#but I actually think this is kind of obviously. not the core of the issue?

[pseudophan]

nora can i just ask… WHAT was he thinking? how was that lie ever going to work when they were doing everything so publicly in 2009? sure you can delete stuff but he must have known it was still out there anyway right? isn’t it pointless to be like i didn’t watch his videos when he was commenting on the interactive adventures like his life depended on it ?? he was trying to convince people he just happened to be in manchester one day with a friend and he just saw phil ???? when we all saw you counting down the days to meeting each other online like WHAT

https://x.com/pinofdnp/status/1855973085771387187?s=46

tweet link (it's one of the infamous 'we met through a mutual friend' claims)

to be fair to them both, if the phandom wasn't as unhinged as it was (is) they could've gotten away with that lie. kind of. dan and phil are hardly pr experts but this isn't really too crazy a move, like yeah the people who know the truth will always know the truth but if you tell a lie enough times then in theory new fans, and people who just never looked into it, are gonna go with your version of events and not question it. the main issue for dan and phil specifically was that their fanbase was essentially built on and around speculation about their relationship and cataloguing any and all proof of it. new fans and casuals often believed the lie at first just because like, why wouldn't they, but the second they stepped foot into the phandom they obviously discovered the not-so-hidden truth, because you didn't have to be a shipper or be looking for Phan Proof in order to come across it, all you had to do is search dan and phil on literally any website with a prominent phannie presence

to their credit they seemed to realise it wasn't gonna work pretty quickly, they abandoned the 'mutual friend' story almost immediately it feels like. then they went with the 'yeah we met online but we met up to collaborate' angle but i kind of feel like they didn't go too hard on that one, probably because they had finally started to learn that Oh My God Say Less Please Say Less Always Say Less Stop Talking Jesus Christ. like by far the most damning part of the clip in the tweet is dan insisting on being like "a lot of people seem to think-" about the actual truth like girl why would you plant that idea in the heads of those who hadn't heard it before. just say you met through a mutual friend and move on like fbsdhjfbdjksf. also at that point they kinda didn't give a fuck anymore, by the time they gave that infamous editing tips interview in 2015 they had long since abandoned trying to convince anyone they didn't meet because dan was an amazingphil fan and desperately wanted to befriend him because of it. the only part they were trying to hide at that point i would say was the whole y'know, fucking and sucking of it all

this whole reply is way too rambly and idk if it makes sense but i guess my point is IF dan and phil had a more casual core viewerbase (and also didn't give up on the lie immediately. and dan was less blatantly defensive about it) they probably could have made it work in the long run, even with the amount of evidence against it. i would go as far as to say that if not every then at least nearly every single influencer/celebrity/public figure of any kind have readily available information about them out there that most people, even fans of theirs, don't know about literally just because they wouldn't think to search for it. like how often does a Major Scandal break about some celeb and some people in the comments are like yea this has been known since 2004 everyone just stopped talking about it, lmao. not that dnp being gay for each other is a scandal but you know what i mean

basically they started telling that lie just as their popularity skyrocketed and i guess the hope was that the massive influx of new people would allow them to rewrite history, but alas...

[utilitycaster]

#reblogging for the “see: girlfailure” tag#caus I have opinions on the insular fandom memeification of characters but I don't - as this post highlights - have the words for it#but I keep those to dms caus anytime I or a friend has challenged it in a public space it gets shot down#it reeks of my troubles with the general fear of using the word woman these days and how it's girldinner this girlmath that#also what do you call as intentional character traits vs a flopped dice roll

(via @distant--shadow)

so I agree and this is interesting to me because what always frustrated me about "girlfailure" outside the more general issue of "um, coquette/bimbo/girl dinner/uwu soft divine feminine cottagecore domesticity don't you mean u want to braid her hair is actually TRUER feminism than being the surly woman who loves math and sword fights and hates sewing" and the fact that, as you said, it mostly came from bungled dice rolls and no real intent, is that the same people who call her a girlfailure insist that Imogen is the main character. And like, she kind of is! And yet - and I've said this about Imogen and Laudna in the context of their relationship but I'm going to not include that because I actually don't think that's even relevant, it's about them as individual characters as well - people want them to simultaneously be The Main Character or at least heavily in focus and also never, ever have any agency. Like, they want "capable" to mean that everyone likes you, and not that you are a person who makes hard choices for the better.

Maybe it's because I'm playing Baby's First RPG right now, but the deal with RPGs and I think(?) especially this one, is you must make every choice and it is laden with consequences (not that I as a D&D player, or, you know, a human woman, am unfamiliar with that already) but what drives me nuts about the just a silly guy! girlfailure! she chooses to be good and therefore is good narrative for Imogen, and the "stripped of choice" (another highly repeated turn of phrase) for both her and Laudna is that it's untrue and it means nothing. For all my criticism of What Doesn't Break, Laudna makes choices. I frequently dislike them and wish they had more gravity, but she does make them. She doesn't make every choice - notably, her death and Delilah's presence are huge things that happen to her without her input - but even while barely herself she frequently brushes off Delilah. You can imagine the dialogue trees and the paths she takes, to intervene or not. She decides to renew her pact; she decides to run into the desert. Imogen decides to attack the villagers with lightning to defend Laudna. She decides to leave, she decides to keep burning their rivals in the Twilight Mirror Museum, she decides to tell her mother that she won't join her, she decides not to help assassinate her mother.

Fearne has a wonderful line when she's talking with Chetney after shardgate, in which she explains that she's terrified of making bad choices. Not of being a bad person, but of making the bad choices. And that's the thing. You cannot choose to be good. You cannot choose to be bad. At least not in any general sense. You can, however, make choices that harm people or help them. You constantly must do this. You can stray, or change the type of choices you've made, but they do accumulate to a point, eventually, where it becomes harder and harder to stray. However, the premise of D&D is very much that your character hasn't become locked in, yet. Is Imogen making choices that will be better for other people? If the world rests on her shoulders, is she making better choices for the world?

This is perhaps the core theme of this campaign, dating as far back as Downfall. Aeor made their choice - many, many choices. The gods made theirs. Ludinus kept making his, over, and over. It's particularly resonant among the women of the campaign. Obviously there's Fearne, and I've covered Imogen and Laudna, but going over to the Crown Keepers, Morrigan becomes a paladin in a few short weeks - an immense choice. Fy'ra advises others on what they are going to do. And Opal is where she is now because in one moment she put the crown on her head - and in doing so, ceded further choice in the long run. The deities of both fate and free will in this world are given considerable presence in this story, and both use female pronouns.

Maybe I'm making a mountain of a molehill, but I don't think I am. I really do think people cling to "girlfailure" and act like we're just being meanie haters who don't believe Imogen is good because she can be the central character who has power to change the world and the narrative; or she can be pure and innocent of all wrongdoing. she cannot be both. No one can. And deep down I think the "girlfailure" proponents prefer a useless innocent girl to a powerful woman who sometimes makes choices or does things that hurt other people. So I don't think that one's just harmless meme-ing, and if you want to see Imogen as an exceptionally important part of this narrative I think you have to reject the girlfailure, and anyone saying "oh it's just a joke" is either unthinkingly repeating or is pushing a story where Imogen is just a MacGuffin without agency, and neither is worth, in my opinion, listening to. Someone "stripped of choice" in real life is worth our pity and deserves our assistance but they make for a pretty terrible fantasy protagonist, and it's maddening to see a woman in the center of the story and then to be attacked if you want her to be treated like a person who, as a result of being a key protagonist, holds particular power and isn't just a girlfailure.

[butchsophiewalten]

hii sorry im a new follower and i wonder whats your stance on fnaf (as a whole) bcs you mentioned it sorta negatively in the tags... if its not too invasive or anything,,

I'm not going to tell anybody what they are and aren't allowed to do with their lives, but as someone who was a diehard FNaF fan since the first game (getting into it as a pretty young kid), finding out that Scott Cawthon is a republican fundamentalist who funnels his Five Nights at Freddy's money into the pockets of politicians who can, do, and have made my actual actual life materially worse, singlehandedly killed any and all enjoyment I had of the series.

[aplpaca]

thinking about how I've seen OCD get talked about now, but haven't really seen many posts that actually explain what it is. And like, obviously people shouldn't get all their info about mental conditions from posts, but u can't deny that internet communities and stuff play a major role in people recognizing and putting names to their own experiences.

But like since the general public has like absolutely no idea of what OCD actually is (no thanks to popular media), and a lot of things I see talking about intrusive thoughts don't mention OCD (either bc they originated in OCD circles or bc intrusive thoughts aren't Exclusive to OCD or for some other reason), there should prob be more explanation put out on what OCD actually consists of.

Which is kinda hard in some ways, bc there are so many ways OCD can present in terms of what "themes" a person experiences, so someone talking about what their themes are might not ring a bell with someone who experiences different ones. But like, the core thing with OCD isn't the presence of certain themes, it's a specific pattern of spiraling thoughts and reactions.

Like. OCD is a mental condition/illness where people experience stressful, unwanted, repetitive thoughts. These are intrusive thoughts are what make up the "obsessions" part of the disorder. In response to these intrusive thoughts, a lot of people will perform certain actions or think certain things in an attempt to neutralize or disprove the threat they represent. These are the "compulsions" part of the condition.

For a more "traditional" example, someone experiencing intrusive thoughts that they might catch a communicable disease may obsessively wash their hands or google their symptoms to try to lessen the anxiety. While someone who is worried they might hurt someone (even though they very much do not want to hurt someone) may avoid being near sharp objects or may avoid the people they're afraid of hurting.

One of the issues with OCD is that performing the compulsions provides short term relief, but in the long term it only strengthens the stress caused by the intrusive thoughts, thus furthering the thought spiral and actively making it worse, to the point where, depending on your themes, you may be (almost) convinced that your intrusive thoughts represent the truth or the inevitable or something permanent.

Intrusive thought themes cam be literally anything, but some of the common ones are stuff like

Questioning your sexuality, gender, etc (what if I'm actually straight/gay/bi/trans/cis/etc?)

Being worried about losing control and hurting yourself or others physically, sexually, emotionally, basically any way (what if I want to kill someone? What if I'm a pedophile? What if I'm an abuser? What if I want to stab myself? Etc)

Fear of becoming or being sick

Worrying something bad will happen to you or people you care about

Worrying about your spiritual beliefs or lack thereof (what if I'm actually Christian? What if I'm actually atheist? What if i don't believe in the faith i ascribe to? Etc)

Worrying about relationship status (what if I don't actually love them? What if they're not "the one"? What if they're cheating? What if *I'm* cheating? Etc)

What if I'm a bad person?

Fear of losing things

Fear of things not feeling right (this is often be related to other themes via magical thinking. ex: if I don't have my things organized Just Right then something bad will happen)

Fear of unreality

Compulsions vary by theme a lot obviously, but some common ones include

Hand washing

Organizing things until they Feel Right

Checking and double checking and triple checking to make sure you did something correctly

Obsessively reviewing your memories to disprove a thoughtor make sure you don't believe something

Arguing against the thoughts in an attempt to disprove them

Testing your mental reactions to a thought or to certain kinds of content, to show yourself you don't actually believe or feel something

Obsessively googling symptoms, testimonies, things related to your thoughts

Obsessive prayer

Repeating phrases, mantras, affirmations, etc in an attempt to make thoughts go away

Avoiding things and situations that set off your intrusive thoughts

Repeatedly asking for reassurance from others ("I'm not being xyz, right?")

But yeah this obviously isn't exhaustive but, just, if this kind of thing sounds familiar, you should probably do some research on OCD, bc while intrusive thoughts can occur with other conditions, the intrusive thought-compulsion spiral is the core of OCD and isn't really a subaspect of depression/anxiety/ptsd/etc. and the treatment and management of OCD can look different from other stuff, so its a good thing to look into.

(Also it's important to keep in mind, esp if you're someone that doesn't have it, that someone's intrusive thoughts Are Not "secret desires" or "repressed urges" or anything the person even remotely wants to act on. Someone having harm-related intrusive thoughts is not at risk of actually acting on them, no matter how worried they are of doing so.)

Anyway this was a long post and I don't have a neat way to wrap it up and also I accidentally added a poll and now can't get rid of it so here's free poll. I'm running on nyquil and a small amount of straight gin (which works very well at numbing a sore throat) rn gnite

[armandyke]

Now that I've finished cycling through all the stages of grief, let's talk about That ending and why it was not only shit, but incredibly fucked up and harmful.

Spoilers below

At it's core, Umbrella Academy is a show about a group of siblings who survived (or didn't in OG Ben's case) immense trauma, and the different ways it affected each of them. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I think the reason it was so popular with so many people was because of it's portrayal of these characters who are incredibly damaged, incredibly dysfunctional, but still good. They go through hell and back several times over, but we still get to see the joy, and the love, and the happy moments. It's about hope and the fact that no matter what you've endured, there will be good moments. There will be joy. You will be loved. Season 3 ends on this message of hope. The family have been given a shot at a fresh start. Yes they still have problems to overcome and issues to work on but they're ready to start on that journey.

But then Season 4 happens, and we're told that these characters we've learned to see ourselves in for the last five years are miserable. They couldn't make it work. They were the problem. We're told that no matter how hard they try, things will always go wrong, and they will be the cause of that. We're told that the only solution for these people, who have endured trauma after trauma after trauma, is to end their lives. What kind of message is that?

I've seen this ending compared to other trainwrecks like Supernatural and GOT and while, yes, those endings were a joke, I have honestly never known another show to, in its final hour, tell its viewers that the only way out is to end it. It's dangerous and it's fucking disgusting and I have no idea how it was ever greenlit. I don't think it's overdramatic to say that I think this ending could actually hurt people. Could kill people.

And if you're reading this and you're feeling the same shitty feelings that me and so many other people felt after watching that, I need you to know that dying isn't the only option. You are not the problem. You are loved. You will be loved. There will be joy. I promise you.

[miharuhebinata]

do you mean twilight princess, in which she held a sword exactly once in a flashback and pretty much immediately dropped it in surrender? or wind waker, where she forgets how to use a sword the second she turns into princess zelda until literally the final battle 🤔? and i genuinely can't think of whatever other time you're referring to that she apparently uses a sword. spirit tracks? ok i'll give you that one, i guess, because phantom zelda is pretty badass, but other than that.........??

"ummm actually it's a good thing that zelda plays differently from link, because link has the triforce of courage so of course he fights and uses swords! meanwhile zelda has the triforce of wisdom, so obviously she's going to find more clever ways to solve her problems teehee ;)" hey did you guys know you can still be excited for the game while also acknowledging it's pretty fucking shitty of nintendo to act like zelda is incapable of picking up a sword in a mainline game.

[cryptocism]

Since I think about clones like I’m getting paid for it, I've been rotating those alternate universe "what if Bart and Thad were actually raised together" scenarios in my brain, with Thad either post-redemption-arc or pre-villainy. Because adjusting Thad's character to fit an ally role while still keeping true to his core motives and personality is so so fascinating to me.

Like I think there's an immediate first instinct to slot Thad into a "bad" twin category: ie rebellious and prickly, doesn't get along with people, mean lil shit. And obviously it's not wrong bc we're outside the realm of canon, but the reading still feels a little left of center.

Because Thad is mean and prickly in canon. In the Impulse comics he belittles Bart and Bart’s friends/family constantly in his appearances. He loves to goad, and monologue about his own superiority and intelligence. He’s very Not Nice, and he causes many problems, and he even does it on purpose.

But, I think it’s important to consider the context. From the jump Thad knows very little about anything except which team he’s on and who he’s playing for. He gets his orders from an unseen authority and he carries out his tasks because success means his team wins.

For all his self-aggrandizing talk, everything he does is in service of an end goal that doesn't actually center him. He's trying to get revenge for grievances he's never personally suffered, retribution for actions never committed against him. Everything he does is on someone else's behalf.

Thad sees in black and white, us or them. Up until the final few issues of Mercury Falling, Bart and co. are Thad's enemies, of course he's not going to be nice.

So Thad's motivation seems pretty simple: Thawne Supremacy™.

But it’s in Mercury Falling where this starts to fall apart, and the real core of his motivation gets revealed. Thad pretends to be Bart and suddenly Helen is nice to him. Bart’s friends think he’s funny. Bart’s teachers are impressed with his grades. Max ruffles his hair and gives him hugs and tells him he’s done a good job.

If he was actually an inherently mean and standoffish character, if Thad actually had significant personal stake in the Thawne VS Allen conflict, the weight of such tiny acts of kindness wouldn’t completely break him the way that it does in canon.

Thad thinks his goal is superiority and revenge and Thawne Supremacy™, but he's chasing validation. Thad doesn’t have a personal stake in the Thawne VS Allen conflict. He wouldn't get much satisfaction if he actually destroyed Bart and his family. Thad's personal victory would be the recognition after the fact: the praise and attention from the other Thawnes (a group of people he has literally never met) for his success.

He wants validation. That's basically it. And the fact that he gets it so easily from Bart's family and friends doesn't align with how he's told himself things are supposed to work.

Actually tangentially, Bart and Thad’s respective relationships to authority is so diametrically opposed and tbh kind of subversive in a superhero narrative. Where the hero is the one carving his own path without regard to social or societal rules, no fucks to give what anybody thinks of it. And the villain is a chronic people-pleaser.

Just based on Thad’s reaction to simple praise and affection from Max I really think Thad’s motivation has more to do with the response he gets than whatever the details are of any given task. He has no actual personal convictions beyond getting positive attention, and whatever he did have crumbled as soon as Bart’s friends laughed at his joke one time. Which of course leads into the core of his whole conflict at the end of Mercury Falling. He cares too much about Bart’s friends and family now, he doesn’t want to kill them, but worse than that, he’s faced with the sudden realization that he’s on the wrong side.

The Allens gave Thad everything he actually wanted and needed, but his conception of himself is inexorably tied to the Thawnes: who gave him jack shit. These two facts are in opposition to each other, and he can’t reconcile the reality of it.

Anyway all this to say, in an AU where Bart and Thad are raised together or Thad gets an actual redemption arc etc etc, I think my personal take on Thad’s personality whether it be pre-or-post-villainy would be one that is extremely socially conscious. He is much more of a people-person than Bart. Whether he's actually accurate in assessing people's feelings and how to respond to them can be hit or miss, but he wants to behave in a way that gets people to like him.

Pretending to be Bart isn’t remarked upon as, like, a difficult task for Thad. In his internal monologue he’s literally bragging to himself about how easy it is. But what’s especially notable to me is where his act differs from Bart's typical MO. Everyone notices, and lots of people comment, and presumably if Thad didn’t have the excuse of Max’s illness to “motivate” Bart to do better he would’ve been found out immediately. And those things are, specifically: paying attention in class, doing his chores, staying on task, and being helpful around the house. The one thing about Bart he chooses not to emulate is Bart’s rebelliousness.

Thad wants to prove himself, constantly, to whatever authority he respects (probably Max in this scenario) and will do whatever it takes to make that happen. In contrast to Bart, who only listens to authority when the shit they're saying actually makes sense to him. It’s excessively difficult to convince him to go against his own interests. (And I think a key part of that is Bart’s security in knowing that no matter how much he fucks up or doesn’t listen, the people he loves will always love him back.)

Thad’s got the people-pleaser in him that has to deserve whatever he’s given. It’s why he’s happiest when he’s given a clear goal or objective to complete, because it gives him an opening to prove himself.

All this to say that if we are quantifying Bart and Thad as a "good" or "bad" twin, in the eyes of every authority: Bart is the bad twin. Bart is the bad twin, Bart is the bad twin. Bart is the one who doesn’t care about school and whose grades vary wildly depending on his personal interest. He’s the one who goes off to do dangerous shit for fun and gets in trouble constantly and doesn’t do his chores and is thoroughly unconvinced by any authority figure trying to sell him bullshit. 

Thad is the one who needs to know all the rules just so he can experience the joy of following them. Relentlessly obedient. He'll put all his effort into doing all the right things that’ll endear him to whoever he wants to impress - meaning he’s the asshole who reminds the teacher about the assigned homework. Bart might be the most popular boy in school, but Thad is a pleasure to have in class.

Like Thad can (and should) still be high-strung and short-tempered and sarcastic and edgy and mean, because he is. But he can’t be doing all that without rhyme or reason. Colouring every interaction has to be that one-zero binary of ally or enemy. He needs to have somebody he’s proving himself to: a team he’s on and a team he’s against. He’s not an inherently rebellious character. He can go up against The Enemy, whoever he deems as such, but it has to be in service of a hypothetical future in which somebody eventually tells him he did a great job.

And in the interest of continuing to beat a dead horse, it connects to their respective upbringings. Thad and Bart were both raised in VR, but Bart’s experience had the side effect of basically hard-wiring him against insecurity. His world was a playground tailor-made for him, and he was never made to feel bad or insufficient about any aspect of himself. His first interaction with a real human person was Iris moving heaven and earth to save him, without him knowing her, without her knowing him, with no reasoning for the act needed beyond Being Her Grandson. Which is probably a significant factor in why Bart moves through the world with frankly atomic levels of autistic swag.

Thad’s VR upbringing installed self-consciousness in his psyche before any other personality trait. As in: he is immediately made conscious of himself and his relationship with everyone he will ever encounter. He’s told two things: he’s a clone of someone else (inherently derivative, lesser) and that he was made to be superior (a status to achieve). Which is such an instant clarifier for Thad’s everything. Where superiority is a condition that everyone either has, or does not. It’s the one-zero binary again: are they better than me or am I better than them. Being above others is mandatory, and if his superiority is ever challenged by hard evidence or god forbid nuance Thad’s brain physically cannot take it. He needs to be better, to be worse is unthinkable, and there is no other way to be.

And this status of better or worse is, crucially, not up to Thad to decide. He needs The Authority to validate him. Bart never tries to prove himself because he has nothing to prove. Thad’s entire identity hinges on the self-worth he gets from doing a Good Job.

It is such an inherent part of his motives in the Impulse comics canon, which is why it always feels a little off when he’s interpreted as a jackass indiscriminately.

Like I don't think he needs everyone to like him. But I do think he has either one person or a set of very particular people that he needs to like him. Everyone else is either in that circle or outside of it.

(Which is why Bart is such a great foil for Thad tbh. There is no set of words or behaviors that’ll change Bart’s opinion of Thad, because Bart is unaffected by obedience or charm. So ironically Bart is probably one of few people that Thad doesn’t bother to put on even a little bit of an act for.)

While Bart goes with his instincts, his personal beliefs and convictions at all times, Thad is hyper-conscious of big-picture goals. They balance each other out that way. Thad's keeping track of whatever expectations he has placed on him, and how his actions reflect on him and the team beyond short-sighted solutions. He's a team player. AND he's an asshole.

[nohoperadio]

Let's say there's an online community of people who all have Whatever Syndrome. They talk about all the difficulties and frustrations and issues etc related to Whatever Syndrome. They share advice, they vent, sometimes they just chat and enjoy talking to people who can relate to them properly. Sometimes they make fun relatable observational comedy-style memes about common Whatever Syndrome experiences.

Some of the experiences they make memes about will probably overlap to some extent with the experiences of people who are not on the WS spectrum at all. Let's stipulate (made-up, obviously meaningless numbers incoming) that 10% of the memes they make appeal to a non-WS audience in this way, but 90% are highly specific to the WS niche and won't really be appreciated by outsiders.

In this scenario, the 10% of universally relatable memes will, because they are universally relatable, likely spread far beyond the core WS community. The 90% of niche ones will not (why would they?). From the perspective of someone without WS who doesn't engage with the WS community directly, this will look like 100% of all WS memes seeming to be about things that are just universal human experiences being described as WS-specific experiences for no particular reason. This person might begin to suspect that WS is just a trendy diagnosis that arbitrarily groups completely normal personality traits as a medical issue and that the whole thing is maybe kind of fake. This person is not being unreasonable given the information they have, but for reasons that are hopefully obvious the information they have is very skewed.

On the other hand! If this sort of thing distorts the public perception of what WS is about strongly enough, some people are going to latch onto the relatable memes about it, relate to them (because they're relatable), and wonder if maybe that means they themselves might have WS. This person might do a bit of googling and discover that, in addition to all the relatable stuff they relate to, there are other symptoms that they don't really identify with as much... but then, no one really seems to talk about those things very often, you mostly see people talking about [relatable stuff] when WS comes up, so the latter must be like, the main part, right? So (they think) it can't be too important if the other stuff doesn't apply to me.

[also the whole medical establishment is nightmarishly hard to access and a lot of doctors suck and make diagnoses based on random whims and prejudices, blah blah blah you know all this, the point is that the most obvious solution to "how do I confirm whether I do or don't have a specific medical thing?" is often not reliable.]

Well now, given all of the above... stuff might get confusing huh!

Okay, okay, (you might say), that's all well and good as a toy model of things that might be underlying the discourse you're alluding to, but to what extent is this dynamic actually responsible for what's actually happening? Aha! I have no clue whatsoever, sorry. I'm just the ideas guy.

[quirkwizard]

The Villains Aren't Alright

Recently, I got an ask talking about certain misconceptions that people have about the series. As I was thinking about it, I was starting to realize that a lot of what I was listing off talked about the villains. Specifically, how many people say they are in the right. Obviously, this isn't about characters like Muscular, Overhaul, or All For One. They are meant to be more overtly villainous. I'm talking more about the more "Societal Rebels" of the manga. Characters like Stain, the MLA, and especially the League of Villains.

The MLA wants the freedom to use Quirks. That the usage of a Quirk is a basic human right. It's a nice sentiment on paper and gets close to the right idea. That people need to be more active and try and help in ways they can't. The issue comes in how far they want to go. They want unrestricted usage of all Quirks. As if that wouldn't result in everything collapsing within seconds. You need those restrictions to keep any kind of normal and societal cohesion. Even if it's just fighting villains, using your Quirks without any proper training is dangerous and stupid. You need people like the heroes, those who are trained to actually use their powers and handle villains to help out. Not only that, but it's an ideology that is breeding ground for more dangerous ideas. Stuff like Geten's ideas of people with strong Quirks standing at the top or Re-Destro's ideas about how your Quirk determines who you are as a person. That's the kind of thing you get when you define everything by Quirks.

Stain is another example. Again, you can understand where he's coming from. That some people shouldn't be pro-heroes and that the system is corrupt. This is still a flawed mindset, though. And it's not just because he's killing and mutilating people to do it. It's the Stain's ideology is so dogmatic to the point only two people can be heroes. Not only is that woefully impractical, but it ignores so much of the nuance of people. Like how people need money to support and incentivize people to be heroes. That doing that hero work still helps people regardless of the motivation. It ignores good and talented heroes, such as the original Ingeiunm being one of the nicest and most competent heroes we've seen, or people's ability to change, like how Mount Lady grew out of her shallow mindset into a proper hero. So I don't think the story says Stain is right in what he does. If anything, it's meant to show the darker aspects of All Might's mythologizing. To set such impossible standards that no one could meet them.

Then there are the League of Villains. Look, these villains have suffered, and they have a right to be upset. There's no denying that. But that doesn't necessarily make them right. It's not just about action, of which there are plenty you could point to that cements them as villains, but motivation. Let's start with some of the easy ones. Namely, Mr. Compress, Twice, and Spinner. Mr. Compress says he wants to fight against the corrupt system like his ancestor, but neither his actions nor his words reflect that. His joining the league seems more of an excuse to show off his skill and power. Twice is only motivated to help the League out of a sense of acceptance, but that's it. It's hard to say he's motivated by any kind lofty goal as much as he is a guy who is in a constant state of being screwed over or taken advantage of by everyone. Spinner wants to follow Stain's ideology, but that falls to the side in favor of following Tomura. Even in the face of something like the mutant crisis, he couldn't care less about any of it. He's less a rebel and more radicalized bandwagoner who lost sight of what he was fighting for.

The real big ones that people talk about are Tomura, Toga, and Dabi. Tomura wants to dismantle the society that neglected him, but his core motivation and goal is to just destroy everything. He hates everything, ergo, he is going to destroy it. There is no other goal or plan than that. Toga wants to be able to be herself, but that involves killing and drinking whomever she wishes. She could not care less about the people she hurts as long as she gets her fix. Dabi wants to expose Endeavor because of the neglect he endured, but only wants to do it to make Enji suffer. He's not looking for any real justice and will hurt anyone to get his satisfaction, including people who were just as many victims as him, like Shoto. The point I'm trying to make is that the villains aren't rebels trying to fight against an unjust world. The most you can say about the League is that they're lashing out at whatever hurts them and will not stop until they get some satisfaction. They are right in the sense society has an issue, but that doesn't make them justified because what they do doesn't solve anything.

Because at the end of the day, what is there to be gained from hurting these random people? Nothing. It doesn't help anything, not even the League itself, at least with how the League is doing it. Tearing everything down helped in the long run, but that was never the goal. Which I feel like is a bit of a trend with the villains: people who have understandable ideas, but their extremism and warped perspective of it ends up not doing more harm. What I'm saying is that it's important to separate the motivation from the action. While the villains can and should be understood and empathized with, their actions still cement them as in the wrong. It was tragic what happened to them, it shouldn't happen again, and society should change to help people like them before things go wrong. But that responsibility lies with the heroes, who need to reach out and try to change things, and that doesn't make the villains right or justify their actions. Because that isn't what the villains are after. They are people out here for their own goals and motivations. Understandable yet destructive goals that do not improve anything. That's what makes them villains.

[ossidae-passeridae]

4. What’s the worst part of fanon? 😈

Question from here

That'd be the implicit racism thanks for asking!

A non snappy response, aka to explain what I mean by that:

A lot of fanon tropes implicitly reinforce a very white, America-centric POV, and in a universe like the GFFA which lies somewhere between heavily Asian-inspired and gloriously multicultural, that really rubs me the wrong way. (To clarify upfront: it is not racist or whatever to enjoy these tropes or to write them, but it worries me when people don't even seem to realise it)

An obvious, innocuous-seeming example is the tendency to use 'Ben' instead of Obi-Wan's actual name in AUs — especially when others' names (Anakin, Mace, Cody, etc) aren't changed as well. The biggest difference between those names and Obi-Wan's is that Obi-Wan's is obviously Asian inspired, and theirs aren't. It's not something I expect most people even think about! But it always leaves a sinking feeling in my chest.

(Obviously if, like in canon, Obi-Wan is using Ben as a pseudonym while in hiding that's a very different kettle of fish.)

A larger example is how incredibly common it is to cast the Jedi as space-Christians — some common examples being focus on tenets (the Jedi Code, which is a meditation mantra, not a rulebook), the pervasive Catholic Guilt which is very explicitly Christian in nature, the emphasis on worship as ritual rather than a state to work towards, the generalised "all organised religion must be Bad" sentiments that feel very specifically ex-Christian in nature.

Thinking about one's own religion and expressing thoughts through fiction/art isn't an issue in and of itself.

The thing is, the Jedi are explicitly based on Asian Buddhists. Not just in set dressing, but from the ground up, from their beliefs and the way they act, to their clothing to the structure of their temple — to strip that away is to remove what makes the Jedi the Jedi. It's to remove the Asian-ness and replace it with something predominantly white. It implies that Asian influence shouldn't or can't exist in the GFFA, or that there's something inferior or wrong about Buddhism that needs to be "fixed".

Again this isn't something where I think that fan authors are sitting there going "muhahaha I'm going to be RACIST today", I know that's not what's happening. But when so much Jedi-centric content being produced minimises the Asian influence and pushes a western one, it starts to say "there's something wrong with this group, we're trying to erase it because there shouldn't be representation at all" — an issue of scale, at its core.

(Then ofc there's all the "the Jedi steal babies" and "the Jedi ban emotions" and "the Jedi need to be destroyed" which, entirely separate from the above, if you replace 'Jedi' with 'Buddhists' I'm kind of starting to wonder why you hate Asian people/Asian religions, you know?)

I won't even get into the fanon surrounding the clones, because that'd require me to talk about KT far more than I'd like to on any day, but especially today 🤣

(All opinions expressed above are solely those of pass e. ridae and do not express the views or opinions of any affiliates or associates, passerine or otherwise)

[blueskittlesart]

I've heard that while most people really really love BotW and TotK, some people hate those two for going open-world, and some people hate TotK specifically for something about the story. As the resident Zelda expert I know of, what do you think of those takes?

"something about the story" is a bit too vague for me to answer--if you look at my totk liveblog tag from back when the game was newly released or my general zelda analysis tag you may be able to find some of my in-depth thoughts about the story of totk, but in general i liked it.

the open world thing though is something i can and will talk about for hours. (I am obsessed with loz and game design and this is an essay now <3) breath of the wild is a game that was so well-received that a lot of the criticism from older fans who were expecting something closer to the classic zelda formula was just kind of immediately drowned out and ignored, and while i don't think it's a valid criticism to suggest that botw strayed too far from its origins in going open-world, i am more than willing to look into those criticisms, why they exist, and why i think going open-world was ultimately the best decision botw devs could have made. (totk is a slightly different story, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.)

Loz is a franchise with a ton of history and a ton of really, REALLY dedicated fans. it's probably second only to mario in terms of recognizability and impact in nintendo's catalog. To us younger fans, the older games can sometimes seem, like, prehistoric when compared to what we're used to nowadays, but it's important to remember just how YOUNG the gaming industry is and how rapidly it's changed and grown. the first zelda game was released in 1986, which was 31 years before botw came out in 2017. What this means for nintendo and its developers is that they have to walk a very fine line between catering to older fans in their 30s and 40s now who would have been in nintendo's prime demographic when the first few games in the franchise were coming out AND making a game that's engaging to their MODERN target demographic and that age group's expectations for what a gaming experience should look like.

LOZ is in kind of a tough spot when it comes to modernizing, because a lot of its core gameplay elements are very much staples of early RPGs, and a lot of those gameplay elements have been phased out of modern RPGs for one reason or another. gathering collectibles, fighting one's way through multilevel, mapless dungeons, and especially classic zelda's relative lack of guidance through the story are all things that date games and which modern audiences tend to get frustrated with. for the last few releases before botw, the devs had kind of been playing with this -- skyward sword in particular is what i consider their big experiment and what (i think) became the driving force behind a lot of what happened with botw. Skyward sword attempted to solve the issues I listed by, basically, making the map small and the story much, much more blatantly linear. Skyward sword feels much more like other modern rpgs to me than most zelda games in terms of its playstyle, because the game is constantly pushing you to do specific things. this is a common storytelling style in modern RPGs--obviously, the player usually needs to take specific actions in order to progress the story, and so when there's downtime between story sections the supporting characters push the player towards the next goal. but this actually isn't what loz games usually do. in the standard loz formula, you as the player are generally directly given at most 4 objectives. these objectives will (roughly) be as follows: 1. go through some dungeons and defeat their bosses, 2. claim the master sword, 3. go through another set of dungeons and defeat their bosses, 4. defeat the final boss of the game. (not necessarily in that order, although that order is the standard formula.) the ONLY time the player will be expressly pushed by supporting characters towards a certain action (excluding guide characters) is when the game is first presenting them with those objectives. in-between dungeons and other gameplay segments, there's no sense of urgency, no one pushing you onto the next task. this method of storytelling encourages players to take their time and explore the world they're in, which in turn helps them find the collectibles and puzzles traditionally hidden around the map that will make it easier for them to continue on. Skyward sword, as previously mentioned, experimented with breaking this formula a bit--its overworld was small and unlocked sequentially, so you couldn't explore it fully without progressing the narrative, and it gave players a "home base" to return to in skyloft which housed many of the puzzles and collectibles rather than scattering them throughout the overworld. This method worked... to an extent, but it also meant that skyward sword felt drastically different in its storytelling and how its narrative was presented to the player than its predecessors. this isn't necessarily a BAD thing, but i am of the opinion that one of zelda's strongest elements has always been the level of immersion and relatability its stories have, and the constant push to continue the narrative has the potential to pull players out of your story a bit, making skyward sword slightly less engaging to the viewer than other games in the franchise. (to address the elephant in the room, there were also obviously some other major issues with the design of sksw that messed with player immersion, but imo even if the control scheme had been perfect on the first try, the hyperlinear method would STILL have been less engaging to a player than the standard exploration-based zeldas.)

So when people say that botw was the first open-world zelda, I'm not actually sure how true I personally believe that is. I think a lot of the initial hype surrounding botw's open map were tainted by what came before it--compared to the truly linear, intensely restricted map of skyward sword, botw's map feels INSANE. but strictly speaking, botw actually sticks pretty closely to the standard zelda gameplay experience, at least as far as the overworld map is concerned. from the beginning, one of the draws of loz is that there's a large, populated map that you as the player can explore (relatively) freely. it was UNUSUAL for the player to not have access to almost the entire map either immediately or very quickly after beginning a new zelda game. (the size and population of these maps was restricted by software and storage capabilities in earlier games, but pretty muhc every zelda game has what would have been considered a large & well populated map at the time of its release.) what truly made botw different was two things; the first being the sheer SIZE of the map and the second being the lack of dungeons and collectibles in a traditional sense. Everything that needs to be said about the size of the map already has been said: it's huge and it's crazy and it's executed PERFECTLY and it's never been done before and every game since has been trying to replicate it. nothing much else to say there. but I do want to talk about the percieved difference in gameplay as it relates to the open-world collectibles and dungeons, because, again, i don't think it's actually as big of a difference as people seem to think it is.

Once again, let's look at the classic formula. I'm going to start with the collectibles and lead into the dungeons. The main classic collectible that's a staple of every zelda game pre-botw is the heart piece. This is a quarter of a heart that will usually be sitting out somewhere in the open world or in a dungeon, and will require the player to either solve a puzzle or perform a specific action to get. botw is the first game to not include heart pieces... TECHNICALLY. but in practice, they're still there, just renamed. they're spirit orbs now, and rather than being hidden in puzzles within the overworld (with no explanation as to how or why they ended up there, mind you) they're hidden within shrines, and they're given a clear purpose for existing throughout hyrule and for requiring puzzle-solving skills to access. Functionally, these two items are exactly the same--it's an object that gives you an extra heart container once you collect four of them. no major difference beyond a reskin and renaming to make the object make sense within the greater world instead of just having a little ❤️ floating randomly in the middle of their otherwise hyperrealistic scenery. the heart piece vs spirit orb i think is a good microcosm of the "it's too different" criticisms of botw as a whole--is it ACTUALLY that different, or is it just repackaged in a way that doesn't make it immediately obvious what you're looking at anymore? I think it's worth noting that botw gives a narrative reason for that visual/linguistic disconnect from other games, too--it's set at minimum TEN THOUSAND YEARS after any other given game. while we don't have any concrete information about how much time passes between new-incarnation games, it's safe to assume that botw is significantly further removed from other incarnations of hyrule/link/zelda/etc than any other game on the timeline. It's not at all inconceivable within the context of the game that heart pieces may have changed form or come to be known by a different name. most of the changes between botw and other games can be reasoned away this way, because most of them have SOME obvious origins in a previous game mechanic, it's just been updated for botw's specific setting and narrative.

The dungeons ARE an actual departure from the classic formula, i will grant you. the usual way a zelda dungeon works is that link enters the dungeon, solves a few puzzles, fights a mini boss at about the halfway point, and after defeating the mini boss he gets a dungeon item which makes the second half of the dungeon accessible. He then uses that item in the dungeon's final boss fight, which is specifically engineered with that item in mind as the catalyst to win it. Botw's dungeons are the divine beasts. we've removed the presence of mini-bosses entirely, because the 'dungeon items' aren't something link needs to get within the dungeon itself--he alredy has them. they're the sheikah slate runes: magnesis, cryonis, stasis, and remote bombs. Each of the divine beast blight battles is actually built around using one of these runes to win it--cryonis to break waterblight's ice projectiles, magnesis to strike down thunderblight with its own lightning rods, remote bombs to take out fireblight's shield. (i ASSUME there's some way to use stasis effectively against windblight, mostly because it's obvious to me that that's how all the other fights were designed, but in practice it's the best strategy for that fight is to just slow down time via aerial archery, so i've never tried to win that way lol.) So even though we've removed traditional dungeon items and mini-boss fights, the bones of the franchise remain unchanged underneath. this is what makes botw such an ingenious move for this franchise imo; the fact that it manages to update itself into such a beautiful, engaging, MODERN game while still retaining the underlying structure that defines its franchise and the games that came before it. botw is an effective modern installment to this 30-year-old franchise because it takes what made the old games great and updates it in a way that still stays true to the core of the franchise.

I did mention totk in my opening paragraph and you mention it in your ask so i have to come back to it somehow. Do i think that totk did the gigantic-open-world thing as well as botw did? no. But i also don't really think there was any other direction to go with that game specifically. botw literally changed the landscape of game development when it was released. I KNOW you all remember how for a good year or two after botw's release, EVERY SINGLE GAME that came out HAD to have a massive open-world map, regardless of whether or not that actually made sense for that game. (pokemon is still suffering from the effects of that botw-driven open world craze to this day. rip scarlet/violet your gameplay was SUCH dogshit) I'm not sure to what degree nintendo and the botw devs anticipated that success, (I remember the open world and the versatility in terms of problem-solving being the two main advertising angles pre-release, but it's been 7 years. oh jesus christ it's been SEVEN YEARS. anyways) but in any case, there's basically NO WAY that they anticipated their specific gameplay style taking off to that degree. That's not something you can predict. When creating totk, they were once again walking that line between old and new, but because they were only 3ish years out from botw when totk went into development, they were REALLY under pressure to stay true to what it was that had made botw such an insane success. I think that's probably what led to the expanded map in the sky and depths as well as the fuse/build mechanics--they basically took their two big draws from botw, big map and versatility, and said ok BIGGER MAP and MORE VERSATILITY. Was this effective? yeah. do i think they maybe could have made a more engaging and well-rounded game if they'd been willing to diverge a little more from botw? also yeah. I won't say that I wanted totk to be skyward sword-style linear, because literally no one wanted that, but I do think that because of the insane wave of success that botw's huge open world brought in the developers were under pressure to stay very true to botw in their designing the gameplay of totk, and I think that both the gameplay and story might have been a bit more engaging if they had been allowed to experiment a little more in their delivery of the material.

[average-mako-enjoyer]

I need your Kaidan opinions for the fave character game. Pwease. 😻

From the character ask game.

Oh God, I will have to change my pants by the time I'm done.

Favorite thing about them

Everything??? He's such a complex dude, and all of his complexity is shown so subtly in a way that also reflects him as a character. I love it.

But most of all, his emotional maturity, his intelligence, his self-esteem, and honestly, how incredibly badass he is.

He doesn't use Shepard as a therapist, as a fixer for his problems, as a pillar of strength to lean on. Instead, he always comes into this relationship (platonic or romantic) as an equal, and it's so refreshing to see.

Every other squadmate needs something from Shepard, and with Kaidan it's the other way around. It's Shepard who needs Kaidan, a person who will remind them that what military propaganda usually pushes as "the hardest choices a soldier can make" are actually the laziest choices.

Kaidan knows that killing is easy. Destroying is easy. But showing restraint, showing compassion, trusting someone, doing the right thing, that's hard.

Also, Kaidan is literally the only squadmate who consistently tells Shepard that they can step aside, that they don't have to do everything alone, that they have their team for a reason, and oh god, thank you Kaidan, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Least favorite thing about them

My god, he's stubborn.

And yes, Shepard needs someone like that in their close circle, but oh Kaidan, my man, my dude, my wonderful human being, you have to learn to relax, to let things go sometimes.

I think the main thing about him is that he's actually so passionate, he feels deeply, and friendship and love are so important to him, but he has trust issues, and he has standards, and he's very intelligent, and all of that runs over this deep well of emotions that he carries around.

He wants to love with abandon, but he can't. He wants to do the right thing all the time, but it's impossible. He has to learn how to compromise, how to live in the gray area.

Honestly, there are so many parallels between his and you-know-who's ark, no wonder all his fans feel so strongly about Kaidan.

Favorite line

So, so many.

"I think we're gonna need a bigger boot, Commander."

"I could shoot someone if it would make you feel better."

"Mike Hazer? Hazer the Laser? Almost didn't recognize you. ... You owe me money."

"Looking back, I have a few regrets, but not many. That's pretty damn amazing, right? Messed up kid that I was, never would have dreamed of the life I've had."

"You'll never find out."

I love his sarcastic ass. And I love all the glimpses into that deep well that is his heart. He's so good.

brOTP

Joker! Oh my God, that first dialog between them is fucking amazing. I feel like Joker is one of Kaidan's main sources of gossip (something Kaidan is interested in both professionally and recreationally), and Joker finds Kaidan's dry wit incredibly funny. They get along just fine because they enjoy teasing each other for sport, but other people probably misinterpret this as dislike. Same with him and Ash.

Also, Tali! Two nerds just talking about tech, weapon mods, all that good stuff. And he's obviously very sweet and protective of her. I really have to read about those two.

If we're talking about ME2 squadmates, his choice would obviously be Samara. I think he would've been fascinated by her story, her abilities, her lifestyle and would've hung out with her a lot. They're just very similar people in my mind, and for Kaidan, it would have been an excellent insight into the extremes of the morality he tends to lean towards.

In ME3, he probably hangs out a lot with James and Steve because he likes Steve and he can tolerate James most of the time. XD I think Kaidan and Steve have a lot in common. There's this careful quietness about them. They're both observers, they're both cautious and reserved. And I think Kaidan can see that there's kindness at the core of Steve's soul, and that's important to him.

And finally, mShenko, because whether they end up as a couple or not, they're friends first and foremost. Their romance is purely friends to lovers. Not mentor/mentee+friends to lovers, but friends to lovers. They're open and honest with each other, they care about each other deeply, they know how to tease each other without hurting anyone's feelings. They're equals.

OTP

mShenko. Oh god, it's so good. The slow burn, the maturity of it, how they don't hide behind unnecessary labels and the promises that would probably never be fulfilled. They're just there for each other despite everything, despite their time running out, and it's perfect.

Bonus points for being so obviously horny for each other.

nOTP

Kaidan/Ashley. I just think they work a lot better as friends.

Random headcanon

Kaidan doesn't really like to talk about his childhood, not because it was bad, but because he had a "rich kid's childhood", and things that were common for him throughout his life are actually quite unique and only come when you have a lot of money.

How can you casually mention your annual vacation aboard your family yacht in the company of an Earthborn orphan, a turian from Palaven, and a quarian who spent most of her life on a starship?

Also, both mShep and Kaidan enjoy being knocked around a little from time to time. So they do sparring sessions together, and this shit is _intense_.

Unpopular opinion

He does casual hookups while on shore leave like any other normal Marine. He finds a girl or a guy, fucks nasty, blows off steam, and returns to his duties.

Song i associate with them

Garbage - Control

Favorite picture of them

This one.

Thank you for this ask! I always love to talk about my man Kaidan.

[spaceorphan18]

The Lady Whistledown Papers : 1x07 Ocean's Apart (Part 2)

Welcome back, Gentle Readers, to The Lady Whistledown Papers, where I’m taking an in-depth look at Penelope Featherington and Colin Bridgerton’s character arcs and romance within the show Bridgerton!

For previous issues, follow tag : The Lady Whistledown Papers

Ocean's Apart

It just occurred to me that this scene does not take place in the normal Bridgerton drawing room. Is this Hastings House? Or another room in the Bridgerton home? I haven't paid enough attention to Daphne's story line to notice.

Anyway... Daphne makes good on her promise and has arranged a meeting between Colin and Marina. And I should note the title of the episode -- ocean's apart. It is, of course, a nod to Daphne and Simon's issues, but also to Colin and Marina. And... as I brought up in the previous post -- a nod to the Leander and Hero myth, where the two lovers are split by the ocean. Simon and Daphne, obviously, will find their way back to each other. But Colin and Marina truly are ocean's apart. They are just not meant for each other, and this scene is going to close the book on their romantic story.

Colin starts out by asking for confirmation about the pregnancy. But his wording of it is interesting -- Lady Whistledown cannot be true. Right? Right??? He's so deeply in denial, despite everyone around him telling him otherwise. There was an ounce of hope he had in the faith he had in his own love that the pregnancy was a made up lie to scorn him (them).

Marina is done with the lying. She didn't even want to be there, and is only there because Daphne requested her and she can't really say no to a duchess. She tells Colin the pregnancy is real, and Colin's whole world shifts in that moment (and a nice bit of physicality as Colin himself shifts).

He kind of stutters, asking her really - you're with child? He looks her up and down, too, as if wanting physical proof of this.

Then he says something that is very telling -- 'I do not understand, we were to be wed. You said you loved me.'

And this is where Colin's romantic nature is his undoing. First of all, marriage and love are inextricably linked. You agree to marriage than you agree that love is its basis. In a time where it really was rare, that is one of the values that is at Colin's core. And it shakes him to his very core that Marina lied to him.

Marina tells him - I hold you in the highest regard. Admitting, though, that she does not love him. And that is when Colin's heart is truly breaking. If she had been pregnant and still wanted to get married, was actually in love with him, he could continue playing the romantic hero, could continue drowning in his own love. But she's ripping the mask of the rouse now. She used him, yes manipulated him, and yes used his own love to her advantage.

He gets angry, but it's retrained but emotional. Colin isn't a lash out kind of guy, not like Simon or Anthony. But he does show his hurt visibly, and the words come pouring out as he tries to sort out the situation. He is at an utter loss that she doesn't feel the same way, he's processing all the lies, and claims she's committed a great sin - and it's funny, that yes, the sin is being with child out of wedlock and using someone to cover it up... yes, the sin is, in general, lying. But what it is the most for Colin -- what hurts him the deepest, is lying about love him back.

Colin lives for love. He feels love deeply. He wants to be loved back just as deeply. And for Marina to cast that all aside, to claim she was not there in it with him, feels like the biggest part of the betrayal.

Marina lays down a huge dose of reality though. She stands up for herself, claiming she's not going to allow herself to be shamed by either Colin or Daphne (who isn't really reading in the corner). And while they may think she's a villain, the situation just isn't black and white like that. She takes a moment for herself, when she says that no one ever led her in the right direction, and no one taught her any better - so she's been trying to do what's best for herself.

And it's important to note that Marina did like Colin as a person. She picked him because he was kind and empathetic. That she does appreciate the depth of how he loves. But in all of this, not only was she needing to look after herself and her unborn child, her heart had been utterly broken. And she just cannot with the idyllic love. She cannot with how Colin lives in the clouds with his fantasies. Her reality is a much, much darker place.

The more she talks, the more his heart breaks, and you can see him start to well up. And this is when the emotion, the betrayal, the hurt, the anger really come out. He mocks her a bit when starts saying that he should feel lucky that she chose him? And, it's interesting, as he yells at her, it gets more emotional and for a moment slightly unhinged, and then he immediately pulls himself back and recomposes himself. Another reminder that even at the height of emotion, Colin always pulls inward.

After he collects himself, he tells her, basically, that he's done with her. (It's deliciously dramatic, lol)

She doesn't really have anything else to say, either. But she's upset, too. It's an emotional confrontation. She's sad for herself and her situation. But she truly never really wanted him to be hurt by any of it either. She wasn't being malicious. She was looking out for herself. And now it's all unraveling and she's alone again.

As Colin moves to leave, he pauses and turns one more time to her to say -- the ironic thing is that if she had told him about her situation, he'd have still married her. Because he loves her that much.

And here's my thing about that....

First of all, note the present tense when he says 'that is how in love I believe myself to be'. His heart is shattered, but that love he (thinks he) feels is still very real and still very present. And it's going to take going to Greece to get over it (and even then he won't really be over it until she again firmly shuts the door on him a second time).

Colin loves love and wants love so badly that he's holding onto things that aren't good for him because the alternative is not having that love at all, and he really just doesn't know what to do with it.

The second thing is that hero complex that's coming into play -- the fact that saving her from her predicament means that he'd have self worth. He places a lot of his self worth on his ability to help others, and it's reiterated in this sentiment. If you hadn't deceived me, I would have helped you, I would have been your hero, I would have done anything and everything for you. Because Colin seems to believe that is conditional - and if he isn't helping you, isn't saving you, well then, what good is he? (ah, we will be revisiting this later...)

But here's the thing, the thing that really gets me. As romantic as this sounds? It's TERRIBLE.

If Colin had married Marina, either knowing or not knowing of the pregnancy, he would have ended up utterly miserable. His love would always be unmatched. Even if she did grow affection for him -- and who knows, maybe she would have, but I kind of doubted it. Colin is a bit smothering when in love. And he really needs a partner that not only can cope with that, but doesn't mind getting lost in that themselves.

Not only are Marina's feet a bit too firmly on the ground (she is a practical realistic, who would always burst Colin's bubble) her heart belonged to another and it got shattered. And I don't know that she'd ever really allow anyone to hurt her in that way again, so there'd always be something between them.

Their marriage would end up being incredibly cold. Marina would push him away. Colin would become resentful. And he'd probably throw himself at his kid or traveling or whatever work he could find. But would never really feel that sense of connection that he so desperately desires.

Marina only sees him for her use to him, not for who he is himself. And he may not realize it yet - but he does need someone who likes him for him, not someone who needs him.

But... (I say because I can't shut up about this scene) Colin needed to go through this. It's not a bad thing that he's dosed with reality every once in a while. It's not a bad thing that he gains the experienced of not having been loved back. It's not a bad thing that he learns the difference between infatuation and real love - because he'll be able to recognize real love for what it is when it finally presents itself.

It's all, really, a part of growing up. And Colin is, after all, a young man in that awkward stage between child and adult, where you do go through all of this stuff.

So, we end the scene with a heartbroken Colin rushing away. This is the last time they'll see each other (until Season 2), and it closes the book on the Colin side of this story. (Marina's story will go on without him now...)

But this whole experience not only gives great insight into the type of character he is, but it's going to shape his world in a fundamental way, and have effects to his stories in later seasons.

And... that's where I'm going to stop for now.

[cosmicjoke]

Well, in the wake of chapter 58 of "Saezuru", I see the usual blame game going around the fandom, some people saying the current situation is Yashiro's fault, or it's Doumeki's fault.

The thing is, this situation isn't either of their faults, as in, neither of them is fully to blame, and neither of them is completely without responsibility either. The real issue going on here is trauma and the ways in which their respective traumas are interfering with their ability to move forward.

Part of the problem with leveling blame, or most of the blame, onto a single party, is that it supposes either Yashiro or Doumeki is acting out of malicious intent, wanting to hurt the other, when that's clearly not the case for either of them, and I think a lot of the defensiveness we see in this fandom comes from either the outright insinuation made by some of malicious intent (I think you see this most with people criticizing Yashiro, accusing him of purposefully wanting to cause Doumeki harm from 4 years previous, when that couldn't be further from the truth), and then from others assuming that's what's meant by anyone who criticizes or questions either Yashiro's or Doumeki's actions.

I get particularly defensive about Yashiro because I feel like there's an awful trend in this fandom of dismissing his trauma and simply trying to put his treatment and initial rejection of Doumeki down to malice. I hate this, because it fundamentally misses the entire core of who Yashiro's character is, and ignores the fact that he pushed Doumeki away as much to protect him as to protect himself, both of which were legitimate reasons. Yashiro is the opposite of a malicious person. He's actually the most selfless and kind character in all of Saezuru, he just does a really good job of hiding it beneath a mask of apathy and indifference. But actions always speak louder than words.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have Doumeki, and any attempts to question or criticize Doumeki's actions with Yashiro is often interpreted as one making accusations of deliberate cruelty or unkindness on Doumeki's part toward Yashiro, rather than as just a questioning of the effectiveness of Doumeki's actions, or what exactly the goal is behind those actions. I think it's clear to anyone who's read this story that Doumeki isn't and never has wanted to hurt Yashiro. He obviously has a deep desire to protect him and shield him from further harm. At the same time, Doumeki definitely has a possessive streak when it comes to Yashiro specifically, and his desire to almost force Yashiro to accept him as his only love interest or sexual partner is, I think, part of what the issue between them is. He can't let go of his fear of Yashiro running away, in part, because he can't let go of his desire to stake his claim on Yashiro as only his.

Obviously, Yashiro's own issues with accepting love and seeing himself as worthy of love are also a major contributing factor to their current predicament, because he's unable to see Doumeki's perceived indifference toward him as anything other than proof of his own unlovability.

It also doesn't help that we haven't gotten a chapter from Doumeki's perspective in a long time, and it seems like we may never get another chapter from his perspective if Yoneda actually sticks to her previous statement regarding that. Right now, all anyone can do is speculate as to Doumeki's actual intentions with continuing on in his charade. Is he doing it to protect himself and his own feelings? Is he doing it because he wants to keep Yashiro from running away? The latter seems more likely to me because we seemed to get Doumeki's internal thoughts, specifically regarding this, last chapter, when who I assume was Doumeki said he was hiding his true feelings to keep (this person, i,.e. Yashiro) from running away again.

Part of my issue with Doumeki's current tactic is that it only serves to reinforce this idea in Yashiro's head that he's unlovable. I see plenty of people saying that until Yashiro can learn to love himself, or forgive himself, then he won't be able to accept Doumeki's love, and therefore, it doesn't matter if Doumeki drops the act and tells Yashiro right now that he loves him, because Yashiro isn't "ready" to accept that love.

But what exactly is the alternative?

How exactly is Yashiro meant to "learn to love" himself or "forgive" himself, when every time he sees Doumeki now, he's again and again faced with the affirmation of his own, negative beliefs about himself through Doumeki's seeming indifference toward him?

Again, I'm not blaming Doumeki. From his perspective, he probably feels he has no other choice but to act this way and treat Yashiro coldly, because he thinks if he treats Yashiro gently, Yashiro will just react in the same, traumatized manner he did last time they had gentle sex (and again, this is my issue with people blaming Yashiro and acting as if this whole situation is his fault for rejecting Doumeki to begin with. As if Yashiro chose to be traumatized). Doumeki has no way of knowing that Yashiro now wants to be treated kindly, or that Yashiro will be able to receive that kind of love now (which also isn't a guarantee). The only real clue Doumeki might have had toward that end was him finding out about Yashiro's impotence with anyone outside of himself. And maybe that's his goal, in behaving the way he is. Maybe he's hoping to force Yashiro into some sort of self-realization, or force him into treating himself better, and in doing so, force Yashiro to admit to Doumeki what he really wants.

That's been the speculation for a long, long time now.

But... the problem is, it's just not working.

We see Yashiro spiraling into a deeper and deeper despair with each, passing chapter. Like I said, it's fine to say that Yashiro needs to learn to love himself before he can receive or give love (a sentiment I don't even agree with, but that's another point for another day), but I can't see how Doumeki's current treatment of Yashiro is going to lead to him learning to love himself at all. All I see it doing right now is reinforcing all of Yashiro's worst, most negative beliefs about himself, and making the situation between him and Doumeki ever more confused and dangerous.

Again, this isn't me blaming Doumeki (I swear to god, some Doumeki fans are way too sensitive). This is just me pointing out the obviousness of Yashiro's depressed state of mind, and the apparent lack of success in Doumeki's methods to change it for the better (if indeed that's even what Doumeki is attempting to do). Again, we just don't know what Doumeki's actual intentions are. All we can see right now is the results of his actions. And to me, those results don't look good.

Maybe I'm wrong and Yashiro will become so disgusted with Doumeki's treatment of him that he'll snap and demand that Doumeki stop treating him like some sort of casual lay that he has no feelings for. But right now, I don't see Doumeki's treatment of Yashiro engendering any sorts of feelings of self-worth or a desire in Yashiro to stand up for himself.

He's spent almost 40 years of his life being abused and mistreated by others. I have a hard time envisioning him suddenly developing enough self-esteem to finally say "enough is enough" to the man he's tragically in love with.

[anistarrose]

So the thing is, if people ship characters who are explicitly not into romance (whether aromantic or otherwise), that ultimately doesn't affect me on a level beyond "annoyance" — I can blacklist tags, and blacklist or block people who don't tag it. What I have to ask myself every time I see these things, however, is this:

"Does this reflect how this person feels about romance-averse people in real life? Does this reflect how this person treats romance-averse people in real life?"

Because how someone engages with fiction doesn't have to be a reflection of how they treat real people, obviously — and in this case, I would of course hope that it isn't. But if you know anything about what being aromantic is like, in real life or on the Internet... you'll understand why I'm not optimistic.

Thinking two characters are so cute together that you reject a bunch of their characterization to make it happen is just annoying, not a crime! But the second you make the leap to telling a real human person things like:

"I don't care how much you say you're not interested, because you just won't realize that you and X would make such a cute couple,"

or:

"I don't care how much you say you're not interested, because you're clearly just in denial which the Right Person has to come along and fix,"

or:

"But — but — but not falling in love is just so tragic! I want you to be happy, not sad and lonely your whole life!"

like the rationales that apparently motivate so many people to ship? Then that has crossed the line into harming real people.

I don't actually think that shipping aromantic characters is the primary cause in the cause-effect diagram, when it comes to the correlating the shipping with "likelihood to say these terrible, invalidating, autonomy-undermining things to real people." Precisely, I don't think it's a cause to a meaningful degree when you compare with the opposite direction — I think people who say these things to real aromantics (or anyone else who just isn't interested!), because of what they think about these real people, are in turn more likely to think amatonormative things about fictional characters. I think that there exists a feedback loop to some extent, because fiction can influence people's beliefs to some degree, but it's not symmetric. Real-life amatonormativity causes mass amatonormativity in fandom spaces.

So... at this point, do you see why aromantic people in fandom get a little defensive about aro characters, and about other characters who overlap with aro experiences? You see why we get kind of pissy when people very selectively throw a very specific part of their characterization out the window? You see why we maybe don't want to associate with those people? Why it makes us so uncomfortable?

"Stop shipping romance-repulsed characters," in my opinion, is a understandable outcry from the community that I obviously sympathize with — but it nevertheless conceals the core of the issue, especially from non-aromantics who aren't living with amatonormativity shoved down their throats at all times, and therefore might not be able to read between the lines. At the core, this isn't actually a debate about the morality of shipping in fiction, despite overlap with that discourse on the surface.

The real cry for change isn't "stop shipping that character." It's "start accepting me for who I am, without trying to either undermine or mourn it at every opportunity." Because at the moment, the overlap between people who erase fictional aromanticism and real aromanticism is significant — and even where they don't overlap, you know what? Romance-averse folks just trying to live in peace can't fucking tell the difference.

[utilitycaster]

(I haven’t watched C3 in a while (the party had gotten back after being split into two after Vax got orbed) so my info is a bit dated)

I often wondered about how little info there is about Orym’s husband known to the party, how little has been asked or shared.

And I get that BH is very different from M9, BH tends to be very non-confrontational and doesn’t poke at others pasts much, but we do have another character who had a dead spouse: Yasha.

And M9 did know about Zuala because Yasha shared it and they knew little things like she likes flowers and they gave tribute to her when they could. The mural, the flowers, the remembrance and asking if Yasha would share her stories.

And I dunno, maybe I’m not remembering right, but there hasn’t been much of the same with Orym. I feel like most of what I know about Orym and his dead family comes from monologues or times when Liam sets aside a character moment to act solely. Orym doesn’t share, the party doesn’t ask and some of it feels like because a Orym has often has to defend himself against the Pro-Vanguard debates.

They had to go to Zephrah to get to know more about Orym’s dead family and a lot of that info came from NPCs!

I dunno. I haven’t seen the show in a while but I felt it when more then 50 episodes passed and still felt a difference between how gently Zuala was treated and remembered vs how Will is only brought up to prove bad guys are bad guys with only Orym trying to keep his memories in a soft place.

Hi anon,

I actually disagree with most of this! I think the fandom has a lot of issues with Orym, which I'll talk about below, but I do not think Bells Hells are dismissive of Will. I think the reason it comes up is very simple, namely, the manner of Will's death is core to the conflicts and factions within the campaign, whereas Zuala's death is obviously a huge factor in Yasha's backstory, but the Mighty Nein are not dealing with the Dolorov tribe in any capacity. Will's death, is, in fact, a symbol of the Ruby Vanguard's brutality and callousness as well as Orym's husband within the narrative; whereas Zuala is just Zuala.

I don't think Bells Hells has been particularly unfeeling towards Orym with regards to Will and Derrig's deaths when they come up, nor do I think their discussion of the Vanguard is borne of not caring. I think that the Vanguard's harm is particularly real for some party members, and until FCG's death just now it felt a little bit more distant for others. I think the conflict in-game stems from that: when you combine how viscerally real the threat of the Vanguard is to Orym and the way it's not so direct for others (and, obviously, that Imogen's mother holds a position of power within it) and also consider the characters' differences re: how they bring up (or don't bring up) difficult topics, you get some painful conversations! When I say I understand why Orym might not want to talk to the rest of Bells Hells because this is a topic of discussion, I don't think the rest of Bells Hells are bullying him or being deliberately unkind; I just think that there's a lot of misunderstanding and hurt feelings. When Will has come up as a topic of his own - and the conversations I specifically remember are with Chetney in the Heartmoor and with Fearne and FCG at Will and Derrig's graves - those party members have always been incredibly kind and supportive. It's the fact that his death is fundamentally a political one that adds a wrinkle, and that wasn't how Zuala figured into the party.

I also would add as an aside that the Mighty Nein did ultimately have a much more open arena for discussion, as witnessed by them eventually bringing up the possibility of partnering with Trent; that feels far more analogous to the discussions about the Vanguard than anything regarding Zuala, since the issue isn't ultimately "dead spouse", but "organization that is directly responsible for causing a character's life-altering trauma for the purposes of conquest and deliberately stoking unrest." I think there's a number of reasons why the Nein are able to do this, notably that the first time anyone considers it, it is very much a guarded thing; that no one but Caleb is personally impacted (whereas Imogen and Orym are placed at odds solely by their familial connections); and that it comes much, much later after the party has spent months clearly detesting Trent, so there is an increased sense of trust from Caleb.

Now, the fandom is a different story. Or rather, it's more similar than you think. The CR fandom (and probably others, but this is the one I've observed) has, since I started lurking in mid-2018 and actively participating about a year later, always had its share of people being extremely weird about grief. Some of it is shipping motivated (people who didn't like Beauyasha claiming Yasha wasn't ready and was too hung up on her dead wife; people who don't like Dorym or who resented the fact that Orym was resurrected before Laudna claiming either Orym isn't ready or, more chillingly, that he'd be happier dead). Some is not - I've mentioned before, but my favorite member of Vox Machina is Vex, and after I finished Campaign 1 I started looking for Vex content (again, this is mid-2018) and was inundated with "what if she can't braid her HAIR because she's too SAD because Vax is DEAD." Even now, I must admit, I look askance at the people claiming the throw to the Crown Keepers is good because it's a break - I don't think you need a break, unless you're extremely uncomfortable with grief or strong emotions! The first Campaign 2 episode I watched properly live (at least to the break) was episode 27 specifically because I wanted to see Beau and Caleb and Nott deal with that death now and didn't want to wait until Friday morning. I'm going to a concert this Thursday and won't be able to watch live and I can tell you what, I'm watching the back half of episode 93 Friday morning and the Crown Keepers half when I get to it, because this is what interests me, and it's fine if it's not what interests you, but someone you love is going to die one day and I have found that working through this through fiction lends a lot of meaning and catharsis. This is not, in fact, an unusual position; I highly recommend finding Liam's tweets from after Molly's death, and reading Ashly's essay about losing her partner, which she had written earlier but shared at that time as well. A core part of experiencing grief is that there is no break; there is only time.

In short, grief is complicated and unpredictable and it is indeed a part of Yasha and Orym (and no shortage of other characters) and will always influence them and be a part of them while also not serving as an end to their lives, and I think many people struggle with that. I suppose usually the response is more sympathetic within the fandom as it is towards Orym (though as discussed various fans used it to sideline Yasha's desires, to sand away Vex and Keyleth's ambitions and genuine excitment to live and grow, and don't get me started on Caleb or Vax). But it's always been a problem.

Ultimately, I think the reason Orym is treated so coldly is that, again, there's always been an issue within fandom of treating one's favorite characters as unimpeachable and any conflict with them or discussion of their flaws as a violent affront; but it does feel particularly pronounced in this campaign, particularly with regards to any obstacles (real or perceived) to Imogen or Laudna. [I could write an entire history of this campaign because it started with Laudna being The Untouchable One and only flipped to Imogen around the time of the solstice.] Hence such statements that, I truly cannot stress enough, I would rather give up internet access forever than admit to harboring such callousness within my heart as "Orym would be happier dead because his husband is dead" or "He has an obligation to recuse himself from discussions surrounding the Vanguard because he cannot be objective, a thing that is normal to expect of people with emotions and experiences and possible to achieve." (The latter really does pose a fascinating loophole. If the Vanguard just senselessly kills one or two family members from everyone's family then no one can oppose them, because it would then be biased and motivated by revenge. Life hack! It also reveals a pretty fundamental hypocrisy; if Ludinus is a Calamity survivor, maybe he should also be recusing himself! What's the math on how many people directly connected to you must be killed for your opinion to be right and good, rather than wrong and subjective?)

I think all of the above is, while, as discussed immediately above, not objective in that I'm a human being with personal experiences and emotions, fairly self-evident. I'll conclude by going into something that is within the realm of opinion, but I think is relevant to the discussion.

I personally believe the Vanguard's methods are sufficiently vile so as to cast doubt on all of their goals, but even if one doesn't, I find the idea that the Predathos should be unleashed and the gods should be killed is, ultimately, short-sighted, deeply self-centered, ahistorical within the canon (ie, unsupported by the text both in terms of canon events and, if we're counting them, appeals to emotion and authority - not terribly useful in real life, but very much the truth in a D&D actual play narrative), and a far less interesting story to boot. I think it would be devastating on a cosmic level in-world and that "oh it will sort itself out, probably" is perhaps the reddest flag one can wave in such discussions. So I do think that while Orym is acting on the basis of emotion, I also think he's right, and so the callousness is, as I've said elsewhere, a last-ditch effort by those with no capacity to construct a meaningful argument, because they think he's wrong and pointing out he's acting on the basis of emotion is their only ammunition to discredit him. At best I think the people who are arguing that the Vanguard is cruel but their cause is just have an extremely poor understanding of the setting and the specific narrative structures of this medium. Which isn't to say some of Bells Hells might not still make that choice, though Imogen telling Orym "I want you to know that that for a while it may have felt that you and I were not seeing eye to eye or maybe you felt that I, I didn't have the same goal in mind that you did. But don't worry about that anymore, all right?" in the wake of Liliana's conversation and the death of their only divinely-aligned friend feels rather indicative of their direction. But I do not think it is a choice defensible on the basis of morality; only defensible on the basis of "something a very hurt and angry and damaged person might choose to do."

People are specifically like this towards Orym because he is the mouthpiece for an opinion they don't like but ultimately cannot meaningfully argue against, and part of his justification in-world is the death of Will. While there was no shortage of people who hated Yasha, either for "die for our ship" reasons or your normal Reddit Bro misogyny, Zuala was mostly irrelevant to that discussion, hence the difference in how they're treated.