#ask me to rant about something

[beargregor]

wait i'm curious, what makes you say that gregor doesn't like everyone else (if i read that post right)? just curious since i've never seen anyone else say that

i don't necessarily think gregor dislikes everyone else at lcb but i do think that gregor is an incredibly petty person that isn't nearly as close to the rest of the sinners and even outright dislikes some of them cough cough rodya cough cough which a lot of people just Refuse to see because he's as much of a doormat as he is. there's several examples i could get into to try and prove my point however i'll just focus on what i personally think to be the biggest ones.

additionally, this is going to be kind of long, so i'm adding a read more. read more! read it. sorry for being so wordy. i have several diseases.

Pt1. gregor is the type to try and get along at least decently with everyone, especially if he gets a good first impression from them.

this is less a point in favor of gregor's distance w/ the rest of the sinners and more just a contributing factor to it. once again there's several examples i could point to here but i think the most in your face one happened in canto I with yuri, as several people have pointed out. even before gregor comes clean about growing attached to her as quickly as he did because she reminds him of his sister, we get this interaction.

i'll go ahead and make the disclaimer now that i don't necessarily think gregor is the most reliable of narrators, especially when it comes to his feelings and interactions with most people, but from the way he acts when the topic of yuri comes up (and the way we still see him act even all the way up to c7, nearly a whole year after yuri's death) i don't see reason to question his sentiment here. gregor immediately got that aya and yuri were close, potentially even taking note of their traded belts, and went out of his way to get something nice for yuri despite hardly knowing her.

i feel like a lot of people have forgotten as much, especially since it's been so long since c1, but gregor actually spent a good bit of season 1 doing the exact same thing with the other sinners! gregor reads a connection between him and ishmael pretty quickly despite getting off to a rocky start

mostly because gregor can tell that ishmael is pretty sardonic in a very similar way to him. there's been multiple instances where ishmael and gregor have essentially expressed the same sentiment at different moments, most notably gregor's little argument after ishmael got shot with a decay ampule in c4

and ishmael's response to pilot talking about self-sacrifice in c5

i could go ahead and pull up more examples, but in general pm has gone out of their way to show us that gregor and ishmael are pretty similar, so it makes sense for gregor to assume that they're friends, right?

this will be pushpin 1. keep note of this for Later.

ishmael's only the first sinner we see gregor trying to do this with in s1, we also see him try it out with heathcliff, sinclair, and ryoushuu

he's tried to get along with charon, being one of very few sinners that we've seen actually try to establish a connection with her at all

even rodya, despite my insistence that gregor doesn't like her nearly as much as the fandom thinks he does

all of these seem pretty fine and dandy, right? sure it frequently leans towards self-degradation, micromanaging, and commiseration, but gregor can at least be pretty chummy with most of the sinners, can't he?

Pt2. hell's chicken was more than just comic relief guys please

i'm fully aware that this is quite the hot take, but i think hell's chicken deserves a lot more credit for character writing than the fandom gives it. hell's chicken gave us foreshadowing for several events, such as the donqui bloodfiend reveal

heathcliff's distortion in c6 (as well as hong lu's highly speculated distortion at some point in the future)

and ryoushuu and sinclair's continued connection by making him the odd one out on her team

which, hey! that implies something about gregor's odd one out, don quixote, too, doesn't it? yes. yes it does. that's pushpin 2. keep note of that for later.

speaking of pushpins, hey! that's pushpin 1!

splitting into teams is one of the major events in hell's chicken, and most of the sinner's choices are either motivated by very little, backhanded, or motivated primarily by not wanting to be on the opposite leader's side. i didn't include all of the picks, just because i feel like including most of them already gets this across, but i think gregor took one major thing from this: most of the sinners, when push comes to shove, will only side with gregor when they refuse to or can't take his opponent's side.

now, don't get me wrong, i'm fully aware that this is primarily intended to be comedic relief, but when gregor is being described as having his trust broken by ishmael or nearly crying because no one on his team properly sided with him for him, i feel like it's pretty fair to read into this.

something that i think is pretty important to remember in conjunction with this is that we know that gregor is the type to hold a grudge, both from his general attitude towards the G corp soldiers in c1 as well as his continued distaste for vergilius

even beyond the splitting into teams of hell's chicken, the sinners have given gregor plenty of reasons to feel bitter. i feel like this is something people have noticed but haven't really put a finger on, but it's kind of wild just how often the rest of the sinners make gregor the butt of the joke

and sure, we could argue that a fair few of these aren't really made with any ill intent. quite a bit of it could have been meant as harmless teasing, but with gregor being more sensitive than most, it coming from nearly all sides, and as often as it does? yeah, i think he's prone to taking it a bit personally.

Pt3. yes i do still think gregor was the third most important character in canto VII you guys gotta hear me out okay

of course, all of this leads up to the bit of the story i highlighted, doesn't it? c7? i totally get why people haven't really picked up on all the gregor things i did in it, seeing as they were mostly not *directly* said about him or by him.

personally, i think that gregor's distaste for talking about himself on any serious level and thus leading to him getting sort of "sidelined" narratively (which i take issue with that claim, but still. it's effective for getting what i mean across atm) is supposed to lead players to take a deeper look at the times gregor gets held up to other characters and compare and contrast what's being said about them by the matchup. as i showed earlier with his immediate latching onto ishmael, i think this is something gregor himself is at least partially aware of too.

so, that begs the question, who was gregor compared to in canto VII that makes me think it's one of the most critical pieces in understanding his character?

really, i'd like to avoid getting too lost in the analysis of this canto specifically, since i'd like to do a proper post about this later, but i figure i can bury the lede a little before doing it properly.

c7 features several characters being made to perform in sansón's play, acting out the relevant backstory for this segment of the plot. a lot of these characters have rather direct, degrading reasons for playing the roles they do.

outis, a character with an inflated ego who wants her journey to have a purpose, is made to play an aimlessly wandering villager with a single line.

hong lu and ryoushuu, two characters for whom families and the expectations placed upon them are likely going to play a major role, are made to play bloodfiends.

rodya, a character who resents her lot in life and is constantly shown to be eager to leave her destitution behind her and become someone special, is made to play a helpless villager that's too poor to even offer any money to the hero that saves her.

heathcliff, a character that has spent most of his life getting dehumanized by comparing him to beastly animals, is made to play a literal bear whose sole purpose in the plot is to get beat up and then quickly left by the wayside.

sinclair, a character that has two opposed parties essentially treating him as a macguffin to procure for their side, is made to play the character who was arguably the catalyst for this entire canto, not to mention playing a decently major role in ruina.

our star don quixote is made to play her father, the first kindred, but there's someone by their side the entire time, isn't there? don quixote's dear, steadfastly loyal companion. a character which don quixote has tasked themself with getting to come out of their shell?

hello again, pushpin 2.

gregor has been made to play our unreachable star, sancho. someone had to, of course. you can't really tell a story without it's main character, now can you?

now, i should once again give a disclaimer. i am not trying to say that i think adapting what happens to donqui/sancho in c7 to gregor is the road pm is going to take here, not only would that toe a bit past the line of foreshadowing, but it'd also just amount to rehashing that plotline again, which i don't think would make for a particularly exciting story.

what i DO think is that we can take a lot of the things that are said to either directly be the case for sancho and use them to inform how we see gregor.

and god, does playing sancho have some fucking implications for our favorite ossan archetype.

starting off, the earliest moment we get to see of sancho is quite literally her just waiting for death to take her in a pile of ashes.

which, i should remind everyone, is actually pretty damn close to what happens to gregor's literary counterpart at the end of the metamorphosis. gregor samsa experiences one final breaking point that pushes him over the edge and makes him decide to just wait for starvation to take him.

gregor and sancho both consider themselves to no longer be human, something which sancho goes out of her way to highlight repeatedly throughout the canto and gregor is quick to get defensive on her behalf for when outis starts really tearing into her

sancho spends quite a lot of this story denying herself the joys of community and friendship, despite knowing that, even with the rest of the sinners frequently making jokes at her expense and outright insulting her, they were things that she desperately craved.

and, while this is getting into my "outis is a red herring meant to distract us from gregor's eventual betrayal" theorizing, i also think it's worth noting for this discussion that sancho's fellow kindreds, her family, all seem to be under the impression that she dislikes them and ultimately her departure was an act of betrayal

and that, despite gregor being one of LCB's resident mood makers and attempted conflict de-escalators, one of the sinners that's most prone to making appeals to the bonds they've all forged together, only him and faust remained silent during everyone's speech

so yeah, i think there's quite a lot of little details and hints building up to the reveal that gregor's not quite as fond of everyone as he presents himself to be. i do think a lot of this ultimately comes down to gregor getting in the way of his own happiness, similarly to donqui, particularly because he's been frequently portrayed as something of a self fulfilling prophecy, especially by giving him as many christ allegories as they have by way of priest and garden of thorns. gregor is convinced that the rest of the sinners don't like him because he's not convinced anyone could like him, so he convinces himself that he hates them because why should he care if someone that he hates hates him too?

a lot of this ultimately ties back to my personal interpretation of what happens in the metamorphosis as well as my own theories regarding all the times gregor has made weird callbacks and references to lobcorp and ruina, but yeah. i think about this guy and his deeper characterization a fairly normal amount, i think.

to end this off i'll highlight one of my favorite little "gregor is fucking seething and trying so hard to keep it cool" moments, in the credits CG for c7 we see rodya teasing him by drawing a little horse on his window and actively pointing and laughing at it, which gregor really doesn't seem all too pleased about.

i personally think this ties into the other cruel part of sansón forcing gregor to play rocinante, which is the more literal "he's actually just straight up playing rocinante" side of things. gregor was quite literally made to play something less than human, less than even animal really, as he was reduced to nothing more than the shoes don quixote wore as she got to play the leading role. sansón directly makes jokes about gregor being nothing more than shoes in the play twice, which adds to this reading, i think.

this, imo, really plays into the adaptation of the metamorphosis! i've seen a lot of readings for the book that posit that, despite being the protagonist, gregor samsa can't really be considered the main character due to nearly everything he experiences in it being used to further his family's character development at his expense, which i think fits nicely with limbus gregor seemingly having the most said about him through indirect means by holding him up to other characters. also it's rodya carelessly making fun of His Big Major Insecurities™ again like she did in c1 which i always find fun. rodya i love you but god you're the worst.

[xxplastic-cubexx]

🧙‍♀️🐈‍⬛

[themoonunderstoodmydadjokes]

I don’t think we talk enough about how being love bombed can like really fuck you up??? Like yeah is it easy to identify from an outside perspective? Absolutely. But being in it and having someone devote that much time and attention to you (even if it is manipulative in nature) to then having it end abruptly when they’ve gotten what they wanted out of you… 🫠

[luna-loveboop]

Luna, my dear sweet friend, can I pick your brain?

Lofty gave me a veeerrry good scenario for a Time vs Sky conflict, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on what that could look like? I picked 2 very mature characters and now I have to make them brawl lolol

I think the best route (for me at least) wouldn't involve the master sword or Hylia. So this would be a personality conflict. I don't wanna spoil the scenario she gave me, so I thought I'd ask for your general opinion on what you think would make them fight, personality wise🥰

Feel free to delete if you don't care to go over this, but I thought I'd ask cus you're really good at going in depth with character analysis❤️

BYE FRIEND😀 also I hope you're doing well and you're amazing and wonderful❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

YES ok so personality conflicts between Sky and Time. There's... a lot to look at there lol.

So I'm just gonna look at each of their personalities +flaws, and then how they interact :))

Soo for Time

Time is dad. He's older and more experienced- and he's still a stubborn gremlin like all of them. He's patient with them but also stern- he cares very deeply about all the boys and Sky is no exception

I don't doubt for a second Time wants to be just as close to Sky as the others

One of Times biggest flaws is the idea of a closed mindset. Which makes sense, since we know Time's ending as the hero's shade- he spends years in that mindset of regret. Time has these thoughts of being too old to change (<no), and allows himself to keep holding onto bitterness, especially about the sword. Which he has good reason to be a grumpy old man already, with the mental and physical age difference, but still

Time is obviously capable of changing his mind- as Wind took a challenge to prove

But overall Time is still. He's not super expressive, my man likes to just be. He wants to be still and live, and hero as needed, and not be a super crazy hero, but just a chill dude with malon.

Time is patient and stern and calm and good. He is also closed and stubborn. That's all good, but it doesn't always work the best with Sky.

So Sky.

I literally love this ask because I could rant forever about his flaws to talk about them more (no one kill me).

Sky very highly values being a hero as part of who he is- in contrast to time who literally just doesn't want to.

I see so much of Sky's patience. And with good reason- with others Sky is endlessly patient and calm in resolving conflict. He's emotionally intuitive and intelligent and awesome

But Sky is also I think extremely impatient. With himself, and with things around him that aren't going well.

He wants answers and he wants them now, which is kind of scary from him. I see a lot about Skys temper, but I don't want to forget how much of that is from impatience- not knowing how to handle things going slow.

Because things moving fast and violently is how it needs to be right? *cough cough IMPA

For all sky is extremely patient with others feelings, he is one of the most impatient people with himself and his circumstances. Which a lot of comes from immaturity, which is my next point-

Sky is. A monster with pranks. I don't even know why it took me so long to realise this was Sky-

Saying 'I know we should help but this is too funny'. Twilight and wild are looking disturbed and like they want to help, and Sky and legend are just cold-blooded leaving four struggling for his shield and taking bets. He's very immature, and furthermore, he doesn't really respect Time as an authority as much in the face of pranking/joking

Bro is not remorseful at all I swear-

I also think 'nice hair' Sky is a little... idk judgy? With people he doesn't get along with as well. Like Hyrule. (Wait I haven't yet I gotta rant on that sometime sorry- but yeah he and Hyrule don't vibe well)

Sky can also be unrestrained with his words and snark- his words can practically be a prank in itself 'nice hair' 'am I late?'. I think sometimes he toes the line with pranks and joking around (like that one quest where you could break Peatrices heart?), and same with his words. Overall he's a snarky and sharper person- and being able to pull off good pranks and jokes isn't inherently a bad thing- he's smart. He's a kind person too, but I think sometimes his words and actions can be too sharp.

I think Jojo also said in the post with their ages that she made him slightly younger because of his immaturity compared to twilight. Do with that what you will

So point is, Sky has flaws that are mildly subtle but still prominent, like his impatience with himself and situations, his immaturity with joking and temper and words, and I hc he's a slightly judgy person. 'Nice costume' to Zelda like SKY but I swear I love him. Don't kill me for discussing flaws please I have a dog

So how this comes together with between him and Time is pretty cool-

Skys impatient, and Time has a resistance to change in his mindset- which means that as far as the sword, Sky wants change now, he wants validation and Time to not hate it. Time does not care about this because the sword hurt him and he's spent years hating it.

But with situations and stuff, especially with the entrance arc, we can see Sky being very impatient after Twi's injury- from what I can tell he wants to rip dinks throat out. But it's still subtle- what's not as subtle is how much Time wants to slow down. He wants to hold them back and protect them, and Sky is impatient in a frustrating situation. I could honestly see Sky wanting to run after the shadow on his own right now (sorry, I've been rereading elastic heart). Sometimes patient + wanting to hurry up doesn't work well.

If you think about it in relation to their journeys it makes sense that they are portrayed this way. Skys journey was about rushing and trying to hurry up. Times journeys were horrifying, with this insane feeling of running out of time.. but he could still turn back said time.

I can't even count the number of people I've seen say they tried to rush through the eldin temple as fast as possible on reruns- after Impa telling him it was too late trying to run as fast as possible even knowing it wouldn't change anything. That translates into skys character, and it must be insanely frustrating for him.

They are both heros. Time's journey was about saving the world and Sky's was about trying to kill a god. It's a big disconnect between them- one is patient and one is not, one doesn't want to be a hero and one's life is being a hero dating a goddess. One lightheartedly jokes and one throws a love letter down the toilet (SKY), one is older and one is immature. Yet on the surface Time wears a scowl and Sky is as soft as can be.

They are so very different in so many ways, but so much alike- they are both heros, they both want to be young and playful at heart. They both really like stabbing things and setting them on fire. And also saving the world.

They are also both extremely mature in ways beyond their years and endlessly kind.

I love them so much.

I wasn't sure to say this in the post bc the ask is about personalities, but I feel like another major issue between them could be whatever happened with Time and timelines and the triforce. Obviously the timeline is messed up. I also have not played times games... but I think in timeline talk one he mentioned the triforce of courage ended up broken? I can see Sky not taking well to all of that.

Soooo in terms of personality conflicts that would make them. Fight? Yikes what are you planning Oma, I would say there's several possible triggers outside of the master sword and Hylia (which I think is wise of you to avoid btw)

I think that Skys impatience contrasting with Time's fixed mindsets can have issues. But the way Sky has shown no acknowledgment of Time when he's tried to stop the boys goofing off w/ pranking can also be a trigger- as well as that sharp and sometimes insensitive snarkiness in Skys words we all know and love. They have. A lot of issues. lol.

Yeah! I uhh hope that helped and was relevant or made sense at all- I swear I love these guys. These two are fun to look at because outside of the obvious stressor of the sword they have a lot of other issues as well. They have differences in thinking and personality that can lead to a lot of tension between them.

Thank you for the ask and I can't wait to see what you come up with

The art and comics is by Jojo @linkeduniverse au :D

Thank you for listening to my rant, and here's one of my favourite pictures of these guys

Simply majestic <3

:)

@skyloftian-nutcase

[jasperthejester]

me: finally accepting theres a good chance im autistic and starting to work up the courage to ask my parents to see if i could get a diagnoses but being scared to

my mom: do you ever think you have adhd? if you want to do a screening for add next time your at the doctors you can

me:

[epiphainie]

i can't with all these "the show is highlighting tommy's jealousy, they're planting seeds that it will cause problems" takes like bffr. he mentioned being envious over the 118's dynamic twice, sure, but in what world (literally how?) would that cause a relationship problem? do yall expect him to be in cahoots with gerrard behind their back and murder buck to take over his life or something?? like even with the hyperbole aside, i genuinely cannot see how they can turn this into relationship drama without going against everything they showed us with tommy so far

[bloobydabloob]

When you answered the ask asking about your art style (which is a post I keep looking back on bc what you have to say is very interesting) in one of your screenshots of you talking you mention something about how most if not all of your symbolism is self referent and I was wondering what you meant by that!

Hellloooo. I’m glad you found my ranting interesting. Here is some Dirk art I’m probably never going to finish for your troubles.

What I meant by that when talking about any symbolism in my art is that it doesn’t reference outside sources - e.g. where some art might use something like religious concepts, animals, real life events to represent ideas, I tend to use things more like colors, contrasting objects, composition. That sort of thing. So things that are inherently a part of the work itself rather than connections to the real world. If I ever do use symbolism otherwise, it’s usually comic related even still. Although I have done pieces with religious symbolism before too, haha.

I don’t know how to describe it other than “self referential” because I’m not really sure what else to classify that sort of symbolism as. Just… artistic maybe? Non literal? I couldn’t say. I think it all basically just goes along with the majority of my art nowadays being more figurative than literal. Sorry if this doesn’t explain it very well. It’s also funny to think that anyone is “Looking back” on any of my texts posts though, haha. To me I feel like I am just dumping my words on my poor followers. Surprising. Thank you for reading.

[yudol-skorbi]

It’s got something to do with the Caucus Mountains I thought. Is there a reason why that’s problematic?

Well yes, words have meanings and "caucasians" is not a general term for white people and never was! Caucasians are people who originate from Caucasus region. It includes more than 50 ethnic groups and their history goes back to late II — early I millennium BC. It is extremely old, diverse and rich culture! You can read a little bit more literally on wikipedia.

More so they are not even considered "white" in general.

Like imagine you see somone being called "typical mexican" in a negative context. First of all it is racist of course but upon further inspection the person in question is not even mexican and have zero connections to Mexico. Thats just some random white dude. And it's very confusing at first but than you see more and more people start using the word "mexican" as a general description of white person, often in a degrading context. And it does not stop at internet weirdos and racist scum, news outlets, celebrities, well meaning people who claim to support diversity and celebrate and respect different cultures do that too. Sounds extremely weird and out of pocket, right? Well this is how i feel when i see yet another random white person being called caucasian for some reason.

You cant just...i dont know...use a name for a very specific, very old and very existing ethnic group to refer to random white people who have no connection to this group. It even sounds like such a weird and confusing concept when i write this sentence, why would anyone ever come up with idea to do it????

[wishingstarinajar]

It's the Holiday season so I guess that's also the time for people to try and pull on others' heartstrings by begging for money for various causes.

Within the past three days, I've received several Asks on my main and side blog from random "bots" who all have similar messages and the same kind of avatar (usually a portrait, a family photo, or ruined buildings). Heck, I've received the same copy-paste "gofundme" asks over the past year and I don't see an end to it.

To the people behind these fake accounts; Fuck you for trying to scam people by tapping into their humanity, especially during the holiday season. And fuck you for playing light of people who are in actual need and giving them a bad rep. Try provoking my empathy this way and you get yeeted onto my block list so fast, I'm not kidding.

So done with this. Ugh.

(I've thrown this post into my drafts several times over the past few days because I wasn't certain if to actually post it. But fek it, we ball.)

[why-bless-your-heart]

My mom sent me a watercolor she just did and I’m going a little crazy over it, tbh.

[sallymew4]

stageplay shouteru is a whole other beast

fun little extras below cut vvv

look. they are holding hands

[the-way-astray]

huh what was your rant’s main argument

this post is in no way a proper response to katie's response, so i just wanna make that clear from the start. i am actually going to make one of those. so this is not that.

the main argument of my rant is not "here is a list of keefe's worst qualities, doesn't he suck? now everyone point and laugh what a shitty/annoying/cringe/whatever-else-i-said guy" (well, except for the stuff that i said was subjective, like his humor). the main argument of my rant is that keefe's worst qualities never. impact. how. he. interacts. with. the. story. not a single flaw of his has any consequences, either plot-based or relationship-based. not a single bad moment redefines him in the audience's eyes (or is meant to, as written by shannon) or in sophie's. not a single shitty height he reaches has ever ever ever ever been portrayed as negative for longer than zero point four seconds. not one thing he does has any lasting, negative consequences, not for him, not for the people around him. not one thing. not one single thing.

the thing that confuses me about katie's response is that she is well aware that this is my main gripe with keefe. i am not silent about it in the slightest. i do not care that keefe uses his empathy dubiously. i do not care that he handed the cache over at the end of neverseen. i do not care that he breaches boundaries, or that he humiliates sophie constantly, or that he's infinitely stupid and reckless, or that he can't be serious during serious moments. serious. do not give one single shit about any of these things.

what i actually care about, my unending problem with keefe's character, my main gripe, the thing that will never stop annoying me about keefe, is that these things do not result in keefe facing any consequences for doing them, nor are they even villified by the narrative.

i understand that keefe's dubious use of empathy is because of his father. i know that he ran away to the neverseen because of his mom's manipulation. i get that he breaches sophie's boundaries because he genuinely might think he's helping, and that he humiliates sophie because he doesn't know when to stop, and that he's reckless and stupid because that's his character flaw and because he's trying so hard so fight his mom and make sure she doesn't hurt anyone else, and whatever else katie pulled out in her response to explain keefe's shitty behavior. i am aware. i know this. i am not trying to argue that keefe is a bad character because he has flaws and does bad things. that would be incredibly weird.

no, my main argument is that keefe's flaws do not function as flaws, but rather just as bad traits that, half the time, shannon herself does not seem to even be aware are bad.

here is a fantastic example. okay here goes: keefe has issues regarding not knowing where the boundaries are with empathy because he grew up with his fucked-up abusive father who likely extorted information out of him the same way he does with sophie and others (and also likely because he's brainwashed into thinking the law is moral, and there's no actual law against doing this).

now that i've passed katie's test, let's play my game: name one time keefe's using his empathy has, in the long-term, affected his relationships with people. name one time it's truly demonized and made out to be a bad thing by the narrative beyond "oh the person was angry and muttered something about empaths or glared at keefe". name one time it actually affects how keefe interacts with the story. name one time this flaw, something both katie and i agree on, actually affects keefe's relationships. name one time he's sorry, name one time he learns or grows out of it, name one time it's even just made out to be a shitty thing, and not in a "oh, that's just a thing keefe/empaths do, isn't it so annoying? oh well, guess we'll all just put up with it". name one time this flaw is actually recognized by shannon as a flaw. name one time. name one single time. name it. i want to hear it.

in theory, this is supposed to be a thing the reader keeps in mind as they read all my points. i think i actually did say after one of my points something to the effect of, "i'm not actually mad about [thing], it's just that keefe never faces consequences for [thing], which does make me mad. this is also something that applies to a lot of points i make, but it would get repetitive to say that after every single point i make, so just keep in mind that that's the angle i'm coming from". maybe it wasn't as clear as it was the way i just said it now (which i will keep in mind and change during the part two rant), but yeah. none of my points are meant to be "oh look at him isn't he so [flaw]" and stop right there with no further thought. they are meant to be proof that whatever keefe did is bad, so that when i get around to the back half of the rant, i can then say that [bad thing] is never developed or even made out to be bad. so, uh. yeah. here's a few times i say this in the rant itself:

also wanted to mention this quote (from katie's response):

the reason keefe reads as flat to me is that none of his flaws ever affect how he interacts with the story, not in any long-term negative-consequence sense. you can explain and over explain why keefe is the way he is all you want, but that will never change the fact that this is fully not at all my gripe with keefe. not even a little bit. explanation does not equal justification, and certainly it does not equal consequences. where are the consequences, shannon. where are they. where. where. i don't see them. i don't think they exist, actually.

YES!!!! EXACTLY!!!! IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY IT, IT EXPLAINS IT!!!! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING. YES. YOU GET IT. so you agree that this is shitty behavior. okay, cool. now name the place where keefe gets what he deserves for this. if this is shitty, it follows that it is a flaw, right? and if it's a flaw, it should be penalized, right? it should be made out to be a bad thing, right? now. where does this happen.

katie also makes a lot of arguments like this:

well, i actually did acknowledge fitz's main flaw at one point (exile incident, there's a screenshot a few paragraphs up), and i actually did explain why i don't think other characters (in this case, fitz) tend to be as bad as keefe. it's because there's actual development there with fitz's anger, and even if there wasn't, it's definitely vilified by the narrative. (i'd also like to say that katie responded to the bullet containing that fitz-from-exile section, but for some reason decided to cut out that section when quoting me in her response. i felt that was an important part of my argument, and that therefore its absence diminishes my point. in theory, this should not matter, but in reality, there are clearly people that are reading katie's response without reading my original post, and making judgement calls based on that.)

in conclusion, katie has made an argument. a good argument, even. one i actually mostly agree with, which is why i'm having such trouble writing a response to her essay. it's just that what she wrote is not (broadly speaking) a counterargument to what i wrote. it disproves nothing of my main point. nothing katie has told me is new information. i've read her pro keefe essay, which she knows. i'm aware that for everything keefe does that is shitty, there is a reason. genuinely it almost feels like an insult to my intelligence to imply i'm not aware of these things, especially considering shannon has a tendency to beat us over the head with the keefe pity party. i know why keefe is or does [insert flaw here]. i know exactly why it happens. i am aware. that does not change the fact that explaining why it occurs does absolute jackshit to change the objective fact that keefe's flaws are usually brushed aside or made out to be way less offensive than they really are. and honestly, if a flaw doesn't affect how a character interacts with the story, can we even really call it a flaw anymore? at that point, it's just a bad trait.

[anghraine]

Politics vent, though not about specific politicians:

It is wild to have conversations about White Poverty in the US and the desperate straits in which conservative white bigots allegedly live with left-wing white people who have never ever been poor. It seems like they just can't process that creative/literary people like J and I could conceivably have grown up in actual for real poverty and ... idk, it feels very patronizing (and frustrating) at times.

[civetcider]

will NEVER understand people who are like "scary, i don't like this animal gross" and you ask them why and they just say "look at it, it could kill me :( " like SO? i asked if you like and respect them as fellow living things on this beautiful planet not if you would give it a hug brother

[birb--birb]

Soooooo I did lich emmrich...for science..

AND IM SORRY I DONT LIKE IT HOW IS IT MORE COMON THAN SAVING MANFRED??????????

[doobledabbadoo]

Is the Mr. Men & Little Miss franchise sexist? - An informal essay by a fan

(tl;dr summary is listed at the end of this post)

A while ago, I was going through my strawpage (which you can find here) to uncover some submissions that were collecting dust over time. While most of them were about how I was doing, or silly headcanons that the Mr. Men and Little Miss characters had, I came across one that I think needed more than a silly and lighthearted response from your's truly:

"Do you think Mr Men and Little miss is Sexist?"

For those who don't know, the Mr. Men and Little Miss franchise is a British children's literature franchise that contains simple, shaped people that embody certain attributes, such as happiness, luckiness, or forgetfulness. The creator of the series is Roger Hargreaves, who created the first Mr. Men book, Mr. Tickle, in 1971. The book series is still being written today by Adam Hargreaves, Roger's son.

Meanwhile, sexism is defined by the prejudice, discrimination, or stereotyping towards a target sex, typically towards women. Because sexism is a more sensitive topic than many people realize, I will do what I can to approach this subject manner in a more sensitive and serious matter.

I will be writing this from my own perspective; as someone who's identity doesn't relate to being either male or female, and as an avid fan who is viewing the franchise from a critical lens for the sake of this essay. Keep in mind that I'm not an expert on sexism or how women should be portrayed in media, so you may take anything I say below with a grain of salt, and I highly encourage you to do your own research on the subject to form your own thoughts and opinions.

If you're looking for my answer, I honestly don't think that the Mr. Men and Little Miss series is sexist. For one, almost all of the relationships between the male characters and female characters are strictly platonic. Even in Little Miss Valentine's book, a character meant to embody a holiday all about love, includes friendship as one of its core themes. The only instance of romance I gathered from actually reading and looking into the books is between Miss Shy and Miss Quiet, and even then I'm pretty sure it's only implied, based on their interactions.

I've seen a lot of people criticize the series for some of its more negative stereotypes towards women, using more malicious characters, like Miss Naughty and Miss Trouble, or more incompetent characters, such as Miss Helpful, Miss Late, or Miss Scatterbrain. I would've agreed if it were the 1980's, where there were significantly less female characters than male characters. However, some people should consider that there's also many malicious male characters, like Mr. Mischief, Mr. Rude, and Mr. Mean, and many incompetent male characters, like Mr. Clumsy, Mr. Forgetful, and Mr. Wrong. Plus, within these past few years, we've had some more positive female characters, like Miss Brave, Miss Inventor, Miss Sparkle, Miss Hug, and Miss Fabulous, so it definitely balances out.

Although, there are a few decisions the franchise makes for its books and series that does make me raise an eyebrow. For example:

I saw another post on tumblr earlier that criticized how infantilizing "Little Miss" sounds, especially in comparison to "Mr. Men". I do agree that this isn't really the best way to label female characters in the series, as I think something such as the "Miss Madams" could've worked just as well. I don't know how much the Mr. Men and Little Miss franchise is willing to rebrand this name. They've renamed a couple of their characters in the past due to offensive terms (Miss Plump to Miss Greedy, and Mr. Uppity to Mr. Snooty), but I'm not sure if they're willing to remove the "Little" in all their female character's names any time soon. Maybe in another world, they could be branded as the "Little Misses and Little Misters" or the "Mr. Men and Miss Madams".

Miss Brainy, who's just simply tired of everyone asking her questions, has her book end with her nearly getting mauled by a lion. To be fair, neither Roger or Adams wrote this, but... What exactly did she do for a lion to appear on her walk before trying to eat her? She could've learned something like how not everyone was as well educated as her, and that she could learn to be more patient with them. At least Mr. Clever, a character known to be obnoxiously smart in his own book, learned to be humble when he couldn't answer subjective questions. The whole lion thing just felt entirely random.

Little Miss Late, at the end of her book, ends up having a more fulfilled life by cooking and staying at home with Mr. Lazy. On one hand, this does enforce some gendered stereotypes from the 1950's, where a woman is supposed to cook and stay inside for the man in the house, and if you know anything about the 50's, well... It wasn't a good decade for women, to put it simply. On the other hand, there are some women who actually don't mind cooking and cleaning for the men in their lives, and if that's what makes Miss Late happy, who am I to judge?

Just some of the treatment that the female characters get in the Mr. Men show. Because the producers of the show wanted to market it towards boys, they cut a bunch of the female characters that were in development, and they even removed a prominent female character in between seasons simply because the executives didn't like her. They've brought in more characters in season 2, more female characters than male, but they don't utilize any of them as they do the cast they had in season 1. I personally would've loved to see Miss Bossy have a shouting match with Mr. Stubborn or Mr. Rude, or even Miss Curious take Mr. Bump's role in the "How do they do it?" segments of season 2!

Even despite these gripes, I honestly don't think that the franchise itself is sexist. It had many different books, shows, music, and even a musical throughout the years, and they were all written, directed, and produced by several different people with different perspectives and biases.

If you're a woman, or fall under the transgender and nonbinary umbrella, and you've engaged in any Mr. Men media, I would also love to hear your thoughts on how the Mr. Men and Little Miss franchise treats its female characters. It's always great to listen to other people's voices who differ from yours, as it provides different perspectives into the conversation.

tl;dr: no, i do not think its a sexist series. i can see why some people would think so, but i personally dont think it is.