#i like that characterization far better than 'he is evil and wants to do murder and bad things'

[quietwingsinthesky]

soulless sam was at his best when he was still being written as a version of sam, to accentuate parts of him that normally get held back, and not as 'guess he's evil now'. soulless sam when he's reflecting sam's tendency to lose sight of everything else in pursuit of a goal. soulless sam when he's just kind of rude without thinking about it without his filter on. soulless sam when he's equal parts intent on keeping dean with him and also happy to lie to him and keep him shut out of the things he knows dean won't like so that dean won't leave. soulless sam when he equally recognizes that he is a better hunter now, and also that he probably can't continue to exist without his soul. (you know. before they went along with making him just kind of evil.)

...soulless sam when he's begging for literally anyone to acknowledge his autonomy in this situation and not force him to take his soul back without knowing how much it could damage him and being ignored.

[darkstarofchaos]

Spoilers for EarthSpark S2 below the cut.

The problem with Starscream isn't that he was evil. I have to lead with that because apparently if you complain about how he was handled, people are just going to assume you wanted him to be redeemed. I am not a Starscream redemptionist, nor am I a fan of "redemptions" where an evil character becomes a Good Guy. One of the biggest issues I have with Megatron redemptions is that he never actually has to address what he did to his own side, he just fucks off to join the other side/goes his own way. Suffice to say, I was not hoping for EarthSpark to "redeem" Starscream (unless it was in the more personal sense of trying to do better by his own people).

The problem with Starscream is not that he was evil. The problem is that, to make him the specific brand of evil the Powers That Be wanted, they had to completely ignore his previous characterization.

I honestly did not have a problem with most of his (admittedly few) scenes. His motivation for being Evil was disappointingly shallow, but him being grumpy-but-accepting of the new Terrans fit with his S1 characterization. The bit where Skywarp complains when he doesn't do anything to punish "Spitfire's" disrespect could easily have been spun as him trying to be a better leader after his talk with Hashtag. I liked that he isn't stingy with praise when someone accomplishes something. Even the painfully underdeveloped motivation could have been expanded into him trying to do what he thought was best for his faction. All the building blocks for a villainous-but-sympathetic Starscream were right there.

Which is why watching everything fall apart in the last 20 minutes felt like character assassination.

You cannot convince me that the Starscream who knew Hashtag for an hour and was ready to risk his life for her is the same Starscream who murdered two children without blinking. You cannot convince me that the Starscream who criticized Megatron's violent leadership would consider it a compliment when he's called more cruel than Megatron. I don't care what previous Starscreams were like, this one had an established characterization that does not work with what we see later. Not unless working with the Autobots briefly completely disillusioned him to the possibility of a lasting peace.

Also, love how the time skip allows them to just avoid any sort of fallout from having the people you were working with go back to trying to kill you. Love how there was no deeper reason to the war restarting than "they're Decepticons". Heaven forbid we get any sort of conflict with the two sides trying and failing to work together, and the falling out being a shared responsibility and not just "the Cons were actually still evil, lol". Can't have anyone grappling with how things went wrong and wishing they'd done something differently to maintain the peace. Megatron yells at Starscream to end the war like the Autobots played no part in it continuing. Which is obviously the intent, but it just feels like such a lazy copout to keep the Good Guys morally pure.

The Decepticons were being hunted down and locked up. They had no reason to think well of the Autobots or the humans, which means that if the Autobots wanted peace, it was their responsibility to reach out and prove that things could be different. Yes, the Decepticons would need to put in effort too, but they were not the ones - at least not the only ones - who needed to prove that they meant well. If the two sides worked together for a while and the Decepticons still unanimously rejected the possibility of ending the war, the Autobots share the blame for that decision.

I have plenty of other issues with how S2 is going so far (why was Nightshade the only Terran who got completely relegated to side character?), but I'll save my rant about the Chaos Terrans for later. It'll be huge, trust me.

[misrepresentedmorallygrey]

PROPAGANDA

Basil

In Omori, Basil used to be your best friend up until the tragic events 4 years ago, where Sunny accidentally pushed his sister Mari down the stairs. Basil was the one who found Sunny action-paralyzed, realising that his sister was dead because of him. Basil panicked, thinking the police would take his best friend away forever. Thus, he orchestrated making it look like Mari hung herself, worsening the events of the game. Pretty fucked up stuff. Did I mention both Sunny and Basil were 12 years old at the time? Basil is often portrayed as either irrevocably evil or a pure soul who did nothing wrong. Both of these interpretations ignore the central issue that he COVERED UP A POTENTIAL MURDER because he was 12 AND DID NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO. Prior to meeting Sunny and his group of friends, Basil was said to be isolated and alone. Finally creating this connection with others seemed to have made him terrified to lose these connections, and he's portrayed throughout the game to be haunted by guilt and characterized by his loneliness and fear of losing his friends, but especially his best friend, Sunny. He seems to understand now that he's older that the whole situation was incredibly wrong, and lives in denial mostly about his friend's hand in the events. Nothing seems to suggest that he doesn't realize what he himself did was wrong by the time of the game. He doesn't speak up, though, for the player's sake. After all, Basil has no idea that Mari's death was an accident, and Sunny has retracted into himself and refused to communicate on the issue. The creator themselves descriped the character like this: "OMOCAT describes BASIL as caring and thoughtful in regards to the friends he so deeply cherishes. However, his loneliness and insecurities are what make him dependent on others, sometimes to a dangerous extent." "In fact, OMOCAT adds that BASIL feels deep emotions for those he cares about, and this sometimes places him in situations where he unintentionally hurts others and himself." An additional moment that occassionally garners criticism, is that sometime in the course of those 4 years, Basil marked out Mari's face from his photo album, which he kept of him and all of his friends. This creates conflict between him and another character in-universe. What many fans seem to miss about this issue is that Basil himself is engaging in the same destructive tendency that most of the other characters also are - trying to deal with overwhelming pain with some form of denial and alienation of his old relationships. At no point is there shown any sort of hostility towards Mari from him as a character. Basil is overall a character who used to be a pure small bean but ended up doing something incredibly serious because he was a scared child, unable to deal with the situation at hand rationally. The horrendous guilt and consequences of the tragedy that happened when everyone were too young to process it make up the central themes of the game. By trying to morally simplify Basil's actions, we're also ignoring the overall point of the story; The deeprooted consequences of something extremely traumatic happening to children at an age where they're not able to handle it, and the permanent consequences it's going to have on their lives going forwards.

There's definitely a chunk of the fandom that likes to over-villianize Basil, I suspect to make the main character seem better. A lot of them say Basil forced Sunny into doing something bad, which given what we know about Basil's character seems highly unlikely. And they also give him a lot of flack for (admittedly bad) actions he takes during a mental health crisis.

Yuno Kashiki

She's far more morally grey than folks want to admit. She's not evil, not by a long shot, but she's not exactly innocent either. She's innocent of her (perceived) crime in her media, but in terms of her attitude and outlook on life, I feel people downplay her incredibly grey actions. She uses / used compensated dating as a way to feel "warm" without forming emotional attachments. She hasn't killed anyone, nor has she manipulated anyone into killing for her, but that's why she's a good representative of a more everyday morally grey person. Her actions aren't outlandish or extreme, and if anything she can fade into the background with relative ease, yet I still firmly believe she's morally grey. tldr; Yuno has far more depth than the (general) fandom sees her as having. She gets misrepresented and her voice as a character is often unheard.

Yuno Kashiki is an 18 year old rental girlfriend and sexworker in Japan. She was incarcerated in Milgram for murder at the start of the series in 2020. Since then she has been repeatedly dehumanized by the fandom. Having her agency and statements on her own life overwhelmingly ignored in order to give her a sob story she has consistently rebuked at every turn. Stating from the beginning even if she had to beg for forgiveness like her life depended on it she would. However, it's simply been handed to her as the audience continually goes she was too young and stupid to actually be held accountable for her actions. The same audience that later tries to vote a 12 year old child abuse victim guilty because she has to learn her lesson and she knew what she was doing. Yes the fandom interprets the eighteen year old who chose to work in the profession they did simply because they wanted to something they have no qualms admitting as having less agency than the twelve year old. They treat her like a stupid baby who's only error was not knowing how a condom worked as a sexworker. They say her only crime is an abortion despite her overtly getting upset at other individuals alluded to be clients throughout her songs. Having the literal lyrics of her second song go, ""Poor naive little girl"? So off the mark, what's it to you? It's absurd. Like really who do you think you are? Don't weigh me meassure me against your morality. Just shut it, will you? You know it all." And "Carrssing me with your "good girl". Who needs your self-righteous pardon?" They're so committed to the abortion equating to the murder she's in here for idea that fans got mad at the writer for even writing it that way when at least several other very not fetuses are alluded to throughout her songs and at points literally shown. Her first song even highlighting her clients belongings throughout it with inverted coloring. But instead of thinking she may have just killed a client who was bothering her they've convinced themselves that she's just a silly little outlier who's not meant to be here because abortion isn't murder her body her choice which fair if it wasn't for the fact the only people putting it on the table to compare to murder is the audience themselves. Despite everyone else in here very literally killing actual people with lives, professions, etc as they frame her case as a feminism issue and say if you vote her guilty you just hate women or are anti-abortion. In response to the framing of her situation as she can hear the audiences thoughts on her she's only gotten more depressed and closed off as tge series has progressed blatantly stating to hurry all this up so she can go home. Because it doesn't matter what she says about her situation the audience and the guard by proxy will just end up creating whatever story they want about her so it doesn't matter she's over it. Which in all honesty fucking fair- Wouldn't anyone be after getting treated like that for going on four years.

[hifi-walkman]

Super annoying to me how much Steven Universe Future bought into the "rose quartz is evil" shit. like... no???

like, how is the conclusion of volleyball's episode "actually rose quartz was just bad" and not, "I'm sorry you never got to meet the person she became... that you never got to hear her apologize". How is the conclusion of Rose Buds that "oh rose quartz is bad actually" and not, "How the fuck did the remaining diamonds just do this to them. that's fucked up."

How is "pink diamond was violent and childish" somehow seen as an incompatible statement with "rose quartz was caring and mature"... like, the entire original show is about people growing and changing for the better.

It feels like Future is overly concerned with internet pedants, where it really shouldn't be.

Steven in season 4 and 5 spends the "being wrong" portion of his arc believing he had to attone for things his mother did, that he had some "magical destiny" and coming to resent his mother's actions (that freed a planet, saved a species, and eventually resulted in the liberation of the entirety of the diamond empire, and only caused bad things to the extent that the other diamonds reacted to it with cruelty, which was oftentimes completely unexpected by rose, like with the diamond blast and human zoo).

By the end of the original show it feels like Steven finally figures out "Oh wait, no I'm just supposed to be a person" as the final concluding message of the series. that being whoever you are matters far more than any sort of destiny or purpose someone else could ever place upon you. But future spends its opening episodes mostly focusing on backpedaling that progress in perspective to the point that we're back to an "evilness" of rose greater than when Steven thought she was a hypocritical murderer!

a sidenote on the movie, I think it also has a bit of this problem, "textual analysis" of story events shows that spinel is the consequence of rose's actions as a child, that is only resolved by the consequences of her actions as an adult (steven re-enacting the history of the crystal gems' arcs and interactions with rose throughout the movie letting them help him at the end of the movie... and steven existing at all), but the dialog shows that at the least, Steven conceptualizes his mother as a bad person, and at most the movie expects you to agree with that.

(also I really don't want to have a lengthy discussion about "why she's evil" or something. constant textual evidence in the original show demonstrate that she was a good person in a terrible situation, who made a lot of mistakes as a child, and was maybe a bit overly fond of keeping secrets from her loved ones... Keeping secrets from people is not an overwhelming character evil, it's like the most common character flaw of literally everyone in the show, including Steven. Rose is not uniquely evil for it. Characterizing her actions as "Abuse" is silly)

[ilynpilled]

Going by mylestoyne headcanon of arthur i feel like he and jaime had a similar relationship to that of sansa/joffrey. Like not being cappable of acknowledge that they are 🌠crazy🌠 for a while

What so you think?

idk what Lee’s exact hcs are, but I think Arthur is a very functional character in canon anyway. He exists more as a romanticized concept to most characters than an actual human being. He is a legend personified, and I am obviously not gonna be shocked if George is gonna reveal things about him that will deconstruct his myth more. I personally do not think Arthur is on the level of someone like Joff though, nor would I find that to be necessary to subvert his character. He is the legendary knight for Jaime, as Joff is prince charming for Sansa, sure, like I think you can apply parallels to their quixotic view of such things, but I do not think the twist would have to be him revealed to be someone deeply evil or cruel or fucked up in the head for it to still be thematically meaningful.

Some passages that I do find very informative so far though:

This is a very symbolically rich ritual that is happening here. Even Jaime himself specifically points out how young he was. The language is very interesting: “bled anew” and “a boy knelt; a knight rose”. The language used is establishing a form of parallel between the monster that little girls face (marriage, bridal slavery) with the monster that little boys do (knighthood). These are violent and fatal constructs designed around gender by westerosi society. Just as Arthur seems to embody the virtues of knighthood (his chivalry, his martial prowess), he seems to perpetuate its flaws too. The image that is being conjured here is the sacrifice and bleeding of a 15 year old boy at the altar of knighthood, along with the whole coming of age parallel. But still, there is a darker layer to it that clearly comes across.

This is not a groundbreaking interpretation or anything but I also think Arthur is supposed to be the embodiment of an idealistic image that covers up systemic cracks:

Ned is faced with a certain reality in this dream. One very relevant to him in particular since his relationship with honor. The Kingsguard are upholding their vows above all else. Based on what Gerold says, it is not just about loyalty to Rhaegar, but also Aerys, who they know to be a maniacal tyrant, and we know to be a man ready to commit mass murder on the scale of about half a million people. I said this before but the Kingsguard abide by deeply flawed moral constructs that are designed to serve a feudalistic system. It is framed as more moral for them to passively stand by and serve their king as he commits atrocities than to protect the innocent:

We do also know that Arthur was closer to Rhaegar than anyone else on the KG, so his actions of passivity and following orders might not have been the same as a blind loyalty to his vows. Rhaegar wanted to make changes, he tells this to Jaime directly before riding to his doom. Arthur could very well have been acting primarily in the hopes of serving Rhaegar’s supposed better world. We have ways that he is characterized, and i think he is juxtaposed with Gerold enough to establish conflict in his character and frames him pretty differently. That still does not change the reality and consequences of his actions though.

Another key passage:

This paints him in a pretty moral light. However, how I read Jaime’s description of this: I do not think that can be conflated with a purely altruistic desire to aid the smallfolk. Gaining their love was a tool for a goal, a means to an end: getting the Kingswood Brotherhood. Sure, the effects of that are objectively good, and it meaningfully aids smallfolk, so one could argue that these things matter little, but there is a key issue here. There is an ulterior motive. The moment your goals do not allign with morally good actions, and your king does things that makes the people suffer, the whole thing falls apart. This is something that Jaime’s AFfC arc deals with constantly. It is how I read the golden hand, the one that covers up the ugliness of his stump. He should know this, the kingslayer will always be more honorable than golden hand the just. True “honor” does not come with glory (you better leave that horse behind my guy).

Nonetheless, I believe George does really like to play around with the idea that, at the end of the day, his characters are not just gods, monsters, or legends, but humans. They are also not just metaphors. There is a lot on the shoulders of a man that is a living legend. Many will inevitably crumble under that weight, so that is another interesting layer worthy of exploration. Arthur could have been a man with good intentions who was “soiled by the white cloak” along the way.

In terms of the relationship of these two, I want Jaime to realize that Arthur Dayne is not the one he should try to emulate.

He might have dreamed of him as a young boy, but he dreamed of Brienne as an adult.

but if you hc him as westerosi patrick bateman thats funny asl too

[sketching-shark]

hmmmmmmMmMMMMM so lego show spoilers ahead & good chance this is just me misunderstanding things and/or being too harsh on a silly goofy lego show and/or hanging onto an increasingly dwindling hope that Monkie Kid will give a better explanation for the Monkey King’s behavior than they’ve so far done beyond “Sun Wukong’s a impulsive idiot 5 eva,” but does it seem to anyone else that in the process of making a number of the villains from Journey to the West more relatable that it’s resulted in Sun Wukong just coming off as worse and worse? (to say nothing of the “intelligent” part of “intelligent stone monkey” seems to be getting dissolved in favor of hyperfocusing on the ol’ chaotic/impulsive characterization but that’s a conversation for another day).

Like in the og classic one of the things that makes the Monkey King a fascinating character is that he IS very violent, BUT his violence always has a clear reason with clear thinking behind it & which he’s often shockingly honest about. So to give a few examples! Why did Sun Wukong wage his havoc against heaven? Because heaven sent an entire army against him after he ruined one(1) banquet. Why did he attack the yaoguai kings of the Lion-Camel ridge? Because they were planning to eat the Tang monk (and had already eaten tons upon tons of other humans like holy HELL the description of their actions & their cave is gnarly). Why did he murder the Six-Eared Macaque? Because the Six-Eared Macaque attacked his pilgrim family, aimed to murder-replace him, and was using SWK’s monkey family as his personal tools to do so. So this SWK is a murderer many times over as he himself freely admits, but he tends to have pretty clear & dare I say understandable reasons for being a murder monkey.

But in Monkie Kid? Well, turns out that Sun Wukong convinced his sworn brothers to attack heaven again AFTER his havoc in heaven, and presumably thus got them all in a heap of trouble/trapped in an evil scroll for something he instigated! Why did he attack the other yaoguai kings? I guess he’s just a power-hungry jerk who betrays everyone now! Why did he murder the Six-Eared Macaque? Ditto the previous quote.

Now there is some slight indication that this betrayal of his former sworn brothers was because he was literally tortured into submission by heaven, but this only comes in a brief hint, while again the focus seems to be on how thoroughly Sun Wukong hurt and failed literally everyone he’s ever cared for up into the show’s present. And this has been true for the past couple of seasons. IDK, maybe this will all end with him being the ultimate example of “even if you are struggling with crushing grief and guilt & feel like you need to solve everything by yourself you need to accept help & tell people things,” but for the time being it’s honestly just making the Monkey King seem like someone who’s incapable of doing the right thing or changing for the better and who no one would possibly want to interact with.

Kind of does make the sudden concern for SWK that characters who clearly hate his guts or have some beef with him show when he gets locked in the evil scroll weird. Like, why do you care?

[inu-jiru]

TORIEL RANT INCOMING:

So, a couple years back, I wrote a disorganized rant about why I was frustrated with Toriel’s character in Undertale, and what I’ve seen in the anniversary post (as well as Deltarune) show me that my issues with Toriel still exist. And before I say anything else, I KNOW that Undertale is about a bunch of flawed characters. I KNOW that know one is meant to be perfect. I KNOW that characters have flaws. My issue is, how am I expected to care about a character who won’t acknowledge her flaws while constantly pointing out the flaws of others?

My issue with Toriel is her lack of accountability and how she’s seemingly untouchable by the rest of the cast when it comes to criticism. For a game that rewards mercy and grace, she constantly denies it from others (Asgore mostly, but he’s not the only example), and is honestly has quite a nasty personality behind those butterscotch pies. I’m not saying she’s secretly some evil witch or something, but she’s far less likeable to me because she’s coddled by the narrative and no one challenges her flawed way of thinking. I hate to do this, because I believe that Toby Fox is a more competent writer than Vivziepop, but Toriel kinda reminds me of Stolas in that regard, and I already despise Stolas as a character, the lack of self-awareness, shifting blame onto others, no one in the narrative actually calling them out and acting all chummy despite barely knowing them, and a spouse who takes the fandom’s ire. I know that Stella is (badly) written to be a one-note villain to justify Stolas’ behavior, and while I extend Stella grace because of that unfortunate fact, I can’t be as kind to Toriel because I know she could be written better.

I favor Asgore as a character because he takes accountability not only for himself, but for his people. He was angry when he announced the war; I can’t imagine any parent would be rational the second after the murder of their kid. I see Toriel’s running away in a similar light, or at least, I want to. The thing stopping me is that there doesn’t seem to be any realization on her part that she was upset or that Asgore, the father of her murdered child, might not have been in the best state of mind when he made that order. She seems to forget the man she married and is content to label him and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the Underground, as the evil ones, while ironically being quiet should Frisk murder a Froggit on front of her or show up to her house covered in dust. For the brains behind the throne, she’s a bit dense, and I can’t tell if that’s a writing issue or simply a character flaw.

It frustrates me that her black-and-white way of thinking is never challenged throughout the game and how she’s allowed to lecture Asgore and lord over others despite giving up her place as Queen. To be fair, the only member of the main cast I could realistically see calling her out for appearing out of nowhere and taking over is Undyne, given how she rebels against Toriel in one of the endings. In the pacifist ending, though, she’s weirdly chill with her possible partner being fired over a genuine mistake in an effort to find a peaceful alternative to SOUL collecting. The characterization seems off between the Pacifist and Neutral endings, and Asgore is similar, as he seems far more self-aware and thoughtful and quick to adopt Frisk in the neutral runs, while he’s a whimpering coward who can’t make decisions the second Toriel appears. Again, I don’t know if these are genuine character flaws or just issues with the writing itself.

I think I’d like Toriel better had she:

1. Done a better job of actually protecting the humans, because it seems like she either just is useless at watching them or waits for the very last second to swoop in and play the hero, like with Frisk.

2. Gone WITH Frisk to ensure their safety as the last SOUL required instead of just abandoning them for her own feelings (honestly, she seems like she only really cares when it’s convenient, otherwise it’s out of sight, out of mind), and maybe actually seeing how Asgore provided his people with hope while compromising and playing the long game.

3. Stayed in the Underground and stuck with her morals rather than moving to the surface and enjoying the benefits that OTHERS had to sacrifice their morals for.

4. Was called out by Undyne in the True Pacifist Run, or at least challenged for appearing out of nowhere because, realistically, only Sans knows who she is, and even that’s pushing it. Sure she’d probably double down on her own flawed logic, but at least the issue of her abandoning her people would actually be addressed and not ignored because “tee hee Soriel! tee hee Undyne and Alphys are gonna kiss!!!”

And just to touch on Asgore really quickly, I’m not saying how he went about things was the perfect solution, but there is no squeaky-clean way to handle the situation of the Barrier. Like it or not, 7 people are required to die if the Barrier is to be broken, since the experiments were a bust in the worst way possible. The thing is, I don’t see why it couldn’t have been a plot point that Asgore raised the humans himself. I get that they wanted to make it ambiguous as to if he was a scary monster like Toriel describes him, or a soft baby like the kingdom claims, but it could’ve worked. Have Asgore shift his decree when he’s more rational to capturing humans and having them delivered to him to “deal with”. Not everyone would follow this, realistically, because some are far more murder-happy than others (gotta put those combat encounters somewhere), but imagine Frisk going around and hearing about the humans being sent off to Asgore and never been seen again, Asgore banning entrance his house to honor his lost family, but still going out and being the friendly king he truly wants to be. All the while, he raises up the humans who choose to seek peace with him, and those who act violently are the ones who face an early end. Make it a parallel to Toriel’s shoebox of different sized shoes, and Asgore’s basement of different sized graves. I don’t know, I guess what I’m saying is neither character was really given much time to properly be explored. I still enjoy the game and it’s impact on me, but it’s definitely not perfect. I have much more I could rant about, but I’d be here all night.

Deltarune!Toriel and Asgore are hard to watch, honestly. Asgore feels like even more of a brainless idiot who’s only character traits are being divorced and poor, while Toriel comes off as one of those overbearing Christian moms who clutch their pearls at everything, which is…definitely a choice. Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I want to like Toriel, I do. Hell, even during my hardcore Asgoriel days, I would actually write Toriel finally gaining some self-awareness and gaining some more nuance to her character, while Asgore actually learns to stand up for himself and not put up with Toriel’s passive-aggressiveness despite still loving her. Maybe I should write something about it for old time’s sake.

Anyway, that’s it for now. This is just my thoughts, agree or disagree if you want.

[superego-imagines]

DC/Marvel characters that you're more familiar with to write for?

Glad you asked! So I'd definitely say I'm more familiar with DC than Marvel. All of the major Justice League Members I'm fairly confident on. (Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman). Honestly I think I could do a pretty good job on any DC character, even the deeper cuts, like Adam Strange or Etrigan. As far as Marvel I'm pretty confident on X-Men members, Spiderman, Deadpool, and the Fantastic Four. I can definitely write the Avengers but I know there’s already a lot of those fics out there.

Some of my favorite characters that aren't as popular but I love and would love to write: Blue Beetle (Ted Kord), Booster Gold, the Doom Patrol (Grant Morrison run/Show inspired), Animal Man, Shocker, Martian Manhunter, Killer Moth, Owl-Man (Watchmen), Green Arrow, and Plastic Man. I love weirdos, fuckups, and fail-kings.

I also love all villans and probably specialize in writing them. Obviously Batman’s Rogues are number one but the Sinister Six (and by Six I mean Spidermans entire Rogues Gallery), Flash’s Rogues, and The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants are all great and really fun to write. That said, I love all villans. If you wanna be making out with Dr. Sivana’s chrome dome, plotting to murder a literal baby with Black Manta, snorting a line with Snowflame, or rolling around town with Big Wheel then I want to help fulfill that dream. There is no villan too niche, and the weirder the better in my book.

All this being said, my partner in crime is a veritable encyclopedia for all things Marvel and DC so if there's a character you want that I don't know super well, shoot me an ask anyway. He can give me a run down on every appearance they've ever had and make sure I'm doing them justice lol.

The one thing I will say is that like a lot of comic book fans I tend to hodgepodge together my own interpretations of characters based on the comic runs I like, vibes-based headcanon, and ignoring anything I think is bad characterization. (Looking at you Ultimate Marvel). I also don't engage in much fandom outside of my little bubble so my characterization might not match with what's majorly accepted fanon. But I think that's fun in its own way and I always try to do characters justice.

If you have any more questions or want to clarify anything feel free to ask!

[alpaca-clouds]

Castlevania: Nocturne - Some Thoughts

Okay, wanted to post this on Monday, but doing it today, because new trailer is probably dropping soon.

So, here we are with still little to no news about Castlevania: Nocturne, more than one year after the announcement. Basically all we can do right now is speculate, right? So, yeah, let me speculate just a bit. Or rather think "out loud" about some of the things we do know and what it might mean.

Basically all we know so far is:

It is loosely based on/inspired by Rondo of Blood and Symphony of the Night

It is gonna be set in France during the French revolution

We definitely will see Richter, Maria and Alucard in it (Alucard based on that we can hear his voice during the trailer)

And... that is basically it.

The interesting thing here is obviously that it is set in France and during the French Revolution, while the game was still very much set in Wallachia and had no real link with the French Revolution outside of this vague idea in the game that Dracula always comes back during a time of strive.

Now personally, I am wondering mostly how the series is gonna relate to the end of the series. Aka: How much additional trauma are they going to pile onto Alucard?

Because the series obviously ends with the outlook of sharing the knowledge from the castle and the Belmont Hold, while also Isaac vows to share his knowledge and build a way for people to be kind (aka dismantling the current system). And if we really were to think about it... Something real bad needs to have happened after that to allow the French Revolution to still happen and especially happen in the 18th century.

Because logically speaking shared knowledge (which in this case would mean knowledge about at least electricity and medicine - and if we are totally honest, also knowledge about motors, because without those there are no generators) would rather quickly revolutionize the world and would create an alternate history apart from our actual history.

Which kinda would necessitate that something bad has happened to the village of Belmont and all of that. Probably to Isaac, too.

The other question is the question of Dracula. Because while technically speaking it has not been confirmed that Richter, Maria, and presumably Alucard will fight Dracula, I will assume this is the case until the opposite has been confirmed. Because it is Castlevania after all and in most of Castlevania the end goal is to defeat Dracula.

And I do see Nocturne at this point running into the issue of characterization and especially - again - the ending of the old series.

For the most part the games obviously build off of Dracula as this big imposing villain, who is for the most part evil. Sure, we do have both the entire story with Elisabetha for Mathias and then Lisa as the mother of Alucard and it being vaguely referenced as the motivation. But the series obviously then went into outright making Dracula's wrath an almost impulsive reaction to Lisa's murder. Instead of making him evil, they made him unreasonable and overly emotional, while not holding humans in general high regard. But his genocide definitely a reaction to the pain and trauma from Lisa's death.

And of course in the end, with Lisa returned to the living, he does seem to be a lot better. Which leaves me with the following questions for this:

If Lisa was murdered again, why did he not do the entire genocide earlier again?

If she lived out her life, why do the genocide now?

And yes, admittedly, I would kinda feel betrayed on all of this. Because - unpopular opinion, apparently - I really do like the hopeful note on which the series is ending. I kinda like the idea of Dracula actually being able to be good.

Of course, one way out would be to have Dracula being controlled by some force (and be it shaft). But... Yeah, I don't know. I am really interested in seeing how they are going to play that one out.

Now, the other thing is of course: Why France?

For the most part the plot of Castlevania in the games is very much tied to Wallachia. (Random sidenote, I still love how the western title of the game series comes clearly from Castle + Transylvania, based on the Dracula novel being set in Transylvania of course. But the games take actually place in Wallachia, so the place that the historical Vlad Tepes Draculae would've been tied to.)

There are of course ties to France. The Belmont family originates in France and so does Mathias originally. Though outside of Lament of Innocence this is rarely ever addressed in any way or form.

And a part of me is wondering, whether they might actually dig real deep into the game lore and pull out vampire Gilles deRais, given that he is not only French, but deeply tied to the French history. He is not just a Frenchmen, he literally played a role into making France what it is today - which could link him then to the French revolution.

Because I do have to believe, that there is a deeper plot reason to it being set in France and during the French revolution. And yes, sure, Rondo of Blood does in fact take place in 1792, which is when the revolutionary wars started in France.

But... If someone tries to revive Dracula in France during the time... That person is going have a link to French history, right?

And yes, it might well be, that my thoughts instantly went to deRais, because obviously I decided to use him in my own fanfiction. But he is definitely the character in Castlevania lore - outside of Mathias and Leon - with the closest links to France.

Well, just some thoughts.

[thsc-stuffs]

Okay but like.

I don't see Galeforce as 'evil' in any of my characterizations. I usually see him as a man with a skewed view of right and wrong, a too-strong sense of justice, a few screws loose and a whole lot of manipulation from his upbringing and time in the Military. Throw various vendettas against Toppats into that mix- maybe someone he was close to was a victim of their robberies or worse murder. Maybe he watched someone he was close to become worse and worse and then cut everyone off in a blaze as they fled to join the clan. Maybe he's simply been raised that way, told endlessly "they're evil incarnate and we need to take them down".

Maybe he just doesn't know. It'd be reasonable to assume that a government who wants these criminals gone would turn a blind eye to whatever good they may do- a clan with such power would surely manage to do some good, intentionally or not. They'd turn a blind eye to how many of the clan's members are there because of the government's own failures, and I'm sure they'd keep all of this from their fighting force.

One of our favorite tropes with Galeforce is him only knowing of the clan as this evil group of thieves and murderers... only to end up among them, one way or another, and realize it's more like a group of lost kids who got so tired of fighting to stay alive that they fled to the only place they wouldn't have to do so anymore. This goes hand-in-hand with my general headcanon that the Toppats do a lot more than just steal shit- I'd describe them more as vague anti-heros, keeping the corruption of the world under their thumb, using it for their own (not entirely innocent) purposes.

But just. Imagine Galeforce getting taken prisoner, expecting torture and horrid conditions, but instead... he's set into what looks more like a hotel room than a prison cell, fed three good meals a day, clothed and treated not as a friend by any means, but far better than any of his own men, even himself, would treat one of their enemies. I like to think of him realizing some things, of Reginald lecturing him on the corruption of his own government. Really like that setup of a Toppat Galeforce AU

[sequesteredbhaalspawn]

This really only matters if you care about Forgotten Realms content outside of BG3. If that doesn't matter to you, and you never plan on exploring it- none this should mean anything to you (as someone who has played the original games - not just the enhanced editions - I have lots of negative feels about the returning characters, and as someone who knows a lot of general lore of the setting at large I am bitter about all of the lore inaccuracies). 😂

Please note, I do like and enjoy BG3. I am just disappointed when it comes to some of it's writing and the things it gets wrong (it would probably be best to just view Bg3 as completely disconnected from all previous and all future Forgotten Realm things, lol).

edit: making this post non reblogable because I'm not looking to be a killjoy tonight.

1. In Viconia's ending slides for BG2 she leaves Shar. Beyond that she is not written in character. Her being unwilling is harm children was one of the big steps, that drew her away from worshiping Lolth (before she worshipped Shar), she never would had been a source of harm for child Shadowheart. She saw her own brother (the only person she ever cared about before coming to the surface) turn into a drider and therefore doomed to eternal suffering- is what finally broke her faith in Lolth. She wouldn't do the same to Shadowheart's parents. The thing she wouldn't do or endure from Lolth she would also not put up with from Shar.

Viconia is still an evil character (neutral evil) if you don't put the work in to help her change her alignment (to true neutral). The above is written from the view of her still being evil.

2.Sarevok was never a Bhaalists, and he is completely not written in character. He was going to takes Bhaal's godhood for himself. He was never a worshiper of him. Saying his characterize is "in name only" would be the biggest understatement to ever be made. And I can't really summarize it easily as I did Viconia's. Play BG1&2. (Sarevok's alignment can also be changed. In his case from Chaotic Evil to Chaotic Good, the perspective I'm coming from is if he's still evil, chaotic evil does not mean cartoonishly evil, nor does it mean he'll do literally anything because he's evil. Chaotic evil characters still have characterizations and things that they would do and things they wouldn't do). Another big point is that Sarevok would never be an abuse parent after how his foster father treated him. It is very out of character for him. Sarevok is very much capable of love. He truly loved Tomoko, and after BG2 he goes as far to escort her body back to her home country so she can be buried there. He still does that for her even if he is still chaotic evil.

3.For Zariel watch this video. But what it boils down to is "she's evil, but not like that. This video is done better than how I could ever word it.

4. Bhaal is traditionally Lawful evil (he was switched to neutral Evil for no story based reason for 5e, but for 1e - 4e he was lawful evil, I'm salty about 5e meta changes in general though). BG3 portrays him as chaotic evil. His motivations make 0 sense if you take into account decades of characterization. Again it's an "evil but not that way" kind of deal.

But to keep it simple, read his section in Faith & Avatars. It is a very simply overview. beyond reading both The Avatar and Moonshea Trilogies for a more full picture of him, it's the best source.

(there's also the fact that Durge and Orin literally couldn't exists as Bhaalspawn at all, due to Bhaal being dead until 1482. And we know Durge was alive in the 1470s because he was already and adult murdering people in the browser game leading up to the full release of the game Blood in Baldur's Gate, but that's a whole other can of warms that I don't want to think about anymore. 🤣 and the fact the to be the leader of Bhaal's church - which Durge is - being lawful evil is a literal requirement for the job. I digress.)

5.BG3 comes across as very antithesis, something I am against. So it paints all of the gods in a bad light in ways that are annoying (like Mystra being dead until Gale was 22, and not being fully a god again until he was 30 - Gale is 35 in BG3 - but the game paints her a predatory groomer who's been aware of him since he was a child when she was literally dead and never could have meet him).

tldr: The evil characters are not evil in the ways they are suppose to be evil. They are being evil in very out of character sort of ways and not evil in in-character ways.

BG3 loves reducing evil characters (and the gods in general- they all get characterized as evil when they're not) in everything they are not.

[tarobytez]

disability in the Six Of Crows Duology; an analysis of Kaz Brekker, Wylan Van Eck, and the fandom’s treatment of them.

****Note: I originally wrote this for a tiktok series, which im still going to do, but i wanted to post here as well bc tumblr is major contributor to what im going to talk about

CW: ableism, filicide, abuse

In the Six of Crows duology, Leigh Bardugo delicately subverts and melds harmful disability tropes into her narrative, unpacking them in a way that I, as a disabled person, found immensely refreshing and…. just brilliant. 

But what did you all do with that? Well, you fucked it up. Instead of critically looking at the characters, y’all just chose to be ableist. 

For the next few videos paragraphs im going to unpack disability theory (largely the stuff surrounding media, for obvious reasons) and how it relates to Six Of Crows and the characterization of Kaz Brekker and Wylan Van Eck, then how, despite their brilliant writing, y’all completely overlooked the actual text and continuously revert them to ableist cariactures.

Disclaimer: 1. Shocker - i am disabled. I have also extensively researched disability theory and am very active in the disabled community. Basically, I know my shit. 2. im going to be mad in these videos this analysis. Because the way y’all have been acting has been going on for a long ass time and im fuckin sick of it. I don’t give a shit about non-disabled feelings, die mad

Firstly, I’m going to discuss Kaz, his play on the stereotypical “mean cripple” trope and how Bardugo subverts it, his cane, and disabled rage. Then, I am going to discuss Wylan, the “inspiration porn” stereotype, caregivers / parents, and the social model of disability. Finally, I will then explain the problems in the fandom from my perspective as a disabled person, largely when it comes to wylan, bc yall cant leave that boy tf alone.

Kaz Brekker

Think of a character who uses a cane (obviously not Kaz). Now, are they evil, dubiously moral, or just an asshole in general? Because nearly example I can think of is: whether it be Lots’O from Toy Story, Lucius Malfoy, or even Scrooge and Mr.Gold from Once Upon A Time all have canes (the last two even having their canes appear less and less as they become better people)

The mean/evil cripple trope is far more common than you would think. Villains with different bodies are confined to the role of “evil”. To quote TV Tropes, who I think did a brilliant job on explaining it “The first is rooted in eugenics-based ideas linking disability or other physical deformities with a "natural" predisposition towards madness, criminality, vice, etc. The Rule of Symbolism is often at work here, since a "crippled" body can be used to represent a "crippled" soul — and indeed, a disabled villain is usually put in contrast to a morally upright and physically "perfect" hero. Whether consciously on the part of the writer or not, this can reinforce cultural ideas of disability making a person inherently inferior or negative, much in the same way the Sissy Villain or Depraved Homosexual trope associate sexual and gender nonconformity with evil. ”

Our introduction to Kaz affirms this notion of him being bad or morally bankrupt, with “Kaz Brekker didn’t need a reason”, etc. This mythologized version of himself, the “bastard of the barrel” actively fed into this misconception. But, as we the audience are privy to his inner thoughts, know that he is just a teenager like every other Crow. He is complex, his disability isn’t this tragic backstory, he just fell off a roof. It’s not his main motivation, nor does he curse revenge for making him a cripple - it is just another part of who he is. 

His cane (though the shows version fills me with rage but-) is an extension of Kaz - he fights with it, but it has a purpose. Another common thing in media is for canes to be simply accessories, but while Kaz’ cane is fashionable, it has purpose.

The quote “There was no part of him that was not broken, that had not healed wrong and there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken.” is so fucking powerful. Kaz does not want nor need a cure - its said in Crooked Kingdom that his leg could most likely be healed, but he chooses not to. Abled-bodied people tend to dismiss this thought as Kaz being stubborn but it shows a reality of acceptance of his disability that is just, so refreshing.

In chapter 22 of SOC, we see disabled rage done right - when he is called a cripple by the Fjerdan inmate, Kaz is pissed - the important detail being that he is pissed at the Fjerdan, at society for ableism, not blaming it on being disabled or wishing he could be normal. He takes action, dislocating the asshole’s shoulder and proving to him, and to a lesser extent, himself, that he is just as capable as anyone else, not in spite of, but because he is disabled. And that is the point of Kaz, harking back to the line that “there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken”. 

I cried on numerous occasions while reading the SOC duology, but the parts I highlighted in this section especially so. I, as many other disabled people do, have had a long and tumultuous relationship with our disability/es, and for many still struggle. But Kaz Brekker gave me an empowered disabled character who accepts themselves, and that means the world to me. 

Keeping that in mind, I hope you can understand why it hurts so much to disabled people when you either erase Kaz’s disability (whether through cosplay or fanfiction), or portray him as a “broken boy uwu”, especially implying that he would want a cure. That flies in the face of canon and is inherently fucking ableist. (if u think im mad wait until the next section)

Next, we have Wylan.  

Oh fucking boy. 

I love Wylan so fucking much, and y’all just do not seem to understand his character? Like at all? Since this is disability-centric, I’m not going to discuss how the intersection of his queerness also contributes to these issues, but trust me when I say it’s a contributing factor to what i'm going to say.

Wylan, motherfucking Van Eck. If you ableist pricks don’t take ur fucking hands off him right now im going to fight you. I see Wylan as a subversion another, and in my opinion more insidious stereotype pf disabled people - inspiration porn.

Cara Liebowitz in a 2015 article on the blog The Body Is Not An Apology explains in greater detail how inspiration porn is impactful in real life, but media is a major contributing factor to this reality. The technical definition is “the portrayal of people with disabilities as inspirational solely or in part on the basis of their disability” - but that does not cover it fully. 

Inspiration porn does lasting damage on the disabled community as it implies that disability is a negative that you need to “overcome” or “triumph” instead of something one can feel proud of. It exploits disabled people for the development of non-disabled people, and in media often the white male protagonist. Framing disability as inherently negative perpetuates ideals of eugenics and cures - see Autism $peaks’ “I Am Autism” ad. Inspiration porn is also incredibly patronizing as it implies that we cannot take care of ourselves, or do things like non-disabled people do. Because i stg some of you tend to think that we just sit around all day wishing we weren’t disabled. 

Another important theory ideal that is necessary when thinking about Wylan is the experience of feeling like a burden simply for needing help or accommodations. This is especially true when it comes to familial relationships, and internalized ableism.

The rhetoric that Wylan’s father drilled into his head, that he is “defective”, “a mistake”, and “needs to be corrected”, that he (Jan) was “cursed with a moron for a child” is a long held belief that disabled people hear relentlessly. And while many see Van Eck’s attempted murder of Wylan as “preposturous” and overall something that you would never think happens today - filicide (a parent murdering their child) is more common than you would like to believe. Without even mentioning the countless and often unreported deaths of disabled people due to lack of / insufficient / neglectful medical care, in a study on children who died from the result of household abuse, 40 of 42 of them (95%) were diagnosed with disabilities. Van Eck is not some caricature of ableist ideals - he is a real reflection on how many people and family members view disability. 

Circling back to how Wylan unpacks the inspiration porn trope - he is 3 dimensional, he is not only used to develop the other characters, he is just *chefs kiss* Leigh, imo, put so much love and care into the creation of Wylan and his story and character growth that is representative of a larger feeling in the disabled community. 

That being said, what you non-disabled motherfuckers have done to him.

The “haha Wylan can’t read” jokes aren’t and were not funny. Y’all literally boiled down everything Wylan is to him being dyslexic. And it’s like,,,, the only thing you can say about him. You ignore every other part of him other than his disability, and then mock him for it. There’s so much you can say about Wylan - simping for Jesper, being band kid and playing the fuckin flute, literally anything else. But no, you just chose to mock his disability, excellent fucking job!

Next up on “ableds stfu” - infantilization! y’all are so fucking condescending to Wylan, and treat him like a fucking toddler. And while partly it is due to his sexuality i think a larger portion is him being disabled. Its in the same vein of people who think that Wylan and Jesper are romantically one sided, and that Jesper only kind of liked Wylan, despite the canon evidence of him loving Wylan just as much. You all view him as a “smol bean”, who needs protecting, and care, when Wylan is the opposite of that. He is a fucking demolitions expert who suggested waking up sleeping men to kill them - what about that says “uwu”. You are treating Wylan as a burden to Jesper and the other Crows when he is an immensely valuable, fully autonomous disabled person - you all just view him as damaged. 

And before I get a comment saying that “uhhh Wylan isn’t real why do you care” while Wylan may not be real, how you all view him and treat him has real fucking impacts and informs how you treat people like me. If someone called me an “uwu baby boy” they’d get a fist square in the fucking jaw. Fiction informs how we perceive the world and y’all are making it super fucking clear how you see disabled people. 

Finally, I wanted to talk about how the social model of disability is portrayed through Wylan. For those who are unaware, the social model of disability contrasts the medical model, that views the disability itself as the problem, that needs to be cured, whereas the social model essentially boils down to creating an accommodating society, where disability acceptance and pride is the goal. And we see this with Wylan - he is able to manage his father’s estate, with Jesper’s assistance to help him read documents. And this is not out of pity or charity, but an act of love. It is not portrayed as this almighty act for Jesper to play saviour, just a given, which is incredibly important to show, especially for someone who has been abused by family for his disability like Wylan, that he is accepted. 

Yet, I still see people hold up Jesper on a pedestal for “putting up with” Wylan, as if loving a disabled person deserves a fucking pat on the back. It’s genuinely exhausting trying to engage with a work I love so much with a fandom that thinks so little of me and my community. It fucking shows. 

Overall, Leigh Bardugo as a disabled person wrote two incredibly meticulous and empowered disabled characters, and due to either lack of reading comprehension, ableism, or a quirky mix of both, the fandom has ignored canon and the experiences of disabled people for…. shits and giggles i guess. And yes, there are issues with the Grishaverse and disability representation - while I haven’t finished them yet so I do not have an opinion on it, people have been discussing issues in the KOS duology with ableist ideals. This mini series was no way indicative of the entire disabled experience, nor does it represent my entire view on the representation as a whole. These things need to be met critically in our community, and talked about with disabled voices at the forefront. For example, the limited perspective we get of Wylan and Kaz being both white men, does not account for a large portion of the disabled community and the intersection of multiple identities.

All-in-all, Critique media, but do not forget to also critique fandom spaces. Alternatively, just shut the fuck up :)

happy fucking disability pride month, ig

[erithel]

Unpopular opinion rant, but there's something very unpleasant about how the current community characterizes lotor. He's a decent antagonist and interesting as the two face double crosser he was set out to be, but the fandom making this grown man and soft imperialist character the "oh poor baby, :'(" feels so icky. Especially when they use him as an example of a wayward abuse victim and dismisses his more despicable canon actions, all of which are plain to see on screen since his introduction,

Anonymous also adds:

as a byproduct of the writers being "ablest" or even in some reaches,"racist". His seasons long participation in colonization and subjugation of other races, the way he knows how to manipulate his way into others good graces in other to get them to do what he wants without impunity, senseless murder and unethical experimentation, those actions are his responsibility. His past can explain what he's doing but to try to pass it off "bad writing" and painting him as the poster child of poorly written abuse-victim character, when he's no better than any irl ruling class or politician, is such an unpleasant hallmark of this fandom and speaks of wildly poor judgement on fans part. He's very well written as far as antagonists go, better than zarkon and haggar, but I especially can't even with the 'draco in leather pants"-ing of his character.

So I will admit, right off the bat, I always liked the potential of Lotor. It was as if I could almost see what they were trying to do with him, rather than what was actually presented in the show. That's why I've never hated him as much as some others.

The best example I can think of is the character of Regina from Once Upon a Time. I watched the first season of that a while back, and by the time they got to her "redeeming" tragic backstory, I could not have cared less. They had shown her doing horrible, irredeemable things for too long, and by the time they tried to justify it, it was too little, too late.

And I believe like this is how some people feel about Lotor.

(I also think that a lot of people feel bad for him and excuse what he did because – to be absolutely blunt – he was attractive and that is a very real thing.)

I do see, to a certain extent, the comparison you're making between Lotor and "the ruling class or politicians" but the thing that seems to fit a little more for me tends to toe the line of psychopath. - Pretending to care while manipulating. - Committing horrible acts and being able to justify them because there is no real sense of guilt tied to the act. - Using people for personal gain until the point they are no longer useful.

If I'm being honest, this would have been a fascinating angle for them to have chosen for him – just fully committing to the choice of Lotor actually being a psychopath.

That being said, however, the reason why I tend to hang onto the idea of Lotor being redeemable is that he could have been the most interesting character in the show. I mean, his potential was a literal goldmine for character development, and a character arc.

Even if we list the barest of facts, this is what we have to work with:

1) He was the son of the Galaxy's dictator. 2) He was 100% neglected as a child; never shown actual love. 3) He was ordered to subjugate planets by his father. 4) He was exposed to whatever that thing was that made Zarkon and Haggar "turn evil" because she was pregnant with him when she was exposed (I don't remember exactly what that was). Now here's what I think they were going for with Lotor. I think they wanted to give him all of that tragic backstory, and they wanted him to still show an innate sense of good, despite it. I think they wanted something in his very nature to be nagging at him to do the right thing – to find peaceful, diplomatic solutions despite the orders and the example he was given. I think they wanted to take Lotor and say "Here is this kid who was destined to be evil. It's in his bloodline, it's in his DNA, it's been with him since his birth… Except – Except he cares about people. Except he has empathy and compassion, and despite everything inside him that is screaming at him to do evil, his true nature – the goodness of his own heart – was the more powerful thing in the end." And shit, that would have been powerful. Could have been powerful, if it had been portrayed correctly on screen. And that's where the argument for bad/lazy writing comes in. Because Lotor had so much potential, but because his character and his story was not fleshed out to the extent it should have been, he comes off to many of the fans exactly how you described in your post. We were shown too much of the bad, and when we were finally shown the true good they wanted us to see all along, it was too little, too late.

[parliamentoftoh]

Had some thoughts this morning about The Collector - Bill Cipher - Darcy and how they’re similar archetypes but definitely each unique in their characterization and role in their respective stories

(these thoughts are mainly born of the one person on twitter who claimed Bill was obviously the blueprint for The Collector which, maybe don’t do that buddy, and especially don’t do that in a comment to Dana herself) 

(this is also not a value judgement on any one of them being better than the others)

Anyway, the thing all of these characters mainly have in common is being some sort of eldritch being existing beyond the scope of the rest of the characters. From there, there are things like interest in causing chaos and a childish demeanor.  

However, they’re all not painted with the same brush where these attributes are considered.

Darcy is an ancient hivemind supercomputer of brains plugged into a 13 year old girl, thereby inheriting some of her quirks as they put it. The quirks add to them behaving somewhat silly while still having the eerie ability to tap into any of the much, much older selves within them. Young and ancient simultaneously.

However, they’re not particularly chaotic, especially compared to the other two here. When you think about goals, the Core is all about control and conquering and superiority. If we went DnD alignments, they’re neutral evil. No concern for collateral damage in pursuit of their goals but not going out of their way to make MORE suffering than they feel is necessary.

Bill Cipher is a sadistic, deeply chaotic demon from another dimension. Like, there’s not much else to say there. Even if you haven’t seen Gravity Falls, you can’t be on tumblr without kind of knowing who this guy is. He revels in chaos, his goal is creating more of it and bringing it into our world. 

The thing is... in my opinion, I wouldn’t actually call Bill childish. He treats this world like his plaything, manipulating and tormenting everyone at his whim but there’s always... I don’t know, some degree of condescension that speaks of knowing he is trillions of years older than the beings he’s messing with. Any of his immature behaviors seem too calculated and rooted in clear malice, if that makes sense.

The Collector, on the other hand, from what we’ve seen so far, is almost defined by their childish demeanor. They appear as a child, speak in the types of rhymes you’d hear on a playground, and whine to Belos about how bored they are like a bratty younger sibling waiting for his turn on the Xbox. 

We still have little idea of what they really are, or what they really want, but they certainly are happily pro-murder, as we see from them laughing at the fates of the Golden Guards - trying to get Belos to admit he enjoys it, too - and all but vibrating with excitement at the promise of genocide. All extra disturbing from the voice of a goofy kid.

----

Anyway, all of this to say there ARE similarities in the “Big Bad is some kind of Interdimensional Entity Our Protagonists Can Barely Comprehend” sense but they’re all very unique to their stories otherwise and could definitely not be interchanged with each other.

[bigskydreaming]

lmao jason doesn't kill dealers because he thinks they're "evil"??? The plot of utrh was half about him taking over the drug trade. He has his own dealers on the streets by the end of utrh. He's waging his own gang war against black mask. I agree that his stories could and should do better but??? His first characterization post-resurrection is a crime lord, not some ultra strict vigilante killing dealers for the sake of it.

Mmmm, nope to this, sorry. But we’re just not doing this.

Look, I freely admit that I hyperbolize the SHIT out of stuff in posts, but that’s largely because I think there’s such extremes between when I’m genuinely trying to be specific about something and when I’m just being ridiculous and over the top that like....people aren’t dumb and they can tell the difference.

So I’m just saying, could you find specific word choices in that post to argue semantics about and undermine and dilute the larger point of said post? Hell yeah, but also, we’re just not gonna do that here because nothing you’ve said here actually detracts and takes away from the point of that post, since you yourself agreed his stories could and should do better and THAT WAS THE ONLY POINT lol. Shifting things to be about clarifying specifics on tongue in cheek lines whose specific clarity changes nothing about the overall post only serves to distract, undermine or dilute from the actual point and lmao literally why would I have any interest in doing that?? Like make it make sense.

Also, quite frankly? That post wasn’t just about canon characterizations - it was every bit as much about how fandom writes unapologetic pro-Jason-getting-his-murder-on fics, meta and headcanons. 

And if anyone wants to argue that oftentimes fandom isn’t even WORSE than canon when it comes to handwaving all ethical nuance in who Jason kills and why, and there’s not actually a shit ton of pro-Jason fic writers who DO reduce criminality and Jason’s controversial brand of vigilantism to an absolute caricature of this conversation, wherein he just goes around plugging holes in every street corner drug dealer while the narratives shouts ‘AND PS THIS IS GOOD AND REASONABLE’?

Like, forewarning for anyone who wants to take that stance: my only response to it will be to start laughing. 

And the laughter will continue for a VERY long time.

Sorry not sorry, but UTRH Jason’s biggest fans do far more to paint him and his characterization in an unfavorable light than anything I said in that post ever could. Me? I said what I said, it literally wasn’t even about specifics about Jason or ANY of his existing characterization, it was entirely about what I wish Jason stories and characterization WERE like, and how generally speaking canon and the vast majority of fanon just is not that.

Read the post for what it is, agree with it or don’t, but I won’t be joining you in turning the post into an argument that’s utterly irrelevant to any of my reasons for writing it.

[iamnmbr3]

Some of the other Loki Series interviews have concerned me but this latest interview was the first one to legitimately upset me because not only did it disappoint me in terms of how they plan to handle the character, but some of what was said had really harmful real world implications. 

1) “Due to the trauma in Loki’s life, I would even [accept a story] in which he is committed to being all bad.”

Regardless of what you think of the show, saying that is not ok. Basically what he’s saying here is trauma makes you evil. Now, trauma absolutely can affect people deeply and can make them act in ways that are destructive to themselves or even to others and can make people lash out or behave in ways that may seem irrational or strange to those who haven’t been through trauma. But that doesn’t mean that trauma makes anyone evil. It just doesn’t. The idea that being a victim somehow “breaks” you or makes you “go bad” is an extremely harmful one that has been perpetuated in media and that Waldron continues to perpetuate here. He’s moved from blaming fictional victims to full-on victim blaming. Ironically, in the real world acts of evil are far more often carried out by people like Mobius, who Waldron is quick to praise. Mobius is not driven to desperation by trauma but is simply a smug bureaucrat who is complicit in furthering the aims of a deeply harmful organization and who seems to enjoy having power over others, feels perfectly entitled to behave in the way he does, and who apparently never questions his own world view. That’s a realistic villain. 

If you look around today or at history, that’s the kind of person and personality that is responsible for most actual villainy. It’s not the Lokis of the world. It’s the Mobiuses. And that’s something Mike Waldron utterly fails to understand. 

2) “He is on his own, so, he is forced to reflect in a way he hasn’t. He can no longer blame everything on Thor or Odin [Loki’s father]."

This quote is completely bizarre. Because Loki has had to fend for himself during most of his screen time. It’s an especially odd thing to say since this show picks up before TDW and whether or not you think Loki is a villain he is most definitely the main antagonist of Thor 2011 and Avengers, the movies this show is supposed to follow, and as the antagonist he is very much on his own since he’s in opposition to the other characters. Was he not on his own in Thor 2011 when he plotted in secret to delay Thor’s coronation and then discovered the truth of his heritage and told no one and then fought Thor in the end on the Bifrost? Was he not on his own when he fell and was captured and tortured by Thanos? Was he not on his own in Avengers 2012 when he had the Other’s claws in his mind and also battled the Avengers and Thor???

As for the second part of this quote. I don’t even know where to begin. Talk about victim blaming. Basically Waldron’s take on Loki’s character seems to be that he’s a whiny, spoiled crybaby who just unfairly blames all his problems on his father and brother and now for the first time he has to man up and take responsibility. This is utterly unreflective of canon, promotes harmful attitudes irl, and also is just plain boring. It’s not new. We’ve already had that story. Thor 2011 was supposed to be about Thor being irresponsible and rash and then learning to take responsibility for his actions. We’ve the same sort of trope many times before. We don’t need it here.

3) “Tom’s soulfulness, charm and honesty is evident in the character. So, even when Loki is being mean or deceitful, people see the goodness of Tom in the character.”

Huh??? Yes. Tom seems like a lovely person although of course I don’t know him, but that’s not why I like Loki. Waldron seems to be saying here that people who like Loki can’t distinguish between the actor and the character, and yet ironically he seems to be the one who has that problem. He’s saying that Loki’s only charm or goodness comes from the actor playing him, rather than anything about the character. It’s not because Tom and the writing portrayed Loki with vulnerability and sympathy. It’s not because Loki’s motivations were understandable or complex. It’s not because wanting to prevent a war or being devastated that your family lied to you are sympathetic. It’s not because Loki has ever done anything good. No. It’s just because Tom is nice. That’s a huge disservice to Tom’s acting by implying that his portrayal of Loki as sympathetic was not a conscious acting choice but rather his real personality showing through. It’s also a huge disservice to Loki’s character and to his fans. 

4) “Loki is an ass, and that makes my life as a writer, easy.”

*Sigh* Really? That’s all you have to say about this character? He’s an ass? No fanfic writer would dismiss him that way or describe him as easy to write. Maybe he seemed easy to write because you weren’t giving him any nuance or complexity. Loki has reasons for doing what he does. Often his actions are the product of many conflicting and contradictory impulses. If you reduce it to just “he’s being an ass” then not only is it out of character. It’s also boring. What a flat and uninteresting motivation. 

5) “Just like the shape-shifting character that Loki is, we wanted the show to be [unpredictable] as well”

I mean. Surprising plot twists are fine. But this sounds like Loki’s characterization will be all over the place and they’re trying to pass it off as a good thing. Also surprising the audience isn’t everything. I’d rather have a good plot and compelling character arcs than just something unpredictable. Otherwise you just get Rian Johnson’s Star Wars.... 

6) “Owen is amazing. His character is opposite to that of Loki. He calls him out, and knows when he’s lying. That enforces Loki to be more honest.”

Really?! Seriously??? Mobius literally works for an organization that murders and enslaves people and that specifically chose to create a timeline in which Nazism and the Snap happened. Also he has not said a single correct thing about Loki in the trailers thus far. This better be the show being “unpredictable” by presenting Mobius as a friend only for him to turn out to be a villain. Bc otherwise. WTF?!?! Also why does he say that Loki needs to be more honest. He’s not a habitual liar. When he tricks people it’s for a specific reason. That’s why his lies work. Because they’re unexpected. It’s like this show completely disregards the movie canon it’s supposed to follow on from.