#i really think it makes his character and stories more compelling

[qoldenskies]

Okay okay I'll yammer about Rise!Splinter in your ask box because oh my god I cannot STAND people who legitimately villainize him on main. Like, alright, you can call him an emotionally unavailable or even slightly neglectful parent all you want, because even the show itself makes it clear that his parenting style wasn't exactly PERFECT and probably left the boys with at least a SMALL myriad of issues (Raph's parentification and Donnie's constant need for approval come to mind, though I can't say for sure whether those are entirely borne of Splinter's parenting style lmao). But I feel like so many people through trying to villainize his actions deliberately gloss over the fact that he was probably struggling with hardcore PTSD after spending a decade or more basically being forced to fight in a DEATH ARENA, not to mention probably having a good deal of body dysmorphia because he's suddenly been kind of forcefully shoved into a body that he can't even recognize as his own anymore. PTSD is a genuinely crippling condition to struggle with at times. On top of the depression he more than likely had, it'll make you not even want to get out of bed some days, and to struggle with that AND take care of four INFANTS that you've basically suddenly found yourself the sole caretaker of HAD to require a great deal of both mental and physical strength from Splinter. I'm sure he had his hard days, and the show points that out, but he was still trying his damn hardest to be there and be present for these kids, even if he fucked it up at every turn, even if he was far from the BEST parental figure that they could have had.

People can critique his parenting style as they wish (hell, even I do it), but so many depictions of him as an awful parent feel like they're glossing over the legitimate mental issues that he more than likely has, and idk sometimes I just feel like yammering about it on main

yeah like, a parent can seriously fuck you up completely unintentionally and have understandable, sympathetic reasons for it (while still not being in the right! a kid is never in the wrong for being hurt by an adult who failed them! but they're also well within their right to understand and empathize with a complicated parent who loves and changes for them!). generally im sure a lot of people who write abusive parent splinter genuinely had horrendous and abusive parents and are venting, which is why i tend not to be judgemental to people who do. characters are ultimately devices to drive a plot and if they're writing a story where they want to put them through some shit, that's one way to do it. aus are aus and allat

HOWEVER. lord does it frustrate me when people act like his behavior in the show itself is actually like that. i think its really uncharitable and unsympathetic. like if you want to see some of the things he did to them as potentially unforgivable thats fine, because if they're upset with him they dont have to forgive him, but him dealing with crippling ptsd and depression while being someone who goes out of his way to parent and change and grow while handling it just makes it idk nasty to me ,,,,

and also maybe this is just a hot take but esp. when it comes to raph and donnie i think them having more complex feelings about him makes for more compelling angst. its juicier, and i love to read stories that are empathetic towards everyone involved.

i am not a splinter defender but i will still fight splinter haters (not actually. dont fight me i will cry, i dont main tag most things anymore for a reason lmao)

[maxdibert]

Hi! I love the way you interpret the books—you stick to what is canon, and it’s always great to see that.

I was wondering if you enjoy negative characters in the fandom while fully acknowledging that they are, of course, negative. I don’t justify their actions in any way, but I find them fascinating from a narrative and psychological perspective. Their motivations, dynamics, and the way they shape the story can be incredibly compelling, even if they are morally reprehensible (Voldemort, Bellatrix, Narcissa, etc…)

Do you also find some of them interesting in that sense?

I love characters who are terrible people, especially when the narrative doesn’t try to sell me that they’re good people, because they’re not, but at the same time, it shows that they’re human, and all humans can be terrible people or do terrible things, while also having a decent side. I mean, let’s take the Malfoys as an example, which in my opinion is the best: Are they horrible aristocratic elitists? Yes. Do they have a disgusting elitist mentality? Also yes. Do they invest their economic and social capital, as well as themselves, in movements that actively harm others? Totally. Are they terrible people? Of course, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have good qualities. Narcissa and Lucius are a couple that love each other, support each other, and above all, adore their son. Have they raised Draco terribly? No one denies that, but they love him. Draco is so confident and arrogant because his parents have given him a lot of self-assurance, and in fact, unlike Ron, who is TERRIFIED of the consequences his actions might have at home when Molly finds out, for example, Draco always shows a fascinating confidence in telling his father absolutely everything. Even in CoS, when Lucius complains that Draco’s grades are mediocre, Draco doesn’t seem offended or scared, he doesn’t see his father as a threatening figure; he’s just ANNOYED because Lucius said it publicly. That shows that his parents have given him enough confidence to tell them all his problems and have the assurance that they’ll always help him. Is that spoiling him? They spoil him in many ways, certainly, but at the same time, it’s quite positive for a child to feel they can tell their parents everything, whether it’s positive or negative, and we know Draco does this because it’s mentioned repeatedly in the series. Does that make the Malfoys better people? Well, no, as people, they’re terrible, but being a terrible person in one aspect of your life doesn’t mean you’re going to be terrible in everything. You can be a terrible, tyrannical boss and then be an amazing boyfriend. You could have had a terrible relationship with someone who thinks you’re the devil for how things ended, and then your next partner could think you were the best ex they ever had. You can have terrible political ideas and then love your family a lot. I’m sorry, but you can be the boss of a cartel that has literally killed dozens of people and have been a wonderful father, one thing doesn’t negate the other.

I’m very interested in this duality in characters, how some people can really have two faces, or what leads someone to commit a crime, or what happened for someone to end up on the wrong side. I like complex characters, although I prefer morally gray ones over villains. The problem is that most characters in Harry Potter are either darkened or whitewashed narratively. I’m not being picky about this because in the end, it was initially a story for children that later evolved into a young adult story, but still… meh. I mean, I think more could have been done with Bellatrix, I think Voldemort could have been explored better, I think Rowling was obsessed with selling us her moral framework for things. Honestly, I prefer books with multiple points of view where you decide if you like a character or not, but not because the author wants you to like or dislike them, but because you’ve had several versions - even the character’s own - and you can get a general idea of who they are and then decide.

But yes, of course, I’m generally more interested in morally questionable characters, I’ve always found them more interesting than heroes. As Tolstoy said, 'All happy families are alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,' which implies that if there’s no conflict, there’s no story, because there’s no drama, and without drama, the story is flat. And for there to be drama, there have to be problems, and heroes never create problems.

[danmei-confessions]

i cannot understand most ppl who like bingjiu (luo binghe x shen jiu).

theoretically, i can understand the appeal of them as toxic yaoi even if it doesn't appeal to me personally - adult bingge having a twistex psychosexual fixation on this figure of loathing from his childhood, yeah i understand - the ppl who i dont get are the ones who try to turn it into something sweepingly romantic like bingqiu. sy and sj are different characters. having binghe act a different way in a fic in order to stop original sqq hurting him is gross victim-blamey narratively, but it also just doesn't make sense to me; binghe is not important to shen jiu except as an object of envy and resentment for his seeming inability to fail in his cultivation despite everything. the one who needs to change his behaviour to start the healing and break the cycle for shen jiu is yue qi, not binghe. yue qi is the one who sj thought loved and cared for him when they were both at their lowest, only to believe later it wasn’t true because yqy refused to reveal that he was impulsive and failed him. by now he has given in to and is set in the deepdown belief that the entire rest of the world has beaten into him, that he is an unlovable monster hiding himself behind silk robes and fans - some extraneous prodigy disciple (who he only took in to ruin, to pay him back for getting the opportunity shen jiu didn't, to try and prove to himself that anyone would fall low when under a master with malicious intent) admiring that facade wouldn't matter to him.

and binghe didn't stay a 'white lotus' as a disciple the whole way through his disciplehood, indeed i think a big sum of that appearance was fawning behaviour to try and regain his master's favour, that slowly became the cover for more and more resentment in pidw proper. it was only after literally taking a hit of qi-crippling poison for him that shen qingqiu really managed to fully win binghe over in canon and make the wary hope of his master's attitude change into sincere total care for the man as a figure of love in his life. the original sqq would never have done such a thing, and binghe would never have grown to care enough for the resentful teacher trying to kill him to be willing to look past his abuse and excuse it because of a sob story.

i guess it's just another case of ppl using the characters as dolls to smoosh together rather than trying to base it at least somewhat on canon. i just usually see that in fandoms where the source text is really quite bad so it's only good as a toybox to take characters from. sv is rly good, the pathos for the characters laid out and indirectly implied in the novels and the extras is so compelling, and i can't understand not prefering to try to explore that rather than just making shen jiu into an entirely agencyless meowmeow rather than a man who is willing to choose to be seen as evil and act cruelly, over being without choice and weak and vulnerable (even in the end, he chooses to let himself be imprisoned, chooses to self-destruct before letting someone else force it on him), and bingge isn't just a mindless dog desperate for love /no matter what/. the world - and shen jiu - crushed his childish hope for a peaceful domestic life, now he will crush them and force them to kneel before him in turn (or try to in shen jiu's case). they have parallel issues because it's a self-reproducing cycle violence of ppl being crushed down and having nobody recognise what care they needed and be willing to give it to them.

i suppose it boils down to the fact that other often crack-ily cutesified fanon couples - take gongzhi, or jiuyuan - don't have nearly so complex, so rich a relationship in canon that is such a total antithesis to that treatment. at the end of the day of course i'm not gonna go near these ppls fics, fanarts and ruin their spaces because this is a discussion of fiction not a battlefield, i'm just stating an opinion based on the actual text (which i admittedly adore) and my interpretation of it as of my most recent reread

.

[featherpitch]

In addition, the discharge was created in the Green Lantern 2005 #29-35 retelling of Hal's origin, which is actually a lot tamer than his previous origin in Green Lantern: Emerald Dawn 1989. In Emerald Dawn, he heavily injures his friend and gets a DWI for drunk driving. There's nothing heroic or purposeful about it. In fact, he runs from accepting the punishment from it but ultimately returns and serves a jail sentence.

Throughout this origin, there's a theme of accepting responsibility for your actions. But, it's never framed as a moral obligation from Hal himself, rather it's a culmination of pressures from everyone he meets:

"He's right, you know. So was Andy, and the nurse, everybody. I've got to face this thing down, and pay the price for screwing up."

This is also the origin that has Hal the most reluctant and even firmly against accepting the ring in the first place.

Your wants are not my concern. The ring has decided.

No. I'm not the one.

Contrast this with the more modern origin in Green Lantern 2005 #30:

Do you accept this duty?

If I'm not dreaming--absolutely.

This diminishes the set up from the previous age, which is not surprising given that the modern run tends to add more military ethos to the Corps. (The very first origin in Showcase #22 is incredibly neutral. Abin Sur simply slips the ring on him and it seems more like he's honoring someone's dying wish rather than accepting a duty.) Still, these origins show that he was propelled into the role and accepted it as doctrine.

But at his core, Hal is a character that is uncomfortable with responsibility, and by extension authority and power. He is uncomfortable with wielding power over others, the same power that he has been subject to under various authorities and institutions. And of course, the same power of his father, whom he idealized and feared.

What am I?

The power.

Am I afraid? Yes.

But the fear doesn't matter now.

it's very significant to me hal jordan's origin stands in contrast to the stereotypical superhero—one who independently pursues vigilantism—in that he did not become a green lantern his own volition, but was rather propelled into the role and limply adopted it as sacred doctrine. he navigates his entire heroic career while extremely susceptible to some ambiguous authority's tenet of morality. which is not to say he lacks principles or methodology,, but it's ollie's (yet another external influence whom hal holds in high regard) prompting that leads him to question the institution he's upholding for the first time. even hal's definitive tragic backstory exacerbates his desire to prostrate himself in the face of authority rather than yielding a moral code of his own (i.e. batman's no killing rule)!! the innate qualities for which he was selected were the very traits that primes him for indoctrination; he was dutiful and doomed from the start

[yellowsubiesdance]

i think i’ve learned a lot when it comes to not applying my own values to the media i consume

for my script analysis class yesterday, we discussed two gentleman from verona, and nearly every classmate of mine was up in arms about how sexist the story is.

and i'm not saying it's not, or that it's not infuriating to read. but i'm also not putting my energy into getting upset about something written 500 or so years ago. and i'm not about to put my own beliefs onto these characters that are not me. i'm going to let their choices speak for themselves, and interpret it in the context of the story.

all that said, this now brings me to the point of alastor in episode 5, and how viscerally people are responding to it. those of you up in arms about the choices he’s making, and the violent threat he gave husk, you’re missing the entire point of his character, of this place they’re in, of the story being told. he’s an overlord, and he became an overlord by killing much bigger overlords and broadcasting their deaths over the radio.

HE IS NOT A GOOD PERSON.

if you started this show with the belief that every character working the hotel is a good person, you’re in the wrong place. watch the good place if you’re looking for a good wholesome story about getting dead sinners into heaven, because that’s not what this show is about.

you’re more than welcome to hate him after seeing the way he exerted power over a being whose soul he owns, but you’re doing the media you’re watching a disservice by writing it off so quickly. if you don’t like to be uncomfortable watching media, watch something else. this is an uncomfortable show, it handles uncomfortable topics, and it’s going to be an uncomfortable ride, and if you’re not up for something like that, then you should take a break from it and pick up something else. you don’t have to get online and defend your own ideals while you watch a show that goes against your ideals.

[protect-namine]

.

[sskk-manifesto]

Ep 5!!!

[edettethegreat]

10/10 manga for pulling a “we’ll defeat you with the power of friendship!!” “That’s… incredibly ignorant of you. I’m significantly more powerful, whether or not you have friends won’t impact this fight”

[torgawl]

a bit obsessed with the idea of kusakabe dying as a form of sacrifice to specifically protect/save somebody else. it's consistent enough with the theme of the past generation achieving no meaningful feats against significant threats but it's also ironic enough that someone without a technique and who claims their philosophy is primarily self-sacrificial - although he tends to stay from his own ideals in critical moments, proving he's not only brave when necessary but he does have a sense of responsabilty and guilt - ultimately redeems themselves through death resulting in the achievement of something his colleagues have failed to do. not that i'm wishing for him to die, i hope he doesn't. but it would also make a clear-cut distinction between him and a character like mei mei, who narratively serves a very similar purpose (besides her being a foil to nanami). to have someone be awarded by their selfishness just for it to not be worth much within a world and system that runs and sustains itself due to the sorcerer's labour power, whose only means of subsistence is to sell themselves away. a class of people who is doomed no matter what path they choose to take, as long as they do not break free from their duties and as long as the system doesn't collapse. a death that could serve as a symbol of punishment towards solidarity and altruism but a win for revolution.

[theendofmybody]

once again can't sleep because I'm thinking of all the ways the x files could have been a better show. alas

[luxrayz64]

I saw a post a while back responding to criticism of botw as being "a good game but not a good zelda game", and they responded with how the Zelda Formula was getting tired and stale and botw was a response to that, that it was meant to harken back to the original zelda game where it just drops you in and it makes you find everything on yr own. which like is fine and good and all but. you do know that the original zelda had 8 full unique (as unique as they could be on the nes) dungeons right. the original zelda game had dungeon items. they didn't need to take out one of zeldas defining gameplay aspects and replace it with the fundamentally inferior shrines and divine beasts. you can make a game non linear and refresh its gameplay without taking out one of the series' strongest aspects.

[the-derpy-duck]

I’m stealing this general idea for my transformers fanfic :3

Synopsis.

[moeitsu]

Every time someone in this fandom romanticizes Abigail's prostitution, an angel looses its wings.

I can’t believe this still needs to be said, but let’s clear something up: Abigail Roberts was not “saved” by the Van der Linde gang out of the goodness of their hearts. She was a 17-year-old working girl. Yes, a prostitute—brought into the gang by Uncle because of her profession, not because they wanted to “help an orphan girl.” Pretending otherwise is not just wrong, it’s an insult to her character and completely misrepresents the darker themes of the game.

“They wouldn’t take advantage of a 17-year-old girl!” Really? These are men who rob, kill, and lie without hesitation. They absolutely would and did take advantage of her. Dutch was not some saintly father figure; he was an opportunist who saw value in people only as long as they served his needs. The gang didn’t “rescue” Abigail, they exploited her vulnerabilities and used her just like they used everyone else.

Even within the game, there’s a camp interaction where Susan Grimshaw tells Abigail she should return to prostitution to bring in more money for the gang. If that doesn’t make it clear how the gang viewed her role, I don’t know what will.

Abigail’s story isn’t some fairy tale about a group of noble outlaws saving an orphan. It’s about survival in a brutal, unforgiving world. She didn’t have a choice in staying with the gang. This idea that the gang was Robin Hood-like and only “stole from the rich to give to the poor” doesn’t erase the fact that they were still criminals who exploited people whenever they could, including Abigail.

The game wants you to sit with the uncomfortable truths of these characters. It shows you the dark realities of their actions and the systemic issues of the time. Romanticizing Abigail’s situation or painting the gang as her saviors completely undermines that. It’s not just naïve...it’s flat-out wrong.

This kind of take isn’t just ignorant; it’s borderline insulting to anyone who’s been in a similar situation. Abigail’s story is powerful because it’s not pretty. She was used, exploited, and forced to live a life she didn’t choose—but she fought tooth and nail to survive and make a better life for Jack. That’s what makes her compelling, not some sugar-coated fantasy about her being “rescued.”

Take off the rose-colored glasses and actually think critically about what the game is showing you. Abigail’s resilience is what makes her an incredible character—not some fake narrative about Dutch and the gang being her saviors. They weren’t.

It’s fine to love the characters, but stop twisting their stories to fit some idealized version of the gang. They’re criminals. Abigail was exploited by them. That’s the truth, and nothing about it is going to be pretty.

Abigail deserves way more respect than this.

[tanaor]

Want simple tips to heavily improve your skills with character voice??

(📝Note: character voice is the way you convey your character's personality though their pov or dialogue when you write. No two characters speak the same📝)

I speak from experience when I say character voice is hard to get right. Characters, like people, have lots of layers that affect the way they see the world around them and how they interact with other characters. That's why character voice is so important in stories, and why if you write it in a compelling and effective way it will hook people into your story. I hope you learn something new in this post!!

When writing character voice, there's a list of things that you should take into account:

Where are they from? Their past and what they've lived plays a huge part in character voice. Maybe your character grew by the ocean, and so they compare things from the present to the beach, the rocks or the sea itself. You will rarely read about a sailor that is an expert in pants and compares scents to flowers. They might, instead, talk about how a house smells like the wet wood of a ship.

Think about how their personality shapes their language. If they are insecure, they might end most of their sentences with "isn't it?" or "right?" and ask a lot of questions, whereas if you have a confident character, you might find them saying things like "we should do this" or "that will be fun" instead.

What their "lense" is. This is more of an ethic aspect of the character. What have they learn it's okay, and what do they find uncomfortable? Would they find it gross if their friend left laundry on the floor?

Give them special traits (both for dialogue and narration). Maybe character A quotes a lot when they narrate and uses long paragraphs, or maybe B speaks about their past a lot and uses popular sayings. Personally, one character of mine has the tendency to repeat himself when he speaks, as in "yeah, yeah, I'll do it" or "no, no, no. Never" because he is really enthusiastic, and it fits really well with his character.

Pay attention to how they would talk about themselves. Maybe your character doesn't like people to know they're sad because it makes them feel vulnerable, so they will just say they feel annoyed or don't want to talk in that moment. This also means that they will not tell the reader something they are not comfortable saying in the first place.

How is their education? Education is also very important in this context. Did they went to university and have a rich vocabulary and structured sentences, or where they rised in a little farm far from town? You can also play with both a bit: maybe your character did go to university, but maybe they also came from a low income family, and characteristic of both things merge when they talk. Example: long, structured, sentences but a simple and sight forward vocabulary.

That's all for now and happy writing!!

Other tips for writers: previous | next

[writers-potion]

Storyediting Questions to Ask

As You Read the First Draft:

Are there place that surprised you as you read your first draft? - Why do you suppose that is? - Is there material there you'd like to expand?

What are the character really doing in this story? - Might they have issues you haven't explored fully yet?

Look to the places that drag. - These might be scenes where you have avoided dealing with something deeper. - What are the characters really thinking in these places? - What are their passions, frustrations, and desires?

Imagine alternative plotlines. - How might your plot be different if ti headed off on another tangent from various points in the story? - You don't have to follow them, but they might suggest other streams that can flow into the main plot.

Think About Structure:

Does you story play out naturally in three acts?

Is there an immediate disturbance to the Lead's world?

Does the first doorway of no return occur before the one-fifth mark?

Are the stakes being raised sufficiently?

Does the second doorway of no return put the Lead on the path to the climax?

Does the rhythm of the sotyr match your intent? If this is an action novel, does the plot move relentlessly forward? If this is a character-driven novel, do the scenes delve deeply enough?

Are there strongly motivated characters?

Have coincidence been established?

Is something happeing immediately at the beginning? Did you establish a person in a setting with a problem, onfronted with change or threat?

Is the timeline logical?

Is the story too predictable in terms of sequence? Should it be rearranged?

About Your Lead Character:

Is the character memorable? Compelling? Enough to carry a reader all the way through the plot?

A lead character has to jump off the page. Does yours?

Does this character avoid cliches? Is he capable of surprising us?

What's unique about the character?

Is the character's objective strong enough?

How does the character grow over the course of the story?

How does the character demonstrate inner strength?

About Your Opposition:

Is your oppositing character interesting?

Is he fully realized, not just a cardboard cutout?

Is he justified (at least in his own mind) in his actions?

Is he believable?

Is he strong as or stronger than the Lead?

About Your Story's Adhesive Nature:

Is the conflcit between the Lead and opposition crucial for both?

Why can't they just walk away? What holds them together?

About Your Scene:

Are the big scenes big enough? Surprising enough? Can you make them more original, unanticipated, and draw them out for all they are worth?

Is there enough conflict in the scenes?

What is the least memorable scene? Cut it!

What else can be cut in order to move the story relentlessly forward?

Does the climactic scene come too fast (through a writer fatigue)? Can you make it more, write it for all it's worth?

Does we need a new minor subplot to build up a saggin midsection?

About Your Minor Characters:

What is their purpose in the plot?

Are they unique and colorful?

Polishing Questions:

Are you hooking the reader from the beginning?

Are suspenseful scenes drawn out for the ultimate tension?

Can any information be delayed? This creates tension in the reader, always a good thing.

Are there enough surprises?

Are character-reaction scenes deep and interesting?

Read chapter ending for read-on prompts

Are there places you can replace describing how a character feels with actions?

Do I use visual, sensory-laden words?

For a Dialogue Read-Through:

Dialogue is almost always strengthened by cutting words within the lines.

In dialogue, be fair to both sides. Don't give one character all the good lines.

Greate dialogue surprises the reader and creates tension. View it like a game, where the players are trying to outfox each other.

Can you get more conflict into dialogue, even emong allies?

If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 📸

[lawyerkin]

hey OP i hope you dont mind me adding to this and going deeper into aspects of the game + things i personally believe in about DGS as a story because i have been talking about this ever since i met barok van zieks . under tbe cut because its long !

idk how to put my thoughts into words but. here goes a try: i genuinely feel like the game was almost setting this up. this outcome. i think this is what the narrative leads us to. we should be able to pick up the fact that the judicial system in london is extremely biased, unreliable, corrupt and racist. the main games don't shy away from pointing out how horribly corrupt the current court system is, with miles edgeworth and mvk and damon gant as great examples in the first game, and imo that's why it works as well as it does. you find out that the justice system is unfair and biased and there's a payoff. in DGS we get a similar kind of setup, right. first, there's jezaille brett, introduced to us an englishwoman who is unabashedly racist. that tells us this way of thinking is common, cultural, expected in great britain. when we get there, we, as ryunosuke, experience this firsthand. its like everywhere we go, we're foreign. uninvited. intruders. its like we're not supposed to be there. you get the sense you, as the characters, have to behave a certain way in order to not get yelled at and insulted. at least that's how i felt like

then there's....... barok van zieks. and he's all OP already said. his main character trait is that he's racist. and his racism is said to originate from his traumatic past. and i think anyone with some common sense will eventually wonder if that's really what the story is saying.

when i first watched a DGS playthrough (i never played the games myself because i can only play on my phone and it won't run 3D games, especially something as long as dgs) and bvz hinted at the "reason" he's so openly hostile to japanese people i thought "ok. obviously everyone knows he's using this as an excuse. obviously trauma doesn't make you racist" because to me, i saw it as him saying "i have been around people who think like this my whole life, it was always preached to me that you can only trust your peers and foreigners aren't our peers, this is how we do here in london. then i met this japanese man who proved them wrong and i was able to trust him and become his friend. i thought that meant i no longer thought like the others and i was able to be friends with foreign people, unlike them, who are close minded and prejudiced. and then, when the possibility that my friend had betrayed us crossed my mind, i fell back into my racist biases and stopped trusting him completely. in that moment i realized i was the one who's wrong, and everyone else that warned me about the japanese not being trustworthy were right, so i will never make the mistake of trusting another japanese person again" which ofc means he never actually let go of his racist ideals, he just had a fondness for one specific person. the moment he thought this person might've been guilty, its like the values he grew up believing in were confirmed. he didn't think twice, he assumed the only person who could do something so awful was the foreigner he was told not to trust. he would never suspect his brother, a trusted englishman, could do such a thing. no one did. it's KLINT VAN ZIEKS's innocence against that of a foreigner. of course they'll trust klint. of course they'll fool themselves into believing klint could've never done anything bad. of course the japanese man was the one to kill our trusted and loyal friend klint. finding out genshin killed klint was like having all their biases confirmed to them, it meant that they were right all along, that the japanese can't be trusted so of course he had to have been the professor. only a foreigner like genshin would be capable of that, not our klint. not our people. and while its only natural that people who knew klint personally, such as barok himself, would be in denial and would refuse to believe such a beloved person could be the one committing horrible crimes, the problem is that they're the justice system. the justice system loves klint and hates foreigners. the justice system is based on prejudiced values and biases. the people of london think like this. they are raised to believe that we are good, moral, straight. they are odd, untrustworthy. only they are capable of such horrible things, not us.

another notable moment in the games that really sets this whole thing up for me is when we first meet soseki natsume. i don't remember what he says exactly, but he's so relieved when he meets ryunosuke and susato and finds out they're also foreigners because he knows exactly how the londoners see him. he knows how hostile and biased they are, and he knows english lawyers would never want to defend him. not just because they're going against the alleged reaper of the bailey, but because soseki is japanese, and everyone in london automatically distrusts him. he's so happy to see ryunosuke and susato because he can trust them, and he knows they'll trust him. the whole reason why soseki was arrested at all was because he was "acting suspicious", as in, the police/witnesses/people around the crime scene see him as guilty by default because of their own racist biases. they think only a japanese man, especially an odd one like soseki, would do something so cold hearted like that for no apparent reason. there was no evidence against him, no motive, all they had is the fact that he was around when the crime happened. because he... lives right there. and he's not a londoner, so we trust him less.

and this is not even subtext, this is part of the game, the narrative. we see and experience this happening everywhere, london has a racism problem. it just does, it's an undeniable fact. THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, THE COURT, THE HIGHEST RANKING PEOPLE OF POWER IN THIS CITY have racist biases. no one is free from biased thinking. not even us as the player, but that's another thing entirely.

what im getting at is that i wish I WISH SO HARD this setup actually lead somewhere. i wish that in the end we'd be able to see even more clearly that the police, barok van zieks, mael stronghart and everyone else in the justice system willingly ignored the fact that genshin could not have been the professor because of their biases. i wish they actually fully believed klint was innocent because it's their klint. their friend. he can't be guilty. i wish the game showed us that bvz and stronghart and inspector gregson not only blindly trusted klint to pretend they didn't see that all the evidence pointed towards him, but that they also had this natural distrust for genshin because he's not really "one of them". i wish we could see them denying their racist biases while being very clearly racist still, and that it was clear to us as the audience that the reason genshin was said to be the professor was not because he killed klint, but because everyone knowingly cherrypicked evidence and stretched the truth to fit what they already believed in. like they did with soseki. i wish it was made more clear that barok didnt become racist because his brother was killed by someone he trusted, but because he had always been racist and that fact confirmed his deep seated beliefs, and that racism and prejudice are present in the judicial system because it is composed of people who have these ideals, we have a system built on human biases and corruption and a group of powerful people's desire to believe one of their own couldn't be capable of horrible crimes is the reason why genshin asogi was believed to be the professor when he was actually the one to stop said criminal. just my opinion ! ok

Despite being my favorite prosecutor of the series in my favorite games of the series, I do have a huge problem with Barok van Zieks' writing, and it's his racism. Not that I mind that character flaw, but rather how it's handled.

In the game, Barok is racist towards Japanese people. Mind you, most of the English characters are too, but Barok is not only openly hostile and contemptuous of Japanese culture, but he's also the only character for whom this is a focus point. Later in the game, he overcomes that racism through his legal battles and budding friendship with Ryunosuke, our Japanese protagonist.

That's not what I have a problem with. That would lie in the origin of this racist behavior.

See, unlike the rest of the racist characters in Great Ace Attorney, Barok is prejudiced against Japanese people because of his tragic backstory (big red flag).

When he was younger, Barok actually liked Japanese people, and was even good friends with one, Genshin Asogi, until Genshin was revealed to be the Professor, a serial killer who murdered several members of the judiciary, including Klint van Zieks, Barok's older brother who he idolized. From that point on, Barok had a deep mistrust and hatred of all Japanese people.

That part sucks ass, because the key to Barok stopping being racist is proving that while Genshin did kill Klint, he did so in an honorable duel which Klint accepted, because he was the real Professor and Genshin knew it was the only way to bring him to justice.

This implies at best that Barok would have never been able to overcome his bigotry without the proof of Genshin's innocence, and at worst that his bigotry would've been justified if Genshin really was the Professor.

But the worst (or best, depending on your relationship with headcanons/mods) is that this is so easily fixed, and in fact, the game almost gives us the answer wholesale:

The reason the Professor's true identity was not found is partly due to the efforts of the villains of the game, but also because the rest of the characters involved in his case, including Barok, put Klint on such a pedestal that they unconsciously rejected any evidence of his guilt.

If we want to highlight that moral (?) by contrasting it with our fix to Barok's racism problem, we can simply answer a question that naturally comes to mind with this set up: Why was the British judiciary, including Barok, so quick to write off Genshin as the Professor? Sure, he killed Klint, but he killed him with a katana, while the rest of the Professor's victims died of bite wounds. The game answers with the same Klint pedestal logic as before, but I think it should be because Barok and the judiciary are racist.

It's such a simple change, and yet it makes Barok's story so much better from a narrative and sociopolitical standpoint. Barok prides himself on seeking the truth, a deeply heroic quality in Ace Attorney. So the fact that his own prejudice, something he didn't even care to question for his great friend Genshin Asogi ("one of the good ones" in this scenario), caused the obfuscation of the truth would be devastating, and that devastation being the end of his bigotry would stay in line with the heavily character-focused writing of Ace Attorney and yield a much better message in addition of "racism is bad": societal biases left unexamined can blind us to reality, leading us to make awful mistakes that go against our core principles.

It also has a bunch of additional perks: Seishiro's anger would become additionally relatable for many POC, it would be a great and honestly ballsy commentary on law enforcement to make for the most popular VN series, it would create a nice parallel with Soseki Natsume's arrest, and it would add an interesting touch to Stronghart's characterization, what with him being racist (and a well-written racist at that) in the games already, but also becoming aware of said racism in others and using that to his benefit in our version.

Anyway, don't let the multiple paragraphs of criticism fool you, I'm making this post because I love these games to death