#cycle of abuse narratives do something to me

[hermitcraft-shifter]

BUTCHER VANITY by Vane Lily is c!Pungence's theme song. No, I will not elaborate. (I will elaborate and that's a threat.)

[guardianspirits13]

And look. Netflix has cancelled a lot of beloved and well-received shows over the years. This is far from their first shameless cancellation.

But this one really feels like a tragedy in a way the rest really haven’t, for me.

If you have not seen it, this show has some of the tightest writing I have ever seen. It explores so many ideas and character arcs in the span of eight episodes, and there is not a dull moment to speak of. Every line feels intentionally crafted for the character it is assigned to, and the actors never fail to follow through.

Speaking of the actors, almost the entire main cast are in their breakout roles but you would never know it because they are phenomenal. Need I remind you that everyone’s favorite homosexual from hell (sorry, Cas) is played by George Rextrew, and is his first onscreen role beyond acting school. It’s easy to forget that considering how seamlessly he melts into such a nuanced and uniquely expressive character.

Steve Yockey, the director/writer/producer who made this show happen deserves accolades for his brilliant creative direction and an adaptation that took an under-the-radar comic property and made it into the show stopping narrative of cycles of violence and abuse and learning how to grow from your past and be loved as you are. In EIGHT EPISODES.

The cinematography is also stunning and combined with the sharp editing decisions make it just as visually impactful as it is narratively.

I have not enjoyed a show as thoroughly as this once perhaps since season one of Daredevil like, a hundred years ago. I’ve watched other shows, I’ve liked other shows, but none without a healthy dose of criticism. I struggle to find something bad to say about this show because it is just that good.

Now I’m not going to go into the fact that this show was unapologetically queer and that Netflix has a history of cancelling any show that features a gay character that isn’t either comic relief or has two lines. However, it is hard not to notice that the less divisive a show is, the more market appeal that it has, and Netflix definitely cares more about a majority audience of passive users with autopay subscriptions than they do a dedicated fanbase excited to have something to call their own.

To quote Bo Burnham, “Art is dead.”

[genericpuff]

There's something that pisses me off in the latest released chapter of LO and that's when Hades says he "forgives" Kronos and says he's doing it so he can heal himself. It's same rhetoric you hear from people who victim blame, telling you that you need to forgive your abuser for your own sake... but the hell would it be for your own sake when you didn't do anything wrong?? Even if you blame yourself for things your abuser did, that still doesn't mean you have to forgive your abuser!!

Someone (in the UnpopularLoreOlympus subreddit, I believe) made a great comparison that Hades forgiving his abusive father is more so just a way for him to forgive himself. Because let's face it, a lot of what Kronos has been responsible for, Hades has also perpetuated in his own cycle of abuse towards others, like Minthe, Alex, nymphs and satyrs in general... and Thanatos, his own adopted son who he still barely acknowledges despite the narrative wanting us to believe that they've "recovered". So by forgiving Kronos, it's more so just him forgiving himself and saying "yeah it's fine that I'm an abusive sack of shit teehee"

This complete lack of self-awareness is to the point that you could replace the Episode 217 dialogue between Hades and Thanatos with the dialogue between Kronos and Hades from 275 and virtually nothing would change.

And if you don't believe me, well...

And considering the current FP literally has Persephone say to Apollo "I've done terrible things but it doesn't matter because you have to be punished", I think it's safe to say that, at least in her writing (because I obviously can't speak on behalf of whatever she may or may not have gone through in life) Rachel has zero awareness of what it really means to be a recovering victim of abuse.

She definitely loves writing characters who are unironically abusive and think they're not, though.

[valtsv]

This isn't a gotcha, so please don't take it as such, but would yuou be willing to explain what it is about VAL that makes her such a favourite of yours? I can't stand her myself, she comes across to me as a bully given god-like power that she abuses for her own amusement, and I've seen you acknowledge as much, but we draw completely different conclusions from that. I just want to understand your perspective.

i've been anticipating a question like this for a while now, so i'm more than happy to answer for you!

you're right, VAL is in some ways a "bully given godlike power" as you put it, and there's no avoiding that (nor do i want to). and yeah, i do like her in part because of that, because i have a fondness for horrible fictional characters and in particular "bad victim" archetypes, of which VAL certainly is one. but i think what makes her compelling to me, rather than repulsive, is that she is fundamentally a cautionary tale and a tragedy. in-universe, she's the scapegoat. the example. the "make the right choices or this could be you". she's inescapably, heartbreakingly human in her awfulness, and that makes her terrifying, but it also makes her deeply sad (at least to me).

i also strongly believe in rehabilitative/restorative justice, so for me, wanting better for VAL is about my real-world principles to a degree. i can't and won't argue that VAL doesn't function as an uncomfortable allusion to a lot of atrocious crimes against humanity (by humanity) within the narative, and that anyone who finds her upsetting or even hateful for these reasons is absolutely justified in doing so. however, she's still a fantasy entity at the end of the day. she's not a 1:1 stand-in for real-world abuses any more than, say, a vampire or werewolf, which plenty of people are more than happy to explore the nuances of. and there's also the question of what punitive measures would even achieve in her case, beyond personal satisfaction for the one administering or spectating them (which is not to say that wanting to punch VAL makes you as bad as she is, just that her arc is, among other things, about how cycles of abuse and violence perpetuate). the worst that could possibly happen to her has already happened. she's been tortured. she's been taken advantage of for her mistaken belief that working for and with the system has the opportunity to benefit her, and died for it. there's nothing to be "learned" from her punishment that hasn't already been shown to us. that she hasn't already internalised. if she were ever to develop a stable conscience, that would be punishment enough in my opinion.

despite being a victim of people not entirely unlike VAL, i personally am not her victim, so treating her with sympathy and kindness whilst acknowledging the elephant in the room that is her many (fictional) war crimes is not something that requires any cognitive dissonance on my behalf. i would cautiously argue that the narrative agrees with me somewhat in this regard - the few times VAL is treated to a genuine act of kindness with no ulterior motives, it shatters her composure and outward conviction that what she's doing is necessary for her personal satisfaction, and even prompts her to reconsider on occasion (sparing the woodsman comes to mind). i'm not saying anyone needs to hug her and tell her she's valid, but if all it takes is some genuine good intent to get her to engage in introspection, i'm willing to be the person to offer it.

[nyaagolor]

Once again I have Rosa Umineko on the brain. We know that the VN is just saying doing "self reflection through the other" all the way down, but I feel like Turn (aka Sayo's vent session) and the way she characterized Rosa is really reflective of her darkest thoughts. All the matriarchs represent being trapped in different cycles, self-inflicted or otherwise, but Rosa stands out to me among them for being the best representation of inevitability. Rosa's abuse of Maria is visceral, upsetting, and more importantly tied directly back to her own abuse at the hands of her siblings.

Rosa in Turn is a cog in the cycle of abuse, and probably the character portrayed as the least likely to actually escape from it. Maria is the witch of origins, creating something out of nothing, but Rosa is the witch of inevitability. Rosa has been abused to a degree that Sayo struggles to articulate, only to enact that same abuse-- almost identical as shown in the manga-- on her daughter. Rosa is (allegorically speaking) Sayo's worst outlook, the inevitability of passing on hurt to the people you care about.

As far as Turn is concerned, Rosa is destined to enact violence. She represents someone so beholden to their trauma that they are doomed to repeat it. Rosa is an exploration of Sayo's worst, most violent impulses. There is a reason that Turn is filled with gore and mistrustRosa, to Sayo, is an inescapable fate. Rosa is the person who couldn't move on from trauma, someone doomed to pass it on to everyone they love, a child in a woman's body who cannot be more than the violence inflicted on her.

When Sayo starts writing, she feels like Rosa-- and Rosa has never been someone that could have a happy ending. Sayo always tried to tell her stories through other people, to explore herself through their narratives and have everyone start to understand her through empathizing with the women she makes heroines. These narratives also serve as ways to understand herself, to reflect her own traumas and deepest feelings onto other people and learn how to feel about herself via proxy. That's why I always found it fascinating that Confession effectively confirms Turn to be one of the first things she writes.

Rosa is Sayo's capacity for violence, her hopelessness, the crying child she sees inside of herself. Rosa is a representation of a Sayo who can't heal-- who doesn't know HOW to. But this is one of the first people that Sayo tries to explore, to empathize with, to find herself in. Sayo has always been writing with the idea of a happy ending-- maybe they can solve the epitaph, maybe they survive. If Rosa can be happy, Sayo can be happy. But we know how Turn ends: she can't. Gold in hand, the person she loves most in her arms, she falls to the sea anyway.

Turn, to me, has always been the rawest feelings we've seen from Sayo. This is her writing her own pain, trying to find happiness in the person she sees as an inevitable monster. In the end though, she can't-- the wolf is doomed to kill by its own nature

[fenrisdefender]

Selling Fenris to slavery isn’t presented as an “evil playthrough” option in Dragon Age because doing an “evil” playthrough in DA2 doesn’t exist the way it exists in franchises like BG3. And blocking me bc I politely explained that to you doesn’t make it go away?

There are no consequences for selling Fenris back into slavery really. You’re rewarded with gold, and your companions - astoundingly - won’t up and kick your ass to the curb immediately. At least in BG3, some egregious decisions warrant understandable consequences.

Istg some people think just bc BG3 came out and introduced them to the idea of an “evil playthrough” suddenly people think that can be applied to ANY game’s writing and the writers are absolved of any problematic aspects.

The difference in a franchise like BG3 is that if you act like a total disgusting piece of shit, you descend into this grotesque, supervillainous repetition of a cycle of abuse. There’s a THEME there.

In DA2, do shitty things, win some prizes, and see no downsides really. It’s just a means to an end. You don’t like Fenris? Here’s your revenge: be as racist as possible! Like HUH?

By that point in the game your relationships are set in stone, too, with other companion characters, so it’s unlikely to rock the boat for most other companion approval/disapproval.

If you make that kind of decision in BG3, you’d face a consequence or lose out on something - SOMETHING would happen. DA2, however, indulges the racist dismissal of Fenris’ narrative and backstory.

Fenris isn’t even written to fight back! They could at least have given him a fight-to-the-death scenario in response! And then to have the most racist-against-elves companion on the team APPROVE? Like come ON.

You don’t have to like Fenris, I get why people don’t like him… but to say the selling into slavery part of the writing is justifiable?

I guess this fandom hasn’t changed.

[casscainmainly]

I think the recent Cass and Jason discussion is very interesting bc like, Jason or even steph in her first appearance take these actions of righteous, murderous (or near murderous) justice bc of the fact that not only have they've been abused, but they're also able to recognise that fact, and feel that despite everything, they didn't deserve to suffer like that (Jason with his murder, Steph with her childhood abuse)

Whereas Cass struggles for most of her series to recognise that she was abused and struggles to properly resent her abuser on the grounds that she didn't deserve it. She resents David for being a killer and making her love him, for making her a killer, but rarely for the actual abuse that came with her training. She eventually recognises it right before the end of pre-52 in batgirl 2008, but not after a long time, and she still tries to save David at the very end after contemplating letting him die.

she does grows to resent Bruce after some time, and confronts him, showing that she's slowly gaining higher expectations for how she should be treated after developing relationships outside the batfamily (coincidentally with Steph, someone who can relate over having a shitty dad, along with her love interests like Kon and Tai)- though Bruce, despite his multitudes of bad parenting moments never truly abuses cass like david did, so there's nuance, and after her fight with bruce, she still has trouble fully reckoning with her abuse (still calls david shooting her 'a game' in front of tim- she knows its wrong but still doesn't act upset about the fact it happened to her).

She kind of sees all the training she went through as a necessary evil in order to have the skills to be a hero- which is somewhat true, but I think it also contributes to her being unable to see herself, even partially, as a victim for large portions of her narrative.

She can understand abuse as something that molds you into a killer, she can't understand being abused and then choosing to be a killer bc of the righteous fury you have at what happened. In Cass' mind her abuse is synonymous with killing. That's the worst thing Cain ever did to her and the reason she ran away. She can't understand someone like Jason choosing it as a way to cope/deal with abuse.

I don't think this is necessarily a ground breaking thought but I think abuse is an interesting lense to look at both Jason and Cass' stories- pre52, Jason's story is about continuing a cycle of abuse. Criminals hurt him, he hurts criminals, and anyone who gets in his way of hurting the criminals, bc even tho he pursues justice, he also pursues retribution, which is hard to do justly. Between that and the whole zombie/living ghost thing, it's downright gothic. Whereas Cass' story is about breaking out of a cycle of abuse- nobody dies bc she let one person die and will never let it happen again. It's just an interesting way to view their differences I think. Good Cass and Jason posts recently!

I LOVE THIS!! I absolutely think abuse informs the way Jay and Cass see the world (and Steph - Steph, in many ways, is the median point between Jason and Cass).

It's the fundamental question that drives Jason and Cass apart. For Cass, her question is: how can I be the victim if I'm the villain? And for Jason, the question is more: how can I be the villain if I'm the victim?

I love this line: "Cass struggles for most of her series to recognise that she was abused and struggles to properly resent her abuser on the grounds that she didn't deserve it." This is doubly complicated by the genuine love David Cain had for her - that panel of them watching the stars kills me every time. This is another key difference between Jason and Cass' abuse (taking Jason's abuse to be his death) - Jason had no love for the Joker, but Cass did love David Cain.

It's why it's so easy for Jason to want to kill the Joker, and so hard for Cass to even be angry at her father. And your point here - "In Cass' mind her abuse is synonymous with killing" - is absolutely on point, because Jason's conception of abuse is the helplessness of being murdered. They are both acting in ways to prevent what abuse means in their minds: as Batgirl, Cass will never have to kill again, and as Red Hood, Jason will never have to be helpless in the face of murderers again.

Any rebuke of their moral codes feels like a denial of the abuse they suffered. It's why Cass can't allow others to kill, and why Jason can't accept Bruce's reasoning for not killing the Joker. It's why these versions of them could never get along. Argh there's been such good Cass and Jason commentary recently, they drive me insane!!!

[aho-dapa]

Side note, because I'm watching a video essay that's pretty much saying everything I've been thinking about about,

With sjm's writing, what separates it from a typical romantasy not to take seriously is that post ACOTAR, the author suddenly says to take it seriously.

Feyre's Calanmai Hall scene isn't about Feyre not wanting Tamlin's advances, but that she does, she's just doing the typical romantasy protag thing of rejecting what you really desire. Think about how this contrasts with Rhysand's scenes utm, she doesn't want them and its not given enough detail, but this changes after Feyre and Rhysand get together. For example, the CoN scene. The fucking mid air thing. The telepathy sexting that can happen at anytime without true consequence. Very exhibition. Much voyeur.

This is literally sjm's fantasies played out through Feyre and Rhysand, and even through Feyre and Tamlin.

Despite how much I like Tamlin, he only really became a truly nuanced character in hindsight for me because of sjm's unintentional manipulations of her own narrative. In ACOTAR, he's also built around Feyre the same way most characters are in the first book.

He is built to fit into Feyre, he's meant to parallel her acceptance of her own desires, her own beast through him, because submitting to him is submitting to herself. That's why Feyre's themes get mixed up post ACOTAR, she loses that beast like quality to become a star to suit Rhysand. And sjm brings that back in ACOWAR with the Mirror (although it doesn't hit like it once would have because instead to fitting Rhysand to Feyre, sjm wrote Feyre to fit Rhysand).

The thing that's frustrating is that sjm is the one that is saying these are just not her fantasies on page, she's the one that brought mental health into it, brought up abuse and neglect, and handled it all so poorly.

It's this thing where sjm still wants to have the upturned-nose high ground in her books, she wants to be right, she doesn't want Feyre to be questioned or truly be in the wrong because Feyre is her fantasy. sjm likely writes Tamlin to not like human slavery, not want to be like his father, and with a self sacrificing personality while keeping his beast like qualities for the steamy parts. Because he's written to have that middle ground most people looking for that fantasy can still enjoy while not being too disturbing for our modern sensibilities.

That's why some people not looking for this find Tamlin and Rhysand's actions strange and gross, but people who already indulge in those fantasies were okay with it. And there's even people who think that ACOTAR is too vanilla (me). Anyway.

Basically, ACOTAR is not meant to be taken seriously, its literally another romance book with a fancy (?) cover. Post ACOTAR is not tho, so sjm makes a big deal about taking it seriously because she wants that middle ground with Rhysand when honestly, Rhysand could have been a dark romance ML and no one would have batted an eye. But that wouldn't work for the precedent sjm established with the middle ground, she needs that 'he's feral and sexy and toes the consent line but it's fine because xyz' in her books, and that's why the fandom is so divided. We can't decide whether or not to take it seriously or not because sjm switched up.

Her fault as a writer is that she didn't do this well at all.

I mean, this is also coming from the same woman that briefly had another one of her characters entertain their sovereign right to colonization in goodwill, so. This woman should never have been taken seriously. Unfortunately, she insists upon herself. So in order to actually discuss these books, we have to take her silliness seriously.

(Which is why I stopped because it's an endless cycle of saying sjm wrote something silly and because she's saying it's serious, now we gotta be serious about bat birthing or whatever)

Never forget how I saw a bat get birthed just to actualize how stupid the *gets shot*

[synchodai]

just an aegon ii rant

The thing about Aegon that makes people root for him more than Joffrey is that Aegon just seems like everyone's punching bag in a way that Joffrey wasn't?

Aegon did horrible things, don't get me wrong. He raped a woman, he bullied his younger brother, he's implied to have his bastard children join fighting pits (this was never outright confirmed — Arryk only lightly alluded to Aegon doing something shady while they were looking to crown him), and he executed innocent ratcatchers as retribution for his murdered son.

But his rap sheet isn't any worse than Daemon's (murder, grooming, being a cop, etc.) or Criston's (his murder of Joffrey Lonmouth was downright homophobia /jk) or even Rhaenys's (talk about killing innocent people, right?), but for some reason all the characters hate Aegon's guts specifically? Given the people on this show, why?

It's like if Joffrey Baratheon threatened to kill Arya's direwolf and her best friend in episode 1, but he never does anything extraordinarily malicious or sadistic in the next episodes after that. And yet his own family just keeps treating him with outright contempt anyways despite him being their key to power.

Yeah, Aegon should be shamed and punished by the narrative for the horrible things he does...but nothing ever going his way and emphasizing how much of failure he is at every turn is just overkill, man. At some point, this amount of narrative humiliation has nothing to do anymore with dealing with the consequences of his bad actions or his personal failings, and it just makes every character look like they're taking turns unloading their frustrations on an acceptable target.

It's not fun to watch someone get kicked around by their entire family for no reason when he's never done anything especially horrible to hurt them other than be somewhat gormless. Otto most likely doesn't even know or care about Dyana, so does he despise his grandson simply for being a drunkard? For having an addiction? He was plotting to install him as king but all they ever did to prepare him for it was....yell at him and slap him around?

And on Aegon tormenting Aemond with his bullying, it's not like Aemond especially hates humiliating people in public since he regularly does it himself. When Lucaerys smirked at Aemond when they were served a pig in that dinner scene, Aemond bullied Jacaerys and Lucaerys back and Aegon was on his brother's side defending Aemond from getting attacked. Aemond isn't some put-upon victim who's been tolerating his brother's constant abuse — he obviously punches back. He has a hair-trigger temper and has messed up more things for his family's plans than Aegon has. Aemond's the one who was involved in the Driftmark fight that almost implicated Alicent for treason, Aemond's the one who made the Strong toast, Aemond's the one who killed Lucaerys and damaged their cause. And all three times, Aegon defends him!

This is all to ask why? Why are they writing his character like this? Why does the story and other characters keep piling on this dude? Why make Aegon's family hate him? Why make him awful at everything and good at nothing, not even riding his dragon who he has had for over a decade? Why give him these almost sympathetic moments with his brother, son, smallfolk, and dragon, only to have all the characters not show him a lick of sympathy?

Why do they all hate him for being an incompetent king when he straight up gave them the option of him abdicating by running away to Essos? They all act like he's the one imposing his incompetence on them, but they're the ones who forced the position on him. "Every man on that council earned their seat." YEs, Aegon didn't earn his seat — because it was forced on him and I am clawing at my eyes wishing the show would acknowledge that!

Is it supposed to be a deliberate commentary on the tragedy of hereditary monarchy? To show the Hightowers' cycle of abuse (even though no other Hightower is getting consistently hit and berated even after committing the WORST crime)? Is the show making him so pathetic and incompetent to make Rhaenyra more dignified and regal in comparison? Or is it doing this deliberately to woobify Aegon? To have his family and life be horrible so the viewers have built up their sympathies for when he gets his emotionally-resonant plot beats in the end?

Even if that's the case, the means certainly don't justify the ends. There's just no logical consistency to how these chracters treat and view Aegon and it's getting frustrating to watch sometimes.

[nightcrowing]

My question is, how was the relation dinamic between Will and the reverse Stanford they had a more kind of toxic romance relationship or more like an abusive close friendship?

Alright so I'm honestly so glad someone asked about this because the relationship dynamic between these two was something I have thought extensively about and I really wanted a reason to talk about it! The best term to describe their relationship would be "A toxic situationship". They are never in a formal romantic relationship but still have aspects that people would consider it as romance, I will say its rather one sided feelings wise. I think it would be better if I talk about how both Will and Stanford view each other.

Stanford Gleeful: As a character I've always seen Stanford as being manipulative. He is cold and calculative but puts on an smile for the crowd and twists words if it benefits him. That's exactly what he did to Will. He saw how Will acted around him and used that. Being nice and sweet, seeing Will get all nervous and shy Stanford knew it was working. He views Will as just another pawn he can use to get what he wants, power and knowledge. So he's willing to play along if it means he can win. He never physically harms Will since he knows that Will isn't stupid and would just retaliate against him with his own magic. But emotionally he makes Will feel dependent on him. Saying things like "You have no one else but me who cares for you" and "ive done so much for you William" just really pushing the narrative that Will is all alone and is a nobdy without him. Even with his manipulative tactics Stanford does appreciate Will but he views Will as just another object to own in his collection. Eventually he does develop mild feelings for Will but he pushes them to the side.

Will Cipher: With Will, he's already very traumatised with the events of Euclydia. He's fragile, insecure and feels immense guilt for not doing something about that tragedy and instead running away. Basically a perfect candicate for someone who knows how to use this against him. Will immediately managed to get swayed by Stanfords kindness towards him and how the man presented himself. Stanford was knowledgeable and "wanted to understand the universe better" something that Will could admire and wanted to explore as well. There was this charm to Stanford, which Will got awfully blinded by. He thought that he could finally have someone who could understand and love him. To have a family again. So of course he was on board when Stanford wanted to make a deal with him. Eventually Will began experiencing this abuse first hand. Stanford would be little him and do things like force Will to attend events against his wishes. Even with this Will was hopeful and brushed all those incidents to the side. Will feels very dependent on Stanford emotionally and its very difficult to get out of this cycle.

I want to add that Will does slowly realise that how he is being treated is wrong and it would result in him sneaking away from the mansion to have time on his own. It did not end well as Stanford found out which ended in Stanford using a spell to make Will unable to leave the mansion grounds. Yknow the one with unicorn hair which was used to keep Bill out? Yeah he just reversed it and it now keeps Will in. Will has acted out to express how he felt about everything and Stanford would 'apologise' but it was always twisted the situation to seem like it was Wills fault. Will is in a constant cycle of over thinking which just makes him so much more anxious with everything. Stanford never outright shows his anger and is just really good with his words. He treats Will to things he likes for example bringing him tea or making him a greenhouse that hes asked for. All these little things which Will rethinks and is like "oh hes changing!" All this just makes it so much harder for Will to realise how awful everything is and constantly second guess. Will isn't powerless or anything, no he still has all his power and could fully "make Stanford pay" if he wanted to but unlike Bill he never wants to cause anyone any harm at all and would rather try talking things out.

I hope my rambling wasn't too difficult to understand! I just tend to get a little passionate about my take on characters and what not. I know a got a little off track but I think it helps better explain their dynamic :) !

[electric-friend]

the amount of people who think that the folks who think the show textually gave us ed abusing izzy are just insane immoral dickheads is truly distressing. like. no, ed was not izzy’s abuser in season one. not like, clearly and obviously onscreen in my opinion anyway. and yes, izzy was verbally abusive and triggering to ed in season one.

but saying that in season two the show quite literally frames ed as izzy’s abuser does not cancel out those other statements.

it doesn’t mean that anyone thinks ed should be depicted as a violent man. it doesn’t mean that izzy didn’t do anything wrong.

like, you people understand there doesn’t need to be just one bad guy, right? that ed and izzy can both have done significant wrong?

you people do understand that people who think the show depicted ed as abusive are mad that the show did that and then didn’t resolve it properly because we think it was a disservice to ed’s character, right? you understand the reason we feel this way is because the way it was depicted was triggering to a lot of us because the scenario shown onscreen is deliberately evocative of abuse, right? ed did a bad thing. izzy did a bad thing. they both did bad stuff.

i hate the way the side of the fandom that thinks it’s wrong to suggest canon had ed be abusive towards izzy just seem to all believe that abuse is something that’s earned and deserved. or that if they "deserve" it, it's not abuse.

you can tell me about ed’s motivations of suicidality if you want but his intent doesn’t counteract the effect of his actions, much like izzy who didn’t intend to turn ed into the kraken, but still wasn’t right for his actions no matter his intentions and the excuses he made in his head.

you know what? i’m going to say it. just because ed didn’t deserve the way izzy treated him doesn’t mean izzy DID deserve the way ed treated him after.

we couldn't even get a story about a character with a canonically abusive dad doing something as simple as breaking the cycle of violence, huh. i just don't respect the writing or the narrative of season two.

[therainscene]

I’ve been enjoying the sympathetic, we-aren’t-being-shown-the-whole-story takes on Henry lately, and it’s reminded me of something I always found odd about the scene with the rabbit.

On the surface, this looks like a budding serial killer engaging in that red flag behaviour of torturing animals. We see the ensnared rabbit screaming and struggling in front of a young Henry, and older Henry tells us, “as I practiced, I realized I could do more than I possibly imagined...”

But then we see young Henry’s face... and I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see a child torturing an animal for fun. He seems thoughtful, troubled.

What really gets me about this is older Henry’s narration over this shot: “I could reach into others, into their minds, their memories.” What does that have to do with killing a rabbit? He’s not in a mind-reading trance here, his eyes are open.

Immediately following this scene, Henry segues into telling us about his parents, how he’d reached into their minds and seen that they’d done “such awful things”. We see Victor haunted by a vision of the baby he accidentally killed. It screams like the rabbit, unable to escape its burning crib.

Here’s what I think actually happened with the rabbit:

Virginia set up traps to get rid of pests. (Victor was spooked by the dead animals around his property, so I don’t think he was involved.) Henry saw this while practicing his mind-reading, and upon investigating, found a terrified, injured rabbit. He sympathized with it; his mother viewed him as a pest, too, a problem to be solved via cruelty. He killed it to end its suffering, and soon developed a habit of mercy-killing all the animals ensnared by his mother.

I think this reading is a much better fit for Henry than “weirdo kills animals as practice for murder.” When he kills his human victims, he tells them, “it’s time for your suffering to end; it will all be over soon.”

He finds children ensnared by abuse and forced conformity. He sees them in pain, trapped in their burning cribs by cruel or foolish authority figures. He sees himself. He shows them the mercy he wishes he’d been given.

This is, of course, hypocritical. Henry has no right to decide on other people’s behalf how they should cope with their pain -- he’s turned into the same abusive authority figure he’s always railed against. He sees humanity as “a unique type of pest”, just as his mother saw him. Even his beloved spiders were kept imprisoned in jars so he could study them, just as Brenner imprisoned him in the lab.

Many abusers see themselves as victims, and they’re often right. That doesn’t justify the abuse they perpetrate, but in their own minds, they feel justified. They feel like they have no other option. That’s what makes the cycle of abuse so hard to stop.

Here’s what I find most interesting about sympathetic Henry: if he’s a demonstration of the good within evil... what does that imply about his narrative foil?

Will does not like to hurt others and he does not want to become that person. He couldn’t even shoot the Demogorgon in self-defense.

But he’s quick to hurt himself if it means helping his loved ones. He was willing to sacrifice himself in order to close the gate in S2, and he immediately bottled up his feelings to deal with the Mind Flayer in S3 despite being in the midst of a complete mental breakdown as a result of bottling his feelings up for too long.

And in S4, Will knows that his feelings are exactly what will make Mike feel better, but he’s too scared to come out or risk making his bestie feel uncomfortable, so he shills for heteronormativity and disguises his feelings as his sister’s under the assumption that’s what Mike wants to hear.

It is not what Mike wants to hear.

Mike feels pressured to lie to El. El is so distracted by his bullshit that Henry has time to kill Max. Max’s death opens the final gate.

The world ends, and Will Byers played a key role in it.

In his zeal to be a Good Celibate Gay and do no harm, he contributed to the worst harm imaginable. But he felt justified in what he was doing. He thought he had no other option than to decide on Mike’s behalf how he should feel.

Henry’s gonna have a fucking field day calling him out on that one.

Will isn’t a villain and he isn’t going to become one; the real villain in Stranger Things isn’t a person or a monster so much as the monstrous things people do. If there’s one lesson to take away from this show, I’d say it’s to remember that any of us -- even sweet, gentle, well-meaning Will Byers -- is capable of evil.

But it’s okay. Will’s internalized homophobia may have helped end the world... that just means honesty, acceptance, and love are the tools he’ll need to save it again. We’re all capable of that, too.

[starheirxero]

Xero- Xero, I just thought of something- And it's fucking me up BAD- I am in SHAMBLES/POS- ITS HAUNTING ME-

Lunara tore their Eclipse apart from the inside out. They ripped him into pieces. This we know.

And it wasnt enough. It would never be enough.

They told Sun, that it lacked the satisfaction they were hoping for. It "wasn't as fun as they would've liked".

And of course it wasn't. It could never be, really.

Because revenge will never take away the scars left behind. It will never right the wrong.

As Lunar has said, "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind" !

It would never be enough. It would never heal them. And it didn't.

It only made them angrier, more bitter. It caused them to wreck havoc, until eventually, nothing was left. Until even their anger burnt out.

And they still weren't satisfied. They simply grew numb. Their anger, their scars, had eaten them from the inside out, until nothing was left.

But what if this wasn't all?

What if their anger, their self-inflicted madness, came from something else? Something worse even?

Because recently, I remembered Lunar and Eclipse's conversation!

When Lunar and Eclipse talked, and found something akin to mutual ground, Eclipse told Lunar, he was proud of them. Proud because they killed him. Proud because they "finally got it".

And suddenly, something clicked into place for me!

What if Lunara's Eclipse declared his pride for them, just as he drew his last breath?

What if, after an endless cycle of abuse and resets, of deaths, they finally freed themself?

What if they tore him apart, screaming at him? "You did this to me, are you happy? Are you satisfied?"

And what if, in his last moments, when they finally let up and he stopped screaming, he grinned at them through his own remains, telling them "Finally you get it." "You actually made me proud."

What if, even in his last moments, he still looked upon them with condescension? What if he still had that arrogant and smug tone in his voice? What if, even in death, he would not let them go?

Because god, of course this would be the final straw.

They thought, they finally ripped themself free from his control, only for him to tell them, that they became what he wanted them to be.

"You did this to me, are you happy? Are you satisfied?" "I am. You are perfect now, thanks to me."

Even in death, he has complete and utter control over them. Because they are exactly what he wanted them to be.

Maybe it drove them to insanity, as they destroyed everything in their path.

Maybe they tried to be worse because of it.

Maybe, by the time Earth meets them, they reached acceptance. Accepting, that they will never be free from his grasp.

Maybe, a small, twisted part of them felt happiness at the prospect of Eclipse's pride.

Whatever they might've felt, one thing is perfectly clear.

He will always haunt them, always haunt their narrative. He will always be the ghost looking over their shoulders, keeping a tight hold on their strings. They will never find peace in this life.

-Stardust

STARDUST I'M GUNNA SHAKE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't even BEGIN with how many DISEASES THIS IS GIVING ME. HOLY SHIT.

That fits in so perfectly with what we already know about Lunara I can't OVER IT. OF COURSE HIS SMUG SATISFACTION WOULD MAKE MATTERS SO MUCH WORSE. OF COURSE HIS LAST WORDS BEING THAT THEY PLAYED DIRECTLY INTO HIS HANDS WOULD PUSH THEM TO THEIR LIMIT. OF COURSE. OF COURSE!!!!!

AND THE IDEA OF THERE STILL BEING AN INKLING OF JOY FROM THAT AHHHHHHHHHH AHAHAUAHAGAHAGSJSG STARDUST YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO MEEEEEEEEEE HOLY SHIT

Being so utterly torn up inside because they finally got to kill Eclipse but he said he was proud of them for finally getting it but that's not the response they wanted but that validation has been something they've craved for such a long time but they don't want it anymore but they can't help it BUT— AUAGAHAGAHHH!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS GUT WRENCHING. THIS IS GUNNA HAUNT ME. I'M ADOPTING THIS INTO MY BELIEF SYSTEM ASAP ABDKWBJSDH

[chalkrevelations]

Oh. My god.

So, last night, I reblogged a gifset of that conversation Pete has with Pol when they’re on stakeout, tailing Vegas, sitting around in the car, and Pete wants to know who Pol thinks would do a better job – Vegas’s bodyguard or Pete? And I added this bit of commentary:

My theory on the closest thing Pete has to a sexual fantasy at this point in the narrative and his life: Pete saves Vegas's life in some kind of shootout or assassination attempt that no one else could have protected Vegas from, thereby earning headpats from Thee Vegas Theerapanyakul, who Everyone Knows is a completely detached sociopath who usually has no more use for his bodyguards than as human bulletproof vests (which is somehow different from the main family for no reason I can discern but apparently exists?). Only now, Pete has proven himself and is both Noticed By and Special To this violent, emotionally inaccessible man (who, as an added bonus, is in a position of power over him). I mean, for whatever variables of "special" Pete can even conceptualize at this point, anyway. And I wonder how many times he's imagined this. It's Pete's very own mafia-filtered version of the Bad Boy fantasy in which you're the only one he cares about - you're the only one who can have that effect on him - and that makes you the Most Special-est Girl. C'mon, who's the most inaccessible Bad Boy in Pete's sphere? Certainly not Kinn, who'll just up and tell Pete that he trusts him the Very Most - even more than Pete's best friend! who Kinn is fucking! - the hot minute that Kinn's coercing Pete into doing something he really, really doesn't want to do. And you know Pete's daydream version of what makes him the Most Special-est Girl involves killing someone the best and quickest and most efficiently - because if he wins in the ring a fight, then the most emotionally inaccessible, violent man he knows (who, as an added bonus, is in a position of power over him) will love him, right? Not to mention, a guy with that many gun posters doesn't get stuck on Tankhun-babysitting detail and not have fantasies about proving his worth via violence. Listen, he just spends an awful lot of time standing around in Vegas's right-hand man spot like he's trying on the position during Ep 7, is all I'm sayin'.

… in which the vague allusions to Pete’s Daddy Issues were absolutely intentional. And I’ve also commented before about Pete finding another home with an angry man at the safehouse. And yet it wasn’t until yesterday’s post rolled up on my own dashboard and I saw it again today that the Brick Of Revelation hit me in the head and I thought about this through the framework of - my god! Pete and Vegas really do play out the very scenario that Pete warns Vegas about when you’re seeking the approval of your father abuser!

In the safehouse, Pete wins. He achieves his fantasy. He pulls the thorn out of the lion’s paw, and he gets the notice and special regard of Vegas Theerapanyakul, and he gets his world rocked on top of that, and then … then it turns out nothing changes. Vegas – the guy who expected that Pete winning in the ring would mean that his father would stop beating him, the guy who continues to seek his own abusive father’s approval, who keeps trying to win against Kinn, in the hope that Kun will stop treating him as a disposable whipping boy – Vegas goes right back to physically and emotionally abusing Pete. On top of that, the fantasy doesn’t play out in reality; Vegas literally tells Pete that he’s nothing special. (I mean, lies, of course, but the fact is that Vegas says it right to his face.)

I just. This is another one of those instances where I walked up to this revelation and even walked all the way around it, poking at it, but I just never looked at it straight on until this moment - the way Pete’s experience in the safehouse so closely mirrors his experience with his father. We watch Vegas continue to recreate the cycle of abuse, and we're like, "oh, dude, you need to make some better decisions," but we've also just spent 2.5 eps watching Pete, dispenser of this very wisdom, fall back into the same patterns he warns Vegas about. Because breaking that cycle and changing your behavior and your expectations is hard. Even when your head knows better. The things this show says about generational trauma and intimate violence and patriarchal control, I just ... god. Just, don't mind me, I have to go claw at some drywall for a while.

Also, it makes me wonder if Pete did kill his father. Because if he ran from home the same way he ran from the safehouse, if we’re supposed to look at this echo forward into the present of what happened in the past, then are we supposed to think that maybe there was a similar confrontation in the past, in which Pete struck out before he extricated himself from the trap he was in and ran?

Vegas is a lot younger and more resilient (and used to being knocked around) than Pete’s dad probably was, at that point.

[compassionatereminders]

I don't think it's fair to generalize that all mentally ill people choose or don't choose to get better. I know a bunch of people who have access to private healthcare, private clinics, etc... that they regularly visit, they have access to mental health care, they use them maybe once or twice then decide that they don't want to do it anymore and would rather just succumb to their illness while making it living hell for those surrounding them before going to the clinics again then fall right back into the cycle without making an active effort to at least search for help privately. I also know people, with the same access, who regularly go to therapy and are making an active effort to better themself or try to find a way to stabilize themselves. Then there are people who try, don't have access and can't get the help they need. It's not something one can generalize into "choose to get help" and "choose not to get help" and then not blaming someone for making it living hell for those around them when they choose to not get help. You missed OP's point. It reads to me like anon's dad has access (been to clinics, makes progress then doesn't carry out what the dad said they'd do) but refuses to get help despite it and instead makes them feel bad for worrying when it's justified and angering. It's not always black and white.

I don't not understand your argument, I just don't agree. As I have said several times, I don't think anyone has to put up with toxic behavior or abuse because someone is mentally ill, but I don't believe in the strawman of this world being swarmed by malicious mentally ill people who are refusing to get better by choice. Do some mentally ill people abuse others? Yes. Can mental illness play a role in abuse? Absolutely. Do you owe mentally ill people endless patience even if they abuse you? Obviously not. But I don't think that a significant amount of suffering people are doing it on purpose by choice to hurt their loved ones simply because they don't care. That's just not a narrative I'm buying. Even if it is true for a couple mentally ill abusers out there, I really don't think it's a harmless objective narrative we need to spread further, and I think this idea does more harm than good as a general approach to mental health issues.

[coffeenonsense]

I usually try to stay in my lane most of the time (mostly bc I am far too old for fandom drama) but what the hell, it's friday, let's put that lit degree to use:

the way people are playing morality politics with fiction is really starting to genuinely irk me and I think some of the responses to ascended astarion are a perfect example of why this type of thinking is actually hugely detrimental to one's ability to meaningfully engage with fiction and also to the future of art.

astarion is one of the most well-written complex characters I've seen in recent years bar none (and I'm clearly not alone given the explosion of his personal fandom lol) and he has a truly compelling, emotionally resonant character arc whether you ascend him or not

If you keep him a spawn, you get a deeply touching, realistic character's journey to healing and personal growth where he learns who he is after the experience of his trauma and depending on the player's choice, explores his relationship to sex, romance and intimacy

If you ascend astarion, you get an equally emotional and well-rounded character arc where he chooses the power that allows him to have the desperate freedom and safety he's wanted, but in the process eschews any hope of real healing or personal development, and again, depending on the player's choices, restarts the cycle of abuse by taking cazador's place.

These options offer vastly different paths for the character and experiences for the player, but while yes, ascended astarion is the evil ending, and yes, ascending astarion is a tragedy, and a fucking incredible one (not only do you have astarion reigniting a circle of abuse but you have the narrative weight of KNOWING he could have actually overcome his trauma...hats off to the bg3 team tbh) but that does not mean ascending astarion MAKES YOU AS THE PLAYER EVIL

Ascend astarion because you love tragic story arcs, ascend him because you want to indulge in a master/slave vampire fantasy, don't ascend him because you want a healing character journey, don't ascend him because you want a sweet romance; all of these choices carry the same moral weight for the player, which is to say, none, because they are an exploration of fiction.

I know I'm saying this to the villain fucker website but it bears repeating; just because someone wants to engage with evil, fucked up characters or content does not mean they support evil acts in their real life, and furthermore, exploring dark, taboo or tragic concepts safely is part of what fiction is for. It enables us to look at those things from a distance, work through difficult feelings and develop greater understanding of what makes our fellow humans tick — and before you get it twisted there's also no moral issue with exploring fucked up media bc you're horny or just, because. You can take it as seriously (or as sexily) as you want.

It's starting to really concern me how many people not only do not get, but are violently opposed to this concept, because equating what someone likes in fiction with their real life moral code and actions is an incredibly dangerous and let's be honest, immature way of thinking that not only stunts your ability to engage with fiction but ironically, hampers your ability to deal with complicated issues and emotions in real life.

I don't know what's driving this trend (though purity culture is certainly playing a role) but it's definitely something that's not just impacting individuals but contributing to the commercialization of art, where we get games and stories and tv shows and books that regurgitate the same safe, mass marketable plotlines and character archetypes over and over and over again so corporations can squeeze out as much profit as possible.

Anyway, remember kids: There's no such thing as thought crime, reaching for morally pure unproblematic media is directly contributing to the death of art, and this is why funding the humanities is important.