#i know that his character is much more nuanced than that

[ask-codeearasure]

All of the above and more. And yet again, Color's choices on how to act with Killer despite how he may feel is very different in comparison to how Dream and Swap have approached Killer in the past.

Color took the time to get to know Killer away from the battlefield. That is one of the most important factors that went into their bond, because Color was invested in Killer as a person, not because he was a threat. This interest was the first thing Color did right to put himself in Killer's good graces, something Dream and Swap didn't do, because... really... how and where the fuck do you think they were going to start? What biases and ideas do you think they'd have about Killer when the only impressions they've gotten from this guy is that he's trying to merk them off the census every time he shows up? There is only so much one can do with that, and it's not like Killer had every intention to clear the air for them, so to speak.

Now here's the thing. I'm not specifying any of this to throw Dream and Swap under the bus for their efforts, because for some reason I'm seeing people mention Dream would have sucked in approaching Killer because he didn't see him as a person when that part was never fucking true. Dream has to balance a lot in the multiverse. He has so many problems weighing him down that only he can solve, and the idea that he wouldn't try, or that Killer is dehumanized in his mind, or that he'd have ulterior motives for trying is bastardization of his character.

Hell, do you not remember the comic Rahafwabas made of Dream finding Killer in a blank space with his cats and being afraid of him when he approached, thinking he was going to shank him or something? Dream has been threatened, harmed, and mauled by Killer more than enough times to fear more for his own safety in this moment than anything else, even though he did want to reach out regardless of that.

Dream wouldn't succeed in pacifying Killer. I agree with you there. But the reasons why that is are so much more complicated and need more context from both Dream and Killer's sides to decide if Dream is fucking useless in every regard for his case or not. Dream could help Killer to some degree, I believe, but in no means is he stable enough to be a consistently reliant source of security and support like Color is.

Dream, in isolation, is a character that is constantly moving and because of his aura and the life he leads because of Corrupted!Nightmare, he can barely have friends in general. He can't trust anyone, and he can't stay anywhere for too long. Looking to Dream to help Killer would be negligent of the influences Killer himself is going to need in order to recover in the best way possible.

I'm pissed at this fandom in general for jumping on every petty reason to be a cunt about anything at all, especially for cases like Dream. So let me get it out of my system before you decide to take this personally.

Now with Swap, the problem with him is Rahafwabas's version of him had a very Steven Universe-ish understanding of kindness and forgiveness and redemption. It's very basic, it lacks nuance, and most of all, his efforts in not only not listening to Killer and forcing him to "feel things again" were all works out of pure fucking child-like ignorance. It doesn't help that this version of Swap was indeed drawn as and written with childish behavior in mind. He resembled Blueberry more than he did Swap in general.

On top of that, given how dismissive early fandom was about any version of Swap!Sans and their intelligence, Rahafwabas's version was quite...

Well, there's no nice way to say this. He's fucking stupid. He actively goes out of his way to interact with characters who have hurt him in the past over and over and over again, characters like Killer and Error who could have fucking killed him and Swap was just lucky that he survived each encounter. No matter what happens to this guy, he doesn't seem to fucking learn his recklessness won't get him as far as he wants.

His idea of kindness is not universal. His ideas of redemption, forgiveness, and recovery, are not universal. Swap did Killer a cruelty by not considering that, because even though he was annoyingly insistent in helping Killer however he could and his intentions were in the right place, his impulsive and forceful actions were not.

Perhaps with a different version of Swap, one that was allowed to grow up and actually think with the best interests of others in mind, we would have been shown a different outcome. Perhaps he would have been shown as a partially helpful influence in Killer's recovery.

But this is what we got instead.

Another reason why Color is able to tolerate and resist the threats and attempts of harm Killer could use against him is the fact he's just stronger than Killer in general. This dude absorbed six human souls and can only die if he were to overexert his magic use to the point it breaks his fucking body. This doesn't mean he's invincible, but he can certainly compete with Killer's efforts until Killer decides his goal is not worth the struggle.

Dream is not powerful enough to do this. Neither is Rahafwabas's Swap.

Color might be powerful, but he's also strong enough to be gentle and kind. In fact that's his fucking default. He is the Optimus Prime of the Undertale Multiverse in that sense. He could fuck up Killer's shit if he really wanted to, but that wouldn't fix anything and he knows this.

Dream and Swap don't fail at helping not just because they lack the exact resources, abilities, opportunities, and outlook Color has, but because they can only survive so much, and it's obvious Killer has fucked them both up beyond an extent where they can just look away from it no problem.

-- Sarco

I’d imagine that color’s probably the first time killer has had the experience of caring if someone stays or not. And not just that, the very first time he’s wanted someone to stay (with him), and be around him—the first time another’s presence around him hasn’t felt intruding and invasive.

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

"What kind of trauma, pain and violence is so great that even death cannot stop it?": Reincarnation in "Nosferatu" (2024)

I already talked about this extensively in another post (and even did some brainstorming on Eggers' Orlok possible backstory) but I want to come back to this topic, because this is probably my favorite theme in this film, mostly because it’s left so ambiguous, and I’ve come across more interviews and got more evidence.

A little introduction: Robert Eggers doesn’t want us to know the backstory on his Count Orlok, but he wrote a novella on it and gave it to Bill Skarsgård, for preparation. We know he’s a 16th century Transylvanian nobleman, from the 1580s (“lord” and “lordship”), he’s not Vlad the Impaler (15th century), he was a voivode (warlord), a enchanter/sorcerer (Şolomanari) and he was married, and had a family. "That will never be shared because the mystery of the enigma is better for an audience, but it was important for Bill to have that history." Eggers needs to release his novella on Orlok backstory, because I want to know!

And this backstory actually influenced Bill’s entire performance, as Robert Eggers reveals in one interview: “And while Bill was also doing what I was asking for, he brought more to the table too, particularly with binding moments where Orlok was vulnerable. I was so sick of the tropes of the sad vampire that I didn't want to go there. But Bill knew that it was important to still have the vulnerability in some places. And I think it makes the performance.”

Including the ending: “I sent [Bill] a backstory of Orlok that I wrote. So we came to it together to achieve what I was after. Because I’m so tired of the heroic and sad vampires, I was just like, ‘He’s a demon. He’s so evil.’ Bill was like, ‘Yeah, but there needs to be some times where he has some kind of vulnerability.’ It’s very subtle, and it’s not there often, but it is enough. I think the ending of the movie is much more effective than it would have been without Bill’s acute sensitivity to that – while still delivering on this big, scary, masculine the vampire”.

We have Bill to thank for Orlok’s more nuance performance, because Eggers’ initial idea was cardboard demon, due to his aspiration of making vampires scary again. But this tell us something else (I already suspected): Orlok’s backstory is definitely tragic and sad. Hence Eggers saying he didn’t want the “sad vampire” but Bill said vulnerability was necessary to add depth to the character. And thank Bill for that, because, personally, I can’t stand one-dimensional characters, even “demonic” ones.

The prologue of the film (between Ellen and Orlok) is based on this material: “Most importantly, I was thinking, ‘Who are these characters, and how can I build out their backstories and make them real people?’ I also wanted our version to be Ellen’s story. The previous Nosferatu films start out as Thomas Hutter’s story, or Jonathan Harker’s, and then become Ellen’s story, but I wanted it to always be her story. Our film’s prologue comes from the work I did with the novella.”

When discussing the use of Dacian and the reconstruction process, Robert Eggers revealed Orlok is a very ancient being: "Orlok is an ancient noble, predating even the foundations of the Romanian Empire."

This tells us we are, indeed, dealing with reincarnation in this story, because the "Count Orlok" in the film is a late 16th century corpse, with a whole boyar and vovoide backstory, the sovereign of a Transylvanian county (count). But he’s also a priest-shaman follower of Zalmoxis, the Dacian God of life and death, and owner of the secrets of immortality. Reincarnation being true immortality actually makes perfect sense; and it’s also a theme in one of the most iconic “Dracula” films of all time, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” by Francis Ford Coppola.

"Ellen’s most prominent evening dress is indigo with lilacs embroidered and beaded on the front and on the sleeves. This lavender hue subliminally underscores the connection between Ellen and Orlok, who remembers lilacs from when he was alive." Nosferatu costumes link Ellen and Count Orlok Interview

Ellen is the lead character, and Robert Eggers says he wanted to tell his version of this story "through the eyes of the female protagonist", and "it is a tale of love and obsession and a Gothic romance” and he even said Ellen and Orlok are "beyond love". What's intriguing to me is why is his Orlok so obsessed with Ellen, specifically. Why does he want her soul forever at his side? Why is he dragging her to her grave? Because this is his motivation in this story. He’s not after world domination nor anything. Ellen’s soul by his side for all eternity is what he wants (and gets, at the end).

I think the answer can be in his interviews about Balkan and Slavic folklore, because there is one idea that seems to be on his mind:

The most important thing was going back to the folklore and the early Balkan and Slavic folklore [...] Most surprisingly, many of these early folk vampires do not even drink blood; rather, they might suffocate their victims to death or spread plague and disease. Some early folk vampires when disinterred from their grave were noted for having erections. Some of them came back to fornicate with their widows until the women died of an excess of intercourse. If they did drink blood, it was generally not from the throat, but the chest – the victim’s “heart blood.” You can still find reports of vampirism from the Balkan regions, where the folklore is thoroughly enmeshed with local culture. What are we to make of stories like this? What kind of trauma, pain and violence is so great that even death cannot stop it? It’s a heartbreaking notion. The folk vampire embodies disease, death, and sex in a base, brutal and unforgiving way. ‘I had to make the vampire as scary as possible’: Nosferatu’s Robert Eggers on how folklore fuelled his film

Which is something he will mention again:

“You wonder what is the dark trauma that doesn't die when someone dies. […] [So you suspect something terrible happened between them in real life and that this story was a way of grappling with that?] That's my hypothesis.” Robert Eggers Reveals the Ghastly True Tales Behind His New Nosferatu

In Romanian folklore, when strigoi (which is what Orlok is and this is his lore) raise from their grave the first time, they return to those they have loved the most, because they wish to relive their life together. The strigoi usually torment them until they are dead, too. Which is exactly what we see in “Nosferatu” (2024) with Orlok and Ellen.

From the film itself we know he was dead and rotting since the late 16th century until Ellen brought him back from the dead and cursed him to be a strigoi. At the prologue. And, in true strigoi myth, he appears at her window, asking for entrance.

The evidence that Ellen is the reincarnation of Orlok’s wife or lover or bride is palpable in this story, not only in the entire folklore that inspired it, but in the dialogue itself. In another post, I already analyzed Ellen and Orlok’s backstory (after the prologue and before Ellen marriage to Thomas), and Orlok never actually took her as his lover, in the sense there was no “astral sex” going on between them, and what she was doing was masturbation and him as a haunting (still creepy, but he didn’t actually touch her).

But still she’s absolutely convinced he did, and then we have all the connection with the lilacs, from both of them; yes, it’s meant to be a visual storytelling device to represent their relationship, but these flowers are also connected to rebirth, and, according to Linda Muir, recall Orlok from his human life. Ellen is also deeply attracted to Orlok, and only him can understand and fulfill her, but she doesn’t know why. It’s unconscious.

“Yet I cannot be sated without you. Remember how once we were? A moment. Remember?”

In other post, I already discussed the use of the term "sated". Because Orlok (being from the late 16th century) speaks Old English; where this word is connected to the verb “sit”, as in “rest” or “lie”. What Orlok is actually saying is “I cannot rest without you”. Which makes sense with their covenant of being together ever-eternally. He can’t find peace in death without her.

Even the way Bill delivers this line “remember how once we were?” sounds haunted, and a profound yearning and desperation, almost, for her to remember something very old. To me, this is most likely one of those “vulnerable moments” inspired by Orlok’s backstory Robert Eggers was talking about in interviews.

“Remember?”

The option that makes more sense with Ellen and Orlok in “Nosferatu” (2024) is the myth of strigoi coming back to have sex with their widows until they died of excess of intercourse; which is exactly what happens at the end. And the sound design even made sure we, the audience, heard the penetration. Is this the reason why?

But then we have the idea that Eggers mentions twice: what kind of trauma, pain and violence is so great that even death cannot stop it? What is the dark trauma that doesn't die when someone dies?

In “Nosferatu”, it’s Ellen who resurrects Orlok. It’s her sadness, loneliness and sexual awakening which brings him back from the dead. So, can this “trauma” be related to Ellen’s soul, herself? She’s the protagonist, and this is her story. The emotions we are dealing with at the prologue (inspired by Orlok’s backstory, according to Robert Eggers) are; deep loneliness, without a companion to give her comfort and tenderness. And even sexual desire. As a result she resurrects Orlok with her black magic prayer (necromancy).

He also calls her enchantress; and he was a enchanter in life. And indeed, Ellen displays insane spiritual power in this film; Herr Knock needs to assemble a whole ritual room to communicate with Orlok, and she doesn’t need any of that. Which might indicate, she was an actual enchantress in her past life; probably a Şolomonari like Orlok himself. Von Franz does say she could have been a “great priestess” in Pagan times.

We have a lot of Sex Magick in this film (pretty much every Şolomonari ritual is a Sex Magick ritual here). Which, again, can imply it was their “thing” in a past life, too, because their relationship is very sexual and passionate, which is probably how they were, previously, since they both have high sex drives (and this is what Orlok asks her to remember). Orlok the high priest, and Ellen the high priestess. Two freaks in the sheets (and probably in the streets too, Ellen appears to enjoy the outdoors). We are told she has a deep knowledge of the shadow side of life, after all, and she’s an outsider and completely misunderstood (except by Orlok and Von Franz).

Him being a demonic creature, means he cannot love her now (even though Eggers is also making a difference between Thomas (love) and Orlok (passion)), it doesn’t mean he didn’t love her in the past. Especially since this is a direct reference to the “Dracula” novel where one of the bride accuses Dracula of not being able to love, to which he answers; “Yes, I too can love. You yourselves can tell it from the past. Is it not so?” This can indicate that Orlok did love her in their human past life (or lives, even), and fiercely, deeply so.

Searching for clues in Orlok’s castle scenes with Thomas (I already talked about the multiple sarcophagus in the crypt in the other post), Orlok attacks him in a bedroom, and in a double bed, meant for a couple, and it has two pillows (unlike the Victorian couples here, who have separate single beds). Even at the end, Ellen and Orlok are joined in one bed, Ellen’s bed.

Since this was also a Sex Magick ritual to divorce him from Ellen in the spiritual realm, doing it in this specific bedroom (that Orlok selected for him in advance), doesn’t seem random. Maybe this was Orlok’s and Ellen’s bedroom? And she even makes an appearance here.

But Orlok’s soul did not “ascend” (sort of speak), because he says he was in the “darkest pit” as a “loathsome beast”. And, again, in Old English, “loathsome” has another meaning, connected to “grievous”, as in “grief”. He was in some sort of limbo, and when Ellen called out, he returned to his former body, and became a strigoi. So, their emotions match, at the prologue. And if Ellen is a reincarnation of Orlok’s wife or lover, this means her soul moved on to the next life, and his didn’t; causing their further separation. Which can be the explanation on why Orlok is so obsessed in getting her soul this time around; for them not to be apart, again.

And, if we follow this logic, he probably died before she did, in their past life. And that trauma endured on her soul. She probably tried to resurrect him in past, as well? Or was it the other way around? Either way, someone died first, probably in a tragic and violent way and it caused a huge trauma on their souls, for both of them. Since “sex and death” are the core themes here, it’s not unlikely to find them in these characters backstories, too, I would say.

And can this separation of souls create such pain and a trauma so dark it created an actual monster to bring plague and death upon civilization because of their yearning of being united, once again?

Ellen is also said to be “promised” and “fated” to Orlok. Even Von Franz says to Thomas “in vain, you ran in vain. You cannot out-run her destiny!” Is Ellen’s fate to break the curse (she put on him, herself) or for her soul to be united with Orlok’s for all eternity?

In my original post I talked about the hypothesis of human Orlok being among the boyar rebels supporters of Balthasar Báthory for the throne of Transylvania, and was arrested for treason and strangled in prison (he obviously wasn’t beheaded), in 1593. We also have a woman and accusations of witchcraft as retaliation for the death of these noblemen. This in the midst of religious turmoil between Protestants and Catholics (with Balthasar Báthory being on the Protestant side).

This hypothesis checks a lot of boxes; the dates we have for Orlok (1580-1590s; late 16th century); the age Robert Eggers says he is, at the time of his death (55-years-old); offers an explanation for his “asmatic” speech, Eggers was very particular about (his vocal chords are damaged); and fits the prologue (where Orlok “strangles” Ellen, when he reveals himself).

This would also fit the "revenge on Christian civilization" subtext of Orlok as a plague carrier, bringing death and destruction to the Christian West. Them being separated because of a Christian conflict, and Orlok executed at the orders of a Catholic prince, would add layers of “dark trauma” to this.

Count Orlok bust by Prosthetics and Make-up designer, David White; his neck does appear damaged.

At the prologue, we also have a sexual encounter (masturbation), in a garden of lilacs. And at the end, lilacs are placed by Von Franz around their bodies, symboling their return to their garden. Which is another connection to Orlok’s human backstory, further strengthening the reincarnation theme.

The last shot of the film (while being “Death and the maiden” motif) is also reminiscent of the ending of “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” by Francis Ford Coppola, where Vlad soul ascends to join Elisabeta’s. In "Nosferatu" (2024) it's both, Orlok and Ellen's souls ascending, together, finally united, which makes way more sense with the reincarnation theme.

[fandom-susceptible]

So Harrow's In The Bird

So. I'm not here to argue with anybody. If anyone really dislikes this plotline, that's your prerogative, and if you want to use this post as a jumping off point to talk about it, that's your business. This is not a promise of interaction. This fandom has always been a comfort/safe space for me and I'm not changing that, but I did want to share some more . . . nuanced analysis of why I'm okay with this development.

The theory that Viren switched King Harrow's soul out with the bird has been a thing since 2018. I personally was one of the ones who really liked it, though I don't know if I ever bothered posting about it. The creators of the show claimed it wasn't true at SDCC 2019, but even if this was the plan, they sort of had to or it would have ruined their own plot twist. There was definitely something going on with Pip in the show, they made too much of a point of showing us the bird behaving oddly, so I don't think this was actually a last minute out of the blue choice. They've been genuinely planning this since the early seasons.

Now, part of the reason I was also okay with Harrow just being dead is that it does add to the impact of the story. Both old kings are dead, killed by each other's legacies, while their sons work together to bring about a new beginning. There's a certain symbolism in that.

However, Harrow's character is more than just the King of Katolis or Ezran's dad. He's also Callum's stepdad, which I think is more important for this particular plot line. Like Runaan, he had unfinished business. Not only did he leave behind both of his children, he never got the closure of having an openly stated father-son relationship with Callum. The same way Rayla still refers to Runaan and Ethari by name, Callum always called him King Harrow or Your Majesty, and Harrow never heard him say Dad instead.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that there were three Quasar diamonds, and Callum and Rayla only used one, with Claudia using the other. There's still a third out there that hasn't been used yet. Once again, I'm convinced they had this planned all along; it's not just a last minute hail mary to spare Runaan some sort of guilt or disgrace.

It's going to be messy when he comes back, if we get Arc 3, and I genuinely hope we do. It will be interesting to find out if he eventually agreed to Viren's plan or if Viren forced it on him knowing he could leave Harrow in the bird to watch and suffer as Viren usurped his sons and took control of Katolis. I genuinely look forward to the confrontation between Harrow and Runaan, Harrow facing down the man who killed him (also his son's father-in-law) and Runaan facing someone he killed (also his daughter's father-in-law).

The thing is, I really don't think Harrow being alive spares Runaan anything. He's a professional assassin and has been for over a decade (Rayla mentions he has 20 years more experience than she does, which may or may not include either of their training years). Harrow is not the first life he's taken, and having to face not just the outer consequences but actually look someone in the face and listen to them after killing them would be a mindfuck at best. Harrow being returned doesn't excuse what he did, and I really don't think Runaan will see it that way either. We see him struggling with guilt for almost killing Rayla, and his entire arc in season 7 was realizing how fucked up his worldview (which, admittedly, is highly driven by Moonshadow culture as a whole) is. One singular life being returned isn't going to backslide that entire mental breakdown, no matter how important that particular life is to everyone else. Runaan didn't have a personal tie to Harrow. It was just a job.

Now though, he does have a personal tie to Harrow, through their children, and I think that's going to play a role in how things develop in the next arc. I expected Callum and Rayla's romantic arc from the very first episode where they met, and I think this was all planned to fall into place this way.

So, Harrow kills the dragon king to avenge his wife, restarting a war that had somewhat cooled with time. His sons aren't involved with this decision, but they have to live with the aftermath.

Runaan kills Harrow to avenge the Dragon King, and brings Rayla in order to counter the shame of her parents' fleeing (which they later discover didn't happen, but while it's better culturally, it's not much better in the long run).

Harrow's sons and Runaan's daughter work together to rescue Zym. One of Harrow's sons carries the political plot by going home and taking the throne. The other continues with Rayla to return the dragon prince, and along the way, the two begin a romantic relationship.

Callum's father was killed by Rayla's. Rayla's father dies in Callum's father's dungeon.

Skipping forward, we discover that neither of their fathers were actually killed, but they were both cursed by Dark Magic. Importantly, they were both cursed by the same man, who was manipulating them both (Harrow personally, Runaan as part of a whole) in order to orchestrate his own ascension to the throne and an eventual war and attempted genocide.

They find out about Rayla's parents first, and Rayla looks at recovering them as a personal quest, but Callum looks at it as both personal and a way to undermine Viren's legacy. They only manage to obtain two Quasar diamonds, which means Rayla has to make choices about which parents to rescue, and this drives her personal arc of making peace with her abandonment issues (a plot which runs parallel to Claudia's abandonment issues) and cultural shame connected to Tiadrin and Lain. The father she recovers is the one who stayed with her growing up, and took her with him when he left for his duty.

He is also the one who is ultimately the most helpful as the plot develops. He doesn't run from the consequences of his assassination; Rayla's the one who breaks him out and urges him to go home despite his arrest, and he just doesn't argue with her (I have a whole other post about the confrontation between Ezran, Callum, and Rayla where I go into Runaan's response and why I think he behaved the way he did in season 7). And when greater forces are threatening the world, he doesn't hesitate to work with Callum. In the early seasons I was prepared for him to end up being as racist as Viren in the opposite direction, and I found myself pleasantly surprised by how he just treats Callum as another person.

I think Callum makes his peace with Runaan as a person due to his experiences with dark magic, actually. He understands being so driven by his need to protect someone that he'll do very dark things because he doesn't see an alternative. He's chosen to step beyond that, but I think he understands Runaan's worldview in a way that Ezran simply doesn't until he has the epiphany with Aaravos and the Nova Blade late in season 7. So he's able to look past it, especially since this is Rayla's father.

Then in the very end, we discover that Viren cursed Harrow too. So neither Callum nor Rayla's fathers are dead, but they were both cursed by the same man to be no better than dead and left that way. And Viren died before revealing it to anyone, so Runaan, the man who came to kill him, ends up also being the one whose story saves him.

So now, a killer from the previous generation, who contributed to the cycle of violence, has been returned not only to help end it but to save another and reverse a little bit of the damage he's done.

More specifically, Rayla and Callum both lost their adoptive fathers to Viren. Now, they will be the ones to rescue those adoptive fathers and finally get the closure of claiming them as such.

Plus, the impersonal angle of Harrow's assassination is now disrupted because there's a personal connection through their children now, which will further drive Runaan's cultural deconstruction and likely some mental dissonance for Harrow as well.

All in all, I hope they greenlight Arc 3, because I look forward to seeing how that develops Callum and Rayla's relationships with each other and their respective fathers, and how it changes Runaan and Harrow both as people. Runaan's development didn't really get the focus it deserved in season 7, which I really honestly think was because it was intended to take place over a longer period of time and the writers just didn't have it because Netflix refused to promise them seasons 8-10. So it'll be interesting to see how that goes once he and Harrow are both around to be having their midlife crises at the same time.

[ittybittyremy]

I really hate the use of the word "hypocrite" in the CR fandom because it doesn't let people appreciate the nuances of the characters/situations. This is not to say that the characters don't have their hypocritical moments. I just think there are people who slap the word on a character and call it a day, not even bothering to try to understand it.

I have more to say but TLDR: Hypocrisy is a fact but it feels like an insult because it implies that there is no reason that the contrast of ideas exists.

You won't like to hear this but everybody (including you) is/will be a hypocrite at some point. There are many cases of this, some more severe than others.

As a small example, I hate the sound of other people clicking their pens repeatedly but I click my pen repeatedly all the time. Is that hypocritical? Yes! You could slap that label call it that and call it a day and it wouldn't be technically wrong. However, you could also figure out why these contrasts exist. In my case, my thing with noises has to do with control. I don't mind my pen clicking because I can choose the tempo and decide when to stop it. But others make that exact same noise, I can't control it and I don't know when it'll stop.

Hypocrisy is a fact but it feels like an insult because it implies that there is no reason that the contrast of ideas exists.

This is not meant to say that all hypocrisy makes sense or has reason. Reasonless hypocrisy is one of the foundations of prejudice/discrimination but that's a whole other conversation.

There will also be reasons of hypocrisies existing that you disagree with. However, just because you disagree with the reason doesn't mean that the reason does not exist.

Back to Critical Role

I made this post because of people's reactions to Ashton regarding their views on the gods versus the primordials. During the CR Cooldown, the cast calls Asthon out for their hypocrisy of their views on the gods versus the titans. This is what Taliesin says about it:

"It's the difference between the feeling of being small in front of someone rather than being small in front of everything. Is really what happened, which is instead of having the smallness and raging at the big person, it was 'I'm in the middle of this.' [Asthon] didn't feel separated from it... It was more feeling the place in the cosmos, rather than actual people going 'oh it's you' and you're like 'fuck'."

Of course, you can understand Ashton’s hypocrisy and disagree with the reasoning. That's fine, as long as you see their reasons and acknowledge that they exist. It may not make sense to you but it makes sense to the character.

[heavenshardware]

Hi. I have so many thoughts on this that i cannot even hide in the tags. there was a rant i originally posted here a couple weeks ago but i quickly deleted it because i noticed i was part of a serious minority of people who hated the s4 ending But since there are more of us than previously thought im just gonna bullet point it out: (disclaimer it’s been a Hot minute since i���ve relistened to s4 im just writing what comes to mind)

- my main complaint that really all of my other complaints fall under is just that it was incredibly anticlimactic. i feel that they really did just set the stakes too high with how the latter half of s4 was written and there was no sensible way to knock all of the points they set up down? it just felt MESSY. don’t even get me started on how useless i think the addition of riemann is

- most deaths to me felt like cop-out after cop-out. though i will say that young’s death felt like a good decision and i did enjoy it, keplers death was. hm. Hhhhhmmmmmm. His death felt so anticlimactic to me which was incredibly disappointing for a character who’s very foundation is his hubris of egoism. yeah i suppose the end of his arc could be the destruction of his hedonism but the main reason WHY i didn’t like it was because it almost felt like they were trying to convince me that kepler changed last minute. he didn’t! though round, his character is pretty static to me. something about 18 ulterior motives. did he care about humanity? yes! did he care about his team? Sure. but his feelings on goddard overall didn’t really. he’s always felt the same like he had his personhood stolen from him, but was it ever really there? he’s an artist! he’s got a flair for the dramatic and that’s that. and his death felt purely like it was because no one knew how to tie up his arc. and cutters death was just fuckin LAME. i remember listening to it and just going “what? that’s it?” sure mcguffins harpoon but ughhhh IM CALLING COP OUT

- hera and pryce frustrated me. so. fucking. bad. the way hera’s ptsd was treated in the end oh i CANT. compared to memoria and am i alone now it was AWFUL AWFUL. the very climax in her character was dedicated to her acknowledging that her ptsd was incurable as it literally is just a festering tumor in her code and the only thing she can do is learn to live with it. and then. only for them to throw that out the window and go “what if pryce was manipulated too? surely that would add nuance” And then just. Forgot to add said nuance in. keeping pryce around [hera] was definitely a choice imo. i don’t like how immediately forgiving everyone was. and also i hate the amnesiac/“it was all a dream” trope. so much.

- …speaking of the amnesiac trope. eiffels memory loss greatly frustrates me every time i think about it and i can’t really elaborate on why outside of It Just Doesn’t Make Sense. the reasons i see for Why it could have happened is 1. to show the super meta ness of wolf and how it challenges what makes you, you and for what you are without all of your traumas. 2. because wouldn’t it be funny if he worked so hard to get what he wanted but couldn’t even reap what he sowed? but i just. the way they immediately have him just go Man Old me was a Jerk right Minkowski! I dunno. it just ticked me off

I feel like for kepler and eiffel especially i would have enjoyed the finale a lot more if they had faced a couple more detrimental consequences of their actions. I don’t know how i would’ve done it myself but that’s what i think.

TLDR: too messy and anticlimactic for my taste

You know i always kind of assumed i was in the minority of this but as i talk more about wolf 359 here and there i see more people expressing problems with the end of season 4 so i want to ask. Im tapping at the bars of my enclosure. What Did you guys think of the latter half of season 4? And the finale? Can i hear some thoughts on that?

[dykedvonte]

One of my mutuals opinions is the "bro code" thing, that Curly is one of those guys who wouldn't care about the victim because the perpetrator is his friend and I'm really banging my head on the wall like that other anon. I've only played through the game once but Curly's behaviour/reactions etc read completely different from the "bro code" thing and I have to wonder if my mutual and I even played the same game.. like the constant digs at him from Jimmy, his body language in his face reveal and so on like you mentioned in your post. While this game is a little different obviously, it kind of reminded of a point in Alice Madness Returns that makes it very clear that Alice's pain blinded her to the abuse of the other children and her failure to act earlier because of it. Curly is guilty of a similar inaction but it doesn't change the fact he was a victim of Jimmy too. I don't think I can look at it any other way because both of these games have really stuck with me.

I genuinely think it really is the idea that people want a simple easy to blame problem and the idea that the only relatable victims of abuse are those that "surpass" it or do a lot to help others. When it comes to victims, especially those that don't fit the typical demographics, who either accidently perpetuate it, enable it or aren't ideal in some way shape or form, people jump to ignore what they went through as it's easier than dealing with those conflicting sentiments.

The bro-code conversation in Mouthwashing stems from a concept I generally dislike that there had to be something about Curly that made him meet or keep being friends with someone like Jimmy. I think people genuinely underestimate how many like decent and good people just know an asshole or are friends with someone who is really bad outside of their view/established dynamics. The game makes it clear none of the inaction against Jimmy is because of a lack of care, it is a lack of understanding from the privaleged postions they have as men to not have to worry about what Anya does/went through and the type of extremes men like Jimmy will go through to cover it up. They are all too preoccupied in their own strifes.

Another thing I see being oversaturated the idea that you have to be a freak, misanthrope or have a disorder to do the thing Jimmy does. The game is an escalation, it's a spiral that I don't see people comment on that Jimmy was not likely having the mood swings and episodes of rage/frustration we were seeing in the game. This is after they all start experiencing the worst moments in their lives that he got THAT openly bad. Of course, this is just my interpretation but much like in real life, people that go to extremes like that usually live mundane lives. It's a pressure cooker affect to where the stress made them pop. It's self inflicted but still the case.

I really think people need to be more willing to acknowledge that not everything needs to be an extreme or in black and white or easy to understand. It doesn't need to be happy or have an answer or solution, especially in the cases where the abused sadly helps perpetuate what they experience. It's not he should've known better from experience or shouldn't he have known what could've happened because victims tend to not like to think in matters of the worst. Not to mention, especially in cases of abuse where it feels so personally directed that you don't expect to happen to someone else.

[mephoj]

taco and mephone have fascinating parallels more people could explore if taco haters weren't biased cowards

[mostlyvoid-partiallyflowers]

The most recent episode of Interview with a Vampire let's us see Lestat's side of the story and see how it compares to Louis' accounting of their relationship. As a result, it reaffirms just how unreliable of a narrator Louis is, but it also further illuminates elements of his character that the director and writers have been playing with since the beginning of the show.

There's this part in the episode where Lestat turns to Louis and apologizes and it's framed with Lestat turned to Louis on one side and Claudia on his other side. They're the angel and devil on Louis' shoulders, but who is the angel and who is the devil? And as my friend said, Armand and Daniel are placed into that same dynamic with Louis later on. We are being asked to decide who to trust, who's telling the truth, who's the good guy, but the fact of unreliability robs us of that decision.

This whole story is about Louis, he's the protagonist, though not the narrator, and he is constantly being pulled in two directions, no matter when or where he is in his story. He's a mind split in two, divided by nature and circumstance. He's vampire and human, owner and owned, father and child, angel and devil. He's both telling the story and being told the story. His history is a story he tells himself, and as we've seen, sometimes that story is not whole.

Louis is the angel who saved Claudia from the fire but he's also the devil who sentenced her to an life of endless torment, the adult trapped in the body of a child. He's the angel who rescued Lestat from his grief and also the devil who abandoned him, who couldn't love him, could only kill and leave him.

He's pulled in two directions, internally and externally at all times and so it's no wonder that he feels the need to confess, first to the priest, then Daniel, and then Daniel again.

He's desperate to be heard, a Black man with power in Jim Crow America who's controlled by his position as someone with a seat at the table but one who will never be considered equal. He doesn't belong to the Black community or the white community, he can't. He acts as a go-between, a bridge, one who is pushed and pulled until he can't take it anymore. He's a fledgling child to an undead father, he's a young queer man discovering his sexual identity with an infinitely experienced partner. He's confessing because he wants to be absolved, that human part of him that was raised Catholic, that child who believed, he wants to be saved. He wants to be seen.

Louis wants to attain a forever life that is morally pure, but he can't. He's been soiled by sin, by "the devil," as he calls Lestat, and he can never be clean again. Deep down, I think he knows this, but he can't stop trying to repent. He tries to self-flagellate by staying with Lestat and then tries to repent by killing him, but can't actually follow through. He follows Claudia to Europe to try and assuage his guilt. He sets himself on fire, attempts to burn himself at the stake, to purify his body, rid himself of the dark gift.

Louis is a man endlessly trying to account for the pain he has caused and he ultimately fails, over and over again, because he can't get rid of what he is. A monster. He's an endlessly hungry monster. He's hungry for love, for respect, for power, for forgiveness, for death. He's a hole that can never be filled. He can never truly acquire any of those things because he will always be punishing himself for wanting and needing them in the first place. He will never truly believe he deserves them and as a result, can't accept them if they are ever offered. He can never be absolved for he has damned himself by accepting the dark gift and thus has tainted himself past the point of saving.

[daviesroyal]

Whenever I think about the sentiment that the Dragon Age games have declined since Origins, this is the kind of reasoning I come back to. 2 and Inquisition may have improved in some ways, mostly technical, but there's been a creeping hesitance to engage with the complexity of the world they built.

That's not to say I don't enjoy those games, or that I think they're somehow "unworthy" of being in the same franchise as Origins; 2 almost beats out Origins as my favorite DA game, and I actually enjoy the open world and expanded politics of Inquisition.

What bothers me is that, as the player character, you are given less and less agency to engage with the world. Inquisition is especially bad at this, and I keep saying that all the warning signs for Veilguard were in Inquisition. How much can you really push back and challenge companions? Why can't I interrogate Cullen about his past as a Templar instead of being given a couple vague lines and no further dialogue options? Why do I have to keep him as commander when he's obviously struggling with his addiction and even wants to leave? Why is it we only have a shallow conversation or two with Dorian about slavery, instead of constantly being able to bring it up like he needles Bull about the Qun? Why can't we ask Bull a lot more questions about the Qun? Why can't we challenge Vivienne's assertions about Circles, or the Dalish mages, things she says as absolute fact yet can clearly be disputed? Why can't we talk to Sera about her internalized racism, without being snide or dismissive or cruel? Why is it, when you discover the cure for tranquility with Cassandra, you don't even get to suggest that it should be given to the mages, especially if you know what the Occularum are?

I like that these are questions sparked at all, but the fact that as the player character I am not allowed to push, to keep asking, to explore this world, is off-putting after Origins. An RPG, in general, should not just allow but encourage you to engage with the world it has built.

Inquisition also had a lot of binary choices to make, even when it came to companions and determining complex solutions (looking at Cole's whole questline) whereas the previous two games offered a lot more nuance. There's multiple paths, with good and bad consequences, and sometimes you have to dig deeper to find a good solution - acting in haste can lead to poor outcomes. Inquisition tried to erase the complexity from choices, and that was exacerbated in Veilguard. I'm trying to think of a single decision in that game where you had more than two different outcomes. Sometimes (a lot of the time) it was the same outcome with different flavors. (The ending has three different flavors! Is Solas alone in the Fade, with Rook, or with a romanced Lavellan?)

I can't tell if Bioware was becoming increasingly aware of the kind of story they were telling, the kind of critical analysis of both their stories and their motivations as creators and as a studio they were opening themselves up to, and decided to make Veilguard as "uncritical" as possible - or if they genuinely thought this was what people wanted. Unchallenging, insubstantial fluff to escape from the dark world we live in.

Veilguard, to me, is the game equivalent of cotton candy. Dragon Age 4 deserved better than this.

i feel like all of my pondering and analyzing and criticizing veilguard over the past few months has actually truly given me a better understanding of what dragon age meant to me, what about it specifically was so meaningful, and why, as a result, veilguard felt so wrong. it took a while for me to figure it out. about three full months of relentless essay writing, actually. but i think if you had asked me a few years ago what the core of my love for dragon age was, whatever answer i gave would not have truly gotten to the root of it, because i think i had to experience the disappointment of veilguard to fully understand why i love dragon age. and ive realized that core is that i loved how the previous dragon age entries demand so much of the player, and deliberately prompt introspection and critical, often political, thought.

dragon age games have historically forced the player to be self-reflective and introspective about their worldview and beliefs. solas is obviously a fantastic example, as he was deliberately written to be a reflection of the player in order to prompt them to reflect on how they treat people, how our expectations of people influence their behavior, and how people are pushed to extremes and turned into monsters or saved by love and kindness. how do people become monsters? what drives them to blow up buildings or start rebellions or destroy the world as you know it? are they right or wrong? does it even matter? how did you contribute to this? are you innocent? it puts these insane, politically and morally charged situations in your face and forces you to confront them. slavery, a refugee crisis, poverty, class disparities, racism, foreign occupation, the list goes on, and you are not given the option to look away or be a bystander. you have to ACT. you have to choose, you have to make judgements, you have to take responsibility and explore your role in this world as someone with the capacity to act upon it, to make your will a reality, to fail, to make mistakes. i honestly can't think of any other video game that does this to the same extent? nor any media at all because the act of being IN the world as one of it's people through the act of role-playing is essential to how it provokes this experience in the player. its ballsy. they deliberately try to make you uncomfortable. these games are full of liars, deceivers, betrayers. the games themselves lie to you. its character try to deceive you. did you catch it? or were you fooled? what else might you be fooled by? who else might be lying to you? in the game? in real life? and then you get to play it again knowing the end, and what the game prompts changes with your new knowledge. now it asks, do you forgive them? what makes someone worthy of forgiveness? where do you draw the line? what do you think?

i dont think i realized until recently how impactful this was for me considering how i first got into dragon age at 16 years old. i dont think i had experienced anything up to that point that would put a situation like judging a war criminal who ordered the deaths of children or another war criminal who just left me to die and orchestrated a near-coup or a traumatized terrorist who just blew up a church right in my face, and said MAKE A DECISION. and i didnt know it at the time, but looking back i can see how valuable it was for me at that age to have what was effectively an avenue of exploration and self-expression of all of these moral and political issues that i was grappling with as a young adult. i played inquisition for the first time just months before i voted in my first presidential primary. i already had a political consciousness at this point, but it was nonetheless new and vulnerable and still blossoming into something more concrete. inquisition, then, almost provided a sort of political, moral and personal sandbox for me from ages 16-20 to better help me understand myself in relation to the world. the RPG-ness allowed me to put myself into these situations - like the mage-templar war and its metaphor for mass incarceration and police brutality - while i was also simultaneously grappling with and trying to understand these issues in real life. having dragon age to help me further unpack my own beliefs and conception of these issues was undeniably impactful. it provided a space, through a narrative i enjoyed and cared about, to make choices and judgement calls and better understand who i was, and what felt right to me. it asked, "what do you think?"

veilguard lacks this. completely. and lets be clear that the previous games did not always do a perfect job. many of these depictions are messy and harmful and problematic, but they at least, by extension of their own existence in a narrative that forces you to THINK and JUDGE and DECIDE, give me the space and opportunity to judge them as messy, as problematic, as harmful. i can confidently say that i think da2 is too sympathetic to the templars as an organization because the fact that da2 presents me with so many narrative conflicts regarding the templar organization allows me to not just make in-game decisions and play as a staunch advocate for mage freedom and circle abolition, but to form opinions on the game itself by extension. i can confidently say that i believe the qunari's portrayal is islamophobic because the game has prompted me so many times; what do i think about the qunari? what do i think about the oppression of the elves? what do i think about dorian being a seemingly good person but defending the practice of slavery? who should rule orzammar; the progressive asshole or the conservative traditionalist? do i forgive loghain? do i forgive anders? do i forgive solas? this in-world critical thinking about issues in thedas leads to meta critical thinking. further questions naturally follow -> what message did the writers intend to send through anders? how can i notice the echoes of how this story came into fruition in the shadow of 9/11? what do solas's endings tell me about the writers view of retributive punishment? how is bioware's portrayal of the dalish, as inspired by indigenous north americans, reflective of deep-seated anti-indigenous canadian sentiment? why did the writers stop prompting these hard questions at all in veilguard? did they only like it when it was about characters, not when it led to critical thinking about them and the company as a whole? through these processes of in-world interrogation, i am inevitably invited to analyze the effectiveness of their narrative portrayals and the writing itself. perhaps this is why dragon age is so famous for its discourse lol.

ive said before that im not sure that veilguard could ever have been as impactful for me as the previous games, partly because when you are 16 everything is more impactful because your brain is an eager sponge, unless it did something that really resonated with me as an adult. but what it should have been, at the very least, is something that could have been as impactful and formative on a current 16 year old that sees a gif on tumblr and decides to check out the game, as inquisition was to me 10 years ago. and im sure there are teenagers and younger adults out there playing this game and loving it and loving the characters and the world and thinking its great, good fun. thats great. however it fundamentally cannot have the same profound, developmentally catalytic experience it had on me because it simply does not challenge the player. it does not prompt them to question their own beliefs and the power structures within their lives. it does not prompt them to reflect on the political narratives they may have been fed all their lives. it does not confront them with the sorts of topics that get books on banned lists in florida and force them to bear witness, to think deeper, to feel guilt or horror at the outcome of your own poorly-made decision, to make moral judgements, to make mistakes, and to live with the consequences.

i think i now understand why veilguard was so disappointing to me and ultimately would be a failure in my eyes no matter if i enjoyed the combat or the exploration or whatever other shiny coat of paint sits atop it. veilguard does not ask much of you. it does not prompt any sort of introspection or interrogation of your presently held beliefs. it does not demand anything from the player except to dodge at the right moment. this is a fundamental, core departure from what made me fall in love with dragon age in the first place. if you love dragon age because you want "fantasy escapism" and fun characters to smooch, then i am happy for you. but i would remind you that can find fantasy escapism all over the steam library - farming sims, cozy games, a witch looking for her cat in the alps, etc. what you cannot find are games that are willing and brave enough to challenge and provoke the player into a better, more thorough understanding of themselves in relation to our world and it's many, complex and daunting political and moral issues. to have lost such a thing, when media like this has become so few and far between, and during a time when we need it more than ever, is a devastating loss.

[makotonaegiunderstander]

something I’ve been thinking abt is how many people think Makoto is immune to despair. I don’t think he is. I think becoming the ultimate Hope was BECAUSE he felt despair. He wouldn’t have fully reached that point without Junko. Makoto becoming such a beacon was his last attempt to avoid completely falling and it wasn’t because he didn’t feel despair, it was because he was too damn stubborn to allow everything to go to waste and he refused to sacrifice his beliefs for someone else’s. His inner monologue tells me he DID experience the same new low the other suvivors did in the final trial, but at the point where he had the choice to give up and die, he looked at the others and he looked at Junko and he couldn’t allow it to happen, not out of self preservation, but because the idea that Junko would have control over their lives made him FURIOUS. and that utter refusal to die kicked in, wether luck or otherwise, and he made the concious effort for one last push while something in him was breaking. He had to be broken in order for the Ultimate Hope to come through so aggressively, bc it could only exist in the face of the Ultimate Despair. He snapped the same way she did, but in the other direction. In what could have been his final moments he chose to embody everything Junko wasn’t, and every single optimistic and luck fueled ideal in him suddenly charged forward and pushed him. It was a combination of the final straw and a choice. Makoto isn’t immune to feeling despair, he’s just too stubborn to fall into it of his own volition. I think that’s why I like that scene in DR3 so much. People were SO SHOCKED Makoto actually fell for the tape, that he actually became despair for a moment. I saw people getting mad or disappointed, saying it was pathetic and Makoto seemed to fall from some sort of pedestal for them. Honestly part of me wonders if that sort of mentality, which clearly people had in universe, affected Makoto a bit. Like he started to see himself as less of a person, subconsciously. Prompting him to take more risks, less self preservation, act way more bold. It seems he has to be reminded a lot not to put himself in danger by his friends, to not do something too reckless. All over the place I would see in regards to that scene either this frivolous ‘oh this was just angst drama with no meaning behind it’ or ‘he can do better than that. he’s so weak’ or ‘come on, there’s no way he’d fall into despair, he’s the Ultimate Hope!’ This kind of mentality, which was kind of ironic considering Ryota was there the entire time saying the same thing and treating Makoto the same way. Like Makoto was superhuman. Like Makoto didn’t feel despair the same way ‘normal people’ did. In a way that was also how Munakata saw Makoto. Makoto stopped being a PERSON to the world when he became Ultimate Hope, he became a concept, a belief system, much the same way Junko ascended beyond herself. But the difference is that treating Makoto that way is the opposite of the reason Makoto became such a representative for hope. He wasn’t doing something no one else could. He was doing something everyone had the chance to, he just… was a little more optimistic, a little more stubborn, a little more ‘gung-ho’ about things. He just took the lead where no one else did, where no one else knew they even COULD in the face of Junko’s unstoppable force. She had overcome the biggest threats and obstacles in the world, what could one person do? And the answer Makoto found was, anything. Everything. It doesn’t all rest on Makoto, he’s just the one that was inspired to try to do what seemed like the impossible. But as evidenced by the change in his friends after that trial, it’s clearly not something only Makoto is capable of. The others pulled out of despair thanks to Makoto, but it was their choice to do so.

“But… this world is so huge, and we’re so small. What can we do…? No, we can probably do anything. Yeah! We can do anything!”

[butwhatifidothis]

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

[iguessitsjustme]

*takes you by the hand as gently as I can*

You can dislike Maya without turning her into a one dimensional villain that serves no purpose to the story.

You can dislike Maya without disparaging the story and message the show is trying to convey.

You can hate Maya without moralizing your hatred. You can just hate her. It’s okay.

[shaolin-spin-doctor]

not sure if this is a hot take but. imo. Fire God Liu Kang kinda sucks and it's the worst direction NRS could've taken his character in tbh

[seventh-district]

not even gonna tag this properly bc i don't wanna get Involved but i do have some Thoughts i need to get out into the void so here we go

(aaa quick edit: CW for mention/discussion of Boothill leaks)

[sskk-manifesto]

Ep 5!!!

[quietwingsinthesky]

Do you agree w/ the fandom interpretation that john was so homophobic he’d have beaten up and abandoned his sons for being gay? Cause sure, he grew up in the 60s as a mechanic and then later became a marine during the vietnam war, but i also don’t think homophobia would’ve necessarily been a priority for him? Like obviously he’s not gonna be the full on supportive and politically correct loving dad, but i think that the fandom’s general opinion on that is pretty warped by people’s relationships w/ their own fathers

I do think this is one place where people tend to project. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that; working out our issues through fiction is healthy and good! I don’t think there’s any canon proof of it beyond, as you said, him being a marine from the sixties who would probably not be super knowledgeable about being queer, maybe a little apprehensive about it from what he’s absorbed through the culture he grew up in. I think we’d be correct to point out that if Sam or Dean were queer, he might be uncomfortable about it, he might try to avoid the topic, which is in of itself hurtful.

The thing about me is: I fully disagree that John was ever physically abusive towards his kids. At most, I will bend this interpretation to say he was probably too harsh on them while teaching them to fight and that maybe he and Sam have traded blows before when arguments got too loud (by blows, I mean, probably shoving with the yelling, you know, assertion of physical space. It seems realistic to me that two people who have been using violence for a long time to protect themselves, and for John, his family, down to the hierarchal power he’s put in place of him -> Dean -> Sam, would resort to it when things got too heated.)

(I also think that sometimes fandom’s insistence that John had to be physically abusive can sometimes get a little insulting because it perpetuates the idea that emotional abuse does less harm and can be overlooked and for flattening out John’s character in a way the show very literally pointed to and said He Did Not Do That. This is the entire point of Max’s episode in s1, for the show to point out that their experiences of abuse were different. How well it was handled is arguable, but I take it as clear evidence that when we talk about John’s relationship with his sons, the focus should be on the emotional abuse, the codependency he developed with Dean from a very young age, his neglect of them both, his attempts to suppress Sam, etc. And I appreciate this about the show, because you can’t talk about any of those things without also talking about why they’re happening, why John thinks this is necessary, how he loves his sons and isolates them to protect them and ends up doing more and more damage that will never leave them through their entire lives.

I’m sure there’s depictions of John being physically abusive that handle it with the same amount of nuance that the show handles him being emotionally abusive in canon. I have not seen them, unfortunately. I’ve seen John being physically abusive 90% of the time just being used as shorthand for him being Bad and Evil and A Terrible Father. Which does not interest me. So I will remain here as a staunch defender of He Would Not Fucking Hit His Kids.)

Sorry, okay, we got off topic there this is about gay shit.

The point of All Of That was for me to be able to say, John’s not going to react to his sons being queer by beating them. He’s definitely not going to abandon them. Hello? John Winchester? Abandon his kids? John Winchester, the guy who has been keeping them in warded up motel rooms their whole lives and moving them across the country out of paranoia the demon who killed his wife could find them if they say anywhere too long? John Winchester who only trusted one or two people to ever look after his sons when he went on a hunting trip too long? We think that John would ditch his kid because they’re queer???

Like I said, I think the most realistic reaction for John, (if not just flat out him going ‘that’s fine, now load this gun while I time you because that’s more important for me to know that you can do’, because. He kind of has bigger priorities to worry about here. Like werewolves.) would be discomfort and pushing it out of his view, ignoring it. Which would still fucking hurt! And would have horrible effects on Sam and Dean both, would encourage Dean to repress it if he thinks his dad is ashamed of him, would push Sam away if he trusts John with this fact about himself and can’t be accepted easily.

I just think this is truer to John’s character.

Anyway. If nothing else here persuades anyone reading that John Would Not Fucking Do That, well. He thought his kid was demonspawn, remember? He thought Sam was corrupted and might not be able to be saved. I don’t think you can get more clear queercoding than that, and you know what John’s very telling response was to that information, to finding out something a thousand times more terrifying than Sam being gay ever could be? To refuse to look at it. To insist to himself that whatever Hell wanted with Sam, he wouldn’t let it happen. To tell Dean to take care of it, because even when John is certain that his son might literally become a demon, he could never bring himself to pull the trigger on him. Because he loves Sam.

So like. He literally would not do anything for the much smaller realization that Sam is gay. His son has demon blood that might turn him super evil, and John still wouldn’t hurt him.

I guess what I’m trying to say here is, I try to keep the fact that John loved his sons at the forefront of my mind when I’m writing stuff about him, because I think if you let that slide out of your head, you can very easily make him much worse, much more flat than he was in canon. The real picture of him is just an extremely flawed man in a terrible situation who fucks up his kids as much as he protects them.

And also he wouldn’t care about them being gay because JohnAzazel real and true and they fucked sloppy in that hospital basement-