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

[notashadowbutawave]

I honestly think a lot of this is just in the text with Tommy's dialogue to Buck - about how he doesn't have community like Buck has at the 118, about how he wasn't always out but came out later, how working under Gerrard was oppressive, how he doesn't have a great relationship with his father, how he hasn't always been comfortable with himself. They actually are pretty directly calling attention to this in the majority of Tommy's scenes, I think! It's fascinating to see what they did with such limited screen time and dialogue. Lou Ferrigno Jr is turning in a really sensitive and nuanced performance with not a lot of material to work with, and based on how many times they raise these things, I do think that's kind of the MAIN thesis of his character. But what's really great about it is that he's not REDUCED to that - he seems to have a pretty rich lived experience, he's funny, he has hobbies and interests and obviously he's a badass firefighter helicopter pilot.

maybe I give the writers too much credit but I do think they find these nuggets of real human experience to wrap into the drama cycles and horror effects and over the top disasters and to me that's why the show works so well. like it has an honesty at its core and I think Tommy is a very very good example of that, and one that maybe rings truer for many of us than, say, Hen and Karen, whose stories are very much about them as mothers. (I think there's a different conversation that needs to be had about how 9-1-1 doesn't have a queer femme story that isn't made more palatable by making it about family domesticity, but this show is of course ALWAYS about family, especially found family and messy family and blended family, because it's Americana propaganda at its core)

but yeah - for those of us who maybe didn't explore our queerness meaningfully until we had already started establishing ourselves as adults, for those of us who don't have kids and don't know what the future looks like for us in that way, for those of us who grew up being called slurs simply because we were different before we even knew we were queer... yeah. That's a fucking amazing character to put in your primetime procedural soap. I love and need more Tommy Kinard in this show. And Lou is really knocking it out of the park. Just outstanding work by him. get him in a gay romcom NOW

You know, as clunky as Josh's Glee speech was, I really think the SPIRIT of it reveals just why Tommy is such a divisive character, and I honestly think it's because Tommy is AT LEAST an "elder millenial" and possibly late Gen X (cause fuck a timeline am I right?) and portrayed pretty accurately to that experience, and a lot of the people who are so rabidly against him are much younger. And they just cannot fathom the world that queer millennials, elder millenials, and Gen X grew up in and had to survive in. Like, the rules were different guys. So, so different.

So yeah, it makes perfect sense to me that Tommy resonated DEEPLY with a lot of older queer people and a lot of younger people just don't understand why he would.

[shitpostingsapphic]

Hey guys since y'all arcane critical dipshits have a liberal use of the word "fascist", I have a quick question:

If I block people for their shit opinions, am I "controlling media"? Does that make me a fascist?

Y'all sound like Musk with how you misuse political terms and characterize fascism using Caitlyn as a scapegoat. It's a fun little button word for you.

Let's talk about REAL fascism and what it means.

I won't dissect every bullet point because I assume you think yourselves smart and I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You can read for yourselves.

An important distinction to make here is these points much more closely align with Ambessa and the Noxians and their perspectives.

But we aren't talking about them. We're discussing Caitlyn.

And frankly, if you truly want to discuss fascism, I should be seeing a lot more think pieces on Ambessa, but we both know you aren't doing that.

Because you want to put Arcane season 2 in a negative light, and to acknowledge that the actual fascism was never seen as a good thing and that it was properly punished in the narrative, doesn't really help you stick to your whole thing of "Arcane s2 sucks because the big bad wasn't punished".

Now, as I was saying. Caitlyn is NOT innocent. She DOES participate in the system. She IS influenced by extreme emotions and a lack of a proper support team from people like Jayce and Mel, who are missing, and her father, who is too preoccupied by his own grief to tend to his own daughter. But she is STILL accountable for her own actions. All that being said, SHE IS AWARE OF THAT.

She's not proud of the things she's done and feels great shame for them. Being a participant in a system of fascism does not mean you have fascist ideologies. Those of us from American or European countries with a history of such things would all be fascists if that were the case, especially those of us who have military families, especially those of us who have more conservative and/or privileged upbringings.

If you want to talk about fascism, the ideology, the system itself, you should be discussing Ambessa and the Noxians. If you want to discuss the character Caitlyn Kiramman, be a bit smarter. It DOES require more nuance. Intention matters. What you decide to do after committing terrible actions matters. How you choose to move forward matters. The sum of all parts MATTERS. And I know you guys really want to exaggerate what Caitlyn actually does to make her seem worse than she is. I know you want to ignore the fact that Caitlyn DOES choose better and DOES feel remorse. That doesn't erase the fact that she does.

[psychemochanight]

Honestly, even if I love the new interpretation of Dick as the "angry Robin" that we have these days, sometimes it feels bad that you can't talk about a version of Dick as Robin that isn't like that without getting people saying things like "that's not Dick, he's the angry one, the bloodthirsty one" and... What?

It takes away a lot of depth from the character when people only think of that when talking about Robin!Dick, when, since always, Dick was, quite possibly, one of the best written characters, and one of those that has more nuances to make him a completely human character, not only in the sense of not having superpowers, but of being able to empathize with him.

There are many versions of the story, but the most widely accepted version is that Dick lost his parents at the age of eight, watching them fall because they sabotaged their act, an act Dick probably saw many times, one he knew for sure his parents would never fail... Until it failed, and through no fault of their own.

Dick was a little boy who grew up in a loving family (as far as we know, I still think they were strict, but not necessarily bad parents... We'll talk about the Court of Owls later), and from one second to the next, all of that ended. Even if Bruce was there for him, things obviously weren't the same anymore, they never would be again.

Although many have the idea that Dick escaped from youth center to kill Zucco, in the original stories Dick didn't even know yet about him, at least not that much to know what he really did; but he wanted to escape from juvenile so as not to lose his values, so as not to stop being who he is, who his parents taught him to be.

Even in the lines where he DOES say he wants to kill Zucco, in most cases, when push comes to shove, he wants to prevent Zucco's death. There are some moments where he even confesses that he didn't want Zucco to die, he just wanted justice for his parents.

People now see Dick as the Robin who only saw misfortune and was an absolute menace to society, and while, yes, Dick was an absolute menace, it was only to the villains, who heard a little boy laughing at them before beating the shit out of them. Plus, even as a child he was a master manipulator, both for enemies and allies.

But what about the rest? Robin was supposed to be the light where Batman was the darkness. He was the one who comforted scared civilians when Batman couldn't. He was the sensitivity that Batman cannot afford to show.

Dick Grayson was the one who saved Batman from losing himself in the same darkness that he himself was making his only way of life, and this is something that Alfred has pointed out before. It is thanks to Dick that Batman stopped being the ruthless "hero" he was becoming. Damn, he was the one who softened Alfred's heart in the first place too.

This was the Robin that Superman saw as worthy of carrying the mantle of Nightwing, whom he saw as someone who could represent hope itself.

Bruce didn't start smiling just because of the other Robins like many people now believe, no. Dick was the first to make him smile again, the one who opened the doors for the others.

Dick was always kind and tender-hearted, always joy where there was only devastation.

Even if he was the living nightmare of villains, he was still that cheerful child who wanted to avoid the pain of others. The boy who inspired other heroes, not only because of his skills, but because of his heart.

Dick is a character who, while he is now more recognized as Nightwing than as Robin (which doesn't bother me at all, because that was always his goal when he became an independent hero), he still has a history that people seem to increasingly forget about and pigeonhole his development into something... Flat.

Were there times when Dick had more anger and pain than any other feeling in him? Yes, absolutely YES. But this stage is mostly in his Discowing years, not of Robin as such (I'm not saying there weren't such moments, but there aren't as many as people describe now), or as some animated series showed (I love these series, even if they turned Dick into a feral child who is unable to smile, lol)

Again. I LOVE Dick's portrayal as a feral child and absolute menace to society (which he was), but I also LOVE when artists, writers, and the entire fandom itself appreciates the different nuances of his personality, from his ability to laugh despite the misfortunes in his life, to his sadness that never ceased to be a part of him, until the moments where he could only feel rage and pain and felt that the world was only darkness, unable to see the colors that emerged from the light he projected by himself.

Look at him, he's so cute <3

Does anyone care about this yap? No, but I wanted to let out what I've been repeating in my head for days because people on tiktok have me fed up HAHA

[exhelluvafan]

The thing that irritates me the most about Helluva Boss is the adamant need to waste any potential for depth in every character. The thing that stops me from abandoning this train wreck of a show and feeling total apathy for it is its wasted potential.

TOO MUCH FUCKING WASTED POTENTIAL.

And obviously, the elephant in the room, aka the blatant misogyny and double standards because viv is writing yaoi so the fans could consume the emotional uwu moments and porn. SO MUCH PORN DAMN IT.

And the thing that eats away at me is the characters such as stolas and stella had such an easy chance to be morphed into something so deep that the show could be a soap opera about their drama alone.

In my humble opinion, the Goetia demons shouldn't have been in this show at all. They belong in a show like Hazbin that's showcasing the upper echelon of hell. This should've been about IMP, but I'm not ripping that one bandaid off because the wound under it is a biohazard. Anyway, I wanted to offer a rewrite for the 😍 lovely poor uwu baby Stolas and his DEMON, BITCH OF A WIFE, Stella. (Yeah, the sarcasm's strong with this one)

First of all I love how her name means star 🌟. It ties in together nicely with the whole astrology aesthetic of the family. We're gonna ignore the born-to-be-a-bitch personality the show presented her as having and focus on what caused her issues.

First of all, she probably knew from a young age that she was going to be wed off into an arranged marriage (just like stolas), and she knew she had the responsibility of birthing an heir. That's going to affect how she views love and marriage in general. She'd see it as a transaction, that she can offer an heir and her body, and receive what she wants. I have no problem with her being a spoiled brat, a mean girl. In fact, take it up a notch. She can be both of that! She was probably given every materialistic thing she wanted since the day she was born other than love and affection. That probably made her narcissistic and selfish, with the "I get everything that I want and you can't stop me" attitude.

She's a party girl, and we stand for that. She seems to be very extroverted and outgoing, and that clashes with stolas' more subdued and introverted personality.

I see her as being EXTREMELY paranoid about appealing to the high society that she's a part of and keeping herself at the top of the food chain amongst other aristocrats, unlike stolas who only does it to keep face or avoid getting too much attention, she wants to be noticed ans seen. Her gossipy, high society friends also reinforce the fact that she never had normal friends who cared about her, and she never grew out of her mean girl phase.

I see her as someone with so much passion in her heart, and sadly, we had to see all that turned into rage. She has trouble controlling her temper and the constant rage that boils inside her, and she explodes and lashes out on people, especially stolas.

I see her going into a marriage with stolas with the same "I'll get what I want" attitude. He has power, money, and legions to his name, and he isn't necessarily bad looking. So stella is like, "Eh, might as well..."

He isn't her dream partner, but she goes into the marriage thinking she can mould him into her dream man. Or thinking he's meek enough to leave her on her own, or she could even manipulate him to do as she pleases. None of those go as planned, though.

.

.

.

I can lowky see her dragging him around as she shops and him just wanting to die inside, lol

Oh my, Anon, this quite a lot of words, but I actually really love your rewrite, I can see Stella actually watching Mean Girls while Stolas dies inside and just stares at the infinite lmao

But sadly, this is a Viv show, and you know that women in these kinds of shows aren't allowed to have any nuance beyond a one-note use or personality trait, unless they're stepping stools for the male cast, which in that case, they're allowed to have a bit more of depth, but not too much.

And yeah, actually, now that you mention it, the Goetia demons shouldn't have been in Helluva, if anything, they should've been shown on Hazbin, like you said, because we are following along a protagonist that was born in royalty (Charlie) and it would make a lot of sense to see the Goetia demons there, since it would be a royal meetup or something like that.

And lastly, about the porn... I can corroborate this since a lot of the designs made by Viv or by her team look... conventionally attractive, so conventional that's artificial and try hard at times, and also, pretty safe but sometimes pushing the limits a bit to pander to gay people (Vortex, Asmodeus and Satan, to name a few muscular characters that are quite popular, but also Moxxie, Chaz and Striker, also popular in the gay side of the fandom) but it always boils down to the same purpose: to get people horny, and this is exemplified so painfully clear when Loona shook her ass towards the camera in one of the episodes, turning out to be shameless furry bait, and when I say that these shows are gooning and softcore porn shows, it's because of deliberate shit like this.

But alas, thanks for your input, Anon, it's greatly appreciated and it's quite the palette cleanser to see someone competent pick up Viv's mess and restructure it into something actually compelling and nuanced.

[noodle-is-unstable]

Hey, just a question but why were you fine with the abusive power dynamics between Sukuna and Uraume (Ume being so devoted to Sukuna and Sukuna only that they killed themself and Sukuna being fine with this blind devotion + Sukuna, a curse/cursed user, making Uraume, a human, cook human meat, including children, for him) so far but the moment he might have met them as a kid/teen you aren't fine? It was a "problematic" ship from the start, idk why everyone is acting horrified that the villains do villain things. But also meeting as a kid and dating as a kid is soooo different, they're both thousands years old in current days so like...

So first of all, you're more than welcome to ask questions and have a discussion but the tone in which this is written is coming off as agressive in my opinion. I don't appreciate that. Perhaps I'm reading into it wrong and that wasn't your intent, but it still has an unnecessary agressive tone to me. Especially in how you chose to end it with "so like..."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm misinterpreting the tone because it's very possible I am.

Now onto the actual question.

So unless something happened in the epilogue I missed I don't agree with your assessment of their relationship at all. If this context is given in the epilogue the point is moot because it was still something I wasn't privy to.

So I'm going off the manga for my knowledge of their relationship.

I think it's possible and valid that this is the interpretation you got from this, but it's simply not the same one I have.

I don't see their relationship as an abusive dynamic. (this can change with the new knowledge or context in the epilogue but we're taking about my perspective and why I wrote about it before this)

I saw Uraume as a very loyal servant, but not an abused or manipulated one. I didn't see Sukuna forcing things onto Uraume, I saw them choosing to do these things. (Remember this is in the context where we didn't know how Uraume and Sukuna met). I saw Uraume as choosing to follow Sukuna, choosing to cook humans, choosing to be devoted to Sukuna. They chose to follow him. They chose to be reincarnated to stay by his side. Uraume isn't some innocent little lamb being tricked by a wolf. They killed many people too. Also I think you forget Sukuna was a human too. Sukuna was a human eating humans and Uraume was a human cooking humans. They both participated in fucked up activities. Uraume isn't innocent and being forced to do anything. If they were I doubt they would have worked so hard to bring him back rather than just leaving and living their reincarnated life without him.

Simply put I saw Uraume as a very willing participant in everything that happened. I don't see their dynamic as abusive. You do and you have every right to, but I don't.

I also don't agree with your logic that their villains and do villian things so I should be okay with everything. Stealing is against the law, but so is murder. They're both bad, but they aren't equal. There is so much nuance to situations like this it's not realistic to just make it all equal.

Not to mention there is zero feelings that aren't platonic shown in the manga, that's all headcannons. It's not actually apart of the series at all. This is something fans have put onto the characters. This whole argument is in a fan made concept.

I am uncomfortable with pushing a romantic relationship on them when the situation is that he took Uraume in as a kid. I don't like it, it gives me the ick. So shocking, but if I don't like or agree with something, I'm not going to write about it.

Like I said in my last post I don't give a shit about the argument they're 1000 years old now, I don't like it.

He met Uraume as a child

He helped raise them

I'm not going to push a romantic aspect to that situation

You're allowed to disagree. You're allowed to not have a problem with that dynamic. You're allowed to see their dynamic differently than I do. But at the end of the day this is my page and I'm allowed to decide what I do and don't want to write for. And I don't want to write for that dynamic

[grumfield]

I’m getting into TCW shows for the first time (saw the 2D, then 3D movie, and just started the 3D show). I’ve been a movies only person and haven’t seen any SW show up to these. Can you explain the characterization of Anakin (and Obi-Wan, and any other character)? I’m familiar with some of the 3D arcs due to fanfiction (Hardeen, Satine, Mortis, etc.).

I view the clone wars as more like in-universe propaganda than any substantial addition to the story because Anakin and Obi-Wan’s characterizations are 1/1 to their wartime monikers, The Hero With No Fear and the Negotiator respectively, which inherently makes them antithetical to the actual story being told. Their canon nuance is ironed out to fit these names when really the titles were more of a metatextual tragedy element because they both lose due to their fear or lack of negotiation ability.

Anakin in the movies (and books) is defined by fear. He lives in fear of losing his loved ones and as a result preemptively responds to it through anger, violence, and self destruction. He is also incredibly insecure, awkward, and sensitive and is very much a teenager. He is not at all the classic image of a hero in that he lacks charisma (especially the leadership kind, people don’t like him!) and doesn’t have notable physical prowess. He is explicitly the sort of guy who could eventually kill the Tuskens or younglings, and we as the audience can feel that. For him, being Anakin Skywalker is frightening and oppressive. He does not like being Anakin Skywalker.

Anakin in TCW 2008 on the other hand, above all, is not scared of anything. He is assured in himself, he is confident and a charismatic leader with a deep voice cleft chin and biceps for days. People like him. His anger or violence is often very justified, and he doesn’t at all seem uncomfortable in his own skin or the world around him. He knows who he is and likes being him. That is like, his most key difference. He likes being Anakin Skywalker, and he is not scared of what that means. An Anakin Skywalker who is not afraid is not the same one that could kill Tusken or younglings—this Anakin Skywalker is a mentor.

Similarly, Obi-Wan in the movies and books is a guy defined by his inability to negotiate with himself or his ideals. He views things as very black or white and doesn’t really interrogate them. He also is a guy who cannot negotiate his love for Anakin with his Jedi teachings, and ends up basically in emotionally distant slop purgatory with Anakin as he tries not to balance the two (since that requires introspection) and tries mold Anakin into his ideal image. His inability to negotiate his ideology with a person not necessarily equipped for it in the same way is what defines his and Anakin’s relationship, and ultimately informs the way that Revenge of the Sith ends. He could not negotiate the time it mattered most, and arguably, if you view Mustafar the way I do, could not negotiate his love for Anakin (saving him) with the necessary action required according to Jedi teachings (killing him) so did nothing, and left. Obi-Wan in the movies and books is a guy who does not truly know himself.

Obi-Wan in TCW…is none of this. He also suffers from the glamorization in that he’s far more assertive and, notably, struggles with his relationship with the Jedi order. He has a love interest and he ultimately chooses the Jedi over her, which he isn’t able to do in RotS with Anakin. He makes decisions like this multiple times in the series, which is IMO antithetical to his character because it requires a certain level of assertion he just doesn’t have. Obi-Wan in TCW is a guy who is self-aware and has has interrogated his lifestyle and has decided that he will follow Jedi teachings and that he is a Jedi. He knows himself.

So with this in mind you hit this point where the actions of the characters in the show are not the same as the ones in the movies. TCW Anakin would not fall, he would save the day. And if he did, TCW Obi-Wan would suck it up and kill him, and save the day. And that’s why I feel like it can only be viewed as something like in-universe propaganda, because TCW portrays a future where they all win.

[animezinglife]

I had to add this incredible reply from @kittynomsdeplume:

This. It's the sweet reservation mixed with that confident decisiveness once he is given the green light. 🥵

@the-arcane-archivist says it all the time: it's the details of this romance that make it so incredible. It's not just that Cullen is such an interesting, nuanced character. He's both a sweet protector and someone who knows what it means to be hardened by a world he's seen too much of (and the worst of it). He's been impacted and changed forever by that world, and he's trying to become (and succeeding in becoming) a better man. He knows his past actions (or lack thereof) have caused pain and damage.

And what does he do about them? He commits fully to being better and to prevent those things from happening again to the best of his ability. He starts to expand his way of thinking. He takes measures that, for all he knows, might kill him just to regain control over his own mind and life.

He tells a mage Inquisitor (if romancing, at least) that not only is he not proud of the man he became back then, but that it "sickens" him to think he might have once seen her in a different light.

It's the vulnerable, innately human side you see from both of them that neither can ignore no matter what their stations. It's the doubt, the fear, and healing all wrapped into one.

Cullen has worked so hard to heal on his own and not burden anyone, and I love that while the Inquisitor can't fix his troubles, she can choose to stand beside him so he doesn't have to face them alone. I love that she can be "weak" around him, and how he lifts her up and stands beside her, too.

Their brave faces vanish in those moments. Their titles do, too. They become nothing more than two people trying to face and get through this life and chaos while learning they can do so together.

They cannot take each other's problems away, but they can help each other face them.

We also can't talk about this romance without including how much thought and care went into the nonverbal communication, too. It's the looks/expressions. It's the changes in tone. It's those little touches that get more frequent and comfortable as their relationship progresses.

There's exactly enough of everything: just the right amount of sweet, gripping, and sexy.

I love the maturity of it, both unspoken and otherwise. Everyone who handled this romance knew exactly what they were doing. It's definitely not going to appeal to everyone, but for the ones it does, it's so tailor-made and hyper-specific to everything they value that nothing's going to ever top it.

Cullen is the one who teaches you how to love simply by being who he is and what he is. He's not the boy you date. He's the man you marry. He's who you build a home and a life with: the warm fire in your hearth. He has areas where he'll continue to grow, but he has no growing up to do.

He can be a little hard-headed and stubborn, but he's as genuine as they come. He doesn't play games and he's very self-aware. He's from a great family. He's earnest and dedicated in his love, and while I wouldn't say his love is "easy" to earn, it's built to last.

I love Cole's line (and general thoughts overall) about him: protecting and proud.

He's a doll.

I’ll never get over how sweet it is that Cullen needs reassurance that the Inquisitor does in fact want to be with him.

He knows how he feels, and he thinks he knows how she does, too (never mind her hitting him with that look that only ever means one thing).

But he needs to know it’s her choice. That despite her having seen him struggling and at a low point, she still wants this.

That she still wants him.

He’s not ready to move on once this is all over. He’s so clearly ready to put his own feelings on the backburner and for her to change her mind (even though he knows it will devastate him).

When she doesn’t, he finally lets go.

[ittybittyremy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Critical Role

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

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

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

[dykedvonte]

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

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

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

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

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

[mephoj]

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

[mostlyvoid-partiallyflowers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[makotonaegiunderstander]

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

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

[butwhatifidothis]

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

[iguessitsjustme]

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

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

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

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

[shaolin-spin-doctor]

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

[seventh-district]

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

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