#and cartoon characters exist in a completely different context

[wherevenusholdssomeofficespace]

Linda Flynn-Fletcher

I think Linda Flynn-Fletcher is potentially one of the most misunderstood characters in the show.

It think comes from a natural enough place. Her role in the show is of course, to act as the potential threat to their summers of fun. While they boys never see her as a threat, narratively she's the big bad. If she sees it, its game over.

Here's the thing though. She's a not a bad mom. Her children LOVE her. Similarly to how Phineas and Ferb absolutely adore Candace and would do nearly anything she asked, Phineas, Ferb and Candace all love and respect their mother and don't disobey her. Now a bit of this is clearly Linda being a more permissive parent, but any rules that Linda has Phineas and Ferb never do anything to disobey their mother. While I wouldn't be surprised if there were one or two instances where Candace disobeyed her mother willfully, the closest I can think off off hand is Candace not doing a bunch of chores that she was supposed to do. Really, the fact that all her kids love her, shows how much all her kids feel loved in their household. And I think that's super important. Candace wrote a song about how much she feels loved by her mom, even if her mom is dismissive of Candace. But she still goes with Candace to see what the boys are up to even if she doesn't believe it. She sets boundaries on how often Candace can bust the boys sure. But she hasn't forbidden Candace from doing it altogether. Nor does she punish Candace for presumably lying?

At MOST Linda will say something like: "let's get you out of the sun" after a failed bust. The worst of it I think is probably the time Linda made her promise not to try or suffer the Pharaohs curse. Which, was just some guy in a Pharaoh costume telling Candace curse you. Linda goes out of her way to read books to try and deal with her daughter. She and Candace still clearly hold a lot of affection for each other and do spend a decent amount of mother daughter time together. Linda gives books to her daughter, tries to direct her to other activities, and finds her sleep busting cute, and sometimes goes out of her way to do activities her daughter wants to do with her. All things considered Linda is REALLY patient about Candace's busting. Could she be doing more to get to the bottom of why Candace is presumably acting out? Sure. But Doofensmirtz could also be doing a better job of listening to his daughter and not insulting her (or do we not remember why Vanessa wears earbuds around the house) but we all call him a really good dad.

A LOT of shows have kids hiding a secret from a parent for one reason of another. But while the crux of the show rests on Linda not knowing what her sons are doing, its not because its a secret. The boys aren't hiding it from her. The boys genuinely believe she knows. Lawrence genuinely believes she knows. Candace is the only one in the family who really grasps the situation.

Linda's ignorance, her disbelief of the wild shenanigans that her children get into is easily mistakable for normality. For representing the oppressive day to day. The same thematic antagonist as school. A mom who wants whats best for her kids, and thinks that whats best for them is them being normal, without realizing what's really best for them. After all why else we saw what would happen if she found out in Quantum Boogaloo. But the fact of the matter is aside from that one future (which also featured an effectively evil leader in Doofensmirtz, and therefore implies more factors at play than just Doofensmirtz and Linda's characters), we don't really know how it would play out in the long term. Future Linda even just kinda moves on after discovering the truth.

Linda is exactly like her kids. She just does the same things on a less physics breaking scale. The woman has like 37 different hobbies. She takes a cooking class, donated an art sculpture, is part of a jazz group. She has a background in astrophysics. She was a pop star. She won a meatloaf contest. She takes french lessons. The fact that Linda has several hobbies is part of the reason the formula works at all. Linda is constantly trying new things which gets her out of the house, while her sons are trying their own new things. Her absence is what prompts Candace to have to go looking for her. Also, What Do It Do when the moment Linda gets put in Candace's position she acts the exact same way.

Also it's why she and Lawrence are so compatible. They have a lot of weird hobbies they spend together. She likes Lawrence's history references. They watch car racing together. They went spelunking together. They go bowling regularly enough to have equipment. She has played the bagpipes while Lawrence danced (which sidenote: do you think she taught Candace how to play the bagpipes?).

Not to mention her extended family. Think about it. Her mom was a competitive roller derby skater who once bit a skate and shook it like a dog with a chew toy and pulls elaborate pranks with her identical twin. Really she's a lot like Candace with her aggressive passion. Her dad apparently won a balloon race, but tells the story in the most straightforward way possible, sometimes very oblivious, but is overall a lot like Phineas. Her sister is an adrenaline junky. And back to Quantum Boogaloo for a minute: Her granddaughter is just like Candace, Grown up Candace is a lot like Linda. Do you not see the implications!!?!?!? LIKE???? DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT LINDA WAS PROBABLY A LOT LIKE CANDACE AND PHINEAS WHEN SHE WAS YOUNGER?!!?! YOU THINK IT SKIPPED A GENERATION OR SOMETHING???

Do you think Linda used to complain about Tiana??? Do you think Linda thought her family was weird and was embarrassed by them??? Do you think Linda ever called herself the only mature/normal member of her family?? LIKE CANDACE DOES????

Anyway, Linda is just like her family. Sure, she is RELATIVELY more normal, but that's relative, and probably simply because the universe bends itself around to keep her from knowing. Linda literally cannot find out about the real nature of her universe. Linda is just a grown up version of her children, seeking to make the most of each day, but within the bounds the universe has set upon her, both as an adult woman and mother, but also in the laws of physics expected of her. But she still makes the most of her life. You don't have to build a roller coaster to make the most of each day and all that.

I think if Linda is representing anything its that even parents can have rich fulfilling lives. Where they make the most out of each day. Having fun with your life doesn't stop with adulthood. Even if you have more responsibilities doesn't mean you can't have fun? Sure childhood is something you can't get back but growing up isn't inherently bad either?

[paraphwrites]

so obviously the time period a character comes from impacts them. but i adore the analysis of dbda and loneliness so now i want to analyze the characters + their time period + loneliness

edwin. so, edwin is from the 1900s. he was raised with the knowledge that he would join the military, that he would get married. this was an accepted part of life. now, i do not wish to analyze the full scale of edwin's relationship with violence (at least, not here), but i do think it's interesting that edwin goes out of his way not to inflict harm on others. this is potentially because he was raised in such a way where that was the norm, and he always knew he did not fit traditional male standards. he has always preferred knowledge and books to fighting and sport. this would have been incredibly isolating, especially as a young boy in a school for children of military members. additionally, as a queer person, edwin would have been entirely socially isolated from his peers. whether they picked up on it like simon or just thought he was un-manly, the point stands: edwin would not have fit in with his peers and seemingly had no friends when he died. which is very sad. and very lonely.

crystal. crystal's parents neglected her for their work. she lashes out. she lashes out and pushes people away (or in front of traffic). she is volatile and destructive and she is like this because she lives in an age when parents are expected to care for their children, and her parents still actively chose not to. crystal is especially traumatized because even tho she is in upper class which may have a higher rate of willful parental neglect, the expectation is still that parents love their children. moreover crystal is psychic, and that's never really been fun. she'll be completely different from all her peers in a fundamental way which she probably never talks about with any of them! so, like, of course when david, a demon, comes along, she lets him in - she's finally with someone who understands and makes her feel less lonely. someone else who's weird and angry and pretty and supernatural. and then he, too, betrays her. there is also almost certainly a race element, which may further disassociate her from her peers, seeing as the upper class is usually very white.

jenny. so jenny grew up as a lesbian in the 90s. now, i don't know much about washington state, but i do know that they legalized gay marriage in 2012. which means for over half of jenny's life, she was living with the knowledge that she would never get to live the same type of life as her peers; though the white picket fence americana dream may have been less prevalent by the 90s, it still was very ingrained in american society - especially small town society. i wonder if part of jenny's gothic fashion is to distinguish herself from other people - if she cannot have the same lives as them, then no one will make the mistake of assuming she will.

so the night nurse is lonely in a very unique way. she is lonely because she does not have a proper conception of an actual human life. she has no friends or relationships - nor does she want to; she does not know what they are like. and, i think, because she exists so outside of time and removed from society, that it makes her inherently lonely. she is lonely because somehow she was created and somehow someone convinced her that her only purpose in life is to collect lost children and she is satisfied with this but she is also alone. she has no time period to be contextualized in, and that in itself is the context.

niko is lonely because her dad is dead and her mom lives in a different continent. and i think that because she is able to utilize manga and cartoons as a form of escapism, it allows her to fill that void of devastating loneliness a bit more. she lives in a world where if she doesn't want to think she does not have to. she is not obligated to be courageous. however, she also lives in a world where she is able to choose to self-isolate, even if that isn't good for her. so when she is sad she hides away because she can and it's scary and she doesn't want to do it alone but she doesn't want to do it with her mom. i've seen people saying crystal is such a teenage girl but niko? niko wants her mom to comfort her but doesn't want to talk to her mom. niko is horribly lonely and it's only a gay victorian twink who can get her to smile again. niko is lonely because she exists in a world which allows her to be and it takes someone who is not from this time to help her move past this

charles. god, we all know how lonely charles is. biracial, abused by his father, probably bisexual, good with people yet killed via hate crime, morally upstanding. charles is the epitome of loneliness because he grows up in such a particular moment of time. he lives in the 80s. feminism and queer rights have been radically shifting in the past two decades. the 80s have huge amounts conservative pushback from these movements. so, yeah, being gay isn't a crime anymore, but gendered expectations are being reestablished in a new harmful way. so, yeah, charles is growing up in a time of progress, but he's also growing up in a household which will absolutely be anti-progress, and ergo charles is stuck in this dichotomy of he could hypothetically have everything but that would mean losing everything, too. he's lonely because his dad beats him. he's lonely because his mom doesn't say anything. he's lonely because he has a piercing but his dad locked him in his room for three days after it. he's lonely because he attends a boarding school which rich racist pricks. he's lonely because never once in his life has he admitted how the intersection of all his identities puts him in a situation where he is completely alone. and he isn't alone -he's got edwin- but their experiences with loneliness are vastly different.

as i have said a stupid number of times, dead boy detectives is a story about loneliness. and the writers made these characters so damn brilliantly because they all make so much sense in the context they were raised in.

we are all shaped by the context's we're raised in. everyone is raised at a different moment in history in different environments with different families. human experiences are so unique that everyone is inherently lonely. but lonely does not mean alone and lonely does not mean forever. it means when you were fourteen you cried yourself to sleep but now you're twenty and know how to play cricket and your friends come to all of your matches. it means you were raised in a world that was cruel and unforgiving, AND it means that because of that you don't have to be. dead boy detectives teaches us that we're all horribly lonely, and maybe that makes each other a little less lonely

i'll take some of your burden if you'll take some of mine, and whatnot

[breached-containment-script]

Some arguments KA shippers make are valid and true. But that they don't necessarily do anything nearly enough to be valid anti-zutara arguments!

Stuff like, that quick burns probably wouldn't scar (Katara's hands) or that if she had gotten scarred, that Toph's feet should have gotten scarred too. This is valid.

That it's true that when Aang's negative aspects get developed to their final extreme forms in theories and fanfiction, it can feel weird and offputting to people who naturally gravitate towards staying approximately around canon vibes; that some descriptions of behaviour sound too strong to some people which results in pushing them away from zutara as a negative reaction to associated criticisms of Aang. But that also personal headcanon developments (even those with strong foundation in canon) are individual preferences and people are able to choose which headcanons to like, without using disliked ones to paint an entire show interpretation negative.

It'a true that most of Aang's bad behaviour in the show can be attributed to him being just a kid and not being self-aware enough yet. He's not intentionally malicious in most cases. His negative reaction towards Water Tribe culture and food is a depiction of a kid not knowing how to respect something that makes him uncomfortable, even if this kinda clashes with him having already had friends from all over the world. Unfortunatey, canon progression doesn't depict him learning as many lessons as he should nor does it show him outgrowing negative traits even though it should have. THIS is the source of headcanons which appreciate intentionally exploring main character developing in a negative light. His negative traits constantly repeat and have a common stay in his canon character. This is a fact, especially with his claim that he'd be in the Avatar state had it not been blocked, out of frustration that actors on a stage implied Katara doesn't feel the same way about him. This is a very bad thing, we've seen both him and others being afraid of it, it causing massive destruction and Katara having the burden of calming him down. How would she theoretically calm him down in the case he did enter the Avatar state because of this reason? Assuming she didn't have romantic feelings for him (which should always exist as a valid option for any character, to test if they have a healthy interaction) - she could pray he'd accept it and calm down on his own, or be under extreme pressure to lie that she likes him back. Even if she did like him back, having to admit under the threat of a destructive force being unleashed, IS NOT GOOD. Especially as the characters never addressed this later.

Yes, Zuko did a lot of bad things but not only are they overblown by KA-fans and Zuko-antis, they constantly purposefully ignore that he got punished repeatedly, suffered in canon for his actions and kept doing very risky and selfless things to make up for his past, they also forget that time flows FORWARD and that WHEN events happened on a timeline MATTERS. It's not an argument that Zuko burned Suki's village in book 1 when he helped rescue her and others by risking his life in book 3 and she forgave him. One thing is collateral damage in a cartoon filled with cartoon violence, and another when for example Long Feng kills Jet. Viewers should be able to discern the tone difference, because shows (or any creative work) especially with multiple writers, aren't homogenous, and aren't tonally or message-wise completely unified. Don't start your deduction argument from the idea that a show is fully consistent and is absolutely sending a singular message, start an inductive analysis from ideas about what a show's context is, what its goals are, what the tone feels like in each section, did it accomplish what it was aiming for, etc. Likewise Zuko could have been written even better in some areas and with more context!

However him hunting down heroes, knocking out Katara etc. isn't a gotcha argument some people think it is, because Katara knocked him out as well, twice even so badly he didn't wake up for quite some time; and he was struck, rejected, ignored, mocked and criticised by both Iroh, the gaang and Katara especially after he sided with Azula under Ba Sing Se, but then they forgave him as he actively worked to atone, and Katara herself forgave him for what he did. She then risked her life to save him back. The writing is very logical and consistent in this.

[bulbabutt]

so im white, lets just get that out of the way, but i wanna talk about the orientalism in windblades design.

this doesnt feel like my place to talk about but if no one brings it up then no ones gonna learn about it or second guess it. im tired of other white people not noticing this problem or thinking its fine. if anyone asian (specifically japanese) has any thoughts or personal input it is SUPER fucking welcome! its hard to find people talking about this.

so transformers has a women problem in general. they set up women in the 80s in one episode and never elaborated on it in that show. they added arcee in the movie. they put a couple in the beast wars era, but outside of blackarachnia (becoming a literal succubus) we dont really get any of those characters adapted (besides arcee) over iterations. never any new ones really.

then the comics get windblade. i havent read the comics, this isnt about anything that happens in them. this is about her design how she comes off as as shes been adapted into cartoons. i wont comment on events from the comics outside of her origin, as i know fuck all about it.

so she was supposedly a fan-voted character, but her 'fan-voted' aspects have nothing to do with the problem (in fact the fan-vote was more of a suggestion because a few things dont end up being true) the voted aspects are as follows:

autobot. jet. fights with swords. red & black. named windblade. female. valiant. telepath. from Kaon.

so here's what that ends up looking like.

so they took some liberties. there was other concepts where she was a european knight etc, but this is where they landed. she has this extremely feminine figure, complete with makeup and sculpted hair. many people immediately mistake this look for a geisha (though supposedly being kabuki) she gets little pump heels, it makes her very human woman shaped. birthing hips and all. thats classic girl robot stuff. its the specifics of it that are an issue.

so thats kind of a lot of japanese motifs. the makeup, the swords, the hair... why does it look like human hair? thats a very specific hairstyle on a character who doesnt have hair...

on its own, having a japanese inspired aesthetic isnt the problem. i mean, coding characters to be from different places is fine. having characters coded as a specific race could be fine. jazz already exists, and despite being taken by racist creators sometimes (cough michael bay cough) its not inherently bad that he is black coded, specifically when in the hands of black creators/voices. thats key.

so having a transformer who landed in japan and took on some culture from there. you could see that happening. that could work if in the hands of people who were japanese.

but thats not even her backstory. shes not even from Kaon (as was voted), instead she's from another planet entirely, a more spiritual one, which narratively makes her alienated from cybertronians. this alienation adds to the problem. "shes not from here." "shes not like us."

you'll see many people look at this design and think "is that geisha transformer?" and as the character isnt from japan and knows nothing about the culture that inspired her, the media itself never corrects anyone. no one in the text goes "no shes not a geisha shes actually based on a kabuki performer", no one says any words about it, its just how she looks, its just aesthetics without explanation or cultural background. shes not literally japanese, she just looks it. its easy to mistake without cultural context from a western perspective, so calling her a geisha becomes a rampant problem. general audiences arent looking at forum posts form 2014 where someone correctly explains what the motifs are. shes made by white people, and white people are largely the ones consuming the media. its unfortunate, and could have been avoided if the culture shes inspired by was relevant to her character.

so she's clearly heavily inspired by japanese aesthetics, which codes her as being an asian woman in this media but written by non japanese people. and then she becomes so popular that she has to start making appearances in shows.

she shows up in robots in disguise first. lets compare her to strongarm (the only other girl in the show)

having this japanese woman be far more thin and feminized than the other girl characters is the problem. strongarm is literally the first non feminized main girl transformer (not counting strika) she is much more in line with the men around her, square and broadshouldered, shes the largest car of the bunch. that was an upgrade finally. and then we get windblade. she has ruby red lipstick, human hair, heels, jewellery. on its own? thats fine. but keep in mind, shes heavily japanese coded already. then shes immediately seen as a romantic conquest for sideswipe (though he never gets anywhere, he literally claims ownership) it leans into tropes of sexualizing asian women because she stands apart from strongarm. shes the flirt, shes the very feminine one. is this on purpose? its not their fault windblade looks like that in the comics and strongarm looks like this. but side by side what is it saying? did they intend to say this about their asian woman? no, probably not intentionally. its kind of unconscious bias that tends to happen when you dont have a diverse writers room. no one notices until it hits the audience.

but lets just jump in here with the other weird problem in RID, because shes not the only one who jumped from the comics.

drift (who while being a samurai in the comics (literal?) doesnt.... LITERALLY wear a suit of samurai armour) shows up. with his two minicons who act as his children (who hes very strict with). theres a heavy overuse of the word honour. he owes a life debt, hes very humourless etc... they also never explain why he wears this armour. he came straight from space. he doesnt even turn into anything big that warrants it, hes just another sports car. bumblebee and sideswipe are sports cars too. but why is drift a sports car? tokyo drifting. drift. you get it.

so drift also is a comics original character. he, however, looks nothing like that

i will assume that drift looks different for one reason....

i mean. i shouldnt have to tell you why that was bad, right? you guys get why michael bay movies are bad? (if you genuinely dont please enjoy this series as a starter) ill just assume you do. knowing that that drift is bad, can we also say windblade is suffering from a similar problem?

this show brings in these FOUR new characters and heres how they look side by side.

so. okay the minicons are raised by drift, they share his aesthetic, okay. we dont know where he got that aesthetic but yeah they share it. windblade.... its unclear in this show if she shares the being from another planet like idw part. shes on a mission from god to be here and thats all we know. but the point is they have no similar origin. yet they all look like they could be from the same place. that they shares a (japanese inspired/coded/stereotyped take your pick) culture. meanwhile our from ep1 mains look like this:

so that feels. specific.

its not inherently bad to code robots as japanese, however its a problem when it seems to be for aesthetics alone. its stereotyping. they look nothing like the rest of the cast, everything like each other, and are from completely different backgrounds. they literally have the same colour palette? theyre not even like that in the comics.

sidenote, if you add sideswipe (who's alt mode has kanji on it and an asian voice actor so we can assume some coding there too) they look like this. yes they all have swords.... no one else does!

yes, windblade is the only character with a white face. makeup. yes sideswipe claims ownership over her to fight off one of the minicons. its not wrong to show windblade being harassed by a man, but it is wrong that no one ever says "leave her alone" you know? like thats just whats to be expected of her. it sucks. but at least her voice actress was asian! that wont happen again.

so. moving on to cyberverse, she becomes a central character. character wise? shes great. she gets to do a lot, no one sexually harasses her here, we're free of that era.

comparing her to the other autobot women, shes more in line now. if thats a good or bad thing overall is less the point (ie theres no autobots built like strongarm was, they are all just as thin and curvy as windblade is) but to me its still very apparent that shes still implying human hair. even with how simplified all these designs are.

like you can see how these red lines around her eyes get lost at a distance, same with the clips in her 'hair'. its clearly just trying to adapt her original design and im not saying thats a wrong choice they made, but i am saying its really busy in comparison

maybe thats a nitpick. but here it seems much more pronounced just how specific her head piece is because we can compare her to chromia, who is from the same place. do these two characters look like they have the same culture? not really. chromia and arcee look more alike. maybe thats just because they were designed later, but its unfortunate none the less.

even comparing her head to the seekers, what she is kind of supposed to be, they get the same old starscream mold. maybe she'd look better if they just did that? or something similar? like, give her a helmet. no one has hair. please stop implying hair. we all know what youre doing.

none of this is me saying i find these shows bad or that i hate windblade, i genuinely love her! and i love both these shows! it just feels hard to love her because of how she was designed. its not a problem with having a japanese coded character, its how stereotyped the look is. how othered it is. it leans into racist tropes. its orientalism, using japanese aesthetics to make her look interesting and different. you can tell she was made by white people.

how is it that despite being around for 10 years now, no ones tried to redesign her?

also look at the toys! look at the god damn toys!

she can take that head piece out to have a FAN. why does she need a fan?? shes got fucking WIND JETS ON HER BACK! its very obvious why they did this. shes a japanese woman, she can fight with a fan to complete the aesthetic! despite her character never having even been there! and no other transformer using a fan weapon! shes so COOL AND DIFFERENT like that isnt she?? holy fucking shit

to go back to those original voted concepts for a second? if we went back to the drawing board?

a telepathic valiant female autobot who can fly, has a red/blue/black colour combo (with yellow accents) uses swords, and maybe even with canonical asian heritage....

could they even do that? is it possible?

...

OH! wait it SUPER IS! who'd have thought!?

im NOT saying "we dont need windblade! we have a better girl with the same concept!" cuz thats stupid. do not misunderstand, theres room for WAYYYY MORE TF GIRLS! the literal 1:13 ratio is FUCKED! i know windblade had to fight to exist too and that sucks!

i just think it's CLEARLY possible to do this better, and it SHOULD be entirely possible to have windblade (who was LITERALLY holding court as the MAIN girl transformer for years) to be, i dont know, not so racistly designed? i think its entirely possible to fix, i just wish they would have tried already.

and this is just what my white ass has thought about since meeting her and not seeing anyone else bring it up. like going hunting for a real take about it just meets you with the rampant misogyny problem in fan spaces. its hard to find people talking about it in a normal way, but if they have before id love to know.

i just wanted to put my thoughts about it down, maybe get people to think about it more or talk about it more. cuz jeez, i would really like them to fix the problem. like they fixed the arcee problem in idw, right? can they fix windblade next?

[roboj0e]

"girl please" is a neutral phrase lmao but my bad ig. anyway, to 99% of the population a fetish and a kink mean more or less the same thing. if there's a difference could you explain it? thx... btw you're not a feminist if you think it's ok to draw or get off to sexual art of children, even if they're fictional/cartoon... you do realize a lot of shota and loli content is traced from photos of kids, right? my abuser made cartoon csem traced from my photos. :/

My dad used to force me to watch csem and distributed csem of me also exists. I actually get sent it sometimes on facebook who I know are just my dad using sock puppet accounts. Did I win the CSA Olympics? Am I now enough of an authority of this trauma to make unsubstantiated claims? I could trauma dump unsolicited on you too but I have compassion so I won't and also I'm not about to plead for my humanity from someone who won't listen and engage in good faith anyways.

I'm sorry that happened to you but it would have happened regardless of the existence of lolisho. Abusers are gonna abuse no matter what. This was the first thing I learned in therapy. What's funny is it was lolisho that help me realize my abuse. Yes I understood sexual abuse conceptually but I couldn't recognize it happening to ME until I saw my situation reflected back at me in a safe sane scenario. My therapist said it was bc I was repressing it in denial and only allowing myself to fantasize about it in a safe environment was I able to recognize it as abuse. Funny how life works like that huh.

Oh to explain I completely forgot bc I had to write this twice bc Tumblr crashed. A fetish is a sexual reliance on something to achieve sexual arousal or gratification and can be sexual.outside of sexual contexts. A kink amplifies sexual gratification, usually has to do with roleplay or sexual acts/positions/height/weight and has to be negotiated and communicated and consentual. Ppl do use them interchangeably BUT specifically with the word fetishize ur using it wrong in this case. To fetishize something there must be both dehumanization and objectification. U can not dehumanize or objectify fictional characters they are not human and are already objects.

No I don't support sexual art of children. This sort of phrasing is just a deliberate misrepresention so u can position urself as morally righteous and disengage from the conversation early and not have to examine what anyone is actually saying. They are fictional characters. They can be any age, any race and body type and have any name at any time. They are objects. They don't exist and can not accumulate trauma the way you or i can. They do not need protection.

If u don't like it that's fine. Especially considering your trauma. But ur claim is unsupported and wildly inaccurate. Do not projects ur trauma onto others especially as it pertains to facts about criminal psychology and sex crimes. This is unhealthy and will lead to paranoia that same paranoia that brought u to ur conclusion here. This is not pervasive enough in lolisho to be considered a trend or even the default. But you also could be sharing real abusive images/scenarios no matter what form of media u engage with. But that doesn't not mean we should sanitize art and media on the off chance someone could be evil. Your not exempt from the same personal responsibility ur trying to place on me just bc u don't engage in fictional pornographic material and it's not especially heinous when it's fictional art versus and any other medium. We could all be unknowingly sharing and engageing with abusive material but all we can do is protect and believe victims and figure out as a society how to reduce harm.

No banning lolisho or any media is not a solution. Studies show most csem is produced/distributed by parent/guardians. The best way to protect children is to advocate for children rights and the reduction of parental rights. Experts have been saying this for years. Children being treated like property both by law and society is what is perpetuating their abuse. Not fictional art.

Censorship is not the solution. Any historical application of censorship has always ALWAYS lead to the mistreatment and silencing of victims and marginalized communities. This will make it difficult for victims to appeal to censors and share their stories which are valuable for understanding abuse but also valuable bc it is art. And incentivizing ppl to invade other peoples privacy to be sure they have the right identity/trauma to create a specific type of art is fascism. So is censoring or banning that art. This will do nothing but silence and shame victims. This is happening still right now and has happened plenty in the past. Guilt and shame ONLY perpetuates sexual abuse.

This is also forcing ppl to engage in art and fiction with a paranoid analysis FIRST. telling ppl they can tell whose a good or bad person based on what they draw/write or engage with is not healthy and is antithetical to educating ppl on how to recognize abuse. It's irresponsible and It's giving children and teens anxiety disorders. Look at any ex anti/proship anonymous confessions. Look at the damage ppl are causing with this third grade level of word association and cause and effect. Ppl are developing POCD. Me included ALMOST.

Experts have been saying for decades now that fictional sexual material has no link to escalation into sexual violence or engaging in paraphilias. No fiction doesnt effect reality. these same psychologists that have debunked claims such as "violent video games cause violence" have also researched how it operates the same with fictional sexual material. There's no special circumstance just bc it's sex or porn.

Just bc u navigate the world on disgust and paranoia doesn't mean I have to. I listen to the science and research. While also having my own experience to draw from.

As a CSA victim with a SEX THERAPIST do u really think I would not have done my due diligence before engaging in any community?? I've done a hell of a lot of work to get where I am now. Sexually liberated and healthy. Both personal growth and LOTS of research into sex crimes. And I really don't feel like hearing regressive religiously programmed sex negative thoughts on the fiction I enjoy.

I am a feminist tho. I'm just not regressive and reactionary. 🤷🏾‍♀️🤷🏾‍♀️🤷🏾‍♀️

[feministsouthpark]

South Park Filler Guide - Season 10

Link for Seasons  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 8 9

You know the drill by now, I'll judge whether an episode has all the qualities of a canon one, or is it just shameless filler. S10E1 The Return of Chef is CANON

When it comes to separating canon material from filler, you really come to notice a lot more secondary characters die in a shorter span of time. Anyway, here's Chef's farewell in a scientology follow-up episode. S10E2 Smug Alert! is FILLER

Kyle moves. He comes back. Stan has a hit song. Never mentioned again. S10E3 & S10E4 Cartoon Wars Part I & II are LORE

I was so conflicted on this one, no consequences come from this two-parter, expect Trey and Matt's interest in the portrayal of Muhammad, and since these got banned on streaming sites, I'd encourage everyone to watch them! S10E5 A Million Little Fibers is FILLER

I'd never make anyone watch this episode. Except that one time when I did a South Park marathon with my step-father and I made him watch it. But no, even if Towelie's career would be mentioned, there's no need for this one to exist. S10E6 ManBearPig is CANON

ManBearPig IS real. Al Gore warned y'all. S10E7 Tsst is FILLER

Every now and then in these posts I feel like I have to explain myself and the fact that I'm excluding iconic episodes of South Park. However based on the feedback I received, everyone seems to get the shtick and I was too anxious, that's why I toned the introduction down. A great Eric episode that's more about telling us the possibilities this character could have, but does not actually have. S10E8 Make Love, Not Warcraft is CANON

Because Randy's role is another turning point in his mid-life crisis, Jenkins will return later and you need an episode that showcases the strength of the four boys' friendship despite all their differences, since you'll see them coming back to it every time after they start growing apart. S10E9 Mystery of the Urinal Deuce is FILLER

Kyle is getting bullied again and this time STAN is the bad guy? Interesting concept, can't say it's important. S10E10 Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy is FILLER

Kyle's brother is getting molested and this time ERIC is the hero? What's up with S10 and these bizarro concepts in its fillers? S10E11 Hell on Earth 2006 is CANON

Not THE most plot-heavy one, but Satan's character development is important to us. S10E12 & S10E13 Go God Go & Go God Go XII are LORE

You don't NEED these for context, however the Garrison arc feels more complete with it. S10E14 Stanley's Cup is FILLER

It's a divisive one for sure and I wouldn't touch it for personal reasons. The one thing you can state is that without it you'll still understand every episode going forward.

SPOILER-FREE RUNDOWN

Again, CANON means you should watch it, FILLER means you can skip it, LORE is somewhere in-between, any episode with the LORE label will have an explanation that helps you decide if you should include it or not. S10E1 The Return of Chef is CANON S10E2 Smug Alert! is FILLER S10E3 & S10E4 Cartoon Wars Part I & II are LORE* S10E5 A Million Little Fibers is FILLER S10E6 ManBearPig is CANON S10E7 Tsst is FILLER S10E8 Make Love, Not Warcraft is CANON S10E9 Mystery of the Urinal Deuce is FILLER S10E10 Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy is FILLER S10E11 Hell on Earth 2006 is CANON S10E12 & S10E13 Go God Go & Go God Go XII are LORE** S10E14 Stanley's Cup is FILLER *If you are interested in banned Muhammad content **If you are invested in Janet Garrison's love life

CANON counter:

S1: 9 out of 13  S2: 3 out of 18  S3: 6 out of 18  S4: 10 out of 17  S5: 8 out of 14  S6: 11 out of 17 S7: 6 out of 15 S8: 4 out of 14 S9: 8 out of 14 S10: 4 out of 14

Overall: 69 out of 154

[galactic-glamour-girl-posts]

And now, an essay about Dot Warner because I have nothing better to do

In the series bible for Animaniacs, Dot is described as:

"everything that all animated female characters have never been"

Was that true at the time?

I think so, and Here's Why

Before I begin, I'd like to mention this is mostly gonna revolve around western animation...and by "western" I mean "not anime". Okay? OK.

Part 1 : Her design

I'll start by comparing Dot's design to the design of many other female animal cartoon characters that came before her, because a lot of them are...not great. For context, Animaniacs (and therefore Dot herself) debuted in 1993. At the time (and after) when it came to animal cartoon characters, guys would often be designed as "the default" or "the norm", and girls would be given extra visual signifiers to make it clear that they are, in fact, girls. Stuff like human-like hair, and/or really long eyelashes, and/or human-like body parts such as hips and breasts so they needed to be fully clothed, and/or smaller noses and mouths than the guys to make them look "cuter", and/or permanent makeup, etc.

Let's take The Chipettes for example:

They barely look like chipmunks! They're basically human girls with chipmunk noses! Their-I guess it's probably fur-looks pale enough to pass as white skin, they have human lips, even human hair. Their hair doesn't even match their "fur" colour, which makes it look like skin even more. I know it's a cartoon, I don't expect them to resemble real chipmunks completely, but I should still be able to recognise them as chipmunks, shouldn't I? Just look at them compared to the boys, it's jarring:

Although at least in their case, both the guys and girls are in full outfits rather than just the girls.

Gadget's probably another one of the best examples (pre-1993) of what I'm talking about (she has human hair and a more human-like body and hence needs a full outfit, meanwhile Chip and Dale do not), but Toodles is also a pretty good example (she has smaller, more human hands than Tom's, permanent makeup, really long eyelashes, and her figure even more human than Tom's). Even if they weren't in full outfits they usually were made to look more human:

Female animals were constantly given more human attributes than the guys, usually just to make them look "prettier". Honestly a lot of female animal characters are still designed this way.

Meanwhile guys can look as cartoony as possible and go around in half-complete outfits no problem, because they were drawn to be funny talking animals, not conventionally attractive human/animal hybrids:

Then in some cases they'd just take one of the pre-existing male characters, add a bow or skirt or eyelashes or something, and BOOM! A "new" character:

Yeah they have no human hair and have cartoony proportions, just like the guys...but they didn't have to make them look just like the guys to do that. I prefer these over the previous examples but...actually creative designs would be nice.

Now let's look at Dot:

See this? This is nice.

She has no human hair (the hair on her head is just more of her fur), no permanent makeup, no eyelashes needed to signify "she's the girl" (she's only drawn with eyelashes for comedic effect or when she's trying to look extra cute), no curves or hips, and isn't fully clothed and goes around with no shirt like Yakko, because she's a funny talking animal and should look like one, not a human girl.

Now let's compare her to her brothers:

She's a different height, has no whiskers, a slightly different head shape, and has longer but not human-like hair. She looks similar enough to look related to them, but she's not just Yakko or Wakko in a skirt.

For this section I'm mostly just talking about animated animal characters, but I also want to mention that even with human characters male leads often were allowed to look round or blocky or basically any body type, and didn't have to look conventionally attractive; but female leads were almost never designed to look as cartoony, and were often drawn to look as conventionally attractive or cute as possible by being given more (even if just slightly) realistic proportions, and were usually of the same body type.

Now, the three human examples I showed aren't actually bad designs. Honestly, on their own, they're good designs! But they're once again showing that there was a clear difference regarding how guys were drawn vs how girls were drawn.

Dot's cute but they don't draw her anymore realistically than they do her brothers nor is her cuteness over-exaggerated by giving her more human attributes than necessary to make her as conventionally pretty as possible. She's anthropomorphic, but no more so than her brothers.

Part 2 : Her personality

Now, there were of female leads before Dot where the tropes I mentioned don't apply and whose designs are unique, like for example Olive Oyl, who's allowed to look wacky (stick thin and not curvy, lanky with noodle arms, circular head, large hands and feet) and Penelope Pussycat, who's allowed to look like an anthropomorphic, but still cartoony cat and not too human. So what I talked about before wasn't the case every time.

But then you have to consider their personalities (or sometimes, lack thereof).

Many animated female leads were flat characters compared to the male leads, often because they fell under cliché tropes.

Some of the most prominent being: the token love interest, the eye candy, the damsel in distress, or the sensible one because "girl", who would often mostly just exist to set up punchlines the male characters would deliver.

Of course this didn't apply to every animated female lead, especially not by the early 90's, but it was still the norm.

Even Babs Bunny, who predates and is similar to Dot whilst being a good character in her own right, falls under the token love interest trope (also her design is basically a pink Buster in bows, although in her case that was intentional given that their "No relation" catchphrase was meant to poke fun at the "male and female love interests look and are even named suspiciously similarly" trope, so for her it works). Basically in some cases they'd just staple these tropes onto decent characters who didn't really need them.

However, Dot doesn't fall under any of these categories. She's the younger sister so obviously she couldn't be a love interest, I just went over the fact that she wasn't designed to be eye candy, just cute but not in an over-exaggerated way, and she wasn't just cute to look appealing. Her cuteness benefited her character; either by the shock value of seeing a cute little girl swear or scare Satan or something like that, or by Dot using her cuteness fool foes (or at least make them look bad). She could hold her own in any situation and although both her and her brothers were captured a few times on the show, they escaped pretty easily each time. The one time she alone got kidnapped she basically saved herself, so I wouldn't count her as a damsel in distress because it never really feels like she's in real danger; the audience knows she's got this.

Most of all, she was definitely not the sensible one of the group. Sure she'd get annoyed when Yakko and Wakko did the Hello Nurse bit, but she was just as bad, and would react the same way whenever she came across a cute guy. She was of course written this way on purpose, she is very bit as wacky and silly and chaotic as her brothers. It didn't matter that she was the "cute one", she would go off-model if it meant she could make a funnier face. She'd gladly join in on tormenting their "special friends", without worrying about if their feelings got hurt or preaching that they should all try to get along. She'd gladly indulge in excessive violence. She'd gladly mess about and wreak havoc just as much as her brothers. I'm all for smart female characters (Dot is smart after all), but in a main group of guys and at least one girl, a girl doesn't have to be the sensible one every time.

It's no secret that Dot was written to be feminine. At the time, characters that were written to be very feminine often were written to fit within gender norms, meaning many were: passive, demure, soft-spoken, gentle, wide-eyed and innocent, and/or sensitive, etc; or at the very least more so than the masculine characters.

But Dot just wasn't any of those things. She was assertive, confident and acerbic, loud and outspoken, often acted more violent and angry then her brothers, witty, is as lustful and dirty-minded as her brothers, and doesn't get her feelings hurt easily and will instead pretend to be extremely upset/hurt for sympathy or for dramatic effect.

Before and around about the time of Dot's debut, if animated female leads were given personalities that broke many gender norms (and that already wasn't too common), they'd usually be tomboys. Now let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with tomboys. They're just as valid as girly girls and deserve to be and should be depicted in a positive light in animation, but this perpetuated the idea that to be tough and/or wacky, you had to be masculine, which just isn't true.

Dot was wacky and tough but still feminine and was by no means a tomboy, and I think that's important! She liked to look pretty, she liked pink and dresses and flowers, but she also made silly faces, liked to play rough and was more than willing to beat the living daylights out of someone who was asking for it.

Female characters in cartoons often either had decent personalities but their designs were lacklustre, or vice versa. Sometimes both their designs and personalities were lacklustre. Sometimes neither was a problem but their character was held back by having some trope forced onto them because "girl". Dot was a (at the time) rare case of none being the case whilst not having to sacrifice her femininity to be wild and strong.

Part 3 : Her role

By 1993, even if a female character had a good and unique design that didn't come with double standards and had a well-written personality that didn't submit to too many gender stereotypes, they were often:

A - An antagonist

I'm not saying these characters aren't bad people, but a lot of the time when we did get a fun female character, she was a villain.

Also (for this next point I'm not really talking about the three examples above), sometimes they were the only female characters in their show/movie/etc to go against gender stereotypes, which just perpetuates the idea that female characters breaking gender norms is wrong.

B - Essentially a clone of a male character

They'd act exactly like one of the male leads with minimal personality differences (those differences usually being more gender stereotypes) between the two, if there were any; again perpetuating the idea you had to be masculine to be wacky and/or tough.

Basically a distaff counterpart, or a half-identical twin, stuff like that.

C - Less important

Even when we did get a well-written, well designed female animated character who didn't fall under tropes associated with gender stereotypes, chances were she'd be a side character, or at the very least perceived as less important than the male leads.

I'll just use one example for this section since it's a lot more broad in terms of scope; Granny from Looney Tunes. She's one of the most well known female Looney Tunes characters, but even she was never really the "star" of the cartoons she was in. They're not called "Sylvester, Tweety, and Granny" cartoons, they're called "Sylvester and Tweety" cartoons. Even the show that was about Granny solving mysteries, what was it called?

But Dot doesn't fall under any of these categories. She's not a side character, she's not even a tritagonist, she's a protagonist. Yakko may have been the leader, but all the Warners acted as a unit and were presented as just important as each other. We call them "Yakko, Wakko and Dot", "The Warner Brothers, and the Warner Sister", etc.

I've already mentioned that's she's not designed as a clone of Yakko or Wakko, but she also had a distinct personality. She was more anger-prone than Yakko, she was wittier than Wakko, and she had a way bigger ego than both of them combined!

Dot's definitely not an antagonist, she wasn't a saint and she may have been chaotic, but you're meant to root for her. The people she and her brothers would go up against in their cartoons were often jerks, bullies, pompous, etc. Meanwhile the Warners had a strong sense of justice and morality. They weren't malicious (to people who didn't bother them at least), they just liked acting silly. When viewers saw Dot unapologetically being herself without conforming completely to how society thinks a cute little girl should act like, they weren't meant to hate her or love to hate her or anything like that, they were just meant to like her and laugh.

Part 4 : Today

There will probably always be room for improvement when it comes to female representation in cartoons, I mean, a lot of the tropes I mentioned are still commonly used (although I must stress that not all of them are inherently bad). However, it's better today than it was back then. We've gotten tons of well designed female leads over the past 30 years with three-dimensional personalities, ones who are gender non-conforming but still heroic, or who are strong but still feminine, or who are allowed to look and act as wacky as the guys on their show (if not more so), you get the idea.

I'm not saying Dot is the first good animated female character (or that her character was handled perfectly in the original Animaniacs-it wasn't), we all know that's not true, but she defied many tropes that so many animated female characters before her fell under, through her design, personality AND role. Notice that a lot of other animated female leads that also do that (both the examples I gave and any extra ones that you can think of) most likely debuted after Dot did.

To be 100% honest, you could argue that, even as of 1993 (or I guess 1991 considering that's when the series bible was written), describing Dot as "everything that all animated female characters have never been" is debatable, but I do think there was some truth to that statement at the time. I can't say for sure that she was a trend setter when it came to how girls in cartoons were handled, but I'll always appreciate the fact that her character turned out the way it did in spite of when she was created.

[peridot-tears]

Quick & Sloppy Analysis of Blue Eye Samurai

Mizu is from a time period before western ideas of gender took hold in Japan. A lot of the discourse around Mizu's gender seems to stem from what people think transgender identity is in a 21st century, western context.

They were born as a woman but had to live as a man. The rub over whether or not this makes them trans seems to come from these two points.

Many people transition because they have always known they were another gender born into a body that does not reflect that gender. If they were forced to live as another gender, that doesn't count as trans.

Many people are transgender because their sex and gender are different. Mizu was physically born in the body of a woman, but functions in society as a man. Regardless of how they came to be, they are, by gender, a man.

Mizu themself did find happiness as a woman, but had it snatched away from her by a man's insecurity over being bested by his wife. Mizu found comfort living as a boy under their Swordfather's care, but felt shame for hiding his true sex from him.

I think these two periods of their life are not about which slot in society they fit in, because obviously they don't fit perfectly in either, but acceptance by the people they choose to love instead. Mizu was forced by filial duty and love for their mother to become a wife, but fell in love with Mikio when he began to accept her as she was -- until he didn't. Master Eiji accepted Mizu as a boy, and raised him as he is. He stopped Mizu from confessing his sex not because he couldn't accept it, but because it didn't matter. The most telling scene to me is when Mizu says that they must be a demon, and Master Eiji tells him, Yes, perhaps they are, but that is only one part of a whole.

The show is social commentary on our expectations for people of certain classes, genders, and racial makeup. One of the biggest themes of this show is about the limits of living as a woman during the Edo Period, and the creators refer to them as "she," as she is based off of their daughter.

But we are free to interpret Mizu's gender as we wish. The whole point of their existence is that there is a question of culture and identity in our modern, globalized age, and instead of a yes or no answer, we are given a whole person and the story of their life in a completely different culture and era to draw our own conclusions.

The debate over Mizu also reminds me a lot of how westerners will point to certain historical figures throughout history as examples of genderqueer identity having always been a thing. Chevalier d'Éon of France and Bíawacheeitchish (Woman Chief) of the Crow Nation come to mind. How they identified may not fit the 21st Century English-language phrases we apply to them, but the idea is still that they lived outside of the social expectations of people born in their bodies.

Sidebar:

Mizu's reveal as someone born into the body of a woman surprised me, actually! As someone who grew up on East Asian media (primarily C-drama and anime and K-pop, with full cultural context for the former but only what I learn from my friends for the latter two), I'm very used to androgynous characters! My whole thought process throughout the first few episodes was, "Wow, they really took C-drama tropes and put them in an American show!"

Even after the reveal, I was like, "Oh, they took the other trope!" where in C-dramas, male characters played by female actresses turn out to be female characters disguised as men in order to roam with more freedom.

This whole show felt like I was watching a C-drama turned into a western cartoon, and because one of the creators is Japanese American, it made me realize how many tropes must've carried over from our Chinese and Japanese storytelling, and our cultures' influence on each other.

[scarlet--wiccan]

Not completely sure how to word this and sorry about it being so long, but do you think a good way of making it make sense that Billy & Tommy are not white but were born to and raised in white families with no concerns about adoption or affairs or anything that both of their families assumed that what’d happened was something like what’d happened with Liam in Shameless US? If you’ve never watched that show, basically Liam was born to Frank and Monica, two white parents, while looking fully black and being played by a fully black actor, and basically they explained how this was possible in-universe by saying that Frank had one black grandfather, and somehow because of that, Liam turned out to look fully black, so basically my idea is that Billy’s & Tommy’s parents each had like one Desi or Romani close ancestor, and they just assumed that they turned out to be brown because of them.

I want to clear up a couple things here-- first of all, Romani people are not desi. The diaspora originated in what is now India and Pakistan, but we are not interchangeable with modern-day Indian or Pakistani natives. Second, that Shameless storyline is weird as hell to me, on several levels, and I would advise you to never compare it to real-- or fictional, for that matter-- mixed-race people or families. I come from a mixed background, and I will admit, genetics are crazy, and you'd be surprised the way features can skip a generation. But casually and retroactively making an entire family of white characters, played by white actors, part Black for laughs is not what I'd call authentic representation.

I actually answered a very similar question a while back, and you can read that here. I recognize that acknowledging Billy and Tommy's heritage and/or depicting them as people of color creates a weird discrepancy, and there's no perfect solution to that. I think if Wanda had been drawn or more commonly recognized as a woman of color back when Young Avengers was written, we probably wouldn't have this problem-- most writers, I hope, would not choose to magically turn characters of color, even babies, into white people.

I do actually think that giving the Kaplan and Shepherd families mixed Romani and Jewish heritage is the easiest solution, but not if you're going to frame it the way Shameless did. I also think it's actually important that Billy and Tommy were not fully aware of this heritage growing up, or that they each arrive at different parts of their identities differently, because that is a real experience within diaspora. Having that experience represented within this family adds to the diversity of the story.

As far as character design goes-- if you assume that their parents are white-presenting, it might be more realistic for the twins to be somewhat lighter or more ambiguous in appearance than Wanda, just to diminish the obvious questions. But these are also magical cartoon characters, and Wanda's canon design is not that dark in the first place. It should be pretty easy to suspend disbelief, especially when we don't see the Kaplans more than once a decade. I've been using edits and recolors to make my point about representation for years, but at the end of the day, I think the look is a lot less important than understanding Roma identity and the historical context these characters exist in.

Additionally, I think that Billy and Tommy's unique situation makes the most sense if you view it as a metaphor for transracial adoption. It doesn't answer the practical questions about their birth or looks, but it is a real experience that maps very closely onto these characters and their identities. For Romani people, in particular, this is a very sensitive part of our history that ties into where the Maximoffs come from and what they've been through. Exploring that experience, even through allegory, adds a lot of depth to the representation these characters provide.

[pool-of-gwens]

the unofficial rules of reading comic books (in my completely unqualified opinion)

1. do not start by reading Alan Moore comics (speaking from experience,, they're good but I would recommend getting used to the medium and understanding the social context of them first)

2. adapt to any new information given and accept that you will likely never fully understand everything

3. you will eventually find that comic writer that you hate with a burning passion (everyone has one) (and if you don't, you will)

4. new 52 fucking sucks (there are a few exceptions)

5. sometimes they will set up a storyline and then drop it

6. you do not need to understand the context of everything you read

7. you do not have to read everything in order

8. most comics have arcs of about 5-6 issues, these will likely come out at trade paperbacks or graphic novels later

9. YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY HAS GRAPHIC NOVELS!!!

10. try not to get stuck, I know it's easy to just read batman or just read marvel comics but please try to branch out or try something new,,,, reading only X-Men is fun and all but sometimes you gotta read some Blue Beetle too

11. other comic fans have different opinions to you, that's fine

12. every single comic has a biggest fan and a biggest hater (this is okay)

13. support your local comic shop/comic fairs

14. comics can be very dumb

15. the biggest difference between Marvel and DC is the name of the publisher

16. most DC writers/artists have written/drawn Marvel comics and most Marvel writers/artists have written/drawn DC comics

17. You should check out other comic publishers like IDW, Archie, Dark Horse or Image,, or even check out local comic makers in your area

18. canon is the things that stay the same when a different person writes a character

19. at some point every comic fan will read these comics, House of M, Watchmen, One of DC's many Crisis Events, a Marvel comic where The Phoenix Ruins Everything, the Comic you Hate Most in the World, Probably Something Written By Stan Lee and The Sandman

20. no one stays dead except Bucky Barnes, Jason Todd and Uncle Ben

21. the nineties in comics were the nineties in comics

22. you must read comics that don't have batman in it (please I'm begging you)

23. your favourite cartoon was likely inspired by comics (or written by) a comic writer

24. someone else has a completely different interpretation of your favourite character (and both interpretations can co-exist) (it is the nature of a medium that has so many creators telling stories about the same characters for details to contradict sometimes)

25. comics are artforms, they tell stories, they can be beautiful and thought provoking and gut wrenching and heart breaking and hopeful (or they can be none of these things)

26. questioning character choices, small details and information given in the comics you read is the first step to analysing and engaging with the material (so you think batman should kill??? now think about why he doesn't.) (you believe magneto is right??? now tell me why he's considered a villain)

27. sometimes it's deeper than you think

28. sometimes it isn't

29. remember the names of the writers and artists you love, too often comic creators are under appreciated

30. Jeff is people too

(feel free to add more)

[nickthetoony]

I've been in a prolonged Star Wars mood recently which has coincided with me getting deep into Gundam so I've been comparing and contrasting their different approaches to similar ideas a lot, and I thought I might as well lay it all out in writing to get it out of my head.

I'm specifically comparing Star Wars to UC Gundam, starting with the original Gundam which for context began airing in 1978, after A New Hope but before Empire Strikes Back. You can see a bit of A New Hope's visual influence in some aspects of Gundam.

Both series prominently feature a laser sword of some description. "Lightsabers" in SW and "Beam Sabers" in Gundam. Other than the obvious difference of Beam Sabers being in scale with 18 meter tall mechs, there's also the difference in that the lightsaber is made out to be an elegant weapon, harkening back to a nostalgic imagining of knights and samurai, before the invention of less honorable firearms with future stories ascribing a deep cultural significance of the lightsaber to the people that made them.

The Gundam Beam Saber is in comparison a very utilitarian tool in a Mobile Suit's arsenal, usually carried right alongside rifles and bazookas. It still invokes a little bit of that knightly image, but the fact that it's usually used as a last resort weapon of desperation hampers the idea of it being a weapon of elegance or honorable combat. In a way they're more like real swords in that they're sidearms you only pull out in a battlefield when all your other options are unavailable.

Another superficial similarity they share is their masked villains, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that Char Aznable was inspired a little bit by Darth Vader. Of course, since Gundam was pre-Empire, when so much of Vader hadn't been established yet and his most notable trait was having a cool costume, the two ended up diverging into wildly different characters.

Char is a pretty young man who uses a mask to cover his identity and Vader is old and scarred and needs the mask to breathe. Vader is the main character's father and Char is completely unrelated to his main character until they meet face to face late in the show. In a way Char is kind of more similar to Kylo Ren being masked pretty boys with daddy issues though again their arcs end up wildly diverging. Kylo and Vader both end up "redeemed" but Char isn't really the kind of character who can or should be redeemed.

Somewhat related to the above, both Gundam and Star Wars have enemy factions who are meant to invoke Nazi Germany. Star Wars' invocation of German fascism (at least in the movies) is a lot more nebulous than Gundam's, communicating this analogy through visual reference to Nazi iconography while leaving the actions of the Empire more broadly as just general cartoon bad guy stuff.

The way Gundam compares the Principality of Zeon and the Nazis is a lot more specific and a lot more direct. The way the Zeon arms race plays out in the original is a direct parallel to the real-life Nazi wunderwaffen projects, where the Third Reich's internal friction and investments in ludicrous super weapons ended up costing them more than they gained, contributing to their eventual defeat. Gundam also takes place in our future (or atleast a future envisioned in 1978) so the real Nazis existed in this world and Hitler is brought up as a direct comparison to the original show's big bad.

(Writing this out, I had the thought that you could draw the same comparison between the Death Star and the wunderwaffen program, but idk if Star Wars itself has ever drawn that comparison.)

Another point of comparison is that both series heavily feature mystical, psychic powers inspired by the spiritualist movements of the day. The Force for Star Wars and Newtypes for Gundam. The Force is cribbing a lot aesthetically from eastern spiritualism while Gundam takes a lot more from the visual ideas of psychedelia.

The Force is far more concrete and straightforward than Newtype-ism. A magic energy field that can be used to perform great feats of power, and which has birthed two established sects of thought that are both treated as ancient. Force users are also clearly demarcated into Good and Evil camps, with specific powers and abilities locked behind a character's individual morality.

Newtypes in Gundam are very different from Sith or Jedi though. Rather than representing an ancient struggle of good vs evil, Newtypes represent a supposed evolution of the human soul, when humanity can communicate to each other psychically in an era where miscommunication is impossible. Supposedly.

Because whereas in Star Wars, the conflict of the Force is one of primordial good and evil, the conflict of the Newtype is one of heightened spiritualist ideas butting up against the mundane reality of different people operating under different and conflicting motivations. There aren't dark or light side Newtypes in the way that Force users are categorized, all of them share the core ability to bridge physical limitations to understand each other on a deep intimate level, but does that matter when their material conditions are inherently at odds? What happens when two people understand each other perfectly and they still have to fight and kill each other?

My last point of comparison is between the two "heroes" of both series. Luke Skywalker and Amuro Ray.

In a way, they're very similar characters. Both start out as young boys living relatively comfortable-if boring lives who are Called To Adventure and eventually awaken to their special powers to become great soldiers of their respective wars. Both are defined by the legacy of their fathers. Both are coming of age stories.

Where I find the comparison between them very interesting is the comparison of Luke at the end of his character arc (in The Last Jedi) and Amuro at the end of his (in Char's Counterattack). Luke in TLJ is a sad disillusioned old man who has failed in his attempt to rebuild the order that had been entrusted to him and who has stagnated into a miserable grandpa. For many longtime fans of the character this was a shock, and apparently for a lot of people felt like a disappointing betrayal. Because Luke was the Hero of The Rebellion, the Return of The Jedi. He was brave, and true, and more than just a normal man. So to see him so impotent felt wrong for many people.

I find it interesting that Amuro (subtler than Luke) also ends up in a similar spot, but in a way that feels far more appropriate to his character and to the tone of the narrative.

Because Amuro was not a hero. He was a child forced to become a soldier far younger than he should've been. Pressured by the dire, apocalyptic world surrounding him and the societal pressures of masculinity that hound him. Luke's inheritance from his father was a Lightsaber. A weapon of a great shining order which eventually was mutated by the Disney movies into a sort of Excalibur wielded only by the worthy virtuous heroes. Amuro's inheritance was the Gundam, the Devil's Machine, the first in a long line of military weapons, the image of which would haunt him for the rest of his tragically short life.

Amuro had at one point been a war hero, then a rebel fighting against the corrupt and self-interested Federation that had eagerly turned him into a human weapon. But his childhood of violence eventually left him no choice but to be subsumed into the military hierarchy he had at one point attempted to break free of. In terms of combat skill, Amuro was the best of the best by the end of his arc, but he had failed in every other regard. His Newtype abilities, once seen as a gateway to a future without misunderstandings, were now honed for violence. His final words ones of dumb confusion as he failed to understand the feelings of his enemy.

Luke gets the benefit of a Rey. The ability to once again become heroic and good and brave, to inhabit the comforting role of a gallant knight. And this step in his characterization is still met with confused hostility by most viewers. Amuro does not receive a similar luxury. He dies young and suddenly, with only the suggestion that his actions will eventually make things better, but it feels right with his character even for how unsatisfying it is.

Again, I don't know if I really have a coherent point with this post. Apologies if you've read this far and felt like I have wasted your time. For now, I think my main conclusion is that it's interesting to see how two different kinds of science fiction (heroic science-fantasy VS military sci-fi) approach similar ideas. I think the reason Luke's arc in TLJ fails for many is that the story of the original trilogy was fundamentally unfit to handle it. It's tacking on an unsatisfying tragedy onto a conventional, simple Hero's Journey rather than building on the foundation of societal critique the way Gundam does with Amuro.

Anyway. Bye.

[hellpupp]

if i could convince all my friends, loved ones, and acquaintances to listen to One(1) piece of media that was formative for me, it would be Juno Steel and the Monster's Reflection parts 1-3.

it won't hit as hard without the context of the series up until that point, but it's still such a profound exploration of generational trauma, cycles of abuse, PTSD, and the ways we can understand the ones who hurt us as being complex individuals with a rich interior life. it even touches on how our memories are reshaped (sometimes even completely overwritten or erased) by the trauma we associate with them.

it forces us to grapple with the fact that most abusers aren't 2D cartoon villains who hurt others Because They're Evil- they usually had reasons for their behavior, but it does NOT try to say the existence of an explanation for their behavior absolves them of responsibility for it, nor does it try to say you have to forgive them.

i once saw someone tear the episodes to shreds bc they "humanized an abuser" and i've never seen someone look so directly at the point of a story & somehow completely miss it.

i've listened to the entire 3 part story probably 6 or more times, at least, and it's deeply emotionally impactful every time. it's been hugely cathartic.

anyway, if reading this makes you want to give the episodes a listen, here's a link:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

PLEASE take the time to read over the content warnings.

if you'd like a very brief summary of the most important previous plot points the episodes touch on, so that you have a better understanding of the circumstances, check below the cut:

early in the series, the titular character, Juno Steel, reveals that he had an identical twin brother (named Benzaiten) who died many years ago.

juno almost never brings up his mother, but it's clear that they had a VERY bad relationship. it's implied early on that she may have tried to kill juno, once, & that she was somehow involved in benten's death. juno also blames himself for ben's death.

juno struggles with severe depression, low self-worth, and persistent passive suicidal ideation. he tends to self-sabotage his relationships, and attaches most of his self-worth to his ability to stop crime & Catch The Bad Guys. the likely reasons for this are revealed here.

in a previous season, in order to keep it out of the hands of a dangerous criminal, juno took an experimental drug which caused him to grow an organ that an extinct alien race once used to communicate telepathically. he overtaxes the organ, causing it to rupture inside of his body. because it had attached to his optical nerve, the rupture also destroyed his eye.

juno's main employer in this arc, ramses o'flaherty, "generously" supplied him with a highly advanced, experimental prototype cybernetic eye, called the "Theia Spectrum." it comes with an AI which can help juno do all sorts of neat stuff- he later finds out it also allows ramses to see whatever he sees, and to override juno's nervous system if he does something ramses doesn't want him to.

the eye can't be removed through conventional surgical methods, due to the fact that it's become closely entwined with his own nervous system. in the previous episode, juno has finished a job for a different employer (buddy aurinko), in exchange for being taken to a clinic that supposedly has methods to remove this kind of prosthetic safely. the first episode of Monster's Reflection opens on juno's arrival to the secret clinic, alongside the escort buddy has sent with him ("big guy")

[talenlee]

How To Be: Jason Vorhees (From Multiversus) (In 4e D&D)

In How To Be we’re going to look at a variety of characters from Not D&D and conceptualise how you might go about making a version of that character in the form of D&D that matters on this blog, D&D 4th Edition. Our guidelines are as follows:

This is going to be a brief rundown of ways to make a character that ‘feels’ like the source character

This isn’t meant to be comprehensive or authoritative but as a creative exercise

While not every character can work immediately out of the box, the aim is to make sure they have a character ‘feel’ as soon as possible

The character has to have the ‘feeling’ of the character by at least midway through Heroic

When building characters in 4th Edition it’s worth remembering that there are a lot of different ways to do the same basic thing. This isn’t going to be comprehensive, or even particularly fleshed out, and instead give you some places to start when you want to make something.

Another thing to remember is that 4e characters tend to be more about collected interactions of groups of things – it’s not that you get a build with specific rules about what you have to take, and when, and why, like you’re lockpicking your way through a design in the hopes of getting an overlap eventually. Character building is about packages, not programs, and we’ll talk about some packages and reference them going forwards.

Heavy breathing.

More heavy breathing.

No actual words.

Just even more heavy breathing.

Aiiiiiiiieeeeeee!

Jason, In Summary

I’ve never watched a Jason Vorhees movie, which is fine, because it doesn’t matter. He is a big scary weirdo in a mask, from a series of slasher movies, which is why he’s got a cartoony monster man version in a videogame that’s about having goofy fun fights between your Adventure Time and Scooby Doo action figures.

Hm.

Anyway, setting aside the fundamental weirdness at the heart of our brand-driven society that has resulted in the House of Zaslav material known now as Best Relaunched Game Ever, Multiversus, it’s an opportunity to see an existing character reinterpreted in a still-threatening but gentler representation in a funny cartoon fight-game narrative. It’s a way to do a slasher movie monster, but it doesn’t involve a big budget for wet materials.

Jason Vorhees is Some Guy, possibly a zombie, possibly a curse, who died (or didn’t) at a summer camp, and then spent his time hunting and killing campers at the same camp, which didn’t somehow completely shut down that camp, or whatever, which I am sure, if you ask me to watch those movies, I will blame on capitalism. Point is that Jason Vorhees is a force of nature, a murder beast that walks like a man and serves as a sort of genre centrepoint for ‘slasher movie monster mans,’ along with Michael Myers, is a vague outline of an identity. That gives us negative space to work with making this kind of character, which is pretty good:

Jason is big, so probably not a Halfling or Goblin or Kobold

Jason is tough, so probably a defender

Jason hits people in melee with a knife or axe or some other suitably nasty weapon that kills them, because…

Jason is very strong

The Prequels

Now, with that outlaid as our negative space, it’s time to look at the vibes that Jason puts out.

Option 1 is that he’s a big tough guy and he’s scary because he’s very strong. This is the simplest version of who he is, just a big asshole who kills people. What makes him scary in his context is that he’s a grown adult and he’s hunting children. The idea of just outscaling and out-threatening your opponents is a fine place to start. Option 2 is that he’s the kind of spooky monster guy who teleports around and appears around people just in time to murderlate them. And then there’s option 3, which is more a conversation about the horror story attached to a person, a kind of magical ideal that is why he can go to space and drown people in liquid oxygen.

Something about all of these builds that you’re going to have to grapple with for your own choices is the way that Jason is a character with almost nothing going on. There’s room to interpret stuff, but Jason as a person has no hobbies, no personal interests, maybe some modest trauma, but nothing that you could meaningfully consider as a personality that informs other interests and skills.

I can think of a few things that kind of ‘work’ for his secondary interests – the places you build the skills out of – where he could be seen as some kind of woodsman or hunter, someone who spends a lot of time in the outback foraging for food (if he needs it) and hanging out with animals. I could imagine a sort of Ranger package there, which gives a modest direction for the types of builds he could have.

Most importantly, you want to remember, you’re going to be playing a character inspired by Jason. Jason Vorhees is a cipher of a character, a bad consequence that happens to people, and you can work with that, you can happen to people. What you don’t want to do though is create a character who can’t do anything but happen to people. You need to be able to hold a conversation, you need to be able to engage with people, and you need to have something to do when you’re not killing people. The bulk of the game engine handles combat; you need to make sure you’re handling everything else.

Class is going to inform a lot of that!

Build 1 – Fighter

If you want to focus on the ‘scary dude’ element.

Good news: This works out of the box. Big weapon, heavy armour, move like a slightly threatening brick and just make sure to close on people and mess them up. Jason as exists kinda already works like a fighter in combat in that he’s not subtle or stealthy, he’s not prone to demonstrating any kind of wit or cunning in how he sneaks up on people. He just appears where people aren’t expecting and messes them up, which is, largely, pretty easy when he’s hunting down people who are, for lack of a better term, pretty stupid.

Decent, it’ll do.

Build 2 – Knight

If you want to focus on the teleportation.

That Jason teleports seems to be an interesting byproduct of a medium shift. When you’re dealing with a movie, you can always just use cuts or body doubles to make someone capable of moving too fast for an actual human body to transfer. This is a way that movies play with time, where a character can sneak up on someone while a moment is held for longer than that movie even existed – a character can be paralysed in place looking at a corpse and the actual time that takes is much shorter.

But as an effect of that, Jason is represented as teleporting around. Teleporting is a thing you can either do really easily in D&D 4e or it’s hard to get your hands on. For example, if you only want to teleport at all you can take a Tiefling, at level 10 take the feat Secrets of Belial, and then use that to take Ethereal Sidestep. That’s an at-will move-action teleport, and you can use items like Eladrin Armour, Gloves of Dimensional Repulsion, or an Eladrin Ring of Passage to turn teleport 1 to teleport 5. This means that almost anyone can be a fairly fast-moving teleporter.

That’s okay, and it’s neat for ways to use teleportation, and we’ve talked about teleportation at length when we talked about Dishonored’s characters. Thing with that is that’s an enormous amount of effort and when you build the whole character around them. It also makes it hard to be a Defender.

Here’s the much, much simpler build: Take a knight. Get your first magical weapon as a Staff of the Traveller. Beat people with this magic axe-handle. Take the Hammer-Hands stance, and then every time you whallop someone you get to kick them a square (which trust me, you’ll be able to do more with it as you level up) and then teleport next to where they land.

The Knight is never the best option for anything but it is simple and if what you want is a character who is simple and spends their time hitting people with a stick, teleporting into people’s spaces and beating them to death with a big weapon you hold in two hands like a quarterstaff, then this build is a place to start.

Build 3 – Paladin

If you want to focus on the scary story.

For me, I think the most interesting idea in the space of ‘Basically Jason Vorhees,’ is the idea of a character who has this fearsome ghost story attached to them. Jason wears a mask, there’s a way to make that kind of thing a sort of transforming character – that normally, you’re dealing with a Paladin who’s travelling around with a ghostly monster story attached to them. They don the mask, they let the devil out, and the player can create a strict, hard binary between their terrible slasher monster side and their Actually Able To Buy A Packet Of Chips side.

I think this idea is the coolest way to play with Jason Vorhees in a way that lets you play a character who is functional and normal, and even maybe doesn’t betray the scary elements of the character, then have that horror element burst free once the character commits to action. If you want a tank type that works on pursuit based mechanics, this is a rare chance to take the out-the-box Player’s Handbook Paladin and lean in to Combat Challenge.

Divine Challenge is normally a problem for tank types. It requires you to spend your turns closing on your enemy. Since the Paladin is also given heavy armour options, there’s this tension where a Paladin may be stuck spending chunks of turn trying to chase someone down in the battle that they’re not able to catch up with. That tension point needs to be resolved for a Paladin Jason: you need to find a way to make your character tough and able to absorb damage, you need to make sure they’re mobile enough to chase enemies, and you need to make sure that your enemy violating your challenge has a reason to care about it.

For being tough without armour, I recommend Virtue. Virtue is bonkers. If Virtue was a level 6 utility power, I would say ‘yeah, that seems about right.’ Virtue is a well-established and very well-loved Paladin utility power, which rewards you for bolstering the size of your healing surges to give yourself a huge chunk of temporary hit points. Amplifying Virtue could be an essay unto itself, but for quick and dirty builds that want to fire it off and walk around with a huge pile of hit points protecting them, check out the Amulet Of Life. The Amulet of Life means that when you fire Virtue, you can spend two surges and get temporary hit points equal to half your starting hit points, which is not a small amount.

You also need a good Charisma, to make Divine Challenge worth having. As a strength-based Paladin, you have the opportunity to take Mighty Challenge, which means your Jason will focus on one attacking stat and do more damage when they violate the Challenge.

Finally, one of the best ways to at a low level amplify your mobility and damage in conjunction when you need to chase an opponent down, you need to make sure you can charge. That suggests Ardent Strike or Virtuous Strike as one of your at-will attacks.

Now, if you’re at all familiar with how Paladins work, you might realise that this whole conjunction involves picking up one feat, one utility power, and one at-will power, and that holds together all the elements we need to make this Jason build work. The thing is, there’s other stuff Paladins do well, like the great big hit Blood of the Mighty, a notorious hard hitting melee attack that with a little help lets you spike an enemy out of existence in the low levels, like, again, a slasher villain.

This build makes very few demands out of just ‘melee Paladin,’ and the only real thing you miss is that you’re building for Strength, Healing Surges, and without heavy armour. These things are not hard to ask for, they are not unreasonable choices to make, and if you stick within this framework it isn’t going to be hard to continue making your Jason a bigger and scarier threat.

Oh, weapon wise? I recommend going for the hatchet, a woodcutter’s axe just sitting on the back of your travelling paladin, a weapon they ask people to don’t touch that, please. Carry around a defending weapon as your ‘real’ weapon, and you get a shield and a weapon!

Junk Drawer

I swear I cannot actually generate any kind of excuse to make a druid build for this guy. Most of the things you can do to make Jason feel more appropriate to the Multiversus build involve dual wielding, hybrid builds or multiclassing.

Conclusion

There’s nothing that complicated about what Jason is or wants to be, if you’re willing to consider what it is you really want out of the Weirdo In A Mask. Try and do it all, and you’re going to struggle doing any of them. But if you pick the thing that matters to you, you can focus a build around a thing easily and get a lot of options for what you do with the rest of the characters.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[entropyvoid]

Lately I’ve been rewatching a lot of cartoons that I loved to watch growing up (Invader Zim, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, etc.) and like, I was kind of already aware of the fact that slapstick has become less and less popular in the last 10-20 years or so, but it didn’t really hit me just how common it used to be? And, I feel like that’s kinda happened in part due to a shift away from making single bite-sized episodes that can exist in a vacuum and towards making more shows with a continuous story. Which, don’t get me wrong - I love shows like that too, but these kinds of shows typically want their audiences to take them a bit more seriously, and because of that, they tend to stay away from slapstick for the most part and lean on other forms of humor.

But like, then I went to go watch Digital Circus, and it dawned on me that I don’t think I’d literally ever seen anyone attempt to utilize cartoon slapstick in 3D media before. (At least like, in a show, because I’d argue that’s what TF2 animations and a lotta what you can make from Gmod are, and it’s what clips of accidental glitches become, but those are primarily quick, one-off videos of people dicking around.) But, Digital Circus does it beautifully, blending more classic components of 2D slapstick with the broken jank of misbehaving 3D glitches, and in a continual episodic context where there are no shortage of serious moments. The slapstick does, of course, increase with the sillier scenes, but it’s not completely absent from the ones that aren’t either. It’s just utilized differently - it exists as an inherent part of the world’s cartoon logic, of the physical reality and bodies that the characters inhabit. But it exists separately from their emotions, so it doesn’t detract from what’s happening.

For a long time the goal of 3D animation was to make it look as smooth and polished as possible - and in a lot of cases it’s still treated that way. And, for the record, the animation in Digital Circus is extremely well-polished, it wouldn’t really be able to play around with these things if it wasn’t. But looking at, say, recent Disney 3D animated movies and shows - which unfortunately set the industry standard - the animation is so clean it feels sanitized, if not downright lifeless, empty, and devoid of personality. Because a lot of the time it’s not a creative choice that’s consciously made so much as an expectation that restricts 3D animators from actually exploring and doing anything creative with their medium.

Anyway I don’t have the most coherent point but I hope people take inspiration from Digital Circus’ animation

[dokidokitsuna]

[If you haven't finished the Magolor Epilouge in rtdldx and don't want to be spoiled ignore this]

Still can’t believe Magolor built an amusement park with our money from (super) Kirby clash deluxe.

What are your thoughts on the ending of Magolor Epilouge?

Uh, well, I'm probably the worst person to ask, because I had no idea what was going on for most of it. ⚆u⚆; After the Fruit Fragments combined together, I was totally lost, and stayed that way until the credits finished rolling (this isn't a criticism; I'm just generally unobservant when it comes to media ^^;;;).

But after scouring the wiki for info and seeing what other people had to say about it...my feelings are kinda mixed. :T

On the one hand, I did enjoy the neat 'n tidy plot resolution of Magolor regaining all his power and being the one to defeat the Master Crown once and for all...up to that point, I thought of the Magolor Epilogue as potentially a purely symbolic journey: like you could interpret it as his process of thinking over what he did to Kirb & co. (literally fighting against all the enemies he tricked them into facing) and breaking free from the MC's control (perceiving the Crown as a gigantic all-consuming monster and destroying it by his own hand)...all presented in the form of a cute little interactive adventure. ^^

And then Shopkeeper Magolor showed up at the last second and I was like "........................"

And now, apparently what I was supposed to have understood from it was that (a) all of that was definitely real, and (b) the different Magolors throughout the series are all the same one, existing in different dimensions at different points in his life. Original Mago -> Shopkeep Mago -> Manager Mago.

There's nothing really wrong with that idea; even if Magolor is the only Kirby character to whom this logic applies, that's still fine. :T What bugs me personally is that I feel like it's a bit of a...genre shift, for lack of a better term.

Like, up till now I perceived the Kirby series as a cartoony thing operating on cartoon logic. Like, why do half a dozen former badguys randomly show up as playable characters for Star Allies?? Because it's fun. ^^ It's fun for them to be with us again and to use their abilities in a new context; at the end of the day that's really all there is to it.

But with a thing like this, that's not the case anymore...and it definitely feels more limiting. Like, we still haven't been told the whole story as usual, but now we have too much information to just use cartoon logic to handwave things.

For instance, speaking of Star Allies: who is Star Allies Magolor?? Was that the penultimate Manager Magolor; or was that a 'fork' Magolor that diverged from the original, but came back to Dream Land instead of going to the Dream Kingdom? Or are we supposed to assume that he's the one 'fun' Magolor that doesn't actually exist in the series' canon??

Or did I misunderstand the connection between the three Magolors, and they're all basically AU mirrors of each other, with Shopkeeper Magolor just happening to have the same backstory as the original one? So then Magolor Epilogue would be specifically his backstory, original Magolor's fate is still up to interpretation since the ending we saw wasn't his, and Manager Magolor is just a completely different entity (so rather than being the penultimate plot-related Magolor, he's more like the ultimate 'fun' Magolor who merely embodies the character concept)???

...I'm not gonna lose any sleep over what the right answer is; and if the Kirby series stays true to its roots it probably won't matter that much in the long run (or they'll just tell us outright whenever it becomes necessary). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But the fact remains that this feels more like confusion than free space for theorizing...like I said, it's like we've been given just a little too much information...

[gimblestank-the-goblin]

Across the Spider-Verse and Canon Events

Warning: Spoilers for the entirety of the new spider-verse film.

Into the Spider-verse’s plot is a brilliant commentary on the nature of superhero AU’s and the comic industry’s tendency towards retelling the same stories ad nauseum, and to explain why we need to look at both the plot of the movie and the words they use to describe that plot.

The plot of Across the Spider-verse (ATSV) is actually pretty standard. Its one we’ve seen a million times. Certain events have to happen or else something terrible will happen. Its just that in most of these types of movies the reason these events have to happen is fate, or destiny or time travel shenanigans. The hero changed the past and now they have to go back and undo that mistake to stop a “bad timeline” or whatever.

But in ATSV its not fate, its canon. And the events that the Spider-organization is seeking to ensure are the major plotbeats and storylines that define the character of Spiderman. Uncle Ben dies. Gwen Stacy dies. Spider-man lifts the rubble. These are the classic, iconic events of Spiderman’s story. The ones told and retold across a hundred different reboots, continuities and alternate universes.

And if these don’t happen, ATSV posits, the universe will be destroyed. In Spider-Gwen’s universe, Captain Stacy and Peter Parker have to die. She has to lift the rubble. Or else the world ends.

Except, that’s not true (if it was, Gwen’s father wouldn’t have quite the police and Miles wouldn’t be the main character of the movie).

Because those events don’t have to happen for the world to exist.

And that is really interesting in the context of reboots, AU’s, etc. Because in the real world, these events always happen. These are the events the reader’s want. When a reader opens up a Spiderman reboot they aren’t looking for a completely original story. They’re looking for these events. The greatest hits of a story that’s been running since 1962 edited down to perfection. Everything iconic, everything that works kept, and the rest jettisoned or retooled.

And it doesn’t matter what form of reboot the story is. If you’re watching a Spiderman cartoon, this is what you are going to get. Reading a comic where Spider-man is a robot? Same beats, just with a twist.

Because if these things don’t happen… well there’s a risk the fans might not like that. The story might not be good (and we know the original story is good, we’ve been telling it since 1962). And if its not good? Well then its stops getting made. The story ends. The universe ends.

And so every AU plays it safe and tells the same stories.  

Except for Miles Morales. His story was never a reboot, or a retcon or an AU. It was a continuation. Ultimate Spiderman had already done the “greatest hits of Spiderman” before Miles Morales stepped onto the page. And that meant it was free to tell its own story.

And that story was great. So great that it survived the destruction of its own universe and Miles Morales got added to the “main” 616 continuity.

Miles Morales, in his comics, in real life, and in the movie is living proof that reboots can take risks and tell their own stories. The world won’t end. The readers will still read. The audience will still watch.

The world will go on.

So take risks. Tell your own story.

You don’t need to be caught in a web made up of 61 years of canon.