#also restoration is a meta story in the literal sense

[tvckerwash]

I've seen a couple of posts here and there about the "sigma tortures tucker for 10 years in 10 seconds" scene, and I've gotta say I didn't realize so many people interpreted it literally. not to say that e!sigma couldn't have tortured tucker for 10 years, but I personally don't think that was the intended interpretation (unless it was specifically stated that it was meant to be taken literally but I'm operating under the assumption that it isn't).

restoration built upon epsilon's previously—and continuously—established unreliability as a source of information post caboose's churchification, and how he pushes his personal biases onto the people around him. we saw it with e!tex, we saw it in the memory unit, we saw it on chorus with carolina, and we saw it all throughout s15-19, assuming one chooses to see everything post chorus as a series of simulations.

epsilon doesn't know anything about sigma or the meta beyond secondhand information, so as far as he's concerned they were an ex freelancer turned power-hungry killing machine by an evil ai that wanted to reform the alpha and be one again, and that he psychologically manipulated maine to do so (which isn't entirely wrong, sigma is shown to be a manipulative jerk several times in s10, but I personally think the situation between maine and sigma is far more grey than that, as most things involving pfl are—in s9 maine was just as willing to kill a teammate as he was to put his life on the line to protect one).

with that in mind, I think it's pretty clear that e!sigma didn't literally torment tucker for 10 years in 10 seconds or whatever, in universe he only messed with tucker for 10 seconds, but he tricked him into believing that 10 years had past because epsilon thought to himself, "yeah that's pretty fucked up, totally in character for the version of sigma I've created." out of universe however, that was just the writers acknowledging the pain of the audience, as we were left hanging for 10 years on potential meta tucker angst and all we got was a 10 second scene for it lmao.

[raayllum]

Rayla as Callum's Deepest Truth - what does that mean? :: Or Truth in S6

Season six of The Dragon Prince talks a lot about truth.

It's a sentiment at least mentioned in almost every episode, and in a show featuring secrets, unreliable narrators, and characters routinely keeping information from or divulging information to one another, it's an accordingly complicated concept for both the characters and the show's broader narrative.

Thereby, we're going to start with the most straight forward associations in the season, beginning with Callum's plot line in 6x06 and the scene itself, and then work backwards through the various other aspects that contribute to both initial and more layered readings of the concept that we can extrapolate from other aspects / relationships the season explores through truth.

Let's begin.

Truth as Light and Love

The first and simplest readings of Rayla as Callum's Truth is that she is Light ("How do I find this light?" / "the one deep truth so bright it can fill the darkness") and Love. This isn't really a stretch, given that seeing and embracing Star Rayla causes a bright light to shine literally in canon, and successfully fill the hole in Callum's spirit with light and purify him of darkness. This also pulls on the most straight forward associations from Rayla and light in prior seasons.

We see this reflected in Janai and Amaya's blessing of the sun at their wedding—a request for "love and light"—and in their discussions with one another in 6x02. Amaya assures her that Janai can still fix what is broken for her people (put a pin that idea of broken + fixing for later) so long as she doesn't try to do it alone. Janai affirms this through her understanding of "The King with 1000 Eyes" story, stating that much like in the tale's pair of lovers, Amaya is also:

While this doesn't necessitate the idea of Truth as being romantic love for an individual, this line is one of the biggest reasons going into 6x06 that I thought maybe Rayla would end up being his Deepest Truth. This is also partially because they refer back to the idea of light and fixing, directly stating that "there is a way to fix it" through the star-light ritual, and we see this idea again with Rayla in 6x09 with Runaan.

Rayla was always set up to be Callum's alternative path in opposition to Aaravos as well (though again, we'll get to that specific path motif more later) through the framing of light. It's unsurprising then that in opposition to both metaphorical and literal darkness

we get Rayla and his love for her being a literal light.

These are the most straight forward, positive sides of Truth that we see, and the ones I think (mostly) that 6x06 plays most overtly, though there are others as well that we'll get to in a second. This is also the most straightforward the series has been about 'darkness = bad' and 'light = good' as well, even if there are always exceptions to every rule (which we'll get to later as well).

Light and love and Rayla can fix what is broken. She can save you. She can restore you. Her, and your love for her, leads you out of the darkness. Mends you. Makes you whole again.

That's some powerful stuff, especially as a basic surface level reading. (For a less than surface level one with this similar theme of broken and fixing, you can read this meta regarding Leola and Rayla.)

With that under our belts, I want to take this basis of "the Truth (Rayla) as love and light" to explore how it leads naturally into the final Rayla and Callum scene of the episode, featuring

Truth as Clarity

We've gone over light, and we'll go over purpose, but for now I want to talk about the idea of truth as clarity. To have clarity is to have a better sense of the reality of things, a founded understanding of a situation or person. The Celestial elves seek clarity through the "true light of the heavens." The clarity Callum receives in realizing and finding that Rayla is his one truth causes him to finally take the next step and begin their relationship fully again by kissing her, and by confessing his love to her.

Clarity is also derived from the basis of knowing, however—"Hold to what you've always known [...] the answer in your heart is clear / I am near, my love is here"—of knowing that is the truth. Of seeing clearly, of seeing someone, truly for who they are and loving them.

RAYLA: Why didn't you tell me? CALLUM: Cause I know you, Rayla. If I'd told you, you would've refused to go, because you never do anything for yourself.

He loves her because he knows her ("That's what makes her a hero. That's what makes her Rayla" / "She's not 'the elf'. She's Rayla") and he knows her because he loves her, because he understands her ("And I understand why you couldn't tell me") through love. His trial and Truth gave him the clarity to express it, and the purpose to do so in many ways. It's also a positive grasp of purpose, since Viren ("I have power, purpose, and I intend to use both of them") and Aaravos ("I chose to live, and my life took on new purpose") become dark, twisted, and self destructive. Loving each other makes Callum and Rayla mutually better, and it's something both are finally able to whole heartedly embrace. To love is simply to know this.

Between this, and Viren's whole assessment that "The path of freedom is the path of truth," what could possibly be bad potentially about Rayla being Callum's one Truth, or the truth in general? Well...

Truth as A Weapon / a Burden

I actually wrote a meta all about this theme in Arc 2 for season 4 and season 5 before S6 called "Knowledge as a Burden" that I recommend reading if you haven't already. However, it's not necessary as this section is about how the Truth or 'Knowledge' can be a burden and a weapon depending on what the truth is, and how the information is presented. And this eventually does make its way back to the more positive outcome of Rayla being Callum's truth, so we'll circle our way back around.

With all that in mind, let's start with the most obvious. In 6x06, "Moment of Truth," both Callum and Viren wrestle with the results of previous actions due to dark magic. In one timeline, Callum learns the truth about the pearl and spirals into self-despair; in the other, ultimately canon timeline, this truth is withheld from him, allowing him to maintain the courage and strength he needs to go through the star-light ritual ceremony. By withholding the truth, he's given clarity, light, and purpose, which we went over in the previous section.

Alternatively, Viren's arc in this episode leans more heavily onto the concept that giving Soren the letter would be shifting a burden to his son.

Are you providing clarity, light, and purpose, or are you shifting a burden to someone who needs all their strength?

Both these plot lines ultimately end in different ways. By sharing the truth, Callum and Rayla reconcile, and by withholding the truth, Viren spares his son more pain, and they don't ultimately reconcile. I'll definitely talk about Viren and Soren's arc together in S6 someday in a proper meta, so I don't want to touch on it too much here, but it is noteworthy because it reaffirms the concept in this season that sometimes, knowing the truth can make things worse, not better, and cause more pain, not less.

We see this in how Callum's dark magic use weighs on him heavily in 6x03, leading to an argument between him and Rayla, and that learning he did dark magic causes Rayla to respond differently to his request to kill him; whereas before she steadfastly refused, here she agrees because she can see the risk and concerns are more prominent. This doesn't of course make their bond better (although it doesn't worsen it, either), but their literal ship does catch on fire and sink when she demands that he sacrifice her, and promises to sacrifice him, so... It's not good, either, even if it's ultimately good that Callum shared it with her for his own sake.

Where we see the Truth most weaponized in the season, however, in moving away from 'the truth as light' is with Aaravos himself.

AARAVOS: Good, good. You've played your part well. Before you perish, would you like a reward, a small mercy perhaps? The mercy of truth. The answer to the mystery that has haunted you for a thousand years. What happened to your beloved mate that disappeared? SOL REGEM: Tell me, betrayer. What became of Aithne Solaire? AARAVOS: I should warn you, sometimes the line between mercy and cruelty can be thin. [...] It was you. You killed her. Go on, breathe deep. I know you can smell the truth from a lie, and this is a deep, dark truth. In your fury, you buried her alive.

This is, of course, a move Aaravos used before ("Arrogant, just like your grandmother. Would you like to know the truth of her fate before you meet yours? I swallowed her") with Khessa back in season three. This is also something he utilizes as a manipulation tactic with others, knowing the importance of withholding the truth until it is beneficial for you to reveal it ("Careful, if you tell the truth you will lose her") and Aaravos' own belief that "[he] never lies" which Claudia reaffirms in 6x01: "Aaravos wasn't lying."

Of course, just because something is true according to him and his worldview or vantage point doesn't mean that it is deeply, objectively true, but that's another matter.

What matters here for the sake of this meta is that the truth isn't always good. The truth can be withheld to protect others (2x03, 6x06), to protect yourself (although sometimes misguided), and to manipulate and control other people (Viren orchestrating the war in S2 and S3, Aaravos routinely, etc). The "mercy of truth" is sometimes not mercy at all, but cruelty, showcased in Aaravos revealing something he knew would devastate and harm an already dying dragon/enemy.

The truth can be cruel. The truth can be deep and dark, too, not just light and lifting burdens. Knowledge can be an terrible burden. The truth can be awful.

So can love.

So can your path.

Truth as a Path (Freedom)

VIREN: Despite all this, I am changed. I woke up feeling free for the first time in a very long time. I know I have led my sweet, brilliant daughter down the wrong path. I have led you by the hand and I have led you by my example. Perhaps now if I walk the path of freedom, you will find your path someday, too. CLAUDIA: What do you mean 'path of freedom'? VIREN: The path of freedom is the path of truth. I must face my truth... in Katolis.

The path motif was something touched on sparingly in the first three seasons, largely in response to actual, literal paths the characters were taking. However, beginning more overtly in season four and bolstered by season five, Arc 2 has steadily turned it into one of the most consistent motifs that runs throughout season six. What is created, then, is a set of binary paths. There is the Path of Freedom—moving away from the Cycle and a narrative of strength, away from trying to replicate or get back to the past and moving towards the future instead, away from Aaravos and dark magic—and the 'wrong, dark' Path of Fate that moves in opposition to it.

This is most directly stated in Viren's final dream with his past self:

PRESENT VIREN: The path of fate is already chosen. Every step I took, I took because I had to. YOUNG VIREN: No. That can't be true. No matter where you are on the path, no matter what you've done before, every step forward is a choice. I am free, and so are you.

reaffirmed in Viren's decision at the end of 5x09:

VIREN: No. I won't do it. I finally see the truth. I find myself here at these horrifying crossroads because I have followed a dark path. And worst of all, I have led my beloved daughter done this path. No more dark magic! Never again! I am done with it — and I am done with you!

and in Callum's conversation with Rayla in 4x07:

CALLUM: What if I'm on a path of darkness? RAYLA: Then take a different path, dummy!

All of this was just some of the set up that has routinely put Rayla and Aaravos in direct opposition of each other for Callum's fate. There are framing things like her and the mirror being two very overt paths stretching out before Callum when she comes back, and Rayla being what pulls his attention away from the mirror, but 4x07 made it in The Text by having her represent and literally remind Callum he always has choices: "No one can control you or make your choices for you" (which is partially pressed on in his assessment in "I didn't have a choice" in 6x03, but again: meta for another day). Rayla always represented freedom (his wings, agency) and light (all previous framing) and she still does so in being his Truth. Rayla is his Light, reminder of his freedom, and brings all those things into being his Truth; it is a beautiful culmination (for now) of Callum's choice to move away from dark magic and Aaravos' control by literally embracing his love for Rayla and all she represents in his life. (And yeah you've probably already noticed the snag here, but I'm gonna get to that in a sec.)

This connection between Truth and Path is affirmed in Terry's talk with Claudia in 6x04, in which they discuss:

CLAUDIA: Maybe I should be walking a different path, too. But Aaravos helped us. He followed through on everything he said he was going to do to save my Dad, and I promised to help free him. So should I quit dark magic? Please, Terry, tell me what to do. TERRY: Claudia, I can't. Only you can see your own deep truth. Only you can decide the path you're going to walk. You won't be alone. [...] But you have to choose the way. What do you need to find your truth?

So on top of being Light and Love, and Rayla being Callum's One Truth equalling the Path of Freedom, Rayla is just Callum's chosen Path. He chooses the Path of light, love, freedom — all good things through the embodiment of her and their relationship, much the way Callum has been her guiding star in pulling her away from her dark and self-destructive paths (going after Viren) and making measured choices (coming back in 4x09, realizing she can't/shouldn't separate Lain and Tiadrin, etc).

Okay great, awesome! Sounds like Callum has done what he needs to do, he's rid himself of the taint of dark magic and Aaravos' control by proxy. His love for Rayla got him through it. She's his path. She's his truth.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

The Truth is Everything

After season four aired, I wrote a meta about how Aaravos (Fate) and Rayla (Freedom) represented Callum's two paths going forward into S5 and beyond. Much of what was in that meta has already been touched on here, given that S6 evolved this dichotomy and this motif in largely the ways I thought it ultimately would.

However, in that past meta, I also posited that these two paths would ultimately not be as separate as they might appear, and would converge. Part of this was because S4 emphasized the importance of not treating dualities as binaries, but in reconciling them ("Now you're back. That's kind of good, and it's kind of bad" / "How can I have that and the life I want with you? [...] Just have two cakes" / "We have to hold pain and love in our hearts at the same time"). Specifically, that Rayla would be what leads Callum into getting closer to Aaravos and playing into his clutches, which 5x08, 6x03—and indeed the upped stakes for dark magic use ("if you ever use it again, the darkness and corruption will overwhelm you") coming off 6x06—feel like natural steps forward.

Because while the light, and Truth, and Rayla, is usually a Good Thing in Callum's life, as Soren points out, it isn't always.

After all, Callum only did dark magic—both times—because of Rayla.

CALLUM: I did one spell. One. I had to, to save my friends. (5x08)

CALLUM: I did it for you! Finnegrin was going to kill you. I didn't have a choice, because... I would do anything for you. (6x03)

His love for Rayla has already been his path to darkness and Aaravos just as much as it's been his path out of darkness to light and freedom away from Aaravos. Aaravos has both dark and light; so does Rayla as a literal Moonshadow elf, and her dual swords, and her juxtaposition of immense mercy and obsessive violence. He is "destined to play into [Aaravos'] hands," with Aaravos' scheme for Callum still clearly ongoing, given that Aaravos is out and the cube is still in play.

They also wouldn't 1) bring up the possession related promise and 2) have Rayla actually agree to it and then 3) have her affirm that Runaan taught her to never break her promises all in the same season if it wasn't going to come back into play, and the only way Aaravos can possess Callum again is if he does dark magic again. (I'll do a separate meta sometime after this regarding how S6 evolves the possession plotline in about every episode Callum and Rayla are mutually in, later, too.)

Just as Rayla was the reason Callum ever did dark magic or successfully got the cube in the first place, she will almost surely, inevitably, be the reason he does dark magic — breaking his promise, and opening up room for her to break her own.

RAYLA: Listen to me. If you ever have to choose between me or the greater good, do the right thing. Make the sacrifice.

Callum will choose Rayla every time, whether that leads to saving or destroying himself.

She is His Path, singular—the path of fate and free will, to light and to darkness, to destruction and salvation. The various dualities in their relationship will all be reconciled and brought to complete fruition.

And that's everything.

[revvethasmythh]

writing veth meta again and having recently read the laudna book is making me think again about the similarities in their stories. they were both oddball farm girls growing up, they were both alienated or bullied to some degree by local kids/townfolk for their strangeness, and the inciting incident for both of their stories is them being brutally murdered. upon awakening, they were both horribly changed (undead; goblin), and they both found themselves in some kind of forced servitude (laudna to delilah, obviously, but veth was a slave in the goblin camp, also). then they both spent the aftermath of their resurrections wandering in and out of towns, unwanted because of their apparent monstrousness and their troublemaking, and the resolution to that wandering comes when they finally make contact with another person who sees past the visual monstrousness and becomes both their best friend and someone for whom they develop romantic feelings for. there's even a connection to be made in regards to themes of substance abuse, and they both conclude a major personal story arc via a magical ritual conducted by essek to restore parts of their autonomy (veth's body; laudna's literal autonomy). they're both loud! weird! collect random shit! have super low self-esteem! are in love with their best friends! queens of compartmentalizing! the biggest difference on the surface of their characters is the wild disparity between their charisma scores

which all leads me to ask myself why, exactly, veth's story felt significantly more satisfying than laudna's. and I think I can point to narrative responsibility as a big one. by which i mean, in veth's backstory, when she goes into a city and gets drunk and sad and steals a bunch of shit to satisfy "the itch", sure there's obviously the edge of racism against her as a goblin, but when she's arrested it's mostly because she stole a bunch of people's shit. she fucks around and finds out and the narrative is like "yeah well, she fucked and found out" and lets her be a woman in a lot of pain who also happened to do a bunch of little shitty things to cope with the fact that she's a woman in a lot of pain who is making bad choices. with laudna, there is MUCH more a sense of helplessness, necessitated by delilah being inside her, sure, but delilah hardly directed all her actions, including A LOT of the weird and/or dangerous shit she did in random towns that had people skeeved out by her. having the intention to be friendly does not mean the actions will be received in a friendly way, especially when they are as odd and vaguely threatening as the ones laudna might do (cow doll filled with human teeth....for sure comes to mind). both laudna and veth were victims of circumstance but laudna feels incredibly passive about it, and even when she has sharp peaks in violence far beyond the petty shit veth mostly did (killing the overseer for a crime he did not commit; killing bor'dor), it largely goes unacknowledged outside of a persistent sense of "woe is me" victimhood. there's always someone else to blame in laudna's story: close-minded townfolk, delilah, a paladin, the gods themselves. and she was a victim, don't get me wrong, but she is also a person who did make a lot of decisions for herself, a thing that is rarely acknowledged.

so what i'm left with is the feeling that veth and laudna's stories share so, so much between them, but the difference is that veth always acts like and is treated like she is behind the wheel of her own story. laudna almost never is, within the story or the fandom

[zeravmeta]

Thoughts on RvB Restoration Finale

not really that long just my 2 cents

I wanna say I liked the movie because I did enjoy myself watching it, but honestly I'm very much gonna stick to the RvB17 open ended finale

Overall the movie was... ok? It wasn't unwatchably bad the way RvB Zero was but it also just made a lot of choices that I disagree with fundamentally both with the writing and the core themes of the series as a whole. I've had this take ever since RvB14 on the fanbase and the writers but this movie flat out says it:

The writers are fucking unable to let go of PFL and Chorus in a meaningful way.

For a series thats core message is about saying goodbye, they literally dont let that part of the show die. They are functionally unable to let go of the past peaks of the franchise and write something new. And I get it: RvB fundamentally cycles with its storytelling, but what was so refreshing to me about RvB14-17 was that it actually progressed itself Past those peaks of RvB10 and 11-13 (and honestly people REALLY dont appreciate the good in those later seasons). It felt like a natural (if wacky) progression, and it definitely wasnt perfect but it gave the extended cast more opportunities to shine in ways we didnt appreciate before

This movie just doesnt do that? Honestly the fact that they KILLED Sarge and Doc was so... disrespectful to me? Like not in the sense that it was as bad as how RvB Zero (fake) killed Tucker, but more like it felt like the writers killed them off because they were following a book titled "How To Write Story" and saw 'killing off characters is good writing'. Sarge got a dramatic send off that also didnt feel that impactful? And I did see it coming from the start but having Doc be Washs' guilt haunting him just left a bad taste in my mouth.

Its a really self contained story, a whole bunch of characters outside the main 3 reds and Caboose felt ooc, a good chunk of characters dont even show up (dude where was DONUT??? youre telling me he only has 5 seconds in Simmons' mind in a cheerleading costume?), it was composed of like 3-4 sets total, Carolina, Tex and 479er all just kind of Show Up to be badasses in the way The New Person would show up in an MCU movie...

Honestly watching this movie I kind of felt like it would have a twist ending. Like the credits would play and then itd zoom out to show the Reds and Blues post S17 in a movie theater watching this dramatic finale, because thats honestly what it felt like: The whole movie was a cheap facsimile of RvB as a whole. The fact that Trocadero wasn't allowed/signed on to make the music for this finale really does influence this movie, since they used a whole bunch of songs and osts that felt out of place (though I will admit Vale Deah softly playing as Grimmons said goodbye to each other did make me choke up a little)

Despite my negative review, I do still recommend watching it, since there was stuff I did like: Simmons in a leader role, Tex and the fun reveal during her fight with Tucker-Meta, Grif FINALLY getting to retire, Caboose as a whole was really well written, there IS good in this movie! And again it's not unwatchable bad, it just... kind of leaves a somber, sour taste in my mouth. This movie threw a whole bunch of stuff to the wall not to see what would stick but to break it all and leave for the insurance money. Just a "hey since we're sinking might as well make all these callbacks and break a bunch of stuff along the way."

Welp. Goodbye, RvB. At least this way I know that RT dies without riding your coattails any longer. And hey given that RvB technically has 3 endings (RvB17, Zero and RvB19) you can just take your pick on what you like best anyways. Quick edit no jutsu I forgor to mention there is the sequence at the beginning of the movie where it is implied RvB19 COULD also be one of the simulations in and of itself so. yeah you can in fact just take it as you will

[sokkastyles]

Hi, I really like your blog and your metas; they're so well-worded. One of my favorite ones is this one, talking about Zuko and his privileges vs how he's victimized by the Fire Nation. I have one question, though. Do you think that Mai, also, in the Boiling Rock Prison arc, treated Zuko as a race traitor? Her reunion with Zuko and some things that she said rubbed me the wrong way. And if you could, would you mind expanding a little bit on how Zuko is treated as a race traitor by Fire Nation characters?

Zuko is actually treated as a potential race traitor from the beginning of the series, even when he's loyal to the Fire Nation and desperate to restore his honor according to their values. We see this as early as episode three in book one. And I believe that in the meta you mention, I also spoke about how that's tied in with his abuse, both on a political and personal level.

Because the thing about fascism (and yeah, we could argue whether the Fire Nation is truly a fascist nation because the writers used a conglomeration of tropes and real world influences for their fantasy world, but they definitely draw on fascist imagery heavily for their Fire Nation influences, so it still is present in the narrative) is that it's dehumanizing, and everyone is a potential traitor to the regime. It's where the idea of "thought crime" comes from.

We see this as early as the third episode of the series, when Zuko encounters Zhao, who treats him like a potential enemy even before learning that Zuko has been keeping the Avatar's discovery from him. Some of this is Zuko's backstory. Zhao looks down on Zuko because he knows the story of his disgrace and banishment, and this is used both to downgrade Zuko and to keep him loyal to the regime. It's similar to how Ozai treated him, both giving him a sense of what he is "owed," the greatness he can hope to achieve by remaining loyal, while also feeding the idea that he has to constantly make up for his own shortcomings. It's an entirely manipulative social order, like a cult but on a wider scale.

Under that system, questioning the regime gets you labeled as a potential traitor. Even though Zuko was acting in advance of the regime by keeping the secret of the Avatar's return so that he can capture Aang himself, he acted as an individual, and that's dangerous to the group think.

As for Mai, we see her act similarly towards Zuko from the moment they are together in book three. Her reaction to hearing him voice his concerns about going back home is to sarcastically tell him that he should not be worrying. On some level, I think Mai's emotionally closed-off personality is part of the reason she can't handle Zuko's uncomfortable emotional reaction. But she's also a product of the same regime, where questioning things is frowned upon.

Think of the way Zhao and Azula react to Zuko. Both mention his banishment, Zhao to emphasize his dishonor, and Azula to imply that he's become "uncivilized" due to living in exile for three years. Mai expresses similar prejudices towards people living outside the Fire Nation in her comments on the people of Omashu and the comic that takes place before the beginning of book three where she criticizes the food in Ba Sing Se, in front of Zuko who has actually been living there while in exile. So I think Mai is, on one level, very uninterested in any aspect of Zuko's life outside of the Fire Nation, and may subconsciously look down on Zuko because of it, the way she looks down on the people of the earth kingdom that Zuko has lived among, the way she looks down on servants (which Zuko is shown to be uncomfortable with).

Another part goes back to what I said about not questioning the regime. Zuko expressing doubts about going home challenges the very idea of Fire Nation superiority. Mai can't understand why Zuko wouldn't want to go home or why he would have doubts.

On another level, though, expressing doubt is literally dangerous, and Mai knows what happened to Zuko the first time he openly questioned the regime. On some level, she might associate Zuko worrying with him not being safe. The reality is that he is not safe either way, which is exactly why he should be worrying.

So Mai probably had those thoughts about Zuko even before he outright became a traitor. This is actually one of the ways fascism encourages people to turn against each other. If nobody is an individual, then individuals cannot be trusted.

All this is backdrop to Mai outright telling Zuko that he's betraying his country in "The Boiling Rock." And in between Zuko leaving and their reunion, there was also a propaganda play publicized that portrayed Zuko as not only a political traitor, but his romantic interest in Katara in the play is used to make him look like a joke, using racist tropes like the pale skinned man being "dominated" by a seductive, aggressive dark-skinned woman, and deferring to a man (Aang) who is considered to be from a "lesser" race. The gay jokes about Aang and Zuko are also typical of that sort of attempt to paint someone considered a race traitor as sexually deviant.

(You know what would be interesting to think about? If Mai saw that play. Did it fuel her feelings that Zuko had betrayed her, personally?)

What I think is actually pretty surprising is Zuko's ability to distinguish that no, I'm not betraying my country, I'm saving it, which is what he tells Mai. That idea doesn't seem to have originated anywhere else. Zuko could have just washed his hands of the Fire Nation altogether and embraced an identity as an expat, but he doesn't. Because he's always been someone who cared about his country.

[goodqueenaly]

There is a sense of historical parallel as well as irony in the stories of Shiera Blackwood and Argella Durrandon. Where once Lord Roderick Blackwood had attempted to use the Durrandons as a convenient shield against the tyranny of the Teague kings, three centuries later King Argilac Durrandon eyed Lord Aegon Targaryen to serve as a buffer against another marauding Riverlands king, Harren Hoare. Where Lord Roderick had called upon his nuptial ties to the Durrandons (specifically the marriages of his daughters to both King Arlan III Durrandon and his son) in order to defy King Humfrey Teague, Argilac offered a nuptial tie to Lord Aegon - specifically, the marriage of his daughter to Aegon himself - to bulwark his own state against King Harren. Neither Lord Blackwood nor King Argilac seems to have anticipated actually losing his crown (actual or expected) by utilizing such marital connections: Yandel cites epistolary evidence suggesting that King Arlan “planned to restore the crown to House Blackwood, in the person of his good-father Lord Roderick” after overthrowing the Teagues, while Gyldayn asserts that King Argilac “[p]lainly ��� meant to establish the Targaryens along the Blackwater as a buffer between his own lands and those of Harren the Black”. Yet in both cases, diplomatic unions resulted not in the strengthening of the native states, but in the annihilation of their independence and former political identities (following the deaths in battle of these respective aristocratic fathers): after Roderick Blackwood fell during the Battle of Six Kings, Arlan III assumed direct control over the Riverlands for House Durrandon, and after Argilac Durrandon was killed during the Last Storm, the former Stormlands kingdom became a feudal vassal of the new Targaryen domain. If both Roderick’s daughter Shiera and Argilac’s daughter Argella were briefly considered (or considered themselves) heiresses to their fathers’ geopolitical designs, Westerosi aristocratic misogyny lost the crown for each: “the riverlords spoke out against being ruled by a woman” when King Arlan contemplated acclaiming Shiera as queen, according to Yandel, while “the soldiers of the garrison” at Storm’s End, according to Gyldayn, “delivered Lady Argella gagged, chained, and naked to the camp of Orys Baratheon”. The very circumstances which had extended the Durrandon empire to its greatest reach had also marked its dissolution: just as Shiera Blackwood had received no crown and instead remained only a Durrandon princess by marriage, tied to the dynasty which had swallowed her father’s would-be dominion, so Argella found herself not the Storm Queen but Lady Baratheon, almost literally bound by marriage to the new lordly power which had assumed control of her ancestral inheritance. 

At the same time, there is a meta tragedy to both the story of Shiera Blackwood and that of Argella Durrandon. In each case, the narrative importance, and indeed existence, of each woman terminates at the moment her proposed rule is rejected: Yandel only mentions Shiera in a few brief sentences following his description of the Battle of Six Kings, while Argella completely disappears from Fire and Blood following Gyldayn’s note on her marriage to Orys Baratheon. These women exist exclusively or virtually exclusively to be betrayed by their own neighbors and sworn men. Shiera could not rule as Queen of the Trident because the riverlords - at least some of whom had presumably fought beside Roderick Blackwood during his last battle - would not support their liege being a woman, while Argella was kidnapped, stripped, bound, gagged, and physically handed over to the enemy commander by the soldiers of her own familial castle - and this after Gyldayn had underlined the loyalty of King Argilac’s vassals. If Argella receives the barest characterization - in that the author actually gives her a few direct quotes - neither she nor Shiera have any real interiority, and certainly not after losing their kingdoms. How these women felt about not becoming queens in their own right, what their relationships were like with the husbands who had helped take over their own lands, what these women made of the conquests of their homelands, how they reacted to their respective betrayals - these and all other questions about them go completely unanswered by the author. Having introduced them as gendered victims turned dynastic conduits, the author disposes of each woman in turn; they seemingly only matter as characters to the extent they can be ignored. 

[blindbeta]

Recently, I started writing a lot of Homestuck fanfiction, and Terezi is one of my fave characters to write, but I'm curious what your opinions on the canon portrayal of her blindness are and things that would be interesting to include in writing.

The basics if you aren't familiar with Homestuck:

Terezi is one of the troll characters, who are humanoid aliens. She was blinded by her best friend (Vriska) by being forced to stare at the sun, but learned to be able to "smell and taste colors" without being able to see them.

Here are my thoughts on the good and the bad (from other reading other stuff) as well as some things that a comment on would be nice!

At first mention, the "smelling/tasting colors" thing might come across as an instance of a power being used to negate a disability, but I feel like it meshes well with her general chaotic and even downright freakish personality. For this reason she loves and often uses wild and bright mixes/scribbles of color, which I would assume be due to them having stronger scents/tastes.

It's also shown that while the effect is better than you might expect from such a method, her "vision" through this method is still extremely blurry, often with smears (from licking her computer screen to read it) or streaks (from the drifting "scent"). (example image - https://www.homestuck.com/images/storyfiles/hs2/02745.gif [ID: A golden planet with a matching moon attached to it in orbit by a thick golden chain, with a small sliver of the larger cloudy blue planet the golden planet is orbiting visible. The whole image has a blurry effect applied, almost looking like a messy impressionistic painting. Instead of having defined edges, the colors look smeared and drifting in places.)

She does have a cane that's clearly styled after white canes, but it does fall in the trope of a weaponized cane as it contains a sword. Her weapon specialization is also specified to be "canekind." If she ever uses this cane to help navigate, I can't remember her doing so outside of her sprites from the walkaround games; it also often seems to be commonly drawn in the comic to more closely resemble a cane that would be used for balance.

She falls into the blind seer trope, as her in-universe title is the Seer of Mind, but is not the only seer in the comic--there are a Seer of Light and a Seer of Blood who are not blind, and a Mage of Doom who...it's complicated and changes several times, he's half-blind for a while and I think he's fully blind by the end of the comic? Her role as a Seer doesn't fall as much into literal visions as some instances, she can moreso sense the outcomes of different timelines and tap into memories of other versions of herself. The Seers and Mages aren't even the only characters whose stories play with knowing the future or knowledge of the world.

Here's one thing I like and that I've seen praised elsewhere--in a timeline that ends really badly and ends up being rewritten, she is talked into getting her eyesight restored. She immediately hates it, having never resented her blindness and preferring her new ways of navigating the world, and finds the return of vision not only a huge sensory overload but also something she likes much less than her skill to navigate by smell. She takes to wearing a blindfold and continues to live and navigate as she had prior, up until she dies and the timeline is overwritten. In the new timeline, she doesn't have her vision healed, and this is shown to be a good thing.

On a meta note, however, Homestuck's writing is often...not very screen-reader accessible, and Terezi's typing is probably one of the worse offenders on that front. She speaks in all-caps and leetspeak (a = , i = 1, e = 3), making a character who I feel is pretty unique with an interesting portrayal of disability be much less accessible to an audience that might relate to her. I really need to go in sometime and remember how to put alt text for their dialogue in my published fics!

These next couple points are generally about the prevalence of vision loss throughout Homestuck: Terezi's blinding was part of a cycle of revenge in her friend group, and Vriska's response to Terezi causing an explosion that caused Vriska to lose an eye (which had previously given her powerful vision, and losing it was like losing 7/8 of her vision instead of 1/2) and an arm. However, later in the story, Vriska gets her full vision and missing arm back which is connected to the fact her idealized self didn't include those injuries, while Terezi's did include her blindness.

Other than Vriska, there is another blind character (who is blinded due to overuse of psychic powers destroying his eyes) whose blindness, while coming from injury, isn't treated as the worst possible fate by the story--Vriska is the only character who agonizes over her vision loss, but 1) this is very understandable given her living situation and 2) she is certainly not meant to be a good source of disability representation, being a...feeply flawed person who is ableist herself.

There are also a couple characters who are missing eyes not really due to injury but more like...physically reflecting damage to an object in a way that doesn't cause injury but does mean they are both missing the same eye. This isn't really brought up in-text but if I ever write those characters, it'd be cool to acknowledge.

That's all the points off the top of my head that I'd be interested in your thoughts on!

I'd also like to share a couple examples of things I currently do in my writing of her that I'd be curious to get an opinion on!

In any material that takes place after she is blind (even in the timeline where she gets healed), I avoid relying on visual descriptions from her point of view, and when I do, I challenge myself to make every color word have a taste/smell association with it to portray how she experiences them. These aren't usually literal "cherry-red"/"lemon-yellow" descriptors but things more like describing something bright green and unpleasant as "sour" and so forth.

I also often use words that have a tactile connection, again trying to connect her methods of "seeing" to the ways she can get this information. Even when she regained her vision, during the times when she isn't blindfolded, I still use this different language to show how her perception has changed.

I once wrote a scene where Terezi shows up at her Vriska's house (just after she blinded her!) having just gotten her new cane, and immediately runs upstairs as confidently as ever, which Vriska notes as a sign of how comfortable and familiar she is navigating Vriska's house. This was inspired by things I've seen about being able to navigate a familiar space like one's own home without needing aids, and was meant to act as a sign of how much time she's spent at Vriska's house.

Wow, that got long, but I'm super curious what your thoughts here are!

Homestuck / Terezi and Blindness

Disclaimer: I have no idea about Homestuck other than hearing the name and knowing that the voice of Zuko, Dante Basco, is somehow associated with it or was mentioned in it?

I’ll do my best to offer advice based on what information is included here. If anymore more familiar with the source material wants to offer ideas in the replies, that would be helpful.

Associating Colors With Taste and Smell

This is a tough one for me, because it can be a bit of a stereotype. Not all blind people develop synesthesia or have it. In the book Blind, Emma seems to develop synesthesia after losing her vision. However, a lot of totally blind folks have their own ways of associating colors with concepts or emotions. I think it depends on the person and how it is portrayed in the story.

I feel that her being a troll and a bit of a weirdo generally helps in this case. Being able to smell and taste colors feels more plausible with Homestuck than it does in more realistic fiction. It may also help if she displayed a propensity toward synesthesia or just general color associations before losing her vision. This would show that there are already many ways to experience the world that are not only about making up for the inability to see colors. For example, she might experience day-color synesthesia through developmental synesthesia before losing her vision. She could also experience color-taste synesthesia, which might include smell since taste involves smell.

Developmental synesthesia is more common than acquired, making her more likely to have had the ability to smell and taste colors since birth rather than it being associated with losing her vision. While it could be argued that her brain could be trying to create stimulus for her when her eyes no longer provide it, she would more likely experience some synesthesia initially rather than acquiring it.

The page I linked above does have a section on squired synesthesia, although it is less consistent and instead associated with brain changes. This means that if Terezi (and Emma from the book I mentioned, for that matter) had brain changes, it might make sense for them to acquire synesthesia. However, this causes a few issues:

-blindness would be caused by a traumatic brain injury to specific areas of the brain that coordinate vision, such as according to this page on TBI and total blindness. “Blindness can come from a penetrating injury like a gun shot or a non-penetrating injury like a blast in combat. It can also be a result of an injury to the back of the head — like from a fall — that destroys or damages an area that coordinates signals between the brain and the eyes. In this case, the eyes could be perfectly normal, but the function in the brain allowing the eyes and brain to communicate would be damaged and no longer work.”

-In this case, her eyes would probably be fine, although unable to communicate with her brain

-A traumatic brain injury would account for her blindness and maybe acquired synesthesia, although I don’t know what injuries area would specifically lead to acquired synesthesia, although you probably wouldn’t have to explain this much aside from explaining about a TBI

-this still leaves the issue of smelling and tasting colors as a way of making up for blindness, which is as much of a problem as negating it altogether

Whether you use actual synesthesia is up to you. However, I think showing an inclination toward this association of colors with other senses would be helpful in dispelling the ideas that all totally blind people have this ability and that blind people need something to make up for their blindness.

About Making Up For Blindness

Sometimes, characters receiving powers or devising a special way to see colors can feel like an ableist assumption that blind people are bereft without colors. The same goes for faces. I have written a few posts that might contain relevant information on these topics.

While blind people do care about colors, I feel that someone the way sighted writers focus on colors does blind characters a disservice. Blind people can lead rich and fulfilling lives without constantly wishing they could see colors or faces or whatever. Sometimes the way it is written feels inauthentic or as if sighted people cannot imagine being happy without seeing colors, cannot be happy without sight.

Accessibility

While she might lick her computer screen or other objects to taste colors, you can also focus on accessibility needs. Just because she can taste colors doesn’t mean she can read text or signs on the street. She can’t read menus at restaurants, although online pictures of food might be an interesting experience.

Consider what other tools she might use. Since you mentioned computers, something like JAWS could work or a Braille display. She could use text to speech on her phone, such as VoiceOver or TalkBack. Perhaps she writes and reads Braille, enjoying the tactile experience, which would be in line with her other sensory experiences with smell and taste from the canon material.

From there, you could also explore what eating food is like for her. What about cooking or baking? What about candles or bonfires?

What other sensory experiences are important to her and why? Does she prefer certain textures in her space? She will lose her sense of time, so does she eat certain foods to signal to her brain and body that it is time to sleep? Does her routine change to instill a sense of time so her rhythm isn’t messed up or does she say screw it and go to bed on her own schedule?

These are all things to consider that might enrich her character after see becomes blind.

Cane Use and Navigation

Cane use allows for easier navigation and route memorization. Using one would also help her benefit from others recognizing her as a blind person. Stairs are also much easier with a cane. Since she already has one in canon, you can have her use it more in everyday life.

Cane as a Weapon

While this is canon, I’m not super happy about it. Canes housing weapons inside them or being used as weapons sounds cool, but is ultimately as an overused, unrealistic trope.

A cane is not a weapon. The idea that it could be can cause problems for blind people just trying to go about their day.

A weapon, such as a sword, inside a cane would mess up navigation, vibration, and make it impossible to fold or unfold. Depending on how the weapon is designed might also be unable to fit inside the cane.

I also probably don’t have to mention that a stability cane is not the same type of cane. You could address this with different descriptions of the cane.

Focusing on navigation over weaponry might help reduce some of the issues with cane use in canon. Navigation is also still important in battle, which is another reason I don’t personally like canes as weapons. While a folded cane would do in a pinch to smack an enemy, the blind character still needs their cane to navigate.

Go ahead and let her be a sword-wielding badass, though.

Traumatic, Accident-, or Incident-Based Blindness

Traumatic accident or incident based blindness tend to be over-represented in fiction. While blindness can be acquired, this is usually due to concerns such as glaucoma, cataract, diabetic retinopathy, etc. Other causes are often work-related injuries.

Since her being blinded is part of canon, I don’t think there is much you can do to address it other than explore her feelings toward her friends and her blindness. It may be connected to trauma, but you can make this better by instead focusing on friendship and betrayal, rather than angst about her blindness. If you happen to have any other characters you could use, other blind characters who haven’t gone blind through traumatic incidents could help show a variety of experiences.

Other Blind Characters and Community

Blind characters having access to their community is important. I think having a community could make it easier for her to cope with the sudden change in her life and help her learn how to be blind.

Making Your Work Accessible

Since the source material is not always accessible, it might help to include explanations, summaries, or image descriptions of the source material in your fan work.

The Blind Seer Trope

I have written a few posts on this topic that might help. However, I think this case is okay. She isn’t the only future seer. As long as the visions don’t negate or make up for her blindness, you’re probably good. Lastly, while I don’t know what forms her visions take, I think it helps if her visions don’t require, well, actual sight, nor give her sight she wouldn’t already have.

Closing

The thoughts you included about your writing so far sound good to me. I know from the points you’ve considering already that you’re going to write her blindness with care. While canon can sometimes be hard to navigate, fanfic also gives you a chance to explore and subvert these problems. You can also include your concerns in notes along with your story.

I hope this helps. If anyone has other thoughts, feel free to share in the notes.

[janiedean]

I read your metas on why you think GRRM always meant for Bran to be KITN, not King of the 7K as per what he told Benioff and Weiss during their decades-long intimate working relationship on the show adaptation and I have to say I disagree lol. I don't really understand how someone can think that Benioff and Weiss were told 'yeah Jon sits the throne and the irrelevant 8 year old fourth son of the Stark family becomes KITN' and D and D were like, 'ummm no we're going to blow our legacy by putting BRAN of all characters on the IT, and not giving our fan favorite character his shining moment on the IT.' I don't like Bran as King and neither did D and D, but they had to maintain that GOT was some semblance of an adaptation so they had to use Martin's endgames. It blows my mind that people still deny this. I do think the north being independent and Sansa being QITN was fanservice tho. She will likely be Lady of Winterfell, not queen. Anyone that thinks she ends her story in the Vale is deeply unserious.

Jon's a chosen one deconstruction because once he finds out about his parentage, it's not going to be a good thing that gives him a renewed sense of self like in the thousands of other chosen one fantasy arcs. It will be a devastating revelation for him and cause a very negative identity crisis. Also, his parentage was always meant to be a red herring, why do you think GRRM set it up in a way that there is literally no way for Jon to prove he's actually R and L's son? Much less prove he's a legitimate son born from a valid, legal marriage? I don't think anyone outside of Jon's very close inner circle will ever know the truth about who his real parents are, it's not something he will want to ever be made known lmao. The show conflating Jon with YG, not adapting YG, and basically being a Jon Snow is So Great Fanservice vehicle in the last few seasons has made the fandom think that's where his arc is leading, it's not. Not that GRRM will ever publish another book, but anyway.

Also, Jon is not AA, it is Dany. The thing is.....that's not a good thing lol. The AA prophecy is basically prophesizing the coming of Khal Stalin, not a savior lmao. That's the twist and the double edge sword with prophecies that is so very Martin. The constant debates among the fandom as to who is AA is so hilarious because they fundamentally don't understand that it's a negative prophecy. The dramatic irony of house targ thinking they need to bring about the AA prophecy to save humanity when in actuality they are unleashing a new evil that needs to be defeated is deeply delicious dramatic irony. But the fandom is too bogged down into the most basic fantasy tropes to see it and refuses to acknowledge that GRRM is cynically deconstructing these tropes. Almost as if he's trying to say that being the son of the crown prince actually sucks and will make the supposed 'chosen one's' life hell, the ethereal looking princess with the sympathetic backstory is actually an authoritarian tyrant who's bloody conquest for the iron throne using her hordes of brainwashed killing machines will cause destruction not restore some great dynasty, and the 'broken' disabled boy with special mind powers who is able to look into all of history to learn from the mistakes of all the monarchs that came before him is the 'best' ruler for a 'broken' realm.

I'm uuuuh, gonna try and reply to this as briefly as I can but like with the premise that everyone can agree or disagree with anything and text interpretation can't be set in stone until like the entire thing is over... in order

I don't really understand how someone can think that Benioff and Weiss were told 'yeah Jon sits the throne and the irrelevant 8 year old fourth son of the Stark family becomes KITN' and D and D were like, 'ummm no we're going to blow our legacy by putting BRAN of all characters on the IT, and not giving our fan favorite character his shining moment on the IT.'

anon I don't wanna sound rude but.... they lit set jon up to kill the night king and then made arya of all ppl do it NONSENSICALLY just to make ppl surprised, they literally shat all over the entire text since S2 if not S1 already, just the robb storyline shows they didn't understand anything about the point of the red wedding which they said they WANTED to adapt and they basically made shit up since s4 onwards without anything making literal sense including making c*rsei the ultimate boss when there is no shred of text evidence she's that important and grrm is pissed with the ending so like... I can 100% think that both of them didn't gaf about what grrm had to say and just understood what they wanted to, also because we're talking abt the ppl who made stannis go agamemnon on shireen because they hated his ass when if shireen dies like that no way it's stannis ordering it by any shred of textual sense so I absolutely will say dnd didn't gaf about what grrm said and threw their legacy in the trash, that because.... everyone thought the finale was trash and they haven't had a gig like that since bc no one wants them after got, with good reason, so like ppl can say that because there is nothing dnd have done as showrunners that shows they gaf about the og text, end of story

I don't like Bran as King and neither did D and D, but they had to maintain that GOT was some semblance of an adaptation so they had to use Martin's endgames. It blows my mind that people still deny this. I do think the north being independent and Sansa being QITN was fanservice tho. She will likely be Lady of Winterfell, not queen. Anyone that thinks she ends her story in the Vale is deeply unserious.

except the jc endgame is obviously not the book endgame, lit no one's endgame except imvho jon's (hahaha) and possibly tyrion/davos is the actual book endgame and I'd like everyone to remember there's no shred of textual evidence rickon doesn't die in the books but anyway like... sorry but dnd not wanting to put jon on the IT for shock value (which is obvious since everyone expected it) and not giving bran kitn to give it to sansa so ppl who wanted her to be queen would be happy makes absolute sense to me, also like... again I'm not gonna go over it again bc you said you read the meta but: bran is a deconstructed version of a kingly arthurian archetype which by himself means that he has to become king while being disabled/in virtue of having lost his legs so like sorry but bran being king is absolutely in the text but no way it makes sense it's 7k since he's directly tied to his land and its magic same as the fisher king so......

Jon's a chosen one deconstruction because once he finds out about his parentage, it's not going to be a good thing that gives him a renewed sense of self like in the thousands of other chosen one fantasy arcs. It will be a devastating revelation for him and cause a very negative identity crisis

I agree and I wrote a longass meta about jon being a chosen one deconstruction but being AA/his inheritance absolutely does not rule out it being a deconstruction imvho

Also, his parentage was always meant to be a red herring, why do you think GRRM set it up in a way that there is literally no way for Jon to prove he's actually R and L's son?

howland reed was there when he was born and lyanna could have told him and ned they were married, also bran can lit travel in time and prove it/see it happen, but even if he's not legitimate wrt rhaegar it doesn't matter because in the book he's legitimate wrt robb's will so he's gonna get kitn title at some point even just for that but like... point is if howland reed corroborates it and he gets a pet dragon or smth and no one has reasons to disagree esp because they'll need to kill zombies whether r/l were married doesn't matter at all

Much less prove he's a legitimate son born from a valid, legal marriage? I don't think anyone outside of Jon's very close inner circle will ever know the truth about who his real parents are, it's not something he will want to ever be made known lmao. The show conflating Jon with YG, not adapting YG, and basically being a Jon Snow is So Great Fanservice vehicle in the last few seasons has made the fandom think that's where his arc is leading, it's not. Not that GRRM will ever publish another book, but anyway.

we can't know about wrt grrm publishing something else or not but again: howland reed knows and he's still around and kicking and there is no reason for people to not make it known especially when it comes out and they have to treat with dany, also the show conflated young griff with both jon and cersei and jon connington with jorah and daenerys which makes no sense whatsoever so like that argument holds zero water bc they didn't know what they were doing and it shows

Also, Jon is not AA, it is Dany. The thing is.....that's not a good thing lol. The AA prophecy is basically prophesizing the coming of Khal Stalin, not a savior lmao. That's the twist and the double edge sword with prophecies that is so very Martin.

anon the second maester aemon said on page AA is daenerys out loud it went out of the window, the way asoiaf prophecies are structured everyone who's rumored to be X by other people/themselves before it actually happens won't be that, and jon only ever was deemed a candidate by a vision melisandre had... which she immediately discarded bc she didn't understand what the hell her own god was telling her so sorry but I don't agree and it's not gonna happen

The constant debates among the fandom as to who is AA is so hilarious because they fundamentally don't understand that it's a negative prophecy. The dramatic irony of house targ thinking they need to bring about the AA prophecy to save humanity when in actuality they are unleashing a new evil that needs to be defeated is deeply delicious dramatic irony. But the fandom is too bogged down into the most basic fantasy tropes to see it and refuses to acknowledge that GRRM is cynically deconstructing these tropes. Almost as if he's trying to say that being the son of the crown prince actually sucks and will make the supposed 'chosen one's' life hell, the ethereal looking princess with the sympathetic backstory is actually an authoritarian tyrant who's bloody conquest for the iron throne using her hordes of brainwashed killing machines will cause destruction not restore some great dynasty, and the 'broken' disabled boy with special mind powers who is able to look into all of history to learn from the mistakes of all the monarchs that came before him is the 'best' ruler for a 'broken' realm.

anon I don't even disagree with all of this but:

i do not think that in any way shape or form jon is not AA - there is no way he's not, he's lit the only one who actually came back to life in the show if we wanna show truth and there's no other character who lit resurrected and no one else will so there's that, he died according to the prophecy and no one in text would ever put a cent on AA being him, like.,........ what we know is not what they do and for westeros jon snow is the least likely candidate soooo like sorry but I don't think it makes sense that anyone else is AA, you can think it's dany but idt there's a chance in hell

I think the evil is already there and it's zombies, like... ik the show made it look like the long night was nothing but it's the actual ultimate big bad so there's no need for AA to be another evil, rhaegar would have misunderstood the og prophecy well enough as it is without getting that far

jon being the chosen one and AA would still make his life hell

idt dany is written in the book as an authoritarian tyrant and idt it's where she's headed and I'm saying it as someone who doesn't gaf about dany and doesn't care either way but the show version was just ridiculous and nothing in the text says she's headed there whatsoever

I also agree this fandom cannibalizing itself over who is AA is ridiculous... because it's jon and there's no reason to further argue over that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

bran can absolutely be the best ruler for a broken realm,..... the north, which has been mauled and will be further mauled by the zombies, and it makes no sense he is 7k anyway given his background and stuff, again you can disagree with it as you want but idt anything that happened in the show except an extremely selected amount of things which are absolutely out of context has a chance in hell of happening in the books and from the way grrm reacted to the finale it seems obvious to me, then... again you can agree or disagree with me but I wrote so much meta on the topic I honestly feel like I'd be rehashing myself over and over if I went about it again but like

of course everyone believes in their own interpretation but there's no way I'm gonna be swayed by any argument agains kitn!bran and 7k!jon who then abdicates and goes to the wildlings by anything that's not grrm publishing ados and writing differently, godspeed and that's mvho ;)

[your-local-uwu-artist]

HELLAO how about 6, 14, 15, and 25 for the Kirby OC ask game!!! :D

🗣️: If you could cast a voice actor to voice your OC who would you choose?

tbh I havn't really been able to nail a voice-claim/hc down for Button. Though I def think he would have a more masculine-sounding voice, but with some sort of quick to it (like being raspy or squeaky) the only thing I know for sure is he needs like, a loser white guy voice.... if that makes literally any sense

also I think they have the vibe of a character whos eng and jp voices are very different but somehow both work equally very well (like calcifur and meowth, both of those have very different directions taken with their voices but both work in the same way somehow??)

ummm some potential candidates are Charlie Day, Jack McBrayer, maybe Jason Ritter? Daniel thrasher has never voice acted but he's def a candidate

for jp something similar to either Nate's pkmn masters jp voice, or like, something very raspy and mascot-character esque

14. 🍱: If your OC had a dish themed around them at the Kirby Cafe, what would it be?

hmm I'm not sure? this isn't really my area of expertise: here's some random ideas tho~

-apple pie flavored waffle? shaped like a star of course

-little button shaped sugar cookies?

-half chocolate half vanilla cupcake? to represent the angel+demon thing, combine it with the sugar cookies maybe? have two of them decorated like his eyes mayhaps?

-apparently there is a way to make drinks glow in the dark but it requires a black light so dead end :(

-mac n cheese, idk how to make it cute but it needs to be involved

-wait! idea: pretzel shaped like a lyra?

15. 🧸: If your OC had any merchandise themed around them, what would it be?

now this one is actually right in my area of expertise I love toy design

for some less simple things:

one of those little craft kits that gives you the supplies to make something simple like a felt plush sewn together with yarn, you could sew a little small star-button billow, and a little kirby plush and the aesthetic is all Button themed. Or maybe a a friendship bracelet craft kit? there's a lot of potential craft kits what with being from patch land

or maybe a merry magoland themed re-ment set that features a little Button working a booth

or you know those little keychain plushies?

dude I could design these ALL DAY

hell I've thought a lot about button merch just with what I could feasibly make happen. Button acryllic charms? Button buttons? a Button themed candy bag keychain? those keychains with the little magnet heart accesories? I could do that with Button and characters he's shipable with. standee with tail wag? glow in the dark standee and the stand part is a magic circle? button enamel pins? button ACRYLIC PINS?

25. ⭐️: If your OC got their own spinoff game what would it be about and what would the gameplay be like?

a few ideas!

-epic yarn style! the story line is Button learns about Kirby's Magic sock and decides to visit home~

-game where you sail across the sea!!! Meta Knight wants you to collect a special flower that only grows on this one island, he's too busy with meta knight stuff to get it himself. So he has sent Button on this fetch quest. i guess you could make it into a platformer, but maybe it could be like a minigame collection? that would involve things like puzzle games to figure out navigation. or upkeep/tidying around the boat. maybe there could be 'events', like finding a waddle dee lost at sea and bringing them home. or needing to fix the boats engine

-prequel game of one of Button's journey's during angst-era. platformer but with a lot of puzzle aspects implemented

-if you wanted a more epic quest with co-op modes and all maybe Button caught wind of some powerful magic source and is seeking it in hopes of restoring his Halo, and of course theres a positive message in the end where no Button doesn't get his halo back but he got his Self worth back or smth. (the true halo was the friends we made along the way I guess) would still want puzzle aspects implemented

-game where kirby and co is on vacation but danger strikes and Button, Magolor, Taranza, and Marx has to take the place of Kirby and co.

-unrelated but take a moment to imagine Merry Magoland but with Button around doing his job. Imagine a special animation of them being shocked when the player gets a high score or smth

[idkhowtopickausername]

Someone added a very lengthy response to one of my Naruto meta posts about this and I don’t want to debate them about it but I still think it doesn’t make sense to say that Sasuke conceding in VoTE2 and then later accepting the headband was solely about his relationship with Naruto and accepting that he couldn’t do things alone and not also about giving in to the village and essentially giving up his opposition to it and the form of justice that involved drastically changing things. I don’t think that means that those moments aren’t very moving from the viewpoint of their relationship or that people can’t appreciate them for that but explicitly stating that it’s *not* about loyalty to the village irritates me because that’s just not true the headband is literally the village symbol and he loses it when he defects. The story was set up so that Sasuke would leave the village and then learn a lesson and have to return, and while I think there was room for it to have gone differently and I wish it had, the premise from the beginning was based on him eventually restoring his relationship with Naruto in the context of returning his loyalty to the village, and despite how much potential there was for that to change it never actually happened.

[bisexualmikisayaka]

and like. it’s not like anyone comes to me for meta or any of that this truly is just me and maybe 5 consistent followers but i feel like i Have To Have A Stance On These Things As A Berserk Poster so:

- as much as i like gutsca, i’m certainly not married to it. i posted a little bit about the difficulties i have reconciling the beast of darkness scene with their relationship and like. on the whole i think much like many of the other heterosexual ships written by men who can’t write women i really like the potential it has more than the canon it does. i’ve expressed my strong desire for the alternate universe berserk where casca is still... obviously traumatized but is cognizant and is in possession of all her faculties trying to navigate the world after the eclipse and what a relationship with guts, also traumatized, would look like there. going back to the in-universe content i think they are quite interesting in the sense that they really only have one to two moments of being a “couple” before everything goes to shit, and the rest of their relationship is kind of based off of what could have been rather than what was. guts cares about casca, it’s undeniable, but a lot of what drives him is also guilt and rage at everything that happened during the eclipse. the casca he wants back was a casca he only barely got to know - the thoughts of the future that they shared were driven entirely by hope, and not in experience because of how quickly everything bad happened after that. i don’t want to call it a sense of obligation towards restoring her mental capacities, but it kind of feels like that. i can’t get people who think the story is about their love conquering all, because i don’t know if you can call what they have “love” in that sense. it’s more complicated than that, because berserk is a complicated manga! 

and then on casca’s end, i’ve also posted about my irritation with her lack of interiority even in scenes focusing on her - the most exploration of her life during the years where she’d regressed was through farnese and schierke, not through her own view. and now that’s she’s up and actively dealing with what happened, it seemed like we were getting a step towards casca development, but now she just thinks about the eclipse for two seconds and then passes out. awesome. i just have no idea if miura was actually going to give her that internal development we spent so long seeing with guts, and i have even less of an idea of what it’s going to look like under mori and studio gaga. i almost feel like guts here, lol - i miss the casca we knew before this happened and i wish she wasn’t getting nerfed at every second. i still have hope, especially with the events of 372, but i can’t imagine that being trapped in a castle with griffith and a bunch of apostles is going to be good for her. guess we’ll just have to wait and see, but god i really hope we can actually get some sort of progress on her end. 

- i am a moonlight boy gutsca baby truther though. sorry. that’s their kid. i don’t need for them to be permanently reunited with him to have what i would describe as a “happy ending” - in fact, i don’t see a way moonlight boy makes it out “alive,” because like it or not he is a part of griffith and that seems kind of impossible to separate. now the griffith dual identity thing is very interesting - like, what it means for him to have this form every month and what that indicates, because he is someone who changes forms on a symbolic and literal level pretty frequently, so what does that make moon baby represent for him? but i digress. my feelings on guts and casca as parents are... also complicated, as i really kind of hate the “warrior woman has a strong maternal streak because She Is A Woman And Woman Love Baby” trope but a) i will take anything. ANYTHING. that expands casca’s character especially in the newer chapters and b) casca’s relationship to her presentation of herself is explicitly stated to have been out of necessity rather than any real desire. she is strong, she runs with the boys, but she also didn’t always want that (see her golden era comments about wearing a dress and her body, especially during sex with guts ((and i know, she’s not saying these things, it’s miura writing her to say them, but i’m sticking with an in-text interpretation of this because if i actually got into casca’s relationship to femininity i’d need a whole new post. i’ve talked about her a lot here already!!))). i’d prefer a different way of her showing her caring side - ideally it’d be bonding with farnese and schierke, but i’ll live. it’s not the most offensive writing decision related to her. guts i honestly like being a dad, be it adoptive or biological, because it works with the parts of his character that are already present. him learning to be a good father is breaking the cycle that gambino put him in, whether he’s conscious of it or not, but it’s also not something i need from him. it’s just fun to see. 

- speaking of griffith and relationships i generally engage with griffguts on a.. thematic level, i guess? there’s like this very visceral hatred that a lot of fanboys have for griffith in particular (which often pairs with homophobic-to-homoerotic-sliding-scale jokes, go figure) that is just not present in my engagement of his appearances in berserk. i think he’s a phenomenal character but i also think it’s bullshit to call what he does as femto separate from the character of griffith. yes, he was under horrific, life-shattering duress when he made the decision to become part of the godhand and you could argue that they were manipulating him into making that choice. he still did all that shit, though. i maintain what i said in one of my recent posts about his creation of falconia - the moment he needs to use the power he obtained through that sacrifice, it’s telling that he reverts back to his femto appearance. separate from the godhand he may currently be, but when he needs to draw upon the power he received from them through that sacrifice, he has no qualms about doing so. i think it’s fair to see him in distinct stages - rickert even presents this dichotomy when he rejects griffith by telling him his leader isn’t the hawk of light - but to me he’s not. a different person, he’s just in different stages of his character. yes, he becomes inhuman, and through that he literally becomes a different being, but it’s all progressions of griffith through what was being set up in the GE and the black swordsman prologue. we knew he would do anything to get a kingdom. we knew the behelit would come back to him somehow. this progression was laid out for us from the start; we just watched him move through it. he’s still griffith, even as femto.

- fuck, what was i talking about. oh yeah, griffguts. i definitely feel like i come to appreciate their early relationship more and more with each reread, but it’s definitely more like. a site of observation and analysis for me rather than something i would say i actively “ship.” outside of like My Ideal Version Of Guts And Casca That I Think About Sometimes as well as my own private jokes about serpguts and the occasional farnesca moment i don’t really ship much in the series because... making berserk about shipping would be insane. anyways they’re obviously the primary relationship dynamic in the series and it’s really fascinating to watch how they relate to one another and then change drastically, but still maintain some sort of connection (mostly on guts’ end. on griffith’s, it’s a little more complicated, especially in the newer chapters under the newer direction... but why else would he kidnap casca?). but i do believe that there was something romantic going on between him and guts in the golden age (i mean. there is literally no other way to interpret griffith going crazy after guts wins the fight and leaves him, and guts’ own reasons for initiating that are... also pretty un-heterosexual!), but that’s just one level of their relationship. there’s a lot more to it, both back then and now, and that’s why i think looking at griffguts as just a traditional “ship” in the fandom sense does it a lot of disservice - again, complicated manga means complicated relationships! much more interesting to me to see the ways their journeys intersect and then diverge, but always come back to one another in the end. 

- anyways that’s that; these opinions were also all written at 1 am and are subject to change! berserk is a text i am constantly formulating and re-formulating my opinions on, so who knows. maybe i’ll revisit this post in another year or so with totally different perspectives on these things 

[aresianrepose]

Before the semester kicks off and murders me, @disniq​ asked for my essay on Jason Todd and hysteria. So, without further ado, here is an actual essay (fucking dissertation) because I refuse brevity. It is extremely long. I’ve split it into sections so you can find the section header and read what you want. This does not encompass all the narrative trauma themes and lived experiences that this boy holds, just specifically hysteria. 

Jason Todd, The Hysteric & Bruce Wayne, The Batman

I think it’s a common reading that Jason Todd is girl-coded and the patron saint of victims, at least within the circle that I’ve fallen into within this fandom. There are plenty of meta discussions on why those readings stand, so I’m not going to reiterate them. A pillar of him being girl-coded and someone trauma survivors have latched onto as one of our own has to do with being written in the context of hysterical femininity. And let me just say, I don’t think that writing was done in a way that he was intentionally coded as hysterical, but it is a function of our patriarchal society that this coding was used on him albeit without the explicit purpose of writing a hysteric story. 

For the purpose of this post: the word woman includes ciswomen, transwomen, and any person who is socially positioned as a woman regardless of gender identity. I include the positionality here because anyone can experience misogyny and sexism depending on the perception of the perpetrators either interpersonally or systemically. 

The History and Context of Hysteria

To understand the context, we have to look at the history and oppression of hysteria. Hysteria (in the modern context of psychology) emerged in the nineteenth century and is difficult to define by design and often applied to traumatized, unruly, and broken women. The main patriarchs who contributed to hysterical study were Jean-Martin Charcot and Sigmund Freud. I only mention this because it’s important to know their names moving forward for any of this to make sense. The beginning of this started with Charcot literally putting women whose lives had been marked by rape, abuse, exploitation, and poverty on display in his Tuesday lectures (which were open to the public) to show his findings on hysteria. This was actually seen as restoring dignity (fucking yikes) to the women because before Charcot these hysterical women were cast aside and not treated at all. In Charcot’s work, the women’s speech was seen as simply “vocalization” and their inner lives, their stories, their words, were silenced. After hearing a woman cry for her mother during one of the public sessions Charcot remarked, “Again, note these screams. You could say it’s a lot of noise over nothing” (Herman). 

This led to Freud, Charcot’s student, wanting to surpass his teacher by discovering the cause of hysteria. This was disastrous. Freud started with listening to the hysterics. In doing so, he learned and believed them about the abuse, rape, and exploitation of their pasts. He then published his work and gave a lecture on it. The work rivals even contemporary psychological work on trauma in it’s level of compassion, understanding, and treatment of survivors. However, he was then labeled a feminist (this was all happening during the first wave of feminism) and professionally ostracized. How in the world could these aristocratic French men be sexually abusing their wives, sisters, and daughters??? Insanity, truly. And... This always fucking gets me. He recanted his work and then told his patients they all imagined it because they wanted to be sexually abused by their husbands, brothers, and fathers. This set back the study of trauma by literally a century. One colleague called his work “a scientific fairy-tale” simply because he had the audacity to believe victims. Also, I want to point out that the famous hysteria case during this time was the case of Anna O and she was ultimately villainized by the entire psychological community for going into crisis after her care provider abruptly ended their therapeutic relationship after two years of DAILY sessions. 

Anyway. We can see how the power of these men over vulnerable women silenced, pathologized, villainized, infantilized, and used male ‘logic’ to completely destroy their credibility and lives under the guise of care and hysteria. Even when credible men lend their expertise and voices to the victims, their voices are silenced. This particular iteration of hysteria lasted over a century, and we are still dealing with the consequences of these actions and ideas within our social construction, medical and mental health care, interpersonal relationships, and more. Patriarchal pillars such as hysteria don’t die. We saw it move from hysteria to schizophrenia (which used to have the same symptoms of hysteria before the diagnosis changed in more contemporary psychology) after this which led to widespread lobotomies and electroshock therapy (my least favorite case of a lobotomy being done is on a woman who was diagnosed with LITERALLY ‘narcissist husband’) to depression in the 40s-50s with the over prescription of benzodiazepines to house wives to keep them in a zombie state (these prescriptions were sometimes double and triple what we take today with the intent of medical catatonia). In my opinion, as well as other counselors within the feminist therapy theoretical orientation, we are currently seeing it with the emergence of borderline-personality disorder. Think about how BPD is treated and demonized for a second. I professionally know therapists who refuse to work with BPD clients due to this villainization and just fucking gross perception of victims.

These are just the highlights, but it shows the history of hysteria. There have been centuries of women being marked as hysterical and the cures have ranged from lobotomy to bed rest (which sounds not so bad but read the Yellow Wallpaper and get back to me on that one). While the Yellow Wallpaper is fictional, the life behind it was not. After the traumatic birth of her child the author, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, was remanded to bed rest by the authority of her husband and doctor. Within the sphere of medical control, hysterical women are often treated as children while their doctors make decisions for their mental well-being without consulting them, or they hide the truth of their procedures for “the woman’s own good” and because “she’s hysterical and wouldn’t comprehend the logical need for this.” She then had a mental break due to the treatment. Again, we see hysterical women being silenced, infantilized, discredited from their own experiences, and under the narrative control of male logic and voices. 

Hysterical women have often historically been seen as beneath men, except for when they’re dangerous. Listening to victims is inherently threatening to the status quo because all trauma comes from a systemic framework. The framework that upholds patriarchal power. It’s easy to see why that would be seen as dangerous to powerful men. We saw this with the European witch genocide in which oppressed women were targeted and wiped out under the excuse of what was considered women’s work. (Before this time, witchcraft wasn’t tied to any religion and was mostly just seen as women’s work. It was targeted specifically to have an excuse to persecute widows, homeless, disabled, and vulnerable women who no longer had men to reign over them during a time of political unrest and scarce resources). This time period saw hysterical and traumatized women demonized as dangerous, evil, immoral, hypersexual, and supernaturally wily. A threat to the moral fabric of society. 

(Interesting history side note: this caused the view of women’s base traits we have today. It stemmed from the Victorian era that came after this time period in which women learned if they behaved a certain way, they would be spared the stake. For example, before the witch trials, women were actually seen as the ones with unsatiable sexual appetites, something we culturally prescribe to men now.) 

Notice how none of this has to do with the actual abuse that happens to the women, but instead the labeling and treatment of women when they are already showing the symptoms of abuse, trauma, control, exploitation, and rape. 

Jason Todd, The Hysteric

So, how does this relate to Jason Todd? To say that Jason has experienced trauma would be an understatement. Extreme poverty, loss of parent to death and addiction, loss of parent to the justice system, parental abuse, manipulation, witnessing violent crimes, witnessing the aftermath of sexual abuse and assault, arguably (not explicit in the text) his own sexual trauma, witnessing the dead bodies of victims, a violent death, and subsequently a violent resurrection. There’s also an argument to be made for being a child soldier and how that is romanticized up until he dies, but the text does not treat this as traumatizing.

Now, I’m not going to dive into the trauma he experienced. The purpose of this is only to look at how he’s framed as hysterical in the narrative, and as I stated, hysteria was a word slapped on women after they tried to talk about their trauma or exhibited symptoms (or were just unruly women). Jason does embody many facets of the victim experience and this is just one of them. 

Feelings vs “logic” - Firstly, it is really hard to talk calmly about things that you carry, your experiences, your trauma, and things that specifically harm you. It is easy to talk calmly about things that don’t. This is why there is an abuse tactic of gaslighting or silencing victims by framing their very real reactions to harm or their triggers as abuse, this is known as “reactive abuse.” This tactic is also employed in oppressive settings where the privileged group will often default to ‘winning’ a debate by being able to remain calm while the marginalized group whose life, personhood, etc is being harmed by the things being discussed and are unable to have a sterilized, emotionless debate. 

Both of these settings fit Jason nicely within the moral context of vigilante comics. He fought back, he didn’t lay down, and he will do what he deems as necessary to protect himself and others from his fate. This, however, is framed by Bruce and others as being just as bad as his murderer or even just as bad as Joe fucking Chill. To put this in perspective of a real world equivalent. Combine every billionaire on this planet into one person and instead of their shitty business practices murdering people, they did it with their own two hands. And due to their resources and political power, they would never, ever stop killing or be reasonably contained. More people would die with absolute 100% certainty. Would killing that one person make you equally bad as that person or violating the sanctity of life? That’s the moral question that Bruce puts onto Jason. While the moral question inherent to Jason is actually, is there a line worth crossing to provide reasonable safety (for yourself or the nameless community)? There is actually a difference between those two questions and the reactive abuse framing is certainly a choice. Also, it is funny to me that a man with the amount of power Bruce has (and frequently misuses) can lecture a murder victim on the misuse of power and morality. Are we supposed to be agree with his stoic, philosophical lecturing to a marginalized, abused, murder victim? (yes, we are). Bruce leverages (personal) philosophy against victim’s voice for their own safety, and take a wild guess which one is framed as logical and reasonable.

Jason’s morals come secondary to Bruce’s philosophy in a universe where there is still harm being done (but it’s an acceptable harm). Why is killing the line? Bruce is regularly destroying families and lives by feeding them into the prison industrial complex while supporting it with his whole chest. Or he’s disabling and seriously maiming people with the level of violence he uses. 

Crying - Throughout the entire story of Under the Red Hood, we never once see Bruce emote while interacting with Jason outside of tight grimaces. With the exception of the shock he shows at the Joker’s life being threatened, which... Okay, suuure. We never see him cry during any of their interactions, but we do see Jason cry. Specifically, we see him crying when he’s at his most emotionally vulnerable and physically dangerous to the toxic male power fantasy. This kind of vulnerability is rarely shown by male characters, and when it is, it’s usually done with a mist of a tear in their eyes or their face is hidden. There are a few narrative devices that allow men to cry, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Usually, it’s to play for laughs, infantilize, or emasculate. Here, we see Jason combine the violence of a bad victim, bucking the system of power, and fully crying. Just slide right into that hysterical coding like a glove. Jason often shows his feelings entirely. Time and time again, the readers have seen Jason have breakdowns, cry, and be overcome with grief. This is tied to his portrayal as hysterical and unstable in the narrative, but in actuality it shows his capacity for love and how vastly impactful his death was. 

This fits nicely with the next point that Jason fits into the hysterical box. Love is framed as one of his key faults. A son reaching for his father. 

Love - One of Jason’s defining features is the amount of love and compassion he holds. He’s willing to put up with any treatment, shoulder blame, and sacrifice himself for others to almost an unhealthy degree. However, this doesn’t extend to what he defines as his baseline safety. This one line of safety is the one thing that can’t be crossed, even with all of the love he feels for his father. He desperately wants to feel connection, have a family, and be loved in return with the same unwavering ferocity love that he gives. This is such a fucking key part of the victim experience, especially victims of childhood trauma. The desperation to just be chosen. He’s raw and honest with his reasonable expectation for love to provide safety for him and that is framed as hysterical, needy, unstable, naive, and fucking childish. Victims know what they need to have safety, and this framing as Bruce knowing what’s best for Jason and literally giving a cold shoulder to his needs is disgusting. 

Less than - Jason is portrayed as less powerful than Bruce even though they have similar expertise. There are so many instances of this that if you just open any media they both appear in, you can close your eyes, point, and land on an example. It makes me die laughing every time I remember that the Arkham games made Jason just one inch shorter than Bruce. Like, they can’t even be the same fucking height, that’s the level of insecure masculinity surrounding this relationship. Jason cannot and will never be able to be on par with Bruce because of his hysterical femininity and the power of Bruce being the self insert for the toxic male power fantasy. This power dynamic applies to the other batkids as well, but specifically in Jason’s case there is an element of hysteria. The reasons change because he’s so inconsistently written but usually he can’t surpass or even meet a stalemate with Bruce because he’s too emotional, he’s unstable, traumatized, and simply Bad. It’s even explicitly stated by Alfred in Under the Red Hood. 

Victim blaming - Jason deserved to die because he didn’t follow orders. Jason deserved to die for not following his training. Jason deserved to die because he was an angry Robin (oh no a child had an appropriate reaction to sexual violence). Jason deserved to die for being human.

Infantilization - Jason is repeatedly infantilized in contrast to Bruce. When given the ultimatum at the end of UtRH, Bruce speaks to Jason like a child, or a bad dog. Ordering him to do things like, “enough!” or “stop this now.” Bruce knows what’s best for Jason (and for everyone in the entire world), we should really just take his word for it and not the victim’s. Imagine staring at a 6 foot wall of a man and scolding him like a child. Beyond that, as mentioned above, his views of love and safety are framed as childish. Even though they are actually leaning more toward collectivism rather than the rampant individualism that Bruce so strongly defers to. (also, just a side note, collectivistic methods in healing from trauma is actually the only scientifically reliable way to heal. Every other method has absolutely abysmal results and higher rates of relapses.)

Silenced and Safety Villainized - Jason is silenced in his own story, acceptable and honored when he was dead and met with vitriol in life. All of the love given to him as Robin turns to ash as soon as he collides with Bruce’s power and morals. I think any survivor can relate to the experience of being told that what happened to them was a long time ago and it’s time to move on. Or even that they’re leveraging their own safety to get what they want in a manipulative way. Regardless of whether or not there was any accountability or justice for the harm done to them. Alfred asks Bruce if he should remove Jason’s memorial in the cave like two seconds after learning of his resurrection because Jason’s methods of securing safety for himself and using his own voice to define his story. Bruce was able to tell Jason’s story when he died. He was able to memorialize, grieve, and ultimately define Jason’s story because Jason wasn’t there to speak for himself. When Jason does speak for himself, he is villainized and literally stripped of his past significance as Robin (or a good victim) by Alfred within seconds. This is reflected in real life with adoptee advocates speaking about how adoption is unethical/harmful/traumatizing and subsequently being framed as ungrateful, selfish, etc. They were little perfect victims without voices before they grew up and could speak for themselves.

Erased - Gestures at the entirety of how Jason is either talked about or completely erased during the 90s Tim Robin run. He wasn’t convenient to talk about, as victims rarely are. This also ties into how Steph’s death was erased and Babs was written like she “won” at trauma by simply... beating it??? 

Dangerous - Jason is framed as threatening the basic fabric of society (in a story with vigilantes this is hard to do, so they have him oppose the no-kill rule, and then doubled down on Bruce’s characterization of no-killing). Anything that bucks the status-quo is usually marked as villainous in mainstream vigilante/superhero comics, but this is a step beyond that into the interpersonal and political sphere. Hysterical women are often framed as dangerous, villains, snakes, and treacherous (the other side of this coin is weak, pathetic, and pitiable) because they are victimized and then have the audacity to do something to the system about it. Whether that be the system of their immediate families or the political sphere. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Jason was paired with Talia in Lost Days to hammer this point home to the reader. It could’ve just as easily been anyone with access to the Pit that rescued him, but no, we had DC’s favorite brown, treacherous, venomous, female punching bag. 

Bruce Wayne, The Batman

Bruce fits well into the father, enforcer, and logical man slot in Jason’s hysterical story. There is a history of ownership throughout women’s history when it comes to their subjugation to men. Women actually couldn’t be put on trial before the witchcraft genocide because they weren’t seen as legally a person. Their male owner would be put on trial instead. Women would go from being owned by their fathers to their husbands after entering marriage, the most dangerous woman being one who isn’t owned (orphaned, widowed). Bruce does treat (and even thinks) about Jason like he’s something that he owns. He’s his protege, his son, and his responsibility. 

The narrative function of Bruce as a perpetrator in Jason’s story. 

“The perpetrator asks the bystander (reader) to do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander (reader) to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement and remembering” (Herman). 

Bruce does remember what happened to Jason. He keeps a permanent memorial to his dead son. However, this doesn’t translate into any kind of tangible action. He doesn’t do anything to actually stop the murderer who took his son’s life and he continues to throw child soldiers at the problem of crime (how many children have died for the sake of his no-kill rule at this point?). When met with the reality of his inaction, he fits into the perpetrator’s role like a glove:

“In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. Secrecy and silence are the first line of defense... If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure that no one listens... From the most blatant denial to the most sophisticated and elegant rationalization... One can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon herself; and in any case it’s time to forget the past and move on. The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater his prerogative to name and define reality, the more completely his arguments prevail” (Herman). 

I think it is simply fact at this point that Bruce is the head patriarch in Gotham if not, arguably, in the entirety of DC. That level of power in the narrative cannot be ignored, especially when faced with the very real, screaming voice of a victim that Bruce uses all of that power to silence. Bruce, because of his status as patriarch, default protagonist, and self-insert for the toxic male power fantasy, has the ultimate power to name and define reality. Especially to the reader. Bruce doesn’t deny what happened to Jason, because that’s physically impossible to do. But what he does do is ensure that no one listens to Jason, discredits him, and rationalizes his own inaction, actions of violence towards Jason, and victim blames.

Here’s Bruce using the most base form of denial and victim blaming:

After this panel, Bruce also revokes Dick’s access to his childhood home simply for asking a question.

This theme extends to other members of the batfam because of Bruce’s narrative power over them. It’s why we can’t have Dick, Steph, Babs, or even Damian step in and relate to Jason’s trauma or vindicate him. Even when we, the readers, can see parallels and wonder why these conversations or bonds aren’t forming. Jason HAS to be a lone wolf because he is hysterical and a threat to the system of power. This also shows why most of his runs in group settings outside of the batfam fall apart or fall flat. If he was humanized by any other character or had his trauma validated in any actionable way, it would be recognizing the failure of the toxic male power fantasy. The readers are not supposed to see the flaw in this system that allows the bodies of children to pile up and sympathize with one of their voices. It would be a crack in the system of power that exists not only in the source material, but very much within our real world.

Side note: Jason is allowed to interact with others in a wholesome and validating way when he no longer threatens the systemic power of Bruce. When he is silenced by the writers and plays the “nice victim” (like Babs does), he is allowed connection. Only when his healing is done in a way that doesn’t demand action and is only his personal responsibility (gotta love the rampant individualism). If he is hysterical, demands action, and asks for someone to be held accountable for his death, he is shoved away into a lone wolf box. Examples: Gotham Knights (from my very basic understanding, I haven’t played the game, only seen play throughs) and WFA. Victims are acceptable if they do their healing in a neat little box and stay there, but hysterics are the ones who step outside of that box.

Red Hood, The Political Voice of Hysteria and Trauma

Red Hood is deeply political in terms of hysteria and trauma. Herman stated that victims and those that authentically care for them or listen to them intently (whether that be interpersonally, clinically, or professionally) are silenced, ostracized, and discredited. Survivors need a social context that supports the victim and that joins the victim and witness in a common alliance. On an interpersonal level this looks like family, friends, and loved ones. However, trauma is systemic and the social context mentioned above must also be given on a wider social scale. For this to be done, there had to be systemic change and political action. Jason had the interpersonal social support and witnesses to his trauma ripped from him by Bruce. So, we see him move onto a systemic level of addressing trauma in his own political way. He literally cannot escape Bruce and this constant trigger because of Bruce’s philosophy and just... fucking power to define reality... being re-enforced constantly in DC no matter where he tries to go. So, he tries to heal by taking the systemic issue of perpetrators who cannot be held accountable or have fallen through the cracks of accountability into his own hands in a very personal way. A one man political movement.

Whether his methods are moral or ethical doesn’t really matter in the overall framing him as hysteric. He simply has to be opposed by the male power fantasy in some significant way. This shows that the goals, needs, and work towards victim’s and the marginalized’s freedom is dangerous, doomed to fail, and ultimately unethical if the victim is framed in a villain light instead of the more pathetic/pitiable iteration of hysteria. 

You can see how this is not only problematic but also reflects the real world values instilled in arguments against human rights movements (which are intrinsically tied to victims rights). Defunding the police is dangerous, the MeToo movement is dangerous, abolition is dangerous, trans rights are dangerous, etc etc etc. Think of the victims voices tied to each of these movements and how they are integral to the real change offered by these political movements. You can’t have human rights violations without creating victims. And you can’t have political movements surrounding human rights without listening to victims.

We can also see how the individuals within these movements are ostracized, villianized, and often silenced (sometimes ultimately silenced with death) because they rally against the systems of power that victimized them. The framing of traumatized, vulnerable people as hysterical is integral to upholding the system of power that traumatizes and harms them.

A popular comic book movie adaptation that highlights the importance of Jason’s hysterical framing and how it impacts the political narrative/how he is written is V for Vendetta. To be fair, it received an insane amount of backlash by conservatives (not within leftist or liberal spaces) for V’s methods in over throwing fascism, but only because of the movie’s release date being so close to 9/11. V and Jason have many parallels, it’s only the lack of hysterical framing that makes V more palatable to the viewer. We are told, not shown through behavior, that V is traumatized by his past and he does not pick a fight with the protagonist that functions as a toxic male power fantasy. He is the protag, with his version of Bruce being men who are not framed in a sympathetic, heroic, or relatable light. 

Additionally, there is literally an unemoting mask standing between the viewer and V, whereas Jason takes off his helmet to allow the reader to see every aspect of his trauma and pain. V readily dehumanizes himself into an idea, rather than a person. Whereas Jason screams to be seen as a person in a very hysterical way. So, we can see how the framing of Jason as hysteric against the logical, heroic man greatly impacts how the audience reads him when contrasted by a very similar political story/character who uses similar (and arguably more violent) methods to meet his ends. (This just made me realize that I would die for a Jason adaptation written by the Wachowski sisters). 

Jason’s work as Red Hood is seeped in leftist, victim, and community centered politics. His portrayal as a hysterical antagonist (at best an anti-hero) is rooted in misogyny and upholding patriarchal, capitalist, and the prison industrial complex systems of power. He is the righteous embodiment of “the personal is political” for victims. Even his Robin run draws attention to and shows correct, angry reactions to the system of patriarchal power in sexual violence.

Patriarchal Writing and Enforcement

Jason is girl-coded and hysterical because he’s supposed to be emasculated, discredited, and disliked by the reader. He serves the narrative function of boosting the toxic male power fantasy of Bruce and in doing so, the writers use one of the oldest tropes in the book (one that we have all subconsciously been taught since birth) to get the reader on their side. Make him a hysterical woman. 

References: for anyone interested in furthering their understanding of any of the concepts mentioned above and to, you know, use sources for my own writing.

Barstow, A. Witchcraze

Bondi, L., Burman. E. Women and Mental Health: A Feminist Review

Freud, S. The Aietology of Hysteria

Gilman, C. P. The Yellow Wallpaper

Herman, J. Trauma and Recovery

Ussher, J. The Madness of Women.

Van der Kolk, B. The Body Keeps the Score

Wilkin, L., Hillock, S. Enhancing MSW Students’ Efficacy in Working with Trauma, Violence, and Oppression: An Integrated Feminist-Trauma Framework for Social Work Education

[qqueenofhades]

The Green Knight and Medieval Metatextuality: An Essay

Right, so. Finally watched it last night, and I’ve been thinking about it literally ever since, except for the part where I was asleep. As I said to fellow medievalist and admirer of Dev Patel @oldshrewsburyian, it’s possibly the most fascinating piece of medieval-inspired media that I’ve seen in ages, and how refreshing to have something in this genre that actually rewards critical thought and deep analysis, rather than me just fulminating fruitlessly about how popular media thinks that slapping blood, filth, and misogyny onto some swords and castles is “historically accurate.” I read a review of TGK somewhere that described it as the anti-Game of Thrones, and I’m inclined to think that’s accurate. I didn’t agree with all of the film’s tonal, thematic, or interpretative choices, but I found them consistently stylish, compelling, and subversive in ways both small and large, and I’m gonna have to write about it or I’ll go crazy. So. Brace yourselves.

(Note: My PhD is in medieval history, not medieval literature, and I haven’t worked on SGGK specifically, but I am familiar with it, its general cultural context, and the historical influences, images, and debates that both the poem and the film referenced and drew upon, so that’s where this meta is coming from.)

First, obviously, while the film is not a straight-up text-to-screen version of the poem (though it is by and large relatively faithful), it is a multi-layered meta-text that comments on the original Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the archetypes of chivalric literature as a whole, modern expectations for medieval films, the hero’s journey, the requirements of being an “honorable knight,” and the nature of death, fate, magic, and religion, just to name a few. Given that the Arthurian legendarium, otherwise known as the Matter of Britain, was written and rewritten over several centuries by countless authors, drawing on and changing and hybridizing interpretations that sometimes challenged or outright contradicted earlier versions, it makes sense for the film to chart its own path and make its own adaptational decisions as part of this multivalent, multivocal literary canon. Sir Gawain himself is a canonically and textually inconsistent figure; in the movie, the characters merrily pronounce his name in several different ways, most notably as Sean Harris/King Arthur’s somewhat inexplicable “Garr-win.” He might be a man without a consistent identity, but that’s pointed out within the film itself. What has he done to define himself, aside from being the king’s nephew? Is his quixotic quest for the Green Knight actually going to resolve the question of his identity and his honor – and if so, is it even going to matter, given that successful completion of the “game” seemingly equates with death?

Likewise, as the anti-Game of Thrones, the film is deliberately and sometimes maddeningly non-commercial. For an adaptation coming from a studio known primarily for horror, it almost completely eschews the cliché that gory bloodshed equals authentic medievalism; the only graphic scene is the Green Knight’s original beheading. The violence is only hinted at, subtextual, suspenseful; it is kept out of sight, around the corner, never entirely played out or resolved. In other words, if anyone came in thinking that they were going to watch Dev Patel luridly swashbuckle his way through some CGI monsters like bad Beowulf adaptations of yore, they were swiftly disappointed. In fact, he seems to spend most of his time being wet, sad, and failing to meet the moment at hand (with a few important exceptions).

The film unhurriedly evokes a medieval setting that is both surreal and defiantly non-historical. We travel (in roughly chronological order) from Anglo-Saxon huts to Romanesque halls to high-Gothic cathedrals to Tudor villages and half-timbered houses, culminating in the eerie neo-Renaissance splendor of the Lord and Lady’s hall, before returning to the ancient trees of the Green Chapel and its immortal occupant: everything that has come before has now returned to dust. We have been removed even from imagined time and place and into a moment where it ceases to function altogether. We move forward, backward, and sideways, as Gawain experiences past, present, and future in unison. He is dislocated from his own sense of himself, just as we, the viewers, are dislocated from our sense of what is the “true” reality or filmic narrative; what we think is real turns out not to be the case at all. If, of course, such a thing even exists at all.

This visual evocation of the entire medieval era also creates a setting that, unlike GOT, takes pride in rejecting absolutely all political context or Machiavellian maneuvering. The film acknowledges its own cultural ubiquity and the question of whether we really need yet another King Arthur adaptation: none of the characters aside from Gawain himself are credited by name. We all know it’s Arthur, but he’s listed only as “king.” We know the spooky druid-like old man with the white beard is Merlin, but it’s never required to spell it out. The film gestures at our pre-existing understanding; it relies on us to fill in the gaps, cuing us to collaboratively produce the story with it, positioning us as listeners as if we were gathered to hear the original poem. Just like fanfiction, it knows that it doesn’t need to waste time introducing every single character or filling in ultimately unnecessary background knowledge, when the audience can be relied upon to bring their own.

As for that, the film explicitly frames itself as a “filmed adaptation of the chivalric romance” in its opening credits, and continues to play with textual referents and cues throughout: telling us where we are, what’s happening, or what’s coming next, rather like the rubrics or headings within a medieval manuscript. As noted, its historical/architectural references span the entire medieval European world, as does its costume design. I was particularly struck by the fact that Arthur and Guinevere’s crowns resemble those from illuminated monastic manuscripts or Eastern Orthodox iconography: they are both crown and halo, they confer an air of both secular kingship and religious sanctity. The question in the film’s imagined epilogue thus becomes one familiar to Shakespeare’s Henry V: heavy is the head that wears the crown. Does Gawain want to earn his uncle’s crown, take over his place as king, bear the fate of Camelot, become a great ruler, a husband and father in ways that even Arthur never did, only to see it all brought to dust by his cowardice, his reliance on unscrupulous sorcery, and his unfulfilled promise to the Green Knight? Is it better to have that entire life and then lose it, or to make the right choice now, even if it means death?

Likewise, Arthur’s kingly mantle is Byzantine in inspiration, as is the icon of the Virgin Mary-as-Theotokos painted on Gawain’s shield (which we see broken apart during the attack by the scavengers). The film only glances at its religious themes rather than harping on them explicitly; we do have the cliché scene of the male churchmen praying for Gawain’s safety, opposite Gawain’s mother and her female attendants working witchcraft to protect him. (When oh when will I get my film that treats medieval magic and medieval religion as the complementary and co-existing epistemological systems that they were, rather than portraying them as diametrically binary and disparagingly gendered opposites?) But despite the interim setbacks borne from the failure of Christian icons, the overall resolution of the film could serve as the culmination of a medieval Christian morality tale: Gawain can buy himself a great future in the short term if he relies on the protection of the enchanted green belt to avoid the Green Knight’s killing stroke, but then he will have to watch it all crumble until he is sitting alone in his own hall, his children dead and his kingdom destroyed, as a headless corpse who only now has been brave enough to accept his proper fate. By removing the belt from his person in the film’s Inception-like final scene, he relinquishes the taint of black magic and regains his religious honor, even at the likely cost of death. That, the medieval Christian morality tale would agree, is the correct course of action.

Gawain’s encounter with St. Winifred likewise presents a more subtle vision of medieval Christianity. Winifred was an eighth-century Welsh saint known for being beheaded, after which (by the power of another saint) her head was miraculously restored to her body and she went on to live a long and holy life. It doesn’t quite work that way in TGK. (St Winifred’s Well is mentioned in the original SGGK, but as far as I recall, Gawain doesn’t meet the saint in person.) In the film, Gawain encounters Winifred’s lifelike apparition, who begs him to dive into the mere and retrieve her head (despite appearances, she warns him, it is not attached to her body). This fits into the pattern of medieval ghost stories, where the dead often return to entreat the living to help them finish their business; they must be heeded, but when they are encountered in places they shouldn’t be, they must be put back into their proper physical space and reminded of their real fate. Gawain doesn’t follow William of Newburgh’s practical recommendation to just fetch some brawny young men with shovels to beat the wandering corpse back into its grave. Instead, in one of his few moments of unqualified heroism, he dives into the dark water and retrieves Winifred’s skull from the bottom of the lake. Then when he returns to the house, he finds the rest of her skeleton lying in the bed where he was earlier sleeping, and carefully reunites the skull with its body, finally allowing it to rest in peace.

However, Gawain’s involvement with Winifred doesn’t end there. The fox that he sees on the bank after emerging with her skull, who then accompanies him for the rest of the film, is strongly implied to be her spirit, or at least a companion that she has sent for him. Gawain has handled a saint’s holy bones; her relics, which were well known to grant protection in the medieval world. He has done the saint a service, and in return, she extends her favor to him. At the end of the film, the fox finally speaks in a human voice, warning him not to proceed to the fateful final encounter with the Green Knight; it will mean his death. The symbolism of having a beheaded saint serve as Gawain’s guide and protector is obvious, since it is the fate that may or may not lie in store for him. As I said, the ending is Inception-like in that it steadfastly refuses to tell you if the hero is alive (or will live) or dead (or will die). In the original SGGK, of course, the Green Knight and the Lord turn out to be the same person, Gawain survives, it was all just a test of chivalric will and honor, and a trap put together by Morgan Le Fay in an attempt to frighten Guinevere. It’s essentially able to be laughed off: a game, an adventure, not real. TGK takes this paradigm and flips it (to speak…) on its head.

Gawain’s rescue of Winifred’s head also rewards him in more immediate terms: his/the Green Knight’s axe, stolen by the scavengers, is miraculously restored to him in her cottage, immediately and concretely demonstrating the virtue of his actions. This is one of the points where the film most stubbornly resists modern storytelling conventions: it simply refuses to add in any kind of “rational” or “empirical” explanation of how else it got there, aside from the grace and intercession of the saint. This is indeed how it works in medieval hagiography: things simply reappear, are returned, reattached, repaired, made whole again, and Gawain’s lost weapon is thus restored, symbolizing that he has passed the test and is worthy to continue with the quest. The film’s narrative is not modernizing its underlying medieval logic here, and it doesn’t particularly care if a modern audience finds it “convincing” or not. As noted, the film never makes any attempt to temporalize or localize itself; it exists in a determinedly surrealist and ahistorical landscape, where naked female giants who look suspiciously like Tilda Swinton roam across the wild with no necessary explanation. While this might be frustrating for some people, I actually found it a huge relief that a clearly fantastic and fictional literary adaptation was not acting like it was qualified to teach “real history” to its audience. Nobody would come out of TGK thinking that they had seen the “actual” medieval world, and since we have enough of a problem with that sort of thing thanks to GOT, I for one welcome the creation of a medieval imaginative space that embraces its eccentric and unrealistic elements, rather than trying to fit them into the Real Life box.

This plays into the fact that the film, like a reused medieval manuscript containing more than one text, is a palimpsest: for one, it audaciously rewrites the entire Arthurian canon in the wordless vision of Gawain’s life after escaping the Green Knight (I could write another meta on that dream-epilogue alone). It moves fluidly through time and creates alternate universes in at least two major points: one, the scene where Gawain is tied up and abandoned by the scavengers and that long circling shot reveals his skeletal corpse rotting on the sward, only to return to our original universe as Gawain decides that he doesn’t want that fate, and two, Gawain as King. In this alternate ending, Arthur doesn’t die in battle with Mordred, but peaceably in bed, having anointed his worthy nephew as his heir. Gawain becomes king, has children, gets married, governs Camelot, becomes a ruler surpassing even Arthur, but then watches his son get killed in battle, his subjects turn on him, and his family vanish into the dust of his broken hall before he himself, in despair, pulls the enchanted scarf out of his clothing and succumbs to his fate.

In this version, Gawain takes on the responsibility for the fall of Camelot, not Arthur. This is the hero’s burden, but he’s obtained it dishonorably, by cheating. It is a vivid but mimetic future which Gawain (to all appearances) ultimately rejects, returning the film to the realm of traditional Arthurian canon – but not quite. After all, if Gawain does get beheaded after that final fade to black, it would represent a significant alteration from the poem and the character’s usual arc. Are we back in traditional canon or aren’t we? Did Gawain reject that future or didn’t he? Do all these alterities still exist within the visual medium of the meta-text, and have any of them been definitely foreclosed?

Furthermore, the film interrogates itself and its own tropes in explicit and overt ways. In Gawain’s conversation with the Lord, the Lord poses the question that many members of the audience might have: is Gawain going to carry out this potentially pointless and suicidal quest and then be an honorable hero, just like that? What is he actually getting by staggering through assorted Irish bogs and seeming to reject, rather than embrace, the paradigms of a proper quest and that of an honorable knight? He lies about being a knight to the scavengers, clearly out of fear, and ends up cravenly bound and robbed rather than fighting back. He denies knowing anything about love to the Lady (played by Alicia Vikander, who also plays his lover at the start of the film with a decidedly ropey Yorkshire accent, sorry to say). He seems to shrink from the responsibility thrust on him, rather than rise to meet it (his only honorable act, retrieving Winifred’s head, is discussed above) and yet here he still is, plugging away. Why is he doing this? What does he really stand to gain, other than accepting a choice and its consequences (somewhat?) The film raises these questions, but it has no plans to answer them. It’s going to leave you to think about them for yourself, and it isn’t going to spoon-feed you any ultimate moral or neat resolution. In this interchange, it’s easy to see both the echoes of a formal dialogue between two speakers (a favored medieval didactic tactic) and the broader purpose of chivalric literature: to interrogate what it actually means to be a knight, how personal honor is generated, acquired, and increased, and whether engaging in these pointless and bloody “war games” is actually any kind of real path to lasting glory.

The film’s treatment of race, gender, and queerness obviously also merits comment. By casting Dev Patel, an Indian-born actor, as an Arthurian hero, the film is… actually being quite accurate to the original legends, doubtless much to the disappointment of assorted internet racists. The thirteenth-century Arthurian romance Parzival (Percival) by the German poet Wolfram von Eschenbach notably features the character of Percival’s mixed-race half-brother, Feirefiz, son of their father by his first marriage to a Muslim princess. Feirefiz is just as heroic as Percival (Gawaine, for the record, also plays a major role in the story) and assists in the quest for the Holy Grail, though it takes his conversion to Christianity for him to properly behold it.

By introducing Patel (and Sarita Chowdhury as Morgause) to the visual representation of Arthuriana, the film quietly does away with the “white Middle Ages” cliché that I have complained about ad nauseam; we see background Asian and black members of Camelot, who just exist there without having to conjure up some complicated rationale to explain their presence. The Lady also uses a camera obscura to make Gawain’s portrait. Contrary to those who might howl about anachronism, this technique was known in China as early as the fourth century BCE and the tenth/eleventh century Islamic scholar Ibn al-Haytham was probably the best-known medieval authority to write on it extensively; Latin translations of his work inspired European scientists from Roger Bacon to Leonardo da Vinci. Aside from the symbolism of an upside-down Gawain (and when he sees the portrait again during the ‘fall of Camelot’, it is right-side-up, representing that Gawain himself is in an upside-down world), this presents a subtle challenge to the prevailing Eurocentric imagination of the medieval world, and draws on other global influences.

As for gender, we have briefly touched on it above; in the original SGGK, Gawain’s entire journey is revealed to be just a cruel trick of Morgan Le Fay, simply trying to destabilize Arthur’s court and upset his queen. (Morgan is the old blindfolded woman who appears in the Lord and Lady’s castle and briefly approaches Gawain, but her identity is never explicitly spelled out.) This is, obviously, an implicitly misogynistic setup: an evil woman plays a trick on honorable men for the purpose of upsetting another woman, the honorable men overcome it, the hero survives, and everyone presumably lives happily ever after (at least until Mordred arrives).

Instead, by plunging the outcome into doubt and the hero into a much darker and more fallible moral universe, TGK shifts the blame for Gawain’s adventure and ultimate fate from Morgan to Gawain himself. Likewise, Guinevere is not the passive recipient of an evil deception but in a way, the catalyst for the whole thing. She breaks the seal on the Green Knight’s message with a weighty snap; she becomes the oracle who reads it out, she is alarming rather than alarmed, she disrupts the complacency of the court and silently shows up all the other knights who refuse to step forward and answer the Green Knight’s challenge. Gawain is not given the ontological reassurance that it’s just a practical joke and he’s going to be fine (and thanks to the unresolved ending, neither are we). The film instead takes the concept at face value in order to push the envelope and ask the simple question: if a man was going to be actually-for-real beheaded in a year, why would he set out on a suicidal quest? Would you, in Gawain’s place, make the same decision to cast aside the enchanted belt and accept your fate? Has he made his name, will he be remembered well? What is his legacy?

Indeed, if there is any hint of feminine connivance and manipulation, it arrives in the form of the implication that Gawain’s mother has deliberately summoned the Green Knight to test her son, prove his worth, and position him as his childless uncle’s heir; she gives him the protective belt to make sure he won’t actually die, and her intention all along was for the future shown in the epilogue to truly play out (minus the collapse of Camelot). Only Gawain loses the belt thanks to his cowardice in the encounter with the scavengers, regains it in a somewhat underhanded and morally questionable way when the Lady is attempting to seduce him, and by ultimately rejecting it altogether and submitting to his uncertain fate, totally mucks up his mother’s painstaking dynastic plans for his future. In this reading, Gawain could be king, and his mother’s efforts are meant to achieve that goal, rather than thwart it. He is thus required to shoulder his own responsibility for this outcome, rather than conveniently pawning it off on an “evil woman,” and by extension, the film asks the question: What would the world be like if men, especially those who make war on others as a way of life, were actually forced to face the consequences of their reckless and violent actions? Is it actually a “game” in any sense of the word, especially when chivalric literature is constantly preoccupied with the question of how much glorious violence is too much glorious violence? If you structure social prestige for the king and the noble male elite entirely around winning battles and existing in a state of perpetual war, when does that begin to backfire and devour the knightly class – and the rest of society – instead?

This leads into the central theme of Gawain’s relationships with the Lord and Lady, and how they’re treated in the film. The poem has been repeatedly studied in terms of its latent (and sometimes… less than latent) queer subtext: when the Lord asks Gawain to pay back to him whatever he should receive from his wife, does he already know what this involves; i.e. a physical and romantic encounter? When the Lady gives kisses to Gawain, which he is then obliged to return to the Lord as a condition of the agreement, is this all part of a dastardly plot to seduce him into a kinky green-themed threesome with a probably-not-human married couple looking to spice up their sex life? Why do we read the Lady’s kisses to Gawain as romantic but Gawain’s kisses to the Lord as filial, fraternal, or the standard “kiss of peace” exchanged between a liege lord and his vassal? Is Gawain simply being a dutiful guest by honoring the bargain with his host, actually just kissing the Lady again via the proxy of her husband, or somewhat more into this whole thing with the Lord than he (or the poet) would like to admit? Is the homosocial turning homoerotic, and how is Gawain going to navigate this tension and temptation?

If the question is never resolved: well, welcome to one of the central medieval anxieties about chivalry, knighthood, and male bonds! As I have written about before, medieval society needed to simultaneously exalt this as the most honored and noble form of love, and make sure it didn’t accidentally turn sexual (once again: how much male love is too much male love?). Does the poem raise the possibility of serious disruption to the dominant heteronormative paradigm, only to solve the problem by interpreting the Gawain/Lady male/female kisses as romantic and sexual and the Gawain/Lord male/male kisses as chaste and formal? In other words, acknowledging the underlying anxiety of possible homoeroticism but ultimately reasserting the heterosexual norm? The answer: Probably?!?! Maybe?!?! Hell if we know??! To say the least, this has been argued over to no end, and if you locked a lot of medieval history/literature scholars into a room and told them that they couldn’t come out until they decided on one clear answer, they would be in there for a very long time. The poem seemingly invokes the possibility of a queer reading only to reject it – but once again, as in the question of which canon we end up in at the film’s end, does it?

In some lights, the film’s treatment of this potential queer reading comes off like a cop-out: there is only one kiss between Gawain and the Lord, and it is something that the Lord has to initiate after Gawain has already fled the hall. Gawain himself appears to reject it; he tells the Lord to let go of him and runs off into the wilderness, rather than deal with or accept whatever has been suggested to him. However, this fits with film!Gawain’s pattern of rejecting that which fundamentally makes him who he is; like Peter in the Bible, he has now denied the truth three times. With the scavengers he denies being a knight; with the Lady he denies knowing about courtly love; with the Lord he denies the central bond of brotherhood with his fellows, whether homosocial or homoerotic in nature. I would go so far as to argue that if Gawain does die at the end of the film, it is this rejected kiss which truly seals his fate. In the poem, the Lord and the Green Knight are revealed to be the same person; in the film, it’s not clear if that’s the case, or they are separate characters, even if thematically interrelated. If we assume, however, that the Lord is in fact still the human form of the Green Knight, then Gawain has rejected both his kiss of peace (the standard gesture of protection offered from lord to vassal) and any deeper emotional bond that it can be read to signify. The Green Knight could decide to spare Gawain in recognition of the courage he has shown in relinquishing the enchanted belt – or he could just as easily decide to kill him, which he is legally free to do since Gawain has symbolically rejected the offer of brotherhood, vassalage, or knight-bonding by his unwise denial of the Lord’s freely given kiss. Once again, the film raises the overall thematic and moral question and then doesn’t give one straight (ahem) answer. As with the medieval anxieties and chivalric texts that it is based on, it invokes the specter of queerness and then doesn’t neatly resolve it. As a modern audience, we find this unsatisfying, but once again, the film is refusing to conform to our expectations.

As has been said before, there is so much kissing between men in medieval contexts, both ceremonial and otherwise, that we’re left to wonder: “is it gay or is it feudalism?” Is there an overtly erotic element in Gawain and the Green Knight’s mutual “beheading” of each other (especially since in the original version, this frees the Lord from his curse, functioning like a true love’s kiss in a fairytale). While it is certainly possible to argue that the film has “straightwashed” its subject material by removing the entire sequence of kisses between Gawain and the Lord and the unresolved motives for their existence, it is a fairly accurate, if condensed, representation of the anxieties around medieval knightly bonds and whether, as Carolyn Dinshaw put it, a (male/male) “kiss is just a kiss.” After all, the kiss between Gawain and the Lady is uncomplicatedly read as sexual/romantic, and that context doesn’t go away when Gawain is kissing the Lord instead. Just as with its multiple futurities, the film leaves the question open-ended. Is it that third and final denial that seals Gawain’s fate, and if so, is it asking us to reflect on why, specifically, he does so?

The film could play with both this question and its overall tone quite a bit more: it sometimes comes off as a grim, wooden, over-directed Shakespearean tragedy, rather than incorporating the lively and irreverent tone that the poem often takes. It’s almost totally devoid of humor, which is unfortunate, and the Grim Middle Ages aesthetic is in definite evidence. Nonetheless, because of the comprehensive de-historicizing and the obvious lack of effort to claim the film as any sort of authentic representation of the medieval past, it works. We are not meant to understand this as a historical document, and so we have to treat it on its terms, by its own logic, and by its own frames of reference. In some ways, its consistent opacity and its refusal to abide by modern rules and common narrative conventions is deliberately meant to challenge us: as before, when we recognize Arthur, Merlin, the Round Table, and the other stock characters because we know them already and not because the film tells us so, we have to fill in the gaps ourselves. We are watching the film not because it tells us a simple adventure story – there is, as noted, shockingly little action overall – but because we have to piece together the metatext independently and ponder the philosophical questions that it leaves us with. What conclusion do we reach? What canon do we settle in? What future or resolution is ultimately made real? That, the film says, it can’t decide for us. As ever, it is up to future generations to carry on the story, and decide how, if at all, it is going to survive.

(And to close, I desperately want them to make my much-coveted Bisclavret adaptation now in more or less the same style, albeit with some tweaks. Please.)

Further Reading

Ailes, Marianne J. ‘The Medieval Male Couple and the Language of Homosociality’, in Masculinity in Medieval Europe, ed. by Dawn M. Hadley (Harlow: Longman, 1999), pp. 214–37.

Ashton, Gail. ‘The Perverse Dynamics of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, Arthuriana 15 (2005), 51–74.

Boyd, David L. ‘Sodomy, Misogyny, and Displacement: Occluding Queer Desire in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, Arthuriana 8 (1998), 77–113.

Busse, Peter. ‘The Poet as Spouse of his Patron: Homoerotic Love in Medieval Welsh and Irish Poetry?’, Studi Celtici 2 (2003), 175–92.

Dinshaw, Carolyn. ‘A Kiss Is Just a Kiss: Heterosexuality and Its Consolations in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight’, Diacritics 24 (1994), 205–226.

Kocher, Suzanne. ‘Gay Knights in Medieval French Fiction: Constructs of Queerness and Non-Transgression’, Mediaevalia 29 (2008), 51–66.

Karras, Ruth Mazo. ‘Knighthood, Compulsory Heterosexuality, and Sodomy’ in The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, ed. Matthew Kuefler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 273–86.

Kuefler, Matthew. ‘Male Friendship and the Suspicion of Sodomy in Twelfth-Century France’, in The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, ed. Matthew Kuefler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 179–214.

McVitty, E. Amanda, ‘False Knights and True Men: Contesting Chivalric Masculinity in English Treason Trials, 1388–1415,’ Journal of Medieval History 40 (2014), 458–77.

Mieszkowski, Gretchen. ‘The Prose Lancelot's Galehot, Malory's Lavain, and the Queering of Late Medieval Literature’, Arthuriana 5 (1995), 21–51.

Moss, Rachel E. ‘ “And much more I am soryat for my good knyghts’ ”: Fainting, Homosociality, and Elite Male Culture in Middle English Romance’, Historical Reflections / Réflexions historiques 42 (2016), 101–13.

Zeikowitz, Richard E. ‘Befriending the Medieval Queer: A Pedagogy for Literature Classes’, College English 65 (2002), 67–80.

[yvtro]

More Kon meta or rant perhaps? What do you want to see more from his character?

some concepts that follow directly from 90s kon canon that i think would be interesting to explore:

kon's civilian identity! i think it's extremely interesting that for a long time kon existed only as superboy and didn't even have another name to go by. he went to school as 'superboy' and interacted with everyone as a superhero. i think a book that *actually* focuses on kon inventing a civilian identity would be super interesting, because for kon the "conner" persona should be the one that is completely artificial (in a sense it would parallel a historical iteration of clark whereas "clark" was more of his "undercover" id. this is an outdated concept for a rather good reason considering that clark was raised on earth as a civilian since he was a baby, but kon? kon was never a civilian before. it makes perfect sense for him). (this is also why i never refer to kon as 'conner' because it's not his given name and it overshadows how important his name is for him. also i don't want to hear about the whole nasty retcon that makes "kon" into a slur, what the hell. there's not much reason for anyone to call him "conner" unless he's in a place and at the time when he wants to keep his real identity a secret)

no more "bad dad clark" content i am begging. on my knees. i think it's such an important part of kon's character that he looks up to clark and dreams about being superman in the future. (something that probably will not ever happen in canon but the aspiration itself is so dear). and okay, even in the 90s series clark is not great with kon from the beginning, but that's a very detached reading. it's crystal clear that clark not being involved in his life was a creative decision based on the fact that the story quite literally wouldn't work if they quickly built a familial relationship and clark took responsibility for him.

immortality. so i used to have ambivalent feelings on it because i dislike this theme when it comes to clark, but for kon's storyline it fits perfectly. i'd like to see it more, because it's such a good commentary on 1. the child celebrity status 2. meta and the fact that dc comics editorial will not let their characters age.

btw i'm very excited for his new miniseries, and (surprisingly?) i'm actually quite content with his recent (by recent i mean post yj 2019) characterisation. it's definitely a step towards restoring his personality and values, even if it doesn't draw much from origin story. i can't believe i'm saying something nice about bendis, but while he obviously didn't really know what to do with his character, at least kon's reintroduction with clark kept him perfectly accurate.

[army-of-mai-lovers]

Jet and Yue’s Deaths: Were They Necessary?

Two of the most common ideas I see for aus in this fandom are the Jet lives au, and the Yue lives au. I’ve written both of these myself, and I’ve seen many others write them. And while yes, fanfiction can be a great way to explore ideas that didn’t necessarily have to be explored in canon (I’m mad at bryke for a lot of things, but not including a Toph and Bumi I friendship is not one of them, even though I wrote a fic about it), it seems to me that people are mad that Yue and Jet are dead, to varying degrees. There’s a lot to talk about regarding their deaths from a sociopolitical perspective (the fact that two of the darker-skinned characters in the show are the ones that died, and all the light-skinned characters lived, is ah... an interesting choice), but I don’t want to look at it that way, at least for right now. I want to look at it as a writer, and discuss whether these deaths were a) necessary for the plot and themes of ATLA in any way whatsoever and b) whether it was necessary for them to unfold in the way that they did, or if they would have been more impactful had they occurred in a different way. 

(meta under the cut, this got really, really, really long)

Death in Children’s Media

When I first started thinking about this meta, I had this idea to compare Jet and Yue’s deaths to deaths in an animated children’s show that I found satisfying. And in theory, that was a great idea. Problem is: there aren’t very many permanent deaths in children’s animation, and the ones that do exist aren’t especially well-written. This may be an odd thing to say in what is ostensibly a piece of atla crit, but Yue’s death is probably the best written death in a piece of children’s animation that I can think of. That’s not a compliment. Rather, it’s a condemnation of the way other pieces of children’s animation featuring permanent character death have handled their storylines. 

I’ve talked about this before, but my favorite show growing up was Young Justice, and my favorite character on that show was far and away Mr. Wally West. So when he died at the end of season 2, it broke me emotionally. Shortly thereafter, Cartoon Network canceled the show, and I started getting on fan forums to mourn. Everybody on these fan forums was convinced that had Cartoon Network not canceled the show, Wally would have been brought back. And that is a narrative that I internalized for years. Eventually, the show was brought back via DC’s new streaming service, and I tuned in, waiting for Wally to also be brought back, only to discover that that wasn’t in the cards. Wally was dead. Permanently. 

So now that I know that, I can talk about why killing him off was fucking stupid. Wally’s death occurs at the end of season 2, after the main s2 conflict, the Reach, has been defeated, save for these pods that they set up all over the world to destroy Earth. Our heroes split up in teams of two to destroy the pods, and they destroy all of them, except for a secret one in Antartica. It can only be neutralized by speedsters, so Wally, Bart, and Barry team up to destroy it. It’s established in canon that Wally is slower than Bart and Barry, and it’s been played for laughs earlier in the season, but for reasons unexplained, the pod is better able to target Wally because he’s slower than Bart and Barry, and it kills him. After the emotional arc of the season has wrapped up, a literal main character dies. There’s some indication at the end of that season that his death is going to cause Artemis to spiral and become a villain, but when season 3 picks up, she’s doing the right thing, with seemingly no qualms about her position in life as a hero. In the comics, something like this happens to Wally, but then he goes into the Speed Force and becomes faster and stronger even than Barry, in which case, yes, this would have advanced the plot, but that’s probably not in the cards either. 

In summary, Wally’s death doesn’t work as a story beat, not because it made me mad, but because it doesn’t advance the plot, nor does it develop character. Only including things that advance plot or develop character is one of the golden rules of writing. Like most golden rules of writing, however, it’s not absolute. There is a lot of fun to be had in jokey little one off adventures (in atla, Sokka’s haiku competition) or in fun worldbuilding threads that add depth to your setting but don’t really come up (in atla, the existence of Whaletail Island, which is described in really juicy ways, even though the characters never go there.) But in general, when it comes to things like character death, events should happen to develop the plot or advance character. Avatar, for all of its flaws, is really well structured, and a lot of its story beats advance plot and develop character at the same time. However, the show also bears the burden of being a show directed at children, and thus needing to be appropriate for children. And as we know, Nickelodeon and bryke butted heads over this: the death scene that we see for Jet is a compromise, one that implicitly confirms his death without explicitly showing it. So bryke tasked themselves with creating a show about imperialism and war that would do those themes justice while also being appropriate for American children and palatable to their parents. 

The Themes of Avatar vs. Its Audience

So, Avatar is a show about a lone survivor of genocide stopping an imperialist patriarchal society from decimating the rest of the world. It’s also a show about found family and staying true to yourself and doing your best to improve the world. These don’t necessarily conflict with each other, and it is possible for children to understand and enjoy shows about complex themes. And in a lot of cases, bryke doesn’t hold back in showing what the costs of war against an imperialist nation are: losing loved ones, losing yourself, prison, etc. But when it comes to death, the show is incredibly hesitant. None of the main characters that we’ve spent a lot of time getting to know die (not even Iroh, even though he was old and it would have made sense and his VA died before the show was over--but that’s a topic for another day.) This makes sense. I can totally imagine a seven year-old watching Avatar as it was coming out and feeling really sad or scared if a major character died. I was six years older than that when Wally died, and it’s still sad and terrifying to me to this day. However, in a show about war, it would be unrealistic to have no one die. Bryke’s stated reason for killing off Jet is to show the costs of war. I’ve seen a lot of posts about Jet’s death that reiterate some version of this same point--that the great tragedy of his character is that he spent his life fighting the Fire Nation, only to die at the hands of his own country. Similarly, I’ve seen people argue in favor of Yue’s death by saying that it was a great tragedy, but it showed the sacrifices that must be made in a war effort. 

Yue

When we first meet Yue, she is a somewhat reserved, kind individual held back by the rigid social structures of the NWT*. She and Sokka have an immediate attraction to one another, but Yue reveals that she is engaged to Hahn. The Fire Nation invasion happens, Zhao kills Tui, and Yue gives up her life to save her people and the world, and to restore balance. Since we didn’t have a lot of time to get to know Yue, this is framed less as Yue’s sacrifice and more as Sokka’s loss. Sokka is the one who cares for Yue, Sokka is the only one of the gaang who really interacts a lot with Yue on screen, and Sokka is the one we’ve spent a whole season getting to know. While I wouldn’t go so far as to call Yue a prop character (i.e. a character who could be replaced by an object with little change to the narrative), she is certainly underdeveloped. She exists to be unambiguously likable and good, so we can root for her and Sokka, and feel Sokka’s pain when she dies. In my opinion, this is probably also why a lot of fic that features Yue depicts her as a Mary Sue--because as she is depicted in the show, she kind of is. We don’t get to see her hidden depths because she is written to die. 

In light of what we’ve established earlier in this meta, this makes sense. Killing off a fully-realized character whom the audience has really gotten to know and care about on their own terms, rather than through the eyes of another character, could be really sad and scary for the kids watching, but not killing anyone off would be an unrealistic depiction of war and imperialism. On the face of it, killing off an underdeveloped, unambiguously likable and good character, whom one of our MCs has a deep but short connection with, is the perfect compromise. 

But let’s go back to the golden rule for a second. Does Yue’s death a) advance the plot, and/or b) develop character? The answer to the first is yes: Yue’s death prompts Aang to use the Avatar State to fight off the Fire navy, which has implications for his ability to control the Avatar State that form one of the major arcs of book 2. The answer to the second? A little more ambiguous. You would think that Yue’s death would have some lasting impact on Sokka that is explored as part of his character arc in book 2, that he may be more afraid to trust, more scared of losing the people he loves, but outside of a few episodes (really, just one I can think of, “The Swamp”) it doesn’t seem to affect him that much. He even asks about Suki in a way that is clearly romantically motivated in “Avatar Day.” I don’t know about you, but if someone I loved sacrificed herself to become the moon, I don’t think I would be seeking out another romantic entanglement a few weeks after her death. Of course, everybody processes grief differently, and one could argue that Sokka has already lost important people in his life, and thus would be accustomed to moving on from that loss and not letting himself dwell on it. But to that, I’d say that moving on by throwing himself into protecting others has already shown itself to be an unhealthy coping mechanism. Remember, Sokka’s misogyny at the beginning of b1 is in part motivated by the fact that his mother died at the hands of the Fire Nation and his father left shortly thereafter to fight the Fire Nation, and he responds to those things by throwing himself into the role of being the “man” of the village and protecting the people he loves who are still with him. Like with Yue, he doesn’t allow himself to dwell on his mother’s death. This could have been the beginning of a really interesting b2 arc for Sokka, in which he throws himself into being the Avatar’s companion to get away from the grief of losing Yue, but this time, through the events of the show, he’s forced to acknowledge that this is an unhealthy coping mechanism. And maybe this is what bryke was going for with “The Swamp”, but this confines his whole process of grief to one episode, where it could have been a season-long arc that really emphasized the effect Yue’s had on his life. 

In the case of Yue, I do lean toward saying that her death was necessary for the story that they wanted to tell (although, I will never turn down a good old-fashioned Yue lives au that really gets into her dynamism as a character, those are awesome.) However, the way they wrote Sokka following Yue’s death reduced her significance. The fact that Yue seemed to have so little impact on Sokka is precisely what makes her death feel unnecessary, even if it isn’t. 

Jet

Okay. Here we go. 

If you know my blog, you know I love Jet. You know I love Jet lives aus. Perhaps you know that I’m in the process of writing a multichapter Jet fic in which he lives after Lake Laogai. So it’s reasonable to assume that, in a discussion of whether or not Jet’s death was necessary, I’m gonna be mega-biased. And yeah, that’s probably true. But up until recently, I wasn’t really all that mad about Jet dying, at least conceptually. As I said earlier, bryke says that in the case of Jet’s death, they wanted to kill a character off that people knew and would care about, so that they could further show the tragedies of war and imperialism. Okay. That is not, in and of itself, a bad idea. 

My issue lies with the execution of said idea. First of all, the framing of Jet’s original episode is so bad. Jet is part of a long line of cartoon villains who resist imperialism and other forms of oppression through violence and are punished for it. This is actually a really common sort of villain for atla/lok, as we see this play out again with Hama, Amon, and the Red Lotus. To paraphrase hbomberguy’s description of this type of villain, basically liberal white creators are saying, “yeah, oppression is bad, but have you tried writing to your Congressman about it?” With Jet, since we have so little information about the village he’s trying to flood, there are a number of different angles that would explain his actions and give them more nuance. My preferred hc is that the citizens of Gaipan are a mix of Earth civilians, Fire citizens, and FN soldiers, and that the Earth citizens refused to feed or house Jet and the other Freedom Fighters because they were orphans and, as we see in the Kyoshi Novels, Earth families stick to their own. Thus, when Jet decides to flood Gaipan, he’s focused on ridding the valley of Fire Nation, but he doesn’t really care about what happens to the Earth citizens of Gaipan because they actively wronged him when he was a kid. That’s just one interpretation, and there have been others: Gaipan was fully Fire Nation, Gaipan was both Earth Kingdom and Fire Nation but Jet decided that the benefits of flooding the valley and getting rid of the Fire Nation outweighed the costs of losing the EK families, etc, etc. There are ways to rewrite that scenario so that Jet is not framed as an unambiguously bloodthirsty monster. In the context of Jet’s death, this initial framing reduces the possible impact that his death could have. Where Yue was unambiguously good, Jet is at the very least morally gray when we see him again in the ferry. And where we are connected to Yue through Sokka, the gaang’s active hatred of Jet hinders our ability to connect with him. This isn’t impossible to overcome--the gaang hates Zuko, and yet to an extent the audience roots for him--but Jet’s lack of screentime and nuanced framing (both of which Zuko gets in all three seasons) makes overcoming his initially flawed framing really difficult. 

So how much can it really be said, that by the time we get to Jet’s death, he’s a character that we know and care about? So much about him is still unknown (what happened to the Freedom Fighters? what prompted Jet’s offscreen redemption? who knows, fam, who knows.) Moreover, most of what we see of him in Ba Sing Se is him actively opposing Zuko and Iroh. These are both characters that at the very least the show wants us to care about. At this point, we know almost everything there is to know about them, we’ve been following them and to an extent rooting for them for two seasons, and who have had nuanced and often sympathetic framing a number of times. So much of the argument I’ve seen regarding Jet centers around the fact that he was right to expose Zuko and Iroh as Firebenders, but the reason we have to have that argument in the first place is because it’s not framed in Jet’s favor. In terms of who the audience cares about more, who the audience has more of an emotional attachment towards, Zuko and Iroh win every time. Whether Jet’s actually in the right or not is irrelevant, because emotionally speaking, we’re primed to root for Zuko and Iroh. In terms of who the framing is biased towards, Jet may as well be Zhao. So when he’s taken by the Dai Li and brainwashed, the audience isn’t necessarily going to see this as a bad thing, because it means Zuko and Iroh are safe.

The only real bit of sympathetic framing Jet gets are those initial moments on the ferry, and the moments after he and the gaang meet again. So about five, ten minutes of the show, total. And then, he sacrifices himself for the gaang. And just like Yue, his death has little to no impact on the characters in the episodes following. Katara is shown crying for four frames immediately following his death, and they bring him up once in “The Southern Raiders” to call him a monster, and once in “The Ember Island Players”, a joke episode in which his death is a joke. 

So, let’s ask again. Does this a) advance the plot, and/or b) develop character? The answer to both is no. It shows that the Dai Li is super evil and cruel, which we already knew and which basically becomes irrelevant in book 3, and that is really the only plot-significant thing I can think of. As far as character, well, it could have been a really interesting moment in Katara’s development in forgiving someone who hurt her in the past, which could have foreshadowed her forgiving Zuko in b3, but considering she calls Jet a monster in TSR, that doesn’t track. There could have been something with Sokka realizing that his snap judgment of Jet in b1 was wrong, but considering that he brings up Jet to criticize Katara in TSR, that also does not track. And honestly, neither of these possible character arcs require Jet to die. What requires Jet to die is the ~themes~. 

Let’s look at this theme again, shall we? The cost of war. We already covered it with Yue, but it’s clearly something that bryke wants to return to and shed new light on. The obvious angle they’re going for is that sometimes, you don’t know who your real enemy is. Jet thought that his enemy was the Fire Nation, but in the end, he was taken down by his own countryman. Wow. So deep. Except, while it’s clear that Jet was always fighting against the Fire Nation, I never got the sense that Jet was fighting for the Earth Kingdom. After all, isn’t the whole bad thing about him in the beginning is that he wants to kill civilians, some of whom we assume to be Earth Kingdom? Why would it matter then that he got killed by an EK leader, when he didn’t seem to ever be too hot on those dudes? But okay, maybe the angle is not that he was killed by someone from the Earth Kingdom, but that he wasn’t killed by someone from the Fire Nation. Okay, but we’ve already seen him be diametrically opposed to the only living Air Nomad and people from the Water Tribes. Jet fighting with and losing to people who aren’t Fire Nation is not a new and exciting development for him. Jet has been enemies with non-FN characters for most of the show’s run at this point. There is no thematic level on which the execution of this holds any water. 

The reason I got to thinking about this, really analyzing what Jet’s death means (and doesn’t mean) for the show, was this conversation I was having with @the-hot-zone in discord dms. We were talking about book 2 and ways it could have been better, and Zone said that they thought that Jet would have been a stronger character to parallel with Zuko’s redemption than Iroh and that seeing more of the narrative from Jet’s perspective could have strengthened the show’s themes. And when it came to the question of Jet’s death, they said, “And if we are going with Jet dying, then I want it to hurt. I want it to hurt just as much as if a main character like Sokka had died. I want the viewer to see Jet's struggles, his triumphs, the facets of Jet that make him compelling and important to the show.” And all of that just hit me. Because we don’t get that, do we? Jet’s death barely leaves a mark. Jet himself barely leaves a mark. His death isn’t plot-significant, doesn’t inspire character growth in any of our MCs, and doesn’t even accomplish the thematic relevance that it claims to. So what was the point? 

Conclusion

Much as I dislike it, Yue’s death actually added something to atla. It could have added much, much more, in the hands of writers who gave more of a shit about their Brown female characters and were less intent on seeing them suffer and knocking them down a peg, but, in my opinion, it did work for what it was trying to do. Jet? Jet? Nah, fam. Jet never got the chance to really develop into a likable character because he was always put at odds with characters we already liked, and the framing skewed their way, not his. The dude never really had a chance.        

*multiple people have spoken about how the NWT as depicted in atla is not reminiscent of real life Inuit and Yupik people and culture. I am not the person to go into detail about this, but I encourage you to check out Native-run blogs for more info!

[hellsbellschime]

Ok, so I’ve always noticed some of the racism on TVD , most notably the treatment of Marcel and Emily, and the founders day parade episode (which, as a Virginian I have to say that the episode made me low-key ashamed when I re-watched it years later). But it took me a while to catch onto the racism on Bonnie‘s character. I was wondering if you have done a meta about it and could link me to it, or if you could do one?

Well it only took me like a year but here ya go!

Despite the fact that The Vampire Diaries is a show that was ostensibly created for girls and young women, the show undeniably seems to lack a certain level of respect or basic interest in its female characters. And while every single significant female character demonstrates that misogynistic point of view in one way or another, one of the most unique, distinct, and apparent instances of The Vampire Diaries' sexism is on peak display with one of it's leading female characters, Bonnie Bennett.

Bonnie obviously occupies a particularly interesting role in the series because she's the only black leading character, and it's also hard to miss that The Vampire Diaries universe has a pretty apparent issue with it's non-white characters as well.

The race problem on TVD expresses itself in a few different, extremely blatant ways. The most obvious issue with people of color on The Vampire Diaries is that those who are actually PoC within the narrative itself are typically pushed to the sidelines and relegated to supporting players at best, but there is also an issue with presenting PoC performers who are white-passing as white characters.

None of the PoC characters in The Vampire Diaries get very good treatment, but the series seems to be exceptionally problematic when it comes to its presentation of black characters. While black people arguably get more representation than any other non-white characters in this fictional world, they are almost all outrageously attractive, extremely light-skinned, and conveniently lacking in any emotional needs or inner life that needs to be addressed within the narrative, seemingly designed to show up, perform whatever service is necessary, and once again fade into the background if not just be killed off entirely.

This is an issue with every black character in the series, but given that Bonnie is the most significant and prominent in the series, it comes as no surprise that she was affected the most intensely by these biases. It's one thing to be a black character, it's one thing to be a female character, but being a black female character in the TVD universe is exceptionally crippling. But how exactly did the misogynoir of The Vampire Diaries completely neutralize Bonnie Bennett as a character?

Bonnie was mistreated, dismissed, and outright ignored in many big and small ways throughout the course of the show. But, a lot of that treatment can be pretty easily sorted into a few categorizations. The Vampire Diaries went through a pretty seismic shift from the start of the show to the end, but it has always been a series that falls primarily into two genres, the supernatural thriller genre and the romance genre.

The show pretty clearly transformed from a show that was firstly a supernatural story with a romantic subgenre into an almost entirely romantic story with a supernatural backdrop, but it's safe to say that the vast majority of the plotlines were either focused on magic or love. And, it's not particularly difficult to see how Bonnie was forcibly excluded from a predominant storyline in each genre, even when it made absolutely no sense.

Bonnie was a completely inexperienced witch at the start of TVD, so her cluelessness and powerlessness made a certain amount of sense at that point. But by the end of season 2 at the very latest, it seems fully established that she is one of the most powerful living witches in the world, and for the bulk of the series it is plainly acknowledged that she is one of the most powerful witches who ever lived. Which is exactly why Bonnie's position in the narrative is baffling.

In quite a few instances, Bonnie's magical abilities seem to be somewhat inconsistent, at least in the sense that, if she can solve some of the biggest problems that the Mystic Falls gang is confronted with, then it's very odd that she can't solve the others. And while plenty of characters in TVD are occasionally used as plot devices rather than characters, Bonnie seems to be the one who is specifically designed to show up, fix what needs fixing, and then become set dressing once she's no longer necessary as the mystical solution to every unsolvable issue.

And this is actually a significant problem with the witches at large, but of course is most recognizable with Bonnie because she is the most prominent witch. While not all witches are women of color, it seems like they are far more represented in that faction of the magical world than in any other. So then, it's interesting that the witches are presented as servants of nature who are meant to selflessly restore order to the world without actually using their abilities for their own personal gain.

Of course there are plenty of witches who appear to use their powers for themselves, but still, it's incredibly meaningful that the lone black main character in the series is constantly sacrificing herself for the sake of the otherwise entirely white cast of characters. It's even more meaningful that she seems to willingly put herself in the line of fire every time, and it's also extremely telling that she suffers and even dies without complaint for the sake of other people.

And while TVD has never been the kind of show to linger on emotional moments for too long, Bonnie seems to stick out like a sore thumb in this circumstance as well. Most of the main and even supporting characters have moments where their pain is acknowledged and at least has a second to breathe, but there are quite a few situations where Bonnie should be upset but isn't, or where her emotional journey as a character literally takes place off screen.

This lack of acknowledgment and nearly complete omission of an internal emotional life that doesn't involve sacrificing herself for her friends only further makes Bonnie feel like a plot device instead of a character. And, while no character needs a romantic relationship to make their character complete, it is incredibly relevant that, on a series that was built largely on a foundation of romance and arguably became a completely romantically driven show by its end, only one of the female leads was pretty much never presented as a viable love interest.

Nearly every character is either threatened or charmed into doing what someone else wants them to at some point during The Vampire Diaries, however, Bonnie's charm-to-threaten ratio seems to lean very heavily in favor of threatening. That in itself wouldn't necessarily be a huge issue, but it seems to punish Bonnie in a way that is so severe that it's completely illogical.

Trying to intimidate Elena or Caroline, people who at best have the strength of a baby vampire and at worst are as powerful as a normal human, makes sense. But trying to strongarm the most powerful witch in the world instead of just convincing her to do what you ask seems like an incredibly dangerous and completely baffling decision.

And yet, that is how Bonnie is forced to do nearly everything that she doesn't want to do in eight seasons of the series. By the end of season 2, TVD has canonically confirmed that Bonnie is powerful enough to destroy Klaus Mikaelson, and yet people like Klaus, Katherine, and even vampires as young as Damon get Bonnie to do things by simply bullying or even assaulting her into doing it. And what does Bonnie typically do in response? Absolutely nothing.

At a certain point, the consistent contrast between Bonnie's mystical strength and the way that people treat her in order to use that strength becomes a pretty gaping plot hole. And while it's not unheard of for someone to try to sweet talk Bonnie into joining their team, it is almost always done by a character who is far less powerful than she is and who is completely irrelevant to the narrative at large.

In contrast to characters like Elena and Caroline, the distinction between them becomes even more obvious. Perhaps a thin argument could be made that because Elena is a doppelganger that makes her a tad more unique, but when one of the most powerful creatures on the planet was wrapped around Caroline's finger, it really begs the question, why wasn't anyone ever as invested or even obsessed with Bonnie as they were with the other two female leads on the series?

After all, Elena's love was consistently treated as if it was the greatest prize that anyone could possibly win, and the two male leads were completely obsessed with her and willing to do anything they could to try to win her over. And despite the fact that Elena was at the center of the love triangle that was a significant driving force behind the story for the entire series, she still managed to score a few love interests that weren't Salvatores throughout the show's eight seasons as well.

And, while Caroline was actually treated as more of the reject love interest in comparison to the unattainable Elena, her record with romance is also incredibly varied. Even though she was portrayed at best as the consolation prize and at worst the abuse victim, she did have some sort of romantic relationship with the two male leads in the show. Or at least, that is how The Vampire Diaries chose to portray it.

In addition to her horrorshow with Damon and her incredibly brief marriage with Stefan, Caroline is also a love interest for Klaus, Matt, Tyler, and disgustingly, Alaric. Arguably the only main male character who doesn't serve as Caroline's love interest or potential love interest at any point is Jeremy.

Although this laundry list of love interests can be partially excused by the fact that Caroline is characterized as someone who wants to date a lot, the contrast bet0ween characters like Caroline and Elena and characters like Bonnie is astonishing.

Over a nearly decade-long run, Bonnie's only legitimate leading men are Jeremy, Elena's kid brother who Bonnie will willingly die for but who also prefers a literal dead person over her at one point, and Enzo, her epic love romance that comes about at the very end of the series in a relationship that almost entirely develops off-screen.

Of course, female characters do not need love interests to validate their characterization or very existence, however in an environment where every single barely significant supporting character seems to get at least two love interests, it's incredibly telling that Bonnie Bennett gets two important love stories in eight seasons of storytelling.

It seems even more relevant that the show seemingly went out of its way to sidestep almost any and all opportunities for romance in Bonnie's character arc. Whether it was Kol, Kai, or Damon Salvatore, there were quite a few instances where there was a clear and easy route to develop a love interest for Bonnie in a way that made sense and had a pretty solid amount of audience support, and yet the series always went out of its way to avoid it.

In stark contrast, Caroline is still seen as a viable option for a burgeoning love story when she's pregnant, and Elena is an acceptable love interest when she's literally unconscious. And yet, in a series that began with romance as its secondary genre and that evolved into a romance series with a supernatural backdrop, Bonnie is supposedly not as appealing of a love interest as Elena and Caroline regardless of any circumstances, no matter how insane.

If these issues existed in a vacuum then they might be excusable, but considering how poorly The Vampire Diaries treated its female characters and black characters, it's pretty much impossible to avoid the reality that Bonnie Bennett's entire character arc was likely hamstrung by the fact that she was a black girl.

In any reasonable circumstances, Bonnie would have arguably been at the center of every single supernatural storyline, and she logically would have been a far more appealing love interest to any powerful characters in the series. But instead she spent the vast majority of her screentime with her inner characterization ignored, her personal development unexplored, and serving as little more than a glorified deus ex machina who didn't even want her friends to bother mourning her when she literally sacrificed her life for them.

Representation was always an issue in The Vampire Diaries universe, and unfortunately it seems like Bonnie was the definition of their token black character. Although the series had eight entire years to course correct and had many seasons where they were desperate for new ideas and decent character development, the racism and misogyny of the series seemingly prevented them from ever tapping into the enormous untapped potential of someone who should have been one of their flagship lead characters.