#creating multifaceted characters comes with realizing that you need to treat your characters like people and realize that they will react

[rabbitsparklez]

✨sorry Im kinda late if you're still doing the ask thingy. anyway, what are some of your UNPOPULAR opinions?

No, it’s fine! I’m happy to get asks whenever :)

First of all, I’d like to apologize for the delay. It took me like 3 days to answer this because I added a lot. This was a LOT more elaborate than you asked for so uh...... enjoy?

I have a lot of conflicted opinions that I wouldn’t exactly call “unpopular”, but I also have several that I would. There is negativity in this post, and if you’d rather not read it, then please don’t.

Please do not comment or message me about these if you disagree. This is my blog, and if you generally disagree with my than I don’t know what you are doing here.

Thank you for the ask!

1. I kinda... almost.... hated “Buddy”.

 Yes, it’s a really catchy song and a great blend of Zach and James’ voices, but it also serves as a reminder that the writers prioritized Cassandra’s importance over Eugene’s. I’m already not a fan of it when people use strong and mature characters in overly silly scenarios, but it makes my stomach churn to think that they would actually dare to ridicule Eugene to such a far extent in order to give Cassandra the spotlight, when her entire arc was written poorly despite all their costly efforts to give it to her. I know that Eugene didn’t intentionally fall under the influence of those flowers and he certainly would’ve done something had he been there when Rapunzel discovered the Moon Incantation, but honestly that just bothers me even more because Eugene had so much potential and they wasted it.

2. (I don’t know what’s gonna come of this) I don’t hate King Frederick. I’m very disappointed in him, but I don’t hate him. Everyone hates him because of his failure to handle a threat to the kingdom, and his rashness and dishonestly toward his daughter, and I both agree to a lot of it, but I don’t hate him.

I have no excuses for the fact that he lied about having the black rocks under control because he didn’t know what to do about them. As the king, it is his responsibility to consider what is best for his kingdom, and by lying about a major threat, he only caused the problem to get worse. The reason the black rocks came in the first place, however, is because he took the Sundrop to heal his dying wife and unborn child. I know it wasn’t the most prudent decision, and he did a horrible job cleaning up the mess he made afterwards, but he was desperate to save his family, and chances are likely that he didn’t have time to consider every aspect and consequence that taking the Sundrop would cause.

Regarding his actions towards Rapunzel, I hate the fact that he would dare consider locking his own daughter in her room to protect her from something that he’s not making any effort to fix. Treating people immorally harshly while saying it’s for their own good is toxic, and I want to make it clear that I am the last person to defend abusers, but I highly doubt that Frederick gingerly considered every aspect of locking his daughter in her room and how it would affect her. Rapunzel was kidnapped as a baby, and that gives two reasons why Frederick is so protective of her: the fact that he is her father and the pain and trauma in itself. Everyone takes trauma differently, depending on the person and the weight of the situation. I hate it when people who are clearly smart and strong enough to understand the situation use their traumas as an excuse to justify their actions, but some people are so devastated by their traumas that they completely lose themselves. Again, he logically wouldn’t have thought about every single thing he was doing and the trouble it would cause. He lost his baby girl. I’ve heard many times that losing a child is the worst pain imaginable, and you could only understand that pain if you experienced it. Perhaps he even felt responsible for the fact that his daughter was kidnapped because he thought that he wasn’t as protective as he should’ve been, and the idea of “making things right again” and protecting her was drilled so deeply into his mind. In addition to the pain that he went through and how that affected his judgments, Frederick had no parental experience whatsoever. All parents have to figure out who their children are and how they should handle situations. Doing this involves trial and error, tears and pain. As seen in the episode “You’re Kidding Me”, Rapunzel and Eugene both thought they knew how to treat children but both of them made errors due to the cooperation and sensitivity of the kids they were looking after - this applies to every parent and every child. Frederick was completely ad-libbed into parenthood, and his trauma from losing his child did not mix well with Rapunzel’s spirit of adventure and independence.

As a king, Frederick failed in his responsibility to do what is best for the kingdom, and I agree that he wasn’t justified for the actions he took (or didn’t take), and he was a jerk for lying about it; but as a father, I feel more sympathy for him because in his eyes, he was doing the right thing, even though we know that he wasn’t. People are so quick to justify Varian for his actions following his traumas, when he’s admittedly intelligent enough to understand them; but people are so quick to demonize Frederick for his actions following his traumas, when he’s clearly not intelligent enough to understand them. I don’t think that’s fair in the minimal sense and it still irks me how biased a lot of people were in this situation.

3. I’m not sure how “popular” or “unpopular” this one is considered, but I hated both Stalyan and Brock Thunderstrike. It takes a lot for me to actually hate a character, but considering how much they wronged Eugene, I can’t ever see them in a positive perspective.

Aside from almost killing Lance, Stalyan abused Eugene. When he was only 16, she tried to marry him so that he could be her partner in crime, and judging by the way she talked to him in BTCW, it’s likely that she manipulated him and constantly belittled his choices. (which is another reason I hate how they did that with the Cass arc, because he should be entitled to such a valid opinion). She called him by his fake last name and tried to pull him back into the past, showing that she gave no importance to his persona and development as a character. When he refuses to marry her, her dad poisons his best friend and forces Eugene to either let his best friend from childhood die, or leave his girlfriend - his closest companion who filled in his missing parts and helped him to know that he mattered. Afterwards, she brushed it of with “that was my dad’s idea, but bad guys have a flair for drama”, in the least sympathetic tone imaginable. She then locked him and his dying friend in prison until the wedding, and tried to convince him that he wasn’t good enough for the woman he loved. The writers could’ve used her as a way to understand Eugene’s insecurities and pain a little bit better, but they freaking REDEEMED her. She just went with Rapunzel on a little road trip where she decided “y’know what, you can have my ex boyfriend and I’ll move on! Tell him I said hi!”. We didn’t get a proper address that Stalyan likely had a role in damaging Eugene’s sense of importance and trust, but even worse, we didn’t get an apology. I can’t believe that they made Rapunzel deal with someone else’s abusive relationship, where she hardly understood what was actually going on. Stalyan never said another word to Eugene or apologized to him or Lance for what she had done to both of them. She married a guy that looks exactly like him in the end too! Instead of looking for someone new, she chose a guy who looks exactly like her ex, showing that she cared more about his looks than his inner self.

Speaking of her new boyfriend, I hated Brock Thunderstrike. Let’s just pretend that Eugene hasn’t already been sidelined and ridiculed for Cass, and make an almost exact copy of him, only without his flaws and development! Let’s make him look exactly like him, make him repeat every iconic action and line that he made in the movie in a flawless way, and make him steal his entire former identity!  - THAT WAS SO STUPID! I can’t believe they actually did that! Eugene is one of the most meticulously created, personified, and multifaceted characters that Disney has ever created, but not only did they push him in the mud to give Cassandra space, but they created this idiot Mary Sue copy of him with no personification otherwise! In the end, just like Stalyan, he decided with no redeeming deeds or apologies that he would make a new person of himself.

They really make a good match, and that’s not a compliment.

4. I love Lance as a person, but not as a character - If that makes any sense.

I love that wholesome boy a lot, but I don’t like the way he was used in the show. I think that even he pitched in to the factors that flattened Eugene as a character in the show. First of all, it takes away some of the meaning of love and it’s necessity to Eugene’s life. We always thought that Eugene was a lonely, rejected child who needed love more than he realized, but it turns out he did, in fact, have a buddy who wasn’t just his partner in crime for years, but a close, brotherly figure. That contradicts the significance of Eugene’s childhood and life as an orphan. Secondly, Lance was often used as an object to distract Eugene and drag him into the stupid and nonsensical scenarios that prevented him from interfering with Rapunzel and Cassandra’s overly prioritized involvement to the plot of the episode. Don’t get me wrong. I love Lance and have nothing against him, but his role as a character could’ve been used in better ways.

5. Adira should have either had a larger or smaller role in the show.

When we were introduced to Adira in Season 2, she was the fairy godmother  that always came when the squad was in distress. She could do everything: she is superhumanly strong and agile, can cook, can effortlessly cut down trees, can survive in the wilderness, knows everything, and is practically perfect. But considering her knowledge of the Sundrop and Moonstone and her past with the Dark Kingdom, I was disappointed that we couldn’t explore more of her character and personality. In Season 3, she just kind of vanished. Considering her amazing abilities, we could’ve explored her character and learned of her weaknesses and backstory in season 3, but we didn’t. She played a lot of parts in Season 2 but almost none in Season 3. I thought Adira was sort of a Mary Sue. She’s perfect on the outside, but we have little knowledge of the inside. To make her a better character, she could’ve either been brought into the light in Season 3, or not given as much attention in Season 2. Either way, she’s an unbalanced character. I like her, but she’s hollow.

6. I like Shorty. 

He’s kind of pointless and it made me roll my eyes when he unintentionally saved the day when other characters *cough* Eugene *cough* could’ve done so, but he also made me laugh a lot. He’s an idiot but fairly harmless otherwise. Also, unlike a lot of things in the show, he’s in character. In the movie, it wasn’t out of character for Shorty to pop up in weird places or save the day without really knowing it (he was one of the ones who helped Eugene break out of prison). The Snuggly Duckling was a major point in the movie and we didn’t see a lot it in the show. While Shorty’s tagging along didn’t contribute anything to society, it kept the Snuggly Duckling present in the show.

7. As much as I love him, I’m not attracted to Eugene.

I think he’s handsome and charming, but I ship him with Rapunzel too much to be in love with him :). I would give anything to have a platonic friend like him, but maybe not a husband.

To be frank, I’m a little creeped out by people who seem to “fall romantically in love” with characters, because they sometimes........well let’s just say that they portray them in a way that makes me incredibly uncomfortable - if you know what I mean. This applies to all characters, but especially to the ones that I like.

8. Varian’s role was too invasive. You’re probably surprised at this, because a lot of fans seem to think that he didn’t get enough of a role and wasn’t put to his full potential. I agree that he is a very elaborate character with a lot of potential, but he was never intended to be a main character, and he shouldn’t have been given a larger perspective and more angst factors than the actual main characters.

After his villain arc, fans started hating Rapunzel because they had sympathy for Varian and accused her of not treating him well, which I hated. It is true that he was in a situation worth having pity on him for, but they expressed a lot more emotional impact from his perspective than from anyone else’s, thus fans only considered his feelings. Rapunzel was going through an extremely difficult time at that moment, too, but it was shown in a less dramatic and sympathyzable way. She almost lost her parents and the man she loved in a snowstorm, while for the first time when she had to make prudent decisions as a leader, the kingdom was in a state of distress. After the storm, her father continued to lie to her, and the reason she never helped him was because he convinced her that Old Corona was under control. All she wanted to do was stabilize herself in a calm state of mind, which was ok, because she didn’t realize that there was more trouble. Even so, she could hardly do so because she was still stressed and traumatized. If these things from her perspective were more clearly presented to the audience, there would’ve been less of a war in the fandom and there probably would’ve been sympathy from both sides. But they wanted to show things from Varian’s point of view, which was valid until he went feral. {He stated in the episode before the finale that he understood that Rapunzel “did what she had to”, and he is clearly intelligent enough to pull things together, but everyone used trauma as an excuse. If he could connive that entire plot where he would kidnap the queen, use a dummy of him, extract the Sundrop’s power, etc. then he clearly was in a sane enough state of mind to put things together, but he didn’t. In Season 3, he admitted that the reason he became a villain was because he had taken his anger too far, after realizing that he was wrong. }

Considering that Rapunzel is the main character and the writers expect us to feel sympathy for her, they should’ve at least made the situation less dramatic from Varian’s point of view. Chris Sonnenburg himself was annoyed with fans who sympathized more for Varian and watched the show for him instead of Rapunzel - but in a way it was his fault for the way he portrayed the situation. I agree with him in the sense that I was annoyed with Varian fans taking over the fandom and demonizing Rapunzel, but it was the crew’s own choice to make Varian such a likable character to so many people.

Although his redemption arc was handled well in my opinion, it was more focused on and important to the show than that of the Father of Tangled Redemption Arc’s - Eugene’s. His redemption arc is the backbone to the entire franchise, but the series didn’t take him seriously, so even though his redemption subtly fell in place in Season 1 especially, I was disappointed that he didn’t have a nice serious episode where his redeemed self shined in the light, while Varian, a secondary character, did. Although not to such an extent, Varian’s role, similar to Cassandra’s was prioritized in the show above the main characters’ and that bothers me.

9. I’d say this one is more under-acknowledged than unpopular, but Cassandra’s existence contradicted Rapunzel’s development rather than bringing out her characteristic “compassion”

Even after all of the horrible things Cassandra did to Rapunzel, to Eugene, and to the kingdom of Corona after deciding to turn evil, she was redeemed. Anyone would’ve stopped pitying her and left her behind, but Rapunzel still cared for her and let her be her friend again. Why? Because the writers tried so hard to convey the message that Rapunzel has compassion for everyone and anything that comes in her path.

It is true and in her character for Rapunzel to be compassionate and humane. The movie conveyed the message that Rapunzel, even after spending so many years unloved and mistreated, loves and has sympathy for everyone. She sees the good in everyone and everything, thus she is capable of redeeming those who have strayed. This characteristic of hers is what caused Eugene to leave behind his past self and find a new life. She didn’t fix him; she opened his soul and brought out the good person who had been hiding inside him for the longest time. The same thing happened to the thugs, other former thieves, and many others. Rapunzel’s compassion and love for others brings the best out of the unlikeliest of people. The way Glen Keane described it, Rapunzel is the representation of humanity.

However, Mother Gothel is the representation of everything that is an obstacle to Rapunzel and her freedom. She gaslight and objectified her by passively claiming that she loved her, and used her as an object to satisfy her own vanity. She never let her express her energetic and adventurous self by locking her inside, and when Rapunzel rebelled, she locked her in chains and took her to the dungeon. Rapunzel’s development can only grow if she is not stifled by chains and abuse, therefore she should avoid Mother Gothel at all costs. But who is this person who, three years later, Rapunzel tries to redeem? The very daughter of Mother Gothel, who is more like a reincarnation of her to be frank. She brought back what Rapunzel was supposed to leave behind. She condescended over her and shamed her for her underdeveloped tendencies before she even betrayed her. She constantly wanted more from her instead of accepting her who she was. She blamed her for her problems and victimized herself. Rapunzel is supposed to be past these things so that she can grow to be a strong and independent woman. Using Cassandra as a permanent villain who Rapunzel would fight against would define her as a developed woman who has moved on from her traumatic past - but it wasn’t like that. Rapunzel pined onto Cassandra despite everything she put her through. The writers tried to use this situation as a way to bring out Rapunzel’s compassion, but it contradicted her self independence and strength.

Rapunzel and Cassandra’s relationship was a toxic one, and it shouldn’t have been portrayed as a good thing at any time in the show, because of it’s disintegration of Rapunzel’s development. Rapunzel is both compassionate and resilient, but because of how poorly the writers handled this, they contradicted both of her character tendencies. It looked more like schizophrenia to be honest: One day Rapunzel resents Cassandra for her actions and fights her with a powerful incantation to keep her away from Eugene; the next day, she sings a song mourning their friendship and expressing how much she wanted her to come back.The way a character’s personality traits are presented is very important. Imagine that you’re at a restaurant where every item uses the same ingredients, but is arranged and composed in a different way. A burger on a bun with lettuce, tomatoes, cheese and ketchup would be delicious and appealing; however, a hamburger and cheese smoothie with chunks of lettuce and tomatoes floating in it and ketchup drizzled on top would be nauseating and a horrible idea (sorry for the ridiculous comparison but hopefully it gets the point across). Even though the two items have the same composition, one of them works and the other doesn’t. Rapunzel is both compassionate and resilient, but the writers made a contradicting mess out of these two tendencies because they made them clash.

10.. It annoys me when people think Eugene overreacts to things. He’s neither whiny nor childish. He’s a realistic person in a crazy world, who can’t help but be upset about certain things.

Let’s face it, he’s been through a lot, and all things considered, he’s very tolerant and resilient. He’s the most realistic character in terms of skepticism and trust issues, and that’s something I’ve always loved about him. In situations where nobody’s in danger and things are fairly normal, he tends to “overreact” to minor things, but in dangerous and serious situations, he is the first person to stand up and help people. If he was a shrimpy, whiny wimp who can’t handle things, he wouldn’t have willingly died to save someone, led a rescue squad to save the king and queen in a dangerous situation, decided to live with his former abuser to save someone who was dying, or willingly accepted his role as a captain and lead the safety of the kingdom.

If you were abandoned by your father and ended up as a poor orphan who became a criminal to fend for yourself, it’s only human to not immediately feel inclined to accept him into your life, especially considering his apparently whimsical and unconcerned personality. By the end of the episode, he himself realized that his father kept in touch with him and by the end of the show, came to understand his motive for abandoning him. Nobody forced him to see the good in his father. He realized it by his own effort. When his father gave him a gift at the end, he was the first to hug him, showing that he had come to accept him willingly.

If for generations, your family has dedicated and lost their lives to destroying a dangerous object that has caused a lot of deaths and destruction, and you break your trust with your girlfriend to protect her from it; then when you finally allow her to take it when her jealousy-driven handmaiden takes it with every intention to kill her - of course you are going to resent that woman and be upset that your girlfriend still cares about bringing her back, (especially considering you weren’t keen on her in the first place). Even though Cass didn’t deserve it, he still patiently put up with and respected Rapunzel’s opinion of her despite obviously still disliking her. That doesn’t show that he was happy about it, but that he patiently tolerated situations that he didn’t agree with.

Imagine that the only comfort and security that you had for 15 years was your fake reputation as a different character, despite knowing it wasn’t a good one, and you find it difficult to let him go because you still can’t help but wish you were as established and “successful” as he was. Then some cocky twerp that looks exactly like you comes along, dresses exactly like you and uses the same name as you did, and repeated everything that you were proud to accomplish but only better, and is liked by your friends better than you ever were. Despite the fact that your former identity wasn’t a good one, it was the only thing you had and the only thing you could find pride and joy in because you had a low self esteem about your actual self. I can certainly say that if I met someone like Brock Thunderstrike but a copy of me instead of him, I wouldn’t be happy at all. But in the end, although he obviously resented and was jealous of him, Eugene disinterestedly told him that he saw potential in him, and allowed him to find his own identity.

Eugene is one of the most realistic characters that I’ve ever seen, but he lives in unusual circumstances that he’s not used to. There’s nothing wrong with the fact that he can’t immediately see something, because all’s well that ends well - and in the end, he always makes a just decision.

{There was one more that I wanted to post but I thought it would be too conflicting so I didn’t.}

If you agree with some of these but not others, that’s fine! After all, these are unpopular opinions and I’d be lucky if anyone agreed with them.

Again, thanks for the ask!

[sage-nebula]

I received a reminder to talk about how, where, and why Game Freak continues to go wrong with villain redemptions, and so I’m going to take a moment to do just that.

TL;DR: I don’t think Game Freak understands how villain redemptions work.

Here’s the thing:

There’s a truth universally known in the world that people, in general, are multifaceted. People have good qualities, and they have flaws; people can be serial murderers, but still have a soft spot for kittens. People can donate to charity, volunteer at homeless shelters, work as a nurse saving lives, and yet still be horrible, homophobic bigots. No matter how disgustingly evil, or how wonderfully sweet, a person may be, it’s always important to remember that they are still people. People are capable of being evil, just as people are capable of being good. It doesn’t make them less of people. It just makes them human.

To that end, caricatures aren’t interesting characters. What I mean by this is: It’s not interesting to have a character who is a Card Carrying Villain, who is evil purely for the sake of being evil (which is where a lot of Team Rocket’s writing went awry in the early days, even if it made for an unintentionally hilarious ROMhack once). Even if you write a character whose actions qualify them for being called a monster or a demon (even though they are, still, a person), it’s important that their reasoning goes beyond, “Well, I just want to be evil.” Maybe you’re letting them be evil, but they need to have more complex reasoning for their actions. More importantly, it’s important to have them consider whether they feel their actions are evil or not. Most people, no matter how heinous their actions, feel they are justified. If your character doesn’t, then how do they approach that question? Why are they doing what they do? Have they considered they’re morally wrong from a certain point of view, but just don’t care? Why don’t they care? They’re a person, and people are complex. People have thoughts and reasoning behind their actions. It’s important to consider this, because no one likes a mustache-twirler. They aren’t fun.

And I say all of this to make an important note: A character who is beyond horrible, and definitively evil without a tragic backstory or “morally grey” reasoning, is not necessarily a poorly written character. There are people alive in this world today---and there have been people alive in this world throughout history---who simply are heinous, horrible, vile people. They’re not automatically caricatures just because they are undeniably, inarguably evil. There is “advice” floating around nowadays that if you write a truly evil character, you’re automatically boring and your character is flat, and that simply isn’t true. Again, it’s about the reasoning. It’s about the personality. It’s about how the rest of the plot incorporates that villain, and how that villain works within the confines of the narrative, and how that villain interacts with the other characters. Sometimes people (and therefore characters) are just evil. Acknowledging that, and giving your readers a chance to fight it in the safe space of fiction (and therefore catharsis as they triumph over what they perhaps could not in real life) is not bad writing, depending on how you do it. It’s a misconception otherwise that it is.

I say all of this to say that Game Freak . . . has sorely misunderstood all of the above.

Let’s rewind the clock back to 1996, when the very first Pokémon games were written and released. As I said above, Game Freak made some mistakes when writing Team Rocket in the sense that, despite the fact that Team Rocket is quite clearly based on the yakuza (/mafia), a lot of their dialogue comes across as really hammy and cheesy. The characters will often blatantly state that what they are doing is evil, and they intend for it to be evil, in both the games and the anime. This is something that, despite all the years they’ve had to do it, Game Freak has not attempted to rectify. In Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon, Giovanni is called “the most evil person” to ever exist, or some such, to the point where Colress can’t fix the wormhole nonsense until Giovani is defeated. And that . . . well, that leads into another point that I’ll get to in a moment. The point here is, Game Freak created villains in the form of Team Rocket, but although Team Rocket did do one inexcusably horrible thing (the murder of the marowak), and while they had the potential to do more terrible things, their actual acts within the (threadbare) plot as it was didn’t match up. They claimed to be evil, but they didn’t pose much of a threat. They’re called notoriously evil and treated as all but irredeemable . . . just because.

So in this, perhaps Game Freak looked back upon Team Rocket, and realized that they made a mistake by trying to make Team Rocket (and, more importantly, Giovanni, Archer, Ariana, Proton, and Petrel) out to be completely irredeemable. So they thought, okay. Good writing means writing characters with shades of grey, so we’ll start treating our villains as characters who could, and should, and perhaps even will be redeemed.

Enter Lysandre and Lusamine.

Now, before anyone has a chance to argue, I know that Lysandre didn’t get a full redemption. He died. But there is still no mistaking the fact that---perhaps due to how well-received N was in Gen V (and more on him in a second)---Lysandre was still treated with the attitude of “alas, poor villain” within the game’s narrative itself, courtesy of Sycamore at the very end of the game. Oh yes, you’re thanked for stopping Lysandre, but there’s a “woe betide” tone to Sycamore’s dialogue as he laments that he had hoped Lysandre would “set his pride aside,” as if Lysandre had stirred up a bit of trouble instead of actively trying to commit mass genocide. We’re supposed to view Lysandre as a sympathetic individual despite his heinous actions and beliefs. This is something that is echoed in how Lysandre was described in the official descriptions for the Team Rainbow Rocket portion of USUM, where although Ghetsis (a man whose ultimate goal was power for himself, though he had child abuse as a by-product of that) is treated as irredeemably evil, Lysandre is viewed mostly sympathetically, because he was sad that he was going to personally wipe out all pokémon life, save for those few within Team Flare he’d be sparing. Lysandre didn’t get a happy ending, no, but the narrative (and Game Freak themselves) have told us that he should have, or that we should have wanted him to.

This was amplified to an even worse degree with Lusamine. In the original Sun and Moon games, we see that even though Lusamine has been horribly abusive to her children for most of their lives, to the point where she actively tries to murder Lillie on-screen, her children are forced (by the narrative) to clean up her mess and take care of her after the game’s conclusion. The narrative tells us that we should hope that she recovers, and that we should be happy that Lillie is going off with her (and that Gladion is trapped at Aether Paradise). USUM makes this even worse; Lusamine is just as abusive to her children as she was before (Gladion’s dialogue about “being an ornament to [his] mother” is the same, she still disowns them as they stand in front of her, still berates and belittles them, et cetera), but she is never called out for it. The game paints her as a hero because she wishes to stop Necrozma, and both of her children are desperate to protect and help her. In the post-game segment she is taken as a hostage by Giovanni (whom we’re supposed to believe is worse than her---and more on that in a second), and we are forced to go in and rescue her. The player and a few other characters laugh with Lusamine as they are surrounded by the pokémon that she has cryogenically frozen to fit with her aesthetic. It’s clear that Lusamine is still completely horrible, yet the game tells us that she is a good person. The game tells us that she is “redeemed”. The game tells us that we should not view her as a villain, not anymore, not now, and that we should be sad that she doesn’t get to live a happy life with her husband.

Here we see that Game Freak is still not getting it right.

Here’s the thing: It’s not inherently wrong to have a villain redemption. Some (emphasis on some) villains can be redeemed. But in order to redeem your villain, one condition must be met above all others:

The villain must have not crossed a line that makes it so that the audience no longer WANTS them to be redeemed.

This sounds vague, so let me explain. There are some (admittedly subjective, for the most part) lines that people must not cross, at any point, or else they’ll have crossed what is sometimes known as a Moral Event Horizon. These lines in the sand are so deep, and so important, that there is no looking back once they have been crossed. Committing (or attempting to commit) mass genocide is, quite understandably, a Moral Event Horizon for most people. There is no walking back from that. There is no justifying that. It doesn’t matter what your reasons are; you are undeniably, inarguably wrong regardless, and you must be stopped regardless, and you will not and cannot be forgiven regardless. There is no justification for that, there is no forgiveness for that. Once you cross that line, you will be hard pressed to find an audience who will sympathize with you, as it should be.

And while that is an extreme example, it isn’t the only example. While you get into more subjective and divisive territory as you move away from the extremes, for many (such as myself) child abuse is another line that cannot and should not be crossed without the audience losing the will or desire to see the villain redeemed. Animal abuse is another, and so on and so forth. The point I’m making here is that there does come a point when your villain’s actions make them irredeemable, not necessarily because the characters in the story won’t believe them (a writer can make a character do whatever they want, even if it would be OoC or make no sense), but because the audience won’t want to see it happen. The audience can’t write the story themselves (though fix-it fic does exist), but the audience can decide that they hate your story, and they hate what you’ve done with it, and at that point, you’ve lost them. At that point, while you can still keep your story the way it is if you wish, you have, absolutely, fucked up the villain redemption.

And this is what Game Freak keeps doing.

Game Freak, for whatever inconceivable reason, has the concept of villain redemption twisted and backwards. In Game Freak’s eyes, Giovanni is irredeemable. In their eyes, he is the Most Evil™. Yet, despite what he should be capable of as the leader of a yakuza / mafia, we don’t actually see that evil from Giovanni himself. Even including the Team Rainbow Rocket nonsense, here is a list of what we see Giovanni desire and do:

He wants power and money (lots of money). He says he wants to use everything in the world to serve Team Rocket, but outside of getting involved in the regional government via being a Gym Leader (not even the highest position!), he hasn’t done too much to succeed in this.

Takes of Silph Co to force the CEO to give him a Master Ball.

Disbands Team Rocket after being beaten three times.

Leaves his son behind when he disbands Team Rocket.

Thinks about reforming Team Rocket three years later when he hears his executives calling for him, but decides against it after being beaten in battle by another child.

Forms Team Rainbow Rocket at some point, and takes Lusamine hostage by knocking her out with an Ultra Beast. Plans to turn her into a servant when she wakes up.

And that’s it. That’s the worst he does. Even when it comes to Johto Rival, there is no indication that Giovanni ever abused or mistreated him. The most we get is in the flashback in HGSS when we see that Johto Rival confronts Giovanni over Giovanni’s decision to disband. Johto Rival is furious over this; he’s furious over the fact that Giovanni would even temporarily disband because he lost battles to a child, he claims he doesn’t understand how his father could be so weak, he calls his father a coward, and then he runs away. And what’s important to note here is that although Johto Rival is railing off at his father, Giovanni does not verbally assault him in turn; in fact, Giovanni isn’t even mean to him, even a little! Here is all we see Giovanni say to his son:

“. . . One must acknowledge one's defeat before he can move on . . . I will go solo . . . for now . . . so that one day I will form a stronger organization! [. . .] Putting together the potential of many is how you produce a huge power . . . that's what an organization is. That's the strength of an organization! I failed . . . to make the best use of my subordinates' potential . . .  ! But you shall witness one day the revival of me and my Team Rocket! [. . .] . . . One day, you will understand.”

The idea that I’ve seen some perpetuate that Giovanni is abusive to Johto Rival is one that exists purely because of the fact that Giovanni is a villain. In truth, there is no evidence of this in canon. Giovanni, despite being the boss of a criminal organization, does not commit heinous crimes. He does not attempt to destroy the world or commit murders (it was Rocket grunts who killed the marowak, not Giovanni himself). He does allow Johto Rival to run away crying, but he has quiet faith to himself that one day, Johto Rival will understand where he is coming from. He doesn’t insult or belittle Johto Rival in any way for his lack of understanding; if anything, he tries to speak to Johto Rival as an equal, tries to help him understand. What I’m getting here is that Game Freak doesn’t even have “he was an abusive father” to try to make Giovanni seem irredeemable, because in all honesty, he wasn’t.

Yet, despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence within canon for Giovanni to actually be redeemable, for him to see the error of his ways and turn over a new leaf for a variety pack of reasons (maybe he wants to spend more time with his son, maybe he developed morals and ethics over the course of his training and decided to use Team Rocket as a force for good and get money and power that way, who knows), Game Freak chose to never go that route. Instead, they chose to claim that he is beyond salvation, that he is irredeemable, that he is the most evil character they have ever created, save perhaps Ghetsis. Giovanni doesn’t get even a hint of redemption, despite how easy (and believable!) it would be; instead, he is reiterated in the most recent games to be the most evil of them all.

On the other hand, Lysandre and Lusamine . . . well, I already outlined them above.

Lysandre wanted to commit mass genocide (save for those who could afford to pay him an exorbitant fee) because he felt it was the only way to conserve beauty and natural resources. Yes, he shed a tear when he thought about all the pokémon he was going to otherwise mercilessly slaughter, but he still decided that genocide was an acceptable and worthwhile solution to what he personally saw as a crisis, and decided to go forward with it, to the point where he lies to and purposefully obstructs the player even after he acknowledges that the player is trying to stop him (and that the player successfully won his game at one point, should you choose the correct button in his base---meaning, if the player chose the correct button, he had the “out” of his plan that he supposedly wanted, and he not only didn’t take it, but laughed about how he wasn’t taking it). He pulls this same stunt again in the Team Rainbow Rocket portion, saying that he plans to commit mass genocide in this new world that he has found himself in, and that he is going to purposefully do everything in his power to prevent you from stopping the firing of the ultimate weapon. Lysandre wants genocide. He, in his heart of hearts, wants to murder countless billions, and wants it so badly that in the Gen VI games he lashes out and tries to commit murder (or “curse with immortality”) on the teenagers who successfully stopped him when all is said and done. His ultimate goal and truest desire was genocide, and when he didn’t get it, he threw a tantrum that could have resulted in murder.

Yet Game Freak, despite this most heinous of Moral Event Horizons being crossed, saw fit to sympathize with him. They saw fit to try and make him appear tragic. They decided that Lysandre, of all characters was worthy of . . . not a happy ending, per se, since he died, but people feeling sorry and sad that he was gone. They thought it would make their remaining characters look good to have them mourning a man who wanted to commit mass genocide, them included. (And this isn’t even getting into Xerosic, who willfully strips bodily autonomy and consent from a teenage girl and makes her do every little thing he tells her to in the name of science, yet is then treated like a father figure by said girl who isn’t aware of the things he made her do . . . do I need to spell out how disgustingly creepy that is? I really hope I don’t. Looker should have knocked every last one of Xerosic’s teeth down his throat and never looked back.)

Lusamine is the same way. The horrifying experiments and cruel fates she cast upon dozens of pokémon aside, Lusamine is the most realistic abusive parent Game Freak has ever written. Ghetsis’ dialogue comes across like a cartoonish villain; Lusamine says things to Gladion and Lillie, on-screen, that my abusive mother has said to me. In the original SM, I actually had to put the game down for a second because it hit me that hard. Lusamine uses her children like they are objects; it isn’t just that we hear about abuse, but rather that we see her being abusive. Yet despite this, perhaps as a result of filial piety within Japanese culture, Game Freak not only saw fit to offer her “redemption” at the end of SM by having her children look after her, but decided to pretend as if she wasn’t even villainous at all in USUM, despite the fact that she’s just as abusive to her children there (note how she’s only kind to them when they express desire to protect or help her), and the fact that she does all the same cruel experiments and cryogenic freezing on pokémon there as she did in the original. This goes beyond mere redemption; Game Freak decided that this was a character not even deserving of being treated like a villain at all, even for a second, instead choosing to foist that status on Faba, despite how it made less sense.

The problem that I am driving at here is that both Lysandre and Lusamine crossed lines that should not ever be crossed. They did (or attempted to do) things that cannot be forgiven. What they did makes an audience want them beaten into the ground, not redeemed. Yet Game Freak, for whatever reason, misunderstood that. Game Freak missed the memo. Game Freak, rather than allowing us satisfying catharsis by beating them into the dirt and having the rest of the narrative show what a correct course of action that was, decided to pretend as if these characters were the most sympathetic and deserving of redemption of (almost) all the other villains they created. Meanwhile, characters like Giovanni who didn’t do very much wrong and would have every reason in the world to change their tune (or characters like Cyrus who, yes, did a lot of wrong and could stand to have some jail time, have motivations that he could feasibly be talked down from and have a believable redemption, especially since he didn’t want to kill everyone, but just wanted to “destroy emotion,” which is . . . bad, but at least people are still alive) are treated as irredeemable. It’s backwards. It doesn’t make sense.

The truth is, I can think of only two times when Game Freak got this whole “redemption” business inarguably correct, and both of those times took place within Gen V. N is the primary antagonist of the first Gen V games, in that he is the one you interact with the most, he is the one coronated as Team Plasma’s King, he is the one passionately espousing Plasma’s ideals, who genuinely believes that what he is doing is correct. It isn’t until the end of the game that we (and N) learn that Ghetsis planned to use him as a figurehead puppet king, and that Ghetsis was truly the mastermind behind everything all along, whispering plans into the rightful king’s ear. (Well, in honesty, it was easy to tell early on that Ghetsis is evil because he is that cartoonish, but you get my meaning.) Therefore, while N is best described as an anti-villain, he still is on the side of the antagonists for the majority of the game. He was still in the realm of needing a redemption . . .

. . . and he got one.

N learned the error of his ways. We see him learning as the game progresses. And in the second games, he returns to confront Ghetsis and put an end to his plans once and for all. N was redeemed, and he was able to be redeemed because he had a likable and sympathetic personality; he had goals that weren’t actually inherently evil (mean, yes, but wanting to fight for pokémon welfare is not a bad thing); and he didn’t do anything heinous. He didn’t cross a Moral Event Horizon. Ghetsis did---Ghetsis is a serial child abuser who also enslaved countless pokémon to build a castle---but N did not. Thus, in a show of getting it right for once, Game Freak redeemed N and cast Ghetsis as the monster, as it should be.

The second Unovan games were quite similar. Colress was “in charge” of Plasma this time around, but while he did terrible things (he froze over half the region, Colress, pls), he did so mostly in the name of science and made it clear he wanted Ghetsis stopped. Colress, like N, was never truly evil; he was being used and taken advantage of. Therefore, when he was redeemed, it made sense. It worked within the context of the narrative. Once again, Game Freak got it inarguably right.

However, the Unova games are the exception to the rule when it comes to Game Freak’s writing. Even when it comes to Archie and Maxie, both of whom were redeemed by the conclusion of their narratives (especially in ORAS), it’s . . . difficult to say that this is a case of getting it right, because both of them ultimately desired to end the world and kill a good number of the people and pokémon within it, even if unintentionally. And even that (that the deaths caused by their ultimate goals would be unintentional) is difficult to say, because it’s impossible to understand how Archie could be so stupid that he wouldn’t understand that human beings do not have gills, and thus would drown. It is impossible to understand how he could be so stupid that he wouldn’t understand that every pokémon that was not a water-type would meet the same fate. Conversely, it’s hard to understand how a supposed genius like Maxie wouldn’t be able to account for the fact that the water in the oceans is an important component of the planet’s natural water cycle, which all life needs to exist. It’s hard to understand how a supposed genius like Maxie wouldn’t think of all of the water pokémon that would suffer and die with their habitat stripped away. Archie’s and Maxie’s plans caused the apocalypse, and while they seem like nice enough guys who were “genuinely trying to help” (Archie in particular is especially affable in ORAS), it’s hard to say that they didn’t cross a line that should never be crossed considering they tried to kill just about everyone on the planet, yet were apparently too incompetent to realize it.

Still, I can give Game Freak more of a pass for Archie and Maxie than I can for Lysandre and Lusamine, considering that at least Archie and Maxie have the “we failed elementary school science and are too stupid to realize how many will die when we enact our plans until it is too late” as an excuse, whereas Lysandre and Lusamine knew what they were doing and did it anyway, with great gusto. That Game Freak would create characters who so willfully, proudly, and happily cross such lines---and who flaunt it in the face of the player---and then act as though the player should want these characters to have a happy ending is just . . .

Well. I’ve already expressed my feelings on it.

Of course, much of this is subjective. Lines in the sand are inherent in an individual person’s morality. God knows there are plenty of people in this fandom who love Lusamine and purposefully ignore the fact that she was a horribly abusive mother to her children (far worse than Ghetsis was, tbh, not that he should be redeemed either, because he should not and was not and thus there is no problem to be discussed there), and I know that Lysandre has his fans despite his actions as well. And believe me, I have no interest in arguing with fans of either character about why they’re ~actually good~, so don’t try, because you’ll be wasting everyone’s time. But my point in writing all of this is that Game Freak seems to lack a very fundamental understanding when it comes to whether characters should or can be redeemed, and that is this:

If you make your characters do things that are heinous enough, then no matter how much you insist that they are sympathetic and should be redeemed, be aware that by and large, your audience will not agree with you.

And also:

If you DON’T make your characters do things that are heinous, then no matter how much you insist that they are the most evil of evil characters, be aware that by and large, your audience will not agree with you.

And lastly:

Don’t write villains who are supposed to be geniuses, yet who somehow don’t understand that their plan is going to wipe out over half the planet, for fucksake.

Like, honestly, you can I guess argue that Archie is stupid because he was a bodybuilding bro, but Maxie was supposed to be a genius, and yet he just . . . he . . .

Game Freak needs to hire me to write their games for them, istfg.

[lawlightfan42069]

iyo when you write non-straight characters should you specify their sexuality/gender? I mean I'm personally a very 'not into labels at all' person for my own sexuality but support ppl who do find comfort in labels. but when I write I also tend to go toward the 'he just loves who he loves !!!' that sounded stupid but idk how to explain it.. so... like I was wondering why you feel strongly about explicitly stating someone's queerness instead of it being implied (at least u come off as that sorta)

i do definitely feel like that so!! i happen to have a lot of feelings about this so get ready for a Long Ramble. this is a precaution before ive even started typing i just know im gonna write a lot

i think before we start saying anything, we’ve got to acknowledge the difference between people who say that they dont like labels, and writing characters who Don’t Like Labels™. pointing out the problems of the latter is not a condemnation of the former. if someone rly doesnt feel like labeling their sexuality or gender, thats totally alright. the difference between these two is the person is a nuanced, multifaceted human being who may have lots of personal reasons for feeling that way, while the second is a fictional character that is Created and informed by cultural views of the creator. a person is not “created” by one single author and characters arent like…real living agents that have their Own Free Will, they are what their creators make of them. anyway i just feel like this is a rly important distinction that gets lost often!! i’m also more willing to look favorably on someone who self describes that way writing characters based on their own experiences, bc this perspective is inherently different from a straight person writing these sorts of characters. but moving on. 

whats also important to understand, beyond writing characters, is how being openly not straight is shunned. queer people are not allowed to Exist as openly queer and they have not been allowed historically. even these days among people who consider themselves progressive, you’ll often hear that “its alright if someone is gay but do they have to shove it in my face all the time.” this attitude isnt somehow formed in vacuum, but created in a society that treats been openly queer as a taboo. we aren’t allowed to be open about our sexualities the way straight people are. we can’t acknowledge that we’re queer lest someone tells us to Stop Shoving It In Their Face (not missing the irony as we’re surrounded by 400 billboards of hetero couples everywhere). i dont wan’t to delve into other aspects of discrimination and get too off track here, i just want to focus on how being Openly queer is treated as a taboo, particularly among people who still want to call themselves ‘accepting.’ the only way society allows queer people to exist is if they never remind anyone, Ever that they are not straight.

this is Integral to understanding why the i Don’t Like Labels characters are so frustrating. the unwillingness to Explicitly talk about queer people carries over quite handily to media. the same faux progressive people that demand queer people never talk about being queer bc its Too Much Information, will praise queer coded characters that hint at their sexuality but never confirm it. the reason these characters are written is not to genuinely explore why someone might feel uncomfortable with applying labels to themselves, but to appease people who will accept queerness as long as they never have to acknowledge it. this way, u can court queer people interested in representation And people who might like the story but will be uncomfortable with explicit queerness. its an attempt for writers to cash in on peoples desires for interesting queer characters without ever actually fully committing to representing them. you dont get to claim to support queer people if ur also out there providing comfort for peoples homophobia. you cant have a foot in both doors. 

describing queer experiences without calling them queer means that youre okay with this story as long as u dont acknowledge it as something Explicitly not straight and like…why?? why is it suddenly not okay when u take that bundle of experiences and use the word that theyre defining?? theres Weight behind using words like bi, gay, lesbian and if u reject them are u Really okay with lgbtq people? or are you okay with them Despite the fact that theyre lgbtq and not because you take into account theyre lgbtq. acceptance is not tolerating people Despite something, its acknowledging it and validating it as an okay thing to be. especially when it is something that historically Not been validated as okay. dismantling structural systems of queerphobia does not go about by ignoring queerphobia…shit this doesnt just fade away by chance, it takes active work. and part of this active work is Acknowledging Peoples Queerness As Something that is okay Out In The Open. the You in this isnt directed at you anon, just people who have these sentiments. 

throwing vague statements like ‘they just love who they love’ Also creates this level of ambiguity. you might say “well why do u need the certainty when ur describing what is at the very least, something obviously very not straight” and to that i say youd be fucking surprised at how goddamn hard straight people will try to erase the queerness out of a character. like i’m going to use a game called life is strange as a example. i’ll give some background: in the game, the main character max can romance both chloe and warren. note that max is not one of those blank state wholly customisable bioware-esque player characters, she has a personality outside of the choices u make. anyway, the conclusion that is Logically drawn from this is that she is most likely bisexual. or at the very least in some way, not straight. and Yet i have seen discussions that say “she doesnt have a set sexuality it just depends on the playthrough so shes not rly a Queer Character.” even more than that, ive seen people that saw “well even in the chloe one shes not necessarily gay or bi maybe shes just Making an Exception for chloe bc their relationship transcends sexuality” and like ??? Why??? why cant she just be bi?? even when given a queer romance, why do u try and interpret it in a way that sets her up as straight?? ive seen people say “its not a romance its just something that Transcends Words” as if this is… mutually exclusive from being a romance. like… Why doesnt this happen when hetero relationships are depicted?? ive literally never seen someone say “u know, maybe hes not attracted to women and just Making an Exception so hes not straight” why dont u see people try to erase the romance aspect out of hetero romances by claiming their relationship is “Beyond Words.” this treatment is 1000% only ever afforded to queer characters. this attempt to play off romance as not rly romantic is only done to queer characters, even if its done subconsciously. people will Refuse to accept a character is queer as fuck if you dodge around it, because heteronormativity is so ingrained in every interaction that even obviously queer characters get filtered through this lens. the problem with this isnt necessarily apparent until u look at it within historical context, where queer people are repeatedly not allowed to be openly queer. these arent isolated incidents, but manifestations of the idea that queer people shouldnt ever be open about their sexuality. youve got to tackle the discomfort that people have with words like gay/lesbian/bi/etc

i think this particular character trope wouldnt bother me so much if it wasnt like… the only narrative ever present. time and time again, i have to see characters proclaim that they dont like labels while never once even hearing people breathe the word bisexual. if it existed alongside characters who were explicitly queer it would be less frustrating But its literally one of the few ways (semi positive attempts at least) queer characters are ever portrayed. this is particularly true for bisexual characters lmao like… yes…theres people who dont like labels…but theres also millions of bi people that just wanna see a fucking bi character Talk about being bi and all we ever get is a vague “i dont like labels” (that is often never explored further than that and treated as a throwaway line anyway). is creating characters who say that a genuine attempt to characterize someones struggles with labels or is it just a way to avoid saying the word Bisexual.

same with queer romance in media. its only ever Okay if u just hint at it- see dumbledore being gay. see- the korrasami thing (though i dont fault the writers for this bc they pushed hard for what they got, its issues with the network). why are queer people relegated to drawn out stares that May imply something while straight characters are allowed to get into explicit relationships. when u create ambiguous characters that May be interpreted as straight (even if youve really gotta stretch) ur prefer to maintain the negative “neutral” of the heteronormative status quo and allow homophobes to live with their views unchallenged more than u care about addressing queerness in characters. 

 its not a coincidence that we dont do this to straight romance or straight characters. this is particularly important for queer kids!! its good to see queer characters out there being openly queer. while me and u can often pick up on queer themes and narratives, a 8 year old is not going to get that. especially when theyve been conditioned to see straight romance as the only feasible choice. they wont realize the character youre writing is gay or bi or whatever Because they havent been exposed to the connotations we associate w certain phrases. its so important for queer kids to see queer characters Owning that theyre queer. its especially importantly to normalize words like gay or bi or pan. being gay is often Extremely hypersexualized (which is why so many people will tell u they dont care what u do in the bedroom bc they can only picture queerness is a sexual context) so when u Dont treat these words as things only adults can say, u help get rid of the stigma surrounding them. u help remove the idea that being queer is inappropriate for kids to hear about and that the only possible aspect to being queer is sexual. 

anyway this has been Quite the Ramble but the point is that yes, we need to write more characters who are absolutely explicit about their sexuality and move away from the expectation that queer people need to create euphemisms to comfort homophobes desires to never hear about queerness.

[talabib]

Leadership Journey: Morgan Jerkins

Most of us want to contribute to building a better society for all, but we’re often not sure where to start. In an increasingly multifaceted world, it can be difficult to navigate the varied perspectives on what needs to be done in order to support marginalized communities.

One such community is that of black women in the United States – but in order to help them, you first need to understand the context and historical background that gave rise to their marginalization in the first place.

This is where Morgan Jerkins steps in. Drawing upon her own experiences growing up and living in contemporary America as a black female, Jerkins identifies why black women face hardship, while highlighting the areas that must be addressed to improve their position in society.

Whether you’re a white female, a man or even a black woman yourself, everyone has a role to play in creating a society that is fair and just for all – including for black women.

When Jerkins was a young girl, she wanted to cast aside her blackness and assimilate into white culture.

This is a common desire among young black girls wanting to make it in a white-dominated world. They understand that their blackness is a threat and that in order to be nonthreatening and succeed in the world, it should be toned down.

Therefore, during her teenage years, Jerkins didn’t leave her hair in its natural state and wore jewelry and clothes that were status symbols of whiteness – such as items from Gap and Limited Too – and sought to avoid black classmates who shunned white culture.

During this time, Jerkins learned when it was advantageous to use her racial heritage and when to adapt to the rules of whiteness. She soon realized that, in most cases, white culture always won because many people don’t see black culture as a viable option. Why is this so?

Remarkably, the answer is that some white people see the labels “human” and “black woman” as mutually exclusive.

Once, a white man asked Jerkins why she didn’t just define herself as a human instead of as a black woman – a label that many white people stereotype negatively. Her reply was that she is both; however, the man said that she didn’t assume the role of a black woman. Why?

Because Jerkins was well-spoken, went to Princeton and worked in publishing – all qualities that didn’t fit with the man’s perception of a black woman, the man didn’t see her as a “typical” black woman. Moreover, Jerkins sometimes adjusts her mannerisms to fall more in line with white culture; she minimizes gestures, avoids sucking her teeth and doesn’t talk as loudly.

Blackness is denied when black women don’t conform to the stereotype of “sassy black woman.” This stereotype reinforces the perception that black people aren’t as educated or worthy as white people, and if a black woman doesn’t fit this description, then she isn’t black but rather white – and thus human. And so, by this logic, it is impossible to be both black and human.

Unfortunately, acknowledging a black person as though she or he were white is still considered a compliment.

“Color-blindness” is a myth that doesn’t help people of color.

Many white people think that not being able to distinguish between skin colors is a progressive stance. It’s not.

Being blind to black skin is the same as being blind to black history and everything that being black represents. The daily experiences of people of color aren’t the same as those of white people; a lot of liberal white people claim that they don’t see skin colors because they think identifying someone as black is somehow equivalent to being racist.

However, racism only exists when a negative judgment is made due to the color of a person’s skin.

The problem with ignoring a person’s blackness is that the societal challenges they face, including real systemic racism, are also ignored as a result. Furthermore, the rich cultural history of black people – including all the good things that contribute to their uniqueness – is also disregarded.

Those who claim to be color-blind hold a “universal” standard that is actually a white perspective. The “universal” standard is, in fact, the perspective of white North Americans and Europeans, which white people inaccurately present as inclusive of everyone.

It’s easy for a white person to claim they don’t see color when referring to a black person who has become successful in a white environment. That’s because the black person possibly took on white characteristics in order to assimilate into the dominant culture.

So, when black people aren’t regarded as black because of the claim that color doesn’t exist, it actually means that they have successfully camouflaged themselves as white.

The bottom line is that white people don’t have the right to determine whether someone identifies as black or not.

White people fetishize black women’s bodies.

Historically, black women’s bodies were put on display so that people could openly gawk at them. For example, in the early 1800s in South Africa, Hottentot Venus, a black woman with an extraordinarily big bottom, was turned into a freak show by Dutch colonists.

Though this kind of distasteful display doesn’t happen as obviously now, the mentalities underpinning such acts are still present.

Using black women for entertainment purposes is made possible by dehumanizing them, a process that has been happening for centuries. Black women were once slaves, which meant that their bodies were the property of their white owners. Back in those times, they were raped by their owners, and in more modern times, they’ve become overly sexualized by the media.

The notion of black women as sexual creatures rather than people has been embedded in society for hundreds of years. Black girls are taught that they shouldn’t embrace their sexuality because it will be used against them – but this teaching restricts their self-discovery.

Even if it’s intended as a compliment, fetishizing a black woman robs her of her agency. For instance, asking a black woman if you can feel her hair treats her as though she were an animal or object that exists only for your enjoyment.

Whether the white person wants to touch the hair because it’s beautiful is beside the point; it’s stepping beyond the boundary of personal space, an act white people hardly have to defend against. Similar acts of touching or petting are also used with animals as a way to express or exert power.

There’s a lot of culture in black hair, and trivializing it as something nice to touch disregards its cultural significance. Natural black hair or black hairstyles, such as twists and braids, are considered bold by white standards. Having your hair natural has become a political sign of nonconformity to mainstream, white culture. Thus, a white person attempting to turn that political statement into something trivial is an offensive and degrading act.

Mainstream feminism usually belittles, negates or doesn’t take into account the experiences of black women.

The 2014 film Girlhood, is about a young, black French girl and was directed by a white woman, who said that the movie doesn’t feature the experiences of a young black girl but instead the experiences of a young girl in general. This, however, is an inaccurate claim, and it serves as an example of color-blindness negating real experiences.

Having black women’s stories told by white women can often be oppressing and belittling.

With Girlhood, generalizing a young black girl’s experience to that of any young girl is inaccurate because it dismisses the very different experiences of black girls compared to white girls. Above all, it ignores the fact that black girls are often sexualized or stigmatized in a way white girls aren’t.

For instance, in coming-of-age TV dramas, the white girls usually experiment with drugs in a manner that is portrayed as challenging the constraints of society. Black girls experimenting with drugs, on the other hand, may well become addicts.

Generally, there are fewer representations of a black girl’s potential role in society, whether seen in the minority of black Barbie dolls or the lack of shows and movies in which the main character is a black female university student.

What women can do to change this lack of representation is to try to understand it, but at the same time come to terms with the fact that they will never be able to fully empathize. This doesn’t mean that white women can’t talk about black women; however, they must do so reflexively and realize that there’s much of the black female experience that they will never truly grasp.

Ultimately, feminism cannot be successful if it doesn’t accept the discrepancies between women of different ethnicities.

Black womanhood is complex and has been appropriated by white women.

Black womanhood is not homogenous. However, it is usually perceived that way by people threatened by its complexity and multitude of power.

Black women are limited by stereotypes forced upon them either by white people or their own community.

One stereotype is that they’re expected to be able to handle a lot of suffering and not succumb to the pain or pressure, just like their ancestors did. Signs of vulnerability are prohibited because they are already at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Black women perpetuate this stereotype further as a means of protecting themselves and their daughters in a world where they’re already vulnerable. This kind of teaching can prevent black girls from growing up into proud black women who are able to freely express their emotions. Furthermore, it can deny their ability to reject a burden they don’t deserve to carry.

While black womanhood has both negative and positive connotations attached to it, the positive ones only emerge once they have been appropriated by white culture.

The stereotype of black women as sexualized beings is limiting and diminishes these women’s existence as intelligent humans who have control over their own bodies.

Meanwhile, dance moves that originate from black culture, such as twerking, are appropriated by white women. The irony is that white women performing black moves are celebrated, while black women celebrating their culture tend to be frowned upon.

A case in point is the aforementioned twerk, which Miley Cyrus took and profited from. On the other hand, Nicki Minaj is deemed a bad example for doing the exact same dance move.

Another example is black hairstyles. While Kylie Jenner received praise for her cornrows, many black girls and women can’t have their hair this way at school or work because it’s seen as distracting – or, in other words, threatening.

Successful black women need to help other black women.

As we’ve established, the modern world isn’t so accommodating to black women and their efforts toward success.

But just because it’s difficult, doesn’t mean women shouldn’t try to help; rather than being a threat to a woman’s success, elevating fellow black women can be strengthening.

Many black people believe in the crabs-in-a-barrel theory, which likens members of the black community to crabs trying to escape their confines. Once they’re out, they’re advised not to look back and try to pull another crab up in case they get dragged back down.

It’s a mentality of self-preservation that black people – especially black women – learn as a result of the lack of opportunities available for them. The mentality goes like this: if one black woman helps another black woman out of the barrel, it could result in her spot being taken, leaving her to fall back down.

But by working with and helping one another, the constricting barrel can be eradicated altogether.The success of one black woman means success for all black women.

It’s not surprising to find that there’s a strong connection between members of the African-American community, even between those who have never met. Often, this bond originates from a shared sadness, but we must try and extend it to encapsulate joy as well.

When a black son is unlawfully killed by the police, the entire community weeps as if he was biologically their own. Underpinning this shared sadness is the possibility that next time it really could be a member of one’s own family.

Similarly, a black girl making it in a world run by the white patriarchy should be a success for all black women and girls. Parents should be inspired by this one girl’s success, as it lets them know that a bright future is also possible for their own daughters. Furthermore, a single success story can validate the hopes, dreams and struggles of the community at large.

Whether black or white, feminists need to continue fighting for the progress of black women.

Black women in America are dehumanized, fetishized and even ignored by feminists. To overcome these struggles, they need to empower one another, and white feminists must be more inclusive and sensitive to the polarizing effects of cultural appropriation.

[sage-nebula]

The worst thing Cheritz could have ever done to Saeran is what they did to him in Another Story, and no, I’m not talking about his death on Day 10.

I’m talking about “Ray” in general. Long, ranty post under the cut.

I’ve already talked at length about why Cheritz’s depiction of dissociative identity disorder is cliché at best and problematic at worst so I won’t go into all of that again. My opinion on it hasn’t changed, and all of that criticism still stands. But in addition to cliché / harmful stereotypes being perpetuated with Saeran’s character in Another Story, I also hate how the creation of “Ray” has not only distilled and removed depth from his character, but has also encouraged the fandom to trivialize his very real trauma struggles even in the Original Story / Secret Endings, despite the fact that the Original Story / Secret Endings are a separate universe from Another Story, and thus “Ray” doesn’t exist over there.

To address the first point, it rather goes hand-in-hand with the criticisms I have about how Cheritz handled DID in general. Because Cheritz decided to segment Saeran’s personality into separate “identities” without fleshing each identity out into an actual identity, Saeran can be easily watered down into his Good Personality (Ray) and his Bad Personality (Unknown). This removes potential for depth from his character by assuming that only one of these identities is “active” at a time. Thus, you either get “the marshmallow boy” who is timid and sweet, or you get the wild, unpredictable one who is violent and dangerous. Of course, all of this sets aside the fact that Ray exhibits multiple emotionally abusive behaviors toward MC (e.g. gaslighting, guilt tripping, et cetera), as well as the fact that Unknown never actually does a single truly dangerous thing throughout all of Another Story, but nonetheless, that’s supposed to be the general idea. It’s certainly idea the fandom has run with, particularly given the fact that most everyone here doesn’t seem to recognize the fact that---although Saeran is absolutely a victim and does need help---Saeran’s behavior as “Ray” is completely unacceptable.

And this is frustrating, because in focusing on “Ray” or “Unknown”, Saeran is being completely lost. Saeran is a complex, absolutely wonderful character with plenty of depth in the Original Story (which includes the Secret Endings, so I’m just going to refer to it as the Original Story from now on). Yes, he can be downright crepy at times (though that’s mostly restricted to the Christmas DLC), but in the Secret Endings in particular (and especially Secret End 2) he’s a fantastically realistic depiction of a trauma survivor. We learn that much of his violent, aggressive behavior is a conscious effort to defend himself from perceived threats of abandonment and harm---perceptions that are understandable that he has given the fact that he has spent the past twenty-two years being horrifically abused to the point of torture. We see him, slowly but surely, come to a point where he can begin to recover. At the end of the second Secret Ending, we see that he’s much calmer now, and that while he might not be all bright smiles and happy laughter---while he may instead still look awkward and uncomfortable around the RFA---he is slowly letting his guard down, slowly starting to realize that he can have a happy, free life. Recovery is on the horizon for him, and as such, he’s already doing a lot better. He’s not “Ray,” but he’s also not “Unknown”; he’s Choi Saeran, and he always has been . . . in the Original Story. Because in Another Story, Cheritz decided to throw their realistic depiction of a trauma survivor out of the window in favor of distilling him into an easily romanceable Good Identity and a dangerous and ~*~omg sexy~*~ Bad Identity instead.

Note: I am NOT saying that people with DID can’t be multifaceted, so don’t even get it twisted. Nor am I denying the fact that trauma can result in DID (because iirc, most cases of DID are direct results of severe trauma). What I am saying is that Cheritz did a piss-poor job at depicting Saeran in Another Story, because he feels as if he has lost all of the depth he had. Whereas he was a deep, interesting, complex character before, now he has been split into shallow cookie cut-outs of a character. Whereas Saeran broke my heart in Secret Ending 2 when he had his internal monologue about how terrified he is in the hospital, and how he’s lashing out to try and shove others away before they can hurt or abandon him (i.e. he’s creating abandonment on his own terms), and how he used to like looking at the sky, but now the world just feels empty and cold and not worth living for . . . in Another Story, I’m more or less spoonfed the idea that I should care for “Ray”, but that I should see “Unknown” as frightening, because somehow they’re not the same boy and therefore I should just try to get the Good Identity back. It’s as if Cheritz is telling me, a trauma survivor myself, that I can only be sympathetic if I am timid and sweet, and that Saeran wasn’t sympathetic or worthy of care and love in Secret Ending 2, despite the fact that Saeyoung only just barely managed to save him from himself. And that’s baffling to me, really, because Saeran was so sympathetic in Secret Ending 2, long before his Another Story characterization ever existed, so I don’t see why Cheritz backtracked. I don’t understand. (Or rather, I do understand, and I’ll get to that in a second, but by god do I hate their reasoning.)

And note, again: I’m not saying that it should be looked upon as okay to, say, try to strangle your brother, or do the other violent things Saeran did in the Original Story. But I still found Saeran’s depiction to be sympathetic given that he had barely ever had a moment in twenty-two years of life when he wasn’t being abused and tortured, and it was made abundantly clear that he was terrified and grasping at whatever he had to try and gain some semblence of control over his life, which is something he never had. I felt for him. I wanted Saeyoung to save him. He felt real, and that’s something I feel was really lacking in his depiction in Another Story. No, not all trauma survivors are the same, and hell, I haven’t even reacted to my trauma the way Saeran did to his in any of his depictions (I’m much, much more similar to Saeyoung), but I still feel that Cheritz’s writing for Saeran in Another Story was shallow and didn’t make him feel like a real person, unlike his depiction in the Original Story (and again, the Secret Endings in particular).

Moving on, I really feel that Saeran’s depiction in Another Story encourages fans to trivialize his trauma by tying everything back to romance. Particularly since so many people seem unable to accept the fact that Another Story is an alternate universe and that “Ray” doesn’t exist in the Original Story, I have seen people suggest that Saeran’s actions in the Original Story---and even the Secret Endings!---are due to MC somehow, that he had feelings for her and was upset she didn’t return them. That is nonsense. Again, I reiterate: Saeran has been tortured and abused for twenty-two years, and in the Original Story, that is his motivation. Specifically, ending his torment, getting revenge against those he perceives wronged him, and being able to finally live happily and freely (because he doesn’t understand that Mint Eye is anything but) is his motivation. Saeyoung’s route and the Secret Endings in particular make it blatantly apparent that Saeran doesn’t think anything of MC; he used her to infiltrate RFA, and later was going to bring her to Magenta because he felt that he could (since he sent her to the apartment to begin with), but he shows her no more attention than he does the other RFA members, and in some, even less; he only ever refers to her as “that woman,” and the most interest he shows in her is an optional dialogue branch in which he considers hurting her just to upset Saeyoung. That’s it. If I’m not mistaken, in one Bad End he even kills her because he has a psychotic break and mistakes her for his mother. Saeran’s struggles in the Original Story are tied wholly to his trauma, as well as his reconciliation with his brother. MC has nothing to do with it. It isn’t about romance. Making it about romance, reducing him to pining after MC even in the Original Story, trivializes his struggles at best and completely dismisses them at worst. I understand that otome games instill a sense of entitlement and importance in the player due to the fact that everyone and their abusive ex-lover tends to fall in love with you over the course of the story, but that is not the case with Saeran in the Original Story, so please, stop trying to claim it’s so. (And for that matter, stop fetishizing his trauma responses. Whether you’re reducing him to a “marshmallow boy” or treating him like he’s “edgy and kinky,” every single part of his behavior in every depiction is a very real result of him being maliciously abused for his entire life, so it’s gross as hell his trauma responses are treated as attractive. Yeah, he’s a fictional character and so it’s not like you’re hurting a real person, but that doesn’t mean that what you’re doing is any less distasteful.)

Again, though, I can’t even wholly blame the fandom for this, because this is Cheritz’s fault. Cheritz decided that it wasn’t enough for V to have new interest in MC; no, they just had to create “Ray” to dote on MC as well, and then throw in Rika for good measure. In so doing, again, they reduced Saeran’s character and diminished his character arc. No longer is his story about the trauma he has experienced, and the complicated relationship he has with his brother; instead, he barely mentions Saeyoung at all (and shows hardly any reaction save for a couple biting words if MC says she likes him, when his mere alias was enough to drive Saeran to rage in the Original Story!); instead, it’s all about how he’s pining after / craving MC. He had his narrative ripped away from him so that his world could revolve around MC instead. As someone who loved Saeran in the Original Story (not as a romance option, of course, but as a character / brother-in-law), it’s especially frustrating and upsetting to me to see this done to him. He deserved better. He deserved so much better than what he got.