#hes just like this i guess i accept it fully

[apeirophobiafox]

I agree with this (that the Jentry backlash is undeserved as far as her rejecting Kit goes) BUT I do still think he was done dirty.

Maybe it's just a personal bias from me, but when it comes to Kit, I feel like ending his arc where they did was a little disappointing. I understand that for him to sacrifice himself showed growth and redeemed him from his previously entirely self-serving actions, but I feel like there was so much more for him to learn. He never fully developed as a character (although he was still a great one) and that's what gets to me. His actions were all motivated by a craving for human connection/fear of rejection, and it feels like something that was never fully resolved. We never got to see him reconcile with the fact that he has no soul, see him accept himself completely. Even though Jentry set out to free him from being a pawn, he still wasn't really free because his insecurities blew a simple misunderstanding out of proportion. It was his own head that really trapped him. He also seems to have low empathy (dissection scene) and trouble seeing outside of his own perspective, and while his final act showed him evolving from that... idk, I feel like it wasn't as satisfying as it should have been. I guess at the end of the day, I just felt like he had more developing to do and wish he had lived because of that.

ok we need to have a chat about Kit from Jentry Chau vs the Underworld

(as per usual long spoilers under the cut)

he is a great character, but you all are misunderstanding the point behind his reveal to Jentry as a painted skin

the show finally gives us the dignity to be accepting of a person for being different right out of the gate, like Jentry was surprised by Kit's true appearance, but not unaccepting

whereas other shows often like to give us the whole *you wouldn't like me because I'm different no I would I swear never mind you were right I don't like you anymore* Jentry Chau vs the Underworld gives Jentry a good reason for why she doesn't accept Kit

Jentry later explains herself very clearly to Kit and why she doesn't trust him, it's because he manipulated her, seduced her, tried to kill her, and did the one thing that everyone else does to her, the thing she hates most, he tried to use her to get what he wants

she can't trust that his feelings for her are real, and it's not just because he is a demon and his book entry says "can't feel emotion" or whatever, she has been given good reason to believe that the book is right and she shouldn't trust him, not because he was lying about being a demon, but because he tried to kill her at the orders of the man that she believed had murdered her parents, because he had planted a pearl on her that manipulated her desire to see her parents to lead her into a trap, because he had spied on her and pretended to also be into the things she likes just to get close enough to kill her, and his reasons for doing all of that were entirely selfish, he planned on trading her soul for a soul of his very own

Jentry eventually forgives Kit, but not because she has reconciled that he is a demon, she realizes that Kit is just like her, his manipulation wasn't his own plan, he is a pawn in someone else's game, like her he is being used by another party to get what they want, and like her he wants out

this prompts her to come up with a plan to get them both out of the game, if Jentry can transfer the powers that Flora and Cheng are fighting over from her to something else, then theoretically Flora would no longer need Jentry, and Cheng would no longer need Kit in order to get close to Jentry

she enlists Kit's help to achieve this objective, and it works (temporarily), freeing Jentry and Kit from the rivalry that they both wanted no part of

Kit then takes this opportunity to try and form a romantic relationship with Jentry, but she declines citing a need for "normalcy"

again, not because she doesn't accept him as a person, Jentry is doing everything she can to put her supernatural past behind her whether it's Cheng, the mogui, her gugu, her parents, her powers, Diyu, or ghosts, but she is content keeping friends around like Ed and Kit

and it's worth mentioning that Jentry noticed Kit's desire to be with her was entirely selfish and self serving, he wanted his own happiness no matter the cost, even if it meant stealing from Jentry, and his behavior around her was hardly rational, stalking her, smashing lockers, scaring her, he wasn't exactly trying to formulate a healthy relationship

she is later upset with Kit for breaking her trust once again, and stealing from her to achieve the same selfish goal as before

but Kit finds redemption in the end, not redemption for being a demon, redemption for being selfish, and he does this by sacrificing himself to save Jentry's life, something from which he had nothing to gain, and even admits what Jentry suspected, that his wanting to be with her was selfish, but he proved that he could be selfless and put others first

people are saying he got done dirty, but it was that sacrifice that made him not only a good person, but a good character that was capable of growing and evolving, and his absence from the rest of the show, suggesting that his death may have been permanent, made his sacrifice all the more meaningful

Jentry is hardly perfect, but she isn't the monster some have accused her of being

why wouldn't Jentry be accepting of a demon? Ed was a jiangshi, an undead demonic creature from Diyu that consumes qi much in the same way that the painted skin demon would, and he was one of her best friends

she saw the nü gui as a non-malicious friend to Ed, considered her gugu's ghosts to be helpful and nice, helped a dangerous little girl to return to the afterlife, didn't run off when she learned about Michael's powers, regarded niu tou and ma mian as non-evil forces just doing their job, considered Kit a friend after forgiving him, and helped Zhong Kui capture law breaking ghosts

she was constantly accepting of any super natural entity that wasn't a total dick, why would this be any different?

now I love Kit, and if there is a season 2, and I hope to god there is, I would love to see him return as well, but you gotta stop ragging on Jentry for just being rational, there are much better reasons why someone would be upset with her, but I just can't see the unaccepting angle

[spindle-and-nima]

I love how Nima usually looks so perfect on camera while Spindle either looks like a woodland creacher caught by surprise on a trail camera or like you'd get a notification from a video doorbell saying someone's at the door at 3am and find him staring like a raggedy muppet in the preview

Nima: baby. Kitty eared baby. Plushie.

Spindle: evicted from sesame street and now at your doorstep hoping to crash for a while

[cent-scratchnsniff]

it was just going to be a few warmup doodles but then she infected the rest of the page like the ever eternal and spreading spores. hod!!! hod. hod :)

[if-we-are-free-tell-me-why]

every time I hear someone say "oh you have to listen to Dear Evan Hansen it has such good mental health representation" I cry in Next to Normal

[harleiquina]

Hey! I'm late for the party (because being overworked and underpaid sucks and always ends up in burnout -not fully recovered as of now, just with spare time because its Christmas, I'm working and nobody is calling so I can delve in Tumblr as much as my heart desires-).

First of all... I wrote my original reply around 2 or 3 am because my dog woke me up and I couldn't fall asleep again. So probably I had a point and eventually lead to something else because... sleepy brain goes brr.

About the writing

It is true that between saying it or just leave it out the text, leaving it out of the text is the safer option. There is also the posibility that it was planting an idea that never truly came to be so it is just dangling there with no other purpose... it happened to me a few times that I plant a seed of something in a story and then completely forget about it and sometimes I remember and remove it. I don't know how the time frame and due dates are in the process of creating a comic (if it was written arch per arch or if NG had all planned out and later came up with the different issues) but I guess that is they were going issue per issue -writing, drawing, coloring, formating and eventually printing it- there weren't many options to go back and fix something that didn't worked.

And yes... these were the '90s so... there isn't much to do about it.

In the end of the day, Sandman isn't Hob's story. Maybe there was a chance that if audiences liked him enough there could've been a limited run series of him through time and it didn't happened maybe there was a plan to do so but audiences preffered Death over him (can't blame them). Then the audience could've see him after his meeting with Morpheus and maybe growing a backbone eventually to stop his bussiness with the Slave Trade. We will never know.

Shipping and willingfully-ignorant fans

I'm not into shipping either (I'm not going to deny that in any fandom some edits or fanarts are cute) and in this particular case, even if I understand from where it comes from... I'm so done with it. Maybe if instead of casting the son they would've gone with the father things wouldn't have gone that far 🤣

Mischaracterization is a common phenomena in any fandom, sometimes it could be the main shtick to the plot of one pice of fanfic but when the bee-hive fandom accepts it as official headcanon there is no turning back and you just have to ignore it.

Had fandom had a more accurate-looking Hob they might've reacted differently. I haven't read the comics but I've seen a few panels... and he kind of grosses me out. There is no question there that he was on any easy-way to do money (thief, soldier, slave trader) with little to no remorse. But shippers only see what they want to see and leave any kind of nuance flies out the window.

There are (possibly) many fanfic writers that took Hob's dark past (in general) and did created well grounded stories where he gets to reflect on what he's done and how to atone for it. But fluff is fluff and it gets more views. And I think that's the root of it all... some people just want a cozy coffe-shop AU because they are only in there for the romance, others want to read something that will make them question either the character or themselves, analize how certain events played out or could happen. Pretty much as with movies you have the blockbusters, the historic dramas, the romance and an audience for each one of them.

It might feel like some of them are glossing over a very serious subject that should be treated with respect however there is a different place to tackle those subjects on... hopless romantic fanfics are not the right place.

However there is also those who go full "he did nothing wrong" and this could stem from both options: people who are racist themselves, or people that has no idea of what it being a part of the Slave Trade really means. Given that History is so far back, is easy to "forget" or even imagine the living conditions back then. Of course, those who have grandparents or greatgrandparents that have experienced it in the flesh will not let it fly.

In the end of the day it all depends on whoever is reading. They can be affected by it, shocked, outraged or not... that's how Art works and none of us has the right moral compass to tell others if they should be ashamed or not.

We can tell them to knock it off or at least tag properly, but thats an entirely different can of worms 🤣

Hob Gadling’s Involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade between the 16th and 19th Century

The Fallacy of (clumsily written) Racial Reconciliation or: Is show/Hob really different from comics!Hob

I originally wrote this a while back as a reply to someone else’s post, but since we’ve been discussing “Men of Good Fortune” (comics) and “The Sound of Her Wings” (Netflix) in our community over the past weeks, I’ve expanded on a few points of my original thoughts.

This post discusses difficult topics, systemic racism, questions of social (in)justice and problematic angles in writing. If that’s not your thing, this is the exit sign…

A question that comes up quite frequently is the following:

Is show!Hob different from comics!Hob?

Hob’s conversation with Dream in 1789 (and not just 1789) in the show has been significantly altered (compared to the comics), and it makes it tempting to believe this somehow makes him different regarding the more problematic side of his character.

In the comics, we have a bit of dialogue in 1789 that shows how deeply involved in the slave trade Hob was: “I sort of started it,” said with a hint of, dare I say, pride? And then brushing off Dream’s concerns by saying, “It’s a living.” Twice.

(They changed this to, “It’s just how it’s done”, and a shrug in the show.)

And it’s true: If this had been integrated into the show, it would have painted him in an even worse light. However, I personally think it was the wrong move to leave it out (Ferdinand Kingsley carefully voiced something along those lines as well btw). Because now the show pushed Hob’s whole involvement in the slave trade much more into the direction of, “Oopsie.”

Can we truly take leaving out the above dialogue as a hint that Hob might be a better person in the show? I’d like to really reflect on that--leaving out those comments can’t make him a better person. Even if we change his arc slightly and he “wasn’t that involved.” You’re involved, or you aren’t. There is no, “I tried a bit of slave trading and decided it wasn’t for me.” One could even argue it makes the angle of the show more problematic because it makes the slave trade a “little blip” in his timeline. Things like that can’t be a blip. I personally think the writers made a mistake here, but that’s obviously just my opinion.

If there wasn’t enough space in the show to expand on it (which I get for a side character), I feel they should have left out the slavery arc completely instead of keeping, but then minimising it (that might sound contradictory, but it only does if you don’t look at it too closely). It already didn't sit right with me 30 years ago to use slavery as a side note for showing a white person’s character development without properly examining the damage caused, and it still doesn't sit right with me now. It makes the plight of PoC a plot vehicle to centre white people’s guilt, and I always thought that’s a blind spot only white people have (and I’m white myself, to get that out of the road straightaway).

I’m not saying it couldn’t or shouldn’t have been used narratively. Or that you can’t show remorse and atonement/redemption for the most heinous acts (that’s not the same as forgiveness—I’ll get to that). Or that characters who have committed said acts are irredeemable. But it would have needed to be fleshed out instead of making it a comment in passing. Many books and movies do exactly that. But the point is that it’s never been fleshed out.

“But they had to shorten and streamline it…”—just no. Because to me (and ofc people are free to disagree), that exactly proves the point—centring the white guy while sidelining the people who suffer. I am a bit doubtful we’ll get anything remotely appropriate in the show after what we’ve already seen. Only time will tell, so I’m withholding final judgment at this point. Fact is: It is uncomfortable to watch for people with any sensitivity on the matter.

And yet, there is a lot of focus on leaving out Hob voicing his regret in 1889, since that (again) “would have painted him in a better light.”

While simultaneously regularly failing to mention that he proudly proclaimed he “invented” the triangle trade. Can we really pick and choose his traits like that? Hob is a materialistic opportunist who also has some regrets. That doesn’t mean he can’t exist as a character, or that we’re not allowed to like him (morally grey characters are often the most compelling ones). We don’t need to sanitise him though, or try to erase his problematic traits from canon. The same goes for other characters (yes, I’m looking at you, Dream, and I’m sure we’ll get to that very soon—in fact, we’re possibly starting tomorrow 🫣). If we are talking about Hob’s remorse, we are probably mostly thinking about Sunday Mourning, so I need to bring in issue #73 at this point (this is your spoiler warning if you don’t want to read ahead).

The Fallacy of Racial Reconciliation

Very plainly:

A black woman is used as a vehicle to forgive Hob. And said black woman has been written by a white male author for that sole purpose without giving her anything else to do. I personally think NG got that wrong. It was clumsy and insensitive to POC, and I really hope they change this for the show. It’s a fact that he really wasn’t good with writing black female characters in the whole run—they all get fridged in one way or another, and he even admits it in the Sandman Companion. And then turns around and basically implies that it's all okay now because “nothing bad” happens to Gwen once Morpheus is dead. She is allowed to be a vehicle for the character development of a white guy though. It’s just really insensitive, and I sincerely hope they don't put it in the show this way. And I’m glad that we're seeing hints it might not happen--at least the casting in the show hints at it (from Lucienne, Death and Rose to very likely turning Carla into a white man—we already met Carl, and that’s who he is IMHO).

There is also the not so small fact that Hob is, even in his guilt and shame (shame is always about yourself, and that’s actually very in keeping with his character), not honest with Gwen. The thing about him basically inventing the triangle trade, which he so proudly proclaimed in 1789?

The English who were so good at it? The “Jack” Hawkins he talked about in 1789? That’s actually this dude:

And Hob funded him 200 years before 1789, and enabled Hawkins. Hob was involved in what became the transatlantic slave trade well before 1789–he already funded it when he had money in the 1500s.

He carried that mindset around with him for literal hundreds of years and saw nothing wrong with it until at least (! more about that in a sec) 1789. Dream had to rub his nose in it, otherwise it wouldn’t even have occurred to him (or did it, and he just chose to ignore it--see below).

Hob has been written as a stand-in for humanity, British Imperialism and England over the centuries—with all that entails.

So how honest is he with Gwen? And how long, even after 1789, was he still involved, even after abolition in England (Somerset vs. Stewart declared slavery unlawful in England in 1772, but that wasn't true for the rest of the British Empire. Buying and selling slaves was only made illegal in 1807, while owning slaves only became unlawful with the Abolition Act of 1833, and it took another year to buy out slave owners to actually make it happen)? Because there’s still this:

“It got worse when they did [outlaw the slave trade]. You only needed one voyage in three to make a profit. You could afford to dump your cargo if… you spotted a British Man o’ War.” How does he know? Why does he have these nightmares? We can take a guess…

That’s not someone who tried it for a couple of weeks and then thought, “Sorry, my bad.” That’s someone who has been opportunistically involved from the 1500s and potentially until after slavery was unlawful in England, which it already was when he talked to Dream in 1789. So does his feigned ignorance of, "It's a living/It's how it's done?" really hold? Especially if he potentially kept going, even after that convo with Dream? When I wrote "between the 16th and 19th Century" in the header, that's exactly what I meant...

Guilt and Shame

Yes, what we see above and in all the other panels is guilt and shame. And it reminded me of this:

And I’d encourage everyone to really listen to what Jasper has to say, and sit with the feelings it brings up. Because I can still remember watching this in the George Floyd aftermath for the first time, and how deeply uncomfortable it made me—because he’s right.

Black people/PoC do not need to forgive and absolve white people from their guilt. They can if they wish to, but that’s their choice, not ours. It’s not for white people to absolve other white people from their guilt around the oppression of PoC. And that’s why it could be argued it’s not for white people to write a black character to do that in their stead either (they can of course, but then they need to live with the fact that people will call them tone-deaf). It could also be argued it is something that cannot be forgiven retrospectively, and white people need to be okay with that. It can only be worked on in the present with a view to the future. And as Jasper also so rightly points out:

The guilt is not even helpful (at least Gwen has the right sentiment there, but it’s still falls incredibly flat over all), and shame only centres ourselves.

Forgiveness vs Redemption

Hob Gadling's regrets don't make everything he did forgivable. I think it actually does the story a disservice if that’s our main takeaway, because this is truly one of the bits of The Sandman that’s written in an extremely tone-deaf manner. NG isn’t the first author who did this, but we can take something good and helpful from this, and that’s engaging with these questions instead of brushing them under the carpet—because that’s what literary analysis is about.

It should be clear that I do see Hob Gadling as narratively important because I see him as a stand-in for humanity, and more specifically, English history. And there is really so much to learn from that.

Writers can get things narratively right but still be emotionally tone-deaf due to their own blind-spots. We don’t need to assume malice, but we also don’t need to leave it entirely unchallenged.

And because of that, we can certainly see Hob as someone who has to live with his conscience, and the consequences of his actions, for the rest of his life and struggles with that (as he should). And maybe we can see him as someone who is now, finally, trying to do the work. Because that is what atonement and redemption actually mean:

Taking action to rectify past wrongs. Actively working against the harm once caused, and preventing it from ever happening again. And I hope that’s what he does, and the signs are there (but there are also still signs that he values covering up his immortality higher than e.g. telling Gwen the truth. And we can find a million excuses for why that is, but ultimately, none of them truly matter).

However, it is not the same as forgiveness from the people we have wronged. Forgiveness is not a prerequisite to redemption, although it can be a part of it if the person who has been wronged chooses to extend it. But the people Hob wronged are dead, while their descendants still need to live with the pain people like Hob caused to this very day. So while I don’t see him as irredeemable, I don’t think he needs to, or even can, be forgiven—especially not by black people (unless they choose to. But it is also fine if they don’t, and again, we need to be okay with that). And we could say, “But Gwen chose to.” To that, I say:

I wonder what Gwen would have said if he had been truly honest with her (which he wasn’t, see below panels). That wouldn’t have been an embrace is my guess…

[dazais-guardian-angel]

kinda wild to me that one of the most compelling aspects of both Chuuya and Kunikida's characters to me, that I never really see talked about, is how they're heavily set on a doomed crash course towards complete and utter destruction, and how I am so, so worried for them both.....

[nnoragamis]

it's honestly kinda funny to watch early fairy tail and how juvia and gajeel had most of the guild being really hostile and distrustful towards them pre-battle of fairy tail arc for actions that seem incredibly tame in comparison to the really, really fucked up things various antagonists did in the latter half of the series but got easy redemption arcs anyways for....reasons i guess

[yrlocalghost]

i really do hope deltarune asriel still has traces of being edgy. even in a world where he got to grow up and didn't have someone kill themself in front of him to change the trajectory of his life forever, i absolutely refuse to believe that that guy does not have issues. the popularity and the awards in his room are some kind of facade. problems and issues would find him in any universe

[tangents-within-tangents]

Ugh, yes! Lol I should try to find that journal when I get back from holiday stuff, bc I'm pretty sure I wrote about that too (and this was pre self-discovery of my aspec identities lol).

I don't want to date someone who would take me away from my friends, in fact I'd like them to get along with and be friends with my friends. And vice versa, I don't want to take them away from their friends either. I think it's totally possible to prioritize while still having a healthy balance. It's completely socially acceptable, or even expected, that you will maintain your familial bonds when you are in a romantic relationship, so why not your friendships? Like if getting married to someone makes them a part of your family, why can't dating someone make them a part of your friends? (with boundaries as needed ofc)

And of course everyone has their own needs and preferences and stuff, but I think generally it's important to have a full social circle. You can't really put all your social needs onto one person. My sister had all this drama in her friend group when two of her friends got married and isolated themselves, then lashed out bc they were lonely. Friend of mine got married and still seeks me out all the time (bless!) bc it's affects her in the opposite direction, like people think she doesn't need friends or doesn't want to hang out just bc she's married now. My parents say the same thing happened to them, so I guess this has been a thing for awhile. And what about my other friend whose husband got deployed overseas a few months after their wedding? What's she supposed to do?

And like not to jump to extremes or anything, but there's a reason why abusive/toxic people isolate their SO's. But it can also happen with relationships that aren't abusive, and can similarly have a negative impact. My roommate/best friend basically disappeared when she started dating someone, and when he left her at the altar she ended up moving back home and finished the semester online. Bc she did everything and went everywhere with him and only him, so everything hurt her now. (And like... by the end of the year she was married to someone else and the only time I heard from her is when she asked me to pet sit -_-)

But anyway, to what you said about it being a turn off for relationships. It's interesting bc for me it actually ended up kinda wrapping around to the opposite. Like I have this whole thing™ where due to losing friends to relationships/marriage, as well as just time and proximity, it's become really hard to fully invest myself in friendships even though I love and cherish and crave those close bonds. I just really struggle with that impermanence, uncertainty, and lack of reciprocation (especially with cases like the above-mentioned best friend, bc I always thought she felt the same about me and that we both would strive to maintain contact even when we eventually got married and moved away). So I kinda landed on this realization of like, is that the appeal of marriage for me? Is that the solution? Do I want to get married just so I can have a friend who I (ideally) won't ever lose because they will stay with me through life changes and will be just as dedicated to me as I am to them?' (but then there's all the romance and dating hassle you have to go through to get to that, which is even harder as a demiro bc it takes awhile and real specific circumstances for me to feel that way about anyone, just for them to possibly end up not being a good match anyway, esp with added compatibility complications from being ace lol rippp the struggle is real)

I need a fellow aroace friend to complain romance about because how the hell do I explain to an alloromantic that I'm absolutely jealous because my best friend has been stolen from me by her current boyfriend without sounding like a selfish bitch

[crestfallencrest]

Tales of Vesperia had me at the beginning but I think the moment i realized it was all over for me was the part in Dahngrest "If I don't make it back, you'll have to die in my place." "Yeah."

[brutalmasks]

currently thinking about how, since bunny mask's head / sort of by extension her neck ( yeahhh, i'd say that, because she is NOT immune to decapitation ) are basically her achilles heel in the way that they heal muchhh slower than the rest of her body does + there have even been times where she didn't heal properly at all in those areas... that most of the scars bunny has are concentrated around there.

thus, if your muse is intimate with her in any way, then they'll most certainly be seeing those on her skin and i just 😭 it kind of hits me RIGHT in the feels — and i say this because there has to be a lot of trust there for bunny to feel safe enough to expose what is literally the most vulnerable spot of her body to them, you know? so yeah. that is one surefire way of knowing that bunny mask trusts your muse with her life ❤️

[billpottsismygf]

.

[shalom-iamcominghome]

Honestly, one of the first things that pushed me into learning more about judaism was the whole xtianity thing of jesus as the messiah, and while jews aren't "xtians without the jesus!!!", when I first learned about the... (actually-jewish) views of messianicness (for lack of a better word), I really just went, "well no shit? I feel like everybody doesn't believe in that [the messiah/jesus as the messiah/jesus as g-d]"

Which, I learned quickly, people do indeed have the messiah as their core belief, so funny how that works

[queerconfusionthings]

looking back on 73 yards now, i can't remember anything about nuclear war politician man

[deivorous]

..

[soulsxng]

@fatestouch replied to your post:

the difference between Ber and Momo's reactions killed me dsgfjsdgjfs

"Hey, I never said it wasn't a little funny-- don't tell Eva that." He could already feel his fiancé pouting at him. "I just said that I'm the only one allowed to tie him up!"