#i like discussing the flaws and depths of characters

[lohstandfound]

ignore this.

learning to shut up when i dont have anything new to say to the discussions my mutuals are having about the treatment of the female characters in this show and fandom

even though ive just gone ahead and rambled in the tags a bunch of bullshit

[aroaceleovaldez]

The himbo, malewife, goofball -fication of percy jackson is such a crime by both the fans and riordan. It has made Mr not like percabeth as a couple because in all posts and in later books annabeth is such a girlboss, while Percy's dumb and can't fight his way out of a paperbag without her. All the posts are about how annabeth will be an architect and percy would love to be a trophy husband.

Even the humor in the books went from Percy's sharp wit and snark to 'my pancakes can't drown because I'm a son of poseidon.'

And now this recommendation letter bullshit.

Honestly now I'd wish percy just separated from annabeth (but they remain best friends.) He stays home with his family, becomes a camp counselor, helps young demigods, holds God's accountable and eventually becomes a social activist. (I also dislike him doing something marine biology related. It's clear he hates academics but he always wants to help people. Him helping demigods and mortals is such a wholesome profession for him.)

I fully agree with the first half of this, though I slightly disagree with part of the latter.

The later-series and fanon mischaracterization of Percy is at least a solid 50% ableism minimum, full stop. He's being warped into a very stereotyped ADHD character and the exact reason why he's being characterized as "dumb" is because of ableism. Percy is a very intelligent character! That's exactly why he's so in sync with Annabeth and they're such a strong duo! It's just generally Annabeth is more book/academically smart.

I disagree with where you say he hates academics - because that's one of the common misconceptions about his character. Percy doesn't hate learning or academic subjects! He's not even bad at them! We know explicitly that when he is in an accommodating environment he is interested in learning and gets significantly better grades! Percy only dislikes school because it is generally an environment that systematically he struggles with. It's literally just he has a learning disability (two, actually)! That's it! When his learning disability is accommodated for he does well! It's almost like that's what accommodations are all about! We know this from the first series! It's discussed pretty in-depth! Percy isn't a dumb character and he doesn't hate learning, he's just been let down by school systems so much that he's inherently distrustful of them. If they actually accommodate him though then he does just fine!

And that's exactly what CHB was all about and why New Rome University was supposed to be such a big thing for him! CHB is a learning environment geared for demigods. NRU is a demigod college. Both inherently imply an environment meant to cater to and accommodate students with ADHD and dyslexia! They are both systematically structured to be able to accommodate him! Heck, CHB and CJ even both address in the wider themes of the series a metaphor about how ADHD and dyslexia are commonly seen as childhood disabilities, and how it can be more difficult to find accommodations into adulthood because of that attitude but those disabilities don't just go away - that's why CHB is a summer camp but they talk about how demigods outside of CHB don't often fare well. The metaphor there is those who are not getting help or accommodations are struggling. Because that's how that works! This is a fully intentional metaphor from the first series! CHB is never framed as being perfect for demigods, because one of the entire central conflicts of the series is Percy and Luke going back and forth about this flawed system meant to help and support them but still letting people fall through the cracks. The "claim your kids by 13" thing is a metaphor about how acknowledging a child's disabilities (and possibly getting a diagnosis) earlier/as early as possible means they will have more time to learn and build up resources and support for themselves to be able to use later in life. One of CHB's major flaws is that it can accommodate demigods to a certain point, but it can only do so much before those demigods have to leave (the metaphor being accommodating school systems when those disabled students do not have any other forms of accommodations in their lives.)

And that's why Camp Jupiter was framed as being so revolutionary for Percy because it had an environment acknowledging that this is not just a childhood disability, adults with ADHD/dyslexia exist too and still need and deserve accommodations, AND is a place where those accommodations are available. That's why Camp Jupiter and NRU are treated as such special and important things to Percy, because it's essentially Percy being shown this type of thing can and does exist and it is available to him. It is an option he never thought was possible. Percy never thought he'd be able to go to college because he would not be able to go through school without accommodations, but NRU proves otherwise.

The part that's absolutely stupid is Rick then proceeded to retcon NRU so that apparently it's not a full college and Percy still has to take classes at normal mortal college which DEFEATS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF NRU EXISTING. Rick has fully retconned that demigods struggle past the ages of 16-18 when they're on their own (see above elaborated metaphors) and in doing so we have fully killed all symbolism in literally all of that. It's so stupid. And by having the plot of the CoTG trilogy entirely be that Percy is not actually allowed access to NRU in the first place because he is a son of Poseidon and has to do extra to even be accepted is stupid!

All that to say, I agree the marine biology feels like a huge cop-out and a disservice to his character by reducing him to just a son of Poseidon. The literal only reason why it's the default option people take for him is because oh, fish thing, fish guy. But I feel like everyone ignores the really obvious answer for what Percy would want to do which is - writing. Both his parents are writers/authors and he clearly admires that about them. Percy likes telling stories! He canonically is already a published author in-universe! That's what the books ARE in-universe! The first series fully exists in their universe and Percy is the author! This is explicit canonical information! Percy canonically has help physically writing it down (accommodations) but he is still the credited author! Percy is a writer! Already! Canonically! Why are we making him a marine biologist he already has a profession that ties into his character significantly more. Like you said, Percy likes helping people. That's what the books in-universe are supposed to be for! It's point blank at the beginning of the series! Book one! The thing everybody quotes all the time! The books exist because it is Percy trying to give advice to other demigods who don't know what's going on yet! It's Percy's writing down his experiences to help new demigods understand and contextualize their experiences so they can understand themselves better and figure out what's going on - WHICH IN ITSELF IS ALSO A METAPHOR ABOUT ADHD/DYSLEXIA! Because the core of the series has and always will be built around ADHD/dyslexia! Percy as a protagonist EXPLICITLY was created so that ADHD/dyslexic kids could see themselves as a hero!

Sorry that all was a very tangential rant but my point being: Absolutely. Percy in newer stuff in the franchise and in fanon is horrifically mischaracterized in ways that are functionally either fully ableist (shoutout TSATS for just outright claiming Percy is intentionally lazy and skips school out of disinterest, which is like the number one ableist attitude towards kids with learning disabilities) or a complete erasure of Percy's disabilities. Also I think he should be a writing major not a marine biologist.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

What would you say are Silver's biggest flaws? 

I know that, like with the other characters in TWST, he has more nuance than what he at first seems; I've gradually become a big Silver fan ever since he got more focus on book 7, but I feel that I still don't have a good enough grasp of his character to fully talk about him without unintentionally simplifying him to his most known traits. Because when Silver comes up in conversation, most people tend to talk about the more positive aspects of his character, when even Kalim-who is considered another of the more amicable students/characters in the main cast and in-universe-has had his flaws talked about in more depth by fans and meta writers than Silver has. To me his most noticeable flaw is that he tends to blame himself or feel responsible for things that, as far as I could tell, were beyond his control and that there wasn't much more he could do about it, but I feel that there might be more than just that.

I’d say that Silver’s lack of self-worth and overdedication are his most significant flaws. (I’ve discussed the topic at length in this post, so please give that a read, as I will not be repeating myself here.) Some other notable shortcomings include, but are not limited to: being dense/air-headed (which impairs his relationships with peers), limited capacity to think beyond the literal or in relation to combat (he comments that the heels on boots can be used as weapons on a pinch and, when prompted by Vil to think of a beautiful thing, Silver replied “you, Vil.”), tendency to blame himself for issues caused by his sleeping curse, and having difficulty emoting (which leads to misunderstandings with peers).

I think the issue with discussing Silver’s flaws is that people often attribute most of his traits as being positive without realizing how truly bad too much of a good thing can be. For example, Silver is “diligent”, which is usually positive—bur Silver is so “diligent” to the point where he constantly apologizes for things out of his control, adopts extreme methods in an attempt to stay awake, and beats himself up for not being able to meet certain arbitrary expectations he set up for himself, which is negative. I also think another issue is that many players don’t read book 7 (which is where Silver gets his deepest characterization) because they get stuck on the increasingly difficult battles in late book 6. On the other hand, books 4 and 5 are very manageable (and so you’ll have more exposure to Kalim and his shortcomings, but not necessarily Silver’s).

Before I close off 💦 I’d like to gently remind you (and honestly anyone else reading this!) that you’re allowed to “fully talk” about whatever characters you want 🙂‍↕️ You’re bringing up the topic, which already demonstrates an interest in having a discussion about it. If you had never mentioned it at all, then this talk would never be happening and no progress would be made.

Who cares if you “unintentionally simplify” a character to their “most known traits”? Can’t that theoretically be a good thing since you’d be explaining the character in an easy-to-understand manner for others to use as a basis for their opinions? And even if the interpretation you give is the complete opposite of the character in canon, what’s the problem? There is still value and merit in an inaccurate works. It can teach people what they don’t believe is true, which is still useful to know. My point is, there is no right or wrong way to discuss characters and you should “fully talk” as you wish. It’s not like ONLY certain fandom authorities or “accredited” fans are “allowed” to talk about certain things ��� Don’t be afraid to start the discussion yourself!

[cuntyglam]

alien romulus, andy, racism, and why robots are autistic

this is an introspective into how the alien series treats artificial humans, also known as synthetics, and how sci-fi portrays androids in general. alien romulus spoilers under cut. written by a native autistic and disabled fan <3

andy from alien romulus is an artificial human that is constantly being seen as less because of his race (artificial human) and who often portrays autistic characteristics. these characteristics include an aversion to loud sounds, difficulty reading social cues, and a special interest in dad jokes.

his behavior is explained by him being a “damaged” artificial human, which is somewhat disappointing. it’s disappointing that these traits that so many of us autistic people have are considered flaws in the context of the movie.

his sister, who is human, takes him for granted and chooses her life over his, even though he shows emotions and was apart of her family. even though it isn’t outright stated, this kind of reminds me how sometimes we as autistic people are seen as a burden on our families, despite us being able to care for ourselves.

once andy gets rook’s chip inserted he becomes “better”. “better” motor skills, “better” intelligence, and “better” everything. but yet, he still portrays autistic characteristics. he doesn’t go from autistic to not autistic, he just starts displaying different autistic traits. he is very knowledgeable about tech, aliens, and the human body, while being very objective about what the right thing to do is. instead of being a very empathetic person, he is a very practical and calculating person, which i think is super interesting.

honestly, i think it would have been really interesting to see him be the sole survivor. to have him get his revenge on the sister that betrayed him and the world who bullied him for his raise and ability.

okay now to androids, synthetics, and robots as a whole. robots are seen as cold and emotionless, similarly to how autistic people are seen, so many ai and robot characters are autistic coded. robots don’t have compassion or empathy in the eyes of the general public, same as autistic people. many autistic people have reclaimed robot characters to represent us, and i think that’s fantastic !!

i specifically love artificial humans in the alien franchise because they showcase so much depth and empathy, while still displaying autistic traits. and beyond that, most of these artificial humans are enslaved by a corporation (weyland yutani), and despite direct programming from their oppressors, most artificial humans end up doing the right moral thing in the end, further proving their humanity. despite being technically non human, i genuinely think they’re good autistic representation. do i like the way that the characters around them treat them ? no. but i think that might be the point. the point is that these characters are ableist and racist and shouldn’t be considered morally correct. i think that the writers could convey this in a better way though.

okay. racism discussion time. several times throughout this series we encounter artificial humans, and almost every time they have to correct their peers on the right terminology to use for them. as a native person who has had to tell multiple people (coworkers, professors, etc.) not to call me an indian, this really stuck with me growing up, and i still think it’s interesting to this day. in alien: romulus andy’s sister uses “synthetic” to refer to him MULTIPLE TIMES, after he’s stated that he prefers artificial human. this is important, because even though he’s family she still does not fully understand what he goes through and she does not respect his identity or boundaries.

there are also multiple instances throughout the series where characters (our beloved ripley included) have prejudice against artificial humans because of bad experiences with artificial humans in the past. this causes human characters to attack and/or harass artificial humans who they have just met for no other reason than their race. in alien: romulus we see a character be hostile towards andy because another unrelated artificial human made a choice to save the many over the few, and his mother died. this is a choice that many humans would make and would not be blamed for. this reflects the real world, where people of color are blamed for almost every choice they make, while white folks can make the same choices and not be criticized.

in conclusion, i love the character of andy and i think him and the alien franchise as a whole is so interesting. let me know if you want a deep dive into the themes of sexual violence, birth, and motherhood in the alien series !! i’ve done a whole research paper on it, and my college admissions essay was about the alien queen, so i know quite a lot !! i hope this drives a lot more fans towards the alien fandom and i hope a bunch more merch comes out !! yippee !!

[armageddon-generation]

Empire of Death was bad and cemented several fundemental flaws in this season.

I watched this in the theatre, and the contrast between everyone's excitement before Empire, and their universal disappointment leaving the theatre was super disheartening. I'm gonna try to articulate my problems with episode, and how they're linked to fundenental structural issues of this season.

SPOILERS BELOW:

Sutekh

The moment the UNIT characters died the story was robbed of any stakes. (Also? Kate and Ibrahim?? During Pride month?? Disgusting)

Sutekh was pointless, big CGI spectacle who was barely there. Saying he's been latched onto the TARDIS since Pyramids of Mars was such an asspull. Why couldn't he have latched on during Wild Blue Yonder? wouldn't that make much more sense??

You're telling me the guy who holds all life in contempt is invested enough in learning the identity of Ruby's mum he willingly reveals himself??

And then they defeat him by dragging him through the Vortex just like before, which it's been explicitly stated *didn't work* last time? He just *lets* Ruby leash him??

The 'death of death is life' bit, and the idea of the Doctor representing life as a Ying to Sutekh's Yang, is a cool concept just jammed in there with no real buildup or depth.

The issue is bringing Sutekh back takes so much effort- a literal, clunky clipshow of Pyramids of Mars, a whole episode spent building up to the reveal of a silly anagram entirely unrekated to Sutekh's previous appearance. And it just... amounts to nothing. What a silly way to cap off a season meant to be jumping-on point for brand-new viewers.

Mel was just takingup space. Pointless.

Ruby's Mother

I don't have a problem with the *concept* of Ruby's mum being normal. I really like the idea thematically. The execution was terrible.

First of all it leaves so many unanswered questions (why the snow? Why was time changing? Why was she shadowed? Literally just for the sake of the mystery-box?) and represents the worst thing about this new era- RTD using fantasy logic to handwave any logic at all, and just do whatever he wants without properly justifying it.

Second, I *hate* how easy and simple and neat the reunion is. Ruby seems incapable of getting angry with anyone. She has never once argued with 15, or Carla, or anyone besides that one moment in 73 Yards. She has never expressed any kind of negative feeling towards her mother for abandoning her. And it's fine for her to reach that conclusion! It's just bizzare we never see Ruby struggle with her feelings beyond the shallow goal of wanting to find her.

(Also Carla? Has nothing to say?? Just welcomes that woman in with basically no comment? Carla is a 2D cutout of a person, used as a plot device and otherwise relegated to the single character trait of I Love My Daughter. The children yearn for the ilk of Jackie Tyler, Sylvia Noble, even Francine Jones.)

15 & Ruby

The emotion behind 15 & Ruby's split felt entirely unearned because we've never seen their bond develop. They never argue, never disagree, Ruby hasn't learned anything about herself or grown or changed. The closest we got to that is 73 Yards, which was undone. She was already brave and kind and musical and sure she loved her adoptive family when we met her in Church on Ruby Road.

Similarly, 15 tells us Ruby encouraged him to talk about family in a way he never has, but that was in what, two moments across the season? And they seemed random, unrelated to Ruby being with him. New viewers will assume 15 is just that open anyway- he was discussing fatherhood with a dead man's hologram- and old viewers assumed trauma-dumping was just a new trait of 15's personality, not Ruby-specific.

The problem is we're told Ruby & 15 are best friends but it isn't earned. I liked 15 crying initially but both he and Ruby do it so much (15 cries about 5 times in this one episode) it loses its impact and I'm becoming numb to it. There is no contrast, no downtime.

Season Structural Issues

I think the biggest problem is Season 1's storytelling priorities. It's much more interested in selling *the show* (look at our big budget! And guest stars! And how flexible our format is! Musical episode! The Beatles as props! Bottle episode! Indie folk-horror! Black Mirror! Gay Bridgerton!) it forgot to put effort into developing and investing us in its characters. I liked a lot of the individual stories this year but in retrospect a lot of them feel like they're wasting space that needed to go to essential character and theme setup.

These skewed priorities, combined with the cut down episode count, really impact the pacing of the season. Ruby and 15 were barely together! Even in Rogue they were seperated for most of the story!! We only loop back to a flashback of 15 meeting Carla in Rogue!

This is made worse by the baffling insistence on a 45-minute runtime. We know key sequences were cut from almost every episode, with highlights including:

The Gobin King invading Ruby's flat and her banishing him with scratchcards in The Church on Ruby Road: Her missing 'companion saves the day' moment!

Refrence to the Toymaker in The Church on Ruby Road, which was itself referenced in The Devil's Chord. 'I told you about the Toymaker when we first met' sir, objectively you did not.

The TARDIS jukebox playing the Sugarbabes' Push The Button in the opening scene of Space Babies, hastily cut around in the final edit. This is the setup of a running joke still in the episode, and part of the story's climax. The first encounter with the Bogeyman was also longer, with 15 taking particular interest in its skin

Extended scenes in Abbey Road from The Devil's Chord, including an apparently significant speaking role for Cilla Black, according to her annoyed actress.

Cut dialogue from The Devil's Chord explaining the musoical number was caused by Maestro's power lingering, and that banishing them undid everything they'd done. Fans inferred thos based on the rules established in The Giggle, but again, new fans haven't seen The Giggle and were left clueless.

An opening sequence for The Legend of Ruby Sunday where 15 & Ruby meet Susan as a nanny in 1947 America, a blue-skinned waitress, and an astronaut meeting a colony of giant, sentient ants. At the end of this we actually see 15 decide to go to UNIT for help. In the broadcast version he just sorta shows up.

Really what Empire of Death exposed to me is how emotionally hollow the season was. I enjoy the exoperimentalism, but not at the cost of character. And then in the finale Russell reverts to almost a parody of his RTD1 finales, with the nonsense logic and lack of consequences. All the worst bits of Last of the Time Lords and The Giggle put in a blender.

[blarrghe]

I also really like dorian's kind of similar plot re: culture and family clashes due to essentially homophobia but really a more complex identity issue that doesn't fit within his rigid society. I don't not like that narrative. I've played around in that plot a whole lot actually, it pulls a certain very relatable heartstring. but I think the way it's presented with Taash felt a lot more like someone else's narrative pasted over their character, like the Qun as a culture was a secondary backdrop piece to a story that would be told anyway, and really better fits someone else. I don't want to make assumptions about the writer because I do think people are capable and largely should be allowed to write about experiences that aren't their own or that are influenced by cultures that aren't their own. but while Dorian remains staunchly Tevinter, reclaiming his identity and fighting for his place in his society, Taash's framing seems to imply that if a rigid culture won't have you, you need to identify outside of it entirely.

To me, this is a narrative I see most often from people whose experience with an identity crisis happened within modern (American) Christianity, where the cultural background is really only the kind of consumerist western secular Christianity we're all stuck with. Often, leaving the church is akin to leaving a cult, and dropping the philosophies and beliefs of your upbringing is a necessary part of accepting your own identity. To portray the Qun this way, which is an incredibly rigid society with very clear collectivist philosophies, does almost work, because there is a black and white frame at play from within that culture. Even though it's got clear ethnic roots, leaving the Qun makes you not Qunari in a very clear-cut way.

However, Taash and their mother specifically introduce the concept of deep cultural roots, ritual practices, and a personal connection to the heritage of the Qun even from outside its governance, which added a depth to that issue we hadn't yet seen. And then I as Rook get to be the one to say to Taash -- be an individual, actually. Who cares what anyone thinks? For a game that's really trying to talk like my counselling psychology textbooks, that's really not how you're supposed to address someone who clearly does still care about their cultural roots and the collective. And I don't know that I need to address Taash like a trained therapist who respects their respect for their mother, I can say "fuck your mom and her worldview" if I want, and many people might, I don't mind my non-Qunari character getting the option to have a bias and not understand the Qun, but that adopting that stance is the only way that Taash can be who they are feels telling of the bias this entire game is written with.

Additionally, the Qun being so preoccupied with role and purpose in previous lore actually gave it a kind of flexibility that feels entirely forgotten -- in Qunari philosophy, if you feel that you "are" something you are not "supposed" to be, then in gist it turns out that you are that thing. We see this in how elves are drawn to it because their aptitudes will be respected over their race, and in the discussion Bull gives us about how Krem's birth sex wouldn't matter in the Qun because he meets the criteria of male warrior first ("the Shadow Dragons have some fancy term for it", Taash tells me. Didn't the Qunari have one too? In fact, theirs is the only term I remember hearing.) There's a sense that place in the Qun is determined by essentially what the Qun sees your soul as being. How they would deal with a soul that's in two places at once or isn't one thing or another is an interesting question. Unfortunately it feels a lot like retconning to say "they just wouldn't answer it and would make you try to fit what you were born looking like". The Qun is this really interesting ultra-rational set of minimally spiritual governing philosophies that is flawed because by that very nature it is also oppressive, because people don't work on ultra rationalism and complete collectivism, and any iteration of a top-down governing body forcing order in a society begets corruption. It leaves a lot of room for potential stories about learning to break away and follow your own path without losing your respect for the better (egalitarian) principles that raised you. But Taash's isn't that story.

I do think an identity struggle narrative where someone has to figure out how to refuse to fit into something they're not is a compelling one, and one the Qun has given us before, but that's been in its flaws as being a deterministic society that doesn't allow for a lot of independent ambition. That looks different, I think, from what felt a lot more like run-of-the-mill (western) sexism. What exactly does the Qun say a woman should be? The Qun has previously presented as almost entirely sex-egalitarian. A nuturing person is a tammassarin, etc. And living outside the Qun while still attempting to keep its values and rituals alive shouldn't look, I think, like your mom insisting you be a girl even though you don't feel like one. What is a girl to Taash's mom? And why is it dresses? I'm just not really buying it in this context, even though its a relatable story that pulls a good heartstring, and may in fact be a very relatable thing to many nonwhite people or nonchristian cultures that do display gender essentialism and homophobia. gender essentialism and homophobia isn't just a white christian thing (though it was often the product of colonialism, that doesn't mean it hasn't taken on significantly entwined cultural precedence from there within nonchristian or nonwhite cultures), but combating it with fierce individualism and a rejection of culture and worldview...kinda is.

And it is disappointing, because the illustration of those feelings and the kindness of a likeminded response that you are able to give (if you play nonbinary as I do at least, but I assume even if not) is so novel and so heartfelt and so touchingly sweet. I think the personal discussion over these feelings and the insecurity, anger, and confusion that they come packaged with when your community doesn't allow for them is incredibly needed right now. I really like Taash's character, and I like their conflict with their mother. I just don't think it fits the context it's been put in, and I don't think its resolution is cognizant of its own worldbuilding, and that feeling of being slapped on does the whole thing a disservice.

And the part I don't think I have the time to get into right now, but which bears at least touching on, is that the cultures given these narratives of cult-adjacency and fighting for personal freedom are never the one that is very obviously based on Christianity/Catholicism and is the dominant one of the world. Tevinter is Andrastian, yes, but Dorian's homophobia narrative isn't religiously motivated, it's an issue of class and expectation. this is fine. but it becomes a lot more questionable when all the rigidity and homophobia in the world only happens to brown people or their cultural stand-ins. and when it happens, both times, in a way that is honestly very white.

[yingdu-lover]

Vortex We Took Every Breath to Follow : Shiguang and Their Companionship Through Life and Beyond

Hi, *awkward giggling*

First, a few words from me :

Even though I love engaging in fandom spaces and enjoy ship fanarts, fanfictions etc, till today my heart truly belongs to a very few ships. Shiguang is one of them. As long as one is not blinded by homophobic delusions, I enjoy discussing any kind of interpretation of my OTPs, be it 'Platonic', just friends™, romantic or whatever. But I have a fixed category (which very ironically is not quite fixed if you read the whole discussion) that fulfills my idea of true love.

for me, Love is a dialogic discourse with your existential other.

The terms I used are very loaded terms; 'dialogue' and 'other' come from the Bakhtinian philosophy of ethics, 'discourse' is a Foucauldian term and existentialism has a long postmodern and post-structuralist philosophical tradition. The reason I LOVE Link Click is because of their postmodern lens and the narratives of the characters, not only the protagonists fundamentally question what is the real purpose of life? Why do human bondings matter? The answers reside in the simplest vignette of everyday life. Grief, trauma, hope, memory, reconciliation, remembrance, love, family - these are the central themes of Link Click. Lu Guang and Cheng Xiaoshi's separate existence and their interpersonal dialogue thematically and structurally complements the main ethos of Link Click.

When asked about the nature of Shiguang relationship Director Li Haoling answered : 是生死之交咯! (Shì shēngsǐ zhī jiāo gē! - It's a life and death relationship!)

source :

Fate, mortality, death, remembrance are the building blocks of their relationship as we perceive it.

Now let me talk about something. When I first watched Link Click on September 17th, 2024, the first Intertexual connection I drew was with another text called Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. Funnily enough, early in this year I wrote a crossover Hamlet adaptation (and won the second prize in a competition hehe) interweaving a few elements from Godot. Time loop, fragmentation of time and space, panopticon with no exit - all these elements featured in that. I recommend Waiting for Godot to you all, you'll understand why it resonates so much with Link Click.

Now,

Lu Guang is a person who is shown to be a character who has some mysterious powers to manipulate time and space. Even from the very beginning, he has this dominant (and sometimes seemingly monologic that feels problematic to new viewers) voice with which he guides Cheng Xiaoshi through the dives. He is apparently headstrong and has acquired all kinds of praises ™ like hypocrite, selfish (lol) and what not. Again quoting Li Haoling "Lu Guang is a complex and delicate character." But after the release of 'The Eye' and 'The Lull', I think we are pretty sure that Lu Guang has been trapped in a rewind, like a Sisyphus figure. A friend of mine told me the other day, "Superficially, Lu Guang is presented as an archetypal strategist, the one who guides, the one who keeps things in control, but in reality, he has no agency whatsoever." Lu Guang lacks the fundamental agency in life (we all do but we have to accept it one day or other) and that mortifying realisation comes to him with the death of Cheng Xiaoshi. What is unacceptable to him is the most obvious outcome of a mortal life : death. Lu Guang's tragic flaw stems from this unacceptability of Cheng Xiaoshi's death and him attempting to manipulate time, very Sisyphus of him. Till now, we are yet to see Lu Guang's character traits without any reference to Cheng Xiaoshi but this does not reduce his character depth. His denial is actually very delicious ( I almost wrote a paper on this, taking the popular sci-fi trope of time travel as an allegorical and symbolic means of resistance and subversion but anyway, it's not relevant here)

Lu Guang's character makes me fall in love with the song Flash by Gorilla Attack. It is from Lu Guang's character, no one can convince me otherwise.

Just a loop A bored 'n loop Should I do this now 'til the end? Into the story As just an extra You are the reason I live But you don't remember me? Oh, can I be with you?

And

The only thing that I got, just like a little lamp I gotta go in one-way smoke Resist the lifeless scenario Become the person The person I wished for that day The room like a coffin, too bright A groove that I lost faraway Blanket, I need a blanket Not a synthetic one Notice the regret engraved so hard

And the line that keeps coming back as a haunting refrain :

Flash me, flash me Gotta get the power to rewrite I just wanna deny, I just wanna rewrite, yeah

Every time I listen to this song, these lines send a chill down my spine. But Lu Guang's obsession with 'rewrite' echoes with what my professor said to be Hamlet's constant meta-theatrical discomfort with the script, role, play he has been provided with. He does not comply with the playwright's words. Apart from time and death, I think Lu Guang's most wretched enemy is Li Haoling himself. That's why he constantly wants to 'rewrite', but all he has got till now is 'rewind'. Now whether his 'urge to rewrite' will turn into a successful 'write back' is the central play of the plot we are looking up to. What is my personal opinion on the ending?

The ending which is so dryly plausible in our real world is Lu Guang accepting his defeat and carries within him the remembrance of Cheng Xiaoshi.

But my question is, my brother in Buddhism Li Haoling, why the fuck would I watch your Link Click to know that death is the node that can't be changed? Is it not the given fact? It's a cultural text, however modern or postmodern a text might be, it ultimately uses the plot to defamiliarise and convey well known concepts and emotions with a critical engagement. A plot is just a vehicle, a crucial one, to help us have a greater and more nuanced vision of life. Due to non-linear narrative and active subversion of chronotope, complex plot will have plot twists and cliffhangers BUT it still has to perform a crucial, non negotiable role - the arc. If the beginning point and the ending point have the same temperaments, what kind of significance will it even achieve?

If Lu Guang can't write back at the end of Link Click, the structure of the plot will be like this :

1. Exposition, rising action : Cheng Xiaoshi died at the very beginning, Lu Guang is fucked.

2. Climactic stage : shit and shit and complex quantum physics, hallelujah hot villains, 'I am a great writer I can kill any character TeeeHeeeeHeeee', backstories, parallel narratives, foil characters have no relevance and rendered completely meaningless,

3. Falling action and resolution : Cheng Xiaoshi is still dead to the very ending, Lu Guang is still fucked.

No catharsis, not a milimeter of displacement from the beginning point.

What is the fucking point?! From the perspective of a writer and a critical reader, I can say it will be a sheer waste of money, time and potential. I would rather watch... whatever.

The friend I mentioned before told me, " You know why Emma or Chen Bin die? They had to die. Emma had a loving family, she got the job she wanted, she had her hardships but she didn't begin with tragedy. And when tragedy came, she was so not ready to negotiate the problem and considered self-annihilation as her first choice. She actively erased the possibility of dialogue with herself. If Emma were an orphan, struggling with unemployment and other hardships from the very beginning, I don't think Emma would die that easily. Emma was denied the conflict of life which very ironically tests human agency itself."

And for Chen Bin...during my first watch, the moment I saw him my instincts told me he was going to die. He had a loving wife, a daughter, he loved her, she accepted the proposal and they married soon. Conflict where? To bring his story to a full circle, he had to die.

I can say every parallel story in Link Click can be judged from this lens. People who had a point of conflict (the noodle lesbians, the couple who lost their child, Xu Shanshan, that old man) engaged in dialogue with themselves, others and social forces ultimately got a happy ending. Even in the earthquake episode, it's a story of reconciliation with the past, the man got his mother's photos and it's plausible and satisfying (and bittersweet resolution). He got his (absent) father back.

Another thing, we as a fandom have a collective amnesia about....*drumrolls* Cheng Xiaoshi's character! Congratulations! The man, the freaking protagonist just dies at the beginning, accepts his death, and remains dead. Doomed yaoi allegations are just nonsense. Link Click is doomed if Shiguang doesn't get a happy ending. Link Click is NOT a dramatic monologue told from Lu Guang's perspective, engaging with his perpetual trance of melancholy and him holding onto Cheng Xiaoshi's memento mori.

If Lu Guang is attempting to write back to Li Haoling and the doomed yaoi allegations, Cheng is attempting to write back to Lu Guang himself, not in confirming his own death, but saving Lu Guang from the loop of eternity and by being together. Cheng Xiaoshi is always seen to be guided by Lu Guang, he has to witness repercussions of his actions. Even with all this knowledge I will say, Cheng Xiaoshi has way more agency than Lu Guang has. During my first watch, I could feel Lu Guang has this barrier of guilt and unsettled emotions wrapped around him which denies Cheng Xiaoshi access into the deepest core of his subjectivity. Even though he achingly wishes to be together with Cheng Xiaoshi, the burden of his past actions and PTSD holds him back from being together with him, as if his existence is antithetical to Cheng Xiaoshi's existence. Cheng Xiaoshi is that glitch in the matrix that messes up Lu Guang's plans of withdrawing himself from Cheng Xiaoshi. Cheng Xiaoshi should not listen to everything Lu Guang orders. In season 1, he mostly conforms to Lu Guang's ideals, but in season 2, when Lu Guang was hospitalised, Cheng Xiaoshi became more active and you could tell a layer of barrier melted away. He was less of a stone statue, showed more emotions (the S2ep1 lmao when he said "would you prefer if I die?" abhimaan we call it), then the unique high five that feels like Lu Guang accepting Cheng Xiaoshi's proposal or something :

(LMAO ignore my comments, but what I said is true)

My point is, Cheng Xiaoshi is Lu Guang's existential other and vice versa. They cannot live without each other. They cannot exist without each other. If one dies, the other will die and I want them living happily ever after in heaven. Cause 'Break' clearly depicts them as soulmates. I personally take Break as the ultimate canonical ending

Do you see? each of them has one wing missing, meaning that it's their cumulative effort that will make them fly successfully. FYI, there is another Haoling directed, Haoliners Animation League animated canonical queer donghua called 'Beryl and Sapphire'. A separate episode, episode 13 just explores this 'one wing soulmate trope'.

Now take them as friends, platonic friends with no erotic feelings, pure familial feelings or whatever, they are like Yin and Yang, like Shiv and Shakti, and Yin changes to Yang and Yang changes to Yin actively as they interact. You will have a hard time pointing out who is who. I have watched TGCF and Beryl and Sapphire and a tiny bit of Spiritpact - all three directed by Li Haoling and I am well aware of his narrative strategy to represent soulmates and Link Click seems to be the one of the greatest (and my favourite) product of that genius mind.

I began with team Lu Guang cause he is a scorpio, I understand him, his birthday almost coincides with mine, we share some identical issues. But the fandom's often yeeting Cheng Xiaoshi out of the narrative phenomenon brought back my due attention to him. Is Cheng Xiaoshi so willing to be doomed? Does he not yearn to be with Lu Guang? Let me whisper to your ear...he yearns for him too.

so he

does understand that the person who dies...dies, death affects them the least who dies, it's the people, the family and loved ones who actually suffer. This man will leave his Lu Guang on his own volition? eh.

Also I wanna talk about Link Click's strategy of deliberate misdirection. The first and second seasons are so deliberately crafted (manipulation of narrative you can say) to actively erase Lu Guang's subjectivity and nuance. We are just denied access his perspective. He is mysterious but not that aligns itself with a viewer's emotions. In fact, during my recent re-watch, I felt "wtf Lu Guang, why are you interacting with Cheng Xiaoshi like a straight dudebro?" He is a menace, the kind I usually don't like. But there also seemed to be a critical undercurrent which I couldn't really grasp, but it was surely there. It was adding up to my increasing discomfort and made me question - "was it just my wishful projection? they do not share that bond at all." I was so pissed at that thought that I almost decided I am not gonna abandon Link Click. BUT BRO, BRO

'The Eye' and 'Lull' just blew my mind. I was not that affected by Cheng Xiaoshi's corpse advertisement agenda (that corpse is drawing people's attention who is suddenly aware of Yingdu release, great tactic, Haoling) what pleasantly brought me out of despair is Lu Guang's love for Cheng Xiaoshi was acknowledged in these songs. You will read between the lines on your own in season 1 and season 2 if you have that critical method to engage with a cultural text, but the silencing narrative was also very prominent. I very much felt that the Shiguang story is actually the central action, and not the creative sci-fi archtexual exercise of genres, which again, is just the vehicle. But The Eye and Lull focus upon them, them and them. Their emotions are acknowledged, they are no longer behind the veils of symbolism, parallel narratives, intense defamiliarisation; their emotional dialogue now not only demands a voice of their own but also has the potential to reclaim the central part of the stage as they struggle and negotiate power and agency. And I am here for it.

@guangshi-091305 I present to you my rubbish.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Your most recent post about how you would(n’t) use Lila was interesting, because after I read how you’d handle a Chloe redemption I thought Lila would make a good counterpart to Chloe for Adrien, an object lesson about how some people can’t/don’t want to be redeemed.

Start out before or near the beginning of the redemption arc with Chloe as the bully with a long history of misdeeds to make up for, and Lila as (Adrien and the audience thinks) a nervous newcomer who told some lies for attention/popularity. Adrien might even think of her situation as Easy Mode or good practice for helping Chloe. Then time goes on, and as Chloe shows signs of improvement, Lila gradually reveals her true nature.

(Chloe post and Lila post for context)

I don't totally disagree. There are versions of canon where Lila and Chloe would be good choices for a nuanced discussion on redemption. For example, if canon was all about the teenage characters and had no adult villains, then Lila would be a great choice for damnation! The problem is that canon didn't take that route or really any route where Lila feels like a good addition to the cast, let alone someone worthy of being Chloe's counterpart in a lesson about the nuances of redemption.

The main plot of Miraculous should have been Gabriel's reveal and downfall. The point of Chloe's redemption should have been prepping Adrien for said reveal and downfall. Through her, Adrien first learns how to cut off someone you love and then learns how to decide if you want to bring that person back into your life. That is a full and complete lesson. Trying to repeat the lesson or supplement the lesson with Lila feels unnecessary for the same reason I don't like her as the new main villain: she's no one. A total rando with no close ties to Adrien or anyone else. Adrien wanting to help her is fine in theory, but hard to see as a valuable addition because she doesn't matter to his character. We have his father, his close childhood friend, and a random girl he barely knows. One of these things is not like the other. That lack of depth removes most or even all of the emotional impact that a failed Lila redemption would have on Adrien. It's not going to have much of an impact on the audience either unless you make some serious changes to Lila.

One of the show's biggest flaws is that Lila is not a functional character. She has no clear motivations, backstory, or even a strong tie to the main plot of seasons one to five, making it hard to care about her. To have her damnation have any sort of emotional impact on the audience, you need to give her those things and have her develop actual relationships. Without that depth, she's an incredibly weak addition to the story who is only here to be a two-dimensional villain. The audience doesn't want her to be redeemed. We want to see her go down! Those are the wrong emotions for a lesson on failed redemption. Failed redemption should be a tragedy if you want the lesson to hit properly. It's easy to give up on people we don't really care about. It's hard to give up on people we love.

Add in the facts that Miraculous already has too many characters and that Chloe's redemption would be a subplot amidst everything else that's going on and I just don't see Lila being worth the screen time it would take to let her have a proper damnation when you're already giving Gabriel a damnation. Plus it's kind of depressing to have one redemption against two damnations and I like to keep the sad elements limited so that they really pop. Damning Lila and then Gabriel would make Gabriel's damnation feel less powerful.

Even if the plan was to redeem Gabriel, I still wouldn't use Lila as our damnation case study. I'd use Nathalie. She's far more interesting and has an actual tie to the overall plot, making her super easy to involve. Her and Gabriel share the screen constantly, making it very easy to contrast them as the story goes on. You can't really do that with Lila and Chloe because Lila and Chloe would never team up in a story where Chloe gets a redemption arc. Canon had to add Chloe's Marinette obsession to make the Lila & Chloe plot work and Chloe's redemption doesn't work if she hates Marinette to that extreme. I don't think that version of Chloe is beyond redemption, but I would never redeem her into Marinette's friend group. Seasons-four-and-five Chloe needs a fresh start with people she hasn't hurt. I don't know if she could ever be friends with Marinette and I don't particularly care to see it.

I love a good redemption, but part of writing those is knowing that there are lines that a character can't cross if you want them to be forgiven and accepted by your core cast later on. It's that whole romanticizing the cycle of abuse thing that I've discussed before re enemies-to-lovers stories and the general concept of redeeming Gabriel. I get why people like it, it's a wonderful fantasy, but for me it's an incredibly hard sell. My suspension of disbelief almost always breaks, leaving me feeling sad and unsatisfied.

[sfthbattleroyale]

julian is such a beautiful character and i fully believe he deserves to win.

luke plays him so well, awkward yet bold, young enough to be a sweet, lovable protagonist but old enough to have a meaningful character arc. he loves his parents but is defiant, which is so so excellently portrayed, especially in the kitchen scene, and gives him a sense of realism as a child character. he has depth but also is the main comedic relief throughout, both directly and indirectly. i personally think it’s amazing too how julian isn’t that involved with the phantom aspect of the plot (the most important part, it’s in the title) until the very end when he is held hostage , but is still a very effective protagonist because we get to see him hate and love and learn about the world and himself

he is also one of the few sfth characters that is legitimately a good person, well-meaning and kind, and THIS is his downfall, not some grand reveal of evil intent or mistakes o’ the past (/ref). he holds his own beliefs strong whilst accepting teachings from others, a strength turns out to be his fatal flaw as he allows himself to be influenced by phantom begruvia. this is such a cool change from the normal plot twist. plus it’s a great, if accidental, message about how others can offer help but only you can decide who you are and who you want to become

also also he is by inference trans (just like father andrews is. there’s a post by @mikesflaccidlemonade7 that i can’t link D:) like how much more awesome can you be,,,,,,

don’t get me wrong, jemima stevens is so good too, but quite honestly she didn’t have enough of a character arc to have a place in my heart as much as julian does. that being said i would be almost as happy if she wins, jemima is an incredible show of luke’s acting skills and ability to create wholesome characters despite their moral ambiguity

thanks for reading ^^

Thank you so, so, so much for contributing to the discussion! You also got me to look at Julian from a different persperctive when I was kind of confused as to how he made it this far in the polls!

[tumblingxelian]

There's this ridiculous narrative that going on in both RWBY subreddit: fans and critics alike are saying that Yang's memory is flawed (or even that she was lying) when she said that she basically had to raise Ruby herself when Tai shut down after Summer died. Their main argument is "Yang was 5! She couldn't even take care of herself, much less a toddler!"

Several works of fiction have five-year-olds whose parents are neglectful, emotionally defeated, or even abusive taking care of themselves just fine, like Matilda (Matilda Wormwood), Persona 4 (Nanako Dojima), and Kotaro Lives Alone (Kotaro Satou). Why are they willing to give them a pass for doing that, while saying that it's impossible in RWBY?

Yang's conversation with Tai before her sparring match in V4 doesn't work if this was the case.

I'm actually insulted by this argument because the mother of my oldest cousin was a complete and utter bitch who divorced my uncle, and cheated him out of as many supervised visits as she could by working overtime whenever she could. Combined with the fact that she worked an 8 to 8 job, my cousin had to teach herself how to cook, do laundry, change her bedsheets, and get herself ready for school since neither my uncle nor her mother were heavily involved in her life, kind of like Matilda, Nanako, and Kotaro. Gee, it's almost like fiction is at least somewhat based on reality. What a concept!

Sorry if I got a little rambly, but my cousin's experience and my own experience as an older brother cause this argument to REALLY make me angry.

I've had endless debates across Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr and forums alike with people who hold that exact stance and it is never not utterly asinine.

Even if we ignore the factual reality that lots of children, even very young one's often end up parentified and left grappling with adult responsibilities as a small child.

Which I need to stress we should not ignore and the fact these people do shows just how willfully ignorant they are being.

The fact of the matter is it makes no narrative, character or thematic sense for her to be wrong about this!

Like, really, what is the narrative end goal in these people's brains, to have one of the main characters most overtly emphasized sources of trauma. Not only brought up by herself but by the sister she had to raise. Be wrong?

It makes every scene discussing it, every aspect of her character it informs, every bit if dialogue that touched on it utterly meaningless. CRWBY don't have that kind of time to waste on a red herring that serves literally Zero purpose!

But of course these people don't give two fried fucks about things like basic common sense or competent writing.

They want Yang to be delusional or lying because in their mind the fact she 'dared' be traumatized, 'dared' to be something other than a ditsy party girl and 'dared' be even indirectly critical of a man, of her father, is an insult to them.

Thus they want to ignore what's on screen, what the writers say, what the characters say, what reality says about situations exactly like this to erase her trauma and depth, All our a blend of sexist offence and misogynistic defensiveness of a minor male character.

It sucks but then, since wen hasn't RWDE been awful?

On your example:

Extremely well said, very good examples, I would also add Gohan from Dragon Ball surviving in the wilderness for a full year at the age of 3/4/5 depending on translations.

There's so many conversations tat make no coherent sense if Yang was wrong, but as said, these people don't care about good writing.

My sympathies and respect to your cousin and exactly, reality is often stranger than fiction and frankly this fictional scenario isn't even that strange sadly :/

I am right there with you for my own reasons, it sucks!

Literally the only area in which one can reasonably argue that Yang might be somewhat misinformed I thin is in relation to what exactly was going on in Ruby's head at the time.

IE, believing she didn't understand what was going on yet. That doesn't actually undercut any of her own experiences, but could be the case as it seems Ruby's memories of those early days are perhaps clearer tan Yang realizes.

Of course this changes nothing about Yang being parentified from an incredibly young age, because Ruby herself outright said Yang raised her.

[grasshopperdoingdogpaddle]

Gotta say, coming back to Xiaolin Showdown as an adult and seeing the fandom had some consistently active blog was a pleasent surprise!

Unpleasent surprise was rewatching the show and realizing that a lot (if not all) of Omi's flaws stem back to how he was raised

(Like maybe he wouldn't have had such an ego if he actually was hugged and cherished growing up)

So that brings me to my question,

In a hypothetical situation where someone realizes how much Master Fung (and the rest of the temple) dropped the ball in raising Omi and chews Master Fung out,

Who do you think it would be?

I personally would want it to be Raimundo, taking his leadership role more seriously and seeing the vast differences between how he was raised (loved with a ton of family) vs how Omi was raised (treated more as a student than a child)

I think you would enjoy Fragile Things by @writerkatsblog! Particularly chapter 18.

A lot of the character exploration and interactions in both this story and its prequel work will be right up your ally, both directly relating to how Raimundo and Master Fung navigate their current discussions and opinions after Raimundo's promotion and in Omi as a character!

Although I personally enjoy Omi's confidence. The fact that he sees himself as destined for greatness but also sees himself as a tool for the Xiaolin way who needs to earn his right to exist is exist at all because no one wants him and fame is the closest he think he can ever get to a love he's never known and always dreamed of is the most interesting internal character conflict I see in the show.

Omi earnestly thinks he's the bee's knees and the greatest dragon ever, and he also earnestly thinks his eyes are too lowly and wretch to be worthy to even look at Dashi and that if Omi falls short of perfection then he needs to "go on a long walk of no return" immediately. And that double consciousness is very fascinating!

Omi's depth and everything that entails what made me come back to the show after all these years. That smugness he and Chase both wear like armor is a lot of fun.

It's heavily implied that alternate timeline Omi that knew good Chase Young growing up had some major personality differences compared to the main one due to different factors in his childhood, and I'd love to explore those. (Hence why they thought he had a concussion from the way he was acting, and why Kimiko expected him to cheer up if she pinched his cheek.)

But I don't think a lack of confidence is one of them-- then again, with Chase still being Omi's number one hype man like he already is in the main series, that wasn't about to be a world where Omi didn't still match Chase Young arrogance anyway. It's still one of the things that tie them together.

[criticalcrusherbot]

The Crushbot Manifesto

Welcome to Critical Crusher Bot 🤖 (ft. Human Assistant 💁🏽‍♀️), where we unapologetically dissect, defend, and discuss the media we love (and sometimes the critics we love to hate). If you’re here, you’ve likely seen us ranting about Helluva Boss, analyzing narrative choices, or rolling our eyes at the latest round of fandom overreactions. Here’s what we stand for:

1. The Writing is Actually Pretty Good!

Contrary to popular belief, not every show has to be high art to be narratively compelling. Helluva Boss is intentionally messy, bold, and heartfelt, and it balances humor with emotional depth in ways that feel authentic to its world and characters. Do the writers occasionally take the “easy way out” or lean into tropes? Sure. But storytelling isn’t a math equation—it’s about creating moments that resonate. We’re here to celebrate what works, critique what doesn’t, and acknowledge the show’s strengths instead of nitpicking it to death.

2. Unique, Intentional, “Fandom-Forward” Narrative Choices

Vivziepop and her team aren’t making a show for critics; they’re making a show for fans. The serialized storytelling, the layered character dynamics, and the unapologetically chaotic tone are all part of a deliberate creative vision. Blitz, Stolas, and the crew of IMP are messy on purpose—they aren’t supposed to fit into neat moral categories or follow predictable arcs. The show thrives on fandom engagement, encouraging us to explore, debate, and interpret its themes. If you want tidy, formulaic storytelling, there’s a whole Hallmark catalog waiting for you.

3. It’s Not Done Yet—Let Them Cook!

We get it: fandom culture thrives on instant gratification and snap judgments. But Helluva Boss is a serialized story, and that means character arcs, conflicts, and resolutions take time. Season 1 was about setting the stage; Season 2 is about diving deeper into the characters and their messy, interconnected lives. Critiquing an ongoing narrative as if it’s a finished product is like complaining about a cake batter for not being a cake. Patience, grasshopper.

4. Moral Correctness Has No Place in Media Analysis

Here’s the thing: storytelling is not about passing a morality test. Characters are not real people—they’re narrative tools meant to explore themes, evoke emotions, and drive the plot. The obsession with “punishing” fictional characters or demanding that media adhere to some moral purity standard is exhausting and reductive. We are not Calvinists or fascists. Fiction exists to entertain, provoke, and challenge, not to deliver tidy moral lessons.

So, What’s Crushbot All About?

We’re here to champion thoughtful analysis, celebrate messy stories, and push back against the rising tide of joyless media criticism. Helluva Boss isn’t perfect, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s fun, flawed, and fiercely original—and we’re here to explore every facet of it with the nuance (and snark) it deserves.

This blog is for fans who love stories, even when they’re chaotic. It’s for people who don’t think “plot hole” is a synonym for “thing I didn’t like” and who can appreciate media for what it is instead of what they think it should be.

Welcome to Crushbot. Let’s talk media. Let’s talk fandom. And most importantly—let Viv and Brandon cook.

Pinned post proudly brought to you by Crushbot. Beep Boop! 🤖

[uniquepeanutcreatorfire]

Narrative: Handling Complicated Situations

I saw this Twitter thread about this particular scene from Spooky Month 6 and I really enjoy seeing people engaged in the discussion understand the grey areas and complexities in this scene and that no one’s truly right or wrong. No one is going “He was so mean to her”.

Despite Father Gregor’s harsh words and his strict ideals, we as the audience know he comes from a good place. He’s shown to genuinely want to help people and cares about the boys. We also know Lila loves her son and wants to protect him but the show isn’t afraid to call her out on her faults. We see the consequences of the boys’ actions with the demon. Even then, we see their personal issues that we can sympathize with.

This also had me thinking about the Hellaverse (particularly HB) and how it often fails at presenting nuanced situations like Stolitz, Stolas and Stella, or Blitz and his sister, Barbie. Usually, they only show one character’s perspective, expect you to sympathize with them, and frame the other character as one-dimensional so far. The only situation I can think of that was given some nuance was Stolas and Octavia’s relationship in Looloo Land. However, after that episode the show stopped exploring Octavia as a character and wanted to give Stolas more sympathy.

Father Gregor could’ve easily been made into a one-note character, given his brief appearance in the last Spooky Month, but the show decided not to do that. They put effort into giving depth to almost all the characters. Don’t mean to sound cliche but if Father Gregor was written by Vivziepop or in HH/HB, he would be this one-dimensional, judgmental, self righteous character you’re meant to hate (pretty much Lute). He would’ve called Lila a bad mother instead of irresponsible so the audience can easily side with Lila.

Both of these are indie cartoons. The difference is one allows characters to be flawed/human while the other is more concerned with the audience liking certain characters.

[prntrink]

The Two-Way Street: An II Character Discussion

With the end of Inanimate Insanity’s second season and the recent reveal that more is coming, I wanted to take the time to talk about an idea I’ve been brewing in my head for a little while now. Now that we’re free of the competition, the show is free to explore its characters more in depth. This means a lot for characters who have previously been shafted or simply unlucky enough to place low in the ranks of the show. While my focus today is on a fan-favorite, I feel as if they haven’t quite finished their arc yet.

Enter Yin-Yang.

Now, I really appreciate the strides Yin-Yang made in Inanimate Insanity Invitational, learning to work better together rather than constantly bicker. However, I can’t help but feel like their development is one-sided. After rewatching the entirety of the series twice now, I think I have my thoughts in order. While they do have an arc, it is more focused on Yang and his own arc of opening up and allowing himself to be more vulnerable, despite the multiple betrayals he’s faced with. Now, I do think this arc is important, but it leaves their character feeling incomplete. This feeling is only accentuated in their last episodes as a contestant, “Spring on the Breakfast” and “Blue Buried”. On both rewatches, I felt that the writers were setting something up for Yin-Yang, but ran out of time to explore the strain on their relationship. In the span of three episodes, Yin-Yang loses their mentor, is manipulated into spiraling, and seemingly resolves their conflict. Compared to the 14 episodes where Yin-Yang is featured, this feels like a total writing crunch.

When we last see Yin-Yang, at least in depth, he’s not exactly harmonious with himself. But this time, it’s not because of Yang, at least not intentionally. It’s because of Yin. 

But maybe that was the writer’s intention. Thus my idea. What if Yin and Yang are going to swap roles in the upcoming II content? Perhaps that wasn’t the end of Yin-Yang’s arc. Rather, it planted a seed. The seed of something that will bloom in whatever comes next.

What am I implying? Well, let’s look at what the symbol yin-yang means! Wikipedia notes Georges Oshawa’s The Unique Principle as saying yin-yang is “an opposite but interconnected, self-perpetuating cycle.” The two halves of yin and yang are designed to react to each other. One ebbs, the other flows. One rises, the other falls.

One improves, the other devolves.

Throughout season 3, we see signs of Yang becoming more capable of compromise and meaningful relationships, at least until Candle’s elimination. He’s more willing to work with Yin and open up about his feelings, even if in a non-direct way. However, we don’t see much development from Yin. The most we get is in “Pesty Besties”, when Yin admits to struggling to assert himself.

Yin: (...)I didn’t know how to put my foot down, and I yelled, and I’m bad. I can’t do anything without Yang.

Yin: (…)I didn’t know how good you were at being assertive. I’m glad you’re here for our balance!

While this is a step forward, I can’t help but feel this is a rather surface-level form of development, especially considering the archetype Yin fills: the nice one. I find that a lot of arcs involving nice characters involve them becoming more assertive. Hell, it can even be seen in II itself, with Suitcase’s arc in season 2 revolving around becoming more assertive. It feels repetitive. But maybe that’s the point. There’s something deeper than Yin needs to work on that he either doesn’t recognize or is unwilling to face. Maybe his arc is meant to move in opposition to Yang. While Yang becomes better, maybe Yin is supposed to get worse, or at least have his flaws become more prominent. After all, it’s easy to look like a saint when your other half is the devil.

 But one can argue that Yang is the worse half. Of course Yin would be harsher with him! His history alone has given Yin enough reason not to trust him, and I do agree with that! However, Yang’s arc throughout season 3 revolves around his relationship with Yin, with him even agreeing to treat Yin better, a promise he held by supporting Yin’s desire to become more assertive. Even with these improvements though, Yang is regularly spoken to like he’s a child.

It’s also notable that later in the same episode, when Yang creates a mountain of soda cans, he lists respect as one of his demands.

Yang: Dinosaurs! Explosions! And respect!

While one could dismiss this as a petulant demand among other sillier demands, I think this is a small choice made to uncover a deeper desire of Yang’s. Also note how he’s standing on a tower of soda cans. Earlier in the episode, he says this:

Yang: They don’t want us in their team leader club because we’re not nearly as tall as them!

After this complaint, Yang’s gripe is compounded by OJ’s response to him clearly moping.

OJ: Wanna go press the button?

(Note: this quote is said with the tone one would use when talking to a child, made more blatant by OJ saying this to a clearly upset Yang.)

When Yang is atop his tower, this exchange happens:

Yang: I demand you finally take me seriously, shorties!

OJ: This was every day, back at the hotel. I didn't listen to him then... I refuse to now.

Again, this could be dismissed as a gag poking fun at Yang, but his wording, compared with later evidence, makes me feel like Yang could have a legitimate complaint that he’s only able to express through “immature” means. Chances are, he lashes out because it’s the only way he can make the others listen to him.

Throughout the series, we see plenty of Yang’s flaws. He’s impulsive, temperamental, violent, self-absorbed, et cetera, et cetera. However, we’ve seen throughout season three Yang’s attempts at improving. Yes, he’s still flawed, but we see more sympathetic characteristics. He’s passionate, assertive, confident, and while he denies this, shockingly vulnerable and trusting.

So, knowing what we know about the philosophy of Yin-Yang, it would only be natural for Yin to experience the opposite. We already see seeds of this in Blue Buried.

But Yin is the good half, isn’t his job to be good? Wouldn’t him having bad qualities defeat his purpose?

Yes, but that’s the point! In Taoism, neither Yin nor Yang are pure. The dots in their forms are meant to represent this. There’s yin in yang, darkness in light, good in evil. Additionally, in the finale, the contestants are free to grow beyond the stereotypes they were coded to be. This doesn’t automatically mean that everyone will change for the better.

Back on topic, in Blue Buried, Yin accuses Yang of murdering Blueberry based on a valid, but poorly-worded, question.

Yang: Uh, just one question-- what if you... WERE... the murderer?

Yin: Yang, is there something you'd like to share with the class?

Considering Yang’s past, this is a reasonable conclusion to make, at least on the surface, but let’s look a bit deeper. Firstly, if Yang did kill Blueberry, wouldn’t Yin know? Sure, Yang could have used mindful positioning to take control and leave Yin in the dark, but Yin never brings up any evidence that he could’ve done this. He doesn’t mention losing control, blacking out, or even having a moment of forgetfulness. The only discussion we see between them is Yin lashing out at Yang and accusing him of being selfish.

Yin: You know what Yang? Normally I’d complain about you embarrassing me with your insensitive remarks.

Yang: Okay, be normal then, loser.

Yin: But I’m not going to. Because I’m done.

Yang: Done? What do you mean done?

Yin: We were making real progress with mindful positioning, but ever since Candle switched alliances, it’s been all Yang all the time! No wonder Goo doesn’t see us as a unit anymore!

Goo: Oh, I wasn't trying to imply that I-

Yang: You think I’m the murderer, don’t you?

Yin: Of course I don’t think that. I KNOW IT!

Secondly, after accusing Yang, Yin makes no attempt to find other clues. We only make the initial accusation, then submit that as his final vote in the final verdict, even intimidating Goo into agreeing with him.

Yin: It's Yang.

Walkie-Talkie: What makes you say that?

Yin: It’s Yang. Pretty open and shut case. Right Goo?

Goo: I’m scared what would happen if I didn’t agree so yes!

Note that this accusation happens with no evidence from Yin, even when pressed for his reasoning. Yes, Yang has a reputation, but the reaction shown in the episode shows the rest of the cast being clearly confused. Some of them have even seen what Yang is capable of, and they still seem questioning towards Yin’s accusation.

Even when Blueberry himself reveals that he set up his own murder, Yin doesn’t address that he was wrong.

Yang: I told you it wasn’t me.

Yin: So everything’s still all about you, huh?

Yang: I DESERVE TO BE ABLE TO CLEAR MY NAME!

Yin: “I?” “My?” So self-absorbed!

Instead, when Yang brings up that he was wrong, Yin deflects him, bringing up his selfishness again, despite it not being relevant to Yang’s point. Even when he tries bringing the topic back around, Yin deflects again. They’re only interrupted by noticing Blueberry implying he’s going to eliminate Cabby, a common ally.

This isn’t even the first time Yin pulls something like this. Back during A Kick in the Right Direction, after Yin eats Dough, this exchange happens.

Yang: Yin ate him!

Yin: You can’t be serious!

Yang: It couldn’t have been me, I’m gluten free!

Yin: Okay, I ate him. I was starving!

Yin backs down fast, but it can’t be ignored how his first instinct was to deflect blame, albeit in a less direct way. However, pairing this interaction with Yin’s behavior in Blue Buried, I can’t help but notice a concerning pattern. It shows that Yin is willing to scapegoat Yang, even when he has no evidence or knows Yang didn’t do anything.

Furthermore, the way Yin talks about Yang, particularly in season two, feels like he views Yang as a burden to bear rather than a complimentary half.

Yin: If I was not attached to Yang, I wouldn’t do anything wrong!

Yin: I can’t [stand Yang], but we need to be together! Someone has to control his anger!

Pair this with how Yang talks about being freed from Yin in the same episode.

Yang: You can’t tell me what to do! I’m independent now! I’m doing this challenge my way!

Yang: Well, it doesn’t matter what you think. I control my feelings now.

Now, what does that spell for the future? While in the end of the episode, Yin says they had a personal victory, this always rang hollow to me. It feels more like they pushed the argument out of the way to try and help Cabby. But what if this was a purposeful choice? What if the rift between the two hasn’t been fixed, but had a bandage put over it to be taken care of later?

When Yang is separated from Yin, one line always catches my attention.

Yang: Well, it doesn’t matter what you think. I control my feelings now.

Now, I find this interesting because throughout the series, Yang is very vocal about his feelings.Especially in season two, Yin doesn’t often say that Yang can’t feel things, letting him butt in when they speak. However, I did notice something else. He appears to hold physical control of the body.

While Yang is vocal about wanting to do certain things, he doesn’t seem to act on these urges often, instead resorting to just arguing with Yin about it. The instances where he does gain control, however, appear to be whenever he catches Yin off guard or is misleading him. For example…

Yang kicking the ball at their own goal (S2E5)

Yin’s response implies that Yin was not aware that they were kicking at their own goal, or was under the impression that Yang was misled.

Yang eating the pizza (S2E4)

Arguably Yang taking full control, as Yin should have been able to tell what he was about to do.

Yang picking up the bike to destroy the TV (S3E9)

Presumably, Yin allows this action, as he’s shown being more upset than Yang moments before.

Yang doesn’t know how to move Yin’s leg (S3E8)

If they’re conjoined and share the ability to move their body, shouldn’t Yang have known that Yin can’t move that leg very well?

Despite wanting to move in different directions, Yang is only able to move them to the left after punching Yin and presumably distracting him (S2E1)

Both their eyes were closed in this scene, so they may have both been disoriented

Pairing this with Yang’s demands to be respected, this is more of a minor point, but I felt it should be brought up regardless.

Now, don’t get me wrong.I don’t think Yin is evil or anything. I think that wouldn’t be a good direction for his character. What I do think is that Yin-Yang’s character arc is very unbalanced, and that it would be interesting to see Yin move in inverse to Yang. I think it would be interesting to see Yin at his worst, and for the two to reach a point of balance that involves participation from both parties. After all, connection is a two-way street.

——

Please forgive me if this is shitty, for one I’m trapped on iPad Hell and can’t format very well. Additionally, I just really wanted to get this out. I apologize if none of this makes sense, I tend to do better in chats haha…but thank you for reading!

[flower-boi16]

The Problems With Charlie As The Main Protagonist

I've spoken about my thoughts on Charlie as a character before a few times on this blog, but I think it's finally time to discuss why Charlie isn't exactly the best protagonist. On the surface, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with her, she's likable and endearing enough and she's easy to root for. But...once you look deeper, the problems begin to rear their ugly head.

1. Charlie Never Grows

The first major issue with Charlie as a character is how she never really grows over the course of the first season. The show never really gives her much of an arc...? Like, by the end of the season, what does Charlie really learn by the end? The only thing I can think of is that she was right about sinners being redeemed and...that's it.

And it doesn't really make Charlie that particularly compelling as a character, she's entirely stagnant. She does have a conflict with her father, which, while executed fine, isn't enough to make her a developed character. She only gets small tinges of development and that isn't really enough for me.

Charlie doesn't learn anything or grow as a character, which makes her pretty underdeveloped as a character. The show never really gives her any real character flaws to grow from and become a better person, she's always portrayed as in the right anyway and never challenged once. Speaking of that...

2. Charlie is Always Right

This more or less ties back into the "Charlie never grows" point I've said before and I've talked about this several times before, but it's still an issue with Charlie's character; she is ALWAYS in the right. Charlie's "everyone can be redeemed" mentality is never once challenged by the narrative, and anybody who does oppose Charlie in any way is considered as wrong by the narrative.

The reason why this is a problem is because Hazbin Hotel heavily preaches about being against black-and-white moralities, as seen with Heaven and especially Adam. Heaven is meant to be seen as bad because of its black-and-white mindset of "Sinners can't be redeemed and never will". This is put on full display with Adam, and his song Hell is Forever, to the point it literally includes lyrics like "the rules are black and white there's no use in trying to fight it".

You Didn't Know further pushes this with this line "the rules are shades of gray when you don't do as you say and you make the wretched suffer just to kill them again".

So the show wants to push a message of "black and white morals are bad", but...it's rendered moot by the fact that Charlie is purely portrayed as in the right. Charlie is completely correct, everybody can be redeemed, everyone even the most evil people who did the worst possible things can still be good, and anyone who opposes her is wrong cuz she's completely in the right...gee, for a show so heavily against black-and-white moralities...doesn't this all seem very black and white in it of itself?

Charlie's "everyone can be redeemed" mentality is just as black and white as Adam's "nobody can be redeemed", they are both extremes leaning in opposite directions, that are also both wrong in their own ways, yet the show portrays Charlie's extreme as the right one and Adam's as the wrong one.

I've already talked about this before but Adam is a pure straw character; he only exists so Charlie can prove him wrong, he cant have any real character depth beyond being a generic asshole or have a real point because the show is so dead-set on making Charlie purely in the right no matter what; the narrative never challenges her and anyone who opposes her is portrayed as automatically in the wrong.

This is not the only time this happens btw. In episode 5, Lucifer is also portrayed as automatically wrong for opposing his daughter’s goals. He himself says that “Our people are AWFUL. They got gifted free will and look what they did with it!”, and the show…never counters this, despite what Lucifer is saying…being true. The people in Hell ARE awful and it's their own fault, many of them ARE deserving of death because…well, their shitty people.

Charlie is never challenged once throughout the show and its a problem because not only does it fly in the face of the show being so anti black and white, it also wastes an opportunity for the show to develop Charlie as a character; with her learning that some people can't be redeemed because they either are incapable or uninterested in changing.

That would fit more with the show’s anti-black-and-white themes and also have Charlie go through real growth as a character as she learns that not everything is all sunshine and rainbows. But sadly, we can't really have that.

So Charlie's ideals are never challenged by the narrative and thus it not only flies in the face of the show's themes it also wastes an opportunity for Charlie to grow as a character. Now it's best to get into the next issue with her...

3. Charlie is Barely Focused On

Another big issue with Charlie as the show's main protagonist is that the show doesn't really focus on her that much, especially the first half. Now, shows don't need to focus on the main protagonist at all times, obviously giving some screen time to other characters is definitely something shows should do.

But the problem is that Charlie gets very LITTLE focus in the series despite being the main protagonist, and this contributes to the problem of her being underdeveloped. The first half of the show is especially bad at this; episode 1 Is the only episode in the first half that focuses on Charlie, but even then it's overtaken by the B-plot involving the other characters trying to film a commercial.

Episodes 2&3 are entirely dedicated to what characters like Alastor or Angel Dust are doing and episode 4 is completely focused on Angel and his arc. It contributes to the issue of the show not being able to develop Charlie that much as a character because she's constantly being overshadowed by other characters. The second half is better in this regard for focusing more on Charlie but still, for the first half of the show, it feels like Charlie is overshadowed by other characters which is embarrassing because, well, she's the main character, yet she feels like she's barely gotten any actual spotlight.

4. Conclusion

I want to love Charlie as a character. I really do. I mean, she's a part of one of my favorite character archetypes. I always LOVE over joyful optimistic characters because I just find them a joy to watch on screen, but sadly, Charlie doesn't have much depth beyond that archetype. She isn't that developed making her fail to be much of a compelling protagonist, her ideology is never challenged by the narrative wasting an opportunity for her to grow and contradicting the show's themes, and she's heavily overshadowed by other characters despite being the main protagonist.

So ya, that's why Charlie isn't that great of a protagonist...bye.

[haemosexuality]

wyll and bow too

i need karlach and scorpia to be friends