#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?

[goblinsatchel]

Rudy Conners

‼️Tw discussions of suicide, Invincible show/comic spoilers, character study thing

Original Rudy knew it wouldn’t be him getting a second chance at life when he cloned Rex’s DNA but imagine how jarring that probably was for Clone Rudy.

They were both ready to die, he was just the one that woke up in a new body. Do you think he struggled with some form of survivors guilt after original Rudy passed away?

It’s clear Rudy uses suicidal idolization as a way to cope with his loneliness and disabilities, I don’t think changing his appearance ‘fixed’ the problem, not completely, because a part of it is even outside the pod there is still a mental disconnect, a barrier he feels keeps people from understanding him.

Rudy built his identity around solving problems. He created his drones to escape the limitations that his body created and most likely why he became a hero in the first place. He found a purpose in fixing the broken and flawed, and we can see that with how he helps Amanda.

Unfortunately not every problem has simple solutions, especially when you’re dealing with the complexities of human experiences and emotions, something he’s still learning to navigate.

If he did continue to have suicidal thoughts it would probably frustrate him because it seems illogical. He’s terrified of his emotions because they’re out of his control, chaotic, dangerous. So he’d rather intellectualize everything to avoid feeling anything at all.

[gamebunny-advance]

Most Inane Rambling Yet

Sorry I haven't been around. Just been feeling *weird* lately. I'm just not connecting with my hobbies right now.

That said, I did go ahead and pick up "Date Everything" recently.

I don't have the "fandom brainworms" for it the way I did NSR, but I am burning through it pretty heavily. (But, I do that for literally EVERY game I own. There's a difference between my fandom brainworms, and the "consume literally every piece of content that exists for this thing" brainworms. They can overlap, but less often than you'd think.)

Anyway, I've got a lot of thoughts about it, but this is the most inane one:

(Frank discussion about sex past this point. Also, spoilers for Date Everything.)

Despite being a game where you can ostensively date and/or f*ck anything, it seems actually kind of unkind to objectum people.

Granted, it's not a community I have a lot of experience or knowledge about, but despite the premise of the game, it does seem to shame you a bit if you actually want to fuck your furniture.

Not *heavily*, but there is some built-in disdain for the concept. If you bring it up to Skylar (responding with "What if I actually want to fuck the furniture?" when you ask her if that's what's actually happening in the more "intimate" scenes), she reacts in disgust to this. It's not like an "Oh... okay..." kind of dismissal that I think would be expected from the tone of the game, but she reacts with actual disdain for you if you answer like that. Like, this is probably meant to be self depreciating humor, like, "Hey, isn't it crazy that we're insinuating that you're actually fucking your furniture?" without realizing that there are in fact people that want to fuck their furniture unironically.

Like, you can absolutely think that's weird. I'm just in the camp of, "If it's not hurting anybody, then let people do what they want." It just strikes me because otherwise this game is basically about the power of empathy. Most characters are treated sympathetically, in spite of their flaws. Very few characters are taken as "jokes" or shamed, even if their disabilities can initially present themselves in humorous ways. Distinct exceptions to this rule are the characters that present as non-human, even with the dateviators.

The first is Sinclair the sink. Most of the player character's reactions to Sinclair are dismissive at best and outright aggressive at worst. I guess because the player is supposed to assume that he's just a liar rather than someone that's actually struggling with insanity. In reality, he's suffering from drug-induced confusion, but I don't think that should make him a less sympathetic person. And I think they only thought they could get away with this because he is less anthropomorphized than the other characters.

This is a man struggling to make sense of who he is right now, and the player's kindest action to him is just to figure out the cause of his confusion. You are never given options to sympathize with his situation, just try to solve it. It irks me a little because very few of the mental health focused routes expect you to "fix" the person. They usually respect that "fixing" those sorts of problems isn't possible, or at the very least is gonna take a long time to overcome. The best ending for a lot of these is just giving those characters the tools they need to help cope with their bad mental health and/or support them through their journey as they work out their problems. With Sinclair, the player character is never written to actually be supportive of him. He's essentially treated as a puzzle box as part of someone else's quest, instead of a person in need *because* he is a sink.

Second is Dishy, whose gimmick doesn't need additional explaining, but he is nonetheless a less anthropomorphized character that is treated as a "joke" option specifically because he is less human. Don't get me wrong, it's funny. The commentary about invasive smart-appliances is topical, and the evil mascot character is basically a staple at this point. But that doesn't change that he's a joke-character *because* he is a dishwasher.

But, if you want to be totally fair, (at least as I recall), sex-scenes with these characters aren't written any less sincerely than the others. So at the very least, the game does *let* you fuck them if you want to, and it is still described sensually. But it's shaking its head disapprovingly as it does so.

And I wanna make it clear, I'm not offended by any of this, and I don't know if actual objectums would be. I can't really say that the game is "punching down" because objectums are such a niche and unknown community. It's the kind of thing that would sound ridiculous to the average person, and is thus a source of comedy. And, these characters are funny. It is funny that I get to have a boss battle with my dishwasher and then willingly fuck it afterwards. It is funny when the sink-man breaks the 4th wall to tell you to get him off the character introduction screen. It is funny that both of their human forms are decidedly off-putting on purpose to further emphasize that they are very different from the others.

I just think it's weird that a game about fucking your furniture shames you if you want to fuck your furniture. But I think the idea that I'm even taking it that seriously is the most inane thing I've done in a while.

Nonetheless, these are my honest thoughts about the situation.

[dumbgoondog]

Dogged Characters(part 1?)

Ft. Gojo and Geto

Cw/Tw - metaphors for forced pregnancy, death, spoilers

How I portray/understand the characters. As well as personal headcanons for them that will and won’t have basis for those ideas.

Might delete later tho.

SATORU GOJO

The strongest sorcerer, considered extremely gorgeous in canon and by fans, good at everything he does, and the loneliest man. Infinity while being an amazing CT is also a representation of the separation from idolization. Everyone wants him, and when there’s something so many people enjoy the cruel people have to hate that thing. We see this often online with media. He HAS to be perfect, any mistake no matter how small is deeply ridiculed and blown out of proportion! There is one flaw to that though when applying it to Satoru Gojo.

He just doesn’t care!

He doesn’t care what anyone else thinks, he cares what HE thinks. Again with infinity, nobody can get to him because he’s just alone in there with himself. This is not to say I believe he’s a depressed person who’s secretly really sad. That is a good trope tho. To me Satoru Gojo, is a live by the moment type of person. Which sounds wrong when he says he wants to future to be great or thinks about Highschool and what could have been. You can contradict your opinions, it’s part of being human.

To cut this some cuz I got others to do -

- Gojo is a very self centered character. His ego of knowing how much people want him, believing he is the only one who can do things that he is “the honored one”, not willing to accept that others could be better than him, not seeing Geto’s decline, etc.

- Gojo is a good teacher. You have all of these kids from multiple backgrounds and troubles that should but heads of be loners but look at him! He also helps with disabilities no problem, Maki, Inumaki, etc. while he isn’t your standard teacher we have to realize we only see what’s shown but he’s with these kids for their whole lives for some and others for only half a year.

- Gojo is TIRED. He doesn’t want to be the strongest anymore. His hobby is stamp collecting because it isn’t skill based, he eats sweets constantly which give dopamine, he became a TEACHER. That who maniac left Highschool going “I want to be a teacher!” And he often ran away from home.

- Gojo is lonely. He’s constantly busy, his students are the closest thing he has to family, we know that when he was born his parents were lifted to a higher status and he was taken to be trained. Geto was one of the only people he felt he was close with, Shoko too but look how their lives have taken different paths. Do I think he’s sad though? No. You can be happy and lonely.

- Gojo is an experience and live by the moment person. He’s looking for fun in everything! Being a teacher every student is an experience! Traveling and trying new foods! He doesn’t care if something doesn’t go correctly, he still is having fun and or learning!

SUGURU GETO

The worst curse user in history. How fitting to be Gojo’s opposite, his foil. A man who came from nothing with a gift he learned on his own, how he worked for everything he has, swallowing every curse from a young age to his death. He has the opposite of infinity, he swallows and carries everything inside of him. This again is a metaphor, to show how he carries the weight of all of the dead sorcerers, the curses he swallows, his every mistake. He cares about everyone else so much that he gives up his body for them.

I’ll give a hot take, Geto’s CT is an amazing allegory for forcing women to give birth no matter where the baby is from.

He’s not allowed to just exorcise curses, because they could be useful in the future, think of what they can do for us! “But what if that baby would go to cure cancer?” No matter how disgusting it was to swallow, how hard of a battle it is, no matter who it killed. He’s trying to rationalize and convince himself it’s worth it, that people appreciate the work he does but they care what he can give them. Gojo was the ONLY one saying that he didn’t have to eat that curse, saying it’s gross and he shouldn’t have too.

Anyway bullet points -

- Geto is a very loving character. Even after becoming a curse user, he goes on to save two girls(Mimiko and Nanako) taking them in as his own. Helps Miguel and his family! All of Geto’s family are people who have been hurt by the system, and ignored by the people.

- Geto is a bad leader. He cares too much about too many people, his ideas are flawed, he’s too ridged with his thinking, and in the end that’s what does him in. He refuses to be flexible in his ideas, he refuses to grow as a person and stew in his fear instead.

- Womb Profusion is Geto’s domain expansion. Given my earlier reasonings, we see Yuta use Gojo’s DE, and the tower. I will say I think Kenjaku influenced how it looked and worked tho.

- Really great song for Geto and Gojo, “This Is A Life” by Son Lux, Mitski, and David Byrne, from Everything Everywhere All At Once. Listen to it and you’ll understand.

- Geto isn’t lonely but is sad. He wishes things didn’t go this way, that Riko Amanai was alive, that Toji never told him those things, that he and Gojo were still kids together. He loves his family though, he doesn’t regret saving Mimiko and Nanako, Miguel, any of them. He would do it all again. He believes in his cause, he just wishes he had his best friend, the man he loved(romantically) and never got to tell.

GOJO AND GETO

God these bitches gay, good for them fr tho. Geto is Bisexual and Gojo Pansexual. Geto fell first, Gojo fell later mutual pining but both were oblivious tbh. If they were called out or either of the grew a pair I genuinely believe that could’ve helped/saved Geto.

Shoko is an ace lesbian and she clocked them both but thought they were the best god damn rom com ever. She and Mei Mei had bets fr.

Gojo calls Geto Subaru, after the car, as a dumb nickname. Sometimes Gojo will pat his back and quietly say “beep beep”

Geto in turn calls Gojo “Toro” after the bull because of how easily annoyed Gojo can get. As a taunt in their arguments Geto will pretend to hold a flag and say “Toro! Toro! Ole!”

Geto is a snake and Gojo is a cat/snow leopard. Geto is seeking warmth and Gojo only lets certain people pet him.

[edelgard-more-like-baedelgard]

Working on my Honkai fics and I had a thought abt Bronya.

So, I ofc saw how some people were pissed when APHO came out and Silverwing Bronya didn't have visible prosthetics on her legs anymore and didn't mention still having a disability at all, but none of her Herrscher forms have had visible prothetics on her legs. Not like her early couple battlesuits had, at least. And while this was probably just Mihoyo not thinking abt how "curing" a characters disability is ableist, it also paves the way for a certain reading with her character and a personal conflict she could have with her Herrscher-ness.

Like, she's spent a significant amount of her childhood with the brain injury that causes her to need the prosthetics on her legs as a walking aide and is why she has the tech to let her hover or has project bunny carry her most places. But the thing about becoming a Herrscher is that it tries to corrupt you and strip away your humanity and make you a "better" more perfect being. So Bronya becomes a Herrscher and realizes the inhuman healing factor of a Herrscher has fixed her brain and legs. And this is something she now has to grapple with, as her disability had been something she'd not just grown used to or learned to live around, it had become a part of her. It was familiar. It was *her*. It was an incredibly human thing to be flawed, and now the Honkai had stripped even that away from her.

After it had taken her parents, after it had caused the circumstances that led to Cocolia being pushed to do experiment X-10 that took Seele from her, after it had ruined Kiana's life and killed Himeko and caused Kiana to leave them and hide, and now it had taken away even the small comfort of just existing in the way she had grown used to.

Even if it wasn't easy, even if she hadn't wanted to have such a disability, it was part of being Bronya.

And now that was gone just like everything else.

[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?

[billconrad]

Character Character Flaws

    Humans are loaded with flaws. Some we can correct, some we can mask, and others are there for life. A big part of growing up involves overcoming, putting up with, and dealing with our shortcomings. Plus, we suffer from, put up with, and attempt to correct other people’s faults. In short, the flaws are a big part of life.

    During my last four years of writing, I learned that it is essential to focus on the flaws that drive a character’s actions. Readers need to know the reasons behind motivation and character flaws, which are the key to explaining decisions. Jane steals a car. Why did she turn to a life of crime? Has she stolen vehicles before? A writer must explain Jane’s ethics in advance so that her actions make sense.

    Readers dislike actions without foundation. It would confuse readers if Jane had a normal day and randomly stole a car. What about a logical explanation? Jane needed money and stole a car. While logical, this explanation does not help. Lots of people need money, and they do not steal. Something inside Jane must allow her to be a criminal.

    When I create a character, I list their flaws in a character biography and let the reader know about them as early as possible. For example, the main character in a recent book lacks confidence, is a know-it-all, and is uncomfortable around forward women.

    When this main character makes a mistake, readers directly trace it to the above flaws. Of course, people are more complicated in real life, but taking 100 pages to describe a character’s nuances would bore a reader to tears.

    I like flaws that people can relate to, such as arrogance, low morals, lack of confidence, greed, perfectionism, workaholicism, bad finances, gambling, and addiction. I stay away from complex flaws like mental problems, complex childhoods, evil influence, altered physics (non-human flaws), heavy religion, and bullying. I also avoid controversial flaws like racism, sadistic abuse, and mental/physical disabilities. I feel these lead to low sales and bad reviews. Plus, such flaws are not fun to write about.

    In my experience, the flaws are the most essential part of a character’s background, but picking them requires a light touch. I have learned the ideal number is five and make sure they do not overlap other characters.

    Let’s examine two popular characters. Superman has good looks, a solid job, a girlfriend, a friendly attitude, and his only weakness is Kryptonite. In the movie Die Hard, John McClain is an arrogant drunk with a terrible temper. We expect Superman to win because he has nothing preventing him. I think John is a superior character because moviegoers rally as he succeeds and relate to his failures because they are apparent.

    A character that overcomes many flaws seems unrealistic, like they are cheating or have gotten outside help. A character with silly flaws is also difficult to relate. “People hate me because of my good looks.” “Having money is my big problem.”

    In real life, flaws hinder us, and we spend much time dealing with them, yet they make up a big part of any plot. Is that life imitating art?

    You’re the best -Bill

    March 22, 2025

    Hey, book lovers, I published four. Please check them out:

   Interviewing Immortality. A dramatic first-person psychological thriller that weaves a tale of intrigue, suspense, and self-confrontation.

    Pushed to the Edge of Survival. A drama, romance, and science fiction story about two unlikely people surviving a shipwreck and living with the consequences.

    Cable Ties. A slow-burn political thriller that reflects the realities of modern intelligence, law enforcement, department cooperation, and international politics.

    Saving Immortality. Continuing in the first-person psychological thriller genre, James Kimble searches for his former captor to answer his life’s questions.

    These books are available in softcover on Amazon and in eBook format everywhere.

[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.

[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.

[sunriseonthereading]

A Witch’s Guide to Magical Innkeeping - Sangu Mandanna

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ - 21/3/25-29/3/25 - Ebook (Thanks to Netgalley)

"If you know where to look for it, there is always a little magic in the heart of a person who loves it."

I’ll preface this review with the vital knowledge that I adored The Very Secret Society of Irregular Witches. That particular novel was published at pivotal time for my homesick British little heart and I have waited eagerly for Mandanna’s next novel set in this world. Magical Innkeeping did not disappoint! This book has so much heart packed into its pages.

As always, Mandanna crafts her characters with a wonderfully human touch; they are weird and flawed and occasionally batty in a delicious way. Sera, our protagonist is equal parts soft-hearted and stubborn in a charmingly real portrayal the burnt out gifted child. She’s aware that she will never live up to the potential of her past self and, as a reader, you can feel that fuelling her decision-making. It was painfully relatable and, despite the magical focus of Sera’s trouble, deeply familiar.

The extended cast of characters are just as witty and whimsical as in Irregular Witches. A lovable undead aunt, a talking fox, a pro-gardening old lady, a reenactment knight, a zombie rooster, a mischievous but well-meaning eleven-year-old boy and a young autistic girl make up the found family/supporting cast of this magical romance. I felt the disability rep, on several fronts, was handled with care and joy, letting these characters be defined by other aspects of their personality. Both Nicolas and Theo really sparkled as side-characters for me, their quirks and love for Sera making them the perfect companions. All of this was beautifully backdropped by the delicate magic system the author has constructed. It is a little hard to pin down initially, with rules remaining vague in the beginning but the way that Sera’s magic is describe was so unique and interesting that I’ve found myself thinking about it months later.

My one perhaps negative note is that, as time has passed since putting the book down, I’ve found the actual romance pairing to be a smidge forgettable. It was sweet and enjoyable but thoroughly overshadowed by the beautiful focus on Sera’s own story. I still wouldn’t say this is enough of a critique to even knock off a star or half star because this reading experience was just truly delightful. I’ve said it before but it remains true with this newest release, it feels as though Sangu Mandanna can feel when I’ll need an emotional boost the most and releases her novels perfectly in time with that—like her own dash of magic.

[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.