#i just think his actions and choices stem from him Choosing Not To do everything in anger

[britcision]

So I think the problem here is a literalistic approach, because to me “heartless” is a pretty accurate description of someone not giving a shit about people and acting like you’ll cut off anyone who slows you down and do anything to get stronger with no regard for yourself or others

I’m not actually sure what you’d think he’d have to do differently for that word specifically to apply? Or is it that you think I mean a conscious charade he works to maintain as opposed to a side effect he doesn’t care to change?

And yeah, to a kid the difference between 12-13 and 15-16 is a massive change, but the part of your life where it’s significant is pretty short and doesn’t last long past that, which is why I don’t think Sasuke’s responses changes particularly between his academy days and shippuden

He’s more consciously choosing isolation, but he solidly established that pattern long before

And I fully went and checked their academy days and couldn’t find the quote just to be sure, so if you have the citation on where I can find it that’ll help. It might be in their early Kakashi training somewhere? Or a way later flashback?

I get that your post is about the anger and hatred he has inside him, I just think it’s a disservice to his character to discard every time he explicitly and openly choses companionship and joy just because he’s also angry

It isn’t even an interpretation, it’s explicitly stated in the anime when he’s having ramen with Iruka and they talk about his pranks, he’ll accept negative attention but he didn’t start off looking for that

He started off wanting someone to be proud of him and care for him and from Zabuza on every single main fight tags back to him explicitly mentioning his choice to protect people he can smile with

I think maybe the confusion is that he can still absolutely be a jerk, tactless, and needlessly antagonistic (which… they’re child ninjas? They’re ALL prone to throw down for no reason, half the time all Naruto does is say “you wanna go” to get a “yes”)

He’s not perfect, he’s not even especially nice and frankly if they let him be hokage without improving his people skills the world would end

He definitely isn’t trying to bring happiness to everyone all the time, or even to many people much of the time

But saying everything he does stems from his hatred or his bitterness robs him of his agency and wipes away his intentional choice to not live his life based in hatred or anger

His childhood sucked, he’ll never forget it, and it changed the way he interacts with people, this is all very true

But what he took from it, and lives his life by moving forward, is making sure no one else has to deal with that. He continually offers the hand of friendship and tells people they don’t have to be alone, because he was alone and it sucked

He finds people who accept him, his pranks mellow out which is explicitly stated by characters in the show, and he wants to get strong so they can never be taken away

Hell, that right there’s the pivotal difference between Naruto and Sasuke - they sure both want to be strong enough to protect what matters

Sasuke decides that the only way to succeed is to remove himself from people that matter to him

Naruto literally did not consider that an option and is always genuinely confused why Sasuke is doing it (and usually yells about it making no sense)

You want side characters that aren’t antagonists, Kiba, Shikamaru, and Shino all have the same realisations about Naruto and how he puts living in the moment and having a good time over the trauma none of them noticed because they were all children

But he doesn’t pull pranks or start fights because he’s angry and hateful and wants to hurt people

He starts fights and pulls pranks because he’s a young boy who has been told violence is both an acceptable bonding method and the answer to self worth

They give kids knives and encourage them to practice stabbing each other competitively, and oh boy are there characters whose actions are motivated by hatred or anger all over to compare Naruto to whatever age he is

Every scene he talks to Kyuubi is him talking to his own anger, and there’s a reason Naruto is always the one that wins; the story is about him being stronger than his anger, having that hate and bitterness inside and not letting it control him

And he doesn’t have to be constantly smiling, sweet, accommodating, respectful, or even just not a little shit, because he’s chosen to be a little shit for himself, after choosing to not let the anger make choices for him

He’s a gleeful little jerk

i feel that so many people seem to take the basis of naruto and sasukes characterization and switch them…. i see too many people infer naruto is made of happiness and love while sasuke of hate and anger but i have always seen naruto as a character that is full of hatred and anger and he has to let go of that with the love of others. sasuke as a character is so full of love yet he has to follow that through with grief and anger and learn to bear others hatred.

naruto never really had the heaviness of love in his heart until he went through the process of controlling kuramas chakra and had to confront the hatred inside him. frankly it says it blatantly that he had always held hatred in his heart for the situation he was forced into and the way the village treated him because of it, until he was able to accept and move past that hatred and have love for kurama and his dad and the people of his village. so i genuinely don’t understand where this notion that naruto is just pure sunshine and happiness came from. sasukes whole story starts out with wanting revenge on his brother because he loves his family and his clan so much. it’s a constant clear notion that he hurts so bad from his brother’s betrayal because he loved his brother, and that his rage against konoha is because he loved his clan that konoha sanctioned a genocide of. it’s constantly stated that the uchiha hold intense love in their hearts.

it’s sasukes connection with the people around him that formed his love where it’s the lack of that connection that formed narutos hate…. the way they expressed their emotions is very different because they’re both in insanely different scenarios no matter how much they understand the others pain. narutos hatred makes him want to finally receive the love that the village never gave him, but sasukes love makes him want the village to experience the pain that they inflicted upon him and his clan… maybe sasuke expresses his love more negatively and maybe naruto expresses his hate more positively, but that doesn’t change the fact that sasukes actions came from a place of love and narutos actions came from hate. they just needed each other to balance the other out….

[chokisnumber1fan]

first glimpse of red

in which seishiro nagi veers dangerously close to the path of nihility.

content/warnings: 1.1k words, blue lock x hsr au??? cross fandom fic— this is not a shipfic!!! acheron is here purely as a guide, a LOT of discussion of nihilism and pointlessness and such, like two mentions of death, acheron might be ooc warning, if there’s anything i missed pls let me know

author’s note: i’ve been OBSESSED with the idea of nihility follower nagi— well, not an emanator since emanators of nihility technically can’t exist, so at least whatever acheron is. this is me trying to coherently put it all into words <3

seishiro nagi rubs his eyes and stretches, yawning as he does so. he boots up his PC once more, and shuts it back off when he realises that even playing another game would be too much effort. nagi is tired. sighing as he closes his eyes, seishiro nagi slumps on his chair. the time blurs into monochrome. 

reason.

what reason did nagi have to do anything at all? why does he wake up in the morning just to go back to sleep at night? he immediately discards the thoughts from his mind, concluding that it would be a hassle to think about them anymore. and unknowingly, he finds himself walking a step closer towards the edge of the looming blackhole in the horizon of existence. nagi isn’t someone who spends his time dwelling on matters like this— he’d much rather get to the root of a problem as quickly as possible and cut it right off, so it would never grow to be a bother again.

nagi doesn’t know what path he treads on. all he knows is he tends to choose those with easy exits and no catches. what does he even want? it just so happens that the easiest path nagi finds himself to be able to tread on is one of listless monochrome. a lot of people have asked him why he finds everything to be a hassle. he shrugs and says that he doesn’t know. it’s true that he doesn’t, but it’s not like he’s ever bothered to find the answer to the question. and it’s not like he’s asked himself why he doesn’t bother.

nagi doesn’t care. he’s been this way for as long as he could remember. 

he meets a purple haired woman in his journey through IX’s landscape. acheron is someone that accidentally stepped into the path of nihility and ventured a bit too far into IX’s shadow. for a fleeting moment, nagi wonders why she couldn’t just have steered course away from nihility, but realises he doesn’t care that much about the answer.

pointlessness.

it finally dawns on him, why he thinks of everything as a hassle. the answer had always been with him, he never had to go look. all of nagi’s actions stem from wanting to eradicate all burden and hassle from his life. he recounts this to acheron, and she comes to the realisation that she and nagi probably weren’t cut from the same cloth; they were two individuals on vastly different courses of life, that happened to intersect at this very moment. unlike acheron who happened to be thrown onto this path completely by accident, nagi seemed like he was destined to follow nihility since birth. he’d always found everything pointless, enough to feel disengaged from everyone and everything around him to some degree, at least. 

but then again, unlike acheron, nagi has an easier exit from this path than she does. she’s carved this one singular path for herself out of the hardest stone, in a resolve to reach the light beyond the black disc of nothingness, and to guide people who cross paths with her by making them pick a certain choice that she offers.

well… calling it a choice offered by her would be putting it in the crudest and vaguely inaccurate terms. she’s not the one steering their lives, even for this fleeting moment; she could never take credit for such a thing. she simply shows people possibilities, and lets them decide for themselves which one they’d like to walk towards.

nagi can articulate now that the basis of his attitude to most things in life is because of the pointlessness he associates with everything. so, what now?

but then this leads acheron to question if nagi truly was someone born for nihility, or if he was just another one of the poor souls that was led astray and accidentally ended up on IX’s monochrome path; because, well, no one’s point of existence could truly be to pursue nihility— anyways, it’s not like the answer to that question matters, she surmises.

there is nothing left for nagi to do in this reality except for think, and so he does. why did he keep pressing on until this moment despite the pointlessness of his existence? well, he wouldn’t say he particularly pressed on to live— had death come knocking on his door, he would’ve followed it out with a shrug of his shoulders. do you keep living despite the pointlessness of it all, or do you actively try to find meaning in your actions?

cut that out, the answer to that question is pointless— humans keep living on, regardless of their answers.

slowly, the pieces of the puzzle come together. some pieces are still missing, but he gets the wider picture. in a first, he asks acheron why humans strive to keep living despite the void of meaninglessness that the universe is based upon. she tells him that red is the colour of existence, and that it will be the first colour that will bloom, only for a fleeting moment in this monochrome universe. she asks him if he would roam in search of that first streak of crimson or if he would pick up a brush and paint it into existence. and when a choice is made, it shall reappear once more. in other words, will you search for meaning, or will you create meaning for yourself?

nagi wonders why her question wasn’t about following the halo of light at the end of nothingness— isn’t acheron a guide to those who walk this path? almost as if she hears his thoughts, she clarifies that it would be a pointless question for her to ask. his mouth opens to question her once more, but the word why? gets caught in his throat, as the realisation hits him like a speeding truck. every life is destined to end with the nihility, no matter what— it’s almost like a primal instinct, the way every being is naturally drawn to the light beyond the nothingness. perhaps, that is why a life that edges closer to death fervently approaches nihility, and further aspires to reach the end of it. so, will you strive to fill your life with meaning, or will you willingly thrust yourself into the meaningless pursuit of the primordial light, like acheron has?

he understands now. he picks up a paintbrush that lies fallen at his feet, streaks and blotches of red trailing with its bristles. he walks, but acheron doesn’t care to discern whether he’s walking towards the blackhole or not. she smiles wistfully, slashing her blade and tearing apart the spatio-temporal fabric of the horizon of existence. seishiro nagi wakes up in a cold sweat, finding himself in front of his PC once more, the words you died plastered in big red letters on his screen.

[bubbipond]

OK but why am I seeing on Twitter and Tumblr people saying that Tonkla did not love Korn as much as Korn loved him?? Did we watch the same show? Let’s not act like Korn was boyfriend of the year. Tonkla didn’t just wake up one morning and decided to be a murderer. He also didn’t force Korn to also cheat on him??? Korn was choosing his family and the life he lived his whole life over love the entire time. You can argue that love wasn’t more important than revenge to Kla but you can’t argue that he didn’t love and care about Korn or vice versa.

He literally took a bullet for him. He did not have to do that. He knew his time was running out. You don’t do things that Tonkla did in this show and expect to live happily ever after. In my opinion, they had the most realistic end to a dark series. You can love someone and want to be with them, but fate not be in your corner. They were both in retrospect too deep into their individual lives to not die and I find that extremely heartbreaking. To be honest if two people deserve a happy ending it was probably them because their issues were not entirely made by them. Their situations were directly influenced by other people (technically so was Greats but he ended up happy so).

But I feel like deducing everything between Korn and Kla to just a revenge plot is a lack of critical thinking. I know that’s a buzz word and I’m not just saying that because throughout the airing of the series I have been like, “I support Kla’s wrongs and his rights”. But instead, I am saying this because he and Korn are not their actions. They are who they are because of other peoples actions. Kla couldn’t move on with his life after his brother died because there was no justice. He definitely needed therapy and he should not have been going around murdering people or attempting to. But that was a direct Issue stemming from his brother’s death. Korn didn’t want to be the head of the family. He didn’t want to be a crappy brother or a crappy boyfriend. He didn’t want to marry that girl whose name escapes me.

And at the end of it, they were both willing to look at each other and be like you know what!? We are Thelma and Louise, we are Bonnie and Clyde. In the most tragic ways possible. I think that’s the reason they kind of stole the last episode. All of their shit was out there. Neither one of them were cowards and neither one of them were good people. Maybe they were at one time but life and the choices they made changed that. I think their end was perfect because they both succeeded and failed at their motives at the end of the day. Neither one was where they were in the beginning at the end of it all.

Marrying that woman wasn’t going to miraculously make Korns life easier. In the end, she cut her losses anyway. The marriage didn’t help her at that point. So where did he have to go? The revelation that Kla was the one to shoot Great and that Great was part of his brother’s murder didn’t diminish how they felt about each other. It just complicated everything. Attempting to murder the people responsible for his brother’s death didn’t bring Kla solace. It didn’t bring his brother back and if anything it just made life shittier. At the end of the day, there was no out for either of them. They would both still have to pay for things they did and did not do. So even though their story ended, they still had a better ending. They still love each other despite the tough situation they were in.

My favorite part of that last scene is Bas’ facial expressions when he hears everything from Kla. He’s not heartbroken, or angry, he’s not bewildered, Or jealous. He’s all of the above and you can see it written on his face so perfectly. Bas really knows how to show emotion on his face and I love him for that; especially the mix of feelings between the revelation and him pointing that gun. He wasn’t questioning whether or not Kla loved him because what did Kla have to gain from keeping him around at the point of him running? This man was exhausted. He was tired of everything and everyone he was tired of the cards that they all have been dealt up until that point. He knew pointing that gun was a bad idea. But their backs were against the wall and there was nothing left to lose. Until there was. He had to watch the love of his life take a bullet for him. So I will not sit here and let people act like Kla was this master manipulator who only wanted revenge.

Because the saddest part about all of this is, it was just a very unfortunate circumstance that intertwined Great and Dome.

[vindicated-truth]

Hi @rootofallevil! I hope you don't mind if I answer both of your replies to my post here 🫶🏻 Because as always the reply section definitely won't be enough for all my rambling 😅

First, about Dongsik letting go of Joowon and allowing him to walk away—

I've been marinating over a specific thought in my head for a while now, and I think your comment is the perfect jump off point to address it.

In connection to how I've always been saying that Dongsik's strength lies in how he fiercely protects the people he loves, he does have tendencies to go overboard very similar to the way Do Haewon does (as I've addressed here), and that the only thing separating Dongsik from Haewon is that Dongsik never wants anyone else to be hurt by his actions, and always regrets it when he does; whereas Haewon doesn't care if the whole world burns as long as the person she loves is safe.

I think that part of that protectiveness inevitably morphs into possessiveness at times, which is sadly what the trauma of (multiple!!) losses did to Dongsik: he has to keep all his loved ones close, because he's terrified that he might lose them, too.

And I think one of the ways that manifested in a way he never expected to end up badly was the way his protectiveness became borderline possessive over Minjeong.

It's not the possessiveness by that of a jealous lover, but one that is, again, remarkably similar to Do Haewon: the possessiveness of a parent over their child with the belief that only they can keep them safe.

It manifested in the way he resorted to tracking Minjeong down using illegal means, and then traveling all the way to Seoul just to bring Minjeong back. The intention to protect her is apparent, and again, it stems from Dongsik's terrible fear of losing the people he loves; however, Dongsik didn't even stop to think that maybe, just maybe, there's a reason Minjeong is deliberately choosing to stay away from home—that there's a very specific reason she's avoiding her own father.

Dongsik, unbeknownst to him, brought Minjeong back to her would be killer—the one she was trying to escape from in the first place.

Bear in mind too that Minjeong is already an adult by this point, and capable of making her own decisions, but in this specific instance it's as if she was infantilized by Dongsik. Again, all with good intentions of a loving and doting father, but already with the shades of possessiveness incredibly similar to Haewon's infantilization of Jeongje—who was already 40 years old.

The reason why I'm bringing this up is I think that through the course of the story, Dongsik has come to realize this too, about himself, especially after everything he's come to discover about Haewon and Jeongje too: that perhaps he is seeing shades of that overbearing love apparent in himself, too.

And that, I think, is why he is making the choice—whether subconsciously or deliberately—to not make the same mistake when it comes to Joowon.

He is trying his best now for his love for Joowon to be selfless, and more than anything: to be hinged on absolute trust in Joowon (as I've mentioned here, too).

To be someone that Joowon never had before: someone completely believing in him, and believing him.

And as for your other question, regarding the reunion at Manyang and whether Joowon would be coming back—

The thing is, I actually believe both Dongsik and Joowon made the best decision to go separately on their own ways first, just because I think they were both starting to realize that even in such a short period of time, their relationship with each other has gotten so immensely intense that there are shades of codependency already—which is unhealthy in any relationship.

I think at this point it's important for them to establish their individuality and their individual purpose now that Dongsik and Joowon are now finally freed from the shadow of Lee Yuyeon and Han Kihwan respectively. In many ways, this is finally the chapter of the true beginning of their lives: for Dongsik to discover who he is without the shadow of his sister's death looming over him, and for Joowon to discover who he is without the shadow of his father tormenting his every step.

This is the chapter of their lives where they're finally free to be who they really are, and to finally freely live, without all of these shackles holding them back.

And I think that once they complete that journey of finding themselves, they can come back to each other as a completely whole person in themselves, without necessarily needing the other to "fulfill" their needs.

I think that this is the only way they can ever truly make each other happy, and be truly happy by each other's side. ❤️

[messrsrobyn]

I am here to request more hat stall Pete ramble

AHHH and i am here to ask for your hand in marriage now. yes yes yes always here to ramble about pete.

(long yap sorry x)

OKAY SO!!!

the only two hatstalls we know about are minnie (gry x rav) and pete (gyf x slyth) - when i yapped about it on tt people mentioned hermione and neville, they were close but didn't actually hit the five min mark.

WHICH IS SO INTERESTING WITH PETE !!! so interesting with his deflection but i'll run over my basic thoughts on pete as a hatstall:

(first of all, this is irrelevant to whether he was placed naturally or begged to be put there, because i think either way he'd have the same dilemmas)

1) The Prank - this is my roman empire with pete!!

the fact that he was a hatstall between these two houses, he spends five years sitting and questioning which side of him is the "real side", wondering if the hat made the right choice. trying to suppress everything slightly slytherin about himself to fit in with james, to be someone that james - against slytherins - would be okay with, yk petes a v insecure lil man.

and then he watches sirius do the prank. he watched sirius get sorted into gryffindor quicker than him and defy the entireee history of his family yk? hes so inherently gryffindory that he Breaks Tradition... and then he does that???

NOW IMAGINE pete who's already battling with these two parts of himself, wondering why on earth he was a hatstall. why did the hat deliberate with him, who has only ever tried to be like and be liked by his friends, and yet someone who has slytherin practically engrained in their blood did that?? what even is a real gryffindor?

THIS is my breaking point for pete. this is where his morals get very switched. this is where he watches sirius get forgiven for this unforgiveable thing, and all of his morals start getting cloudy. the prank is where all the marauders fall apart and i've said this before. it's where wolfstars communication during the war stems from, it's where sirius and pete become fractured, it's the beginning of the end for them (in my opinion). it's where pete starts questioning good and bad people, starts questioning what makes a person what and how it's determined and generally??? just where in my mind he stops trying to repress that slytherin side, because he now knows that 'true' gryffindors can do bad shit too.

it's also said by minnie that pete "hero-worshipped" james and sirius and then he watches sirius do that? and watches the group recover again? SO MUCH DEPTH

2) the betrayal

we will neverrrr know what made pete betray the potters, not entirely. we have all our ideas and theories but we will never know. which i like. i like that we don't know. i like that we get to play around with characters and apply our own moral dilemmas of "is it justified to do this if xyz?" "could xyz cause this?" blah blah blah.

this moral compass is SO strong with gryffindors, yes? a lot less strong with slytherins. how does that balance out when you're both? when you're not quite sure the hat put you on the right side, when you're fighting alongside people braver than you? where does that leave your moral compass?

he's this mix of self-preservative and cunning, and courageous and brave. maybe, he was tortured 🤷‍♂️ maybe he had to choose between being brave and being self-preservative. maybe he just didn't have the same courage as his friends to be able to go straight to the frontlines of a war. maybe his morals weren't as clear cut as his friends and he often lost sight of what they were fighting.

see here: my idea of pete trying so so so hard those first few years to be the perfect gryffindor and earn his place there, to then enter a war and watch the numbers drop with little care from dumbledore, to watch how he weighs out lives and realising that being on the morally just side, doesn't mean all of the actions within that are morally just.

IT'S SO COMPLEX !!!

but i think there's so much more to explore with his betrayal if we take the hatstall into account. i see the torture idea a lot (and i've adored every version of it i've read) but i would LOVE to see more of pete getting tortured by DE/voldy, and he doesn't give himself up because he's hurt or because he's sad or whatever - he does it because at his core, he's always been a but too self-preservative to fight alongside gryffindors.

i.e in poa: pete - what would you have done? sirius - i would've died (courageous and brave vs self-preservative, true gryffindor vs a 'lesser one'

tbf minnie also called him "never quite in (sirius and james') league talent-wise" which could work either way. either wasn't strong enough to fight it and gave up, or knew he wasn't strong enough and turned to self-preservative methods instead.

but also... he manages (likely) a blasting curse that explodes a whole street and destroyed the sewer systems, can perform AK in tgof (which takes an immense amount of intent and magic) which he did with a wand that was NOT under his allegiance??? anddd is able to brew potions that are classes as dark magic? not in their league talent wise, or maybe his talents were meant elsewhere?? was he weak or was he just more dark than them naturally?? we know that dark magic calls to some wizards more so i don't think it was weakness in my opinion.

and i say 'lesser gryffindor' in quotation marks in point one there becauseee...

3) the hat stands by its decision

this is so often just forgotten but the hat insists that it's correct with pete's sorting (unsure if this is book canon, but jkr talks about it on pottermore which ik some people dont take as canon lore but i do. she's gotta fill her own plot holes somehow 🤷‍♂️)

BUT BASICALLY the hat claims that pete dying via his own silver hand is proof that he's a gryffindor because his conscious clearly disagrees with whatever he's done. debate that as you will because i'm not even sure how i feel about it??? i feel like it just doesn't match the perception of pete that i've built up here :/

like maybe he does regret it, i reckon he would. but i reckon it would be a bit complex thing between his bravery and self-preservation (but maybe his death is both. maybe his last act is a brave one based in some twisted backwards self-preservation. maybe the best thing he could do for him was end it, and that was a brave thing to do)

but the hat insists he's a gryffindor which adds SO much depth to his hatstall and just... him

OVERALL!!!

it just challenges the entireee notion of gryffindor vs. slytherin.

"there's not a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't in slytherin" - we know that to be wrong obvs, pete. and we explore that a lottt with regulus and his deflection, a lottt with draco and narcissa, but not very often in depth with gryffindors, even harry and his deliberation with the hat.

i ADOREEE looking at pete in school as like... an actual marauder. being insecure that he doesn't fit in with them? yes absolutely. but i like to view more as an internal struggle with alllll of this rather than remus/james/sirius just being closer, yk?

oh my god this turned into a whole essay and i tried so hard to keep it brief. be glad this is the brief version. oh my god.

anyway. live laugh love peter pettigrew being a hatstall.

[ghostinthegallery]

Time to overthink the Silent King!

Aw yeah, @angoryt got their request in first, so sure. Szarekh—second coolest necron centerpiece model—is up to be psychoanalyzed by me, a rando on the internet.

Szarekh is interesting for a lot of reasons, and a lot of that stems from how mysterious he is. He's relatively new to the game as it were and he has basically no story appearances because GW hates xenos and also me. Still we have some things to go on...

So what do we know? He was the one that made the deal with the Deceiver (who tbf was not called the Deceiver at the time) to turn the necrontyr into the necrons we know and love today. He had full control of everything single necron via command protocols, but he surrendered that power after the War in Heaven. He ordered the Great Sleep. He entered a self imposed exile and now has returned because he saw something out in the universe that he deemed a great enough threat to return (it's the Tyranids put a pin in that).

He may or may not have met Sanguinias. He may or may not have a plan to reverse biotransference. He has a thing for pylons. That's about all we get.

I see a character here that tried to be a good king. In many ways he was, but he failed in the most catastrophic way. Every single action he's taken has been an attempt to protect his empire and his people and all of them backfired. Biotransference was... biotransference. The Great Sleep caused so many dynasties to be lost to planetary death, scavengers, and madness. And the galaxy they are waking up to is arguably even worse than the one they hibernated to escape. Even Szarekh's attempt to atone for his mistakes by exiling himself left a power vacuum that the triarchy couldn't fully fill. The necrons are completely fractured, their empire is significantly weaker as a result, and it's partially because of Szarekh's choice.

But he still isn't giving up. Despite being haunted by his failures, he's still trying to unite his people and save them from the mistakes he's made. He's trying to protect the whole galaxy from the Tyranids, even though he and the other necrons could just let them devour everything and move on. Tyranids avoid necrons and tombworlds because they have no biomass. Szarekh doesn't have to fight them, but he chooses to because he believes that if he doesn't, he can never reverse biotransference. The necrons will just die a slow death to entropy and Szarekh will have a front row seat to watch the decay of everything he loved.

He's motivated by profound guilt and desire to protect his people, but it constantly ends in tragedy. Do I think this makes him a "good" person? No, not really. He's deeply shrewd and manipulative. He used Dante's and the other Blood Angels love and grief for Sanguinias to essentially turn them into bait for his fight with some Tyranids. Szarekh survived necron court politics for millennia, he doesn't f*ck around.

Note, Szarekh didn't just show up and try to take over immediately. He built up support, a new court, he allied with everyone's favorite robot murder scientist Illuminor Szeras. The guy isn't an idiot. He made a lot of wrong choices, but those choices came from good intentions rather than incompetence.

It's infuriating GW isn't doing more with Szarekh as a character. He's a tragic king! Loved and hated by his own empire with equal intensity. He should at least have one novel where he features (if not multiple). If they want to maintain the mystery around him (which is fair) make him an antagonist for someone like Imotekh or even Dante, Lion, or Guilliman if they insist of featuring the Imperium. Do some uneasy alliances. Get the aeldar in here! Szarekh also shows just how dangerous and terrifying the tyranids are, which is great if GW wants tyranids to be the Big Bad of 10th. You want some extra horror attached to the space bugs? Just give a hint of what Szarekh saw out in the universe that terrified him enough to break a 65 million year exile.

Szarekh is a walking Shakespearean tragedy with a sick model, and I hope he gets more love in the lore.

If you like how I think about characters l, read my AO3 nonsense. Leave a comment, I live for those.

Next on the list: Anrakyr the Traveler! As requested by @fobosfear

[beforetheflowers]

Good Omens 2 meta - spoilers ahead

I think a key difference between Aziraphale and Crowley - one of the reasons why they keep having the same argument, namely run away together or stay and fight - is where they think good comes from. Their values and basic morality is more or less the same. Peace, beauty, good wine, beneficence (maybe more of a general nonmaleficence, in Crowley's case), freedom. As much as Crowley objects to the word, both he and Aziraphale are shown to value goodness, but the problem is that they're approaching the concept from opposite angles.

Aziraphale, along with every other angel, was brainwashed into thinking that Good stems from Heaven and Heaven alone, the collective efforts of a cohort of angels carrying out God's ineffable plan. The flashback episodes in both seasons show the beginnings of Aziraphale's deprogramming, where he witnesses "God's will" causing direct harm to people. If my memory is correct, the Job minisode is the earliest example of Aziraphale choosing to stand in opposition to Heaven, acting on his own sense of rightness and justice rather than regurgitate the company line. But even up to the present day, Aziraphale still clings to the belief that Heaven is ultimately good, despite all evidence to the contrary. Why? Partly because that's just how deep six thousand years of brainwashing goes, but also because for Aziraphale, goodness is a community project.

Aziraphale's approach to morality is that good comes from collective works, from and within a community. Heaven is (supposed to be) the perfect community of perfectly like-minded people working towards a common goal, and I don't think Aziraphale is wrong for wanting this, he just refuses to admit to himself that Heaven's goal is draconian and its work is obedience. We see him building a community on Earth, with the shopkeepers' association and the friends he's made through his bookshop - these aren't necessarily deep connections, but they are people he shows up to help and who show up to help him. This is what community is: people doing good for each other in small ways, offering to help when someone is in need, and asking for help in your turn. It's what Aziraphale thinks Heaven is.

On the other hand, Crowley's approach to morality is extremely individualistic, and for good reason. He was cast out of Heaven and (presumably) tortured by Hell for disobedience, for following his own morality instead of the letter of the law. He has no faith in other people, understandably, and thinks that good can only happen when no one else is watching because both Heaven and Hell have punished him for doing good. Hence, Crowley's vehement rejection whenever Az calls him good or nice, etc.

This difference in perspective is why they keep fighting, even when they clearly love each other and have the same values at heart. For Aziraphale, good stems from community, but he fails to grasp that goodness is still an individual choice, not an institutional one. For Crowley, good comes from the individual, often at their own expense, but he doesn't see the power in collective action (he's never had the chance).

So, when Crowley asks Aziraphale to run away with him, he has no context for understanding what's keeping him anchored. Aziraphale wants to stay at the bookshop and protect his friends, neighbors, and most importantly, Crowley. I think this is a big part of what informs Az's decision at the end of season two - he's not power-hungry, and he's not so completely naive that he believes he can swoop in and fix everything wrong with Heaven (although, his programmed belief in the essential goodness of Heaven is doing a lot of work here too). He accepts the Metatron's offer because it is a strategic move to protect his community. He thinks he can play the Metatron the same way he and Crowley have been playing the archangels for millennia. But I think the Metatron is an entirely different level of opponent, one that I have no doubt will be central to the conflict of season three.

BUT at the same time, Aziraphale just absolutely fails to understand the irrevocable harm Heaven has done to Crowley, he's not acknowledging Crowley's agency as a demon who makes his own choices, and he hasn't let go of that last bit of loyalty to Heaven. It's such a slap in the face to Crowley, after everything they've done together, for Az to turn back to Heaven at the last moment ("we could have been us"). From Crowley's perspective, Aziraphale is running back to the cult that abused them both and rejecting Crowley as a demon. From Az's perspective, Crowley is giving up on the community they've built together on Earth and abandoning a strategic position of power. As Nina and Maggie point out, they don't know how to openly talk to each other (because of the millennia of having to sneak around, probably), so they both end the season feeling misunderstood and rejected, even though they want the same thing in the end.

Also, their respective retirements from Hell and Heaven are incredibly recent, considering the span of their lives and how much time they each spent punching their timecards. They haven't developed their own identities yet. Like Nina's speech at the end - "I'd just be a rebound mess." They're not ready yet, but they will be.

[c0rps3g0bbl3r]

Steven Universe is a specific case, though. It's not a simple "villain bad" scenario. It's about systematic and familial abuse. #JusticeforSteven

If the Diamond were individual actors, what is above is correct. To be clear, I don't think anyone deserves the death penalty; even those considered the "worst offenders" by society should not be killed. But they are textually shown as not individuals who are operating under the Gem system/culture.

They ARE the system. They are the living embodiment of the things that are killing human, gems, flora, fauna, and the universe itself. This is where it gets more complicated than simply seeing the Diamond as Steven's family. They control everything, they sire whatever policy they believe benefits them the most, they are the reason things are as they are. Nobody else makes these brutal and violent decisions.

Only the rebellion and death of Pink Diamond shakes their belief in what they are doing because it makes the system fallible. If she hadn't done what she had done because she liked humans as "interesting creatures" (which is white savior colonial rhetoric and another bag of bones to pick with the show), the earth would be completely and entirely wiped out. Not just humans or Beach City or the characters of Steven Universe; Mother Earth and all of her creatures would be dead. Everything would be gone.

And that's something we're facing within our system right now. Actions of an elite few are destroying the land beneath our feet for their own benefits through their own decisions. It's brutal, it's violent, and it's unforgivable. And, in the text of Steven Universe, that brutality starts and stems from the Diamonds themselves.

Destroying oppressive systems takes radical action (NOT just killing people. Destroying systems through art, compassion, and community are also radical) and our children have no choice but to learn that, even if it is harsh. And the show actively tackles this with the character of Bismuth-this is good!-and then bubbles her for...pretty much most of the conflict-this is bad!. Steven Universe actively puts aside the heavy implications of its politics and world-building to strengthen it's "lets talk it out message" and that's not okay. The Diamonds didn't have to be literal stand-ins for systematic oppression and genocide but that's what Steven Universe did.

And even if you don't see them as the system itself, since Steven Universe is a show focused on family units and their development, they still don't deserve to be apart of Steven's life. Not after what they did to his mom, not after what they did to his surrogate parents, not after what the did to Steven. I dislike the idea that that redemption and death are the only two options here.

Steven denying his lineage and claiming his heritage through his adopted family and his love of himself, his body, and his powers is a powerful message, too. He can turn his back on his abusers and he can choose who he still connects to in his family. And the Diamonds are hands-down, the most abusive and destructive forces in his family unit.

Why is it Steven's burden to rekindle and redeem their family relationship?

TLDR; The Diamonds are not individual actors but represent an oppressive, universal regime and redemption here is as unethical as killing them. This type of thinking allows bad people like the Diamonds to continue to do evil and morally reprehensible things.

OR, if the Diamonds are individual actors, Steven should have never felt obligated to take the burden of reconnecting with his objectively abusive and destructive aunts who only ever saw him as a nuisance until they relented to the fact that Pink Diamond is gone and he his, for all intents and purposes, Pink Diamond. Steven feeling that he needs to "fix everything" through talking things out shows that he was, in fact, and abused child. Nobody, not even our "heroes" are safe from this accusation.

Everyone, including the system and individual actors, failed Steven. It's not a CHILD'S JOB to rekindle fraught relationships between narcissistic and abusive ADULTS. Sometimes the right decision is one that is harsher and more critical than you want it to be. Steven Universe is not fascist propaganda, definitely not, but it certainly isn't good about its messaging either.

Seriously, I am SO happy Steven drove away and I hope he never returns home.

it is crazy how “if this childrens show doesn’t kill their villain at the end it’s irredeemable media” became such a popular opinion here. like people were calling steven universe fascist apologia. and to be clear I don’t even think that would be the case for non childrens media, either. perhaps holding every single story up to the same standard of “does it follow the acceptable narrative path or is it evil propaganda” isn’t the most anti-fascist thing, either. maybe.

[quillyfied]

There was someone in the Good Omens tag asking about why fanon interpretation of Crowley trends towards impulsive when it doesn’t seem supported by canon, but they didn’t want their post reblogged, so out of respect to them and because I actually want to initiate a discussion about it, here’s my thoughts:

Is Crowley impulsive? It certainly doesn’t seem so when you examine his actions; he has backup plans, he has several alternative rendezvous locations, he knows how to pick and choose his words and actions to wheedle Aziraphale into going along with something they both want, he has elaborate plans for his every temptation and lives his life like the best of James Bond wannabes…but I think where the “impulsive” characterization primarily stems from is a bit hydra-headed, bear with me.

Is Crowley impulsive? The consequences of his actions would certainly make it seem so. There’s this headspace, I think, that if your choices have consequences that come back to bite you in the behind, somehow you did not think that choice through, or else you wouldn’t have overlooked the thing that bit you. And the things that come back to bite Crowley regarding his own schemes all seem fairly obvious or avoidable: he brings down the mobile networks, and an hour later needs to call Aziraphale using his mobile and can’t because he took down the mobile networks; he talks a big game to Hell to stay on Earth and enjoy its delights, so they entrust him with delivery of the Antichrist and the kickoff of Armageddon and destruction of everything he loves about Earth; he reroutes the M25 into a literal hellish rune of hailing the Antichrist, and it explodes into a giant wall of fire once the Antichrist appears and traps Crowley inside of it. But the thing is, these decisions aren’t impulsive just because Crowley catches unexpected backlash from every single one. But I think they can seem that way, just from how it appears that overlooked details are what lead to Crowley’s personal inconveniencing at his own hands.

But is Crowley impulsive? He’s energetic, and frequently anxious-coded: he stress-cleans, he stomps around both his own flat and Aziraphale’s shop and makes big gestures and sits where he oughtn’t, he fast-talks when he’s grandstanding or in imminent danger but trying to wriggle out of it. A lot of how Crowley behaves and is narrated and even is acted by DT translates to many fans as ADHD, a major symptom of which is impulsivity. I can certainly attest that when my anxiety is high, my ADHD brain makes snap decisions that often have unpleasant long-term consequences I’m too wound up in the moment to recognize, which is one way of interpreting Crowley and his actions and his mannerisms. Crowley’s snap anxiety decisions could be illustrated by him trying to force Aziraphale to leave Earth with him, a ploy he knew wasn’t going to work because Aziraphale doesn’t respond to being hurried or pushed, but in anxiety mode, all Crowley knew to do was to run for it and hope for survival even though that wasn’t the best long-term choice to make.

But is Crowley impulsive? He certainly seems fickle, if you take his fashion sense into account, always changing it up with the latest trends and whims of style. He switches his hair, his clothes, his gender presentation, all while his foil and counterpart Aziraphale more or less maintains the same image for 6000 years. He buys the latest gadgets, he makes sure he has top of the line everything, and what pieces he hangs onto are classic and expensive and timeless (the Bentley, the watch, the da Vinci, Golden Girls). Even his shades change up with the season. A demon trying to make sure he’s always on the cutting edge of Cool, Smooth, and Desirable? Yes. Impulsive? Well, maybe, when compared to how Aziraphale very rarely updates or makes changes. It could certainly convey a sense of hectic nebulous change, of an inability to settle or sit still, which feels impulsive.

But is Crowley actually impulsive?

My ultimate answer to this would be “sometimes”. But I’d rather open it to the floor for discussion.

[mountain-man-cumeth]

What Went Wrong: An In-Depth Analysis of Muriel's Route

*Youtuber voice*

Below are the opinions of an uneducated individual on what could’ve left the majority of The Arcana audience dissatisfied. I will explore the plot, tropes, themes and morals of the Muriel route and try to explain what may have gone wrong. I will be treating the game as a novel since it's advertised as one.

1. Consistency. If you are unfamiliar with the chekhov's gun; it's a story writing principle that dictates each element you introduce should come into play (foreshadowing). Now let's start with a few story beats that were later abandoned or concluded in an underwhelming manner:

Muriel's blanket

Muriel's magic mark (on his back)

Forest spirit (spirits in general)

Lucio's upbringing

Circumstances of MC's death

Figurines/whittling/charms

Muriel's blanket is teased to be a tapestry, which would tie in with his later fascination with them later on, as it had been the only thing he had left from his past. MC neither sees nor comments on the blanket, we only know it exists thanks to other playthroughs and short stories.

Magic marks are an important point in the game. Every main route emphasises on how it affects the chosen LI. It's reveal is important in a way that it serves as a passage to a new act where the reader explores magic and Arcana pantheon as they are a monumental part of the overall worldbuilding. This exact point applies to the Heart of the Forest and how spirits interact with the world around them as well.

Whittling and Charm making are the only hobbies we get from Muriel's isolated life, their introduction helps the reader humanise the character by giving us a crumb of his everyday life. It's never mentioned again after the scene where MC asks him what he does. He doesn't idly whittle during their journey and charms only come to play in an offhanded reference during reversed ending.

The other two are also ignored but I will touch on Lucio later on.

Why do these matter? A few abandoned plot points don't make or break the story but on a grander level it hinders the audience investment. When we read, we like to think the details we notice will come to play eventually, we like recognizing references that were introduced earlier. I'm sure I don't need to give examples on this one, I don't think anyone will disagree.

2. Themes. Thematic influences this story utilized are all over the place, and it seems to me like it stems from the improper application of certain tropes;

The Hero's Journey

Home Sweet Home

Shell-Shocked Vet

Last of His Kind

etc.

Some of these tropes tackle themes such as;

Slavery

PTSD

Survivor's Guilt

Genocide

I'm not going to try to explain How to Write any of these topics. I'm not remotely qualified. I think it's better if I just give examples from popular media because whether you know how to write it or not, you can still understand when it's written well;

AtLA deals with genocide and survivor's guilt. It's in the name; The Last Airbender. Aang is the sole survivor of a culture he'd only had an opportunity to engage in for a handful of years. He left them with a childish tantrum and now they're gone forever. I can't think of another mainstream series that shows the gruesome reality of war and genocide better than this one.

When Muriel realizes his true heritage and loses Khamgalai is the point of the story where Luke sees his family's farm burned down, Aang goes back to the air temple, Treebeard walks in on the demolished part of the forest. (The inciting incident)

(Could also have been forest spirit’s death but it was too early in the story so I don’t consider it a missed opportunity.)

Up until this point the hero has their doubts, they're going through the motions but they are either underestimating the enemy or they're a passive protagonist. Either way, this is the point where the hero has to take the reins of the story. What purpose does this serve in Muriel's route instead? It simply validates Muriel's beliefs. He's useless, he isn't strong enough. We as the reader need a point to see where the hero takes a step to drive the story forward or whoever takes that step will steal the spotlight, it will be their story. As it is, this is the point where it ceases to be Muriel’s story.

PTSD got the worst end of the deal. Since Dragon Age fandom has a huge overlap with the Arcana I will use Fenris as an example; for those who are unfamiliar with the character, Fenris is an escaped slave. After the sex scene he vividly describes an experience that most people can easily identify as a flashback. The game never tells us that he was abused, it doesn’t show us him having a panic attack but it shows us that whatever transpired between him and the player character clearly triggered an unpleasant memory.

Arcana tries and initially succeeds to do something similar. We see that the character is untrustworthy, sensitive to touch, easily agitated, can’t sleep outside of his perceived safe environment… It introduces us the cause later on and the story has two options, each will drastically change the moral of the story:

Remember these as they will be important later on

Portray Muriel fighting as a bad thing; You can’t fight violence with violence angle or the fact that the villain’s forcing him into a situation where he’ll have to fight again makes the villain all the more intimidating.

Portray Muriel fighting as a good thing; He has the means to defeat the villain and he just needs encouragement. With great power comes great responsibility. By not fighting he willingly condemns everyone to an awful fate and that he is selfish.

I’d like to take a second to explore the 1. Option, I feel like the game may have intended to implement that idea but failed because of the implementation of Morga and choices presented for the player character: Morga is an Old-Soldier, these characters are often push the hero out of their comfort zone in an aggressive way towards complacency, they are a narrative foil to the mentor. For the first option to work the story had to show Khamgalai acting as a mentor and having the protagonists challenge Morga’s teachings(see Ozai-Iroh). As it is, Morga’s actions are never put under scrutiny (narratively) and her death feels hollow as a result. She didn’t sacrifice herself for the heroes due to her guilt, she died because she felt a moment of sympathy for her son which wasn’t explored before, she showed no intention to change nor any doubt.

It is clear the game choose 2. Option, it is a controversial choice given Muriel’s mental condition and the game is acutely aware of this, which is likely why Muriel’s PTSD will get carefully scraped from the story from here on out. (I won’t address other instances where his trauma wasn’t taken into account, I feel like this explanation should cover them as well.)

3. Morals. Every story, whether the author intends it or not, has a moral. The Villain most often acts against that moral and in turn can change the hero's perspective. Morals are not ideals; the morality of Killmonger isn’t that marginalised people should fight for their rights, it is that vengeance is just. Whether it’s right or wrong can be debated but what makes an ideal the moral of the story is in the portrayal. How the narrator depicts the events, how people around the heroes react... all are a part of portrayal.

The story choosing “Muriel fighting is a good thing” earlier puts in the foundation of a moral. The story tells us Muriel has to fight, it’s the right thing to do. He has to be brave for the people he loves.

This choice affects how his past actions will be perceived; now, him escaping the arena to save himself is cowardly, abandoning Morga is cowardly.

The story tells us it wasn’t, but shows us that it was. This is the end of the midpoint of the story, at this point we need to have a good grasp on what we should perceive as wrong or right for us to feel invested. If we zig-zag between the morals we won’t know which actions we should root for. But more than that, the conclusion will not feel cathartic as it will inevitably demonstrate the opposing ideals clashing at its climax.

Villain doesn't necessarily have to be sympathetic and Muriel's route makes no effort to make him as such, but they need to be understandable. What danger does Lucio pose to the status quo, what makes him a compelling villain? Whether he conquers Vesuvia or not doesn’t drastically affect Muriel’s way of life, he’s been in hiding for years. He doesn’t threaten to steal MC’s body, Muriel is not compelled to pick up arms to save his beloved. He wants to protect the people from going through what he’s been through, right? That is what the story wants us to think. But what has he been through? Fighting was his choice, Lucio tricked him into it. Lucio later tricked Morga, his own mother, to save his own hide. This tells us that Lucio is a manipulator, but he doesn’t manipulate his way into Vesuvia, he barges in with deus ex machina monsters. He doesn’t demonstrate his skills as a tactician by making deals with neighbouring kingdoms to get their armies. We don’t know his strengths therefore we don’t know his weaknesses. If he seems to be losing he can just conjure a giant dragon to burn everything down, we just can’t know. That is why the application of deus ex machina is highly taboo, the victories don’t feel earned and defeats feel unfair.

4. Tone. Playing with the genre is not uncommon and a game such as Arcana has many opportunities to do so. It is a romance story, everything else is the back-drop. The tone works best when its overall consistent but tonal changes act as shock for the audience to keep them engaged and keeping one tone indefinitely gets us desensitized. We can’t feel constant misery if we are not made to feel tinges of hope in between. Good examples of dramatic tonal change (that I can think of): Mulan - arriving at the decimated village, La Vita e Bella - the father’s death, M*A*S*H - death of Hawkeye’s friend. Two of these examples are mostly comedy which is why this tonal shift affects us so, it was all fun and games until we are slapped in the face with the war going on. There are no one liners in those scenes, the story takes a moment to show appropriate respect to the dead, it gives its characters time to digest and come to terms with loss. Bad examples are the majority of Marvel movies.

In Muriel’s route there’s never such a thing, Muriel has a panic attack and MC kisses him. This unintentionally tells us, the genre being romance, that the panic attack only served to further MC’s advances. It tells us that he’s never had the control of his life and it’s yet again stripped from him by the decisions of player character. This is not the only instance this happens. The story shoe-horns in multiple cuddle sessions between important plot beats. And it does the exact opposite during a moment where he is having a heart-to-heart with the person he loves by having the ghost of Morga appear to give an ominous warning/advice.

When he runs off during masquerade it’s built up to be an important plot point. Muriel will finally face his past, he’s been running away from it all along, and he will have an opportunity to be accepted back in. MC is supportive but ultimately, it’s meant to be Muriel's moment. But as I mentioned above this is not his story anymore so he’s not given any time to address his problems, instead a ghost appears to tell him what he needs to do, again. Because we need to wrap the story up, we don’t have time.

Remember how I said the 2 Options will be important later on, well here we are at the very end. Upright and reversed.

“Portray Muriel fighting as a bad thing”

This suggests that the triumph of Muriel won’t be through violence. Maybe he will outsmart Lucio in a different way, he won’t play his games anymore. This option suggests that Lucio will not be beaten by his own terms.

“Portray Muriel fighting as a good thing”

This option concludes with Muriel finally overcoming his reservations on violence and doing what's right to save the people he loves. And bringing justice to people who Lucio hurt.

If you are wondering why the upright ending feels random, this is likely why. The ending plays out as if the story was building on the 1st option while we spent chapters upon chapters playing out the 2nd one. It is unearned.

(The reversed ending, being reversed, also uses Option 1 path but in which Muriel can’t achieve his narrative conclusion)

The Coliseum is filled with people who are on their side against Lucio’s shadow goons. Because we can’t have people being on Lucio’s side without addressing the duality of human nature, even though it’s an important part of Muriel’s story. The people who watched and enjoyed Lucio’s bloodsport are no more, they are all new and enlightened offscreen. We completely skipped the part where Vesuvia comes to terms with its own complacency and Muriel simply feels at ease because the crowd is cheering on him now. This is what happens when you give the character a chance to challenge those who have been complicit in his abuse (masquerade scene) and completely skip it to move the story along.

Muriel doesn't get justice, ever. The people only love him now because he's fighting for them instead of his own survival. Morga or her clan doesn't answer for the massacre of Kokhuri, Vesuvia doesn't answer for the sick entertainment they indulged in and Lucio doesn't answer for Muriel's enslavement. It is not even acknowledged, nowhere in the story (except the very end of reversed ending, and even then it almost gets him killed so its clearly the wrong thing to do on his part) is a choice presented where Muriel has an opportunity to get any sort of compensation where he instead chooses to move on.

I don’t intend to straw man anyone but this is a sentiment I’ve seen a lot; “It’s a short story, a dating-sim, what do you expect?”

I expect nothing, I’m simply explaining why some people feel how they feel. It is a short dating-sim but it seems to me like it was aiming to be something more by borrowing elements that were clearly far above their weight range to tease something more and under deliver. It is okay to feel content with the story, and it’s okay to feel let down. If we had a unanimous decision on literature we would never be inclined to write our own stories.

[itsclydebitches]

I am briefly pausing my normal RWBY content to talk about something completely different: Kang Soo-Jin. 

I binged True Beauty recently. As in, “I haven’t managed to watch anything new in half a year, discovered this drama, and promptly marathoned 14+ hours of content,” so to say I’m enjoying it is an understatement. I might do another post sometime about why I think the show works so well, but for now, like many (drama only) viewers, I’m specifically grappling with Soo-Jin’s descent into antagonist territory. At first I was just as shocked and disappointed as others seem to be, but upon reflection I don’t think this is badly written in the way many fans are claiming. To frame this as, “I can’t believe they would make wonderful Soo-Jin suddenly OOC and bully Ju-Kyung over a guy!” is ignoring core parts of her character. I’m as sick of the girl-hates-girl-over-guy plotline as the next viewer, but in the interest of acknowledging that there are exceptions to every rule, I think this is one of the times where that choice makes perfect sense. 

Soo-Jin has been abused throughout her life and I’m not simply talking about the fact that her father hits her. Though that’s obviously horrific, what I think is more pertinent to this conversation is the intense competitiveness her parents have instilled in her. The physical abuse comes about because Soo-Jin fails (in their eyes) to be the best, which is where Ju-Kyung comes in. The Soo-Jin we knew in earlier episodes wasn’t faking. She isn’t an inherently evil person who was just waiting for the right time to show her true colors. Rather, at the start of the story Ju-Kyung—crucially—was not in competition with Soo-Jin. Or rather, Soo-Jin did not perceive her as competition. She’s after the best grades in the school and Ju-Kyung is notoriously at the bottom of the class. All she has going for her are her (new) looks and her easy-going personality that makes her popular, two things that Soo-Jin isn’t interested in. Even if she were, those things already come naturally to her too. She’s already friends with Soo-A and, as is commented on multiple times, naturally beautiful without any makeup on. Soo-Jin has been taught—literally had it beaten into her—that she must be the best and in the beginning of the show she pretty much is: popular, mature, confident, smart… just not the smartest in her class. Ju-Kyung doesn’t threaten any of that, so friendship initially comes easily for Soo-Jin, the sort of friendship that allows her to chase perverts off busses or hide her friend’s real face. 

This changes once Soo-Jin’s “perfect” mask begins to slip. They’re heading towards college, she’s running out of time, and she still hasn’t managed to take the top spot in the class. Worse, she drops out of the top ten. This exacerbates the abuse to the point where, as we see, she’s constantly in the bathroom trying to cope by washing her hands. Any tiny deviation from that “perfection”  — like, say, leaving your tutoring session when you realize your lifelong friend just got devastating news — results in the sort of yelling/physical abuse she can only escape from via a locked door. While things get worse on her end, they get better on Ju-Jyung’s. Her grades go up some and she becomes even more popular, attracting not only school-wide attention, but the attention of the two hottest guys too, including Soo-Ho. For a while this is still fine from Soo-Jin’s perspective, but things really take a turn when Ju-Kyung changes Soo-Ho. Meaning, she helps him come out of his shell and teaches him how to be a kinder person… which includes being a better friend to Soo-Jin. The Soo-Ho who suddenly lies and announces that they have to go study just to get Soo-Jin away from her father’s insults, all of it stemming from a small tick he paid attention to, or comforting her while she sobs over the abuse… that Soo-Ho didn’t exist at the story’s start. He was too wrapped up in his own grief and has been that way for a long time. They may have known each other since childhood, but Soo-Jin and Soo-Ho don’t appear to be particularly close in the past—all Soo-Ho’s flashbacks are with Seo-Joon and Se-Yeon. But that starts to change once Soo-Ho himself changes. Soo-Jin’s ability to keep it together is unraveling, Soo-Ho is opening up and becoming more emotionally available (something Soo-Jin even comments on), then her whole class starts eagerly talking up how good they would be as a couple… so Soo-Jin sees a lifeline. Soo-Ho will care for her even when no one else will. Of course he will. She’s already seen him be that person multiple times. 

The problem is that Soo-Ho has his own life and his own problems to grapple with. Between grief over See-Yeon, panic over telling Ju-Kyung how he feels, and the initial rush of dating—what couple doesn’t want to spend all their time together at the start?—he doesn’t have much energy for Soo-Jin. Which from his perspective is fine. They don’t normally hang out together outside of study groups, so yeah, he can put off a conversation with her… not realizing that Soo-Jin is now putting all her emotional eggs in his basket. By the time her feelings are coming to light, Soo-Jin is actively sabotaging her own attempts to get attention and compassion from Soo-Jin. By manipulating them—here’s a new scrunchy to remind you that you’re my best friend and you can’t ever betray me, here I am showing up unannounced at your apartment and guilting you into not spending more time with me, etc.—Soo-Jin has put Soo-Ho (rightfully) on his guard. He’s wary of having a private conversation with her about something she won’t name when he knows Ju-Kyung has been a mess over losing her friendship. He has no desire to listen to her confession of love after she’s just tossed Ju-Kyung’s beloved necklace into the fire. In her efforts to ensure that Soo-Ho pays attention to her, she only succeeds in driving him away. 

All of which makes Ju-Kyung the enemy in her eyes. The new competition. To her mind, friendship and love cannot co-exist because Ju-Kyung stands in the way of that love, therefore one has got to go. (In contrast Seo-Joon, coming from a loving family, is in time better able to accept that he can be friends with Soo-Ho even though he likes Ju-Kyung. We can discuss the problems inherent in giving one plot to the girl and the other to the guy, but as they are, these characters have concrete, in-world reasons for their different reactions to what’s essentially the same situation.) And why does love (“love”) win out over friendship? Because Soo-Jin has latched onto Soo-Ho being her boyfriend as the way to finally “win” at life and fix all her problems. It’s fine if she’s not the best provided she’s dating the best, just look at how much Dad fawned over him. Second place academically is suddenly an option provided the top student is on her team, so to speak. The fact that Soo-Ho is also one of the most handsome, a great athlete, super rich, and one of the few people to provide her with feelings of safety certainly doesn’t hurt matters. And the only thing that stands in her way of securing this life-saving “win” is Ju-Kyung. Who is she? No one compared to Soo-Jin. Her grades are terrible. She’s not wealthy. She’s pretty… but oh, only with her makeup on. 

Soo-Jin doesn’t need makeup, so why not win this competition by showing the whole school—showing Soo-Ho—what a fraud Ju-Kyung is? 

From Soo-Jin’s perspective she’s done the math and come out on top. Everything that (supposedly) matters she either has equal to Ju-Kyung, or is superior, therefore it’s obvious that Soo-Ho would choose her in the end. She says at much: If I had confessed first you would have loved me first, so now that I have confessed you’ll break up with her. Hell, even Ju-Kyung believes this. She has the nightmare about Soo-Ho learning that Soo-Jin has feelings for him and immediately, publicly breaking up with her. After all, if he suddenly has both as an option the winner is obvious, right? It’s all about competition, what they’ve been taught to believe is a competition: Ju-Kyung through her bullying and Soo-Jin through her abuse. The difference is that Ju-Kyung has had the whole series with Soo-Ho (and others) helping her slowly unlearn this mentality. Soo-Jin had the rug pulled out from under her in an instant. 

Soo-Ho says no, I wouldn’t have loved you if you had confessed first and I’m not going to date you now. It’s important to realize that this shatters Soo-Jin’s entire world. It’s not about a girl being upset that she can’t get the guy — not even about Soo-Ho as an individual, really —  it’s about an abused girl not knowing how to grapple with the fact that she finally did everything “right” and still couldn’t “win,” coupled with losing the last bit of security she had. Soo-Ho broke the unspoken rules Soo-Jin’s father beat into her and she doesn’t know where to go from there. She literally has no one else to turn to. So she falls back on the only way she does know how to handle a situation like this: by still trying to win. If Soo-Ho won’t admit that she’s better, she’ll force him to realize that by plastering Ju-Kyung’s “ugly” face all over social media. Which, to be clear, isn’t an excuse. This isn’t meant to be a way of absolving Soo-Jin of her absolutely horrific actions, only a means of explaining them. Her descent, while shocking to those of us who loved her initial character, is well written because it’s a nuanced look at what can happen when you abuse a kid her whole life and teach her that competition is everything. Oddly enough, she’ll apply a competitive outlook to everything and deal with her stress in unhealthy ways. Ju-Kyung is a victim of Soo-Jin now, but Soo-Jin is a victim too. Her home life has ensured that she does not know how to accept failure—or what true failure even means—so it was inevitable that when things got bad, she’d  try to fix it in ways that hurt both her and those around her. It’s all she knows how to do. 

So far less “Perfect girl goes ooc and abandons her friend over a boy” and far more “Abused girl falls into a terrible, but predictable cycle that the other stressed high schoolers around her are not equipped to break.” Soo-Jin’s story isn’t bad writing, it’s tragic. Thanks for coming to my three page TED talk ✌️

***

2/4/21 FINALE UPDATE! 

[96percentdone]

I don't want to be overly harsh; a lot of what's in this post is just like. True, especially with regards to Fukawa, or having Monaka fake being disabled but. Some of the things positioned here as ableism just don't hold up at all.

Like, the claims about the language used to refer to Komaeda by his peers and his ostracization omits the critical information that HE KEEPS THREATENING ALL OF THEIR LIVES ON PURPOSE???? I'm not apologizing for fictional characters, but this omission recasts the way Komaeda is treated as if. he's just been minding his own business to be slapped with ableism front right and center, and that's not genuine criticism. A much better case for ableism with him could be made is by saying "the character with dementia keeps trying to get everyone killed playing into the idea that disabled people are more likely to commit acts of violence as opposed to being victimized by them." Why is THAT not the issue here? Why focus on how he's treated when that wasn't a narrative choice that existed in a vacuum? He's not a real person being discriminated against by real ableists, he's a fictional antagonist in a video game being reacted to in a way that reflects the ableism in the premise.

As for the Hoshi, he didn't commit suicide. There is evidence that indicates he struggled and Toujou is telling a very self-serving version of the story to justify her own actions. Also. Again. This post just wholly omits the part where Hoshi's depression is a result of guilt from KILLING PEOPLE. IM SURE THAT PLAYED A ROLE IN WHY THE GAME WAS WRITTEN WITH PEOPLE NOT REACHING OUT TO HIM. Now, like with Komaeda, they're not real people, they're constructs in the same way Hoshi is, but I think this is the problem with posts like these: the argument is devoid of context and reframes the source material as something its not to make a point that doesn't make sense when put IN context as part of a larger story with greater ideas and themes.

People ostracising and acting violent towards Komaeda demonstrably made things worse across the board, as he doubled down with no one to really stop him or intervene or help him. Things in SDR2 get as bad as they do because the group recreates the same dynamic of abuse and outcasting of their collective mistreatment that caused them to literally end the world. Is it bad to treat someone with dementia like they do? Yes. But that's part of the point, isn't it? That leaving people behind and those who fail away to struggle on their own is a bad thing? Isn't that why the survivors all choose to wait for each of their classmates, INCLUDING KOMAEDA, to wake up? Komaeda still had the disabled murder man ableist baggage, but the game's thesis is not one that encourages ableism.

Momota is also a multifaceted character, a guy with grand ideals of heroics stemming from his egocentric stubbornness. When he treats uses slurs and doesn't understand mental health, is that maybe a reflection of that flaw, one of a man who can't understand anything that isn't what he already wants to believe? Isn't that why he's dragged to shit during chapter 4 when Gonta is actually guilty unlike what he says, and throws a tantrum about it in chapter 5 until everything with Ouma forces him to realize his mistakes as he dies? He's still a valorized character, I would say the text goes too hard in framing Momota as good and likeable, which means when he talks about Hoshi like that people might not notice this behavior of his is part of his FLAWS, and thus the ableism is functionally unchecked both in framing and conversation, but thats a more nuanced critique, isn't it?

When Toujou kills Hoshi and tells everyone her story, and they just swallow it wholesale despite the physical evidence suggesting otherwise, what does that tell you about what everyone wants to believe, and the world at large? Toujou is revealed to have functionally been prime minister, and the questions at hand with her killing him are about whether the people meant to serve you should actually be trusted, and if someone SHOULD single-handedly have this much power and responsibility? Their belief in her story says something about that question, doesn't it? She gets called out for this too! The narrative still treats Hoshi in a bizarre way, much of the framework is people talking ABOUT him and around him as opposed to engaging with him, which creates a lopsided discussion about his mental health that inadvertently skews towards the ableist POV since they get most of the spotlight. This is the same problem Momota had. V3 gets in its own way because of its framing and construction, not bringing the ableism at play into explicit focus and instead using it punctuate something else. That's the critique worth making.

Posts like these are made with good intentions, but they fail to have the conversation they want to have because they dont engage with a work as a cohesive construct, but rather as just specific parts exised from the text to be placed in mundane reality. Stories do not exist in these atomized vacuums where someone can point to things that are technically ableist and that's it case closed! None of these characters are real people; they're vehicles to tell a larger story with greater ideas. Dangan Ronpa is an absurd video game series where teenagers kill other teenagers in death game as a vehicle to comment on much bigger ideas, like art, and politics, and especially the japanese school system, and it has problems, but none of them can be addressed like THIS.

after my post on the racism and colorism in Danganronpa, i wanted to discuss the ableism in DR, now in infograph form. i hope i covered everything properly here!

[gimme-mor]

ACOTAR THINK PIECE: ELAIN AND THE CONCEPT OF CHOICE

*DISCLAIMER*

Please take the time to read this post in its entirety and truly reflect on the message I am trying to send before commenting. My goal is to use my background in Gender and Women’s Studies to deconstruct the behaviors and comments I have seen on Tumblr and Twitter, and, more importantly, bring awareness to the ACOTAR fandom. I WILL NOT tolerate anyone who tries to twist my words and say I am attacking people and their personal shipping preferences. In fact, I AM CRITIQUING THE ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES NOT THE PEOPLE USING THE ARGUMENTS.

As someone who has been a long time lurker on all sides of the ACOTAR fandom, the growing toxicity and hostility has become more apparent to the point that civil discourse is, for the most part, entirely lost. More times than not, the cause of the communication breakdown centers around Elain and the relationships she has with those around her. Before and after the release of ACOSF, I’ve noticed that when the fandom expresses its opinions about Elain and her development as a character, whether in a romantic light or generally, the conversation wholly hinges on the concept of choice. Common examples I’ve seen include:

Elain has been stripped of her choice for a majority of her life

Elain should be able to make her own choices

The King of Hybern took away Elain’s choice to be human when he had her tossed into the Cauldron

Elain did not choose the mating bond for herself, instead it was forced upon her

Elain feels pressured to choose Lucien

Elain should have the choice to stray away from what is expected of her

Elain and Azriel being together represents a different and stronger type of love because she’s choosing to be with him

If you ship Elucien, you’re not Pro-Elain because you’re taking away Elain’s right to choose who she wants to be with and forcing her to accept the mating bond

Elain chose to accept Azriel’s advances in the bonus chapter 

When Rhysand called Azriel away after catching him and Elain together, Elain was stripped of her choice to be sexually intimate with Azriel

When Azriel and Rhysand are talking in the bonus chapter, Elain’s choices aren’t at the center of their conversation

If you suggest that Elain should leave the Night Court, you’re stripping Elain of her choice to remain with her family

If you suggest that Elain should be friends with someone else, you’re ignoring Elain’s choice to be friends with Nuala and Cerridwen

Why is the concept of choice exclusively tied to Elain and everything surrounding her character while simultaneously ignoring that other characters in the ACOTAR series have, to varying degrees, been stripped of their choices at some point in their lives? And why isn’t the concept of choice connected to these characters in the same way that it is connected to Elain? For example:

Did the High Lords strip Feyre of her choice to consent when they turned her into a High Fae?

Did Tamlin and Ianthe strip Feyre of her choice to consent when they started to control every aspect of her life in the Spring Court?

Was Vassa stripped of her choice when the other Mortal Queens sold her to Koschei, which resulted in her being cursed to turn into a firebird?

Was Feyre stripped of her choice to know the risks involved in the pregnancy?

Did the King of Hybern strip Nesta of her choice to be human when he had her tossed into the Cauldron?

Was everyone stripped of their choices under Amarantha’s rule?

Was Feyre stripped of her choice to just be a daughter and a sister when the Archeron family failed to contribute to their survival, which resulted in Feyre being the family’s sole provider?

Did Lucien’s family strip him and Jesminda of their choice to be together when they killed her because of her status as a Lesser Faerie?

Are Illyrian females stripped of their choice to consent when their wings are clipped?

Did the Hybern general strip Gwyn of her choice to consent?

Did Ianthe strip Lucien of his choice to consent? 

Did Keir strip Mor of her choice to consent to her engagement to Eris?

Universally, femininity is synonymous with weakness and women often face discrimination because the patriarchy is part of an interactive system that perpetuates women’s oppression. Since the ACOTAR universe is set up to mirror a patriarchal society, it’s clear that the imbalance of power between males and females stems from sexism. The thing that sets Elain apart from other female characters in the ACOTAR series is the fact that SJM has portrayed Elain as a traditionally feminine character based on her actions and the ways in which Elain carries herself. Compared to them, Elain is inherently held to a different standard because her femalehood takes precedence over other aspects of her character in fandom discussions. These conversations indirectly place Elain on a pedestal and hail her as the epitome of traditional femininity; and when her character is criticized in any way, it’s seen as a direct attack against women, specifically women who are traditionally feminine. Also, these conversations fall back on Elain’s femaleness when analyzing her character since it can be assumed from a reader’s perspective that Elain, despite being the middle sibling, is coddled by those around her because her ultra-feminine nature is perceived as a sort of weakness in need of protection. However, the fact that the concept of choice is used as an argument to primarily focus on Elain’s femalehood highlights the narrow lens through which Elain, as a character, is viewed. It implies that Elain’s femaleness is all her character has to offer to the series overall and insinuates that Elain’s character development is dependent on her femaleness. To suggest, through the choice argument, that ACOTAR’s patriarchal society constrains Elain’s agency and prevents her from enacting her feminist right to choose while failing to examine the patriarchal structure of the ACOTAR universe and its impact on the female characters in the series, the choice argument ultimately falls apart because it shows that it’s only used to focus on Elain’s femalehood. Furthermore, the implication that Elain’s right to choose is, in itself, a feminist act in the series indicates that the concept of choice as an argument is used to promote choice feminism.

Feminism is a social movement that seeks to promote equality and equity to all genders, and feminists work toward eradicating gender disparities on a macro-level, in addition to challenging gender biases on a micro-level. Historically, feminism prioritized the voices of white women, specifically white women who were cisgender, able-bodied, affluent, educated, and heterosexual. But over the decades, the inclusion of women of color and other marginalized women’s voices has broadened the scope of feminism and caused it to take an intersectional approach when discussing social identities and the ways in which these identities result in overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination. On the other hand, choice feminism, a form of feminism, greatly differs from what feminism is aiming to accomplish. In the article “It’s Time to Move Past Choice Feminism”, Bhat states:

“Choice feminism can be understood as the idea that any action or decision that a woman takes inherently becomes a feminist act. Essentially, the decision becomes a feminist one because a woman chose it for herself. What could this look like? It could really be anything. Wearing makeup is a feminist act. Not wearing it is also a feminist act. Shaving or not shaving. Watching one TV show over another. Choosing a certain job over another. Listening to one artist over another. Picking a STEM career. Choosing to dress modestly or not. The list goes on. At first glance, there does not seem to be an apparent negative consequence of choice feminism. A woman’s power is within her choices, and those choices can line up with a feminist ideology. For example, a woman’s decision not to shave may be her response to Western beauty standards that are forced onto women. Not shaving may make her feel beautiful, comfortable, and powerful, and there is nothing wrong with that. Women making choices that make them feel good is not the issue. The issue lies in calling these decisions feminist ones. Choice feminism accompanies an amalgamation of problems‒the first being that this iteration of feminism operates on faulty assumptions about said choices. Liberal feminism neglects the different realities that exist for different women‒especially the difference between white women and women of color, transgender women and cis women, etc. Not all women have the same circumstance and access to choices, not all choices made by women are treated equally, and not all choices are inherently feminist” (https://www.34st.com/article/2021/01/feminism-choice-liberal-patriarchy-misogyny-bimbo-capitalism). 

Just as white feminism ignores intersectionality and refuses to acknowledge the discriminations experienced by women of color, choice feminism and arguments supporting choice feminism have, by default, made the concept of choice exclusionary. The individualization of choice feminism glorifies the act of a woman making an individual choice and, by extension, gives the illusion that women’s liberation from gendered oppression can be achieved by enacting their rights to make personal, professional, and political choices. Herein lies the problem with choice feminism: it (the argument of “But it’s my choice!”) stifles feminist conversations from exploring the depths and intricacies of the decision making process because it’s used as a way to shut communication down entirely, shield arguments from criticism, and condemn those who criticize choice feminism for its disconnection from a larger feminist framework. Contrary to what choice feminism advocates for, it lulls the feminist movement into complacency because women’s individual choices do nothing to alleviate gendered oppression. Choice feminism’s leniency towards choice fails to address the limitations of choice in regards to women’s intersectional identities and enables society to shift the blame of women’s oppression away from the societal and institutional structures in place to women themselves for making the wrong choices that ultimately resulted in their circumstances. Choice is not always accessible to every woman. For instance, choices made by white women are, in some way, inaccessible to women of color, in the same way that choices made by cisgender women are inaccessible to transgender women. Choice is one of the founding concepts of the feminist movement and it “became a key part of feminist language and action as an integral aspect and rallying call within the fight for reproductive rights‒the right to choose whether or not we wanted to get pregnant and to choose what we wanted for our bodies and lives” (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2011/03/11/the-trouble-with-choosing-your-choice/). When choice, in a feminist context, is framed as something that is solely about the individual as opposed to the collective, the feminist foundation on which it stands “leads to an inflated sense of accomplishment while distracting from the collective action needed to produce real change that would have a lasting effect for the majority of women” (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/i-am-not-feminist-jessa-crispin-review/). 

By linking the choice argument with choice feminist rhetoric and extreme acts of progressiveness, it plays into today’s negative understanding of a social justice warrior and normalizes fake wokeness. In its original conception, a social justice warrior was another way to refer to an activist and had a positive connotation; nowadays, the term carries a negative connotation and is:

“. . . a pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will ‘get SJ points’ and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are ‘correct’ in their social circle” (https://fee.org/articles/how-the-term-social-justice-warrior-became-an-insult/). 

Today’s perception of the term social justice warrior is directly tied to fake wokeness because both are performative in nature, fueled by the drive to be seen as progressive, and derail necessary conversations from taking place by prioritizing toxicity. According to the article titled, “Three signs of fake ‘wokeness’ and why they hurt activism”, it states:

“. . . social media did not create activism: it did, however, create a legion of hashtags and accounts dedicated to issues . . . Sadly, fake woke people will use these hashtags or create these accounts, see that as contributing to a cause, and just call it a day; these same people tend to shame those without the same level of interest or devotion to a given cause . . . Ironically, as open-minded as the fake woke claim to be, they struggle to deal with opposition. More often than not, those who fit the fake woke bill will ignore, misconstrue, or shutdown anything remotely opposing their stances . . . Now yes, human nature often leads us to possess a bias against that which contradicts our views, but human nature should not serve as an excuse for irrational behavior. Opposition to our stances on issues helps activists more than it harms: it allows them to look at the causes they champion from a perspective they possibly ignored before, further enlightening them. More importantly, by discovering information that may refute what they believe, they can find and eliminate any flaws in their reasoning and strengthen their arguments. Activism involves opening up to change, something one stuck in an echo chamber can never achieve” (https://nchschant.com/16684/opinions/three-signs-of-fake-wokeness-and-why-they-hurt-activism/). 

Rather than critiquing ideas, thoughts, and theories about Elain and her character development with textual evidence, the concept of choice as an argument is used to silence opposing viewpoints. This is similar to choice feminism because the conversations start and end with the concept of choice, leaving no room for a critical analysis of Elain’s character. Although the concept of choice as an argument is intended to shed light on how ACOTAR’s patriarchal structure limits females’ agency to some degree, the fact that it’s only applied to Elain invalidates the point of the argument because it doesn’t include the experiences of other female characters when examining the impact of sexism in the ACOTAR universe. The failure to do so calls the intent of the choice argument into question. As it stands, the concept of choice as an argument frames Elucien shippers and those who are critical of Elain as woman haters, misogynists, and anti-feminists, especially if they identify as women. The belief that a woman is anti-feminist or a woman hater any time she dislikes another woman suggests that women have to be held to a different emotional standard than men. If men are able to dislike other individual men without their characters being compromised, why can’t women? Feminism and what it means to be a feminist do not require women to like every woman they encounter. One of the many things feminism hopes to accomplish is granting women the same emotional privileges afforded to men. 

Terms like “oppression”, “the right to choose”, “feminist”, “feminism”, “anti-feminist”, “anti-feminism”, “internalized misogyny”, “misogyny”, “misogynist”, “sexist”, “sexism”, “racist”, “racism”, “classist”, “classism”, “discrimination”, and “patriarchy” are all used in specific ways to draw attention to the plight of marginalized people and challenge those who deny the existence of systems of oppression. Yet these words and their meanings can be twisted to attack, exclude, and invalidate people with differing opinions on any given topic. When social justice and feminist terms are thrown around antagonistically and carelessly to push a personal agenda, it becomes clear that these terms are being used to engage in disingenuous discourse and pursue personal validation rather than being used out of any deep-seated conviction to dismantle systemic oppression. The personal weaponization of social justice and feminist concepts is a gateway for people who oppose these movements to strip these terms of their credibility in order to delegitimize the societal and institutional impacts on marginalized people.

It’s important to question how an argument is framed and why it’s framed the way that it is to critically examine the intent behind that argument: is it used as a tool to push a personal agenda that reinforces dismissive, condescending, and problematic behaviors, or is it used as an opportunity to share, learn, enlighten, and educate? The concept of choice as an argument is extremely problematic because: it limits fruitful discussions about Elain within the fandom; enables arguments that oppose opinions about Elain and her narrative development to masquerade as progressive by pushing social justice and feminist language to their extremes; normalizes the vilification and condemnation of individuals who are either critical of a ship, Elain as a character, or prefer her with Lucien; encourages an in-group and out-group mentality with differing opinions about Elain’s development resulting in politically charged insults; exploits social justice and feminist terms; ignores that harm done on a micro-level is just as damaging as harm done on a macro-level; and cheapens Elain’s character and her development.

There is more to Elain than her being a female who is traditionally feminine. Elain has the potential to be as complex of a character as Feyre, Nesta, Rhysand, Lucien, Cassian, Azriel, Amren, and Mor, and to reduce her character to her femalehood in fandom discussions is a disservice to Elain as a character, the ACOTAR fandom, and SJM’s writing. So I ask this: is there a reason why the fandom heavily emphasizes the concept of choice when discussing Elain that goes beyond a simplistic analysis of her as a character (i.e. using the concept of choice as an argument to reinforce Elain’s femaleness), or is the concept of choice used as a shield to prop up one ship over another?

gimme-mor library

[emblemxeno]

Not about 3H about media in general. Do you think majority of fans just don't understand "betrayal" anymore?

There's this trend in which people blame the victim/s when a character is revealed to be evil all along. The sentiment is this sort of backhand pity like "He/She/They could've lived/not suffered if they had never trusted [Character]. Why are they so stupid and naive? [Character] is so obviously up to no good."

Betrayal is an intimate evil act that highlights a villain/antagonist capacity to choose and they chose wrong. It's never about their victims being naive or stupid. It's about the villain/antagonist destroying the goodwill given to them.

That, and it also depends on how deep a prior relationship goes.

Take Naruto for example. Sasuke makes a fucked up decision to abandon the Leaf Village and join Orochimaru-a major criminal who has killed two Kage in the span of like a few months by the time we first see him-and Naruto's view of Sasuke isn't quite a betrayal per se, since he still thinks Sasuke can be saved and brought back and things can be like how they were, cuz they were best friends so everything should work out if he knocks him around hard enough. It takes a while for him to really, fully understand that Sasuke knowingly made a dangerous choice and would deal with any shit that comes with it, including participating in criminal behavior. Naruto's relationship with his friend blurred his view on betrayal.

Now, that's an in-universe example, but it's a similar case with the audience not coming to terms with any hard hitting occurrence in a form of media they follow. It's a phenomenon with parasocial relationships, such as where people can't/refuse to understand that their fav "would do something awful/extreme for a bad/ignorant reason" and it applies to idolization of real celebs as well as the obsession with fictional characters.

As you say, betrayal is a very serious personal action that harms the ones closest to the perpetrator. Victims of betrayal often will go right to denial and sometimes stay in that stage. An audience member of the media in question may project themselves into the media or onto a character or whatever else, and take that betrayal really personally; then, said audience member might be in denial of it like any person could, and latch onto that denial and begin to justify the action and the reasons, etc., etc.

Ultimately, I think it sort of stems from people not being able to separate their personal feelings from the intent of the medium, and probably why people (the Ladlestans) constantly want to use Death of the Author as a gotcha against people who adhere to the writer's vision, at least from what I've seen.

[brywrites]

Lock and Key I

Summary: In which Spencer Reid stumbles upon a GED class at Millburn and feels something like hope for the first time in weeks.

[Series Masterlist]

....

The prison library is a haven, for the few minutes he’s allowed to visit twice a week. It’s quiet, secluded, and full of his favorite things – books. The selection is nowhere near as nice as his personal collection at home, or the public library, but it’s better than nothing. Without words, he’d go mad. He needs stories to keep him sane, to give him a route he can escape by.

Today though, he’s startled to walk into the small space and find twelve other prisoners inside – accompanied by a face he’s never seen before. A woman. What’s even more surprising is that she doesn’t wear the uniform of a guard or an employee. Instead she’s in Converse sneakers and a lavender polka-dotted dress. It’s been so long since he saw that color – any bright color, really. But it’s his favorite and it isn’t until that moment that the realizes how much he’s missed the simplest of things. The sight of his favorite color. Bright images in dull spaces. Things that look hopeful.

Reid isn’t sure what’s going on, but the other prisoners seem to be too absorbed in the books to notice him. Just as he’s thinking he can back away quietly and return tomorrow, she turns around, smiling at the sight of him.

“Well hello there!” she says. “Are you Luis?”

Reid tilts his head, confused. How does this stranger know his friend? “Uh, no, no I’m not. I’m sorry, who are you?”

Her smile drops, though she doesn’t seem annoyed. Merely disappointed. “Oh. They told me Luis would be joining us today, but he never showed up. I’m Y/N. I’m one of the teachers here.”

This is the first he’s heard of such a thing. “You teach?”

She nods. “That’s right! I teach a couple of different groups – a few college classes here and there, a resume workshop. This is my GED class. We’re starting a unit on British Literature so they’ve all come to pick out a novel. You must be new here,” she notes, looking him over. He can feel himself flush under her gaze. It’s been a while since someone looked at him just to see him and not to evaluate his potential as a threat or a tool. “If you’d like, you can join the class. I’ve got plenty of open seats.”

“Oh no, I don’t need a GED.”

“It’s never too late to graduate,” she says. Then, considering him, “But that’s not what you meant is it?”

The way she’s studying him makes him nervous, though he’s certain it’s the same way he’s studied suspects and victims, trying to see beyond the obvious and understand what lies beneath. How strange, to be on the other side of that stare. “I’ve graduated high school already,” he informs her, hoping he doesn’t sound aloof. “And college. Actually, I hold three PhDs.”

“In what?”

“Mathematics, chemistry, and engineering.”

Y/N holds his gaze, taking this in. It’s as though she’s trying to decide whether or not to believe him. He figures in this environment, perhaps it’s not unusual to be told blatant lies by some prisoners. Delusion and paranoia aren’t uncommon. To teach in a place like this, she would have to be insightful and observant. For whatever reason, she must decide to trust him, because she smiles again.

“Well that’s rather impressive. You’re more qualified than I am. Just a Master’s for me.”

Reid decides against commenting in the irony of the situation, that despite his qualifications he’s nothing but a prisoner here. The same category as every drug-dealer, murderer, petty thief, and gangbanger. No better. But the way she looks at him, it at least makes him feel normal again. She looks at him like he’s a human being, with no disdain or disgust in her gaze, and no air of superiority in her voice.

“What did you study?” he asks her.

“English literature in college, education in grad school. I specialized in literature and languages, though I’m not too shabby when it comes to history. If it’s the STEM field you’ll be wanting though, you’ll have to check in on Tuesdays and Thursdays, my colleague teaches those classes.”

Glancing down at her watch, her eyes widen. “Goodness, we’re almost out of time.” She turns to the other inmates and instructs them to make their choices before she has to dismiss class for the day. To him, she adds, “It was nice to meet you – um…”

“Doct-” he begins, before stopping himself. This isn’t a normal introduction. Here, he holds no title, no position of importance. “Er, Spencer. My name is Spencer.”

“Well, Doc –” He tries not to smile at her casual acknowledgment – “if you ever change your mind, we meet Mondays and Wednesdays in room W15 during the afternoon rec slot.”

Despite having no need to attend a GED class, and for reasons he cannot quite explain, he finds himself slipping into that very room on Wednesday afternoon. Y/N glances up from the whiteboard she writes on, faltering for only a brief moment when she catches sight of him slipping into an empty seat in the back row, but she carries on. They’re talking about common themes in Brit Lit, and she’s explaining the Canterbury Tales, which they’ll be reading parts of. From what Reid gathers, there aren’t enough copies of books for them to all read the same novel, but she’s printed out large sections of the Tales for them to read together. It’s familiar, and for someone whose life has largely revolved in academia, it’s soothing to be in an environment where learning is taking place and discussion is happening. Even though he sits silently in the back row, observing.

The other inmates have all picked out books to read on their own and report on, from King Lear to Brave New World. A few have even selected Bronte and Austen novels, which Y/N applauds them for. When she divides them into groups to read and discuss “The Knight’s Tale,” she slips over to join Reid in the back of the room.

“I didn’t think you’d make it, Doc,” she tells him.

He shrugs. “I – I’ve kind of missed the classroom. I figured it wouldn’t hurt to sit in. If you don’t mind, of course!”

“Not at all.” She smiles, dismissing his worry with a wave of her hand. “The more the merrier. Besides, it’s rare that I have students with such an extensive education beforehand.  You’ll need to file an enrollment slip though, just for official records.”

She hands him a piece of paper and a commissary pen. While he doesn’t need the credit, he could use the normalcy. Discussions about books with other people in a space that feels a little safer – even if it doesn’t look like the classrooms he’s used to. The walls are stark white and bare save for three posters of famous writers and scientists. The two windows have thick bars on them. The desks are bolted to the floor. Every man in the room wears prison issued blues. But there is a whiteboard and a bookshelf and a clock. And Y/N, in a bright blue turtleneck. It makes him think of the sky, which he only gets a glimpse of for a few hours each week. Suddenly, she’s become the most vivid connection to the outside world.

“How long have you been teaching here?” he asks as he writes down answers to the form’s printed questions.

“Almost three years now. It started with just GED classes, but some volunteer programs have helped us bring new opportunities to the guys. It took me a while to convince the warden, but they’ve been a huge success. So are you coming from another facility? I know we had some transfers last week.”

He shakes his head. “I uh, I haven’t been sentenced yet. But there was overcrowding at the jail so they sent me here.” Reid pauses. “I assumed you would’ve known that.” The inmate records are publicly available. All she’d have to do is search his name or the number on his clothing and everything she needed to know would be right there – his charges, his admission date, his identifying information and that ID photo from his first day.

But she just shrugs. “I make a point not to look up what my students have been convicted of. I let them volunteer that information if they choose to, but I respect their privacy. Besides, I’d like to believe all of us are more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”

He’s struck by her words. After all, for the last decade his job has been to see people precisely as the worst thing they’ve ever done. To delve deep into those actions and develop a profile of a person on that alone. He has an impulse to dismiss her statement as naïve, but it reminds him of Garcia, of her boundless optimism and her ability to see the best in the world even after looking at the worst of it. That memory and the smile Y/N looks at him with softens the heart he’s been carefully hardening since he arrived here. And so rather than dampen her spirit he asks, “Does it matter if I’ve read all of the books you’re discussing already?”

Her eyes widen ever so slightly with surprise. “All of them?”

“My mother was a literature professor,” he says. “And I just really like books.”

“Well, typically I’d encourage you to take the courses we offer for college credit but they’re full. Since you already have your GED, I suppose we could treat it like you’re auditing. It might help some of the guys to have someone with a little more academic experience…” She trails off and then gasps. “Oh wait! How would you feel about being the TA for the class? It’s been so long since I had one for the GED classes.”

“Like… grade papers and things?”

“No, not like that,” she says. “There are strict rules about who sees what here. Being a TA for me would be less typical TA duties and more of mentoring the other students, helping me clean up after class, re-shelving books, things like that. It’s not an official job so there’s no pay, but you would get good time credit.”

Though he doesn’t know what his sentence here will be, if he’s sentenced at all, he knows that any good time credit he can obtain to reduce the length of it is worth it. And so he says, “Okay.”

Y/N’s eyes light up. Her smile is the prettiest thing he’s seen since he got here. “Perfect! Oh, this is so exciting. I’m glad you joined us.” When he finishes the paperwork, she leads him to an empty seat at a group of tables.

“No, no, you’ve got it all wrong, Porkchop. It’s a love story,” one of the men is saying to another.

“Come on now, Xavier, you know the rules,” Y/N interrupts. “Nicknames stay outside the classroom. We use first names here.”

“Sorry, Teach,” Xavier says. He tries again. “It’s a love story, Carl.”

“That’s more like it. Carl, I can’t wait to hear your response. But first, I’m going to have Spencer join your group, alright? He’s our newest student and our TA for the class. He’s read a lot of these books so if you’re having a hard time or want to talk to someone about the material outside of class time, he’s a great person to ask.”

The group welcomes him – Xavier, Carl, Richie, and Luis. Reid is grateful to be with Luis, the one person he knows he can consider a friend inside. They talk about Chaucer and “The Franklin’s Tale,” and he’s surprised by the critiques and connections his peers make. Their debate is certainly different than the conversation he’d expect to find at a university class, but their ideas are still insightful and interesting. They make connections to their own lives, to the sacrifices they have made and the power of love they have witnessed firsthand. Mothers who never stop fighting for their appeal cases. Friends who send money so they can afford commissary. The difficulty of skipping commissary so they can send money home to their own families outside.

When their discussion finally winds down, Reid asks, “What’s the rule with nicknames about?”

“It’s Miss Y/N’s way of humanizing people,” Xavier says. “She says when we use first names like that, we’re all equals. But it’s different outside of class. We stick to nicknames because that’s what you do, y’know?” Reid shakes his head. Xavier chuckles. “You’re fresh meat, huh. First time you been down? In here, COs turn you into just a number or a last name. So nicknames inside are a way to hold on to some of your identity. Beyond that, there’s some guys in here you don’t want knowing your name, you feel me?”

“Nicknames gotta be given to you by someone else. Can’t make your own. Course, that means they’re usually a little insulting. They call me Porkchop,” Carl says. “Xavier’s Hammerhead. Richie is Spiders. And Luis, he been christened Slim Jim yesterday at chow. But don’t worry, we’ll find one for you soon.” Reid isn’t sure how to feel about the assurance. He doesn’t want to belong here, doesn’t want to fit in or get comfortable. On the other hand, he may be here for a while. Maybe laying low and finding allies wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

He knows one thing for sure – as he walks out of class, Y/N flashes that bright smile at him again. And for some reason, it makes him feel hopeful. More hopeful than any session with lawyers or judges has made him feel. Monday can’t come soon enough.

[Next]

..

Tags: @calm-and-doctor​ @averyhotchner​

[non-operator]

Just thinking about the conflict Kakashi has with being a good shinobi/tool for his village and being a good comrade.

I think we can attribute it to how Rin and Minato died: sacrificing their lives to save/benefit the village. To reject the shinobi way would be to devalue Rin and Minato's deaths. But we can go deeper than that--because that is the point of this hellsite, to overthink about our blorbos.

Like most things Kakashi, I think a lot of it actually stems from Obito, or Kakashi's idealization of Obito.

"In the world, those who break the rules are scum, but those who abandon their friends are worse than scum"

Broadly speaking, the meaning seems obvious: don't place the rules above your friends' lives.

But if you actually read it, those words create no win condition. It's kind of a catch-22.

1) If you break the rules, you are scum.

2) If you abandon your friend, you are worse than scum.

3) If you break the rules to save your friend, you aren't worse than scum, but you still broke the rules and thus are scum.

4) If you follow the rules and abandon your friend, see above #2. You are worse than scum.

It doesn't matter whether the rules are followed or not. Regardless, you will inevitably be classified as "scum".

To be clear, it is unfair to nitpick the words said by a 13-year-old Obito during the middle of a very stressful crisis. I doubt that's what Obito intended to mean. In fact, Obito might be displaying incredible emotional intelligence. By saying that "those who break the rules are scum", he's sympathizing with Kakashi's reaction to his father's suicide and Konoha's role in it--basically saying "you weren't wrong to respond like this" (hashtag You Are Valid)

But I do think Kakashi, who practically made a religion out of child Obito, does nitpick these words to hell and back. Because no matter how revolutionary Obito sounds then, he never denies the shinobi system (again, reasonable because Obito at the time never thought to question Konoha's propaganda nor faced such great injustice as to trigger such line of thinking, until Rin's death).

Outside of any situation that require him to pit completing the mission against saving comrades, Kakashi can only be "good" if he follows the rules. He's not given a choice to even consider to go against the system; he's already struggling with survivor's guilt and c-ptsd, he wants to "redeem" himself. And Obito's words are his only guide to salvation.

I think Kakashi tries really hard to try and simultaneously follow the rules/be a good shinobi and keep his comrades safe, especially as he grows older and becomes more desperate to resolve this record of constant failure--trying to escape this lose-lose principle. But it's impossible to do in a world that values shinobi as emotionless, disposable tools and upholds "the village before anything and everything" mentality.

I don't think he regrets his actions when he does break the rules (ie ditching Tsunade and ignoring her orders to go after Sasuke and Naruto in Part 1). As in, if given the chance to go back in time and redo his decision, he'd probably choose to do the same thing and break the rules. Because he avoids being "worse than scum". But I think it does weigh on him that he'll never stop being "scum", or that he can never find a way out of this cycle of failing his village, his job, people's expectations (particularly Obito, who might've been implying that it's possible to be a good shinobi as well as a good person [it probably doesn't help that child Obito probably /did/ believe that it was possible, and Kakashi looks up to that childlike idealism, which. isn't great. Kind of unhealthy to pin your entire evaluation of your self-worth on the simplistic and inexperienced views of a child. Like there are times when the child is right/a child's idealism is just, but this isn't it! There's nuance that you should be keeping in mind!]), etc.

Which is all to say something's that's been said before, Kakashi is constantly marinating in his own guilt and shame in a hell created by his own self-hatred in an endless cycle and retirement was probably the best thing to ever happen to him etc etc.