#The characterization will be more complex and based in truth than if you think a character wouldn't relate to you at all

[lipglossboy]

I see a lot of posts that are like "this character isn't like you characterize him because look at this thing he does! Proof!" "No way these characters would get along because ____" "no way this character would do this because ____"

People have different qualities that don't seem to perfectly align with each other. That's the world. We contain multitudes! Truly! All of us!

Our behaviors will seem contradictory because the words and categories that we assign to them are completely arbitrary! Traits are just ways of making sense of people but you don't have to hold the person to the box you've put them in if they seem to spill out of it!

We're all capable of so many things and loving all differeng kinds of people for all different reasons. I've come to realize that I'm unconvinced by most of the critical fandom characterization takes I've read.

[shini--chan]

Hi, hello!! If possible, would it be ok for me to request the first yandere character sheet for america?? I absolutely love the way you characterize him!!

Yandere Character Sheet I

1p America: Alfred F. Jones

Trigger warnings: neglect, starvation, white torture, abandonment, forced assimilation, murder, physical and verbal abuse, mind games

Attributes - What sort of Yandere is he/she?

The problem with Alfred as a yandere would be how his base personality affects his yandere tendencies. Fundamentally, he wants to be a hero, he wants to help people and be selfless, but it is ruined by his self-centred worldview and his egoist ideology. At the end of the day, he is far more concerned about how you can benefit him, rather than how he can ensure and protect your happiness and health. America would only really be willing to change his actions if he faces negative consequences or it ruins his glorious self-image. Though, by putting you in a position where you are powerless in relation to him, he’ll be able to brush off/mitigate many of the negative consequences that could arise. Even if there is something that he wouldn’t be able to simply flick away, he would likely frame somebody else than engage in any soul-searching. To synthesise a few concrete characteristics out of all of this, he would be arrogant, self-righteous and in denial about any wrong doings on his part. 

That being said, Alfred would be perfectly capable of being a gentleman. Should he put some effort in it, then he’ll be the roguish and handsome boy-next-door to you. It would even feel very off or false since it would be partially true and not just an act. America is absolutely capable of being decent. All in all, it would just make everything more difficult, though. Since you wouldn’t be dealing with a pure sociopath, but a complex, layered person, he would be unpredictable in the worst way possible. No pure evil, but no pure good either - if anything, he would nourish any conflicting feelings you have about him. So, he would really take the phrase from Machiavelli, that it is best to be feared as well as loved, very much to heart. America would take you on dates, shower you with gifts, compliment you and take you home with him. He is so desirable, isn’t he? Above everything, he would want you to be smitten with him, since it would stroke his ego. 

He is also delusional, so he wouldn’t take much offence should he have to drag you to his side kicking and screaming. At the end of the day, what Alfred believes in most is his own hype. If he was a religion, then he is his own god, or at very least, the Chosen One. Any criticism would simply be water off a duck’s back and he’ll laugh at you. Here, he would also bring one of the worst of Christian traits to the fore and claim that you know the truth, know that he is good and moral and heroic, and that you’re just trying to lead him astray. So, rather than him having to repent, you should. Alfed would prove to be hard headed in everything, though on minor issues and things he would be more inclined to listen and admit that he’s wrong than on major ones. In total, he wouldn’t be extremely communicative on things he doesn’t like, excluding it is something that is tied to his idiosyncrasies, since he would think that rules of the game are clear to you. So, from a certain point onwards, you’ll find yourself walking on egg-shells around him, unless you figure him out and fast. 

Additionally, he is a very busy man. This is a person that can’t sit still for even an hour and has a mind that would constantly race from one train of thoughts to the next set of ideas. Life with him would never be boring (unless you are bad and don’t obey him), so you yourself might end up being too busy to notice all the red flags in the beginning. The start would also be the get-to-know-you phase, where you would have considerably more freedom, so life with him in it would feel exhilarating. While luring you in his fold, he would also be very indulgent towards you and take you where-ever you wish to go. A holiday to Tuscany? Booked and the luggage packed. Need help with your bills? They are already paid. Advise on some future life choice? His lecture/prep talk is going to be over two hours. 

Though, he is also calculating. Not only in the scheming, villain manner, but also in the most literal sense of the word. His actions regarding you, and even just the choice to engage with you is weighed against a set of internal scales. Like any savvy businessman, he wants the costs to him to be as minimal as possible while making maximum profit. To him, this is how the world works and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. So, you would have to bring something to the table as well. Should he help you, then we’re supposed to help him in return. Get a loan from him, then pay it back full and with interest - should you have troubles with that, then he’ll have no problems in … tweaking you or also parts of your life to achieve the desired end result. 

Alfred is also manipulative, and to a horrifying extent. He’d not shy away from restricting your access to information, and sculpting your views to his liking. Even the information that you would be able to get your hands on would be framed to influence you and play on your emotions. He would know a whole array of psychological tricks and shortcuts that he wouldn’t hesitate to use on you. However, if you would do the same to him, he would scream foul. Rules for thee, but not for me indeed. That is a further problem with him - his own perceived exceptionalism dictates that he is above everybody else, and the other’s are just chess pieces on his game board. 

Cornering - How would they get you?

With the carrot and the stick. Ideally, you should never be aware of the stick, though if you put a toe out of line, the stick will become very noticable. In the case that you cooperate, then it would be a Hollywood romance (and like those protagonists in movies, he’ll be similarly incapable of accepting rejection). The future with you should be white and fluffy, akin to a picture-book perfect fantasy. He would also use promises and allusions to such a fate to get you where he wants you. If you have doubts, or if you are a not-so-willing bride, then some pressure would be applied - he would convince your relatives and friends that he’s the best option for you, and have them press-gang you into marrying him. 

Else, he’ll appeal to your naked self-interest, if you have such inclinations. He’ll present himself as the ideal protector, or a way to grant you financial security, or find some other way to awaken your interest. Perhaps you’ll even be convinced that you want the union more than him, that you’re the one using him to your advantage. 

Of course, if push comes to shove, then he would simply abduct you, break you down and rebuild you to his liking. To make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs - that would be his line of thinking if the. Asides, it would all be your fault for not having the right values. 

Expectations - What do they expect of you?

This is the tricky and controversial part. You see, part of Alfred’s expectations, ones that he isn’t even conscious of since he takes them as given, would be that you fit in his world view. What that would entail would be that you hold capitalism and liberalism to be the most progressive forms of politics, that the world must strive towards more freedom and more democracy to reach the end of history, that people are selfish and vainglorious and every interaction between people is nothing more than a transaction. That your lines of thought run on the exact same structures as his do - a liberal, faustian worldview. The matter here is, if you have a different outlook in that regard, then he wouldn’t accept it as valid. You would be declared evil or stupid, or both, by him and he would strive to “save you” and bring you to the light. 

One trait that he would consciously want of you, would be that you’re entertaining. If there is one thing that he wouldn’t tolerate well, then it would be boredom. Don’t induce that in him, don’t let him become bored with you - if you are already in his grasp and he grows disinterested in you, then you’d have a cruel fate ahead of you. Be unpredictable (but not too much, he wants to keep you under lock and key) and challenging to him. In the show that is his life, be either the villian that he must defeat or the love interest that he must save and conquer. . Hence, you'll always have to find ways to be novel and exciting to him - not an easy feat with such a capricious individual. Challenge him, change the rules of the game, make him suffer to have his pleasure. Not too much though - harm could befall you if you make matters too difficult while not having the upper hand. 

Whatsmore, he would expect you to heed him and look up to him. Let him up your knight in shining armour, your shining city on the hill. The trick would be finding the right balance of relenting and resisting; the tricky part would be that this balance would change over time and not in a very predictable fashion. Still, laud and lionise him, make him feel special and wanted. Should he have the feeling that you understand him like no other, then he would be less inclined to throw you away. This could be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on how your overall standing to each other is. 

Further, he expects you to be of a cheerful disposition. You don't have to be sweet as sugar and everything nice, you are allowed to have a temper and swear and rage from time to time. Blazes, your niceness and optimism is allowed to be very selective. Though, it would have to be in the range of what he would deem as normal. That being said, if you don't entirely fulfil his expectations there, then he wouldn't see it as a dealbreaker. He can "fix" you after all. The end result should then be a person who is committed to him, who greets him at the door and reciprocates his affection. Him and you against the world. Shake your fist at everybody else; it is alright if he is the only one you give your smiles and heart to. 

Beauty is another characteristic that he would seek in a partner. You wouldn't even have to be conventionally beautiful to fulfil his expectations, or even healthy. That being said, he would want you to be pretty in a sense that sickness wouldn't tarnish your looks, like the Victorian ladies that suffered from tuberculosis. In a way, you should be the sort of person that could be cast in a movie. 

Faded - Would they let go of you in any way?

In the case that he would find somebody more enticing, then you would just be casted aside like a ruined doll. Not that he would necessarily throw you out onto the street; it would be more likely that you would be “stored” somewhere, withering away since that you wouldn’t be the centre of his attention anymore. Chances are that he would forget about you, forget to give you sustenance or maintain your hygiene - most likely he’ll only remember you when the stench of your decomposing body reaches his nostrils. That, or he would just drop you off in the middle of nowhere and leave you to fend for yourself. What happens to you beyond that, won’t be his business, or so he would insist.  

On a less macabre front, you could also just slip away in such a scenario and he wouldn’t really care, unless you divulge state secrets and/or sic the police on him. Aside from that, if something else would take up all his attention and commitment, you could actually have a fair chance of making a break for it and staying free forever. By the time he could spend time and attention on you, the trial would have gone cold. Maybe he would even give up on you then. 

Another possibility would be if he would be forced to let you go. Say, if his actions actually lead to negative consequences for him and his power wanes, third parties could intervene and rip you away from him. It could be that he would even become so powerless that he would be forced to live with the outcome. Other than that, there are some lines that even he (or especially he, depending on how you look at it) wouldn’t be able to cross. Should one his rivals take you under their wing, or a weaker person/nation even just successfully hide you, then there would be little he could do about it. 

Punishment - How would they proceed if you do something they disapprove of?

Oh, he can be very harsh. The tricky part with Alfred would be, that he takes a set of ground rules to be self-evident. So, should you break said rules then it wouldn't be because of a misunderstanding, a lack of knowledge or even just an accident. Instead, he would view it as you being purposefully disobedient. That's why you might find yourself spontaneously hulled away and locked in a closet, or tied to the bed. America wouldn't be above giving you a "time-out" in the corner either. 

Else, he would be a fan of white torture. Repeated violation of the ground rules would land you in the white room. You'd stay there for some time, living a very colourless life. Your meals would be white, just like your clothing and bed and overall surrounding. There wouldn't be anything in the room with which you could entertain yourself, just a bolted down bed and a waterless toilet. Other methods that would fall in the same category would be depriving you of sleep, waking you up at random times, or also exposing you to noises that are of very low frequencies. 

Or he would make you live the same day on repeat. The same food, the same books/movies, the same clothes, the same music - those parameters would be fixed, and none of your actions can change anything about it. It would only stop when he decides you've been punished enough. 

Alfred wouldn't resort to physical or sexual abuse to teach you a lesson. Not because he is such a decent person, or because he respects you so deeply, but to keep up appearances. He wouldn't be able to show you in public if you're black and blue, and you should spread your legs for him without him having to pry them apart. Though, if you ask him to lay you over his knee and spank you, then he'll gladly indulge you. And he'll make you ask him or trick you into signing a "permission slip". It would let him punish you as he would deem fit, without ruining the picture of a picture perfect relationship. That being said, if you gain the upper hand, then it would be a different picture. 

Aside from the aforementioned ground rules, there would be variable rules that he would introduce, implement, or discard at will. America would inform you of some of them. However, he is a busy man, and would forget to tell you about changes at times. You'll still be punished, no matter how much you'd protest, though he would be a bit more lenient here from time to time. So it could be some yelling and insults, or it could be him putting you on random medication so that you can suffer from the side effects, and from the intended effects as well. 

Reaction - How would they react to you escaping?

For a short answer - look at all those Hollywood movies. 

For a long answer - shouldering a rifle with a tranquiliser dart and hunting you down like a deer. He'll be tracking your phone and constantly looking into your bank transactions. A missing person report would be put out with a finder's fee or he would have you declared a wanted criminal on some trumped up charges. 

Various surveillance cameras will be monitored and followed, and he'll have agents stationed at airports and the like to intercept you should you appear there. If that wouldn't work, then he'll call in some favours to have somebody stab you in the back and return you to him. 

Should all that fail, then he'll issue an ultimatum to you in a way he would sure that you'll notice. 

Turnabout - Scenario: You have the upper hand? What would be different from their usual MO?

There is a way you could turn the tables without him realising it, or protesting against it too much. The interests of individuals as well as collectives don't always oppose each other, sometimes they align. So, you could manipulate him into doing your bidding by pulling his heart strings or playing on his fears. Since power isn't a zero sum game, and since he has a very skewed view of reality, chances are that he wouldn't even notice. Furthermore, he might be so engrossed with his own "supremacy", that he'll willingly turn a blind eye. 

Though, should he feel threatened or that you're gaining more power over him, then all hell would break loose. Defamation would ensue, and he would do anything to drag your reputation through the mud, with tactics and assertions that would seem straight up ludicrous the longer this situation would play out. Should matters escalate, then he would resort to even graver tactics right up to killing you. With his status under threat, he would pull guns out on you, break your bones, or even strangle you. 

Vengeance - What would they do in the face of competition?

If the person can be bought, they will be bought. Alfred would just through some meaningless things their way to get them to pipe down, make some empty promises, make them sell their soul to him. He would love the opportunity to pull the rug from under them, and he would surely find a way. The despair that they would display is something that he would live for. 

Naturally, there are other methods he would apply. Such as threats and physical intimidation. In those cases, he might end up acting too much like a Disney villain. Funny how the heroes become the villains, eh? As such, he wouldn't have any guilt in swinging his fists and granting his unfortunate opponent a trip to the hospital. The whole affair would be depicted as him defending your honour. 

And if the person goes missing to never be seen again, then what can he do about it? Any and all clues that would point to him being involved would be purely coincidental. 

[rayclubs]

Which tf2 merc do you think gets mischaracterized the least?

Good question! Let's do a rating.

In my opinion, there are three aspects to characterizing someone.

Facts - you have to get basic character backstory right. This includes all objective canon truths, events, and, well, facts about said character.

Behavior - you need to understand how the character acts, how their interpersonal relationships function, what they're like in their day-to-day life. This is the nitty-gritty of fanfic and fanart, this is dialogue, line-to-line characterization.

Integrity - you need to understand the character's core beliefs and principles, what their values are and how they view the world around them. This isn't something you can easily quote or point to as a mistake in fanfic, it's more of an overall idea of a character.

Each of these is going to be worth up to three points, with zero for terrible characterization that gets everything wrong. This would ideally total to nine points. I'll be awarding an additional bonus point for character interpretation that doesn't make me scream "he would not fucking say that". Let's go.

Scout:

His backstory is fairly simple. He has an absent father, half a dozen siblings, and a crush on his boss who doesn't reciprocate. People mostly get this right, except they also call him a virgin despite the fact he canonically lands the fried chicken queen, and seems to do it with ease. 2/3.

His behavior is also mostly portrayed accurately, in that he's loud, obnoxious, self-absorbed, and can be kind of a dick, though not completely without endearing qualities. The fandom is, admittedly, guilty of making him more insecure and self-conscious than he actually is, to amp up the drama. 2/3.

His core values, however, are completely off. The main interpretations I see of him are "depressed Scout", "homophobic Scout", and "baby Scout", neither of which is true to his character. This is a grown man with a force-a-nature complex. The homophobia is just projection and internalized prejudice, but that phenomena is too complicated for me to dissect here. I talked about it before and might make another post later. Anyway, 0/3.

Scout does not get a bonus point. He would not fucking say "poggers" but he would say "daddy-o".

Overall characterization score: 4/10

Soldier:

Very little is known about Soldier's backstory so there isn't really any room to be wrong about it. What we do know is also vague and unreliable, so it's open to interpretation. Given how little room for error there is, I'll give him a 3/3.

His behavior is completely off in most cases, often shown to either be overly aggressive or so dumb you start to question how this man functions in his day-to-day life. Canon Soldier has plenty of endearingly stupid moments but a lot of them can be read as deadpan jokes on the character's part, and many turn out to be secretly clever moments, such as him infiltrating the robot base with a goofy cardboard disguise. Likewise, canon Soldier has plenty of aggressive and mean moments, but he's not cruel and very clearly not a threat to his teammates, which isn't captured at all in fanworks that decide to go that way. 0/3.

Soldier's core ideals are mostly captured well, as in - yeah, he calls people communist as an insult in fanfics. I feel like he should mention God more often than he does in fanon, it's, like, one of the two ideologically meaningful things he ever talks about. The importance of "America" as a concept to him is mostly preserved but left unexplored. 2/3.

Soldier does not get a bonus point, he would not fucking say [homophobic slur] yet here we fucking are.

Overall characterization score: 5/10

Pyro:

His backstory is nonexistent yet people still fuck it up. His technical knowledge is clearly extensive and impressive, as shown by the complexity of his weaponry - which, mind you, looks HAND MADE - but people treat him as if he's altogether incompetent and maniacally stupid all the time always. He also ran an engineering company for hell knows how long and people just forget about it because they're allergic to adults or something. God this pisses me off so much. I mean for fuck's sake, people act like his full job description is "Pyromaniac" and not "Pyrotechnician". I'm so tired. 0/3.

His day-to-day characterization and dialogue is also completely off. People treat him as if he's INCAPABLE of communication, make him obsess over childish things he's only shown a moderate liking to in a manner that's borderline creepy and insulting, and take away his whole entire agency in everything he ever does. I will literally not give y'all a single point, you do my man Pyro so dirty. 0/3.

His ideology is complex and vague in canon, and I don't blame people for getting confused by such things as Pyrovision, but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. In my time on Ao3 I've seen animal Pyro, cryptid Pyro, monster Pyro, alien Pyro, evil mindless maniac Pyro, incompetent baby Pyro, nonbinary Pyro (HENCE MY PROBLEM WITH THE HEADCANON, do you see how it looks next to all these other interpretations?) but I've rarely, if ever, seen competent adult Pyro with actual hopes and dreams and agency. 0/3.

Pyro does not get a bonus point because he would not fucking say "uwu" but he would say "fuck", let Pyro say fuck.

Overall characterization score: 0/10 are you fucking surprised

Demoman:

Oh poor lad what have they done to you. So, Demo's backstory is arguably the most detailed and fleshed-out in the entire canon. Too bad nobody fucking read it. Admittedly, in the recent years I've seen people mostly manage to remember he has several jobs and is overall a competent and successful man, but it's rarely - if ever - explored, I've seen exactly one fic where the author bothered to explore what one of his other jobs might be (and it was not a good fic for many other reasons, don't ask me for a link), and it honestly feels like people don't want to dwell on it? Like, they mostly mention it to fill a quota, y'know? Here, I'm not racist, I've acknowledged one of this character's achievements, leave me alone. Also the subject of him being fucking adopted as a kid never comes up. 0/3.

His day-to-day characterization suffers a lot because people think alcoholism is the most morally repugnant thing that can ever happen to a human being. This man honestly barely even has a presence in the fics he's in. Are you wondering where Demo is? Well, he wasn't there! He was BUSY! He couldn't come! There is a handful of writers who bother to write his actual inner monologue and point of view, and this point goes out to them only. Also there was a pretty good Boots and Bombs fic in which Demo was a dick to Soldier but then got better, and it stuck with me. 1/3.

His core character is fucked up by fandom because he's either all flaws or not allowed to have any flaws, and there's no in-between. Ever since I joined the fandom I've seen a lot of critique floating around, and people mostly seem to listen and realize they've been mistreating the man for long enough, but it created a whole separate problem of Perfect Demoman which is bland and boring. People don't want to write an offensive caricature but don't feel like fleshing him out either, so they just make him great at everything and never let him fail and grown in ways that are meaningful. Except that one fic I mentioned earlier, but I've already awarded a point for that. 0/3.

Demo does not get a bonus point. I couldn't find a meaningful example of bad dialogue because, like I said, he has no presence in any of the fics he's in. He would fucking say something.

Overall characterization score: 1/10 and honestly it's too generous on my part.

Heavy:

Okay so Heavy's backstory really confuses people. I've got like a dozen asks in my inbox when I called his father a revolutionary AND a counter-revolutionary. Wait till I call him a royalist, it'll blow your tits clean off. I don't feel like explaining the history of the communist regime in the USSR on this post, let's just say people are mostly faithful to canon but don't really "get" Heavy. 2/3.

His day-to-day characterization is plain bad. He's treated like a mother hen to the mercs when he's more of a stoic friend with a mean streak and a crude sense of humor. I think the main problem is the dialogue, people just can't give him the dignity of speaking in an intelligent manner. It's honestly also pretty bad in the comics. 1/3.

His core ideals are fine, if oversimplified. He's not a complicated man, he loves his family, his guns and his doctor. People rarely give him any more depth than that but it's not offensive to his character or anything. I feel like he should have more political opinions than people give him. I also feel like people make him way more protective of Zhanna's romantic pursuits, to a creepy degree. I mean, yes, he's annoyed by her marrying Soldier, and seems horrified for a brief second, but it's not like he's against it or anything, he's just kinda surprised? Anyway, 2/3.

Heavy does not get a bonus point because he would not fucking say "da". Pizda.

Overall characterization score: 5/10

Engineer:

Yeah people mostly get him. He's got 11 Ph. Ds. Some treat him like he grew up as an actual cowboy or something but most remember he's a nerd. I'd actually give all the points here because Engie's backstory is NOT complicated. 3/3.

His dialogue and day-to-day characterization is also okay, though people really mellow him down a lot. I had a bit in one of my fics where he said something like "let's teach those sumbitches how the real killin' is done" and like three different people commented on it saying they liked or were surprised by his mean energy. It's not even that mean, I think it kinda shows my problem with his interpretation. 2/3.

I asked about mischaracterization once and a lot of people replied "Engie is the most mischaracterized because people treat him like he's good but he's actually evil" which I think pretty much covers it? It's hard to write someone who is not implicitly strictly good or strictly evil. Engie treads this balance really well, I'm actually convinced his demeanor is not a facade, he is nice at times and mean when he wants to be. Fanon Engie can only be one of two things and neither is right. 0/3.

Engie gets a bonus point as an exception. I actually can't tell why, people just have his voice on-point. Is his accent and manner of speaking really that easy for you? I struggle to write him a lot. I think he should say "bitch" more.

Overall characterization score: 6/10

Medic:

People focus on the fact he lost his medical license more than on the fact he HAD a medical license in the first place. Other than that he really doesn't have a backstory. I dislike that people try to give him a sad one, I think he grew up loved and maybe even a little spoiled, but I can't fault others for not following my headcanons, so. 2/3.

His dialogue is the WORST because it's written phonetically. His goofy yet self-confident energy isn't captured well at all. The best I can put this is "people wife him" but it sounds kinda mysogynistic so really I'm at a loss. Submissivepilled breedablemaxxer. 0/3.

His core values are also all over the place. The complicated thing about writing Medic is that he actually doesn't come with pre-packaged drama. His backstory is vague, his demeanor is optimistic, his vibes are fun, and the worst thing that happened to him in canon was working with the classics for a bit - people amp it up to squeeze hurt out of it, which is fine, but not many people actually like going there. Thing is, fanfic writers aren't that good at writing drama when it hasn't been established before. They have to warp his character, make him edgy, self-conscious, or plain mad evil without redeeming qualities. I remember really struggling with my big Medic fic because I wanted it to be dramatic but had to put a lot of work into actually building up the emotion, because Medic is fine. He's fine. He's alright. He's fine. He's doing well. 0/3.

Medic does NOT get a bonus point, he would not fucking say "babygirl" and I'm not even sure if he would say "yass queen slay" I'm SORRY

Overall characterization score: 2/10

Sniper:

People mostly get his backstory right, probably because it's the most well-explained in the comics and it gets the most "screentime". It's also literally a Superman parody which is funny and memorable in concept. 3/3.

People can't find a good balance between stoic professionalism and social anxiety. I think Sniper is actually pretty simple, in that he's a little self-conscious which pushes him to actively better himself as a professional, but also makes him a little awkward so he comes across as standoffish and a little mean. He's a solid bloke that's balanced and feels real. Fandom has to go for the extreme every goddamn time with him. It sucks. 0/3.

People kind of get his drama, his relationship with his family and whatnot - mostly because a lot of us losers can relate, I bet - but, again, go for the extreme in making him anxious, whiny, and sad as a wet kitten. Unless it's a porn fic in which case he's an absolute freak that growls at people. I don't know what it is about Sniper that makes him so difficult to characterize. Manic pixie dream boy. Dark and moody lover love me like no other. 0/3.

Sniper does NOT get a bonus point because he doesn't say "cunt" nearly as often as he should. Also send me asks about my Sniper takes I want to stir up some shit.

Overall characterization score: 3/10.

Spy:

The only piece of his backstory we actually know is that he fathered the blight of the earth that is Scout TF2. 3/3.

His obnoxious and insufferable demeanor is mostly captured well. A lot of his portrayals aren't nearly as classy as people think they are, but that's because most authors are themselves proletarian, myself included, which is fine. Not many make the effort to pepper his speech with French words it would actually be natural for him to say, and blame it on the nonsensical complexity of the French language, but I'm not buying it as an excuse. 2/3.

His core values are off in regards to Scout - he's often portrayed as soft, mellow, overbearing, and critical of Scout's love life to either a comical or an uncomfortable degree. His fandom portrayal often also lacks the self-confidence he's demonstrated in the comics. Spy is not above strangling a man with a chain that holds the shackles around his ankles, he wouldn't consider it a blow to his dignity to fuck any of his coworkers either, come on. He's also funny and goofy but the fandom tends to neglect that. 1/3.

Spy does not get a bonus point because he would not say "perchance" but he would say "your mother".

Overall characterization score: 6/10

The final scores are:

Spy - 6/10

Engineer - 6/10

Heavy - 5/10

Soldier - 5/10

Scout - 4/10

Sniper - 3/10

Medic - 2/10

Demoman - 1/10

Pyro - 0/10

There we go! Pyro is the most mischaracterized, Demoman is a close second, and nobody is characterized well. Cheers!

[thegirlking]

One thing about Lacie is that she's often portrayed through the eyes of other characters and that creates some unreliable characterization for her. I think the dialogue in the scene above is an interesting example.

There's a fascinating contrast between the way Levi describes Lacie as this “fickle girl” vs Jack describing her as a “free spirit”. They both seem to be describing similar aspects of her personality in a totally opposite manner and both are wrong in their own way.

Levi's words (not just here but in other scenes where he speaks of her supposed fickleness) come across as rather cynical and also sinister, even a little cruel in full context - he's fully aware of the circumstances that shaped Lacie into the person she is (as well as very much contributing to those circumstances), but still chooses to speak of her “fickleness” in a generally unsympathetic way that could easily paint her as a shallow, cruel and selfish girl.

Meanwhile, Jack's description comes across as one of fondness and is almost romantic. He is obviously not aware of Lacie’s circumstances - you can't fault him for it, but he's also not questioning them so there's that. He's already created his image of Lacie, based on their first meeting and his own complicated feelings for her, hence his words making her seem like this dreamy and carefree girl.

Frankly, the dialogue reveals less about Lacie's real character than it reveals about the two men, their perception and treatment of her.

Lacie is obviously a much more complex person than simply being capricious or free-spirited. It’s not that those descriptions don’t have shades of truth, as much as they are very deceptive aspects of her personality, obviously shaped by her life circumstances and also a way to deal with those circumstances to some degree. This context is always important when discussing her character and other characters' unreliable descriptions really shouldn't be taken at face value.

[freezeyourchill]

I am once again thinking about the differences between Paper Luigi and Luigi literally anywhere else. Paper Jam be damned this is the most definitive proof that the Paper Mario universe is a separate reality

Think of any Luigi appearance other than the Paper Mario series (Luigi's Mansion, Mario & Luigi RPGs, 2023 Mario Movie, SM64DS, Galaxy, anything) and they'll have a decent amount of consistency. Luigi is characterized as timid, brave given the circumstances, usually quiet, always silly billy certified, and a bit clumsy but very sweet.

But most crucially for this post, he follows Mario's lead but never seems to mind. He's the butt of endless jokes and not nearly as renowned as Mario, but it generally doesn't get to him because he's got his big bro and that's all that matters (the Smash universe is also an entirely separate secret third thing so his Negative Zone from Brawl doesn't count)

Whenever Mario saves/finds him in the M&L RPGs, his first instinct is to collapse into Mario's arms with a big hug, sometimes with relieved tears. In the newest Mario Movie he's chattier than usual but he still firmly believes that any situation will be okay as long as Mario is there (another big hug upon their reunion). In LM3, Mario immediately rushes off after he's saved (again, with a big hug) but instead of being annoyed or even afraid, Luigi just grins and follows his lead, happy that he's back and they can work together again. In Dream Team we see Luigi's deepest darkest most intense subconscious emotions and revealed to us is immense love and care for his brother, unconditional support for whatever he chooses to do, and at worst a fear of Mario leaving him behind.

The point being that Luigi is happy to depend on Mario, perhaps to the point where he stunts his own potential, because Mario is his rock. They're a package deal and if you don't like one, the other will certainly not like you.

Compare this with the Paper Mario series. Some of the previously listed traits are still true: Luigi is a timid silly billy who obviously cares for his brother. Being with Mario still helps give him security and confidence, as seen in SPM.

No hug. Suspicious. Anyway, even if he does depend on Mario at times, the main distinction is that he strives to be more independent from him, if only to prove a point. He wants to prove that he's just as cool and doesn't need to rely on his big brother to succeed. He wants to do things himself, and play it off coolly.

As opposed to Paper Mario's more quiet attitude (which deserves its own post actually), he's chatty, snarky, and direct. And according to that one Toad in Origami King, he characteristically sneers. What's up with that?

Unlike other versions of Luigi, Paper Luigi is overtly jealous. He's got this odd inferiority complex that makes him want to be independent from Mario while also getting jealous of people who spend time with Mario on his adventures. Compare this with M&L Superstar Saga where Luigi was more than happy staying at home doing the housekeeping, and got physically dragged off with Mario via circumstance.

Famously, Luigi stretches the truth or outright lies to Mario about his own escapades in TTYD to appear as cooler and more competent. Luigi's companions will make sure to enlighten Mario with the real story. But the strange part of this comes from the collectable Super Luigi books that you can buy.

'Older, though less talented brother'? A 'no-doubt inconsequential errand'? In fairness he didn't write the books himself, but he describes them as being in 'excruciating detail' and 'like a history book'.

And I'm not at all saying he dislikes Mario. It's because he holds Mario on such a pedestal in comparison to himself that he tries to overcompensate and make himself appear more capable so that he can keep up. He loves his brother and nothing will change that, but there is this more psychologically complex aspect to him and how he regards Mario. Mr. L isn't as far off from his base personality as people like to think, and being the ideal host for the Chaos Heart isn't all that surprising. Besides, how many times have you seen Paper Luigi hug Mario?

[themattress]

imma be insane and ask for all 26 normal questions for Celestia/Taeko, though I unfortunately can’t think of a freebie rn.

( @izunias-meme-hole )

1. I like her for her amazing design, impeccable English voice-acting (both the games and anime versions), and fascinating, mysterious, and complex characterization that requires just as much if not more from you than it does her to put together and enjoy to the fullest. Plus I feel like her over-the-top attitude - both Celeste's and Taeko's - is objectively hilarious.

2. My favorite canon thing about her is the deep well of self-loathing Taeko has for herself which drives her to invest so much into being Celeste even when a lot of Celeste is negative, ultimately crossing the line into becoming a murderer who might (and indeed does) get executed for it. She would rather become a bad person that others hate and die as one rather than live as a normal person that others don't care about, and I find that so interesting.

3. Chapter 3 of the original game let her down when it came to depicting her as a culprit. The idea was solid: she overreaches with an overcomplicated plan befitting of her Celeste persona and it does her in, but the game made that overreach way too blatant and stupid of her, especially during the Class Trial. Her better side was also played too subtly at the end, leading to many misinterpretations of her character from those not paying enough attention. The anime actually did that whole case better, and the stage show did better with her too.

4. I'd love to have her around as a villager in Disney's Dreamlight Valley.

5. "Queen of Hearts".

6. I also like manga, including game-based manga.

7. Shipping her with other girls. While it probably wasn't intentional, Celeste in UTDP / USC comes off as though she (Taeko) is bisexual and attracted to girls but desperately wants to deny it since it interferes with her Celeste persona's thing of having conventionally attractive men as vampiric servants. Coming out of the closet and dating girls would be healthy for her.

8. I've beaten this drum to death, but I will beat its zombie too: misinterpreting her cold, elegant and sinister cover as the sum total of the book, believing her lies while ignoring all the evidence pointing to the truth. Whether they like her or hate her, fans have a tendency to do this and it drives me nuts. Even when I agree that Chapter 3 let her down, some fans take the criticism too far by acting like her not being as smart or composed as she appeared to be beforehand is the problem even when that's the whole point. She's not a sociopathic genius; she just pretends to be one based on the gambler characters she's read about in manga.

9. Sure, if I had to. Maybe I'd even learn how to make milk tea for her.

10. Hell no. I could be a friend to her, but best friend? Too much drama.

11. That's even more unlikely than the best friends option!

12. To stand up to bullies, Taeko learned her vocabulary of foul language very young.

13. ^_^

14. ...What are you talking about? Obviously it's Gothic Lolita.

15. Celesgiri (Celeste/Kyoko). They have perfect chemistry and compliment each other well.

16. Celeste/Hifumi. Making their relationship romantic would turn the whole thing into an uncomfortably abusive one. I never got the sense there was any romance involved, anyway. Celeste just wanted a servant and Hifumi just had a kink. The romantic feelings that Hifumi showed in the game were for Alter Ego, not for Celeste. The two of them are just friends.

17. Celeste/Byakuya. I have no idea how it would end up happening given that Byakuya in canon gives her no interest or respect except when she's a murderer that he's "playing against" in the Killing Game, but at the same time I can't say that it's offensive to me.

18. Aside from Kyoko, I really like her relationship with Makoto, and I especially love the trio dynamic of her, Kyoko and Makoto that we get in Riichi City.

19. Her relationship with Toko, which is more of Toko's fault than hers. I adore Toko, but her hypocritical, project-y, internalized misogyny makes relationships with her difficult.

20. She and Peko would make great besties. Their interactions in UTDP were wonderful.

21. My favorite thing would be writing lies that contrast with how she really thinks and feels, as I'm sure it was for Kodaka. There's nothing I don't like.

22. I look for fics that simply understand her, and abhor fics that don't.

23. This sprite. She's aiming for intimidating, but she just looks goofy.

24. Eugene Fitzherbert / Flynn Rider from Disney's Tangled. No, really.

...But an even more similar example would be Madame M from the Final Fantasy VII series.

25. My first impression was "she's cool, got one of the best designs here, but kind of got an underwhelming conclusion". My impression now is "one of the best, most interesting, tragic and bizarrely relatable and inspirational characters in the franchise; I love all of her, the good and the bad, the Taeko and the Celeste, and I'll always correct the record on her when able."

26. Her breakdown in the Class Trial and subsequent execution. Yes, technically they are tragic things that happen to her. But they are also fucking comedy gold! I will never tire of jokes based around them, GOD DAMN IT! (See, I just made one right now!)

[nyagrounds]

Musings on Pico and Nene, written several years ago.

This is technically set on my monster/demonhunting AU, but I thought these were interesting and the closest I got to really cementing characterizations for this trio- unfortunately it seems I ran out of steam before I got to Darnell and now I can't for the life of me remember what his bit of this was supposed to be. In any case, under the cut is what I *did* manage to write. CW: pretty much the same dark subject matter that Pico's School covers except, you know, taken seriously. Also, HEAVY warning for discussion of nene's suicidal tendencies and ideation in specific.

the three survivors have like. impostor syndrome-based survivors guilt but in different directions

pico is very, VERY aware that, unlike what everyone assumes, he DIDNT survive because he was faster or smarter or more gifted at demonslaying than anyone else- he survived because cassandra deliberately spared him, because she apparently had a crush on him that he never actually noticed. so its twofold, the guilt of being spared through no action of his own without being more deserving of it than all those who died, but also because he has the constant feeling that he SHOULD have noticed and done SOMETHING.

like, originally when he realized these people were Literal Demons And Monsters he very quickly dehumanized them and kind of distanced himself from the notion of having killed four of his classmates, even if in self defense, but the more he learned about the actual mechanics of demons and such he ended up with the realization that actually, what happened was pretty much literally just a school shooting for very normal human teenage reasons, and the teens just so happened to be demons. so... it's not like he has any qualms about hunting or anything, in fact he thinks it's probably a good thing in hindsight that he no longer draws any morality lines between hunting monsters and just killing people, since oftentimes there isn't actually a clear line at all; but it does kind of fuck him up, the notion that if he had payed more attention to the weird emo kids, he COULD have reached out to them, cassandra at least. and because he's developed something of a weird hero complex, he feels like if he COULD have done something to prevent the shooting, but DIDN'T, that makes him directly responsible for what happened.

so that leaves him in this mindset of "the only reason i survived and no one else did is because i was in the position to stop the massacre in the first place, and didn't"

and that's his Big Secret, he has never actually told anyone about this. he just kind of lets people assume whatever they want to think about why he survived the initial shooting. even people implying he was actually the ONLY shooter just kinda rolls off his back. he's not really pressed about the bullshit people say about him, partly because nothing can make him feel worse than the actual truth he plans to take to his grave.

nene, on the other hand, pretty much just fully knows and accepts that she survived thanks to sheer coincidence, that's not a secret, she was in the bathroom when things went to hell and she stumbled across pico in the hallway, so that's just a well known Fact about the event.

her Big Secret, on the other hand, is that despite everyone assuming her depression and suicidal tendencies arose from the ptsd and survivor's guilt, she was actually already deep into suicidal ideation and had been distantly planning to kill herself far before the incident. in fact, begging pico to kill her was really more opportunistic than anything- obviously he not only Didn't Do That but ended up making himself out to be personally responsible for her safety troughout the years that followed.

nene feels like it's a cruel joke at her expense; her, idly fantasizing about death in class, while everyone around her would likely have done anything to survive; and yet, when death came, it left her untouched.

ironically, the more she recovers, the more it bears down on her as sheer guilt, where before it was mostly frustration. especially because she knows pico and darnell just assume she was perfectly fine before the shooting, that it's normal that she's so fucked up because she lived through something horrible. she feels like a liar and an idiot, that she's letting them think she has a Good Reason to be that way, when really she was ALWAYS Fucked Up for absolutely no real reason- she has a far more stable and supportive family and home situation than either of them, pico with his neglectful asshole parents and child of divorce darnell. there was nothing wrong with her life, but she wanted to throw it away; and worse even, that she had been childishly, selfishly upset that it would be that much harder to do so now, with the implicit responsibility to "live for the sake of those who can't anymore" and pico unsubtly fussing about her safety.

she knows full well that pico's got a Thing going on with needing to protect her and darnell, even if he doesn't really seem to realize the extent to which he does it- she knows HIS guilt is tied up with not having been able to save anyone. it's the reason he and darnell don't really talk anymore, but she kind of has to concede it's also part of the reason she never succesfully killed herself. not that darnell doesn't care about her, of course- he's just more prone to actually respecting whatever one wants to do with their lives, even if it leads you straight to self destruction. he'd be a hypocrite NOT to, she supposes.

pico is far less tolerant, though, in general and in specific. they get along well despite this, or maybe because of it; he doesn't stand for her self-destructive bullshit, and she doesn't take anything sitting down, so they have a very frank back-and-forth where they both know exactly where they stand with each other. and yes, pico's paranoia about her safety DID actually lead to him and darnell pulling her out of a bloody bathtub in time. even back then she had the presence of mind to be more grateful than annoyed.

still, that's her secret that she'll take to her grave, even if that grave awaits her many more years down the line than she'd once hoped for.

[cazort]

Just a comment on this from someone with a mix of Jewish and Chrsitian heritage, with some familiarity with different forms of Judaism and also experience with many different types of Christianity including having been active in churches of several different denominations and having sporadically visited many more.

Christianity is diverse and the viewpoints on Judaism including both what is officially taught, and the more general cultural views, are wildly variable from one denomination to the next. The post here overgeneralizes a bit.

Most of the more educated forms of mainline Protestantism and even a significant subset of Catholics are well aware that the historical depiction of Judaism are out-of-sync with how Judaism is actually practiced, both currently and how it was historically when these historic stereotypes were divided. Also these denominations are often acutely aware of, and take action against antisemitism. These churches will literally host Bible studies and talk about antisemitism present in the text itself. The belief in these churches is not that these texts present literal truth, but rather, that the divine meaning in them is for us to become aware of the long history of antisemitism and other biases in the church. Like to give you an idea you can read this document of the Episcopal church's stance on antisemitism which is highly critical of certain theological trends, like supersessionism, and explicitly rejects that viewpoint.

At the same time, other forms of Christianity (more often right-wing fundamentalist Christianity, but occasionally these things can manifest in mainline protestant churches or Catholic churches as well) can be actively antisemitic, perpetuating stereotypes worse than the "garden variety Christian propaganda".

Some ecumenical Christian groups I've attended have had a handful of Jewish attendees, some regular, others sporadic, and the presence of these people keeps stereotypes in check because people speak out. There are also often people like me who are not Jewish but have some Jewish heritage, usually on our dads' sides (as Judaism as a religion is matrilineal) and may be active to varying degrees in some Jewish communities and may have close Jewish family.

Unfortunately, in the US at least, the better-educated, more progressive forms of Christianity have been dying out and the fundamentalist ones have still been going strong, which is leading there, among other things, to be a more negative perception of Judaism with more untruthful stereotypes and more antisemitism, as a portion of total Christians, nowadays than there was even a generation back. This is troubling, to say the least. But it is important to acknowledge that there is still a range of views because I think part of the shift towards fundamentalism is happening because people paint Christianity as a monolithic entity.

When people see Christianity as a monolithic entity, it makes it less likely that fundamentalist Christians will seek out and join and/or participate in the more progressive, open-minded, rational forms of Christianity. It also makes it less likely that these forms will persist and thrive in society because people form a negative overall impression of the religion based only on its worst manifestations.

Just as Judaism is mischaracterized from the outside, so is Christianity, and it often happens through people characterizing the worst types of Christianity, the sort of right-wing authoritarian fundamentalist Christianity, as representing all Christianity, something it never has done and still does not do.

So yeah, this is my perspective from someone who isn't exactly Jewish or Christian but has been raised with significant exposure to and participation in both religions and continues to engage with both to varying degrees as an adult. The relationship is a little more complex here and it's important to acknowledge that complexity.

If you're trying to unpack and heal from Christian religious trauma, a thing you really need to understand (if you don't already) is that you were probably misled about Judaism a lot. Christianity generally tries to paint itself as the self-evident successor of Judaism, and one of the ways it does this is by painting Judaism as Christianity Without Jesus.

In reality, Judaism is practiced very differently from Christianity, and Jews have a very different relationship to their Bible than Christians have to theirs. Just about everything you'll hear about Judaism from Christians is total hogwash - literally, it's Christian propaganda. Christianity as most of us know it was shaped by the Roman Empire's political agendas, and that's a huge reason why it's the way it is.

[insicknessandpsychosis]

Sanism, and mentalism ; the unknown terms of accepted bigotry

Sanism

(The content is sourced from: https://handwiki.org/wiki/Medicine:Sanism)

“Mentalism or sanism describes discrimination and oppression against a mental trait or condition a person has, or is judged to have. This discrimination may or may not be characterized in terms of mental disorder or cognitive impairment. The discrimination is based on numerous factors such as stereotypes about neurodivergence, for example autism, learning disorders, ADHD, bipolar, schizophrenia, and personality disorders, specific behavioral phenomena such as stuttering and tics, or intellectual disability. Like other forms of discrimination such as sexism and racism, mentalism involves multiple intersecting forms of oppression, complex social inequalities and imbalances of power. It can result in covert discrimination by multiple, small insults and indignities. It is characterized by judgments of another person’s perceived mental health status. These judgments are followed by actions such as blatant, overt discrimination which may include refusal of service, or the denial of human rights. “

I’ll bet the majority of you had to Google what the title words meant. And even then I’ll bet you Google tried to change the word Sanism to Satanism didn’t it? I’ll bet if you Google the word, racism or sexism or homophobia…. You’ll find a whole lot more. ( as you should. Educate yourselves on those topics as well)

The truth is that mentalism, and Sanism are so common it’s not even taboo. Everybody makes fun of crazy people, right? Who cares? Well…. This is something that those who are affected with mental disorders have to deal with daily. Those with more severe mental disorders, get it even worse. Being married to somebody with schizoaffective disorder, which is considered a pretty severe mental disorder. I’ve been able to see little bits of it from his perspective. The way that society treats those with mental disorders really sets the stage and makes it OK for people to show their bigotry with little to no shame. Today I’m gonna talk about an example that involves a family member.

It’s no secret that having a loved one with the psychosis disorder is difficult. It certainly doesn’t come with an instruction, manual, and people deal with it in different ways. a family member of my husband recently took him to court because of a social media arguement. This family member has a really negative history with my husband, this moment was an opportunity for her.

I should also include that this person lives two states away from us. Yet they still filed a domestic violence, protection order. And the paperwork at read that she needed protection from him because of his “bipolar disorder” ( which isn’t even the correct diagnosis)

So, let’s start there. I she didn’t just state that she needs protection, but she needed to include his (incorrect) diagnosis. Why? Does she really think that he’s going to be violent towards her ? No. Does she know and understand that society does? Yep!Well, society says that is usually an indicator that somebody is out of control and violent. Ignoring The actual statistics, that they are more likely to hurt themselves than somebody else.

Now what would be the difference between her putting “bipolar”and her putting “black” as a way to describe why she feels that she needs protection? Or “Drag queen” as a reason to shield your kids. To me none. It’s all hate.

There’s never been a history of violence. There’s no reason for this person to think that he would be violent towards her.

An entire year goes by of court dates. Even one month had to be continued because my husband was in a hospital for an entire month. My husband was not in a place where he could probably defend himself.

So I defended him.

Now, and this time, she’s also going to other family members and telling them that my husband is violent and abusive, and that he doesn’t take medication… oddly specific for somebody who hasn’t even seen us in years. She has no idea what the day to day is for somebody in his condition. She has no idea how heartbreaking it is for his family to watch him when he is in psychosis. Not because anyone is scared of him, but because of how scared he is. It is absolutely terrifying for the people who have to go through these illnesses every day of their life.

Every psychosis episode damages a piece of him. His cognitive abilities have been affected. His medication that he has to take daily makes him lethargic and makes some sleep his days away. The energetic and lively artist that I once knew is just trying to survive his days without symptoms.

Painting somebody as being a violent psychotic when they really have no idea what it’s like when they’re psychotic. Is awful and heartbreaking. They’re hearing things and seeing things that are not there. They think that they’re gonna die or that their loved ones are gonna die. Psychosis is awful.

So, here I am sitting in on court sessions every other month because this person wants to use that to her advantage. All based on an illness they don’t understand

After several lawyer, consults and a failed mediation later, the day finally came for the judge to put an end to this circus. The judge denied her request, and ordered the case dismissed. In a last ditch effort, she says. “ Your honor, he is a violent schizophrenic!” (Still not diagnosing him correctly….) and he said “That is my order”

He looked at us in our little Zoom box and said “You guys stay away from her” and looked in her Zoom box and said “ You stay away from them” done.

Here is the point of my ramblings…We got a great judge. I was a little annoyed, how long it took, but he seemed to really want us to work it out on our own. However, he was fair and apparently saw through the BS. He didn’t punish anybody.

This is not the norm.

Law enforcement and Court officials have notoriously treated people with mental disabilities like they are already guilty parties who society needs protection from.

Sanism and mentalism are accepted forms of bigotry. Out in society, and even in your small family circle. The narrative needs to be changed. the misconceptions are not fair and it’s damaging.

Racism is not ok. Sexism is not ok. Homophobia is. It ok and dammit Sanism is not ok. Change the narrative and fight the stigma.

[kiwibirdlafayette]

Hi friends. Remember how I said I could write an essay about c!Tom Syndicate and his characterization.

guess what I did LMAO

Ted talk below ft. My personal interpretation of Tom’s Mianite character in mainly S1 and a little into S2 based on how I perceive his actions and interactions -

Disclaimer: If I feel off the mark it's possible, and if you disagree with what’s said, that's also totally fine.  I’ve never watched the entirety of Tom’s POV, I aim to someday and will inevitably add onto this. Also. All mentions of characters refer exclusively to the RP-verse, none of this pulls into consideration dynamics of the irl CCs, ofc.

-or, me overanalyzing what drives him, why he comes off as solely and only “evil and chaotic” (despite being a lot more complex than that) and how the difference in the dynamics of devotion make the killing Dianite at the end of S1 all the more impactful, as it directly influenced how he perceives relationships with others through the season, and drove the change in dynamics with the others through S2.  

From the start, we come to know two universal truths about Tom’s dynamic with his god in Season 1- 1) Dianite, as the god of Evil is ruthless, and isn’t forgiving when Tom messes up, and 2) Tom’s loyalty lies in whoever will reward him the best regardless of whatever he need go through, even if those promises of glory are empty. 

So, like, while it’s kind of defined that while Jordan's devotion (and borderline 'blind faith'; but a topic for a different essay) gets him adoration and love from his goddess, when Tom is devoted to his god, he gets gifts. Every time he kills for his god, or completes a task of some sort, Dianite awards him with fancy armor and swords and stuff and the like. And when he’s failed, those things get taken away. What this does is create in his head the concept of a ‘devotion transaction,’ where loyalty, love and affection is something you have to earn the right to hold onto; and can be stripped away at any time. I think this act alone is what shapes Tom's whole relationship with love and loyalty; and shaped the dynamics of his relationships to a type of dependence and a constant need to prove himself to maintain those ties. 

Or alternatively, the only way to stay close to someone is to do everything in your power to keep their favor, lest you be smitten down, or worse, abandoned completely. This plays into whereas Jordan's devotion to Ianite is a ‘I will do anything for you even if it kills me or may not be for the greater good because I love you so much I trust your every word’, (becoming a love language of acts of service out of unconditional love) Tom’s devotion comes more from a place of fear to appease or be killed because Dianite has him in a literal-metaphorical death grip, translating into his love language of overwhelming clinginess to what material and emotional ties he has and lashing out when it feels like those he can depend on are against him and seem to be trying to sever those ties (World War Mianite). 

The lashing out could also be a thing he picked up from Dianite who does that when Tom seems to be betraying him, but I don’t particularly want to get too much into that. The bottom line is mainly that he hates being alone, he hates having no one to depend on, and that notion alone is enough to make him take desperate measures.

Because despite wanting to be a lone wolf, or so badly to be on his own, he needs other people to survive, just like he needs Dianite to survive. On his own, one could say he’s kinda pathetic /lh, unrealizing how much his friends actually lift him up from that. 

I can’t remember who put it how, but I really align towards the idea that Tom isn’t inherently a bad person, nor intentionally wants to be the villain of the story- He just wants to have fun in the end. However, he’s so dependent on his god because in a way Dianite acts as his lifeline, the guy who picked him up because he wasn’t Mianite’s kind of champion in the same way that Tucker was, Dianite's the guy who helps him out when the ‘good guys’ are only ever against him. Almost in a way he leans on Dianite, he puts his devotion before most other things even if it means putting aside fucking around times because if he can't prove himself to his god, then it opens up the possibility that everything he's depending on could go away. His god is not merciful, his god could drop him at a moment's notice, and he'd have to be godless among his peers who have Mianite and Ianite (respectively) behind them to back them up. And Tom wouldn't have anyone. This of course, not to say that he thinks that Jordan, Tucker, and Sonja, etc. are solely and only against him (and don't care about him) but more so that at the beginning, he cares more about self-preservation in an anarchy server dominated by war then necessarily accepting that his friends don't want to kill him at every turn. It isn’t till the end of the season when we see that shift, and how that builds towards his infamous betrayal of his god.

So that reliance on Dianite, and focus on what Dianite wants versus his own needs/the need to connect better with his friends (who he is taught by Dia are only against him because of who he follows'') translates into the "overexaggerated evil chaos destruction" that became his primary character archetype where instead of the chaos being fueled primarily by his own funky little brain, he basically does all that he does to appease Dia and keep the god on his side, and ultimately keep him alive. Because from a nuanced perspective, it’s not really that he’s following Dianite, he’s Dianite’s mercenary- or, instead of it being a “we help each other out”, its a “you do my dirty work” kinda thing.That difference in dynamic ends up isolating himself from the rest of TR also then giving him that validation that yes, he can be independent from those Mianite plebs and 'doesn't need nobody' (ironically all while continually being unconsciously chained to Dianite) However as the season progresses (and in my personal headcanon involving Syndisparklez) his attention starts to shift once he realizes that he belongs to that group just as much as Jordan, or Sonja does despite being on the opposite side of Mianite and Dianite’s feud. And unlike Dianite, they indulge on his wanting to just have fun and mess around, versus the “everything is a puzzle piece falling together in working towards some specific end goal and every little mess up only sets us back” mindset that Dianite imparted through the way he defined devotion when it came to his champion. And once he starts to slowly accept that kinder reality and hang more with his friends (god alignments aside), he loses that emotional and material tie to Dianite (but never loses the dependency of never wanting to be on his own) and starts to depend more on his friends, clinging to them as he had wanted to, involving himself with more things they did because it gave him a space to just be him. 

And it is this arc of moving away from "fighting for his god to prove himself so that he's always being there for him” into ‘wanting to prove himself to his friends to show he does care and that everything not be a turf war'' that feeds into the impact of the cumulative event of him killing Dianite at the end of S1. It serves as a literal act of severing any ties he had with devotion and putting the ties between him and his friends at the forefront. At the same time, it symbolically visualizes Tom pulling himself away from Dianite’s grip, telling himself he doesn’t need Dianite: he is capable of pulling off chaotic stunts on himself, able to hold his own against the Mianitees and Ianitees, and isn’t just some pathetic little bastard man that was pulled out of the ground. And the by becoming Mecha-Dianite, Tom essentially becomes a pseudo-physical manifestation of his liberation from Dianite's chains where he doesn't have to depend on anyone. He can depend on himself, he is capable and he doesn't need to drive himself into the ground trying to prove his worth.

In season 2 when Dianite comes back, Tom has this different sense of self about him, because this Dianite is different, and he’s different. He holds onto the Mecha-Dia status like a badge of honor; he won’t fear this god. And he finds eventually he doesn’t have to. This Dianite isn’t inherently "evil", in fact, he’s near opposite. He still rewards Tom, but not in the way S1 Dianite did where he was breathing over Tom’s shoulder just waiting for him to inevitably fail some specific mission; in fact, since he’s dead he’s barely there. S2! Dianite also has greater affections to Mot, whom he treats more so how Ianite treats Jordan, where loyalty-devotion translates into genuine love. And in a way I think that fact plus his newfound separation from the notion that he needs his god to survive prevents him from falling back into old mindsets. Instead, he redirects a similar, but different emotional dependency from what should've gone to his god, now to Jordan (in not necessarily a romantic sense, despite what my normal behavior on this account might suggest).

Because even though he might have persona-autonomy, and isn't bound to a single individual defining his worth, he's still not someone who thrives on complete and utter independence. Tom still remains someone who needs and relies on having someone to fall back on to help him out, give him things, build things for him and so and so forth - and the need for that kind of connection continues to drives him to be so energetic and passionate for his relationships with others-- but instead of it being out of fear, it's out of affection. A kind of nuance in someone's love language where time spent together is driven not by needing it otherwise you have nothing, but clinging onto someone because they've brought into your life a "stability" (in quotes cause nothing about Tom isn't volatile) that keeps you alive, and fuels a different kind of fire. Even if he can't prove he's the best to them, it doesn't really matter anymore, because he needs them out of seeking a type of unconditional love since being completely alone or isolated would just drive him batshit. While a state of self-identified independence juxtaposed against emotionally dependency was so hurtful to him in the past, it has shaped into something that ended up more positive; as a way of becoming infinitely bonded to those he cares about, giving them his all and fighting with all his heart to hold onto them.

if you made it this far. thanks for reading my brain worms ily smooch smooch /p <333

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. hopefully this art makes more sense now ;]

[sideprince]

I think this is one of those things where it makes a difference to how you understand a piece of literature to know about its author. It's hard for me to think about this question without context:

"I will also never get why JKR thinks James and Sirius are redeemable for this behavior even though we never get to see anything in canon to prove that James or Sirius ever truly acknowledged the depth of how wrong what they did was or regretted it, but somehow she gets all mad at people for suggesting that Draco, who did canonically regret his actions and change his ways and who never did anything like this, was somehow irredeemable."

Rowling outlined this story and developed the characters when she was trying to escape an abusive marriage. James Potter is incredibly similar to her abusive ex-husband, both in physical description and characterization. He's a charismatic man with a penchant for cruelty and controlling behavior. I think it can be difficult for people who have never been in an abusive relationship to understand the dynamics of one. Whether it's family you were born into or someone you're in a committed relationship with, feelings of love are intertwined with the abuse. You hate what they do to you but you still love them and make excuses for them as long as you still cling to that love more than you do to loving yourself. And when it comes to a relationship (ie. you choose the abusive partner, as opposed to being born into a family with an abuser), there's a reason, often subconscious, that someone has chosen a partner who must have dropped red flags along the way that all got ignored or pushed aside.

Rowling thinks James and Sirius are redeemable because if she could admit that they aren't, specifically because they haven't done anything to change as people and redeem themselves, then she would also have to confront the complex aspects of her own first marriage, including the ugliest, scariest parts of it. She leaves James' development as vague - he became a loving father who put his life between his family and Voldemort to give them a chance at escaping. We don't know how or why, because she doesn't either. This is her escapist fantasy; James exists primarily as the man on the pedestal Harry puts him on because Rowling needs him to be there.

The mask comes off in SWM, but Rowling tries to justify it. I'm not sure she realizes how brutal a scene she wrote, especially given that she went to school in England in the 80s, and this kind of bullying wasn't out of the ordinary (in terms of cruelty, obviously the magic is fictional). As a victim of abuse, her scale for what level of violence is frightening is very different than that of someone who's never experienced that, or even of someone, say, reading this text who'd gone to school in the 2000s or 2010s when bullying was far less brutal. She justifies James' and Sirius' cruelty the same way kids in school do when the bully is the hot quarterback and they want his approval and validation - except she's doing this as a grown woman and with fictional characters she has complete control over. That's... concerning.

She wrote this scene not realizing how cruel she makes James, and it's hard for me not to read it as her subconscious fighting to show her the truth about the man he's based on as her conscious mind deliberately ignores it. Harry's moral crisis in response is never followed through, it's kind of dropped after he talks to Sirius and Lupin about what he saw, and Harry's attitude towards Snape doesn't really soften between this moment and when he kills Dumbledore. It's a very weird moment in the story if you think about it in the context of Rowling being the writer, because it's like she almost gets it for a second, but then can't handle it. It's like she's taking a peek at her own wounds and then says, nope too gross, and puts the band aid back over it. She can't see the forest for the trees, because if she could, she wouldn't have married Jorge Arantes, and wouldn't have invented this whole story as a coping mechanism in the face of his abuse of her.

This is also why I'm skeptical of the people (some of whom I see in the comments, don't @ me, I have zero interest and will just block you on sight) who say that Snape deserved it because he said a slur. And sure, I could go into how James' cruelty and bullying happened mostly before Snape called Lily a Mudblood, or point out that it was clearly the first time it happened based on their argument in front of Gryffindor Tower that night. But actually what I think is important to point out here is that Snape in this scene is written as a boy who is abused at home, bullied at school, and socially isolated (no one's intervening on his behalf except Lily, not even Slytherins) in an environment where a cultic fascist leader is gathering a following, some of whom share Snape's dorm room. Rowling has given backstory on Snape that includes his father routinely whipping him with a belt. We see in this scene how easily and willingly James assaults him, implying - as OP so aptly pointed out - that this is routine, and not an incident that got out of hand. As many people who have written meta about this scene have pointed out, Snape regards it as his worst memory not because of the trauma of the bullying, but because it was the moment where he alienated Lily and lost her friendship (his regret of which propels his entire story arc).

In this moment when he calls Lily "Mudblood" he's absolutely primed for radicalization, and that's exactly what happens to him. That doesn't excuse his behavior and actions, but then his use of a verbal slur also doesn't excuse his being physically and sexually assaulted by his peers. For one, verbal abuse doesn't justify physical abuse. Period. That's not open for debate. For another, the consequences for verbal abuse should be determined by an established disciplinary body, be it a teacher or the headmaster, because when it's meted out by a group of his peers in the reactionary way we see in this scene, that's basically what a lynch mob is. That doesn't mean I'm comparing Snape's treatment in this scene to the victims of actual lynch mobs, but rather that I'm using a parallel - the same way that "Mudblood" is a parallel for a slur, not an actual slur, or how the Death Eaters are a parallel for racism and not actual nazis. Saying "he deserved it" is abuse enabling and supporting mob rule, which isn't justice, it just makes you feel good about your personal subjective feelings about a situation, and it's also what lets abusers get away with abuse. It's also not comparable to the idea of punching nazis, because, again, there are parallels here, not actual nazis.

It's also really hard for me to read this scene and know Rowling's thoughts about the characters still - that Snape is complex but ultimately she still dislikes him, that Draco went through all that character development that she herself wrote and yet doesn't acknowledge, and that James and Sirius are somehow magically redeemable without having to earn it - and not think about her own bigotry and how she uses her platform to bully and incite hate against trans people. I think she's genuinely unaware of how horrific this scene is to read, because she's shown time and again that her views on abuse and bullying are subjective in favor of whomever she decides she likes better and her inherent biases are glaring. She doesn't have a set moral compass, but rather one that's directed by her personal feelings - which are not reliable for the best of people, let alone someone who has clearly unprocessed abuse trauma.

I reached the Snape's Worst Memory chapter. Honestly I find this to be one of the hardest things to read in the whole series. The protracted, wanton cruelty is awful - and especially horrifying is the way most people in the scene look on and do nothing, or laugh.

The fact that Snape can never just relax on a nice day. He has to hide himself in the shadows for fear of being attacked and tormented is so sad.

We know what kind of person Wormtail grew up to be and we see here that he was always attracted to hanging around powerful, cruel people who could provide him with sadistic entertainment. He traded James & Sirius for Voldemort once he got out of school of course. But I think it says a lot about the kind of people they were at the time. This wasn't an isolated incident that went especially far, but a regular type of entertainment.

It's really just sick what happens here. They're basically magically waterboarding him at this point. James is exactly the kind of person Harry would have stood up to if they'd gone to school at the same time. I mean after this memory he is so shaken he falls into a depression and wonders if James and Lily ended up together because he forced himself on her.

And to be clear I actually like the narrative potential of Harry discovering that the father he looked up to so much actually was the type of person he despises. I wish a bit more had been done with this though.

The fact that James takes out his frustration with Lily's rejection by tormenting and humiliating Snape more says a lot about him. I also think it's really interesting Sirius is the one who says "[i]f you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals" but he never really connects that sentiment with how he and James treated Snape.

(As an aside I will also never get why JKR thinks James and Sirius are redeemable for this behavior even though we never get to see anything in canon to prove that James or Sirius ever truly acknowledged the depth of how wrong what they did was or regretted it, but somehow she gets all mad at people for suggesting that Draco, who did canonically regret his actions and change his ways and who never did anything like this, was somehow irredeemable.)

[edwardelricsrightarm]

"A lesson without pain is meaningless. For you cannot gain anything without sacrificing something else in return, but once you have overcome it and made it your own...you will gain an irreplaceable fullmetal heart." - Edward Elric

In honor of disability month and the FMA 20 year anniversary I wanted to address some Thoughts™️ about the series.

It's not often you see a disabled protagonist in media where their disability is integral to the story without taking up their entire character, even more so with anime. Yet, Fullmetal Alchemist has not just one disabled Protagonist, but two. The Elric Brothers are an exemplary representation of disability in media that I find myself reflecting on often as a disabled person myself. If you haven't completed the manga or Brotherhood, skip this as it will be brimming with spoilers.

(Mangahood will be my point of reference because while 03 is good on its own merits it's not as fresh within my immediate memory, and I am far less familiar with it. Keep this in mind, I've watched FMAB 10 and a half times whereas I've finished 03 only once years ago.)

The story highlights their disabilities immediately, Edward being a double amputee and Alphonse being without his ENTIRE body, only having the senses of proprioception, sight, and hearing left. Yet, despite this being key to the story and an integral part of their characterization, it is only one facet of their motivations and doesn't take center in the narrative, which is refreshing. It's not inherently negative to make a narrative centered on the characters' disabilities, but often this model of a story goes very wrong very fast and starts to feel hollow (no pun intended). FMA avoids this by making their disabilities a clear part of the plot and their motivations without allowing it to consume the entire story, so the Elric Brothers don't suffer the "my disability is all of my character" problem that many disabled characters are relegated to in a vast portion of media, all while being strong and competent.

Recap:

The brothers wished to revive their mother, but their good intentions cannot change the atrocity of their mistake, Truth makes this abundantly clear from the start. Edward loses his leg first, a punishment for "stepping" into God's shoes and transgressing the place of humans in their world. Alphonse loses his entire body, unable to feel any warmth or simple comforts like food and rest, when all he wanted was to feel the warmth and comfort of his mother's embrace again. At first, Alphonse's entire being is consumed by the gate, but Edward acts immediately, refusing to lose his little brother and refusing to allow his arrogance in this plan to cause his brother's death for only following his lead. Edward gives his right arm to have the gate give back Alphonse's soul, and stated clearly in his panic that he'd give his entire self to save Alphonse if that's what it would take, but Truth took his dominant arm only, showing something akin to mercy, although the character of Truth is capriciously strict and hard to describe as "merciful".

Through giving up his right arm, Edward regains his Right Hand Man, his little brother and best friend. His only remaining family, who he feels responsible for protecting in the absence of their parents. He felt immediately that he'd made a grave mistake, instantly full of regret as he realized the gate had taken his brother. In that moment he was willing to give anything to take it back and undo the suffering his arrogance caused his brother, yet Alphonse was still to suffer more to come. Ed tied Alphonse's disembodied soul to one of Hohenheim's collected suits of armor, managing to at least keep his brother alive in some way. One could say that Alphonse's punishment functioned as a secondary punishment for Edward, showing him how easily his hubris could have cost him what he has left in his obsession with regaining what they'd lost, their mother. A very clear symbolic reminder of the weight of his actions and how he'd misled his brother in his own naive ignorance. Even in giving another limb away to drag his brother's soul back out of the gate, he couldn't offer enough to bring him back intact. Thus is the law of equivalent exchange.

Now that we've reviewed some of that basic symbolism and the motifs the story draws upon with limbs and body parts in relation to characters, let's move on to each individual brother and break it down, shall we?

Edward Elric is a very realistic protagonist, this is one thing a majority of us familiar with this series can agree upon. He feels like a believable teen boy, with layers of complexity to his character while also showing arrogance and immaturity that is unsurprising at his age. He expresses unwillingness to kill and avoidance of unjust violence from the beginning, and has a strong moral code after the ordeal of committing the taboo.

In some characters his cocky personality would typically become grating, yet the story explains in itself why he is this way, then builds upon this to develop him into an incredibly mature character who is willing to admit when he's absolutely wrong and adapts to new information and context for the crisis unfolding around him as it comes, even if he remains crass. This arrogance is shown from the start to be a manifestation of insecurity, self loathing, and repressed guilt. Edward is a logic driven person, he has a very unique thought process, which is where my interpretation of him as autistic comes in. Edward's awkward social demeanor, somewhat abrasive and cold approach to some, and his trouble coping with nonsensical societal structures all stand out in this way. Furthermore he clearly shows hyperfixation, hyperactivity, special interest, and infodumping behaviors that are all too familiar. He's picky with food (*cough* the milk thing), has very little filter and speaks his mind bluntly even if this can warrant conflicting responses, yet at the same time struggles with vulnerable emotions, and he is frustrated when his own routine or itinerary are interrupted by forces beyond his control. All of these things Scream autism with comorbid ADHD. Many traits are shared between the brothers, and I'm quite certain they're both on the autism spectrum based on behavioral patterns. Neurodivergence aside, Edward's physical disabilities are undeniable.

Despite his bratty persona, Edward is fundamentally kind and uncharacteristically gentle and soft around the edges for a shonen protagonist in many ways. He cries openly on many occasions even if he struggles talking about his trauma and burdens in words at times, he feels pain, grief, and compassion so intensely it throws him into action on a regular basis in the narrative. In this way he's also a fantastic example of non-toxic masculinity (though in other ways he has displayed more toxic traits, he's just a kid). He acts on his heart, even if he's led by his mind and logic in most things. His humanity, value for life, and care for others will always win over his logic, and he shows a sense of personal responsibility for doing the right thing even if it harms him in the process. Ed is clearly shown having ghost pains in his lost limbs which is honestly an interesting detail to include, I don't think I've ever seen that aspect of amputation shown in media aside from FMA. It's also shown that when Ed's automail arm breaks this is a HUGE problem for him, but he's also shown to be very good at working around this in difficult circumstances. He doesn't become completely helpless, even if majorly weakened.

Alphonse is an extremely lovable and compassionate boy, brimming with altruism and care for others. Even in his noncorporeal state he pursues a better future and he's not helpless by any stretch. Edward clearly states Alphonse is the superior fighter for example, and it's not just because of his armor body being so large. He's *talented*, that's a fact. Al is every bit as clever and capable as Ed, moreso in some ways, and I love that about his character *because* he's so clearly disabled. He has no sense of pain, he is completely incapable of sleeping, he can't eat, can't relax or find comfort, he can only exist and think. This causes him to overthink in all his time alone, this is debilitating. He clearly is absolutely sick of the loneliness this causes, and he often feels helpless though he's not. He has doubts and fears that consume him in relation to his armor body, he questions his own personhood, even. Yet, Edward is stubborn and staunch in affirming that no matter what he's dealing with, he is fundamentally still a human being that is loved and irreplaceable. Alphonse is powerful and his body gives him some advantages, but it also sets him back, and the brothers know this even when others claim Alphonse's state is somehow a good thing. I have hEDS, a disability that comes with advantages as well as the major downsides, so I can understand and relate to Alphonse here. I too am told my disability is a boon because of flexibility and because I'm less likely to fracture bones, but I'm twice as likely to injure my ligaments and joints, which people ignore.

The brothers are both disabled, both flawed, both show weaknesses, but they are competent, determined, and strong in their own right. They are rounded characters that exist for more than to be pitied or condescended to by able bodied characters around them. They put their entire being in everything that they do no matter what that is, and they don't know the meaning of giving up. These traits that they're made of truly make them a shining example of disability in protagonists for others to look to for reference when writing their own disabled characters.

Even though by the end Edward has regained one limb and Al has regained his body, this also doesn't just deus ex machina reverse their disability or make it go away. It's clear that Alphonse's body is weak and has to be rehabilitated upon recovery, and Edward is still missing his leg and bears the scars and pieces of the port from his automail arm. They weren't suddenly made able bodied upon recovering these things, they reclaimed what was lost through struggle and grit, but the narrative didn't give the impression that their disability in itself was something to be fixed, which is important. They wanted to recover their bodies, but this doesn't erase the effects of their disability.

It was about Edward atoning for leading Alphonse into their mistake and saving his brother from suffering further, it was about them proving they can keep moving forward no matter what, not about getting rid of their disability in itself or putting themselves down because of the disabilities. This, to me, as a mentally and physically disabled viewer, is so important. They achieve their goal, but this doesn't in any way erase or undo the effects of their initial losses, they find ways to adapt and move on but they're still affected and still disabled. They always will be. That can be so important to see in comfort characters, and as a disabled individual who's had both brothers as comfort characters since I was a child, their impact on my own journey is surprisingly tangible for fiction.

[fanficwritersinterviewed]

ITWW, antheiasilva

<<This post is a part of a longer conversation about fanfic writers, how they view fanfic, and their writing process. All views are the fanfic writers’ own, and whatever fanfic they choose to write is entirely their own decision. No judgment value will be placed on fic content. These conversations are meant to provide insight for other fanfic writers in whatever stage they are at in their writing life>>

In the Weeds Wednesday (with antheiasilva, @antheiasilva​)

What’s your writing schedule like? Fits and spurts, when I can. There's no schedule, it happens when I'm up for it and have time.

When it comes to writing, what are some things that challenge you, and how are you working through it? Dialogue comes easiest to me, and blocking out a scene, but the environment and background, exposition, that stuff is harder for me. So now I write in layers. I go with what's coming to me - usually dialogue - and fill in what I have, and then add more afterwards. Like printing in different layers of colour. I sometimes get frustrated with fics sounding too much the same - and for that I have to set the tone of a specific fic by reading earlier chapters- and having a wonderful beta read through things to check that it matches. Hint hint…

Haha! Yes, that’s true, you DO have a remarkably cool beta [reader: on occasion, it’s me]. Could you talk for a bit about beta readers, what you look for, how they support you/your work? It does depend a bit on the fic. Sometimes I just want an enthusiastic screamer or someone to read it over to see if there's anything glaringly off or awkward. Other times, I do want someone to push me a bit–whether it's on prose and style, or depth or type of characterization. I do want things to feel in character, even in the most outrageous premises. And sometimes what I want to happen bumps up against the character and I want my beta to be able to tell me that. I've found betas mostly through vibing online about similar stuff. I always try to work with writers I admire. I want to learn from my betas and talk about craft with them.

What’s the hardest thing you've ever attempted with a fic, and why was it difficult? I think the hardest thing was the structure and style with “After the War.” The different reveals that involved flashbacks were more complex than the single progressive timeline that happens in most of my fics. I had to know what happened but hold things back so we could see Obi-Wan figuring things out as his memory returned. And shifting from the minimalistic style to a more fleshed out style as Obi-Wan woke up and healed, while keeping the same tone - that was really hard.

But beautifully done, and effective. Where does reading fanfic fit into your process? I am always blown away by the level of writing in my fandom (Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan, but also Star Wars prequel and Clone Wars). I do admire eloquence and precision, as well as a fully realized world - little details that bring the fic to life. I want to experience fic like I'm stepping onto a holodeck from Star Trek. I want fic to make me feel things. I often pick what I'm reading based on what I am experiencing or want to experience. And that definitely influences how I write.

Show don't tell is something that I struggle with, so I do enjoy it, but I am sometimes frustrated by it and long for more interiority. I do want a balance of that. Because show don't tell is often held up as the gold standard but it is one style. It's not everything and it has its own history and lineage and politics.

Oh absolutely, I feel that. I feel like all writing advice, show don't tell included, should be taken as trying to find a balance in how you write. Not as the one and only truth and answer and way. Exactly.

So, after saying that, lololol... What advice have you heard/gotten that has had a meaningful impact on the way you write or your relationship with your writing? One that I say to myself is "the best chapter is a done chapter" - which is to say, sometimes you just need to finish and post and move on because you could be endlessly editing.

Do you kill your darlings? I do kill them when they are redundant. Or when they scatter focus or get a scene away from itself. I try to remember that words are a renewable resource- I can always make more, there will be more. I don't need to cling to little phrases or even passages as if I won't ever have something like that again. Listening to audiobooks really helped me with this one. I love “Wild Space” by Karen Miller, but she does a triplicate descriptor sentence structure thing ALL the time. And it just annoyed the crap out of me after a while listening to it. I don't need the same action described in three different ways in apposition. Pick one.

Oh man. well. I've been called out, haha! I mean, I do it too! Everyone does. But not constantly and for mundane actions. It showed me, though, that I should probably read my stuff out loud to myself more for editing. I do do that sometimes and realize I've used "still" like four times in a paragraph.

That’s a great one I always think I’ll do and then… don’t. Lolol! Okay, say something nice about your own writing. Hmm..... I think I'm good at using language to depict and evoke feelings. My characters have depth and emotional realism. Sometimes my prose can be awfully pretty. And I think my stories can really hit readers in the feels, so to speak.

So, tell me. Why do you write fanfiction? Because I love it. I love the characters, I love the world, I love the millions of different scenarios. I don't get bored with these characters. I want to see them over and over and over again. I want to get to know them and their motivations and their history. I want to see them through different eyes, as I change and as I experience them in new ways through other people's writing.

It's personal healing and development - because it's expressive, and I get to work through things - as we talked about earlier - and make sense of myself as I make sense of the characters. It's fun. It's so fun. It's an adventure in your brain. I have aphantasia, so I can't just imagine and watch scenarios in my head - I have to depict them, build them, touch them. Fic is the way to do that.

Also, my readers are pretty awesome. And there is this magical feeling of posting a chapter being like giving a present. But it's a present to myself too. There's just a lot of joy to be had and circulated. And I think that's pretty radical stuff these days.

[protectchara201x]

(ignoring all the other juicy Deltarune 2 stuff to shove Chara Talks into it lololol)

I haven’t been super active on this blog because frankly I have like, three? looong analysis/theorycrafting posts I’ve been putting off working on and it fills me with shame to log in and see them waiting in my drafts.

But.

With the release of Deltarune Chapter 2, I wanted to talk kinda in general about how I thought it could impact the fandom’s perception of Everybody’s Favorite Demon Baby, and also point out something in specific about the Weird Route that might connect back to Undertale.

Putting it under the cut to avoid spoilers and long-winded ramblings for the unwilling. Includes spoilers for the Weird Route.

(NOTE: may update later if I notice more things for to put in section II. I’d like to make a full list of parallels if I can tidy them up.)

I. Pre- vs Post-Release Thoughts (you can skip down to II if you don’t care, it is genuinely Long and Pointless)

Okay, so first off. I got SO worried like, the day before the new chapter dropped? It hit me that whatever new stuff we got out of this, people would connect back to Undertale, and. Honestly, I really do hate connecting everything back to Chara, because I do think of Kris as their own character and I really like them and don’t want to ignore everything they got going on. But, I am first and foremost a shameless Chara stan and they’re very important to me, so I kinda... did spend a few minutes reeling from all the new DR stuff as its own stuff, and then immediately started thinking about how this would reflect back on Chara in Undertale lol.

But that’s ok for me to do here because this is my All Chara, Only Chara, All The Time blog, so I am gonna only really talk about Deltarune here to talk about them lol.

So yeah, I started getting anxious beforehand worrying about how everyone would take any and all implications and apply it to mean “aha, Chara IS evil!” The fakeout with the pie reveal in the anniversary stream was a big relief, but I still got worried leading up to the release about what could be in it.

Because part of why I’ve always thought that “Chara was genuinely evil from the start” and even “ok maybe not TOTALLY evil, but Chara was still a kinda bad person” were unlikely was, even if you throw out all the other popular Chara-sympathetic theories. To me, both these takes just seemed too below TF’s talent and the way he wrote all his other characters with depth and love; a Chara like the one these theories propose just doesn’t belong in a world created by TF, and the way the Dreemurrs talk about them overall, the way TF made a point of having Chara say they were guided and repeatedly, correctly blame you the player for the destruction in Kill-All, I was sure that he never intended them to ever be as bad as the fandom sometimes tried to make them out to be.

... Like, mostly sure. Like, 80% sure? Because he never ever talks about them, so it’s impossible say for sure, and it is still theoretically possible that “Chara was and is bad” was the cold-ass take he’d intended all along. So yeah, leading up to the release, I started getting antsy that whatever new lore came out of it, either he’d directly confirm “Chara was a villain?” “*cocks gun* Always has been” or there’d be something that’d at least heavily implicate them, or could be twisted to implicate them, as a negative force. More ammo to be used against them in the Chara Debate Circles would be a drag, and outright confirmation of them as a villain would honestly break my heart and I’d be forced to disown Toby Fox, My Beloved Cool Dad.

And, right now? Tell the truth, I’m SO relieved and I am SO happy. And not just because of how much depth and characterization it seems Kris is getting! (imo, because rn I just headcanon them as an unhappy teen desperately trying to keep their new friends going on adventures with them and trying to fight back against the player’s control)

I love how this chapter seems to be TF doing course-correcting based on fandom interpretations. Because Kris just isn’t evil, even if they are a knife teen, even if they are the Knight, they’re just NOT evil and that’s canon, baybeeee; it’s made clear in this chapter and the previous one that they love their family even outside of the player’s control, they care about their new friends even outside of the player’s control, they’re established as a weird creepy kid but no one sees them as scary or evil, they’re just Kris, and even in the Weird Route, TF made a point of hammering in the differences between Kris and the player in the Weird Route: Susie and Ralsei notice how distressed Kris seemed after you have Noelle ice Berdly, Noelle heard a voice that she said wasn’t Kris telling her to kill, and the FUCKING Spamton fight: “Kris called for help... but nobody came” again and again, and then “You whispered Noelle’s name”... you, not Kris.

I know TF has never commented much on fans’ perceptions of Frisk and Chara, or who exactly is pulling strings in different routes. But after all this, and especially after seeing all the little winks and nods to fandom jokes in this chapter (what comes to mind: pulling everyone’s leg by seeming to have Kris attack Toriel with a knife only to reveal that pie theory was right, Susie not liking Ralsei’s real face as much as his shadowed one, Ralsei with a gun getting referenced with the ad, Kris getting a joke fixation with knives after the fans made Chara and Kris have knife obsessions as a joke), and seeing what looks like him try to correct some things (what stuck out to me was doubling down on showing that Kris is loved and valued in their family: lots of fans came away from Chapter 1 thinking that Kris was not valued as much as Asriel, but here we see that Toriel is supportive of Kris’ friendship with Susie, and it’s stated that Asriel is the one who used the crappy controller, not Kris) -

I think while he hasn’t commented directly, while he admitted to being overwhelmed by Undertale’s success, while he tends to be pretty tight-lipped about the lore (whether that’s because it’ll be addressed by future chapters or because he prefers to let fans sleuth it out), this chapter convinced me that Toby does keep tabs on fan reactions in Deltarune, so he probably does with Undertale too and would know about all The Discourse surrounding Little Mx Pink Cheeks (and in turn, popular theories like Narrator Chara... Toby if you integrate Narrator Chara into Deltarune being a borderline creepypasta and have the narrator start talking directly to the characters or to the player or the characters start talking to the narrator I will lose my damn B E A N S).

(Kris and Chara not being demonized and the narrator interacting directly with the characters were the only two things on my wishlist going in, I was fine with literally anything else happening lmao)

I even kinda think he’s going out of his way to separate Kris and the player because we didn’t get it before with Undertale, we still insisted that Frisk or Chara was the one doing it, and he’s even using Kris to show that even if this kid can be scary, maybe even mean, and maybe they’re even the Knight (with their reasons unknown), they’re still not a bad kid, they’re still funny and likable, and they still genuinely love their family and friends - which falls in line with Undertale’s cast of complex but likable people who can be antagonists and make mistakes but still aren’t truly bad people, and imo is a direct response to some people fixating on the idea that Chara was always evil because they seem scary/complicated.

... Which is a long way to say that I came out of Deltarune with my confidence fully restored about TF’s intentions with Chara and Kris. Even if he never comments on Chara directly, now I really don’t think TF thinks they’re evil or ever intended for them to be. Deltarune convinced me more than ever that Chara is meant to be complex, yes, and able to be influenced to do horrible things, but they were never intended to be as malicious or shallow as some fans insist.

TLDR:

Toby Fox read your mean fanfiction where Chara is a bad abusive serial killer no one likes, and he made Deltarune in revenge.

... Hm? Ah, you’d like me to get to the point! Right this way!

II. Undertale, Deltarune, and The Point

While no doubt some will still take the voice Noelle hears to be Chara influencing her to turn her into a murderer (I haven’t gone looking for it yet, but I’m sure it’s already a thing because I know this fandom), since it’s made too clear by the game that they can’t blame Kris for this one, I think at this point that’s just being too stubborn to consider other ideas.

If you believe in the totally made up idea used in so many fanfics that Chara is an evil spirit trying to whisper in Frisk’s ear to kill everyone, literally (for some reason) the embodiment of raising stats, and gets more control over people who have increased LV to take over their body... sure. Could be them, they did talk about moving on to the next world and all. I mean, that wouldn’t really make sense because it’s literally never implied in the actual game that Chara encourages you to kill outside of the Kill-All Run or even wants you to, certainly not as the narrator and we get no hint of them doing this as an unseen, unheard third-party either.

Not to mention they’re NOT literally possessing you because of increased LV; they don’t control you even with high LV in any Undertale route other than arguably the Kill-All, and if you fail the Kill-All and it turns into a high-body count Neutral, Chara suddenly stops using first-person narration and showing up in mirrors entirely even though they were showing themself before, the LV remains the same or even can get raised as high as LV 19, nor do they suddenly take over in any other Neutral runs. We can speculate on why (personally, I’d place this either on Chara’s mindset, such as them sinking into shock from the trauma or becoming more assertive as the player feeds their megalomania, or as a sign of Frisk’s withdrawal, leaving Chara alone in the body to take the reins and act out the player’s orders), but canonically, no, Chara does not take over due to high stats.

In fact, there’s even more evidence against this. First-person narration also exists for fleeing your battles in Undertale, even on Pacifist runs with base stats, 0 EXP, and an LV of 1. Since Chara is established to use first-person narration to refer to themself, is the only one who canonically does so, and is confirmed to be present even in all runs through their name and memories always showing up, it seems pretty likely that Chara can take control to flee battle. That means an increase in stats is not a sign of their presence or control, in Undertale or Deltarune.

The most damning blow to the idea that Chara is the voice corrupting Noelle are the lines in the fight with Spamton I mentioned. Kris called for help, but nobody came. You whispered Noelle’s name. Well hold on. If that’s Chara, shouldn’t it be “I whispered Noelle’s name”? As soon as you’ve officially started the Kill-All in Undertale, Chara starts up their “It’s me, Chara” schtick right away, right there in Toriel’s home in the first area, and if they weren’t the narrator before, they’re beginning to speak through the narration now. If the voice was Chara, surely Toby Fox knows it’d be a way bigger “oh shit” moment if the creepy scary hidden route once again switched into first-person, scaring us the same way he did before when we first saw “It’s me, Chara” and knew something was wrong; unfairly or not, their reputation as a villain is still well established and hinting to Chara’s presence with a simple “I” would drive the menace even further, if he intended for them to simply be a demon that possesses player characters when you grind enough. But it’s still just you. The player.

The Weird Route does even more to help Chara’s case than that. Not only is it made pretty clear that Kris and the player are separate, and the player is the one responsible for corrupting Noelle and making her kill... consider how similar Noelle and Chara are, in the Weird Route and the Kill-All Route.

This “voice” that “guides” them in growing strong, compelling them to kill everyone in order to fight for them, eventually driving them to murder people they know. Chara calls themself “the demon that comes when people call its name”, and you whisper Noelle’s name to have her appear to kill Spamton. Noelle’s conflicting emotions towards Kris and the voice as she is manipulated, as she becomes more violent and sadistic, as she goes into shock; does that not sound like Chara, who flipflops between holding you dear as their partner and wanting to move on to the next world together, to be together forever, and them being disgusted by your refusal to accept consequences and the perverse enjoyment you get in killing everyone again and again? Chara, who clings to their quirky narration for much of the Kill-All, but keeps slipping up, who becomes terrifyingly cold, aggressive, power-hungry, and even sadistic, yet still calls Undyne “the heroine”, still seems to still care about their locket, still has moments where they seem to falter?

Noelle does put up significantly more resistance to the voice’s commands than Chara does, and at least much more visibly shows distress and trauma. I don’t think this is a black mark on Chara’s chara-cter either, or an indication of them being more violent or cruel.

For one, while Noelle is still herself with her own soul, it is heavily implied by Chara, Flowey, and Undertale’s lore that Chara was reincarnated without their own soul, at best perhaps attached to Frisk’s (or yours): as I speculate in one of my currently unfinished theories, while monster souls are made up of love, compassion, and hope and thus Asriel was reincarnated without these qualities, it could well be that human souls are correspondingly made up of their own multiple traits, namely determination, patience, bravery, integrity, perseverance, kindness, and justice; if true, a soulless Chara would be lacking these qualities, which would make them less equipped to resist the player’s commands or to feel as torn up about it.

Also, the player has a hold on them both as “party members” to the player’s vessels, but it is also possible that the player naming Chara and having them directly attached to Frisk also gives them a stronger connection to Chara they can abuse, similar to how Kris and Frisk (as the player’s direct vessels) have much less autonomy than Kris’ party members.

(Fun observation: We know that when the thing controlling Kris forced Noelle into becoming a killer and using her to kill Berdly, Kris was horrified and shaken-up according to Susie and Ralsei. How do you think Frisk felt watching Chara be used to slaughter the Underground and then erasing the world when they’re totally corrupted?)

And lastly... look, Noelle and Chara are both minors, but Chara is significantly younger - a small child compared to Noelle’s teen. I know it’s fiction and strong wills and determination and anime is real and all, but a traumatized young child who died two violent and awful deaths back-to-back, may have literally experienced being a corpse in their own coffin/grave for who knows how long, and then came back ”confused” only to immediately start hearing a voice relentlessly commanding them to kill everyone?? I can absolutely see a traumatized kid shutting down and just going with it out of fear at first, before the LV sets in.

TLDR:

What you do to Noelle in the Weird Route is the same fucking thing you do to Chara in the Kill-All Route.

[please-someone-give-me-love]

I think you are literally misunderstanding every single point I said about it, I never said I hate Nika or that I was hating on heer character especifically or her shipp with Damian, I never refered explicitly to Nika herself that she was bad or something like that, I talked merely about HER WRITTER, I love Damian but yet I can accept when someone has a shitty writing at moments and runs like the whole TT rebirth fiasco, whatever the fuck Mark Waid did for the character, Zdarsky characterization, etc. This is the thing Nika's stans missed about it, being self aware when a writer does a shitty writing involving her and the plot itself, like I said, loving a character does not equal loving every single writing they worked on, your answer doesn't look like aknowledgiing the writers fails but trying to justify it, it seems you are the fan of the writers more than the character itself, because then if you were fan of the character, you better than anyone should know when they are missing the writing.

I never said she wasn't a complex or interesting character, I talked about the lack of consequences and how much Williamnson failed to make the plot barely interesting because that and how stans tried to justify their bad written with "Oh you only think it's bad because you didn't expect he would reacted that way" but he truth is, there are genuily reasons why I think it was bad written and I am not even denying the potential behind it, actually, that was the most annoying part of everything.

I am asking to create and developed appropiately the plots he made, not just brush it out and pretend that nothing happened, I am literally asking for the bare minimun because I recognized the potential of the situations and how easte it got because the writer didn't even try to do something interesting more than full filling the shipp.

The other thing that annoys me is the way you tried to implied I am mischaractered Damian, when I am actually defending his characterization and Nika's characterization, I never implied their shipp/relationship wasn't good or that it was bad, I am defending them, I am asking for a better narrative that doesn't need to sacrifice both of their charactera just to complete the shipp.

This is the thing with y'all, don't accept the criticism for the bad writing the author gets, even in the same post I talked with another person in which we both analyze the mistakes Joshua has been making in their writing, with stuff that proved certain points we made emphasis.

Also, it's not nitpicking when those scences in specific generally affected both of their characters, don't you think it's boring the narrative Joshua is always trying to create with Nika? Don't you think he made Damian act in a certain way only to fit to his shipp? Those details are important because those details are part of the bases of Damian's character or are forming the base of Nika's character but those details are also important because all the fuckingg LDM plot was literally wasted, tossed into the trash with boring ass development and a bad written conclusion, "she was about to say sorry but Damian interrupted" and that's the problem, that's the OC part, Damian should let her say sorry, Williamson should let her have development, show more vulnerability, add more layers to her, make her face her mistakes and apologize, Damian shouks aknowledge that, think about it and FORGIVE HER, not just directly jump into forgiveness without any reflexion because Damian is compassive but he also aknowledge people's mistakes, it's a core part of the character.

I don't understand people trying to justify bad writing just because it's their favorite character, I love Damian and yet I can recognize when he is been bad written, I don't have to defend the mediocrity of an author just because I liked it.

Someone tried to justify the bad decision of making Nika having thia dynamic of "I betrayed you but not really" or "I betrayed but there are no consequences" saying that is alright because Damian is forgive people and is compassive and trying to compare the situation qith Suren but there is a difference between forgiving and being compassive like he was with Suren than basically ignoring the whole "I took you heart without your knowledge and gave it to a villian that later put you on a tramp" and swept it under the rug.

It was bad written, even Damian being compassive, there wasn't any actual plot that needed Nika betraying him, there wasn't any actual explanation or any plot device from it or even maybe a couple of doubts from Damian before, being compassive is not equal to be trustful.

Let's not justify this shitty writing just because you like her character. Let's just say ut was bad writing that keep coming because they obviousky trying to push a dynamic there.

[flickeringart]

Further exploration...

I used this chart when going over the implications of the inner planetary placements (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus and Mars) and their aspects. You can find the post here.

I thought I’d move spontaneously with my own train of thought as it applies to this chart in order to explore it a bit more.

This person is pleasant but private. She’s definitely guarded, as would be expected with Pluto in the 1st, not in a way Saturnian way of being walled off, but in an observant and quiet way of attempting to assess the situation. She would appear to be tolerant and open minded, albeit careful with how she expresses herself, what she reveals and how other people respond (Pluto square Venus). There’s definite optimism but with reserve and caution. Her chart ruler, Jupiter, is in the 8th house of the subconscious and intimate relationships. It would seem as if she’s in for some fated discoveries and adventures, a search for meaning through the depths of the human psyche. It would be safe to assume that wisdom is to be derived from confrontations with the unknown and deeper dimensions of the human existence. In a sense, both the Pluto in the 1st  in Sagittarius and Jupiter in Virgo in the 8th points to a brave explorer that is destined to benefit from getting familiar with the best and the worst of human nature. Her confidence and expansion won’t come through anything superficial, bravery is required to remain curious when faced with the intensity of life. As it happens, Jupiter squares Pluto, which not only indicates a link between the principals of unconscious forces and expansion, but a tense link at that. The survival complex might drive her to jump at every opportunity to be more, learn more and see more of what is hidden from view. “What if I don’t become everything I could be?” is the paranoia of this kind of dynamic. This aspect stimulates action, a pressing need to uncover the truth, to soar higher through diving deeper. There might be great fear fueling the drive to make things happen, causing overextension and inflation. A Sagittarius Ascendant always meets life with boldness and optimism for better or for worse. One can’t miss an opportunity to see what lies beyond the horizon, or in this case, beyond the surface layers of reality!

The Sun, representative of the center of the personality, is inconjunct Jupiter and sextile Pluto, which further confirm the theme of expansion and inner subconscious forces in this person’s life. Sun sextile Pluto implies that there are resources of strength that can be used if necessary. She is probably aware of the power she can wield in terms of resilience, focus and dedication. There’s perseverance and stamina to the personality, without it being compulsive. Sun inconjunct Jupiter is a more ambivalent dynamic. Sometimes, the optimism and general faith seem to be present, at other times she might feel the need to reconsider her perspective and ideas in order to get back on track. Nuance should be considered before setting out on quests and careful deliberation is called for. This is especially true since Jupiter is in Virgo, the analytical earth sign. Modesty, moderation and detailed organization are likely to be skills that bring rewards. It’s not wise to overdo anything and to blindly go for things though– in the case of the inconjunct aspect, things could work out sometimes and sometimes not, which is why discernment is called for. The Sun is in Aquarius, which means that this person is civil and respectful in her personality but also very attached to her own intellectual autonomy and freedom. Aquarians are always friendly and interested in others but never at the expense of their own vision. Aquarius is a fixed sign and won’t except that other people have a sounder mind than they have. Beyond a certain point there’s no room for compromise or deliberation – they like to keep their personal universe intact – even if it’s completely different from everyone else’s. In order for the personality to work well with the abundance of Jupiter in Virgo, she should attempt to be a little more flexible and open to questioning her own fixed mental stance on certain topics. It’s possible to remain in integrity while adjusting certain perceptions and reap the rewards that exploration brings.

Continuing on with the Sun, it forms a conjunction with Neptune, which means that the personality goes hand in hand with the archetypal redeemer, sacrificial victim and artist. There’s softness to this person, passivity and an air of otherworldliness perhaps. In more negative terms, the person might have a personality that exhibits the “holier than thou” attitude. This person can be whatever she likes to be because the identity is not very defined. Yet, she definitely lives in the real world and is keen on materializing the dream, to find herself through her capacity to be potent in the real world (Sun in the 2nd house). The famous painter Frida Kahlo had Sun conjunct Neptune, albeit in Cancer in the 11th house, which indicates a more sensitive and feeling based personality that expressed though art – in the sphere of the collective matters, ideas and change. In the case of this person and this chart, there’s also awareness and emphasis on collective movement and how it affects identity, seeing as the conjunction sits in Aquarius. Self-actualization and individual purpose won’t be found in the sphere of the collective however, it will be found through developing personal control and potency in the real world of material possessions. It’s likely that the person is unaware that the sense of self is tied up with the Neptunian ideal of redemption – conjunct planets usually let us assume that everyone else is the same way – perfectly imperfect, abstract and fluid. Neptune is not very comfortable in the 2nd, being a transcendent principle in a primordial sphere of life. There’s a big risk that when money or possessions are lost that the identity follows down the drain – and painful disillusionment and disappointment instills. Uranus, the Sun ruler, is in Pisces, with further confirms the theme of universal love and collective identity tied to potency in the physical world.

As far as career and work goes, there are a couple of pieces that conspire to make up a certain picture. The ruler of the 10th house of career is Libra, although containing a good bit of Scorpio as well. Venus, the ruler of Libra is in Pisces in the 3rd house of communication, Neptune, the ruler of Pisces conjuncts the Sun in the 2nd. The ruler of the 6th house of work and employment is Gemini, with the ruler Mercury in Capricorn in the 2nd house. Without following the trail any further it’s obvious that there’s a theme of aestheticism and refinement (Libra and Venus) tied up with the redemptive artistic dream (Neptune and Pisces). There’s also interaction, communication and intellectual creativity (Gemini) tied up with material assets (Mercury in the 2nd). Not to mention, Mercury sextiles Venus - a definite indicator of someone who has great writing and communicative skills. There’s a big chance that anything from artistry, writing, sharing, interacting and helping people could be in the cards for this person. As noted, Libra might be the ruler of the 10th but Scorpio also has a presence in the sphere of career matters. In fact, Venus, the ruler of Libra squares Pluto, the ruler of Scorpio. The Venus principle of beauty, love and sophistication makes a tense connection to Pluto, the primitive force, destroyer and transformer. This person might go through power struggles in love and relationships, attempting to control how one is perceived, using subtle dominance tactics to enforce a certain impression. Sociability and charm characterizes the public image as well as privacy, secrecy and guardedness.

Let’s look at relationships, needs and emotions a little bit closer. There are a few things worth exploring, Venus (the sense of beauty and harmony), the 7th house of other people and partnerships, the 8th house of intimacy, death and transformation and the Moon (emotional and physical needs). Since Venus has been touched upon already, let’s look to the 7th house. Gemini is the ruler but Cancer takes up a lot of space as well. The person would seek mental stimulation and interaction through other people, learning and exchange of information. The 7th house is the sphere of life in which the person has to adjust, seek equilibrium and cooperation through the signs occupying the house. Gemini is good at seeing both sides, adapting and playing parts for the fun of it. Cancer is good at sensing the atmosphere and avoiding direct confrontation in order to create safety. The person might encounter struggle and work when tapping into the emotional requirements of being in a relationship, seeing as Saturn is placed here. It would take deliberate striving and concentration in order to achieve some kind of emotional well-being. Since planets in the 7th are easily projected, the person might think other people are walled off, rigid and defensive of vulnerability when in fact it’s a reflection of oneself. The person might have difficulty relating to others on an emotional – physical level, admitting to her instinctual needs and allowing herself to be nurtured and cared for. The Moon, the ruler of Cancer is in Leo in the 8th, quite hidden and brooding underneath the conscious surface. A Leo Moon wants to shine, to be seen and appreciated, but in this case, it lives this out in secret, behind closed doors and through intimate bonds. It’s a powerful Moon, trining both Mars (the personal aggressive drive) and Pluto (the inner emotional forces). Emotionally, this person would be quite demanding, insisting on getting her way. Interestingly, the Moon is also part of a yod figuration, being at the mercy of Venus and Mercury trying to modify and adjust the emotional nature through reason and values. The person might be prone to rationalize and idealize emotion, or try to adjust emotional needs to fit intellectual preferences. There’s a slight polarization of the rational mind - personal preferences and emotional needs. Needless to say this could prove somewhat challenging in relationships. In addition to these aspects, the Moon finds itself in opposition to the Sun (personal identity and purpose) and Uranus (mental convictions and progressive outlooks). In other words the feminine mother archetype is pitted against the masculine father archetype in her life.

The opposition of the Moon and the Sun is usually and indicator that there’s a tendency to disown either one’s instinctual-emotional side or the purposeful conscious direction of one’s life. Some would say that the personal father probably couldn’t relate to the personal mother and vice versa, that they lived complementary lives rather than living a shared experience. The fiery, passionate Moon certainly collides with the more intellectual-rational and “spiritual” Sun conjunct Neptune in Aquarius along with Uranus and Venus in Pisces as well as Mercury in Capricorn. People who have their Moon in opposition to the Sun will seem to have contradictory forces going on, with a Libra-Aries opposition for example, there’s a sociable sympathetic airy personality that fronts in a certain circumstance, and at another time and place that very someone is reckless and impulsive, acting completely “out of character”. A swing of the pendulum has occurred and the Aries Moon has come out, fierce and uncompromising as a striking contrast to the diplomatic and smooth Libra Sun. In the case of this person the dynamic would be similar, the Aquarius Sun would be aloof and quite determined and fixed in conceptual freedom, tolerant, intellectual and open-minded. The contrasting Leo Moon would be bursting with creative energy, wanting to be admired and noticed for its talents and expression. The objective quirk in contrast to the inspired creative can’t exist in the same space and must take turns showing up in life. Because Aquarius and Leo are opposite signs, there’s always going to be ambivalence and insecurity present, the person doesn’t quite know how to integrate the two principals, which is understandable.

It’s likely that the person felt torn between the mother and the father growing up, having to alternate between the two.

Let’s take a closer look at father signifiers in the chart. Let’s look at the 4th house (assuming that the 4th relates to the father) with Aries on the cusp and Mars in Taurus. He must have been quite determined and domestic, presumably quite conventional and aligned with the customs and traditions of society seeing as Mars is sextile Saturn, but also quite eccentric, original and innovative seeing as Mars is sextile Uranus. Mars also makes a square to Mercury, which is a clear indicator of someone who is overly convicted of one’s intellectual capacity to the point of it being detrimental. Although there’s force and sharpness to the intellect there’s pride involved, which might take over and lead to this person forcing information down people’s throats. Mars is also trine the Moon in Leo which would point to a warm and nurturing side. All in all, it seems like the father is quite a force to reckon with – stable, dutiful, exciting, warm, and active, with a risk of going over the top when interacting and engaging with others. In addition to the 4th house image, we have to look to the Sun as a father principle. It’s in the 2nd house of material possessions, which perfectly aligns with the 4th house and its connection to Taurus, the fixed earth sign. Not to mention that the Sun is in Aquarius, highlighting the Uranian connection of inspiration and vision. He would surely be a financially and materially focused person with a lot of inspiration and excitement for the future as well as an interest in public affairs and public relations (Sun inconjunct Jupiter). He’s also a Neptunian type and probably has a rich imaginary realm, inevitably deeply affected by the terrors and misfortunes others are put through, overall sympathetic and accepting of all fates and experiences. There’s also the Sun-Moon opposition, pointing to somewhat of a homebody, deeply connected to the emotional past and its memories. He might’ve had difficulty integrating that part of himself, being a strong presence in the outside world and retreating back into a safe space.

Let’s have a look at mother signifiers in the chart as well. The 10thhouse is unoccupied; Libra is the cusp ruler and Scorpio fills the majority of the house. This is a mother that probably was concerned with behaving in all the socially appropriate ways. It’s also indicative of someone who seeks validation and appreciation and gives it to other people in order to create harmonious atmospheres. She’s also somewhat private, watching her back and letting people know that she sees it all and won’t let things slide. This mother is a pleasant social navigator and private, defensive and biting type. Moving on to the Moon, which gives us an image of a woman of passion and courage, a stubborn fighter (Moon trine Mars and Pluto) working in the shadows of the 8th house. She’s not someone to openly display her force, although it’s certain that she has a whole lot going on beneath the surface layers. Passionate nature aside, she’s also very diplomatic and interactive, although she might have to put in some effort to not let her need to please, interact and care get the best of her (Moon inconjunct Mercury and Venus). She would be restless; the kind to feel trapped and kept apart from her own potential and progression (Moon opposite Uranus) as well as her own purpose, self-actualization and possibly even redemption (Moon opposite Sun-Neptune). It would seem as the mother is trapped through conventional reason (Moon inconjunct Mercury in Capricorn) and self-sacrificing ideals (Moon inconjunct Venus in Pisces). The 8thhouse is related to other people and their resources/values indicating that she is living at the mercy of conditions beyond her own control, at least in her own experience. What other people are willing to support or not support determines her situation – it doesn’t lie within her own control.