#character development analysis

[luna-azzurra]

List of 40 character flaws

Stubbornness, Unyielding in one's own views, even when wrong.

Impatience, Difficulty waiting for long-term results.

Self-doubt, Constant uncertainty despite evident abilities.

Quick temper, Excessive reactions to provocations.

Selfishness, Prioritizing one's own needs over others'.

Arrogance, Overestimating one's own abilities.

Trust issues, Difficulty trusting others.

Perfectionism, Setting unreachable high standards.

Fear of change, Avoiding changes.

Haunted by the past, Old mistakes or traumas influencing the present.

Jealousy, Envious of others' successes.

Laziness, Hesitant to exert effort.

Vindictiveness, Strong desire for revenge.

Prejudice, Unfair biases against others.

Shyness, Excessive timidity.

Indecisiveness, Difficulty making decisions.

Vulnerability, Overly sensitive to criticism.

Greed, Strong desire for more (money, power, etc.).

Dishonesty, Tendency to distort the truth.

Recklessness, Ignoring the consequences of one's actions.

Cynicism, Negative attitude and distrust.

Cowardice, Lack of courage in critical moments.

Hotheadedness, Quick, often thoughtless reactions.

Contentiousness, Tendency to provoke conflicts.

Forgetfulness, Difficulty remembering important details.

Kleptomania, Compulsion to steal things.

Hypochondria, Excessive concern about one's health.

Pessimism, Expecting the worst in every situation.

Narcissism, Excessive self-love.

Control freak, Inability to let go or trust others.

Tactlessness, Inability to address sensitive topics sensitively.

Hopelessness, Feeling that nothing will get better.

Dogmatism, Rigidity in one's own beliefs.

Unreliability, Inability to keep promises.

Closed-offness, Difficulty expressing emotions.

Impulsiveness, Acting without thinking.

Wounded pride, Overly sensitive to criticism of oneself.

Isolation, Tendency to withdraw from others.

[artist-issues]

I’ve only seen it once so forgive me for not saying more—

—but my favorite sequence is by far the part where ROZ is watching Brightbill finally take flight, and she looks up to try and see him as he gets farther away, but then her view of Brightbill is blocked by the pop-up screen saying “Task Complete.”

And she has to rush after him to get her final look, because of that. Because the Task was getting in the way of her seeing him.

[shyjusticewarrior]

"Nothing Jason says can be taken for truth."

"I believe you."

[tare-anime]

I love to see Loid's protective side towards Yor growing at a steady pace.

Loid has always been so protective towards Yor from the beginning, even before he himself was aware.

As shown at chp. 5

Here, he has just met Yor, but the moment Swan dared to stomp on her feelings, he got agitated and defend her right away. Even though, he still able to stop himself, and rationalize things.

It happened again during chp. 30

Look at how fast Loid's expression changed from "Hey, what are you doing here, Fiona?" Into "I dare you to say another word about Yor (grrrr)", at the exact moment Fiona dare to imply how worthless Yor was.

Still, after this time, once again Loid rationalized all of actions are for mere mission sake, even though we know during later chapter that he dislike the disguise that imply he and Fiona were married couple.

During Wheeler arc, at chp. 86, Loid finally aware about his "weakness". And that weakness is someone named Yor.

(smh. 🙄🙄 This man really is slow in learning about feelings. But he is getting there......)

Nevertheless, this realization really evoke his protective side. And almost immediately after this moment, he started to actively move to protect Yor, even in the slightest sign of possible 'attack'.

At the latest chapter, chp. 94, a.k.a only in 6 chapters later, he even starts to actively use his physical power to prevent even the slightest discomfort to happen towards Yor.

Look at how hard Loid gripped that man's arm for daring to suggest tying Yor up. And that glare??? Geeezzzz.....

Now, I have a desperate need to see Loid going full attack towards someone who dares to hurt Yor either pysiologically or (is it possible?) physically in somekind of situation like maybe something like (shameless self promotion here) my fic.

Please Endoooooo, I'm begging you..... 🙏🙏

Give us more protective and jealous Loid.

I need to see it 😫😫😫😫😫

[opbackgrounds]

This scene with Sanji is one of his most important moments in the series, and in my opinion also one of the most difficult passages in the manga to interpret, because to completely understand it you have to look at the manga holistically rather than this scene by itself.

The big question that needs answered is why does Oda let Zoro "win" here by having him be the sacrifice instead of Sanji. Both are equally willing and both are identified much later on as the Wings of the Pirate King, implying that they have similar importance (although vastly different roles) within the Straw Hat crew.

If we go back to Sanji's introduction on the Baratie, his big flaw was that he lacked the "spear of spirit" to pursue his dream. Since he's been a boy he's wanted to find the All Blue, but even when he had the opportunity to go after that dream he chose to stay on the Baratie out of a feeling of obligation to Zeff. Sanji put the continued existence of the restaurant over his own life, something Luffy rightfully called him out for at the time, and even at the end of the arc had to be pushed away by Zeff and the other chefs before he finally set sail for good.

On Drum, Sanji once again almost died protecting Nami and Luffy during the avalanche, resulting in a broken back that required surgury from Dr. Kureha. Luffy again calls him out (note the English translation here isn't entirely accurate, see here for a breakdown), and with his power there's a good chance Luffy could have gotten them all out of trouble without all the dramatics by Sanji.

Something similar happens on Skypiea, when Sanji puts himself in the way of Enel so that Usopp and Nami can be saved. This case is perhaps more justifiable given the extreme situation they were in, but nonetheless he was still quick to throw his life away.

Then on Enies Lobby Nami--while not criticizing his chivalry--calls out Sanji for simply not running away from Kalifa, instead just accepting that he's going to get the shit beat out of him, and possibly die.

So there's a pattern of self-destructive behavior. Sanji repeatedly puts his life on the line when he doesn't need to in order to preserve the lives and dreams of the people he loves. Even him constantly simping over Nami and Robin falls a little into this category, because if either of them told him to take a long walk off a short pier I have no doubt he'd comply. It's that same extreme willingness to sacrifice anything and everything for the people he cares for that we see in Baby 5, except Sanji was fortunate enough to not be surrounded by people that encourage these worst impulses of self-destructive behavior. As he says here in Thriller Bark, he's just the cook. Luffy can always just find someone else.

(The glory of Whole Cake Island being Sanji realizing, no, Luffy can't, and he won't).

And it is finally on WCI that get to the heart of why Sanji is like this with yet another episode of putting his own dreams and happiness aside for the sake of others, and not until Wano that we finally see him take the first steps toward asking others for help instead of passionately throwing his life away when he doesn’t need to.

When Zoro first offered his head to Kuma, the prominence of his dream was first and foremost. Notice that Sanji never mentions the All Blue. One Piece is a series that places the pursuit of one's own ambition above all else, even if that ambition is selfish. Sanji hasn't yet learned to be selfish, so Zoro knocks him out and ends up being the one to accept Luffy's pain. Sacrifice isn't sacrifice if the person doesn't value what they're giving up, and right now Sanji clearly doesn't value his own life compared to the rest of the crew.

Next chapter Oda will speak through Brook to confirm that Sanji's willingness to give himself up wasn't foolish or stupid. It's just that he's missing a piece of the puzzle, and that's not something he'll have for a long time yet.

[srslylini]

you know what I want to add a little bit more to that post. Mostly about the "Mel got removed from Jayce and finally became her own character" bit.

I fear my first reblog hasn't really captured the spirit of that yet. We get to know Mel in the second episode of season 1 and her first scene shows us how calculating and smart she is. She is also very aloof in this scene, not even acknowledging the person handing her the puzzles. Her conversation with Elora, while still showing some sort of relationship, is also distanced. She talks about her riches and how she is "still the poorest medarda" despite being the richest person in Piltover.

So what this tells us is this:

She is alone. In her family she seems to be the odd one out. She thinks herself to be standing in the shadow of her family (=mother though we only find that out in episode 8 of season 1). In short this basically tells us a contradiction. While everything they already gave us at this point in the show tells us she is incredible, smart, knowledgeable etc, she sells herself short.

When Mel talks to her mother about her banishment it isn't just a conversation, it explains to us who Mel is and why she is that way. It tells us that in a way she is self conscious and hides herself away. This is the starting point of her character, keep that in mind.

Ok, that brings us to my next point. How she used that childrens toy to her advantage. Again, smart as fuck. Had she not done this, then Jayce would have been banished. There were 4 votes against 3 meaning gaining that one vote changed the fate of Jayce, literally. She didn't find Jayce interesting as a person but as an investment during this time though. Nothing about him influenced any of her decisions, especially not here. She chose to give away that toy and she chose to vote against Jayce's banishment.

The look Mel and Jayce give each other after Jayce and Viktor found their way to Hextech also already spoke volumes. They obviously had the hots for each other and like good for them, lmao. After the timejump their relationship has shifted as well. While she still obviously sees the investment, she now also sees him as a person, too. They are extremely comfortable with each other.

Now after Jayce didn't show their newest Hextech project? She did walk away but that also gave us something:

She very obviously isn't resentful. That is also seen in how, while rightfully being annoyed, she immediately gets why Jayce left after their night together. Her giving Jayce the position in the council ALSO wasn't cause she loved him but for political reasons. That, again, tells us another thing about her:

She can clearly separate work and home life.

All of this, while maybe including Jayce, are of her own character and not because of someone else. We see her acting in the council too, and that's also interesting. Because while some others like Salo seem to be ready to jump around and scream, she never does. She waits, calculates, listens and then offers her voice. She is never holding back but she also doesn't just react crazy. Not once. Not after the explosion happens in act 1 of season 1, not when Jayce talks about Magic, not when Vi is in the council with Caitlyn, not even in the end of season 1 when Jayce proposes the peace treaty with Zaun. None of this is linked to Jayce or because of Jayce. She just is her own character.

And then season 1 did something incredibly fascinating. Now they actually introduced a character Mel seems to have some dependency to. Her mother; Ambessa Medarda. It's reluctant and it's awkward and it strengthens her character very much.

At this point in the story the love between Jayce and her is already blossoming, it's after their sex scene. Their relationship doesn't influence any of her other decisions, she doesn't suddenly act differently to before or becomes dependent on Jayce. If anything it, again, strengthens her.

When in the beginning we saw her as thinking she is standing in her mothers shadow, she now steps into the light when she steps up and calls out Ambessa. When she lets go of the weight of family holding her down to vote for peace, it also shows how she's grown. She isn't distanced anymore, nor is she someone who stills sees herself in her mothers shadow. Her character went from incredible with an arc before her to that arc being masterfully concluded. And that happened WITH Jayce and not BECAUSE of Jayce. When in the beginning she was aloof, distanced and calculating, in the end she was ready to show herself to Jayce, be herself and be caring. She wasn't distanced and gave Jayce a look into her life (telling him about her family after he told her about his troubles).

She was still very smart but also let herself be emotional about a decision, she gave away the weight of her family and left the shadow it cast over her completely.

Anyways yeah just wanted to talk more about Mel. Because she was nothing but very interesting in season 1 and saying she just now got interesting after not being with Jayce rubbed me the wrong way whoops

[moraymiso]

// bsd ch 119

akutagawa’s line in that one panel where he asks atsushi “who the hell are you?” might genuinely be him losing his memories or something sure

but i think it’s more likely he’s gonna turn around later and be like “i asked who you were because you were sitting there sulking and crying for fyodor’s mercy like a damsel in distress. and that is NOT the atsushi i fight with”

like maybe i’m just coping but that seems right up his alley. to practically slap some sense into atsushi mid-breakdown over his dead friends

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

Why The Ending Sucks

Ok I figured it out. Hear me out:

The entire comic has a running theme best summed up as "who is controlling the narrative, and why are we listening to them?"

Hussie plays a caricaturized version of himself that he describes as "buffoonish" and "oafish". Caricature!Hussie is well-meaning, but a dumb idiot who's incredibly biased in favor of certain characters and in disfavor of others (the most obvious example being his "love" of Vriska, but there's also the way he constantly disparages Eridan). As a result, you have to be VERY SKEPTICAL and VERY CAREFUL when approaching Homestuck's narration, because even when the "best" narrator is at the helm, he's not 100% trustworthy and incapable of giving the readers an unbiased view of the story.

I say "best" because, importantly, Hussie isn't the story's only narrator. He and Doc Scratch explicitly fight over control of the story - Doc Scratch, the child abusing predator who engineered Alternia's fascist murder society, whose shaping of its history is explicitly described by character!Hussie as "fanfic". He is then killed by Lord English, who is described by Hussie as embodying the "toxically masculine" and by extension, the patriarchy, and Caliborn explicitly takes control of the story. John even grapples with Caliborn's version of events, calling out how sexist and misogynistic and shitty it is.

So if we're keeping score: control over the narrative is LITERALLY wrested away from Hussie (who was already struggling to be unbiased) by fascists, abusers, and the patriarchy. It's stressed multiple times that Caliborn/LE are responsible for literally everything that ever happens; the reason the Game Over timeline ends the way that it does is because the alpha timeline is, in essence, the narrative LE is telling: the forces of fascism get to claim the new universe, thereby propogating itself, while friendship dies and all hope is lost.

Who's in control of the narrative, and why are we listening to them?

There are other minor examples of this, too: Aranea is an exposition fairy, and she's biased as fuck and wrong ALL THE TIME about her own teammates. Karkat's explanations and rationalizations are constantly tinged with his own self-loathing and self-blame. Sollux and Meulin are both prophets as per their Mage class, but are both so bogged down by their own emotional issues that the futures they pick out are actively harmful. So on and so on. At nearly every turn, you have to interrogate who's telling the story, what their motivations are, and what they're overlooking or deliberately obfuscating.

So given that this theme is so prevalent, and so thoroughly weighted toward "well, actually, maybe you shouldn't take narration at face value and should interrogate it and come to your own conclusions," it would be Really Weird for the story to go "actually, you can totally trust the narrative now because everyone gets a happy ending".

So, I know that it makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but here's my genuine take on Homestuck's ending:

The ending is shitty on purpose because the viewer is intended to take it as a dare to refute the narration and make something better.

Why are we letting character!Hussie tell the story? He's a biased idiot. Why are we letting the various avatars of LE and Caliborn tell the story? They're fascist, misogynistic, predatory assholes.

And - because Homestuck is a story about life - why are we letting idiots, assholes, abusers, and creeps dictate the story of real life? The world is full of forces that would try to take control of the story and make everyone else play along, represented in microcosm within the text of Homestuck. We cannot let those forces win.

So please go out and do something kind and hopeful and loving in the world today. Thanks for reading.

[ihavetoomanyocsdealwithit]

Ok, Riddle fans, I am starting to understand.

As I go through more of Riddle's Vignette's and the story, seeing him actually interacting with his house and people outside of it, I get it. He's intimidating and intense, absolutely, and he doesn't always understand why things like social media and trends or parties are important to say Cater or Ace.

But he tries. He learned how Cater memorized and learned and changed his studying style in order to help him. Downloaded a whole app, made posts that would make no sense to anyone else and weird tags, just to help him, spending even more additional time and energy after creating a 300 page study guide.

He continually steps in to encourage and guide Deuce and generally doesn't seem to know or care about his past delinquency, only what he does now as an NRC student. Even the conversations with Ace which tend to go sideways or chiding, seem like they are simply almost too much alike, just different values and priorities.

Yes, the other students are intimidated by Riddle. But as I dive in more, especially after his Overblot, it's because he holds others to the same standards as himself for better or for worse. Does he recognize the privilege of receiving so much education on magic and other subjects so early? I'm not sure. But he looks at his students and asks why not. Why can't they pass, why are the struggling, how do I get them there. Like, this fixation of nobody dropping out or flunking tells me that it happens a lot, maybe the most in Heartslabyul? But Riddle is making his legacy at NRC that he's graduating at the top and every one of his house is coming with him. He genuinely believes in his people and that they will be the best, most cohesive and talented dorm because they worked together, he just has a different approach to it after his holier than thou attitude was knocked out of him after his Overblot.

Malleus was right. King of Heartslabyul, absolutely.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Literary Character

In a literary work, characters are the persons who are given certain moral, intellectual, and emotional qualities by the author.

Two Major Types of Characters

Static. The static character is one who is "flat" and two-dimensional. Such a character is usually recognized by one or two simple traits. The hallmark of a static character is that he or she will not change in spite of experience or conflict. This type of character remains unchanged by events and experiences. An example of a static character is Mistress Quickly in Henry IV.

Dynamic. The dynamic character is one who is "round" and three-dimensional. His or her personality, motives, and attitudes are complex. Such a character cannot be summed up by one or two traits. The hallmark of a dynamic character is change. This type of character will be changed and influenced by events and experiences. An example of a dynamic character is Pip in Great Expectations.

Criteria for Analyzing Character

The reader can use the criteria below in order to analyze, interpret, and draw conclusions about a character.

Appearance. Appearance generally falls into two categories: external and physical. External appearance consists of extrinsic qualities, such as clothing, jewelry, tattoos, or hairstyle. Through these external factors, you may determine a character’s taste, social status, occupation, or personality. Physical appearance, on the other hand, consists of intrinsic qualities, such as height, weight, facial expression, or tone of voice. These physical factors can suggest different personality traits. For example, a muscular physique might suggest strength; a skinny physique might suggest weakness. Be careful, however, not to judge a character on appearance alone. Appearance and reality are not always the same.

Behavior and Actions. In literature, all behavior and actions help define character. Nothing a character does is arbitrary or incidental. Small nuances of behavior need to be interpreted, as well as major decisive actions. Therefore, when trying to define what a character is like, consider what that character does. Do his or her actions reveal courage, ignorance, cunning, or generosity? For your analysis to be complete, consider involuntary behavior, such as nervous twitching, fast talking, or profuse sweating.

Biography. Often in short stories or novels, biographical information about a character will be revealed: place of birth, era of childhood, type of education, early careers, successes, failures, even the identity and occupation of the character’s parents. Such information can be used to sharpen the picture of a character, or to give added credibility to traits and values that have been identified.

Dialogue. Closely scrutinize what characters say and how they say it, for dialogue is significant. A character’s speech reveals traits and values in 2 principal ways:

Direct Expression. The correlation is patently clear between what the character says and who the character is. Nothing is hidden; nothing is subtly suggested. Direct expression requires little or no interpretation by the reader. What the character says provides immediate insight. For example, in Paradise Lost, the fallen angel Moloch states how he would like to deal with the angels left in heaven, “My sentence is for open war.” Moloch’s hostile nature is revealed directly.

Indirect Expression. The correlation is implied between what the character says and who the character is. The meaning of words may be hidden or suggested. Thus, the reader must determine the unstated meaning of a character’s words. For example, at a ball in Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy is asked if he’ll join in the dancing. He replies, “All savages dance.” At its face value, the statement could be a harmless observation about dancing. Instead, it reveals Mr. Darcy as a haughty man whose sense of superiority makes him disdainful of his company.

Emotions. When interpreting a character, you will be trying to get below the surface of that character to see deeper meanings. To do so, take into account a character’s temperament. Temperament may manifest itself in some general traits, such as whether a character is introverted or extroverted, optimistic or pessimistic, sensitive or indifferent. Or, temperament may reveal itself in specific emotional states, such as anger, melancholy, anxiety, compassion, or happiness.

Thoughts. If an author uses “direct expression” to reveal a character's thoughts and values, you need only to note what these thoughts and values are, explaining why they are significant. However, a character’s thoughts are rarely revealed directly. Therefore, you will need to interpret, infer, and draw conclusions about a character's thoughts. To do so, gather evidence from the above criteria. These criteria can all come together to form a composite sketch of a character, revealing his or her true opinions and beliefs.

What other characters say and think. The statements and thoughts of one character regarding another can be a valid source of information. However, this information can be double-edged. While you may learn about a character based on the statements and thoughts of another, you will have to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of those statements and thoughts. A reliable character will usually be perceptive and a good judge of character; an unreliable character will be flawed in some way that inhibits his or her judgment.

How To Write about Character

When writing about character, you may use the following 3-step process. Keep in mind that this is a general approach.

Establish major character traits. Pin down the character’s traits. Because the main characters in a work will have depth and complexity, you should be able to distinguish at least three prominent traits. These traits may be closely related, but they must be distinctly different.

Support major character traits with examples. The traits you establish in step 1 will be based on general impressions. In step 2, however, you must support these traits with concrete examples. For example, if you assert that “vindictiveness” is a trait, you must substantiate vindictiveness with examples from the literary work.

Explain how and why your examples substantiate a particular trait. Step 3 is the most important (and most difficult) stage of your paper. You must go beyond merely linking examples with traits; you must elaborate your views of a character’s traits with explanation. Your explanation must tell how and why your examples reveal a particular trait, whether the trait is moral, intellectual, or emotional.

Note: Other non-human entities can perform in the role of “characters.” For example, animals, nature (rivers, mountains, oceans, etc.), and man-made creations (cities, machines, houses, etc.) can function as characters.

If these writing notes help with your poem/story, do tag me. Or send me a link. I'd love to read them!

Writing Notes & References

[luna-azzurra]

Fun Ways for characters to be wrong #1

Making quick assumptions without all the facts

Mistaking symbols or signs for something else

Using flawed reasoning or faulty logic

Ignoring obvious clues or hints

Believing in superstitions or myths that aren't true

Being overly confident and proven wrong

Exaggerating their experiences or accomplishments

Remembering events inaccurately or mixing up details

Trusting unreliable sources or false information

Falling for pranks, deceptions, or illusions

Underestimating the abilities or intentions of others

Mispronouncing words and causing misunderstandings

Making wild predictions about the future that don't come true

[artist-issues]

I remember during the making of Tangled, the filmmakers said they had to work hard to design Rapunzel’s tower to be beautiful and seem like a cozy, fun environment, while also making Mother Gothel seem sweet and loveable, if manipulative.

Because, they said, if the environment is too much like a prison, and Gothel is too much like a villainess, the audience wouldn’t believe in Rapunzel as a character. They’d think she was either stupid or cowardly, to stay in such a nasty situation without trying to escape sooner. But if her circumstances seem just livable enough, just sweet enough, that you can see some of the appeal, then you wouldn’t blame her for waiting so long to leave.

Why didn’t they do that with Wish?

Why didn’t they think that relatability through?

Nobody is really feeling compelled to root for the everyday Rosas citizens during the movie. You don’t feel like rooting for Asha’s cause, or even Queen Amaya’s. Because you think to yourself, “why did it take the townspeople so long to ask the question ‘why can’t we just have our wishes back?’”

Asha comes up with those culture-breaking questions, inexplicably, in the first twenty minutes of the movie. It takes the rest of the townspeople about 24 hours to suddenly start asking that, too.

So why don’t you root for them?

Because when something bad happens to them, part of your brain goes, “why didn’t they see that coming, though? Why didn’t they ask questions? That one’s a little bit on them.”

And you don’t really feel that feeling you got with Mother Gothel, where you were like, “Oh yeah, I can see why the main character trusted this villain; the villain really seems to care about the hero, if you didn’t know what she was after.” You don’t;t get that same feeling with Magnifico. Because the whole idea of what he does—by erasing people’s memories and yelling at them and having no moments with regular folk where he’s warm and personal and building trust—is so malicious that we don’t believe the other characters couldn’t see it.

We COULD HAVE believed it. If they’d added in good writing and character moments to make it believable.

When Magnifico interacts with the people who trust him and are duped by him, he’s up on a stage, flashing superpowers they don’t have and then disappearing back into his tower after only granting one wish. He’s not on the welcome tour with Asha. He doesn’t know his own palace staff by name. He’s done nothing to build the trust all the side-characters unquestioningly give him. So even at the end, when everyone’s like, “aw, we wanted to believe in Magnifico,” we don’t feel it. Because didja? Why? Everyone could see that coming.

Meanwhile Mother Gothel tells Rapunzel she loves her most every time she leaves. She laughs with her. She reinforces every conversation they have with the idea that she’s desperate to protect Rapunzel. She brings her her favorite soup as a surprise and remembers the ingredients. She goes to get white paint on a very long trip so Rapunzel can paint. She compliments her strength and beauty—even if it’s backhanded. She calls her “dear,” and “darling.” She knocks thugs out with sticks, returning even after she argued with and supposedly ‘gave up’ on Rapunzel, all to supposedly’ protect’ her. So when Rapunzel realizes it was all an act, and she’s wrathful and furious and grabs Gothel’s hand, we DO feel it. Because we believed that Rapunzel really didn’t see this coming, so the shock stings worse. We don’t blame Rapunzel, and we do blame Gothel.

Just another example of what #NotMyDisney forgot about themselves.

[awesomelly]

There is something I need to get off my chest in the Nimona fandom:

I dislike the depiction of Ballister being a subservient, emotional and fragile man, especially when in comparison to Ambrosius who is often pictured as the manly protector and voice of reason in their relationship - both in pre-canon and post-canon fanfics.

This isn't correct. I have to state it that way.

Let me explain:

The basic principle of a good narrative is to have people/characters act opposite to their nature. That means to put those characters in situations where they are forced to adapt and overcome obstacles, otherwise situations wouldn't be obstacles if it was easy.

And this is true for both Ambrosius and Ballister in the movie as well.

As you can see even in this tiny glimpse of the scene before the knighting ceremony (where everything was still sorted and their lives were still adjusted to their characters), you can see how Ambrosius is the one fuming at Todd's teasing. And Ballister is the one who stops him with a simple gesture and a slight headshake no. In the lair scene and the innocent's wall Ballister even corrects himself for repeating Nimona that Todd needs a good punching, so that scene above must have happened more than once beforehand during their time as squires - Ballister is the one with a straight determination, a cool head and a reasonable attitude while Ambrosius is righteously emotional at the provocation of his boyfriend.

Ambrosius proves his righteous and emotional character trait by forcing Ballister out of his brooding and trying to lighten him up by goofing around. Don't get me wrong, I love this trait of Ambrosius, and it gives us a perfect insight how the relationship works; apparently very well in their different ways of calming their nerves:

Another proof is the way Ballister ascends the steps during the knighting ceremony. He is determined despite his nerves whereas Ambrosius whoo-hooed at the spectators and then at Ballister after he is knighted. Again, a perfect opposite of reason (Ballister) and emotional outlet (Ambrosius):

And then everything goes to shit. This is where the story begins - can begin in the first place, actually.

Ballister's and Ambrosius' controlled lives crumble to dust and they are faced with exact opposites: Ambrosius is forced to take the role as a leader and a cool-minded persecutor of the man that he loves. A starker contrast is nearly impossible. And we can see an exposure of his true nature during the scene in the carriage with the Director, where he loses it in his mind but has to (and succeeds!) in suppressing his true emotions.

He even succeeds while he is facing Ballister but the struggle in his face is visible:

Ballister, on the other hand, loses his focus and goal in life in one single strike (literally). He is badly injured and still manages to hide, take care of his wound, and build himself a functioning prosthetic. He is on edge, worsened by the fact that a kid rampages in his life that has an overflow of emotions and attitudes. Ballister is forced to accept his new role and has to cope with a variety of very difficult and deep emotions. This is hilarious and fun, of course, but why is it that way? Because it is the exact opposite to his nature.

During the movie, depths of his character get exposed that would normally never come to the surface. That does not mean that Ballister isn't per se emotional or sometimes silly but the large mimics and gestures of him during the movie are a sign of his absolute overextension:

Both their characters are developing in this movie. Ambrosius becomes responsible without losing his sunny nature while Ballister breaks old habits of keeping to himself to become more expressive without losing his autonomy and his integrity. He is strong because of his fears and pushing through it with bravery, he is independent because he develops a deep connection to Nimona and ultimately saves her from herself, and he is manly because he shows his emotions with such intensity during the movie.

In summary: You need characters to face difficult situations because that's how character development is possible at all! It's the same thing in real life.

So, please understand that a superficial view on the pairing just does not suffice. Especially considering Ballister. And no, a simple hand placement, the crook of an eyebrow, or a slight difference in height does not depict who is top or bottom in a relationship!

I want you to know that every headcannon and alternation of the original canon is absolutely fine bc everyone deserves to build their own headspace, but please don't project anything ooc on these characters when it is a dysfunctional power play or a degradation of one character.

Thank you for reading! I am open for discussion!

[hazmatmaid]

I feel like people must’ve forgotten how objectively horrifying Spamton NEO is, like on a psychological level. Once he goes NEO, that’s the point of no return. The only way out of it for him is to basically die.

Not to mention Puppet Scarf’s flavor text:

Yes, Ralsei can no longer cast healing spells as effectively with it equipped, but think of the implication; that’s Spamton. By the time he goes NEO, he gave up on healing and making amends. By this point, he’d rather go out and kill everyone who wronged him (or he thinks they did) than seek forgiveness, or forgive them himself.

And in Snowgrave, he has no problem with letting (or even encouraging) someone commit mass murder if he can take advantage of the situation.

He may call you out on it, but by that point he’s mostly projecting his own self-hatred onto Kris.

But if we adhere more closely to the normal Ch2 route, it’s implied that he still had murderous intentions with NEO.

And even if you end the fight by sparing him and get the Dealmaker instead, it's already too late for him. He went NEO, and there's no other way it can end for him.

In other words, NEO spells his doom.

[tare-anime]

A classic marriage "mistake" has been done by the perfect Twilight.

Yor has been so insecure of "the usefullness" of herself for a loooonnggg time

Twilight has to boost her confidence from time to time. Via words of affirmations.

That is good.

However, the ever capable Twilight also does everything by himself

Of course he does all of this with good intentions. He doesn't want Yor to be tired. He wants to give her the best of everything.

And that is the mistake.

When one does everything by oneself, it will make the other person feels that they are uneeded. Being a couple especially so.

So that's why this is a major growth, that Twilight finally finally asking for Yor's help.

And that's makes her happy. Because she is now needed.

Being vulnerable in front of your spoused IS a good thing, Twilight.

I hope now you realize that 🥰🥰

[opbackgrounds]

So Oda's doing the thing here where he has a character spell out another character's entire motivation and development, and while that can at times be a sign of bad writing, here it works really well. Franky's in some deep denial here (ironically kind of like how Usopp was when they had their conversation about the Merry) and needs to hear what Iceburg's saying. And again, it's more effective because it's Iceburg who's saying it. Their history has been so fraught, but they're still brothers.

It doesn't hurt that the message itself is so, so important. Franky undoubtedly contributed to Tom's death, and everything he's done since then has been a form of self-punishment trying to atone for that mistake. But that's not what Tom would have wanted. It's not anything Iceburg or Kokoro or anyone else demanded of him. The only thing keeping Franky from living his dream is a cage made of his own guilt.

One Piece is a series that prioritizes freedom above all else, but the road to that freedom is usually blocked by what seems like insurmountable obstacles that can only be cleared with the help of others. Sometimes those obstacles are external, but just as often they're internal barriers that prevent characters from pursuing their own happiness. And for all the issues Iceburg and Franky have had in the past, this is what Franky needed to hear in order to unlock that cage and live his best, freest life.