#do i understand his function in the narrative? yes and it's necessary

[tarre-was-right]

ROUND THREE: MATCH-UP ONE

Remember, this is NOT about who would win in a fight. This is about who makes the best leader for Mandalore as a whole.

Explanation post

Seeding

Propaganda below the cut! You can submit more on this post and I will reblog it back to here!

SATINE KRYZE

Anon: Satine because she served. Mandalorian fashion week would love her. Manda'slay.

Anon: Satine Propaganda: Was supported by the STRONG MAJORITY, led Mandalore to be in peace for NEARLY 20 YEARS, didn't ban mando'a or armour or any part of the culture like fandom claims, is a good fighter, considered EVERY Mandalorian a Mandalorian and didn't discriminate

@lightsaberwieldingdalek: Satine propaganda: she actually ran a functioning government. Not a mercenary band, or a death cult, or a terrorist extremist organisation, an actual functioning government. Yes there was corruption, corruption she did her best to stop to the point of personally getting in firefights with smugglers, but she took a planet devastated by civil war and by the end of her rule she had schools, public works, and a justice system. - Sure, the rest can run military operations (and we don’t know Satine couldn’t, only that she *won’t*) but can they make the bins get emptied regularly to go to the recycling plants?

COMMANDER CODY

Anon: Propaganda for Commander Cody: - Cody was a student of Alpha-17, who in turn had been personally trained by former Mand'alor Jango Fett, giving him a strong training lineage claim to the title - Cody's service as Marshall Commander in the GAR gave him a lot of the diplomatic, organizational, and military experience needed to govern a planet like Mandalore

@spacetime1969: This man has led more people at once than anyone on this list.

Anon: Cody should be Mand'alor because it would be unspeakably sexy

@cha0s-cat: Cody has experience with negotiating from accompanying Obi-Wan, he leads a massive amount of his brothers already. Can recognize when there is a need for negotiations vs a need for violence. This would balance out the majority of the two factions (pacifists/traditionalists) excluding the extremists on either end. And with the amount of chaos that he has to deal with when it comes to Obi-Wan and Anakin, this would probably be relaxing.

@skykind: - Has resisted fascism and its attendant police/military state at great personal risk (Bad Batch 2.3), which is apparently necessary to successfully govern Mandalore so long as Death Watch is fully armed and also backed by someone more cunning than their usual leadership (Clone Wars 5.15). - Possesses exceptional leadership and organizational ability from his time as one of the highest-ranked Clone officers of the GAR. The Clone Wars and Bad Batch narratives furthermore present him as Obi-Wan’s peer, so he should be interpreted as equally skilled, wise, kind, and unhinged-in-battle as Obi-Wan. Jury’s out on the sarcasm. - Turns to diplomacy before fighting (Bad Batch 2.3). - Has caught a Jedi’s lightsaber mid-battle at least two times (Clone Wars 1.20 and Revenge of the Sith). This is a very useful skill to have as the prospective or current leader of people who keep chucking the darksaber about. - Has returned a lightsaber to a Jedi at least two times. This is a crucial skill to have as the prospective or current leader of people who should stop selecting said leader via darksaber acquisition.

@antianakin: [From the Boba vs Cody poll] So in a very practical sense, if I'm just looking at it with the question of "Who actually has the skills to be a good leader of people" [between Boba and Cody] then the answer is undoubtedly Cody. Cody was trained his entire life presumably to be a Commander in a large army and seems to do that very successfully for three years. He seems fairly humble, has good teamwork skills, he's kind and understanding and merciful, and he's a very skilled fighter. All of this would serve him exceedingly well if he chose to take on a leadership position, on Mandalore or otherwise. - The one downside to Cody is that Cody shows exactly zero interest in Mandalore at all. Cody does not identify as a Mandalorian at any point and never seems like he'd want to, let alone LEAD the Mandalorians. I do not personally see Cody actually being WILLING to lead Mandalore if offered the opportunity, even if he'd definitely have the skills to do so. I feel like if it were offered to him or fell into his lap somehow, he'd just pass it off immediately to the next most qualified person who was interested in it. Mandalore is not his problem or his responsibility and he's not about to change that.

There was a lot of discourse on the Bo-Katan vs. Cody poll, but it was largely "this is why the other character is a bad choice" rather than "this is why my fave is a good choice," so there isn't really a good way to include it.

[thevalleyisjolly]

So I just rewatched Rogue One after finishing Andor Season 2. And it really has made me see the movie in a different way. This past season, I've read many critiques that Cassian in Season 2 seems to be a different character from the Cassian we see in Rogue One. The two primary concerns are commitment and obedience; Cassian wavers in his commitment to the Rebellion, and Cassian disobeys orders much more frequently which appears to undermine his decision not to kill Galen in the movie.

I've delved into the issue of commitment before, the TL;DR being that Cassian expresses these doubts and despair after surviving a horrifically traumatic event and that he never actually follows through with quitting even though there is little to functionally stop him. What I want to look at now is the issue of disobedience, and in order to do that, I think we have to start by understanding that Rogue One is, fundamentally, Jyn's story.

Yes, Rogue One is an ensemble cast movie about the many unnamed soldiers who give everything for a sunrise they'll never see. But the driving force in the narrative is Jyn. We start the movie with Jyn's childhood, and apart from occasional scenes necessary to advance the wider plot, we're following her perspective for much of the film. She's our viewpoint character for understanding the narrative as well as the other characters. It's a Star Wars story told through the story of Jyn Erso.

I want to point this out because it means that nearly every major character we meet, apart from legacy characters like Vader or Bail or Tarkin, exist in the film's story primarily through their relationship to Jyn's story. We don't get extensive Chirrut or Baze or Bodhi backstories because they are not in the story to provide different viewpoints. Bodhi reconnects Jyn to her father both through his official message and his personal memories of Galen; Chirrut and Baze provide faith and guidance through the doubt and darkness.

And then there's Cassian. Rewatching Rogue One through the lens of it being Jyn's story, I'm struck by how his role in the narrative is to Call Jyn, not to a grand adventure but to a home, to be the person and the leader she has the potential within to be. He challenges the self-interested worldview she's adopted out of necessity and trauma, he makes her look at herself and her decisions, he inspires her to hope and to fight and he's the first to welcome her home when she commits to the cause.

On the other hand, we're not told or shown very much about him (I'm deliberately not going into the novelization because the novelization, while incredibly written, top tier movie novelization, was written as a companion novel after the film was made and is there to enhance the film rather than be part of it structurally). Yes, Cassian has the biggest presence in the film and the story other than Jyn...but we aren't following Cassian's story. The things he tells us and shows us about himself -being in the fight since childhood, struggling with his orders to kill Galen- are things which exist in the context of his role in Jyn's story, to challenge and parallel her. He, like Jyn, has been in affected by the Empire since childhood but where he had to fight, Jyn chose to run. He cites his orders (and his disobedience) as Jyn is confronting him for trying to kill her father, and Jyn even directly calls him out for trying to "talk [his] way around this."

Yes, I agree it's a hugely significant moment in the film for Cassian to disobey the order to kill Galen, but I think the "why" is just as significant in the film as the act of disobedience itself. Cassian uses his orders as a justification when he's being confronted by Jyn, and a last resort justification too. He first dismisses her accusations as shock ("You're in shock. You don't know what you're talking about. ...You're in shock and looking for somewhere to put it."), then when Jyn continues, he defends himself by saying that he never actually did the deed ("I had every chance to pull the trigger. But did I? Did I?"). When Jyn counters with the evidence of the Alliance bombing raid, at last Cassian falls back on, "I had orders! Orders that I disobeyed!"

This isn't to say at all that it wasn't a huge struggle and a huge moment for Cassian to not kill Galen. He did disobey his orders in that moment and you can see the weight of the conflict on him. It's a turning moment in his journey within the movie; the moment he looks in on himself, at what he's about to do, and doesn't like what sees. The point I want to bring out is that everything he says and does afterwards is in the context of Jyn's story.

Jyn herself is at a crisis point in the narrative; her long-lost father has just died in her arms, thanks to the actions of the Alliance, and her father's dying wish is for the Death Star to be destroyed, something she cannot accomplish by herself. By the time she gets back to Yavin, she's standing up in front of the Alliance demanding that they take action. She's already made her decision. What happens now, in the stolen Imperial shuttle with Cassian, is the moment where she has to choose. Cassian, representing the Alliance who killed her father but also the billions, trillions of unnamed people who've had no choice but to fight the Empire since they were born, calls her out for her self-interest even as she challenges his culpability in her father's death. Yes, he admits, he had orders, but he didn't go through with them. You [Jyn] though, you wouldn't understand because you've chosen inaction. Jyn has not had to make the difficult decisions about whether to follow orders and do something she knows is wrong; she's only just decided to start caring.

Later, in Cassian's speech in the hangar, he says, "Everything I did, I did for the Rebellion. And every time I walked away from something I wanted to forget, I told myself it was for a cause I believed in. A cause that was worth it. Without that we're lost. Everything we've done would be for nothing." In that moment, he admits to Jyn and the audience that he's been holding onto the Rebellion and the cause as a reason for his actions. Every good or bad thing he's done, he's been able to justify it to himself as part of a fight that he's been forced into since childhood. In admitting this out loud, he both acknowledges that Jyn was right when she pushed back against his excuses ("Orders? When you knew they were wrong? You may as well be a stormtrooper.") and signals to Jyn and the audience that this mission now, this cause is worth it. He was lost but has found a purpose once more; just as Jyn was lost but is now home, in the right place at the right time as the leader she has inside her. This is Cassian's role in Jyn's story, the story through which we understand this Star Wars story. He challenges her and us to think about commitment and privilege and the unheroic side of rebellion; he inspires her and us to action and to hope.

Andor, on the other hand, is a Star Wars story through the story of Cassian. For that reason alone, the Cassian we meet is already going to be different because we're not seeing him through Jyn's eyes now. We are seeing Cassian the character through Cassian's perspective and for a much more longer period of time - five years where he is the main vessel for the narrative as opposed a few days where he is a character in someone else's story. We watch Cassian succeed and fail many times, we hear him doubt everything and inspire others, we see some of the events which shaped him and we come to understand his role in the events which we've come to know.

When Andor was first announced and throughout since, it was marketed as the story of how Cassian becomes the rebel we meet in Rogue One. And I think given that pitch, it's fair to criticize the apparent dissimilarities in character between Cassian in the show and Cassian in Rogue One. At the same time, I don't think Cassian in the show is an entirely different person from Cassian in the movie. Many of the same building blocks are there (charismatic, capable, deceptive, clever, manipulative, determined), but we're seeing the development of these traits now through Cassian's experiences rather than viewing them through Jyn's perspective. It definitely feels different, sometimes radically so, and it's not wrong by any means to prefer the more streamlined character we meet in Rogue One. Nor does this mean that ten years' worth of fan discussion and insight into the character is wrong! It just means that unless they remake Rogue One from Cassian's perspective, everything the character does in the film is structured and interpreted through the lens of Jyn's story and not his own.

So having said that, let's return to the issue of disobedience. In Andor Season 2, Cassian disobeys direct orders several times, each time in relation to information from Luthen (which goes a ways towards showing why everyone the Council except Mon is so mistrusting of him). So what orders is he disobeying? Both times he leaves Yavin, he does not have permission to go - although the first time, when he leaves for Ghorman, the rebels on Yavin are very loosely organized, Draven only makes a token effort to rein in Cassian, and they have no issue coming back. And...that's it. The second time, when he goes to Coruscant, he's ordered to stand down and he does not. Then, when they come back hot without a flight plan filed, they're confronted by an X-wing escort and afterwards, Cassian complies with what he's told (even though he vehemently disagrees with the Council about it).

When we look at Cassian's disobedience in Season 2, we see that the orders he disobeys are primarily related to permission. He has not been given permission to undertake these unsanctioned missions but he refuses to stand down and he leaves Yavin under false pretenses that everyone can see through. The charge is insubordination, and post facto, potentially exposing the rebel base and thus endangering the Alliance. Contrast this with the order he's given in Rogue One - do not extract the target but rather kill him. This is not an order related to his position within the Rebel Alliance; this is a mission directive to eliminate a perceived threat. And while I think there's a definite criticism to be made of the "lone agent" elements of his insubordination in Season 2, I don't think it fundamentally undermines his moral and personal struggle in Rogue One about refusing to kill Galen.

There's a difference between not listening to your boss' orders because you want to pursue a personal matter, and choosing to disobey an order to kill someone because it would be wrong. One is a decision that anyone can be faced with at any time, the other is a fundamentally moral issue and one that is complicated into a struggle for Cassian because of the nature of the situation. When you've been fighting a fascist regime your whole life, living through atrocities and doing some terrible things in the name of the cause, and you now have the opportunity to take out an important engineer in the regime's weapons program, is it a greater crime to kill them or let them live? At this point, they don't know what else Galen Erso has been working on, if he hasn't been developing other devastating weapons for the Empire. And what if you had to look their daughter in the eye afterwards, the daughter who believed that you were going to save him, whom you lied to about his safety?

This is getting long, so the last thing I'll say is that it's absolutely valid (and important!) to critique Andor over how well it executed its goal of showing Cassian's journey. There are elements that I personally agree were a little rougher and inconsistent, such as the hints that he's some kind of "destined" chosen one or the development of his relationship with K-2SO which could have done with more time. What I really want to say though is that Cassian is a complex character, whom we now have multiple hours of story and screen time through which to examine (and re-examine!) him. And this opens up so much room for discussion and textual criticism, and I hope that we're able to keep talking about and enjoying Cassian Andor long after his story ends.

[madou-dilou]

Thoughts on the moral imbalance between humans and Xadia

*The Dragon Prince* presents itself as a story about breaking cycles of violence, about two civilizations learning to coexist, about individuals rising above history’s mistakes. "Breaking the cycle", "Narrative of love instead of narrative of strength". The most symbolic quote of the show being Janai's "I define history. History doesnt make me." On paper, it seems like a fair exploration of war, prejudice, and reconciliation. But beneath this veneer of balance lies a troubling asymmetry: while the worldbuilding suggests an even conflict, the *moral weight* of the story is disproportionately placed on humans.

And I wondered I felt that way, because as a matter of fact, the show does not hesitate to depict Xadian cruelty on multiple occasions.

So I think it has less to do with the message than the execution.

That it's actually completely unintended.

We see it from the very first episode, where humans are driven from their lands in an act of ethnic cleansing. We see it in Runaan's unrepentant racism, in Avizandum’s and Sol Regem's indiscriminate slaughter, in Keesha’s fiery wrath she unleashes in the name of justice on every human she comes accross, in Karim’s supremacist ideology, in Finnegrin's torture of Rayla, in Kim Dael's literal thirst for blood. Xadia is not a utopia.

And yet, these acts of violence, these crimes against humanity, are never truly confronted.

They are treated as regrettable but understandable, the result of individuals rather than a systemic pattern of oppression. Well, Karim's arc, is an attempt at portraying that systemic oppression for he actually has plenty of followers within the population of sunfire elves, but it sadly doesn't suffice for it's treated as violence feeding itself, and the human protagonists themselves convienently never face racism.

Human violence, on the other hand, is never just an individual failing—it is a reflection of humanity itself.

When Viren, Claudia and Callum turn to dark magic, it is not just their personal descent but a cautionary tale about human ambition and desperation. When Soren attempts to take down a dragon that just burned a town to the ground, he is framed as part of the problem, a cog in the ever-turning wheel of revenge. When the protagonists we're suposed to root for chop the childhood friend's leg off, no one among them gives a damn because she's a dark mage. Even Ezran, a child who has never harmed anyone, spends much of his time trying to *prove* that humans deserve a place in the world, as if their right to exist in peace is something that must be earned. When thousands of humans get killed at the end of season 3, they happen to have convienently turned into monsters by their leader Viren, so it's portrayed as the necessary victory of good over evil, with no reflection at all upon the weight of their ugly deaths in a show that prides itself on being anti-war!

Hundreds thousands of humans are killed by a human in an anti-War show and it's presented as a victory of good over evil. What lesson are we supposed to learn from this?

There is no clearer example of this imbalance than Callum’s relationship with magic. Dark magic uses organic matter to function but is portrayed as morally unforgivable no matter the circumstances, even when it doesn't kill or provoke pain to get fueled, for it's vaguely supposed to evoke all the bad versants of "exploitation", concepts like scientism, pollution or rape. Yet as far as anyone knows, dark magic is the *only* way for humans to wield the forces of the world. It is dangerous, yes, but so is every form of power in Xadia—it is no more inherently evil than a dragon's ability to burn someone alive or an elf's ability to suck someone's blood dry. And yet, when Callum is forced to use dark magic to save his friends, the act is treated as so vile, so soul-destroying, that he spirals into suicidal despair. His use of dark magic is not just a mistake—it is a *moral failure*, a stain on his very being. He crushed two already dead corpses of slugs but his soul is somehow stained almost beyond repair.

But when Callum somehow gains an Arcanum, the kind of magic elves and dragons are simply *born with*, it is framed as an evolution, something to be celebrated. Never mind that the Ocean Arcanum was just shown to be capable of torturing a girl to death. Never mind that moon magic was used in episode one to force a child to kill an even younger child. Never mind that humans have spent centuries barely surviving, with dark magic as their only tool in a world designed to exclude them. Callum uses on Claudia the Ventus Frigoris spell that was previously used in front of him to torture Rayla, and I only noticed that because a fan pointed it out : it's not addressed.

I would add that all though the show starts and presents itself as a nuanced exploration of war, oppression, and cycles of violence, its underlying framework is actually an ecological parable. Instead of examining human conflicts with complexity, the show depicts a world where humans represent destructive civilization, while magical beings—especially dragons and elves—embody a lost natural harmony.

The story frames humans as inherently greedy and short-sighted, their struggle for survival reduced to exploitation. Dark magic serves as a metaphor for environmental destruction—presented not as a tool that can be used responsibly, but as an inherently corrupting force. Meanwhile, magical creatures are positioned as righteous victims, their own wars and greed either ignored or excused.

Meanwhile, human suffering—starvation, war, or displacement—is dismissed as self-inflicted.

The show frames humans as an unnatural force that disrupts the balance of the world. They are the only sapient beings who cannot wield primal magic, and their only means of survival is through dark magic—metaphorized as industrial exploitation. This framing strips them of moral complexity; their struggles are not seen as political, social, or even practical, but as a fundamental flaw in their very nature.

This bias is explicitly voiced through characters like Keesha, an elf who spits out her racist belief that all humans are parasites. The show never challenges her view—instead, it validates it visually and narratively. Viren, a human who embodies intelligence and ambition, is transformed as she speaks into a literal parasite monster through dark magic, reinforcing the idea that human striving is inherently corrupting.

The series does not invite viewers to see the human perspective. Viren’s desperation to save Katolis from famine is not explored as a tragic necessity but condemned as villainous. When Ezran is challenged, it's either by angry morons or people who are left off-screen. Visually and narratively, the show reinforces this bias. In season 7, when Ezran finally considers defending Katolis from dragon attacks, the cinematography echoes earlier scenes depicting Viren’s villainy. The message is clear: even self-defense is framed as morally suspect when it is humans who do it.

The narrative does not care about these contradictions. According to it, dark magic is human, and therefore a corruption. The Arcanum is Xadian, and therefore a gift.

I don't mind the contradictions itself, but the way the show doesn't adress it : for example, Runaan, who, as an efficient assassin whose credo consists on taking as little lives as possible lives while respecting life's inner value, also happens to have been tortured, should revile useless suffering. He could tell Callum to stop torturing Claudia, and Callum refuses to, arguing, to Runaan's horror, it's a necessity : therefore Viren's logic of "necessary sacrifices" isn't just a byproduct of dark magic but is applicable to any sort of power.

Viren saves Katolis with the exact spell he used to protect his soldiers from the fire, and which back then had allowed the protagonists to kill all of them without a second thought -yet as the spell is revealed to actually have no dehumanizing effect at all, the protagonists conveniently never are put in front of this and therefore never face the implication : it means they actually did kill real people back then at the battle of the Storm Spire, and their peace was built on ground saturated with blood they spilled. I'm repeating myself, but I wouldn't mind this if the show took time to address that. And since it doesn't, it's clearly unintended.

Another example of that is the way no one wonders what Callum's access to magic, or the Cosmic order's murder of Leola, means. Everyone thought human magic was impossible up until this point, and Ezran reveals in a dialog after the timeskip that it's now known that Callum actually isn't the first. This discovery completely changes how the power imbalance between Xadians and humans was thought of : turns out it isn't natural, but orchestrated by the Cosmic Order. But the show doesn't seem to realize this at all.

It is not that TDP paints Xadians as perfect -it really doesn't, but that it never truly demands introspection from them. An angry mob chases Rayla down because she is an Elf, but the moonshadow children (whom we have all reason to think are being raised by the same "Nothing in humans is worth mercy" principles as Runaan was), are somehow absolutely adorable to Callum because systematic prejudice apparently doesn't exist in Xadia. When Ezran preaches peace, it is always humanity that must rise to the occasion. When Viren falls, his downfall is treated as the natural consequence of human arrogance. When Zubeia, the widow of a king who murdered countless humans, steps in to help the heroes, she is never asked to even acknowledge her people’s past crimes. She is simply accepted.

The show *does* depict Xadian atrocities (the ethnic cleansing of humans, the unprovoked burning of towns, Avizandum's indiscriminate slaughters), but these events are not treated as a moral burden for Xadia to bear. In contrast, human violence is always tied to questions of morality, accountability, and cycles of vengeance. When Viren commits atrocities, they are framed as moral failings that demand consequences. When Avizandum, a random red dragon or even Ezran kills humans (he kind of tried to burn thousands of people alive), it is either ignored, excused, or at best framed as an unfortunate necessity. Sol Regem is the only dragon portrayed as a monster. Zubeia, despite her attempts at killing Harrow and Ezran that kickstarted the shows, is never once portrayed as having any *moral obligation* to recognize this crime or even human suffering. Ezran straight-up defends Aviandum's massacres, saying it was all to protect Xadia, and no one bats an eye, not even Callum, who lost Sarai at his hands as she was preventing a famine he caused. Plus, Callum sadly actually knew her, on contrary to Ezran.

The season 2 scene where a dragon burns a human town is one of the most glaring examples of this bias. The dragon’s actions are never explained, never questioned, and never even *remembered* by anyone. Soren, who wants to kill the dragon *after* it has already committed mass murder for no reason, is framed as the real problem.

Viren, for all his hubris, eventually spends three seasons agonizing over his remorse, failures, self-hatred and desperation. Soren acknowledges his wrongs and grows from them. Even Claudia shows guilt over what she does. But no Xadians express remorse over the sufferings of humans, including literal ethnic cleansing. Karim is too much of an idiot, constantly humiliated and getting a ridiculously funny death, to be a believable threat; and Janai never seems to struggle against her own old prejudice, it's just gone.

Xadians are allowed to move on from their history without reckoning with it. Humans are not. And so, despite its gestures toward nuance, *The Dragon Prince* remains a story where only one side is asked to do reflective criticism.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind any of that if it were intentional. I would even praise it. It would then show incredible protagonists whose naivete fails to acknowledge that peace isn't peace if only the side that is still a victim of a huge imbalance of power reflects and atones.

The show, in Arc II, almost succeeds in this when portraying Ezran's failed diplomatic feast. But since anyone who opposes Ezran either is portrayed as a brat (Viren, Kaseef, Karim) or not given a voice or even an appearance at all (who tore this portrait and why?), it fails - but how are we supposed to understand Soren's side when he says anyone who disagrees with Ezran's policy deserves to be eaten by Zubeia?

And the show almost succeeded in portraying complexity when Ezran himself, hit in his heart twice in a row when Sol destroyed his home and Runaan was set free without first taking accountability, eventually takes measures to ensure Xadia never attacks again (the show even frames him in similar angles and words than Viren). But it comes way too late.

And the show almost succeeds at portraying complexity when the archdragons are given an entire memorial in the cemetery of their victims but Viren's very name is entirely erased while he just sacrificed himself saving Katolis - and also prevented literal famines. It is a golden opportunity to reflect upon selective memory. But since that erasure, all though carefully thought out as a punishment for Viren by the narrative, is never addressed or brought upon by any of the characters (I don't know, something like, "He did great things. Terrible things, but great things as well." "However controversial he was, he did save us more than once" "Are you mad? Others might be tempted to follow his example." "I agree. This is something we have the duty to prevent. We can't let the future generations abide by his justifications and crimes." "Crown guard Soren, what are your thoughts on this matter?" "Do as you see fit. This ... man... wasn't my father. Whatever his legacy is, I will have no part in it."), it instead feels like it's so obvious it shouldn't even be discussed. Granted, the show does the same with Karim, who justifies his supremacist views appealing to History, only to be crushed by it as a really fun gag. But since Viren actually had a point, on contrary to Karim, his erasure feels unfair.

However, I just did a huge generalization... for have to adress the case of Runaan!

Runaan, as an assassin who carried out Xadian orders, is the *only* Xadian character who is truly forced to reckon with his actions. He killed Harrow not as a lone rogue actor as I thought until season 7 since Zubeia's role is completely ignored, but as an agent of Xadian authority—Zubeia’s authority. And yet, when the time comes for accountability, he is alone in his guilt.

Runaan's guilt is genuine, a weight he carries throughout. He doesn’t ask to be excused. He acknowledges that the culture he was raised in was toxic. He doesn’t demand that Ezran absolve him. He simply acknowledges what he has done and begs for forgiveness, fully aware that he may never receive it. This is, ironically, the *most balanced* approach to morality the show has ever taken.

But it comes too late. Seven seasons too late. And worse, it is *undone* by the revelation that Harrow was alive all along. What could have been a powerful moment—a Xadian finally confronting the weight of their actions, without excuse or justification—is cheapened by the show’s refusal to let the consequences be real. If Harrow is still alive, then Runaan didn’t truly take anything irreparable from anyone.

And so the show wastes its one opportunity to truly explore Xadian accountability. Runaan is an outlier, a singular case that never expands into a larger conversation. Meanwhile, Zubeia, who is the one who gave Runaan the order to kill Harrow, is never asked to answer for it. She remains the benevolent dragon queen, taxi-driving the protagonists while avoiding any real introspection -aside from a short story. Ezran is the one who has to do all the diplomacy work.

If *The Dragon Prince* had committed to this moment earlier then perhaps the show could have made good on its premise of breaking cycles. But instead, it falls into its old habit: absolving Xadians without demanding growth, while humans continue to bear the weight of history alone. Humans who commit atrocities are framed as reflections of humanity’s *inherent* tendency toward war and destruction. For example, the very late reveal in Book 7 that it was the humans that devastated their own lands because of their greed feels like an attempt at ignoring the ethnic cleansing and oppression Xadia submitted them to in the first place.

In season 6, we are told the story of how Leola got murdered by the Cosmic Order a few centuries ago because she taught Primal Magic to humans. This knowledge was erased, leaving Aaravos as its sole bearer : yet despite Callum's status as the first human wielding Primal Magic for centuries, this discovery never is shown to recontextualize the past and recent history between Xadians and Humans, and Callum's safety is never compromised by the Cosmic Order. And the heroes are never shown as to unknowingly enforce an unfair status-quo. As they are fighting Aaravos, they are simply portrayed as defeating Evil. The Cosmic Order never appears or reacts to any of Aaravos or Callum's actions, leaving us to wonder if Aaravos just made them up so Claudia and the viewer would side with him.

And then, there’s Viren. The character who has borne the *entire* moral weight of the show’s conflict from the very beginning. The one who suffers, agonizes, and ultimately dies twice—first as a so-called “Disney villain,” then as a broken man who finally understands the cost of his choices. But even in his lowest moments, even in his most genuine sacrifices, the show never gives him a pass.

In Arc I, he was a clear victim of the Magneto syndrome, the narrative trick where a character fighting against oppression is deliberately villainized to prevent the audience from engaging with their ideas. Viren, despite being the only character who directly challenges Xadia’s superiority, is not ultimately not allowed to remain the nuanced character he was first portrayed as. Instead, he is turned into a *Disney villain*, complete with glowing eyes, sadism, Nazi references and sinister smiles, so that his ideology can be dismissed without true debate. His valid criticisms of Xadian arrogance, his recognition of the inherent power imbalance between humans and elves, his warnings that peace is impossible when one side is forced to *earn* its existence—all of it is buried under the weight of his aesthetic villainy.

This is why his death at the end of the first arc is the moment the show brushes aside all of Xadia’s wrongs, all its atrocities, in the name of peace. With Viren gone, with the “evil human” defeated and all of his convienently monsterified humans killed, the story no longer has to acknowledge the legitimacy of his fears. There is no reckoning for the ethnic cleansing of humanity. No reflection on how Xadians have treated humans as disposable. No examination of the *reasons* that led Viren to act in the first place. His death is not just the end of his character—it is the *erasure* of his argument. When the exact thing Viren was fearing eventually happens to the capital in season 6, all though Ezran in season 7 does finally acknowledge that maybe it's not a good idea to have no protection when your immediate neighbors are dragons, he is framed in evil angles as he is taking dispositions.

Viren is not allowed to move on from his mistakes the way Xadians are. He is never given the luxury of having his violence framed as an unfortunate necessity, despite constantly refering to this concept. His use of dark magic, even when it is to *save lives*, is treated as an unforgivable sin - he only needed Lissa's tears to save their dying boy and the show had the audacity to frame that as rape, while Callum’s acquisition of an Arcanum—something that should be equally terrifying, given how we’ve seen it used for torture—is treated as a glorious evolution.

Unlike Zubeia, unlike Janai, unlike any Xadian character who has benefited from systemic oppression with the exception of Runaan, Viren is expected to bear his sins until the very end. As he asks for anyone to listen to him after he learned the errors of his ways, he is told he doesn't deserve any mercy. He started his last season finally free yet ends it trapped in a cell, framed as a butterfly caught in a spider's web, spiraling in further despair. He decides to burn his note to Soren, where he explains his guilt, and thus carries it with him to the grave. And after he sacrificed himself to save a city, he is eventually completely forgotten by history, not even getting mentioned by any of the characters while the Archdragons have an entire memorial built in a cemetery full of their victims. I understand putting past grievances behind, but what would Xadians think of a memorial to Viren built right in the middle of Lux Aurea?

Killing the princes, the false-flag operation, destroying Lux, all that was bad. I'm not saying he was right on everything. But the show won't really acknowledge that he was actually right on *anything*. The truth—the one the show refuses to fully acknowledge—is that Viren was right about far more than the story allows. He was right about dark magic being humanity’s only means of survival, right about the hypocrisy of Xadian arrogance, right about the *inevitability* of conflict when one side is forced to constantly prove its worth. And yet, even as the world validates his warnings, even as the destruction he predicted comes to pass in season VI, he remains the villain. Ezran is framed similarly as he was, using the same shot composition, poses and vocabulary but no one ever says "Damn, he actually had a point." Because TDP was never interested in truly engaging with his perspective—it only ever wanted him to serve as a cautionary tale to this lesson :

It's not the oppressors who must reckon with their people's crimes but the oppressed who must prove themselves deserving of peace.

The show doesn’t even seem aware of what it is doing. It is not an assumed narrative choice that would say "Two obstacles to peace there are : prejudice on both sides, and when only one side agrees to make concessions." No, this bias is accidental and that’s what makes it so frustrating.

It's so terribly sad because I think it's completely unintended.

[greenthena]

Metatron is the Murder Hornet

Hear me out. The Metatron is a bitch no matter what. Way back before the bookshop burned, he was a manipulative twat to Aziraphale, but we only ever saw him as a Wizard of Oz style giant floating head. So when we meet The Metatron's corporation is S2 E6, we assume that this is the man behind the curtain, yes? This is the "heavenly" authority who stands between God and the rest of the angels. Are you with me so far? So tell me, why is he wearing Hell's color palette? Black topcoat over a black (or at least very dark gray) sport jacket. Even his shirt has black stripes. His tie is black with his signature sapphire blue sigil design. You know why? Because The Metatron is a demon. Now that I've probably pissed off about half of the fandom, let's dive in.

I'm going to accept that the corporeal form of The Metatron that we meet in S2 E6 is the man behind the curtain. But I'm wondering if, in the same way that the Wizard of Oz floating head spectacle is just a projection the actual wizard (a two-penny magician from Kansas), the Floating Head Monstrosity (FHM) is a projection The Metatron has rigged up rather than The Metatron himself. Essentially, the FHM is the projected "essence" of the asshat with whom Aziraphale spoke before the bookshop fire, the same one who wanted to discipline Gabriel and strip him of his memories. And if it is merely a projection, like the Wizard of Oz floating head, the man behind the curtain is likely in a different physical space.

If The Metatron can control the FHM remotely that suggests that he (the corporeal form or spiritual essence of the Metatron) isn't necessarily stationed in Heaven. Perhaps he can't even get into Heaven, but has managed to project his presence there to manipulate the Heavenly Host throughout the course of history.

Sidestep along with me while I take a quick detour. I promise it's relevant and necessary to understand the implications of The Metatron's arrival in Soho. (But I'm a demon. I might be lying.) Good Omens relies heavily on mirroring* as a narrative technique. One of the most obvious places we see this structure is in character sets: Crowley and Aziraphale, Newt and Anathema, Shadwell and Tracy, Nina and Maggie, Gabriel and Beelzebub. The character sets function as mirrors of one another (angel and demon, witch and witchfinder), while simultaneously reflecting other character sets in the story (Nina and Maggie reflect Crowley and Aziraphale, etc.) But we also see it repeatedly through plot structure--the pair of 1941 flashbacks in S1 and S2; the way S2 begins with Azirphale moving toward Crowley and ends with him pulling away. My personal favorite reflected imagery in the whole damn show is when Aziraphale shields Crowley from the first rain in Eden and Crowley shields Aziraphale from the celestial hailstorm Before the Beginning.

Alright, let's re-route back to Soho, to The Metatron's introduction in S2 E6 and how it embodies mirrored structure. The first shot we get of The Metatron in Soho in S2 E6 is when he's buying a cup of coffee from Nina. He's not actually identified as The Metatron in this scene, and Nina just views him as a regular customer. Next, we see him enter the bookshop and approach the Archangels, none of whom seem to know who he is. In fact Michael just assumes he's a human, tries to shoo him away, and even asks him, "And who are you?" The Metatron never gives his name; instead he presses the angels, "You don't know me?" He then addresses Crowley, "What about you, demon? Do you know me?" It's at this juncture that Crowley identifies him as the big giant floating head, and Aziraphale, in a rush of comprehension shouts, "Oh, The Metatron!"

This scene's other half is the introduction of Bildad the Shuhite in the Job flashback sequence. Crowley presents himself to Job and Sitis, who do not recognize him. When questioned about who he is, he says to Sitis, "You tell me." Sitis proceeds to identify as him Bildad the Shuhite. Crowley shrugs and agrees to the suggestion. This mirroring of dialog shows us that in both scenarios, there's deception in the presented identity. Just as we can't trust that Bildad the Shuhite is who is says he is, we similarly can't trust The Metatron's identity at face value.

When it comes right down to it, The Metatron is a pretty sketchy character. During his S1 interaction with Aziraphale, our angel doesn't even know who he is. The Metatron has to introduce himself as the Voice of God, a go-between, if you will, whom Aziraphale, in all his ageless time in the universe, has never even met or heard of. Dodgy? You betcha. When we see him in the Gabriel trial sequence during S2, he's just one of the several floating heads overseeing the progress of Armageddon Round Two. We're able to gloss over the fact that he's presented as a floating head fairy, because all the angels appear as floating heads in this sequence. However, unlike Uriel, Michael, Saraquel, and Gabriel, we never see The Metatron interact with the other angels in anything resembling a corporeal form.

So with this evidence, let's return to mirroring structure as a narrative device: a Clue to point us to the crux of the deception that The Metatron is performing. But to get there, we'll need to look at the reflected plot beat for context.

At the end of S2 E5, Crowley needs to get into Heaven to access information about Gabriel. Problem is, since he's a demon, he can't just waltz into the Heaven-Hell-evator and go to the up. He needs an angel to escort him, so he tricks our beloved Inspector Constable Muriel into arresting him: "I'm a demon with knowledge of a crime against Heaven. I demand that you arrest me!" Crowley uses the art of deception to sneak his way into the Heavenly hive.

Once in Heaven, when Muriel starts to fret that she's been tricked and will get in trouble for bringing a demon into Heaven, Crowley tells her, "Angels are like bees, fiercely protective of their hive if you're trying to get inside. Once you're in....I mean....is it even faintly possible that an unauthorized demon might be just wandering around in Heaven unescorted? Bees." Muriel then worries over Crowley's outfit, telling him he looks like a murder hornet, so Crowley changes into his most wonderful and excellent angel disguise.

Still with me? Have a gold star to match Crowley's nail polish.

Crowley's gambit to get into Heaven is a clever tactic, no doubt, and necessary for the final beats of the narrative. But I believe it's also there as the first half of a mirrored plot point that we will see play out in S3. Ya see, Crowley's not a murder hornet. He doesn't infiltrate Heaven to plunder their proverbial food stores or to destroy the hive. He does his quick bit of reconnaissance and is on his way. I think Crowley's ploy ultimately functions as foreshadowing for the real murder hornet: The Metatron.

To get his full essence into Heaven, his spiritual body and not just his projection, The Metatron needs an angelic escort. That's why he's so insistent that Aziraphale joins him on his journey up to Heaven. He needs an angel--one he perceives as an easy target--to break him into the hive. And Aziraphale fits the bill. He's vulnerable, having been implicated in the business with Gabriel, which could earn both him and Crowley extreme sanctions, being struck from the Book of Life. So The Metatron coaxes and manipulates Aziraphale to accompany him to Heaven, implicitly reflecting the way in which Crowley manipulated Muriel into arresting him and accompanying him as his Heavenly escort.

Do I still believe that The Metatron manipulates Aziraphale in order to divide the angel and the demon who, when working together, can produce miracles of un-paralleled power. Oh, hell yes! But that's not something only Heaven would want to mitigate. The sheer miracle force Crowley and Aziraphale manifest when working together is a threat to any oppressive structure that wants to consolidate power, and that certainly includes Hell. The fact that The Metatron realizes he can separate the angel and the demon in the same stroke as infiltrating Heaven is icing on the cake.

So there ya go. That's all I've got for today. Is The Metatron a Demon? Honestly, I don't know. But it's too interesting a theory for me to leave it alone.

*Please note, I'm intentionally using the term mirroring rather than chiastic structure to make this analysis. I deliberated for a while, but decided that it'd be a little loosey-goosey in this situation. So, yes, I am aware of chiastic structure and it's use in Good Omens, I just don't think this quite matches up.**

[arminthada]

Okay, I dare not reblog your response to the essay post because the length of it is already too much, so Imma continue/reply through this new ask instead! ---------------

First: Thank you! I'm delighted that you enjoyed my rambling essay so much! And if it's good, it's only because you asked the right questions and gave me this opportunity to yap! An answer is only as good as its question allows it to be, after all!

-----

Assuming that the paper receipt Win found in the last episode implied his missing? dead? dad was also caught up in some money laundering shady business at the temple, I think Win will play some kind of double agent character in S2 where he’s forced into both running shady temple business all the while reporting back to the RDJ-looking cop.

YES! I think Win's gonna find himself in a teeth-clench cooperation with Cop RDJ (and the feelings might be mutual until maybe the two of them reach an understanding as S2 progresses)!

That cop seriously has more things going on with him beyond what we glimpsed. He has very personal goals he wants to achieve—whatever means necessary. Could he actually be a personal friend of Win's father? Or someone who used to work with him? Is Win's father the common thread between Win and Cop RDJ?

I'm very interested in his side of the story, man!

----

To be honest, they’ve ended Monk Dol’s arc so well, I really don’t want to sacrifice his character’s integrity and beliefs for the sake of the narrative but I also badly need him onscreen again as the only character with a moral compass in this series full of peope without it ಥ_ಥ

Sadhu, you nailed my struggle! I know I shouldn't be attached, but bro, I am. Too late!!! Y'all made him too charismatic and earnest in his practice and conduct, and now you created one of the best religious-affiliated characters I've ever met in my personal list of fiction.

Imagine if Monk Dol was a real person I know!!! Yo, I'll do anything to be his kalyāṇa-mitta ("noble/virtuous friend;" Buddhist friendship characterized by camaraderie in helping each other improve while practicing The Noble Eightfold Path. It includes chastising each other for unskillful conduct, etc).

I like to point out that Monk Dol was also written to be afflicted with the Three Poisons (klesa) through his attachment to Dear, so he's actually flawed despite being the best boy person in the series. He showed delusion (moha) such as thinking Dear could ever be with him and that he should disrobe to be with her. He showed attachment (rāga), most obvious in his dream of Dear and that scene in the bathroom. The only klesa he exhibited the least, even when he had grown attached to Dear, was aversion or hatred (dosa), but it was still present—in his quiet resentment and growing regret over becoming a monk at too tender an age. He was growing averse to his life as a monk.

So I think, one of the many functions Monk Dol provided in สาธุ was also about a Buddhist's valorization of growth from mistakes. Instead of characterizing his lapse with Dear as a sort of fall in morality or failure in his religious duty, the emphasis was placed on how Monk Dol overcame his delusion. In Buddhist ethics, moral progress is extolled—more so than moral duty and moral adherence. It's all about effort, striving, and using your mistakes to learn; Monk Dol's character arc exemplifies that. One of the Buddha's lauded disciples was Aṅgulimāla, a serial killer, after all.

Okay LOOK I REALLY LIKE THIS GUY, OKAY

------

Whatever happens in S2, I hope S2 gives me lots of Monk Dol internal struggles, nothing I love more than a tortured gentle, kind soul (@ สาธุ scriptwriters, please don’t use my beloved Monk Dol as a sacrificial martyr though, HE’S SUFFERED ENOUGH) getting a bittersweet, hopeful-ish open ending.

OH SHIT. I... I'm also a sucker for tortured gentle, kind soul!!! Ahhhhhhh!

--------

I LOVE the scene you chose to make your new gif.

Because this Dhamma talk was probably the hardest-to-understand of all. I'll tell you why...

In this one, Monk Dol was explaining upādāna ("clinging; attachment"). However, he wasn't talking about the usual stuff about attachment like "don't be attached to money" "don't be attached to beauty" or "don't be attached to fame."

He's talking about attachment to things Buddhists think are good. Meditation. Making merits. Offering alms to monks. The rituals. He's saying that one should not even be attached to these good things. "It's easy to be attached to things that feel pleasant. But we should not be attached to them, too."

It's very counterintuitive. Buddhists are taught that all of these stuff are good and moral, so why not be attached to them?

Because if you're so stuck in doing them, it will also start to become a burden to your mind, and then it turns into suffering. But there's also more to it!

The Buddha had an analogy for this (I forgot in which sutta/sutra, though. Bruh yapped way too much and had a shit ton of sutta in the Pali Canon). Paraphrasing from my memory here:

The Dhamma is a boat. When you want to cross the river and reach the other side, you use the Dhamma (and related tools). But once you reach it and are now on land, do you still hold onto the boat? No. You discard it, having no longer need it on land. To cling to anything when it's no longer required causes dukkha.

This is what Monk Dol was also saying in that talk. Samadhi ("wisdom") during meditation is nice and pleasant, but true samadhi is knowing when to be detached from the pleasantry of meditation so that the "bliss" of it doesn't distract you from your real goal (of Enlightenment).

And this, I need to stress, was the Dhamma talk Monk Dol was giving in his first appearance. I was absolutely floored and impressed, man, because this isn't something someone with a more pop culture understanding of Buddhism can come up with. Again, fucking props to the scriptwriters and their advisors; they really know their shit!

----

Okay yea I am done rambling ahahhaha. Please, if you cook more The Believers gif set I will EAT THEM SO GOOD. I wish more people are into this shit, goddamn. And I can't wait for Season 2!!!

(You have no idea how happy I am to find a fellow appreciator like you!)

Thank you Lyn for once again blessing me with even more insights into the brilliant writing and details in the characterisation of Monk Dol (i don't deserve this. cries happy tears ಥᴗಥ. months and months of waiting and lurking in the สาธุ tag for fellow สาธุ appreciators has finally come into fruition. i truly have no regrets spending hours screencapping สาธุ. always said they were purely self-indulgent but i must admit i always secretly hope people would come across them and gave the series a chance).

I didn't think I could love Monk Dol more but you have truly proven that Monk Dol is truly in fact best flawed boi monk. In a series with such a sensitive topic, I understand that careless writing could have easily made him a terrible character or cause great controversial or mixed reactions but I do think the writing for Monk Dol was just sophisticated enough and it feels like there's much care in the crafting of his character (my beloved Dol).

Kudos to Pup who plays Monk Dol as well, because I would have never guessed that he isn't a professional actor but the frontman of a rock band (funnily enough i've been listening to Potato (his band) forever but i didn't register that they're the same person until I started watching interviews and they start asking Pup about how does it feel to transform from a rock singer to a monk).

i shall end this ask with a gif encapsulating my exact reaction of Monk Dol's first Dhamma talk/sermon

[poeedamerons]

It's not just that the book was better; there are movies and series that have successfully brought the book to life. Personally, I'm not a fan of the 'the book is better than the movie/series' argument because it's fundamentally flawed. The book will ALWAYS be better. It has the advantage of being the source material and allows for an in-depth exploration of characters, places, and situations, unlike a movie/series, which is restricted by screen time and budget. While this limitation poses challenges, it doesn't render the task impossible.

Adapting a complex book is no easy feat. While it may not be possible to capture all the intricate prose and rich details on screen, there are ways to work around it. Creating a coherent timeline, incorporating relevant flashbacks, building tension, mystery, and emotional impact are all possible. However, when you end up changing nearly everything from the original, the result is a feeble attempt at adaptation.

In my opinion and that of many others, "The Book Thief" was a satisfactory adaptation. Did they have to make significant cuts? Yes. However, they managed to preserve the essence of the story, its impactful characters, and crucial events. Some may disagree and consider the adaptation unsatisfactory, and that's understandable. Yet, I have yet to come across a single good review of the adaptation of "All the Light We Cannot See.

The book is undeniably brilliant, and there's no argument there, but this adaptation was more of a complete overhaul, incorporating some elements from the book. They completely mishandled the timeline, flashbacks and character backgrounds.

For instance, in the series, they introduce Uncle Etienne as a functional, Hugh Laurie-like character. However, just two (?) episodes later, they quickly unveil his traumatic experiences during World War 1 in a fleeting moment (I dont even remember if they mention the devastating loss of his brother). The fast-paced narrative hardly allows for the emotional impact that the book meticulously builds over time.

Contrastingly, in the book, we encounter Uncle Etienne as a deeply troubled and eccentric man who chooses to seclude himself from society for decades due to the severe post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his experiences in World War I. At first, readers might dislike his grumpy demeanor and distant relationship with Marie Laure, who relies on him as her sole family, especially given the uncertainty surrounding her father's fate. However, as the book unfolds, the profound reasons behind Uncle Etienne's behavior are unveiled, prompting a heart-rending realization that induces regret for any initial negative sentiment.

His reluctance to engage with the events of World War II is completely understandable, given that he is still grappling with the haunting memories of the previous war. His eventual decision to confront the Nazis (whom he despises) and assist the resistance by broadcasting crucial information represents a significant turning point in his character development in the book, and ONLY happens because Marie Laure gives him the courage to do so.

While it's understandable that the show couldn't depict this in detail, they could have easily tried. This aspect of the story could have been effectively conveyed and would have undoubtedly evoked strong emotional reactions. It had the potential to move viewers to tears. However, the series lacked the necessary emotional depth and character growth, ultimately robbing Uncle Etienne of the depth and richness of his life story.

Furthermore, the way the book leaves subtle clues for us to piece together the revelation that Uncle Etienne and his brother were the ones narrating the science broadcasts that Werner and Jutta grew up listening to is truly exquisite. This element could have been gradually unveiled to the audience, allowing us to savor the process of connecting the dots. However, I don’t even remember how this goes on the series as this was more a tale of Werner and his adventures in Saint Malo than anything else.

If you're watching the show and finding it difficult to understand why there are so many criticisms, it might be because they boldly labeled it as an adaptation, even though it hardly resembles one. It doesn't feel like an adaptation at all.

To you, Uncle Etienne might come across as a super cool character, whereas to us, he was portrayed as an utterly melancholic, and reclusive individual. He lived as if he were already dead.

If you're enjoying the show without having read the book, that's perfectly fine. How would you even notice the differences if you had no prior exposure to the story and characters? It's virtually impossible. However, once you do, you'll comprehend why it took Doerr ten years to write and why it was awarded the Pulitzer.

[thessalian]

Faerun!Alisaie vs Cazador Szarr

On the way to the ramparts

Astarion: Wait. I thought we were heading for the House of Hope via that diabolist. This is--

Alisaie: Well, we can do that if you want, but I kind of figured you didn't want that whole thing with Cazador hanging over your head for longer than necessary. Whatever mix of dread and anticipation you've got is as much a chain as anything else you're struggling with, so I figured getting it over with?

Astarion: ...You're right. Yes! We can do this!

Shadowheart: Are you sure we should actually bring him along to this? I mean, if Cazador wants to do that ritual and Astarion is integral to that, isn't that just ... aiding and abetting? Also us potentially having to fight what you keep calling an UberVamp?

Alisaie: Nah. Astarion's a sneaky little shit, and Cazador can't enritual what he can't see. And if he does manage to spot Astarion, we'll just yank him out of whatever ritual circle's kicking around.

Shadowheart: ...That sounds like a lot of extra effort.

Wyll; Alisaie: He deserves to face his former master!

Shadowheart: ...Right. I forgot. Heroes with a need for narrative synchronicity.

Astarion: It means I probably get to stab Cazador into mince, so I am perfectly alright with this.

Alisaie: You should be even more alright with the fact that I couldn't find any sewer entrance to Cazador's manor so you get to skip being knee-deep in sewage. Unless you know of one.

Astarion: Alisaie ... he's a vampire. What on earth would he have to put in a sewer?

Alisaie: I assume he has thralls? And thralls have bodily functions? And there's ... erm ... the 'meal containers'?

Astarion: What a charming way to describe a corpse.

Alisaie: Also, maybe an underground escape route in the event of someone lighting his whole fucking manor on fire?

Astarion: ...All right, now I'm wondering why he didn't put in a sewer. Or a ... a catacomb or something.

Alisaie: Maybe he did and you just never went there. Anyway, I know you're a little on a hair-trigger about this, but let me at least talk to the guards--

Astarion: Thralls. They'll be fairly brainless.

Alisaie: Then lying my way past them shouldn't be too hard, should it?

Astarion: ...Probably not, no. Do I get to feed from any of these people at any point?

Alisaie: If they try for your blood, you trying for theirs is nicely reciprocal.

Astarion: *grin* Oh, goodie.

And into the manor we go

Alisaie: I talk my way past them and get a key ... and the door just gets unlocked for us. That's just aggravating.

Vilhelm: All must be perfect for the master's ascension! ...Wait. Astarion. Why aren't you downstairs for the ritual?

Astarion: I-- Oh, I'm not explaining myself to you. What is wrong with this door?

Vilhelm: The master is not to be disturbed! His ascension is at hand! You're too late!

Shadowheart: So if we just ... go away and let him try, and fail because Astarion's not there...

Astarion: I. Want. To. STAB HIM.

Alisaie: What he means is that he obviously needs to get down there. For the ritual. So if you could do something about this door, that'd be great.

Vilhelm: Only Dufay has the key, and then there's the spells on it, and we left the dictionary in--

Astarion: Oh, wonderful. The one person we might actually have to fight in here and he's not even someone I can bite.

Alisaie: He means 'thank you for the information; we'll go talk to this Dufay ... person'. Later!

Astarion: He is a literal skeleton, Alisaie.

Alisaie: That just means that if I have to literally shake him down for the key, it'll be nicely resonant!

One barrage of threats and lies to a skeleton and another sort of scavenger hunt later...

Alisaie: Why ... does he have a cursed corpse ... in a bedroom?

Astarion: Clearly to keep people from ransacking the place. Though I'm now starting to understand why you keep dragging around all those scrolls. They do come in handy.

Alisaie: Yeah, it was that or the teleportation arrows. Anyway, that's not what I meant. Fine, curse an object and let it fill a room with necrotic ow-ow-ow, I get it. But why something that's going to fucking decompose?

Astarion: That's ... actually a good point. But something to ponder later, perhaps. Let's see about this ritual.

Alisaie: *opens the door*

Throne Room: *is not full of ritual*

Throne Room: *is instead full of bats, rats, wolves, werewolves, and a lot of dead people*

Werewolf: Hey! You're meant to be downstairs for the ritual!

Astarion: I will not be ordered around by one of Cazador's new mongrels in my own house!

Alisaie: What he means is--

Astarion: No. What I mean is that you are in the way of me giving Cazador a final death and that is not a thing you want to do right now! I-- Wait. There actually is a downstairs?

Alisaie: *low murmur* Shadowheart? You gonna be okay with fighting wolves?

Shadowheart: Actually, given that I wasn't actually saved from wolves by the priestesses of Shar, I'm looking forward to murdering a few.

Alisaie: Good, because our normally silver-tongued vampire just kind of started a fight--

Vilhelm: Waitaminit. You said you wanted to stab the master! I--

Shadowheart: *stabs Vilhelm very, very hard*

Astarion: Oh, come on. I wanted human blood! I've fed on enough vermin, thank you. And yes, you canine bit of filth, I was referring to you!

Wyll: I'm not sure whether you've been a good influence on Astarion or a bad one? But he's definitely taking a few pages out of your sheet music, Alisaie.

Valderola: Hey! Stop stabbing up the master's nice clean throne room! All must be clean for the master!

Alisaie: It was already full of corpses and blood and-- Oh, fuck it; hey, Astarion! You said you wanted human blood?

Valderola: waitwut--

Astarion: *FEEDS*

Alisaie: Thank you. As for you little buggers-- *grabs lute, aims, begins Thunderwave-divebomb*

Wyll: I got these! *Misty Steps into line of fire*

Alisaie: ofuck-- *THUNDERWAVE*

Werewolves; Bats; Wyll: *go flying*

Alisaie: Sorry!

Wyll: My fault! Sometimes I forget you do magic!

Stabnation: *ensues*

After a fair bit of wandering around

Astarion: He said the ritual was downstairs. Why have we spent this much time wandering around the attic?

Alisaie: Ritual notes, and an awful lot of money.

Astarion: Oh. Right. Yes. Thanks for that.

Alisaie: Anyway, info-gathering over, let's see what we-- Oh. Hey. This looks like some of those lifting things we saw in the Shar temple.

Astarion: There really is a downstairs! I wonder what's down there. ...And honestly why, if there's a convenient catacomb, he didn't just keep all his treasure down there.

Alisaie: Well, we're about to find out. Maybe he just needed room for other things.

A surprisingly long time later...

Alisaie: *porting back to the oddly convenient teleport point* Okay, I'm back. Sorry about the wait.

Shadowheart: You fired a transposition arrow down a hole, and then you were gone for at least ten minutes, and now you're back and-- Where did you go? Anything could have been down there!

Alisaie: *holds up Pelorsun Blade* Pretty nice 'anything', huh? I figured if the githyanki creche had shiny radiant weapons in the basement, why shouldn't this place? Also, from what I know about Arcana, this thing works extra-specially well against undead. Which is about what we need right now.

Astarion: So ... the 'other things' Cazador needed room for down here included the means of his own destruction. That ... does not scan.

Alisaie: If it helps, I did find a route into the sewer tunnels. Probably way easier for someone who can turn into mist to get to than ... well, me, but it's a useful thing to know just in case.

Astarion: Still, again, what is he keeping down here?

Sebastian: ...You.

Astarion: Wait. You were-- but you-- you were...

Alisaie: Cazador's DoorDash order?

Wyll: Alisaie!

Astarion: Frankly, yes.

Wyll: ...oh.

Astarion: He told me he fed on you! Just that! Why are you all still alive? ... Well. For varying definitions of the term, anyway.

Alisaie: ...Yeaaaaaah remember that thing that was all about "every thrall of Cazador's dies to fuel this ritual"? I kind of thought that eight wouldn't be enough for UberVampdom.

Sebastian: ...How long have we been down here?

Alisaie: Look, just ... sit tight. We're going to go murder the master vampire that did this to you and then we'll ... see what we can do.

Shadowheart: I'm ... conflicted. On one hand, that's a lot of vampire spawn to free. On the other hand...

Astarion: I ... I owe them more than this, after what they went through because of... But ... if I want to ascend, they die regardless. So I suppose we can't kill them yet, anyway...

Alisaie: *facepalm* Dead vampire first. Everything we need to decide right now depends on dead vampire. Can we all just please agree on dead vampire?

Wyll; Shadowheart; Astarion: YES.

Alisaie: THANK you. Now. Here's the plan.

One short planning session later

Shadowheart: *from the shadows* *casts Daylight*

Cazador: OW OW OW wait what?!?

Astarion: *Sneak Attacks a werewolf stone dead from the shadows*

Wyll: *Misty Steps into the middle of the ritual stage* *Eldritch Blasts several of the bats into mush* COME GET SOME, UNDEAD GROTESQUERIES--

Fallen Gur: *takes a fairly big chunk out of Wyll*

Wyll: ...maybe don't come get that much...

Alisaie: *much-better-aimed Thunderwave getting two fallen Gur and a werewolf away from Wyll and killing two bats outright*

Shadowheart: *annihilates a couple of more enemies and takes a good chunk of Cazador's health with Spirit Guardians*

Cazador: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE?!? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

Alisaie: ELFSONG TAVERN SAYS HELLO, YOU FESTERING SACK OF COWARDICE AND STOLEN BLOOD!

Cazador: ...Right. Come here, you-- Oh.

Astarion: Shit.

Cazador: Right, you. You've brought this to my door; INTO the ritual circle.

Astarion: Shit shit shit shit SHIT--

Wyll: ...where did his armour go?

Alisaie: Let's just pray it comes back. *Misty Steps over to Astarion; yanks him out of the ritual circle*

Astarion: Thanks for that.

Shadowheart: *facing off against Cazador* Ow ow ow ow STOP THAT I AM TRYING TO KEEP FOCUSING ON SPIRIT GUARDIANS OW--

Alisaie: *Misty Steps back over to there and stabs the everliving shit out of Cazador*

Cazador: *turns into mist and hides in sarcophagus*

Alisaie: Wow. He really is a festering sack of cowardice and stolen blood.

Astarion: Right. He dies.

Yet More Bats: *attack Astarion*

Alisaie: Clear. The field. FIRST. Whatever satisfaction you get out of him dying will be ruined if you do it with bats taking chunks out of your ass!

Astarion: ...*sigh* Oh, fine.

Stabnation: *continues*

After clearing the field

Astarion: NO HEALING SLEEP FOR YOU! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE IMMINENT DEATH!

Cazador: Back off, worm!

Astarion: Right. Ritual time!

Alisaie: ...Are you really sure you want to do this?

Astarion: Yes! I'll have all the power, and I can be of so much more help with this whole tadpole thing. I'll stay at your back, I swear it!

Alisaie: ...Astarion. I thought you wanted to be free. Power's just another cage. You have to keep feeding it. I thought you wanted to be ... well, you, not what Cazador made you.

Astarion: ...I...

Alisaie: *holds out Astral Tadpole* The Emperor gave me this. It's supposed to ... change me. Or whoever I give it to. It grants power ... but the cost is it making me part-illithid. Note I have not used it, nor have I offered it to any of you. Power at the cost of changing yourself that much? It didn't seem worth it. You are all yourselves, and I wouldn't have you any other way.

Astarion: ...You're right. I can be better than ... this. *punts Cazador* But I'm not such a bastion of virtue that I won't really enjoy this. *messily murders Cazador; then has himself a little breakdown*

Controller Person: *searches in vain for the dialogue option to hug the poor sod*

Astarion: ...All right. What do we do about the spawn?

Alisaie: Well, they've been badly mistreated and are probably a little feral, and that's a problem when blood-drinkers are involved. But...

Astarion: I can handle that. *releases spawn* Petras. First ... I suppose I'm sorry about calling you a little shit and burning you with the sun and everything. Just ... take those thralls down to the undercity - hells, take them to the Underdark if you have to - but keep them in line, all right?

Petras: Um ... I ... I guess that's an answer to the whole 'what the fuck do we do now?' question, so I guess...

Alisaie: Oh, and if you see a little tiefling girl down there? Run in the opposite direction. She is not the easy snack she appears to be, I promise you.

Petras: ...You people are weird, but okay.

Various Vampire Spawn: *exit, stage undercity*

Astarion: Right. That's that. Can we please get out of here with a minimum of looting? If we're going to destroy those tadpoles and everything, I want to enjoy the sun while I can.

Alisaie: Well, that's part of why I did most of the looting before we came down here, but Gale will like this, annnnnd ... ooh. Oh, look at that pretty sword...

Astarion: *little smile* Well, I got freedom and revenge and satisfaction out of the whole thing. I suppose you're owed something as well.

Alisaie: Oh, I got it. You're free. You don't have to fear him anymore, and can just ... live. The Emperor made a damn good life for himself with hiding himself and only feeding on shitheads; I bet you could do the same, and that's plenty 'something' for me. ...But the blade's a nice bonus.

Astarion: ...Soppy sentiment belongs somewhere with a bit more natural sunlight, Alisaie; we--

Gur Warriors: Did you just release a bunch of vampire spawn into the sewers?

Alisaie: We also murdered a vampire lord who was about yay close to fucking ascending, so I think the words you're looking for are 'thank you'. Also, we've got them being looked after. The crime rate and vermin population is going to go way down after this, I can tell you. Plus I figure at worst, some are bound to die to Bhaal cultists down there. And they'll take some Bhaal cultists with them, so great for everyone all around, honestly.

Astarion: Yes, and also ... I know we took some of your people and we might have been misinformed about them just being ... erm ... food. So your people might be down there too. They might not be in wonderful shape, mind you, but they're still people and not beholden to Cazador anymore. Just make sure they have access to very rare meat and you'll probably be fine.

Wyll: Did he just suggest reuniting those spawn with their families?!?

Alisaie: *elbows Wyll very hard in the ribs*

Wyll: *wheezing* ...sorry...

Gur Warrior Lady: ...Well, then I guess thanks are in order. When you have need of warriors to fight this Absolute, we will be with you.

Alisaie: ...Wasn't expecting that, but thanks...

Wyll: *slowly recovering* Elfsong Tavern and drinks?

Alisaie: Elfsong Tavern and bath. Might want to sneak through the sewers for that, though, since I'm getting a little tired of walking through Baldur's Gate covered in gore.

Astarion: I mean ... I'm mostly numb to everything right now, as that was ... A Thing, as you put it, but ... honestly, I'm still living for how it's just accepted. Had I known I could swan around the lower city covered in blood without attracting attention, the last couple of hundred years would have been very different.

Shadowheart: Anyway, yes, bath sounds like a fine idea. I'll scrub your back if you scrub mine.

Astarion: *opens his mouth*

Wyll: *elbows Astarion very hard in the ribs* Shutupandletmehavethisorsohelpme...

Alisaie: Sounds fantastic. We'll have to let the boys have the tub first, though, since we'll probably want some time to ... luxuriate. I'm sure they can hurry it up a bit. Unless they decide to share--

Wyll; Astarion: ALISAIE!!!

Alisaie: Aaaaaand now that I've lightened the mood, let's get gone.

((Controller Person's Note: Seriously, I had Shadowheart cast Sunlight on the middle of the ritual place from stealth, Astarion stayed stealthy for two solid rounds, and it took another two for Cazador to get close enough to kick off the cutscene that locks Astarion into the ritual. Which meant the field was half-cleared and Cazador fairly damaged before that was even a thing.))

[bullshit-usa]

Ok, Israel doesn't see US as an ally, the question then becomes why would Israel destabilize and destroy its largest and most loyal piggy bank?

In what manner does Israel currently control the US that destroying its functions is the only way to maintain it?

The “destabilization” comes from the act of using America as a piggy bank and a war machine. It naturally destabilizes the country, but they see it as something necessary. That’s what you don’t understand, these aren’t sane individuals. These people believe they are God’s chosen people, that everyone is out to get them for no reason, and it is their right to own and accumulate as much as possible to bring back their messiah, a future of global peace and harmony, and they enact war and are currently enacting genocide across the West to bring that into being. Here’s two pivotal quotes from the Torah;

“The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” Isaiah 11:6-9

“And at that time there will be no hunger or war, no jealousy or rivalry. For the good will be plentiful, and all delicacies available as dust. The entire occupation of the world will be only to know God...the people of Israel will be of great wisdom; they will perceive the esoteric truths and comprehend their Creator's wisdom as is the capacity of man. As it is written (Isaiah 11:9): "For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of God, as the waters cover the sea.” Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 12:5

This is a foundational belief in post WW1 & WW2 mythology, that we can bring about a world that is harmonious and without war, and it’s centric to the Jewish religion. They are trying to bring about the conditions that would bring about their messiah, with Judaism being seen as the truth.

Israel has extensive spy networks. Israel uses blackmail to keep politicians in line. Jewish people in general are tribal and use their connections to maintain or influence power. Good example comes from today, where a Jewish visitor (a “mentalist”) on the Joe Rogan podcast revealed secret information (ATM pin, SSN, names of childhood friends). This is weeks after Joe Rogan supported Ye’s HH and after sharing his own doubts about the Holocaust narrative. It’s an explicit threat. Chalk it up to a coincidence, but the possibility that it’s not should be enough to cause concern.

Another point is that you cannot comprend how these people think. They don’t think they��re destroying the U.S., they think they’re doing what’s necessary for the Jewish people and the state of Israel. They think they’re improving the U.S. They’re using political influence from billion dollar organizations and Congresses (as I fucking explained in my post on Project Esther, you don’t seem to have a good memory) in order to gain a militaristic advantage over their neighbors and for economic interests too, bullying neighboring countries into being weak and subservient is understood as an act of imperialistic aggression everywhere else in the world, except for Israel. No logic can apply to Israel.

They also exploit loopholes in the system. It’s not necessarily damaging the system, but only indicating it’s flawed. But then they lobby against any attempts to fix it and use their connections to shut down criticism across all platforms. Project Esther. I’ve gone over this before.

Read my posts and commit them to memory before asking me the same questions over and over.

[the-far-bright-center]

#like the things is that the fact Anakin could love so deeply was one of his virtues!#not just love but his anger at injustice! I love thinking about Anakin swearing he'd free the slaves#and Anakin's love and his anger are traits Luke AND Leia both share! they're foundational to who they are!#the difference is both of them had the tools and environment to process and use those emotions properly#the Jedi were unequipped to deal with someone motivated by love and anger. Palpatine was also grooming Anakin and it's insane#that anyone would give some old man unsupervised access to a child in their care but maybe that's just more proof#of how fucked up the Senate is that that behaviour can go unremarked#but my point is that love and anger are both considered virtues in the Original Trilogy#I also wonder if maybe part of it is because most people focus on love as Anakin's love for Padme which is romantic?#like people get weirdly dismissive about the power of romantic love on tumblr sometimes#but while Padme is certainly the major one because she's the one he can express love freely with and have it reciprocated#Anakin also loved Obi-wan but they can only say it when fighting to the death#hell Anakin fucking adored his mother and he can only see her on her deathbed#the issue isn't that Anakin loves (or gets angry). it's that he's has an upbringing and is in an environment and has experiences#that make it incredibly difficult to love healthily#like the point is that Jedi can certainly feel love but you get the sense they're not supposed to express it towards each other#ANY kind of love. not just romantic#compassion yes. respect yes. but not love#but love is what keeps us grounded where compassion fails to I think#it's messy and not always right but it's very human and necessary where larger systems and ideals fail#you can't just remove fallible but powerful personal relationships from how society functions#not to mention if Anakin wasn't motivated by love... do you think that'd stop Sidious? I'm sorry but ideology can be just as#easily manipulated as love or anger#anyway this is a story with a Cosmically Correct Answer and the answer is Love#the Jedi were not evil. the Jedi were overall good. what happened to them was evil. but they were still wrong#the narrative SAYS THEY WERE WRONG#like the prequels are literally a tragedy the Jedi can be both wrong and have failed and still be good people#who didn't deserve what happened to them#this is a space fairy tale. a greek tragedy combined with the hero's journey. it doesn't have to make real world sense (via @in-fair-verona-we-set-our-scene)

Great tags! And yes, it’s important to note that it wasn't Love (romantic, platonic, or otherwise) that caused Anakin to fall, but rather his Fear of Loss. That oft-quoted line 'beware your heart' is not saying beware of loving people, it's saying beware of 'the dragon of that dead star', aka the fear and the doubt that creeps into Anakin's heart and mind, and which Sidious exploits. And yes, Anakin's ability to love deeply (and to feel righteous anger through that love!) is his STRENGTH. In another version of events, the Jedi would have realised that the fact their Chosen One had been born a slave and had experienced injustice personally actually made him the ideal person to free the galaxy from its chains. The fact that Anakin feels so deeply means he empathises with the plight of the downtrodden peoples of the galaxy in a way that the remote Jedi high in their ivory tower (who have removed personal connections from their lives) simply cannot. We're supposed to see that the Jedi failed to appreciate this aspect of him, because they didn't understand the true meaning of the Chosen One prophecy or HOW it had to be fulfilled (aka through an act of self-sacrifice performed out of love, the only way to break the cycle of retaliatory violence). They thought Anakin needed to be a 'perfect' Jedi in the Old Order's definition of one, when what Anakin needed was simply to be permitted to LOVE and BE LOVED, and to have the unconditional love of his family. Love and family are two things clearly forbidden to the Prequels-era Jedi, and yet these are what saves the galaxy.

I think there’s something rather strange going on with all the folks who insist that the Jedi Order in the PT was right and didn’t forbid love and Anakin should just have followed their teachings when the whole point of the prequels is that they are prequels. They come before the OT, and the OT proves the Jedi wrong. They literally do not make sense if they don’t do that.

Luke, in the original trilogy, gains his ultimate triumph, his ultimate victory, because he loved in defiance of the teachings of the old Order. He quite literally had the ghosts of the past telling him, explicitly and without ambiguity, that he has to put his love for his father aside and kill him, as is the duty of a Jedi. Luke has the weight of millennia of teachings weighing down on his shoulders, telling him they knew and know better than a young, inexperienced man barely out of his teenager years. That he should follow their teachings or be destroyed. That is an immense weight to carry, and many people would and explicitly have given in to it in-universe. What are your feelings and ideals in the face of such immense legacy, after all?

But Luke doesn’t give in.

He doesn’t bend.

He says “I may be young, and I may be new, but I believe to my heart and soul that love matters more than this legacy. Matters more than your teachings.” And he says this to the ghosts of his mentors. That is such a powerful moment and one I can’t believe George Lucas didn’t create it deliberately for even a second. This young man, being told he has to kill or die trying for a system that is dead or dying itself, that couldn’t survive itself, and refusing to do so. He is the living refusing to continue the violence of a dead generation. He is the young man refusing the draft into a war the old generation started, saying “peace and love matters more than you being right.” He is the embodiment of breaking the cycle.

And the movies vindicate him.

The main villain vindicates him with his last dying breath.

Darth Vader, dying, says “You were right.” and admits he and his were wrong. The main antagonist, Luke’s nemesis, in the face of his son’s immense, defiant love, gives way and does the impossible: he comes back to the light and dies a Jedi. The very thing the old Order says was impossible.

They were wrong. They have to be. The narrative demands it, the movies don’t make sense without it.

The solution was never to continue the cycle of the old Order, or Luke would have failed there, would have failed when he said “I am a Jedi, like my father before me.” And claimed that defiant, deviant, condemned definition of being a Jedi over the one presented to him by the Grandmaster of the old Order. If the old Order was right, Luke would have to be wrong. Be wrong about love, be wrong about laying down the sword, be wrong about refusing to fight. He would have to be wrong.

But the old Order is dead, explicitly killed by a monster, in some part, of their own making. It’s members only existing as bones in the ground or ghosts speaking from beyond the grave. They did not deserve it, it should not have been inflicted on them, but the narrative is clear on this: “The old way is dead, and was dying for a long time before that. Long live the new.”

Luke is that new. Luke is the breaking of the cycle, the reforging of swords into ploughs, the extended hand. Luke says “I don’t care how much I was hurt, I refuse to hurt you back, and you don’t need to hurt me either.”

“We can end this together and choose love instead.”

And Darth Vader, killer of the Jedi, End of the Order, lays down his arms as well, and reaches back as Anakin, saying “You were right.”

It wasn’t Obi-Wan, Yoda, Mace, Qui-Gon, or even Ahsoka who achieved the ultimate victory in the end, following the tenants of the old Order. It was Luke. Young, inexperienced Luke, who saw that the age of legacy handed to him was only history, that the sword handed to him as his life was only a tool, and that the decrees of the dead were only advice. And he took it all, said “thank you for your experience, but I’ve got it from here,” and laid it all down to instead extend an open hand towards his enemy.

And his victory, his ultimate triumph, his vindication, was that he was proven right when his enemy reached back and became just another person. Just another person, just like him.

The Jedi did not deserve what happened to them, and they did not deserve to die. But the story is clear on this: the Jedi of old were wrong, and the Jedi of new, the Last Jedi, was right. No sword or death will ever end the rule of the sword or end the bloodshed. But love?

Love can ignite the stars.

[mightyflamethrower]

What Oregon High School Boys Do to Tampon Dispenser in Their School Bathroom Reaches Legendary Status

Even students in Oregon who aren't required to learn much of anything to graduate can spot BS when they see it. And now, what these students in a Portland area suburb did to a tampon dispenser in their school bathroom has become the stuff of local — meme-able —  legend. 

Advertisement

The story of the tampon dispenser in a boy's bathroom at Lakeridge High School in Lake Oswego, a Portland suburb, is circulating once again on social media. No, this is not a story of artful uses for tampons, such as for treating nosebleeds or wound treatment, but as an apparent political statement to Oregon's slaves to wokeness in the legislature. 

For the frail-minded among us, it's necessary to add the biological fact that men don't menstruate and therefore don't need tampons. And it doesn't matter how you feel about it. It just is. Even the Olympian who claims that his "testicles don't make me less of a woman" would understand this. 

The vandalism started last May, during the wind-down of the school year when users of the boy's bathroom took the tampon dispenser off the wall and placed it in a toilet for a maximum political statement. Not once but many times. What they did to the tampon dispenser has made them heroes. Yes, even in woke Oregon. 

In May, the principal made a school-wide appeal in a letter sent to parents begging the boys to stop trashing the tampon vending machine in their bathroom because under state law it had to be there and it was costly and cumbersome to have to keep putting it back up.

In her letter to parents last May, Principal Desiree Fisher explained that under Oregon's Menstrual Dignity Act schools are required to provide female menstrual supplies to boys. She said, "Oregon's Menstrual Dignity Act – passed in 2021 as House Bill 3294 – requires schools to provide menstrual products in gender-neutral, male and female restrooms" to make them available to the more than 500,000 students in Oregon schools and universities. 

This law was passed during the height of COVID, in 2021, which means that even at a time of fear, limited in-person lawmaking, tending to a novel pandemic, while schools were closed, Oregon Democrats felt it necessary to pass a law to make girls who want to be boys welcome in boys bathrooms. The purpose of the law they argued was so that "all menstruating students, regardless of gender, age, ability, socioeconomic status have the opportunity for safe, dignified self-care." Moreover, they flattered themselves that their new law would serve as an "antidote to the common narratives that say menstruation is something deserving of embarrassment and shame." 

No, it's not. Were that the case then they would have done this years ago and offered tampons for free in the bathrooms of people who menstruate—females. This is all about the trans agenda, of course, as this policy's critics undoubtedly know.

Spelled out in Oregon's law, written undoubtedly by woke lobbyists, were the, ahem, "four pillars of menstrual dignity," which sound so ridiculous that I had to screenshot them for you. 

The resurgence of the controversy over the tampon dispensers for boys is because of the WTF Portland Facebook page which just put up a meme about the tampon machines in the boy's bathrooms and was flooded with comments. 

A person named "Derwin" said that it was disgraceful and that they couldn't "imagine" why people were "disturbed over an underage child's natural bodily functions." The more than one hundred responses to the Portland wokester were along these lines: "Please tell me you understand that teenage boys don't menstruate" or "Imagine being so out of touch with basic biology you put a female hygiene product in a boy's bathroom or locker room."

moonbattery.com

[thedrarrylibrarian]

Several people have been kind enough to let me publish their thoughts on fandom, community, and queerness to celebrate Pride in the Library. Today's piece is a conversation between @academicdisasterfic and his boyfriend, @saintgarbanzo. If you missed it, @saintgarbanzo organized a fundraiser to help support @academicdisasterfic with funds for top-surgery. This fundraiser has met its goal, and is referenced to throughout their conversation.

In this conversation, @saintgarbanzo is chickpea in bold, and @academicdisasterfic is rooney, in regular text.

chickpea: ok baby. let's talk about the gift economy in fandom. it’s something that's part of our politics but many of us struggle with feeling like our worth is tied to our production, even in fandom. has your fundraising experience changed your understanding of those concepts for you?

rooney: Short answer: yes.

Long answer: I think part of what drew me to fanfiction in the first place was a complete divide from capitalism. It’s such a relief in this world of productivity culture. I started writing purely because I loved it and I never thought anyone would read my fics. But then people did, and that meant everything to me. After this fundraiser, I truly understand why the gift economy is so imperative to fandom. People are doing me a favour by donating to my surgery, reading my fics, or writing fics that I love to read. It still feels overwhelming to have as much support as I did. I haven’t processed it at all, I can’t actually fathom it, and I initially had this dread about how I was never going to be able to repay the fandom for what it did for me - it’s not true for all trans men, but for me, this surgery will save my life. But fic saved me too, and I know the same applies to many. When I thought about it like that, I realised that I would do the same thing for anyone here, and it would make me happy to do it. I’d never think they had to pay off that debt. The difference between capitalism and the gift economy is that one is about power and competition, and the other is about the cyclical nature of community. Debts don’t exist, because we don’t give from a finite pool of resources. We give to each other from an endless pool of infinite possibilities.

chickpea: i had that same realization. initially the only way we felt comfortable asking for help was by offering an exchange, but then the exchange wasn't really necessary. everyone just offered up their resources–money but also their time and talent and attention. i go back and forth between feeling guilty/indebted and trying to remind myself that this is how communities are supposed to function and i can feel grateful without feeling guilty. 

you talked about fandom's resistance to capitalism being an initial draw. what about its queerness? my first fandom interactions were very much based in fandom being a safe place to explore queerness. i want to hear about the relationship between your gender realizations and this community.

rooney: You know, I didn’t even think about it in that way - it was more, “I need a queer space, I want it to be a creative space”. It was so apparent to me, even before I knew I was trans, that whatever community I invested in had to have queerness at its core. Back in 2010 when I was figuring out my sexuality, fandom and shipping on Tumblr became really important to me, so I already knew it was there and when I started to explore it, that’s when a lot of gender stuff happened.

I think so many trans people have a more nuanced relationship with their body than is portrayed as the mainstream trans narrative of just being born in the wrong body. I worked very hard before learning I was trans to love and respect my body, and I’d never call it wrong. But reading about queer men fall in love was truly a lightning bolt moment. I’d always felt like an outsider in sapphic spaces - I’m bi/pan/whatever so I do really love women and femmes, that was never the issue - but I realised that I wanted my partners to be perceiving me differently, that I wanted to be treated as a queer man. I think the transgression and fight against purity culture in fandom was so crucial to it - the feelings of displacement and disconnection aren’t articulated the same way in published literature. One of my first fandom friends was @softlystarstruck who writes amazing trans characters with a variety of bodies and sexualities and genders. That sort of representation, of bodies coming together in all those different ways, specifically in sex, made me feel like there was hope - that transness and pleasure aren’t incongruent but born of the same instinct. We have to desire the things that will bring us joy.

chickpea: i love you

rooney: i love you too baby

chickpea: i love that you talked about displacement within queer communities. we've all seen and experienced queerphobia and racism, the demands for productivity, toxicity, discourse that's both helpful and harmful etc. you're someone in fandom who i really admire for the way you acknowledge and navigate the problematic parts of fandom while still focusing on building community in a healthy and joyful way.

can you talk a little bit about being a trans man who consciously decides to stay in hp fandom?

i’ve definitely struggled with my participation here and your fundraiser has brought up those arguments for me again, because we've harnessed this really material and transformative help for you as a trans person, that was carried pretty much entirely by this community.

rooney: Ooft, the big question. 

First off I have to make it clear that I completely understand trans people who don’t want to engage with the HP fandom, because it’s a fucking hard moral and ethical quandary to navigate. But also, I don’t think anyone, including other trans people, should judge those of us who find the inherent transgression of fandom empowering and freeing. That’s my go to answer.

I understand the ethical problems of HP and its fandom. The series is just flagrantly racist. It’s heteronormative, homophobic, and all around “ethically mean spirited”, as Ursula Le Guin so eloquently put it. But it’s still something that I loved, and more importantly, the fandom is so strong not in spite of the series' flaws, but because of them. The more broken it is, the more there is to fix - and we’ve put in Desi Harry and Black Hermione, we’ve written whole essays on why Wolfstar is canon, we’ve taken terrible things like “house elves love to be enslaved” and written complex, thoughtful interpretations of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed. We’ve fucked with it all. Some hasn’t gone far enough, particularly in regards to the way we think about and portray people of colour. But overall, we’ve improved upon something without a single cent from that work going to J.K. Rowling. I find people in this fandom have had a much deeper understanding of the problems in the series for the longest, because we examine it so critically and closely.

No one’s perfect, but we’re all trying - at least, most of us are - and we’re doing things that make the lives of trans people and other marginalised people better. And I’m a trans person who can attest to that, and I know you are too. Universal maxims like “any engagement with HP is transphobic!” don’t even begin to understand what fandom is, what it does, and why it exists. (Those universal maxims also tend to be hugely influenced by Western morality and the legacy of Christianity)

And yes - my fundraiser, and how this community came together to support a trans person in need, really shows all of it in a tangible way. The people here are here to support and uplift those who need it.

chickpea; i often fall into the trap of feeling like if my resistance doesn't transform my oppressors then it doesn't count. i’ve written posts about racism in fandom and a lot of times i still approach it from the position of like, how do i make this palatable, if i just say it with the perfect tone then it will be more approachable and i'll like, convert the racists. i write it with the idea that i have to reach the unreachable. but over and over what i see is that those posts strengthen the people already on my side. and i think it's the same when we're talking about the effects on queer people of engaging with hp. like, a lot of times the argument is that our silly little stories don't translate into real resistance, because people think of "real" resistance as legislative changes and boycotts, as efforts that transform and educate or punish oppressors. and our trans fanfic isn't convincing any terfs that they're miserable pieces of shit. but it bolsters other trans people. it supports us as individuals in this community. i think that the emphasis on whether or not hp fandom engagement translates to "real world" resistance focuses too much on that idea of reaching the unreachable people. we're here and we're doing it for each other, and i *know* it's effective because every queer person i've met in this community has a story of being strengthened by a fic, or a post, or an illustration.

i want to bring it back to joyfulness  in fandom. how has it encouraged you to cultivate more joy for yourself and others?

rooney: Honestly, I think that idea about remembering who we’re actually doing this for is so important. And also I believe we can plant seeds for change through joy. Because here’s the thing - change doesn’t originate from someone signing a piece of paper enacting legislation. That’s an important part, but that person enacts legislation because they represent their communities. Communities who believe joy is possible are stronger, because they have something to fight for. Joy is essential to resistance. I want to reach my community with my words and make them strong. And perhaps then those sentiments will reach further, because we will feel supported by each other and capable in our own lives of challenging bigotry and violence, knowing we are not alone. I am convinced that is how change happens. 

But I don’t just want to be happy so I can fight better. I want to cultivate joy because I deserve it, because I’m a person. Transphobic rhetoric dehumanises trans people, and that disconnect from our humanity can be internalised; perhaps we don’t feel worthy of indulgence, frivolity, the whimsical and beautiful and luxurious parts of life. Fuck that. Every human deserves access to joy. Treating myself cruelly will not change anything about me - depriving myself of joy when I fuck up doesn’t make me fuck up less the next time, and it doesn’t help the people affected by said fuck up. But treating myself well, indulging my creativity and dreaming and desires, actually does change me. It makes me better to the people around me, and better to myself, which means I have more energy for others and myself, which means I give more - it’s the gift economy, it’s cyclical. 

So fandom just makes me happy because it does. I love watching these dumb boys in love. And rather than try and analyse that or judge it, I let myself accept it, and go with it, purely because it’s joyful and life affirming and connects me with the world in a new and beautiful way. It’s really just the power of storytelling, I think - it calls to something primal in us. Maybe it reminds us that we’re humans in this world that wants us to be more like machines.

Fandom makes me joyful because it reminds me of my humanity, I think. With every fic I read or gorgeous artwork it’s like I’m accessing this part of my humanness that I have to keep segmented and separate from my work life, my life where I have to so much of the time be productive and disciplined. Here, I feel all of my flaws acutely and deeply, and all of my wonders, and it’s soul deep. How wonderful to be a human and to feel so keenly - how preferable to a life of trying to stay in the boring, lonely middle.

chickpea: your soulful intellectual rigor is very attractive

rooney: i think that’s my favorite thing you’ve ever said to me.

chickpea: a lot of times i have to frame my self-care and creative work in terms of resistance because that's the only way i can allow myself to have it. but you are so fundamentally right. cultivating joy isn't only for the collective, it's for me. i need to think about pleasure and joy less as a fuck you to the people trying to crush me, and more as a gift. giving yourself that gift of joy really does give that gift to others, and that's such a beautiful, community building action. 

thank you for the reminder that being in community is about engaging with our humanity. it's a perfect conclusion to our whole discussion. humanity is gorgeous and gross and so is fandom and stories are reflections of that, and those reflections are so special to so many of us.

thank you for letting me trick you into processing your feelings. 

rooney: for the record i encourage all of your attempts to trick me into processing my feelings. 

Thank you both for joining me in the Library. I loved what you both had to say about fandom being a gift of joy to ourselves and community being a gift we give to each other. Thank you so much for the privilege of reading your conversation as a way to celebrate Pride in the Library.

If you want more @academicdisasterfic, be sure to check out his work on AO3! I particularly love his fic like the sun came out, because it so accurately portrays the way people who truly love each other treat each other - with gentleness and kindness and patience.

If you want more @saintgarbanzo, be sure to check out his work on AO3 as well! I love Sweeten to Taste because I'm always a sucker for a beautiful food description, and also because I love the thoughtful and nuanced discussions Harry and Draco have in this fic about justice and forgiveness and what we all deserve even when we've been wronged and when we have wronged others.

🏳️‍🌈 Lots of Love and Happy Pride! 🏳️‍🌈

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Hi as an Iranian woman I really appreciate how you are talking about us while all of those lefties are rejecting us , our pain and struggles. They just want to hear what fit their own narrative and not what is true . Anyway I very much appreciate you and your work❤

Iran’s COMMUNIST party supports the protest but westerner leftists choose to side with an islamic fundamentalist regime?! For the dake of not being offensive!!!

"As an iranian revolutionary once said having a surface-level understanding of an important subject is more dangerous than being completely ignorant of it. That pretty much sums up these “leftists” who are aligning themselves with religious zealots."

Thank you.

It's astonishing and appalling to watch the freest, most empowered, and often self-described progressive, people in the world making excuses for a conservative, fundamentalist religious regime in the name of "sensitivity". They're siding with the fundamentalists. They're choosing religious fundamentalism over the women and men, both ex-Muslim and devout Muslim alike, who just want the same things that they take for granted.

"I read Alexis de Tocqueville, and I read about democracy, and I lived in countries that have no democracy, that have no founding fathers… so I don’t find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom because you don’t know what it is not to have freedom." -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali

They're, ironically, far less tolerant and far more hyperbolic about the conservative party in their own country. A party which is bounded by the limits of their country's constitution, and in some countries at the present moment, is not even in power. And even if you get them to actually admit and agree that Iranians suffer under a repressive, authoritarian regime, they'll find it necessary to insist that they do too, that they're in the same boat. Except that they don't. And they're not.

Oppression isn't about things being perfect, it's about the capacity for change. When fanatics concoct the notion of "defund the police," ("Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police - Because reform won't happen") and government representatives dutifully do so, to predictable results, despite the objections of those who will be most affected ("Defunding the Police Doesn't Poll Well. That Doesn't Matter.") you're not oppressed. Indeed, if you can shove through radical demands despite the objections of the overwhelming minority, and shout down all opposition, then you might well be the regime.

To therefore consider yourself as subjugated and oppressed as a regime that executes gay people, tortures and executes protestors, sentences adulterers to death, and actively starts a campaign to "make the surroundings unsafe" for "bad hijab", unsurprisingly culminating in the murder of Mahsa Amini, is perverted to say the least.

They act like people in Iran, Afghanistan and other countries are an alien species, separate from themselves. That this is just the way they like to live, and that people subjected to it just don't have the same ambitions, dreams or desires as they do.

It's hard to tell exactly why. Some part of it seems to be old-school racism; that people under Islamic regimes are brown people who aren't like us, and we can't think of them as being like us, can't judge their societies or rules because that would be western imperialism, and anyway they like it that way, they like their country functioning like that.

Some other part of it seems to be that if they acknowledge it, they have to admit that they don't really have it that bad. How can they pretend that they're the victims of skyscrapers, men sitting comfortably, and air conditioning after they've acknowledged ritual FGM, child marriage, acid attacks, or that hijab is not in fact empowering? How can they demand to get their way after they've admitted they're free, fortunate and privileged? (As mentioned, the expectation of accommodation itself refutes the idea of being "oppressed.") That is, it's a form of political, victimhood self-preservation. People might not pay as much attention, might not afford them as much political clout -- and honestly, much of the time, they probably shouldn't.

They think they're being culturally sensitive or inclusive or tolerant, or something. But as you mentioned, they're giving cover, making excuses for, and shielding from criticism, reactionary, conservative, fundamentalist religious zealots. Zealots who oppose and reject the sensitivity, inclusiveness and tolerance the apologists espouse, but won't say no to useful idiots acting as the western equivalent of morality police, enforcing blasphemy laws by scolding everyone as "Islamophobe" to silence them.

Suffice to say, none of that will work on me.

I hope that this will be a turning point for Iran, that inroads will be made as far as getting things to change. But even if not, that it's a wake up and reminder that this is not a deeply devout and conservative country, but an authoritarian regime imposing conservative fundamentalist dogma onto the entire population, regardless of their beliefs. And that we should be supporting the people, not defending the regime.

[a-couple-of-notes]

I love that line-up! I don't think you're wrong, but in an exercise of contrarianism, I'd like to offer a slightly different lineup:

Cassie's gotta stay Catherine Parr. Just from SIX's own interpretation of the historical figure, her song is based around acknowledging how much she loved Henry--but also how she can survive without it. (It'll never be better than it was, no, no / but I don't need your love). It fits so perfectly with late-stage Cassie, who has to reject a relationship with Jake in order to move on and preserve some of herself. It's got that kind of one-woman-army, do-what's-necessary firmness that's entirely Cassie.

I totally get Marco as Anne (although in a really ironic way--politics / not my thing is such a wild line for a Marco analogue). I don't think another song fits him better, but I will say the interlude Haus of Holbien strikes me as a very Marco song: flashy, yes, but concealing a sharp understanding of people and politics. Also, I think he'd have a lot of fun performing it.

Jake is Jane Seymour. As Jane must reckon with her complicated but enduring love for Henry, as well as the realities of the son she's responsible for, so too must Jake reckon with his stone-like loyalty toward his brother. Sure, Heart of Stone doesn't capture the usual traits we associate with Jake (his leadership, his strategic mind, his necessary coldness), but I feel like it does encapsulate his oft-overlooked naiveté/softness toward his family.

Ax is Catherine of Aragon. "No Way" is all about someone who has been unfailingly loyal to their partner; Ax has spent his whole life believing in the Andalite military culture. You've got me down on my knees / please tell me what you think I've done wrong / been humble, been loyal, I've tried to swallow my pride. Tonally, it's off for Ax (I could also see an argument made for Ax as Anne--kind of childish, chaotic, and his innocence about the Andalite military comes back to bite him in the ass; likewise, Marco could take Catherine of Aragon for its sassiness, loyalty, and Catholicism). Still, "No Way" lands very much lands in the crux of Ax's arc, which is like, where does the line get drawn? Where do you break, even if you've given this thing so much of your love and loyalty? I don't think book!Ax ever fully commits to saying "No Way," which is its own kind of tragedy, but hey, we're talking alternate universe wish fulfillment history here.

Rachel is Katherine Howard. "All You Wanna Do" is about a girl who, increasingly aware of the limited ways in which other people perceive her value, performs, and performs so well that she fools everyone else. The song is fun and girly but demanding, and hides the real darkness and mental strain beneath it. Both Katherine and Rachel desire normal lives--a real connection--but are denied that again and again, and in fact no one else really understands that that's what they want. Just as Rachel's death is sort of a climax to the Animorphs narrative, one potent beat that represents the magnitude of the toll this has taken on these kids, the end of "All You Wanna Do" essentially functions as the climax and turning point of SIX.

Unfortunately that leaves Tobias with Anna of Cleves, which doesn't fit at all, except maybe in the fact that both Tobias and Anna are sort of outsiders in their own narrative: Tobias by virtue of being a hawk, and Anna by virtue of having, like, the one good ending. That's a huge stretch, though, so I guess I'll just put him as the super-swing: apart from the rest of the cast but integral to the show working, able to see from everyone's POV while retaining a distinct sense of self.

I definitely think your picks are more solid overall, but this was a fun thought exercise! And I definitely enjoyed getting back to SIX. Lots of bops in there.

Animorphs but it's six the musical? I would love to see 5 of them trying to rip each other apart and the one person trying to have everyone stay calm.

I haven't seen Six. Anyone who has (and knows Animorphs) willing to weigh in?

[onetrueartform]

My opinion of MOM is only slightly changed from when I first saw it on Mother’s Day 2022. It has good entertainment value but, much like L&T, falls apart narratively when you look at it beyond that superficiality.

Largely forgettable. That’s the problem with a lot of the Phase 4 films. Wakanda Forever, Eternals and NWH are the only ones that really stick with you or stand out narratively. Don’t have that problem with the miniseries. But I digress. Back to MOM.

I’ve never understood people saying this is “Wanda’s movie” when A. she only has 29 minutes of screentime and B. Much like Stephen, she has no real arc. Her only role in this installment is to be The Villain™️, and she’s not even really the villain here. An antagonist sure. That damned book was manipulating her grief. I’ve also noticed the majority of discussion surrounding her actions here are pretty evenly split between people who have children versus people who don’t. Wanda stans, even childless and/or childfree ones, tend to fall into the former camp.

Stephen throws in her face TWICE that “her children aren’t real”. Yes, that’s true. But they were real TO WANDA. Yes, the Darkhold might’ve turned them into Living Emotional Crutches that Wanda felt she needed to have by whatever means necessary, but they were real to her. Stephen’s attempt at logic-ing Wanda out of this was always going to fail because this is an emotion-based situation. Wong recognized this and tried an emotional appeal on Mount Wundagore. Yes, it would suck knowing you in this reality can’t have what makes you happy but knowing your children are out there happy somewhere is the important thing. For all the grief some people have given him for bringing that up, 838!Wanda uses that exact same argument and it gets through to Sacred Timeline!Wanda.

Another thing, it’s very weak writing to rely on The Darkhold so heavily. In an unfortunate piece of particularly weak storytelling, the script beats you over the head with “the book is the real villain” while also presenting Wanda as the problem. Speaking of bad writing, it’s abundantly obvious to me that Waldron does not understand nuance. He thinks of these characters as surface-level archetypes and that’s it. There’s no depth to Stephen or Wanda or Wong, either Christine, or even America. Stephen is on the defensive the entire story. Wanda is the Darkhold’s latest sword.

Really, none of these characters have any arc whatsoever. They just exist to fulfill plot functions and have no agency. We talk and talk about how Wanda is incredibly OOC here, and that’s true, but you know who else is? Everyone else! Even characters we just met here or are MCU OCs (the 838 cast).

Stephen is reduced to a Pinball Protagonist from literally the moment he wakes up. Nothing he does effects anything or anyone. He doesn’t defeat Wanda or make her see reason, he doesn’t destroy the Darkhold, he doesn’t really DO anything. His plot function is “protect America” and that’s it. Weirdly enough, he does have a tiny sliver of an arc if you squint. I just couldn’t really tell you what it is.

Related to point 3, this is the most blatantly “plot-driven” installment of the entire MCU up to this point. The film really suffers for it.

It’s Evil Dead With MCU Characters. This is not a compliment or a positive comparison.

[compartmentalisinghmpf]

Why I’m so weird about (some forms of) guilt in fic (maybe)

I don’t want to write a big general meta here, just add some personal context to my (no longer quite so) recent “Complicated Feelings” post. Again, just very personal stuff, not a general statement of any sort at all. Warning: going on a very weird detour here - but my feelings on all this are coming from a very weird place, or at least I suspect they do.

This was kinda sorta prompted by my asking myself “why do I respond differently to Bro Strider than I do to various other characters who’ve also done bad shit; and arguably worse shit?” - but it’s really (mostly) not about that at all - though I do come back to it at the end.

In about a quarter century in fandom I think I’ve liked only four or five characters very strongly, in the fannish way (not necessarily always in the “ fan crush” way; but always in the sense of a strong fascination), who have not done terrible things. Other than that handful, it’s pretty much a parade of literal mass murderers there - though one may quibble with the exact term, in some cases. I’m using the word in a very broad sense, here. Ironically, some of them didn’t turn into, or turn out to be that until fairly late into proceedings, and I fell for them well before that, so it’s almost like I have some weird sixth sense. I didn’t know Cooper would get possessed. I didn’t know Methos was a Horseman of the Apocalpyse. I didn’t know John Crichton would start blowing up PK bases. Hell, Ramse started out as the walking conscience of the Ramse-Cole duality!

All of this is to say: these days, I’m really more surprised when a character I am fascinated by does not turn out to have massive amounts of blood on their hands, than when it turns out that they do. It just... keeps happening!

And oh my fuck, I’m German - second generation post-war, old enough for all my grandparents to have been adults during it, which means they probably Did Shit, even if just to the degree of looking away. And yes, this means I don’t actually Know, nobody ever talked about it, especially not the one I suspect saw or did the most, who barely ever talked at all about anything, and died earlyish, after years of dementia. The only one who told me anything at all ever was one of my grandmas, a tiny little bit, the last time I saw her before her death.

Ever since I began to understand German history a little bit, I felt a kind of distance between my grandparents and me.

And still it took me 22 years to realise that there’s quite possibly Something German going on with my obsession with guys who kill a lot of people.

For what it’s worth, the fictional mass murderers I attach to are usually about as far removed, in motivation and execution, from nazis as they could be - with the possible recent exception of Bob Howard, who operates - with great qualms, but also loyalty - in a political context that is beginning to resemble that, though still lacking the genocidal aspect. There’s other important differences there, too, but the differences - like the fact that his actions can, in the books’ universe, actually be justified - bother me even more than the similarities.

See, the characters I tend to like so strongly are usually Good Guys, of some description. Take this with all the usual reservations about terms like “good” or “bad” as applied to actual people; I’m talking about narrative functions, here.

They are, usually, Good Guys gone (or going) catastrophically wrong, in situations where doing something terrible begins to look necessary and justifiable. Maybe, sometimes, is necessary and/or justifiable. (So you might quibble also with the assessment that it’s “wrong”. But I’d argue that it still is, and that that’s important.)

(Notable exception to all this: Methos. He is... always and forever... a special case.)

So. If you make the mental link between these fictional Good Guys making “hard choices”, and my family history (and general German history), it’s all beginning to look... pretty skeevy.

There’s supposedly a  phenomenon among younger Germans, where basically everyone thinks their relatives were in the resistance, and of course, actually almost nobody was. Well, I know mine weren’t, and I never told myself that they were. But what I’m wondering, and what’s making me incredibly uncomfortable, is this: Am I subconsciously trying to tell myself, in this maximally indirect and convoluted way, that they may have felt it was all necessary and justifiable? Is that what’s going on here? I really, really hope it isn’t, because that really, truly, isn’t how the whole nazi thing worked - but it’s hard to be sure what’s going on in your own subconscious, because, well. It’s subsconscious.

Whatever really lies at the root of my fascination, though, I have always been slightly wary of it - long before I even began to suspect that there might be a legitimate reason to be uneasy. I’ve always felt like I was putting my empathy in the wrong place, I guess.

Perhaps as a consequence, I have always been incredibly picky in how, exactly, I like the topic of characters’ guilt dealt with in fiction. And make no mistake about it, I do like to see it dealt with in fiction. I keep coming back for it. (Again: German much?)

But at the same time, there are ways of handling it that are so strongly upsetting to me that it could count as a squick, and this has been the case since my very first contact with fic back in the late 90s.

My preferences do vary slightly, from character to character, and from situation to situation. Methos, who has a surviving victim (one out of tens of thousands) who confronts him, is a different story than John Crichton, who bombs military bases and ships and doesn’t ever meet any survivors other than Scorpius, who is also his torturer and thus hardly qualifies straightforwardly as a victim. And of course Methos and John also had fundamentally different motivations for what they did, and also did fundamentally different things, even if their overall body count may be similar. By modern morals, Methos has stooped considerably lower than John ever did. John is an actual Good Guy, who made the proverbial “hard choices”. We don’t know if Methos ever was that, but he certainly wasn’t during the Horsemen days.

But, to generalise as much as I can here, one of the central things to me, with guilt of the magnitude I’m talking about, is that there really is no way to “remove” it. Or to make up for it. Ever. Yes, I’m being very German, I know. But this is really important to me, in fic that deals with these topics.

The concept of forgiveness makes no sense to me, in this context. And any story that focuses on getting the characters to a place (mentally etc.) where they can receive it, is a story I probably do not want to read. Forgiveness cannot be the goal, here.

Which doesn’t mean that I am interested in punishment or revenge, instead.

Or that I take issue with stories that focus on victims, survivors, for their own reasons, getting to a place where they can forgive.

Remember that I’m talking about mass murder here, though; and that I’m talking as someone who - regrettably, disturbingly, inevitably(?) - keeps getting really invested in characters who have committed it. I read from the perpetrator’s POV. Or with an emotional focus on them, anyway.

With this constellation, it is important to acknowledge that there is no one who can forgive these characters, in a sense of actually relieving them of their guilt. There can’t be. Even if there are survivors, they can only ever possibly forgive a small part of the deeds; they cannot speak for the dead. (They also shouldn’t have to.)

(Yes, the same is technically true for any murder, even just a single one, and arguably much of the same discussion I’m having here could also be had about that. I’d still argue, probably, that there is usually something of a qualitative difference, but I’m not going to do another super weird essay on morally ranking different kinds of murder here; I did enough of that already, last year, and weirded out even myself in the process.)

So. Back to the topic at hand. The guilt is, and has to be, perpetual, and fic that doesn’t have that awareness built into its very bones, is fic I usually don’t want to read.

And yet I also don’t want to read about anyone wallowing uselessly in inescapable guilt, either. (Yes, I know, picky, picky...)

What I do want to read tends to be fic about characters who grapple with that inescapability in some way, who have to integrate that into their sense of self - accept it - without being paralysed by it, without letting it define them entirely, without becoming trapped and unable to move forward. In the end, it’s all about moving forward - without resolving that central tension, because that is fundamentally irresolvable.

(I sometimes wonder if this is psychologically unhealthy, this insistence of mine on the impossibility of forgiveness. But also, perhaps sometimes the most psychologically beneficial thing isn’t also the most moral thing. Perhaps some kinds of pain are worth carrying forever.

Also, perhaps the distinction between acceptance and forgiveness is academic, in this context. And acceptance? That feels pretty healthy.)

I think that fictional mass murder, especially in sf&f and in fan fiction, is used as, sort of, the safe terrible thing. Nobody (or at least almost nobody) puts a content warning for mass murder. It’s too big to be real, perhaps. It doesn’t feel personal. (Again, especially the types that occur in sf&f - the Death Star blowing up Alderaan, etc.) I suspect that - especially in fiction that deals with themes of guilt, redemption, forgiveness etc. - it’s often a stand-in for all sorts of other things that can cause feelings of guilt, including, I suspect, a lot more “harmless” ones - the kinds where forgiveness makes a lot more sense. So a lot of fic that ostensibly deals with mass murder... often doesn’t actually deal with mass murder.

(I think.)

Conversely - and now we’re finally getting back to Homestuck, yes, we’re finally here - child abuse, is too real, too personal. It’s not a stand-in for anything, it’s not a safe terrible thing to play with to explore something else, it is just itself. And just in being itself, in fiction it carries a sense of enormity and irrevocability and unforgiveability that - probably - surpasses that of (science-fictional) mass murder.

And I think that with my tendency to see even the customary Safe Terrible Thing as carrying all or at least a fair amount of the weight of the real thing (for whatever reason), I’m transferring/projecting all of my attitudes and ideas about guilt and (non-)forgiveness in fiction wholesale onto this, because to me, on some level, if feels similar. Not the same, but similar enough.

(Which is actually bizarre, because really it’s very different. Not least because - at least in the particular situation that prompted these weird musings, i.e. the situation described in, you know, The Fic - nobody’s dead, and everybody’s still dealing with each other, which means that all sorts of things are possible.

But there is still an enormity to it, and irrevocability.)

For whatever reason, I am also reading this particular kind of situation far more from the abused person’s POV than from the perpetrator’s. (And the fact that that is strange for me again makes me ask myself: why is mass murder so much more... identifiable-with? Side-eyeing my subconscious with great suspicion. --- Though probably some of it is simply that I’ve been a child who was subjected to some amount of violence, though not from parents/adults; I remember sensing, even at the time, how that was warping me, away from the person I could have been, turning me into something that I still think is probably lesser. And in that case, maybe there’s nothing particularly suspicious at all about where my sympathies lie, here.)

Which doesn’t mean that rng Bro isn’t fascinating to read about, or that I don’t empathise with him, because I do - quite a lot, actually. But he hasn’t made it onto my list of people whose “hard”, arguably terrible/murderous choices fascinate me near-obsessively (or just plain obsessively) - even though his motivations and choices would actually make him a fairly good fit; even though the way he dehumanises himself is not so very different from Bob Howard’s.

[firelxdykatara]

ppl love to forget that katara: 1. has her own taste, 2. developed around aang, he needed her for his development and vice versa, 3. ZUTARA IS SHIP BETWEEN AN OPPRESOR X OPPRESSED!!! Ignoring all of the development they had with their respective partners and the trauma Zuko caused Katara!!

In the infamous words of one Luke Skywalker: amazing. every word of what you just said was wrong.

It’s actually kind of ironic that you bring up Katara’s taste, since, throughout the show, we have examples of the guys she likes, to greater or lesser extents in canon--Jet (explicit romantic feelings on her part, word of god that jet was her first kiss--a kiss that would have been consensual, incidentally, something you should keep in mind for later) and Haru (she denies the crush, but that could just as easily have been because of the abomination he’d been growing on his lip rather than denying those feelings ever existed), both of whom have much more in common (in terms of both emotional and physical maturity, and physical appearance) with Zuko than either of them has with Aang.

Zuko’s book 3 hairstyle is almost exactly reminiscent of Jet’s, even, if not quite as floofy.

(This is probably in part because of Jet’s function as a foil of Zuko within the narrative, particularly given their book 2 encounters, which I think just further solidifies my point that, were it not for extenuating circumstances [like the fact that Zuko was introduced as an enemy and they had significant obstacles to hurdle before they could be friends], Zuko would have been exactly Katara’s type. Had they met under different circumstances, she could have been the girl he went on a date with in Ba Sing Se. Just something to think about.)

So, yes, we’ve established that Katara has her own taste. Her tastes seem to be boys with great hair who are taller than her, the same age or older, and of a similar maturity level.

Aang falls short (heh, short) on all counts. So it isn’t Katara’s taste in boys that led her to be interested in him. Hm!

Next, you claim that Katara ‘developed around Aang’--that she was necessary for his development, and that he was necessary for hers.

Let’s take a moment to examine that, shall we?

I will absolutely grant you that Katara was necessary for Aang’s development--only to a point, of course, but we’ll get to that later--but was he really necessary for Katara‘s growth? I suppose I could grant you this on a generous technicality--he did, after all, provide her with the means to finally leave the South Pole and find a waterbending master to teach her (although she wound up largely self-taught anyway). But that had nothing to do with his relationship to Katara and everything to do with the structure of the plot--Katara and Sokka find Aang (and he never would have gotten out of that iceberg without Katara’s own righteous anger, so even that leads back to her own power), and then they go on a quest to find teachers for the Chosen One and save the world.

The story could not have begun without first finding Aang and then providing means for the other main characters to travel with him (or, in Zuko’s case, chase him), but this has nothing at all to do with Aang’s relationship to Katara. Aang was not a mover in Katara’s developmental arc--if anything, he acted as an obstacle more often than not, his actions ranging from innocent but obnoxious (playing and flirting with girls rather than helping with chores like picking up vital supplies, leaving Katara to do all of the quite literal heavy lifting and keeping her stuck in the role of caretaker that she’d been thrust into following the death of her mother), to deliberate and harmful (hiding the map to Katara and Sokka’s father, a truly selfish action, regardless of his lack of malicious intent, and one for which he never actually apologized), to somewhere in between (”she didn’t really mean that” he says to the man refusing to train Katara because she’s a girl, when yes, she very much did mean that, and Aang was no help in finally getting the old codger to eat his words--Katara had to shove them down his throat her own damn self).

While Katara’s overall arc wasn’t exactly big and dynamic (like Zuko’s redemption arc), or in-your-face (like Sokka getting force-fed Respect Women Juice and his eventual growth into a tactician and leader), it was very much present and woven into her character--and Aang had almost no part in it. He provided her with the means to get to the North Pole, but left Katara alone to fight the patriarchy herself. He messed around while Katara took it on herself to do the chores and keep the Gaang alive, but he did almost nothing to decrease that burden so she could grow out of the caretaker role. (Contrary to popular shipper claims, Aang didn’t actually teach Katara to have fun. She already knew how to have fun. But she couldn’t indulge, because she had a responsibility to her family and her tribe, and later to her brother and Aang and Toph, and Aang goofing off and trying to get her to do the same only added to her burdens rather than subtracting from them.) He provided Katara with the necessary motive to learn to heal herself, but he certainly didn’t seem to learn from the experience of accidentally burning her, preferring instead to claim he was never going to firebend again, despite already knowing, at that point, that he was going to need to master fire along with the other elements to become a fully realized Avatar and defeat the Firelord.

He didn’t help Katara keep them alive during The Desert. (In fact, he ran off, leaving her to desperately try to keep Sokka and Toph from succumbing to the heat while worrying for his safety.) In The Painted Lady, Katara makes the decision to stall the Gaang and do what she can to help the Fire Nation villagers on her own--Aang agrees to help her when he finds out, but he wasn’t actually instrumental in her making that choice. The Puppetmaster was, again, Katara finding a master of her own, and having to deal with the fallout from that. And in The Southern Raiders, Aang was--perhaps unknowingly, if I’m being generous, because he is a child and could not reasonably be expected to fully understand the implications of what he was asking her to do or why it was impossible--actively impeding Katara’s development! She desperately needed closure, something he could not understand and actively belittled and dismissed. The only reason he relented in the end (but not without a condescending ‘I forgive you! Does that give you any ideas???’ parting shot lmao) was because Katara was planning to take Appa anyway, and letting her go (and hoping she’d just magically wind up doing things his way) was easier than trying to fight her on it.

While Aang’s existence was necessary for Katara to start down her own path, she needed neither his guidance nor his approval to follow it--and absolutely nothing would change about Katara’s arc if you removed their romantic relationship entirely.

Possibly because the only changes needed to do so would be to remove the two times Aang kissed Katara without her consent (which, hopefully, no one would actually miss), and the epilogue kiss (which was awkward and unnecessary to begin with, since ending the entire show on a romantic kiss as the final shot kind of missed the point of the story to begin with, but that’s another discussion). None of these kisses (which are the only moments in which Katara’s feelings for Aang are so much as addressed; do note that addressing them, or hinting that they needed to be, is not the same as saying she exhibited any sign of reciprocating them) altered anything about Katara’s behavior, her personal arc, or (and perhaps most critically) her relationship with Aang.

It’s that last point that is really damning, as far as ‘Katara obviously had feelings for Aang, she kissed him in the finale!’ goes. Because she didn’t ‘obviously’ have feelings for him. And the fact that he kissed her before the invasion and then she forgot about it (she literally had no idea what he was talking about during the play’s intermission until he reminded her that he’d kissed her) is pretty clear evidence that she didn’t actually have feelings for him. Not the kind he had for her.

I’ve been a teenage girl. I know what it’s like to be surprise!kissed by your crush. And I absolutely for a full fact know that I had not completely forgotten about that kiss three months later and had, in fact, spent most of my waking hours thinking about it and remembering it and trying to talk to him about it. Now, granted, I was not in the middle of a war, but even if I had been, I doubt I would have needed reminding about the fact that the boy I’ve supposedly been developing feelings for had kissed me and showed clearly that he had those feelings for me too.

At the very least, if Katara was harboring feelings that she was worried about approaching until after the war, her relationship dynamic with Aang should have shifted. But it didn’t. She acted the exact same way with him after the Day of Black Sun as she did before it--that is, as a mother figure and a caretaker, responsible for his wellbeing. (And it’s clear she never took him down off the pedestal she needed him to occupy, either--let it not be said that the unhealthy aspects of their relationship only went one way.)

And book 3 is, incidentally, where Katara went from being vital to Aang’s development to being detrimental to it--or, rather, Aang’s refusal to let go of his attachment to her (despite ostensibly having done as much at the end of book 2) was. Because despite having been told by, perhaps, the greatest authority left in the world on Air Nomad culture (even more than Aang, who had left his temple with a child’s understanding of his culture that was never able to mature because he got stuck in the ice berg while his people were wiped out) that he had to let go of his possessive attachment to this girl who never even expressed the possibility that she might harbor romantic feelings for him to begin with, after Azula killed him and Katara brought him back, he went right back into the mindset of Katara is mine, it’s just a matter of time.

And the narrative validated him for it.

Notice how, during Ember Island Players, Aang says the following (emphasis mine):

“We kissed at the invasion, and I thought we were gonna be together. But we’re not.”

First of all, if you go back and watch the scene, it’s clear it wasn’t a mutual kiss. Aang sprang a surprise kiss on Katara, which left her shocked and unhappy after he flew off. (The decision to have her looking away and frowning was a deliberate one on the part of Bryke, who wanted Katara’s feelings kept ambiguous. Heaven forbid you allow the animators to make it clear that this fourteen-year-old girl who was just kissed without her consent by someone she’d never once demonstrated romantic feelings toward might actually have some. Heaven forbid she have a little agency in her own romantic narrative. But whatever.)

Second, he says he thought they were gonna be together.

He thought.

He never once even asked Katara what she thought--or even how she felt. He just assumes. He assumes that if he kisses her, she’ll kiss him back and they’ll get together. He assumes that she must have feelings for him, even though her body language is closed off and she told him with her words that she did not want to talk or think about this right now, and kisses her regardless of those signals, upsetting her and leading her to storm off.

And the narrative rewards him, because despite the fact that they don’t have a single significant scene together after that second disastrous kiss, Katara just decides off-screen that she Does Love Him Really and walks onto the balcony to make out with him.

The upshot of all this being that, while Katara was indeed instrumental to a lot of Aang’s early growth and development, Aang was not necessary for her own arc, and their romantic relationship (such as it was) actively hampered Aang’s development in book 3, while removing it would change absolutely nothing for Katara (except saving her from some painfully embarrassing memories).

As far as your third point, I’m simply not going to get baited into explaining how reducing Zutara to an ‘oppressor/oppressed’ relationship is not only insulting to interracial couples irl (not to mention any other couple with a potentially unbalanced dynamic of societal power, since there are many more axis of oppression than just racial), but demeaning to Zuko and Katara, their personal arcs as well as their relationship development together.

However, I will point out that Zuko was not responsible for any of Katara’s trauma. She did not find violence and fighting in bending battles to be traumatic--in fact, she reveled in it. She enjoyed fighting against Zuko at multiple points (especially noticeable in their battle at the end of book 1), because she wanted to fight--she always had--and once she had the ability, she was ready to throw down with anyone who gave her the slightest reason. (Including, by the way, her own potential waterbending master.) Aang’s death at the end of book 2 was Azula’s doing, and while I think that contributed to Katara’s extreme reaction to Zuko joining the gaang, it was not something for which she actively blamed him, and it wasn’t something she believed would be repeated--she let him go off alone on a journey to find the original firebending masters with Aang well before she chose to forgive him. So she already trusted Zuko’s intentions and that Aang would be safe with him.

Finally, because this has gotten long enough already, I hope you now understand that Zuko and Katara getting together would not require ignoring any of their development with their canonical romantic partners. We’ve already established that Katara’s arc wouldn’t change in the slightest if all of Aang’s romantic advances were removed, and I haven’t even gotten into how Mai meant nothing in the grand scheme of Zuko’s development because I’m pretty sure that’s just self-evident. I mean, the video compilation put together by Nick showcasing Zuko’s journey throughout the series doesn’t include a single scene with Mai, though it does include several with Katara, and even Jin makes an appearance--because Katara, and even Jin, played key roles in Zuko’s personal journey, while his relationship with Mai happened entirely off-screen and her only real function was to showcase just how unhealthy trying to force himself back into the role of the Crown Prince was for him.

What development, exactly, is there between them to even ignore?

At any rate, I’ve gone on long enough--I hope you enjoy the fact that you activated my wordvomit trap card right when i was about to go to bed, anon, because I just spent two hours writing this instead. In case you’re interested in the TL;DR: at the end of the day, there was no meaningful, mutual development in Kataang’s romantic relationship, and those romantic feelings that did exist were largely one-sided and ultimately detrimental to Aang’s development in the final third of his overall arc. Meanwhile, Mai meant nothing to Zuko’s journey--rather like Aang’s romantic overtures, she could be removed from the show completely and nothing about his story would change--while Zuko and Katara were both vital to each other’s overall storylines, arcs and development. This, coupled with the fact that Zuko never actually traumatized Katara and, in fact, helped her achieve closure from the biggest source of her own trauma, means that Zuko and Katara have better and more believable build up that could potentially lead to a romantic relationship than either of them have with their canon romantic partners.

So no, anon, I didn’t forget anything--I think you may have, though. Perhaps a rewatch is in order? Make sure not to close your eyes for the back half of book 3 this time.