#i believe in women's morally grey actions

[widowshill]

we need to talk about kitty soames more

[chron0ph0bia]

am I the only one who didn't care too much for her s1 but absolutely adores her now?

"We want more complex female characters" you can't even handle an angry, grieving daughter who just had her mother killed by her future wife's sister, shut the fuck up

[agatharkn3ss]

AAA is retelling the story of Macbeth

Note: Yes, this is a very long post.

I believe Jac Schaeffer is telling us a version of Macbeth. The ballad lyrics use a quote from the play “Fair is foul and foul is fair”. There is also the painting in Agatha’s living room – “Macbeth and the three witches" by Francesco Zuccarelli. The painting clearly meant something to Agatha’s consciousness and it feels like it was meant to be seen, whether foreshadowing or reflecting emotional state (I wrote more about it here). Yet, Jac herself has not mentioned Macbeth in her interviews even once, which is interesting.

A huge question explored (but not answered) in Macbeth has always been about who is in control of our actions. Do we have free will or is already written for us by someone else? Can only one person be held responsible, and if so – is it the doer or the enabler who is to blame?

A quick play summary: Macbeth is a play written by William Shakespeare. It starts with Three witches telling the Scottish general Macbeth three prophecies: that he will be the Thane of Cawdor, that he will become a King of Scotland and that children of Banquo (his friend) will become kings. Shortly after, Macbeth really is appointed the Thane. Encouraged by his wife, Macbeth kills the king and becomes the new king. But he descends into paranoia, worried about the third prophecy, so he kills Banquo too. He seeks the witches out again, looking for reassurance. They show him 3 apparitions, which he interprets in his favour, giving him false sense of security. Civil war erupts to overthrow him and Macbeth is eventually killed.

When you compare the play with what we’ve seen in the show, the parallels become more and more obvious, and I think we can even identify who the characters are meant to be. My interpretation is:

Teen = William Shakespeare, the author

Agatha = Macbeth

Rio, Lady Death = Lady Macbeth (or Lady Macdeath?)

Banquo = Jen (but also Wanda)

The three witches = Alice, Evanora and Lilia (Maiden, Mother, Crone)

Detailed analysis:

Teen = William Shakespeare

The first obvious connection is the shared name and the fact that Vision actually said he wanted to name his son after William Shakespeare quoting “All the world’s a stage. All the men and women are merely players.”

This goes well with the implication that Billy has indeed “written” the Witches Road. I don’t think he is deliberately controlling it though – I believe his intentions are just so strong that the Road reflects everything we see in his room. He set the frame but he is not in charge. In fact, it feels more like the influence comes from William Kaplan rather than Billy Maximoff.

It is worth noting that the Macbeth play is set in a morally ambiguous society that judges others in black and white, while allowing shades of grey for themselves – very reminiscent of Billy’s attitude about witches in ep.5 when he said he is not like them at all – immediately followed by him lashing out. Lilia also reminds him in ep.7 of how much in common he has with this idea of a witch that he so vehemently rejects. I think in the end, when he realises that he is both Billy and William, he will also understand that he is not just a “writer”, but also a “player” of the story.

It is also interesting how there is no sun in the painting – similar to the perpetual night we see on the Road. The painting’s interpretations often suggest that the dark sky represents the theme of death lurking around (fitting that Jen calls Rio a “creepy lurker”). So I do believe that just as we have the symbolism of the Moon, there is also meaning to the Sun and the lack of it. This is why during Billy’s tarot reading, his card for “what’s missing?” is the Sun. At his bar mitzvah William Kaplan is in a white shirt. But when Billy returns home from the hospital, he’s wearing a stripy black and white top – but the white stripes are thin – only glimpses of William. Eventually Teen becomes this goth kid – suggesting that darkness has overtaken him. But in a promo we see him wearing a different top – again with black and white stripes but they are more equal and uniform. I think this symbolises that he realises he is both, Billy and William and it’s no longer murky to him. The Sun and the Moon are in balance. (And to that point – in ep.1 in Nicky’s bedroom we see wallpaper prominently showing both Sun and Moon elements. And the child’s drawing has the Sun at its centre)

Three Witches = Alice, Evanora and Lilia

This one is a more loose interpretation, but I think it ties well with the ongoing theme of “Maiden, Mother, Crone”. In Macbeth, it’s the witches that open the play, portraying them as those mysterious but powerful witches, controlling the events. But throughout the play, the audience realises they might not be as powerful – in fact, it is questioned whether they actually have the power to make things happen, or they merely have the ability to see the future. Eventually, they have less and less presence, and are not even there when the prophecies are fulfilled – suggesting that they were merely an illusion of control.

The fact remains that the witches are literal harbingers of doom – with their symbolism of number three (that is also heavily explored in this show, post here). They did share the prophecies, giving Macbeth the information he didn’t ask for. And later, when he comes for reassurance, they show him 3 more apparitions (well, 4, but he doesn’t take the last one in). The significance here was that the message here was so vague and deceptive that it could have one of two completely opposite meanings – and their interpretation proves crucial to the final outcome. The apparitions were telling Macbeth to be afraid, but instead he read what he wanted to see. He left feeling reassured, secure and justified in his actions. Again, the witches could be represented here as being deceptive, driving Macbeth’s demise. It feels like they had this insider knowledge that should’ve shared with Macbeth that would completely change the context of the message. But they didn’t and it’s a question if they ever even could.

Interestingly, in Act 3, Scene 5, the witches behave very differently to how they were before and it is believed that this is because this particular scene was not actually written by Shakespeare but by the actors themselves – if true, this would be an excellent parallel to episode 5 (and Agatha’s wearing a jersey with no.3). I believe Agatha’s trial was hijacked by Vertigo from Salem Seven. There were many inconsistencies with the previous trials, but I think the biggest tell was that the aspect ratio didn’t change – thus Vertigo taking over Billy’s story.

So, with all this in mind, I think that the show’s Three Witches are not active messengers to Macbeth/Agatha. It’s more about her interpretation of what they each represent in terms of her own destiny. I linked this with the Mother, Maiden, Crone - i.e. the Triple Goddess Hecate because in the play she us actually the “boss” of the Three Witches.  

Let’s start with the obvious – the Mother element is Evanora, Agatha’s own mother who has always prophesised her that she will be evil. Then we have the Maiden. I think it makes sense that this is Alice. Not just because she is the youngest, but also because she serves as a fresh reminder to Agatha that she is actually evil, because she is the one who killed her. However, there is duality in here, because it is also an example that Alice protected Agatha BECAUSE Agatha was worthy of saving. That she didn’t actually think of her as evil, especially when recognising Alice’s own complicated history with her mother. Finally, we have the Crone – this Lilia, always complaining at how Agatha is the embodiment of the evil witch stereotype. And yet, in ep.7 Lilia gives Agatha an advice for her future – akin to a prophecy. Whether Agatha follows it or not, we don’t know yet, but it’s important to show that Lilia chose to help Agatha in the end, showing her she accepted her.

Banquo = Jen (also Wanda)

In Macbeth, the character of Banquo is Macbeth’s friend as is meant to serve as his foil – i.e. a person or thing that contrasts with and so emphasizes and enhances the qualities of another. Banquo has a lot of parallels with Macbeth and he is also present for the prophecies. Yet, he reacts differently to them as ultimately he is not interested in power.

So I think in the show, the foil is Jen – she is shown to be just as snarky and selfish as Agatha. She is also an exceptional witch that is at least a century old. But in the past she used her powers for the good before she became bound. She said she tried everything possible to unbind, but it seems she eventually accepted her fate, though she is still very much angry about it. Her business is false and people are harmed as a result, yet she knowingly continues that path.

This is parallel to Agatha, as we can predict that the myth of the witches road is her own fraud business, perpetuating it so she can steal power from the “undeserving” witches, not caring she causes harm. She probably could’ve ended up similarly to Jen or worse, had it not been for Billy pushing them both down the Witches Road.

It is interesting that they both seemingly passed their trials and yet neither of them recovered their powers. They both believe someone else is responsible for this (and to be fair, I think in Agatha’s case she is right – Vertigo stole her trial). There are many more similarities we can notice, but I wonder what this means for the future. I wonder if there will be confrontation between the two of them. I think Jen will be able to resolve her inner conflict and exit the Road, and she will become the literal High Priestess (i.e. head of her own coven) – similar to Banquo’s character, whose children became the kings, not Macbeth.

An honourable mention to another foil couple from the past – Wanda.

Both Agatha and Wanda were powerful witches, misunderstood by the society (“there will always be torches and pitchforks for ladies like us”). Both lost their children, but dealt with them differently. Both are told they were destined to be bad – Evanora calls Agatha evil and Wanda is prophesised as the Scarlet Witch who will destroy the world. It is interesting to debate who’s Macbeth and who’s Banquo in this pairing – while Agatha didn’t seem to be entirely under Darkhold influence, it was Wanda who eventually claimed Agatha’s power and the Darkhold, then become corrupted before her ultimate demise (and redemption).

Lady Macbeth = Lady Death

Lady Macbeth is the figure that often gets the full blame for Macbeth’s crimes – people even going as far as absolving Macbeth from any fault (which I think in itself is a demonstration of internalised misogyny but hey ho). She is also seen practicing witchcraft, which served as another suggestion that she was the baddie in control.

She has this line that could be a nod to Rio’s dagger - “that my keen knife see not the wound it makes”. Perhaps a reflection that Rio doesn’t want to see the pain that her actions as Death bring, that’s why she’s heavily dissociating with her powers, calling them “her job”.

When Macbeth is torn by the prophecies, he eventually decides that he will not kill the king. That very second, Lady Macbeth enters and very quickly manages to change his resolve. Later on, whenever he wavered, she was the one who would take over control. She was the ultimate enabler to his crimes, even getting the servants drunk, unlocking the King’s door, preparing the daggers etc.

She is seen as powerful but also completely loyal to Macbeth. She is devoted to the point that when she pleads with the spirits for his success, she offers them her own femininity (“unsex me”) in return, i.e. the one thing that makes her her. She doesn’t seek the power directly for herself  (though she would have it through his actions), immediately accepted Macbeth’s prophecy, understood that’s what he desired and supported him throughout. I think this probably reflects Agatha and Rio’s relationship really well. In ep.4 it is Rio who is impatient to “do some damage”.

However, despite his early signs of deep affection, as Macbeth descends into his downward spiral, he is less and less bothered by his wife. Eventually, he is the one to continue all the killings, and Lady Macbeth fades into a background. To the point where she eventually commits suicide from all the shame, yet Macbeth barely notices it. Perhaps that disconnection happened for Agatha and Rio too. Agatha was lost to Rio when she hid behind the dark magic and it was painful to her, after all these centuries.

Agatha = Macbeth

Finally, Agatha, just like in the show, represents the titular character. Even when committing murders, Hecate describes Macbeth as “a wayward son, spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do, loves for his own ends, not for you”, which I think really represents what the creators are showing us here. The setting of the play is in a world where your rights don’t matter – but instead it is the strongest that holds the power.  

Macbeth’s demise doesn’t so much come from knowing the prophecies (because Banquo heard the same), but from his fatal flaw of ambition. He read the prophecies and apparitions how he wanted them to read. They were his imaginary permission to do the killings to reach the goal. After initial doubts, he convinced himself it was the right thing to do, he became “wicked” and drove to his self-destruction.

(side note: there is also this ambiguity in the play, where there is mention of Macebth’s child, yet people think him childless, suggesting there is a story of child loss behind it – link with Nicholas Scratch?)

As explained above, the Three Witches serve as Agatha’s ingrained belief about her role. She is surrounded by number three, showing her as the harbinger of doom. She might not think this is who she is, but it is still the role she chose to play, and eventually it became self-fulfilling. Her fatal flaw is her addiction to power and she believes in that “might, not right” world. So she has this wall around her and pursues that quest for power, because what else is there left? She is unapologetic about this, but we also start seeing the layers coming off.

I think the story in the show will ultimately come down to whether Agatha understands that she is the one standing in her own way and that she is not above the rules. That no matter the circumstances and the reputation and people enabling her, she is the one ultimately responsible for her own actions.

I think she will drive herself to self-destruction and will be willing to die to gain back her powers. I think she will be left on the Road so it is “Agatha all Alone”. However, there must be some growth from her Witches Road journey, so I think in her process, she will have some meaningful resolutions with others and actually help them escape the Road. And maybe this time she will even follow the rules.

I think this will make a mark on the others so that they will actually try to bring her back somehow. She might feel alone, but the power of the coven will be the one to save her.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, yes, there is also the character of Macduff. He is meant to be this incorruptible, noble character, serving as a complete opposite to Macbeth. He is always very clear on abiding by what's right and wrong, but after Macbeth kills his family, he swears revenge. To the point that he ultimately sacrifices his own morality to restore order to the country by killing Macbeth, thus committing regicide (an act he despised Macbeth for).

While it does sound like it could point to Billy, I just don't think it fits. While Billy certainly saw himself as this "good" character, we see in the later episodes that he does actually have some darkness in him - to the point where is very happy to be Maleficent. He is more similar to Agatha than he thinks. He doesn't mind breaking the rules when it suits him ("stealing" William's body, breaking into Agatha's house, drowning Jen and Lilia) and his internal struggle seems more around finding his own identity rather than revenging a family he hardly remembers (and it isn't really Agatha's fault that they were gone). And if he truly wanted revenge, all he had to do was leave Agatha in her Agnes spell forever.

I do wonder though, if maybe to some extent we are getting William Kaplan as Shakespeare and Billy Maximoff as Macduff?

In the show there is also this ongoing theme where each of the witches are self-sabotaging and are actually their own enemies when it comes to getting "what's missing".

But if I had to choose anyone for Macduff, I think it would be Vertigo - revenging both the Salem mothers and her Salem Seven coven and seeing Agatha as the threat to the witches world, especially because she experienced it first hand. I have a theory that Salem Seven were originally Agatha's own coven that she formed after she killed their mothers, but through her cowardice, she betrayed them and left them on their own Witches Road. After that, Agatha kept conning other "undeserving" witches pretending she'd take them to the Road, while the Salem Seven became trapped and have gone "feral", thus losing their morality.

[reblogandlikes]

Self insert Fandom

I've come to realise that most of the toxicity within the acotar fandom is often rooted in a ridiculous amount of self insert. They see a character as them, therefore their actions are absolved. They see another character in their abuser, or worse, 'as' their abusers and so they can never be impartial towards them, thinking the worst because in real life they've dealt with a lot.

I get it. Art can sometimes mimic reality, but they are indeed forgetting that this is a whole fantasy fiction book about human women turned fae getting dicked down with a hint of war and political intrigue. These characters are not, in fact, you or your abusers. Making the series so personal to themselves can then lead to a lack of introspection of the work as a whole made to be enjoyed and critiqued to the readers' preference, whether shallow or in depth.

But because this fandom in particular seem to make these books so personal than reading it as a piece of fiction, they're inflicting real world scenarios onto fictional characters and if their characters face any backlash or reasonable questioning, they take it as a personal attack which for some reason leads to insults and wild assumptions of very REAL people.

"No, no one is saying you should forgive your abuser mum, boyfriend, sister, because this literally isn't about you. I dont know you or your situation. Im talking about *insert character*."

"No, I don't think reactive abuse is OK, though I also don't believe lying about SA is OK either, let alone condoning SA."

"What do you mean it's abusive to lock someone up and then make an excuse to say it's not abuse to lock someone else up?"

The mental gymnastics is truly outstanding. If they're so called morally grey, let them be just that.

Speaking for myself, it's easy to find some commonality in a characters personality. It's written by a whole human who has a personality too, after all. But I do not attach myself to these characters as if they are my family members or those dear to me. They are, in fact, not real, and I will talk about them in the context of a fantasy text, generally.

Now the moment you take their actions out of a fantasy text, every character, and I mean, every character, needs to be dealt with the same scrutiny. Your faves will be called out and dragged. You cannot call real people names, but then think highly of yourself when your faves have done worse. What does that then make you? A racist? A misogynist? An AS denier? An abuse apologist? Someone who endorses apartheid? Someone who's OK with controlling the female body? A war criminal?

You see how absurd that all is?

Honestly, it's not that deep. But again, it's not bad to see yourself in character. Just realise that when people have some reservations about them, they are not calling YOU out. They are strictly talking about that character and that character alone. But maybe if you find so much offence, perhaps you should think about why that is. Look deep and figure out why it troubles you so much. Perhaps they're holding up a mirror, and you simply can not bear to look into it, seeming that that character represents you so much.

I think this is the only fandom I've been involved in where simply daring to disagree with the main MC and side characters can lead to online prosecution and just so much hostility. I've seen some truly nasty comments, and it's boggling. I can imagine how off-putting it may seem to newer readers.

I long for the days when people can talk about the characters and narrative alone without feeling the need to make disclosures about what they support in real life because it's truly unnecessary. I thought reading fiction was meant to be a form of escapism, not defending my moral standpoint.

If I said I enjoyed Katherine Pierce, Klaus Mikaelson and Kai Parker from TVD, what then? They're despicable, but fucking enjoyable. Don't get me started on Game of Thrones characters.

Alright, I'm done now 😅

[fangsforiris]

Hiiii!!! I really like your blog because it coincides with my favourites from DL (I'm talking about Sakamaki mothers). It's honestly such a strange and rare thing in this fandom that someone is so interested in them. I've always been afraid to express any interest in these women, afraid that I would get a lot of hate. So I am incredibly happy that you write about them so freely and sensibly. Thank you for that ❤️ I wanted to know what motivated you to start writing about them? Because as I understand from your posts, you used to be indifferent to them, I would be glad to hear your answer. Have a nice day, talented girl 💖

Admin: Ah thank you!! I rlly appreciate that omg 😭!! Honestly I’ve been in this fandom for some time and admittedly I’ve always been interested in the mothers. In fact, Cordelia has always been a top 5 fav character slot for me!! Despite her being a villain—her actions obviously unconscionable—no one can deny her being well written.

I think I’ve only started writing about them since I’ve made it a New Year’s resolution of mine to not allow stigma/attack of the persons fallacy affect my creative output. For me, despite (at times) writing certain taboo or controversial—if not triggering—content, I use it as a way to bring recognition towards topics and reconcile my own troubles/experiences through it.

Writing is that medium for me to let it out, I suppose. And since I’ve been writing for YEARS (since I was 6 I believe?) I’ve always been passionate about it—and knowing others enjoy the works primarily made for me (at the start at least—), feels good knowing others can rejoice in the same topics I’ve found myself immersed in!!

Especially for the wives—they, along with the rest of the diaboys/cast—are MADE to be controversial. They are NOT good people. Even Yui. That’s the entire point of Diabolik Lovers. All characters walk the fine line between “good” and “bad.” Specifically, morally “good/white,” “bad/black,” & “grey.”

So I always find it weird how certain characters are attacked when…character development and certain framing from Rejet is the reason as to HOW we as a fandom can ENJOY/LIKE characters. They evolve, they CHANGE. And sure some relationships—even starring Yui—started out as horrible, we realize that soon after, Yui is content and appreciative of everything and her position. It’s bittersweet to us as a reader, but once we can escape a “victim” mindset and realize there’s no “perfect” idea of a victim, we as a society can better from it.

Since—Cordelia and Christa are actually victims themselves!! And that explains the CYCLE OF ABUSE shown in Diabolik Lovers.

Christa: the obvious, sexual assault resulting in the birth of a child of rape and incest. —However she was emotionally manipulated into sleeping with Karlheinz, as proven later on in MB and HDB—she has conflicting thoughts about Karlheinz due to it—and states she “knew what she was getting into” while also still holding the major principals for the consequences of those actions affecting her later on. Hence her broken, fragile state of mind.

Cordelia: she was groomed by Karlheinz, instantly marrying her when she became “of age/a lady of the court” when she was 18. Karlheinz would be the one to impose the ideals of how “love truly is” and how sexual exploits was normal—and the “correct way.” This lead to how she would influence Laito’s ideology in love and sex. Affecting how he’d have treated any woman—specifically Yui.

So I suppose with that, the wives have always been such a fun trio/dynamic to write and indulge in—especially since it’s such a grey area towards the fans.

Thanks for the question <33

[danketsuround]

This is a Reiko Kusumoto appreciation post

3 years after Lost Judgment's release, I still can't believe this character doesn't have a cult following.

She's like, the exact type of female character that RGG fans on this side of the internet have been begging for since forever.

She's very strong and elegant............

A bit rude or off-putting sometimes, but very take-no-shit

Anti-establishment, trying to fix the Ministry of Health from the inside, and gained a massive amount of public support because of it. I mean, she canonically has the Prime Minister wrapped around her finger because she refuses to back down.

She's smart but not cold and logical. Her decisions are controlled by emotion.

But she has a good heart, so she's extremely gentle under the cold hard angst of a mother grieving the 13 years she lost her son - who she loves more than anything in the world.

Look bro she even calls herself Mommy, it's too sweet...................

She is a good person. She's good in the way everyone thinks Kuwana is - but she isn't blinded by arbitrary concepts of justice. She can see how her actions affected others, despite not being able to forgive Kawai. She even apologizes to Kuwana for betraying him, even though that's exactly what anyone else in her position would have done. Even though they killed Kawai together, Reiko still thinks of herself as the greater evil - yet she still has the heart to comfort Kuwana in the end.

She's so silly, she even sat on the dirty floor with him.

She's better than all of us. So you should like Reiko Kusumoto if you like characters who are:

Cold on the outside, soft on the inside

Fighting the system

"Warm-blooded" killers

Women in male-dominated fields

Morally grey/have done questionable things

Also look at her, she's so freaking cute.

[theweeklydiscourse]

LARPing Villainy: Rhysand’s character is weighed down by Sarah J Maas’s need to make him sympathetic to the audience.

Maas distorts her own narrative in her attempts to make Rhysand more sympathetic to her readers. Although Maas will employ the aesthetics of villainy or grey morality, her framing is such that the established negative traits or actions of certain characters are contradicted within the text. Rhysand is not the only example of this in ACOTAR, but I believe that he exemplifies this problem the most.

I believe that Rhysand’s development is stunted by Maas’s favoritism and it makes him a less interesting character when she tries so hard to keep him noble and heroic. It’s as if his actions can’t just exist and instead, must be explained away by incessant justifications to keep him sympathetic but dull the story's edge in the process.

To illustrate my point, I'd like to point to chapter 42 of ACOMAF.

This chapter is centered around Feyre’s introduction to the Court of Nightmares and it is meant to be a moment of growth for Feyre as demonstrated by her fortitude and willingness to re-enact events that had previously traumatized her under the mountain. The passage describes Feyre as "barely covered" and emphasizes the color of her lips, describing them as “blood red”. A color that once triggered Feyre due to its association with Amarantha but no longer bothers her as demonstrated by her donning it.

Feyre's empowerment, as shown in this chapter, feels both superficial and hollow in nature. It is a moment of development that is marred by Maas's lack of build-up and her desire to accelerate Feyre's healing journey. Suddenly, after months of panic attacks, flashbacks, and anxiety, Feyre is calm, collected, and ready to partake in a plan where she will be placed in a situation where she will reenact her previous negative experiences. Something that should be triggering, but isn't.

This scene masquerades as a moment of growth and empowerment for Feyre but is in actuality a thinly veiled excuse for Maas to clumsily gesture towards the sexual tension between the main couple and form the basis for a contrived argument in the very next chapter. I came to this conclusion because the "plan" Rhysand creates is politically incoherent and ridiculous. The plan necessitates putting Feyre in a vulnerable position even though doing so makes very little sense and arguably puts Feyre in a worse place than before.

This incoherent plan is never meaningfully questioned or used as a foundation for change in Rhysand's tactics and strategies.

Let’s put this in perspective. According to the story, Rhysand is aware that the Court of Nightmares is full of unrepentant misogynists who habitually sanction the violence and abuse of the women in their court. So with this in mind, is it truly a wise plan for Rhysand to put the person he loves in a position where she will be the subject of judgment and contempt for an audience? He actively puts Feyre in a vulnerable position and approved a plan that involves Feyre putting on the costume of the High Lord’s “whore” and yet, is later appalled that Feyre was slandered as a result.

He then leans further into his darker persona, affirming Keir’s comments about Feyre being his “pet”.

The pair continues their show and Rhysand exchanges a few more words before Keir calls Feyre a whore and hisses that Feyre will “get what’s coming to her”. To this, Rhysand reacts explosively and puts Keir in his place by brutalizing his arm and forcing him to apologize for his words in a “how DARE you slander my mate?! grrrrr” moment. This moment informs my larger point because it is the cause of an argument between Feyre and Rhysand in the very next chapter.

There are certain parts of this exchange that bother me.

Feyre silently draws similarities between Tamlin and Rhysand’s behavior and criticizes Rhysand’s reaction to Keir’s slander. Obviously, we understand why he acted that way, but I hate how Rhysand responds to Feyre’s criticism in a way that feels like guilt-tripping. As if to say “So I’m such a bad person for protecting you from harm? Go on, hate me for protecting you I guess.” And this puzzles me because technically it was Rhysand’s plan that placed Feyre in a position where slander and contempt should have been expected.

Feyre is right. Rhysand should have prepared himself better for this plan but I feel like it’s a missed opportunity that Feyre never brings up how this plan could’ve been done away with altogether. They could have had an easier time in the Court of Nightmares if they had just not placed Feyre in such a vulnerable position and not made her image that of the “High Lord’s whore” which attracted Keir’s slander in the first place. This plan that necessitates Feyre wearing a dress that barely covers her as she’s shown off to a crowd is irritatingly contrived and makes even less sense when you factor in Rhysand’s concerns about Feyre’s safety.

But now onto my main point. I present to you, my least favourite passage from chapters 42 and 43.

I’d like to call attention to how Rhysand frames himself in this passage. He says “how stories get written” as though the narrative is under the sole jurisdiction of outside forces. He denies his agency in the “story” being written about his relationship to Feyre. He frames himself as noble, being unfairly characterized as a demon or a dark lord for stealing Feyre from Tamlin. But his complaints are ridiculous to me because…did the previous chapter not just happen?

Because… if we’re checking the till here, it was Rhysand who explained his public relations strategy as a “mask”. It was also Rhysand who deliberately cultivated his image to be one of an intimidated and dangerous ruler, it was Rhysand who constructed a persona of cruelty which was bolstered by his presumed collaboration with Amarantha. Rhysand was the one who approved a plan that involved toting Feyre around like a “pet” and making a statement that implies that he is a “ dark lord who stole away the bride of spring”.

He wrings his hands over how their story will be written as if he has no control over it. As if he isn’t deliberately shaping the narrative that the public sees and has no say in the matter. The narrative frames him as being “anguished” that people would view him as a villain…but then had him take active measures to reaffirm that he appears villainous to the public.

So What's My Point?

Why does Maas establish facts about her characters, only to obfuscate those qualities later on? Why do the readers need to know that Rhysand is in such anguish about his being perceived as a villain when he takes active measures to project that exact image to the public? What I reason, is that Maas wants to have it both ways (to have her cake and eat it too) She wants Rhysand to be cool and villainous, but doesn't actually want to make him villainous. Rhysand is LARPing villainy, enough that he possesses the aesthetics of a dark love interest (ex. dubious morals, manipulative, shrewd) but not so much that he actually pushes the boundary because Maas is always there to walk back his edgier qualities.

The same can be said for the events of these two chapters. She wants to have a moment of sexual tension where her leads are engaging in pseudo-BDSM exhibitionism and getting close with one another, but also wants to make a grand statement on healing from one’s past trauma which ends up being in conflict with the former.(it wouldn’t be impossible to accomplish both in theory, but Maas just isn’t skilled enough to pull it off)

All this to say, I think Rhysand had potential but is unfortunately held back by Maas’s need to absolve him. Personally, I think I’d like it more if Rhysand actions/decisions were criticized more within the text and that his “mask” was discarded as a legitimate aspect of his character. The “mask” makes him less interesting, I’d prefer it if Maas just let him contend with his flaws and grow because of it.

[rhaenin-time]

The "B-b-but Daemon!" whiners will never cease to amaze me with their ability to blame Daemon for every single little thing under the sun. Yeah, the man is a menace and a rogue, but he's not responsible for all the wrongs in Alicent's life. I swear, Saint Puppy Eyes could break her nose and fans will theorize that Daemon went back in time to push her face first into a wall. Daemon has become the ultimate evil to Team Green when they have temperamental little maniacs like Aemond burning the Riverlands for no reason.

It's actually a product of very contradictory logic that you wouldn't believe people were operating under — if they didn't also use that logic in real life.

Because (most) of them know that there's no reasonable argument that places the fault for the Dance on Rhaenyra. But they still don't like her, or her cause, because her cause is her. Which is fine if you're a King but she's a woman which means she's selfish.

Daemon is morally grey and has a reputation for being ruthless, and unlike Rhaenyra he doesn't need to conduct himself as a future ruler. He's the future ruler's attack dog. So it's easier to project all the wrongs of the world onto him. And while plenty of rulers have "attack dogs" in their circle, that when Viserys was heir Daemon was his attack dog, the fact that Rhaenyra's a woman means sexists can say "well, actually it will be DAEMON who's in charge." Even though they'll then use the fact that she is in charge to blame her for his actions. And not just his actions. Because keep in mind, out of all the grown princes in the war, Daemon and Jace were the only ones to not only not do mass murder, but to also actively avoid mass murder.

And yet you see people justify the usurpation based on actions he doesn't even do but they can imagine him capable of if he occupied Rhaenyra's position without adjusting his behaviour to fit that position.

Now add to that the fact that we tend to use bad women as mascots for the bad men around them. Alicent the good woman is good because she goes along with convention and (mostly) appears to act within her role as a woman. Which means she's a poor innocent flower who's not responsible for the actions of the men around her, even if she's the one who influenced or empowered them. She's an object who 'knows' she's an object and even though she's the enemy's object, you tend not to punish the possessions of an enemy. (Though of course it does still happen but it's accepted as a 'bad' thing to do).

But Rhaenyra is a BAD woman and an object who refuses to act like an object which means she is responsible for her own actions — and also for the actions of the men around her. But only the bad actions. Her men's accomplishments are simply her having men do the work for her, of course. But she's also still an object of the enemy (Daemon) which means she's his but unlike Alicent, because she refuses to act the object, it means she can be held responsible for the actions of ALL the men around her. It means she can be seen as an extension of the men around her in a way Alicent is not.

Basically, it's about Rhaenyra.

[aliciavance4228]

If there's one over hated god by Greek Mythology Enthusiasts, that is Zeus. And look, I know that in most Greek Mythology ecranisations he's presented in a similar way the Christian God is or that he indeed did a LOT of horrible things he deserves to be criticized for. However, some people are going way too far with this criticize, to the point where they start to over exaggerate all of his bad actions, then erase all of his good traits, and then slowly start to portray him as a cartoon villain.

Which not only that is very reductive when it comes to a figure like Zeus, but it's also not the case as often as many people would like to believe.

The most prominent example is the myth of Philemon and Baucis: Zeus and Hermes were traveling the Earth disguised as mortals, asking people for a place to sleep that night. Everyone refused to welcome them in their house except for a poor old couple. Zeus not only that told them about the flood and advised them to climb the mountain so that they would be safe, but he also fulfilled their wish to die together as well.

There were also situations or parts from several myths where he acts as the mediator between the gods and the enforcer of laws (but not in rigid, unrealistic manner). He punished those who were violating his laws of hospitality (especially when it came to murder) and had his own moments when he took pity of those who were wronged.

And look, I know that it's really hard not to judge him as individuals of the 21st Century with a completely different mentality and perception of morality, which is highly based on this Good-Evil Spectrum. It doesn’t help the fact that we're talking here about a patriarchal society either, with him as the supreme figure of it. And it's quite easy to observe that, given the fact that he doesn't allow Hera to have as much as him, or that he doesn't hesitate to punish or humiliate her many times, or that he assaulted lots of women so that they would bear him honorable children etc. Which by ancient standard would be considered acceptable or even admirable, but by modern standards you cannot help but view him as a serial rapist.

But I'm here to tell you that this is part of the reason why he's a complex deity in the first place. He's supposed to be a represantion of kings/authority figures, and power naturally corrupts even the most level-headed, strong psyches. I also think that it's important to emphasize the fact that he wasn't always a king.

He was raised in secret so that his father won't be aware of his existence, freed his siblings from his stomach after he drank a potion Metis prepared after Zeus convinced her to help him, started a whole war between gods and titans with him as the leader of one side, freed the Cyclops and Hecatoncheires, overthrew his father and threw him into Tartarus. You can come up with thousands of assumptions about his personality purely based on what is suggested in the Theogony: he's strategic, determinate, ambitious, cunning, manipulative, influential, has great leadership skills etc. Yes, he slowly started to abuse his power throughout the centuries, but that doesn’t mean that he isn't capable of being a competent ruler, nor that he didn't deserve this position in the first place.

What if instead of taking into account only his current position as the King of the Gods, people would start focusing on his whole journey and evolution? What if he was a briliant, charismatic boy once who had only noble intetions, but then became consumed by his own power and aspirations to the point of turning into the corrupt deity that we see in many myths? I'm mostly rambling now, but it would be a much more interesting idea that would help depicting him as a compelling, morally-grey figure instead of pure evil.

[celaenaeiln]

My connection went off so idk if my ask just sent but. I was wondering your thoughts on post Robin Jason, because idk what his deal is at this point and writers don't seem to either. I don't think he's a heartless killer who should be hated and hunted by the entire family but I don't like this fanon "Jason is 100% right about everything and everyone else is the problem" idea either, when they put him in the family he feels really out of place and random and it's just.. one moment he's trying to kill Tim and the next he's the best guy ever with the softest heart?? I don't know there has to be a middle ground right?? I just can't get into Red Hood as a character due to this

Thank you for being so incredibly smart, reasonable, and intelligent.

You're exactly right. I think this is the same issue that's been affecting the Robin Dick vs Robin Jason mischaracterizations as well as the batgirls' that have been predominant in the fandom post 2020. Tim and Damian's motivations and personality have stayed the same from when they entered to now but Dick, Jason, Cass, and Steph have all grown as characters. Who they started out as, they've changed from then to now which has led to some confusion about their personality and motivations.

For Jason in particular - no, he shouldn't be hunted to the ends of the Earth for the things he did. He was hurting and acted out of pain. However it's irresponsible to refute those actions and blame other characters for them.

Jason was originally meant to be a villain. He was supposed to be like Freeze, a sympathetic villain - a character who despite their evil actions is understandable. All Freeze wants is his wife, Nora, back. He loves her and commits horrible acts that don't justify his actions but it makes sense. You're supposed to feel complicated about characters like him because they point out exactly why morality is grey. What Freeze does is wrong, but he does it for the right reasons. It's ultimately still wrong which is why he gets imprisoned.

That is Jason. Jason's actions were never supposed to okay. In what universe would creators who spent half a century working on and developing characters be okay with another character trying to kill them? What about that is acceptable? But it's not just trying to kill Tim (who only escaped by outsmarting Jason) or trying to kill Damian, the crimes he did are not acceptable.

He bombed Gotham just because despite knowing he didn't need to. He was willing to kill innocent children, men, women, and civilians for Dick and Damian were chasing him, after they helped him.

Batman and Robin (2009) Issue #25

In the Red Robin Comics, he was willing to use children as bait during a gang war.

Robin (1993) Issue #177

Not to mention Mia Dearden.

But at the same time, he killed people who hurt children

Red Hood: Lost Days Issue #3

Initially Jason's morality was a swinging pendulum. He was as likely to kill kids as he was to protect them. He didn't care about the lives of civilians if it meant getting away or completing his plans.

Batman/Superman (2013) Issue #26

Here Superman says he wants to save a kid so Jason argues that to save him, they need to poison the environment and wipe out several countries.

That's why Bruce struggles with Jason so much. Over his lack of care for people's lives. It's not the murdering of criminals that Batman is caught up on which is where I believe the misunderstanding in fanon comes from. It's his fear that by his own hands, Bruce created a deadlier version of the man who killed his parents.

Batman vs Robin Issue #3

So no it's not fair to blame everyone for Jason's mistakes and claim him innocent, but it's also not fair to say Bruce had nothing to do with Jason's mental state. If he had shown a little less hesitance at the reappearance of Jason in Under the Red Hood, if he had shown a little more love then Jason probably wouldn't have gone as crazy as he did after coming back.

Because he saw Jason killing everyone, Bruce fell into his worst possible explanation of Jason, knowing the pain he was going through but succumbing to selfish actions to protect himself.

Jason's tough to deal with for writers because even when the batfamily reaches out, Jason is the one that burns his own bridges. When Dick begged Jason to take his hand during the Battle for the Cowl, when Dick and Damian helped Jason save his friend during Batman and Robin (2009), when Bruce saved Jason and fought alongside him against a couple members of the Secret Society of Supervillains, Jason immediately turned around and killed people and bragged about it.

In Batman Urban Legends, Jason tells Bruce that he has given up guns to which Bruce is grateful but it's also not for him. It's a sign that Jason is turning a new leaf especially given how caring he was with the kid, calling him Blue Hoodie. That was so sweet of him. The current Batman family comics are a sign of things changing between Jason and the family. What has happened up until now is not the family's fault, especially when they've reached out for the sole purpose of extending an olive branch only to have it burned and tied to a person in return. But now things are slowly changing and writers are trying to show that.

Jason's story is story of growth. He didn't come back to save people, he came specifically for the sake of hurting Bruce. But over the years, the repeated attempts of the family (Dick and far less Bruce) of bringing Jason back into the fold has helped him move past his anger. To slowly become adjusted and settle down.

Writers have struggled to know what to do with a character that canonically wants to be included in the family but rebuffs their every attempt to include him. They finally figured out the problem was Bruce - hence his fight against Jason and his exit in Gotham War. I'm assuming now that Jason will become more involved in Batman comics.

As a character currently though, I think of him as a lone ranger. He works independently but he'll show up for family meetings and big events. He'll also join family dinners if he's coerced but for the most part he likes to run on his own or with his team.

[misrepresentedmorallygrey]

PROPAGANDA

Goro Akechi

have you seen this man. the fandom doesn't seem to grasp that he can have a "good" goal but still go about it absolutely the wrong way. he's not baby but he's not evil incarnate either, he's just 18. being 18 is just like that

People who are like "he's an irredeemable psychopath who became a serial killer just because he has daddy issues" piss me off. People who are like "he's the only person who ACTUALLY cares about the Protagonist and all of the Protagonist's other friends are fakes and users" piss me off even more. He's a foil for the entire main cast. He has faced all of their traumas with none of the support. He believes that he's responsible for his mother's suicide, and that he's unlovable. He was abandoned by everyone. He made some bad decisions when he was like 14, and his abusive father manipulated him into being a hitman. He lies all the damn time, so you can't really tell when he's being genuine or not. He's a double agent who befriends you and then tries to kill you, believes that he's succeeded, and shows absolutely no remorse. He dies to save your life (and then gets sorta resurrected and then dies again to literally save the world). It's complicated! He's complicated!

Gwen Cooper

God forbid women do anything. Gwen Cooper is a classic victim of fandom misogyny, a complicated kinda fucked up female character who is ultimately a hero, and people act like she’s the antichrist because she’s about as fucked up as every other man in the cast. Gwen’s main crimes are cheating on her then-boyfriend (with another male lead character who weirdly does NOT get any hate for participating in this affair) and having a very emotionally intimate and sexually tense (but never actually sexual) relationship with Jack Harkness, who also has a boyfriend in Torchwood (this is the classic “she’s getting in the way of our ship!!!! Situation, despite the fact that Gwen and Jack literally never do anything together and Gwen is never anything but supportive of Jack’s relationship); perhaps Gwen’s most morally grey action is confessing adultery to her boyfriend and then erasing his memory when he reacts poorly, but I must stress that this is about on the par of the shitty things other men in the show have done (hide dangerous aliens in the secret base, sacrifice children to dangerous aliens, use alien cologne that makes people want to fuck you in a way that is at best DUBIOUSLY consensual, etc). Meanwhile, Gwen also gets hate for things that are NOT morally grey, namely, being an outspoken woman with a strong moral center. She is the HEART of her secret organization, she is the MORAL CORE, and because that means she has the AUDACITY to criticize her male coworkers, she’s a bitch. There are over 100 works on ao3 tagged “gwen cooper bashing,” and even more untagged that bash, demean, belittle, or simply ignore the existence of THE MAIN CHARACTER OF THE SHOW!! Gwen bestie you’re so fucked up and I love you and I need more people to appreciate that.

Gwen is a paranormal investigator who accidentally joined the worst polycule on Earth. The Torchwood fanbase (especially the one at the time) really hates/hated her, despite the fact that her coworkers were equally as bad if not much worse than her. Maybe she did a bit of cheating and maybe she’s kind of mean but have you considered: she’s the most beautiful girl in the world, she’s a bad bitch, and I love her? God forbid women do anything

[im-the-j-in-anthony-j-crowley]

I hope this is my last time talking about this topic, at least on this account, as it is definitely not part of what I planned this blog to be about

I'll try to keep it organised and clear

There will be mention of SA

Under no circumstances do I tell you to read all of this, but I leave you the different parts of what I wrote in case you are interested in reading a specific one:

My opinion on the podcast

My opinion on Neil Gaiman

My opinion on good omens (In this context)

The future of this blog

Relevant links

My opinion on the podcast

I listened to all four episodes of the podcast and my opinion did not change, I continue to support the victims. What I do have to mention is that I do consider the podcast to be heavily influenced, and I see reasons for the opinions that were expressed about it

I continually felt that Neil Gaiman's name was given more prominence than the accusations, especially when they started giving me a biography of Neil's life that I never understood what relevance it had.

I definitely felt that the presence of bdsm was taken as the reason for abuse, and at times I felt that more weight was given to the fact that the word "master" was used than to the actions that did point to abuse.

The podcast was set to horror music that made it a rather strange experience, and at certain points had silences that added a drama whose only effect was to make me wonder why they were trying to portray the situation in a way that seemed to me disrespectful to the subject.

At one point the podcast quoted someone who said that Neil Gaiman's actions could be explained by the fact that autistic people have difficulty understanding social cues.

Something that, as an autistic person, I definitely have to stop and say that no, a diagnosis of autism should not be considered a valid reason. I don't know how long Neil has been aware of his difficulty with social cues, but it's definitely something he should have taken into account when having relationships that included bdsm. From the insight I gained from those relationships, it was something that was extremely necessary. And evidently, I haven't mentioned that those relationships also required the norms that I thought were customary in bdsm. Like defining boundaries of what is and is not allowed, and that they are discussed preferably not while having sex.

I believe I read that Neil mentioned something regarding 50 shades of grey, which, please, I thought we were all aware that that book WAS NOT A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF WHAT GOOD CONDUCT IN BDSM IS

All this has been without mentioning the fact that, as I mentioned before, I am 100% against the age difference present in this relationships. And the clear power imbalance between the parties involved. There is no way I look at those relationships without concluding that both women were at an extreme disadvantage and in circumstances that made it very difficult to consent in a fully active way.

I don't think the subjectivity of the podcast is enough to accuse them of creating completely false stories, especially after having confirmation that these relationships did happen, from Neil Gaiman.

My opinion on Neil Gaiman

I want to preface this by saying that under no circumstances am I trying to say that you should come to the same conclusions I did, I'm simply sharing this because I've spent months on this blog and interacted heavily with Neil's posts.

It's been a couple of years since I've taken an interest in social issues and I've recently started to become active in discussions about it, so I feel it's something I should do.

However, I repeat, I am not the morality police. So I'm not interested in telling you what you should decide.

Now... what are we getting at?

I have currently stopped following Neil everywhere I remember following him, I plan to stop interacting with anything linked to his person, except for his works, where I feel I need to look at the situation in more detail and take other things into consideration.

I can give Neil the benefit of the doubt that he did believe things were different, especially given my view of how we function as humans, but the fact that I can acknowledge that perhaps at the time he believed he was doing the right thing does not justify the fact that he is now trying to resort to gaslighting to maintain his image.

A person may have made mistakes in believing he was doing the right thing, and I fully understand that. But even if you were unaware of the situation, you should be able to take responsibility for what happened without resorting to manipulative techniques.

What I'm saying, is that even if I give all events the benefit of the doubt, I continue to have problems with Neil Gaiman's behaviour.

And I implore that please, if you are going to interact with any of his work, or with his person, take this into account

My opinion on good omens

I know that good omens is not the relevant topic in the accusations, but this is a blog about good omens, and good omens is the reason I have something to do with this, so let's mention it anyway, because I want to address all sides of this and close the subject on this blog.

I don't consider good omens to have anything to do with Neil Gaiman's sexual activity, and so far, Gaiman hasn't used any of his work as a justification for his actions, so I don't consider the events to have a direct impact on the work. Especially when, at least in my 4 times watching the show, I never noticed anything I wished to criticise in it.

I do think that the monetary support for him that interacting with the show generates should be taken into account, especially in relation to the new season.

At the end of the post you can find a link to a petition to request that Neil is not present in the development of season 3.

The future of this blog

Finally we come to the one part that I haven't been able to decide, and that is.... What do I do with this blog, do I want to continue, do I want to stop?

The truth is that I don't know, I still consider that I need time to think about it, especially because every time I see a good omens post, I think about what happened. Which feels awful when good omens has been my special interest since November last year and has controlled almost my entire life.

I don't know what I'll decide next, but this will probably be on hiatus for a few more weeks. If I come to a decision, I'll let you know.

I love you, I hope you are well, and in case you want to follow me on a blog that is probably nothing like this one, I leave you my main blog, @voids-ideas where I will probably be active

Relevant links

Where you can find the podcasts episodes on drive

Petition to request Neil's removal from Good Omens season 3

My first reaction to the situation

[helluvabossrewrite45]

Always sunny anon replying: funny you mentioned Bojack being I believe Viv has said in the past on her twitter that she wants HB to be the next BH yet seems to not understand what makes a show like Bojack work to begin with. (I'll admit I haven't watched Bojack Horseman yet. I've been sleeping on it way to long tbh).

Yeah absolutely. Viv doesnt seem to get that bojack worked in not only in its ability to make people like bojack while not excusing his actions, but also how its structured as 'comedy turned drama'.

(major spoilers for bojack horseman btw, you can just skip to the end/the last paragraph of this post)

Now in bojack's first season, it was a comedy pretty early and stayed that way till later down the season and it continued to grow naturally to a drama (though the comedy is still there of course). Helluva boss though, seems to be all over the place as just after episode 1, episode 2 takes a more serious/dramatic approach when the show is meant to appear at first to be a dark humoured comedy, along with most of the season not even sticking to its original premise, instead focusing more of set ups and stolitz drama that both didnt go much of anywhere (striker might be an exception though i feel like the end with him could be another set up). What wouldve worked is that episode 1 - 4 is entirely on the original premise for helluva boss and the rest would be more serious (with strikers introduction, the agents and stolitz drama) with season 2 continuing the more serious approach. Hell, if their gonna include stolas family drama, why not portray it as comedy at first, then use it later on to portray it more seriously. Like in season 1 of bojack where he and sarah lynn slept with each other, its being treated as comedic. But when he revealed that he slept with her in the interview, its being treated completely seriously and use it to highlight bojacks problem from him with young women and his issues with accountability, episode 2 could portray the cheating as comedic (with stella throwing objects while rambling while stolas dodges them like a dodgeball game with octavia initially being presented as the typical 'lonely stuck in the mud teenager' but we still get hints of her being more than that later down the episode) and while it ends on them leaving the festival in an awkward comedic way, that would used in seeing stars where octavia vents about her family drama, including on how neglectful stolas has become as a father from the festival incident. Im kinda surprised viv didnt consider to use it because it would be a perfect tool for helluva boss to use.

Another reason why bojack worked compared to helluva boss is its characters. While bojack was written well, the rest of the characters (especially women) shine through and we get to see more of who they are overtime. We dont really get much on that with helluva (especially the women), sure we get their backstories though we dont really have much depth if that make sense. Like when we compare todd to moxxie, todd's deal is that he's extremely helpful and he actually have stuff going on for him, its only bojack thats holding him back so when he finally distance himself from bojack, not only is it consistent but its also not repetitive, instead we get to know more about todd, seeing his relationships, discovering his asexuality etc...hell, he even has his own episode where he learn to make time for himself too instead of always helping out everyone. Moxxie has an arc of overcoming his weakness but the thing is, it repeats the same arc that it can get tiring to watch. What would work for him is that he slowly develops him overcoming his weakness instead of it just being repeated (like maybe further snapping at blitzo or confess that he considers quitting) Its a real shame too because him being close to morally good than morally grey or bad (which i predict thats what most of hells beings would be) opens a gate to a lot of possibilities for him as a character like why he took the job, how he met his wife, how he views the world around him etc...but they clearly didnt know what to do with him especially when season 1 wasnt even properly planned (as viv literally admits this on twitter too) so its why he as a character feels stagnant. But a bigger comparison however, has to be the women in the shows. People tend to praise the show for how it writes its women characters, often from diane and princess caroline. They're shown to be as messy and complex as men like bojack in the show though other women characters had their time to shine like hollyhock, kelley, gina, penny, bojack's mother etc...Its clear that bojack writes both men and women well in the show. Helluva boss on the other hand, is quite unbalanced in its writing for men and women. Specifically with the men having more variety and generall knowledge about them than the women. Like millie and loona, despite being major characters, have very little depth especially with millie who wouldnt even be a character if we remove her from moxxie. And even with the other women characters, they dont have much depth either (or at last we dont get to see that depth often like with verosika), they all in some way are in the roles for men characters (octavia and loona being there to establish the good in stolas and blitzo or stella and verosika being there to establish to either be the villain or to show a part of the man's past) Its very clear that viv favours men characters than women as alastor and angel dust having more going on than charlie, the main character herself. I mean, both shows are technically character driven and to be character driven, your gonna have to make sure your characters can equally shine on their own instead of one having more depth than the other.

To put it shortly, i dont think viv really gets why bojack was successful to audiences to begin with and in turn, failed to achieve that success with it being how she structures her show for the 'comedy turned drama' style being all over the place when bojacks was of natural progress and her imbalanced/poorly planned writing of men and women characters where it wasn't an issue in BoJack

[three--rings]

Do you think Wei Wuxian was at fault for any of the things he did in his previous life? Cause from my own vantage he never started anything. It was all self defense and the only time it wasn’t was when he was freeing the Wen Remnants. Some guards died during the escape but they were responsible for the deaths of some innocent remnants. We don’t even know how many. It’s like mianmian said. It was retaliation but not one that was uncalled for. The second time he caused damage was when he was ambushed but again he didn’t start it. It was self defense. He wouldn’t have made it out alive if he didn’t. Like imagine if a civilian were to suddenly be ambushed the police (who are aiming to kill) otw to a baby shower, and while defending themselves another civilian died in the crossfire, would that be entirely the first civilians fault? And another in universe issue is that Wei Wuxian was the only one being held accountable because they were looking for a scapegoat. A reason to justify their prejudice against him and the wen remnants.

Even at night less city the clans attacked first. The only reason WW was even there was to witness for himself the declaration to massacre the remnants despite WN and WQ having already given themselves up.

Some readers keep insisting that WW was working in a grey are but it was all black and white to me. Proven by the fact that as soon as WW was dead the clans killed all the remnants in cold blood. Majority made out of women, children and the elderly.

It never felt like the clans were held culpable for any of their crimes either. I don’t really blame the narrative for that but I do wish there was more acknowledgement of it outside of how it relates to WW and more to how it was just horrible morally. In the real world if a more powerful coalition murdered a smaller group of innocent people in cold blood we’d be screaming for justice but the clans never do.

For me the reason where I will never like Jiang Cheng (or feel bad for most of the other clan characters outside of the main ones we see) isn’t just because of his behavior but because he took part in that massacre. Imo at the end the clans were no better than the Wen clan.

At the end of the day they had no justification. At the end of the day they were all murderers.

Also some fans believe that WW’s ‘arrogance’ in regards to his abillities was his downfall. But what pushed him to that? He died because of his desire to protect the people he cared about. Not because he was arrogant. Like a mother bear pushed into a corner with her cub by a group of hunters, weren’t his actions justified?

Do tell me if I’m wrong. I’m just frustrated

Sorry anon, but you're coming into my inbox and asking me to rehash the absolute bitterest fights of the MDZS/Untamed fandom that have torn apart people and friendships and the entire fandom for five years now. So I don't really feel like engaging in it.

But I strongly believe that when it comes to morality the point of MDZS is that literally everyone in the story's actions are very reasonable and justified from their own POV (some slight exceptions like Jin Guangshan and Wen Ruohan.)

People in MDZS react in emotionally understandable ways given their upbringing, environment, and specific situations. It's a book about not throwing around moral judgements carelessly, not about who was Most Right.

[stillresolved]

gaesaekki for the URL meme 🖤

@geaesaekki / send a url and i will answer the following...

Do I Follow Them?: yes i do!! if i am not pls assume my evil twin ( that i am not aware of atm ) has taken my place–

Why Did I Follow Them?: i was already following ur main blog and so if there is a chance for more quality interactions and dynamics I SHALL TAKE IT NO MATTER THE RISK ( that and i love evil/morally grey women so of course i had to investigate :3 )

Do We Role Play?: *gestures to the 4823940820 plots, dynamics & unfinished threads we have JFKLSDJFL :'D*

Do I Want To Role Play With Them: again if u ask me this question and i say no, assume i have been locked away against my will–

An AU Idea For Our Muses: HMMMMM well rn we've already got the celebrity verse, crime verse, and the thg verse BUT WHAT ABOUT...vampire verse? or a furuba verse 🤩

A Song For Our Muses: for our favorite pair of lone wolves– canada by lauv ( ft. alessia cara )

Do I Ship Our Muses?: maram? maram. i never actually thought there would be someone who could like? slip past ga-ram's exterior but i guess mara is the exception– I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THEM IN ACTION MORE :DD ( also u know that if i make a muse that ends up being compatible with gaya....i will be knocking on ur door 👀 )

What I Think About The Mun: lynnie u are an ICON to this hellsite i can't 🐝lieve you've only been around here for like a little over than a year...i love the passion and care you put into your characters but also their worldbuilding and also the devotion you put into your partners' muses, u would not BELIEVE how hard it is to find partners who do both :'D i also admire that you are honest not just with your partners but also to yourself. if a character, for example, is not speaking to you any longer, you're not afraid of dropping them or doing the necessary cleaning....something i think i could definitely get better at ^^'

Overall Opinion: a beloved and corrupting influence on all of ferre's blogs aka the reason more and more of my characters are stepping outside of the good bean arena <3

Blog Rate: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | this scale does not adequately measure my love for lynnie and if that is case then i will create my own: this is level infinity |

[mothergold]

| But I’ll Know, I’ll Know |

Warnings: Dark content, Albedo gets corrupted, mention of death and fire, blasphemy(? I’m unsure about this one ?), reader is gender neutral, blood/blood mention, murder/murder mention, he/him pronouns for Albedo, no pronouns for reader, alluding to major character death, reader is morally grey, heavy on the albedo lore, death threats (technically), violence, destruction, massacre, 1,039 words.

A/n: For this piece the reader's personality is different from others I’ve written I’d say. I always wondered how I myself would react if I was told to finish off Albedo had he gone corrupt,, so this is a fic based on that what if scenario, because it intrigues me so much. Please let me know in the comments/tags what you think <3 

Summary: A story in which the reader is too weak to kill Albedo as he becomes corrupted, and the two of you destroy Mondstadt together, but the reader soon learns that such weakness comes with a price.

Tags: @snowsnetwork @suyacho

Fire. Fire burned as high as the eye could see, it was brighter than anything you’d ever seen. You looked on, the both of you, watching your beloved home burn by your hands. Albedo always told you if he were to go corrupt that he’d need you to finish the job and defend Mondstadt, but you just couldn’t. You were too weak. You tried, you really did, believe me you tried, but looking into his eyes molded with corruption, you just couldn’t help but feel pity for him. 

Foolishly, you promised him you could do just that, that you would do what must be done, and stupidly he believed you even as you insisted it would never happen with tears in your eyes. His dry ones scrunched up due to the soft smile he wore, and yours glistened with tears of sorrow for the inevitable. So, even now when he looked at you with a sadistic grin and eyes full of pain and regret, you couldn’t help but remember the promise you made, and broke, years ago. Unfortunately, it was too late. You had watched your home burn up due to the tall flames you’d both created.

The both of you had destroyed the very things you loved without a second glance. You bore the blood of a thousand men, women, and children, and there wasn’t a damn thing either of you could do other than stand and watch as you spit in the anemo archon’s face, defiling the very home he had made for all of his children, including you. You wondered what he must look like looking down on the destruction of the homeland he had fostered for all who lived there. You imagined he’d either feel rage or sorrow, but ultimately, you couldn’t think hard enough on the subject to actually visualize it. Instead, you were preoccupied with Albedo and how the corruption continued to spread, and the sinister glimmer in his eyes grew more and more with each passing second.

It had surpassed the sorrow and agony that previously took place in his cerulean irises, becoming more poisoned with every passing moment. Taking his bloodstained hand he grabbed yours gingerly, a hint of the old Albedo still lingering, as he gave it a tight squeeze and smiled a wide, evil grin in your direction. You looked down to see your body covered in ash and blood, the weight of your actions staining your very essence in a way that tormented your mind in the cruelest and most unforgiving of ways. Your breath shook, body shivered, and breathing became labored; you were losing touch with reality and going completely and utterly insane. 

Had Albedo’s corruption and insanity rubbed off on you? No, that’s impossible. Those sort of things aren’t the type of thing you could infect someone with, but then why were you acting that way? Why was your mind running a mile a minute? Why were you questioning your motives now of all times, when everything was all said and done? It was too late to question the why’s and what if’s. No, you’d dug your grave and now it was time for you to lay in it, hand in hand with your lover who you so dutifully protected. 

But was it worth it? That was the question that truly ruminated in your mind, over and over, again. Looking to your side to see his face full of pride and glee you couldn’t help but feel guilt wash over you. Yes, you should feel guilty, you should feel ashamed. You had massacred all of Mondstadt without a second thought, all in the name of love. And was it worth it? Was killing everyone, destroying a peaceful nation, truly worth it all? Was it worth it to see the looks on your friends' faces when they cowered in fear? Was the wounded yet angered expression of the cavalry captain enough to make you realize just how far you’d both fallen from grace? 

You feared you’d never get the answers you wanted, and you certainly didn’t deserve them. Not after you had betrayed everyone you had ever loved, even those you simply smiled at in passing. They were all dead, or at least, that’s what you assumed from how high the smoke rose. 

You squeezed his hand tightly and asked with tears in your eyes, “What are we going to do?” 

He looked on at the fire which illuminated the darkness surrouniding you two, and then slowly looked to you. “Live.”

And it was that response which solidified just how far you had fallen, how low you had gone. There was a feeling in the pit of your stomach that you just couldn’t ignore, one that churned and burned in your gut like pure acid. You soon began to cry, because all of this was your fault. Your hands bore the blood of many people and you were forced to witness and endure the consequences to your actions. You were such a kind soul, but you were now no more better than the great sinner. All kindness had been subject to decay and dissipated into thin air, joining the other unforgivable sins which you had so carelessly committed. 

Albedo looked at you with a look of confusion, he tried reading your expression but he only grew frustrated in an attempt to predict your emotions. He squeezed your hand slightly, feeling the thick squish of the blood on both of your hands. He became very concerned but even more so when he saw a stray tear fall down your face. 

No longer could he hold it in and asked you, “What’s wrong?” His face twisted in a pained and worrisome expression.

That’s when you turned to face him, slowly. Noticing how the light of the fire grew dimmer as you turned away from it, and your heart clenched tight as you did so. It was as if you were attached to the destruction, unable to turn away from the massacre you had committed.

Once you had your full attention on Albedo you responded with tears in your eyes, a tortured smile carved across your mouth as you finally said, “I should’ve killed you while I had the chance.”