#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.

[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

[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.

[tiredandoptimistic]

The key to Troy and Abed's plotline in "Urban Matrimony and the Sandwich Arts" in my opinion is the fact that it's Troy who can't handle being normal.

I know that Abed is the more overtly weird and autistic of the two, but he's also incredibly comfortable with masking. As he explains it, he's fine adopting different personas because it doesn't actually impact his perception of himself. It's not something he has to do, but it's a good tool for succeeding in certain interactions.

Troy though, he spent most of his life masking and he hates it. He's always been so focused on making other people happy that it took him until Greendale to get any idea of what he actually wants. He can't just slip into being normal, because for him that means destroying the sense of individuality he fought so hard for. Yeah, "Troy and Abed being normal" was a funny bit at first, but it stopped being fun so Troy called it off and that's great! He knows what he wants and it's to make a fool of himself in public with his best friend.

I love that the two of them never completely fit into the roles you might expect from them. Troy does often take a supporting role in their adventures, but it's because that's what he enjoys. He is still actively choosing to be a little freak with Abed, and when it comes down to it he's willing to take a stand for what makes him happy; even if it goes against his people-pleasing instincts. Troy may generally come across as the relatively normal one in their partnership, but he's far more dependent on being able to express weirdness because Abed carries it within himself but Troy feels as though it's something he can lose.

[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.

[blueskittlesart]

*sigh* thoughts on Nintendo's botw/totk timeline shenanigans and tomfoolery?

tbh. my maybe-unpopular opinion is that the timeline is only important when a game's place on the timeline seriously informs the way their narrative progresses. the problem is that before botw we almost NEVER got games where it didn't matter. it matters for skyward sword because it's the beginning, and it matters for tp/ww/alttp (and their respective sequels) because the choices the hero of time makes explicitly inform the narrative of those games in one way or another. it matters which timeline we're in for those games because these cycles we're seeing are close enough to oot's cycle that they're still feeling the effects of his choices. botw, however, takes place at minimum 10 thousand years after oot, so its place on the timeline actually functionally means nothing. botw is completely divorced from the hero of time & his story, so what he does is a nonissue in the context of botw link and zelda's story. thus, which timeline botw happens in is a nonissue. honestly I kind of liked the idea that it happened in all of them. i think there's a cool idea of inevitability that can be played with there. but the point is that the timeline exists to enhance and fill in the lore of games that need it, and botw/totk don't really need it because the devs finally realized they could make a game without the hero of time in it.

[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.

[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

[tetheredfeathers]

One of the things that amazes me the most about the trilogy is how subtly Collins molds Katniss' mindset to a softer and more understanding place. And how does she do it?

Through Peeta.

Peeta is the embodiment of empathy, love, and kindness, which is one of the first things Katniss notices about him. He is the first person to deciphers the main goal of the games: to pit the districts against one another, as mere pawns to the Capitol.

Katniss imitates Peeta more than we think.

In the first book, when her ally Rue is killed, she finally understands that Peeta had figured it out before tepping foot in the arena. She begins to rethink her animal instincts that made her kill Marvel without a second thought, wondering what the games had made of her.

She understands, what she and had Gale refused to at the beginning of the book, when he says that killing a human is no different. But it is different, and this is a point of epiphany for her. She covers Rue with flowers to show that she is not a piece in their games.

Ultimately, this change leads to the final move with the berries that sparks the rebellion. It is Peeta's ideology of non-conformity and rebellion through non-violence that saves them both and leads their country to freedom.

Additionally, in Catching her demeanour towards the other victors is amusing to say the least. It is obvious that she has let go of her survivalist mentality, she gives the victors a chance (even the most extreme ones such as Cashmere, Glass and Enobaria ) to view them as they really are, setting aside the Capitol created image.

Peeta’s empathy and moral integrity underpin her actions and decisions as she leads the rebellion, she conveys that true leadership involves compassion and understanding, and not just strategy and strength.

Through Peeta, she learns to love more and to have more understanding for the people around her, whether it be her prep team or a career tribute. Peeta's existence is what primarily helps her survive and prevents her from adopting Gale's extreme realist approach to war.

Katniss is the apex of the love triangle, representing the middle ground between Peeta and Gale's liberal and realist approaches. However, she is unsure of her stance at the beginning of the first book.

“Not people,” I say. “How different can it be, really?” says Gale grimly. The awful thing is that if I can forget they’re people, it will be no different at all.

Throughout Mockingjay, Katniss often finds herself at odds with Gale’s strategies, especially when they involve potential civilian casualties. And even then Peeta is physically absent, his voice rings at the back of her head. Even in his semi hijacked state he manages to guide Katniss in his propos.

"Is this really what we want to do? Kill ourselves off completely? In the hopes that — what? Some decent species will inherit the smoking remains of the earth?”

Peeta brings out this sympathetic side, and so she symbolically becomes a neutral ground between Gale and Peeta's mindsets. She embodies the balance between a liberal and realist approach to war.

[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.