#cause obviously this is their reconciliation arc

[jonathanbyersphd]

At the end of the day my endgame otp is in the backseat of a car together and that's what matters 😌

[writing-for-life]

Hob Gadling’s Involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade between the 16th and 19th Century

The Fallacy of (clumsily written) Racial Reconciliation or: Is show/Hob really different from comics!Hob

I originally wrote this a while back as a reply to someone else’s post, but since we’ve been discussing “Men of Good Fortune” (comics) and “The Sound of Her Wings” (Netflix) in our community over the past weeks, I’ve expanded on a few points of my original thoughts.

This post discusses difficult topics, systemic racism, questions of social (in)justice and problematic angles in writing. If that’s not your thing, this is the exit sign…

A question that comes up quite frequently is the following:

Is show!Hob different from comics!Hob?

Hob’s conversation with Dream in 1789 (and not just 1789) in the show has been significantly altered (compared to the comics), and it makes it tempting to believe this somehow makes him different regarding the more problematic side of his character.

In the comics, we have a bit of dialogue in 1789 that shows how deeply involved in the slave trade Hob was: “I sort of started it,” said with a hint of, dare I say, pride? And then brushing off Dream’s concerns by saying, “It’s a living.” Twice.

(They changed this to, “It’s just how it’s done”, and a shrug in the show.)

And it’s true: If this had been integrated into the show, it would have painted him in an even worse light. However, I personally think it was the wrong move to leave it out (Ferdinand Kingsley carefully voiced something along those lines as well btw). Because now the show pushed Hob’s whole involvement in the slave trade much more into the direction of, “Oopsie.”

Can we truly take leaving out the above dialogue as a hint that Hob might be a better person in the show? I’d like to really reflect on that--leaving out those comments can’t make him a better person. Even if we change his arc slightly and he “wasn’t that involved.” You’re involved, or you aren’t. There is no, “I tried a bit of slave trading and decided it wasn’t for me.” One could even argue it makes the angle of the show more problematic because it makes the slave trade a “little blip” in his timeline. Things like that can’t be a blip. I personally think the writers made a mistake here, but that’s obviously just my opinion.

If there wasn’t enough space in the show to expand on it (which I get for a side character), I feel they should have left out the slavery arc completely instead of keeping, but then minimising it (that might sound contradictory, but it only does if you don’t look at it too closely). It already didn't sit right with me 30 years ago to use slavery as a side note for showing a white person’s character development without properly examining the damage caused, and it still doesn't sit right with me now. It makes the plight of PoC a plot vehicle to centre white people’s guilt, and I always thought that’s a blind spot only white people have (and I’m white myself, to get that out of the road straightaway).

I’m not saying it couldn’t or shouldn’t have been used narratively. Or that you can’t show remorse and atonement/redemption for the most heinous acts (that’s not the same as forgiveness—I’ll get to that). Or that characters who have committed said acts are irredeemable. But it would have needed to be fleshed out instead of making it a comment in passing. Many books and movies do exactly that. But the point is that it’s never been fleshed out.

“But they had to shorten and streamline it…”—just no. Because to me (and ofc people are free to disagree), that exactly proves the point—centring the white guy while sidelining the people who suffer. I am a bit doubtful we’ll get anything remotely appropriate in the show after what we’ve already seen. Only time will tell, so I’m withholding final judgment at this point. Fact is: It is uncomfortable to watch for people with any sensitivity on the matter.

And yet, there is a lot of focus on leaving out Hob voicing his regret in 1889, since that (again) “would have painted him in a better light.”

While simultaneously regularly failing to mention that he proudly proclaimed he “invented” the triangle trade. Can we really pick and choose his traits like that? Hob is a materialistic opportunist who also has some regrets. That doesn’t mean he can’t exist as a character, or that we’re not allowed to like him (morally grey characters are often the most compelling ones). We don’t need to sanitise him though, or try to erase his problematic traits from canon. The same goes for other characters (yes, I’m looking at you, Dream, and I’m sure we’ll get to that very soon—in fact, we’re possibly starting tomorrow 🫣). If we are talking about Hob’s remorse, we are probably mostly thinking about Sunday Mourning, so I need to bring in issue #73 at this point (this is your spoiler warning if you don’t want to read ahead).

The Fallacy of Racial Reconciliation

Very plainly:

A black woman is used as a vehicle to forgive Hob. And said black woman has been written by a white male author for that sole purpose without giving her anything else to do. I personally think NG got that wrong. It was clumsy and insensitive to POC, and I really hope they change this for the show. It’s a fact that he really wasn’t good with writing black female characters in the whole run—they all get fridged in one way or another, and he even admits it in the Sandman Companion. And then turns around and basically implies that it's all okay now because “nothing bad” happens to Gwen once Morpheus is dead. She is allowed to be a vehicle for the character development of a white guy though. It’s just really insensitive, and I sincerely hope they don't put it in the show this way. And I’m glad that we're seeing hints it might not happen--at least the casting in the show hints at it (from Lucienne, Death and Rose to very likely turning Carla into a white man—we already met Carl, and that’s who he is IMHO).

There is also the not so small fact that Hob is, even in his guilt and shame (shame is always about yourself, and that’s actually very in keeping with his character), not honest with Gwen. The thing about him basically inventing the triangle trade, which he so proudly proclaimed in 1789?

The English who were so good at it? The “Jack” Hawkins he talked about in 1789? That’s actually this dude:

And Hob funded him 200 years before 1789, and enabled Hawkins. Hob was involved in what became the transatlantic slave trade well before 1789–he already funded it when he had money in the 1500s.

He carried that mindset around with him for literal hundreds of years and saw nothing wrong with it until at least (! more about that in a sec) 1789. Dream had to rub his nose in it, otherwise it wouldn’t even have occurred to him (or did it, and he just chose to ignore it--see below).

Hob has been written as a stand-in for humanity, British Imperialism and England over the centuries—with all that entails.

So how honest is he with Gwen? And how long, even after 1789, was he still involved, even after abolition in England (Somerset vs. Stewart declared slavery unlawful in England in 1772, but that wasn't true for the rest of the British Empire. Buying and selling slaves was only made illegal in 1807, while owning slaves only became unlawful with the Abolition Act of 1833, and it took another year to buy out slave owners to actually make it happen)? Because there’s still this:

“It got worse when they did [outlaw the slave trade]. You only needed one voyage in three to make a profit. You could afford to dump your cargo if… you spotted a British Man o’ War.” How does he know? Why does he have these nightmares? We can take a guess…

That’s not someone who tried it for a couple of weeks and then thought, “Sorry, my bad.” That’s someone who has been opportunistically involved from the 1500s and potentially until after slavery was unlawful in England, which it already was when he talked to Dream in 1789. So does his feigned ignorance of, "It's a living/It's how it's done?" really hold? Especially if he potentially kept going, even after that convo with Dream? When I wrote "between the 16th and 19th Century" in the header, that's exactly what I meant...

Guilt and Shame

Yes, what we see above and in all the other panels is guilt and shame. And it reminded me of this:

And I’d encourage everyone to really listen to what Jasper has to say, and sit with the feelings it brings up. Because I can still remember watching this in the George Floyd aftermath for the first time, and how deeply uncomfortable it made me—because he’s right.

Black people/PoC do not need to forgive and absolve white people from their guilt. They can if they wish to, but that’s their choice, not ours. It’s not for white people to absolve other white people from their guilt around the oppression of PoC. And that’s why it could be argued it’s not for white people to write a black character to do that in their stead either (they can of course, but then they need to live with the fact that people will call them tone-deaf). It could also be argued it is something that cannot be forgiven retrospectively, and white people need to be okay with that. It can only be worked on in the present with a view to the future. And as Jasper also so rightly points out:

The guilt is not even helpful (at least Gwen has the right sentiment there, but it’s still falls incredibly flat over all), and shame only centres ourselves.

Forgiveness vs Redemption

Hob Gadling's regrets don't make everything he did forgivable. I think it actually does the story a disservice if that’s our main takeaway, because this is truly one of the bits of The Sandman that’s written in an extremely tone-deaf manner. NG isn’t the first author who did this, but we can take something good and helpful from this, and that’s engaging with these questions instead of brushing them under the carpet—because that’s what literary analysis is about.

It should be clear that I do see Hob Gadling as narratively important because I see him as a stand-in for humanity, and more specifically, English history. And there is really so much to learn from that.

Writers can get things narratively right but still be emotionally tone-deaf due to their own blind-spots. We don’t need to assume malice, but we also don’t need to leave it entirely unchallenged.

And because of that, we can certainly see Hob as someone who has to live with his conscience, and the consequences of his actions, for the rest of his life and struggles with that (as he should). And maybe we can see him as someone who is now, finally, trying to do the work. Because that is what atonement and redemption actually mean:

Taking action to rectify past wrongs. Actively working against the harm once caused, and preventing it from ever happening again. And I hope that’s what he does, and the signs are there (but there are also still signs that he values covering up his immortality higher than e.g. telling Gwen the truth. And we can find a million excuses for why that is, but ultimately, none of them truly matter).

However, it is not the same as forgiveness from the people we have wronged. Forgiveness is not a prerequisite to redemption, although it can be a part of it if the person who has been wronged chooses to extend it. But the people Hob wronged are dead, while their descendants still need to live with the pain people like Hob caused to this very day. So while I don’t see him as irredeemable, I don’t think he needs to, or even can, be forgiven—especially not by black people (unless they choose to. But it is also fine if they don’t, and again, we need to be okay with that). And we could say, “But Gwen chose to.” To that, I say:

I wonder what Gwen would have said if he had been truly honest with her (which he wasn’t, see below panels). That wouldn’t have been an embrace is my guess…

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

What do you think about this take? Do you agree? https://www.tumblr.com/zuko-always-lies/764888302529757184/cobra-diamond-had-this-very-interesting-take-on?source=share

Half agree, half disagree. I'd say that's what BRYKE wanted people to see Azula's arc/ending as, a tragic "death" of her very spirit, leaving just a hollow shell behind. It's impossible to redeem or heal her, not because "she's too evil", but because she's just not there anymore. And obviously the opinion of the guys that had THE final say on the show affects the narrative since they decided what would or would not be part of it.

But they still allowed things like Aang saying "EVERYONE has the potetial for great good and great evil", Zuko looking at Azula with pity in the finale and even saying he believes even Ozai could change. And the head writer, Aaron Ehasz, REPEATEDLY pushed for a redemption arc for Azula, with a reconciliation with Zuko, and the seeds for it are all over the original show. It's not that difficult to look at all that and wonder "What will happen when/if Azula recovers from her breakdown?" because since the story stops just a few days after her fall from grace, it is not set in stone that she will stay like that forever, even if that's indeed what Bryke wanted us to take from that scene.

Most importantly, as of this moment, everything else Bryke approved of post OG series leaves Azula's fate far more open-ended.

The Yang comics disrespected her character horribly and made the heroes go from witnesses to her tragedy to people directly causing said tragedy - but Azula is also far, far, far more "alive" than she was at her ending scene. She's sick and evil, yes, but she has goals that she's actively working towards (even if they make no sense because Yang is bad at his job). She's not just in constant agony, crying and screaming and unable to even talk, or completely catatonic. Her soul is corrupt, but not gone.

Same for the recent (and much better written) Spirit Temple comic, in which Azula resigns herself to constantly repeating the same cycle of getting new people to boss around, pushing them too far, being abandoned and then replacing them, she is making the CHOICE to stay in that cycle. It's a bad choice, but it's hers. Once again, Azula is corrupt, not dead.

Korra is where it gets a bit tricky because, well... Azula is not around and is not spoken about ever. Since the comics happen before Korra and Azula spends 90% of her time in them disappearing into the woods and confusing the main characters, it's very possible that she's not mentioned because she fucked off from their lives years ago and they have NO IDEA what she's been up to, if she's even alive.

Is she commiting petty crimes just to get by and bitching constantly about no longer living in luxury? Is she plotting her vengeance against Zuko in some weird cult she's been the leader of for decades? Is she living happily on some remote island with tons of children and grandchildren? Did she die young after tragically jumping off a cliff or stupidly choking on food? Is she the drunk, mentally ill philosopher that ruins the day of every pretentious intellectual and acts obscenely in public, Diogenes style?

Who knows? Not me. And I don't know because Bryke, at some point, clearly decided that Azula did NOT "die" in the finale. It makes sense. They wanted the story to end after the three seasons of Avatar, but they've turned it into a full on franchise now, and Azula is one of the most popular characters AND a main villain, so bringing her back inevitably draws people's attention, regardless of if they want her to recover or to just be defeated by the good guys again.

Maybe they'll "kill" her again at some point, but considering she got a solo comic and is mentioned by name in the announced comic of Kiyi, her sister/replacement, going to the very school she used to go and how Zuko worries about what that might lead to, it's pretty clear that she will be affecting the narrative(s) for a bit more time, be it directly or indirectly.

Basically: I think I know what Bryke originally intended, I have no fucking clue what their current plan is (assuming they have one) and I don't care because I basically only take the original show into consideration and it left PLENTY of room for my headcanons.

[sylvies-chen]

okay obviously roy’s question to keeley in this week’s episode was all kinds of inappropriate and invasive. personally it did feel very out of character, and the storytelling on the roy and keeley front has been very off through this season so far. but I’ve been thinking about the audience response to it as the reactions and tweets have been rolling in and it’s worth noting the difference in how roy and jamie are treated as characters right now

what is so appealing to many about jamie is that he began the show as the obvious antagonist. he wasn’t the villain exactly, but ted lasso is a show that doesn’t exactly have a main villain besides maybe rupert— and even then, he’s mainly just the team’s opposition and rebecca’s enemy. the true “villains” in this show, to me, are the cultures and mindsets that we all fall into. the trap of vengeance and retributive justice, locker room culture, bullying, toxic masculinity and its expectations, insecurity, etc. and I could go into all that another day. but I digress.

jamie had the potential to be the show’s antagonist. they could have very well stuck him in the role of bully and kept him there, but they didn’t. they allowed him nuance, they gave him the grace and leeway to grow and evolve into the lovable himbo that he is today. and now that he’s put in that work that was so hard to get him to do inthe first place, he’s sitting comfortably in that evolved state.

roy is not like that. he’s a character who made some sizeable strides of growth very early on in the show, and who then made a few missteps along the way. he’s a character who retreats back into an older version of himself for self-preservation, and though it isn’t right and results in him making significant mistakes, he’s ultimately the kind of man who can recognize when he does fuck up and will make things right. we haven’t forgotten that, have we?

my point is, roy is a character whose growth is not linear or simple. jamie is. and that’s not me saying jamie is a basic character or without nuance because he has his complexity. I know that and enjoy it thoroughly. but his arc was a very straightforward narrative and I think that’s part of why so many people like him. it’s a very easy tale to love, with a before and an after.

roy, as of right now, just isn’t like that. he is at his most insecure, his most closed off, and his most wounded. he’s reverted slightly, in the midst of a character regression due to the pain he’s felt and the anxieties he has. and it’s making him do stupid things (or ask stupid questions) especially because no one has been seen to really help him snap tf out of it. now of course he has to be the one to hold himself accountable and be the man keeley deserves and let go of his insecurities controlling his life and his actions, and many of those steps he has to take on his own. but damn, it’s sad to see so many people straight up quit on roy as a character after having done a bad thing. progress is not always linear! just cause he screwed the pooch on this one doesn’t mean he can’t get back to who he really is and earn back keeley through redemption. this whole show is about radical empathy and reconciliation, for crying out loud! falling into this trap of “who’s the better person” and “who deserves keeley” denies these characters the very fundamental idea that people don’t come with a predetermined set of what they do or don’t deserve, because we are all capable of change. if it were true, jamie would deserve to be stuck on love island for harassing sam in season 1 or ruining nate’s suggestion box.

anyway, TLDR: we can acknowledge that roy was entirely wrong and inappropriate to ask that question while also not entirely surrendering hope for him to fix his mistake. instead, we can acknowledge it for what it really is, which is a shit writing choice by people who are fumbling the bag on the roy/keeley/jamie/jack aspect of the season tremendously

[greenerteacups]

I absolutely adore the way you write Harry and Ron as clever and snarky in their own ways (Harry's conversation with Snape was hilarious and clever in Norberta). All too often in Dramione fanfics they are shown as lesser than because writers want to make Draco and Hermione exceptional, but your D and H are incredibly interesting and smart on a level that still allows them to shine next to remarkably wonderful Harry, Ron and all the other fascinating characters you write

Thank you so much! This is a really touching compliment, because I share the same pet peeve. Something I was careful of when writing the fic was not to pitch Harry and Ron too OOC (as with all canon divergences, you increasingly can't help it, and I think it shows in Harry the most — I just have to steer him a bit harder than JKR does in order to develop him when I can't rely on his internal monologue). I think there are three major reasons that Harry and Ron get washed out in Dramione fics — the first being a simple plot mechanic to get Hermione alone and in a mental state where she would be open to a connection with Draco, which, admittedly, is pretty unlikely if Harry and Ron remain in the picture. By the time OOTP wraps, she and Draco are just so ensconced in their separate social circles that she seems to regard him as irrelevant in HBP, so obviously, if they're going to get together sometime in that timeframe or afterward, their social situations need to change. On the other hand, though, if a fanfiction is taken in some respects as a theoretical argument for how a ship could happen, I always thought Harry/Ron bashing was implicitly a sort of weak argument for D/H, because it requires Hermione to be totally iced out of her own friend group before she considers Draco as a friend or partner. Not to mention that you lose the opportunity to develop these rich auxiliary relationships (Hermione and Harry as unofficial siblings, Draco and Harry as foils, Draco and Ron as foils, Harry and Ron as platonic soulmates) that provide shape and contrast to Draco and Hermione's relationship. The books are a story about love and family! Different kinds of love! And deep platonic love, honestly, more than anything else!

The other side of the coin is that bashing sometimes happens as a natural consequence of having to Do Something About Ron. The need to retcon Hermione's crush and/or relationship and/or marriage with Ron to clear the stage for Draco means that a fanfic author has to just fiat some stuff from the books out of existence. And so you get Death Eater Ron, or Ron as a terrible boyfriend, or cheating, or just being cruel. Or dead! I've read a few where Ron just gets unceremoniously fridged, which is maybe a little better than character assassination, but also pretty sad for all rare us Dramione Ron Enjoyers. Like, I don't think that Ron and Hermione would work out, but I think that's because they share zero interests and tend to aggravate each other's insecurities, not because they don't care about each other, or God forbid, that Ron was secretly a shit person and a bad friend for seven years.

Then you have the final group, which is people who actually do dislike Ron for his behavior in the text. Everyone has that right, so I don't hate, and I can especially understand it if you read his arcs in Goblet of Fire and Deathly Hallows a certain way (I hate the first half of Deathly Hallows, actually, almost exclusively because of the dumb ass Ron's Vacation subplot). JKR doesn't do him any favors here, because she doesn't give him a real reconciliation with Harry or Hermione before he comes back in Deathly Hallows — all their fights sort of end with a shrug and a joke and a comment like, "wow, that sucked, let's not do that again," which is not unrealistic, if you're talking about teenagers, but also does not solve the problem that caused the fight, and we know that because it keeps happening in other books: someone steps on Ron's feelings, he lashes out, they get hurt, and instead of asking for sympathy or trusting his friends to mend his feelings if he explains them, he storms off to sulk. (This is a pattern that I imagine starting at the Burrow, when poor Arthur and Molly just wouldn't have had time to have proper sit-downs and debriefs whenever their kids fought, and so Ron's self-soothing method was to isolate — we see hints of this in Chapter 32-33, and again near the end of Chapter 38 — until he can pretend to get over it.) But going from just canon, it's not impossible to come up with a reading of Ron as this selfish jerk who gets jealous of his friends and screws them over when he gets mad at them. A lot of those people come to Dramione for the catharsis of watching Hermione find a bond with someone who just... doesn't do that, and I don't blame them at all. All the same, I hope Lionheart!Ron can offer an opportunity to experience the joys of Ron Enjoyment for a wider demographic.

[cdroloisms]

Curious on your thoughts. What were cPunz and cDream doing in the main cell before cTommy arrived? Like what possible reason do they have to be in there, the place of cDream’s torture?

Since cPunz seemed so adamantly upset about cDream’s torture, “unspeakable things.” Do you think cDream told him details? Clearly they were open with each other about limbo, but cDream also doesn’t seem the type. Or do you think he found out some other way? Also if cPunz and cDream have truly tortured others and themselves in the name of science, then when Punz says “unspeakable things” that would be on a huge scale wouldn’t it? Which really begs the question, what the heck happened in Pandora’s box.

Also, if cPunz could always revive cDream, then why did cDream beg so much in prison for his life. Would it not be easier to do your plans secretly when everyone thinks you are dead? Was daily torture for months truly preferable to death? Which makes me wonder, what is cDream’s limbo that he would rather be tortured and would make cPunz so angry when they killed cDream. And if limbo changes then why is he trying so hard to avoid it. Clearly, Death no longer holds the same meaning, so why does cDream seem to want to avoid death so badly?

All good questions! A lot of which I'm... not sure if I have the answers to, honestly, but I'll throw some thoughts here.

I have suspicions that c!Dream's death meant more than it looked like on the surface. c!Dream fights hard against his death in the prison arc, we know that there's issues with the 'balance' as referenced by several characters atp (c!Punz, c!Dream, XD, idk abt any others) and death + revival obviously has meaning and implications that have not been fully explained. c!Dream and c!Punz going from seemingly doing nothing to gunning for the plan, encouraging c!Tommy and c!Tubbo to collect the server to their location to 'try and stop them' in an effort that they're apparently completely confident will fail? Yeah, that was sus, and c!Dream's death - as far as we can tell - seems to be the catalyst for all of it.

I think whatever was happening in the main cell could have to do with c!Punz and c!Dream's apparent planning - or it could have little meaning at all. It's hard to say, honestly. There's a lot of things that were happening all at the same time and the way that said events were carried out and the circumstances around them are rather convoluted, not to mention how we haven't gotten some of the apparent finales yet. The Incident, whatever it was that caused the white flash and (seemingly) caused the Reset, has been heavily implied as not being the nuke ooc by cc!Tubbo - and the only real thing we can point to as being able to create a server reset (at this point in time) is what c!Dream and c!Punz said about making the world reset. (Personally, I think that also adds some fun context to "it's too late" as well as being an interesting mirror to c!Tommy setting off the nuke and then having a chance for reconciliation right before it hits, but that's not really proof in of itself.)

The Limbo experiments feel ... interesting. I believe that they happened to some degree, for sure. We all know about Vikk and Lazar (though the months claim is something I'll admit I'm suspicious of - iirc, c!Lazar and c!Vikk were both seen right around Doomsday, and c!Dream was imprisoned by the 20th of that same month. That gives them at most 2 weeks, unless they did some more human experimentation post-prison break.) Changing Limbos in some manner also feels accurate - again, to some degree. c!Tommy's Limbo is different the two times we've seen it, for example (but then there's interesting things to consider like Ghostbur and c!Wilbur sharing a Limbo, for example.) Frankly, it's hard to make claims on Limbo imo because everything about the death mechanics in the DreamSMP is just so ,,, variable? Like we don't really have anything to go off of except for their word, and like. We're talking c!Dream and c!Punz talking to c!clingy, here. Not exactly what I'd consider the pinnacle of reliable narration

I don't think c!Dream would willingly tell c!Punz details on the torture without some rational reason to justify to himself. Whether that means what c!Punz knows comes from extrapolation or c!Dream unwillingly telling him (because he's not lucid or something, as an example) or because c!Dream tells him as a warning for some kind of post-prison Limbo experiment (like, fyi, pulling a knife on me might make me have a panic attack lol) - I don't think I have a particularly firm opinion either way. And that, of course, is assuming that c!Dream told him anything at all. c!Punz was keeping an eye on the server, after all, and he could've just. Known about c!Quackity torturing c!Dream (considering he was trailing blood literally all over the server) and filled in the gaps himself.

[carriesthewind]

Something I think that made the Steven Universe fandom turn into...That, is that it actually was, in many ways, too realistic for people.

It was dealing with a lot of emotionally and morally complex issues, and presenting them for kids, and despite the way that it gets talked about here sometimes, it was actually dealing with those issues in a nuanced and complex way. But by doing so, it failed to give the neat and pat answers that people often expect from media, especially children's media.

For example, take the ending with the Diamonds. While there is critique of the pacing of the ending (thanks cartoon network), I've seen so many critiques of the show that suggest that the resolution with the Diamonds is too simple and unrealistic. And...that's baffling to me? Because while there are some ways in which it presents a fantasy of family reconciliation of abuse (e.g. the Diamonds do learn and admit they were wrong!) and of undoing empire and colonialism (no civil war!)*, it is way more complicated and nuanced than normal children's media (or even a lot of adult media) on those issues. Like, the Diamonds only learn better and admit they were wrong after confronted with the fact that their little sister/daughter effectively committed suicide because of their abuse? That's what it takes to get through to them - Pink/Rose is dead, because of them, and she can never come back. And even then, they are overbearing and needy and Steven still doesn't Like them that much? And stopping the empire isn't just one and done - we see in Future that 1) the Diamonds are actively working to make reparations, 2) the machinery of the empire is still grinding on and must be stopped piecemeal (the still-terraforming lapis lazulis), 3) the pain they/it caused still exists and can't be magically fixed (pink pearl). All of these are way more complex than an ending where Steven decides he just doesn't need his mom's abusive family (because materially he, just like many real life vulnerable people, does actually need their help), or where he kills and overthrows the dictators and the show ends there suggesting that was all that needed to be done (not always possible and often, even if necessary, results in more war and death, at least in the short term).

*and obviously there are plenty of other critiques of both the choice to depict a colonialist empire and how the show depicts the resolution; I'm only specifically addressing the critique of it being simplistic here.

And I think that complexity is what a lot of people struggled with, because complexity isn't pleasant. It doesn't give you the nice easy answers that are comfortable and self-affirming. Sometimes you have to work with bigoted people in order to solve a more pressing problem (e.g. peridot and the cluster arc). Sometimes caregivers will make mistakes in how they approach people in their care due to their own trauma and experiences...but they can realize that and do better and the people under their care can choose to forgive them (lots of examples, but e.g. pearl & connie & steven). Just because you were treated badly in the past doesn't mean you have the right to treat others badly now (spinel). No one has to be your friend and they aren't treating you badly by not being your best friend (also spinel). People in a committed, loving relationship can argue and disagree and neither is necessarily right or wrong (ruby and sapphire).

idk, I just think it's interesting (with some distance) how the discourse around su still often frames the problem as it being too simple and unrealistic for an older audience, rather than it having a more nuanced take on issues than the audience was used to or comfortable with.

[aph-japan]

Got a kind-of reply to my tags, so commentary below!!

^ y EAH SEE... (I hear you!!)

At the very start of the arc my predictions went pretty close to what's been shown so far - I'd grab the tweets I made while Shouting Into My Void from my archives, but I can't find them at this very moment :') :')

(This was me around the Kiku flashback though--)

^ (Essentially, me predicting a Kiku Flashback) lmaooo...

So at the very start I had predicted a starting 'order' they'd appear in, and it went something like this:

Feliciano-as-Lovino -> Francis -> Kiku -> Arthur, {Basically I was expecting Arthur eventually challenging Kiku); [There's ""only"" 3 of Ger-Ita-pan trio, and 5 of Allies!!] -> Ludwig -> Alfred -> Gilbert? -> Ivan? -> LOVINO?? -> Yao (possibly countering Kiku's earlier moves) [which Yao essentially confirmed Yao might have done] -> Lovino and/or Gilbert Surprise Appearances by End in general {Mix or match the last four, but either way alternating Ger-ita-pan trio and Allies!!} (If they could actually join in the game or not was another story, but I HIGHLY expect Feliciano+Lovino's scheme to crumble, and Lovino having to jump in and regain ground) We've already seen a sneak peak confirming Lovino's aware of the game and is actively watching it go on!!

Arthur did show up closer to Francis (as we've seen), but was mainly commentating, and then got shocked (literally) by Kiku's surprise next turn... (Also, Ludwig got the surprise flashback chapter first!!)

-Ivan hasn't talked much at all, which was also why I felt Ivan would be near end. {And also, hasn't revealed much actual strategy or plans} (But could very easily be plotting something in background) So I thought maybe Ivan could also challenge Gilbert somehow, and it'd also be a good way for Himaruya to re-introduce Gilbert, and also have all the major characters "interact".

But as you said-- YEAH, SEE...

"H.W.S MAY ACTUALLY TAKE ITSELF SERIOUSLY" FOR ONCE

That had been my thought ever since the arc first started, but I don't really know how to ConveyTM my current Thoughts on the matter lmao....

I don't want to cause anyone to freak out too much though, so I hope whatever happens people can enjoy Yao's new art and appearances at least!!

But... the thing with Kiku and Yao is... I don't honestly think Himaruya will drag it out too seriously. Kiku is obviously "dragging Yao in" to the field with some sort of intention, which is pretty standard for Kiku based on what we know of Kiku's "canon" personality. And also how I've personally handled Kiku in the past when attempting to work with portraying Kiku, but...

Essentially, what I had predicted was Kiku and Yao facing off with some sort of purpose. What that purpose may be (dare I say reconciliation?) we may not know... For a while, still.

[llycaons]

people who write reconciliation where jc and wwx treat each other exactly the same as they used to: why do you hate jc and wwx

[celestial-sapphicss]

somebody please stop my brain for a second i am spiralling but i was thinking about the 'pat got shot' plot and i have some probably already mentioned (?), outdated thoughts.

so this entire plotline, it didn't really sit right with me because something as big couldn't just exist to reconcile wai & pran, could it?

then it hit me that this plotline sort of started to further drive and discover the relationship that pat has with his father and his perception of him starts to change.

the look on Pat's face when he sees his father reaction, and how Ming's entire body language changes upon finding out that pran helped pat is a look of hope, confusion, amusement, and shock.

again, we see this look when his father thanks pran. he sees his father (who's so full of ego) thank the person he taught pat to hate his entire life. which obviously makes him not only emotional, but also gives him hope that his father just might actually change for good.

so, he dares and asks for more (time). he puts his head into the lion's mouth, and when he gets out of it unharmed, he's further lit with hope. his hope grows and grows and grows.

he's filled with so much hope that pat genuinely thought that the incident could mend the gaps between the two families. and their parents will not only move on from their rivalries but also accept their relationship.

this hope is partially because he doesn't know the true reason yet for their family rivalry, and partially because he still has faith that his father actually just wants what's best for him.

which is why when pat is faced by his father at the mall, his first instinct is to mention that they're friends. that he's friends with the person he was supposed to be a rival of. in the hopes that his father will accept pran now in the light of new information.

but here, here we have Ming acting like a b.tch again, physically pushing pran away, which enrages pat, and he finally blurts out rhe truth

i keep thinking about how it must've caused pat so much pain to see and have his perception of his father change. how he realised that all his hope was actually in vain and how his father couldn't even give pran a chance even though he helped pat & saved his life (from well, jail) when he didn't have to. all because of his stupid rivalry.

and while pran is used to this disappointment as wai mirrors pran's mom, pat isn't, because korn in nothing like his father. the family-rivalry arc mirrors the faculty-rivalry arc with lower stakes.

which makes this scene, when he finds out the actual reason for the animosity, and how his father was responsible for it, even more heartbreaking.

all of his respect & fear for his father goes away, and only hurt and anger exists.

he's done wanting his father's approval. he's done trying to make his father proud. and most importantly he's done expecting anything from him, neither a reconciliation, nor an apology.

pat still indulges his father in the present because he still loves him, because not loving a parent you looked up to isn't easy, but he decides that he won't let his father influence his life in anymore in any way or form.

he's been through enough.

[faelicy]

Miss Faelicy I would love to get your opinion on Bingqiu.

I see people posting things like how they are "problematic" and how they don't really love each other and SQQ only feels sympathy etc. Obviously there were struggles between them as there should be (considering all that happened) and just because sqq wasn't very open and super obvious about his feelings doesn't mean they are not there..this is how I interpreted it. I would love to know your opinion

Hello! This also covers part 2 of the previous ask.

First, massive spoilers for the end of the novel. Second, a disclaimer: I despise shipwars, which I think are behind most of those comments. I hate them because it's usually all in bad faith: everyone's already committed to their interpretation of the ships, and any discussion is just a guise for justifying their preferences.

So to any readers: I don't want anything here to be used as shipwar fuel. This post is about Bingqiu's canon arc and themes. Basically, I don't know or care if Bingqiu is a good ship, but I do think it's a well-written one.

I'll start by saying directly: for most of the novel, Bingqiu is neither healthy nor romantic. And that this is not bad writing, but on purpose.

A relationship that drives one party to mental breakdown isn't healthy. A relationship where that party says it's okay to hurt or kill them can't possibly be healthy. That happened because there was something deeply wrong with their relationship, something that can't be reduced to Xin Mo, miscommunication, or LBH throwing a tropey yandere fit.

And out of all three MXTX novels, only SV lacks a love confession from the MC to the ML. Again, I don't think it's an oversight, or just because SQQ's face is too thin. There are plenty of ways MXTX could have worked a subtle one in if she really wanted to.

In my opinion, Bingqiu's narrative can be split up into four arcs: Qing Jing Peak (ch 1-27), Jin Lan City (28-43), Post-revival (29-55), and Reconciliation (56-81). Other than the first arc, where their relationship is pretty straightforward, Bingqiu spend most of the rest in direct conflict.

I'll give an overview of the arcs here, but what I truly want to say about Bingqiu starts in arc 4, so if you're impatient you can scroll down. But the overview might help add context.

Jin Lan City arc is about LBH's anger at being brutally betrayed by the one person he thought he could trust. Here he tries to force answers out of SQQ, who he believes both hates him and is a hypocrite. He's driven by a desire to return to the past, but his rage and love makes his actions contradictory: on one hand he tries to win SQQ's approval constructively, by climbing to the top of Huan Hua Palace and performing good deeds, on the other hand his belief that SQQ doesn't care about him so it's all futile anyway (reinforced by SQQ's own actions) causes him to lash out destructively, going as far as to hurt and imprison SQQ.

LBH's bitterness is portrayed very negatively, because all it does is instill despair into SQQ, until SQQ ends up believing that he's only been a blight on LBH's life, and that he must make up for it by killing himself. Whereupon LBH breaks down, regressing into a childlike state. Some might ask, why does LBH never bring up the Abyss again afterwards? It's because he gives up here. This entire arc is about getting LBH to let go of past wrongs and to stop seeking answers, whether the reader believes it's fair to him or not. Because SQQ's life is more important.

Post-revival arc then is about SQQ trying to come to terms with a blackened LBH who also loves him. Interestingly, despite SQQ's horror at realizing LBH was romantically interested in him all along, SQQ actually has a very subtle but telling secondary reaction. To explain, let's back up to the first arc.

Starting around ch 9, probably as a sign of his growing affection, SQQ begins addressing LBH as 这孩子, or "this child," in his internal monologue, instead of LBH's name. He does it once each in ch 9, 12, 17, 21, 25. However, once Jin Lan City arc starts, SQQ drops the address entirely. LBH and "child" are never brought up together except for one snarky comment on LBH's tantrum being disgracefully childish in ch 38.

At first glance this doesn't look noteworthy because LBH by this point is no longer a kid. But when LBH kisses him in ch 49, SQQ changes again: right away he returns to using "child" on LBH, and the "this child" address starts popping up at a much higher frequency. By the end of SV SQQ has referred to LBH as a child in some manner at least 35 times (yes I went and counted), with the vast majority after ch 49, and he continues to do so right into the last extra.

Why was SQQ unwilling to use this address of affection for over 20 chapters? Perhaps because he too thought LBH hated him, and couldn't bear to think about him so intimately knowing that. So SQQ immediately falling back into it the moment he learns LBH loves him is a sign of his relief. He's still dismayed at the romantic part, but though SQQ likes to deflect from his real emotions (this is the guy who focused on bad naming sense after being fatally poisoned, who cavalierly commented only after it was all over that he'd expected to die), the fact that LBH loves and doesn't hate him, means a lot.

Here SQQ's feelings towards LBH are at their most complicated. He still assumes the worst of him like in Jin Lan City, but now because of the above, also sees a lonely child whenever LBH is unhappy and lost. It's like he has two filters actively interfering with each other, "crazed criminal" and "pitiful child," and so he flip-flops between pushing LBH away and comforting him. But when LBH drags CQMS into it, and even seemingly takes advantage of SQQ's love for him, SQQ's negative image and frustration with him only grows, until he finally snaps and tells LBH to never come near him again.

At this point SQQ still believes that LBH is the same black-hearted, invincible, devil incarnate that og!LBH was portrayed to be. The Reconciliation arc starts by chipping away at this filter that's been plaguing SQQ for so long. First the revelation that TLJ/ZZL was behind the sowers, thus clearing LBH's name at Jin Lan City. Then we see how unloved he is by his own father; we see him injured and helpless and unconscious. Meng Mo yells at SQQ, reinforcing that image of a vulnerable, terrified child. So by ch 62 SQQ has thrown away the "crazed criminal" filter completely, and in that same chapter they cling to each other and finally make up. Because while it's true that the current LBH is misanthropic, antisocial, and mercurial, SQQ has also finally accepted that he's still the same LBH he'd raised and doted on, back on Qing Jing Peak.

Now I'm going to talk about what I see as the most important part of Bingqiu. Yes, despite the wall of text already.

A common sentiment of Bingqiu shippers about their issues seems to be, "SQQ is dumb and oblivious; he can't figure out what LBH needs even though he loves him because he sees LBH as a novel character," but I think the problem is far more complicated and insidious than that. If that was everything, why give SQQ the epiphany that he misunderstood LBH so early? Why have him think in ch 66 that "truthfully, he'd never really trusted Luo Binghe, and that's why he kept accidentally hurting him?" If he's already realized that he shouldn't treat LBH like og!LBH (he even meets og!LBH in ch 71 to rub it in further), why do we go another 13 chapters believing their relationship is good and well, even giving us a sweet, happy moment in ch 75, only to show LBH having the worst breakdown of the novel just 4 chapters later? Was it all just padding to demonstrate the danger of Xin Mo?

Or is there something else beneath the surface?

In ch 66, the same chapter where SQQ implies he doesn't want to accidentally hurt LBH anymore, he says something telling. When LQG is skeptical that LBH can be trusted, SQQ thinks, 家里孩子不懂事，大人不容易做, or "when your child doesn't know any better, as the adult you don't have it easy." The child here of course refers to LBH, and the adult is SQQ, who's complaining about smoothing over LBH's messes. But what is SQQ implying here?

Doesn't know any better? That's what you say about a toddler who can't think for themselves, not a grown man. LBH is 25 and SQQ thinks he doesn't know better. Doesn't know better about what? LBH's wants, his needs? His feelings? Or even what's good for him?

And then you realize that's exactly how SQQ's always treated him, like a helpless child who can't make his own choices.

It's SQQ who chooses to throw LBH down into the Abyss without trying to talk to him. It's SQQ who decides that keeping silent is the best choice. It's SQQ who believes self-destructing in front of LBH will help, who thinks that breaking off their relationship is for the better. And it's SQQ who scolds LBH into tolerating CQMS, even though they hate each other and CQMS is hostile towards him. Who forces him to leave first at Zhao Hua Temple despite LBH's pleas otherwise, who shoos him out the window when CQMS walks in on them.

Every single one of these decisions, SQQ made believing it was for the best (repair LBH's relationship with his family, help him avoid arrest, not wanting to make excuses, wanting LBH to be free of his hatred), and every single one of them only damaged LBH further. Because SQQ's never listened to him, even once. Never consulted him or considered his feelings.

(And LBH did try to bring up his feelings on one of the matters in ch 75. He insinuates to SQQ that he doesn't like LQG calling him "little beast" or "ingrate." And SQQ's response is to dismiss them entirely, saying that LQG's "not wrong.")

SQQ has always loved LBH, but he's never once respected LBH's agency or personhood. Because LBH doesn't know better and SQQ does, so SQQ must make all his decisions for him.

And this, amplified by Xin Mo, is what finally drives LBH mad in ch 79.

To LBH, the important part isn't whether SQQ loves him, which I think he knew after ch 43 (it's why he can be so daring and pushy with SQQ's boundaries). What's important is that the moment SQQ believes abandoning LBH is justified for whatever reason again, SQQ absolutely will.

Ch 80's two-way noncon (since LBH was basically unconscious and couldn't consent) tends to draw most of the attention, but I actually think that what happens afterwards is one of the most important scenes for Bingqiu. There SQQ tries to sacrifice himself a second time for LBH, drawing Xin Mo's demonic qi into his body. Yet the novel claims that SQQ's actions here are completely different than in ch 43. SQQ himself says that this time he's doing it for LBH, while last time he was doing it for himself. But can the reader see a functional difference?

There is one, in fact: it's SQQ's response to LBH's choice afterwards. LBH decides to follow SQQ in death, even though this would void the point of SQQ's sacrifice. But instead of insisting otherwise, SQQ just accepts it. Because he finally understands that whether LBH's life is worth living, whether LBH will be better off, is for LBH and only LBH to decide.

It's the first time he respects LBH's agency. And this is the only reason why he and LBH can finally begin building a healthy relationship on the mess they've had up to now.

So that's what I see as the true beauty behind Bingqiu. It's about communication and mistaken assumptions, yes, but it's also about the nature of love between parent and child. The romantic developments were left to the extras, I believe, because this was the main story MXTX wanted to tell with them. Their relationship as lovers only starts afterwards, hence why SV ends with, "the story between you and I, has only just begun." It was never meant to be a whirlwind romance where they fall in love cleanly. It might not to be to everyone's tastes, but an incredible amount of thought was put into the narrative, and that's what amazed me when I first finished this novel.

(This post went on way too long and I ended up cutting off a huge chunk of tangential stuff and how SQQ came to his realization in ch 79: he didn't do it alone. It took him seeing the LBH in TLJ and the himself in YQY for him to understand. In fact, YQY and og!SQQ's relationship has a similar parent-and-child dynamic. I've touched on it before on twitter; if there's interest I might try writing that up here too.)

[dotthings]

Let’s talk about why Dean dancing with a lamp is subtext, but it’s subtext that supports textual arcs. Dean dancing with a lamp is not random. Meta on why Dean dancing with a lamp is part of the build of a textual arc for Dean, thematically, which also connects to his relationship with Cas. This symbolic moment being tacitly about Destiel will only feel like reaching if you ignore context, ignore canon, ignore long arcing, ignore textual material surrounding it. This isn’t just me talking about a ship, this is an important arc for Dean himself emotionally and the way canon’s working, Cas has become the star player in this specific emotional Dean arc about yearning. 

Here are some canon quotes. I could just leave these here and not write another word of meta because the canon wrote it for me. But I’ve added some further commentary to spell out clearly what I’m getting at.

Dean in 8.14 “Trial and Error” by Andrew Dabb:

“You see a light at the end of this ugly-ass tunnel. I don't. But I tell you what I do know – it's that I'm gonna die with a gun in my hand. 'Cause that's what I have waiting for me – that's all I have waiting for me. I want you to get out. I want you to have a life – become a man of Letters, whatever. You, with a wife and kids and – and – and grandkids, living till you're fat and bald and chugging Viagra – that is my perfect ending, and it's the only one that I'm gonna get.”

Dean in 10.16 “Paint it Black” by Eugenie Ross-Lemming and Brad Buckner:

“You know, the life I live, the work I do…I pretty much just figured that that was all there was to me, you know? Tear around and jam the key in the ignition and haul ass until I ran out of gas. I guess I just thought sooner or later, I’d go out the same way that I live – pedal to the metal, and that would be it....Now, um… recent events, uh… make me think I might be closer to that than I really thought. And…I don’t know. I mean, you know, there’s – there’s things, there’s…people, feelings that I-I-I want to experience differently than I have before, or maybe even for the first time.”

Sam and Dean in 11.04 “Baby” by Robbie Thompson:

SAM: Really? You don't . . . Ever want something more? DEAN: I'm sorry, have you met us? We're batting a whopping zero in domestic life, man. Goose eggs. SAM: You don't ever think about something? Not marriage or whatever. But . . . Something? You know, with a hunter? Somebody who understands the life?

Sam and Dean in 13.23 “Let the Good Times Roll” by Andrew Dabb:

DEAN: But on a beach somewhere, you know? Can you imagine? You, me, Cas, toes in the sand, couple of them little umbrella drinks. Matching Hawaiian shirts, obviously. Some hula girls. SAM: You talking about retiring? You? DEAN: If I knew the world was safe? Hell, yeah. And you know why? 'Cause we freaking earned it, man.

Sam and Dean in 15.08 “Our Father, Who Aren’t in Heaven” by Eugenie Ross-Lemming and Brad Buckner:

DEAN: Look, man, I didn't want to say anything, okay, 'cause I was kind of in in a bad place, and, uh, yeah, I didn't want to jinx it or whatever, but, you know, I tried the family thing, right? SAM: Yeah, me too. And that's not for us. DEAN: No, not really. But I'm just saying if it was to work, Eileen, you know, she gets it. She gets us. She gets the life. She's hot. SAM: Dean. I mean, I'm not even- DEAN: Look, all I'm saying is you- you could do worse, okay? And she could certainly do better. Like, so much better. I'm happy for you, Sammy.

Dean and Garth in 15.10 “The  Heroes’ Journey” written by Andrew Dabb:

DEAN: You know, I gotta say, aside from pincushion in there… this is pretty nice. GARTH: Yeah, better than I ever thought I'd get. I mean, hunting -- I figured I'd be dead before I'm 40. You know, go out young and pretty. But now I've got a great wife, great kids. I guess...sometimes things work out.

Dean in 15.10 “The Heroes’ Journey” by Andrew Dabb:

Dean, wistful, watching through the window as Garth and Bess dance: You know, I always thought I could be a good dancer if I wanted to be.

Ok, let those roll around in your brain for moment. 

Now: CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.

There’s this long running arc about maybe Sam and Dean could each find a significant other, not white picket fence, but...something, with someone already in the life, who gets their life. There’s Dean’s move from despairing and believing the only ending he could have, the only ending any hunter could have, is dying with a gun in hand, to Dean’s enthusiasm for the concept of retirement, Dean’s wistfulness about finding a significant other, for what he thinks he can’t have, and he starts the cycle all over again, if he can’t have it, then he wants Sam to have it, so Dean encourages Sam with Eileen. Saileen, the Dean-blessed, Dean-approved Sam ship. Dean ships it. And that is how the canon is trending, complete with Sam and Eileen kissing goodbye and saying “this is real” and even God himself saying their feelings were real, “that was all you,” even if God manipulated events around them. Which is an overt mirror to Dean and Cas and Dean’s expressly stated doubts about what’s real and what isn’t, and Cas telling Dean “we are.” 

Much the way Sam has been witness to Destiel, and has often pointed out Dean’s Cas feelings. Dean’s got a front row seat to Saileen and approves; Sam’s had a front row seat to Destiel and approves. 

Let’s throw in Robert Berens’ work in The Trap here, since that’s relevant to this specific topic as well, because why did Sam and Dean in the potential future timeline where they’d killed Chuck give up and cave in to their vampire instincts? The world being overwhelmed with monsters...and losing Eileen and losing Cas. It’s right there in the dialogue. I’ll give you the quote and everything:

Sam and Dean in 15.09 “The Trap” by Robert Berens:

SAM: You want to quit? What's happened to you, Dean? Ever since -- DEAN: Ever since what? We lost pretty much everyone we've ever cared about? Ever since the Mark made Cas go crazy? Ever since I had to bury him in a Ma'lak box? Ever since then? Yeah. You know why? 'Cause the monsters -- they're everywhere. Everywhere! What we do -- it's not even Hunting anymore. It's whack-a-mole. We don't even save people. Every friend we've ever had is either dead, or they got wise and they packed it in. SAM: Jody's still fighting, and Bobby -- DEAN: Bobby has a death wish, and you know it. And Jody -- ever since what happened to Donna and the girls, she does, too. And after Eileen... so do you.

“Ever since” Dean had to bury Cas in a Ma’lak box. “After Eileen...so do you.” 

So there’s this canonical long, long thread across multiple authors (and those weren’t even all the quotes, I’m sure people could dig up more) about Dean in particular yearning towards finding a significant other, some contentment, with someone who already is in the hunting life, who gets it, who understands.  

An episode that flat out shows how losing their significant others is the final straw that rips out Sam and Dean’s last will to fight, and they lose themselves, and after they’re turned into vampires, they just...give into the darkness. Where Sam gives up their shot at destroying the big bad because losing everyone they love is too high a cost. Where losing Cas makes Dean lose hope, where losing Eileen sends Sam into a death wish mindset. Sam and Dean don’t just need each other. That’s not canon, it never has been.

And then right after that, along comes meta episode The Heroes’ Journey. Sorry if you don’t like The Heroes’ Journey, but it’s what the canon did, it’s textual, along with everything else I’ve pointed out here, and in among the crackish humor are some real emotional narrative points. 

In The Heroes’ Journey, Dean gets to see Garth’s life. Garth found his significant other, Bess, and she’s another werewolf. Now, Garth’s life resembles the traditional white picket fence idea a lot more than what Team Free Will are headed for. Garth has a big house with a porch, and he’s a dentist. He’s also a werewolf and his wife is a werewolf and his kids are werewolves because Bess is a pureblood werewolf, Garth didn’t exactly leave the life, and he helps Sam and Dean on a case. But nothing’s been indicating to me that anyone in Team Free Will is headed for that kind of settling down, with a house, becoming a dentist. However, the canon has been practically shouting now, as we near final episodes of SPN, to make the point about a desirable outcome--some kind of stability, contentment, and a significant other. Dean gets a front row seat to seeing a hunter can have that. Garth’s a hunter who turned into a werewolf and he can have that. 

When EP’s talk about how they aren’t headed for a white picket fence or driving off into the sunset or settling down, none of that rules out them finding...something...with someone, and some form of stability and contentment.  Nope, I can’t really imagine them in the suburbs becoming dentists. But canon sure is putting up big neon arrows to...something. Think outside the box. This isn’t about the white picket fence. 

And in The Heroes’ Journey, Dean, conked out on the good gas so Garth can fix his teeth, has a trippy dream where he dances with a lamp.

Rewatch the ep. Look at how the dance is choreographed not just the use of light, because that’s a clue too. The whole dance could have been Dean and Garth being dancing bros, but Garth fades off the stage, and Dean dances alone...until he grabs the standing lamp. In a season where Dean and Cas’s relationship is an A-plot, define it how you like, it’s A-plot. Their breakup and their reconciliation, which played like a marital breakup and reconciliation, are tied to major mytharc beats. In a season where a long-running textual theme about Dean’s developing hope for retirement and his wistfulness about “things...people...feelings...” is getting further play. Where Dean and Cas’s relationship continues to be one of the show’s most central ones.

Dean dances with a lamp. While his emotionally fraught, intense close relationship with Cas--A BEING MADE OF LIGHT--has a long-running arc and recently more and more textual level content spelling out the sublimated romantic interest in small words, while there’s an arc about Dean’s yearning for that stability, contentment, a significant other.

CONTEXT. 

We don’t think Destiel’s “going canon” because Dean dances with a lamp, it’s that Dean dancing with a lamp is kinda loud serving as reflection of canon textual arcing. Sometimes subtext adds a layer. Sometimes subtext is directly tied to the surface layers, an echo, a highlighter.

I’ll just be over here, crying because Dean danced with a lamp.

[thespoonisvictory]

i'd love a moment where someone tells wilbur that he isn't universally disliked, especially if it's one of the og l'manbergians, but i'm also not too hopeful because of how many of them feel betrayed by him (esp fundy and niki) :( on the other hand,, maybe eret could relate? or maybe that's just me wanting eret content adfgkhsd

Alright anon, you’re gonna get a whole essay here I’m so sorry, but I have so many thoughts about revived Wilbur. 

Wilbur’s self esteem was kind of a mess, but there are two primary issues he seems to struggle with the most: believing he was a horrible president/leader and that people hated him for it, and believing that he was only valuable if he could be the perfect leader everyone wanted from him. I could pull out specific quotes, but honestly Ghostbur’s entire character and the Pogtopia stream transcripts I made would do a better job. During Pogtopia, part of his concern for why Tubbo might be a spy is because he thought he did a bad job as president and that Tubbo would prefer Schlatt. 

Now, it’s easy to see why this would be a problem, as Wilbur simultaneously feels like he has to be this perfect leader and never show any flaws in order to have worth, while also feeling like he’s doing a horrible job. He felt like everyone hated him while still feeling pressured to act like everything was fine, which puts a lot of context behind his breakdown culminating in statements like “let’s be the bad guys” and “I can finally do whatever I want.” It was a mix of finally giving up on his attempt to be perfect and wanting to make everyone hate him before they had the chance to do it on their own, y’know? 

(This problem could’ve so easily been addressed if the other characters were aware, and while I don’t want to blame everything that went down in Pogtopia on “aw look at him he’s sad”, a lot might’ve been prevented if at any point a character was like “hey Wilbur you doing ok bud? take a day off.”)

In my opinion, this is why a reconciliation with Eret is so, so necessary for a redemption arc for Wilbur. It’s just so perfect that the one character who’s betrayal cut Wilbur so deeply and arguably started his spiral also happens to be the one most dedicated to preserving his history and the one who most openly admires him. It’s this neat little juxtaposition that’s made even better by the fact that Wilbur has no idea.

Eret’s betrayal clearly stuck with Wilbur, to the degree that he was the person he chose to quote, directly, for what was supposed to be his final statement. Most of the others had for the most part accepted what Eret had done and moved on, but Wilbur never did. And to his credit, I can see why. Wilbur had put full trust in Eret, and in return he had taken a canon life not only from Wilbur, but from his son and two brother figures, and nearly ended L’manburg before it even began. Most crushingly, Wilbur never got to figure out why. He never got an apology, or an explanation, just a traumatic experience and a statement that would haunt him for the rest of his life as a leader. “It was never meant to be” implies more than a mercenary betrayal, it implies that Eret personally did not see L’manburg as worth sticking with, and I think that really broke Wilbur, as he very much valued his ideals and his creations. He respected Dream and his friends at the end of the war, but for Eret to turn away from his cause and declare it not worthy to begin with was something else entirely.

Now we as the audience know that Eret feels immense guilt over the betrayal, that he respects Wilbur as a person and especially as a leader, and that he came to truly understand why L’manburg was so valuable. But Wilbur never got to hear that, and I would love for that to be the catalyst for him maybe starting to deal with some of his issues. To have someone look at the bad he’s done and say “I still respect you”, to know that he was and is valued. 

Obviously Wilbur has a lot of his own apologizing to do, but to be honest, the fact that Wilbur grew to be suicidal from all these unchecked mental health issues should probably be the primary focus, before we get into the whole “hey he kind of did some not so great things.” If Wilbur’s revival starts off with five minutes of Fundy and Tommy berating him as some people seem to want, that’s just not gonna be helpful from a guy who would probably agree with the worst they have to say about him. And I think Eret would be the perfect candidate as a person who, frankly, is in a stable enough position to help Wilbur, especially because he’d know what it was like to be hated by people he still cared about.

As for other candidates, Niki I think is another good choice. She’s been pretty open about the fact that she does still miss and care for Wilbur, and while I think there would definitely be a moment of “why did you leave me”, she would understand pretty well, especially given how she spiraled.

This got very long, but yeah. I love Eret’s character and I think if Wilbur gets redeemed he’ll definitely play a factor in it.

[elcorhamletlive]

i think 2 main things could’ve been done better in s3 to put will in a better situation in s4 in regards to allowing him to move on and have a non-mike related romance plot.

the first being having a conversation with jonathan after his breakdown in 3x03. i always found it incredibly annoying that will and jonathan have conversations in s1 and 2 where jonathan reassures him that it’s okay to be different and like different things than other people but not in the season where will was explicitly struggling the the most with that and the isolation it causes. they don’t actually talk at all in s3 and i think a moment where jonathan somehow finds out that will had a meltdown and destroyed his safe-place would’ve been helpful to push will’s arc forwards. obviously will in s3 wasn’t necessarily ready to deal with his problems, and he couldn’t have some rapid change in the span of a few days, but jonathan coming to him and giving him a little talk like he usually does would’ve been good i think.

the second thing is that i think they should’ve had an actual reconciliation between will and mike in s3 after their fight. their fight at rink-o-mania in s4 hit the exact same beats because they never resolved that conflict in s3 and had to rehash it in order to mend their relationship in “dear billy”. the whole “i was maybe focusing too much on el and i lost you but we can work together moving forwards as best friends” would’ve been a conversation that could’ve been perfectly effective after their s3 fight considering the show pivots back to the supernatural plot after 3x03 and that could’ve been where they were “working together”. (it may have allowed will to be more active in the MF plot too but who knows.) i think it would’ve given will some good perspective onto his relationship with mike at that point and he may not have spent so much time stuck in and questioning those unresolved feelings.

those two things still wouldn’t have rushed will’s overall arc imo, and they could’ve given him a better opportunity to move on by the time s4 came around now that will is finally out to himself. maybe those feelings for mike in s3 could’ve been made into a passing comment in s4 about his way of figuring himself out or whatnot. now we’re unfortunately going into s5 with will being backed into a corner romance-wise. i don’t think it’ll actually take anything that significant for him to move on, and i think b*l*rs who insist will can’t move on in a single season (especially if there’s a time jump) make no sense, but it upsets me that it’s hard to know how much narrative weight they’d be willing to give will with a new love interest in a satisfying way.

Yeah anon I generally agree with all your points. If I'm honest, and I know that this might make some shippers extremely angry, I think the reason the rink o mania fight hits the same beats as their fight in season 3 is that the season 3 fight wasn't written with the idea of Will being into Mike in mind. I think it's definitely something that they had considered at that point, as shown in the original season 2 finale script, but I think by season 3 they could have gone either way with Will's story. Otherwise I feel like they would have hammered home the idea of Will being jealous of El much harder in season 3 - like, showing us Will specifically thinking of Mike when he destroys the fort, instead of showing the entire party as they did.

I don't want to imply the Duffers make shit up in the fly because I don't think that's fair, but as showrunners they seem to be really flexible in the way they allow the story to develop (Robin being gay, Steve's character becoming as important as he did, etc). And I honestly think Will's storyline is not enough of a priority to them that they had plotted it out carefully to go about it in the best, most satisfying way. I believe they always planned for Will to be gay, but him being into Mike was something they didn't feel super strongly about but decided to incorporate because they knew fans would like it and it was an easy way to showcase his story (if I'm super cynical, I'd add that it was also a way to have Will be gay without actually writing a gay romance and pissing off homophobes in the audience; but I will give them the benefit of the doubt here). Like Will's plot just doesn't wrap up in season 3 at all, and I don't think it was intentional, I think it was a writing failure because they cared more about other storylines and characters. I think you're absolutely right, a scene with Jonathan would have done so much for that plot. It could have been a more edited version of the conversation they have in season 4, to be honest - not explicitly addressing Will's sexuality but making it clear that it's not a problem to his brother that he "doesn't like girls". That way, season 4 could have progressed Will's journey a lot further.

And yes, I 100% agree B*l*rs are talking out of their asses when they say it's impossible for Will to move on in one season. Like Will is fifteen years old and he has never even had a first kiss. There's so much that he can still experience romantically that is bound to make a huge impact on him and that, imo, would make him forget about Mike entirely.

[girl4pay]

Can u still have a redemption arc if the person wronged doesnt want to ever see/talk/deal w the person who wronged them

yeah i think so. i don't really think a redemption arc is about making something that was bad okay or even about attaining forgiveness to me to me a redemption arc is 1) character is confronted with the truth of the harm they caused and has an emotional reaction to that 2) character's response to that emotional reaction is not denial or avoidance 3) character figures out what they want to become and acts in accordance w that 4) character takes responsibility and makes amends. obviously that's really simplified and a well done arc will be nonlinear about it and also step three should include a lot of fuckups and self doubt and like new uncomfortable situations but i don't think step four should necessarily include forgiveness. taking responsibility and making amends can look like 'i acknowledge i did this to you and i hear you don't want to engage w me so i'm gone'. as an example! eliot from leverage. he murders so many people and you really can't ever get forgiveness for murdering someone cause like. the person you harmed is dead. so no reconciliation there. i don't think they ever include a scene of him being confronted w like a loved one of someone he killed, but i imagine if they did it wouldn't be like unreasonable writing for those loved ones to want to have nothing to do w him. but as a character a large part of his life becomes dedicated to mitigating harm and keeping the people he loves and the people he sees as just and good safe. i honestly think focusing too much on forgiveness in a redemption arc enters you into a space where you start debating on whether characters 'deserve' redemption arcs which is like...not the point to me and also very like. catholic? lmao like i think a big thing to consider when writing a redemption arc is what am i saying to my audience when i humanize and redeem this character? and honestly i think by having the character wronged say no i don't forgive you and im not interested in hearing more about this that opens you up to tell so many more realistic and difficult stories and really examine what recovery and justice mean!

[yeeyee-alumni]

Ellie’s (lack of a) character arc & why the result is an unsatisfying story

Let’s state the obvious: Ellie does not have a character arc in The Last of Us Part 2. A character arc is defined as a gradual transformation or inner journey of a character in response to changing developments in the story. And you may argue that Ellie from the beginning of the game is not the same as the one at the end of the game, and I would agree with you. She went from a woman consumed by revenge (not really but we will stick with that for now) to a woman able to forgive her aggressor and move on. However, there are problems with this supposed inner change on multiple levels. a) the change is not gradual b) the change comes out of nowhere c) the change is not informed by anything I don’t think there’s any need to thoroughly explain the first statement. Ellie has the same goal from the beginning to the very last second before attaining her goal. At no point in the story is she self-reflective, questions her methods, there’s no moral dilemma for her, no inner conflict, no doubt that causes her to put her own actions into a new perspective and possibly change her motivation. From beginning to end she believes to be 100% justified in her goal to kill Abby. Subsequently, if Ellie were actually consumed by revenge, the only logical conclusion to her story would be for her to eventually drown Abby.

Which neatly leads me to the next point: her change comes out of nowhere. The decision to let Abby go, as is implied by the narrative, is triggered by a random, arbitrary flashback of Joel. First of all, the timing here is outright comical. For what reason is she having this specific flashback at this very moment? Sounds like contrived, convenient bs to me to give the appearance that her decision is informed by something (which it isn’t, and we'll get to that in a moment). Second of all, getting a flashback to the most important person in your life that has been brutally murdered in front of you, seeing an image of what could have been and what was unjustly taken from you, is not gonna inspire you to forgive your aggressor. If anything, it would make you more determined and sadistic. And third of all, I hear you all yelling "but it was a flashback to their conversation about forgiveness and that inspired her to forgive Abby." And I have multiple qualms regarding this line of thinking. Number one, forgiving the person you love most in this world for having lied to you cannot be compared to forgiving the person who brutally took said person from you. This actually further accentuates my previous point, this is the person that robbed you of your opportunity for reconciliation. Implying that Ellie's thought process here is „I wanted to forgive Joel, but this person robbed me of any opportunity to, so I have to forgive her” is muddled, nonsensical and quite frankly unrealistic. And number two, is the implication here that this is the first time Ellie has thought back to that conversation? That’s a whole new level of nonsense. She will have reflected on all moments with Joel, including this one, and yet at no point prior to this moment had she considered even the possibility of forgiveness, as I have illustrated earlier. So why now? Very obviously to get a payoff, which was neither set up nor properly developed. And moving on to my last point: it is not informed by anything. I know a lot of players didn’t want Ellie to kill Abby, and even I felt that way at first, albeit presumably for entirely different reasons (I was so drained and removed from the narrative by that point that I only thought to myself "just go home, you psychos"). But upon reflection, I concluded that that would have been an unsatisfying conclusion narratively speaking. Nevertheless, Abby seems to have grown dear to many players. After all, they have spent several hours with her, they have seen her struggle, overcome her obstacles, fight for what she believes to be right. Their feelings towards Abby are informed by the person they have seen her to be and by the experiences they went through with her. Yet Ellie is missing all of that context. She has not been with us throughout our three days in Seattle, she doesn’t know Abby outside of her having horrifically killed Joel and she has not gained any new information that would lead her to change her opinion about her. And so, we have another example of the story making characters do things that are not informed by anything, for the sake of a poor payoff. And since we're talking about characters acting nonsensically, let's talk about the roughly three minutes leading up to Ellie nearly drowning Abby, shall we? Ellie approaches the beach absolutely determined to find and kill Abby (repeatedly murmuring Abby’s name to herself). Yet when she reaches the pillars, she cuts Abby down, letting her free Lev and follows them to the boats, indicating that Ellie has changed her mind, showing pity/empathy upon seeing Abby a mere shadow of her former self. And yet again, we have Ellie acting in a way she never has before. She didn’t have pity for Nora who was coughing her lungs out, or for Jordan who had advocated for letting her live, or for any other innocent WLF or Seraphite that came in between her and killing Abby. But the one person she holds a grudge against to the point of killing hundreds of innocent people without batting an eye, that is the person she is suddenly capable of feeling pity/empathy for? Is it really that surprising that Ellie's actions here feel forced, uncharacteristic, and illogical? But it actually gets worse. In an additional display of Druckmann not knowing how humans work, we have Ellie putting her backpack with all her gear in the boat, looking at her bloody hand and then remembering "Oh yeah, that's the woman who killed Joel. I almost forgot.” And at this point in my playthrough I was laughing out loud. And so, we have Ellie all of sudden determined to kill Abby again, so much so that she is willing to threaten an innocent child’s life (this by the way was the final nail in the coffin for me, they thoroughly obliterated Ellie’s character throughout the entire game, but this goes against the very core of her being). And we know the rest, they fight, Ellie nearly kills Abby but eventually lets her go. To summarize what happened in the three minutes before our big emotional payoff to our 25 hour-long journey of playing this epitome of misery porn: Ellie has 3 - count them 3!!! - changes of heart. Her motivation does a perfect 180 almost every minute. This is not how people work! That’s lazy, contrived beyond believe, and borderline comical levels of writing, because Druckmann prioritized having a final boss battle on a beach over organic, coherent, and logical storytelling (but I guess it was worth it for the goddamn visuals). However, what’s most infuriating is that there are such easy fixes if one only thinks about it for more than two minutes that could erase nearly all for the major issues I just illustrated while maintaining the plot points of the two fighting on a beach and Ellie letting Abby go. If we have Ellie walk to the beach immediately, finding Abby there untying the boat (Lev nearly passed out in the boat, Ellie not seeing him) and she then attacks Abby, immediately we have erased two of Ellie’s changes of heart, she remains consistent in her goals/motivation, not jumping back and forth between two extremes. The two women fight much like we see it in the game, and then as Ellie is about to finish it, we hear Lev calling out to Abby. And there we have our motivation for Ellie to not kill her. Not because she gets a random, convenient flashback, not because she forgives Abby (Abby has done nothing to earn Ellie’s forgiveness), not because Abby has earned her redemption, but because Ellie cannot find it in her to put an innocent child through the pain Abby has put her through. Because at the end of the day, Ellie’s hatred for Abby does not outweigh her capacity for compassion and empathy for those deserving of it (a core characteristic of hers that was established in the first game). Because Ellie would rather let an individual live that is undeserving of it than cause the same pain she was put through to an innocent child that is undeserving of it. Granted, if we were to go with this ending, we would still have to build towards it properly and therefore would have to tweak the rest of the game, mainly by showing Ellie being self-reflective, merciful towards innocents, and even doubtful about her goals at times to make her final decision informed by prior developments in order to have the character arc actually be a gradual transformation leading to a logical conclusion. I have been a writer for nearly 4 years now, which means I am in no way an expert, or the most creatively talented person around and yet I would argue that this ending would be much more satisfying to most players than the alternative we were presented with. Because as it stands, none of our actions or decisions (and yes that is something important to consider when we are working within the medium of video games), or Ellie’s for that matter, lead up to this conclusion. The conclusion to this story, the final moment, the big emotional payoff hinges on a random flashback, not on any other developments that previously occurred in the story. Subsequently rendering all of the 25 hours entirely pointless, none of it had an influence on the finale, none of it mattered narratively speaking. So, is it even a surprise that many found this to be dissatisfying? I noticed a few people who are fond of Abby accusing people feeling differently of having too much of an emotional bias or even going as far as to say they are less emotionally intelligent. This is problematic for two reasons, a) different people have different reasons for disliking Ellie’s final choice. Some still hate Abby as much as in the beginning, others feel drained and indifferent, and others still feel similarly to how I feel in that it’s mainly narratively dissatisfying. And b) the same story can have a different effect on any amount of people (otherwise, we would have settled the discussion about what the greatest movie all of time is long ago). My point being, that no matter how you feel about this particular story you are 100% justified in feeling this way, and yes that includes people that by the end of the game still hate Abby just as much as they did the moment she bashed Joel’s skull in. That does not necessarily have to be personal bias, more often than not it’s the ability to see through the storytelling techniques used, rendering them mostly ineffective for these people (and I include myself in this). I wanted Ellie to kill Abby not because I was unable to empathize with her or couldn’t see past my own personal bias, but because that would have been the logical, narratively satisfying conclusion to this specific story.