#for some reason people want to complain about the existence of media as if its existence is something other than totally neutral

[askshivanulegacy]

This is all totally valid. I don't think most audiences are under the impression that a live action remake is the more "real" version of a story. Animated originals will always be superior because they're the original, anyway.

I also doubt a company like Disney is confused either, they're just pushing CG tech, not always very well, and getting money for it.

Their time and effort could possibly be better spent making something brand new, but also the live action remakes don't take anything away from the originals either. Sometimes they're even enjoyable. I'm definitely looking forward to see the new Lion King live action just for fun.

It's also not true that you can't convey emotion and personality with realistic animals. Just go watch Homeward Bound.

You don't have to love live action, but also you've lost nothing at all by the existence of it. Just don't go watch movies that don't interest you.

Since we keep getting "live action" CGI remakes of already perfectly adequate animated movies, and because people need to understand that animation is a medium and not a genre, I have prepared this primer about the importance of Visual Language for Conveying Information.

Can you tell what the personalities of these two mice are?

Can you tell now?

Which of these two tigers feels safer to be around?

Which of these three dogs is the funniest one?

If you can answer these questions, then you already have experience with the idea of visual language and stylistic choices being used to impart narrative meaning. If you can understand why these choices were made to impart meaning, then you can understand why animation is a medium for telling stories that has its own inherent value, and is not merely a "placeholder" for the eventual implementation of photorealistic presentation (aka "Live Action" CGI). Animation does not need to be "corrected" or "legitimized" by remaking it into the most representational simulation of observable reality.

[cripplecharacters]

The Mask Trope, and Disfiguremisia in Media

[large text: The Mask Trope, and Disfiguremisia in Media]

If you followed this blog for more than like a week, you're probably familiar with “the mask trope” or at least with me complaining about it over and over in perpetuity. But why is it bad and why can't this dude shut up about it?

Let's start with who this trope applies to: characters with facial differences. There is some overlap with blind characters as well; think of the blindfold that is forced on a blind character for no reason. Here is a great explanation of it in this context by blindbeta. It's an excellent post in general, even if your character isn't blind or low vision you should read at least the last few paragraphs.

Here's a good ol’ tired link to what a facial difference is, but to put it simply:

If you have a character, who is a burn survivor or has scars, who wears a mask, this is exactly this trope.

The concept applies to other facial differences as well, but scars and burns are 99% of the representation and “representation” we get, so I'll be using these somewhat interchangeably here.

The mask can be exactly what you think, but it refers to any facial covering that doesn't have a medical purpose. So for example, a CPAP mask doesn't count for this trope, but a Magic Porcelain Mask absolutely does. Bandages do as well. If it covers the part of the face that is “different”, it can be a mask in the context used here.

Eye patches are on thin ice because while they do serve a medical purpose in real life, in 99.9% of media they are used for the same purpose as a mask. It's purely aesthetic.

With that out of the way, let's get into why this trope sucks and find its roots. Because every trope is just a symptom of something, really.

Roughly in order of the least to most important reasons...

Why It Sucks 

[large text: Why It Sucks]

It's overdone. As in — boring. You made your character visibly different, and now they're no longer that. What is the point? Just don't give them the damn scar if you're going to hide it. 

Zero connection with reality. No one does this. I don't even know how to elaborate on this. This doesn't represent anyone because no one does this.

Disability erasure. For the majority of characters with facial differences, their scars or burns somehow don't disable them physically, so the only thing left is the visible part… aaand the mask takes care of it too. Again, what's the point? If you want to make your disabled character abled, then just have them be abled. What is the point of "curing" them other than to make it completely pointless?

Making your readers with facial differences feel straight up bad. I'm gonna be honest! This hurts to see when it's all you get, over and over. Imagine there's this thing that everyone bullied you about, everyone still stares at, that is with you 24/7. Imagine you wanted to see something where people like you aren't treated like a freakshow. Somewhat unrealistic, but imagine that. That kind of world would only exist in fiction, right? So let's look into fiction- oh, none of the positive (or at least not "child-murderer evil") characters look like me. I mean they do, but they don't. They're forced to hide the one thing that connects us. I don't want to hide myself. I don't want to be told over and over that this is what people like me should do. That this is what other people expect so much that it's basically the default way a person with a facial difference can exist. I don't want this.

Perpetuating disfiguremisia. 

"Quick" Disfiguremisia Talk

[large text: "Quick" Disfiguremisia Talk]

It's quick when compared to my average facial difference discussion post, bear with me please.

Disfiguremisia; portmanteau of disfigure from “disfigurement” and -misia, Greek for hatred. 

Also known as discrimination of those mythical horrifically deformed people.

It shows up in fiction all the time; in-universe and in-narrative. Mask trope is one of the most common* representations of it, and it's also a trope that is gaining traction more and more, both in visual art and writing. This is a trope I particularly hate, because it's a blatant symptom of disfiguremisia. It's not hidden and it doesn't try to be. It's a painful remainder that I do not want nor need.

*most common is easily “evil disfigured villain”, just look at any horror media. But that's for another post, if ever.

When you put your character in a mask, it sends a clear message: in your story, facial differences aren't welcome. The world is hostile. Other characters are hostile. The author is, quite possibly, hostile. Maybe consciously, but almost always not, they just don't think that disfiguremisia means anything because it's the default setting. No one wants to see you because your face makes you gross and unsightly. If you have a burn; good luck, but we think you're too ugly to have a face. Have a scar? Too bad, now you don't. Get hidden.

Everything here is a decision that was made by the author. You are the one who makes the world. You are the person who decides if being disabled is acceptable or not there. The story doesn't have a mind of its own, you chose to make it disfiguremisic. 

It doesn't have to be.

Questions to Ask Yourself

[large text: Questions to Ask Yourself]

Since I started talking about facial differences on this blog, I have noticed a very specific trend in how facial differences are treated when compared to other disabilities. A lot of writers and artists are interested in worldbuilding where accessibility is considered, where disabled people are accepted, where neurodivergence is seen as an important part of the human experience, not something “other”. This is amazing, genuinely.

Yet, absolutely no one seems to be interested in a world that is anything but cruel to facial differences. There's no escapist fantasies for us.

You see this over and over, at some point it feels like the same story with different names attached.

The only way a character with a facial difference can exist is to hide it. Otherwise, they are shamed by society. Seen as something gross. I noticed that it really doesn't matter who the character is, facial difference is this great equalizer. Both ancient deities and talking forest cats get treated as the same brand of disgusting thing as long as they're scarred, as long as they had something explode in their face, as long as they've been cursed. They can be accomplished, they can be a badass, they can be the leader of the world, they can kill a dragon, but they cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to peacefully exist with a facial difference. They have to hide it in the literal sense, or be made to feel that they should. Constantly ashamed, embarrassed that they dare to have a face.

Question one to ask yourself: why is disfiguremisia a part of your story?

I'm part of a few minority groups. I'm an immigrant, I'm disabled, I'm queer. I get enough shit in real life for this so I like to take a break once in a while. I love stories where transphobia isn't a thing. Where xenophobia doesn't come up. But my whole life, I can't seem to find stories that don't spew out disfiguremisia in one way or the other at the first possible opportunity.

Why is disfiguremisia a default part of your worldbuilding? Why can't it be left out? Why in societies with scarred saviors and warriors is there such intense disgust for them? Why can't anyone even just question why this is the state of the world?

Why is disfiguremisia normal in your story?

Question two: do you know enough about disfiguremisia to write about it?

Ask yourself, really. Do you? Writers sometimes ask if or how to portray ableism when they themselves aren't disabled, but no one bothers to wonder if maybe they aren't knowledgeable enough to make half their story about their POV character experiencing disfiguremisia. How much do you know, and from where? Have you read Mikaela Moody or any other advocates’ work around disfiguremisia? Do you understand the way it intersects; with being a trans woman, with being Black? What is your education on this topic?

And for USAmericans... do you know what "Ugly Laws" are, and when they ended?

Question three: what does your story associate with facial difference — and why?

If I had to guess; “shame”, “embarrassment”, “violence”, "disgust", “intimidation”, “trauma”, “guilt”, “evil”, “curse”, “discomfort”, “fear”, or similar would show up. 

Why doesn't it associate it with positive concepts? Why not “hope” or “love” or “pride” or “community”? Why not “soft” or “delicate”? Dare I say, “beauty” or “innocence”? Why not “blessing”? “Acceptance”?

Why not “normal”?

Question four: why did you make the character the way they are? 

Have you considered that there are other things than “horrifically burned for some moral failing” or “most traumatic scenario put to paper”? Why is it always “a tough character with a history of violence” and never “a Disfigured princess”? Why not “a loving parent” or “a fashionable girl”, instead of “the most unkind person you ever met” and “total badass who doesn’t care about anything - other than how scary their facial difference is to these poor ableds”? Don’t endlessly associate us with brutality and suffering. We aren’t violent or manipulative or physically strong or brash or bloodthirsty by default. We can be soft, and frail and gentle and kind - and we can still be proud and unashamed.

Question five: why is your character just… fine with all this?

Can’t they make a community with other people with facial differences and do something about this? Demand the right to exist as disabled and not have to hide their literal face? Why are they cool with being dehumanized and treated with such hatred? Especially if they fall into the "not so soft and kind" category that I just talked about, it seems obvious to me that they would be incredibly and loudly pissed off about being discriminated against over and over... Why can't your character, who is a subject of disfiguremisia, realize that maybe it's disfiguremisia that's the problem, and try to fix it?

Question six: why is your character wearing a mask? 

Usually, there's no reason. Most of the time the author hasn't considered that there even should be one, the character just wears a mask because that's what people with facial differences do in their mind. Most writers aren't interested in this kind of research or even considering it as a thing they should do. The community is unimportant to them, it's not like we are real people who read books. They think they understand, because to them it's not complex, it's not nuanced. It's ugly = bad. Why would you need a reason?

For cases where the reason is stated, I promise, I have heard of every single one. To quote, "to spare others from looking at them". I have read, "content warning: he has burn scars under the mask, he absolutely hates taking it off!", emphasis not mine. Because "he hates the way his skin looks", because "they care for their appearance a lot" (facial differences make you ugly, remember?). My favorite: "only has scars and the mask when he's a villain, not as a hero", just to subtly drive the point home. This isn't the extreme end of the spectrum. Now, imagine being a reader with a facial difference. This is your representation, sitting next to Freddy Krueger and Voldemort.

How do you feel?

F.A.Q. [frequently asked questions]

[large text: F.A.Q. [frequently asked questions]]

As in, answers and “answers” to common arguments or concerns. 

“Actually they want to hide their facial difference” - your character doesn’t have free will. You want them to hide it. Again; why.

“They are hiding it to be more inconspicuous!” - I get that there are elves in their world, but there’s no universe where wearing a mask with eye cutouts on the street is less noticeable than having a scar. Facial differences aren’t open wounds sprinkling with blood, in case that's not clear.

“It’s for other people's comfort” - why are other characters disfiguremisic to this extent? Are they forcing all minorities to stay hidden and out of sight too? That’s a horrible society to exist in.

“They are wearing it for Actual Practical Reason” - cool! I hope that this means you have other characters with facial differences that don’t wear it for any reason.

"It's the character's artistic expression" - I sure hope that there are abled characters with the same kind of expression then.

“They’re ashamed of their face” - and they never have any character development that would make that go away? That's just bad writing. Why are they ashamed in the first place? Why is shame the default stance to have about your own face in your story? I get that you think we should be ashamed and do these ridiculous things, but in real life we just live with it. 

"Now that you say that it is kinda messed up but I'm too far into the story please help" - here you go.

“[some variation of My Character is evil so it's fine/a killer so it fits/just too disgusting to show their disability” - this is the one of the only cases where I’m fine with disability erasure, actually. Please don’t make them have a facial difference. This is the type of harm that real life activists spend years and decades undoing. Disfiguremisia from horror movies released in the 70s is still relevant. It still affects people today.

"But [in-universe explanation why disfiguremisia is cool and fine actually]" - this changes nothing.

Closing Remarks

[large text: Closing Remarks]

I hope that this post explains my thoughts on facial difference representation better. It's a complicated topic, I get it. I'm also aware that this post might come off as harsh (?) but disfiguremisia shouldn't be treated lightly, it shouldn't be a prop. It's real world discrimination with a big chunk of its origins coming out of popular media.

With the asks that have been sent regarding facial differences, I realized that I probably haven't explained what the actual problems are well enough. It's not about some technical definition, or about weird in-universe explanations. It's about categorizing us as some apparently fundamentally different entity that can't possibly be kind and happy, about disfiguremisia so ingrained into our culture that it's apparently impossible to make a world without it; discrimination so deep that it can't be excised, only worked around. But you can get rid of it. You can just not have it there in the first place. Disfiguremisia isn't a fundamental part of how the world works; getting rid of it won't cause it to collapse. Don't portray discrimination as an integral, unquestionable part of the world that has to stay no matter what; whether it's ableism, transphobia, or Islamophobia or anything else. A world without discrimination can exist. If you can't imagine a world without disfiguremisia in fiction... that's bad. Sad, mostly. To me, at least.

Remember, that your readers aren't going to look at Character with a Scar #14673 and think "now I'm going to research how real life people with facial differences live." They won't, there's no inclination for them to do so. If you don't give them a reason, they won't magically start thinking critically about facial differences and disfiguremisia. People like their biases and they like to think that they understand.

And, even if you're explaining it over and over ;-) (winky face) there will still be people who are going to be actively resistant to giving a shit. To try and get the ones who are capable of caring about us, you, as the author, need to first understand disfiguremisia, study Face Equality, think of me as a human being with human emotions who doesn't want to see people like me treated like garbage in every piece of media I look at. There's a place and time for that media, and if you don't actually understand disfiguremisia, you will only perpetuate it; not "subvert" it, not "comment" on it.

I hope this helps :-) (smile emoji. for good measure)

Mod Sasza

[linkspooky]

The Supreme King Judai vs. Dark Deku: How To Do a Dark Deconstruction of your Shonen Hero!

Think of this as less me complaining about My Hero Academia, and more me taking a closer look at the writing of the Dark Deku arc and why it failed to achieve what it set out to achieve.

I like to look at writing on a deeper level than Thing Bad, and Thing Good. Imagine a story is a car engine that won't start, in order to find the problem you've got to disassemble all the pieces and look at them one by one to see what pieces aren't working. That's the kind of criticism I'm talking about, break storytelling down into different tools like parts of an engine, plot, world, characterization, ideas, actions and consequences and then look if the author is using those tools effectively to sell a story.

In other words we're talking about the difference in ideas and execution. All works of fiction have ideas, even bad anime can have good ideas inside of it. The idea in question is Judai's case is can exploring the dark side of a hero. Can a hero's positive qualities also lead them down a dark path? Yu-Gi-Oh Gx answers this in a satisfying way, and My Hero Academia I'm going to argue does not.

IDEAS VS EXECUTION

One piece of writing advice I heard from Brandon Sanderson of all people that always stuck with me is "Ideas are cheap. You can always come up with more ideas."

All works of fiction have ideas and themes no matter what the Game of Thrones guy say, but some works are better at communicating their ideas than others. I want to quote a Homestuck Ending analysis of all things to explain what I'm talking about.

When you are a writer you can write anything you want. But if you want to write a story that people want to read you have to follow the rules of good storytelling. There are reasons why storytelling rules exist. A story is a bond between author and reader, readers to other readers. It is a communication between humans and humans work in a certain way. Storytelling rules are rules of communication. Rules for handling expectations and saying what you intend to say without it being misheard. Rules for tugging at emotions and pulling heartstrings in a good way rather than a bad way. Storytelling rules are lessons learned by authors of the past that failed to communicate what they needed to. They are not that subjective.

Chief among these rules is buildup and payoff. In fact one of the most basic techniques of storytelling is foreshadowing, in screenplays you usually foreshadow one important twist, then add a reminder so the audience doesn't forget, before finally paying it off.

To simplify build up and pay off I like to refer to it as question and answer. Usually a story will ask its audience a question, and usually by the end that question is answered, unless the point is to leave that question unanswered / ambiguous.

Character arcs are examples of buildup and payoff too, a lot of characters, especially in serialized media are sold on their potential future development. Here's an example, how may people got invested in Dabi years in advance because of the Dabi is a Todoroki Theory? That's an example of good buildup and payoff, because the author sewed just enough hints to build up an audience expectation and then paid it off. People became invested in the story, because they thought their investment and theories would pay off eventually and it did - so hooray!

Both MHA and YGOGX dedicate an entire arc to trying to deconstruct their main protagonist. They also seek to deconstruct the "Hero Complex" or "Saving People Complex" that each protagonist has, and ask the question if those traits are really a good thing.

This post puts it better than me so I'm going to quote tumblr user rhodanum.

‘Hero complex’ or 'saving people complex’ — an obsession with rescuing people in the face of danger, often to the exclusion of all higher thought processes. All too prevalent among shounen main leads, especially hot-blooded shounen main leads. Yuki Judai is certainly no exception. What is interesting in his case is that the writers follow the consequences of his rash, reckless, often thoughtless actions all the way to their heartbreaking logical conclusion. For those not fully in the know, it involves spiky black armor, an army of sycophants and a fall from grace that caused as much damage as a thermonuclear bomb. Don’t make perky, happy shounen protagonists snap, people. First rule.

I'm going to quote another video too, to add onto the above quote. It's from this video, starting at around 39:52

"GX is kind of famous among fans for taking its happy protagonist and stripping him down to all of his worst qualities. And that's fun. So Judai is a character who's really interesting. He's definitely open to a lot of interpretation, and you know we're gonna be leaning on my interpretation of him. Sorry. It's my video. I think he's commonly referred to a "very typical shonen protag" probably one of the most shonen protag of the yu gi oh protagonists. He is headstrong and loud, and (makes punching noises while air boxing), he is a type of character who's like I'm gonna be the best and brings everyone along on the ride. He's the kind of protagonist that everybody loves him they're all fighting over him, and Yu Gi Oh Gx really puts him up on the pedestal, of like THIS GUY. THIS GUY DOES IT ALL. Then season 3 rolls around and dares to ask: but what if that's selfish behavior?"

That's the question both MHA and YGOGX are asking in Dark Deku arc and Season 3 respectively, what if all of those behaviors that make them the typical hot blooded shonen protagonist are actually selfish? Is their hero complex really a good thing?

Each arc is tasked with exploiting the main character's flaws, until they reach their emotional breaking point and lowest point in the story. Let's see how each story treats their main character and from comparing that I want to make a point about what makes effective storytelling.

The Supreme King Haou Arc

Instead of recapping the entire arc to you, I'm going to touch upon what ideas the story setup in regards to Judai's character and how it paid off those ideas. What are the questions the story asks and what answers does it give us?

I'm going to focus on the two questions I outlined above. Is their hero complex a good thing? and What if this is selfish behavior?

Yu-Gi-Oh GX is an anime where instead of using super powers, the main characters fight each other with a magical trading card game. Besides that fact there's a lot of similarities between GX and MHA. They both take place in an academy setting where the main characters learn about using their quirks, and playing the card game better respectively. It is a shonen battle anime where almost everything is solved with a shonen fight, they just use cards instead of flashy superpowers. The main characters are all students who have to grow up and enter the adult world.

Judai and Deku are both characters that deconstruct the "hero complex" of shonen main characters. Judai is themed entirely around heroes, he has an elemental hero deck where every hero is based off a hero that appears in popular culture, he is the best duelist in the school and the one everyone calls on to save the day over and over again. As stated above he is the most Shonen Protag to ever Shonen Protag, he's a warrior therapist who makes friends and saves the day because he's really good at the card game, and will always show up to fight for his friends.

For the first two seasons Judai is built up on this pedestal of the ideal Shonen Protagonist, and praised by basically every single character for being "childish" and "pure of heart" however when Season 3 comes around the narrative stops heaping endless praise on him and starts to challenge him. However, this doesn't come from nowhere there are signs of these personality flaws of Judai, they just get swept under the rug the first two seasons.

There are several moments such as the climaxes to season 1 and season 2 where Judai fails to grasp the stakes of the situation, saying things like "Oh, this card game is really fun" when he's dueling with lives on the line. Judai in fact has a pattern of "only wanting to duel for fun", he fights because it's fun to him not because it's the right thing to do. However, he's continually forced into high stakes situation where he has to fight for others just because he's the strongest character - and constantly having to carry that on his shoulders starts to weigh on him after awhile. Judai will show up to fight and save his friends every single time they need him, and that's the source of his hero complex because after a certain point his friends start relying on him too much.

In general he also doesn't have deep thoughts of what heroes are, he admires heroes but it basically boils down do "Heroes are cool." He's kind of like Goku where he doesn't really fight for any idea of justice or to save others, just for the thrill of fighting itself. He also has a tendency to be insensitive to other people's feelings and take things for granted. For example, in Season 2 like three of his friends get possessed and Judai doesn't even do anything about it for half a season because he's too busy participating in the dueling tournament.

In general though it's a pattern of Judai only wanting to "duel for fun" and him being forced to duel to save others instead, and be responsible for other people. Judai will show up to fight for his friends, but even then he falls back on just "dueling for fun" because always having to fight for others is too much responsibility to put on his shoulders.

There's a lot of hints of Judai's flaws, but they also tend to get brushed off because shonen protagonists are just like that. Like, Judai can say some insensitive things to his friends sometimes and be oblivious to their feelings, well he's just a book dumb shonen protagonist. Judai should be taking this fight seriously, well he's just being a happy go lucky shonen protagonist, etc. etc. A lot of these things are also just swept under the rug as him just being a child, a boy-at-heart like most shonen protagonists are supposed to be.

However, season 3 starts looking at Judai not as a shonen protagonist but as a person, and it all starts with the suggestion that maybe Judai remaining a child at heart is a bad thing, especially when his friends around him are all growing up. It all starts with the introduction of this guy right here - Johan Anderson.

Johan shares many things in common with Judai, he can see spirits, he's a duelist who loves to duel, he has a strong connection with his cards. However, the more you compare them the more you notice that Johan has a lot of things that Judai lacks. They are so similiar that they become almost instant best friends, but even then Johan himself notices there are a few things off about Judai's behavior.

Sho: Bro... I thought you would have something to say to me. Johan: He seems lost. I think he just wanted you to give him some advice. Judai: SHo will be fine. Johan: Judai, you're colder than I thought.

It takes someone completely new to the dynamic between Judai and his friends, who likes Judai but hasn't spent the past two seasons idolizing him to realize that some of his behaviors are kind of off. That Judai isn't really the most empathic, or even that good at understanding other's feelings.

Johan is the one to point this out because he has the emotional intelligence that Judai lacks. We've been told Judai is our shonen protagonist for two seasons, only for the real shonen protag Johan to step up out of nowhere and show them how it's done. Johan is good at seeing other people's emotions, and he becomes a near instant pillar of emotional support for Judai. More than that, he also is the first person to treat Judai like an equal, he never asks Judai to save him like all of Judai's friends do, if anything they both save each other.

Johan also exists to show what Judai is lacking, mainly a reason behind why he fights.

Judai: I do it because it's fun. Or because of the surprise and delight, I guess. Well, I guess that comes down to "because it's fun", huh? Sorry, I guess that's an awkward question to ask out of nowhere. Johan: What's wrong, Juadi? Judai: Nothing, really. Johan: I have a proper goal. Judai: Don't tell anyone. Even if people don't have the power to see spirits, they can still commune with them. That's why, for those people as well... (I want to be a bridge between humans and spirits).

Judai is someone who will always show up to save his friends when he is asked, but he doesn't really have a concept of what being a hero is or the repsonsibilities it entails, he just admires heroes in a pure hearted way. Johan on the other hand has a reason to fight and that's to help humans and card spirits get along, and Judai expresses admiration for Johan because he has a goal.

At the same time this is happening, Judai gets picked apart by two villains for his lack of reason for fighting. Judai has been praised to death for two seasons for being pure of heart, but now the villains are challenging him by saying he has no "darkness of the heart". That without it the reasons that Judai fights are superficial and frivolous.

We have something that you lack. Judai: That I lack? Yes the darkness of the heart that slumbers deep within a duelist. The burden that a duelist bears in his heart. Judai, you have none of that. Judai: A burden in my heart. I have nver, not even once, dueled for myself. I doubt someone like you, who only thinks of himself could udnerstand that. Judai: What would be fun about a duel like that? It isn't fun at all! You must bear other's expectations while remaining strong. That is what it means.

Judai is a bit of a blood knight, he will be dueling with his friends lives on the lines and stop to go "Wow, this duel is really fun" and it's usually just dismissed a shim being a shonen protagonist until suddenly it isn't.

I'm gonna draw a deliberate parallel between Deku and Judai here that I'll reference later on, they both don't understand "darkness of the heart" and they need to understand it in order to grow as people.

There's also the underlying notion that being a hero is not all it's chalked up to be, to be a hero, to fight for other people's sake means also taking on their suffering. As noble as that may seem suffering is suffering.

Cobra: Fortune would never smile on a fool like you who fights while prattling on about enjoying duels. Cobra: You are certainly a talented duelist. But you have one fatal flaw. Judai: A fatal flaw? Cobra: Yes, your duels are superficial. Someone who fights with nothing on his shoulders, cannot recover once he loses his enjoyment. What a duelist carries on his shoulders will become the power that supports him when he's up against the wall! Cobra: But you have nothing like that! Those who go through life without anything like that cannot possibly seize victory. Cobra: But I know that nothing I say will resonate with you... because you have nothing to lose but the match. Judai: I... Cobra: Afraid aren't you? Right now, you have nothing to support you.

In the context of this scene, Cobra has told everyone that he's currently enacting his evil plan out of the vain hope that he can somehow revive his son from the dead.

As insane as "I think I can revive the dead" is as a motivation, fighting for the sake of your dead son is a much stronger motivation than "I think duels are fun."

Judai doesn't have an appropriate answer as to why he fights when he's questioned by the villains, and instead of coming up with his own answer he relies on the answer Johan provided for him.

Johan: You idiot. Why are you so shaken Judai? You think you have nothing on your shoulders? Give me a break! You always bear other's expectations on your shoulders. When you have other people's expectations riding on you, it means they've trusted you with their hopes! Don't you always carry those? If you lose what will happen to us here?

Johan's words snap him out of it, but this isn't Judai coming up with an answer himself it's just taking the one that's provided for him.

This is also the point where we get start to develop an answer to our question. Is Judai selfish?

In action he's not. His actions are selfless. Judai is always fighting for others, even when he only wants to duel for fun. He will show up and fight if you ask him too.

However, in motivation he is selfish. His motivations are selfish. Judai isn't fighting out of some selflessness, but because fighting for the sake of other people gives him a purpose. He keeps fighting for his friends, because he's built all of his friendships around being the one to solve their problems. It's why he Johan's answer suits Judai so well, because he thinks that's how friendship works that he has to keep carrying everyone's burden for them.

Not only does it lead to unhealthy friendships (he sees his friends as burdens) but also it's unhealthy for Judai himself (he can't keep carrying other people's burdens without getting weighed down).

Judai's hero complex, this pressure he feels to save everyone around him arises from two things, it gives him friends when he'd been a lonely child before that, and it gives him purpose. Playing the hero is how he made all of his friends, and now it's how he keeps them.

However, in spite of doing all this to keep his friends, Judai's relationship with his friends is so all give and no take that he's practically fighting alone until Johan shows up. Judai doesn't form a healthy and stable relationship with Johan however, Johan just becomes a crutch.

In Summary:

Judai's actions are selfless.

His motivations are selfish.

Judai's purpose is to carry everyone's burdens on his shoulders.

Judai's friends exist to be saved by him.

The following arc is roughly divided into four sections. Everything I've covered above happens in the first section the Cobra Arc.

Cobra Arc

Zombie Survival Arc

Dark World / Supreme King Arc

Oh Shit, Yubel's Back

The cobra arc is the introduction and it sets up the basic ideas of Judai's character that I listed above, in addition it focuses on the question of if Judai is selfish, and the idea that being a hero is a burden. There's also the third question where Judai is called to understand darkness of the heart, something Deku will also be called to do.

The Zombie Survival arc is an arc where the school is teleported to another dimension and they have to survive for several days with a limited food supply, everyone fighting, and an outbreak of zombies.

The main setup of this arc is to show how everyone is working well together as a team, even in a high stress situation. Alexis, Judai, Misawa, Kenzan, all pull together with the help of new students Johan, Austin O'Brien and Jim Crocodile Cook.

However, I'm brushing over this arc because Judai doesn't actually do much this arc. If you analyze who does what, it's mainly Johan and Austin O'Brien who are in charge of the entire school. Johan demonstrates leadership skills, calls on everyone to pull together in a time of crisis, and most importantly emotionally supports Judai all throughout.

Even when Judai is confronting the main villain of this scenario Yubel, it's Johan who shows up to support Judai, and it's Johan who wins the duel at the sacrifice of his own life. Everyone gets through the zombie arc unscathed, but it's because Johan is the hero of this part of the arc, not because of anything Judai really did.

Judai who having gone on so long carrying other people's burdens to the point where he's made saving others his purpose, has for the first time experienced someone helping him carry those burdens only to disappear and Judai does not react well to it.

This is when the story has finished setting up all the dominoes that are about to fall. We have one mini-arc drawing attention to the dark side of Judai's personality and how he doesn't understand his own darkness, and one mini-arc showing Johan being a much more effective hero and leader than Judai, demonstrating everything Judai lacks.

You Either Die a Hero, or You Live Long Enough...

Yadda yadda you know the rest. A character being undone by the same traits that made them a hero, is classic tragedy 101. It's called the Hamartia or the fatal flaw. A character's greatest strength in some situations can be their greatest weakness in others. The Supreme King Arc is a masterclass in showing how the traits Judai had that led to his success in the first season, can lead to his total ruin, and even to him becoming the villain of his own story.

Hero and Villain are much closer than you'd realize, and this becomes especially true in the relationship between Judai and Yubel. Judai shares an extremely close relationship to his antagonist foil, just like Deku does with Shigaraki.

However, in Judai's case he's the reason that Yubel turned evil. While it's not entirely his fault, Judai's decision to abandon Yubel when he was a child, made Yubel go through ten years of painful torture all alone, which is the reason behind their current madness.

To summarize Yubel and Judai's story briefly. Yubel is a card spirit, the thing that Johan wants to serve as a bridge between card spirits and humans. Judai had an incredibly close relationship with Yubel as a child, but Yubel was overprotective and used their powers to harm anyone who came near Judai. Judai launched Yubel into space hoping the righteous space rays of justice would calm Yubel down (I know that sounds stupid just go with it) but instead Yubel was hit with the light of destruction a corrupting force that made them endure years of torture. They called out for Judai's help in their dreams only for Judai to eventually forget about them with a psychologist's intervention. Eventually the satellite they were trapped in made it's way back to earth, and they almost died burning up on re-entry. When they finally crawled their way back to Judai, they found Judai had been living the past ten years happy and surrounded by friends, while they had been tortured in space and nearly died all alone.

At which point Yubel snaps, hard.

While it's not Judai's fault entirely because he was a child and he didn't know what was going to happen, he still made the decision to abandon Yubel and stuck them in that situation. Judai's actions creaeted Yubel, and now Yubel is here broken and hurt and determined to hurt all of Judai's friends.

Judai doesn't know how to cope with the guilt or responsibility for either of these things. Both for creating Yubel, and for the fact that because of Yubel Johan might now be dead.

I'm the one who made her what she is!

This is where the show starts demonstrating that understand in darkness of the heart is necessary, because Judai can't understand two things, number one the fact he might have hurt Yubel, and two how to deal with the sense of responsibility he feels towards Yubel becoming what they are, and for Johan's apparent death.

He just feels a lot of guilt, and as someone who's only been the carefree hero up until this point he doesn't know how to deal with that guilt.

Judai makes a very similiar decision to Deku. He decides to go out and hunt for Johan by himself, leaving his friends behind so he won't risk their safety. Unlike Deku however, his friends immediately follow and insist on coming along.

This is when the problems start appearing, because the second everyone enters the Dark World to look for Johan, the show starts demonstrating clearly how different Judai's leadership is from Johan.

All of Judai's flaws start popping up, he's tactless, self-centered, and doesn't consider others feelings, and most importantly of all he doesn't look before he leaps. These behaviors that could earlier be swept under the rug, just become aggravated in a high stakes situation where everyone's lives are on the line. Judai came together with everyone to look for Johan, but he keeps acting like he's alone.

Another user's meta post here summarizes Judai's actions in the Different Dimmension, more succinctly so I'm going to quote them.

Shit Judai’s friends signed up for when they went into the Different Dimension with him:

searching for Johan

working as a team

deciding as a group what risks they’re willing to take

risking their lives together, on an even playing field

Shit Judai’s friends didn’t sign up for when they went into the Different Dimension with him:

having their input thoroughly ignored

being left behind while their friend recklessly charged ahead

having essential information kept from them (Judai didn’t tell them about the fatal consequences of dueling in Dark World)

being kept from dueling without their opinion on the matter ever being taken into account

having their physical, mental and emotional well-being be completely ignored by the de-facto group-leader

being relegated to secondary importance in comparison to Johan, in Judai’s eyes

having their group leader outright break the promises he made to them

To name a few things Judai does while in the different dimmension. Almost immediately after entering the dimension he runs away from the rest of the group, forcing Austin O'Brien to follow before anyone has even gotten their bearings or investigated where they are. Make an agreement with everyone to rest and wait for Dawn to search for Johan, only to run off into the middle of the night without telling anyone. Run off ahead of the group leaving several of their members behind, and when O'Brien tells Judai that members of their group are missing and that he should go back and search for them, Judai asks O'Brien to just do it instead.

Judai doesn't see the flaws in this behavior because it's how he's been acting all along, he always runs off into danger head first and he always fights on his own. Judai's never been good at considering the feelings of others though because he's a tad socially impaired, so he just doesn't seem to notice everyone's growing concerns with how he's acting.

Once again we are asked the question, is Judai's behavior selfish?

Judai deliberately abandons his friends three times, and the third time everyone stops to discuss his behavior.

Kenzan: True, we did come to this world to save Johan, saurus... Fubuki: He did find some minor clues as to Johan's whereabouts, so I suppose it's only natural, but... Asuka: But right now, I feel something is different about Judai. Menajoume: That's right. He got us all riled up about this, and now he's totally forgotten the comrades who came along with him. Kenzan: That's really irresponsible, Saurus. Fubuki: I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I wish he'd realize the anguish he's putting us through. Asuka: Judai isn't doing this for Johan or us now. It's for himself. He just seems to be rushing forward, headlong, to forget the responsibility he bears on his shoulders.

The answer now is yes, his motivation is selfish because it's no longer about saving Johan, but just to stop himself from feeling guilty.

The stress of the situation is aggravating Judai's worst qualities yes, but Judai's always thought about himself first before others, he's always viewed his friends more as burdens / people to be saved rather than equals.

This all leads to a situation where Judai messes up big time. The same way he abandoned Yubel, he abandons the rest of his friends to run ahead and search for Johan.

They are all kidnapped - and it's Austin who notices they are missing Judai isn't even paying attention. Austin says they should head back and look for the others, but Judai asks Austin and Jim to handle that alone so he can keep searching for Johan.

Jim: The others haven't arrived yet. Something might have happned to them on the way. Judai: I see. Sorry, but could you go back and fetch them? Jim: What? You mean you don't care what happens to them? Austin: Don't forget these are the friends that are in this with you. To fulfill our objective in this dimmension we need everyone working together. You wait here until we return. Judai: Okay, I will.

Austin and Jim agree to go back and search for the others, if Judai promises to wait for them here instead of going on ahead. A promise which Judai immediately breaks.

Which is how Judai walks right into a trap.

Judai abandons his friend so they get kidnapped. He doesn't go back to look for them, so he misses out on a chance to save them. He doesn't wait for Austin and Jim to come back, and because of that he wanders all alone into a trap.

That trap is a sacrifice ritual where the leader Brron challenges him to a duel, and every time Judai attacks one of his friends are sacrificed. Judai is forced to attack and each friend dies one by one.

Judai didn't want to attack, he didn't choose to sacrifice his friends, but he did make every decision leading up to that. The trap was easily avoidable if he 1) didn't leave his friends behind 2) went looking for his friends after they were left behind or 3) waited for Jim and Austin to come back.

Judai didn't mean to sacrifice his friends, but it's a result of his own bad decisions. It's the culmination of an arc where he's been selfishly taking his friends for granted. It's a consequence for Judai just choosing to recklessly barrel forward because he can't cope with his guilt.

Judai's lack of darkness of the heart really dooms him here, because he was blind to his own flaws until it was too late. This isn't even the part where Judai does the bad thing, Judai's careless actions lead to four of his friends dying but he doesn't learn from his mistakes. He snaps, hard.

Judai: But at least I avenged them. Sho I'm really glad you're alive. Sho: Those words... they're just lip service. Bro... bro, you're selfish. Before now, I thought of you as the sun. Someone who gave others energy and made the impossible possible. But, I was wrong. All you care about is getting your way. You don't care who you sacrifice. You'll do anything in the name of your goal. Avenging them won't bring back the people you sacrificed. You're just dueling to satisfy yourself. Judai: O'brien! Austin: I thought I told you to wait. Judai: Are you saying what I did was wrong? Austin: Think it over for yourself. Judai: Why? What did I do that was so wrong? I... I did the right thing! And yet... everyone keeps leaving me! What... What is wrong with me? Supreme King: Yuki Judai. To be willing to be evil to defeat evil. This world exemplfiies survival of the fittest. It must be ruled with power. Judai: Power? I don't have that much power... Supreme King: You hold the Super Polymerization card in your hand. Defeat the spirits that stand against you. Breathe their lives into it and complete that card.

After this point Judai decides to sacrifice everything else for power, and to complete the Super Polymerization card he's already sacrificed four friends four.

It's the culmination of an arc where Judai's only been praised for his strength and his ability to win duels. Where he constantly has been called to win duels to solve problems, until that stops working. When everyone is gone, all that's left is his strength. He had to keep winning to keep people safe, but even that wasn't enough, he was still missing something.

He knew he was missing something, that there was something wrong with him and he didn't know where to look.

Conclusion?

He needed power. If he had power, then he wouldn't have lost. If he had power then everything would have turned out alright. He didn't have the strength to carry everyone's burdens for them, that's why he lost, so what he needs is more power. He's been demanded to win, win, and win again so now winning is all that matters.

Now we have our second question: Is Judai's hero complex a good thing?

That's a definite no, because the pressure to always win, to always save everyone and carry their responsibilities has now completely broken Judai. To the point where he now believes that the only thing good about himself is that he's powerful, but he now is willing to sacrifice others to gain more power.

My name is the Supreme King.

Now here's the best part about Judai actively having a villain arc.

He does bad thngs. He does a lot of bad things.

It turns out when you're abandoned and left alone to suffer you do bad things, crazy that, I'm sure Yubel would have a lot to say about that.

Judai is also not being possessed in this scenario. They state it several times. You could say he's Shadow possessed in a Jungian sense. The supreme King is the symbolic embodiment of all of Judai's flaws that he's been ignoring until now. You could say Haou is representative of Judai's subconscious that has been repressed for so long until all those flaws finally surfaced, and that the Judai we see on a day to day basis is his ego, that the relationship between the two is a metaphor for conscious and subconscious.

Jim does a deep dive into Judai's mind, where we're shown a symbolic sequence of what the inside of his head looks like. Judai witnesses his friends appear in mirrors before they shatter one by one, all while he mumbles about how he needs to get stronger.

These are all storytelling devices to show Judai's fractured psyche, but Judai is still in control of his actions. Judai talks and responds to questions when he's addressed. Judai's friends confirm that it's still Judai, he's not a puppet or possessed.

Misawa says later to Judai's face that he and the supreme king are the same person. Judai later is able to use the Supreme King's powers and maintain complete control, because the Supreme King isn't a split personality. Judai even says when Amon is sacrificing someone he loved for power, that he was doing the same thing as the Supreme King, sacrificing everything for power.

We later learn that the ritual that sacrificed four of Judai's friends was a part of Yubel's schemes, but that's the only thing Yubel set up. Judai made every bad irresponsible decision that led to his friends being captured. Judai was the one who snapped and decided to complete Super Polyermization after it was completed. Learning Yubel was behind the sacrifice ritual doesn't take away any agency from Judai at all, because Judai is responsible for his own decisions.

What it does do is create another parallel between them, because we learn the reason Yubel set up the sacrifice was to make Judai walk the same path that they did.

Judai is hurt, abandoned and isolated and in that situation he ends up lashing out at everyone around him in a similiar manner to Yubel. When Judai is put through similiar trauma, he doesn't overcome it in some heroic way because he's an innately good person, no he succumbs and behaves in ways that are incredibly similiar to Yubel.

Even when Judai's friends selflessly try to help Judai, he resists them every step of the way. He ignores their constant calls to him, their comfort, and he even fights them. Judai is eventually reached by the efforts of Jim and Austin combined, but they both die in the effort. Judai is saved because Jim and Austin were way better friends to him than he was to them.

Judai is effectively snapped out of his destructive spiral, but he's left alone with the sobering realization of everything he's done and the blood of two more friends on his hand.

When it's time for our hero to finally face Yubel, he no longer has the moral highground. Now when he faces Yubel it's not as hero and villain, they're just two sides of the same coin. Two people who when they were abandoned, lashed out and hurt everyone around them.

The question is no longer can Judai save Johan. The question now is whether Judai can live with the guilt he's carrying within him, and for that matter can Yubel live with the guilt of what they've done now too?

By this point Judai's been completely deconstructed. He's no longer the hero of the story, he's just a flawed person who needs to fix his flaws. He has the choice to live with his mistakes, and the biggest conflict now is whether he's going to save his villain foil Yubel, or strike them down in order to save the rest of his friends (the three that are left).

This also creates a much more compelling reason for Judai to save Yubel. Not just because Judai is responsible for Yubel's creation, but because they've both made the same mistakes, they have the same traumas and the same scars. Jim and Austin were willing to risk everything to save Judai even when he didn't deserve it, and didn't want it. Now is Judai capable of doing the same thing, of reaching Yubel the way he was reached, not for the sake of saving the world but for helping a friend?

I just want to save my friend. That's all.

This is to me a very compelling setup for the challenge of whether or not Yubel can be saved. Judai's not really saving a helpless victim, he's not acting out of a sense of duty to sacrifice himself for the world, he's being challenged to save someone who suffers from all the same flaws that he does. Judai and Yubel are so similiar at this point it's really just Judai saving himself.

The Dark Deku Arc - Setup

This is the part where I'm actually going to praise MHA. Shocking I know. Season 1 and 2 of Yu-Gi-Oh GX are about 105 episodes in total. The Dark Deku arc begins at about episode 131 with Deku's decision to leave the hospital by himself to hunt down Shigaraki and AFO alone and try to understand villains better.

The 130 episodes up until that point are much better build up, than the first 105 episodes of Yu-Gi-Oh GX. To put it frankly GX is paced like ass. There's far too much filler, and because of that the plot points the anime is trying to make are delivered less efectively. In fact 105 is a good example of what I said above, that ideas are one thing and execution are another.

Season 2 especially is a season filled with good ideas and weak execution due to pacing. Here's one I use as a go-to example. There's a character named Edo Phoenix who's on a quest to find who killed his father. The ending of his plotline is he discovers that in a twist, the man who adopted him is the one who killed his father, and he's been encouraging Edo to investigate because it lets him spy on the police investigation and keep it off his tail.

That's a good twist - however that twist happens in the same episode that Edo's adoptive father is introduced. The audience is given literally no time to even get to know Edo's adoptive father, or get invested in their relationship so the twist doesn't hit at all. A better paced story would show Edo's relationship to his adoptive father early on, get you invested in them, only to pull the rug out from under you so you would feel the shock of that betrayal alongside Edo.

GX establishes its character cast, and yes the filler does give the cast time to breathe and they're all well characterized but because the plot around them is so poorly structured, none of the plot points really hit. Okay, Edo's adoptive dad is evil. Next! You can have good characters, but if you don't put them in a strong narrative framework that challenges them then those characters are just gonna kinda sit there.

The first 105 episodes of Yu Gi Oh GX does succesfully characterize most of the main cast, but it also feels like everyone's just goofing around. In comparison the first 135 episodes of MHA much more successfully builds an escalating conflict. Each new arc either introduces you to a new facet of the world, makes the amin characters more complex, or adds to the conflict.

We basically go from arc 1 "The hero high school is fun" to Arc 2 "The villains are a serious threat" to the Camp Arc "Oh shit, Shigaraki is learning and the villains are getting stronger."

When Bakugo is kidnapped at the end of the camp arc, the tension is ramped way up with the appearance of AFO, and All Might's retirement.

After that point we're introduced to the Overhaul arc, which not only again makes the League of Villains more complex and sympathetic, but also introduces the audience to All Might's more flawed side - the fact that All Might literally worked himself to death saving others and it still didn't work.

Then My Villain Academia -> The Villains are now a threat and they have an army.

Each arc builds on a previous arc, the characters and the world grow more complex, and it feels like you're learning about these complex issues alongside the characters. It just makes Yu Gi Oh Gx look like the silly card games show by comparison, by setting up this very layered world, and conflict, and heroes that challenge the protagonists on what it means to be a hero and what it means to be a victim.

Then all of that great setup.

We are side by side with the proagonist. We, like Deku now want to see if someone like Shigaraki can be saved. We, alongisde Deku want to better understand the villains and learn to see them as people. We want to know if the corrupt hero system can be salvaged.

However, these are too many questions so let's boil it down to two once more, because this is looking at Deku's character.

Deku and Judai are in some ways different as night and day. Deku is an introverted nerd and the victim of bullying, and he starts out with no quirk at all. Judai is a self-confident, charismatic prodigy who instantly seems to charm and befriend everyone around him. Deku desperately wants to be the hero and works his way up there, whereas Judai is just kind of thrown into the school hero because he's the best at dueling.

Judai is kind of a mix of Bakugo and Deku's traits, he's a self confident prodigy who always wins, but he's also someone obsessed with heroes and who has a hero-complex where he's continually forced to save others.

The Dark Deku arc, like the Supreme King Arc looks to take a darker, more introspective look at Deku's character, while also exposing Deku who is a sheltered kid to the a very grey on grey world. It also seeks to deconstruct Deku's suposed "hero complex". Despite the many differences between Deku and Judai I believe the two questions an be boiled down to the same thing.

Is Deku Selfish?

Is Deku's hero complex a bad thing?

These are the questions the series itself is asking in the deconstruction of Deku's character. Deku himself is asking if there's a better way to save villains tha just beating them down or outright killing them, but we'll discuss that later.

Just like Judai there is some setup before this to give a previously very one-note Shonen protagonist mor depth. Deku and Judai are both people who fit the determined, punchy, solve everything fist fight shonen protagonist to a T, on top of being the one to always show up to fight for their friends. Just like in the beginning of season 3, we do have some hints before this that there's something wrong with this attitude. That there's something about Deku that's not entirely there.

There's a flashback of All Might talking with Bakugo where Bakugo discusses that the fact that Deku never takes cares of himself or factors himself into the equation when he always puts others first deeply bothers him and there's "something wrong with it" that's made him always push Deku away.

This flashback also leads into a scene where Bakugo pushes Deku out of the way of one of AFO's attacks, telling him to "stop trying to win this on his own." In an attempt to make Deku see that he's not fighting alone this time.

Deku has also been warned repeatedly about the way his power destroys his own body when he uses it, warnings he's repeatedly chosen to ignore. Saving others isn't just a goal for Deku, you could arguably say it's a method of self-harm and that's what unnerves Bakugo. Bakugo even gave a similiar speech in the past, about how someone like Deku shouldn't take all of the bullying that Bakugo has given him over the years and still try to be his friend afterwards. At this point it's not really like Bakugo's done anything other than tone down the constant insults a little bit, he hasn't apologized or anything but even this early in the manga Deku has a tendency to just let Bakugo's treatment of him go. It's not like they were super best friends forever before the bullying started either despite what the shippers might tell you. Bakugo is saying it's weird that this kid just takes it, and takes it, and takes it without fighting back like he doesn't care about how people treat him and Bakugo is right... that is weird!

Deku either has such low standards for how he's treated that he just lets Bakugo get away with it, or he just doesn't hold a grudge when he is mistreated because his pain and his suffering just always matters less. Either way it's not healthy, and it could be indicative of a deeper problem hiding behind the surface.

Either way there's setup here, because on one hand you have everyone and their grandma praising Deku for his "drive to save others that eclipses all common understanding."

While at the same time he's criticized by Bakugo for having no regard for others. This could be the setup for the character trait that led to his earlier success leading to his downfall later. In Judai's case, everyone praises his purity of heart, but then that purity is later criticized as childishness, naivete and a refusal to grow up.

As for Deku...

How can you protect others if you can't even bother to protect yourself? How can you save others if you can't save yourself? That's the question Touka asked of Kaneki in Tokyo Ghoul when she rightly called out his desire to protect everyone at the Anteiku Cafe as just a roundabout way of getting himself hurt by acting recklessly.

In Kaneki's case he's not trying to protect anybody, he's just picking battles against the doves and getting himself hurt. He's acting out a hero complex in the sense that if he feels like he didn't fight his friends battles for them like Judai then he wouldn't have any friends to begin with. That's why Touka also says "Besides that, everyone doesn't belong to you. You have no business protecting us."

Is Deku fighting for the same reason? Does he harm himself to protect others because he views himself to be worthless and the only way to demonstrate his worth is try and fight to save others?

We don't get an answer for that question. Judai thinks duels are fun, and he's really good at them, and because he's good at dueling he's made friends. He think to keep those friends he has to keep dueling for the sake of others.

Deku's not motivated by the idea of protecting or keeping his friends, that's a secondary motivation. All we have on Deku is that he feels a strong desire to save others, and that he worshipped heroes like All Might growing up but has a naive idea of what a hero is supposed to be. However, his lack of motivation could be the "something that's missing" just like Judai has.

The GX writers did some hardcore digging into Judai's character by focusing on how shallow he was in motivation compared to everyone else, and showing that to be a symptom of his childish naivete.

There's also the potential parallel between All Might and Nighteye's breakup, and Deku's decision to leave all his friends behind to hunt for Shigaraki himself.

Even if Deku doesn't have a deeper motivation than just "an unnatural drive to save others" then you could show the effects of Deku walking down the same path that All Might did, the belief that he has to be the one to save everyone singlehandedly and if he rests for a single moment than someone might die, leads to him not only destroying his body, but also doing permanent damage to all of his social relationships.

Even if Deku's motivation isn't too deep, you could still have the traits that led him to earlier success now driving him to ruin as the story punishes Deku for his excessive selfishness.

This is also where we finally get back to Deku's goal of understanding Shigaraki, and contemplating whether or not it's possible to save villains without killing them.

I draw a parallel between this and Judai's enemies calling him out on lacking "darkness of the heart" and that without understanding that darkness he can't win.

Judai's lack of darkness of the heart means two things, he's not mature enough to understand the reason why his enemies are fighting, and he's also not mature enough to se the darkness in his own heart which is why he ends up blind to his own flaws and making pretty severe mistakes later on.

For Deku, it's mainly a lack of understanding of the motivations of the villains he's fighting again, villains he's only ever really beat down with his fists until now.

However, for Deku lacking darkness of the heart you could also re-contextualize that as meaning because of his idealization of heroes he's never once looked at the darker sides of hero society that might have driven people into becoming villains.

Deku's lack of inner darkness may just come from the fact that compared to the villains he's fighting against, he's gotten to live a pampered life. Without understanding that darkness, he can't be a full person because he'll still be a naive sheltered child, and not an adult wise to the way the world works and the moral greys he inhibits. Either way, it's just as necessary for Deku to gain an understanding of "Darkness of the Heart' as it is Judai.

So here's all the setup for the start of Deku's Dark deconstruction arc. As different as these characters and scenarios you can still boil it down to those three narrative questions about Deku / Judai, is there behavior selfish? Are there hero compelexes a good thing? Do they need to understand darkness of the heart?

Before moving on I'm going to summarize Deku's setup as thus:

Deku's actions are selfless.

Deku's motivations are also selfless (a desire to save others).

Deku does not benefit from saving others in any way, if anything he actively harms himself in order to do so.

Bakugo finds this behavior incredibly disturbing.

All Might destroyed his body and burned all bridges because of similiar flaws to Deku.

So the answer to the first question is Deku selflish? No. Is his hero-complex a bad thing? Potentially.

While Deku himself decides that he needs to understand darkness of the heart in order to better understand villains. Deku is actually more set up to contemplate darkness of the heart than Judai is, because Judai charges into the dark world blindly with only the motivation of saving Johan not even caring for Yubel, while Deku has the explicit motivation of trying to understand the little boy inside Shigaraki.

DEKU LEFT THE HERO ACADEMY

Deku begins the arc by leaving alone to go searching for Shigaraki, with hand-written letters addressed to all of his friends that tell the truth about One for All and also say Goodbye. He makes the deliberate decision to leave them behind so they don't get targeted alongside of him. It's a pretty classical superhero motivation, I need to cut myself out of my loved ones life in order to protect them. Of course this sort of ignores that everyone in his class has super-powers too, but you know heroes they're all such drama queens.

Is this selfish behavior?

This is going to be the only time I'm going to solidly answer yes. Deku clearly did not take his friends feelings into account. His desire to protect them, is more important than their own agency. They also might want to fight alongside him, they'd be upset if they saw him die or get hurt trying to protect them. Deku thinks of his own feelings of wanting to keep them safe and not being able to handle the emotional burden of protecting him, more than he does their own personal feelings.

This is also something that All Might did they permanently burned all of his bridges with his sidekick and friends, and deeply hurt his sidekick who was just asking him to take a break so he did not get himself killed and quit because he didn't want to watch All Might slowly kill himself by inches.

Deku is being selfish here, and later on when he does face his friends he even acts pretty condescending belittling them and insisting they can't fight on their own or keep up with him.

However, I need to ask a secondary question.

Is there any lasting consequences for this selfish behavior?

Besides the fact that it hurt his friends feelings for a little bit, no. I spent a much longer time covering this in Judai's sections because Judai's selfish behavior led to character conflicts. Judai disregarding his friends led to everyone starting to resent him in the Dark World, and their once tight-knit friend group further falling apart.

Judai on three seperate occasions makes impulsive decisions to run ahead without consulting with the group. The second time he outright lies to the group and sneaks ahead without them. THe second time all of his friends are captured when they go after him and try to follow him to give their support because they're worried about him. The third time he makes the decision to run ahead, he knows about the danger they're in and the risk of getting captured and he just blatantly ignores them. When Austin notices they're missing Judai doesn't even go looking for them because they're not a priority at this point - saving Johan is.

This is something that has very real and lasting consequences in the story, they're captured because of his recklessness, and sacrificed in front of his eyes. Even though they technically come back in season 4, the trust between Judai and his friends is all but gone and he's alone for a lot of Season 4.

Judai's decision to abandon his friends has direct and lasting consequences. He is being punished for his hero complex. Running ahead, and fighting alone against the bad guys is what Judai has always done and what's worked before, but now in a more complicated world it's not cutting it and Judai is being challenged for his flaws.

Deku hurts his friends feelings a little bit, but even in that case the focus is on how sad it is for Deku, how hard it must be to be a noble hero fighting alone.

Deku's Mary Jane and Spiderman bullshit never impacts his friends directly, other than the fact that they find it slightly condescending. His "I need to keep secrets from my loved ones attitude" is challenged because his friends want to fight alongside him, but there's never any narrative punishment delivered to him. It's just solved with one fight scene and a character holding out their hands. Whereas, the consequences for Judai's rash actions last two seasons.

I call it "Mary Jane and Spiderman" Bullshit, because Spiderman keeping his identity a secret from all his loved ones is a big conflict in the comics. Something that got Gwen Stacy killed, because Peter Parker never told her his identity in order to protect her, and then that just ended up with Norman Osborne finding out about her anyway and kidnapping and killing her.

You might have heard of the "Death of Gwen Stacy" it's a pretty famous moment in comics. It's also a case where it shows that the Hero's failure to communicate honestly with their loved ones in the name of "Protecting Them" can actually get them killed.

There's even consequences in MHA itself for heroes choosing to sacrifice their personal lives to help complete strangers. Shigaraki literally made a whole speech about it. Kotaro Shimura is traumatized for life over his mother's decision to abandon him instead of giving up on being a hero. Nana Shimura believed she was doing something selfless in sending her child into foster care to keep him out of AFO's clutches, but that was shown to be wrong as AFO just found Kotaro's household and then destroyed him later on in adulthood anyway.

So in the story we are shown scenarios where choosing to abandon your loved ones in the name of "protecting them" can have disastrous and lasting consequences, but as for Deku himself, the decision to leave the school has basically no consequences whatsoever.

Well, Deku making the decision to fight alone is something that might lead to some consequences. After all, Judai's breakdown came about because he always felt the pressure to fight alone and carry everyone's weight on his shoulders until he couldn't.

Perhaps, with Deku fighting alone to protect everyone we'll reach a similiar breaking point. Just as Judai couldn't handle carrying everyone's burdens, looking for Johan, and leading his friends into the Dark World all that the same time and eventually broke down maybe we'll see Deku break down because he just like All Might can't carry the burdens of an entire nation - oh wait nevermind he's working with the Top 3 Heroes.

Even the premise that this is Deku leaving the school, to become something like a vigilante wandering the countryside trying to fight AFO on his own is just incorrect because Deku is receiving government assistance right now.

In the Dark World it was really just Judai and his friends, so every single bad decision Judai made had consequences because they were well and truly alone. Deku has backup so he's not even really "alone" in the arc that's supposed to be about him fighting AFO and trying to understand Shigaraki alone.

ALL YOU'LL FIND IS BLOOD AND VIOLENCE

Let's briefly focus on questions two and three, is Deku's hero complex bad, and does Deku need to understand darkness of the heart?

Judai's hero complex was based on the idea that if he wanted to have friends he needed to fight for them and solve their problems for them.

Judai got in such an unhealthy negative feedback loop, that he had to carry his friends burdens in order to maintain his friendships with them, but at the same time he couldn't receive any help from them because he made their friendship all about him carrying their burdens. He was operating underneath an amazing pressure to always win until he lost. The very thing he did to try to maintain his friendships, keeping his friends at arm's length and fighting alone is exactly what ends up driving them away and leaving him alone.

But, still...! They're all... They're all gone. There really was something missing in me. But what is it? What was missing? What should a duelist burden themselves with?

Judai paradoxically fights alone in order to keep his friend group together, which only ends up with him losing four friends and being abandoned by the rest when they're disappointed for him in his selfish behavior. Judai screams out why, realizing he did something wrong here, that something went wrong because he's been winning duels, he's been fighting the same way he did before only to end up with the worst option possible. The realization that he is truly alone breaks him down entirely.

Judai's hero complex unwravels when simply charging ahead to fight doesn't work for him anymore, because the situation becomes more complicated than that. Darkness of the heart can mean many things. Judai not understanding his own personal flaws. Judai not seeing how his flaws are affecting others. Judai not looking at other people's emotions, he doesn't hear or respond to criticism when his friends start trying to tell him how is selfish decisions making is making them feel.

I can't just stay and wait. All this time I've run on instinct, never second-guessing myself. If I just stand still now... I'm sure I won't be able to start running again. And I won't be able to get to Johan.

Judai's hero complex has a clear source - he believes he has to keep running ahead and fighting for his friends the same way he always has in order to keep those friends and if he stops he'll lose everything / succumb to the guilt he now feels about being uanble to save Johan. His Hero Complex also has clear consequences, him running ahead without thinking gets all of his friends kidnapped and used in a sacrifice ritual that could have been avoided if he had made different choices.

Spiderman kills Gwen Stacy because Peter Parker deciding to not tell her about his secret identity to protect her backfired and made her an easy target to the Green Goblin.

Heck, Spiderman's entire character is about how the burden of being Spiderman and his Hero Complex constantly sabotages any attempt he makes at having a personal life. Miguel O'Hara's catchphrase in the incredibly popular Spiderman movie is that "Being Spiderman is a sacrifice" and he's not wrong either.

SO, is the narrative punishing Deku's hero complex in any way?

Well, the one warning he did receive that if he kept fighting he'd lose permanent loss of his arms turns out to not matter anymore because his body is just stronger now.

So, even the phyiscal toll of fighting alone that's a consequence for Deku doesn't actually apply here.

I keep talking about consequences but what do I actually mean? Am I talking about strictly punishment? Do bad things need to happen to characters in order to get their lessons?

Not necessarily.

When I say "consequences" I mean in terms of actions always having consequences in a story. The best stories are succinct, that means you basically cut down in as many frivolous details in a story as much as possible so everything that happens onscreen is something that matters and contributes to the whole. Therefore, every action should have a consequence directly seen onscreen in story. Stories are all actions and consequences, the choices the characters make should have direct impact on the plots and the other characters because it makes those choices seem like they matter.

If the story constantly draws attention to the fact that Deku is afraid of ducks, but the story takes place on the moon and there are no ducks living on the moon then that's a wasted plot thread because there are no consequences. If a character does something bad, other characters should discuss it, or it should negatively impact them in some way.

When Judai decides to run ahead without all of his friends for the first time after they all agreed on a plan, the result is the next episode they all start talking about their shared doubts with Judai when he's not around. If they all just swept Judai abandoning them under the rug, then Judai running ahead and leaving the others alone doesn't feel like an impactful character flaw.

There's no lasting consequence for Deku's hero complex. It doesn't drive him to any kind of breaking point like it does Judai.

I think the reason why is because there's no real moment of failure for Deku. When he tries to ask Muscular why he fights, and Muscular rejects him and says that he was just born evil and has no deeper motivations, Deku's not frustrated at all.

Deku who feels a "unnatural desire to save others" isn't really bothered by the fact that Muscular insists that he can't be saved and that they can only fight. Despite this technically being a failure, Deku has failed to talk a villain down, failed to find a way other than fighting and also failed to understand the darkness in someone's heart it's of little consequence because it's not framed as a failure.

Deku just punches Muscular, back to the drawing board.

There's another manga called Choujin X running right now, where the main character is on a similiar quest trying to see if there's a way they can save the big bad Sora Shihouhin, and when he is forced to fight against a villain who won't back down, de-escalate, or listen to reason he has a complete emotional breakdown.

This is the reaction of someone who's genuinly invested in the idea of saving the villain, and frustrated with the reality that he might not be able to save her, that he can't talk to the villains or convince them to back down. Tokio's not even characterized by an unnatural desire to save others like Deku is, so why is he the one breaking down and not Deku someone apparently so selfless that he wants to save the mass murderer that's trying to destroy society?

If Deku's desire to save others is so strong why doesn't he show frustration at being unable to talk down, or understand Muscular?

Judai is stuck in a negative feedback loop where he's forced to fight for others, because he believes he has no worth to his friends otherwise. All we're told of why Deku feels the need to save everyone around him is that he's just like that, he just feels like saving everyone no matter who they are the moment they come into view.

If we're choosing to characterize Deku that way, then number one he should be attempting to save everyone, and number two the stress of having to save everyone is something that should get to him. His "Hero Complex" should be what's breaking him down at the moment. The unnatural desire to save everyone around him that led him to so much success should be what's punishing him this arc.

Judai felt pressure from two aspects, first the pressure to carry everyone's burdens, and second the lack of understanding of darkness of the heart. Unlike Judai who doesn't want to understand darkness and who avoids it as long as possible, Deku goes into this arc actively seeking to understand how his villains think.

Deku and Judai also suffer from a lack of darkess in their own hearts. This leads to them having empty motivations. Judai has a childish desire to enjoy fun duels. Deku has a childish desire to save everyone. Neither of them have tried to grow or change or even question those motivations in any way and because of that they're stunted people.

Judai doesn't know why he fights. He doesn't question why he fights. He just takes on the burdens of others to give him something to fight for. This all together leaves Judai blind to his own personal darkness, and also because of that blindness he can't grow in any way because he never evaluates himself, he never looks at himself and tries to change.

When he's on his knees and at his breaking point he screams at the top of his lungs, "WHY? WHAT AM I MISSING? WHAT DID I DO WRONG?" simply because Judai's never thought about these things.

Deku's asked these same questions both in the Dark Deku arc, and hundreds of chapters later he's asked what he's planning on doing as a hero in order to make things better and Deku never materializes an answer.

Pre-Dark Deku Arc, during Dark-Deku Arc and Post Dark Deku arc, Deku always solves his problems by recklessly jumping in and saving others. There's never any point where he's punished or criticized for this behavior in any significant lasting way. He never has to self reflect and develop a reason on why he wants to save others, or eve think about how he's going to save others, he can just keep acting as the rash, impulsive hero.

Judai and Deku are both characters who are empty, and lacking in motivation but Judai is ruthlessly criticized for that until he reaches his breaking point and is forced to look at his motives.

This once again comes from a lack of failure on Deku's part. Deku never fails the way that Judai does. There's a scene where you could have easily had Deku fail. The entire Nagant vs. Deku fight where Deku fails to give her any substantive answers to his questions.

Imagine if Deku's simple philosophy of always extending a helping hand failed here. Imagine if Deku actually got deeply ivnested in the idea of saving Lady Nagant, and did his beset to talk and reach out to her but his answers weren't enough and because of that she just chooses something like suicide. Imagine he has her by the hand, and she's dangling off of the roof and he thinks that his impressive move to save her should have been enough - he's reached out a hand like always. He thinks this should have won her heart over, by showing her that someone still cares in all of her despair.

Then, Nagant in one final spiteful move lets go. The person he heard her entire backstory, the person maybe he once was a huge fan of her when she wasa hero, the person he wants to save the same way he wants to save Shigaraki chooses to let go and fall to her death because dying would be better than living in whatever kind of corrupt world that Deku is trying to build.

This could be Deku's Gwen Stacy moment. Spiderman carelessly webs Gwen Stacy whe she's falling to catch her and for a moment he thinks he's saved her because he's overconfident and has caught people falling like this a thousand times, only to find out he's snapped her spine. His overconfidence, his hero complex making him believe everything magically would work out led Gwen Stacy to her death. This could show the simple act of just offering a hand out to someone in need isn't enough, without empathy and understanding.

Instead, AFO just blows Nagant up in Deku's face.

Except, that isn't even a failure bcause Nagant turns out to be just fine! There's no point in blowing up Nagant except for the spectacle of it, because she turns out to be fine five minutes later and even shows up to fight in the next arc.

There's no consequencs to anything that happens in this scene. Deku doesn't suffer any consequences for being blind to the faults of society. (He's working right alongisde a killer cop just like Nagant and he doesn't even care.) Deku isn't forced to reflect on what saving people or making society better would even mean. He also isn't punished for his lack of understanding the way that Judai is.

Afterwards, Deku denies help to a very mentally-ill Overhaul, who is apparently not one of the villains that Deku wanted to save. There's a whole buch of asterisks on that "Deku wants to save everyone***" goal. This also isn't framed or used to paint Deku in a bad light because Overhaul is unworthy of salvation in Deku's eyes for hurting Eri.

Is this action part of an arc? Is Deku reaching his limit with trying to sympathize with villains only to see people like Overhaul and Muscular fighting him every step of the way and telling him they don't want to change?

Nope, this scene is never brought up again.

Deku never fails, and he never does anything wrong. Even when there are situations where you could argue he does do soemthing wrong, like denying the armless, mentally ill Overhaul help - he's not painted as being in the wrong.

The entire arc is supposed to be about criticizing the protagonist for their hero complex, and their lack of understanding of the darkness of the world but for Deku there's no criticism to be had here.

Compare this to the sacrifice ritual in the Supreme King Arc, where not only does Judai fail to save his friends, but the friends that survive ruthlessly tear into him aftewards for his selfish behavior. THe actions of one protagonist matter, have consequences in the story and are criticized. The actions of another protagonist have no real consequences and are never criticized.

The whole mansion blows up and... nothing happens. No one's injured in the explosion. It may as well have not happened in the story because there are no consequences for Deku just continually choosing to blindly run ahead like his hero complex tells him to.

There's evena moment where Deku winds up in a similiar situation to the dark ritual. After receiving information from Nagant, he blindly wanders into a mansion in Haibori woods believing it to be AFO's base, only to find out it was a trap and AFO was waiting for him to blindly charge in all along.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES US HEROES AND VILLAINS

This is where I'm going to talk about another big similarity between Deku and Judai, and also the biggest point of divergence in the Dark Deku and Supreme King Haou arcs.

Deku and Judai are both character foils with Shigaraki and Yubel respectively. This is where I'm going to praise MHA again, surprising everyone.

The foiling between Shigaraki and Deku is masterful. They both started out in relatively the same place, as boys with dreams to become heroes who were softly told no by their parents. Tragedy struck Shigaraki and he killed his family on accident and wound up alone wandering the street for days until he was found by AFO.

They're both the students of the greatest hero and villain of the last generation. They both end up being surrounded by a group of close Nakama that they want to protect. They're both continually challenged to grow up, and show how they're going to be better than their predecessor for the hero and villain sides respectively. They both have to prove they are worthy successors. Shigaraki has all the heroic spunk and determination that Deku has but on the villain's side, and while Deku loves heroes, Shigaraki is hero society's critic wants to bring down the hero system that didn't save him.

You get the feeling that Shigaraki really is Deku just in a different situation, a same person on the opposite sides of the conflict kind of character foiling.

As the biggest Yubel stan here, in some ways the foiling for Shigaraki works better than the foiling for Yubel because Shigaraki isn't just Deku's foil, he's the foil for all of society. Yu-Gi-Oh Gx takes place in a society run where everything centers around card games, it's not really that deep. In My Hero Academia you have that 100 episodes of great setup where Deku is not only learning to look at the darkness within himself, but also the darkness within hero society around him.

Judai's narrative as much as I love it, is entirety about Judai.

Not only could Dark Deku arc develop Deku's character, it could also say something deeper about the world it's taking place it, because Deku has all these connections to Shigaraki, who also kind of represents the orphaned boy failed on all levels by the society around him.

Shigaraki is the shadow of -> Deku, but also Shigaraki is the shadow of -> all of society.

Yubel is the shadow of -> Judai, and only relates to Judai's personal growth.

Yubel is Judai's personal villain, and was created by his actions as a child. His decision to abandon Yubel into space, led to Yubel being tortured and their later madness.

Yubel is also Judai's shadow. They carry all the same flaws, but those flaws are obvious in Yubel and repressed in Judai. Yubel's belief is that Judai is someone who purposefully enjoys hurting their friends, and that's how he shows his love. While that's twisted it's not hard to see how Yubel came to that conclusion. After all, Yubel loved Judai so much only for Judai to abandon them and turn a blind eye to their suffering. In the Dark World, Judai abandons his other friends continually in order to search for Johan, and they wind up suffering too.

While Judai doesn't sadistically enjoy hurting others as Yubel put it, there's an element of truth to Yubel's criticism. Judai does abandon people, Judai isn't as empathic as he seems to be. When Judai is subjected to the same kind of isolation and abandonment that Yubel has endured for the past ten years, Judai loses his mind a whole lot quicker and starts lashing out at everything around him the same way Yubel has. Judai without the love of his friends starts to hurt everyone around him in his lashing out, the same way that Yubel desperate for love starts to inflict pain on the people she loves. Even before the ritual happened, Judai was unwittingly hurting his friends with his own selfish behavior.

Yubel's stated criticism is "of Judai is "Anguish and sorrow born from loneliness. That is the nature of love as you taught it to me" and further beyond that "When you forgot about me, I suffered. It's hot. It hurts. I am in pain. Why? You know how much I love you? Why did you do this to me, Judai? In that moment I realized that was how you showed love. Because you loved me, you hurt me and made me suffer."

That sounds crazy, but hasn't Judai been hurting the people he loved for his own selfish reasons this entire arc? Is it that crazy then to conclude that neglect and abandonment must be how Judai treats everyone he loves, so surely he loves me.

One of the biggest criticisms of this arc is how Judai's behaviors impact his relationships, so of course his most personal villain and foil is his jilted ex nonbinary dragon lover. On a less joking note, when Yubel was displaying troubling behavior as a child, Judai's first response was to abandon them. Which is ironic for someone like Judai so paralyzingly afraid of being abandoned that he became everyone's workhorse and worked himself to death solving their problems for them. Who when abandoned by those friends finally, snaps just as hard as Yubel did when they were abandoned.

Do you see the parallel I'm drawing here? Judai is slotted into the spot of the protagonist who's friends with everyone he meets, who loves and fights for his Nakama. Yet under closer scrutiny he's shown that he doesn't really understand what love or friendship is or how to give and receive love from others in a healthy way. His antagonist is his former childhood best friend, who is obsessed with love and demands that Judai love them back. Judai's lack of understanding of relationships and love takes a dark twist with Yubel, their shadow, foil and antagonist.

These are once again very personal challenges to Judai, society doesn't really factor into this equation. Though, Judai is somewhat challenged as a hero because there's an irony to Judai plunging into the world to save his best friend Johan who he's known for like three weeks, but not really lifting a finger to save the antagonist of the arc Yubel who he's known since childhood and is personal responsible for putting through torture.

That hypocrisy there too, is a personal challenge to Judai that paints him in a less heroic light. He wants to save Johan and ignore Yubel because it's easier, because saving Johan relieves him of his guilt. He doesn't even know what to do about Yubel, so he doesn't try and falls back on his previously established behavior of playing the hero.

The hero is really just a mask for Judai at this point, something the story has ripped right off of his face by the time it comes to face Yubel.

There are two ways in which Yubel serves as an ultimate foil to Judai.

Yubel acts like a callout post to all of Judai's flaws

Yubel represents a dark path Judai could have taken.

This second one is what Shigaraki and Deku have in Common with Judai + Yubel. There's something deeply tragic about the idea that while Deku was making friends, getting taught by a loving teacher like All Might, Shigaraki was all alone being pushed by a ruthless manipulator like AFO into becoming the worst villain.

Judai and Yubel's lives follow the same tragic parallel path. They began in the same place as childhood friends, but after abandoning Yubel, Judai spent the next ten years growing up, making friends in a healthy and safe envirnoment while Yubel the one who was abandoned was alone in space desperately crying for Judai to come save them only to be ignored because Judai has long forgotten them.

However, there's a striking difference there too. Yubel is created directly by Judai's neglect and actions. Whereas Shigaraki is created by the neglect of all of society, it's not Deku's fault directly.

#1 Shigaraki acting as a callout post to Deku's Flaws

However, this is where Shigaraki's callout post comes in. Shigaraki gives a long speech on how the existence of heroes itself, creates villains like him.

"You heroes pretend to be society's guardians. For generations you pretended not to see those you couldn't protect and swept their pain under the rug. It's tainted everything you've built. That means your system's all rotten from the inside with maggots crawling out. It builds up little by little, over time, you've got the common trash all too dependent on being protected. And the brave guardians who created the trash that need coddling. It's a corrupt, vicious, cycle. Everything I've witnessed. This whole system you've built has always rejected me. Now I'm ready to reject it. That's why I destroy. That's why I take power for myself. Simple enough, yeah? You don't understand because you can't understand, that's what makes us heroes and villains."

To break it down simply, heroes look away from the faults in their society, they intentionally ignore the people they cannot save, and when those people turn into villains the heroes beat them down hard. The villain attacks then convince the common people of the need for heroes, and the cycle perpetuates itself. This is all powered by the people's blind, uncritical faith in heroes.

Deku is a person who has that same blind, uncritical faith in hereoes, and until this point has never thought of Shigaraki as anything more than a villain to be punched until he stops. Which is why this is still a callout post that applies to Deku, because Deku's blind admiration for the Hero System is part of the problem that enables the very flawed hero system.

Deku does not understand darkness of the heart, therefore Deku does not understand that heroes could possibly be bad, and he could possibly be supporting a bad system until he's slapped in the face with it.

However, is there a lasting consequence for Deku's blind support of the hero system?

Nope.

I just described up above what could have been a consequence, if Lady Nagant refused to have faith in Deku since he didn't back his words up with action.

Deku also clearly does not want to break away from the corrupt hero system that created Shigaraki, because the heroes that he brought along to fight with him are Endeavor, Hawks and Jeanist, a child abuser, a state sponsored murderer, and a guy who makes bad puns. He doesn't change any of his bahavior that enables the corrupt system to stay in power.

Not teaming up with the Top 3 heroes, and deciding to go full vigilante would have at least have been breaking away from that system.

This circles around to a big underlying problem in this whole arc in that Deku isn't really doing anything different from what he was doing before, and he's not punished for his character stagnancy either.

So we're left with.

#2 Shigaraki represents a dark path that Deku could have Taken

This is where Judai / Yubel succeeds and Shigaraki / Deku falls flat on its face.

When pushed to his absolute limit after failing repeatedly, Judai snaps. With no friends left he decides that all that matters is power. This path seems natural for him because we've already seen what being abandoned and left alone can do to a person and how it twisted Yubel. The story hints again and again at Judai's blood knight tendencies, and that he thinks the only thing he has of value to offer others is strength by fighting for them.

He loses his friends and the fighting is all he has left.

At the point of despair he decides to just embrace power. If he cares about nothing more than strength, at least that will give him some sense of control over his life after the out of control tragedy that happened to him.

"Yuki Judai. In order to defeat evil, one must become evil. In a world with the law of the jungle at work, one must rule with power." "Power? I don't have that kind of power." "In your hand lies the super polymerization card. Defeat any spirits who may oppose you, and combine their lives into it to perfect the card."

Supreme King is just a villain persona that Judai adopts to as a protetive blanket for all the hurt and pain they've gone through, just like ding, ding, ding, the villain persona Shigaraki Tomura is for Shimura Tenko.

Judai snapping under such intense pressure shows us that if even the faultless hero can snap, then how much can we blame the villain for snapping under similar circumstances? Maybe the reason both the hero and the villain fell is because they're both equally human and to fall down is human.

Deku never falls down as hard as Judai does. He doesn't even fall down and scrape his knee. There's no instance where he fails to save anyone. There's no instance where his actions hurt anyone. There's no instance where he takes things too far and hurts a villain. I kow it's unlikely for Deku to turn into a villain, but he could have at least gotten so frustrated he turned into a punisher style vigilante! Is that too much to ask?

There's not even a single moment where Deku goes too hard in a fight and injures or even kills a villain. They could have pulled an "I thought you were stronger" moment like in Invincible.

I don't know why this is called the Dark Deku arc because there's no darkness in Deku's heart for him to exploit, nor is he actually called to better his understanding of the darkness in others hearts. Judai understands Yubel's darkness because by the end of his personal arc he's been there, he's not the hero he's the atoner. He can either punish Yubel, or hold a hand out to help Yubel atone.

Deku's arc might as well be called the "My Little Pony Friendship is Magic Arc" because he never does or confronts anything dark. His worst crime is not showering. All that isolation and his repeatd failures in hunting AFO down should have worn Deku down, but it didn't because he's just that special of a boy!

Deku's hero complex also is completely uncriticized from beginning to finish. Judai's hero complex is an unhealthy behavior that utterly destroys him. Deku's hero complex is a job interview flaw.

FRIENDSHIP IS MAGIC

Just to hammer my point in I'd like to compare these two scenes. One is in the middle of the Supreme King Arc, the sacrifice ritual scene where all of Judai's friends are blaming him for the fact that they're about to be sacrificed while he's still trying to save them.

The second is the climax of the Dark Deku arc, where all of Deku's friends are showing up to fight him and convincing him to accept their help.

Just look at how vastly different these two shows treat their shonen protagonists when it comes to his flaws.

For the ritual sacrifice scene. This is immediately after Manjoume wakes up to find that he has been chained and kidnapped with Judai standing right there.

Judai: Sit tight! I'll save you soon! Manjoume: Wait, is he dueling? JUdai you damned idiot! Weren't you going to save Johan with us!? Getting yourself all flared up. You didn't even stop to think about us at all, did you? Judai: That's not it. Manjoume: That's just how you are! You were the only one in your kingdom from the get-go. We were the idiots for getting all motivated with you and feeling some sense of friendship with you being like that!

Then Judai watches helplessly as Manjoume dies. His other friends don't fare much better.

Kenzan: Big Bro? Why'd you want to save Freed's comrades when it meant sacrificing us-don!? Judai: You're wrong. That's not it. Fubuki: It's painful. This pain isn't just physical. It's the pain of a friends' betrayal that I have tearing my soul. apart. Asuka: I'm being betrayed and sent away by you. To think that I'll have to bear a sadness like this.

All of Judai's friends die spitting on him and telling him what a terrible friend he is and that this is all his fault. Which it is, because his decision to abandon them got them captured and led up to the sacrifice ritual.

Now, what scathing criticisms do our heroes have to give Deku after he left them all behind to fight Shigaraki alone?

Denki: Midoriya! We get that all for one is really importnat but you got something even more important in your life! Me and you we aint'g otta ton in common, but you're still a friend! Even if we gotta force this friendship down your throat. TodorokI: What a look you have on your face. Is this resposnibility so much that you can't let yourself cry? Seems like a burden you should share with the rest of us. Uraraka: The thing is Deku, we don't want to be protected by you and reject who you are and what you're doing, we just want to be with you (this part is narration).

Deku is told that none of his friends are mad, they want to be by his side no matter what, and that it's okay for him to cry.

I should also mention how underdeveloped this supposed nakama group is in the manga itself. The entirety of Season 3 of GX is tha the bond between Judai and his friends are more shallow then it appears, but he's also spent two whole seasons bonding with a group that consists of: Asuka, Sho, Kenzan, Fubuki, Manjoume. That's six people total including Judai who serve as is primary friend group. Their friendship is more unhealthy than it appears, but Judai has spent the past two seasons hanging out with one small friendgroup.

Meanwhile the entirety of Class 1-A shows up to tell Deku how much they love him and how much he means to them, and Deku's hung out with maybe like... four of them?

You have one bond shown to be how shallow it is, and one shallow bond treated like it's the deepest, most loving friend group in all of fiction. Deku doesn't even receive some lgiht criticism for how inftantalizing it was for him to abandon them for their own protection, because no one resents Deku or is capable of holding any negative or critical emotions towards him whatsoever. He's just told how much everyone loves him and wants him to come home.

And yes, Judai also does get two characters sacrificing themselves to try to reach him when he's the Supreme King.

However, as I stated above Jim sacrifices himself to help Judai because that's who JIm is as a person. Austin does it after Jim fails, both to honor his friendship with Jim, and also because of someone who got scared and ran he feels like he has to confront the darkness of the heart.

Jim and Austin O'brien's sacrifice is also a sacrifice. They died trying to save Judai, and Judai has to wake up with the knowledge that not only did he kill a bunch of people in his quest for power, he killed two more friends who were only trying to help him.

At the end of the arc, Judai has woken up with the knowledge that he has done bad things that can't be taken back and he's barely better than Yubel at this point.

At the end of the Dark Deku arc, Deku gets a speech from Uraraka about how amazing and selfless he is, and how he never gives up and how he always pushes forward, and how everyone at the UA shelter should appreciate him more.

The Supreme King arc exists to criticize Judai. The Dark Deku arc does nothing but flatter Deku from beginning to end.

Judai's hero mask is ripped off and he's forced to be a person. Deku's hero mask stays on, his hero complex is unchallenged, and he's praised for being teh greatest hero evarz.

I often get accused of not liking MHA simply because I expect it to be a different story than what it is. That I want it to be darker, when it's a more optimistic shonen manga.

However, here's my secret. I hate edgy superheroes. I don't like watching stuff like The Boys because it gets too dark for me. The oly reason I read invincible is because my friend told me that Omni-Man got a redemption arc. My favorite DC Superhero is Superman. My favorite Superhero of ALL TIME is Spiderman.

The thing about Spiderman though, is that it is hard to be Spiderman. The entire point of Peter Parker's character is that he has a terrible work/life balance and constantly loses people around him because being Spiderman is a sacrifice. The story doesn't bend over backwards to praise Spiderman as being a selfless hero, in fact it points out what a loser he is constantly. Peter Parker's friends are always frustrated with him and he's a wreck of a person.

Yet, the fact that being Spiderman is such a sacrifice and he keeps choosing to make it, shows what kind of person Peter Parker is, and that's just a person who does whatever he can to help out.

Even Peter Parker, the nicest, most well-intentioned boy ever has the Symbiote arc. One of the most famous arcs in comics dealing with Peter is when he lets Venom graft onto his suit, and even though the symbiote makes him violent, and makes his behavior change he spends the longest time not wanting to peel it off because the power boost the symbiote suit gave him made his life that much easier.

Dark Deku is an obvious reference to the Venom Suit, but a completely shallow reference because Dark Deku acts exactly the same as regular Deku the only reason he looks like that is he forgot to take a shower.

Superhero stories don't need to be Dark Deconstrutions, but they do need to be SOMETHING. They need to say something about the character. The problem with the Dark Deku arc isn't that Deku didn't experience a villain arc.

It's that nothing of consequence happened in the entire arc. Nothing changed. The story asked us if Deku's hero complex was a bad thing, and then it didn't deliver any answer. The story asked us if Deku needs to understand darkness better and then didn't answer that.

These are ideas that the audience promised were going to get answered. We were told Deku was going to get his development this arc that he was going to be pushed to the edge. The entire premise of this arc was that it was supposed to better help Deku understand Shigaraki and Hero Society only for Deku to not learn about either of those things.

Deku's learned nothing. We've learned nothing. Nothing has changed in the story itself. The only thing we've accomplished was wasting a lot of time that we could have been using watching Yu-Gi-Oh GX!

[bloomeng]

I'm a little nervous to talk about this because the internet is truly the place where nuance goes to die but fuck it I'm going to do it anyway.

So misogyny in fan spaces. There's so much that can be said here, but I want to focus on a trend I've seen in fanfiction for years. This isn't a call out to anyone in particular or a fic that I read recently, it's just something I want to talk about.

There's a range in which I see misogyny displayed in fanfiction. The most subtle version is when a fic has a large cast, but despite this, the female characters just float in the background as accessories. Writing big casts is difficult and I understand that (it's part of the reason I tend not to like big casts) but despite this all the female characters will remain less developed than their male counterparts. The other version is they will exist only to advise or prop up a male character, which isn't to say that a female character can't play that role in a story. On an individual level, it's not an issue, but when it's the only role over and over it becomes an issue. My solution to handling big casts is to break them off at times into pairs/smaller groups and allow everyone to have their moment. It doesn't need to be perfectly balanced but even small moments could go a long way.

The next step up is literally ignoring them altogether. I understand not every character is going to feature in every story. Time and place and all that jazz. But it's telling when they're so clearly written out of a story for the sake of not addressing them. If we can cram in all these male character cameos we can do the same for the women. Personally I feel writing is stronger if you only include characters for a purpose beyond them just being there (and it would be two birds with one stone bc that would automatically allows for more depth), but this is fanfic that I'm discussing, where fan service rules everything.

The third trend and arguably the most egregious I refer to as the “Sakura Effect.” The Sakura Effect is when an author will include either a pre-existing female character or an original female character for the sole person of villainizing her to extreme proportions. It’s scary to me because as much as media can be misogynistic this is so much worse in my opinion. As fans I would hope we would be better but then I see characters flattened or created simply to be awful. And yet “no one” sees the issue in that.

I’ve seen authors go far as to say apologize in the notes about mischaracterizing female characters for the sake of the conflict. Like we’re so close to recognizing the issue yet so far. Also for some reason it’s socially acceptable to add character bashing tags to fics?? I see this the most with Naruto fics, but to this day I will never understand why people feel the need to establish how much they hate a female character in a fic that doesn’t even touch on them. Or they warn people that they made her evil bc they hate her??? Like ok so we’re recognizing the problem and doubling down. Cool.

I once saw someone create a female character for a fic who was described as ugly and with a ton of acne and a bunch of people called the author out for the description and its subsequent streotypes. The author responded by basically being like I hear you but I don’t care. But I was also concerned that no one else in the comments was concerned that the character was female as well.

I see this trend with people to make these super creepy stalker female characters as conflict for their mlm ships and it’s just like…. do we not see the inherent issue in this. We complain about the treatment of women in the source material and then we (fan culture) turn around and make arguably more offensive characters.

This is a fairly ranty non-nuance, doesn’t even touch on intersectionality, look at misogyny in fanfiction but that’s all I have the capacity to discuss today.

[lobautumny]

Alright, guess this toy's gonna talk about Palworld, because it's seen Discourse™️ start to crop up about how "supporting the game is immoral because it's stealing designs from Pokemon!"

Now look, this toy's not about to sit here and tell you that all of the monster designs in Palworld are completely original and the game isn't, on some level, a bootleg. Obviously a lot of the designs are bootleg pokemon. That's not the point it wants to get at. The point is that it doesn't really matter.

First of all, nobody is being hurt by Palworld having knockoff pokemon among the ranks of its monsters. Game Freak is not some tiny indie developer struggling to make ends meet having their work unfairly co-opted by a big, bad corporation. Pokemon is, in fact, the largest, most profitable media franchise of all time, and Palworld is an indie game. The reason that something like this would hypothetically be scummy/shitty is if someone were taking someone else's work, changing it slightly, claiming it as their own, and thus depriving the original creator of credit/visibility that they should've had. But that literally can't happen here, because everyone already knows what Pokemon is. So unless it gets found that they're stealing designs from fakemon artists or something (there was one alleged instance, but it seems to have just been a coincidence of two different people having the idea of "what if Chimecho but with big, bulky arms?"), Palworld is hurting nobody through having bootleg designs, so the moral argument against the game falls flat.

With that out of the way, there's a much more interesting topic to discuss here: Why is it that when someone's fangame gets C&D'd, everyone immediately jumps to the creator's support, accurately assessing that our copyright system is broken and primarily serves to hurt independent artists, but the moment a developer makes the changes necessary to make sure their fangame doesn't get hit with a C&D (and to allow them to make money off of it), it's suddenly bad and cringe and unoriginal?

The argument that "Palworld is lazy and unoriginal and therefore bad because the monster designs are too similar to Pokemon's designs" is something that this toy would be willing to hear out if Palworld were a turn-based singles-format RPG with similar systems/overall structure to those found in Pokemon games, but, uh. It isn't. It's a third-person shooter with monster-catching mechanics and, like, Factorio-ass automation and base-building, from what this toy can tell. And it doesn't know if the game is good, as someone who has not played it (or even really seen gameplay of it), but it can absolutely tell you that the game's not lazy.

Sure, they could have done more to make the monster designs feel more unique, and that's absolutely a valid criticism for the game. This toy doesn't want to come across like it's saying otherwise. It just wants people to recognize that that's kind of a nitpick when the game is, on a mechanical and genre level, something completely different from anything any Pokemon game ever has been or ever will be, and that nobody would be complaining about laziness or a lack of originality if this came out as a fangame literally just using actual pokemon. In that reality, people would've been popping off at how high-effort it is, actually. And like, even putting money aside, this game literally could not exist as a fangame. A while back, someone uploaded some videos on Youtube showcasing a fangame they were developing that was an FPS where the enemies were pokemon. They got hit with a C&D and their Youtube account was terminated within a couple days of the videos being uploaded. The game was not monetized, and in fact, never even had a download link, to this toy's recollection. Palworld would have suffered the same exact fate if it wasn't its own IP.

[antianakin]

Am I the only one who just lost any and all love for newer Star Wars material due to Jedi hate ? Like- the only merch or show or even FANDOM topic I get involved in is clone wars stuff and MAYBE TBB. Like- why would I want the watch shows who attempt to rewritte canon and portray the very heroes of Star Wars as the bad guys ?

Why would I want to watch shows that assassinate characters left and right (looking at you, Ahsoka and Sabine) ? Why would I want to buy merch of characters who I not only NOT care about, but who also are used as meta mouthpieces for stupid Jedi hate ?

I think there's TONS of good newer Star Wars material, to be honest.

I loved the Kenobi show and it is arguably one of the most pro Jedi pieces of media to have existed since the Prequels films. Aside from one itty bitty somewhat awkward word choice in one line of one episode, there is absolutely NOTHING in that show that can be used to indict the Jedi or blame them for anything and it is arguably one of the only shows to really spend time MOURNING the Jedi and recognizing the horror of what was done to them. Rebels comes closest after this, but its structure makes it a little less visceral than the Kenobi show was to me.

I really adore Visions and I recognize that this is sort-of Star Wars adjacent more than anything else, but SO LITTLE truly understands what makes Star Wars compelling as a story and really hits on those primary themes the way that Visions does. There's SO MUCH Jedi content in Visions and I remember people complaining about how much Jedi content was in Visions and other people responding that if you were given free reign to just play in the Star Wars sandbox with near zero restrictions on what you could make with it, you would probably ALSO immediately go for the psychic space wizards with laser swords. Who WOULDN'T? Visions also just genuinely has some of the most engaging and heart-wrenching stories to come out of Star Wars in a LONG while and it does it in these beautifully animated 15 minute packages. It's such a gem and I am so glad to be alive at the same time as Visions.

Rogue One is older now, but both Rogue One and Andor, despite having zero actual Jedi in them, really hinge on the themes from the Prequel trilogy about the tragedy in the Star Wars universe, stepping up when no one else will, choosing to be selfless and compassionate for the greater good, etc. Faith and hope are MASSIVE themes within these two works and even though there aren't any space wizards, good or evil, in either story, they feel like some of the most pro Jedi things Star Wars has come out with in a while based on thematic messages ALONE.

The Mandalorian's first two seasons actually have this absolutely BEAUTIFUL story about the selfless sacrifice of one man as he gives up everything in order to help this child find his way back to the culture he'd been ripped from. Everything AFTER that regarding Grogu and Din's storyline is a piece of shit (it's not explicitly anti-Jedi or anything, but it undoes a lot of the things that made their story so compelling and beautiful), but the first two seasons are genuinely GOOD and very pro Jedi in a lot of ways despite the lack of many actual Jedi characters.

The Book of Boba Fett is a terrible show for a LOT of reasons, but shockingly none of them have anything to do with its treatment of the Jedi. If it ever ends up with a season two, I desperately hope they leave Mace Windu's name the fuck out of it, but at this point it is a pretty Jedi neutral show if you're willing to deal with the rest of its bullshit.

Rebels is also somewhat older now, and it has a few lines here and there that are a tad more Jedi critical, but it is by and large VERY Jedi positive and does also follow a lot of the themes of selflessness and sacrifice that go along with being a Jedi. It also has themes of mercy and patience and facing your fears in Sabine's storyline that got entirely thrown away in her later storyline. Just thought that was worth pointing out. For reasons.

TBB is also fairly Jedi neutral, but its treatment of the clones is basically the clone version of being anti Jedi, so I'm not sure it's actually any better. It just traded hating on the Jedi to hating on the clones, and I find that just as distasteful.

I can't really speak to things like comics and novels much since I don't tend to consume them really. I've read a few of the adult novels in the High Republic Phase I and the first one was genuinely very good, but there were some relatively heavy-handed Jedi critical themes within the third book of Phase I (The Fallen Star) that put me off of it a little. I haven't continued into Phase II or III at all, so I have no idea if those themes got continued in later books. I've heard generally good things about the Padawan book, I think.

The Cal Kestis video games, Fallen Order and Survivor, also have their small Jedi critical moments, but much like Rebels, it has these massive overarching themes and messages about compassion and selflessness and sacrifice and facing your fears and mercy. They are immensely Jedi positive in a lot of ways and I really enjoyed both of them.

So out of everything I have seen (and know about) the only stuff that's truly heinously and insultingly anti-Jedi is the Ahsoka show, the Acolyte, and Tales of the Jedi. Three shows and like 30% of one book. Out of a list of like ten different shows and one film and some books and video games. It's not even really HALF of the content we've been getting recently.

A lot of people talk about the Disney era like it's ruined Star Wars, or like nothing it releases has ever been good. But it just straight up isn't true. It's a little insulting to all of the genuinely wonderful work that is being done by all of these other creators to just brush aside everything that's been coming out recently as awful and bad because some of the MOST recent things have been pretty explicitly hateful towards the Jedi. It's not fun that we had the Ahsoka show immediately followed by the Bad Batch followed by the Acolyte. I hate that, too, it feels like we're on this neverending shitshow of stories explicitly aimed at hating a group of characters for no obvious good reason. But I don't think that the last 6 months or so of bullshit should overshadow some of the really beautiful stories we HAVE gotten within the last several years.

If you feel like things are getting difficult, maybe do a "good Star Wars" marathon of sorts. Watch the Prequels, followed by the Kenobi show, then Andor, then Rebels, then Rogue One, then the Original trilogy. This one long beautiful story of people stepping up to fight against selfishness and greed and darkness no matter what.

Or go rewatch Visions or read some of your favorite fanfics and remember all the things about Star Wars that are just universally cool and compelling across the world. Hell, you can try writing something of your own! Anything! A lot of my AU concepts stemmed from spite and really helped me feel a little bit better about Star Wars when it sometimes felt like I was just surrounded by the parts of it I liked the least. Go buy yourself a cool t-shirt or some fun jewelry. Find some pretty stickers and put it on a water bottle or an enamel pin to put on a canvas tote bag or a corkboard.

Curating your fandom experience goes beyond just the internet. There's a reason I am boycotting the Acolyte and it isn't because I think Disney or its creators are going to care at all. I'm doing it for ME, because I had such a shitty time watching the Ahsoka show and it made me so miserable each week that I seriously think I will be better off just leaving it the hell alone and just absorbing whatever ends up crossing my dash from a distance. I only participate in Star Wars fandom servers that I feel safe in and only really get into discussions with personal friends who I know well. If participating in Star Wars fandom is making you sad, maybe take a step back or find a way to create your own corner of fandom that feels better. Ignore the damn Ahsoka show, pretend it never existed. Ignore the Acolyte. Ignore Tales of the Jedi. Ignore Filoni-related bullshit. Focus on the parts you DO like, or give yourself the space to remember why you liked it in the first place.

[soaps-mohawk]

RORY I NEED OPINIONS (please)

Something popped up on my page and it was about Ghost.

The person who posted proceeded to say how they've had enough of the mischaracterization of him. And other people in the comments have said the same. How whenever they see Ghost written as a cold mean guy, they think, "oh you've never read the comics or played the games."

Now, I'm not here to bash anyone. I just wanna know what you think of people who write OOC {insert character}? Or what do you think about it in general?

Okay, this is one of the things that bothers me the most about the mainstreaming of fandom and fanfiction.

The whole point of fanfiction, is to write the characters however you want to write them. Fanfiction does not have to stick to how characters are presented in fandom. Some might choose to, others might not. Some might choose to in certain fics, and then not to in others. OOC exists as a term for a reason. It's okay. You can write/draw/headcanon/whatever any character however you want because that's your interpretation, or because it's how you want the character to be in whatever situation you're putting them in.

I know I said I was done talking about this, but this circles back around to the whole dark fic issue. "X character wouldn't do this" according to who? The fandom police? That's the whole point. The whole point of fandom and fanfiction is to present the characters however you want. That's always been its purpose. Fix it fics, OOC, crack ficks, dark fics, AUs exist for a reason. Not every character has to act exactly as they do in canon. If you want that, then just watch/read/play the canon media and stay out of the fanfiction side of fandom.

People that get all up in arms about FANFICTION not sticking to canon events and portrayals are ruining fandom. They are. People wonder why creators and fans are leaving fandom, it's because it's not fun anymore. You write a character how you want to write them and there's 50 people complaining in the comments about how "that's not how they are in canon." Yeah? And? That's the point. It's like whole ship thing with people being mad about fans shipping characters that aren't together in canon. News flash, people have been doing that for ages. Since the dawn of fanfiction. People ship characters that aren't even in the same movie or show or game. You gonna get mad about a crossover fic because it's "not canon?"

If you can't accept that FANDOM and FANFICTION aren't always canon compliant then you need to not be in these spaces. Leave us alone and stick to just watching the show/movie or reading the book or playing the game, whatever. You're ruining fandom spaces for everyone. Most of us creators have been in these spaces for a lot longer than the people ruining them. I've been involved in fandoms for 18 years now. Far longer than I should have been, and honestly, if I didn't love writing fanfiction and use it as an outlet for myself so I don't go crazy, I probably would have left too.

These pearl clutchers and mainstream people flooding into fandom that refuse to learn the "rules" and accept how things have been for literal decades are ruining fandom for the rest of us and killing people's passions for writing and creating. Us creators don't have to share. We do it because we want to and because we enjoy seeing others reactions and the interaction that comes from it. We are all very capable of just writing or drawing and keeping them to ourselves. Soon there won't be such a thing as fandom because all the joy will have been sucked out of it. Creators are already leaving in droves because interaction is down to nothing. Add on people getting mad about things that are normal in fandom and soon there won't be anything left. People will be complaining about there being no fandoms and no fanfiction and fanart and video edits and gifs, even though we've been screaming why from the high heavens for years.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

This is extremely long and apparently subject to change, which is part of why I'm copy-pasting this version below. I don't agree with significant parts of it (in particular, I take umbrage with some of the delegitimizing language she uses for the Jewish/Israeli narrative and history that she doesn't use with the Palestinian narrative and history), however, I think it's a really really important read, because she addresses a lot of the real problems with the current discourse and real-world impacts that has.

I think this paragraph in particular was something I needed to read:

Arguing with the far left is a waste of time. They have no self-awareness, they are delusional, and they will never stop. They are as fanatical as any of the mob. The only way to make them stop talking is to actually sort this problem once and for all and work for the freedom and dignity of all. And when all is said and done, the ones that will keep complaining will finally be exposed for what they truly are.

She also winds up positing the A Land For All solution as the most likely to succeed, which I do agree is probably correct, for the main reason she argues, which is that it is the option that gives the most people the greatest amount of what they want, the basics of what everyone needs, and hews most closely with answering the competing narratives that exist.

There is No Magic Peace Fairy. Version 2

For anyone who might have read the previous version of this piece of writing, this is quite different from the original. Its spirit and essence are the same, but much has been added. It is very long, but it seeks to understand some extremely complicated and difficult things.

I should have realised when I first wrote it, and then sought to follow its instruction — to listen and learn from a wide spectrum of other people — that it was only ever going to be a working and evolving piece of work. This is version 2. There may yet be a version 3, 4 or 5.

Why did I even write it? Initially — truthfully, and honestly — it has been for myself. It started as catharsis, and it has become a compulsion — the way to “make it make sense.” The way to cope with horrifying scenes across the television and social media, witnessed day after day, and feeling utterly powerless to stop it.

It comes from years of witnessing, and sometimes partaking in long and sometimes very bitter family arguments. Arguments that became spectator sport for friends who would come over especially because they knew they would happen. Arguments that, in retrospect were not actually remotely funny for those of us living through that constant emotional turmoil, nor considering the subject matter. It has been the way to work through those conflicted feelings, and some things that were never really reconciled.

So, yes, it started for myself. But now I have written it, I do want people to read it. I think it may help others to work through some of the same things. And then it would have been worthwhile, especially if it may help some people to find a way to salvage lost friendships and lost relationships from the last few months, because it seems there is a giant rift forming in our communities in Britain.

This has nothing to do with ‘both sidsing’ anything, and it has everything to do with problem-solving. As far as I am concerned, in all of life, you cannot solve a problem that you do not understand. And I really want to understand it. So, I look at both narratives that the Palestinians and Israelis know as the history of their peoples, and think about the lives of individual Palestinians and Israelis, and then I wonder, how could this ever actually be fixed? Is there really any hope for the future?

It is not meant to justify or apologise for anything anyone has done.

I am sure this writing will includes things that almost everybody will take issue with, but it is my hope that by doing my very best to do justice to our collective stories that people can read without anger what it is that I have to say — and please do read to the very the end if you are intending to pass judgement on what that is.

Most of all, I think this will interest people in the diaspora with family, friends, and personal links and connections to the region — Israel or the Occupied Palestinian territories — who wish nothing more than to see their friends and family living in freedom, with dignity and security.

If you have read version 1, the stories of the 15-year-olds have only minor additions, but the narratives and the rest of the article have changed a lot. If you get to a bit that sounds very familiar, skip a bit further down — it is very long to read it twice.

~~~~~

What is the most important narrative of the Palestinian people?

(You do not have to agree with this — I am just telling it how it is told).

Something like –

“The defining event of our history is the Nakba (Catastrophe)

Before 1948, we used to live in Palestine. We loved Palestine. We lived there for centuries. We lived peacefully. We had a deep spiritual and emotional connection to the land. Our ancestors are buried there. Religious sites — Christian, Muslim, Jewish — that had great meaning to all of us were there. It was a rich tapestry of different religions and cultures containing a beautiful and sacred shared heritage.

We had wonderful villages and beloved homes that we built with our own hands. We had gardens with trees and plants that our grandparents planted. We had treasured possessions. We had friends and families and good lives. We could go and come as we pleased.

We had neighbours of all faiths, including Jewish neighbours. We lived contendly together. Some of them had been there for centuries just like us and we liked them, we lived there together happily and in peace.

In the 1900s, more and more started to come. They were fleeing persecution. We gave them refuge. We had no problem with them coming. They were being hounded in Europe and they needed somewhere else to go. Where better for them to be but here in Palestine, where the history of their people was born? And many of them were respectful and we had good relationships with them. We liked them.

But some of them wanted a country. Some of them fought with us, and some of them attacked us, and terrorised us. How could they have had a country in our land? We had been there for generations, and what would have become of us if we had agreed to it? Where would they have stopped? The problem was never them. It was them trying to make a country. And if they hadn’t tried to make a country, everything would have been okay. We could have had a country all of us together. What a beautiful country it could have been. But the country they wanted did not include us.

Some of them were clear they would have kept going until they got more and more of our land, and there is no question they would always have driven us away. Some of their leaders where unashamed and brazen in the way they looked down on us, in their statements that dehumanised us, in their disdain for us, in their colonial intent. They under-estimated us.

The Nakba (catastrophe) was a disaster for our people. In 1948, there was a war. During that war, the Israelis attacked us, killed us, stole our property and ethnically cleansed us from our land in order to create their Jewish state. We left in fear of our lives. We were not the ones that started that fighting. We wanted nothing to do with it. That is why we left.

We didn’t think we would be gone for long, surely once the fighting had subsided we would be back. But then days turned into weeks, and weeks turned into years.

Then it finally sunk in — they weren’t going to let us back. And we realised we were divided and dispossessed. That nightmare was only the beginning for us. They have never, ever allowed us back for 75 years. We lost everything. Our human rights are denied to us. More and more of our land is taken every day. We are not free. Some of us have no freedom at all and no rights.

We want to stop being ethnically cleansed. We want to go home, to go back, to see our homeland, our ancient sites, to be back where we belong, where we have always belonged. We want our dignity, and we want our freedom."

~~~~~

You do not have to agree with the way this story is told, but it has, in some form, been passed down through generations and generations of Palestinians.

~~~~~

What is life like for a 15-year-old Palestinian who lives in the West Bank?

You are told this story of your people from the day you were born. You live under a military occupation. More and more violent religious settlers move into the lands around you. They build new homes and can do whatever they want. They come and go as they please, in and out of Israel. You are not allowed to go anywhere except the West Bank. Their soldiers are always there with guns. They are in charge.

The settlers terrorise you all the time. They stop people farming their land and so you struggle to survive. A few weeks ago, a settler shot one of your friends. They never get punished and they never go to prison. But recently your best friend went to prison for throwing rocks at the soldiers. You really miss him.

Your grandparents left Palestine in 1948 with four children, and very few possessions. Your grandmother thought she would be back in a few days or weeks. Your grandmother’s sister ended up in Gaza and they never saw one another other again. She died recently. You have a cousin who is the same age as you. You know you could have been close if only you had even met.

You see no future the way things are now. There is no hope. You want a different life. You want the things your grandparents had. You don’t want to be constantly afraid of being attacked. You dream of leaving. You dream of the day you go back to Palestine where the house you should have had is, even just to see it, to be truly home, to live the life that is rightfully yours.

What do you do? You resist. In the only way that you can, with the only things that you have. You throw rocks at the soldiers. One day, you get caught, and you get put in a prison. You are tried by a military court, and you stay in prison for a really long time. In prison, people do appalling things to you. Finally, they let you out. What do you do?

~~~~~

What was life like for a 15 year old living in Gaza?

You are also told the Palestinian story from the day you were born. There are good things about your life. You go to school, have friends, and family who you love, you can go out and do things. There are hospitals, and you can get a lot of things that you need. You love Gaza. But you can’t leave Gaza. You can’t go anywhere else in the land or the world except Gaza.

Your life is still hard. Your family struggle for money and to survive, to get the things that you all need. There are a lot of things that would make your life better and easier, but you can’t get them in Gaza. You know that if you lived in Israel, you could get whatever you wanted and needed. You have family in the West Bank you have never met, but you know about their struggles. You have a cousin the same age, who is enduring unimaginable hardships.

The people in charge of Gaza are not good leaders. They can be dangerous and violent if you oppose them. A lot of people in Gaza don’t like them, although some people support them. Your own parents really can’t stand them. These people have been in charge of Gaza since before you were even born. You have learned that there was a civil war in Gaza before that and hundreds of people were killed or wounded. There has never been an election since.

You know they fire rockets into Israel because they want to dismantle it. You want a different life, but it’s never really worked or got anywhere. It seems futile. And you know that every few years, the bombs will come. Everyone you know has lost someone or something from the Israeli bombs. You don’t remember that much about the last time, but you do remember being really terrified, and you remember that your Dad cried when his brother was killed.

Then one day you hear news. News that Israel has been attacked by Gaza. Israelis have been killed, and some are even being brought into Gaza. Your heart sinks. You have a funny feeling in your stomach. You know what is coming.

~~~~~

To these two children, these cousins, Zionism can and only ever will mean catastrophic dispossession, oppression, and Jewish supremacy. The only Jews or Israelis they have encountered have either bombed them or terrorised them. Israel is a colonial entity. It never had a right to exist. Israelis are settlers. All they ever do is steal land. How could you expect them to see it any other way? There can never be any nuance, or any grey area about it. It could never have any legitimacy in their eyes. How could you expect or ask them to empathise with Israelis when you consider what they have lived and are living through?

For them, anyone who describes themselves as a Zionist in any form, even a liberal Zionist, could only ever be perceived as somebody that cannot be reasoned with, is trying to justify and support the unjustifiable, and is nothing but a settler and a tool of their oppression.

~~~~~

What is the dominant narrative of Jewish/Israeli people?

(You do not have to agree with it — I am just telling it how it is told).

It may be slightly different for secular Israelis and Diaspora Jews, but it goes something along these lines:

“We are the people of Israel. This is where our religion and our language were born, where we built temples and our ancestors are buried. We have and always have been surrounded by enemies on all sides. For millennia, we have been scattered throughout the world. We were driven from Israel and we went to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Throughout history people have always tried to kill the Jewish people. They didn’t like us being Jewish. There were always pogroms and mass killings. In some places people would hide and pray together in secret. It is our duty to keep the Jewish religion alive in their honour.

In Europe the pogroms got worse and worse. A few of us left Europe for a better life in Palestine. But most of us stayed in Europe. And most of us died in Europe. Six million of us. They did it because they said we were responsible for everything bad that had ever happened in the world.

Most of our so-called friends and neighbours said nothing as we were terrorised and led away. They carefully planned and counted how they could get rid of each and every one of us. They tried to annihilate us completely from the face of the earth. But as a people we lived on.

Jewish people had been coming to Palestine from Europe for years before 1948 fleeing the persecution. We came and we bought land fairly and built our lives there. We were happy. We wanted to all be together again, in a place that had meaning to us, where we would be safe. We knew we needed freedom and independence, so that this time it would never, ever happen again.

People say that we never needed a country, but what do they know? Jewish history has taught us things that they can never possibly understand. Jewish history has taught us that the world will always betray us, and when that day comes, our friends and neighbours will walk on by. We are a minority, so we must stick together, protect one another, keep one another safe. We knew we needed freedom and independence, so that this time we would have a safeplace where we can go and live when the world finally turns us on again, as it always does.

And In 1947, the UN agreed we could finally have a state of our own. We were so proud and overjoyed. What an achievement for us after everything we had been through.

We never wanted to fight with the people already living in Palestine. Yes, before 1948, some of us lived together peacefully. But it wasn’t a Utopia. Some of the people welcomed us and provided us with a safe place to live. We had good relationships with them.

But some of the people didn’t want us there, we were outsiders and they never liked us. Some people went to the British to get them to stop us from coming to Palestine. And even before 1948, there was a lot of fighting between us, and some of us were massacred even in Palestine.

But we could have found a way to live together peacefully, in two states, and they could have lived in our state just as we could have lived in theirs, just so long as we had a State. That is all we ever wanted. We could have divided and shared the land.

But they could never let us have it. Never. And when the British finally left, we saw our opportunity, we declared our state. We had no intention of taking anything from anyone. We just wanted a state. And then every single one of our neighbours, all the countries around us invaded us, from every corner of the land. Enemies on all sides. They surrounded us and we found we were alone, again, just as we always have been.

But this time we fought back. We fought for our freedom and independence and dignity, and our right to live and exist and not just accept to be killed, and mainly, for most of us, because we actually had nowhere else to go. It was a war, yes, we took land yes, but we didn’t start that war. It was existential, because how else exactly do you expect we could have guaranteed our security and safety surrounded by neighbours who were baying for our blood? What would you have done?

Then after 1948 the Middle East erupted. The Jews in the Middle East had always experienced persecution. But this was worse than ever. It was intolerable. They blamed those Jews for Israel. Hundreds of thousands of us were ethnically cleansed out of homes we had lived in for centuries, from Ancient communities all across the continent, and we left to build new lives in Israel. Over half of Israelis today are descended from those Middle Eastern Jews.

Now we live together in Israel. We stick togehter and we fight together. We have fought war after war after war. They have tried to kill us from all sides, time after time. But each time, we fight back harder, and we win. We have and always will be surrounded by enemies, but we will always fight back.”

~~~~~

You might not agree with a single word of this story. But this story, in some form or another has been passed down through generations and generations of millions of Jewish and Israeli people.

~~~~~

Now imagine the life of this 15-year-old born and living in Israel

You have been taught this story since the day you were born.

You live in a Kibbutz. You have friends. You like the outdoors and sports. You get good grades in school.

Your grandparents live nearby. Your Grandad came from Yemen as a refugee, as a child. He told you that his family were being attacked and threatened after the 1948 war, so they left their possessions and homes behind in Yemen, and they came to Israel instead.

Mostly you are happy. You are so excited you have a new boyfriend or girlfriend who you really like, but your parents don’t know yet.

But you really hate the rockets. You have never known any life without rockets. You know that some of the rockets get intercepted, but they still get through all the time.

There are bomb shelters everywhere. At school, in the playgrounds, in the bus-shelters, and at home. The sirens can go off at any time and then you have to run to the shelter. Even if you are busy doing your homework, or asleep, or on the toilet. The noise of the sirens never stops making you jump. You are used to it, but you still get scared and you hate it, and the sounds of the rockets make you shake.

You know in a couple of years you will be conscripted into the army. Everybody goes. You do and you don’t want to go. You want to go because you know it is your duty to protect the State from its enemies, just as everyone in your family has always done. But you are scared about it, and you don’t know what it will really be like. People don’t talk about it.

One weekend, your parents agree you can spend the night with your cousin. They live 40 minutes away. She is like a sister to you. So, you go on Friday. You have fun, watch a movie, chat for ages, and you fall asleep late.

The next thing you know your Aunt is waking you both up. It is Saturday morning. She is in a panic. Something is happening. Your parents have messaged. Something is wrong. She says there are men everywhere in the Kibbutz with guns. You turn on your phone. There are messages from your parents and your brother. They are in the bomb shelter. You try to call them. You can’t get through. You feel the panic rising in your chest. No, please, no. You ring your boyfriend or girlfriend. No answer.

~~~~~

This child has never met a Palestinian that lives in any Occupied Palestinian territory. All he/she knows about them is that they fire rockets at Israel and have done his/her whole life, and once every couple of decades they commit extremely violent and horrific terrorist attacks. That is what he/she knows because that’s what they have been taught and also what their lived experience has taught them.

Many Jewish and Israeli people believe when they talk about Zionism they are talking about, “Somewhere safe for Jews to live where they will not be attacked, where they can call home, and where they have self-determination.” How is it possible for this 15 year old child, given the stories they have been told and the life they have led, to be anything other than a Zionist, when it is defined like that? And if they are told they are a ‘settler’, or an ‘evil oppressor’ and that that is why they deserve to die, they will look at you with wide eyed wonder and assume you are a lunatic.

The reason they can conceive of the Jewish people as settlers who live outside 1967 borders and not themselves is because they do not see them as being in the, ‘Right for somewhere safe to live’ group of Zionists. They are considered to be religious extremists and supremacists, what they see as a distorted and extremist form of Zionism, and they don’t consider it the same.

~~~~~

There are many incredibly sad and depressing things about all of these stories. But the part to me that makes it seem most tragically futile — is that for a very large number of individual human beings that ended up living in either Israel or in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the 1950s -1960s — their stories are almost the same. Most of them were running away from something, and most of the time, the people who are doing the running away are not the people doing the fighting or the massacring.

It is a story of being a refugee, of fighting for survival against all odds, of 20th century dispossession and mass displacement. A story of being blamed for things they did not do and being held to account for debts that they did not owe. The tumult of 20th century history created a shared heritage — that over a very short time hundreds upon thousands of people were displaced — Jews fleeing Europe to Palestine, Palestinians fleeing during the creation of Israel, and almost all the Jews across the Middle East then fleeing to Israel in the few years after it started.

Part of that shared heritage became about yearning to return to a Holy piece of land that carries promise and a deep spiritual connection. It really shouldn’t be that hard to explain to one another — and indeed the rest of the world, why we cannot just ‘let it go’.

I am not trying to rewrite history and say that every single person in the years leading up to and including events in 1948 was an innocent bystander. Absolutely not. I am just saying that, generally speaking, as is almost always the case — when it comes to atrocities, it is normally extremists that engage in it, that end up calling the shots for everyone, and it is them that end up dictating history.

And it is extremist ideologies that are plaguing us today. One is an ideology of Jewish supremacy. God’s chosen people, Israel is God’s gift and therefore comes with a right to take land off anyone and everyone. The other is an extreme, dangerous and corrupted version of Islam — a highly repressive ideology where human rights do not exist, and it exalts in the death of Jews.

These people — all of them — they are the mob. ‘Death to the Jew. Death to the Arab’ One or the other in their rightful place, subservient to the other, or better yet, dead in the ground.

Most people are not the mob. Most people are not sociopaths. Most people just want to live and get on with their lives, they want to have their basic needs met, their human rights, and they want their children to grow up happy and healthy with a bright future ahead.

It is important to understand though that the bonds of community and peoplehood are also part of a basic human need. The need to maintain relationships with brothers, sisters, cousins and friends who live in our communities together with us, who have a shared history with us, who support us, and to whom we are loyal — it is part of the human experience.

The stories of our own and our friend’s grandparents, the loss of livelihood and dreams for the future as they packed their bags and fled — these are the stories that make us peoples. And it is these stories that bind us together within our communities much more closely than any ancient religious text or any ancestral DNA test ever could.

And so when people say, “The Jews and Israelis are not a people. They are fakers, they are ‘Europeans’ pretending to have links to a land that has nothing to do with them.” Or people say, “The Palestinians are not a people. They are just ‘Arabs’ who could have gone anywhere, who have no real history and whose only goal in life is to terrorise Jews,” these will both only ever be seen as inherently anti-Semitic or Anti-Palestinian statements that erase and deny large parts of our collective heritage, and neither will lead to any kind of constructive dialogue. Who is anyone to make judgements about what another people is that they do not belong to?

And so we end up where we have got to today –

From the Palestinian side, what I think is difficult for somebody who is not Palestinian to understand, is that telling them that they should give up on the right to return — for many — is impossible. They can’t do it. Understanding and honouring Palestinian history, which is rich, and complicated, and is largely unknown to many people, for them it is part of their identity. Poetry, art, great thinkers, great writers — they are all there for the world to see if only they would bother to look.

And even worse for a Palestinian, to suggest that everything that has befallen them was somehow their fault because they refused to give up on their history, this could only ever be met with fury and be seen as gaslighting.

It is essential as well to remember that this land — it is not just any land. It is not so easy to walk away from it as any other place on earth. It is Holy Land. It has meaning to everyone associated with it, and everyone wishes to be able to walk free inside it.

Having an enduring determination to free themselves from a brutal occupation that does nothing but dehumanises them and steals from them — and a longing, ultimately, to return to their homeland, this is inherent to being a Palestinian. They cannot ‘Un-Palestinian’ themselves.

So the Palestinians will say, “What world would you have us do? You the world have done nothing to help us. You who have been silent and you care nothing for our oppression. You have abandoned us to unthinkable injustice and suffering for decades. You who sit comfortably in your homes have no right to moralise at us or criticise us and tell us what we should or shouldn’t do. We have no means whatsoever to fight for our freedom. No one is on our side. We are alone. We will do whatever must be done to fight for ourselves, our human rights, our land.”

The Palestinians are living in an impossible nightmare. There seems to be nothing they can do to free themselves that doesn’t make their situation worse. What exactly are they supposed to do when they live under an occupation, have no civil rights, no means to fight for themselves, and the people with power that could do something are not standing up for them? And when all means of civil and non-violent resistance are completely denied or futile, support for more violent resistance will become inevitable.

And it was indeed inevitable that 7th October would come. Warning after warning has been given about the Occupied Palestinian territories and the blockade. Warnings about human rights abuses have gone unheeded. Warnings that if Palestinians are not given their freedom what would happen. Warnings that it was totally unjust, immoral and illegal for Palestinians in the West Bank to be under military occupation. Time and again it has been said it is a danger to the security of Israel, and it was ignored.

But the problem for the Palestinians is that terror was never ever going to work — because the people in Israel believe it was established and is needed as security because of the risk of terror against them. So the idea that they could be terrorised into giving it back, or into leaving — this is an absurdity. People talk of ‘Hasbara’, but terror is and feeds Hasbara. October 7th has done nothing but make people believe in Zionism even more (a safe place to live in their eyes). Zionism burns greater than ever with the fuel of the fires from the Hamas rockets. All terror has and can ever achieve is further encroachment onto Palestinian territory — the literal opposite of a free Palestine.

What happened in 1948 is horrendous. But what of it, to that 15 year old Israeli child? Whose own grandparents had nothing to do with it, and were themselves dispossessed, as is the case now for so many people living in Israel. That child who has only ever known Israel as their home.

So Israelis will say, “World, what would you have us do after October 7th? People outside Israel, you can say whatever the hell you want, but we are here alone. We have and always have been surrounded by people on every side who wish to murder each and every one of us until we are annihilated, and in the most painful and brutal possible way, as has just been demonstrated plainly for all the world to see. You, who do not have any understanding whatsoever of what that is like, do not get to tell us what to do. We will do whatever we think is necessary to strengthen our position to ensure this cannot happen again.”

What people are missing is that this conflict is unique to any other case of the ‘coloniser and colonised’ in history, because the people doing the ‘colonising’ are half the people of the land, people who have a genuine existential fear of everybody around them that does not come from nowhere, and is deeply ingrained into most people’ psyche. Most do not have anywhere else to go, because most of their grandparents came to Israel as refugees, and so they cannot perceive themselves as a ‘colonial settler’ in any way. So they will never stop fighting back at terrorism for their right to live without fear of attack.

This links to the Jewish people in the diaspora who support Israel and is extremely difficult for non-Jewish people to understand.

For many Jewish people, memorialising the repeated attempts to eradicate Jews throughout history, most notably the Holocaust, and remembering and honouring ancestors who have died to keep the Jewish religion alive is considered essential.

Every festival, every prayer book, every cultural activity and a very large number of conversations includes this on some level. It is integral and inherent to most people’s identity. So if people feel that their Jewish counterparts, and very often family in Israel are in existential danger, they can and only ever will see it as a moral imperative that they must be supported.

Asking Jewish people to somehow disavow themselves of this notion is impossible. To tell most Jewish people they need to ‘get over it’ because, “they are a coloniser and their needs do not matter,” is completely meaningless to them.

It is not grounded in reality, and something that can and will only ever be perceived as an attempt to ‘UnJewish them’. I.e. to eradicate significant parts of Jewish history and day-to-day life and community, and thus could only ever be perceived as deeply antisemitic in its very nature. The more these things are denied as relevant, the more people will fight back against what they see as gaslighting.

But for those people in the diaspora who have blindly, unquestioningly, dutifully and uncritically supported Israel, while its government drifts ever further into the grip of right-wing extremism and corruption, must surely now see that was a mistake. If you had a friend or a loved one on a destructive path of self-sabotage, would you just let them carry on?

It is great tragedy of Jewish history for both Jews and Palestinians alike that self-determination and independence for the Jewish people, at a time when they needed and wanted it so badly would come at someone else’s expense. Something that is so freely and unquestioningly given to so many other peoples, but not the Jewish people. Yes, it is unfair. But it did come at their expense. I think that most Palestinians only opposed it, not because they oppose Jewish people — it is the bit about it being at their expense.

We can argue forever and eternity about, “Oh, but it never needed to be this way. If only you could have shared with us. If only in 1947 this or that. And if only in this peace agreement this year or that year,” or whatever.

But what of it to those 15 year olds living in Gaza and the West Bank? It is an irrelevance what was ever intended. What was intended bears no resemblance whatsoever to their lived reality. The Jewish dream of Zionism became their nightmare. I know this is an extremely painful and bitter pill for people to swallow, but Zionism since its inception has resulted in nothing other than subjugation for them. And it is not normal for a country to not have any proper borders, and for one people to control another in some parts of it.

And while it continues to happen, Zionism will continue to be seen as Jewish people being allowed to have control over other people. This was never ever how Zionism was originally intended for a lot of people, and it is not what they think it means. Far from it. But this is where it has come to, and intentions do not matter, because it is our actions that count. Once you understand this, it is really not difficult to see how this is fuelling dark and extremely dangerous conspiracy theories about Zionism, which are dragging us back to a place in history that we most definitely do not want to go, and it endangers us all.

We need to open our eyes to reality. As the bombs reign down in Gaza, destroying thousands of lives, after well over 100 days, there are people dying from starvation. This must end, immediately. It is abominable. The rockets are still coming. And even if you stop them today, while there is occupation in any part of the land, they will just come back tomorrow or the next day or the week or the year or the decade after that. And surely from the Israeli side, negotiating whatever terms to get as many of those hostages out alive, going through what must be unthinkable terror, at any cost, must be prioritised above all else.

And I am very sorry, because I know people will not like this. But this ‘war’ — it is not about destroying Hamas. It is becoming increasingly clear by the day that not only is destroying Hamas impossible, but Israel’s government are violent ethnonationalists. The far right threaten to collapse it at every mention of a ceasefire — the only thing that will get most of those hostages back alive — and so it carries on. And extreme ideology is much more widespread within the government than just the furthest right that are propping it up. The very leader of Israel himself is at the heart of it.

When you hear what they are saying, it is very clear that they have far more sinister intentions, and we must take them at their word. Allowing people to starve, making plans to drive them off their land into other places, destroying heritage sites, and yes, mass killing — that is ethnic cleansing. It is the definition of ethnic cleansing. It is illegal under international law, and it must stop.

People say, “Oh, but Hamas are stealing the aid.” Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I don’t know. I don’t know and I don’t care. I don’t care because it is an irrelevance at this moment in time to that woman looking into the eyes of her hungry child as they wither away and die. It is enough.

Could it ever be solved?

There are those of us that would be willing to give up on the dreams of our respective peoples, and not because we wish to throw them under the bus. But simply because we would just accept any solution, in whatever form, that would bring the suffering of all people to an end, and as quickly as possible. Because we believe that none of any of this is worth the blood of anyone’s children.

Because we look at those dreams of security through self-determination, rights to return, and we look at where we are today, and we see that none of any of it has delivered on its promise. We see that the world is a very different place to what it was in 1948. We recognise that there are people on the ‘other side’ that we would much rather share a country with than the ‘mob’ on our own side.

Because we know that our histories are worthless if they demand that we ‘unhuman’ ourselves.

Because we recognise that we have inherited the most Unholy mess.

But we are few in number, because the majority of most peoples cannot let go of their respective narratives, either in whole or in part. And so the solution that must be found is one that could satisfy the majority of the narrative of both peoples.

Israel already has half of what it wants — it has the state. But it does not have security, and any pretence of it has been an illusion, one that was violently shattered on October 7th.

The Palestinians meanwhile — they have nothing of what they want.

A one state solution — this does not satisfy the Israeli narrative, because it requires the undoing of Israel. It gives many Israelis nothing of what they think they want and everything they are afraid of. If you were that panicking aunt of that 15 year old Israeli child just now, would you be agreeing to open that border?

But I do not think the two-state solution really satisfies the Palestinian narrative. Because in that narrative, things were better before Israel, before Zionism, where everybody just lived together. And mainly because people want to able to walk free across the land — the right of return. The two-state solution may bring freedom and dignity, but I am not sure if it would give enough people what they really want.

Ultimately it comes down to one of the reasons this has been so intractable for so long. The Jewish State and the desire to control and ensure the continued right of Jewish immigration to Israel, and the presumed need to maintain a Jewish majority to enable that, vs the Right to Return of the Palestinians. ‘The War of Return’ as it has been called. The thing that neither side seems to be able to give up, that seem to be in direct conflict.

So what do we do? Throw our hands up, put it down to a bad job and just give up. (What the world has done). Keep blaming each side’s ‘propaganda’, each side’s education system, each side’s unwillingness to budge. But it won’t work, because it is asking people to let things go of things that they cannot let go of, things that are integral to the history of their peoples.

Human beings have been solving problems since we existed and there is no reason why we cannot solve this one.

There are many possible ways to solve it. The confederate two-state-solution is one example of a way to square the circle: https://www.alandforall.org/.

I suggest it not because I am wedded to it but because it seems to me that it would satisfy enough of both narratives to work. There may be multiple other ways to do it.

How do we get to it? As a possible example. We start with two states. Real states. Not a bit of a state or half a state with the other bit not connected to it and some people still being occupied that could never be acceptable, and was always going to be fought against. A real Palestinian state, whose borders are secured through international peacekeeping. But with that state must also come the promise and the goal that over a reasonably short period of time, everybody who wishes to cross that border gets to cross that border, until eventually, one day, ideally, there isn’t a border. People live wherever they want, but retain citizenship in their own state. And with regards specific land and homes that cannot be returned, real reparations are made. This is just one example of how it could be done.

As we keep hearing — 7 million Israelis, 7 million Palestinians. No one is going anywhere. But at some point, it is my opinion that, probably, for this to ever end, everyone must be able to go everywhere.

Two peoples living side by side. All free to live and move freely across this ancient and Holy land that is so special and meaningful to all and must be shared. Finally able to mix and become humanised in each other’s eyes. Christian, Jew, and Muslim, free to access their ancient and Holy sites. All of us united together in the spirit of mutual respect and tolerance.

Cooperating together to fight the only war that there should ever have been — the only war worth fighting.

Everybody vs the mob.

Not a religious war, not a war of the us or them, not a war over rights to the land and houses. But a war of the moderate and the just against the extremists that have desecrated our respective religions and turned them into something ugly. The lunatics marginalised, silenced and rejected. As opposed to what we have now — the sociopaths leading the charge and everyone else marching dutifully along behind.

People will say this is idealistic nonsense, a pipe dream. But what is the other option? Another twenty or thirty years of failed peace agreements and more of the same all over again? And with every round of violence, the violence gets more violent, the mob gets stronger and more popular on both sides as their ideas are seeded. And the mob is hard to fight, because the mob involves fanatic religion that cannot be reasoned with.

If we keep allowing them to get stronger and stronger, I think they will eventually set each other, themselves, and quite possibly the entire world, alight. Literal World War 3 with Jerusalem at the centre.

“How can you ask us to negotiate with them?” I hear you say. “Them, who are ethnically cleansing us,” or, “Them who wish to annihilate us,” depending on which side you are on. But here is the rub — you cannot terrorise people into leaving and you cannot bomb people into submission. Neither has ever worked. We cannot ethnically cleanse or genocide our way out of this for either people, one way or the other. Any other solution other than a diplomatic solution will lead us nowhere but the abyss.

Israelis and Palestinians are not all inherently genocidal oppressors or inherently genocidal terrorists. (As unfortunately lots of people are saying) Of course they are not. Maybe right now in Gaza most Palestinians do support Hamas in what they see as armed resistance, and most Israelis do support the actions of their government in what they see as a war. But both things have become intertwined with both mobs, and so they are not what each respective side thinks they are. The ‘armed resistance’ — a pogrom style massacre by the ‘death to the Jew’ mob, and the ‘war’ a flagrant breach of international law and an obvious attempt at ethnic cleansing by the ‘God gave us Israel, death to the Arab’ mob.

I am not very sure that most of any of them either know or believe exactly what has or hasn’t happened. The information they are receiving is very different to ours. And in times of heightened escalation of violence, people retract into the respective narratives of their people as they become reinforced. “If it’s a choice between us or them, I choose us. And for me to be able to look myself in the mirror, I must choose to believe what I choose to believe.”

Both believe so deeply within their heart and soul that they are on the side of righteous justice. For one it is ‘the right to just exist’, For the other, it is ‘the right to life, dignity, freedom from cruel and violent oppressors’. So they are both engaging in the collective delusion that because theirs is the side of the right and good, their soldiers/fighters must also be right and good.

Their people can’t possibly be the ones committing the crimes against humanity, and they cannot believe the worst things that are being said about their own side, only the other. But this is not the reality of wars and fighting, and definitely not in a conflict that has gone on for this long where this amount of hatred has become so entrenched, and most of all not ones which involve religion. To me it seems very likely that most of the worst things that are being said about both sides, are in fact, the true things.

As it turns out, many of them were always, are becoming, or have become, the mob.

I think almost everyone, whatever they say, would in fact be appalled if they were actually to see the violence that has happened, and is happening with their very own eyes. But they do not want to open their eyes to see it for what it really is, because they are on the side of the right and the good.

I know there are people of every colour and creed who no doubt I could become friends with, get along with, and love dearly. But also there are people of every colour and creed that I could not stand to be in the same room as. I know this because I am not a racist. Human beings are human beings, that is all we need to know. And if we find ourselves making any collective statements about all of a people, we are probably becoming the very thing we so vociferously claim to the world we are not.

I think that racism may well have become entrenched on ‘both sides’ but I am not sure that it is exactly racism — perhaps a better way to put it would be ‘othering’. “They did this, they did that. They support this, they support that.” And the only way to stop doing it is not to tell each other that we need to unlearn or erase our respective histories and ‘un-brain’ wash ourselves. It is the opposite.

We have to first human ourselves. And then we might have to temporarily UnJewish and UnPalestinian ourselves for short amounts of time. Then we learn each other’s history. Then we will be able to find solutions together.

How can we work together to solve this?

This part of this piece of writing — specifically — it is for us in the diaspora. Hardly anyone in the Middle East is in a place to hear any of this this right now, and too many of them are much too busy trying not to die or get killed.

We in the diaspora, we are trying very hard to do what we can to stop this, and to help. But how is it possible, that all of us who seemingly so desperately want the same thing — freedom and dignity for everyone, and yet still don’t seem to be able to get anywhere without offending and upsetting one another? How can we expect people in the Middle East to co-exist, if we cannot even have a conversation?

I believe we are talking to each other in languages we do not understand, and until we realise this, we will only ever talk past each other. Almost every conversation will have the opposite of its intended consequence, and make the other person believe they are even more right.

We will only ever find it inconceivable that people or friends or colleagues that we thought were ‘nice’ could have views that seem totally barbaric in our eyes. But if we could talk in languages each other could understand, it would get easier. Or at least if we can’t, if we tried to hear what the other is really saying.

We are not listening to, or being respectful of one another and as a collective we are so much weaker and so much less powerful for it. Because the discourse has become so toxic that we cannot work together to find solutions.

I know I myself have been done these things, but even as we try to so hard to understand and explain, it is so easy to offend. I think the reason we are offending each other is because the words in the mind of the speaker sound very different to the ears of the listener.

If the conversations are had respectfully in the spirit of achieving genuine mutual understanding, that is great. But if it is an argument to convince the other person that you are right, forget it.

Take the debate about whether shouting ‘Intifada’ is Anti-Semitic.

If you tell some Palestinians that shouting, what to them means ‘resistance’ against a state which is and has been exercising immense and disproportionate power against them and has done for three quarters of a century, is anti-Semitic, they will inevitably wonder what planet you are living on. How exactly it is that you expect they can possibly fight for their freedom? And why do you continue to engage in this collective delusion that just condemns them to suffer and die?

But if you try to tell most Jewish people, that what they perceive as the indiscriminate killing of Jews in terrorist attacks is not antisemitic, it is inevitable that they will not believe you. In fact, they will see you as yet another of the seemingly innumerable people in the ‘Death to the Jew’ mob.

Every conversation is having the opposition of its intended consequence. Convincing the other person they were more right than they were before.

Think about the way that we frequently use each other’s non-mainstream diaspora voices as a stick to beat each other with. (And this is not necessarily a criticism of those voices — some of them are very important — it’s just explaining how they are seen).

People say to Palestinians:-

“Look, this Palestinian is good, they think Zionism is okay, and you should just accept it. If only you could stop being so silly like them it would have all been over a long time ago. They agree that you haven’t exactly helped yourselves.”

How could a Palestinian ever consider this as a legitimate argument? Views that surely could only be perceived as incredibly anti-Palestinian. Surely they must think something along the lines of…

“You are privileged not to be in Gaza grieving incommensurate losses. You are one of the lucky ones whose entire family is not now dead. You who are not hungry and ill and exhausted and cold and terrified of being killed. All of your hopes and dreams do not lie in ruin before your eyes. You are enabling and emboldening our enemies. You are throwing us under the wheels of the bus of occupation all the while benefitting from living in the countries that side with our oppressors. You do not, and you will not ever, speak for us.”

Equally Jewish people are constantly bombarded with -

“Look at this Jewish person or that one. They are reasonable. They believe Israel is a colonial entity and should be entirely dismantled. They agree you are weaponising the Holocaust and playing the victim. Why are you not a good Jew, like them?”

This is not in any way a mainstream Jewish view because it is mostly perceived as -

“Lucky you, not to be one of almost half the Jews of the world that ended up living in Israel, to not have been born there, to not have a friend or family member that has been killed or taken or mutilated.

Lucky you, who can align yourself with the baying mob, and in so doing throw your Jewish Brothers and Sisters in Israel under the wheels of the bus of annihilation by the people that have demonstrated time and again that they hate them, because it is not your problem. You are not and never have been part of the community, and you do not speak for us.”

If we constantly tell both groups that we don’t hate them, just so long as they agree with something that is a total anathema to them, it will never wash. I am sure it is incredibly offensive to everyone.

“From the River to the Sea.” What do you mean? Genocide the Jews? Genocide the Palestinians? Arab Nationalism? Jewish Nationalism? Or simply freedom and equality for all?

And when it comes to ‘Zionism’. Forget about different languages. We are on completely different planets.

For everyone and anyone else watching the nightmare unfold, who can’t make sense of any of it, they must be thinking, “Surely none of any of this can be okay in the name of human decency?” But they do not know what to do. Because to ‘both sides’ it is to offend everyone and convince no one. ‘Both sidsing’ it has been declared not allowed. You will always be seen as a sell-out or a bus-thrower-under, one way or the other. So they are silenced, their voices not heard, reduced into a despondent, hand-wringing depression.

Yes, in the Middle East, one group has all the power. But in the diaspora, we are more equal. We have equal rights, we mostly live in countries where we are free to speak our minds.

Both sides are busy trying to expose each other’s mob. Both sides have “traitors” who are busy helping. The traitors have totally denounced their own side as either misogynistic, or racist, or both, and have joined the other team. And most of everybody else is on the scale of moderate, somewhere in between the views of the ‘mob’ from their own side, and ‘traitor’ for the other side. None of us even agree with each other on our ‘own side’, and very often, the people on our own side annoy us even more than the people on the other, and amazingly, sometimes the people we find the most annoying are the people we agree with the most.

In the first version of this I wrote, “We are mirror images of one another, yet it seems we mainly hold the mirror up at each other, not at the self.” So we never get to see what it is that we might have been missing.

Maybe is the other way around — we only hold the mirror up at the self and not the other. Something like that.

This is a long and, yes, very complicated story affecting and involving millions of different people across the world, across time and space, with millions of different stories to tell. For there to be any genuine hope of mutual understanding or respect, every single person is going to have to concede that most things about this story they can never truly understand because they have not lived them.

We cannot know, if we have not lived it, what it means to be born and live in a country that has only ever been at war. We cannot know, if we have not lived it, what it means to be born and live your whole life in a territory that is brutally occupied, or is under a blockade, by another people. Nor can we know, if we have not lived it, what it is like to have friends and family caught up on any side of this, whose safety and wellbeing you are desperately worried about.

We in the diaspora, so desperately worried for people in the Middle East, we are all working so hard, but we are not doing the right work. We are digging the hole deeper than ever. The magic peace fairy is not coming. They will not simply just descend from the sky, sprinkle us with magic fairy peace dust and make it all better.

When was the last time we tried to have a meaningful conversation with someone who is saying things that seem incredibly offensive to us? When was the last time we took the trouble to ask them why they think what they do? Or to ask why it is that we have offended them? To ask them about their lives, what happened to their grandparents, and their families and friends, and their parents and the stories that they were told growing up. About their hopes and dreams and aspirations. About their fears for the future.

Whenever the violence escalates, the historians cash in. Suddenly people have more motivation to understand, so we start reading and re-reading the history books. But mostly history will not give us the answers that we are looking for. It is people’s stories that will do it. And reading books that reinforce things that we already agree with will not give us the understanding that we need. It is the great writers from the other side that might.

Social media has many ills. But one huge positive is that it allows us to connect with all sorts of people whose thoughts and ideas we would never have been exposed to. We can observe fascinating conversations between other people we would never have been party to before. We can gain understanding, share ideas and solutions. It is definitely happenning. None of this was there in any previous attempts to fix this. It might just be the gamechanger that we need. We must make the most of it.

We cling to our positions like shells to a rock, not budging at all, so sure that we and we alone can see this for what it really is. I know I was. We could have been working together to stop this, but we never make any progress, and as a result, inadvertently, each and every one of us is complicit in the most unforgivable human suffering.

People say that there is no point talking about peaceful co-existence because it has never worked — but neither has violence. Ultimately there are only two choices — wait for the magic peace fairy, and die together. Or we can do the work to make the ‘peace’ that we all want, and maybe we can live together.

Addendum

And now I speak “as a British Jew,” to anyone in our community who is willing to listen.

I can tell the story of the Jewish story because I know that story. I have grown up listening to it. I was taught it in the Synagogue, in Sunday school and by family and friends. I have also tried, as best as I can, having not lived it, but by listening to the voices of Palestinians and with the help and feedback of allies, to do justice to their story. I hope that I have. It may not meet the mark, after all, this is only version 2. And anyway, neither ‘side’ is a monolith, we would all tell our histories a bit differently, so I definitely cannot satisfy all.

It is important to say that there is one thing yet unmentioned about these two stories. It may be the most important thing. I think it belies the biggest lack of understanding between us.

I have talked much of the similarities in our stories. But there is one very big difference.

The Israeli and Jewish story is about running away. It is about running away from terrible persecution, and of moving forward. It is about moving on and building a new life. The idea of wanting to go back in time, wanting to turn back the clock — it is unconscionable. There was never anything worth going back to. So, for example, when some of us are suddenly being offered citizenship in European countries because our grandparents lived there before the Holocaust, this is not something that we could ever comprehend wanting.

So many Israelis feel, “Why couldn’t they have just moved on like we did? Why did they spend all of their efforts ruining things for us when they could have just moved forward, let it go, made the best of a bad lot, and made new lives like we did?”

Apart from the multitude of reasons I have already explained as to why it was never that simple and why their material circumstances and the occupation has made that impossible for most people — what we need to realise is that their story is the other way around. Our story starts from a place of misery, and moves onto something better. Theirs starts from a place where they were happy enough, and moves onto something horrific. It starts from being at least content for hundreds of years, running away — something they thought was temporary — and never being allowed to go back.

And I say this part as gently as I possibly can. There is a very deep and particular sorrow that many Jewish people will know. It comes with realising that we do not want to look back, because looking back is much too painful. Knowing that for some of us there is no point going on ‘ancestry.com’ because there is no ancestry left to trace. And is it that sorrow that was felt so keenly after the atrocity that was October the 7th. People do not understand that something cannot be weaponised when it is so genuinely heartfelt — there is no intent behind it.

But for the Palestinians — seeing that people from other countries can go and visit, go on holiday, and walk around in a land where their grandparents built their homes, left with whatever they could carry only for them and their families to encounter ever more worsening horrors on their onward journey right up until this very day — and yet they can never set foot in that land — I think what they experience when they see that — it is a very similar sorrow. And I am sure that they have been feeling that sorrow most keenly with each and every passing day, and most particularly in these last months.

I do not believe, as I have argued, that is the case that Israel must cease to exist with all the people in it, to allow the Palestinians what they clearly want, need, and, I believe, are indeed entitled to. The idea that our millenia-old right of return is still in date but their 75-year-old right of return has somehow expired is completely logically incoherent.

And I am coming to understand that suggesting that it has somehow been indulged is a bit like telling us we are weaponising the Holocaust. I think that nothing could be more insulting.

The problem with our version of the story that we were taught — The story of the Jewish people, our losses, our sacrifices, our spilled blood — it is only half a story. It is history through only one lens.

And that story is not the only thing that is taught in our homes and in our Synagogues and in our Sunday schools. We are taught values. We are taught values of respect, justice, and ‘do unto others’. We are taught the words of the Talmud ‘Whoever saves a life, saves the world entire,” (words that can also be found in the Quran).

Most importantly of all, we are taught, “Do not stand idly by while the blood of your neighbour is shed.”

And because we are taught those values — there is a cognitive dissonance that so many people in our community feel — but don’t quite understand — that parts of this story don’t really make any sense, that what happened, and is happening, is definitely not okay. That dissonance — it will not hold forever. It will tear our families and our community apart. It already is.

Yes, there is a death to the Jew mob. Yes, they are a massive problem. But I think we have no right to make mention of that mob unless in the same breath and multiple times over we are making mention of our own mob. Because our own, ‘Death to the Arab’ mob — they have been running around the Occupied Territories unchecked for decades. And it is both mobs that need to be brought under control before there can ever be any hope of resolving this. The Death to the Jew mob will come back stronger than ever while the Death to the Arab mob roam free. And who are we to lecture Palestinians for not getting their house in order, when it is our side that has all the power and all the resources, and yet we have allowed it to carry on? We who demand that they condemn the “resistance” whilst refusing to condemn the “war”.

And we must understand this — If Gaza is allowed to be resettled — it is over. Ever more untold and unimaginable horror for the Palestinians, and in our silence we will have handed Israel on a plate to those ethnonationalists, to the people that should have had nothing to do with what Israel could have been — and in fact people that have nothing to do with us and our values.

People keep talking about the two-state solution like it is some kind of utopia that, like the magic peace fairy, it will just fall from the sky. It is not that easy. Trying to dismantle settlements in the West Bank to make that possible — it is probably almost undoable as it is. Some of them have been there so long now and the Palestinians have very little faith that it could or would ever be done. In fact a confederate version of the two state solution may in some ways be easier to implement because it does not necessarily require the dismantlement of all settlements, something that looks like it is getting harder to do.

And If we think antisemitism is bad now, it will be nothing compared to what is in store in years to come if the resettlement and reoccupation of Gaza were to happen. Israel, hated among nations like never before, until eventually the world will finally not tolerate it. It is dangerous and it leads I know not where, undoing it, I know not how. An epic holy war ahead of us, and in the process we will see what we are already seeing in Israel — free speech and dissent a thing of the past — and Israel’s democracy — burned to the ground.

We are doing our cousins and our friends no favours by parroting off the same old arguments, and ignoring the occupation that has been allowed to become normalised within Israel. It is high time for a different conversation. It was a long ago, and it is now or never.

We need to speak up, loud and clear. When it comes to armed Jewish settlers running around the West bank and terrorising Palestinians, we are anti — it, and we always have been. But how can we expect other people to know this if we do not have these conversations in the open? If we do not call a spade a spade. Our refusal to use particular words and talk about things in a particular way in front of other people even if we do it behind closed doors has led to a lack of education within our community — and I am sure that there will be some people when I talk about these things, that have literally no idea what I am even saying. This is a very big problem. I hope some of those people are reading this now.

And what exactly is it that we are so afraid will happen if we put our heads above the parapet? It is evidently clear that Israel has not been abandoned by its allies. Put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary Gazan just now. Heartbreakingly, it seems to me, that being abandoned by the world — that that has become their destiny.

And, “What of the far left?” people will say? How are we to do deal with their antisemitism?

Yes, the far left think they are supporting armed resistance but have in fact aligned themselves with the ‘death to the Jew’ mob. They bleat on about ‘Hasbara’ — something they clearly have no understanding of whatsoever because if they did they would realise that they are it. Or at least that they are feeding it. Literally they are walking, talking Hasbara.

But of the multiple problems with the far left — and there are many — to me the worst is that there are those of them who have no connection whatsoever to the lives of anyone in the region — no ordinary Israelis or ordinary Palestinians, and yet they cheer for ever more death and destruction. They cheer on “armed resistance” from their comfortable homes in their comfortable lives, and it is not them who will have to face the consequences.

And maybe this round of violence will be the last round, the round that ends it once and for all — I hope so. But it has come at the most appalling and unacceptable cost.

Who are they to think they have a right to declare that somebody else’s family, somebody else’s child — Israeli or Palestinian — even one — let alone thousands and counting — is an acceptable sacrifice?

Maybe it is because they did not understand that October 7th could only ever have been a suicide mission. Because as a consequence of the rigidness of far-left ideology that does not allow for self-critical thinking, they refuse to understand this problem in more than one way. That you cannot fight evil with evil. That yes, it is more complicated than just ‘oppressor’ and ‘oppressed’, more complicated than their warped version of reality where even children are fair game.

Probably there are some of them that knew what would happen after October 7th, and just decided it was probably worth it if it would eventually ‘free Palestine.’ Either way it is unforgivable because it was not their decision to make. And all that has happened as far as I can see, all October 7th has achieved is all it would ever achieve — to enable an extremely racist, harmful, problematic and untrue stereotype that ‘Palestinians are genocidal terrorists’ to be reinforced in the eyes of Israelis and the rest of the world. Around 3,000 people crossed that border on October 7th, of a population of over 2 million. But undoing that sterotype will be extremely difficult, taking us further away from where we need to be.

You cannot help but wonder where we might be right now if only all those people had used all that effort to lobby for a real diplomatic solution. But we can’t turn back the clock.

Arguing with the far left is a waste of time. They have no self-awareness, they are delusional, and they will never stop. They are as fanatical as any of the mob. The only way to make them stop talking is to actually sort this problem once and for all and work for the freedom and dignity of all. And when all is said and done, the ones that will keep complaining will finally be exposed for what they truly are.

That there are outspoken people within our community that think that the correct response to these people is for us to align ourselves with far right Islamophobes — we who have traditionally been proud of being anti-fascist — this could not be more ludicrous. It will lead us into that abyss. “I think the Jewish Chronicle is the Daily Mail for Jews.” Yes Dad, we all finally agree.

So where do we go from here? We need to start doing that right work. It is incumbent upon us more than anyone. Because it is only us who can help our friends and family in Israel, because it us who share history with them, who love and care about them. It is us who can help them see this through another lens.

We need to change the conversation, and we need to do it fast. Because the Palestinians do not have the luxury of time, and as far as I am concerned, neither do we.

There are people in our communities — both Israeli and Jewish — that have already been doing that right work for a really long time. It is time to listen to them, and elevate their voices. We need to start to be willing to be offended and to listen to other points of view. And unfortunately some of the right work does sometimes involve wading through what feels like a massive steaming pile of anti-Semitic shit, in order to get to the heart of some of the problems. But we also have an opportunity to meet some incredible people, and hear some amazing and wonderful voices that we would never have had a chance to hear. We have to get this done, to fix this once and for all.

We cannot hand this legacy to our children. We have to fight (non-violently) for a different future. This is the chance to do it. The world’s eyes are on Israel, and the time is now.

[rjmhereunderprotest]

Only Human: Species Bias in Fantasy/Science-Fiction

Let's get the premise for this little essay out of the way now: Humans are Boring. They are the most overused, overemphasized, overdone, overrated race in any fantasy/sci-fi setting. And I'm honestly SO tired of it. And by that I mean, humans, and human-like races, are consistently the primary characters of any story. Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, they're all overdone to death, but Humans? Those other races are generally just derivatives of them anyway and they are constantly placed into the primary focus of any story. Often to its detriment in my mind. We always complain about how we want other perspectives, different heroes, different narratives, but we always default to humans and frankly its gotten stale. For me, it's become even more so the longer this has gone on. So in a follow-up to my entry about Monster-Narratives with Sarah Kerrigan, let's talk about humans and why they're so goddamn boring.

Disclaimer First

I am not saying ALL human characters and ALL human centric stories are boring. I can name many a human character who is compelling and interesting and deep. My problem isn't humans as a central POV, my problem is when given the option in a setting to do ANYTHING and be ANYONE... a story will default to human. Every. Single. Time. And worse yet, they'll even make Non-Human races more human like.

Besides the aforementioned Dwarves, Elves and Hobbits, a lot of alien or fantasy races can end up just being humans with a slightly different coat of paint. You don't need to look any further than a lot of monster girl fiction, which has universally decided that you can just have any human woman put on cat ears or pop out a fox tail or grow some wings and presto chango they're a monster now I guess. It's cosplay, nothing more. No one actually has the dragon BE a dragon i full. They have to look like a human somehow.

And let's be clear here, the reason for this is obvious. Write what you know. Everyone knows how to be human, so it's easier to just WRITE a human. The perspective will ring more true if you know what a human is and can properly depict them. And since everyone is human, everyone at least has an idea of how they're supposed to be. I'm not blaming anyone for going to the default option on this, it makes sense.

But all across media there exists multiple opportunities to actually present a perspective or allow someone to step into the shoes of something that isn't human. That isn't just a derivative of humanity. That is truly foreign to them. Sadly they rarely take the chance and when they do... well, a lot of the times it falls into some bad writing clichés. Before we get into some of the main offenders, let's address one of said clichés of the bat to better understand why human centrism in genre fiction can lead to some terrible ideas.

Planet of Hats

The Planet of Hats is the well-worn concept that alien/fantasy races are monoliths. That every member of a species thinks like each other, acts like each other, builds their society around a singular concept, is entirely devoted to that particular concept, and is forever entrenched in that one state of mind forever. That is the Planet of Hats. You see it manifested in every Warrior Culture or Pacifist Society or Amazon Island or Gangster Planet. An entire people bent to serve a singular overriding "Problem of the Week" scenario to comment on a singular issue. Mostly by going completely overboard with it. And if you want to know the biggest offender of this... well, all those examples I listed come from one single IP who has done at least one iteration of those worlds over its very long life-span.

Sorry guys, it's true and you know it. For all the good Star Trek portends to be, all the progressive ideas it puts forward, for all the social commentary it has added to zeitgeist, one place it consistently falls short in is depicting alien races. How you ask? How is one of the most socially conscious and ethnically diverse franchises in history failing in this regard? Especially considering it has spawned some of the most iconic alien races in all of fiction?

Because as I just pointed out, a lot of their alien races are basically just one note stereotypes. Built around a single idea to create a "Problem of the Week" episode. This has been true as far back as the original series. Which was completely episodic and rarely if ever revisited alien races it ran across. Now of course there are mainstays and they've been fleshed out over the decades, but a lot of that fleshing out has been a result of Star Trek trying to push back on the Planet of Hats problem. And they still don't really address the crux of it.

The best way to explain Star Trek's problem lies in how one alien race was introduced to us, the Ferengi. You know them, the big eared hyper-capitalists who are best known for being the franchise's greedy assholes/Comic Relief. And boy, was their introduction a MESS.

It's fair to say the first two seasons of "The Next Generation" were... bad. As in... awful. "The Last Outpost" is one of those awful episodes where the Ferengi first showed up. Roddenberry, Star Trek's creator, wanted to evolve a lot of the concepts from the original series. The problem was he didn't have anyone to tell him "This doesn't work" The Ferengi were made to replace the dated "America vs Soviets" allegory that a lot of Trek's previous antagonist aliens represented. For Roddenberry, the real danger was unfettered capitalism. Hard to argue with that, problem was the Ferengi weren't a threat.

"The Last Outpost" presents the Ferengi less as an alien race and more like farcical clowns who basically exist to make the Federation (Humanity) look better by comparison. The Ferengi run around the entire episode, acting like unhinged monkeys, while Commander Riker struts about with his superior moral values and beliefs. At no point do the Ferengi resemble a legitimate threat to humanity. They're buffoons, made to present less a commentary on hyper-capitalism and more of a mockery of it. As a result, none of the Ferengi come off as characters, they're caricatures. Silly, nonsensical, idiots who are there to make Picard look righteous and humanity as more evolved.

Now let's not act like Roddenberry was supposed to be fair to the alien race he created to represent the things he hated. But he was supposed to make them a culture and not just strawmen he could beat up for an hour. Hell, decades earlier, he had bothered to give the Nazi Planet more nuance! And that was a planet, as stated, full of Nazis! But even that felt more like a culture than the Ferengi running around like baboons, hooting and hollering as they unconvincingly tried to pull one over on the natives they intended to exploit. Natives that the oh so perfect Federation, embodied by Commander Riker, easily protected by simple human fortitude and stalwart moral fiber.

Of course, years down the line, the Ferengi were finally developed into something that resembled a real civilization instead of punching bag. They actually had a degree of morals, not like the Federation, but they weren't entirely monstrous. Characters like Quark helped immensely in rehabilitating the image of the Ferengi without completely discarding their original characterization. But Star Trek has never really completely abandoned it's human centrism. Nor it's tendency to portray humanity in general as the "Better Way/Only Way."

Because let's be honest here, the Federation is just humanity. Sure other races are in there, work with them, and we are TOLD their customs and beliefs are respected, but be honest. How often have you seen an alien on Star Trek in a Command position? How often are aliens in Star Trek the central character? Has any captain or lead character in any Trek show ever not been a human?

You may point out Spock or Worf, and fair, but Spock is half-human and Worf was raised by humans. They're also not the Captain of the ship of their respective series. Even then, Vulcans and Klingons don't get off so easily. How many times have the Vulcans and their reliance on logic being criticized because they don't express outward emotion like humans? How many times have the Klingons had their culture scrutinized as purely violent? Yes, they've always come back around to highlight the value of their differing perspectives, how their voices at the table are worth listening to, and how there is more to them than just the warrior and hyper-logical. But ultimately, a lot of Star Trek comes back to how each of these alien races REALLY should become more human. Oh the Federation won't FORCE it on them, but they'll just kinda neg them on it. You should really show more emotion, Spock. You should really stop being so war-like, Worf. Be more human, be more sensible, conform! Why don't you conform already?

You might argue that's not the case, but it kinda is. Star Trek will always come around to how if a lot of these alien races were more like the Federation's ideal of humanity, they'd all be much better off. And it all stems from the Planet of the Hats cliché. Which purely exists to give the Federation some problem to preach about and argue against. The Federation won't conquer you to be like them, but they will kinda pressure you to change. And sure, a lot of these cultures could do with reform. But a planet existing purely to be used as a soap box isn't a culture, it's just the Ferengi of "The Last Outpost" again.

I'll sum this section up in terms that were expressed by Chuck Sonnenberg of SFDebris. Star Trek's tendency to put alien races in a box is detrimental to its world building. If Germany was a fictional race in Star Trek, it would be defined by industrial power, a love of war, and expansionist foreign policy coached in racial purity. That even after being defeated, said society would constantly be trying to claw back to its perceived glory days, never changing, just constantly being stuck in its singular mindset for all eternity. The only thing keeping them in check being the Federation of United Planets, mostly dominated by humans, who shake their heads at how awful Germans are for refusing to change and be more like them.

Doesn't that sound stupid? And if the Federation of Star Trek, the epitome of Optimistic Science Fiction, can make such a mistake, how do franchises that aren't so hopeful and cheer faire? Star Trek is an incredibly influential series in genre fiction. It informs a lot about how its done even today. If it can't help but put humans on a pedestal, even though it shouldn't because that's antithetical to its own world-building, how have other IPs faired in that regard?

Well... not good. Not good at all.

Center of Everything

I could list so many examples of humans being positioned as the most important element of any fantasy or sci-fi story. It almost feels redundant. Star Wars generally has humans as its main protagonists. A good deal of Lord of the Rings involves the nations of men being the main bulwark against the forces of Mordor. Earth is basically the most important planet in both Marvel and DC and humanity is the most special of all races out there. How many humans get to be a part of the Green Lantern Corps? Overall, humans are going to be the focus of any story. Even if they exist in a setting where they aren't the only sapient race out there. Humans get to take center stage and lead the plot. Even if they really shouldn't and they aren't supposed to and you know where this going...

I think this is probably the best example I can use to point out how Human Centrism can be a problem. Because I think enough people at this point recognize what went wrong with the live-action Transformers movies. Yeah, I know some folks keep trying to rehabilitate them, I don't care. I'm dying on this hill! They were never that good!

A movie about the Transformers should not be so reliant on the squishy humans that no one ever cared about. A series of dynamic characters who, at the point of the first Bay Movie's premiere, had carried several stories on their own despite not being human! A race of alien robots with intriguing inter-cultural dynamics, opinions, philosophies, so much character and complexity. Sure they were toy commercials at the end of the day, but no one who watched Dinobot's sacrifice in Beast Wars' "Code of a Hero" would be able to deny that the series could not transcend that stigma! The Transformers were always meant to be the center of their franchise, as they rightly should be because they can carry it just fine on their own.

Then Michael Bay showed up and decided to turn the whole series into an extended US Army Recruitment Commercial instead. I think we can all agree Military-Industrial Complex Propaganda is far worse than making kids want to bug their parents for toys. But that's neither here nor there, even if Bay hadn't been jerking off to the US Military in these movies, the problem with them was apparent from moment one. When the films became more about Shia LeBeouf wanting to get laid than the alien robots. The films excessively/progressively revolved around humans and their interactions with the Transformers. They became the primary focus more and more until they essentially took over huge swaths of the plot and narrative. Autobots and Decepticons alike, no matter how important, iconic or well-known, were very casually tossed aside and killed off over the various sequels. And no one really cared because the Transformers on both sides became so highly interchangeable and forgettable that sometimes you could blink and miss them. Remember Arcee? Prominent female autobot? Strangely split into three motocycles for some reason? Murdered to death! With only one line of dialogue!

Oh sure, Optimus and Bumblebee got to be front and center, but mostly because they got to be colors that were just a mess of greys, browns and blacks. That and Optimus is by far the most popular of all the Transformers and the face of the franchise. But if you want an example of humans taking over a narrative to its detriment, Michael Bay's Transformers movies are the singular defining example of just such a problem. And you probably heard the defenses, it gave audiences a anchor point, a relatable view, something they could connect with.

Strange, none of the fans over the years needed humans to help them connect to any of the alien robots that were the main narrative focus of countless tv shows and comics. But I suppose Hollywood Executives know better. When have they ever been wrong, right?

To be honest though, this is nothing new. Science-Fiction especially has always had a problem with positioning humans as ultra-super special. And some people could recognize it for the dangerous prospect of what it was. Issac Asimov noted John W. Campbell's tendency to position humans as the most important or superior race as opposed to others it encountered in fiction. And to Asimov, that also appeared to extend to the smaller scale of reality and Campbell's... well, let's say belief in American Exceptionalism. Asimov didn't like arguing with Campbell, so he tried to avoid using aliens too much.

You can see the problem though, insisting on the exceptionalism of humanity often denotes a general sense of racial/national superiority. There's nothing wrong with rooting for the home team, but not everything should be a competition and humans shouldn't take over every story for themselves. Especially if it isn't their own, like the Transformers. Their franchise is proof enough that humans don't have to be central element to be successful. And yet, until now, most theatrical films felt the need to involve humans in some aspect. And sadly, because of "Transformers One's" not so stellar box office performance, that belief might persist. And it will continue to hamstring the Transformers property like it does with other stories in genre fiction.

Illusion of Choice

Even if this mindset doesn't inherently compromise a story's narrative, it can still kneecap it. The best example of how involves gaming, specifically RPGs. Despite portending that our "choices matter", so often in games they do not. Because, here again, too many franchises decide that the only perspective that matters is one that looks similar to you.

Discounting the many video games that might allow you to be an alien, monster or even just an animal, because they are out there, I feel far too many RPGs can be very limiting. Does Fallout let you pick if you want to be a Ghoul or Super Mutant? No. That's only been a recent development and only for one game and its an MMO. Video games in general, when set in a fantasy or sci-fi world will default to one of the pre-approved human or human-like races, if they present the choice at all. Dragon Age 2 famously hard locked you into being a human despite the last game letting you pick your race. Now you can say that's because they had a set story to tell that needed the characters to be human. But it's still jarring.

And I think there's one instance where BioWare itself had a huge opportunity to change things... but decided they were just going to play it safe.

After three games of playing Commander Shepard, who had to be human because that made the most sense for the story they were telling, BioWare had an opportunity to shake things up. They had a whole new story, not tied to Shepard. A whole new galaxy, again, not tied to Shepard or humanity itself. And they decided to just go with another human character... again. Mass Effect has probably some of the most diverse alien races out there and even now, you can still only play them through multiplayer. The main games? Stuck with human protagonists.

I'll freely admit I probably defend Andromeda more than most Mass Effect fans. Not completely, because it does have a lot of problems, but I admire it for what it was TRYING to do. What I can't forgive is what it didn't even attempt. It could've easily crafted a story that enabled the player to pick whatever race they wanted to play as. Turian, Asari, Salarian or Krogan! Quarians! They could've let us be quarians, but NO! We are always stuck as humans, never given the opportunity to experience this galaxy through any other eyes but human ones! Even when given the perfect opportunity to do so, Andromeda chickens out and just sticks us as an ordinary human again.

It's so painfully sad. And while being given the option to be something other than a human probably wouldn't have fixed the game's other problems, at the very least it would've been looked at as some admirable. As something that tried to expand Mass Effect's unique setting and give more dimension to the aliens it had crafted.

Humans are simply the safe option. Safe to animate, safe to draw, safe to craft stories for, safe to empathize with. The second you have to do it for something that is properly alien or decisively not human, that's when you run into trouble. Because if you can't get the audience to connect with a character, it's over. And that becomes harder if the alien or fantasy creature does not share something in common with us.

It's kinda sad honestly that the biggest departure from human-based races that Dragon Age has even done is qunari. And they're technically just horned giant people. They're not exactly inhuman enough, hell if character creation teases are anything to go by, they've actually tried to make them MORE human looking for the next game.

Which brings us to a whole other issue that is pushing us further down this hole within the confines of gaming itself. For far too long now, the gaming industry has become increasingly obsessed with hyper-realism, both in graphics and design. Unique artistic styles and aesthetics have slowly been eroded away by an obsession among developers and publishers alike. A need to force characters and games themselves to be grounded in the real, no matter how fantastical the setting is.

lately, people have often complained about how the faces of game characters have gotten "ugly" over the years. The stupid among these people think its a conspiracy to get rid of sexy ladies in video games and alter beauty standards in the mainstream for some agenda. The reality is known to the smarter set of folks, who have seen the industry cultivate motion capture technology to reduce their reliance on artists to craft characters for them. Just get a recognizable face or literally anyone you can find and make them act out the lines while wearing a facial capture rig. You wanna blame anyone for making women in gaming less sexy? Blame LA Noire for proving the viability of facial animation capturing, not some evil conspiracy of developers obsessed with some innocuous message.

As a result, gaming has emphasized realism more and more in its aesthetic design philosophy. Particularly among the Triple A Games, where they seem to think that if the characters don't look real, gamers will feel that things look too old and ugly. There's no room for artistic interpretation, that costs money. No, slap a rig on some actor's face and make them do all the work. You wanna know why MJ in the second Spider-Man game looked off to you? Well that's because the actress is a real person and faces don't always stay the same and alterations to a face scan can potentially mess things up even more.

She also suffered a car accident that required doctors to reconstruct her face, but that's probably only a minimal issue since she you can't really tell the difference as I understand it.

The point is, hyper-realism has damaged gaming to an insane degree artistically and further harmed non-human characters. Because in order to get that hyper-realistic look, games have compromised themselves. Now the qunari look even more like SyFy channel aliens than ever. The boundless creativity of CG reduced to what can be produced on a budget within the make-up chair.

And I don't expect Mass Effect's eventual fifth entry to be much better. If BioWare is still this scared about letting us play something truly non-human in a fantasy setting, then they're not even going to try to let you build your own turian in Mass Effect Beyond or whatever generic subtitle they shove onto it.

And yet its doable, they can let you craft an non-human character to be the main hero. The fact Elder Scrolls was letting you do this for years is proof enough of that. Baldur's Gate 3 revealing I could be a Dragonborn was enough to convince me to pick it up eventually. Admittedly, any game that lets me be a lizard or reptile of some kind instantly has my attention if not purchase. Purely for this very essay's stated hypothesis, it's almost impossible to find any game that will let me play as something that isn't human. Because far too many games and stories prefer to just fallback on boring humans.

And yet, nothing I've mentioned so far is the worst example of this problem.

Ultrabores in the Grimbore Future

I'm not going to mix words here. The Imperium of Man of Warhammer 40k is boring. There I said it. And it's this feeling that is impetus for this entire little article of mine. In the lead up to the release of Space Marine 2, and looking further into the lore of 40k itself, I came across two inescapable truths for me.

1: Every other race in the setting was 10x more interesting and compelling, both character and lore wise.

2: Every Imperium of Man Fanboy is an Insufferable Douche Canoe of the Highest Order.

I might be overstating that last point, but it's hard to be subtle about this because I don't think anyone is going to listen otherwise. The Imperium fucking sucks! And I don't mean as characters, I don't mean as a faction gameplay wise, I mean in-universe it SUCKS. There is NOTHING admirable about this future human civilization or anything they stand for. They're objectively fucking horrible and Games Workshop itself has admitted this. And yet, despite this fact that even the most ardent hobbyist of this tabletop will admit to, you still will find more than enough Stans of the God-Emperor of Mankind who will INSIST they are the good guys. Or at the very least, necessary for the survival of humankind.

My answer to that is no. Very emphatically, NO. The Imperium of Man is not neccessary, at least it didn't have to be. It did not have to be this cruel, this dogmatic, this blindly loyal, this xenocidal and racist. It did not have to be at all like what it is, but because of the choices of Emperor himself, it is now! And it probably can't unfuck itself, because it's already fucked over so many other people within and outside its realm of control. It does emphasize the good things about humanity, it's oozes all the worst aspects of it. That's its point. That's why this universe is Grimdark. That's why it's not a good thing that humanity has become what it is in this future.

And yet, Imperium fanboys will refuse to budge. Insistent that the Emperor did everything right and it was only everyone else not just laying down and dying that screwed anything up, if at all. And while Games Workshop itself has stated the opposite, explained in detail that this franchise is satire, that you should not take the actions of the Imperium of Man as a lesson for how to run a civilization or your life... guess what the biggest seller and face of 40k franchise is?

Yep, humans.

You might think that's a contradiction, but it makes sense you realize those are the figures that sell the most. Therefore, the Imperium gets the most books, the most lore, the most focus on media outside the main tabletop. Sure they've made games where you play as the xeno factions and books with aliens as protagonists. But the majority of 40k lore is all about Humanity and it's really affected how this franchise is viewed at this point.

You see it doesn't matter how often you say something is satire or that it's aspirational. If you place the spotlight on it long enough, people start to gravitate towards it. The Imperium of Man, being the most popular of 40k's factions, is a victim of its own success in this regard. It has become increasingly difficult to separate the satirical dark comedy of the Imperium from the lore's various attempts to make them the most badass of all badasses. People like watching struggles for survival, conflict of epic scale, heroic sacrifices, it makes for really compelling drama. It also more often than not whitewashes all the bad things the Imperium does if you overly focus on all the cool shit the Space Marine chapters pull off.

You tend to forget that the only reason anyone survived the Fall of Cadia is because a bunch of Eldar showed up to help evacuate humans. Or that Cadia only stayed standing for so long because a Nekron helped out. You ignore the pointless war that turned Kreig into a wasteland, when all anyone talks about is how the Death Corps can take down Tau with a shovel. You can point out how the Emperor is in fact, for all intents and purposes, fucking dead, but when it's coming out of the mouth of a dude who's following a sadistic murder god, it's not very convincing. People always come back to this when the Imperium is involved. "So what if they suck, they're humanity's best and only option at survival. And they're fucking badass!" And Games Workshop doesn't push back on this, mostly to not piss off its fans, generally though because tried to do that once before and it backfired.

The Tau Empire used to be an up and coming foil to the Imperium in many ways. They were ruled by reason and science, not blind dogmatic faith and religious zealotry. They believed in harmony among the races, not genocide and supremacy. They had an optimistic and hopeful view of the galaxy, as opposed to the fatalistic one the Imperium had. As it stood, they were the most heroic out of all the 40k races... and a bunch of fans, mostly Imperium as I understand it, hated them. They felt they ruined the grimdark setting by being too goody good.

So Games Workshop eventually just gave in and decided to change the lore. The Tau were only like that because their leadership was essentially mind controlling them. Great, so they're no better than anyone else in this future. Wonderful. Can't have an opposing view from the Emperor's that might turn out to be a better path forward. Nah, turn them into a brainwashed cult essentially to further justify the existence of the Imperium. Forget that an earnestly good society in a galaxy that is probably fucked beyond repair is probably sufficiently grimdark since they're such a young race but probably equally doomed. We need to make EVERYTHING in this setting so completely utterly hopeless, because anything less means the Emperor is wrong for creating the circumstances that made everything worse.

And as a result, the Imperium of Man is the one major roadblock for me getting into this franchise. Now, don't misunderstand, there are things about the Imperium I like and find interesting. Like many, I like Captain/Lieutenant Titus, because he's not a dogmatic sycophant who acts like a religious zealot. I do actually like the Death Corps of Kreig if only from a history buff perspective because I'm into the WWI Aesthetic they have going on. And of course there are the Salamanders, the only Space Marines I will ever consider truly heroic because they give a shit about things besides duty and honor, as well as possess some degree of empathy for other lifeforms. I enjoyed the first Space Marine game a lot! It's why I picked up the sequel.

However, all of these points have asterisks next to them. The Death Corps of Kreig are cool VILLAINS to an extent. I don't think you can ever present them as heroes given their mindset or origins. That's true of a lot of things within the Imperium. The Salamanders are still beholden to the dogma that has consumed a good deal of the Imperium and they are not really going to do anything to break off from it. And while I enjoyed the first Space Marine game and had fun with Boltgun, let's just admit something right now... half the enjoyment of the original Space Marine Game came from this dude.

Grimskull was probably the most fun antagonist to go up against in any game. Him just yelling "Space Marine!" in his ridiculous Cockney accent always made me smile. Titus, as badass as he is, lacks quite a bit in the personality department. The sequel doesn't do much better, even if his character arc is at least serviceably good in that game. But he remains stoic and loyal, he isn't exactly a dynamic figure like Grimskull was. And be honest with yourself, that first game got real boring after you killed the Warboss.

That's the problem I have with 40k. There are so many more interesting, compelling, fascinating alien races. Sure, none of them are perfect good guys and a lot of them are downright evil... but they're at least unique! I had a lot more fun learning about the Orks honestly than I did listening to the one hundredth iteration of something super epic and cool an Ultramarine did. We get it, they're Master Chief and Doomguy on Steroids! Do they do anything else besides pontificate about how awesome the Emperor is and go on about duty and honor more than Zuko in season one? The Orks might be idiot rampaging soccer hooligans, but at least they're funny.

And yet there are far fewer Ork, Eldar and especially Tau related books and media than the plethora of Imperium related works that have overstuffed everything. And if you admit to liking anything other than the Imperium of Man, especially the Tau, you are instantly ridiculed. I would honestly pay way more money just to play as Commander Farsight than Titus. Because Farsight feels like a natural progression for Titus to take, but never will. He just can't. While Farsight will leave his government behind and strike out on a new path to pursue the Greater Good as he now sees it, Titus can't, because that would only be seen as heresy, both by fans and in-universe.

Imperium Stans will look at this picture and honestly claim this fucking sucks without hesitation. That's the degree of brainrot they give off. Calling some of the coolest looking shit lame.

I just instantly felt Farsight is a more compelling and complex character by default because of his arc. Whereas Titus will never really change much beyond what he is, a reasonable enough Ultramarine in a sea of equally super serial hardasses that aren't much different from him. He just thinks a bit more for himself.

Farsight's crew of mech piloting badasses at least have variety. But to my surprise, so many others didn't agree, annoyed apparently that Farsight was able to resist corruption of demons, baffled at how it was possible because he lacked faith in the glorious God-Emperor of Man! None of them considered that maybe, just maybe, Farsight was able to resist corruption because he's not governed by religious dogma at all. Maybe his open-mindedness and ability to reason protected him just fine! But can't have that I guess, humans have to remain special after all.

Despite everything going for him, actually retaining a proper sense of heroism, being a truly good person who wants to do the right thing even in a universe full of shit, I still saw Imperium fans giving Farsight shit over the stupidest of things. I found a video on YouTube not long ago concerning how Farsight rightfully pointed out the weaknesses of the Imperium Titan Mecha. Oversized bulky machines that are millennia old. But while scary, Farsight noted how they can be defeated and are not as efficient or effective as the Space Marines were. The comments were FILLED with Imperium stans laughing at this bit of lore, calling Farsight names and declaring that the Titans were older than his whole civilization as if that was some kind of gotcha.

Everything the Imperium uses is older than shit though, that doesn't make it better. The reason it's so old is because the Imperium does not know how to make this shit anymore. They lost the knowledge when they rejected science in favor of their stupid religious dogma. Now their old as fuck spaceships are finite, same as their Titans. The Tau can replace their losses, the Imperium ultimately cannot. And yet here were the fanboys, praising how cool and awesome the Titans were, ignoring Farsight beat one easily, had video to prove it and that they essentially sound like those weirdos who jerkoff constantly about how awesome the Tiger Tank was. Despite it being an overly expensive over-designed mistake. One that both the Americans and Russians put to bed because their tanks didn't need special parts to function or guzzled up fuel like a thirsty pig.

Treating Titans as superior because they are older than the Tau is like arguing a Trebuchet is better than an Abrams Tank. Sure, one is way older than the nation that created the other. Doesn't mean its going to last very long in a one on one fight. But because humans have to be super special and awesome in 40k, we can never point out how their various systems, beliefs and strategies are outdated and costly.

Frankly, I'm more interested in Warhammer Fantasy by default by this point. Not just because they have a full faction of lizard people, although that is a plus. But because the factions of that universe are more diverse, interesting and not as mired in adherence to the grimdark lore mindset. Even the human civilizations are more compelling because they're not all one singular entity and have differing ideologies and strategies. I'll take that over being expected to look at the Ultramarines in awe simply because they do something badass every Tuesday which will get them six more books whereas Farsight still only has two.

And I don't think I need to point out what this has resulted in. As Asimov feared, placing humans on the superiority pedestal has emboldened that very sentiment in reality. Look no further than the current fervor over the existence of a Black Space Marine and a female guardsman officer in Space Marine 2. Even with fans pointing out how both of those things are both perfectly fine in canon, it doesn't change just how much 40k has attracted a lot of racists over the years. So much so they had to change tournament rules to prevent people from wearing actual Nazi uniforms to events because one asshole did so.

If there is any franchise that truly showcases the dangers of humancentric narratives it's Warhammer 40k. Because we are hardwired to root for the home team and we've also proven that we're incapable of reading satire. Creating the perfect storm of events that leads to far too many people stanning a literal Fascist-Dogmatic Forever War Machine. And while Games Workshop has tried to get the other factions more time in the sun, I'm not sure they can ever manage to get them up to the same level of prestige as the Imperium if they keep holding themselves back from just giving the Space Marines a damn rest for a second.

Room on the Party Wagon

I don't want to make it seem like it's all so hopeless. That there's no way for mainstream audiences to overlook their inherent human bias. I do believe it is possible for non-human protagonists to take center stage in a property and remain there. I believe that because I've seen it done before. In fact, I was quite literally there.

If there is any more miraculous franchise than the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I don't know of it. There should be no reality where two guys making a sketch of a nunchucking turtle for funsies in an apartment while chowing down on pizza could launch something this everlasting. And yet they did it. Ninja Turtles, 40 years later, is still going strong. And all with a lead cast made of decidedly non-human lead heroes. Better yet, it didn't stop with Leo, Raph, Donnie and Mikey. Over the years, countless heroes and villains have been added to the mythos. A good number of them fellow mutated animals, all with distinct personalities, motivations and interpretations over countless adaptations and timelines. It is truly astonishing to have been there from the start of Turtle Mania and to have never had them go away for very long.

And again, all with primary character who aren't human. How? Simple enough, people gravitated to the Ninja Turtles. They had distinct vibrant personalities. They were fun and colorful and different. They connected you to them by getting you to recognize their relatability.

There is still an interest in non-human protagonists, and not just dwarves or elves. I'm not alone in my desire to have something other than my own species take the spotlight now and then. Wings of Fire is fairly popular series that stars no humans at all for the most part. In fact they rarely show up. The real stars of the franchise are dragons, big fire-breathing dragons who all have unique cultures and perspectives that incredibly well-fleshed out and intricate. They're also not entirely humanized either, as dragons have very different morality and cultural cues from humans.

Another interesting take on things can be found in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. Which, despite having him out for most of the runtime, was all about Rocket. He was an absent protagonist, but he was the primary because everything revolved around his story and towards him finally accepting his species' name and moving past his survivor's guilt. Rocket is probably the most prominent non-human hero in the entirety of the MCU as a result and that's a big deal.

What I'm saying ultimately is that there is room for multiple perspectives. Not just the ones we're the most comfortable with. Because if we only accept the experiences of those we consider familiar, we will never understand those that are other. The road to a society like the Imperium of Man is based in one of mistrust, fear and prejudice. To avoid that, we must be willing to look through the eyes of others and learn about the human experience from something that is not. That is what the best of science-fiction and fantasy can allow for.

If such genres are meant to be an escape, what greater escape can be found but one that is outside our limited human experience. We can never know it is like to fly, or swim deep beneath the sea, or see from a dozen eyes or just one. But we can imagine ourselves in that role and empathize with that which is alien to us. If we limit our fantasies then we limit ourselves, our imagination, our ability to connect. If all you desire in your sci-fi or fantasy is for some big burly human with a sword, regular steel or chainsaw, to murder orks and aliens, then that's fine. But there are others among us who don't want such arbitrary limitations. Humans are not boring by nature, but picking the same old fantasies and escapes IS boring. We could do with changing things up more.

What I'm saying is, it would not hurt anyone if they just did one Triple A Title in the style of the Space Marine games but for Farsight instead. We don't always have to be the Space Marine. Notif we've be okay being a Ninja Turtle. There's room for all perspectives, human or otherwise, in genre fiction. We should be doing more to open up the gates for those experiences. Sooner rather than later.

[mariacallous]

“I am opposed to war, unless in self-defense.” This was the most-liked comment on Douyin—the Chinese counterpart to TikTok—in reaction to a speech delivered by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Jan. 9. In his address, Wang previewed China’s top diplomatic goals for 2024 and emphasized “the unwavering resolve of all 1.4 billion Chinese citizens to achieve reunification with Taiwan,” a statement made just days prior to the island’s general elections.

The broader reaction to Wang’s remarks likely wasn’t what the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) hoped for: Tens of thousands of Chinese social media users responded, many of them with grievances, sarcasm, and defiance, widely questioning the costs of a potential war.

One man from Shanghai complained, “Who is going to fight the war? If I die, who is going to pay my mortgage or my car loan?” Wang’s speech framed “national unification” as one of “China’s core interests,” but as one user from Hunan rebutted, “[China’s] core interests are that every Chinese can be treated equally and have access to elderly care and health care.” The pushback went beyond economic and social grievances. Some posters were even bolder, suggesting that Taiwan’s democracy may demonstrate a political alternative to mainland China: “The fact that Taiwanese choose their own way of life,” said one commentator from Shandong, “might show that Chinese people can take a different route.”

The mood among social media users is a sharp departure from past elections. After almost every Taiwanese general election since 2016, a wave of pro-war fever has swept the Chinese internet. After Taiwan’s 2020 elections, for example, upbeat war enthusiasts in China produced oil paintings that illustrated wild fantasies of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) capturing Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen alive after landing in Taiwan and forcing her to sign an official surrender document onboard a Chinese aircraft carrier—a scene reminiscent of the 1945 Japanese surrender that ended World War II.

In 2021, one of the most popular songs to go viral on Chinese social media was “Take A Bullet Train to Taiwan in 2035.” Its allusion to a high-speed rail line connecting Beijing and Taipei was a dog whistle to nationalist masses who hoped that unification was on the horizon—by force, if necessary.

Absent from these fantasies, however, was the blood and violence that accompanies real war. At the time, China’s star was rising on the international stage, and public confidence was riding high on China’s success in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic within its borders. As such, the sentiments surrounding unification and the use of military force were quite romantic; many people believed that victory over Taiwan would be easy, that the Taiwanese would surrender voluntarily if the PLA simply blockaded the island.

In 2024, however, things have changed. The most recent Taiwanese presidential election—in which the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won a repeat victory—served as an uncomfortable reminder to the Chinese public that neither Taiwanese politicians nor voters are interested in Beijing’s plans for political unification. Although the forceful unification narrative still exists, any push from nationalists to reignite war fever has now run into a wall of skepticism following the DPP victory.

“Wake up,” one Weibo user wrote in opposition to the broader online calls for forceful unification. “Stop dreaming,” another echoed. The defiant voices are becoming a common reaction to the suggested use of military force to an extent rarely seen, given the massive culture of censorship on Chinese social media.

A clear reason for this change is China’s economic slowdown. While Taiwan went to the polls in 2024, China was grappling with a youth unemployment rate above 20 percent, a housing market crisis with sales down by 45 percent, and a stock market in free fall that lost $6 trillion in just three years, the likes of which haven’t been seen in almost a decade. News about Taiwanese elections failed to arouse the same nationalistic reactions among the preoccupied Chinese public that had occurred in the previous two contests.

Instead, the 2024 elections triggered a flood of complaints: “Sort out our own economy, what a mess.” a Shanghai resident said angrily. “Look at our stock market,” an apparently frustrated investor from Hunan grieved, “It’d be better to keep the status quo, and leave Taiwanese alone.” The gloomy economy has made some commenters question the underlying justification for war: “With low-income people making less than 1,000 yuan a month ($140), and the national insurance tax going up, huge medical bills, and unaffordable apartments, why do you want forceful unification? I don’t get it.”

“It is the economy that really matters,” another person from Tianjin pointed out. “[Taiwan] being independent or not has nothing to do with ordinary people.”

The changing attitudes toward Taiwan’s elections reflect a broader shift in public sentiment in China’s online space. Discontent about the country’s poor economic reality has been growing louder, drowning out calls for a military takeover.

Ironically, the CCP’s own past propaganda efforts contributed to this cooling effect. Right before Nancy Pelosi, then the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, visited Taiwan in August 2022, official and semiofficial rhetoric in mainland China was so belligerent that it led many Chinese to believe that the day of unification had finally arrived and that the military would shoot down her plane and launch its attack on Taiwan imminently.

This was the peak of forceful unification hysteria, but it only left its crusaders disappointed. In the end, there was not only no shootdown of Pelosi’s plane, but there also weren’t even military exercises conducted before she left Taiwan. Many Chinese, especially forceful unification advocates, felt betrayed and disillusioned by their government’s failure to follow through on its belligerent rhetoric, and the after-effects of this letdown are still being felt today.

During Taiwan’s 2024 elections, war enthusiasts were continuously reminded of Beijing’s military inaction following Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan. “Have you guys forgotten Pelosi?” one said. One commonly repeated joke, observing the lack of military action, scoffed that the only thing that was fired up when Pelosi visited was the stove in her hotel. The kinds of threats that once resonated with nationalists now drew widespread ridicule online: “delusion,” “talking a big game,” “an unrealistic fantasy,” and “all hat, no cattle.”

Meanwhile, at the other end of the Chinese political spectrum, the 2024 election prompted the resurgence of the view among many liberals that Taiwan’s democracy represents a desirable political model. In the early 2010s, many Chinese saw Taiwan as a beacon of hope for Chinese society—a liberal, civic, and democratic alternative to the one-party state. The liberal Chinese writer Han Han coined a popular phrase—“The most beautiful scenery of Taiwan is its people.”—that encapsulated the view of how trustworthy and free a people can become under democracy.

But after the crackdown on liberal intellectuals and online speech under Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the honeymoon did not last long and was gradually replaced by a climate of xenophobia, jingoism, war euphoria, and a longing for unification by force. Making matters worse, a growing nationalist mood in Taiwan led many to believe that Taiwanese looked down on mainlanders.

The 2024 elections, however, prompted a renewed interest from the Chinese public about their neighbor, home to the world’s only Chinese-speaking democracy. News about Taiwanese elections aroused great curiosity on Weibo about the nuts and bolts of the electoral process—what a ballot looks like, how many ballots one can cast, how votes are counted, and how candidates are selected. When a few Taiwanese Weibo users answered these questions, they were liked and retweeted by thousands of Chinese accounts, drawing genuine admiration and blessings from many.

“Are we going to see one day like this?” one user from Gansu wondered with a crying emoji. “Maybe this is accumulating experience for our own future: giving speeches, holding debates, and counting votes,” commented another, from Tianjin.

China’s shifting public sentiment is bound to have repercussions for cross-strait relations, but it would probably be a bridge too far to infer that the Chinese public will fiercely oppose a war in the Taiwan Strait. Ultimately, the nationalist base remains. At present, the euphoria about forceful unification is quieting down, mainly because the party’s over-the-top propaganda failed to meet the expectations of its most ardent supporters. But if aggressive rhetoric were followed by military action in the future, war fever could be easily fanned again.

Despite the prevalence of extreme nationalism, Chinese public opinion is more divided on Taiwan than it seems, and these divisions are only likely to increase. What concerns most ordinary Chinese are decent jobs, good income, accumulating savings for retirement, and getting affordable access to health care and housing.

So long as the economy is struggling and people’s livelihoods are threatened, there is no guarantee that the CCP’s attempts to exploit nationalism will work; quite the opposite, it could be faced with plenty of pushback.

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

Up until recently, a lot of people bashed Steven Universe Future for its portrayals of PTSD and depression and Steven Universe for the Diamonds’ “redemptions”. Meanwhile everyone’s out here praising SPOP in spite of it canonizing an abusive relationship and normalizing ableism, and treating Catra’s redemption like the best thing since sliced bread. What do you think caused the unfair hatred of SU (In terms of how it handles the aforementioned subject matter, as I too hated how the Diamonds were handled) that SPOP would see undeserved praise for?

(That said, I’m not invalidating those who do have PTSD and/or depression who didn’t like SU and SUF’s depiction of it)

honestly, i'm not sure when the steven universe hate train started. i started watching the show some time after the finale was released and i wasn't really an active part of the fandom. but it seems like at some point, the show got more popularity outside of the cartoon fandom, and people decided to bash it without even watching it.

don't get me wrong, steven universe definitely had a bunch of problematic elements and even though i have an emotional attachment to it, i wouldn't want to go back and watch it because i'm sure it would make me infuriated.

however a lot of complains about it and especially steven universe future was just.. stupid. it's clear that either these people didn't watch the show and was just jumping on the bandwagon, or they did not have any media literacy. like you said, the portrayal of PTSD was terrifyingly realistic but people decided to completely take it in the wrong way and act like their depiction of the show is the only correct one.

i would say that the reason why catra wasn't bashed for doing pretty much the same exact thing as the diamonds is because she's conventionally attractive and a lot of people simp for her.. but a lot of people were also thirsting for the diamonds (which is at least better in the sense that they weren't minors). so i really don't know why these double standards exist.

the only other explanation is that in steven universe, the writers and the narrative held the diamonds responsible for their actions to some extent. even if they didn't face any kind of punishment in the end, it's clear that the narrative is not condoning their actions, especially in the movie and suf. in spop however, the writers act like catra was in the right all along and that she's just a misunderstood baby who needed some love and forgiveness.

[fantasygerard2000]

So, one of the lousy criticisms Wish gets is its use of too many references to movies that are better than it. This critique just feels heavily biased if i'm being honest. As much as I am fond of some of the older Disnsy movies, which are the reasons why I like Wish, I would exactly call them good. Youtuber Veridis Joe made a video discussing about how just because it's the first, doesn't mean that it's good.

Let's use an obvious example, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Wish takes heavy inspiration from Snow White as it makes sense for their 100th movie to revisit their roots. The saying that Snow White is better than Wish is a lie because, is Snow White really better story and character wise?

That's the kicker with some of these older Disney movies. Just because they're "classics" doesn't mean they're free from criticisms. Hell, people are criticizing that Snow White and Aurora despite the being title characters don't get to do crap and are overshadowed by their own villains and sidekicks. Just because Snow White was the first doesn't mean it holds up. It aged like milk and the reason why people like it is because it invented the classical tropes we associate Disney, people like it because it's "traditionally animated". They care more about the decorations than the foundation.

That's the thing with nostalgia and why at some times, it's not good. People grew up with the old movies and that's why they heavily favored them over reboots and live action remakes. Disregarding the things that are improved because their automatic response to things that are different is to antagonize them. And this is especially problematic when some people actually misremembered the thing they are nostalgic for. The insistence the crybabies on Tiktok insist that Rapunzel should be played by a blonde white actress even though Rapunzel's natural hair color is brown, they they be acting stupid by forgetting wigs and special effecfs exists simply because of a fan casting.

Back on the topic of easter eggs. While some can be groan inducing, most of them are harmless and something that Disney fans can go find. That says something that some of these critics don't watch the movie and pay attention to what it wants to convey and rather list down the things they wanna be mad about, like the songs, the quirky main character, the goat's voice, the scrapped draft and the villain.

Speaking of which.

While Magnifico is the highlight of the movie after years of lacking antagonists and underwhelming twist villains, people are still complaining over him not being a complete villain because of his motivation.

The main gripe people have about him is that be seemed reasonable and that his switch from villain is "sudden", saying that the book is just there as lazy excuse to make him evil and redeemable. This, is media illiteracy. As much as I don't like to bill this to takes I don't like, it's an accurate description.

Magnifico's villainy is applicable to influencers and social media personalities. And considering the age where some of these "celebrities" are outed for being and doing shady things, it fits to a T. You don't know a person is toxic until you found out. And like with Amaya, you don't know if your spouse/partner really loves and cares for you you until you see what they can do to you once they have enough power and influence.

Going back to the topic of previous Disney movies being "superior" to Wish, there's one movie I like to bring up. Princess and the Frog.

Princess and the Frog has many similarities to Wish. After a period of several experimental 3D animated movies that were passable but forgettable, sorry Bolt and Robinsons fans, PatF returns to the old formula of 2D animated, musicals, villains and romance.

Tiana is a great character and her story about working hard to achieve her dreams is in line with Wish's themes. Facilier and Magnifico are even comparable as both men "cheat" their way to get to the top by using magic that isn't theres and suffering the consequences for it.

And like I said above about how classics aren't free from any criticism, PatF has its own problems, mostly about Disney's first black princess being a frog for most of its runtime, and the convoluted plot revolving around technicalities to break the spell. What holds PatF back are these issues and some people dismiss them because they are too focused on the 2D animation, romance, villains, which aren't bad tropes, aren't enough to save your movie. Same way how even if Wish was 2D animated and had a love interest, people will still crap on it because it's Disney in 2023/2024.

Oh contraire, if any of the classical and renaissance films are made and released today as they are, they wouldn't be praised today as they were back then.

[bathroomtrapped]

ohmygod i literally just made an account on letterboxd bc i watched saw (2004) and loved it so much and ur interview was so inspiring to me and ive been on an absolute craze trying to reblog like every single saw post on tumblr and i somehow found your account what the heck?!!?!?! ur art is AMAZING and i absolutely love ur takes on saw as a franchise and its significance to the queer community. i hope to be as knowledgeable of this franchise as you are one day despite me only being a baby saw fan!!

i had a quick question; i found on the saw heritage post blog that they thought leigh/james/someone else confirmed that saw (2004) did not actually occur the day before 9/11 despite the phone given to them being set to that date. however, when i asked them if they knew where this source was from (bc im so curious!!! i want to know everything!!!!!!) but neither they nor i could find the actual source for that so i was wondering if maybe u knew??? just curious :3

regardless ty for taking the time to read this and dedicating so much time to this fandom!! i love that horror fans like you exist in a fandom that i previously thought would be weird and slightly disturbed film bros (i had a lot of incorrect preconceived notions about saw that have been quickly resolved i promise)

thank you!! im glad that people feel the same way about it as i do but even if people thought i was some crazy transexual making everyone else woke and pronouns, i wouldnt care. the story, especially lawrences but adams as well, really resonates with me as a trans person for so so many reasons, more than i listed in the interview. to me, i cant read his character without filling in the gaps with trans subtext. it not only explains but also enriches the personal experiences of these characters as well as their dynamics with each other. theyre both characters that are defined primarily by how theyre seen by other people, themselves, and eventually each other. the narrative is soooo focused on perception and masks and who u truly are, i find it hard to separate any kind of queer theory from that.

as for the 9/11 question thats such a dumbass pet peeve of mine. its one of the things that makes me shout UMMMM ACTUALLY at the top of my lungs. my blood pressure sours to inhuman levels when someone confidently says the movie takes place not just in 2001 but the day before 9/11. not because of some interview or confirmation from any of the crew because my knowledge of old fandom history is incredibly spotty. old sites and interviews r a mystery to me for the most part BUT! the reason it is for sure not before 9/11 is because during the flashback of pauls trap (during lawrences monologue about jigsaw) kerry tapp and sing are all at the scene with other officers and i believe its kerry who holds up an evidence bag thats labeled 2004. the scene takes place 5 months before the events of saw 1 so its not possible that it takes place 3 years before that. it just seemed like a funny (but insanely bold considering how 9/11 was only 3 years before) joke and easter egg for people to catch on to, not actual lore meant to be taken seriously.

if u want to look for the interview, i would honestly just listen to the commentary tracks bc it mightve been said there. i know in the one with leigh, james, and cary they discuss plot holes fans complained about, questions fans had online, the fanfic they read (briefly LOL). ive only seen that one (and once) but theres at least 2 other commentary tracks with different people that i havent gotten around to for fear of like. completing saw? idk i cant bring myself to watch all of the commentary tracks but theres a chance they discuss it there! i can only speculate on the reason, all i know is that saw 2004 takes place in 2004 based on actual evidence from the media itself

if u have any other questions let me know. i still have the original draft of the interview which had more questions and longer responses bc i couldve gone on for days abt the lore and saw queer theory and ill never shut up about it

[fights4users]

The quorra problem | Programs, isos and the real world

Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with Quorra as a character! It’s more of a story element critique if anything, please read and don’t jump on me for the title. Quorra is adorable and I enjoy legacy- even if it doesn’t look like it from how I keep tearing it apart.

It’s a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. On one hand you can’t leave her inside the grid when Flynn decides to literally go nuclear but you can’t leave her in the real world either. They have to because they wanted Flynn’s self sacrificing ending or wrote themselves into a corner (this isn’t about reintegration but I will still complain) and this was there way out. But they didn’t consider the implications of it at all.

Cosmic horror-

I’ve made several posts about it and still want to write something with this idea but to a program— the real world wouldn’t be so miraculous like how we see theirs. The minute you’re outside you’re Imediately bombarded with sensory overload and just too much information to process. The grid, which is much more human in its design than the ENCOM system, is still infinitely more minimalist than our world. One of the best scenes is Clu and his team raiding the hideout and not knowing what a single thing is and freaking out, she seems too well adjusted for someone who’s spent a few hours max here— look I know it’s the end of a movie and they can’t do that whole arc, but I digress.

Also don’t get me started on the rumored Ares plot and how they totally forgot quorra is already a program(technically iso) in our world- also it’s not really a “tron” movie plot— where’s the allegory?! The metaphor?! The symbolism?!

Another thing is that…Sam can’t tell anyone about her. Maybe Alan but her mere existence in our world is brain shattering. Trying to explain a advanced humanoid being that’s not here to harm us and is totally cool guys almost never goes well. It also leaves people a LOT to grapple with…like everything we know being forever altered.

This whole situation should be terrifying from both perspectives, however I love the theory that the only reason she was able to get out into the real world at all was because of Flynn’s data stored in the beam. That’s a great thought that almost makes me like her being in the real world just from how much impact that is.

Infectious-

What happens now? She can’t be revealed to the world (yet) and to put her back in the remains of the grid would be cruel. Putting her in another system would be wildly irresponsible because- do we even know what ISOs do? Across all media its “they’re special” but absolutely squat on their actual function or what they’re capable of. We see they have some kind of digital dna that’s literally a miraculous occurrence but that’s about it. Did Flynn even know? Are they just there- existing but not effecting/having a real world computer impact? Or worse - what if clu was right and they did contribute to the crumbling state of the grid? (I think it was a combination of his own fear and scapegoating—I’m just tossing the idea out there).

Sam transferring her over to another system without knowing what she does or how she could effect it would be disastrous. Am I saying she’s dangerous or would have any intent to harm? No not at all that’s now who she is, but it’s sort of a “releasing a domestic cat into the woods a state over” you don’t do that.

Does she get a regular job now, does Sam hire her at ENCOM? She’d likely be some sort of computer smart…in that she come from one. Or does he like —- set her up at a McDonald’s? How’s she get energy does she get plugged in- being in the real world isn’t going to magically give her a stomach. Sam just takes her to a power grid and she causes SoCal to blackout lmao.

Open portal-

I’m aware most of this post is just me overthinking the implications of everything they didn’t intend us to think to hard about. It’s supposed to be “yippee they’re safe” and I’m worried about digital ecosystems and what the human brain can handle. I think my problem mainly strives from this trope where the character brings home their friend from the other world/ is the reverse situation and no one bats an eye at all. It’s because they want the characters to still be friends no matter how many rules it breaks or sense it makes. It happens most commonly in cartoons. (There’s at least 3 in recent memory)

I’m not saying I want quorra to have been caught in the blast but that there’s a way they could’ve kept communication without world breaking. Open portal situation where he goes back to visit, he chats with her on the screen, both stay in their own worlds its sad but logical etc (I’m not writing a new ending but you get the point).

I guess it annoys me so much because it’s left so open ended, ride off into the sunrise while ignoring the implications™️. “I guess, We’re going to change the world” ok how 🧍‍♂️. The movie did not nearly give me enough information about ISO’s to see what changes they exactly do besides taking over ENCOM. “They[Iso’s] changed everything” ok how🧍‍♂️. Yeah it’s immaculate conception but what do they do I am shaking your shoulders Disney what do they do!

It’s not quorra I’m mad about or even the concept of ISO’s but it’s how the writing just falls short in these HUGE areas that require a lot of lore and information to be given that they just do not. And consistently don’t In the other media forms like betrayal (I haven’t seen uprising maybe they explain something). If you’re going to have beings that shatter your ideas of reality you sort of have to explain that!

[sableraven]

some issues I have with the proshipping community as someone sorta align with it.

This ain’t for antishippers so go away.

To preface this, I do align myself with the dead dove do not eat community and write what you want. I know technically it would make me a proshipper, but I do have a lot of issues with how proshippers handle race related stuff in fandoms and how some ignorance make spaces unwelcoming for people of color.

While I don’t think proshippers are anywhere near comparable to antishippers and their behaviors, I do think proshippers have the potential of creating their own echo chambers and being extreme in an “Us vs Them” they critique antishippers of doing.

One example is anyone have a discomfort to certain ships, tropes, or trigger warnings, which is FINE. Not everyone is comfortable with dead dove and I understand that. I understand that my works aren’t for everyone and I do my best to tag triggers and warn people before reading my works. I also have my own squicks when it comes to fiction, but I don’t harass anyone over it. For the extreme proshippers, some act if you have any discomfort and simply voice is (not everyone attacking anyone and looking down on others who enjoy it) you are labeled an anti. Or if you state not liking it, all of sudden, you should keep your opinions to yourself despite wanting people to have the freedom of how they can enjoy media.

This also goes into seeing anyone who have those discomforts as “sensitive” and not practicing basic decency of tagging your works as dead dove. A lot of proshippers equate any criticism of fiction as anti rhetoric even though criticism of fiction will always exist. If you put out art, you will be criticized. Sure, some criticism are hated disguised in it, but in terms of general discussion of published media and problematic issues in it, that has ALWAYS existed. Media studies, feminism media studies, etc. have existed longer than the stupid antiship vs proship discourse in fandoms. Someone pointing out problematic things in a media isn’t immediately anti rhetoric because published media hold a different responsibility to their audience than fanfic writers. Fanfiction is no where near as far reaching as published media that has the potential of reaching millions of people. That’s why when antis bring up “fictional can affect reality,” I don’t believe fanfiction can do that because its a very niche thing that most people interacting with it knows better. Published media has a different responsibility, thats why ratings exists, and the FTC is a thing in the US.  

And criticism isn’t bad! I get a lot of proshippers are hyper vigilant due to harassment in the past, but some of you go extreme on this opinion that any criticism is bad and that it doesn’t belong in fandoms. You’re not oppressed or being censored if your fanworks are being criticized. It’s still posted on AO3 and it will only be taken down if you wish it too. It’s like celebrities crying about cancel culture when it’s just online backlash that has no effect on the real world whatsoever. Some of y’all sound like anti woke cancel culture right winger when you complain about supposed “internet warriors” taking your right to create away. They’re not! Let’s not act like antishippers have any power to ever bring censorship laws, only politicians who don’t even know fanfiction exists.

Now this moves on the topic of racism in fandoms. This is where the problematic term of “fandom policing” comes up when half of the time its people of color, queer people, or women discussing how bigotry is rampant in fanbases. Look at the Star Wars fandom, any time a white character is race bent, video games, that exists. Which makes it frustrating that some proshippers treat these discussion as fandom policing or anti rhetoric. It’s not. I have had instances of proshippers trying to excuse racism that happens in fanbases as if I am misinterpreting it or its not racist because the fans have other reasons why they’re ranting about this media. I was also told by one proshipper because they, who is white, that they never encountered racism in the Star Wars fandom even though that shit had started with the first teaser trailer of the Force Awakens. Or they try to make it seems that the angry Star Wars fans who are mad about a black stormtropper existing is NOT racism, but because of established lore not being held up by Disney. (Which, none of the movies have explicitly said stormtroopers are white and ugh).

It’s also ridiculous how white proshipers are allowed the space to vent about being accused of racism by fandom members. I can agree that some accusations are ridiculous, especially ones made by antishippers, but half of it is because white proshippers insert themselves in discussion of racism started by fans of colors and whitesplain to them that it’s not racism and do the same excusal shit that I was met with. I get trying to defend your favorite media, but let people vent. Fans of colors aren’t given the luxury. For some reason, if you complain about racism perpetrated by fans or how the media they like have issues with bigotry, all of sudden its “you bringing politics in fandom spaces” and white proshippers are only using fandoms to “escape reality.” So are fans of color? I would love to use fiction to escape reality, but its hard when racism is rampant in your fandom circles or seeing characters of color being treated poorly in canon. Like cmon. Stop with the double standards. 

It’s annoying how much care that both proshippers and antishippers have when it comes to fiction and fictional characters, but not towards people in real life. Or that racial experiences committed by either side are ignored. Both sides act like they’re oppressed over the most chronically online shit ever. Or that anyone with a differing opinion is immediately label the other side. While proshippers don’t do harassment campaigns or force themselves into anti spaces for the purpose of doxxing, it doesn’t make them automatically safe for everyone, especially for people of color.

And please stop with the ageism towards younger people. Not every anti are “puriteens,” I seen a lot of antishippers within the 20-30 age range.

[landoom]

Hey, idk if you take in opinions on your asks so feel free to ignore this if you don't feel comfortable with it but I needed to say this somewhere and you were one of the only people that I remembered that wouldn't for sure make fun or hate on me

Lando gets huge amounts if hate online and imo it's getting out of control for awhile. I know hate will always exist in this fandom but lately I've been seeing Lando getting hate for such small things that it's quite crazy, and some things doesn't make sense. People hate on him for not "owning his mistakes" but more often than not always when I see his interviews he takes the blame even if it was not his fault?? Are we even seeing the same interviews?! This baffles me so much

And today with Lando calling Max out for overtaking under the safety car, its not a big deal ffs. Not only Lando does it, many other drivers do it aswell and apparently Lewis did it to Nico today and he's not getting flamed bc of that simple act. My biggest problem with this is that when for example George does it, it's seen as "inspector George is on the case" and that's pretty funny tbh, but bc Lando is "horrible" then he's worth of being hated for it, showing how many double standards there is on the fandom. And he wasn't even complaining! He was just stating it! Also the parasocial comments that come from this, the "Max should just stop being friends with Lando bc he's a terrible friend to him" just makes me so annoyed bc we never know what is happening behind close doors and obviously they will be competitors on the track first and foremost

Sorry for yapping on your ask box, I hope you have a great day/night!

sorry, I've been a bit busy so I'm finally answering you.

As a preamble, let me say I'm talking here about "haters" only. People who don't like Lando but remain respectful are 100% right to do so.

The subject of the hate Lando is receiving is for me a bit complicated to analyse. And so for multiple reasons :

It's localized mostly on X (a bit on Insta and here but not it such a visible way).

It started "out of nowhere" in the sense that, from my understanding, it didn't come after one specific event but more gradually once Lando started getting good results and more attention in the middle of the 2023 season

There is also a fad around it. Hating on him gets you views and reactions so more and more people are following the "trend"

That being said, I think that as fans or enjoyers of Lando, we need to remind ourselves a few things in order to not give those haters any power!

All drivers have haters (sadly) but some have more vocal ones or receive more attention in general.

Lando haters are mostly anonymous sad people on the Internet! Look at the love he receives wherever he goes! Look at all his fans congratulating him.

These haters need to be blocked, we need to curate our experience on social media as much as possible!

Lando is so well-loved in the paddock. Journalists and pundits are more than often positive about him (as a person and as a driver). This means way much more than stupid hate coming from people hidden behind their screens.

So, yes, he's often unfairly criticised (cf. the example you cited) but I, personally, have decided to stop caring about it because I don't want the haters to "win" by getting me angry or tarnishing my experience of F1. They don't deserve that power over me!