#humanity is not inherently evil that is a tragic way of thinking that gets us nowhere

[crabussy]

"humans are inherently evil" "humanity deserves to go extinct" okay. if that's the case why are we such a community based species. why have we seen evidence of careful amputations in ancient humans that allowed them to live longer, fuller lives. why do we have thousands of years of evidence of toys made for children by their guardians. why do we consistently find burial sites where the deceased has been buried with items of significance because the people in their life cared about them even after they were gone. why do strangers help strangers without any reward. why are most of the people you meet each day not cruel. we have ALWAYS been kind. I know it is so so easy to get swept up in all the horrible happenings in the world. these things can be extremely important to know about. but please, please please know that there are so many kind people in the world. you are one of them!

I BLOCK DEBBIE DOWNERS ON SIGHT. REEVALUATE YOUR WORLDVIEW OR SCROLL PAST AND HAVE A LOVELY DAY ALSO READ MY TAGS

[sorcave]

After spending some time thinking about Peter Pettigrew, I’ve realized there’s a huge disconnect between how he’s portrayed in canon and how the fandom—especially within Marauders fanon—handles him. Let me preface this by saying, I get it. The Marauders era is filled with beloved, tragic characters like Sirius, Remus, and James, who are all charismatic in their own ways. It’s easy to frame Peter as the villain, the weak link in the group, because, well, he is the one who betrays them. But I can’t help feeling like fanon’s interpretation of him has become deeply flawed and even unfair in its simplification of his character.

Peter Pettigrew, as written in the books, is actually a much more complex figure than the rat-betrayer caricature that fanon often makes him out to be. He’s not some mustache-twirling villain, nor is he just a pathetic hanger-on who was lucky to be in the Marauders’ circle. If you really pay attention to the way his character is written, he’s someone who’s constantly underestimated by the people around him, including the very friends he ends up betraying. He’s not powerful in the traditional sense, but his cunning is what allows him to survive the chaos of two wizarding wars. He’s not a mastermind, sure, but he’s resourceful in a way that deserves more recognition than he gets. Canonically, it’s clear that he isn’t just bumbling around until he stumbles into Voldemort’s arms—he’s making calculated choices, and we need to give those choices the weight they deserve.

This brings me to why I think fanon’s insistence on reducing Peter to a one-dimensional villain is so misguided. There's this huge trend in Marauders fandom where Peter is either villainized beyond recognition or, worse, completely written out of the story. He’s often replaced in fanon with a random “better” Marauder, or he’s ignored entirely, as if his betrayal somehow disqualifies him from being part of the story. And here’s the thing: canon compliance isn’t a crime! In fact, canon gives us a far more interesting story. The tragedy of Peter’s betrayal is that he was their friend—he shared their dorm, their secrets, and their history. His actions were not driven by some inherent evil but by fear, survival instincts, and yes, cowardice. It’s a much richer narrative than reducing him to a monster.

In the fandom, there’s often this hyperfocus on moral purity when it comes to the Marauders, especially when it comes to ships and rewriting dynamics. Peter, however, disrupts that neat narrative, so fanon tries to erase him to preserve the integrity of the fan-created relationships. But that oversimplifies everything. Why should we villainize people for sticking to canon when canon is, arguably, what makes the Marauders’ story so compelling in the first place? The fall of the Marauders—this group of young, talented, promising boys—hinges on Peter’s betrayal. You can't just ignore that without losing a fundamental piece of what makes their story so tragic. He’s not a random character you can swap out. He’s the pivot point.

Peter’s character also raises some interesting discussions about how we view heroism and villainy in fandom spaces. For instance, we’re often quick to forgive other characters—Sirius, for all his bravado, is reckless and cruel to people like Snape, but we don’t hold it against him in the same way. We empathize with his trauma, his tragic backstory. So why is it that Peter, who is also a product of his circumstances, is written off? He wasn’t born evil; he was shaped by the same war that shaped all of them, but his path led him to make different choices. There’s something so fascinating about exploring how someone who was once a friend could betray everything. It’s a conversation about human flaws, not just villainy.

And yes, in a world full of Marauders fan content, it’s fine to like your AUs or write your fix-its. But let’s not pretend that sticking to canon, and appreciating Peter for the complex character he is, is somehow less valid. The fandom would benefit from looking at Peter as more than just “the betrayer” and instead as someone who, like everyone else in the story, is a deeply flawed person whose mistakes have devastating consequences. That makes the story richer, more painful, and ultimately, more meaningful.

forgive me for the ramble but Im going insane with my term paper and my thesis, unfortunately I've been diving too deep into the marauders again

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

Have you noted that no one from Azula's family was shown to express love and affection towards her?

That is mostly true. Ozai's affection is clearly conditional (and full on manipulation at worse, like we see in the finale), Ursa canonically favors Zuko to the point that we never see her spending any alone time with Azula like she did with Zuko, and while Iroh gave her a toy like he did to Zuko the toy in question was so OBVIOUSLY wrong for a kid like Azula that it's comical AND show's he did not really know his niece at all.

But there is a constant exception.

Zuko's relationship with Azula is complicated. He clearly admires her strength and power, but he hates how she uses it. She lied to him many times, was seen apparently cheering Ozai on during the Agni Kai, tried to have him imprisoned and even said she'd celebrate being an only child - and then allows him to come home as a hero after Ba Sing Se, even though SHE had the control of the Dai Li and was not yet aware Aang could have survived, meaning she had nothing to gain from it.

And when she lets him know that if he's caught talking to Iroh people might think he is a traitor too, and explicitly says "Believe it or not, I'm actually looking out for you" Zuko drops his innitial suspicion that she wanted something and that's why she was helping him.

On The Beach, he just follows her when she say their old family home is depressing and they shouldn't waste their time there. When she's asking him who she is angry at, she mentions herself and Zuko explicitly says that is not the case.

He doesn't trust her and know she has a tendency to mock or full on lie to him... yet when he wants to know about Fire Lord Sozin he asks her about it, and lets it slide when she mocks him by saying he should make sure the royal painter got his good side - for a character as quick to anger as Zuko, that is a big deal. In Nightmares and Daydreams he also goes to her to find out if he'll be allowed at the war meeting.

More importantly:

1 - Iroh's infamous "She's crazy and needs to go down" line was only said because ZUKO, without anyone putting that idea in his head before, suddenly went "I know what you're going to say. She's my sister and I should be trying to get along with her"

2 - Zuko only jumped into the fight in Ba Sing Se when Azula was being cornered by Aang and Katara.

3 - Zuko looked genuinely shocked and even distressed when she was falling off that cliff. He just sounded so shaken saying "She's... not gonna make it..."

4 - In the writer's own words, Zuko felt no hate but only pity when seeing her breakdown. Katara tried to comfort him because, canonically, even though Zuko and Azula are enemies, this was never what he wanted because he still sees her as family. That's why the Last Agni Kai's music is not the epic you'd expect from a battle, but a tragic one.

5 - Aaron Ehasz, the lead writter for the show, probably the person with the most influence after Bryke, has REPEATEDLY said that he always felt Azula should have gotten a redemption arc, Zuko being an Iroh figure to give her advice and be the only one still by her side when all else was seemingly lost to her forever.

Even the comics (most of which I HATE, mainly because Azula's storyline checks nearly every box for "the mentally ill are inherently evil/less human, so it's fine if literally every other person on the planet mistreats them") didn't fully abandon their complex dynamic.

Zuko is not a perfect sibling, and for a long chunk of the story he seemed too focused on his own issues for Azula to ever be a factor in his mind (aside from the moments in which she was a potential/explict threat), but he DOES still feel a sense of obligation towards her, to the point that it made him do something no one else in their family had done before or since - actually look at Azula. Not the prodigious daughter/perfect weapon, or the problem child that is difficult to handle, or the pontentially deadly enemy that was in the way, but Azula.

His 14-year-old sister that got on his nerves a lot, was far from the kindest person alive, and that he had a ton of issues with, but that he could never fully hate or even be indifferent to. Because she's family. Because he remembers a happier time in which the gap between them didn't seem so big. Because if things had been slightly different he could have been her. Because he went from wanting to be her to seeing just how miserable her life ended up being - especially compared to the one he now had - and feeling deeply sorry for her.

Now if you guys excuse me, I'm gonna go cry in the corner. Have some wholesome/bittersweet fanart if you wanna cry too.

[nightcolorz]

ok armand's backstory is super tragic in the books but the show makes it even more devastating with The Implications. imagine marius leaving armand (his slave who he abused ever since he was a child) for the Evil Satan Cult and instead turning bianca (white rich woman)and choosing her as his new companion. makes me sick insane etc

OH MY GOD YES IM ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT THIS!!! In the books Armand is also technically Marius’s slave, but the way it’s portrayed from Armand’s perspective encourages u to forget about that. But the way the show highlights how Armand was a slave and shows how it influences the way Marius treated him annnndddd made Armand a person of color adds such a disturbing layer to an already disturbing dynamic. (Which i love lol)

I loooveee that u brought up Bianca bcus the whole dynamic with Bianca is sooo fucked up and no one ever talks about it. In blood and gold Marius explains that he was lonely and wanted a vampire companion, who he originally wanted to be Bianca, but he felt super mf guilty about this bcus Bianca is a young well off bright white girl and by turning her into a vampire and taking her for himself he’d be depriving her of her chance at a prosperous life and humanity. And the way Marius gets over angsting about how badly he wants Bianca but how he can’t take her cuz it’d be fucked is by BUYING ARMAND!! Marius buys Armand bcus he considers him *less of a person* than Bianca and therefor someone he can use and abuse without any guilt. So now that Armand is a person of color, that dynamic It’s basically like, “I can’t harm this sweet white girl even tho i want to so bad, that would be horrible!!! Wait, Oh my god yay!!! A brown boy <3 I can do as many terrible things that I want to him because he isn’t human to me <3” like holy shit that is sickening. And it’s such a nail on the coffin how once Marius decides to discard Armand bcus he’s not worth saving to him he immediately turns Bianca and decides that she’s his companion now, like oh my god.

making Armand a person of color was honestly one of my favorite (if not my fav) change that amc made with the characters. In the books Armand is always portrayed as having this ambiguous social oppressor that causes him to be seen as less then human or less worthy of inherent respect + dignity as other ppl, especially in his human lifetime, and it is so prevailing throughout his life that Armand is used to being treated like he’s nothing, so Armand being a person of color just makes sense to me. Not only that, but his entire backstory where there is so much emotional weight put on how Armand was stripped of his cultural identity and his birth name and his connection to religion by being sold into slavery so he’s lost the ability to understand who he is ?!?!? Like it’s kind of insane to me sometimes that all of the aspects of Armand’s backstory in the show that are very much racial trauma happened the exact same way in the books 😭. It makes a little too much sense lol

thank u sm for the ask I love angsting about Armand’s backstory more then anything!!!! ❤️❤️

[beevean]

Is it just me or does the way NFCV treat Nosaac being Muslim, not really different than how irl Islamophobic Christians see Muslims as just devil-worshipping satanists? I don't think it really matters that his use of dark magic is framed as cool with God somehow actually, when it's also effectively just "yes, the islamic god Baphomet is out to get you for being Christian" as a trope anyways. Maybe I'm mis-remembering/misreading something, but it's really been bothering me.

It's very suspicious, yes. And I can tell you it was unintentional, because they chose the literally worst character to make Black and Muslim but they didn't care because they only wanted to "fix the stupid character".

Isaac reveres a vampire who wants to exterminate mankind. Isaac agrees with the notion that humans are inherently cruel and poisonous and the world would be better without them. Isaac has expressed a lack of concern for his own life: he assumed that he would eventually be killed by Dracula, and wanted to lay down his life for his sake. Isaac has studied dark magic that allows him to extract souls from Hell and put them into dead bodies to turn them into man-eating monsters. Isaac says, quite literally, that he wants a "pure" world. Isaac uses Mohammed's words (allegedly - Muslim people have told me that the quote about the doors of Hell rattling in the wind is fake) to justify his mission of turning every human possible into an abomination.

How did anybody not put two and two together and realize that he looks like the parody of a jihadist? my man wants to purify the world from "evil" people in the name of Mohammed and is ready to die for his cause, give me a fucking break!

Isaac, of all characters, should have not been made Black or Muslim! His whole deal is that he worships the equivalent of Satan! He's servile to the point of self-nullification! Bruh! Hector and Isaac are both heathens and do not follow any God, because by creating cursed life they go against any kind of religion known to man! It's not just the Christian God who would have issues with this! (and making him a Black man serving a white master and declaring he wants to die for him, well it's kind of ehhhhh. I don't like raceswapping, but if you really wanted to do that, Hector was literally right there. Maybe that would have convinced Ellis to give him some dignity :V)

In theory, in a vacuum, an hypocritical Muslim anti-villain who believes himself to be a good devoted Muslim while in reality he's sinning left and right could work just as well as your classic hypocritical Christian priest. But we're not to the point where we could do that, not after 20 years of intense Islamophobia that equated Islam with terrorism, not without an immense amount of care. And Isaac did not get this kind of care. He's Muslim only in S3, at his worst point: in S2 he flagellates because of his past as a slave, which then became "I do it because I'm a Sufi", and by S4, the season where he wakes up Enlightened™, his scenes are all about how he enjoys having agency and how he wants to live. I think he only says "God is good" once. Also he doesn't really regret his past sins, he just decides to do things for his own sake.

It doesn't help that Isaac is framed not as an hypocrite, but as the cool, tragic villain. He's smart, he's wise, he's justified in being a misanthrope, he's justified in killing people who don't want his demon army to pass through. We are meant to ohh and ahh at his Enlightment™ while quietly ignoring how he, unlike Hector, chose time and time and time again the path of death and cruelty being fully aware of what it would entail.

[breakfastteatime]

It's so interesting reading everyone's interpretations of Bode because I have a completely different one. I don't think he's an abuser. He's a manipulator for sure, but I think, for him, it was a necessary skill given to him by the people who manipulated him. It was a means to survive. Did it make him evil? He's Cal's foil, so yeah, I guess, but I don't think he was ever inherently*evil*. He feared losing his daughter and the means to protect her- Cal had the same types of fears, but whereas Cal *almost* lost himself, Bode absolutely did.

It's tragic, intriguing, and complex. Good story telling imo lol, because everyone can have these sorts of reactions to him and ultimately, we're probably all correct in some way. I wonder if more players would be sympathetic if he'd been given the Joel Miller (Last of Us) treatment ... Maybe Bode didn't deserve a pyre for his actions, but for his daughter and for the man he once was, yes. I think it was the right call and Cere and Cordova being the Jedi they were, I don't think they would've begrudged the decision. Which just, *feels all around*.

I agree - it's a sign of excellent writing that we can all take slightly different things from Bode.

Very nice comparison with Joel. His actions at the end of TLOU are *morally wrong*. He chose the life of one over all of humanity, and yet every time I'm like "KILL 'EM ALL, JOEL! GET ELLIE!!!" because I took them on that journey and there's no way Joel was going to lose her. I also find myself justifying it every time too (Oh, but it's too late for humanity! There's no way to rebuild! It's time to move on BLAH BLAH BLAH) which is interesting. Joel makes the wrong choice, but also the most human one. By that point, he was incapable of making another. Perhaps had Bode been shown to be a better father the way Joel is, he would be more sympathetic. And arguably he was somewhat sympathetic *until* you start finding all those post-game echoes... I was of the belief that he was genuinely on Cal's side up until he defeats Dagan and Cal says Tanalorr is for everyone in need of sanctuary, but then there's that Luchrehulk echo about how Bode's 'almost' letting himself really feel for Cal and yeah, nah. That guy was never in it to find a way out *with* Cal. He was finding a way out through Cal. And yes, to a certain extent, Bode is being manipulated by Denvik, but I'd argue they're in a mutually manipulative relationship. Cal and Cere's differing lifestyles offer Bode two alternative options. The moment he learned of the Hidden Path he had a third option. He could've taken Kata and found refuge with Cere on Jedha. That's not a choice he made, because he's also desperate for revenge against whichever Inquisitor murdered his wife.

ANYWAY, the point I'm also winding my way towards is if I was going to compare Bode to another character in another game, it would be [REDACTED] from Bioshock. I don't care if that game came out in 2007, I just cannot spoil it! But if you know, you know. Bode is less blatantly evil than [REDACTED] but the twist is pretty similar in that EVERY TIME I WISH IT WASN'T HAPPENING.

I do understand why Bode got a pyre (to repeat: Kata was right there, Cal is empathetic, kind and selfless, and he's also mourning the loss of a friend even if that friend never truly existed). I MEAN IF VADER CAN GET ONE, RIGHT?!?!?! In all seriousness, by the end of the game Cal is trying to reconnect with his Jedi heritage, and I think that means showing respect for the Jedi Bode had once been.

THIS GAME IS SO GOOD AND HURTS MY SOUL SO MUUUUUUUUUUUUCH!

Thanks for the Ask!

[angryborzois]

You know how I said that I would sleep and collect my thoughts.Hehe about that- I just sat and read through Gojo's Past arc and JKDSBDKSNKD.

The tragedy, the characters and the fight scenes were all choreographed. Riko going from being accepting in merging so she won't be alone anymore to her wanting to live and have fun with those around her was so heartbreaking, especially after this bit

And then there's Toji Fushigurou. Toji Toji Toji. He so cool and is able to dominate the field despite not having any cursed energy. Him taking full advantage of the 5 senses along with him being connected to Maki with their physical prowess is so interesting.

Suguru Geto is my favourite character in this arc. His descent into madness is reasonable especially after seeing what the people he protects are like.To him, I believe he doesn't want any jujutsu sorcerer to die to people who don't appreciate what they do, he was overwhelmed with the evil of humanity and couldn't bear to do it anymore.But I think his breaking point is when he had his conversation with haibara. Up until now he has been all alone in his suffering (as Gojo has now become 'the strongest' and Shoko now staying behind) so no one would be able to reach out and help him.I'd like to think that if someone noticed what was going on, Satoru wouldn't have succumbed to his madness as with only one conversation with Haibara, he once again became unsure of the world but managed to connect with what Haibara said.However, Haibara's death only worsened him as a consequence since a young optimistic sorcerer dying in order to save selfish humans.I believe Haibara was right since Suguru is a 'good' person, he wants to protect those around him but his twisted ideology won't let him coexist with the non-sorcerers, degrading them into 'monkeys'. I also like to think that when Yuki tells him that the barrier has been fixed was also a reason why he left as in the end, it seemed that Riko was only a pawn, that could easily be discarded and replaced.Her happiness being taken from her to help those who cannot see any curses yet must still have their piece of mind.

I want to look at this more since I feel like I'm missing out quite a lot but even with this Suguru is one of the more indepth characters I've read in a while and I've now hyped myself for the upcoming anime.Here is the cat photo of today before getting ready for school.(This time it has Gojo's eyes)💫

This is something that another blog pointed out, and I hadn't noticed until then:

It's always the one fighting with only a philosophical goal that falls into despair. Take Choso: he's fighting for his siblings/revenge so he doesn't feel burdened. Yuji and Suguru were both operating on their philosophy alone and felt pressure. You could say Megumi is fighting for his philosophy too but I mainly feel he's fighting to redeem his past self with his comatose sister, which is why his case is different.

But still it's tragic to see how Suguru realizes the dark nature of humans and despairs in it. That he realized; as my middle school classmate said once: "we're just monkeys with weapons; there is something inherently wrong with mankind." That they're all fools that can't open their eyes to reality. That most of then aren't worth saving, that they aren't useful to society, that they should just be eradicated...Thus he should leave the useful ones (sorcerors) in the chain. (Which is ironically contradictory to his former claim; society should protect the weak, meaning that society theoretically cannot be without the weak).

It also means he's come to question: why does he save people? And just like Megumi, he probably wondered "What if the people I saved weren't worth saving? What if they went on to kill someone in the future?"

But most importantly, he realized that nobody could understand his pain; see what he sees, nor see society the same way.

While this was happening, Gojo was getting carried away with becoming the strongest and heading far ahead of him. He was stepping into the future, while Suguru would stay stuck in the past, pondering: what is the meaning behind everything?

Suguru's sworn best friend could probably see the same view of society, but had coped, plowing his own path.

Meanwhile Suguru continued to push himself with the reasoning "the strong must protect the weak". Which is also why he never asked for help. Because he felt that as the strongest, he had to be responsible. That he couldn't show his weak side. Noble, but it was his fatal flaw.

There's also the contrast between Satoru and Suguru that I noticed after watching a YouTube video about an analysis.

Satoru rejects and Suguru submits. What I mean by this is way not just their cursed techniques, but traits reflected in their personality.

Satoru's cursed technique is all about rejecting the opponent while Suguru's is about taking in the opponent. The personality bit is obvious and I'm kinda too lazy to elaborate.

I don't think Suguru was made to have a good ending, which is sad but also makes sense.

His despair would have happened regardless of the outcome. Even if Amanai survived, he'd probably end up in a similar position as he was in the original timeline. He'd always end up falling into despair and lose himself. You can hypothesize all the possibilities in an alternate timeline, but it'll most likely end up the same. At some point he is bound to realize the extent of society and lose faith. The happiest route I can think of is him quitting his job as a sorcerer and trying to forget everything. Still, he wouldn't find his closure there and still wallow about it.

I would do an analysis of his behavior based on PTSD and depression (as well as sociopathy and psychopathy) but I'll save that for next time.

[overfedvenison]

Book of Vile Darkness is an interesting 3.X expansion There is uhh... A way to do evil alignments in a really cool manner. Obsidian’s works absolutely nails this consistently, in my experience... You get multiple evil party members in Neverwinter Nights 2, for example, and both embody this kind of pragmatism in approach that can make an evil outlook shine. Few mortals are cackling villains; they become evil because a ruthless and harsh approach can be very effective or is something you feel you may need. You have a character in one of those games, an evil warlock who kind of oddly reminds me of Walter White, who would knows about the ultimate villain of the game and who has become an absolute monster to try to match it. Or, in Knights of the Old Republic 2 (Lets be real, Jedi/Sith/Grey is ABSOLUTELY a good/evil alignment system) you even get this mentor who sort of philosophises on the draw and power of the dark side and it’s efficacy. A more proscriptive kind of alignment I like is from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There, demons - and specifically Vampires, which are a type of demon in that show - are evil. This changes for demons over time, and we meet specific types of demons that are not inherently good nor evil, but it’s consistent that vampires are ALWAYS evil. And that is played with deeply... A vampire represents a person’s worst traits manifest. This is usually a heartless being embodying the evil of a person, but that’s not all it can be. One character utilizes her position as a popular girl at school to have a lot of societal power; as a vampire she is more sad than dangerous since, as a supernatural creature, she now lacks that status and yet is unable to move past her limitations. Another becomes a heroic ally of the main characters, but one that still cannot feel mutual respect or interact with others in a manner where he does not benefit. And, of course, there’s Angel; a vampire cursed with his human soul who has a full human mind cast inside a tortured body and who must struggle against the evil that is merely suppressed while his souls is “in charge” And that all being said... Book of Vile Darkness does not really facilitate as much stuff like this as a goal. Book of Vile Darkness treats those that have chosen evil in a manner like Warhammer treats those that have chosen Chaos - It presents creatures who’s flesh and bodies are warped by evil, and who take in evil as an end goal in and of itself. Evil is a substance, a cult, and an alignment that some people have chosen to champion. And that’s... Always been hard for me to wrap my mind around. Yet... There is an appeal there. One that, as I have come to appreciate alignment a lot, I do like quite a bit. I feel it would all be hard to use, but perhaps you can portray the stuff in it as more cosmic, and to an extent tragic. An elf who has been warped until they have altered to an innately evil and loathsome form, now unable to have the grace they once did. The elite of an orc army, who act not as their own individuals but as the subtly tragic pawns of Orcus - who molded them as his perfect soldiers unable to so much as question this authority. The Cancer Mage, who’s body and mind have been warped beyond recognition. That kind of thing - It is for when you want to embody that idea of an evil alignment as a kind of force of nature that some creatures can become an avatar of. But, a lot of it is uhh... Blunt, edgy, and kind of silly. I feel like, if you used it all, it would be kind of ridiculous as a setting. Still, you can find a poetry in that, I think... Innate evil given physical form, after all, is something which can represent the demons we face as humans. Fighting that is sort of symbolic, if you understand me, for combating other demons. So even the more ridiculous stuff in that book, I think, could be evocative or cool if given the right approach. Others are just really metal, and are good if you want an adventure that evokes a death metal album.

[svere-online]

I do just wanna add to this discussion that aggressive drivers and drivers who feel entitled and self important behind the wheel are like that as people first, and have been taught explicitly or implicitly that this behaviour is acceptable.

When I was in drivers ed my instructor drilled into my head to be cautious, to respect pedestrians, and to always drive defensively rather than aggressively. This was a guy who had been driving for over 30 years, and who had driven everything from race cars to motorcycles to transport trucks. He is to this day someone I consider the gold standard of good drivers, because he always prioritized safety and control over a feeling of power.

This was also the same message I heard from other people I considered good drivers in my life. That to drive is a privilege and a massive responsibility.

That is tragically not a message everyone hears.

In my honest opinion, I do not think that every person that drives should be driving because they do not understand or accept the responsibility of it. I also acknowledge that especially in North America but in the rest of the world too, cars have become either a necessity or just so widespread that you’re going to be a driver or live around them anyway.

This isn’t a new problem with new rules either. The original concept of chivalry was a code of conduct for knights on horseback, because when you’ve got someone armed and armoured who is now much higher up than their fellow knights and riding an animal that could easily trample someone, people figured out that those riders (especially those who get careless or intentionally aggressive) need new rules to follow to keep foot soldiers around them safe. The term later expanded to other rules and codes of conduct for knights and nobility in general and got heavily romanticized but it started out with cavalry riders abusing their power.

And if you have never driven before, please understand that there are so many laws and general driving practices in place to protect pedestrians and at least where I live pedestrians have the right of way no matter what. Learning how to drive safely around people is a crucial and massive part of learning how to drive in general.

To drive does not inherently make someone aggressive, evil, or fascist, and the mark of a good driver will be steady and careful motion, knowledge and compliance with driving regulations, with full control of themselves and their vehicle. A vehicle is an extension of the person that drives it and the culture they are raised in.

All of that being said, there is another side to this. It stresses me out to see people be reckless or defiant around vehicles because:

YOU as a pedestrian also have responsibility for your own safety. EVEN IF the person behind the wheel is a careful driver, humans and all the “self driving” technologies out there are inherently flawed. A person can have a lapse in judgment or attention and if they hurt you they will face consequences for it, but the consequences you pay could be much higher. Yes people can be assholes, and a lot of people are raised and taught to see any privilege as an excuse for a power trip, but sometimes you have to use your own sense of awareness and judgement to keep yourself and others safe.

Sometimes it’s not an asshole or a drunk driver that could kill you, sometimes it’s a person sneezing and closing their eyes for a second as a result, sometimes it’s someone distracted with a child crying in the car, sometimes it is a failure of the vehicle. YES there are rules and regulations and practices in place to mitigate or prevent these situations from getting people hurt, but YOU can never assume that a car will move the way it is supposed to, that a person won’t run a red light, or that something can’t suddenly go wrong. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, YOU still have to be careful and aware as a pedestrian just as drivers have a responsibility to be careful and aware around you.

A reckless driver is a risk to everyone around them, but a reckless pedestrian can also put themselves and others in danger, either because they’re dealing with entitled drivers that don’t care if people get hurt, or they scare a driver that does not want to hurt them and causes another accident as a result.

TLDR: Driving is a responsibility and a huge part of learning to drive is learning and practicing safe and respectful driving especially around other drivers and pedestrians. People who abuse their power as drivers are not doing so because this is inherent to driving but because they have been raised to view their aggression and entitlement as acceptable, even when they are operating a vehicle. There are many laws in place to protect pedestrians, but as a pedestrian you have no way of knowing if the person behind the wheel is a good driver, if they’re an asshole who doesn’t care if they hurt you, or if they might be distracted, and you should still exercise caution no matter what.

Yes suburbi-tanks are evil, no that personal truck should not be that tall, yes laws protecting pedestrians should be consistent and enforced, yes public transit and pedestrian friendly spaces are vital, and yes there are a lot of people behind the wheel that shouldn’t be. But as it stands in a lot of places, the infrastructure forces people to rely on cars and changing this is crucial but it is also a slow, difficult, and expensive process.

In the meantime, be cautious as a pedestrian and practice awareness, teach children in your life road safety, and encourage a culture where driving is acknowledged as a privilege and where safe, respectful driving is idolized over entitlement and recklessness.

This is the thing about being a pedestrian tho drivers just straight up loathe your existence and act like you are somehow a problem for being a fucking pedestrian. Some cunt in a jeep almost hit me today while I was ALREADY in the crosswalk and she had a red fucking light and had the balls to scream at me. Like fucking excuse you? I don't trust any of y'all as drivers and in my world, the driver should always be at fault of hitting a pedestrian. "You walked out in front of my big truck" cool get a smaller vehicle if you can't give pedestrians the right of way.

[dannyphantom-justiceleauge]

Transformation AU: On the matter of vampires, what if the non-ghost half of Vlad actually turned out to be a Lugat? Like, he was originally human, but when the accident happened, he came back to life as a half-Lugat, half-ghost to pursue Maddie. It would also make sense if he had Strigoi ancestry because they are known for draining wealth instead of blood. I imagine that Vlad actually never knew he was vampiric, just chalking it up to ghostliness, so when he dies figure it out, he sets out on learning to use & master whatever powers comes with it.

on the one hand, it fits. especially the bit about trying to lure women and children to him. on the other hand bringing him into the monster genre makes him more tuckers things and they don't really have a relationship outside of danny. and while i can see the potential of vlad getting more powers so he can match the scale that danny is reaching...

i personally prefer him just being a human loser. i feel in part it works better with his character and honestly i don't like writing off his bad qualities, such as his obsession with maddie and danny, as a monster thing. yes we have ghost obsessions, but that has more ground work and in general i see vlad's obsession as a 'i want the things i can't have' more than anything specific. he's a fascinating character. his psychology has a logic behind it, and for all his crime and evil he's presented as a pathetic loser who can't get over a girl and is spending his time fighting a teenager.

giving him lore outside of his 'tragic backstory' gives him a mystique that i don't think he really deserves. while everyone else in the spook squad can claim their involvements in the other worlds have made their lives more complicated, i feel vlad would just use having monster blood as an excuse to be more shitty, and use the extra powers to make things worse for everyone. he wouldn't care about the cultures or lives he's effecting by abusing his powers or interacting with other creatures. he's just continue being a pathetic jerk but with extra powers.

i think it'd be far more interesting for vlad as just a plain old human, (cosplaying a vampire because he's a nerd and thinks they're scary looking) to recognize that danny is leaving him behind power wise. he can't keep up with the king of the ghosts. danny has started to see him as more of a nuisance than a threat, because he's been dealing with bigger and bigger issues and ghosts. he's busy, and on top of that he's seeing theirs a lot more to the world than just his parents and their lame friends. he's going deeper into the ghost zone, he's going further away from amity and meeting creatures from all walks of life. he's growing up and vlad, as someone explicitly someone stuck in the past, hates that.

he hates being left behind. he hates that danny is more powerful than him. he hates that he's no longer a threat. and so rather than provide him power ups by having it be something he's born with, i want him to actively seek out artifacts and ways to become more powerful. and in the process probably step on the toes of a lot of other magical creatures. yes this makes him similar to creepshow in some ways, but that just means there's a potential nasty team up between them. it means he's more motivated to be involved in the various shenanigans the spook squad get up to. it means he continues to be a problem, but it doesn't take away from his character. it runs with it.

there's also just something inherently pathetic and a bit funny about this adult man watching the kids he know go on to greater and more important magical adventures, and saying NO! i want my own magical adventure! i am following these literal children into their magic worlds! like bro get a life- Hestia

[egg-emperor]

Eh, i don't believe in humans being inherently evil though. And i also think there's also an underlying cause for anyone terrible. Any healty human has a tendency toward good I'd say. Not to get all philosophical :/

I don't believe in humans being inherently evil either but I also don't believe in them being inherently good, just like any other species. It's much more complex than that. I believe in neutral until they become one or the other based on thoughts and feelings first, then experiences and choices. There are many reasons that someone can be good or bad and the forming of the bad isn't always tragic, sad, or forced and against that person's control- but instead their own beliefs and decisions. And they aren't even always taught, just because of how they've personally interpreted something and formed a belief or desire for certain actions based off it and nobody taught them it was wrong, or they were too ignorant to accept it, or they know and don't want to change, etc. There are many different ways one can feel and interpret things in life.

I think the only traits that make us human is that we all have thoughts, feelings, personality, and depth but they're not all the same by default. There's no checklist required to being human when it comes to being good or bad, high empathy or little to no empathy, morals, beliefs, etc. Something being conventional to the masses doesn't make it a fact or the only way. No same good or bad person is formed in the exact same way and sometimes it is within our own choice and beliefs that weren't inherently formed by a single other person or event and that's what makes the human mind so interesting. It's not just black and white, so I personally don't believe that people are inherently good or bad.

[guillory-street-gossip]

@queenarsinoethepoisoner you’ve unleaded the floodgates LETS GOOOOO.

Now usually for an analysis post I would pull direct quotes but I don’t have the books with me rn so we’re going vibes and memory only. Spoilers for both The Shadow Game and Succession to follow.

The Augustines and the Roys, though running very different types of businesses, have similar familiar hierarchical structures. Obviously the Roys’ “family-owned” business is muddled by the board where the Augustines’ only outside influence is like the omertas and other employees with considerably less power, but the core of the business remains the same.

Starting with Shiv oh my GOD what a character. Her journey is ultimately very tragic imo with her relegated to the wife/mother spot that she tried so hard to avoid. One of the traits of hers I really want to hone in on is the way she uses or discards feminism for her own advantage. This explanation has been done to DEATH but that’s because it’s FASCINATING!! She plays the “feminist girlboss” to get ahead, but in practice, she’s trying to get ahead in a company that only harms marginalized groups!! During the Cruises debacle she fully goes out to silence a whistleblower and at the same time uses empowering language and telling her that people will call her a whore. It’s CRAZY the cognitive dissonance makes me fucking SICK!!!!! Also like. When she gets married she keeps her last name, and yeah, she can construe it as a feminist thing, but we all know it’s so she can keep feeding off her family’s reputation. And ALSO like the fucked up thing?? She is a victim of the misogyny she’s enabling! Every single man in her family walks all over her and treats her like shit!! She’s never her own woman, she slides neatly from “daddy’s little girl” into “subservient wife” in the finale and what if I cried and sobbed huh. Ok moving on it’s Vianca time!!

This woman. Ok. If shiv is bad Vianca is EVIL. She’s first introduced as head of a crime family, and one of her first actions onscreen is the literal enslavement of Enne. As the books go on and she’s faced with her estranged son, Harrison, she reveals to Enne more and more about how she views her position as not only a woman, but also as mother and wife. Harrison’s senatorial campaign really breaks her and causes her to reveal a LOT of herself to Enne, resulting in very ironic scenes where she vents about her frustrations being sidelined by men in her family and being treated shittily by the media due to misogyny and ageism (all of which are very justifiable complaints!!). In these scenes, she positions Enne as a sort of “girl’s girl” or sometimes even a kind of therapist, failing to recognize the inherently predatory power dynamic between them. Enne isn’t here because she can sympathize with Vianca’s plight, even though she does feel for her struggles. No, Enne is here because she has absolutely no choice, and Vianca refuses to acknowledge that. I think this is why Levi and Enne’s “betrayal” at the end of book 2 caused Vianca to call for what would become Jac’s murder. Enne went against “girl code” and Levi betrayed the surrogate son role he was forced into (I do NOT have the time to get into that but my god Vianca and Levi and Harrison is a whole different analysis.)

I got a little sidetracked but I do also want to touch on the book 1 poisoning scene, which is one of the most messed up things Vianca does in maybe the entire series (yes, worse than Jac). I assume anyone reading this has read the books, but if you’re unfamiliar, warning for pedophilia.

In this scene, Vianca dolls up the 5-foot-nothing, 17-year-old Enne, aiming to make her look about 13-14, and sends her to Luckluster Casino. The owner of Luckluster, Sedric Torren, is one of the Vianca’s greatest political and financial enemies. He is also a known pedophile. Vianca functionally uses Enne as human bait for him, telling Enne to poison him when his guard is down. Both Vianca and Enne mentally twist this plot into something positive. After all, they’re incapacitating a societal menace who has hurt countless people. But the fact remains that this is, at its core, a political move, and Vianca is putting an innocent and vulnerable woman in harm’s way to get what she wants. It’s messed up!! It is very messed up!!

ANYWAYS. With that out of the way I think I can really draw some parallels. In my mind, Pre-campaign Vianca is kind of Shiv’s “good ending.” No other family to be beholden to, no media attention, no men to fight against, and the ability to exploit all the workers she wants with no repercussions. Shiv ends the series preparing to have a child she doesn’t want with a husband she doesn’t love, a husband who has ultimately has all the power she once held and then lost. She is resentful, understandably, and as she grows older, if Tom dies, maybe, if her son leaves her, if her family fades away one by one, she will be in Vianca’s same position.

The Cruises Whistleblower and the poisoning scene both reveal similar things about their respective characters. Both can dress anything up in feminist, empowering language, but fundamentally they are self-serving snd don’t really care for the women that they champion. Hypocrisy is really the word of the day here.

And both characters struggle against misogyny in their own day to day lives!! From their families, from the media, hell, sometimes even from themselves and from a social and political landscape that THEY are actively shaping!!

Shiv and Vianca are the “girlboss” archetype taken to a logical extreme and inevitable end. They are horrible, horrible people. At the same time they are victims. How do you reconcile that? You know?? It’s a fascinating position, as both the victim and the perpetrator of cyclical abuse, specifically focused on women in power.

I watched a video essay last night on a phenomenon of sanitized, palatable white gays (it’s called the Rise and Fall of the Buzzfeed Gay by Queen Cole Francis, im having trouble linking it). The essay had a really interesting segment on 2010s girlboss culture and the weird intersection of feminism and capitalism that sort of ended in disaster. Both characters are, to some extent, a response to that culture. There are no ethical CEOs. Your victimhood does not make you less of a persecutor. And your power does not make you less of a victim.

It has come to my attention that vianca is actually kind of a shiv Roy figure if you think about it… may elaborate if anyone is interested 😈

[sketching-shark]

I think it's the ironic fact that JTTW fans already know how DBK and Sun Wukong's friendship broke apart but are more curious on LMK versions of Sun Wukong and the Six Eared Macaque were friends alongside falling out.

HA! Well, while it often does seem that way, I'm going to go ahead and be a complete snob in a Journey to the West purist kind of way by wondering how many Six Eared Macaque fans would consider themselves more JTTW fans or more Monkie Kid fans, or if they feel they're a mix of both...

I've seen a lot of people argue that these two works of fiction are their own thing and that as such Monkie Kid (and associated fanworks) shouldn't be expected to follow the canon of JTTW, and fair enough for some parts. I've also, however, seen people who argue for this complete separation seeming to use it as an excuse to not acknowledge or learn about ANY original aspects of characters such as Sun Wukong and the Demon Bull King, or even very important deities such as Guanyin and the Jade Emperor, and who as such end up making some pretty gross generalizations/assumptions about them even though they are of great religious and cultural importance.

For example (and while I know a lot of the fun people get from fan works is in exaggerating certain traits), Sun Wukong seems to often be presented with an "inherently" evil/thoughtless/chaotic character, while his intelligence, deep love of his family, genuine efforts to become a better person, & many acts of saving lives, as presented in JTTW, aren't even mentioned. I feel like a lot of this is due to the way he acts in Monkie Kid (while I maintain that this version of Sun Wukong seems to be Bad End Monkey King, he does do a lot of deflecting his issues with a show of humor/a carefree attitude & does seem really bad at communicating due to a fear of making things worse). Even so, the popularity of Thoughtless/Evil/Selfish Sun Wukong that doesn’t really allow for any of the nuance or a display of his beneficial traits as shown in JTTW does make me wonder how many people have been exposed to a good translation of og classic Sun Wukong...As I've said before, I've noted that a number of Chinese people on this site have expressed frustration with the fact that a good chunk of the monkey king’s Western audience seems to be getting their impressions about Sun Wukong, the Demon Bull King, the Six Eared Macaque, etc. from some mix of Overly Sarcastic Productions, Monkie Kid, and social media instead of from at least a translation of the original text, and it is true that a LOT of the nuance of these work and these characters can be very easily lost, especially if your drawing your information of them primarily from a cartoony version of the original source. 

That would be an interesting poll though...out of curiosity, how many of you fine folk have read the break-up & fight between Sun Wukong and the Demon Bull King either in the original text or in a translation, or is your exposure to them primarily through Monkie Kid? 

Again, I need to make it clear that I'm not Chinese & didn't grow up with the story, but I will admit for my own part that reading the DBK/SWK break-up in the Yu translation actually made me more curious about how their dynamic is going to play out in Monkie Kid than I am curious about what's going to happen with Mr. Macaque. 

This is primarily because besides SWK’s fight with Princess Iron Fan and DBK being given a LOT of page space in JTTW, there seems to have been some serious stuff that went down between the three of them in the events post-JTTW and pre-the main plot of Monkie Kid...the last we see of DBK in JTTW (if memory serves correctly) was him being hauled off by a host of heavenly warriors to be judged for his crimes of not giving SWK the palm leaf fan & also eating humans. When Monkie Kid starts, however, we are told that DBK had emerged “from the Netherworld” & immediately starts wrecking everything around him. What this suggests--if Monkie Kid is something of a fan continuation of JTTW--is that DBK ended up being executed by the heavenly forces, but managed to fight his way out of the underworld in a manner somewhat similar to SWK, who we are told he is equal in strength to in JTTW. In that beginning fight of Monkie Kid DBK is also shown as so enraged that he won’t stop his path of destruction until SWK buries him under a mountain for 500 years. It’s never said in the show, but--and this is important--this is basically exactly what Buddha did to SWK to start him on the path of atonement. So there seems to be some very intentional parallels between SWK’s havoc in heaven & DBK’s havoc on earth, which may suggest that one of the things Monkie Kid SWK really wants is for his former dear friend, his sworn brother, to find a way like him to be less violent and thus ultimately less vulnerable to destructive and self-destructive behavior, and that the way he tried to start this was by giving DBK the same treatment he got when he was a raging warlord. 

We are furthermore told that it was right after DBK was sealed that SWK disappeared for all those centuries, and while the impulse may be to write it off as him just wanting to enjoy himself (given a lot of his behavior in the show’s timeline), given the indications that this SWK may be deeply depressed, I feel like the answer could be something a lot more tragic...there seem to be a number of clues in Monkie Kid that while the journey of JTTW happened, something made it end disastrously, with SWK either assuming or knowing that Zhu Bajie, Sha Wujing, Tang Sanzang, and Bai Longma are dead. And per JTTW, this wouldn’t be the first time that he’s experienced a horrific loss, given the war with heaven and the burning of Flower-Fruit Mountain. And then right after THAT, it seems DBK emerged from the underworld, and so Sun Wukong was put into a horrific position: either murder his sworn brother, or let him continue to rampage & harm and/or kill who knows how many humans. SWK ultimately gives up his staff to do the repeat of “500 years under a mountain in solitary confinement route,” which as per JTTW he considers better than the alternative, but he immediately follows that by exiling himself. In JTTW SWK is a really sociable person who makes friends wherever he goes, but man, for this SWK...his life must at that point just feel like one failure after another, that in spite of all his best efforts he wasn’t able to save anyone he really cared about, and now he just trapped someone who was so important to him under a mountain & fated him to suffer the same things he had when he was in that position. How much more does he have to hurt his fellow yaoguai? How many more times does he have to choose between yaoguai and humans, feeling like no matter what he decides it’s just going to result in pain for him and/or his loved ones? I can easily imagine super sociable & easily upset (he cries a LOT in JTTW) SWK feeling like after sealing DBK, he just can’t do this any more. He just...can’t. 

This is all just speculation, but knowing the JTTW backstory between SWK and DBK does, at least for me, make their Monkie Kid relationship a lot more intriguing than it might be otherwise. Especially now that DBK seems to actually be making some small steps to quell his constant rage & lust for power. He even saves SWK and Qi Xiaotian from an explosion/nasty fall in the season 2 special! The Bull family weren’t really present in season 2, but I really hope they make a comeback in season 3 (if/when we get it) precisely because Red Son, Princess Iron Fan, and especially DBK have such an involved history with SWK. Plus it would be really fun to see two old warlords trying to awkwardly make amends with each other & struggle to be good teachers & positive role models to their student & son. 

In any case I feel this potential is more interesting than whatever fanfic The Six Eared “I’mma Plagiarize The Demon Bull King’s Backstory Of Being Best Friends with Sun Wukong” Macaque is creating lol. 

[queengiuliettafirstlady]

Hiiiii ^^

Is it okay if I ask these for the writer ask game?

15. Do you write in the margins of your books? Dog-ear your pages? Read in the bath? Why or why not? Do you judge people who do these things? Can we still be friends?

17. Talk to me about the minutiae of your current WIP. Tell me about the lore, the history, the detail, the things that won’t make it in the text.

22. How organized are you with your writing? Describe to me your organization method, if it exists. What tools do you use? Notebooks? Binders? Apps? The Cloud?

23. Describe the physical environment in which you write. Be as detailed as possible. Tell me what’s around you as you work. Paint me a picture.

Ignore any of these if you think this is too many and take care 💜💜

Thank you so much for the question my dear It is nice to see you on my ask I am always glad to answer writing related question 😃

15. Do you write in the margins of your books? Dog-ear your pages? Read in the bath? Why or why not? Do you judge people who do these things? Can we still be friends?

I usually love to take notes or photos if there was something that catched my eyes in a book, really my book could be sold as new 😆

I love bookmarks and collecting them but I have to be honest I use most of the time oddments of papers scattered around my room to keep the page 🧐

Usually not for it require too much concentration also because for me is more a pleasure and as such I prefer to indulge in it sat on an armchair, or even a chair, next to a window if possible 🤗

I absolutely do not judge any people who loves/hates doing these thing, I would love to be your friend 😊😉

It will be my pleasure to be in scuh terms also with everyone open minded enough to not judge me in return 🤗

17. Talk to me about the minutiae of your current WIP. Tell me about the lore, the history, the detail, the things that won’t make it in the text.

Among the wild giungle of WIP one project stood up it is an alternative universe based on The phantom of the opera whose main cast is composed by our beloved vampires with Jean in the leading role of the Phantom and my OC as his love interests, opposed by a boy who does not belong from the vampire mansion. 🤭

It all begin with my discovery of this timless classic to prove the world indeed there was a story more tragic than Romeo and Juliet as the one of the phantom and his unrequited love for Christine, who at the end chose to elope with his proper fiancé Raoul to have a normal life.

As to speak the heroine get to be with his lover, the hero, as he is presented, win and take the girl while the villain, or better who is perceived to be, lose and end up destined to be lonely and unloved. 😭

It sounds fair ? To me the answer was one NO. 😶

Let's get clear Raoul had plenty of other girls he could elope with same goes for Christine ... But Erik did not, aside from her and in some version a some sort of relation with a persian man he was lonely and destined to stay so becasue he did bad actions, though I am not justyifing it yet I could not help but feel sorry for him becasue in the end of teh day he was only a man who suffered too much, a monster made so by the real vilain of the story the inherent evilness of some part of the humankind, leading him to seek revenge with disputable methods out of anger elicting fear in place of the love he so deeply yearned for. 😢

This led me to reflect on and decide the ending was not right for me, he deserved way better and I was intentioned to give it to him englobing its story in the vampire universe with Jean as the phantom, for the sheer closeness they both have with the concept of monster regarding themselves. 🤔

Of course things are slightly different first of all they are all humans and not vampires, second she is not a singer, like in the original story, but a mere seamstress whose character and appearance match the one of my OC Julie, that some of them proably knew through my other stories with Jean, labelled as freak she fully felt to be, an outcast destined to be shunned by humans for her difference, things that led her to catch the eyes and heart of the phantom much to the dismay of her fiancé who would rather see her follow blindly the rules, of the same society that labelled her as weirdo, rather than go out on her own deciding things outside from the man rules all scheme of the society he so obediently follows. 😒

One of the thing that probably will seep through the story is my obsession over its story, the deep insight on the Phantom character melted with Jean own personality to craft his place in the story, where I find a place also for some of the other vampires, spending time exploring online The Opera Garnier, along the Paris of the turn of the century and its society, aside from the theater structure and roles everything to make the story as realistic as possible, going as far as took as much information as I could on the original story though book and musical. 🤗

I have to thank both my dear friends @atelieredux and @kissmetwicekissmedeadly for their support in my project, it really boosted me to continue obsessing over working on my deep insight of The phantom and write down scnes after scenes of this AU, that slowly take form going from reading the plot over absorbing every ounce of knowledge about it whenever I can, I hope so much you find all that useful and interesting 😏

I hope to have satisfied your curiosity otherwise please feel free to ask away any question you may have about this AU I would love to answer you 😉

22. How organized are you with your writing? Describe to me your organization method, if it exists. What tools do you use? Notebooks? Binders? Apps? The Cloud?

I used to write by hand, it was cool and it enabled me some freedom of creativity but it was pretty tiring coping and pasting it anytime from it to my laptop and so I went to use any kind of notes app I can open at the moment inspiration strike, be it in a from of drafted email, a Google app, Microsoft Word or even pen on paper handwriting my creations soon to be copied into my laptop and added to my WIP list ready to be polished as I read them. 🧐

23. Describe the physical environment in which you write. Be as detailed as possible. Tell me what’s around you as you work. Paint me a picture.

Where do I begin 😆🧐

My creative room can be anywhere, sometimes is the dining room glimmering with porcelains and antiques sometimes is my room with the desk surrounded by collection items, and books, of any kind, police novels classics especially of foreign literature, historical novel and romance, nestled in the library above as the warm light of the chandelier bright the whole room and a frizzy brezze occasionally enter from the window. 🥰🥰

Tag list

@kissmetwicekissmedeadly @aquagirl1978 @violettduchess

@nightghoul381 @william-rex @candied-boys @writingwhimsey

@fang-and-feather @moonstruckmelancholic

@wistfulwanderingone @rjthirsty

@ike-garden2024 @jollibeeshappiness @starzyquee              

@maeko-kun @oda-princess @rkmaru

[raeynbowboi]

How Kipo Makes Great Villains

I stayed up all night binging the second season of Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, and I’ll admit. Going into it, my expectations were a bit low. Season One had such a self-contained objective, I didn’t know what the show was going to do with itself with a second season. But the second season of Kipo blew me out of the water. So, now I’m going to rant about why Scarlemagne and Jamack are fantastic villains for Kipo to confront, and what Kipo teaches us about writing antagonists. Obviously, spoilers ahead, but if you’re caught up, prepare to gush over great villains. If you’re not, do yourself a favor and go away, experience the second season for yourself, and then come back and fangasm over how great it was.

JAMACK

Kipo’s first antagonist is a perfect character foil. That is to say, Jamack is the exact opposite of Kipo. When Jamack meets Kipo, they are in exact opposite situations. He’s in a group while she’s alone. Later, when Kipo finds friends and is no longer alone, Jamack is kicked out of his group, forcing him to survive on his own. Jamack is very focused on self-interest and self-preservation, belittling his underlings for minor mistakes. His outlook is cold, cynical, and jaded. On top of that, Jamack grew up in this crazy world where only the strong survive. He’s also a part of the Mob Frogs, which seem to be the only mute culture with internal hierarchy. Other groups have a leader, but only the Mob Frogs seem to have levels of rank within the organization, causing the Mob Frogs to be competitive, even among themselves. So it makes perfect sense why Jamack will stoop to pretty much anything to get what he wants. Because that’s the mentality that allows for upward mobility in Las Vista. Thus, when Kipo arrives and upends the status quo and proves Jamack’s way of living wrong, he lashes out. Initially seeing it as her stealing his life from him, Jamack begins to gradually change. Jamack is on a similar and reflected hero’s journey to Kipo, and as she grows, so too will he. It’s no surprise that Jamack will eventually become a genuine ally of Kipo, even if he’s still hiding behind a Tsundere mask.

SCARLEMAGNE

My god is this a fantastic villain. In the first season, he was genuinely creepy and intimidating, but in season 2, Hugo became incredibly sympathetic. As season 2 went on, I kept debating to myself who is more of the Zuko of this show: Jamack or Hugo. Scarlemagne serves the same narrative purpose as the Diamonds in Steven Universe, about how words and kindness can work through problems. But I think it’s done a little better here, since Hugo isn’t a world-destroying dictator. He’s done some damage, but nothing that was really lasting. His pheremones can wear off. The humans he’s enslaved can regain their freedom. So, Hugo’s actual damage as a villain is much smaller and thus much more forgivable than immortal galactic conquerors. Hugo shows this deeply in that he genuinely seems like he wants to make Kipo happy, but he’s been hurt for so long that he doesn’t understand how to. And this genuine care seems to come a lot more from his core personality, and not just Kipo making friendship speeches. Even Steven didn’t really change the minds of the Diamonds. He just kind of proved he was their sister/nephew, and they suddenly cared about what he had to say. With Hugo, it’s much easier to see that he’s not a monster, just a scared and confused man lashing out to maintain control in a barbaric world. It makes him a character who you don’t want to see succeed in his evil plans, but you don’t want to watch him fail and lose everything he's worked for. You simultaneously want to hug him, and also punch him. It’s that perfect balance that makes Scarlemagne so well-written. He’s officially on my list of top 10 tv cartoon villains. Also, it’s hysterical that Hugo is voiced by the live action Beast, and the second half of this season was honestly a better Beauty and the Beast story than the live action movie. Am I the only one who hears Dr. Animo from Ben 10 when Scarlemagne speaks though?

DR. EMILIA

Talk about bait and switch. I don’t know if it was their intention, but I assumed the woman in the bird mask was Song, Kipo’s mother. It was clear that she and her goons were wearing burrow jumpsuits, and as it seemed more and more like her mother wasn’t dead, so I assumed this had to be her. This was such a great misdirection. Assuming she’s the hero because of our opinions of Scarlemagne, it’s what gives this show such amazing rewatch potential as now you can go back and pay attention to her words and actions and realize what she’s genuinely like. But even on a character level, she’s a fantastic villain. Kipo is a master of Talk no Jutsu, a fan term from the Naruto fandom, as he had a knack for talking literally anyone into becoming his friend, even the ones actively trying to kill him. Steven Universe and Kipo seem to be the other two masters of this technique. But Dr. Emilia will likely be immune to this. She doesn’t strike me as the sit and talk things out type. Because there are times when words won’t stop people, but action will. Dr. Emilia is a villain Kipo can’t reason with, someone she can’t befriend with a good speech. But even on a philosophical level, Dr. Emilia is fantastic because while she’s clearly a villain, her goal isn’t inherently evil. She sees mutation as a bad thing and wants to restore mute DNA to their normal animal forms. Which is a large part of why humans need to live in burrows. She wants humans to not live in fear, and to restore animals to their genetic origins. At least in theory, it’s a benign enough goal. The problem comes when you consider that animal mutes have sentience. they can speak and express desires. Robbing them of that is akin to purposefully mentally disabling a group in order to be dominant over them, which adds to the great themes here because there’s a loose veil of animals as an enslaved species. Kept in cages or as pets, ruled over or hunted by man who views itself as the superior race, the same sort of thinking that white slave-owners used to rationalize their prejudice. Thus it’s also a loose allegory for Dr. Emilia wanting to return emancipated slaves back to their chains. This is why she’s such a good villain. At face value, her goal sounds sort of reasonable, but when you examine what she’s really doing, it’s incredibly dark and cruel. That level of detail and writing is amazing. Talk about a well-written villain. I’m sorry, I can’t stop gushing.

Kipo demonstrates three equally compelling types of villains, and handles all of them amazingly. Jamack is the hero’s villainous foil, on his own mirrored hero’s journey as hers. His situation is always an exact opposite of hers, as was his life experiences, which led to such a stark difference of ideas. Thus, why it takes her utterly alien character traits to kick start his character arc. Hugo is a beautifully flawed and tragic villain whose goal of bringing the mutes together under a single ruler is genuinely compelling, but you still don’t want him to succeed the wrong way. Yet, if he could achieve his goal in a less hostile and evil way, I doubt fans would be upset with him achieving this goal otherwise. It’s just his approach that’s problematic. Dr. Emilia seems reasonable enough on paper, but once you unpack what she’s really doing, you can read a really deep allegory for slavery and racial superiority into her character that really complicates the otherwise black-and-white opinion of her character. Each of these villains shows ways you can make a compelling antagonist, and if you read this without watching Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeats despite my spoiler warnings, do yourself a favor and watch it. You will not be disappointed.

[skeletalsepulchre]

okay so im seeing people get anons about this and its coming up in friend groups so i think now's actually a pretty good time to tackle the idea of religious (specifically cultic) abuse in media and how we as an audience interact with it

TLDR: dehumanization and sexualization of cult victims furthers the misunderstanding that cults "don't exist now", and RA survivors would feel much safer in fandom spaces if people acknowledged and analyzed the harmful portrayals of cults in media.

cw: discussions of cults, abuse, and sexual assault

also, if you have questions, please shoot me an ask or dm (off anon preferably, though)

let me start this with a disclaimer that i dont think every media that features ra is inherently bad. i think thats a bit harsh and as an ra survivor ive come to terms with the fact that there are going to be depictions of it in ways that maybe dont give it the respect it deserves, and trying to "what about [x]" everything will only lead people to talking in circles with themselves. what i want to address here is how you, as a consumer, respond to and parse out what cultic abuse means in any particular portrayal of it.

*also please don't harass people about their RAS status, like, if you see someone enjoying something with a less than stellar portrayal of cults, don't send them asks or dms like "well are YOU a cult survivor?" reducing the consumption of media to a yes or no game based on identity-- especially an identity that comes as the result of explicit pain and spiritual violation is not only derivative but also degrading to survivors and the people you're grilling. all we want is for people to think carefully about what they spread and portray, and how they think about those situations.

so, i think the first thing to tackle is...what is a cult? This is something that's surprisingly hard to define, especially in fictional settings with fictional cults. For example, (and pardon the use of this example, I don't feel like hunting for others), My Hero Academia has an organization in it that I would say fits the criteria for being a cult, but by and large isn't considered one by fans because it's not explicitly called a cult. (Although numerous cult jokes have been made about it). It also has an organization that IS explicitly referred to as a cult.

So, when you're dealing with how to process what is and is not a cult-- and how to make your presence safe for RA survivors, you have to be able to sift through more than just "did the narrative tell me this is a cult?"

There's a few different models people use; one of the most popular being the BITE model-- but I should clarify that the BITE model is really tailored towards religious and strictly hierarchal cults, but can be applied to other kinds of cults.

(and yes, there are cults other than religious/spiritual ones. corporate cults and wellness cults have been on the rise, and it's good to keep that in mind both when engaging with media and also in the real world.)

However, I'm a religious cult survivor, so a lot of my experience is strictly irt this, so please take what I say with a grain of salt, and know that I don't speak for every cult survivor, every religious cult survivor, or every religious abuse survivor. I am One Guy on the internet.

When it comes to media, I have a few questions I run through in order to figure out if something is A Cult.

1) Fringe Ideas. This one is one of those that most people know-- and often incorrectly use to attribute cult status to other things. However, it is worth mentioning, that you don't become a cult by following mainstream ideologies. BUT. BUT. not every group with weird ideas is a cult! Some groups are just weird and are fine being weird. It's a rectangles and squares situation. All cults have fringe ideas and behaviors, not all fringe ideas and behaviors belong to cults.

2) Hierarchies. Cults always have people in power, at least in my experience. There have been ideas thrown around about "completely decentralized cults"-- but to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about that concept, and I don't know enough about it personally to say whether or not it's legitimate. If you have any sources, hmu.

BUT. Most cults have a power structure. You're going to have leaders, usually with a handful at the verrrrry tippy top, whose word is law. This can be associated with things like religious ideas (channelling god) or being "a genius", like in corporate cults.

3) Control. I cannot stress this enough; cults are all about control. How you think, feel, behave-- they discourage critical thought, encourage snitching on each other, buddy-group behavior; the BITE model explicitly lists these models of control.

4) Us V Them. Cults will give all those that oppose them or simply don't believe them a bad name. They're uneducated, they're evil-- it varies cult to cult, but you'll see them turning the non believers into a homogenous, frightening group. They want to discourage looking outwards, and they want to viciously isolate members.

Other things of note are extremism, talks of enlightenment, harsh punishments, the cult eating large portions of the member's finances, etc.

However, this post is largely to address FICTIONAL cults. and the unfortunate fact of the matter is that fictional cults are rarely fleshed out in a way that can be held one to one to a model, and, more often, don't even afford the victims of a cult humanity.

and this is one of THE biggest issues you find in cult portrayals. the leader is usually a charismatic, or perhaps menacing, figure, one that usually our protagonists-- who are rarely cult victims, they are typically outsiders (not inherently bad, mind you)-- faces personally, with the hoardes of mindless zombies forming one giant hurdle.

Naturally, this can be...hurtful. There's nuance to who is and is not a victim in a cult (although my rule of thumb is to look at what abuses that person specifically exerts over others-- and you can be both a victim and perpetrator of abuse. to treat them exclusively is lacking all nuance), but the people are the bottom, even if they joined willingly, are people who were preyed upon. Not only that, but many media cults forget that people can be born into cults, and never really had a choice to begin with. To treat these people like they are mindless-- or that they deserve the suffering they are in because they are there-- completely erases all nuance, humanity, and understanding to the cult survivior struggle. Not only that, but it continues to sensationalize and deify cult leaders, which is doing their job for them, really.

The second biggest issue is the romanticization and sexualization of cults, religious abuse, and cultic abuse.

(yes...this is a thing.)

The use of cults as a way to make a character edgy or tragic is one thing, but there's something sinister about using it to project a certain sexual behavior onto that character-- whether it be as the subjugator or subjugated. Sexual abuse is rampent in cults, and ritualistic sexual abuse is used to justify it. To sexualize the idea of a cult(ist) raping and abusing someone is...beyond offensive to anyone who has been in a cult where their sexual safety and autonomy has been compromised. Or, in some cases, the cultist is so naive and sheltered they can be easily coerced and taken advantage of due to their brainwashing.

This is...bad? This is bad. To ignore the fact that these depictions are just as harmful as any other romanticization of abuse is to ignore the real suffering of cult victims.

Really, the larger problem is that people don't really think cults exist, not really. They're all things of the past, or things that exist solely in fiction-- when in reality, every day cults form and continue to grow. If you've ever met a mormon, you've met a cultist. The moment you begin to process and parce the fact that this isn't as bizarre and unusual and fictional as it seems, you take the steps to respecting people who have been in that situation and become better at detecting cults, cult recruitment, and are able to more clearly assess what you take in.

Once again, there's so many bad portrayal of cults that it would be...stupid to call for an immediate disowning of anything with it in it. I personally have come to terms with the idea that I will have gripes about these portrayals in most cases, but rarely do I see people other than fellow RA or cult survivors discussing these portrayals. I'm hoping people can become more aware and willing to discuss cults in a serious and analytical context and criticize how they're portrayed in the things they love.

And once again, cult survivors are NOT a monolith. If a cult survivor expresses they are uncomfortable with something I said here that I'm not, or vice versa, listen to the people who actively surround you and whom you care about.