#feel free to argue but know that i'm not necessarily disagreeing with you

[graveyardcuddles]

Some rambling personal thoughts on Astarion's endings since I can't sleep.

I find myself really loving Astarion's spawn endings and ALL of their variations even more the more I think about them (the exception ofc being the cursed af endings where you don't help him AT ALL and he either gets turned into a zombie or is still being hunted by cazador even after the game, but I'm obviously not talking about those).

I think I, like many others who grew very attached to his character, were left feeling very torn over his initial spawn ending before the added epilogue. Because Astarion being free from cazador and learning to truly relish in that freedom AND use it towards more positive ends is the entire point of his spawn endings. But we don't really get the chance to see that fully paid off in the narrative. One could argue that we do see the very beginnings of it with the graveyard scene and the morning after scene and how he makes several comments about never being a slave again after he kills cazador. But then we get a rather painful reminder of the fact that he's still been forced to give up something he's come to love and cherish so much over the course of your journey. And then we just kinda end on that note.

I definitely didn't regret keeping Astarion a spawn, even after that. But I will admit there was a part of me that still really wanted to see more for him. And that's why I really do adore the epilogue. I know people have their issues with it and say it's unrealistic for Astarion to be so "healed" after only 6 months but I disagree with this take because we're literally only seeing a glimpse of him on one really good, happy night, it's not necessarily a reflection of how he usually is. He could very well still be having days where he struggles, and he almost certainly does. But comparing his previous 200 years to his possible (good) spawn endings, it's not really surprising that he's thriving. Same with the "counterweight" comment. He's not saying the 6 months you've been together completely negates and erases the 200 years of torture. He's saying his freedom and your love have been such a HUGE contrast to what he's had to live through for so long that they feel like a counterweight to the horrors.

I think about how far he has to come for him to actually get to those endings. His bounty hunter/adventurer ending? Amazing! He's relishing in violence and living his best rouge life. Leading the spawn in the Underdark? Speaks so much to his character development that he actually cares enough about them to even attempt such a massive undertaking. Lots of potential for healing of course but also: Holy shit the potential for unhinged shenanigans as well. Going to the hells with Karlach? Incredible! He's not just getting to enjoy tearing up cambions all day he's devoted to Karlach and helping her it's literally so beautiful.

Something else I really adore about his spawn ending vs. his ascended ending is that he burns down cazador's palace in his spawn ending. Burns it to the ground and destroys it for good. Whereas ascended Astarion literally moves into the palace and like...sure you can headcanon that maybe he eventually has a new, even grander palace built. But the mental image of Astarion wandering those halls is just so fucking sad to think about. He could go anywhere and do anything but he's still physically occupying the space that hosted so many horrors and tortures for him. And it to me that just screams that he's still there mentally.

I'll always defend people who like the ascended ending because I understand the appeal of it. As a dark romance enjoyer, I very much understand the appeal of the dark consort ending. And I don't even think this is the "worst" ending for Astarion because there's at least still potential for him (as opposed to the endings where he dies or is still being hunted, which ARE the worst endings for him). But it does feel like a step backward for him. And I think the people who go "Well this is just NATURAL character progression for him he's selfish af of course he would want this" Think too little of him or at least underestimate his capacity to care for others.

Because he very obviously DOES care. And allowing him to get to a place where he can foster that sense of compassion for others is truly so beautiful and so profound to see. I'm someone who is easily moved by fiction already but Astarion's story really touches my heart just because of how rewarding it is to see how far he comes in those endings.

[not-that-syndrigast]

Is the grid a friend group?

Short answer; no. But we are here to analyze and discuss, so let's figure out why not and what else the grid can be described as.

In a friend group, you pretty much choose who's a part and who isn't, something that's not possible in F1 where team principals and other higher ups decide who is in the group and who is not. It's also too big to be a proper friend group and too forced.

If you want to describe the F1 grid, I would compare it to a class. It fits not only from the size, but also the set up; the people in a class cannot decide either who is in said group, instead they are forced to spend time with these people and there's smaller groups within. To strengthen the comparison, i'd argue the teammate lineups are similar to seating neighbors; a small bit of mutual liking is needed for things to work out but generally you can't really choose, at least I don't let my students choose.

This can also be used to talk about dynamics on the grid and I would assume makes it easier for some of you to understand that while they aren't necessarily close friends, they all know each other in some way because they are forced to.

I would like to make three examples though;

Oliver Bearman joining the grid and being supported by multiple experienced drivers makes sense, they’ve all been there and even if they aren’t in the same team or even close, they all made sure he felt welcomed and as a part of the group.

Lando Norris and Carlos Sainz becoming friends. Usually I am not a big fan of the assumption that everyone who are teammates are friends, just like how you aren't friends with everyone you ever sat next to but were just forced to talk because there was no one else. These two met each other like that though and became real friends like it sometimes is.

Charles Leclerc and Carlos Sainz, arguably the relationship why I've spent some time to even think about this. A lot of people claim their friendship is only PR, they are not friends and only talk for cameras, but i think it's more difficult than that. Unlike Sainz and Norris, they didn't hit it off instantly and became great friends, but I do still think that they talk, even if only because they are forced to spend time together in the garage. With Sainz leaving, it's interesting. Even if they weren't proper best friends the way Sainz and Norris were, it's still sad and weird to not be close to someone anymore.

Another thing that made this come up again was the recent grill the grid episode, where Norris didn't remember Ocon which proves my point that they aren't a friend group. There's videos of them talking, they know each other, but they are in completely different smaller friend groups on the grid. In the end it's not that deep, Norris forgetting Ocon isn't him bullying Ocon out but simply proves that they aren’t best friends.

It is important to mention though that I do not know these people and it's only observations and interpretations based on my own experiences with class and friendship dynamics. Like always, if someone disagrees or feels the need to share their opinion, I'm free to hear anyone out.

Also; drivers forgetting the names of other drivers they are supposed to be friends with isn’t that deep either. Today i accidentally called my best friend of seven years the name of my cat, it's really not that deep.

[theythembehavior]

(first time submitting an ask ever sorry for the length of this thing or if there’s an expectation I didn’t follow! so do feel free to ignore or delete! - on mobile it looks really long - also might be more angsty rather than hurt I’m not sure if I know the difference writing wise)

you say hurt/comfort

I say step 2 for sure or the transition between barely civil qiu and tamarack to friendly or even friends qiu and tamarack - warning that this is not necessarily a healthy dynamic and probably ooc I’ve only played the demo twice, platonic in mind

something along the lines of a mc that really wants to bring back together the cul de sac kids and keeps trying to hang out with qiu and tamarack at the same time with not the greatest results

and over time they get more and more tired of being the glue of the “group” and get to the point where they stop trying with the group and individually with the both of them as well, maybe even self isolate fully

that is what brings together qiu and tamarack again although begrudgingly

I would think tamarack would reach out to qiu first (would depend) and then they both plot to do something (I’m not really sure what) to try to learn how to communicate and mend their relationship between the two of them and then with mc as well

I am ecstatic about this ask. I do not have a writing skills to do justice to exactly how much I love this idea. Don't be afraid to hit an OOC moment. We don't know too much about our lovely characters yet, but we can dream! There are very slight differences in the handful of lines we can get with both of them in the preview.

Also love, don't worry about the length, it feeds into my thoughts more <3

Slight layout for any warning considering friendship problems (Basically possessive and jealous behavior between Qiu and Tamarack, arguing)

Note: For the sole reason of updating, this is only one part of this ask. I'll do the other part when I'm feeling it and have the time!

It sucked, pretty badly.

They couldn't even hold an conversation together. Getting them in the same room was difficult if it wasn't in your house. It was like having divorced parents with split custody, if both of your parents were sending you back and forth every hour. You could swear that it became a competition to who could find you first for lunch. And ever since Tamarack had to switch lunch period, she acts defeated around Qiu.

It was almost sickening, this game a push and pull of theirs. You didn't want this jealousy in the cul-de-sac kids, they were supposed to be friends. There was no winner or loser for your attention, you were both of their friend, and they should be friends too.

One star moment was when you went to one of Tamarack's band practices, and Qiu insisted on coming as well. You thought that you and Qiu would just watch and enjoy the band play all sorts of songs for an oncoming assembly, but nooooo. Qiu spent the entire time trying to distracte you. Leaning on you, poking you, trying to get your eyes on them. And it couldn't be that they just love attention, you would notice, they don't act like that around Ren. At most they would lean on you but nothing else, it's only with Tamarack.

Not to say Tamarack's in the clear either. It's the same thing at Qiu's ballet practices. She's not as persistent, at some point she just draws on your arm, not that you really mind too much.

This consistent unspoken dispute the two was exhausting, you don't remember the last time you had to put so much effort into a mutual friendship. Perhaps it was unfair of you to try and force them to be friends, that's what your mom said. You couldn't say you disagreed but it didn't change the fact it was taking a toll on your mental health.

It was obvious to everyone that distance had built since your burn out, even Qui and Tamarack tried talking to you about it, only to be dismissed. It wasn't your fault! You have better things to do than be an object of their seemingly never-ending game of tug-of-war. Ren was merciful enough to spare you the questions.

It actually allowed you the chance to focus on other relations with teachers, peers, other friends, even your mother. While you did miss both Qui and Tamarack, they were currently both just.... you couldn't now with them.

But not being able to became simply ignoring them. Perhaps you were in the wrong, maybe you shouldn't have pushed too hard. It wasn't your life but you hated being a subject in which they fought over. If they didn't want to be friends, then they didn't have to be. You would've let it go if they simply told you that, but they chose to fight.

Of course, you always thought about apologizing, but how sincere would it be if you felt like you didn't do anything wrong?

[hindahoney]

I've had this question for a while, and Google is useless. Can you help (or redirect me to someone who can?)? I am Sicilian and I have spent the last 5 or so years of my life working to reconnect to my culture and heritage (I grew up/live abroad). It is imperative to me that I live my life with a connection to Sicily and Sicilian culture because I didn't grow up with it and I want to stay connected to my ancestors and history. However, I'm considering converting to Judaism. Judaism has deeply affected Sicilian culture and plays a big but unspoken role in Sicilian culture and identity, from customs to food to how we decorate our religious places. If I do convert, would it be possible to be both Jewish and Sicilian? I don't want to sacrifice my culture for my faith, but I will hybridize the two if possible.

This is a complicated question, and I think my answer isn't going to be the most well-rounded because I'm not intimately familiar with Sicilian culture. This might be a better question for @spacelazarwolf, as I know that they are Italki. I'd like to preface this by saying that if you were to ask another Jew you'd probably get a different answer (and if someone disagrees with me, feel free to reply with your own answer, I'm sure more answers would help anon). I'm relatively traditional, so my answers reflect this.

I know that Jews have maintained a presence in Italy for centuries, so I have no doubt that Italian culture has at least been somewhat shaped by Judaism, though I can't imagine by much considering most of the country is Roman Catholic. There are no rules saying that you cannot maintain your own ethnic identity and culture along with your Jewish identity. Jews exist in every multitude you could think of, so it's certainly possible and allowed for you to have two identities at once.

What I question, though, is how you would hybridize a predominantly roman Catholic culture with a Jewish one, and more than that, why you would want to. Converting to Judaism is a complete lifestyle change and is incredibly difficult, it's something that you need to really want and be willing to do almost anything for. If you are already saying that you aren't willing to sacrifice for it, it makes me wonder if it's necessarily for you. Which is fine, you can appreciate and learn about Jewish culture and religion without converting. There is an aspect of Judaism that encourages (some would even say requires) a rejection of assimilation into any outside culture, and is something that is stressed in the Torah numerous times. Now, actually enacting this rejection is complicated, as we don't realize just how much the hegemonic culture affects us, but depending on the movement you're converting to I imagine more right-wing sects of Judaism would have an issue with a convert who wanted to convert to Judaism just to "hybridize" it to a separate culture they're trying to adopt. Traditionalists would say it's inappropriate and potentially disrespectful to go into a religion that has existed for thousands of years just to change it to what you want it to be, but others would argue that Judaism is constantly evolving, so there is space for you to be Jewish and whatever else you want to be, and that everyone's Judaism looks different.

So, TLDR: many Jews would not see a problem with this at all and say if you can find a balance, go for it. While others would say that when you convert to Judaism you, in many ways, reject your own culture in favor for another, and that Judaism should not just be part of your life, it should be your life. So, certainly, this depends on what movement you want to convert to, and while it's possible to convert to Judaism and also acquire a separate culture at the same time, some people would have a problem with this.

[bethany81707]

The difference between headcanon and canon when discussing interpretation

I saw a tumblr post that shared points similar to these views, so I'm migrating a few arguments I made in a Discord conversation here. Should probably form a coherent single body of text about it, but that'll take a bit more work than I'm willing to invest when I don't even know what the thesis of that text will be yet.

It is important not to take things at face value, but it is also important to recognise what "face value" is, because that's how you form conclusions about what has been said and what you want to hear.

A critical reader is free to confirm or oppose the author's viewpoint. But they must do so knowing which viewpoint the author is asserting. Denying the author's work by acting as if your interpretation is a confirmation is just as bad, if not worse, as not reading a text critically at all.

There is a difference between the assertions "Your opinion is not canon" and "Your opinion is Bad and you should feel bad". I'm not going to use the latter [often], although I reserve the right to keep it in reserve. But it is important to distinguish between what is canon and what is headcanon, especially on a wiki, which is most commonly read by the people who want the facts and just the facts. I do not necessarily think there is a space to find what the common fan interpretations are, and I think this is a problem we should consider addressing if the idea wasn't so bloody terrifying, but when a reader expects facts, it is wrong to provide headcanons without labels. It may even be the wrong time to present them at all.

You can say a work expresses certain views without the author confirming they intended to put them there. You may not argue that these are the views expressed by the work, however, only that this interpretation exists and is functional. When everyone understands that's what you're trying to say, that is enough. But you may not present your arguments as anything but one interpretation- saying it is the interpretation will get you yelled at by those of dissenting opinions, and if they include the author themselves, well, you've entered a different debate.

Three Houses examples (since that was the space the conversation was held in):

Kusakihara has stated that Rhea is acting in the protagonist's best interests. We are free to deny that vehemently (and arguably we have a duty to), but we are not free to act like he hasn't shared that opinion. What this means is that, when we say "what Rhea is doing is grooming and dangerous", we are doing so from a position of disagreeing that what the author intends matches what the author has presented. And in understanding this, we can consider what this means for how Rhea is portrayed when the time comes to forgive her. An uncritical reader may walk away from Silver Snow believing Rhea to be a flawed but ultimately well-meaning woman who did the right thing for the wrong reasons. A critical reader that approaches the text assuming the authors fully meant for Rhea's suspicious actions to be judged as thus walks away believing the work has promoted being OK with an environment in which you are vulnerable to being preyed on by a social superior.

Can you say Felix possesses symptoms of ASD? Yes, nobody is preventing you from doing that. Can you say someone who chooses to interpret Felix as having ASD is valid? Yes, because this can act as affirmation. Can you say that Felix has ASD? No, because the author has offered no indication they intend to cater to that audience. Saying that Felix has ASD with no qualifying comments presents the conclusion that the authors intended for Felix to be treated as on the spectrum, and while the person who wrote his dialogue probably took inspiration from an autistic person, the work only says that Felix is caustic.

I'm probably travelling to sketchy ground here [in making this comparison], but saying that Felix is autistic is textually equivalent to saying that he is sexist. The work does not present this as fact, so we cannot say it is fact, but Felix behaves in ways congruent with this being true, so treating it as true when engaging with the text is valid. (In the latter case, we also step into the territory of "does the author not say Felix is sexist because they believe that to be self-evident, or do they not say it because they don't believe it to be true"- and if the latter was what was intended, we must be ever more vigilant when reading the text's other opinions on the "correct" way to treat women.)

[ot3]

I looked over what I could find of your thoughts on asexuality, and I THINK I understand your core argument—it’s hard to say because a lot of the posts I found kind of talked around the ideas, and I can’t exactly search “ace” on an ace attorney fanblog and see success haha

But if I pieced things together correctly, it centers around kind of … using the same narrative as other queer identities to [I couldn’t find a conclusion from your posts, just the premises saying this did the ace identity a disservice as well as grossly undercut the gay/trans narratives they pull from].

I’m not sure there’s room for asexuality in the queer narrative, if that’s the problem. If, because everyone experiences sexual violence and shaming unless they’re a part of a small minority, the oppression/pain narrative doesn’t fit.

Every June, people celebrate pride and the exclusion of ace identities immediately follows, usually because those who are ace haven’t suffered in the ways other queers have. The gate is kept for those who think queerness is defined by oppression first and foremost. The gate will continue to be kept regardless of any argument of suffering, no matter if it’s original or ripped—primarily, I assume, because the argument isn’t that aces haven’t suffered enough, but because people genuinely think they aren’t queer, and they’ve picked the one point ace individuals might have a hard time navigating around (because as you said, all sexual expression or non-expression is punished if it is not part of a small celebrated minority), and if they DO argue that they’ve experienced sexual violence, it’s easy to reject.

I’d like to hear your thoughts, if you can spare them, on whether aces are queer—and what queerness is, in the case that it excludes them.

Because once we get into suffering politics, I feel like we inevitably find ourselves in radfem territory. One queer experience is often going to be drastically different from another. A white lesbian knows not the struggles of a trans black woman, but both of them are queer.

So yes, let’s say the ace community is erroneously using language that is disingenuous to everyone’s experiences. The queer community is demanding pain from them in order to be valid. The pain is not exclusive but nearly universal, but oddly never enough. What changes? Are the aces not queer? Or is queerness as an exclusive pain narrative the core of its identity?

Perhaps I missed something in what I read and you aren’t using pain narratives—the concept of transforming queer narratives for acceptance and therefore discrediting all identities involved read as protective, which raised some flags. What I can see of your argument I don’t even necessarily disagree with.

But if the argument is that everyone suffers sexual violence if they’re not part of the celebrated sexual minority, doesn’t that neuter the whole sexual spectrum? That’s bunching everyone into a massive subgroup of not cishet white male. The aces are saying they experience a different sexual violence from straight cis Carla and gay Jerry. Or, not using a pain lens, the aces are saying they experience a different sexual identity from others. Is that not queerness?

Maybe that’s what you’re asking for. But if we’re excluding sexual violence from the narrative because it’s too general a premise, then that HAS to be excluded from your definition of queer.

i have been so, so, so, so clear, over and over again, that i do not care who wants to use the word queer for themselves. i'm not sure how much clearer i can be on the subject and i don't see a point in trying to explain anything beyond that when no one will even listen to that much. i am not going to have these discussions with tumblr anons anymore, it is a waste of my time. if anyone is really pressed to know my opinions they are free to talk to me by literally any method other than anonymous tumblr asks.

[readingthearticle]

I think there are fair and necessary criticisms to make of Atlantic coverage and this article in particular. I do not think this is one of them.

This is an article in which the writer argues that there are currently no reliable figures for the Gaza death toll. The article argues that Hamas figures are unreliable, that Israel has done nothing to show that its figures can be trusted, and that the UN has not done its due diligence in verifying the numbers it presents as fact. The second paragraph ends with the following lines: "The apparent downward revision was made without any accompanying statement to explain the change or sudden precision. Israel’s military did not make a big deal about it either, probably because there is no way to sound good when celebrating a reduction in the number of children you have killed." This article starts off by acknowledging that Israel has killed thousands of children and has not been honest about it.

The article alleges that Hamas's numbers are unreliable, both because Hamas is a "terrorist" group and because medical care has taken priority over cataloging the dead.

The article is extremely critical of Hamas. However, it also casts blame on Israel for not abiding by the accepted standard of modern armies purporting to adhere to international law — transparency to the press.

The paragraph in question is part of an analysis of the tactical considerations Israel is weighing when deciding not to let press on the battlefield, a decision the article deems a "calculated risk." I'm not saying I agree with the very clinical, both-sides way the article presents the issue of unreliable casualty numbers on the Gaza Strip. But I don't think this paragraph is intended to justify the deaths of children. The Atlantic is not responsible for the aspects of national and international law that allow the legal killing of children in war under certain circumstances. "It is possible to kill children legally" is a true statement, just like "It is possible to marry a 14-year-old in Mississippi" is a true statement — it's not necessarily an endorsement on the part of whoever's saying it, though it can be. Context is required to know whether the speaker is justifying something, presenting neutral information, or stating an obviously unjust law as an indictment of that legal system. The point of the paragraph is that, even if Israel kills children "legally," that makes no difference when it comes to how that death is regarded by the press and the public. As the next sentence says, the sight of a legally killed child is no less disturbing than the sight of an illegally killed one. The writer draws the conclusion that this may be a consideration for Israel keeping out press — that even legal wartime actions may be regarded negatively. The paragraph then goes on to explain that this practice has backfired, because most people don't have a favorable view of armies who carry out their operations out of view of the press.

So, no, I don't believe this article is justifying the genocide of Palestinians or the murder of children, legal or not. It's a condemnation of the UN for not using reliable numbers, an argument that Hamas is unreliable for casualty numbers, a statement that Israel hasn't done its due diligence in providing or verifying its data, an analysis of the PR reasons Israel might keep press out and the risks of that policy, and an expression of a desire for more reliable numbers for the sake of the dignity of the dead and evidence in genocide or war crime hearings.

Everything contained within this article is, of course, something one could absolutely disagree with or condemn The Atlantic for. These analyses are not meant to be an argument in favor of the author's position. But I think clarity and context is important when dissecting how media discusses and frames the genocide in Gaza.

Please feel free to add your personal thoughts and analysis.

If you, for some reason, still have a subscription to the Atlantic, cancel it

[nightcolorz]

Same anon here, hello and sorry. I wanted to phrase earlier ask better but limit restricted me. My intention was to offer other perspective, why some ppl act what happened is permanent, since you wondered about why they feel like that. I did include too much of my personal opinions though & my tone was bad. I'm sorry if it gave pressure, it was attempt to discuss but landed poorly. You don't need to explain your views, feel free to toss that ask in the bin. I wish you well & won't bother more

ofmd finale spoilers keep scrolling followers who haven’t seen it, lol

Omg don’t worry about it 😭 I appreciate the follow up anon sm very sweet of you, but it’s all good. I don’t think you were rude in your original ask, it just (along with other comments on my post) made me realize that I didn’t have a good enough grasp on my opinions and my analysis to be having discussions about them yet. (considering i only saw the episode once before I went to bed, then posted that post like at 6:00 am when I woke up after I scrolled tumblr for a bit, saw some very sad posts that made me sad, and half conscious posted what I was thinking). I was frustrated but mostly sad that I was seeing very little theorizing and interesting analysis and a whole lot of sad posting about how the finale was awful and the show sucks now (I very much enjoyed the finale and very much love this show so I was ??) and I wanted to encourage the type of culture I remember when s1 ended and everyone was sad but excited for more (how I feel currently). The toxicity that’s starting to come about in the fandom (not the sadness, that’s understandable and valid, but the leaps of judgement and hatred and arguing) is really getting to me. I liked the finale a lot and I always trust these writers to ultimately make good decisions. I don’t know what direction they’re going to go in but I know they’re not out to hurt us and have a love for these characters and for this show and this fanbase that is rare to find. Whether it’s permeant or not I believe that 1. This isn’t the end of Izzy, and 2. Its going to be good. I was trying to encourage this type of thought with my post. But again, I’m not as confident as I’d like to be when it comes to writing and posting my opinions, so I took down my post bcus I knew I didn’t have a good enough grasp on the episode to discuss it with ppl yet. I wasn’t expecting all the engagement and I got overwhelmed lol. And the thing is, I don’t necessarily disagree with your perspective and I totally get the sadness and the disappointment, but at the same time I also do feel differently on some level that I couldn’t find the words for. I couldn’t rlly come up with a response, just am not in the place yet for discussion. I generally like to think through my feelings concerning an episode (or any piece of media that affects me strongly emotionally) before I post about it or analyze it, and it was my bad for posting smth that encouraged discussion when I wasn’t in a place for it yet. I’m going to rewatch the episode some time today hopefully, if not today tomorrow, and by then I will be more prepared. There’s no need to feel guilty! I understand the place u were coming from and I wish u well as well (and wouldn’t mind being bothered more if u so wish)

[not-the-blue]

Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen (2019) - review

this pretty much wrote itself. contains much, much negativity about Matt Fraction and Steve Lieber’s Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen, be warned! 

An artist - I honestly don’t remember who - once told me, “be careful when you make art about making art. You can easily get stuck in a cycle of cynical meta and your work will have no substance.” - and he was right. It’s easy to get lost in your feelings about creation, and end up making something that’s basically feeding on itself, with nothing to hold it up as a work of art that’s actually about something. 

Few have done this right. Kelsey’s Wroten’s Cannonball comes to mind, as does Kieron Gillen and Jamie McKelvie’s The Wicked And The Divine. Many have done this wrong - think every parody worthy “I’m a cynic who drinks whiskey, fucks models and writes the Great American Novel” type. Matt Fraction and Steve Lieber’s Superman’s Pal Jimmy Olsen manages to get even worse than that, because it’s not even trying to sound deep. It’s above sounding deep. It’s above being anything. 

The story - if it can even be called that - follows, as the title suggests, Jimmy Olsen, who’s friends with Superman (Clark Kent, but you didn’t hear it from me). The red headed, butt headed menace has a knack for shenanigans, and he’s sometimes a dick. That’s pretty much everything the reader gets to know about the main character. That, and his apparently problematic family legacy, from before Metropolis was even called Metropolis. As of issue #6, the two plot threads - the modern adventures of Jimmy and the life story of his “great-great-grand-something” Joachim Olsson - have not yet been connected. I’m sure they will. I’m sure it’ll be very clever. 

Jimmy Olsen gets in trouble. Jimmy Olsen flees from Metropolis. Jimmy Olsen fakes his death. There’s a conspiracy - I think - and Batman shows up at some point, but if there’s an actual plot - a story that develops and follows some kind of thread to a satisfying, earned conclusion - it’s lost between flashbacks, flash forwards, Joachim’s side plot, mini chapters, faux cliff hangers and gags. 

This review is actually kind of heartbreaking for me to write, because I love Matt Fraction’s work. Well, I love Sex Criminals and Hawkeye (2012), but I love them so much, I thought loving his work was a guarantee at this point. Hawkeye is smart, well structured, deeply personal and innovative without being showy about it. Sex Criminals is heartfelt, complex and cares a lot about its characters. Hawkeye, in second reading, can be a bit gimmicky, self important and sexist. Sex criminals is a bit hard to follow and at some point, a character being an asshole stops being interesting and starts being annoying. The only reason I’ve noticed these flaws is because Jimmy Olsen takes all of them and plays them up to eleven, making it impossible not to notice them in Fraction’s better works, which makes the comic, in my opinion, actively worse than just a bad story. 

The art of Jimmy Olsen is very good. The lines evoke a nice vintage comic vibe, but it’s still extremely dynamic and expressive. It’s a very “the good ol’ times” wholesome, almost self parodying feel. Lieber does an excellent job at taking a classic character and modernizing it in a way that feels slightly off but still very pleasing to look at. It’s classic, it’s iconic, and it’s so completely wasted that it makes me want to cry a bit. 

Now, a disclaimer: this is my introduction to Jimmy Olsen as a character. I also don’t read a lot of stuff published by DC comics. This is not by design - I don’t believe in the marvel vs. DC debate, they’re publishers, you can read both - I just haven’t found anything I like yet. My standards when it comes to superhero comics are, with some exceptions, “involved a woman somewhere in the making process”, so, uh, yeah. There isn’t much. 

I don’t feel like knowing Jimmy Olsen would’ve made me like this better, though. On the contrary - this comic book mocks its reader for the mere possibility that they’d ever want to like, relate to or enjoy the content or the character in any way. It mocks the format of old comic books with long, ridiculous chapter openers that stop the story completely for a couple of paragraphs at a time just to tell you that no, the story doesn’t take itself seriously, god forbid. 

Sometimes when a story doesn’t take itself too seriously, you get something delightful, like Kyle Starks’ Kill Them All, that’s basically just one big action sequence where three main characters kill a bunch of bad guys and it’s great. Sometimes you get the vintage comic Jimmy Olsen gets out of its way to mock - I managed to get some old West Coast Avengers (1989) issues recently, and reading through them, missing arcs and water damages and all, has been lovely. It’s over the top! It doesn’t make sense! But we’re all here to have fun. The writers, the artists, the readers - there’s a value in this kind of stories, a value Jimmy Olsen refuses to see. It starts with someone, or someones, REALLY WANTING to tell a certain story. These stories might not take themselves too seriously - they’re not here to say anything important, to be capital a Art - but they are treated seriously in that we all know what kind of experience we’re in for, and the creators make sure it’s delivered to the best of their ability, because they’re passionate about it. 

To paraphrase Hannah Montana, Matt Fraction gets the worst of both worlds here. It is - or at least it feels like it is - trying to be capital a Art, like it’s trying to say something important and deep. But with the same breath it tells you, you know what, you won’t get it, and fuck you for wanting to enjoy a story. This is not what serious comic readers do. Serious comic readers sit in the dark and stew in their own meta, and if passion tries to get anywhere near them they instantly destroy it with a ray of cynicism so concentrated it will tear through Hawkeye’s suit and leave him shirtless for the rest of the story (no, YOU’VE been reading too much West Coast Avengers). 

When Matt Fraction is passionate about telling a story, it makes up for the less good bits and the story becomes an instant classic. It seems like when he’s not, though, it’s everyone else’s fault. I hope he finds that spark again, but i’m not sticking through issues #7-#12 to find out. I prefer comics that wants to be read.

[fletchingsandstars]

Ummm... How do you think Ollie could influence Jason or his opinion on the whole hero thing? (About that rant you posted in the tags)

(I was always kinda interested in it but I don't know Ollie's character enough. Feel free to ignore)

I'm sorry this took so long! Life really got in the way this week!

Ok so big question! I have a lot of thoughts on this so I’ll try not to go off on too many tangents. Also if you’d like some Ollie comic recs, I’d be more than happy to give them!

Also before I begin, I’m writing a fic on this premise so if you don’t want some spoilers, don’t read this post. I’ve also been thinking about how Jason and Ollie connect mostly in regards to the fic I’m writing, which has Under the Red Hood Jason and pulls mostly from the Grell run and the Quiver storyline for Ollie, so those are the characterizations I’m going to be referring to.

SO

Let’s start with why I think Ollie and Jason would work together. Ollie and Jason are both characters who are known for and, at times, defined by their anger. Ollie is a leftist who uses hero work mostly to protect people who aren’t being protected by law enforcement, such as sex workers and the homeless. Jason came back from the dead to find that no one he knew in life seemed to miss him and his life didn't seem to matter to anyone and he became angry. While they have different motivations for being angry, I find it interesting that anger is an important emotion for both of them. Jason and Ollie also tend to handle their anger in similar ways, with lots of outbursts and vigilante work. They also tend to work toward similar goals. Ollie wants to help lower class people and people who are frequently ignored by the justice system, while Jason wants to help protect kid from the drug trade, as shown in UtRH, and to some extent help the Bowery. Ollie is an older hero who has been doing this for a lot longer than Jason has and focuses more on areas of hero work that Jason is interested in as Red Hood but clearly would not have had experience with as Robin.

Ollie is one of few characters who is shown to stand up to Bruce with some frequency. As shown in this post, Ollie will defend Bruce’s kids and treats them like people before like sidekicks. A lot of moments when Ollie is arguing with Bruce are meant to portray Ollie as argumentative and hot headed, all of which I think is interesting to parallel with how Jason has been treated for disagreeing with Bruce's methods. I think it could do Jason a lot of good to connect with both heroes who don't necessarily see eye to eye with Bruce, and also to connect with heroes who aren't in Gotham and do hero work differently. As I've said before, the bat kids do a lot better when they are allowed to connect with people outside of the bat circle and grow as a person separate from Bruce. I also think that Jason's character is constantly nerfed in favor of showing Bruce in a better light and having Jason connect with a hero who understands his actions and tries to meet him on his level would actually be a boost for Jason. The post linked above includes a panel from that comic where Jason kidnaps Mia Dearden and blows up her high school gym. (Don't really like this plot but anyway.) Even though Jason has kidnapped Mia and Bruce and Ollie are trying to track him down to make sure he doesn't hurt her, Ollie still shows a lot of concern for Jason and what he's going through. Even thought Jason has taken Mia and blew up a building, Ollie is still thinking about Jason as a person who needs to be talked to and understood rather than a villain who needs to be conquered. This, to me, shows that Ollie would make an effort to connect with Jason and understands him.

For a more specific point of connection, Ollie is another vigilante who has died and come back. It wasn’t the same as Jason’s resurrection, since he was put back together atom but atom by Spector Hal and had to go to heaven to get his soul back, but that’s still an experience that not many people could relate to. Ollie is also a vigilante who has killed people. He hasn’t killed on the scale Jason has, but that still sticks out to me, especially since DC has a pretty strict code that their heroes don’t kill. Ollie has killed out of anger, revenge, or to protect someone, which is similar to Jason, who kills because of his anger over it not seeming like he was remembered or cared about, revenge for being killed, or to protect the people and kids in the parts of Gotham Bruce ignores. Again, they're not really the same reasons, especially with a lot of Jason's characterization after UtRH, but I find it interesting that comparisons can be made between them and why they've made the choice to kill. I also think it would be very interesting to have Jason connect with someone who has killed for similar motivations but is still considered a hero and is welcomed by the other heroes.

Related to that point, Ollie and his family are also friends with assassins and people who have killed or really wouldn’t be welcome by other heroes. People such as Eddie Fyers, Shado, and Jade all have close relationships with members of the Arrowfam and show up pretty frequently in their storylines. They’re invited to weddings, they're offered help and haven by the Arrows, and, in Jade's case, she is allowed and encouraged to be a large part of Lian's life. These characters are recurring, and they are shown to have established trust with the Arrowfam. So while Jason is a killer who has committed some truly heinous acts, I really don't think that it would be all that big a barrier in Ollie fostering a relationship with him.

So this is a very long explanation to say that I think Ollie would understand Jason a lot more than the majority of other heroes, and if Jason and Ollie were given the opportunity to actually connect, I think it would work out well for Jason. Jason is a very lonely character. He doesn't have many friends, especially not ones who he's had for as long as other characters, and the only people he has to reconnect with when he comes back from the dead are the bats, who have very different world views from him at that point. Ollie, on the other hand, operates very differently and I think he could really do a lot for showing Jason that you don't have to follow Batman's rules to be a hero or to do the right thing. This isn't to say I think Ollie would whole heartedly endorse Jason's whole "Red Hood Reign of Terror" thing, but I think Ollie could be a positive influence in showing Jason how to be a street level vigilante, especially since they tend to focus on similar areas. Ollie could really help Jason become a hero in his own right rather than a character who keeps flipping between outright villain and vague anti-hero.

[sentientsky]

Hi there! The person you're discussing is a mutual and a friend of mine. I'm going to try to approach this from a rational and unbiased perspective, but if I come across as harsh, it's because I care about this person very much. Also, unsurprisingly, I don't fucking appreciate them being referred to in the tags as a "kindergartener" who has been "told the world isn't about just them". Seriously, just fucking stop. It’s not a cute look. To preface, a couple of points I should mention... Necessary disclaimer: I love Aziraphale, I really truly do. I love his enthusiasm and passion and joy, and he's just a genuinely interesting character all around. It's evident that he loves Crowley, I'm not denying that. Further, I am not slandering him here, but rather performing an analysis given the evidence we see in the show. Also, if you do see yourself represented in Aziraphale, I'm genuinely happy for you and that's valid; I know how affirming (and often cathartic) it can be to see yourself in characters. I also relate to certain aspects of his character. Alright, let's get into this. I'm going to address both op's ideas and the reblog as a singular post, just to avoid confusion.

Them: Aziraphale can't have depression because depression doesn't exist. It's not in the ICD-10.

That's not what they said in the least. They prefaced their discussion with the note that "depression" is an often colloquial term that is used to describe several, varied disorders. For further evidence:

(source) Yes, the term may be used clinically to describe Major Depressive Disorder, but it also applies to a wide range of disorders (e.g., dysthymic disorder, recurrent/persistent depressive disorder) (source). However, if you reread their initial post, you'll find that their argument was not, "Aziraphale can't have depression because depression doesn't exist". Not even close. Rather, they were arguing that, from what we see on-screen, Aziraphale doesn't fit the diagnostic criteria for any kind of depressive disorder. Granted, he may have experienced depressive episodes off-screen. Likewise, (speaking as a person who is relatively good at hiding their own depressive disorder), he could be masking. However, looking solely at what is presented to us on the screen, in-canon, I would say that we do not see significant visible evidence that would point to Aziraphale having such a disorder (an assessment grounded in information from both the ICD-10/11 AND the DSM-V). This doesn't mean that his struggles or trauma aren't valid, just that he doesn't show adequate signs of having a depressive disorder. Additionally, I'm not sure where you found proof that Aziraphale has trouble sleeping (both he and Crowley are supernatural entities...they don't necessarily need to sleep), but please feel free to link it. Moving along.

They will also delete any responses which aren’t praise.

No. Ask me sometime, and I'll be happy to give you a laundry list of replies/reblogs/asks that disagree with them (and with which they then engage and debate). Some responses they receive are flat-out unkind. And guess what?? They're allowed to curate their own experience on here and choose to block/not engage with people. Shocking, I know.

Next:

[...]even when every single post absolutely reeks of disdain and hate for this strange fanon aziraphale they created.

God. I’m so tired of this. They've explicitly said, on multiple occasions, in public posts, that they don't hate Aziraphale. Both characters have flaws; the point of the show is that neither of them is wholly good nor wholly evil, and instead are decidedly human in how they behave. Pointing out flaws (which are, by the way, intentional, on the part of the author—e.g., "just enough of a bastard...") doesn't equate to hating a character. It just means we’re using nuance and thinking critically. I would go into more detail and address the other points here, but frankly, I don't have the time nor the energy at the moment. On a final note, leave them the hell alone. Thanks. References

Bruce, D. (2023, July 20). Types of Depression. WebMD. https://www.webmd.com/depression/depression-types Epstein, R. M., Duberstein, P. R., Feldman, M. D., Rochlen, A. B., Bell, R. A., Kravitz, R. L., Cipri, C., Becker, J. D., Bamonti, P. M., & Paterniti, D. A. (2010). "I didn't know what was wrong:" how people with undiagnosed depression recognize, name and explain their distress. Journal of general internal medicine, 25(9), 954–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1367-0

Them: Aziraphale can't have depression because depression doesn't exist. It's not in the ICD-10.

Me, who has a psychology degree and worked in the field: Yes, it is. Its formal name is Major Depressive Disorder. And it literally says right on MayoClinic that depression is another name for MDD.

Them: *Blocks me*

#NoLikeTheyreLiterallyOutHereGatekeepingTheLanguageWeUseAroundDepression #AndInvalidatingTheExperienceofPeopleWithDepressionWhoRelateToHim

[showtoonzfan]

Hello, sorry to bother, and I totally understand if you don't want to answer this ask, but can you not put helluva critical posts in the main fandom tag? I don't follow any of the anti tags, yet your crit post still got recommended to me by tumblr. But you're not wrong in your analysis by any means, I'm also vivziepop critical. Thank you either way!

Thank you for the kind reply. So....here’s my thing with using the main tags. I don’t do it to like....rub it in fan’s faces, (which I know that’s not what you’re saying I just thought I’d bring that up) the honest reason to why I always put my critical posts in the main tags is simply because I want more people to see it. I feel like if I just used the critical tags, not that many people will see the posts, because it’s less likely that a huge Hazbin or helluva fan would go through a critical tag. Now the reason to WHY I want people to see it is not to say “LOOK AT THIS I’M RIGHT THE SHOW YOU LOVE SUCKS”, it’s that I just want to raise more awareness to the critical side of both shows, because Hazbin and Helluva are known to get nonstop praise. The critical side of the fandom isn’t necessarily being heard or popular at all, so I just want people to see my posts to keep in mind of certain things, or at least understand where I’m coming from.

And I feel bad for saying this because you asked so professionally and kindly, but I’m going to be honest, I don’t personally believe I should just use the critical tags. I have a right to use whichever tag I want, and for people who don’t want to see my posts, they can simply scroll past or block me. I know it must be annoying to see my posts pop up here and there A LOT, but I’m not harming anyone, nor shaming anyone for liking what they like. I guess you could argue and say “wanting everyone to see it IS rubbing it in people’s faces”, but again, it’s.....tumblr. I’m not sitting someone down and forcing them to look at and read my rants and everything, they’ll just pop up, and the person has the decision to block me or scroll past.

Now, if you DO like my posts but are sick of seeing them in the main tags, I...don’t know what to say. My decision is to keep using the main tags, and that’s final. I will apologize that my rants will come off as annoying, long, and pretentious, but that’s just how I am. The reason I came to tumblr to discuss my unpopular view on the creator and both shows is because this is a free app where you can basically post and share anything you want, so I’m going to take that freedom to an advantage. I thank you again for the kind words, and while I have disagreed, I hope you and everyone else can understand. ❤️

[infinitelytheheartexpands]

there's an opera question i've had for a while but i'm not sure what exactly it is i'm trying to ask. basically why are "classic" operas not updated to reflect the current times? like, why are we not allowed(?) to change a word or phrase that is no longer relevant or appropriate for modern times, even if the setting or staging is updated to a more current timeline? i know some composers wrote pieces to challenge or make the audience of their time uncomfortable, so why can't we "update" the pieces to do the same to the modern audience? not change entirely, just tweak a bit? --does that make sense?

that, my friend, is an exceptionally good question that makes a whole lot of sense and I would love to be able to fully answer it. however, as I am not a professional and I do not make those kinds of decisions, I do not believe I can give the full answer you are looking for. nevertheless, I will attempt to give you as good of an answer as I can from my own perspective.

first off, occasionally, very occasionally, I’ve heard this done, actually, and not even necessarily in updated productions! the first example I can think of off the top of my head is that in Hector Berlioz’s 1838 opera Benvenuto Cellini, the otherwise perfectly wonderful title character (well, aside from semi-accidentally murdering someone and causing general havoc, but that’s a whole other thing) makes an antisemitic remark about another character (a character, I may add, who is not Jewish, not that that makes it any worse or better): “Mais que notre vengeance frappe ce juif mesquin, qui dans son arrogance me traite en vrai faquin!” (“But may our revenge strike that shabby Jew, who, in his arrogance, treats me like a true rogue!”)

From the late 20th century on, including in some traditionally-set productions, “juif mesquin” is changed to “vieux radin” (“old stingy man”), which removes the overt antisemitic connotation (the character being described is the Catholic treasurer to the Pope, and indeed he is a stingy and generally unlikeable man, but not portrayed as Jewish in any way).

second off, subtitles and translations (although the former is much more common) occasionally do this to try to match the production. like the infamous subtitles in the Met’s 1960s Vegas production of Rigoletto. now THAT can start a whole other conversation about the role of subtitles in opera, but that’s for another day.

third, and I think this gets to the heart of what you’re asking, unfortunately the opera world is still largely dominated by “purists” who believe that everything must be the same down to the last word or note and that all productions must be exactly as envisioned at the time of creation etc etc etc (I recently came across an old post of mine in which I had screenshotted a conversation in YouTube comments in which a person was arguing that we should bring castrati back. you cannot make this shit up.). And I’m of two minds on this specific question I’m asking: on one hand, if the opera is about discrimination and the ill treatment of others just because of who they are and that is a significant part of the plot and the message, then by all means leave the wording as is, uncomfortable it may be (but do make warnings available). On the other, if it is just gratuitous, then I am all for changing it a la the example given above. Now how does one judge that? Well, I feel like in most cases it’ll be fairly obvious which is which but sometimes we need a discerning eye. This is why we need discerning directors and conductors and performers and such. However, there are a LOT of people who will disagree with me because “it messes with the creative vision!” This is why a lot of the time we cannot have nice things, because people are so stuck in their old ways. Opera needs to innovate...and I one hundred percent believe it can, but people just won’t do it. *heavy sigh*

Anyway, that’s my two cents. That probably became really incoherent, sorry. Thank you for asking, and feel free to stop by anytime!

[queerofcups]

Ah! Love a respectful disagreement. This is gonna be a longer response, probably!

So I think Louis' femininity comes up explicitly a few times. The little "its chiffon, it has movement" and Madame Pointe du Lac's observations about his changed appearance post-changing and of course, my favorite, the "be in the coffin, i'll fuck you while i read etc etc" wherein we see Louis decide he needs to be the "man" again and the show explicitly references Louis topping (possibly the only time show says anything explict about what position anyone is fucking in??). Now of course we know that the act of topping isn't inherently feminine/masculine etc but that's a narrative that has to be pushed back again. Being the penetrating partner has been casted as the "masculine" roll for uhhhh centuries, even if that isn't necessarily true practically.

But more than that, the show can't help but be in a conversation about Louis' femininity implicitly. Some of the very first scenes we see of Louis is of this hard, violent man who literally controls women's bodies. He's The Patriarch -- literally, as the oldest in the family and the one who runs the businesses. And its all an act, one that drains and depresses him -- I think you and I are in agreement there. But to me, and this is maybe where we diverge? I'm really interested in what Louis is repressing. The mask he pulls on is The Patriarch, and what's left when the mask is put down is a man who loves art for arts sake and dresses softly and has lofty philosophical discussions (all things that, in our modern age are coded as feminine [and to Louis' in universe as effete]). And the mask is put down when Louis feels free and safe and empowered -- I'm arguing that the show is associating a more feminine-ly coded Louis with the "good times" of Paris. Also, something something, queer theory, pleasure in the abject and in rejection of hegemony etc etc that's not my ministry but i know enough to know that there's something going on there.

Also, I don't think you can make a show about gay men in the modern age and not immediately entire into a conversation about gender--identity, presentation, etc. Particularly gay men who are participating in things like art/fashion/music. Even if they weren't femininely coded at the time (which, even if they weren't -- these guys are having sex which means we are, again, in a conversation about perceptions of femininity and how they feel about it), these codings mean something to the way the viewer is watching the show and processing these characters actions.

To me, the way Louis is involved in that conversation is really interesting! I'm really excited to see how Jacob plays Louis in the modern age and if they dig into what it means to be a many centuries old gay man! Does he flip when someone refers to him as "girl"? Does he take a deep, relieved breath when he realizes no one is going to bash Lestat for prancing around getting glitter on everything? Is he clocking the intricacies of the ways Black queer men and Black women are mimicking and borrowing and sharing culture (I won't hold my breath for this one, lol)?

Ultimately, god i'm sorry this is so long, I really disagree with the idea that investigating Louis' femininity isn't investing in the nuances of his character. I...don't love every way this shows up in fanworks and its not like this, like anything else, can't take on racist or homophobic vibes but I do think that is an aspect of his character, a big one tbh, and being curious about it is actually really really good--for the show and for depictions of queer Black men in the media on the whole.

Re: rockstar girlfriend Louis. The trend of feminizing Louis is just irking in general. Especially as it's more often than not a way to make him helpless than be critical about it.

He didn't like being compared to a tradwife or a woman back then and he definitely doesn't like it now. I just think it's a little in bad taste that this is so rampant.

Yeah, I mean, the bits I've seen of it have been pretty fascinating to me, but I have heavily curated my fandom experience, so I'm very aware I'm probably seeing broader conversations pretty minimally. It seems to spread across different aspects of the fandom too, from the ratio of mpreg fic on ao3 to meta about him as embodying the gothic heroine trope, which like - - I'm not going to get all into this, but as someone who studied gothic literature at university for years, I just don't agree with it at all - like, in terms of character archetypes within gothic literature, Louis is a Byronic hero through and through:

Historian and critic Lord Macaulay described the [Byronic Hero] as "a man proud, moody, cynical, with defiance on his brow, and misery in his heart, a scorner of his kind, implacable in revenge, yet capable of deep and strong affection"

The show is interested in gender, and I can't wait to see what they do with Gabrielle in terms of that thread given Gabrielle is very much gender non-confirming and can be read arguably as trans-masc, but right now, I don't think any of the characters we've seen are anything other than cis (including Lestat) and I think to reject that is to ignore the complexity of their relationships with their own gender. Which is important! There's a reason Claudia is the one who's been robbed of choice, controlled and coerced by both her fathers, not just Lestat, the one who doesn't get to be heard at the trial, or in her life, the one who's infantilised, stuck in dresses she's too old for, the one who's killed. That's important, y'know?

I do think a lot of Louis' issues around his gender are tied pretty specifically to his sexuality, and I don't think he relates to or understands women at all. Like you could make a pretty concise argument that Louis has a virgin/mother/whore complex when it comes to women, which you see in Claudia and Grace/Florence/Antoinette + in his role as a pimp. And I think people take that dual insult of Claudia calling him a housewife and Grace calling Lestat Louis' 'white daddy' as literal, when like - - in both instances they are deliberately insulting / emasculating him either for the sake of it or to goad him into action? They're tender spots for him not because he relates, but because he knows that's how its perceived and he hates that he/it is perceived that way. He's always been an ambitious businessman, so the housewife insult stings on its own, but the white daddy thing taps into what even Daniel Hart was saying about the fact that there is a transactional element to Louis and Lestat's relationship, which is why I find it super interesting that heading into s3, Louis is not only successful, but completely financially independent.

But yes, I think feminising Louis in general just completely shoots over the nuance of his character and honestly, a lot of what makes him so interesting.

[grayyxv]

A Comprehensive Analysis of Eustass 'Captain' Kid

I've been wanting to write this for awhile now as Kid is undoubtedly one of my favourite characters in One Piece. Also, I'm majoring in Psychology so I can't help but think about why I love his character so much.

Disclaimer: As we all know, Kid doesn't have much screentime so it's quite difficult to understand his character completely. So, whatever you read will be my own intepretation of his character (based on the little amount of scenes that he has). Of course, you don't have to agree with it but it might give you a bit of a different perspective!

So, withour further ado, let's begin!

*P.s I'll try to make it flow in but it might end up really messy so I apologize for that*

Note: NOT SPOILER FREE!!!

1. Assumptions

I guess I'll begin with some of the common assumptions of his character based on posts/videos I've seen about his character. They frequently refer to Kid as 'cruel' or 'heartless'. Basically, there are many negative remarks about his character that makes him seem like a total psychopath.

Their reasoning for this would be because:

- He mentioned that he would kill anyone would mocked him

- His high bounty = He's notorious & violent

- The way he acts makes him come off as a bloodthirsty pirate

From another standpoint, I can see why people might think that way about him. The way he speaks and acts does make him look villainous. In addition, his primary role in One Piece is to be Luffy's rival. (I'll expand on this point later.) So, one might think that his morals would contrast Luffy. Whereas Luffy is the kind and benevolent pirate, Kid is the 'bad guy' who is cruel and heartless. The question is, though Kid is rival character, why does that necessarily mean that he would be a bad guy? I strongly disagree that Kid is a psychopath and that he is heartless. Firstly, the term 'psychopath' shouldn't be used so loosely. A true psychopath would have no regard for other's feelings which is not true of Kid because he cares very much for his crew. On the other hand, Doflamingo would be a good example of a psychopath. Next, even if Kid WERE a psychopath, not all psychopaths are violent. So it'd be nice if people stopped misrepresenting psychopaths.

Now, if there is one thing I learned in psychology, is that people tend to make assumptions about a person's actions as part of their personal dispositions rather than because of situation. This would be the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE). What do I mean by this? Let's take a look at Kid's scenario. He mentioned killing people who mocked his dream. Killing people would make people automatically assume that Kid is 'violent'. But here is a different perspective, what if 'mocking him' had meant that they tried to start a fight with him? Provoking other people repeatedly would cause anybody to get angry. There are many other characters who acts this way as well. Sure, Luffy doesn't go as far as to kill them but I'm sure that many other characters do because they are PIRATES.

In contrast, I think of this situation as Kid standing up for himself. He believes in himself and he would beat anyone up who tells him otherwise. If you think about it, Luffy is kind of similar because he ends up fighting anyone who tries to stop him from attaining his goal.

That is pretty much all the assumptions that people make about his character. It's sad how they don't delve deeper but fret not!! I still have more to say.

2. Pre-Timeskip vs Timeskip Changes/Growth as a character

During Pre-timeskip, Kid is seen as overconfident. I actually agree with this statement quite a lot. His high bounty was a result of his reckless behaviour. He could easily triumph over anyone before the timeskip. That was when he started to become a little too full of himself. Consequently, he suffered heavy losses. His arm was taken by Shanks, his crew was utterly defeated by Kaido (curse you Apoo) and his reputation as the top supernova was instantly lost to Luffy. His true character development was in the Wano arc where we see how he starts to take a step back and re-evaluate his situation. The most obvious evidence for this was when he got captured in Udon. He was quiet (before Luffy's arrival) and deep in thought. So many things had happened to him, you could even argue that he was feeling slightly lost and helpless (not depressed) because he was utterly defeated. The motivation and drive he had in pre-timeskip was shattered- Until Luffy arrived of course. When Luffy arrived, he was battered and bruised but he was still ready to fight. Kid, who saw how Luffy still had his fighting spirit, was somehow inspired to keep on fighting. It's almost as if Luffy is Kid's drive to be stronger.

So, what does this all say about Kid?

I think that this makes his character believable as it can represent real life. There are some points in our lives where we could be the greatest but, sometimes, life can be pretty cruel too. If you get too cocky or overconfident, the world will punish you. I saw a comment that says Kid is Luffy but without the plot armour. That is very true. Kid isn't perfect. He made tons of crappy decisions and dealt which the consequences. I'd say he's as reckless as Luffy, perhaps LESS reckless than Luffy but he suffers more than Luffy does. While Luffy could bask in glory, all Kid got was the short end of the stick. I think that is the reason why I find Kid such an appealing character- because its an accurate representation of real life. Sometimes you can try as hard as someone else but you won't always get the spolight.

The other appealing aspect is his persistence. He made mistakes and bad decisions but he knows that he can't undo them and has to move on. Kid isn't as lucky as Luffy because he didn't have someone like Rayleigh to train him so, he had to put in more effort somehow. The main point is, he had to learn everything the hard way. Yet, he still strives to be the best which is very befitting of a rival character.

3. interactions & Personality

Another thing I frequently see when people Kid and Luffy is that: People say that while Kid makes enemies, Luffy makes allies which is why he has so much support from others around him. I was thinking about this a lot and I can't help but disgaree. I saw another post where they mentioned Kid's MBTI personality is INFJ which made me think even more about that statement. From here on, I will include several headcanons about his character as well.

Let me offer you a different perspective. Perhaps Kid isn't good at expressing his feelings. The way he speaks may come off as cold which makes other people dislike him because they think he is rude whereas he simply doesn't know how to communicate with others very well. Luffy is no doubt an extrovert, seeing how he is easily able to interact with others. Kid on the other hand, if he is an introvert, it could be an explaination to why he doesn't have many interactions with others. I don't see him as someone who's very 'sociable'. So he could experience some difficulty when communicating his feelings. He's shown to be closer to his crew more than anyone else. He is deeply respected by his crewmates because he is sensitive to their needs as well. He isn't the tyrant that everyone paints him to be, he earned that respect by first respecting his crewmates. Also, he would essentially DIE for any of his crewmates. This part is quite self explainatory if you've read the chapter where they revealed what happened to Kid and Killer in Wano.

I just want to add that while Killer suffered so much in Wano, imagine how much it hurt Kid to see his first mate suffer and how he couldn't do anything about it. The expression on his face is perfectly the anger he had towards Kaido, Apoo and more importantly, HIMSELF for not being strong enough. Yet, people call him heartless though he would literally die for Killer.

But anyways, Kid is an excellent listener and he cares very deeply for people he is close to. I just think he's bad at communicating. Look at the way he talks to Luffy. In Wano, you can see how Kid actually does LIKE Luffy as a rival. He just has trouble expressing himself. Anyways, this is just a headcanon but I think that he's rather sensitive to other's feelings- Especially when it comes to his crew. I really like the idea that he's an INFJ because he seems more like the 'advocate' type of character. I still think he makes a very good leader but his approach would contrast Luffy's.

4. Intelligence

I could probaly go on forever about why I love Kid but this is another thing that I see about Kid and kind of annoys me. I'm not sure why everyone seems to think he's a dumbass. Like REALLY. I think he's pretty intelligent. He even kept tabs on the whole SMILE situation and Doflamingo and planned the alliance. He IS intelligent but his recklessness just makes him seem like an idiot.

Kid isn't perfect, he is flawed just like a real human being would be. By no means is he a GOOD person but I don't think he is as 'cruel' or 'bad' as people paint him to be. He cares a lot for his crew. He is very driven by his own personal values and he wouldn't 'change' for anyone. He believes in himself and if anyone tells him otherwise, he would simply beat them up. He isn't happy go lucky like Luffy, he is much deeper than that. He would consider his options and plan- to a certain extent because he is also quite idealistic. Hence, the reason why I feel like his character is such an interesting one is because there is a lot of opportunity for him to grow and stray away from stereotypical anime character traits. His character is believable because his personality is realistic, it could reflect a real human being.

TLDR: Stop sleeping on Kid.

With that, thanks for coming to my ted talk.

Anyways, that's it for now! I'll make a part 2 if I feel like I want to add something. If people like this, I'll consider making another analysis for other characters. Currently I have Law, Ace and Sabo planned in mind but we'll see how it goes.

Thanks for reading!

[gffa]

Another for the aro SW club here! ;D I honestly never thought about how my aromanticness (?) might interact with my love of SW and all things Jedi. But I agree that it may be related to SW focusing on the fact that ALL love is good, not just romantic love. It's the found family trope x 1000. Also, I'm with you on being an aro/ace person who loves reading and writing shipfic (even explicit stuff). I think it's bc I enjoy getting to live it vicariously through fic in a way I never would IRL. ^_^

Hi!  *fistbump of welcome to the aro SW club!*  I think, for a bunch of us aro people (and ace people as well, I would presume?), there’s at least an attraction to characters who not only aren’t defined by romance, but it’s by and large just not an issue for them. Sure, you have Anakin who is very clearly not aro, and you have Obi-Wan with Satine, but otherwise the majority of Jedi (at least in canon) just don’t seem to really think much about it, they’re not pining after it, they’re not missing something.  And I love that maybe this is at least partly because they have this incredible connection in their head, where they’re already spiritually and emotionally and psychically connected to so many people, you can send waves of comfort right into someone’s head, there’s not as much of a drive to find more physical or verbal expressions then. But also that it’s nice to have one culture where romance just isn’t part of it and that the people within that culture are free to choose it if they want, a few of them did and they were treated warmly for it, but that the Jedi chose other paths, they wanted other pants, they wanted other dynamics and meaning in their lives, they just don’t seem interested in romantic relationships. Look at Yoda, Mace, Shaak, Depa, Plo, Jocasta, Luke, Aayla, Kit, Yaddle, Even, Adi, Luminara, etc.  All characters who just don’t seem interested in romance all that much, that the Jedi being married to their Order doesn’t seem to be a hardship because there can be people--LOTS of people, even, not just one or two--who genuinely aren’t that into romance and have other types of love that are more important to them.  Even Ahsoka, one could argue, sometimes has squiggly feelings for characters like Lux or Kaeden, but that doesn’t mean they necessarily have to be romantic, sometimes feelings are confusing and messy.  Maybe Ahsoka is biromantic, maybe she’s a lesbian, but also maybe she’s aromantic and there’s a lot of value in that. I think you’re absolutely right that it helps that Star Wars has always been about how ALL kinds of love are good, that SW bucks a lot of the mainstream trends of everyone needing to be paired up in romantic relationships or that blood family is more important than adoptive families or that chosen families aren’t just as good as traditional nuclear families. A lot of us aro people are used to thinking outside of the traditional ways love is shown and so it’s not that we want to devalue romance, because we love romance and shipping characters, those can be great stories!  But having this one culture represent us, showing that we’re worthwhile and just as valid as other types of love, that can be meaningful.  And no one has to interpret it this way, certainly not even all aro people, I’m sure there are plenty who disagree, too!  I’m only speaking for my own experience and the people I’ve directly talked to about this, but there’s absolutely room for our aro/ace qualities and that a culture viewed through that lens has value. And I think this is why I get kind of tetchy about people who deride the Jedi for the no marriage thing.  In addition to that I think there’s a lot of misinterpretation about what the Jedi actually say, what they actually allow, what attachment actually means, that it’s not the same thing as love, etc., there’s all too often this sense of, “They’re denying a fundamental part of what it means to be human by not having romantic relationships!” from some critics and I’m over here like, YOU CAN TAKE THAT ATTITUDE AND SHOVE IT ALL THE WAY UP YOUR ASS, RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR HEAD UP THERE.  I know most people don’t mean it that way, I’m certainly not trying to paint all Jedi critical people with that brush, because that would be inaccurate, but I’ve definitely seen that attitude before and, as someone who is not missing some fundamental part of what it means to be human, who is not somehow broken for being aromantic, it’s definitely rankled.