#because i honestly that serves as SUCH a dichotomy to the first thing's that i highlighted here and normally those thing's-

[mad-hunts]

✧

send me a ✧ and i’ll bold all that apply to your muse! (with italics as a 'sometimes' option because i'm a rule-breaker and things may depend on the situation).

i would kill you. ✧ i would physically hurt you. ✧ i would attack you unprovoked. ✧ i would manipulate you. ✧ i dislike you. ✧ you annoy me. ✧ you scare me. ✧ you intimidate me. ✧ i hope i intimidate you. ✧ i pity you. ✧ you disgust me. ✧ i hate you. ✧ i’m indifferent toward you. ✧ i’d like to get to know you better. ✧   i’d like to spend more time with you. ✧ i’d like to be friends with you. ✧  i’m unsure what to think of you. ✧ i’m unsure how I feel about you. ✧ you are my friend. ✧ you are my best friend. ✧ you are my mentor. ✧ i look up to you. ✧ i respect you. ✧ you are my hero. ✧ you inspire me. ✧ you are my enemy. ✧ you make me happy. ✧ i want to protect you. ✧ i would fight by your side. ✧ i consider you an equal. ✧ i think you are beneath me. ✧ i think you are above me. ✧ i would lie for you. ✧ i would lie to you. ✧ i would sleep with you. ✧ i would sleep by your side. ✧ i would hug you. ✧ i would kiss you. ✧ you are family to me. ✧ i would die for you. ✧ i would kill for you. ✧ i would trust you with my life. ✧ i would trust you with my most precious belonging. ✧ i would trust you with a secret. ✧ i would trust you with my biggest / darkest secret. ✧ i love you (platonically). ✧ i love you (romantically).

[whoishotteranimepolls]

hello, finn here, resident one piece "insane tag" writer.... im doing my duty to defend mr. smoker. smo-yan, if you will.

what are my credentials in commenting on this matter? Well. Glad you asked. I've been a onep fan for admittedly not that long, but in that time (like... 8-9 months?) i've messaged one of my close friends. hm. discord receipts.

681 times about him. also you know that one post? yeah from "smoker. smo-yan." to "i fucking love him good god" that's all me. glad we've established my expertise here

2. look at him. first of all, im raising my eyebrow at you anon because woahhhh looking 60 is fine for me. just perfect, actually. they grey/white hair is fucking wonderful to me personally considering i also love rayleigh and beckman.... also just like. every other part of him. he has huge boobs that he refuses to cover because he's allergic to shirts for some reason. he has leather gloves (would suck on any day). when also jacketless, he wears his jitte with a thick strap over his chest that is So droolworthy. he has a Fat Ass. search up stampede smoker because that's like his peak look. his face scar is endlessly sexy. the slicked back hair (more recently) and the more messy spiky look from earlier in the series both serve in contributing to his bad boy persona, which leads me to my second point: the dichotomy of personality.

3a. part a - the bad boy delinquent persona. if you only take him for his surface level actions and words, he seems a little bit mean. like every gruff, rough-around-the-edges mad dog delinquent type. just look at him as a marine cadet, head shaved and frowning. look at the illustration oda did of him as a kid, holding a nail-imbedded bat. he's loud and brash and commands a whole marine squad, he's big and always has a frown on his face and he's arguing and cursing and you just expect him to be unkind. but. But.

3b. But he's not. he's not unkind at all. He's not nice, maybe, but he's so kind. when tashigi has her crisis about justice vs the marines vs "doing the right thing" are often, actually, at odds with each other, smoker supports her in his own gruff way. tells her he'll be there to support her. and. the scene of all time;

4. la pièce de résistance - his character introduction. oda does character introduction SO well in general (see: mihawk, zoro, galley-la shipwrights, countless others) but the smoker intro is my top intro of all time, it's SO good. to recount to those who don't know, we basically see this big scary gruff guy - shirtless, obviously strong, all spiky hair and big stompy boots - and a kid bumps into him and spills their ice cream all over him. He obviously has a reputation as a powerful guy, because the villiagers around all beg him for forgiveness, ask him not to hurt the kid - and yknow what he does? He says to the kid "looks like my pants ate your ice cream," drops a few coin into their hand, and tells them to buy more scoops next time. that's the most attractive thing i've ever seen. he does masculinity like NO other. gods.

5. strong moral compass - doesn't often agree with general marine guidelines. he's pretty shit at being a marine, honestly. tells the brass to go fuck themselves often. follows his own sense of justice, and even though he hates pirates.... temporarily allying himself with them is not off the table, not if it means more justice (in his eyes). he doesn't like innocent people being killed. in stampede, even as everyone attempts to leave the island in light for abuster call, he stays because there must be something he can do. hina sighs and calls him stupid for it, but takes tashigi koby and helmeppo away anyways, showing that this has happened before, likely multiple times.

6. can he stub those cigars out on me. please. please. plea- [comically large piano falls on me, cutting off my speech]

For context, they are responding to this post about Smoker

It's always the last paragraph that pushes it into horny jail territory every time

And he does have one of the best intros. I hope they keep it in the live action

[murfpersonalblog]

The Babygirlification of the Modern Vampire - marinashutup

The first half is mostly just her love of Baldur’s Gate 3′s Astarion, and Twilight’s Edward Cullen; but she actually starts cooking in the last ~15 minutes, about major themes about vampires & vampirism in general; and why audiences relate to monsters so much:

Toxic cycles of abuse & vampire guilt (30:58 - 32:56)

Considering the vampire cycle of abuse, is it really any wonder that so many vampires are angsty brooding and hate themselves? 

“This is the skin of a killer, Bella!” (Edward Cullen)

The overwhelming desire to drain innocent victims -like Elon Musk drains Diet Coke cans and Twitter's net worth aside--vampires are basically groomed into believing they need to be sadistic, unempathetic, tyrannical monsters. Sure, monsters don't have a lot of say in their nature, but the culture of  enslaving, torturing, and brainwashing certainly doesn't help.

This is also making me think a lot about the way that artificial family dynamics are replicated within vampire lore.

Cazador is described as the patriarch of his coven, and he repeatedly calls his Spawn his children. He uses infantilizing language, referring to Astarion--a 239 year-old man--as “boy” and “child.” The Zar family is also a literal family lineage of vampires, and there's a whole side story where you learn that Cazador turned his own niece at the age of 13 without her consent. Incidentally, she was kind of a bada** because she rejected the whole creepy family cult thing, changed her name, and refused to ever leave her room. Honestly, Queen Sh*t. 

In real life toxic family dynamics, abusive parental figures often think of their abuse as serving a greater good. In the minds of many abusers, corporal punishment functions as a way to correct perceived mistakes and reinforce desired behavior in victims. The schemas passed down from vampire Masters to their spawn are inherently rooted in a cycle of abuse. 

In vampire mythology, including Dracula, Interview with the Vampire, and Buffy, vampire lineage often requires that all vampires are both victim and predator. The original trauma of being preyed upon by a monster who has power over them, viciously attacked and turned against their will, is part of a cycle of violence that gets repeated every time a vampire feeds or creates another vampire. In many of these narratives, the dichotomy of vampire-versus-prey / Master-versus-Spawn mirrors the abuser-victim dynamic.

The Role of Choice (35:43 - 38:17)

The role of choice is the primary theme running throughout Baldurs Gate 3, but it's also a major recurring concept within vampire narratives. 

In Twilight, Bella spends three and a half long-winded books begging Edward to turn her, to allow her to exercise her choice, and become a vampire--and he just keeps edging her. There's a lot to be said about Bella's motivations for this, and whether or not her desire is valid or rooted in a teen girl's struggle with identity. The books don't really grapple with the weight of that choice in a satisfying or intellectually curious way, but it's undeniably a substantial part of the text. 

In Interview with the Vampire [the 1994 movie], after mortally wounding Louis, Lestat presents him with the choice he never had--

“I'm going to give you the choice...I never had.” (Lestat, IWTV 1994)

But the so-called “choice” that Lestat offers his targets isn't really a choice at all. Mortally wounding someone, and then offering them the option to become a vampire or die is a false dichotomy of choice, that Lestat manufactured to suit his own needs: 

"If I leave you here...you die.” (Lestat, IWTV 1994)

Like, sir!? Have you ever considered the third option of NOT bringing your targets right up to the point of death, and instead simply letting them go?! 

He targets Louis because he knows he's emotionally vulnerable. Louis’ grieving the loss of his wife and daughter, behaves recklessly because he actively wants to unalive himself. He begs for death, but when the moment comes, he hesitates.

"Have you tasted it enough?” (Lestat, IWTV 1994)

Lestat promises that the gift of Darkness will rid him of pain and grief, and Louis agrees, but only reluctantly.

When Astarion first meets Cazador, his experience mirrors Louis. He's similarly bleeding to death when he's given the option to die or become a vampire; a choice he references with a degree of sarcasm:

"Eternal life, or bleed to death on the street!” (Astarion, BG3)

Cazador also leaves out some pretty major details about the consequences of being a vampire spawn, and it's doubtful Astarion would have actually consented to being turned had he been informed of them. I think it's also pretty clear in the way that Astarion talks about his experience that the process of being turned was a major source of trauma for him, and not something that he would choose a second time.

"I don't want to turn into anything else.” (Astarion, BG3)

I think it's also clear in the language he uses to describe his experience that he does not enjoy being a vampire. He pathologizes vampirism with medical euphemisms, describing it as a “condition,” “complication,” and “affliction.” 

Even Cazador himself seems to struggle with the monster he eventually became. If you use Detect Thoughts while Cazador is asleep in his coffin, his thoughts betray an eerie internal monologue.

Abuse Survivors vs Abuse Perpetuators (42:19 - end)

Some survivors of parental abuse unconsciously replicate the same behaviors and ideals from their own abusers. That's why you sometimes see generational trauma pass down within families, from abusive parents to their children, to their children's children.

Astarion's romantic relationship with the player also morphs into this weird power dynamic thing--and, like, I get it, I get it! You can actually have him turn Tav into a vampire spawn. But it's pretty clear that he will then start thinking of you [Tav] as a subordinate.... 

But mirroring his transformation from human to spawn, Astarion's Ascension fundamentally changes who he is as a person--

"Something tells me he's not the same person we knew.” (Karlach, BG3) 

And what I think is so interesting about Baldur’s Gate 3 is that it presents players with the complicated choice between persuading Astarion from making a decision that would clearly damage his progress healing from abuse, and letting him make his own quote unquote choice to Ascend. 

To me, persuading Astarion NOT to go through with the ritual and save the imprisoned Spawn is an essential step in the character's healing journey. Instead of rooting his aspirations in the twisted ideals that Cazador and the vampires before him glorified, this decision shifts how Astarion views himself, and who he identifies with. Truly seeing and valuing the Spawn’s humanity is Astarion choosing to identify with Cazador's other victims and honor the humanity within himself by aligning himself with the Spawn. It means he too is a survivor worth saving. It means choosing to be better than Cazador-- choosing to form his own identity, and choosing to break the centuries-long vampire cycle of abuse. And that's really powerful. 

But of course, you can also choose to let your pansexual elf boyfriend double down on becoming a toxic Alpha Vampire Who Wants to Rule the World. Some players actually prefer letting Astarion Ascend, and live out his fantasy as a kinky vampire Top, creating a polycule of Spawn Submissives.

In Baldur’s Gate 3, you can make whatever choice you want. That's kind of the whole point.

“There are a lot of thirsty people around here.” (Halsin, BG3)

[likeabxrdinflight]

I have read azula in the spirit temple, because of course I did. it's like 7 bucks for the digital version and honestly? wouldn't pay much more than that.

it's...fine. it's fine. it's not offensive, it's not groundbreaking, it's just...fine. I will say I do really like the art style, it's a vast improvement over the yang-led comics. there's some great drawings and all the characters look really good.

otherwise...? I mean it just doesn't do much with its story, and I think that's kind of intentional. I strongly suspect that now that avatar studios is a thing, major story beats in the comics series are over for the time being. this very much feels like a tease of "can azula redeem herself?? we just don't know!!!" and then they very much do not commit one way or the other with it. which tells me that if any major storylines featuring azula are going to be happening in the future, they probably won't be happening in the comics, but in some future movie or animated series.

and honestly? good. I always felt comics were the wrong medium for telling stories in this universe, they have never managed to replicate the gravitas or complexity of storytelling of the animated shows. so if this comic is meant to be like...a palate cleanser, a teaser for things to come in future projects...fine. that's fine. but it does mean this particular story comes across non-committal and honestly...kinda boring.

like, every character azula interacts with outside the first couple pages is a spirit. none of it's real, the stakes are so low, and everything that happens once azula arrives at the temple is a vision from this guardian spirit, who tells azula that if she could accept what the visions were saying then this was her chance of redemption. but honestly that just feels like a cop-out and I don't really buy it, because none of it was real. and azula knows that.

what this story felt like instead was less redemption arc and more character exploration. and as a character piece it's...it's fine? like I said, it's not offensive like the search or smoke and shadow were (though it does loosely play off where smoke and shadow left off, it mostly ignores the search, so props to it for that lol). but there's nothing in here that will come as a surprise to anyone with basic reading comprehension who's watched the original show. the writing's a bit shallow but broadly inoffensive.

honestly the most surprising thing for me was azula acknowledging out loud to a vision of ursa that she's entirely aware that her father used her as a weapon, and felt that ursa failed to protect her from that fate by leaving. which is an interesting dichotomy given that much of azula's character is bound up in that identity as her father's perfect daughter in contrast to zuko being the failed son. (then again, quite a bit of time has now passed in universe since the end of the tv series, so maybe it's not overly shocking that azula has done a little introspecting in that time.)

other than that, there's some fun interactions with spirit!mai and ty lee, and then there's a final vision with spirit!zuko that comes so close to being a halfway decent climax to this little story, but none of it's a major revelation to anyone who's been paying attention to azula's character. the spirit visions all serve the same function that azula's hallucinations did in the series finale- they act as her unconscious mind telling her the truths she already knows about herself deep down.

the ending leaves azula in kind of a middle ground place, very little about her circumstances have changed except she's decided to ditch her girl gang and go run off to do something else- which is kept extremely vague. I can't help feeling that is an intentional move to set her up for a totally new story in a different medium that likely doesn't want to rely on any foundations laid in any of the comics series. and I wouldn't be shocked if that medium is one of the alleged movies that avatar studios is supposed to be producing. so this feels less like a real character arc so much as a character reset.

and from a creative, lore standpoint I don't have a problem with this. that's probably what they needed to do if they want to use azula in their future animated projects. my problem is that the story the comic tells to give us this reset is just kinda boring for someone who's been with this fandom since the original series aired.

The fact is that I've read and seen fan works that addressed these exact same issues and character beats with much more finesse and for much higher stakes. this comic gave me the feeling that the dialogue was directly addressing what fans have been saying about azula for years and putting a neon light on it. and that's...again, it's fine? but it's not groundbreaking for those of us who've been saying this shit since 2008. and I guess it's nice to see some of those character beats canonized officially, especially if there's a likelihood that we'll see animated azula again, but as far as I was concerned the fact that azula wanted her family to love her and was used as a weapon of war was already obvious, so spelling it out with another comic felt...redundant.

and I guess that's how I'd describe this. it felt redundant to me, as someone who's spent a lot of time with this character already. maybe it's good that it exists so that larger and newer swaths of the fandom can see azula in this light, but for long time fans of the character? there's truly nothing in here about her that you don't already know.

if this really is a reset button for the old comics canon/jumping off point for an animated project, then...I'm not mad about it, exactly. but as a stand alone story it's just...fine. it's fine, but little more.

[ananke-xiii]

Missing Mothers and Missed Opportunities

Or: There can be three, four fathers in this show but there can only be one mother (and she doesn’t even want to be there, lol)!

One way that I like to see the first episodes of s13 is focusing on missed opportunities. Sam’s mind is in the past, he is very much ruminating about his missed opportunity with his mother while Dean’s mind is in the future as he is trying to deal with the fact that Cas is dead (although, to be honest, I think Cas’s death is a catalyst for Dean's much deeper issues related to his identity. As I’ve already said, in s12 Dean was in the process of understanding who he was regardless of his relationships and while he had some sort of reconciliation with Mary, he didn’t have any with Cas).

It’s no wonder, then, that Sam thinks that Cas and Mary might still be alive while Dean doesn’t. In Supernatural the past can come back and if it’s come back once why can’t it come back again? Past is hope. The future, however, is always “doom and gloom” in this series, it’s apocalypses, it’s “it ends bad, it ends bloody”, it is, in other words, super pessimistic. And “The Future” is impersonated in Jack and in the visions of the future he transmitted to Castiel which Dean blames for his death.

Sam is smart but it doesn’t take a genius to understand that if Jack has opened the rift once he might be able to open it again. Therefore, Sam sees in Jack an opportunity: if Jack can control and manage his powers he might open the rift again and Sam could get his mother back. What’s more, he also starts to see (what he thinks he’s) himself in Jack.

Dean: I told him the truth. See, you think you can use this freak but I know how this ends and it ends bad. Sam: I didn’t. Dean: What? Sam: I didn’t ‘end bad’. When I was the freak, when I was drinking demon blood. Dean: Come on man, that’s totally different. Sam: Was it? Because you could’ve put a bullet in me. Dad told you to put a bullet in me, but you didn’t! You saved me! So help me save him! Dean: You deserved to be saved, he doesn’t! Sam: Yes he does, Dean, of course he does!

The “What?” shows how the two are talking about completely different things. Maybe it was the word “freak” that triggered Sam, however I tend to agree with Dean here: Sam and Jack are not “totally different” but they are different. What I disagree with is when Dean says that Jack doesn’t deserve to be saved (Dean, Dean, Dean… you, just like everybody else, don’t need to “de-serve” anything. I swear to God the day we realize what the words we use actually mean maybe the world will really start changing). Because the thing is that Jack doesn’t need to be saved. He’s not a human who drank demon blood for what he thought was “the greater good” but turned out to be the beginning of his end. He was not part of a gigantic, messy, blatant scam involving Heaven and Hell. Jack’s partially the result of both Lucifer’s delusions of grandeur regarding Creation and Kelly’s conservative and dreamy desire to have a baby with the President of the USA (he was never gonna put any ring on it, girl and you knew it. Btw, Kelly is the baby-trapper in this story and no one else, I won’t change my mind ever), but he is nevertheless one of the most powerful beings in all existence. I honestly think that the only character who has ever understood Jack was Donatello.

Donatello: Oh. Speaking not as a prophet but as a scientist, I don’t think teaching him is in the cards. It’s like asking a lion not to be a lion. Sam: But this is not a lion! This is a human! Donatello: With a strong dose of God juice.

It’s not a strong dose of demon blood, Sam. It’s God juice, okay? LOL. Anyway, Donatello is super on point here: Jack is human and not-human. He’s a living aporia, the character where all the false dichotomies of the series show their fallacies. He’s “both… and” incarnated. He’s born and he’s already in his 20s. He’s a child and he’s a not-child. He has an age and he’s without age. Nobody will ever come close to understanding him if they cling close to a “black or white, good or evil” mentality. And this is why the show totally failed (for me) in s14 and how Sam is also failing here because he projects his own (respectable and very real) Lucifer-related issues with evilness onto Jack. Jack is beyond “good and evil” because he’s both human and angel, he embodies two different moralities and also transcends both of them because he’s neither only human nor only angel. To sum up, I don’t think that Supernatural, with its structure and its specific morality, could have handled a character like Jack. And this is why the show has to de-power him, de-soul him, make him die and resurrect etc.

Back to Sam and his failings. He projects his own stuff onto Jack, he wants to use him as a “can-opener”, he thinks Jack can be saved from “evil” because he can teach him. My question is: how much can Sam be negatively judged for these actions? My answer is: not so much.

As far as projections go, this is what he’s been doing from S1. Per SPN structure, both Sam and Dean have been projecting and identifying their issues onto the monsters of the weeks for 15 seasons. Jack is just the “Monster of the Season”. Projection and identification, identification and projection… I mean, this is what the show is about. If all of sudden Sam had woken up and miraculously solved all his identity-related issues the show would have been over.

As far as the utilitarian aspect goes, Sam has actually made some progress here. He “only” surveils Jack via cameras and tries to convince him to do some stupid exercises with a pencil. Previously on Supernatural Sam had literally enslaved, chained and imprisoned the people/creatures he wanted to use. These kids, they grow up so fast :”).

As far as the “do no evil” teaching goes, now here’s what’s really interesting to me.

The episode is “The Rising Son” and Sam’s passionate plea for Jack’s goodness via his teachings is paralleled to Asmodeus’s attempt at locating Jack in order to find him and harness his “timeless knowledge and unschooled power”. Asmodeus acts like Lucifer acted with Sam in S11 in that he pushes Jack to open up the earth “for God” (“I speak the words of God”, “God has a message for you”, “Do it for God” etc). Since Lucifer’s not here, though, Asmodeus wants to “[have]him (Jack) found and trained to rule. With me as his humble advisor, of course”. Of course we know he will fail because he himself says that he had tried to train the Shedim in the past and utterly failed.

ASMODEUS: I know the perils of Lucifer’s disappointment. DREXEL: He—he did that? ASMODEUS: Long ago. Eager to please, I freed the shedim. DREXEL: You… Oh, I’ve heard stories about— ASMODEUS: Oh, I’m sure you have. Hell’s most savage. Things so dark, and base, God himself would not allow them into the light. But I, in my pride, believed that I could train them. Use them. But Lucifer feared them, as well he should, so he forbade it, locked them up again.

This, of course, means that Sam will fail to train Jack/the Shedim too.

The parallel between Asmodeus and Sam must be explored because the show seems to pass it as an Evil (Asmodeus) vs Good (Sam) training but it’s not as simple as that. There’s even a scene where Asmodeus-as-Donatello talks about Jack with Sam and he seems to agree with Sam’s theory that Jack can be molded. While Sam thinks so because “Kelly was a good person”, Asmodeus-as-Donatello is obviously more interested in his evil father’s lineage.

While it’s true that both of them don’t even consider to give Jack a choice, to ask him questions and to try to understand him, they’re not exactly wrong when they agree that Jack’s powers do need some training, regardless of why they’re interested in his powers, Jack doesn’t have a grip on how his powers work. The show insistence on “good vs evil", however, completely ignores the very valid point where Jack’s powers are simply neither good or evil per se but they are “only” a(nother) force to be reckoned with.

This “good vs evil” thing obscures something very important and I think a distinction must be made here about what "training" really means in this context: Sam wants Jack to learn to master his powers, so that he (Jack) can be in control of them; on the other hand, Asmodeus wants to exploit Jack because of his powers, he wants to be the one who’s in control of them.

Both Sam and Asmodeus have an agenda, clearly, they’re also two characters very much interested in power. But when Asmodeus says that he wants to train Jack what he really has in mind is to groom him. Asmodeus’ techniques are very similar to Crowley’s with baby Amara and Demon Dean (I know Dean was not a child but he was one metaphorically because Crowley calls himself “Father” and “daddy” while he calls Dean “a rather scrumptious altar boy”. Ugh). These are predators’ techniques: their intent is to create intimacy with a person (for instance, Asmodeus takes on Donatello’s resemblance to lure Jack and take him to the Hell’s Gate), usually a child, to make them do what they want and abuse their victims, victims who usually don’t even realize they’re victims (Jack doesn’t know he’s being manipulated).

This is NOT what Sam means when he says he can teach Jack. Sam’s utilitarian mindset can be reproachable but his intent is not the same as Asmodeus. Sure, it’s still absolutely problematic but, again, his intent is not to open up the earth to release the Shedim and use Jack to rule Hell. He wants to open the rift to the Apocalypse World to find his mother. He is, in other words, being a softer version of John Winchester. In fact, he is replicating John’s methods because this is what he grew up with and this is what he knows. Avenging Mary’s death, finding Mary in the AU… even if the intent might be comprehensible it doesn’t justify both John and Sam’s attitude towards the reaching of their ends. Yet, their ways are still not the same ways of a Crowley or an Asmodeus.

The other thing is that John was Sam’s father. He was father to two human children whom he raised as if their childhood was a huge, endless military training. Training someone, as a concept, is not evil: if you have a skill or a talent or whatever, you need to train and learn and explore your limits. Having someone who believes in you and wants to help you in your training is not evil too: in fact, it might be a very good thing. It’s a problematic thing, however, when your caregiver is more focused on the training than the care. It’s even more problematic if said caregiver is a paranoid who raised his sons as soldiers. But this is still NOT the same thing as demons such as Crowley and Asmodeus do.

The differences in "training" and what Sam fails to understand about what happened with Asmodeus is explained in "Patience":

SAM: Even with Asmodeus, that just happened?

JACK: No, he made me. It was like, like he was in my head.

SAM: Okay um, then uh… Imagine him doing that.

JACK: No!

SAM: No? Why not?

JACK: Because I don’t want to! It’s just… I can’t do this! And you keep staring at me, waiting!

Asmodeus made Jack use his powers, he was in his head. He had also abducted him, manipulated him: he wasn't trying to train him, he was trying to groom him. Of course Jack doesn't want that.

If Sam is replicating his father's teachings we must then ask: who is Jack to Sam in this moment in the narrative? He’s definitely not his son nor his sibling. But he's not someone Sam keeps in locks either. As I’ve said, Sam has never been above imprisoning people in his dungeon to reach his goal, yet he takes another road with Jack, maybe precisely because he’s identifying with him and projecting onto him his own fears and issues with “being evil” and “being a freak”. There is something very similar between the two but what is it? And why is it not expressed? Maybe Sam is not Jack the way he thinks he is but they do share one thing: they have both missed the opportunity to create a bond with their respective mothers.

Sam only really utterly fails Jack when he’s dishonest with him. He eventually understands that and comes clean with him but I think that a lot of the initial issues happened because he was not communicating with Jack at all. And he didn’t even give him a choice. I think that if Sam were honest with Jack and gave him the choice to help him he would have discovered another thing that make them veeeery similar: both of them are okay with twisting human morality and… sort of… manipulate people a little to get what they want. Does this make them evil villains? To me, no. Does this make them human, layered, compelling characters that raise interesting moral questions more than give black and white answers? Totally yes!

Sam and Jack are not “totally different” but they are different. Conversely, they are not “totally similar” but they are similar. The Rescuing of the Mother can happen because The Loss of the Mother is something that Jack can deeply understand and relate to. He doesn’t want to save Mary just to please Sam and Dean. I think it’s deeper than that.

In case it wasn't clear, the conflation of Mary and Kelly is very clear in "The Big Empty":

MIA: You’ve lost someone recently? DEAN: No. JACK: My mother. SAM: Uh, our mother. We’ve having a difficult time.

Mary-as-Missed/Missing-Mother is such a central theme in this season that the Apocalypse World is a literal ramification of the Original World that's solely dependent on Mary Winchester’s choice to not deal with Azazel. John is never brought back and, more importantly, Sam and Dean are never born. This is a world where she’s not the mother. But why is Mary’s choice so vital it can create different timelines?

S12 and S13 implicitly seem to tell that everything that happened was because of Mary’s choice and… it’s, like, not true? Sometimes Sam and Dean are so ultra-focused on “free will” and “making the right choices” that tend to forget the part where both them and their parents were part of a larger scheme that was predicated on people ultimately being herd towards a designed pen. Like, while I think that Dean and Sam having issues with their mother is completely real and plausible, I don’t understand why the narrative re-frames itself in this way… I understand that they were going for a specific retelling of the first seasons but this is not just retelling, this is demolishing the premises of those series. S4-5 were precisely about the mystification and the perils of a glorified, Grand Destiny that in reality was nothing but a Big Scam. It’s not your destiny if your destiny is something that somebody else is telling you about and when this somebody else has a vested interest in you believing that you have that specific destiny. Or if somebody else is removing all of your choices leaving you with close to nothing to choose from.

Apocalypse World is, thus, such an unfair double-edged sword, cause on the one hand, it gives Mary agency but on the other it shows us that both choices resulted in… well, frankly, catastrophes. And I think it’s unfair to throw this huge weight onto her shoulders after they had dug her up from her grave while completely ignoring the whole thing about senior management angels playing puppeteers with the Winchesters.

Kelly-as-Missed/Missing-Mother is the other side of the coin of this little argument of mine because in s13 the writers demonstrated how Kelly must stay dead because one mother is enough and they didn’t know what to make of Kelly since she was not a hunter. She was just, as a character, Jack’s mother. The rift to the Apocalypse World was even possible in the first place because she (more or less, it’s complicated) decided that she would.have.her.baby. But, just like Mary before her resurrection, if his actual mother were back in the game it either meant that Jack was out of the game or that they had to include her in some capacity into the Winchesters dynamics and they didn’t want any of that. Mary’s death meant that Sam and Dean entered the hunters’ life, Kelly’s death assures the same for Jack. Plus, they all have an angel watching over them, isn't it just great? But hey, wait, this is the absent fathers show so we’re gonna give this kid three, four, five fathers!!! (sarcastic). Also, Alive Kelly wouldn’t be the Good, Perfect, Dead Mother that she is to Jack because, well, she would be a Real Character, not a memory on a pen drive and Alive Kelly would be so faaaar from the Good and Perfect Mother. Do we have to try to write another complex mother? One is enough!!! (sarcastic).

In conclusion, in s13 Sam’s (and Jack’s) huge missed opportunity stays… missing. Jack will go to the Apocalypse World and fight the angels with Mary whereas Mary decides to stay there (lol!) to help with the fight. They literally have to find a bus and move all the remaining AU people to the Original World because Mary has decided that she wanted to stay in a world where she didn’t choose John and she didn’t give birth to her sons (me asking Sam who has just died and was resurrected by Lucifer only to find out that his mother didn’t want to be saved: are you REALLY okay? LOL). I’ll stop here cause this is getting way too long but maybe, just maybe, s13 as a whole was a giant missed opportunity.

[jalebi-weds-bluetooth]

Hey jalebi, I want to understand why did Arnav ripped Khushi's dori is it because she poked wrong wounds? Honestly in that moment Arnav's felt more grey than black or white! Would he behave the same with any woman who would poke his wounds anytime or its just in the spur of the moment with khushi?

Hey Anon,

Because Arnav is introduced as an anti-hero and he does everything an anti-hero.

"An anti-hero is a character who lacks a handful of the traditional attributes of a hero but is ultimately heroic. They may be bewildered, ineffectual, deluded, or merely apathetic. More often an anti-hero is just an amoral misfit. Some common attributes are: rarely speaking, being a loner, either extreme celibacy or extreme promiscuity, parental issues, occasional Past Experience Nightmares and flashbacks relating to a Dark and Troubled Past that can take many forms depending on the Anti-Hero in question.Typically, an antihero is the focal point of conflict in a story, whether as the protagonist, or as the antagonistic force. This is due to the antihero's engagement in the conflict, typically of their own will, rather than a specific calling to serve the greater good. As such, the antihero focuses on their personal motives first and foremost, with everything else secondary."

So Arnav's actions are incredibly volatile because until Shyam is confirmed as a Villain, Arnav is not revealed as a Hero.

And I find that dichotomy delicious. The audience is meant to be conflicted because that was a terrible moment and the show displays it as a terrible moment.

Also Arnav & Khushi have a different connection based on the story. Like a fated thread. They're both uncomfortable at the attraction they feel for someone undesirable.

And it's a multiple things that leads to that particular action. If Arnav met another woman under the exact circumstances who affected him just as much Khushi did and then have his wounds poked then, yes, the same reaction might've happened.

Women have very little responsibility over how a man behaves. Whether he's being romantic or abusive - it has nothing to do with a woman and all to do with the man himself.

Best,

JWB

[psychewritesbs]

Hi....if you don't mind me asking, can I ask your top 5 (or top 3) favorite characters from Tokyo Babylon? And why do you love them? And your top 5 favorite moments from the series? Thanks.....

HOLA! Thank you for your patience, I really wanted to give this a lot of thought but Jujutsu Kaisen dropped a massive twist so this took me a lot longer to get back to you. Without further ado...

Favorite TB characters

4. Tokyo

I don’t necessarily have any super insightful reasons for it other than just loving Tokyo. Also, this post does a fantastic job of introducing Sei-chan as a metaphor for Tokyo that I highly recommend you read.

The thing is that Tokyo is just... 

Larger than life? 

Intoxicating?

Exhilarating?

I’m a big city girl, and I’ve been privy to have visited a few of the most iconic and most populous cities in the world... Mexico City, NYC, Lima, Bangkok, Vancouver... but in my eyes, none compare to Tokyo. Ok maybe Mexico City, but that’s because I’m biased af by tacos and my people.

That said, I am a big fan of stories that feature cities as a sort of background character that defines the context of the story and serves as a container for it simultaneously. i.e. Your Name and Weathering with you by Makoto Shinkai. But I like that CLAMP takes it a step deeper by creating Sei as a metaphor for Tokyo as a corrupting force.

Of course, we also can’t ignore that CLAMP linked Tokyo to the ancient city of Babylon, thus implying that Tokyo and its inhabitants have become corrupted by their own ego’s baser humanity. Ironically, the ego is not necessarily “evil” or a “bad thing” in and of itself.

So it’s an interesting dichotomy given Subaru’s exalted spiritual role within the story and how Tokyo is considered a sort of sacred “place” upon which the fate of the world hinges in x/1999 and other non-CLAMP manga.

Not to mention the whole idea around God taking away humanity’s ability to understand each other--it’s almost foreshadowing for how Subaru and Seishiro’s dynamic evolves.

3. Sumeragi Hokuto

This girl.

Hokuto is one of my favorite female characters in manga. At first, you get the impression she’s just Subaru’s appendage because she is his twin--a sort of person who is there to be a foil to Subaru’s more sensitive and quiet nature.

And then, CLAMP brings her to life as an individual in her own right in the most magnificent way possible. Not only does she demonstrate depth, but she’s brave, compassionate... idk, this girl is the whole 9 yards and a bit more. 

I think some of my favorite scenes with her are when she spooks Seishiro. It says a lot about her character to openly and brazenly defy a person such as Seishiro.

I hate to admit I don’t spend a lot of time brain rotting about her so I don’t have a whole lot to say about her other than “I adore her” and that I love her chapter, Smile.

Honestly, what’s not to love about Hokuto?

2. Sakurazuka Seishiro

Ok let’s start with the obvious: He’s a massive idiot and a sinister creep, and I love him all the more for it.

Also, his love language is torture so... it explains a lot.

Basically, Seishiro is a conundrum. When you re-read TB and you know what goes down in x/1999, you kind of have to start to wonder about his sense of self.

Seishiro, as a character, walks a fine line between who he pretends to be and his temperament. Even though he puts on a specific mask in his interactions with the Sumeragi twins, Hokuto always knew he was pretending and even Subaru always expressed his desire to get to know the real Seishiro--thus implying he sensed something was off.

But that’s just it. Personality and behavior ≠ temperament. As humans we are multidimensional beings and those are but three aspects of being.

Also, this is where it gets complicated with him because he can pretend to exhibit certain personality traits or behaviors all day long, but his unchanging temperament is quite another thing. I’ve personally have always felt like it is Sei’s temperament what Subaru latched onto and fell in love with even if Seishiro made it a point to hold back and restrain the whole of his true nature from Subaru.

It’s almost like the Seishiro Subaru fell in love with existed at the intersection between Seishiro the cruel bastard that we know him to be, and Seishiro, the soul.

As for Sei, my best guess is that the same was true for him and that his ego mind/personality could not hold the tension of being inevitably attracted and drawn to Subaru’s temperament. The whole personality dichotomy between them was, in the end, just an excuse for Seishiro to remain in control of a situation over which he had no control.

As has been said multiple times in the fandom, the fact that Sei-chan even made the bet to begin with, is proof that he had already lost it.

Dammit Seishiro why can’t you just be normal ffs?!

That said, I love Seishiro both out of compassion for the tragedy of his character, AND as a clinical study on someone who is a total nutcase. 

Honestly, that’s one of the things I love the most about him? He’s SUCH A CREEP and just can’t be normal about Subaru.

1. Sumeragi Subaru

My favorite is, of course, Subaru.

I was talking with a fellow Pisces I recently met about a few Pisces characters, and in their own words: "I understand exactly how his fucked up little head works”.

So... I love Subaru because of who he is as a character and also because "I understand exactly how his fucked up little head works”.

Subaru is ethereal. Not of this world but in it. He’s soft and gentle and kind. But he’s also a bit of a liar and self-loathing and lacks boundaries.

Basically, Subaru is a masterclass in maladaptive empathy and compassion. This is not to mention that Subaru carries the burden of “the chosen one” and feels at odds both with his role and with his place in the world because of the exalted spiritual powers that he was born with. 

One of the things I really appreciate about him as a character is the symbolism that defines him as a character. That is his zodiac sign, Pisces, the last sign of the zodiac which is often associated with Christ Consciousness in esoteric interpretations of the sign’s symbolism.

So to me, Subaru is someone who unconsciously absorbs “negativity” and transmutes it into “light”. But in the end, there’s only so much Subaru’s human ego can handle, especially after Seishiro enters into the picture and does #the thing.

Now, apparently Christ Consciousness is also about unification and wholeness. Given Sei and Subaru represent the yin and yang, and bringing back the Babylon metaphor where God punishes the citizens in Babylon by taking away their ability to communicate... well... they’re totally written in the stars.

Anyways. So the thing about Subaru’s self-loathing is that it defines a lot of his actions and the way he thinks.

The last time I read TB from start to finish I didn’t create psychological distance between him and me, and as a result I spent the whole day lamenting the utter meaninglessness of life and existence. It’s not a pretty place to be so I kind of stay away from TB and keep a safe distance from “Subaru states of mind”.

Favorite TB Moments

In no particular order...

1. Tokyo Tower

One of the other things I feel influenced Subaru’s interest in Seishiro was that Seishiro “understood” him. Again, I may not be Subaru but I know how his fucked up little head works--perpetually misunderstood is my middle name. So to meet someone who (deeply) understands is like finding an oasis in the Sahara.

In this chapter we see them both disagree and meet in the middle about fundamental values. I am not sure if Subaru was already a nihilist at this point in his life, but he’s certainly starting to ask questions to give meaning to the experiences he has. 

The problem is that he trusts Seishiro bahaha. Oh God... Seishiro the nihilist giving life advice. The way I see it is... Subaru wouldn’t have become a nihilist if the inkling wasn’t already there.

Not sure if Seishiro influenced this or just fanned the embers of nihilism that were already burning inside of Subaru. After all, Subaru’s mental health was already not the best due to his work as an onmioji.

2. Don’t underestimate Subaru

Subaru is someone who on first impression is gentle and soft and quiet, not the most masculine traits or temperament if you think about it. In addition, if your lifestyle revolves around Western or individualistic values, then these traits are typically also perceived as weakness.

The reason I love to see Subaru demonstrate the opposite of his usual state of being is because it demonstrates that softness and kindness and strength can coexist.

In other words, he might not look it, but he can and will kick ass when needed. 

What I love the most about scenes of Subaru exerting power over others is that he’s still super kind and gentle about it. 

3. Seishiro’s reveal

I read somewhere in this hellsite about someone pointing out that the genre that defines Tokyo Babylon as a literary work follows the exact formula that TB follows. But alas, I have no idea how to find said post.

Suffice it to say that this is one of the most impactful moments in the story despite being told Sei is a sinister creep pretty much right from the get go.

The twist isn’t that Seishiro is a sinister creep, but rather the bet that Sei made with Subaru, and that’s what ultimately cuts deepest.

I have to say that from a writing perspective, this writing device is pretty cool because you’re basically distracting an audience with what you want them to focus on, and then you reveal the truth about that distraction and how that changes the story.

I’d say it’s a good attempt at a plot twist. And that’s actually one of the things I love about it is how the reveal is timed to Subaru’s own awakening to his sense of self and identity... just in time to have it shred to pieces by Seishiro’s little bet that he had already lost.

Nanase (CLAMP’s writer) is a sadist and I love her all the more for it.

Also the way Seishiro is depicted as a high schooler is total creepster on steroids...

4. Hospital scene

Do I like this scene for the out of context innuendo? Yes.

Do I love that Seishiro’s facade is starting to fall away and he can’t keep his hands off his prey? Yes.

AND this scene is also so loaded. I like to think that seeing Subaru cry was a shock to Seishiro’s ego so large that he had to create distance between them to establish control.

Like... he just couldn’t wait to get Subaru out of that hospital room or otherwise he might strangle him to death because his love language is torture.

Again, he lost the bet the moment he came up with the idea. Almost like he was trying to convince himself that what he experienced wasn’t the absence of “I can’t love” the whole time.

5. Sumeragi twins

The love and affection they have for each other is so beautiful...

I think it’s easier to see how much Subaru needs Hokuto. But Hokuto needed Subaru just as much.

And that’s that! 

TA-DA! Thanks for your patience once again anon and for inviting me to brainrot about Tokyo Babylon <3.

[junebuggeryy]

The thing about Apple White is that the story sets her up to be deranged in such a way that makes perfect sense for the lore. I feel like the desire to follow the previously established story isn’t entirely something that’s invalid, but I feel like the royal storyline clearly kind of drowned in its own initial conflict especially as like… The lines got blurrier, but like. The fact that there are enough details in world to understand why Apple might cling to it, like the fact that she’s got an immediate connection to the Charmings and her mother’s incredibly industrious background as well as just like…

The promise that she’s going to live happily ever after, the fact that her story is considered the epitome of fairytales in setting and how she essentially can’t imagine how anyone wouldn’t want that for her. She easily stands out as a character because of the fact that she obviously has a lot of toxic traits, but I feel like they do come from such a like “pure” place to use language from an earlier post. She can’t imagine why people wouldn’t want what she wants at first and wants to help even though her idea of helping is a flawed premise. I think Apple as a representative of the Royals is really interesting in that way with her and Darling serving as an excellent potential frame work for like… The “rebranding” of the Royals in a sense where they get to play out their roles, now changed, rather than oppose the Rebels.

But yeah like, the dichotomy really did fall apart because by the end of the Wonderland arc they all have to agree its too dangerous for the facilitating artefact to even exist and that fundamentally it’s better to let people choose their own fate so like. If they wanted one then they really needed to build around it a little more coherently, but I think just letting the initial dichotomy die and replacing it with something else would have been fine! It might even have given them excuse to rebrand their dolls and update their designs and sell more of them if that’s the point. Anyway, hi again

Hello Lovely Followers It's Still Ever After High Hours.

hi again. these are some damn good thoughts, and i think you're completely right? this is perhaps an ironic point, but stories are supposed to evolve. i could absolutely see a version where the initial conflict of the royals changed shape, and Apple and Darling got to rewrite what it means to hold the power they do. i would have loved to see the "royals" name change to mean something new rather than peter out, and im sure it could have even been worked into whatever marketing/doll design goals were required to keep the show running? but these things are easier said than done, i suppose

anyway, im ECSTATIC you bring up the wonderland arc, as i have a comical amount to say about it. in general, the wonderland arc feels like the point where the story stops being about challenging oppressive power structures, and starts implicitly preserving them. it makes sense for raven to want to help protect her friend's mom, the Queen of Hearts, and i dont think it was even a bad story arc? but i do think its notable that Courtly is the first time we see someone trying to change their world's power structure is painted as unequivocally bad. and it's not as if EAH's Queen of Hearts is a particularly kind version of the titular ruler, either? then, by the time we get to epic winter, the villains are explicitly servants that no longer want to live in servitude, and are acting out, and this is not commented on at all.

idk. maybe you could argue that Courtly is someone taking advantage of an unstable system? but i am biased and Courtly Jester is forever my #problematic fave. i have a known soft spot for clown terrorists.

i do wish they had written different exit for the storybook of legends? if i recall correctly, Apple finally voted to get rid of it because she was afraid of someone signing their name into the wrong page and stealing a destiny- which, honestly, i still find to be a fascinating piece of worldbuilding, and to be a concern in-keeping with Apple's character? but it feels like only one piece of a larger puzzle. it just, feels weird to have the defeating blow to the Storybook of Legends™️, and it's societal hold over people, to be the preservation of tradition. maybe the writers felt they had already done a thorough job of tackling the ways being trapped in tradition was bad for these characters, and needed a new reason to get rid of it? but- IDEK. i feel like there may have been better options.

honestly, it feels like the thing that's missing from EAH are the Royals expressing empathy or understanding for situations outside of their own? which, honestly, isn't really a complaint- the show's about teenagers, and it makes sense they would be a little myopic! hell, that's why Apple takes it so personally.

that being said, i do think its notable that i can't think of a single Royal that didn't turn over to the Rebel side for a reason outside their own destiny, from wanting to date a non-prince charming, to not desiring to be comatose for a century. maybe this could have been Apple? our girl with nothing to complain about, our girl being offered the most heavenly future she could imagine, deciding that her guarantee at a perfect life isn't worth it if it requires that her friends must suffer.

again, that's the Apple in my heart. idek. i feel like im talking a lot about broad strokes potentials and story building rather than canon characterization? even through all this, i still love what we got of this dumb silly fantasy highschool show, lol.

[brotherhoodoftheblade]

Haha, well then you've come to the right place - this is the home of the long rants! LOL

I do find John and Jamie quite interesting as friends (I mean, the dichotomy of a frigging Jacobite and a bloody English lord becoming friends alone is intriguing! lol), and even like their friendship at times, but there are definitely things that fundamentally put me off about their relationship. Namely all the years that John essentially abused his power over Jamie to force a "friendship" on him.

Firstly at Ardsmuir, and then afterwards when John used his influence to get Jamie to serve out his parole at Helwater without even consulting him as to his own wishes - which he later admitted was to have been transported with his men in the first place rather than remain in isolation at Helwater, a caged bird to be visited whenever John wanted. And ultimately, despite his reasoning for justifying his actions, that is why John did it. Because HE needed Jamie somewhere where he could still see him, despite knowing perfectly well that Jamie didn't want anything to do with him. (And John calls Hal high-handed! while not acknowledging when his own behaviour is much the same.)

And as for Jamie himself, the more I read the later OL books the more I came to find him a pretty half-assed friend. But then how could it have been otherwise when their every interaction for YEARS was only by the duress of John abusing his power over Jamie? How can there be anything right about John being all "oh Jamie is the only person I can speak honestly to", when the only the reason that's the case is because Jamie had no choice in the matter? And that John only confided his secrets to him precisely because he knew Jamie could never could never speak out against him even he wanted to. After all, what is the word of a convicted traitor against an English lord? Nothing.

It's so fucked up. A power imbalance in a relationship is one thing, but actively and repeatedly abusing your power over another person (even pseudo-benignly) is another thing entirely. (And to continually disregard another person's feelings and wishes while claiming to care about them IS very much abuse.)

How can true friendship exist when it's not by the free choice of both parties? Even the times Jamie helped him in the past were not truly out of his free will, but because he was under duress from Hal. Sometimes their "friendship" almost seems more a form of Stockholm Syndrome than true friendship because John simply found ways to keep the unwanted connection between them alive until Jamie was finally worn down into accepting it. And even then, how often did Jamie ever write to or go to visit John outside of him needing something from him?

It's true that they were miraculously able to build a true friendship out of all this eventually, but it's foundations are still pretty damn shady and unethical.

And then to top it all off John went and married Isobel - when he’s gay and never had any wish whatsoever to get married - just so he could raise Jamie’s son and thus forge a lifelong bond with him. Did he need to do this? Lord Dunsany had already asked John to serve as Willie’s legal guardian in the event of his death four years previous. He could have ensured the boy was looked after without marrying a woman he only loved like a sister, thus leaving her free to pursue her own happiness with a man who was actually in love with her. 

(And the show, as with many things that are truly dubious af in the OL books, chose to mitigate this by writing Isobel as having been in love with John from the start, despite this not having been the case in the book at all. At most she only seemed to love John as a friend/older brother.)

And from John’s terse conversation with Claire about Isobel, I take it their marriage wasn’t all sunshine and daisies. I’m sure John tried to make Isobel happy as much as he was able, but it doesn’t alter the fact that he chose his own needs ahead of hers. It strikes me as a nebulous sort of selfishness couched as selflessness, because on the one hand John is incredibly selfless and self-sacrificing in his love for Jamie, but at the same time his actions are also self-serving in his desire to maintain a connection with Jamie no matter what.

(And let’s not even mention the way John saw no issue in starting a relationship with Percy while knowingly in love with another man, and with nothing but "kindness and honour" to offer him in lieu of love, while also maintaining a sense of possession over him. 🙄) 

For a man who prizes his sense of honour so highly - and who can be quite self-righteous and arrogant about it at times - he has a rather myopic view his own actions.

Tbh, I don't even blame Jamie that much (homophobia notwithstanding). He really only comes off as a half-assed friend to John due to the unbalanced nature of their relationship as cultivated by John. Jamie's behaviour - making his family his first priority - is what normal married men do. It's John's conduct that's unusual. He's the one who went and turned his whole life upside down just so he could rebuild it with Jamie at it's centre.

Like...that is NOT the behaviour of an emotionally stable adult, John. Go to therapy already, you poor melancholy fruitcake! lol Go find yourself another specialist in mental disorders - this time on purpose. :P

(Why does it seem like the two characters who are in most dire need of therapy in OL are the two main gay characters, John and Jonathan "Black Jack" Randall?? That DOES NOT look good on you, G*baldon. And then add what she did to Percy on top of it all and...UGH. She should not be trusted with representing gay characters given the treatment she's given them. 💀)

I mean, the man's frigging 50 YEARS OLD at this point! Behaviour that's dubious but ultimately forgivable in an emotionally scarred young man in his 20s simply doesn't exist in the same light by the time 25 years have gone by. John indeed needed to wake the f*ck up and realize his true North is himself - not Jamie freaking Fraser, not anyone else - a bloody long time ago. But as Voltaire said, “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”

And that reverence is the fault of one person: D*ana G*baldon. Her obsession with her own creation and her need to make frigging everyone in love and awe of Jamie "King of Men" Fraser is beyond ridiculous at this point. 🙄 It's seriously just hurting the story at this point, and quite possibly damaged it beyond all repair thanks to what she did to Percy. Which is especially frustrating because she laid all the groundwork to fix all this crap, it's been right there in the text all along.

I, too, still had faith that the reintroduction of Percy meant she meant to have John wake the f*ck up at long last and start living his life for himself. And I still had it right up until the end of book 8, it's Bees that ruined everything. I don't even know what the fuck she thinks she's doing anymore!! I definitely won't be wasting money on the next book is all I'm going to say. -_- Only fanfiction can fix this travesty now it seems (which is at least extra satisfying given how much she hates it). *sigh*

Ah yes, you're quite right. If you mean to write about the whole scope of things you'll need to brave reading Bees. (Although, I also have all the John and Percy sections tagged in the book if you want to save time by just reading those for now. I could give you the page numbers if you like.)

Ugh, yeah, you're absolutely right - having read BotB right before Bees will indeed make the experience SO much worse. Especially the way the last time John and Percy saw each other in BotB directly mirrors the last time they see each other in Bees. That last scene just crushed my heart like an empty soda can. 💔💔💔

Before Bees I was only kind of annoyed about John's narrative in the OL books but Percy's fate just set me off like Molotov cocktail and I've been raging ever since. (I'm normally more mild mannered, I swear. lol) Sure, I'm royally pissed at DG, but worse yet, I'm so angry and disappointed with John. Bees made me dislike my favourite character, which is a terrible feeling. 😔

I was talking about it recently with a friend and they said that a John deprived of his compassion isn't anything special, and the truth of that really hit me hard. John's always had plenty of dislikable traits (cynicism, arrogance, snobbery, impulsiveness, narrow-mindedness, easily angered/driven to violence) but it's always been tempered by his compassion, by his desire to do the right thing. But the way he acted with Percy in the end just left me cold.

I honestly wonder how much sympathy I'll even have left for him by the time the last book comes out. A part of me just wants him to frigging suffer, at least it'll prove he still has heart. Though given how DG wrote him in Bees, it's quite possible he won't even care all that much. And, if so, I'll just be done with him as a character. ~

john/percy making me come back to tumblr in 2023 lmao

[mokutone]

Unpopular opinion :) about naruto in general or just yamato whatever you want

hmmm thank you for the question....i guess here's one: in "modern"/non ninja AUs, I think Yamato should still be a fairly odd guy who is not really fully socialized to the intricacies of daily life.

ough. edit update 2: tumblr deleted my first update acknowledging that it fucked up my post. dont know why this keeps happening. but it does. anyway

the thing is that around 2020 i started getting into naruto and while trying to avoid certain spoilers i decided to read some non ninja au fics, just because theyre fun and creative and i like seeing how people translate canon material into au material, and i was like. suuuuper blindsided by how often yamato was portrayed (even in some yamato centric fics) as like. the everyman.

and to be fair!! i can definitely understand how they came to this conclusion, because Yamato DOES have a little bit of a manzai routine with naruto, where naruto is the boke and yamato is the tsukkomi! yamato loves to play the straight man!

but the straight man isn't quite the everyman, there's some nuance in there. the "everyman" is somebody who is meant to be "relatable to anyone," typically their experiences in life have been """average""" in such a way that, when exposed to bizarre circumstances, they will react with an entertaining or empathy-drawing abundance of surprise and often distress.

i feel like a lot of yamato's backstory, specifically being a test tube baby created by konoha's favorite evil mad scientist and then raised and trained by a man known for having children fight to the death in an effort to remove them of their feelings, and then spending the next 10 years of his life exclusively working relatively anonymously in Konoha's black ops, however, kinda disqualifies Yamato from being an everyman? I feel like that's a pretty ah. unique. experience of life. even speaking simply in the terms of batshit ninja origin stories from naruto!

like sure! in an au, you could remove any trace of that from his character. but you could also, in an au, say that Kakashi just got that scar in a shaving accident when he was 22. i don't know why you'd say that, but like, you could if you thought that losing his eye and all that obito shit didn't matter to his character much. i mean...the world is an oyster.

the straight man in a comedic bit DOES often serve the purpose of the "voice of reason" but, unlike the everyman...there's no prescribed backstory! it's just a comedic role. The only expectation is that they generally maintain composure in the face of Antics, and that they try to correct or give deadpan commentary to the funnyman.

this is part of why i am constantly making jokes about Yamato Deliberately practicing being "normal," honestly. i think it would be a very funny and a really funny crossroads of some of his character traits if...instead of being the straight man by virtue of never having encountered any strangeness in his life, yamato (who we know to be somebody who values preparedness immensely) just...studied for it. is there anything more hilarious than the idea of somebody who studied being normal with the goal of being able to pass as Just Some Average Joe.

Imagine say, a Yamato who was brought up by danzō in some kind of homeschooler's hell blood sports situation, who is now an adult and finds doing his taxes and going grocery shopping and all sorts of very normal and unfun tasks genuinely kind of exciting because of how rewarding he finds it to practice these Normal Skills he has put an insane amount of effort into teaching himself. I find this idea to be just. utterly enrapturing. but that's a very extreme example of the dichotomy.

anyway. in fics which aren't about that kind of thing, it can be a narrow line to tread, and really all it comes down to is just. putting thought into giving yamato a backstory which draws at least somewhat on a few of his canon backstory details and characterizing his actions with his own logic (which one must then put effort into building), rather than a kind of default "common-sense" logic.

[veliseraptor]

Ooooooh I know you don’t write TGCF fic but I’d loooove to hear your thoughts on Xie Lian & Jun Wu...

it’s not so much that I don’t want to write TGCF fic or have a lot of thoughts and feelings about TGCF character dynamics as I have this weird block specifically around writing fic for it. I have no idea what that’s about.

anyway though, in answer to your question! god this dynamic just...fascinates me. it’s so awful and so interesting and look, you all know I’m a sucker for parallels/mirrors/shadows and their interplay, and Jun Wu is 100% Xie Lian’s mirror. explicitly! obviously! and I love it.

the tension between Xie Lian and Bai Wuxiang is obviously the thing that grabbed me first, and the dichotomy, then, between Xie Lian/Bai Wuxiang and Xie Lian/Jun Wu is...they’re two completely different relationships, almost polar opposites, and yet of course they’re relationships with the same person. because Jun Wu has two faces! he isn’t just Bai Wuxiang (but he is Bai Wuxiang) and he isn’t not Jun Wu. they’re both there, side by side, and both with eyes locked on Xie Lian.

the way that Jun Wu identifies Xie Lian with himself, but also as himself but better somehow, but also himself but just clueless. I think that his trying to twist Xie Lian into Bai Wuxiang’s mirror image is about...oh, four things, maybe, simultaneously (maybe more than that but four occur to me):

The desire to be vindicated in his view of the world - to bring Xie Lian down to despair and make him in his own image.

The desire to mold Xie Lian into a perfect successor/companion, both as someone he owns but also I think as someone who could keep him company.

Just plain and simple the desire to break Xie Lian out of pure fucking spite and anger.

And way deep down, probably unacknowledged: the desire to be proven wrong.

and of course Xie Lian keeps “failing,” keeps not following the path Jun Wu is trying to set out for him. he keeps making the “wrong” choices. and he’s only hurting himself! he’s only making things harder for himself! poor Xie Lian, if he’d just give in it’d be so much easier.

but Xie Lian doesn’t, and won’t, and even when he finally does he turns around at the very last minute. manages to pull himself back from the brink. they continue to stand on opposite sides of the river, and the bridge is right there but Xie Lian won’t cross it.

and I think Jun Wu doesn’t really understand why.

it is...deeply important to me on a lot of levels that both (a) Jun Wu doesn’t die at the end and even more that (b) Xie Lian doesn’t kill him. beyond just my sentimentality and the fact that I acquired surprise Jun Wu feelings at the 11th hour, I love that it is...it’s about the hat. 

the bamboo hat is such a weighted symbol, and we know that now - it was a kindness given to Xie Lian when he was at his lowest, and it served as proof that there was kindness in the world. it was, at least for Xie Lian, the thing that let him refute Bai Wuxiang’s arguments.

gifting it to Jun Wu here and now is passing that on. it’s passing on the kindness that was given to him back then when he needed it most, but maybe even more than that it’s passing on the gesture itself with the implication it has - this world is not as bleak as you believe it is.

and like. that sure is a thing. and god I’m just - so here for characters who are able to extend a hand in understanding to their antagonist, even if it doesn’t mean they’re going to be friends. Xie Lian isn’t coming back, I don’t expect, and he doesn’t have to! he probably shouldn’t! but in parting he’s said, not it’s all right but I understand.

honestly, I think that’s in some ways what Jun Wu wanted most. it’s why he kept trying to turn Xie Lian into himself - both as vindication of his worldview, but also because, I think, he was lonely, and needed someone to tell him you were right.

and Xie Lian isn’t saying that, but what he’s saying digs under the truth of you were right into what the desire to hear that sometimes really means, which is about understanding.

anyway I’m not sure this is coherent at all and I’m going to quit while I’m not too far behind.

[sweettsubaki]

People who say Horikoshi would be a coward if he brought Bakugou back do not understand anything to writing

Cowardice would mean not going through with his plans because he felt threatened by something.

So first things first, Horikoshi said he was allowed to finish the manga however he wanted now since it's almost over and WSJ doesn't try to keep series on forever anymore. So the "cowardice" thing wouldn't be likely in that sense.

Now in story.... The basic concept of BnHA is an hommage to super hero comics. If you've read comics you know that death isn't permanent in those (one of the longest lasting was Barry Allen for 23 years IRL and like... 6-8 years in world) with very few exceptions. So while I'm not saying Horikoshi abides to it, I still think it's an important concept to remember when going into these kinds of stories. The "they were brought back to life" , the "their death was faked", the "they were just injured but no one knew whether it was actually deadly", the "they were healed just in time", the "they were put in stasis"... They're all common tropes in fiction but especially so in comics.

Which brings us to the concept of a cliffhanger. It's a writing device to keep readers on their toes and make them want to know either "what happens next". It cuts in the middle of a climax. Bakugou is on the verge of death so far. He's not actually dead yet because the scene was cut before we got confirmation. (Because Horikoshi knew what he was doing to his readers and is enjoying it.)

As I said....cowardice means not going through and changing your plans. While the tragedy of Katsuki's death when his character arc is not finished would make the death work on an emotional level for the readers, the plot would not be better for it, quite the opposite as Horikoshi treating his Deuteragonist only as Deku development fodder would not be great writing (not saying he wouldn't still be fodder for Deku's development, he just wouldn't only be that). There's only one instance where he wouldn't just be fodder and serve the plot directly if he died and it would require his consciousness to still be around for a conversation... Honestly I'd find that to be meh at best. Point is, I highly doubt his death was the point of this storyline. It seems to be more something along the lines of "this is where Katsuki's at right now so we can see how he's gonna evolve again" and either "How he is not going to die? " or "how is his /near/death gonna provoke this quirk reveal" to go with it. So to Horikoshi reversing Bakugou's death/showing he isn't actually dead would be his plan. aka not cowardice.

Especially considering there's the simple concept of consistency with the worldbuilding and with the themes. With everything that Horikoshi has established in his world, there are so many possibilities to move the plot, develop the themes of the story as well as its thesis by keeping Katsuki alive. Much more than by him dying here. The save to win/win to save dichotomy (and Katsuki learning to save while Izuku learns to win especially when faced with ShigarakAFO), the various quirks and the versatility of their use, 2nd's quirk, Deku and Bakugou's parallel to Shigaraki, Katsuki representing society and its capacity for change, Katsuki taking Deku's hand, ect... (seriously I've barely breached the surface here).

So from a narrative standpoint, his death makes little sense. I'm not saying it's impossible for Horikoshi to have actually killed him, just that he'd reduce his possibilities by doing that and that he rarely exposes themes and worldbuilding without acting on it (Chekov's gun and what not). He may not be the best at writing his ideas but he almost always follow through with what he's given the audience. He also particularly loves the bait and switch technique.

There's also the idea that killing a character is brave or whatever. Well to a lot of writers that's not the case. So long as a character's death isn't necessary for the plot to advance or to develop themes, then they can be tortured used. And it's more fun from a writer's PoV. A good character is a character that has a use. A dead characters can be used to torture develop another one but even then, it often limits its possibilities. That's not always the case of course, sometimes it allows for greater use than would have otherwise been possible, but that's the thing, it should be dependent on weighing whether the death is actually worth it to move your story and characters along and not on a very subjective 'bravery' factor.

[thefirsttree]

A personal update + my next game

OK, time to do this. I’ve been meaning to do a big DAVID WEHLE™ update for a while now and explain why I haven’t released a new game yet, but you know how life gets in the way. Especially when life is a quarantine hellscape, you have three beautiful, amazing, exhausting kids to raise, a spouse’s job you support, a viral YouTube channel that turns your brain to mush, a thousand emails waiting in your inbox since your game is free on the Epic Games Store (with an impressive number of redemptions too! … meaning lots of emails and customer support issues), etc., etc. What also contributes to my lack of updates is because… I just don’t really like posting online. Fascinating correlation, I know!

Don’t worry, this isn’t going to be a venting/ranting blog post (well, maybe a bit), because my life is seriously AMAZING and INSANELY BLESSED and LUCKY. I can’t believe how many dreams keep coming true, so much so that I feel I don’t deserve it and I really pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes… but I did want to at least be honest, because I owe that to myself.

Wow, where do I even begin? Well, how about we start with the reason I’m even a full-time indie game dev now: The First Tree. This small hobby project I worked on at night morphed into this gargantuan beast (or fox) that took over my life the past 5 years. Which is great! I’m living the dream! And yet, I really didn’t expect it to do as well as it did. At its core, my game is a slow-paced, sad walking simulator (ahem, I prefer the term “exploration game,” but you know what I mean) that somehow seemed to launch at the right time to the right audience. It resonated deeply with some of you, and for that I’m eternally grateful. I still get emails almost daily how my game changed their lives in some formative way. I’m beyond honored.

However, with that spotlight came criticism and demands from the ever-present, insatiable internet. I would randomly be surfing the gamedev subreddit trying to decompress, and I would see a comment by some rando saying how much I didn’t deserve my success, and how it was all one huge lucky fluke. And I believed them!

And to add to it, some devs considered me an indie marketing “guru”, which I was uncomfortable with. I worked hard to market my game every week, and after my GDC talk, people assumed marketing was my passion; the reason I got up every morning. Just to clarify… NO, I don’t like marketing, and I hate being the center of attention. I don’t like asking people for money and wishlists. But I did what was necessary because I was passionate about telling stories, and I wanted to give my story a fighting chance to be seen on the crowded pages of Steam.

So now, you’re probably wondering “well then David, why did you make fancy YouTube videos showing off your success? Not very modest if you ask me.” This honestly could be a long blog post all on its own, because my experience of putting myself in the spotlight and becoming a “content creator” is… complicated. It was an unusual step for me, especially since I never even showed my face online (as a game developer) until my GDC talk.

First off, I always wanted to teach and start a YouTube channel. I love video editing, especially since I’ve been doing it longer than making games! It’s a huge passion of mine. And teaching people who didn’t know they could make and finish games was a huge motivator (and it’s been so rewarding already). But the second reason is, I was scared. I was self-employed, and I was riding the success of a “huge lucky fluke” that would probably not happen again. I wanted to make sure I could provide for my amazing family, and give them food and health insurance and security in these tumultuous times. I was turning my lifelong passions and hobbies into a business, and it wasn’t as simple of a mental transition as I thought.

So, I went all in on YouTube and the accompanying online course called Game Dev Unlocked. I spent years editing the scripts and videos, and polishing them to a shine. At first, no one watched my videos, no one was buying… and in the blink of an eye, the YouTube algorithm picked up my main autobiographical video (“How Making Indie Games Changed My Life”), and I started getting 5,000 subscribers a day. Right now, I’m at 150,000 subs, which is still hard for me to believe. I always had a dream of earning 100k subs on YouTube, so I was pretty happy with the whole thing. Sales were OK, but mostly people didn’t want to buy the course. Then the emails came in…

Something you should know about me: I am a textbook “people pleaser,” and if someone asks for my help, I take it very seriously. If someone is mad at me, even if I didn’t do anything wrong, it’s all I can think about, and it ruins my day. So, taking an onslaught of people begging for help and multiplying that by an impossible amount of people for my brain to truly comprehend thanks to the internet… and let’s just say it wasn’t a healthy mix.

I received thousands of emails from people who were begging me for some kind of reassurance that everything would be OK. That their dreams would come true too. And I wanted to help every single one of them. I went from a nobody working on a game for fun to becoming a spokesperson for the indie game dream. I couldn’t even get a shake from the Chick-Fil-A drive-thru without someone recognizing me and asking for game dev advice. And it didn’t stop there… I would get emails from suicidal kids asking for help, teenagers from Afghanistan asking me to get them out of their country, and on one occasion I received an email from a hopeful game developer in a war-torn country who had just experienced a bomb blowing up their neighboring village. His friends were dead, and he was hoping he could finish a game before he died too, and he needed my help. How do you say no to something like that? Didn’t I owe it to everyone because I was lucky with my hit game and I needed to “pay it forward”? (Something people constantly reminded me of)

And then to top it off, after you’ve given everything you’ve got to other people in need… you get hate mail in your inbox. You spend the whole day serving your children and strangers on the internet, then when the kids are finally asleep, you hit the bed to relax and take a look at your phone to decompress, and you randomly come across an angry gamer in your Twitter mentions telling you your game they got for free sucks, and that you took away a potentially great game from them and that your apology isn’t good enough.

Long story short, I went to a mental therapist for the first time in my life. I was broken trying to care for two toddlers and a new baby in a pandemic (which is very, very hard), taking care of my course students who gave me their hard-earned money and demanded results, and the countless people begging for help on the internet. I was this introverted, internet-lurker trying to take on the weight of the world. I was so tired and hurt that no one cared about me and my needs… only what I could do for them.

Quitting my day job and making this hobby my full-time job has stirred up… mixed emotions. This statement may disturb some of you, but I was definitely 100% happier when I had a full-time job and I was working on my game at night. I missed working with the amazing team at The VOID, working on Star Wars… back when the success of my game was this abstract thing I could only daydream about. Mostly, I was making my game for me with no outside expectations to pay the bills or satisfy the ever-demanding internet, and that brought me a lot of joy.

It’s not all doom and gloom though! I’m actually very happy now and in the best shape I’ve been since the pandemic started. I’ve had to confront my weaknesses and personality quirks, but I’m a better person for it (and I’m sure these issues would’ve come out eventually). I hired an awesome community manager for Game Dev Unlocked who is helping SO MUCH with the emails, I can’t even tell you the mental burden it alleviates. I even leased a co-working office to help separate work from my home, and that’s been a huge help too. I’ve decided to work with my old friends from The VOID on a cool, new VR experience. It will take me away from my projects a bit, but I’m ecstatic to work with a great team again (and not manage anything, whew).

These are all things I would’ve never guessed I needed, because I thought I knew myself pretty well… turns out I didn’t.

The reality is: running a business is HARD. Running it solo is even harder. You have to remember, I was burnt out on The First Tree well into the Steam release in 2017, but I kept working on it for 4 more years due to my fears of failing again and not earning enough money for my family.

So, I was wrestling with the age-old concept of commercialism and art. There was this dichotomy of doing whatever I wanted and being true to my vision (what most people assume the indie dev dream is like), and doing only what customers wanted to buy. This is something that has killed me with YouTube… in one specific instance, I was super excited to make the exact video I wanted to make. I loved every part of its creation, and I thought it had a message that would inspire everyone. I lovingly edited it over several weeks, posted it, and excitedly waited for the stats… and it was by far my worst performing video.

This is not a new problem. Even the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo was a commission forced upon him by the very violent Pope Julius II. My wife and I regularly talk about the fine balance between artistic integrity and commercialism, a problem she is very familiar with as an artist who constantly needs to balance what she wants to make with what the customer wants to hang up in their home.

For The First Tree, I was lucky. It was pretty much what I wanted to make (I had to compromise a lot of things of course), and it turned out millions of people wanted it too. Recently, I thought the safe business decision would be to do it all over again, so I started work on a spiritual successor to The First Tree (an idea that I may revisit one day since I do love the story idea). But that isn’t happening anytime soon. Trust me when I say I am now currently burnt out on animal exploration games.

So that realization left me with a question: what do I do next?

I’ve decided I need to make a game that I want to make, for me. It will be a bit different and I’m almost certain most fans of The First Tree will not love it… but it’s an idea that gets me super excited. It’s an idea that could help me fall in love with game development again.

A few more details: this game will be story-driven, first-person, and will use the Unreal Engine. That means development is gonna be slow going, because I have to learn a whole new tool. The “smart business” decision would be to make something quickly in Unity which I’m already familiar with… but I want to do this for me, and UE5 looks like a lot of fun. I’m also shooting for an early-ish release date so I avoid burn out and I keep the game short: I want to release it in Fall 2022, but knowing game development, it will probably take longer.

With the help of my therapist, I’ve also concluded that I’ve been too accessible on the internet and that my self-worth isn’t determined by the amount of people I try to help online. Of course, I love helping people and seeing them succeed, but I need to step back and focus on my family and myself. I will delete my social media apps on my phone (I will still post big updates occasionally) and stop responding to most emails, tweets, DMs, etc. It’s not that I’m ungrateful… in fact, if I don’t say thank you or at least acknowledge the incredibly nice people who share a sweet message about my game or want to tell me how I inspire them (still hard for me to believe, lol), I feel a ton of guilt… but I need to let that go. Please know I’m extremely grateful to all the fans who follow my work, so even if I don’t thank you directly, I truly mean it: thank you.

I will still post and stream occasionally on YouTube when I want to (and I still do live Q&A’s for my GDU students). The online course sales will help support my family as I work on a potentially risky game idea (and my new job will help alleviate the risk too). I’m gonna try one more marketing experiment and sell a mini-course soon (and add an Unreal section), and after that I’m done working on it. A gigantic thank you to the people who bought my course and are part of the amazing community, it has helped me and my family tremendously, and it’s inspiring seeing the games you make!

I’m a bit worried about the whole thing since this new game idea could flop, which could definitely affect my family. But a sappy, high-school yearbook quote is coming to mind…  I think it applies here: “A ship in harbor is safe—but that is not what ships are built for.”

Thanks for reading,

David

[stickstone]

Warrior Cats D&D Classes

Just gonna be doing the protagonists and a few others, might do some more later! I am skipping over Brambleclaw because I do not respect him and don’t want to devote too much energy to him.

Firestar: Fighter, it’s commonly seen as the beginner class and I think that fits Firestar well. For subclass I’d probably say Eldritch Knight because I like the idea of Firestar utilizing both physical attacks and magical ones.

Leafpool: Life Domain Cleric. It’s a pretty standard medicine cat one but, with Leafpool being the first medicine cat protagonist we got I feel like it fits her.

Squirrelflight: Big Ranger energy! I’d probably say Horizon Walker. I see Squirrelflight as being very mobile and constantly moving, so Horizon Walker fits her a lot for me!

Mothwing: Ok here me out: Bard Mothwing. It’s a support class, and also it’s just very fun I love this one a lot! For subclass, I think College of Lore suits her best.

Jayfeather: Circle of Stars Druid. Ok I’ve actually thought about this one a lot, so buckle up. Circle of Stars Druids have something called a star map, something they use to chart out the stars and harness their magic. I was thinking it would be cool if the stick was Jayfeather’s star map. Furthermore, Rock was the previous owner of this star map and his soul is attached to it, serving as a very disgruntled mentor figure (always a fun thing to have in d&d).

Lionblaze: I feel like I don’t even need to explain why Lionblaze would be a Barbarian. Path of the Zealot seems like a fun choice, what with the refusing to die and favored by the heavens stuff.

Hollyleaf: Oathbreaker Paladin. Everything about this has Hollyleaf vibes.

Dovewing: I really love Wild Magic Sorcerer Dovewing. It fits her so well while also being a fun take on the character!

Ivypool: To go along with Dovewing, I was initially thinking Ivypool could be a Warlock. Since Sorcerers are born with their magic, I thought it would be interesting if Ivypool sought her magic from a different and darker source. But then I realized that I’d have to make all the Dark Forest trainees be Warlocks and something about that bored me a little bit? So I had an epiphany. The Dark Forest doesn’t grant anyone any magical abilities, but it teaches them how to hone those abilities. And Ivypool is training as a Wizard. For subclass I think Bladesinger would be really fun.

Gray Wing: Wizard, probably Order of Scribes.

Clear Sky: Oh boy that’s an interesting one! Honestly I think a Rogue would work, and specifically a Scout would suit him well.

Thunder: Barbarian, probably a Storm Herald because uh. Haha storm.

Star Flower: Arcane Trickster Rogue. I like the idea of Clear Sky and Star Flower both being rogues but of different subclasses, it suits their general energy.

Alderheart: Way of Mercy Monk, I just think it would be neat.

Sparkpelt: Cavalier Fighter, thought it would be fun to give her the same base class as Firestar but with a different subclass

Needletail: Warlock, her patron is Darktail (a strange water elemental guy who’s formed a cult, patron type is a Fathomless)

Violetshine: Starts off as one of Darktail’s Warlocks, but breaks her pact with him. For awhile, she’s powerless and without a patron. However, Darktail’s victims end up merging to form a new Fathomless patron. Needletail is the one who appears to Violetshine the most, though.

Tree: Circle of Land Druid. It fits almost too well!

Twigbranch: I feel bad because I can’t really think of anything interesting for Twigbranch? I’m so sorry but I genuinely don’t know. Maybe Ranger? Hunter subclass ig.

Bristlefrost: Bard College of Whispers, it suits her really well and I love it a lot.

Rootspring: Phantom Rogue, which is a favorite class (and subclass) of mine. It just fits? Phantom Rogues have the ability to see and communicate with ghosts, just like Rootspring, and they fit Rootspring way better than any of the other ghost related classes I can think of.

Shadowsight: Now, this is a really fun one. I was torn between Warlock and Cleric when I realized that not only did multiclassing exist, it was also a really cool idea to combine two very different classes into one! I think he’d be Order Domain and Pact of the Fiend. It really is just a fun dichotomy that suits Shadowsight really well.

[monsterquest]

Re: Vampires 😑

Anyway. This is me explaining why I dislike the vast majority of vampire fiction/ vampires in fiction and why I think this is a topic that deserves some further thought. This post is not about all vampire stories ever and we’re not discussing folklore here. Yes you can tell me all about some artisanal variety of vampire that’s totally different but the fact of the matter is that mainstream media has a very clear idea of what is being talked about. I’m talking about the movies and series and books that someone immediately thinks about when the word ‘vampire’ is mentioned and what are the common elements that put me off such media.

So who are vamipres generally portrayed as? Yeah I’m pretty sure you can spot the most common denominators. A youthful-looking or at the very least quietly confident and dubiously wealthy white man. More often than not revealing sociopathic inclinations and a “dangerous side” down the line. Stuff that only the heroine of the story can manage. He might have been shown to have mass-mudered his way though the ages, but none of those people went to high school with her so it’s fine. Plus he’s a vegan now. It’s fine. Right.

A key to many of the problems I have with vampires is a fundamental aspect of what they are. Vampires are made, not born. So up until they were turned and became blood-hungry creatures of the night with superhuman powers they were regular people, products of their time and environment. So they are the very opposite of a blank canvas.

First there’s the basic overall depiction, but at the same time what the audience/reader is told to ignore about the commonalities and how this relates to for example race in relation to what is seen as acceptable deviation from social norms. Like who cares where he got his money from and that nobody has ever heard of him and that his ID looks hella fake. Sure... he’s violent and undpredictable, but it’s fine because he’s traumatized. So here we arrive at the idea that somehow a woman can and should be inserted here as some kind of a fix. What are red flags? Who even knows? It’s fine.

Honestly I’m seeing so many problems that I’m not even sure which one to bring up first. I mean the more that I look at it... it seems to me as if vampirism in a way serves as a metaphor for a particular kind of toxic white masculinity and how society is conditioned to accomodate it. 

Let me remind you that 50 Shades of Grey is Twilight fanfiction. That is a fact. Which appropriately anchors this whole thing back in reality in the sense that it should serve as a reminder of intention and motivations behind modern vampire fiction. It both sadly and conveniently also illustrates the point I want to make about the common denominators I brought up earlier. Which brings me to how vampires are fundamentally linked to class.

In Twilight’s example, if you take away the element of blood consumption what you’re left with is pretty much 50 Shades of Grey. I think that alone is pretty revealing in terms of what the story is intentionally telling us. While there’s a constant need to explain why fiction is not reality and how fictional situations don’t necessarily reflect what authors advocate in real life, I feel like vampire fiction is something that deserves to be seen in connection to what it is anchored to. Not so much because the fiction is created with different intentions, but because of the way the reality surrounding it is largely written into it. 

Interestingly, in a lot of media the existence of vampires seems to go hand in hand with that of werevolves. And pretty much every example I can currently think of (Twilight, Vampire Diaries, True Blood) seems to drive home the same general message through the dichotomy established between them. 

Vampires are educated, wealthy and worldly. Pretty much invariably shown as members of the upper class. Signalled as superior in every conceivable way perhaps other than in some aspect which would leave a female-protagonist-shaped cutout somewhere in there, to fit perfectly into this world and fix the vampire.

Werewolves are almost invariably rural, living “close to the land”, with far fewer means and in a different world in terms of affluence. Generally working class people, rarely as highly educated in comparison, often depicted as less rational, more prone to physical aggression, less diplomatic and able to control their emotions. And based on a casual observation, far more likely to be depicted as people of color than vampires. 

And let’s just ignore all of ABO territory and the world of implications that goes with it. 

Some of these things wouldn’t be an issue just by temselves. I just think it becomes one when this is a dominant pattern across much of media that fits this category. Clearly it’s being used to communicate something. And no part of this is isolated from the rest of what makes it (I frankly detest using this word) problematic. It’s far too complicated a matrix to exhaust the whole topic in a single ramble, so I’m not attempting to cover everything that has crossed my mind in relation to this. 

But to me the bottom line is that contemporary vampire fiction feeds into a specific set of patterns, whether consiously or unknowingly, ultimately becoming almost the opposite of what I personally appreciate in Monster Romance. I love Monster Romance for what it can do for deconstructing certain patterns that we see in a lot of media and are surrounded by in daily lives. And much of vampire fiction is in my eyes unable to overcome the baggage that is anchored to it through its rootedness in what already surrounds us.

[firelxdykatara]

Reader anon here with a thought!

Do you like love triangles? I personally don't, there is something about them that is incredibly frustrating lol. Same thing for harems, though there are some that do it tastefully 😌 so I can't be too upset by them.

It honestly depends on the love triangle and the way the author writes all three relationships (and, for any genuine love triangle, there should be three relationships--they don't all need to be romantic, but there needs to be an existing and strong relationship between all three points on the triangle, otherwise I'm almost certain not to be at all invested), how they are presented, and what the narrative purpose of the love triangle is.

Ironically, one of the best examples of a love triangle done well (at least... to a certain point in the story, which I'll explain in a bit) happened in a television show that is fairly notorious for turning to utter shit in the latter four seasons and alienating pretty much the entire fanbase, to the point where most of us dipped well before the end and everyone celebrated news of the show's cancellation.

I'm talking about The Vampire Diaries.

(under a cut because i went on a LOOOONG ramble about tvd and why that love triangle worked initially and then why it failed, and then i talked a bit about another love triangle that was pretty weak and failed almost from the outset in OUAT but was ultimately axed in favor of the stronger relationship and character being given focus, and what all of this means for how i feel about love triangles in general)

While this is still very much a case where I only shipped one side of the triangle, hated the other, and couldn't wait for it to be resolved so that I wouldn't have to deal with the side I disliked any longer (the writing was on the wall as far back as season 1, no matter how in denial a certain portion of the fandom remained right up until the series finale) the development of the triangle itself and how it affected all three characters and their relationships with one another was done very well for most of the first four seasons. Damon and Stefan were brothers, with a bloody and complicated history and relationship, and they both fell in love with this human girl--Stefan almost instantly, because she looked just like Katherine and he found himself... (and here I'm going to be as fair as I possibly can to him, but if you want my full anti stelena rant I have many of them prepped and ready to go) following her, at first to make sure she wasn't Katherine, and then inserting himself into her life to protect her. Damon, on the other hand, took much longer, because he was still in love with (and trying to rescue) Katherine, and so when he did fall in love with Elena, it was because of who she was, not because of some idealized 'Not Katherine' pedestal he placed her on the instant he met her.

(I swear, I swear I'm trying to be fair to Stefan, it's just very hard.)

The thing is, Elena was in love with Stefan almost from the jump. (And one of the reasons I never really shipped stelena is because that kind of insta-love with very little conflict that isn't manufactured by the plot just isn't compelling for me, and I fully jumped ship about halfway through s1 when Damon and Elena took a road trip together. It's a long story, but that remains one of my favorite episodes in the entire show and it marks the beginning of their actual journey together.) Stefan showed up at a time when she desperately needed someone, and to his credit he did help her through her early depressive spiral--in large part because Elena's recent trauma (survivor's guilt due to her parents dying in a car crash from which she was the only survivor) meant that finding out Stefan was immortal and could not die and would not leave her resulted in her getting fiercely attached.

He was safe, he was stable, she could rely on him. But she could not grow with him, because for him, she was essentially a morality pet/the anchor to his humanity, and that meant that he could not accept when she began to grow out of her need for him. The fact that this coincided with her becoming a vampire only made things worse--because she settled into being a vampire much more easily with far less strife than he'd ever managed, and an Elena who enjoyed being a vampire in ways Stefan simply couldn't could no longer function as the idealized reminder of humanity he was desperate to cling to.

Damon, on the other hand, was the one who fell in love with Elena--not Not Katherine. He never put her on a pedestal, he never asked more of her than she could give him--when he realized how deep his feelings for her ran, he made her forget his confession because he knew he did not deserve her and he didn't want her burdened with his feelings when she was still in love with his brother and was always going to be. Elena's growing feelings for Damon coincided with her growth from a depressed and suicidal teenage girl into a young woman who began to realize that it was ok to want things for herself--to be a little selfish, to take what she wanted, to admit what she wanted. And, again, the fact that this coincided with her transformation into a vampire (although her growth within her relationship with Damon began well before that), meant that Damon's reaction to Elena-as-a-vampire was thrown into sharp relief against Stefan's--because he accepted her where his brother couldn't.

Ultimately, this led to Elena fully outgrowing her feelings for Stefan, and accepting, nurturing, and reveling in her feelings for Damon. The triangle was resolved, all three characters had growth separately and in their different relationships, and they could then move on from there along their different paths. Stefan could have had some truly excellent character growth involving moving on and finally living for himself rather than trying so hard to be this perfect brooding tortured vampire because he was the Good Brother, since there was no longer any need for that Good Brother/Bad Brother dichotomy. They'd both grown past it, as characters individually and as brothers together.

Unfortunately, where TVD ultimately failed (and this coincided with the way the show utterly lost the plot in terms of storylines, character arcs and cohesiveness and became an unsalvageable mess) is in refusing to let the love triangle die.

What should have happened is that once the love triangle was resolved--Elena growing as a character and moving on from her immature first love and fully embracing her feelings, as an adult, for her much more adult relationship with Damon--they abandoned the love triangle premise and let all three characters continue to grow outside of it. Damon and Elena should have been allowed to grow together and explore their relationship, Stefan to figure out where he still fit in their lives--as Damon’s brother, and one of Elena’s closest friends who she still loved dearly even though she was no longer in love with him--and then explore relationships of his own outside their family unit as he finally began to fully move on and grow out of his own overly idealized feelings for Elena.

Instead, what wound up happening is that the stelena side of the love triangle kept being teased--probably to keep the avid stelena shipping contingent invested in the story, hoping for ‘another brother swap’ as was lampshaded in one of Nina’s final episodes before she left the show (and, indeed, many of them remained utterly convinced that stelena would be endgame, right up until the series finale)--and rather than growing together, delena fans were constantly hit over the head with how ‘toxic’ Damon and Elena were for each other (even though this ran contrary to everything we’d seen in the show to that point, including having Damon regress repeatedly for, presumably, no reason other than to never let fans forget he was the Bad Brother and always would be, and Elena just couldn’t help but love him anyway), and all three characters and their relationships wound up suffering horribly for it.

That is an example of a love triangle that had a very promising foundation and development, right up through what should have been a resolution, and the reason it is generally looked on so unfavorably in fandom circles is because the show refused to move on from the triangle organically when the story needed it to, because it had already served its purpose.

For an example of a love triangle that, in my mind, simply didn’t work from the very beginning, I’d say my go-to example is from Once Upon a Time--the short-lived love triangle between Emma, Killian, and Neal. I think the first stumbling block there was that there weren’t really three relationships that mattered. Technically, Killian did have a connection to Neal--because they’d met in Neverland, prior to Neal remaining in the Land Without magic--but it functioned more as a backdrop to explain why Killian knew him when they got to Neverland again in the story, and why Neal didn’t trust him. It wasn’t actually developed as anything outside of that brief flashback, and they didn’t have any connection in the present outside of one episode where they essentially fought over Emma and she (rightly) got angry at them for it. There was no real exploration of who they were to each other outside of the fact that both of them had feelings for Emma, so it really was just one woman torn between her feelings for two different men, and with no real stakes attached to her choice.

The other problem with this particular triangle is that one side of it was... conspicuously weak. While Emma’d had a full season and a half worth of interactions and development with Killian--where they went from enemies, to grudging allies, to Killian openly acknowledging that he hadn’t ever believed he would be able to love again until he met Emma--she had... very little to support her potential relationship with Neal outside of their history. History which consisted of then-young-adult Neal knocking up underage Emma (she was 17 at the oldest because she was still in Juvie when Henry was born, and he was already ten years old the day she turned 28; so she was either 16 or very newly 17 when she got pregnant) and ensuring that she got sent to prison for his own crime, at which point he didn’t see her again until she was nearly 30. When he did see her again, he treated her incredibly poorly, up to and including getting angry at her about the fact that she didn’t tell him that Henry was his son--even though he had no right to that information, because Emma was in prison because of him at the time she found out, and she had no clue that he was in any way connected to the Fairy Tale world until she was helping Mr. Gold track down his son and it turned out to be Neal.

A big point is made, throughout the early seasons especially, about Emma’s walls and how much difficulty she has trusting people--and a great deal of that stemmed from Neal’s betrayal. This could have been the foundation for a story of healing and growth and two people coming back together--however, with the way Neal treats Emma in the present and how little closure she actually gets for what he did to her in the past, it comes across more as ‘well, she never did get over her feelings for him, so maybe he still has a shot even though she has no real reason to want to be with him now’.

Killian, on the other hand, never doubted Emma’s abilities and always had the utmost trust in and respect for her (after they became allies), and it was obvious that this is something Emma experienced very little of in her life. It’s notable that the first episode where they really interacted is the one in which Emma’s history with Neal is revealed, and it very deliberately paralleled and contrasted with her interactions with Killian. This already presented him with a leg up on the love triangle once Neal did show up, because Neal was the reason for a lot of the walls Emma had built around her heart, and it wasn’t until meeting Killian that she finally began to let some of them down.

I think that the show recognized this, and it pulled something that is actually a very frustrating pet peeve of mine--rather than write out the story that makes sense and have the main point of the love triangle make a choice and stick to it, the third point of the triad was simply written out. In this case, Neal essentially killed himself via his own stupidity, allowing Emma to angst about losing him without actually having to tell him she wasn’t in love with him and wasn’t going to choose him. (Veronica Mars pulled something very similar with the Logan/Veronica/Duncian triangle in season 2--rather than admit within the narrative that her relationship with Duncan was built on flimsy feelings of infatuation bc of their history, and a ‘stability’ that didn’t really work for who Veronica was at her core, he simply got written out of the story, running away for Plot Reasons and never forcing Veronica to confront the fact that she wasn’t actually in love with him and hadn’t been for quite some time.)

I think that in OUaT, the love triangle could have worked if a relationship between Killian and Neal was not only established in the past but developed in the present--Killian was in love with Neal’s mother centuries earlier, and something I’m actually really upset we never got is the two of them talking about Milah and maybe Neal getting some closure for his mother’s abandonment and someone apologizing to him for what they put Baelfire through as a child--giving stakes to Emma’s choice beyond ‘one of them will be all uwu sad that he wasn’t picked’. It also would have worked much better if we were given any reason for Emma to still have feelings for Neal in the present beyond the history they shared, which caused Emma nothing but pain for the last decade and change. If Neal had treated her more fairly--if he’d treated her like someone he actually cared about and even still loved, rather than blaming her for things that were his own fault and undermining her belief in her own abilities, among other things--then their relationship might have been strong enough to stand on its own opposite Emma’s relationship with Killian. I don’t think it ever would’ve been a relationship that appealed to me, personally, but then I could have at least enjoyed watching the three of them grow together and seeing all of their relationships grow and change.

So, ultimately, TL;DR: I do like love triangles, conceptually, but there are a few requirements they must meet for me to feel anything other than irritated at the inclusion. One: there must be at least three equally important relationships between the three characters. If it’s just one character torn between her (or his, but it’s usually a woman) feelings for two unrelated people, that can be compelling for a short time but ultimately I’m going to be left feeling frustrated by her refusal to just make a damn choice and put me out of my misery. Two: there should be some sort of development in each relationship which makes the presence of the triangle narratively significant. Why is it important for one character to have conflicting romantic feelings for these two other people at the same time? What purpose does it serve either their character arcs or the story as a whole? While I am both a Bangel and a Spuffy shipper, I’ve never considered Angel/Buffy/Spike to be a love triangle--they are very different relationships that she had at very different points in her life, and while her feelings for Angel never really went away (and do cause some angst for Spike near the end of btvs) they are never really competing for her affections in any meaningful sense. If that competition does exist, there needs to be a compelling reason why. And, as a further addendum to this point, I need to at least understand why the main point of the triangle is invested in each relationship, even if I don’t ship it and actively dislike or even outright hate one side of the triangle. (I loathe stelena, but I’ve always understood why Elena was in love with him in the beginning of the show, for example. And before s5/s6, I was really pleased with how the show handled her feelings for him and finally allowed her to grow and move on from them.)

And finally, three: the triangle needs to be resolved at some point--and, when it is, it needs to stay that way. Where TVD ultimately lost me (aside from the ridiculous plot contrivances and rampant character assassination) was the refusal to let the love triangle die a natural death when it is what the story called for, and all three of their characters, their relationships, and the show as a whole suffered massively for it. So, when the primary point of the triangle makes a choice--particularly if she had made one choice in the beginning of the story, but it was clear that she was ultimately moving towards choosing the other side as she grew and her feelings and relationships grew and changed with her--let that be the end of it. Move on to exploring what that choice means for the main pair and the party not chosen, sure--maybe explore their feelings about not being chosen and how that affects their relationships with both of the others afterwards--but don’t constantly tease the possibility of the ‘losing side’ getting back together just to keep shippers invested. It’s only going to hurt your show and make everyone look callous and stupid.

Alternately, a final possibility: make it an ot3 instead. But again, if the other three conditions aren’t met (particularly number two, and its addendum; if I don’t understand why the main point of the triangle is in love with both other points, an ot3 is unlikely to resolve that issue and I’m only going to wind up resenting it), then this won’t work, because it’s just going to wind up a lopsided and stilted mess of a relationship that leaves me wishing the offending point of the triangle had been killed off just so I wouldn’t have to keep hearing about them.