#and especially morally questionable characters

[autistichalsin]

Periodic rent-lowering-gunshots:

Fiction is not reality.

You can enjoy things in fiction that would be awful in the real world. Like playing a murderhobo in a game! In the real world, being or supporting a murderer-thief would be pretty damn awful, while in the game it's just good fun. Same with anything else you choose to do with the pixels on the screen, like kinks that don't affect anyone real, so they're okay in fiction, but would be pretty damn bad in real life.

No one else is responsible for your online experience. They are required not to harass you, but they are not and never will be obligated to not post about ships, kinks, or tropes you dislike just to avoid you seeing them. It's up to you to blacklist words or phrases, block tags, or even block users as needed to avoid seeing content that upsets you.

No one can force you to read anything against your consent. Any content you don't like seeing can be instantly avoided by closing out of the offending post/fic.

You are not owed an online experience free of discomfort.

Nothing that happens in your imagination can ever make you a bad person. Words you write or read about fictional characters will never make you a bad person.

The claim that media consumption influences real-life behavior is intellectually dishonest and serves only to excuse the behavior of real offenders.

Fiction is a safe way to explore horrifying or confusing concepts. Therapists agree that fiction, even (or especially) about taboo topics is a good coping mechanism, especially, but not exclusively, for trauma survivors. Fiction is to adults what play therapy is to children. This doesn't stop being true if the work in question is of a sexual nature.

Sex isn't an inherently worse or better motivation than anything else. A work written to create feelings of arousal isn't dirty, shameful, or in any way less pure than works written to entertain, provoke moral questions, or for other reasons. And worth noting is that multiple purposes can exist in the same story, especially fanfiction.

You aren't entitled to an explanation for why someone reads, writes, or otherwise enjoys certain works, kinks, tropes, ships, etc.

[thelostgirl21]

Okay, now that video makes me feel even more uncomfortable with his silence on those issues.

Because, by contrast, I remember this interview:

GAY TIMES: There will be a few homophobic haters out there, people who think a queer storyline is outlandish in a world of basilisks, dopplers and chernobogs. We saw this recently with The Last of Us. Is this something you’re anticipating or are you not entertaining all of that anti-LGBTQ+ tomfoolery?

Joey: In this fandom, there is a very vocal negative space. That vocal negative space is actually the minority, I think. The thing that I’m most concerned about and will do my best to counteract is when discourse becomes bigotry. Then, I don’t know what I’d do with myself. I think I’d log onto Twitter and battle them all off myself. There is going to be inevitable backlash but what we’re doing is worth it.

https://www.gaytimes.com/originals/the-witcher-joey-batey-hugh-skinner-queer-interview/

So, it's unlikely that he's unaware of the presence of those toxic fans, when other co-stars are very aware of it, and ready to state that bigotry directed at others is never okay.

Although, I should mention that this interview (the video you showed) seems to have been done in Season 1 (if we look at the clips they are playing).

And Cavill seems to have understood the question as meaning how does he feel about people seeing his own interpretation of the character in a negative light.

I'd be curious about how he'd answer if someone asked him about it today; while being explicit about them specifically referring to the toxic hatred that has been directed towards the way the female characters have been put front and center on the show, the diversity of the casting choices, and the decision that was made for Jaskier to be portrayed as a "personizer" rather than a "womanizer", so to speak.

Would he still attempt to go "well, you know, people are just passionate about it", or admit that "regardless of how passionate some of those fans may be, bigotry directed at specific groups of people, the cast, etc. like that is never okay."

Because I've met quite a few of those actually passionate fans he's referring to. People that genuinely love and prefer the game - as is their right - and might be sad and upset that Netflix chose to give priority to the books and their own vision / adaptation of the books rather than integrate more lore from the games into it.

They aren't toxic, and they aren't the ones going around bashing minorities and making it some huge morality issue about how the show is not respecting the BOOKS' integrity, and SAPKOWSKI's vision, while clearly defending elements only found in the games (falsely claiming that it belongs to the book), and holding sexist, racist, queerphobic and even ableist remarks.

When we are talking about toxic fans, we are talking about toxic fans. Not passionate and disappointed ones!

Those are two very different categories!

Do toxic fans still have the right to their sexist, racist queerphobic and ableist opinions? Yes. But people that stand against those harmful views have a certain responsibility to clearly state "treating others the way you do is wrong, I don't agree with it, and I'm opposed to it."

And this is where having an influential actor - whose voice is constantly being misused by those toxic fans - remaining silent about it, gets very close to endorsing those views, especially if in the past Cavill has basically said that "it's not toxic, it's just passionate".

Like okay, maybe in Season 1 most were still "just passionate" for the most part, as it hadn't yet been made entirely clear what the direction of the show was going to be (and how much importance Ciri, Yennefer, Francesca, etc. would have in it).

But you've still got that very vocal negative space that has since grown, and that now see Cavill as their "champion of the manosphere", that are absolutely awful online, and feel validated by their Geralt of Rivia's silence.

If you look at 1:28:15, Henry does show support for his main co-star's performances, but he does so by suggesting that their characters tend to be oversimplified. Which is technically okay, because he's entitled to be dissatisfied with the show's writers interpretation of certain characters.

But again, that dissatisfaction is still indirectly suggested rather than stated.

But suggested in such a way where he has the "courtesy" of making his co-stars appear like victims/hostages of a show that is "oversimplifying characters" (a.k.a. failing the source material™), so they can almost be seen like THEY are too afraid to speak out against the "big bads" because they need the money and the job.

So it does sadly make that very vocal negative minority feel validated in their interpretation of Cavill having left because the show was "becoming too woke", etc.

He did also wish Liam Hemsworth well, and the little of what he's ever clearly stated has always praised his co-stars (the main ones, at least).

But, at some point if you've been made aware that you've got the freaking manosphere worshipping you, where does it become your responsibility to say "I know these men interpret my behavior as saying I support their bigoted views and frustrations with the diversity of the cast and the place given to women on the show, but I don't."

The thing also is that, even if he was to say something now , would these people then invent some story about him having been threatened by Netflix with legal actions for standing for his beliefs, etc.?

They've created such a persona for him, that would they even be willing to believe that he's not the alpha male anti-woke dudebro they believe him to be?

But, at the very least, he'd be standing for what's right, rather than looking like he's willing to sell his soul to the devil if that means staying on top.

So, my own personal perception of him?

Somewhere between A and B.

I don't blame him. I don't hate him.

Self-preservation is human.

He's not publicly nor explicitly endorsing those toxic views.

But I can't help but feel like he lacks the courage to do anything against it, because he'd rather prioritize his own popularity and safety above doing the right thing.

Taking a stand against bullies means risking having them turn against you.

And Cavill has often spoken about having been bullied and called "fat Cavill" as a child.

What is sad about that tale, is that the way he says it, you get the sense that instead of having learned to be proud of being fat as a child, and realised that those people were just assholes, he "won" and "showed them" by working and training hard to achieve the standards of physical beauty that those bullies likely held in high regards.

And some people do protect themselves from bullies by allowing them to think that they are on their side (even if they aren't).

As much as he wants to be Superman in real life, I still see him as a child that never outgrew being a victim in a sense, and that will still want to protect himself by avoiding to provoke aggression from bullies directed towards him.

He might secretly agree with certain sexist views of society (A), but I've a feeling that a huge chunk of the issue is closer to (B).

Not because he's got a narcissistic personality disorder per se (he hasn't raised any clear enough red flags for me to diagnose something like that from him), but he would rather have the monsters "on his side", than become the target of their ire, and continue to reap the benefits in terms of them supporting his career.

He's human, not Superman. Humans are messy and scared and sometimes self-serving in the choices they make.

I don't blame him, but I'm not comfortable with the way he's chosen to handle those toxic fans, and I don't support his methods, either.

And even there, all I know from him is the little I've heard and seen in interviews. It's highly likely that his motivations for not saying anything are even more complex than I can imagine.

I've been thinking about The Witcher books and tv show recently. Because half of the things that make Geralt seem cool and edgy in the show just don't exist in the books.

In the show he's always so stoic. Most of his exposition has to be told by side characters implying things and you just have to gage his reaction to decide if it's true or not. In the books however, he gives a full lore dump to anyone who's remotely nice to him.

Random Character: So how've you been?

Show Geralt: Hmmmm.... 😒 😔 😒...

Book Geralt: Terrible actually, thank you for asking. Monster hunting is dying out and I have zero transferable skills. Yennifer's left me again and Jaskier's off god knows where. Overall I suppose it could be worse, but that's the life or a Witcher. Also, my perfectly good leather jacket got ruined in a fight the day after I bought it :(

[remus-poopin]

It seems like you somehow manage to have one foot in the marauders fandom and one in the snape fandom and I’m so impressed. How do you do it?

Also, since you get to see both sides of things I’m wondering what you like the most about each fandom?

Ok this is an interesting question! Honestly I think I’m able to do this, and do this enjoyably, because I really try to make an effort to not moralize. This hasn’t always been how I interacted with fiction in the past, so it’s been a tricky process of learning how to do this with consistency. But it is something that I think is very important for me to do, not only because I have a better time in fandom when I'm not moralizing, but also because it inspires a sort of self reflection and allows me to practice empathy in a way that’s feels more analytical than emotional/inherent. And in the case of navigating two fandoms that have a built in tension between them, this becomes especially helpful.

The tension between the snape and marauders fandom almost always comes down to moralizing. The back and forth arguments between fans are usually rooted in the idea that the other character is not only morally flawed, but more morally flawed than theirs. If you look at any anti Snape or anti James post there’s an underlying agenda that’s trying to prove one is worse than the other. This is pretty irritating to me because I find it to be very boring, silly, and just missing the point of the characters and themes. But this is also irritating because I find that it's ineffective in producing any real meaningful analysis on these characters. Because the goal is not to understand that character, but to condemn them.

(This doesn’t mean that I think you shouldn’t examine the behavior of the characters, just that assigning a moral judgment to that behavior outside the world of that character leads to heavily biased analysis (meaning making it personal and about your standard of morality leads to a messy understanding of the character and story))

Going back to the tension between these fandoms, I think when you’re busy trying to prove how shitty a fictional character is you have a hard time separating them from their fans. Because it’s not really about the character anymore it’s about you and your personal feelings and beliefs.

I very frequently run into posts talking about “snape defenders” and “marauders defenders”, like this is some kind of battle where a side needs to be picked, and then picking a side is a reflection of your morality and politics (I’ve seen marauders fans imply that “snape defenders” are fascists or fascist sympathizers and I’ve seen snape fans call marauders fans “class traitors”, all in the last couple days mind you).

I’m going to be honest and say that whenever this pops up it’s gets pretty frustrating, frustrating because it feels like people are just using these characters as avatars for larger discussions they actually want to be having, but because these characters have specific stories, motivations, and complexities it makes this extremely messy (want to vent about the cult of conservatism that's growing all around us? Bring out the Snape Ken doll and talk about how he deserved his bullying (if he even was bullied)! Hate feeling the weight of capitalism on your chest while the class divide grows larger and larger? Call James “bourgeois scum”!)

(Or as @sideprince wisely said, it’s a way to be political without actually engaging in politics)

So yes I find this tiring, but I also really get it. I have done some form of this myself plenty of times. I am not immune to moralizing or having these same type of strong emotional reactions to a fictional character. In fact, I had this very recently when I watched “Girls” for the first time last month. Until maybe this week I felt a strong hatred for the character “Adam”. This hatred came from seeing him do something in a scene that I considered to be morally repugnant. The scene itself was incredibly graphic and triggering to the point where I had to stop watching the show for a couple days. The disgust response firing in my brain made it so I was incapable of viewing his character as anything but a POS, and all the complexities of him were lost because I refused to engage with them. So all his actions after that were viewed with a moral judgement from me. I mean even when he was being funny, sweet, or just interesting I felt incredibly annoyed because I desperately didn’t want to like him. However I was cognizant of the fact that I was having this sort of moral reaction to fiction because this is a show that is defined by its complex, complicated, and realistic characters, who have all done some very questionable things, and yet he was the only character getting this treatment in my head. So feeling frustrated with my own hypocrisy I decided that I needed to start approaching this differently.

So I made a choice to look at his action, the one that I found disgusting, and start breaking it down: Why did he do that? What was it saying about his relation to shame, power, control, violence, sex, gender, etc.? How else has he reacted to those issues in the show? I kept asking those types of questions, on and on, until suddenly I wasn’t just thinking about the disgusting act itself, but the character. The act stopped being about my own feelings and trauma and became about him.

That’s what I do with the marauders and snape, that’s what I strive to do with any fictional character, because to me that’s the most enjoyable way to engage with fiction. And I find that the fun I have in fandom is greatly limited when I’m pissed at a character, because it makes it difficult to interact with others who are their fans. If I see that someone is playing with that character, a little voice would go, “but what about my anger?” followed by a sharp sting. That type of anger, that moral anger, is personal, but this character is public, it lives beyond me and my feelings. My anger is mine, it never belonged to the public.

And I have at some point felt that same type of moral disgust/anger for both the marauders and snape. But I zeroed in on what specific action was making me feel that way, tried to understand why I had that reaction in the first place, and then went back to the action itself and tried to contextualize it within the character and story so it was removed from myself.

That’s how I’ve been helping myself with the moralizing issue. I’ll still have these reactions in the future, I might even have one on here, but I'll keep working on it. Because either way I love all of these characters and I want to continue to be able to exist in both fandoms without having to choose a side, or even lean a certain way. When you're not trying to win the war on which character was the Shittiest™ the pressure turns off and you can just enjoy these multifaceted characters with their many flaws and many strengths.

And as for what I like most about each fandom: I adore the snapedom because I've always felt that the best meta in the entire hp fandom came from there. Honestly the whole reason I love snape so much wasn't because I ever felt particularly identified with him, but because I read a billion incredible metas and analyses about him and truly came to appreciate his complexities.

For the marauders side I think I really enjoy the camaraderie, there are a lot of really sweet and cool people I’ve talked to on here and that's always been a blast!

[aroaceleovaldez]

Your blog is the only blog where I feel safe enough asking this question. What do you think of Percy Jackson fans who feel as though they and the series have a moral superiority to Harty Potter ? Obviously, Harry Potter and its author are laden with questionable and sometimes straight-up hateful takes and views. But the way PJO fans constantly compare the two, its authors (even though RR is far from flawless), and the two MCs (ignoring how the two both share similarities in the fact that they are both traumatised, abused, angry teenage boys). I'm sorry that this ask got so long, but this has been annoying me for a while now.

This is an interesting question - for one, fandom fights over superiority is a concept that has been around for ages and has never been constructive. PJO and HP fandoms have been fighting in that exact way (and it has gone both ways!) for literal decades (remember, PJO turns 20 this year) so this isn't new, it's just taken on a moral flavor. Let's go over some things though (but please keep in mind i never got into HP and never read the books or fully watched the movies so my knowledge of HP is primarily pop culture absorption/secondhand from my family and friends):

Are either series perfect? No. HP absolutely is full of hateful sentiments and JKR is a hateful person and I do not respect her for that. Disney's marketing recently has absolutely fully leaned into trying to put Rick above her as a moral paragon and emphasizing how progressive he is and his support of diversity in middle grade series, despite some failings to reflect that in the actual text. Are Rick and JKR equally bad? Definitely not. Rick has had tangible good influence on adhd/dyslexia awareness that very directly impacted people like me as a neurodivergent kid going through school in the 2000s. JKR meanwhile has directly negatively impacted trans laws internationally very recently.

Rick absolutely isn't perfect, but he's vocally supportive, has made a lot of effort in the past to be inclusive, and still attempts to do so. Most of his issues simply stem from his own unaddressed internalized bigotry/biases and his research on varying topics not being great (plus poor management decisions such as not hiring a sensitivity reader actually fit for the story he's trying to tell). But he's not hateful. JKR is. JKR is very vocally hateful and bigoted and this is absolutely reflected in her work as well even in earlier HP. They are comparable in that they are both middle grade authors of easily two of the most popular middle grade fantasy (or specifically hidden world fantasy) series out right now. They are not equivalent in the slightest in their bigotry or tangible damage.

In terms of Percy versus Harry, I personally don't think they're very comparable. They share some similarities, but mostly just in that they're both the protagonists of their stories and thus serve protagonist purposes. Beyond that their use within the narrative is pretty different functionally. Their worlds' magic systems are not comparable. The hidden world aspect in both their universes isn't even comparable, since in PJO the "hidden world" aspect is very different from most hidden world fantasy formats because the entire point is that it's functionally not a hidden world. The characters themselves are very different as well - Percy's personality and the way he behaves and reacts to his environment is absolutely nothing like Harry's.

Most of the anti-HP-in-general sentiments stem from wanting to cut off JKR's notoriety, which I think is valid to want to do. And I do think there are a lot of issues with continuing to support JKR's work especially in ways that functionally promote her work or support her financially. Obviously, we will never be able to scrub HP from the cultural zeitgeist. It's just not feasible and I'm very anti-book burning so I do think it's important to acknowledge the role HP has had in pop-culture alongside acknowledging its harmful materials. HP is a text you absolutely can't death-of-the-author your way out of because a lot of the vitriol is baked into the text and worldbuilding in very overt ways - and there are plenty of other pop-culture staple novels like this. But fandom in general, at least true fandom and not mainstream fandom, is so obscure most of the time that I don't think, so long as people are not ignoring negative themes of the source material and are being thoughtful as they navigate engaging with it, that it is an inherently bad thing for HP fandom to just exist at all. It's never going to just stop existing no matter what people do. And HP fandom are not the only ones who should be thoughtful about how they engage with their source material - PJO fandom is not exempt from examining some of the problematic aspects in our own text and figuring out how to be respectful with those topics. It's just a lot easier for PJO fandom to tune it out without it being noticed because there's less of it and it's (at least sometimes) less overt. Honestly if HP fandom decided to go more down the path of a fandom like Warriors or Miraculous Ladybug, where the average sentiment is more along the lines of "Oh god no don't read/watch the source material it sucks/we stopped paying attention to it year ago and it's not relevant at all to what we're up to. We're over here functionally rewriting everything from the ground up/doing our own thing" I would very much support them in that endeavor. I do think there is merit in limiting promotion of the HP source material as much as possible, though.

Hopefully that all makes at least some amount of sense.

[wings-of-ink]

Personally, I actually really like it when IFs lock in the MC's personality. Sometimes in IFs that have personality stats I find that I'm choosing certain choices just because it increases the personality stat that I want rather than because it's the actual choice that I want my character to make. If the IF locks in the MC's personality in the beginning, then I no longer have to worry about that and can just focus on choosing the choices that I want. Plus, I think that locking in personality traits at the beginning of the story allows the MC to feel more like a real character, since they can act on their own in the story in a way that fits their personality still. Having a set personality also makes it easier to create scenarios where the other characters in the story can comment on the fact that the MC is acting different from usual if you choose to make a choice that conflicts with their set personality. Like the other anon said, having checkpoints where the player can choose to change the MC's personality over time is also a really cool choice! I just think that there's a lot of cool things that you can do with set personalities

I totally feel what you mean on this and have done that too. I've had some IFs where the choices even left me confused as to how the selection was a reflection of the attribute in question.

My hope is that if I were to do a personality lock-in from the beginning they would feel more like an authentic person. I have liked nearly all character creation methods I've seen so far, and in IFs, sometimes you can't get around the whole "you look into the mirror" thing. Sometimes the choices to set your personality stats feel unnatural and I wonder if doing it another way could avoid that.

And you totally seem to feel what I'm putting down here again because that was also my thinking in creating varied behaviors. It is so much easier to code a more authentic response to a choice a reader makes that is out of "character." You can play with moral conflict, and relationship dynamics, or if the MC is in some sort of trouble, other characters can be suspicious if they act odd.

But, I also tend to see multiple viewpoints on these things. I could probably still do all that with a set-as-you-go personality system, but the sacrifice there could be the time it takes to do and how deep or unique things can get.

And I definitely like the idea of having stages where you can adjust your character in different ways. Especially if one stat can raise or lower the chances of certain outcomes for the ending...

[eriochromatic]

As a character, what do you love most about Silco? As a subject matter, what do you enjoy drawing about him most? (personally, I love his nose), but his fashion ... GOD. I would love to see your take on Happy AU Silco's wardrobe options!

Also, do you do concept art for video games or animation for a living? Your work is so professional, I especially admire your coloring!

I think for fictional characters in general, I love those who have really strong convictions and would do anything for those set of ideals, and then the narrative continuously tests them and pushes them to the edge. Whether or not the character follows through in their ideals or finally reaches their limit doesn't matter to me, I just like seeing them wrangle with their decisions lol

This is why I didn't like s1 Jayce (who to me was a candle in the wind) but I loved s2 Jayce- for s2 Jayce's arc basically revolved entirely around Viktor, from the beginning where he made the decision to bring him back w/ the hexcore (despite Viktor telling him to destroy it), to the end where Jayce basically decides to die with Viktor in the ether. Jayce was brought to his absolute limit and we got to see him grapple with the decisions that he had to make.

Silco was the same in s1, to me he goes through his own personal "corruption arc" in the sense that in s1e9 he betrays his own ideals for Jinx and finally understands Vander's position. He and Vander probably started out as the same idealists, and then the narrative kept punching him in the gut and forged him into who we saw in s1e1. A lot of this is off screen but just the idea of him (after his fight with Vander) sort of losing his moral compass bit by bit which all culminates to producing shimmer just to prove how much he's willing to fight for Zaun, and then later on realizing there is a final line he won't ever cross...

Honestly even if he did cross that line and went like "haha I don't actually care about Jinx" I would still love him as a character (just in a massively different way since he would be like. A completely different person. Idk I watched the Penguin recently and I still fucking love Oz and also my favorite asoiaf character is Stannis so. LMAO.)

Sorry this turned into a bit of a rant HAHAHA but as for your other questions, yes I love drawing his nose as well, honestly it's funny seeing young Silco art that doesn't have his nose where he just becomes an emo anime boy. I'm just like who are you that's not Silco thats Simon LOL

Idk about specifically designing other outfits for Silco though, I just draw him in what feels right for the moment (?) I guess my art process currently is more like "what am I trying to tell with this" rather than just playing dress up dolls (not that there's anything wrong with that! Just not my thing) Like, for that AU last drop thing I drew, Silco, Mylo, and Claggor are all wearing smth more casual since the vibe was like 10am on a Sunday morning but Powder is wearing her normal clothes since she just pulled an all nighter with Ekko (well ok they fell asleep at like 5am before Ekko rudely ran away lol), and Vander was already up anyways probably to do bar admin stuff idk.. so if you're asking me directly what I think is in Silco's wardrobe I'm kind of drawing a blank fjskdmmsmfd

And yes I do concept art/illustration for video games for a living :)

[tuesday-teyz]

Butterfly Reign chapter 40 😧

Hi!

First of all, I just wanted to say how much I love Butterfly Reign—your writing is incredible, and I’ve been absolutely hooked from the start. I think I started reading when there were only about 10 chapters out, which feels like a lifetime ago!

I just finished chapter 40, and I’ve been thinking a lot about the direction the story took, particularly regarding Theseus and Wilbur. Their relationship has been such a complex and emotional journey, and I’ve really enjoyed seeing them work through their issues. Honestly, it’s crazy to think back to when I first started reading, and how I would’ve been rooting for Theseus to get his revenge, but now, with everything that’s happened, I didn’t expect the story to take such a tragic turn.

While I’m still deeply invested in the story, I’m curious about a few things—particularly the choice to have Wilbur die. I’ve been wondering, how long have you had this planned? I noticed the MCD tag from the beginning, so I’m wondering if this was always the direction you intended to take their characters or if it evolved as the story developed?

I’d also love to know your thoughts on Theseus’s actions here (without giving away any spoilers ofc). In the context of the story (obviously not condoning murder in real life 😭), do you think Theseus did what he had to do? Do you see him as someone who is still redeemable, or do you think that this was a mistake in his journey? I ask because, even though I’ve been the number one Theseus defender (his rights and wrongs) throughout the story, I found myself struggling with this moment. It’s the first time I’ve felt so conflicted about his character. I’m really curious about your perspective as the author, especially when it comes to the moral complexities in his decision.

Thank you so much for sharing this story— and I can’t wait to see what comes next! (even though i'm not yet willing to except that it shall continue BR!crimboys-less) at least give me hope for Br!discduo if nothing else

Hi, thank you for the ask, it made my morning!

To answer your questions, it's a little complex when exactly the decision came about. In my original outline back in 2022, this whole scene did not actually involve any fire. Instead, it was Theseus and Fundy stranded on the lake as ice begins to crack. Wilbur gets Fundy to safety first, and then when he comes back for Theseus, they fall through. From there on, there were two versions of this scene that I fluctuated between: one, Wilbur cuts the rope connecting them and lets himself drown, and two, the same happens but both of them get saved by a third outside force. This is followed up by Wilbur falling into a coma and being absent for the rest of the fic, sans the epilogue where we see him awake. Simply put, it was never my plan for Wilbur to be present in the final arc; he simply has no place there. His story was always meant to end in this chapter.

However, as time went on, I realized that using a coma is a very cheap (for the lack of a better word) way to write off a character, and his death by sacrifice did not feel right. As I mentioned in another post, br!Wilbur was, off and on, for nearly a decade, br!Tommy's abuser. To have someone who caused so much pain for him die saving him didn't sit right with me. Tommy was working for so long on accepting his past and unlearning the behaviors Wilbur brought up in him that it felt like an injustice and a poor message besides to basically say 'oh well he loved you at the end of the day'. And exploring his death from the point of view Tommy being relieved by it and feeling guilty at the same time is too repetetive of the story itself from when Wilbur ran away the first time. That's when the decision for Tommy to kill Wilbur was born.

So short answer: Wilbur's story was always meant to end at this moment. The idea for murder hatched during the travel arc.

I could not tell you exactly when did I realize that the plot was heading towards Tommy killing Wilbur, but I very firmly stand by the point that it's something that has been brewing up in the background unbeknownst even to me. The thing, Tommy has always been a killer. You have always known him as one (Clara was killed by him 3 years into the past), even though you didn't know his full backstory. An important part of this arc in its entirety is that it's Tommy unpacking and healing from the trauma he experienced 6 to 3 years ago. When Tommy gets sick and Wilbur takes care of him – that's 11 year old Tommy getting closure from Wilbur leaving him behind, and trading their family for the life of a commoner and a family of his own. It's not about them learning to be different in the future; it's about them mending the past. At no point at all this was meant to be about redeeming Wilbur.

Off to the next question: was this necessary? Did Tommy do what he had to?

Not at all. I address that in the chapter itself. I believe it's three different times that an image of Clara tells that Tommy must do it, meaning kill Wilbur, but the only time Tommy voices that thought himself (after the dialogue with Warden), the must changes to can. It's him taking agency over his own choices and acknowledging that he has this option and it's his decision to proceed with it. He tells Wilbur not to make excuses for him for Clara's death, knowing he's about to commit the same crime again.

As to how to feel about his actions – that's entirely up to you. You're not meant to feel a certain way about any of the characters, and especially not Tommy, but I am curious to hear your guys' thoughts and analysis. What do you think?

[wow-an-unfunny-joke]

My English teacher asked me ‘do you think the antoganist can be a hero’ and I don’t think she was prepared for the ESSAY (like two paragraphs) I wrote

[sukibenders]

Hear me out: you can ship JayVik without falling into or using rhetoric that fits the disposable black girlfriend trope. You can ship JayVik without using Mel as some conceived ploy or antagonistic plot device that makes her out of character. You can ship JayVik without falling into misogynistic rhetoric (eg. viewing female characters as disposable or stepping tools, amongst other things). You can ship JayVik without erasing the impact Mel has had on Jayce and their relationship because, whether you shipped it or not or even gave it the time of day, Mel and Jayce did care for each other, and to deny that or say Viktor held more importance/impact than her in Jayce's life to where she's viewed as "unnecessary" just to further your ship is so wrong and, whether you intended for it or not, does carry undertones where black characters, especially black female characters, emotional impact on others is ignored or downplayed even though there's context to support just how important it is/they are. Lastly, you can ship JayVik without using anti-black and misogynoir type rhetoric because the amount that has flooded this fandom, but especially from some fans of this ship, is atrocious. Ship what you like, but be respectful and careful with certain things you say, is all I'm saying.

[silverspleen]

STUPID SHIP MEME DRAWINGS.

I just think they should kiss maybe?

Obsessed (positive??) with the dynamic of guy who betrays his country so he can run off with the militia he's been working with because he gets a case of loyalty feelings so bad he goes and blows himself up X morally upstanding traumatic backstory woman having the worst fucking time of her life (again) who really just needs someone to be as fanatically loyal as possible to her, as a person who is really into the inherent eroticism of the hierarchical military power dynamic focus on loyalty and the use of "yes ma'am" as I love you.

Obsessed (negative) with the propaganda implications that we seem to have ignored of the fact that the three most important people in an arabic woman's life are 2 (two) white guys and her brother, who betrays her and becomes a villain in the later games, and the fucking insidious-ass narrative choice of placing one of said white guys in said militia as like, the tacit fact that this organization is ok only because the western white guys are cool with it. Stop introducing more ULF people just to kill them!!! I SEE YOU WRITERS!!! YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM ME!!!!!!

because, once again, the character dynamic? I am sick for it. He dropped a building on himself for her and then came back???? He came back???? He could have gone anywhere but he came back to her???? I'm unwell. I think I have covid. I need to go lie down.

Anyway my city now my characters now smashing them together like barbies watching that .gif of them staring at each other eighty times reading all the fanfiction goodbye

you shouldn't blow yourself up in the furnace I want to blow myself up in the furnace for you as my own personal choice and you should order me to do it because you're such a good leader what is wrong with youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgh *gnaws on furniture*

WE DON'T EVEN GET TO SEE HIM COME BACK TO HER. THANK YOU FIC WRITERS YOU KNOW THAT REUNION MUST BE SO ANGST THE COMPLEX DYNAMIC OF SACRIFICING YOURSELF FOR SOMEONE AND MAKING IT OUT AND BACK TO THEM AGAIN!!!!!!! THE GUILT! THE YEARNING! THE LOYALTY! I AM GOING TO EXPLODE.

[shorthaltsjester]

i contain multitudes and can say that i am a little :( about vex and percy being teammates with benefits because i think there’s something particularly heartbreaking about the dynamic that was neither of them ever said a thing even though they both were aware of it and it took losing percy for vex to finally admit it and Even Then, she couldn’t say it to percy’s face when they got him back, percy was the one who had to make the first move (that they were both alive for at least) and he was only able to do that because he’d heard her confession, because he never would’ve thought otherwise. to be clear, i also very much enjoy the story being told, i think i just wish they’d maybe committed more significantly to This Is A Campaign-Inspired Story Rather Than A Retelling sooner in the show so that maybe there would be a bit more grounding or set-up for the storylines the narrative is focusing on (and i understand why they wouldn’t), because i think they’re doing very well with percy’s arc for example, because they started with focusing on his and keeping his beats mostly the same and that seems to be much the same case as some of his second wave of meaty character stuff has arrived. but with vex they’ve aimed for the same character beats but it doesn’t always feel as earned or really feel like much character at all; i think saundor particularly was a bit of an :/, since in the campaign it was really a catalyst for vex interrogating her role in the party and her morality and something she struggled to get over and that haunted her far beyond the walls of that tree, but in the show it hasn’t really had a clear impact on vex beyond the scope of the episode itself — syldor certainly has, but the challenge that saundor presented didn’t really have much weight beyond its moment. and obviously a large part of that’s also probably just, 7 protagonists and wanting to expand the perspectives to antagonists and give more room for side characters is a lot of things to cover. and, i say with love, perhaps a bit too ambitious for a 12 episode per season, ~22 minute runtime show if they want their characters to have the kind of depth that really makes campaign 1 shine the way it does.

[luna-sheep]

I'm really sick and tired of Yue Qingyuan hate and mis-characterization in the svsss fandom.

So many times I'll read an otherwise fine piece of meta or fanfic, and suddenly BOOM, here comes this disgustingly OOC Yue Qingyuan to serve the role as a "villain" in contrast to either bingqiu or liushen.

It's really so ridiculous?? He's an important yet unobtrusive side character outside of the Shen Jiu extra chapters, and the creepy, possessive, "can't-take-no-for-an-answer" fanon bastardization version of him has near nothing in common with his canon personality and actions.

He's so mild mannered, kind, and respectful in canon, and his story with Shen Jiu is outright tragic.

Shen Yuan is never even that uncomfortable around him, he likes the guy!! Views him as an affectionate, doting, reliable older-brother type! He's just uncomfortable because he feels guilty he accidentally body-snatched this poor man's childhood friend/lost love/source of guilt.

His worst flaws are his self flagellation, his permissiveness with Shen Jiu's abuse of Binghe, and his communication issues with Shen Jiu. And two of those things are also Shen Jiu's fault!

It's some really weird character assassination that I normally see reserved for female love interests that fandoms feel "get in the way" of their gay ship.

[peachdues]

why do you only write damsels in distress

fair question. I try not to, but I can see how that comes across. I don’t always think a female character needs to be a warrior to be strong.

That said, I have two fics on my phone where the FMC is not a damsel — but she’s also not good. Extremely morally gray/borderline a villain by circumstance.

The problem is that I write reader inserts. I don’t think morally questionable readers will go over well with the general audience.

[theprinceandthewitch]

Okay... now it's time to go back to my silly little game...

[beaulesbian]

I'm seeing a lot of trigun stampede stuff on my dash, and only have one question... is it gay?

how do i answer this,..

i dont have the full knowledge of the story/the full manga yet, and stampede is reboot so i guess anything is possible, but

there are the themes, you know, so many themes.

even if some stuff is not canon, there are things you take away from it, how they present it, how the relationships work, and what remains.

...and it sure is pretty gay, even if its not explicitly said - and in this way i feel it works better for the whole story.

(i got into trigun thanks to the stampede anime, but the more i watch the og anime, i like it more and more?

look at this shit

and they're always just like that, what's not to love.

Hope this helped ✨️💜

[thewhizzyhead]

being a busy ass student with student journalism gigs on one hand and comm academic shit on the other is very interesting because with the jam-packed life I live I only really get to breathe at like late lAAATE night when no one can bother me about my responsibilities other than myself. that being said that's also when creative brain goes into overdrive and now misfits finally has the final draft of its opening number woo