#but the belief is so deeply rooted in fandom that it really takes all this work and evidence I think

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Colonel Brandon is not stoic or reserved

Stoic: a person who has great self-control and doesn't let themself be guided or carried away by their feelings.

Reserved: a person who keeps silent or says very little.

So, let's do this (hopefully) once and for all: who is colonel Brandon?

The first bit of important context to remember is that Sense and Sensibility was in origin, an epistolary novel, and that even more than Pride and Prejudice and other Austen novels, free indirect speech reigns supreme here; how characters think of each other doesn't necessarily line up with what the characters show themselves to be, and sometimes an opinion will evolve throughout the book.

Our first introduction to colonel Brandon is through the eyes of sir John Middleton: he describes him as "neither very young nor very gay."; the first impression the Dashwoods make of him is that he is "silent and grave", "his face was not handsome, his countenance was sensible, and his address was particularly gentlemanlike"; Marianne and Margaret in particular see him as "an absolute old bachelor".

That very evening he listens to Marianne play with attention, but without raptures; Marianne sees this as a sign of his having outlived sensibility, Mrs Jennings as a clear sign of his being smitten with her playing, and consequently, with her. The same action is being read by two characters in incongrous ways. What he specifically thought or felt from his pov, we do not know.

So Mrs Jennings starts her teasing of them both, which is implied to be conducted when they aren't together: "At the park she laughed at the colonel, and in the cottage at Marianne." Brandon's reaction to this regarding himself is probably, perfect indifference.

Time passes, Marianne has her fall, and sir John gives the opinion that Brandon will be jealous, as he is "quite smitten already". This is sir John's opinion, but is it the truth? We are never shown Brandon behaving jealously, and his feelings towards Marianne only begin to be apparent to Elinor when a little time has passed and everyone has moved on: "the raillery which the other had incurred before any partiality arose, was removed when his feelings began really to call for the ridicule so justly annexed to sensibility." Elinor thinks there is opposition between Brandon and Marianne's characters, as he appears to her silent, grave, and reserved, but she also thinks that this is not his natural disposition: "his reserve appeared rather the result of some oppression of spirits than of any natural gloominess of temper.".

You'd say "well, there you have it! That's how he is described in the book!" but then as Elinor debates over Brandon with Marianne and Willoughby, we discover she is the one that has been seeking to chat with him, and that all the subjects they have talked about are rather technical: "I have found him capable of giving me much information on various subjects; and he has always answered my inquiries with readiness of good-breeding and good nature.” He clearly is pleased to talk to Elinor, and talk extensively about whatever she asks. So... silent? doesn't seem like it.

Marianne, who at this point apparently hasn't had any of the sort of conversation Elinor has had with him (and so Elinor tells her, that her opinions are based on her own imagination) says "that he has neither genius, taste, nor spirit. That his understanding has no brilliancy, his feelings no ardour, and his voice no expression." In Willoughby's company, she has lost her respect and compassion towards Brandon; this description is an echo of Willoughby's feelings towards him, for which he gives no reasonable explanation ("he threatened me with rain when I wanted it to be fine; he has found fault with the hanging of my curricle, and I cannot persuade him to buy my brown mare.").

Till this point we have never personally seen him talk; the first time we do, is an evening at the park, there's dancing going on and Elinor and him are sitting close, watching the dancers in silence. This time it is he who opens the conversation instead of Elinor, and what does he want to talk about? Marianne's thoughts about second attachments. He's thinking about what would she think of his now having fallen in love again; he's thinking if an allowance can be made for his own situation, where his first love was frustrated without fault of his own or his beloved. Seeing Willoughby and Marianne together makes him remember himself and Eliza when they were younger (rather than make him jealous, as sir John would say). He's thinking all of this out loud with Elinor, and naturally starts to explain himself, when he realizes some of the story isn't really his to tell freely to a stranger, and so he stops. In the middle, he also defends Marianne's sensibility, and while he acknowledges it is extreme, he cannot agree with Elinor that a complete change of ways is desirable.

This is not what reserve and gravity look like at all. It may be that Elinor has been led by sir John's first description, it may be that she set the tone of all their previous conversations, it may be that, as he is the only agreeable person around her, she has projected some of her own character onto him, it may be a bit of each, but her description of him does not match what we see here. Does that change later on?

Next time we hear of him, he's joining lady Middleton in talking about the weather when Margaret starts talking about Edward, as he is "on every occasion mindful of the feelings of others". That same day the party to go to Whitwell is formed (spontaneously, apparently, as sir John makes parties to go there twice a year) for the next day, when Brandon receives the mysterious letter. How does he react to it? upon seeing the address, he changes color and leaves the room before opening it. This is not what stoicism looks like.

He refuses to tell what his errand is, apologizes to everyone and specially to lady Middleton, asks Elinor if he'll see them in London, bows to Marianne and leaves. His not telling them is part of the mystery that makes the plotline, but also you don't need to be particularly reserved to avoid telling a party of people (including the Careys, two complete strangers) that your missing ward has turned up, pregnant. If there was any doubt that Marianne, when with Willoughby, thinks as he does, she agrees with him that Brandon invented the whole affair to avoid going to Whitwell.

Next time we hear about him, is from Mrs Palmer. She's, probably, the most unreliable of the characters, and most of the humor of her character comes from that: she tells Elinor that Brandon confirmed to her that Marianne and Willoughby are engaged, but when pressed she says that he didn't say anything but looked as if he knew it to be true (which means it is more likely that he was given the impression from her rather than the other way around). She also calls Brandon "grave and dull" right after calling him "charming". She tells Elinor he wanted to marry her, to then confess it was something sir John seemed to want, and that Brandon had never shown her any particular signs of affection and that he hadn't seen her more than twice at that point. Nothing to be learned here, but it is interesting that Brandon, hinted here and in his conversation with Elinor about second attachments, has not sought marriage after he lost Eliza; clearly the practicality or convenience of marriage for the sake of home and heir was not something on his mind; he's not pragmatic, not even to the level of Wenthworth and his boasts that any woman of suitable age would do for him.

He then goes on visiting them, to talk to Elinor and look at Marianne; Elinor guesses it's just his growing love for Marianne, and so do we because we don't know what he knows yet. He's still deciding, and does go back and forth between attempting to start saying what he knows, and silencing himself. His saying that he has no right or chance of succeeding carries a double meaning we will only understand later. Under the guise of """revealing""" his feelings for Marianne, he's trying to gauge how his revelation of Willoughby's character would be taken and if it would be believed or not, if it can be useful or not. He decides on the negative, but even then he cannot help but hint at what he knows, as he says "in a voice of emotion" “to your sister I wish all imaginable happiness; to Willoughby that he may endeavour to deserve her".

Brandon shows up next to visit Mrs Jennings, Elinor and Marianne, once they have arrived in London. This is the section where we see the most of him. Elinor watches him see Marianne leave the room, and to her he seems astonished and concerned, so much so he outright asks if Marianne is ill, before even greeting Elinor properly. They make small talk but they are both distracted by things they cannot talk about to each other. He replies to Mrs Jennings inquiries with his "accustomary mildness", and grows even more thoughtful and silent when Marianne comes in again, and soon afterwards, he leaves. All these reactions are manifest, there's no concealment. In retrospective, we know at that point he had dueled Willoughby, and was trying to decide if he should tell them about the affair or not.

When everything comes crashing down, Mrs Jennings tells Elinor that Brandon will have Marianne now, that they will be married by midsummer, and that he will chuckle when he hears the news. Yet another case of Mrs Jennings not knowing what she's talking about XD That afternoon Brandon shows up, she thinks he doesn't know what happened, but Elinor thinks he does, and she's right. He asks Elinor about how Marianne is feeling and what does she think of the affair, and he's still serious and thoughtful; he's still thinking what to do, and will leave this time without telling what he knows.

When he does finally tell Elinor, he still has scruples of conscience about his own motives: "where so many hours have been spent in convincing myself that I am right, is there not some reason to fear I may be wrong?" (which reinforces the idea that his asking Elinor about the engagement was more about what he knew of Willoughby than about his chance at pursuing Marianne being lost, besides the obvious fact that he kept away from Barton even after young Eliza's affair was completely resolved).

He tells his story to Elinor (including the attempted elopement with Eliza, his leaving to try and protect her, his looking for her until he found her, and his taking care of her and her child, and how the whole thing haunts him so many years later. This is not what an unromantic, pragmatic, stoic character does), and these are the things he does while at it: "sighing heavily" "He stopt a moment for recollection, and then, with another sigh, went on." "he continued, in a voice of great agitation" "He could say no more, and rising hastily walked for a few minutes about the room." "He saw her concern, and coming to her, took her hand, pressed it, and kissed it with grateful respect. A few minutes more of silent exertion enabled him to proceed with composure." "Again he stopped to recover himself". Nothing about this, again, shows stoicism, reserve, or lack of tender, passionate feelings.

By the end of his tale, as he tells Elinor of the duel, she "sighed over the fancied necessity of this; but to a man and a soldier she presumed not to censure it." She's now pretty much rolling her eyes at what she thinks is excess; her opinion on Brandon is changing.

Brandon keeps on visiting them in London, making "delicate, unobtrusive enquiries"; he is invited by John Dashwood and attends the dinner at Mrs Ferrars because he's happy to be where the Miss Dashwoods are; he compliments Elinor's work, and when Marianne defends her, he "noticed only what was amiable in it, the affectionate heart which could not bear to see a sister slighted in the smallest point.", while Elinor (the sensible character token) is mortified by Marianne's rudeness. When she starts crying, he instinctively goes to them. Brandon is not being sensible or pragmatic here.

Next time we see him, he comes to offer the Delaford parsonage to Edward, and engage Elinor's help so that Edward's feelings are spared; as we were told before, he's always mindful of the feelings of others. His own feelings about the whole affair he expresses with "great compassion" as “The cruelty, the impolitic cruelty,” he replied, with great feeling, “of dividing, or attempting to divide, two young people long attached to each other, is terrible." Brandon is not being sensible, stoic or pragmatic here. John Dashwood says later on that a sensible person would have sold the living, which is very fitting to his own sense of greed, but it also gives greater relief to the fact that Brandon did this for a stranger out of sympathy with his situation.

By the time Elinor and Marianne are at Cleveland, Elinor's judgement of Brandon has been completely transformed since her first impressions of him: "she watched his eyes, while Mrs. Jennings thought only of his behaviour;—and while his looks of anxious solicitude on Marianne’s feeling, in her head and throat, the beginning of a heavy cold, because unexpressed by words, entirely escaped the latter lady’s observation;—she could discover in them the quick feelings, and needless alarm of a lover." (as a side note, this is yet another case of Elinor being wrong, as Marianne does fall dangerously ill soon later).

When Marianne finally falls ill, he makes great exertion in offering to go, but is clearly relieved when he's asked to stay; "He tried to reason himself out of fears, which the different judgment of the apothecary seemed to render absurd; but the many hours of each day in which he was left entirely alone, were but too favourable for the admission of every melancholy idea, and he could not expel from his mind the persuasion that he should see Marianne no more."; he makes haste to go to Mrs Dashwood as soon as it is suggested, and he says goodbye to Elinor "pressing her hand with a look of solemnity, and a few words spoken too low to reach her ear". This is not what a stoic, dour character does.

When Mrs Dashwood tells Elinor of Brandon communicating his love for Marianne to her, we cannot be certain how and how much he said; Mrs Dashwood says that he loved her since the moment he first saw her, but we know that was not the case: she's not a reliable narrator. Elinor, despite having heard and seen what she has, still tells herself that Marianne could not be happy with Brandon considering their ages (fair), their feelings (fair), and their characters (not so fair); she's also not completely reliable, because, as the end of the chapter tells, Marianne being at Delaford would force her to go there where Edward would be with Lucy.

We are given a contrast of what Brandon thinks of the case ("He thinks Marianne’s affection too deeply rooted for any change in it under a great length of time, and even supposing her heart again free, is too diffident of himself to believe, that with such a difference of age and disposition he could ever attach her." - he doesn't mean to propose and refuses to accept any encouragement from Mrs Dashwood on that front; that's why I say that he would not have asked if Marianne herself had not provided heavy encouragement) and what Mrs Dashwood thinks of the case (his disposition, I am well convinced, is exactly the very one to make your sister happy. And his person, his manners too, are all in his favour... the Colonel’s manners are not only more pleasing to me than Willoughby’s ever were, but they are of a kind I well know to be more solidly attaching to Marianne. Their gentleness, their genuine attention to other people, and their manly unstudied simplicity is much more accordant with her real disposition, than the liveliness, often artificial, and often ill-timed of the other."). It is for the reader to make up their mind, but ultimately we know Mrs Dashwood tends to be too sanguine , and Brandon too melancholy: the truth likely lies on a middle ground, which fits the ending of the novel. It takes Marianne a time to give up Willoughby and another time to love Brandon, but she does in the end and is truly happy with him.

Similarly, when Marianne asks him to visit her, Elinor thinks he's remembering Eliza and therefore very melancholy, while Mrs Dashwood thinks he just looks in love. How he really feels, we never get to know. Elinor has a personal motivation to believe a match won't happen, Mrs Dashwood has a personal motivation to believe the opposite (it is worth noticing that once Elinor was engaged to Edward, all her aprehensions about Brandon and Marianne not being suited for each other vanished).

Once the Dashwoods leave for Barton, he says he'll visit in a few weeks and goes to Delaford, where he stays until Mrs Dashwood's insistence by letter makes him visit. In the meantime, he "in his evening hours at least, he had little to do but to calculate the disproportion between thirty-six and seventeen, brought him to Barton in a temper of mind which needed all the improvement in Marianne’s looks, all the kindness of her welcome, and all the encouragement of her mother’s language, to make it cheerful." This is an emotional man who also very much respects the space and the feelings of the woman he loves, and is aware of the difficulties.

All that we hear of him after this is his leaving with Edward to prepare the parsonage, his efforts to make it comfortable for Elinor, and that once married to Marianne "her regard and her society restored his mind to animation, and his spirits to cheerfulness."; his gloominess and melancholy were as much part of his character as Marianne's were when she was grieving the loss of Willoughby; the text itself connects their life journeys in that parallel: "and that other, a man who had suffered no less than herself under the event of a former attachment".

TL; DR (it is, indeed, a very long post, I'm sorry but I wanted to be thorough): Brandon's actions and speeches show him to be emotional, passionate, sensitive, and emotionally open and demonstrative; whenever he is called grave, silent, reserved, etc, it comes from a place of a character not knowing him well yet, having a much more boisterous personality than him, projecting onto him, or his very own melancholy talking. Readers should keep in mind the extensive use of indirect free speech that Austen does in this novel.

[themaidenofwords]

An Essay on Why Canon Batman sucks

I was reminded today of the many reasons why I say I'm part of the batfamily fandom and not actually into canon Batman stories.

To put it simply, I love all of Bruce's children, but the man himself (especially in his canon characterization) can fuck all of the way off.

"But TheMaiden, you can't just ignore canon! You can't really be a fan if you do." I can and I am so sit still a min and let me talk.

My main issue with Batman comics is the fact that they try to make him a morally grey character who's sole rule is basically that he doesn't literally murder people.

Everyone clap and cheer for the guy who isn't actively a murderer! He's so good for that!

Anyway, the problem with focusing on what would make Bruce "snap" or the fact that he's a dark traumatized little boy ok? is the fact that the city of Gotham and all of its Rogues is already so dark. You can't put black paint on a black canvas and expect me to notice the difference. When the "heroic" character is painted in just a slightly different shade of "charcoal #7" I will be hard pressed to see why I should be rooting for him over the villains he fights.

My biggest problem with Bruce is the fact that he is canonically an abusive piece of shit towards his kids. I will readily admit that this part is deeply seated in my own personal traumas, but that's a hard line in the sand that I won't allow to be crossed. I can't support a "hero" who doesn't have the bare fucking decency to not hit/ emotionally abuse his children.

"Oh, but you are ignoring the fact that Bruce adopted those kids in order to train them as vigilantes! He never intended to be a father figure!"

Well too fucking bad. If you adopt a child, that's your kid. period. There's no take-backsies just because you like dressing up in a fursuit and leaping off buildings as a hobby. the moment Bruce adopted those kids he established himself as their father, and that should take precedence to whatever his feelings may be as Batman.

"TheMaiden, you're being too harsh. Bruce saw his parents die! He was manipulated by Ra's when he was training with the Al Ghuls! He's traumatized and he can't help how he is!"

Again, I will readily admit that this part is rooted in my own life and beliefs, but I will not stand for the idea that people can't grow past their trauma and that you're destined to continue the cycle of pain. Yes, the trauma and pain you go through can make it extremely difficult to move on and can (and will) leave an impact on your life forever, But you still have a choice. Bruce chose to become Batman. He chose to be trained by Ra's Al Ghul. He chose to adopt six children, and he fucking chose to abuse those children for the sake of his crusade.

He doesn't get a free pass because of his past. He doesn't get a free pass because "overall he's doing good." He is to be held in contempt not even because of the bad things he's done in the past, but because he refuses to grow. He refuses to change and to be better.

"But he loves his children! He's just bad at showing it."

Intent does not redeem you. Bruce has had eighteen years to learn and grow. He has been through a lot of shit, but it is his responsibility to make certain that he doesn't put his own children through that pain. It is his responsibility to show his children that he loves them and to work to grow despite his flaws because of the love he has for them.

Call me harsh, but I refuse to support a "hero" who would nearly murder his own child and call it love.

[battry-acid]

Hey dude I totally don’t know at all you should totally write a manifesto on trans/intersex wolverine ooooo you wanna write it so bad ooooooo

you tease me, tumblr user that i am definitely not friends with. we both know this is bait i simply cannot help but bite. << if you read this till the end you get a surprise :) >>

i could go on a big long rant and list every single instance in which logan defies gender norms in the comics, but i'm gonna try to be brief this time. my headcanon that logan is trans/intersex is so personal and deeply rooted in my mind that discussing it kinda feels like sharing the secrets of a close friend if that makes sense. like, it's his business, it ain't my right to share that information.

i know there are trans logan truthers out there. i have seen them in the wild. i know there are people who would agree with this headcanon, and i'm sure i'm not the only one who takes trans headcanons super personally as a trans person, projecting your experiences and feelings onto a character you really like. it's the same thing with ol' logan (and kurt is not spared of this treatment either).

with the intersex headcanon, i don't often see those enough (for any character, in any fandom, honestly) especially considering intersex people make up, like, 2% of the entire world population. i know of several canon intersex characters in media, but not headcanons.

the biggest reason many people have the trans logan headcanon is because of his clone x-23/laura having XX chromosomes due to the sample used by dr. kinney having a damaged Y, making her 'female'. this is going off of a ciscentric intersex-exclusionary idea of what biological sex is, though.

i'm still totally down for the base concept of 'laura and logan having different gender identities means that at least one of them is trans since they have basically the same DNA' though, but i think both logan and laura are intersex. i think part of the reason it was so hard to clone wolverine is because of his unique DNA. it isn't contradictory for them to have different gender identities or different biology. i think we should stop looking for a reason to label laura Girl and logan Boy and just accept that they can be neither, both, in and out of the between, anything, it just requires so much less hassle. why is their biology so important anyway? that doesn't change their characters.

there's also just...general biological fuckery happening in the weapon x program as pointed out by 1random-starfish because this is superhero comics we're talking about where they're trying to explain how characters get superpowers. this shit doesn't make biological sense and that's okay. it doesn't need to make sense. transphobes and interphobes are constantly saying that our existences "don't make sense" and why should we ever even slightly cater to their beliefs? we make sense to ourselves and that's all that matters. trans and intersex logan makes sense to me.

another argument brought up in defence of trans logan is the fact that he's a short king. as a short king, i approve of this. but there's little emphasis on the fact that he is naturally extremely hairy, both him and sabretooth are super hairy, like way more so than most other characters (besides the ones that are covered in fur like kurt and hank) and that's pretty significant to me. i'm also hairy as fuck. almost all of my intersex friends are hairy too. obviously how much hair a trans and/or intersex person has will vary, but like i said, this trans/intersex logan headcanon is super personal, so i'm projecting personal attributes onto him, damn it.

as i said in a previous post, though i don't feel it's incredibly important to disclose, logan likely has POTS or CAH or something similar to those conditions. i don't think medicine can or should define what logan is. but just to give a reference for how i interpret his appearance, some of those attributes are similar to the ones logan has in my brain. fat, hairy, short, often experiencing fatigue/vertigo/disturbed sleep/etc (worsened by him having PTSD), adrenal issues (paired with PTSD), breast tissue, facial hair, decreased bone density (which was strengthened by his skeleton being bonded with adamantium), etc. he was also allegedly a very sickly child.

onto how i portray logan in my art. some artists prefer to give him top surgery, not just for the "who cares it's a headcanon i do what i want" reasoning but also because there's evidence that logan could experience a permanent surgery like that if enough effort was put in. i, however, am one of the no-op logan truthers. not only do not all transmasc people get top surgery but it doesn't always feel required due to diversity of body types. it's why there's so many different kinds of top surgery, there's so many different ways a chest can look. i don't always draw logan's chest the same way consistently, and like, who cares. the only reason i bring this up is because i personally will never draw logan with any kind of scars, top surgery or otherwise, because of my understanding of how his healing factor works.

regardless of any reasoning i may have for these headcanons, it's just what i feel is right. i draw stuff how i want to. i think about these characters how i want to. the little version of logan that lives in my brain told me he is trans and intersex so that's how i'm gonna portray him. anyway,

[blushydrangea]

im here to ask u ur thoughts in the... pj controversy ehhekekfke i wanna say smthn abt but like i feel as if i dont grasp the whole thing yet so i chose to shut up rn

hi love! under the cut so the people who are tired of discussing this topic can avoid it.

it's a long one!

i know everyone here has likely come across the tweets pj made, but as an archiver at heart i feel the need to break everything down. screenshots aren't mine.

on the 18th, pj made a tweet about fellow drag queen and artist chappell roan, questioning the authenticity of her love for drag. most people (me included!) thought she was trolling, which unfortunately didn't happen to be the case. plane appeared to be under the impression that chappell was mean or cold towards drag queens she invited to her shows, something she allegedly heard about in boston and, according to some people on reddit so take this with a grain of salt, was debunked. she followed her tweet with another, ironically saying "i love chappell roan". the first tweet was then deleted.

after several people accused plane jane of trying to gatekeep drag from women & having an unfair opinion deeply rooted in misogyny, pj released a notes app screenshot on the 19th. however, going against the purpose of most notes screenshots, hers wasn't an apology. instead, she chose to call out the hypocrisy of people attacking her because they were calling her a man (it's important to note that pj hasn't directly told us what her ood pronouns are afaik).

she made some more shady tweets after that and argued with stans on social media but i don't feel like including these, so the last update we have was this apology pj made for her fandom.

before i speak my mind on this, i just wanna say that i am willing to discuss this as long as people are polite, any aggressive messages i might receive will be promptly deleted.

to be honest, i didn't like what she said. being a person with a platform and, let's be real, several crazy stan accounts who follow her word like gospel, it was wrong in my opinion to call a growing lesbian artist (one of the very few we have, at that) performative for her love of drag. someone who also engages in the *checks notes* performative art of drag. there isn't much of a "bag" to be secured by pretending you love drag, as it's not that mainstream, and i can't help but wonder if pj would have the same criticism were chappell a gay man instead of a lesbian woman.

misogyny is real and it's present in all of us, we were all raised to see women as less than. pj is white and male-presenting with her makeup off, she isn't incapable of misogyny because she is gay or a drag queen. therefore, it rubbed me in the wrong way to see her voice out the same beliefs i've heard from other gay men before – that women deserve to be questioned whenever they exist in drag spaces. i don't agree with the sentiment that pj meant women shouldn't do drag, as she never said that. though she honestly reminded me of those men who ask me very specific and tricky questions about the tree of gondor or whatever when i tell them i love the lord of the rings. are you a true fan?

her notes app statement was what pissed me off. she was really immature imo, ofc she's only 26 so there's room for growth, but twisting a situation you inserted yourself in to seem like the victim based on... people calling you a cis man? come on. it was a self-centered statement made by someone who seemed to refuse to take any criticism on this subject matter. i was very disappointed she chose the "but you are wrong too!" route instead of apologizing to the people she hurt.

her apology to her fandom was... fine, i guess. it served to show me that she seems to be comfortable living in her bubble.

do i think she's a bad person? no, i don't. but i do think she had a misogynistic take and doubled down on it because she refuses to admit she was wrong. i'm staying away from her for the time being, i'll probably get over it eventually but rn i don't wanna see her face all that much. no judgement whatsoever to people who forgave her and are still posting about her, it's your blog, do what you want <3

[torialefay]

you and that anon calling it a war and not what it actually is. A GENOCIDE. speaks volume about both of you. in that fancall no one yelled at him, no one asked him to do anything, out of all the time they had for a fancall they spent like three seconds to say that stays are feel inspired by skz and are raising money for palestine, if that bothers you then you're a part of the problem. chan looked fine in that fancall, especially if you compare it to the tickets fancall where he clearly looked annoyed and tried to be nice at first, but they didn't get the clue and kept pushing, so he had be straight forward. i don't know if you just poorly worded your thoughts, but it sounds bad and knowing how much actuals zionists roam happily in the fandom, those poorly worded thoughts make all of them feel even more comfortable and welcomed in the fandom

hi anon ❤️ first, i want to say that i understand that you are coming from a very good place and if you felt by my messages that it came across as pro-zionism, then i truly do appreciate you coming and leaving this note. i agree that this is the right thing to do when people are promoting terrible things. i'm assuming there's confusion in what was said, but please know that i don't have any ill-will at all & i know that you come from a place of love and doing what is right 🫶🏼

firstly, you are 100% right that it is genocide. "war" was the first word that came to mind (i be watching a lottt of news that uses both oml), but i agree that genocide is way more accurate to what is actually going on so thank you for pointing that out <3

however, i'm not really sure what fancall you're referring to. i haven't seen a fancall of anyone talking to chris about it. the only fancalls i've referenced lately are the ones about tickets and the other about about the fan who was saying "do you love me more or do i love you more?". if there's a fancall of chris talking to a stay about raising money though, that's really awesome... but baby i haven't seen it nor have i talked ab it 🥲 (p.s. someone pls send me a link pls & ty 🫶🏼) lowkey highkey i'm sure chris is really fucking proud if that's the case && hopefully he'd be supportive to the best of his abilities 🥹 but long story short, baby i have never seen this video in my life nor have i talked ab it... so if that is what you're upset about then idk what is happening bc it wasnt me 🫠

i'm most definitely not a zionist and i would doubt that the others who have spoken/responded to my comments are either (i don't know for certain, but i would assume we're all normal lol). the only thing i talked ab that has to be realllly fucking hard on chris is when some stays were trending that skz needed to speak up and included the phrase "stop hurting your fans and driving them away," mostly targeted at chan. like that shit breaks my heart for him. to know that he probably wants to talk ab it and his own fans are saying how disappointed they are in him, but there is a 100% chance that if he says anything, he is violating his contract & god knows what that would do to skz (every fucking thing is controversial these days... even if it's the right thing to do). while we should never have to compromise our morals or beliefs, unfortunately this is what happens in kpop. you sacrifice your freedom of speech, and i'm sure this is one of those things. it is a horrible, systemic issue that is deeply rooted in the industry (and needs to be overturned, but that's a whole different conversation). i think trying to push for it with actual companies is a good thing, but targeting specific members isn't the way to go about it.

anyways, that's all ❤️ i hope that cleared some things up & i already know i'm gonna have anons on both sides tryna get snippy so PLEASE no one go on a rampage 🤪 i understand where anon is coming from & i genuinely take it as wanting to make sure that we are all on the same page & can foster a good environment here on tumblr. pinky promise there are no hard feelings AT ALL on my end 🫶🏼

[saintsenara]

Ah, see, that irks me, but unfortunately, it does not surprise me. The idea that Hermione is the more emotionally mature one, more attuned one, Harry's REAL best friend of the two is a view with which that goddamned yankee screenwriter has plagued this fandom for decades now. Whenever I see this take in drarry/snarry/whathaveyouarry-- where Ron is the last person to come around to the absurdity, I'm reminded immediately of how, when Hermione was having the kittens about Harry floo-calling Sirius, it was Ron who put his foot down and said "Harry can decide for himself."

I think this fandom really overlooks, in favour of magnifying his jealousy, just how deeply Ron trusts Harry and thinks the world of him, how impressed he is by Harry as a person, how much he's willing to put his own life in Harry's hands. There's a reason that Ron and Harry are a Dog and Stag just like Sirius and James, which is to say that when Harry makes ostensibly shite decisions, Ron is most likely to hear him out. The locket had him acting completely unlike himself, and the pseudo-possession there is a different conversation.

I also think it's fascinating that for all that Ron nearly has a fit every time someone says "Voldemort" around him, he seems to have a very nuanced understanding of Harry and Voldemort's connection, unlike Hermione who accuses Harry of liking it, and Ginny, who only sees her possession at the hands of the diary as deeply traumatic. Ron understands that Harry understands Voldemort and the man he once was, and you can do a lot with that.

yes. just yes to all of this.

ron and harry [and james and sirius] are basically two pair-bonded cats - they run around sharing a braincell [and i do feel for hermione trying to manage ron's willingness to hear one of harry's dumb plans and say "you son-of-a-bitch, i'm in"] but they do also trust each other so profoundly that it feels like an actual crime for it to have been left out of the films.

and part of that trust is that - unlike hermione, who as i've said elsewhere, often gives the impression of being afraid of harry - ron isn't afraid to be honest with harry, even if that honesty is in the tough-love vein. he's actually entirely correct in deathly hallows that harry hasn't thought the horcrux hunt through, that this lack of planning is making them inefficient and putting them in more danger, and that harry's increasing belief that he's the only person the war is happening to is an enormous disrespect to the people who are putting their lives on the line to support him, including ginny.

because something i get in the critical comments of one year in every ten as well is the idea that ron would cut ties with harry if his relationship with ginny broke down. and, besides the fact that divorce is not always acrimonious, this annoys me because i think it fails to appreciate what ron would be particularly upset about: that, in pretending his marriage was fine, harry was being dishonest, and that his dishonesty would end up hurting ginny and hurting him.

i wanted ron to be the person who'd always suspected that harry wasn't being entirely open about his sexuality - and the person who'd actually done some thinking about what impact this might have on the state of the hinny marriage - and i wanted this to lead into ron's view that a strange but clearly raw and real relationship between harry and tom is better, whatever the other costs it has, than fantasy happiness with ginny simply because harry's too afraid to admit who he is and what he wants.

and absolutely - my "ron is a tomarry shipper" conspiracy theory is heavily rooted in the fact that ron is nowhere near as freaked out by their mind connection, nor by harry's interest in indulging it, as hermione is. it is also rooted in ron saying the quiet part out loud in deathly hallows:

You really understand him.

the best man speech writes itself!

[motherflecker]

so excited for these new kinnporsche gifs i'm seeing!!!

it's good to see porsche looking at kinn like that, as a reminder that they're gonna get there, no matter how far in these actually take place

but i loved episode 5 and its angst because it made sense for there to be some sort of emotional fallout

porsche being drugged felt different to him than being drunk, because the drugging was done to him against his free will so there's a loss of agency there that he understandibly doesn't cope with well

and that combined with the whole kinn situation? oof

porsche in relation to kinn gave me such a strong sense of feeling used this entire episode

cause think about it, we know that kinn likes porsche, that he's feeling very attached already and that him kissing porsche is actually a pretty big deal for him, as is him trying to protect porsche from the bullet or sending him outside when he's uncomfortable when they're beating up that guy

there's so many small ways in which we see that he very much cares but also very much tries to not seem like he does

but from porsche's point of view he doesn't actually get to see a lot of that?

he gets kind of forced into this job that he didn't want and kinn is used to more or less rudely ordering people around and does tell him early on that he owns his life

and then he only kisses porsche when he's drunk out of his mind and then goes ahead and sleeps with him when he's been drugged and pliable only to punish him afterwards, to call in one of his callboys for porsche to see, to repeat the line about owning his life, to replace him as head bodyguard, seemingly again and again driving home the point to porsche that he doesn't mean anything to kinn, that he was just convenient, just another plaything, easily available in his drugged state

which - if I were porsche - would make me feel incredibly used and incredibly icky in my skin as well

sleeping with him in that state was definitely not one of kinn's finest moments (no matter how beautifully shot that scene was), cause proper consent was definitely not on the table, but also on a personal level because he's otherwise still too emotionally constipated to properly communicate that he does in fact care

i love the complexity of feelings that were shown in this episode and that they didn't just immediately brush it off but gave porsche as a character time to be messed up about it (although all of this is mostly my own interpretation of why since he doesn't explicitly voice it himself)

hope these two will get to work on their communication game and very much looking forward to porsche getting to eventually make his own sober/lucid decisions of where he stands in their dynamic

there's still so many episodes left, so there's definitely room for some good character development to be had :)

really loving this show so far!!!

oh, anon!! i am so glad you shared your thoughts with me on this show/episode!! i'm really loving this show a lot, i think i've mentioned it before but this is the kind of morally dubious dark content that is more my speed than the usual fluffy romcom stuff so it's been nice to be able to go back to my roots with it as it were

and it really is well written, isn't it? i agree with all your thoughts. the fuzzy issue around the consent is so interesting to me and deeply polarizing to the fandom, from what i can tell. i'm kind of of the belief that even tho the writers and staff of the show are aware of what they're doing, kinn and porsche aren't going to have a deeply nuanced conversation about consent on screen after this. it just doesn't seem in their character to do so, from what i've seen so far. i'm gonna guess we're going to get porsche getting angry and throwing out some accusations of being used and kinn apologizing (poorly) and insisting he didn't mean it like that, before the two find some nebulous common ground again that porsche feels comfortable with kinn in (through the traditional art of getting Kidnapped And Handcuffed Together In The Woods)

i think one thing i like about this show is that every character is very much the main character of their own universe. so even though technically, kinn and porsche are the main characters, we see the character drive of everyone and how they're getting from a to b. their perspectives are so different and no character knows entirely what's going on with another character. kinn has his own life he's leading and porsche is only privy to a certain percentage of it. in turn, kinn doesn't see all of porsche either, only what he's able to demand of him. he sees the public porsche but not the private porsche.

but in turn, of course pete knows more about what's going on with porsche when they live together, right? pete being able to clue kinn in just a little, even with how funny it was as an audience member to watch, it was kind of like "this really would be the only way kinn would be able to know this since he's super not privy to a lot of porsche in the first place"

it's just interesting all around to me, this show is definitely character driven more than anything else and i like it a lot. it's so well done, and i appreciate how honest to the characters everything's been so far. i'm excited to see more of it and see how things develop from here. i think if it goes well, this'll definitely land in one of my top BLs for sure.

(and, haha, even if it goes incredibly poorly it'll probably still land in my top BLs bc i like mess)

[lochnessies]

ok here’s a dissection of a post an anon sent me the link to and bc i have the worst time management possible and i completely forgot i had it lol so sorry anon here you go ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜

I am constantly thinking about how Edelgard just doesn’t seem designed to appeal to cishet men.

i hate to be the one to break this news to you op but just because a character doesn’t show skin like charlotte fire emblem doesn’t mean she isn’t designed to pander to men. she’s very much designed to pander to the (majority straight male) player base with her ‘uwu i only trust you professor omg did u see that rat? pls don’t look at my painting of you uwu’.

then there’s the whole edelgard c support in japanese where byleth makes reference to having come to her room for ‘yobi’ which is

there’s also the scene where byleth can make an unsolicited comment about edelgard’s breast size. which is… uhh… gross.

edelgard also has cipher cards that go from slightly fanserviceie to full on suggestive

and also her breast armor that my sister relentlessly mocked lol

and here’s a chart from the 3h subreddit about gender/sexually in regards to edelgard and edeleth. it’s extremely straight male. op might have just overlooked this since they probably don’t go on reddit and stay on tumblr (which unlike reddit is mostly female and has a high lgbt demographic).

Like the joke is that Bleagles is the Gay House, but everything about her feels deliberately non-hetero.

i don’t like where this is going…

She’s dressed in sharp outfits covering her upper body, with proportions that don’t seem exaggerated.

so women who cover up must be lgbt because straight women are naturally more revealing? oh y i k e s

Her poise and the way she effortlessly flourishes her axe exhibits an air of coolness. While titties out =/= character of no substance, Edelgard being dressed more modestly suggests that she wasn’t designed with male-centred fanservice in mind.

“titties don’t equal no substance but here’s my post on how she has more substance because she doesn’t show titties” ok

And she still looks absolutely stunning in her more modest attire (like seriously, I haven’t felt the need to return to cosplay in years but I want to do her academy look so bad). 

yes she does. amazing design 10/10. i have a feeling this is the only part i’m going to agree with

Edelgard is intense. She does not mince her words and she is constantly evaluating you. Though she tries, she has a difficult time understanding her peers initially. Early on, she talks about how she would sacrifice herself and others in the name of some greater good. She is terrible at communicating with her peers. She has to be seen as infallible. Her heart has been hardened for years and she assumes she has to stay that way. She also assumes everyone mourns the same way she does - which is why she (kind of insensitively) insists you move on when Jeralt dies. Because to her, grief has to be channeled towards action, or else you’ll get lost in it. This attitude is demonstrated time and time again as she presses on. It can make her come off as cold and unfeeling - but look closer, and she’s anything but.

don’t really have anything to say at this part. it is pretty on the nose though i would slightly disagree with that last sentence a bit. i wouldn’t say she’s as i feeling as hubert is but all of her talks of the war boil down to how she feels and never her victims.

Her story is ultimately about her realizing that to achieve her goals, she needs to let people in and allow herself to want things like cakes and tea parties and lazy days in peace. 

????? what ????? her goals include imperialism, ethnic and religious targeting. her story is about having a set of beliefs and mowing down anybody who stands in her way. that has nothing to do with tea, friends, and lazy days. also am i supposed to be sad that she has to get up everyday and work? i do that and i didn’t start a war and only throw a pity party for myself

The game leaves the player guessing as to how involved the Flame Emperor was in each Part I event, makes you feel hurt by her betrayal, and leaves you with a choice: do you follow the orders of the woman who tried to make you a god without your consent, or a young girl with questionable morals about to throw the world into upheaval?

this isn’t an ideal situation but i think i’m going to stick with the woman who tried to make me a god since i’m not selfish and i know it’s not only my desires and life at stake here. plus the green hair slaps ngl

Choosing her of your own volition (not for completionist reasons) requires the basic ability to sympathize with a woman’s pain. It also requires the player to read beyond her unwavering will and dubious methods to get a sense of how deep that pain goes and how the theme of humanity relates to her differently in each route.

i’m not going to touch this since @nilsh13 made a post on it that i’ll link here. i agree with everything he said so to repeat it would be redundant.

The player must be able to see a young woman’s desperate resolve to change the world so it stops exploiting people and ruining lives. They must be able to accept the fact that women can make the same morally wrong and ambivalent decisions that complicated male characters get to make all the time and still be the one to root for.

literally the same reason i love rhea lol her goddess experiments are dubious at best but her reasons are the same you mentioned. i would say that i like this quality in edelgard too if her ending, while bloody, actually ended in a good outcome for fodlan.

This is not unique to LGBT+ people, but this population is likely to understand why Edelgard feels so strongly about why she has to change the system. 

i understand wanting to change a system, i really do. like edelgard, i’m an opinionated bisexual woman (who’s also physically disabled) so yeah i get it. and change can be good but it can also be terrible. even if the church was the boogeyman edelgard treats it as she still replaces it with her own shit regime. so it’s the same circus just with a new conductor.

I don’t think “Edelgard gets undue criticism because she’s a woman” captures the full picture. An important aspect of her treatment by certain parts of the fandom is that she’s a radical woman.

or maybe she does some pretty fucked up shit and it goes unacknowledged in her own route. and yeah she’s radical but in all the worst ways.

Her hatred of the Church and the Crest system resonates way harder with people who have been hurt by institutions that are deeply engrained in our society. 

and what about people who have been hurt by systems where their ‘merit’ didn’t measure up and they were left behind? what about people from nations that experienced imperialism?

Siding with her means siding against the Church - which, while different from real world religious institutions, still invokes language about “sin” and “punishment.

yeah the ‘sins’ and ‘punishments’ are used in relation to attempted murders which i think everybody can agree is a bad thing that needs to be condemned.

Choosing Edelgard will likely hit different if homophobic and transphobic Christians used that rhetoric against you.

it has literally nothing to do with ‘sins’ and ‘punishments’ in regards to being gay or trans. that’s you projecting. especially since the church has 2 canon gay characters and two coded ones.

like i can understand why having a church condemn you can be uncomfortable but i’m begging you to please look at the context of what’s happening.

I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that the reason F/F Edeleth is the more popular iteration of that ship because most people who would choose to S-support Edelgard are LGBT+ themselves. This is not a revelation. To anyone in the community, it’s fairly obvious. 

i was talking to nilish and he said

so yeah… while there is definitely sapphic femleth shippers out there, there’s still a whole lot of weird fetishizing going on from straight men about edelgard.

Crimson Flower was my first route. I went into the game knowing absolutely nothing. I played it during the last week of 2020 and hoo boy was it cathartic. 

i can tell. this wasn’t supposed to be a dig but it came out that way and i’m not taking it out.

I felt like I was living out a gay revolution power fantasy, where I could truly change systems of oppression while fighting alongside a group of troubled students I’d shaped the lives of.

so a gay revolution power fantasy (cringe) goes hand in hand with imperialism and installing a dictatorship? also the war had nothing to do with sexuality.

Through your unwavering support, Edelgard learns that she needs to be human, that she must listen to her friends, and that she’s allowed to enjoy the world she’s creating.

edelgard gets to learn how to be human all while hunting those who don’t. and she doesn’t listen fo her friends. she doesn’t even trust them. she’s willing to talk to byleth but keep the people who’s been by her side for five years in the dark about everything. and yeah she gets to enjoy her new words since she’s on top. hate to be a commoner under her rule after she burned down my village in her war.

I love this character so much.

clearly. and i honestly don’t care if somebody likes her. i do as well even if my sometimes scathing words can make it seem otherwise.

It has been six months since I first played and I am still analyzing her,

me too. please help me escape i’m losing my mind

because there’s so much depth. Yet so many people fail to see that depth and dismiss her as evil,

i mean, she does some fucked up shit that goes beyond any of the less than desirable actions of the other main characters and does an extremely poor job in trying to make herself seem innocent. i personally don’t think she’s pure evil but i completely understand where the people who say she is are coming from.

because they never had the will to understand complicated women in the first place. 

that’s big talk from somebody who implies that a gay pope is comparable to homophobic and transphobic irl religions and that leads an oppressive regime all because she uses the vague terms of sin and punishments that you have to gay power fantasy your way out of

[bettsfic]

Hi betts, how do you separate yourself from your fanfiction works? As in having the mindset that ‘you are not your work’? I feel like I’ve fallen into the myth that positive feedback equates to readers liking me for me, when in most cases I imagine they’re solely interested in my content. I guess I’m expecting too much from fandom members? I just don’t feel like I belong to the fandom if it weren’t for my fanfiction. Thanks for your time.

this is a really great and really big question that for me anyway had far deeper roots in my mental health than i initially recognized. 

even before i found fandom, i strongly conflated love with being of use to someone, and then i would get upset that people used me. all of my relationships were either distant or volatile. i knew that i was the only thing all my relationships had in common, but i couldn’t figure out what i was doing wrong. 

what i was doing wrong was that i didn’t know how to love or be loved. i only knew how to need and be needed. i was defined wholly by my relationships with others; without them, i was no one. i changed everything about myself to fit with the people i was surrounded by. i had no ability whatsoever to see or assess myself. my worth was measured in others’ perception of me. if they hated me, i hated me. if they loved me...actually, i still hated me, because i believed that love was temporary, and it was only a matter of time they saw the “real” me and they would take their love away. it was much easier to mold myself into someone they could love. 

i once told a guy i was dating, i just want to be who you want me to be. and he looked at me like i was crazy, and asked, then how can i love you? 

when i found writing, i didn’t know what love really felt like. i only knew obsession and codependency. i didn’t know how to feel emotions in order to process them, so everything that had ever happened to me was still just sitting inside me, waiting. writing offered me a tool to begin working through the pile. it offered me a means to observe and validate myself, and feel my feelings. 

but when i was first developing a relationship with writing, i put so much of myself into it that i couldn’t help but use feedback as a measure of self-worth. 

i think to some degree, every artist needs a witness. almost everything we write exists to be made public to some degree, and it’s a totally normal thing to want to seek reception. but conflating other people liking you, and by extension your work, with your worthiness to exist, creates a lot of self-suffering.

i remember realizing that i had boxed myself into a corner, and i knew i had to reassess my perspective of myself and my work. i had found myself in the same position you describe, feeling bad because readers didn’t love me, they loved my writing (see: being of use and wondering why people always used me). especially with fanfic, which has so much to do with quantity, 90% of readers don’t even look at the fic writer’s name, let alone kudos or comment. reading is a self-fulfilling endeavor the same way eating is. all of us need stories to live. as writers, we’re just the chefs. when you eat a good meal, you don’t fall in love with the chef. most of the time you don’t even know their name. the food isn’t the chef and the story isn’t you. 

but also, i was, and always had been, disgusted and baffled by people who *did* love me, especially if i felt i had nothing useful to offer them. once, a friend of mine drove like 3 hours to come visit me for dinner, and then drove 3 hours back. for some reason i assumed he was on a road trip somewhere and just passing through. when he told me he had come just to hang out with me, my brain short-circuited. i couldn’t fathom why anyone would want to hang out with me like, for fun. 

after a few years of posting fic, a weird thing happened where a few people did seem to like *me* because of my writing, insofar as they would follow my blog and interact with me and eventually we became friends. there may even be people out there who like me and don’t interact with me. but that idea also kind of weirded me out for a long time, because i kept thinking, who am i? no one. i’m nothing. i’m boring. go read my writing, that’s what matters. 

and then i realized, i could not have it both ways. either i wanted to be seen, or i wanted to go unseen. i was schrödinger’s validation. 

so i think the very simple answer is “learn to love yourself,” but i was so far behind when it came to love, i didn’t know what loving yourself even meant. so i think a better adage is “learn love.” learn what love is, what it feels like, what it looks like. and then turn that definition on yourself and your work. 

i love myself, even when i mess up, even when i’m not meeting my expectations. i love my work, even when it’s bad. when other people love me and my work, that makes me happy. when they don’t, that’s fine, because i still have plenty of my own love left. 

in practicality, for a few years i basically had to constantly chant to myself “what other people think of me is not my business.” a reader’s relationship with your writing is not your obligation to know or control. it’s only your obligation to create the stories you want to tell, and maybe you share them so you can share the love you put into them, or maybe you don’t. maybe you eat the meal you cook, or maybe you share it with someone else. whether they like it or not has no bearing on who you are. it’s all just personal taste.

more importantly, you can’t generate self-beliefs externally. someone’s opinion of you or your work cannot define you, because no one has a wider view of you than you. you are the expert of yourself. it took me a long time to change all of my self-beliefs, or what i’ve come to call “life sentences,” into statements of temporality and priority. “i’m brave” turned into “i value courage.” “i’m bad at directions” turned into “sometimes i get turned around.” every time i’m about to make a sweeping judgment of myself, i try to recast it into something more malleable, because every state of the self is temporary, and i always want to give myself the opportunity to grow.

i won’t lie and say i have a totally healthy relationship with my writing. i still get jealous sometimes, although it’s much briefer and more bearable than it used to be. i still get deeply annoyed by tactless or rude feedback, but i rarely get upset. i *do* get upset when someone sends me a link to a forum or thread of people making fun of me; i think it’s hard to unlearn that. sometimes i still feel the need to defend or justify or apologize for my work. and i definitely still compulsively refresh my comment inbox whenever i post something i’m proud of. but for the most part, i’m in a much better place than i used to be.

currently i’m working on making peace with the idea of publication, that my original work treads a morally risky line that is easily misunderstood, and i’m publishing into a world of mob mentality and cancel culture. and moreover, once a work is published, once it’s out there, it can never go back in. i’m trying to figure out whether i’m confident enough now in my work to still stand by it in ten years or fifty. i’m also freaked out about how anything i publish will outlive me. as someone who has always lived with existential dread, it’s terrifying to think i may write something that could be read in a hundred years, that my voice might live longer than my body. there is a very slim chance of it, but as i’ve mentioned before, i think it’s better to plan more for success than failure. 

i’m not sure if any of this is helpful, but it’s the path i took to get where i am. i wish you the best of luck navigating your relationship with your work. 

my carrd | writing advice masterdoc

[ourladylennon]

so i'm not even a Beatles fan i just follow you because of the curiosity of seeing Beatles content and you're very kind too sooo, I've been trying to watch get back, it's honestly a little hard bc they spend a lot of time singing and like I said I'm not really a fan but I do like watching docs of bands i don't know a lot about but yeah, do you think this series is for ppl who are not fans? I'll try to finish it anyways bc I've seen that it shows a lot of why the band broke up and the relationships which is interesting and that leads me to my 2nd question, I've seen some of the speculation of J and P in the doc and like.. I'm getting the hints you guys are saying right? 👀 what's the theory between fans of the type of relationship that existed between J and P? all those gifs and that one of P playing and J trying to ignore him? what's happening! I really want someone to explain it to me lmao. anywho thank you! 💕

first of all, thanks that's so sweet??? you really mean it?? 😭

but secondly, to answer your question, I definitely think it's going to be more interesting for super fans just because we're so deeply involved in their affairs, but I still think it's good for non-fans too, you know? Just for anyone who may is into music culture or interested in their relationship dynamics, it's still worth a watch.

and to answer the BIG question....YES, lots of speculation. It's a hotly debated topic, but I'd say that most people- within this fandom at least- feel as though there is a deeper, more than just friends dynamic between John & Paul. That's not to say everyone thinks it's "romantic" per se, just that there is something...different, something special, something we can't quite put our finger on.

If you want the tea, the two juciest general theories are that John had feelings for Paul and/or that they BOTH had feelings for each other and were oblivious to the fact. I'd go so far as to say the over arching belief is that John had feelings for Paul that were possibly romantic in nature and that it ended up being the driving force behind a lot of their dynamics. There are many different levels of how far people think this theory stretch into their dynamics, which I will list below.

John had romantic feelings/was attracted to Paul:

"" but he kept it to himself and it had nothing to do with the tension in their later years

"" but it still permeated into their relationship in various ways of which were dismissed as a "normal" thing and ended up aiding in the distance between them

"" and he might have tried to pursue this in later years but was immediately rejected, resulting in strain but is not the "cause" or root of their issues

"" and he might have tried to pursue this in later years and Paul may have even experimented w/ him or allowed J to experiment with/on him or showed *glimpses* of requited interested, followed by being rejected by P, resulting in an obvious strain & tension in their relationship (as seen in the doc, no less) and being one of the main contributors to the source of their issues and breakup

same as last point, but taking it a step further- John may have even then tried to induce natural ultimatums of sorts- by pushing away Paul/trying to replace him (suggesting "divorcing" the beatles and rashly marrying Yoko), by openly dangling the tension in the air just to possibly push Paul to face the music of whatever they "did" (the infamous microphone deep throat scene and dialogue, the "did you dream about me" conversation, bringing Yoko around in the studio, etc.), by removing himself from Paul. That this all could be a catalyst to what became a very rocky relationship for them post '67, stretching into years following the break up of the beatles and throughout the remainder of their lives, where a degree of tension, and something greatly resembling heartbreak, seemed to continue on in the songs the inevitably wrote for, about or at one another in their separate careers and strained all their late life interactions.

there's more...there is a BIG web

anyways, I hope any of this answered your question. If nothing else, I hope you learned that not all is as it seems 🧐

[lofi-tophat]

Let’s talk about the 70s punk scene and HWS England

I sometimes feel that the fandom doesn’t give England’s love for punk/rock music much justice. Some authors usually write about this human AU in which Arthur wants to be a rockstar and some others plainly avoid the topic whatsoever. Which is a pity because I actually believe the whole character has a deep punk reference, specially regarding appearence (might expand on this in another post but basically, for me, England seems like some random bushy browed anime 70s punk guy who suddenly has to put on a suit and attend world meetings, which is both fascinating and hilarious).

So I thought maybe we could dive a bit into very general punk history and then I’d like to share with you some hc regarding England’s involvement with punk culture in general (if you just want to read the hcs just scroll down to the last paragraph with the bullet ponts).

My experience in punk stuff is actually that I’m kind of a metalhead lol. Metalheads and punks had and probably still have a deeply-rooted rivalry. However, punk influenced metal a lot, and metal also influenced punk. So I stumbled upon many punk facts while browsing about my favorite metal bands. 

Take this as historical hetalia... but counterculture historical hetalia :D (which is something we need more in the fandom, btw, I know military history is cool but its also cool how humans expressed themselves through art, fashion and music when they felt the pressure of authority and the frustration of society).

Historical context

Let’s return a bit in time and remember the 60s. The 60s were this blessed time in which people tried to defeat the establishment with peace and love. The hippie movement is from this decade and it influenced a lot on how people thought and behaved. In terms of counterculture, I must say this is a fascinating time in history (I recently discovered psychodelic science and its so incredible what was being talked back then).

Anyways, although a lot of young people were into this discourse of love and peace, some weren’t really that happy about it. In Europe, the post-war situation was sad and a lot of young people either were jobless or had the shittiest jobs you could imagine. Politics were also depressing. This was the origin not only for punk but also for other genres of heavy music, such as metal: People who didn’t want to be all happy and peaceful and had the need to express their frustration and anger, shouting about how society was fucked up. They needed an outlet.

Origins of punk

The origins of punk music are actually not quite clear. In fact, the US and the UK both claim that punk music was born in their country. Funnily enough, my country also claims to be the origin of punk (I’ll leave this mini-doc for you. Sadly, I don’t think this is a correct claim, mainly because their music was in spanish and I doubt that major punk bands took them as reference. Its a cool band tho).

I have to side with americans on this: The arguments for the american origins of punk are quite solid. The Ramones were the first actual punk band out there. They were active since 1974. Their music had all the elements of punk and, chronologically, they were the first ones performing this type of sound.

However, they didn’t have the aesthetic. That actually was a british invention. American punk had still leather jackets, jeans and sneakers. British punk? Well, remember all those ripped pants and shirts you commonly associate with punk? Yes, those were the Sex Pistols all along. They were the ones introducing the attitude and the style. The Pistols had some insane performances and a huge shock-value that can’t be found in early american punk. So you can safely say that your image of what a punk is is based mainly on the Pistols (also, for singing anti-authoritarian lyrics, they actually were managed by some dude who had a fashion shop. So yeah...).

Punk attitude or philosophy or whatever

The reason why I addressed the rockstar thing at the start of the post is because I find it curious. Punk is characterized by the whole Do It Yourself attitude and breaking with the establishment. Anarchism in punk is scandalizing people since there is no authority whatsoever. There wasn’t really any deep philosophy behind all of this, nor any political movement. Punk has nothing to do with a formal anarchist philosophy (which actually exists and has nothing to do with disorder). However, punk is characterized by the anti-establihsment lyrics. Remember, this is all about scandalizing people (which sometimes took great lengths). Presentations from british punk bands were also quite wild those days. They involved a lot of insults, spitting and, of course, pogo.

So, it is obvious that there is this deep concern about turning into a sellout, a pretty common fear in any underground scene. Authenticity was encouraged. Aspiring rockstars really didn’t have much mercy in the community so to speak, at least in this specific period. 

I would also like to add how punk had other aspects beside the music. For example, fanzines were pretty popular in the punk scene in the 70s and a great way to engage with what was going on with bands and music. I remember also this interview of this band in which they remembered how a very high guy decided to recite his poem while the band was playing. So, yeah, literature, illustration, fashion and other stuff were involved in the punk scene too.

British punk was also characterized by a very nihilistic attitude and a total disregard for previous influences. 1977, a song by The Clash, stated:

No Elvis, Beatles, or the Rolling Stones!

Now, for the important stuff: The music. Punk music is all about being simple. Punk musicians aren’t really known for their virtuosity in their instruments, something that actually inspired musicians from a lot of heavy bands later. In fact, the famous Sid Vicious from the Sex Pistols never could learn how to play the bass. So the band disconnected his instrument from the amplifier and he only had to pretend to play. The guy actually tried to learn how to play bass but music wasn’t exactly his talent. He had tons of punk attitude though, and that was the reason why his band didn’t kick him out. 

Vocals are usually shouted, the rythm is fast and the riffs are quite simple. In fact, there is this famous publication on a 1976 british fanzine that stated:

This is a chord

This is another

This is a third

Now form a band

HWS England and the 70s punk scene and onwards 

Thanks to his immortality, it is obvious that England had to experience the 70s in all their glory (what a lucky bastard). Was he there? Hell yes. As I explained before in some of my hc posts, nations represent the population more than their Government, so I really believe that England felt the frustration from that post-wwii decade and he probably also felt pissed about this. Working for the Government must have felt really frustrating during those years. 

In the past, he probably would have tried to take his ship and sail the seas or whatever, but that was not possible in the modern era. I guess that’s how he discovered punk. 

Now, rock existed in England before punk. I mean, the Beatles, duh. So Arthur wouldn’t have been completely ignorant about rock music in general. Contrary to popular belief I don’t imagine him being that much of a beatlemaniac though. Sure he likes them, but the music didn’t resonated with him as much. But boy, that first time he heard the Pink Fairies in 1971 (Yes, this was an actual band, a proto-punk band)? Yeah, he could relate more to that.

More detailed stuff here:

Pubs were crucial for the development of punk music. They were these spaces in which bands could play, a venue to discover new music. Yes, Arthur must have been a regular in a lot of these pubs.

Fanzines probably fascinated Arthur as an outlet for his own writings and silly drawings. He probably created a cringey pseudonym and collaborated with a lot of them. 

Its canon that England likes to critic american movies, and, taking from there, I think he’s the type of guy that has an opinion for everything. So I can imagine him also writing about what bands he enjoyed and what bands sucked.

Yeah, I can also see him being drunk and just reciting a poem while some rock band played behind.

With some ability, and a lil bit of tricks, Arthur could escape normal Government activities and perform with punk bands at nights. People were so into the music that he had no problem passing by.

Some cover art in CDs show Enlgland with a guitar and a bass (yes, not many people remember the bass cover art). So he probably plays both guitar and bass. He also probably plays the drums. Of course, he’s no virtuoso and he only knows the most basic stuff in those three instruments. I can see him being into songwriting tho.

Music equipment:

Guitar: Definetely a Telecaster

Bass: Fender P-bass and I can also see him having a Rickenbacker 4001

All these instruments are full with stickers. Punk instruments look really cool btw. (I wish my bass could look like those I see in certain punk bands)

England’s probably the kind of guy that doesn’t cut his strings at the head of his guitar.

He can actually play guitar/bass and sing at the same time.

England plays bass with a pick (what an asshole, we bassists know picks are not allowed)

Contrary to popular belief, I can see England appreciating good rock music from other countries and supporting them. He probably insists that punk music was born in the UK though.

1977: The Queen was going to celebrate her silver jubilee. And England had no problem with this. He really had none... but he HAD to be in that boat trip with the Sex Pistols. There’s no way he was going to miss that. He later had to explain his abscence that day to his Government officials (Btw, my hc for England’s relationship with his monarchy is “It’s complicated”. I can explain this later. Just remember that he was really pissed those days)

I can see Arthur in general being really involved with the scene. A lot of the stuff they were making actually matches with his canon interests and even personality. So he probably enjoyed those days and felt quite at home. I can even say that, for a long time, he hadn’t felt that kind of connection with his own people.

Although I can see England being attracted by the nihilism in the scene, I think his romanticism protects him from embracing it fully.

England had to live a double-life during this era. Not that it was new for him.

Arthur was pierced several times by some random, drunk teenagers. He doesn’t remember who tho. He was also drunk. Obviously his piercings close really fast, unless he has a permanent jewel in there.

I can actually see England expanding his music taste. Although punk is in his heart, it wouldn’t be strange for me that he’s overall a rock nerd and enjoys other genres, specially those with fast drum beats and heavy riffs. So I can see him having some metal favorites too, having a certain taste for prog rock and even digging into hardcore.

I’m still unsure if England would have been a massive Pistols fan as fanfics usually portray him. I mean, maybe? I would say he is definetely into acts such as the Pink Fairies (I mean, c’mon, its perfect). The Clash and the Damned probably also have a place in his heart.

After the punk scene dried out (the 80s weren’t that great for punk music although it was the birth of even heavier forms of music based on punk), England also was eager about the new genres flourishing during these times based on punk. Acts like folk punk might have had an appeal for him. He’s also fond of the punk-ish bands from the 90s like Green Day.

“Punk will never die!” shouted England while stage diving in some random small concert. He likes to support new bands these days.

The most fascinating thing, maybe in a more poetic sense, is that England’s immortality probably also helps him to keep up a punk spirit as much as his nationhood allows him, instead of aging poorly and angry like a lot of punk musicians... I mean, he aged poorly, but for other reasons lmao.

[wonda-cat]

You mentioned rewriting that one analysis post on Tommy’s revival stream and I’d really look forward to it! I never got to read the full og post and that’s the only place I saw these takes. Especially the one about the afterlife being too depressing. It’s not even just about Tommy, the implication that even if every character is safe and happy by the end, this is their inevitable fate is messed up. It’s not “a neat subversion” it’s just depressing and doesn’t add anything.

Hey, anon!

I sorta decided to not rewrite it? I feel a bit differently about the essay in the end, although I still believe in most of my points. I’m also just not nearly as passionate about it as I was when I wrote it (I finished it in a single sitting, which was... interesting.) However, yes, the afterlife stuff still bothers me just the same, as well as the odd changes to Wilbur’s characterization... post mortem.

But—just for you, anon—here’s the entire meta-analysis essay anyway, with some minor edits to the stuff I don’t agree with anymore!

My Many Narrative Issues with Tommyinnit’s Revival Stream

I want to preface this by saying that I dearly love the Dream SMP and understand it isn’t exactly comparable to other mediums like TV and film. With this being the case, most criticism against it is generally in bad faith or strange in foundation. Complaining about streamers for bad acting is the best example that comes to mind. 

These aren’t professional actors. Most have never acted in this sort of setting, or even at all. Quite a few have admitted to never roleplaying before. Which is why it’s warranted to praise Tommy, Dream, Wilbur, Ranboo, and others when they deliver stellar performances. The same applies to criticism of music choice, dialogue delivery, focus, tone, etc. 

However, one such category I cannot overlook is in regards to its writing. The writing of a story is its entire foundation. It encompasses many things—conflict choice, character development, themes, and morals. The author creates the blueprints for the architect, who then expresses the story with light, sound, color, pacing, and music. It is in its execution that we see if this connection is made or broken. 

The reason I find poor writing mostly inexcusable is because it is one of the most available skills to practice and perfect. I don’t mean to say that it’s easy, I mean to say it is something anyone can attempt to cultivate. Whether they do it well or not depends on their methods and experience. If anyone can self-publish a novel and be criticized online for its quality—and even compared to the works of Mark Twain—then I find critiquing the writing of the Dream SMP to be perfectly reasonable. 

However, since the Dream SMP script is a set of loose bullet points, tearing apart dialogue and scene continuity—which is nearly all improv—is rather useless. It doesn’t exactly have a clear focus as the plot plays out. The characters talk in circles until they hit the story beat required, and then they move onto the next. Thus, when criticizing it, one should generally critique grand events and narrative-specific shifts, more so than small-scale character interactions. 

Which brings me to my main point: The broad narrative choices taken in Tommyinnit’s most recent livestream, ‘Am I dead?’ may lead to disastrous writing pitfalls in the future. 

I’ll be outlining each of my issues below, in hopes of creating a better understanding as to why I feel this way. 

This might become quite lengthy, so please bear with me for a bit.

Tommy’s relationship to Wilbur has flipped. This change is jarring and seems out of character.

Tommy and Wilbur’s friendship is rather complicated. While Wilbur does care for Tommy immensely, especially during the L’Manburg Revolution and the Election Arc, his mental spiral during exile put a massive strain on their relationship as a whole. Wilbur brushed off Tommy’s feelings and wants, while clinging to him and pushing everyone else away. He was simultaneously distant and suffocating. 

Tommy, on the other hand, has an unclear view of his mentor. Since the beginning, and even long after Wilbur’s death, Tommy held him in especially high regard. He saw him as a brother-figure and a wise leader. He followed what he said and did everything he could to impress him. Yet, Wilbur still hurt him while the two were together in exile. 

When speaking of him, Tommy tends to flip infrequently between remembering Wilbur the way he was before his mental decline and thinking of him as a monster. Both of these images conflict with each other, but they weren’t nearly as extreme as what Tommy described Wilbur as when he was revived from death. The fear Tommy displays to Wilbur is beyond intense—it feels as if the audience may have missed a month’s worth of character development. 

This can make sense, especially since it was stated that he’d spent what felt like two months in the void. However, this shift is still deeply at odds with Tommy’s previous impressions of Wilbur, which is both disheartening and confusing. The fact that Tommy would agree to stay with Dream—his abuser and murderer—over his past mentor is simply head-reeling. It paints a very different picture of Wilbur’s character, somewhat conforming to the fandom’s ableist impression of him—the idea that Wilbur is insane and irredeemable, and always will be. 

It also ignores Dream being the driving factor in Wilbur’s downfall, as well as the double-bind deal with Dream which required him to push the button, no matter the outcome. Others have pointed out that Tommy may be lying to get Dream to bring Wilbur back, and there’s compelling evidence for that. For one, Tommy and Wilbur’s conversation seemed uncomfortable, but it was certainly nothing like Tommy implied. (Unless this fear comes from something Wilbur said off-screen.) 

Tommy also begged Dream to not bring him back multiple times over, which he should know would make Dream even more tempted to, simply because he likes seeing Tommy in pain. Tommy is also a known unreliable narrator. He may be making Wilbur out to be worse than he is by accident (even still, I’d argue this is a bit of a stretch.) 

However, there are some issues with this theory. Tommy offered himself as payment to Dream if he chose to let Wilbur rest. This is a deal Tommy knows Dream is extremely unlikely to refuse. Tommy is what Dream has coveted all this time. If Tommy genuinely wanted Wilbur back, he would not offer this. This sort of compromise is Tommy’s greatest nightmare—something he would only do in response to his friends being threatened or his home being destroyed. 

To add, Tommy is not great at lying. Unless he was taught by Wilbur for those two months* in the afterlife, there’s no chance Tommy would be this good at it. Thirdly, Tommy is terrible under pressure. He uses humor to cope. When he can’t, he cries and shouts and spills his heart out. While cornered, Tommy will tell the truth about anything, especially if Dream casually debates killing him again, just for fun. 

For now, it’s too early to tell how the relationship shift will play out. In the grand scheme of things, this issue is rather minor.

Season three’s writing is needlessly bleak. The portrayal of the afterlife is a nightmare. There is no rest, not even in death.

I adore the Dream SMP storyline in its entirety. I believe the first season is fantastic, and while the second season has some narrative clarity issues, I enjoyed it just as much. Although, I would argue season one had a more concrete understanding of its Hope-Conflict balance. 

To briefly explain, the Hope in stories are its ‘highs’ and good moments. These appear when a character the audience is rooting for is narratively rewarded. They happen during character building in the text—it’s the downtime and peace that allows for connection and relatability. It’s a moment for the viewer to breathe easy. 

The other half is Conflict, an obstacle in the story that gets in the way of the main characters’ goals, beliefs, and motives. These are the ‘lows.’ They give the narrative focus and weight. They make the highs feel even higher. They establish consequences and force the characters in the story to change in order to adapt and overcome them. 

I bring up the Hope-Conflict balance because a traditional hero’s journey would have an appropriate amount of both. Their highs and lows are generally equalized, as the name suggests. However, this balance has been awkwardly skewed in the latter half of season two and in the current plot of season three. To clarify, it is perfectly reasonable, and even common, for some stories to tip the scale more to one side. 

But a common mistake for amateur writers is to create their stories as either hopelessly dark to cause the audience continuous distress for the sake of distress, or to keep everything entirely conflict-free for most of the plot. What do these both have in common? They each make the story boring and predictable. 

Season three has taken this concept and thrown a monstrously heavy weight onto the Conflict side and flipped the scale so hard it has crashed through the ceiling. The viewers are hardly given time to find any joy in Tommy’s character, as he’s thrown into yet another abusive situation, just barely after his first narrative reward. The world is painted as relentlessly violent and traumatic. 

Every person Tommy meets is morally grey, unhinged, or out to hurt him. Everything most of the characters love is taken from them by those in positions of power. Ranboo cannot even grieve properly because it scars his face. Puffy, Sam, Ranboo, and Tubbo all blame themselves for what happened to Tommy. 

The audience watches lore stream after lore stream with the same depressing tone (with the exception of Tubbo’s, but I assume that’s unintentional.) Tommy is revived after being brutally beaten to death by his abuser, surrounded by all of his greatest fears. The afterlife is revealed to be akin to inescapable torture. It’s a colorless void that wraps the individual like fabric. 

Time moves thirty times slower within. There’s nothing—nothing but the voices of others who’ve passed on before him. Dying in a world already devoid of happiness takes the characters to a place worse than hell. When a narrative delivers unfair suffering to the entire cast without a moment of joy to speak of, the story will feel simultaneously overwhelming and pointless. 

Why watch characters suffer when there’s no light at the end of the tunnel? What happiness could they strive for when we know they’ll never get to keep it? How can I be satisfied with a good ending, if I know that an afterlife too terrible to name is what awaits them, truly, at the end of their story? Death isn’t even a white void that offers rest—it is eternal torment. 

Obviously, it isn’t a good message to send by making the afterlife seem like a quiet, perfect place or an escape from pain. But making it an unspeakable anguish which awaits, assumedly, every character who will die in the future? I deeply hope Tommy was only being an extremely unreliable narrator. 

More likely, I hope the place Tommy was taken to was a Limbo of sorts, not an end-all-be-all destination for everyone.

The degree of Tommy’s narrative punishment continues to escalate, to an almost absurd degree.

Tommy is one of the most tragic characters to exist in the storyline. He was sent into war at a young age and experienced two traumatic events during it. He was exiled by the newly elected leader and witnessed his mentor Wilbur spiral and break down with paranoia. Tubbo is executed publicly in front of him. When expressing rightful anger at the person who murdered him, he’s beaten nearly to death and never receives an apology. 

Schlatt dies right in front of Tommy, after his initial refusal to hurt the ex-president. His brother-figure and mentor is killed in assisted suicide on the same day his nation is blown up. His best friend exiles him from his home for the second time. He routinely self-sacrifices to protect his country and those who live there. His most treasured possessions were taken from him and he was called selfish for trying to retrieve them (although his methods were self-destructive and volatile.) 

He was pushed to the brink of suicide after being relentlessly abused and isolated in his exile. He was horrified when he thought he was responsible for drowning Fundy. After making an objectively good decision to stand by his old friends and change for the better, his country was obliterated by the man he once idolized, his father-figure, and his abuser. 

He was left scattered and without purpose for many days. Then he fights against Dream and loses, while also reliving his trauma. He watches Tubbo almost die at the hands of someone he once thought was his friend. He doesn’t tell a single person about what happened to him in exile. The day he tries to sever his connection to Dream and heal, he’s trapped with him for a week, surrounded by everything that terrifies him. 

He threatens to kill himself, speaking about his own life as if it were an object—something to hold over Dream’s head. He blames himself for everything bad that’s ever happened to L’Manburg and his friends—internalizing a mentality as a scapegoat for everyone around him. He is forced into the role of ‘hero’ despite the title being unfair and distressing to him.

As if that weren’t enough, he’s then beaten to death by his abuser and spends what feels like two months in an afterlife that is worse than hell. When he returns, his senses are excessively heightened. Dream can cause him excruciating pain, just by pinching him. He can send Tommy into an instant panic attack, just by raising his voice. 

The punishment Tommy’s character receives is a thousand times worse than everyone he has ever met, or ever will meet. And it shows no signs of stopping, as Dream now has control over Tommy’s very mortality. Tommy now fears the slightest damage and feels as if he’s losing his best friend all over again. He is also forced into a position where he has to kill Dream out of necessity, to protect everyone he cares about.

Characters need fitting punishments in relation to their actions. Not always, but in order to be satisfying? Yes, they do. It is preferred that a main character deal with unfair situations and difficult conflicts, but this is borderline torture p*rn. Putting Tommy in these distressing and abusive situations on repeat and punishing him for doing objectively moral or healthy things is exhausting to watch. 

To quickly add, I find the general insinuation of Tommy going to hell distasteful, especially considering the contents of his storyline. I know this may be hard to believe, but Tommy is one of the most moral characters in the plot, besides Puffy and Ghostbur. He’s also the only character, followed by Ranboo, to recognize that they can be wrong and make mistakes. He changed himself in order to heal and be a better person. He was in the process of paying people back for the things he’d stolen. 

He’s learned to be hard-working and less violent through the guidance of Sam. He has apologized to everyone he’s ever hurt (with the exception of Jack Manifold, because that man is allergic to communication.) He puts himself in harm's way to protect others. He doesn’t set out to purposely hurt anyone. He goes out of his way to make connections with people and maintain them, even if others don’t reciprocate. 

He’s hopelessly optimistic, despite his outwardly bitter façade. He loved so much and put meaning into the smallest things. The thought that a person like him—a suicide and abuse survivor—would go to hell after being beaten to death by the man who took everything from him; it makes me sick to my stomach. 

The only thing more morbid than Tommy’s afterlife being different than everyone else’s, is the concept that everyone will end up in this same eternal torture, no matter what they do. Take your pick: Tommy is sentenced to anguish until the end of time for no reason, or everyone will receive the same disturbing ending, regardless of their actions.

The narrative weight of Ranboo’s character is potentially out the window.

For the past few months, I’ve watched all of Ranboo’s lore streams faithfully, curious to see what role he would play in the future. His ‘hallucinations’ of Dream seemed to be sowing the seeds for a plot that has Ranboo taking the fall for every single insidious thing Dream has done. It would also be a tragic parallel to Tommy’s trial. 

Ranboo being convinced he was the one who blew up the community house, when Dream himself admitted to doing it, was one of the bigger indicators for me. This is just one of many other unexplained occurrences. Dream seemed to be making an effort to trigger and control Ranboo, especially after Sapnap’s prison visit. It appeared, from the way he went about this, that Dream had some grand use for Ranboo as part of his plan to be freed from Pandora’s Vault. 

However, after Tommy’s stream, the way Dream explains himself makes it seem like there was no plan besides seeing if the book worked on people. And if he didn’t after all, then what was Ranboo for? Was Ranboo unimportant? Was Ranboo just some weirdo who happened to phase out when seeing smiley faces and imagined conversations that may or may not have happened? 

I bring this up more as a worry, and much less so as an active problem in the narrative. They haven’t actually thrown Ranboo to the way-side or written themselves into a corner yet. In future streams, this could very easily be explained away or developed as more information is revealed. 

Only time will tell.

The potential for Wilbur’s future development and importance to the plot is unfeasible.

I feel as if I am the only person on earth who doesn’t want Wilbur Soot or Schlatt revived. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is not a dislike for these characters. I especially adore Wilbur, as he’s one of my all-time favorites. I don’t want either of them resurrected because their stories have already been told. They each had a fitting conclusion that ended their involvement perfectly. 

Bringing Wilbur back would especially cheapen the impact of the War of the 16th. It’s the end of a man who was brought to the absolute edge and out of desperation, shame, and self-hatred, he destroyed himself alongside his creation. Bringing him back would leave the climax of the previous story hollow. My biggest issue, however, is that a lack of story importance would likely follow his return. 

The only real impact I’d like to see is through a healing arc with Tommy, an apology to Fundy, or a confrontation with Phil/Niki. But that’s really all the potential I can realistically see. While I don’t doubt Wilbur as an agent of chaos, able to create plot out of thin air; what is he going to do now? His country is gone, his friends and family are scattered about, and his mission from the 16th is already accomplished. 

What is a well-educated, charismatic politician supposed to do in a world already broken and without nations? Read poetry to himself and cry evilly? However, this is working off the assumption that Wilbur would be returning as his old self. 

If Wilbur is resurrected as a ‘villain’ of sorts, then what? He’s not good at fighting in the slightest. He would have no materials. There are no real allies he can make, other than the arctic group. On top of that, there are already more than enough villains to last a lifetime. 

We don’t need any more, I promise. Quackity seems to already be shaping up as another antagonist, alongside Sam’s slip into darker and darker shades of moral ambiguity. We also have Philza and Techno, which are already overkill. But then we have Dream who, despite being in a prison, has the ability of selective revival. This is mercilessly overpowered, especially if he makes many allies. The dude could just bring his dead friends back so they can keep fighting forever. 

Then there’s Jack Manifold and the Crimson followers; Antfrost, Bad, and Punz. That’s not even including characters who are refusing to get involved. How are Tommy, Tubbo, and Puffy expected to do literally anything to fight back?

Dream’s experiment on Tommy implies he had no backup plan to begin with. This makes his character seem both short-sighted and foolish.

When Tommy woke up after being brought back to life, Dream sounded surprised that the revival worked at all. This instantly shatters the perception that Dream was highly intelligent and thought ahead. With just a few lines of dialogue, it’s implied that Dream killed Tommy, unsure of if the resurrection would even be possible on humans. 

Which, to risk something that important, seems unbelievably stupid. Dream needs Tommy, from his perspective. Tommy is his ‘toy,’ the one who makes everything fun. If he lost him and couldn’t get him back, what then? Oh well, everything Dream was doing was all for nothing, I guess. 

Why not attempt this experiment on literally anyone else first? Like Sapnap or Bad or, hell, even Ranboo. I suppose it could be that, as soon as Dream got the book, he experimented with it after the 16th. This appears to be insinuated with Friend and Hendry’s revival, although this is uncertain. But even then, he was still unsure of the book’s effect on a human being.

Also, this means, hypothetically, Dream’s entire plan of escape hinged on the experiment working, to begin with, and also on bringing back Wilbur if it somehow did. I find this even more ridiculous. Why Wilbur? That man couldn’t find his way out of a paper bag, let alone get through the traps in Pandora’s Vault. Even if he is intelligent after years* in the afterlife, that’s also a strange assumption. 

How do people learn things in the void? Where do they even get this knowledge? I’d honestly argue Techno is a far more competent choice than Wilbur. And even if Dream did bring him back and tell him he owed him his life, what’s to stop Wilbur from just killing him permanently? Or killing himself, continuously? 

No way would Wilbur want to be controlled by anyone, ever. The dude would sooner fuck off into the mountains and become a nomad than help a neon green bodysuit cosplay as Light Yagami.

Dream’s discussion about Sam implies that he wasn't playing any part in Dream’s plan, making Sam appear entirely incompetent and neglectful of Tommy.

Dream talked about Sam in a way that seems detached and unaffiliated. He also mentioned him being broken up about Tommy’s fate and not being aware he’s still alive. Dream not being partnered with, or not using Sam in his plan leaves many plot holes. I’ll go through each one. The initial incident was an explosion, coming from the roof of Pandora’s Vault. This did not affect the Redstone mechanism for the doors or dispensers. 

Meaning, Sam could’ve had Tommy leave the way that was expected for visitors after he investigated and found no issues. This likely couldn’t have been done in less than a day, but it would be better than an entire week. If Tommy was required to stay for longer, due to protocol, he could’ve gotten Tommy out and then placed him in one of the minor cells for the remainder of the time. 

Also, no one else lost a canon life for leaving via the splash potion of harming and returning outside the maximum-security cell; why would Tommy? To add, Sam being uninvolved means that the explosion could have only been caused by Ranboo or Foolish. That, or it was placed long before and timed for the moment Tommy entered the main cell. (I’m going to ignore how ludicrous it is that someone would know the exact time Tommy would’ve entered the room with Dream.) 

If Ranboo was the person behind the detonation, this implies he was necessary for Dream to kill Tommy to test the book. But that makes it even stranger. If this was Dream’s goal all along, why not kill Tommy the instant he was trapped with him? It makes no sense for him to wait so long. 

Sam is also directly at fault for not letting Tommy out, even after the week was up. There was no reason not to. He already knew there were no issues with the prison at that point. Although, to be fair to Sam, his character may have been paranoid and checking everything more than necessary, just in case. But this still isn’t a good excuse for him ignoring protocol in this one instance, and yet, not in any of the others. 

All of these plot holes or inconsistencies would be removed if it was revealed that Dream was blackmailing Sam in some way, or Sam had been working with him since the get-go. That Sam was the person who set off the explosion in the first place to trap Tommy inside. It would also explain Sam’s refusal to let Tommy out and by keeping him in there for longer than necessary. 

This can also coexist with Sam’s attachment and care for Tommy. He probably wasn’t told about Dream’s plan to test the book and genuinely believed Dream wouldn’t hurt him. On top of that, Dream is known to be a pathological liar, so his statements about Ranboo and Sam could be entire fabrications. 

Who knows?

The Book of Revival invalidates death entirely. The narrative now lacks both tension and consequence.

Another way the Dream SMP differs from other storytelling media is in the way it goes about its character deaths. In a TV show, for example, there will be characters who die just because, or when it’s important to the plot. However, it seems as if the Dream SMP is hesitant to commit to killing its characters. And there are many reasons for that. 

The most important one being, killing someone’s character excludes them from the story and some of their livelihoods depend on them regularly streaming on the server. There is also the issue of the cast becoming extremely sparse if characters keep dying. Typically, in stories, when you kill a character, you should introduce another. 

This keeps the cast from dwindling as the storyline goes on. This means the writers would have to find new streamers to join, who will develop their own characters and relationships with the plot’s continued momentum. This can be stressful and daunting to those who may be newly added in the future. 

Keeping this in mind, the Book of Revival is annoying from a writer’s perspective. When death is no longer an issue for a story hinged on its characters’ mortality, then what do you have as a consequence anymore? We’ve explored every kind under the sun; from abuse, to betrayal, to loss, to destruction. 

In stories, traditionally, death is a finality. It’s a conclusion. Whether it’s good or not depends on the character’s actions, its build-up, and the event’s execution. Without this lingering sense of danger, tension evaporates from the story. 

Why should I care if Tommy loses in a fight to someone, if he’ll just come back a day later? Why should I care about what happened to Wilbur, if he just returns as if nothing happened? The answer is simple: I won’t. I will no longer care if Tubbo or Ranboo or Sam die in the story, because the idea of revival even being a possible outcome leaves me unenthused and uncaring. 

The Dream SMP likes to flirt with death. It teases the demise of its main characters many, many times. More so Tommy’s than anyone else’s. Wilbur’s failed resurrection, which had unforeseen and unfortunate outcomes, is now strange in comparison to Tommy’s, which happened without a hitch. 

To be fair, we actually don’t see how many attempts it took. But here’s the problem; Dream could do it without the book being physically present. He’s trapped in a prison with nothing on him, meaning he doesn’t need any materials either. It’s also implied he could do this as many times as he feels, for anyone he wants. This would be exceedingly overpowered, if not for one thing—Dream himself is mortal (at least, I fucking hope he’s mortal.) 

If someone kills him one last time, that knowledge is gone forever. And I’m glad they’ve established at least some way for Tommy to win. Because at this point, I was losing faith. 

There is also the bare minimum establishment that Dream can refuse to bring back those he doesn’t care for. He can also use it as a shield, holding this power over other people. If Dream is gone, death is permanent. But isn’t that how death is supposed to be, anyway? 

What a bleak premise—the afterlife is pure eternal torture while life is cheapened by a lack of consequences.

Conclusion

All this to say, I am cautiously optimistic for the future. I hope dearly that every single one of these can be disproven or developed in the coming livestreams. Obviously, there’s not enough information to really determine what the end result will be, or how everything will fall into place. 

Every time I have theorized about the story, it has done something completely different and pleasantly surprised me. I want this trend to continue. 

Surprise me again—I’ll be here to see where it goes.

[pedroalonso]

it’s so funny to me how the fandom is so divided about palermo’s development there is no middle ground in any of the arguments i’ve seen so far

Martín has always been a divisive character from the start and I honestly love that for him. lmao. But yeah, In truth, I can’t scroll through the LCDP tag without seeing someone ranting about Palermo, either negatively or positively regarding his arc this season.

And after thinking about it for a while, I realize that a large chunk of people’s arguments (my own included) are deeply rooted in personal interpretation and biases. We all have our own takes on a character. We project either our likes or dislikes on them, depending on our own life experiences and beliefs. It’s not wrong to do so, it’s literally a normal thing humans do. To personalize a story in a way that resonates with them.

But at the end of the day, characters are not sentient beings. They are narrative tools to tell a story and move the plot forward. While we can get a gauge of the “basics” of a character from the stuff we are presented with in canon, we can never really be certain about “who they are” because they aren’t real. Their development is dependent on what kind of story is being told, and writers will always adjust their characters to fit the current narrative.

In terms of Volume 1, the writers have always hinted that they wanted to make the final season “an explosive one”, meaning they wanted to make it more action heavy. And looking back on it now, they succeeded in doing what they set out to do. The new season was like an action movie. Lots of gunfire. Explosions. It’s easy to brush it off as LCDP mimicking another Hollywood blockbuster to increase viewership, but I think it made sense. It showed us how dire their situation is in the bank. How much deep shit they were in that the military was willing to bomb the building and inadvertently kill hostages just to catch them. And the first volume ended with the MAIN CHARACTER getting killed off. Like the stakes were so high not even the goddamn narrator survived. The show is literally telling us how fucked things are for the band.

So with that said, the characters adjusted to this “action” movie vibe the writers wanted to go with. And I think they all acted accordingly. There was less conflict within the group because they worked together to beat a common enemy, setting aside their personal issues to get the job done and survive. And while it’s true that some character arcs (Palermo’s especially) had to be set aside, it was because they HAD to in order to move the plot forward. How much sense would it make if Martín kept raving on about the gold when the Bank was literally exploding around him? He’s a chaotic asshole, yeah. But give him more credit than that, he’s not an idiot. The gold can wait. He needs to survive NOW.

And again, narrative wise, who he is in Part 5 directly connects to his last scene in Part 4. He made a promise to do better and they followed it through in literally the first episode of Volume 1, where he’s shown to be more remorseful for his actions. If he just went back to being an angry asshole, it wouldn’t have made sense because otherwise, what was his last scene in Part 4 supposed to be for?? Just for funsies?? No, of course not. They were already foreshadowing where his arc was heading in Part 5.

And I know LCDP sucks at maintaining continuity. There are a lot of plotholes that haven’t been addressed because they probably forgot about it or deemed it unnecessary. (Like me, for example, wondering if Martín knows it was Helsinki who blew up the tunnel that resulted in Andrés death??? Like I want that angst PLEASE).

But, hear me out. What LCDP fails in continuity, they make up for emotional terrorism. Not only are they more than capable of killing off likable characters (NAAAAIROBI), they are also very good at making unlikeable characters… not always loveable. But understandable, in a way. More empathetic. For example: Berlin was 100% a disgusting dipshit in the Mint, yes, but in the end when he sacrifices himself to save the gang and you find out he and the Professor were brothers this whole time? That was a twist. Maybe you didn’t end up liking Berlin, but you felt pain for Sergio for losing someone so obviously dear to him. They made you feel sorry for seeing this asshole go.

Which brings me to my final point. Characters are used to convey a theme. What do they represent in the story? Berlin’s thematic arc in the first two seasons, for example, was him going from a villain to an anti-hero. From the moment we find out about his terminal illness, we knew he was going to die either way. You can see him grappling with his mortality — about the inevitability of his death. And it seemed like he was planning to live out his last remaining years being an asshole surrounded by a shitload of money, until he ultimately dies from his illness.

But then, he sacrifices himself. Not only does he escape the “humiliating” decline that was to befall him when he escapes, he also gave meaning to his death. He, the heartless evil bastard, made himself the hero in the end. How rude!

So, when it comes to Martín, we have to think: What is his purpose in this story? What is the theme he’s trying to convey? Is it the tragedy of an unrequited love? Or is it learning to let it go?

Because looking back in episode two of Part 3, Sergio recruits Martín in a dirty flat in Palermo, littered with empty liquor bottles and Martín himself looking like a mess. When he broaches the topic of the heist, Martín can barely mention Andrés without his voice cracking. And when he and Sergio do discuss Andrés, he screams and gets angry and cries. He was obviously still mourning Andrés, who at this point, died FIVE YEARS AGO. That is not… a normal grieving period. May it be due to the lack of a support system after Andrés’s death (since I doubt Sergio visited), or the lack of real closure between him and Andrés, or something else, the point is… Martín Berrote was not okay. He was still clinging to Andrés in some way. Still unable to move on.

So when Sergio proposes to do the Bank of Spain heist and Martín accepts, his thematic arc began. He is introduced as Andrés’s long suffering best friend who was in love with him for years until he was eventually discarded. A lot of his moments in the show discuss and convey this dynamic. From him telling Sergio he loved the plan as much as he loved Andrés, to Nairobi confronting him about Berlin, to Martín himself telling Helsinki how Andrés leaving him made him the “asshole” he is today.

His theme is not just about his love for Andrés, but his grief and suffering because of it. Where the show will eventually take it is still debate-able, and we’ll have to wait for Volume 2 for that. But viewing Martín’s whole arc in this way, through the scenes they chose to put about him, and the way they connect it to the main plot — his development this season did not come out of the blue. It made logical and narrative sense. It all connects! This was the kind of story they wanted for him from the start.

[goldenkamuyhunting]

Ramblings and crazy theory time about GK chap 268 “A single poison arrow”

So we finally shed some light on what happened during the Nopperabou incident and on Tsurumi’s involvement in the whole thing and how...

...how suspicion can lead everything downhill.

Well, actually the meme opening this chapter is based on the aria, “La calunnia è un venticello” (“Calumny is a little breeze”) from the Opera Buffa “Il Barbiere di Siviglia” (“The Barber of Seville”) by Gioacchino Rossini... but I’ve to say calumny and suspect work in very similar way so the whole thing felt fitting.

Before we start this chapter I feel I’ve to place a warning here.

In this part of the story GK talks of how Ainu were feelings in regard to Japanese and in regard to each others. I’m not even going to try to dig into if this respected things in real life or not, I’ll just discuss it as it’s presented in the story because it’s of the story I’m discussing.

That’s not because real life historical discussions are uninteresting, they’re probably way more interesting and relevant to present life than my little ramblings on a manga chapter here.

However, real life discussions on how real life Ainu historically were and which kind of relationship they had among them or with the Wajin back then, should take place in a more appropriate place, that’s not my ramblings for a manga chapter, and be done by people who have a way more accurate knowledge of this part of history than I can ever hope to reach.

Said so I invite everyone to make them in a more fitting place, a place in which what’s discussed isn’t a FICTIONAL STORY who might or might not respect reality, but real HISTORY and real people, who deserve respect and didn’t exist purely for our intellectual entertainment.

Let’s not confuse Noda’s tale with an historical book or my ramblings as something more than comments on a fictional story. It would show a lack of respect to all of the above.

And now, lets start.

We resume with a continuation of Kiro’s letter.

Kiro wrote to Sofia Wilk’s last words to him where that Wilk was praying for Asirpa’s happiness, that, instead than having her be someone who has others fight for her and live in a safe place without feeling any responsibility, he wanted her to become someone who chooses the difficult path of her own will and tries to grasp her own happiness by herself like Sofia.

So, although he probably never fell in love with Sofia, she did an impression on him as well.

Something else that’s noteworthy is that Wilk’s thoughts resemble both Koito Heiji’s, who, aware his son would one day become a commander, wanted him to become a man capable to face hardship on his own and that he had no right to shield his son when he himself lead other men to war (chap 139)

and Boutarou’s, when he told Shiraishi happiness doesn’t fall from heaven but one has to grasp it (chap 258).

At the same time they contrast with Hanazawa’s ideas, as he turned his son into a flagbearer, someone who yes, lead men to war but doesn’t fight himself (although he undoubtedly risks his life even more than them) and not even think for himself (as Yuusaku explained he was doing what he was doing merely because his father told him so),

...and Sugimoto’s, as he believes he should be the one fighting for the people he cares for and they should just sit back and let themselves be protected.

I hope you’ll forgive me if I’ll focus a bit on Wilk’s and Sugimoto’s mindsettings in this regard as I know there’s a great divide in the fandom about who’s right... and the key point is probably that both are right and wrong at the same time.

Let’s start with Wilk.

His intentions toward Asirpa are good on the outward.

He wants her to be happy and her to be in charge of her destiny, responsible and aware of her condition.

This should be every father’s wish for his own children.

But, at the same time Wilk fails her in the sense he projects his own thoughts and ambitions on her, thinking she would automatically embrace them once he were to prepare her to do it. Like he had done with Kiro, telling him his own idea was the best plan and not bothering to discuss things with anyone else, he just expects Asirpa to see the Ainu question the same way as he does, became a partisan and fight a guerrilla warfare against the Japanese as the leader of the Ainu.

Asirpa at the time was a child around 6/7, she might have been wiser than her age, more mature, but still a child who hadn’t a fully formed personality, ideals and wishes for her future.

And Wilk, sure his own ideas are the best, projects them on her, thinking she too will choose them and will pursue them in the exact same way he would.

Giving Asirpa the instruments to be able to pursue them should she decide to do so is a great thing, assuming she would SURELY decide to do so and would do so in the manner Wilk would pursue them, is a completely different matter, unfair to her as she doesn’t exist as an extension of Wilk and might have completely different wishes, ideas or ways to fulfil them... and this is twice as wrong as she pushes that burden on her when she’s still way too young to decide and risks ending up being manipulated or worse by men who’re way older than her and much more expert at this game.

Long story short, Wilk talks of Asirpa choosing... but he actually forces Asirpa into the situation and, while she could have still turned it down, well, this wasn’t really an option Wilk expected her to take as he believed Asirpa’s happiness would only come by fighting for the Ainu independence as a guerrilla as he and Sofia did.

Sure, part of the problem is that Wilk is the sort of person who, yes is highly intelligent but this gave him the belief he knows better than everyone else, so of course his choice to fight as a guerrilla is the best choice and the only one who can lead to happiness, but we also have to consider how, assuming a son was merely an extension of yourself, meant to carry on your job, ideals, wills and so on was a deeply rooted belief at the time, as well as the idea children were nothing else but ‘short adults’.

This means even if Wilk hadn’t been so overconfident in his own ideas and beliefs he would have still assumed Asirpa would have chosen his path merely because she’s his daughter, so part of Wilk’s mistakes are undoubtedly due to him living in a time period in which people believed in a completely wrong sets of ideas so yes, for him is difficult to realize he’s actually wronging Asirpa, but we, as readers, should know better.

Giving Asirpa the instrument to pursue whatever choice she were to make is cool, pushing her in a situation to force her taking a certain choice assuming she wants to take it when she’s in a age in which she’s not ready for such things, is not right.

On the other side there’s Sugimoto, a generation younger than Wilk’s, who just wants to protect her (and also Umeko and all the people he happens to love). This seems so very nice and it’s fitting for the modern way in which we expect one should deal with children, protecting them, sheltering them and creating a better world for them, not just passing on them all the responsibility, but the key point here is that, at the same time, same as Wilk, Sugimoto believes to know better than the ones he protects, when the story proves over and over than he doesn’t. This lead Sugimoto, same as Wilk, to push over and over his decisions on the people he wants to protect... so ironically, although on the surface he seems to be doing the opposite as Wilk, he’s actually doing the same, deciding a course for the people he loves instead of letting them choose for themselves, the real difference is that the course he decides is opposite to the one Wilk decided for Asirpa.

Sugimoto wants Asirpa to live someplace safe without a care in the world as others fight for her.

The mistakes here are:

- Ainu’s lifestyle is at risk and he doesn’t know nearly the next thing to Ainu situation to be able to decide for Asirpa’s well being, nor is he willing to fight for the Ainu’s sake in her place... and he clearly doesn’t wish a fight between Ainu and Wajin because the latter wouldn’t be beneficial for him either. Long story short he’s deciding things from a very uninformed point... a point that’s also very biased as he’s a Wajin who don’t really see much value in Ainu culture and didn’t know or experienced many of their hardship.

- he wish to take decisions for Asirpa without even considering Asirpa’s will. While Wilk automatically assumed Asirpa’s happiness would be to turn into a partisan and fight for her culture because this was what it was for him, Sugimoto assumes Asirpa’s happiness can’t be fighting for her own people because he loathed it. Asirpa is no more an extension of Sugimoto than she is of her father. She’s her own being, deciding if she wants to spend her life fighting for her people or not is up to her. Sure, she’s undoubtedly too young to do it NOW so Sugimoto, as her friend, should do his best to help her to realize she shouldn’t make this choice now, that she’s not ready for it, not that ‘this choice is not to be performed’ (yeah, the resemblance with a quote from “The Betrothed” by Alessandro Manzoni is deliberate).

So this leaves Asirpa with two figures who think they know best and try to push her in opposite directions... without realizing they’re basically imposing on her their views. I’m curious to see where this will lead Asirpa.

The story depicts both Wilk and Sugimoto as opposite in this and too extreme in their opposition (either lead the Ainu in battle or sit there and do nothing pretending nothing is going on), so I wonder if the idea Noda is trying to pass is that Asirpa will chose something that’s in the middle. We’ll see.

Back to the story another important bit in all this is that Kiro said  those were the last words Wilk told him. This tells us Kiro didn’t get the chance to confront with Wilk again, which seems to imply he either wasn’t involved at all in the Ainu massacre or didn’t manage to talk with Wilk during it.

We move to Asirpa who seems a bit saddened...

...but then proceed to defend her father’s mindsetting, saying this was the sort of person he was, that if he was making others fight he would feel the need to put his daughter at the forefront of the battle.

Asirpa might not realize it, but she’s basically saying she too was a pawn in her father’s game. In her words Wilk was making everyone fight, and he placed her in a certain position in order to make her too fight like the others.

It would be different if she had said Wilk knew her and knew she would want to fight so he shared his dream with her... it would imply not manipulation but regard for her own wishes... but put in the way she put it, it’s still Wilk deciding for her.

I’m not sure she realizes or, if she were to realize, she would care.

The idea children are an extension of parents works both ways, with children BELIEVING they had to fulfill their parents expectations so, for her, it might be natural to expect she had to obey to her father’s will.

Tsurumi, who’s another father, agrees that if Wilk has simply wanted to protect his family, he could have simply had them live quietly, hidden away somewhere far from battle...

...which in a way is what he tried to do with Fina and Olga and that spectacularly backfired when Fina decided she had a mind of her own and came back despite Tsurumi telling her not to.

I wonder if the idea is Tsurumi’s mindsetting about handling his family was meant to be similar to Sugimoto, not only he wanted to decide for them because he knew what was best, but wanted to just keep them out of it. It’s noteworthy the thing backfired also because Fina came back for the wrong reason, she assumed the problem were Wilk and Co once she was the wanted posters, she had no idea Tsurumi was a spy targeted by the secret police. It’s possible if she had known the situation she would have made different choices. Tsurumi kept her in the dark and decided for her... she refused to play by his rules but, as she lacked all the information, she took the wrong decision and she and her baby died.

As Tsurumi suggests Wilk would have had the option to let his family live quietly Asirpa counters that in this way they would forget... basically the whole Ainu way, including the language and the Kamuy and this would eventually lead the Ainu to disappear, which not necessarily imply they would die but, as Kiro told her in the past, that their culture would be simply erased and they would be assimilated.

Asirpa clearly doesn’t want this, at this point she clearly wants to stand up for her father’s cause, for the Ainu cause.

And it’s at this point Tsurumi attacks.

Gone is the conciliating man mourning for his wife and child as with an open mouthed grin which well show his teeth he yells he’ll tell them about the miserable end that awaited Wilk and the other Ainu who were fighting so bravely to protect the Kamuy, scaring Asirpa and Sofia both.

Tsurumi says after Wilk split with Kiroranke he and the others went to search for the gold. At the same time they tracked down the source of the information about the old Ainu man, Kimuspu, the guy who survived smallpox and was among the others who tried to buy weapons from the Russians.

And guess who was the one who had the bright idea to inform everyone and their moms of Kimuspu being alive and kicking?

Yeah, Siromakur, Ariko’s dad. -_-

I’m start to think he was the personification of the blabbermouth for the Ainu. Is there a reason why he felt the need to tell everyone about Kimuspu being alive? Because really, I don’t think it was a smart choice.

Tsurumi confirms the guy was the one who first spotted Kimuspu and who had originally joined Wilk and the others in their search for the gold.

Tsurumi went to visit him with Usami and Kikuta. The uniform he’s wearing is the one who had during Koito’s kidnapping, but it’s missing its sleeves. I would say this means this meeting is taking place AFTER Koito’s kidnapping and Tsurumi didn’t have the time or the money to replace the uniform (if my memory doesn’t serve me wrong officers were meant to pay for their own equipment).

There’s no sight of Tsukishima or Ogata.

It can be they’re busy with something else, or that Tsurumi doesn’t want to involve the more morally sensible parties in this part of his plan.

Why I call them more ‘morally sensible’?

Because we know Tsurumi felt the need to test and strengthen Tsukishima’s loyalty during the Russo-Japanese war, and because Ogata showed weakness toward Koito, feeding him with Anpan which nearly gave away the fact they weren’t Russian and even patted his back in sympathy. So it’s entirely possible the both of them back then weren’t jaded enough yet to be considered reliable by Tsurumi, should things turn ugly.

Siromakur is carving a knife for his own son. Tsurumi acts appreciative of the carving, with his usual technique of playing polite and respectful to get other people to trust him and talk to him.

Siromakur explains how the knife’s design is passed down in his family and how he’s going to send it to his son in the army so that he doesn’t forget about being an Ainu.

Siromakur will reveal himself as a man who’s balanced between wanting to keep the Ainu alive yet also wanting his people to coexist with the Wajin peacefully. While this is not a bad position per se, I fear his problem is most he’s not really working to find a way for them both to coexist but well, we’ll discuss this more later on.

Anyway Siromakur knows why Tsurumi and co are there, he tells them they’re too late if they planned to go after Kimuspu as Wilk and Co should have found the gold already... since they caught up with Kimuspu OVER A MONTH AGO.

Tsurumi then asks him why he’s not with the other Ainu and Siromakur explains he couldn’t go along with Wilk’s group’s way to do things.

He explains Kimuspu didn’t want to talk about the gold, saying it should remain buried right where it is because it’s cursed...

...which was what Makanakkuru said as well. Coincidence?

Maybe.

Still this causes Asirpa to ponder. I wonder if she remembers his uncle also thinking so. It’s worth to remember Huci said in their village there was a man knowing about the buried gold. Sugimoto and Shiraishi assumed that man was among the ones who died in the Nopperabou incident but this might not be the case.

That is, unless Noda retconned some details.

I mean, previously Makanakkuru talked about ‘their ancestors’ (先祖 ‘Senzo’) collecting the gold but Tsurumi, in chap 266, said the gold was gathered only 50 years ago.

Either someone is lying, or the gold was collected long before, then 50 years ago the Ainu tried to use it again or Noda retconned the story. We’ll see.

Anyway Siromakur goes on saying the more short-tempered men refused to accept this answer and started making threats, promising they would harm the man’s brother (the guy who talked with Boutarou) and the man’s grandson who’s no one else but Cikapasi...

and I’m not surprised. This is the ugly side of many partisans, they fight to protect their people but, if their people don’t cooperate with them, they turn against them as well.

Kiro, who felt bad for harming Inkarmat to the point he didn’t finish off Tanigaki when he came to avenge her, was a pretty uncommon one and the same goes for Siromakur, who claims he just couldn’t forgive that and so he left.

Tsurumi asks him if he heard the gold’s location but Siromakur, without looking at him, denies it, claiming he left before they find out and... I’m a bit impressed by how they let him leave. I wonder which excuse he used or if he was really that important they couldn’t force him to cooperate.

Anyway Tsurumi proceeds to try to paint himself as a friend who believes his words and only means the best for Siromakur.

He praises Siromakur saying he knows him and his son showed utmost dedication in helping Wajin recovering the bodies lost in the Hakkoda mountains and that he’s sure Siromakur is proud of how Ariko joined the 7th division and how Siromakur was wise in leaving whose who plotted to divide Ainu and Wajin.

Tsurumi’s words are clearly nice and amicable but they can be viewed also as a subtle reminder of how Ariko, being in the 7th, is under Tsurumi’s control and how Siromakur could easily be accused to have plotted against the Wajin.

Siromakur still tries to mediate.

He says he understands how whose Ainu feel.

According to him, in his region, Ainu relations with the Wajin were MOSTLY positive (meaning not perfect but good enough they, according to him, don’t have to complain) but in other regions Ainu have a deep hatred on the Wajin.

It’s interesting how he tries to be subtle and do not openly push the blame on the Wajin, not explaining why this deep hatred exist.

Siromakur says he cooperated hoping there was a way to use the gold without spilling blood... but then goes and say those 6 are stubborn and difficult men with a not deep relationship, united only by their shared extreme ideology toward the Japanese.

It’s overall... a pretty negative portrait and I don’t know how faithful that one is as the other 6 have no way to make their voice be heard but, assuming it’s faithful, it remarks the biggest failing of Wilk’s plan (by the way, interesting enough Wilk’s face among them is the only one shaded).

But I’ll discuss it in a while.

Siromakur however says there was one man, among them, who was capable to unite them with an incredible deft touch. He then proceeds to show how the group come to argue over one of the tradition which belonged to the Ainu from the Saru area. The argument is... ugly, because it seems to be chosen to point out how among Ainu from the same area there still were heavy discriminations as the Ainu from Saru are looked down because they eat a particular type of earth. It’s the sort of talk many readers would expect from a Wajin who would look down on Ainu, not from an Ainu to another.

In truth, although in a more peaceful way, Golden Kamuy has already depicted Ainu from various regions of Hokkaido as very different. We readers call them all Ainu and expect they’re all the same and feel the same, but the story actually portrayed them as if each region was its own country, with its own tradition and culture, similar to the other yet not the same.

Those men are now fighting for a common cause... but each of them carries with himself the baggage of their own region, a mix of beliefs and traditions and cultures that differ from the ones of the others, not as drastically as they do with the Wajin, but enough that, among them, they can spot differences that, to them, are jarring.

Anyway, as they start to toss insult and fight against each other, Wilk speaks up, explaining WHY the Ainu from the Saru area eat earth, and why the Ainu from Asahikawa and Nemuro don’t.

The biggest part of the Ainu seems to be impressed by Wilk’s words (except whose who started the argument) and Wilk, face completely shaded to the point it’s just a black spot and only his scar is visible, claims discrimination is born from ignorance (confirming that yes, the argument was spawned by discrimination) and that he thinks Ainu should understand each other and come together as one.

On a sidenote I’m not sure why Wilk’s face here is depicted as completely black, as if he was some sort of scary person. Overall I get the feeling from Siromakur’s words he somehow came to dislike Wilk, as if he were afraid of him.

I mean, Siromakur joined those extremists but he aimed actually at using the gold in a peaceful way that wouldn’t harm the Japanese. Maybe he was counting on them arguing, because, as long as they argue, nothing could be done by them against the Japanese.

“Divide et impera” is always true.

As long as the Ainu are divided, is easy to control them. Wilk instead unites them, which could make possible for them carry on a plan in which they would rebel against the Wajin. So for Siromakur, whose region is in good relation with the Wajin, a war wouldn’t be beneficial in the immediate times, so he fears it, he wants to keep the status quo.

According to him he joined them to do damage control, to stop them to use the gold against the Japanese... and then Wilk spoiled everything by making them more than willing to join forces against them.

Back to Wilk’s word about discrimination and how you should fight it with knowledge, this makes me think is this what Wilk was talking about with Sugimoto when he said in the magazine version that Asirpa has been training him (chap 136)...

‘Sisam yo… Ano ko ni zuibun to shikoma reta yōda na…’

シサㇺよ… あの子に随分と仕込まれたようだな…

“Sisam… it seems as if that girl has been training you, hasn’t she?’

Which however in the volume version was changed into

‘Sisam yo… ano ko ni zuibun to zuibun to kiniira re teru yōda na…’

シサㇺよ… あの子に随分と随分と気に入られてるようだな…

“Sisam… I can tell you care about her...”

So maybe originally Noda wanted Wilk to have Asirpa educate people, Wajin included, so as to overcome discrimination toward the Ainu, but then he just switched to Wilk wanting to unite the Japanese Ainu against the Japanese and the fact a Wajin could care about his daughter impressed him.

We’ll probably never know.

Anyway Siromakur goes on saying each of them ultimately acknowledged and trusted Wilk, as there had never been anyone who could bring together and lead the Ainu from all the different regions... again remarking how strongly divided the Ainu from the various regions were.

So let’s have another break here.

Wilk’s group, the one made by him, Kiro and Sofia, was, on the surface, a close one. They knew each other by years and trusted each other blindly.

We don’t really know about the other partisans, but we saw how Sofia’s men were fiercely loyal to her... and it’s possible the Partisans were the same at least toward Wilk and Kiro who basically spent their youth among them and murdered the emperor for them.

However now Wilk has moved to work with the Hokkaido Ainu.

Among them he’s an illustrious nobody who came from Karafuto, therefore not one of them. He managed to impress them enough to gain their trust but I genuinely doubt it’s a blind one.

As for the Hokkaido Ainu they aren’t really united, actually they are all basically strangers to each other and to him. He has to bridge among those men to create unity among them.

Overcoming discrimination isn’t something that can be done overnight.

Knowledge about the other can help only as long as you’re willing to open up and accept the other as an equal. If you remain trapped in your cocoon of ideas about the other being different because inferior, you won’t progress much even if you study the other.

Wilk’s idea he could easily unite those men, who, despite being against a common treat they loathe, can hardly stand each other and then have them accept also to host on their land minorities from Russia, who would have been likely subjected to even more discrimination, both for being different and for being migrant, was extremely unrealistic.

His idea Asirpa, a young girl in a culture that greatly discriminate women, could do it just because she was partly Hokkaido Ainu and partly Karafuto Ainu, is equally unrealistic.

We saw Ainu villages always ruled by an elder male, I’m not sure Ainu would be willing to take orders by a young girl.

So Wilk’s idea that his charisma or Asirpa’s could just solve everything is tenuous at best and, in fact Tsurumi will immediately shows us how it was easy to crash everything.

In fact we’ll see first how Tsurumi is impressed by the impressive feat this mysterious Ainu accomplished, uniting Ainu of different regions... or better just 6 Ainu from different regions, and asks from where Wilk was but Siromakur claims, against without looking him, he doesn’t know, tossing in the names of Bihoro and Sapporo as possible places from which Wilk could come. He says though he’s an Ainu from Karafuto, called by everyone Wilk and who has blue eyes and a scar on his face.

This produces quite a strong reaction in Tsurumi, his irises whitening, a sign used to point out Usami’s madness and the other characters’ murdering impulses.

Tsurumi, grinning, has realized this Ainu is the one he met in Vladivostok, who has become involved in his life again.

At this point, with eyes completely white, with no sign of pupils or irises as if he were looking not at what is in front of himself but in the far past, he announces Asirpa how ‘he shot a single poison arrow, aimed at Wilk’.

Tsurumi is using figurative speech as he shoot no arrow, he just planted the seed of mistrust and then ‘sat and watched everything as it crumbled down on Wilk’.

Okay, he didn’t sat, but you get the drill.

All Tsurumi had to do before leaving Siromakur is to reveal what Wilk has hidden to his companions, that Wilk was a guerrilla fighting against Russia, searching for funds for the revolutionary activities in Russia... and that’s why he came in Hokkaido in search of the Ainu gold.

Tsurumi asks Siromakur if Wilk came clear with them about this, knowing OF COURSE Wilk didn’t.

Wilk wouldn’t trust the others that much and coming clear would put him in an unfavourable position as gaining the others’ trust would be even more difficult.

However the fact he didn’t come clear becomes even more suspicious. Siromakur at this point doesn’t know anymore which is Wilk’s goal, if to hand the gold to the Russian partisans or to use it for the Hokkaido Ainu and likely fears he and the others had been manipulated by Wilk... and in a way they had. Only now they’re also being manipulated by Tsurumi.

It’s the same trick Tsurumi used with Kiro, telling Inkarmat Kiro was a partisan involved in the Nopperabou incident and let her report that information to the group to create distrust.

In Kiro’s case things worked a little better then they’ll do with Wilk, but that’s because Kiro has many things playing in his favour.

In Wilk’s case...

But let’s go on and see for ourselves.

Tsurumi waited with the others outside Siromakur’s house and, as expected, saw him rush out in panic. Tsurumi is sure Siromakur lied when he told him he didn’t hear the location of the gold and that now he’s headed there, to reveal to the other Ainu Wilk’s identity.

Tsurumi’s plan was to tail him but it’s late and Siromakur is impressive at moving in that area so he easily leaves them behind without even trying to do so.

Tsurumi’s men then hear gunfire...

...and then, at dawn, they find one of the Ainu men at death’s door. He’s Ratci, the Ainu from Asahikawa (or Nemuru but I tend to think he’s the one from Asahikawa) with an Ainu knife deep in belly. This sort of wounds cause a slow, painful dead, which is why he’s about to die but managed to last for so long.

Still the guy, differently from the other, is still whole and alive.

Tsurumi asks him if it was Wilk who killed him but the other claims Wilk didn’t do anything and it was just everyone who started killing each other. The knife in his belly is Siromakur’s by the way, we can recognize it by the design showed in this chapter and in chap 207.

There’s to wonder on those words because it seems pretty weird that the other said ‘Wilk didn’t do anything’. We would expect Wilk to be accused, to try to defend himself and the argument to degenerate, while here it seems as if the other started to try to kill each other for a reason unrelated to him.

To a shocked Asirpa Tsurumi says that those who wanted to defend Wilk and those who didn’t started fighting each other and killed each other.

As said before they were cooperating thanks to their trust in Wilk but that one was extremely frail. Tsurumi brags on how his ‘poison arrow’ caused it to crumble.

Still, in this reconstruction there’s no mention of Wilk’s role, it’s as if he just stood there and watched the other fighting. And then there were those three shoots. Did the Ainu go there with rifles? Did they shoot each other?

Was it as Ratci said or they realized they’ve been tricked by a smarter enemy and, before dying, Ratci spread misinformation so as to trick Tsurumi as well? Hard to say.

Anyway Tsurumi sums up that whoever revealed his identity to Siromakur would come after him following his lead. His plan to lose tracks was smart, impressive and terrible at the same time. Wilk... cut off his own face, put it on someone else’s severed head and faked his own death.

I... don’t want to think to how painful it was to do all that and if a man could really pull it out on his own or would have needed help to do it.

I mean, most of what happened in this chapter fits with my expectations of what happened in the incident.

I assumed one person couldn’t kill 6 Ainu and cause Wilk to escape, so the idea the Ainu killed each other fits with my belief.

I assumed Tsurumi couldn’t have killed them all because it wouldn’t fit his purposes and, in fact, the whole plan escaped from Tsurumi’s control as he only revealed those things to Siromakur in hope he would lead him to the others, not aiming to get the others killed.

Wilk claiming he didn’t kill the Ainu might fit in the sense he didn’t start the killing nor betrayed them. It feels weird he wasn’t involved at all in the fight, but maybe Wilk wasn’t present (if Asirpa’s dream/memory is to be trusted, his father was with her prior to the incident, so it might be he was coming back to Otaru when things took a turn for wrong and he reached the place when the fight had already started) when it started and only come there to see the result so he technically didn’t kill anyone.

It’s possible though he disembowelled them to disguise himself among the corpses.

I mean, one cut head with his face looks odd among many perfectly preserved corpses but if all the corpses are torn apart a cut head feels ‘perfectly normal’.

All the Ainu things presented cuts as per Ainu tradition. Unless someone else got there after the fight, it seems after the fight Wilk had to work a lot to both tear people apart, cut his face away and also mark the Ainu objects before he could leave the place.

This was... well, pretty risky for him as his chasers could be on him sooner than they did.

On a side note, unless Siromakur warned Kiro as well, this might mean Kiro had no idea what happened that way and also came to believe Wilk killed all those Ainu.

Going on with the speculations, Tanigaki wasn’t present but Ogata implied Tanigaki knew all the objects on the crime scene were retrieved by Tsurumi and Asirpa told Sugimoto the incident took place in Tomakomai... but Ariko’s father’s house in Noboribetsu, which is around  50 km from Tomakomai (it can be slightly more or less depending on which way you take) and, according to google, this means a 10 hours walk following the coast line.

I should praise Tsurumi, Kikuta and Usami for managing to do all that in the middle of the night, taking the way that goes through the mountains without even getting lost.

At this point we know Wilk escaped and reached the Shikotsu lake before being captured.

I always wondered if Ogata knew something about all that but, so far, what we had been told doesn’t help us to guess.

He wasn’t with Tsurumi for sure, was he the one who shoot? But if that’s the case why he was around?

The fact Kiro wanted him to kill Wilk dated to that time? Hard to say and it’s entirely possible the shoots were just due to the Ainu shooting each other.

Anyway that’s the end of this chapter.

We’ll see if the next will reveal us more.

[talenlee]

The Johnlock Conspiracy Conspiracy

First of all this is going to be building off a point first cast into relief for me by Sarah Z’s video on The Johnlock Conspiracy. She is both directly connected with the experience of this space and did the research into the actual history of the people involved, a sort of on-the-spot observer recounting her experiences ethnographically. If you want a longer form deep dive on what The Johnlock Conspiracy is, check out that video. I will be providing a quick summary.

I’m also going to talk about fanagement, which I wrote about last year, which is about the way that fan engagement was seen as being a thing that corporate entities could deliberately engage for commercial ends. Fanagement isn’t necessarily an inherently evil or corrupting thing, but it’s something to know about as something that exists, and knowing it exists can colour your relationship to the media created in response to fanagement.

There’s this idea of ‘The Johnlock conspiracy.’

In the agonisingly mediocre BBC mystery drama Sherlock that ran from who cares to also who cares, starring in the loosest sense of the word Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman (a man ‘renowned’ for this, The Office and the Hobbit trilogy, on a scale of poisonous influence to actual outright evil), as a modern day re-imagining of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson that has some interesting ideas that it absolutely does not use well, mysteries that are not interesting and a relationship tension that was making itself up as it went along. Much ink has been spilled about how this series is not very good, and that’s good, because it’s a very expensively made bad series that banks on the reliable draw of the same fistful of boring privilege.

Part of what made it popular, sort of, was the tension of the relationship between John and Sherlock. See, they were both men, you see, and what if they kissed.

Now, tumblr is, by volume, mostly connections to other parts of tumblr. If you make something popular, it becomes amplified and exploded and brought to the attention of others and curated into lists. Content that gets shared is the very sinew of what Tumblr is, which means that doing things people share around is a strange form of primacy on the site. Making content is powerful, heady, druglike. Commanding curation where you determine what does and does not get shared is even moreso. It is a space for an audience that is engaged deeply with the concept of being engaged, and in this space, fandom happened.

There’s not a lot of Sherlock. There were big gaps between the seasons. When a season came out, it did not explain itself or deliver on its promise at all. It is, as I’ve said, bad. But it was well made and used actors you’d heard of and was treated as being prestigious and so, when the show came out, and because people liked the idea of what it could be, fandom struck on a conspiracy:

What if this terrible show is secretly great?

And I understand the impulse. It’s heart to a lot of fandom. I can’t possibly have spent this time and energy on something I don’t like, it must be that the thing I like is secretly this thing I really like. And so scaffolding comes out to buttress the idea. We’re not taught that fandom is right – we’re taught that fandom is something that justifies itself by being right. If you have a story in your heart about a Dark Fuckprince and his soft bean injured Watson, that story is real and right, and doesn’t need the official endorsement of the BBC to be good.

Without that armour of love, though, instead the fandom turned into this endless oroborous of hostility centered around three people, who seem to just be total dickheads, great job you. This resulted in the blossoming of what was known as ‘the Johnlock Conspiracy,’ where through thousands of pages of well intentioned fumes, these fans huffed themselves into believing that Steven Moffat and Mark Gattis were secretly building up to exactly what they wanted, and they were the smartest people ever for noticing it. The lack of payoff of their beliefs and the active hostility Moffat had to their ideas and positions in person, that was all part of the conspiracy.

Oh, by the way, that idea – conspiracy – is when you have an unfalsifiable conjecture. If you can’t prove it false, no matter what, that’s when you’re dealing with a conspiracy theory.

The dramatic conclusion to all this was the series ended, their conspiracy was wrong, they theorycrafted themselves a few more months of content, and then most people let it drop.

But what if I told you there was a conspiracy?

Because there was. It just wasn’t the conspiracy they thought.

See, a conspiracy is a real thing: it’s a secret plan to do something harmful. And the BBC, since they published the work that Matt Hill described in Torchwoods Trans-Transmedia: Media Tie-Ins and Brand Fanagement, worked with the parameters of their experiment aggressively.

The idea, as I outlined in my article about Fanagement was that making the program so it could engage fans directly, and give fans feelings of creative ownership over the work would drive viewership and the kinds of engagement they liked (like, paying for things). Fanagement sought to make media ‘gifable’ – low saturation backgrounds with cuts of under a second so you could break a scene apart easily and conveniently. It wanted to make fan media easy to make, and to minimise hard declarative statements.

The lessons learned from this paper included things like ship teasing as a deliberate task – and I do mean teasing, with the idea that you had to do it in deniable and ambiguous ways. Making things definite wouldn’t get you as much fan engagement as keeping things ambiguous, because fans would make an inference based on what you show them, talk about it, then other fans would watch it again to make sure they could argue with you about it.

A mystery show like Sherlock was perfect for this kind of treatment. Treating the series as if there was some really deep, thoughtful question at the heart of it meant that there was always a reason to keep from ‘revealing’ the secret of the story, to string the audience along, like they’d believe or tolerate it, if it was all in service of a clever explanation. You get it, right? After all, we gave you all the clues.

The toxic fandom of Sherlock did not form as much as it was fostered.

A lesson from this experience, a lesson easily escaping notice, is that it’s not that ‘fandoms are all the same.’ They really aren’t. They are wildly varying in the terms of their problems and those problems root causes. What they tend to have in common is dynamics, but those dynamics are expressed in a lot of different ways. It’s not that ‘fandoms’ naturally become toxic and awful. There are fandoms that are generally, quite nice, and they tend to be that way because of the values of the central movers and shakers and the conscious willingness of people who perceive themselves as part of the fandom as taking care of it. The dynamic is the same – you have common nexuses of community that people interact with – and the kind of behaviour that’s acceptable and reasonable is filtered through them. If the idea of asking people to modify their behaviour or respect people’s boundaries is seen as unreasonable, then you can get a toxic space.

Also, as I talk about ‘toxic fandoms,’ understand toxicity is relative. There is, after all, a very real, very unironic Hitler Fandom, and they are probably one of the worst fandoms out there. Being a mean lawyer on the internet is bad, and I’ve no doubt the fandom curators known now as the Powerpuff Girls absolutely wrecked some teenagers’ lives – like, there are definitely people with, I am not joking or being hyperbolic, some PTSD triggers about (say) Tumblr or whatnot, based on the kind of social force these people were leveraging.

And then remember that holding that lever at the high end, right at the top with the most power over it was a company that made TV shows that was trying to make sure you watched their shows.

Also: The tools for doing this are available to all the companies that read the paper.

My advice? Exhort and uplift queer creators. Be positive about it, not negative. Don’t make your time about attacking other people’s dark fuckprince. Bring what you like to life, and bring that life into the light. Share and love each other, rather than find reasons to be mad at one another for how you’re all playing with toys a corporation wants you to treat with respect and only play properly. And as always, the standard you walk past is the standard you accept – so make sure your fandom circles aren’t putting up with some Powerpuff Girls.

Originally posted on my Blog.

[oopsabird]

How is wonder woman a pacifist? Doesn't she fight in ww1? (Englush us my 2nd language siidk if just don't understand the word or completely missed the point if the movie lol)

Well the post describes a core part of being a pacifist as “to believe deeply in your heart that doing harm to others is wrong and the goal of society should be to alleviate suffering for all people”, and “to be overflowing with love and compassion for all people” and I think that definitely fits with her character. Combining this with a willingness to fight when necessary is an idea that while not universal to all forms of pacifist philosophy, I think does have a place within what wikipedia has to say about pacifism and violence:

Some pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that nonviolent action is morally superior and/or most effective. Some however, support physical violence for emergency defence of self or others.

For most of the movie Diana is also a bit younger than she is in most of the wider Wonder Woman canon. A bit more reckless and more ready to seek out conflict as a means to prove herself, but her whole root motivation is still the end of suffering, the idea of finding and eliminating Ares to stop the horrors of the war that she first hears about and then sees firsthand. For a portion of the film she even believes Ares must be controlling the German army directly, and so she fights against them as part of her campaign against his influence, against the horrors she sees being committed (and near the end of the film, realizes the side she was fighting for has been committing them too).

This is her origin story, and as she finds her place in the world we see her really develop and finalize the ideology she will carry as Wonder Woman here (one of the ways in which the movie is a great allegory for the coming-of-age experience of many justice-minded young people, which I relate to a lot). It is about how she decides to relate to a world full of violence and horrors as a person who believes in compassion and love.

By the end of the film, Diana solidly believes that choosing to do harm to others or proactively using violence to achieve one’s ends is wrong, but also that it is necessary and good to fight when you must in the defence of life (especially, but not exclusively, the lives of innocents). These are two seemingly contradictory ideas that I think can be “held in tension” (here’s a link to an explanation of how that philosophical concept works). Diana even makes the merciful choice and spares the life of Doctor Maru when the Dr is unarmed and defenceless, even though a strike in retribution for the lives she took with her inventions wouldn’t have really seemed unfair to most audiencemembers. It’s a complicated choice, but it’s complicated in a similar way as Aang’s (hotly debated by fandom) decision not to kill Fire Lord Ozai at the end of AtLA, which was also a choice made on the basis of pacifist principles.

Additionally, in Gail Simone’s Wonder Woman #600, Diana says:

“We have a saying, my people. Don’t kill if you can wound, don’t wound if you can subdue, don’t subdue if you can pacify, and don’t raise your hand at all until you’ve first extended it.”

And I think that is a form of pacifism — a form that seeks peace and compassion first, but is willing to raise a sword to protect someone, or take one life in a fair fight to save many, if it is truly necessary. One that is driven by a deep belief in the value of all lives, and a deep boiling rage at anyone who chooses to inflict suffering. That’s a version of pacifism that is actually one I can get behind personally a lot more than the idea that violence is always without exception wrong, even when used to ensure safety of oneself or others against a violent enemy. My version of pacifism is (not to mix up my wars here) one that is okay with punching Nazis.

I hope that answers your question, anon! ☺️