#but he's intelligent and a complex character and if i see one more person simplify him to comic relief i'll scream

[gambitandrogues]

Hey friendly reminder that Jesper Fahey was supposed to be attending Ketterdam University, the same place the royal family decided to send Nikolai to (and assumed he was also attending). If I see one more person dumb Jesper down to comic relief when he was smart enough to get into the same school a prince was attending, it's on sight.

[weirdocat83]

obsessed with your tags, talk mdzs at me pls

Uh.

1) thank you, I really just put the random thoughts I have in the tags and/or accidentally steal other people’s tags

2) some thoughts about mdzs below the cut (I have a lot of thoughts about this novel) ye ask any ye shall receive. If you want to hear my thoughts on something specific plz ask :3

• My fav characters in MDZS are Wei Wuxian and Nie Huaisang. I love how WWX can be very complicated when he wants to be and has many layers and sides to him. Like, the fandom likes to simplify his character to someone self deprecating but always smiling but he is very complex. He acknowledges his faults and has only tried to do what he deemed right at the time even if he regrets what he does in hindsight. He isn’t infallible. He literally tortured a man to death (even if it felt right to do it considering said man orchestrated a massacre and tossed him into a literal pit of suffering to die in) and was a major player in a WAR. He’s probably killed more than he can count. I feel like a lot of people forget that the main cast is a bunch of war heroes that must’ve had insane kill counts. Including LWJ. It’s quite tragic that none of them really had any good authority figures to lead them seeing as the majority of them were at most 20~30ish and cultivators usually live extremely long lives (at least, that’s my assumption) anyhow, WWX is very aware of his faults, especially post-resurrection as he did kinda fuck up when he accidentally killed JZX. He acknowledges that and makes an effort to apologize and atone. That being said, his faults don’t stop him from being confident and above all likable. Yes he can be annoying but he does know how to behave himself probably better than most (unlike what many members of the fandom like to think). He knows his position well and that it is incredibly precarious (in both lives) but still manages to fit in well enough with essentially nobility that he is good competition for the best in his generation. He is a genius and a great leader and that isn’t stressed enough. Though I think one of the small details in his character that I think gets overlooked is how he “parents” A-Yuan in the burial mounds. Because for as immature as he is when he’s burying A-Yuan in the ground, he also knows that he isn’t the only one caring for A-Yuan and therefore is allowed to be silly but when they’re out at the market and A-Yuan asks for a toy he makes the mature decision to save his money (although LWJ spoils the kid immediately after). This reflects a lot on WWX because it shows he can be very mature when he needs to be but when he doesn’t need to be he’ll happily rely on others. It also reflects on his upbringing showing he knows how important money is (in contrast to the lans who are shown on various occasions to not really think about money much) Personally I love his character because he seems like a person I’d get along with if he were real (which, the incredible writing makes his seems very realistic) meanwhile my other favorite, Nie Huaisang, I love because he is misleading. Some of my favorite fictional characters are very misleading because of the masks they put up to fool people to achieve their goals. How a character will know more than they should but not let anyone know until the moment is right. NHS is someone who is easily underestimated because he seems helpless and unintelligent. And yeah, for a majority of his life he really didn’t care to further his education or really practice cultivation but later he takes this preconceived notion that everyone has of him and uses it to his advantage so nobody suspects a thing while he plans JGY’s downfall. It’s a scarily intelligent move and I think the fact that he takes pleasure in looking at art/books really adds to the fact of how intelligent he is. Most people see his art as pointless hobbies but I think it says a lot about the qualities of his character. I think a lot of people take for granted the patience it takes to make good art or the intelligence it takes to appreciate good literature. So when NHS's older brother dies under mysterious circumstances that just so happen to help the Jins? of course he catches on! He proceeds to keep his enemy close for over a decade until he finally gets his moment of revenge. Which, to me? Props, man. plus only one person even realizes what happened. WWX. 

Some things I don’t particularly like about MDZS (some people may yell at me for this and I'm sorry but this is my opinion): 

- how weird the yi city arc felt? It feels very out of place as we go on this whole journey to learn about all these people and what happened to them but after that they are pretty much no longer relevant. I only found out later that the yi city arc was initially intended to be its own story. So that might be why.

- how certain things are just *left* and never touched on again? We hear all this stuff about baoshan sanren but we never see her or really learn much about her at all. Similarly, Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji’s parents? We hear all these things about them but never learn much at all. Which is weird all things considered when you look at it. It feels like a lot of background info for not much payoff. Yes, it gives us a lot of vital information on why things played out the way they did but it doesn’t stop the feeling that there should’ve been more. Part of me appreciated it though because it gives us no more information than the characters really have. Just passing information that is common knowledge but never really looked into just like many actual people have.

- how everything ended off. So we have that whole scene at the temple and then everything just… calms down? They all go home??? It felt anticlimactic. Especially with Nie Huaisang’s character as (in the novel at least) it sets him up to be the next chief cultivator despite being just as, if not more, sneaky than Jin Guangyao. And that’s probably intentional. The chief cultivator position was likely never meant to be a position of absolute good. It’s politics. But it is a bit weird that we never really see what happens to Nie Huaisang after, post revenge and all. 

[isfjmel-phleg]

June 2024 Books

I have been tired and unmotivated most of the month, so I ended up mostly rereading random things, including a lot of pretty light stuff.

The Sylvia Game by Vivien Alcock (reread)

Weird story that may not be Great Literature but continues to be Rebekah Bait.

The Lost Years of Merlin by T. A. Barron

Although the second half of the book didn't work for me as well as the first, I did especially appreciate Emrys/Merlin's relationship with his mother and his struggle with fearing his powers.

The Star That Always Stays by Anna Rose Johnson (reread)

The family relationships of this story are its greatest charm. Believable sibling dynamics, especially. The setting and the style and the general feel of a classic children's story are lovely, and the featuring of a protagonist in the 1910s who has Ojibwe ancestry is fresh and interesting. I found this book still enjoyable the second time around.

Thematically, though, I think there could have been some more nuance. At times, it seemed to veer into dealing with serious emotional concerns like struggling with major life changes beyond one's control by advising Just Stop Being So Negative And Choose Joy--a very simplified solution to a complex concern.

A Semester in the Life of a Garbage Bag by Gordon Korman (reread)

Another one of those early Korman books that make me wonder if he was familiar with Psmith--this story features both the impersonation of a terrible Canadian poet and the desire to avoid working in an uncle's fish business as a plot-driving motivation.

Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle and Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle's Magic by Betty MacDonald (reread)

I did not grasp as a child how very, very 1950s these stories are!

Anne of Green Gables by L. M. Montgomery (reread)

I reread this one with the intention of analyzing its portrayal of emotional neglect, and that is indeed very much there, but I got a bit distracted by realizing that there's an argument for Anne's having ADHD. It would explain a lot of her behaviors. (Why didn't the recent adaptation take that route instead of the nonsense they opted for?)

Spineless by Samantha San Miguel (reread)

Heavier on the adventure than the historical fiction side of things, but good fun, with some nice characterization. There's a sequel coming out this fall that I'm planning to read.

Magic in My Shoes by Constance Savery (reread)

Very light compared to many of Savery's other books, but also very rereadable.

The Memoirs of Jack Chelwood by Constance Savery (reread)

I already talked about this here.

The Reb and the Redcoats by Constance Savery (reread)

I have nothing intelligent to say about this one, but it's always a pleasure to reread.

Daddy-Long-Legs by Jean Webster (reread)

The protagonist's engaging voice makes the letters fun to read, but this time I was deeply weirded out by the romance. She's being groomed by an older man who has financial power over her and whom she views in a parental/guardian-like role, he's pulling all the strings and controlling aspects of her life that are none of his business and keeping her dependent on him, and his in-person interactions with her can be unpleasant also. By the end, I was more worried than happy for her. I think the set-up of "correspondent turns out to be someone you've met in real life and leads to falling in love" can be done in a way that's sincerely romantic (more in the vein of The Shop Around the Corner or You've Got Mail), but this particular version of that plot has not aged well.

When Patty Went to College by Jean Webster (reread)

...so as a refresher I reread this one, which features a lively heroine's escapades at college without a creepy romantic relationship.

The White Feather by P. G. Wodehouse (reread)

See the essay here.

Comics

The Ray 1992 and 1994 (reread)

For the sake of analysis for posts this month. This is the one time of year that DC acknowledges that their current version of Ray (who is practically a different character from the 90s version and exists in a completely different continuity) exists, and that version is rather one-note, so I wanted, at least for my own amusement, to delve into the original version of the character, who is rather multi-faceted.

Wayne Family Adventures Vol. 4 (reread)

I read these as they were released, but I own a print copy now.

Doctor Who: The Eleventh Doctor Vol. 1-2

A gift from my brother! This was my first experience with DW in comic form, and it was fun. I appreciated the presence of a companion who is a library assistant (not a librarian! there's a difference! and don't I know it).

The Flash Vol. 9: Full Stop

I picked this up at a library book sale quite a while ago when I was still able to go to those :/ This is post-Flashpoint stuff, I think? and I'm very post-Crisis in my leanings, so it was confusing for me without full context.

Superboy Book One: Trouble in Paradise (reread)

This is the only collection of Kon's solo, covering #1-10 and #0. It begins with Knockout and ends with him and Tana starting to officially date. I've read these issues before multiple times, but they will never not be worrying.

Batman: Under the Red Hood: The Deluxe Edition (partial reread)

All the feels. Can I please erase from my brain what happens between Jason and Talia though.

[amielbjacobs]

I've gotten two reviews of my manuscript which say they struggled to understand my protagonist's character/motivations - this is two out of like nine reviews, but I never know how much to weight negative feedback. I don't necessarily think that it's only my mental illness which leads me to think some people are too polite to give constructive criticism; it's a hard thing to do. And it doesn't help that some people have heard me go on and on about Wallace's character and how I feel about him - that is to say, they have information about Wallace that isn't in the book.

Well, of the two reviews saying this, one of them really did not like the book, and it seemed to me that they stopped saying "I don't understand Wallace" at about the same time they started saying "FUCK Wallace," the latter of which suggests that they do understand his character. (Wallace sucks.)

As for the other, she hasn't finished reading the book yet, so maybe she'll come to understand him a little better further in the book? She did specifically say she understood Mirsky better than Wallace. And I think that Mirsky understands himself better than Wallace understands himself, which makes it easier to make him understandable to the reader.

This isn't the first time I've gotten criticism of this nature, and the last character who got this response was fairly similar to Wallace - an intelligence officer who wants to see himself as a hero but finds himself lying to everyone in the process. Both times, I really thought I had a lot of scenes like, focusing on the core of the character and what he thinks, underneath his various facades. I'm not sure how to address this in a re-write either - I feel like Wallace's actual actions are consistent with the kind of person he is, so I don't know what to add there that wouldn't fall into telling-not-showing? I think the second reader, the one who hasn't finished yet, would tell me that I should make things simpler so that I don't have to add more explanation, but I'm hesitant to simplify character motivations. I like complex character motivations.

I should probably ask more follow-up questions of the first reader but I am still trying to pick up the pieces of my ego sufficient to do so.

[sleepy-aletheas]

Oh yeah, that's one of the most, if not the most, annoying thing a character has to deal with. It's frustrating that even if the writers make everything overly simplified or spoonfeed the character's true nature, people find a way to either infantilize or demonize them to hell and back. Agency? Not even once.

All jokes aside, it's multiple things that can and probably are at play, all of them frustrating in their own rights. Even if the whole "I love this character!!" should technically save the problem of mischaracterization, it's a coin toss of "ah that fits" and utter character assassination. (I like to think of it as a parent being overbearing by taking away their personhood for their "own good"; it's usually not done out of malicious intent or wanting to hurt, but the misguided attempt to coddle someone, even a character, just backfires horrendously, even if it's by loving them)

Ratio being reduced to the "genius" archetype that just refuses to go away is so unfortunate for him, cause he's written to not really fit that on purpose. We can look at most other genius characters, and the old pattern of "cold, heartless, would do anything for knowledge/self gratification, has no emotions or doesn't understand emotions of others" should be taken out of everyone's hands for a couple years, because it's getting ridiculous. A genius character being a subversion by being human or having a speck of emotional intelligence is getting really sad. And in Ratio's case, where he loses the idgaf war against the universe on the daily (deliberately), shows that he's emotional - we can hear it in his voice when it grows soft while talking about books, the drawl and purr when he's poking fun, the frustration that bleeds through the words, the jabs at everyone and himself, cause he thinks he's funny (he is). This man has all the emotions, and people should let him have them, he deserves it.

(I also wanna leave the the old abusive top character in the past, it's not 2010 anymore, my teen self had enough after tall dark and handsome bad boy n.28, but whatever that's a different tangent to go on)

And Aventurine also doesn't get any slack in the mischaracterization department. He had a brush with emotions for one quest, and now he's more than not depicted as a crying mess, needs saving in situations, has no agency, people have to fix him (and in this conversation it's always Ratio, who also is reduced into Aven's savior that has no personality but be the love interest with no agency either), they take his self-destructive survivor's guilt, and take away all of his smarts and cunning. He stops being one of the more complex characters we're given, and becomes a lump of depression with no drive or ambitions. I get it, Aven is very babygirl, we saw him as a kid, got a glimpse at his emotional state, and saw him being self-deprecating for a whole patch. But that doesn't mean he should be swaddled in bubble wrap, and infantilized to hell and back because he "needs to be fixed".

(Where is an abusive top we cannot go a step farther before stumbling across the overemotional wreck of a bottom that is so insecure he becomes reduced to a pretty face)

OOC-ness has it's time and place; it genuinely can be fun to see a what-if scenario about altered or enhanced personalities or reactions. I like character introspections where the people take an aspect or three of a character and truly explore it, flesh it out where the original wouldn't go (or just go full AU on the characters - all of them - and make up a whole new story with the same faces and similar personalities). It's a nice thing to do; we overthink these characters everyday anyway, might as well have fun while at it. But the moment this becomes A Thing, and starts to repeatedly clash with canon, where people discard the character that was the point of love at first, just to yap on about an idealized version that can also be an OC at that point, is upsetting.

This whole thing is just a mess that keeps on repeating with a slightly different font every single time it happens (haikaveh are just as badly treated about this, it makes me wanna cry; these hoyo men cannot ever catch a break, be it in the canon story, or by irl people). But hey, maybe one day, when these characters are around for 5 years+, people will stop treating them like new dolls to mold into different forms, and we can enjoy them as them when the hype calms down, and many move on. Maybe that's too hopeful, but it makes it bearable, and that has to be enough.

Ngl I feel like some ratiorine artists don’t like or care about Dr. Ratio at all

Like I don’t really want to shit on the reverse lane because there is appeal there and most of you guys are chill, but it’s really annoying when you’re looking for Aventio/Ratiorine fanart and like… they just don’t understand Ratio for shit.

I don’t mean minor things either, I mean making him the embodiment of this image

Idk at this point some of yall should just make OCs because I’m kinda tired of 1/2 of a ship I like getting their character microwaved because people like Aventurine significantly more than him so they just turn Ratio into some stereotypical shitty bl webtoon top because actually taking 5 seconds to make sure he’s in character doesn’t matter to people who don’t give a shit about him anyways.

I’m not really asking for a change, like do what makes you happy ig, but I’m just annoyed and laying my grievances out because goddamn is this a pattern I am sick and tired of.

Badly characterized Ratio already makes me tweak out, but when it’s your own community man 😞 like yall were supposed to get him why are we here.

Also I want to rant about how fucking gross and downright evil the slavery fetishizing content is but that’s a more serious conversation for another time.

[lord-squiggletits]

Mmm I think part of the reason I have such exacting standards for fic depiction of OP is because I’m more of a canon-typical writer than a continuity soup writer (and also because I love IDW Optimus specifically not necessarily just any version of him).... but also

The thing is that there’s something about the average fandom depiction of Optimus that... it’s not BAD or poorly written per se, but fanon OP often feels...less nuanced? Than he is in canon? I’m going to make a comparison between canon IDW OP and fanon OP not to say that people need to be canon compliant/write specifically IDW, but for the sake of having a canon version that I know a lot about to contrast with the general fanon of the character.

For example, the most immediate one that comes to mind is that “Optimus is stupid/a himbo” is a pretty common fanon take that isn’t technically wrong, you know? Many Optimi have himbo moments or make bad decisions, but like... there’s a difference between being a stupid himbo versus just making bad choices or having questionable beliefs. Again using IDW OP as an example, him putting blind faith in questionable people (Shockwave and Zeta) doesn’t mean that he has low intelligence, it just means that his faith/emotions/what have you can blind him to more objective evaluations of a situation. IDW OP wasn’t stupid, he knew that the government sucked and he wasn’t ‘a good guy,’ but he was also trying to balance between what seemed like the slightly less bad of two options. To call (IDW) OP stupid, as I see many people in fandom do, would be to imply an ignorance or lack of intelligence that simply isn’t there. There’s a difference between making bad decisions versus actually being stupid versus making a stupid decision in a sea of a bunch of really bad decisions.

And what about the points where Optimus isn’t stupid? For example, IDW Optimus is actually shown to be outright cunning in a few instances, such as when he makes Trypticon the embassy for Earth on Cybertron so that it will be considered politically neutral ground and Starscream (the then-ruler of Cybertron) would be unable to swoop in and claim the sparklings inside of Trypticon to use for his own ends. That’s savvy political thinking. That’s manipulation of a situation to make sure no one can interfere with what Optimus believes is the right course of action. An idiot wouldn’t be able to consider the political situation of two different planets and come up with a solution that continues Earth-Cybertronian diplomacy while also using legal precedent to keep a known power-hungry tyrant from abusing force/subterfuge to get what he wants.

So getting back to fanon, what I’m trying to get at is that few to no fandom depictions of Optimus give him as much nuance as canon versions like IDW do. Like, I’m sorry, but canon Optimus is just so much more interesting? I don’t want a boiled down version of Optimus that’s just “he’s dumb but nice and he’s a good person” or “he’s depressed but he’s nice and a good person.”

I want the Optimus who’s a good person that sometimes does good things, sometimes does bad things in pursuit of good ends, and sometimes even does bad things because he doesn’t know what else he can do. I want the Optimus who prefers peaceful solutions and stops other people from vengeful, punitive justice while also struggling with his own anger issues. I want the Optimus who might not be socio-politically savvy but knows that he just wants to help as many people as he can. I want the Optimus who sucks at picking the right people to trust but is also a tactical and political powerhouse. I want the Optimus who regrets the things he’s done but keeps doing things anyways (good, bad, or somewhere in between) because it’s simply what he has to do.

And I just don’t feel like I get that from any fandom depictions of Optimus I’ve read in this fandom. It feels to me as if the most popular takes on Optimus are the ones that simplify him rather than making him more complex. Or they try to erase his flaws and ugly sides, not realizing that those things are what make him a good character.

[number5theboy]

Please elaborate on how Five could've turned into the most insufferable character to watch

Thanks for asking me to elaborate on this text post:

@tessapercygranger​, @waywardd1​ and @margarita-umbrella​ also wanted to see a more detailed version of it, and I ended up writing an essay that’s longer than some of my actual academic essays. So buckle up.

WHY NUMBER FIVE SHOULD BE THE MOST OBNOXIOUS CHARACTER IN TV HISTORY, AND HOW HE MANAGES NOT TO BE

Number Five: The Concept That Could Go Horribly Wrong

Alright, let’s first look at Five in theory in an overarching way, without taking into account the execution of the show. The basic set-up of the character, of course, is being a 58-year-old consciousness in a teenager’s body, due to a miscalculation in time travel. Right off the bat, Five is bar none the most overpowered of the siblings; by the end of Season 2, no one has yet been able to defeat him in a fight. He is a master assassin – and not just any master assassin, but the best one there is – and a survival expert, able to do complex maths and physics without the aid of a calculator, shown to have knowledge of half a dozen languages, has very developed observational skills and, to top that all off, he can manipulate time and space to the point where he can literally erase events that happened and change the course of history. And Five knows how skilled he is; he is arrogant, self-assured and sarcastic, and his streak of goodness is buried deep inside. David Castañeda once described Five in an interview as 90% chocolate with a cherry in the middle, meaning that you have to get through a lot of darkness and bitterness before knowing there is a good core, and I think it’s an excellent metaphor. However, Five is also incredibly, fundamentally terrible at communicating with anyone, and, because he is the only one with time travel abilities, the character a lot of the actual plot - and the moving forward of it - centres around. Also he’s earnestly in love with a mannequin, who is pretty much a projection of his own consciousness that functions as a coping mechanism for all the trauma he has endured. All in all, this gives you a character who looks like a teenager, but with the smug superiority of a fifty-something, who a) is extremely skilled in many different things, b) has a superiority complex, is arrogant and vocal about it, and most of the superiority is expressed through cutting sarcasm, c) has one very hidden ounce of goodness that he is literally the worst at communicating to other human beings, d) is what moves the plot along but is also bad at talking to anyone else, meaning that the plot largely remains with him, and e) his love interest is essentially a projection of himself. Tell me that’s not a character who is destined to be just…obnoxious, annoying, egocentric, a necessary evil that one has to put up with to get through this show. There are so many elements of this characterisation that can and should easily make Five beyond insufferable, but the show manages to avoid it, and I’m putting this down to three aspects.

That Trick of Age and Appearance

Bluntly put, Five as a character would not work if he was anything else than an old man in a 13-year-old body. Imagine this character and all his skills and knowledge, but actually just…a teenager. Immediately insufferable. Same goes for him being around 30, like his siblings, all of which are stunted and traumatised by their father’s abuse. If Five, being comparatively unscathed by Reginald to the point where he explicitly does not want to be defined by his association with his father, were 30 like his siblings, it would just take the bite out of that plot point and also give him a lot less time in the apocalypse, reducing the impact it had on him as a person. And making Five his actual 58-year-old self would make him very similar to Reginald, at least on surface level, with the appearance and attitude. Five and Reginald are two fundamentally different people, but having one of the siblings being a senior citizen that’s dressed to the nines and bosses his siblings around in a relatively self-centred way does open up that parallel, and would take away from Five’s charm as a character. Because pairing the life experience of a 58-year-old with the appearance of a teenager gives you the best of both worlds. You get the other siblings (and a lot of the audience, from a glance in the tags of my gifsets) feeling protective and paternal about Five, but his age and experience also give the justifications for his many skills, his arrogance, in a way, and his ability to decimate a room full of people. It’s the very interesting and not new concept of someone dangerous with the appearance of something harmless, a child. This is also where Five’s singular outfit comes in. I know we like to clown on Five to get a new outfit, but I think what gets forgotten often is how effective this outfit is at making the viewer take him seriously. The preppy school uniform is the perfect encapsulation of the tension between old man in spirit and young teenager in appearance. The blazer, vest and especially the shirt and tie are quite formal, relatively grown up. They’re not something we, the audience, usually associate with a teenage boy wearing; it makes Five just a little bit more grown up. But there is also a reason characters in this show keep bringing up Five’s shorts and his socks, because those are not things that we associate with grown men wearing; they’re the unmistakably childish part of his school uniform. Take a moment and imagine Five wearing a hoodie or a t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers; would that outfit work for him as well as the uniform does? Would he be able to command the same kind of respect or seriousness as a character? I don’t think so; the outfit is a lot more pivotal in making Five believable than a lot of people give it credit for.

Writing Nuance

The other big building block in not making Five incredibly insufferable is the writing. Objectively speaking, I think Five is the most well-written, and, more importantly, most coherently written character on the show (which does have to do with the fact that the show’s events are all sequential for him), and his arc and personality remain relatively intact over the course of the two seasons. More to the point, a giant part of what makes Five bearable as a character is that he is allowed to fail. He is written to have high highs and low lows, big victories through his skills and his intelligence, but also catastrophic failures and the freedom to be wrong. His superior intellect and skillset are not the be-all end-all of the plot or his character, just something that influences both. His inability for communication has not (yet) been used to fabricate a contrived misunderstanding that derails the plot and left all of us seething; instead, it’s a characteristic that makes him fail to reconnect with the people he loves. This is a bit simplified, as he does find common ground with Luther, for example, but in general, a lot of the rift between Five and his siblings is that they can’t relate to his traumas and he does not understand the depth of Reginald’s abuse, which is an interesting conflict worth exploring. Another thing that really works in Five’s favour is that he is definitely written to be mean and sarcastic, but it is never driven to the point of complete unlikability, and a lot of the time, the context makes it understandable why he reacts the way he does. Most of the sarcastic lines he gets are actually funny, that certainly helps, but in general, Five is a good example of a bearable character whose default personality is sharp and relatively cold, because it is balanced out with many moments of vulnerability. Delores is incredibly important for this in the first season, she is the main focus of Five’s humanising moments, and well-written as she totes the line between clearly being a coping mechanism for an extremely traumatised man and still coming across to the viewer as the human contact Five needs her to be. In the second season, the vulnerability is about his guilt for his siblings, it’s about Five connecting a little bit better to them. There’s also his relationship with the Commission and the Handler specifically – which honestly could be an essay on its own – that deserves a mention, because the Handler is why Five became the man he is, and this dynamic between creator and creation is explored in a very interesting way – their scenes are some of the most well-written in the entire show. And TUA never falls into the trap of making Five a hero, he is always morally ambiguous at best, and it just makes for an interesting, multi-faceted character, well-written character, and none of the characteristics that should make him unlikeable are allowed to take centre-stage for long enough to be defining on their own. I know a lot of people especially champion the scenes where Five goes apeshit, but without his more nuanced characterisation, if he was like that all the time, those scenes would not hit as hard.

Aidan Gallagher’s Performance is Underrated

But honestly, none of the above would matter that much if the Umbrella Academy didn’t luck out hard with the casting of Aidan Gallagher. I think what he achieves as an actor in this show is genuinely underappreciated. Like, the first season set out to cast six adults having to deal with various ramifications of childhood trauma, and a literal child that had to be able to act smart and wise beyond his years, seamlessly integrate into a family of adults while seeming like an adult, traumatised by the literal end of the world, AND had to be able to create the romantic chemistry of a thirty-year-long marriage with a lifeless department store doll. The only role I could think of to compare is Kirsten Dunst in Interview with a Vampire, where she plays a vampire child who, because she is undead, doesn’t age physically, but does mentally, so she’s 400 in a child’s body. And Kirsten Dunst had to do that for a two-hour movie. Five is a main character in a show that spans 20 episodes now. That’s insane, and it’s a risk. Five is a character that can’t be allowed to go wrong; if you don’t buy Five as a character, the entire first season loses believability. And they found someone who could do that not only convincingly, but also likeably. As I said, he is incredibly helped by the costuming department and the script, but Aidan Gallager’s Five has so much personality, he’s threatening and funny and charming and arrogant and heartbreaking. He has the range to be convincing in the quiet moments where Five’s humanity comes to show and in the moments where Five goes completely off the rails. Most child actors act with other children, but he is the only child in the main cast, and holds his own in scenes with adults not as a child, but as an adult on equal footing with the other adult characters. That’s not something to be taken for granted. But even apart from the fact that it’s a child actor who carries a lot of the plot and the drama of a series for adults, Aidan Gallagher’s portrayal of Five is also just so much fun. The comedic timing is on point, he has the dramatic chops for the serious scenes, the mannerisms and visual ticks add to the character rather than distract from him, and his line deliveries, paired with his physical acting, make Five arrogant and smug but never outright malicious and unlikeable. It’s just some terrific acting that really does justice to the character as he is written, but the writing would not be as strong if it wasn’t delivered and acted out the way Aidan Gallagher does. He is an incredible asset for this show.

Alright, onto concluding this rambling. If you made it this far, I commend you, and thank you for it. The point of all of this is that Five, as a character, could have been an unmitigated disaster of a TV character. He is overpowered, arrogant, uncommunicative and could so easily have been either unconvincing or completely unlikeable, but he turned out to be neither. It’s a combination of choices in the costume department, decisions in the writing room, and Aidan Gallagher’s acting skills that make the things that should make him obnoxious and annoying incredibly entertaining, and I hope you liked my long-winded exploration of these. Some nuance was lost along the way, but if I had not stopped myself, this would’ve become a full-blown thesis.

[bunglegaydogs]

This!!!

I will defend this with my life.

Chuuya is an intelligent character. It's just that compared to literal geniuses in the series, people think he's dumb by comparison. As the original poster said, he is quick to aggression, meaning that everyone judges that as him not knowing anything and resolving to sort the issue with violence. Yes, he is a hot-headed guy, but this doesn't immediately state in blaring lights that he's not smart.

One thing I'd like to mention that the creators literally said, is that Chuuya is the only person capable of understanding and knowing Dazai's true motives. That's not a feat many are capable of, and it goes to show not only their trust, but Chuuya's intelligence that he can easily keep up with Dazai, despite how much it annoys him.

Daza and Chuuya's partnership isn't just the brains and the brawn, despite how easy it is to slap that label on them. Their relationship with each other is much more intrinsic than that, they compliment each other. They adhere to each other's abilities perfectly, which is how they work together so flawlessly. It isn't as simple as "Dazai smart Chuuya strong". Whilst, yes, they are correct statements, it's also exactly right to say "Chuuya smart Dazai strong", because I think that what some people like to do in this fandom is simplify people's roles and abilities and partnerships. Nothing is that simple, and once you look deeper, you'll see that :)

Another thing is that Chuuya is a gravity manipulator, which requires a certain level of knowledge about physics and others of the like. He has to have a deep rooted understanding of sciences and it's effect on the space and area around him, which is why he's able to use his ability to the degree that he can. Not only is it basic understanding, it's a complex comprehension of the effects of gravity on the world around him, even the knowledge of black holes and singularities, etc etc.

All of these points that I've made showcase Chuuya's range of abilities in combat and intelligence. Just because he can't meticulously plan months in advance for his plans does not automatically make him the stupid one. Dazai, Fyodor, Ranpo, they're all skilled primarily in the knowledge department, and are literal geniuses. They're on a whole other level, you can't compare other characters to that, because by comparison they will automatically seem less capable.

However, it's the same the other way around; Dazai. Because he's surrounded by characters such as Fukuzawa, Oda, Chuuya, Kunikida, it seems that he is completely incapable of defending himself to some people; Dazai can hold his own. He is by no means weak, not by any stretch of the imagination. You don't become the youngest Port Mafia Executive in history by intelligence alone; he's surrounded by violence and bloodshed every day, he's going to know how to fight. We've seen him hold his own before, we've seen him fight before. It's just that, once again, when compared to Chuuya, he seems less capable. But Chuuya is the best martial artist in the Port Mafia, of course Dazai doesn't stand a chance. Yes, Chuuya relies on his strength and yes, Dazai relies on his mind and strategising, but they both utilise their skills in the other department expertly and deftly. We have seen the both of them use both violence and intelligence to their advantage on multiple occassions. This is why they compliment each other as partners perfectly, because not only do they make up for each lack, they understand the other.

Sorry, this turned into a rant lmao.

STOP CALLING CHUUYA STUPID, HE'S LITERALLY ONE OF THE MORE INTELLIGENT CHARACTERS. HE'S A FUCKING PORT MAFIA EXECUTIVE. YOU DON'T GET THAT POSITION BY VIOLENCE ALONE, AS BOTH MORI AND DAZAI HAVE SAID. <3

have a lovely day/night lmao <3

I think people who are mad at Fyodor and saying he underestimates Chuuya forget something though - Chuuya's capable of all these impressive physical feats and stuff, but at the end of the day, he's not particularly smart. He's always easily manipulated by Dazai, Ranpo was able to trap him in a book by simply goading him, Mori is able to keep him in line despite Chuuya being way more powerful, etc. Idk I think the fandom put Chuuya on a pedestal for some reason but he has weaknesses too.

"people who say he underestimates Chuuya" as if... I am not one of those people...? I made a whole analysis on this anon??? I'm a bit confused why you sent this to me...

I'm going to assume this was sent in good faith and that you haven't read the light novels, because it becomes very clear from those that Chuuya is actually perfectly intelligent. I'd say probably above average, if I'm being honest - he picks up new skills very quickly with no formal education and he's really quite intuitive. It's just that the poor guy is constantly surrounded by strategic geniuses, and due to his hot-headedness, he comes across as less intelligent by comparison.

If he's so smart, why then is he always tricked by Dazai? Well, everyone is tricked by Dazai. It's kind of Dazai's whole thing. He runs circles around most people. He pranks and torments Kunikida, Atsushi, Sigma, and the list goes on. This has little bearing on Chuuya's intelligence, and is much more to do with Dazai's intelligence. Besides, this kind of becomes a moot point when their plans are very much a team effort, made and carried out with barely any verbal communication whatsoever. When it's time to get serious, Dazai is far from leading Chuuya - they're in step with each other. Chuuya keeps up with Dazai, and is capable of challenging him. That's why the partnership works.

Why was Ranpo able to trap him in Poe's book? Let's take a step back and think to the build up of that. Firstly, this is during Cannibalism arc, where each side had two days to save the lives of their respective leaders. Chuuya's family is under threat, and so he's already under a lot of stress. Second, Ranpo is well-known for being an intentionally irritating little toad and he knew just what to say to make Chuuya lose it - ordinarily, Chuuya is actually capable of keeping it together, but Dazai makes him angry enough to explode. Finally, I sincerely doubt Chuuya expected to get sucked into a book. There's no way he didn't think the goading was a trap, but really? He couldn't have known that and likely assumed his ability was strong enough to handle anything Ranpo threw at him.

So, there's a weakness of sorts, and it's actually highlighted by Hirotsu in Fifteen. Chuuya tends to jump into things because he expects he will just be able to "handle things", which is a consequence of growing up with a powerful ability. Hirotsu warns that people who overly rely on their abilities end up in trouble. This scene was likely a form of payoff for that warning. Either way, I'd expect he won't make that same mistake twice.

Why is Mori able to keep him in line? He isn't, because he doesn't have to. Chuuya serves under Mori because he sees Mori as the successful leader that he wasn't. To Chuuya, Mori has what he doesn't - he respects him and thinks he can learn from him. Chuuya sees the Sheep's betrayal as his own personal failure as their leader. This has nothing to do with intelligence, one way or the other.

Moreover, I think it needs to be said that Chuuya is often well aware when he's being manipulated. He's not oblivious, it's just that there's often nothing he can really do about it. For instance, he is very aware that Fyodor's intention in Cannibalism is to make the agency and mafia fight each other, but as they only have two days before Mori dies and that isn't enough time, he opts for the most direct and immediate course of action.

So, there's another weakness - Chuuya's really not a long-term strategist. He doesn't play the long game like Mori, Dazai or Fyodor - he prefers to sort things out as quickly as possible. However, I need to stress that this does not make him unintelligent or never strategic in the short term.

And that is all that is needed to turn the tables on Fyodor - Fyodor devalues everything about Chuuya other than his ability, but it is always Chuuya who wields that ability, not Dazai. I don't think anyone expects Chuuya to come up with a master plan to completely destroy Fyodor's plans for good... but I fully expect Chuuya to clothesline the guy after the way he continues to refer to him like he's little more than a tool. He's done it before.

Actually, I think I'm just going to wrap this up with a quick list of moments I can think of off the top of my head that demonstrate Chuuya's intelligence.

Every piece of media: Chuuya near immediately pieces Dazai's manipulations together in retrospect, from start to finish.

Main manga: Chuuya is sent to negotiate with the Agency, implying he learned negotiation well from Kouyou.

Fifteen: Chuuya awkwardly tries to shift the investigative focus away from Arahabaki and onto the Old Boss. While this doesn't change Dazai's focus, Dazai ends up entirely unsuspicious of him because he thinks Chuuya just wants to beat people up.

Fifteen: Chuuya expressly warned the Sheep against venturing into Mafia territory to avoid extra aggression.

Fifteen: Chuuya knew the entire time that Randou was the culprit and was gauging how much Dazai knew about his own connection to the Arahabaki situation.

Fifteen: Chuuya goes back to investigate the arcade, suspecting Dazai of having tampered with the game, and was correct in his assumption.

Stormbringer: Chuuya escapes Adam by entering a dark tunnel then hiding to give the illusion that he ran all the way through it. It works and Adam runs right past him.

Stormbringer: Chuuya fakes out Verlaine into thinking he's going to attack N while gearing up to attack Verlaine instead.

Stormbringer: Chuuya fakes out Verlaine again so Adam can launch a surprise attack with an anesthetic.

Dead Apple prologue: Chuuya pieces together Dazai's clue from a single piece of dialogue.

Dead Apple: Chuuya near instantly predicts the course of an incoming grenade while on his motorcycle in motion to ride the shockwave and avoid getting hit.

Also, I think it's important to note that Chuuya's ability is gravity manipulation, not telekinesis. He's not moving whatever he touches - he's manipulating one of the forces acting on it. This means he needs to adjust in the moment to other forces acting on the objects in his surroundings, which can and do change - my first thought was of wind affecting resistance. Either way, he's actually having to juggle a lot of sensory information in the heat of a single moment and that's very difficult to do.

If anyone wants to add any "Chuuya is not dumb" moments that I have missed, please feel free to in the tags or the comments.

Anyways, I hope this answered the initial question, anon!

[thinkingisadangerouspastime]

What your opinion on the Agni Kai was better then aang’s fight with ozai

I want to first say that “better” is a completely subjective statement. Both the final Agni Kai and Aang’s battle with Ozai have huge importance thematically, but are also demonstrative of different aspects of A:tLA, so comparing them in an attempt to determine the “better” battle is really an injustice to the show imo. That said, the final Agni Kai is certainly the more popular of the two big battles, and honestly I can break down its popularity into three main points. People tend to favor the final Agni Kai because:

They see the final Agni Kai as the reason Z.utara should have been canon (no, this is not the same as seeing the battle as crucial to Z.utara’s development; I mean they full-on think that the final Agni Kai matters largely if not entirely because of the brief ‘Z.utara’ moment.)

They recognize the significance of the Agni Kai being framed as a tragedy (specifically regarding Azula).

Their lack of understanding regarding Aang’s arc (or, to be kinder, their personal disinterest in Aang) prevents them from fully appreciating his battle with Ozai.

There are a few other reasons the final Agni Kai tends to be favored (e.g. it’s a much faster-paced battle action-wise; Aang’s battle with Ozai is over twice as long and because of how the show was structured is broken up into several sections and thus feels even longer), but I think those are the main three. So let’s take them one at a time!

First, I have to start with the obvious:

People favor the final Agni Kai because they interpret it as their holy grail of why Z.utara should have been canon.

Firstly, I am not getting into the K@taang vs Z.utara ship wars. I don’t have the time or the energy lmao. But there is a huge difference between shipping Z.utara based on the content provided in the show (because y’all know I love me some Zut@raang) compared to somehow thinking that Zuko and Katara were both ready to be and should have gotten together at the end of the series. In short, Z.utara would not have worked in canon based on where the series stood by the finale, and that’s okay! That fact does not negate the appeal of Z.utara nor does it mean Z.utara shippers should not be allowed to interpret the final Agni Kai as involving Z.utara content (they absolutely can and should! we love to see that!). But the final Agni Kai was not some secret sign that Z.utara was meant to be canon, and people who interpret it as such are sorely missing the point of the battle.

Here are a few metas discussing the final Agni Kai in regards to Z.utara’s importance within canon A:tLA, if you’d like to read some analysis going more in-depth than I intend to. My thoughts regarding Z.utara and the final Agni Kai are pretty simple:

Zuko catching/attempting to redirect the lightning aimed at Katara was not because he was in love with her. For him to sacrifice himself because he was “in love with her” would entirely undermine his redemption arc, which is learning to earn forgiveness and accept unconditional love from his family (both Iroh and the Gaang), not because of romantic interest. (Again, this does not mean someone shouldn’t ship Z.utara; if that’s what you’re taking away from this post, then you might as well stop reading, because I assure you that’s not even close to the point here.)

Katara is set up as Azula’s primary foil (e.g. by and large her relationship in canon with Zuko is aimed as a surrogate sibling); her saving Zuko parallels Azula’s attempts on his life (though her most important moment as Azula’s foil is arguably bringing Aang back to life after Azula kills him, but that’s a subject for another time lol), and Zuko catching the lightning for Katara demonstrates him saving the sister he can save versus Azula, the sister he cannot save (hence her breakdown at the end of the battle while Katara walks away largely unharmed; Zuko’s decision is also a direct parallel to him siding with Azula in “Crossroads of Destiny��, having first chosen the sister who harms him over Katara, the sister who ultimately heals him).

The significance of Zuko catching/attempting to redirect the lightning aimed at Katara is not because it was Katara he was saving; the viewer sees Zuko’s decision and recognizes that he would have done so for anyone. Anyone in the Gaang, plus Mai and Iroh, and possibly even Ty Lee (hell, he’d probably have taken the bolt for Appa and Momo). Zuko’s redemption arc is sealed by his selflessness, his willingness to sacrifice himself for the sake of someone else. While the moment is especially powerful because of Katara’s position as a foil to Azula, it is not the Z.utara holy grail I’ve seen it portrayed to be.

To be honest, the interpretation of the Agni Kai as some big Z.utara moment is both superficial and a massive disservice to Azula and the completion of her arc, which is the focal point of most if not all of the battle, and also entirely undermines the power of Zuko’s redemption (as I discussed). So moving on to the next point!

People favor the final Agni Kai because they recognize its importance to Azula and how the key element of the battle’s emotional weight is its framing as a tragic, heartbreaking moment.

I rewatched both the final Agni Kai and Aang’s battle with Ozai before I wrote this, and I had to try so hard to not cry at the end when Azula breaks down, sobbing openly for the first time in the entire series. It is a powerful, devastating moment, and it is so heartbreaking because of how fitting it is for her. Does she deserve redemption? Absolutely. But in the context of the series and how A:tLA played out, rock bottom is where Azula needs to be, and the audience recognizing that fact is what makes the scene so painful to watch (and also why you can’t take your eyes off the screen). For me, the power of the Agni Kai never came from Zuko’s sacrifice (although I understand why that part resonates with some people more); instead, it was always about Azula’s downfall, her descent, the straw the broke the camel’s back - whatever you want to call it. I’ll try to keep the essence of my feelings towards Azula and the Agni Kai and why this battle is preferred short:

Azula is a much more established antagonist than Ozai. We know from the beginning the Fire Lord is the big bad, but his presence in the show is relegated largely to flashbacks and to the second half of the final season. Azula is introduced in Book Two (technically she appears twice, I believe, in Book One, but she has no lines so I’m not counting those moments lol) and becomes the key antagonist throughout the final two books. The viewers admire her intelligence and strategic capabilities, appreciate her wit and ability to turn a person’s words around on them, and even feel sympathy and pity for her when her difficult relationship with her mother is revealed (in “The Beach”) and when Ozai’s conditional love is demonstrated to apply to her, too (“Sozin’s Comet Part 1: The Phoenix King”). Thus, the final Agni Kai has multitudes more emotional potency in terms of the antagonist, as Azula is more pitiable and developed than Ozai, so it’s understandable that feeling a greater connection to Azula might result in someone preferring the final Agni Kai over Aang’s battle with Ozai. (That said, I will be discussing more about the significance of Ozai as a character later.)

The tone of the Agni Kai is that of tragedy (verus the more action/intense battle of Aang vs Ozai). While the debate of drama vs action is largely related to personal preference, I think it’s worth noting that no other battle in A:tLA (that I can think of) has the slow, drawn-out, orchestral music that is present in the final Agni Kai. The viewers realize this battle may be about power on the surface, but in reality it is a painful, devastating moment about a family irreparably torn apart (at least in terms of the series run). For me, that has always been the captivating factor of the Agni Kai. The viewers mourn for Azula, who has lost herself. Yes, she did so partially in her quest for power, but more importantly in her search for love, as she did not have a support system in her life like her brother (Zuko always had Iroh), and the audience grieves for her. Her mother both feared her and was disgusted by her; her father loved no one (including her) and only valued her for what she could provide to him; she hurt her brother and her best friends to the point where they were forced to turn away from her; and her uncle, as far as what is shown, never extended a hand to her. Azula is a victim of abuse (though this does not excuse any of her actions; in fact, her role in A:tLA as a victim who was abandoned and lashes out before breaking down on the inside is just as important as Zuko’s role as a victim who was given support and was able to heal). Thus, to me, the power of the final Agni Kai is all from the tragic tone (hence why Azula’s heartbreaking end brings me close to tears every time).

Bonus: The way Katara takes out Azula is incredibly clever and badass. (I don’t think I need to expand this one. We all love narrative foils!)

For some people, they prefer the final Agni Kai because of the emotional weight of the conclusion of Azula’s arc; that weight combined with the conclusion of Zuko’s redemption, in my opinion, are pretty valid reasons to deem the final Agni Kai their favorite battle of the series. That said, there is one other important factor to consider in the question of the final Agni Kai vs Aang’s battle with Ozai:

People prefer the final Agni Kai because they blatantly misunderstand and/or misinterpret Aang’s arc of reconciling his being both the Avatar and the last airbender, thus preventing them from fully understanding and appreciating the weight of his battle with Ozai.

This point is more complex than the two I discussed previously, so I’m going to break this one down further to help simplify it. Let’s start with the most obvious thing:

“The lion turtle and energybending were cop-outs!”

I cringe whenever I see this; imagine admitting to the entire fandom how blind you were to the extensive foreshadowing about the lion turtle and energybending. Downright embarrassing. There are so many metas out there explaining how the lion turtle and energybending were not cop-outs and how A:tLA did foreshadow their influence (some people need to admit they just didn’t watch the show tbh). I’ll try to provide a quick summary:

Chiblocking demonstrated how chi/energy and bending were intrinsically linked from Day. One. Moreover, it did so numerous times; trying to claim that blatant foreshadowing is not there is… well, kind of embarrassing.

The lion turtle was foreshadowed in “The Library” (and moreover the lion turtle only appeared after Aang called out to the Spirit World; his meditation was an appropriate attempt to seek help from those wiser than him to resolve his dilemma, and thus his plea was answered).

If you’re gonna argue the lion turtle/energybending were convenient cop-outs, you better also critique how Suki conveniently was at the Boiling Rock/the ferry, Pakku conveniently had been arranged to marry Katara’s grandmother, Toph conveniently inventing metalbending, every other time a spirit showed up conveniently, etc. etc. etc. Don’t cherry-pick, hypocrites.

The lion turtle/energybending were not necessarily predictable, no, but they also were not meant to be. You’re not supposed to guess every detail of every finale of every show. So yes, the lion turtle/energybending were foreshadowed, and this foreshadowing done so in a way where after they were revealed it was intended to be an “oh my god, how did I not see that connection before?!” moment. (At least, so it was for me.)

Dismissing the lion turtle and energybending as a cop-out is an age-old, boring misinterpretation of Aang’s battle with Ozai, and by and large I think most of the fandom is tired of hearing it. Thus, if people don’t understand the lion turtle/energybending and their roles in the A:tLA finale, then they’re less likely to appreciate Aang’s battle with Ozai and therefore would prefer the final Agni Kai. Next common argument:

“Aang was able to re-enter the Avatar state because of a rock? Really? Another cop-out!”

Again, if you’re gonna criticize the rock, at least criticize every other plot device used in A:tLA. I mean come on. Some people will really just cherry-pick instances solely with Aang. How very convenient for them, huh?

But the fact of the matter is that the pointy rock is actually pretty important! No, it didn’t necessarily have to be a rock that allowed Aang to enter the Avatar state again, but it was necessary that the Avatar state was unblocked for him by a physical trigger. The Avatar state was removed from Aang by Azula’s lightning striking him (after he’d done the spiritual work to control it, too!), which is a physical block, thus requiring something to physically unblock it. By the end of Book Two, Aang is able to enter the Avatar state of his own accord (he successfully unlocked his chakras, after all) and had Azula not struck him in the back and killed him, he presumably would have been able to do so throughout Book Three. Did that physical item have to be a rock? Again, not necessarily, lmao, but where he and Ozai were fighting, well, there certainly were a lot of rocks, so it’s not like it didn’t make sense. (There’s a meta here that touches a bit on the necessity of the Aang needing the Avatar state physically unblocked, too.)

“Ozai was a stereotypical, boring villain! He was barely given any screen time!”

This isn’t entirely untrue. Everything viewers are told about Ozai is from other characters in the narrative; mostly Zuko, but also Azula and I’d argue Iroh, too. Ozai certainly was the big bad of the series, and little is provided regarding his personality beyond being power-hungry, racist, xenophobic, and abusive. But… that’s kind of the point. Ozai is written to have zero redeemable qualities. There is supposed to be zero sympathy for him. Hell, there’s arguably even zero reason for him to live on (which actually makes Aang’s decision to spare his life all the more powerful, but that’s for later). There’s one line in particular that really defines Ozai’s character to me:

“You’re [Aang is] weak, just like the rest of your people [the Air Nomads]! They did not deserve to exist in this world… in my [Ozai’s] world!”

Ozai is the epitome of fascism, imperialism, and a superiority complex if there ever was one in a cartoon. His words remind the audience that maybe he didn’t initiate the Air Nomad Genocide, but he continues to seek the same goal - obliteration of anyone he deems inferior (which is, well, every nation except his own). Aang’s battle with Ozai is literally a fight against fascism, and that’s a hell of a powerful metaphor. So while I understand leaning towards the Agni Kai in terms of familiarity with the antagonist (aka Azula), I do think some people gloss over Ozai too quickly. Yes, everyone knows that Ozai is a genocidal dictator, but I don’t think the implication of that position - especially what it means to Aang - really sinks in for everyone.

And now for the big one:

“Aang should have killed Ozai!”

If you are reading this and for some godforsaken reason think Aang should have killed Ozai, I beg of you: read these metas and analyses about Aang and his arc explaining exactly why that’s the wrong take. This point has been argued a million times over and the fact of the matter is that Aang choosing to spare Ozai’s life and thus uphold his beliefs as an Air Nomad is the ultimate triumph (a direct parallel to the Air Nomads being forced to fight back against the firebenders during Sozin’s attack and were thus not able to uphold their beliefs - the ultimate sacrifice). Furthermore, Aang choosing to spare Ozai’s life but take his bending is arguably a fate worse than death for Ozai. Ozai now lacks all of his power/prestige, will be forced to watch the son he despises rebuild his country, and any lingering supporters he may have can’t argue “oh well the Avatar had no reason to kill him!” because Aang didn’t kill him. He chose mercy. He proved himself better and stronger than Ozai could ever hope to be.

Furthermore, Aang staying true to his beliefs as an airbender is central to his character. The core belief of the Air Nomads was that all life was sacred (such was why they were all vegetarians). If he had killed Ozai, if he had been forced to betray his spiritual beliefs, then he would have completed the genocide of the Air Nomads that Sozin started a hundred years ago. Ozai’s death at Aang’s hands = the death of the airbenders’ culture. Full stop. How could he be expected to bring balance to the four nations if only three remained? Maybe this is just me, but the message of Aang being an airbender (the last airbender) and finding another way (e.g. energybending) to defeat Ozai in order to uphold the beliefs of his people is a much more powerful message than him having to kill Ozai (especially because no one else understood how important Aang’s spirituality was to him [not even the Gaang!]; Aang did what was right, even when the world insisted he was wrong).

(Sidenote: The previous Avatars did not tell Aang to kill Ozai. That’s right - not even Kyoshi. I believe she gave him this advice: “Only justice will bring peace.” Great news! Aang did exactly that. Why are some people still so pressed about it??)

Furthermore, if someone calls Aang’s beliefs and his decision not to kill Ozai childish (we’ve all seen those posts), I’m giving you permission to deck them, because so much of the roots of the Air Nomads’ spirituality is rooted in Buddhism, and like,, we know westerners struggle to comprehend any narrative that isn’t our own, but the dismissal of Aang’s beliefs without making the connection that they’re also dismissing the beliefs of many, many real people? Yeah, please sock those assholes in the jaw. Give them the finger. Glare at them. Whatever works for you. Those are the people with the most superficial opinions on A:tLA, and to be honest, it really shows. Please: make an effort to understand the eastern narratives at work within A:tLA. If you don’t, there are so many things you will miss out on, and you’ll also just look like a prick.

For me, Aang’s battle with Ozai is so powerful (and my favorite) because of the ending and its importance to Aang:

“I’m not gonna end it like this.”

Aang chooses mercy by taking Ozai’s bending instead of killing him.

Aang chooses to uphold the beliefs of his people and guarantee the Air Nomads live on in him.

Aang proves his soul is unbendable.

Aang enters and controls the Avatar of his own accord (not induced by trauma or a spirit).

Aang reconciles his being the Avatar with being the last airbender.

Aang is finally at peace with himself and the world around him.

In short, if a person doesn’t understand Aang and his character, then the significance of his final battle with Ozai will largely be lost, and thus it makes sense that they would gravitate more to the Agni Kai (which is arguably a less nuanced battle, as Azula’s position as a victim of abuse and Zuko’s tale of redemption are not exclusive to either western or eastern narratives, while Aang’s arc is largely more eastern in nature and thus something less familiar to western audiences).

I have no doubt that my personal bias influences my admiration of the final battle with Ozai, as Aang is my favorite character and his narrative is easily the most powerful to me (he is the sole survivor of genocide who still chooses to seek kindness in life instead of revenge), but regardless I’d argue the sheer thematic weight of Aang’s battle with Ozai outweighs that of the Agni Kai any day (although, to be fair, they are presenting different subjects, so take my feelings there with a grain of salt).

The Agni Kai is a tragedy. It is devastating. It makes you cry. Aang’s battle with Ozai is a triumph. It is hope. It makes you take a deep breath and look to tomorrow with a brave smile. And that is why it is the battle that concludes the series.

TL;DR - Both are fantastic battles in their own merit, but Aang’s battle with Ozai is underappreciated because of the fandom’s incomplete grasp on Aang’s arc and character while the final Agni Kai is often appreciated/hyped up for the wrong (*cough* shipping *cough*) reasons.

[oumaheroes]

Ask Game: Top 3 Stubborn Characters Who Just Won’t Cooperate

@needcake, thanks for the tag! (And your very nice character writing compliment <3 ;u;)

Whether you’re an artist or a writer, what are your top 3 characters that you want to draw/write about, but sometimes they just don’t wanna work with you? Is there a particular reason why?

Hnnnnnnnn gosh, many many many. Read more for top three sadness below.

1) Russia

I think Russia is such a complex character and I have no idea of how to even begin with him. I think all of the Hetalia characters are complex, especially when written in nationverse where they have the weight of history behind them, but Russia is something else for me.

Maybe it's because I haven't read enough fics about him to truly get a feel for him in my mind, maybe it's because I'm over thinking him, or maybe it's because the fandom's most prevalent version of him (especially the early days of 2009-2013) was very black and white. He was often portrayed as sadistic for no reason and overly simplified that I couldn't relate to him at all.

He's someone I'd need to properly sit down and think about, so if anyone has any fic recs that show good characterisation for him, please share with me!

At the moment, I see him to be a very conflicted person- someone who knows what he wants and how to get it, but maybe not the best way to get it (best also being a very broad term- the quickest? The nicest? The most moral? All can be ‘best’). There are shades of him that clash and he’s hard to predict for that exact reason. There’s a pattern to his behaviour but it’s a messy, hidden thing that even he isn’t wholly aware of. I don’t see him as good or bad (who ever can be only one?) but I see him as a very driven person who can sometimes slide away from himself, a little.

Portugal

I haven't tried yet! I've only recently come into awareness about how much I like this bean and I haven't yet got around to writing him. Same as Russia, my idea of him is fuzzy, but unlike Russia he feels more 'untried' rather that 'where do I even start'

Luckily for Porty-boi, I know a l o t of good fic writers that do him amazing justice so there's a lot of material for me to dive into and consume to help mould how I see him. I just need to get cracking!

At the moment, my thinking of him is a very patient, warm, peach of a person. He’s open and expressive to the right people, confident and sure of himself, but also quiet and watchful a lot of the time. Easy-going with purpose. There’s not as much ‘stupid intelligent person’ energy with him as there is Spain, but he has his moments.

Italy

Her characterisation of Italy as someone intelligent, complex, and powerful really opened my eyes to this character. For Italy, I struggle to write him, or even try, due to a total lack of confidence in my ability to match up to Sunny's wonderful version.

Boy oh boy. See, I had no interest in Italy (again, I blame the early fandom's mass depiction of him as a whiny baby shouting 've', 'doitsu', or 'pasta' in a sickening anime-esque refrain) until I read Snakeskins by LSunnyC (here I pause to collect myself and my feelings because BOY is Snakeskins just a slap in the heart and a kick in the soul).

[aspoonofsugar]

Nen and Characters: Morel and Knov

Morel and Knov, just like Knuckle and Shoot, are an older version of Gon and Killua. In other words, they are partners who efficiently complement each other and they have similar traits to respectively Gon (Morel) and Killua (Knov).

It is interesting to compare these three generations of partners. As a matter of fact both Knuckle and Shoot overcome their flaws/make progress, while, in Gon and Killua’s case, Killua grows, but Gon almost dies because of his unsolved issues. Finally, Knov is not able to face his flaw and leaves Morel to struggle alone:

It is as if the three couples of hunters offer different outcomes to the same kind of dynamic. In the meta about Knuckle and Shoot, I have written about the younger generations:

Shoot is meant to stay level-headed and to stop Knuckle from doing stupid things. This is how their partnership works, but here he completely gives up the role he is supposed to have and is simply honest with his friend. He feels humiliated by the fact that his opponent has not shown any respect for him and he wants Knuckle to avenge him because of this. It is not logical and it is surely not what Knuckle should do, but it is still what Shoot feels and this is why it is important for him to convey it and to make it known.

Shoot’s choice is the opposite of Killua. As a matter of fact Killua too has a moment where he has to choose if to be honest with a friend or to repress his feelings for the sake of the mission and he chooses to keep silent and not to convey how he feels to Gon. This ends up taking a toll on Killua and on his dynamic with Gon. He acts the best he can and avoids the mission to be compromised, but he also loses a chance to communicate with his friend and this leads to the both of them suffering later on.

Shoot’s choice to share his emotions with Knuckle might have been irrational and might have led Knuckle to put himself in danger, but is also something which strengthens the bonds between the two.

In this meta, the focus will be on the older one, so Knov, Morel and their bond will be analyzed.

KNOV: THE WORLD FROM A WINDOW

Knov’s ability is called Hide and Seek (Fourth-Dimensional Mansion)  and it says several things about the character.

First of all, its name perfectly describes what Knov does during the Palace Invasion. He basically spends the whole mission hiding from the ants and bringing his comrades to the safety zone once they are too wounded to keep going.

Secondly, it conveys Knov’s contradictions. As a matter of fact Fourth-Dimensional Mansion is a teleportation ability which conjures a home.

On one hand Knov can move both himself and others. It would appear that this power is built around the idea of bringing a little bit of every place one has been home. This seems confirmed by the fact that Knov’s portals can be open only in places he has visited himself.

On the other hand it was shown that Knov would use his power to drag people inside the mansion aka a place he is comfortable with, so that they can be imprisoned and killed:

In short, Knov’s ability seems to superficially represent freedom of movement, but it actually hides within itself Knov’s need of a comfort zone. Knov can go everywhere he has already visited, but he always takes a break home while doing so:

 This need is at the root of Knov’s breakdown:

As a matter of fact Knov is a victim of his own words:

He tells Killua that people tend to overestimate what they can’t comprehend. This is essentially what he does when he experiences the Royal Guards’ aura. As a matter of fact Knov is the character who has the worst reaction to the ants in general. Let’s highlight that the story makes clear that the ants are both monstruous and human. Whoever sees only one side of them is wrong. This is made clear by characters like Gon and Knuckle. On one hand Gon only sees Pitou as a monster and is distressed when he sees evidence of the contrary. On the other hand Knuckle’ s ideal of solving the conflict peacefully is naive and he must give up on it.

In short, the ants have a mix of negative and positive traits, just like the humans. Knov is a character who only sees one part of them and he is not able to face them and to better comprehend them:

It is not by chance that he is the one countering Knuckle’ s line of thought. It does not matter if Knuckle forged a bond with Youpi. This bond is destined to be broken because Youpi has a monstruous side which is unescapable. Knov does not care that what he has just described (a person hating someone who has hurt a loved one) is the same personality trait multiple human characters have.

Knov is too scared to see the ants as people and is stuck with the image he has of them as monsters. This is why he is not able to progress. All in all, Knov is a character who is not good at facing “otherness”:

This is mentioned even recently. Knov is the paradox of a hunter with a perfect ability to explore the unknown, but who is too scared to do it.

At the same time, him calling Killua out only to end up worse than him is important because Knov shares Killua’s flaw. In a sense, Knov is who Killua is scared of becoming:

Knov is a person who runs away because of fear and leaves his loved ones behind. He does not go to save Palm and lets Morel fight a monster alone. This is exactly what multiple mentor figures have told Killua he should not be like. However, the way Knov’s story plays out in the CAA suggests something interesting:

First of all, even if Knov is not able to fight, he still comes back to the palace to save his comrades. His breakdown does not stop him from saving Shoot and Morel. Later on, he also does his best to save Gon. So, him having limits as a person does not make him a bad friend, but only a human being. Different people have different breaking points. This does not make them unworthy of friendship and love.

This is also supported by others’ reaction to Knov. Nobody resents him and everyone appreciates his help in the mission. In the end, Knov’s bonds with others are not broken by his flaws:

MOREL: THE ACT OF LIVING

Deep Purple lets Morel change his aura in smoke with the help of his giant pipe. Once he does so, he can obtain different shapes and effects by manipulating the smoke itself.

It is a rather simple power, but it is also extremely flexible. In a sense, Morel, with the act of breathing (so with the act of living), changes a part of himself into multiple different things. This ability fits well in an arc about human potential because it conveys the persistence and creativity of humans. It might not be the strongest power ever, but it is still practical and adaptive. Moreover, if there is something Morel has shown he can do is to adapt to different situations. Knov always needs a familiar place nearby to feel safe, but Morel does not.

This difference is highlighted also by their fighting styles. On one hand Knov is not above using his house as a trap for his enemies. On the other hand Morel often ends up trapped in enclosed spaces by his enemies:

This is what happens both when Morel fights Cheetu and when he is up against Leol. Both times Morel is able to turn the tables and to win. These two battles can actually be read as representations of larger conflicts in a nutshell. In short, they can be seen as simplified explorations of the themes and the more complex dynamics of the arc.

Firstly, Morel’s battle with Cheetu is paralleled with Meruem and Komugi’s gungi game:

Both competitions have the chimera ant apparently take the lead. On one hand Meruem comes up with Kokoriko. On the other hand Cheetu successfully traps Morel in a game of tag. What is more, he is also able to use a new power to escape a dire situation. However, both Komugi and Morel are able to easily win because they have more experience than their opponents. Komugi explains she herself had invented Meruem’s move and a way to counter it. Morel shows Cheety how naive he is and how is using his own talents in the wrong way.

When it comes to Morel and Cheetu, it is interesting how they part in somehow friendly terms:

In a sense, Morel acts as some kind of mentor to Cheetu despite the two of them being enemies. This is strengthened by Cheetu being portrayed as childish and naive. The story makes clear he has talents he could use, but he is too immature to properly express them. Despite Morel’s advice, Cheetu is not able to overcome his flaws and ths is why he dies before being able to show his new ability. Both times he fights, Cheetu is not able to finalize his ability.

In summary, Morel’s fight with Cheetu shows two things.

a) The hunter’s strength lies in his intelligence and experience. This ability to evolve and to face unforeseen circumstances is among the qualities, which will lead to the victory of humanity.

b) Morel is a mentor figure to the point that he ends up mentoring even an opponent.

What about his fight against Leol?

Leol, differently from Cheetu, is framed as an equal to Morel:

Morel looks forward to the fight precisely because he recognizes Leol’s power and respects him as an opponent. This is highlighted also by Morel and Leol sharing similar musical tastes:

In other words, Morel more or less consciously sees humanity in Leol and this is why he is able to enjoy his fight with him. However, things change when he discovers Leol is using his friend’s power:

In this moment, Morel decides Leol has to die. What is ironic is that we, as readers, know Leol’s power is not even about stealing abilities, but it is about borrowing them. All in all, it is not even an ability too damaging to its victim. Despite this, Morel becomes more determined to kill Leol once he discovers he has targeted one of Morel’s loved ones.

This is basically what will happen with Youpi later on, even if the parts will be inverted. The Royal Guard will grow to respect his opponents, but he will later on refuse these feelings when his King is almost killed.

In short, Morel and Leol’s fight foreshadows how the conflict between humans and ants will end. After all, Leol himself is on of the “fake kings” who are trying to take Meruem’s place, so his defeat can be read as an anticipation of Meruem’s one. In particular, the two opponents’ conflict shows how complicated the relationships between ants and humans are. Even when the individuals show respect for each other, these emotions can be easily overridden by hate when loved ones are in danger. Finally, the difficult reconciliation between the two species is shown also by the way the fight ends:

Morel wins and kills Leol just by breathing. This means that the two species are destined to fight each other to the death just to be able to survive. There is simply not enough “air” for both.

Of course this happens because of how the world works:

Morel himself is frustrated by some of these laws, which go against his feelings and chain him to duty. He wants to act to save the people killed by the ants, but he must wait for the Palace Invasion, in order to maximize the chances of success. This necessity to chain one-self to duty is something which reaches its climax in Morel’s fight against Pouf:

Interestingly, this is the only one of Morel’s fghts where he is the one trapping his opponent and not the other way around. However, Morel is trapping himself as well:

But, in the end, he chooses his feelings for his mentees and lets go of Pouf. He might have done the wrong thing strategically and loses his weapon. Still, he is able to save Knuckle just in time and to fight freely.

In conclusion, Morel represents the best of humanity. He has all the positive qualities celebrated in the CAA. He is resourceful and able to learn. What is more, he greatly values his comrades.

This last trait is also ironically what goes in the way of him bonding with his opponents. This is interesting and contradictive. Bonds with others can both help in overcoming differences, but can also make these differences deeper. Like Knov has stated, people may become monsters for the people they love.

SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF THE OLD GENERATION

Knov and Morel are two adults and as such they are in a different point of their lives from our protagonists. This has both advantages and disadvantages.

On one hand they have a more solid sense of identity, like Morel. On the other hand, they struggle more to face their flaws, like Knov.

However, they are also stable enough that they can accept each other’s shortcomings without entering in a conflict. While both Knuckle/Shoot and Gon/Killua change their dynamic during the mission, Knov and Morel’s one is solid enough not to be modified by the experiences they live. It is a bond strong enough to support them both.

At the same time, as adults, Knov and Morel are less free than Gon and Killua. Gon and Killua act to change things they disagree with, like the association’s decision to sacrifice thousands of people. Knov and Morel are too conditioned to accept such sacrifices, even if they dislike them.

Finally, it is interesting that both Morel and Knov do a lot in the beginning, but leave the mission early. It is as if their role is to prepare the terrain for their students who will succeed in completing the mission.

Thank you for reading!

If you are interested in other analysis of HxH characters through their nen abilities here is a list of the ones I wrote up until now:

-Nanika

-Kurapika and Chrollo

-Killua and Illumi

-Gon and Hisoka

-Meruem and Komugi

-Palm Siberia

-Neon Nostrade

-Neferpitou and Shaiapouf

-Kachou and Fugetsu

-Menthuthuyoupi

-Ikalgo and Welfin

-Knuckle and Shoot

-Razor and Genthru

-Pakunoda, Senritsu and Biscuit

[gondorosi]

ASOIAF v/s GoT - Part 1: The  Disdain for Vulnerable Heroes

Book to screen adaptations are tricky as it is. Adapting high fantasy is even trickier as visual artistry quite often takes precedence over plot and characterization. It’s difficult to adequately portray complex morality, hard decisions and internal agony. Characters are often simplified and pared down to only a few most visually arresting characteristics (mighty king/queen, unbeatable warrior, mysterious magic person, wise-cracking smartass etc etc etc). Plotlines are reworked to make them non-controversial, consequences are ignored and the more difficult subplots are simply done away with. Such actions are common across adaptations, and GoT is no exception. 

The distancing of the show from the books started becoming significantly observable S5 onwards. At a certain pivotal point, the obvious heroic characters began to get pigeon-holed - the noble (Jon), the badass (Arya) and the conqueror (Dany). Crucial characters like Tyrion and Bran also began to lose all trappings of individual motives to dedicate themselves to a ‘greater cause’. Characters canonically unreliable and/or unfavourable such as Jorah, Sansa and Varys get painted in a far more positive light than they deserve. 

Of course, in Martin’s world the characters are far more layered and conflicted. And thus, to stick to the massively simplified (almost bastardized) show characterizations, D&D quite happily chunked off LARGE plot points essential to the main characters, in effect neutering everything that makes ASOIAF so fascinating to begin with.

Let’s first consider the two most obvious leader-heroes of the saga. Both Jon and Dany start out handicapped and subjugated in their own way, before quickly discovering that they have innate capabilities suppressed by their respective environments. Both of them find a role they are good at and use that role to accomplish something revolutionary. Both of them disregard the dangers posed by proponents of tradition and both of them are brought down or grievously hurt by those resistant to change. However, both of them are young. Both of them struggle with self-worth, purpose and identity. They’re two deeply traumatized young heroes who keep the truths of their hearts to themselves. However, the show begins to distance them from their vulnerability somewhere around the middle of its run. There’s a deliberate choice made to move away from complex characterization and focus only on heroics - whether its raining down fire from atop a dragon, or cleaving through enemies with a sword in hand. And while this makes for arresting and unforgettable visuals, you have to wonder why two such beautifully layered characters had to lose their tender facets to continue being badass heroes. 

Dany

No two ways about it - the show has done an exemplary job of building up Daenerys Targaryen the Queen and Conqueror (Season 8 exists only in the Upside Down). Her fiery nature, her courage and her incredible journey from a prized possession to a radical force commanding the very air around her. But before she earned all her titles, she was Dany - a quiet, observant and highly intelligent child who just just wanted to go home. The house with the red door is instrumental to Dany’s psyche as a person - and never mentioning it, or alluding to it takes away something vital from Dany’s story.

That was when they lived in Braavos, in the big house with the red door. Dany had her own room there, with a lemon tree outside her window. After Ser Willem had died, the servants had stolen what little money they had left, and soon after they had been put out of the big house. Dany had cried when the red door closed behind them forever.

All that Daenerys wanted back was the big house with the red door, the lemon tree outside her window, the childhood she had never known.

The red door features prominently in Dany’s thoughts, dreams and visions. To a young Dany, her name is as much a burden and a cage to her as the lack of a name is to Jon. He thirsts for the recognition and dignity of a true name, she dreams of the unfettered lightness of a life without the heavy legacy of her name.

It might sound contradictory, but for all that the show played up the power and near invincibility of the dragons, they skimmed over their ACTUAL importance to Dany’s entire Essos arc, and subsequently her identity. The show posits her as the Dragon Queen almost from the very beginning - whereas in the narrative of the books, it’s a realization she must come to after losing almost everything she’s fought for in Slaver’s Bay.

Remember who you are, Daenerys. The dragons know. Do you?

This line means much more in the context of Dany’s journey of self-realization than the show ever bothered to address. Through her entire arc Dany is struggling to place herself. She’s caught between the ‘Last Targaryen’ - the rightful ruler of Westeros set to take back the Throne stolen from her family by scheming enemies; and the Mother and Queen of the freed slaves of Slaver’s Bay who look to her to destroy a society which has progressed on the strength of broken bones of slaves. Beyond it all she is the Mother of Dragons - which brings all the boys to her yard. Dorne, fAegon, Victarion and Euron don’t give two hoots about the young girl who overturned the age old practice of slavery - they want her dragons. By the time she’s stumbling across the Dothraki Sea delirious, in pain and hallucinating, she knows not which of these three identities is who she truly is.

The door loomed before her, the red door, so close, so close, the hall was a blur around her, the cold receding behind. And now the stone was gone and she flew across the Dothraki sea, high and higher, the green rippling beneath, and all that lived and breathed fled in terror from the shadow of her wings.

That’s what the show misses. The crux of Daenerys Targaryen isn’t that she HAS dragons, it’s that she IS the dragon. The issue with this interpretation in the show is that to truly take Danerys being the last dragon to it’s intended narrative conclusion, you have to admit that her journey would not, and could not end with her becoming Queen of the 7K. The show turned her magic into a political prop which is entirely incongruous with the world-building elements established by Martin. ASOIAF’s magic doesn’t exist as a plaything and a tool for those desiring power. Magic exists to combat magic. Daenerys Targaryen is a conqueror, a queen and a rescuer but she is also more. (I could go on and on about Dany as the Last Dragon but that would be derailing the intent of this post.)

You are a queen, her bear said. In Westeros. “It is such a long way,” she complained. “I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl.” 

This is not a Dany the show allows us to observe. The Daenerys Targaryen of the show is not allowed to be vulnerable or uncertain or crumble. She’s not allowed to question her purpose and path in the world. After all, how can the most powerful character in the show ever falter? This is where the show takes the easy way out of putting more emphasis on the visual extravaganza - dragons burning down ships and Emilia Clarke walking through flames unscathed are easy crowd pleasers. But these are also just surface level considerations of Dany’s power and importance. She isn’t who she is because she has dragons - she has her dragons because she is who she is. 

But a major point of contention is - who DOES she need to be? See, Dany has always known she’s ‘important’ - in the way political prisoners are important. In the beginning it’s only her family name which holds her value. Her gradual journey from being only symbolically important as a Targaryen, to owning her own narrative as herself is fraught with considerable internal turmoil. The identity Dany cherishes most is that of Mother. Choosing to free the slaves in Astapor and Yunkai is the first decision she takes as a player with power and resources, and this decision has NOTHING to do with her destiny as a Targaryen. You identify a hero by their choices - and it is in this moment, uninfluenced by magic, or a greater power, this young girl sees the horror in a long established custom and CHOOSES to fight it. I would anyway have been invested as Daenerys as a character - but that one action firmly placed her on a pedestal .

In spite of where her destiny may pull her she wants to retain her softer dreams, her yearning for an uncomplicated happiness. At the same time, she’s voluntarily taken on the burden of ruling in Mereen, despite the responsibility very clearly chaining her. At the end of ADWD, her fevered dreams seem to suggest that both her softness and her duty are pulling her away from her true destiny. Dany’s struggles with self revolve around choosing between her identities as the Dragon, the Mother and the Conqueror - I personally subscribe to the belief that Dany ‘finding herself’ would mean realising that her three identities are not separate, but feed into each other to create the Daenerys Targaryen she is meant to be.

The show puts the cart before the horse and ignores the reverberating impact of a piece of Old Valyria being reborn on the shores of the continent where the empire fell. Her trek through the Dothraki Sea once she escapes on Drogon’s back is such a crucial pivot point in her story - it is literally the point where the old Dany is being left behind for who she will ultimately need to become.

And saw her brother Rhaegar, mounted on a stallion as black as his armor. Fire glimmered red through the narrow eye slit of his helm. "The last dragon," Ser Jorah's voice whispered faintly. "The last, the last." Dany lifted his polished black visor. The face within was her own.

After that, for a long time, there was only the pain, the fire within her, and the whisperings of stars.

She woke to the taste of ashes.

The show does make it clear that Dany’s ultimate destiny lies in Westeros - but the Iron Throne can hardly be it. Why will the last dragon be so singularly focused on a crumbling monarchy? Unjustly attacked and exiled and now fighting to retake their ‘rightful’ place - that’s a traditional fantasy storyline and in a purely monarchical power struggle needs neither Dany’s magic nor her dragons. The Iron Throne is such a low bar - what Daenerys attempted in Slaver’s Bay is ten times more difficult and impressive. As of this point in the books Mereen is on the brink of absolute chaos and the situation is much, much more convoluted than the show made it out to be. The political uprising of Mereen was dealt with so laughably on the show - ‘Bring dragons, Burn shit’ doesn’t solve any problems whatsoever but let’s save that for the next part.

Painting Dany’s journey back to Westeros as simply an exiled royal returning to take back what’s theirs removed the poignancy in Dany looking for home in Westeros. There’s this sense of yearning in her desperately looking for a place to belong in a country that’s little more than a fable to her. She tried SO hard to make a home with the Dothraki and to find a place as the ruler of Mereen - but if there’s one takeaway from ADWD it’s that Dany’s fate doesn’t rest in Essos. I expect WoW to be a bloody reckoning, an agonizing choice between Dany’s duty and destiny. The new world order she’s established is far too new and fragile to sustain itself. As we see from Cleon’s ascent in Astapor, evil opportunists exists everywhere, regardless of societal class. To cement her order, Dany and her inner circle need to stay in Mereen for a lengthy period of time. But Westeros is calling - she has to choose. It’s nowhere near as easy as the three Yunkish Masters being the only figureheads, the Greyjoy siblings traipsing into the pyramids with the ships she needs, and alliances falling into her lap just so that D&D don’t need to put in any effort into creating plot and can simply throw spectacular CGI at us.

My point is - you don’t need a dragon (or three) to fight Cersei Lannister and a court jester on ADHD masquerading as Euron Greyjoy (not Pilou, its obvious the dude read the books and expected great things from his character). You do however need them to fulfil the prophecy passed down generations of Targaryens, beginning from Aegon the Conqueror. You do need the last living embodiment of the magic of Old Valyria to combat the foul, unholy magic wielded by the utterly terrifying Euron Greyjoy of the books. The reason Aegon began his conquest of Westeros is beyond mere ambition - and if we go by what Martin himself revealed about his intentions, the Others ARE the final War. We had only 2 episodes in S7 to show Daenerys understanding the gravity of the Night King (godawful mission beyond the Wall and polar bear wights aside) - and then arrives the wrecking ball of S8 with its ‘Northern Independence’ and ‘my Iron Throne’.

The trouble with legendary heroes is this - they save the world for everyone else. Dany defeats all other claimants to the Throne and takes back Dragonstone, King’s Landing and the Seven Kingdoms, as Viserys wanted, and she believes her duty to be. She and Jon lead the Last Alliance against the Great Other. Maybe they win and live happily ever after. Maybe they win, but only after losing everything they hold dear. And maybe they win, and only lose part of themselves. Does that end Dany’s story? Is a Kingdom and a reign what she’s been searching for? Dany’s story only ends when she finds herself in front of that red door again. 

Jon 

It’s an infuriating irony that despite portraying him as MUCH softer than in the books, Jon’s vulnerability is either non-existent in the show, or is turned into a weakness. Where does the show ever dwell on his deep seated issues with identity, duty and survivor’s guilt? Where does the show address the raw power of his love for Arya? And why does the show think that the progression of Hardhome, being fucking murdered AND resurrected, and then Rickon’s death in front of his eyes would NOT leave a lasting mental impact?

To its’ credit, the show did clearly indicate Catelyn’s hatred for Jon. What we didn’t see, and thus don’t have a ready reference for (in the show) is how Catelyn’s treatment affected Jon. In the books though, you can clearly suss out the emotional impact of the years of Jon’s childhood.

He reached the landing and stood for a long moment, afraid. Ghost nuzzled at his hand. He took courage from that. He straightened, and entered the room. 

He stood in the door for a moment, afraid to speak, afraid to come closer. The window was open. Below, a wolf howled. Ghost heard and lifted his head. 

This is at Bran’s bedside when he’s still deep in a coma, with no certainty of whether he will ever wake again. Jon’s leaving for the NW, and this may very well be the last time he ever sees Bran again. Jon loves his little brother with everything he has, yet the overbearing emotion at this moment is his fear of Catelyn Stark.

Keep in mind that every POV hides something or the other from the reader. Thoughts and feelings may seem disjointed as a critical memory which aligns the two is missing. In this case, Jon is actively NOT thinking of any particular incident. Yet his fear is all pervasive. It’s an uncovered wound and it hurts him. We may not know exactly what has happened between Jon and Catelyn in the 14 years leading up to this moment, but Jon’s fear of her is very real. This almost paralyzing fear of Catelyn placed against the overbearing love he feels for Bran at this moment makes this exchange stand out for several reasons, chief amongst which is that Catelyn has left an indelible mark on Jon’s psyche. 

Robb and Bran and Rickon were his father’s sons, and he loved them still, yet Jon knew that he had never truly been one of them. Catelyn Stark had seen to that. 

By the time the moon was full again, he would be back in Winterfell with his brothers. Your half-brothers, a voice inside reminded him. And Lady Stark, who will not welcome you. There was no place for him in Winterfell, no place in King’s Landing either. 

The fear lessens once he leaves the halls of Winterfell, and bitterness takes its place. Jon’s feelings about her are tinged with fury and resentment. He’s long past hoping for affection from her, but what still rankles and will never stop being a source of anger, is that she deliberately tried to sabotage his relationships with others who most definitely were his family. 

Jon’s thoughts make it obvious that he is painfully aware that he doesn’t belong. For an awareness this heavy to be so deeply etched into a young boy’s entire being, the message has to have been reinforced intensely over the entire duration of his life in Winterfell. That’s not compatible with the assumption that Catelyn was only cold and dismissive of him. We don’t see the instances in either Jon’s or Catelyn’s viewpoints in the books, but the inference is all but thrown at us. 

Jon’s growth as a person, a leader and a revolutionary is dependent on his time with the NW just as much as his time with the FF. The show cut out far too many important aspects of his time with the FF, but atleast that part of his journey was treated with more respect than his accomplishments as a man of the NW. (Let me not start on the absolute blasphemy to turn one of the most decisive characters in the entire saga into a dithering, uncertain, meek fool in S8.)

Unlike Dany, Jon has never been important. He has no name, no legacy to uphold, no shoes to step into. All he has are his natural abilities - his startlingly accurate powers of perception for someone so young, his capacity for taking feedback to change for the better and his razor sharp practical intelligence. The text seems to suggest that Jon was indirectly forced to downplay his abilities due to his status - besting Robb was just not done.

With her deep blue eyes and hard cold mouth, she looked a bit like Stannis. Iron, he thought, but brittle. She was looking at him the way she used to look at him at Winterfell, whenever he had bested Robb at swords or sums or most anything. Who are you? that look had always seemed to say. This is not your place. Why are you here? 

It’s at the Night’s Watch that Jon first starts to become someone more than Ned Stark’s bastard - in his OWN estimation. The world will continue to see only a bastard and Ned Stark’s shame, but its here that Jon learns to accept and move beyond it. It’s in the yard of the NW training yard that Jon receives his first harsh lesson about himself - he’s lording the privilege of his castle education over boys far less fortunate than him. It’s at the NW that he has the opportunity to use his abilities. It’s here that Jon finds his calling as the champion of the misfits, the ill-begotten, the unwanted and the reviled. He becomes the de-facto trainer of the boys Alliser Thorne deems beneath his dignity. He’s the one convincing Maester Aemon of Sam’s worth as his squire. And it’s at the NW that Jon first begins forming his opinion of the wars of the south - something which he will carry till the end. 

When dead men come hunting in the night, do you think it matters who sits the Iron Throne?

The staggering impact of his experience in the NW to his character is an essay in itself. For the purposes of this post, suffice to say that without the NW Jon would never have grown to the position to have an impact on the greater story. As of ADWD, the Wall under Jon’s leadership has become somewhat of a rallying ground - hosting a King, a highborn Northern lady looking for deliverance and support, as well as the center for revitalizing the Watch, rebuilding the Wall and rekindling hope in the North.

At some point after his resurrection in the show, Jon’s portrayal starts edging over into the ‘noble, sacrificial hero’ archetype. This wouldn’t necessarily have been a BAD thing – if this ‘goodness’ and ‘nobility’ didn’t come at the expense of Jon’s overall characterization.

His ‘goodness’ comes in the form of forgiving Sansa for keeping the Vale army secret and keeping her as his closest confidant. This so-called goodness of heart is rank naivete the sharply perceptive and observant book!Jon would have been stupefied at. Jon knows to judge people by their actions – and Sansa’s actions made it obvious that she’s playing her own game and considers her brothers’ lives expendable collateral. The Jon who understood the heaviness of the mantle of leadership well enough to cultivate distance from even his closest friends in the NW would NEVER have allowed Sansa so close.

The ‘honourable’ show!Jon allows his Lords and his sister to question and challenge him openly. The ‘noble’ King Jon has to explain himself before undertaking a journey to gain a potential ally - the only possible ally against a War the North seems unwilling to believe despite the reports of the dead having been around since S1. The honest son of Ned Stark cannot lie to his House’s greatest living enemy. Lord Commander Jon would sooner have jumped off from the top of the Wall than take these decisions. He’s aware of the nature of power and authority, and that more than holding a position its important to make those around you believe you hold power. Power can do great good - but it is also fickle. 

Despite the NK and the AoTD being turned into a cosmic farce in the last season, the show did quite a good job of building up the horror, menace and sense of doom in the previous seasons. Hardhome is prime example of why the show was once the pinnacle of television – and what Jon saw there, coupled with the utter failure of his mission to evacuate all the FF would have pushed Jon to the brink of insanity anyway. From what we know of Jon, he carries the deaths of his father, Robb, Bran, Rickon and Winterfell close to him. Compound the steadily growing pressure of that loss with the fact that he loses Grenn, Pyp and Ygritte in the same night. Three of the people most important to Jon but a loss he was never given the time to process as Stannis’s army arrives the very next day. He’s still carrying this heaviness when Hardhome happens, and Jon is exactly the kind of man to blame himself for the people he was unable to evacuate. Not to mention, this is the first time he sees the Night King RAISE the dead – this is the point where the true power of the enemy is fully revealed. That was existential horror at its most visceral and not a sight a man is likely to forget, least of all a man who’s trying his best to create the only resistance.

Let’s forego the changed circumstances of Jon’s murder in the show and consider the act as is – Jon does the right thing, knows he’s doing the right thing and is betrayed and murdered for it. He’s dead and then he’s not and while he’s still struggling with resurrection, betrayal and the memories of Hardhome, Sansa arrives and he’s in the middle of the quest to retake Winterfell. It’s traumatic experience upon traumatic experience, a never-ending series of emotional turmoil with no outlet or time to grieve. This is the only reason I see Jon’s actions at the Battle of Bastards being true to his mental condition in the show – having Rickon die right in front of him when his little brother was pretty much the only reason he was able to gather the mental strength for the campaign would have unhinged him to the point of that ridiculously suicidal move.

But see that’s the last time we see any strong emotion from Jon. He seemed mentally and emotionally exhausted in the Winds of Winter episode, and that’s understandable but only at THAT point. That kind of exhaustion sets in only once you’re done with your battles and Jon’s true battle was just beginning. It’s just never acknowledged – when in truth he would barely have a handle on his temper and would be obsessed with the NK to the point of delirium. We apparently can’t have a functional main hero with his emotions all over the place, gathering the strength to do what must be done while falling apart inside. Or if we DO show him as someone struggling with himself, it’s to paint him as someone too weak to see the truth. Someone too blinded by love who should never have been in charge in the first place. 

Heroes are strong, brave, just and honourable. They are powerful and commanding and inspiring. And at the very core of it all, heroes are human. Wish the show had remembered that.

[itsclydebitches]

RWBY doesn’t follow the fairytale characters to a T: Emerald is evil when Aladdin wasn’t, and the point of Oz's inner circle is to SUBVERT their original counterparts, Oz is a wizard pretending to be a regular guy, Leo gave in to his cowardliness, Ironwood lost his heart (tho very poorly), and Qrow lost his brain (joining with Tyrian was ALLEGEDLY supposed to be dumb on his end, not that that stops the FNDM from victim blaming)

RWBY definitely doesn’t follow the inspirations to a T, however, I don’t think I agree that the big three here are subversions. Rather, up until Ironwood shot Oscar they seemed to be following the arcs of their counterparts rather closely (or at least, the arcs as laid out in the film. I admittedly can’t speak to the original novels): 

Ozpin - Yes, he’s technically a real wizard here, but he still follows the same path as the Wizard character. That is, moving from someone who is perceived as nearly all powerful, all knowing, all important to someone who is just as flawed and scared as the rest of us. Like pulling back the curtain, Volume 6 reveals Ozpin to be just another fallible man. He is a regular guy. He might have actual power - like the Wizard has actual influence - but that doesn’t make him the omnipotent being people chose to see him as. Both were normal men who stepped up to help: the Wizard a mere carnival worker who tried to give the Emerald City the symbol they wanted; Ozpin a mere fighter, with magic like many others in a Humanity 1.0 world (that power doesn’t appear to have originally been unique) who agreed to become the defender of Remnant. Both try to help their Dorothy character and fail: the Wizard with his balloon and Ozpin with his schools, leaving both girls to find another solution. Personally, I think there’s far more parallels between their stories than subversions. A subversion would have been actually making Ozpin as wise and all knowing as the Wizard initially appeared. Instead, this is revealed to be this: 

Ironwood - Same here. Ironwood is meant to appear like he’s heartless to the audience (and those of Remnant) at first glance. Here comes this man made of metal, with his stern looks and military persona, making calls that a lot of people don’t agree with. However, the story quickly reveals - to us if not the entire world - that the Tinman always had a heart. That’s the lesson of the film. You never needed someone to teach you how to care, or supply some magical means of achieving that. You’ve done it all along. Even if others - and at times you yourself - can’t see it. A subversion would have been to make Ironwood an actually heartless character, or at least someone who has to learn how to care like his counterpart assumed he had to. Instead, Ironwood is merely perceived as this, but is shown to actually be this: 

Qrow - Finally, like Ironwood Qrow is introduced as the brainless fool but, like his Scarecrow counterpart, is shown to have always had a brain. We’re introduced to him getting drunk in a bar and picking an idiotic fight with Winter. He reveals sensitive info to a group of students, destroys the courtyard, is revealed to have not kept in contact with his team, and then continues drinking. It’s easy to write him off as the brainless troublemaker of the group but, again, as we get to know him it’s revealed that Qrow is actually a genius spy. He’s thoughtful and strategic - never dumb to begin with. This is revealed to be this: 

(Sorry it’s hard to find a picture of Qrow being smart. Not because that intelligence doesn’t exist, but because it’s not easily reduced to a single image. So I just went with him being badass instead lol.) 

So I’d argue that RWBY was keeping very closely the moral messages of the Wizard of Oz, rather than subverting them: the man you see as an all powerful savior is human too and cannot fix all your problems, the man who appears cold and heartless has always cared about others, the man who appears brainless at first glance is actually quite astute. Even Emerald follows her Aladdin pattern by being the one person in Salem’s inner circle who we’re supposed to sympathize with. Emerald is the one who gets long close ups to show how uncomfortable she is with things. She’s the one questioning if this is the right course to stay on. Like Aladdin, she’s technically a villain (thief) but is primed to leave that life once better prospects are presented to her (I found a genie/I’m given a way out of Salem’s employment). From Dorothy/Little Red Riding Hood still being an innocent hero in Ruby, to the Good Witch still being a good “witch” (her semblance might as well be magic) in Glynda, to Pinocchio having always been a real person in Penny... I’d say RWBY follows the lessons attached to their allusions far more than they subvert them. Which isn’t to say there’s no subversion at all. I think having Adam really be a beast rather than someone whose “curse” is broken by Blake is one. Yang presented as the dumb, reckless blonde who is actually a brilliant and caring big sister is another (even if RWBY has messed this subversion up in more recent volumes). As is Lionheart. He is indeed a previously loyal lion who was revealed to be cowardly... but he’s also notably barely a character. We know almost nothing about him. He existed to give the heroes something to work towards - gotta get to Haven to talk to the headmaster - and then as a means by which all the other, important villains engage with the cast. Then he dies. It’s much easier to subvert (or accidentally write something that looks like subversion) when the character barely exists on screen. Lionheart has no character to complicate. Ozpin, Ironwood, and Qrow though? Their stories have all been (very basically) following the path of their inspirations. Until Volume 7. 

I don’t agree that Qrow is now subverted due to teaming up with Tyrian. Don’t get me wrong, it’s absolutely a stupid move. Arguably the stupidest I’ve seen in RWBY to date, but the story doesn’t seem to realize that. That decision isn’t treated like the Scarecrow has now lost his brain. Rather, it’s treated like a good decision that then led to ~totally unexpected~ consequences. If the story thought Qrow had made a dumb call we could have gotten any number of details to imply that, including but not limited to him regretting the choice he just made while Clover dies, rather than blaming Ironwood for it. So we as the audience might recognize that it’s dumb, but that doesn’t mean the story does, which undermines any argument that it’s a deliberate subversion. Though this may change depending on how Qrow views his actions in Volume 8 and/or if others call him out on it.   

Which finally leaves us with Ironwood. Yeah, it could be a subversion to give the Tinman a heart and then have him lose it... but why now? If you’re going to do that work then do it from the beginning, not only so that there’s proper setup for it - as you say, very poorly done - but also so that the audience doesn’t devote nearly six years of emotional energy into a characterization only to be told that we’re reversing course now. A character’s downfall takes time. A character’s reveal that they were secretly bad/evil/whatever all along takes planning. As @leonhaxor points out, you can also introduce an influence like the lamp. How and why did these characters suddenly become their opposites? Because an outside force is influencing them, but even then you have to plan for and think through the complexities of that situation. What happens when the lamp is removed? What happens when the characters actually talk about these problems and realize they simplified things horribly (i.e. Qrow’s belief that everything he’s done is meaningless)? How are you going to maintain that new characterization if the reason for its existence is so flimsy? When you spend years developing characters, it’s no easy feat to chuck that characterization out on a whim. 

RWBY did none of these things though and thus Ironwood’s sudden shift is neither believable nor satisfying. It’s not a subversion to write a classic Tinman for six years and then suddenly, in literally a few minutes, insist that he’s evil!Tinman instead. Imagine you read about a detective for six books who appears cold and unyielding, but is actually revealed to be a vulnerable hero doing his best to solve these cases. And he does. Not perfectly, but he does solve them, helping people in the process, and you adore his flawed-but-ultimately-very-good person. Then suddenly, in the last few pages of the most recent novel, the detective attempts to murder his assistant out of the blue and you’re left gapping at where the previous six volumes of characterization went. Other readers go, “Well, he and the assistant once got into a fight so it’s totally believable that he’d shoot him" and the author goes, “You never expected the detective to be the criminal, huh? See, it’s a subversion.” Except it’s not. Is the concept of a detective who is actually the criminal a cool subversion? Absolutely. Dexter is right there showing us that. But you have to introduce that from the start, plan for it, and develop it in a believable way. Writing a good guy for almost the entirety of the story’s run (Ironwood didn’t arrive until Volume 2) only to turn around and change your mind about them - without proper setup - is just bad writing. We could have gotten a persuasive and compelling fall from grace that culminates in Ironwood shooting Oscar... but that would require really basic things like him not losing his arm/making hard calls in the name of helping others just a few minutes before. 

[undignifiend]

Theme Ramblings - On Evil, Honesty, Violence, and Better Ways to Rule Number Two (Local Windbag Spends All Night Pontificating Again)

I really like Trollhunters and Tales of Arcadia. I feel like it addresses important themes that I also want to address in my own writing, and I feel like that is part of what makes it an awesome world and story to explore, through the original stories, and through fanfiction. I find exploring ideas within an already established world is very helpful and therapeutic. So here are my current thoughts on some of those themes, which have also been informed by various other stories. Narrative is one of the ways through which we process the world. And one of my goals is to learn how to do that with clarity, practicality, and compassion. So here’s a bit of what I think I’ve learned so far.

Warnings: Talking about violence, with pain and trauma. Stay safe. Also, spoilers for Tales of Arcadia - Wizards, and for the film You Were Never Really Here.

+++++

‘Evil’ is not a word that holds a lot of weight with me, at least not the way I feel it’s commonly used, especially in stories. Some bully without any redeeming qualities beating someone up for a power trip is a common motif, but I don’t find it a compelling or useful model of how or why some people act shitty, or how to possibly fix it nonviolently. As something of a determinist, I don’t believe our decisions just pop out of a vacuum - rather, that they are informed by our experiences, which we react to in healthy or unhealthy ways depending on what we think we understand and what we want to protect.

Or at least I think that’s a nice idea, but I don’t know how practical it actually is. For instance, maybe there are actual people who are just idiots, cowards, or cruel and nothing more, and interacting with them in a good-faith manner is an entirely hopeless waste of our limited time - especially when those mofos are actively threatening people. “They’re complex people, too!” seems kind of irrelevant when they’re calling for killing those who disagree with them, for example.

Maybe I’m having trouble with this idea because I haven’t actually recognized such mind-numbing simplistic malice in anyone directly involved in my life. I’m starting to think I might be spoiled that way.

I also want to emphasize that I’m not even remotely claiming “Everyone is right in their own ways”. Some mofos out there are objectively incorrect. I’m currently convinced that we all think we’re right, but not that we all are. Or that even when we realize we’re wronging someone, we tend to spin narratives that twist the situation to make ourselves look better, or even like we’re “The Real Victims! D:” to justify and excuse something we may otherwise deem tragic.

What horrifies me (what I’ve witnessed) is when harm is done by people who think they’re doing the right thing, or that they’re justified, or that it’s normal. People who otherwise have potential to do good, making a selfish call out of fear, anger, apathy, a misplaced sense of righteousness, or even just a desperate and ill-advised attempt to feel seen or important. The ‘evil’ that scares me most is a loss of perspective that leads to (and justifies or excuses) tragedy. That loss of perspective, I also think, is a key part of what makes propaganda possible. Calling someone ‘evil’ is often intended to deface them and simplify them into a problem or obstacle to be rid of - no longer a complex individual, but a symbol of all that is wrong with the world - a bully or ‘monster’ without redeeming qualities. (Often represented as something “subhuman” that we supposedly don’t have to feel bad about killing.) An external threat to vanquish in favor of facing whatever horrible truth we’re running from, or what conditions led to people acting in these harmful, tragic ways. (And if we can understand those conditions, perhaps we can guard against them and hopefully even save some lives and change them for the better?) I think calling someone ‘evil’ is not only impractical (and useless when it comes to diagnosing why someone is behaving a certain way, or how to effectively either help them grow up or maybe at least help prevent them from causing more harm), I think it opens the door for otherwise good people to do horrific things, all the while avoiding the root of the problem, and calling themselves justified and heroic.

That’s part of why I’m so excited about Wizards. (Finally got to ToA!) I appreciated Arthur as an example of what’s familiar to me, and the kinds of thinking I want us to learn to recognize and avoid. His grief was relatable - we’ve all lost someone, and we all have people we want to protect. But it’s monumentally important that we don’t commit Arthur’s tragedy, and take our pain out on others. And it’s also important that we don’t dismiss the pain that others are struggling to cope with, as Arthur dismissed Morgana’s and the trolls’ when he called them evil. And part of why I genuinely like Arthur as a character (not just an antagonist) was that he came around and admitted that he was wrong, and wanted to repair the damage he did.

At least until his Green Knight chapter, the motivations of which I’m still unsure of. I’m not the sharpest crayon in the shed, but it seemed like a non sequitur to me... after a certain point. If you have some insight into what’s going on with him, I’m all ears. I’m a little worried I might just be projecting my issues again.

So far, here’s what I think I can glean: I relate to the lines “How can I be at peace when the world is still broken?” and “He awoke to a legacy of a violent and awful world.” I don’t want to get into the specifics of my own experiences, but I understand the horror of “waking up” to a horrifying reality, and the motivation to try to change it somehow. The all-consuming restlessness of it, and the inability to escape or reconcile it, and the constant, never-ending tension that slowly rips you apart and isolates you from everyone and poisons your faith in humanity because you’ve looked into the abyss so long you now recognize that it’s where you’ve lived all along. Because no matter what kind of new equilibrium you scramble for, the truth remains that terrible, unnecessary harm is being done, and will continue to be done (and justified and excused and even laughed at) by otherwise good people until we all die out - and that will be our legacy even as we continue to squawk empty platitudes about how intelligent and compassionate and special we are, and nothing makes any of that okay.

In my worst, most melodramatic moments, I even understand the ‘Let it all burn, if it can’t be saved’ mentality. But I don’t have a lot of patience for defeatism, so it’s not a mentality I can take seriously for long at all, and that’s where my understanding (if I may be so pretentious?) of the Green Knight stops. Because I know there are many others who have seen what I’ve seen and feel the same way I do, and believe that a better way is possible, however distant, and who have done loads more than I have to change it. And (perhaps more importantly) I know that even those who perpetuate some of the same harms I want to stop, and even crack jokes about it, are still good people who mean well, and have their own pains to cope with.

What I want is for us (and our heroes) to recognize when we are being dishonest or unfair, and to call ourselves out, even when it’s inconvenient (or when it feels impossible, like when we’re scared, angry, or hurt). I love and admire people who can face their feelings and uncertainties honestly, and I want to be like them, because I believe that’s the most important, constructive kind of courage there is, it’s part of growing into a stronger, kinder person, and this stupid world needs a lot more of that in it.

And I think the whole topic of Evil is connected to our fascination with violence, and those who are skilled at it. (Though I’m not here to say ‘Violence Bad’. I know it’s not that simple.) In some situations, no other method has a chance of saving you or those you want to protect, and if you find yourself in such a situation, it pays to be good at violence, and to have friends who are, too. The stakes are high, so it makes for great drama, and is prevalent in stories all over the world. This also makes it a rather dramatic delivery system for Justice - or the Retributive version, anyway. Retribution is visceral, and easily understood, and speaks to our instincts of promoting and preserving status (teaching others not to screw us over or They’ll Pay), and discouraging harmful behaviors by harming the perpetrators...

I consider myself a rehabilitationist. But I understand the draw of retribution. I really do. The vast majority of my intrusive thoughts revolve around it, in particularly violent manners. It’s not fun, and it doesn’t feel powerful, and it feels weird to me to see stories that portray it as powerful, rather than as a failure or a loss. I understand the emotional desire to punish someone who has hurt an innocent. But I also understand it to a degree that transcends its original feelings of righteousness, takes itself to eyebrow-raising extremes, and makes me sick. Retribution has been glorified all throughout our history, and it scratches a primal itch, and yes, sometimes it may be the only available answer in order to prevent further harm. (Rehabilitation requires far more resources than Retribution, often making it impractical or overly risky in contexts of scarcity. I think that’s a huge factor in why ideals like Law, Justice, and Decency break down in a lot of Post-Apocalyptic story environments. It’s not just that our sense of Order has collapsed, it’s that we no longer have the infrastructure to support the ideals that Order was established to protect - though I would Not say that our current “justice” system in the US is rehabilitative or even ethical, but that’s a whole other rant.) But beyond that, I don’t believe Retribution is practical or productive. I believe it’s tragically ironic, loses sight of context and systemic issues, lends false-credence to the idea that people are the way they are due to innate, immutable qualities rather than taking their environment and experiences into account, and as a result, opens the door for good people to, again, do and justify horrific things.

It’s a hard, brutal film to watch, but I recommend You Were Never Really Here. The violence in this film feels far more real than the violence I’ve seen in any other because they don’t dress it up, or make it flashy. It’s more like something you’d see in a hidden-camera documentary. And their honest treatment of it was a visceral reminder of what violence actually is.

It puts a gut-wrenching twist on the ‘revenge fantasy’ and what it actually means to watch someone suffer and die. Even someone who had it coming. There’s a painful empathy to this film in its treatment of the characters and all the rituals (harmful or not) they use to cope with the violence they in turn have suffered. And the climax of the film centers on the awful realization that, despite his efforts, the protagonist was unable to protect someone from violence, or having to inflict violence of her own - like him, she’s marked by it now, too. She absolutely did it in self-defense, but the fact that she had to do it is still tragic. She has to live and cope with it now, as he does. And in the final scene, there’s this hellish sense of separation between them as they are, and the comparatively bright, happy lives they might have lived if they had not had to go through such horrific experiences. It’s unstated, but there’s this intense feeling that they’re haunted. Like they can be near that bright, happy life, but never cross the veil to reach it, themselves. The film ends with the girl deciding to try and find some happiness anyway. (“It’s a beautiful day.”) It’s not a happy ending, but it’s a hopeful one. It’s not a Good Triumphs Over Evil story. It’s a painful confrontation with an awful reality, and the struggle to find a way to carry on somehow.

And that resonates. Because we all know to some degree or other what it’s like to confront something awful, something we can’t just deny or forget or reconcile, and to try to find some way to cope with it. That tension can be so painful that it’s understandable (but still not excusable) why people sometimes try to pin it all on a scapegoat - so they can take something insurmountable, and turn it into something they can fight and triumph over. It’s a form of processing our grief, but it’s unfair, dishonest, and harmful, and inflicts more grief on others.

Anyway, in this fanfic I’ve been puttering around on (and trying to explore these themes through), Jim tries to solve things non-violently (as he often tried to do in the show, which I really like). Someday/night, he might not have the option, or can’t see any other way out. He knows that he (or someone else) is being seen as an outlet for someone’s frustrations - they’re using him as a symbol to project their own problems and issues on - something external they can beat up and triumph over in place of something intangible.

If he’s going to fight this outlook, I think he has to understand it - on more than a theoretical level. He has to go there himself. Maybe he punches Steve after all. (Maybe in the 2nd draft - or maybe later in the current iteration.) And he hates it. He’s changed forever, but not the way he expected to be. He feels capable, and righteous, and he doesn’t regret standing up for Eli or himself, but he doesn’t feel good. Because even if it’s easier to just dismiss Steve as a bully, and even if it occurs to Jim to do that - and even if he can feel it viscerally for a moment, Jim isn’t going to lie to himself. He can still see what Steve is, past his own anger. Steve is lashing out because he feels wronged and powerless, and he’s acting like his dad because that’s who made him feel that way, and that’s who showed him how to deal with those same feelings. Steve is a kid trying to process what he’s been through. It’s easy to forget that when Steve is trying to beat Jim down - when Draal has been trying to beat him down, too - and he’s had enough of all these angry people twisting their ideas of him in their heads and taking their anger out on him. He fought back because he couldn’t see any other option for handling it, and Steve was not willing to give him one. But from this, Jim knows how it feels to be demonized (seen as a manifestation of someone’s problems, some enemy to vanquish). And it becomes monumentally important to him never to succumb to that way of thinking, himself.

He’s not a crusader. If he has to fight and hurt or kill someone, it’s not because he thinks they’re a manifestation of evil. It’s because he does not see any recourse in stopping them from hurting or killing others. To him, violence is a tragedy meant to prevent another tragedy. And whether that justifies it or not is a question he will have to carry.

A lot of the combat we see in media, I would classify as “action”, and not violence. The vast majority of the time, it’s a choreographed dance that’s fun to watch, full of cool stunts that look like they’d be fun to do. It’s more like competitive eye-candy than anything else.

It’s fun, and I like the idea of writing that, but only in the context of sparring, or play. I don’t even want to call those “fights” or make a distinction between those and a “real fight”, because fighting is violence, and I hope to write about violence as honestly as I can. That’s part of what I like and admire about a lot of Guillermo del Toro’s other works, too. It’s not a dance, and it’s not glorious*. It’s ugly, terrifying, and it hurts to watch, and it makes us worry for his characters all the more, because it forces us to acknowledge how vulnerable they really are.

*Or, glory as it’s often treated, I think. If there really is any glory to be had in real violence, I think it’s in the willingness to act in a crisis to protect others. Terror is notoriously paralyzing, so this is where the value of training comes in - as a kind of autopilot mode to fall back on, and suppress our panic in the moment. The emotional fallout and trembling will come after the crisis has passed, but in an emergency, not knowing what to do, and feeling helpless, can be one of the most devastating weapons against us.

Sparring and training can be a fun and exhilarating test of skill, where no one intends to maim or kill you. It’s completely different from fighting. In a fight, the goal is not to learn or grow or compete, the goal is to either kill someone, or hurt them so badly that they can’t try to hurt you (or anyone else) anymore (or enough to give you time to get away). It’s very stressful and often traumatizing. One wrong move will have lasting consequences, if you’re lucky enough to survive to put up with them. Even if you win, odds are, you’re going to get hurt - maybe permanently. It’s the visceral understanding that someone has decided to disassemble you, and the only way to stop them is to disassemble them first. It’s an ugly reminder of the components of our bodies, and how fragile they really are.

“There are better ways to finish a fight than punching someone in the face.”

I agree with this - there are better methods of conflict resolution, and we must use them. And I really like how Jim carried this forward in sparing Chompsky and Draal. But I also felt like Claire fundamentally failed to understand what she had witnessed (and maybe I’m the one who misunderstood). I just didn’t appreciate what I felt was a lecture from someone who didn’t get it. Not that I’d wish for her to get it - it’s a horrible position to be in. When someone is actively trying to hurt you, it’s hard as hell to remember those better ways, and there’s no guarantee that they would work - at this point, you have to get the attacker to stop quickly. Steve resisted all other attempts to defuse the situation, and I don’t think it’s fair to blame someone for fighting back.

“A hero is not he who is fearless, but he who is not stopped by it.”

But I’m also not going to put down someone who still seeks to defuse a situation, even despite the risks. That’s a huge gamble, and it requires a massive amount of courage and good faith in the other party, and it won’t always pay off. But when it works, I believe it can open up possibilities that might not otherwise exist, because to demonstrate good faith in someone is to demonstrate that you are Not The Enemy. I think Douxie demonstrated this marvelously with the Lady of the Lake in Wizards. He gave up the most powerful weapon he had - or what was left of it - to free Nimue rather than fight her when it looked like she was about to End everybody. Once he realized the truth of her situation, he took action to alleviate it - because he wasn’t going to beat up a prisoner, and he did not consider her imprisonment acceptable in the first place.

Jim is not a pacifist, in Trollhunters canon, or in the AU idea I’ve been messing with. He will fight to stop others from killing, and he might end up having to kill in the process if all other attempts fail. But (at least in this AU thing) he will see it as a tragic failure to bridge a gap. He refuses to succumb to the way of thinking that presents his opponents as evil, even if that would make it simpler for him to process their horrific actions. They’re living, complex beings, not symbols of everything wrong with the world. And often, the reason they’re trying to hurt others to begin with is because they have succumbed to that “seeing their opponents as evil” way of thinking, themselves. As Jim sees it in Building Bridges, that Lie is everyone’s greatest enemy. It’s part of what allows otherwise good people (like Arthur and Morgana) to do, justify, and condone horrific things.

He will fight if he must, but he will do his best to reach others first, to show them the truth, and try to find a way to effectively address whatever underlying pain is causing them to lash out. If Maria Edgeworth has a point about how “The human heart opens only to the heart that opens in return,” Jim will transcend “human” by taking the risk of opening his heart first (whether or not he also becomes a half-troll in this AU idea). I currently think that’s the most profound way to prove that “evil” view wrong.

This is not to say that he will do so incautiously. Jim takes his role as a protector seriously, and he will do what he must in service to that. But he sees potential in others, and values it. He’s not a saint, but he strives to be understanding and compassionate. And that’s damn hard work. It takes effort to be good, and to see the good in others, especially when you’re hurting.

[plagueamon]

Code Geass MBTI Challenge Turn 9: Kyoshiro Tohdoh - ISTJ

With the exception of Anya and a few members of the Akito the Exiled cast, Kyoshiro Tohdoh is the character on our list with probably the least amount of information about his personal thoughts, views and experiences. With that in mind, I still think that the show gives us just enough of a glimpse into his personality in order to be able to type him accurately, to the point where I actually had to retype him a few times and overall was given more to think about than I originally expected. Before I start explaining this character’s functions, please keep in mind, that this post will contain heavy Code Geass spoilers, so consider yourselves warned. With that out of the way, let us analyse why Kyoshiro Tohdoh is an ISTJ.

Dominant Introverted Sensing/Si

Tohdoh’s Si is actually very comparable to Ohgi’s, because they value very similar things, but diverge in what further conclusions they do with those values based on their auxiliary and tertiary functions (this is coincidentally perhaps the best opportunity we will ever have to compare an ISFJ to an ISTJ). Much like Ohgi, Tohdoh largely bases his values around Japanese tradition, however he does not see them as something to be explored and shared with others (Ti and Fe), so mach as he uses it to dictate the rules he wants to see himself and his surrounding world world to develop in accordance with (Fi and Te). This sometimes makes him appear much more narrow-minded than he actually is, simply because he has a very specific idea of what he wants to achieve for Japan and for himself and is very determined to make it a reality. In truth he is actually very capable of applying this personal system of principles to others, which is what makes him a competent teacher and role model for Suzaku.

A common trait of dominant Si-users in fiction is that they can be both idealistic and practical in their mindset, with Si being tied to tangible evidence and facts by being a sensing function, while also being introverted and therefore highly subjective and personal to the user. Tohdoh himself embodies this balance quite well: we often see him talk in ways that are sentimental, with topics like honour and his hopes and fears for Japan’s distant future being brought up a lot, but, as Zero mentions during his prison break-in in R1, all of Tohdoh’s legendary success comes down to careful planning and intelligence work. In fact, it seems that Tohdoh himself understands this very well, as we never really see him refer to his work as “miracles” in a non-ironic manner, despite being seen as such by his followers. At his core Tohdoh still very much prefers to deal with factual details, planning out his operations and insisting on taking part in them personally, solidifying him as both a skilled and passionate tactician and leader, and, much like with Ohgi, this is the potential that Lelouch sees in him.

Auxiliary Extroverted Thinking/Te

As stated above, Tohdoh’s success as a leader mainly comes down to methodical and meticulous work combined with a fairly tactical mindset. His Te is certainly an important component of this, as we see him rely on it when he has to step out of his Si comfort zone. We see several examples of this happening when Tohdoh doesn’t see an obvious answer to a problem: his usual response is to trust in Zero’s judgement even if he has to blindly follow orders without a clear understanding of what his leader is planning. This demonstrates a healthy use of auxiliary Te, as it shows his willingness to abandon his immediate instinct to systematically observe the situation by himself (Si) when there is clearly no point in doing that, instead going with a more conventionally rational Te approach and trusting Lelouch because he has proven to be effective in the past. This is both supported and kept in check by his Fi, which gives him a degree of confidence in his judge of other people’s character as well as stops him from being a blindly devoted follower with no clear direction of his own. Compare this to Ohgi, who trusts others (Zero in this example) based on his perception of their sense of morality and trustworthiness (Fe), while his tertiary Ti balances this notion out by making him question his own judgement and thinking of the benefits of a given decision that is independent of ethical questions.

To put it in a somewhat simplified manner, Te is a form of generalist logic, developing a systematic “one size fits all” way of looking at a problem for the user, as they mature. The higher Te is in the functional stack, the more its logical system is complex and willing to account for exceptions, meaning that the kind of over-generalising behaviour that Te-users are often stereotyped for is much more commonly seen in unhealthy, immature or low (in terms of the stack) users. A much more healthy use of Te is comparatively rare in fiction or isn’t recognised nearly as often, however Tohdoh’s tactical ability and respect for authority provide good examples. Neither of the two are things he carries out blindly or out of principle, in fact he demonstrates a high degree of autonomy when deciding to trust his comrades and his superiors - instead these choices come from an understanding that this kind of trust the most reasonable course of action in most difficult situations.

As a soldier these qualities make Tohdoh outstanding.

Tertiary Introverted Feeling/Fi

Tohdoh’s Fi comes out in most of his unhealthier moments, meaning that he enters a Si-Fi loop. Whenever he finds himself in a difficult situation with no apparent solutions provided by his first two functions and nobody else to follow, Tohdoh is prone to giving up all hope and surrendering to his fate. The excuse he uses to justify this is also very evident of an unhealthy use of Fi: in his mind he chooses death to preserve his honour and deserves his fate for his personal failure. With Fi being a function that focuses on very personal values, this is an example of using it defensively instead of finding the inner strength to maintain hope and readiness for an opportunity to improve the situation. This almost causes him to reject a chance of freedom that Zero is basically handing to him in R1. It usually takes an external perspective (Te) such as Zero’s or that of his fellow Holy Swords pilots to “snap him out of” this internally focused state and show him that he can still find a reason to continue fighting without sacrificing his life and that his honour is not compromised by such a choice.

On a somewhat healthier note, Fi also puts an interesting spin on the direction of Tohdoh’s dominant function, giving him a firm belief that a person should keep true to their goals and principles no matter the cost. This is why his initial disappointment in Suzaku disappears to a large degree, when he learns that his former student’s life choices are in full accordance with the ideals he holds. While he still sees Suzaku as an enemy, Tohdoh develops a respect for his willingness to follow the path he chose despite being seen as a traitor to the Japanese by almost everyone and even encourages him to continue. While his Fi isn’t high enough in his stack to make relating to others necessarily easy, it does give him the ability to readily acknowledge that there are subjectively justifiable reasons behind everyone’s actions, no matter how different the person in question may be from himself.

Inferior Extroverted Intuition/Ne

Tohdoh does not get as much screen time or opportunities to speak as some of the other characters on our list, however because of his brutal honesty and overall being based on a fairly common fictional archetype, it isn’t very difficult to understand his fears and weaknesses as a human being. Dominant Si is a function rooted in personal experiences and principles (both moral and logical) that are very personal to the user and allow them to find a place for themselves in the world they inhabit. A common way for inferior Ne to oppose this is the fear of loss of one’s self and the personal principles that make us who we are. This makes Tohdoh reluctant to make decisions that contradicts his ideas about the kind of person he should be and the ways in which he should act. This kind of insecurity provides an understandable explanation for his Si-Fi loops: trying to avoid execution to him is similar to refusing punishment for his failure to liberate Japan, and that would go against his understanding of what he should stand for. This is why he only agrees to escape his prison when offered a chance of redemption.

On a more general scale, inferior Fi makes it hard for Tohdoh to truly understand other people’s motivations and plans when he doesn’t see the evidence leading up to them. Given that Lelouch is Ni-dominant and hence much more willing to rely on theoretical approximations and calculated risks rather than playing it safe and going with the facts, this tends to happen often and Tohdoh is often left having to trust in his leader’s competence without actually knowing what he is up to. Being mature and relatively healthy, however, Tohdoh does not tend to be bothered by this too much, recognising when his life is in capable hands instead of giving in to a fear of uncertainty, as unhealthy or immature Si-doms can often do.

However, please keep in mind that this is only my opinion on the matter and I will welcome any criticisms or alternative opinions to discuss them. If this article was interesting for you, stay prepared for next time, when I shall discuss the MBTI type of Diethard Ried.

[funkymbtifiction]

[answered asks for the week]

INSIDE:

Advice to high Ne on how to explain thing simply.

how could a Fe-Dom determine if they’re actually a 2 or a 6?

Hey, I'm toying with the idea of being 7w6 vs 6w7 as an ENFP with SX/sp

it’s totally possible for a Thinker to be “less intelligent,” right?

I'm 6w5 (social stacking) and I've had a very hard time self-typing.

Would believing that other people are responsible for their feelings and should be mature enough to choose not to get upset when you do something they don’t like be a low feeling thing?

IV Help for INFP 4w5 5w4 1w2

Hi, this is a semi-mbti and weird question, but since two of the mods are Ne-doms, do you have any advice to high Ne users who want to be better at explaining stuff? I admire how the ENFP mod makes good analogies to explain stuff, which I do too since I'm INFP, but despite Si being higher in me, I lost connection to it and I feel useless and incompetent. What I say/write is lost in scattered abstractions which make me sound unreliable, which abhors Te and my (4)w3.

You need better Te development. Te is all about finding something that works for everyone that uses it – a streamlined process that produces the same results in a variety of different people. This is why a good analogy appeals to Te, because the information it is talking about has been simplified into language anyone can understand. It’s tempting for any intuitive to stay abstract in their conversation – but imagine yourself trying to explain whatever you are trying to explain to a child. What language would you use? Simplicity (if you can find it, some things are tremendously complex) is best, because not everyone speaks the same language – literally.

So if you find yourself being vague or abstract, slow down in whatever you are doing, and think about how you could make this more detailed or plainer in expression. This is HARD at first. Extremely hard. And it will be hard in some topics going ahead, even after you have gotten good at it. Most people are not simple and straightforward in their communication. They leave out details. They need others to ask them clarifying questions. Think about that, when you are looking at whatever you are writing – even if it’s just an e-mail. Is this clear enough that they will know exactly what I mean? If not, how can I make it clearer? Keep working on it, until you are being clear.

For non-Te users, and especially INTPs (I like y’all, but sometimes I don’t know what you are talking about) the key is to know what the point you are trying to make is, and to lay it out clearly without deviating into sub-trails. I realize you cannot do this in conversation, you process in your head as you go and that switches your conversational tracks, but when sending someone something you have written, you need to use the same idea – SIMPLE. Straightforward.

As for finding other things to compare it to, what’s an analogy everyone can relate to? That’s a good place to start. What do humans all have in common? (Basic needs, desires, and emotions.)

The thing I admire most about one of my INTJ friends is that she says exactly what she means and she means what she says, and if you ask her to explain what she means, she can do so in a way anyone can understand. She said she worked hard to develop that skill (to be plain-speaking) but it’s tremendously useful in her professional and personal life. So my advice is to practice saying what you want to say, and to make sure you are clear. When in doubt, ask someone else if they understand what you mean. If they say no, keep working on it. Practice. Make it a habit.

Hi there! One of your tips on tritype finding (of among thousands, this was the one to stick with me, as a fiction lover) was looking for characters you understand above all else. What happens if you understand a few characters, but they don’t share a tritype? Also, how could a Fe-Dom determine if they’re actually a 2 or a 6, since I think you’ve mentioned before that Fe users can mix their cognitive functions for Enneagram motivations? Sorry for the initial oddball question, and I hope you’ve all had a great holiday season!

We have, thank you. :)

The character thing isn’t foolproof, since you could relate to or understand a lot of characters for a wide variety of reasons (cultural, religious, instinctual, gender-related, their struggles, their decisions, their indecision, etc). It’s easier to identify characters with your same tritype after you’ve found yours, because then you can recognize the same unhealthy behaviors (based on similar motives) that you both have and see how you similarly cope with defense mechanisms. :/

I used a variation of easy-to-understand Enneagram cards on family and friends recently that helped them figure out their types (I had most of them pegged accurately, which helped – since I already knew the answer, it was a test to see if they would accurately perceive themselves by choosing the right card, thus validating that the cards were useful for total beginners).

I will share them one of these days.

Using the cards and with the character examples I used, my father was able to recognize 2 and 6 in himself in that order because he does not identify with nor exhibit the traits of a proper 6. Since I am one, it’s an easy contrast – I am far more analytical than him, and far more … 6 ish. I tell him things about being a 6 and he gives me funny looks like, “People are like that? You think that? Really? Wow, that’s weird.” Real 6 traits. Like being indecisive, self-doubting, ambivalent, challenging of authority yet not pushing people too far, being cautious and watchful of others, but being hard to “rile up.” Under stress, I just work harder (3). He explodes when his 2 moves to 8. You tell him a problem and his 2 has to fix it for you (sometimes before you even have time to turn around, there he is with whatever you need), and if it doesn’t seem fixable then he’s mad that you asked at all, because he’s translating being asked in his head to someone needing help – and then him attempting to provide it and being “shot down” is rejecting him on an emotional level. He’s an image type. Emotionally reactive. And this is on top of being a Fe-dom. Wonderful man, and extremely generous, loving, and kind, but reactive in a 2ish way of wanting payback, not a 6 way.

6′s are not looking for “payback” like a 2 is. If a 2 rubs your feet, then they will expect you to offer to rub theirs at some point in the future. If the 2 continues handing out foot rubs and no offer is forthcoming, the 2 will either drop hints or feel rejected and “used,” even though they volunteered to rub your feet in the first place. And unless the person whose foot they are rubbing is also a 2, or aware of the Enneagram and what’s going on, they will not have a clue that “offering” does not mean “I am doing this ONLY because I love you.” Of course they love you, else they wouldn’t offer to rub your feet. But a 2 finds it extremely hard to ask for the things they need, because they assume that other people should KNOW, because as a 2, they know what YOU need. They are tuned into what YOU need. And they are there to give it to you. So why aren’t other people doing the same for them? The problem is, the 2 never asks… so other people do not know what the 2 wants/needs in return, leading to the 2 becoming bitter about all the nice things they do for other people – with no one giving them any kindness in return. Which other people would do, if the 2 could just admit to their own needs instead of feeling that their own needs are “less” in comparison to other people.

This works even as a lower fix. I have seen 2 lower fixes go through something hard – alone, because they did not want to “impose” on others. Because admitting they need someone’s help or love or attention or support seems selfish to them. They are so used to “giving” and not “asking” – and it is very, very easy for other people to grow used to the endless, abundant “giving” and take advantage of it. Sometimes maliciously, and sometimes totally innocently. And then the 2 will find a sympathetic ear and vent their frustration – often my ear. And I sit there grinding my teeth and encouraging them to “Just ask for what you need. It’s okay. You are not being selfish when you admit to these things. And your husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/child is not a mind reader. So you need to be open and honest with them. They love you. They will happily give you what you need, but THEY NEED TO KNOW WHAT THAT IS FIRST.”

You should also read through the Institute’s comparisons, and pay attention to stuff like this: “The feeling-tone of both types is completely different: Sixes warily invite selected others into their lives, whereas Twos throw out the net of their feelings with more abandon and see whom they can sweep into the fold. Sixes want to create partnerships with others that will support them in their bid to be more independent, but start to feel anxious if the relationship becomes too merged or “mushy.” Twos want to be close with others, and the more intimacy and merging they have with their loved ones, the better.”

2: aww, you want to be close!!! *cuddles you and smothers you with kisses*

6: you want to be close to me? why? *gives you a suspicious look* What are you up to? And ugh, don’t even think about smothering me with kisses. I’m not even sure I like you yet. I realize it’s been 8 years but I don’t do feelings. :P

Good luck. I know it can be hard. But being a Fe-dom doesn’t mean you’re immune to being able to figure yourself out. Just… leave others out of it. Go get a proper book on Enneagram, read the chapters carefully, think about your life and the decisions you have made, and why you made them. Ask yourself hard things, like WHY you are doing what you are doing. You should be able to relate not only to the “good” things about your core, but the bad things too.

The good things about a 2 is: helpful, generous, kind. Bad things: overbearing, controlling, manipulative, insincere.

The good things about a 6: analytical, humorous, friendly, warm, likable. Bad things: suspicious, anxious, self-doubting, distrustful.

If you recognize both in yourself, ask yourself which one, if you were allowed to choose only one of them, describes your personality the most.

I should probably also say that it can be extremely difficult for a Fe-dom to realize or accept that they are a 2, because they often do not want to admit that their main motive for being so helpful and generous is so that you will love them. It’s hard for them to think of themselves as worthy of love even if they do “nothing” for you. They just can’t imagine that. Each heart type has their own neurosis, either the need to stand out and even romanticizing their flaws to cover up insecurities (4), the desperate need to achieve and “become” so that you will admire (and then love) them (3), or the need to do things for you, so that you will not turn them away (2).

I have a big heart for 2′s, in case you cannot tell. Maybe because they break it the most often in that I see them as giving, selfless, generous people often taken advantage of or not given enough of the appreciation they deserve.

Hey, I'm toying with the idea of being 7w6 vs 6w7 as an ENFP with SX/sp. I know that 7w6 is usually considered more common for an ENFP, but all descriptions also appear to have the built in assumption of being Sp-blind insread. Would so-blind change your expectation of frequency for an ENFP, or can you give descriptions of both..?

There are… so many differences between those two types, in terms of ENFPs.

Basic things like the 7 being an optimist, the 6 being a pessimist. The 7 having a short attention span, the 6 being able to focus longer. The 7 having bouncing, random thoughts (especially with Ne) and the 6 having linear thinking. The 7 not following through on things, the 6 working steadily to avoid anxiety. The 7 dropping people, things, places, interests when bored and moving on; the 6 holding onto people, things, places, and interests longer than necessary. The 7 dreams of all the things you can do, the 6 tells you all the ways it will go wrong. The 7 being a more stereotypical ENFP, the 6 bringing in way more Te and Si.

You also NEED to consider the sx-first variant, because it makes a HUGE difference. Sx 7 is the most idealistic of the 7s – they don’t want to face the harsh realities of the world, they want to dream and have a good time and be with whomever catches their eye (for as long as that lasts, and for a 7, it is not often a long, long time) – and an sx6 is assertive, combative, and seeks to find someone to take care of them / combat their anxiety. So you have one driven by dreams and cheerfulness (sx7) and one driven by anxiety and self-doubt (sx6). The so-blind means neither one will be much concerned with people other than who they bond to (sx) and will look after their own needs (sp).

If you look at Veronica Mars, she’s a good example of an sx-first ENFP 6w7. Fearful, anxious, reactive, distrustful. Turns on people, tells them off, wonders about their motives – after trusting them too much and being burned. That’s how sx6w7 acts. Contrast her with any sx7 ENFP in the tags. The 7 ENFPs are generally upbeat, playful, optimistic and not nearly as intense as the sx6.

Hi there! This could be a really dumb question, but it’s something I’ve kind of been passively wondering about for a while... obviously, being a Feeler is not an indication of low intelligence (and Thinkers can feel, etc.), so it’s totally possible for a Thinker to be “less intelligent,” right? What would this look like/do you have any examples?

IQ has nothing to do with what personality type you are. There are stupid people of every type. Just go people-watch sometime. ;)

Do I have specific examples? No.

I will, however, say this. Being blessed in one area with a certain kind of intelligence has a deficit, always. A blind spot, if you will. Or an area in which you are not smart, even if overall you appear to have a high IQ. Like the brilliant professor who can do complex math equations in his head but wears mismatched socks to the office.

Reading about Stephen Hawking, it struck me how he could be so brilliant in certain ways and so foolish in others. It was actually heart-breaking. He was a very poor judge of character and wound up being mistreated, neglected, even abused later in his life because he placed himself into the hands of someone untrustworthy. That would seem foolish, and yet… he was brilliant. So there was the trade-off – smart in one area, but unwise in his personal choices.

In my opinion, there’s a difference between “intelligence” as defined by IQ and “wisdom,” which I would consider the true intelligence, because without wisdom you can have a high IQ and still screw up your life irreversibly. Without wisdom, you will chose the wrong business partners and romantic relationships. You will trust the wrong people. You will leap on the wrong opportunities. You will make poor choices in many aspects of your life. And unfortunately, because so many people with a high IQ consider themselves “smarter” than most other people, and thus often have a strong ego, wisdom is something they have to learn the hard way – if they learn it at all.

I'm 6w5 (social stacking) and I've had a very hard time self-typing. If I look at the functions, Fi and Ne are what I relate to the most but I don't relate much to most descriptions of INFPs (including the ones on this site). I'm more academic than I am artistic. Although I have a strong sense of identity, I still need reassurance from others. I do pour a lot of energy into elaborating a trustworthy and logical framework for myself (in a Ti-like manner). Can being 6w5 explain that?

Self typing is difficult, especially if you are a 3, 6, or 9, since all three of those can obscure your functional stack. (3′s tend to see themselves as how they want to be, not how they are; 6′s do not trust their own perceptions and can be inconsistent in their behavior; 9′s can identify a little bit with everything.) Unless you elaborate on what you consider to be a framework, I can’t answer to if you use Ti or not. (A lot of people say they use a framework and then you ask them to explain it and they go ??? or offer a shallow explanation that shows their lack of Ti; an actual Ti-dom can and usually enjoys talking about it.) Though yes, needing reassurances from others is so6 based.

As an NFP 6 so-core myself, I can tell you what it’s like to be a feeler and a 6.

I approach each situation from a logical standpoint. That’s what so6 is about – so6 does not necessarily mean clinging to an “outside” system for security (religion, politics, a social movement) but it can consider “logic” itself a system if you go by, it cannot fail. From a young age  I used “logic” as a system to feel secure. My thought process was and has always been, “If you are logical about this, you will stay safe and be okay.” I looked at people who made what I saw as illogical or irrational decisions as… irrational and unsafe.

It has not given me false Ti, because I don’t do inner frameworks. My logic is based in facts. If you can prove my facts wrong, I’ll change my mind. But you must use evidence and facts, not generalities or inferences or stereotypes.

I have over the years found Te-based (factual) excuses not to do things I did not feel like doing – to myself and others. How fast my brain switches to the facts of the situation sometimes astonishes me. Things like a friend asking if we could do a road trip and use my car. Aww, that’s a sweet thought but I’d rather put several thousand miles on a rental car than my own. Driving = miles on your car. Miles on your car = wear and tear on your car. Wear and tear on your car = the quicker you’re going to have to replace car. Mine has extremely low miles, is paid off, and in excellent condition. So, no, I’m not taking her on a road trip.

There’s also “rationalizing” with facts 6 does, which in a way is aggravating to me, because I’m never able to sulk for long. I’ll give you a specific example. I was friends with a small group whom I saw maybe once a month in my teens. I lived too far away to see them a lot (over an hour away) and I did not want to ask my parents to take me to their house a lot since it was inconvenient for them. We had a mutual fondness for a certain author’s work and agreed to see the movie adaptation of one of their books together when it came out. I looked forward to it. I wondered when we would go. I kept my eye on the release dates. And then I found out they had all gone without me.

I knew the truth: they had forgotten me. Out of sight, out of mind. I felt a little hurt but it did not take my 6 logic long to kick in and come up with a list of practical, factual reasons why they had left me out – thus diffusing my sense of disappointment. I live over an hour away, a parent would have to drive me to a theater downtown and then home again, when they lived within a short distance of each other and could carpool, and see each other every day and decided to go together some Saturday morning. It was not intended maliciously… they just forgot your excitement because they do not see you every day.

That soothed the burn because I accepted the reality of the situation. (But you’ll notice I haven’t forgotten it, either. ;)

Would believing that other people are responsible for their feelings and should be mature enough to choose not to get upset when you do something they don’t like be a low feeling thing? I just learned someone in my family thinks like this and I can’t understand it, and its even giving me mild anxiety. I get not letting others get to you, but believing that you should be able to do whatever you want and others should just choose to not get upset, seems heartless to me. The funny thing is this person gets very upset when other people don’t like them, or call them out on any thing that isn’t perfect. This person thinks they are an INFP 9, so maybe it’s some sort of loop or grip? It just seems off to me, I’d like to be able to help them, but I don’t even know where to start.

There’s a lot to unpack here, so we’ll start with this:

Would believing that other people are responsible for their feelings and should be mature enough to choose not to get upset when you do something they don’t like be a low feeling thing?

No, actually that’s Fi anywhere in the stack. What I mean by that is, Fi takes personal responsibility for how it feels and thinks other people should do the same. Fi knows that the only person responsible for its reactions is… me. And the only person responsible for correcting their own attitude is… me. And if I am responsible for all my reactions and feelings, I don’t see why other people should not do the same. Healthy Fi will not go out of their way to hurt other people, and will apologize for hurt feelings or misunderstandings, but it still believes that if there’s an overreaction or hurt feelings unnecessarily, the other person is responsible for adjusting their attitude.

You can actually tell an unhealthy Fe from a Fi based in where the blame goes. Fe points outward and is attentive to the emotional environment, so an unhealthy Fe is always going to blame the other people first. Fi is inward and focused on “me,” so the blame will go inward first. Thus you will have unhealthy Fe’s who blame other people for their feelings and opinions and overreactions and justify it in some way by refusing to take responsibility; and unhealthy Fi’s who take on too much blame in a relationship or assume it’s always their fault, because they did something wrong.

I get not letting others get to you, but believing that you should be able to do whatever you want and others should just choose to not get upset, seems heartless to me.

What you describe is unhealthy, immature Fi in terms of assuming you can do whatever you want without any emotional or real-life consequences. Fi needs a healthy, sensible Te or it develops an attitude of “this is who I am, get over it” – Te is what says, “Yes, but if you do this, that will cause these consequences.” You will no longer have friends. You will get a reputation as a selfish jerk. You may get fired. There’s your desire to do what you want, and the fact that like it or not, you live in a society that doesn’t care what you want. You also have friends and family who deserve better than for you to treat them poorly.

(On a different note, sounds like this person as an sp/sx social stacking. Meaning they are so-blind, which causes them not to care much about what others think of them. It’s all about their sp-needs and what stimulates them. They will have to work hard not to be isolationist and selfish, and find Fi [treat others as you would like to be treated] and Te [or these are the consequences / how you will sabotage yourself if you act this way] reasons for responsible, mature behavior that takes other people and their feelings into consideration.)

This person thinks they are an INFP 9, so maybe it’s some sort of loop or grip?

Might be Fi-dom (and probably is, frankly) but I’d doubt a 9. Even an sp/sx 9 still does not like conflict and “doing whatever you want” tends to make people upset with you.

I’d like to be able to help them, but I don’t even know where to start.

Just like they believe your feelings are your business, their health levels are their business. You cannot help them unless they want and ask for help. People will not change unless they want it badly enough to learn how to change and actively work toward it. It’s hard (believe me, I know…) but you either have to like them for who they are and let them be themselves and find their own path in life or if you can’t stand their behavior, find different friends.

-        ENFP Mod

IV Help for INFP 4w5 5w4 1w2

Based off of the information provided by you, I think it is safe to conclude that you are more likely an so/sp. You show a lot of awareness and orientation towards soc matters, apart from what you did share as evidence of possible soc in you. Being socially awkward can be indicative of the skewed first instinct. It is said that the first instinct is what we are neurotically insecure about. An sp first would be concerned with “Do I have enough? Will this be enough? How am I right now? Am so comfortable, safe?” That’s their number 1 priority. You don’t exhibit that kind of awareness about yourself.

Hating crowds and preferring one on one interactions, being an intense and romantic individual is also not conclusive proof of sx. You are an INFP, your dominant function is introverted. 4w5 also turns to pull away more from the world, even with a soc variant first. I would advise you to not conflate sx 5 and sx blind 4. The two are vastly different in terms of how the instinctual needs manifest when filtered through the lens of the pertinent enneagram type. It is true that sp 4 is the long suffering 4 that neither seeks to ooze and punish like a sexual 4, nor broadcast the image of a broken/unique individual by comparing itself to the rest of society or its groups like a social 4.

“I can’t actually see myself dating anyone I don’t have strong feelings for or knew as a friend beforehand, and I end up idealizing the person/never telling them anything.” - This is not sx. Sx has a sort of inexplicable pull towards someone, something that doms cannot control. Intensity alone is not sx. We all tend to exhibit intensity in one part of our life or another. Besides Fi doms can be very strong, tenacious and passionate people. Seeking friendship before love is a very good indicator of higher soc because friendship/connecting/affiliating/bonding are primarily soc concerns. This argument is supported by your over analysis of your actions, as well as the way you speak about work with a much wider focus than just enriching your resources first. Emotional intensity, competitiveness especially in the comparative sense you have mentioned is not sx 4. These are just 4 things, as the principle vice associated with this type is Envy.

Sx 5 has issues with trust. The way they open up to intimates is by confiding in them some pretty heavy secrets which can overwhelm the other person if they aren’t ready. It is like an intense secret inner world shared just between the 5 and the person they have sx-ed with, for lack of a better word. The strategies you mention for making friendships is also pretty heavily social dominant. I want to emphasize that being soc first does not mean that you are a social, outgoing individual who is super groups oriented. What it does mean is an acute awareness of others’ perception of you, the people and group dynamics in any room you walk into, knowledge of hierarchies and prioritizing them. Ichazo states that the instincts speak of unmet emotional needs. Misinformation about how the variants affect the enneagram type can cloud your understanding, or even lead to mistypes. Of that, sp 4 descriptions are the worst offenders. As a counter type, its description suffers from ambiguity and a lack of precision.

You are right in your analysis, in that you are sx blind who wanted to be an sx user. However, I urge you to reconsider the order of your stacking typing in light of the data provided by you. A good link to peruse would be oceanmoonshine. Hope that clears it up!

- ENTP Mod.