#especially when that work is inherently problematic

[neon-danger]

To be less rude about that anon, I have said quite a few times now that I will not be writing a milk fic

For one thing, it’s against my rules and I expect you as readers to respect that, but also the original creator of the milk fic is just all around Bad.

While I don’t think the actual contents of the milk fic are bad or problematic, I do not want my name associated with the milk fic, the writer, or their reputation.

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying that sort of content, and I have absolutely no judgement in that regard, but it’s kinda not cool for people to continue asking after I’ve said no A Few Times Now

Consent is a big thing in a lot of my fics, and I expect you as readers to know that No Means No, not ask again later.

[wonder-worker]

"The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's [first] reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime."

-Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

[in-class-daydreams]

i think what the anon actually meant when they said “incestuous” was if their relationship contained any EMOTIONAL incest on sen’s side?

when reading, sen does seem to have some form of emotionally incestuous feelings towards his mother but it doesn’t seem like the mother has those same feelings. whether he does have those feelings or not is entirely up to you.

this isn’t to say your writing is bad or anything. it’s actually very good and i thoroughly enjoy this au. i wouldn’t change a single thing about the way you write, especially when it comes to sen and his relationships.

there’s also nothing wrong with writing about emotional incest. it’s a very real thing and can happen in situations like the one in your au. as long as it isn’t romanticized or sexualized, it shouldn’t be a problem.

obviously, you don’t owe anyone an explanation but the people that are turned off by that impression might feel better with some clarification on the relationship.

(also, idk if you do emoji anons but if so, perhaps could i be 🦤?)

Emotionally, it sure seems that way, doesn't it? I've said he's weird, I've said he's a bit yandere about it, but I feel this is one of those things readers have to interpret themselves. Is his behavior appropriate? And regardless of the answer, can you (the general "you" not you specifically) sympathize with how he ended up that way? Did we expect a boy - burdened with great power from birth, plunged into an inherently flawed society - to turn out well-adjusted?

And I'm not blasting you in particular, this ask is very polite/constructive - especially compared to a lot of other asks I've gotten since this AU blew up - it's just that I write expecting readers to do some mental legwork on the more complex themes.

Take Nabokov's Lolita for example. It deals with some pretty gross and problematic subject matter, but Nabokov is expecting readers to be able to read between the lines that just because that inappropriate behavior is at the forefront of the novel, the actual message is that this sort of behavior is reprehensible. The average person isn't sitting there like, "Wow, these are all great ideas!"

This AU won't be everyone's cup of tea, and that's ok, because work portraying problematic themes has a right to exist, but in the same vein, people have the right not to read it.

~

Thank you so much for the ask!

Click [here] for more of Sen being mean to his dad | Ask stuff about Sen and the fam [here]

[annabelle--cane]

I got into tma in 2022 on a road trip with no internet and then only tangentially interacted with the fandom (light hcs, fanart) and I am. so compelled to understand what the fandom was like in 2020. what were the takes. why was it so awful. does it explain why every time I try to look into protocol I get a rancid Vibe and jump back 5 feet.

to preface: on scale, it really wasn't any worse than your average fandom, it just A) got Very popular over a short period and B) that period was during a time of particularly high stress where many people suddenly could only experience a social life online. tma is also a fairly political and progressive work, which inevitably leads to certain kinds of Takes. it also got Very popular right at the point where the episodes were reaching their peak of explicit social commentary and sustained morbid tone, which, especially combined with point B from above, drew out some really visceral reactions from a lot of people. nothing was actually inherently rancid about 2020-2021 tma fandom, there was just a bit of a perfect storm of factors.

having said that. some common discourse themes:

the perennial shipping discourse. georgie is the only one of our leads to have never killed a person, but really, I pinky promise that your ship between two unrepentant serial killers is 100x more problematic than my ship between two unrepentant serial killers.

asexuality: how dangerous is it? on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being "mostly" to 5 being "completely," how humiliating is it to be asexual? what is the singular true asexual experience that is unproblematic to write about?

wow, jonny was so out of line for writing this episode, what gives him the right to--oh he said it's directly based on personal experiences? so sorry, my bad, I'll learn for next time. wow, jonny was so out of line for writing this epi--

I did not like this episode. this is obviously a direct act of violence against me. why would an episode be Not Good when there is, in the world, Sadness?

hello, I have sorted all of the characters into a simple chart that clearly delineates which of them are completely irredeemable monsters with no interiority or motives and which of them are perfect angel victims who have only ever been nice and never hurt anyone, ever (and if they did hurt someone then that person deserved it). if I see you adding nuance to any of my rulings, I will kill you. this also extends to the podcast writers. #ilovebinaries.

the characters... are queer... and maybe even other marginalized identities as well... and yet, they do bad things? there's not even a single completely morally innocent character? by god, did they not think about the implications this might have!

web!martin. lol people are so stupid for thinking that the theory is at all plausible, media comprehension much? that would lichrally imply that a queer, poor, mentally ill character might be capable of badness. what do you mean we are currently listening to an arc where he's an accomplice to serial murder.

[novella-november]

Fantasy Discrimination, and The Implications

A post on my dash reminded me to share some more writing advice, so here is a very good article by @mythcreantsblog , about how to make sure you're not dehumanizing a species or culture in your writing, which is a good guide on how to avoid accidentally writing racist or ableist tropes:

In particular, I want to talk about the ever-present racist trope in a lot of fantasy and scifi fiction, and that is the decision a lot of creators make where the villains are not just a single person, a faction, or a kingdom -- *its an entire species* who is not only the villain, but are outright, inherently *evil*.

To start out, here's a political cartoon by Tom Gauld you've probably seen all around tumblr with the name cropped out:

[ID: a political cartoon by Tom Gauld, showing two identical cities and boats mirrored on a river, each with a purple or yellow flag; one side is labled "Our Blessed Homeland, Our Glorious Leader, Our Great Religion, Our Noble Populace, Our Heroic Adventuerers", The other side is labled "Their Barbarous Wastes, Their Wicked Despot, Their Primitive Superstition, Their Backwards Savages, Their Brutish Invaders. End ID]

This political cartoon is a very good tool for testing your writing for the trope of demonizing/glorifying your fantasy/scifi species.

Let's use a classic example: your fantasy setting is made up of the following species: Elves, Dwarves, Humans, and Orcs.

Your Elves are a long-lived, ethereal people who live in secluded, perfect cities, all of them tall, blonde, and blue-eyed, who are extremely wise and making plans that can stretch out over dozens of human generations, and they're the deciders of 90% of politics in your world. Your Dwarves are a short, squat, species who spend their lives working in forges, mines, and laboratories, tirelessly toiling (because they enjoy the hard work, of course!) and selling their products to the Elves who are their largest and wealthiest customer base; Dwarves work hard and studiously for decades at a a time to complete a piece of work in order to fufill the intricate orders from their Elven customers, which is how the majority of them provide for their families, working 16 hour shifts each day for decades per order. Your Humans are far more seperated, and often live on the fringes of what their longer-lived compatriots consider "Civilized Society", often living as Subsistence farmers and hunters, not out of choice, but often due to poor land and lack of resources; the wealthiest of Human cities are usually the capitals where the royals reside and may live in luxury with rich markets and high-quality products and running water, but the vast majority of Humans live in small, poor villages that must rely on traveling merchants to sell what produce and livestock they can spare from their farms in order to buy the supplies they need to live out another year. Your Orcs.... well, they don't really live anywhere, do they? Orcs strongholds can only maintain their grip in hellish wastelands where living is nigh impossible, with all food and water only obtained from outside sources; occasionally, Orcs will attempt to establish base camps in more fertile land, invading neighboring Human, Dwarf, and Elven territory to do so, who quickly unite to expel these vile, dark, brutish invaders lest they steal their daughters, destroy and taint all of the natural resources and steal the few jobs available to the Humans in Dwarven and Elven cities as manual labour and servants.

And Now, take a step back from this world, and take a long, hard look at these species (outside of humans who are just kinda there in the middle and the only ones capable of change because Humans Are Always Special) and societies and what ideas are being reinforced here, especially when the above descriptions are framed as Hard Facts which are both Just and True?

(archived read-more Here)

Elves are morally superior and are always Perfect and Correct,

Dwarves are happy to spend their entire lives toiling in the forges and mines to please their Elven patrons,

and Orcs are Evil Monsters who will rob, murder, and rape any hapless victim who comes their way, so it's better to slaughter them all on sight and kick them out of your cities and towns, and this is the 100% correct morally right choice every single time and the narrative and characters themselves support this?

Did you spot them already, or does the above just seem like a cool, fun fantasy world where Elves are the cool wise good guys and Orcs are the devil's army and can be used as canon fodder any time your main character needs to mow down some enemies for a Badass Scene?

Let's retrace our steps a bit, shall we, and examine this "perfect" world through a critical lens?

When your elves are all portrayed as Perfect Ethereally Beautiful Blonde and Blue-Eyed wise leaders of the civilized world, what idea is being reinforced here? Who does it harm, and what real world ideas is this mirroring and enforcing? Who is going to have their own biases reinforced by this narrative?

When only the longest-lived people are allowed to decide politics, what group biases are being enforced? Is portraying "young people" as "being incapable of making political decisions" as a correct, logical choice in your story something you wish to enforce? Are there any real world issues this trope mirrors?

When your Dwarves are all Happy Workers and Slaves, bound to and reliant on the superior Elves to live, spending the majority of their life purely in service to these Superior Beings while happy to do it, what idea is being reinforced here? Who might see themselves in the plight of the Dwarves and feel alienated and insulted by the Dwarves happily slaving away in the dark? Who might have biased ideas reinforced by seeing the Dwarves treated in such a way?

When your Orcs are portrayed as evil, dark skinned, brutish savages who will kidnap and rape poor helpless women from the "pure" species, when Orcs are incapable of creating anything of their own and can only steal, what racist messages are being enforced and upheld? Who are the real people and cultures being demonized when you perpetuate this? What real world peoples and cultures have faced *decades of propaganda framing them as such*?

If you spotted these harmful messages in the initial indented description, good job!

But if you didn't, it's time to find and read critical reviews and essays written by marginalized communities of works that include these damaging tropes, because if it your Evil Species are Weird Aliens, because when you characterize and describe your Evil Species, you are undoubtedly going to be drawing heavily on your own internal biases of what makes people Other and Wrong.

Are your Evil Species all dark-skinned, physically-strong and animalistic? Congrats, you have just regurgitated centuries-old racism that justifies slavery, segregation, and discrimination *to this day*

Are your Evil Species all nomadic ~cannibals~ who are incapable of creating anything of their own and have to loot and steal from others to have anything of value? Congrats, you are once again regurgitating racist propoganda that has been used against countless cultures and minorities for centuries.

Are your Evil Species reknowned for kidnapping and raping the women of your Good Guys in order to create Evil Twisted Halfbreed Offspring for ....uh, reasons? Congrats, once again, this is literally just racist propaganda being reinforced by your writing.

Anything you come up with to make your Species Inherently Evil is going to most likely be something that is weaponized against real world minorities that you are now reinforcing with your writing, from racism to ableism to queerphobia and all the ways they intersect.

How do you fix this?

It's incredibly simple!

Don't make an entire Species be Inherently Evil.

They need to be just as varied as real living people.

Your Species should not be a Monolith, let alone of *Evil*.

Your Species should not have their only "decent/civilized/kind people" examples come from ""crossbreeds"" [and this term itself should be used only by bigots as a deragatory term] or random orphans who were raised by one of the Good Species(tm)-- this is how your story starts advocating for *eugenics*, which is not something you want to do!

So, instead of having an entire Species be "Inherently biologically" Evil, consider instead:

Making your villain group diverse instead of all one Species.

if your villain group is a Species Supremacist, they're probably still going to have underlings and lower castes who do their dirty work, or have been taken in by the cult ideology.

Making the villains of this Species be a small fraction of a larger whole, who are part of a violent cult, ideology, or political party that not only puts them in conflict with your main characters, but also with the rest of their Species.

Having your main character or their friends be the same Species as your villain group, and they represents the vast majority of the Species, instead of hailing them as "the Paragon of Goodness who emerged somehow pure from of a species forged in hell" or anything similar.

You should also sit down and not only think about the harmful, racist tropes that would come from writing Inherently Evil Species, but also consider:

Why do you want to include an entire species of people who are inherently evil in your novel?

Is your novel gaining anything for including these tropes uncritically?

Does it make it a better, more interesting story to include these tropes uncritically?

What message are you trying to send with your story?

Does including these tropes uncritically in your story *undermine* your intended message?

Another trope in the opposite direction, is talking about "Oppression" and "Fantasy Racism" from the perspective of a character who is part of the oppressed minority, only to spend the entire novel talking about how your Opressed Class are Literally and Factually threats to the population that "discriminate" against them, usually by being rightfully wary in their prescence.

if the Oppressed Minorities in your story in anyway resemble the Orcs in Bright, the Predators in Zootopia, or the Khajiit in the Elderscrolls, where the Racism these peoples face in based on hard proven facts that these people have been and still are threats to most of the population..

... you're less writing a story about how "Racism Against Vulnerable Minorities is Bad"

and sound more like you're saying

"It's bad to be "mean" (afraid of) Nazis who literally want you dead and who can kill you with impunity and no consequences."

If you are writing a story about Fantasy Discrimination, and the basis of your Fantasy Discrimination is based on *cold hard facts that your narrative supports and upholds*, instead of actually basing it on and talking about what leads to discrimination in the real world

(xenophobia and the fear+hatred of The Other, economic gain, mainly),

then you are not making the progressive stance that you think you are, and instead are enforcing the ancient propoganda that racism is based on fact, that racism is "for a good reason", and you need to take care that you are not upholding this idea in your works.

TL;DR:

Instead of making an entire Species of people a trope of Wise Good Guys or Evil Incarnate, consider using *Factions not Races* for your groups, and think long and hard about the implications of your world's politics and how it mirrors our own world, especially in ways *you may not intend it to.* If your story is meant to be progressive and inclusive, but your villains are an entire race of black orcs who slave and rape the good guys species, you need to go back to the drawing board.

[genericpuff]

Was your Kore/Persephone portrayal inspired by dissociative disorders? I interpreted it more as her dark internal monologue that she was suppressing. Like when you have dark thoughts of know things inherently, but try to rationalize your way out of thinking them. I figured it was just a more dramatic way of portraying intrusive thoughts.

Ahh this isn't really a question I can answer with a simple "yes" or "no". Especially when considering everything you just listed are often inherently symptoms of many interlinked mental disorders like DID and BPD haha (especially when it comes to the suppressing).

As I mentioned in my previous post I've been writing these types of characters for years. Uzuki is a big one that comes to mind. I love writing conflicts of the self, mind vs. reality, identity vs. instinct, past vs. present, etc.

CW: BLOOD/GORE, GRAPHIC VIOLENCE, DEPICTION OF TRAUMATIC BREAKDOWNS AND DISSOCIATION AHEAD!!!

(note the black and grey pages are read right to left like a manga, this was from my weeb days LOL)

It wasn't until years later after I was diagnosed with ADHD and autism that I realized my love for those tropes was rooted in something far more internal. Sure, sometimes a trope is just a trope, but now I fully understand why I've found myself pulled back to that trope time and time again, because I myself have struggled with a lot of the same internal conflicts that characters like Uzuki and Kore have struggled with. It wasn't just me loving a trope, it was me finding solidarity and representation in characters who shared my experiences, even if they were largely hypothetical or for the sake of creative expression.

That realization came long before Rekindled, of course, but it hit me like a sack of bricks when it did, as any realization of an undiagnosed disorder tends to do after years of thinking you're just "broken". That said, it's allowed me to explore these topics with even more nuance and understanding, while also pointing out my own weaknesses and blind spots in the pre-conceived notions I had about myself that I was then able to challenge once I knew what was really going on. It was still challenging as it was so personal, but it ultimately made me a stronger person and a stronger writer.

Skip to the future though with Rekindled, everything I just explained is why I was so interested in LO's AoW plotline to begin with, because a lot of it played to my own interests in those sorts of characterizations - consequently, it was one of the plotlines I wanted to overhaul the most when I started coming up with the basis for Rekindled, as I was disappointed that it was forgotten about over the course of S2 and completely retconned by the trial arc. In a weird way, it almost feels like all the time I spent working with characters like Uzuki was preparing me for a character like Kore/Persephone. And conversely, writing about Kore/Persephone has helped me harness my skills more which I can take back with me when it comes time to continue Uzuki's story.

All that said, mental disorders and neurodiversity were never "inspiration" to me when I was learning how to write and/or designing these characters, but that didn't make them any less intersectional. It was more like something that just came naturally to me as someone who is neurotypical and has diagnosed mental disorders (I am my own worst inspirations LOL) and I wanted more characters like that who weren't just automatically "villains". I try to always treat them with care to ensure that I'm being kind to both the characters as well as myself as someone who heavily relates to these experiences, but I'm also not really afraid to express the more "ugly" sides of those experiences either. Especially with characters like Uzuki who are largely problematic to their core in their actions - much of those actions, as I would learn about myself in my own healing journey as well, are often spurred on by a lack of care, empathy, and understanding in their unique struggles.

There is so much I'd love to say about Kore and Persephone's characterizations and what led them to this point, but I got about a paragraph in before realizing that it would be WAY too massive of a spoiler LOL I'm really, really excited to get into it - though nervous too - but I hope that, at the very least, readers can have patience for her as she goes through everything that's on the horizon. There are times it may get ugly, even outright bleak, but that is simply one side of the coin that represents her duality as a goddess - the dreaded Bringer of Destruction, and the merciful Goddess of Spring.

[hairtusk]

i'm curious to know your thoughts on pulling apart problematic feminist canon, it's something i don't have a lot of experience with. like dworkin is obviously famous for her writing against porn and irl harassment of sex workers but she also wrote Right Wing Women which seems to be foundational and very correct when talking about gender and the far right. i haven't heard of of her discussion of pedophilia and bestiality, but she clearly wasn't afraid of controversial topics.

you seem, for lack of better words, smart about this kind of thing and i'd love to know how you think about these tensions!

This is a very interesting question. Unfortunately, before I can even begin to get into this topic, I need to address a few key points of your above.

'... like dworkin is obviously famous for her writing against porn and irl harassment of sex workers but she also wrote Right Wing Women which seems to be foundational and very correct...'

The wording in your above is very odd to me. The 'but' here seems to insinuate that, while Dworkin's work in Right Wing Women is 'correct', she is 'wrong' for her writings against 'sex work' and pornography.

Firstly, I refuse to use the terminology of 'sex worker', as I believe it normalises the idea that men can buy access to the bodies of women. I am firmly of the belief that consent cannot be bought, and that if consent is not given freely and without coercion, it is rape. Money is coercion. If sex can be bought, then rape is just wage theft, and I refuse to be party to that idea. That being said, I have enormous compassion and respect for women who are currently, or who have formerly been, prostituted. I want them to have access to dignity, respect, safety and protection in law, as far as is physically possible.

I hold the same view of pornography. People have always enjoyed watching other people have sex - this is inescapable, and I have no problem with the sensual or the erotic. However, the erotic and the pornographic hold no relation to one another - please read this short Gloria Steinem essay for more clarity on what I mean by this [source 1]:

I firmly believe that there is absolutely no ethical or moral way to establish an industry based on pornography. It is inherently exploitative and degrading, especially to women and homosexual men. Even if there are women who freely consent to appear in pornography (and I don't believe that's possible in our current society), I believe that even if one women was exploited, trafficked, coerced or forced into it that the whole industry should be abolished. Nobody's orgasm is more important than the safety, dignity, or health of a woman. This goes for both pornography and prostitution.

So, you can see how I find it difficult to answer your question in good faith when you posit that Dworkin's work fighting pornography and prostitution are somehow 'incorrect' or wrong. Indeed, I believe one of Dworkin's best essays details the exploitation of prostitution, and how it normalises rape. See the below pages for a taste of how she tackles this subject [source 2] and find more in her book Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981):

Another vitally important point - you say that Dworkin was famous for her 'irl harassment of sex workers.' However, Dworkin was, in your words, a 'sex worker.' See the below extract of an article by Catherine Bennett in The Observer [source 3]:

Additionally, I can find absolutely no evidence that Dworkin ever 'harrassed' prostituted women or men, and, if you've ever seen her interviewed, you would know that she is incredibly gentle and soft spoken. Please watch the below video of Dworkin appearing on After Dark, to observe her manner of debate:

It's very funny, because the amount of misinformation spread about Dworkin floating around the internet has resulted in this [source 3, ibid.]:

I would be extremely interested in whether you could provide a legitimate source for her 'harrassment', beyond her academic and political criticism of the so-called 'sex industry'.

I really do appreciate that you say I seem educated on this particular topic. And I would, absolutely in good faith, be interested in answering your main question, if you still care to hear my opinion. However, you can see why I had to clear up these topics above, to make my stance absolutely blatant before we delve into more complex feminist politik.

Bibliography:

Bennett, Catherine, 'Doubts About Dworkin', The Observer, 8th June 2000 (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2000/jun/08/society) [accessed 12th September 2024] [source 3]

Dworkin, Andrea, 'Whores', in Pornography, Men Possessing Women (New York: 1981, The Women's Press) pp. 203-204 [source 2]

Feminist VHS Archive, After Dark: What is Sex For?, Online Video Recording, YouTube, 2022 [link] [accessed 12th September 2024]

Steinem, Gloria, 'Erotica and Pornography: A Clear and Present Difference', in Take Back the Night: Women on Pornography, ed. Laura Lederer (New York: Morrow Quill Paperback, 1982) pp. 35-39 [source 1]

[franki-lew-yo]

Chicken Run 2 things I did really like:

It's a fun and small nod to irl chicken farming, but I like that the pen the chickens are kept in in Funtime Farms is an indoor pen. That's how modern poultry gets by on the "free range" excuse.

Genuinely appreciate how much and how well this movie states Ginger's awesomeness through Rocky or other people. It's not too distracting and it's earned. She is the iron chicken and it's a good way to hype up the character without telling you rather than showing you. God. I love Ginger.

Nick and Fetcher needed more scenes with Molly because them being attached and joining in just to save their "niece" is adorable and a great expanse on their characters. Good.

Rocky was a great dad and way better written than the original but still very much Rocky. That's how you do a 'wrote a potentially problematic love interest 20 years ago now here's them updated for modern ''wokeness' standards,' PIXAR. I liked him being both a hinderence and an accessory to Ginger. Shows why and what I like about them as a couple. I especially like how, without even showing you, that Rocky was the one to tell Molly what she needed to know but did not expand on just how traumatized Ginger really is from her ordeal. That's both in character and a believable thing a parent would do when their kid is simply prodding about their past, rather than directly asking their parent. Also, given it's Rocky and he already didn't have a perfect sitch going on as a circus animal, he probably didn't hype it up as perfect but more or less leaned into how adventurous he and Ginger were.

Ginger and Molly and their whole plot of not understanding each other was fine. Ginger being an overprotective parent who never wants to leave the island now and is enforcing her flock never to leave works better here than in contrived direct to video movies like Lion King 2 or Little Mermaid 2. The annoying thing about these kinds of stories is, simply put, the audience is screaming at the parent to just better communicate with their kids, especially when it's not like Ginger is too haunted to talk about the farm to other characters. What was needed, I think, was real establishment that Molly knows her mom escaped from a farm but doesn't truly know what a farm is and what would happen to her on one. Maybe also have it clear that Ginger is so set on being a "free chicken" she refuses to even talk about her past with Molly- somehow thinking that her old life before was beneath what she is now, even though she was the one who escaped from it and was always worth the lifestyle she deserves. Would be a great call forward to Ginger's slight (understandable) apathy for chickens outside her flock that would come full circle to her being the character she always is and is best at. Over all I liked her, Rocky and Molly a lot. I just wished I could have heard Julia Sawahla instead.

Pacing actually moved decently for once for a modern animated kids film. That's impressive, especially for a sequel.

Mrs. Tweedy saying she "gave Ginger everything a hen could ask for" was really illuminating for her character. Really, much as I wish this wasn't the same character, I love Mrs. Tweedy wanting revenge on Ginger. On a chicken. Her dialogue revealing that she thought the life she gave the chickens on her old farm was "good" for them tells you so much about her and how she sees herself as a good farmer only if she's a successful farmer.

Haha the ending shot is perfect.

Okay one thing about this movie- this may be actually be a bad thing depending on your diet choices -this movie makes me actually really hungry for chicken and chicken nuggets. This whole franchise isn't inherently vegetarian or trying to be anti meat, granted, but that is the take away from the character's perspective given that they are the chickens. To put this a different way: the first movie makes eating chicken really unappetizing from the beginning with the "roll call" scene and the pies the chickens would potentially turn into, over the top as it is, also unpleasant. You definitely don't get anything close to the "roll call" scene in this film. A chicken does die but it's all so offscreen it has no impact, so when she's cartoonishly instantly turned into nuggets that Mrs. Tweedy eats, you don't feel anything...you kind of wanna eat the nuggets. Apologies to any chickens reading that. Here, have some happy chickens to counteract the pain:

[lunamond]

The argument that the switch-up between Tamlin and Rhysand as love interests was SJM making a clever commentary on the inherently problematic nature of the Beauty and the Beast tale is actually really annoying to me.

I'm absolutely not above being critical of this story.

However, just because there are problematic aspects in the foundational version of this story doesn’t mean that modern iterations automatically possess these as well.

So let's look at how modern retellings deal with the most commonly criticised element of the story: the kidnapping.

For me personally, the most important thing to look at when judging how "problematic" the kidnapping in any given Beauty and the Beast story is, is to look at what the actual power dynamics at play are.

Most of these stories tend to feature some inherent power imbalance between the Beauty and the Beast characters. However, most retellings also feature a curse/curser who puts pressure on the Beast to kidnap Beauty in the first place. This means there is always some kind of higher power/authority who holds significant power over the Beast as well.

In the og Fairytale version, we have a scorned Fae/Witch who curses the Beast. The stakes for the Beast are to find a woman, make her fall in love with him, or stay a Beast forever.

How much this gives the Beast a pass for the crime of kidnapping is, of course, sth each person has to decide for themself.

However, most modern retellings tend to significantly increase the severity of the conditions and consequences of said curse, often times putting many lives outside of the Beast's own at stake.

This increase in stakes, at least for me, significantly impacts how much I condemn the actions of the Beast character.

We see this in the Disney version were all the people living and working in the castle were turned into animate objects and risk turning inanimate once the time-limit for the curse runs out, which is essentially a child friendly way of saying that they will all die.

In the YA novel Cruel Beauty (which I already compared to Acotar in an older post), the Beast character is forced to take a new bride every century. Due to the specifics of the curse, the safety of an entire country is dependent on his compliance with the conditions put on him. So, despite the fact that he initially appears much more powerful than the Beauty character, they are essentially both stuck under the same curse.

The first Acotar book works the same way. Tamlin kidnaps Feyre, not because he wants to but because the conditions of the curse put not just the fate of the SC but of the entirety of Prythian at stake.

That's, of course, not to say that this isn't a violent experience for Feyre and her family. But it does mean that Tamlin isn't the instigator of this violent act, but the person responsible for the curse, aka Amarantha.

The attempt to turn this into a subversion of the BnB story by revealing Tamlin as a violent and abusive partner becomes incredibly frustrating, because most of the violent undertone present in the 1st book, that fans like to point towards as an early sign of his future abusive behaviors are not caused by Tamlin himself but by Amarantha (and her batwinged lackey).

But SJM's attempt is especially nonsensical because Feyre's new romance with Rhysand is just a worse version of BnB.

I am aware that the second book, Acomaf, is most commonly marketed as a Hades/Persephone retelling.

But here is the thing; the modern interpretation of Hades/Persephone as a romance is much more akin to the story of Beauty and the Beast than the hymn to Demeter (the og source text featuring the myth of Hades/Persephone), which as the title suggests is much more concerned with the feelings of grief and rage a mother feels in response to her daughter's abduction than anything else.

So, let's judge Feysand's story with the same standards we just used for other modern BnB retellings.

Immediately, we run into the issue that Rhysand doesn't have a higher power above him forcing him to kidnap Feyre (unless you want to count the mating bond, but that is clearly meant to be seen as a positive so that doesn't really work, Amarantha doesn't count either).

However, it gets worse.

He is the one who forces the bargain on Feyre, ensuring she has to spend 1 week in the NC for the rest of her life. When he later kidnaps her, he is fulfilling the curse he himself put on her.

In this version, the Beast character, Rhysand, is not the cursed but the curser. So he is at once the kidnapper AND the higher power enforcing the curse/the cause for the kidnapping.

In a direct comparison between the way Tamlin and Rhysand each fullfill the Beast role, it becomes pretty apparent how utterly SJM's supposed criticism of the BnB story has failed; Tamlin kidnaps Feyre because he is forced to, Rhysand does because he WANTS to.

[kairos-polaris]

Beloved, why do you ship jonelias? Why do they consume your waking thoughts so?

I am glad you asked :D

So! I really enjoy uneven "problematic" power dynamics and this was what originally attracted me to jonelias. I listened to mag 92 and thought "jonelias seems like something I would ship" because even then I could tell they fit my taste. I also just like protagonist/antagonist ships, complicated relationships are my favourites

mag 92 is one of my favourite episodes as a jonelias shippers for a couple of reasons. at first it was solely the conversation between Jon and Elias and how it was about Jon getting changed by Elias, because of Elias. Jon was being openly vulnerable! "Am I still human, Elias?" he asks Elias who has just confessed to murder and keeping people hostage. Jon, who had so much respect and admiration for Elias' expertise, turns to him even in that moment. It is Elias who he seeks reassurance from, he asks another monster if he is one

Another aspect of mag 92 I am obsessed with is the opening statement and the way Elias puts Jon above everyone else (telling him to discard everyone in his pursuit) while also placing Jon on the same level as him

(Side note: I am still not sure if I prefer Jon to sit on Elias' lap/have Elias clean his wound or to focus more on what they don't do, on the gaping distance between them that they both wish wasn't there but both have their own reasons to not bridge it. Both are so good)

Vampire metaphor! Jon is a walking vampire metaphor and Elias is his maker, his creator. I am so obsessed with the idea of Jon feeding on Elias, pulling fear from his mind and Elias enjoying the intrusion and the freedom the compulsion brings. He said it felt tingly! Freak (affectionate). Also, telepathy and mind meld is so delicious

What I love most about jonelias is what I love in others ships: obsession and fully knowing each other. Beholding allows to take knowing and seeing your partner to another level, Jon and Elias can know and see each other in ways other people in their lives can't

Moral corruption is inherently fascinating to me and especially Jon. He gets worse throughout the series, his only anchors to humanity are his own guilt and the people around him who more often than not just reinforce that guilt (this makes sense in the context of the story but you can't guilt yourself into being a better person and that's why it doesn't really work for Jon but I digressed). I like thinking about all the ways Jon could be worse, the ways Jonah could push Jon into following his worst impulses, into choosing to be a monster instead of drowning in guilt to not feel helpless and powerless

I love jonelias when it's about all the things they wish to do but don't because they have other priorities, because they know but don't understand each other just like their patron. I love jonelias when it's Jon giving in, letting go. Of his morals, of his guilt, letting Elias shape him into something new. I love the idea of Jonah Magnus who worships no god, not even the one he serves, adoring and worshipping Jon and especially the parts of Jon that he himself had shaped. The Pygmalion and Galatea of it

Jonah chose Jon! He saw him and knew he was right! Jonah wants the Archivist and he wants the Archivist to be Jon. Sure, Jon was marked by the Web first but Jonah picked him too and I love it. It's fascinating from both of theirs perspective, Jonah feeling proud he made the right choice and Jon having a complicated mix of feelings about it. He hates that he was chosen and he just a little happy that he was chosen and he hates himself for it

Another thing I really like is the way they say each other's name! Elias calls Jon by his name a lot and I hate when people act like he doesn't

Jon and Jonah are very similar and I find that fascinating too. They are both workaholics and nerds and losers and freaks!! And I love them for that. And and and I really do think they could have eventually been truly equal if not for Jonahs prioritising his evil plan

Also they are sexy, I don't make the rules

[zoobiefish]

So, I nearly missed out on Auctober again, whoops! I am now 9 days behind, woohoo 😂😅 I’m an Autistic university student, so I may not always have the spoons to commit to this daily challenge, or at the very least I may not be able to draw something for each prompt…I may have to just write a little blurb about what that day’s prompt means to me lol But ideally I would like to contribute as many pieces of art to this challenge as I can! For now though, to catch up on all I’ve missed, I’m going to make individual short blurbs for the prompts I’ve missed thus far:

Day 1: Autism Plus

For myself, in addition to being Autistic, I’ve been diagnosed with ADHD, OCD, EDNOS, and generalized anxiety. I also suspect I may have hEDS (hypermobile Ehlers Danlos Syndrome). Fun stuff!

Day 2: Infinite

The most popular symbol for Autism Spectrum Disorder to my knowledge is a golden infinity ♾ symbol (sometimes I see a rainbow-coloured one in use as well, though my understanding is that the rainbow infinity symbol is used for neurodiversity as a whole). For a long time, the infamous puzzle piece 🧩 symbol was used to represent ASD—but most Autistics HATE this symbol!! I recognize that I don’t speak for all Autistic people, but this is the common opinion on the puzzle piece symbol and the one I share as well: The puzzle piece symbol is problematic because it suggests that Autistic people are inherently “missing a piece” or that we are “a puzzle to be solved.” Plus, this symbol is used by the evil corporation Autism Speaks. I would prefer not to go on a rant right now about why they’re evil; if anyone is curious, I would recommend doing research on why Autistic people HATE Autism Speaks. But the short version is that they support eugenicist policies around Autism and seek to eradicate us from existence. They treat us as non-humans under the guise of doing “charity work”—they are absolutely NOT a charity. Do NOT support Autism Speaks under any circumstances—any supporter of Autism Speaks (or as most of us spell it, “Autism $peaks”), is NO friend of mine!

Day 3: AuDHD

This is a fun little term I’ve seen in the Autism and ADHD communities! It’s a portmanteau of “Autism” and “ADHD” in case it wasn’t obvious heh! I myself do have AuDHD; it’s a very common comorbidity! It’s certainly…an interesting experience because the two often conflict with each other, as if I have 2 wolves fighting within my brain 🤪

Day 4: Music

Music is one of my favourite coping mechanisms. If I’m understimulated or need inspiration (especially for art or writing), I’ll put on some fun, energetic music to get the juices flowing and will dance and/or pace around the room to get the energy out of my system! If I’m overstimulated, relaxing videogame soundtracks are often my go-to—especially music from The Legend of Zelda, Stardew Valley, Animal Crossing etc. Another aspect of my being on the spectrum is that my thoughts are very vivid and visual. Often times when I hear music, I can’t help but see colours, shapes, images, and even stories with characters and whatnot going along to the music. It gives me great ideas for animatics and artwork! I love this fun little bonus feature in my brain haha 😛

Day 5: Verbose

This one is rather interesting for me. I find when I feel safe around a person or I have just TOO much energy to control myself, I WILL talk—and talk—and talk—etc. I feel so bad for those who fall victim to my “infodump sessions”—but just know that if I do that to you, it’s my way of showing affection. If I talk and never seem to shut up around you…I probably really like you (platonically) 😁 Other times however, I am dead silent. This is usually around people I’m uncertain of, don’t know well enough, or I may just be burntout/too tired to talk 😅

Day 6: Individuals

As the saying goes: If you’ve met ONE (1) Autistic person, then you’ve met ONE (1) Autistic person! We are NOT a hivemind, people!! Just because I’m not like your “friend’s cousin’s aunt’s 3-year-old stepson” doesn’t mean I’m “not Autistic.” The stereotype with Autism is a white cishet dude—but we are just as diverse a population as any other demographic. We all have our differences and similarities, but we are unified in our shared diagnosis—and that’s it!

Day 7: Neuroscope

Ah yes, the “superpower” Autistic people seem to have in which we can all “sense each other” 😂😂😂 I find this to be scarily accurate actually—the majority of the people I’ve become friends with at uni turned out to be Autistic, and long before they mentioned they were on the spectrum I was able to tell. The funniest part though is that they all the said same thing about me! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Day 8: Non-Speaking

So of course Autism is a spectrum, and among the ways in which Autistic people can differ from one another is whether we possess the ability to verbally speak or not. I do not want to talk in length about what being “non-speaking” means as I am not non-speaking myself and don’t wish to talk over those who are. What I do know though is that some of us are unable to verbally speak and may use alternative methods to communicate (whether through the use of sign language, AAC devices, or other means), which are equally valid methods of communication that deserve to be respected. Once again, I must iterate that I am fully capable of verbal speech and I am in no way non-speaking myself. That being said, sometimes I do have a reduced capacity to speak or feel it takes far more physical effort to speak when I am tired, stressed, overwhelmed, in sensory overload, or in the midst of a shutdown. This does NOT mean I am non-speaking—that label is exclusively for Autistic individuals who cannot verbally speak at all. I’m not sure what the proper terminology is for my specific situation (if anyone knows of it, I’d appreciate if you let me know in the comments!) but because of these situations, I am currently trying to learn ASL so I can still communicate in some way during these episodes.

And that’s it for now! I am hoping to have a drawing done by the end of today for Day 9, but we shall see! In the meantime, check out @autiebiographical on Tumblr! They are the one who started Auctober in the first place to my knowledge and they create amazing comics and other content that educates people on Autism Spectrum Disorder! Happy Auctober y’all!

[biracy]

The inherent racialization and xenophobia of USAmerican anti-drug laws in general, but especially in the American Southwest, was always going to be something Breaking Bad inherited, and is Honestly, in my Latin opinion, not something it necessarily handles with a lot of grace. I understand that brba is not About that, it's not one of the themes, but it's still there, because you cannot talk about the drug trade in any even semi-serious context without talking about race and class, even if it's not intentional. In general I think brba is more sympathetic towards drug users and more critical towards the police institution than a lot of other shows of a similar vein, but there's still a very clear throughline of "dangerous" Latin America and Latinos, particularly Mexico and Mexicans. I know this is the "white gay people talking about how great 'Problematic Representation' is" website, and that a post about, well, "problematic representation" will probably fall on deaf ears, but when almost All of the lead characters in your show are white, and the main Hispanic characters are a bunch of Mexican drug lords, a Chilean drug lord, and a cop who gets to be One Of The Good Ones by working against The Bad Ones, people (me) are allowed to notice that lol. Obviously I love the show, this isn't a condemnation of it, but it is something that stood out to me and should be allowed to be critiqued lol

[perseidlion]

I know it's upsetting to think the business with Neil Gaiman contributed to the cancellation of Dead Boy Detectives. But I don't think that's something we can easily discount.

Yes, Netflix has continued to work with some DEEPLY problematic people. But the difference is, the audience for problematic comedians doesn't care that the comedian is problematic. In fact, that is exactly why some people watch them. The opposite is true for people who are fans of DBD and honestly, Gaiman's other work. Those people are usually more liberal and queer-positive (or queer themselves) and those people DO care about his SA allegations. A lot, actually.

Netflix knows that the core audience for DBD and Sandman (and Amazon about Good Omens) cares about these allegations and takes them seriously. They knew that if they pushed forward, a portion of the target audience would not watch it on principle.

Now, WE know that Gaiman's involvement in DBD was very minimal, both in the show and in creating the source characters. But unfortunately, his name was all over the promo for the show because at the time that was a good move. The marketing made that connection explicit, so when the allegations came out, the show was tainted. Anyone who isn't in online fandom might not know he wasn't directly involved.

Now, this is absolutely not fair. I think auteur culture as a whole is stupid especially for film and television. Film and TV are inherently collaborative endeavors and one person should not be given the praise for all the success or take down the project if they turn out to be a shithead. But that's the world we live in.

Do I think the Gaiman connection was THE reason DBD was cancelled? No. There's clearly some other fuckery going on and honestly it probably would have been cancelled regardless because it was never going to get the massive numbers they apparently wanted. But it would be foolish to think it had no effect at all or wasn't a factor in the decision.

This isn't about Netflix's morality or the morality of its executives. It's about optics and marketing. And unfortunately, Netflix marketing attached Dead Boy Detectives pretty firmly to Gaiman even though he doesn't deserve it, and the show doesn't deserve to be connected to his downfall.

We KNOW the optics are bad around NG right now because of the recent news of Good Omens S3 turning into one 90 minute movie.

Netflix has also been very careful about keeping Gaiman's name off Sandman promo. If Netflix really didn't care about the NG optics and didn't think it would make a diference to the audience, why would they be conspiciously keeping him out of the promo? They know it is a factor. And thus it had to be a point against DBD when they were considering renewal.

[kalboykiyay]

Why I'm Likely Skipping Out On The Warriors Musical

It's been awhile since I've done an in-depth post on here, hasn't it? This was inspired after reading that post by @stuckasmain. Well, I've looked at the plot of the musical on Wikipedia and looked I have a few issues with a lot of shit there. So, I'll be listing what I don't like mainly, but I will tell you what I do like as well.

The Girls Are Fighting? Let's address the most obvious thing first. The Warriors are women. Now before you call me misogynist or whatever, hear me out. I personally have made shitposts about an AU where the Warriors were girls and they were a lot of fun. Thing is, they're shitposts for a reason; they played into tropes and gave goofy ideas for the girls. This feels like cheap representation and women deserve better than that. The woke-ification of a franchise that was supposed to be inherently problematic in nature feels forced. I've talked about why a remake of this film would not work, but this wasn't something I could have expected. A lot of the things are pretty (stereotypically, I'll say) gender-specific. There's a lot of things that a remake would likely take out of the charm of the original film (which itself is already romanticising what happens in the book and that's its own problem).

The Bizzies? No. They've been running into guys all night, but now they're all infatuated with them because they... wear cardigans? Okay... Thing is, they could have still been the Lizzies and nothing would've fucking changed even if the Warriors were women. If anything, it seems like their guards would've been lowered if they were the Lizzies instead, right? Let's just make all the Warriors gay.

Ajax... Oh, sweet Problematic Ajax... Apparently she's played by Amber Gray, which is straight fire. Let's get into this. Ajax's entire character was part of the reason I said a remake doesn't work. The existence of this character serves to remind the viewer that not all members of a gang are "good" people. They have their good moments, relative to each other and what not, but it feels like when this character leaves, it's not because they were doing something triumphant and going out in a blaze of glory, it's supposed to be a comeuppance of sorts. Musical Ajax getting arrested for beating up a shitty cop doesn't feel like that. It just... it feels like you're punishing a woman for a man's shitty behaviour as opposed to because she's the problem. Just seems unsatisying to make this particular character some sort of heroic "for the girls" type of character (especially considering that the character from the original book was also supposed to be pretty problematic from what I recall).

This should have been at the top but WHERE THE FUCK ARE SNOW AND VERMIN?! You take out the two baddest bitches in the movie and leave EVERYBODY ELSE?! At least you left Cochise, but damn! What the fuck are you doing?! Now, none of the Warriors are double cheeked up on a Thursday afternoon! Also, I hate to go here, but it's pretty disrespectful to remove one of the few black Warriors from the group but leave Cowboy in, just sayin'...

Now, I DO like that Cleon was kept alive! The movie did set it up in a way that he could have been left alive, since Masai wanted the Warriors alive when they were brought to him.

I also like that there was no ambiguity for the other Warriors surrounding what happened to Fox! This plot only works when very few people have all of the information, but the Warriors knowing about Fox's death changes nothing in a negative way. Of course, there could be an argument made for them not knowning since Fox's death is supposed to be kind of abrupt. (Sure, it was because the actor who played Fox was fired in the movie, but it still works pretty well given the setting, methinks).

I also like that they gave the Hurricanes a larger role here, as they did have a large role in the game as the main antagonist for a mission.

In any case, I hope that those who enjoy continue to post about it as it is still nice to see some new faces in the fandom!

[ripplestitchskein]

I think it’s important to note in discussions that a power imbalance on its face is not an issue. I would argue MOST people have relationships with people who hold some level of power over them or an imbalance in some capacity. Stay at home parents or single income households, households with large income disparities all are financially beholden to the money holding partner. I am in such a relationship and have been for 18 years, my partner has been a stay at home parent for 9 of those but I’ve always been the primary income because my skill set leads to better opportunities and increased income potential. People enter into relationships with coworkers, either explicitly boss/employee or supervisor/employee or where they are not direct reports but still hold a higher position in the hierarchy. Since we spend a majority of our time at our workplaces that is a really common way to meet people, especially for those of us who don’t date traditionally. People with medical complexities or mental illness and neurodivergence may be partially or whole reliant on others to give care and may be vulnerable in ways that inherently give the other party more power. People are in relationships with those who possess greater social capital, like media influencers or politicians. People are in relationships with people who have greater physical prowess or jobs that could be potentially problematic from a legal standpoint such as cops, judges, military or government agents. Even non romantic relationships feature power imbalances, letting someone crash on your couch, providing housing or necessities, or providing palliative care etc.

Where it becomes a problem is when it is coercive in nature, when that power is leveraged to harm the other, or threatened, and when consent cannot be given such as in the case of minors or mental/physical incapacity.

Stolas being an employee of IMP at some point in the future is not on its face an issue unless there is coercion, an issue of consent or if power is leveraged by the narrative in a way that would make him feel that he has no choice in entering a relationship with Blitz or will have his position threatened. The implicit threat itself, that of someone working and gaining financial benefit from someone they are in a relationship with is a standard part of society and something we interact with in our own relationships as a matter of course and especially in cases of mental or physical health issues or neurodivergence sometimes unavoidable.

[hylialeia]

thoughts on the Daevabad Trilogy, short version: holy shit that was good

longer version:

holy shit that was good.

I adored the writing style, the imagery, the worldbuilding, the characters, the character dynamics, and the pacing all the way through. I first picked up this series because of how Global Medievalism talked about it as a stepping stone away from Eurocentric medieval fantasy and it definitely delivered. this is tied with Spinning Silver for my favorite recent reads--which is even more impressive since SS was a standalone, meanwhile this series kept up a consistently high quality across three separate books.

after Fourth Wing masquerading as a rich, complex adult fantasy and then being What It Actually Was, this was an immensely satisfying series to pick up. it skirts the fantasy staple of the Inherently Evil Race/Species that so many works fall into (even asoiaf with the Others) and instead opts to explore in-depth religious and racial prejudices, revolutions, bigotry, power, and privilege in ways that can be frightening for a lot of authors (and readers). I can see why this series would frustrated a large swath of fantasy fans and not just because it steps completely away from the Europe-but-slightly-to-the-left settings that they're so familiar with; people looking for escapism and a palatable black-and-white conflict definitely wouldn't find it here.

that said, I also think the narrative did a fantastic job of showcasing the brutality of oppression, as well as cycles of revenge and violence, without turning into a sermon about how anyone who fights back is Just As Bad as the oppressor. you can sympathize with any faction within the trilogy while still seeing that there's a clear hierarchy. this is a series that asks the reader to be open minded and to sympathize with a variety of people's suffering while still condemning heinous actions, crimes, and ways of thinking. portrayals of violence, swearing, and sex aside, this is where I believe the adult label is earned. the Daevabad Trilogy outshines Fourth Wing in its entirety, actually following through on promises of depth, complexity, and exploration.

I don't think the series reaches into absolutely flawless territory; on reflection, there are a lot of scenes I wish we'd seen happening in the moment rather than summarized or briefly flashed back to. this goes especially for the end of the last book, Empire of Gold, which would have enhanced the pacing quite a bit. there's a bit of rushing through the final battle, and though it's still quite fantastic and follows through on a deal of foreshadowing and character build-up, it definitely feels over too soon. there are also a few loose ends and potential conflicts when it comes to the characters themselves that the series felt too tired to actually flesh out by the end. I can forgive that chiefly because of just how well-rounded and consistent the characters themselves are, even despite those instances.

and holy shit did I adore these characters. I've only seen the barest tip of the iceberg of discourse this series caused (which I'm sure was insane when it first came out), but thankfully the 10 million+ Way More Problematic Characters (that I also love) in asoiaf has made me immune to whatever the hell was going on over there. I also couldn't get involved in a ship war if you paid me.

I think the first book made a good call only having Nahri and Ali's POVs not just from a technical standpoint (Dara's POV wouldn't have added much, and may have even spoiled some meaningful twists) but also in priming the reader for what is the heart of the entire trilogy: their dynamic. Nahri and Ali carry the series whether they're young, platonic best friends who should be enemies, awkward ex-friends who still get a long way too well, or best friends who are deeply in love which each other but too traumatized to admit it. they both stand incredibly well as individuals (evidenced by the fact that they don't even meet until over the halfway mark in the first book), with Ali being a particular favorite of mine from the very beginning. their opposite upbringings yet similar interests made them a fantastic duo, one where it made sense the impact each one would have on the other's journey. there's something so incredibly endearing about their inability to legitimately dislike each other despite their circumstances, one that makes sense based on their already established personalities; they propel the series' most meaningful moments.

for the elephant in the room: as frustrating as Dara's POV could be I found it a worthy and fascinating addition in the later books, one that I think a lot of people missed the weight of if they were too busy excusing him/hating him. his perspective, biased and misguided as it often was, provided so much rich exploration of the trilogy's overall themes: militarism, religious fanaticism, prejudice, free will, just war, revolution, cycles of violence, conditioning and abuse, etc. that so much of this seemed to fall to the wayside in a strive to decide if he was excusable or not (and thus a viable love interest or not) is a huge shame. his ending was, to me, profoundly satisfying; not redeemed but finally allowed to act of his own free will, no longer bound by outside magic or internalized religious obligation. I never violently disliked Dara and Nahri's romantic entanglement so much as I knew it was doomed from the moment Ali had a POV chapter.

the secondary characters were no less engaging for me, especially as their prominence grew throughout the books, antagonists or otherwise. it was refreshing to see Muntadhir and Jamshid's individual characters (and thus their relationship) become a more prominent aspect of the story--again, especially after the tokenism in Fourth Wing. side characters always seemed to have deeper personalities and roles to play, with even early character deaths like Anas having lasting impacts for our main POVs. their presence was as vital to the immersion and depth of the world as much as the setting and imagery--which are also aspects that completely blew me away. from character, technical, to thematic standpoints, the Daevabad Trilogy absolutely amazed me.

final thoughts and rating: if you give me a book where two married characters are in love with the other's brother and expect me not to give it a high rating you're insane. 8/10. maybe even 9/10. go read these books.