#and no i'm not saying he's some evil monster with no redeeming qualities

[stairset]

Love the idea here that the other rebels' problem with Saw is just that he blows shit up and not the whole "torturing prisoners and endangering civilians" thing

[mxtxfanatic]

... Warning, rant in coming. Sorry.

Hot take, the only morally gray character in mess, that fits the exact definition of it, is Nie Huaisang.

I've seen more and more people trying to tone down Jiang Cheng's terribleness by saying that he's morally gray. I'very also seen those same people say that Wei Wuxian is morally gray because he did terrible things for good (and, no, lmao, he didn't. Most of those come from people not understanding how his cultivation works.) and that that was why he is so interesting. (Again, lmao. Lol even. Just say you don't appreciate depths and confuse "kind" with "boring", so you gotta give every character that you don't find boring a label to justify why you like them.)

I think the term "morally gray" has become a buzz word thrown around for any kind of character that isn't one dimensionally good or evil.

Jiang Cheng isn't morally gray. He is a bad person. Again, a PERSON. Not a monster, not some sort of creatures that has no concept of humanity, just. A bad person.

Society's habit of separating people that do bad things from themselves, that "us vs them" mantality, that dehumanization of bad people, it just leave a bad taste in my mouth. Even fucking serial killers have qualities, can be smart or charismatic or empathetic. Even pedophiles have hobbies and people that love them. Even rapists have people that they love and respect.

Being a terrible person doesn't mean that they're not human. There is no one in the world that has absolutely no redeeming qualities to them. But because of that separation that so many people take for the truth, because of that "they did this because they're a monster, but I'm not so I would never do this", people just cannot accept when a bad person isn't bad all the time.

They'll look at Jiang Cheng that, ultimately, loves his family and is arguably hard working, and they'll think that that means he's "morally gray", because he possesses good qualities, completely ignoring the fact that he's just a trash human being in general.

Low key, it pisses me off. Especially the people that relate so hard to him, and ask me if I wouldn't do the same in his shoes. Because no. I fucking wouldn't cause genocide. I wouldn't torture and kill complete strangers because they dared to have a surname I don't like or because they make me think of someone I resent from my past.

Like, I took can see myself in him, totally. He IS well written, and between the cartoonishly bad Xue Yang and the paragons of moral virtue that is Wangxian, he's definitely the one that feels closest to an everyday man, in personality if you ignore all the murders. I am petty, I hold grudges, I can be entitled and selfish, I am overall a massive rude cunt, but I do not want to hurt people and everyday I strive to be better than the last, even in infinitesimal ways. As should anyone. But that is something that Jiang Cheng doesn't even acknowledge, stuck as he is in his victim mentality and inferiority complex.

But Jiang Cheng is morally bankrupt. He is not morally gray. Not even dark gray. As an adult, he is painstakingly human and in general, a bad person.

And that is OK.

To make him a better person, you don't have to change his entire character with half assed head canons, just make him acknowledge his flaws and let him (finally) grow as a person, past that stubborn mentality he has had for decades.

He IS a bad person, but even bad people have a capacity for growth and change, of the moment they allow themselves to. If he ever gets forgiven for his past actions, that's on the people he has hurt, not that it should even be considered in his journey towards growth.

(Frankly, I don't think he would be. I think he shouldn't be, but that's not for me to decide. However, I can definitely JC finally making some tiny progresses but for all the wrong reasons, and get insulted when, if he ever even get to that point, his apologies don't end up fixing everything. He is totally the kind of person that would see you being mad at them and feel like he's the one being victimized because you didn't accept his half assed apologies. The emotional maturity on this man is below -100.)

(Also, Wei Wuxian isn't morally gray in the total opposite, in that he is such a good person, be it morally or emotionally, just. God, I envy his mental fortitude and his capacity for forgiveness and love.)

Sorry again for the ask, just had to rant somewhere about this and I am kind of curious about how you consider the "morally gray" argument. I think it's total bullshit, if the entire post didn't tell you, but yeah, I'm curious.

I hope I was coherent enough, I did not plan this ask at all, it was all streams of consciousness.

So before I get to the actual material of your rant—of which I agree with—I want to go on a tangent. Bad people as a category are not “dehumanized.” Dehumanization is the act of stripping someone or a group of people of their humanity as a tool of oppression, and it must come with material consequences. Saying that a continent of people are only capable of non-human animal intelligence to justify centuries of enslavement is dehumanization. Saying that a country of people are born terrorists to justify flattening their homeland and claiming it by a different name is dehumanization. Claiming that the man who called you out on your desires to be the new oppressors is a literal demon wanting to destroy your heritage in order to justify leading an army to kill him and his charges while attempting to remove their ability to reincarnate is dehumanization. Calling a child abuser a monster is not dehumanization. It is just an insult.

In fact, the “human traits” of terrible human beings do not need to be defended, because more often than not the absolute worst human beings are materially protected from the consequences of their actions by people who want to defend their “humanity.” In mdzs, I don’t give two fucks about Jiang Cheng’s one “human” trait of loving his nephew, because his “inhumane” traits of abusing said nephew and everyone else in his life intentionally overshadow that by his own design. Jiang Yanli loved her son just as much and lost much more than Jiang Cheng ever did, but she didn’t become an unrepentant monster. Humans are not “monsters-in-waiting” whereby we must act as if every individual is always one step away from committing unspeakable acts of depravity. If that was the case, we would not have survived as a community-dependent social species. Therefore, I do not find Jiang Cheng as the most relatable character ever because I do not find the way that he gives into anti-human behaviors to be relatable to me on a personal level or to be representative of most people’s actions throughout the course of their lives. To feel pain is human, and to have outbursts about it is understandable. To abuse about it? To murder about it? To mass murder about it??? Absolutely anti-human, anti-community, and the type of behavior that can only survive and thrive in an environment that privileges people with those specific “inhumane” traits above everyone else. (One might even call it the environment of a corrupt hierarchy of power that mdzs critiques.) The exact opposite of dehumanization. So if I choose to call Jiang Cheng a monster, it is to intentionally point out the ways that his conscious actions as a character in this story are a negation of human life and community.

On that note, I’ve discussed how this fandom uses “morally gray” in this ask (excuse the fact that I switch between “grey” and “gray” lmao). To bring back a point from my rant from above, Jiang Cheng has his one (1) good trait leveraged by fandom to whitewash his crimes under the guise of “morally gray,” while Wei Wuxian is the one actually being dehumanized by that same label as people use it to justify his literal murder (and those of the Wen remnants) in the story, so that’s my feelings on that. Whether Jiang Cheng can be redeemed or not, I frankly do not care to speculate because the story concludes his character arc at him regressing back into Jiang “hunter of Wen” Cheng, still rich, still single, and still only loved by his nephew. At the end of the day, he is not a real person and I’m only here for wangxian.

[shadowshrike]

Dark Side of the Spawn

So I decided to scrap a much larger analysis post because I think there are only a couple other people interested in how Astarion can be interpreted as an evil character with some redeeming qualities, regardless of his major choice regarding ascension. There's a lot of interesting stuff buried in various corners of mutually exclusive dialogs or missable scenes that can make for a unique experience which I don't think many have explored.

However, I can't resist sharing one line you might get in his epilogue during the Spawn ending for those who like the ending but also prefer a darker Astarion.

Astarion: Oh no, people can be quite meek after seeing you murder their former master. Astarion: And if they do step out of line, it just takes one or two brutal examples to remind everyone else of their place. Astarion: I'm not a tyrant, I do care for their well-being, I just can't afford to show weakness.

There are three things I find really fascinating about this:

It's a line that would sound completely at home with a villain like Gortash. Pretty much any powerful, evil noble who is tyrannical but willing to justify their behavior as 'for the good of their people'. Astarion also says that their ruins are 'no palace, but maybe someday it will be' which, combined with this, can sound ominously like he's fashioning himself as a new sort of dictator of orphaned vampire spawn.

It shows him as a man who, when given any power, will abuse it, regardless of ascension. He might genuinely not recognize that's what he's doing when he's making 'one or two brutal examples to remind everyone else of their place' because his life for the past 200 years has been following a master who only modeled similarly cruel discipline. He's had no time to personally grow or discover himself before being thrust into leadership (ironically, kind of like Halsin, and we know how that went). Keeping monsters in line requires being a monster, and Astarion isn't afraid to do that. Leading through fear, pain, and feigned strength is all he knows.

Spawn Astarion does much more rationalization and talking around his questionable behaviors than his ascended version. Lord Astarion is unmistakably evil, yet nothing he says about his plans sounds half so foreboding to me, perhaps because he's so unapologetic about his 'hedonism, clandestine deals, and the occasional disappearance' to 'build up my influence over those who matter'. The spawn version needs to hedge that he's not actually a tyrant because he 'care[s] for their well-being' (something heard from many a horrific authority figure), that anyone being eaten by a vampire is 'on them' because the spawn only eat people who attack them (directly contradicted by his idle dialogue 'If I get back and they've killed another gnome, I swear - someone's getting impaled.') or that he only murders the 'right people' which means no one cares in the Underdark (which given the warring drow clans and overwhelmingly evil races down there, doesn't exactly inspire confidence).

Note that this dialogue does not appear in every version of the epilogue and includes a lot of inferences, so this isn't me saying, "Spawn Astarion is definitely this way" or anything like that. Enjoy your soft, sweet, happy endings with this character. It's undoubtedly the intended reading of most of his possible epilogue lines.

I just think it's neat that they left in some tidbits for those of us who prefer him as a fundamentally evil-aligned character. Terrible people can be victims, too, after all. I like having the option of telling a story that says someone doesn't have to become 'good' to be worthy of helping within the bounds of 'goodness'. Also that taking someone who's been enslaved and tortured for 200 years and then making them responsible for 7000 people the second they get free, while also losing a handful of other freedoms, might have some unfortunate consequences.

[myths-tournaments]

Awful Characters Round 1 Part 4 (1/8)

Propaganda under the cut!

BELOS

So, he is a horrible person, I will not deny it, he willing went into a realm of demons, ignored any possible chance that his upbringing as a witch hunter could be wrong (different from his brother Caleb), and had a years-long plan to commit genocide to every witch, palisman and living being in the Boiling Isles. I'm not going to say he's a "misunderstood poor babygirl". But the fandom just completely HATES anyone who ever sees Belos as anything other than an irredeemable monster! I personally really like his character, he's a really compelling villain, who (despite the haters saying otherwise) has a nuanced underdeveloped backstory of how he was raised on the witch-hunt era, and the betrayal he felt when he saw his brother abandoning everything they stood for as witch-hunters for Evelyn, the witch Caleb fell in love with. He clearly regrets killing Caleb since he makes MULTIPLE grimwalkers of him to try to keep Caleb with him, he's haunted by Caleb's ghost, the moment he saw Hunter (his most recent grimwalker) with Willow, his first reaction is screaming Caleb's name, he is way more than just "evil incarnate" (which is one of the problems I see in the finale of the series, but that's another story). Does this means I think he should be redeemed? No, of course not. But I don't blame the people who do, it could be an interesting plotline outside of canon, and I have seen some good ideas for how this could work! BUT HERE COMES THE FANDOM… I don't know specifically about Twitter users (deleted my account years ago, Goddess bless), but people hate Belos so passionately on Tumblr and Reddit and in YouTube videos that I would be surprised if Twitter of all places was more open to people loving Belos. I decided to search and check some places and I found people on the anti belos tag here on Tumblr that were calling people who wanted a Belos redemption or made Belos Redemption AUs literally ABUSE APOLOGISTS, I wish I was kidding! There's posts of people just liking Belos in general filled to the brim with hate in the notes. Again, I get people not liking Belos, he is a genocidal tyrant (not fascist because not every totalitarian character is fascist), but nothing excuse this amount of hate because of a FICTIONAL WITCH-HUNTER!

he is the worst guy one could ever imagine honestly like he’s literally a fascist so uh he really doesn’t have any redeeming qualities as a person. but as a character? oh boy. he’s soooooo interesting like. he makes you wonder what’s going on inside his head AFTER the episode where you see what’s going on inside his head. and the caleb ghost scene. oh my GOD the caleb ghost scene

NANAMI

Literally killed a kitten and yet is so iconic you can’t not love her

[cuntylouis]

oh interesting! to me lestat's idolization of marius is so integral to his character that i can't see it not happening. the way he has been portrayed in s1, i think it would make sense for him as a character to not think of sex slavery/rape as anything particularily bad and just another thing that some vampires do to abuse others, if that makes sense. i think that it would go hand in hand with how he abused claudia in regards to her rape, mocking her, torturing her with the memories of the act etc. there is that one line from the books, i think he describes armand as "still being a scared orphan" (or something like that) so on some level he realizes what happend to him might not have been great (just like he admitted in the trial that what he did to louis was wrong), but i dont think that would be enough, for lack of a better word, for him to not want to be like marius (not saying that he wants to copy the way marius acts with his fledglings, but that it's not something that lestat would mind if someone else does it, if that makes sense) overall there are still things that would be great to be included in the show and finally done justice, compared to how horrible the books basically treated every storyline. i really want a well written tragedy and them giving all the characters so much more depth, let's hope for the best! (i always appreciate your long answers to the asks you get, because i think there is a lot of great discussions to be had about iwtv and it's nice to read what people think without it being derailed by some weirdos)

You're making me reconsider, maybe you're right that Lestat will still idolize Marius in the show at least on some level. Lestat is so cynical and has his unique views about evil or if such a thing even exists. He might be impressed by Marius' power and superficial charm and knowledge, and think 'well, i've done all kinds of horrible things to my fledglings, who am i to judge, we're both monsters'. Him experiencing shame and remorse for his actions in the modern time might make him only more likely to view Marius in idealized and somewhat sympathetic light, because he could see the monstrosity he sees in himself reflected in Marius and relate to him, and think that if he himself is ever going to redeem himself Marius must be redeemable too.

Because they seem to be going for some type of redemption arc for Lestat (at least Sam has several times indicated that Lestat has been depicted at his lowest and most awful in the show as a starting point for his character development) i could see them tying it with his relationship with Marius, Lestat initially making excuses for and idolizing him because Marius represents abusive white patriarchal power structures and qualities Lestat still deep down identifies with, and then he'd slowly over the series become disillusioned with Marius and everything he represents. But this is purely a guess, i don't know what will happen other than that i'm confident it'll be better than in the books. Also i really need to reread tvl and qotd because they come up constantly but details are getting fuzzy in my head

[wttcsms]

Aight, bet!

I am ready to hear about Naoya that slimy lil bastard!!!!!!!!!

it's so bad, oh my gosh, y'all are going to look at it and think to yourself "what the actual fuck" HAHA, it's one of those 'this might be very embarrassing' type of fics to post, but i think it's so different from the other drafts i'm working on which only adds to its overall appeal for me lol

the working title i have so far is "to the victor belong the spoils" + the best ao3 tag that sums it up is "the dove's not dead but it's on life support"

so, i'm thinking that this fic takes place way back yonder (not really), but more around an ambiguous time period in the past (more like the 1940s?). jujutsu sorcery is still a thing, though, and naoya is still... well, naoya. anyway, his father is basically gonna croak anytime soon now & naoya is preparing to become the new head of the clan. the zenin's still very much suck, and they only grow more powerful under naoya's command because he makes an effort to basically "conquer" small clans. either they comply and live under zenin rule or the whole clan gets decimated.

your clan gets decimated. naoya kills your father (the clan leader) and slaughters every other man belonging to your clan. the women and children and everything you've ever owned now belongs to the zenins, which is to say, it all belongs to naoya (hence, the title). naoya is cruel and terrible — a monster playing at being a man. with his hands still stained and wet with your family's blood, he towers over you, hand gripping your chin and assessing what he considers to be his property.

"you'll do." is what he tells you, with absolutely no elaboration. for several years, you live in fear as the zenin's take over your home, the tiny community your father and ancestors spent generations building up and cultivating. naoya's words constantly linger in the back of your mind throughout it all — you'll do, you'll do, you'll do. what? what is it that you'll do? what is it that he considers you fit for?

on your birthday, naoya returns to inform you to pack your bags. you are coming back to the main zenin estate, and you are to be wed to him before the year is over, coinciding with his official ceremony naming him the head of the clan.

it is a (toxic) slowburn. naoya has some redeeming qualities, but let's be for real, any relationship w him is unhealthy as fuck lol. angst with a happy ending, smut (bc im but a whore), naoya has a heart, believe it or not. there's a reason he chose reader muhahaha, anyways, he's just a possessive little fuck. and misogynistic. and kinda evil sometimes (a lot of times). but he has his moments. spoiler: he really does love reader.

oh! and ik the more popular phrasing of the title is "to the victor go the spoils" but i chose 'belong' over 'go' to tie in with how possessive naoya is teehee

[benevolentcalamity]

Baldur's Gate 3 Companions: An updated perspective.

Gale: Could also get away with being called Brian. Mans has the most red flags in the entire game. And why do I say that? WELL, would you want a guy that talks about his ex all the time and would explode if you didn't romance him? Not sure what the deal is there but I dunno if I have what I need to handle all that. His sorcery is cool though, I'd fuck him for lessons.

Karlach: Literally the biggest golden retriever energy in literally any game I've seen these past few years. Seriously, you could tell her "Well... I could go with you, cause I have nothing better to do" and she'd be like "Not because you want to?" With these massive puppy eyes. Wish they did more with her character, because a purehearted person of her race? GOOD LORD I EAT UP THAT SHIT. Karlach, please marry me

Astarion: More red flags. But here's the thing, he's honest and upfront that he's toxic and full of absolute crap. Arguably though he has the most well-done story of, again, any game I've played these past few years. From how he's slowly unlearning the toxicity of 200 years of PURE SHIT, to managing to open his heart up to Tav, to the agonized, broken cries upon killing Cazador if you choose the Spawn ending. Legitimately, this is when 'I can fix him' comes true - mans is wonderful... After all the other stuff. (Please do not drop the building on him or kick him in the balls.)

Shadowheart: Imma be upfront, I hated her guts in Early Access. She's the kind of person I'd hatefuck and move on, cause ain't no way I'm associating with followers of Shar. HOWEVER, they did good giving her a redemption arc. She's still annoying and quite frankly not the greatest traveling buddy, but I can stomach her way more. (So maybe we'd be doing it.)

Lae'zel: I loved you in early access bb, and I still do. Literally, the Githyanki are savage and coldhearted by nature and their culture, so you can't exactly blame Lae'zel for just echoing what she knows. On the other side of the coin everything she's done and said was out of the kindness of her heart. She wants you cured in the only way she knows, and she wants what's best. So, if you dare bring your hatred for her in my askbox, be prepared to catch these hands. THOU DOTH NOT WANT THESE HANDS.

Minthara: Respectfully, ma'am, I don't vibe. Drow elves are sexy. What's not sexy is trying to kill me in my sleep, trying to get me to give in to the evil force inside me, etc etc etc. Also, what happened to your fluffy hair in early access? Girl that's your one redeeming quality. Can understand trust issues though, that I'd be willing to get you help with if you'd stop trying to murder me. Seriously, I love a woman that will actually just kill me, but some of us don't wanna meet our dads yet. (Ha... ha... ha...)

Halsin: ... Oh, so THIS is the bear man... Ngl man, I'm digging it. Man is big so he definitely gives wonderful hugs. Probably cuddly as a big bear, too! Would fuck Halsin, would not fuck him as the bear. Some of you might call me a coward, but MONSTERS are my jam, not actual animals. Y'all can do as you please, though. But generally, this man is probably the sweetest big man. Huge arms? Check. Gentle personality? Check. Would kill a person for killing a child? Check and mate.

Wyll: Still don't know your deal, man, and quite frankly I'm too afraid to ask.

Emperor: ... Aren't mindflayers cold, heartless beings that reproduce by putting tadpoles in your brain? They don't have dicks, right? Does someone wanna fill me in? ... I don't know what the deal is here.

[erithel]

Hi, old lady ask here! It's been about 25 years (not kiddking) since I've seen the original Voltron but there are some things I remember from the original that made it into VLD:

The death of Sven(Shiro)- This happened right near the beginning of the show. I seriously think they flew only a couple of missions with him, then he gets killed during a fight with Zarkon that also puts Zarkon in a coma. The difference is Sven stayed dead for most of the show. He didn't pop back up until near the end (don't remember if he was a clone or not, but he did have long hair lol), and when he did, he and Romelle lead the resistance. Romelle was also Allura's cousin and the two of them looked exactly alike for some reason.

Lotor's behavior- In the original Voltron Lotor was a ruthless, unapologetic, evil bastard who saw Allura as an object he desperately wanted to possess. I don't remember him having any sort of redeeming qualities whatsoever, but maybe I just don't remember them. What I do remember is wishing Zarkon would wake the fuck up because holy shit his kid was a fucking monster. I feel like this applies to the threads regarding Lotor's behavior/treatment in VLD because their desire to keep him a monster clearly was at odds with their sudden change to make him seem redeemable. Seriously, when that season of VLD ended with Haggar saying "Summon Prince Lotor", I turned to my husband and said, "Oh, man, shit's about to get reeeeeeal dark".

The lion swap- As a young girl watching the original I never understood why they had to swap lions when they could have just let Allura pilot the black lion. Seriously, there is an episode in the original Voltron where Keith let's Allura pilot the black lion for shits and giggles and she not only does an amazing job but they form Voltron with no problems whatsoever. (They also made lion swapping way less of a big deal.) When I got older and reflected on the time I grew up in I realized the whole reason for the lion swap was because this show was geared towards boys and at that time boys didn't want to see a girl leading a team of warriors. I feel like VLD missed a huge opportunity to right this wrong, especially with how much stronger and more confident this Allura was.

Keith's personality- This one isn't a similarity, but I felt I needed to comment on how incredibly different VLD Keith's personality is from the original Voltron. Holy shit, it's like night and day. Original Keith was a little reluctant at first, but he was a total boy scout and ended up being a great team leader. VLD Keith was very much not that, but perhaps he could have been if they'd given him more than five minutes as the black paladin.

Filler episodes- There were way more of these in the Original and they served a very important purpose: they showed the team getting to know each other and bonding a friends. VLD needed more of this.

Those are some of the big ones off of the top of my head. I'll try to remember more details if I can, but Ibdidn't want to make this longer than it already was! I actually really enjoy discussing these! SoI'll respond with more when I can!

This is interesting! I actually remember the Sven part and vaguely knowing it was only in there because it was some homage to the original series. I remember watching that episode and thinking they were all reacting very…low-key about someone who was basically an alternate reality version of Shiro. Because if I'm remembering correctly, that happened while he was still missing. I could be wrong about that, but I distinctly remember them not freaking out about it as much as I felt was warranted.

It's actually really interesting that there was also an opportunity for Allura to take the Black Lion in the original. Because I always felt she was a better fit than Keith at the time of the VLD lion swap. And you're so right – it would have been an amazing opportunity for VLD to put her in the Black Lion. To show her as the "strong female leader" they wanted her to be.

I often get annoyed with filler episodes in anime, but sometimes they are important for character building – like you said for the original. Like, I would have watched more space mall type episodes if it gave us an opportunity to see the team interacting with each other and having fun with each other. If fillers are done right, they are made with just enough fun to make it a breather from the main plot – but with one vital piece of information thrown in that ties back into everything, or advances something in the storyline.

This was really interesting, thank you for sharing! I'd love to hear more if you want to add anything. :)

[therealvinelle]

I’m almost afraid to ask, but what are your thoughts on Hellsing? Any heretical takes? Why do you prefer the first anime over the OVA?

It's one of those things that are so obvious to me I wouldn't even know how to explain it. The Hellsing anime is just better, plain and simple, the animation, the script, the plot, the OST, the voice acting, the characters, all of it.

I don't like a single thing in the Hellsing OVA, it's rare that I am purely negative towards a thing but that OVA had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Here, for art, script, and voice acting comparison: the Valentine fight scene in the anime, and in the OVA.

It's been years since I watched either of these, and I actively repressed memories of the OVA, so doing a more detailed comparison is tough. However, Seras Victoria's transformation is an example I think says it all.

The situation in both is this: Seras Victoria is a policewoman who gets captured by a vampire that uses her as a body shield. To kill the vampire, Alucard must shoot his bullet through her.

In the OVA, he asks her if she's a virgin. Then he shoots, and explains as she lays gurgling on the ground that he had no choice but hey, you could become a vampire if you wish. Clip

In the anime, he explains this to her, and then asks if she wishes to live on as a vampire. She says yes, and he fires his gun. Clip

To me there's just no comparing the two scenes (in more ways than script! Look at the art! It's so good in the anime! Then look at the generic horribleness in the OVA!). One affords her agency in that final moment, lets her calmly say "Yes." and the other... doesn't.

The anime goes on to focus on Seras Victoria's character development and how she adjusts to her new life, as well as her oddly sweet mentor/student relationship with Alucard. She's a person in the anime. The OVA makes her a part time tentacle monster with a terrible love interest, because the value they place in her is how badass she is. Her moment of glory.

Oh, and I can't stress enough my distaste for how the OVA treated everything like a boss fight. And added sexual abuse to Alucard's backstory for no goddamn reason besides edginess. And characters making speeches that would go on for over five fucking minutes, speeches that in most cases could have been reduced to a single line. "I love war", there, done. And oh, some of those speeches were entirely dedicated to how badass Alucard was, I couldn't find any examples on youtube but they never failed to cheapen him.

You have the Roman Catholic Church, which in the anime is a rival organization with the same priorities, and in the OVA becomes bad guys who side with the nazi robots because hullo, evil.

The final boss fight of both anime and OVA is in the anime poignant, nothing beats the moment Alucard looks like he's lost and he uses his last bit of energy to tell Seras to save herself, but she carries his head with her anyway. OVA final fight was just... bosses being thrown at Alucard and then dying in increasingly bizarre ways. Old butler Walter went dark side and deaged into a sexy bad boy! And dies in some way I can't recall but I'm pretty sure it involved Alucard genderbending and putting on a nurse costume! Anderson gave up his humanity to win but turned into a tree instead! The nazis were swallowed up by a sea of blood and gore, I think! And instead of being derpy hilarity, I'm bored to tears!

Look, I'm just going to keep going. I absolutely loathed the Hellsing OVA, the worst thing about it is that it completely drowned the Hellsing anime. The fandom is impossible to track down because all the content is OVA, and season 2 is never happening because people want the OVA and that's the worst thing in the world because season 1 ended on a cliffhanger.

Final thing I'll say before ending the post: notice the absence of Integra in this post. In the anime, she's a fantastic character, a woman made of steel that I can believe could tame Alucard. She's indomitable, a truly extraordinary woman. Enter the OVA, and she's so generic and forgettable badass that I can't remember a single one of her scenes.

Just, the Hellsing anime, chef's kiss, it was beautiful.

Hellsing OVA, boo hiss.

@thecarnivorousmuffinmeta, got anything to add?

[serialreblogger]

Hey! I'm thinking of reading Dracula, and knowing that's your eternal hyperfixation, I wanted to ask your thoughts, if you had any comments, suggestions, ect.

HEY WHY DIDN’T I SEE THIS SOONER I’M SO SORRY FRIEND

okay okay okay okay (...several people are typing...) SO

the first thing you should be aware of when reading Dracula is that it’s quite Victorian, so you might find it easier, especially on a first read, to get an annotated version (the Norton Critical Edition version is quite good) that puts footnotes in to explain all the outdated references to like, London penny-meat merchants and stuff. I would say it’s significantly easier to read than Lord of the Rings, but because it was written 200 years ago the difference in language means it’s not a simple read. (However, if you have absolutely any attraction to the Gothic aesthetic, Dracula is so very much worth the brainpower to slog through the rougher sentences. Like. “...the courtyard of a vast ruined castle, from whose tall black windows came no ray of light, and whose broken battlements showed a jagged line against the moonlit sky.” The whole book is like that. A bit stilted to contemporary readers, but also breathtakingly spot-on in its Spooky Factor.)

the second thing you should be aware of is that Dracula is extremely gay, but in a Tormented Victorian Closeted way. There’s a part where Jonathan climbs out a window that just. It’s uh. The descriptions are very,, metaphorical-sounding. Again, the whole book is like that, and sometimes it’s very fun and sometimes (lookin at Lucy’s whole thing) it’s significantly more unsettling if you pay attention to the weirdly sexy descriptions of how the protagonists interact with the vampires, but I think that’s part of what I find so fascinating about Dracula--it’s unsettling and strange and the pieces don’t fit together clearly, and I still don’t know quite what to make of it, but all the same the feeling of what Stoker’s saying comes through quite clearly. There’s a reason why so many Dracula adaptations have this narrative of a protagonist falling in forbidden love with the tormented Vampyre, yknow? There’s something so unmistakeably sympathetic about the character of Dracula, even when the narrative of the story goes out of its way to establish that he has no redeeming qualities or even proper personhood, that he’s just a monster. Because there’s something about the story (even without getting into the whole “Mina and Jon murked their boss” thing) that makes a reader wonder if that’s really the whole truth. If there isn’t something tragic about Dracula. If there isn’t something in him, if not of goodness, then at least of sorrow, instead of only fear.

Anyway I digress but I think we all knew that was gonna happen; point is: Jonathan and Dracula definitely had sex, Mina and Lucy were definitely in love, Seward’s got something weird goin on with the old professor (and also he’s just very weird, full stop. sir. sir please stop experimenting on your asylum inmates. sir i know this is victorian england but please Do Not), and Quincey, well, Quincey is an American cowboy with a bowie knife, and I think that’s all we really need to know.

ok and! the third thing you should be aware of is The Racism. Imperialist Britain, yo. Bram Stoker was Irish so like, it isn’t half as bad as some other authors of his time period (Rudyard Kipling anyone), but the racism is real and I don’t wanna gloss over that. The g**sy slur is used with abandon for a huge assortment of people groups, there’s a tacit as well as overt acceptance of the idea that West is superior to East, and because the educational system where I grew up is a joke and I can only learn things if I accidentally fall down the wikipedia hole of researching the insect genus hemiptera, i genuinely still don’t know how accurate the extensive history of Romania recounted in the first third of the book actually is. Oh also casual and blatant anti-blackness is verbalized by a character at least once. I’m pretty sure the racism has a metaphorical place in the framework of Dracula’s storytelling, but I couldn’t tell you what it is because I am not going to bother putting myself in the mindset of a racist white Victorian man. This is the mindset I am trying to unlearn. So: read with caution, critical thinking, and the double knowledge that even as the narrators are meant to be unreliable, so too is the author himself.

Finally, regarding interpretation: so personally I’m running with the opinion that Dracula is, at least partly, a metaphor for Stoker’s own queerness and internal conflict re: being queer, being closeted, and watching the torture his friend Wilde went through when the wealthy father of Wilde’s lover set out to ruin his life for daring to love his son. Whether this is true or not (I think it’s true, but hey, that’s analysis, baby), you can’t understand Dracula without knowing the social context for it (as with all literature--the author isn’t dead, not if you want to know what they were saying), and the social context for it is:

- Stoker was friends with Wilde, growing only closer after Wilde was outed

- Wilde was outed, as I said, because the father of his lover was wealthy and powerful and full of the most virulent kind of hatred. This is especially interesting because of how many rich, powerful parents just straight up die in Dracula and leave the main characters with no legal issues and a ridiculous amount of money, which is the diametrical opposite of what happened to Wilde

- Stoker idolized his mentor Henry Irving. Irving was a paradigm of unconventional relationships and self-built family, in a world where divorcees and children born out of wedlock were things to be whispered about in scandalized tones, not people to love and embrace. Irving was also famous for thriving off of manipulating those close to him and pitting friends against each other. Given the painstakingly vivid description Stoker provides for his titular vampire and how closely it matches Irving’s own appearance and demeanor, Irving was widely understood even at the time of writing to be the chief inspiration for the character of Dracula

- the book is dedicated to Stoker’s close friend, Hall Caine, a fellow writer whose stories centered around love triangles and accumulation of sins which threaten to ruin everything, only to be redeemed by the simple act of human goodness

- Stoker was Irish, but not Catholic (he was a Protestant of the Church of Ireland, a division of the Anglican Church). This may come as a surprise when you read the book and see All The Catholicism, Just Everywhere. Religion is actually a key theme in Dracula--most of the main characters start out your typical Good Victorian Anglican Skeptics, and need to learn through a trial-by-fire to trust in the rituals and relics of the Catholic Church to save them from Dracula’s evilness. Which is interesting. Because not only do these characters start off as dismissive towards these “superstitions” (in the same way they dismiss the “superstitions” of the peasant class on the outskirts of Dracula’s domain), but the narrative telling us “these superstitions are actually true!” cannot be trusted, when you know the author’s own beliefs.

(Bram Stoker is not saying what his characters are saying. This is the first and most important rule to remember, if you want to figure out Dracula.)

- The second-most famous character in the novel, after Dracula himself, is Van Helsing, whose first name is Abraham. Note that “Bram” is a declension of Abraham. What does this mean? I legitimately have no idea. But it’d be a weird coincidence, right? Like what even is the thought process there? “Oh, yeah, what should I name this character that comes in, makes overtly homoerotic statements willy nilly, and encourages everyone to throw rationality out the window and stake some vampires using the Eucharist? hmmmm how about ‘Me’”

ok wait FINAL final note: you legitimately do not have to care about any of this. I love Dracula because it has gay vibes and I love trying to figure it out, like an archaeologist sifting through sentence structure to find fragments that match the patterns I already know from historical research; but that’s not why you should love Dracula. The book itself is just straight up fun to read. Like I said, Stoker absolutely nails the exact vibe of spookiness that I love, the eerieness and elegance and vague but vivid fear of a full moon crossed by clouds at midnight. The characters are intriguing, especially Quincey gosh I love Quincey Morris but they’re very,, sweet? if i can say that about people i, personally, suspect of murder? They come together and protect each other against the terrible threat that is Dracula, and you don’t get that half as often as I’d like in horror media. I don’t even know if Dracula could qualify as “horror” proper, because it’s not about the squeamish creeping discomfort that “horror” is meant to evoke, it’s not the appeal of staring at a train wreck--it’s not horrifying. It’s eerie. It’s Gothic. It has spires and vampires and found family and cowboys, and to be honest, I don’t know what could be better than that.

[illgiveyouahint]

am I the only one that's really worried about how this is coming across? bec it feels antiblack and fatphobic. now I know the skamverse loves to redeem racists by giving them sad backstories, but how do u moralise this even? like okay I'll think abt kieu ny maybe if she gives some sort of explanation but the fact that we all say ismail and constantin do "dumbass" things when the bullying seems serious is... hm. can't even say they changed bec ismail's animosity towards ava is still evident.

Hello anon,

I'm not black so I feel it's not my place to say if it feels antiblack so I will leave that to you to judge that. I'm gonna wait and see how they're gonna handle it. I do kinda trust them just 'cause I know that the people who are behind this season are people of color (though I don't think any of them are black) and I did like Futur Drei (their debut film). Of course, that doesn't mean they can't fuck up, but I just am inclined to trust them enough to at least see where they're going with this. I don't think they're so basic that they would do like sad backstory to justify the bullying but it's possible we'll see a bit more complexity to the Instas and see not necessarily a justification ('cause there is none to be had - you can't justify being a bully) but more like an explanation as to why someone behaves the way they do. I actually think showing the “dumbass” side of Constantin and Ismail when bullying is a serious thing is a good move on the writers' part if they actually want to tackle it and keep it real. Because as I said, bullies are not evil emotionless monsters. Bullies are people. And they may seem nice to some and maybe have some good qualities, but then they are still bullies. I say this from experience like I can recognise that my bully had some good qualities, but he still was bullying me and I know he was kinda doing it without realising the extend of how it affected me. And I think that's a common thing with teenagers. They don't fully realise how much they're hurting someone with what they're doing. So I think showing Constantin and Ismail be dumbasses kinda goes along with this. Them stealing the turtle, but then not knowing how to take care of it? Or even Constantin, not realising that what he said to Nora was hurting her? That shows that neither of them actually think about other's feelings (which is actually a very teen thing - most teenagers are sort of self-centered) and I think this season or maybe even next season they will be confronted with the hurt they're causing to other people and that will force them to grow up.

I think having it be mentioned so early in the season even before any Kieu My x Fatou interaction really starts and it being mentioned by Ava herself is good indication that they don't intend to make some half-assed “redemption” (okay I'm kinda starting to hate that word because of how it's being used in the fandom) but that in the end it's about Ava (and Nora but we've seen Nora accept Constantin's apology) and how it affected and still affects her and she's the one who gets to decide if any of the Instas deserve a second chance. But also I'm sure this conflict is gonna definitely affect the Kieu My x Fatou relationship and I can imagine that during hell weeks Fatou is gonna end up alone because of this.

Like from what I've seen so far and in the previous season I do like that they seem to understand that bullying is a complex and messy thing and they're treating as such.

[kira-ani-mcgrath]

I've little interest in Frozen stuff but I've seen bits and pieces of this Hans stuff you've mentioned on and off and I'm curious about something. When you say someone is acting un-Christlike by saying a character is irredeemable, what is it you exactly mean? Because sometimes yea, it can be narratively unsatisfying to randomly redeem a character in a story. Example: People debating if it would be narratively satisfying if Azula got redeemed. It's got nothing to do with worldview imo.

For context, this ask comes in the wake of this post.

I’m posting this reply publicly so I can refer back to it if needed in the future. I received a similar ask [hopefully that link works] on the heels of this post, which I answered privately without saving a copy of my response, and it would have been useful if I’d saved and/or posted it. Thus, here we are.

I want to make something 100% unquestionably clear to anyone who follows me or reads my posts: whenever I criticize someone labeling Hans “unredeemable”/“irredeemable” it is ALWAYS in the context of someone declaring him un/irredeemable because of what he has done.

It is NEVER people saying they don’t think Disney should redeem him because they’re worried WDAS will do a terrible job of it. It is NEVER people saying they don’t want him redeemed in an unsatisfying manner (i.e.: “BTW he’s good now, he changed off-screen and now he’s back like nothing bad happened.”). It is NEVER people saying that his redemption may not fit well into a particular scenario. It confuses me that people are interpreting my words this way, because if I were to express concern about the way a character’s actual or potential redemption were handled, I would never do it by labeling the character irredeemable or saying the character shouldn’t be redeemed at all, full stop. I would include the nuances I am referring to, such as “The character shouldn’t be redeemed off-screen,” or “The character shouldn’t be redeemed in this movie.” Therefore, if I am saying people shouldn’t call a character irredeemable, I’m not referring to specific cases such as “The character shouldn’t be redeemed by this creative team,” or, “The character shouldn’t be redeemed in this manner.” I am referring to a much larger picture.

I am criticizing people who say Hans is evil, malicious, unfeeling, manipulative, abusive, a villain, a sociopath, and/or a murder, and therefore he can never and should never be redeemed. I am criticizing people who don’t want Hans redeemed because they have a personal grudge against the character. I am criticizing people who think that once a character crosses a particular line (and apparently this line is unique for Hans, based on what he actually did compared to every other “bad guy” in fictional history), the character is now 100% bad and can never be good in any way ever again.

A Christian should never think this way. There is no unforgivable sin (besides attributing works of the Holy Spirit to Satan, as some of the Pharisees did). We are to love our enemies and desire what is best for them - to be saved, redeemed - and yet I see people with the word “Christian” in their bio bragging about how much they hate Hans because he was so terrible to Anna and Elsa, rejoicing that Hans remains unredeemed in canon, cheering when Anna punches Hans in Frozen, laughing when the Frozen Fever snowball crashes into him, agreeing with Elsa calling him an “unredeemable monster” and approving of her destroying his snow-figure in Frozen II. I see those who say they belong to Christ - the Savior who took on every sin imaginable - saying that Hans is simply too mean, too horrible, too evil to be redeemed. I hope this is obvious, but there should be no such thing as “too [x] for redemption” to the Christian. There is never anyone, real or fictional, beyond salvation and redemption. [The only exception I could think of would be a fictional world where the rules are the antithesis to Christianity - then you could say a character is irredeemable because the very nature of that universe doesn’t allow for the character’s redemption. But that certainly doesn’t apply to Frozen.]

Now to address the Azula example brought up at the end. I’m not an A:TLA fan, but I did watch the entire show and I see the occasional meta cross my dash now and then. I’m not familiar with any debates as you have referenced, so I’m just going to give my own examples to hopefully add some extra clarity to my position.

First, I fail to see how a well-done redemption arc could ever be “narratively unsatisfying,” particularly for the Christian. If it’s well-written and you see the steps the character takes, their failings and their successes, I would think that'd be quite a satisfying story. So what is the actual issue when debating characters’ redemptions? I believe it’s concerns of quality, characterization, and actions.

Given where we see Azula at the end of her fight with Zuko in the finale, it would certainly be unsatisfying if she was chilling in Iroh’s tea shop with everyone in the final moments of the series. Likewise, I would not want to see a Hans redemption where we are re-introduced to Hans and he’s completely apologetic and ready to right any wrongs. In fact, I am put-off by fanfics that start with Hans having already repented, changed, etc., from his canon actions and self. I want to see the process of change, so that it is satisfying when he finally makes the right decision.

Given the existing three seasons of A:TLA, people are free to debate on whether or not room could have been made for an Azula redemption arc. Given the current Frozen material, people are free to debate on whether or not room could have been made for a Hans redemption arc.

Had there been further canon A:TLA material, and there was an Azula redemption arc done as well as Zuko’s (such as described in this Twitter thread), I would have found that very narratively satisfying. Now, others may not like how that theoretical redemption was handled, plotted, etc. That’s perfectly fine. Likewise, people may have certain ways they don’t want a theoretical Hans redemption handled, plotted, etc. Again, perfectly fine. One can disagree on the way a redemption arc was/might be handled without dismissing the redemption altogether.

People may want Azula to remain unredeemed because they believe she would choose to be so. That’s fine (though others are allowed to disagree). For example, if she were to maintain that she did nothing wrong and reject any help Zuko and Iroh offered, then she would remain unredeemed. Alternatively, she could realize that what she did was wrong, but then go the opposite direction and believe she doesn’t deserve anything good, so she would reject love and help at every turn for the rest of her life, and thus remain unredeemed. However, I have never seen anyone call a character “irredeemable” and mean that they believe the character would actively choose to reject offers of redemption.

People may say Azula or Hans shouldn’t be redeemed because it would be out-of-character. From an unbeliever’s perspective, that may be correct, as they think certain traits as immutable. However, that’s wrong from a Christian perspective, as anyone can change if enabled by the grace of God. In fictional worlds that don’t have any Christianity, you simply use an imperfect archetype to play a pivotal role in the character’s transformation (i.e., Uncle Iroh to Zuko).

People may not be against an Azula or Hans redemption in and of itself, but think it makes the most narrative sense to leave the characters unredeemed - whether it be because there wasn’t enough time in canon, or there’s other characters to focus on, or some other behind-the-fourth-wall reason. That doesn’t make the characters irredeemable, it just means that’s the way the story currently stands. There’s no reason that story can’t change in the future.

However, if people are saying Azula shouldn’t be redeemed at all because what she did was too wrong, then that is un-Christ-like. Likewise, saying Hans is irredeemable because what he did was too wrong is indisputably un-Christ-like. Now, of course, I can’t expect unbelievers to act Christ-like, so it doesn’t surprise me when I see them express such sentiments. However, when a Christian argues against redemption on these grounds, I absolutely question why. You claim to stand on the Word of God, but declare there are actions too heinous to be forgiven and characters that don’t deserve redemption? God rebuked a man for his desire to see people punished instead of forgiven [Jonah], forgave adultery and murder [David], and transformed a man from persecuting to teaching the Church [Saul/Paul]. Yet you put your stamp of approval on a lack of redemption for a character because of the actions of that character? Further sanctification is needed, whether in love for the lost or in fully surrendering all to Christ. A lack of redemption should only serve as a warning of what happens to those who reject truth, love, and forgiveness - because, as we know, not everyone will be saved. A Christian should never be against redemption because they personally hate the character, or think the character is unforgivable, or believe the character doesn’t “deserve” it, or any other reason antithetical to who Christ is and what He has done.

[teddy-feathers]

Prompt from @moss-flowers-trees not exactly fulfilled.

Up to No Good

-

Now it was well known that across the multiverse there was no Papyrus lazier than Stretch. After all, most took him as nothing more than a 'swapped' personality of Classic Sans and his brother.

That was their - a collective term here referring in a general way to the entirety of the multiverse and all of the alternates - first mistake.

Because a swapped Papyrus was still a Papyrus and all Papyri enjoyed a good jape.

Their second mistake was, as always, underestimating his brother.

Blue was a Sans in the way Stretch was a Papyrus, and from day one had resented being underestimated. Credit where its do, no one could do shenanigans like a Sans, especially his brother. It was as admirable as it was terrifying.

The last was more of a fortuitous boon, luck if one really wanted to be so crass, then a mistake on anyone's part and that was no one spoiled the fun.

So to set the stage, to really understand just how priceless the current situation of a nightmare carnival mirror image of him frothing in rage, you have to go back to the beginning.

Not the very beginning - though any good story should perhaps start there - for the sake of time, argument, and a joke that will only grow stale for having to wait for it, let it be assumed for the moment that Stretch is the center of the universe the second he and his brother stumble into a room full of strikingly unfamiliar faces in some sort of mirror maze of 'what ifs' and 'could have beens'.

Papyrus - one of many now, always? Apparently. - zones out, empty sockets not giving away his unfocused attention as Not his Brother Sans reluctantly and with much prodding from a much more handsome and friendly reflection Papyrus explains something about Universal Causality. What homeowners insurance had to do with this bowl of Flowey Flakes they found themselves in he missed, but at some point someone had pointed out that they couldn't all share the same name without even the most friendly of them wanting to dust the others like some bad Highlander reboot.

His brother, Blue now - cleverly claiming the Sans favorite color as his own - nudges him from a lovely little daydream back into the existential nightmare that was the current universe, and Papyrus folds his fingers together and lifts them above his head tilting this way with that until his back pops. This is met with disgusted looks from many faces around the room - most of them his own - and he slumps back comfortably into his hoodie. "Guess I'll go by Stretch."

Several voices protest of course, because life from now on was going to be lived by committee.

"Well That is certainly... unique Orange Me." Says Putting a Positive Spin on This With All His Might Papyrus - or Creampuff as he'd agreeably allowed Edgelord Papyrus to dub him.

"It is Ridiculous is what it Is." Protests the version of his brother that had wandered into a Hot Topic and had never left. "It doesn't Fit with the Already Established naming convention!"

It was times like this that he - The Papyrus who was going by Stretch for Spite now - was glad he had never bothered with the magic expenditure that was eyelights. Meant no one could see him roll his eyes.

There was no Convention - no real pattern for the group as a whole or even just through the pairs. Classic Sans - named such for his outdated old man jokes no doubt - seems to notice all the same and huffs out a laugh. "gotta say buddy, kinda agree - name like that seems like a stretch."

Blue looks as cross as Stretch feels but it would take someone who knew him well to see it. He grabs onto Strectch's arm in a show of solidarity and asks "Brother, why did you choose such a Unique name?" The way he says unique stands in tonal counterpoint to how Creampuff had said it, and Stretch smiles down at his older brother discarding the first three responses that come to mind.

No need to make his brother worry, or get labeled as the Depressing Papyrus right out the door - even if none of this did matter. "Cause bro, I'm the tallest one here."

Of course his brother immediately catches on, lights going to stars in a way that brightens his expression both figuratively and literally. "Nyeh heh heh of Course! How very Astute of you Stretch!"

Immediately several voices raise in protest, and boy did his own voice sound worse when amplified and played back a half dozen times, but it was worth it when his Blues cuts across the din to add with sly earnestness "I Knew my brother was the Coolest!"

This of course started a whole new argument that derailed the last and the rest should have been history.

But of course some part of him just couldn't let it go.

A universal constant for Papyri apparently was a vicious strain of competitiveness. And while Stretch could have let the jape die, it was nice to have something - no matter how fake - to lord over the other Oh So Talented versions of himself.

Literally in some cases.

Creampuff, if not a Perfect host, was unfailing in his attempts to fulfill that responsibility while the whole living arrangement situation was dealt with, that when Stretch's insomnia got the better of him he'd inevitably pop into the kitchen just to grab something off the top shelf for his better mirror's ungodly hours Breakfast Prep.

This was particularly satisfying as Creampuff apparently put everything up on the very top shelves and with the whole lot of them living there, something inevitably ended up pushed to the very back that he just Had to have. It was child's play - minus the murderer possessed doll - to time things that Stretch's arm could slip over his and pull done the item before he had a chance to grab it. Add that to some casual comment about the perks of being tall and...

It was inevitable that Edgy Mc My Chemical Romance would catch wind of the ongoing shenanigans. And unlike Creampuff who tried hard and was generally likable despite his Arrogance - another trait shared by those who shared his face . Edgelord didn't have a redeeming bone in his body. Made him insufferable... and a particularity sweet target for tomfoolery.

So when at some dinner or another that they all agreed to go to on occasion after they'd gotten their own places, and Edge once more started in about how obviously he was the Superior Specimen of the Skeleton Species, well Stretch wasn't going to take that lying down.

Or, well, he was laying on the Fell - the call sign they'd agreed to for their universe - Bro's couch. But he had lifted his hand and said in a deliberately matter of fact dry tone, "Not the tallest though."

It was like he had murdered their damn cat (who was a friendly surface beasty... if you didn't mind being considered a scratching post). Edge sputtered in rage and had dragged him upright by force, while Stretch uncooperative hug heavily like a rag doll in his unphased grip.

If Creampuff was the Handsome Papyus than Edge was the Strong Papyrus, it would have been easy to hate him just for that if he didn't so obligingly make himself as unlikable as he had. Of course with a little expended magic to give his brother the Babybones Look that worked every time, and Blue's quick intervention with a level and a bit of slight of hand - the fight was diverted and the Japery continued.

Perhaps the most agreeable of the versions that had clowned their way out of the Multiverse Machine that day was the one that went by Mutt. Agreeable in the sense he kept his head down, mouth shut, and kept away from all of them. That could be because his brother was annoying enough for the both of them, but Stretch thought an argument could be made that Mutt didn't consider himself a Papyrus at all - he'd already had the moniker long before the pageant had begun afterall.

Black combined the Worst of Stretch's brother and the Best - if that quality could even be ascribed to him - of Edge. A menace of a monster who honestly came across as the smallest of the Sans in a more convincing way than Stretch was the tallest of the Papyri... Not that anyone had dared mention it to him of course. Stretch was saving the observation for a special occasion.

For whatever reason the Tiny Tyrant had taken an exception to the idea that he was just the evil twin of Blue and went out of his way to be exceptionally petty about finding ways to make himself out to be the better version of his older brother.

Honestly it was a bother and Stretch tried to stay out if it since Blue Obviously could take care of himself but for whatever reason Black seemed to take Stretch's height as a challenge as much as any Papyrus... With the sole exception of Mutt.

Trying to recreate the circumstances of Edge's measuring contest between the Stretch and his own brother during a holiday social backfired spectacularly into Mutt curling even more into himself and Stretch - more than a little tipsy - actually challenging Mutt to see who could slump the most.

Mutt had shrunk so fast into his coat that his skull had almost vanished amidst the fluff like a turtle and Stretch had laughingly declared him the victor, pleasing Black and being the last time for years that anyone bothered with his height.

So now onto the present situation.

Edge had been so pleased when he ambushed him and his brother in the grocery store, smug about his six inch heeled boots and his mastery thereof, dying to show up Blue who also had an insatiable love of the damn feet death traps and he had turned to ice his cake by pointing out that with these he could be the tallest of the Papyri...

That annoying smirk whipped clean off as he met sockets - exactly level - with Stretch who didn't do more then smile back because this was the joke of the lifetime.

"How!" He choaks, the sweetest music to hear.

Stretch leans in even closer to whisper conspiratorially "I'm standing up straight."

This only makes Edge froth with rage and stomp off without ever noticing that Stretch had been standing on a divider on the floor giving him a physical lift along with the rise to his spirits when Edge's dropped like a man into a river with cement shoes.

Blue laughs, mood doing a 180 as quickly as Edge's. "You should have told him the Truth Stretch!"

"Mmm?" He hums curiously, moving to drap himself back atop the already half full cart. The other versions of himself were fun to get the goat of but they were exhausting even in small doses. "What that this place's floor is poorly designed? But he was being insufferable."

"Nope," His older brother says in an insufferable tone of his own - oh no, not one of his 'great' jokes. Those were the worst. "That the reason you're always going to be taller than the others is that you're always Up to No Good!"

Stretch groans and covers his skull with his arms, pushing the cart away with more vigor than he'd shown anything all day. "Title drops are the Height of bad comedy."

Of course that only makes Blue laugh harder.

[we-pay-for-everything]

First, what is your opinion on Angel season 5? I have to admit, it's my second favorite season after season 1. I'm not a huge Spike fan but it was funny to see him and Angel pushing each other buttons. Second, do you think there should have been more crossovers for Buffy/Angel? I would have like to see the Scooby Gang going to L.A. or Angel's team going to Sunnydale.

Hey! 

Angel Season 5

Season 5 of Angel is probably my second least favorite season and I have many insults to hurl its way so I apologize in advance! 

First I’d like to say that I believe Spike wasn’t a good addition to season 5. He didn’t mesh well with the show and only became bearable after the first half of the season. Spike adjusted well enough to the show but only because AtS was looking like a male, perverted version of BtVS and less like AtS. 

Angel’s relationship with Spike brought out the worst in both characters. They became childish, misogynistic (the way they spoke about Dru and Buffy was appalling), rude, irksome. Destiny and The Girl in Question might be their worst episodes.

What I hate the most about season 5 of Angel is how it throws out everything that is good about the show: the complexity of W&H is replaced by this oh so evil law firm with no redeeming qualities or employees (like Lilah, Holland Manners, Lindsey - the real one, not this season 5 mess), the moral ambiguity of the show is gone and replaced with “power corrupts. evil law firm is evil”, Angel became a stupid shadow of himself, Fred was all cutesy and wore super short skirts for no reason, Gunn became a lawyer because being himself wasn’t good enough, the feel of the show changed and it didn’t even look stylistically like Angel, etc. I fear Wesley was the only redeemable character. Oh, and Illyria as well. 

I also think the first half of season 5 was dull as hell with some terrible episodes. Things only started to look up with You’re Welcome when Angel became more like himself. 

The thing about this season is that it was a handful of great episodes that partly make up for the rest. Smile Time, A Hole in the World, Shells, Underneath, Origin, Time Bomb, Not Fade Away are great episodes but everything else sucks. 

This season thematically is an absolute failure because we are told, rather than shown, that everyone has been corrupted, yet no one has??? Angel, especially in Power Play, convinces everyone he’s been corrupted by power and money which is the most absurd idea ever. Angel has never been tempted by either things and after four years of Angel not being corrupted by W&H, they should’ve known better. So, pretty much the theme of the season is non-existent…. 

I think the lord I don’t believe in for Not Fade Away and the return of the heart and mission statement of the show. “Let’s go to work” is a worthy message, representative of the legacy of show that thankfully returned Angel to its former glory before its end. 

This season is like, a 7.5/10 at best, and that is mostly for the great episodes that were truly great and original, as well as the best finale ever. 

Should there have been more Buffy/Angel crossovers?

Absolutely! There was a lot of wasted potential there. I think seeing both teams join forces to fight some monster of the week during a couple of episodes (perhaps the MotW appeared in L.A. and the A.I. team followed it to Sunnydale where they joined forces in a double crossover, or vice-versa) would have been epic! Also, they were two teams of professional monster killers who could’ve used each other’s expertise (like in Orpheus) plenty of times!

I would’ve loved Xander and Cordelia to have reunited, Wesley and Giles to finally see each other as equals, Faith, Buffy and Angel to bury the hatchet between them, etc… I confess that I often think of the Scoobies and the Fang Gang fighting an apocalypse together and everyone seeing Angel and Faith’s BROTP in action! 

Merging the two worlds would’ve opened up a lot of possibilites and so many lackluster episodes on both shows could’ve benefited from a crossover element! It’s a shame we didn’t get more crossovers. Some of them, like In the Dark, Sanctuary, Orpheus, were some of the best episodes of Angel! 

It’s even more unfortunate that only Angel crossed over to Buffy! He could’ve crossed over more times however! He was amazing in Forever.