#and family always has conflicts of morals and interests

[meadowsofmay]

so, i am one film in of my the hobbit re-watch and it's interesting how they portrayed each dwarf visually. there's quite an amount of fighting which showcases us the way they act: who's the fighter and who's the carer, who's the leader and who's the follower, who's the mind and who's the brutal force. but — their appearance does tell a huge part of the untold story about who they are and what are their roles in the company.

while re-watching 'an unexpected journey' i had an opportunity to pay closer attention to fili and kili:

and if i still didn't know a single thing about them aside basics and was asked «who's going to be the next king?», i'd say fili without hesitation, based only on the visual.

fili is put together. he might even seem to be somewhat arrogant with his facial expressions. and visual implications of him being the mature one are in his braids, his still growing beard but already braided mustache.

in comparison to kili — fili has a little bit of the weight that the age brings on him.

one of the reasons why we might sympathise alot with kili is because kili feels young. his appearance screams that he is the youngest: long unbraided/barely braided hair and those bangs, strands of hair over his face in a way to make it look rounder and cuter. we see kili act impulsively, him being all over the place with attachement and trust, him being childishly loud and stupidly brave. and his appearance really makes sense of that.

the relationships between durin's are also quite interesting to look at:

the thing with fili is not just him being the oldest of the brothers, for also because he is prepared/taught to be mature one. we hear it quickly in action during the departure from laketown but richard also said in the appendices that thorin prepares fili to be the next to the throne. and i think, he used the word «groomed» which might mean that they're at the beginning of the process that is not exactly wanted by one of the sides. hence, why i am using «prepared/taught to» — fili is still young and dumb at times but he is ahead of kili on the ride of growing up. because he has to. he is, again, more put together but he has alot of weaponry that he carries on him in order to be prepared for any sort of fight. he learns skills and hence the reason he still has huge assignment of blades to chose from.

fili is also less confrontational with thorin. kill is really open and honest about his feelings towards thorin's actions, for example in the scenes where thorin is unfair to bilbo. seems like kili really did get attached to the hobbit and was not shy to be judgemental.

also desperate for he is still young and doesn't really understand the meaning of calculated decisions and compromises.

fili usually keeps to the side, be it because he observes, has less confrontational character or just knows not to interfere when thorin gets moody. when kili jokes on bilbo — fili just plays along. when thorin starts to berate them it's kili who's ashamed but fili is just there. he is so done with thorin, it seems, he doesn't have it in him to react.

observing kili's behavior we can say that kili looks up to thorin in a more sincere, childish way. thorin is the hero of his childhood dreams, for he is the dwarf who took up on the role of his father while juggling all of his other duties. kili wants to impress thorin, wants to be good for him too, it shows in a way he jumps into fights hot-headed. and he is often ashamed when he disappoints him.

fili, on the other hand, just does what thorin says because he knows thorin will want of him exactly that. he learned a lot from and of thorin, he knows how to operate under his command. in a way, he might start to see thorin more as a leader rather than a father figure.

and it might be for another post but we see fili get openly confrontational only in 'the desolation of smaug' and only because kili is in danger. no matter how important it is for thorin to raise a king out of him, fili is still going to put his brother first.

he protests:

first time is when thorin rushes everyone on the river bank while kili needs healer's attention because of his leg.

second time — when thorin wants fili to go with them to erebor and fili choses to stay in laketown with kili who's gotten worse. thorin needs fili there with them because he is the next in line. fili's priorities lie with his brother. and that's probably the most loud conflict fili had with thorin in the whole trilogy. that was the conflict of interests.

the most loud conflict kili had with thorin, though, is in 'the battle of the five armies' when he finally had enough of thorin hiding behind a wall while the rest are dying for them. he almost lost respect for thorin and that was his last attempt to bring him to his senses because this thorin was not his childhood hero, was not the person he looks up to and the matter at hand wasn't just his foul character. it was the conflict of morals.

and i find that beautiful.

[avelera]

I don't think Jayce was ever the one who was against Hextech weapons. I think that was always Viktor's side of the partnership, and I think this for a few reasons:

1 ) Jayce comes from a family of tool makers. Weapons are tools. Jayce's earliest drawings of himself as a mage is him holding a magical hammer. I don't think Jayce set out to make magical weapons but I think he was always open to the idea as that drawing shows us.

2 ) Viktor comes from the undercity, which no matter how you look at when he would have left it for Piltover, was often damaged and harassed by armed Enforcers. Just based on his upbringing, Viktor would be very aware of the fact that any weapons made for Piltover will almost certainly be put in the hands of Enforcers and those will be used against people in the undercity. Jayce does not have this social awareness. I don't think Jayce was at all malicious, just naive,. According to Caitlyn, he had zero political interest before becoming a Councilor and really everything he knew or thought about the undercity came from his partnership and love for Viktor.

3 ) Jayce is genuinely torn on the need for Hextech weapons because again, this isn't a deeply held belief for him in S1, this is him being supportive of Viktor's vision for their shared dream.

Jayce let Viktor be the moral guide for something he didn't really have a strong feeling about one way or the other. This is why he's so torn in S1 when it seems like they might actually need Hextech weapons in Piltover to survive against a Shimmer-armed undercity (in a classic theme of arms race escalation and all it entails that permeates the show). The narrative demonstrates though that this is Jayce's naiveté at play to think the weapons could be used only against their intended targets. Weapons once made will always be used, including against children. Viktor already has this awareness that weapons will be used against the undercity, Jayce gains it through the attack on the Shimmer factory and the death of a child bystander who looks like Viktor. To Mel's credit, she also urges caution and backpedals on her own desire for Hextech weapons in a bid to deescalate the conflict.

4 ) In S2 Act 1, Jayce is all-in on Viktor's vision for Hextech, because he's mourning Viktor who is non-responsive in the Hex cocoon and close to death. Mel, who in 1.09 realized that Jayce and Piltover matter more to her than her mother's approval, also stands up against Hextech weapons.

5 ) But, and this is critical, Jayce has always fundamentally seen Hextech as a tool that can be used for many purposes. That's why when the situation escalates, he pushes back on Hextech weapons on a broader scale, but he is willing to bend enough to make weapons for Caitlyn and her strike team, because he loves Caitlyn and he sees this as a defensive tool to keep her safe, in my opinion, and as an alternative to a war that would be worse.

This is critical to note because Jayce doesn't have an iron spine when it comes to resisting Hextech weapons because it's not his deeply held philosophical belief the way it is for Viktor. It is a received belief that he holds to honor Viktor, out of love for him, and that can be swayed if the specter of protecting another loved one arises. Jayce is wildly conflicted about this, I believe, based on his expression in the forge after he makes Caitlyn's gun, but this is a man who cannot bear the thought of losing another loved one after everything he has gone through.

Hextech was always about love for Jayce, not philosophy, because he is not ideologically driven and never has been, it was always Viktor's ideals he was supporting and he would never fight as hard on that point as Viktor would as a result.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk ;P

[kitsu-katsu]

Honestly I've never had a bigger want to become a movie director than when thinking about making a Frankenstein adaptation THAT ACTUALLY KEEPS EVERYTHING INTERESTING ABOUT THE SOURCE MATERIAL

I daydream about this

I NEED an adaptation that actually goes into it. Show the fucked up family stuff while Victor narrates it aa idyllic, SHOW VICTOR BEING 19-21 WHILE MAKING THE CREATURE, show the Creature learning to speak from the Delaceys, show his worldview being entirely shaped by paradise lost and the ONE romantic relationship he saw giving him the bride idea, show Victor being ill, disabled, traumatized, go into his internal conflict, show the fucked up nature of Justine's trial, how Victor becomes more aware that he'll be perceived as crazy if he speaks up every second of it, how the law is corrupt and sentences by a judge can have been coerced and say nothing about the moral standing of the victim, especially when also bringing religion into the mix, how the law continues to be fucked when Victor is jailed after Henry's death, a shell of a man he used to be, and taken out by his father because he has influence, show Victor's bond with Henry, with Elizabeth, explore the messy and disturbing relationship of Victor and Elizabeth where they always saw each other as siblings but were also promised to one another by Caroline ever since Elizabeth arrived, how Caroline manipulated Elizabeth to basically relive her own trauma, how her dying wish left them tied into something that neither of them expresses real want for in the whole book

THERE'S SO FUCKING MUCH

[twilightkitkat]

Thinking about the role of the "love interest" in superhero media and how poolverine subverts this.

The "love interest" in most movies is just a placeholder. Boring. Tame, Predictable.

This is especially true in action media, wherein romance takes a backseat and is often seen as an add-on rather than a main plot point. Romance is either a source of conflict or motivation that serves to drive a character arc forward, but no more or less.

Take, for example, Vanessa. I love her character. Her personality and character are fascinating. However, especially in Deadpool 2 and 3, she serves more as a device to move the plot forward rather than a genuine character. The first movie established her character and importance, so it's understandable why Wade chose to hide his identity and how he slowly came to terms with his new identity. She helped move his character arc of self-acceptance forward, yes, but she also existed as her own entity.

In the movies after this, she isn't treated with the same care. She's used as a central motivation in Deadpool 2, a force that drives Wade to save Russel and confront Cable when his character motivations aren't easily tied to morals. However, that's it. She isn't fighting alongside him or given the same treatment as the other important "family" characters. In Deadpool 3, she's treated with even less care, only having short scenes at the beginning and end of the movie to give Wade a representation of "home."

This isn't to say Vanessa isn't an important character and shouldn't be treated as such. However, the purpose of having a "love interest" in an action movie's plot isn't just to have someone to love. It's almost always to have someone who can be kidnapped or killed to spring the main character into action. It's someone who fades to the sidelines so the main character can show off while showcasing their relationship success.

Consider this: in all of the Marvel comic universes, Deadpool and Wolverine have had many different partners. Different names, different faces. It's common for the "love interest" of a superhero to be seen as an accessory that changes shape depending on the comic artist or franchise. After all, they don't need a cohesive identity to serve their purpose as a "general, digestible reason for the main character to act."

Everyone understands how love can cause people to do crazy things. There is no further elaboration needed, even for morally grey or black characters. It's an easy way to make an understandable motive for the audience. Suspension of disbelief.

And yet, the superheroes remain the same. They get to keep their identity throughout different media. It's always Wolverine and Deadpool. Logan and Wade. Even if they have slightly different plotlines, their core characteristics and intrinsic identity are constant.

Logan could have Jean Gray. Or Mariko. Or Silver Fox. He can have anyone play the role of "love interest," a role that can be shapen by a ball of clay and changed entirely to fit the narrative.

But his "rival" and "best friend" in the multiverse will always be Deadpool. They're notorious for being referenced in each other's media. For fighting. For working together. They are A Set.

This is why I'm so much more drawn to Poolverine than other ships. Wade has different love interests depending on the media type. So does Logan. I can't tie in knowledge from different interpretations into the romance because the love interests are fluid. But with each other, they interact in almost every universe. Have a consistent bond. A "standard." They're soulmates, in a way, forever destined to meet and be important to each other.

This is setting aside how female love interests are treated in male-oriented media in general. They're normally seen as someone to be protected, to stay at home, and welcome back the hero when they return. Some are allowed to be strong, to have abilities, but rarely ever do they stand on equal footing with the male main character. Not where it matters.

This is exhibited in both Wolverine and Deadpool's movies. Vanessa is introduced as a "badass," someone who's part of the underworld and knows how to fight, yet she's often placed in the damsel in distress position. She could match Wade before his mutation, maybe, but after he dons the mask and becomes Deadpool, his work is over her pay grade. The same happens with Mariko in the Wolverine movie: she's initially introduced as someone who can fight, but Logan ends up protecting her almost entirely and is responsible for rescuing her from her kidnapping at the end.

It creates an emotional rift between the side of the "hero" and the side of the "love interest," because it feels like they aren't fighting together for the same cause. It feels like the love interest is treated more as a "reward" for the hero to come back to after saving the world rather than a person.

When the entire movie follows the perspective of the main character as they fight, and action scenes are primarily used to invoke emotion, it feels lackluster to have the love interest stay at home. The most intense moments of emotional connection are typically portrayed between the hero and someone else who understands their suffering who they're trying to reach, such as a villain or rival or friend.

Love interests are never on the same "playing field" as the main character and thus can't relate to their struggle. The director tells the audience that they should be happy or sad when a love interest is on screen, but they don't show the same level of emotional depth when the main point of an action movie is action. The entire premise of the main character is action, and yet the love interest is absent from it. Or a victim rather than a player.

This is why Poolverine subverts this trope. You have two people, each with their own franchise and life. Each with their own skills. Each with similarly powerful abilities.

They are equals and are treated as such by the narrative. They take each other seriously and have an emotional connection because they understand each other's suffering. They both are out on the battlefield, fighting the same war and overcoming their differences. They both are allowed to have "cool" scenes and "sad" scenes and "funny" scenes. They both are given the spotlight to experience character growth and have their own unique internal conflict because they both are strong characters who are narratively important.

They both have chemistry. Which is nearly impossible to attain when the love interest isn't even in the lab.

[whetstonefires]

Honestly the most interesting thing about the Jiang interpersonal dynamics that is being totally slept on is how Jiang Fengmian's power as head of the family affects everyone, including him.

Yu Ziyuan knows Jiang Fengmian won't use his power against her unless he feels like he needs to, and that he doesn't fear her and isn't going to feel like he needs to act in self-defense unless she attempts significant physical harm, so short of that she can do whatever she likes against him, and he won't resist.

But if the collateral damage to the kids of her verbal attacks on him goes above a certain level, he says one word and she stops.

He just goes, 'wife.' ('My lady' but it's just a polite term for wife.) Sort of disapproving. Same kind of way he talks to Jiang Cheng when he acts like a shithead, but without the subsequent attempt at an ethics lesson.

And bam. Momentum halted. That line of attack is out of bounds. Nobody likes this, but good god it works.

And because they both know he ultimately has all the power, that Yu Ziyuan's lifestyle of privacy and doing exactly as she pleases at all times and so forth is all something that exists by Jiang Fengmian's generosity and sufferance, and she hates it, and he's not comfortable with it either, he sets that boundary really high, and she gets away with all kinds of cruelty because it's all stuff she's strictly allowed to do, entitled to do. So he'd be abusing his authority over her, by constraining her right to exercise her power within normative bounds over the people she outranks.

Even if she's using it harmfully and in a way directed by spite, these are her rights, she's not technically abusing her power, and her primary target in all the episodes he actually witnesses is him who outranks her; she's not being one of those mistresses.

So he'd be overstepping if he tried to constrain her, he'd be one of those husbands. Just like she always accuses him of.

(This is why she keeps insisting that she's also the master of jiang sect and he's 'forgetting' that in contexts where it doesn't make a huge amount of sense.)

Anyway, the fact that it's impossible to unpick where Jiang Fengmian's moral principles stop and his conflict-avoidance kicks in with this relationship is so much more interesting than the weirdly sexist readings I keep seeing, where it's all the conflict-avoidance and he's an unmanly loser who lets Yu Ziyuan bully him and his kids without ever standing up to her, for no good reason. When actually they have a really interesting and fantastically realistic toxic relationship.

He has a good reason! His reason is he's uncomfortable with the patriarchy! And guilty that his wife is miserable! And that he doesn't love her correctly! So he gives way as often as he can, trying to fix it!

But it doesn't fix it, because no amount of giving in to her gives her cause to trust him, and if she doesn't trust him and she knows that if he actually cares about an issue her ability to get her way will disappear, she can't feel secure about any of it. And therefore everything, especially Wei Wuxian the symbol of that fact, makes her angry and Want To Punish.

[freenos]

Ok maybe I do have more thoughts on the Medea interactions and how they reflect on Melinoe:

I’ve noticed that the discussion around Melinoe’s morality tends to focus on her proximity to the Olympians but I think there’s also something to be said about the moral grey area that witches fall under. She didn’t grow up in the House of Hades or Olympus, she grew up in the Crossroads and her perspective is influenced by the guidance of witches. And while Circe and Hecate are a little coy about their misdeeds, Medea stands out as the one who really owns the darker aspects of her craft and talks about the suffering she inflicts with pride. In contrast, Melinoe is…not pure but very invested in the idea of doing the right thing and being in the right. So there’s this contrast between them, Melinoe clings to moral justification for her task while Medea isn’t held back by moral dilemmas.

And I think part of that is because Medea pursues her craft to satisfy her own vengeful desires while Melinoe hasn’t gotten to fully explore her identity as a witch yet: They both use their craft in vengeful ways but Melinoe always has this degree of separation from the root conflict. (Nemesis gets at this idea quite a lot actually.) The titans are retaliating for things her family did long before she was born, yet Melinoe is tasked with cleaning up the mess. And when she does take time to herself, she often feels guilty about it. In contrast, Medea gets the satisfaction of personal revenge and is content to use her curses on anyone who gets on her bad side.

It’s that intent that differentiates Medea from Melinoe, I think. No matter how impressive her feats, Melinoe is ultimately a weapon wielded by someone else and lacks pure intent of her own so she often hints at feeling…morally conflicted when talking to Medea. While Medea draws her power from the “blackest of intent” , it seems like Melinoe is forcing a tough exterior, filling a role that doesn’t always come naturally to her. And she wants to know how Medea manages to pull it off so seamlessly. Medea’s “with practice!” line is funny but also, if Melinoe is going to eventually become the goddess of nightmares, maybe she will get there with practice…

I have a suspicion that her arc won’t be about “becoming the nicest person and making everyone proud” but instead, channeling her craft to achieve her own goals without seeking the approval of a higher authority or abiding by someone else's vision of the future. Not perfectly restoring the Age of Gods or the Golden Age of mortals but instead bringing about a different future. She may end up letting her compassion guide her but Prometheus doesn't call her an agent of good or evil, he calls her an agent of change. And it seems like witches in this game are portrayed as catalysts for transformation.

As her understanding of the world grows and shifts, I think it’s interesting that Medea is one of the people Melinoe looks up to and confides in. She asks Medea these very earnest questions about mortals and gods and Medea grants her a joyfully bleak perspective every time:

Medea also has this consistent tendency to disregard mortal suffering, to compare them to livestock and talk about them in terms of how poison-susceptible they are. I get the sense that Melinoe's perception of mortal weakness is influenced by these kinds of conversations:

Melinoe's understanding of the world is shaped by an interesting range of perspectives and is somewhat...shaky and incomplete for now. I think she isn't quite sure how to reconcile her more compassionate impulses and the responsibility that she's dedicated her life to:

Although she adheres to a very black-and-white set of beliefs for the sake of completing her task, there's also hints of uncertainty in her conversations, especially with Medea, a more experienced and self-assured witch. I think Melinoe's character development has the potential to go in a lot of interesting directions!

[drdemonprince]

Your advice to the letter-writer whose friend is a former abuser is interesting to me! I largely agree with the specifics, but I'd have added advice to be careful with how the former abuser treats the letter-writer. I might also advise them to be careful whenever the former abuser describes conflicts, as they might be likelier than average to use a woe-is-me framework. I would recommend caution with anything the abuser suggests they do that might cause them discomfort or humiliation, even if it sounds righteous in theory. I realize this is not very fair of me. The former abuser shouldn't have to live with increased carefulness and suspicion from their friends. Maybe it's not a real friendship if you're always wary about your friend potentially turning on you. But purely pragmatically... a lot of former abusers do abuse again, even if they had changed, sincerely, for a while. And "my friend who knows my history and stands with me, even losing some other friends in the process" is a prime target for Abuse II: Abuse Comes Back But In A New Enlightened Way. Deciding to have solidarity with a former abuser is a very moral thing to do, but it's also a trait some abusers are great at warping for their own benefit. Again, I know I'm being unfair, but I keep seeing this happen. Sometimes the friend gets sucked into a narrative where they eventually blame the former victim and become increasingly protective. Other time they say very clear-eyed things but ultimately still end up physically or sexually or emotionally mistreated.

I guess my question is, you say you believe the abuser fundamentally changed, so what does that look like to you? Are you able to fully relax around people who've abused in the past? Abuse is the result of circumstances, but it's also a sort of skill; how do you trust people to never use that skill again?

Great things to be aware of, honestly, thanks anon for the nuanced and careful view.

I like your framing of abuse as a skillset rather than a type of person -- and it's a skill that a whole variety of people wield, including sometimes those who are identified by most not as abusers, but as crusaders for justice or even supposedly for victims' rights. Having been abused and having also learned to be a canny social manipulator, I do see abuse as a skill that gets taught in dysfunctional groups and family systems, and which we can all potentially fall back on when we're backed into a corner.

Knowing how to recognize the skills of abuse being utilized (and maybe even more importantly, how you feel when a person leverages certain tactics against you) is really important for self-preservation in general. Being friends with someone who has a known abuse history that they are explicit & contrite about, in some ways, puts you in a safer position than if you were interceding with a more covert abuser who uses such tactics under a banner of benevolence. But it's also true that many people who come to be known as abusers were initially known as charming, and right thinking, and moral -- and it's very possible for someone who has done abuse to present themselves as such but not mean it. We can't ever really know the full depths of someone else's heart and mind, nor do we have to -- we can look to their actions and the skills they use, particularly when they are frustrated or feeling attacked.

[melpomenelamusa]

Melpomene´s whump stories archive

To celebrate the new year, I've decided to share with you some of my favorite whump stories I read this year as a thank you to all the authors who share a little bit of their world with us 💜✨

My plan is to update this list annually and have it function as a sort of personal archive for me, hehe, but you can use it too if you'd like! 😁

Smile for the camera! (by @morning-star-whump ): A boy is kidnapped by a psychopath from the deep web. His parents and his little boyfriend try to find him (Andre Vazquez is the best character).

Shattered (by @oddsconvert): An anti-human-blood-drinking vampire doctor tries to save the life of a human who for years was the bloodbag of a vampire I really hate.

Total $hit$how (by @befuddled-calico-whump): 5 misfits escaping prison for their criminal records are hired by a mysterious organization to stop another mysterious, but more evil, sci-fi organization (Benji, my son).

Darius & Mianu (by @geode-crystal): A traumatized prince and his faithful knight/boyfriend want to live happily ever after, but something always happens.

The Bahkauv (by @deluxewhump): Three friends decide to buy a magical creature to study; but what seemed like nothing more than a monster or an animal may turn out to be a companion.

Overloaded (by @fleur-a-whump): The son of a supervillain wants to join the good guys, but discovers that "heroes" can be just as cruel as villains.

Blood and tears (by @whumpisgoodwhumpislife): A little half-vampire is suffering too much and a human decides to take care of him and protect him (They are both my babies).

Rehabilitation (by @sowhumpshaped): A former kidnapped victim is faced with her former torturer, who is now in a mysterious rehabilitation program that looks more like a torture prison.

The moral conflict is strong in this one.

A taste of your own medicine (by @oddsconvert): Whumper gets kidnapped and torture along with his ex-whumpee by an even evil whumper. Only one person is having fun here.

Humanity Collector (by @rabbit-flaying): A cosmic creature who likes to collect human things decides to add a real human to its collection (A cosmic horror one-shot).

Writemas 2024 (by @tildeathiwillwrite): A woman suffers the mysterious death (or murder?) of her husband.

This is the kind of story I would love to read in a printed book and recommend to my entire family.

Whumpcember 2024 (by @kabie-whump): An evil wizard has turned Santa's reindeer into humans, who now have to live with their new bodies. A series of shorts with very interesting and cute characters that I definitely need to keep reading if I could.

The siphon (by @spencers-secret-whump-account): Like a bloodbag, but instead of blood is magic. Also, it´s lady whump in a fantasy setting and there will be lesbians (I hope).

[writer-logbook]

My story doesn't have a villain, so what ?

Does a story really need a villain ? What is a stake where there's none ? How can the protagonist evolve when they've got no one to face ?

In which I explain how the conflict can lie elsewhere - and it's a bit more challenging yet sometimes more interesting.

The world, and society in general. They are often a good starting point to create tension in your novel (because everything is most certainly wrong everywhere lol). For example : what happens if you don't share the beliefs of your city ? What choices can make you defy the current order and break the status quo ? It's a convenient way to plot distopian books, but it's not yet a cliché because of to the complexity of the trope and the different aspects you can explore as it is broad.

The complexity of your characters : the personal quest. The famous "You are your own worst ennemy" is a actually very effective in this case - but any other significant event, trauma, fear etc. can be consistent enough to be the core of a novel. I believe the journey is more important than the "plot" or the ending itself. The path of finding answers, healing and overcoming a traumatic event is easy to suggest, harder to write about, yet somehow always powerfull. I think it's hard to be cliché with 'personal quest' trope because everyone deals with their suffering in such different ways that you can't be exploring it twice. (Or it can be something lighter, like the pursuit of an artistic dream).

Various characters, same event. Multiple POVs are a great way of exploring all the aspects of the issue, based on the different beliefs and perceptions that drive your character. For this to be really effective, you need to have characters who do not share the same opinion on the subject. It doesn't have to be a difficult idea to come up with. For instance: in a futuristic world, you can choose what to do with your memories: keep them or erase them. Some people will argue in favour of the process (because you can erase a traumatic event), others will argue against it, saying that memory is what makes a person. In that kind of scenario, morality plays a huge role.

A destabilising event, much bigger than ourselves or a discovery that could shape the future. A destabilizing event, much bigger than ourselves or a discovery that can shape the futur. Think of that sci-fi novel where the end of the world is brought about by an incoming asteroid. It's the same thing. Either you try to avoid it, or you try to accept it, or you try to fight it. Each way is valuable to a story, if you create some consistent characters.

To conclude : we have to think a bit more about what is at stake when no one actually treathen the peace of the community. There's no manichaeism, we have to go beyond good and evil ; the solution isn't clear - sometimes there's none at all. And that's okay.

Thanks for all the kudos and reblogs, I feel relieved to see that my posts are of some help ! ❤

If it's a bit fuzzy for you, let me quickly explain what my story is about, because that's what motivates me to write this essay.

My MC is a priest in a religious town that is suddenly plagued by an unknown and incurable disease. She tries to get used to it, until her family contracts it. She manages to acquire the power of the goddess and, doing so, shakes the foundations of her entire city and society, believing that she is now able to act. There's no villain whatsoever, just a poor girl trying not to see her family dies and who has to face the consequences of her own actions.

[scoobydoodean]

Your thoughts on Amy are really interesting to me because when I was watching I'll admit I saw it as another tragic scenario that's often presented in the show. Like, she found a way to live her life with her son that wouldn't have her kill people (being a mortician) but when her son was sick she turned to desperate measures to save him. It's a sort of situation we see time and time again on the show. I'll admit I didn't quite pick up on the classist rhetoric going on in the episode and while I'm not entirely sure that was intentional by the writers it's definitely had me looking at this plot point in a new light. Dean killing Amy and its consequences has always been a really interesting narrative beat because while I ultimately don't fully agree with Dean's decision there, I totally see why he did it and understand his reasonings for it. Idk how many other fans feel the Amy conflict and the arc it has the brothers go through but I do think that at least at it's core it was an interesting one to explore even if it's execution of it left something to be desired for me

Sorry to ramble in your ask box but I seriously love your metas even when I don't always agree with your opinions 💜

If you don't mind a little rambling as well: I don't know that I'd say we see this same situation time and again. We have "Monsters Who Manage". For example, Lenore and her nest (2.03, 6.19). Benny. Garth and Bess. Sometimes those "monsters" feed again despite their best efforts (ex: Lenore in 6.19).

Amy isn't like any of them though. Sam seems to want to present Amy as an addict who relapsed (like Lenore), but that isn't what happened. She didn't feed on the brains of the people she killed. That was never her goal. She just had an opportunity to do something immoral to save her kid and she did it. In the end, her being a kitsune has almost nothing to do with her actions. A human parent could have done something very similar to save their own child. Imagine if your child needed a new heart and there was a long waiting list, so you went out and killed someone else and had their heart transplanted. That's more like what Amy did. Her kid got a food borne illness or infection. Normal human children get listeria and other dangerous food borne infections/illnesses. The only way in which Amy being a kitsune really impacts the situation is that it presented a unique solution to her child being sick that wouldn't be available to other parents (fresh pituitary glands). Her choosing to act on that opportunity just kind of shows that on some level, she does think of humans (at least "lower class" humans) as food.

At the same time, I do think Dean's actions go further than a moral difference with Sam. Dean is spiraling after the events of season 6. Cas lied and then died, and when it all went to shit, Death blamed Dean for everything and Dean crumpled under the weight of those expectations (we jump further into this in the following episode). It leaves Dean hyper-focused on not making a "mistake" again (for example, trusting someone he shouldn't have). At the same time, Dean's deeply depressed and suicidal (7.02), and his outlook on life and his own family is incredibly cynical when "The Girl Next Door" takes place. He says "the other shoe will drop" in regards to Sam because he doesn't have hope that anything could ever turn out right for their family. He repeats it in regards to Amy because people never change. Everyone is doomed to repeat their mistakes for all time (Dean's despair often looks like falling into the spiral of causality instead of remembering he can leap out of its flow). He also says "People are what they are", and I do think he's thinking about Cas at that point.

Amy mingled with humans and was a part of their world, but her actions showed she saw them as food on some level... and I think that Dean looks back at Cas and worries that he was a fool to ever think Cas was (for lack of a better word) human (or at least an ally to humanity who truly respected them as equals). In 6.22, Cas tells Dean they were never a family, and in 7.01, he follows that up by telling Dean he only ever saw him as a pet. He reinforced the traditional hierarchy where humans are lower creatures to monsters—food. And what has Dean been fighting all his life? Powerful creatures who believe their physical dominance gives them license exploit humans as food. When Dean tells Amy "people are who they are"... I do think he's thinking about Cas and the trust he had in that relationship that was deeply crushed. He's scared to trust anyone again because he trusted Cas so very much and now his world has been ripped apart. He doesn't trust Sam's judgement on Amy because he trusted Cas and that backfired spectacularly. He doesn't trust Amy not to do this again. Tbh I think he's right not to trust her because she has absolutely zero remorse of any kind at all whatsoever at any point. To me, that makes it quite apparent she'd be more than happy to do the same thing again if her kid was ever sick again. Hell—maybe even if she got sick. But it does go deeper than a moral clash for Dean. He's full of despair. At the same time, his actions also aren't as simple as dropping into the doom of "Monsters bad" because he doesn't kill Amy's son. Something Sam's never really grasped is that monsterhood has never been about physical characteristics to Dean. It's always been about actions. For Sam on the other hand, monsterhood has historically been more about physical characteristics (post here). I think this also plays a role in their feelings about Amy.

[scratchtovoid]

“Make it a son for a son”

There’s a new season two promo where we hear Matt saying Daemon’s infamous line for the first time. And it has me wanting to bring up something I see with the team black fandom.

(BOOK SPOILERS)

There’s an impulse within team black to distance the characters of team black but particularly Rhaenyra from B&C by presenting it as a rogue act committed by Daemon on his own.

Now, first the book does not tell us that. The book gives us little to go on beyond Daemon’s involvement and the obvious implication that Mysaria was his KL contact to set everything in motion.

The rest of the details are mostly speculation.

Rhaenyra’s involvement is limited to a letter from her husband promising that Luke would be avenged. We have no further details on what she knew or how she reacted. Which also gives the show lots of room to present Rhaenyra’s feelings about this revenge plot however they like.

But what I see often in this attempt to isolate B&C to a Daemon-plan not a team black plan, is a misunderstanding of Daemon as a character.

In a bid to defend Rhaenyra’s innocence in the act, Daemon can not just be the lone perpetrator, he is also the monster.

Except this is an intensely human act.

A personal attack.

He could have killed all of Aegon’s heirs in that moment. As well as TG’s two queens. That would be the political move. Taking out the other side purely for political gain regardless of the innocence of the children he attacked.

And this is where those arguments from even within team black fall flat to me.

Because this is not political. This is personal. This is a grieving parent and husband who has no control and could not prevent the initial attacks on his family.

It’s not only rage and revenge, it’s grief and guilt.

So when team black talks about this event and may even lean into the interpretation of Daemon being a monster. It actually takes away from the greater story of team black, part of what makes them unique in contrast to the greens.

The greens, and this looks to continue based on the promo which seems to suggest Otto wanting to use Jaehaerys’s funeral as a propaganda tool, are very politically driven.

Think about it, they’re acting on tradition, purposely wishing to limit the power of women. They use rumors at court as a weapon, look for deals to be made, deck their king out in symbols of legitimacy. They always have a political angle to the moves they make.

This does not mean they do not feel emotional! I’m not saying that. But team green always has this internal conflict of making the political move at the cost of the emotional gain.

And team black (but particularly Daemon) are the opposite. They will make politically bad moves to satisfy the emotional urge.

Look at Rhaenyra marrying Daemon in secret, yes there is a political angle, but ultimately that marriage was one for love. Or Rhaenyra imprisoning Coryls after turning on the dragonseeds.

And with B&C there is no political advantage! They gain nothing in terms of good will with the public or lords of the realm. They have no eliminated any threats. They actively let threats live!

So what am I getting at here?

I’m not justifying Daemon’s actions. But this is fiction. And sometimes I think it’s good to look at a story for more than just “right” and ��wrong” or moral lessons.

I think GRRM asks such interesting character questions in the Dance.

What does it mean to do something in an act of pain that is clearly going to be detrimental to the other side?

What does it say about a person to do that?

I think team black specifically should be asking questions like that.

[aghostwithnoname]

Okay it's been about two weeks to cook on my initial reaction to finishing DATV, and I feel like, for the most part, it still stands?

Like smooches to all the companions - you're not really the problem in this. I also love my Rook. Adore you, Taash and Davrin extra special. Assan, my son, my beloved, you are perfect.

But aside from diehard DA fans either defending or detracting Veilguard within an inch of their lives, imo the defining problem of the game is sets up these interesting, compelling, and tasty conflicts we've come to expect with the franchise but instead of like, you know, delivering on that, playing out that tension, eking it out for angst, lols, rage, and tears, asking serious moral quandaries of the player... they just… resolve them? create false equivalencies? say "here is your choice - it will have consequences!" but really the outcome is mostly the same?

So yeah, it's really just a lack of stakes on anything and everything important. And I think that's a missed opportunity as a writer myself - bc while some people may see the removal of real world social ills in a fantasy setting as being more "inclusive" (a take I as a person with multiple marginalized identities don't really understand and frankly sounds to me like some corporate BS), what BioWare really is doing is attempting to rebrand its signature series into something it isn't : a world without complication or friction or messy realities.

The Bad Guys are literally straight up Evil - the Good Guys are So Good. Whether you choose to doom Treviso or Minrathous, the idea that the Crows are no longer being child-enslaving assassin mafia houses (Rip Zevran and your revenge), the fact BioWare completely avoided any depictions or barely mentioned the horrible mistreatment and enslavement of the elves in Tevinter, even going so far as to paint the elves as partially at fault for that bc of their shitty gods??? (good lord, there's too much to unpack there), nothing truly matters.

DA was never just simplistic, good vs evil fantasy, so why start now?

Like any good storyteller knows that stories are fundamentally about change whether that's changing a society or your own personal mindset. And more often than not, conflict is a result of that! Change is hard! Some people don't like change! That's not to say conflict must be physical or violent - sometimes the most interesting stories are ones where the hero is a different person that the one they started out as.

DATV literally changed so much about the lore and mechanics of the world (which okay fine), but everybody just rolled with the punches like it was nothing. Like, for ex, "The Maker doesn't exist and Andraste is Mythal"??? Damn son, you just got proof that literally thousands of years of abusive religious dogma that has been used to terrifying discriminatory ends in both the North and South of Thedas is a lie. And everyone just accepts that????

And for some of us who experience and live with discrimination every day, who come from abusive families, and are religious trauma survivors, part of the appeal of previous Dragon Age games, for me, is that it didn't run away from those issues. It made characters like me human and fallible where at the end of the day, yeah you can end the Fifth Blight but there is no right answer to who should rule Ferelden bc monarchy is a fucked up system that ruins everyone's lives - here is the quintessential "Chosen One" archetype who doesn't fucking want to be chosen (DAO); no you can't always save the world (re: Kirkwall) and those you love, and violent change of an abusive system can also blow up in your face (DA2), and no you're not in control of how other people perceive you, especially in how celebrity and status can dehumanize you to a point where you don't even recognize yourself (DAI). Like you could still be a hero in these games without being perfect. Whereas with DATV, I just felt... nothing. Like, it was a fun way (sometimes, not Weisshaupt jfc) to spend 80 hours. I learned that Solas and Mythal are even more horrible that I could possibly imagine.

but I didn't feel like Veilguard left me with anything like catharsis so I could go back and face the Merediths and Venatori and Loghains of the real world. it was just that - you defeated the Bad Guys! Game Over. Here's Varric Mufasa'ed in the sky (so very sad). Talk about a totally ridiculous misuse of the One Guy whose whole shtick is how you can use narrative as a weapon.

These are just my thoughts, and ofc everyone's allowed to like or dislike the game as they please, but I don't feel like it's appropriate to give Bioware (and their shitty treatment of their creative team) a free pass on a frankly subpar narrative ten years in the making that did not deliver the emotional beats it was meant to.

[thestartarot]

North Node Aries / South Node Libra

My own observations, take what resonates.

18 y/o over due to sensitive topic nature, thank you.

Soul color: Red

Your destiny point: independence in all relationships and feeling accepted for who one truly is, a firm grasp on who you are, be meaningful, and have confidence to feel comfortable in your own skin.

How to overcome: stop worrying and letting your life get so defined by what people think of you or how someone decides to validate you. Find an actual sport to help with issues of insecurity brought on by competitiveness and learn when to walk away from confrontation.

Childhood: An Aries NN is always interesting in the dynamic of the home. A lot of repressed conflict here. Most likely, a lot of arguing in the home (between siblings, between parents, maybe everyone) and often times the fights were intense and the resolutions were passionate and heartfelt. This placement has an undeniable sense of feeling mistaken from all angles, feeling unusual. Because of this, the placement will go to great lengths to seek validation from family and friends. In addition to the validation needed at home and with friends, the media plays a big role in validating this placement and often what we are taught to be “standard” is actually unobtainable and sometimes impossible. There were probably a vast amount of different social groups and cliques growing up. This placement certainly didn’t want to lose out in popularity so may have been the most popular in school or may have been everyone to everyone, losing themselves in the process.

Also, there are moral issues here, embrace what is different and cool and genuine to you or stay in the crowd? This placement stays with the crowd, there’s more protection and the friends are a way to escape the confines of the home where it’s easy to not feel like enough with everything going on (sports, grades, finances etc.) This placement may have also had to mature early, maybe even having jobs at young ages.

Adulthood: This placement may still be in contact with same friends from high school or college because community are the social checks and balances Libra south node loves. Media is a big influence in this placement. A BIG shift from repressing what makes them feel uncomfortable or insecure in childhood to a lot of self help and self discovery in adulthood. This placement will learn to part ways with what no longer serves them, after a couple of mistakes learned the hard way, usually. Then, the Aries NN will go on to keep digging to discover themselves and where they may have gotten lost in childhood. This placement may put an emphasis on finding the one answer or the one thing that will make all of these uncomfortable feelings go away, but really it’s the Libra’s south node obsessions and perfectionism that is causing this placement so much heartache.

Libra, being an air sign, intelligence & debate are happy places for this placement. Loves to argue for their ideals, beliefs, and community. The placement feels validated in arguments by their own research and intellect and the people who support them. Conflict can grow too comfortable here.

Imposter syndrome could be strong here.

How to overcome: The nodes are axis points of fear, things we need to overcome to see the bigger picture. In tarot, these nodes are represented by The Fool & The Emperor or Empress. In particular to this placement, true healing comes from walking away from a fight, laughing at the ridiculous standards being imposed by media, choosing their own image and story, and having faith. This placement will actually have a lot of growth in the breakup of relationships and self determined individuals will use the trial by fire to keep moving in their interests and truth. This sign is fundamentally unique, a trailblazer, and a little quirky. This placement needs to believe in themself and get in touch with the fundamentals of who they are.

Also, Libra needs an outlet for all of that competition so go be the best at something (strong encouragement for competitive sport) and don’t worry what others think!! You got this!! You are enough and you were born with sound mind.

— Casper

[miss0atae]

The anti-hero romance in Meet You at the Blossom (ep 5 & 6):

The romance finally started to kick in, in Meet You at the Blossom. At first, it was mostly Xiao Bao who was trying to court Huai En. It was love at first sight for the young man. Of course, it didn't start under favorable auspices because Xiao Bao was convinced Huai En was a woman. After learning the truth, he kept flirting with Huai En (because he is my precious little bisexual fool). They both shared the same bed several times and Huai En seems to have accepted Xiao Bao's feelings to be true. It wasn't easy for him, as the only love he witnessed was the doomed romance of his parents which wasn't exactly the healthiest comparison he could have. Since the death of his mother, his father has became obsessed with revenge. The way he is talking about her has only gave Huai En the impression that love is a dangerous poison. I've seen many people jokes about how Huai En dick's game is really powerful because Xiao Bao seems to always have trouble waking up the next day(s). However, I believe Xiao Bao's power is also really impressive because he found the way of charming someone who was unwilling to fall in love with anyone (for good reasons). Huai En is a very possessive lover and his obsession for Xiao Bao could be comparable with his father's romance with his mother. Could we say the apple does not fall far from the tree?!

After watching all the episode from 1 to 6, I would say that Huai En could be considered an anti-hero. The figure of the anti-hero is quite compelling as it challenges the traditional view of heroism and love. This type of character has moral ambiguities and when you find them in romance genre you can witness a more nuanced vision of love. Love isn't only a path to happiness when an anti-hero is involved, but it can be a journey of the darker aspects of love and human nature. It can also offer a possibility of redemption or transformation for the anti-hero as he tries to navigate the twists and turns of his love. Huai En was raised to be the armed wing of his father's revenge for the sake of his mother. He has known nothing else until he met Xiao Bao. Huai En is perceived by others as “cold as ice” and someone who “fights desperately and like a desperado he wants his opponents dead” (ep 5). He is also not talking much and doesn't smile that much. Huai En has no time to lose and only one mission to accomplish. He was beaten and treated poorly by his father making him feel like he can't escape his grasp. He can be perceived cruel and scheming. However, Huai En isn't only this person. He also has a softer side that he usually only shows to Xiao Bao.

In an anti-hero romance, the love interest serves as a counterbalance of the anti-hero’s actions. The good nature and affability of Xiao Bao has an effect on Huai En. Even if Huai En can remains sarcastic when he is with his lover, we can also see him smile more and be affectionate. It’s why I think we can say Huai En is an anti-hero: he is a man whose actions could be considered bad, but who ultimately possesses a core of goodness to redeem himself through words and actions. Even if this core is mostly for Xiao Bao. Usually the love interest in this type of romance represents a symbol of change for the anti-hero. It doesn’t mean they will make them “good” or “hero” but they will induces new change in their life. Xiao Bao’s love for him made Huai En changed his plans. Even if his father ordered the death of Xiao Bao’s family, Huai En decided to act to avoid this fate for his lover. His uncle’s henchman even confirmed that Huai En has done many bad deeds for his father and never disobeyed him before. Huai En’s enemies decide to use Xiao Bao as a bait to defeat him because they noticed how their relationship has affected his actions. The hero and anti-hero navigates in a world that isn’t just black and white and their love story with goes from conflict, growth, and love.

I also want to add some nuances. It may seem like I'm saying Huai En will become this good person through the power of healing love, but that's not exactly this. I can't deny that Huai En is also using some coercive control on Xiao Bao.

Before saying anything else, I want to say, I don't know anything about psychology and I may make mistakes in this post when using some terms. So take all of this with a grain of salt.

Huai En didn't hesitate to use a little bit of guilt trip, especially after the incident at the brothel. Let's not forget about the emotional blackmail to obtain the forgiveness of Xiao Bao if he ever does something bad too. He knows full well that he is going to need it later because Xiao Bao doesn't know every information. I would also say that the very tight hug could be considered a form of love bombing. The intimate embrace is also a way of showing what he wants to obtain from Xiao Bao. I'm not denying that Huai En has feelings for Xiao Bao, but they are tinged with a dose of unhealthy possessiveness.

I’m sure Huai En and Xiao Bao will be able to navigate their romance after a long series of ups and downs. I consider them endgame and I will have fun watching them trying to find their happy ending. It’s always interesting to get a love story with a real anti-hero almost villain who gets to be with the hero. It’s also fun to watch moral ambiguity in characters as it is reflective of the nature of most humans.

[maxdibert]

Hii I'm a new follower to your blog, but a quick question (this is after I read your 5 most hated Harry Potter characters, and I agree mostly, ESPECIALLY on Dumbledore): what's your opinion on Darco Malfoy?

Just curious...

Hi there! Thanks for following!! ^^

So, let’s talk about Draco. I always tread carefully when it comes to him because I don’t want to romanticize the character, but at the same time, reducing him (as Rowling does) to this über-evil bully feels shallow and shortsighted.

Draco is essentially a James Potter. He’s a rich, spoiled kid whose parents have always given him everything he wanted and treated him as if he were the most precious thing in the world. And yes, lots of people claim Lucius was abusive, but I don’t think that’s accurate. Lucius was a classist fanatic with terrible ideas, but that doesn’t necessarily make him a bad parent. Some folks don’t understand that you can be a terrible human being while still treating your kids well. History is full of examples of people who were absolute trash as human beings but were doting parents, and vice versa: people revered for their contributions to peace or human rights but who, behind closed doors, were awful to their families (looking at you, Gandhi and Mother Teresa).

Draco trusted his father to the point that he felt comfortable writing to him and complaining about every minor inconvenience at Hogwarts. That’s not indicative of abusive or neglectful parenting—it’s quite the opposite. It shows a kid so confident in his parents’ support and protection that he doesn’t hesitate to make a fuss over, say, the Saturday meal in the dining hall. Draco, like James, also believes he has the right to pick on certain people based on what identifies them. Draco mocks people for being Gryffindors or Muggle-born, while James bullied Severus for being a Slytherin and having an interest in the Dark Arts. Both of them feel justified within their own moral frameworks to target specific groups. However, one thing we can say in Draco’s favor is that he never publicly stripped anyone or orchestrated a “prank” that nearly got someone killed by a werewolf (that was Sirius but still-)

That said, if there’s one way Draco differs from James, it’s in the political alignment of his parents. But ultimately, it’s the same situation: rich parents fervently instilling a set of values in their upper-class kids who, because of their privilege and never having been told “no,” completely believe in these ideas and stomp over anyone who challenges them. The only difference is that the values James’s parents passed on were “the good ones,” while Draco’s upbringing trained him to be a massive bigot.

Draco is the typical smug, self-satisfied kid from an ultra-conservative family who has never stopped to question those ideas—and why would he? They’re part of his privileged world. He has a comfortable, conflict-free life. His parents love and support him, his friends share the same beliefs, and in his social circle, these ideologies are considered virtuous. Why would he question them? Nothing in his life sets off any alarms. He’s never suffered, and this ideology has never negatively impacted him or his family.

Then Voldemort returns. The chaos in the Department of Mysteries happens, and Lucius falls from grace. Suddenly, Voldemort’s followers aren’t these wealthy, powerful wizards he always thought they were. They’re pawns to a psychopath who severely punishes anyone who becomes useless. That’s when Draco begins to realize this isn’t a game. It’s not something to joke about with his friends or mock other kids over during recess. This is war, and war costs lives. And he’s on the side of a madman who wants him to kill Dumbledore. But Draco doesn’t want to kill Dumbledore. Sure, Dumbledore’s a dick, and maybe he shouldn’t be headmaster because he clearly plays favorites, but just because Draco dislikes him doesn’t mean he wants him dead—let alone that he wants to be the one to do it.

Draco can be nasty, petty, and insufferable, but he’s not a murderer. He doesn’t want to kill anyone, but he has no choice because if he doesn’t, Voldemort will kill him and his family—or worse, kill his family first and then him, just to drive the point home.

Draco never particularly interested me as a character until this moment when he realizes what his ideology truly entails and what it means to follow someone like Voldemort. That’s when he stops being a kid playing at being a dark wizard and starts seeing the real consequences of it—and he doesn’t like what he sees. There’s a big difference between holding certain political ideas and being dragged into a spiral of gratuitous violence. He doesn’t want to be part of it. And I think that makes him incredibly human (despite whatever Rowling might say, because she can eat my ass). It’s something that happens to a lot of kids who grow up in environments like his.

I went to a Catholic school full of kids from ultra-conservative families, and I knew people like Draco. People who, as they grew older, started to realize that the ideas they’d been taught to repeat without much thought could become genuinely dangerous. I don’t think Rowling intended this—because she’s pretty one-dimensional when it comes to aligning her characters into good and bad camps—but what she ended up doing with Draco in the end was turning him from a caricature of a bratty bully into a painfully realistic character.

I have a lot of compassion for Draco. He learned his lesson the hard way. But honestly? That’s fine. He needed a reality check, and he got one.

[vigilskeep]

omg thank you for the support... feeling emboldened to return and be gay in your inbox but i was just thinking about how neve might actually feel a bit put off by a more uncaring/cold assassin rook. she has that conversation with harding in the ign gameplay where she says that authorities being corrupt is how she is employed essentially, but given her character descriptions, i feel like she very much does care a lot and corruption is something she Really Wants To Fix, Actually. but authorities being corrupt is actually great for business for an assassin. i mean lucanis was literally introduced to us as "the magekiller" and one thing we know about him is he specifically targets corrupt magisters. like taking down corrupt officials is definitely great for neve, but i feel very interested in the toxic yuri potential of her butting heads with someone who doesn't care about saving the world beyond putting down an obvious threat because their background relies very much on the world being broken. if this makes sense? femme fatale rook also adds an extra level of distrust which is fun! but there's also so much yuri development potential here... learning to care through neve or rook always secretly caring and neve bringing that out in them. cynic4cynic and all that. this doesn't have to be about a romantic relationship either, it's interesting to me even for a platonic neve/rook relationship!

and this also could be a potential point of contention for neve and lucanis, depending on his own world views. this group being referred to as a found family makes the idea of them not getting along (at first at least) pretty interesting to me LMAO anyway yeah if lucanis shares this kind of view then it really is as you said: (crow rook voice) no lucanis you're not insane. and neither am i.

SORRY FOR THIS. but also thank you for supporting the lesbianism.

YES...

the thing that i certainly believe about neve is what’s been emphasised over and over in marketing: she’s a cynic, but a cynic with a heart of gold. she may be our hard-boiled detective who’s seen the worst of people and the worst of her city, but that’s never made her love her city any less or fight for it any less. she’s intensely idealistic in her ambitions and her commitment to the job, putting her own comfort aside to doggedly pursue any mystery she’s taken on.

i think that conflicts delightfully with an assassin who is more self-preserving in what they are willing to take on and has no such high ideals or sense of community, but has it in common with neve that they’ve come face to face in the same way with the worst of people. they could make each other better—neve could definitely stand to take better care of herself and perhaps even take more direct action, and this type of crow rook could probably do with a moral or two beyond World Destruction Is Bad—or worse! i really like your read on crow rook being dependent on the world being broken, and corruption being good for business. i also think the kind of worldview that the crows teach is that nothing ever really can change. it doesn’t matter what you do or who you kill, because someone just as corrupt will always take their place. there are no moral obligations because there is no fixing the world even if you did try. i’d be so curious to see neve’s impact on that... whether she could get them to believe in something, or their jaded outlook would rub off on her

neve definitely has trust issues and high walls up for whatever reason (i still believe in venatori ex-husband theory) so i love the idea here of really playing into that and making a rook she actually shouldn’t trust. i love that for you. yeah why put this all on her. why make anything easy

i’m definitely interested in lucanis and neve’s dynamic. they have a lot of similar worldviews when it comes to, say, the venatori, but i wonder if neve necessarily approves of lucanis’, uh... impulsive and destructive approach, to dealing with that kind of problem. or if lucanis’ sympathies necessarily mean he takes the shadow dragons’ chances of achieving anything seriously. super excited to see them interact