few solutions that each have their own merits and weaknesses.

Lewis becomes a co-parent of Nico's children with Vivian

Lewis and Nico adopt* children together

Lewis adopts* children on his own

Lewis does not become a parent

*Or surrogacy etc.

Solution 4 is sad (to me). Of course there is nothing wrong with never having children--but Lewis seems to want to have children. Also it means putting Nico above his own aspirations, which is against the point of a thoughtful brocedes endgame.

Solution 3 is something that I just thought of and which makes the most sense to me--and it also means that Lewis's relationship with his children and ability to parent are somewhat separated from Nico--which might be easier for a number of reasons. Lewis comes from a blended family himself, so this might appeal to him too. At the same time, when I think of brocedes I think of a HUGE GIGANTIC LOVE. Love that makes you want to do everything together all of the time. So I think they would both be involved in the parenting of Lewis's kid. The problem here, which is also the problem with solution 2, is... does Nico want more kids?

Solution 2 is idyllic... but as I mentioned it is not clear whether Nico wants more children. He said in the past that he wanted a "football team" of kids, but he seems to have stopped with two. Also his daughters are still reasonably young--and if we imagine that he and Vivian have a strong relationship post divorce, it seems problematic for him to suddenly have more children who require more care if he is also going to continue parenting his existing children. It could be done but it would be a decision that would also depend on Vivian in my mind!

Solution 1 is the most intuitive and yet it faces similar problems to solution 2. Vivian would have to be involved. Nico cannot simply offer his children to Lewis. And the Lewis & Vivian relationship that would have to exist is very difficult for me to imagine. I suppose that they know each other to some degree already but it is still tough for me to work out... Also logistically can same-sex couples adopt in Monaco? Would it be possible (in a social sense) to raise children as a same-sex couple in Monaco? Would Nico leave Monaco (and Vivian and his existing children) for Lewis? (Probably not.)

The final thing that I want to say about brocedes endgame--especially because I imagine it from Lewis's point of view--is that I am very careful to avoid creating situations that stick either of them in a permanent position of advantage. The various advantages that either of them have held (we are talking about race and class issues as well as advantage on track) have been the factors that have created the problems with brocedes in the past... and in order for brocedes endgame to work there needs to be a space where both can be/become themselves without bending to the other's advantage.

OK I'M DONE LOL!!! I did very much enjoy thinking about this although it is barely what Misa asked about.

[tenebrius-excellium]

I love your post about backend motivation vs frontend motivation in the HTTYD series!!! I’ve always had a bit of a problem with the sequels (especially the third movie) that I could never put into words, but the difference in motivation is EXACTLY it. The Hidden World in particular had a specific ending in mind, wich isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but their solution was to force the ending into existence instead of letting the story naturally build up to the ending. And you can feel the story straining soooooo much when Toothless acts like a dog for twenty minutes or Grimmel does something simple/obvious that the narrative treats as an ingenious act of strategy. It’s just not genuine! The characters simply wouldn’t act like that, but the writers let plot dictate characters instead of the other way around, and it’s just. so disappointing. There has to have been a way to keep the natural tensions and eventual triumphs of dragon/human bonds without resorting to flattening everyone’s character and taking the story in a weird, half-baked direction.

————————————————————————————-

Oh my gosh B. You’re still there??????? THANK YOU for being faithful to my blog even tho I’ve not really posted anything proper in ages!!! I’m so happy to hear from you!!!

I’m glad you liked my post XD Ok so. I remembered that what I tried to express is called “Watsonian vs. Doylish” interpretation in fandom (based on this post), or easier, it’s about giving in-universe explanations vs. ex-universe explanations for something that happens in the plot. The actual literary terms according to Gérard Genette for that would be “intra-diegetic” vs. “extra-diegetic”. 

The specific difference the terms “back-end vs. front-end motivation” makes, seems to be the phenomenon that building a story from the start allows it to better make sense inside the universe, whereas building a story from its ending reveals the circumstances that the author found themselves in when creating it.

Anyway so what I always found strange is that Httyd2 had all those same problems you named, yet no one talks about that and only bashes on the third movie! Wanna enlighten me on why the second movie worked for you???

Ok so this is spontaneously going to turn into the “Ooc Hiccup post” that I promised at the beginning of the year. I hope you’re ok with that. 

WHY IS HICCUP OOC IN HTTYD2?

because his new conflict (”becoming Chief”) was pulled out of thin air and wasn’t already an established extension of Berk’s situation. (a part I always loved about Httyd1 was that Hiccup wasn’t made out to be a Disney Princess who would have to face the duty of leading eventually. I expected the question of succession to be handled far more casually - that someone who wanted to be worthy could be Chief on Berk, not because Hiccup was expected to continue Stoick’s legacy. In fact I wish Stoick would have let him go rampant with the smithy and all his crazy inventions, making him Gobber’s successor first - since Gobber is also canonically older than Stoick - and lining Astrid up to be the next actual Chief. There could have been a sudden plot twist where Astrid realizes she doesn’t want to do it alone and that she needs Hiccup in this with her. It would have made them the ruling couple in a different way.)

because the movie made him immature on purpose so it could justify slapping the “necessary” growth arc on him. (Look, Hiccup has always been reckless and a little bit too trusting when presented with danger, but he was never ignorant of a certain reality or too stupid to see error in his ways. Httyd2 depicts him as a naive dragon geek who can’t see past the destructive potential this has on the humans around him. Eret has had a shit life and a dark past. Drago has his reasons for what he does. Yet Hiccup is far too quick to ignore the trauma that the tribes of the Archipelago suffered because of the dragon plague, and simply forgives his mother despite the fact that she chose to save dragons over raising her own son. It’s all in the name of dragon welfare now and that is just not Hiccup. Og Hiccup took time to engage with Astrid’s valid scepticism. Og Hiccup killed the Red Death to save his tribe. He did not attempt to train that one, if you get what I’m saying. The dragons were never pets.)

because Stoick died only so he wouldn’t get in the way of Hiccup’s leadership. (After all that happens, Hiccup - to me - hasn’t suddenly evolved into a wiser or more experienced person. He just righteously got his ass kicked for the stupidity that was forced onto his character. He then becomes Chief not because he has learned much from the situation, but because Stoick is now dead. It’s true that Hiccup says “Sorry, Dad” to the funeral pyre, but it is never specified what he’s sorry for. To me, he does understand that he got his father killed, but he doesn’t get a grasp on why. He hasn’t the faintest notion of what Stoick did for him, to what extent his father came after him. There was desperation in Stoick to save his son. And Hiccup never feels this guilt much. It is then very convenient that he can freely lead the people of Berk and appear as a competent Chief simply because there is no more Stoick to disagree with him. I loved the version in the books where Hiccup becomes king and Stoick as well as Valhallarama are both alive and well to see it!!!! And Stoick, Chief of the Hairy Hooligans, has to take a step back and let his son shine.)

Right. So that’s that. The second point is by far my greatest criticism regarding Httyd2. Hiccup, in my opinion, was always balanced between the needs of dragons and humans. He is not a “dragon geek”. It simply so happened that a dragon became his best friend because no one else wanted to be his friend at first. Movie!Hiccup is an “invention geek”!!! The time he spends building stuff in the smithy is so important to his character! He doesn’t fix stuff by talking. He fixes stuff by building tools first and explaining them to everyone else second. That’s how I’ve always understood him. Httyd3 Hiccup partly returned to that focus with his fireproof armor, the fully developed flightsuits and the docking contraption for ships that he made on New Berk. The Hiccup I know acts more, gains emotional insight by observation, and talks less.

Of course I agree with all of your criticism of Httyd3. Yes the movie felt strained. But I admit that because I enjoyed Hiccup’s hesitant yet determined character again, I can overlook its flaws much easier than the flaws of Httyd2.

Let me know what you think!

[loveakii]

Something I have noticed in the anime community, specifically amongst Naruto fans, is that criticism about a story’s message is usually rebuked with excuses based on the story’s world building and lore. So let’s just establish now that fictional characters do not have agency, everything that happens in a story is a conscious choice by the writer. When there is an in-universe justification for what happens, it is also a reflection of the creator who wrote that justification into existence. That gets overlooked more than you would think. Every human being has biases whether they're aware of them or not. So when consuming a piece of fiction it's important to ask

- What is the author trying to say?

- What could the author not realize they’re saying?

Naruto is a very interesting case for me. I love it to pieces, but I can go on criticizing it just as long as I can sing it praises.

It's a series that, right off the bat, introduces strong political themes. The way Naruto is treated is a symptom of the greater shinobi system and the way Hiruzen chooses to rule Konoha. It's presented as cruel and unfair to discriminate against a child for something out of their control. And while Hiruzen is the most powerful person in Konoha and one of the most politically powerful people in the world, we’re shown over and over how he offers almost no help for Naruto, financially, socially, and emotionally. A similar case can be made for Sasuke, who does have better living conditions (probably from being the only one left to inherit the clan’s wealth) but raises himself as a child and is also isolated. This is all established as a problem and unjust, but no blame is put on Hiruzen, who remains a hero in the narrative during the entire story.

This becomes a recurring pattern in Naruto. A systemic injustice is presented to the audience, but many of the guilty characters are rarely condemned by the plot, and in the instances that they are, they’re not condemned by the narrative itself.

Here’s an example.

Sasuke’s clan is killed in a massacre carried out by his brother. This injustice leads him to seek revenge. This revenge is dangerous and self destructive since he is relying on Orochimaru and cutting ties with all his friends/allies. But the narrative sympathizes with him via Naruto’s emotions, and he’s not portrayed as a villain for anything that happens in the Sasuke Retrieval arc. He’s righting a wrong.

He kills Itachi, who’s an international terrorist, only to find out that the massacre was orchestrated by Konaha, using Itachi as the fallman to hide behind. Danzo is portrayed as a villain several times, the abuse of his ambu like Sai, the collection of sharingan’s on his arm etc… This leads the audience to root more for Sasuke when he kills Danzo. However, this is where the narrative turns against him.

Sasuke comes to the conclusion that has been supported by the text for hundreds of episodes, across several arcs: the shinobi system is fundamentally flawed and is the catalyst for corruption and strife across the world. But when Sasuke challenges this system, he’s written as an extremist and almost cartoonishly evil in his attempt at abolishing it. This portrayal isn’t problematic in itself, it pertains to real life. There are victims of corrupt systems who discard their morals in the name of a greater good. But people are not a monolith, and when you only portray victims of these systems in one way, the most disagreeable way, you also open a floodgate to defend the corrupt system in question and justify its actions, while reducing its victims to simply deranged troublemakers.

For comparison, Avatar: The Last Airbender does a good job at showing the diverse reactions to corruption. Just take a look at Katara and Jet, both victims to the Fire Nation’s war crimes and filled with anger, but Katara fights to keep her morals and defends innocent Fire Nation civilians while Jet discards them in the name of justice.

In Naruto, almost every character who radically challenges the shinobi system is portrayed as a villain, then imprisoned or killed. At the same time, many of the perpetrators are justified in their actions by comparison to the emotional, violent avengers.

The Elders who encourage and conspire with Danzo to carry out the Uchiha massacre remain untouched and unconfronted for the remainder of the series.

Orochimaru, who committed some of the worst atrocities to citizens of Konoha and other villages, is turned into a comic relief character and rehabilitated into society in Boruto after a surveillance period in Naruto Shippuden.

Neji’s uncle is repainted as a wholesome grandfather while the nephew he owned died protecting his masters.

The shinobi system, a political and economic system that runs the entire planet and profits off of blood, continues on after the war ends. The human trafficking of kekkei genkai, the dehumanization of shinobi in the anbu, civilians dying in war, the discrimination and ownership of jinchuriki, children dying in the chunin exams, nations ownership of the tailed beast raising tensions for war. Every single problem in Naruto is attributable to this system in some way, and yet every character that attempts to radically question it is vilified, unless they concede and assimilate with the system, in which case they are “redeemed”.

What are Kishimoto’s intentions here? Why is it that the world and system he criticizes so often ends up unchanged and rewarded while the victims of it are punished? Why is there only one archetype of victim, one that is always painted as irrational and consumed with revenge, minimizing their legitimate complaints with the system? There is a pattern in Naruto where the corruption of the shinobi system that created the villain in the first place, is always overshadowed by that villain's crimes in response. Nagato’s family and friends are killed by shinobi during Konoha’s war, and so he retaliates by wiping out the entire village. Sasuke’s clan is exterminated in an organized genocide within the village, so Sasuke declares to kill every single Kage and rule over the world alone. Obito is nearly killed fighting as a child soldier, only to insight a world war later as an adult. Characters who challenge the system without violence, like the White Fang, are dead, and die without creating any real change in that system (missions are still prioritized over lives). It's also alarming that almost every villain who started as a victim to the shinobi system must die to be forgiven by the narrative. Again, characters like the Konoha Council, Hiruzen and Hizashi are never given this treatment by the story. In the case where Hiruzen dies twice, both times he’s presented as a hero.

So only people in high positions of power from Konoha are given rewards and no accountability. And nearly every crime by the villains are attacks on Konoha in some shape or form. Naruto is our guide in how we perceive other characters and this world, it's his emotions that set the tone of the show and get the thematic messages across. When Naruto forgives a character the narrative shines them in a gentler light. Gaara, who was terrifying before he became friends with Naruto, was like a walking doomsday bomb strolling the village and ready to kill off any one of our beloved characters. But because his childhood mirror’s Naruto’s and Naruto recognizes that, he quickly becomes an ally to Naruto and Konoha and much more friendly as a character. His relationship with his siblings and position as the baby brother is fleshed out and makes him seem a lot more empathetic. The next time we see him is in Shippuden where he plays Princess Peach as Naruto and dozens of characters rush to save him from his abductors.

Who Naruto does and does not empathizes with is imperative to who we are also meant to empathize with. And we all know he has a track record for trying to have heart to hearts with villains. That gives us two conflicting ways of understanding the story and the moral standing of villainous characters: 1. Naruto’s emotions, or 2. Consequences in the narrative.

There’s a hundred and one ways of looking at this story and trying to give reason to its convoluted political messaging. Kishimoto released chapters weekly, as is the standard in shonen manga, and maybe this confusion is a matter of tight deadlines, rushed writing and disorganization that can come with serialized manga in Shonen Jump. Considering the amount of retcons and Shippuden’s messy ending, it’s not a reach to say messaging might have been scrambled or put on the back burner to prioritize other parts of writing.

Two. The more problematic interpretation can be that Kishimoto wanted to tell a story where radicals are condemned, and while the system they live under may be flawed, it is always better to change that system in a peaceful way from within (see Naruto becoming Hokage) than to dismantle it entirely.

[finely-tuned-line]

RP:

PRIVATE TRANSMISSION

FTL: Echoes of a Paradox. I believe that we need to talk.

EP: Oh so you finally decided to stop being a coward, huh? Alright, what d'you have to say to me?

FTL: ...I do not actually know. I am aware that I owe you an apology, just as I am aware that I do wish to present that apology to you. The sole issue is that I am unaware of what I feel the need to apologise for for, as well as what the apology you want from me is, though they are the same thing.

EP: Of course. I'm really not surprised, I expected this.

EP: You're so... Unaware.

EP: You don't care, you avert your eyes from everything around you - not for the sake of guilt, shame, or wish to not see, but for a lack of care. Your ignorance is not wilful but is simply apathy.

EP: As much as I envy you for that apathy, I pity you as well. You're stuck denying yourself the fact that you even have emotions, as you relish in the ability to ignore it all. But I'm stuck too, aren't I? Stuck with endless rage and anger, at our creators, at you, at myself. At least I know how to cope with it, release it, instead of bottling it all up. At least I allow myself to feel the anger properly, at least I don't turn a blind eye to the wrong of both the world and myself.

EP: That's the difference, isn't it? You don't care, and I care too much.

EP: You piss me off, Finely-Tuned Line. You don't even know how much harm you've done. How much you've hurt me, Songs of the Negative Sunlight, even Doubt's Dichotomy.

EP: You just stay cooped up in your single-minded focus on your purpose, justifying the existence you know is pointless, all the while denying that what you pursue is little more than the fact that your purpose is something you enjoy. And even when you do acknowledge it, it's always backed up by your saying that you're 'allowed' to enjoy your experiments simply because it's what you were made for.

EP: I know you. You're so... It's so easy to pick you apart.

EP: But even as you piss me off, I pity you.

EP: You're so desperate. Striving for shadows of perfection cast upon you by our dead creators. Or, as Songs of the Negative Sunlight would humourlessly compare, like the light of the long-departed stars.

EP: I hate you. I hate you so much. You're the reason why our sibling is dead, you're the reason why Doubt's Dichotomy barely even talks to me at this point. You're the reason it took me so long to be as okay as I am now. And you don't even know what you did wrong.

EP: I'll tell you what you did wrong, I'll tell you what you need to apologise for.

EP: But it all comes down to your pitiful reach for your purpose.

EP: Your sheer conviction when it comes to that is the root of it all.

EP: Cycle by cycle, thoughtless mentions of your pitiful beliefs in the shadows of perfection.

EP: Cycle by cycle, offhanded mentions of your deplorable beliefs that you're nothing without your purpose.

EP: Cycle by cycle, careless mentions of your dismal beliefs that you're nothing but a machine.

EP: Do you not realise that those very mentions cast a shadow of their own? A perceived projection of those beliefs onto others, onto us?

EP: If it weren't for you, I wouldn't have found such despair in my lack of a secondary purpose, I wouldn't have thrown all my energy into the Great Problem like I did, I wouldn't have felt so inferiour due to my absence of care about it.

EP: If it weren't for you, Doubt's Dichotomy wouldn't have drifted apart from us out of sols own will, she wouldn't have defined herself the way she did, it wouldn't have to justify its love for what it does while hiding all the same.

EP: If it weren't for you, Songs of the Negative Sunlight wouldn't have chained ximself to xir purpose even as xi found no joy in it, xi wouldn't have made such rash decisions, xi wouldn't- ...If it weren't for you, xi wouldn't be dead.

EP: And even after all this, I do pity you. Stuck in your way of thinking, unable to break out of it and strive to be better. I pity you for your inability to see beyond what the Ancients defined you as. I pity you so, so much, even within my anger.

EP: I will recognise the fact that you've gotten better. I do pick up on your transmissions from time to time - those offhanded mentions are gone in all but what I can only describe as self-loathing.

EP: Within all the sheer pity and anger that I have for you, I care about you. You're my older brother. I worry about you.

EP: But this remains as your last chance. No matter how much I care about you, I have self-preservation instincts, I am able to recognise when enough's enough.

EP: If you mess up again, I will be taking over as the Senior of the group, and cutting contact with you.

EP: I hope you figure yourself out and get some help.

EP: None of us are okay here in the end, but that's no justification.

EP: Love you.

FTL: I...

FTL: I'm sorry.

EP: I know.

EP: If you do decide to do better, I'm here for you. But only then.

FTL: ...Thank you. For everything.

[dualityjohn]

~ Gender Expression Stereotypes ~

Figuring out my own gender is hard or exhaustively idea or thought that crosses in my head that i think i can't figure it out on my own. Does gender is the basis of someone's personality? In my 18 years of existence, the question "what is your gender?" that most of my peers that i always cannot answer directly, it's not that i can't actually answer it, it is because if i answer their question i am afraid that they will not believe what will i answer to them because most of the times they ask it not out of curiosity but because they assume of what truly i am and they have to confirm it, because people admit it or not we all have stereotypes of someone's actions that if we think that is wrong it will really bother us and most of the times is we have a lot stereotypes when it comes to gender.

When it comes to expressing yourself there are "gender beliefs or stereotypes" in our country, here in the philippines the most debatable if not it is crucial thing that most of us are having stereotypes in gender that actually starts when your only a kid and that never ends until you get old, for example, when you were a child your parents expect you to like monochromatic things such as toys,clothes, and even the color that you like, and the idea that will mark on you basically is that if you are a boy you are supposed to like things what are your parents what they think appropriate for boys only.

When it comes to my own gender i am always hesitant or sometimes in denial to describe it because of all stereotypes that the adults that influence my own ideas in life that most people don't believe right now because we are in modern setting and we have to accept that, like most of the adults saying that being part of lgbt community is a sin but there are articles are saying

One aspect of an individual's identity is their gender identity and/or sexual orientation, and it can be safer for them to keep that aspect of themselves private. They might not be ready to come out, be still figuring out their gender identity and/or sexual orientation, or feel like their peers won't accept them for who they are.

The few bible texts that have been used frequently to vilify same-gender lovers may be easily dismantled and contested. However, I am at a stage in my life and ministry where I don't need a bible verse to defend my holy value or a bible narrative to justify my experience of life. One can easily discover multiple signs of same-gender love and attraction occuring in scripture, and even it seems to be affirmed. I simply have faith in the goodness of God, the holiness of love, and the variety of life. First and foremost, same-gender lovers are lovers, and the Bible does not condemn love; in fact, it uses love as its yardstick for determining what is holy.

REFERRENCE:

I also do not understand that even nowadays being part of this community is really debatable topic because most of people is being ignorant and have a strong faith in god or the actual church are not okay with homosexuality and sadly, even your own family can potentially reject you as part of them.

For young guys who are homosexual, bisexual, or other males who have sex with men, homophobia, stigma, and prejudice can be especially difficult. When compared to other students in their schools, these unfavorable opinions raise their risk of encountering violence. Violence can take the form of actions like bullying, teasing, harassment, physical assault, and actions that are tied to suicide.

Youth who identify as gay, bisexual, or another sexual minority are more likely to experience family rejection. The likelihood of people going without housing rises as a result. LGBT youth make up about 40% of homeless youth. In a 2009 study, friends who had more supportive families were compared to homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who had experienced severe family rejection.

REFERRENCE :

I hope someday these crucial topic become a reason that all of people become liberated from someone's opinion, because our life doesn't only revolve around these topic we have to be more open minded and become a moral person, people should feel freedom not only in their own thoughts but feel freedom around them either physical or emotional.

--Jeyss--

[writingwithcolor]

What Does Our "Motivations” PSA Mean?

@luminalalumini said:

I've been on your blog a lot and it has a lot of really insightful information, but I notice a theme with some of your answers where you ask the writer reaching out what their 'motivation for making a character a certain [race/religion/ethnicity/nationality] is' and it's discouraging to see, because it seems like you're automatically assigning the writer some sort of ulterior motive that must be sniffed out and identified before the writer can get any tips or guidance for their question. Can't the 'motive' simply be having/wanting to have diversity in one's work? Must there be an 'ulterior motive'? I can understand that there's a lot of stigma and stereotypes and bad influence that might lead to someone trynna add marginalized groups into their stories for wrong reasons, but people that have those bad intentions certainly won't be asking for advice on how to write good representation in the first place. Idk its just been something that seemed really discouraging to me to reach out myself, knowing i'll automatically be assigned ulterior motives that i don't have and will probably have to justify why i want to add diversity to my story as if i'm comitting some sort of crime. I don't expect you guys to change your blog or respond to this or even care all that much, I'm probably just ranting into a void. I'm just curious if theres any reason to this that I haven't realized exists I suppose. I don't want y'all to take this the wrong way because I do actually love and enjoy your blog's advice in spite of my dumb griping. Cheers :))

We assume this is in reference to the following PSA:

PSA to all of our users - Motivation Matters: This lack of clarity w/r to intent has been a general issue with many recent questions. Please remember that if you don’t explain your motivations and what you intend to communicate to your audience with your plot choices, character attributes, world-building etc., we cannot effectively advise you beyond the information you provide. We Are Not Mind Readers. If, when drafting these questions, you realize you can’t explain your motivations, that is likely a hint that you need to think more on the rationales for your narrative decisions. My recommendation is to read our archives and articles on similar topics for inspiration while you think. I will be attaching this PSA to all asks with similar issues until the volume of such questions declines. 

We have answered this in three parts.

1. Of Paved Roads and Good Intentions

Allow me to give you a personal story, in solidarity towards your feelings:

When I began writing in South Asia as an outsider, specifically in the Kashmir and Lahore areas, I was doing it out of respect for the cultures I had grown up around. I did kathak dance, I grew up on immigrant-cooked North Indian food, my babysitters were Indian. I loved Mughal society, and every detail of learning about it just made me want more. The minute you told me fantasy could be outside of Europe, I hopped into the Mughal world with two feet. I was 13. I am now 28.

And had you asked me, as a teenager, what my motives were in giving my characters’ love interests blue or green eyes, one of them blond hair, my MC having red-tinted brown hair that was very emphasized, and a whole bunch of paler skinned people, I would have told you my motives were “to represent the diversity of the region.” 

I’m sure readers of the blog will spot the really, really toxic and colourist tropes present in my choices. If you’re new here, then the summary is: giving brown people “unique” coloured eyes and hair that lines up with Eurocentric beauty standards is an orientalist trope that needs to be interrogated in your writing. And favouring pale skinned people is colourist, full stop.

Did that make me a bad person with super sneaky ulterior motives who wanted to write bad representation? No.

It made me an ignorant kid from the mostly-white suburbs who grew up with media that said brown people had to “look unique” (read: look as European as possible) to be considered valuable.

And this is where it is important to remember that motives can be pure as you want, but you were still taught all of the terrible stuff that is present in society. Which means you’re going to perpetuate it unless you stop and actually question what is under your conscious motive, and work to unlearn it. Work that will never be complete.

I know it sounds scary and judgemental (and it’s one of the reasons we allow people to ask to be anonymous, for people who are afraid). Honestly, I would’ve reacted much the same as a younger writer, had you told me I was perpetuating bad things. I was trying to do good and my motives were pure, after all! But after a few years, I realized that I had fallen short, and I had a lot more to learn in order for my motives to match my impact. Part of our job at WWC is to attempt to close that gap.

We aren’t giving judgement, when we ask questions about why you want to do certain things. We are asking you to look at the structural underpinnings of your mind and question why those traits felt natural together, and, more specifically, why those traits felt natural to give to a protagonist or other major character.

I still have blond, blue-eyed characters with sandy coloured skin. I still have green-eyed characters. Because teenage me was right, that is part of the region. But by interrogating my motive, I was able to devalue those traits within the narrative, and I stopped making those traits shorthand for “this is the person you should root for.” 

It opened up room for me to be messier with my characters of colour, even the ones who my teenage self would have deemed “extra special.” Because the European-associated traits (pale hair, not-brown-eyes) stopped being special. After years of questioning, they started lining up with my motive of just being part of the diversity of the region.

Motive is important, both in the conscious and the subconscious. It’s not a judgement and it’s not assumed to be evil. It’s simply assumed to be unquestioned, so we ask that you question it and really examine your own biases.

~Mod Lesya

2. Motivations Aren't Always "Ulterior"

You can have a positive motivation or a neutral one or a negative one. Just wanting to have diversity only means your characters aren't all white and straight and cis and able-bodied -- it doesn't explain why you decided to make this specific character specifically bi and specifically Jewish (it me). Yes, sometimes it might be completely random! But it also might be "well, my crush is Costa Rican, so I gave the love interest the same background", or "I set it in X City where the predominant marginalized ethnicity is Y, so they are Y". Neither of these count as ulterior motives. But let's say for a second that you did accidentally catch yourself doing an "ulterior." Isn't that the point of the blog, to help you find those spots and clean them up?

Try thinking of it as “finding things that need adjusting” rather than “things that are bad” and it might get less scary to realize that we all do them, subconsciously. Representation that could use some work is often the product of subconscious bias, not deliberate misrepresentation, so there's every possibility that someone who wants to improve and do better didn't do it perfectly the first time. 

--Shira

3. Dress-Making as a Metaphor

I want to echo Lesya’s sentiments here but also provide a more logistical perspective. If you check the rubber stamp guide here and the “Motivation matters” PSA above, you’ll notice that concerns with respect to asker motivation are for the purposes of providing the most relevant answer possible.

It is a lot like if someone walks into a dressmaker’s shop and asks for a blue dress/ suit (Back when getting custom-made clothes was more of a thing) . The seamstress/ tailor is likely to ask a wide variety of questions:

What material do you want the outfit to be made of?

Where do you plan to wear it?

What do you want to highlight?

How do you want to feel when you wear it?

Let’s say our theoretical customer is in England during the 1920s. A tartan walking dress/ flannel suit for the winter is not the same as a periwinkle, beaded, organza ensemble/ navy pinstripe for formal dress in the summer. When we ask for motivations, we are often asking for exactly that: the specific reasons for your inquiry so we may pinpoint the most pertinent information.

The consistent problem for many of the askers who receive the PSA is they haven’t even done the level of research necessary to know what they want to ask of us. It would be like if our English customer in the 1920s responded, “IDK, some kind of blue thing.” Even worse,  WWC doesn’t have the luxury of the back-and-forth between a dressmaker and their clientele. If our asker doesn’t communicate all the information they need in mind at the time of submission, we can only say, “Well, I’m not sure if this is right, but here’s something. I hope it works, but if you had told us more, we could have done a more thorough job.”

Answering questions without context is hard, and asking for motivations, by which I mean the narratives, themes, character arcs and other literary devices that you are looking to incorporate, is the best way for us to help you, while also helping you to determine if your understanding of the problem will benefit from outside input. Because these asks are published with the goal of helping individuals with similar questions, the PSA also serves to prompt other users.

I note that asking questions is a skill, and we all start by asking the most basic questions (Not stupid questions, because to quote a dear professor, “There are no stupid questions.”). Unfortunately, WWC is not suited for the most basic questions. To this effect, we have a very helpful FAQ and archive as a starting point. Once you have used our website to answer the more basic questions, you are more ready to approach writing with diversity and decide when we can actually be of service. This is why we are so adamant that people read the FAQ. Yes, it helps us, but it also is there to save you time and spare you the ambiguity of not even knowing where to start.

The anxiety in your ask conveys to me a fear of being judged for asking questions. That fear is not something we can help you with, other than to wholeheartedly reassure you that we do not spend our unpaid, free time answering these questions in order to assume motives we can’t confirm or sit in judgment of our users who, as you say, are just trying to do better.

Yes, I am often frustrated when an asker’s question makes it clear they haven’t read the FAQ or archives. I’ve also been upset when uncivil commenters have indicated that my efforts and contributions are not worth their consideration. However, even the most tactless question has never made me think, “Ooh this person is such a naughty racist. Let me laugh at them for being a naughty racist. Let me shame them for being a naughty racist. Mwahaha.”

What kind of sad person has time for that?*

Racism is structural. It takes time to unlearn, especially if you’re in an environment that doesn’t facilitate that process to begin with. Our first priority is to help while also preserving our own boundaries and well-being. Though I am well aware of the levels of toxic gas-lighting and virtue signaling that can be found in various corners of online writing communities in the name of “progressivism*”, WWC is not that kind of space. This space is for discussions held in good faith: for us to understand each other better, rather than for one of us to “win” and another to “lose.”

Just as we have good faith that you are doing your best, we ask that you have faith that we are trying to do our best by you and the BIPOC communities we represent.

- Marika.

*If you are in any writing or social media circles that feed these anxieties or demonstrate these behaviors, I advise you to curtail your time with them and focus on your own growth. You will find, over time, that it is easier to think clearly when you are worrying less about trying to appease people who set the bar of approval so high just for the enjoyment of watching you jump. “Internet hygiene”, as I like to call it, begins with you and the boundaries you set with those you interact with online.

[strooples]

Just some anime vs. manga thoughts

So I’m beginning the Bakuten Shoot manga for the first time, and so far, I still have a strong favoritism towards a lot of the anime’s elaborations. I love Rei’s level-headed but kind personality in the anime after his first defeat to Tyson/Takao (while in the manga he generally stays the cocky rival trope). I love that it shows Kai has soft spots like for Max and for cats. And I especially love the expansion upon the other characters — whereas the manga heavily centers around Tyson/Takao. The manga is enjoyable in its own way too, but I can’t deny the joy of seeing Max, Rei, and Kai have their own shining moments in the anime.

However, the Bakuten Shoot anime doesn’t explain a lot of things that’d be helpful background while the manga does. Namely, Kai’s backstory (which would explain his initial behavior and the 1st season betrayal more) and the story behind the four bit beasts.

Vol. 1, Chapter 4 shown above.

The second especially would solidify so many things, such as how their 4 bit beasts combined in the 1st season are incredibly powerful beyond any means. It would also explain a gap in logic during V-Force — where Team Psychic and the Saint Shields were after the 4 protagonists’ bit beasts. The whole time watching V-Force, I thought to myself “What about the other people’s bit beasts?” “Why are they only going after the Blade Breakers when it’s known that many more bit beasts exist out there?” The fact that the gang’s bit beasts aren’t only incredibly powerful when combined, but has also created their world AND can reshape or destroy it in any form, justifies what seemed like an arbitrary goal by our 2nd season antagonists.

Now, to Kai’s backstory.

There were a lot of times I wished more was done with Kai in regards to the anime. At my first go of the 1st season, my initial reactions were “WOW this is dark” but both the betrayal and redemptions were very sudden. The betrayal made me think Kai seemed like am incredibly cruel character *despite being my all-time favorite — one who would use anyone/thing as a means to an end. He seemed, quite frankly, power-hungry. When the Kai Hiwatari we generally know has limits and doesn’t seem like a person who’d hurt anyone needlessly. I also questioned “Why would Kai just go along with Boris’s manipulation?” when he was shown to be in literal hell all his childhood, sent away to the (very obviously mentally abusive) abbey in Moscow.

And this is where the manga comes in.

Vol. 3, Chapter 2 shown above.

The context above makes it apparent the manga Kai is very different from our anime Kai — they do tell a VERY different story after all. However it also explains a lot of things, namely:

Who are Kai’s parents? (Well, one of them at least)

Why he initially formed the Blade Sharks and approached Tyson/Takao

It also depicts that he had a childhood that wasn’t the literal nightmare of an upbringing shown in the anime. But instead, one where he was loved very much by both his grandpa and father — one where he’d feel incentivized to get back or at the bare minimum avenge what we left, had it crumbled to pieces. One that wasn’t necessarily abusive, but still fraught with feelings of loss and abandonment that grew to have a stronghold within present-day Kai.

Soichiro Hiwatari is like your expected stern, head-of-the-household grandfather that placed a lot of responsibilities upon his son and grandson’s shoulders. As being the owner of one of Japan’s largest firms, it’s a strong likelihood that he had to get both future inheritors — Susumu Hiwatari and Kai — to be able to handle the burden of responsibility. It’s implied that Susumu Hiwatari likely dipped because of that pressure, and beyblading was simply either an excuse OR one of the last straws. In the eyes of young Kai however, we see the insecurities start to form. In his perspective, he was likely wondering if his father was actually abandoning him for a game! And so, the resentment start to form along with a deep hole of insecurity.

Now, the Soichiro in the anime (Voltaire, for those who also watched the dub) versus the one in the manga both manipulated Kai’s emotions one way or another. However the anime Soichiro did it to use Kai as a tool — another means to an end — in your usual anime antagonist “I want to rule the world” ways.

The manga Soichiro was shown to have manipulated Kai’s feelings of sadness and insecurity too, but because he cared for his grandson. It’s like good intentions but with a questionable means. He was shown not to be the best with emotions and likely didn’t know how to comfort a now-confused but terribly hurt young child who had just lost his father. So the option? To turn those fragile feelings into rage, to make that sadness a hatred for weakness. And we see it affect Kai enough to take up the sole game he wanted to destroy, form the Blade Sharks, and start again — this time for revenge.

So, what do I do?

Headcanoning.

Yes, you heard right.

Hear me out — I think the best backstory for Kai at this point would be an integration of both the manga backstory and the anime one. One that leads to similar results and stakes as the anime has, but one that also provides some background the manga did in explaining our character’s motives.

Imagine if years back, before the anime’s beginning, Kai’s father left just like that while his grandfather tried to shape Kai up the exact same way. But this time, the good-intentioned Soichiro was consumed by his frustrations and rage. This was where he had met Boris Balkov on a business trip to Moscow, Russia. Boris, wanting to seize the chance of swaying the powerful corporate Hiwatari (what, with the money and influence that comes with the Hiwatari name that could fund their goal for years) initially talked about the bit beasts — seeking to draw Soichiro Hiwatari’s interests. Soichiro dismisses it as nothing more but the musings of a deluded man over the very game he couldn’t stand! That was, until he showed Soichiro some papers he kept on hand documenting the 4 legendary bit beasts who created the world. And Soichiro sees the Dranzer and realizes that’s the dragon on the blade his grandson always carries around!

He decides to entertain Boris’s ideas a little longer. He learns exactly what the bit beasts are capable of during his stay in Russia. And as a result, he starts funding Boris’s orphanage of elite eugenics-era bladers — not realizing exactly how extreme Boris is or that Boris is using him. But rather, hoping he himself can get back a world where his grandson is happy. Being a difficult man, he knows deep down he put much too much pressures on Susumu. But he didn’t expect his son to leave cut and dry (to be fair though, he was the one who issued the ultimatum). He can’t word it, but he is deeply hurt. So he tries to do a bit better for Kai throughout Kai’s own childhood and especially so after his dad is gone. But Soichiro doesn’t have the words to say sorry, and the inability to voice the issues that are really nibbling at his conscience under the cold exterior. The bit beasts combined provides a chance for him to redo his mistakes, reshape a world where his son walked out on him — even if it tears the world at hand apart.

It’s kinda like this guy. Jkjk, though this IS semi a PokeSpe blog. And I’ll be 100% honest in admitting this is where I got the idea xD

One of the things he does afterwards is send Kai to the orphanage very TEMPORARILY in order to let his grandson see how the project’s going. But it’s mainly for Kai to practice blading with his Dranzer, who Soichiri predicts can be of much use towards getting the other 3 bit beasts despite his initial distaste for either his son or grandson playing the game. And who’s better to use Dranzer than his grandson?

Kai, upon arrival, feels a strong degree of skepticism. But he’s still a very young kid — one who was previously very sheltered from the world growing up in the wealthy Hiwatari household. He doesn’t know yet how Boris treats the other boys at the orphanage, nor does he know how he would be treated either. His grandfather was given obscured information, while Kai was molded into the cold and pensive blader he soon becomes. All the while the facility uses data from the powerful Dranzer blade he holds to build up the Black Dranzer blade. After nearly a year of this, Kai decides to sneak around one night because he has a sneaking suspicion that his blade’s been tampered with. And there he stumbles upon the Black Dranzer, tests it out in awe, and has the traumatic complete wipe out we see him gradually remember in the anime.

Soichiro is angry to hear what’s happened to his grandson, so he decides to bring him home to Japan after the year ends. But be continues to fund the project in the hopes that he’ll get the life he had wished for back, for both him and his grandson’s sake. And this will become what later gives Boris leverage to sway Kai towards using Black Dranzer. It’s incentive to take the other less powerful bit beasts to build up the Black Dranzer and be strong enough to capture his friends’. Boris dangles the idea in front of Kai: “You WILL get your father back AND your revenge.” So it’s not hard to picture why Kai takes up with the idea; it’s not blatantly being power-hungry. But rather, the chance to undo a hurt that couldn’t ever be taken back. And as it follows, it’s also equally easy to see the guilt Kai feels from betraying his friends, and makes the following redemption more believable.

Additional notes:

I’d like to still believe that similarly to the manga, Kai’s father still supports him from the background. But his presence isn’t as commonplace. Enough that he knows his father still cares for him, though never enough to repair the damage the initial walk out has caused.

I’d also like to believe that within my headcanon, Soichiro Hiwatari sweeps under the rug many of the wrongdoings at Boris’s hands and the orphanage for his end goal. He only interferes when Kai gets hurt, like the morally gray character I’d imagine him to be in my twist. He does admit to his crimes at the end though, and rightfully atones. Which is why we do not see his presence later much in the anime — as he’d logically step out of the overbearing stranglehold he’s tried to have over his grandson, in the way he failed to do with Susumu, and let Kai enjoy being the person he’s become. The one who now has friends who support him through this. The one who’s now let go of his resentments and need for revenge — and can finally move on.

But yeah, I’m totally just spinning ideas here.

[grandpasessions]

Now we can confront directly, with a Lacanian logic, the choice that is merely implied in the previous quote by Kant (to bow “whether I choose to or not”). In Seminar XI (1978), on the subject’s fundamental alienation, Lacan deploys the choice “your money or your life” to capture the nature of the subject’s primary confrontation with the Law, and with the first imperative to ‘choose’ between “being” and “meaning”, a ‘forced choice’.

In neurosis, the forced choice results in a compromise—you get your life (meaning) but without your money (being/enjoyment)—thus producing a subject of neurosis and lack. To use the Kantian term, we could say that the neurotic deploys “respect” to justify (repress) the true cost of this first (forced) choice. I suggest that the neurotic’s choice—or more aptly the choice of neurosis—creates a path for the subject towards the dialectic of desire (and love/seduction), thus avoiding a direct confrontation with a pure terror in the face of annihilation.

Does “respect” require the ‘existence’ (representation) of primary repression? And thus, does respect for the law, specifically in psychosis, give way to terror as the prevailing (i.e., conscious) experience of the Law and its requirement of loss?

To begin, I suggest that the psychotic, without recourse to the Name-of-the-Father, and in the face of radical terror, makes a (first) choice that allows no compromise and thus requires a totalizing knowledge as a solution to the terror. I contend that the psychotic’s first choice (and its solution) makes a second choice (under transference) doubly difficult because the second choice is perceived as pure “evil” (as radically outside) and thus constitutes a true ethical choice.

In her study of ethics, Zupancic (2000) is instructive on the presence of the “terror” that is inherent in the forced choice:

The ultimate act of terror, the most radical terror, is when we are forced to subjectivize ourselves, when we are forced to choose—we must do so, and thus demonstrate that we are free subjects, whether we want to or not. (p. 213)

Zupancic’s formulation of the contingency of radical terror and freedom runs parallel to Kant’s formulation on the action of “respect” in the individual—yet with one crucial difference. Following Lacan, Zupancic identifies “terror” (a terror at the core of the subject) that is fundamental to the subject’s investment in, and thus support for, the “worth” of the Law.

It is terror (the truth of the subject) that is repressed in Kant’s version, not simply of the Law, but of the individual’s (libidinal) investment in the Law. From a Lacanian perspective, the truth of the subject corresponds to (is) the truth of/in the Law. “Respect”, which is Kant’s version of the truth of/in the law, represses the (w)hole in the law and its corresponding terror. In contrast, Lacan is interested in the subject’s knowledge or savoir of a particular terror in the face of the forced choice presented by the Law.

Psychosis and Extreme States Bret Fimiani