#did some drunk izzyposting now for some sleep deprived izzyposting

[ladyluscinia]

I know there's not much point to trying to address the "Izzy Hands is Kylo Ren" takes - they're not going anywhere, the loudest proponents already have me blocked, disagreeing probably mostly serves to get me blocked more, etc. - but they bother me a lot and I've got time and motivation right now...

So. Kicking a hornet nest. Halfheartedly. My argument is meandering and ends when I get bored of writing it. Under a cut because I'm not bothering to structure or trim this down.

I find this interpretation of the fandom response immensely frustrating for a few reasons. For one, I think it's rooted pretty heavily in an anti mindset that basically suggests giving positive attention to a "bad" character or ship as a fan is effectively stealing the attention you owe to a morally better one, and then casts suspicion on your motives. Asking "Why would you like Izzy so much when the pure and good Stede / Edward / Revenge crew are right there?" Accusing people of vilifying other characters if they suggest Izzy might have been wronged in any of the numerous interpersonal conflicts. Assuming the only explanation for sympathizing with him is bigotry (unconscious or otherwise) driving opinions... Which is an insane thing to just drop into discussion like it's obvious and unquestionable before we start introducing relevant concepts like "protagonist centered morality". I also, understandably, object to the take that since I don't write extensive disclaimers on how this character is pure bigoted evil, then the most generous interpretation (aka the only way I'm not a bad person myself) is that I'm just really stupid and do not understand the story. Or got distracted by a Victorian ankle collar flash and my ability to understand "this is a bad person" fell right out with my brain.

Like, fuck, people are not subtle with implying anyone who likes Izzy without a "oh but I also hate him and think he's pure villain" tacked on is either a moron or actively malicious, and problematic to the point of demanding public repentance either way. He's a fictional henchman in a pirate comedy.

And that henchman status leads into the main reason this take bothers me... I think it's just plain incorrect.

Ever since the very first time I saw someone arguing this - and responded to it in dissent as the author had invited people to do, though they did not appreciate someone actually taking them up on said invitation - my immediate complaint was that it hinges on taking the absolute worst faith read of every action Izzy takes from start to finish. Like, you can interpret all these things to mean what you say they mean, but it's hardly the only way and often not even the encouraged way. Example: the writers have openly stated they aren't trying to focus on homophobia and didn't intend the anchor hoist to be an example of Izzy being racially biased. It's one thing to declare the author is dead and keep reading those as inadvertently present in the text and relevant potential explanations regardless of intent. It's a whole different thing to decide that it is objectively wrong for fans to dismiss things like the anchor hoist as a coincidence (which it literally was) because you've decided the character is blatantly racist and that interpretations of his actions with less bigoted motivations are inherently unacceptable excusing of racism. For people that praise the writing so much, there is a lot of hostility to the idea that good writing on an antagonist might entail them being complex and maybe even - gasp! - not as evil as they could be. (Which Izzy very much isn't, btw.)

And on the specific comparison at hand, suggesting Izzy is effectively just Kylo Ren or Walter White or any number of white asshole characters that get idealized by fans ignoring that they are meant to be terrible... there's a pretty big elephant getting ignored. Namely, Izzy Hands is not a character with power. He's a henchman, with a much bigger, badder, scarier boss in Edward (who is on screen even more than he is). He isn't respected or feared by the Revenge crew. He doesn't have an institution of blatant symbolic and literal power backing him up like the Badmintons, despite this being a thing they very much could have done. Some of those extras in Navy uniform could have easily been, say, remaining Queen Anne crew, arriving at Izzy's heel to reinforce toxic pirate culture on Edward (who in this version is presumably traumatized by piracy and desperately trying to escape to a peaceful life). Instead Izzy is alone, and unthreatening, and written with both a noticable aversion to impulsive conflict violence and a fawn response. If these great writers were trying to do a Walter White style external harm and eventual self destruction arc to make a point about toxic masculinity, then this setup looks like they kinda really suck at it.

You can't write a character hitting the dramatic fall part of that narrative if they quite literally never get a leg up in the first place, and the fall is kind of integral to that group of toxic assholes. It provides the moral lesson / message that Izzy enjoyers keep being accused of being blind to. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that he's the "bad writers glorifying a power fantasy" version (more like Kylo Ren than Walter White), though I thought these weren't bad writers and it's a very strange concept of a power fantasy to be the butt of every joke.

You can't make any effective point about a toxic white guy with power without writing a toxic white guy with power. Like, idk, the Badminton brother who falls on his own sword because he's too haughty to take the person he bullied seriously??? Sure, nobody would have the point of Breaking Bad fly right over their head if Walter White had been a loser getting mocked relentlessly on screen and failing left and right, but something tells me "cancer patient who is a bit of dick goes bankrupt and dies, and nobody cares" wouldn't have made the points about toxic masculinity and hubris in the first place. If you want a real lack of media literacy, transplanting an arc and associated symbolism onto a character that doesn't fit the associated archetype and not addressing how it still works and sends the same message beyond assuring that it does is a good example.

I mean, seriously, these arguments are made by the same people who also relentlessly tear into the idea that Izzy is even slightly competent as a pirate. So they can't even pretend that his arc in the show is his fall of hubris (a dumb decision to start him in the show just after the climax turning point, but at least possible), because they are determined to remind you that he never had anything he thinks he's losing in the first place. How is that supposed to work??? Loser remains loser, gets embarrassed a bunch, says mean things that mostly get shrugged off, and look how dangerous and destructive toxic masculinity and arrogance is, kids!

That. Is. Not. His. Archetype.

For the thing that will really piss antis off, Izzy's whole comedic butt-monkey routine does give him a few archetypes he can lean into, and most of them are based around symbolic or literal victimhood. Like how he is kind of the designated toxic masculinity guy, and his life completely sucks for reasons often outside his control. Which does convey messages about how toxic masculinity isn't good for anyone, but in a way where the logical conclusion is that Izzy is also suffering under it and the logical arc (especially in a redemptive series) is to have the audience feel bad for him and root for him to get his own happiness by escaping it (you know... like what people think they are doing in a very flat way with Edward). There's also a semi-karmic element when his own actions backfire, but the endless humiliation conga makes that pretty sympathetic too (he's not successfully evil but still suffering plenty for it), and that puts him in the group of unthreatening antagonists who stumble right into the good side because being evil kinda sucks for them and they aren't as good at it as the other real villains. Think Zuko, or Spike.

Butt-monkey characters do tend to be more sympathetic than not. That's a comedy staple.

But sure, keep pretending he's more like Walter White or Tyler Durden than a character from The Office, and writing extensive posts on how liking the pure evil character you've made up in your head is proof of moral failing and / or idiocy. That's really a great use of time and fandom energy 🙄

Izzy will continue to be Just Some Guy