#because those emotions are not inherently bad

[jessaerys]

watching jack saint's video he just posted about the last of us and he's probably one of like three video essayist i would trust with that hornet's nest of a videogame/tv adaptation to be empathetic and have an understanding of what makes a good, compelling narrative while also critiquing the political influences in the work itself without condemning anyone who finds the work of art meaningful and ANYHOW for the most part i am very pleased with his takes. very comforting, very refreshing, very nuanced, i love you jack saint

BUT there's this section around the 27 min. mark where he says "when ellie tortures one of abby's friends for information (...) she is emulating joel in the first game, so much of the second game revolves around ellie's resentment towards joel as explored by the pain she goes through when she tries to do for joel what she knows he would've done for her. and in fairness i thought the show also flobs(?) this pretty hard with this weird obsession craig mazin has with ellie being some secret sadist who craves torture and murder (...)" and here he overlaps footage of ellie from the show (violence enjoyer) and ellie from the videogame (haunted at what she has done), says, "watch this scene, and tell me ellie is, in any way, enjoying what she's doing."

and his point is pretty well explained, right, and not even incorrect as far as my understanding about the ellie-joel relationship in the game goes: it's all about both of them learning from each other; about joel being both a loving life-changing figure towards ellie and also a bad role model, and emulating what she learned from him is what leads to the tragedy of the second game - later jack saint goes on to talk about how ellie teaches joel to open up to people and how thawing that empathy within him is also what leads to his death when he decides to save abby's life not knowing she would later come back and kill him, right, the mortifying and even deadly ordeal of human vulnerability. he says, "this is part of what complicates ellie's relationship with joel, his behaviors didn't come from some cliche sadistic dark passenger, they came from his desire to protect people. this is the point. the things we often value most in people (love and empathy and loyalty) can often lead us to doing truly depraved things out of those feelings of obligation." he goes on to say, "she loves joel, but also there are things inside of him that terrify her and make her feel like everything else is just another constructed fantasy, and it is her who pays the consequences for those parts of him he was scared to show, because through that love those parts of him become parts of her."

ANDDD it's like. well to be 100% clear he is not wrong. that is a lovely and extremely compelling storyline and character relationship, y'know i get it. BUT as someone who was first introduced to the characters via the show it drives me absolutely bonkers bananas that this is one of the most common critiques i hear of the hbo adaptation, that joel is too soft and ellie is too sadistic, that this dilutes and undermines the above ^ meeting of opposites that is at the center of the game's emotional storyline, ellie's light and joel's darkness and how they affect and stain and change each other and what it says about love and attachment and the epic highs and lows of human connection.

but i don't think changing their characters does that!! adaptations are not a zero sum game!!

like i don't know how why it's SO difficult to find compelling a version of the last of us where ellie is like joel, where she has a penchant for violence inside of her too, where their connection is born out of that recognition of the self through the other and where joel both sees himself in ellie and wants to protect her from this dark passenger (which jake saint uses derogatorily but you know what, it's actually a really helpful shorthand to explain this inherent innate viciousness some people do have! like it is a thing that happens, in real life!) while also accidentally nurturing it in her, while also accidentally triggering the tragedy of ellie abandoning herself to this bloodthirst in part 2, repeating his steps just the way he taught her, because that is how the so-often-mentioned-it's-like-a-broken-record ~cycles of violence~ that tlou revolves around happen within the structure of the nuclear family. how is that not another layer! to the Themes!

like it's such a subtle but crucial difference, right, ellie pursuing revenge because joel has tainted her with his violent ways in the game (which assumes that, had ellie and joel not crossed paths, violence would never be a choice a young ellie would make as she serves this narrative purpose of apotheosis of the innocence of youth born to a cruel world); and ellie pursuing revenge because joel has in his pursuit to protect her from the dark passenger that he is too far gone to excise from himself, ironically enabled the violence within her in this greek tragedy fashion; joel has been dead from the beginning, in trying to change his own fate via the daughter-mirror he has instead condemned her.

and i think that subtle internal difference in both of those emotional truelines is pleasure. what if instead of being afraid of the horrible things joel has done ellie sees herself validated in it? attracted to the precipice of it? doesn't that make her even more of a participatory agent in her own unraveling? doesn't that give her character much more agency and substance when it comes to the ugly thing she twists herself into?

i don't know man it drives me crazy i guess because it reminds me of the whole perfect victim approach people have to similar father-daughter dynamics wherein the dark passenger is instead sexual abuse; how people cannot possibly fathom that the victim can too be an agent in their own desecration, that the disciple-daughter can even enjoy it and ask for it, and it doesn't make them any less of a victim.

show!ellie and joel are wuthering heights, they are a vampire and a fledgling. and it's not that i don't understand the symbolism of game!ellie and it's not that i don't find it compelling i just think making her a little feral is a billion times more interesting for girls who are just like their father! because here's the thing i just SHRIMPLY don't think this would be nearly such a big fucking deal if ellie was a boy!!! if this was a story about a father-son relationship!!! i think if ellie had been an innocent bright eyed boy in the game that is later given this dark passenger in the show, people would be like ooohh so much more nuance!! so it's really hard not to see this critique as gendered!

as if this subtle twist of the knife in ellie's characterization detracts from the marrow of the story rather than simply shape ellie differently around it which is, you know, what happens with adaptations. in jack saint's defense he is busy fighting much bigger demons: male videogame players with the emotional intelligence of roughly a three year old

[rawliverandgoronspice]

.

not sure it's my post to make particularly, but I do fucking hate how the concept of white guilt gets weaponized within white people ingroups to throw at each other in order to goad each other into emotional passivity, detachement and inaction, it's just so extremely not what the concept is about initially and is actually still an extension of white guilt it turns out!!! as it's still reacting to that idea and concerned by trying to sever oneself from its perceived effects, regardless of what those are and what they do and what bigger picture they exist in!!!! anyway.

[dewgongs]

lock in. walk the tightrope

[anendoandfriendo]

Also, related to this thing but not quite, uhmmm. We meant it as a side note but examples of "this is definitely an us (Rusanya) thing" is. We had a whole Heated Conversation surrounding this awhile back:

Unfortunately we cannot project ideas into someone else's brain and even if it was possible we'd probably fucking break their brain lolsob. Someone wholeass just went "pretty please please tell me people would actually download information into their brain" and it turns out they misinterpreted that "you wouldn't download a car" meme but nooooo brainbuddy nooo people need the little flesh heaps in their skulls to function.

[musical-chick-13]

...Well. The relief at Getting Through My Birthday (and thus having only One Major Event Day left to get through) has worn off, and I am thinking too hard about the nature of human connection again.

[werewolfbneimitzvah]

vent post. There are two stories i was told in my teenage years that even before i had a real concept of trans issues made me uninterested in discussing the supposed sacredness and safety of separated sex-based spaces.

First, when i was like 13 or 14 my PE teacher told us about a time she went to a women's public restroom, some guy was hanging out outside the bathrooms, she didn't think anything of it, went to the bathroom, and he walked in after her and like, creeped on her over the top of the stall. She was ok, she wasn't telling us this to scare us, just telling us what to do in situations like that (and iirc she was telling the whole co-ed class this, not just girls, bc it's useful for everyone), but this taught me immediately and forever that there's nothing actually keeping these spaces separate really, that anyone can be a creep in any space, and that establishing a space like that as for women only isn't actually particularly useful for safety.

Second, when i was 16 i was at an anime convention, a friendly acquaintance of mine and i ended up in conversation outside, and he showed me his bare wrist and told me he'd been kicked out. A female friend of his had stepped in dog poop outside, and between that and the stress of the convention she'd had a bit of an emotional breakdown, so being her friend, he started comforting her and ushered her into the women's restroom so they could wash the poop off her shoe together. And because he was a man who went into the women's bathroom, he got kicked out, no matter that he was doing something that was actually beneficial to a woman. Punishing a woman's friend for supporting her was supposed to... protect her somehow? This made it clear to me that a no-exceptions rule separating the sexes like that wasn't actually inherently good for everyone.

And this isn't even getting into me as a child needing to accompany my younger sister to the restroom when we were out with just my dad because she had certain support needs past the age he felt comfortable bringing her into the men's room with him. And what if I'd been born a boy, or she'd been the first born? Who's helping her then?

And of course even putting all this aside, we should always prioritize compassion and support anyway. But i never even needed to meet a trans person to know that "keeping men out of women's bathrooms" is silly nonsense. But trans people also need to pee anyway and as humans they have that right, so leave them the fuck alone. your precious women's restroom is just a fucking room with a door, holy shit give it a fucking rest, if someone is attacking you in the bathroom that's bad and if someone is in there to pee that's good and it doesn't fucking matter what their junk is or was when they were born.

a woman could have done the exact same thing to my PE teacher and it would have also been bad no matter how "supposed" to be in the restroom she was, and no one should ever be punished for helping a crying friend wash their shoe.

Anyway i know I'm speaking to like-minded folks here, i just think about those two stories literally every time bathroom gender shit comes up and it pisses me off.

[luna-azzurra]

Ways I Show a Character Who Believes They’re the Villain in Everyone Else’s Story

╰ Behavioral Red Flags

They assume the worst intentions in themselves, even when they act out of love. They brought you coffee? Probably just guilt. They helped you move? Must be manipulating you so you "owe" them later. (They just care. But they can't believe that's true.)

They over-apologize for existing. You bump into them and somehow they’re the ones apologizing, looking like they've personally inconvenienced your entire bloodline.

They self-monitor everything. Every joke they make. Every word they say. Every look they give. Constant little glances at people's faces, desperate for signs that they’ve messed up again.

They let people treat them badly because they think they deserve it. Rudeness? Sure. Being overlooked? Of course. Public humiliation? Absolutely par for the course. Standing up for themselves feels wrong, like a thief demanding a refund.

They preemptively distance themselves when things get good. Got a close friendship brewing? Time to pull away before they find out I'm terrible. New romance? Better end it now before they hate me.

They assume jokes about "bad people" are secretly about them. "You know those selfish jerks who never change?" someone says. Their inner monologue: That’s me. They mean me.

They play up their flaws. Self-deprecating humor, but not cute self-roasting, deep, almost aggressive, like they’re trying to hand you the knife before you even think about stabbing.

They struggle to accept forgiveness. Apologizing feels natural. Being forgiven feels alien. Like wearing shoes on the wrong feet.

╰ Thought Patterns That Wreck Them

"Even when I try to do the right thing, I mess it up." Trying doesn't absolve them. Trying just delays the inevitable hurt they’ll cause someone else."People are nice to me because they don't know who I really am." Kindness isn't acceptance to them — it's a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode when the "truth" comes out.

"If someone is angry at me, they must be right." They don't even question it. Anger directed at them must be justified. They deserve it.

"If I succeed, it's by accident. If I fail, it's because I suck." Zero credit for wins. Full credit for losses. The math of their self-esteem is so rigged it should be illegal.

"If I ask for help, I'm manipulating people." Needing something feels like emotional blackmail in their mind. Better to suffer in silence than risk "forcing" someone to care.

╰ The Tiny Physical Tells

Laughing after their own serious statements, as if to soften the blow of speaking honestly.

Keeping their hands visible when talking (subconscious "I'm not a threat" behavior).

Flinching when someone raises their voice, even if it’s not directed at them.

Making themselves physically smaller—shoulders hunched, arms crossed, shrinking into themselves like they can disappear if they just try hard enough.

Dropping eye contact when complimented.

Holding their breath without realizing it when waiting for someone's reaction.

╰The Relationships They Gravitate Toward (And Why):

Fixer-Upper Friendships: They think they have to earn affection by being useful, by helping, by being "the strong one."

Unbalanced Dynamics: They let people use them because "at least I'm being helpful, even if they don't actually care about me."

Romantic Partners Who Validate Their Worst Fears: They often fall for people who treat them like they’re a burden—because it matches the script in their head.

Or... Relationships That Terrify Them: Because if someone genuinely loves them, they’re always waiting for the moment that person "wakes up" and sees the "monster" they believe themselves to be.

╰ How They Might Heal (If They’re Lucky)

(And if the author isn’t an emotional sadist. 👀)

A relationship where mistakes are allowed, not punished.

Someone calling them out, not for being bad, but for being unkind to themselves.

Tiny acts of trust that stick over time, slowly poisoning the idea that they’re inherently toxic.

Learning that being flawed and being villainous are not the same damn thing.

Being told, over and over, "You don't have to earn love by being perfect."

[psychoticallytrans]

There's this idea, fairly common in society, that mental illness is for teens and up. Children are happy little creatures, generally, right? Sometimes they're abused and the trauma can make them mentally ill, but that's not common.

There are two fundamental problems with this attitude. One, it's incorrect to assume that trauma is the only reason a young kid can be mentally ill. Two, trauma is more common than people think. I'll be covering the first problem in this post through the lens of my particular experience.

Where I live, you can be diagnosed with bipolar disorder at 18 years old. You cannot be diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a minor. This poses a problem because my age of onset was in first grade, roughly six years old. Because of the fact that I was very young and new to the world, this was also the age of my first suicide attempt. Thinking I wouldn't be able to pass a spelling test genuinely felt like something worth trying to die over. So, I ate some hemlock, since I'd read about Socrates being killed with it. Luckily, I ate western hemlock, an unrelated species, and just felt kind of sick.

I'm not recounting that for fun or pity. I'm recounting it because children with mental illness are in genuine danger because they have little to no experience with managing their emotions, have little to no concept of the idea that their life can change and improve, and are dismissed by adults. I told a teacher that the test made me want to die, though not that I'd attempted to, and it was brushed off as little kid hyperbole. If I had used a method that was effective rather than one I thought would be, I would have been dead at six years old.

I would not receive medication that worked even a bit for another two years. I would not receive treatment for bipolar disorder specifically for ten years, and that required my PCP fudging the reason for the medication because she was afraid I would die if she didn't, and diagnosis was still two years off at minimum. I received a formal diagnosis at age 19, thirteen years after onset.

But surely that's uncommon, right? This story is a huge edge case, right? I actually have no idea, because age of onset and age of diagnosis are massively conflated for most disabilities. Policies like the one in my area that restricted bipolar diagnoses by age can artificially raise the age of "onset", in my case by thirteen years. The general idea that children are somehow immune to mental illness can also delay diagnosis by several years, perpetuating the idea that young children can't be mentally ill. The data on when people start experiencing mental illness is inherently skewed upwards, and I frankly don't have a good estimate on how bad that skew is. If anyone does have that data, please chime in.

Listen to children. If they're saying they're sad all the time, that they don't care about anything, that they don't see a future for themselves, those are signs of depressive symptoms. If they say that tests make them feel sick, that they can't do anything because they're scared, that they can't breathe and freeze up, those are signs of anxious symptoms. Many children talk about imaginary things, and that's just fine, but slip in a question or two about them to make sure that the kid is just playing, and not experiencing psychosis.

Children are new to the world and vulnerable, and they don't know what's normal and what isn't. They need people who are more experienced watching out for problems they might be having, and listening when they talk about having problems. If you can, try to be the person who perceives them, and tells them that things can be better.

[ooooo-mcyt]

Scar has SUCH a victim complex and we really should talk about it more.

In an average Scar pov of the Life Series, two things are basically guaranteed:

a.) Scar never does anything wrong. Any perceived wrongdoing on Scar's part is simply him being silly and goofy which people keep blowing it out of proportion. Or he really didn't mean to do anything wrong and people are just so paranoid and keep misinterpreting his good intentioned actions. Or he did something bad but it wasn't his idea and some outside force made him and it wasn't that big a deal anyways when you think about it.

b.) Everyone's out to get Scar. People wrongfully don't trust him because they're just blind to his inherent trustworthiness. People are always shooting down his brilliant plans because they hate fun or are just mean. People take advantage of him when he's never done anything wrong to them (if you think he has done anything wrong, see point a). People betray him so much, him, the silliest funnest most trustworthy teammate who only wants friendship.

Now, a lot of this is tactical on Scar's part, to give credit where credit is due! Scar is in fact very intelligent, and most of the time he knows what he's doing! A lot of time Scar plays innocent and dumb because playing innocent and dumb keeps working to get him what he wants and to keep him out of trouble. People buy into the facade with shocking ease. And the really clever thing is that even when people don't buy into the facade, there's no argument. Because it doesn't matter if Scar is as dumb and innocent as he pretends to be (he's not), people can't prove he doesn't believe what he says, so they don't waste energy arguing, and he gets away with a shocking amount because of it. Scar is incredible at playing with tactical facades and twisted narratives. So yes, a lot of Scar's "victim complex" is tactic, not necessarily a genuinely held belief on Scar's end.

That being said, I think sometimes Scar gets so caught up in his own false narratives that he starts to believe them, and I think Scar can be painfully, and ironically, blind to his own faults. When he says he felt abandoned and betrayed by everyone in Last Life, I believe he meant it, though I'd argue he actively pushed people away and was the reason nobody trusted him. When he says he treated Grian right and "built him a panda sanctuary" in Double Life, I think Scar actually means that, though it's factually incorrect. When he says he was "forced" to be alone in Secret Life, I'm sure he meant that too, though again I'd argue Scar had a very active role in self isolating.

While I think Scar is a very intelligent person who very much purposefully crafts narratives that benefit him, I also think Scar is a person who likes to live in those narratives, someone who uses his boundless imagination to integrate himself into the realities he builds so seamlessly that they start to feel real. I think this is a very efficient coping mechanism, in a lot of ways, for Scar to blame any genuine suffering he has entirely on outside persecution and minimize his own responsibility. It's comforting, if nothing else.

But this self imposed hand crafted victim complex doesn't actually help with the ways Scar really struggles the most. Scar consistently struggles with isolation, whether through literal distance from other players or simply emotional inability to connect. And unfortunately, most of it is a result of Scar's own behavior. Scar lies, Scar cheats, Scar pushes people away. Scar is the reason nobody trusts him. Scar is the one who consistently refuses to seek out companionship even when he needs it. This is an agonizingly fixable problem, but it's one Scar cannot see the solution to, because ironically his own cunning and creative mind has spun a web so thick it's trapped him inside, and he can't see past it to realize he has the way out!

Anyways sorry for rambling I'm just insane about Scar, he has such a brilliant mind and the tongue to back it up but his fatal flaw has always been in how his creative mind loses itself in its own false narratives until he cannot see the exit door five feet in front of him. He's sooooooooooooo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[traumasurvivors]

It's okay if certain popular positive phrases don't sit right with you.

Maybe you see "Holding onto hate is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die" and the message makes you feel guilty, or wrong for feeling hate or anger towards the person who hurt you.

Maybe you see "People treat you the way you allow yourself to be treated" and it makes you feel guilty for the trauma you endured. Maybe it makes you feel like you didn't do enough and don't deserve to be upset. Maybe it makes you feel bad because you're in a situation where it isn't safe or feasible to get away or set boundaries with the people in your life who do treat you poorly.

Maybe you see "No one can love you until you love yourself first" and you feel terrible. Like no one can ever love you because loving yourself is such an impossible goal at the moment.

It's really okay if certain phrases you see spreading don't sit right with you. They help some people, and that's really valid, but you aren't wrong or a failure if they don't help you. We all have different needs, and no post is ever going to help or be right for everyone.

You are still valid. It's okay to need to hear different things. So, I'll say this to those of you that want or need to hear it.

It's okay to hate the people who hurt you. It's okay to be angry at them. While there are healthier ways to handle your feelings than others, no feeling is inherently bad. And it is okay and valid to feel these things. In a lot of cases, feeling these things is a step in healing because you've realized that they're who you should be mad at instead of yourself. And I think that's great. I think there comes a point when your anger is hurting you, but the emotion itself is okay to feel and can be used in productive ways.

I also want to say that no matter what, it isn't okay for people to treat you poorly. You never deserve it. And it's okay to have complicated feelings. It's okay to feel like you have nothing but bad choices. Sometimes the choice with less consequences is dealing with bad treatment until we can safely or realistically get away from that person. Sometimes you just aren't ready. And I get it, and while I hope you can get away or set boundaries eventually, you don't deserve the treatment just because you aren't in a place to do that now.

And people can absolutely love you if you don't love yourself. I am not at a point in my healing where I love myself. Truthfully, I don't know if I ever will be. I reached for self-neutrality instead of self-love, and it helps. And I know that I am beyond loved by certain people in my life.

It's okay to have different goals, needs, and ways we cope.

[semperama]

One more thing though. So let's say this episode was supposed to just be about Athena's grief, and the rest of the fallout will be in the next two episodes. Well, unfortunately, they did a bad job of handling Athena's grief too.

Don't get me wrong, Angela Bassett was AMAZING. She did a perfect job with what she was given. Her breakdown with Hen was heartwrenching, and the scene at the end with his casket was the closest I got to crying, all on the power of her acting.

But as far as the character of Athena goes, I think the writing only failed her.

First of all, and most importantly, the subplot of the mom with the dead kid was not the mirror to Athena's grief that it should have been. Athena was not in denial that Bobby's dead. She wasn't avoiding planning the burial and funeral because she was in denial. She was avoiding it because those are hard things to do, things that no one who has lost someone wants to do. So did investigating this case help her avoid that? Yeah, but it did it in a way that was confusing to the audience, because it made you wonder if Athena, and we the audience by extension, SHOULD be doubting whether Bobby is dead. But then that emotional thread didn't play out and just left Athena's inherent cynicism reaffirmed. Miracles aren't real. The end. How did that show us anything about Athena's grief? How was that narratively satisfying?

Second of all, they did several things that didn't make sense for Athena as a character. The biggest one, I already mentioned: she was avoiding her kids' calls. I don't for one second believe that Athena would leave her children alone in their own grief. May and Harry saw Bobby as a father, and it would be one thing for her to be acting withdrawn or stoic, but to IGNORE their calls is cruel in a way I don't think Athena would be.

Also, while I did enjoy the scene where Athena gets angry with Chim, the fact that this is her only interaction with him in the episode is I think another disservice to her. The fact that she barely interacted with the rest of the 118 is a disservice to her. This was an important chance to show that Bobby was not the only glue holding Athena to the 118, but instead they drove a wedge between them. Maybe they will address this in the next two episodes, but even in the short term, in a season that has far too frequently had Athena off doing her own cop thing, to further isolate her when it really counts just makes you wonder what they even plan to do with her if Bobby is really gone.

And this is without even getting into what it says about the 118 that THEY aren't shown to be surrounding Athena. Anyone who has lost anyone knows that that's just not how it works. Families huddle together when someone dies. The episode made it seem like Athena was alone, and they could have justified it with writing that shows how grief can make a person feel alone, but they didn't do that. She literally just WAS alone in a way that doesn't make sense for her character or for any of the other characters either.

[dalliancekay]

Aziraphale, misogyny and the female character treatment

I don't know if anyone wrote a post about this but I see from time to time comments to this end - that Aziraphale is treated like the female leads in films often are, obviously especially romantic films. So I'm gonna try to point how I see this. I welcome further insights of course.

Say we take a basic premise of a romantic film: A girl is wooed by a bad boy for example. And she is a good girl, from a good, proper family and everything so she refuses his advances. This goes on through his various ploys to entertain and romance her, do things for her etc etc and frustrates us as the audience because we can see the bad boy is actually good, her family is oppressive and holding her back and that she (deep down) cares for him (if only she was brave enough to admit it to herself) and so we want her to open her eyes and say she is actually in love with him cos her life will be so much better should she (finally) give in and run away with him.

Familiar? Reasons Aziraphale is not her and the analogy does not fit (but that I so often see in metas and takes about her):

Aziraphale always knew her family is shit. Or at least longer than Crowley did. She was already anxious in Before the Beginning about what she thought Angel!Crowley could and could not say or do without getting into trouble.

She knows Crowley is good. She never doubted him. Whatever he says or does or pretends to do or must do for his job. Aziraphale knows he's inherently good and would always do good if he can.

She knows she's in love - I mean we can argue about when each realised this and also when each realised the other loves them back just as fiercely, but they both know. And they both love. And they both long to be together. Aziraphale is not ashamed of her feelings nor hiding or suppressing them for fear they are wrong or immoral or other BS like that.

Aziraphale doesn't need to overcome her love for her family/employer and finally make the leap to be with Crowley. They simply can't leave their bosses without punishment. Neither of them. They live in a dictatorship with nowhere to go. And just because Crowley experienced both sides, doesn't give him some huge insight that Aziraphale completely lacks. Both places are awful. Their separation isn’t about fear of societal judgment (or Aziraphale's unwillingness to give up Heaven, being seen as good, being an angel - and to what end, to Fall? I really don't know what takes like this want from her, it would not work anyway), it’s about survival in a system that won’t let them be together.

Aziraphale doesn't want to change Crowley. She never did. She asked for Crowley to come to Heaven as an angel because that was THE ONLY option she had for them to be together in any capacity at that point. It was NOT an attempt to “fix” him—it was a desperate bid for a way they could be together at all.

One thing I don't see as much anymore is the call for Aziraphale to change. Obviously she's pretty but she would be prettier if she lost those century old clothes maybe and started listening to something made after 1950? Be more cool to match Crowley? Less stuffy?

These kind of film premises are already pointless, offensive and make me roll my eyes, but to stick them all over Aziraphale and huff cos she doesn't do what the clever sexy man in dark clothes and sunglasses says she should - well that makes me angry.

And so do takes and mischaracterisations that ignore Aziraphale as silly, her worries as pointless, sometimes excessive - maybe she's just hysterical, you know? The one time she shows more emotion, in F15, she is so often completely ignored in her obvious distress just because Crowley is trying to confess his love at the same time and seemingly 'not getting through,' because Aziraphale is not reacting the way everyone expects. So many takes that always assume Crowley is right, no matter what. Even when he calls Aziraphale an idiot. If Crowley says that, it must be true. No matter that the book spells out in Terry's voice that the angel is extremely clever.

Aziraphale’s charm lies in her kindness, her love for books and knowledge, her whimsy, and her quiet courage. These qualities don’t make her naive—they make her resilient. She often hides how she truly feels, hides her grief, her pain, her true desires, hides what she really thinks; always always to protect herself and her beloved. She is often forced to say stuff she doesn't mean. Again. To keep the one she loves and their fragile relationship safe. But where people seem to catch on with that on Crowley's side, they don't with Aziraphale. She is fierce when pushed and will defend the defenceless (humans) and the ones she loves (Crowley) to her last breath (whether she needs to breathe is irrelevant right now okay).

She loves her bookshop. She built this home, full of knowledge for herself and her demon and you can take this HC from my cold hands. That she was forced to leave it, only emphasises how little choice she had in Final 15. Good Omens has two main, equal characters; who are both gorgeous and complex and deep and neither is right or wrong or in need of saving or learning some huge lesson to get to their goal and be together. What needs to change is the world, the system they live in. And they will change it. P.S. Just to add, many, many (if not all) bad takes on Aziraphale are also bad takes on Crowley. They mischaracterise and misunderstand just how deeply and unconditionally he loves Aziraphale. How he adores her and understands and accepts her just as she is. He does not expect or want Aziraphale to change in any way. He knows why they are not together. And it's not Aziraphale's fault, it's because of circumstances, not because of her choices. Crowley would never ever want Aziraphale to suffer, he wouldn't expect her to come back from Heaven saying how sorry she is for what happened, how stupid and blind she was and how he was always right. That's just not going to happen. ------------------------------------------ @tenok I simply must highlight the awesomeness you put in hashtags!! EVERYBODY please read:

Thank you sm for this!!

[halcyon-deluxe]

I truly do not see the point of gatekeeping the intimacy of sex behind romance.

I want to bond with my friends on a deeper, more compassionate level. i truly love being bisexual because sex feels more like a method of communication for heavily intimate emotions and a deeper expression of empathy to share with those you care about moreso than an act that is mutually exclusive to romance.

And of course I believe there are aspects of sex that are inherently romantic, but like art, I believe its purpose is entirely subjective, dependent on context, and the expressed intention of all parties involved (whether it's 1, 2, 3 or 7 people, it doesn't matter).

Simply put. I think people should be able to have sex with eachother regardless of their romantic labels (obviously proper and adult communication between partners being a pivotal aspect). I know plenty of queer couples already do this, and that's beautifully progressive, but I wish it was more normalized.

Sex is such an underrated and under utilized form of communication and emotional connection in non-romantic contexts.

This is especially important from the perspective of someone like me. I love love love to perform acts of service, so it doesn't really matter to me if the sex isn't reciprocated from my partner. I get so many endorphins just from being able to do them a service, to make them feel good and pleased and happy and content.

I'd eat you out for hours if it meant giving you peace of mind to escape from your other worries and stressors, even just for a few minutes.

I'd gladly suck your dick for nothing in return if it meant turning your bad day around to a more positive one.

I'd let you fuck the daylight out of me if it meant you could exercise the stress out of your body and relax.

I'd piston fuck you into the mattress between teams meetings and zoom calls if it meant even giving a space to where you can turn your brain off for just 5 minutes.

I rambled off into so many different directions. But sex has so much more utility beyond just securing a romantic bond with only one other person.

I wish sex wasn't so taboo. There is so much good that can be done with pleasure.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Tips: An Unforgettable Villain

A villain is the antagonist of your story whose motivations and actions oppose the protagonist and drive the plot of your story.

A villain is the opposite of a hero. In contrast to the hero, a villain is usually compelled by a desire to commit acts of cruelty and immorality.

Bestselling author Dan Brown advocates for writing your villain first—even before your hero—because it is the villain who will make the hero heroic.

Tips for Writing a Great Villain in Your Novel

Choose a real-life model. Find a real person to model your villain after. It could be someone you know, a person from history, or a famous serial killer. Try writing a brief character sketch in which you list their positive and negative attributes, their physical appearance, and their state of mind. Once you’ve done some brainstorming, be sure to differentiate your fictional character from your real-life model (you don’t want to get sued!). You can do this by changing identifiable elements like name, age, and specific actions or events.

Put yourself in their shoes. When it’s time for your villain to act, put yourself in their place. Think about challenges or hardships that might tempt people to act out or behave badly. How do you react to bad things? Tap into those emotions and try to apply them to your villain.

Consider their motivation. Just like with your main character, determining your antagonist’s motivation can help you unlock other aspects of their character, such as their goals and their personality.

Introduce a villain with a bang. A strong introduction to your villain sends your reader a clear message that this character is malicious. In Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield features an unforgettable introduction to antagonist Uriah Heep, whose seeming politeness is overshadowed by a face so shocking and ugly that it is described as “cadaverous.” His introduction immediately establishes the character as a villain.

Characteristics of a Good Villain

Every great hero needs a great villain. Villains are the antagonistic force of your story that challenges your hero and drives the action. Most great villains share a common set of characteristics.

Strong connection to the hero. The best villains are inextricably connected to the hero, and aid in the hero’s character development through their inherent opposition to them.

Clear morality. Every villain needs to have his own morality. If a villain spends part your story killing people, you need to give him or her believable reasons for doing so. Make the reader understand exactly what desperation or belief has driven him to it. For instance, in Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451, primary antagonist Captain Beatty’s mission is to find and destroy books because he believes that books cause people to reject the stability and tranquility of a life of conformity. He has a strong moral point of view, and the reader believes that he believes he is doing the right thing by trying to burn books. After all, every villain believes they are the hero of their own story.

A worthy opponent. A great villain should be a strong and worthy adversary to your hero. They shouldn’t be weak and easily beaten, nor should they be so powerful that they can only be defeated by random chance. In Sherlock Holmes, his arch-nemesis Moriarty is a criminal mastermind who is every bit as smart as Sherlock. Having a villain who is in many ways equal in skill and intelligence to your hero will raise the stakes of their encounters, as it creates a credible threat that your hero might be bested.

Compelling backstory. Any good villain should have an interesting and credible backstory. In addition to creating a deep and more three-dimensional villain, a memorable backstory allows ourselves to identify and even sympathize with the villain. For example, the Gollum character in The Lord of The Rings trilogy used to be a normal hobbit until he was corrupted by the power of the One Ring. In addition to deepening the character by showing us the full breadth of his journey from virtuousness to wickedness, Gollum’s backstory forces us to consider how we are sometimes tempted by bad or unethical forces in our own lives.

Villains should be fun. Let’s face it: evil villains are fun. In Thomas Harris’ Silence of the Lambs, readers hold their breath whenever Hannibal Lecter appears on the page. Whether it’s their black-hearted sense of humor or their odious worldview, our favorite villains possess qualities that we love to hate.

Source ⚜ More: References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs ⚜ Villains

[preposterousjams]

My opinion on the Latino Jason Todd headcanon

While I do understand ppl's criticism of the latino Jason todd headcanon and how its kind of racist to make the kid with parents with drug problems as the latino one, to me its more of a reclamation BECAUSE of DC's racism.

Read any 80s/90s batman issue that covers gang violence and drugs, most if not ALL of the criminals are poc; black people and latinos visibly make up the majority in the poorer neighbourhoods in Gotham. Aside from the caricaturist way they r drawn/speak, its not THAT weird cause its a reflection of irl big cities where immigrants and marginalised ppl are often forced to live in such situations, (like most of my dominican family lives in the bronx... it aint racist to say dominicans tend to flock there), BUT...the weird part is when the second a sympathetic character comes from that area, he's white and has a name thats "too fancy for the streets".

Obviously, Jason was created to look like the old robin, so I can't say that the whole "diamond in the rough" situation was purposely a tad bit racist, but its still a lil weird (especially with bruce's comment).

If Jason were a part of the overwhelming demographic in his area, the good-kid-in-a-bad-area trope has less connotations. DC is currently trying to fix this trope is by making crime alley whiter, which isn't bad but they could've just yk... humanised the non-white residents.

I also feel like the messed up way Jason was treated post-death is what makes him so relatable to latino readers. His tragic story of dying while trying to save his only living relative is turned into a lesson for newer vigilantes. Jason's particular disdain for abusers on a few occasions was twisted (by both writers and characters) into him always being dumb, reckless, cocky, angry and disobedient, always violent, never having been able to get over his upbringing. None of those things were true (he was a normal level of reckless and cocky like every other robin, not more), but its an easier narrative to digest compared to how it was in reality; a kid who worked so hard and loved even harder, died to save a woman who couldn't care less about his existence. He was an emotional AND smart kid who wanted so bad to help others get better but was remembered as too emotional (in a bad way).

THIS is the reality for many latino diasporas in day to day life; Theres no question that Latino culture is passionate and emotive, but people from other cultures assume that it is followed by instead of logical. both can coexist. emotion does not mean u have no logic. Emotions can be irrational but they aren't inherently that way, and I wouldn't say that the moments where Jason lashed out as a teenager were irrational (in og runs, not rewrites post red hood), they were mostly done to protect someone (going crazy on abusers, disobeying batman to save sheila, that time he got into a fight at school to defend his friend).

A lot of euro-centric culture is OBSESSED with the idea that rationality is separate from feelings and emotions, but not crying at a funeral doesn't mean you're better than those who do. Emotions are the basis of human ethics and morals, they define the way we interact as a collective and ignoring them does not mean they are not there. Theres no winner to a contest of who can feel the less. And the way Jason's emotions are treated (pre-rh, hes definitely unhinged afterwards lol) is so in line with how white culture tends to punish those who aren't ashamed to feel.

I TOTES UNDERSTAND that some ppl who headcanon Jason as latino are doing it for the complete opposite of reasons, like "oh here some angry emotional guy with druggie parents, haha must be latino". Its weird. I dont like it. And its only brought up so he can swear in spanish in some rlly bad text post where his emotions are getting out. But to me there's so much potential for metanarrative and commentary on how latinos are treated in media that can be exemplified through the way his character is treated. Being latino would add SO MUCH DEPTH to his character and his dynamic with the others.

[ofbreathandflame-archive]

Sometimes, I think about the absurdity of the UTM situation — but then, sometimes I think of it and it makes Rhys a much more sinister, albeit, more interesting character.

Like - the situation is this, initially:

Feyre is in her cell. She frazzled,dirty, but hasn’t quite had to experience any of the horrors of UTM, save for her bargained first trial. After her initial riff raff with Rhys, the guards are hypnotized to never touch Feyre, and she receives hot meals to her cell everyday. Rhys was also able to clean Feyre up multiple times as well. So far - excluding his other actions up to this point - we can characterize Rhys as opportunistic, cruel, but well-intentioned in these moments. I am not asking for him to be a purity princess, only that I can vaguely understand the motives to his actions, whether good or bad.

But then…

He then *willingly* chooses to take her out said cell, allowing Amarantha to remember Feyre. His only tangible reason for doing this was to…anger Tamlin. He already had explains that Amarantha has a shield that wards against physical attacks, so that explaination makes no sense. The only one that actually sticks is that Rhys is…jealous. There is no tactical explanation as to why Rhys would establish this safe-space for Feyre, only to immediately co-opt it. Think about it, at this point, Amarantha has forgotten Feyre even exists. If she was tangibly written, she could have played against Feyre’s time, allowing each trial to take place once every thirty or a fifty years. But I digress.

Anywho, Rhysand removed Feyre’s clothes, painted her, and gave her a linen scarf as a dress. The hot food be gives becomes inconsequential because the wine makes Feyre wretch up any all of the food she receives. She then has to sleep on the dirty ragged floor naked because those were all of the clothes she was given. And as Rhysand is breaking Feyre down, he also has the antidote. Now, Feyre isn’t surrounded by the quiet of her cell, or looking forward to the anticipation of a hot meal. She is anticipating (and more than not dreading) her eventual drugging SA.

The sinister part of this is that — Rhys becomes the author of all of Feyre’s sorrows, but then he also swoops in and provides solutions to the issues…he caused.

And it’s why the music scene is one of the most unromantic moments in this series if you stop and consider EVERYTHING. Feyre is sitting there, alone and naked. Exhausted after being paraded around by the Wraiths and having to bear info she has no power to stop. Rhys reads her mind, and then sends the music into her cell. But HE IS THE ONE who caused it in the first place. All of it. It’s so scary when you consider that Feyre was a human, with no mental shields. She was a legit open book and the book acknowledges that he read it alll. Like - even in Twilight - Edward could read everyone’s mind BUT Bella. She was a closed book for and that made her interesting to him. It built a sort-of boundary between them, which considering everything, was a good literary choice.

Rhys has all of this access, and knowledge of Feyre that she doesn’t even get the pleasure of telling him (or just letting him experience it). Like that moment where Feyre tells Rhys she was scared, and he retorts back “no you weren’t” is like…quite scary. Idk. It’s just so weirddd. And I’m not asking for these tidbits not to exist. I’m saying that the story never considers any nuance in these issues. Feyre is expressing that she felt these amalgamation of emotions upon seeing Rhys, but he just smiles and tells her how beautiful she thought her was. At one point, Rhys mad feyre so scared she pissed herself (or almost did - I can’t remember) and threw up. She was terrified, violated, and afraid. And Rhys knows this - and he never apologizes. I am not against the idea of Feysand, as many may assume, not inherently. My problem is, the sinister parts do not add nuance. There’s no discussion into Rhysand’s control issue, which is wrapped in a self-sacrificing package. His need to do everything is the exact same as Tamlin’s control issue - they are both very controlling. Rhysand cannot trust his inner-circle. He does nefarious things because he doesn’t trust them to do so even though they’re so supposed to be Prythan’s version of the Avengers. He makes Mor the queen of the CoN…but doesn’t actually trust her to do the job. What I’m saying is - instead of it leveraging Rhysand’s faults into a well rounded character, the book would rather just assume they don’t exist.