#being related to someone who committed a murder doesn't mean you deserve to be murdered??? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sapphic-agent · 1 year ago

Note

Ok into the IzuOcha ask: I bet you have come across ships where "this girl deserve better" not sure if you read naruto but sasusaku is canon aka sasuke x sakura. Now, some fans of hers (all of them) say she is a poor thing and deserve better (wont enter here how untrue it is as she got her happy ending, its sasuke who is miserable) and ...I can say Izuocha can be the sasusaku of mha.

Will be canon? Sure.

Will be happy for Izu? NO. Not in canon. Not by Hori.

They had a cute meet. Sure, but it never developed more than that.

1) she calls him deku. Do I know Japanese? No. So I give a pass and maybe deku and dekiru are similar speaking. Ok. The issue here is not that...is how Ochako sees BK calling Izu deku with 100% hostility and ...head empty. Its sus. Its also not cute Izu accept the name deku.

2) she makes no attempt to know him. Grant Izu doesn't either but he does have an excuse as social cues are smth he struggles thanks to 10 years of abuse...amazing how that is smth Hori remembers to give to Izu😒

3) the LN, it paints their relationship so bad. I dont need to point out the obvious.

4) the aftermath of Ixu vs bk. Izu was punished for defending against his abuser, Iida didnt let him see his notes and treated him as a criminal...sure it was to be comical but falls flat as Iida wanted to commited murder (hated he punched Izu) byt Ochako didnt even approach Izu and asks whats up. She also blamed him. "This is a problem of both" and runs with that.

5) Mina and Aoayama have to tell her, and subsequence us, she likes Izu. Otherwise, we wouldn't guess. She made the decision to hide her feelings for Izu...and why? Is not as if she lost a big chance to win money by blushing to Izu.

6) I dont like how the girls in class A1 are taking Ocha's side here in relation to the ship. The movie where Izu meets Melissa...when Izu returns to class A1 the girls seems upset as if he did smth wrong...I find that unfair(I never saw the movie and have 0 desire to do so as BK is there. And sure that scene may have context...)

7) She never even attempt to know Izu. But she is ok in being Toga's blood bank. Togaochako may not be canon and she may have rejected Toga...but the point is not "Ochako wants to kiss Toga" is how Ochako makes no effort for Izu...but we are supposed to see her as this great love interest. In canon, she really isnt. It kills me how she makes 0 effort for Izu...didnt smile when she corned Izu with bk and others...didnt look happy to see him...but is willing to die for Toga. Like....does Izu has a love interest?

8) she called him plain...when she has a plain design. The things she says and does could have land her "mean girl" title

9)"you wont fight quirkless are you?" While I dont subscribe to "quirkless discrimination " as everyone does...I do think it makes sense for only quirked people to be heroes...so with that in mind, Ochako is somewhat saying is ok for Izu to break bones but fight quirkless is wierd? That is intersting to explore but would make her look bad...and by consequence bk and we know who Hori loves.

Not saying Ocha should do anything and everything for Izu...but this story only allows the shallow forms of "love"

Ocha and Izu blushed? Soulmates

Ocha and Izu gifted each other? When is the wedding.

I've answered an IzuOcha asked before so if you wanna take a look at that for more of an insight feel free to.

1. It actually used to irritate me that she called him Deku too BUT someone pointed out to me that Uraraka is from the Mie (?) prefecture and can tend to mix up the pronunciation of "Deku" and "Dekiru" due to her accent. So when she wants to say "Dekiru," it comes out sounding like "Dek'u." This person also said that it gives meaning to their relationship that Izuku decided to keep this name because of this and I actually do somewhat agree. I think Horiloshi's execution of this could have been better (show don't tell Hori), but I don't mind it as much as I used to.

2. I would actually say Uraraka does make a decent attempt to get to know him at least in the beginning. Sure her questions and conversations aren't super deep, but she goes out of her way to make conversation with him and get him to open up. She is only 15/16 too after all so I give her a lot of grace.

3. For my own sanity, I choose to ignore the light novels. If I read them I'll come out disliking 98% of the characters🙂

4. Yes this... Isn't great for either Iida or Uraraka. It actually feels like flat out character regression for Iida (done for a cheap laugh). Uraraka (and all of 1A including All Might and Aizawa) has a kind of warped view on Izuku and Bakugou's relationship. I don't think she's aware that their toxic relationship goes past rivalry, probably because Izuku never says anything bad about Bakugou and doesn't open up. I'm not defending what she says here because it was wrong, but she doesn't have the full story. If she did, her reaction would be very different (she is one of the few characters that will call Bakugou out, even if it isn't as harsh as it should be). I don't even think Horikoshi himself understands the power imbalance between Izuku and Bakugou, so it makes sense that his characters don't either.

5. So Uraraka does this because she doesn't want her feelings to get in the way of becoming a good hero. It's not a bad approach to her character in theory, but Horikoshi's execution of it is horrible (which is true for most of his characters). The problem isn't necessarily that she does this, the problem is a) there was nothing leading up to her having feelings for him past admiration it just... happened, b) there's really no explanation as to how simply having/accepting her feelings would get in the way, and c) it focuses way too much on her avoiding her feelings for Izuku than her actually growing as a hero; in trying to focus her away from Izuku Hori's centering her around him even more. In another author's hands, this could have actually been a decent arc, but oh well.

6. This scene actually isn't too serious. Yaoyorozu and Jirou aren't being malicious to Izuku, they're just teasing him. And they're very nice to Melissa (so is Uraraka) and get along with her well. I don't even think Uraraka was that jealous, maybe a bit envious if anything, and she wasn't upset. The movie doesn't focus on Bakugou too much (unlike that monstrosity of a second movie) so it's not a bad watch. I enjoyed it because we learn more about All Might's time in America and Izuku's friendship with Melissa is super cute🙂

7. I think it's just a different approach to Toga and Izuku as people. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but I am saying approaching saving them in two different ways isn't outlandish. And she did stand up for him against am angry mob so I don't think it's right to say she didn't put in effort.

8. Plain isn't really an insult. True it's not exactly nice, but I wouldn't call it mean. She also had no idea of knowing he would see that footage.

9. Interesting🤔

#izuocha critical #uraraka critical?#ask

9 notes · View notes

the-tubort · 1 month ago

Text

To answer both of these, I really do think someone must have it out for the trio given all the information present. When you think about each murder, it does inherently have something to do each of them whether intentional or not. Tim Kono was Mabel's old friend who was investigating into the Dimases, Oliver's old friends, and the murder was committed by Charles and Sazz's would be girlfriend. The first murder was pure circumstance and chance, but then Jan was directly threatened that she was being watched and the note Oliver received about Winnie iirc has a super similar font and writing style to Jan's note which means they are related events. Bunny was the next victim who lived in the Arconia and her murder would have definitely put the trio behind bars if it wasn't for their own attempt to keep going (btw rewatching s2 is actually painful like oh my god Bunny did not deserve that). As much as they say the murder was done through their own intentions, I wouldn't be surprised if someone at some point let it slip that Bunny doesn't like them and it was clear a lot of people didn't like her already, so if you're trying to stop a murder podcast, might as well get someone else to do it. Then s3 Ben Glenroy being the main star of Oliver's new stageshow being targeted through mother knowing best may make sense, it could also be possible that someone planted the idea early on even before the review got out and then the review was the catalyst. Now s4 making it very clear that the trio are in fact the targets and that they're sick of them and want them gone makes it clear that ever since the podcast came out, the trio have been made targets and with each solved case, the murderous intent continues to grow. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if s5 could the final season and it resolves this huge overarching potential mastermind murder.

IM FUCKING SCREAMING OVER OMITB CAUSE WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN IM WATCHING YOU!!!!!! THAT WAS THE SAME NOTE JAN GOT BACK IN SEASON 1 WHO IS WATCHING PEOPLE WHAT IS GOING ON IM GONNA FUCKING EXPLODE!!!!!!!!!!!!! THERES NO REASON JAN FAKED THAT NOTE SO WHO HAS BEEN WATCHING PEOPLE THIS WHOLE TIME IS EVERY SEASON ACTUALLY MORE CONNECTED THAN WE THOUGHT

103 notes · View notes

simplytheevebest · 2 years ago

Note

Whos there for Farah? Saul is always even when he was dying he tried to keep her calm. I love Farah too but she is not infallible in every situation!! I get this blog is a Farah stan blog but just wanted to provide another perspective! Ben has probably helped her a lot too.

That's the interesting thing about it, I think. Because yes, of course Farah isn't alone, she has Ben and Saul, even when Saul is on death's door. He is and always will be there for Farah to his dying breath. And Ben as well is a wonderful friend and support for her. But just because we the audience recognize and accept that doesn't mean Farah does. She knows for sure that Ben and Saul are there for her and will always be there for her. But Farah is selfless to a fault, meaning she does and always will put others before herself. So she does have Saul, and she does have Ben, but in those times of crisis and vulnerability, she isn't necessarily going to turn to them because she doesn't want to burden them. Because it's one thing to recognize that you're not alone, but it's another to accept it when you don't feel like you deserve it, or that leaning on someone else will negatively impact them for your own "selfish" needs. I 100% think this is how Farah thinks.

And absolutely she's not infallible! If Aster Dell wasn't enough of an example of that -just because she didn't know she was committing mass murder doesn't erase that she did it- Farah's entire dealing with Bloom and her past was incredibly flawed too, and I think s1 actually did a decent job touching on that. Because yeah, Bloom shouldn't have released Rosalind behind Farah's back, but from Bloom's perspective, she had no reason to think Farah would keep her promise to find answers about her past because at every opportunity to tell the truth, Farah chose to lie and keep Bloom in the dark. Farah's biggest flaw is keeping her cards close to her chest because at some point it becomes such second nature she almost can't control when she should and should not share information, so she doesn't share anything because she's sure she can handle it on her own. Should she have told Bloom immediately upon finding her that she was a changeling? In my opinion, no, because she's right in saying that would've been a lot for Bloom to take in. But she should have told her when she arrived at Alfea, just as I also think she should have given Bloom one-on-one magic lessons so she didn't have to figure it out on her own. Should she also have told Saul she was going after Bloom and the burned one in the first episode? Hell yeah, but in Farah's mind, there wasn't time.

But that's why I love her, because she's not infallible and has so much potential to grow as a character whether in canon or fanon, or both! I relate to a lot of Farah as a character and I 100% project some of myself into my characterization when I write her, so how she approaches relationships is a lot like how I approach them. She never wants to burden someone with her issues, she'd rather face them alone even if it means she gets hurt. And she'd never want to assume they would be there for her (even if they would be no questions asked) because she wouldn't ever want to assume she's taking them for granted or taking advantage. Because on top of Farah not being infallible, she knows she's not infallible. Farah is not "I have done nothing wrong, ever, in my life" about herself. She's been beating herself up about Aster Dell for 16 years. She can't even say it when she's talking with Luna, who knows about it. Farah knows she's flawed and definitely internalizes it not only because she probably learned it from Rosalind, but she's a good person, and I have always believed, personally, that the difference between a good person and a bad person is a good person recognizes that they have done something bad, but will never acknowledge that they do mostly good. A bad person will never accept they've done something bad, but always expect validation for doing something good. Farah is a good person who can see nothing but her own faults and honestly creates most of her own issues because she doesn't communicate properly.

If there's one thing I definitely agree with from the prequel book, it's that Farah feels separate from others. And that is the crux of a lot of her character flaws because she doesn't share her thoughts, she doesn't keep people in the loop, she doesn't share how she feels, she doesn't share her plans, and she puts up walls. And if someone can't climb those walls to reach her, well then that's her fault because she's not "worth it." If you push people away before they can push back, you save yourself the hurt.

This is absolutely a Farah stan blog because I watched Fate for Rob and stayed for Eve ❤️ and I want to give Farah a great big hug because she deserves it. But I also want to grab her by the shoulders and shake her silly because she just needs to communicate with the people that care about her. Seriously so much of the drama in s1 could've been avoided if Farah hadn't insisted in keeping the students in the dark, and then lying about it when they confronted her with the truth. I love Farah, but she is not infallible, and honestly that's why I love her.

#eve best #fate the winx saga #ftws #fate winx saga #fate: the winx saga #farah dowling #fate asks

13 notes · View notes

sometimesrosy · 3 years ago

Note

Hey. It's been a long time since I had a question. Maybe the 100's demise was the reason.

Now coming to my actual query. This past year I have binged numerous shows ranging from American to korean dramas or Turkish dizis. There is certain thing that I have felt and noticed throughout i.e., the woman characters aren't given even a slight leeway by the audience. If the even make a slight mistake, the audience remembers it always to stand against that character. Whereas if there is a male villain, people gets cheerful seeing even a slight bit of humanity in him. They even wait for its redemption.

Let me take an example of a Turkish show "kara sevda(black love)". A one line synopsis can be put like- two leads who love each other endlessly but can never be together. So, the villain in that show is beyond redemption. That character has fallen so far off that there is no coming back. But still when he is playing with a baby, people's comments are like 'best moment of the show.' 'see he is such a good person'. 'the female lead should accept his love'. Am like what?

And if I tell you about the female lead. She is a good person at heart who is sacrificing love for family. And she is labelled "selfish" by audience. 'She doesn't deserve the male lead' etc. And you know I too felt like that for the majority of the show until I reached the point of self reflect.

Even Clarke from the 100 faced so much hate that there wasn't any visible backlash when in the end the makers made her a villain. The backlash was for Bellamy death and stupid end instead.

Looking through tv series, it's so easy to see why tv or films doesn't have female anti heroes. Male anti heroes are so easy to find and also widely successful like Damon from tvd or Klaus.

What is your take?

Yup!

Yes.

Definitely.

You are absolutely correct. The leeway for female characters to show human imperfection is very, very thin. Meanwhile, a guy can literally blow up a planet, kill his beloved father, have temper tantrums with kicking and screaming and torture the female main characters and fandom-- and the creators-- think that makes him a hero. And the requirements for his redemption, if there are any at all amounts to:

WOOPSIE! I'M SOWWY.

I simply do NOT understand that phenomenon.

I mean, I get the need to relate to darker characters, morally gray characters, to explore our own negative impulses...but the whole tendency is, for me anyway, given a more sinister light when you compare how the audience tends to treat these outright villainous male characters compared to even SLIGHTLY morally gray female characters. Maybe just flawed.

It also interferes with satisfying redemption arcs. Because YES watching someone face their dark past and attempt to become better and be redeemed is a great story... but if male characters only have to wear a cape and be hot to be redeemed.... then that's not a satisfying redemption arc. And if women can't do ANYTHING to be redeemed because they are considered irredeemably selfish or whatever for the same flaws someone's Hot Dark Badboy smirks about and isn't even sorry for? Then we barely even get redemption stories for women.

And that's part of the problem, isn't it? Women aren't allowed the same representation as men... even as flawed characters.

The point of good representation is not to represent only the best, most perfect, most desirable, most successful type of people. The point is to allow everyone of any sex, race, gender, sexuality, religion, class, ability, etc to take part in the full spectrum of humanity in our stories, good and bad and mediocre. A female Mary Sue is just the female version your general male hero. One is considered bad storytelling the other is taken as The Way It Should Be.

Women are not allowed to have flaws in most of our pop culture, or women are ghettoized into only women's fic or romance or YA, or women take backseat to male villains, or whatever.

I'm writing a book where the woman abandoned her child, and she sleeps around and cons people and avoids commitment. I purposely wrote her to be unlikable.... or rather, she's not unlikable, she's clever and funny and weird, but she has characteristics that women aren't supposed to have. She essentially acts like a male anti-hero, until her call to action and she is forced to face her past mistakes. But I know that these are things that audiences say are irredeemable for women. Abandon her own child?? No. Not allowed. Even though plenty of male characters go off on adventures leaving wife and child behind and it isn't even considered a character flaw, just... a male adventurer. Or honestly, just a guy. Sure one who's imperfect, but that old ball and chain was probably the worst, right? He had to move on and now he has a tragic backstory and complexity and oh the audience will probably either want to be him or want to be with him, because, that's how these things work.

Not saying that characters shouldn't be dark, do bad things, have flaws, be anti-heroes, have redemption arcs, or have a deep, multilayered villainy.

But I am saying we might want to be a little more critical about what we consider irredeemable for certain people and what war crimes and abuse we let some characters get away with in the name of bold (white) masculinity.

IS the nature of being a (white) man we look up to someone who destroys other people?

I think that toxic masculinity IS seen as sexy. Unfortunately, that's one of the reasons it's seeped into our culture. Manly (white) men who abandon kids and kill without remorse, but with muscles. Manly (white) men who murder whole regions because bad things happened to them, and smolder while doing it. Manly (white) men who commit genocide regularly, but fall for the heroine and save her once. Manly (white) men who are serial killers but with an intriguing depth.

tbh there's lots more to say on the topic, some of it very controversial. These are the stories we like to hear and the characters we love. And it might be rooted in the toxic masculinity that our society has been selling to us as propaganda for decades, if not centuries-- but we don't like to be told to examine our biases, our tastes, our preferences, or our beliefs. It's threatening to our sense of self.

However, that is how you unravel all sorts of toxic belief systems, from misogyny to racism to homophobia to bigotry of all kinds. I added the (white) to this post after I read through it, because I realized non white male characters are not allowed this leeway, either. So this phenomenon is generally (not always) limited to white men. Why?????

my theory? we're still making the colonialists the heroes of the story, friends.

#misogyny #toxic masculinity #media #anti heroes and villains #colonialism #pop culture #fandom #redemption arcs

34 notes · View notes

lordeasriel · 3 years ago

Text

ATTWN: A Look at Miss Brent

I keep circling around the idea of writing And Then There Were None meta, like a full, proper analysis of the novel, but I just can't settle down on how to do it, cause I do have many thoughts, but I can't seem to organise them in a way it will make sense. But-

I was thinking about Miss Brent today, and she's not exactly a character I have that many thoughts compared to Vera or Armstrong, but she certainly has my interest. What strikes me stronger about her is her complacency, in a way.

Let's look at the novel first: here's this sixty-something woman, a spinster who takes on girls from local charities/orphanages to train them into proper maids or whatever. It's not an unusual thing for that time based on the rest of Christie's novels, it seemed like a common occurrence for the period. At any rate, she's very righteous, uptight, her belief is almost borderline fanatical, she never hesitates over her "innocence" in front of the accusations, and the thing is: she doesn't deny shunning the girl away.

Unlike the others, who remain resilient on their innocence (Lombard the exception cause he literally confessed right away), Miss Brent never denies that she did refuse to help Beatrice. In her own mind, she didn't do anything wrong - and if we're going there, in its fucked up way, she technically didn't do anything wrong. She had no familial attachment to the girl, she didn't have to do anything for her legally speaking; morally, of course, she should have but we don't arrest people for being morally corrupt lmao Let alone death sentence them. *coughs*

But what gets me it's her complacency. You know, I'm blaming this on the windy day, but thinking about her, sitting by herself almost all the time (including when she died), she never does anything. Unlike the others, Vera included considering how Christie often writes the women isolated, Miss Brent never gets involved in either investigating or helping them to find a way out; she just sits and knits and eventually bosses Vera around or say some mean stuff to someone. She doesn't act, which is odd for us as a reader; I mean, if I was in her spot I would have already made a signal for help, even with the bad weather lmao This book heavily traumatised me anyway--

Miss Brent doesn't act, that's my main point. In her head, I suppose she expects some sort of divine intervention, in its way; not a miracle, but you know, she expected her righteousness guaranteed her safety. She sees the other deaths as punishment, she thinks them all guilty, perhaps not the General or Wargrave, but I've no doubt she considers the rest of them wicked and deserving of the punishment, but never herself. She didn't do anything wrong, she has got nothing to feel sorry for. There is a whole section, where Vera asks Miss Brent if she is not afraid or if she simply doesn't mind dying. To which she reacts exactly like I said before, like she was above them all, like death wouldn't come for her.

Now, I will just vaguely go over the show because I think their choice of handling her was an interesting one. I like most of the choices made by show, except the ending which I'll save for another day of ranting, but Miss Brent in the show behaves similarly, but her background gets deeper. For one there was two key things - I say two because I've seen two different interpretations of this - and they were 1) repressed lesbian and 2) predator. Now, these two could coexist with each other, she could have been taking in girls to take advantage of them, but I don't know, I think it would be hard for her to do that always, so I like to think if repressed lesbian was it, then it makes more sense for her crime and her reaction. It would be related to a feeling of betrayal - "I've given you a home, a job, affection and you still went behind my back to be a whore" - and it's something Miss Brent would probably not acknowledge. She was always too religious, too righteous, so Beatrice probably haunted her more in death than she did in life: no one would believe this ragged girl over any accusations - even if there was consent on her part. But that's just beside the point.

What I mean for the show is, they go in a different direction. Miss Brent's reactions over the murders are a little more in line with her religious dynamic for the show: when Tony dies, she makes a little prayer, she worries about Mrs. Rogers state when she sees her passed out (despite the fact she humiliated her earlier over being meek and weak and so on), she has a judgemental attitude towards Vera, but even that comes from a place of almost understanding? She still judges them harshly, but she is a lot less harsh to the ones she consider less harmful (aka she is absolutely distasteful about Lombard, whose crime is easily the worst crime in the show and she thinks so).

Of course, all of her views and beliefs and behaviours are based on her own lifestyle, so she is a bit blind and biased - when Lombard points out about the missionaries crimes in Africa, after she calls him out; or when she states she couldn't imagine crossing paths with a man like him, despite the fact she knows well enough they're all there because they're guilty - so she is bound to hypocrisy every now and again. But her fanaticism from the book is turned into a proper, religious attitude; she does abide by the Bible, she condemns very little her other companions (I mean, she still judges Vera over her youth and her inertia, she judges Armstrong's lack of calm, she judges Lombard because well, because of his Existence™ lmao) She is, of course, judgmental and vain and arrogant, but this is less cartoony and more realistic. More importantly, because her beliefs are much more ingrained in her life, she is afraid. She is genuinely afraid and that is an important, key change that I genuinely like.

Miss Brent has faith, at first, that they will leave the Island, so she stills acts very coldly at first and of course, she still denies her guilt, she still claims she did the right thing and Beatrice caused her own undoing. But, the show pursues the idea that Miss Brent, upon being reminded of the event, starts to feel guilt: when she is praying she hallucinates Beatrice (hallucionation was a choice they did to convey these feelings, but you could just claim that's a memory in her head); and more importantly, before her death - which happens the day after she hallucinates - her demeanor changes entirely. She goes from trying to stay calm and resolute before the tide, to feeling weary. That's important because unlike Book! Emily, she is fully aware she has committed a sin, and now whether that is her neglect of Beatrice's pleas or her own feelings for her, that's beside the point. The point is this woman realises she is very close to meet her maker and the burden of having sinned wears her down.

Miss Brent also adds "It's only wool" when Vera is pouring her coffee (which I had to crop cause Gif size), which is her redirecting her distress to something mundane (in another scene later, Vera mentions how doing the dishes is a mundane task, which she finds soothing. In fact, seeking a sense of normalcy is a recurring theme for the show, but also for the book) and ordinary. Vera, of course, notices her distress over being hunted; she shares the feeling, and I don't want to focus too much on Vera because I'll talk about her eventually later, but this shows how Miss Brent changes drastically.

On their first conversation after the dinner, Vera's impression of Miss Brent is of an uptight, self-righteous, straight-up cruel woman and she avoids her if she can help it, and truth be told, Miss Brent does act very badly and says bad things, Vera is not being touchy about it. So when Vera lays the coffee tray, she is ready to walk away before Miss Brent addresses her (she even makes a dry remark on "There is no milk, I'm afraid", which is meant to spite Miss Brent's earlier attitude over asking for perfect eggs after Mrs Rogers died and so on), and Miss Brent talks so unlike herself, a weariness that makes Vera reconsider and come back, to pour her coffee. She feels sorry for Miss Brent, because she finally cracked like the others; Miss Brent knows now that no amount of faith might defend her from this killer, because this killer has got nothing to do with a justice kill.

She stays seated, knitting again, but when she reaches for the coffee she hesitates. She realises Vera could have poisoned it (before entering the room, since she watches Vera pouring the coffee), and then she puts it down. There is a sense of danger in her, and she has no desire to die, unlike in the book where she so casually just stays behind, unafraid in her own attitude of superiority. I like this change a lot; I think showing her fear before her God enhances her religious mania a lot more, because she truly fears Divine Judgement, because she understands, deep down, that she did a bad thing; maybe not murder - I mean, it wasn't murder after all - but she still did a morally bad thing. If there is a Heaven, it won't be for her.

#and then there were none #emily brent #attwn meta #this is my tag for it from now on i'll keep it separate from hdm

26 notes · View notes

grusinskayas · 1 year ago

Text

fasten your seat belts this makes absolutely no sense god bless

ok so (one of) the problem(s) i have with ouat is that at a base level it works with extreme black and white (i'm gonna use these words a lot so beware) situations and ideas. as much as they try to act like that isn't the case, it does work with black and white ideas of good/evil and purity/impurity. and the thing is once you're working with that, it's so difficult to actually put nuance into the story. you CAN do that, yes, but superficial nuance, and not in a way that feels coherent with the elements you YOURSELF created.

one example i can think of is that one time in season 2 when snow was having a fit cause her heart had started turning black since she did some shenanigans to have regina's mom killed (lol). ok. mary margaret, a grown adult woman, has a Pure (whatever that's supposed to mean) heart up until the moment she pretty much commits Murder. then a tiny black dot appears in her heart and she's then wailing at regina's doorstep, asking regina to kill her (asking regina to do the very thing that made her own heart turn dark in the first place), cause she can't handle the pressure of having a darkened heart. and i assume the writers thought that was a nuanced moment... ? that is not nuance, that is an extreme situation (murder being committed) being put on top of a black and white element (the goodness of someone being determined by the color of their hearts), and not at all what real nuance feels like. if real nuance was there this gradation of hearts wouldn't even exist in the first place. if real nuance was there people, independent of their actions and circumstances, wouldn't be categorized as "pure" or "impure" or "very impure" in a biological, molecular level in the first place. and it took Murder to darken a heart that had been Pure for a Whole Life. again, extremes. i'm pretty sure that scene was supposed to have some sort of deep meaning about how no one is immune to making bad choices they'll regret later so we shouldn't judge them too harshly or that it's not fair to let people be forever ostracized by these choices and behaviors they're not proud of etc etc or whatever but the rules and elements are at the same time too black and white and arbitrary for whatever moral to work there.

and it's so hard to have complicated characters like regina, who are supposed to go through whole arcs of wanting and working to change. the story is repeatedly trying to tell us that good and evil is bullshit, that everyone deserves a second chance and a happy ending (don't even get me STARTED on the happy ending thing), but the very rules of your universe are so deep set into these dichotomies. remember the whole "evil isn't born, it's made" thing. and at the end regina being crowned the Good queen. i mean i get it and it's all cute and pretty and good for her! but if you really want to spread the idea that people don't deserve to be defined by a single trait that doesn't allow them to be the full fledged human beings they are then you have got! to! stop! labeling! them! i don't think they realize labeling someone as Good might be just as harmful but anyway. it's hilarious how the writers just didn't know how to handle regina's character, at some point in the show in every 10 flashbacks we got about 8 of them were related to regina fucking up someone's life in some severe way somehow. all of that WHILE in storybrooke the writers were clearly going for a redemption arc. ????? the more you take a character to an extreme, the more difficult it will be to take them AWAY from that extreme in a way that's gonna feel natural, genuine and believable. all of that to say regina mills i love you very much and i wish they hadn't fucked you up so badly

i'm still having ouat thoughts help me

#if someone tries to tell me that it's just fairytale logic i'm gonna-#yeah fairytale logic but it's incoherent and badly written #so it's not fairytale logic being Well Used #anyway i have things to do and Deadlines and here i am fml #personal

2 notes · View notes

nonbinarynightmarefuel · 3 years ago

Text

A lot of y'all who share about bigotry-related tragedies aren't trying to "spread awareness," you're just trying to spread trauma.

I know that horrific abuse and murder because of racism, sexism, transphobia, or ableism is traumatic. I know that when you're traumatized it's fairly common to spread the trauma around and watch other people react to it as a means to process your trauma and validate the way you feel.

I know that you want other people to be aware of this (usually recurrent) issue.

Photos, videos, or explicit descriptions of tragedies doesn't accomplish anything useful. Racist people don't stop being racist because they saw a video of a cop murdering a BIPOC. Your graphic description with uncensored words about the way disabled children are treated does not change the mind of someone who is committed to ableism. It just won't.

Maybe you'll catch some people who are on the fence, but you don't really need details to do that. If someone is on the fence, the information will help them decide which side they are on. The details may feel like they are being manipulated to change their opinion. And being traumatized will never make it easier to join a cause. The trauma keeps a lot of people away.

It also doesn't truly help you process what you're experienced, seen, or read. There are better, safer ways of processing that trauma that don't involve traumatizing more people or putting that trauma on someone else.

Most importantly, it just traumatizes the vulnerable people who are already very acutely aware of the issue. When you share about tragedies and it talks about abuse and violence I have faced, it retraumatizes me. If you give explicit details about something that a person has witnessed or survived in the past, it will retraumatize them.

BIPOC, disabled, LGBTQIA+, fat people, women, etc. don't deserve to be retraumatized to help other people consider maybe caring about their inherent value and right to life.

You can talk about what happened without traumatizing other people.

3 notes · View notes

autumn-foxfire · 4 years ago

Note

(past ask) I'm sleepy, so maybe this hardly makes any sense—.

Hmm, Toga will probably be helped, but I'm really curious about Dabi and Shigaraki too, because even if I think... they're murderers and, realistically speaking, they could face a capital punishment or a life imprisonment. But it's fiction too, even if it follows a similar line to reality, and Shoto, Izuku and Uraraka have been mostly related to these villains, so it makes me extremely curious how will Horikoshi handle that topic.

Ah, villains. I don't like the heroes vs. villains perception but I understand why it's portrayed like that. It just seems more like... villains vs heroism, in a sense. This influences on why I think that the idea of "the villains lost more than the heroes" doesn't make sense— because even if the heroes lose less than villains if it comes to numbers, it is not about who dies or who doesn't— it's about the concept of heroism destroying itself, slowly. At least, from my perspective.

Villains are mostly acting out of the result of what happened before, so it seems weird, right? Like Shigaraki, who has a warped vision of the world because of what happened to him— mostly blaming it on heroism (civilians, too, but heroism is the main problem for him), and while I think that it makes sense in some parts, I don't share his mentality at 100%.

Following that, people actually have a tendency to moralize characters, which makes us end on moral disengagement because... well, by justifying a bad action. It seems to me that we usually loose our moral standards when watching this type of shows so we can enjoy them, but morality makes others accept us, so we may twist the narrative a little.

I think empathy plays a huge part on this. If we show empathy to someone else— especially by identifying with their possible feelings or suffering, we're prone to defend things against them, even when they are in the wrong. In a sense, an attack to that person or character is an attack to our own individuality since there's a part of ourselves in them even if we would never do the same things they did, because we already empathize with that character. Not everyone is like that— some are unable to do this, but I greatly doubt it's a high number because of how much I've seen people justify other's actions in the past, both online, real life and major events that occurred before I was born, hmm.

By this perception of abuse being worse than murder, fans probably tend to fall in comparisons when it comes to LOV's current actions and Endeavor's past actions, actually. And abuse feels more personal than murder.

I personally think that it's okay to enjoy anything in fiction, but we should be more aware of why do we enjoy it and how it's affecting us, because that can make us better—. It is not okay to justify certain things.

Oh, I think Horikoshi only wanted to give us a realistic take on villains, making them seem more human. Also, we can understand better the pain of others like that, even if their actions aren't justifiable. The problem with those narratives is that... with fame, misunderstandings arises. And if something is implicit or too complex, it gets difficult to understand.

Aaah, I don't study psychology completely, I just... entered college xD I tend to say that I'm a Psych major, but not officially? I really like it, so I guess it's about how much I investigate about it and reflect on related topics.

I have no clue how he’s going to handle Dabi and Shigaraki. I know many of the fandom has said they would be disappointed if they ended up jailed for life or died but like, BNHA has already set up it’s precedent with it’s villains, those who break the law are sent to prison and recieve just punishment. And both Shigaraki and Dabi have committed some of the worst crimes you can commit, I can’t see anything but life imprisonment or at least a long imprisonment for them considering what they’ve done.

Plus, it’s not just about these two anymore. They’ve created victims with their actions that also deserve to have their justice. You can’t call for Shigaraki and Dabi to receive justice and then ignore the justice for their own victims, after all.

Villains being against heroism and the hero system, or the resulting attitudes of the hero system does make more sense then being against individual heroes considering that most of the heroes have been genuine people who just want to save people. And even those who don’t still do the job to the standard that is expected of them, risking there lives to save civilians before themselves.

Though I wish the fandom would realise that too instead of lumping the heroes into heroics like they’re not equal victims of a faulty system as the villains can be.

And yeah, empathy and morality does play a huge part in how people defend characters, especially when they start to see the characters as an extension of themselves and so view any negative thing said about the character as an attack on them personally. People need to learn to distinguish between fiction and reality, and also maybe acknowledge that someone criticising a negative trait and you taking offence means you might need to reflect on yourself a little bit too.

I agree that you can enjoy anything in fiction but you should be able to criticise said things too and be careful on seperating what would be ‘acceptable’ in fiction with what would be in reality and learning not to justify harmful things.

(Oooh, do you plan on pursuing psychology or are you going to explore you options? I recommend the second one personally, gives you a chance to see where you passion lies.)

#bnha #bnha manga spoilers #thanks for the ask!!#bu-2-ny

16 notes · View notes

transrightsjimin · 4 years ago

Note

I'm asking as a confused trans and gay person regarding some of your recent posts saying aphobia doesn't exist, etc. Do you consider asexual people to be inherently LGBT even if they are cisgender and straight (heteroromantic)? I don't want to discriminate at all, I'm just confused because I see people fighting on here all the time about whether aces are part of the LGBT community or not. Do you have some insight for me as an ace nonbinary person? Thanks in advance!

no it’s fine lol dw!

i’m not sure how to explain this w/o being too extensive in what i say bc i’ve talked about this before but more in private conversations (and maybe some rants in tumblr posts) nd i tend to ramble abt it.

first of all i do not actually like the common conception that there is one way to define LGBT or the idea that everyone should fall within that category term or not, for example because the English language is colonial and rigid and does not reflect on experiences of all cultures, bc being gay or trans are not distinctly different experiences everywhere while they would be divided into different categories. so whereas i was more insistent on saying ‘you must be gay / bi / lesbian / trans to be LGBT / suffer from homophobia or transphobia’ i’ve come to realize now that this argument is rather exclusive of many gender diverse identities that do not correspond to all experiences or cultures. so i will stay away from using that argument.

however, i am speaking from my experience with online LGBT and asexual communities and have seen how the latter has tried to force itself into the other. i think a large issue with the asexual and aromantic communities is that they are partially based upon the creation of AVEN, an online forum founded by a homophobic and antisemitic man, and partially (though related to the former) by just blatantly made up statistics and history. not once have i seen a good argument or research or even personal accounts that illustrate very well why aphobia is a thing. i am asexual myself but do not want to take the lack of discrimination i faced for it as proof. there have been accounts of ‘aphobic’ discrimination that are either 1. much more a general concern with the OP facing misogyny and girls being sexualized, 2. someone making a remark based on a misconception of OP’s experiences or 3. misappropriation of terms and applying them to asexuality, e.g. ‘corrective rape’ was coined to refer to (African) lesbians who were assaulted under the presumption that it would turn them straight. asexuals have appropriated this term years ago to claim asexual people face rape on a large scale because perpetrators try to force them into liking sex. some people don’t even know the original meaning of the term because of this. i’m also not a big fan of this new interpretation of the term anyway, because legit sexual attraction is not the main reasons people commit rape; it is to seek power. this kind of mindset of asexual people being inherently vulnerable to sexual violence due to lack of feeling sexual attraction is seriously harmful; in the crime show Law and Order SVU, a suspect was let off because some main character said the suspect was asexual and this couldn’t have done it. people can be and sometimes are raped by an asexual person, because it is about taking advantage of someone and not attraction. the sole fact that so many authors of overly fetishistic fanfiction are asexual should prove this much, but instead the lack of attraction is used to distance oneself from the harm one can still cause.

and yes, asexual people can face discrimination, especially if you’re a girl you’re expected to be sexually submissive, which is pretty horrifying on its own. but this is not the same as targeted discrimination on a mass scale or institutional whatsoever. we are not thaught as we grow old that asexuals are disgusting, are a joke, or need to be violently murdered. my biggest issue with the asexual and aromantic community that we (as i have removed myself from it years ago) keep telling it that anecdontal accounts of being mildly discriminated is nowhere near the same as risking being kicked out of your house, being violently attacked due to the way you appear or having a partner of the same gender, being systematically discriminated by all sorts of institutions in society and being thaught that what you are is bad from an early age on. and then the counterargument is that LGBT is more recognized but asexual and aromantic isn’t, so ‘ace / aro’ people deserve to be included because they are underrepresented in media. but that is not the case at all. the speed at which asexuality has suddenly been incorporated and included into LGBT spaces, also offline, has been ridiculously fast. nowadays when you see a bunch of LGBT flags you see the asexual one being included a lot, sometimes in 3 different versions, while the lesbian flag is nowhere to be seen. lesbians are consistently excluded from their supposedly own community and they are not included in LGBT due to a need to change underrepresentation or lack of awareness, but because they face their own version of homophobia. the most mind-boggling thing about cis / cishet asexual and aromantic people being told that they are not oppressed, is that the response is not relief (’oh i’m glad i don’t face systematic oppression for this thing’) but anger (’how dare you not let us into your group!’). LGBT is seen as a fun party that is unnecessarily mean to anyone it gatekeeps, as if it is not actually necessary to keep out cishet people who benefit from their privilege and can use that against the rest in the group if they join.

my largest issue with the asexual community however, and i’ve touched upon this a bit before in the post, is that it victimizes itself, to such a degree where it puts itself oppositional to ‘allosexuals’. the whole idea that people who experience sexual attraction to another person are inherently privileged over abd hold power over asexual people is just not true (and the same goes for this rethoric for aromantic people). this idea is so wrong and the whole concept of the ‘allosexual’ as oppressor collapses once you consider that people who are attracted to the same gender are actually in danger and oppressed for their very attraction. not only are those who experience attraction (that isnt platonic) to other people portrayed as oppressors, but also as perverted freaks. once i decided to stop associating myself with acearo people and instead interact with LGBT people with other experiences, i realized just how much stigmatizing abd frankly, homophobic and transphobic bullshit i’ve adopted within the spaces i used to be in and that i still see gather a lot of traction (now their harmful points are also used on twitter and IRL in the public domain). the community has a huge issue where it teaches you to be puzzled and grossed out by people who want to date / kiss / have sex with other people, and this results in GSAs that now include asexuals to prohibit kissing your partner per request of asexual / aromantic members, asexual people showing up at pride with ‘can we just hug?’ signs, the common serophobic jokes (’at least we dont get hiv!!’ blergh), and for me it led to a great discomfort with kissing and sex imagery and it wasn’t until i left the community that this was in fact subtle homophobia because so much content on here is lgbt themed and to combine that with the increasing aversion to romance or sex without critically looking at that is... very toxic to say the least.

so where it’s standing right now, i don’t think including asexual or aromatic people in LGBT spaces on the basis of those identities is a good idea. one community advocates for the acceptance of sex, whereas the other is stigmatizing it and painting off those who are in fact oppressed for their transness or homosexuality, as the oppressors. it clashes and it doesn’t work. the ‘ace / aro’ community (quote unquote bc i see ‘ace’ being used a lot to imply superiority over ‘allosexuals’ like, theyre being the ace at something) has too many issues, which it is largely based on, to figure out. it can be a community on its own and i do not think you need to join LGBT to have a valid identity that has something to do with sexuality or gender and deals with a form of stigma.

it woukd be a rant, i warned you lol

#asks #anon #the asexual comm #homophobia //#transphobia //#lesbophobia //#rape mention //#serophobia //

5 notes · View notes

ladyluscinia · 2 years ago

Text

It was prompted by your post + several others with various stances about the toe scene + my general annoyance at common reads of 1x09 that are just not true (namely that Izzy wanted Edward to watch Stede die or that he deliberately put Edward in danger). But sure, I can discourse points. So in order of my train of thought on things...

First: Mutilation. So one, Lucius amputating his own finger due to infection is not really the same thing. It's not the specific harm that makes it fucked up, but the punitive aspect. And this is like, broadly across media.

Killing in fiction is to a degree metaphorical. It's drama, giving the show stakes, providing a mortal risk, how you show defeat for the themes, etc. Most fictional universes with killing accept your heroes can mow down mooks by the dozens and don't interrogate if those mooks deserved to die or what it means that your hero killed them. Doing grievous injury to someone in combat is usually "fair" because they are fighting back. Again, it's almost a metaphor - the ideological clash of your story expressed through swords or whatever. But if killing or combat harm for questionably justifiable reasons isn't primed to cross the line for viewers, then how do you? Well. Torture and / or inflicting severe or permanent harm in a non-combat scenario is pretty much the go to. Pain and suffering that is being inflicted on someone, deliberately, in a situation where it doesn't need to be. Usually that's portrayed as worse than murder, because you can have a reason to kill someone. (Here's a topic-adjacent spn post on how even a "murder and torture is ok" show says torture is bad. Ish.)

If the character in question is more complicated than a cardboard cutout, then hurting them on screen is a sympathy / empathy thing. It strips a lot of the metaphor (you can't cause a theme pain) and becomes a much more direct "should this character be hurt like this? / should this character be doing the hurting?" And while sometimes media will tell you the answer is "Yes", overall that is often a pretty fucked up answer. Especially in a narrative that is attempting to be nuanced or redemptive, because the stance "well some people just deserve to be mutilated" is inherently a very black and white absolutist stance. It's very difficult to argue a character can both deserve to be deliberately harmed as punishment and deserve to be treated as a person with the capacity for growth and betterment. Like there's a reason we generally consider "cruel and unusual punishment" to be a bad thing even for criminals / bad people.

Izzy is not the personification of evil. I don't really think "evil" people deserve to be mutilated in their sleep, either, on account of being people, but he's not a maniacal sadist rocking around killing puppies. And given that the very little focus we get on him going into the next season is bloody bandages and limping with a cane, the writers at the very least wanted to double down on this being a real injury, so fully handwaving it like Lucius's darkly comedic finger is... extremely dismissive, even if I do think the long term crippling aspect will be dropped.

(And I still think the suggestion that you are supposed to feel bad / upset for everyone in the Kraken montage including the guy commiting murder and maiming someone in their sleep, but NOT the guy getting maimed, is fucked up. And really discordant with everything around it. Like even if I thought Izzy was a character who "deserved" it or whatever, it's jarring to drop that in the middle. Just shuffling so Edward starts at the "no so bad" action and then you get an oh shit as he turns his attention to the innocents would work better. Or, you know, not maiming him and just sticking with threats of death or retaliation.)

Second: Semi-related, Izzy seeming "fine" by your measure. There's a couple things off with that. The biggest, of course, being that Izzy's general mindset of accepting harm from someone as a means of devotion is explicitly counter to the show's themes of healthy emotions, so Izzy thinking things are fine would be an indication of how fucked up Izzy is, not that there's actually no problem.

In a show about working through toxic masculinity, the guy who thinks toxic treatment is ok and desirable is not psychologically fine??? Nor is it somehow less harmful to do awful things to him because he fawns instead of hiding away and crying? Again, he's not the designated sadist out to ruin everyone's lives for kicks. He's a pretty average dude coming up under the exact same toxic culture as Edward, only he's scared to leave it while Edward is going for an olympic medal in running from his problems.

Then there's a point you do acknowledge - we honestly have not seen how Izzy is doing. There's not much content between him being harmed and the end of the season. However, I will dispute that he's "all smiles" and pleased "Blackbeard is himself again" because there is a pretty solid read that he's lying through his teeth. Izzy literally fawns. Like his fear / nerves response is getting friendly at multiple points, all the way back to becoming instantly agreeable in 1x02 once Stede had a knife to his face despite not actually being in much danger. I don't think Izzy is horrifically traumatized in the way he'd be in angst fics because this is still a dark comedy, but I don't think he's fine.

Third: Mutually toxic doesn't mean "they are both abusers." Neither Izzy nor Edward acts like they are worried about the other person lashing out at them or hurting them. That's not the dynamic. You can be toxic without being abusive. Their primary thing is a combination of toxic codependency (no boundaries) and a deterioration in communication (making it very easy to emotionally harm each other without really registering they are doing it). They can fuck each other up while being positively friendly that way.

(Like, the toe thing isn't business as usual. That's part of why it's notable. That's not a thing that has happened before or that Izzy would have expected as a response, unlike getting lashed out at briefly in anger which he shrugs off even though that's not great. Edward would also be fucking shocked if Izzy actually tried to physically harm him, though he would also hit back instantly because he fights.)

If you want examples of Edward being toxic... well he does spend his very first episode very deliberately letting Izzy think they are all going to die and he's just screwing around, while amusing himself with Izzy getting increasingly wound up. And then almost actually gets them killed because his stunt fails and he waited until the last second for kicks. That's, uh, kinda cruel on a psychological level??? Yeah?

Mostly Edward's toxic behavior is being a really shitty boss and feeling entitled to Izzy's continued devotion anyway. Their issues finally come to a head for the first time in 1x04 so Izzy actually decides he'll leave... and then Edward manipulates him into staying only to move him onto Stede's ship and ignore him for two weeks. Edward already had at least hesitations about killing Stede as soon as he proposed it, but he doesn't even attempt to tell Izzy it's not happening, presumably because that puts them right back in the situation where Izzy was fed up and leaving. You can't analyze their relationship without acknowledging the power structure and the level of control over Izzy's life that Edward has automatically. If he officially says "I'm retiring Blackbeard to be with Stede" then he relinquishes that control and frees Izzy to make his own way, so he just... doesn't even try to say it. Trapping Izzy - his employee - in a nebulous position of non-authority on a ship he hates surrounded by people who do not want anything to do with him. Forever, I guess??? Like, if Izzy hadn't pressed the matter in 1x06 was Edward ever going to bring it up?

Edward's whole problem is that retiring with Stede to do silly muppet hijinks every day and remaining Blackbeard and Izzy's boss who warrants instant terror and respect are mutually exclusive goals. He has to either choose one (not what he wants) or compromise parts of each to get the life he wants (something he's too busy ignoring to realize is an option). So he just refuses to acknowledge the conflict of interest exists at all. Izzy, meanwhile, has quite literally his entire life riding on which one Edward picks (he also doesn't realize compromise is an option), so he decides it's well within his rights to force the decision sooner rather than later.

I mean, 1x06 is justified. Edward can't just not say anything to Izzy and expect him to wait around indefinitely, and when Izzy says something Edward just refuses to choose. He says he'll kill Stede himself with both of them knowing the odds of that happening are pathetically low, so it's a stalling tactic. He's still a bit shaken at the time, but he probably lets the duel go forward with minimal protest in large part because it's a real attractive way to take the decision out of his hands. Upsetting, because he's pretty confident Izzy is going to win, but he won't have to do anything at all. And then Stede wins and the decision gets postponed indefinitely again. (It's postponed, not made, because he's still doing the same mindset about it all. If Stede had been kicked off the ship then it would have been over, but Edward doesn't treat sending Izzy away as a permanent consequence. Just another stalling tactic.)

Izzy's major toxic behavior doesn't really kick in until after he's banished, and it's the same no boundaries / no communication stuff. Edward lets him get banished but still doesn't actually explicitly choose Stede or break it off with Izzy. He's just kinda "aw shucks" about it all, which is more shitty boss behavior. So Izzy finally decides that if Edward won't choose then Izzy will choose for him. I still don't think anyone disputes that this wasn't okay, but it's in the same wheelhouse of feeling entitlement over the other person (that I suspect was borderline welcomed in the past, since this behavior reads more like an established toxic pattern running out of control). Mutually toxic, not Izzy suddenly discovering an abusive streak.

Also worth noting that in 1x10 Izzy does stop trying to choose for Edward. He doesn't approve of the choice, and he suspects it's at least a bit bullshit after the choking incident, but when Edward tells the whole deck that he's done being Blackbeard then Izzy does his thinking and finally takes his word for it (which is why he gets pissed and it becomes a shouting match when Edward tries to casually pull rank like an hour later). He effectively tells Edward "You aren't Blackbeard," but he notably doesn't tell him anything about expecting him to become Blackbeard again. He's accepted his boss is gone and I can't see any reason he would have stuck around once that sunk in. Of course, he doesn't get the chance to leave, because as soon as Izzy makes Edward aware that he's no longer viewing him as Blackbeard, Edward's control and abandonment issues rear up to rectify the situation.

Edit: Fun post from my codependency tag.

Finally: The behavior in 1x10 before the Kraken turn. No, I don't mean he's literally being Stede, but he is being completely inauthentic in a way related to his perception of Stede.

If people can acknowledge that Edward is being fake when he minimizes and hides the genuinely softer aspects of his personality, then why are they so happy to accept maximizing softness to hide more unpleasant aspects as real? Just because "singing in a silk robe" Ed is more palatable than "threatening to stab people for presuming closeness" Ed of 1x07 (kinda the whole reason he's doing it) doesn't make it authentic. Wanting softness of his own accord doesn't mean that any personality shift that increases visible softness is automatically good and healthy.

Why is he doing it? Well, Stede. Specifically that whole refusal to choose thing I was talking about earlier. Because Izzy (sort of) got what he wanted and forced the decision, and Edward picked Stede. Only Edward wasn't mentally or emotionally ready to make that choice - side-effect of pretending there would never be a decision at all - so he's handling it really badly (and on brand).

What do you do when you might have just traded your entire established life for a guy you've only known for like a month, max, and haven't actually figured out what you want from him being in your life practically, and you're prone to intense avoidance of acknowledging your issues??? Well... You overcommit and throw yourself into moving forward so you can't think about "Holy fuck what did I just do???"

Edward picked Stede over his entire piracy career and literally everyone he's ever known when he signed the Act of Grace, and basically everything he does from that point is trying to reassure himself that he's happy and that was surely the right call and "regret whomst?" "I'm being pressed into the Navy and they shaved my namesake beard and I'm totally cool with folding socks, yes." "I'm on a beach and spinning a fantasy of running off to China with just the two of us and literally leaving the past behind to be replaced wholly with you, and I'm assuming you must be equally on board with this because I've kinda already done it. For you."

By the time he is sitting on that dock he has gone in completely on his romance with Stede and the new Stede-esque honeymoon lifestyle being the sole source of happiness for the rest of his life, because he's already given up everything else. But it's worth it, right? He made the absolute best decision possible in those panicked 10 seconds or so because Stede is alive and they are going to be happy forever and everything is fine. Until Stede doesn't show and he changes the plan to rowing back to the Revenge.

First thing he does? Go be sad. This is an interim period before he has to decide what happens next. Izzy's back (picking Stede didn't lose him! <- Not what Izzy thinks is happening here) and he'll take care of things for a few days, and bring marmalade and rum, and generally just be reliably there which is nice for a guy who was just abandoned. But at some point he's got two options (Edward is bad at compromise):

First, he can backtrack. Ok, maybe Stede wasn't the end all, be all of his happiness. He's got a ship, and a crew, and Izzy, and piracy has provided most of the happiness of his life. Sure, it got kinda bleak in the end there, and if he can be happy without Stede then he might have fucked up impulsively choosing him originally, especially since he just got dumped hard, and... and...

Or, second option, he can double down. Sunk cost fallacy, babe. The things Stede brought into his life are the only things that can make him happy ever again. He literally just accepted this as a fact of his life. Of course, now that Stede's gone... no, no. He doesn't need Stede. He can do Stede things. Edward can bond with this silly crew that he doesn't really know all that well (but Stede liked them!), he can be emotionally open and available, he can ask others to make him feel better and tell him how to do this feelings thing. Izzy! Fetch Lucius!

Edward doesn't know why Stede left. He doesn't know Stede struggles with self worth or was feeling guilty. He knows Stede had a wife and was maybe in love with her this whole time. He knows he hasn't really been acting like Blackbeard much, and while he thought Stede accepted him, maybe his violent past had put him off and Stede had only liked the nice bits of him. Edward's not in any hurry to be rejected and abandoned again, by anyone, so it's a pretty straightforward decision to try and be harmless and likable and try to do fun Captain things like Stede... such as hosting a talent show.

It's inauthentic, and desperate, and a powder keg. And Izzy lights the fuze by being the one person whose opinion Edward had completely taken for granted.

And because Edward has never heard the word "moderation" in his life, he can't just backtrack the funhouse-mirror Stedeification once it stops working - he has to overcorrect toward toxic violence so hard he goes Kraken (way further than he's ever gone before).

Also a sidenote on the whole thought process that leads to singing on deck... We don't actually see most of the conversation with Lucius, but I think there's decent odds he just gave really bad advice for Edward. Lucius is kinda the far extreme of Stede's values system, specifically far enough that it doesn't really overlap with Edward much. It's like Izzy trying to give Stede advice. Like, I bet Lucius didn't even consider that Edward would give so much negative weight to casual familiarity as an indication he'd lost respect, despite the fact he only lets two people use his first name for most of the series. Lucius is good at giving Stede advice, not necessarily everyone, and that's why he's happily reporting on talent show progress with no idea that maybe he was a bit off base on this one.

Looks like the topic of the night for the Izzy Hands tag is relitigating the Navy plot vs the toe scene, so I guess I can throw out some thoughts on that.

I think these scenes are only comparable because they are both disproportionate responses to what the other person was doing at the time. They are both part of the overarching narrative of Edward and Izzy's relationship exploding (in order to make space for them to build back up a new dynamic) which is why overall there is no "true victim" between the two of them, but Edward's actions in 1x10 are still NOT a response to Izzy's actions in 1x09.

For Edward, maiming Izzy was not a justified action. First because maiming someone is generally just a cruel and uncalled for option - if he was a threat it would have made sense to kill him or send him away, and if he wasn't then don't maim him. And mainly because Edward is pretty clearly framed as in the wrong here. It is so weird to me how many people look at the Kraken sequence and go "Oh, well, murdering Lucius at the start was bad and horrifying, and marooning the crew at the end was bad and horrifying, and the Kraken is bad and horrifying overall, but that middle bit? With Izzy? That was a reasonable and justified use of force against someone who deserved it and maybe more."

What.

Edward maimed Izzy to reassert control over Izzy when he realized he wasn't ready to give that control up. It doesn't make sense as a threat response, and it wasn't even revenge because Edward stopped caring about the Navy thing as soon as he returned without Stede. He doesn't bring it up. In fact, he banters with Izzy and treats him the same as he did in the early eps. He's not mad at him for the Navy! That punch and the exchange before signing was the end of it for both of them. It's also the end of it as far as the story is concerned, because once they arrive at the school, all focus shifts to Stede and Edward's relationship beats. Them being trapped / pressed into service is solved by mugging a guy offscreen for a dinghy. Not exactly a serious threat or struggle. The toe scene is only in response to Izzy's words in the cabin, and Izzy's words did not warrant that.

Now in another show, the maiming + context would be a moral event horizon or pretty damn close to it, and Edward would be a violent monstrous character. In this show, violence has a distinctly handwavy quality and we can definitely forgive him for being out of line without having to pretend he wasn't. Also Izzy can probably get an anachronistic and instantly effective insert for his boot and not have his fighting ability crippled until it gets him killed, which does make the situation a bit better. Handwaviness can apply to injuries too (Lucius's finger).

So that's Edward in 1x10. What about Izzy in 1x09?

For Izzy, the Navy plot is an overreaction. I don't think anyone disputes this??? Like... I think it's fun that he tries to murder the mistress in the same way I think it's fun that Edward makes his breakup everyone's problem. I think the framing is a bit more serious in order to give Edward's romantic sacrifice some oomph, but it's still ridiculous to act like trying to kill Stede is a traumatic and borderline unforgivable act when Mary will settle on the same solution to her problems next episode. But no, I don't think Izzy was warranted in trying to kill Stede because Edward was upsetting him.

In fact, I think Izzy betraying Edward - not so much the murder plot specifically as just taking initiative to force Edward to choose when he was trying very hard not to (something he thought he had sidestepped in 1x06) - is a significant part of why he goes all in on Stede in an inauthentic way in 1x09 and gets so unexpectedly hurt, and why he overcorrects in 1x10. His disproportionate response here does drive the dramatic explosion of their toxic codependency just as much as Edward's does. It just isn't a literal "I hit you and you hit me back" situation.

Izzy forces Edward to choose, Edward chooses, it goes bad but Edward tries to stick to his choice, Izzy "accepts" the choice by rejecting the person Edward chose to be and threatening to leave, and Edward overcorrects to the worst possible version of the person who gets to keep Izzy.

And since this is as good a time to nitpick 1x09 reads as any... Izzy did also try to get Edward off the boat. That was a pretty significant thing that took up most of the plot of 1x08. Like I understand where you are coming from here about it being terrible to have to nearly watch Stede die, but Izzy very much did put a lot of planning into getting Edward off the boat before any of it.

People bring that up like it was Izzy's dastardly plan or that he callously dismissed that Edward would be upset by Stede's death, but, like, he knew in 1x06 that Edward wasn't thrilled and offered to take care of it. He wasn't trying to make Edward a captive audience. He was quite literally trying for the opposite and still scrambling to keep Edward entirely unharmed when it got screwed up. You can be pissed at him for trying to off Stede, but the "in front of Edward" bit was not intentional. (And acting like he put Edward in harms way is also kind of a reach, seeing as it would have been very easy in the show to, well, show that was a risk. Instead Edward being perfectly safe makes his romantic gesture more significant.)

So yeah. No abuser / victim dynamic here, but it's not because either of them "deserves" to be mistreated by the other when they are. And maybe stop morally justifying mutilation as punitive justice, because the show doesn't frame it that way and it would be kinda fucked up if it did.

#our flag means death #blackbeard ofmd #izzy hands ofmd #ofmd meta #ofmd 1x09 #ofmd 1x10 #mutual toxicity baby ~ <3 #also worth remembering that izzy has very strict expectation around boundaries and familiarity with non-edward people #so the person who initially bulldozed their way *into* this toxic dynamic was probably edward. and he still likes it in season 1 #but the kraken turn has officially blown up whatever equilibrium they had pre-stede so they're in uncharted waters now #new dynamic time. hopefully less toxic and with more talking #my meta #torture #the navy plot #ladyluscinia #why did i write so many words i'm supposed to be doing stuff???

118 notes · View notes