#because this issue is rooted in classism and

[that-gothic-glitterball]

Normalise normal people singing and dancing in their daily lives

Heck, normalise normal people singing and dancing IN PUBLIC in their daily lives.

These are huge parts of the human culture and history, they shouldn’t be reserved for the quiet corners of privacy or for the ultra talented. Let’s all gather around to dance and ing with our communities again. Let’s start dancing in parks and singing on the way to the store or while we work. Let’s bring back this part of humanity

[hazshit-hotel-hater]

Sloppy Arackniss Redesign (?)

Before I get into this, clarifying, I SAY SLURS IN THIS!!! I CAN RECLAIM SAID SLURS!!! That is all thank you. I kiss boys and love men. Carry on.

Arackniss’s design is bound to change drastically sometime eventually but atm this is just what im doing. My main problem is how he just looks exactly like angel but black. I know thats originally what the whole thing is and they’re opposites but it’s just kinda boring now. Angel is an entirely different character at this point now and Arackniss’s design should accommodate the changes while still being a bit similar looking. I want him to still look very similar to Angel in specific ways like that stupidass headshape but not because of a sibling thing. Honestly when the two were alive they hardly looked anything alike I’m 100% sure of that. Antonio (Arackniss) had black hair and much broader features and was relatively tall and kind of bulky while Anthony & Molly had light blonde hair and more subtle and soft round features and basically one of the only ways to tell them apart aside from personality was Anthony having polycoria and having bloodshot eyes pretty often.

Arackniss hardly looks how he did when he was alive anymore and has taken on many more features of Angel because of his deep rooted rivalry with his brother. I assume hating your middle-child brother that literally got named after you only to have him overdose and kill himself before actually doing anything with his life is enough to stir up more than a little bit of inner turmoil. These guys probably beat each other up OFTEN. Antonio was the first born son and dealt with so much shit before these other guys even were born and when they did show up, Anthony was named after him because their parents honestly just got lazy, and even though Molly didn’t have the name Molly yet, she was still treated like a golden child even though she contributed next to nothing to the family business which yeah that helped her in the long run but to Antonio that’s his number one priority in life. Appeasing his family is what keeps his brain running. And with that, seeing this random kid show up, get named after you, and be treated so much more leniently than you were AND he’s practically your problem because youre 15 hes like fucking 3 years old and your parents are busy all of the goddamn time AND when you DIE you take on the traits of this stupid fucking kid. He has a horrid case of eldest child syndrome and probably some insane identity issues.

This isn’t to say his hatred is only directed at Anthony either, he definitely has his issues with Molly as well, but she kept more to herself and even if she followed Anthony nonstop she was copying what Anthony was doing instead of what he was doing. Copying is the highest form of flattery but flattery gets annoying when everyone cares about the younger “better behaved” version of you. This is one of the biggest reasons Arackniss berates Angel now and in the past. Even though they havent spoken in years, Arackniss still holds Angel to the status of ���faggot” because that was practically the only thing he was “worse” than him at. It was the biggest dirt he had on Angel possible to the point that became a genuine used name for him as Anthony “the fag” Benetti. Finding out your angel of a brother is gay during a time where it’s heavily frowned upon, especially by your own family is like a gold mine.

Arackniss is NOT a good person if you couldn’t somehow tell already. He’s homophobic, has a masculinity and classism problem, has little to no regard for other’s well being, and a bunch of other shit. For as distressed as he was over Anthony’s death, a lot of it was because it left their family even more dysfunctional. To him it was Anthony abandoning everyone because they weren’t worth enough to keep him going and then in return he continues to be praised and talked about so wonderfully as if he never did anything wrong “just because he’s dead”.

Thats just BEFORE Arackniss died too! AFTER dying shit got even worse to the extent he ended up even getting disowned! How fun!! This part delves more into Husk and his backstory as well which I think I may save for another time, but these guys know each other and have a lot of beef and also simultaneously are kind of chill in an odd way? By the way, Angel also has the big neck puff, he just shaves it because he doesn’t like the look and like association from trauma

[warblogs17282]

Don't understand the 'character flaw = bad writing' crowd at all, like the point is that the characters are flawed, like I've straight up seen people say that a character flaw (such as Stolas' line 'I don't look down on you' when he has accidentally in the past, the racism/classism issue basically) get called bad writing because the show isn't holding Stolas accountable, like it isn't black and white, both Stolas and Blitz have deep rooted trauma and such that is a core part of their character and why they act like they do.

Like where did you even get that take from, like even the pro Stolas people (myself included, just to be clear I am not taking a side in the Stolitz breakup with this statement, I think it's a both sides issue, besides the point though) know Stolas is in the wrong when he says that, but that doesn't automatically make it bad writing, the description for apology tour literally says 'Stolas still not quite being self aware enough at times' and 'continued miscommunication while two people with trauma are upset with each other' like this bit in the description shows that these character flaws are very much intentional and will be addressed eventually, we have plenty of episodes left, please give it time I beg.

The post is mainly about the 'character flaw = bad writing' crowd I've seen, only used Stolitz issues as an example to get my point across since most of the discourse rn are about them, you could apply the general formula of the post to most character flaws tbh.

[kookies2000]

After learning the history behind Nimona, can we agree that Nimona is the biggest middle finger to Disney in film history. Like, everyone says Shrek is or that Sony is. But Nimona gives Blue Sky Studios that title. Think about it. Blue Sky Studios was the black sheep in the companies that Disney owns.

LGBT+ & Diversity 🏳️‍🌈

Blue Sky Studios had zero issues with making an LGBT+ friendly film. With a racially diverse cast/charaters. Makes perfect sense for the studio to be comfortable with LGBT+. Their first franchise (Ice Age 1-5) is about a bunch of outsiders who don't fit into "normal" families, so they get kicked out of their family. They find each other and form a loving family together. And don't care if they don't fit into the standard normal family.

Disney kept pushing back Nimona because of that diversity. And yet Disney loves to promote themselves with "There's room for everyone under the rainbow." And keep bragging about their first LGBT+ characters. Yet they didn't let Nimona get released. They kept pushing Nimona back until they shut down the studio, and like that, Nimona was expected to die and be forgotten.

THEMES

Blue Sky's films were average but always political. And when they weren't, they were about love and acceptance. Robots and Hortan hears a Who were about classism. The two films had higher-ups controlling the lower class. In both films, the lower class characters would have to face death from the upper class ones. I'm mentioning this because it's pretty..... poetic? Blue Sky's did get shut down by Disney. A higher company than Blue Sky's. Proving Robots and Hortan Hears a Who's message, right

Nimona

Nimona being released is pretty poetic.

Disney baiscally expected Nimona to die with Blue Sky's and never come back. Plot twist, someone found Nimona and saved it from the fate Disney gave them. And Nimona simply existing is a "FUCK YOU!" to Disney. For these reasonings.

It has the LGBT+ representation that Disney claims to have. Yet Disney tried to hide Nimona for LGBT+.

Nimona is about anarchy, not being under control of those higher than you (freedom) and going against the higher power. Nimonas roots come from Blue Sky's, the lower studio that got destroyed by Disney, higher power. Yet, it's the only Blue Sky film that isn't under Disney's control. It's free.

Nimona holds the morals that past Blue Sky films held. Love, peace, and justice.

The film baiscally avenged Blue Sky's for what happened to them. And let Blue Sky's rest in peace at last.

The only way this film can be a bigger middle finger to the company is if it somehow brought Blue Sky's back or at least brings in ex Blue Sky employees over to Neflix. Unlikely, but this film is still amazing for it's story telling, art, voice talent, and especially for its history.

This shot of the film is a major bonus. It's so beautiful that the film recognizes its roots and show it the respect Disney never gave them.

Ps, I wanted to note that the Rio franchise is about finding your roots and learning about where you're from. Which is baiscally what the creator's did with this film. Remembering their roots. Yes, I am reaching. Let me cope with my the loss of my childhood studio.

[nightlilly0110]

I have not paid attention to My Hero Academia in ages. It got boring for me, I especially didn’t really like the “yes and” sort of fights they were doing where it was like “oh no he’s dead, oh wait no he’s not, and he also has gotten stronger and has somehow developed more powers” (I’m staring so hard at Dabi vs Shouto and Dabi spontaneously developing an ice quirk after having his ass beat multiple times already).

Anyway. Regardless on me having issues with that, because I know that when your main villain’s power is All Of Them, you gotta shove a whole lot of shit into your grand act, your finale.

The story of My Hero Academia did a really good job at pointing out all the flaws in hero society. Everyone wants the prestige with becoming a hero so they gotta limit it to people who have a strong enough power to get into hero schools, specifically the hero track. Not all heroes are good people and it’s dangerous to blindly give out this status as a top member of society. Not all villains are inherently evil - as the manga states, all it takes is one bad day. Racism, abuse, and mental health issues are overlooked because it happens to the people on the bottom rung. It’s realistic. It’s great. It gets the point across that this world isn’t as fantastic as it first seemed.

And then all of that immediately gets undercut by the reveal that Everything in the manga is AFO’s fault. He gave Shigaraki Decay and groomed him, he’s the one who caused the surge in crime and the anti-mutant rhetoric. They establish him as born evil, as the devil incarnate, that he has always been this way and will never change. I expected that he would never have redemption and is beyond saving, but to say he was Born Evil contradicts the “one bad day” narrative that is literally on the first page of Volume 24.

Gonna Devil’s Advocate myself for a second. I think the idea that AFO being irredeemable and going against the “one bad day” narrative would have been a great contrast to Shigaraki and the rest of the LOV.

Here’s the but.

They also go on to imply that Everything Will Be Okay As Long As We Kill AFO. Since he’s the Root Of All Evil, if they kill him, everything will be 100% perfect and nothing will be Evil or Wrong or Bad ever again.

Please hear my sarcasm. That’s unfortunately not how systemic racism, classism, abuse, or any other social issues work. They unfortunately do not vanish because you get rid of one guy. It’ll definitely help consider AFO won’t be around to fuck shit up, but it’s not a be all end all situation.

Additionally, having all of this realistic worldbuilding and establishing all the problems in this hero society, having testimonies from the villains and from Deku himself that if you are different you will suffer, and then turning it around and going “actually it wasn’t the system, the system it’s fine, it’s just this one dickhead lol” fucking sucks. Okay yeah, it’s cool to see all the ways AFO was pulling the strings behind everything and manipulating society how he wanted it, but it seemed very shoehorned in???? We see some glimpses of his control of resources with the Nomu labs and the implications of using doctors to scope out good quirks to use, but we spent too little time on that other than focusing on Kurogiri.

Moving on to the spoilers I saw today for the most recent chapter. Deku’s motivations have always been “I want to be able to save as many people as I can, just like All Might.” He’s stated many times throughout the last few fights that he wants to be able to reach Tenko - not Tomura, but Tenko - and this is the end he gets?????

Liberties with the translations as it’s not official but like. Come on.

“I’m a crying brat just like you said.” We established a long time ago that Shigaraki fights because he wants to build a better world for him and his friends. While he might have been a “crying brat” in his first few appearances, he hasn’t been that way in literal years. Deku calling him this (which I can’t find a good image of, sorry) goes against his entire character. He’s not a brat. He has reasons to do what he does.

“I wanted to stop you because you wanted to be stopped.” Stopped, not saved.

“So your sadness wouldn’t be passed on.” What Deku is saying here is that he is acknowledging that Shigaraki was wronged, but he isn’t going to do anything for him other than stop him (kill him) because he was hurting other people. Again, reminder, this was the kid that wanted to save as many people as he can, and Shigaraki wasn’t past saving. What was the point of emphasizing that Tenko was still a part of him that existed if you were going to kill them both?

We also don’t know what happened to the other villains as of right now. None of their statuses have been confirmed, but they’re presumed to be dead. None of them got their happy ending. None of them even got a good ending. None of them have the closure that their injustices were wronged. None of them have the closure that they left this world in good hands for other people like them. They just died.

So who exactly are we saving? What’s the point?

[ilikethecolorredsstuff]

ARCANE Rant

Arcane s2 ending is underwhelming because the show was slowly building up to it (the biggest disappointment of the century)

U can feel it slowly letting go of the class issues that s1 was based on ( arguably the reason why the show was appealing to begin with) foe what seems to be no reason. Cause it seemed that they could've done better with presenting the themes that were already there in the subtext of it all or atleast it was that way for s1 and the first act(s?)

By the 3rd act, it's like they make it a point to stray away from what the show is supposed to be about and maybe that's why there's a lot of distraction going on (*caughs * fan service). In the last act there's just so many loose endings and key points are missing, ones that are usually provided to the whatcher bethey offer needed insight like how jayce decided to touch the arcane or what happened with ekko and jinx when he stopped her. This is a pattern that also shows in s1 and the other acts but the avoidance of clearing things up or providing insight on character's behaviors in this case isn't to get us to think about it and interpret it on our own instead it leaves a feelibg of just accept it for now that's how thongs came to be, and it doesn't even explain it later(would've beena great move tbh).

This lack of insight makes it easier to just accept other shifts that don't actually make sense like the main shift of victor's character when he gave up on doing good for the ppl the moment jayce attacked him and honestly not only did jayce have no business doing that, victor also had no reason to change his ideology for only that. The attack harmed not only him but also the ones connected to him so it does make sense that instead of healing he decided to eliminate all danger but even then it wouldn't make sense for him to agree to forge an army and pick sides for a political war something he aims to demolish.

And then it's not even about his conquest anymore and we get a fairly easy and rushed destruction of the black flower and then back to Victor.... Victor changes his ways and they disappear leaving everyone behind to what? Move on? As if the story is about how humans weren't ready for a progress that fast andbnow they can learn from their mistakes and take their time, as if that insane leap of advancement both biological and technical isn't just a by product of an environment manufactured by classism that pressured and cornered ppl into this extreme reality.

At the end, nothing has changed from the beginning of s1, the counsel just added a physical chair for the undercity instead of the invisible one that silco did hold at some point.

The truth is zaun isn't even a separate nation anymore it's still the undercity who now has a representative in the counsel.

War didn't even unite the ppl in fear and grief because except for the enforcers the fighters were mostly from zaun, this is dangerous because it paints a picture where the unpriveleged lot are fighting someone else's battles while the priveleged (root cause if said battle) get to flee and only comeback when everything is settled to look all bigoted and give side eyes to the representative of the unpriveleged (im looking at u short grandma).

My point is what is the show trying to say by ignoring the core issue, leaving us in the dark abt a character's motivations, and jumping to war with spiritual robots meanwhile the counsel is full of classist cowards leading a nation they fled when shit got bloody and letting the war criminal from the uptown have a happy ever after, her crimes don't even get mentioned while jinx is told that no amount lf help she offers can undo the harm she caused. It's all intentional, the show even ends with a hidden message that heimdinger was correct from thr beginning for restricting research or at least it felt that way.

[ultravioart]

On a positive note, the comic for Hazard actually was interesting enough to make me look past his 'safe' for a punk character design. I'm hyped!

I did not expect overwatch to directly call out systemic ableism and classism in the story.

Kids in poverty being funneled into a military pipeline only to be spat out and cast aside as disabled vets in poverty is a very real issue in the world.

If Hazard was rich, he could have afforded prosthesis that actually fit him, ones that didn't cause him pain. Instead, only bc he could not afford better ones, the system gave him the bare minimum for survival, and instead of actually dealing with the root cause and issue they gave him pain meds. In his eyes, this was done so that the system could pay him to shut up, or face consequences. No different than what his parents went through. They wouldn't even give him the respect to tell him WHY the deadly crash that maimed him happened, nor do anything to prevent OTHERS from being hurt in the same way. The system is working as intended. The system didn't care about him, nor others. The system uses it's citizen's bodies for profit.

This panel hits so hard because visual story telling wise it says so much.

In this panel, the stray animal that saved his life is the only one who cares, as the fellow human beings he fought to keep safe as a veteran walk past him at full pace.

How in this panel, his disability is 'blocking the path' of the able bodied, his very existence a 'hindrance' to the able bodied, when the hospital path really ought to be the one taken into account for. Pushed out the door into a system that was never designed for him. Yet, anyone could be in his shoes. Anyone could become disabled, poor, or neglected. Anyone could become just another 'stray mutt' in the system.

How in this panel he is posed in a way where he has the choice to turn and 'go with the flow' of the system and follow the crowd and not look back.... or go 'against the flow' in the opposite direction of the crowd looking for other 'strays' like him left behind by this system.

Honestly props to the comic creators for even discussing systemic oppression to dorectly.

I also am incredibly interested in seeing if Sombra got her spine mods from the Phreaks or not, because it looks like similar tech in her short.

I just hope that the Phreaks are more RobinHood and 'guerilla warfare against the system to spark change', rather than purely anarchists blowing everything up bc lol. The Phreaks being anarchists would be a waste of story, just another gang that became radicalized and corrupt and causes harm and must be defeated by Overwatch. (I am only worried about this because Ramattra became radicalized and demonized for trying to prevent the extinction of omnics. Ramattra is fully in his right to physically resist omnic extinction bc omnics ARE finite and being killed. We STILL don't know what those null sector helmets are for... but for some reason Ramattra is written as emotionally hasty(???) to the point of horrible accidents happening, which makes no sense since he is a R-7000 built for war TACTICS, not an emotional human that can misremember. The way Ramattra's story is handled doesn't make sense imo, they write him as if he's a biological being.)

I hope Hazard aims for accountability and dismantling of oppressive systems, rather than having no rules at all thru anarchy (he as a child saw what no rules in small doses gave him: bad homelife, bad school life, no accountability, no fostering of the mind and well being. That's why I think making the Phreaks anarchists would be stupid to do. There are systems that CAN foster mental and physical wellbeing, cooperation is one of those systems and Hazard is pro cooperation.) He did have an "eye for an eye" against the forces that took out the Phreaks in Morocco, but to be fair Oasis is using minority report 'predictive crime ai' bs so I can't blame Hazard for wanting to hit Oasis where it hurts by stealing thier most secret tech. (Perhaps Sombra helped the Phreaks/gave them that clue since Sombra is against the eye conspiracy, and that eye conspiracy is connected to Oasis)

I also hope Hazard's character is used to discuss the discrimination disabled people face in the Overwatch world, because they really dropped the ball with Soujorn on that front. (Her book used ableism... as a metaphor for racism?!?! Awful stuff. Cyborg (life saving surgery for disabled) people canonically face discrimination in overwatch.)

Because of that, I am super interested in hearing Hazard's voice interactions for lore, I hope we get more lore on omnics and Oasis and the Sombra eye conspiracy, and I am curious about Hazard's kit and what he will bring to the table matchup wise. We will probably get more eye conspiracy lore with the release of the Morocco map tho, tbf.

[comicgeekery]

Sherlock and Shoscombe

So, after the deep dive I did with Sherlock & Co and the issues with the Case of Identity storyline, I thought it was only fair that I talk about their take on The Adventure at Shoscombe Old Place.

*Ahem*.....This was a lot of fun! I just looked up a summary of the original story because I didn't remember it well, and no wonder! It was the very last Sherlock Holmes story Doyle published, later collected into The Casebook, and thus...one of the boring ones. I'm sorry. I really don't like The Casebook stories. It's also the last batch of stories that the Doyle estate was clutching onto before Sherlock went fully into the public domain, which makes the story feel doubly tedious to me.

But! These episodes were a blast! Practically a survey of all the best parts of Sherlock & Co! There's fun banter! Heaps of character background! A really clever update to the original set-up! BRILLIANT acting and foley work! A cheeky cameo! And a truly exciting, satisfying end! I think this is the most direct information we've gotten about John's past since, well ever, but certainly since we learned about his memories of his dad. Now we know that he grew up in a very class-divided town that once felt so much bigger. And he was deeply in love once, with a woman he lost partially because of classism. (Which is such a great mirror for Beatrice and her husband's situation!) He also lost his friends because they had privileges he didn't. (Did John join the military partly as a way to get away from his roots? Out of a desperate need to be praised as a hero?)

No wonder John has so much resentment for the wealthy when it's so deeply personal. I think it's going to be comically awkward and VERY interesting when he finds out that Sherlock is mega super rich. Holmes is often theorized to be the son of a lord in canon. I figure he's at least from a wealthy family that was able to pay for him to go to tons of fancy schools. And then personal tutors. And a full-time staff that always took care of cleaning and stocking up the groceries. (For all his observation skills, I do think Sherlock grew up never considering who made his household run.) I think part of why Sherlock has been so touchy about John's anger at rich people is because Sherlock is SUPER nervous it would ruin their friendship. I am also so pumped to see what the podcast does with Mycroft! I wonder if his autism might be more limiting than Sherlock's. Like he's got the genius skills, he's got the deceptively powerful government job, but he can't handle going out into the world. Going to Baker Street would be an ordeal. Might have a full meltdown if he's not at home, work, or whatever the Diogenes Club is updated to. But.....It's hard to tell how much Sherlock & Co wants us to suspend our disbelief about some things. John and Sherlock have very clearly committed a LOT of crimes on their publicly available podcast. Maybe that will never be addressed or MAYBE Sherlock, Mycroft, or other Holmes allies have been bribing and intervening to keep them from getting arrested. Imagine the drama! "You hate the rich, but you owe all your success to MY money and power, 'Dr.' John Watson!" *Blinks rapidly*

Where was I? Oh yeah, Shoscombe. That. God. Damn. Chase. Scene! So bold for a podcast to have a climax with a car chase at the center. The foley work was top-notch for the driving and the terrain and then the crash and sinking in the lake. Whoever plays John Watson, you did an incredible job! The reckless car chase where, OF COURSE, he still narrates everything, the diving for Robert (and the clever layer of the recorder fritzing), and that CPR! It was all so engaging and believable! I love when John does doctor stuff generally, but this was my favorite example since the gunshot wound at the wedding with The Solitary Cyclist. Not sure I buy Robert's at-home crematorium as being 100% good, but I can believe John thinks so. Might help that John's a bit more desensitized to cutting into corpses than most folks. Finally, I'm sure folks are quite excited that a certain James made a cameo. (Maybe he's interested in why Sherlock and John keep getting away with all their crimes.) I knew he was going to show up at some point, and making Moriarty a listener shout-out is delightful. I just hope it's a while longer before he's ON the show. It always frustrates me when Moriarty winds up becoming basically Lex Luthor. Then again, we've already had similar cameos for Irene Adler and Baskerville Hall (and probably some I've missed) without them showing up yet. We'll see how it goes!

Good job, Sherlock & Co! I'm excited to see what you do next!

[merwgue]

The anti-ACOTAR (A Court of Thorns and Roses) fandom is not merely a group fueled by blind hatred towards Rhysand and the Inner Circle. It’s far more nuanced, rooted in thoughtful critique of the moral issues embedded within the narrative. The common misconception that anti-ACOTAR fans are wielding pitchforks against Sarah J. Maas or irrationally hating Rhysand fails to grasp the deeper concerns that they are pointing out—concerns about accountability, moral dissonance, and problematic portrayals of power and relationships.

The Core Problem: Cognitive Dissonance and Moral Blind Spots

Let’s start with cognitive dissonance—a psychological phenomenon where a person holds two conflicting beliefs, causing discomfort. In the case of the Inner Circle, readers are presented with a group of characters who are written as heroes but who consistently engage in morally questionable actions. Rhysand, in particular, is portrayed as a figure of justice and fairness, yet he perpetuates authoritarian behavior, often violating basic moral principles.

For example, Rhysand's actions under the Mountain, particularly his treatment of Feyre, included scenes of sexual assault, manipulation, and degradation. But where is the self-reflection? Where is the apology? Moral development theory suggests that as people (or characters) grow, they recognize when they have wronged others and seek to make amends. Rhysand never truly apologizes for the harm he caused to Feyre, which leads to discomfort for readers because the narrative tells us he’s the hero while his actions tell a different story. Psychologically speaking, this is a classic case of moral disengagement, where Rhysand justifies his harmful actions through the lens of doing what’s "necessary" for the greater good. He never engages in genuine introspection, nor does he attempt to change.

If They Were Villains, This Would Work—But They're Not

This brings us to a central frustration of the anti-ACOTAR community. If the Inner Circle—Rhysand, Mor, Cassian, and the others—were written as morally grey or even villainous characters, this would make perfect sense. In fact, many readers argue that it would make the story even more interesting. If Rhysand’s actions were framed as morally ambiguous, and if the narrative reflected that, it would add depth to his character. But that’s not what we get. Instead, these characters are positioned as champions of justice, as beacons of righteousness who never face any real moral consequences for their actions.

Let’s take the Illyrians as an example. Rhysand segregates them into warrior camps, a decision that reeks of elitism and classism. The Illyrians are portrayed as lesser beings in comparison to the fae of Velaris, and the way Rhysand controls them reflects a severe moral blind spot. Moral hypocrisy emerges when a character believes they are the moral authority but acts in ways that are deeply harmful. Rhysand’s control over the Illyrians—treating them like tools for war while never allowing them to integrate into Velaris—is an abuse of power, plain and simple. And yet, the narrative presents it as if he’s making a hard but necessary decision for the greater good. This moral justification makes him no better than the leaders of the oppressive systems he claims to despise.

Accountability and Apology: What’s Missing in ACOTAR

One of the key tenets of growth and development is the capacity to acknowledge wrongdoing and apologize. Apology, according to psychologists, is a critical step in maintaining healthy relationships, rebuilding trust, and achieving personal growth. When we harm someone, we apologize and strive to do better. The anti-ACOTAR fandom isn’t asking for perfection; they are asking for accountability. They are asking why characters like Rhysand and the Inner Circle never apologize for their actions, even when those actions cause immense harm.

Consider the contrast between Rhysand and Tamlin. Despite being portrayed as a villain later in the series, Tamlin is one of the few characters who attempts to make amends for his mistakes. He apologizes to Feyre, he reflects on his behavior, and he faces consequences within the narrative. Rhysand, by comparison, rarely faces any significant repercussions. His behavior under the Mountain is dismissed as a necessary evil, rather than acknowledged as abuse. And this is what leads to fan frustration: it’s not the mistakes themselves, but the lack of acknowledgment and the absence of true growth.

Imagine, for a moment, if Rhysand apologized for his actions under the Mountain—if he faced his moral failings head-on, admitted that he had been wrong, and worked to make amends. That would be compelling. It would humanize him. But without that, readers are left with a character who moves through life as if his actions have no real consequences. It’s a dangerous message because it implies that those in power can do no wrong, as long as they believe they’re doing it for the “greater good.”

The Inner Circle: Power and Elitism

This brings us to the deeper issue of elitism in ACOTAR. The Inner Circle consistently portrays themselves as morally superior, as the ones who know what’s best for everyone else. And yet, their actions—segregating the Illyrians, imposing their will on others—reflect the very behaviors that they claim to oppose. In authoritarian regimes, leaders justify their control by claiming it’s for the greater good, but this is simply a way to maintain power. Rhysand and the Inner Circle behave in much the same way. They impose their will on others without consulting those affected, assuming that they alone know what is best. It’s a deeply flawed form of leadership, and yet Maas writes it as if it’s heroic.

It’s not just Rhysand. The entire Inner Circle is complicit in this elitism. Mor treats the Illyrians as lesser beings. Cassian perpetuates a warrior culture that is both brutal and stifling. None of them truly work toward equality or justice; instead, they maintain a status quo that benefits them at the expense of others. Again, if they were written as villains, this would make sense. But as heroes? It’s deeply troubling.

Rhysand’s Moral Disengagement

Finally, let’s talk about moral disengagement again. This term refers to the ways individuals rationalize harmful behaviors to avoid guilt. Rhysand’s treatment of Feyre, the Illyrians, and even Nesta (locking her up with no professional help) are all instances of moral disengagement. He justifies these actions by telling himself and others that they are necessary for the greater good. But in doing so, he avoids any real accountability. This is what makes the anti-ACOTAR fandom uncomfortable: the fact that Rhysand continues to engage in morally harmful behavior while the narrative asks us to believe he is always in the right.

If Sarah J. Maas had written the Inner Circle with more nuance—acknowledging their flaws and allowing them to face real consequences—then the criticism would be less intense. But by framing them as untouchable heroes, Maas forces readers into a space where they must either accept this moral dissonance or push back against it. The anti-ACOTAR fandom is pushing back, not out of blind hatred, but out of a desire for accountability, for depth, and for a narrative that doesn’t gaslight its readers into believing that harmful actions are justified simply because they’re performed by characters we’re supposed to love.

In conclusion, the anti-ACOTAR fandom’s criticism of Rhysand and the Inner Circle isn’t about irrational hatred. It’s about recognizing the deep moral failures of characters who are written as heroes and calling for accountability, growth, and self-awareness. The critique isn’t that these characters are flawed; it’s that they never acknowledge their flaws. And that, more than anything, is why the anti-ACOTAR community pushes back so hard—because real growth comes from acknowledging your mistakes, apologizing, and striving to do better.

IN MY PSYCHOLOGY ERA??? SOMEONE GIVE ME LAW IDEAS I NEEEEEDDDD TO WRITE ABOUT LAWWW

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

While I agree with most of your posts

I think bringing up grammar in song writing is just kinda weird

Like as long as a song isn't as egregiously grammatically incorrect as 'I'll do what I should have did' (thank you deacon blue) it just isn't a relevant criticism?

Even the song writer you respect most probably doesn't write their songs like an essay they can lose marks for. And that's a good thing! Songs would be a lot worse if writers were worrying about these things

It's just such a bizarre thing to bring up- and unfortunately it kinda makes your other points look less valid because it comes across as weird and petty and like you'll drag Swift for anything (Plus obsessions with 'correct' grammar is just rooted in abliesm, classism and racism- so yeah not a good look)

Plus bringing up your literature degree... like you never studied poetry? Which famously plays with grammar and sentence structure? Like that's inherent to the genre and while very little of TTPD is poetic, lyrics are still most similar to poems then they are to essays or journal articles

Sorry you just really hit a nerve here cos it's just such a ridiculous thing to bring up.

Okay, yes people don't write songs like essay's. However, they often still use determinable grammar rules in art.  

You are keying into the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar rules. 

The prescriptive rules are ones that you are most likely to find first listed in dictionaries or textbooks. Descriptive grammar rules contend with the dialectal differences and slang. In either case, rules and stipulations or exceptions are noted in various linguistic analysis of the demographic's dialect. Both subgroups of grammar are consistently evolving as the use of the English language changes over time.  

Before I move on, I just want to say that I am well-aware of the deep history surrounding the debates on proper grammar. These debates, of course stem, from sociohistorical issues surrounding class, race, and ableist attitudes. You are correct. However, the academic conversation on grammar and linguistics has advanced dramatically into the subdivision of grammar-practices with respect to dialectal and cultural differences. I judge Taylor Swift's grammar as similar to my own, since she claims to be from my “neck of the woods.” Thus, I feel it is entirely appropriate for me to throw metaphorical tomatoes at her.  

 In the juncture of this difference on prescriptive and descriptive, I want to make that point that people who utilize the difference well often take prescriptive rules and bend them to fit their specific thematic point, thus the lyric forms to its set of descriptive grammar rules. These artists do it with such finesse and precision, unlike Taylor Swift, that it’s nearly awe-inspiring.  

For instance, Kendrick Lamar uses many AAVE typical syntactical structures to make his music personalized art. He won a Pulitzer for it. Take, as an example, the intro to his song “Humble” in which he writes, “Nobody pray for me / It been that day for me” (2017). This is not grammatically correct according to the prescriptive grammar rules laid out in the 1940’s. However, linguistic scholars do not operate on so strict a pendulum anymore. Notice, too, that Lamar is not actually breaking any grammatical rules, only playing with the purpose and form of his syntax, when we take into account the dialectical intention with which he uses “it been” as a poignant use of the past participle form of the verb “to be.” Thus, the simple sentence of “it is” changes into the “it been” as a subjective call first to his cultural dialect and to the thematic gesture of the song. As the phrase “it been” leaves out the helping verb “have” which would put the phrase into present progressive tense should it be present; however, it’s noticeable absence as a stiff detraction from prescriptive grammar rules, focuses Lamar’s thematic point on moving the audience to mediate on the past as it intrudes on the present time. His use of language discrepancy between prescriptive and descriptive rules focuses recognition on his dialectal culture and on his main thematic point as it hinges on making sure to notice where you’ve been in life in order to stay humble and live with authenticity. He is a masterclass on descriptive grammar being used in such a beautifully artistic way that I am damn near in tears for his music.  

Okay, moving onto to your point about poetry not being grammatically correct. You are quite wrong here, because poetry "plays" with syntax but it does not throw the rules out. Much like the example I laid out above, poetry does the same thing wherein it plays with prescriptive grammar in a thoughtful way that often ties into the moral or theme of the work. Poetry centers on a different form of syntactical methodology... yes, you are right. However, the emphasis is still on the necessity of understanding grammar structures like poetic feet, meter, rhyme scheme (etc). It's not a free-for-all. The best poets of the last 6 centuries have been some with the most linguistically precise sentence structure that I've ever read. I can give you examples, but if I do that this answer will become a million words long.  

I am, however, sorry to have struck a nerve or come-off like a know-it-all. I was only expressing my frustration that Taylor Swift is apparently one of the biggest artists in the world and she doesn't even bother to ask a friend if the meaning of her phrases gets lost in excessively languishing grammatical structures. For instance, in her song “Chloe or Sam or Marcus or Whatever” she is stacking so many phrases hinging on coordinating conjunctions that the meaning of the phrase itself loses any poignant message. She writes:

Named Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus And I just watched it happen As the decade would play us for fools And you saw my bones out with somebody new Who seemed like he would've bullied you in school And you just watched it happen (Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus).

In this stanza alone there are 6 coordinating conjunctions stacked together, interspersed with additional prepositional phrases and 2 extra relative clauses. It is the most egregious run-on sentence I have ever seen published before. I've seen better, cleaner prose in the work I've graded from High School freshmen. Not only could she have said it in less words, but the way she is writing it makes it drag on and on. The meaning gets lost, and any emotional impact is shut down because people get lost in the wordiness.

It’s a failure on her part, and it’s clear how just writing a run on sentence with no meaning is so much different than the way that someone like Lamar is masterfully arranging language to fit his purpose.  It's offensive that she gets to make a million-billion dollars off so little effort. 

Sorry, I wrote you an essay, but I am so incredibly passionate about writing. Also, I’ve been listening to Lamar a lot today because of his recent diss track, and it just reminded about how much of a lyrical genius he is. Sorry, I detoured into a rant about how cool he is too. And I need people to understand that I am not critiquing Swift because I need to dunk on someone in order to bolster my own sense of self-worth. I just want better mainstream art, and I want people to have better, stronger art with which to engage.  

I did not mean to hurt your feelings.  You are quite right that obsession with "proper" grammar is bullshit; however, I am not looking for some old fashioned "proper" nonsense. I want people to write like Lamar, with intelligence and passion while he bends the notions of grammar, not like Taylor Swift with obvious run-on obfuscated and stupid phrases.

edit: Also, good writers do actually worry about grammar. It has to do with illocutionary forces behind the phrases. The best among us knows the language inside and out, and that is why they are the best writers.

Edit 2: Also, I've been thinking about this, but what do you think literary and poetry critics do? You say it's bizarre to critique Taylor Swift’s poor grasp of the English language? Of course, I'm critiquing that... she's the one who calls herself a writer. I don't go around checking everyone's grammar, but if you call yourself a "good" writer and a poet, obviously expect people to analyze the words on the page.

[fun-k-board]

How people are treating Hobie Brown, and British punks / people as a whole, reeks of classism, privilege and plain ignorance. It's so painfully obvious when somebody who has no clue about punk history, or even the basic idea of poverty in Britain, writes about or speaks about Hobie and his universe.

Let's also discuss the way people immediately assume Hobie is a thief who has no hygiene, and how that's a god damn issue. There is NO mention in the comics or movie of him not washing himself or being a kleptomaniac, not only that, but aren't wicks hard to maintain? It's obvious he doesn't use 3 in 1.

This assumption of Hobie is racism and that much is obvious, but is also rooted in classist beliefs and common stereotypes about punks used to demonise the movement. People also threw around this 'headcanon' in the first movie with Miles, it's a CLEAR pattern.

Don't even get me started on cishet people in this fandom and how heteronormative / homophobic people are in regards to Hobie. 'B-But Hobies universe is the 70's 🥺🥺 he'd hate gay and trans people...👉👈' Do your god damn research?? The punk and LGBTQ+ movements have always been closely intertwined. I have seen a comic panel where Hobie literally kisses Captain Anarchy, but even if that isn't real and was edited, he is still friends with Captain Anarchy, who's a confirmed gay man.

All in all, please, for the love of god, just treat Hobie Brown like you treat Peter Parker. Treat him like the well written character that he is. He's not some racist, classist stereotype you can push your bigoted beliefs onto.

Just wait until I get onto how misogynistic this fandom is toward Spiderbyte and Spidergwen, don't get me started because I will make another post.

[dreadfuldevotee]

Thank you for this last post. The discourse on this fandom can often be so annoying. I hate it when people are like "this is a Gothic horror, let them be toxic and problematic!!!!11!!!1" because it's not take they think it is? At the end of the day, they still want us to root for these characters and relationships, right? So how can we do that if they're stereotyped vampires, who is dark, cold, just hurt each other and don't have an ounce of growth, development, empathy and humanity? And this is such a dismissive opinion of the show and even the books, because their conflict with humanity and vampirism is a central aspect of the plot. That said, if you reduce them to the abuse alone, you're also missing the point of the story? I mean, you can totally have your opinion, you can see them as unforgivable even on this fictional universe, you can hate and root against them... But this show isn't about punitivism, it is about them navigating immortality. There are consequences for their actions, as there should be, but the goal is for them to find a way to make this work. You don't need to agree (idgaf about the British monarchy and still watched a few episodes of The Crown for the acting, for example), but if you expect otherwise, you're just playing yourself? But this fandom seems to have a problem with finding a good balance. Not to mention the hypocrisy of never forgiving certain characters and reducing them to their problematic actions, but treating their faves very different lol. And I'm like, okay, you don't need to love everyone, it's okay to have a favorite, but at least don't be contradictory? Your fave does the exact same thing or worse? Anyways. Thanks again for putting it so well. It's refreshing to see posts like that here.

Thank you! I'm glad that other people get anything out of my ranting and raving, as I am a chronic yapper and really only talk for my own health LOL.

But yeah, there is a lot of selective hearing in any fandom, really; but it pisses me off a lot here because of all the "Gothic Horror" handwaving going on. Interacting with the fandom, reading the books and seeing clips & bits of personal writings from Anne Rice, the image it paints for me is a profound unwillingness to engage with contents of the story if they're not fun and sexy. Shit, even my own odyssey into the books is spurred on in one part, to be able to form my own opinion and critique on the writing and secondly, realizing that book readers were straight up lying at times about how things went down.

And there is this persistent idea I've seen on here and twitter of "If you have issue with XYZ then this series isn't for you" and like, okay if you don't wanna see gay people who have everything-but-the-bagel of mental illnesses then, yeah, sure. But when someone goes "Hey there is like,,, a ton of casual pedophilia and CSA in these stories that is framed as cute n' casual and/or deeply romantic, I wonder what that's all about" and then people crawl out the woodwork trying to convince you its not weird or that you're weird or weak for think its kinda fucked up- then at that point, I think maybe there is actually a different issue occurring here, you know?

Anyway, I think where I'm going with this is- TVC is a cultural phenomenon and has a tangible impact on Vampire and Gothic Horror canon and that's good and fun. But if we can recognize something like H.P Lovecraft's racism/classism/general fear of change having a profound effect on his writing and the spark of the entire Cosmic Horror Genre, then I think we can interrogate how AR as a Rich White Woman who grew up in mid-21st century New Orleans has an effect on the kind of stories she writes and how she does it.

[uniquepeanutcreatorfire]

Things HB fandom say:

Stolas respects Blitz's boundaries 100% of the time.

Stolas absolutely did not hear those gunshots over the phone. He so cares about Blitz's well-being.

Of course, no character is perfect and has flaws but how dare you point out Stolas's flaws.

Blitz could've easily said no to the deal. It's not like his business is on the line.

Yeah, Blitz and Stolas are both at fault for the deal. Even though we're only going to point out how Blitz is at fault.

Blitz took advantage of poor Stolas with how lonely he is. Stolas had no choice but to make sex arrangements with Blitz so he can keep his livelihood.

Stolas was nicer to Blitz in later episodes and respected him when he said no in Ozzie's, especially after Stolas already got sex out of their arrangement.

Blitz doesn't appreciate the good things Stolas does for him....offscreen.

Blitz has to talk dirty to Stolas too...offscreen...maybe.

Blitz looks uncomfortable when Stolas flirts or shows affection because he has a deep-rooted issue with intimacy from his past. Even though, he's affectionate around Loona, M&M, and Fizz (when they resolved their issues).

No, you can't say Stolas has the bubble thing or that he showed up when the gang was in trouble in Trouble Seekers to argue why Stolas didn't know Blitz was in danger in Murder Family.

If you can't see that a low-class demon can easily say no or speak his mind to a royal demon, then you lack basic media literacy.

You need a high IQ to understand HB. It's super subtle. You just have to look underneath the thousands of layers of swearing and dick jokes. (Look at my degrees)

Poor Stolas, he's a product of his environment. That explains his classism and behavior. Stella is a product of the same environment, she's 100% evil and deserves zero sympathy or depth.

Stolas stayed with abusive Stella so his daughter can have a normal life. Just look at how well-adjusted Octavia is.

Stella's not uncomfortable when her brother calls her attractive/vixen and touches her. That's just how siblings act. Don't you know anything?

[solarsunshine]

something that has been really getting to me as i’ve fallen back into destiel and all it’s insanity, is how little people understand the pressure of being queer in red states. like, in no other fandom have i seen the amount of normal world/no power au’s that i’ve seen in spn/destiel verse, so you would think that there would be at least a little understanding/research onto how queer people live and stay safe in conservative cities or in the case of the small town au’s, places with less than 15,000 people? instead i see an abundance of fics where dean is closeted and that makes him the central focus of conflict/the “problem” in the relationship, or the fact that he’s closeted means he has to be suffering from internalized homophobia. as someone who has lived in red states while being very queer, for a lot of other folks being in the closet means safety, not repression. sometimes the closet door’s purpose is to keep people out, rather than keeping us in. there is a very prevalent idea in the minds of a lot of LGBTQIA+ people that small town/midwest/southern queer folks are all repressed, or that freedom means leaving our homes to be out and proud, and i’m not saying that that isn’t true for some people. but for others, we feel that our liberation comes from loving and being loved in the places we’re rooted in. when living in a largely christian and/or conservative town, county, or even state, having the ability to feel love and be loved is freedom and protest all in of itself. whether the couple holds hands on main street or only in their shared apartments (*whispers* and they were roommates) doesn’t negate the fact that they are living queerly and are alive and finding joy in a place that would rather see us dead. to wrap this up (and bring it back onto destiel lol), i do think that dean would be a character that does repress his sexuality, but i don’t think that it’s solely because he’s from freaking kansas. i would rather see how his relationships with family, he’s own self-worth issues, and past relationships affect him, instead of a lot of the stereotyping the fandom does of both him and queer culture in conservative environments. (and please can we stop with the urban, worldly castiel coming in to bring enlightenment and social reform to poor, hick dean? it’s giving classism and i hate that this dynamic is so popular😭)

[chaifootsteps]

I need to get this off of my chest. Stolitz truly bothers me and this is coming from someone who ships batjokes so stolitz toxicity is that bad.

First of all Blitzø had no intentions with sleeping Stolas. He just wanted the book and go. He was mostly taking advantage and trying to rob him blind. He wasn’t trying to start anything sexual. But due to pity and yes it was pity sex, they slept together anyway.

Next thing you know Stolas caught him in a situation where Blitzø couldn’t say no. “Sleep with me on the full moon or no book and no business” it’s a choice less choice. Have sex to get the book and do your job. Or don’t and have your business shut down and out of the job.

During said deal he harasses Blitzo and talks down to his fellow imps. Shows classism by using his imp butler as a stress toy, patron a place where imps are the servants. Shows to me that he doesn’t really respect Blitzø as an equal.

And they have the nerve to try and spin the narrative where Stolas had feelings for Blitzo this whole time? Fuck outta here.

The fact that people are saying that “it’s just a misunderstanding” “Blitzo is being cold” “Blitzo started this”

Holy victim blaming Batman. Just because Blitzø consented (out of pity) at first doesn’t mean he consented to future sexual in-counters. I don’t blame him for acting iterated and fed up with him. He has every right to since Stolas has a problem with taking a hint. Blitzo has every right to call him out in the season 1 finale

Also misunderstanding what? When you’re in a transactional relationship where you can’t say no without consequences there’s no misunderstanding as to why you don’t want anything to do with the other person. It doesn’t matter if Stolas had feelings for him in the beginning. Actions can matter more than the intentions. Blitzo felt used and he had every right to feel that way. There’s no misunderstanding that.

And all of that wouldn’t be that huge of an a issue to me if the relationship itself wasn’t so boring. There’s not chemistry between the two. Sure Stolas laughed at his joke but so did Fizz. What does Blitzo and Stolas have in common? What do they like about eachother? What did Stolas even see in Blitzo worth having him around? There nothing there that makes me want to root for them.

Stiker had more chemistry with Blitzo even when their enemies there’s still some form a respect from Stiker’s end. Fizz had more chemistry with Blitzø and he actually smiles when he’s around Fizz. Shit man he showed more sexual interest for his own CO WORKERS than he does with Stolas.

There’s nothing salvageable here. Why are the writers trying to shove this so hard down our throats when the two don’t look right together. This is mostly why I prefer Stiker x Blitz, Fizz x Blitz, at least he appears happier and the dynamics are more interesting

You know what? Sometimes there's not a thing for me to add. You said it all perfectly.

Thank you for saying it.

[delumineight]

a lot of the ron weasley hate is solely based around classism. so many people have said it before but somehow none of you seem to get it. especially when the hate comes from a shipping perspective, insinuating that hermione would be better with harry or draco who have insane amounts of money to their name.

a main reason why there are so many romione antis comes from the idea that ron isn’t enough for her. but what exactly do you mean by not “enough” for her? what is he lacking. it’s not intellectual ability; throughout the series ron is the only one to challenge hermione and her point of views while it seems, in a way, that everyone else is too scared to do so. it isn’t attractiveness, as if that really matters, he’s canonically the [one of] tallest completely human characters, covered in freckles, with a boyish grin, and other features that aren’t too shabby. his loyalty isn’t in question, even though he leaves during the horcrux hunt he comes back, and harry and hermione are downright miserable without him. people argue his “jealousy” and things of that nature, but all in all that roots back to classism. people say that he ruined “the best night of hermione’s life” in reference to the yule ball… let’s be real, do we really think that was the best night of her life? it’s literally wizard prom, and anyone who has been to a prom knows it just for the photos and to say you went after three hours of dancing and sweating around your peers.

the real reason ron weasley is hated is because he’s poor. which, you think, would not be an issue considering how much he is downright bullied for it throughout the series. he’s hated because he’s not rich, because people don’t think he can provide hermione with “what she needs” (which also begins to destroy hermione’s character), and because some of you base his entire personality around how he acted at 14 and when a piece voldemort himself was controlling a great deal of his soul.