#but i can recognize that hes a compelling and complex character and i can appreciate his role in the story and his persobality and story

[lawyerkin]

hey OP i hope you dont mind me adding to this and going deeper into aspects of the game + things i personally believe in about DGS as a story because i have been talking about this ever since i met barok van zieks . under tbe cut because its long !

idk how to put my thoughts into words but. here goes a try: i genuinely feel like the game was almost setting this up. this outcome. i think this is what the narrative leads us to. we should be able to pick up the fact that the judicial system in london is extremely biased, unreliable, corrupt and racist. the main games don't shy away from pointing out how horribly corrupt the current court system is, with miles edgeworth and mvk and damon gant as great examples in the first game, and imo that's why it works as well as it does. you find out that the justice system is unfair and biased and there's a payoff. in DGS we get a similar kind of setup, right. first, there's jezaille brett, introduced to us an englishwoman who is unabashedly racist. that tells us this way of thinking is common, cultural, expected in great britain. when we get there, we, as ryunosuke, experience this firsthand. its like everywhere we go, we're foreign. uninvited. intruders. its like we're not supposed to be there. you get the sense you, as the characters, have to behave a certain way in order to not get yelled at and insulted. at least that's how i felt like

then there's....... barok van zieks. and he's all OP already said. his main character trait is that he's racist. and his racism is said to originate from his traumatic past. and i think anyone with some common sense will eventually wonder if that's really what the story is saying.

when i first watched a DGS playthrough (i never played the games myself because i can only play on my phone and it won't run 3D games, especially something as long as dgs) and bvz hinted at the "reason" he's so openly hostile to japanese people i thought "ok. obviously everyone knows he's using this as an excuse. obviously trauma doesn't make you racist" because to me, i saw it as him saying "i have been around people who think like this my whole life, it was always preached to me that you can only trust your peers and foreigners aren't our peers, this is how we do here in london. then i met this japanese man who proved them wrong and i was able to trust him and become his friend. i thought that meant i no longer thought like the others and i was able to be friends with foreign people, unlike them, who are close minded and prejudiced. and then, when the possibility that my friend had betrayed us crossed my mind, i fell back into my racist biases and stopped trusting him completely. in that moment i realized i was the one who's wrong, and everyone else that warned me about the japanese not being trustworthy were right, so i will never make the mistake of trusting another japanese person again" which ofc means he never actually let go of his racist ideals, he just had a fondness for one specific person. the moment he thought this person might've been guilty, its like the values he grew up believing in were confirmed. he didn't think twice, he assumed the only person who could do something so awful was the foreigner he was told not to trust. he would never suspect his brother, a trusted englishman, could do such a thing. no one did. it's KLINT VAN ZIEKS's innocence against that of a foreigner. of course they'll trust klint. of course they'll fool themselves into believing klint could've never done anything bad. of course the japanese man was the one to kill our trusted and loyal friend klint. finding out genshin killed klint was like having all their biases confirmed to them, it meant that they were right all along, that the japanese can't be trusted so of course he had to have been the professor. only a foreigner like genshin would be capable of that, not our klint. not our people. and while its only natural that people who knew klint personally, such as barok himself, would be in denial and would refuse to believe such a beloved person could be the one committing horrible crimes, the problem is that they're the justice system. the justice system loves klint and hates foreigners. the justice system is based on prejudiced values and biases. the people of london think like this. they are raised to believe that we are good, moral, straight. they are odd, untrustworthy. only they are capable of such horrible things, not us.

another notable moment in the games that really sets this whole thing up for me is when we first meet soseki natsume. i don't remember what he says exactly, but he's so relieved when he meets ryunosuke and susato and finds out they're also foreigners because he knows exactly how the londoners see him. he knows how hostile and biased they are, and he knows english lawyers would never want to defend him. not just because they're going against the alleged reaper of the bailey, but because soseki is japanese, and everyone in london automatically distrusts him. he's so happy to see ryunosuke and susato because he can trust them, and he knows they'll trust him. the whole reason why soseki was arrested at all was because he was "acting suspicious", as in, the police/witnesses/people around the crime scene see him as guilty by default because of their own racist biases. they think only a japanese man, especially an odd one like soseki, would do something so cold hearted like that for no apparent reason. there was no evidence against him, no motive, all they had is the fact that he was around when the crime happened. because he... lives right there. and he's not a londoner, so we trust him less.

and this is not even subtext, this is part of the game, the narrative. we see and experience this happening everywhere, london has a racism problem. it just does, it's an undeniable fact. THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, THE COURT, THE HIGHEST RANKING PEOPLE OF POWER IN THIS CITY have racist biases. no one is free from biased thinking. not even us as the player, but that's another thing entirely.

what im getting at is that i wish I WISH SO HARD this setup actually lead somewhere. i wish that in the end we'd be able to see even more clearly that the police, barok van zieks, mael stronghart and everyone else in the justice system willingly ignored the fact that genshin could not have been the professor because of their biases. i wish they actually fully believed klint was innocent because it's their klint. their friend. he can't be guilty. i wish the game showed us that bvz and stronghart and inspector gregson not only blindly trusted klint to pretend they didn't see that all the evidence pointed towards him, but that they also had this natural distrust for genshin because he's not really "one of them". i wish we could see them denying their racist biases while being very clearly racist still, and that it was clear to us as the audience that the reason genshin was said to be the professor was not because he killed klint, but because everyone knowingly cherrypicked evidence and stretched the truth to fit what they already believed in. like they did with soseki. i wish it was made more clear that barok didnt become racist because his brother was killed by someone he trusted, but because he had always been racist and that fact confirmed his deep seated beliefs, and that racism and prejudice are present in the judicial system because it is composed of people who have these ideals, we have a system built on human biases and corruption and a group of powerful people's desire to believe one of their own couldn't be capable of horrible crimes is the reason why genshin asogi was believed to be the professor when he was actually the one to stop said criminal. just my opinion ! ok

Despite being my favorite prosecutor of the series in my favorite games of the series, I do have a huge problem with Barok van Zieks' writing, and it's his racism. Not that I mind that character flaw, but rather how it's handled.

In the game, Barok is racist towards Japanese people. Mind you, most of the English characters are too, but Barok is not only openly hostile and contemptuous of Japanese culture, but he's also the only character for whom this is a focus point. Later in the game, he overcomes that racism through his legal battles and budding friendship with Ryunosuke, our Japanese protagonist.

That's not what I have a problem with. That would lie in the origin of this racist behavior.

See, unlike the rest of the racist characters in Great Ace Attorney, Barok is prejudiced against Japanese people because of his tragic backstory (big red flag).

When he was younger, Barok actually liked Japanese people, and was even good friends with one, Genshin Asogi, until Genshin was revealed to be the Professor, a serial killer who murdered several members of the judiciary, including Klint van Zieks, Barok's older brother who he idolized. From that point on, Barok had a deep mistrust and hatred of all Japanese people.

That part sucks ass, because the key to Barok stopping being racist is proving that while Genshin did kill Klint, he did so in an honorable duel which Klint accepted, because he was the real Professor and Genshin knew it was the only way to bring him to justice.

This implies at best that Barok would have never been able to overcome his bigotry without the proof of Genshin's innocence, and at worst that his bigotry would've been justified if Genshin really was the Professor.

But the worst (or best, depending on your relationship with headcanons/mods) is that this is so easily fixed, and in fact, the game almost gives us the answer wholesale:

The reason the Professor's true identity was not found is partly due to the efforts of the villains of the game, but also because the rest of the characters involved in his case, including Barok, put Klint on such a pedestal that they unconsciously rejected any evidence of his guilt.

If we want to highlight that moral (?) by contrasting it with our fix to Barok's racism problem, we can simply answer a question that naturally comes to mind with this set up: Why was the British judiciary, including Barok, so quick to write off Genshin as the Professor? Sure, he killed Klint, but he killed him with a katana, while the rest of the Professor's victims died of bite wounds. The game answers with the same Klint pedestal logic as before, but I think it should be because Barok and the judiciary are racist.

It's such a simple change, and yet it makes Barok's story so much better from a narrative and sociopolitical standpoint. Barok prides himself on seeking the truth, a deeply heroic quality in Ace Attorney. So the fact that his own prejudice, something he didn't even care to question for his great friend Genshin Asogi ("one of the good ones" in this scenario), caused the obfuscation of the truth would be devastating, and that devastation being the end of his bigotry would stay in line with the heavily character-focused writing of Ace Attorney and yield a much better message in addition of "racism is bad": societal biases left unexamined can blind us to reality, leading us to make awful mistakes that go against our core principles.

It also has a bunch of additional perks: Seishiro's anger would become additionally relatable for many POC, it would be a great and honestly ballsy commentary on law enforcement to make for the most popular VN series, it would create a nice parallel with Soseki Natsume's arrest, and it would add an interesting touch to Stronghart's characterization, what with him being racist (and a well-written racist at that) in the games already, but also becoming aware of said racism in others and using that to his benefit in our version.

Anyway, don't let the multiple paragraphs of criticism fool you, I'm making this post because I love these games to death

[dinarosie]

Hey there,

I just wanted to say I appreciate what you have been writing about Snape and the leveled approach you have towards his character. It’s given many different perspectives I haven’t considered, and thank you for the care you have taken in writing out your points. I look forward to reading more :).

I wanted to add some thoughts to the convo. I think he is, and has always been difficult to appreciate for people because of his more reprehensible behavior and his more frequent appearance/impact on the plot of the story. His poor qualities are more present and readily accessible— while also being limited to the narrative perspective of the story giving glimpses of him. It’s an uncanny valley of incomplete presence.

Personally, I find it sad when his character isn’t considered humanely because his incredibly flawed nature makes him one of the most realistic characters in the series (imo)— and even as a kid I appreciated that. His bitterness and shortcomings in the way he would react to certain situations is something we can all be guilty of through out our lives, no one’s a saint, but he still tried to correct the error how he was capable of doing so with where he was in his life. That messy journey to doing better or correcting a wrong is real. Being a hot mess while you try to do it over time is real. I think the reality of how awful our behavior and flawed our choices can be, in various stages of life and in times of good intentions, is uncomfortable to recognize. As a result, it’s easier to aggrandize his entire character to awful rather than be confronted with how we have very much faulted and erred through out our lives— at times egregiously— and be able to appreciate the journey to redemption and betterment, no matter how messy.

That may be off base, but wanted to share.

Again. Thank you so much for sharing all of your thoughts. 💕

🐦‍⬛

Thank you so much for your thoughtful message! 💖

It’s incredibly rewarding to hear that the effort I put into exploring Snape’s character resonates and brings new perspectives to the table. I really appreciate that you took the time to reflect on his complexity in such a nuanced way.

Your points remind me of Laurie Kim’s analysis of Snape, which perfectly captures why his character has such a lasting impact. She describes Snape as “painfully human,” noting how he is neither purely good nor purely evil but rather someone who navigates life’s challenges with a mix of failures and successes. In her book Snape: A Definitive Reading, she writes, “Snape’s journey is compelling precisely because it is so raw and imperfect. He stumbles, holds grudges, and carries deep scars—yet ultimately strives to overcome his worst qualities. His story shows that redemption isn’t a clean process; it’s messy, uncomfortable, and incomplete.” This nuanced view really resonates with why many fans, myself included, find him relatable despite (and even because of) his flaws.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts! It’s these kinds of reflections that make discussing Snape’s character so meaningful, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to explore it more deeply.

[marxism-lelouchism]

Can I ask something from Code Geass? What do you think are Lelouch and Suzaku’s greatest personality strengths and weaknesses? Why? What do you love about their dynamic? Sorry if you've answered these questions before.....

i'm delighted you asked! always love talking about these guys :) full response under the read more because i ended up writing an essay lol

i think what makes lelouch and suzaku such compelling characters to me are their contradictions and complexity. i resonated immediately and especially with lelouch's character so i'm obviously biased towards many of his traits but i like how his aloof, intellectual front masks someone who cares deeply, emotionally about the people he loves. he's thoughtful, kind, and has a strong sense of justice (or perhaps more accurately revenge), and yet he's also capable of cold, calculated cruelty. he does everything in the name of a better world for his sister but he never once asks nunnally if she wanted him to lie, deceive, and kill for her. he claims to be a "knight of justice" but his desire to destroy britannia is not rooted in anti-imperialist values but rather the personal injustices he, his sister, and his best friend experienced. (i do think he has some genuine principles, they're just not his primary motivation.) in a story about resisting imperialism and colonialism, he is a white ex-prince whose power is the ability to force people to bend to his will. in many ways, lelouch is still the 10 year old boy whose world was ripped from under him, first with his mother's assassination and his sister's disabling, then with the invasion of japan, and he never grew past that, desperate for a sense of control over his life. his greatest strength is his love for his friends and family, and his greatest weakness is that he forces that love, his own concept of love, onto them. that he recognizes he must die for his loved ones to see a better world—and that he will not see that world with them—speaks to the strength of his resolve and is an incredibly satisfying, and tragic, ending to his character arc.

suzaku, similarly, is a hypocrite. i never disliked his character (unlike many fans who hate him for all the wrong reasons), but it did take me a while to really warm up to him and appreciate his role in the story and as a foil to lelouch. as the son of japan's last prime minister who became a soldier in the force occupying his own country, suzaku's biggest weakness is his stubbornness in clinging onto liberal, reformist ideals of change. it's easy to dismiss this as naivety or ignorance (he is the 17 year old son of a politician, born into an upper class family after all), but i think it's much more interesting to think of suzaku's liberalism as a deeply repressed recognition of how destructive and irredeemable the system he's trying to "change from within" is. i think, deep down, he must know that being a cog in the machine means that the machine will tear him apart—and he wants that. he says he wants the fighting to stop, the war to end (and yes, i also do believe that is a genuine desire to a degree), but what he really wants is to die, a punishment for killing his father and thereby surrendering a whole country to exploitation and degradation. suzaku, too, has a good heart (in any other story he would be the protagonist!), but it's often buried by a tremendous amount of guilt and self-hatred. his character development especially in season 2 is really interesting to watch. he turns some of that hatred outward, onto zero, and in the process he grapples with the question of if he's really much different from that which he hates. whenever i want to be harsh to suzaku i remember he was just a boy when his country was destroyed overnight and that he spent seven, very lonely years growing up in the jaws of a system that certainly did not show him much mercy.

as for what i love about their dynamic...short answer is probably everything LOL. the long answer is that they are really excellent narrative foils to the extent that their relationship, its ups and downs, is the primarily driving force of code geass. i've already mentioned how their contradictions mirror each other and i personally love how their conflict draws out a deeper political question of reform vs revolution. but despite all their differences, they work really well together. they complement each other's strengths, cover for each other's weaknesses, "there's nothing lelouch and i can't do together". there is a deep amount of respect and implicit trust they have for each other. they have their own secret codes and signs! their relationship and its development feels very real, intense, and fleshed out to a degree i don't feel like many other fictional relationships achieve. they go through/put each other through a lot in those 50 episodes. the miscommunication, betrayals, backstabbing, selling out, deception, and yet also genuine friendship, understanding, and reconciliation. it works and feels very believable. they start on opposite sides at the beginning of the story and you can see how they slowly come to understand each other and eventually meet in the middle. taking over the britannian empire to destroy it from within is their final compromise. it's a harebrained (politically implausible in the real world) scheme that only worked because they worked together.

i love how they are the one person who truly understands the other, who has seen the good, bad, and downright reprehensible. there are so many sides to lelouch, and suzaku is the one character who has seen them all. lelouch who thinks of suzaku as "my first friend and worst enemy", and suzaku who thinks of lelouch as "my worst friend and first enemy". there are many reasons why their relationship should be unequal, marred by the obvious power differences between a white colonizer and japanese colonial subject (an imbalance they're quick to recognize in their first meeting when suzaku beats up the trespasser in his home), and yet in their personal relationship, they are equals. lelouch goes through great pains to respect suzaku's free will and avoid using his geass on him, and even when he does geass him, the order isn't to force suzaku to listen to him but instead to live. when they become emperor and knight, it's clear that their relationship isn't one of lord and servant but instead of co-conspirators. "emperor" and "knight" are just roles they're playing. suzaku kneels before lelouch not because he's the emperor's knight but to pay respect to lelouch's resolve. they play many roles throughout the story, classmates, civilian and pilot, terrorist and soldier, emperor and knight, but at the end of the day they are just lelouch and suzaku to each other. despite, or because of, everything they've been through, lelouch still leans on suzaku as he dies and suzaku still sheds tears for him.

[rabbiitte]

Character Analysis #4.

Sleepless Nights and Silent Battles: Top's Journey Through PTSD, Attachment and Performative Sexuality.

Following the latest comments made by P'Jojo, I feel compelled to contribute to the appreciation of Top as a character. I consider that, far from being the flattest character, he's one of the most complex characters in the series. Not only is he a character who evolves throughout the story, but many sensitive themes are explored through him. Today we'll dive into Top's intricacies and explore concepts such as stereotypes, attachment patterns, PTSD and performative sexuality. If you're interested in what makes Top such a fascinating character, read on.

1 | Narrative differentiation: the deconstruction of a stereotype.

The characters in a story often serve as narrative tools to explore and contrast various thematic and emotional aspects. Each character can represent a unique perspective, contrasting values or even opposing archetypes. Opposing characters may mark contrast, create tension, humor or highlight the complexity of the issues being explored. Two opposite characters in Only Friends are Mew and Boston, for example. On the other hand, similar characters may highlight patterns in the story or underscore the repetition of key themes. In Only Friends, two characters who are introduced as similar are Boston and Top. Although both present certain differences on a deeper level, they both embody the stereotype of the "heartbreaker" or "promiscuous" man.

The “heartbreaker” stereotype: refers to a male character characterized by his physical attractiveness, charm, and ability to have multiple romantic relationships without serious commitment. Some of the most common attributes of the “heartbreaker” include physical attractiveness, charisma and ability to persuade others. They tend to avoid commitment, be the object of desire for other characters and have notable social skills.

Certain characters can start out being different to end up being similar, as in the case of Ray and Boston. Other characters can start out being similar to end up being different, as in the case of Top and Boston. This phenomenon where two initially similar characters reveal deeper layers and different motivations could be called "narrative differentiation". It's a common device in writing that adds complexity and depth to characters, allowing the audience to explore different facets of the same stereotype. On a narrative level, this is often used to challenge viewers expectations and provide a richer understanding of the characters. In this way, Top and Boston serve as vehicles to explore different facets of the same stereotype.

The expression "narrative differentiation" is not a standardized or official term within literary or film theory. It has been used to describe the narrative process in which initially similar characters take different paths and develop in unique ways throughout a story.

Through Boston, the most superficial facet of the “heartbreaker” stereotype is explored, while through Top, the deeper facet of this stereotype is explored. Boston personifies the idea of living out sexuality without regrets or explanations, without any specific reason behind his behavior (for most of the show). In Ton's case, there isn't deep exploration and, for many episodes, there's no development. On the other hand, through his traumatic past, Top adds a layer of complexity to the stereotype, showing that people with this behavior aren't always the way they are simply because. This narrative duality enriches the representation of the experiences and motivations behind the characters' choices.

2 | The effects of parenting styles and attachment patterns in adulthood.

Generally, when it comes to Top (and unlike with other characters) people fail to recognize what drives him in his decision-making process. This is, how his childhood affected his adulthood. And if the importance of Top's childhood is recognized, the focus is usually on how his trauma affected him. And, yes, the fire in which Top was trapped as a child without his parents caused him sequelae but Top's abandonment issues were not only caused by this traumatic event. Top's traumatic experience reinforced his abandonment issues, but his fear of abandonment was already present before that. If Top had not experienced that traumatic event, he would also manifest abandonment issues. To talk about the beginning of Top's abandonment issues we have to go back to Top's childhood and we have to talk about the importance of Top's parents in his emotional development.

Childhood is a crucial time in our lives. During this period, many of the foundations for emotional development are laid. This is why parenting is so important. How parents choose to bond with children (or choose not to) will be reflected through parenting styles. There are four types of parenting styles:

Authoritative: authoritative parents set rules and boundaries, but they're also understanding and responsive to their child's emotional needs. They encourage open communication and encourage independence. Children raised authoritatively tend to have a good balance between self-discipline and emotional expression. They can love and fulfill themselves without needing other people. They tend to be more confident, have social skills and make informed decisions. As an example, Mew's mothers raised him through the authoritative style.

Permissive: Permissive parents are forgiving and tend to avoid imposing strict limits. They're usually very responsive to their children's emotional needs. Children raised permissively may have difficulty following rules and boundaries, which can sometimes lead to behavioral problems. They may also experience difficulty developing self-discipline. Children raised in this style may be more prone to experimentation with substances, as they may not receive adequate guidance on the dangers and risks associated with drug and alcohol use. As an example, Sand's mother raised him through the permissive style.

Authoritarian: authoritarian parents are demanding and controlling. They set rigid rules and clear expectations for their children. They tend to be less responsive to children's emotional needs. Children raised in an authoritarian manner tend to be disciplined and compliant, but they may also experience high levels of anxiety and have difficulty making decisions for themselves. As an example, there are clues that suggest that Nick's parents raised him through the authoritarian style.

Neglectful: neglectful parents show little interest or involvement in their children's lives. They may be emotionally absent or distracted by other problems. Children raised in neglectful environments may experience attachment problems, low self-esteem, and difficulty establishing healthy relationships in adulthood. They may also feel neglected and devalued. This parenting style can lead to self-esteem issues, anxiety, depression and substance abuse. As an example, Boston, Ray and Top's parents raised them through the neglectful style.

Top's parents ignored or rejected him and, as Boston and Ray, Top has self-esteem issues. He's needy for affection and, especially, protection because he lacked these things during his childhood.

If the bonds established in childhood are so important, what will be the effect of having neglectful parents? How we form a bond with a caregiver will affect how we form bonds in our adulthood. Therefore, each parenting style has a consequence. That consequence is the emergence of an attachment pattern.

According to the attachment theory, developed primarily by British psychologist John Bowlby and later extended by Canadian psychologist Mary Ainsworth, an attachment pattern refers to the way individuals form emotional bonds and connections with others, typically based on their early experiences and interactions with primary caregivers during infancy and childhood. These bonds provide a sense of security and emotional protection, especially in situations of stress or danger. Attachment patterns can influence how people perceive relationships, approach intimacy, and react in times of stress or vulnerability.

The attachment theory identifies two types of attachment that can be develop in childhood: secure attachment and insecure attachment. For example, when a little girl feels secure to walk away because she knows that when she returns her caregiver will still be there to meet her needs, this is called secure attachment. If a little boy feels insecure about walking away because he's afraid that his caregiver won't be there when he returns to meet his needs, this is called insecure attachment. At the same time, insecure attachment is divided into anxious attachment, avoidant attachment and disorganized attachment. Today we will talk about anxious attachment but, if you want to know what type of attachment each character of Only Friends has, I recommend you read my general analysis of attachment patterns in Only Friends here.

Anxious attachment: Those with this attachment pattern often worry about being abandoned or unloved. They may seek excessive reassurance from their partners and can be overly sensitive to relationship changes or perceived threats to the relationship. They may be reluctant to express their anger or dissatisfaction, which can sometimes lead to increased anxiety. This apparent passivity can be a strategy to avoid conflict or maintain a relationship.

Top grew up with two absent parents. Growing up, his parents ignored him and didn't spend quality time with him. They usually went to social events without taking Top with them, which is why Top was alone during the fire. His parents didn't meet his needs immediately, as they were never at home (although perhaps they did met his needs in the long run). When his parents were with him, Top was happy and when his parents left him, he felt anxious. His parents' inconsistent behavior (of being present, then absent) caused Top deep anxiety and he developed a strong fear of abandonment. As he grew older, he stopped perceiving his parents as a safe place to perceive them as unreliable figures. He never felt safe exploring the world because he feared his parents wouldn't be there when he returned. This type of insecure attachment is called anxious attachment.

The anxious attachment pattern is what is colloquially referred to as "abandonment issues." Although both terms share similarities, they aren't interchangeable. The difference between the terms lies in their origin and context of use. "Anxious attachment" is a more technical and specific term used in psychology to describe a particular attachment pattern. It refers to anxiety and worry about abandonment in interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, "abandonment issues" is a more colloquial term used in everyday conversations to express in a general way the anxiety or fear related to abandonment. Although the two concepts may overlap, the former is a more clinical and precise description, while the latter is a more informal and broad expression.

Top worries about being abandoned all the time. This fear isn't only activated at night, but is present unconsciously during his daily life due to the way he got used to building relationships (based on how he was raised). That terrible fear affects the way he connects with other people in his adulthood. It led him to limit his romantic relationships and mostly engage in one-night stands. In order to avoid being abandoned first, Top developed the three-month rule. Probably, this is how long it took his previous partners to break up with him. However, ironically, despite not wanting to be hurt or abandoned, Top's anxious attachment pattern leads him to constantly seek affection. That's why Top dated other people before Mew (we know about Boeing and some other “serious” relationship thanks to the existence of the three-month rule Boston talked about). All this information suggests that Top is open to relationships because he seeks companionship and he wants to satiate his need for affection but prefers to avoid being abandoned.

In his romantic relationships, Top is insecure and needy. He worries about not being enough and being abandoned eventually. This is the main reason why Boston's revelation about Mew and Ray's kissing affected him so much. Top is overly sensitive to relationship changes or perceived threats to the relationship. After Boston's revelation, Ray's existence in Mew's life became a threat or possible change in his relationship with Mew. For people with anxious attachment, abandonment doesn't necessarily have to be clear and definitive, any suggestion of abandonment triggers deep fear and insecurity. At the same time, people with anxious attachment tend to be reluctant to express their anger, dissatisfaction or insecurity. This apparent passivity can be a strategy to avoid conflict or maintain a relationship. This is why Top didn't confront Mew about his kiss with Ray at that very moment, because directly confronting Mew in search of the truth would involve facing and hastening possible abandonment. People with a fear of abandonment become irrational at any suggestion of possible abandonment.

Top needs Mew to feel loved, important and protected. In his relationship with Mew, Top craves constant reassurance and intimacy. Top's need for reassurance can be seen reflected through his desire to be rewarded manifested in two instances: the cookie's scene and the drug's scene at Mew's place. Why does Top feel he's owed rewards when he does something right (keep in mind that Top would stop consuming as a favor to Mew, not for himself)? This emotional blackmail comes from a place of deep insecurity, as you can imagine. Top is constantly looking for proof that he's appreciated because he's doing things right and that he's not going to be abandoned. Instead of communicating honestly and trusting that he's loved and valued, Top constantly seeks validation through rewards. It's like a way to win affection and avoid being abandoned in the short term.

Similar to animals or babies, after getting a reward, they'll expect to get rewards every time they do something right as a sign of satisfaction from the owners or guardians. In humans, it's normal for children to seek to act in a way they know they're going to be rewarded to avoid being abandoned by figures they perceive as “unreliable”.

Through the previous experiences (the three-month rule, Boston's manipulation, and the rewarding moments) we can account for how much Top's anxious attachment affects his decision-making process. As stated, Top's attachment pattern isn't rooted on the traumatic event he experienced as a child, but rather on his parents' upbringing. Because of this, his attachment pattern affects him in all aspects of his life and not just at bedtime at night. Having seen the effects of Top's parents' upbringing in his adulthood, let's take a look at the specific effects of his traumatic experience in his adulthood.

3 | The influence of PTSD on Top's performative sexuality.

Thanks to EP2, we now that Top struggles with insomnia due to a traumatic event from his youth. However, unless the show explicitly mentions Top's struggles, the deeper impacts of his trauma tend to be overlooked and they only resurface when the storyline considers it relevant. For example, for a period of time, Top's insomnia and its effects were ignored and only brought up again for the purpose of introducing Boeing. Despite the importance given by the plot to Top's struggles, it's key to consider that Top's trauma has strong consequences. Actually, even though it's never verbally made explicit, Top exhibits signs of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, with insomnia being just one facet of this complex condition.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a psychiatric disorder that may occur in people who have experienced or witnessed a traumatic event, series of events or set of circumstances. An individual may experience this as emotionally or physically harmful or life-threatening and may affect mental, physical, social or spiritual well-being. People with PTSD have intense, disturbing thoughts and feelings related to their experience that last long after the traumatic event has ended. They may also relive the event through flashbacks or nightmares.

Here are the symptoms of PTSD that Top presents:

Intrusion: Triggers for a PTSD episode can be diverse and can include situations, places, people or even sensory experiences that are in some way related to past trauma. Exposure to similar situations can trigger intrusive thoughts such as repeated, involuntary memories; distressing dreams; or flashbacks of the traumatic event. Flashbacks may be so vivid that people feel they're reliving the traumatic experience or seeing it before their eyes.

In Top's case, the PTSD episode is produced when he sleeps alone because he's exposed to a situation that is reminiscent of the original traumatic situation. This similar situation triggers intrusive thoughts. In Top's words, when he doesn't take his pills, his head always thinks something bad is going to happen while he's sleeping.

Re-experiencing doesn't always mean reliving the exact details of the traumatic event, it may mean to experience the same feelings or emotions associated with the traumatic event. While Top doesn't directly re-experiences the traumatic event, the PTSD episode involves the same intense emotions, fears or beliefs associated with the night of the fire. Top's fear of something bad happening and dying alone is linked to the trauma he experienced as a child. This fear may trigger heightened anxiety, which is a common aspect of post-traumatic stress.

Alterations in arousal and reactivity: Arousal and reactive symptoms may include being irritable and having angry outbursts; behaving recklessly or in a self-destructive way; being overly watchful of one's surroundings in a suspecting way; being easily startled; or having problems concentrating or sleeping.

During a PTSD episode, Top manifests alterations in his ability to concentrate and experiences difficulty sleeping alone, which manifests itself in the form of insomnia. Difficulty sleeping alone and the need for someone present to fall asleep are common features in PTSD, especially when they are linked to specific traumatic experiences (such as the fire event in Top's case).

Avoidance: Avoiding reminders of the traumatic event may include avoiding people, places, activities, objects and situations that may trigger distressing memories. People may try to avoid remembering or thinking about the traumatic event. They may resist talking about what happened or how they feel about it.

Top actively and consciously tries to avoid sleeping alone. In order to avoid this situation, he often seeks companionship through his one-night stands.

Even after the breakup with Boeing, Top seeks his company in exceptional situations. In fact, both agreed to be each other's "confort zone". Hence, in times of need, he calls Boeing. This dynamic reveals a level of Top's emotional complexity because, even if he wants comfort and emotional support, he also wants to keep some distance (maybe to avoid the risk of being abandoned, at least at the moment of the breakup). Despite the romantic breakup, the emotional connection and security that Boing provides are valuable to Top. This is a complex and revealing dynamic of Top's emotional life. The fact that Top keeps looking to Boing in times of need, such as when he has insomnia, suggests that duality in their relationship.

The fact that Top constantly seeks companionship to sleep, even with strangers, suggests that the symptoms are intense and cause him discomfort. Probably, at some point in the past, some situation arose in which Top was much more interested in having company than in the sexual act itself. However, since sex was what people expected from him, Top “gave in” to the sexual act in order for his parter to stay. Expectations occur because Top is often perceived as the type of man who isn't looking for an intimate connection, but a one-night stand. This is the kind of perception he's trying to get rid of in his relationship with Mew.

The scenario in which someone engages in intimate acts with others not necessarily out of personal desire but to meet societal expectations or avoid loneliness, is connected to the concept of "performative sexuality". This refers to individuals engaging in sexual behaviors not primarily for their own satisfaction but as a response to social norms, expectations or pressure. It involves performing sexual acts for reasons other than one's own innate desire or pleasure, often influenced by external factors.

A specific moment in which we can see the concept of "performative sexuality" reflected in a clear way is when Top has sex with Boston, an activity that clearly doesn't aim at the pursuit of pleasure. Remember that, before this happened, Top always rejected Boston in a very clear and determined way. Also, since Top was with Mew, he never showed signs of attraction to anyone, least of all Boston. However, in the car scene, Top ends up “giving in” (something that is completely different from giving "consent") to Ton's advances, this as a result of Boston's high level of emotional manipulation (we've already talked about how Ton's manipulation affected Top). And, despite the debates about whether it was cheating or not, one thing most of us agree on is that Top didn't have sex with Boston for pleasure. If it was not to obtain pleasure, but to obtain some other type of retribution (whether emotional or material), it's considered an act of "performative sexuality".

An important parallel presented in the story is that both Top and Mew can be connected to the concept of "performative sexuality". Think about it, they both use sex to get what they want. While Top uses sex to seek company, Mew uses sex as a bargaining tool or to maintain his relationship with Top. On EP4, Mew agrees to sleep with Top in exchange for him giving up drugs. In EP5, Mew has sex with Top to please him and prevent him from leaving him (he feels pressured to do it). In all these instances, Mew, like Top, engaged in the sexual act for reasons other than his own pleasure. And, ironically, the only person for whom Top manifests sexual desire (Mew), manifests no sexual desire for him. The one person Top doesn't use sex with as a tool, uses sex as a tool with him.

The effects of Top's trauma may seem sparse, as the plot doesn't explore them in depth, but they do exist. Insomnia is just one facet of Top's PTSD and this facet triggers a myriad of consequences, such as Top's fear of sleeping alone and Top's performative sexuality. This concept can be applied to both Mew and Top, who often use sex to get something other than pleasure.

4 | Breaking down the intricacies of Top's personality.

The formation of an individual's personality is a complex process that involves various influences and factors over time, such as biological factors, upbringing, social interactions and socialization, cultural influences and significant events throughout life. Top's personality appears to be strongly shaped by a combination of his traumatic experiences, parenting style and attachment issues.

Let's delve into some of the most prominent aspects of his personality and their possible origins:

Calm demeanor: If Top, from a young age, learned to cope with rejection or lack of attention by adopting a calm demeanor, it could become an integral part of his personality. He may have developed a defensive strategy to keep emotional distress at bay and maintaining calmness could be part of this strategy. Calmness can also act as a defense mechanism against perceived threats. A calm demeanor can serve as a way to regulate emotions.

Avoidance of conflict: Top usually avoids conflict with people he appreciates. The tendency to avoid conflict and not initiate problems may stem from his fear of abandonment and his desire to maintain connections. If his parents were neglectful, he might have learned to avoid confrontation to prevent further rejection. Top also tends to avoid conflict with people he doesn't appreciate because a) he's naturally calm and non-violent. b) to avoid a negative image that could lead to being abandoned. For example, Top usually avoids responding to Ray's provocations so as not to project a bad image to Mew. Even at the birthday party, he avoids reacting to Ray and only responds when Ray pushes him first. In episode EP7, when Top gifts Mew some books, he only reacts to Ray when Ray punches him first.

However, if someone is hostile or seeks conflict with Top when alone, he won't be afraid to respond verbally or physically (since the possibility of being abandoned is not present). For example, Top is usually very reactive with Sand, as their encounters are hostile and in private.

Affectionate nature: Top's affectionate nature, especially towards Mew, could be a way of seeking reassurance and creating a secure attachment. Affection might serve as a means of connection and comfort in the face of his underlying fear of abandonment.

Passion for drawing: His passion for drawing could indeed be a reflection of his calm and introspective personality. Creative outlets often provide individuals with a way to express themselves and find solace.

Challenges asserting himself: Top doesn't have a hard time refusing but it's hard for him to assert himself when his boundaries aren't respected. This could be influenced by his overall fear of rejection and his past experiences. The difficulty in expressing clear boundaries might stem from a lack of practice or models for healthy communication (like his parents). If he has not had many experiences where he could assert his needs without fear of rejection, this skill may not be as developed. For example, if Top has engaged in sexual activity during some of his one-night stands even when he didn't want to, it could contribute to a pattern of not clearly defining or expressing his boundaries. This might be due to a fear of rejection or the perception that people might only stay if there's a sexual component. Top's upbringing and his history of seeking companionship through one-night stands, might have influenced how he navigates relationships. Over time, he might have learned to navigate these situations without clearly expressing his preferences.

Although Top is not one of the most explored characters in the series, he's certainly one of the characters with the most personal development. His personal baggage, previous experiences, and current personality are painstakingly thought out and carefully portrayed. Through Top, authentic and sensitive topics are explored, such as PTSD, the anxious attachment style, performative sexuality, among other aspects that are extremely valuable today.

In case you're interested, here you can find my Mew, Ray and Sand's analyses.

[juvederm]

actually yapping

feel like a lot of my thoughts about not getting enough notes or whatever on a drawings can be dissolved by just accepting that art of the Game (its plot, events, etc) will pop off more than some self indulgent sketch. people will like things they can recognize, which i was aware of but i just thought that my art would reach the fandom people, yk the ones who are not just attached to the story but the characters too. so making recognizable art of the game wouldn't matter bc it would instead be of the characters

but the thing is, making Serious art of the game is tough. it's hard coming up with ideas, and who knows if the process is gonna be fun or extremely grueling. and on top of that, what hasn't been done so far? every idea has been drawn, been brought to life. the game is like 8 years old now. i kinda don't wanna draw more "Mountain. Blood. Snow. Ugly winter outfits" anymore lol. i mean sometimes i do bc i love the game obviously but when i wanna have fun, i'll tend to do other things that kinda combine with my own personal interests. so like fashion for example, i'll take the characters and dress them up. that's me having fun.

i want to think and Know that people understand this concept, but it feels like they don't? maybe they do. i know for a fact my mutuals do, because you are all very supportive of every silly josh doodle i make lol i appreciate it a lot 🤗 you guys are the kind of people i make this art for, the Character Likers. because i myself am someone who will attach to the characters more than like, the story. which isn't to say i just disregard the source material, that's not it at all, but for me regarding UD, imma be honest yall... i do not give a fuck abt the creature lore in the game at all. i don't care abt billy bates and whatnot. it's fine if you do, but me personally ehhh i don't care much abt that part of the story

i really like the characters out of all of this, i like certain dynamics, dialogue, etc. and i love the story too, and especially love when the story involves the characters (which i think the sanitarium segments doesn't really do? it kinda just gives insight on the 1950s mine incident and shjt) but i like the parts of the story relating to the twins. bc those are characters and they kinda haunt the narrative.

speaking of the narrative, it's part of the reason i like josh. he doesn't haunt the narrative but he controls it a lot id say. he's a very captivating character, very compelling. you want a lot out of him, like what's wrong, why is he doing this, why did he say that, blah blah. i honestly love characters that are attractive in this way, even to other characters in the story. so sam and chris for example. i enjoy the dynamic they have with josh because they're worried about him, they're thinking about him, or they want to know if he's okay, what's up with him and all that. he holds their attention like that, and ofc that led to ships and stuff. i feel like ashley's actress said it best when describing josh: "you think he's one way but then he's another"

which is honestly just so fucking true. you think he's dead, then he's not, you think he's okay but then he's not, you think he might live but he doesn't. he's even like that personality wise i'd say, but that's teetering onto like headcanon territory just somewhat. because sam does say "it's hard to tell with him" but that's mostly bc of the incident with the twins, she can't Tell if he's okay or barely hanging on. josh is hard to pin down, he's Complex, as stated in the game

sorry for getting into a little josh analysis there but since he is an important character (in general) to me, i kinda felt the need. because this also goes into my gripes about people not really getting why i draw him the way i do. j know i won't shut up about this, but i just Want everyone to know, bc i feel as though it was part of the reason why i wasn't really interacted with for as long as i've been a part of this fandom. like nobody really understood what i was doing, but it was really just simple fun. i mean, now i've completely given up hope with ever really Connectinf with the fandom, but i just want this off my chest honesrly lol

like i really don't want to keep drawing josh one way. like i said i wanna have fun so that's what i do. i can't really "make an him an oc" because i don't change anything about his story or writing. putting him in a silly outfit doesn't make him eligible for "original characterification" lol. so that's what i mean by i make a lot my art for the fandom people, the ones who like the game for more than its story, people who like making headcanons, people who like writing for the game, etc

and the reason i do it a lot is bc of what i said before. making art of the game is tough, it's a lot of thinking. what Hasn't been done already? not much lol. so i'll just keep sketching the silly stuff and sharing it with cool ppl who kinda get what i'm doing 👍

but i definitely will make art of the game and not just the characters, i'll make art more recognizable to the average player because guess what. that's also what i like. it just takes a long time for me because Serious art has a lot of thinking and planning behind it and is just very time consuming in general. but oh, josh in a skirt? took two minutes and i can just close my ipad and not worry about anything else lol

i hope this made sense??!?&?@ i kinda wanted to talk to people about it so if anyone else feels the same way i'd love to know. i'll prob make a followup sometime soon but i just wanted to get all my thoughts out in one place because i've kinda collected them all finally leleleleel

[addictedtostorytelling]

i was tagged by @whovianacefan​ to list five comfort characters.

thanks for the tag!

sara sidle (csi): 20+ years and this girl still fascinates and inspires me. raw, messy, wickedly intelligent, a bleeding heart, a closet romantic, awkward, wry, and genuine, there is just so much to unpack with her; multivalence that invites exploration. at this point, i’m pretty certain that i’ll be writing fic about her until i die (and not just because i’m a chronically slow updater). her complexity, her grit, her rough edges, her commitment to being kind—everything about her interests me.

gil grissom (csi): i mean, lbr, grissom and sara are a package deal to me. he is every bit as well-drawn and engrossing as his wife. his arc was the arc of the show. despite his reputation for being aloof and “unfeeling,” his humanity is what really set csi apart from all of its competitors; helped it to transcend its genre. whoever would have thought that an early 00s procedural would offer up one of the most emotionally nuanced male leads since austen? this man contains multitudes. he will also always have a special place in my heart for being the first television character i ever recognized as being acespec while i was figuring out my own orientation.

juliet burke (lost): there are some characters who just tick all your boxes, and juliet is it for me. such a gorgeous study in contradictions. whether she is sassing jack about sandwiches, handcuffing herself to kate in the jungle, playing the long game to undermine ben and get off the island, or connecting with sawyer across universes, i can’t help but root for her. endlessly compelling in every possible timeline. the beating heart of some of my favorite scenes in all of television.

abby lockhart (er): there are lots of er characters i love and would count as favorites, but abby is just special. good on the writers for letting her be as messed-up and feral as she is at times, and good on them for letting her truly work to grow and heal and flourish (not always linearly but steadily over time). she is so incredibly real in a way that few television characters ever get the chance to be. her arc across nine seasons is an absolute masterpiece.

john truman carter iii (er): pretty much the original blorbo. when i first started watching er as a kid, i liked human disaster med student carter because he was the show’s comic relief. that boy can take a pratfall like nobody’s business. as i got older, i started to appreciate more and more his good-heartedness, his loneliness, how his deep survivor’s guilt—regarding too many people he has loved and lost in his life—motivates him to give so much of himself, how he matures over time; how his development isn’t always straightforward or upward. while i admit his storyline in the later seasons isn’t always to my tastes (and what they do to his love and family life is, imo, pretty unconscionable), i have always adored his core characterization. sweet-faced, do‐gooder baby doc, indeed. 

per usual, mine is the blog where tagging games go to die, but if you see this post and you want to play, go ahead and pretend i tagged you!    

[bookwormangie]

Come on now, guys. Snape wasn’t motivated by revenge. That’s a damn huge misunderstanding of his character. He was trying to atone for being responsible for Lily's death, not seeking retribution against Voldemort. Guilt-ridden Snape knew his actions led to her demise, which is why he spent the rest of his life to making amends—becoming a double agent, protecting Harry and others, and sacrificing everything for the cause. If you guys think he was driven by vengeance, you’ve completely missed the point of his story and misinterpreted his entire character. There’s not a single instance where Snape is shown seeking revenge on Voldemort. His redemption was about righting his own wrongs, not settling scores.

This claim that people only sympathize with Snape because of Alan Rickman’s portrayal, is just lazy. It frustrates me to no end to see people implying that folks can’t empathize with book Snape. You can recognize his flaws and terrible deeds while also understanding the depth of his emotional pain and his attempts at redemption. Just because someone empathizes with him doesn’t mean they overlook his terrible actions. Many fans appreciate the complexity of Snape precisely because of the contradictions in his character. His journey is compelling because it showcases both his dark side and his efforts to atone for his past mistakes. It’s narrow-minded to think that only people who see him through the films are sympathetic to him. Literature is meant to evoke a range of emotions, and dismissing the possibility of sympathy for book Snape shows a lack of understanding of how multifaceted he really is.

And that leads us to the topic of bullying, which keeps coming up. Yes, Snape’s bullying behavior is utterly despicable and a significant flaw, but you lot can't deal with the fact that it's also a direct manifestation of his psychological wounds—his dark childhood, which was similar to Harry's. This is the reality. This is what a real "descent into darkness" looks like, and it's ugly. Unlike Harry, who had friends and mentors to love, support, and guide him, Snape was isolated, alone, and loveless. His existing pain and struggles festered without the emotional and physical support he needed, twisting him into the uncomfortable reality of someone shaped by such experiences. The whole point in my original post is that while people seem fascinated by the idea of Harry potentially turning dark and readily sympathize with that possibility, they quickly lose that empathy when they encounter Snape’s reality. That’s the empathy gap I was talking about. If you can empathize with the idea of Harry turning into a villain because of his circumstances, you should at least be able to understand Snape, who actually did end up falling.

The Empathy Gap: Harry vs. Snape

There's a noticeable hypocrisy in how people talk about Harry and Snape, especially regarding their experiences with trauma and redemption. I’ve honestly lost count of how many times I’ve heard people say, "Harry had every right to turn into a villain" because of everything he’s been through, and that they wouldn’t blame him if he did.

In contrast, consider Snape, who actually fell into darkness due to his own trauma and lack of support. Unlike the hypothetical scenario with Harry, Snape’s descent into darkness is real, and his attempts to atone for his past have received far less compassion. When Snape seeks redemption, people are quick to dismiss it, claiming, "He didn’t deserve a redemption arc," or "He doesn’t deserve forgiveness."

Sympathy for Harry is easy when it remains theoretical—it allows readers to explore the idea of his potential fall without grappling with the concrete implications of such a transformation in the story. The harsh judgment of Snape starkly contrasts with the leniency shown to Harry, and honestly, it has been bothering me a little.

This inconsistency points to a deeper issue in how people approach empathy. It’s easy to sympathize with the idea of someone like Harry turning dark because of trauma, but extending that same understanding when the fall from grace actually occurs, as with Snape, proves much more challenging. Snape’s efforts to redeem himself are overshadowed by his past actions and harsh demeanor, revealing a gap in people's practice of empathy and forgiveness.

[tillyblogs]

Bakugou vent/Meta I guess lol

I really wonder if the ppl that read MHA and hate Bakugou even just the first chapters, actually get what's happening at first. Cause like... that's the WHOLE ASS POINT?? for him to be horrible.

And I honest to god don't understand why people miss that cause it's actually really fucking basic and easy to. But people quite literally took that as face value and ran with it for 300+ ass chapters. Starting from the bottom IS the whole point of MHA AND BAKUGOU. Like, sometimes I'm astounded at how genius the first chapter is as a set up and how much you need to grasp what it's ABOUT to appreciate the whole manga. Bkg is at his worst there (Deku too AND ALL MIGHT)and that's the point cause you can ONLY get up from there, it's telling you that there's a STORY here that's gonna be told.

Like NO SHIT you don't like him at first, THAT'S THE POINT. He IS terrible and you're supposed to UNPACK and understand why and HOW he will change and Hori did that perfectly, cause he's a multifaceted character that honestly you can see from the start that his insecurities already slip through the cracks in the first chapters, it's SO THERE. It's SO SIMPLE and ppl still miss the fact that you kinda do need to start at the bottom to be on the top.

And that's precisely what Bkg embodies. He has been going nothing but up, developing his motivations, actions, relationships and even morals. His story and growth is actually compelling cause he got to humble himself over and over, taking nothing but Ls the whole ass series. He did a complete 180, recognizing not only his mistakes but WHY he was wrong and has done nothing but repent and atone for those.

AND paid the ULTIMATE PRIZE TWICE and I find that fascinating.

He represents the themes of BNHA on PURPOSE, that there's MORE to people than face value, that society and expectations weigh on people and children, that redemption IS POSSIBLE. He is SO VITAL to it, precisely cause seeing him at his worst makes him more real and grounded and not just a yelling angry dude, it's so easy to see that he's just more bark than bite too lol His character is there for a reason and no wonder everyone is so enamored with him.

And to ppl that hate him, that consciously decide to keep taking him at face value and reducing him to just another archetype or angry dude, purposefully missing why he's like that in the first place, like sorry you're reading the story wrong. But well, I personally LOVE flawed, complex compelling characters.

[shadamyheadcanons]

Hi! I wondered if I might ask, what makes you ship shadamy? I've seen your posts about why you don't ship sonamy, but none about why you do ship shadamy. I'm sure that you already have a post or two on the subject. I just haven't found it/them yet. I would love it if you could leave a link to them for me. I would honestly appreciate it! PS: I loved your Halloween shadamy head cannons.

To be honest, no one’s ever straight-up asked, which was always fine with me; I have trouble narrowing things like this down. It’s tempting to just give up and vaguely gesture at the whole blog, but I think I can do better than just that. For those who want a quick answer, the most concise explanation is probably this post about how they’d resolve arguments. More details can be found under the cut. It’s a long post, though.

I was about Amy’s age when I first played Sonic Adventure 2. I saw a sweet, cute girl accidentally latch onto a supposedly “evil” guy...who surprisingly made no effort to push her away, instead responding with a smirk in his first moment of true gentleness. And I was immediately smitten. As the game continued, Shadow fascinated me, and I felt real pain at seeing Amy cast aside and ignored by her friends. And then someone finally listened to her, finally valued her input, and it was the same conflicted, complex guy as before. She had such an effect on him that she moved him to tears and inspired him to save the world in a moving sacrifice. It was the most powerful moment I’d ever seen in a Sonic game.

Over the years, my love for these two never waned. I found myself wondering time and time again why they never interacted. It may have been what sparked my strong preference for the Serious Character X Sunshine Character trope, with a hint of Bad Boy X Good Girl to boot.

As I grew older, my thoughts on romance matured along with me, and it really struck me just how perfect these two are for each other. I can finally put it into words.

They’re compelling partly because of their similarities. To me, Shadow and Amy are the most passionate characters in this franchise. They are dedicated enough not just to be heroic, but they’ll reach the point of anger in their desire to protect their loved ones. They’re the first to stand up when others are mistreated, and they’d do so for each other in a heartbeat. Shadow does this for Amy in Headcanon #284, and Amy does the same for him in Headcanon #223. They’re also steadfast and stubborn enough to stand up to each other when one of them goes too far, even in situations where other characters would back down. Both of them *need* someone that stubborn in their lives.

It’s because they’re on the same level that they’d connect so well. I’m passionate myself, so I know from experience that it’s validating and wonderful when your partner matches and appreciates your efforts and feels just as strongly as you about injustice. Amy in particular has been told many times to calm down, but he’d never say that to her. Headcanon #64 demonstrates this well. She could recognize and appreciate his own personal brand of dedication. Headcanon #76 proves how. Most people wouldn’t think of Shadow as a particularly romantic person, but she’s open-minded and sees romance everywhere. She’d be touched by his efforts.

Their differences would compliment each other extremely well, too. Shadow’s lost a lot and can be overly protective of his loved ones, while Amy can be unusually clingy. Is that not a perfect combination? Headcanon #90 goes into this.

Shadow and Amy’s connection stands out because they don’t interact in the same way with anyone else. Amy can always get through to Shadow on a level no one else can match. He’s already weak to her, even with their limited screentime together. She steers him in the right direction. Following her always puts him on the right path, one that leads to his own fulfillment. Her effect on him is deep and impactful. He’s feared by humans and mostly left alone, but here’s this girl who always unfailingly believes in him and seeks him out. In Sonic Battle, she gets legitimately angry at Rouge for not telling her where Shadow is.

How many characters make such a point of reaching out to him? The fact that they know so little about each other only makes this stand out more.

He tends to be nicer to her than he is with other characters, too. After he helps Amy rescue Cream in Cryptic Castle in Shadow the Hedgehog, he warns her to be careful, a surprisingly soft statement coming from him in a game where he’s at his “edgiest.” Headcanon #273 and Headcanon #249 explore how I think this could extend to their relationship.

For Amy’s part, there’s only one person she treats like she treats Shadow.

And it’s Sonic. Of course it’s Sonic. Her “beloved.”

See that interaction up there where she interrogates someone because she’s so desperate to find Shadow? Who else does she do that with?

See how she looks at Shadow at the end of ShTH?

Does that look familiar? It should.

Everything Amy loves about Sonic is something Shadow has, too. Courage. Heroism. Selflessness. Shadow’s got it.

The only difference? Shadow isn’t afraid of commitment. Sonic’s evasiveness has consistently been a source of frustration, even pain, for Amy. Meanwhile, Shadow is a steady, fiercely loyal, committed man who’d appreciate a solid relationship. He already has a steady job, and with all the hell and turmoil he’s been through, I can’t help but feel he’d be happiest with something real and stable with someone who’s always, always had faith in him. The guy could use some consistency in his life, and helping and protecting ordinary people is what he’s built for and makes him happy. He’d love to come home to her at the end of the day. Headcanon #174 details this well.

It’s clear from Sonic Battle that Amy wants kids someday, and Shadow’s good with kids. Not only did he help to rescue Cream in ShTH, but Charmy thinks he’s great and sees him as a role model. It’s a rare gift to effortlessly get a kid to think you’re cool and worth looking up to. Sonic can do this, too, but it’s more in an older brother/mentor kind of way. That’s very different from being a dad. You have to be very present to be a parent, something I personally feel Shadow would be better at. Sonic may be an exciting person, but I think as Amy gets older, she’ll find she’s much happier in the arms of someone who wants to be there and values consistency the way she does, and when she figures that out, her dark hero will be waiting for her. Headcanon #188 and Headcanon #224 force her to really think about this.

So...yeah. There are so many things only they can do for each other that I really can’t put them with anyone else, so many levels they’d connect on.

Past that...my earlier headcanons were far simpler than the giant stories I churn out now. I think they got across my reasoning more effectively. I’ve recently given all my headcanons a proper tag, so anyone who wants to read them in chronological order can do so with this link.

Unfortunately, that link will only work on desktop because tumblr’s just like that. If you’re on mobile, you’ll have to either open that link in your browser or go in the usual backwards order with this link.

[strangertheory]

Hi! I don't think I've seen you comment on Noah's recent fanmio call where he once again casually talked about Byler. I was wondering what your thoughts were, as I value your opinion. Do you think he's teasing Byler because he knows it's endgame and just doesn't care about spoiling stuff? Or do you think he's talking about it because it's actually not gonna be canon and he's just like "yeah you guys will have lots of scenes to fuel your ship in S4!" (but platonic)? Anyway, I just want to say that I really appreciate your blog and reading your thoughts and I've been following you for more than a year now! Lots of love <3

I think that Noah is acknowledging Byler's relevance to season 4 because at this point in time he's allowed to do so because whether Byler is relevant to the story is not the most important or most mysterious question that we should be asking at this point in the series.

In my opinion the way in which Noah has answered these questions implies that there is a conditional "Yes, but!" that we should be aware of. Yes, but you'll see. Yes, but it's complicated. Yes, but it's not what any of you expect.

I'm aware that there is a lot of skepticism in the fan community and that there are even fans that insist that the subtext in the show that Byler fans have picked up on is completely imagined. As you probably know: I strongly disagree. I think the subtext is very intentional. But just because certain parts of the fan community have treated Byler like a controversial or unlikely idea doesn't mean that this is the same perspective or priority that the production team has taken in all considerations. Perhaps the production team has enjoyed allowing fans to argue over these types of details for long enough and they've finally decided that whether or not Byler is relevant to the story is not as surprising a question as fans think it is. Maybe they want our focus to extend beyond "is Byler going to be canon" and for us to instead ask "in what way will the potential for an eventual romantic relationship between Mike and Will be addressed and revealed in the story?"

I strongly suspect that the way in which Mike and Will's relationship will be written is not what fans might expect.

I think that Byler will not be what fans entirely expect it to be, and that this will be for multiple reasons.

I think that it's possible that the way in which either Mike or Will navigates their internalized homophobia could create a lot of complexities in their relationship.

I also suspect, as I've addressed in other posts on my blog, that there is a meta-narrative in the show and that we might see some huge plot twists and revelations that impact all of the characters including Mike and Will and the way that they feel about each other.

I'm of the opinion that Noah casually saying that there is "some of [Byler]" in season 4 simply means that "Yes, the relationship and the idea of romance between Mike and Will is relevant to the plot" but we do not know in what way it will be written. Who has feelings for who? Are they requited or unrequited? If they both have feelings for each other will they be willing to pursue a relationship or will one or both of them decide that they don't want to deal with the social risk? Could one of them be in denial and angry if confronted about their feelings? What assumptions have we made about these characters and their stories that might turn out to be incorrect? What questions will remain unanswered by the end of season 4 and possibly even after season 5? What secrets in these characters' lives will impact this storyline in a way that is very different than what we might anticipate?

To me, the question has never been "Will Byler eventually be acknowledged and explored in canon?" but rather "How will Byler eventually be acknowledged and explored in canon?"

I am optimistic that Byler is deeply relevant to the story because I truly think that the writers have put a lot of careful thought into creating the details and foreshadowing that was woven into seasons 1-3, but my optimism is still rooted in my respect for the writers' ability to tell a compelling story about characters that I care about and not rooted in a very specific conditional expectation of how that story should be told. Sometimes when I see posts by other fans in the Stranger Things community I become worried that a few of us are narrowing our expectations so strictly that fans may be setting themselves up for disappointment.

If you take actors' statements affirming the relevance of Byler to season 4 as simply meaning "yes the idea of a possible romantic dynamic between Mike and Will is somewhat relevant to season 4," then I think that's a fairly reasonable idea. If you take Noah's statements to mean "Yes Mike and Will both return each others' feelings, Mike and Will start openly dating in season 4, Mike and Will clearly state their specific orientation with terms familiar to teenagers in 2021, they both come out to all their friends and family in the 1980s without anyone reacting badly to it, and they both live happily ever after" then I'm concerned that you might be demanding too specific an outcome and that specific expectation could hold you back from enjoying an otherwise very powerful alternate narrative that tells a different story than what you may have expected.

It can be exciting to speculate on what might happen in the show but I am doing my best to not allow my expectations to limit my enjoyment and appreciation for the canon story itself.

I think that it's important that we also recognize that season 4 is the penultimate season and that it is therefore an opportunity for the writers to both begin revealing certain secrets while also, potentially, creating more angst and conflict before resolving issues in season 5.

Thanks for Asking about my thoughts on this! I share everyone's excitement over Byler being acknowledged as relevant to season 4 by one of the actors, but I don't think we can assume to know what that means. And that's exciting! I want to be surprised. I want to be able to follow the hints and clues given to us in seasons 1, 2, and 3 and to be able to understand and appreciate the eventual plot twists and revelations but I don't want to fully anticipate every single moment or else there's nothing to look forward to.

[sammysdewysensitiveeyes]

So despite my vow not to give Marauders any more attention something popped in my head bugging me and I have to get it out and you’re like one of very few people I’ve got for that—in Duggan’s retelling, I think taking vengeance on Buckman and his lot becomes Emma’s idea instead of Shaw’s? I refuse to reread that garbage but I swear after Shaw’s now-illusory last kiss with Lourdes, Emma says something that prompts Shaw to yell (in a way drawn to make him look ridiculous and stupid ofc) that SHE MUST BE AVENGED so the takeover was now her idea too (and yet she also says “and all it cost was human blood” AS IF SHE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT) like. At this rate I expect Duggan to say actually she time traveled and started the Hellfire Club and also the X-Men. Or I could be wrong but I think I’m right.

You are right!

In the Duggan retcon, Emma is the one who says something about how Buckman must pay, and Sebastian just echoes her. In the original, Sebastian is the one calling for vengeance.

Duggan also conveniently eliminates Tessa's line about "How much she loved him, how little he knew it...." because God forbid we have any depiction of Sebastian in a potentially positive or sympathetic light. Maybe we're supposed to believe Emma faked that line, too, even though Sebastian is clearly focused on Lourdes in the original and probably didn't even hear what Tessa said.

So Duggan takes one of the most important moments in Sebastian's life, if not THE most important moment, and makes it all about Emma's trickery. And the mutants of the Hellfire Club overthrowing the human members like Buckman? All Emma's idea, apparently, although the story pays lip service to Lourdes being the one who recognized the dangers of humans. Never mind about Sebastian or Leland having their own agency, it was all Emma pulling the strings, and having the mental quickness to see an opportunity to not only "save" Lourdes but also push Sebastian to take over the Hellfire club, all in an instant.

And once again, I'm coming off as really anti-Emma here, so I promise, I really do like Emma. But must everything be retconned to white-wash her past, and also show her as constantly running circles around the other Hellfire Club guys? Can she not ever be shown as vulnerable, scared, or cruelly flawed? In the original story, she was in very real danger from the Sentinel, and Sebastian was rushing to her and Leland's rescue. In the retcon, the Sentinel is taken care of almost as an afterthought, and Emma treats it like no big deal. I actually find the Emma in the original, who is caught in a vulnerable position and who is probably genuinely shaken by the whole incident to be a lot more compelling than the retcon Emma who reacts coolly to everything.

And again, the absolute lack of agency from Lourdes herself. I can understand Duggan thinking that it's "feminist" to save Lourdes from being, basically, a "fridged" woman who is killed for Sebastian's character development. But in the retcon, she is only saved for Emma's character development, and STILL doesn't have any real agency of her own. She wants to stay in the US (in the same city where Sebastian lives and operates, even!) instead of going home to Spain? She needs Emma to set her up with money and a new life via the Kingpin instead of Emma just pulling a few mind tricks to give Lourdes access to the very real fortune that she has? Why? I can maybe understand Lourdes being afraid of the retconned abusive Sebastian, but also Lourdes is a fucking teleporter. Like she can't just dip out if Sebastian gets too close to her. But no, she is utterly helpless, and only wants to know if the new man taking care of her is "a nice man."

In all this, it kind of feels like Duggan is trying to have it both ways. The retcon of Emma being abused by Shaw seemed like it was supposed to make her more sympathetic and absolve her of some of the Hellfire club's crimes by suggesting that she didn't have full agency, she was afraid of big, bad, Sebastian. But Duggan also wants her to be a clever badass, so we see her manipulating Sebastian and Leland to not only let Lourdes escape, but also pushing them into the Hellfire club takeover. So which is it? Is she a sad victim or the real power behind the Black King? (Of course, it is possible to be some combination of both, but that would require a better writer than Duggan.) If Emma is clever enough to manipulate the guys to this extent, why doesn't she DO something about the abuse that she is supposedly enduring? Why doesn't she psychically give Sebastian a stroke and arrange for him to be replaced by someone easier to control? Is Sebastian a terrifying enemy who is powerful, intelligent and ruthless, or is he an easily manipulated idiot that Emma is always one step ahead of? You can't have it both ways. There's a middle ground, but it requires some actual complexity and nuance.

Anyway, I look forward to the next issue of Marauders, in which Tempo will take Emma on a time-traveling adventure, in which Emma will found the original Hellfire club (but somehow not be responsible for the greed and corruption associated with the club), then travel to Bishop's future and fix everything there while Bishop just stands there in awed appreciation. And while she's at it, she'll meet a young Pyro and inspire all of his romance novels.

[sou-ver-2-0]

don’t know if this has been asked before, but unpopular opinion for keiji?

It hasn't been asked before! You're only the second person to ask me about Keiji haha. Love ya, Anon!

My unpopular opinion for Keiji is pretty simple. I get annoyed when fans woobify him too much. He's one of the best written characters in the story, but it's easy for fans to downplay the darker side of his personality, since he clearly has a conscience and he feels bad about his actions and hasn't he suffered enough? Keiji is tired, so tired. He's trying his best, right...?

But I'm obsessed with Keiji's dark side! Quite frankly, if he were more sympathetic, I wouldn't be nearly as interested in him! His capacity for making good choices wouldn't be so meaningful to me if he didn't already have a steady track record for making selfish choices. His darkness makes him more human to me, and I don't like seeing that part of him ignored.

Let's compare Keiji with his foil, Sou, to demonstrate how compelling Keiji's flaws are. Now, I don't like woobifying Sou either, but the narrative already casts Sou as a villain. The interesting thing about Sou is that he's secretly soft-hearted. Meanwhile, the narrative casts Keiji as a reliable ally to our heroine Sara, but the interesting thing about him is that he's secretly cold-hearted. 

In Sou's First Trial, he metaphorically kills someone: himself. Our Sou takes the "death" of Shin very seriously. The narrative treats it seriously, too. It's a philosophical kind of murder. Original Sou's scarf becomes a literary symbol of Shin's new identity: his own murderer's identity. This is all very interesting to me as someone who loves analyzing literature, but--

In Keiji's First Trial, he literally kills someone.

That spells out the differences between them clearly, doesn't it? Sou is a paranoid retail worker afraid of his own shadow. He spends a lot of time in his own head, worrying over things that aren't real. Keiji is a cynical ex-cop who has killed before and will kill again. He lives in the real world. Keiji is way more hardcore.

Let's also look at the way Keiji and Sou react to "their girls" receiving the Sacrifice Card in Chapter 2-2.

When Sou sends the Sacrifice Card to Sara, I really think Keiji ought to have known that she had it! Sara reacts in an obvious panicked way, and Keiji's trademark ability is his keen "detective sight." Not only that, but Keiji was keeping careful tabs of all the card trades. He knew for a fact that Sou sent the Sacrifice Card to someone. Who else would it be but Sara? Keiji is smart, you guys; he can figure it out! Keiji has been carefully building trust with Sara, and we would like to think of him as Sara's protector. So, what does Keiji do in the face of Sara receiving a potential death sentence?

...He refuses to acknowledge it. He doesn't let himself worry about Sara, when he still has to worry about his own life. He teams up with Q-Taro and takes the Keymaster Card for himself. Thanks a lot, Keiji.

Meanwhile, Kanna, a little girl, recognizes on her own that Sara has the Sacrifice Card. Kanna can't keep track of the complicated card trades like Keiji can, but she cares deeply for Sara's well-being. She cares about Sou, too. Simply by observing them, Kanna realizes the truth of what has happened. So Kanna, instead of Keiji, takes the Sacrifice Card for herself, saving Sara. What does Sou do when his girl has the Sacrifice Card?

He flips himself over backwards to save her. He uses every ounce of his masculine wiles to try to convince the group to vote for Kanna, even though he believes that Kanna would choose to save Sara instead of him. Kanna straight up says that Sara is the person she most wants to live, and Sou...doesn't let himself think about that part. He only thinks about saving Kanna.

Every part of that exchange is deeply revealing for Keiji and Sou's characters! We get a good idea of how Keiji makes calculated, self-interested choices, while Sou makes passionate choices on the spur of the moment.

Anyway, I wrote all that to show how Keiji is fascinating because of his flaws! He's not a Perfect Team Dad. He can be cruel and cold, even though he has the capacity to be kind and thoughtful too. That's the complex Keiji I love to see!

Having said all that...I get it. We're all guilty of woobifying our faves. I do it too. I don't mean to sound too judgmental. But, I want to share my own appreciation for Keiji's character! The older I get, the more I appreciate complex characters, and Keiji is a good one. Trust me.

[livlepretre]

The thing about your character interpretation of Elena is that you really draw from her initial core traits and character arcs. I think some people might disagree with you about interpretation because they are remembering Elena from the later seasons. It is like if you wore a slightly different colored shirt everyday for a few months. You could start out with a blue shirt and end with a yellow one, but everyone would be under the impression you have been wearing the same colored shirt the whole time. Season 5 is the start of this skewed view of Elena, I believe. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that she was A.) a vampire and B.) less involved with the main conflict of the season. Sure, the plot of season 5 had a lot to do with doppelganger destiny and whatnot, but think about how that plot relates to Elena throughout the season. What was she doing to stop Augustine Society? If it were season two or three Elena, she would have probably used her charm and familial connections to the society to infiltrate them and find a way to shut them down. But season 5 Elena is barely involved in anything. In fact, her screen time decreases dramatically this season. I just scrubbed through an episode to fact check what Elena was doing, and she was in like 5 scenes. However, Nina Dobrev herself appeared in way more scenes as Katherine. I think having Nina Dobrev playing 2 main characters in one season was an extremely difficult bad idea. Having two doppelgangers as main characters would be awesome in a written story (like in but still, like dust, i’ll rise by twocankeepasecret), but with a live action format where both characters have to be played by one actress, it just isn’t feasible. The vampire aspect also made all scenes Elena was in kind of boring. She didn’t really have to come up with anything interesting because she could now physically fight with her enemies. The episode where Qetsiyah traps her and Stefan in a lake house could have been interesting, but the problem was solved by them stabbing her and then superspeeding out of the building. Jesse attacks Damon two episodes later and Elena solves the problem by just superspeeding up to them and staking him in the back. It takes all the fun out of how Elena goes about doing things. Season six marks the first season without any doppelganger relevance. Elena is compelled to lose all good memories of Damon, and that could have been interesting. Since Elena was specifically compelled to hate Damon in a way that wouldn’t make her miss him, we could have seen how Elena deals with him after he comes back. This is an Elena who believes she didn’t forgive Damon for killing her brother. That could have been an interesting arc to see, but no. Elena falls in love with him like 4 episodes later, so did it even really matter? The point is, I think people have a hard time seeing Elena as she used to be because the audience really stopped getting to see those traits of hers in the later seasons. Her prominence in the narrative, and the obstacles that she had to overcome sort of disappear until the Elena that you’re looking at doesn’t resemble the one you started with. That is why you're an absolute gem to this fandom. Your stories all feature a post season 3 Elena who retains her character traits. Your gift of creating complex emotional conflicts proves that in a show like TVD, you don’t have to keep going bigger and badder. Sometimes the best way to expand the plot is to make the conflict more personal and utilize the characters and relationships established throughout the previous seasons. Elena’s arc throughout FE, especially the isolation arc, is a perfect example of this. Moments like Elena trying to will Klaus to come back, having her miscarriage, and almost accidently drowning are all heartwrenching, and it makes the scenes like her deciding to make the most of her life/ falling for Rebekah (her once tormentor) so much more rewarding. This was entirely too long, but just know, you are seriously my fav fanfic author, and your takes and analysis are always welcome here.

I'm actually a bit overwhelmed by this, thank you so much for sending this in. I agree with you so completely that a lot of the issue seems to be that Elena's characterization does change radically-- I don't really recognize her in seasons 5 & 6-- which is why I largely ignore them when writing for her character. (And that's what fanfic is for-- taking the pearls and chucking out the clots of dirt.) Seasons 1-3 Elena is an entirely different character, the true version of the character, in my opinion-- since she was at this point still the main character on the show, and a force of agency and plot development. You've also articulated something which drives me wild about the later seasons once she becomes a vampire-- super speed plus super strength basically negate the need for Elena to find interesting and twisty ways to solve her problems-- she no longer has to scheme and seduce and take insane risks, because she has supernatural powers. She no longer needs to make back room secret deals with giants who could crush her, or stab herself or slit her own throat in wild gambles, or even just to charm people-- and that takes away a key element of her character. Which is such a shame, because we see Katherine displaying these same traits as a vampire, and we can see that Katherine is the natural culmination of where Elena is heading, which is so dark and so fascinating in those early seasons. I agree completely with your analysis of what went wrong with the later seasons, and why the earlier seasons really worked for Elena as a character, and why fandom has such a bad taste in its mouth about where Elena ended up do to some truly bizarre and unfortunate storytelling decisions.

And-- gosh-- thank you x a million for your comments on FE. I am so appreciative and cannot wait to share the rest of the story with you!!

[itsclydebitches]

Voyager. Now that’s a kettle of fish. Obviously watch/enjoy whatever you wish, but I do recommend also checking out SFDebris’ reviews of the episodes (he’s the rwde of Voyager). He is a lot smarter and more eloquent than me.

Putting these two asks together since my thoughts on both are all jumbled! 

Now, I want to emphasize that I’ve only watched the first 16 episodes (Season One + Season 2 premiere), so idk if Voyager is going to go seriously downhill later on, but right now I do really like it. And not in a, “Lol yeah compared to the other crap on it’s good, I guess” way, but in a completely honest, “It has its flaws, but is overall a solid, compelling show with lovable characters” way. Out of curiosity I watched SFDebris’ review of “Phage,” though I’m afraid I didn’t agree with it. The only part were I was like, “Yeah okay” was pointing out that they had the Doctor using a keypad when he supposedly wasn’t solid, but that’s precisely the sort of continuity error that, in an otherwise strong show, I’m willing to shrug off. For all the major points, it sounds like SFDebris is concerned primarily with the show he wants Voyager to be, rather than the show Voyager actually is. Which I know sounds familiar--I’ve heard that criticism leveled at my own work: “You just want RWBY to be a totally different show”--but the difference is that Voyager is a part of an established franchise, following three other TV shows, an animated series, and a collection of films. It’s not an original show (like RWBY) that can take itself in any direction the story may need/claim to want (again, RWBY). It has a brand and those established characteristics seem to be bumping up against SFDebris’ critiques: 

Hating Neelix as a character - You’re supposed to hate him. Or at least find him frustrating (I don’t personally hate him) because that’s what all the characters are grappling with too. From Tuvok forced to have an awkward conversation while Neelix is in the bath to Janeway dealing with him taking over her dining room, Neelix’s conflict revolves around how others learn to accept him. Star Trek as a franchise is about “Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.” Voyager begins with the problem of how the trained Federation officers are supposed to work with the more violent Maquis. Difference doesn’t just create “Wow, you’re so amazing!” reactions, it also includes frustration, disagreement, and outright hostility. Creating an outsider character with a kind heart but incredibly overbearing personality is a great way to test the other characters’ convictions. Do they actually care about all life in the universe? Or do they only care about life when they personally find it palatable? Having Neelix around is a great reminder for them--and the viewer--that just because someone annoys you at times doesn’t mean they’re any less worthy of love, respect, and companionship. It also doesn’t mean they don’t have something to offer: he keeps the crew fed even if his cooking is horrible, he provides information about this area of space even if he sometimes gets it wrong, we roll our eyes at the “Morale Officer” stuff, but Neelix does provide much needed perspective for characters like Tuvok. If Neelix made fewer mistakes, stopped bugging the crew, became a “cooler” character for the audience to root for rather than be frustrated by... a lot of the point of his character would be lost. 

Frustration about discoveries not carrying over to the next episode - AKA, the crew finds inanely powerful, alien tech and then (presumably) never uses it again. This would indeed be a big problem in a serialized story (like RWBY) but Voyager maintains much of Star Trek’s original, episodic nature. Though we have continuity in the form of them inching towards home and evolving as characters, the world still resets to a certain point at the end of each episode. This is what allows Star Trek to explore so many different questions and have so many different adventures. If you demand that serialized continuity--this character needs to have an arc to deal with this traumatic experience, the crew has to follow the thread they just discovered, our Doctor needs to do something with the new tech they just found--then you lose the variety that Star Trek is known for. Instead of a new story each week (or, occasionally, across two weeks) you’ve got a single story spanning months. Neither form is better or worse than the other, it’s absolutely a preference, but there’s a very specific, structural, intentional reason why the characters “forget” about the things they’ve discovered and, at times, experienced. Unlike Ozpin forgetting that he has a nuke in his cane for seven volumes, or Ruby forgetting to use her eyes at crucial points, Star Trek deliberately sets things aside to ensure there’s room for new ideas and questions next episode. 

Janeway doesn’t kill the Vidiians to get Neelix his lungs back - No Starfleet captain would. At least, not during this period of Star Trek. Sisko has development in that regard (making morally gray choices), but that’s built into the heart of the show from the start: he’s on a station, not a starship, that is jointly run by the Federation and the Bajorans, and built by the Cardassians. The rules of the Federation always had a tenuous hold there and Sisko as a character always pushed the boundary of the Federations expectations (Q: “Picard never hit me!”) Janeway, in contrast, is 100% a Federation captain and, more importantly, has explicitly told her crew that they will be operating as a Federation vessel, despite being so far from home. That’s the conflict between the officers and the Maquis. That’s why Tuvok accepts the alien tech in “Prime Factors,” recognizing that Janeway can’t. That’s why Seska is a compelling antagonist, pressuring the crew to abandon their ideals for survival. The series (or at least that first season) revolves around questions about identity and whether they’re willing to give that identity up now that they’re out from under the Federation’s thumb. Overwhelmingly, they choose not to... which would make murdering the Vidiian a complete 180 for her character. We’re not necessarily supposed to agree with Janeway’s choice, we’re supposed to acknowledge that murdering another sentient being is not some simple choice to make, especially when you’re a leader devoted to a certain set of ideals. We’re supposed to recognize the challenges here (many of which SFDebris doesn’t acknowledge) like how you’re supposed to keep a prisoner for the next 75 years when you’re already struggling to feed and take care of the crew you have, or the fact that they claim to take organs from dead bodies and this was a rare time when they couldn’t. (It’s only in “Faces” that we learn this is complete BS and they actively kidnap people to work as slaves and then be harvested.) The frustration that Janeway doesn’t act here stems from wanting her to be a character who is, fundamentally, not a Star Trek captain. 

Granted, I only watched one review, but that’s what the whole thing felt like: wanting a series that’s not Star Trek. Something without a token, challenging character, without hand-wavy science, that’s more serialized, and doesn’t adhere to a “do no harm” code. (I just started “Initiations” and Chakotay asks a vessel to stand down three times, while actively being attacked, before finally retaliating and then he tries to reestablish communications and then he warns them about their engine and then he beams them aboard his shuttle. That’s what Star Trek (usually) is: that idealized love of life, even when that life is actively hostile). And like, that’s obviously fine! As you say, Flawartist, “watch/enjoy whatever you wish,” but just based on this one review I wonder if SFDebris just wants something other than Star Trek. 

I think one of the reasons why I feel passionately about this (beyond my love of context and recognizing when shows are actively trying to accomplish something specific) is that I went through this with DS9. For years I heard about how horrible the show was. It’s trash. It’s a mess. It’s not TNG, so don’t even bother. Or, if you do, be prepared for disappointment. There was this whole, strong rhetoric about how silly it all is--Star Trek is, by default, silly, so supposedly only the Shakespeare loving, archeology obsessed captain is sophisticated enough to save it--and then... I found nothing of the sort. I mean yeah, obviously Star Trek is silly as hell (that’s part of its charm), but DS9 was also a complex, nuanced look into everything from personal agency to the threat of genocide. There’s so much wonderful storytelling there... little of which made it into my cultural understanding of DS9. And now I’m seeing the same thing with Voyager. When I did some quick googling I was bombarded by articles saying how bad it is and now I have an ask comparing it to a show I don’t think has even a quarter of the heart the Star Trek franchise does. Which is is not AT ALL meant as a knock against you, anon. I’m just fascinated by this cultural summary of Star Trek: TOS is ridiculous but fun if you’re willing to ignore large swaths of it, TNG is a masterpiece and that’s that, DS9 is bad, Voyager is bad, and to be frank I haven’t heard much of anything about Enterprise. It’s weird! Because I watch these shows and I’m like, “Holy shit there’s so much good storytelling here.” Is it perfect? Not on your life, but it’s trying in a way that I can really appreciate. It’s Star Trek and Star Trek (at least at the time) meant something pretty specific. Criticisms about divisive characters or idealized forgiveness feel like walking out of a Fast and Furious film and going, “There was too much driving and silly combat. Why didn’t they just fix the situation in this easy way?” Because then we wouldn’t have a film about lots of driving and silly combat! If you make all the characters palatable, make Janeway harder, extend the impact of all the discoveries, remove the ridiculous science that doesn’t make any sense... then you don’t have Star Trek anymore. 

[alliterative-albatross]

So, I sent you (@disgruntledspacedad) a pretty long ask a while ago (back when you had anon on) and I'm decently sure Tumblr ate it (or maybe you ignored it, in which case, feel free to ignore this one as well). But then I saw one of those "writers appreciate feedback no matter how long" posts, so I'm back here. Here is my mediocre attempt to rewrite my original review of your work. Bear in mind that English is not my first language, so if at any point my phrasing sounds weird to you, you know why. Mandatory disclaimer/apology: this might get a little too long 😅

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

I remember being SO mad at myself for not finding this sooner. I binge read it one afternoon with no thoughts for any real life responsibilities I might have had (and no regrets). Javiears is one hell of an unconventional relationship in the beginning, and I really love what you did with them. The whole premise of your story is quite refreshing, and you somehow manage to convey the trust and mutual respect there two feel for one another without explicitly showing us the beginning of their "entanglement".

Also, fuck you for what you did to poor Emilio, that man was a saint and he deserved better! I honestly can't believe that I got so attached to a character that appeared so little in the story, but it happened, and his death kind of broke my heart.

But the Javiears reunion + mild confession was lovely, and felt completely deserved. And of course the sex scene. I won't lie, I expected a bit better from Javi there, but I did like how utterly /human/ it was. Capturing that humanity, the imperfections in each character is something you're really good at (more on that later).

AFTERSHOCKS

Ah, my emotionally constipated babies who really need to work out their communication issues. I do love them, though. And this short series did a really good job of delving a bit deeper into Ears's and Javi's psyche. Kudos to you for dealing with the medical "aftershocks" of living through an explosion AND using that experience to move your emotional plot forward. These two need to grow a lot before they can get to a stable point in their relationship, and you really manage to convey their insecurity and fear of commitment/intimacy while making it clear that they're in it for the long run and that theirs is a relationship that WILL work out so help them God.

IF I FALL

Ouch. Punch me in the gut while you're at it, why don't you?

But seriously, "If I Fall" is SO FUCKING GOOD. Don't get me wrong, it's angstier than an image of Jesus on the cross (don't judge me, it's Holy Week and I just got home from accompanying my grandma to church), but it somehow works beautifully. You, my dear, play heartstrings like they're a fucking guitar and I AM HERE FOR IT.

You're doing an amazing job at making me feel everything these characters are feeling, which is both awful (bc pain) and impressive.

Also, if anything happens to Ana I will cry, because she is adorable and wonderful and has suffered way too much already and really deserves a break and some cookies.

Also also, if anything happens to Ears I will cry, because she is badass and wonderful and has suffered way too much already and really deserves a break and some cookies.

Also also also, if anything happens to Javi I will cry, because he is loving and wonderful and has suffered way too much already and really deserves a break and some cookies.

Basically, I am really invested in the well-being of these characters and can't wait until they're happy and safe again (please tell me they will be, my heart can't handle much more pain).

A quick note on the angst complaints: yes, this story is way angstier than most other fics out there and it can be a bit too much at times, especially considering how many chapters of pain it's been. BUT it's obvious that "If I Fall" NEEDS this amount of angst to get where it's going, to send the message it wants to and to properly develop its characters. The pain is as important to this story as flour is to bread. You may not like eating flour on its own (I don't think anyone does), but you love bread (because bread is amazing) and you must recognize that bread NEEDS flour to work. It wouldn't be bread otherwise. And eating the flour as part of the bread even makes you like the flour because the bread is just DELICIOUS.

I fully understand and sympathize with the people who have elected to table "If I Fall" until it's completed so they can binge read it knowing there's a happy ending in sight, but in case you're feeling a bit self conscious about all the angst, please know that your story is beautiful not in spite of the pain, but rather /because of it/.

PS: No, I'm not high/drunk, I just really like bread

AUTHOR'S NOTES

Silly thing to comment on, I know, but I do feel like it's important that you know how useful your ANs have been. There are many details in the story that I simply wouldn't fully get without reading your comments at the end of each chapter, and I appreciate your writing a hell of a lot more knowing how deeply you understand and care for each one of your characters. Plus, it is obvious how much work you've put into researching a country and a time period that are (from what I gather) unfamiliar to you, and I really do believe you've done an amazing job of it.

JAVIER PEÑA

My boy. I love your characterization of this complicated character, and I have eagerly read each and every one of your headcanons about him. I can't really say if your version is fully faithful to the source material because it's been a while since I saw Narcos, but your Javi most definitely reads like a real person. He's fairly consistent as a character, and I feel like everything he does is perfectly natural for him to do as a character. He makes for an unconventional yet deeply interesting romantic lead, and so far I have thoroughly enjoyed all his POV chapters/scenes.

OCs

I know you've gotten some flack for making her into an OC halfway into the story, and while I get why the sudden change may have felt like a disappointment for some, I don't share that sentiment. I firmly believe that this fandom is unfairly harsh towards Original Characters and their creators, and I don't really understand why. Listen, I love Reader fics, and consume many Reader fics. I have read dozens, maybe even hundreds, and I can safely say that I've only ever "inserted" myself in approximately 10% of those stories. Reader characters are not as blank as their writers may want them to be. They can't be. They're characters, and character have personalities and moral values and senses of humor and a bunch of other things. Reader characters may not have a backstory or a physical description attached (and even that's not guaranteed), but they're still characters.

And on a more personal note, pretending they're actual blank slates is naive at best and insensitive at worst. Reader characters are American coded 99% of the time, and white coded 95% of the time. Not every readers is white nor American, even if that's the predominant demographic on Tumblr. When I read a JavixReader fic about a woman who speaks exactly zero Spanish, I know she's not me. The story may be beautifully written and have an amazing plot and character development, but the Reader *isn't me*. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and some of my favorite xReader stories feature a "reader" who couldn't be more different from me, but it's something that enemies of OC fics should take into account. Particularly if they are white and/or American. But I digress.

HANNAH AARONS

Your character is amazing. She's strong, smart, confident, independent and an all-around badass. She gets kidnapped while pregnant and still focuses on problem solving and survival. But she's also overly guarded and mistrustful, and really needs to work on her communication skills. There are times when I absolutely love her and even admire her, and other times when I want to whack her with a slipper. She's no Mary Sue, but remains interesting and likeable throughout the story. She feels wholly human and real, and that's no easy task. I like her, I am invested in her, and I can't wait to see what's next for her. She's a compelling and three dimensional protagonist in a complex story who never fails to draw me in. I love her. She's your baby, and you should be proud of her.

Also, quick question about personality types: I know you've typed Javi as ESFP and Ears as ENTP (100% agree on both, btw), but have you given any thought to their enneagram types? I personally have always seen Ears as being somewhere on the thinking triad, maybe a 7 or even a 6w7, but I'm not too sure about Javi. 9w8 maybe? He could also be a 6w5 🤔

PARTING THOUGHTS

Basically, I love your story, your characters and your writing in general. You are a fantastic storyteller and wordsmith. You get into the heads of incredibly different characters personality-wise (Ears, Javi, Berna...) and manage to capture all of their complexities and quirks every single time. And it doesn't feel like it's something innate for you either. To me, it seems that you have put a lot of work and effort into understanding each and every one of your characters, who they are, why they do what they do and what they want. And let me tell you, all that effort has been more than worth it. "Better Love" is a fanfic, but it wouldn't be out of place in a regular bookstore, if I'm honest. I don't know what you do for a living or if you've ever considered writing professionally, but you clearly have the skills and the drive to create some masterpieces.

You are amazing and your writing is a gift. Thank you for sharing it with us, and have a nice day! ~ 🍪

~

My friend, I apologize for hoarding your first ask. I’ve been sitting on it because I’m not gonna lie, I enjoy going back and rereading it. It gave me a lot of comfort when I was in a pretty dark place, both personally and in regards to my writing, and I was reluctant to send it out into the the abyss of Tumblr where I might never see it again. 

That’s not fair, though. You put just as much effort into sending me that review as I put into my writing, and I apologize for never responding to you.

Okay, anyway, so twice now, you’ve made me cry. In a good way, I promise! 

I absolutely love your bread/flour metaphor. It made perfect sense. I want the emotional release of Javi and Hannah’s reunion to be earned, and in order to do that, the angst has to come first (there are also a few plot “ingredients” that have yet to make their appearances). Thank you very much for understanding that, and for voicing it so eloquently.

I appreciate your comments on my research and characterization. You’re correct that I’ve put a lot of time and effort into crafting a universe. In a lot of ways, I’m doing my best to stay true to the source material (regarding culture and timelines in particular), and in others, I’m branching into my own territory. 

On that note, I’ve never once regretted fully embracing Hannah Aarons’ identity as an OC. She’s stayed consistent in my mind from the beginning, and it was a relief to finally share my vision of her with the audience. And for the record, I totally agree with you regarding “reader” characters. Every reader insert echoes the perspective of their author, no matter how vague the physical description. I can only imagine how grating that must be from the perspective of a non-white, non-american reader. Thank you so much for sharing your insight! I will certainly keep it in mind the next time I write a “reader insert” fic.

Okay, enneagrams! I am much less familiar with enneagram than I am MBTI, but I agree 110% that Javi is a 9 with a strong 8 wing. I waffled back and forth on Ears a little, but eventually landed on 8w7 for her. It came down to the eight’s deepest fear, which is being controlled. That’s Ears all over, and the fact that she and Javi share that eight willfulness means that they might butt heads a little, which also seems very appropriate for them. Big thanks to @remusstark for her insight into the eight frame of mind - our conversations helped solidify my decision on this. :)

Anyway, I’m just rambling now. The big take-away point that I want you to get is that I am so, so grateful to you, both for your insightful feedback and your dedication in making sure that I actually saw it. You are an absolute gem and a deep thinker, Cookie-Anon, and if you ever feel like sliding into my DM’s, I’d welcome the opportunity to get to know you better.

Mad love and soft hugs, 

~ Jay

[shadowen]

On your series “All Stories Have Monsters”, you have an interesting, unique take on Joe and Nicky and their dynamic, with you exploring a Nicky free to stray and do as he whishes and a Joe who conveniently only has eyes for Nicky. And it hurts my heart to imagine Joe in such a seemingly unbalanced, unequal relationship. In this ‘verse Joe comes across as this almost otherworldly man, locked in the role of the perfect partner, endlessly selfless, willing to share Nicky with anyone Nicky may desire / love while Joe remains faithfully devoted, his world revolving around Nicky (and Nicky only), “incapable” (???) of falling in love with anyone else, not having other lovers to turn to like Nicky does. It’s such an advantageous / favorable situation for Nicky, with Joe making all the concessions without clear reciprocity and only Nicky reaping the benefits / rewards of their open arrangement, besides never having to guess at Joe’s loyalty, never having to share whatever there is of Joe’s affection / desire / thoughts and feelings, never having to face any man / woman who would challenge him for Joe’s love.

Ok, so, I understand where you’re coming from, and part of this critique is completely valid. You’re right to call out that I’ve centered Nicky a lot in that series, at the expense of exploring Joe’s perspective. That’s something I’ve been thinking about, recently, and something I will try to do better about in my fic in general.

As for the rest of this... I think you meant this comment as a good-faith expression of your thoughts about this series, and I appreciate that. I’m going to try and respond as clearly and as kindly as I can, so please don’t think I’m attacking you or calling you ignorant or anything like that.

The conclusions you’ve come to are based on a lot of assumptions about what healthy relationships look like, and those assumptions are almost completely wrong. Now, I don’t know anything about you or your life, so I’m not going to make any guesses about your experience with relationships or polyamory, but, if you grew up in generally the same culture I did, I know that you’ve been fed a lot of ideas about compulsory monogamy and How Relationships Work, and internalised those ideas as fact. As someone who is in a loving, committed, open marriage, I can tell you most of those ideas are, at best, bullshit.

The thing is, people experience romantic and sexual attraction in different ways. You’re on Tumblr and you follow me, so I’m going to assume that’s not a new concept for you. In practice, what this means is that people who are in a relationship also experience love and desire diferently. Even if you have two people who are monogamous, allosexual, and alloromantic, their individual needs and appetites are going to be different by virtue of the fact that they are different people. This doesn’t mean one of them loves the other more or one of them enjoys sex more; it just means that some of the things they need and want in a relationship are going to be different, because that’s how people work.

The other thing that I really want to emphasize is that relationships don’t come with scoreboards, and keeping score in a relationship isn’t helpful or healthy. That doesn’t mean there doesn’t need to be balance and equity, but the sort of one-for-one reciprocity you’re talking about isn’t balance. For instance, I’ve been sick for the past few days, and my wife has been taking care of me. Does that mean that she gets to take time off from her responsibilities to let me take care of her so we’re even? Of course not. We take care of each other when we’re sick because we made a commitment to do exactly that. For added fun, my wife and I have different health problems and different temperaments, so we tend to get sick in different ways and need different things. Which means that me taking care of her looks different than her taking care of me. Does that mean our relationship is unbalanced? Nope. It means we’re different people with different needs, and part of being married means meeting each other’s needs.

So you’re probably sitting there thinking that being sick and having sex are two totally different things. Except that... they’re not, not really. Sex is one possible aspect of a relationship, just like dealing with illness, doing the dishes, going out, sharing finances, et cetera, ad nauseum. Sex isn’t a special, magic thing that has it’s own set of rules; it’s a thing people do together, sometimes there are emotions involved, sometimes not. The real point, here, is that different people have different needs and wants when it comes to sex, just like everything else, and every sexual relationship is unique, just like every friendship or romantic relationship is unique.

So what does that mean for an open relationship? Among other things, it means that one person sleeping with someone else doesn’t mean their partner needs to sleep with someone else to make things even. It means that how a person feels about having sex with their partner is not necessarily how they feel about having sex with people who aren’t their partner. It means that reciprocity and keeping score are just as bullshit when it comes to sex as they are in other parts of a relationship.

Now, let’s talk about Joe and Nicky and polyamory in All Stories Have Monsters.

Again, you’re right: I haven’t given as much time to Joe as a character as he deserves, and I’m working on that. But if you’ve read all 89,000 words of that series, to date, and you came away with the impression that Nicky doesn’t absolutely and utterly adore Joe with his entire being, then I need to re-assess my abilities as a writer. 

The subtext of The House in Sicily is that Nicky built a mansion out of love for Joe. The final punch of Joe’s speech in New Orleans, 1868 is “that he is just as devoted to me as I to him, that my comfort and pleasure are of greater importance to him than his own”. You sent me this ask right after I posted a story all about Nicky carefully and tenderly fucking Joe to a spectacular orgasm. Then there’s all the little moments of care and comfort, the casual touches, the easy companionship. I don’t really know what else you want with regard to expressions of love and devotion.

You refered to Joe making concession and Nicky reaping all the benefits, but it’s stated more than once that Joe enoys the fact that Nicky sometimes sleeps with other people, and even gets off on it. Likewise, Nicky makes it clear, both that he wouldn’t do it if Joe didn’t want him to, and that any other partners are a distant second to Joe. In Goddess of Victory, he tells Booker,  “Another man may touch me for a moment, but it is only a moment. I will never belong to anyone but Joe” and  “If he did not like it, I would not do it, but he does like it, so I do what I want”.

Ok, you’re probably thinking, but why does Nicky get to fuck around and Joe doesn’t? The simple answer is that Nicky wants to and Joe doesn’t, not because one of them is more faithful than the other, but because they are different people who experience attraction differently. 

It’s first implied and then plainly stated that Joe in this series is demisexual, which doesn’t AT ALL mean that he’s not capable of falling in love with or being attracted to anyone other than Nicky; it just means, in this case, that he needs to have a strong romantic connection with someone before he might want a sexual relationship. You can imagine a lot of reasons that might be tricky to navigate with the complexities of immortal life, and since he already has a passionate, satisfying relationship with the love of his life, there’s not much reason for him to look for anyone else.

Then there’s Nicky, who pursued sexual relationships with other men despite believing it was a sin, and who, like Joe, had never been in love before. For Joe, romantic love and sex are necessarily linked, but for Nicky they’re not. Sex is something Nicky enjoys doing; he definitely PREFERS doing it with Joe, but that doesnt mean it’s not fun with other people. Add to this the fact that Nicky having sex with someone else turns Joe on, and Nicky has at least one very compelling reason to seek out casual partners and few complications in doing so.

The thing with Booker... Honestly, that’s another entire novel of analysis, so I’m not going to get into it here.

The point is: having a committed, balanced relationship doesn’t mean having all the same needs and desires as your partner. It means, among other things, recognizing that you and your partner(s) have different needs and desires and making sure that everyone is fulfilled and satisfied as individuals. In a case where there is a primary couple with an open arrangement, it also means trusting that you and your partner are each other’s top priority when it comes to love and sex. Joe and Nicky have different sexualities, but they’re absolutely, unequivocally devoted to each other. Whether or not they have sex with other people doesn’t change that.

Does that make sense? I hope that makes sense.