#but his actual worldview and beliefs are not those of his fans

[tritoch]

I wish people were willing to have a slightly broader or more expansive understanding of FFXIV's women because I think there's so much there in terms of easily-unearthed subtext that no one really thinks about! And I don't mean this in a "people need to re-evaluate their response to the women of Stormblood" way (though I do think that's largely true), I mean I think fandom's understanding even of the women it mostly likes is pretty weak. And you can say that's because the women are underwritten, and I won't argue that they couldn't use more attention from the writing, but that doesn't prevent you from analyzing them the way you can any character in fiction.

Like everyone's always like, oh, Y'shtola and Krile are like your snarky wine aunts, haha. But...Sharlayan is a pretty ossified and patriarchal society from what we see of it in Endwalker and places like the AST quests. Can we open ourselves to the possibility that it means something that almost every young Sharlayan woman we meet, almost all young women in academia, tends to be a little sharp and quick on the retort? The arch and snarky ways in which those two carry themselves reflect in some sense the facts that Krile is almost literally a nepo baby woman in STEM who is barely older than her students, while Y'shtola learned her behaviors from her much older female mentor, a woman who hated Sharlayan academic culture so much she literally abandoned it to go live in a cave.

Or like, Alisaie! Fan jokes and meta frequently buy into her tendency to characterize the dynamic between her and Alphinaud as a jock/nerd, street savvy extrovert vs book smart introvert thing. Except, tragically, Alphinaud's highest stat is 100% Charisma and he absolutely pulled in his student days. All his greatest achievements are diplomatic, and he very easily develops strong friendships with people in every culture you learn about. Alisaie is the determined, sensitive genius who revolutionizes Eorzea by proving the tempered can be healed. She's just permanently carrying a chip on her shoulder that while she and her brother are remembered as the youngest students in Studium history, actually he got in six months before her, a fact pretty much no one else ever brings up once. She's constantly fuming over the fact that he was marginally better than her in certain specific ways in high school, and looking to differentiate them in ways that actually fail to credit her own obvious strengths and accomplishments. I think that's so fun! It's so juicy, and it's equally good for comedy or serious character studies.

Venat is a genuinely benevolent hero who has no compunction sacrificing lives for the greater good. Minfilia is kind and compassionate and clearly on some level actually buys into the narrative of her own unique moral authority. Ysayle is a revolutionary firebrand with almost no concern for the common man, whose death reflects her Javert-like inability to reconcile her own romantic belief in justice with the tragic ways her blinkered worldview (born largely of trauma) let her be easily co-opted by a violent system. But even people who like these characters rarely move past surface-level reads (people who think Venat is just an all-loving mommy figure make me want to fucking die). The fandom is allergic to drawing connections the game doesn't draw, and fails to recognize that FFXIV is a game where characters voice understandings of themselves and others that are wrong about as often as they're right.

You can already see the ways that women like Wuk Lamat and Cahciua and Sphene are getting flattened or losing their shading in fan reception and it's boring. Like I'm not even saying this because you should take female characters more seriously or something (though you should), I'm literally just bored to tears sometimes and if you guys turn Wuk Lamat into another Hot Dumb Jock Lady, I will combust.

[thr0wnawayy]

Imo the League of Villains should have never existed from the main story of MHA. They were utterly unbalanced and were so flawed that no attempt of fixing could fix them.

I get where your coming from. I

I honestly believe the LOV really needed was time to grow away from the spotlight.

Think of the LOV as leftover pizza (I know, just stick with me for a minute)

Too long in the microwave/oven/pan and it tastes like hardback, too little and it becomes soggy muddled. There's a very specific way you need to do things and that's by not overthinking it.

Hori kept the microwave on too long and the LOV's potential evaporated.

From what I can tell, MHA worked best when it had a 'Villain of the week's type of thing going on.

This was most prominent and best set up with Stain, Stain's character/arc not only expanded the world of MHA but also brought up deeper questions about Hero society

What's most important here is that Stain didn't overstay his welcome. He rolled in, made every panel count and then went out like a champ. Affecting the protagonist and those around him.

He had an impact that's felt throughout the rest of the series (There is no Internship Arc in Ba Sing Se) not inspite of his short lived presence but because of it.

At some point, Hori lost this concept and the plot went with it.

I think the main problem with the LOV started after Kamino. Before this, every member has solid, or at least tangible ideals.

The Vanguard Action Squad was the LOV at it's most raw, not perfect but functional. They felt like people, when Spinner stops Magne from pursuing Midoriya, it feels real for the world.

Simply put the LOV (much like 1A) worked best as individuals, differing worldviews and all.

So when Hori robbed the LOV of their autonomy by practically wrangling them to Shigaraki, it in turn killed the LOV, because now nothing was individual about them.

If you want an example, how about Magne's death. Her last words are the very last time anyone in the LOV asserts any belief besides Shigaraki's own.

After this the LOV barely give any resistance to Shigaraki's plans no matter how short sighted or convoluted.

Kurogiri is outright sacrificed by the narrative so that Shigaraki finally has to step up.

Shigaraki's reaction to Toga's rage and grief follwing Magne's death can be amounted to: "Trust me bro, we're doing this for us bro, please believe me bro."

It's absurd.

As for being flawed, I'll assume you mean their motives.

What needs to be understood is that the LOV (Pre Kamino) and the PLF (Post Kamino) are not the same characters

Flanderisation is the phenomenon of a characters worst traits being exacerbated over a period of time until said character is unrecognizable from their original self.

This is what Hori did the LOV and he did this intentionally.

At some point he realized that the Villains actually had more of a point than the heroes, this likely occured after the MVA arc when fans began rooting for the LOV.

To counter this Hori sabotaged multiple characters and plots in a desperate attempt to justify his woolies and unfortunately for everyone who's isn't an abuser-stan (Enji and Bakuo). The rest of the cast and world suffered greatly.

What you ended up with are characters so detached from their origins that they might as well not even be the same characters at all.

There's an image somewhere that encapsulates this perfectly, it's a 4 panel comic with two stick figures (one black and one blue). If I ever find it or someone links it I'll be sure to upload it here

[greatwyrmgold]

I'm not really a fan of MHA any more, but I find the Togaraka ship deeply compelling. In a story which was willing to center queer narratives and pay off the themes built up in the first 20 or 40% of the series, Toga and Ochaco's relationship could have been a great way to develop them.

Toga's driven by a destructive individualism. She tried conformity, but that didn't work, no matter how hard she tries. Now, with a little encouragement from Stain's video and Shigaraki's influence, she just does what she wants. And if that means the occasional murder...well, is that really worse than the people around her expecting her to kill herself to fit in?

Ochaco's beliefs could be framed as naive authoritarianism, or at least traditionalism. She wants to preserve the hero society she and her parents grew up in, a hero society which doesn't work quite so well for the Togas and Twices of the world as it does for people who own a small construction company, already straining under the weight of its contradictions despite the Symbol of Peace devoting his life to upholding it.

If the last 60-80% of the series was willing to grapple with the problems the good arcs established—quirk-based discrimination and how "Hero Society" fails to solve our real world's fundamental problems—it would recognize these perspectives as both opposed and flawed. The world Ochaco fights for would continue to crush people like Toga and her friends between its gears, but the world Toga fights for would crush a different set of people under the feet of a thousand petty tyrants.

In theory, if these two came together through some combination of external circumstances and internal desires, their conflicts could line up with the themes I've been talking about. Ochaco wants Toga to become a hero so they can be seen together in public, but Toga isn't willing to obey the necessary rules. Toga wants Ochaco to let loose, but Ochaco isn't willing to steal stuff (or even turn away and let Toga steal it).

And in resolving those conflicts, they could find a happy medium. They could develop a worldview which gives people like Toga the freedom they crave, without sacrificing peace and cooperation on its altar.

And maybe then they could actually work to do something about it? Bring together Toga's villain friends and any heroes Ochaco can convince and do...something? Or just enjoy their relatively peaceful relationship. Whatever.

[posletsvet]

A Somewhat Messy Exploration of the Concepts of Purity and Impurity in Satosugu, and perhaps some more

The yin and yang symbolism in Satosugu (here I'm using 'Satosugu' as a short way to refer to the relationship between these characters, not necessarily a ship dynamic) has been brought up and discussed a lot in fan analyses lately, and by those who have mental capacity to express it far better than I ever could. However, there is one more thing I would like to talk about in relation to Suguru Geto and Satoru Gojo's dichotomy, and perhaps some more.

As much influence as Chinese philosophical concepts (such as already mentioned yin-yang) have on Japanese cosmology, religious views of the people of Japan are actually an intricate and complex amalgamation of various teachings and beliefs, with Shinto being numerically the most prominent faith of the country. I was curious as to how the ideas found in Shinto could be applied to Gojo and Geto's relationship, and I guess I've stumbled upon some inkling of a thought in this regard -- so please bear with me while I rant.

Before this gets too long, I'm putting my rambling below the cut.

To begin with and give a little bit of context, the core teaching of Shinto is to have profound respect and reverence for nature. As a polytheistic and animistic religion, Shinto is defined by its belief in the kami, who are stated to inhabit all things, including objects of the surrounding landscape and various natural forces. Due to such elemental qualities of the faith, purification takes place as one of its central aspects and a widely followed practice, as well. There is a great emphasis laid on spiritual and physical purity and cleanliness. That being so, the moral categories of good and evil (or virtue and sin), so important in the western worldview, give way to a different outlook on things: the world is perceived in terms of 'clean' and 'dirty' rather than 'good' and 'bad'.

This concept finds a reflection in Gege's writing primarily through Tsumiki as someone who's essentially an embodiment of the virtue of being innocent and pure at heart. When she's brought up in the narrative, the image is frequently accompanied by flowers -- and more often than not, especially when it comes to Megumi's perspective, those flowers are white lilies. And those are one of the most common and prominent symbols of purity. When Tsumiki's innocence is symbolically destroyed with Yorozu taking over her body, white blossoms are depicted as thrashed and stained in the background. Her purity is further defiled by her death as everything related to death and decay is considered foul as it desecrates the world's natural state of cleanliness, fertility and life.

I'm only bringing this up to show how Gege incorporates this religious framework into the body of symbolism in his story. And the further you search with these concepts in mind, the more you are able to uncover.

Satoru Gojo as purity and perfection

Satoru Gojo is a character whom you can't help but read as a perfection within the context of the world he exists in. He's the absolute strongest, wielding the power to bring all the knowledge of the universe and the forces which shape it under his control, he's repeatedly elevated by the narrative as someone unreachable and untouchable whereas nothing seems to be beyond his reach. He also has an extraordinary appearance, matching vibrant aquamarine eyes with fair hair, so rarely found among full-blooded Japanese people. He embodies an ideal for his society.

Satoru is associated with white and sky blue -- the colours most widely believed to represent purity, innocence, perfection, serenity and safety. Those are lofty, noble, airy and spacious hues which also bring in mind vast open spaces and immeasurable and unreachable heights and depths, symbolizing Gojo's detachment from the mundane world where corruption and putrefaction take deep root. Not to mention Satoru's noble background as an heir of one of the Big Three Sorcerer Families.

Actually no, forget this, I do want to mention it and expand a little on my thoughts regarding Satoru's family and upbringing. It's highly likely he was overprotected and sheltered as a child, and along with a teenage-years rebellion on his part which such a childhhod brought about, it also thwarted his ability to make connections with people around him as he basically lacks common experiences and/or interests with them. He's somewhat sterile when it comes to displaying empathy and emotional intelligence, which results in a peculiar sense of innocence about him. For the lack of any better way to articulate this idea, I'd say he's pure in this regard: clean and untouchable and spotless, devoid of nearly everything that comprises a regular person's experience.

This shows even in the way Gojo chooses to cope with his trauma in the aftermath of the Star Plasma Vessel Incident. That traumatic experience seemingly barely leaves a mark on him because he opts for pushing it aside and moving forward, while going out of his way to make sure there's a safe distance between him and the source of his vulnerability by improving his technique. He fixates on bringing his Infinity technique to perfection, and as a result it leaves no opportunity for anything to touch him if he himself does not want it to. Yet again, it leaves him stainless.

Not only that: he becomes emotionally detached from the cruelty and filth of the jujutsu world, becomes numb to it, with little to no emotion ever reaching his core to shake it. He's neither angry nor vengeful on Amanai's behalf after her death. He does not allow for hatred and spite to poison his mind, neither does he feel any doubt. He stays clean from all the negativity at the cost of coming off as cynical and unsympathetic.

He masks this by putting up a front of an emotionally immature individual with childlike mannerisms and an attitude resembling that of a teenager rather than a fully grown man. He also nurtures a somewhat naive belief that Suguru still can be trusted, that there's some hope for him turning away from the path he's chosen. In this regard, he still bears the innocence of a child.

Last but not least, shedding away the more humanly parts of himself, Gojo instead becomes more attuned to the natural world through his ascension -- the main source of purity, as Shinto has it. Moreover, he basically rejects death by coming back from the dead after finally grasping how Reversed Cursed Energy works. And I've already explained the importance of something like this when talking about Tsumiki's passing.

Gojo Satoru's mind is free from resentment and hate, his body unstained by death. He's a character who represents complete spiritual and physical purity.

Suguru Geto as impurity and corruption

Where Gojo's character exhibits perfection, Geto shows abruptly stunted growth and degradation gnawing away at him bit by bit; where Gojo stands to symbolize cleanliness and purity, Geto presents desolation and decay and that filth which is left in their wake. Geto is a character whom the narrative treats as a symbolic foil to Gojo, starting from him being expelled from Jujutsu High and ending with his death being described in the light novel as a curse purged from existence. If Gojo serves as an example of a perfectly fit cog in jujutsu society and sets up a desirable ideal, Geto, named the worst of all known curse users, represents everything that the very same society fears and despises.

Starting with colour symbolism again, such colours as black, dark brown, warm beige and mustard yellow are the most common colours to be associated with dirt and a filthy, dingy appearance. And while I'm not saying Suguru himself has such an appearance (although he does forsake taking care of himself at some point), those all are the colours found in his palette. Black is also considered to be the hardest colour to keep clean, even more so than white, as it shows all the stains and grime so well. Which is quite interesting if you consider that Suguru's downfall and defection ultimately bring out, both to the audience and to Satoru, everything not only malfunctioning, but straightforward cruel, vile and despicable in the existing system.

Geto's deeply empathetic personality is the basis for his own corruption, his inability to set boundaries between his own emotions and the suffering of others leaves him extremely vulnerable in a society which actively punishes people for being unable to extract emotion from their duty and caring too much. The thing is, Suguru is elbow-deep in emotion. For instance, if Satoru managed to shove his feelings aside in order to put together a plan of action when Kuroi got abducted, Suguru immeadiately plunged into self-blame. His own empathy is what's clouding his vision, his feelings pile up within him without any healthy outlet until they start rotting him from the inside.

Geto lets the rot in by caring too deeply, vile emotions that he feels on behalf of others festering in his mind. He can't stand the sight of atrocities commited by Jujutsu society and finds them nauseating, while the rest of the world he exists in treats those abominations as a norm. And even so, he dives deeper into all this by trying to make a difference and save ordinary people.

This is symbolically represented by Geto's Curse Manipulation, with him consuming curses which are basically a corporeal manifestation of all the negative emotions people vent into the world in their daily lives. The more curses he absorbs, the more doubt and resentment he lets inside and the more they consequently stain his once pure ideals and aspirations with bile building up inside of him. His very sense of self is twisted by the weight of the unsightly hideous reality, and while he stays true to his strict set of ideals he is forced to adapt by the trauma of his experience as a sorcerer and the 'realisation' which it brings. Because if one endures such severely traumatic events, one must sooner or later come to the conclusion that there's something inherently wrong and malfunctioning -- either with you or the world you live in. Geto chooses to stay true to himself by assuming it's the latter, and this choice results in his corruption in the eyes of those who run that very world.

There's also something to be said about the intimacy of the act of consumpton: you let the thing you consume nurture you and become a part of you. Cursed spirits taste absolutely foul, and what that means to put this despicable thing in your mouth and swallow it is unimaginable. Geto's absorbtion of curses is supposed to represent how he basically desacrates himself by letting himself experience everything at such a deep emotional level, inevitably tying himself to putrefaction of the world.

And of course, the last thing that plays its role in the defilement of Geto's character is his death.

Brief wrap-up thoughts

I could honestly ramble on and on about this for ages, but I guess it all just boils down to my admiration for Gege's ability to break the mold with his writing. He takes a trait which is largely associated with protagonists of their stories and shapes his villain's whole personality around it -- and vice versa, with Gojo and his seemingly egotistic tendencies.

Once again, Japanese religious beliefs organically encompass so many elements originating from so many cultures with no coherent systematization existing up untill late 19th centuary, and I find it absolutely fascinating how Gege's story reflects that. It leaves us with such an interesting controversy of an emotionally detached hero dwelling in a morally grey area alongside with a deeply empathetic antagonist whom both other characters and the audience find deserving of sympathy and pity.

[vintage-bentley]

How in the fuck are you going to be anti trans and a Good Omens fan as if both the book and the show don’t explicitly establish the existence of several nonbinary characters and both Aziraphale and Crowley themselves are genderless beings

Not to mention both David and Michael’s staunch support of the LGBT (really emphasizing the T here, since you love to drop it) community as a whole, and David literally has a trans child

Part of me is even asking this in good faith because how do you see a series that is so incredibly queer and like it considering how much you shit-talk trans people on your lackluster TERF blog

There’s many reasons, actually! I’ll explain them in good faith, because I think that people who ask questions like this don’t understand the perspective of so-called “terfs” and assume we think like you do.

Firstly, I’m a feminist, so I’m used to media not aligning with my politics. I expect it, actually. Down to very simple things, like knowing I’m never going to go into a show and see a woman just existing with body hair like men do in shows all the time. But I’m comfortable and confident enough in my beliefs that I can consume media that doesn’t align with them. This extends to my feelings regarding gender. A they/them character doesn’t make my head explode, it’s just the same for me as seeing a Christian character (like Ella from Netlix’s Lucifer) or a female character who’s pro-beauty culture (like Elinor from First Kill). It’s a representation of a belief I don’t agree with and personally don’t believe in, that’s all.

Secondly, Good Omens is set in a made up universe with fantasy themes. I can easily get behind the idea that the true forms of angels and demons are genderless, because that makes sense to me in the same way God being genderless makes sense to me. This doesn’t have to carry over to me believing that humans can be genderless (I don’t believe in the concept of internal gender identity, because I don’t believe in souls. So I guess the better way to put this is that I don’t believe humans can be sexless unless we’re using gender and sex as synonyms). In the same way that it makes sense to me that angels and demons have souls that are put into bodies issued to them…but I don’t have to believe that also applies to humans. Or how it makes sense to me that Aziraphale and Crowley could survive without food, water, and sleep…but I don’t have to believe that also applies to humans. Etc. etc.

Basically, just because something is in a fantasy show, doesn’t mean I have to believe it’s real.

Thirdly, what the actors do in their own lives is none of my business. I don’t agree with supporting the TQ+ especially in relation to LGB (considering they’ve made it a primary goal to harass lesbians into pretending we can like penis, and to take every chance they get to express their hatred for homosexuality. I love to drop the T because they dropped me and my fellow homosexuals years ago). If two straight male actors want to do that, whatever. I also don’t agree with Sheen having a baby with a woman his daughter’s age, but that hasn’t stopped me from watching the show or appreciating his talent.

This all takes me back to what I said about believing you don’t truly understand the perspective of those you call “terfs”. Just because you might not be able to comprehend watching and enjoying something that doesn’t perfectly align with your worldview, doesn’t mean others feel the same. For example, many radical and rad-leaning feminists enjoyed the Barbie movie, despite it not being radical feminist. We’re capable of watching and enjoying things we don’t agree with, and of having discussions about why we don’t agree with it.

A much simpler answer to your question would be: I’ve always loved angels and demons and all things supernatural. I’ve always loved old cars. I love Queen. Religious/moral commentary and critique interest me. I love lighthearted comedies. I’m gay and starved for representation of healthy gay relationships. I love gay star-crossed lovers stories (go watch First Kill). Naturally, I’m going to love Good Omens, even if it doesn’t perfectly align with my worldview.

[autisticcassandracain]

I dunno man I feel like most statements along the lines of ‘Batman isn’t REALLY x, he’s y’ don’t hold much water because usually, there’s a pretty good chance a number of writers over the years have written him as x, you just didn’t like it or think it doesn’t count for some reason.

For example ‘Batman isn’t REALLY a good parent, he’s actually a bad parent’, when Batman has been written as a good parent by a number of writers, and has, in addition, been written as realizing that he’s screwed up with his children and resolved to fix it by even more. At the same time, stating ‘Batman isn’t REALLY a bad parent, he’s actually a good parent’ is also incorrect, because Batman has been written as a bad parent by a number of writers, either intentionally or not; in addition, the pattern presented by the tug-of-war between writers who believe he should be a good parent and writers who don’t has, over the years, created an unintentional pattern that strongly resembles that of an abusive relationship. So, stating he is a good parent is inaccurate and dismisses a bunch of his canon writing, but stating he is a bad parent also dismisses a bunch of his canon writing and the intentions of the authors that wrote him.

The secret here is realizing that Batman has had so many writers over the years that it’s practically impossible to find a universal truth about him beyond the basic premise and maybe very, very basic characterization keystones. Writers with different beliefs about both the character and the world at large have written him in accordance to their worldview, and sometimes that worldview will align with yours, and sometimes it won’t.

Like, at this point, Batman is more an idea than he is a character. He is the bare-knuckled fight against injustice, but what ‘injustice’ is depends heavily on your worldview, as does what ‘bare-knuckled’ and ‘fight’ mean. Batman has been interpreted in dozens of different ways over the years, and singling out a few of those as the True Batman is largely arbitrary and dependent on your personal taste and belief in what the character should be. The only ‘objective’ measurement you could apply here are the old Golden Age comics, and I think most fans can agree that measuring modern Batman comics by how faithful they are to the Golden Age comics is, more often than not, a little ridiculous.

For the record, I do think that arguing about what Batman should be matters; if right-wing assholes use the character as a mouthpiece for their worldview we can and should critique that, but not because it’s ‘OOC’, but because the worldview espoused by those right-wing assholes is harmful and shitty. Batman should be a good parent, not because it’s ‘OOC’ for him to be a bad parent, but because having your paragon of justice be a child abuser is pretty shitty. Etc.

I don’t really have anywhere specific to go with this, I just think it’s a little strange when people try to view Batman as a character with a clear-cut characterization, rather than a concept that many people have approached in different ways over the years. Can that concept be mishandled? Sure. But it’s usually mishandled for reasons a bit more substantial than ‘a previous writer wrote it differently’.

[royboyfanpage]

12 & 13!

!! Thank you for the ask! I couldn't tell which ask game you meant so I'll do both, feel free to ignore the one you didn't ask for :)

If it's for the character ask (Roy, obviously)

12. What's a headcanon you have for this character?

I think he's always moving. Just absolutely will not be still for more than five minutes. Drumming his fingers on the desk during meetings, pacing around the room when he's waiting for something, tapping his feet whenever music comes on. If Roy's in the room, unless he's trying to be stealthy, you'll know from the sounds of him moving around. He's the first one dancing at parties, he's drumming the beat to We Will Rock You on the table, he's this constant presence that you just can't help but notice because of how much space he takes up without even trying. Also he was one of those "chewing on toothpicks" guys in his Agent Harper days. Everyone thought he was trying to be cool, but in reality he just Loathed that he needed to stand still and be professional so chewing a toothpick was the best alternative.

Also, while he's trained himself out of the habit now, he was absolutely a pencil chewer when he was a teenager. Not all of the pencils he chewed belonged to him.

13. What's an emoji, an emoticon and/or any symbol that reminds you of this character or you think the character would use a lot?

Tbh I can't really see him using emojis in the traditional sense, I don't think he was ever really active on the internet. I think if he did it'd be just thumbs up or thumbs down. But, if he were to use other emojis, I think it'd 100% be like, to tease people. Garth once misclicked and sent 😚 instead of 😊 and Roy now ends every text to Garth with 😚. Alternatively, Mia once sent him this 🐱 emoji and Roy thought it was the dumbest looking cat he's ever seen and now uses it constantly.

If it's the violence one:

12. The unpopular character you actually like and why more people should like them.

I'm struggling to answer this because I don't know how far-reaching the hate actually *is* for a lot of characters and how many haters are just in one small circle 😭 I guess with how rampant New 52 fans are on the site, Ollie's gotta be pretty unpopular just based on them, so I'll go with him. People should like Oliver Queen because he tries *so hard*. Is he perfect? No. He's human. And unlike some other human heroes who shan't be named, he's man enough to change. Some unnamed heroes stick so closely to the beliefs they set out at the start, but Ollie changes and adapts! I mean, he's literally a billionaire-turned-socialist. And a lot of the hate comes from his relationship with Roy, which most of it stems from like 1 panel that's taken out of context and fails to recognise Ollie's character growth. He saw addiction as a moral failing, and then re-evaluated his worldview and changed. And also he is dad <3 second dad ever (his oldest son is the first)

13. Worst blorbofication.

The obvious answer is Roy but yk what I'm gonna go against the expectation because the blorbofied Roy is basically a completely different character to my Roy, and is based in actual comics. I'm gonna go with Dick Grayson. I'm always a little scared to right about him because he contains multitudes and he's honestly one of the most complex and compelling characters in DC. That being said. I hate that fandom has basically boiled him down to "sunshine big brother". Yes, his relationships with the younger Batkids are very sweet, but also Dick Grayson is not a happy man. Dick Grayson is a bit of a bitch sometimes. I'm too tired to look for the panel right now, but there's this one panel in Outsiders (2003) where he goes off on Roy about the similarities between him and Ollie and ends it with "At least he was never a junkie", which was prompted by Roy (rightfully) calling Dick out for being disconnected from the team, I'm pretty sure not visiting Anissa in hospital was one of the things he brought up. A big fanon take I've seen is "When Dick's sad you can never tell because he puts on a smile", and while that may be true in *some* circumstances, it's absolutely not his default. Iirc Outsiders was formed after Donna's death, too, and he's sad, so he pushes everyone away and not in the martyr sense. Anyway Dick Grayson isn't the golden batkid he's the batkid who was crushed under the weight of being Bruce's partner rather than sidekick and forced to grow up too soon.

[fateheartblog]

“You’re well-read, Ezra,” Mirabel remarks, sliding down from her perch.

“I’m well-mythed,” Zachary corrects. “When I was a kid I thought Hecate and Isis and all the orishas were friends of my mom’s, like, actual people. I suppose in a way they were. Still are. Whatever.”

-The Starless Sea, Erin Morgenstern, Book III: The Ballad of Simon and Eleanor, 4th Zachary section

I think this quote is the single most important piece of characterisation for Zachary Ezra Rawlins in the whole of The Starless Sea. Or at least it is for me (though I appreciate that there is a distinction between what you might value as a reader-for-pleasure and a reader-with-hellbent-ulterior-intentions-to-write-this-man-into-a-corner-watch-me-gooo). I kept coming back to this line as I wrote Fateheart (my fan-sequel to The Starless Sea - you can read it here on Ao3), and it has become the lynchpin for a lot of my thoughts about who Zachary is - especially as the story of Fateheart unfolded in front of me and I was trying to keep up with what was happening and grapple with why it felt inevitable.

Here are some of those thoughts, for any of you who are interested in thinking this much about Zachary Ezra Rawlins (and his relationship with Dorian, which is ever central to who he is), about myth, and about The Starless Sea by Erin Morgenstern.

One of the reasons I ended up writing my fan-sequel to The Starless Sea was a desire to continue following the story of what had already begun in Morgenstern's book, which is Zachary's descent into myth - and I don't mean his passage through the wonderlands beneath the world - I mean becoming one himself.

This quote captures what I love most about Zachary and what I find most powerful about him, which is something I came to think of whilst writing as his "belief in the real and the unreal". He is deeply post-modern, and has an acute grasp of myth (gonna define 'myth' in a truncated but convenient way here as a type of story which offers a moral or identity truth, alternative to a history, which gives you facts and assumes the 'truth' is implicit through them).  The combination of these two things is very potent, and has allowed Zachary's sense of what is true to develop separately from and at times directly in opposition to what is factual or historically, empirically verifiable. Simply put, when it comes to making sense of his reality, historical truth does not interest him. Stories interest him ("He believes in books, he knows that much" - Book I: Sweet Sorrows, 3rd Zachary section). Not only does a rationalist presentation of value or truth not have any of the significance that it would in a modernist worldview, it is almost irrelevant to Zachary. He does not navigate the world according to its empirical qualities but according to its stories, and he is very adept at reading them, because these are the paradigms by which he got to know the world in the first place.

The blurring of reality into unreality which happens in the quote - he thought that the goddesses were friends of his mother's - "actual people" - tells us possibly more about Zachary's mother than about him. Or perhaps tells us so much about him by telling us about her first: Madame Love Rawlins raised her son in an environment which valued stories, and specifically myths, above all else. Zachary does not gain his sense of identity or context of self whilst growing up from integration into a historical narrative or a sociological connection to his own time or place - even his sense of a wider family context and adult society was defined by a profound connection to a global pantheon of myths. You can imagine how Madame Love Rawlins must have spoken about Hecate and Isis and the orishas - how effortlessly, personally, and often - to create an environment where they seemed this real. And you can conjecture that she herself was not in the business of drawing a distinction between her regular old human friends and the more divine voices of influence over her life. So why should Zachary?

But that blurring of reality with unreality is not nearly as telling as the other blur that happens in the quote above, which is, "I suppose in a way they were. Still are. Whatever."

This is three things happening in quick succession, and I think they are all equally fascinating, and they all delight me equally.

The last and least of them is in the word "whatever": it implies that Zachary is not interested in firmly deciding whether or not he thinks they are 'real' people. "Whatever" is applying to the question of past or present tense, but in its dismissiveness it waives any of the gravity of his placing his blurring of reality in the past. Yes, he's identifying that perception as a younger, past version of himself, but then he brings it forwards, catching himself: "I suppose in a way they were" reasserts the belief; "Still are" updates it, identifies it in himself now; "Whatever" carries it beyond what he feels the need to define.

The second thing that's happening is the "Still are." There is some ambiguity, but not much, in the quote - is Zachary supposing that these mythical figures may actually have been real? That's how I'm primarily reading it because that's the most obvious reading. But one could argue that he's equally supposing that they may well have truly been his mother's friends, and possibly still are - that he's not questioning their actuality so much as the familiarity of their role in one's personal world. They still are friends of his mom's. Or they still are real in some way. Either one is compounded by the "whatever", and "Still are. Whatever" is a telling rhythm of Zachary's thought process here: he is comfortable with indistinction. The factuality is not relevant.

But the most important and the first thing in "I suppose in a way they were. Still are. Whatever." is the supposing itself. That these myths are people who have had an impact on his life relationally, emotionally, interpersonally, and truly. Voices he has known and names he has called and referenced in conversation on the same level as any other. His almost throwaway acknowledgement that this blurring of the line between real and unreal is very much still part of his internal system says a great deal about how deeply foundational this sense of myth and truth is to him: the indistinction is not a problem with the thing, but the thing itself.

And never, in all his academic travels and independent adult life away from his mother (his independence of identity and situation is well established) has Zachary found reason enough to redraw the lines - to reassess this post-modern prioritisation of myth over history - to anchor himself according to what is real, regardless of the value of its truth, as opposed to what is unreal but true. And his wider characterisation as an academic at a good school and a devotee of stories in all forms tells us it is not for lack of self-awareness or intelligence. Assuming he has interrogated his own beliefs before, he clearly has not seen reason to dismantle his worldview. In fact, we possibly see the first thing in his life which really does force him to consolidate his beliefs, and it is not the real challenging the unreal, as must have happened to him and has not left a mark, but the unreal suddenly encroaching upon the real. The moment he assesses this internal balance of the real and the unreal is in the same chapter I quoted above (Book I: Sweet Sorrows, 3rd Zachary section), as he reflects upon seeing his childhood encounter with his door written in Sweet Sorrows and thinks upon what the book is telling him about what lay beyond it:

"He wonders why he believes it because someone wrote it down in a book. Why he believes anything at all and where to draw mental lines, where to stop suspending his disbelief."

Zachary is aware that he primarily operates in a territory where all disbelief is permanently suspended: this is not him asking whether he should start believing that this door did in fact lead to a Harbour - this is him wondering if he ought to believe this much that it does - and what it means for anything real if he carries that belief forwards as he intends to. Questioning whether the space he holds within him for the powerful truth of myth is now starting to truly consume the concrete, factual world in a way which is leading him into new territory. And it is. The mythical does in fact start to consume the real world for him. That is what happens to him in the rest of The Starless Sea. And this is the moment we see that crossover: he chooses to remain faithful to the unreal, and to pursue a story. He asserts what he was raised believing, which is that the unreal is more true and more valuable than the real, and therefore ultimately must be more real. Only someone who is intimately familiar already - from their earliest childhood - with the blurring of these lines - would react the way Zachary has to finding himself in a book - running with it, and allowing it to envelop him completely, as he is ultimately enveloped by the door, the Harbour, and the Starless Sea itself.

And what I love most about this passage is that we see it happen - we see him interrogate himself, we see him follow his internal logic, and we see his belief in the unreal win:

"Does he believe that the boy in the book is him? Well, yes. Does he believe painted doors on walls can open as though they were real and lead to other places entirely? He sighs and sinks below the surface."

To be fair he is in the bath in this scene, but also: "he sinks below the surface": he submits to the authority of myth over fact. And - crucially - to him, myths are real not as accounts of an abject moral value or a history, which is still quite abstract - what's real to him is myths as people.

Writing Fateheart was an exercise in loyalty to characters I fully believed in deeply, and for different reasons. I could write this much again about Madame Love Rawlins (and might/probably will) and Kat (might/probably won't) and don't get me started on Dorian (will/definitely will), but Zachary led the way for me here. I was fascinated - absolutely, devotedly transfixed by the process we get to see the start of in The Starless Sea, which is Zachary becoming part of a myth. He is the close of one story and then the beginning of the next, stepping from the periphery of one myth to the heart of the next.

So that became the paradigm for Fateheart: how do I take these characters, all of whom start as human, and draw from them a new myth? A story which is at once human and deeply personal and realistic in the sense of being true to human experiences of feeling and danger and cost and wonder and love, but is also more than itself - is broad and vast and contains profound, elemental gestures towards values and archetypes and fundamentals of what we are and choose and love as people?

And Zachary made it so easy. Because the myths are already people to him - real, breathing, blooded people. So his passage into that role was intuitive.

I find it wonderful that in the title quote here Zachary is correcting "well-read" to "well-mythed" - the difference is not one I was immediately tuned into, but one which turned out to be vital. He is able to navigate stories so cogently not because he knows them as books, but because he knows them as people. There is a reason he understands Mirabel the way he does - and loves her. He is used to relating to mythical, archetypal powers as close personal friends: he's been doing it since he was a child. Maybe meeting Mirabel forces that mental pathway out into the open - and cements it for him - but it was already there.

It is also the reason he is able to love Dorian the way he does - deeply, intuitively, and uncompromisingly. This relationship was a joy to explore for a number of reasons (most of which are bleedingly obvious hello i am a fanfic writer) but the most captivating dynamic (for me) is their respective positions with stories. Dorian tells them, carries them, gives them - Zachary receives them, loves them, and keeps them.

There's a language that developed organically for this as I was writing Fateheart, and actually grew from Morgenstern's own imagery: the deep night sky within Zachary - which in terms of vernacular I extrapolated from the details of Allegra's painting ("Zachary’s chest is cracked open, his heart exposed, the star-filled sky visible behind it"), developing into a way of referring to that space of pure and certain belief in the unreal - a vast constellation of myths, points of truth which connect across empty space to make sense of the world - which is Zachary's internal landscape.

When Dorian sits in the Gryphon bar and watches Zachary he cannot read him - though it is made clear that he can read just about everyone and everything else, and has been able to do so most of his life. What, then, is Dorian seeing? Most people are reducible to stories, but myths do not reduce to stories - they reduce to truths. Stories, at their best, might extrapolate to myths, which in turn reveal true things, but people are not usually myths - or if they are, they are myths first, masquerading as people (there are plenty of those in The Starless Sea.) And in Fateheart, I try to push this the other way by having three people slowly begin to masquerade as myths. And Dorian sees it first - long before there is language for it - or need for language for it, because, admittedly, there isn't need until you get deeper into the narrative of Fateheart. But Zachary is not a series of facts that build a narrative: he is a constellation of personal relationships with myths. He is a system of beliefs which merrily crosses the boundaries between the real and the unreal in a superb tangle of truths.

Dorian cannot read him because he is not a story. Nor is he, at that point, a myth - but he is a man whose grasp of the world hovers over the edges of what is real, prepared when push comes to shove to fall straight down the rabbit hole. Dorian cannot reduce him because he is already more than himself, hovering in the doorway of the unreal, beginning to follow his age-old belief into territory Dorian has been living in for a long time: the borderlands. Walking the face of the real world but allegiant to the unreal one.

How must Zachary have looked to him? An academic, operating within the structures and annals, the very factual, papery, process-laden architecture of the strictly real - yet relating to it as if it is one myth amongst many. Post-modernity in action: the historical, the rational, the empirical is just one more story. No more or less real than all the others he met at his mother's knee.

And how must Dorian have looked to Zachary? A man who clothes himself entirely in stories - who weaves between the language and the embroidered details of fables and legends and books - moving too quickly to be framed as either fact or fiction. Comfortable presenting the truth in a myriad of ways - with any name he chooses, in any shape he wills.

Dorian presents himself as a story - not just to Zachary, but to the world. Because it is an extraordinary position of power and an acutely slick one: in a world where most people think stories are not real and value them accordingly lowly, being a story allows him to control how he is perceived. From his name to every farthest extrapolation of his position and occupation he presents as fictional. Which is a very guarded way to walk the world. But Zachary draws absolutely no distinction between the people in his life who are stories and the stories in his life who are people. So Zachary is able to simultaneously accept that Dorian is a story and that he is a real person - able to hold the real alongside the unreal, and able to love it entirely as a self-contradictory package deal. Which must have been deeply disarming for a man who has mostly found that his ability to tell a story makes for a good way to present a false identity. Dorian is very good at being a story, but stories at their best extrapolate to myths, and Zachary knows how to love myths as people. He's been doing it all his life.

And this is where I watched them go in Fateheart. Zachary is more equipped to understand Dorian than Dorian is. He readily opens to him the space he holds within himself for stories - the well-populated night sky of the mythical, the unreal, the wondrous, the true. Zachary is a very, very good reader - which I am asserting by my own metrics, but I'll define it as this: if you can hold in perfect conjunction that a story is not true yet contains truth and is therefore more true, then you are a good reader. You can get more out of a truth if it's told in a good story than you can if it's presented as clean fact: a clean, dry bone of a fundamental is very clear and easy to handle, but you can see best how it moves when it is part of the dancing flesh of a living body - even though on one level you cannot see the bone anymore at all.

Zachary sees all the dressing and falls in love with the truth of who Dorian is - not in spite of the stories he hides within but because of them. He offers Dorian a way to make sense of himself - a way to make sense of his entire life, which has seen him caught over that boundary between the real and the unreal - serving a Harbour he never sees, hunting those who cannot be killed. Hiding in plain sight, operating beyond the limits of the real world without ever being free to cross into the unreal. And that grey area is very familiar to Zachary - he is unbothered by it and comfortable there.

And in return Dorian is the consolidation of Zachary's belief in the real and the unreal: he is at once a person and a story of himself. He is blisteringly close to being only the stories he tells and is told, and existing primarily as a way of delivering and performing those stories - and Zachary perceives him as an entire constellation: taking the stories he has become and focusing upon the truth in them. Seeing the bones in him even as they dance. Loving him as myth and human at once without drawing a distinction - and without needing to.

Writing Fateheart was an opportunity (or really a shameless excuse) to explore Zachary and Dorian's relationship with each other. They are just on the cusp of their lives colliding at the end of The Starless Sea, and there is enough substance there, enough tantalisingly unconsummated (ahem) chemistry, that it is a legitimately fun exercise to carry it forwards and see what happens. And I was delighted over and over again in writing them to discover the myriad ways in which they work together - ways they understand each other and overlap and seem stronger for it than they did on their own - all of which is full credit to their original characterisation. I had a distinct impression of following events that had already been set in motion - and rather than developing what an active, steady relationship looks like from scratch, revealing the outworking of what it promised to be from the off.

The blurring of these boundaries between the real and the unreal is literalised in their passage through the caverns of the Starless Sea: the two of them cross into fairytales, into stories and the settings of fables Dorian has told and memorised and had tattooed into his skin. But I do not think that their respective motions are in mirror image - for all Dorian is already living in the unreal, I think it is Zachary who carries the two of them into the territory of myth. In The Starless Sea they each traverse a wilderness of literary and mythical realities in an effort to find each other, but it is Zachary's trajectory that shapes the language surrounding him and his increasingly mythical identity in the book:

"And so the son of the fortune-teller does not find his way to the Starless Sea. Not yet." - Book I: Sweet Sorrows, chapter three - To Deceive the Eye

Zachary's process of heading down the path of fully embracing the unreal is his journey to the Starless Sea. The story hits its climax - and the old Harbour finds its breaking - when he finds it - but his actual passage into it is through the death of his physical, actual self.

Which, of course, comes at Dorian's hand. But the action of killing Zachary is two-fold: he frees him from the last traces of whatever he was clinging to of real, rational, folllowing-the-rules-of-a-normal-world life by pushing him entirely out of the world and into the place where the bees dwell - where the old gods are larger than life - where real, rational, following-the-rules-of-a-normal-world business is a vague, dollhouse style, boxy, undetailed approximation - a secondary feature, one worldview amongst a bigger context - and where he eventually drowns in the essence of the story itself, despite his final efforts to escape this. And then the completion of the process is to bring him back to the world - to take his body and replace the heart of what he is with something that is itself a story - a myth.

Dorian and Zachary are falling increasingly in sync with each other throughout The Starless Sea, but it is Zachary who leads the two of them to the shore of the thing itself - the very edge. Dorian is looking for a way to get home, which turns out to be Zachary, and Zachary is looking for a way to the Starless Sea, which turns out to be Dorian.

Dorian giving Zachary the heart - which is the heart of a story - 'of' in the sense of its position at the centre, but also in the sense of 'a heart produced by, having its origins in a story' - is the resolution of Zachary's passage into myth. He has travelled all the way to the Starless Sea - he has submitted to the dismantling of any last vestiges of scepticism in the face of the magic or absurd to such an extent that he has died for it - and then he is brought back.

And for what? To drift on a ship in the belly of the world, out of time, out of the story? Or is the absolution of his identity in that death and resurrection enough that wherever he goes he will bring with him the central, burning core of belief that makes stories like these possible?

At the beginning of The Starless Sea Zachary is in the process of returning to his old favourite books:

He has been reading (or rereading) a great many children’s books as well, because the stories seem more story-like, though he is mildly concerned this might be a symptom of an impending quarter-life crisis. - Book I: Sweet Sorrows, chapter 4, first Zachary section

The eclipse of the mythical over the real, the reconnection with the powerful, foundational truth that what is fictional is just as real as what is physical, is already hinted at here: his instinct to draw closer to what seems like a purer form of story - worlds where the lines are blurred more perfectly, where the distinctions are already eliminated. This is the first sign of his overall character arc in this book - and it ends with he himself becoming a story.

And I love that he's concerned this might be a symptom of an impending quarter-life crisis. And I love even more that he's only "mildly" concerned. Because that's so Zachary: an intuitive sense that something's coming, and possibly something huge - and his response is to turn back to stories. The "mildly" here has the same feeling as, "I suppose in a way they were. Still are. Whatever." He is easy with a sense of deep upheaval. Because you can't shock someone with the unreal when they've known it all their lives.

He didn't open the door because he wanted to keep on believing that there was something behind it. He has resisted re-wiring his sense of how real all the orishas are not because he wants to keep on believing and knows he won't if he looks too hard, but because he absolutely believes it but is fearful of what this will mean for his grasp on the rest of reality and his place in it. Because really embracing this postmodernity means accepting that everything ultimately reduces to myth. That to walk truly in the deep places of what it means to be alive does not mean banishing a sense of madness but embracing it - following through to the point of total undoing - death of the real self - and further than that, into a new kind of life.

To sail the Starless Sea is to become the story of oneself. The air is haunted by the death and reformation of what is real. Only the bones of the real things ever return - dancing as part of the flesh they have been clothed in. Truth that is clothed in stories: myth.

Zachary Ezra Rawlins has known since he was a child that stories are true. And maybe his hesitancy to embrace this has been because he knows that if he embarks on this hero's journey he will have to leave behind anything that might resemble his own sanity by the world's standards. He knows that to embrace those relationships with the mythical as closely and as truly as he did when he was a child learning to relate to his mother's circle of friends will be to become himself a story. To relinquish his grip on the rational and to give up, ultimately, his heart.

To go mad, and to return more deeply yourself than you could ever have anticipated.

And you know who gets this? Dorian.

“How are you feeling?” Zachary asks. “Like I’m losing my mind, but in a slow, achingly beautiful sort of way.” “Yeah, I get that. So better, then.” - Book IV, Written in the Stars, 3rd Zachary chapter

That's the second most important line for Zachary's characterisation - in my opinion (and let's face it when it comes to Zachary Ezra Rawlins I have an absolutely absurd amount of opinion). That once he chooses to cross the threshold of the world and walk the halls of a myth he's always suspected he had a part in, he knows that by some standards he is losing his mind - the rational part of his 'self' - his life, by the standards of what the world thinks a life is.

But he's only mildly worried about it. He's never really held much with the sense that rabbit holes ought not to be for falling into. That he should be beyond it. That it shouldn't be real.

The point of departure for Fateheart was a Zachary who has finally, with the aid of Dorian, become himself. A Zachary who has left behind the world and the life that went with it. A Zachary who is so at one with the mythical that he himself is a myth. Zachary at the final, gasping, awakening stage of losing his mind - but in a slow, achingly beautiful sort of way.

"So better, then."

A myth. A story told by someone who loves him well enough to bring him back as exactly what he always was: a heart alive and alight with the unreal, carrying it in the vast night sky within him, bright enough to illuminate the world and reveal all the things in it that have always been true:

[an] enormous, spinning truth, turning like a star in the sky, close enough to be a sun, burning with enough light to illuminate the world. - Fateheart, part two, chapter 16

And Dorian follows him there - is the agent of the final stages of this transformation. Is the hand by which the story is told: one who tells the story, one who carries it.

It felt like the most obvious thing in the world that on the strength of such a pairing one could dream a whole new story - felt, to me, like it was clear that having transcended into myth, the new Harbour could and would form around them - could have at its centre a love story that is at once about real people and about something mythical.

The old myths are completed, and the new myths find their footing at the end of the story. And I wanted to know - was absolutely desperate to see - what the next story would look like, with these two people at the heart of it.

So that's what I wrote.

--BoogleBoot

[qwerty019283ytrewq]

Max said, "Thank you, Daniel."

Maybe I'm making it up, but now it seems like "thank you" for everything that Daniel did and was for...not formula 1, but for people.

He is a bright man who says "enjoy the butterflies." Enjoy all the experience you get. Max started it, but so many people continued it. For many fans, Daniel was the beginning of their passion for Formula 1, so I understand why they feel this pain, hatred towards Red Bull, towards Liam.

Liam's fans may hate Dan's fans. I want to reach out to you a little bit. We, Dan's fans, are so devastated by what happened, we can wish you the same, but actually, I don't think that's what we mean. We're just in a lot of pain. I ask you not to say nasty things to us, but to wait it out. Because he is like a dear person to us, whom we cannot hug and support directly, and this makes it even more painful for us.

The world, sports, prospects are changing, but we still live with those old thoughts.

I joined the Formula in 2021, exactly from the same Monza. At that time, I was still not so passionate about Dan, I didn't know anything about the Formula and about him. My father was rooting for Max and so was I, after a few races I started rooting for him, but since 2022 I've learned all about Dan. He became my racer and conquered me with everything. Although it was a long time ago at that time, but I found out how he was at Red Bull, what he did for Renault and hoped for his future at McLaren. And then I saw the cruelty of the world and sports.

But I decided that I would be the kind of fan who always supports a great athlete. It didn't work out with McLaren and I was hoping for Red Bull, but it didn't work out here either. It's like rooting for your brother at a meeting. So I was rooting for Dan. When you want him to be just happy.

I want him to be happy now. Racing or not. I'm rooting for him as a person, I'm worried about him as an acquaintance who has a bad period in his life. It warms my heart, the way people, photographers, other racers, fans support Dan. Honestly, I did not dive deep, but it seems to me that even for Sebastian there were not so many kind words and tears, although I may be wrong.

I hope Daniel knows that even though he didn't achieve the championship, he still did a lot and people won't forget it. He gave everything he had. I deeply appreciate that about him.

Daniel Joseph Ricciardo, you won me over in 2021-2022, and I'm going to support you in the future. Just drop a message sometimes, okay? I'm taking a huge step in my life thanks to you. I'm not pushing, honey, I'm just saying that I like your worldview and I'll try to follow your beliefs.

[inaconstantstateofchange]

Alrighty, your tags in the 'anti-blorbo friends' post intrigued me, so... hook line and sinker. Personally, I am kind of an 'anything goes' fan, I don't mind people disliking stuff about BG3 - or liking it a bit too much, either. I like all the companions, but I do see their flaws and critique can be fun. That's what a piece of media is for, no? For us to dissect and tear apart. So! Tear it freely, mate. Give me your Gale hot takes.

Excellent, all according to keikaku (translator's note: keikaku means plan). Sorry I love that joke.

Thank you so much for the ask! O(∩_∩)O

Okay, Gale hot takes, with the caveat that, in general, I just personally find his whole everything very off-putting, so I am very neutral-edging-to-negative toward him, but can still appreciate the complexity of his character in an objective sense.

This hot take/critique kind of overlaps with issues I have with a lot of the fandom interpretations of the characters: it feels like a lot of the fandom needs to woobify the characters and/or reduce them down to the most simplified version of themself to appreciate them.

Gale is a character who will approve of good actions in general terms, but the moment there is a chance to do something new, something heretofore untried, some advancement in knowledge or power, no matter what the terms of it, you have his attention. And that's really interesting! It's fucked up as all hell, but it's interesting. And this is something I see pushed under the rug and outright denied or left unexplored in most cases, because it requires confronting that all your faves are complex and "problematic", yes even that one.

This one is tangential to Gale, but also relates to the broader lore and world. I think there's a lot fucked up about Forgotten Realms lore (obviously), but it is also so vast and intricate and Larian put so much work in aligning with it as much as possible with the narrative of BG3, allowing you to extrapolate pretty consistently based on that. I've noticed a tendency by a lot of fans to engage with the world and its lore as though they've been isekai'd into it or something, not considering what would actually affect philosophy and perspective and "human" (as it were) experience in a world that worked like Faerûn does. For example, I recently saw someone arguing that the way Halsin handles Kagha after he is rescued is "unrealistic" and the player should be able to tell him that he needs to pick a stronger option. In my opinion this completely ignores the way that druids and druid groves function very differently from a lot of other communities in Faerûn. The majority of druids tend toward True Neutral in terms of alignment, live and let live unless nature is affected in some way. Halsin is honestly a bit of a rarity for verging so far toward Neutral Good. Additionally, because of their focus on nature and natural patterns, of course they would have different perspectives on punishment and rehabilitation.

Another way this presents itself very commonly is in how people conceptualize the system of gods/theology in Faerûn. Most people do not have any real experience conceptualizing a polytheistic worldview in practice, let alone one where the existence of those gods is an undeniable material fact, rather than a belief, and it shows. They hold the gods simultaneously to the standards of humans (which they are not), and the monotheistic conglomerate Christian God (which they are also not). Once again, the system of deity and interaction with it in FR lore is so fucked up, but for complex and interesting reasons I rarely see anyone exploring.

(The above is also the reason I think a lot of people underestimate the power of the archdevils and the Hells compared to the gods, but that is another discussion.)

This comes back to Gale in my hottest of hot takes: I really wish people would stop throwing around the "Gale was groomed, Mystra is a groomer" thing. I think it hyper-simplifies the actual tragedy of his story and the one Larian was trying to tell to an absurd degree, and I don't believe it even does any favors in terms of raising awareness of important issues. Based on FR lore and timeline, Mystra has only been back in existence as a goddess for at absolute maximum thirteen years prior to the start of BG3, and at minimum five, so unless you headcanon Gale to be 30 or younger (which seems decidedly unlikely based on everything else presented in the narrative), their time together was when he was an actual adult.

Am I saying there was no power dynamic problem there? No, ofc I am not. God/Human relationships are famously tragedies and cautionary tales. There is always an inherent disconnect between the two beings. You'll notice a trend, but yes, I do think that the most interestingly fucked up parts of that story are ignored in favor of the most basic and banal.

Mystra is a greater god, having dominion over magic as an entire concept. That means the scale of her power and existence are unfathomably vast, and so alien from human existence that to bridge it would be the work of thousands of lifetimes. At the same time, there are parts of her that used to be human, grafted onto her godhood. That's incredibly fucked up in such an eldritch way, you know?

Final hot take: Gale is a wizard's wizard™, a crime punishable by death. In this essay I will-

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

Did you watch that Niall reading fan fic video? Did you watch it to the very end? After he finished reading the fic, he laughed and said "that was some online Tumblr shit right there"...yeah that was dissapoiting to hear. I'm not a writer or have my own Tumblr blog but I took offense to this. To just laugh like that at your own fans, the ones who take the time to write the fics and those who take the time to read them. Not ok.

It is OK to laugh at people anon - it's a very common human reaction to the world. I'm sure you have laughed at a lot of people in your life. Fandom culture also involves a lot of laughing at people. You may not like that Niall laughed at tumblr - but that doesn't make it not OK.

I do think it's actually worth asking the question - what principle could possibly make Niall laughing at fans wrong in a moral sense? (As opposed to a reasonably normal thing to do that people can like and not like as they see fit). If people want to share their answers I'd be really interesting in hearing them. But I am going to take this question perhaps overly seriously (particularly when my basic response to the video is that it's pretty trivial), because I do think it's important to articulate and maintain the difference between 'I don't like this' and 'this is wrong'.

One of my basic beliefs is that saying something is wrong , as opposed to just something you don't like personally, is a pretty big deal. That a moral code is something pretty serious, it's necessary, obviously, but invoking morality just to express preferences has a quite significant history of doing incredible damage.

There are I think two basic strain of answers people might give to justify the idea that there's something wrong in a broad sense with what Niall did. The first is that it's wrong for Niall to laugh at fans, because they support his career in some way. That there is some sort of obligation or boundaries that a musician owes to fans that they don't owe to other people, beyond the contractual obligations of things they agree to do.

I actually think that's a deeply fucked up and controlling worldview that must be actively opposed. You can't buy control over another human being, no matter how much you stream. Most musicians have very complicated thoughts and feelings about fans, because fandom is a weird and complicated relationship. It's up to individual musicians to navigate that however works best for them, including laughing at people.

The other broad justification comes from some sort of analysis of society and one that argues that in some way Niall has power over fans and therefore it's wrong for him to laugh at them. My other anon phrased it as 'punching down'.

I think it' worth spelling out all the power Niall doesn't have over fans, he can't fire people, or evict them, or deprive them of ways of getting their needs met in any other way. He doesn't have any structural power to evaluate people - like teachers do. He can't grant or withhold necessary services from people. He can't deprive people of their liberty or cause people to be deprived of their liberty. He has no special access to violence. I think it's worth explicitly acknowledging the many ways people have real power over other people to put these discussions in context.

When fans suggest that other people have power over them and therefore it's wrong to mock them - they never mean any of these actual power structures that shape people's life. They usually mean something much more amorphous - it's a logic like 'fans are mostly women, therefore any mockery of fans is mockery of women, therefore its wrong'. (I think it's worth noting that a focus on fans as a category of people who should not be mocked, is very different from a formulation that suggested that particular forms of mockery were based in misogynist ideas and spelled out what they were. I would have a lot more time for something that framed this as making fun of women's sexual desire and expression. But I don't think that's how the discussion has been framed).

There is a real tendency within fandom to cast fans as a group of people who are inherently powerless and whom any form of criticism is wrong. This comes alongside a complete denial of the power in numbers and the ways that fans can and do exert power over people through their numbers. It is very tempting to position ourselves (both individually and collectively) as someone who can only ever be harmed, but can't do any harm to others. But it is a temptation that absolutely must be resisted - it is an anathema to solidarity and it is also an anathema to building strong relationships and treating other people as fully human.

One of the reasons I'm personally so resistant of the idea that fans are a group of people who must be protected and can easily be harmed - is because I see such a deep vein of denial within fandom about fans ability to harm. In fact if a family member, someone they're pretend to date, or someone who has interacted with 1D in any form in the world, says that they've been harmed by the number of people who have responded to them and the things that they've said, fandom's response is to treat this as an unreasonable attack of someone who has power over them - even if that's in no way true.

There may be something I'm missing - if anyone has an explanation for an underlying principle why they think it's not OK that Niall did a segment that contained an element of laughing at a culture that was built by fans I'd be interested to hear it.

But in the meantime I'm going to advocate for there being a difference between 'I don't like this' and 'this is not OK'. There are many reasons people might dislike that video of Niall - but that doesn't mean it's not OK.

[cannoli-reader]

Re-read my ass. This is clearly written with Elyas' advice in a future book in mind. Did she read tPoD where we get the actual fucking answer?

"By some miracle, her husband, her beloved wolf, had begun behaving as he should. Instead of shouting at Berelain or running from her, Perrin now tolerated the jade's blandishments, plainly tolerated them the way he would a child playing around his knees. And best of all, there was no longer any need to tamp down her anger when she wanted to let it loose. When she shouted, he shouted back. She knew he was not Saldaean, but it had been so hard, thinking in her heart of hears that he believed her too weak to stand up to him."

Leigh Butler is one of those rabid fanatics who refuses to consider any other perspective, and insists on dragging everything through the lens of her particular belief system and measuring everything according to its values, while dragging characters for much lesser violations of that mindset. She cannot even step outside of her dogma to consider characters' perspectives in their natural worldview. And the "questions" posed above are a shining example of a bad faith examination of a character aspect she has made up her mind to dislike.

The comments sections of her read-through blogs were full of readers who wanted to like her blogs, wanted to engage with her, and trying in the most respectful way to point out the flaws in this mentality, and that it was not remotely a blog for fans of WoT, so much as for her co-religionists, that their doctrines were being treated by Butler and her sycophants as if they were objective rules or natural principles. And whenever the fan reaction reached a critical mass, some editor or boss from Tor.com would step in and claim that the whole project was "an experiment." If that's true, I have never in my life encountered an experiment more resistant to data or examination of the results. It's like reading some fundamentalist Christian ranting about the witchcraft in Harry Potter, or going on a rant about fornication every time Rand gets together with one of his girlfriends or the triple relationship is even mentioned in the books.

Butler has decided that the superficial similarities to sexist IRL attitudes toward relationships mean that Saldaeans', in general, Faile's particular, approach to relationships makes them Bad, and she will not hear anything that contradicts what her Lady and Savior has revealed to her. That's why she's "stumped." Not because Faile is doing something wrong, or has unreasonable expectations, not because the Saldaeans have a regressive or patriarchal society.

Perrin's behavior toward Berelain is over the top, because he is treating her as the one with all the power. He is acting as if Berelain's actions can hurt his marriage, as if Berelain can make him betray his wife. He is acting like a child, too weak to resist her "blandishments" and by implication, telling the world that she is a lot more attractive, sexy and appealing than his wife. "Berelain, leave me alone, I am married to a big-nosed girl-child with weird eyes, please stop luring me with your pinnacle of feminine beauty that I can't resist, because there is nothing remotely in your league waiting for me at home."

Or, worse yet, and probably more accurate, he is demonstrating a gross lack of faith and trust in his own wife. His reaction to Berelain is driven by the fear that Faile will blame him and leave him over another person's actions. This is exactly what is going on when he sends Berelain to talk to Alliandre. He notes that Faile does not get mad at him until he apologizes to her for sending Berelain. Because she is an adult. She wanted to go herself, she had a plan to carry out, Perrin told her no, so of course she is going to be disappointed, but she is not throwing a tantrum, she is not acting out, she is not even protesting or arguing. But Perrin turns around and apologizes to her, even though he did nothing wrong, even though he is the one in command, and that decisions like this are his responsibility to make. Faile is being professional, and Perrin is treating her as if she were not, but a spoiled child who wants everything her own way and will make his life miserable because he made an objectively correct command decision, in line with Rand's purpose in sending him and Berelain.

And it's the same with Berelain's flirting in LoC. Perrin is acting like his wife is a nerd who thinks a good grade in a gender studies class makes her a feminist critic shrill, unreasonable termagant who will blame and punish him for someone else's actions. Leigh, you really want to know what Perrin is supposed to do instead of anger or avoidance? Read the damn books! He is supposed to tolerate her, like the foolish outsider she is supposed to be in the Bashere-Aybarra marriage! Someone who can show off the goods like she can't wait for Only Fans to be invented and get no more of a rise from Perrin than "Whatever, we have a political mission to take care of, are you coming with, sweetie, or do you want a job at Duranda Tharne's inn?" She wants Perrin to not care about other women, instead of treating them like threats to their marriage (Butler and her ilk are very down on men trying to talk about women, or people certain skin colors or nationalities talking about those with different characteristics, as if they can possibly know what these other people's experiences are like, but they never seem to take that principle into account when they themselves are talking about male experiences, or even more alien to them - a woman married to a man she loves). Faile wants Perrin to take her more seriously, and treat her as more important, than Berelain, and she wants him to act as if he believes in her good qualities and trusts her love for him, instead of always expecting the worst from her.

I know this, because that's what the book says

WOT REREAD № 18

LEIGH BUTLER

LORD OF CHAOS

“Faile: So, what is the correct response Perrin should have done here? Because I’m stumped, personally. Anger = bad, avoidance = bad, so… what should it have been? I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m honestly trying to figure it out. Lofty disdain, perhaps? Indifference? Weeping self-flagellation? Brazen flirting back? Or was it that he didn’t take the anger far enough, and was supposed to, I dunno, beat the crap out of Berelain or something? Or even kill her? I don’t know! The world may never know, because Faile won’t freaking tell us. Oh, and also, GAH. “

[greater-than-the-sword]

Uh. The biggest Alex jones problem was that because he was denying Sandy Hook, his followers were actively harassing the parents of some of the kids that died. To a rather extreme point iirc

Part of being willing to participate in society is give up some of our rights (my right to be naked in my own house vs Walmart. My right to have hairspray at home vs the airport)

So it wasn't so much that he was saying nasty things, it's that he said things that caused people to then hurt others

A couple things.

It's claimed that he slandered the parents by calling them "actors", surely an upsetting charge, however people say upsetting things all the time about others. Now if he accused them of a crime or something, yes they can sue for slander/libel.

Now I'm not super studied in all the details of the court case, and probably none of us are because we weren't there, but they may potentially have a valid case for libel. BUT.

Even in MSM Jones' lawyers are quoted as saying this was blown out of proportion. As in, "I've been involved in more than 200 trials and never seen anything like this," one said, "there were no price tags or receipts to justify this amount of damages," that no actual metric was used to determine why hundreds of millions were owed (eg. in a libel suit normally these things are calculated by lost revenues due to slander, or property damage, some kind of therapist or doctor testifying about emotional toll, etc.) This was not done. The lawyers say it was as though it were a revenge quest to put Jones out of business and shut him up.

A really important point to me. Unless he said to them "hey go find those kids' parents and bother them" or something precisely to that effect, he can't be held responsible for some other unhinged person's actions. Is this how we want our legal system to be? Like twitter drama, where you have some kind of affirmative obligation to control your followers/fans and if you don't or can't, you're responsible for their insane behavior? Can you see how that will be abused? Not just against people like Jones, or Trump, but against anyone. All that has to happen is a person commits crimes in your name or says they were inspired by you, and bam, you're guilty of "incitement", even if you didn't actually say to them "do x", you just said something that sort of correlates with a worldview where a person might do x. And maybe in your worldview there are a million reasons not to do x, but your fan doesn't know that, so they go and do x.

Eg. If you and I live in the same house and I say to you, "I think our next door neighbor is a murderer!" and you go and kill him, that may be slander on my part, but even if it were knowing slander, it is not necessarily incitement because I have a strong belief that vigilantism is wrong, and it is also illegal to extrajudicially kill people, so it's an absurd logical leap to say that I intended, by saying this, for you to go and kill him.

More than that, this kind of logic is a dangerous tool of the state in finding ways to criminalize and convict people for the endorsement of any worldview they don't like. Simply: connect that worldview with some type of crime, find the crime, say that anyone who espouses the worldview incited the crime.

This could be used against ANYONE, not just conservatives. It could be used against liberals. Use your imagination, honestly.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Hey raven, do you think in future stories we may see more angst or at least back story with Kalim? I know he's our resident sunshine character but beyond being somewhat naive, with all the assassinations and other potential tragedies throughout his life, I wouldn't be surprised if we found out kalim's constant happiness was his own way of coping with it.

But I may be wrong, what are your thoughts or Headcannons about future development with Kalim?

Before the release of chapter 4, a popular fan theory floating around was that Kalim has a secret evil side, but now we can see he's just ashldbbasiydbaiodbsa sunshine lad 😂 Now I believe it's a popular belief that Kalim's happiness is how he deals with the constant assassination attempts, but I also think part of it is that's just how Kalim's personality is. Having grown up extremely privileged, he can afford to live and spend carefreely, and that plays into how he developed his coping methods.

***Main story spoilers below the cut!***

I think a good route for character development for Kalim would be centered around him recognizing that that not everyone is able to live as lavishly as he does (maybe even spurring him to be motivated to do charity work beyond just donating money; really getting up in there and roughing it with his own hands). He kind of got a start with that in chapter 4 when Jamil reveals how unhappy he is having to constantly cater to Kalim and the Asims. There's a divide between the working class and the wealthy, and Kalim should be more cognizant of it if he wishes to reconcile properly with Jamil.

I personally want to see more interactions between him and Ruggie, who comes from the other extreme end of the social ladder. Leona, another rich character, once commented that he thought Ruggie's home was a doghouse when he first saw it because it looked so unkempt and worn down. It's definitely a far cry from the palace he's used to lounging around in. However, I think that Kalim has more capacity to empathize with Ruggie's situation compared to Leona, and seeing just how "the other half" lives can be a valuable experience for Kalim and his growth.

As he learns more about the world, it would also be cool to see Kalim actually learn how to be independent. He relies far too much on Jamil for basic things like being reminded to wake up on time or to make his meals and can't seem to do those things himself (compared to Leona, who has Ruggie take care of him out of laziness). Kalim's also too impulsive with his desires and doesn't realize how much trouble he is making for those around him by acting mainly based on what he thinks is best or would be the most fun (like the time he dragged Idia, an extreme introvert, to a meal, or all the times he asked Jamil to organize banquets for him).

He is used to a certain lifestyle where he gets everything he wants and everyone acts as he wills them to, so Kalim just assumes "this is the norm, and this is how things will always be". This is the perfect set up for him to have that view challenged, questioned, and even shattered (as we see in chapter 5 when Kalim ends up not being picked as a lead performer). It propels Kalim to pick up the pace and push himself to try harder and actually apply himself instead of relying on others to fix his messes or lack of skill for him. That's along the lines of what I want to see for Kalim going forward.

So basically, chapter 4 started a character arc with Kalim, chapter 5 kind of continued it, and I like the direction it's going, but I think it could be explored in greater detail. I hope that in learning more about people outside of his mega wealthy bubble can expand Kalim's worldview, make him more sympathetic to the plights and the limited wallets of the common man, and how to look after himself.

[starfallskitter]

THIS is Chloe’s redemption arc

Hi! I don’t usually do big media analysis things, but I like Miraculous Ladybug and I’m a writer and familiar with these tropes. I was thinking about Chloe’s character in season 4 and how everyone’s been so upset with what seems like a reversal of her character arc, so I wanted to unpack everything and explain what I believe is going on.

In short: Chloe getting worse, becoming mean again, is the only way she can, after the three seasons she’s had so far, get a satisfying redemption arc. 

Zoe is also very important to her arc; while it could perhaps have been done differently, Zoe’s introduction is perhaps the clearest way of developing Chloe’s character and giving her redemption. But I’ll get to that in a moment.

I recently rewatched the first half of season 1 and most of season 3, so I’ll probably draw from more recent memories in discussion here. Season 4 is, however, the main point of discussion in this post, so big spoiler warning if you aren’t up to date on Sole Crusher and Queen Banana at the very least.

So, character arcs can generally be shortened to a question of, ‘what does this character need to learn? And do they learn it?’, although typically there are bumps along the way, with characters learning the wrong lessons, making mistakes, backtracking, etc. Sometimes it’s a negative character arc where they learn a lie, or refuse to change.

In Chloe’s case, the thing she needs to learn is simple. She believes, in season 1 episode 1, that she is inherently better than other people. She still believes this throughout the entire show up to this point. She needs to learn that that’s not the case.

Success to Chloe is how much power you have, and she expects power. It’s reinforced for her at every turn. Her dad gets her everything she wants, and he’s the Mayor, so his power becomes hers. Her ‘best friend’ is a rich, famous supermodel, which is ultimate success to her, and at the start she’s his only friend, so he must consider her on his level (how he came into this situation doesn’t matter to her). She’s constantly followed by someone who lets her have complete power over her just to get a glimpse of Chloe’s wealth. Bullying and beauty are both sources of power to her as well. Power is success, she has a lot of power, she’s successful, she’s acheived all she wants to.

So, naturally, she loves Ladybug, the most powerful superhero in Paris. She wants to be accepted by Ladybug, and loved by Ladybug, because Ladybug has power, and Ladybug accepting her as her peer means Chloe is on her level. Everyone loves Ladybug, therefore Ladybug has more power than Hawkmoth, the real reason Chloe is on her side.

This doesn’t change much throughout season one. 

In Season 2, though, we meet her mother, who can be summed up as the main source of this thought pattern. Chloe idealises her, more even than Ladybug, and her approval as a powerful person who knows it feels like all Chloe needs. When Chloe gets the Bee Miraculous, it’s not because Ladybug thinks she’s a peer, but Chloe, somewhat desperately, believes that being a Miraculous holder will make her good enough in her mother’s eyes. From the wiki:

Chloé, however, is furious and angrily asks her mother why, out of all people, she would take Marinette to New York City instead of her own daughter. Audrey says that it's because Marinette is exceptional. Chloé retorts that she's exceptional, too, but Audrey says that the only thing exceptional about her is her mother. Hurt by this comment and wanting to prove her mother wrong, Chloé reveals that she has the Bee Miraculous in her possession and transforms into Queen Bee in front of everyone, including the press.

When she gets the Bee Miraculous, it’s not because she’s changed in any way, and it’s not a catalyst for change. The whole plot of Queen Wasp is that Chloe is trying to prove she’s exceptional, but her being exceptional is not what she needs to learn; in fact, it’s the opposite. She needs to learn that she is no more exceptional than anyone else. She doesn’t learn this here.

Again, from the wiki:

Marinette tells Audrey that Chloé is exceptional -- exceptionally mean. She lists all of Chloé's worst qualities, angering both her and Audrey but also making the two realize that they have a lot in common. When Marinette leaves, Audrey asks Chloé if she is really as bad as Marinette said, to which Chloé says that her only friend in school is Sabrina, and she enjoys giving her butler a hard time. Audrey takes back her earlier comment about Chloé not being exceptional, embraces her, and decides to stay in Paris with her.

This is just reaffirming the problem: Chloe’s belief that her power, coming from her cruelty and bullying, makes her special, so she deserves the power, etc. This is not a change in her character arc; this is still setting her up to change later on.

What this sets up is Chloe’s false character arc. It seems, on the outside, that what Chloe needs to learn is how to be nice, or good. That being kind is something she doesn’t know how to do, and she just needs to try. 

This is often a character arc that children’s show bullies have because it’s easy and simple to understand, but it’s not realistic. Bullies are usually not bullies just because they don’t know how to be nice; some are, perhaps, but the truly mean ones who do acts of cruelty because they can have a fundamentally twisted view of the world, like Chloe’s.

A lot of people think Chloe’s false redemption arc was her real one, and it got thrown out the window. Here’s why the false one is important for the real one.

For Chloe to learn that she’s not special, she has to get rid of the idea that being powerful in any way leads to happiness, or the power is equal to success.

In Season 3 we get continuance of the false arc. Importantly, we see her core behavior has not actually changed. At times, she acts heroically, but it’s not necessarily out of the goodness of her heart; and at the times she does this doesn’t necessarily change her character arc, either. She still has a heart. It’ll come out much more later. But she’s still pushing people around. There is no significant change in how she fundamentally treats Sabrina, or her butler, or Marinette, or her father. She doesn’t see them or relate to them any differently. She’s also using her superhero identity to reinforce the idea that she’s special; she remarks constantly about how she’s Queen Bee, she’s a hero, she’s better than everyone, you get the gist. Becoming Queen Bee has reinforced the primary lie (that she is special) that her character arc is going to change.

We see, in Miraculer, Mayura demanding Chloe join them, and Chloe refusing.

At first, it seems like Chloe’s doing well to refuse. Like she has a sense of justice. In truth, though, she’s mainly on Ladybug’s side because the heroes are usually seen as more powerful and cooler than the villains. There might be a sense of justice there, but that’s ultimately irrelevant to the core flaw that she needs to fix to become a better person.

And then, Heart Hunter and Miracle Queen. Ladybug doesn’t give her enough power, so she takes Hawkmoth’s side.

While Ladybug, Cat Noir and Ryuko fight Heart Hunter, Chloé becomes furious and throws her bee signal off of the roof, losing her hope. Hawk Moth comes and tries to convince Chloé to join him. Chloé is reluctant at first, because he is the one who akumatized her parents. Hawk Moth asks what Ladybug has done for her, since Chloé was the one who trusted Ladybug the most as a fan. Chloé finally agrees, but demands that Hawk Moth deakumatizes her parents first. Hawk Moth accepts these conditions.

This is the ultimate thing that reinforces the lie, that she is special and more powerful. The false character arc, that she just needs to learn to be nice, is thrown aside; she was nice to Ladybug, put herself on Ladybug’s side, and tried to work for justice, but it didn’t change that what she ultimately wanted, and felt was most important, was power, being special, status. The moment at the end of Heart Hunter is where she does her heel-turn, and now, what happens next?

Well, rememeber that she needs to learn she’s not special. As of now, she’s had the belief that she’s special reinforced, not weakened. It’s been reinforced as far as it can go. There is nothing she can do to believe she’s any more special than she believes she is. And now, being pissed at Ladybug, her false arc thrown aside, there’s no reason to try and act nice. It didn’t make her happy, after all.

So in Season 4, she doubles down on what she still believes matters: Power.

She’s worse to Sabrina, locking her in her closet, making her chase after the car, etc. She will only consider the best, most powerful friends like her: Zoe, her sister, has to be just as special, just as powerful.... and as we saw at the end of season 2, that means mean.

Which brings me to Zoe.

Zoe is important because she’s everything Chloe could’ve been if she’d already learned her lesson, for one. She’s successful at making friends because she cares about how nice someone is, not their status, which is what Chloe doesn’t get. She’s so frustated that Zoe makes friends at the end of Sole Crusher by just being nice. Chloe wants those friends, but everything in the show so far has taught her that power is important and it’s what will get her love and attention, and her power comes from, again, bullying and her dad.

And that’s also where Andre comes in. The other thing Zoe does is change Chloe’s biggest enabler- Andre. In Queen Banana, he refuses Chloe’s demands for the first time pretty much ever, and draws a hard line in the sand.

Suddenly, a little bit of Chloe’s power is taken away from her in that moment. She can’t understand how Zoe can be happier than her or why her father might tell her no. They’re incompatible with her worldview- that she is special, and powerful, and deserves things just for being special.

At this point, Chloe has to lose everything. She thinks that cruelty to others will make her happy; that demanding things gets her what she wants. It has, so far. So for her to change, that needs to not work. We’re seeing just the beginnings of that in Season 4 so far; she can’t demand anything from her father (although Queen Banana is full of demands she does get). Zoe didn’t find happiness through the method Chloe said she would in Sole Crusher (really, Sole Crusher lays out what Chloe’s been imagining the world is like the entire show. That’s it in a nutshell, really). Adrien told her she needed to be nicer and lowkey rejected her friendship at the end of Queen Banana. Zoe, the sister who is better off doing the opposite of what Chloe thought would make her happy and successful, took her symbol of power- the Bee Miraculous, her superhero identity- away from her. Chloe’s worldview is slowly unravelling as of Season 4.

So, what needs to happen next?

One: she will lose everything. Two: she’ll learn that power doesn’t make her happy. Three: she’ll realise that kindness and justice and equality, etc. are more important. Four: she’ll do something major to show that she understands this and has changed. Five: she’ll permanently stop putting herself above others.

I can’t project too far in the future, but what I can say is what is probably going to come next for the topic of her losing everything. Her father is going to say no more often; her mother will disappoint her; Zoe will continue to do well. Chloe may learn that Zoe is Vesperia, I’m not sure.

But the one main thing that I think, personally, Chloe needs to lose in some dramatic way is Sabrina. Sabrina is just about the last thing that has remained the same for Chloe so far. And I think that that change won’t come by Sabrina’s doing, necessarily. She’s not vengeful and doesn’t see or care about Chloe’s flaws.

But the thing is, it seems obvious by now that everyone in the class is getting a Miraculous. We’ve seen spoilers for Mylene’s and Juleka’s, and my personal opinion is that the four remaining unpaired Miraculous pair up to the three remaining classmates + the one other student who seems to recur (personal guesses: Ivan - Ox, Nathaniel - Rooster, Marc - Dog, Sabrina - Goat), but regardless, what I imagine would break Chloe’s existing worldview more than anything else, and leave it open to change, is Sabrina getting a Miraculous, and Chloe knowing it’s her.

Sabrina is Chloe’s trailing, forever-present symbol of power. She’s always got power over Sabrina. Sabrina being special in a way that Chloe no longer is, a way that got taken by her ‘lame’ sister who she views as less powerful than her, should put a lot into perspective for her.

In short: Chloe is going to have a bad time, and be a bad time, for most of this season, if not all of it. She’s got to learn that her worldview is wrong.

That’s how her character arc will end. That’s how we get a satisfying change, something meaningful happening to her, and her really changing from the bully she was. Miraculous is a lot more complicated than most kid’s shows and it didn’t simplify it down to ‘bully learns to be nice’- Chloe’s character arc is about changing the fundamental thing that made her so mean in the first place. It’s about learning that she is not at all exceptional, and that she is just like anyone else. And that she’ll prefer it that way.

[noa-ciharu]

tsubasa for the ask meme!

I'll have to include side characters as otherwise we have, like... total 4 (and a half, must not forget Mokona) Oh boy here we go:

Blorbo: oke I love them all obviously, but there's special place for Fai. When I first watched TRC anime when I was 15 i was like are we so lucky to have such beautiful main character?? Not side one for 2-3 eps but main?? God bless. And his style is just 👌. Ofc that all came at cost of angst, cuz God forbid we have stunning guy without angst. It's like that idea of love ar first sight but it's blorbo at first sight. For Kurogane it was "this guy is too pretty... which is pretty suspicious" at first sight. Ofc that's just a beginning, don't even get me started on his complexity and development. He went through such bs life and is like, one of the top 5 most tragic clamp characters (which says a lot, it's clamp duh) but has such kind heart and - okay I have to stop at some point 🥺

Skrunkly: Fai Sakura and Sayoran! I remember that one scene in Outo when she wore that rly cute maid outfit and they both were so shy and cute around each other and someone teased them. My heart melted like aww. Ofc there were many many moments before shit went down but that one is 🥰

Scrimblo bimblo: this is hard to answer cuz all other chars are from other series actually. But let's say Ashura (both) and Yasha since I don't see much RG veda stuff as much as CCS, xxxHolic, TB/X ect. Also Mokona since she's one of the crew technically (probs cuz she's not human). Also let's add infinity crew which is never talked about because we TRC fans simply dont talk about infinity angst and double divorce.

Glup shitto: like all my favs from other clamp series: Yuuko, Watanuki, Kamui and Subaru, Sorata and Arashi in first arc, Tomoyo, Yuki and Touya (married in every universe oh at least they're angst free 🥺), Seishirou (I'll never let him live down with that cringe moments in Outo and Nihon neither should you guys), Kenddapa and Souma, Ashura, Eagle, Chii (she does nothing rly in trc but too cute not to include) ect...

Poor little meow meow: Fai ofc he's poor little meow meow he even identifies as a cat (black one to the boot, oh the irony). I think it's pretty self-explanatory why. Also ofc Kurogane, Sayoran and Sakura with all that happened in their pasts and during the series. Especially that one arc about Kuro's past, it was tragic but what got me was when Sayoran had thay blank look on his face and tears were rolling down his face. Ofc in Outo too when he thought Fai was eaten alive by those demons... only afterward you know why he was so shocked...

Horse plinko: as someone who actually loves to torments characters to witness complexity of human nature in fiction, I'll say none of them. TRC is like a slow therapy of ups and downs, of finding indenitity and in order for that to happen and scars to start healing you must revisit your past and places where pain lies, thus allegory of dimension travell. To learn self value and that suffering in silence makes those who love you suffer as well. To reconstruct destructive beliefs of self and worldview you had into something healthier. To accept that you matter to those around you; what a true sacrifice should look like, what strength is. And oh so many more. Clamp could have easily killed or left traumatized in the end, any of them, but the point was process of healing. So I feel that traumatizing and providing further hurt with no comfort would feel really off in context of TRC, especially post Nihon arc. That sounded too deep for a meme ask so to answer: Subaru

Eeby debby: Kyle and all that crew. As for main ones, they've been in Acid Tokyo, superhell would be a holiday vacation in comparison.

Send me a fandom and I'll tell you my: