#disability is a part of the human experience it is not a character flaw

[arim-viola]

I recently finished watching Arcane. Fair warning, there are MAJOR spoilers ahead. PLEASE GO WATCH THE SHOW IF YOU HAVEN’T!!!!

This series has one of the most beautifully complex and heartbreakingly human examples of disability representation that I’ve ever seen. It is groundbreaking. There are multiple characters with disabilities who I could do a deep dive on, but today I’ll be mainly talking about Viktor.

For personal context, the first season of Arcane came out in November 2021. It was one of the most difficult years for me medically. I almost lost the rest of my vision due to a glaucoma pressure spike, and I started experiencing long term chronic pain, which was later diagnosed as fibromyalgia.

Although we have different disabilities, watching Viktor’s story unfold was very emotionally cathartic for me and I deeply resonate with his character.

Viktor is a character with multiple disabilities including a physical disability that impacts his ability to walk and later on in the series he develops a terminal illness. He uses multiple aids including a cane, an ergonomic axillary crutch, a brace on his right leg, and a back brace. Part of me speculates that he had a condition such as degenerative disc disease that impacted his spine, but that’s one of my own personal head-canons.

Due to his own personal life experience, he made it his mission to help others using science. He devoted his life to his research on the Hexcore. He knew that his time on this earth was finite, and he did not want to waste a single moment. After his diagnosis with his illness, he became consumed by this idea of glorious evolution, to push beyond his humanity through the use of magic and science. And this can be problematic when it steps into the territory of eugenics, as seen in some timelines in the series.

But there is another perspective I’d like to share. At the beginning of the series Viktor states:

“Nobody's ever believed in me. A poor cripple from the undercity. I was an outsider the moment I stepped foot in Piltover. I didn't have the benefits of a patron or a name. I simply believed in myself, which is why I’m here, because I think you're on to something. I want to help you complete your research."

He had to “pull himself by his bootstraps” to build a life for himself in Piltover. He had to evolve beyond his beginnings. This is an ideology that society instills into folks with disabilities. The idea is always centered around overcoming your disability. You are mainly seen from the framework of resilience, or pity. You exist despite your flaws. Your disability is not seen as something that’s an inherent part of your humaneness, but rather a situation to overcome. This framework makes each day a constant battle between the body, the mind, and the spirit.

Viktor becomes so consumed by the idea of progress and evolution that he completely rejects his humanity. He states:

“Humanity, our very essence, is inescapable. Our emotions, rage, compassion, hate. Two sides of the same coin, intractably bound. That which inspires us to our greatest good is also the cause of our greatest evil!"

He has this character shift where he believes that emotions will only lead to suffering. And he then converts others to his cause. He feels he is helping them but the truth is he is erasing their humanity.

But Jayce Talis, his lab partner, who has been with him since the very beginning, said one of the most beautiful lines that of dialogue I’ve ever heard in the last act of the series. I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. He said:

“You've always wanted to cure what you thought were weaknesses. Your leg. Your disease. But you were never broken, Viktor. There is beauty in imperfections. They made you who you are, an inseparable piece of everything... I admired about you."

I cried when I first watched this scene. And I still do every time I hear it. I realized that was something I really needed to hear, and that no one had ever told me that. Viktor and Jayce’s bond is something that's incredibly special, and everyone deserves to be seen in that way. Disability is a part of the human experience, but society doesn't see it that way. When you are disabled or gain a disability, society sees you as inherently broken. And whether you recognize it or not, you internalize that about yourself. That’s where ableism comes from.

Jayce also gains a disability later in the series which gives him a unique perspective on part of Viktor’s experience. And those lines that he shares with us, he shows us that he cares about Viktor’s inherent humanity. He understands that his disabilities are an inherent, inseparable part of who he is. And that they don’t make him any less of a human being. And neither do his emotions. Everyone deserves someone in their life who will love them that much.

Another thing that I thought was beautiful is that they never tried to erase Viktor’s disability. First they made his cane not look medical, it has so much personality as well as functionality. And throughout the series his cane evolves into a magical staff. When he was revived by the arcane his body did not feel in the same way as it did before because now it was made from a combination of metal and flesh. His leg and back brace became fused to him. And Jayce had to build his brace out of his hammer. Viktor didn’t fall into any of the usual stereotypes for characters with disabilities. His arc and Jayce’s arc were incredibly innovative.

I thought the end was very beautiful. It’s definitely a tear jerker. Part of me hopes they were transported some place where they can live happily ever after doing science and helping people.

Anyways, I could talk about them for ages. I’ll likely write more about them soon, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on the series as well! What did you think? Do you have a favorite character?

[redphlox]

the fact is izuku managed to save tenkos soul his body was too far gone due to what afo done to him and the damage in his mind lets be real here if toga and tenko had lived they would have been put in prison for their tragic pasts don't change the people they killed and the fact their identities were well known

Look dude - come closer, come sit down next to me. Lets talk.

I'm not sure how to explain that this is a fantasy story. That means that it doesn't have to reflect our current world 1:1, which has flawed systems. Storied aren't biographies. You can tell the difference between reality and fantasy, yes? I hope so. If your mom let you borrow her phone so that you can get on Tumblr to talk to me, then maybe you can have her explain if you're still confused by the time I'm through with you.

If you're using this argument for why the villains who were humanized by the author had to die cruel deaths in a story that preached about giving people Second Chances, then I'm led to believe that you also believe that Bakugo surviving his exploded heart was realistic. And that's completely unrealistic, just in case you're not sure.

There were a lot of unrealistic aspects to this story, including the part about people having superhuman abilities like creating explosions from their palms and making things float. Those abilities aren't real either, just in case you are confused. You might have picked up this story and thought it was an autobiography or a history textbook, so I advise that you ask your mom to take you to the library and talk to a librarian about the differences between literary genres.

Now - hold on to your seat, this is why I had you sit down; this next part is going to be really perplexing to you if you believe quirks are real - stories are usually used with the purpose of conveying a message, of exploring our Humanity and to experience of some kind of catharsis or emotion using our imaginations. You know the story about The three little pigs? That are also unrealistic, but it serves a purpose - it teaches little kids about perseverance and working hard. The first two little pigs didn't want to put in the effort to make a solid house, so they paid for it in the end with their lives. Do we live in the world where wolves literally come knocking on our doors trying to eat us? No, but we do live in a world where it's important to persevere and work hard. Disney's The Little Mermaid also isn't real, because Mermaids Don't exist, but it dealt with very real human experiences that we all deal with such as feeling out of place in the world, our identity, etc.

So, you can see that authors use fantasy stories to explore very real human emotions, social issues, what have you. BNHA starts off like that too. The very first words are exactly, "people are not all born equal", and it goes on to tell the story of a teen who's basically considered disabled because he's different. He's bullied, discriminated against, and he deals with very real human experiences such as disregarding authority to go after a friend he really cares about because he felt it was the right heroic thing to do, experiencing death (Night eye, Midnight), dealing with abusive parents (Endeavor) and comforting abuse victims (Shouto, Eri.)

These characters are not real, but they go through very real human experiences. These are real world issues.

You're still following me, right? Characters and stories aren't real, but their issues usually reflect real life issues.

All right. Not that we've established that stories often and talk about real world problems that we experience in everyday life, let's talk about how authors can approach these topics. It's all about using different Tools in your writing to convey your message.

Let's go back to my example with the Three Little Pigs. The moral of the story, the message, the theme, is that hard work pays off. If you slack off, you're possibly putting yourself in danger. But what if the last little pig's house had fallen down anyway despite his hard work? What if the wolf had eaten him anyway? Then the moral of the story is no longer that hard work pays off. The moral of the story is that no matter how hard you work, sometimes things just don't work out the way you imagined or planned.

Okay - so, which one of these morals is more realistic? That your hard work always pays off, or that sometimes, no matter how hard you work, you fail? I'm not sure where you are in life, but it's the second one. It's true. Sometimes no matter how hard you work, life fucks you in the ass without prep. People go to college with the aspirations of becoming medical doctors and can't get into med school no matter how many straight As, perfect grades they get. They worked hard, yet they didn't achieve what they wanted. Many families have a two income household but still can't make ends meet because of unexpected expenses such as medical bills, car accidents, deaths etc. You could be the world's most safe driver and still die in a car accident because of someone else's negligent driving.

That's the harsh reality of life. Does that mean that the moral of the Three Little Pigs story is wrong? No. It's a story and it teaches a really important lesson about resilience and survival. In a perfect world in that story, hard work always pays off. That's comforting to adults and helps little kids understand the importance of persevering and working hard. Those are good qualities to have.

Sometimes a storys themes and messages don't align with the readers personal views of the world but that doesn't mean the writing is bad. You could even have a moral disagreement with the themes presented in a story but have the writing still be good writing. For example, I personally don't agree that hard work always pays off. But in reference to The Three Little Pig, when it's a story for little kids, I agree that the writing fits. If I were the author of The Three Little pigs, I would make the theme be, "it's always good to work hard, but if your dreams don't come true then that's okay." I would write a story about all the pains of working hard and meeting failure but then overcoming it and being happy anyway in the face of failure. The story's theme would be resilience, not about hard work always paying off.

But the Three Little Pigs isn't like I just decribed, so do I think it's bad writing? No, because the theme of the story matches the conclusion .

This is where My Hero Academia fails. The beginning of the story, all the messages about giving people Second Chances , fall flat. It presented a highly nuanced issue that's very real to the world we're living in about reforming criminals and getting to the core of understanding criminal behavior. The story presented itself like it would address this issue with societal change... and instead it gave us superficial change such as holding hands with victims who appear to be blameless and morally pure like Eri and that new mysterious crying boy who is literally nameless.

The issue with that is that it's really naive. A lot of times, people who break the law, people in need - mentally ill people, the sick, the poor aren't perfect victims. I work in a hospital and a lot of the people who seek treatment REFUSE to heed the doctor's medical opinion. Does that mean that they deserve to die? No. Does that mean I should give up on them? No, I'm going to educate.

Following the logic of BNHA though, you would give up on these people. The suicidal person who's about to jump off the bridge? Well, if they don't take your hand willingly, then why should you keep trying to save them? The crying boy at the end is only saved because he took the grandma's hand. What if he had pushed her away? If he had, the story's logic says that he deserves whatever is coming to him. And of course this is a more nuanced topic than I'm portraying it to be - victims and people in need also have a role in helping themselves, but this story makes it seem like they get only one chance and they're doomed if they don't take it. Which is literally a message that the story presents through Endeavor and Gentle and La Brava: people deserve second chances. But only specific people, according to the story. It teaches you that not all people are born equal. Which is literally what the story set out to disprove.

Do you see how the math isn't mathing?

[lemonhemlock]

I think the thing that bothers me the most about Alicent’s betrayal of Aegon is that it’s essentially a mother giving up her disabled son to death so she can be ‘free’.

I have a few disabled family members, and have unfortunately heard people say to their parents to just put them in a care home so they (the parents) can ‘have their lives back’. I don’t think Condal/Hess meant for that meaning, and perhaps I’m being too sensitive, but it infuriated me because there is already so much ableism in this show (that they’ve made worse from the books in some cases), and this was I think my final straw to keep watching this show.

No, you're right, on a human level, if Alicent Hightower were a real person, we should be appalled if she acted the way she did in Season 2. This is a sensitive subject that this gaggle of writers isn't really interested in tackling properly, so I hope these blunders don't stick in your mind for too long. You decision to abandon it is completely understandable.

One indication that they are out of their depth is how they never stopped to think how it would look to eliminate the sympathy or understanding from the side who basically has all the disabled characters and then paint them all as doomed because they were not 'progressive' enough.* Another indication is how they practically pigeonholed the character of Helaena into a very stock autistic-coded box and did not bother to give her any interiority or motivations or present her in any way that doesn't infantilise this almost-20-year-old young woman. Aemond, of course, was sidelined this season after a very successful introduction in S1 that advanced him more than a cartoon mustache-twirling villain. Much has been written about Larys even before S2 aired, so I won't revisit that discourse right now, as this post is already too long.

*not meant as a dig against progressive politics, but as a comment on how HotD views progressive to mean 'stan of Rhaenyra', who is not a disruptor of the patriarchal status-quo by any quantifiable means.

A delicate topic such as this one is always going to split opinion and cause controversy and I think that sometimes a lot of feelings can be hurt by untactful takes and can cause many minority, underrepresented groups to feel even more unseen and disenfranchised. I personally hope I can convey my thoughts on the matter in a way that doesn't alienate the members of these groups, but sometimes even I lack the best words to properly express myself.

I would like to point out that, on the one hand, in the ASOIAF universe and especially in such a chapter like the Dance of the Dragons, the characters are often very flawed people that flirt with the boundaries of villainy more often than not and end up performing unforgivable acts, be they disabled or not, high born or not, men or women. At this point, such a statement reads more self-evident than not. In this regard, there have been times I've found fans who were exasperated with other segments of the fandom vying for more positive representation when it comes to these oft-ignored character typologies, citing the fact that, on the contrary, endowing them with negative or unpalatable traits emphasizes their humanity and promotes them beyond a stereotypical rendition that can easily be absorbed into some kind of artificial, formulaic 'woke' quota in media.

However, I think we should remember that for people who are part of these minority groups, whose lived experiences are marred by discrimination and harmful prejudices, these narrative arguments can (even unintentionally) feel callous or exclusionary. It not easy or encouraging to see how you are almost always represented on screen in a way that is reprehensible or ignoble or detrimental in some way - that is, in the few cases when the text in question is inclusive enough to even remember you exist.

In such a context, I have to recognise and acknowledge that, as a white / cis / able-bodied person myself, it is way easier for me to simply rely on narrative merit, because I am represented so much in media that I have the luxury of many stories catered personally for me, both heroic and villainous, and I can simply choose what to engage with if relatability becomes a problem. And it would feel inhospitable and condescending for me to simply expect the members of underrepresented groups to 'get over it' because it makes sense in the context of the story.

A while ago there was a viral post that I keep referencing back in these situations because I think it's the best explanation for this type of divide: the watsonian / doylist interaction of critiques. As such, disenfranchised characters can be portrayed in an unsympathetic manner within any story, but, at the same, the real-life individuals from that group have the right to feel estranged and frustrated by that portrayal, because they don't consume media in a void and, for them, it isn't a hypothetical situation that they can subordinate to the priorities of storytelling. They should also have the space to express that discontent within fandom without having to be involuntarily accused of wanting to moralize or sanitize the media landscape. I think that we should start accepting that both things can be true and integrate that sentiment within our analyses.

That being said, since Alicent is not a real person, in the second part of this post I would like to dismantle the potential argument regarding the right to tell stories about awful people and how a woman being a bad mother or a bad person fits that bill. As I said, in principle, I agree with the sentiment. But I don't believe that the writers were at all successful in pulling this off. Their storytelling skills have proved inadequate and they were unable to craft a believable arc for Alicent to justify her so drastically shifting her entire world view in a few short weeks. And, by 'believable' I absolutely don't mean something naturalistic in the framework of the 21st century on Earth where dragons and magic don't exist; I mean plausible and reasonable behaviour for a human person in the confines of the fictional universe in which they operate.

I'm all for villainstanning and difficult female characters, but this season should have taken Alicent from

point A: doing everything in her power to put Aegon on the throne and even shielding his body from the dragon Meleys

to

point B: offering him to Rhaenyra for execution

in the span of weeks.

This season should have given her a proper motivation to basically hand over her male children to the person married to the assassin of her grandson. If nothing else, Alicent should have demanded Daemon's head. Speaking of which, there is no way to delve into Alicent's psyche, into the mind of a person in her position, after years of paranoia about a loose-cannon like Daemon (a notoriously disliked figure in Westeros), and arrive at the conclusion that, yes, Daemon as King consort would somehow be a better solution for the realm than any of her sons. It's just not. Even with rhaenicent rose-tinted glasses, he should have been a dealbreaker. This type of shortcoming makes me think that they can't truly immerse themselves in the mind of a character to properly gauge how someone could react to the events around them.

As such, let's see what disservices were done to Alicent this season that might have made her regret her initial decision. Let's see what the writers think would be reason enough for Alicent to switch sides and undo 20 years of wanting to place Aegon on the throne:

?????

2. Aemond burns Aegon

3. Aemond boots her from the council

4. Smallfolk suffering & revolts

5. Assassination attempt of Rhaenyra

6. Otto booted from the Council

7. she takes a few baths

8. goes camping

9. ??????

10. Dragonseeds

11. Aemond burns Sharp Point (?)

12. Aemond may endanger Helaena

Now let's see the plotholes in Alicent's thinking:

Most of these concern Aemond. Aegon, Criston, Otto, Gwayne and Daeron haven't committed any grievous sin against her that should be punished, yet, by conspiring with Rhaenyra, she would doom them all to their deaths. Even if Alicent is shown to have a complicated relationship with the first four, she has no reason against her 'nice' son Daeron and her brother Gwayne who was deferential and sympathetic to her. Now there is no way to make Queen Alicent Hightower "kind of forget" about Daeron and Gwayne or her Hightower uncle or cousins and not consider they would have to be executed by Rhaenyra/Daemon. If you have to suddenly make a character stupid or amnesic in order to fit your plot point, then it's not a good plot point. And Alicent has never before shown to be either stupid or amnesic. On the contrary, she is an anxious person who worries about everything.

Of course, one can argue Otto has manipulated her throughout her life and she could have reasonably developed feelings of animosity towards him, but he doesn't really factor in show!Alicent's decision at all. She isn't depicted to be thinking about him or to bring him up in any capacity after he leaves for Oldtown. Thus, we can't reasonably be expected to 'fill in the blanks' that Alicent is upset because of something Otto did.

She does not verbalise any opinion about Aegon & Criston sending Ser Arryk to assassinate Rhaenyra. At the end of that same episode, she is shown to slap Criston. But is that because he tried to assassinate Rhaenyra? Is it because Otto was booted from the Council and Criston became the new Hand? Is it because she told him they're not going to have sex anymore and he still came to her chambers? We don't know. They proceed to have another consensual sex scene. Later on, Alicent seems pissed because Criston is not telling her the truth about Rook's Rest. They part on OK terms, even though she is seen to be a little cold, but she does give him her favour. Is she even pissed at Criston? We don't know. Could she possibly be pissed enough at him that she would doom him to his death? No, I don't think that's reasonable to assume based on what we've seen. Show, don't tell. Golden rule of storytelling. In this case, neither did they show, nor did they tell.

I hesitate to assign Alicent any particular concern for the well-being of the smallfolk beyond a general sentiment to reduce bloodshed and not cause suffering on a grand scale. But individually? She is portrayed in Season 1 wanting to help Dyana and being affected by her situation. She tries to stop the guards from cutting off a man's hand during the riots, that is true. But she also allowed Larys to basically torture / execute her household staff without nary a thought. So which is it?

Coming back to Aemond. He remains the main point of contention. I am going to ignore his cartoonification this season, but, let us accept, for the sake of the argument, that Alicent did not realise how unstable he is and that now she regrets facilitating a situation in which he has so much power. If she has the power to make the guards surrender, like she tells Rhaenyra, then she is not as powerless as she laments, is she not? Then she could possibly even stage a coup against Aemond and arrest him. The fact that Aegon did not do so the minute he became conscious is another plothole. Aemond is one man with no network or friends because of his anti-social and anti-politics behaviour. He has a dragon but his access to her is restricted if he needs to ride a horse for several miles outside of the city to get to her. When he is inside the castle, as skilled a warrior as he is, he is still only one man. Him still being Prince Regent after Aegon wakes up is preposterous.

Larys does bring up the fact that without Vhagar, the greens are terribly outmatched at the moment when it comes to dragon warfare. That is true. But, if Aemond is a loose cannon who is threatening the life of the King and Queen, he cannot stay un-arrested. There's no reason they couldn't have kept it hushed for a while to buy some more time either. If Alicent is so sorry for what Aegon went through, she could have sued for peace after Aemond's ass was in a jailcell. But she makes no attempt to protect him from his supposed assassin. Her being overwhelmed with Rhaenyra's dragon superiority after Vhagar is out of commission would make more sense as a motivation for the second rhaenicent scene, it would give her more agency and not need her to abandon Aegon and the rest of her family all of a sudden.

But Aemond can't suddenly be removed from the narrative like that, because he has a part to play later on. Of course, in the books, there's not a lot to cling to when it comes to regicide. The narrator makes no such claim, nor is anyone else recorded to do so. Alicent is not upset with Aemond. Aemond doesn't attempt to kill Aegon during his long convalescence. You can argue it's not clear cut because Vhagar fell upon both Sunfyre and Meleys from above, but all three of them are reported to crash into the ground. Vhagar is old and slow, there is no certainty that she could have been sprightly enough to stop just in time so as to not crash fatally. It is not impossible to read this excerpt and think that Aemond may have tried to rid himself of his brother under the guise of battle. It is also equally possible to read Aemond's actions as a rash, dangerous move that could have ended in his death as well. It is self-preservation to let Sunfyre and Meleys kill each other. It is not self-preservation to rely on Vhagar's agility to save your life at the last moment. However, whichever way a screenwriter would like to go, Alicent can't suspect that Aemond tried to kill his brother or that he would place her beloved daughter in danger, because she would then act differently! This is another example of changing elements for the sake of changing them and not allowing the natural consequences of those changes to materialize because they would modify the sequence of events too much.

Like Rhaenyra in the sept scene, Alicent seems to be the worst negotiator ever. She doesn't get one concession from Rhaenyra when she goes to Dragonstone. Is that fair and unbiased storytelling? Helaena and Jaehaera's lives were never truly at stake, since they are girls and could always be married back into the black branch of the family. Why execute them when they could become useful? Alicent should know this, yet they need her again to be stupid and forgetful because she went to a live laugh love retreat in the woods. There is no attempt to truly settle this diplomatically. The scene is just a new pretext to humiliate Alicent and have her grovel at Rhaenyra's feet.

Below I am going to dismantle the narrative decisions regarding the dragonseeds.

Bear in mind that if we are to have 4 seasons of this story, then the sides must remain balanced for quite some time. Someone should tell the writers that biases and preferences are irrelevant because if the force differences become too great, the war ends and there will be no story left to milk.

The unavoidable truth of the matter is that the writers overpowered the blacks too much at this stage and this decision ended up massively affecting the plot. As it stands, the dragon parity at the end of the season became 2:7 - Vhagar & Tessarion vs Syrax, Caraxes, Arrax, Moondancer, Seasmoke, Vermithor & Silverwing. Out of these, Syrax was never truly considered a potential threat in battle. She is notoriously useless, does not hunt and does not fly in bad weather. Baela also rode Moondancer a grand total of one time at the end of the conflict and was never counted as a force during the war. They made Rhaenyra and Baela active dragonriders, but they refuse to do the same for Helaena to balance the forces a little bit more (Dreamfyre is a very large dragon, probably on par with Silverwing and a little smaller than Vermithor).

The book parity at this point was still unbalanced, but at the very least GRRM realised that and tried to mitigate it by moving the Battle of the Gullet close to the Sowing and making Ulf and Hugh betray Rhaenyra's side. Book!Alicent doesn't have to sue for peace because the greens get a fighting chance. I still think the Dance in the books suffers greatly from non-sensical military strategies and division of resources, but it surpasses the show with flying colours.

Let us return, however, to show!Alicent's POV. For a fictional universe famous for its amount of politicking, there is little to none in this adaptation. The writers are trying to sell us the idea that Alicent has to give up her disabled son for the good of the Realm or, like anon said, to "be free". Authorial intent is unclear on this point, but there is at least the germination of the idea that Alicent is "sacrificing" something - her family, her own ambitions etc - because she is desperate and there are no other options open to her. But is that true?

If the writers refuse to make Helaena a combatant because of reasons only they understand, even if they have no problem performing ~girlboss changes like that for TB (yes, I'm bitter about it), they could have at least given the greens the upper hand in politicking. But they don't because I'm not really sure they understand the universe they write for or posses that level of imagination. Why don't they have, say, spies in the Vale that report Aegon the Younger and his brother Viserys are on their way to Pentos as we speak? Alicent could have been shown to plot for them to be intercepted with the help of the Triarchy secured by Tyland.

Why doesn't she try to find out who these dragonseeds are. Can they be bribed? Do they have weaknesses? Ulf has a wife, no? Is there some way to use their friends and family against them and make them turn sides? Does Vaemond Velaryon not have any disgruntled relatives that have a bone to pick with Rhaenyra & Corlys and would be appalled by the decision to make Addam the heir to Driftmark? (in the books he did and they actually fought for the green side). Can they not try to assassinate one of Addam, Corlys, Seasmoke or Rhaenyra?

Alicent being involved in any of these plots would have been a more satisfying progression to her story that would have allowed her to remain relevant and maintain her screen time. Even her having a little more dignity and attempting genuine peace talks would have been more believable if she at least stuck to her guns when it comes to her family's lives, especially the son she herself placed on the throne and the one who turned out gentle and kind and has not wronged her in any way. But, of course, the show in that moment pretends yet again that Daeron doesn't exist and any other points of contention (like Gwayne and Jaehaerys) are swept under the rug because it would dismantle Rhaenyra's righteous stance. So Aegon is presented as this sacrificial lamb that Alicent must relinquish as the only way forward.

Even though the show has not established any substantial reason for Alicent to object to any tangible decision Aegon has made as king, even though she is specifically shown to regret what happened to him, even though she made no efforts via political maneuvering to mitigate Rhaenyra's advantages and even though it would have been more merciful for her to give Aegon a painless death via milk of the poppy. Instead of being an ambitious and shrewd politician, she is given a nebulous motivation of "finding herself" and discovering feminism, which apparently means her disabled son must be subjected to even more humiliation and pain. It is a very unfortunate framing because the scene invites you to think that Alicent is finally seeing reason and is trying to atone for her mistake of not stanning for Rhaenyra. Yes, Aegon is also portrayed as downtrodden and not deserving of more violence, but Rhaenyra is also not portrayed as being "wrong" to demand for Aegon's head? She is shown in soft lighting, soft-spoken, with tears in her eyes, hurt, wronged and Alicent doesn't argue back. Their parting words are bittersweet and yearning.

How can you make Alicent a selfish character overnight when you have spent so much time painting her the exact opposite and you don't even give her plausible motivations or any breaking point? She doesn't even do anything to try and gain power back for herself, change the things she doesn't like or counteract Rhaenyra's moves before she goes to Dragonstone. Her one attempt is proposing herself for the regency and it's supposed to be this grand moment of her realizing misogyny is real, even though that has been the case her entire life and, as a stand-in for her husband and a Council member, she would have encountered it often as a daily routine when trying to get anything done.

Ergo, I do have to ask again: how does Alicent get from point A to point B exactly?

[lostyesterday]

I was thinking about Seven of Nine as a disabled character yet again, and it occurred to me that a disabled reading of her character in Voyager can do a lot to reframe her obsession with efficiency and perfection in relation to both herself and other people. She is obsessed not just with policing her own abilities and efficiency, but also that of other people, frequently deriding other characters for being incompetent (her treatment of Tal Celes in Good Shepherd is a good example of this). The narrative presents this as being a result of her Borg upbringing, but I think it can be interesting to read more into this obsession – by seeing it as an unhealthy way of coping with disability.

(For an explanation of why I think it makes sense to read Seven as a canonically disabled character, check out this post I wrote a little while ago. The short version is that Seven’s dependence on cybernetic implants and other technology, as well as medical treatments and specialized environmental adaptations mean to me that she’s canonically disabled, even if the writers didn’t necessarily intend for that to be the case. In many ways, this post is an elaboration on that previous post, which is about a lot more than just why I think Seven is canonically disabled.)

The best way I can think to explain my argument here is to talk about my own experiences. Growing up as a disabled child, I was frequently told by others, both implicitly and explicitly, that I was capable of being “not like other disabled people”. Unlike people with disabilities that truly limited their ability to function in society, my disabilities were something I was apparently capable of “overcoming”. And for a while, I believed this. I did well in school, and a part of me genuinely came to believe that I was in some way categorically different from other disabled people who couldn’t. A part of me even came to believe I wasn’t truly disabled – that my disability just didn’t affect me the way it affected others. This mentality pushed me to points of extreme stress. I was desperate to achieve what the non-disabled people around me were achieving – but even more than that, I was desperate to prove to myself that it was easy – that my disability wasn’t “holding me back”. I admit a part of me did look down on those I saw as less able to “overcome their limitations” like I believed I had.

I think it’s interesting to read Seven’s obsession with other people’s abilities/efficiency as a similar kind of pushback against the idea of being disabled. To be disabled is to never measure up to the standards society sets for what it means to be a human, and not being able to measure up to these standards of humanity is in many ways something Seven is terrified of. But if Seven can believe that she is perfectly efficient – that she is better and smarter than other humans – then that would mean she can believe she isn’t weak and vulnerable and frightened. She looks at other people who are flawed and make mistakes and are unable to achieve what society demands, and she believes herself superior, because the alternative would be to admit that deep down, she is just like them.

There was no singular moment when I realized that I couldn’t “overcome” my disabilities – that they truly did limit me and prevent me from accomplishing things that most able-bodied people around me were able to accomplish – that I was no “better” than the other disabled people I’d previously looked down on – that I was just as weak and flawed in the eyes of society as they were. The realization was gradual, and it was both horrifying and freeing at once. I wonder what that realization would be like for Seven, and if she would ever be capable of coming to it.

[oluka]

Tony and transhumanism

Tony Stark mentions in Captain Marvel: Dark Tempest (2023) #3.

Setting aside the “even HE knows what hands-off means”, it's interesting to me that when faced with a humanoid-machine blend, Carol's mind goes to Tony. She says that Tony was the original transhuman, and well, he maybe wasn't the first in the marvel universe, but he got his first synthetic heart in Iron Man #19 (back in 1969!), and transhumanism has been a part of his story arc for a long time. Some examples on the top of my mind (I know there are more, this is not an exhaustive list):

-When Tony had an implant in his mind to remotely control the armour while he was paralyzed in volume 1.

-His fight with the sentient armour in volume 3, and the end of it, when it gave him its heart (Iron Man vol.3 #30). And fully replaced Tony's heart with its own "mechanical bio-physiology". An artificial heart that was still implanting itself into Tony and fixing his broken ribs in issue 31 (body horror much??).

-Extremis, of course, which to me is the height of Tony's path to transhumanism. It's one of the two logical conclusions to his search to always perfect Iron Man and himself. Either make his body machine, or forgo the body entirely (looking at the three different Tony Stark AIs Tony has made). Extremis is especially good to me because of how he made himself the perfect blend of man and machine. Tony had until then always had recurring problems with his heart and other physical disabilities, and with Extremis he was finally past that "flaw". He was stronger, could heal, but more importantly, his mind was faster and better. I think he never came closer to erasing the line between Tony Stark and Iron Man than he did then. There was so much potential for this story beat, but Civil War and Dark Reign kind of ruined it. I really wish we could have had Extremis for longer, and really explore the classic "what makes one human" "man vs machine" and other transhumanist questions with Tony. Oh well. As an aside, it's interesting to me that Superior Iron Man decided to bring Extremis back. Clearly to him that was the next step of evolution, or in his words, what made him a god. If we push the analysis further, does this mean that regular Tony has developed an aversion to Extremis and what it entails? Maybe some left-over trauma from the Civil War and brain deletion?

-The repulsor node in Tony's chest after he was brought back. That controlled his brain. And also the bleeding edge armour that Tony casually put into his bone marrow. You know. Like one does.

-The fact that Tony apparently was experimenting on his biology and body and that that was the only reason Carol didn't kill him at the end of Civil War II. And then the fact that he managed to bring himself back to life and synthetize a new body.

-The Tony Stark AI that ran around during Secret Empire. Who made himself drunk, and also remembered Civil War somehow, and had all of Tony's character traits and regrets (see Secret Empire (2017) #6). I know it's probably an error on the writer's part, but I choose to believe that somehow this artificial version of Tony really remembers the Civil War. On top of AI Tony acting and thinking like the flesh and blood one, everyone around him really treated him like the "real" Tony. Hydra Steve even said that Tony downloaded his consciousness into the AI. Making it essentially Tony. I don't know where I'm going with this but I have Feelings about AI Tony.

-The whole mess of Tony Stark: Iron Man and Iron Man 2020 where Tony was wondering if he was just a soulless copy of the original dead Tony Stark (Which, weird that he now starts to worry about this after all his deaths and comas and whatnots), decided he was just an AI in an artificial body, and then with the help of his friends remade his body. Again. Also, he spoke with AI Tony for like five minutes and then AI Tony sacrificed himself. I am still mad about that.

Transhumanism is one of the most important beats in Tony's character, right alongside his quest to make the future better and his alcoholism. It's a facinating subject that I will never get enough of, especially not in relation to Tony, who for a very long time has dealt with physical disability, and whose mind and genius is maybe the one thing he can rely on and one of the rare things about himself that he is proud of.

Right now, Tony's just a regular man in a can again, but I really hope that we'll see more of his journey into transhumanism, because to me it's an essential part of his character. And done well, it's an excellent source for angst, too.

[drinkthestars]

spoilers for nimona (2023)

just watched the new nimona movie and it was fantastic! great children's movie, excellent animation and clean plot progression. but it's missing something: the subversive morality that i first experienced when reading nimona as a kid.

in the actual comic, nimona killed people. she was morally gray- she took that step into murder and atrocity. in the movie, she's a punk kid who likes to make (admittedly pretty scary) faces and joke around about death, but it doesn't seem like she's actually gotten around to the real murder part.

and you know what? i get it.

this movie isn't meant to be the book, and that's fine. it's a wholesome misunderstood hero story for kids and a non-controversial way to have positive queer representation without compromising the themes with characters that aren't 100% good and sweet and lovely. it's great for a mainstream audience.

here's the thing: it would've been so much more INTERESTING if nimona WAS the killer. i was expecting it as a plot twist the whole movie- nimona impersonating the director (who was, tbh, not a very interesting twist villain, especially with her lack of forshadowing and her very easy and quick admit to her crimes- you'd think such a high-ranking individual would know better than to confess her sins and then murder the direct descent of gloreth in her office)

nimona has been trying and trying to convince ballister to reform the system the whole movie, saying that he SHOULD be mad, the INSTITUTE is what's in the wrong, not JUST the director. they can't run away- they have to fight back! that would've been such good foreshadowing for her having orchestrated the whole thing, with her being clearly shown to be able to shift into other people.

i'm almost convinced that the writers initially planned for that as the plot progression and then edited it to make it more family-friendly.

so in an ideal world, here's what i think should've happened:

nimona actually does frame the director for the murder- but as revenge for experimenting on and torturing her, as in the book. ballister is pardoned by the public and by ambrosius, but then the director shows the video footage of nimona shapeshifting into her, and the consequent sword-swapping. in a nutshell, nimona uses ballister to kill the queen and tries to manipulate him to help the world change, for a place where she isn't tortured needlessly just for being different.

ballister, betrayed, fights with nimona (insert key weakness that she has told only him here) and she is captured. the director informs him of the experiments on nimona (while dismissing her as a heartless monster) and he is horrified. the director reveals her new plan to get rid of (non-existent) potential monsters in the city like nimona (witch-hunting, reference to eugenics, you get it). ballister and ambrosius free nimona, and they work together to stop the enby-murder laser or whatever, nimona sacrificing herself in the process (or does she...). the ending remains the same from there.

the unfortunate issue with queer media at the moment is that people need it to be pure- a depiction of a morally gray queer character right now might throw the whole theme into question. after all, if queer people aren't perfect, than they're dead. which is interesting, because that's kind of the theme of nimona, in a sense. a narrative about people who are different, and for that reason alone are unforgivable monsters.

queer and disabled folk (see attorney woo, a show i love, for a similar problem) aren't allowed to be flawed in media. if they're not paragons of humanity or supergeniuses, they can't be accepted. nd stevenson was one of the first authors i ever saw really subvert that in widely known media meant for teens.

real life people aren't going to be as forgiving as the movies make it look. i liked the old nimona because she reflected that- she was not a sinless matyr in the end- she gave into her rage and despair and let it warp her. did that make her a monster? no- it made her human. queer media is trying its best, but in the end the issue is the very inhumanity of perfection.

[thosemintcookies]

Okay so basically I think something to discuss about Daredevil in general is the underlying reason Matt is daredevil. I think a lot of post-DDTV fandom emphasizes Matt's character as one primarily concerned with righteousness and justice, where I am personally of the belief that successful and versions of Matt are primarily about the masked identity as escapism.

The problem with framing Matt's character to be one of justice is that it runs into two major roadblocks:

1. The Ableism.

When Matt's character is about righteousness and justice it frames his disability in a metaphorical way ("justice is blind"). This lets the narrative avoid really contending with actual ableism, as his disability becomes a thematic accessory to the real issue of justice. Coupled with a huge emphasis on matt's piety and upward mobility, it also plays into inspiration porn, as it becomes a rags-to-riches story where Matt is an overseer as Lady Justice is, venerated for being detached and pure, a figure of judgement apart from the rest of abled society, as opposed to a regular human who is a part of regular society.

2. The Morality Aspect.

When we have Matt as a symbol for justice, his views are reified as unquestionable; as a symbol and conduit for justice, he can't be wrong about things. That just sort of makes his character weaker overall in my opinion. We can't trust that he's an unreliable narrator and flawed human as is literally every single other person is in the cast.

(In the comics, this is explored way more. He is called out on multiple occasions for his shortsighted views on crime, which don't effectively get at the root of social ills associated with systemic and structural injustice associated with higher criminality. Luke Cage notably says he's not getting rid of crime, merely displacing it. The narrative also goes to great pains introducing other characters with other ideas of "doing what's right" (Milla, who works in housing, Ben, who serves justice through journalistic exposure, Foggy, who is loyal on a personal level while being pretty ambivalent about his methods, etc etc.) Introducing new perspectives is sort of the point. If the thesis of Daredevil is "justice exists outside the law" the answer isn't just to punch people.)

In addition, it sort of ignores the other ways Matt is privileged. Again, as Justice, he can't be wrong, which means we're encouraged to ignore the ways his status as a lawyer and as a white man play into his biases. He's not neutral. Volume 2 as a whole also emphasizes the way his being myopic and, honestly, sexist, ruins his marriage as he fails to consider his partner's needs and frames tragedy that falls onto the women in his life as primarily his own issues, rather than traumas his wife/friends are dealing with. In Soule's and Zdarsky's runs we have characters like Sam Chung and Cole North who challenge Matt's experiences with citizenship, and sense of neutral raciality. Again, this isn't an accident of the writing. We as the audience are being asked to consider other perspectives.

(Also having him be more prominently Catholic while having him be a symbol of justice is also implicitly a colonial message.)

The intent of DD as an escape from his regular identity, as it was originally conceived, serves a larger narrative purpose. He gets an escape from ableism and other systemic barriers to being able to serve his sense of justice (which, as previously stated, can be very flawed). It's fundamentally self-justified identity, not a selfless one. It's liberating for him personally, and something he pursues because he enjoys it (despite it being pointed out on multiple occasions that it is sometimes detrimental to his health and relationships.) (Also I think it makes him have a more fun personality, because it lets him be cocky rather than burdened.)

The duality of being a truer version of himself as a masked man allows him to be a complex messy character. Explorations of his character tensions (straddling poverty vs. status, marginalization vs. privilege, violence vs procedural justice, etc etc) are more interesting. His dynamic tensions with other characters (both on his side and antagonists) are made more rewarding as we see competing interests play out and we are encouraged and challenged to take a stance rather than assuming Matt's simply correct.

In addition, this also is why I'm overall not a fan of this idea that just anyone can take on the helm of Daredevil. Daredevil is, unlike some other marvel characters, not really a title so much as an escapist identity taken on by a very specific mentally and physically disabled man to contend with his specific feelings of impotence and marginalization, which doesn't really work unless we explore these themes in other characters, or they were established to similarly be preoccupied with this identity tension.

[angelfevr]

❤️️❤️️❤️️ :3

i have multiple wips so i'll talk abt All of them

this may get long, so.

icdwd - aka i couldn't dance with death if i tried!! its a zero escape fic mostly exploring a potential (loveless) relationship between akane and mira. its abt a lot of things i realize i never rlly touched upon in my other works?? for context im aromantic and i like. Constantly talk abt it even to my allo friends esp abt the constant amatonormativity the world likes to throw at us. specfically how ppl feel pressured to be in a relationship. why? well, various reasons: to fit in, to be seen as "more mature" (aspecs tend to experience infantilization and this doubles if ur autistic), to be seen as human, bc u feel like itll make u whole, bc u dont realize theres another option!! ive always hced my favs as aro ever since i realized it, but i always used to focus on the ace part of my identity. so i never rlly got to write a fic that explores aromanticism, aside from a fic i wrote four years ago in which leorio and kurapika hxh r in a qpr

another thing is i have ocd and for that reason, i dont like to write abt sexual topics . but in this fic, ive been sorta delving into that (its literally nothing just a fade to black that immediately goes to like the character waking up in another character's bedroom) and idk i think it shows my growth in a way?? that im willing to finally write that stuff without my ocd trying to kill me??? idk its . smth

im also having a Lot of fun writing akane and miras dynamic. i think, with me hcing them as aro (akanes aroace and miras an aro lesbian), i feel itd stand out more compared to other mirakane fanworks and interpretations . like this isnt a relationship ur supposed to root for!!! its abusive, its messy, its Uncomfortable, gory, and both women have ulterior motives. idk i like writing abt two unabashedly flawed queer women and having them navigate a relationship when one has no experience while the other has experience but whose disability prevents them from connecting w others (akane has a similar struggle), idk!! its an interesting dynamic

queerpei - i like a lot of the descriptions i wrote. im so used to writing akane that its soooo weird writing in the headspace of anyone else. but junpeis introspection is fun, like he has a mind of his own... i have this experience when writing akane (im plural so. go figure) and even when writing diana

angelus custos - so im kinda in the planning stage for this one but . Wow. im so proud of myself and how far ive come with this project, and just in general?? i used to primarily be a fic writer until 2018, when i decided to dabble in making my own characters. its always been bittersweet, bc my friends (all artists, never writers) would tell me to just make ocs instead of fanfic and my 12-14 yr old self would always be upset by that. so my characters never rlly came into their own so to speak

until This Year. ive been watching this rlly awesome youtuber named local script man. he's a screenwriter but a lot of his advice can apply to writing as well. i dont remember which video it was, but he talked abt how a characters' motivations can serve as fuel for smth deeper, like an insecurity for example. which THEN can serve as a backstory. and idky but it all clicked in my head?? character work became so much easier when i applied this to my process. i no longer had trouble w coming up w things that seemed to come naturally to most. bc i Know im good at fleshing out characters, i just needed to know how to do it for original work, even tho ive had friends praise my characters in the past

but yeah thats prob the best part of the story rn . im still having trouble w what their voices would sound like, speech patterns and the like, but thatd prob come around when i actually write the damn thing lol

BtSoyT - the idea itself has me so excited!!! ive been watching some horror movies, specifically recs from my friend @zebatverse hehe, and idk i feel like ive been getting more inspo and knowing what i'd wanna do if i were to write horror . i have several other ideas besides this in my notebook but this is one i wanna write the most. i even made a moodboard for it ^_^

[bookwyrminspiration]

what’s kotlc and is it better than the great library? i read the latter and it was fun, perhaps not the height of literature but fun

OKAY! Keeper of the Lost Cities by Shannon Messenger is a long, ongoing middle-grade fantasy series following Sophie Foster, a 12-year-old high school senior who can read thoughts following a bump to the head at age 5--or so she thinks, until she's approached by a cute stranger who reveals she's really an elf who's been hidden away.

She's whisked away to a secret, supposedly perfect world of elves, goblins, ogres, and more. Sophie wants nothing more than to be normal, and tries to fit in--go to school, play with friends, etc.--but all her abnormalities have followed her from the human world. She's still weird, and it turns out it might be the result of bigger forces working behind the scenes. Forces she needs to uncover to learn who and what she truly is--but there's no taking it back, and plunging into the underbelly of her supposedly "perfect" new world opens a seemingly never-ending rabbit hole to try and understand and save it from itself. Full of rebellions, corruption, mysterious notes, stuffed animals, a large cast of characters, and so. many. sparkles. there's a lot going on for Sophie to discover

I think tgl and kotlc are hard to directly compare. tgl has a lot of explicit found family, fast-paced action, and is, like you said, just genuinely fun to read. it's quick, speaks to booklovers, and embraces a variety of different moral stances in a way that distinctly characterizes everyone. but it does falter in terms of consistency, and there are several contradicting details throughout it. kotlc is more structurally sound, but it is meant for a younger audience--which is not to say it's bad, but that it does impact reading. There are some cliches, such as experiment children, excessively powerful ocs, a love triangle, etc. It also has a fairly developed and explored world on several fronts, though there are some gaps. It does, however, want for diversity and representation. There are few non-white characters, few disabled characters, and no acknowledgement of queerness so far--though given recent releases it's possible that last part will change.

While kotlc is a special interest of mine and I'm quite attached to it, I don't necessarily recommend it to people outside the middle-grade age range. It's a solid series despite its flaws, but that doesn't mean you'll be head over heels; if you read it, I think it would be similar to how tgl was fun but not the height of literature. It's enjoyable and there are a wealth of characters to get attached to, compelling plotlines/character pasts, but unless you really click it'll just be a solid, time-filling read.

The series has also had a rough few years recently; the author has a lot going on in her personal life--which is totally fine, it just means there are long waiting periods currently. And not everyone thinks its worth it, because the story is going an unexpected direction and there are some creative choices made not everyone likes (too much focus on the love triangle, deposing the main character, butchering character arcs last minute, etc.).

All this to say kotlc has radically altered the course of my life and is an incredibly dear series to me, and I will be keeping up with it and blogging about it until the end of time with anyone who wants to join, but it's also not my favorite series I've ever read, if that distinction makes sense. If you do want some simple, if long, reading--go for it! We're always excited to have new people around and would love to have you. There's actually a pretty consistent, if small, fandom and a lot of art, fic, and other things to explore. But we'd also all understand without any pushing if it's not for you.

That was longer than I meant it to be, but if you have any further questions please do ask :)--and again, this is my view on it! Just my opinions and assessments

[linabirb]

Hi for the milgram asks

1, 8, and 9 for general questions

1 and 2 for both trials for trial questions

3 for Fuuta, Shidou, Amane, Kotoko, and 5 for Muu for prisoner questions

hi hi thank you sm for the questions!!

"Which Milgram character is your favourite, and why?"

my top faves are mappi, yuno and amane! i really like characters who are like. basically very cute and sweet on the outside but have Something Wrong with them. and these three feel like a very refreshing take on this trope bc mahiru is like. she's not a yandere (even though i do love yanderes..), she's just such a loving person that she doesn't know when to stop and. and i can rely to that a lot 😔 and yuno isn't like, "secretly evil", she's just very cold and empty on the inside and that's all. amane is more similar to characters that i usually tend to like and i love how at the same time she's a very traumatized child, but also i do believe that she committed her murder for the sake of her faith and not.. idk.. self-defense?.. i also like haruka and muu but i also get second-hand embarrassment from them sometimes bc these mentally ill teenagers remind me of myself when i was a mentally ill teenager a bit too much /lh

"Which prisoner do you think you would get on with the least if you met in person, and why?"

honestly i really don't think i would get along with any of them irl 😭 i'd be too terrified.. i think it would most likely be haruka or muu bc long story short i had my experience with people who got a bit too attached to me. did not like that. but also bc i'd just see them as really annoying irl, i'm sorry..

"Which prisoner's signature colour do you like the most?"

yuno's! pink 💞💕💘💝💖💗💓

"Which trial (number) verdict do you agree with the most?"

for trial 1.. i think fuuta? fuuta's crime is something that personally. um. i don't wanna say disgusts me but it's an emotion close to that. sorry to all fuuta fans i really don't care much about him feeling sorry about it and possibly changing, he's a grown man and he should've known better.

for trial 2, im gonna say it. i do agree with haruka's verdict the most. i honestly hate the way fandom treats him as a cute little baby and a pure cinnamon roll and constantly goes "oh okay if you voted him guilty you just hate autistic people", there is something very wrong with haruka and his murder and him killing animals is something that is very. hm. how do i say this. makes me want to punch him or something. i don't care how supportive people say they are, treat him like a normal human being and accept his flaws and accept that he's a murderer just like the others and that his possible disability can explain his actions but doesn't excuse them.

"Which trial (number) verdict do you disagree with the most?"

for trial 1. yeah i think muu should've been voted guilty back then tbh. sure maybe after pain does look sad and make her look like a victim out of context but then you listen to her vd and you're like. the red flags were always there 😭😭 this is not me denying that she was bullied, she definitely was, but it doesn't mean that i can still forgive her that easily AND i say that as someone who was horribly bullied for a huge part of my life.

for trial 2. i look around. i make sure nobody can hear me. i say kazui and refuse to elaborate and leave.

SHSJSKSKKS listen i don't care about kazui. like. at all. he's not my type of character sorry. but i think i'd be more interested in him if the fandom wasn't so focused on his sexuality and ignored other parts of his character. honestly i don't even know if there are any other parts of his character anymore. but i still can't forgive him for what he's done tbh. BEFORE ANYONE SAYS ANYTHING most people are extremely homophobic and transphobic where i live, so i understand his situation perfectly (IF most theories about him really are true), but something about him just. i cannot trust this man. i feel too sorry for hinako honestly. i can talk about this more but i won't because he's this fandom's beloved old man so i'll shut up.

"What do you think of (name)'s verdict/s?"

fuuta: again, he deserved the t1 guilty and i did vote him inno during the second trial because i felt sorry for him, but i wouldn't be surprised if he did something that changed my opinion and made me vote him guilty during the third trial.

shidou: i am so sorry i don't care about milgram guys at all, haruka is like the only exception 😭 i guess his verdicts are. fine? i did vote him inno during the second trial though i'd probably vote him guilty if i got into milgram earlier. just like with fuuta, i will not hesitate to vote him guilty in the future if something happens.

amane: milgram fandom hates children especially traumatized ones that's all im gonna say. yes i can be a bit mean to haruka and muu, but amane is a huge comfort character to me and her experiences are very similar to my own, so seeing the fandom prioritize characters like shidou over A LITERAL CHILD is. hm. hey guys are you normal about children with religious trauma. oh also forgot to add, children with religious trauma who don't act like perfect victims and who can snap and act out and who refuse to accept that they were abused? i'm happy that she finally got an inno verdict (I WAS FIGHTING FOR HER ALMOST FOR THE ENTIRETY OF HER TRIAL..) but i do wish the percentage was bigger. it makes me sad every time i see it.

kotoko: i actually was kinda surprised when i found out she was voted inno in s1?.. like idk when i saw her for the first time, i was like "okay i do not like where this is going"? ig the fandom just went "yesssss you go girlboss" and that's it shsjskks. but anyway congrats on your t2 verdict guilty queen ✨✨

"What do you think of (name)'s song/s?"

muu: i like them! like them a lot! though i don't really vibe with her version of otome kaibou, like it just doesn't sound right to me.. but i do like her mkdr/dscf cover a lot! my fav muu song is probably still after pain, i think inmf is fun, but it's a bit too short for me and it feels kinda incomplete.

[otnesse]

This is a reply to @stupidflandersissexy's reblog to Marcia Brady's posts since I've been banned by the latter and thus can't do a direct reblog.

"

#some really interesting points here#the only thing I disagree is the little mermaid having the supposedly having lgbta subtext#there are other things people can be or feel like outsiders without being lgbt#but still good points#it's true that she doesn't have a job or anything#they were working to support their families and feed their kids

The LGBTA context is more of a yes and no,to me. I don't see it,but I can understand why people have such a point of view. Personally,Ariel comes across to me as way more of a curious,open-minded and analytical teen girl living in an intolerant society. One doesn't need to be gay to feel stiffled because of said circumstances(not to mention I've seen good cases for Ariel as an ableism allegory). Even the "turning human" can be about having the means to live a fully free life(another point towards a disability context,IMO. Accomodations,and all that jazz).

Now,onto Belle. She was supposed to be the misunderstood outcast whom people mercilessly judge due to not accepting different opinions,but she walked around the town getting lost on books while everyone else worked to make a living. Considering how Belle wasn't shown having to work,or otherwise struggling with finances,she truly came across as privileged and it gave the movie unintentional classist undertones - framing the girl who could afford to daydream 24/7 as inherently superior to the people who had to make a living generates some unfortunate implications. The worst is that said scene could be so easily changed by having Belle read while the rest of the villagers were having different ways of leisure and/or enjoying their free time,and show them bullying her(or at the very least gossiping about her) for not being as social.

The worst is that Belle could've been a great protagonist with that personality. A flawed heroine is a good way to stenghten the moral of the tale - true beauty comes from within. Then,Belle loves the Beast with all her heart,and vice-versa,making each other better people. Belle-as-a-snob also had the potential to make the point about the town being close-minded and judgemental stronger,by showing how such environment affected her. Maybe she was mistreated in some way,or whatever. To top it all,there's a parallel with Beast - there's a beautiful side in the prince,and there's a beastly side on Belle.

All the potential above was wasted on putting some girl on a pedestal."

Not to mention Ariel can also qualify as an autistic allegory as well. I know she certainly acted as one for me, at least (I need to know your secret on how you could understand how some people could view her as an LGBT allegory without agreeing with it, because I really can't understand it at all. Mostly because Ariel, heck, even her original counterpart, fell for someone of the opposite sex, meaning it killed any possible allegorical/metaphorical connections to that bit. Not to mention she stayed the gender she was born in, anyways. I think the closest I've ever gotten to seeing any allegory to LGBT to otherwise technically straight characters was with the protagonists from Sex and the City, and that's only because it was exceedingly transparent.). And a funny thing is, Ariel's part of the reason I converted from Episcopalean to Roman Catholicism as a kid (though unlike Ariel and Triton, my dad was supportive of it. Heck, my loyalty to Ariel and connection to her grew even stronger after a genuinely terrible College experience, one where the professors often times tried to beat my Conservativism out of me during lessons as well as brainwash me into their line of thinking. They ultimately failed, but I still carry the mental scars from it. In one sense, you could even see Ariel in the various conservatives on College campuses who are outright marginalized and not even allowed to speak and give their views on those college campuses (and you have to admit, regardless of your political views, conservatives STILL have some right to speak rather than constantly being silenced and even forcibly brainwashed).

As far as Belle... my current views on Belle are a bit more...complicated. I can't really say I'm necessarily "anti" towards her (Certainly I don't dislike or even hate her per-se. I guess the closest I can state to an actual negative emotion towards her is terror and fear, more on that later. There's still some potential to being restored, contrast with the Rebel Alliance with Star Wars, who I'm now fully anti towards thanks largely to George Lucas being a grade A idiot and boasting his pro-Vietcong credentials at their expense), but she definitely fell hard regarding likeability as of late (to give a good hint as to how far she fell for me, when I was younger, she was second place regarding the DP list, just below Ariel. Now? She's second-LAST, just barely above Merida). But I will say it's slightly closer to anti at this point. And there's a whole lot of reasons why she's a bit closer to the anti scale of things for me.

This may be multiple posts due to a text limit.

[fizzigigsimmer]

@mania-mono I had to move my reply so I can give this my best shot at an answer without worrying about a word limit. So here I go, and pardon any pre-coffee typos.

I don’t speak for every Billy fan, because I can’t, nor do I speak for every POC because I can’t do that either. Blanket statements, generalities, and opinions grounded in the belief that what you see in front of you - which can only ever be a sample size - is everything, leads to closed mindedness. We are all vulnerable to these things. I think it is human nature to accept what we see and what we are told, in order to make friendly in our groups. So that we feel accepted as well as acceptable and to never think beyond that.

So I understand where opinions like “People only care about Billy because Dacre is attractive [and white]” come from. Within those opinions I can hear the faint echos of social discourse that I as a woman of color have had to bring to the table at one time or another, and I recognize that there is a merit of thought there, that I am 100% sure some fans need to reckon with.

I will never be the person sitting out here trying to disprove that the general fandom is suddenly unproblematic and completely free of the persuasion of whiteness combined with attractiveness and a preference for men.

This black girl will certainly never tell you that she hasn’t run into Billy friendly hot takes and writing that did have whiffs of white washing and erasure that made her uncomfortable and irritated at times. I have no reason to be afraid or to hide from that fact because it’s my lived reality. Every day in every fandom, in every ship. It’s my reality. It sucks. And I am confident and grounded enough in my own thinking to say something when I feel it needs to be said, or to just move on and find something better to read for my own peace of mind.

Yes, some Billy fans are problematic. But that is not my whole experience nor even half of it, and that matters.

Because I will also tell you that in my year or more of engaging in Harringrove fandom I have experienced that type of blindness and bias less than I have in other fandom spaces I have taken part in.That’s why I am here. I do not subject myself to being in places that make me consistently uncomfortable.

My empathy for the character brought me, and I stay because it’s a lovely place to explore my thoughts & feelings and make friends. For the most part I have found this pocket of fandom to be filled with nice people who actually do think through the characters flaws and have conversations about culture and social issues as often as any other fandom space. We bond, we have fun, and occasionally I might get into a debate with someone who I disagree with or disagrees with me about how we perceive the character’s flaws and their cultural impact.

I will tell you that I avoid many other subsections of Stranger Things fandom because my experience was that the balance is not the same in other tags. Because I felt consistently attacked, provoked, and silenced. Not just where it comes to discussions about race, but also disability, fat phobia, and my experiences of trauma and surviving abuse.

The problem I see a lot in fandom is that people are very good at manipulating others. There are whole communities that thrive on the basis of taking popular progressive opinions and using it to bully others for their entertainment or to control their behavior, or both. They rely on the public memory of the valuable work other people have done within culture and use those talking points to invoke fear and shame in their peers for their own selfish reasons. To feel good in the moment. For more reblogs. To feel like they’re part of the winning “team”. To feel like they’re meeting requirements of acceptable behavior. And for many more reasons I’m sure.

Whatever their reason, these folks know when they type out, “people only like Billy because Dacre is attractive”, that most people will instantly remember every discussion they ever sat through on the topic of bias and think ‘I don’t want to be that guy’. Because that’s natural and good and without those natural and good instincts we couldn’t be manipulated into a fear response. But the reality is even just a little bit of critical thinking would make it obvious how biased and unreasonable this take is.

When I hear “People only...” no mater what follows, a little yellow warning light goes off in the back of my mind. Because yes we can joke about certain things and make dumb memes for the fun, but when it comes to making a serious judgment, “People only” is a dangerous place to start. More people need to remember that.

Because I don’t think anyone actually needs to spend a great deal of time talking to Billy fans or researching much of anything at all to debunk this theory. If you replace Billy’s name with any aspect of his character that a person might relate to it falls apart. Because they are there to be related to. And if they are there to be related to, you’d have to be carrying some deep seeded rage and wearing some thick ass blinders to stick to the argument that you truly believe that nothing but white male attractiveness matters to anyone.

“People only care about that teenager because his actor is good looking.”

“People only care about that child, whose mother left, because his actor is good looking.”

“People only care about that blue collar boy because his actor is good looking.”

“People only care about that child of divorce...”

“People only care about that boy who was forced to move towns right in the middle of high school because...”

“People only care about that kid whose dad was abusing him because...”

“People only care about that kid who was dragged into the dark by a monster one night and violated because....”

I think the ridiculousness as well as the danger of this thought process speaks for itself.

I think that if someone finds it easy to believe a blanket statement like “People only care about Billy because Dacre is hot,” and can’t think up a single other reason someone else might relate to the character and talk about it honestly while defending their opinion, that’s their problem and not mine or yours. Either this is someone who doesn’t think much for themselves and is just parroting others, or someone who knows what they are saying probably isn’t actually true, but doesn’t care because the aim is to hurt some and manipulate others.

[the-drifters]

Hello! You said you have a whole ass infodump about the omens and their emotion plus how important they express it. Can I hear your explanation on that? I’m very curious.

Ohh yeah sure!

So like… where do I start uhh-

Lemme start with Dianthus as an example I guess. She starts off very defensive about feeling emotions at all. She states there is no ROOM for her to feel things. Her dialogue on the subject becomes more important for my other points below.

Later on, as she’s around the party, this seems to change. Both Geist and Callistephus shame her over expressing her feelings on at least two occasions. Callistephus says she’s too human, and Geist says her “hope” is a flaw that will lead them to disaster.

Adding onto that, take what’s under the surface in Dianthus and Hydolanzer (the first boss of the game)‘s interactions. Note that Hydolanzer also has a voiced dialogue line that says “Fight well, Dianthus.” She doesn’t WANT to kill Dianthus, but she’s been ordered to.

…I think Cres’s cynical comment on Ein being caught in a “Lover’s Quarrel” between the two Omens is right. Coincidentally. Although there’s a good chance that if there was some sort of romantic tension between Hydolanzer and Dianthus, neither of the two had the understanding which leads me to my next point.

It seems like the Omens have actually been experiencing complex feelings for a very long time, but they repress it. Anyone who acts on them enough to be deemed “dysfunctional” gets wiped and rebooted. Why?

Because their HUMAN CREATORS’ illogical behavior eventually led to their downfall. The Omens have to work toward their goals and serve their masters, but they also kind of look down on them, and project that view onto themselves. They feel shame because they’re afraid of dooming themselves and Humanity toward extinction.

Coming back to Dianthus… she doesn’t seem to be all that well liked by many of her peers for the most part. They make it seem like she’s a black sheep, and Callistephus implies the same for Geist after the other Omens gave up on solving Quietus. Now this is important for Dianthus specifically because… it makes me think her stoicism isn’t just that.

Ever notice how she’s more receptive to snarky comments at her expense than she is compliments? How she shoots down every attempt someone tries to be nice to her? Take some of the break conversations, or when she brings Emily on her airship. I want to say that I think she’s emotionally traumatized. She doesn’t allow herself to be vulnerable until she learns to better understand what she’s feeling in her character story. She loosens up in terms of how she views her relationships with others and how she feels about things toward the end.

And lastly, what does this mean to me? Why’s it so moving for me? Well- it’s because there’s a trait called Alexithymia, which is common in people with certain neurological disabilities (ex: autism) or mental illnesses. Alexithymia means that a person struggles to identify their emotions. Notice how pretty much all of the Omens describe the things they feel as “noise in their circuitry.” They seldom actually label what they feel- because it’s complex, illogical, and new to them. They haven’t learned to understand yet. But in Dianthus’s case, she comes to realize that she can use introspection to at least figure out the meanings behind her feeling and what she wants. And I find that so moving because I experience that too.

So… yeah. That’s my infodump. It’s long but to be fair I have a lot to say. I also have some headcanons which might be in part influencing my analysis but overall it’s just how I view the Omens’ emotions and should be taken with a grain of salt.

[humanoidtyphoons]

the loss was a fab episode with deanna bc she really is at her most dislikeable (in a way? it’s different to early episodes where she’s kinda redundant so this ep is intentional, i think. i like her stroppiness in the episode but i do think i laughed at her too) but she’s sooo interesting bc of it

-love that it shows that she absolutely does think herself as better than everyone else bc she could originally sense their emotions and has that over them. i wish more time could have been spent with her uncomfortable tbh. like a four ep arc or something.

-everyone keeps using blindness as a metaphor — both picard and crusher use this as an example to deanna — why on earth not let deanna have a conversation with geordi, the blind character on the show. yes, geordi was born blind, and deanna only became disabled at a later part of her life but i would have been interested in the conversation all the same. instead, deanna misunderstands a slight from geordi and that’s it.

-deanna screeching out that she’s disabled made me laugh. she’s not wrong either, honestly. but the episode made it seem that deanna lasted one day before wanting to resign bc she couldn’t handle it. you need way more time to get used to the situation!!! i mean q was needy and clingy when he became fully human too, but idk. something something superior beings being unable to handle it, getting off their high horse, they reminded me of each other, so yeah i’m a little bit unsympathetic.

-without sensing emotions, deanna says that everyone feels like a holodeck program. does that mean that data, an android, constantly feels like that to her????

-riker/deanna scenes were great. i think aristocratic was the wrong word to use, but he’s not wrong in what he’s getting at. and how troi would deny it, obviously!!! bc yeah, she wouldn’t see it that way!!! but that doesn’t mean it’s not true!!!

-i do like how picard and guinan say it’s not required to be a betazoid to be a councillor. she still has the knowledge, the experience, and yeah, i would have liked to have seen troi fumble in the dark longer tbh, bc i think the actress could have had fun exploring that side of deanna, who has these blind spots she didn’t know she had.

this sounds like i dislike troi, and want her to suffer. i don’t, but i get frustrated that she is written redundantly and exists to state the obvious and is often useless in an episode or being way too pushy at times (sometimes this has merit other times it is just being nosy), and i think this episode does an incredible job at giving troi something to do while exposing her flaws, which makes her a much better character in the long run. and well. sometimes watching characters struggle is fun, and it’s rewarding as a viewer, writer and actor.

[taylorthinksinc]

Blog Assignment #6: Walking Awake

Walking Awake was a very intense short story that had me speed reading each line so I could know what happens next. I think it was one of the most disturbing short stories I’ve read so far, likely because it involved the death of children and scary bug-crab-parasite monsters. Super gross to think about. Despite the scary parasites I loved this story, I thought the dialogue from Enri was so powerful and the overall storyline had so many messages to reveal.

I really grappled with Sadie’s character. To start I hated her, I couldn't imagine how she could literally raise a child and then hand that same child over to basically be killed and used as a host body. It was especially hard to read about her experience with Enri and how close they were. The description of Enri looking at Sadie and knowing his fate leading up to the master possessing him was hard to stomach. I could not fathom being in Sadie’s position which was really to submit to the masters or die.

Dreams played a huge role in the short story which is another element of afrofuturism and is also a pillar in afro-caribbean spirituality, which I study. I was not aware of all the parrels prior to taking this class and it is something I really love about the genre. 

I appreciated the representation in this short story, with Sadie having bipolar disorder and Olivia being deaf. Both of the characters were so complex and were allowed to be flawed; it was great to see characters defined by their actions and complex emotions rather than just centering their disability. 

I was relieved for Sadie when Enri came to her in the dreams, even though he was placing a large responsibility onto her. At least she knew that Enri understood her actions and was not angry with her. Something that Enri said that really stood out to me was “All the monsters were right here. No need to go looking for more in space.” This speaks to the dangers of humanity and felt very apocalyptic.  Another one-liner from Enri that had me slapping my desk while reading was, “You gave me to them because it was all you knew to do. Now you know different. How much do you want to change things?” This was really the turning point of the story and made me think about the power of knowledge but more so the danger of ignorance. We really don't know what we don't know and that's actually terrifying, sometimes people don't know better for little to no fault of their own and that’s the scariest/ most unsettling part of the story for me.

[you-belong]

A List of 10

I missed this space. I missed the practice of sharing my heart through these words. Thank you for being here.

The past five months provided five years' worth of lessons and growth. Alas, I wish each of these accounts was documented. The following list includes ten of the lessons I was reminded of or newly learned of late:

1. Revisiting past versions of yourself or behaviors is a natural part of a soul’s evolution. Observe the behavior and approach with loving compassion for what your soul is trying to show you. Within the light of your consciousness, you are empowered to decide what patterns no longer support your highest self.

2. There is nothing more nourishing to my spirit than conscious connection with another soul.

For those who can communicate freely from their heart, the opportunity for connection is powerful. By mirroring what I hear or observe, expressing compassion, and offering grace - hearts are forever transformed. I am a living testament to these transformative moments. I would not be alive without the loving witness of countless individuals. 

3. Asking for help is not weakness. Identifying your need for support and acting accordingly is a mark of humility and intelligence. Humans were created to live within a community, supporting one another.

4. Sometimes there is no logical reason why a relationship or circumstance doesn’t align with your present. Learning how to trust your intuition is an essential lesson on the path of spiritual living. 

5. Each day is new. In truth, each moment is ripe with possibility if we can surrender to the present.

On Sunday, I experienced a panic attack for the first time in years. On Monday, the universe provided a miracle in the form of a job. Circumstances can change quickly. If you continue believing in your inherent worthiness, believing you will attract abundance, and trusting that life is teaching you or preparing you for something greater, you will live within the flow of life. Divinely inspired action coupled with the embodiment of surrender will result in miracles. 

6. A person’s unconscious wounding or programming will impact their subconscious mind, consequently manifesting as their conscious reality. 

Recently I became conscious of lingering wounds relating to my worthiness. Affirmations, meditation, plant medicine, and somatic practices help me continually.

7. Your mind’s anxious thoughts are lying to you. You either feel anxious about the past or about a future possibility - both of which are illusory mental projections. The only true reality is the present moment.

In this lifetime, I experienced childhood trauma and identified as someone with a mental illness throughout my 20s. I tried a slew of SSRI and SNRI medications to help me through daily functioning. I say the following with humility and gratitude for the tools and support that kept me alive to pen the following: You are not your anxiety. You are not a diagnosis. You are not the trauma, the abuse, the pain, or the losses. I held onto the identity of “depressed and disabled” because, without these qualifiers, I interpreted my existence as lacking.

 8. Learning to distinguish between anxious thoughts and my intuition is an experience I am actively working through. 

If you learned anything about the latter, I would appreciate hearing your wisdom. (There is a “Contact” option on the blog where you can send me a message). 

9. I no longer associate my worth with a source of income or the amount of money in my account. 

For as long as I can remember, I struggled with the balance between honoring employer commitments and my own physical, interpersonal, or professional needs. For the majority of these employable years, I saw this as a personal failing and a character flaw. I never wanted to leave my being at the front door of a job. Moving forward, I will only accept professional opportunities that align with my values and allow for my self-expression. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will always be writing. This is my calling to fulfill. 

10. I need God in this season and in each one before.

I recognize the word “God” is now hollow of meaning for many. God doesn’t belong to one religion or ideology. If the word doesn’t resonate for you, I hope you can feel into the spirit of the word. That being said, I live in constant recognition of my connection to the God essence within all life. I hear a bird’s song, I feel the sunshine on my skin, I observe how a human loves, I experience pieces of art and I am reminded - there is purpose and all of life is connected to this source of energy. 

These personal reflections will not resonate with all, but I share them in hopes that even one person will be encouraged or inspired to reflect. I pray my life is one of constant correction, growth, and opportunities to reflect the truth of your beauty back to you.