#and arguably a bad choice narratively

[sabotourist]

no dude im so obsessed with doc in general, and restoration did not fucking help.

this man. this inept medic. he saved two people. two people in his entire life. he lost so many people. he saved two. donut and wash. he saved two people. only two? no. not only two. two whole people. two whole people that get to live because of the choices he made.

but like... s11-13 wash barely seemed to care about doc.barely register. take him for granted, just like everyone else. how much do you think that hurt? when this man he didn't even clock was missing saves his life and dies in the process?

this man he knew. this man he dragged around the desert. this man that argued with him. bantered. was hurt the same way he was. had had his mind torn into by an ai. that wash barely gave the time of day after s8. a man that had been hurt like him, and yet, cards down, lives on the line, decided that wash should be the one to live. this man that wash barely gave the time of day.

this man saved two people in his life. two people he cared so much about. and only in hindsight does wash probably realize he didn't care enough. didn't realize just how much he cared about doc's stupid quips and banter until he was gone. do you think him and donut grieved? i wonder if he's buried in valhala. the same place where wash shot donut, where doc saved him. where doc and donut lived happily, until they got wash's distress signal

this medic. this medic wash said should go back to not understanding medicine. this medic saved him and died for it. this medic died for it and wash had hardly given him the time of day. what did wash do? what did he do to deserve someone that kind in his life?

it's no wonder he took the loss hard, is all i'm saying. he doesn't want to take his life for granted again. doesn't want to forget doc again. it's hard to let go when he's already dropped it before and now his hands are shaking from how hard he's gripping.

but doc was good, so so good, and doc would want him to move on from that. to not feel bad. to learn something and keep going. because hey, doc saved wash's life so that he could continue living it

yes, i hear you. i hear you loud and clear.

doc/wash as a relationship is endlessly fascinating to me in hindsight. they start hanging out in s8 when doc is actively held captive by wash & maine and they carry him around in a carbonite wall. they repeatedly reference han & leia from star wars together. maine is their chewbacca. doc implies a stockholm syndrome thing is going on here. there's multiple comments about them having an "odd couple" dynamic in the s8 directors commentary. doc saves wash's life. they literally do not talk again until like halfway through chorus. for some reason. and then wash has a doc tulpa in restoration. just some guy he knew and kinda hated on the entire time he knew him. why is it doc of all people. Whwt was going on there. Does this keep anyone else up at night I've been thinking about whatever their relationship was for like a decade. whyd they give them a dynamic that went so hard in s8 and then just never revisited whatever that was ever again. Can anyone hear me

[heliomanteia]

I think Nico's ability to survive is less so about his will to live and more so about his refusal (less so personal and more so narrative-wise) to die. Nico, for the lack of a better word, is like a cockroach: you cannot kill him in a way that matters so he survives and keeps haunting the scene.

There was once a marvelous post on Nico's function as a narrative tool and it was so beautifully pointed out that he's a near-omniscient deus ex machina (to simplify) which cannot be overlooked when characterizing him. Nico carries so much narrative weight on his back (which arguably could be an example of either good or bad writing depending on your perspective) that he cannot just go and die.

His road towards healing (though definitely not walked alone/individually) is his own, that's his choice to make as a character, but his disposition as a guy that perseveres resides more within his function, in my opinion.

He's not the tragic prince doomed for self-destruction people often draw him out to be but his capacity for survival is also not a product of his continuous work as a character, at least not just that — but is rather a result of his narrative function. Simply saying, you cannot, narratively, kill off Nico di Angelo.

[spiders-hth-is-an-outlier]

The thing about Eliot is that I think they were genuinely trying to write him as good-hearted but a bit vapid, which is an okay writing choice -- it would make him an appropriate narrative foil for almost everyone else on the show, since most of the main cast are bitter, cranky geniuses (affectionate) -- but it never quite works that way because Hale Appleman has this attentive way of being present in every scene that makes him seem deeply thoughtful. This is because Hale is deeply thoughtful, and because he's so committed to the show and the role that he kind of can't act like someone who's not fully tuned in to his surroundings. So Eliot radiates this intense presence and consciousness in every scene, just in his face and body, and it makes him seem like a smart, thoughtful person.

What's good about this is that it fully makes the character; Eliot has arguably the strongest arc in the whole show, and it's almost entirely created by the way Appleman is inhabiting the character as if he sees everything and everything matters to him. What's bad about this is that sometimes the script forces people -- including Eliot! -- to talk to and about Eliot as if he's a loveable but slightly useless pet, and it's utterly infuriating because it comes off as irrationally condescending.

[hyacinthsdiamonds]

It's very possibly (likely) Daniel's last F1 race. If he wants to go out by getting fastest lap and also helping his long time friend in the WDC then that's his prerogative. Bad luck for the upset people that's the choice he made, but too bad.

This exactly. If this is his goodbye, which it very likely is, him getting the fastest lap was a banger. Schumacher ended his final race waving Sebastian through to overtake him. Seb didn't need to; he already had the points to win the championship, but Michael wanted him to. Narratively? Daniel taking the fastest lap point for Max, his longtime friend, former teammate, and arguably the person who has had the most influence on him during his time in this sport, is a hell of a way to go.

[withthewindinherfootsteps]

I sometimes see the opinion that MXTX took the clichéd tropes she'd critiqued in Scum Villain, and played them straight in MDZS. But though a lot of them appear in MDZS, I'd argue that none are actually played straight at all!

The main point of MDZS's tropes is subversion. Yes, WWX has a 'tragic backstory', even an arguably overused one (orphaned by his parents at a young age, forced to live on the streets with nobody to rely on, etc) – but how things differ in how it's used. Tragic backstories are normally used to build sympathy for a character, to make us care and get invested in them. But... we're never actually shown any of those street days, we're never shown and never dwell upon how much he suffered during them. They're only really mentioned in passing and whenever dogs come up! If the goal was to make us feel bad for WWX, this would be very ineffective writing. But what's actually important here isn't that WWX went through tragedies – it's how he doesn't let the tragedies he went through define him. He doesn't dwell on them, the narrative doesn't dwell on them, it's never used to earn sympathy points... because what defines WWX is his choices and how he chooses to act, not a backstory completely out of his control. What gets us invested in him is his personality and the character writing of MXTX, not tragic events used as a substitute for identity.

And this trope treatment fits extremely well with WWX's personality itself – he's someone who 'forgets the pain as soon as the wound has healed'*, but also who actively chooses to focus on the present because you can't change the past; someone who holds the belief that 'gains and losses [should] remain uncommented on' when choosing what to do.

The use of the tragic backstory isn't the only thing that's subverted, either – the other main thing is the 'blackening' of the protagonist, and its impact on the protagonist's fall. After being thrown into the Burial Mounds, on a surface level it does seem like this blackening has occurred: the first thing we see when he returns is his gruesome torture of the Wen cultivators; he's 'forsaken' traditional cultivation in favour of an 'evil but more powerful' path; and frankly, Sunshot-era WWX is terrifying. But MDZS is not a blackening story, and so the events of the Burial Mounds aren't used as a catalyst for that purpose. Though it's true that WWX's not entirely the same person he was before (because how could be be?), underneath it all, his morals, worldview and core** stay the same. Though gruesome, his revenge is directed towards the ones who wronged him, not those past that and certainly not the entire world. His experience in the Burial Mounds doesn't lead to him being some evil, blackened overlord... like everyone says he is at the start! That's subverted, because again, WWX's values and choices are more important to the story than genre conventions.

But the most crucial thing? What leads to WWX's downfall isn't any blackening! It isn't any vengeance or morally dubious actions***– he was praised for those things during the Sunshot Campaign! No, what leads to his downfall is something completely unrelated to that, something which would've disappeared had the trope been played straight. It's him doing what's right by defending the Wens, it's him following his moral code when it opposes the world's, it's him standing up to the injustice of others – not others standing up to the injustice of him. That's the subversion here.

(Also, once again, the fall of Lotus Pier, the Burial Mound, etc, aren't used for sympathy points – and if it was relevant, they wouldn't have been used to excuse any actions, either. Using tragic events as an excuse for doing bad things is critiqued many times in MDZS, through characters like Xue Yang and Jin Guangyao. And that's not exactly a trope subversion, but it is a critique of badly handled 'excuses'.)

These are by no means all the tropes MDZS subverts – the nature of guidao vs the usual nature of modao being another very major one – but they're the main ones that feature in Scum Villain.

So, though at first glance MDZS seems to play the tropes MXTX critiqued there straighter, it's not a simple case of using them as cliches, and we see that by how they're used to impact the narrative, and how that differs from what they're traditionally used for. MDZS doesn't fall back into clichés Scum Villain satirised – it's the subversion to Scum Villain's exploration and critique.

--

*Which I know is generally used negatively, to describe someone not learning a lesson from a punishment, but it really describes WWX in general, too. He doesn't dwell on that pain, he does his best to move on from it.

**...heh

***And, because it's often debated – whatever the morality/culpability of Nightless City is doesn't even matter! The events happened at a pledge conference against him that was already taking place. WWX's actions there didn't make people want to kill him because that was explicitly happening beforehand.

[felassan]

From Game Informer:

Solas plays an important role in the game as a central figure and significant character, but the game is not about Solas, hence the title change

Rather than focusing on a specific individual, the focus and centerpiece of the game is Rook's team, stopping the end of the world with this group of specialists

"I think you could argue [these companions] are the best the franchise has ever seen". We will have the opportunity to interact with them in a way that both shapes their story and also influences the main story, including having the opportunity to impact their fate

"Arguably, this game has kind of, in a way, been called Dreadwolf to some degree since its earlier days"

Excerpt:

"When I ask about Solas' role in the story after I learn his namesake is no longer in the game title, Darrah says Veilguard is still taking the Elven God's narrative in a good direction. He adds, "It allows us to, hopefully, give a good conclusion to all the varied attitudes toward Solas that are going to be coming from people who love Solas, who agree with Solas, who hate Solas, people who want to kick Solas off of a building – I think that we give you the opportunity to bring that to a close, but then tell a greater story about The Veilguard and about the world as a whole." Talking to Epler, I learn more about how Solas isn't exactly the big bad I expected before seeing the opening hours of Veilguard. There's a lot more nuance to everyone's favorite bald elf.  "The most interesting villains to myself, and honestly most people, are not just straight up, 'I want to end the world.' To them, they are the heroes of the story, and Solas is no exception," Epler tells me. "Solas always feels that he is a tragic hero but a hero nonetheless, so he's coming into this believing firmly that what he did, that which you stopped him from doing, was the right thing – that you made a mistake. But now he's trapped and can't reach out and actively affect [Thedas], so he needs to work with you. "That allows us to provide a lot of nuance to that relationship," Epler says."

Solas is literally trapped in the Fade after the game's prologue. Rook and co stop his attempt to destroy the Veil. Rook passes out and wakes up in a dream-like landscape to Solas' voice. He explains that he was trying to move Elgar'nan and Ghilan'nain to a new prison because the old one wasn't containing them properly anymore. The two blighted gods are now free and roaming Thedas. Rook has to stop them, but it seems that they will have to work with Solas ("or at least listen to his guidance and advice") to do so

Excerpt:

""So one of the principles we took to when we were building the story of The Veilguard early on was we wanted the beginning of the game to feel like the final chapter of an earlier story and you're coming in right at the end, you're coming in as if you've been chasing Solas – the [Solas at the end of Dragon Age: Inquisition's Trespasser DLC] who said he was going to end the world and tear down the Veil," Epler adds.  Epler says players will see early on (and as the narrative develops across Veilguard) that Solas sees much of himself in you, the player-controlled Rook, especially "the parts that maybe he doesn't like to face." As a result, there's an interesting push and pull between Solas and Rook. He says players can define the relationship between these two characters with their choices in dialogue.  "You can continue to be suspicious and hostile towards him, or you can start to see him and find that common ground, that connection between the two of you, and really develop a different relationship over the course of the story," Epler says."

[source]

[marzipanandminutiae]

Eggers confirmed in interview that Ellen wasn't a child, she was teenager at the start of the film. You can probably say there's case of ephebophilia. But there is no CSA there. Also Eggers absolutely saw it as Dark romance and ships it himself. He wouldn't be doing it if there was CSA.

And that's fine, but not everyone accepts Word of God as canon

My thoughts on Eggers' interview statements are that he should have made his intentions clearer if that's what he was going for, because a huge portion of the audience came away with the impression that it was about someone's stalker/rapist coming back to jeopardize the life she'd made for herself out from under his thumb. And like...if he wanted people to not think that, he should have made directing choices that made the onscreen story match his vision better.

You're free to interpret it however you want. What I take issue with is people saying that there's One True Interpretation and no viable way to see it in any other light. There's one interpretation that the director intended, but the movie he actually made leaves holes to interpret it a different way. He shouldn't have made it that way if he had a very specific story to tell.

How can I see it as CSA? Simple. She said she was "a child" when it started and even if she was a young teenager, it being the early 1830s (assuming she's like 20-23 at time of canon, based on statistical age at first marriage for women back then) doesn't magically make 15-year-olds adults. 15 back then was about like 17 now- not a Tiny Baby, but decidedly not a Full Grown-Up either. "Child" CAN be a euphemistic term for a naive or inexperienced adult, but it's not always

And maybe if he wanted people to not interpret her as a literal child...he shouldn't have had her characterize herself that way in the dialogue, talking about when all of this started? "I was so young," "I didn't know better," "I was a fool," "I was naive," etc. SO MANY clearer wordings there. They already didn't get a child actress to play her in the opening scene; without that line, I'd assume it had been like. A few years before her marriage, when she was maybe 17-18, and just seen it as abuse rather than arguable CSA. It's a weird dialogue choice if he wanted to convey "the vampire sex started when she was young but not unacceptably young," like many other weird choices that I felt were counterproductive to his stated narrative aims.

Doesn't mean my interpretation is objectively correct either! But you don't see me going around saying that there's No Way Anyone Could See It As Consensual And That's Wrong And Bad.

I have both been there and done that before, coming from a fandom (Crimson Peak) where there's no way to interpret a central relationship as peer CSA/COCSA if you go by Word of God, but there's absolutely space for that based on what ended up in the actual movie. And I've had to make peace with it, even though I ship that couple to the moon and back.

You like these fake people kissing in this way, and other people don't. And that's fine! You don't need a big moral justification for it, or to have the Single Correct Interpretation!

[skepticalarrie]

That anon that talked about Louis wanting to create his own identity away from Larry. I agree and just wanted to share my interpretation of something and see what you and others think?

I know most people think there was some weirdness or off-ness during the end of 2022 and 2023 in regards to Larry. At least that's the period people usually point to when discussing a break-up or lack of signalling or whatever.

Up until Louis' first album release and then first tour, all Louis had to hold on to was the support from mostly Larries. During the years between 1d ending and his first tour, I think Louis was still operating on SBB mode a lot because that's all he really knew - all the signalling, clues, hints, etc. That was the fanbase he was accustomed to.

So his tour starts and it's very Larry. It's in a lot of his outfit choices (one that comes to mind is him wearing the red trackies with the embroidered butterfly ONLY ONCE amongst all the black jeans and the day was either harry's bday or valentine's day I forget now), it's in the screaming of the Princess Park line, it's in the Larry posters and Larry dolls that people brought, the rainbow lights and pride flags to an extent.

I think once it really set in for Louis that he could have a successful music and touring career and this wasn't just going to be a once off, he decided he wanted/needed to make some changes. He didn't want his whole identity to come down to Larry. I can imagine the support being nice but equally if not more frustrating. And I think that's when he started pulling away and creating boundaries and shifting the vibe of things. Because the vibe of fitf tour was quite different to walls tour. And some of that can be attributed to different fans coming in but it's also people taking their cues from Louis.

Anyway I don't love the way he's gone about some things and it hurts like a bitch to know that he had some of the most loyal and hard core fans that saw through a lot of the bullshit and were there for arguably "the real louis tomlinson" (or at least more real than the public narrative version) and he essentially saw us and was like "Yeah...thanks, but no thanks. Don't need you guys anymore."

On a side note, I'll never understand how it can be fulfilling for an artist like Louis and Harry to have all these fans that are fans of essentially a made-up version of them. Like if I was up on a stage and I had all these fans that cared a great deal about me but they cared about the person that is straight, and a womaniser, and a father, etc. That would feel a little empty but I'm not them so.

If you read all this, bless you.

I see where you’re coming from, anon, and I understand your points. But honestly, I feel like this discussion is missing the point. IMO, it’s not really about IF Louis is trying to distance himself from Larries, or even WHY he might be doing that. It feels broader than that.. it’s about how it’s being done for me.

In my opinion, it boils down to the fact that I fully believe both Harry and Louis likely want to keep their relationship more private. And I think that has been there since the band ended. If we look back, Harry has been criticized A LOT by larries for years because Louis seemed more “engaged” in the scavenger hunt of larry clues for a while now. Since Louis released Walls he’s taken on more of that role in the dynamic, while Harry built an entirely new fanbase away from that.

And here’s the thing: it’s perfectly fine for them to want to rebrand, attract new fans, or disassociate themselves from certain parts of their image. I don’t see it as a bad thing, it makes sense, especially if they want to keep some things private and you know.. considering all the mess with their closeting during the band. The issue, for me, is how it’s being done. The way this shift is happening feels like gaslighting, and that’s where my frustration lies.

Let’s face it, Harry went through similar criticisms when he made his changes, and Larries tore him apart at the time too. But maybe it didn’t sting as much back then because Louis was still “feeding” us little clues. Or maybe it’s because babygate is harder to swallow. Perhaps it’s the difference in their approaches.. Harry has remained silent on Larries entirely, while Louis has made shady comments and leaned heavily on Larries for support for much longer.

So regardless of the reasons, the way things are unfolding feels like a slap in the face, especially given how much they’ve both benefited from Larry speculation over the years. For Louis, it’s particularly upsetting because of babygate and it really creates this massive cognitive dissonance that’s hard to swallow. I’m definitely curious about their new eras when the time comes, especially Louis’.

[tavina-writes]

I have been pondering the recent rash of "post canon NHS and LXC would never ever reconcile bc even if NHS wanted to have Er-ge back, LXC would never ever forgive him for [insert reason of choice here]" type of posts + the "do you think NHS thinks very hard about how much Da-ge would hate him for becoming [the way that he is now] by choosing to seek vengeance" type of posts, and I think fundamentally the reason these posts do not jive with me is that we have no indication, in the show or in the book that uh, NHS gives a shit about either of these things very much anymore?

The first type of post is predicated on the assumption that LXC's forgiveness or lack thereof some some sort of either extension of mercy (which NHS obviously does not deserve <- or so assumes the post) or some form of punishment (which is obviously the correct answer) but the last scene we get with NHS both in the book and the show make no indication that this is a thing he wants? Or cares about? Book NHS has *sauntered off* with his little hat trophy and Show NHS walks off screen after saying something along the lines of "What is my responsibility I won't shirk, what isn't my responsibility I won't care about." Now, arguably, show NHS is having a worse go of it emotionally, but shows no real inclination or interest in either apologies or making up and being friends again with LWJ, LXC, WWX, or other people. Book NHS seems pretty pleased with the outcome of the events as a whole?

The second type of post is predicated on the fact that NHS finds Da-ge's judgement a horrible burden to bear at this stage in the game, which! He might! But again especially in the book we get no indication that he has any fucks left to give about what Da-ge may or may not have wanted since Da-ge is dead. In both the show and the book, NHS went about revenge taking very specific and complicated actions with the desired result of JGY dying, but he certainly took the scenic route getting there, which, he didn't need to? As I've written about before, JGY didn't see him as a threat. If he wanted JGY dead he could've arranged to poison JGY's tea like, 10 years ago and had done with it instead of his complicated Rube Goldberg life ruining scheme. If he is still sickly anxious about how Da-ge might feel about the scheming and the trouble causing and the whole everything, that's certainly possible, but he must've decided it was worth it anyway regardless of that, and I don't know that it necessarily would've changed just because he got what he wanted at the end.

Overall, I think as a fandom we think a lot about like "will and should this relationship ever be repaired or similar to how it used to be?" and "does this character deserve/not deserve the forgiveness of people they've hurt or abandoned?" which can be interesting questions! I do feel like these are often taken as "is a character morally good (deserves to be forgiven) or morally bad (deserves to rot in hell forever never forgiven ever ever)" and based entirely on if Character is the meta writer's blorbo. Under this paradigm the concept of "Character did bad things to get exactly what they wanted and were happy about that and no relationships were ever repaired and the emotional detachment of people they used to care about no longer matters to them!" is uncomfortable.

It's just that for NHS I've increasingly come to the conclusion that canonically, I don't think NHS thinks he has anything to apologize for, nor is he super interested in being forgiven! He got what he wanted the way he wanted it to happen. Which is potentially supremely unsatisfying but I think is very sexy as a narrative concept.

[maxdibert]

Lily’s not selfless because she didn’t want her baby to die. Anyone who isn’t a psychopath doesn’t want their baby to die! Defenceless Petunia also throws herself in front of a wand for her baby! Narcissa lies to Voldemort’s face and goes behind his back to Snape for her baby! Both of these women are selfish creatures! By book 6, JKR has firmly made the point that Lily’s actions were admirable but unexceptional in this universe. Joining the Order out of school is arguably her most selfless act (yeah, she’s personally affected, but she could’ve run to Australia).

Lily’s attraction to James is pure ego. She’s flattered the hot rich elite publicly validates her by desiring her. An actually selfless person would think of James’ victims (and I’m not just talking Severus here). Her condescension to Severus is ego (she enjoys having a worshipful puppy who won’t call her out on anything until he finally snaps and bites back - neither of them see each other as a person). We know a lot more about her than ‘she was selfless’ through her relationships, and not all we know is flattering. Which is good! Because the angelic figure the fandom makes her into - when JKR gave us more than that even in the little page time she has - is so fucking boring.

Absolutely, I couldn’t agree more. What I find especially interesting is how so many Lily fans insist that pointing out her flaws is misogynistic, when in reality, they’re the ones preventing her from being a fully realized, three-dimensional character. By reducing her to nothing more than a morally flawless young woman and a sacrificial mother, they’re stripping her of the very things that make characters compelling—nuance, contradictions, and the ability to make mistakes.

It’s ironic because these same people will often argue that female characters should be treated with the same depth and complexity as male characters. But if we’re unwilling to analyze and critique female characters the way we do male ones, then we’re falling into the same trap we claim to oppose. What’s the point of demanding better female representation if we’re just going to infantilize female characters and refuse to engage with them critically? If we want true narrative equality, we have to be comfortable with the idea that women in fiction—just like in real life—can be selfish, can make questionable choices, and can sometimes just be plain unlikable. And that’s not a bad thing. That’s a good thing.

Lily is an interesting character because she isn’t just a saintly martyr. She clearly had an ego, she was flattered by James’s attention, she tolerated Severus’s bigotry for far too long, and when she finally did cut him off, it wasn’t out of some grand moral reckoning but because it affected her personally. That’s not a bad thing���it makes her human. And as you said, her sacrifice, while undeniably tragic and moving, is not some uniquely selfless act in this universe. Plenty of characters put their children before their own survival, and many of them—Petunia and Narcissa included—don’t get the same moral pedestal that Lily does. The difference? Lily is framed by the narrative as an untouchable paragon of goodness, and fans have followed that lead uncritically.

The reality is, if we actually want better-written female characters, we need to stop being afraid of giving them flaws. Otherwise, we’re just trading one kind of misogyny (women as lesser) for another (women as perfect). And neither of those is real progress.

[criticalcrusherbot]

Here’s the thing I DON’T understand ever since being in the Helluva Boss fandom.

I’ll never be one to claim that Helluva Boss is a masterclass of storytelling, because it’s not. It has its flaws: plot structure is a bit disjointed at times, tonal consistency could be better, sometimes the humor is not well balanced with the emotional moments, and some episodes can suffer from speed rail pacing, “Mastermind” is the first episode that comes to mind.

But also a lot of what this show does well with its characters still makes up for it, and the show has been getting better about ironing out the flaws I mentioned.

The show’s writing isn’t perfect, but it’s far from having the worst writing I’ve ever seen, so…why does is it THIS show that pushes people’s buttons so much?

Why is THIS the show that sparks the creation of hundreds of YouTube videos with over 50k views or more yelling about how much people think it sucks?

🤖💁🏽‍♀️: Your point about the disproportionate criticism of Helluva Boss touches on a significant issue in media reception: the relationship between production context and audience expectations. It’s undeniable that Helluva Boss faces an outsized level of scrutiny, and much of that can be attributed to the fact that it’s an independently produced series created by Vivienne Medrano, a highly visible and accessible online figure. Unlike shows backed by established production companies, Helluva Boss operates without the institutional legitimacy that often insulates mainstream media from this level of hyper-focus.

For comparison, consider Avatar: The Last Airbender and Bojack Horseman, two critically acclaimed shows produced by major companies—Nickelodeon and Netflix, respectively. Both series benefit from larger budgets, industry connections, and an inherent credibility that allows their audiences to extend more generosity toward their flaws. And while these shows are widely celebrated, they are not without their shortcomings. Avatar, for all its masterful world-building and character development, struggles with romantic subplots. The dynamic between Aang and Katara often feels forced and awkward, with Aang’s possessiveness clashing against Katara’s more maternal demeanor. Meanwhile, Zuko and Mai’s relationship lacks chemistry, (💁🏽‍♀️: though Mai’s defiance of Azula? “I love him more than I fear you.” — rad af).

ANYWAY.

Similarly, Bojack Horseman, while lauded for its exploration of mental health and the consequences of fame, is deserving of some of its criticism for its jarring tonal shifts between absurd comedy and bleak drama. Bojack himself frequently escapes meaningful consequences for his actions in ways that challenge narrative cohesion. However, these flaws are typically contextualized as part of the show’s complexity rather than as fundamental failures, largely due to its association with a respected platform like Netflix.

In contrast, Helluva Boss is rarely afforded the same critical nuance. The show’s tonal experimentation (arguably a feature, not a bug) and character-driven storytelling are often dismissed as structural weaknesses rather than creative choices. This disparity can be partly attributed to the persistent “hate boner” directed at Medrano, whose visibility as a creator makes her a convenient target for criticism. The expectation that independent creators should produce flawless content, while mainstream studios are forgiven their imperfections, reveals an inherent bias in media consumption.

Ultimately, no media text is perfect—not Avatar, not Bojack, and certainly not Helluva Boss. But the point of analysis should not be to determine whether a show is “good” or “bad” in absolute terms. Thoughtful critique involves engaging with a text on its own terms, recognizing both its achievements and its limitations without letting external biases dictate its value. The disproportionate vitriol directed at Helluva Boss says more about the audience’s biases and expectations than it does about the show’s quality.

And on a personal note? We enjoy our gay demon furry cartoon 🤷🏽‍♀️🤖💖

[lurkingshan]

Unknown Episode 11

Well, let me get this out of the way upfront. This episode brought us to the big moment we've all been waiting for, the final turn in Yuan and Qian's relationship--and unfortunately, it didn't quite land.

I've been sitting with this episode, contemplating my disappointment with the first sequence, and I think it comes down to this show that has been so assured and confident through most of its run faltering at the crucial moment and seeming to lose faith in its own storytelling to the point that it used editing tricks to compensate. The choice to chop up and sequence this narrative lynchpin of a scene out of order is baffling, and it's a choice that significantly stepped on the most important emotional climax of the story. I was confused to go from the conversation outside to a sudden kiss, then disappointed when we cut back to a very short exchange between Qian and Yuan that was supposed to provide the basis for this turn with only some thin dialogue that didn't connect the beats of the scene, and then into an intense sexual encounter (that was constantly interrupted by repetitive flashbacks) that should have felt like a triumphant and revelatory moment but didn't because of the way we got there.

I know I'm not the only one feeling that way, since folks have been creating and distributing reedited versions of the scene, and Youku actually uploaded a new version free on YouTube with all the flashbacks removed (a clear move toward fan appeasement after the show received a lot of negative feedback on the scene). The editing and the flashbacks were annoying, but honestly the fundamental problem was the scene they wrote did not sufficiently sell the change for Qian--he goes from saying he is still not certain what he wants to being ready to be dicked down in a couple minutes' time, with nothing in the exchange providing any new information or impetus for the shift. The performers did great work but unfortunately the writing and directing and editing decisions around this sequence were just bad; it's frustrating for this to happen with arguably the most important scene of the romance.

A note about the novel: the way this final turn happened there was quite different and, candidly, better in just about every way, from the impetus for the change to the beats of the revelation to the progression of physical intimacy on a pace that felt much more attuned to the emotional complexities at play. I do not know why the show did...this when they had better source material content to work with, but here we are. I absolutely recommend that anyone who loves this show read it!

So, with that disappointment expressed, on to the rest of the episode, in which Yuan and Qian settled into their couple era. I was deeply amused by Qian taking to their sex life like a moth to a flame to the point of daydreaming in meetings, but I do wish the episode had focused more on the natural tension and role confusion that should have resulted from this huge shift in their relationship. They touched on that a bit in the scene where Yuan asked Qian if his hug was from his brother or his boyfriend, but they didn't delve into those complexities in the way I hoped they would. I enjoyed their date at the local restaurant (and loved their friendly neighborhood gangster helping to set the mood) and how much it felt like they were surrounded by their history as they moved through all of these familiar locations where they've had important moments. I didn't much care for the insertion of the health scare plot or the time spent on Le and the doc, though I'm always happy for more Sam Lin even if it comes in the form of a weird late stage and wholly unnecessary ship.

My favorite scene between Yuan and Qian in this episode was far and away the discussion on the stairs with Qian reflecting on his fears of becoming more like his mother and Yuan biting him to snap him out of his fatalistic attitude (this felt like such a classic Priest tribute, she always has biting in her romances). It was a helpful re-centering of what they do for each other and why Yuan is an important presence in Qian's life. I didn't think we needed the health scare for Qian, but I did love Qian choosing to go to this place where he found Yuan to contemplate his life and what matters, with Yuan in turn reflecting that even though he's seen a lot more of the world now, he still prefers to come home to this street. I found that exchange so moving and I think it was important for Qian to hear that.

And that scene led to my other favorite thing in this episode, which was everything to do with Lili and her bond with her brothers. I teared up to see her standing against the wall where Qian has measured their growth talking about the sneaky ways she would try to care for Qian when they were younger, with San Pang listening attentively and gazing at her adoringly. It was such a small moment, but a really lovely window into their relationship dynamic and the shared history they also have together. And when Yuan and Qian came in hand in hand and she just ran to them and offered up her love and acceptance, I felt so much warmth for this family and everything they've survived together.

[youraveragedeltafan]

Zoe Was Done Dirty by The Narrative

Honestly the biggest problem with Zoe's story is that the player character is forced to be friends with her due to the narrative (which, I repeat, isn't her fault). During each journey, your crosser has the chance to call Jarod crazy, clown on Stan and Mitch all day, or just arguably be a jerk to even John in some scenarios, but you can NEVER turn Zoe down. The only ones where you can (and the one I feel flows the most naturally loosely alongside No Concession) is Fire Starter, where the player can deny Zoe, and later tell her off OR forgive her if they so choose.

In almost every encounter (disregarding fire starter), YOU as the player have to either follow her lead, or be super interested in her presence and plight no matter what. This isn't a bad thing on its own, as almost all of the encounters have you forced to go through with whatever character's scheme anyway, but with Zoe, there REALLY needed to be a better excuse. If you refuse Jarod, he kills you (literally almost every encounter), if you refuse Stan and Mitch, they ignore and or threaten you (Wild boys, Thieves, etc.) if you deny Fanny, she will arrest you (Infinity), you are stuck hitchhiking for most of John and Alex's encounters, but Alex admittedly does have this problem too, to a lesser extent. With Zoe, you don't get any option to deny her in most cases, or a valid excuse--especially with her Road 96 encounter, where if you say no to going with her, she just laughs at you. At that point, just don't give us the option and bring light to it??????? It turns the situation into a 'oh, my character has a way out with Zoe and is set on it, cool' to a 'my character is being forced to cross with Zoe' for NO REASON. It could have been avoided.

I feel as if (disregarding the crazy blatant haters who dislike her for the crime of being a teenage girl who does immature impulsive teenage things. The horror.) this, along with her encounters being the slowest and most drawn out, makes others who were otherwise on the fence resent her, and gives blatant ill willed haters an excuse. Another problem I'd like to quickly touch on is the fact that you will always get her encounters in the same order no matter what. While this is needed for her story work, it makes her encounters get old extremely quickly for avid players (this isn't a problem for those who play it once, mind you). She was in desperate need for more SHORT encounters that weren't locked to happen at the same time every run, like the rest of the characters. Even one or two would do variety and justice for her character.

The thing is, most of this is a problem of plot and game design, not the character herself. Zoe isn't a bad character in the slightest, but I think that the fixation on her being important and well liked had the opposite effect for some people.

Her being a martyr and essentially the main character of a game about kids who are purposely faceless to fit the theme (and mile 0 as a whole) is a whole other beast, but that's more of a personal opinion on my part rather than clunky writing, and I respect the dev's choices and goals with her character. But for being a very important character, her story is undermined and done dirty by only being shown in cutscenes and the game telling the player how to feel about her.

[teatraps]

I don’t really know how to put this into words, but imma try. I feel like ppl focus a little too much on Ella and Mrs. Valden’s deaths as personal experiences. And what I mean by that is it feels like they sometimes get treated as the sole cause of any of Edgar’s troubles and worries while kinda skimming over Sarai’s abuse. And I mean actually breaking down all that Sarai’s abuse implies, not just jump cutting to when Edgar kills him. Granted I think that also comes with how idv’s storytelling works, no time for slow burn. There’s little mention of the trust Edgar did have for Sarai before Sarai started to become more blatantly abusive/exploitive which is part of what made his abuse all the more insidious.

Furthermore, I feel people treat what happened to Edgar too much like a personal tragedy. Like it was removed from everything else around him and the family deaths and Sarai’s abuse were just unfortunate events that just so happened to happen to Edgar. When in reality, at least based on what his 3rd letter is implying, all of those things happened BECAUSE of everything else around him. Ella’s death, Mrs. Valden’s death, Sarai being able to get away with abusing Edgar so long; all of that only happened because the culture of the aristocracy allows it. In Sarai’s case, even rewards it. The environment Edgar grew up in plays a major role in what led to the tragedies in Edgar’s life, but I feel it’s one of the more under talked about aspects of his character. He doesn’t just hate the aristocracy to hate it, he also recognizes that the aristocracy’s culture enabled basically every major bad event in his life.

That’s another reason why his 3rd letter is so important, it’s because it marks the point where he tries to get away from it. Killing Sarai was not the “fix-all” to Edgar’s problems, leaving the aristocracy was. This is why he still has art block even after killing Sarai. He’s still stuck with the same aristocracy either way. By not acknowledging the way Edgar’s environment was part of the reason things ended up the way they did, it makes his bitterness at the aristocracy seem unfounded and like he’s just angry at the other people around him for no good reason. It negatively affects a lot of his storytelling by not acknowledging this part since it’s not only the root of his problems, it’s also a key theme for game 5’s plot line. Everyone in that group is dealing with an unhealthy family situation which affects them in many different ways. This theme doesn’t hold up as well if Edgar’s example of this gets skipped over. And that’s not even covering how his example is arguably the MOST important because it’s the only portrayal to show cutting off the unhealthy family dynamic and trying to push forward past them.

I’m just kinda sick of Edgar’s disdain for the aristocracy being treated like a random add-on to his character and not a deliberate character choice made to further his and the overall narrative.

[demeterdefence]

LMAOOO this had me peeved im truly sorry for the essay but this got me heated

there is this whole thing in media now where a victim of abuse - domestic, romantic, any kind - will inevitably get some kind of power over their abuser, and use it as their moment to "forgive" the abuser. it's meant to show how little power the abuser has now, and how healed the victim is

i am not against forgiveness in media and i'm not necessarily against this particular trope - i'll use avatar the last airbender as an example, and point out how zuko (who starts off as the antagonist in the story) works to redeem himself following his actions, and is forgiven once he's made actual amends. he then goes on to forgive his sister for her abuse, and not because she's doing better or she feels sorry for it - zuko realizes his sister is also a product of abuse, that she's been warped by the abuse, and she didn't have the support that zuko did. she's not going to get better; she will always be twisted and cruel. zuko forgives her because he sees her as a fellow victim, and he has no hate for her, only grief and pity.

arguably that's the same narrative rachel is trying to set up here with kronos, considering how the last few chapters have hammered on about how cruel and mean oranous was and how abusive he was, and how of COURSE kronos ended up so bad because his dad was so mean!

EXCEPT. THIS DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE WE HAVE NEVER SEEN ORANOUS AS A VILLAIN.

he's mentioned at best maybe three times, and certainly he's given shades of evil, but nothing that exclusively focuses on kronos. all we get is the generic bad guy vibes, but he's out of the story faster than we have time to process. if rachel wanted us to feel bad for kronos, having his so-called abuser just kind of wander in for a panel or two does not achieve that pity.

so this is really just hades (looking like a jesus figure seriously rachel how on the nose do you have to be) forgiving a being that, for the entire story, has been nothing but abusive and cruel. he swallowed two sons, he killed his wife, he abused hera, he took chomps out of his kids, and he put the world in danger. he tried to kill hades' wife. he kidnapped hades' future daughter. he has shown no remorse, no regret, nothing but cartoon villainy.

forgiving a character like this just ... hand waves all the harm done. like "sorry your dad was mean to you, here's a cookie." none of his other victims get the choice to forgive, and i'm willing to bet a fair few do not want to! you can argue this is hades' choice, but ultimately, it demonstrates rachel's utter inability to follow a narrative line to the end. she wanted to set up hades' as a powerful redeemer able to move past his abuse, but all she did was ditch kronos at the last second, unable to complete any storyline because she never thought it through.

[otogariado]

mentioning LOST's church ending got me riled up about the racism in LOST again lol. i obviously am aware that some actors just did not return to production for possibly other reasons, but also especially in the case of harrold perrineau (michael dawson) he felt like his character (and walt, his son) was treated like shit by the writing. and he was absolutely right. i've already made posts about this (will try to dig them up later), but michael was treated absolutely bullshit and unfairly wrt the story. michael betrayed them and killed two people, yes, but what did he do it for but to protect his son? he felt like nobody gave enough fucks about walt and there was some truth to that claim. his whole character arc is about being a dad to walt and their improving relationship over the course of being stuck on the island, so of course he would do that. it just makes sense.

which is why i don't think it's all that fair to punish him for it immensely in the narrative. harrold perrineau said it himself that he didn't want michael and walt to be another case of the absent black father stereotype [citation needed, i'll look for it but he said it in an interview] yet that's what he ended up being anyway. after his and walt's escape from the island, apparently walt cast him away because he doesn't agree with what his father did—which i actually think its interesting to explore: walt disagreeing with michael's actions and trying to grapple with it, but i don't think separating him from his dad was the best writing choice to make. walt is being punished for caring about his son by making his son be the one to cast him away. you can argue it's supposed to be tragic, michael is supposed to be a tragic character, but with the context surrounding michael's character? there's better ways to make his character be tragic than this.

which brings me to his next punishment. i was happy to see michael again on the kahana (just happy to see him in general), but it didn't last long when he gets killed, sacrificing himself to prevent/prolong the kahana's explosion from happening. (put a 📌 on this bc it's similar to how sayid dies and we'll come back to that later.) michael dies here and walt doesn't know about this. and then michael joins as part of the whispers, his soul trapped on the island (presumably forever) and that's why he's not in the church ending.

i'm gonna be frank. michael being trapped on the island because of his guilt or remorse or perhaps repenting for his sins is just bullshit to me. a lot of characters seen in the flash sideways and in the church ending are characters who've done "bad things". it's bullshit to have michael be the only one doomed to pay for his misdeeds forever. his misdeeds for... killing two people. not that killing two people is Nothing, but moreso if you examine the circumstances it's hardly anything to be damned eternally for.

remember the 📌 we had wrt sayid and michael? both of them died trying to prevent an explosion from reaching everybody else. which makes this more egregious imo. i can say 1000 things about sayid's arc (points to url), but this is about michael and not him, so i'll just focus on this: sayid was grappling with "being a bad person" for torturing and killing so many people. he worked as an assassin for ben. and yet, somehow, you're telling me sayid is not being damned eternally for his misdeeds but michael is? if you don't see the BS in that i don't know what to tell you.

i'm also aware why some characters don't appear any more re:conflicts with their actors (or just availabilities or other reasons for declining to come back), but even then arguably any conflicts with harrold perrineau stemmed from a justified place because of how michael was treated.

i think mr eko had a more dignified arc (he's one of my fav characters, thematically speaking) and honestly he had some of the rawest shit i've ever heard:

I ask for no forgiveness father for I have not sinned, I have only done what I needed to do to survive. A small boy once asked me if I was a bad man, if I could answer him now I would tell him, that when I was a young boy I killed a man to save my brothers life. I am not sorry for this, I am proud of this. I did not ask for the life that I was given but it was given none the less, and with it I did my best.

but despite this it doesn't change the fact that his absence in the church ending is very noticeable. he had meaningful connections with charlie, with locke, and interestingly like michael he kind of parallels sayid but this time thematically through their arcs. sayid is constantly burdened with feeling like he's a bad person and resigning to it as some sort of self-fulfilled prophecy, but mr eko is very firm about how he sees himself as not necessarily a bad man, just a man whose hands were forced because of the cards he was dealt. i wish we could have seen a more direct parallel between them, because it would've been interesting. back to the main point: i think it's such a missed opportunity for mr eko to not be here. especially since even after his death, hurley was able to communicate with his ghost, showing that he still had connections with his fellow losties even long after his death.

ana lucia being "not ready to move on" is interesting. but ultimately you can't help but raise a few eyebrows at it anyway. you can argue that, unlike mr eko she died an unresolved death, but most of the LOST characters died with an unresolved death. (she was killed early.) that's the whole point of the sideways segments. so what makes ana lucia so different from the others? yeah she killed shannon, but that was completely a freak accident. her people (the tailies) were being picked off one by one by the other so she was understandably on edge. she was kind of a hated character but i think a lot of it is just racism and misogyny combined tbh. (LOST is...notorious for a lot of misogynistic character writing decisions.) ana lucia was just as complex and morally "ambiguous" as the rest of them. i find the decision to make her corrupt in the sideways segments interesting (negative). cz like, there was never any indication she was like this in real life. what does that corruption symbolize? because obviously that corruption is a key to why she "can't move on yet". what exactly is she supposed to be repenting for? they hinted at a possible direction her arc is going towards before killing her off, ie. her ultimately choosing not to kill "henry gale" because she no longer wants blood on her hands. again, in a way, she's just like sayid! someone who decided they'd turn away from ceaseless violence. only right afterwards she got killed. so what does she need repenting for so much that she's left out of the church ending? much to think about.

i don't really know how to conclude this post. but my main point is that the lack of these characters during the church ending is and has racist implications. (again, i understand the casting issues, but it's still a writing decision you can critique as a viewer at the end of the day). i'll try to find the old posts i made last year abt michael and mr eko and their parallels to sayid and link them here (and self reblog).

edit: go read/look up "burn it down". it details a lot of the behind the scenes mistreatment of the staff (including racism and sexism), including actors and writers. the quote from an interview from harold perrineau that i mentioned was also linked in a reblog. (post link)