#i didn’t see any negative traits or ways to play as a bad character

[tricoufamily]

i just. don’t understand why people go nuts for paralives. that gameplay trailer looked just as empty and boring as ts4 (if not more?) and the feedback is so overwhelmingly positive i feel like i’m in the twilight zone

[wisteria-lodge]

And now for a HP fandom question - do you have any thoughts on queercoding in the series and if JKR ever actually intended it, and then backtracked, or if it was always completely unintentional? I'm thinking specifically about Lupin and Tonks (as individuals, not as a ship) Inspired by your post about the intention vs how fans perceived Draco Malfoy. Thanks!

So the first thing I want to do is make a distinction between femme-coding and queer-coding. They're tropes with very similar histories, and a lot of works treat them as the same thing. But Harry Potter doesn’t, and I think we can chalk this one up to JK Rowling’s habit of grabbing aesthetics and visuals without really thinking through the history behind them. 

(Like - the goblins. She says she didn’t mean to write an antisemitic thing, and I actually do believe her. But did she use a lot of tropes and images with a long history of being tied to antisemitism? yes.)

So when I say “femme” I mean giving a male character traits stereotypically associated with femininity. Heightened sensitivity/emotionality, an interest in hair, clothes and being attractive, a love of lace/pink/frills, a dislike of violence and physical confrontation, and a preference for the soft power of manipulation, character assassination and poison - versus the hard power of direct confrontation and physical prowess. Are these things super stereotypical? Yes. But they’re ALSO traits you see all the time on male villains, especially ones that you don’t want to seem that threatening. Femme-coded villains show up a lot in children’s media, or as the Big Bad’s #2. They’re not meant to be heroic or sympathetic (since all these feminine traits are not desirable, especially for guys.) But they also aren’t scary, and you can pretty much always play them for comedy. 

For example: see almost every male Disney villain. And JKR was writing children’s literature in the 90s, so of course she’s pulling from the same zeitgeist as the Disney Renaissance. 

JKR loves herself a femme villain. The absolute gold standard is of course Lockhart - who wears pink, wants to start his own line of hair care products, is self-centered, vain, obsessed with popularity… but he sucks in a fight. His entire MO involves manipulating people into thinking he has these traditional masculine qualities when he just doesn’t. But there’s also fussy, prissy Percy wearing his prefect badge on his pajamas. Bitchy, emotional mean-girl poisoners Draco and Snape (especially early book Snape - which is Snape at his most villainous.) Draco, Percy and Snape are also unusual for being male characters who we see crying for reasons other than grief. 

Lucius Malfoy is an interesting case because he starts off quite masc. He’s threatening to curse people, the governors are scared of him, etc. But, as the books go on… and he gets less powerful… he also gets more femme. When we meet him in Book 5 he’s no longer threatening people, but bribing them, spreading rumors, and giving interviews to the Prophet casting Arthur Weasley in a negative light. He's also getting really into peacocks. In Book 2 he was a major threat, but as he gets recast as Voldemort’s #2 he becomes a more femme, soft-power villain. When he leads the attack on the Department of Mysteries, he absolutely bungles it, which defines his character (and relationship with Voldemort) for the rest of the series. And it makes sense that Lucius is given this kind of treatment! It’s a way of communicating that there's a new villain in town, a real villain. 

So, are any of these femme-coded villains additionally queer-coded? I’m actually going to say no. Queer-coding is (like it says on the tin) finding ways to imply that your character is specifically gay. Like maybe giving them a same-sex relationship that is written romantically, but not explicitly called out by the text. Or pairing up all of the characters except them. Maybe have other characters joke about them being gay, and use that as a way to talk about the subject with some plausible deniability. Or they could just play suggestively with a cigar, or a walking stick. There are different strategies.  

But Lockhart doesn't get any of that. Honestly, I think that if JKR actually thought of him as gay, she would have been a lot more wary about a scene where he keeps Harry alone with him in his office for way longer than he’s supposed to. And she might have skipped this joke: 

“Harry was hauled to the front of the class during their very next Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson, this time acting a werewolf (...) “Nice loud howl, Harry — exactly — and then, if you’ll believe it, I pounced — like this — slammed him to the floor — thus — with one hand, I managed to hold him down — with my other, I put my wand to his throat (...) he let out a piteous moan — go on, Harry — higher than that — good —” 

Like. At least she would have picked a different word than “moan,” right? Which unfortunately has slightly sexual connotations. Especially if she wanted to keep Lockhart a buffoon, to properly set up the twist at the end. 

Slughorn also gets femme-coded in a similar way: he loves his candy, his parties, his smoking jackets, his lilac silk pajamas, his web of connections he can use to get stuff (Lucius style.) We are introduced to him squatting in specifically a “fussy old lady’s” house. He’s also unusually emotional, getting weepy at Aragog‘s funeral. But I don’t think we’re meant to read him as actually gay, or else his relationship with Tom Riddle might’ve read a little too close to Tom seducing/trying to seduce him. Which is a beat JKR does subtly play out with Hepzibah Smith, but idk. by that point at least Tom is a legal adult.

(As a side note - the Harry Potter series got so lucky that all of its adult characters are played by absolutely top-shelf actors who are aware of the connotations and history behind various symbols, and do consider these things in their performances. Kenneth Brannagh and Jim Broadbent are good enough to make sure there’s not even a hint of iffy subtext when they play Lockhart and Slughorn.)

Draco, Snape, and Percy all have a case of the not-gays. Percy has a girlfriend (we don’t really see her or anything, but we’re told she’s there.) Snape of course gets his whole thing with Lily, and Draco… after one too many beats where it’s clear that Pansy is into him, but he’s not into Pansy…  gets a scene where he’s talking to his buddies with his head in her lap. (JKR uses “no one‘s good enough for me” beats with Blaise, Draco and Sirius, and the idea there seems to be more that they have undeservedly high opinions of themselves, and less that they don’t like girls.)

But, I do agree that a lot of JKR's characters do come across as a little more queer than intended. It boils down, I think, to the general lack of any kind of romance in the Harry Potter books and JKR being generally bad at/uncomfortable with writing male attraction directed at women, BUT being perfectly happy writing attraction directed at pretty guys. And because of that… yeah, it can sometimes feel like maybe Harry has a thing for Cedric. Especially when Dudley goes on to tease him about Cedric being his boyfriend, which I believe is the only actual mention of gay people in the entire series.  

So is there any intentional queer-coding in the book? It’s really subtle, but yes. I think Dumbledore is queer-coded. He is unusually emotional/cries unusually often for a Rowling guy. He is also given a scene which emphasizes his “flamboyantly” cut plum-velvet suit, and his relationship with Grindelwald is implied to be romantic for one book and two movies before being actually confirmed in Fantastic Beasts 3. (With the line of dialogue “I was in love with you.” Big step up from “We were closer than brothers.” which is an odd thing to say about someone you are interested in romantically.) 

But you brought up Tonks and Lupin, two characters very commonly interpreted as queer. So let’s get into that. JKR has said that she considers Lupin’s lycanthropy to be a metaphor for stigmatized diseases like AIDS. And… as incredible as it is to say… I actually do not think that she made the jump from there to thinking that maybe the character suffering from AIDS should be gay.

Because the narrative places so much weight on Lupin being bitten young and then on maybe not being allowed to attend school, I’m pretty sure that he’s not intended to be queer so much as he’s meant to be Ryan White, the literal poster child for AIDS activism who got infected via blood transfusion when he was two. Tragic, absolutely. But not gay. Honestly, I hope JKR was thinking of ‘lycanthropy’ as a metaphor for stigmatized illness in the abstract and not as a comment on gay people specifically. Because otherwise, Greyback’s thing about biting children becomes a mash-up of two of the biggest homophobic boogeymen from the 80s: gay men infecting people with AIDS on purpose because… idk, they hate the world or something. And the influence of gay men somehow “turning” children gay. Both absolutely real, if ridiculous, moral panics.

On top of that, Remus and Sirius do get a pretty clear case of the not-gays early on (“He embraced Black like a brother.”) Buuuut Alfonso Cuarón did think through those implications for Movie 3, absolutely saw Lupin as gay, and directed David Thewlis to play him accordingly. No reports confirming or denying whether Alfonso Cuarón ships Wolfstar, but I think that if I’m an actor trying to make sense of Lupin’s motivations… and I know he didn’t show Dumbledore the Marauders’ Map and didn’t tell anyone Sirius was an animagus… and then I’m told my character is gay… well. Anyway, I think there are absolutely hints of Wolfstar in that performance. 

And there's Tonks. Tonks is introduced during a very spooky segment in Book 5: Harry has been going through it, been left alone at the Dursleys while having what sounds like a depressive episode. It’s dark, he hears intruders. It's a really good piece of writing. But JKR knows that it’s the good guys who are coming and thinks, okay. Let’s make that as clear as possible from the word go. And so the first thing Harry sees is Tonks' pink hair. And what kind of person has pink hair? A young adult. A punky young adult. And what power would a teenager think was cool? Well, the ability to change the color of their hair at will. That, by itself, would have worked perfectly fine for this character.

But then (for reasons best known to herself) JKR goes further. Even though Tonk’s hair changing color is easily 90% of the transformations we see and there is no plot reason her appearance needs to change more than that, we see her drastically change her age and body type. When you think about this power for more than five seconds, it becomes kind of OP. For worldbuilding reasons alone, my instinct would’ve been to tone it down a bit. 

But no, we have this counterculture character who seems interested in her career and not in a relationship, who can easily change anything about her body, and (if her ability works anything like Polyjuice) that means she should definitely be able to change her gender. Cool.

Then, in everyone’s least favorite romance, Tonks and Lupin are paired up. I have heard the argument that this was meant to walk back queer-coding, or to punish people who thought they were queer... but I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think JKR expected these two to be fan favorites, and then was kind of surprised when everyone wanted to hear about their continuing adventures. 

(There are a handful of characters who JKR clearly really enjoys - and really enjoys writing - that fandom honestly could not care less about. Mundungus Fletcher and Ludo Bagman spring to mind. But the reverse is also true. She had one story for Lupin and people wanted to see more. Tonks is probably supposed to be her comment on immature young adults: she is loud, in your face, causes mild destruction and is “a little annoying at times.” But the fans fell in love with her.) 

So JKR has these two fan favorite characters and nothing for them to do. A romance is something for them to do. JKR also has a kind of weird pattern where good people need to either have kids or take care of kids. It’s not good to be a woman who isn’t involved with taking care of children in some fashion: see Rita Skeeter, Dolores Umbridge, Bellatrix Lestrange. This is also (I think) why Harry names his kids specifically after Severus, Sirius, and Albus. Since they’re good men, JKR had to find a way to give them kids after the fact. 

So yeah. I think we were meant to read Tonks and Lupin having a kid as kind of a reward, or at least as proof of their intrinsic goodness. There also just isn’t another guy in the right age range to ship Tonks with. The only other option is Sirius. 

(Harry in the books and Lupin on Pottermore both suspect that Tonks/Sirius is a thing. Completely forgetting, I guess, that they're cousins.)

[chocfrog-enjoyer]

Things I hate in Harry Potter Fanfictions

This are the tropes I found multiple times in lots of different fanfictions and I got fed up with how illogical, overused and badly written they are :/

Completely changing the story to the point where I’m starting to wonder if it’s even Harry Potter because the only thing that stayed the same are the names.

( If it’s ships ) When one or both sides are already in love with each other ( in this cringy “I always loved him/her ) especially on what normally would be considered enemies to lovers. If I’m reading a story especially with a non canon ship I’d want to know how they’ve came to be, how the love blossomed. Or at least a reasonable explanation of why the character loves the other from the start of the story.

( If it’s Dark Harry ) The: One morning Harry wakes up and decides ah fuck it I’m changing sides “I care not for your good side anymore, now I’m going to be evil” and Voldemort is like “Oh well- guess I won’t kill him then, never mind that it was my obsession for the last decade and more, It changed today”

Evil-Good Harry…? Honestly I hate this trope soooo much. The: Voldemort was good from the start and it was Dumbledore that was truly evil and he manipulated Harry and/or he was the one who killed Harry’s parents. “Yeah, no like Voldemort is a pretty good guy. He can even be considered as a role model of being good if we ignore all of his other/earlier victims and people he tortured. I mean- I don’t see any evil right?”

Ron, Ginny and Hermione bashing because why not ( this happens especially often with Slytherin Harry fanfics). I don’t mind if some characters get their negative traits explored but make it real people, I can’t read a story where those characters act so bad and OOC for no actual reason. And no Harry being in Slytherin isn’t a reason because those characters never bullied and harassed anyone purely because they were a Slytherin. Yes they did not like this house ( for a good reason might I say ) but they never even acted out on Malfoy who was openly bullying them, the only situations we get where Malfoy and his friends got attacked by Ron and/or Hermione were deserved, and were responses to his provocations.

( If it’s not in order to hide his identity ) Changing Harry’s name. I can understand using Hadrian or Harris as the elongated versions of Harry but when someone straight up changes his name and now I’m reading a story about Daniel or Bob or something for no apparent reason then the whole thing seems stupid and illogical for me.

When Draco and Snape liked Harry from the start. Draco was a narcissistic, spoiled little child and he wasn’t nice to Harry both when he knew who he was ( train ride ) and when he didn’t ( Madam Malkin - their first meeting ). He expected admiration and friendship from Harry like if he had earned it. Making him be like a best friend from the very start is non sense, those boys would need time to come together, and with Harry’s personality I bet they’d still have a silly rivalry if they were in the same house. Same with Snape, like there’s no way he would tolerate Harry let alone like him. He hated Harry from the moment he saw him in the great hall and even before the boy went to Hogwarts. For Snape and Harry to like each other there would need to be a very good reason and it wouldn’t come immediately, but with lots of time and more interactions between each other.

Too much muggle stuff in the magical world. I don’t mind it if a lot of the story plays out in the muggle world or some muggle stuff is crucial for the story point but when I read a fan fiction where Harry was in St.Mungos and he was being treated the muggle way I lost it and dropped the fic. Like are you really going to put full on muggle medical equipment in a gigantic wizard hospital and make your healers use almost only muggle diagnostic methods? Most Wizards barely have any proper knowledge on muggles, and even muggleborns don’t know that much since they are introduced into wizarding world at a young age and basically spend the rest of their life in it. They have a lot more knowledge about muggles than pureblood wizards but it’s still not THAT much.

Overpowered Harry. The „Lord Potter; Black; Peverel; Gryfindor; Slytherin; etc… etc.. :/ nothing wrong with powerful Harry. I like powerful Harry. But it’s ridiculous that a child, a 11-15 yo boy would just instantly have more magical power than Merlin himself, and he would immediately know what to do with it

Gringotts knows everything about you. The „heritage tests” and all. Making a good use of Gringotts is amazing in fanfiction and I love exploring ideas people have on it but this trope is not only overused but also dumb. I’m not talking about simple family linking that people use or like blood checking. I mean the young Harry goes to Gringotts and just with a drop of his blood it is instantly known that he is meant to be a lord of this and that and he owns such and such properties and he is hella rich because of all the vaults that were left to him. And also goblins being friendly. These creatures do not like wizards.

Know it all Hermione. But like literally. Hermione being so overglorified and being literally smarter than Dumbledore and basically all Hogwarts staff often at age 11-16. She’s smart but let’s be real this is not possible. Like her being able to do anything in the world after “reading a book/going to the library for a bit”

Harry being the most handsome, ripped and freaking amazing Hogwarts student while literally being like 14 or 15.

Harem… Nothing bad with Harry having a flock of girls that are attracted to him ( this is canon ) but oversexualizing women in order to make Harry the girl-magnet that has 7 girlfriends and like all the „conventionaly attractive” witches around him - Hermione, Ginny, Fleur, Daphne etc.”

Harry hating Dumbledore from the beginning, blaming everything on the poor old man, being annoyed by the most stupid thing like: “Dumbledore smiled at him, and Harry went utterly furious” :// and generally Dumbledore bashing

Child Harry behaving like an adult and teenage/mature Harry behaving like a child. Why would a 11 yo go to Hogwarts and suddenly be a master manipulator, know exactly what to say to get out of difficult situation and can outsmart his peers and/or adults to show „how much better he is”. And the other situation: Harry being completely clueless, using childish language, being referred to by others as “little one, pup etc.”

All Slytherins are misunderstood angels. No they aren’t! As a Slyhetin myself I can recognize Draco’s ( and his friends ) bullshit when I see it! Yes stop the stereotype of “All Slytherins are bad” but do not excuse actually bad Slytherins.

Fics gloryfing toxic pureblood culture. Exploring different aspects of the culture, the better and worse ones is cool and creative but I’ve seen a lot of fics gloryfing what is just abusive and toxic and romanticizing it in the name of “pureblood customs/traditions”

Guns… just no… like what? It’s like how to tell you’re American without telling you’re American. I hate seeing guns in HP and the wizarding world, and the often following glorification of this weapon

Excessive American English. I don’t mind it much if it’s just some words but please all the slang and common words from American English are annoying. It’s not that hard to do a little bit of reaserch of the common differences in some words. The story is played ( mainly ) in the United Kingdom, the language used by characters should be British English ( like Harry & Hermione ) and Scottish English ( like McGonagall )

Excessive ( and especially if heavily described ) abuse from Dursleys that would have killed Harry at least 5 times before he would be 10. Like heavy beating, breaking bones, stabbing. I do not like reading such things and I found this in fanfics quite a lot….

Oversexualization of children 11-15. While exploring the sexual side of romance/life is okay in a teenager, it is a part of life, I hate seeing fics that oversexualize ships that at the time have characters aged 11-15 - literal children, especially oversexualizing young Hermione, in some Harmony fics ( where she was 14 ), or Ginny, with fics calling her a slut/whore because she had a crush on Harry, or when she’s a bit older because she dated a few boys.

Illogical use of Parseltongue. First of all Parseltongue is a language and Parselmouth is the speaker ( pls I beg don’t describe Harry as a Parseltongue ). But suddenly this language being like all powerful, and you can do wandless magic with it and basically perform any spell without ever using it before.

Luna being bullied by every Ravenclaw, ( like most of those ppl - especially the older ones or younger ones - do not actually care ) and her being like a super mega seer that knows all about the future and is actually super mega smart in her weirdness.

Feel free to add your points to this list!

[merrivia]

I’ve finally read Pet and am kicking myself I didn’t read it sooner!

I’ve measured out the short stories like I’m nibbling on chocolate, Charlie Bucket style, and I was leaving this till last partly because of that, and partly because I didn’t feel that interested in Ancel (sorry Ancel, I take it back).

It’s fascinating reading about events that occur in Captive Prince but not from Damen’s POV. The idea that everyone has complexities under the surface, and that things aren't always as they seem, is only understood by Damen negatively in the first half of Captive Prince I think. Veretians are untrustworthy and slippery and Machiavellian. And that's not, not true! The Veretian court IS a pit of vipers. But people are also still human, and it's that extra step of understanding the humanity underneath even these acidic, performative snakes which is interesting. Ancel is sharp and smart (and really needs to be taught how to read forthwith). Berenger is morally admirable, and isn't actually sleeping with him. Vannes cares about Berenger in her own small way. Laurent emits a great deal of power and is "instantly commanding" to others (but not to Damen, which must have really infuriated him).

Here’s some more snippets of my thoughts in general:

Waxing is canon! So interesting. Why does no grown man ever shave in the books also? Why isn't attending, also shaving? I think we'll just have to accept that as Pacat's choice. Maybe the only blade she wanted between them was the ghost of swords from a long ago fight/swords in the present?

Isagoras the writer/poet- any connection to Isagoras the historical figure who was embroiled in a power play in terms of Athenian politics and democracy? Who Aristotle called ‘friend of tyrants’? Obviously he’s not meant to be that figure but is it a sort of irony and foreshadowing for the political choices Berenger has to make?

And Akielon writing/poetry is popular among men with status? Interesting. You wonder if Laurent approved a poem waxing lyrical about Ios, or really anything that suggested the Akielons aren't barbarians.

I feel as if Damen would know this poem, and read it to Laurent as part of courting him 🥺

Interesting to see a first impression of Laurent from the viewpoint of someone not instantly obsessed with him- severe and harsh, but no mention of his beauty till later.

I mean this nicely but Damen really has no idea how naturally arrogant and superior he comes across as in this situation, does he? I mean, it’s completely understandable if you think of Akielon society, and how he’s been raised and treated; in fact it would be implausible any other way based on his character traits too. He’s just so bad at pretending to be a slave even as his life is at risk if they find out he’s a prince 😂 oh Damen /pets his curls/. And oh, a *lion* you say....

Just really bad at acting servile, it's so funny. Love him.

Speaking of Lamen, it is a little unsettling how quickly Damen starts to fall for Laurent in Captive Prince and how Laurent truly does hate him, yet…is clearly on some molecular level, attracted to him, I think? It’s just a really heartbreaking and stressful dynamic. His "complete attention" on him...let's face it, if Damen had looked like Govart, Laurent wouldn't be fixated in the same way (I mean this nicely).

Oh my baby Laurent. You know this isn’t right. Are you reenacting a past trauma? Making him suffer what you suffered? Even if you aren’t, your flaw is letting your hatred and anger blind you to your morals. (Lucky a man is going to fall in love with you who is pretty much always on your side even when you don’t always deserve it…). Damen will help you be more honourable /pats blond head/

"Locked” is an apt word isn’t it, considering all that ties them together (and not to mention the gold cuffs and collar…) and oof, Laurent's sexual domination in this scene is quite apparent.

and…

I mean, we all know this is sex by proxy and so does Ancel, who just met Laurent and Damen!

And lastly, I am team Berenger. He's a Good Man and would probably get on pretty well with Torveld and Nikandros, the other dark haired, loyal and responsible men in the trilogy.

Nice to see someone see commoners as people all year round (not simply when their villages are being massacred and their humanity is thrown into stark relief by it)!

[trubbishrubbish]

Toko DR1 defense rant. (+ some UDG and Tokomaru hot takes)

I wrote a DR1 Toko defense rant and hot takes on twitter after seeing a DR1 Toko hate post on tumblr, funny that. Anyway, I'm copying pasting that rant onto here becuase it's really important. I will defend Toko with my life.

DR1 Toko haters are the weakest link.

Y’all can’t handle the fact that a woman with childhood trauma, trauma with relationships and has DiD with a serial killer alter is thrust into a stressful life or death killing game would not act very nice and normal 24/7.

If Toko in DR1 made you feel uncomfortable and you didn’t like her moments then that’s completely fine. That’s the point of her character.

It’s a pretty accurate portrayal of how someone with trauma who hasn’t been able to get the help they need would act this way. Her character was perfectly done to serve the story she has. Saying her character is bad just because it’s uncomfortable is dumb.

You can argue that her trauma being played for laughs and is bad taste but that’s more a story issue than a character issue.

Here’s another hot take: If you love UDG Toko but hate DR1 Toko then you don’t actually love Toko, you only love a fanon version of Toko.

A fanon Toko that is gay for Komaru and her obsession with Byakuya and trauma are just “magically gone”

All of Toko’s negative traits in DR1 are still present in UDG. Her sole motivation for coming to Towa city was to save Byakuya. Her reason for sticking with Komaru, encouraging her to not give up when she is at her lowest and helping and saving her, it was all done so Toko could trade Komaru with the enemy so she could save Byakuya. Her being rude and making incest jokes in front of Komaru are aspects of Toko’s character that shouldn’t be ignored. (Although, the incest part is more a product of UDG trying to squeeze as much grossness it can)

The reason why it shouldn’t be ignored is that it makes Toko’s growth in chapter 4 onwards all the more significant. Toko at the start of UDG was calling Komaru “Omaru” and fully wanted to betray her.

Toko in the end of UDG has learned that she likes having Komaru as a friend and wants to fight to save both her and Byakuya. That’s a character god tier arc.

But what about Toko’s obsession afterwards? It still exists because it’s linked to her trauma that she still has not been able to heal from. Komaru is a very important and wonderful person for Toko but she is not a therapist. She can’t diagnose all of Toko’s issues and create a way for Toko to fully heal. She can be the start and encourage Toko, but Toko needs professional therapy. Months of therapy most likely. This isn’t something that can be fixed in a week. DR3 shows that even when Toko has Komaru, she still has her obsession with Byakuya because she hasn’t been able to go to therapy.

I should probably clarify that I don’t dislike Tokomaru content that has Toko healing with Komaru’s help or Toko content that has her over Byakuya. Lord knows

I can’t throw stones in the department because of how I write Genocide Jack lol. But what I am saying is that DR1 Toko is important for UDG Toko to make sense. You can’t ignore DR1 Toko and only think about Toko as she is in UDG. Both Tokos are halves of one complete Toko.

That said, I do take slight issue with people who said that Toko NEEDED UDG to be good. Guys, Kodaka wasn’t thinking about UDG or any future DR game when writing DR1. DR1 was written as if it would be the only thing that could be made of the series. Toko’s arc in DR1 WAS supposed to end where it was. It wasn’t left incomplete so another game could fill in the rest. Toko in UDG is just an expansion of DR1 Toko. She’s already learned how to be braver and fight, UDG teaches her that she doesn’t have to pick and choose between two people. She can have both.

It’s extremely rare that a Danganronpa character has second time in the spotlight to develop more beyond the game they star in. Toko is the sole exception to this.

Also worth mentioning, Toko wasn’t first considered to be the partner early in development. It was actually Haiji that would be the secondary protagonist in UDG. The only reason why they switched from him to Toko was for gameplay purposes. Kodaka wanted the player to have the ability to switch to a super powerful character that can’t die so the people used to visual novel aspect of DR can play UDG without worrying about having to be good at a third person shooter.

Haiji’s power form would have been him taking off his cast and killing Monokumas with a robot arm. But that didn’t go very far so it was decided that Genocide Jack would be that power form.

That means y’all have to thank Genocide Jack for giving you the UDG lesbians. (Btw, if I got this info wrong please let me know.)

Anyway I exhausted myself from talking about Toko. She is a perfect weird girl who is one of DR’s best written characters.

[blues-valentine]

your little women post is gold! I agree with everything you said about amy because all she ever wanted was to just do what she was supposed to do as a women in that time period, both amy and jo did bad things as sisters often do growing up. People resentment towards amy comes with people that don’t understand jo as a character and think she somehow stole jo’s opportunities or laurie when that never was the case. jo never had romantic feelings for laurie. laurie loved amy. amy deserved the trip.

Thank you anon!

One of the things I’ve always loved about Amy is her practical nature. She knew what was expected of her – marry a rich man, fit into society. And it became specially necessary for her to marry into wealth after all her sisters failed to marry rich or couldn’t marry. I also always admired Jo's willingness to be independent and to not comfort to society's expectations of women and people acting like Amy is somehow lesser for trying to be practical and strategic with her position in society is beyond crazy. Amy has always been passionate and ambitious (a trait that is often deemed as negative on women). She was willing to marry any man that would provide for her and her family even if she wasn’t in love – and people forget, Amy was a romantic and did wanted to marry for love. [more under the cut].

I have a younger sister, the amount of times we fought for things growing up are endless, sister rivalry is very common specially when you see how Jo and Amy are polar opposites. Amy was a bossy opinionated 12 years old that knew how to take the opportunities that landed on her, because let’s be real – Aunt March didn’t owe Jo a trip to Paris, specially after she was being rude to her for trying to help her. Amy knew what she needed to do, acted the way it was expected of her and she wanted to improve on her art so she was the perfect candidate for society and marriage. Jo would’ve never fit into Paris and the plans Aunt Match had for her.

Amy didn’t stole anything for Jo, she earned it.

Personally, everyone that has read the books must know Jo never had romantic feelings for Laurie. She considered marrying Laurie as the last resort because she didn’t want to be alone. Book!Jo spends a big part of the books actually trying to set up Laurie with any of her sisters. As for Laurie, I always thought that his attachment to Jo is more connected to the lack of female figures in his life growing up rather than genuine romantic feelings. It was Amy that made him realize the difference between platonic love and romantic love. He used to see Amy as "Jo's little sister", it was when he learns who Amy is separated from Jo that he falls in love with her. Adult Amy (both books and movies) is extremely mature, smart, sophisticated and challenged Laurie for the better – is interesting how Laurie was willing to drop everything in his life to appease Jo while Amy wanted him to embrace it but be responsible. Amy made Laurie become the man he wasn’t ready to be. She made him stop the bachelorette lifestyle he was adopting and made him pursue work seriously. In my opinion, I think Jo and Laurie would’ve never challenged each other in any particular area because a lot of their relationship is founded in childhood, which is why Greta making distinctions between childhood and adulthood throughout the movie is so important to their mindset.

Laurie loved Amy, he respected her, worshipped her almost. Throughout his whole stay in Europe, he was unknowingly writing a play about Amy and Jo didn’t even crossed his mind (his literal words in the book). Amy was the perfect person for him – she returned his love, was always in his toes (which he needed), grounded him and had the perfect society skills to run the Lawrence household and overall deal with Laurie's status. Amy was able to marry someone that would provide for her and her family, but most important someone she loved and loved her back. To this day, I don’t understand people that continues to ignore the fact that Jo didn't have romantic feelings for him. Jo and Laurie just don’t work as a romantic couple, and them ending up together would’ve gone against who they are as people, it would’ve regressed any character development for both. And it’s extremely weird when people make essays about Laurie having feelings for Jo while married to Amy or even thinking he would cheat on her when he would never do that, he legitimately worships Amy.

[bluejayblueskies]

Please say more abt how Martin fits the closed off trait I'm begging 👁👁

Okay, so I got a bit carried away with this and it got quite lengthy....

I've put a TLDR above the cut and the details, transcripts, and general discussion below the cut!

.

TLDR: Martin is at his core a closed-off character who keeps his vulnerable feelings hidden and close to his chest. He instead focuses on caring for others and considering their feelings above his own, particularly in the case of Jon, who he cares for (sometimes to the point of self-sacrifice) throughout the podcast. His arc with the Lonely in season four and his interactions with Jon in season five demonstrate this lack of emotional vulnerability, and it's really only during the moments he spends by himself that we get significant insight into Martin's emotional state and inner thoughts.

.

Martin, to me, is a character who is very used to hiding how he feels. He tends to care for others at the expense of himself, has low self-esteem, and has a predilection towards the Lonely, all of which go hand-in-hand with somebody who is very used to hiding their emotions--particularly the negative ones--because they either think they're not important or that they're inconvenient and inappropriate for the situation. On a textual level, that's probably due to growing up with a sick (and likely unsupportive) mother who he had to take care of, where there was 'no time' for his emotions to get in the way or for him to prioritize himself in any way, shape, or form.

Martin is self-destructive, dislikes moments of emotional vulnerability, and (I would argue) genuinely struggles when he doesn't have somebody else to prioritize over himself. (His mother at first, but as the series goes on, Jon settles comfortably into this role for him.) Additionally, the biggest way that we, the audience, know anything about Martin's emotional state is when he's alone and self-reflecting (such as in MAG 170 and 186 or when talking to the tapes) or when he's forced to talk about something vulnerable (such as when Jon confronted him about his CV).

We don't get much insight into Martin's character between seasons one and three (at least not as much as we get in four and five), but I find myself drawn to this bit in MAG 118, when Martin is talking to Elias:

MARTIN

So what? I don’t get to be angry? I don’t get to burn things? Just, just run around, making tea, while everyone else gets to actually have feelings?

I think two things are important to note here. The first is that Elias is surprised (or least intrigued) that Martin is acting in this way--specifically, acting on his emotions in such a dramatic way. (And given that Martin is doing this as a distraction, rather than actually acting out because of his own emotions, maybe he's right to be surprised.) The second is that this line very much implies that Martin doesn't talk about how he's feeling, not like 'everyone else' does. He doesn't talk about it, doesn't act on it--just 'runs around, making tea.' And when Melanie comes back in after Elias is done, Martin immediately focuses on the plan and whether it succeeded, ignoring Melanie when she asks if he's okay or not. He closes himself off, and as far as we know, doesn't talk about it at all after that.

And then Jon goes into his coma, and we reach season four.

Martin is incredibly closed-off during season four. He's self-isolating, self-sacrificial, and approaching a state of genuine emotional numbness by the time he's cast into the Lonely. There's a lot to unpack there, but I'm going to focus on a few main things, many of which can be drawn from this bit in MAG 158:

MARTIN

It’s not him! It’s not anybody. It’s just me. Always has been. I…

When I first came to you, I thought I had lost everything. Jon was dead, my mother was dead, the job I had put everything into trapped me into spreading evil and I… I really didn’t care what happened to me. I told myself I was trying to protect the others, but… honestly we didn’t even like each other. Maybe I just thought joining up with you would be a good way to get killed.

And then… Jon came back, and… and suddenly I had a reason I had to keep your attention on me. Make you feel in control so you didn’t take it out on him. And if that meant drifting further away, so what? I’d already grieved for him. And if it meant now saving him, it was worth it.

When you started talking about the Extinction, though… you had me actually, then, for a while. But then – (laughs sardonically) then, you tried to make me the hero. Tried to sell me on the idea that I was the only one who could stop it. And that I’ve never sat right with me. I mean, I mean, look – look at me, I’m not exactly a – a chosen one. But by then I was in too deep. So I played along. Waited to see what your end game was, and here we are.

Funny. Looks like I was right the first time. It’s probably still a good way to get killed?

This monologue is a big insight into Martin's thought process during this season, and I'm mostly going to focus on two parts: the self-sacrifice and the prioritization of Jon.

Self-sacrifice

There's quite a bit of discussion about Jon's self-sacrificial tendencies, but less so about Martin's, both in this season and in season five. In my opinion, Jon's self-sacrificial tendencies originate from (among other things) survivor's guilt from his traumatic childhood experience with Mr. Spider, his increasing belief that he's less than human, and the fact that he prioritizes the lives of others over his own. Martin's self-sacrificial tendencies, while very similar, come from the fact that he thinks he only has worth if he can help and care for someone else and the fact that he doesn't think he's important enough to live. (For example, he says in MAG 158 that he's 'not exactly a chosen one' and says in MAG 198 that he's 'not important enough to kill.')

It's a subtle difference between these two things, and I would argue that while Jon's tendencies are more rooted in the 'help' (ie, 'I want to help other people and I will sacrifice myself to do it'), Martin's tendencies are more rooted in the 'hurt' (ie, 'I will sacrifice myself and other people will be helped in the process'). There is, of course, overlap, and it's not a black-and-white distinction between the two, but ultimately, I think Martin is so used to prioritizing others' emotions and needs above his own that when he's left mostly alone as he is at the end of season three, with the only person left to hold onto being in a coma (possibly forever), he falls back into the same patterns of self-destruction and closed-offness, only without the 'help' to go along with the 'hurt' because there is nobody left to help (especially after his mother dies). Ultimately, he joins up with Peter because he thinks it 'would be a good way to get killed.'

Prioritization of Jon

But then Jon wakes up from his coma, and now Martin has justification for his self-sacrifice again, because he can protect Jon by continuing to work with Peter!

... Maybe.

Jon isn't harmed by Peter during season four, sure, but he does climb into the coffin and visits Ny-Ålesund and is tracked down by Julia and Trevor and struggles emotionally and morally with his own humanity and is hurt, in a way, by the distance Martin puts between them. And I hesitate to place blame for the apocalypse on anybody but Jonah, but if we're going to argue in-canon that Jon was responsible for the apocalypse (he wasn't, but that's not the point of this post), then Martin contributed to that blame and responsibility because it was his actions and decisions that ultimately drew Jon into the Lonely and resulted in him getting the 14th and final mark. (Again, I don't think Jon or Martin are at fault for the apocalypse, but if we were to blame Jon, we could blame Martin as well.) It was only after getting that mark that Jonah was able to use Jon to end the world, something that was hugely hurtful for Jon. So did Martin really protect Jon at all by staying away from him and continuing to work with Peter? Or was that just a convenient excuse to keep self-destructing?

Jon and Martin, in my opinion, had very similar arcs in season four. Martin was sinking further into the Lonely and Jon was sinking further into the Eye. We hear a lot more about Jon's emotional struggle with this given that he's the POV character, sure, but Jon also talks about this with other people. He talks about it to Helen (MAG 152):

JON

…

When does it stop?

HELEN

(impatient) What?

JON

The guilt. The misery. All the others I’ve met, they’ve been – cold, cruel. They’ve enjoyed what they do. When does the Eye (inhale) make me monstrous?

And to Daisy (MAG 136):

JON

My – (large sigh) My memories of the coma are not clear, but I know I made a choice; I made a choice to become… something else. Because I was afraid to die. But ever since then, I – I don’t know if I made the right decision; I’m stronger now, tougher, I can – (he cuts himself off) If I do die, now, or get sealed away somewhere forever? I don’t know if that’s a bad thing. And I don’t want to lose anyone else, so if I can maybe – stop that happening, and the only danger is to me, I – I’ll do it in a heartbeat; worst case scenario, the universe loses another monster.

But all we really get from Martin are the things he tells the tapes when he's alone and the monologue he gives in MAG 158. It makes sense that he wouldn't be as open, yes, given the nature of the Lonely, but I can't help but think of (MAG 154):

JON

The Lonely’s really got you, hasn’t it?

MARTIN

(no hesitation) You know, I think it always did.

Jon was always curious and hungry for knowledge; the Eye amplified it. Martin was always closed-off and isolated; the Lonely amplified that as well.

But then Jon pulls Martin out of the Lonely, they flee to the safehouse, and three weeks later, the apocalypse begins. Martin isn't as consumed by the Lonely as he was in season four, he's with Jon--the person he loves--for extended periods of time, and they're in an extremely stressful situation that's sure to be incredibly emotionally charged. There's a lot to be said about Jon's emotional vulnerability during season five and how Martin both pressures him for it and rejects it in different ways, but for the purposes of this post, I won't go too far into detail about the motivations behind how Jon is feeling and acting.

I will say, however, that in season five, Martin still continues to place a lot of focus on asking Jon how he's feeling, encouraging (or pressuring) him to share, and getting frustrated when Jon can't or doesn't (MAG 167):

MARTIN

Okay, so how exactly would you describe your current emotional state regarding all of this?

JON

I –

MARTIN

(overlapping) Go on, I’m all ears.

JON

I feel…

MARTIN

(go on) Mhm.

JON

(sigh) I feel… sad.

[Brief pause.] MARTIN

(flat) Sad.

JON

Very sad.

MARTIN

(*very* flat) Very sad.

[He sighs slightly as he says it. Their bags jangle.]

A few moments prior to this, Martin expresses displeasure that Jon is Knowing things about him, specifically pointing out his emotions (MAG 167):

MARTIN

It’s just – it’s weird knowing that you can know literally everything I think and feel. E-Especially since you’re not exactly the most open of people – emotionally, I mean.

I think Martin is making an effort to open up more to Jon. But I still think it's difficult for him to talk about how he feels so openly, and while he is completely in the right for not wanting Jon to Know things about him without his permission, I think it's interesting that the focus is on his feelings and that he brings up how Jon isn't emotionally open immediately after. It scares Martin to think that Jon could know, at any given moment, how he's feeling, and I think it's partially because he's not used to that level of vulnerability. He turns the focus on Jon, away from himself, and doesn't really make an effort to talk about how he's feeling about all of this, instead prioritizing Jon's feelings and mental state like he's grown comfortable with.

And when Martin bottles up his emotions--of which there are a lot, in such a stressful environment, they can explode out in hurtful ways:

MARTIN

(overlapping) I know! I know, okay, I just – (bracing exhale) Look, I j,just – don’t want to get burned, all right? It’s, it’s like my least favorite pain ever.

JON

Is that – a joke?

MARTIN

(a bit faster, a bit shaky) No, no, okay? I, I legitimately hate burns, alright? They’re, they’re awful, and they scar horribly, and they just – it – it just makes me sick; I, I hate it. Hate it!

I don't think Martin really thought about what he was saying when he told Jon, who has a large burn scar on his hand, that burn scars make him sick, and I don't think he meant it maliciously. But he'd spent the greater portion of the conversation talking around the fact that he didn't like burns and that was why he didn't want to go into the building, and so when it finally ended up coming out, it did so in an explosion of emotion rather than a conscious decision to share. Martin doesn't have a good handle on his emotions, and he doesn't have a good handle on sharing them.

(Is it too much for me to say that Martin was more emotionally vulnerable with himself in MAG 170 than he was with Jon when Jon finally found him?)

Throughout season five, Martin asks Jon questions, he expresses frustrations with Jon, he shows discomfort or fear at times, but for as much as Martin feels frustrated that Jon isn't talking about how he feels about their situation, Martin really isn't doing so either. The most he talks about his feelings is in MAG 170 and MAG 186, when he's by himself, and I remember MAG 186 in particular because before that, we really didn't know what Martin was thinking about for the majority of the season! And in this episode, we find out a lot of very important things about Martin's character. Like (MAG 186):

ALSO MARTIN

Look, I know what you know. Maybe I’m just a bit more… open about it.

Also-Martin acknowledges that Martin often doesn't say what he means and hides what he really feels, telling him that it's 'hard to be vulnerable,' and Martin is initially very resistant to the idea. And then, when Also-Martin suggests that Martin wants to stay so that he can be 'quietly sad,' we get (MAG 186):

MARTIN

We could talk to Jon about it.

ALSO MARTIN

We could. But we both know that loved ones make the worst therapists. They’re too wrapped up in trying to stop you hurting to actually help. But hey, we know all about that, am I right?

MARTIN

There’s nothing wrong with comforting people.

ALSO MARTIN

A cup of tea isn’t a resolution. At best it’s a… a plaster. At worst… a muzzle.

This is very interesting to me, because for all that Martin tries to help other people, he also believes that comfort doesn't always help and that you can't be your loved one's 'therapist.' I think this gives a lot of insight into why Martin doesn't share his emotions with the people he cares about, especially Jon; he doesn't want to put Jon in the position where he'll become his 'therapist,' and he doesn't necessarily think Jon can help. So instead, Martin just chooses not to be vulnerable at all, because he doesn't want to burden the people he cares about. But, when it's just him (MAG 186):

ALSO MARTIN

Don’t lie. You don’t need to. Not here. It’s just us.

He doesn't feel like he needs to pull his emotional punches. He can't accidentally hurt somebody or put them in an awkward position; it's just himself. But what's said to himself remains with himself, and (at least on tape), he doesn't discuss any of this with Jon. Not even the bit about, if it came down to it, Martin would have rather had Jon smite him than continue to rule over a domain. He goes right back to being closed-off around Jon, but now we, the audience, know what lies underneath, and how little of it reaches the surface.

In fact, the thing Martin's probably most vocal about is how Jon's feelings about himself bother him (MAG 199):

MARTIN

I guess that’s why it really bothers me, you know? I try, but I can’t actually imagine ever making a decision that I knew meant losing you.

And it… It hurts to know you can.

And I think he has a tendency to use anger and frustration to cover up hurt, shying away from the admission that something Jon's done has hurt him (an incredibly vulnerable thing) and instead relying on the less-vulnerable and more external anger to cover it. This is more speculation than true analysis, but I think that's a lot of what's happening in MAG 200, when he discovers that Jon has already assumed the position of the pupil and has, in Martin's eyes, broken his promise.

.

TLDR: Martin is at his core a closed-off character who keeps his vulnerable feelings hidden and close to his chest. He instead focuses on caring for others and considering their feelings above his own, particularly in the case of Jon, who he cares for (sometimes to the point of self-sacrifice) throughout the podcast. His arc with the Lonely in season four and his interactions with Jon in season five demonstrate this lack of emotional vulnerability, and it's really only during the moments he spends by himself that we get significant insight into Martin's emotional state and inner thoughts.

[dragon-ball-meta]

I really think that most Dragon Ball fans don't like Goku. That sound weird to you? It shouldn’t. In fact, if you look at how much of the fandom perceives him and perceives ways he’s “written wrong” then you can see it plainly.

Sure, they’ll enjoy aspects of Goku. A lot of the dudes in the fandom love that he’s buff, powerful. They love that he’s battle-hungry. They love his abilities, that he’s fodder for versus debates and “power scaling”, basically nerdy “my dad can beat up your dad” debates. A lot of the ladies (and some of the fellas) love him for... obvious reasons. And most love him when he was a little knee-high goober too. But when you look at the discourse surrounding him... people really do not like him much. No matter how many times they try too qualify it with “I love Goku, but...” that BUT is ever-present. And the “BUT” usually pertains to a core character trait being seen as a critical flaw. See, for some reason, people seem to think Goku’s naïve nature needs to disappear. He needs to become more worldly, street smart, develop inherent seriousness and the ability to just instinctively know when to switch that on or off. Not doing so is “lack of maturity”. Goku needs to evolve into a wise old sage in order to develop at all. Anything less is “regressing” him... even when those traits are present throughout the entirety of Toriyama’s writing of the character. His parenting and love for his children is always called into question, backed up by quotes from outside the series completely removed from context, with everyone hype focusing on ONE event, ONE apparent mistake. That alone invalidates the love and care he’s shown for both his sons throughout their life, that alone makes any and all attempts to spend time with or provide for them invalid. Doesn’t matter how much Gohan loves and admires his father, doesn’t matter how happy a child Goten is, Goku’s a toxic parent and deserves to be ranked on “worst dad” lists alongside people like Shou Freakin’ Tucker. Just... let’s compare and contrast this with Vegeta, just for a second. Fandom darling. Seems nothing he ever does is wrong. Mistreated his son and never once held him or really spent time with him growing up until he realized he could use him as a proxy in his rivalry with Goku? Well he took Trunks to an amusement park once and held his daughter so that’s water under the bridge. But see, there’s the thing. His later actions, his other actions surrounding that... they’re allowed to change your perception of hat he did in the past. They mean you can’t hold that against him. Goku, no matter what he did around Gohan and the Cell Games, hell, no matter what he actually did do even DURING the Cell Games, that doesn’t count. It will never matter. Goku going out of his way to tell Gohan how proud of him he is, or spending time frequently with Goten, will NEVER count. He’s not allowed to have learned this. So much so that even TOYOTARO chose to reinforce several of these negative stereotypes about Goku’s parenting skills in his manga, and has him seeming to actively avoid his family no matter what. And people thus just point to that and say yep, that’s Goku right there, bad dad forever. No matter what we actually saw in Toriyama’s manga. And that’s the kicker. People see a Goku that inexplicably became “wise and mature” in Toriyama’s work, a Goku who was serious and not a goofball, a Goku who didn’t forget things or march to the beat of his own drum... when that wasn’t in the manga. But when he’s a good, caring father, albeit untraditional, when he was EAGER to take his little boy to meet his friends and show him off, when he flew into such a rage at his son being threatened he immediately threatened to kill the one doing it if he didn’t stop, and tried to chase after him clouded by rage... when he hugged and spent time with his sons... when he frequently chats and plays with Goten and even goes out to do mundane tasks with him... he’s a bad dad no matter what’s actually seen. So again, sure. The fandom does like SOME aspects of Goku. And they like what they THINK Goku should be. But they don't like Goku. They constantly see or want him to be drastically different from who he is.

[blackstarising]

coming back to this post i made again to elaborate - especially as the ted lasso fandom is discussing sam/rebecca and fandom racism in general. there are takes that are important to make that i had failed to previously, but there's also a growing amount of takes that i have to, As A Black Person™, respectfully disagree with.

tl;dr for the essay below sam being infantilized and the sam/rebecca relationship are not the same issue and discussing the former one doesn't mean excusing the latter. and we've reached the glen of the Dark Forest where we sit down and talk about fandom racism.

i should have elaborated this in my last post about sam/rebecca, but i didn't. i'll say it now - i personally don't support sam and rebecca getting together for real. i believe what people are saying is entirely correct, even though sam is an adult legally, he and rebecca are, at the very least, two wildly different stages of life. for americans, he's at the equivalent of being a junior in college. there are things he hasn't gotten the chance to experience and there are areas he needs to grow in. when i was younger, i didn't understand the significance of these age gaps, i just thought it would be fine if it was legal, but as someone who is now a little older than sam in universe, i understand fully. we can't downplay this. whether or not you think sam works for rebecca or not, even despite the gender inversion of the Older Man Younger Woman trope, whether or not he is a legal adult, i don't think at this point in time, their relationship would work. i think it's an interesting narrative device, but i don't want to see it play out in reality.

that being said!

what's worrying me is that two discussions are being conflated here that shouldn't be. sam having agency and being a little more grown™ than he's perceived to be does not suddenly make his relationship with rebecca justified. i had decided to bring it up because sam was being brought into the spotlight again and i was starting to realizing that his infantilization was more common than i felt comfortable with.

sam's infantilization (and i will continue to call it that), is a microaggression. it's is in the range of microaggressions that i would categorize as 'fandom overcompensation'. we have a prominent character of color that exhibits traits that aren't stereotypical, and we don't want to appear racist or stereotypical, so we lean hard in the other direction. they're not aggressive, they're a Sweet Baby, they're not world weary, they're now a little naive. they're not cold and distant, they're so nice and sweet that there's no one that wouldn't want approach them, and yeah, on their face, these new traits are a departure and, on their face, they seem they look really good.

but at a certain point, it reaches an inflection point, and, like the aftertaste of a diet coke, that alleged sweetness veers into something a lot less sweet. it veers into a lack of agency for the character. it veers into an innocence that appears to indicate that the person can't even take care of themselves. it veers into a one-dimensional characterization that doesn't allow for any depth or negative emotion.

it's not kind anymore. it's not a nice departure from negative stereotypes. it's not compensating for anything.

it's patronizing.

it is important that we emphasize that characters of color are more than the toxic stereotypes we lay on them, yes, but we make a mistake in thinking that the solution is overcorrection. for one thing, people of color can usually tell. don't get it twisted, it's actually pretty obvious. for another, it just shifts from one dimension to another. people of color are still supposed to be Only One Character Trait while white people can contain multitudes. ted, who is pretty much as pollyanna as they come, can be at once innocent and naive and deep and troubled and funny and scared. jamie can be a prick and sexy and also lonely and also a victim of abuse. sam, however, even though he was bullied (by jamie, no less), is thousands of miles away from home, and has led a protest on his team, is usually just characterized as human sunshine with much less acknowledgement of any other traits beyond that.

and that's why i cringe when fandom calls sam a Sweet Baby Boy without any sense of irony. is that all we're taking away? after all this time? even for a comedy, sam has received a substantive of screen time over two whole seasons, and we've seen a range of emotions from him. so as a black person it's hurtful that it's boiled down to Sweet Baby Boy.

that's the problem. we need to subvert stereotypes, but more importantly, we need to understand that people of color are not props, or pieces of cardboard for their white counterparts. they are full and actualized and have agency in their own right and they can have other emotions than Angry and Mean or Sweet and Bubbly without any nuance between the two. i think the show actually does a relatively good job of giving sam depth (relatively, always room for improvement, mind you), especially holding it in tension with his youth, but the fandom, i worry, does not.

it's the same reason why finn from star wars started out as the next male protagonist in the sequel trilogy but by the third movie was just running around yelling for REY!! it's the same reason why when people make Phase 4 Is the Phase For Therapy gifsets for the mcu and show wanda maximoff, loki, and bucky barnes crying and being sad but purposefully exclude sam wilson who had an entire show to tell us how difficult his life is, because people find out if pee oh sees are also complex, they'll tell the church.

and the reason why i picked up on this very early on is because i am an organic, certified fresh, 100% homegrown, non-gmo, a little ashy, indigenous sub saharan African black person. the ghanaian tribes i'm descended from have told me so, my black ass parents have told me so, and the nurses at the hospital in [insert asian country here] that started freaking out about how curly my hair was as my mother was mid pushing me out told me so!

and this stuff has real life implications. listen: being patronized as a black person sucks. do you know how many times i was patted on the back for doing quite honestly, the bare minimum in school? do you know how many times i was told how 'well spoken' or 'eloquent' i was because i just happen to have a white accent or use three syllable words? do you know how many times i've been cooed over by white women who couldn't get over how sweet i was just because i wasn't confrontational or rude like they wrongly expected me to be?

that's why they're called microaggressions. it's not a cross on your lawn or having the n-word spat in your face, but it cuts you down little by little until you're completely drained.

so that's the nuance. that's the subversion. the overcompensation is not a good thing. and people of color (and i suspect, even white people) have picked up on, in general, the different ways fandom treats sam and dani and even nate. what all of these discussions are converging on is fandom racism, which is not the diet form of racism, but another place for racism to reveal itself. and yeah, it's uncomfortable. it can seem out of left field. you may want to defend yourself. you may want to explain it away. but let me tap the sign on the proverbial bus:

if you are a white person, or a person of color who is not part of that racial group, even, you do not get to decide what is not racist for someone. full stop. there are no exceptions. there is no exit clause for you. there is no 'but, actually-'. that right wasn't even yours to cede or waive.

(it's also important to note that people of color also have the right to disagree on whether something is racist, but that doesn't necessarily negate the racism - it just means there's more to discuss and they can still leave with different interpretations)

people don't just whip out accusations of racism like a blue eyes white dragon in a yu-gi-oh duel. it's not fun for us. it's not something we like to do to muzzle people we don't want to engage with. and we're not concerned with making someone feel bad or ashamed. we're exposing something painful that we have to live with and, even worse, process literally everything we experience through. we can't turn it off. we can't be 'less sensitive' or 'less nitpicky'. we are literally the primary resources, we are the proverbial wikipedia articles with 3,000 sources when it comes to racism. who else would know more than us?

what 2020 has shown us very clearly is that racism is systemic. it's not always a bunch of Evil White Men rubbing their hands together in a dark room wondering how they're going to use the 'n-word' today. it's systemic. it's the way you call that one neighborhood 'sketchy'. it's how you use 'ratchet' and 'ghetto' when describing something bad. it's how you implicitly the assume the intelligence of your friend of color. it's the way you turned up your nose and your friend's food and bullied them for it in middle school but go to restaurants run by white people who have 'uplifted' it with inauthentic ingredients. it's telling someone how Well Spoken and Eloquent they are even though you've both gone to the same schools and work at the same workplace. it's the way you look down at some people of color for having a different body type than you because they've been redlined to neighborhoods where certain foods and resources are inaccessible, and yet mock up the racial features that appeal to you either through makeup or plastic surgery.

it's how when a person of color behaves badly, they're irredeemable, but a white person performing the same act or something similar is 'having a bad day' or 'isn't normally like this' or 'has room to grow' and we can't 'wait for their redemption arc', and yes, i'm not going to cover it in detail in this post but yes this is very much about nate. other people have also brought up the nuances in his arc and compared them to other white characters so i won't do it here.

these behaviors and reactions aren't planned. they aren't orchestrated. they're quite literally unconscious because they've been lovingly baked into western society for centuries. you can't wake up and be rid of it. whether you intended it or not, it can still be racist.

and it's actually quite hurtful and unfair to imply that concerns about racism in the TL fandom are unfounded or lacking any depth or simply meant to be sensational because you simply don't agree with it. i wish it was different, but it doesn't work that way. i'm not raising this up to 'call out' or shame people, but i'm adding to this discussion because, through how we talk about sam, and even dani and nate, i'm yet again seeing a pattern that has shortchanged people of color and made them feel unwelcome in fandom for far too long.

coach beard said it best: we need to do better.

[plan-d-to-i]

So I didn’t have any particular thoughts about JC as a character until i got into the fandom and saw the whole discourse about him. Reading both sides I do agree with a lot of what you and other people with similar opinions say, he was pretty abusive and he was incredibly toxic with WWX, yet I still can’t completely hate his character. Do I think he and WWX should reconcile? No, I think WWX made the best decision for himself when he chose to distance himself from JC and re reading the novel I don’t really think there’s anything there to fix. Their relationship was always imbalanced and problematic.

However, Im unable to hate JC because in my opinion he was raised like that. His mom was horribly abusive, physically and mentally to WWX and then mentally to the both her husband and her son. His dad did seem like he didn’t really care for him (at least in my opinion) and it seemed like all of that combined to create a very mentally unstable and angry individual. He’s the kind of character that kinda makes me pity him, not in the “oh the world was terrible to you and now it owes you”, but in a “poor thing had a shitty upbringing, you really need some therapy because you’re emulating that same behavior now” His actions throughout the book aren’t justifiable at all, just kinda sad that he never managed to work on his issues and know better

I don't think you need to hate him! This is a misconception I'm happy to clear up. My problem isn't that jc stans like jc, we all react and respond differently to characters, I'm just annoyed when they try to jam fanon through as canon, and inevitably skew and alter events and charters, including jc himself! to make him look better (and everyone look worse). Same as with ppl who hate LQR and LXC. Ppl don't have to love them but it sounds stupid to try to act like they were evil in canon and try to sell it to others as hot canon takes...

I do disagree with the idea that JC is solely a product of his upbringing or environment, and just the idea of blaming upbringing in general. I think jc's nature was always self absorbed, selfish and envious and worst of all he had little interest in resisting those impulses. Most of the accusations of JFM's parenting being lacking come from YZY, who's hardly a reliable voice, or jc's own complaints who feels somehow wronged by his father's expectations. Meanwhile the narrative tells us JFM repeatedly tried to teach and instruct jc since youth- and he wasn't teaching him bad things! Just how to be a decent person and wield the power and privilege he would inherit with care for others. Naturally as jc instead embraced his mother's negative traits, JFM would be disappointed. Yet, it shows us JFM gently still trying to guide jc even after all that!

Jiang Cheng, “It served you right to be bored to death. You shouldn’t have played the hero and you shouldn’t have cared for such a hell of a thing. If in the beginning you didn’t…”

Suddenly, Jiang FengMian spoke, “Jiang Cheng.”

Jiang Cheng paused, knowing that he had said too much. He was quiet at once.

Jiang FengMian didn’t look as if he was blaming him of anything, but his expression had turned from calm to more solemn, “Do you know in which ways what you just said is not appropriate?”

Jiang Cheng’s head hung low, “Yes.”

Wei WuXian, “He’s just angry and speaking without care.”

Seeing how Jiang Cheng’s mouth and heart were still at odds, how he still felt defiant, Jiang FengMian shook his head, “A-Cheng, there are some things that can’t be said even if you’re angry. If you said them, it means that you still don’t understand the motto of the Jiang Sect, that you still don’t…”

and jc learning absolutely nothing ... 🧽a few moments later🧽

Jiang Cheng snorted, “You see how you are right now? Who can you beat up?”

As he spoke he slapped right at the middle of Wei WuXian’s chest. Although medicine and bandages had already been applied to the branded wound, being slapped out of the blue still brought immense pain. Wei WuXian roared, “Jiang Cheng!!! Come to your death!!!”

Jiang Cheng ducked from his strike and shouted, “You’re hurting so much now, but why did you play the hero back then?! Serves you right! Teaches you your lesson!”

Wei WuXian, “Was I playing the hero?! I had no other choice either, I was moving faster than I could think! 

jiang cheng prefers to think that JFM has an unfair bias against him instead of examining his own actions and understanding his father's valid concerns in regard to his behavior. But even as far as parent blaming goes, jiang cheng is ~35!!!! There's a point where you're just an asshole and he's well past that...

[linkspooky]

Who in you’re opinion are the 5 best written characters in jjk?

1. Suguru Geto

Geto is the type of character I refer to as an "empathy monster", his genuine feelings of empathy for other people just make him all the more monstrous. Empathy isn't a positive or negative trait, it's just one personality trait that makes a person. It's just the ability to inuit other people's emotions naturally. It's not some magical trait that makes you a good guy. Suguru starts out his story as someone who strives to be good, but in a "self righteous" way. He's trying to assure himself that he's a good person, that his beliefs are the right ones.

Geto and Gojo work so well as character foils, because they are essentially the same person. They're both "the strongest" and that makes them see themselves as apart from normal people. Geto at first believes it's his duty to help weak people, but that still comes from a place of looking down on them.

Then Geto is put through something no normal teenager should have gone through, he gets close to a girl, only to watch her die right in front of him when he promised to be the one to save her and fall away from his best friend shortly after, because when Satoru became the strongest it seemed like he didn't need him anymore.

Geto sees himself above normal people, but it's actually him genuinely connecting to someone he and Gojo would have dismissed as a normal person before in Riko Amanai, and seeing her desire to live in this world the same as everyone else, only for it to be taken away that breaks Geto. Geto feels this empathy deeper and stronger than everything else, and because he cares the loss absolutely devestates him and the only way for him to go forward is to just cut off that empathy. He starts seeing everyone, except for the sorcers closest to him as being human. He disqualifies them.

Geto works so well as a character, because it's his good qualities that drive him to tragedy not his faults. He shows how uncaring the world of sorcerers is, if trying to be a genuinely caring person can be a fault that drives you off the edge.

2. Satoru Gojo.

Gojo's writing is well done because it's balanced, the entire character is built around the idea of being "the strongest" but instead of it being a power fantasy, Gojou's character revolves more around how much it sucks to be him.

Gojo can win any fight alone, but it doesn't get him what he wants. He can't use his strength to solve every problem. There are several things he can't do, he can't teach that well, understand or relate to other people, play politics with others.

What Gojo wants is a better world, and comrades that can stay by his side without getting left behind, but he can't have those things. Gojo actually has an insecurity around being the strongest, because he thinks it's all that defines him. He sees his strength as insufficient ultimately because there is so much he failed to do. He has strength, but he couldn't save Geto. Gojo is the strongest man in the whole world and still he fails, he makes mistakes like any other human. Just like his character profile says, Gojo can do almost anything, but there's nothing he particularly wants to do and when he does find something it slips out of his fingers.

3. Okkotsu Yuta.

Jujutsu Kaisen writes main characters well, and it does this by not allowing them to be "the main characters' of their stories. In most stories the world revolves around the viewpoint of the protagonists. However, in the case of both Yuji and Yuta every time they try to view themselves as the heroes, or act self-centered in their viewpoints, they get slapped in the face and reminded that they're not the only ones fighting here.

Yuta is a well thought out version of the "nakama" trope, in that Yuta's entire problem is how codependent he is. He can't function without people around him. He was so afraid of losing Rika when he was young, that he cursed her and bound her to him for years after her death which inevitably made her suffer.

Yuta's passivity is also a serious flaw. Maki calls him out for "playing the victim" as an excuse to avoid responsibility. If he lets others push him around, then he doesn't ever have to make decisions for his actions because he's "not at fault." Yuta's arc in Zero is forcing him to grow up and take responsibility, otherwise he'll keep hurting the people around him like he did Rika, and I hope we can see the conintuation of that arc.

4.  Kokichi Muta.

Kokichi is a perfectly executed tragic character. His circumstances aren't his own fault, but he still makes bad choices in those circumstances.

Kokichi's desire is to be together with everyone else. However, Kokichi is so afraid of his friends hating him, because of how worthless he believes his own body to be that he can't let them close. Kokichi has internalized the idea that he's weak, so he takes all the burdens on his own shoulders in an attempt to prove he's strong.

That, is what leads him to try to challenge Mahito all on his own. He wants to be closer to the others, but he can't bring himself to rely on them. It leads to one of the saddest scenes in the manga, and expresses the tragedy that's repeated again and again in the jujutsu world, that these are all just kids that want to be friends, and have the normal lives everyone else have. I want to be together with everyone. That's what Riko said. That's what Kokichi said. That's what Yuji tried to promise to Junpei. We want the characters we like to be happy, but to the ones with unhappy endings their story still matters.

Kokichi couldn't leave his room in the end, but even so there was still someone who loved him in Miwa, there's still someone who will remember him - and there's a power in someone who tried their hardest to live and love even if they failed in the end.

5. Mahito.

Anyway, now I'm going to praise the asshole that killed my other favorite.

Mahito is a frankenstein's monster like Dabi, he's just a little uglier. Mahito serves as an embodiment, a walking, breathing, id of human selfishness and desire. What's so interesting about his character are all his nasty traits are perfectly human ones. Human pettiness. Human jealousy. Human fickleness. The things that Mahito does are all things other humans do with each other. A confrontation with him is like an acknowledgement of just how terrible people can be to each other.

However, there's more to him than that Mahito is basically an infant, he is frankenstein's monster, a creation of humanity but distinctly not human and unaware of what he truly is. What I'm invested in is the potential of a character like Mahito. His starting point si the absolute worst of humanity, but humans are ore than just their bad traits. Just looking at the bad parts of people you're not looking at the whole truth. I'm interested in what kind of character that Mahito can grow into as he gains a wider view of the world around him, because he is a curious learning thing.

I actually hope we see him come back in canon after being eaten by Getwo, because there's a lot more that could be done with a character with so much potential as him.

[gnzma]

[ i have decided to reply to all the salty munday asks except one here to avoid clogging the dash with negativity

why except one? beacuse. thinking about it, that one in particular ended up being more an excercise for me to let out some really bad memories that. turns out i suppressed until now? i guess. and i’d rather approach it in another way, explain it in better details and give a proper warning before talking about it

for the rest

join me under read more! and fair warning my mood isn’t one of the best so don’t expect me to have. the best english nor a lot of tact asfndmg ]

4. What are some things you are tired of seeing in the RPing community? asked by @tellnxlies & @badmusejail​

[ people not putting their money where their mouths at? like the amount of ppl who preach about sending stuff before reblogging memes and not doing anything about it? or seeing promo hour, posting their promo and moving on without promoting anyone else, even worse if later on they complain about cliques.

it’s this... problem that a lot of fandoms have, i’m sure, but i literally have no problems with this kind of stuff in any other RPC i’m in. it’s this constant complain about lack of interactions, and then not daring to take a step further to take the first step ]

7. Things that you will not tolerate? asked by @kotoyin & @tellnxlies

[ ofc the usual stuff; p/edophilia, r/acism, you name it. the usual things that i don’t even mention in the rules because the few people who were into that shit literally didn’t give a damn about much lighter rules, they wouldn’t have cared if i said, hey! maybe don’t interact with me if you want to do unspeakable things with a child?

but for more personal stuff, i despise people who treat me like a moron. i had my fair amount of “oh i’m sorry i don’t have a tumblr” from anons who def have it, or “i know you have this in your rules but since we’re friends i figured it was worth a shot” when it comes to ships or fandoms i don’t rp with. ]

14. Your opinion on muns making canon characters Trans/ gender fluid etc.? asked by @hxdrostorm​

[ the same i have for any other interpretation when it comes to gender, sexuality or even mental health: i don’t see the problem as long as they don’t make it into their character’s Only Personality Trait or turn it into nothing but fetish (because, yea, been there, seen that) ofc if the mun is cis it’s heavily encouraged to do research or contact trans/NB friends and mutuals to ask for help, but. yea ]

15. What is your biggest pet peeve? asked by @turnecoat​, @hxdrostorm​ & @skullkxd​

[ People Who Just Want To Ship Get Out Of Here

seriously ik i’m digging my own grave by playing characters that are. arguably “the fandom favorites”, but if i had a nickel for every person who jumped in my askbox expecting my muses to be immediately in love with theirs, ESPECIALLY if they’re characters, ocs or canons, i 1) don’t know anything about since even every canon character has very personal interpretations and 2) i have no idea if they’d have chemistry i could buy this entire site

i know some want to rp just to have a ship, and that’s FINE, i don’t judge! but don’t shove me into your nothing-but-ships blog my dudes

especially if you expect me to do all the hard work and your muse is perfect/did nothing wrong/deserves to have my well-known often antagonistic and shut-in muses to bend over and be lovey dovey to yours right off the bat ]

16. How much does it take for you to get angry/upset? How long does it usually last? asked by @hxdrostorm​

[ sdfnmdf it depends so it turns out!!!i have problems dealing with my anger, and that mixed up with funny mental health issues really make my patience change from day to day. if one day i could laugh at something, the next day it could frustrate me right away; sometimes it lasts five minutes, sometimes all day :^) ]

20. Wild card: The mun discusses any situation/problem they want. asked by @kotoyin & @turnecoat​

[ if i see the height discourse again one more time i will start biting people ]

[aboveallarescuer]

#that happens even when the person isnt trying to argue that shes a mad queen/villain but that she has both 'good' and 'evil' in her#and is meant to fail#(e.g. that meta about how dany is a tragic shakespearean hero; which annoys me more bc it sounds convincing when you don't remember what#happened in the books very well...

Can you talk more about your problems with that essay? I thought that it sounded plausible... I don't want those things to happen to Daenerys, but I don't trust GRRM either.

Anon, thank you for this ask and sorry for the delayed answer. I was already planning to write several posts as a response to the arguments of “Daughter of Death: A Song of Ice and Fire’s Shakespearean Tragic Hero” (which you can read here), but I couldn't find the time or motivation for that lately, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to counter-argue it in a single answer. I tried to be brief by summarizing some of my notes and by linking to a lot of metas instead of repeating all of their points, but the response unfortunately ended up becoming long anyway.

In the context of that essay, Dany is considered a Shakespearean tragic hero because the writer thinks she fits five requirements: 1) Dany’s chapters contain supposedly deliberate references to Shakespearean plays; 2) Dany is “torn by an internal struggle”, namely peace versus violence or companionship versus rulership or home versus the Iron Throne, all of which also drive the external conflicts. Choosing the second options will lead to her demise; 3) prophecies and “influential accidents” - that is, events that “have roots in a character’s motivation”, as well as “the sense of ‘if only this had not happened’” - will “heighten and exaggerate [tragic flaws that] already [exist]” in Dany; 4) Dany will (according to the essayist’s speculations) take actions that produce “exceptional calamity” and her demise will be “her own choice and doing”; 5) Dany “[rose] high in position” and is “an exceptional being”, which sets her apart as a character that fits the mold of the Shakespearean tragedy because her reversal of fortune will highlight “the greatness and piteousness of humanity”.

I would argue that the points that the essayist made to justify how Dany supposedly fits these five requirements are all very skewed.

1) When it comes to requirement 1 (Dany’s chapters contain supposedly deliberate references to Shakespearean plays), the essayist is conveniently cherry-picking (as they often do throughout the meta). Bran Stark wants a dreamless sleep just like Dany: “Sweet, dreamless sleep, Bran thought.” (ACOK Bran I); “That night Bran prayed to his father’s gods for dreamless sleep.” (ACOK Bran II). Indeed, @marinabridgerton argues that that’s most likely tied to the fact that they’re the two characters most heavily associated with prophecies. Even Sansa is said to have a dreamless sleep: “Sometimes her sleep was leaden and dreamless, and she woke from it more tired than when she had closed her eyes” (AGOT Sansa VI). And yet, where are the essays about how these quotes are teaching the readership to interpret Bran’s and Sansa’s characters, storylines and trajectories based on Shakespearean tragedies?

2) When it comes to requirement 2 (Dany is “torn by an internal struggle”, namely peace versus violence or companionship versus rulership or home versus the Iron Throne, all of which also drive the external conflicts. Choosing the second options will lead to her demise), the essayist is right to point out that those dilemmas exist. However, they portray Dany’s struggles in a way that makes it seem that 1) there are “good” options (peace/companionship/home) and “bad” options (violence/rulership/Iron Throne) for Dany to take and that 2) choosing the latter ones will lead to Dany’s downfall. There is a lot to question about these assumptions.

2.1) When it comes to Dany’s conflict between peace versus violence, the essayist takes everything that Adam Feldman’s series of essays “Untangling the Meereenese Knot” says for granted when it shouldn’t be. I’m not going to delve into all the problems/inaccuracies/double standards with those essays. For our purposes here, it’s enough to say that they: 1) dichotomize Dany’s identity into mhysa and mother of dragons to argue that the former represents her desire for peace and the latter her violent impulses; 2) assert that the peace was real; 3) conclude that, by rejecting the peace, the Dany of ASOS is gone and from now on she’s going to be a very different person because she will have chosen to follow her violent impulses.

As already argued before, though, 1) Dany’s character can’t be dichotomized in that way because these facets - mhysa and mother of dragons - actually complement each other (as @yendany made clear in her most recent meta). Because Dany was the mother of dragons, she was able to act as mhysa way before she was hailed as such, which we see, for instance, when she kills the Astapori slave masters to free the Unsullied. Both of these identities manifest Dany’s fierceness when faced with great injustices. This is why, in ADWD, locking her dragon children prevented Dany from properly defending her human children… She needs to integrate both parts of her identity to be able to protect them. But Feldman couldn’t recognize that because 2) he accepts the peace deal that Dany made with the slavers as valid. Doing so would mean, however, ignoring the re-enslavement and suffering of thousands of marginalized people, which GRRM continually emphasizes in Dany's and Tyrion’s final ADWD chapters (read more about this here and here) to hammer home that the peace is false for prioritizing the slavers over them. Finally, 3) Dany is not a violent person nor does she have violent impulses. Feldman decontextualized the moments in which Dany uses violence from the standards of her time and place (read more about this here and here and here and here) to portray them in a more negative light than how they are actually meant to be viewed. Additionally, he conveniently left out all the moments in which Dany chooses to be merciful, from when she spares Yunkai and most of the Meereenese slavers (she didn’t do the same in Astapor because she was outnumbered and needed to protect her retinue) to when she doesn’t punish people who threaten or disrespect her to her face (such an envoy who spits at her face, a boy who tries to attack her, Xaro after he says he wishes he’d killed her), to give a few examples (read more about this in @rainhadaenerys's comprehensive meta). I would argue that Dany’s conflict is less about peace versus violence and more accurately about her tendency to be merciful versus her desire for justice (which, especially in the particular context she finds herself in, is unattainable without violence). In fact, I would go further and say that it’s distasteful to characterize Dany as someone “violent” or with “violent impulses” when, so far, she’s only used violence to a) defend and protect victims of (physical and systemic) violence and/or b) in circumstances in which her actions are no more problematic than those of any other leader of her world. And yet, the essayist portrays them as if they were (“To choose indiscriminate destruction over peace tends toward the evil”).

It’s also convenient that the essayist only talks about fire negatively (“Dany wields unmatched power that can “make or unmake at a word”—Dracarys—villages, armies and kingdoms”, “in the words of Maester Aemon, “Fire consumes.””) when it's also connected to life, rebirth, healing and enlightenment. And dracarys in particular is explicitly associated with freedom by the narrative while Dany frees the Unsullied (her decision, in turn, is associated with her future actions in the War for the Dawn). But acknowledging these things would make it harder to portray Dany as a Shakespearean tragic hero.

2.2) When it comes to Dany’s conflict between companionship and rulership … Again, the dilemma exists, but not in the way that the essayist presents it. What I mean is that they go out of their way to make it seem that Dany’s loneliness was the main factor driving her decisions, such as the liberation of the Unsullied (“She feels for the forced loneliness of the Unsullied, and it is loneliness that convinces her to commit violence in the plaza to free the slaves—just as it is in loneliness she chooses violence amidst the Dothraki Sea.”)... And not, y’know, her compassion and sense of justice (“Why do the gods make kings and queens, if not to protect the ones who can’t protect themselves?”), which are rarely acknowledged in this essay even though it’s arguably the main aspect of Dany's characterization. Why does the essayist do that? Because, since they are arguing that Dany is a tragic hero, they need to present Dany’s loneliness both as the reason why she achieved greatness and as the reason that will lead to her demise when she (supposedly) starts distrusting people, closing herself off and choosing violence (“the moral conviction she feels for her abolitionist crusade is part of the greatness that is also her tragic trait [...] She feels for the forced loneliness of the Unsullied, and it is loneliness that convinces her to commit violence in the plaza to free the slaves—just as it is in loneliness she chooses violence amidst the Dothraki Sea.”). As I said, however, doing so requires downplaying Dany’s compassion, as well as ignoring the fact that she does not close herself off to people in ADWD, nor is there any sign that this was seeded as a serious issue for her in future books (especially considering that her governance is meant to be contrasted with Cersei, the character who actually does close herself off to people. But more on that below when I talk about why Dany doesn’t fit the essayist’s third requirement).

Also, singling out rulership in particular as a reason for Dany to feel alone is conveniently selective (“Returning to Westeros means ruling Westeros - and ruling means loneliness”). All the major characters have reasons to feel lonely and isolated in their society because GRRM chose to focus on the underdogs. Their social standings are already enough to make all of them feel alone. As he said, “Tyrion of course is a dwarf which has its own challenges. Dany is an exile, powerless, penniless, at the mercy of other people, and Jon is a bastard”. You can also throw in Arya for being a young girl struggling to adhere to gender norms and Bran for being a disabled child. And that is just one example… There are a myriad of reasons and situations for various characters to feel lonely and isolated, but the essayist specifically chose to talk about how rulership causes that for Dany. And, considering that the essayist thinks that Dany’s rulership -> growing isolation and loneliness -> her ultimate downfall, it really feels like they’re punishing Dany narratively for acquiring and wielding power. Which leads me to the next point...

2.3) When it comes to Dany’s conflict between home and the Iron Throne, I would argue that that’s not really a conflict. Dany (like any feudal leader) believes she needs to retake the Iron Throne to stay in her homeland just like the Starks believe they need to retake Winterfell to stay in their homeland. Whether Dany finds herself at home in Westeros or not is irrelevant to that fact. And yet, the essayist only presents the former as being in the wrong for fighting for her birthright. However, as it's been already explained before, the Starks’ claim to the North isn’t morally righteous. They only have dominance over the North because, for thousands of years, their ancestors fought against, drove away and killed most of its indigenous population (the Children of the Forest), as well as multiple families who were also vying for control over the region. With that in mind, Dany fighting for her birthright isn’t any more problematic than the Starks enjoying the lands and privileges obtained with conquest and bloodshed, as well as the labor of peasants. One could argue that GRRM may have a double standard against Dany in this case (though it's been argued before that he doesn't intend to present the Iron Throne as a source of greed and evil like how fandom presents it) because of the order of the events and depending on whether he holds Dany accountable for more problems for waging her war than the Starks for having done/doing essentially the same thing, but that’s not what the essayist is doing. Instead, they a) take for granted that Dany is doing the wrong thing for fighting for the Iron Throne ("To delay the call of the North and continue to divide an already weakened realm is to give into dark desires.") and b) center all their speculations about her eventual demise based on that belief.

Ultimately, I would argue that none of these three dilemmas - peace versus violence, companionship versus rulership, home versus the Iron Throne - come with easy answers. When it comes to the first conflict, it’s important that Dany prioritizes the lives of the slaves over the privileges of the masters, but that causes more war and bloodshed. When it comes to the second and the third conflicts, it’s worth noting that the first options (which the essayist presents as the “good” ones) are actually the selfish paths for Dany to take. After all, she would rather live a normal life with a husband (companionship) in the house with the red door (home) - “She would rather have drifted in the fragrant pool all day, eating iced fruit off silver trays and dreaming of a house with a red door, but a queen belongs to her people, not to herself”. But, as the quote shows, instead of choosing these selfish goals, Dany accepts the burden of rulership and the fight for the Iron Throne because of her duty towards her people and ancestors. And, while this path leads to war (either in Meereen or in Westeros, though the former is morally righteous and the latter, while not inherently justified, is not any more problematic than Robb fighting for Northern independence), power is also the means through which Dany can make changes that benefit the common people.

With all that said, it’s ironic that Dany fans are often accused of flattening her character or her choices when it’s actually her detractors or “neutrals” (like the essayist) who do so - they are dead set on portraying Dany’s available options as either “good” or “bad” and on speculating that choosing the latter ones will lead to her downfall, but the text actually gives her conflicts in which all the options have their pros and cons.

The essayist also makes a mistake that isn’t really up to interpretation or difference in opinions. They say that, in AGOT Daenerys III, “after admitting this difficult truth [that Viserys will never take back the Seven Kingdoms], Dany assumes the goal for herself (and at the time, her son)”. That is incorrect. In AGOT Daenerys V, moments before Viserys’s death, Dany says she would have allowed him to have the dragon eggs because “he is my brother … and my true king”. Jorah doesn’t think she should still acknowledge him as such, but she tells him that “he is all I have”. So no, Dany hadn’t assumed the goal for herself at that point, she only took over his campaign in her son's name (not hers) after Viserys's death. But the essayist needs to exaggerate Dany's ambition to justify her demise, since they speculate that “in that hurt and betrayal, all that will be left - she will think - is the crown”.

3) When it comes to requirement 3 (prophecies and “influential accidents” - that is, events that “have roots in a character’s motivation”, as well as “the sense of ‘if only this had not happened’” - will “heighten and exaggerate [tragic flaws that] already [exist]” in Dany), the problem is not in cherry-picking or in double standards against Dany, but rather in the essayist’s lack of knowledge about Dany’s characterization. It’s simply not true that Dany’s distrust of people grows to the point that she closes herself off to them. Instead, I would argue that Dany is actually portrayed as someone with a healthy distrust of people. We know from the books (1, 2, 3, 4) that she finds it unlikely that Barristan, Grey Worm or Missandei would ever betray her, but that she doesn’t think she can rely entirely upon Reznak, the Green Grace, the Shavepate, Hizdahr and Daario. Do Dany’s doubts about these people’s intentions lead her to, as the essayist says, “push people away”? No. Through almost all of ADWD, she (wrongly, though understandably) believes that "until [freedmen and former masters stand together, Meereen will know no peace". Accordingly, Dany is willing to listen to the counsel of all of her advisors (both the ones she trusts and the ones she distrusts) to ensure that she makes informed decisions. To give some examples:

Dany allows “well spoken and gently born” people (i.e., not the typical condition of most former slaves, who are glad that Dany freed them) to sell themselves into slavery and imposes a tax each time men chose to do so like how it happened in Astapor (ASOS Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with both Missandei and Daario.

Dany employs the Unsullied to ask the Blue Graces if someone showed up with a sword wound and to ask butchers and herdsmen who’s been gelding goats (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.

Dany chooses not to punish any noble in response to the murder of Stalwart Shield and only increases the amount of gold for whoever gives information about the Sons of the Harpy (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she agreed with Reznak and disagreed with the Shavepate.

Dany gives up on banning the tokar and wears it herself (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace.

Dany (rightly) refuses to reopen the fighting pits for a while until she later relents in the name of the peace with the Meereenese nobles (ADWD Daenerys I, II, III, VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Hizdahr, Reznak, the Green Grace and the Shavepate and agreed with Missandei.

Dany delays the choice of a husband until it becomes necessary later (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak, the Shavepate and the Green Grace.

Dany chooses to pay the shepherds for the animals that they say their dragons ate (ADWD Daenerys I). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak.

Dany pays Hazzea’s father the blood price (i.e., one hundred times the worth of a lamb) for her death, lays her bones to rest in the Temple of the Graces and promises to pay for his children each year so they shall not want (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she disagreed with the Shavepate.

Dany allows the Shavepate to torture the wineseller and his daughters for information about the Sons (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate.

Dany imposes a blood tax on the noble families to pay for a new watch led by the Shavepate, takes the gold and the stores of food of any nobleman who wishes to leave the city and keeps two children from each pyramid as hostages instead of letting the nobles go unpunished after nine freedmen were killed by the Sons (ADWD Daenerys II). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate and disagreed with Reznak.

Dany has Barristan and Groleo and his captains and sailors to inspect Xaro’s ships (ADWD Daenerys III). By making this decision, she agreed with Barristan.

Dany chooses not to go to Westeros despite being offered ships to do so (ADWD Daenerys III). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.

Dany doesn’t kill her child hostages despite the Sons’ ongoing attacks (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace and disagreed with the Shavepate.

Dany agrees to marry Hizdahr if he’s able to give her ninety days of peace in Meereen (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr, the Green Grace and Reznak and disagreed with the Shavepate, Barristan, Missandei and Daario.

Dany refuses to gather the masters and kill them indiscriminately (ADWD Daenerys IV). By making this decision, she disagreed with Daario.

Dany doesn’t allow the Shavepate to continue his tortures due to their unreliable results (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr and disagreed with the Shavepate.

Dany refuses to use her dragons in battle (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with Reznak.

Dany decides not to take the field against Yunkai (ADWD Daenerys V). By making this decision, she agreed with the Shavepate and disagreed with Barristan.

Dany brings the food to the Astapori refugees instead of sending someone else to do it (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Reznak, the Shavepate and Barristan.

Dany burns the dead among the Astapori refugees, bathes an old man and shames her men into helping her (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.

Dany refuses to allow Hizdahr’s mother and sisters to inspect her womb and to wash Hizdahr’s feet before he washes hers (ADWD Daeneerys VI). By making this decision, she disagreed with the Green Grace and Reznak.

Dany decides to marry Hizdahr by Ghiscari rites and to wear a white tokar fringed with pearls (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with the Green Grace and Reznak.

Dany allows Hizdahr to reopen the fighting pits (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr, the Green Grace and Reznak.

Dany goes along with a peace agreement with the Yunkish slavers in which she’ll let Yunkai and Astapor reinstall slavery if they leave Meereen intact (ADWD Daenerys VI). By making this decision, she agreed with Hizdahr.

Dany holds court in order to, among other reasons, meet the Westerosi men that came over from the Windblown (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she agreed with Daario.

Dany doesn’t accept Quentyn’s marriage proposal because she doesn’t want to abandon her people (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.

Dany doesn’t ride a horse in a tokar to meet Hizdahr (ADWD Daenerys VII). By making this decision, she agreed with Missandei.

Dany decides not to sound out the Company of the Cats (even though she wanted to) because Barristan says he's untrustworthy (ADWD Daenerys VIII). By making this decision, she agreed with Barristan.

Dany attends the reopening of the pits (ADWD Daenerys IX). By making this decision, she disagreed with Missandei.

Dany allows the Brazen Beasts to guard her because she wants to show that she trusts them so that her people can trust them as well (ADWD Daenerys IX). By making this decision, she disagreed with Barristan.

Dany prevents Tyrion and Penny from fighting against lions with wooden swords. By making this decision, she disagreed with Hizdahr.

I didn’t include all of Dany’s decisions because she makes many of them on her own and/or without someone explicitly supporting them or opposing them (in fact, many of the ones above were made without any advisor giving her their feedback, but I listed them if they’re seen agreeing or disagreeing with her onpage anyway). That being said, note that Reznak is the one that Dany is most suspicious of (because he perfectly fits the description of one of the treasoners), but that five of her decisions follow his recommendations, in contrast to Barristan (the knight who she actually trusts and who keeps all her secrets) only having his advice followed twice. Also note that Dany “trusted Skahaz more than she trusted Hizdahr”, but she agreed with the former three times and disagreed with him eight times, in contrast to having agreed with the latter four times and disagreed with him twice. The list clearly shows that Dany listens to everyone’s feedback (including from people she distrusts), considers it carefully, makes her own decisions and handles dissent extremely well. Her actions reflect her own words (“A queen must listen to all. [...] One voice may speak you false, but in many there is always truth to be found”, “It seems to me that a queen who trusts no one is as foolish as a queen who trusts everyone”).

There is, however, one character who is seen only listening to people who agree with her and who distrusts and closes herself off to almost everyone - Cersei Lannister. And it’s especially worth noting that Cersei is meant to be “directly contrasted” with Dany, that the author was “doing point and counterpoint” with them and that each of them is meant to show “a different approach to how a woman would rule in a male dominated, medieval-inspired fantasy world”. In other words, Dany and Cersei are narrative foils, but Cersei’s traits are being transferred to Dany in this essay.

Also, I could just as easily create an entire narrative about how Sansa will end up closing herself off to people based on what we see on canon. She thought she could trust Joffrey, but she ultimately couldn’t. She thought she could trust Cersei, but she ultimately couldn’t. She trusted Sandor, but he left her. She tried to trust the Tyrells, but they ultimately disposed of her after she was no longer necessary. She tried to rely on Dontos, but he was a disappointment and was ultimately murdered. She doesn’t trust Littlefinger, but she needs to stick to his side because she has no better option. She considered telling the Vale lords her identity, but she doesn’t trust them. All of this feeds into Sansa’s distrust of others and will lead to tragic consequences. Indeed, as Sansa herself says, "In life, the monsters win". I bet that the essayist would find this whole speculation biased considering that they favor Sansa's character. But then, why is only Dany singled out as the one who is going to meet her demise even though it’s made clear that she continues to trust people through and through?

The essayist needs to say that Dany starts distrusting people to an unhealthy degree (“As Dany gains more power, [...] her focus on the treasons causes her to push people away, widening the gap between rulership and companionship”; ”The more power she gains, the greater her isolation and likely her fear of betrayal. The fear of betrayal is, of course, human. But GRRM has stated that he likes to turn dramatic situations up to 11, which is necessary to create the Shakespearean tragic hero. Dany’s fear must be larger than life.”), as well as to judge her campaign to take back the Seven Kingdoms based on double standards (“Dany’s great sin within the story’s moral order will have been focusing on the war for Westeros against Aegon VI before she turns to the enemy of the North”) compared to the Starks. If they didn’t do so, there wouldn’t be a reason to justify Dany’s demise. If they didn’t do so, the entire speculation that she’s a Shakespearean tragic hero falls apart. But saying that something is true doesn’t necessarily make it true, you need to provide the textual evidence (which they barely do … They assume that the reader will take almost everything they say for granted. After all, since there’s a prophecy foretelling that Dany will be betrayed three times, of course she’s going to distrust people way too much from now on).

There’s also another aspect of Dany’s relationship with prophecies that the essayist portrays inaccurately. They say that “the effect of this prophecy on Daenerys is multifaceted” for “[promising] greatness” (which, along with the also inaccurate statement that “part of Dany’s pursuit of the Iron Throne is born from a sense of destiny”, implies that Dany wants to be great or that she thinks of herself as great, none of which are true) and pushing her “further from the people who surround her”. I already questioned the latter statement, and the former is inaccurate too. After all, Dany has doubts that there are men in Westeros waiting for the Targaryens to return. The birth of the dragons has to do with the fact that Dany was able to put two and two together with clues from dragon dreams and Mirri's words, not because she thinks she's exceptional. Dany is not really sure that the red comet was meant for her. She followed its direction because the other paths weren't reliable and, even in Qarth, she's unsure that it was meant to guide her to success. Then she never thinks about it again. I'd expect otherwise from someone who thinks they're exceptional. Dany is surprised when told by Quaithe that she's the reason why magic is increasing in the world and never thinks or brags about it after their interaction. I'd expect otherwise from someone who thinks they're exceptional. Dany doesn't think she won any victories in the House of the Undying, she credits Drogon for burning the Undying Ones. She only allows Jhiqui to add a bell to the end of her braid because "the Dothraki would esteem her all the more for a few bells in her hair". Dany refuses to sit on the throne inside the Great Pyramid's audience chamber and chooses to sit on a simple ebony bench that the Meereenese think does "not befit a queen". Dany refuses the offer to have a statue in her image to replace the bronze harpy in the Plaza of Purification. I'd expect otherwise from someone who thinks they're exceptional. Dany is highly self-critical and, later in ADWD, thinks that she "was as clean as she was ever going to be" after taking a bath because she holds herself accountable for the upcoming slaughter in the opening of the fighting pits. I'd expect different from someone that thinks they're exceptional. Dany doesn’t think that the people who came to the reopening of the pits wanted to see her - “it was my floppy ears they cheered, not me”. I'd expect different from someone that thinks they're exceptional. Most of Dany's titles (the Unburnt, Mother of Dragons, Mhysa, Azor Ahai, etc) are given to her by other people, they're not self-proclaimed (not that there's a problem if they were, I'm only saying it to reiterate that Dany doesn't think she's exceptional). The ones that she assumes on her own are the ones that anyone who believes in birthright (i.e., everyone in her time and place, regardless of family, regardless of whether they're Targaryens) would assume.

4) When it comes to requirement 4 (Dany will (according to the essayist’s speculations) take actions that produce “exceptional calamity” and her demise will be “her own choice and doing”) … Well, we now enter the realm of speculation. It’s not impossible that Dany “will feel like a villain to the Westerosi, as she burns their villages and crops ahead of a hard winter” in the future. The problem here, once again, is in the double standards. Look at the way the essayist describes the likely reascendance of the Starks in the upcoming books - “With the death of “good” characters like Ned, the injury of innocents and moments such as the Red Wedding, ASOIAF as a story is not concerned with justice. But as the story progresses, we see that the way Ned ruled his people and raised his children contrasts with characters like Tywin and his methods. Much of the North seems to continue to rally behind the idea of the Starks, some with less “honorable” methods than others, while Tywin’s legacy begins to fall apart. Like in Shakespeare’s tragic world, there appears to be an order that arcs towards a higher idea of goodness that instills a dramatic satisfaction”. Like I said above when I questioned requirement 2, the Starks’ claim to the North is no more justified than Dany’s to the Seven Kingdoms. They have the advantage of having had their rule normalized throughout the thousands of years they ruled the North, but it doesn’t change the fact that, because they’re feudal lords, they still maintain a system rigged in favor of the nobles that promotes social inequality and extreme lack of social mobility. It doesn’t change the fact that there's no righteous form of feudalism. But only Dany is criticized in that sense by the essayist - “By nature, power breeds inequality, when one party has the ability to decide the fate of another. That inequality creates distance. As a queen Dany wields absolute power over the rest of her subjects and her court”. Which is pretty infuriating not only because the Starks are also morally grey in the sense that the essayist describes, but also because GRRM specifically mentioned that Daenerys is the ruler "who wants equality for everyone, she wants to be at the same level as her people". Additionally, if Ned left a legacy that motivated his people to fight against his enemies, so did Dany with the former slaves. But the essayist needs to ignore all of that to paint Dany as a Shakespearean tragic hero.

Even if we don’t take into account what TWOIAF reveals about the Starks’ ancestors, the main story itself often paints House Stark’s actions in a negative light. We see a peasant spitting at the mention of the Starks and saying that things were better with King Aerys II in power. We're told that Northmen looking for Jaime on Edmure’s orders burned a village called Sallydance and were guilty of rape and murder. It’s no wonder that the High Sparrow mentions the wolves along with the lions as threats to the septas. Also, thousands of soldiers died indirectly because of Robb’s decisions, as well as lots of people who remained north and became vulnerable to raping and pillaging due to his inability to hold Winterfell. And finally, when winter comes, the smallfolk will be affected by the actions of the northmen, who (like Dany might do in the future) already helped to disrupt the harvest and to leave the continent short on food. And yet, why is their future success framed as “an order that arcs towards a higher idea of goodness”? Why is Dany the only one who is said to be “giv[ing] into dark desires” by “divid[ing] an already weakened realm” when the Starks (framed as the heroes in the essay) did the same thing? This double standard gets infuriating when one remembers that Dany is the one fighting a war in the name of the disenfranchised (even though she is not connected to them by blood or lands or oath of fealty and doesn’t gain anything by helping them), while the Starks are (and will be, if they want to retake Winterfell) fighting a war because of personal injury (which, sympathetic as it may be, doesn’t justify the damage that they caused to the smallfolk). It gets even more infuriating when, as @rakharo pointed out to me, one remembers that, while Dany is trying to right the wrongs of the Valyrians by ending slavery in Slaver’s Bay, none of the Starks have acknowledged, much less tried to make amends for injustices perpetrated by the First Men against the Children of the Forest. It gets even more infuriating when one remembers that Aegon the Conqueror united Westeros in preparation for the War for the Dawn (something that GRRM himself confirmed), while the Starks’ ancestors conquered the North solely because of their greed. That's why Dany’s story can’t be effective as a tragedy: she’d be punished for starting to do what everyone else was doing after doing more than almost everyone else was doing.

5) When it comes to requirement 5 (Dany “[rose] high in position” and is “an exceptional being”, which sets her apart as a character that fits the mold of the Shakespearean tragedy because her reversal of fortune will highlight “the greatness and piteousness of humanity”), again, we’re in the realm of speculation. But there are some things to question as well. First, the essayist validates the criticisms that Dany “too easily ascends to a position of power” by using them as proof that she’s a tragic character. But that’s not really true, which becomes clear with a few comparisons: the Starks lost their father, mother and older brother throughout the story because of the Lannisters, which Dany also did; but her losses go beyond them: she also lost another brother, her first husband and her first child. The Starks had their direwolves given to them, Dany had to use her intuition and then literally walk into a fire to birth her dragons. Aegon the Conqueror used dragons to take Westeros, Dany conquered three cities without barely using hers. Jon Snow’s conflict in ADWD involves conciliating the Free Folk and the Night’s Watch after he makes decisions favoring the former group, while Dany’s involves conciliating the freedmen and the slavers after she makes decisions favoring the former group, which has a worldwide impact; Jon’s conflict has relatively low stakes (because it hasn’t involved the Others so far), Dany’s conflict leads to “half the world” wanting her dead. As these examples show, Dany suffered more losses than the Starks. Dany had to do a lot more than the Starks to find her animal companions. Dany became a conqueror primarily because of her military strategies and resourcefulness without relying on dragonfire like her ancestor. Dany faced greater opposition than her male counterpart Jon so far. As we can see, gaining power and retaining it has not been easy for Dany at all. Every single one of her accomplishments has been earned. But it sure is interesting that Dany’s supposed future tragedies must stem from her actions, but that her victories aren’t given the proper credit and acknowledged as being a result of what she also did as well.

And then the essayist declares something even more inaccurate: that Dany “overcame each obstacle that came her way” and that “Robb and Jon paid for their mistakes while Dany did not” (which, to the essayist, is evidence that “Dany’s fall is meant to stand in contrast as something grander than just one slip-up”).

First of all, Dany clearly did not overcome every obstacle that came her way. Saying so means ignoring all of her ADWD storyline (and it’s funny how Dany's detractors go from saying that she’s overpowered and hasn’t suffered consequences to accusing her of being a bad ruler precisely because she dealt with the negative consequences of her choices, lol). To recap, Dany had an indirect part in the wars outside Meereen because she left the Yunkish slavers’ wealth intact, which leads to terrible consequences - multiple city-states and sellsword companies joining forces against her, Astapor’s fall, the pale mare’s outbreak, the emergence of refugees from Astapor outside her city and the upcoming Battle of Fire. Dany had an indirect role in the wars inside Meereen because she left most of the Meereenese slavers alive with most of their wealth intact, which leads to terrible consequences - the Sons of the Harpy’s attacks and dozens of freedmen’s deaths. Additionally, Dany had an indirect role in Hazzea’s death because Drogon was allowed to roam freely and she had no way to train him or her brothers. All these problems culminate in Dany agreeing with a peace deal that, as already explained here, was inherently unjust for prioritizing the slavers over the freedmen. Dany had to learn that, as much as she wants peace and to plant trees, there are situations in which she can’t be merciful because violence really is the only way to achieve justice for the disenfranchised. (On the flip side, that’s one of the reasons why I’m critical of the theory that Dany accidentally burns King’s Landing. When she was merciful, as I just listed, great tragedies occurred (which is fine, it was a realistic exploration of what happens when you abolish slavery and try to do good). When she used fire and blood, great tragedies will occur too? Even though she would be acting just like the Starks or any other feudal lord by fighting for her birthright? The theory narratively punishes Dany in a way that it doesn't do with the Starks, which is why it's no wonder that it was created by someone with Stark/Stannis biases. Additionally, it validates the common belief that Dany is only meant to be a wartime queen, even though she’s already showed that she’s a good peacetime ruler.)

Second, is dying the only way to pay for one’s mistakes (considering that only Robb and Jon are listed as examples of characters who did)? I don’t think so. Consider Sansa. Didn’t she pay for the mistake of going to Cersei to tell her of Ned’s plan? I would say she did. I would say the author agrees - “Sansa was the least sympathetic of the Starks in the first book; she has become more sympathetic, partly because she comes to accept responsibility for her part in her father's death”. Similarly, Dany had to accept her indirect responsibility for the tragedies that I just listed (Hazzea, forgive me; No marriage would ever bring them back to life, but if a husband could help end the slaughter, then she owed it to her dead to marry.; “I should’ve gone to Astapor. [...] I am the queen. It was my place to know.”; “What kind of mother has no milk to feed her children?”). I would argue that Dany and Sansa both paid for her mistakes, which were acknowledged, made them suffer and influenced their character developments. But the essayist needs to say that Dany didn’t pay for them (or that she had an easy rise to power) to help to paint her as a Shakespearean tragic hero.

6) Now that the essayist’s five requirements have all been questioned, I would also like to mention positive prophecies and speculations related to Dany that are never brought up in this essay.

First, Dany is AA/PTWP/SWMTW. That was heavily foreshadowed (read more about it here) and built up to and, if it doesn’t happen, it frankly would be bad writing. After all, haven’t readers praised GRRM for the foreshadowing of Ned’s death (e.g., a stag having killed the mother direwolf in the beginning of AGOT)? Haven’t readers praised GRRM for the foreshadowing of the Red Wedding (which we see from Tyrion’s to Theon’s to Dany’s chapters)? And yet, the essayist thinks that Dany’s death will cause “the forces [to] become more even, making victory less sure, or the Others surpass the side of the living in strength” and that “the White Walkers gain Drogon, becoming one-on-one but with the White Walkers having the larger dragon.”

Second, Dany and Bran both have dreams in AGOT leading up to their magical awakening. Bran needs to fly to escape from the “cold” of the darkness below, while Dany needs to run from the “icy breath behind”. Both of these dreams culminate with Bran and Dany learning to fly and accepting their magical destinies, which will be important in the War for the Dawn. And yet, the essayist thinks that “by understanding that the concept of warmth is tied to companionship, we can understand that the cold, “icy breath” must represent the opposite: loneliness” to justify Dany’s demise. Instead, it's clear (especially considering the parallels with Bran) that "icy breath" is an allusion to the Others. But they can't acknowledge that Dany will have a crucial role in the War for the Dawn, otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.

Third, Quaithe was presented as the third of the three Qartheen envoys (after Pyat Pree and Xaro) that came to find Dany in Vaes Tolorro, which heavily implies that she breaks the norm and is the one person that Dany can trust. And yet, the essayist takes for granted that Quaithe’s “narrative connection to betrayal is already established”.

Fourth, Dany might as well be the prophesied betrayer, not the one who’s betrayed by three people (after all, she’s already been betrayed by more than three people - Jorah, Mirri, Pyat Pree, Xaro, Brown Ben, the person that gave her the poisoned locusts, etc). It would fit with the pattern of Dany being an active participant in the prophecies rather than a passive one (e.g. Dany is AA/PTWP, not the one who gives birth to the AA/PTWP or the one who dies as a sacrifice to AA/PTWP) even though, at first, the readership is expected to think otherwise. And yet, the essayist takes for granted that Dany will be betrayed because otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.

Fifth, Dany is foreshadowed to have a positive relationship with Jon because “the blue flower” from the “wall of ice” filled the air with “sweetness”. And yet, the essayist needs to say that Dany "[will push] Jon away [...] from fear of betrayal and hurt” and from worries that he might be a “usurper” (nevermind that they are mischaracterizing Dany as someone overfocused on retaking the Iron Throne and who closes herself off due to prophecies, none of which are not true, as I already showed above) because otherwise their entire speculation falls apart.

7) Finally, I would also like to ask: what’s the point of giving Dany a storyline like this? Not only because it would be unearned due to the double standards and the changes that would have to occur in her characterization, but also because Dany has a special place in the narrative. She is 1) one of the two women (along with Asha) claiming power in her own right and the only one that we actually got to see rule, 2) one of three Chosen Ones (along with Bran and Jon) and the only female one, 3) one of two POV revolutionaries (along with Jon) and the only female one (and the one whose storyline arguably has the most political messages since she’s fighting against human slavery), 4) one of two POV female rulers (along with Cersei) and the only one who’s been depicted as competent (because she subverts the Good Princess Evil Queen dichotomy), 5) one of two Targaryen conquerors (three, if Young Griff does indeed take Westeros) and the only female one - “Aegon the Conqueror with teats”, 6) the only major mother who isn’t sure to be doomed and/or hasn’t gone mad, 7) one of two Targaryen queens regnant (along with Rhaenyra) and the only remaining Targaryen woman who gets to have power after a long line of Targaryen women - Rhaenyra herself, but also Rhaena, Aerea, Rhaella, Daenerys (Alysanne’s daughter), Rhaenys the Queen Who Never Was, Baela, Rhaena of Pentos, Daena - who were disempowered. GRRM already has a terrible history with female leaders in particular. If he causes the downfall of another one (especially one who is also one of the five main protagonists) for such unearned reasons like the ones that the essayist laid out, there would also be sexist implications. It would make the only she-king that we saw wielding power onpage overly defined by violence and destruction in a way kings don't have to be depending on their actions, it makes the only competent POV female ruler look incompetent in comparison to the other POV male rulers and it makes her conquest a disaster while the other male Targaryen conqueror (two, if Young Griff takes Westeros) gets to succeed. And yet, death by childbirth is the only speculation that the essayist calls out as problematic (“death by childbirth is a uniquely biologically female phenomenon and would be punishing Daenerys for her sexuality”).

8) What I find insidious about essays like this one is that they pretend to be unbiased (I do not argue for the death of Daenerys as a judgement on her ethical/moral goodness as a character nor of the world she inhabits. I argue it on the strength of her characterization and story, that she should be able to encompass such intensity and greatness as to be considered as complex as all these other single-name headliners in literature.) even though they really aren't. To recap, the essayist portrays Dany as someone with "violent" impulses even though she's a merciful person in general, accepts the peace deal with the slavers as valid even though it prioritizes the slavers' privileges over the lives of marginalized people, only talks about the negative connotations of fire, downplays Dany's compassion and sense of justice, argues that Dany is losing her ability to trust others even though she isn't, says that Dany is negatively affected by promises of greatness even though she isn't, argues that Dany had an easy rise to power and didn't pay for her mistakes even though she did, paints Dany's campaign to take the Iron Throne in a negative light without doing the same with the Starks having dominance over the North and ignores Dany's foreshadowing as AA/PTWP, as well as her special place in the narrative. So it’s not that Dany stans are unable to accept Dany’s mistakes and flaws, it’s that people who dislike her can’t understand her characterization or acknowledge the double standards against her or accept her particular place in the story. At the end of the day, an essay like this one is no better than jonsa metas mindlessly hating on Dany because, just like them, as @semperty and @niniane17 made clear, it also creates speculations with the intent of making Dany self-destruct and become irrelevant to pave the way for their preferred characters. The only difference is that it's more successful at appearing "neutral" to someone who doesn't remember what happened in the books very well, especially because Dany has become a polarizing character for a variety of reasons and it's easy to buy into the Appeal to Moderation fallacy.

Also, as I said before, the fact that these Twitter 'neutrals' all misunderstand Dany's characterization, downplay her struggles and judge her by different standards actually makes me somewhat hopeful that she's getting a better ending, because how can their speculations come true if they don't know Dany at all? But then, it's hard to trust GRRM.

[norafms]

“you carry the heavens in your eyes like one of those old greek tragedies. and i’d call you atlas but he wasn’t given the choice to hold the stars. 

                                                                                                      you were.”

backstory. spotify. pinterest.

hey it’s g again:) this is nora, kinda looks like a taylor swift / lana del rey song. a bitch but hides a giant heart. i also decided that proof reading isn’t a thing. i never heard of it. who put that idea in your head baby? are you having hallucinations? did you take your meds? or was it your friends... this is why i don’t let you hang out with them. also if u see something here that i already put in other bios... no you didn't mind ur business this is MY intro.

'mkay enjoy now xoxo

“i closed off all easy roads leading to me but i’m reachable if you are willing to go the extra mile.”

full name: eleonora ‘nora’ hoffman

age: thirty-seven

pronouns: she/her

sexuality: pansexual

star sign: taurus

date of birth: 13/05/1985

label: the femme fatale

occupation: fashion designer

neighborhood: downtown

alignment: neutral

personality type: entj

hogwarts house: ravenclaw

positive traits: elegant, sophisticated, self-confident, enticing, charismatic, determined, efficient, reliable, strategic, logical, eloquent, independent, meticulous, observant

negative traits: impatient, stubborn, ruthless, unattainable, workhaolic, perfectionist, manipulative, callous, inflexible, assertive, bossy, tactless, hopeless romantic

distinctive traits: very expensive sunglasses, always perfectly, movements so graceful that often make you look like you’re dancing

fashion style: expensive designer clothes most of which you designed that give you the looks of a old-fashioned diva on (has those elvira hancock/holly golightly vibes)

scent: cherry and expensive perfume

bad habits: smoking, overworking

theme song: cherry wine by hozier / baby one more time by the marias BUT ALSO any song from lana del rey rlly feeling watercolor eyes rn

aesthetics:

“i withdraw from people and places from time to time. i need space from a world that is filled with millions of mouths that talk too much, and never have anything to say.”

driving a motorcycle in high heels. sharp fingers tapping on a wine glass. a collection of vintage cabriolet cars you can pick from everyday. thigh high. knowing al the buttons to press to break a man. lipstick stains on linen napkins. a honey toned voice spewing harsh words never having to raise your town to assert yourself. a martini glass. stomping on scarlet kissed cigarette buts with stiletto heels. always being an inpactful presence everyone notices too many sets of silk lingerie night dresses with matching nightgowns. hair falling perfectly on your shoulders without any effort. never being overdressed, it’s the others that are underdressed. being fashionably late. an unmissable smile the sun is jealous of. being used to feeling everyone’s eyes on you. a hint of malice in the glimmer of your eyes. natural flair that appears easy everytime you move.  not being too expressive because it will give you wrinkles. a love out of a fairytale. dining by the tour eiffel at night. lace gloves. waking up at dawn to do your yoga exercises and your morning run.  never eating junkfood. expensive white wine or champagne. playing god. watching all your dreams crumble in front of your eyes. a heart that tries to burn under layers of ice.

character references:

“and here you come with a shiled for a heart and a sword for a tongue.”

jane smith ( ms & mr smith ) , katherine pierce ( the vampire diaries ), mrs robinson ( the graduate ) , coco chanel ( coco chanel ) , miranda priestly ( the devil wears prada ), spencer hastings ( pretty little liars ), fiona gallagher ( shameless) kathani sharma ( bridgerton ) , fallon morrell carrington ( dynasty ), blair waldrof ( gossip girls )

personality:

“when i was younger i used to say i would never end up this way.”

appearance:

not many dare to even look at you in the eye, switching gazes when you catch them staring. you’re unattainable, unapproachable, the independent, bossy woman who will take no one’s words but hers. people swallw down harshly when talking to you, often not looking at you in the eye, your patience is thin and they fear of surpassing the line: the smiles you offer hide sharp canines that you’re not afraid to show. you hate small talks and circling around the subject without tackling it headfirst, you always want to get straight to the point without fake pleasentries. you say things for how they are no matter how hurtful, and your eyes burn on people’s figure when you use them to scrutinize their behavior, clothes and attitude, though you observe and not judge, but if something doesn’t result appealing to you you will voice it without problems. you hold such authority that you never need to raise your voice, you always speak in the same hony tone, it’s the other that lower theirs. you have your way without any troubles, people take your words as law, and when you don’t you’re not afraid to raise hell always with elegance and flair. you could walk to hell and back and your perfect makeup would remain untouched.

to friends:

you’re not one for sentimental stuff so you’ll never admit it, but you deeply love your friends and find way to show it every day. your love languages are gift giving and quality time. if it comes to giving advice it depends on your mood and what is asked of you, sometimes you’ll roll your eyes and tell them to stop being so sensitive, othertimes you’ll pour a glass of wine and try to find the best words in your wide dictionary. your friends are not many, but true, as it’s difficult to find someone who won’t annoy you and you blocked all the roads to you, plus not everyone finds your presence pleasing. but you’re loyal, and even though sometimes you can be a little too detouched and harsh, you still find your ways to be likeable. not that you care, if you can call them friends it either means that they’ve accepted all your bad traits or that they share the same as yours. but behin layers and layers of cold ice you hide the warmest heart that at time shows, but you’re quick to lock it back in. you always love a good time and a good laugh.

to lovers:

you learnt from a young age that you could have anyone hooked just by the way you moved, quickly mastering the act of seduction. but you finished sleeping around the time you met your boyfriend. love interests you now more than ever, you wish and seek someone able to wrap their arms around you and warm your chest, you want to love with every fiber of your being. but that would mean tearing your defences down and you’re not to keen about it, it’s easier to keep wielding the sword to everyone who steps too close. but you never stopped flirting, it comes easy for you as you’re seductive in almost everything you do. you like keeping them on their toes, especially men, you like seeing their faces as they desperately try to hang on to your fingers, you take pleasure in their desperation. it is a little different with women but you always wish to be worshipped and desired. you’ve got a captivating smile and eyes that lure in victims, it’s your hands that then keeps them locked. but now things with your boyfriend aren’t going so great, perhaps you’ll fall into old habits, or you’ll keep your head high in the search for love.

“i had no idea how greedy my heart really was.”

[butwhatifidothis]

I also think that part of the reason why the church gets so much hate is because of how much general distrust there is in organized religion in real life. Like I went into Three Houses trying to keep an open mind and during White Clouds I really couldn't see what was so heinously wrong with the church even during the Lonato thing that made the institution so much worse than what Edelgard was inciting. I could be totally wrong but I was under the impression that Rhea didn't squash the insurrection because they were a part of the Western Church but because they were actively rebelling and, on top of that, Lonato was bringing civilians into the conflict. That, along with the fact that Rhea knows for an absolute fact that the goddess existed and that she herself is old as dirt (trauma included) makes her decisions make a lot of sense.

I'm playing through AM with my friend who's never played before and they IMMEDIATELY said they distrusted the church because Jeralt doesn't like Rhea (for understandable reasons but my friend also ignored his very sus behavior of not explaining literally anything to Byleth) and because organized religions must be inherently bad.

It’s something that’s heavily related to a player’s inability to separate the reality of their specific circumstances with those of the fiction they’re consuming. They implant their experiences onto things that are only somewhat related and then extrapolate “facts” about the fiction that are, many times, actively shut down and/or disproven by that fictions lore or story or plot.

And, like, it’s normal to relate fictional things to your personal stories if you see connections to them. I’d wager a good amount of people find some aspect of a character they like/love that sticks out to them specifically because of a similarity they share of some kind, whether big or small. I know of people who’s fave superhero is The Flash because The Flash is fast and they ran track and hey, that’s cool, a superhero who’s ability is running really fuckin’ fast and I wanna be really fuckin’ fast. To use myself as an example, I can relate to the struggles Claude specifically has with race because many of the things he says correlate very well to my personal experiences with race. So, going by that line of logic, the opposite is clearly going to happen as well; there are many villains, or characters of either or neither allegiance towards good and evil, who have traits that personally affect someone in a negative way.

But here’s the thing about that... Claude and I have similar experiences with race. He’s still a prince, and I’m still someone who’s never seen above the poverty line in terms of income. He’s never had to live off a box of Whoppers he happened to find under his bed for three days to hold off until the food stamps come in because there’s just no food and no money to get any food. And on the flip side, I’ve never had people try to kill me just cuz I’m mixed. I’ve never felt the pressure of having to lead thousands of people to safety or have them die, directly due to my inability to lead them well enough. We still have extremely different lives and I can acknowledge those differences when looking into his character, regardless of whatever connection I may have with him otherwise, and that’s where these people fail in terms of critically consuming 3H as a piece of media.

These people - understandably, to an extent - look at Rhea, this devout religious woman who heads a major religious institution, and they automatically connect the language she uses as a devout religious person to the negative experiences they personally had with religion... without acknowledging the differences between the two. They see Rhea and they don’t see a bisexual who surrounds herself with and gives shelter to former criminals, foreigners, and people in need of a home while asking for little in return - they see their local pastor, or some other religious leader/person, who’ve done them wrong, and thus Rhea hates gay people, she hates POC, she’s a zealot and unreasonable and she’s this terrible person with no redeeming qualities. And this isn’t me arm-chair psychology-ing these people - they poke fun at themselves about how much they let their personal experiences cloud their judgement of the game and its characters with bingo cards for liking Edelgard having “raised with religion” be one of the slots and things like that. 

And really, why else would “religious institution led by white-presenting race of people” be automatically turned into “racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and violent to any who aren’t their religion” when 1) one of the main characters - the one calling Rhea racist - himself eventually says that racial diversity fits well and snug in the Seiros faith, 2) not only is the leader and founder of the religion a bisexual woman, but no one says anything about having their love be confined to one specific gender anywhere, with heavily coded LGBT relationships like Shamir+Catherine and Dorothea+Petra being just as LGBT coded in SS - where Rhea can potentially come back as archbishop - as anywhere else - hell, when one of the most devout followers of Rhea clearly is romantically interested in her and faces no repercussions or consequences for openly being so despite being female herself, and 3) the Church only ever uses violence when either called from the outside for help or forced to when outside forces try to attack them? Why are we hearing all of these awful things about the Church when it sometimes is never even implied? 

It’s in large part due to religion being such a sensitive part of people’s lives that they are unable to disconnect their personal experiences with religion with the fictional religion the media they’re interacting with provides them. Rhea, as a devout religious leader, especially with how genuinely morally gray she is, was never going to land well over here in the west, double especially to an audience of people that very clearly are already inclined to ignore pieces of the game’s story, lore, plot, and character interactions to fit their own preferred version of what’s happening. Triple fuckin’ wombo-combo especially since the game itself fails to do Rhea any favors until the literal last second of two out of four routes and only shove in her directly admitting she was wrong in her actions in the hardest support chain to build up in the entire game, and even then only at the last part of it. Poor girly didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell

[sarcasmco]

—— it’s just another typical week in hawkins i guess — isn’t that right, eddie munson? huh, guess they can’t hear me over master of puppets by metallica playing on their walkman, but it looks like they’re headed to work at the game player. did you know ed(s) has been in hawkins for his whole life? yeah, they’ve been described as a bit loud, but i suppose them also being a friend to the underdog outweighs the negative. i’ve also heard people say they remind them of loud rock music that cannot be contained by headphones, a guitar solo that goes on a little too long, catching a drum stick while jumping in a mosh pit, playing tabletop games for hours on end, and breaking the cycle of abuse… however, that could just be this weeks newest rumor.

this is the story of eddie munson, a man that has been to hell and back and still continues to get up everyday, fighting for what he loves and believes. a look into his life below.

Basics

full name: eddie munson nickname: ed(s) pronouns: he/him age: twenty-five birthday: october 31, 1961 gender: cis male sexuality: pansexual hometown: hawkins, indiana education: graduate of hawkins high (by the skin of his teeth) occupation: associate at the game player religion: atheist 

Physical

height: 5′10″ weight: 180 lb eye color: brown hair color: dark brown tattoos: 5 (6 bats on the outside of his right forearm, a puppet master on the underside of his right forearm, a wyvern/dragon on the back of his right bicep, a skull/demon on his left pec, and a spider on his left collarbone) piercings: his tongue

Personality

good traits: kind, protective bad traits: eccentric, impulsive,  sense of humor: sarcasm (in expressions and tone) nervous tics: gets extremely fidgety/jittery/shaky,  greatest strength: knowing and being proud of who he is greatest vulnerability or weakness: seeing others get hurt

Favorites

color: red and black music: heavy rock food: whatever’s easy, box mac & cheese especially expression: sticking his tongue out mode of transportation: bike hobbies: d&d musical instrument: electric guitar sport: no

Relationships

mother: patricia munson father: edward munson  person character admires: his uncle, wayne munson person character most hates: entitled assholes

Headcanons

his first name is edward, named after his father, but every time someone calls him that, an uncomfortable chill runs up his spine. to him, it's a sort of insult. he vowed he'd be so much better than he was; he doesn't want any reminder of their connection.

his tattoos may look cool, but they also tell the story of his life. most notably, his bats. he never understood why people were so frightened of them; he found them to be fascinating creatures, particularly the communicating via echo-location. each bat on his arm represents someone important to him that he's lost. it's his way of carrying them with him. (more to be expanded upon later!)

hellfire's creation was just a club by nature, but it was a way to start over for eddie. it gave him an outlet to create a safe place for kids that didn't have anywhere else to go or felt ostracized. it gave him the chance to be the good influence he never had as a kid.