#and refusing to not critique the actual PROBLEM here

[rxttenfish]

i ran out of tags on that post oops.

[reachartwork]

crossposting from twitter;

are you guys really telling me in the entire two years that this has been a Federal Fucking Issue for a certain type of extremely online artist you still have refused to learn even for a second how it actually works?

the information has been widely available for you to consume and teach yourself for the past two years (even longer if you've been paying attention). at this point if you say and believe shit like this you are deliberately keeping yourself stupid uninformed, i'll be diplomatic. and it's sad to me because if you knew how it worked you would be substantially less afraid of it!

it genuinely makes me upset that instead of just accepting a new medium into the artistic world these people are just doubling down and will continue doubling down on MAKING THEMSELVES UPSET FOR NO REASON via anti-intellectualism.

if you're going to reject out of hand an entire art movement and its purveyors, you can at the very least teach yourself how it works to have a more informed criticism. this person even SAYS that they like it!

it's like... i don't know, if i went to critique a bunch of brutalist sculptures and expressed my displeasure at not knowing where the rocks they quarried and carved into these statues came from. like does that make sense? there's a total mismatch here of what they know vs what the actual problem is here (in this case, this person does NFTs, which is what you should've started the fucking thread with!)

i don't know. i know it's a fools game to worry about this but it makes me really upset that there are people in this world who are just... incurious. like to me that feels like humans trying to understand cthulhu. what do you mean you don't research the things that make you afraid so that you can understand them and be less afraid?

i don't really have a point here i'm just sad and annoyed. anyway.

[cosmicredcadet]

I think there's a genuine conversation to be had about how aro spaces have begun pushing QPRs in a similar way that amatonormativity pushes romantic relationships onto people but a majority of aros just refuse to engage in the discussion because they see it as an attack on QPRs or people saying QPRs are romantic relationships lite instead of actually looking at the fact it's critiquing how some Aros have begun pushing it almost like an alternative to romance and something all Aro's want.

No one is saying QPRs are bad but rather that there is too much push that the idea of a QPR will fix people's problems. "oh you're lonely? just find a QPR!" "You dont have to be in a romantic relationship you can be in a QPR!" "QPR is MORE than friendship" etc etc.

There's a genuine critique here of QPRs being used to continue to push amatonormativity by again assuming that every aro wants a partner - even if not romantic - and I think we can have a genuine conversation about this rather than going at each other throats over a fake argument of "QPRs bad"

[iridescentmirrorsgenshin]

This is an analysis of Kaveh and Alhaitham’s argument posted on the Port Ormos bulletin board!! Because it is crazy actually!!

I think this exchange of theirs out of the three posted throughout Sumeru is particularly interesting, and this is due Alhaitham openly expressing that Kaveh does not understand what Alhaitham is really trying to say to him: “I have never denied what you meant, but you don’t understand what I am saying to you at all.”

This exchange is relevant in various ways in exploring the motif of communication. As according to their usual rapport, the two disagree over their differing philosophies, as in sensibility versus rationality, however, Alhaitham’s particular concerns in Kaveh spending his money on “nonsense” highlights the underlying reason for this exchange. From this comment, the argument is recontextualised through Alhaitham’s intention for getting involved, as Kaveh prompts the workmen to take his money in order to help them out.

When Alhaitham states that this is a meaningless action due to the inevitability of people rising or falling on their own accord, rather than solely critiquing Kaveh’s “impulsiv[e]” altruism, as Kaveh interprets, Alhaitham is directly contradicting his own comment – as he is interfering on Kaveh’s decisions.

As concern is evidently the intention behind his interference, Kaveh cannot perceive this, and instead attempts to critique Alhaitham’s perspective in return, although Alhaitham states: “Make no mistake. I have never denied what you meant…” This response asserts that Alhaitham does not deny, but rather agrees with, Kaveh’s statement of “mutual assistance, fairness, and righteous anger” driving the world.

In lieu of this, rather than continuing the argument, Alhaitham claims that there is no point to it, as Kaveh does not understand what he is saying, as in, Kaveh does not understand that his intentions in interfering are out of concern. He follows this up, regardless, by criticising Kaveh’s handling of his budget, as, evidently, Kaveh has offered to give his own money to these workmen, and refuses to pay for Kaveh’s drinks for that month.

For Alhaitham, Kaveh’s lack of self-prioritisation leads him to impulsive altruistic acts which serve to jeopardise his own position, particularly regarding money. If Kaveh can afford to give away money, he can afford to pay his own tabs, is the takeaway from this exchange. Although, similarly to the exchange between them posted in Puspa’s Café, this applies to one particular month, insinuating that Alhaitham will continue to pay for next month’s tabs of his own accord.

The main argument, as well as the disagreement over the speaker of Kaveh’s quote, serves as a humorous exchange, but as a motif for communication it acquires a new meaning. The two hold perspectives which contrast the other which puts them on unequal footing, demonstrated within the argument over the speaker of Kaveh’s quote. Although it is not disclosed who is actually in the right, both are convinced of their respective viewpoint. There is an element missing here, a potential solution to this problem, and it lies within the idea of “correctness” established within A Parade of Providence.

The omission of there being an objective, correct answer to this particular debate serves as a parallel to their conflicting viewpoints, with the basis of their exchange being to “prove” to the other their “correctness” – here, it is in regard to Kaveh.

However, “correctness” being the basis of their exchange, and thus, relationship, is challenged with Alhaitham shutting down the initial debate due to Kaveh’s misunderstanding of his meaning. Correctness, then, and its importance, is called into question within this exchange, with Kaveh being the one to chase it; his last message being that he would “prove” himself to be right.

At the core of this bulletin board exchange is the idea that Alhaitham harbours an alternative ‘meaning’ than the one that Kaveh assigns to him: “… you don’t understand what I’m saying to you at all.” This is a meaning which Kaveh cannot perceive due to his current understanding of Alhaitham. This represents the standing of their current relationship, where Kaveh believes Alhaitham holds him in disdain, although this belief is incongruous with Alhaitham’s actions which show his care for Kaveh.

In these instances of communication through the Bulletin Boards, it is interesting to note that Kaveh is revealed to have been drunk and “scribbling” on these notice boards, and hopes that Alhaitham does not know.

Although this is a humorous detail, it adds another layer to the unreliability of their method of communication, as Kaveh has no recollection of these exchanges with Alhaitham, and therefore could not have properly interpreted Alhaitham due to an altered state of mind. It is uncertain whether Alhaitham is aware of Kaveh’s being drunk whilst responding to him, or whether he is believed to have been lucid, which creates another element of unreliability in their exchanges.

Alhaitham understands Kaveh’s thinking and the reasons for why he acts as he does, but he cannot articulate his concern in a way that Kaveh will understand, both out of Kaveh’s incapability of receiving goodwill, but also due to his logical manner of expression. Kaveh perceives Alhaitham’s concealed expressions of concern as personal gripes and criticisms of his beliefs, and therefore believes that their relationship is based on the scholarly principle of proving the validity of one’s philosophies.

The Port Ormos Bulletin Board reinforces the core essence of their relationship: Alhaitham is invested in a personal regard, whereas Kaveh cannot see this due to his perception of Alhaitham and Alhaitham’s inability to communicate in a way Kaveh would understand.

(Update: For more analyses like this, the essay this is taken from is now uploaded! It can be accessed here and here as as a pdf <3)

[thinking-through-some-things]

What do you mean by the women from epic the musical was poorly handled? Can you explain? I’m interested bc I thought that too

ho boy, let's see.

there's definitely a general feminist critique to be had about how few women are in the musical and how small their parts are. obviously i realize the musical primarily follows the leading man and his male crew because that's just how the odyssey works. but it's still a conversation worth having, especially since there are ways to make the existing female characters better. the decision to base this on the odyssey is still a choice.

i don't have much to say about most of the monsters/goddesses. aeolus and scylla are fine. circe is okay, and she actually gets a few songs. personally i think god games should just be cut entirely; it's just athena justifying everything odysseus has done. hera is fine. i don't like how athena stops talking to aphrodite once ares shows up; the line that convinces her is "tell your lover that a broken heart can mend," which is directed at ares.

not mentioning anticlea until she's already dead means her death doesn't really have the weight it should. he's desperate to get back to penelope and telemachus, so it just feels like he forgot about his mom, which makes that tragedy feel a little unearned. he should be just as concerned to get back to her as he is the other two, which means he should mention her whenever he sings about them in the first act. then it would actually matter more when we find out she's dead.

the rest is under a read more because i wrote a lot about athena, and because i need to give a trigger warning for sexual assault for my other points.

athena is clearly the strongest female character and is positioned to be a foil to odysseus. that being said, i didn't really follow her shift in philosophy - going back to look at the lyrics it's because she blames herself for teaching him to be cruel? the goodbye at the start is weird - she's mad at him for not being ruthless, but really the problem is that he's arrogant - which is still something she could chastise him for. idk. either way i don't think her evolution was explored well at all - she basically just changes her mind because she misses him, not because she has actually seen anything to suggest mercy is good. and it's weird that she's only at the beginning, in the wisdom saga, and at the very end. her stuff isn't terrible, but it needs to be better distributed throughout the musical so there can be an evolution. give her one more song towards the end of act one, break up the wisdom saga so her story feels like it's part of the musical instead of a weird distraction in the middle, and actually show us why she starts to think mercy is good. as is her character is too reliant on odysseus in a way that really hurts that the story. bringing up telemachus earlier and exploring that relationship, or penelope and ithica, gives you a chance for athena to see something that helps her change her mind. (i have more to say about her story but that's just about fixing the plot. i think i've made my point here.

okay trigger warning for real.

calypso is really weirdly done. she has one song where she's pressuring him to be with her, and then a song where she refuses to apologize for "unrequited love" or something. odysseus is upset with her and struggling with ptsd in the first song, and then says he loves her in the second. it feels like the musical wants you to have an overall favorable impression of her. there's a lot of discussion about whether or not this is a case of sexual assault in the fandom posts i've seen, but i don't think that's something the musical is discussing. if anything, it takes the stance that it isn't, at least in this version, and that calypso is just some sad girl who wants to be loved. that being said, i've seen some pretty disgusting hatred directed towards calypso in those posts - not clear if it's for the original version, this one, or if there's any difference. either way, the musical needs to decide if calypso is bad/problematic or if she's good/misunderstood, and both of her songs need rewriting. (there's also something to be said about her being the only visibly black female character, but i don't know much about the actual actors for the musical so i'll leave this be for now. but that did stick out to me while watching the animatics.)

i have very mixed opinions about the sirens. the imagery of a group of men standing over and brutalizing a group of women as they beg for their lives was pretty heavy. i don't hate it - it very much sells the idea that the men have become monsters. however, it really bothers me that it basically just. happens. and then we move on. odysseus agonizes over so many choices, but this one seems like it was easy for him, and he doesn't suffer any guilt over it. no one challenges it. so overall it just comes off as a reason to brutalize women, which leaves a sour taste in my mouth. i wish we'd at least get pushback from some of the crew so there's at least some conversation about how maybe this isn't 100% justified. instead, the only mention of the sirens is in god games, where... apollo gives a half-hearted argument about how the sirens sing catchy songs. the other gods at least have a point. and with all of this, athena's retort just feels very victim-blame-y to me. overall, i think there's a way to keep the stuff with the sirens in - but there needs to be more delicacy in how the whole thing is handled.

and finally, penelope. she's probably the worst-written female character in the musical. she exists to 1) be odysseus's motivation/prize, and 2) assure odysseus that he's actually a good person and sure, every terrible thing he did was totally fine, no issue. her first song, which isn't until the last saga, just 1) tells us she's sad, and 2) gives us odyssey plot. the challenge doesn't really do anything to the musical's plot, so you might as well cut it. and her only other song is the finale, where she assures odysseus she loves him and never doubted him and she has no qualms over anything he did because she's a Strong Woman so she still loves him unconditionally. also the bit about the bed is confusing. it's clearly only in there because of the odyssey, and it makes no sense for the musical. penelope has no character in this musical.

(i acknowledge this is a bit hypocritical, but i would actually cut the actual penelope out of the musical. the mentions and cameos of odysseus's idea of her, and the bit with the sirens, can stay, but actual penelope never shows up. i would lean into the idea of her being his prize in a way that leaves you a little unsettled. but also i think odysseus should be the bad guy in the end, so.)

and finally, i hate the decision to introduce the threat of the suitors gang-raping penelope. we already know the suitors aren't great. they're demanding penelope marry one of them. they beat up the kid. there's no need to evoke such a graphic image; i felt sick the first time i heard it, and i don't even have experience with/trauma related to sexual assault. the only point of this song is to justify odysseus slaughtering the suitors, because actually they're all terrible, horrible people. which again just weakens the idea that odyssseus is some kind of monster, because this very intentionally makes him look like a hero. between the decision to downplay the idea of circe or calypso sexually assaulting odysseus (both interpretations popular in what fandom posts i have seen) alongside the brutal violence perpetrated against the sirens and the intentional addition of a whole song about gang-raping penelope, the musical has an uncomfortable focus on violence against women. it's gratuitous and serves no purpose.

[aceof-stars]

Actually, “Feenie” Makes Perfect Sense as a Backstory for Phoenix (+ 3-1 Initial Thoughts)

I've decided to start a series where I record my thoughts and analysis as I play through the Ace Attorney games for the first time. I'll try to post these as soon as I finish a case so that my thoughts are fresh.

Phoenix Wright/"Feenie"

I've noticed critiques in this fandom that "Feenie" from Turnabout Memories is too different from Phoenix in the trilogy or that the backstory is poorly inserted. But, honestly I disagree. It's easy to treat Phoenix and Feenie as different people because of their different outfits and mannerisms, but I think the characterization is consistent (despite "Feenie" being exaggerated sometimes for comedic effect).

I've seen the fandom portray "Feenie" as a sweet pushover. But if anything, his belief is extremely stubborn and strong-willed. Phoenix believed in true love and fate which was why he accepts that necklace in the first place. He also never relents to Dahlia (or should I say Iris) when she asks for the necklace back.

He’s only able to be used and manipulated by Dahlia because his own goals and beliefs aligned with the facade she presented to him.

Phoenix literally shoves a guy so hard that he fell onto his back because he badmouthed Dahlia. I think one constant of Phoenix's character is that he cares too deeply and is protective over the people he loves.

There's also the part where Phoenix mocks Doug for being British? or wearing the British flag (I didn’t take a screenshot of it). “Feenie” is just as sassy and judgmental as Phoenix is. He might be a lot more naive and immature but he's still Phoenix.

Oh Phoenix... back when you believed in people saving you... before you bottled up your problems and refused to let anyone help you...

To be fair he is the defendant here but still. He doesn't ask for support after Edgeworth disappears, he doesn't ask for help at first when Maya is kidnapped.

I think, unfortunately, this incident with Dahlia is what kickstarted a lot of his trust and abandonment issues. His overwhelmingly strong belief and trust in Dahlia backfired in the worst way possible. It’s not a stretch that this made him too terrified of betrayal to open up to anyone in the trilogy.

So I know this is for comedic effect, but it’s also really good proof that Phoenix heavily idealizes the people he gets super attached to.

(Coughs in Edgeworth and Justice for All)

… I mean he’s not wrong! But he’s also being delusional

This is one of the first things Phoenix says after finding out he was betrayed. He doesn't spend much time acknowledging his feelings of hurt. He just goes into denial.

(COUGHS IN EDGEWORTH AND JUSTICE FOR ALL)

This is just further proof for me that Phoenix’s coping mechanisms are suppression and delusion.

And then Phoenix immediately he moves on to saving Edgeworth! He just shoves all that trauma aside to fixate on saving someone else... to cope by giving himself more control. Phoenix's savior complex stems from abandonment issues.

This trial doesn't give Phoenix the idea to save Edgeworth, it solidifies it.

After being reminded by Mia of his belief that a defense attorney saves people, Phoenix firmly sets himself on this path.

There it is. Phoenix says it himself... he suppressed these memories. That's why he never brought it up in the last two games. I know the real reason is because the creators didn’t plan it, but it also makes sense narratively.

I mean, Phoenix hides the class trial story until Turnabout Goodbyes. This man does not like to talk about his problems or trauma.

Mia Fey

Damn Mia is so brutal. Is this where Phoenix gets his sass from?

Mia is also not how I expected her to be. I mean whenever she gets channeled to help Phoenix out, she's in the role of the wise mentor. But here? She's a nervous wreck, cynical of romance, and full of trust issues.

Speaking of trust issues... I unfortunately did not take a screenshot of this but as soon as Mia finds out Phoenix has lying to her, she reacts very strongly with distrust. She also has to convince herself multiple times to trust in him again. Believing in people or trusting them doesn't seem to come easy to Mia. Which is super interesting because her advice is to always believe in your client. Maybe Mia eventually got used to trusting her clients but... she also never tells Phoenix about her investigation in Redd White. I don't think Mia is as trusting as she presents herself as.

[sarahreesbrennan]

sorry if you have already answered this, but are we getting any queer rep in Long Live Evil? 💕 i am super excited to see what you've cooked up for us either way!

I came back after I'd gone off on one, seeing the post had struck a chord and being thankful but fearful of my inbox. Let me say with delighted surprise that all the asks are very kind.

Thank you for this one, sweet anon. I am so excited and so nervous about my best beloved, Long Live Evil, and about coming back with a new book of my own after so long, when I believed for a long time it was hopeless.

I'm really grateful to find readers waiting for me. But I know readers are naturally more invested in characters they know: I extremely appreciate you taking an interest in the future.

So, short answer: YEAH you are!

Long answer: Long Live Evil wouldn't exist without its queer narratives.

C.S. Pacat and I were talking in our virtual Brookline Booksmith event recently about our favourite Disney villains. C.S. Pacat picked Maleficent, a fine choice. I picked Snow White's Evil Queen. We agreed we loved most of them.

Here's the relevant excerpt I was quoting in my last post from Carmen Maria Machado's In The Dream House, saying 'I think a lot about queer villains, the problem and pleasure and audacity of them.' Well... me too.

I think many of us have experienced feeling made wrong in some way - for not wanting what society said we should or being what we were expected to be - and that one step along that journey of discovery is going 'Okay, if it's wicked, I'll just BE wicked.' And that's part of why those characters appeal - because they seem free, and free of pain.

But modern storytelling isn't confined to coding, and audiences can now feel free to expect, not the certainty, but the possibility characters who aren't introduced as such still might actually turn out to be LGBT+. The essays I've read about Supernatural, Teen Wolf, Sherlock, Ted Lasso, Fox 9-1-1... I think the latest argued Jaime Lannister was bisexual. (Pretty persuasive.)

I remember reading the Raven Cycle going 'oh? OH.' I remember being at a writing retreat in 2013 and running through the halls screaming about Nico diAngelo. Ten years later we got a Nico diAngelo book co-written by Rick Riordan and the amazing Mark Oshiro. I watched Red, White and Royal Blue with a friend and she said 'honestly I hope the guys get together, but...' and I (having read the book) silenced myself with a herculean effort and watched her hopes come true. I didn't know about The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo and almost dropped the book in a swimming pool. But I've also read and watched many things thinking, just maybe... oh, no. Still that hope existing is meaningful, the thought that if the story had gone differently, if this revelation had happened, if this realisation had happened, if, if, if...

Long Live Evil is a story about the story going differently and asking yourself questions about your own nature, and the escape to fiction of those who really need escape. The book is based on that 'if,' and the 'if' itself is joyous, and brings me back to the idea of gleefully transgressing the narrative that much villain love is based on.

It's also an ensemble story with a rogue's gallery of characters and multiple PoVs. (I was much inspired by the Six of Crows ensemble.) So it isn't about any one character's romance, and by the book's nature there exist many possibilities. A critique partner read and said 'I didn't know you were going THERE' and I responded 'Should I?'

I've never been one to confirm where stories are going, and I won't do so now. I'm not talking about any one character or telling you a direction.

I'm just saying yes to rep. It's baked in.

[reel-fear]

Genuinely so curious who Mike thinks is gonna be buying The Cage or the new DCTL GN bc with the way he tweets as far as he's concerned, it's not gonna be:

The queer people he has actively admitted he will never show any representation of in the games.

2. The POC he has actively fought against representing in his franchise. [Who he also mocked for thinking they would be represented in his franchise]

3. The Bendy fandom which has always been concerned with topics of diversity esp in the sense of queer people since its creation. Who he has responded to really poorly esp in regards to the GN.

4. The fans who critique him. [He blocked me for doing so lol]

5. His fans in general who he tweets about like this currently. [He's being vague about why people were mad at him or sent him 'nasty messages' because if you actually looked into why you'd see he was in the wrong. Either way, a very hateful way to speak abt ur own fanbase.]

Reminder while Mike is trash talking his fans he has always treated them rather poorly. The fans who won the fanart contest for Chapter 5 never got their posters actually in game due to it being rushed. Not only was chapter 5 a big slap to the face story wise, but it was literally so rushed he couldn't be bothered to add in the art his fans gave him for his game FOR FREE. [Meatly blames this on a crazy timeline, reminder him and Mike are the literal ceos of this company. The proposal of future updates here is also pretty cruel considering Mike nowadays happily admits he corrupted Chapter 5's source code and therefore literally can't update it At All currently. Because he is a moron]

At least they got to be in Boris and the dark survival, and by that I mean that was the Only game they got to be in so far, isn't that just treating your fans like you love them? Shoving their hard work into a spin off game almost nobody has played or addresses much. [Hell, who knows if with the Lone Wolf rebrand they'll even stay there. In which case they'll be in None of the games, only in the credits of BATIM]

6. The Bendy fans who just generally disagree with him on stuff. Like the new ink demon design where there is literally a public poll showing people generally prefer the old one.

7. The Bendy fans who can see he is actively lying to them. To their fucking faces.

He says this has always been the case, but screenshots and links to tweets regarding the books being canon prove it was not. Does he really think bendy fans are stupid or something? [Unless he's admitting here he lied to Kress when he told her the books were canon which sounds worse!]

8. Anyone who doesn't like the idea of giving money to a guy who laid off tons of employees then afterwards thought it was a great idea to express his anti-union views! Also brag about how good of an employer he was, according to his employees, he was not!

So in summary; Mike is an awful person who has not learned anything from the awful things he did. I will not be purchasing The Cage because, combined with this and his absolute refusal to take any kind of critique or see any differing interpretation of his franchise, I have no reason to think my problems with the franchise will ever be addressed or fixed. I probably will pirate The Cage along with any future Bendy Products [Including the movie] and will do my best to avoid giving it any kind of monetary support. Unless this changes any time soon, I can't see myself making anymore positive Bendy posts soon.

Mike has just managed to make it so hard to speak positively or optimistically of this franchise when he's so willing to broadcast how little he cares about it or its fans. I'm at the point where I refuse to pull any of my punches with my problems with it. What's the point of trying to play nice with my critique when either way the people creating it don't care?

So with this post, I want to invite anyone who feels similarly about the franchise to tell me, make a post or send an ask talking about how all of this makes you feel. It may not change how things are, but genuinely seeing other people share my feelings of anger makes me feel better. It feels nice to see when other people share our same concerns and worries. I'd also love to know if anyone else thinks they'll be avoiding purchasing Bendy products over this.

I'm not forcing anyone to participate in it nor trying to say anyone who doesn't supports mike but genuinely maybe if we can collectively decide to boycott things like the movie, graphic novel and The Cage... It might at least make the bendy devs acknowledge how much they have destroyed their own fandom's faith and trust in them.

The way Mike tweets about his actions like he had no control over why people were mad at him at least proves to me he takes NONE of it back nor regrets it. If you didn't know about his actions and only went off his tweets, you would be led to believe Mike has been needlessly picked apart by fans over things he couldn't control [or in his own words, had his words twisted and taken out of context]. That is not how you speak about your actions if you have actually learned better from them.

anyway, that has been my bendy dev callout post. This is an open invitation to anyone feeling similarly upset about the way the franchise is going to talk about it. It's genuinely nice to see how people feel about this and the more we talk about the more it's likely the bendy devs are forced to address our concerns. I don't think they will but hey, that's why I'm not gonna support them with my money anymore nor am I gonna be nice to them in any content I make critiquing Bendy. I mean I'm also basically making this post just in case anyone asks me Why I feel this way towards to bendy devs/as a way to respond to anyone who thinks I am too harsh in my critique in the future.

As always, it seems the best part of Bendy isn't actually anything about canon but about what the fan's are creating with the ideas Bendy failed to do anything interesting with.

Also the books, the books slap.

[flower-boi16]

Do you think this fandom can still improve despite everything? Is it Viv and Spindlehorse's fault that this fandom is problematic or there is deeper root cause? Despite the amount of negativity both hh and hb recieved, is it still possible to listen to fans who give constructive criticism and improve both shows? Many fans often say something like"The Spindlehorse's crew don't want to listen to critics because there are too many bad faith criticism and hate" or "Those critics don't have the vision of the creators so their advices are invalid." I think both sides of this fandom are overly aggressive to whatever happened. It must have something behind it.

I think the reason why the fandom reacts so poorly to criticism is a mix of several factors:

These shows are fairly popular, the more popular something is the bigger the fanbase will be. And, likewise, some fans would be very defensive when it comes to criticism.

The batshit insane twitter users and fake outrage being confused with the actual critiques people have of the shows. I'll admit, early critical videos were...not great to say the least (cough cough Pkrussel cough cough), and many of Viv's past controversies are admittedly dumb. However, there are real issues people have with these shows and Vivziepop, however, because of all the past controversies with Viv being over-blown, fans lump these real and valid critiques in with the fake Twitter outrage, causing this confusing mess.

Vivziepop's reaction to critiscm. She directly dismisses critiques people have of her shows and pretty clearly spends a bit too much time on online discourse about her shows. Viv IS aware of the critiques people have of her shows but she has this very immature response to criticism just looking at her twitter, and, this does translate to the fandom as well.

Drama channels such as AyyLmao and Iox constantly defending Viv and her shows. AyyLmao is a fairly big channel and a lot of his videos are about controversies surrounding Viv. Pretty much all of these tend to be heavily biased as AyyLmao instantly takes Viv's side, as in several of his videos he deliberately chooses to lump in the actual critiques of the shows with the deranged Twitter users online, which contributes to the second problem I mentioned above. This can be seen with his hatedom video where he says that most of the criticism at least on Twitter isn't "real criticism" and "just hate disguised on such". Notice how he says that at least on Twitter the criticism is just hate. He's deliberately making it look like the critical community is just a bunch of deranged Twitter users who just hate Viv cuz they are jealous or something, when looking at sites such as Reddit, Youtube, Tumblr, etc you'll see people with ACTUAL PROBLEMS with the shows, by AyyLmao's ignoring that in order paint the critical community as a toxic hell-hole. He pretends to be neutral in the video but he clearly is biased with how he paints the critics here, as he only focuses on this one site just to make it look like the critical community is just an annoying vocal minority on Twitter. and because of that, the fandom views the critical community as just that; just an annoying vocal minority of Twitter users who shouldn't be taken seriously.

The fandom just refusing to engage with people's critiques because they can't handle criticism of their favorite shows. That's pretty obvious.

I don't think the fandom will get better any time soon given these factors I just mentioned. Until Viv learns to accept criticism, until Viv drama channels stop defending her bullshit, and until the fandom actually engages with people's critiques rather than sending death threats...ya no this fandom is still going to be awful.

[drdemonprince]

Just chiming in to agree that that person is not a selfish bitch. I'm also really put off by moralistic performances of emotion, and I know in my case it's because it was part of a pattern of abusive behaviour that my mother did.

Anytime you expressed to her that there was a problem with her behaviour, she seemed to genuinely believe that if she put enough effort into weeping and crying on her children's shoulders, and verbally denigrating herself for being an inherently bad an immoral person, and stressing so much that she developed physical illnesses from it, then she could follow that up by asking for forgiveness - as if it would be cruel for us to continue her suffering by denying her that forgiveness. Except that to her, "forgiveness" meant "it's all swept under the rug, I have Atoned By Suffering Guilt, so now it doesn't matter and I can keep doing it again." (I really wonder how much the religious background of her parents' generation came into the formation of this worldview.) And at the same time, she refuses to read news that's "too upsetting" and never engages with literature or media about dark themes "because there's enough of that in real life."

It might be cynical of me to read this pattern into the way people talk online about genocide. But I keep seeing parallels. My perspective is that a) if you're not regulating your emotions well enough to function, then you have less capacity to offer practical help; and b) people who are actually trying to survive genocide want unnecessary human suffering to END, so you're not aligning yourself with that hope by engaging in rumination etc that compounds suffering with not practical benefit to anyone.

But also, watching my mother's behaviour has led me to add perspective c) that a lot of people (in Christian cultures?) haven't developed enough understanding of the complexity of the world and how to relate to it, and genuinely believe that an overblown emotionally affected reaction, followed by helplessness and thereby inaction, is the only possible way for them to respond when they're confronted with upsetting information that demands action from them. Being raised to think in a black-and-white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and thinking about people as "either morally good or morally bad" rather than thinking about people as neutral and behaviours as either ethically helpful or harmful... it doesn't give them a conceptual framework to integrate upsetting information and then carry on getting things done, it's like their moral anxiety gets them stuck and that keeps the emotions escalating.

I see people discussing this pattern in the context of religious trauma, and in the context of the cultural construct of "whiteness" - the discovery of something morally bad has to be followed by an extreme emotional reaction that basically amounts to protesting your own innocence and helplessness to deny responsibility for your direct behaviours (in my mother's case) or complicity in a corrupt system (in the case of overwhelmed average people learning about genocide).

Maybe I'm rambling more than I'm analysing here, but the comparison stands out a lot to me and it's troubling to watch.

yo anon no this is gold, thank you for sharing. This is remarkably astute.

I will add the quick caveat that hyperempathic people who are debilitated by their sensitivity exist, of course, and have very real struggles and none of this is intended to denigrate them. In practice, their behavior can have the impact of silencing criticism or distracting from the issue at hand but being wired that way certainly does not doom a person to behaving in a counterproductive, manipulative manner.

This critique is more about performative over the top empathy as a tactic (conscious or not) of offloading responsibility, and as a pseudo-religious ideology that makes predominately white western cultures particularly ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of their global plundering. almost certainly by design. Most moral teachings that we encounter in the west promote this tactic and ideology, and it gets very deeply ingrained in most us if we don't devote a ton of attention to uprooting it.

thanks for this great response.

[dailyanarchistposts]

G.3 Is “anarcho”-capitalism a new form of individualist anarchism?

No. As Carole Pateman once pointed out, ”[t]here has always been a strong radical individualist tradition in the USA. Its adherents have been divided between those who drew anarchist, egalitarian conclusions, and those who reduced political life to the capitalist economy writ large, to a series of exchanges between unequally situated individuals.” [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 205] What right-“libertarians” and “anarcho”-capitalists do is to confuse these two traditions, ignoring fundamental aspects of individualist anarchism in order to do so. Thus anarchist Peter Sabatini:

“in those rare moments when [Murray] Rothbard (or any other [right-wing] Libertarian) does draw upon individualist anarchism, he is always highly selective about what he pulls out. Most of the doctrine’s core principles, being decidedly anti-Libertarianism, are conveniently ignored, and so what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defence of capitalism. In sum, the ‘anarchy’ of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud.” [Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy]

As class struggle anarchist Benjamin Franks notes individualist anarchism “has similarities with, but is not identical to, anarcho-capitalism.” [Rebel Alliances, p. 44] For Colin Ward, while the “mainstream” of anarchist propaganda “has been anarchist-communism” there are “several traditions of individualist anarchism”, including that associated with Max Stirner and “a remarkable series of 19th-century American figures” who “differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism.” Ward was careful to note that by the “late 20th century the word ‘libertarian’ . .. was appropriated by a new group of American thinkers” and so “it is necessary to examine the modern individualist ‘libertarian’ response from the standpoint of the anarchist tradition.” It was found to be wanting, for while Rothbard was “the most aware of the actual anarchist tradition among the anarcho-capitalist apologists” he may have been “aware of a tradition, but he is singularly unaware of the old proverb that freedom for the pike means death for the minnow.” The individualist anarchists were “busy social inventors exploring the potential of autonomy.” The “American ‘libertarians’ of the 20th century are academics rather than social activists, and their inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammelled market capitalism.” [Anarchism: A Short Introduction, pp. 2–3, p. 62, p. 67, and p. 69]

In this section we will sketch these differences between the genuine libertarian ideas of Individualist Anarchism and the bogus “anarchism” of right-“libertarian” ideology. This discussion builds upon our general critique of “anarcho”-capitalism we presented in section F. However, here we will concentrate on presenting individualist anarchist analysis of “anarcho”-capitalist positions rather than, as before, mostly social anarchist ones (although, of course, there are significant overlaps and similarities). In this way, we can show the fundamental differences between the two theories for while there are often great differences between specific individualist anarchist thinkers all share a vision of a free society distinctly at odds with the capitalism of their time as well as the “pure” system of economic textbooks and right-“libertarian” dreams (which, ironically, so often reflects the 19th century capitalism the individualist anarchists were fighting).

First it should be noted that some “anarcho”-capitalists shy away from the term, preferring such expressions as “market anarchist” or “individualist anarchist.” This suggests that there is some link between their ideology and that of Tucker and his comrades. However, the founder of “anarcho”-capitalism, Murray Rothbard, refused that label for, while “strongly tempted,” he could not do so because “Spooner and Tucker have in a sense pre-empted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences.” Somewhat incredibly Rothbard argued that on the whole politically “these differences are minor,” economically “the differences are substantial, and this means that my view of the consequences of putting our more of less common system into practice is very far from theirs.” [“The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist’s View”, pp. 5–15, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 7]

What an understatement! Individualist anarchists advocated an economic system in which there would have been very little inequality of wealth and so of power (and the accumulation of capital would have been minimal without profit, interest and rent). Removing this social and economic basis would result in substantially different political regimes. In other words, politics is not isolated from economics. As anarchist David Wieck put it, Rothbard “writes of society as though some part of it (government) can be extracted and replaced by another arrangement while other things go on before, and he constructs a system of police and judicial power without any consideration of the influence of historical and economic context.” [Anarchist Justice, p. 227]

Unsurprisingly, the political differences he highlights are significant, namely “the role of law and the jury system” and “the land question.” The former difference relates to the fact that the individualist anarchists “allow[ed] each individual free-market court, and more specifically, each free-market jury, totally free rein over judicial decision.” This horrified Rothbard. The reason is obvious, as it allows real people to judge the law as well as the facts, modifying the former as society changes and evolves. For Rothbard, the idea that ordinary people should have a say in the law is dismissed. Rather, “it would not be a very difficult task for Libertarian lawyers and jurists to arrive at a rational and objective code of libertarian legal principles and procedures.” [Op. Cit., pp. 7–8] Of course, the fact that “lawyers” and “jurists” may have a radically different idea of what is just than those subject to their laws is not raised by Rothbard, never mind answered. While Rothbard notes that juries may defend the people against the state, the notion that they may defend the people against the authority and power of the rich is not even raised. That is why the rich have tended to oppose juries as well as popular assemblies. Unsurprisingly, as we indicated in section F.6.1, Rothbard wanted laws to be made by judges, lawyers, jurists and other “libertarian” experts rather than jury judged and driven. In other words, to exclude the general population from any say in the law and how it changes. This hardly a “minor” difference! It is like a supporter of the state saying that it is a “minor” difference if you favour a dictatorship rather than a democratically elected government. As Tucker argued, “it is precisely in the tempering of the rigidity of enforcement that one of the chief excellences of Anarchism consists .. . under Anarchism all rules and laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of juries, and that all disputes … will be submitted to juries which will judge not only the facts but the law, the justice of the law, its applicability to the given circumstances, and the penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its infraction .. . under Anarchism the law … will be regarded as just in proportion to its flexibility, instead of now in proportion to its rigidity.” [The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 160–1] In others, the law will evolve to take into account changing social circumstances and, as a consequence, public opinion on specific events and rights. Tucker’s position is fundamentally democratic and evolutionary while Rothbard’s is autocratic and fossilised.

This is particularly the case if you are proposing an economic system which is based on inequalities of wealth, power and influence and the means of accumulating more. As we note in section G.3.3, one of individualist anarchists that remained pointed this out and opposed Rothbard’s arguments. As such, while Rothbard may have subscribed to a system of competing defence companies like Tucker, he expected them to operate in a substantially different legal system, enforcing different (capitalist) property rights and within a radically different socio-economic system. These differences are hardly “minor”. As such, to claim that “anarcho”-capitalism is simply individualist anarchism with “Austrian” economics shows an utter lack of understanding of what individualist anarchism stood and aimed for.

On the land question, Rothbard opposed the individualist position of “occupancy and use” as it “would automatically abolish all rent payments for land.” Which was precisely why the individualist anarchists advocated it! In a predominantly rural economy, as was the case during most of the 19th century in America, this would result in a significant levelling of income and social power as well as bolstering the bargaining position of non-land workers by reducing the numbers forced onto the labour market (which, as we note in section F.8.5, was the rationale for the state enforcing the land monopoly in the first place). He bemoans that landlords cannot charge rent on their “justly-acquired private property” without noticing that is begging the question as anarchists deny that this is “justly-acquired” land in the first place. Unsurprising, Rothbard considered “the proper theory of justice in landed property can be found in John Locke”, ignoring the awkward fact that the first self-proclaimed anarchist book was written precisely to refute that kind of theory and expose its anti-libertarian implications. His argument simply shows how far from anarchism his ideology is. For Rothbard, it goes without saying that the landlord’s “freedom of contract” tops the worker’s freedom to control their own work and live and, of course, their right to life. [Op. Cit., p. 8 and p. 9]

For anarchists, “the land is indispensable to our existence, consequently a common thing, consequently insusceptible of appropriation.” [Proudhon, What is Property?, p. 107] Tucker looked forward to a time when capitalist property rights in land were ended and “the Anarchistic view that occupancy and use should condition and limit landholding becomes the prevailing view.” This “does not simply mean the freeing of unoccupied land. It means the freeing of all land not occupied by the owner” and “tenants would not be forced to pay you rent, nor would you be allowed to seize their property. The Anarchic associations would look upon your tenants very much as they would look upon your guests.” [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 159, p. 155 and p. 162] The ramifications of this position on land use are significant. At its most basic, what counts as force and coercion, and so state intervention, are fundamentally different due to the differing conceptions of property held by Tucker and Rothbard. If we apply, for example, the individualist anarchist position on land to the workplace, we would treat the workers in a factory as the rightful owners, on the basis of occupation and use; at the same time, we could treat the share owners and capitalists as aggressors for attempting to force their representatives as managers on those actually occupying and using the premises. The same applies to the landlord against the tenant farmer. Equally, the outcome of such differing property systems will be radically different — in terms of inequalities of wealth and so power (with having others working for them, it is unlikely that would-be capitalists or landlords would get rich). Rather than a “minor” difference, the question of land use fundamentally changes the nature of the society built upon it and whether it counts as genuinely libertarian or not.

Tucke was well aware of the implications of such differences. Supporting a scheme like Rothbard’s meant “departing from Anarchistic ground,” it was “Archism” and, as he stressed in reply to one supporter of such property rights, it opened the door to other authoritarian positions: “Archism in one point is taking him to Archism is another. Soon, if he is logical, he will be an Archist in all respects.” It was a “fundamentally foolish” position, because it “starts with a basic proposition that must be looked upon by all consistent Anarchists as obvious nonsense.” “What follows from this?” asked Tucker. “Evidently that a man may go to a piece of vacant land and fence it off; that he may then go to a second piece and fence that off; then to a third, and fence that off; then to a fourth, a fifth, a hundredth, a thousandth, fencing them all off; that, unable to fence off himself as many as he wishes, he may hire other men to do the fencing for him; and that then he may stand back and bar all other men from using these lands, or admit them as tenants at such rental as he may choose to extract.” It was “a theory of landed property which all Anarchists agree in viewing as a denial of equal liberty.” It is “utterly inconsistent with the Anarchistic doctrine of occupancy and use as the limit of property in land.” [Liberty, No. 180, p. 4 and p. 6] This was because of the dangers to liberty capitalist property rights in land implied:

“I put the right of occupancy and use above the right of contract … principally by my interest in the right of contract. Without such a preference the theory of occupancy and use is utterly untenable; without it … it would be possible for an individual to acquire, and hold simultaneously, virtual titles to innumerable parcels of land, by the merest show of labour performed thereon … [This would lead to] the virtual ownership of the entire world by a small fraction of its inhabitants ��� [which would see] the right of contract, if not destroyed absolutely, would surely be impaired in an intolerable degree.” [Op. Cit., no. 350, p. 4]

Clearly a position which Rothbard had no sympathy for, unlike landlords. Strange, though, that Rothbard did not consider the obvious liberty destroying effects of the monopolisation of land and natural resources as “rational grounds” for opposing landlords but, then, as we noted in section F.1 when it came to private property Rothbard simply could not see its state-like qualities — even when he pointed them out himself! For Rothbard, the individualist anarchist position involved a “hobbling of land sites or of optimum use of land ownership and cultivation and such arbitrary misallocation of land injures all of society.” [Rothbard, Op. Cit., p. 9] Obviously, those subject to the arbitrary authority of landlords and pay them rent are not part of “society” and it is a strange coincidence that the interests of landlords just happen to coincide so completely with that of “all of society” (including their tenants?). And it would be churlish to remind Rothbard’s readers that, as a methodological individualist, he was meant to think that there is no such thing as “society” — just individuals. And in terms of these individuals, he clearly favoured the landlords over their tenants and justifies this by appealing, like any crude collectivist, to an abstraction (“society”) to which the tenants must sacrifice themselves and their liberty. Tucker would not have been impressed.

For Rothbard, the nineteenth century saw “the establishment in North America of a truly libertarian land system.” [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 73] In contrast, the Individualist Anarchists attacked that land system as the “land monopoly” and looked forward to a time when “the libertarian principle to the tenure of land” was actually applied [Tucker, Liberty, no. 350, p. 5] So given the central place that “occupancy and use” lies in individualist anarchism, it was extremely patronising for Rothbard to assert that “it seems … a complete violation of the Spooner-Tucker ‘law of equal liberty’ to prevent the legitimate owner from selling his land to someone else.” [“The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist’s View”, Op. Cit., p. 9] Particularly as Tucker had explicitly addressed this issue and indicated the logical and common sense basis for this so-called “violation” of their principles. Thus “occupancy and use” was “the libertarian principle to the tenure of land” because it stopped a class of all powerful landlords developing, ensuring a real equality of opportunity and liberty rather than the formal “liberty” associated with capitalism which, in practice, means selling your liberty to the rich.

Somewhat ironically, Rothbard bemoaned that it “seems to be a highly unfortunate trait of libertarian and quasi-libertarian groups to spend the bulk of their time and energy emphasising their most fallacious or unlibertarian points.” [Op. Cit., p. 14] He pointed to the followers of Henry George and their opposition to the current land holding system and the monetary views of the individualist anarchists as examples (see section G.3.6 for a critique of Rothbard’s position on mutual banking). Of course, both groups would reply that Rothbard’s positions were, in fact, both fallacious and unlibertarian in nature. As, indeed, did Tucker decades before Rothbard proclaimed his private statism a form of “anarchism.” Yarros’ critique of those who praised capitalism but ignored the state imposed restrictions that limited choice within it seems as applicable to Rothbard as it did Herbert Spencer:

“A system is voluntary when it is voluntary all round … not when certain transactions, regarded from certain points of view, appear Voluntary. Are the circumstances which compel the labourer to accept unfair terms law-created, artificial, and subversive of equal liberty? That is the question, and an affirmative answer to it is tantamount to an admission that the present system is not voluntary in the true sense.” [Liberty, no. 184, p. 2]

So while “anarcho”-capitalists like Walter Block speculate on how starving families renting their children to wealthy paedophiles is acceptable “on libertarian grounds” it is doubtful that any individualist anarchist would be so blasé about such an evil. [“Libertarianism vs. Objectivism: A Response to Peter Schwartz,” pp. 39–62, Reason Papers, Vol. 26, Summer 2003, p. 20] Tucker, for example, was well aware that liberty without equality was little more than a bad joke. “If,” he argued, “after the achievement of all industrial freedoms, economic rent should prove to be the cause of such inequalities in comfort that an effective majority found themselves at the point of starvation, they would undoubtedly cry, ‘Liberty be damned!’ and proceed to even up; and I think that at that stage of the game they would be great fools if they didn’t. From this it will be seen that I am no[t] … a stickler for absolute equal liberty under all circumstances.” Needless to say, he considered this outcome as unlikely and was keen to ”[t]ry freedom first.” [Liberty, no. 267, p. 2 and p. 3]

The real question is why Rothbard considered this a political difference rather than an economic one. Unfortunately, he did not explain. Perhaps because of the underlying socialist perspective behind the anarchist position? Or perhaps the fact that feudalism and monarchism was based on the owner of the land being its ruler suggests a political aspect to propertarian ideology best left unexplored? Given that the idea of grounding rulership on land ownership receded during the Middle Ages, it may be unwise to note that under “anarcho”-capitalism the landlord and capitalist would, likewise, be sovereign over the land and those who used it? As we noted in section F.1, this is the conclusion that Rothbard does draw. As such, there is a political aspect to this difference, namely the difference between a libertarian social system and one rooted in authority.

Ultimately, “the expropriation of the mass of the people from the soil forms the basis of the capitalist mode of production.” [Marx, Capital, vol. 1, p. 934] For there are “two ways of oppressing men: either directly by brute force, by physical violence; or indirectly by denying them the means of life and this reducing them to a state of surrender.” In the second case, government is “an organised instrument to ensure that dominion and privilege will be in the hands of those who … have cornered all the means of life, first and foremost the land, which they make use of to keep the people in bondage and to make them work for their benefit.” [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 21] Privatising the coercive functions of said government hardly makes much difference.

As such, Rothbard was right to distance himself from the term individualist anarchism. It is a shame he did not do the same with anarchism as well!

[lemonhemlock]

https://www.tumblr.com/lemonhemlock/763163615828361216/adding-to-your-nuanced-discussion-regarding-sara much of the hatred towards sara hess is gross and openly misogynistic. unfortunately, it also muddies the waters for making valid critiques of her writing overall. i’m only familiar with her work on HOTD, and while i think she does basic level serviceable work (ie- mostly the plot makes sense) i find a lot of it extremely lazy. take both HOTD finales for example; we have two scenes of domestic violence (daemyra and helaena/aemond) being used to communicate the pretty elementary idea that these men are bad, wrong, and power hungry for anticipating war in a struggle for succession. now with both characters, you can argue it makes sense; daemon has been orbiting the throne all season, he sees the greens as the threat they are and, understands war is inevitable. he’s frustrated with rhaenyra’s lack of response and lashes out after finding out viserys didn’t trust him enough to communicate aegon’s dream. meanwhile, aemond has just discovered he is at a great disadvantage in this dragon cold war, has already committed severe violence to become regent in the first place, and is also lashing out because he is insecure in his position and fearful of what might happen.

the problem is instead of exploring these (very sensible) feelings for the characters or developing them through actual scenes and dialogue, we have this shorthand where Men = Violent, because they couldn’t possibly explore these emotions for these characters in another way. i can’t remember if it was olivia or phia who spoke about the aemond/alicent/helaena scene as helaena refusing to feed aemond’s violent male ego… girl you are literally at war! idk if this is about his male ego so much as he doesn’t want to fucking die 😭 not to point the finger at the actors, i am just assuming that idea came from somewhere, and it seems most likely to be the writer or director. and daemon isn’t in the wrong for expecting battle- yet instead of having that be a real conflict between him and rhaenyra, we have this moment of abuse that is quickly brushed aside and moved past. it exists only to show us how aggressive daemon is in the simplest, laziest way possible, and then it’s disposed of when it’s no longer needed. you can say the same for “civilians don’t matter”— it’s just lazy writing! they don’t have to, in that the story can function without an in depth look at the smallfolk’s relationship to dragons and the targ dynasty overall, and why bother to do any of that when you can just decide that for this one scene, none of them matter!

this is very long 😮‍💨 i’m sorry for the essay! i find this topic hard to discuss because too often people come in to just call her a cunt because she wrote a medieval man who didn’t articulate feminism perfectly. there are real issues here!! and it’s not all on her, condal obviously approves everything and they are on the same page here. anyway. thanks for reading as always!

Coming back to this ask after some time, sorry for the delay!

I agree very much with your assessment of her doing serviceable, but ultimately lazy writing. Perhaps that under a more competent showrunner, she could have written something decent. But one of her problems is that she is only superficially familiar with the source material - I'm saying this because she gave an evasive answer when asked if she read the books ("a long time ago"). This matters because she clearly doesn't understand the politics of the universe she is writing for (the scheming is nonsensical in HOTD) or the themes (dragging back the "civilians don't matter", but it's very revelatory to how she approaches the scripts). How can you write ASOIAF media, a series that relies heavily on politicking and dismantling tropes, without a grasp on those two things? D&D misunderstanding the themes of the series is famously one of the reasons for its lackluster show ending.

And that's just not going to rectify itself on its own. If she lacks the initiative to analyse the text properly, then someone should direct her as to what exactly to write. I'm sorry, but that's you can't just have it both ways - not do the work and then shrug your shoulders when you end up creating a divergent version that doesn't fit in the plot you're bound to follow.

take both HOTD finales for example; we have two scenes of domestic violence (daemyra and helaena/aemond) being used to communicate the pretty elementary idea that these men are bad, wrong, and power hungry for anticipating war in a struggle for succession. [...] the problem is instead of exploring these (very sensible) feelings for the characters or developing them through actual scenes and dialogue, we have this shorthand where Men = Violent, because they couldn’t possibly explore these emotions for these characters in another way.

Exactly, and the reason it ends up working for Daemon is because he previously got a ton of screen time and we got to know his personality, whereas Aemond gets little next to nothing in Season 2, in addition to his in-built disadvantage of being much younger and, thus, getting introduced later on. Well, surprise surprise, what worked for Daemon will not work for Aemond in that situation, because if you don't invest in Aemond's characterisation, the parallel will fall flat. Aemond and Daemon had very different upbringings and it's very silly to think that what applies to Daemon will automatically apply to Aemond and, therefore, you don't need to bother to dissect Aemond on screen in any meaningful way.

That's just concentrating on the logistics & not even critiquing the very lazy stereotype of men = violent & women = peacemakers.

i can’t remember if it was olivia or phia who spoke about the aemond/alicent/helaena scene as helaena refusing to feed aemond’s violent male ego… girl you are literally at war! idk if this is about his male ego so much as he doesn’t want to fucking die 😭

This. ^^^ I often find that the writers were trying to make some kind of point that, in other circumstances, could have been relevant, but they have a knack for picking the worst situations as illustrative examples. And, after that, they're surprised their simile felt mismatched.

Aemond having a violent male ego and being critiqued for it within the text is absolutely fine, but is it reasonable to do it when he's trying to ensure his family are not getting killed? And have Helaena be that agent of critique, when she herself has just been subjected to horrific loss and trauma at Daemon's hands?

Conveying that the smallfolk live miserable lives that often lead them to forsake their morals and commit horrific acts in desperation (such as becoming assassins for hire) is another valid point to make. But is it really appropriate to beg for clemency from the audience via a widowed dog (the lowest form of sympathy begging, if you ask me) when we are talking about a cruel child-murderer at the end of the day?

In the same vein, high-borns having more resources at their disposal to recover after trauma is very true. But is it appropriate for that comment to come out of the mouth of a mother who only just recently lost her son to horrific violence? Especially after having her grieve so halfheartedly, it's giving less intersectionality and more her not actually giving much of a shit instead. No one in their right minds would go to a rich lady mourning her dead child and start lecturing her on the privilege of grief. Helaena is just not the appropriate vehicle in that moment for that kind of commentary.

Neither are the smallfolk of King's Landing in a position to mourn the dragon Meleys mere days after it butchered so many of their fellow townies. So many times I can sense this disconnect between what a believe, humane response would look like and half-baked attempts at social commentary.

and daemon isn’t in the wrong for expecting battle- yet instead of having that be a real conflict between him and rhaenyra, we have this moment of abuse that is quickly brushed aside and moved past. it exists only to show us how aggressive daemon is in the simplest, laziest way possible, and then it’s disposed of when it’s no longer needed.

Yes, in some ways, Daemon is the writers' opportunity to eat their cake and have it, too. They make a lot of noise about how much of a problematic bad boy he is, but, when it comes down to it, nothing he does has any kind of real consequence. The only consequence he ever faced was Viserys banishing him and that was way back before any kind of time jump (and it got overturned in the end, anyway).* Alys doesn't do anything to him except hold his hand and gently nudge him in the "right" direction. Rhaenyra takes him back with nary a snide comment.

Even back in season 1, he can kill Rhea Royce with no fallout: the Royces don't do anything and Lady Jeyne is still Rhaenyra's lackey with no explanation given. He can spread the rumour of killing Laenor with the intent of sowing fear and decapitate Vaemond in front of the greens. Yet the greens are not worried about him and scrambling to prevent Rhaenyra from seizing the throne. Oh no. Crowning Aegon is just misunderstanding Viserys' dying words. 🤦‍♀️ Daemon can even kill Jaehaerys and still Helaena decides to help him instead of her own brother.

*honestly, that's one of the reasons I think the first 5 episodes of season 1 are the show's strongest. It's like back then you did stuff and it had consequences. Incredible achievement.

you can say the same for “civilians don’t matter”— it’s just lazy writing! they don’t have to, in that the story can function without an in depth look at the smallfolk’s relationship to dragons and the targ dynasty overall, and why bother to do any of that when you can just decide that for this one scene, none of them matter!

You know, I would actually like to take this opportunity to point out that I get this conundrum as a showrunner. You don't really want to make a story about smallfolk suffering, because it would be a massive downer and it would not sell as much or be as popular. Not many people are interested in Les Miserables but with dragons and that's understandable! But there is a way to simultaneously not delve into the intricacies of oppression in your escapist nobility fantasy, but not be downright insulting about it.

They don't need a ton of screen time to set up the basic theme of "it's always the innocents who suffer when you high lords play your game of thrones". They just don't and I'm tired of pretending otherwise. They can very well illustrate the point of smallfolk suffering without resorting to insane suspension of disbelief like King's Landing starving after two weeks of blockade. And, if they can't, then they shouldn't be in the writers' room for productions that have the audacity to submit episodes to prestigious award shows.

[h-worksrambles]

I haven’t really spoken much about Sonic x Shadow Generations here since it came out but I have to say, I absolutely loved it. It’s the most fun I’ve had with 3D Sonic since…well, the original Generations in 2011. It has brilliant levels, fixes most of my problems with Sonic Frontiers and was an all round delight of an experience. In addition, it’s the first time in a long time that a Sonic story has genuinely impressed me. In a series where the narratives tend to either be a hodgepodge of badly executed anime tropes (sometimes in campy charming ways and other times not) or barebones excuse plots, this one (especially factoring in Dark Beginnings) was focused, cohesive and well presented in a way Sonic stories rarely are. I don’t have to add any qualifiers like ‘it’s camp!’ or ‘it’s a good idea’ or ‘it’s got some good moments’. It’s just legitimately well done.

And a big part of that was how well the game captured the character of Shadow. So I thought it would be fun to look back at the turbulent history of this guy, why the concept of him getting his own game this year had me both excited yet worried, and why the result so pleasantly surprised me.

Shadow first debuts in Sonic Adventure 2 and he’s a really entertaining character, here. Aside from having an aesthetic and music presentation designed in a lab to be the coolest thing a 2000s kid will have ever seen. He’s just smug and confident enough to bounce off of Sonic in an amusing way, but he has enough pathos to his character and backstory to remain endearing. There’s a lot of surprisingly thoughtful concepts regarding identity, memory and revenge that his story touches on. Couple that with his backstory that gets into darker territory than anything in the series prior and he’s easily got the most going on of any Sonic character. The only real critique I have is his story feels like it tries to do too much in such a short game (with a wonky translation). It asks a lot of big questions about the nature of memory to an artificial life form but doesn’t have much in the way of answers. Plus, his heel turn to the heroes’ side definitely feels a bit rushed. It effectively comes down to his true memories coming back a narratively convenient moment, and doesn’t give him much agency to make his own decisions. Like, nothing Amy says to him really gets through to him, nothing in his experiences over the game prompts a change of heart. Amy conveniently just happens to say the right thing to jog his memory. Shadow starts the game wanting to honour Maria’s memory and dies the same way. He’s just remembered what she actually wanted now, But his death is still pretty effective in the moment.

Is he basically just Mewtwo from the first Pokémon movie with the serial numbers filed off? Yes, but he’s the perfect encapsulation of SA2’s appeal. It’s a game that is camp and brave enough to own it. Even at its clumsiest and most derivative it’s consistently charming, and plenty of moments of unironic sentimentality shine through.

Unfortunately, he got so damn popular that Sonic Team refused to let him rest, so the next game, Sonic Heroes, saw him immediately revived and given amnesia. Which is a huge shame, as there was a lot of potential in Shadow coming back, reflecting on his actions in SA2 and actually having to put the work in to redeem himself and find a new purpose after clinging to revenge for so long. But we skate over that with a lot of pretty undercooked intrigue about how he survived that goes nowhere til the next game. Partnering him up with Rouge and Omega to create Team Dark is a good idea, even if this game gives them very little to do. But it’s the next two games where Shadow’s prominence would really peak, and where I have the bulk of my criticisms.

Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic 06 are two of Shadow’s most prominent showings in the series and to their credit, they do in some ways rectify that lack of agency I mentioned in Adventure 2. Shadow’s own game is all about an amnesiac Shadow’s search for answers while everyone around him puts pressure on him to be where they want: be that a hero, a weapon, or the villain of their story. The game then ends with him renouncing the expectations everyone else has placed on him. Not just Black Doom but even Gerald and Maria, renouncing his past entirely and so forging his own path, which carries neatly into Sonic 06. As much as I find reviving him with amnesia to be a trite and frustrating direction for the character, this is probably the best thing you could do with that premise. Making the new Shadow distinct from the old Shadow and so, in a sense, keeping that character dead.

That being said, there’s a big issue Shadow runs into here: He starts to become really boring. Maybe it’s just being in two Sonic games with bad writing and voice direction but Shadow loses so much personality here. There’s none of that cocky charisma that made him such a good rival to Sonic. In his own game, his amnesia reduces him to a blank slate, whose demeanour and motivations change in a dime depending on the last person he talked to because of the game’s botched morality system. Meanwhile, in 06, he suffers the same character writing issues as everyone else, droning out the plot in flat monotone delivery. While he makes out a little better than most of the cast as he gets an actual villain to face off against and more meat to his story, the presentation really hurts it. 06 tries to confront Shadow with a character who wants to tempt him back to his old vengeful ways, in the form of Mephiles, thereby cementing how far Shadow has come. Unfortunately, that temptation was pretty much Black Doom’s deal in the last game, so once Shadow rejects Mephiles outright, there is no conflict. It’s a case of like…two good scenes amidst three hours of nothing. There’s a fine line between stoic and dull. As compeling as the idea of making post amnesia Shadow effectively his own character is, these games struggled to give him a personality distinct from his SA2 persona. Now his personality is just ‘does cool shit’. I think Takashi Iizuka and Shiro Maekawa both got a little too fond of Shadow, and he really started turning into a creator’s pet. Cartoonishly badass and hyper competent in a way that upstages every other character. Shadow basically dominates 06’s plot and upstages every other character, but so much of his charisma has been lost at this point that he still ends up feeling dull. It’s played so straight and framed as ‘sooooo cooool’ but is so overwrought that he already feels like a parody of himself (think Legolas in The Hobbit movies).

After that, Shadow took a huge backseat from the series for over 15 years. With his backstory put to rest and with the series skirting away from the kind of dramatic or complicated plots that would give a character like Shadow a meaningful role, he’s left to hang in the background. And as much as I love Sonic Unleashed, Colors and especially Generations, this didn’t really prove a long term solution. Execution has always been the Achilles heel of Sonic writing and switching from clunky melodrama to clunky jokes ended to just being a short term bandaid, that worked fine for a few games but led to diminishing returns in the long run. A lot of people criticise this period of Shadow being ‘written like Vegeta’ more concerned with his rivalry with Sonic than anything else, with no time given to the pathos and relationships with other characters that kept him relatable. But that’s a mostly a product of how minimal his role is here. In something like Sonic Generations, where Shadow’s role is to be a boss fight and his motivations have to be understandable in two lines tops, that flanderization is the unfortunate result. Aside from a decent showing in Sonic Forces, where he serves a simple but serviceable role, there’s not a lot to say in comparison to when he dominated the franchise. And while I think that overexposure was a problem, I never wanted him to go away. I just wanted something that reminded me why I liked him in Adventure 2 to begin with, where his edge and ‘badassery’ didn’t make him feel like a parody of himself.

Then comes Shadow Generations. Shadow Gens borrows from both aspects of him. It walks back on the idea of post-amnesia Shadow being wholly distinct from SA2 Shadow, which some might not like. But it’s worth it for the story it tells. Shadow’s rejection of his past is reframed as him effectively running away from the trauma of it all because it’s simply too painful, nearly demonstrated in the final scene of Dark Beginnings. Providing him with a chance to meet Maria and Gerald again draws out some vulnerability from him without being overdone or too cloying. There’s a nice arc about Shadow learning not to run away from his past, to accept the good parts while still renouncing his ties to Black Doom. The result is that it simultaneously feels Ike both a tribute to Shadow’s 2005 spin off and a do-over, revisiting those concepts with a clearer head and more time to cook. His overall characterisation is also closer to that stoic confidence mixed with pathos that made his SA2 self so likeable, especially when you factor in Dark Beginnings. Yes he’s framed as so cool that it starts to get a bit ridiculous, but it’d easier to embrace the campy fun of that when he’s also legitimately sympathetic. His arc feels more focused and tighter executed than past attempts to develop him, but it still builds on those older concepts despite their hit or miss execution. And it all builds to an ending that is just the right mix of earnestly sweet and restrained to end the whole game on a genuinely touching note.

It’s also nice to see the Team Dark dynamic be used in a less…cursed game than 06 where it can shine a bit more. Rouge and Omega aren’t in the game a ton, but the optional conversations with them, and especially their role in Dark Beginnings, gets the to heart of what makes this found family of badass messy bitches so appealing. It takes a lot to draw any emotional frankness out of any of these three but it hits hard when they do finally open up to each other.

Shadow as a character is sort of a perfect encapsulation of the good and bad of Sonic storytelling. It’s admirable that the series tries to tell bigger stories, but the writing often isn’t strong enough to carry it. But walking back that scope and energy doesn’t really fix the issue, as it simply leaves the series feeling vanilla and only brings those fundamental issues of poorer execution into sharp focus. And Shadow Generations’ ability to recapture that energy while avoiding the common pitfalls is what makes it so refreshing.

The last few years have seen Sonic as a franchise experiment more with storytelling than they have in years and the results left me decidedly mixed. While Murder of Sonic the Hedgehog was a delightful reminder of just how charming these characters can be with good writing, Sonic Frontiers felt like a return of all the series’ bad writing habits. Overwrought, derivative, tonally dissonant trend chasing that reaches for big ideas that it can’t do justice, with poor presentation, rushed, forced execution and a general sense of thinking it’s way more profound than it actually is. It really felt like 2000s Sonic was back in the worst way, moments of promise amidst a hot mess that felt both over and undercooked.

But that just made Shadow Generations even more of a delight. It didn’t feel like it was intentional downplaying itself to avoid scrutiny like Sonic Forces or Lost World did, but not did it feel like it was constantly chasing after trends like Shadow the Hedgehog or copying frantically off its anime cheat sheet like 06 or Frontiers. It kept a clear consistent focus on exploring and celebrating Shadow’s character, with good pacing, a refreshing attention to continuity, solid emotional beats and well done cutscenes.

This feels like the sort of thing the Sonic series often wanted to be, but regularly fell short of. A campy, exciting action romp focused on its likeable characters. And it was the capstone on an already really fun campaign that made for a brilliant addition to what was already my favourite 3D Sonic game.

I’m delighted that Shadow Generations got me excited about Sonic again, but I’m just as happy that it made me excited about Shadow again.

[pinkeoni]

The Perception of Will Both In & Out of the Show

Right now I'm working on a whole post dedicated to looking at how Hawkins views Will, and something that I've noticed is how this in-universe perception is reflective of how the audience views him as a character.

Will the Crybaby vs. Will the Villain

tl;dr for a post I haven't even posted yet, but my assertion is that generally the town has two modes for how they see Will, prey or predator. He's either the sensitive, weak "fairy" who is assumed to be the target of violence based on these qualities, or he is the predatory "Zombie Boy" who is going to spread death and disease to the rest of the town.

Many of the critiques levied against Will's character from fans after season four was "all he does is cry!"

And in the same breath, after it was revealed that Will was going to be the focus for next season, the claim about Will's character was "he's going to be the villain!"

So Will is both the overly sensitive crybaby and at the same time, somehow going to be the villain of the final season.

I do think that GA opinion is actually more diversified then people give it credit for, so it would be inaccurate of me to say that this is widely agreed upon amongst fans of the show, although both of these statements, especially that of Will’s villain arc, did go around enough to be mentioned in articles about the season.

Starting with Will's sensitivity, it is one of his character traits. It's important enough for Joyce to mention this when describing him in episode one. Noah often gives Will really big reactions with weepy eyes and a quivering lip— he's a feeler!

Some push back against this critique of character, especially on here, was sometimes met with “But Will doesn’t cry that much! He’s tough! Look at this scene he knows how to shoot a gun!” which is kind of missing the point. It’s not that Will isn’t soft and sensitive, it’s that being soft and sensitive isn’t a problem.

The villain!Will claim, while maybe a fun idea for fanon material, seems to grossly mischaracterize him. Will, from the constant mistreatment he has faced, will turn vengeful and join Vecna to become a villain alongside him. You mean the same Will Byers who told D’Artagnan that he wasn’t going to hurt him? That Will Byers is going to seek revenge?

I don’t think that any of these takes are intentionally trying to be this way, but there is a subconscious undertone of homophobia coming from both of them. It’s a bad thing for Will to be soft and emotional, but he’s also going to become the vindictive “big bad.” The prey or the predator.

There seems to be a refusal from some fans to view Will in a hero role

This I can’t really fault them much for. I had a good back and forth with an anon awhile ago who stated that if the audience does not perceive the story as being Will's or Will as a main character, then this is a pitfall from the show. Which I agreed with. If the show is failing to communicate something, then this is a fault of the writing of the show. (I did, however, offer a counter argument to a claim they made saying that the show did not offer any substantial proof of this at all, in which I said that Will being the center in the first season was a good piece of evidence among some others)

I should note that I say "hero" but I don't mean this in a masculine way, just that Will is going to be the one to save the day, be that in his own way. He doesn't need to "man up" in order to be the hero.

El, for good reason, is seen as the hero of the story. If the next season is supposed to revolve around Will now, then he must either be A) A victim that El needs to save or B) A villain that El needs to defeat. (I made a post about El and Will's roles next season here)

This isn't always brought up, but a lot of the times the love triangle is talked about in relation to this because it goes along with the underlying homophobia. If Will is the focus next season and he is also the hero then there's an implication that he may be successful in "getting the guy" so to speak, just going off of typical narrative tropes. If El is the hero and Will is either the victim or villain then he either A) is saved by El and, out of gratefulness to her, is able to accept that that he won't have Mike and is able to accept the two being together (which wouldn't make sense considering this is the position he is already in) or B) El defeats the evil gay boy who is after her man, putting him in his place. These people can't seem to wrap their head around the possibility of Will getting the love interest in the end and El, still important to the main plot, ending up solo and it being a positive for both characters.

The problem with villain!Will especially is that, along with the fact that it relies on a mischaracterization of Will, is that there has to come a point where the villain has to lose and be put in their place in order for the hero to succeed. I see even fans of Will claiming that they want Will to have a villain arc because of everything that he's gone through. And yeah, Will has been through a lot and he has been treated unfairly by people around him, but he can't have a triumphant ending if he is the villain of the story.

I guess it has to do with framing. In simplified terms, Will, in some way, tries to fight for a better life for himself. If Will is the villain then he must learn to be complacent with the life he already has. If he is the hero, however, then he deserves and gets to earn this better life. If Will is the victim who is saved by El then he must learn to be grateful to her. Neither make sense for a story where Will is supposed to come of age. He has to be the hero and he also has to be one to save himself.

I want to say again that I'm not trying to use hero in a masculine sense, wherein I'm picturing a Conan the Barbarian or Rambo-esque buff!byers fighting in the Upside Down, but rather I just mean using his qualities that others deem weak as his strength. Will is the hero, just in his own way. @therainscene had a really great addition to a similar post I made while I was drafting this one. To quote a genius mind—

It's wild that Will is seen as weak, because he's the toughest motherfucker in the show -- not in spite of being soft and sensitive, but because of it. Being a sensitive gay boy in 1980's America is playing life on hard mode: he's punished for refusing to conform to traditional masculinity, both in-universe and by the audience, and his response is to doggedly continue refusing to conform. He's crying and throwing up the whole time he's doing it but he just keeps on doing it.

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Actually, sorry, I still don't see why TOTK is imperialistic. The imperialistic one does seem to be Ganon in his greed to conquer. I'm not saying I doubt your argumentsz just... Could you help me understand that?

Hey, yes! No problem at all. If that's okay with you, I'll compile my arguments in a series of links where I reply to previous asks.

Again, I want to reiterate that I don't think what we see in-game is secretely an imperialistic story about Rauru being a bad guy. We can speculate all we want, but there is no evidence in-world for Ganondorf to be anything other than a horrible baddie. My point is not that Ganondorf is secretely misunderstood in TotK, but that I believe Nintendo should have constructed its storytelling in a way that avoided falling into very loaded narrative patterns with real-life imperialistic echoes, and I am criticizing that they didn't try to deliver a version of Hyrule that gracefully accepted its own history, its influence over the world and its inherent moral grayness, instead of nervously scrubbing itself of substance out of fear of its own legacy.

This is the big one, that addresses the game's framing and why I think TotK's version of Hyrule parallels imperialist narrative movements.

This one talks about my problem with Rauru's character writing and what doesn't land for me.

This one is about why I don't think Nintendo is cackling about that good imperialist story they did, that it was probably accidental but still worth mentioning.

And this one, which I assume is the previous ask you sent me, adresses why I think saying that the zonais (and Sonia) are also PoC-coded kind of misses the point in my opinion.

Hope this clarifies my argument! I feel like, as the conversation matures in the fandom, this specific position (not talking for anyone else but me here) is getting kind of warped into something that it's not, or being conflated with the way people are creatively invested in the characters, which, while I certainly won't deny one obviously feeds off the other as far as I'm concerned*, are two separate things.

Again, it's completely fine to disagree! Or to agree and not be put off (everyone stop feeling guilty over the rare joy we manage to catch mid-flight --we can critique media without demanding people to Feel Bad as a result of the conclusions): it's a really fun game and I did play over a hundred hours! But I think the conversation is at least worth considering in a way that isn't caricatured as its weaker arguements.

*(to be very transparent so my own position is crystal clear, and it helps people making up their own mind: Ganondorf touches me as a character because of the way he inherently tries to fight against the limitations Hyrule/The Goddesses/the fiction itself try to force upon him --to devastating and unproductive results-- so the more his own canon tries to flatten him and the more poignant his character becomes to me. Won't deny that! It's this exact realization that made me spiral into hyperfocus to begin with --I am deeply touched by themes of tragic ambition and the impossibility of meaningful rebellion while STILL willingly burning everything down for the sake of refusing your place in the universe, even when the only thing accomplished by the end was the unflinching expression of your agency as well as General Suffering. So of course he would just catch me by the throat like that, that bastard. That being said, I don't think TotK Ganondorf (or any Ganondorf tbh) is a poor little meow meow, especially not in this game's canon where he is *obviously* nothing more than a threat to be stumped and doesn't ever meaningfully oppose you ideologically, which is kind of my problem. Even OoT Ganondorf, simplistic as he may be, questions Hyrule's inherent stability, inevitability and glory in many, many ways. Here's another, final post about why I liked the gerudos better in OoT despite All of The Problems, that partially addresses this exact point!)

[writerbuddha]

Not just a Star Wars issue?

In 2020, a vibrant, colorful video essay appeared on YouTube, titled, “The Lion King Explained: Let the Darkness In.” To summarize its main conclusions: Mufasa was fundamentally flawed and his flaws resulted in his death and the fall of his kingdom. He refused to see and confront evil, ill intentions and darkness. He gave no means to Simba to deal with his severe trauma, or to address the unpleasant, apart from pushing it away. This resulted in Simba repressing his emotions and running away. His naive refusal to confront ugly truths left his kingdom weak and untested. What's more, he is an absolute and even god-like monarch, thus Scar's anger over not being king echoes valid critiques of his society’s injustice and inequality. However, his only solution is hate, anger and destruction. Only Simba, the young, conflicted, new king is able to confront the darkness that his father explicitly refused and denied to do so, becoming a better, stronger king, addressing the injustice and inequality in Mufasa's kingdom.

And what is one of the most popularized reading of Star Wars today? The Jedi lost their way, they turned a blind eye to the fact that the Republic is ruled by an oppressive elite, they gave no means to Anakin to deal with his severe trauma, they taught him to repress his emotions, they feared and ignored the dark side of the Force. Anakin turned to the dark side due to the Jedi neglecting and mistreating his traumas and teaching him to push away his emotions. He actually had a point, so does the Sith, but they offered only hatred, anger and destruction as an answer. Thus, the Jedi contributed to their own demise, which was sad and largely undeserved, but necessary. Luke, after proving the old Jedi Masters wrong in their black-and-white morality and thinking, by embracing his emotions, confronting the dark side, reforms the Jedi Order, which is stronger, better, more equal and healthy than the old one.

Can we point out a pattern here?

The old and their old ways created problems like inequality and injustice due to their black-and-white morality and thinking inherent to them, and now they're unable and unwilling to address and solve them, which ultimately causes their demise. Then, a young hero arrives: the old are trying to get him to suppress his emotions and continue their old, flawed ways. This young hero is traumatized or otherwise struggling with their mental health, that the old are systematically neglecting or even contributing to it and leading to severe consequences. Meet our villain: they actually have a point, however, the hero shouldn't follow their footsteps, because all they offer is rage, destruction, hate and so on. It's only the young one, who can surpass both emotional repression and anger, hate and destruction, who corrects and educates the system, the old ways and the old ones. 

I start to think that what we witness is a "Gen Z narrative" starting to invade fandoms, drowning out all the original messages and lessons of these stories, replacing it with "Old = fanatic, bigoted, dogmatic, black-and-white and myopic, and Young = progressive, tolerant, spectrum-thinker, rationalist, updated" - people almost compulsively trying to locate this new trope in the movies and books they love, because they need this view validated, they need their ego boosted, even if this means ignoring the actual stories they allegedly "fans" of.

This narrative is often tangled with Western-centrism: what was unknown to the West, was unknown to the world as a whole, thus, the Gen Z Hero, equipped with Western psychology, philosophy, values and cultural and social costumes, is inherently superior, communicates new, never seen before, life-changing revelations to the previous generations, wherever they go. And this seem to attract certain millennials as well.

It started somewhere around the mid-2010s and now it peaks.

Where will this lead us?