#and i think his problem is sympathetic and relatable for many people

[atlasofoverthinking]

The Problem with the League of Villains

this is just me ranting after reading many people say that the lov deserved a better ending (i agree with them don't worry). most of that stuff has already been said but i'm bored and need something to write

so why is everyone disappointed?

by definition, an antagonist is someone that goes against the main character(s) and a villain is someone who does immoral and/or illegal things (wow, shocking)

so by definition, the league of villains is aptly named. shigaraki and dabi are mass murderers, toga is a killer too, and even if the others are 'less dangerous' they're all guilty of terorism and kidnapping a teenager.

not nice, right? then why would anyone would want them to have a good ending?

long story short: horikoshi made the league too sympathetic and relatable

when horikoshi has decided to make them funny, he's decided to make them likeable. that's not enough though. you can find a fictional villain funny and not root for them (for some reason the examples that comes to my mind are the disney villains. captain hook is hilarious but no one wants him to win)

the cause of everyone's disappointment is the relatable part. everyone in the league has gone through stuff viewers can relate. touya, shigaraki and toga have been abused; twice has mental health issues (and stuggling to get a job is relatable too lmao); spinner has been discriminated against... you get the idea

and even without knowing their backstory, most of the league's fights can be considered noble: they want to change society and make the world a better place. to take a more precise example, the league kidnapped bakugou because they thought he had gone through similar struggle as them

(this is mr compress talking in chapter 85) as far as i've seen, most of the fandom either think bakugou being chained and muzzled at the end of the sport festival was just comic relief or agree that it was fucked up

so yeah, you can't put a group of people rejected by society, who just want a better world and expect people to not like them

and that's why their ending is disappointing (the rest contains heavy spoilers of the last few chapters of mha)

they're all either in jail or six feet underground. we rationally could understand it, they're all criminals/villains so of course they wouldn't get a happy ending and face consequences for their actions. the only one who could have gotten away with it is shigaraki because of all the grooming/brainwashing he's gone through and maybe toga because she's a child

but if you relate to a character, you want them to get a happy ending. of course fans would want dabi to be at peace, but instead he's forced to spend his last moments being stared at by his abuser). of course fans would want shigaraki to be free from afo (but instead his only freedom was death). of course fans would want toga to be understood and cared for (but she never had that opportunity)

that's not very 'save to win' out of you horikoshi

maybe it's just a shortcut made by the fandom, but the league are seen more as victims of abuse than actual criminals. i mean, what's more important in dabi's story? the fact that he burned himself alive after overworking himself to get his abusive father's attention, or the fact that he's burned people alive? probably both, but there's more focus on the first element.

and obviously we would want abuse victims to get a happy ending

basically, their ending isn't coherent with what we've seen of them, and that's why people are disappointed

btw, the same logic applies to stain. some fans agree with stain's reasoning bc he's fighting against corruption. of course, his logic is stupid and he's delusional but he's introduced not long after we've discovered shouto's past. you can't say "one of the most popular heroes is abusing + all he wants is to get n°1 to satisfy his own ego" and then follow with "see that guy fighting against corruption? he's bad, don't do that"

the clever way to make sure no one would agree with stain would have been to make the heroes fight against injustice with good methods. i live for the fanfics in which izuku takes down the hpsc

okay i'm done ranting thanks for reading

[alicentral]

This is a response to a hotd critical post about the "favouritism towards Greens in screen time ratio", and I think it's so interesting how team black also feel like they're being fucked over by the showrunners when, to me, it's blindingly obvious that it's the other way round.

Not only are the show runners villainising the greens, not the blacks, they've also gone out of their way to make the blacks seem like the badass heroes who can do no wrong, and this is the root of the problem for both team black and team green. It oversimplifies the dance and goes against the themes and message of the whole book, rendering the characters either inconsistent, one-dimensional, and worst of all, flat and boring.

Lets start off with the greens. The argument that the showrunners are "gagging on the greens" doesn't hold up when we actually think about it for more than 2 seconds.

With the source material of hotd being a fictional history book with different biases and perspectives (emphasis on different perspectives), the showrunners have cherry picked what to adapt, and have chosen to take the worst of the greens as the objective truth and erase their good moments as "green propaganda". The main example that comes to mind is aegon. Plenty of other people have talked about this in depth before, but in f&b, aegon raping a girl was a rumour spread by mushroom, a narrator with a clear black bias who wasn't even in kings landing at the time. There was no reason in adapting this rumour other than to demonise aegon, and by extension, team green. The way the scene is framed, it is clear that it was never about dyana, how the rape affected her mentally, emotionally, socially, physically. For a supposedly feminist show, dyana's rape was a throwaway scene, it never had any impact on the story further. So what was the point of the scene other than to tell the audience "look at what a monster aegon is. How can you support someone like that?" And it works.

You can see on social media, any time there's something vaguely positive about the greens, you have hoards of people comment "yeah but he's a rapist" "how can you support a rapist?", etc. It forces you to side with team black. Later in the show, the audience gets to know that aegon's dick burst "like a sausage". Why would the audience need to know this? Aegon's mutilated dick is presented as "karma" for dyana and is only meant to humiliate him. And again, after this revelation, so many people on social media were making fun of his "burnt sausage". They've made a laughingstock of aegon, and as the figurehead of team green, it's clear that we're not meant to side with team green.

Furthermore, in bastardising, and sometimes, even completely erasing the relationships between team green, the showrunners have dehumanised them and made them irredeemable villains, because, again, we were never meant to side with those who "usurped the rightful queen".

The loyalty and commitment the greens had to one another made them such compelling characters and heavily shaped their central motivations and actions. Aegon only took the crown to protect his family. Aemond, after rooks rest, never called himself a king, only lord protecter even though he knows he would've made a better king than aegon. Daeron torched the riverlands to get to his mother and sister and sacked bitterbridge as revenge for his nephew. Helaena offered up her life for her son, and chose to sacrifice maelor because she knew he wouldn't understand what was happening. Their actions may not be necessarily good (and in daeron's case, actually happen to be war crimes), and their motivations may be morally grey, but they're understandable, they're sympathetic, seeing as it was out of love and loyalty, something that 21st century society can relate to. Without these complex and compelling ties, the audience is left asking why would the greens stick together if they all seemingly can't stand each other? Why fight for aegon if he doesn't even seem to care for them? What was the point in having the crown then? As a result, the characterisations feel one-dimensional (helaena being reduced to being just an "innocent" amidst her bloodthirsty family) or inconsistent (alicent. just her entire story arc. it could've been interesting if done right, but alas, no such luck), or rushed (suddenly aemond wants to be king in his own right after defending his brother's claim at storms end).

This isn't to say that team green are perfect, far from it, but the close emotional ties and relationships could've been used to elevate the internal conflicts in the show. We could've had complex characters who aren't necessarily good, but they're family and they stick together despite their personal grievances.

And this isn't even mentioning their bonds with their dragons. Where was vhagar roaring when aemond's eye was cut out? Aegon and sunfyre had the closest bond between dragon and human and that was given to rhaenyra in the show and where is dreamfyre?

One last thing on the greens, they are presented as incompetent and not equipped to rule, which is meant to show how it would be oh so much better if rhaenyra was on the throne. Criston parading meleys' head is framed as stupid as meleys was "a beloved dragon", ignoring the fact that she murdered hundreds of smallfolk at the coronation. Alicent is presented as stupid for thinking that after rooks rest, the small council would appoint her the queen, aegon in the small council was meant to be laughed at. Of course, this begs the question, if the greens were meant to be a mess of a faction with only 3 functioning dragons and now 2 effective dragon riders, how did they hold out against the blacks for so long? It's clear that the showrunners haven't thought this through.

So yeah, i don't really understand what this person was trying to say when they say that the showrunners are "gagging on the greens" when they are demonised, humiliated and stripped of compassion. I would like to say here, nothing i've said about the greens here is new to team green fans, and so many more people have gone into more depth about this.

Lets move onto the blacks. In a conflict where no side was meant to be in the right (who has the right to rule is a beast for another day), where there were no winners, only losers, where a dynastic dispute almost tore down the entire aforementioned dynasty, the blacks are framed as the heroes, the side the audience should root for. If they come off as villainised to the audience, i don't think it was done on purpose.

Opposite to the greens, they're mistakes and flaws are glossed over. I think this is the main reason why team black falls flat as opposed to lack of screen time, which i don't really want to count.

An important example of this is blood and cheese. In f&b, blood and cheese was a horrific event which drove queen helaena mad and, importantly, was meant to murder one of aegon and helaena's sons in revenge for lucerys. A son for a son. It was always meant to be jaehaerys. By making blood and cheese all one big mistake in the show, with aemond as the real target and oops, we can't find him so jaehaerys will do, team black and rhaenyra can't be held accountable for the murder of an innocent 6 year old boy. Moreover, the fact that rhaenyra never knew or sanctioned the murder, and it was all daemon going rogue, rhaenyra is even further removed from the horrific murder of a child, because, of course, our heroine can't be responsible for anything bad, she's meant to be the one in the right!

Furthermore, condal and hess try to force the smallfolk's love of rhaenyra during the dance, contrary to the book, which serves to uphold rhaenyra's right to the throne and show how team black are the right side. During the blockade on kings landing, the smallfolk conveniently forget that she's the one causing the blockade when she sends food through (showing that she could've done that at any time). The cheering for rhaenyra and the riot makes no sense, as again, she was the one who caused the blockade in the first place.

The introduction of the prophecy also is only meant to justify any "wrong" rhaenyra and team black do. The death of the dragonseeds and the smallfolk were all in the name of a prophecy so it's ok. And this is the thing which infuriates me the most, because the prophecy could've been a fascinating aspect of team black's motivations if framed right. The idea of committing atrocities in the name of a believed divine, higher purpose could've been used to expand upon team black's character growth and internal conflict vis a vis the knights templar and the crusades. How do they feel about this? Are they even aware of what they're doing? Alas, the show itself buys into the prophecy, buys into the divine purpose and suddenly, the atrocities aren't presented as "that bad" anyways. All of that to say, the show has never intentionally villainised team black.

So we've established that as the heroes, team black can't do anything wrong, and if they do, it's for a higher purpose, so it's alright. Team black's "emotions and conflicts are made secondary" not to "disposable filler scenes of Greens", but to themselves, or rather, to rhaenyra and her right to rule. So many team black scenes were used to uplift rhaenyra to show how she is the rightful queen. The main two examples of this that stick out to me is baela rebuking jace when he rightfully questions rhaenyra's decisions and daemon's whole harrenhal arc, which serves as his redemption and so he can reaffirm his commitment to rhaenyra's right to rule. Of course it's going to be "a bore" if the main characters, the ones we're meant to be cheering haven't got anything going for them except for cheering on rhaenyra.

There's no character interaction, no character growth, no real internal conflict because from the beginning, team black has been presented as in the right and can do no wrong, so there's no room to grow, no room to develop, not because of lack of screen time. When character development almost breaks through (see: jace questioning rhaenyra), it's quickly quashed, because the audience needs to be reminded that rhaenyra is always right. There's a clear good and bad side that the show is trying to force, which doesn't work in this setting because it reinforces the idea of the divine right of kings, the idea that one person, one family is superior to all others, and that person is rhaenyra here. It undermines the idea that no one was in the right for the atrocities they committed. No one can be justified and that fundamentally, these are not good people, they're interesting characters (or could've been interesting characters), but they're not good people.

So why? Why are the blacks presented as the good side and the greens presented as evil? It all comes down to the fact that the showrunners have propagated the idea that the dance is about a woman's struggle to rule in the face of misogyny, rather than the decline of house targaryen due to their belief in targaryen exceptionalism or the consequences of the pursuit of power. Sure, feminism and misogyny is one aspect of the dance, but it's not a major driving factor. The showrunners have backed themselves into a corner here, because they trying to portray the dance through a modern feminist lens, and so they believe that they can't write women being flawed or evil, and so we get the free, liberated good side and the "misogynistic", conservative bad side.

So in conclusion, it is clear that the showrunners aren't villainising the blacks as this person believes, but the greens. In doing this, they've made a clear cut good and bad side which works to the detriment of both team black and team green. It leads team green's characterisation to be inconsistent and one-dimensional and it chokes team black from having character growth.

Listen, i don't know if team black truly have less screen time than team green, but if they do, it's not the reason why team black falls flat.

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

I have no problem of being accused of “whitewashing” Sauron’s character because the majority of the “Rings of Power” fandom doesn’t really understand what he is, anyway.

Sauron is not a human nor a symbolically human character (like the Elves, who are meant to represent the intellectual and artistic-driven humans on Tolkien legendarium). Charlie Vickers already said, using different words, that the fandom can’t really atribute human-like feelings (or characteristics) onto his character, and he’s absolutely correct. Because he’s not playing a human.

Charlie talked about this in the context of Sauron’s cosmic connection to Galadriel in “Rings of Power”, and almost everyone nods in agreement, but then makes the mistake of projecting human-like onto Sauron (narcissism, psychopath, sociopath, whatever it may be).

Sauron/Mairon is a Maia, which is the equivalent of a demigod or an angel in Tolkien legendarium; a servant to a Vala, the Gods or archangels of the lore. He was created by Eru Ilúvatar, so he’s divine in nature, a higher being, at the beginning. He chooses to side with Melkor/Morgoth (the Devil of the legendarium); he becomes a fallen angel, a demon. He’s not longer a “higher being” per say because, in Catholic-Christian tradition, demons operate on the lower frequencies of existence.

I would even argue that Tolkien wrote Sauron as more of an idea, than an actual character. With this being the reason why we don’t have much dialogue from him throughout the legendarium. Of course, “Rings of Power” needs to adapt this to the best of their possibilities, and I think they are doing a great job with Sauron’s character, and it’s also clear Charlie Vickers has done his homework on the character.

I still see a bit of hesitation on Charlie’s part on elaborating on Sauron in his interviews, which is very common among actors who have to play villains or “supervillains”. He doesn’t want to sound like he’s justifying his actions or making Sauron look sympathetic. But Charlie, like all actors, understands his character motivations better than anyone. And the show is trying to make the audience understand it, as well, but this usually flies over peoples’ heads who are accusing the show of making Sauron “relatable” in some way or even make you cheer for him or whatever.

This could be the case if he was a human character, but he isn’t. He’s a spiritual being, a supernatural creature, a demon. Us, humans, can’t never relate to him, no matter how many spins folks try to make on it. He operates in a total different level. And that’s why I hate with a burning passion these takes of him having “evil” human-like characteristics or mental disorders. To me, this is completely missing the point of Sauron’s character.

Of course he feels entitled to rule Middle-earth; he helped create the place alongside the other Valar and Maiar at the beginning of time. He literally shaped the world he seeks to dominate; his qualities are imprinted on it (this being the reason why he has true immortality and can’t never be destroyed for real, by the way). Of course he sees himself above Men, Elves and Dwarves, because he literally is. Tolkien wrote him that way.

Would you call the Christian/Jewish/Islamic God, Odin, Zeus, and all the others God of worldwide mythology “psychopaths” or “narcissists”? Probably not because they are Gods, and Gods are, in general, assh*les and d*cks.

Even in Tolkien legendarium, who drew inspiration from several mythological sources, Eru Ilúvatar sinks an entire island, killing everyone in it, because Men wanted to achieve immortality. Is he a “psychopath” too? Tolkien tells us that Eru is the supreme authority on his legendarium, the ultimate good, because he symbolizes the Christian God; and during the Second age He’s very much like the Old Testament God, a punisher, more than the modern “God the Father”, and Númenor is the Atlantis myth.

I’m not really a fan of the phrasing of Sauron seeing other characters like insects, but it’s a way to put it. Precisely because he’s a demigod, who’ll aspire to become an actual God. And that’s probably his biggest sin in the legendarium, alongside with betraying Eru Ilúvatar (God) for Melkor (Satan). On the Third Age, Sauron becomes a “incarnation of evil” and a “spirit of malice and hatred”, like Tolkien tells us. But he’s not “absolute evil” because Tolkien doesn’t believe in such a thing. I already talked about this in here.

In “Rings of Power”, it seems the “not wholly evil” bit is related to his connection with Galadriel. His true intentions/feelings towards her are yet to be revealed to the audience. Why does Sauron want to bind himself to Galadriel so badly? We had this plot in two seasons already.

The simplest explanation is that Sauron wants to harvest her light for himself, but he could easily find the same light in every other Elf who was born during the Years of the Trees in Valinor, because the light of the Two Trees also shines on them. Even Celebrimbor had the same light, and Sauron never had the intention of binding them together. So, indeed, what makes Galadriel different? Because he was willing to share his power with her, too.

All of this is very theological, but it is what it is. Don’t shoot the messenger. We can’t really analyze Tolkien legendarium without the heavy religious Catholic-Christian inspiration, because that’s the core of the mythology Tolkien created. It’s really inevitable if we want to understand it.

Anyway, you can think of Second Age Sauron as a sort of “Dracula on steroids”. I think that’s the closest comparison I can find. Because Dracula is also demonic character, but he’s not a “fallen angel” like Sauron. I wouldn’t exactly compare him with representations of Satan/Devil/Lucifer on pop culture, because that’s Melkor.

Then we have character arcs, and even Sauron has one in Tolkien legendarium: Sauron starts “Rings of Power” in his repentance era (Halbrand); then we have Annatar or “Sauron the reformer” who wants to rebuild Middle-earth with good intentions; then the “King of Men” when he starts to get carried away with pride and power; until he returns to his role as Morgoth’s secretary/representative, at the end of the Second age; he gets defeated. When he returns in the Third Age (the version most fans are familiar with from “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and the Peter Jackson adaptations), he claims to be Morgoth come again, and this is the evilest he has even been, a “second incarnation of evil” like Tolkien describes him.

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

so i've seen someone people say this...

and some people even say that...

Catra's redemption is better than Zuko's..

and people here wonder

"why do other redemption arcs get praised while Catra's doesn't?"

i'll just address each screenshot individually.

1st: you don't have to "learn to love" a character. or anyone, for that matter. you can just dislike a character, that's okay. idk why this person is acting like they have no choice but to love catra and support c//a.

idk much about dragonball z but i've heard people complain about vegeta's redemption. it doesn't matter if another character's redemption arc is worse than catra's, that doesn't make catra's arc the best.

2nd: i mean, yeah. that's basically the crux of catra's character. she wants validation and praise, and she hurts people to receive that.

but i don't think she really felt bad for like,, 90% of the things she did. we never see her regretting hurting innocent people in the war and conquering kingdoms. for the most part, there's not much regret in hurting adora either. catra was either sad that adora left or jealous that shadow weaver still prioritized adora. and i trust i don't have to talk about how fake and shoehorned in catra's guilt in s5 was.

the only thing she seemed to feel actually guilty about was hurting scorpia. and even then, she expected scorpia to just forget about all that and talk to her.

yeah, just because it's a children's show doesn't mean it has to be black and white. i agree with that. but spop was very much black and white. if it wasn't, it would have actually addressed catra's actions in s5, instead of going "she said she's sorry, so now everything is okay!" that's the epitome of a black and white morality if i've ever seen one.

3rd: holy— okay. first of all. people don't like zuko's redemption arc because he had a bad childhood or an abusive parent. we like it because we actually see him putting in effort to be a better person. we like it because the writers planned his arc well instead of shoving a forced redemption in the last season.

secondly, i get that many people relate to catra and that's why they tend to be defensive about her. i don't entirely relate to catra but i can understand the feeling of finally seeing someone like yourself on the screen and feeling represented.

i think the problem is that whenever people think about redeemable characters, they immediately think about tragic backstories, sympathetic motivations, years of abuse and torture. but this is not what makes a character redeemable.

any character is redeemable so long as they actually put in effort to change themselves. that's it. that's the only criteria.

so it's not that we don't want to give catra a second chance or that we hate abuse victims, it's just that catra's redemption arc doesn't even meet the basic criteria to be qualified as a redemption arc.

[jheselbraum]

Do you think the GF fandom tends to wobbify Stan a lot more than Ford?

Oh absolutely. And part of it is standard fandom projection, you know? Which is fine, it's whatever. People do it to Ford a lot, too. No biggie. People do it because they see themselves in Stan and that's fine, it just gets in the way of more serious thematic discussion, though back in the day it was a Lot worse people were a lot less chill about the whole thing to the point where if you so much as dared to point out that Stan is a criminal without the qualifiers that he's a criminal because he had no familial support as he was maturing into an adult and was homeless so he kind of had to in order to get by, you'd get fucking demolished.

And like, it's because a lot of people relate to having shitty parents and being told by teachers that they're not smart enough and being homeless or at least really fucking poor. Like, it's just kind of something that happens with fandom, you know? And it's fine, mostly, fandom is a sandbox and a lot of these people are projecting so they can work through real world shit that's happening in their lives (you guys have no idea how many unposted "Ford has some kind of mystery chronic illness that's just absolutely wreaking havoc on his daily life" fics I wrote after I got diagnosed). And it's not like there's zero justification for it, Stan's a very sympathetic character in the show canonically, despite his status as a wanted criminal (presumably internationally), and a bit of a softie at times.

The problem is when the fanon woobification is used in place of actual textual evidence when people try to have serious discussions about the canon material and not your fanfic where Stan is just. Just real sad about his brother, why won't he thank him? He's sad!

This chart from @itsabouttimex2 explains the cycle very succinctly.

Like, I'd argue that Stan isn't even the most woobified character in Gravity Falls by volume (that honor goes to Fiddleford to be honest) but he's the character whose woobification is the most visible and has the most capacity to grind any serious discussion about anything even slightly negative that happened to Stan or, god forbid, was caused by Stan to a halt. Again, this problem has gotten better over the years, despite the fandom's recent "relapse" for lack of a better term, but (and I say this knowing exactly who I was in 2017) sometimes in order to talk about something you like in a fan context, you have to take a step back and remind yourself of who these characters actually are and what the text of a work is actually trying to say. Like, "death of the author" as a way to interpret a work is incredibly popular in fandom at large, not just in Gravity Falls, and it has its merits, but I feel like it's gone from "the meaning of the text is not derived from the author's intention, but the reader's interpretation" to "the meaning of the text is not derived from the text, but the reader"

"Sometimes the curtains are just blue" has already been used to justify completely abandoning the idea of critically analyzing a work (to the point where many reading this will see the word "critical" and assume that I'm talking about literally criticizing something and not analyzing a work to determine its meaning, its purpose, and effectiveness at conveying those two things) and some people will take that a step further and go "Sometimes the curtains are red, because red is better than blue. Sometimes morally."

I didn't expect to go off to yes or no question like that, it just kind of happened. I don't know, I prefer discussions about this show where I don't have to step over a dozen people who think I'm talking about the version of Stanley Pines that lives in their head and always Responds Correctly to whatever personal issue they might have.

[seraphtrevs]

for the ask game…brbabcs? (either the combined universe or whichever of the shows individually) 💕

I'm just going to do a mishmash of whatever happens to come to my mind lol - STREAM OF CONSCIOUS POSTING INCOMING

my favorite female character - over the whole brbabcs, obviously it's Kim. She was a great character from episode one, but they really cemented her as the Character of All Time with her fall from grace in season 6. She's so complicated and layered, achingly human and relatable, but also extraordinary, which makes her compelling to watch.

She's a hard character to sum up because she's so nuanced, but I think what draws me to her the most is her deep rage at injustice. Her fall is ironic because it was that desire to make the world "right" that led her to betray her core values - but honestly, who can blame her? Haven't we all wished that the Howard Hamlins of the world would suffer consequences too, instead of consequences being only reserved for people who were born in the "wrong" race/gender/class? But at the same time, embarrassing one Howard Hamlin is not actually the same thing as making systemic changes, and her desire to punish him was a personal vendetta, not actual justice. I totally get how the two got mixed up in her head, though.

I'm also a big Skyler fan - more on her later

my favorite male character - For BCS, it's Lalo lol. I don't think he's the BEST character, but sometimes it feels like Peter Gould got the gang together and was like, "Listen, tumblr user seraphtrevs has been having a hard time - why don't we write a character that is specifically tailored to all of her deepest, darkest, and horniest desires?" And lo, they did. He's so charming and cheerful and evil and funny and so so SO hot - I was doomed from the very first paca paca paca 😭

Side note, I think i'm such a villain girlie because I'm so anxious. Characters who don't worry about anything except doing what they want are very fun for me to watch. Imagine the bliss of not caring! *_*

For brba, the character I have the most affection for is Jesse, but Jesse is made to be loved. So instead...I'm going to pick Walt. He is the worst man who has ever lived and I completely get why people can't stomach him. My own husband tapped out of brba because he found Walt unbearable IN SEASON ONE.

So as a person, yes, Walt is the worst. But as a character? He's unparalleled. He makes things happen, which I think a very underrated character trait (and one that a lot of writers overlook). Walt is an infernal engine, a perpetual motion machine, a catalyst of catalysts. Things HAPPEN when he's around, which makes him a really fantastic character.

The other thing I really appreciate about Walt is that Vince Gilligan really stuck to his guns. He said he wanted to tell a story about Mr. Chips becoming Scarface, and by god that's what he did. A big problem with a lot of "antihero" shows is that they are often way too sympathetic to their protagonists and fall for their bullshit. And while a lot of the audience for brba fell for walt's bullshit, the writers were always very clear-eyed about what they were doing.

my favorite book/season/etc - an impossible question for bcs. all seasons are tied for best except season 2, which was a little tiny bit less good but only because it was necessary to set up the rest of the show's run, so actually it is also tied for best. I guess if you put a gun to my head, I'd say season 5 because it's the Lalo season

brba is an easier call - it's for sure season 4.

my favorite episode (if its a tv show) - for brba, I'll say The Fly, not necessarily because it's my favorite (too many favorites to choose from) but because I love character work, and that ep is all character work. Also, it's a good illustration of what I was talking about in my walt answer - it's an episode where "nothing" happens (or so claim Fly detractors!)...but making things happen doesn't have to mean making BIG things happen. Walt's monomania and willingness to do whatever it takes to "win" over something as stupid as a little fly shows what makes him such a great character

my favorite cast member - for brba, i think it's pretty widely known that bryan cranston and aaron paul have merged into one being, so I choose bryaaron.

for bcs, it's bob odenkirk. the entire show - or even the entire brbabcs universe, actually - rests on jimmy. like i know i just said that was walt, and it is for brba. but i think that now that bcs is done, you can make the argument that jimmy is actually the character that it was "about" (actually I'd put Kim in there too). Walt was always morally black, but Jimmy was genuinely morally gray for much of the series, and he maintained a human core that Walt lost. I think Jimmy and Kim are more relatable. (Not to leave Jesse out, bc out of the four of them Jesse is the most sympathetic in a lot of ways. But I feel like his story was more of a survival story, like Skyler's, and not so much a story about moral failure. Like yeah for sure jesse had tons of moral failures, but that never seemed to be the POINT of jesse, like it was the point of walt, jimmy, and kim.)

my favorite ship - for bcs, it's a tie between lacho and mcwexler. for brba, it's waltjesse.

i haven't talked about nacho at all so far which seems weird because I have a LOT of nacho thoughts (see my tag #nacho christ superstar). i feel like the cartel plot is like, the heightened version of the lawyer plot. or that's not right exactly - not heightened as in better, but heightened as more dramatic, more extreme, more literal. so lacho to me is like, what if you really were in bed with the devil? (i mean, maybe literal is the wrong word because he's not LITERALLY the devil, but lalo is a much more straightforward, morally UNambiguous character who is the personification of the evils of the cartel. so like. more literal. you know what i mean.) (plus i'm so horny for both of them. 😭😭😭😭😭)

mcwexler is the best on screen, canon romance i've ever seen. period.

as i've said before, waltjesse is the six-in-one shampoo/bodywash/conditioner of toxic relationships. jesse is walt's student/business partner/best friend/worst enemy/mistress/wife/son/dog. how can you NOT love something that twisted?

a character I’d die defending - SKYLER. Fortunately tumblr has the right attitude, but it still blows my mind that anyone could judge her for what she went through. walt destroyed her life - every action she took was her trying to protect herself and her children. what she went through was pure nightmare fuel, and it astonishes me that anyone could think she was ever unsympathetic

a character I just can’t sympathize with/a character I grew to love - someone sent me an ask just about these, so i'll save these for later! this is already so long lmao

my anti otp - I don't really have any for the brbabcs verse! in general, i'm openminded about even off-the-wall ships because fandom is for fun, and no one in this fandom has ever annoyed me with some of the shipping behavior you get from bigger, more annoying fandoms

[castieltrash1]

for the sleepover: noah when you're having a bad day...

i think the way he'd handle it differs a lot when he's younger/older, so post-war!noah will be under the cut! i hope this makes your day a little easier, anon <3

pre-war!noah x gn!reader; hurt/comfort, unspecified angst, mentions of fighting

seeing you sad is something noah loathes more than most things in life. he’s a generally sympathetic guy, even to complete strangers, but he's extra sensitive when it comes to you. if he had one wish, it’d be to make sure you never even frowned again. that’s why when you are feeling down, he’s wholly dedicated to getting a smile back on your face. he doesn’t have much to his name but he’s determined, and the devotion he has toward your happiness results in a few too many creative remedies. flowers, of course, wild and pulled straight from a field he’s taken you to for picnics before. if you’re more of a sweet tooth, he’ll spend his last dime getting your favorite candy, tying a loose ribbon around it for added effect. he’ll sing, dance, and even tell bad jokes recited directly from a brightly colored book of gags. 

since he knows he can’t offer you a lot in other areas of life, noah tries to make it up to you in moments like these. if he can’t cheer you up quickly he’ll feel bad about himself, doubting his abilities to give you something as simple as happiness. of course, most of the time your negative emotions aren’t related to him at all, but that doesn’t mean he won’t internalize any sadness you do project. if you are sad about something he’s done or a situation between you two, he’s adamant about fixing it. at first, it might just seem like he wants to kick your relationship issues under the rug, but he eventually tells you that he knows life is short, and would rather spend every second he has with you feeling nothing but joy.

“we can’t just run away from this, noah! you really hurt my feelings.” swallowing the lump in your throat, you try to hold your voice steady as you confront him. “don’t you care about what i think?” you ask, feeling your skin grow warm in a mix of embarrassment and frustration, the latter of which only grows with each passing second that your boyfriend stands frowning in front of you.

“y’know i do,” noah replies, softening his tone after his earlier outburst. he takes a step closer to you with his palms outstretched, eyes wide and hopeful. “i just don’t like it when we fight. don’t see a point in all of it.”

“couples fight, noah. it’s normal.”

his lips quirk at the corners and, when you finally let him interlock his fingers with yours, a small smile spreads across his face. “can’t we just be happy instead?” you scoff, trying not to give in to his persuasive words and the way his thumb rubs gently against the back of your hand. you’re already forgetting what the fight was even about and why you’ve been giving him the cold shoulder these past few days. “c’mon, you forgive me, don’t ya?”

sighing, you pull him closer. “i really don’t know how you do it.”

“is that a yes?”

+ if you like being left alone when you’re sad, you’re dating the wrong guy. as long as you’re feeling down noah’s gonna be stuck to your side like glue no matter where you are. even if you're in the bathroom he’ll be sitting outside humming to himself, trying to strike up a conversation through the door. the last thing he wants is for you to be sad and lonely, so if he can only take care of one of those problems for now don’t expect him to be leaving anytime soon.

post-war!noah x gn!reader; hurt/comfort, unspecified angst, v slight mentions of depression/ptsd

after the war, noah’s naive, narrow view of the world and other people’s emotions within it develops into a much more mature perspective. it’s an unspoken thing, really, and he only brings it up off-handedly in rare moments that you collect over years of being with him. he’s seen and dealt with things he’d never dreamed of when he was younger and the effects of those situations are obvious in the way he treats you; especially if you knew him before and can see a direct contrast to his previously blind optimism. 

instead of trying to “fix” your bad mood, noah just lets you embrace it. he knows that sometimes there isn’t much to do but ride out the wave of emotions until it subsides. of course, he’ll do whatever he can to make your day even a little easier, but he won’t let you feel guilty for wallowing in it either. sure, he can show some tough love, but he’s a real softie for you! he'll only lash out if your negativity is targeted toward him specifically, otherwise, he sees no reason to add to your already lousy day. when he is the problem, well, the sight of your tears is enough for him to drop his grudge (eventually.)

“we spendin’ all day in bed?” noah asks, the mattress sinking slightly as he sits beside your curled-up form. “'s beautiful outside.” when you peer over the comforter to look at him, you find his gaze already fixated on the view from your bedroom window, a hint of a smile hiding beneath his untamed beard. the normally cheerful tune of the birds' morning call only serves to remind you of your own lingering sadness, and you let out a heavy sigh.

“right, well…” noah shifts, and you close your eyes, waiting for the sound of the door closing behind him as he goes to start his day. “c’mon, darling, scooch over.” instead, his rough palm pats your hip, determination clear in his steady tone.

you sit up a little, brows furrowing. “aren’t you gonna go out?”

he shakes his head, crawling under the various quilts and blankets thrown across your bed the second you give him enough space. “and leave you here to mope all by yourself?” his fingers dig into your sides, urging you closer until he can press a ticklish kiss to your bare shoulder. “nah…” the gentle touch of his lips lingers and he only continues once you’ve settled against him. “i think i can stay a while longer.”

+ noah is, underneath all the bluntness, surprisingly rational. if your bad mood is the result of a less-than-ideal situation, he’s a great man to have talk you through it. he’ll take you out for a drive, boat ride, or even just a walk, letting you rant about whatever is bothering you before offering his own advice. as long as you take it with a grain of salt, and execute the delivery with a bit more decorum, his suggestions can be a lot of help!

gosling sleepover sunday (no longer taking requests!)

[silverwhittlingknife]

How do you feel about Jack Drake?? What are your thoughts on him and Tim’s relationship?

Anon, I hope you were interested in a novel, because look, I am fascinated by Jack Drake.  He’s key to a whole lot of what I find compelling about Tim as a character, and if I were in charge of DC, I’d bring him back to life.  This would make Tim unhappy but would IMO make for good plotlines.

Jack and Tim’s relationship is Complicated (TM)...

Jack and Tim hug in Nightwing 20 / Jack impulsively yanks a TV out of the wall in Robin 45 / Tim grieves in Identity Crisis

“I could tell the truth.  But I don’t.” - Robin 66

...and it involves a whole lot of Tim lying, and feeling guilty about lying, and thinking about telling the truth, and choosing again and again to keep lying.

And I think that’s great.

Below the cut:

Shorter version - key points about Jack

Really long version - my gentler take (vigilantism is choir and Jack loves sports) vs. my harsher take (Jack has some major flaws)

Final thoughts

Shorter version - key points about Jack:

He’s a bad parent.  He’s self-centered, he consistently prioritizes his own comfort and interests over his son’s, and when upset, he does things like order Tim off to boarding school.

But he’s never a bad parent in an actionable way.  He’s not like David Cain or Arthur Brown, who are abusive monsters.  Jack’s not a monster!  He just...kinda sucks.

He genuinely loves Tim. If Jack’s aware that Tim’s disappeared or is in trouble, he’s always worried and upset.  He periodically resolves to be a better dad, and IMO he’s always sincere.

And Tim loves him, a lot.  Tim’s protective of him and worries about him when he’s kidnapped or in danger, and when they’re reunited, Tim’s really relieved and usually hugs him (and Jack hugs back!). 

...But they have very little in common, and that’s a problem. Jack doesn’t value the things that Tim values, or respect the people that Tim admires, or care about the things that Tim’s interested in.  Tim lies to him a lot, but that’s partly because he correctly guesses Jack wouldn’t respond well if he knew the truth of what Tim’s up to.

The Batfamily is a surrogate family that Tim’s drawn to because of the ways his real family doesn’t meet his emotional needs…but also he feels guilty about that and disloyal. (And to the extent that his dad recognizes what’s going on, he's jealous and resentful!)

Very long version:

(LISTEN I HAVE SO MANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS)

Okay!  So first: Jack’s a character who IMO is pretty up for interpretation.  You can interpret him very charitably, and make excuses for the bad behavior, and fill in the blanks sympathetically when situations are ambiguous; or you can interpret him uncharitably, and emphasize the bad behavior. I don’t think either approach is invalid - it depends on what kind of story you’re interested in!  I have enjoyed Bad Dad stories and also stories that redeem Jack.

My personal take on canon is that Jack and Tim’s relationship is in a gray area.  Jack's definitely neglectful, and he does prioritize other things over Tim, but he’s never so bad that Tim can easily reject him, and he's never so bad that Bruce could justify taking Tim away.  He's just...not great.  Tim loves him, and feels loyal to him, but it’s a very mixed-up complicated love.

I have a gentler take and a harsher one which I switch between as the spirit moves me. xD

My Gentler Take (tl;dr: vigilantism is choir and Jack loves sports)

Here’s the core conflict: Jack and Tim are very different people with different values.  Tim idolizes Bruce and Dick and vigilantism, and secretly gets involved, knowing his dad will hate it. He gets increasingly wrapped up in his secret world and lies to his dad...because if his dad finds out, he’ll make Tim quit.

This is a great setup for an ongoing comic.  It’s practical, because it provides endless potential for plotlines, and it’s nicely thematic, because it maps closely onto relatable real-life situations with extracurricular activities:

Tim the drama nerd whose dad thinks he’s playing football and not in the school play; 

Tim the closeted-queer kid secretly getting involved in his school’s politically-active Gay-Straight Alliance; 

Tim the choir kid whose dad only values making money and wants him to go into the family business (and Tim keeps promising himself he'll give up choir soon, definitely soon, but maybe he'll stay in just a liiiittle longer, because they need him, you see, the last tenor left town, so...); 

Tim the computer geek with the sports-obsessed dad (this one’s just canon);

etc. etc.  

The extracurricular metaphor works pretty well for Tim’s relationship to vigilantism.  Tim's involved in his "extracurricular" because he genuinely thinks it's important and fulfilling, and he values it and wants to be good at it. He idolizes Bruce and Dick because they're good at it. He's been collecting information about it since he was a little kid, and hiding it from his parents because he knows they wouldn't approve. And mayyyybe there's also an element of low-key rebellion against his dad, and maybe that's secretly part of the appeal. And yet also as Tim gets more and more invested, he starts to daydream: maybe I could tell my dad and he'd be proud of me and supportive. But he doesn't, because actually he knows his dad would be upset and angry and make him quit.

And - again, just like with lonely kids and extracurricular hobbies - one of the things that happens is that Tim starts getting his unfilled emotional needs met ... by people he knows through this secret hobby. And people like Bruce and Dick start turning into a surrogate family. Which Tim feels guilty about. And also as Tim gets more and more wrapped up in their world, he has to lie to his dad even more, which means the distance between Tim and his dad gets bigger and bigger and more and more unfixable.

I love this dilemma. It's simple, it's recognizable, it provides endless sources for conflict, and there's no obvious solution! Tim can't tell Jack: he'll make Tim quit! And Tim doesn't want to quit, because he loves choir / art / theater / whatever.  Yeah, it’s difficult, and there are challenges, and sometimes he has doubts...but at the end of the day, he cares about it a lot.  And everything he values is there, and all the people he admires and cares about are there, and all he wants in the world is to feel like he's one of them and belongs there. So he has to lie, even though he doesn't want to lie, and he feels guilty about it...

...but also he ends up lying more and more.

(Sidenote: I think it's important that Tim chooses to keep lying - Tim's narration often glosses this as "I have to lie to my dad," and that's certainly how it feels to Tim, but this... isn't quite true. He has to lie to his dad, because if he doesn't, his dad will get mad at him and try to stop him, not because he literally has no choice about it.)

Other Reasons Why I Like The "Secret Extracurricular" Interpretation

(tl;dr it complicates not just Tim's relationship with his dad, but also all his other relationships)

Tim's problems have some obvious parallels to Steph and Cass, who both become vigilantes while rejecting their evil supervillain dads. But Jack isn't evil. And that means the Tim-and-Jack relationship is ambiguous and complicated in ways that I like. Steph and Cass can just leave their Bad Dads in prison, and say good riddance, and feel very righteous and triumphant about it! Tim’s more complicated. Tim gets into vigilantism ostensibly out of duty and altruism, but secretly, he's also involved for straight-up selfish self-fulfillment reasons. He's lonely, and bored, and his life feels pointless, but he thinks that Bruce and Dick are cool and amazing and he wants to be a part of the things that they do.  When his dad gets jealous of Tim’s relationship to Bruce, and feels like Tim’s looking for a surrogate family, he’s... not wrong.

And the ways in which Jack is not Actionably Bad complicate things from Bruce's POV.  If Jack was a straight-up villain, it’d be an easy call to keep in touch when Jack finds out and makes Tim quit...but he’s not a villain, not really.  So what do you do?  Do you try to surreptitiously stay in touch with Tim even though you’re ignoring his dad’s express wishes and thus forcing Tim to sneak around?  Do you respect his dad’s wishes and stay away from Tim even though you have a years-long relationship at this point?  

Again: a bit similar to the extracurricular analogy.  Say you’re the choir director and you’ve built this whole relationship with a kid in the choir, and you’re an important mentor to him and you care about him etc. etc. etc.... and then right before a big performance, his dad finds out he’s been secretly involved, and yanks him out.  How would you react?  Well, maybe kind of in some of the ways Bruce reacts.  You replace him. You’re annoyed with him. You miss him. You want him to come back. You’re also worried about him.  You’re upset with his dad.  But also... what should you do, exactly?

Bruce and Alfred and Dick care about Tim as if he were part of their family, but he’s not part of their family, and there’s a lot of interesting tension there.

My Harsher Take

Jack never hits his son.  But his temper is a big deal.

In his worst moments, he takes out his anger on Tim’s stuff - wrecking his room, or ripping his TV out of the wall and confiscating it.  When he’s worried about Tim, he usually expresses that fear by yelling at him / punishing him / sending him away - threatening to send him to boarding school in Metropolis in Robin III, or threatening to send him to military school abroad in Robin 92, or actually forcing him to go to an all-boys' boarding school post-NML.  

This is bad behavior!  It is Not Good!  

And you can easily connect the dots to a bunch of Tim’s terrible coping mechanisms, like the constant lying and or the fact that Tim’s go-to methods for dealing with interpersonal conflict are 1) repress it and pretend it never happened (most of his fights with Bruce), 2) withdraw from the relationship until he can pretend the conflict doesn’t exist (when his friends get mad at him in YJ, he quits the team for a while), or 3) literally run away from home.

Also, Jack is a Manly Man with firm opinions about how men behave vs. how women behave, and he thinks boys shouldn’t be scared and thinks Tim should date hot girls and pushes Tim to work out and wants him to play football and expresses period-typical sexism, etc. etc. etc. ... and though obviously this wasn’t what the writers had in mind at the time, all of that is certainly interesting to read backwards in the light of Tim as a queer character.

More Disorganized Thoughts on Jack Drake

Tim’s our hero, so we’re naturally more sympathetic to him, but it’s also true that relationships are a two-way street, and Tim doesn’t value any of the things his dad values, either.  Jack at various points is shown to care about grades, business, money, boarding schools, archeology, football, a kind of macho bragging-about-dating-hot-women ethos, and a very public and performative kind of caring. Tim tends to respond with discomfort or disinterest or even disgust.  When Jack gets on TV to try to rally the government to save his son from No Man’s Land, Tim isn’t touched—he’s mortified.  When Jack makes some bad investments and loses money, Jack’s deeply upset and his self-image is majorly impacted, and far from being sympathetic, Tim’s annoyed and kind of contemptuous of the idea that this is a problem.  Jack thinks fishing in the early morning and going to tennis matches is a fun father-son activity; Tim finds it exhausting and tedious.  And so on.

This means that Tim often longs to be closer to his dad in theory, but this longing is more tied to fantasy than to reality. He rarely seems to enjoy spending time with His-Dad-The-Actual-Person.  So for example, when Tim’s deadly ill with the Clench, he has an extremely poignant fever dream about telling his dad the truth and getting hugged…even as he insists in real-life to Alfred and Dick that he does not want them to tell his dad what’s going on.

The same is true of Jack, who IMO genuinely wants to be closer to his son and is continually declaring that he’s going to turn over a new leaf and get closer to his son…and just as continually backs out of activities or loses his temper when faced with spending time with his actual son.

Tim and his dad sadly get along best—by far—in Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder situations.  When Jack gets kidnapped or is in danger, Tim worries for him (and Tim grieves him deeply when he dies).  When Tim disappears or runs away, Jack’s genuinely worried about him.  So e.g. they have a really moving emotional reunion and hug when the earthquake hits Gotham, and Tim panics about his dad’s safety and comes running home (and meanwhile Jack’s been panicked about Tim’s safety!).  It’s the day-to-day, regular life stuff where they don’t connect.

Jack's written quite differently by different writers. Mostly, Tim's parents are at their least likable in his early appearances and early miniseries (this is where you get, for example, Jack and Janet being nasty at each other while a pained employee looks on, and Tim disappointed to once again get news of where his parents are via postcard - "I guess that sums them up! Never know where they’re going to be–or when–or even how long!” - and Tim alone on school break, and Bruce and Alfred thinking there's something weird going on with Tim's parents, etc. etc.). Jack's more sympathetic but still often unlikable in most of Tim's Robin solo, and he's almost invisible (but positively treated if he does show up) in Tim's team books.

For obvious reasons, Jack's remembered way more sympathetically after his death. Tim's completely devastated by Jack's murder, which he arrives moments too late to prevent, and he basically never gets over it. We see him grieving Jack again and again in Robin, and also in Teen Titans, and also in Resurrection, and again in the Halloween Special, and again in Batman: Blackest Night, and all the way up to the end of Red Robin. Tim also grieves for an extended time over Janet - he hallucinates a happy reunion with her when he's feverish in Contagion, and hallucinates her in the final issue of Robin, and the reveal-your-buried-emotions song in Robin 102 brings up his grief for her too (meanwhile, other characters dance or laugh or otherwise get giddy).  Tim’s grief over his parents’ deaths is intense and long-lasting.

I'm not going to clip comic panels because this is long enough, but if you're curious, here's a nice and fairly lengthy compilation of comic panels with Tim and Jack.

If you're interested in a Jack-centric story with a softer-but-still-recognizably-canon take on Jack, I really like the way Jack’s narration is written in the one-shots Heart Humble (set shortly before Jack dies) and Never a Hero (Ra's resurrects him during Brucequest, and Jack's archeology skills turn out to be unexpectedly useful).

[radiofreesanjak]

[ECHO.EXE RUNNING]

- I- um. H-hello. I-

- ...

- Mine apologies. I am n-nervous, as things art tense at the moment and this is one of the two most i-illegal contacts I have ever made, and the topic itself doth frighten me.

- I am Ren Hurst, sister of Rosceline Hurst. I b-believe thou hast had previous contact with a friend; one Marceline, a maid and beloved of mine sister. Um...

- I do ramble. I... thou hast made several posts calling for the abdication of noble titles, and... I do beseech thee for advice on a related matter...

- I care very little for mine title of Scion. Twas always the case, truth be told. The only reason I have not abdicated already is for fear of mine m-mother. I am unaware of how much thou knowest of recent developments mine sister hath posted here, but we do plan a coup against our mother for her barbarous treatment of ignobles. Once she is... d-dealt with... I intend to abdicate posthaste.

- The problem I seek thine advice upon regardeth mine sister. Tis not that I believe she would refuse to do the same, but rather I don't know that it is wise. I know how that doth sound and I understand the evils of this system, but... The legal standing of mine sister's title as Heiress is the only thing which shall keep the other Minor Houses and the House of Remembrance from viewing our actions as a full ignoble revolt.

- Frankly, we haven't the resources nor the firepower to defend ourselves from all angles: pirates on our planet, every other Minor House backed by the Major to suppress a revolt, Harrison Armory at the door? So many have offered to help us, but a handful of lancers shan't be enough. We have too many enemies. What are we to do? Should we really give up such a potent tool, which shields us and our people, out of principle?

- These questions art not meant in an argumentative way; they are genuine inquiries. I know thou thinkest low of nobility, but I promise thee we seek only the safety and freedom of our people.

------

OOC: Hi! Name's Kiwi! Wanted to introduce myself along with the ask! Sorry it's so damn long, i had a lot of information I was trying to compress. Anyway I hope you have a lovely night! :D

Oh, you mean that the vaunted liberal House of Remembrance might react badly to the wishes of its nobles peacefully abdicating to give power to the people? The liberals, who are so kind in how they trod upon our backs?

Ah, I jest and you seem anxious. Some in our audience seem to deny that such a problem could occur among liberals. Let me reassure you:

The strategy in fighting the House of Remembrance is to turn their ethics against them. They say they seek to respect the ignoble, just without reforming the system? You posit that the extreme politics of your mother has required concessions. You have spoken to the Republicans who live under you (they surely exist, especially if what i have heard is true) and decided that the most appropriate apology is a concession of power to them. This is an action you are taking to prevent an Ignoble uprising, for surely you have seen the seeds of us unkind Ungratefuls among your populace.

This is a strategy that worked for some sympathizers in the House of Dust. The noble house cedes their territory to the councils of the people they once ruled, and says they do so because it was the only peaceful option. It leaves those who would contest you in a bind: if they intervene in a peaceful transition of power they would risk conflict for real. This is a problem made worse for the liberal; do they not differentiate themselves from the federalists among them by their sympathy for the plight of the ignoble?

As for your fellow minor houses, who I hear lean less sympathetic to those on Arrudye, think about it like this: they could respond as they do, but their action in this regard risks remand from both the House of Remembrance and Harrison Armory smelling blood in the water. This action would surely rally any Ungrateful to your defense. Could they risk a prolonged conflict?

A course of action to think on. A different set of potential allies to reach out to, perhaps.

Let me know if you wish for me to find my comrades in your area.

OOC: Hi! No worries, everyone knows I'm no stranger to the text wall. You too!

[pupmkincake2000]

So, I never thought that I'd play Baldur's Gate 3, since turn-based RPGs are not my thing. But I was literally persuaded to play this game and I just have to share my impressions.

I did watch shorts and videos on YouTube, so I was aware of the world and characters before playing. That's why I decided to start Gale's origin

and I think if I decide to replay the game, I will choose him again, since he is the best. Yes, I think he is. I love good characters, kind, sympathetic, a little ambitious, gentle and loyal. And Gale fits my taste standards perfectly. He kind of reminds me of a sweet Hank Anderson from Detroit: Become Human. Noble, kind, gentle and faithful.

And, the funniest thing is that I decided to romance Astarion. Playing as Gale.

But not because I like Astarion.

On the contrary (and now hear me out), the more I played, the more he annoyed me, and I didn’t understand why people were so crazy about him. I mean, if you want him to like you, you need to do morally questionable things. Not to mention he is absolutely not my type, I never liked characters like him. That is, Astarion is the embodiment of everything that disappoints me in characters.

And you can talk as much as you like about his life being difficult. Because this does not justify many of his actions.

However, the ship itself works surprisingly well. I mean, I really like Gale and I don't like Astarion, but their ship surprisingly works. And now in a ship Astarion seems much... likable?

Basically, they are a perfect complement to each other, which is exactly the type of relationship I love. They help each other, they do not “fix” each other, but complement each other. They heal each other. Their relationship is not abusive if both work on this relationship, and the love between them is that type of love that happens probably once in a century. And to be honest, I don't want to make Astarion an ascended vampire (I haven't finished the game yet), I'm sure Gale will find a way for him to walk in the sun without the ritual.

Well, now to the other characters. Karlach and Wyll

are just two incredible sunshines. I tried to build friendly relations with them, I didn’t choose flirt while answering their lines, but for some reason they still ended up offering me sex, and it was really awkward and painful to turn them down.

So I just started shipping them together because it's another type of relationship I enjoy. It’s a pity that their couple is not popular (is there such a pairing at all?). This is the perfect “enemies to lovers” ship and it’s a shame that they can’t, like in some games, flirt with each other if they don’t have any affair with the main character .

I have almost nothing to say about Shadowheart, I’m not particularly interested in her (my party consists mainly of Astarion, Karlach and Lae'zel), but I think she has enough fans.

Halsin… oh, he is a magnificent man, and I would have romanced him if not the reasons. But I want you to know that he is also an incredible sunshine too, kind soft teddy bear who I wanted to hug and never let go.

And finally, HIM. Mysterious Guest. I knew this was an emperor, but I really liked the look I've created for him! I made him look like Hank Anderson, of course he didn’t look exactly like him, but nevertheless… I think he turned out very beautiful.

Let me scream about this beaty for a while!

In general, apart from problems with the gameplay (it took me a long time to get used to it), the game is really nice. The only thing that, it seems to me, would be worth changing is the permissiveness of choices when you go through the origin of any of the main characters, as was done with the Dark Urge. I mean, Wyll, Karlach and Gail are sunshines, so I absolutely can't believe that they are capable of doing bad things. If you can't avoid bad deeds when playing as the Urge, why can't you make it so that good characters are unable to do bad deeds? Would you really believe that Gale, Wyll or Karlach would be capable of slaughtering the whole village of children? For example, I believe that Astarion most likely would not have saved Shadowheart in the first act; he behaves selfishly throughout the entire first act. But I don’t believe that Karlach, Wyll and Gale would be capable of leaving her caged.

So, yeah, that's it.

[hero-villian-blog]

A Problem With Magento

Oh look another X-Men related post, yes I know I've been making a lot of posts about the X-Men recently. Anyways I wanted to throw my thoughts out about the character of Magneto and the dynamic he and Charles Xavier have.

So Magneto is often depicted as a sympathetic villain who has good points, but at the same time falls into the whole oh but they do bad things like kill. Many sympathetic villains bug me in how they are depicted, and how they create unsympathetic heroes in turn. But That's not what this post is about, just remember Nimona is a great movie fight me!

Okay back on track, Magneto and Xavier are often said to represent or be depicted like 2 individuals from the Civil Rights Movement. I don't like this because it basically plays into this old pitting of 2 individuals against each other post one of their deaths by a certain garbage nation leader. But also the person Magneto is often used to represent never tried to wipe all of the opposing side or rule over them. Something we see in the movies, comics, and tv shows. Like how in X2 Magneto basically tries to wipe out all non mutants. Which also ties into my previous post about the lack of mutant supporters and groups of people who have suffered in very similar ways mutants, and would definitely exist in such a world. That basically Magneto would wipe out those people as well, and the group that he shares an identity with as well.

Speaking of that identity, does anyone else find it odd that Magneto adopts the ideology of the people who did that to him and others because of that identity? You have him referring to non mutants as bugs, lesser, etc. While referring to mutants as superior, gods, and goddesses with other characters adopting such language as well. With Magneto either trying to wipe out all non mutants all out like in X2, or like in rule over them like he plans to do in X-Men: First Class.

Speaking of first class you have Magneto literally saying he agrees with everything that Sebastian Shaw says. It almost a bit worse given Magneto and other mutants associated with him like the Brotherhood of Mutants are an allegory for specific groups, and someone like Magneto adopting the ideology of the oppressors of said groups is just too similar to fear of said oppressors that said groups will do back to the oppressors what was done to them. It also falls into that same issue I made a post about where characters in the X-Men world act like mutants aren't humans. In the end I just find it weird an oppressed character would adopt the views of their oppressor, I don't think many would do something like that. The whole thing seems like there's almost an intent to make him a hypocrite.

Small spoiler for X-Men 97 here.

Side note, while I get in X-Men 97 is having Magneto be better, and he is much better than many of his other depictions. But he still spits out some nonsense. Not saying everything he says in nonsense, he has some pretty good lines like the one in Episode 5.

[very-straight-blog]

Perhaps it's time for Aegon's fans to wake up and realize that the whitewashing and victimization of Alicent also harm Aegon's character. On TG, people always talk about how Rhaenyra's whitewashing hurts Aegon, but why don't we talk about how Alicent's victimization does too? Many don't mention this because the change in Alicent's story to make her "sympathetic" was the reason many people started to like her. Several of the arguments people use to defend and victimize her couldn't be used if she were like in the book.

The writers should never have made Alicent the main focus of the Greens. All the time they spent changing her character's story could have been invested in Aegon's character. Aegon could have appeared as a baby and then as a child from the first episodes if they had respected the ages and the story. But the writers decided to make Alicent younger and develop her character by giving her a new story. They could have focused on Aegon's childhood from the beginning, showing more of him, along with Alicent starting her plan to put him on the throne. They could have shown him dealing with his mother's pressure, his feelings about not being his father's heir, his dynamics with Viserys and Criston, his siblings, and other characters. Showing more of his childhood/pre-adolescence would have been possible if they had respected the book's timeline. Even Helaena, Aemond, and Daeron could have appeared from the first episodes as babies and children, and they could have shown us a little more about them. The first season had few episodes and many time jumps, but if they had respected the book's timeline, we could have had more of the Green children.

The writers even focus on Alicent at moments that should be Aegon's. They gave her his line about "What kind of brother would steal his sister's birthright?" The rape scene then focuses on Alicent and how she feels sympathy for the girl and abhors her son for his actions. They don't show us Aegon's state of mind or how he deals with his bad actions; this focuses on Alicent, a victim sympathizing with another victim. Aegon became secondary in his own story because now Alicent is the main character of the Greens. Tom should have been on the cover of EW with Emma D'Arcy, not Olivia, because this is Rhaenyra vs. Aegon, but now everything is Rhaenyra vs. Alicent.

"Perhaps it's time for Aegon's fans to wake up and realize that the whitewashing and victimization of Alicent also harm Aegon's character." I don't really understand what kind of Aegon's fans you're talking about, because personally I never liked the way the writers changed the accents in the series compared to the books. I've repeatedly mentioned the problems related to the narrative that we have received due to the fact that Aegon was sidelined, because he's literally Rhaenyra's main rival and the second main character of this story. So I really don't understand why you wrote this thought to me.

"Many don't mention this because the change in Alicent's story to make her "sympathetic" was the reason many people started to like her." I've also repeatedly mentioned that I've always liked Alicent from the books more - a strong and ambitious woman, while Alicent on the screen is a weak victim of her surroundings and I find her pathetic.

As for the rest - well, yes, it's true, I agree with that. The screenwriters wrote an almost completely new story and as a result, Aegon turned out to be a minor character, even being literally a king. I really love Aegon from the books and I think that with proper adaptation, we could get a character that the audience would find much more fascinating than Rhaenyra. I'm very interested in how the screenwriters will develop the plot further, because after the death of "the black queen", Aegon becomes the main character - how are they going to present this to the audience? Although, I wouldn't be surprised if they rewrite the ending completely.

[m3nt4llyr4v3d]

Gabriel vs Chloe/Lila

I used to frequent the Miraculous subreddit (biggest mistake of my life) to see others opinions on Seasons 4 and 5. One question I would see pop up usually is as follows:

Why do people think Chloe/Lila is worse than Gabriel?

The common answer I’ve seen is that bullying and isolation are issues that the audience can relate to, something that’s more down to earth and closer to a viewer’s potential issues. Gabriel, meanwhile, is a supervillain who makes other ridiculously costumed supervillains when they feel bad, his situation was farther out, less relatable, so hammed up at times (cartoon and all) that people would take it less seriously.

And honestly? I completely understood this answer: many viewers’ overwhelming hatred of Chloe and Lila, from what I’ve seen, stemmed from personal relation to their victims, and their own experiences with bullies. It’s completely understandable why people would feel this way.

But then I thought about it for a second, and while I still understand that reasoning, I don’t understand it in any other context.

I mean, I’ve seen people on there genuinely say that Gabriel had more redeeming qualities than them, which confuses me. Lila I kind of understand, I mean we know literally nothing about this character, and the fandom reason of “she lies for attention because her mother is barely home”, which would give her sympathy, was a little… muddled, when it’s revealed she has 3 moms that she’s somehow lying to about being their daughter (what on earth) and has multiple identities. But Chloe? Season 2-3 was showing that she did have redeeming qualities, that she cared about people (few but regardless), she was even able to suck up her own pride when being a hero! Gabriel… He’s an odd case in which the story goes back and forth on whether he’s an awful irredeemable monster, or flawed but sympathetic dad trying his best, while also flip flopping on when exactly they want you to believe as much. Right now? He’s horrible, but the narrative want you to believe he’s just “trying his best” and thinks that he somehow has the room to ask Marinette to “tell Adrien to remember all the times I was a good father” (Marinette should’ve spat on his statue ngl)

Also, Gabriel is a neglectful, dare I say abusive father! Literally mind controls his son and is trying to control him to have the “destiny” that HE wants, not caring about his son at all. He literally pretends to bond with him at one point in Season 5 just so he could give him an alliance ring and walk off smirking, planning on akumatizing him (never brought up again btw). Like, I get that Hawkmoth is more of a hammy cartoon villain, and a lot of those aspect spill into Gabriel (I mean he had a silly stupid number near the beginning of season 5 that I hate to love). But the Gabriel half is genuinely horrible, and those aspects spill into Hawkmoth. Akumatizing, physically abusing your son, and ruining his relationship to akumatize his girlfriend in Chat Blanc, emotionally manipulating him with his dead mother in both Chat Blanc and Ephemeral, literally any time he causes an akuma on purpose by ruining the life of someone he used to be close with or personally knows (the comedian, Andre, anyone working under him), emotionally manipulating his son AGAIN just so he could plan to akumatize him later, locking him up in a white room and emotionally depriving him of everything, literally everything he does in season 5 actually. I understand that some of his more atrocious actions are supervillain things, and that could be more difficult to relate to real life problems. But come on, “neglectful, abusive, controlling parent” is absolutely a real life issue that people have, and it’s a bit strange I haven’t seen that brought up more often

I’m not saying that Chloe and Lila are saints by any means at all! But I am just saying that’s it’s kind of funny that people will say, with their whole chest, that vindictive bullying is actually worse than terrorism and abusing your child, and the idea that the narrative could agree with this scares me

[baobhanlore-art]

TW: Domestic Abuse

As someone who heavily critiques the writing of Stella, I don't have a problem with her being an abusive woman that does evil things. I feel like people try to pin the double standard excuse on us critics to dismiss our arguments. My problem is that she's comedically inconsistent and has bewildering motivations that make little sense.

To compare the two main abusive antagonists of the series, I'll compare her to Crimson Crim is a mafia boss who's clearly trying to uphold their family legacy. He abuses Moxxie to achieve that and would kill him to protect himself. Clear, understandable though clearly evil motivations.

Stella was first introduced as an aristocratic person who hated the humiliation that came with being publicly cheated on with an imp, resulting in violet domestic outbursts. So you'd think she'd aim for damage control and upholding a reputation, perhaps polite in public but a nightmare in the home (as domestic abusers often are) and maybe try to manipulate the Goeita to make herself seem like an honest victim with a degenerative husband who deserves his money, power and child.

But she doesn't, she just tried to make Stolas's life a living hell, she even admits it in "The Circus". Her motivations are to hurt him, which isn't an accurate representation of abuse or abusers yet it's upheld as a perfect example. This even happens BEFORE the cheating so it's not like she became unhinged from that.

If you personally relate to Stolas's struggles, then power to you. But from a writing standpoint, Stella feels stupid and pure evil in a situation that requires more nuance.

As someone who hasn't suffered domestic abuse but definitely abuse from friends, the ones that care about reputation tend to only show their ugly colours to you and when you call them out they turn all your mutual friends against you until you're left either forced to forgive them for the millionth time or abandoned.

"But it's Hell and all people there are awful"

I'd say it's probably more evil to be deceptive and manipulative about your abuse. Hell is literally built by the most powerful deceiver. Not to mention characters do show morals throughout the show, like Moxxie feeling bad about killing a family or his healthy relationship with Millie.

She reminds me a lot of the one note antagonists from Brandon Rogers sketches, except terribly misplaced in a story that tries to take itself seriously at times. Like if they tried to use Helen in a serious drama about being abused by school staff. It wouldn't work.

In short, Stella isn't badly written because she's evil. She's badly written because she's (unintentionally) stupid.

I feel like I'm becoming disillusioned with this franchise. So many other critics' have covered this better but I'm fearful for Hazbin Now. Especially with how Valentino is written in comparison to how fans interpret him in fanfiction (basically a terrible person but still somewhat human. Not in a sympathetic way but in a way that feels real).

[bandtrees]

Also Mingus. Of course

SEND ME A CHARACTER!!

MINGUS!!!!!!!! OF COURSE. under the cut lol

Sexuality Headcanon: bi :] it's ourple just like her. i don't think she especially cares for romance or ponders her sexuality much, but in less of an "arospec" way and more of a "forming human connection with her is a losing battle" way. i usually love arospec hcs and do see aro mingus somewhat often but it's just not something i really see myself.

Gender Headcanon: generally cis woman but i feel like if she learned what being nonbinary was she would try and release and trademark her own neopronouns and make people pay to use them. i do also see her being interpreted as transfem sometimes and i think that's a really interesting reading but not one that i actively subscribe to.

A ship I have with said character: ghghnmnnormingus. it's been really fuckin funny watching the tides change in the fandom on this ship - for a while i'd pondered it but never said anything, and then there was the time period where it was considered a weird cursed minority and i got vagueposted about it, and THEN mich came and singlehandedly pilled the masses and now its just, like, a ship. funny how that goes. but all of that talk aside, i just think they have so much potential in, like, every stage of their dynamic. the timeframe where norm's consumed by his completely one-sided obsession (/neg) with her is SO fun to think about, as is the idea post-canon of them forging a more normal relationship and possibly more. they're two of dialtown's most intricately-written characters imo, and it really shows in how layered all of their interactions are :'] there is so much baggage between them and simultaneously so little (with the point of "norm cares way more about her opinion of him than she even thinks about him") and it just makes the final confrontation of ch3 pay off so damn well. listen to nemeses by jonathan coulton it's THE normingus song to me. ⬇ SOOO ch3 norm @ mingus to me

A BROTP I have with said character: god her dynamics with all the mingling are so funny, i could listen to that group of people babble on literally forever. i wanna hear them talk about non-green related issues i want to hear what this room sounds like when its time to argue about, idk, taxes

A NOTP I have with said character: dialtown does not have that many options for edgelord proshittery but i have seen efforts at the one(1) they have. Unfortunately .

A random headcanon: always has some kind of headwear on, whether it be her trademark little hat or other ones she has made for her, or headbands or headscarves or whatnot. it's mostly cuz her head looks really off to me without the hat so i work in substitutes when im drawing or imagining her in more casual settings

General Opinion over said character: the height of dialtown's writing, her and everything to do with her. dialtown is already a good game but it goes from good to great when mingus takes center stage, imo. she's so interesting and also funny to watch - i think "seems silly but actually has deeper stuff going on"-type stories are best when the silly and the serious are tightly interwoven and you can't really distance them from eachother, and mingus is a great show of that as an inherently super tragic but also super funny character. there's not a word of dialogue she speaks where you don't get the impression of how pathetic and overcompensating she is, and that works both for humor and for sadness really well. i also like, in general, when typically "sympathetic" character flaws are played to be difficult or dangerous - in mingus' case her insecurity and desperation to follow in her grandfather's footsteps, and her compassion in wanting to be one of the only people left who still really care about him, it's objectively very noble- but less so when it becomes everyone else's problem rather than just hers. she has this in common with her grandfather 👍

[mdhwrites]

How do you feel about Hate Sink characters?

I've actually talked about this semi recently! Here is a link to me discussing my thoughts on them... Or how to do them well. And I put emphasis on doing them well because I kind of want to talk about the other side of the coin. What happens when a writer tries to make a hate sink who is genuinely just a hate sink? Just a god awful person?

Well... Honestly, you've just made an antagonist, especially one off antagonists. When you don't have need for much complexity in a villain or need them to get in, show off why they should get their ass kicked and leave, making them the worst person alive is pretty common as a way to go about it. It's essentially why you'd have a one off villain introduce himself with kicking a cat. The point is to make sure the audience is primed and ready to see them get their asses beat.

Now, this can be very entertaining but it's also not the most relatable. In the original blog, I criticized Umbridge from Harry Potter as a not very good Hate Sink and I still stand by that. She's as deep as a nineties villain, as in that she's pure evil because she gets off on it and profits from it, and so while you are meant to loath her, meant to see the creation of Dumbledore's Army as a reasonable response to her policies... How much do you actually hate her? After all, when she digs such a deep hole for herself, the fall can only be spectacular, right?

And that is where hate sinks fail to be hate sinks. A proper hate sink should be someone who's fall is something you want but even when they're beat, you have a bad taste in your mouth. You know that their EXISTENCE made the world a worse place, especially because you know they could have been real and they would have made our world a worse place. They aren't satisfying to beat because the damage is already done. There's no going back. There's no bring back Shou Tucker's wife or daughter. That hate needs to fester if you want them to really last. You have to want them to have quite literally NEVER EXISTED to earn the word 'Hate' as part of their title.

A regular antagonist on the other hand... Well, the point is that you like them being there so you can kick their ass. You gain catharsis out of making the caricature pay. If you ever have wondered why something like COBRA from G.I. JOE was so exciting to people, it's essentially this principle. We like seeing complete douchebags get their comeuppance. We like seeing non-complicated conflicts be won by the good guys. Black and White storytelling is as prominent as it is because many of us wish the world worked this way and it's nice to see the clearly bad man get his ass handed to him.

This is also where a hate sink can genuinely be a problem as a goal for a writer. See, there's absolutely an uncanny valley where you are both bored by the antagonist's presence and their complexities don't add depth, they just make them more annoying than anything else. Belos from The Owl House to me is a good example of this. He's never so evil as to excite the viewer in getting to see him be smashed, except for like a single good one liner, but he's also not genuinely grounded enough as a person to make you hate every fiber of his being. And you are meant to do that. He is supposed to be indicative of so much real world but the writing is so shallow and weak, and even to some elements contradictory as the LARGE amount of people who think Belos has a case to be genuinely sympathetic would argue, that it doesn't connect. It's too metatextual and just not very entertaining making you lose the strengths of both styles of villainy.

And another reason I don't think it's good for a writer to aim a hate sink is that it's kind of a high risk, low reward gambit. Not many people talk about Medusa because not a lot of people talk about Soul Eater. Lots of people talk about Shou Tucker because he's in Full Metal Alchemist. These are very memorable characters but they're not the core appeal of any given work because it's hard to write your main antagonist as a hate sink, especially in a grand narrative. Not when the strength of hate sinks is their smallness. In their relatability. Unless you are writing a small time drama, the reward is getting a character who might make it on some top ten lists if your work gets popular. If you fail at writing one though, you will have an absolute slog of a portion of your work that just about no one likes. Who's favorite Harry Potter villain is Umbridge? Who can actually back up the claim without easily contradicting evidence that Belos is some grand villain?

I think a writer is better off sinking more time into the parts of the story with which they love then trying to make a part they hate. After all, if you are genuinely excited about how god awful your character is, you'll be able to pump that into your readers way better than if your draining your own energy through a sink. See you next tale.

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.