#biblical iteralism

[ultrainfinitepit]

Day 11: Immolate for my Angeltober 2024.

[saelrum]

I... Have been listening to Evangelion opening for too long

[divinekangaroo]

I think I get a little bothered by the reduction to ‘canon’ and ‘characterisation’, because if you approached it as ‘setting’, ‘theme’, ‘context’, ‘symbolism’ etc — I mean all the stuff that makes up literature that isn’t character that sort of gets swept into the simplification of ‘canon’ — I think what I look for in fanfic is transformative works that have identified a theme in the source material (or a blatant gap of a theme) and decided to explore that theme using the characters, and occasionally other non-canonical characters where it adds to the theme, and what might/might not change in characterisation when all those other aspects of setting, context, etc change. And that’s why I can love some AUs, and why others aren’t of personal interest (such as ones which set Tommy up as educated/upper class); similarly stories that for all appearances strictly honour the ‘canon’ and ‘characterisation’, but which don’t have a theme of personal interest to me don’t resonate, but a story that uses those same characters/pairings which leans hard into a theme of interest will really spark my attention.

but yeah I’m deadset against the idea of fanfic needing to be true to ‘canon’ or ‘characterisation’. And I’ve read really good OC fiction where the theme explored wouldn’t have been possible without the OC. It really comes down to, at some level, the writer understanding that stories are more than pushing the image of a character through a list of actions; cross that boundary and all that remains is whether it’s of thematic personal interest and/executed with some level of love, respect and intention.

[i3utterflyeffect]

i do wonder if i should make some sort of sona at some point. i just don't know what i'd look like

[groupalpha]

delivery for “prism?”

… what are you planning on doing with 254,456 Yeeks?

EPS: NO!

*prism brain blasts the yeek hoard*

[gethellbcnt-m]

thinking... thonking...

about giving Lilith stretch marks, but theyre colored/fashioned similarly to Ju.ri Ha.n's spider tattoo[?] and making them bat-themed

[pinayelf-archive]

on one hand immy is the oc that isn't tied to my catholic guilt/issues and is free of it, on the other hand angel immy....

[me-when-cancer]

Whas't

I'm finally making an actual ref for my iterator sona. It's taking so long and there are many shenanigans.

[simcardiac-arrested]

because you didn't tell us more about them, obviously. DRC deserves the world like each one of your ocs, no abandonment!! ever!!!

well they exist but only when i’m bored in class and have a free scrap of paper

[meanbossart]

I have another intense ask about bhaalist AU drow...

Would drow be “forced” to procreate? And how would Asatrion take that information? If Astarion is his consort, would he be jealous of concubines? Would this also contribute to his overall dissatisfaction during his time trapped at the bhaal temple? Or Would he be happy that his lover has distractions, so he can have time alone - maybe plotting his escape?

I’m overall curious about how drow and Astarion’s relationship falls apart in your AU

I don't think so! Not that I care about biblically following canon or anything like that, but there was nothing throughout the story that made me think procreation was a requirement in Bhaal's plan. If you take the scrapped ending into consideration, it seems to be more of a punishment first and foremost.

Not to say I don't believe it to be a part of the man-made gospel in some form or another. Sarevok seems fairly invested in this idea of generating bhaalspawn that are pure of blood, and this is an agenda that he subtly pushes onto DU drow throughout their years operating the temple: that said, like it often is, Bhaal is silent on the matter.

There seems to be a lot of conflict within the cult about what Bhaal wants and how he wants it, and I choose to interpret his failure to clarify as part of the Murder God's nature, as well as a fun nod at the (dys)functionality of real-life cults where you have several people claiming to have a direct connection to a god.

But back on topic, there IS the heavily implied Dark Urge To Multiply. A few instances where durge or someone around them suggests that, eventually, having children will be an irresistible biological necessity. There are a few ways to interpret this! But I can't help but notice that this theme is absent in a route where you do willingly become Bhaal's chosen - maybe its a failsafe Bhaal cooked into The Dark Urge in case his child became a weenie? To possess them with the need to spread their seed around until SOMEONE down the family tree stepped up to the role?

This definitely turns out to be the case in DU drow's redemned route, where he is plagued with bouts of breeding-related mania and depressive episodes that come and go as a result of a nest remaining empty, But I hadn't really considered this for his Bhaal-embracing self He definitely harbors an obsession with procreating in that AU - but... I'm not sure that's Bhaal's doing anymore. I think he just wants for there to: A) Be more of him around. B) Create a tangible, undeniable connection between himself and Astarion that cannot be severed.

A theme with DU drow is that he is aggressively monogamous. This remains constant in every possible iteration of him and it's a pillar of the character - he is devout to a partner until the end whether they want him or not, and so, Bhaalist DU drow would be violently opposed to the idea of being sexually involved with anyone besides Astarion. If Sceleritas or members of the temple insisted otherwise, he would balk and them push them off into a Chasm. If Bhaal demanded him do it, he would jerk off into a vial and hand it to whoever he deemed pretty enough to mix up with, and then probably kill the child as soon as it was born, anyway - because it's not right.

DU drow (again, in all iterations) almost believes there to be a magical component to true love that affects a person's life beyond just their choice in long-term partners. Just like he once decided that Orin was his forever-mate, he's now decided him and Astarion are intrinsically linked, that they are stronger together than they will ever be apart again. And It is particularly romantic to him (a matter of ironic fate, really) that the Murder Prince's true love would be undead. In DU drow's mind, and SPECIALLY in his Bhaal-embracing version, this is simply the universe's plan for him, and to divert from it in any way (by, for example, procreating with someone else) would be blasphemous.

Now, obviously him and Astarion can't have biological children for a plethora of reasons. But this is fantasy. Bhaalist DU drow would simply not stop until he found the best way to create someone that could be, spiritually and physically, considered their functional blood-offspring. Through Alchemy, magic, ritual, whatever it may be - as long as it works and works according to his high-standards. I suspect he would have specialists shipped in from wherever they may be in the realms to look into the issue, and probably someone who's sole job is to research the matter, though I'm not sure he would ever be satisfied with the results.

I think Astarion would be utterly checked out of the matter.

[astral-herald]

viktor, a messiah inverted.

arcane season 2 spoilers throughout.

I have a plethora of thoughts on Viktor's strictly season 2, act 1 arc so far and I'd like to get them down in writing before act 2 drops. without a clue about how this evolves in future acts, I'd like to unpack the ways in which arcane has painted Viktor not as a simple Christ-figure, but an inverted messianic figure in just 2 tight episodes.

important note: i'm speaking strictly in terms of literary/film analysis. as you'll see, i'm taking an archetypal angle and won't be evoking any true discussions of faith in this post. i would never want to offend anyone of any religious beliefs, and i hope the secondary source i bring in helps clarify my meaning <3

Lit scholar and professor Robert Detweiler, writing in a very old (1964) but useful article about Christ figures in American literature, defines 3 manifestations of such symbolism: the disguised biblical christ; the christ figure as "mythological archetype;" and the christ figure as a symbol. i'll be using the second definition, the archetype, which he defines as the following:

“He can be the redeemer on the supernatural level who mediates between God and man or the culture-bringer on the natural level who introduces people to a better life " (115).

*In general, when I'm talking about a Christ figure (which I'll then invert in Viktor's case), I mean a fictionalized account of Christ's experiences and teachings, in whatever way they can manifest in the corresponding literature/story.

Arcane is very heavy on archetypes, and this version of a Christ figure is the most divorced from any distinctly biblical iterations that would hinder an analysis like this one. This definition then invokes 2 main questions: who is the God, or the transcendent, in Arcane, and what is the "better life?" I argue the following: the transcendent would refer to the arcane itself, as it's the only larger than life force we have to work with at this point in the series; the "better life" is the healing Viktor is offering shimmer addicts. Culture-bringer makes Viktor into a bestower of the knowledge the he was "granted" from above (time away from Zaun, time spent enduring the Hexcore). His "descent" to the undercity represents a "mission" of spreading that knowledge and healing. All that, combined with a stunningly on the nose visual rework, he's got the full Jesus-Christ-Allegory package.

But I just don't think it's so black and white!

They've altered an otherwise one-for-one replication of traditional, overdone Christ, messianic allegories into an eerie perversion. I've broken that down into 6 main points...

An Unwilling Resurrection

As Viktor states very obliquely to Jayce, "I was supposed to die." 1x09 all but closes with Viktor telling Jayce to allow him to die by promising to destroy the Hexcore. With his time running out, Viktor resigns himself to his own death; he would even have something of a legacy, as pointed out by Heimerdinger.

But Jayce wrenches him back to life. Whereas a typical Christ figure, in Detweiler's view especially, would have this resurrection spring from a transcendent divine will, Viktor is fighting against said will. He rebukes the life that's been re-thrust upon him. So, while it may be a Christ-like resurrection on the surface, it's far from it in intent and impact.

A Concealed Crucifixion

Viktor's physical positioning is very similar to that of a figure nailed to a cross, sans the fully outstretched arms, in this full-body shot. Yet, whereas a Christ's figure's demise would most likely be displayed as a testament of that character's sacrifice, Jayce has concealed Viktor. He lets only his most trusted confidant, Mel, witness Viktor. Maybe Cait has seen him, too, based on her conversation with Jayce, but in general he's not been seen by a large audience.

The Empty Tomb

Christ's departure from the tomb after 3 days is crucial tenet of Christian belief -- Viktor leaving his cocoon/tomb is not joyous, nor is it a sign of transcendent prophecy. If the arcane is the transcendent in this case, Heimerdinger's frequent warnings about its potential for destruction do not promise anything good by its manifestation walking among the common people - a marked difference from a traditional Christ figure. The empty cavern he leaves is but an eerie revision of the stone being moved from the tomb's opening.

Blind Leading the Blind

Viktor is not on a divine-inspired mission; he's being manipulated to some degree by an entity that has invaded his psyche, taking the form of Sky. He's not piloting himself, nor is there a benevolent transcendent being guiding him toward spreading good will. Viktor is blind, not a teacher, and he leads the blind, the shimmer addicts, further into a darkness over which he has no control (yet! I'm confident he'll be regaining agency soon). Even his eyes, now without their old amber hue, point to the fact that he's not seeing nor living clearly right now.

Cultists. Not Disciples.

The blind in question are not called to love and learn from Viktor organically. Whether by implication or a plot device to expounded upon later, Viktor very frighteningly draws the shimmer addict (Huck) toward him and forces his power unto him. As far as we can tell now, the result was nothing bad, but the Sump addicts have bent their knees to him out of desperate fear, not benevolence or worship. The mercy he's extended them is inspired by the malevolent arcane, which seems hungry and commanding.

Enslavement to, Not Embodiment of, the Transcendent

While Viktor has consumed (or been consumed by?) the arcane, he still does not embody it. Despite aligning with Detweiler's "culture-bringer," Viktor can only maintain this for so long. His body is weakened by this episodic healing - he collapses after healing Huck the first time. And in the newly released poster, we can see what appears to be brown rust/rot beginning to corrupt his hand.

If Viktor truly embodied the transcendent, the arcane, it would mesh properly with his person. Instead, he's been enslaved to it. The degree to which it's currently affecting him may be up for debate, but all signs point to Viktor not being totally with us just yet.

In sum, Viktor has the superficial workings of a typical messianic symbol, but beneath the surface, the writers have made not an anti-Christ, but an upside-down version. If Viktor had malicious intent and spread what was outwardly harmful, especially inspiring that in others, then a new term may be necessary. But the tragedy involved in his story so far is that of attempted healing, attempted redemption, and attempted forgiveness all being corrupted by the transcendent arcane.

I'm very excited to see where they take his arc next. I like to think that this analysis can stand on its own, at least for now!

[chaifootsteps]

You know, for someone so obsessed with male angst and sad boys in general, I'm surprised Viv didn't make Adam sympathetic.

I guess her disdain for Christianity was too strong to see what absolute angst fodder Biblical Adam's story is:

-The first human created, put in charge of caring for all of God's creation

-Is also supposed to look after Eve, the woman he loves, who was made specifically for him, *from* him

-Despite everything, Eve gives into temptation, and breaks the only rule God had set out of them

-Not only does Eve give into temptation, but Adam does too, thus failing to be the example he was supposed to be

-The two of them are cast out of the only home they've ever known, now with knowledge they were never supposed to have (which has got to be mentally overwhelming)

-They now have to work and struggle to survive, instead of living in the paradise they were supposed to have

-His eldest son kills his younger son, thus being the first murderer

So not only does Adam fail his father and creator, but he and his wife doom all of humanity to suffer. And on top of all that, his own son becomes the world's first murderer, which is one of the worst sins a person can commit. The angst potential is huge. Having so many expectations put on you, and failing every one. Then, not only losing a child, but having your other child be the one responsible. Like how do you experience all that and not snap? There's so much potential there for a complex villain. But this is Viv we're talking about. Villains aren't allowed to be complex. We're not allowed nuance. We're not even allowed consistency. *sigh*  

Damn it, Anon...now you've got me mourning an iteration of a character that never existed, a character I never thought I'd even like.

[probablyasocialecologist]

A recent essay in The New York Review of Books argues, correctly, that Israel’s policy of assassinating enemy leaders in foreign nations has not been successful, and that the policy’s ineffectiveness should prompt Israel to reconsider. Let’s set aside for a moment that the goal of assassination has, for at least a couple of decades, functioned more as a means of stoking Israelis’ feelings of dominance in the very immediate term, rather than materially undermining resistance movements. What is rarely asked is this: by what right does Israel continue to disregard the sovereignty of other countries? Borders purport to do two things: demarcate sovereign territory and establish security. Israel has inverted this paradigm—before it can demarcate its territory, which is to say, boundaries past which its drones and fighter jets’ crossing should constitute aggression, it must have Security. Israel has no internationally recognized border with Lebanon, only an armistice line, called the “Blue Line” by the United Nations, indicated today by a thick concrete wall, heavily reinforced in the years since 2006. On Google Maps, dashed lines between Israel, and Gaza and the West Bank—the latter of which Israel calls by its biblical name, “Judea and Samaria”— reinvent these lands as contested. And they are, literally, in the sense that Israel is working to seize them, following the logic of “might makes right.” Beyond Israel’s UN demarcation lines with the Palestinian territories, collectively called the “Green Line,” are concrete walls. So, border walls without borders. And the future hope that the walls will come down once a Security Zone is once again established, after the land is emptied of its people, for the sake of Peace.  Israel is an expansionist project, and, like all such projects, prefers an ever-expanding frontier to a wall—a limit to its aspirational horizons. Israel’s settlers, enabled and armed by the state, encroach on Palestinian neighborhoods in the West Bank and drive “the Arabs” into smaller and smaller pockets of land. A growing movement within the settler state today demands the realization of Greater Israel, a nation that in its maximalist form includes the land “from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” This position is presented by Western media as a fringe view—never mind that Israel’s Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Givir, is among its proponents. The other, moderate iteration of Zionism, represented by Israeli leaders like the dovish Rabin, reserves the right for Israel to extend as far out as it needs to go, in the name of Security. These positions, and the supremacy that underlies them, are materially the same—one granted by God, the other by the State. Israel’s unsettled borders reflect not a bug, something to resolve, but a feature of the Zionist state, and the source of its self-granted—and United States-ensured—impunity. For Israel, like other occupying nations, war suspends law. Because Israel exists in a constant state of war (and is itself, as I’ve written elsewhere, a state of aggression by its very nature) it is also in a state of perpetual lawlessness in the name of amorphous ends—namely, Security—whose means can only be scrutinized once Security is established, once Peace arrives. 

19 September 2024

[bestiarium]

Who was Davy Jones? [Nautical folktales]

This is something completely different from my usual posts. The nautical folk character of Davy Jones isn’t really a mythological creature in the same way as Mesopotamian demons, Inuit spirits or medieval European monsters.

In fact, it turns out the exact origin of the name is hard to pin down. ‘Davy Jones’ Locker’ was nautical slang for the bottom of the ocean, a euphemism used in the context of sinking ships and drowned sailors (as in, he went to Davy Jones’ Locker). As far as I can tell, this term for a seaman’s grave predates any reference to Davy Jones as a separate, actual character. Sailors who died at sea were said to ‘be keeping watch with Davy Jones now’.

As for the name, it’s not entirely clear where it came from but there are some theories. ‘Davy’ might be directly derived from ‘devil’, and according to other authors it might have come from ‘Duppy’, a Caribbean term also meaning devil, though this seems to be less supported. ‘Jones’ most likely comes from Jonah, the Biblical character and later nautical slang for a sailor who brings bad luck to the ship he is on.

It's not impossible that Davy Jones was (based on) a real person but it's not likely.

So, who is Davy Jones and what does he look like?

The oldest physical description of Jones as a being comes from ‘The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle’, a mid-18th century fiction novel by Tobias Smollett. I normally don’t use fiction novels as sources, but we don’t have anything else here and Smollett’s description of the creature seems to have become the basis for iterations of Davy Jones in media, so we might as well. In the book, Davy Jones is said to be a horrible fiend presiding over the wicked spirits of the oceanic depths. He is a monster with blue smoke billowing from his nostrils, a tail and a horned head with large saucer-like eyes and three rows of teeth.

And this is the description Davy Jones was stuck with until 2006, when Disney released Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, which featured the antagonist that you thought of when you saw the title of this post. This version of Davy Jones became so cemented in our collective consciousness that it’s hard to imagine him in any other shape or form. And, to be fair, it makes sense, because it was a good movie.

(Although it’s hard to beat the first one.)

Sources:

Norton, L A., 2016, Folklore, Superstitions and the Sea, The Northern Mariner/Le Marin du Nord, 26(1), p. 21-30.

Foster, J., 1969, Varieties of Sea Lore, Western Folklore, 28(4), pp. 260-266.

Archibald, M., 1998, Sixpence for the Wind: a Knot of Nautical Folklore, Dundurn, p. 45, 143 pp.

Smollett, T., 1751, The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle, London, p.71, 372 pp., text cited via Greensdictofslang.

(image 1: Davy Jones on his locker. Illustrated by John Tenniel for issue 103 of ‘Punch, or the London Charivari’, 1892)

(image 2: a character from ‘The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle’ disguises himself as Davy Jones to scare others, illustration by George Cruikshank in ‘Illustrations of Fieldeing, Smollett and Goldsmith, in a series of forty-one plates’)

[beifong-brainrot]

What do you think of this?

https://www.tumblr.com/rifari2037/761435740681928704?source=share

Oh wow that's a lot of points. And it looks like the OP is living the cottagecore dream judging by all the cherrypicking and strawman building they're doing! Though I do think they make some good points, or at least they have the spirit. It's clear they're passionate about their ship and they want to defend it, which is understandable. I don't want this to come off as shading some random shipper, because I can respect their dedication and the gathering of references, even if they present points rather disingenuously and their use of references is incorrect.

1.

In their first point, OP calls upon the very obvious reference of La Pietà, particularly Michelangelo's statue of it, as basis of their opinion that Katara is presented as Aang's mother.

Now, Pietà is actually a term used to reference anything related to Mary mourning Jesus's death, so there are multiple statues and pieces of art depicting that biblical scene, however the most famous, and most refrenced one, is Michelangelo's statue, so much so that it had become synonymous with it.

While yes, the most obvious and straightforward interpretation of Pietà is a mother grieving her son, there are many other interpretations of it in fiction and art, due to how ancient the concept is.

One very obvious connection to be made is the similarity of Aang and Jesus. While atla is primarily based around non Christian media, the concept of a 'deity in a human body/human touched by god' suffering and dying to save humanity is hardly a novel concept. It just so happens that the Christian mythos is the most widespread iteration of this theme, with plenty of art and themes to reference.

La Pietà symbolises the death of a saviour, the destruction of a godlike deity by misguided humans. It shows us this deity's first and truest believer grieving their death.

The utilisation of a refrence to Jesus is also a nice reference to Aang's future revival, because that is also what happened to Jesus. The theme of rebirth is surprisingly prevalent in references to Pietà.

It's actually very interesting that this scene refrences Michelangelo's sculpture in particular, since one of the bigger controversies surrounding the statue at its time is how young Mary looked, much too young to be the mother of a 33 year old Jesus. Many believe that this depiction is meant to showcase Mary's purity, and some believe that this was a refrence to Dante's Divine Comedy, particularly a passage where Dante highlights not only Mary's role as Jesus' mother, but also her role as God's daughter and the spouse of the Holy Spirit (the Holy Trinity be weird like that). Presenting her as the pinnacle of human virtue.

This is an interesting angle, because (even though this concept eludes a large chunk of the fandom) Katara is young. She is a child. And she's also pretty damn virtuous. Throughout the show, Katara is compassionate, determined, hopeful, strong and a myriad of other things. She is who keeps the Gaang going in the Desert, she is the one who saves Aang, she shows compassion to the people of the Fire Nation. She represents and embodies the goodness and hope of humanity in a way many female characters can't.

If we're gonna refrence the Bible, we can compare Kataang to the Holy Spirit being so taken by Mary's virtue, to the point where an aspect of it becomes human like her, by her.

(Does this make Bumi II Jesus? Maybe)

Boiling this reference down to "momther" seems like a disservice to Katara, because Mary represents a whole lot more than just that too. Or maybe I'm just an ex Catholic from Poland which is like the seed of the Cult of Mary.Now, don't get me wrong, many of the aspects of Mary's story do have some icky undertones, but the concept of her in Christian mythos and in popculture has evolved extremely.

It's also important to note that atla isn't unique in referencing La Pietà, even for romantic couples. The statue was quite a big infulence on art, even without its symbolism, to the point where it's sometimes heralded as the start of a short time period named the High Renaissance (which sounds much more fun than it actually was. Alas, no weed in late 15th century Italy.) Many media used it as a shorthand for grief, loss and sorrow, utilising many different pairings. Yes, even romantic.

What, are we gonna say that the Batman and the Joker had a mother/son relationship now?

Pietà means 'pity' or 'compassion' in Italian and I think this perfectly sums up the essence of the theme, particularly in modern art. It is meant to invoke the viewer's compassion, our pity, our sorrow.

And the scene where Katara, a 14 year old child caught in a war, cradles the dead body of Aang, another child, who is burdened with the weight of being a godlike saviour, should evoke pity, should it not?

Also Op references that one interview where Bryke say that Kataang is like having a crush on a babysitter, which, if anyone has the link to the full interview, I'd appreciate it, because I wanna have the full context before I make a call. It could be a clumsy explanation of a trope, it could be taken out of context, etc. Op does not provide enough of the material for me to formulate a proper opinion.

2.

Op's second point is that they believe that Kataang anti's claim that Katara never had romantic feelings for Zuko and that Katara was like a sister to him. They provide the scene of Katara examining Zuko's scar as evidence of potential romantic feelings from Katara's side. As they say, it is unusual for Katara to inspect a wound so closely before proceeding to heal it. Now, I don't think Katara had any regular water with her in the catacombs, which may be an explanation.

And when we see Katara usually heal, it's because someone is dying/freshly wounded. Like you don't have to poke around in the bleeding lightning hole in Aang's back to go: huh maybe this needs medical attention. And in the cases of her using healing to reverse Jet's brainwashing there really wasn't anything to inspect.

Now as a professional burn scar haver, I can say that, especially in the first few years, a lot of doctors inspected my many scars by physical touch. This is, from my understanding (do forgive me for not remembering I was like a toddler) is to assess the damage to the skin, whether or not certain glands are working properly and regulating the skin, etc.

ButI guess next time I go to the dermatologist to have my scars examined and they inspect the burn on my hand they're actually tryna hold hands romantically. Good to know. I'm gonna get railed by so many doctors. 🥳

Another reason for Katara stalling could be because... well, she did bond with Zuko, but he still does have a history of being bad™️. Like as kind as girlie is, there probably was a bit of a "should I really use all my super special magic water on the guy who tried to kill me like a few months ago?" type of questioning there.

I believe the creators also mentioned that Katara did experiments on the spirit water and determined that it only works on people with a strong spiritual connection, so she may be pondering if the water would even work.

As for Zuko and Katara being sibling coded, I think it stems from Katara and Azula obviously being foils and the very blatant juxtaposition of the Fire Nation Royal Family and that of Katara and Sokka's.

These two families have very obvious similarities and their dynamics are often used as foils.

So it isn't a leap for people to put forth the idea that Katara embodies everything Zuko wanted Azula to be as a sister and longs to have the relationship Sokka and Katara want.

We don't see much of Katara and Zuko's interactions after they make up, but we do occasionally see her poking fun at him, not unlike she does with Sokka, but that is just an observation. The gaang banter between each other a lot. But the ending to the Last Agni Kai, where Katara literally heals the damage Azula made to Zuko also does solidify this point, at least symbolically.

3.

The Op claims that another anti Zutara take is that Zuko and Katara's elements do not mix and can't work well together, and prove it to be false by showing how well Zuko and Katara work in combat situations. And you know what? They have a point there! Zuko and Katara are very capable together and they are honestly incredibly fun to watch when they team up!

....and then OP slides their way into the false eqivalence fallacy, which is a habit they seem to pick up especially for the last 2 points.

OP brings up the 2023 film Elemental, to back up their point, however, instead of utilising the comparison of tropes, they substitute their point with simply describing the plot of the movie and making loose allusions to zutara as a ship.

When bringing up references, it's best to pick out common tropes/storylines/themes. For example, they picked out the symbolism of fire and water, which is an excellent first step. However, then they proceed to describe an event where the characters of the movie touch, creating steam, which, if they want to make this comparison, they need to connect somehow to Zutara.

I assume they wanted to imply that Zuko and Katara could also create something new by working together? However, they'd have to explain this comparison, because one of the predominant themes of Katara and Zuko's relationship is healing the old. The idea of healing Zuko's scar, the attempt at retribution for Kya, Zuko and Katara healing their relationship being symbolic of them healing the great pain the Fire Nation caused to the Water Tribe, etc.

Im not saying this comparison can't be made, I just want OP to elaborate because they just yeeted vague concepts at us and expected us to extrapolate.

Where the theme of creating something new lays more with Zuko and Aang's relationship, as Zuko describes in his coronation speech if I'm not mistaken.

I think Op could've pulled this comparison off if they'd gone more in depth, because there certainly is a proper comparison to be made. (I assume. I haven't watched Elemental. Op just presented their point poorly. They could've just lied to me I just want them to at least lie well).

4.

In the last point, OP attempts to debunk the claim that Zuko and Katara have no chemistry. And once again, I agree with them! I think Zuko and Katara have very good onscreen chemistry. Their banter is fun to watch, they work well in action scenes and their emotional scenes always hit pretty hard for me.

Whether or not this chemistry is romantic chemistry or not is left up to interpretation. Because when we talk about chemistry between characters, it can refer to things other than romance. It's, in generalisation, something that makes us care (for good or bad reasons) about a relationship between characters. For example, Katara has good chemistry with Sokka and Toph. But it isn't necessarily romantic chemistry (though I am a big Katoph truther).

Now the term chemistry has been mainly taken over by romance because we can't have nice things, so I don't blame OP for looking at this rather nebulous concept purely through the lense of romance.

Side note, I think OP mixed up IRL romantic chemistry and the different types on onscreen chemistry when pulling up a definition, but that's beside the point. But I'd perfer thek to specify exactly which type of chemistry they mean, like are we talking 'weird pickup artist chemistry' or 'these characters make me feel something chemistry'.

However, I think OP once again presents a very lacklustre example of this chemistry and utilises false equivalency to prove their point.

Instead of bringing up Zuko and Katara's actual chemistry, OP utilises a different movie as a crutch. They compare the ending of the movie Tangled, where Flynn Rider is injured and later healed by Rapunzel to the admittedly very similar scene of the last Agni Kai.

Where I can see where they're attempting to go with this, they're trying to point out romantic tropes that could be applied to Zuko and Katara's relationship, they kinda miss the mark?

They bring up a narrative, when the point is meant to be about chemistry. Where a good narrative and storyline can enhance chemistry, romantic chemistry is often more about character interactions.

As I pointed out previously, Zuko and Katara do have chemistry as characters. Whrm pointing this chemistry out, utilise the many similarities and mild differences of their ideals and personalities, point out where these differences clash and where their similarities intersect. Dissect their interactions, how they influence each other.

It may not force the reader to consider romance as much as building your argument around an established romantic couple like Flynn and Rapunzel would, but it will present your points genuinely and allow readers to slowly come around to your points instead of forcing the conclusion on them.

Going "oh pair A did this, and pair B did this too. Pair A is a romantic couple, therefore pair B is also a romantic couple" is literally comparing apples and oranges and proves very little.

I see what OP is trying to do and I appreciate the effort, and even agree with some of their points, to an extent. I would also like to know where they got a lot of these ideas about what zutara antis think because it doesn't really add up with what I have seen from this side of the fandom, but maybe I'm just not as invested as I used to be in the ship wars.

I also don't want to send any harassment towards OP, please.

From just reading their post, they seem rather young and other than the first point, their post consists purely of just pointing out tropes they enjoy and applying those tropes to a ship they like. Yes, they presented their points kinda clumsily but they were simply expressing their preferences and opinions.

Where they presented some of their points in a manner that was a bit disingenuous and leading, this is also not a crime. And I don't think they wanted to intentionally mislead people, just express their own thoughts without going too in depth with them. Which is fine too, we're all just screaming into the void here on tumblr.

As arguments for Zutara go, tqhis si probably the least egregious I've seen in a while. It's benign, just someone talking about their preferences and not being used to presebting their arguments in this form.

[skybristle]

rbs > likes

idea shamelessly stolen from @localceilingdevil because biblically accurate iterators r immensely entertaining to me. i did this once before but it sucked/was just an identical base

i should have drawn this without antialiasing im still mad i only realiized halfway thruuuuuu