#he's a contradiction and that's what makes him interesting

[ratblazer]

I feel like a fundamental misunderstanding that some writers have with Constantine is that they think he's an innately bad and cruel person at heart.

No!! He's a good person who does bad things! The contradiction of him wanting to be good and BEING good at heart versus the necessary (and sometimes unnecessary but badly thought out) evils he commits is what makes him interesting. He's incredibly flawed, he can be jaded, he can be stupid, he can even be cruel, but under it all, he's good.

[hollowed-theory-hall]

The Term Warlock

I mentioned in the past I believe the term has to do with a profession in legislation/law-making (i.e Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot or my more headcanoned existence of Law Warlocks) but I read through Tales of Beedle the Bard recently and the author's note described the term as follows:

[The term “warlock” is a very old one. Although it is sometimes used as interchangeable with “wizard”, it originally denoted one learned in duelling and all martial magic. It was also given as a title to wizards who had performed feats of bravery, rather as Muggles were sometimes knighted for acts of valour. By calling the young wizard in this story a warlock, Beedle indicates that he has already been recognised as especially skillful at offensive magic. These days wizards use “warlock” in one of two ways: to describe a wizard of unusually fierce appearance, or as a title denoting particular skill or achievement. Thus, Dumbledore himself was Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot. JKR]

(Tales of Beedle the Bard, Albus Dumbledore on “The Warlock’s Hairy Heart”)

That being said, JKR's comments such as those often contradict or aren't 100% accurate to how certain terms are used in the books (like the fashion on Pottermore article she wrote). So I copied down every way in which the word 'Warlock' is used in the HP books to see what the term actually means:

As a title (in legal/political capacity):

ALBUS DUMBLEDORE (Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sore., Chf. Warlock, Supreme Mugwump, International Confed. of Wizards)

(PS)

They’ve demoted him from Chief Warlock on the Wizengamot — that’s the Wizard High Court — and they’re talking about taking away his Order of Merlin, First Class, too.

(GoF)

Here we see the aforementioned title of Chief Warlock (I didn't copy every time it was used in this context, since twice is enough). Contrary to JKR's note, the title of Chief Warlock has nothing to do with skill. It is a legal and political title. The Wizengamot is outright referred to as the Wizard High Court (it's also their parliament, btw, but more on that later). 'Cehif Warlock' is not a title denoting skill, but a title more akin to the Speaker of the House of Lords.

“But it’s against our laws,” said Ron. “Dragon breeding was outlawed by the Warlocks’ Convention of 1709, everyone knows that.

(PS)

Professor Binns, glancing up in the middle of a deadly dull lecture on the International Warlock Convention of 1289, looked amazed.

(CoS)

As I mentioned here, 'Warlock Convention' seems to be an alternate name for Wizengamot sessions. The Wizengamot predates the ministry (founded in 1707), and we know it functions as their parliament:

The Order of Merlin (sometimes abbreviated to O.M.) is awarded by the Wizengamot, an organisation that predates the Ministry of Magic and nowadays functions as a combination of court and parliament.

(Pottermore)

So the Wizengamot sessions where they act as a parliament and are devoted to law-making are just referred to as 'Warlock coinventions', as I theorized here. Since 'Warlock' is a term that seems to carry legal status since before the ministry. (Perhaps it is similar to muggle knights in a way like JKR said. Historically knights were part of the noble class. The nights were lords and relatives of lords, so Warlock being used in a similar way historically for a legal position makes more sense than just a skilled dueler. It also works well with the story after which this note appears. The Warlock in The Warlock's Hairy Heart lives in a castle, like a medieval lord).

We would also ask you to remember that any magical activity that risks notice by members of the non-magical community (Muggles) is a serious offense under section 13 of the International Confederation of Warlocks’ Statute of Secrecy.

(CoS)

This one is interesting since Percy is referring to the ICW (International Confederation of Wizards) as the International Confederation of Warlocks. This is interesting because you know Percy Weasley would use the most accurate term for the ICW, so my headcanon is that, as it is a political/legislative organization the 'W' in ICW stands for 'Warlocks' not 'Wizards' and most have just been saying it wrong for years and Percy is the correct one here.

This headcanon is somewhat supported by the Daily Prophet using 'Warlocks' instead of 'Wizards' too:

Fudge has been criticized by some members of the International Federation of Warlocks for informing the Muggle Prime Minister of the crisis.

(PoA)

(Though they do use 'Federation' instead of 'Confederation' becouse JKR isn't consistent)

Describe the circumstances that led to the Formation of the International Confederation of Wizards and explain why the warlocks of Liechtenstein refused to join.

(OotP)

The above quote also seems to use 'warlocks of Liechtenstein' to refer to a local governing body, since they were offered to join the ICW. This sounds like another Wizengamot-like council in Liechtenstein.

As a title (to signal a skilled wizard?)

Warlock D. J. Prod of Didsbury says: “My wife used to sneer at my feeble charms, but one month into your fabulous Kwikspell course and I succeeded in turning her into a yak! Thank you, Kwikspell!”

(CoS)

The above is from the pamphlet to Kwikspell in Filch's office and uses 'Warlock' the way you would use 'Professor' or 'Doctor' to give credibility to the claim, like saying "recommended by 9 of 10 doctors" on toothpaste.

So it's trying to sell Kwikspell as successful by the use of the term 'warlock' to denote D.J. Prod as a trustworthy wizard with experience. This could mean it's either referring to a skilled wizard (something I haven't seen anyone do in the books elsewhere) or that it's using it as a semi-noble/legal title as mentioned above.

Referring to wizards who are loud or wild-looking

The term 'warlock' is often used by Harry to refer to wizards who look wild or loud and rowdy, in contradiction to the other associations we just spoke of:

Harry ate breakfast each morning in the Leaky Cauldron, where he liked watching the other guests: funny little witches from the country, up for a day’s shopping; venerable-looking wizards arguing over the latest article in Transfiguration Today; wild-looking warlocks; raucous dwarfs; and once, what looked suspiciously like a hag, who ordered a plate of raw liver from behind a thick woolen balaclava.

(PoA)

I marked how the 'venerable' wizards are mentioned separately from the 'wild' warlocks.

It was extremely crowded, noisy, warm, and smoky. A curvy sort of woman with a pretty face was serving a bunch of rowdy warlocks up at the bar. “That’s Madam Rosmerta,” said Ron. “I’ll get the drinks, shall I?” he added, going slightly red.

(PoA)

A sweaty-faced witch in the center of the front row, who was fanning herself vigorously with a copy of the Daily Prophet, kept letting off a high-pitched whistle as steam came pouring out of her mouth, and a grubby-looking warlock in the corner clanged like a bell every time he moved, and with each clang his head vibrated horribly, so that he had to seize himself by the ears and hold it steady.

(OotP)

Staggering under the weight of as many books as he could carry, Harry returned to the Gryffindor common room, pulled a table into a corner, and continued to search. There was nothing in Madcap Magic for Wacky Warlocks . . . nothing in A Guide to Medieval Sorcery . . . not one mention of underwater exploits in An Anthology of Eighteenth-Century Charms

(GoF)

In the above quote, there is a book that uses 'wacky warlocks' in the title. Again, using warlock for a more wild wizard.

I find it super interesting that 'warlock' is either a refined, law-maker or a wild, rowdy wizard. It's possible Harry (and the book) are referring to warlocks from one of the other definitions (specifically the next category) and the wildness of them is just an additional fact mentioned about them.

Referring to an old wizard

The other group often referred to as 'warlocks' are very old wizards who look old:

“My dear boy,” said Lockhart, straightening up and frowning at Harry. “Do use your common sense. My books wouldn’t have sold half as well if people didn’t think I’d done all those things. No one wants to read about some ugly old Armenian warlock, even if he did save a village from werewolves. He’d look dreadful on the front cover. 

(CoS)

Seizing the chipped bust of an ugly old warlock from on top of a nearby crate, he stood it on top of the cupboard where the book was now hidden, perched a dusty old wig and a tarnished tiara on the statue’s head to make it more distinctive

(HBP)

Dad was going frantic — it’s only him and an old warlock called Perkins in the office — and they had to do Memory Charms and all sorts of stuff to cover it up — “But your dad — this car — ”

(CoS)

a haze of pipe smoke hung over several elderly warlocks deep in conversation, and a number of house-elves were negotiating their way squeakily through the forest of knees, obscured by the heavy silver platters of food they were bearing, so that they looked like little roving tables.

(HBP)

This kind of goes hand-in-hand with the refined skilled wizard who has a knight-like noble title 'warlock' is used for. Since you have the whole 'wise old wizard' concept it makes sense that 'warlock' is a term used to denote a wisen-looking old wizard.

The following quotes don't mention the 'warlocks' are old, but from the context and how we see 'warlock' used by Harry in his narration, I assume they're all just elderly wizards:

“Shh!” said Hermione desperately, looking around to make sure nobody was listening; there were a couple of warlocks sitting close by who were staring at Harry with great interest, and Zabini was lolling against a pillar not far away. “Harry, I’d be annoyed too, I know it’s your things he’s stealing — ”

(HBP)

“Ours do know a lot of excellent swear words,” said Ron, “but I think Fred and George taught them those.” He led a party of warlocks into the marquee as Luna rushed up.

(DH)

Krum glowered over the top of his drink, watching Xenophilius, who was chatting to several warlocks on the other side of the dance floor.

(DH)

The bar of the Leaky Cauldron was nearly deserted. Tom, the stooped and toothless landlord, was polishing glasses behind the bar counter; a couple of warlocks having a muttered conversation in the far corner glanced at Hermione and drew back into the shadows.

(DH)

It is possible the 'old' category is still using 'warlock' as a title and that these warlocks just happen to be old, but I doubt they would be marked in any way Harry would be able to tell on sight they have any legal position in the Wizaengamot just from looking at them. So, while it's a possibility, I find it unlikely.

Other

“It was a very near miss,” said Ernie. “And in case you’re getting ideas,” he added hastily, “I might tell you that you can trace my family back through nine generations of witches and warlocks and my blood’s as pure as anyone’s, so — ”

(CoS)

This is the only time 'warlock' is truly used as interchangeable with 'wizard' without denoting anything specific about said warlocks (old, skilled, legislator). That is, it is possible Ernie is trying to say many of his family were skilled and talented wizards since he is convincing Harry he is pureblood here. So it's possible he's using 'warlocks' in the context of politically important warlocks — as in claiming he's from a family of "lords". It's possible the Macmillans have a Wizengamot seat and Ernie is referring to many of his family being Wizengamot Warlocks and members of the Warlock's Convention.

Summary

The term Warlock is used for:

Wizards who hold legislative Wizengamot positions.

Historically it might've been used the way noble titles were used in the muggle world. (Knights were nobles and the Warlock from The Warlock's Hairy Heart lives in a castle).

An old wizard that looks elderly.

It might be used for (but it could be argued another meaning is meant in these references so it's open to interpretation):

A skilled wizard.

A loud, wild-looking wizard.

[campbyler]

Hello!!

I’ve had an unpublished modern au byler fic in the works for an embarrassing amount of time and I’ve noticed that you two talk about characterization a lot, which has been my main struggle. I’ve figured out choices to make for characters and how they relate to choices and characteristics of the canon characters in the show, but I’m not sure if the reasoning behind those choices and traits will translate to readers.

I love the fic and I feel like y’all did a great job with making those reasonings clear in your writing without directly saying it, so I’d love to know if you have any specific tricks for that!

Also sorry if this kind of formal, I’m stuck in email mode with finals coming up :|

hello! soooo sorry this is such a late response — i was thinking it over when it came in and then i ended up talking about something similar on another ask and totally blanked 😔 thank you so much for asking for our input, i’ll try to be as concise as i can! (<- edit from future me who has finished typing up her answer to this ask: famous last words. you were not concise. at all. oh my god i’m sorry) i know you said you already made your initial characterization choices and everything so please bear with me while i word vomit and rehash what was probably part of your thought process anyways just to be able to follow my own train of thought lol

some general thoughts here that thea and i have been mulling over for the last few months regarding how we’ve written our fic and choices we have made for it: we’re both well aware that acswy is not everyone’s cup of tea for many reasons, but i’m specifically bringing this up in response to your ask because every once in a while, we do see someone refer to our mike and will as being written out of character, whether or not that’s a deterrent for them in reading. and i want to make it clear that this doesn’t bother us and nothing im about to say is meant to sound defensive or like we’re making a case to people who feel this way — we have our reasons for making the decisions that we did and also already heavily retconned our og concept for them on account of it having been pretty ooc at the time, even to us, so we’re confident with where we are now — but it has made us think about what people actually consider to be “out of character.” this brings me to my first point re: characterization which is, to us, the importance of differentiating between something that the character in the source material doesn’t/probably wouldn’t do versus something that is more of a direct contradiction to the character themselves. for example, we’ve seen people say (often while reading for the first time) that will is ooc specifically in the first couple chapters of acswy, a big reason being because he’s “mean to mike.” it is, of course, vastly different from how he acts in the show and is probably a slightly jarring dynamic to be dropped into right off the bat, especially since the entire premise of the fic is that the reader has almost zero context for why he’s behaving this way, and even more so at the beginning of the fic before his and mike’s relationship develops further. to me and thea as writers, the importance lies more so in the context for it all: how mike and will would turn out after growing up without each other as best friends, with a lot of the cultural pressures of the 1980s removed but having some new ones of the 2010s/20s introduced; not going to high school together, being in the same friend group for years and getting closer over time with many interests in common, but also facing a lot of conflict and having that friend group be geographically separated while a lot of it goes down.

and with this context, what we would consider to be ooc would be if we just like. made will a straight up DICK or something lol. no nuance involved, constantly berating mike with no reason to do so, even with their unknown history, like just ragging on him all the time and never backing down, even when mike isn’t engaging (side note: giant personal pet peeve of mine that max constantly gets written this way but i digress). we see in the show that will is often snarky and sarcastic and will stand up for himself when needed, especially with mike — which imo is another sign of will’s trust in him and their bond, that he can be honest with mike and not fear genuine retribution, and in acswy, he knows mike will meet him where he’s at. he sometimes isn’t afraid to hit a sore spot, but he would never ever just be a jerk for the hell of it -> we even see him apologize after their fight in s4, despite it clearly being a very emotional moment for him and a lot of truth behind what he was saying. whether he intended for it to come out that way or not, he still felt bad for reacting that way and apologized to mike’s face about it. likewise, there’s a reason acswy will acts the way he does with mike specifically, and we were also intentional with making mike match his energy like he does in canon, which will counts on, even — the way these boys BICKER, oh my god — and he has his own ways of pushing will’s buttons which prove to be very effective. even in the early chapters there are a lot of moments of softness and real friendship between them that (we hope!!) make it pretty clear that it takes some effort to maintain this facade, that there is more than enough of their “canon” bond and dynamic and chemistry where being friends and having fun together is a much more natural state to exist in, and is where they usual end up during those brief periods where they let that mask slip. same principle if we had made mike some uber-jerk who had completely different interests than he does in the show (we are so glad that book annotator and zelda fan mike wheeler is ringing true for you all ☺️), or someone who’s super self confident and popular and charming (outside of will’s very unreliable pov) once he and will start hooking up. i think most people would look at that and look back at canon mike wheeler and say yeah that is Not my mike, because making will an actual asshole or making mike any of these things would be going against core character traits that are central to their arcs in the show. will wouldn’t be will if he was generally a confrontational dick, and mike wouldn’t be mike if he was popular and exuded self confidence and so on. that’s just not them! so to summarize, i guess the question to us is more along the lines of “would they ‘not do this’ in the show out of circumstance/lack of necessity (e.g: canon byler going to the same schools until s4, never having a reason for rivalry to develop, growing up living in close proximity to each other and all of their mutual friends, etc) or would they ‘not do this’ in the show because it’s antithetical to the way they have been written?” we find it much more interesting to put a character in a situation and then essentially work backwards in a way to see how they would react to it, rather than putting them in situations that correlate to things we have seen before, and therefore would probably result in them reacting in a way we have seen them do before.

and now coming back to what i think you were actually asking: i think my biggest tip to making those references without it being said outright is honestly just to have faith in both your readers And the creative choices you make. which sounds like a bit of a cop out answer but i simply can’t understate the important of trusting your readers to pick up what you’re putting down, and to trust that they’ll read between the lines for you. a lot of my favorite characterization moments in aus are ones that are really really subtle, where a character does or says something that is clearly a callback to something in the source media, but it isn’t explained in a way that’s actually calling attention to it — it always seems much more natural that way, like whatever they did is just a progression of who they are in that story instead of the author trying to make a point or force a connection. just off the top of my head a small example might be how i see so many authors in non-magic/no upside down aus still make will really struggle with the cold, often just as a throwaway line or paragraph which imo is much more effective for me than trying to explain why he’s feeling this way. or having him enjoy the same media as in the show in a slightly varied and less direct way (e.g: being into the new star wars shows as a continuation of his canon interests, putting him in theater club to play off of the posters we saw in his room, etc). i think it also helps to have something specific in mind that you’re trying to tie back, like an important moment for that character’s story or something that stood out in the source material. like, i love writing lucas and dustin bickering over stupid stuff bc it takes me back to them in s1 in the principal’s office or s2 in general, or one of my personal favs in my own fics was one where i had will be on a constant rotation of fun patterned socks. he’s creative, he’s an artist, it’s (hopefully) a pretty clear connection to make once i write it in, and i really do think a modern version of him would get a kick out of something like that! and sometimes people just won’t pick up on what you’re trying to say and that’s okay too! everyone reads fics a little differently so some connections might be more obvious to some people than others and so on. from my experience as a reader, i find it pretty easy to connect the dots between an intentional and thoughtful moment of characterization vs one that doesn’t quite hit the nail on the head, or the author felt the need to spell out for the reader which maybe took me out of the moment a little too much or something. to me, making those choices and translating canon to an au is honestly the hardest part, especially with a modern au and a show like st that is So defined by the period it’s set in, so if you’ve already got that out of the way i genuinely think you have the rest of it in the bag as well. unless you worked through it in the month it took me to get to this in which case i am so so so sorry LOL

okay that’s been my word vomit of the day, hopefully any of this made sense or was useful at all, but thank you again for your kind words and support and for thinking to ask us! always always happy to chat writing, even if it takes me a million words to do it 😗

[darklinaforever]

God help me...

First off, what the hell are you doing in Wyler tag ? What's your fucking problem with pissing off people who didn't ask for anything ?!

But let's see the rest of your bullshit in detail and tear it down as we go along.

But this ship is very much dead. There is hardly any traction towards it because the people who ship it make no sense when they defend it. They sound like they could be mentally ill...

Weird, Wyler is the most popular ship with Wenclair though. And for a dead ship, Netflix still took the trouble to make Wyler the first teaser for the new season...

And how do we make no sense ? It's you who had no interest in repeating things that the show and the show team have themselves contradicted for years now about Tyler's character.

And it's you who comes into Wyler's spaces to piss off and obsessively spill your venom. It seems that you are the one who is mentally ill...

I don't know how crooked you have to be to say that you're crooked to ship a canonical ship. Already, this is not even said for fanon ships, but even less canon. What are you trying to prove here ? You're shooting yourself in the foot by coming in to tag Wyler to insult us and try to seem like the smartest person when you seem like the stupidest.

By the way ; Do you think you're smart to say that kind of thing ?! That we are mentally ill ?!

Wow, for say that you must really hate the fact that Wyler is the first official trailer / teaser of season 2, otherwise you clearly wouldn't be here trying to impose your pseudo dominance...

I guess Emma Myers (Enid actress) is mentally ill then, since she says most of the same things we do about Tyler...

And not to mention Hunter himself who spoke of sexual compatibility between Wyler, that Wednesday had been Tyler's light during the events of season 1 and that if he had to imagine his character ending up with someone it would be her ?

You're really a piss of shit.

And I won't apologize for saying that.

You allow yourself to insult us with enormous condescension that you try to pass off as a form of kindness in the rest of your post ? Well, I will insult you in return, but head-on this time.

You are a big piss of shit. That all.

Tyler almost killed Wednesday and all her friends + he manipulated her like a professional and she felt humiliated because she never even suspected him and put a good person in jail because of him.

She will never forgive herself, let alone him.

Yes... and ? First, Tyler “tries to kill” Eugene essentially under the orders of Laurel, his master to whom he is forced to obey and who tortured him ? Note also that Laurel technically didn't tell Tyler to kill Eugene but to take care of him and that strangely, he's the only victim of Tyler who escaped death ?

Coincidence ? Maybe not !

And if you want an explanation for Enid, it is implied that the Hyde offers a second personality, different from the human version ? So, technically, the Hyde is not Tyler. It's a second personality. Why is everyone forgetting the recording of the psychologist that Donovan listens to ?! Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, you know ?!

Literally, these people are being dishonest on purpose.

Also... again, Wednesday doesn't blame Tyler specifically for nearly killing her friends. First, it would be bad faith, because she also did it in the show with Enid, but above all, it's a question of ego. No really justice in her anger towards Tyler.

She is mainly angry at Tyler because, yes, he managed to fool her and her intelligence. And she is deeply hurt in her ego and personal feelings.

But how would his anger on this subject be eternal ? On what fucking basis ?! Tell me !

Once this aspect calms down in her, everything will surely be better and she could potentially look again at the case of the Hydes whose research remains incomplete (which have always deeply interested her on the other hand), and therefore Tyler.

But to return to her friends, Enid and Eugene are fine. Wednesday can recover from what Tyler almost did to them. Especially since Eugene was under Laurel's orders (and strangely, Tyler who could have easily killed Eugene... strangely didn't do it ?), and that Enid explains it by the fact that Tyler was in Hyde mode, his second monstrous personality, that he doesn't seem to really have control over ?

But more than that, Wednesday is a person who generally takes those treated most unfairly under her wing. And Tyler is probably the one who has been in this sad situation the most.

That she hates him forever makes no fucking sense ; since although she is angry for the moment because her ego is hurt, she knows that Tyler had a shitty family life, was groomed by Laurel who woke up his Hyde thus forcing him to become her puppet and imposing a bond that makes Tyler want and love what his mistress wants.

Then again, it wouldn't make sense for Wednesday to be mad at Tyler forever...

Oh and... Just for pleasure : “Of course the first boy I kiss would turn out to be a psychotic serial-killing monster. I guess I have a type.”

Also... Wednesday didn't put Xavier in the cell because Tyler manipulated her into doing so ? Wednesday did this all by herself like a grown-up ! 😂 Because, for the recording, Wednesday is a narrow-minded and toxic person. And believe me, of all the people Wednesday could have upset and blamed herself for this, Xavier is the one she will get over the quickest. Because ultimately she just likes him as a classmate and childhood acquaintance. And again I'm being nice... because most of the time she actually just tolerates him.

Oh and Wednesday finally saved everyone at the end of season 1. Given her ego and her anti-heroine nature, I think she will eventually recover from her own mistakes / forgive herself. 😂

I get that some people are shipping them as some kind of kink ( monster serial killer with Wednesday addams) 😏. But this kind of shipping starts and stays in the dark corners of the internet.

This ship can't be acknowledged by a streaming platform to the general public ( which includes millions of kids).

Just... God, if you think Wyler is an impossible relationship to fix, then you've never read or seen a real enemies to lovers romance !

I literally read one romance where the guy almost killed the heroine forever by stabbing her in the heart ! And if it weren't for the intervention of other characters, she would have died ! And yet at the end of the story, they're happily married !

The enemies to lovers trope isn't as fragile as these morons think it is !

One mistake and the relationship is dead forever ? Wow...

Wyler is also so soft in that category too ! The antis seem like a bunch of fragile people when they talk about Wyler.

Literally every time these people try to put the Wylers down they just make fools of themselves. Because they just bring up arguments that have been contradicted a billion times or are comically weak, or they just say bullshit that is simply not true.

I repeat, enemies to lovers have existed since the dawn of time, it's literally one of the most popular and represented tropes in existence ! Whether in children's fiction or for a general audience !

What cave are you living in to dare to say that Wyler cannot be recognized by a general public ?!

Even in super popular books you have thousand times worse than Wyler ?!

“The general public can't handle Wyler” My god... hello Delena, Klaroline, Clarice & Hannibal, ect ?!

For information, as shocking as it may be The Vampire Diaries was seen by many children / teenagers in addition to adults in time. All my friends at the time and I were kids when this show started and we watched it, like so many others.

Hence children and the general public couldn't handle Wyler ? Wyler is as soft as fucking Reylo ?! Another great ship that the general public and children loved.

This is one of the biggest bad take I've ever seen ! The confidence you need to say this kind of stupidity ?!

Seriously, wtf ?!

Although he was groomed, Tyler was a willing participant in the crimes that he committed and he even told Wednesday that he enjoyed killing innocent people. Millar and gough folded the wyler book forever in that scene.

Tyler can never be trusted enough around outcasts to be released.

It's literally said in the show that the hyde is conditioned to like what its master likes and want what his master wants. It's not even ambiguous. It's said in the fucking text of the show.

And I remember that Tyler makes his fucking confession to Wednesday with tears in his eyes. Yes, what a great villain...

Oh and if you need to talk about the non-canon novelization of the show that most of Wednesday's audience hasn't read and never will read to prove your point about a canon scene and events from the show, we're going to have a problem.

They're the ones who sound like mentally ill repeating over and over again that Tyler absolutely loves killing without any fucking doubt... 🙄

And they go so far as to agree that the Hyde should be excluded ? While the show is literally about the treatment of the marginalized ? The excluded from society ?

And they think it's positive that there is a category of outcast among the outcasts themselves ?!

Clearly not.

The treatment of Hyde is something that needs to change in this show !

And for that, we first need to finish understanding how these creatures really work.

But hey... Not as if we had incomplete research on the subject, that Wednesday is interested in it and that she just happens to have a Hyde on hand to look into the subject... I wonder where this scenario could lead us ?!

But certainly not to a questioning of the treatment of these creatures by the society of this story according to the antis (#irony) ?! Of course, nothing will ever change for the Hydes ! They are too dangerous ! Long live the status quo !

This is driving me crazy !

Yes, what the hell would Wednesday who defends the oppressed and the victims, have to do with Tyler, the outcast of outcasts himself who was groomed by a psycho who triggered the Hyde in him to use him as a puppet and who has the equivalent of a mental illness by being a Hyde. Hyde by which she is fascinated, and who it is implied that she will complete the unfinished research on them ?!

Seriously, the writers racked their brains to write us a character like Tyler, a teenager with multiple problems, including family problems, a victim of abuse and whose hyde (the creature marginalized among the marginalized themselves, knowing that the whole message of the show is to accept the marginalized in reality) seems to be the equivalent of a mental illness, for people to be like “Yes, this guy is a pure villain who cannot have redemption ! He is rotten and the show is right when it says that the Hyde are too dangerous for the world ! Nothing must change and nothing aspires to a change of point of view on these creatures in a show where we are encouraged to accept the marginalized (and whose hyde is the marginald of the marginalized himself) through the only Hyde that we meet in person throughout the story who is only a teenager victim of abuse with the metaphor of mental illness !”

Seriouslly, the “Tyler will never be put back with the other outcasts because he's too dangerous” take it's so fucking stupid for a show about outcasts and injustices...

We present to you the outcast of the outcast, whose case in terms of creature has never been finished studying...

And you think Tyler will forever remain an outcast among his people and locked up for life ?!

WTF ?!

These people are tiring me out...

Because it lacks the "genuine" element: there is no love between Wednesday and Tyler.

I would like to understand how Wyler lacks romantic elements ? They literally have one of the most classic storylines in the world in terms of romance ? What the hell are you talking about ? Developed ? What would be missing ? My god, what bullshit. If you want analysis of the Wyler relationship you have my tumblr or those of @fullofwoe5321 @tylernation @wylerserver18official @ablatheringblatherskite @cosmic-lullaby @broken-everlark

Tyler and Wednesday only have one scene in season 2, according to the leaks we got. So this teaser is very much bait for the fans who still like them together 😏. Netflix is yet again giving false hope to fandoms about something that isn't going to happen.

Saying that Wyler will only have one scene in season 2 according to the leaks...

Are you aware that the leaks are not always true ?

Are you aware that it wouldn't make sense for Wednesday and Tyler to only have one scene together ?

Because a teaser is supposed to give an indication of what the new season will be about overall ?

Oh but am I stupid. In your stupid little shit head you think that Tyler will now always be locked up for life. In that case, why keep the character in the show ?

Fucking idiot...

You really have to be in complete disillusionment to say that this trailer / teaser will be the only scene between them in all of season 2 while a teaser serves to show the viewer what will generally be the center of the new plot.

Oh, and no official romance in season 2 doesn't mean no romance in the rest of the show, FYI. Especially since it is completely logical that Wyler (if these two were to end up together one day) wouldn't they go back into in love mode in season 2 ? They have a fucking relationship to repair first and also work on themselves each as an individual person ? Also, most Wyler fans, without even the announcement of a reduction in the romance being made, certainly did not expect the romance between Wyler to return straight away for season 2, simply because on a narrative level it would not have not been logical... Seriously, go find another hobby other than annoying people.

And even if Wyler doesn't end up together at the end of the show, despite all the logic of this romance, do you think that will stop us fans from shipping Wyler ?!

Obviously, you are clinging to Xavier when it is clear that nothing more will happen (since the character was removed from the show because the actor was accused of sexual assault) ?

Seriously, this person seems obsessed with the character of Xavier (who could have been an interesting character but who in fact remains generally average and a real potential ultimate shit boyfriend)...

But they got a slap in the face 🙂. since the teaser was met with massive backlash about the most unethical thing they did: dropping an innocent man and Convicting him of crimes he never committed...

Except the comments you showed don't show people being outraged that Xavier was sent to prison when he did nothing, just that they will miss Xavier's character.

You're thinking all by yourself, big girl (this is obviously a recurrence among the anti-Wylers).

And then “they did” ? What is she talking about ? Wyler fans ? Was it Wyler's fans who put Xavier in jail ? 😂

I repeat, you can only blame Wednesday for Xavier ending up in prison. Tyler has nothing to do with it, he never tried to accuse anyone to keep suspicion away from him. Wednesday suspected Xavier alone as a grown-up.

I'm so angry that this kind of crap is getting into the Wyler tag. Don't these people have anything better to do ?

I feel like I'm back in Reylo's time ! Because Reylo and Wyler are some of the softest ships in terms of enemies to lovers that I have seen and people act like they are some of the worst things in the world and that these ships are too hardcore for a general audience and calls us mentally ill for our thoughtful argument, which is ridiculous.

It's truly ridiculous and cheeky.

They just repeat the same bullshit over and over again, contradicted by the show itself and the show team !

At this point, we're not the ones who look ridiculous. It was them.

[k1ngsnak3]

Me when body and facial feature diversity (you're getting a list of headcannons because thats what I FEEL like today; OP you are not obliged to read this, this is an excuse to DSMP post) I'm most passionate about this one but it makes me tweak out a little bit whenever I see ppl draw Techno completely clean shaven and/or skinny (/naa /nm). I draw him with a shortish uh idk what its called but like when the beard and mustache are kinda fused. Also he's greying a little because he's OLD. And he's built like a brick wall when bro wears his cloak around himself he looks like a head on a solid red pillar.

In a similar vein, I will die on buffbo and chubbybo hill. Also his scar definitely fucked up that half of his face like crazy I struggle to draw it but I try to make it look obviously like scar tissue when I do. And the eye on his scar side is like really fucked up cause all the outside flesh features like the eyelid and such are like obliterated. Ranboo is an uncanny valley kind of long and thin its like they got stretched or smth. They're a lot let obviously fucked up than Tubbo but they're passively creepy as hell, its just harder to really feel because we're not actually around him. Also this doesn't rlly make him more interesting or anything but I like to give them scars running down their face bc of tears.

Speaking of scars, Quackity is overall less fucked up than the rest of them but he has a vicious scar from the pickaxe death. Part of his cheek on the scarred side is missing so you can like see his teeth and the pickaxe fully took out his eye so he actually just doesn't have an eye on that side anymore (he slots a poker chip in there to look like a weird eye of sorts)

Wilbur is part zombie because of being in limbo for so long, I feel like when characters are revived they are revived directly into the bodies they died in, and Wilbur's body had already been rotting for a while when he got revived. The system's (I hc the fabric of their world to be code adjacent bc of the minecraft stuff) default response to the contradiction of reviving someone into an already partially decomposed body was to replace the decomposed parts with zombie anatomy.

That everything I can think of at the moment but yeah.

As an amateur character designer every time i see a dsmp guy that isn't drawn as a Pretty Skinny White Twink™ i lose my shit. Eat it up every time. Make them UGLY and a LITTLE FUCKED UP!!! More diversity in shape language please im frothing at the mouth. It's like drugs to me. I love you anyone who makes them weird and shapey.

[ani-craft]

"Martyn is loyal" this and "Martyn isn't loyal" that

Loyal or not, this man loves. No matter what he might say. Calls himself selfish, or a wanderer, or a wildcard, or whatever else he'll readily claim to seem unanchored. And sure, he is highly driven by self-interest, that is undeniable especially after Lim Life's ending. Yet every season he gets attached to people, finds a fondness in someone. To Scott, to Cleo, to the Southlands (especially Mumbo), to Ren--and to an extent he is loyal, or devoted, or whatever other word you want to use for it. As loyal as he can be up until he can't be anymore. Looks at every alliance with the idea that they'll make it to the finale together, even if what happens after is unsavory. He knows too much for his own good, knows that every life will end as him versus everyone he's allied with. It's inevitable, given the nature of his lore and his role in the grand scheme of things. It's an always present truth that backs every plan he has. An audience is Watching, and we need a grand finale, after all.

But until then:

"That's it, they're dead."

"I'm more than happy for you to link back up with me, and we can be real proper soulmates."

"You said, 'You and your allies will see the end.' You said I could bring them all!"

"I'm with you. This is us, now. This is us."

[quatregats]

Something I've been thinking about is how Patrick O'Brian manages so skillfully to write characters whose actions contradict their beliefs, which I think is honestly a big part of why his characters feel so real. Mostly with Stephen and Jack—e.g., and perhaps most notably, Stephen has notably leftist sympathies (honestly I have no idea how to characterize his politics in period terms) who nonetheless becomes very comfortable with his rise to the landed gentry, while Jack is a card-carrying Tory who much of the time sympathizes far more with working class sailors and farmers than with the upper classes—but I'm sure he does it to a lesser degree with some of his minor characters (James Dillon, while perhaps not precisely minor, comes to mind), and I love that he's able to do that, especially the way in which he embeds it in the narrative. We see how they're all unreliable narrators of themselves; we understand how they want to be seen and how that does and doesn't coincide with the reality, but most importantly, this isn't presented as something reprehensible, just as a part of their own humanity. They are not their expectations for themselves, but they don't need to be those expectations to be beloved.

[butwhatifidothis]

Still baffled that Hopes so blatantly wrote Claude as the typical Evil Vaguely Middle Eastern Man set on destroying the Good White Nation for his Evil Vaguely Middle Eastern Nation that is often seen in fantasy settings - complete with him being seen as worse than a white woman who does many of the same evil deeds he does in-verse, even by his friends (should it be the bad ending route of SB) - and so many in the fandom were so eager to gobble that shit up. INSIST that "Clearly A Racist Stereotype" is LEAGUES better than "Subversion Of A Racist Stereotype" even. Like I don't think I'll ever get over how supremely fucked that is

[weidli]

#“let his flaw be hubris not uncertainty” EXACTLY#that whole last paragraph had me nodding at high speeds (i Always want you to expound on ponderings btw)#esp the bit about q being actually quite well adjusted like he has cats he has friends he has things he enjoys outside work while james#bond. well we have all seen james bond have we not#(there's a whole essay i could write about specific patterns of characterizing james and q in 00q fandom one sees a lot esp in the like#immediately post skyfall era of fandom but i'll probably never write it because i'd want to support my claims with citations and citing#specific fics in order to tear apart the characterization is a dick move. but also it's so interesting to me#like okay the q characterization issues i can kind of forgive because there just wasn't all that much screentime of him#but it's fascinating what specific characterization beats for james bond crop up in fics of that era that are Explicitly Contradicted#by cr/qos but i guess served to fit 00q into the mold of what was considered an appealing ship dynamic at the time#it's a really interesting phenomenon that i enjoy thinking about in abstract as like a study of how fandom works/worked#but also makes it really hard to find fic that gets into the dynamic between 00q that i find compelling. i.e. the one where q is NOT the#neurotic manic pixie dream girl subbier one in the equation. sorry but that is james bond. cmon)#And i'm with you completely on that point and if cheetah-coding is generally understood to include that sort of neurotic then I also don't#think Q fits into it lol#In re: the control thing yes I also think Q would not particularly benefit from giving up control as a thing. james is definitely the#one who takes the iron control over himself at all times because he has to be On he has to do it Right so on thing to an unhealthy point#and really needs someone to dom him about a bit so he can let go of all that#whereas q's control is much more balanced and fits him naturally thus i don't think him giving it up wholly esp To bond would benefit#either of them really. what i was trying to get at is more the hm. ramifications of being a really really competent livestock guardian dog#who is also perfectly aware from the start that a significant chunk of those he's guarding ARE being herded to the slaughter and#sometimes he can't prevent it and sometimes he COULD but for Reasons the good of The Mission demands that he doesn't#like a field agent gets captured and tortured or something and q COULD probably blow up the building if he tried but also everyone#including the agent themselves doesn't want him to because mission goals etc etc. which results in perhaps not a giving up of control#but in a having to restrain oneself from exercising it. he HAS to step away and take his hands off it#and THATS the sort of situation where having bond around (esp if bond has already retired) would be steadying/reassuring in that specific#way. because he never has to give up control over bond again in that way! bond is here and his and safe and . to get back to the#original post lol. another situation in which q collaring/having already collared bond would be GREAT for both of them#bond is luxuriating in having q tangibly obviously Want him and want to keep him and want to keep him safe forever in a way bond can#feel all the time. and q is steadied by the knowledge that he has james and has kept him safe and james wants him to be doing this and

Just noticed that tumblr killed the last few sentences of these tags and with it my final conclusion so i guess i'm reblogging my own ramblings in order to say that the original conclusion here (which phrasing i cannot quite remember) was something along the lines of. the comfort for q not being in GIVING UP control (which is i think more of an active factor contributing to the stress) but in concentrating fully on the control he HAS over bond and on the fact that bond is just as into this situation as he is. and the collaring thing even outside a sexual context just works for both of them as tangible evidence of this. and the added layer of q having Made it so to bond it's evidence also of q putting in time and effort to make it suit bond perfectly and to q it's evidence that bond wants and enjoy that q puts in that effort. Opposite of the sweater curse lol

meanwhile, Iiiii am marinating on the idea of Bond getting a handcrafted leather collar from Q (lovingly handcrafted, of course, by Q). it would be soooo good for him, it'd be like having Q's hand at his throat and on his nape all the time. it'd be a tangible sign that Q wants him and more importantly, wants to keep him. it would keep him soooo anchored and centered and grounded. it would be so so good for him and he would love it so much

[rmbunnie]

I am alone on this barren earth (Jason Todd liker and Mia Dearden liker who honestly thinks issues 69-72 of the 2001 Green Arrow run are fun and good and would really like to talk about them beyond "Jason Todd was ooc and irredeemable there because he was trauma-dumping on Mia but also everything he said was fake and made up and he was manipulating her to become his sidekick and he blew up her school in retaliation because she didn't so really we should ignore the whole comic as bad writing /or agree he should just be read as an sadistic sidekick killer" (None of which is true and over half of which is directly stated to be false in the comic's text) but all people ever have to say about the comic is weird wrong takes about the three pages in which the gym fight happens ripped out of the very interesting and fun surrounding context)

[longagoitwastuesday]

ngl it sort of pisses me off the way adults regard Gojo in Jujutsu Kaisen at times. Which could be a very interesting and poignant point in a good way if well written, but as it is it becomes mainly just frustrating and sad in a negative way.

Nanami saying Gojo never cared about anything or anyone other than himself crashes interestingly with Kusakabe saying the whole situation was just all his fault because he refused to kill Itadori. The students are very aware of those aspects of Gojo's personality, but overall they seem to regard him with way more kindness and fondness even when at their rudest, not truly coinciding with either Nanami's or Kusakabe's views.

[ilynpilled]

I feel like as the resident dishonor/honor guy enjoyer I have to speak on honor as a construct and how it seems to operate in asoiaf in my eyes. I will be stating the obvious here imo but: violence IS inherent to it. Be it directly or through the enablement of it. “Honor”, as a feudalistic moral construct, revolves around the reinforcement of a status quo. It is a moral construct that is embedded into a feudalistic structure, one that is inherently violent. It can be deeply flawed and destructive as a result of deeply rooted systemic issues. Being “honorable” is very complicated because, again, it does not exist based on a very sensible moral framework. It ends up contradicting itself because the way society is structured in Westeros.

Almost nothing embodies this more clearly than the KG. They are supposed to be the paragons of honor: an unsoiled white cloak.

Vows are social contracts this society is built on. This is why Jaime is very restricted in a lot of ways in his world by his label. Breaking one of the most important contracts (one that happens to be key in reinforcing a feudalistic structure: it places the king’s will above every single other moral or ethical code) makes it so he is not believed or trusted and he is unable to operate properly within their society in a lot of circumstances, as we witness in his chapters. It is honorable to protect the weak and the innocent, but it is honorable to protect your king in all circumstances and reinforce a status quo. To obey your family and play your societal role. To obey laws, even if they are unjust. To keep your word, to be honest. Loyalty to a tyrant has to be inherently more honorable (especially in certain positions) to maintain this status quo, even though it contradicts other oaths and we know it is inherently immoral. Balancing values is the most interesting aspect of characters dealing with ‘honor’ and morality. Feudalism is what makes the honor system collapse. Honor itself can be a more vague concept, “the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right”, but the way it is defined and how it operates within this society is so fucked. The KG appear in the weirwood dream (mirroring the imagery of The Others, conflating the honorable white cloak with snow and cold and death.) “You swore to keep your king safe” “and the children as well.” Yeah, the innocent children of kingslanding as well, that would have burned to ash. It is honorable to save your king, to protect the weak, to save the children, to save the innocents of KG, to obey your father. He tells this to them in the dream, he explains his reasoning for killing Aerys, but they do not budge. That is what Jaime fears the most, the complete collapse of everything that holds meaning to him, heroism becoming undefinable with these conflicting moral codes, which is likely another huge part of him keeping it a secret. It is something he feels powerless against. The way things are prioritized is wrong. Morality becomes skewed. In Jaime’s mind the enemy and primary source of doom is this nonsensical moral construct that contradicts itself represented by institutions that make no sense. It is what makes his symbolic fire go out. His moral code conflicts with this society’s code of ethics, which eventually leads him to cynically accept amorality. It is disillusionment that tears the idea of heroism and being “honorable” apart and leads to moral nihilism.

Another aspect of the honor code and its violence is the fact that it places more value to individuals based on class. It is dependent on class and a flawed social structure. This is despite the fact that vows of knighthood call for the protection of those that are too weak to protect themselves: the underprivileged. Jaime keeps having this epiphany of an inherent equality in death that seems to contradict the way society is structured. Aerys’ life is worth inherently more according to the honor code than Rhaella’s, than the lives of thousands of innocents, than Jaime’s. Yet, a lowborn hand, no one, seems to die harder than Aerys does (and nobody cares). A crown is worth nothing when crows feast on victors and vanquished alike, and the rightful heir himself. We are all equal in death, so the text is indicating that something is not right here.

When it comes to characters and their relationship with honor the important through-line is examining whether they are being “honorable” in the abstract sense, if they base their actions around empathy and a sense of actual justice, or if they are abiding by made up flawed constructs. Being viewed as honorable by this society does not make you a good person. In fact, in order for you to abide by the honor code you would likely have to turn into an amoral individual. For example, if you try to keep the cloak pure white you will metaphorically soil it. Like every one of Aerys’s kingsguard did. To keep their oath to the king, they broke vows to protect innocents and protect women. They should lose their honor by a lot of definitions, but that would mean the status quo collapses. Jaime’s knighting for this reason is very much like a boy being sacrificed at an altar. It is not just about drawing a parallel between young girls and boys being sentenced to bloody doom by violent constructs created for their gender.

“Blood is the seal of our devotion.” He bleeds on his plain white tunic. It was never “pure white”, it was always all tainted in blood. It is inherently violent. You can argue that is when “the boy died.”

Very rigid and hypocritical honor codes built for feudalism lack nuance and lead to amorality. I think George aims to address, interrogate, deconstruct, and then reconstruct honor, as with most other key concepts present in fantasy. Honor can be redefined. Examples like “No chance, and no choice”, among many others, are at the root of that reconstruction. Even then, the reconstruction does not conflate it with pacifism necessarily. For example, Chelsted did the ‘honorable’ thing, in the abstract moral sense, of quitting his job and not supporting a tyrant anymore, but that act achieved nothing in preventing the wildfire plot. Same with essentially everyone important at court abandoning the situation that is Aerys, turning away from a gaping wound and not addressing it before it was too late. Jaime had to soil the ‘white cloak’ and disrupt the status quo and lose his “honor” within those terms by murdering his king and his pyromancers as a kingsguard and actually save half a million lives. It was not glorious, nor was it anything like the songs, and the city is still doomed because there is no way to get that festering corruption out of there at this point, metaphorical of the greater problem with KG, but it was heroism, a choice with meaning, and a form of triumph, even if the consequences break Jaime down the line. He gets no answer to the question of what it means to be a knight and a man of honor if society’s version of it is so skewed. Then, Jaime and the readers get an answer in the form of Brienne: “I dreamed of you.”

[queer-omens-in-the-archives]

@suckerforthisshit replying in a reblog instead of replies because i got REALLY long-winded dfhgsdfj (putting this under a cut for the sake of our followers)

omg this is so wild?? hello i love this. are you gonna post the story somewhere/does it already exist somewhere?? interesting dynamics 👀 (and also curious about L faking his death lol like what IS that about. omg.)

also yeah i see what you mean re: your Near's role in the plot!! your Near is DEFINITELY way more active than ours dhfgsdf

i think a contributing factor in how we write Near is that we tend to have him both very duty-oriented (putting the expectations placed on him & his stated goals ahead of what he personally wants/needs, unlike Mello who prioritises differently), AND

in denial about, or repressing important elements of, his internal state

struggling with some kind of paradigm change

in post-canon AUs only, super depressed and mostly apathetic.

meanwhile, in general, our Mello is way ahead of Near in terms of identifying and handling intense emotions -- not necessarily because because he is perfect at it, but in the sense that he actually like… feels his emotions/knows his wants well, and is driven to action by them. in contrast to Near who suppresses his emotions/wants where they contradict his goals/perceived duty, and therefore does nothing about them (unless they become overwhelming, which can force him to more immediate/instinctive action by removing his well-honed coping mechanism of Plan Ahead & Suppress)

in one of our (not even remotely close to canon) AUs, Near can feel Mello's emotions (not the reverse. long story), and because handling Mello is his Duty, he is actually more in tune with Mello's emotional state than his own. he also engages in a bunch of Denial because much of what he learns from Mello, what Mello makes him feel, threatens his (indoctrinated from birth) established worldview. which i think participates in his "immobility" because, well, you can't make moves to change stuff you're not even ready to admit Should be changed.

and, like in your story, it's Near struggling the most with feeling like he is "overly" attached to Mello -- he tries hard to ensure things can't go further emotionally than they already have (keeping the status quo at the cost of his own wants/needs). but he hits a point where he realises the status quo is unfulfilling and wrong, so in this AU Near is the one who has to go through a full-on existential crisis and grapple with the changes.

meanwhile Mello is immensely interpersonally traumatised, and it takes a lot for him to start trusting Near, but he gets to the "admitting what he wants for them both" part way faster than Near, so he ends up always kind of waiting for Near to catch up. he can't do a lot from his position, but he does get Near to think and consider new things and change in ways Near would've never come to on his own!

and in another AU where we wrote the reverse of that dynamic. they are a decade younger which informs Some of Mello's characterisation tbh dhgsdf. Near is incredibly passive and detached due to Interpersonal Trauma + Learned Helplessness, and this drives Mello nuts because he doesn't understand it. like he feels so confused about Near's lack of outward reaction, confused to the point of both disgust and fascination, which he acts out in completely unhinged ways -- to try and get Near to react, to be a bit more like him and bring them closer. actually what you said where

He grabs Near when he feels like it and tries to get answers to things in past, or just stare at his beautiful albino face as long as possible as close as possible. Near stays stoic and tries to escape the situation […]. Mello, on other hand, reacts to every Near's 'flaw'

for this AU? THAT IS A MOOD. like this Near very much cannot escape from the situation in any meaningful way (his only possible escape is dissociating things away, freeze state) but otherwise, similar. (like not fully, because a lot of this AU fic is about Near learning that it's okay to want things and act accordingly (he picks that up from Mello) -- he ironically ends up less passive than the other AU's Near despite having less agency, but it's still all because Mello started pushing him)

like in both cases what drives our plot forward is Mello's wants and feelings. if you removed Mello from the equation, then Near would be fully content to stay where he is. which ough they drive me insane together tbh

so we've spent the past three months writing MelloNear daily, and we've worked on enough different pieces in that time that i now have some Thoughts as to the narrative purposes they each tend to serve in our own works (this is not. about canon though i suppose it DERIVES from their canon dynamic. this is very much about how we personally play with the blorbos)

by and large Mello serves to drive the plot, regardless of the position he is put in within the universe. we don't even have to actively be trying to do anything with him -- even in our more Near-centric pieces, as long as Mello is present? his emotions, whims, wants are what shapes the trajectory of the story, his emotional beats are the beats that drive the plot forward. he feels, he impulses, he injects stuff into the sequence of events. things happen because Mello wants them to (or pushes Near to make them happen if/when he himself cannot).

meanwhile Near is much less of a driving force for the plot and more of a reflective force for the story. he isn't IRRELEVANT to the plot, he doesn't do NOTHING, but most of what he does from a plot progression standpoint is reactive. like, he acts not because of an inner drive, not based on his own wants or needs, but largely when his circumstances require action of him. (by circumstances i don't just mean Plot Events. sometimes what he reacts to are his own emotions, like in sweet atonement, when they are so overwhelming that he cannot put them aside to strategise effectively anymore -- the keyword here being "effectively", because even then his first response will still often be to try to strategise.) by and large what Near does do is provide space for reflection, for thought, for analysis. things happen to him, or through him, and he thinks about them a bunch, and he'd leave it at that if Mello wasn't pushing him.

so they make for super neat storytelling when you figuratively drop them together in a jar and shake them around, because it's like. Mello pushes Near into action Near wouldn't take on his own; and then Near adds weight to Mello's direction, provides a deeper sense of spacetime, fleshes out the places where Mello takes him that Mello wouldn't necessarily stop at or consider on his own. like at their core, in the way we write their dynamic, Mello Does and Near Is. and mixing them up, you get: all of the essential elements for a compelling story!

and obviously im not like, talking in absolutes, none of this is true 100% of the time or the only possible reading of them, nuance exists etc etc. but that's the general trends we're starting to notice in our own MelloNear writing over the past few months

[lavenderjewels]

(JJK 236 spoilers/leaks)

now that there’s been a main character sacrifice this means nobara can come back!

[epiphainie]

going into s8 i knew we were gonna problems with people not liking the canon's version of tommy cuz everyone got too attached to their own versions/communal fanon version but i didn't think it'd be because of them reaking up

i hear you. and that's unfortunate bc the show won't give us more tommy to incorporate the characteristics we learned with that scene into our pre-established image of the character and i get that people don't want that scene to tarnish what they got to love. still find it odd that there's a lack of... self-awareness (for lack of a better word) for how much of this guy we made up lol but thats fandom for you i guess