#a very long rant

[dragons-library]

Im gonna rant a little bit and I might just delete this but I’ve been thinking about redemption arcs in media; books, series (animation series mainly) movies…. Specifically those with trauma or victims of a system, of their upbringing, generational trauma, etc….you know, characters that have their behaviour explained by their back story. And there’s a lot of characters that “are redeemed” just because their back story is explained and I don’t like it. I don’t consider that redemption.

One key element of redemption for a character, of growth and of healing is acknowledging the harm done to others. (Honestly this is key in real life too for people that are healing but since this is a book blog…)

Someone can’t move past trauma and bad coping mechanisms, mistakes and (harmful) learned behaviour without acknowledging that they have hurt others, because trauma responses are not excuses for bad behaviour.

They can unpack it and understand where it comes from, but ultimately that’s just a step towards making amends with themselves and others. To forgive themselves for their own mistakes and also being aware that those mistakes have had an effect on other people. It’s absolutely necessary in order to get past the self loathing and self sabotage. To prevent falling into the same patterns again and again. Even prevent perpetuating toxic cycles.

Self compassion is absolutely necessary but that doesn’t mean excusing and justifying bad behaviour and the hurt that has been done to others.

It’s the combination of both, that truly makes a character turn towards true redemption that is meaningful.

Being compassionate enough with themselves to understand that a lot of their behaviour is caused by circumstances and experiences they probably had no control over, or maybe they just didn’t know any better, but aware enough to understand that even when that’s true it does not change or negate that their actions have consequences and have affected others.

Past that, making amends when possible is important too, both for those affected and those making amends as well.

The ones redeeming themselves might have been hurt by others, and understanding that is absolutely essential. Sometimes they are victims of other victims even and it’s also something that should be addressed.

and I do believe that one does not have to forgive those who have hurt us in order to move on, some people can do it and some people can’t, I just don’t find it necessary. Especially because a lot of the times those who have hurt us will not try to remedy the pain or the suffering caused.

That said, no one is entitled to the forgiveness of others either. You can do everything to right your wrong, to make amends and ask for forgiveness, but ultimately those who have been hurt have no obligation to grant said forgiveness. Some might and others may not. That’s for them to decide. No one else.

Each person can only control their own actions, emotions and reactions, no one else’s. But this does not mean thinking only of themselves. But rather understanding that other people’s feelings matter as much as their own feelings. Not more not less.

So if a character is being redeemed, it can’t just be “they went through this and that’s why they did this bad thing” and that be the end of it. That’s just justifying bad behaviour and if accepted ultimately just grants a free pass to cause pain to others because of their own issues. That’s not redemption.

It should be, both having compassion in the story, to understand where this hurt comes from, enough self compassion to forgive themselves, enough self awareness to accept that their actions are in fact bigger than their own feelings and that their hurt does not justify hurting others to prevent it from happening again, enough willingness to do something about it, even if nothing will change or erase what has been done, and ultimately accepting that they are responsible for their own actions. Not the actions of others, taking responsibility when it’s due, not carrying the burden of the mistakes of others and accepting that other people have just as much right to their own feelings and reactions.

That being said it’s 2 am in the morning and I’m just rambling, i don’t even know if any of this makes sense

[clockspur]

[sharkylad]

Thinking about the fact that Mabel and Dipper didn't know they had two great uncles.

Yeah they are 12 and at 12 I had a shotty understanding of my family tree- But really? Nobody brought up their great uncle? Stanley? Especially since they'll be staying with his twin brother, Stanford?

Shermie never went to Stan's fake funeral, which to me means the twos relationship was strained on some level. If Shermie is older that means his view of Stan was poisoned in some way, that even as kids they weren't close. If the Shermie is younger then he never even got to meet Stan and all he knew about him was how he failed his family. Hell, people probably barely mentioned Stanley TO Shermie.

The fact that Stan had become a black stain upon the Pines family name makes me so vividly upset. Stanley faked his death and the family just- seemingly decided to strike him from the record. To pretend he didn't existed to spare themselves the sadness and shame.

Stanford and Shermie Pines. The only children worth mentioning of Filbrick and Caryn Pines.

It was never Stanford that was lost to the world. It was Stanley, ever since he had to leave New Jersy- it was always him that had to be struck from the record. Change his name, change his state, change his affiliations, destroy the remains of ghost that was Stanley Pines. Kill him so the family doesn't bring him up, doesn't ask questions, stops asking "Stanford" about his twin.

I just keep thinking about the fact that since the day he made one single mistake all the way up until Ford walks out of that machine- Stanley Pines was killed and did not exist. And Stan himself had no one to blame, he had to play the part in his own demise- He is the only one who ever knew Stanley was alive and has been for decades.

He lives in the multitudes of every personality he's ever taken, all in the hope that he himself can stop being Stanley Pines.

[anewp0tat0]

i lied i had like atleast one more weston thought to expell from my brain, before i miss this boat entirely. we're heading to green lands woooo

[littlestofstorytelling]

I recently finished the 5th season of the Crown and I have some thoughts

I liked the first three season and i think the acting really was amazing in the 4th season. And while it was clear that it was fiction, I liked the way real life events were incorporated and how it drove the story and the growth of the characters. Most importantly it (to a person who did not grow up with the British royal family) felt somewhat a well balanced perspective without clear favoritism. You could find arguments for and against the monarchy as well as arguments to like or dislike the individual characters. So, overall it was a very solid show and put my expectations quite high for the 5th season.

Season 5

I did like watching it, however, it lost a bit of that really good story telling and character growth through events that was present in previous seasons. Normally the monarch would be shaped by the events in her country since they are so closely tied, but this season that seemed to missing (the link to the royal cruise was also a bit on the nose with its parallel to the queen and they kept going back to it for some reason) as it was more about family drama and divorce, which wasn’t even very interestingly showed in my opinion.

Most of it was very propaganda-y in Charles favour this season. Last seasons he wasn’t the villain but his flaws were shown, whereas in this season only his more positive attributes were shown without showing any flaws, and even some of the more “flawed” passages like the interview he did where very down played, and smoothened. Not to mention he was played by an actor that looked a lot better than the prince himself at the time, which would have been fine if the flaws of the character had been shown more. The focus for this character was on his stances on climate change, modernization and overall being the voice of reason when it came to the monarchy. But then his flaws such as his ego, the blindness to some if his privileges and his public perception were rarely shown if at all.

Diana is where they really dropped the ball in my opinion. Season 4 did a great job with her, season 5 put her in an extremely bad light for some reason (linking back to the Charles propaganda bit). The scene that really bothered me was when she went to her friend in the hospital because her friends husband was being operated on. After the doctor informs the friend Diana can’t stop talking about the doctor and her friend has to tell her multiple times that she doesn’t care how he looks as long as his hands safe her husband. That scene was very unnecessary and made Diana out to be egoistic, narcissistic and inconsiderate as well as a bit dimwitted. The scenes where her relation with her son is shown is also reflecting negatively on her while the son’s relation to Charles is never really shown, only mentioned once in a throw away line and forgotten. Her character really did not work well for me, she barely even spoke. The only episode I liked her in was the third one.

Speaking of which the third episode is my favorite one and really reminded me of earlier seasons, even though the royals were barely in it.

All this being said I thought prince Philip was very good in the role, I liked his side plot, as did I princess Margaret. I just would have liked to see more global or national events and less divorce drama, because to me both parties were unlikable and it was boring storytelling

I think that was it

[amphibianaday]

day 1421

[slugpup2]

still feeling sick, here's a vid of all the covers of pass on (as of now) playing at the same time i made a while ago

[raetttriestowrite]

Me, an author, side eyeing my WIP: you're not going to do anything weird, are you? We've discussed this. There's a plan. We're going to stick to the plan, aren't we?

The WIP: *presents subplot, presents additional conflicts, presents character development, laughs in my fucking face*

[blueskittlesart]

*sigh* thoughts on Nintendo's botw/totk timeline shenanigans and tomfoolery?

tbh. my maybe-unpopular opinion is that the timeline is only important when a game's place on the timeline seriously informs the way their narrative progresses. the problem is that before botw we almost NEVER got games where it didn't matter. it matters for skyward sword because it's the beginning, and it matters for tp/ww/alttp (and their respective sequels) because the choices the hero of time makes explicitly inform the narrative of those games in one way or another. it matters which timeline we're in for those games because these cycles we're seeing are close enough to oot's cycle that they're still feeling the effects of his choices. botw, however, takes place at minimum 10 thousand years after oot, so its place on the timeline actually functionally means nothing. botw is completely divorced from the hero of time & his story, so what he does is a nonissue in the context of botw link and zelda's story. thus, which timeline botw happens in is a nonissue. honestly I kind of liked the idea that it happened in all of them. i think there's a cool idea of inevitability that can be played with there. but the point is that the timeline exists to enhance and fill in the lore of games that need it, and botw/totk don't really need it because the devs finally realized they could make a game without the hero of time in it.

[egophiliac]

a bunch of assorted episode 7 stuff from the last couple of days! because they're still taking over my entire brain! (I keep forgetting that the diasomnia uniform has that weird spike...chain...thing on the back. do you think when they get bored they, like, throw balloons at each other and whoever pops one first wins? is this what the dialounge is like in the off-hours?)

hey when do we get to see maskless red Lilia. please Twst I'm dying over here

[arthursfuckinghat]

"I was gonna say you're like a son to me.. but you're more than that."

"It ain't that complicated!"

How quickly that shoulder pat of comfort turned into a condescending one.

[tsukasalover]

it’s kinda stupid to call rui “sassy” or say he was acting “mean” for simply doing what any person would do realistically after tsukasa humiliated nene in the main story. i swear this fandom has gone over this a thousand times and yet for some reason it’s still so hard for people to accept that tsukasa was being a self centered asshole. that’s not even exaggerating anything that’s just the truth.

btw (if im wrong correct me) but rui has never gotten angry at someone unreasonably he’s actually quite mature and doesn’t just?? explode over things so i dont know why him refusing to work with tsukasa even after nene forgave him is seen as a “mean” thing… let’s not forget he still believed tsukasa hadnt changed at all and only wanted to be in shows for selfish purposes. it’s not bad to admit that tsukasa is egotistical and has acted much more mean in unacceptable ways than rui + has had to own up to this and work hard to grow as a person over time

[spitblaze]

I will say this once because I'm tired of seeing stupid discourse: anti-transmasculinity is not about being treated bad because we clock as men, it's about being treated as stupid little girls because transphobes think we've been tricked into this.

It's kind of the opposite of transmisogyny- instead of fear and revulsion, it's constant condescension, the implications that we've been whisked away from femininity by scary bad guys, that we're going to cause 'irreparable damage' because we don't know what's best for ourselves, somehow. People fearmonger a lot about the "ugliness" of transfem people, but for transmasc people that 'ugliness' is used as a warning- you'll look like THIS! You'll go BALD! Your top surgery scars will leave you MUTILATED! A lot of aesthetic concerns. Worry about our 'beauty'. Because it comes from that same stupid reactionary 'we gotta SAVE the WOMEN' shit, but this time they have to save them from getting 'stolen away', as if we're being seduced or pressured into this. As if we can't make our own decisions.

For TERFS specifically, they're losing one of their own. We're 'gender traitors', willingly aligning ourselves with the half of the population they consider unilaterally dangerous and evil.

We aren't REALLY trans, we just want the benefits that men get. You don't actually want to transition, you're just trying to avoid misogyny.

You aren't actually a man, you're just a self-loathing lesbian.

Why can't you just be a butch girl? Why can't you just be a tomboy?

Why can't you just be something that I don't think is icky?

Anyway. Like all things, it boils down to misogyny. Women stupid and gentle, dont know what best for them, evil men trick into taking man juice, must save because lady stupid and dont know what best for them (having babies and being Feminine).

Theres like. Obviously more to this but I'm just a Transmasc Rando explaining this from my perspective, and I'm not the best with words. Anyone is free to hop in and add on to this

[debatablyspicydurian]

I know the full arsenal update is out and hype for that but I just found the gutterman's poem in 7-2 and I HAVE to type about it because its night where I am and I cant wake up my friends to rant about Ultrakill.

Anyway, absolutely indescribable how we have the thoughts of a machine just laid bear in a secret for the first and maybe last time. The fact that a machine made for merciless slaughter could not only feel sadness for the person powering it but also WRITE a POEM? A machine made art??? The knowledge that they understand how cruel it is to make a human a blood battery, recognize it as torture, but also feel gratitude for the life they've been given?? It was known that machines had a sense of aesthetic from Swordsmachine and Mindflayer's entries but. Goddamn. The gutterman refers to the human as their mother and it states it CRIED when it crushed her skull as it hoped it would redeem its life.

Also the excerpt, "I know I know you would hate me so, and mother of me, I do too." Does this mean the Gutterman hated itself as much as the human? Did it hate the human instead along with the feelings of love and gratitude? Probably the former. Gutterman angst is so in.

V2's mannerisms and Swordsmachine's data entry are intresting, but a gutterman's eulogy for its prisoner and its attempt at redemption is another level. Actual machine thought process recorded!! Sapient lifeform that knows only war and death! The fact that the gutterman crushing the human's skull seemed to be out of mercy. Ough.

Noone has to interact I havent proof read this I am just RANTING this is CRAZY HAKITA HOW COULD YOU AND THE TEAM DO THIS

[amelia-yap]

AUEGH

[dxxtruction]

"Louis acting like a pimp to Armand" And what is a pimp exactly? Quickly. And, oh so sexual trauma survivors can't engage in kink now without it being all about that? Pet names? They can't be submissive anymore? Consensually? Sexually healthy? Be serious. I'd hardly say there's much power difference between them during all this anyway, except that Louis is freer than Armand and it's been putting a strain on their relationship. Louis wants more from Armand, and less of this 'being his past' for them both, and so helping Armand with this could fix that. It's healthy to want to help your partners get out of a rough patch?

I mean, the whole exchange was very clearly set up as a "I want to help you" after such a great moment of vulnerability Louis feels just how much Armand is desperate for it. Louis called Armand so they could work out a plan together.

And the bit with the umbrella was Louis' way of asking 'are you willing to listen to me?' and Armand said yes by unfolding it. Louis goes on and explains, Armand is allowed to argue against it, but Louis makes his point. And then he gives Armand a way to make his own choice in it too. Armand's already decided 'I want you, more than anything else in the world', but Louis still asks after if he's sure of his choice, and with a name, Arun, that is the one of his fullest agency, running the point home. Honoring the situation Armand calls Louis Maitre - as a way of being like 'I'll do as you've said then'. To make this work he's going to have to give Louis some of the control, yes. But it's the first time such a role is ever established, and it was his choice to do it. So so what if they do it in a very suggestive way? They can't like doing that? I think it's them having fun.

I struggle to find how Louis is being overly domineering here when really he's giving and offering Armand the most agency he's ever had. Same with finding it manipulative. The manipulation was more earlier in the episode I think, when he was stringing him along, giving mixed signals. He's no longer toying with him like that. Louis might be pushing Armand, leading him on to make a decision, but he doesn't mean bad by it.

But back to this pimp thing. I find it frankly offensive that this is where people are going with this. I get it, but to run with it being the case is, on many levels, wrong.

Louis told us episode 1 this was the only sustainable line of work to support his family and keep their standing, at the time. It was never his choice to be doing this either but his blackness allowed no other options. He did what he did so his family could stay in that house and maintain all their same comforts. It gave him privileges most black men didn't have at the time that he wanted to maintain and even have more of. Anyway, it doesn't and had never defined him the way 'being good at running things' had. And in that case he just likes having that kind of control where he can get it, which makes sense.

The world is what placed that kind of role onto him of what he was allowed to be able to run, not himself. And on that he actually treated the sex workers he employed well and respected them enough to give them more opportunity.** He recognizes they don't have much in the way of options either.

Louis employed sex workers, yes, but he didn't subject them to abuse, (like how Armand was)*. He didn't oversee things in a way that would go against their consent (see; episode 1 again)**. Sometimes a job is just a job. And Sex work is work.

Armand's particular past with sexual abuses may strike a particular cord with Louis, given all that, but the very last thing either is thinking is that Louis' pimping Armand out here. This is merely their decision as companions, and had nothing to do with adding another line in a laundry list of selling Armands body out to people at the command of someone else. Armand rescinds some of his control to Louis' wishes, because he wants him, and he trusts him, that's all.

If you aren't allowing Armand that choice, and are doubtful it's fully his, you're putting him right back in the box of being defined by his abuses. Putting him back into that space where he isn't given any agency over what he does. (Which is exactly opposite of what the intent of this scene is for)*.

*: (edit) added for clarity.

**: (strike through) numerous people are saying I'm misremembering these points so disregard it. (Thought he was siding with Bricks, it was the other way around). (Technically one aspect of those opportunities were for getting around the law). I don't have a perfect memory, it happens. Let's not get mad about it. Doesn't change much of the point which is that Louis, now, Louis then, was always considering more about the running things and for stated purposes. So I guess I'd say he may only have respected the SWers enough sometimes for what allowed him to do that, and there are moments he certainly expressed remorse over the fact, but he has a great deal higher respect for Armand that is genuine. It's incomparable. Please read my added notes in the tags, it should address most other concerns.