#i think that is fundamental to what i feel about this

[raayllum]

King of What? :: a S7 Ezran Meta

Introduction

Because S7 in particular gave me even more Ezran feelings than usual, and I thought "What's more fun than methodically breaking them down and sorting them into categories?" so here we are. We'll be looking at a lot (but not all) of Ezran's s7 arc as well as some holdovers from previous seasons. There are also some motifs to keep in mind, such as the:

Phoenix motif

Need motif (+ him and Callum later)

Reflection Motif

that we will dive into more later once they're more relevant / we can put the pieces in place. For now, a little background meta key up because S7 breaks Ezran down and then systematically builds him back up while also, in some ways, doing a complete overhaul.

So let's talk about it?

Pillars of Identity: Who is Ezran?

TDP is a series obsessed with a lot of things, but if I'd have to wager what the second core idea of the series is beyond the Cycle of Violence, I'd probably put in on a theme of Identity, specifically questions such as, "how do I, as a person, exist within the Cycle (breaking it, perpetuating it, both)?" and "who has, or is, my grief turning me into?" as they are deeply interrelated. To answer those questions, that requires establishing who a character is in 'normal life,' or outside of grief and the cycle (ie. trauma) and who they are within it.

With that in mind, I think Ezran has about five approximate pillars for his identity, in roughly this order:

Harrow's son

The king

Callum's brother

Zym's friend

Rayla's friend

I don't think that other characters pillars would be that different (Rayla's primary would also likely be her three duty bound parents) as it does make sense; most children's primary influence in life, especially as they grow, start with their parents as role models even if they may eventually separate and take an opposite road (love you Soren). Where Ezran differs, I think, is that while I don't know if Rayla would consciously conceptualize herself as her parents' daughter as her primary pillar, I do think that Ezran — especially Ezran in arc 2 — is always orienting himself around "I am Harrow's son" (for better or for worse in terms of what that means).

This is also why I put Ezran's identity as king as his second pillar. In his childhood / pre-s3, I think his second pillar would've been his identity as Callum's (little) brother. However, we see him place returning to his kingdom above helping Callum (brother) and Rayla (friend) returning Zym (another friend) to Xadia. The loss of his father strips away the relative safety of body and mind that being a prince comparatively gave him, fundamentally altering his internalized and externalized sense(s) of responsibility and his choices accordingly. It's the loss of his father and the subsequent grief, yes, which Callum also experiences, but uniquely the mantle of the throne as well, which is what he highlights in 7x02:

This all started the day that assassin came to Katolis and killed him. Our king. Our father. I never asked for this. I wasn't ready to be a king. I'm just a kid. That day changed me forever.

So let's talk about being the king. Let's talk about

The Crown

Ezran's crown is one of the few objects in the series to have an episode titled after it (3x02) and the only one I can remember that continues to be a symbol we consistently come back to throughout (i.e. unlike 1x07's "The Dagger and the Wolf"). Despite returning to Katolis to be king and sitting on the throne itself throughout the episode, Ezran struggles with the crown. It is, to him, in some manner different than the throne, despite ostensibly representing the same thing. He has, effectively, already made the choice to be king, yet persists in his doubt and hesitation as he struggles to learn the balance.

Opeli, however, contributes to that distinction, noting specifically that "the crown is a heavy burden to bear" and that "no one blames you for being a child". Ezran's choice to fully commit to, and his acquiring of the kingship fully, is made synonymous with him putting on his father's crown for the first time. In a lot of ways, Ezran returning home to Katolis was him realizing he can't run away from growing up (2x09) in his own words, and therefore that putting on the crown is him committing to becoming someone new: this is Grown Up Ezran, or Growing Up Ezran, actively. He is, from this day on by choice, no longer just a child, but also — more so — a king.

AARAVOS: The whining child king, in over his head, and he knows it. (4x04) DOMINA: Who is this child? ZUBEIA: He is a king! (5x01) KARIM: I've never negotiated with a child before. CORVUS: He is a king. (6x07)

This also folds into how Ezran conceptualizes his father. Again, as children often do, he looks to his father for guidance with the things that Ezran is struggling to handle per his sense of responsiblity (teaching Zym how to fly in season 2): "I just wish Dad was here. He'd know what to do, you know?"

When Ezran returns home in season three, he does so with the direct consequence of his father's actions on his shoulders and wrapped around his brow, and with his letter in hand, and these changes likewise reflect a more nuanced understanding of his father:

All of you knew King Harrow as a great king. He was a warrior, a leader, and a champion. But I knew him as my Dad, who loved me and my brother and our mom, and sometimes told really bad jokes. [...] I didn't see everything he had to do as king, but I do know my father had to make some very hard decisions... I haven't been through the things that made my father the king he was. So I've decided that I don't have to be the king my father was. My father made choices to keep fighting battles that started hundreds of years before he was born. To punish children for crimes their parents committed. I don't want to be that kind of king.

This is, of course, a speech made in the context of actively rejecting war and of pardoning those who would otherwise be punished, both things that Harrow did engage in directly and deeply regretted in the letter Ezran currently holds. Ezran then walks the balance of simultaneously rejecting who his father was, and honouring who his father was and who he wanted to be. This is perhaps best exemplified in season 3 of Ezran, two episodes after rejecting his father's 'way', having a mirrored path across the courtyard set to "Last Sunset" in one of their most overt parallels, prepared to give up his life and freedom in hopes others will make better choices with the (hopefully) renewed agency they now have.

By the time we get to season 4, Ezran has changed greatly. He's more confident as king, the team's resident diplomat and negotiator, and a lot more active in general, though not without plenty of room to grow. 4x03 offers a cold dose of reality that the road to the future he wants is going to be harder to walk, but still confident that we can get there because, "We all want peace, and we all want love."

He also has a more complicated yet positive view of his father as king and of the world at large. He best expresses this, perhaps, the first time he removes his crown (which is a permanent part of his identity, and of his character design):

I am King Ezran of Katolis. As my gift [of sacrifice], I offer you my crown. It has no jewels and it isn't made of precious metal. It's made from the steel of my father's sword. My father was a strong king, and I wanted to carry that strength with me. But he also taught me that strength isn't always about weapons and war. This crown reminds me of that lesson.

Rather than just seeing Harrow as something to not be, Ezran has come around to wanting to carry his father closely with him. He's learned that "peace demands just as much strength as war" and also decided to embody Harrow's closing thoughts as a king: "I now believe that true strength is found in vulnerability, in forgiveness, in love." A dual strength for a dual king, symbolized by Ezran taking his father's sword and reshaping it into something new.

Ezran is a King of Love as Strength. He is king because he's literally Harrow's son and heir, but also emotionally — narratively — Harrow's son in terms of breaking the cycle and choosing love (similarly how Janai in S7 becomes known as a queen of mercy just like her previous royal role model, Aditi). Harrow's son by fact, and Harrow's son by choice in some ways:

EZRAN: History doesn't have to be a narrative of strength. Not if we don't want it to be. It can be a narrative of love. KARIM: These are childish dreams. EZRAN: Not dreams, choices. I am a king. And as a king, I choose love over strength.

So Ezran being king, to him, is synonymous with choosing love as strength. With making choices. With being Harrow's son (positive). He forgives Zubeia and Avizandum because of Zym. He forgives Rayla because "I'm sure she doesn't mean to make [Callum] feel that way". He provides an anchor, a pillar, for other people to build their identity around ("Don't you remember who you are?") as a reminder and a lever (hi Soren). He can honour and strive to be better than his father simultaneously. He can hold pain and love in his heart at the same time.

Until he can't.

King of what? King of ashes? [Of nothing?]

In seasons 4 and 5, we see Ezran remove his crown. Both are about sacrifices: he is prepared to offer his crown to Rex Igneous and to Finnegrin in order to help with their mission, asserting its sentimental value and importance to him: "You must bring Rex Igneous a worthy gift." / "It's not worthless. It's really important to me."

In season 7, he removes it just once. This is in admission to Callum that he "never asked for this". He was given the option of being king or not being king, but neither would've necessarily made him happy, and he made the best choice with the options he had... Options that he never asked for in the first place. The crown being a reminder to choose strength over love? He never asked to have to learn that lesson, either. It was a burden placed on him in making the best out of a bad situation, which is — unfortunately — an unavoidable part of life. But it can still be, or feel, unfair to him.

I think we see this aspect of Ezran struggling with what he wanted vs what was forced upon him in how he (and others) in 7x02 treat his high ranking position. We've seen first hand in 5x01 that Callum would overrule something like Rayla — and Runaan by extension — being arrested, but Ezran has the final say here as king. However, he does not directly highlight his own ranking. Merely, he reminds his brother of Callum's position:

Callum. High Mage. We need you at this council meeting.

And Rayla ("you're not my king, but you are my friend") reminds Ezran of his, because it is Ezran's status as king — the power, the trauma — that is driving them apart:

So, King Ezran. How determined are you to stop me?

Being king gives Ezran control over the people around him — Opeli, Soren, Corvus, Aanya, Callum — and over what happens. It gives him control. A sense of safety. And while these are understandable desires, they swing the wrong way in his anger.

So let's talk about who they swing towards!

Targets (Sol Regem, Runaan, Callum)

Ezran's anger has three direct targets in season 7, and as such, it's easy to see the way each stacks on top of the other.

The initial one is Sol Regem ("We need to find Sol Regem and destroy him"). This leads to finding an already dead dragon, which means in addition to having no one to blame, it means Ezran has no way to know or understand why Sol Regem attacked Katolis (beyond a hatred of humans). The destruction of the castle feels like losing his family all over again, in some ways, in addition to his childhood home.

Then lo and behold, the man responsible for killing his father walks right into it.

You! This is all your fault! Everything changed the day you came. You killed my father!

I think this line shows a few things. As king, Ezran was supposed to protect and be there for Katolis (2x09) while also working to break the cycle. That's what, by Ezran's measure, a good king would do. He's utterly failed at the former, and if he's a bad king, then he shouldn't be king. So whose fault is it that Ezran, a bad king, is on the throne? Logistically and emotionally, it's Runaan. It's not quite rational but it is reasonable for Ezran to look at every event in his life from the past two years spiralling out from his father's death, and culminating in Katolis' destruction.

However, despite Runaan becoming the next target of Ezran's anger, he's not actually the most consistent target of it throughout the season: Callum is.

After 7x02, Ezran doesn't breathe a single word of ire about Runaan for the rest of the series, even if he's still clearly angry months later in the 7x09 'epilogue'. Instead in 7x03, he's fixated on finding and dragging his brother back as punishment ("we can't let him get away with it!") for betrayal, which Ezran also takes personally and extends beyond himself: "Callum betrayed me. He betrayed all of Katolis."

The idea that a king represents his kingdom is an old one in terms of history, and considering that Runaan killed the king of Katolis, and Callum helped him escape, it's not that much of a reach. However, Ezran isn't even thinking that logically. If Ez was proposing hunting down the kingslayer and bringing him back to face justice, that'd be one thing. However, he only talks about holding Callum accountable, not even Rayla (who also betrayed him) or Runaan (the escaped prisoner).

His targets, quite literally, switched from Aanya having her arrow notched at Runaan and then to his brother, and Ezran's anger has subsequently followed.

Now, some of this is undoubtedly because of the three, Ezran is the closest to Callum. They had a childhood together and Callum was customarily always in his corner, if sometimes a bit scatterbrained/unreliable or angry. He, accordingly, expected Callum to be on his side, and barring that (stopping him from going after Rayla in the meeting) was prepared to enforce it. A lot of our emotional upset tends to come from "I expected you to understand/support me, and you don't" after all.

However, I think Ezran's emotional interplay is a bit more complicated. I think in 7x01, Ezran attaches to Callum as an extension of himself even as he self-isolates, such as sending Callum to go with Corvus "because we have to do something" in investigating Sol Regem, and for no real in-universe reason besides "Corvus offered to go, but I need to feel in control so I'm going to tell/order someone to go with him".

The other, bigger part of this is that Callum is the biggest hole in Ezran's reasoning.

EZRAN: He killed our father. Isn't that enough?

We know that part of Ezran's grief is that it forced him to be king and grow up quickly, something that Callum is adjacent to but can't relate to in the same way by virtue of not having the crown. But since the reasoning Ezran highlights is that 1) Runaan is a murderer (unlike the bulk of the people at his council table—oh wait) and 2) it's okay/right to punish him for killing their father... having his brother, who is also King Harrow's son (cue the identity pillar) disagree is a pretty big blow to it. They both loved their dad; he was their father, and they were both his sons. Callum is in the closest position imaginable to Ezran as anyone could be, emotionally, yet they have two completely different perspectives. It gives Ezran's reasoning much less ground to stand on, and he can't handle it. The fact that Callum's perspective (which was already a betrayal in its own way) then becomes action (which is what Ezran labels the betrayal), I think, is just the cherry on top.

Another thing that's worth noting, I think, is that neither Ezran or Callum are necessarily the ones who escalate things in 7x02; Aanya and Rayla are. Soren, Corvus, and the other guards are working under Ezran as his crownguard, but Aanya and Rayla are the rogue parties. Aanya isn't operating under Ezran's jurisdiction, but as his friend and ally. What this does mean, though, is that literally everyone at the Banther Lodge is on Ezran's side against Rayla and her weakened, injured father... except Callum, but as a mage, he's enough to tip the scales to take down the crownguard... and then use himself as a human shield.

One of the things about Ezran's anger and its targets in season 7 is that it does a very good job at illustrating exactly why the Cycle is so destructive to participate in, because yes, you may aim your anger at the people who 'deserve' it and are directly responsible—the acceptable, understandable Targets if you will—but you catch others in the crossfire. There is always collateral damage of people who didn't do a thing to you, whether that's the people who love them, or the people who are like them. (Insert Zubeia wanting to take revenge for the loss of her mate and child, claiming the lives of the assassins sent to take it, and then Lyrennus' pain at the loss of his child + Ethari's at the loss of his partner.) There is no clean way to kill your enemy in a manner that does no harm to anyone else (who is innocent).

Ezran's targets by proxy of wanting to deal with Sol Regem's destruction of Katolis are the dragons and Zym (more on them in a second, though, cause that deserves its own section). His targets by proxy of wanting to punish Runaan is causing deep pain to Rayla, even before she's taken any action against him, and then on a more literal sense his own brother. His targets by proxy of wanting to drag Callum back by force likely would've been Runaan, Rayla, potentially Ethari, or even Corvus or other crownguard in the fight.

Callum shielding Runaan (and Rayla by extension) force Ezran to confront this fact, at least a little. Does he value punishing Runaan (and Rayla, a girl who's saved him countless times, who was willing to lose a hand for him, who has otherwise always taken his side)—perpetuating the cycle—over his brother's life. And Ezran is angry enough that he good and truly considers it (although we could say perhaps he was waiting to see if Callum would move out of the way). But where Ezran was willing to hurt Rayla emotionally if it meant physically punishing Runaan, he is not willing to risk killing Callum to keep the assassin as a prisoner.

This is also, I think, the turning point for Aanya. She is Ezran's friend and was willing to follow his lead, and upon seeing the choice that Ezran made—sparing Callum over killing him and Runaan—she shifts gears. She and everyone else (who are deeply uncomfortable with Ezran's increasing rage, but unwilling to speak out against it) recognize that pursuing and punishing Callum will not actually making Ezran feel better. So she tries a different tactic.

EZRAN: We can't let him get away with it. Corvus, I need you to track them. CORVUS: [Gently corrects him] King Ezran, we already know where they're going. The Silvergrove. EZRAN: Right. And that's why I need you to track them. (7x03)

I also think Ezran taking 'being king' as such a core identity piece—Callum was Harrow's son too, but not in the way Ezran wanted/needed—lets Aanya reach him. She's also a child monarch, and reminding Ezran of this and that he and Callum can heal ("But I'll always be your brother" / "You're brothers") is something that Ezran deeply needed to hear from someone else, too.

AANYA: I know it hurts right now, Ezran. But you need to know that you and Callum are not broken. The both of you will heal one day. You're brothers. It's okay to be angry, and it's okay to be sad. But I think you should let this go, for now. You're the king of Katolis, and your people need you. EZRAN: You're right. I need to protect them.

EZRAN: But Katolis needs me. (4x03)

However, that doesn't mean Aanya's advice, nor how Ezran pursues that protection is faultless, so next, let's talk about

Dragons as Friends and Foes

Ezran has always been the dragon boy.

Back in 2021, I wrote a more long winded post that basically boiled down to—in a show where elf, human, and dragon relations are key—it was likely that Callum was always designed to be the human who engaged the most with the culturally elven side of things (primal magic, Rayla being his lancer), and Ezran (with his ability to talk to animals) was designed to handle the dragon-human side of things. Think how we see Callum's first meeting with Rayla, an elf, while Ezran is the one who discovers Zym as a dragon egg.

Although other characters (namely Rayllum in S3, and Soren in seasons 4-6) bond with dragons as well, this remained true throughout arc 2, wherein Ezran is the closest to Zym and Zubeia, the primary negotiator with the various archdragons, going on his 'big dragon missions' (5x01-5x03), etc.

Season seven, therefore, presents an interesting departure in Ezran's view of dragons. Previously, while they should've been enemies, he always saw them as friends and allies: being the first to run to and aid Pyrrah in 2x07, trying to commune with Zubeia to wake her up in 3x08, defending Avizandum in 4x08 on behalf of Zym, etc.

Sol Regem's attack changes all of that. As Ezran states:

But doesn't a home need to be safe? [...] Our ancestors spent generations building Katolis. I don't want to waste our time if it's all going to get knocked down. [...] We have to be ready. We have to be strong enough so that they won't even think about attacking us. Before we rebuild, we have to build our defenses.

In season 4 and 5, all Ezran wanted to do was work with the dragons. To work together with Zubeia to stop Aaravos; to call upon the dragons to help stop Claudia and Viren. Now, the dragons are a 'them'. Now there's an 'us'.

This isn't necessarily a 'wrong' way to think about it, though. An archdragon did attack and devastate Katolis, seemingly — to Ezran — for no apparent reason. To want to prevent that from happening is reasonable. Yes, Ezran is friends with dragons, but most friends aren't also born with the inherent capacity to utterly destroy your life as a built in feature.

At the same time, this new 'us vs them' mindset is challenged a few times in season 7. Although Ezran's assurances to Zym that "we're only building such powerful weapons so that we never have to use them" will not work out without consequences in arc 3, I'm sure, thus far we only see Ezran use them on another enemy he's willing to be increasingly violent with: Aaravos.

In 7x07, the Startouch elf offers up a double serving of manipulation — the bigger one being to join him and that he's humanity's ally, which Ezran steadfastly rejects, and the smaller one beneath regarding the Nova Blade (+ Callum), which Ezran 100% plays into. Both of these push Ezran further as a character.

The first avenue that Ezran rejects leads him to claim that:

I have allies already. The elves and dragons, fellow victims of your evil.

Even if the only elf he's currently working with is a recent addition is Terry, forcing Rayla and Runaan to go on the run in 7x02, and his draconic ally in Zym is deeply worried about Ezran and Aanya's project. But it shows that despite his coldness towards previous allies, Ezran still holds unity close and refuses to relinquish it entirely as an ideal.

Secondly, we have Ezran's choice to use the Nova Blade. This is both a departure and in line with his thoughts in 5x06:

CALLUM: We borrow this Nova Blade, wait for Aaravos to get out, and then just stab-stab, buh-bye bad guy. EZRAN: Wait, slow down. Shouldn't that be the last resort? If we can stop Aaravos from getting out at all, we can solve this without any violence.

On the one hand, Ezran in 7x08/09 is just following through with what he said here. If Aaravos was still trapped, they didn't need to resort to violence. Now that he's out, violence is accordingly on the table, just as Ezran said it would be. However, I think it still feels like a departure in some ways because of Ezran's repeated emphasis on strength and love over violence, and his choice (4x08, 5x06) to melt his father's sword down into a crown... only to now acquire a sword that isn't made for defense whatsoever, but for the express purpose of killing.

That said, more on the Nova Blade in a second.

For now, I want to return to the archdragons, and just do a little season track:

7x01: Ezran finds out an archdragon / former king of the dragons destroyed Katolis. Furious, he wants to destroy Sol Regem in turn, but cannot as the great dragon is already dead.

7x02: Ezran takes out his anger on Runaan, Zubeia's servant assassin.

7x03-7x05: Ezran goes with Aanya to learn how to build weapons that can stand a chance against dragons / archdragons, in spite of Zym's misgivings.

7x07: Despite Callum giving Ezran the mission to go retrieve Zubeia, Ez delegates it to his crownguard + Terry, choosing to remain in Katolis and converse with Aaravos instead to "keep [Aaravos] busy".

7x09: Ezran (and co.) are spared from sacrificing their lives and "everything we are" because of the archdragons, who all sacrifice themselves to stop Aaravos. Ezran holds Zym while his parents / Zubeia die, and then instructs a memorial to be created in the Valley of the Graves.

So, after a season of being angry at an archdragon, at seeing dragons as potential enemies... Ezran and everyone / everything he loves is saved by those very same creatures. Instead of destroyers who force him to sacrifice, they are saviours who choose to sacrifice on his behalf. This doesn't remove responsiblity from Ezran's shoulders per se—in many ways, a world without archdragons adds to it, as he states, "It's up to us now, Zym" (in a nice callback to 1x03)—but I do think it greatly contributes to his perspective in his closing scene this season.

One of the ways it does so is bringing back the gift motif from 4x08, not only in "worthy gifts of sacrifice" but in Ezran's realization that:

We offered gifts that meant a lot to us. But the truth is, they don't mean anything to you.

being directly contrasted in 7x09, with:

AARAVOS: And what will your sacrifices buy? A mere moment of peace before I return to a world without you? Without archdragons. Your deaths mean nothing.

EZRAN: They have given us a great gift. A chance to keep on living. Keep trying to be better.

The first time Ezran spoke of the dragons in 4x01, it was with excitement for Zubeia and Zym's visit to Katolis. He believed "it would change how people see dragons". He offered gifts of friendship and peace in the Valley of the Graves, only for the portrait to be defaced. By the end of season 7, Ezran's desire for people to see the dragons differently has come true, and his honouring of Zubeia is allowed to stand in a way that's far more permanent than a painting.

OPELI: It's the gift ceremony. I'm concerned that holding in the Valley of the Graves is insensitive. EZRAN: Wait, what? It's a sacred beautiful place. It's a place of peace. OPELI: Some people have come to me in confidence. They worry that honouring a dragon in a place that is a memorial to so many great humans, some of whom died at their hands, is offensive. (4x03)

EZRAN: Aaravos pushed us to to the brink. We were ready to sacrifice it all. Everything. You and me, Callum, Rayla... We almost gave up everything we are. But because of them, the archdragons, we didn't have to.

Now, I don't think this change at the end of the season will be enough necessarily for Ezran to halt Project Ruby Fire. I don't think it undoes the hard choices he's made or the things he's learned about himself. But I do think it asserts what he's aspiring towards, and helps direct himself to who he wants to be and how he's going to proceed going forward (Evrkynd, Runaan).

Speaking of which, let's finally talk about Runaan. Again.

A Phoenix

I've alluded to this this a bit before, but I think one of the main reasons Ezran chose to forgive Runaan was because of the archdragons' sacrifice. The dragons gave him a chance to keep living, to keep trying to be better—and Ezran then turns and gives that "great gift" in turn to Runaan. I don't know if I think that Ezran would've otherwise had Runaan executed, but forgiveness even more than just being spared is a much more active choice in a lot of ways, and not something that Ezran had to conflate, but chose to.

The other reason I think Ezran chose to forgive Runaan is because, as of the end of S7, he's been Runaan.

As an assassin, I had convinced myself that I was a kind of peacemaker. A twisted peacemaker, I suppose. I believed that my act of precision violence was preferable... necessary, even, to prevent far greater bloodshed.

[...] I was trained to accept that I was already dead, so that I might carry out my dark work without fear. But I am not dead. I am alive. I have a family I love. I have so much to lose, the very things I took from you.

"They have given us a great gift. A chance to keep on living."

Ezran now understands how someone can believe that to keep back chaos and death, you have to kill another person. To believe in your bones that someone has to die, even if that means your own destruction. That doesn't mean Runaan was right about Harrow, or that Ezran is necessarily wrong about Aaravos, but the journey to get there, the mindset, of how undeterred you are when you reach that place... Ezran's been there. He knows, now, in ways he didn't before.

He forgave Zubeia because everything was complicated: because he could relate to longing for his mother (Zym), to watching his father grieve his wife the same way Zubeia was grieving Avizandum, to wanting to protect his kingdom (Avizandum). To grieving family. Of a child who had lost things.

He forgives Runaan because he can understand being an assassin, and already dead, and realizing you almost lost / have forsaken your family along the way. Of violence testing you, and failing, and having to try again. To reforge yourself into something new—because the true heart you had before is gone, but that doesn't mean your heart is.

Ezran stands in front of the fireplace twice in season 7. The first is with Zym in 7x02 and where he has his initial disagreement with Callum. The second time is with Runaan in 7x09, a fire in his eyes. This evokes not only Ezran's fury and association with the dragons, but also the framing of Aaravos from earlier in the season.

Ezran once asked if he was now the king of ashes. 7x09 demands him to answer if he wants to keep being a King of Ashes. If he wants to continue feeding his anger and hate, if he wants to continue fuelling the fire of hatred and grief within him. And Ezran says no. He says yes to forgiveness, though this time, he does not know the way:

EZRAN: But it's not that simple or easy. [...] Somehow, we have to hold it all in our hearts at the same time. (4x03) CALLUM: But somehow, you got past that. You forgave her, because everything was complicated. (7x02) EZRAN: I'm going to forgive you. I don't know how, but I have to try. (7x09)

He is presented with a phoenix (Runaan, back from the grave) and chooses to become one himself, and welcome back in all the other pillars of identity that had been crumbling over the past season.

EZRAN: I think about the people I love who are counting on me to do the right thing. Not the strong thing, not the harsh thing. The right thing. Do you love your sister, Prince Karim? (6x07)

It's sort of fitting, then, that in choosing once again to be Harrow's son (positive), he's presented with a more literal bird phoenix in "Harrow's soul in is in Pip" then, too.

And the same rebirth goes for the world around him, too.

ASTRID: Everything burns when a star dies. (7x09)

OPELI: King Ezran... perhaps it is finally time to rebuild. EZRAN: No. It's time to build something new. [...] Our world faced its end. But we survived. And on the other side, we find ourselves at a new beginning. [...] There is no such thing as utopia. But with hard work and discipline, persistence and patience, we can build a better place.

The Crown, Again (reforge into something new)

So I've talked about the reflection motif, and I've talked now about the phoenix motif. There's still more I could touch on in regards to Ezran's whole thing with Aaravos and the Orphan Queen, the layers of Aaravos' manipulation, the theme of following in your predecessors' footsteps and the good and harm that can come of it, but that's probably a meta for another day. For now, I want to return to the Need motif we touched on earlier.

TDP is very interested in questioning what characters deem necessary. Thus far, this was mostly done through Aaravos ("Aaravos did what was necessary" / "we will do what must be done"), Claudia ("I did what I had to do" / "Maybe he's just doing what needs to be done" / Whatever it takes, however dangerous, however vile"), and Viren ("I tried to explain that I had only done what was necessary"). S7 starts to shift gears and push further at the main trio, questioning and picking apart some of their mindsets (which again, could be a meta on its own) in regards to what sort of violence they believe is necessary and why, only for none of it to actually have been so because of the Archdragons. A nice little meta-narrative reflection.

What I want to actually focus on here is Ezran's idea of need. This is usually couched within his place of being king, and loyalty to his kingdom, as we've seen previously ("But Katolis needs me" / "You are the king of Katolis, and your people need you").

EZRAN: I wish [Zym] could come with me too, but you need to go be with your mom. That's your home. Both of us need to go home. (2x09)

So Ezran believes that needs to be king because Katolis needs him. Great. What does Ezran need?

Season 7 gives various answers, according to himself:

"Callum. High Mage. We need you at this council meeting" (7x02)

"We can't let [Callum] get away with it. Corvus, I need you to track them" (7x03)

"I need to protect [my people]" (7x03)

"Destiny works in mysterious ways. The Novablade came to my ancestor, only to be lost for generations until we needed it" (7x09).

The other people in his life have other ideas, as discussed.

ZUBEIA: But Zym, you must go. Your brother Ezran needs you. (6x02)

AANYA: But you need to know that you and Callum are not broken. The both of you will heal one day. You're brothers.

CALLUM: Mom said it was okay to be angry, but I couldn't let the bad feelings stick. Because we were going to need each other. Because we're brothers. I still need you, Ezran.

Broken things can be mended. Crowns and swords can be reforged. People can be, too. As much as Ezran loves his council and his crownguard, he needs people who don't just see him as king. Callum is not his High Mage, but will always be his brother, and that's what's most important. He needs Callum and Rayla and Zym; he needs Aanya who can help keep him grounded. He needs his family because they help keep him who he is as much as he has for them in the past ("Don't you remember who you are?" in 4x07) now that it is up to them to maintain it, and the archdragons are gone.

And to be himself, Ezran needs to be:

Harrow's son with accordance to a Narrative of Love

The King of Katolis

Callum, Zym, and Rayla's brother

rising from the ashes and bringing others up with him, over and over again the way he always has. The way he always will.

Because not all cycles are bad, either.

Conclusion

As stated, there's more to Ezran's arc in S7: ideas of history and half-truths, of chains and Startouch elves, of home and memorials. Of what we carry against our will, what we choose to set down, and vice versa. What this meta was, then, was the first at likely two passes, focusing on Ezran's emotional state(s) throughout the season and his emotional processing. More structural and thematic based analyses of his character in S7 / across the show thus far will definitely folllow.

For now, though, thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed a bit of a deeper dive!

All hail the king.

[plaidos]

how do you read caliborn genderwise? calliope is clearly and obviously a trans girl but how caliborn relates to that feels like kt can be read a couple of ways

in Homestuck proper, Caliborn and Calliope are pretty obviously both canonically trans to me (though I suppose it’s subtextual). everything we learn about cherub gender we learn through Aranea & Calliope who are… like probably the least reliable narrators in the whole comic? the implication, to me, is that Calliope projected human gender roles onto cherubs/herself… a thing we know she already does; she takes massive liberties with her understandings of the traits of different species, in an obviously quite fannish way, and we know that she doesn’t really have any relationship to cherubkind beyond herself and her brother and a couple of artefacts they had.

and then obviously, Caliborn being Caliborn, he did the same in response. he defines himself in opposition or domination to Calliope at all costs, so naturally he chose what he thought was the stronger, better, superior earth gender.

like im not saying that cherubs have literally no gender at all, i don’t know if that’s true, but the green/red and hero/villain shit they have going on is basically its own alien gender/sex system. in FACT, in obscure homestuck lore esoterica, Calliope and Caliborn’s mother is directly stated to be the historical figure Calamity Jane (Calamity — eight letters. check it) so you know i’d say if anything that’s anything but traditional femininity.

i think Caliborn & Calliope are fundamentally meant to be read as transmasc and transfem respectively. all of their dialogue and interactions makes more sense this way. Calliope and Roxy is literally the most t4t storyline of all time

[badninken]

Been thinking about the "Third Uchiha teammate comment" and like, I have a friend that deviced and entire "What if Itachi never massacred the Uchiha", although he does end up basically having to execute his parents (this time everyone knows what happened) and like discussing the relationship with Kakashi in that context and like not only Kakashi would have two cute Kohais, I feel like Kakashi and Itachi would relate to each other a lot, as geniuses on their own right. Idk I like the idea of them becoming good friends

I don't know how that specific alternative scenario would go, but in general, if no coup or massacre happened, I think Kakashi and Itachi would have continued to be perfect colleagues and good friends.

The concept of Kakashi and Itachi as friends is very funny to me, because I don't think their friendship would look like friendships might normally do. They're just not normal guys.

Kakashi and Itachi are very similar in temperament, intellect and skill and they have both been considered genius elite child soldiers since they were little more than toddlers. They have things in common that very few others could relate to and they might have been able to bond over this if they talked about it. They're not talkers though, and I think it would take a lot of time for them to go beyond professional. Very slow-burn friendship.

There is an age and rank difference between them that might make it tempting to place Kakashi in a mentor role here, but Kakashi repeatedly reminds people that he hasn't had to teach Itachi a single thing beyond an afternoon going through of basic ANBU protocol. Kakashi is clearly aware of Itachi's age, and hesitant towards the idea of him being a government assassin while still that young, but Kakashi was put there himself not long ago so it's normal to him. He's not treating Itachi like a student and he's also not treating him with fear and awe because he's a superhuman murder child. Kakashi was that murder child like, yesterday.

They respect each other from day one, and I think it says a lot about them both, how they treat each other as equals. Kakashi never acts insecure about Itachi's skills being on par with his own and Itachi never acts superior about it. They're not the types to boast or get bothered about things like pride or glory. Life isn't a strength-measuring-contest to them, they just want to get the job done.

Ok, none of this is new. There is just so much to say about what goes on in the few anime episodes where they're in ANBU together, but this was supposed to be about their hypothetical future friendship.

Their temperaments are so mellow and their way of silently working in perfect sync with each other feels like the foundation for the type of friendship where they eventually learn to read each other well enough to not even need hand signs to talk anymore. I can see them having inside jokes communicated solely with a look or the shrug of a shoulder seen in the periphery. Like, complex but stupid jokes that nobody else would appreciate. They're social weirdos. They're mass murderers and they're quietly polite but fundamentally strange as fuck. They might exchange bento boxes for fun. They might exchange heavy secrets under the moonlight while hiding in treetops. I don't think they'd make a big deal out of being friends. I think they'd trust each other completely.

[mayapapaya33]

Well, I haven't read the origins comic yet, so I'll take your word for that. Some of the comic stuff is a bit wibbly on canon so I'm not sure if I do take it as campaign canon really, but I'll just go with it for the purposes of this conversation. (The fact that she never once mentions being run out of town by Yeza in the campaign makes that a little weird but sure ok. It also feels a little retconny to brush over her major fear that her family would reject her even if they DID know it was her under the curse, which was what was implied to be a big reason she stayed away in the campaign, in favor of it being because they DID chase her away based purely on what she looked like before she could say anything. It feels...strange. I'm not sure how I feel about it, I'll have to think about it. It just feels like after the fact justification of her staying away from them to me, but oh well. LET WOMEN BE FLAWED 2025! lol I am eventually going to get my hands on all of the origins comics, I just haven't done so yet.)

My point wasn't really a moral argument about Veth and Lilliana having done equally bad things in the world, obviously that's not true. I could have said It better, but I guess I just thought that was obvious and I was tired? lol, silly me. So to make it clearer: Veth is a hero who helped save the world, and Liliana fell in with a cult and did terrible things under the woefully misguided belief she was doing the right thing. I'm more saying I could see Veth turning out like Liliana if things went differently and their initial act of abandonment is fundamentally similar. Also, it's not just the hag thing btw, that was just the most obvious and memorable example I could reference and know everyone would know what I was talking about without writing a 5 page essay and hunting down obscure time stamps lol.

Another example was her stance in that discussion about justice and vengeance from ep 98 (26:26) with Caduceus. Cad basically said: Hey, going after criminals in the Empire sounds great if you can be smart about it, but if you're just doing it to make yourself feel better, I don't really see the point of that, so maybe don't because you'll probably restart the war if you aren't extremely careful. And Veth's response was very understandable from her characters pov, but makes me think that, yeah, in the right circumstances, she'll do what she wants, when she wants, and damn the consequences and it won't be about justice, it'll be about making herself feel good and she'll find the internal justification she needs to. "You can stand by -You can just watch bad people get away with it?" If the price of stopping one bad person is reigniting a WAR, um yeah, I can Veth. He's basically saying, don't cause more problems than you are going to fix by your actions, and interrogate your motivations and she wasn't having it. I think he might have gotten through to her in the end but I'm not sure because they "dissolved" using mouth sounds and hand waving into the next scene of Jester finding Marion.

There are many things that make me think this about her. Anger and desperation can cause people to make poor decisions. (I think you might have misconstrued the one bit where I was debating whether letting your family think you were dead and staying gone or just saying goodbye and abandoning them was actually worse or not, I personally vote dead being worse but I'm genuinely not sure, like I said. So, in that one aspect I think Veth's worse, but not for everything lol. The misguided hope left behind from what Liliana did might be worse.)

My point was that they both abandoned their families in order to solve a problem. Yes, Liliana left "voluntarily" right from the start in the sense that she wasn't kidnapped by goblins and transformed against her will, her "against her will change" was foisted upon her by a God Eater trapped in moon jail instead. She was essentially kidnapped by her own powers, she couldn't control them and needed to figure out what they were and how to deal with them. So yes, it was a choice for her to leave as you so aptly pointed out, just not quite as voluntary a choice as people keep presenting it as. I suppose it's more accurate for me to say it was Liliana's choice to leave, and Veth's choice to STAY gone (yes, even with the addition of the comic lore).

Don't you remember early campaign Imogen constantly having to be careful and worried about her telepathy? How it hurt her to be in large crowds? How her town DID treat her like garbage, like a pariah, "like an outright monster" even. It's not like Liliana left for fun. She was scared she was going to hurt someone if she didn't learn how to control herself, and worried that Imogen would develop those powers too. (That was her initial reasoning, and then things devolved of course). You said it yourself; The Grim Verity was taking too long, and she wanted to go home so she fell in with Ludinus and co because he promised answers and a solution.

Veth's initial separation from her family OBVIOUSLY wasn't her fault, and apparently in the comics she tried to go home and was run off for looking like a goblin. Well, that truly sucks for Comic Book Veth and she has my sympathy. There are still a variety of things she could have done, including once she befriended Caleb enough where she trusted him, have him go to Yeza in person and explain the curse and everything while she hid at the outskirts of town. She could have told Caleb a bunch of things only Veth would know to help convince Yeza, Etc.

At a certain point, Veth's Choice to stay away from her family was just as voluntary as Liliana's. She could have tried (or tried again if comics are canon) at any time, and she didn't. The problem wasn't solved so they "couldn't" go home and then events spiraled. Again, they aren't the same, I just think their situations parallel each other interestingly. Becoming "not a goblin" was not the only way for Veth to reunite with her family. It's perfectly understandable that she thought that it was considering all of her trauma and her shame and her fear, but that doesn't make it true. It was still an active choice that she made to not try to reunite with her family until she looked "normal" again, even once her circumstances had changed and she could have had help. She didn't try because she didn't want her family seeing her like that and because she was scared of what they would think. (Again, very understandable, but still a choice). What if Caleb couldn't find a way to change her back into a halfling? Would she never have gone home, continuing to look for a solution?

Liliana "couldn't" go home until she understood and could control her powers, a reasonable yet tragic decision, which then spiraled into it being that she "couldn't" go home until she helped "save" the world from the tyranny of the Gods, etc. Somewhat less reasonable I think you'll agree. How long does Veth's decision to not try (or not try again) to reunite with her family until she's no longer a goblin remain reasonable? One year? Five years? Ten years? It was a combination of luck and hard work that got her a new body as relatively fast as she did. Caleb and Essek meeting and becoming magic bffs might never have happened without Caleb's "I'm never going back to jail" moment in the Bright Queen's throne room for example lol.

More than all of that though, I'm not a huge fan of Veth's parenting while she IS present in Luc's life but seeing as Liliana hasn't really been present in Imogen's life for more than like a month, that's about where any parallels or comparisons stop lmfao. A lot of Veth's bad parenting once she's back in Luc's life is also due to the fact that Sam Riegel is a comedian first and an actor second so if he sees an opportunity to be funny, he'll pounce. Which unfortunately for poor Veth, does mean that if you look at her with a sober eye she comes across as a dreadful parent. Hilarious of course, but I did end up feeling bad for Yeza whenever I saw him futilely trying to be responsible whenever the M9 came trampling through their lives being bad influences. Honestly, she wonders why teenage Luc is like that! I learned it from watching you mom!

If the Good Moms of Critical Role ever learn about the shit Liliana's pulled it's on sight 😤

[zahri-melitor]

Thinking more about Tom King; I do wonder how much of how he’s viewed on tumblr is a result of the following two facts:-

The majority of the DC comics fandom on tumblr does not have personal memories of 2001

The majority of the DC comics fandom on tumblr is not prepared to give government security or intelligence the time of day as having a necessary purpose

It sounds a bit ‘you don’t know what you’re missing’ but fundamentally I think part of the problem is that you’re (generally) too young to appreciate many of King’s fundamental storytelling elements, because you’re too young to remember or care about the topics he keeps going back to interrogate.

And this is something that comes up in conversations I have with friends who are school teachers and university lecturers all the time, because September 11 for the majority of their students has now moved from category 1 here to category 3:

Core ‘where were you’ memory (people born early 90s or before)

Foundation of their childhood status quo (mid 90s to mid 2000s; maybe as late as 2007-2008)

History (late 2000s onwards)

They’re the ones at the forefront of talking about this with their students, and it’s moved from ‘default background for undergraduates’ now into ‘history that has an effect on the present’. They’re now too young to have soaked in the exhaustingly omnipresent US patriotism of the culture of the 2000s. And so the reaction of current students as a cohort to things heavily based or reflective on this period is fundamentally different to someone who lived through it.

A similar, earlier comparison would be writers who frame everything through the lens of the Cold War as an analogy for their writing. I’m a category 2 for the fall of the USSR, and I grew up with that dividing line; there was a lot of media made in the 90s that still premised the Soviets as existing into the future (very early 90s stuff that hadn’t been fixed in time) or that frantically had had a word find-replace for “Soviet” to “Russian” but the general attitude hadn’t changed (good comics example here is go read any of KGBeast’s appearances around Knightfall in DC comics; they’re really struggling with what to do about him). There was also even more media that still wanted to hammer Cold War themes but invented new fake countries to overlay it onto and to discuss as being the background of proxy wars, so they had the out of ‘this isn’t a real place, it’s Markovia/Kaznia/Pan Balgravia or Qurac/Kahndaq/Bialya’.

Many of these got further use for decades up until the present, partly because Central Asia has remained a hotspot for conflict for decades as a result of the fallout of the Cold War proxy conflicts, and partly because shoving extra expy states into Europe means you can play with the politics without having to be exact.

Because to me, this is what I see King doing to the present. And why it sticks out is that most people aren’t harping on the themes constantly anymore like they were 20 years ago. But for King it’s a well he keeps going back to because he was so heavily involved in it and didn’t really get the chance to start processing it until he left the CIA around 2010 and started working his feelings out in stories.

Because yes, at this point he’s beating a dead horse, but there are also incredibly successful writers of military thrillers who are STILL writing veiled ‘it’s the Soviets’ or ‘it’s the Arab Terrorists’ plots and selling. There’s clearly an audience for it. The audience just is an aging one.

And as someone who does remember the period, some of his work is extremely ‘oh god I remember’ and some of it is genuinely well thought through analogies interrogating the topic. Media and storytelling are frequently in conversation with the world and with themes the writer cares about. And I think we can all tell how large some of this loomed in Tom King’s life.

[columbidae-creature]

hey! not the op but i believe you are misunderstanding flat-earthers.

I spend a lot of time observing flat earthers, alt-medicine people, anti-vaxxers, raw milk people, etc as well as having many in my family, including having parents who were at one point anti-vax. this has lead me to have a strange sort of sympathy for them.

these are also primarily traumatized people like you or me who are trying to make sense of a confusing and terrifying world with the tools they have available to them. they are just sort of doing a bad job at it.

often, I notice at the root there is a very very valid problem or concern, that has lead them down a path of harmful ideology.

for example:

"I have a lot of medical trauma, doctors do not listen to me about my body and I have a scary diagnosis/symptoms that are hard to treat" -> "so now I think that all doctors are lying to me and I need to try alternative treatments"

"I feel disconnected to my community and to where my food comes from. being a social creature, this may even be causing me some physical/mental health problems" -> "I need to drink raw milk" (this one sounds like a bit of a jump but I promise you I could write essays about this)

"the public school system is deeply flawed and has misinformed people in the past. as well, sometimes science has a history of being used to further oppression (eg. eugenics), or respected scientists have been objectively wrong about things yet still their ideas widely accepted as scientific truth(eg those doctors/scientists that didn't believe in hand washing) -> "I don't trust science/the earth might be flat!!"

for anti-endos this path is often:

"I face sanism in my life, i had a difficult time getting diagnosed and even doctors are doubtful of me. ableists accuse me of faking my very real disorder and they often use endogenic/self diagnosed systems as evidence all systems are fakers" -> "instead of being fellow suffering people I should unite with, endogenic systems are my enemy, and are making the rest of us look bad. in order to separate myself from them to feel more legitimate, they must not actually be real, as opposed to me, who is a real system." (obviously not all anti-endos but I notice it a lot.)

i really do see the comparison. both groups are people who started from a place of genuine suffering, confusion, or just trying to make sense of our one wild and precious life but ended up joining a community of denying scientific evidence, falsely seeing other people as their enemies, and rigidly holding onto a false postion at the cost of other people in the world.

there is nothing that fundamentally makes you different from a conspiracy theorist. they are people just like you. my parents didn't get me vaccinated as a child because they were worried that they would make me sick. what kind of people were they? were they stupid? were they otherwise anti-science? no. they were a scientist and a person who studied science in university. and yet they still fell into this trap because at their hearts, I do believe every single one of these people is someone who is trying their best to deal with a scary, confusing world that has hurt them deeply who has been misguided and misinformed.

obviously these are complicated things and flat-earthers and anti-endos are very different in many ways, but i think the comparison is accurate enough to be worth talking about.

Anti endos are genuinely just the system equivalent of flat earthers.

Goes against the common scientific consensus

Asks for sources to debunk their bs

Refuse to provide sources themselves

When they do provide sources, it’s always directly incorrect ones, or ones that don’t prove their point.

When given sources, they just ignore them.

Literally the same thing.

[halogenwarrior]

Now, I don't want to make this sound the wrong way - I love stories where the human/mortal world is deeply symbiotically connected to the supernatural/afterlife etc. such that the supernatural is shaped by human belief and vice versa. I also love stories where humans face a universe or supernatural forces that's vast and uncaring and fundamentally other, or if it does care deeply (such as Abrahamic religions' idea of a personal God) does so from a place of being incomprehensibly greater than humans, giving but not taking, rather than mutual symbiosis. Both can reflect truths about the world (the first that humans are interweaved with our ecosystems and deeply connected to history of our families and societies, and even those things we romanticized as other and purely "natural" often depend on humans as much as vice versa, the latter that humans are nothing compared to the universe, that even in our own planet there is so much we don't understand and that is alien to us, and what we think is objective truth is often barely scratching the surface). But however you choose to frame your story's universe has to match with the story's themes.

On the one hand, you have the issue with series like Warriors (the cat book series), where the series presents an ancestor worship type of religion but due to the author's background, it's thematically treated like Christianity (i.e ideas of "why do bad things happen with a good God" that seems strange when you are talking about a group that was obviously once living flawed beings). To fix that discrepancy I've seen a lot of rewrites and AUs lean more into the afterlife and supernatural aspects not being something above and incomprehensible but depending on the living world and vice versa, influenced by cats' beliefs. And I think this is a good call for the themes of the series being more consistent.

Then on the other hand you have a lot of cosmic horror stories, which are supposed to be all about humanity's helplessness before an uncaring universe, but the recent trend seems to be to make it so actually, humans are the most important things in the universe and human emotion has some kind of power that makes supernatural entities inherently shape themselves around them and feed on them/need them for power (i.e The Magnus Archives, Puella Magi Madoka Magica). I know these franchises are pretty beloved, but I feel like this thematically clashes in a way that mitigates the horror: instead of a universe that is as vast as we know it is with uncaring processes beneath the veneer at the surface that would devour humanity unknowingly, we have a universe that is arbitrarily designed by the hand of the author to hate humans personally, and it winds up just feeling like when a story throws so much suffering at a character that is personal and directed that it becomes contrived and loses its pathos. I get why people do this - it's hard to write things with totally uncaring motives that nonetheless have disastrous consequences for the people in the story and their world, and the easier to write explanation is that it's not incomprehensible, it's specifically controlled by human belief or powered by humanity's negative emotions or something similar. But you lose a lot from this easy shortcut - it no longer feels like something that can really happen, not in terms of the literal existence of a supernatural being but in terms of a figurative truth about the universe, and I think good horror should always feel real in this way. I wish that the cosmic horror genre could have more threats that genuinely threaten people only incidentally for this reason.

[majorasnightmare]

being so fr i genuinely think that the dead three are an excellent case study in Divine Madness

like im not well versed in forgotten realms lore by ANY means but i DO enjoy veering into headcanon worldbuilding territory sooo. take everything with a grain of salt and only keep what u feel like skdjskdjsnfj

we all know bhaal is like. kind of COMICALLY self destructive and stupid, shooting his pawns in the foot at the drop of a hat seemingly just for the sake of pointless cruelty, and is obsessed with murder even to the point of sacrificing his other domain of ritualized death for the purpose of killing the world (orin should NOT be as penalized as she is for how strictly she does in fact adhere to bhaal's doctrine). and while this can be explained as differences in writers portrayal and sympathy for the character of bhaal (larian in particular seems to take a dim view of bhaal, and of gods in general), spinning it into a consistent character is a fun writing challenge

and personally i think its just a long form example of how mortal minds are not innately prepared for the leap of being an autonomous individual capable of making personal decisions and having complicated nuanced feelings about a variety of ideologies to becoming a Conceptual Embodiment responsible for a fundamental force present in the world at large. like you stop BEING a person, you stop being able to change your opinions on certain things because... well, you ARE those things. can the wind stop feeling like the wind?

so bhaal achieves divinity and inherits aspects of jergal and it utterly rends his mind asunder. his erratic behavior is a result of his human mind trying to cope with divine power, and so its no surprise that he turns to that same coping method many angry dissatisfied violent people turn to: familial abuse. bhaal has a direct line of connection through blood ties to his spawn, and its a line he can draw on whenever he pleases to influence their behavior or communicate with them. every progeny hears him as clear as a cleric, regardless of their will or feelings towards him, as long as that blood connection remains. its why hes so obsessed with producing spawn despite being a god of murder: on a personal level, he embodies those cycles of abuse and how they keep perpetuating themselves, not as a divine aspect but as a personal choice as a result of his own actions and the consequences bhaal experiences. on a broader scale, you CANT redeem bhaal, not just because he is an evil aligned god of murder, but because redemption would require bhaal to meaningfully confront that his ambition to pursue divinity has ruined his life, and that temporary relief like exerting power over his family cant actually solve the core problem that he isnt actually capable of handling the power and responsibility he sought out. so he would prefer to keep driving his spawn to slaughter and self destruction and ruining his own schemes because that maintains the illusion of bhaal being an influential powerful deity in control of his emotions. the success of his schemes actually doesnt matter nearly as much as that illusion.

it doesnt matter that the dark urge was on the brink of achieving his self described final goal of killing the world, because they acted outside of his control through allying with a baneite and enacted a scheme they came up with themselves. it doesnt matter that bhaal explicitly encouraged orin to betray them, bhaals goals are falling short of success so the dark urge needs to get it together and finish the scheme they started in his name. this is an absolute nonsense train of logic, because your punished twice over, first for making a plan that benefits bhaal, and then AGAIN for BEING PUNISHED THE FIRST TIME! if the end goal was actually achieving the death of the world via the absolute, this is a totally fucking stupid way of going about it, but it makes sense as an extension of an abusers inability to cope with life stressors outside of inflicting abuse.

we need to remember that there is no inherent series of personality traits that defines an abuser, only actions. there is no circumstances that make an abuser an abuser, and there is nothing a victim does to justify or deserve abuse. an abuser acts like they do because abuse benefits and rewards them, and they are unwilling to actually surrender those benefits to treat their victims with the dignity they deserve, because thats difficult and hard and not as immediately rewarding. and generally, the most common reward for abuse is stress relief. abusing a victim feels good for the abuser, it relieves anger, it passes blame away from them onto a subject they can act on (instead of taking personal responsibility or acknowledging depersonalized systemic forces), it relieves stress, its an exercise of power and control in a world where those things are not easily accessible. understanding bhaal as an abuser provides the thread of consistency that makes a series of incoherent actions and reasonings reflect a mindset a person could conceivably have, and the stress he is trying to relieve has an easy source in the form of the very divinity bhaal sought after so greedily

to a lesser extent, this aspect of ruining divinity is, i feel, present in all three of them, its just that bhaals manifestation of it is exceptionally explosive and violent. bane seems completely and utterly consumed by his aspect of tyranny, to the extent that little remains of his personality that isnt a cunning, ambitious power seeking manipulator who accrues and hoards power at all costs, even consuming his son in his entirety for his own resurrection. that myrkul inherited so much of jergals portfolio and has increasingly mimicked jergals personality is no coincidence. the three adventurers who challenged jergal all those centuries ago have been annhilated utterly, the people they once were swallowed entirely within their divine aspects. its ruined all of them, to varying degrees, but its bhaals obsession with maintaining himself at any cost, his awareness of his own precarious position and tenuous grip on his own divinity that has him acting out so aggressively

[stormyrainyday]

apologies this is far from a coherent shower thought but i think it's time we like. decided to detach our identity a bit from the things we do. it's fine to just read. you don't have to be a reader. it's fine to just game. you don't have to be a gamer. you can be those things but i feel like in a quest to find ourselves and open our hearts, especially to others online (because i know, the first thing we do when on a new platform is say hi im [name] i like these things we should talk, i know, i do, my pinned post is literally that), i feel like we forget that we are more than the things we do and even the things we love. we, to borrow words from slay the princess, contain it in our multitudes.

it's a sentiment i've felt for a long time as someone who has been on the internet and in fandom spaces for a good decade now, and like. i find when we hold these things so close that they become us, we become too defensive over them. how many minor fandom disagreements spiral into threats, name calling, doxxing even? i find, especially younger users in fan spaces, tend to take even small differences of opinion and take them personally. saw someone blow up and call people awful names over believing only one person could top in a genshin ship. another left a server i was in because they disliked a popular character, and other (respectfully), decided to share why they did like her. i get that things like rejection sensitivity are a thing, but i think this failure to recognize the self as an entity apart from the things you do and the thoughts you have definitely contribute to this. phenomenon i suppose.

it's genuinely slay the princess that has given me the vocabulary to express and understand this thing i was already thinking. i think, though we are not gods, it's important to understand that we are not things so easily defined. we consist of our thoughts, our actions, our perceptions, our beliefs, and more. even the outside world's perception of us reflects some part of our nature. but not all of it. it's impossible to define oneself in one, two, three words or even an essay.

because like we don't exist in a vacuum. part of our existence is defined in our interactions with others. but not all. never all. there is no one who can truly know you, and we cannot truly know ourselves. our principles bend to the whims of circumstance no matter what we tell ourselves otherwise, so we can't decide what we are or what we would be in a situation for sure, ever. and that's not a bad thing, but if we can't ever truly know ourselves, then how can we assign such great importance to something as superficial as the things we enjoy sometimes?

we are both a constant and the capacity to change. and to take just a handful of things and call it your identity, even subconsciously, is a disservice to the self. in an effort to be seen we break ourselves down into easy (i hate to say it but) marketable pieces.

take being a reader for example. it has always felt like vague slang for booksmart, thoughtful, likely quiet and introverted as well, just as much as it means "i like to read books". theres an aesthetic to it involved, and a whole subculture. do you write in your books? do you keep them museum-fresh quality? do you read smut or classics or high fantasy or satire and what does it say about you? if you say audiobooks aren't real literature, are you signalling to others about quality and sophistication, or are you a pretentious asshole, and ableist to boot? these connotations assigned to such an otherwise benign thing about someone are i think are reflective of the construct of identity and perception. i could go on about it in a way that's more coherent but i, a student, have other things to do right now.

(does being a student make me intelligent? does it impress you to know i study medicine? what if i told you i average Cs in my classes? what if i told you i dislike patient care? what if i told you i'm not here for the money OR to make the world a better place, and that i'm here purely to serve my curiosities about the way the body functions and to absolve my obsessive need to understand just what are we? does this change what you think of me? does it matter? what if you knew the guilt i felt for seeing so much suffering, but still hating patient care enough to worry endlessly about being stuck in it as a career? am i better for it? but i have not acted on this guilt. it is a mere feeling that only i know. knew. is it different now that i've confessed it? does it matter? does any of it change who i am, fundamentally? or am i a thing detached from it all? or. as i like to believe. is it both? your shifting perceptions of me and the way i change shape and form (so much like our beloved princess in slay the princess) in your eyes, they make up me just as much as the soul or the self or whatever other philosophical name you assign to it. at the end of the day, isn't the most important thing that i am just me? both devoid of and constituted of the sum of my parts? what is found in the spaces between my cells? impulses and chemicals. is that me? is it all me? can i ever really know it? and why, why, why define it at all?)

[wemlygust]

Yeah. It's great to talk to people in other countries, even if this is done through very flawed platforms, and I support the protest adoption of it as well, but RedNote, even apart from the obvious censorship issues re. lgtbq+ and political content, feels TOO cheery to me. Everyone seems nice, but in the shallow way that everyone seems nice at certain neighborhood parties, Thanksgiving dinners, and churches. People say sweet things and are really polite and helpful, but then later you find out they're not actually accepting each other as they are, with all their differences; they're just hiding the differences (and kicking people who are "too" different out of the community entirely) so they can ignore all the conflicts and pretend to be great friends. Then weeks or months later you find out the "nice boy next door" is a nazi and thinks gays are bringing out the apocalyse, your aunt spent the entire party thinking about how awful everyone's wardrobes were and judging people for eating more than her, another neighbor shows up to your house as an HRA rep to tell you to paint it boring colors only, a third neighbor is cheating on her husband with his brother, a fourth - who seemed so normal and nice and brought everyone cookies! - is abusing his kids and also is a serial killer, and nobody remembers each others' names. I mean, some of the people in environments like this probably are legitimately great, many even many of them, but in an environment where only sweetness is allowed expression and everyone is oh so carefully "not discussing sensitive topics", I feel like I can't trust anyone.

It creeps me the heck out, personally. Like I'm looking at the still surface of a deep lake, and I know there is something toothy waiting below. Sometimes the ability to get along with others by avoiding differences is essential. It's not a fundamentally bad thing. It can be good for diplomacy or business or for surviving when you're secretly an outsider. Or sometimes hanging out with random people and everyone agreeing that cats are cute is healing and refreshing. But with RedNote, you've got a lot of people patting themselves on the back for reaching out to people in other cultures and deciding China is great actually, and meanwhile the Uyghurs aren't there. They don't get to speak because they're in concentration camps. That's like if Tiktok's entire Native community got disappeared off the platform. Along with the rainbow brigade (I know some lgtbq+ posts have made it up, but RedNote seems to be taking them down as fast as they're able to with their unexpectedly very overloaded workforce). And maybe also all the disabled communities? But the dogs are so cute though!! So the longer I spend on it, and see mostly cheer and happiness and togetherness, the more creeped out I feel. That's just me, though. I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying the platform and what is currently happening on it, or with reaching out to people in China via this means. People aren't being stupid or bad or whatever for doing enjoying and using RedNote. It's not even a thing that only happens in China; there are US social media communities that feel like this to me too. I just... I tried it and it's not for me. Or, there are other ways I would rather spend my social media time. (Like complaining about RedNote on here I guess, apparently.) tldr Rednote seems to specialize in a type of rabid positivity smalltalk that makes me, personally, feel like I'm in a horror movie, or in one of those horror video games that pretends to be a cute at at first. Maybe just me? Can't be just me. But may not be everyone and that's k. Anyway, I read they may not shut it down in America, but they are trying to make it so Chinese users can't see American posts and comments. I haven't double checked this though. And ofc they're ramping up the censorship to account for the suddenly larger userbase. It's not about to improve as an experience; it'll get worse. P.S. fuck the tiktok ban though. What a sterling way to convince young people to vote by eliminating a bazillion jobs and a shitload of free speech 🙄 Democratic party, everyone. Bah. US politics are just. Why. Why did THIS have to be the thing you got together to do.You bastards could have eliminated the penny instead. Or something.

Cultural exchange is great and I'm glad that Americans and Chinese people are interacting on RedNote. But you should be aware that:

RedNote is largely used by the upper-middle and upper classes of China. It's basically a copy of Instagram with extra emphasis on the lifestyle flexing. It's not a representation of wider Chinese society but rather a curated experience for the top 20% or so.

On top of that, it is heavily regulated and censored by the government. Which is why it might be closed off to Americans soon, since the Chinese government isn't happy about its citizens learning about America directly from Americans.

So please continue using RedNote for as long as it's available and learn as much about China from it as you can. But take it with a grain of salt and realize that what you're seeing is basically the Chinese equivalent of American Instagram models as curated by the government.

[anghraine]

It's interesting (if often frustrating) to see the renewed Orc Discourse after the last few episodes of ROP. I've seen arguments that orcs have to be personifications of evil rather than people as such or else the ethics of our heroes' approach to them becomes much more fraught. Tolkien's work, as written, seems an odd choice to me for not wrangling with difficult questions, and of course, more diehard fans are going to immediately bring up Shagrat and Gorbag.

If you haven't read LOTR recently, Shagrat and Gorbag are two orcs who briefly have a conversation about how they're being screwed over by Sauron but have no other real options, about their opinions of mistakes that have been made, that they think Sauron himself has made one, but it's not safe to discuss because Sauron has spies in their own ranks. They reminisce about better times when they had more freedom and fantasize about a future when they can go elsewhere and set up a small-scale banditry operation rather than being involved in this huge-scale war. Eventually, however, they end up turning on each other.

Basically any time that someone brings up the "humanity" of this conversation, someone else will point out that they're still bad people. They're not at all guilty about what they're part of. They just resent the dangers to themselves, the pressure from above, failures of competence, the surveillance they're under, and their lack of realistic alternative options. The dream of another life mentioned in the conversation is still one of preying on innocent people, just on a much smaller and more immediate scale, etc.

I think this misses the reason it keeps getting brought up, though. The point is not that Shagrat and Gorbag are good people. The point is that they are people.

There's something very normal and recognizable about their resentment of their superiors, their fears of reprisal and betrayal that ultimately are realized, their dislike of this kind of industrial war machine that erases their individual work and contributions, the tinge of wistfulness in their hope of escape into a different kind of life. Their dialect is deliberately "common"—and there's a lot more to say about that and the fact that it's another commoner, Sam, who outwits them—but one of the main effects is to make them sound familiar and ordinary. And it's interesting that one of the points they specifically raise is that they're not going to get better treatment from "the good guys" so they can't defect, either.

This is self-interested, yes, but it's not the self-interest of some mystical being or spirit or whatnot, but of people.

Tolkien's later remarks tend to back this up. He said that female orcs do exist, but are rarely seen in the story because the characters only interact with the all-male warrior class of orcs. Whatever female orcs "do," it isn't going to war. Maybe they do a lot of the agricultural work that is apparently happening in distant parts of Mordor, maybe they are chiefly responsible for young orcs, maybe both and/or something else, we don't know. But we know they're out there and we know that they reproduce sexually and we know that they're not part of the orcish warrior class.

Regardless of all the problems with this, the idea that orcs have a gender-restricted warrior class at all and we're just not seeing any of their other classes because of where the story is set doesn't sound like automatons of evil. It sounds like an actual culture of people that we only see along the fringes.

And this whole matter of "but if they're people, we have to think about ethics, so they can't be people" is a weird circular argument that cannot account for what's in LOTR or for much of what Tolkien said afterwards. Yes, he struggled with The Problem of Orcs and how to reconcile it with his world building and his ethical system, but "maybe they're not people" is ultimately not a workable solution as far as LOTR goes and can't even account for much of the later evolution of his ideas, including explicit statements in his letters.

And in the end, the real response that comes to mind to that circular argument is "maybe you should think about ethics more."

[dukeofthomas]

I find the fact that the confrontation at the end of UTRH is often summarized as Jason asking Bruce to kill the Joker for him fascinating.

Because that's not what happened.

Jason holds a gun up to Joker's head, gives Bruce another, and tells him that if Bruce doesn't do something (shoot Jason), he will kill Joker.

Jason doesn't give the gun to Bruce so that he would shoot Joker. He isn't expecting Bruce to pull the trigger on the clown. He's asking Bruce to do nothing. To be inactive. Because that will still be a choice, and despite having done nothing, everybody clearly agrees that Bruce would still, at least in part, be responsible for Joker's death.

...And to me, this moment is a kind of- microcosm, of the rest of Jason's point. Because after being captured and carted off to Arkham, the villain will escape again, and will kill more people. The only way to truly prevent that from happening would be to kill them; Bruce refuses to do so, and I respect his right to choose such a thing for himself, but it is still a choice, and if we agree that Bruce's inaction during the confrontation would leave him at least partly responsible for the Joker's death, then we must also agree that his inaction in permanently preventing the Rogues from killing more people means he is also, partly, responsible for all of those deaths.

[knifearo]

i hate the concept of platonic and romantic as a binary i hate the concept of platonic and romantic as a sliding scale of "less" to "more" i hate the concept of platonic and romantic as the only two options i hate the concept of platonic and romantic as significantly different things i hate the concept of platonic and romantic as all encompassing i hate the concept of platonic and romantic as the two halves of a shallow concept of love that doesn't actually encompass anything at all i think we need to overhaul every popular conception about "types" of love so we can talk about things that are real and true for once

[silverolivia-upsidedown]

This is so fun to read and think about and I want to... uhh... add, I guess? Two thoughts to the mix.

The first is that these motherfuckers are HARDY. They can literally stand, pants-less and balls out, on THE SURFACE OF EUROPA, an environment so filled with radiation and so cold that while you will be frozen *instantly* you will also- if you somehow survived- would be riddled with microscopic holes as the insane Juperian radiation literally *perforates* you.

That is not to say the softer mind can't get absolutely fucked by stress and trauma. But physically, (and wildly underutilized by bungie imho) they are beyond an apex predator. These guys are highly adaptive, immensely smart, like even a run of the mill dreg is probably PhD ready by the time they are past their first hatchling molt. Not just that but they are stronger, faster, more agile. If you actually think about what these guys are like, what the lore portrays them as, they are the shining star of evolutionary winning.

None of this is refuting what the op said, if anything I think it illustrates the cage that a mind can make of its host. That theoretically they should have won against humanity, and even lightbearers multiple times, and it was pure luck that made the Eliksni lose those wars.

My second thought, and it's more aligned to op's earlier comment about uv lights and that they are actually wildly advanced with their technology, but did you know that the Earth makes a sound?

It makes a sound that you have all been hearing and feeling in your bones your whole life. And without it, like say, if your an astronaut who goes to space and lives in a space station for a few months... you will get SO SAD. This is very real and it's still being understood. Infact it's *so important* to our fundamental ability to even function after a few months that if we don't have it we get paranoid, jumpy, anxious, sleep deprived, and more. Basically every single space movie where everyone tears each other apart within the first year of being there together.

It's so important to us that Elon, with his big fancy ideas about space travel, (so much echoing Clovis and his anger at the Exos needing to breathe or they go crazy) that we can't go to Mars unless this gets figured out.

It might explain why, even after coming to earth they preferred their ketches.

It actually *felt* like home.

And they needed time to adjust, for their young to be hatched and grow up on a new planet, with a new sound. It's probably why Eramis hates the Sol system. Her bones will always yearn for the sound of Riis.

But that also brings up an interesting question about the eliksni hatched on earth. Especially with the above OP's comment about genetics and DNA literally changing to adapt to stress. Would the Eliksni born on Earth be able to feel at home on Riis? Or would Riis feel alien to them. Would they need to stay on their ships otherwise start to feel the effects of not having that sound resonating calm in their bones?

Such tantalizingly delicious thoughts!

Someone remind me to make a post speculating on how the loss of Riis fucked up Eliksni biology (and how the stress of being in Sol might have caused even more problems on an epigenetic scale) when its not late as shit bc the more I think about it the more and more horrified I get

[wistfulwatcher]

bau members + near death experiences

[ganondoodle]

theres people that build the entire map of botw in fucking minecraft and im sitting here for the 100th time within less than a year crying bc i cant draw a line how i want