#i think that we make too many characters in this fandom inherently good or evil

[loserboyfriendrjl]

who wants to see my post about why the black brothers are not good people, but morally grey instead (feel free to correct me and beta it, if you want <3)

[megaderping]

Persona 5 fandom, I beg of you, please stop with the casual (and likely very unintentional) ableism. This is less about one specific person and an overall trend I see whenever people post bad takes on Akechi. Going "Akechi is a murderous psychopath" is harmful because it spreads an unfair stigma about psychopathy and mental illness in general as this "crazy" and violent thing, which has been normalized for far too long. And also, it's just not true. Anyone who thinks Akechi is this "remorseless psycho" (keeping in mind this use of the term isn't great) simply does not have more than a surface level reading of the character. His missable November texts make it abundantly clear that he is not happy with what he's doing under Shido. Which, granted, HIGHLY missable text. You have to basically delay Sae's Palace and not go in at all until mid-November. Engine room, 12/24, multiple times in third sem... his remorse is there, it's just subtle or not presented as shaking and crying and begging for forgiveness, because he's a guarded mess of a person (with deep psychological scars, make no mistake- this is not a healthy kid). But even without those texts, there are plenty of times where these feelings are conveyed. His sad reaction when Morgana explains changes of heart (if he had known sooner), his regrets in the engine room and lamentations about Joker's freedom, and I basically did a whole meta post breaking down the important visual and spoken symbolism to Akechi's character that gets boiled down to "hehehe crazy murder boy". Hate or dislike him? Cool, sure, but the normalization in fandom communities of just throwing around mental illness related terms in a derogatory fashion... really isn't good? Like even if Akechi was literally a psychopath or sociopath or had npd or other specific mental illnesses, that doesn't inherently make him evil, nor does it erase his victimhood, which is so integral to his role in the story.

He killed people, yes. That's not really up for debate, and yes he gets feral and over the top in third sem... but that's just over the top edgelord behavior directed at Shadows and focusing only on that ignores everything else he says and does in third sem, yet it happens so much (even though other Phantom Thieves, like Haru, have fun fighting Shadows too). Are we just gonna ignore all the times he's cool, collected, and reasonable in third sem to throw around this antiquated and hurtful idea of what the word "psychopath" means? ._. Just... blarg. I've made many Akechi rambles/rants, but the normalization of ableism surrounding him is not great? I think it's mostly down to ignorance and lack of media literacy, but yeah. Plus it's kinda fucked up how little weight is placed on Shido for teaching him how to do shutdowns (his own admission), the fact that the moment Akechi revealed himself to Shido, he was screwed, because this is a man who took a bump on the head as a reason to ruin Joker's life.

Idk. I think it's not just a P5 fandom trend, even, because it's so normalized the same way people think OCD is this funny quirky mental condition because of shows like Monk when it's an actual disability that can deeply affect people in horrible ways... Mental health awareness is good is all I'm saying.

[spilledmilkfkdies]

Hi, me again! I was just wondering, following the ‘what if the wizards were actually surrendering’ ask, if the wizards really did give up fairy hunting, what do you think they’d do? (Sorry if I’m sending you too many asks, I just really like your takes.) Thank you!

Hiii sorry it took me a sec to get to this one!! I'll put a link to that ask right here for anyone who's wondering, since it's been a bit. Never worry about sending too many asks either, like I said a while back; I'll get to them eventually! If it takes some time before you hear back from me, sincerely <3 My bad <3 Was a little occupied with another fandom this time and actively participating in both got to me djsksdk

Moving on though!

In my mind they've really already been living normally, like between locking away the fairies and Roxy's magic making itself known I mean- Of course the logistics of it are a bit um. All over the place. Considering they're immortal, sort of. Do they have legal documents? Real or fake? Did they have any mortal friends and how would that work? And JOBS?? The way none of these are obstacles for Duman btw, that's why they killed him, they didn't want him to roam and do whatever anymore. Real and Canon.

Now in a post-alt ending-S4 timeline, the one where they did surrender, do we assume that they just can't use their magic, or that they don't have it anymore? Because that'd probably change the way they live afterwards pretty drastically. Aside from the fact some of them heavily depend on magic more than the others (Ogron and Duman get help smh), HORRENDOUS case scenario, they might all be mortal. For the sake of my own mental health though, I'm just gonna say they do still have magic and are in fact not mortal, just give them a fairy parole officer, some magic blocking thing, keep them around and use them for "good" stuff after a rehabilitation period or something. That's what I'd prefer anyway.

What would they be doing during said rehabilitation period? Started out as a bit of a shared joke, but tbh Anagan model career WHEN. He'd struggle with the lack of useable magic the least too, so he'd probably thrive during the whole thing more than the others, and as he should. Besides Anagan I don't have a whole lot ngl- I mean, I'd like to think Duman had lots of jobs back in the day, not sure if I mentioned that before, but I might make a separate post if I didn't, just because I have thoughts but other stuff to talk about rn sjsjksk

Ogron and Gantlos don't have a lot either MY BAD, but I do think Ogron might be more likely to have friends, maybe surprisingly. Meanwhile Gantlos has a bigger chance of being able to hold down a stable job. What job? Great question! I'm not sure yet. If that changes I'll be sharing with the class!

Moving on once again!! What could the "good" stuff I mentioned above be exactly? Education.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But are there no. Wizard or witch school on Earth?? I know they ended up opening a fairy school later on, but those aren't the only magic users suddenly learning of the dormant magic in their roots. Let's take the comic character Gregory for example. He learns he's a wizard, he tries to enroll into a wizard school(?) off planet. Nothing inherently wrong with going to a school off planet- The Winx did it too, lots of magic users do it, what is wrong though, is being turned down and having no alternatives. And even worse?? They tell him it's because. There's a darkness in him?? Or something?? I could excuse it slightly more if it was a case of "Oh your magic is dark aligned and this is a light magic school" because wizard canonically are known to be both, right? But aside from the fact that, again, there are no alternatives for him, as far as he knows, telling a newly awakened magic user that he's basically too evil to teach is CRAZY I'm sorry??

Here's where I cutely insert the Wizards of the Black Circle. Have them become the place to go when your magic energy alignment is dark (because it doesn't inherently have to mean evil and they're worthy of education in this essay I) on Earth, or even just. Any magic user who isn't a fairy. Just give them another Terrestrial option, options are always good. I think that'd be really neat.

You might sit here and go "The evil wizards are gonna teach the next generation of wizards? Could history not repeat itself??" Well. Yeah. But are the Terrestrial fairies not teaching their next generation now too? The same fairies who canonically turned on humanity at some point? These are all 'what if' scenarios, I'd just like to think that with proper communication this time around, things will be different and both fairy and wizard get to work towards that together. I'm normal and have slept a reasonable amount.

[katyspersonal]

Oh boy, more asks..

These are some... strong words, but you are not exactly wrong about it! It is hard to grapple with. Where exactly "We should respect many things being open to interpretation in Elden Ring" stops and "You people did not play the same game tho" starts? You are not wrong about it at least being 'boring'. What use would be the story through this reading? Obviously, the tragedy of cycle of revenge and becoming the very thing you promised to destroy is a story with more importance and depth than..... than..... uuuuugghHHHH

.....ok sorry I might have overreacted. BUT, I have my limits. What if I told you that trying to uplift the weight of the genocide by either dehumanising the species or finding an 'unavoidable reason' to do it is extremely poor taste. What then.

I suppose that a deeper reasoning here is how normal it became to see fandomry as moral act. The girls go into new interests and see stuff like 'war criminal', 'murderer', 'sex offender', 'committed/complicit in a genocide', 'abuser', 'fascist' etc etc as an obligation to hate the character! From which follows both desperately trying to prove that something is inherently wrong with fans of this character AND feeling in danger if THEY like this character! So what follows? Right, character should be "protected" from "slander"! A kind of behavior that does NOT belong in Fromsoft fandoms, but literally every other fandom IS like this so I am not surprised if people carry this disease here from their previous interests! I can't even judge it because in many cases people did have a reason to be worried about harassment because fandom inquisition would treat their morally grey or black fictional favs as testimony of their beliefs!

Again, maybe I am reading too deep into it? I am just really old, therefore I saw the fandoms as we know them these day at their birth. How that behaviour happened and how it developed. Yes, personal preferences and simply not wishing your fav to be hated are big factors when such things happen!

But I think we NEED to try and think what the writer tried to tell us! What IS the purpose of telling the story where the survivor of something unspeakable returns a long time later to wage a "war with no grace or honor" that gets countless innocent people killed? Would Miyazaki write a story that excuses fascism and genocide?

Nonetheless, so many people just not really think through this lense: why would author write this? A genius writer with multiple masterpieces under his belt before Elden Ring, consistently criticising all the ways society and humanity can go corrupted or monstrous? Would he focus on how wrong the Crusade was just to make Marika and Messmer good guys here, or focus on how cruelly Marika treated the last Fire Giant, after a war with 'Fire of Ruin that could burn the Erdtree' for you all to say she had good intentions in it? 'Death of the author' should have always stayed just a narrative method, as opposed to fandoms deciding to miss the point for the whole past decade!

...And the most frustrating part is that they'll treat those who simply demand more lore accurate reading of the story and characters, without even any moral weight to it, as "omnipresent problem", when going anywhere near Youtube, Reddit and Twitter attempting to avoid Marika defence is like that scene from animated Snowwhite and Seven Dwarves where heroine ran through the dark woods and something horrid would show up no matter where she pokes her nose!

But, look, anon, you are doing That Thing. You are upset at the way some DLC reveals had changed the things in the fandom, when it is not the fault of the DLC. Even before SOTE, there was the whole infight about 'wow Marika is like Gwyn but somehow more evil' vs 'she is just a puppet of Greater Will that wants to rebel'. Such complex characters just tend to attract falling into one extreme or another! One side, likewise, was saying that she was unfairly vilified even when criticism was valid, another was snapping at them saying they woobified her-

Again: just because we as a fandom are not ready for the concept of 'tragic backstory makes a character more realistic than someone bad just because they're bad' does not mean that writers should not make stories like this! I know I am one hell of a misanthrope that can't care less about the "community", but I think somewhere deep down, even I believe we could be better and help each other to improve! People who decided that character is just bad without sympathetic traits and will side-eye anyone who says otherwise are a HUUUUUGE pain, but so can be people who take any criticism as a personal attack!

_________________________

(The post in question: ( x ))

Eh, I am glad that you liked my analysis, anon; It is strangely a second instance ever since SOTE came out where I get anon approvals over "actually analysing lore for what it is instead of using popular headcanon or theory" (first was about Nanaya)! I do not check fandom beyond what ends up on my feed, just never had that habit, but are things actually this drastic?

Regarding your confusion, I think it became widespread because a very popular artist started to draw/write a lot of this fanon? Personally, I absolutely dread when it happens in the fandoms; when it is not a singular popular person on Twitter OR Youtube, it is a group of "cool kids" on some community Discord or whatever, but the resulting hegemony of the same takes/designs/ships/preferences/etc is always there! Don't get me wrong, I am a boring unimaginative autist whose only talent is over-analysing a videogame, HOWEVER. In the places where canon goes vague and one should apply their own creativity, I'd rather see variety of interpretations! Not something that can be helped: most fans, especially the new ones, will adopt popular takes without scrutiny in order to socialise faster and be noticed. It is a self-feeding cycle that you can only escape when you block out all fandom influence and try to look by yourself!

And, well, I guess this is what I do? I try to make sure I don't have any biases besides 'what makes more sense', 'what works better', 'what has more evidence' and 'what author most likely implied'! I guess this is how I ended with "acknowledging the actual relationship" as you've put it! 'Knowing' is a very loud word for Fromsoft lore, yet these games give you limited amount of ingredients and despite there not being a recipe, you would still not try to cook a cake seeing ingredients clearly meant for a soup! Or is it for salad? Or lasagna...? Well, it is not for something sweet, right?

[grimalkinmessor]

I made a little post complaining about the lack of a Light Bashing tag, and now the time has come for me to expand on what exactly counts as bashing! :D

Bashing is described as "villainizing a character, and representing them without any redeeming qualities", and "...demonizing a character, referring to them with derogatory terms, or making them the subject of deathfics or spitefics". Deathfics aren't so common for Light (L Bashing is more common in those, though I have seen Light Bashing in deathfics centered around L) but I think spitefics fit very nicely with some of the ones I've seen.

Generally bashing is a negative deviation from the original character's personality by either ONLY representing their flaws, EXAGGERATING their flaws, or making up NEW flaws.

In Light's case, this is done by presenting him as someone stupid, incompetent, heartless, cowardly, arrogant, and/or sadistic. And yes, given that Light is a villain, arrogant and cowardly do describe his character—TO AN EXTENT. The representation of these traits only becomes bashing when they're pointed out repeatedly and/or exaggerated. (When I say repeatedly I mean it becomes an underlying theme in the story rather than a single part of it, harped on rather than just mentioned).

Now, where I think a lot of people get tripped up is this: Light's looks do not count as a redeeming quality. If your story's stance on him is "he's evil and stupid and I hate him but he's hot so it's okay"—that still counts as bashing.

In fact, even if you DO feature his good qualities in your story, if the bad outweighs the good then that would count as bashing.

Now, where this gets muddied up is, again, the fact that Light is a villain. "But Grim," you say. "How am I supposed to write Light authentically if I can't write him doing bad things?" You can write him doing bad things! You can write him being evil and awful! In fact I encourage it!

What I'm saying isn't that you should morally whitewash Light—I'm saying that bashing is an ignorance of nuance in a negative direction. Writing Light killing people isn't bashing. Writing Light killing people for no reason or for fun is bashing. Writing Light being an absent lover isn't bashing. Writing Light being an abusive lover is bashing. Bashing is, again, a discernible deviation from the known character in a way that makes them worse than they are, or refers to them in a derogatory manner.

"Well Light IS that awful, he SHOULD be demonized! Light SHOULD be referred to in a derogatory manner!" <- this is ignoring character nuance. If you write your fics like this, I politely ask that you tag them as Light Bashing (preferably as Yagami Light Bashing or Light Yagami Bashing, given that there's already a tag for light bashing that isn't Death Note related) because this counts.

And you should do this for every character in your story!! Maybe you enjoy Light, maybe you do enjoy the nuance of his character—you might still ignore L's. Or Misa's. Or Matsuda's. Or Mikami's. Or Near's. Or Mello's. Or a hundred other characters that I haven't mentioned. Don't think I haven't seen just as many fics that ought to be tagged as Soichiro Yagami Bashing out there too 🫵

Bashing is not inherently bad. A lot of people like those sorts of fics, especially when they hate the same characters you do. But the problem the DN fandom seems to have is UNTAGGED bashing. There are several tags that haven't been implemented that honestly should be, and I think it's just because the Death Note fandom is so old. It comes from before the tagging system, from before AO3 was even a thing. Times where authors had to toss up a warning in parentheses right before the smut started 😅

But we DO have a tag system now—and a very good one. I'm asking people to pretty please use it. Help people that hate the same characters you do find your fics. Help people that love those same characters avoid them. It's only polite 💖

[ca-suffit]

i'm also worried that they will have nikki be just awful (i haven't read the books), there was that glimpse of racism with armand, maybe they make him abusive and cruel as hell while continuing to have lestat be "good" like we saw with the finale, no matter what lestat has done (or will do) the writers will never treat him the way they treat other characters who do evil shit, he is their main white guy, he simply must be, overall, "good" or at least everything bad gets ignored, because they need their white saviout and for loustat to be "good" (ie not toxic). with the loustat reunion in the finale, the whole thank you/i forgive you shit, it feels like the show wants loustat to be as wholesome as can be and what better way to show nikki as pure evil, so fans can go "see!! lestat is and always has been the innocent victim"

I don't think they're going to make Nicki an outright villain. I also don't think *the show* is gonna frame Lestat as being solely "good" but the fandom will always do it. The show has outright said that nobody is "good" or "bad" here in the first place. Just bcuz Loustat might be the relationship focus of the full story doesn't mean it's supposed to be without issue. They still have *so* many issues they haven't even touched yet.

Lestat has also canonically acknowledged that the drop was fucked. Ppl are ignoring that that's happened but it did. 2x8 did feel rushed in ways and overly trying to sell Loustat, but they're still not *together* at the end there. It's a step towards something but not a full healing. They have a long way to go still and we're about to see a lot worse from Lestat in some ways otherwise.

The books were always trying to sell this idea that didn't come across v well to me about Lestat being good or evil. She didn't give him enough consequences as the books went for any reason why he'd feel so much guilt about his "evilness." The show has done a better job of that so far and I trust they will still continue, especially given how AMC tends to tell rly good stories about complicated male characters. They p openly embrace all kinds of fucked up shit and don't try to excuse it at all.

Nickistat only works if it's a tragedy and it's only a tragedy if they're both kind of fucked. Lestat's actions directly make Nicki worse in some ways so Lestat *has* to do those things. Again, the fandom will excuse it all the way and coddle that fucker to death but I don't think the show will.

A lot of what this fandom struggles to understand is what a character's internal motivations are compared to what other characters are seeing from this person *externally.* Like, sure, Lestat can force Claudia to watch Charlie burn bcuz he knows the pain of loss, but do u think Claudia gives a shit about his trauma then? Even if she knew about it? U think she gives a shit when *she's* being the one traumatized now? But then ppl wanted to give her shit for how she presses on Nicki to Lestat during their chess game, like that was somehow *worse* than what he'd done already to her (and why she learned to act like this in the first place!). The antiblack motivations for judging that as harshly as it was too, this fandom can go fuck itself.

Also Nicki's racist comment towards Armand is just...some typical white ppl shit tbh. A lot of the fandom's issues in the first place are that white audiences aren't used to seeing white ppl like this, but this is how white ppl exist to everyone else who isn't white every day. Lestat's ignorance to racial issues is also a typical white thing. U see most of the fandom ignoring it too bcuz most ppl's understanding of what racism is comes from intentional slurs only and nothing else. A lot of racist shit isn't done intentionally or even consciously. We're all raised in a racist world, we absorb it and repeat a lot without question, across all races. Ppl have to get over seeing that as a "good" or "bad" thing itself too. It just is. A lot of things are inherently racist on purpose and we recycle those things all over bcuz that's the design. Although everything Lestat did in S1 was worse than Nicki's single slur moment, yet ppl are choosing to believe that's all a lie instead of taking time to look at it and learn from it about maybe their own racial biases.

[creepiefarm]

CW ableism towards systems

I wanted to address this briefly, because lately I've seen far too many MH blogs spreading content that both demonizes and misrepresents OSDDID. I am a singlet, but this post was written with the help of and checked over by systems.

First and foremost please educate yourself, that is the first step and easiest way to avoid spreading blatant ableism. I will be linking some resources for that at the end of this post. Listen to systems when they tell you things are harmful or wrong.

When you see a post about OSDDID, how is it being talked about? Are they speaking positively about the disorder, or are they framing it to be "scary" or "edgy"? If the post does speak positivity about the disorders, how is it worded? How does it refer to system alters, or other parts of the disorder? Does it fall into common stereotypes, (i.e. the "evil alter") or treat it like a quirky character trait?

Now more specifically there is a post going around that made me feel there was a need to make this post. The post states you can't headcanon Tim or other characters in MH as being systems

[Image ID: Screenshot of a tumblr post that says: “okay fellas, welcome, you’re here- and before you start spreading around false stuff, here’s a few good reminders! 1. None of the characters from Marble Hornets Youtube Series have DID. Masky and Hoodie are not evil leittle creatures that live inside Tim and Brian!” end ID]

This extremely poor wording implies that, if Tim or Brian have DID, that would make Masky and Hoody evil creatures that live in their brains. Basically stating that alters are "evil", and also dehumanizing them in the process. [There are of course nonhuman alters who should be respected just as much as human alters, but that is not what op is doing by calling them "creatures."] Masky or Hoody being alters would not make them evil, there is no such thing as an "evil alter". This is one of the most widespread ableist beliefs about systems, and something that is so easy to spot.

OP received many comments on why this is gross and harmful, but chose to leave it up. They responded with an "apology" that addressed none of the issues with their statement, was very condescending and basically showed they have no idea what they're talking about.

[Image ID: screenshot of a tumblr post that says: “okay, lads. fellas. regarding my previous post, since a few people found it offensive (?) that I said none of the characters in MH have specifically DID disorder. I understand that people have their own headcanons and this is totally fine! I will not bash someone for healthily using such a hc to create a sense of comfort!

On that note, there are a select few people that I've seen in the past that romanticizes such a disorder- or make it very black n' white (aka Masky is this awful alter). Along with this, Tim canonically has psychosis, or something along the lines of this. In simple terms, romanticizing DID disorder (or any disorder)? not the best! Using such a headcanon as a sense of comfort/in a healthy fashion? totally fine! thank yew and have a good day” end ID]

If you are not well educated on a topic you do not have to speak on it. In cases like this, where I think op probably intended to help, they have instead spread gross ableism to hundreds of people. If someone is creating content that is gross and fetishizes the disorder, call them out on it. But if you have spent any good amount of time in this fandom you know most system headcanons are made by systems. It's a very weird thing to start a post for "new fans" with an ableist point about an issue you have only seen "a select few people do in the past." 

[As a side note, psychosis is not a disorder, it is a symptom. And if we are going with “in canon” Tim was diagnosed with Schizophrenia.]

There is nothing inherently "romanticizing" or "unhealthy" about headcanoning any character as a system. This would not be said about headcanoning a character with depression or anxiety, and I really need you guys to sit and think about why that is. OSDDID and psychotic disorders (also mentioned by op) are notoriously demonized. And spreading posts like this without thinking absolutely adds to that.

It's so important to be able to recognize things like this for how harmful they are. It does not matter if op had other points you agreed with, or if they had good intentions. This is ableism, it's wrong, and it's hurting people.

System headcanons are good, and it's wonderful that so many systems see healthy rep in MH for their disorder. This is not and has never been the issue. Here are some links a system friend gave me that you can educate yourself with. Systems are of course, welcome to add any additional thoughts, thank you for reading.

Common myths and perceptions | Alters | C-PTSD & DID | DID vs OSDD | How to help a friend with OSDDID | youtube channel

[purgemarchlockdown]

For the ask game !! 2 and 9 for Amane 25 for Muu 8 for Kotoko

I'm a bit tired (I haven't eaten the whole day, Im about to though dw) so this might be shorter than you'd like! Sorry about that!

Amane:

2. Favorite canon thing about this character? Everything about her next question-

(Cat Symbolism if you Really Had to make me choose)

9. Could you be roommates with this character?

Yeah, she acts like younger me and I have a younger sibling.

The question is would she tolerate being roommates with me, person who talks for 5 hours unprompted and says that I'll be "done quickly" even though I never am.

Muu:

25. What was your first impression of this character? How about now?

I've said before INMF was my first impression of Milgram generally. I remember it really clearly.

Me: Oh huh this is some really pretty animation, she seems like an ass but that's entertaining to- oh my god she killed someone. Oh??? What???? *checks comments* This is a series?????

I think of her more sympathetically now compared to before. I still think she's...a questionable person but also everyone here is a questionable person morally. Extremely enjoy her and her cycle.

Kotoko:

8. What's something the fandom does when it comes to this character that you despise?

Coming here swinging huh- this is a weird grip with Kotoko discussion I Have. I think we focus too much on how the actions are bad and why she does them, without fully examining her mindset and ideology? If that makes sense?

She sits in the same boat with my feelings about how people view Shidou. Those actions come from genuine places of grief or depression or self-hate yes but they aren't...just that. Their part of a character's wider ideology.

Kotoko being self-hating and wanting to get rid of the "dirty" parts of herself...does not change the fact that the way she's doing it is by eliminating the people SHE sees as dangerous, degenerate and destructive. It's why I'm trying to get more confident in just calling her a fascist. I like how Milgram forces us to realize that the "monsters" are not really...separate from us. That there's nothing really separating us from falling into those mindsets. But to do that we have to acknowledge what those mindsets Really Are? If that makes sense.

Kotoko is ableist, Kotoko is misogynistic, Kotoko aligned with the system of Milgram. These are all important parts of her character.

When Kotoko hates "evil" she's describing Groups of people she considers inherently flawed in some way and thus needs to be eradicated for the greater good.

This mindset is self-destructive, no one can be perfect enough for Kotoko, least of all Kotoko. But it harms So Many People outside of her.

Admittedly, Kotoko is more personal to me, uh- I know for a fact that ten year old me would of been murked by her. I also know ten year old me wanted to hurt everyone who hurt her. This colors my view of her significantly. I try my best to be kind to her but that really weighs on me sometimes.

...That got sadder than I meant it to be.

[ladymorghul]

It may sound funny, but I've noticed recently a fair amount of Aemond hate coming from one part of the green fandom, mostly Aegon, Daeron and Helaegon fans. And the main reason is, believe it or not, that the show made Aemond more complex/grey, not a cartoon villain like in the book. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could wish for the carbon copy of the terrible book version. I get that there are people who are frustrated with how they depicted Aegon in the first season or that Daeron wasn't included, but what does it have to do with Aemond's portrayal? That's literally one of the best things the show did in season 1 and him being as popular as he is caused many people to change sides. Anyway, if Aegon was done dirty, I doubt that was to prop up Aemond because he is far from being a saint. He is still full of hidden anger and resentment, an impulsive young man who is trying to hide that part of him just to be the son his mother needs, but isn't always successful in that, as we saw in Storm's End. And after B&C and everything that will happen during the war, that side will probably be more and more revealed. He was only given a great backstory which, if done right in the future seasons, could make him a really tragic and memorable character, not a one dimensional psycho villain who is inherently evil and cruel like in F&B. Idk, it's not a good thing that the green fandom is becoming more divided because of things like these and should actually be happy that any TG character is given more depth and importance.

i agree with you, anon, even though i don't blame the ones who are critical in good faith. i say this because season 1 portrayal of aegon ii was bad enough that in private circles, even some tb stans agree to this. and so for many who were expecting to see aegon in the show, having aegon being portrayed like that + the abscence of supposedly the most beloved of alicent's sons (daeron) made them a bit bitter. a concrete example of this is the feast scene. in the book, aegon takes offense to jacaerys dancing with helaena and whether or not this was a moment of jealousy or rather of ego, i've seen some people say they would have liked this to be portrayed as it was in the book.

i guess i can see and agree with all sides. yes, it's absolutely great that aemond got enough character depth to make him a proper multi dimensional character and not just a one dimensional evil character, but it does also suck to see this development and depth come at detriment of aegon ii and daeron.

i think there's also 2 other points here:

a) the writers knew aemond would sell. targaryen prince who wears an eyepatch and rides the largest and oldest dragon alive. aemond is practically ryan's babygirl and aemond is cool enough that even some team black stans will ocassionally agree that they enjoy watching him. gp also seems to have a "he's an asshole but it's fun watching him and he looks cool" take

b) ryan and other writers are strictly telling the dance of the dragons to relate to the misogyny alicent and rhaenyra face in the patriarchy (even though they really do a poor job of it sometimes) and thus it focused on how the men around them negatively impact them. aegon is the one rhaenyra's fighting for the throne so the way he's depicted isn't just related to the idea that they necessarily only cared about giving aemond depth and more about this dynamic and his place in the plot with rhaenyra.

it does suck that people have started fighting but i do have to say that sometimes aemond stans can be a bit overbearing to deal with. in my experience anyway.

however yeah, unfortunately we didn't get enough character development or screentime with the rest of the green kids and the hope is that they too get development like aemond did not that aemond gets less of it.

[sidleyparkhermit]

fanfic director's cut: talk about what went into your characterization of Chilton in interrupted stitch because i'm still amazed that you managed to capture a version of him that feels in-character without making me want to dropkick him. also tell the people about interrupted stitch

Thank you for the lovely ask and always being such an encouraging reader. I'll try to fulfill both requests as best I can, in reverse order, without wandering off to complain too many times

So: Interrupted Stitch originated as NBC Hannibal hiatusfic, though early in the outlining the second season premiered and the story officially became a canon-divergent AU. It had many elements that might seem in retrospect to be dunking on seasons 2-3 of Hannibal but simply came from looking at the plot and characters of season 1 and thinking about things that would make sense to happen.

It involves... how do I explain this. It exists because one time Aaron Abrams tweeted about Raúl Esparza being cute. It was supposed to be a PWP. It quickly grew a plot, wherein some traumatized secondary characters eventually solve the Chesapeake Ripper murders with the powers of gay S&M and friendship. It's my first foray into what I would call genuine crime fiction. My joke logline for it is "PTSD, BDSM, and some FUBAR MDs." Also, Beverly lives, of course.

I worked hard on it for a long time, but it's only really been seen by @stellerssong, partly because of [real life redacted] and partly because, as longtime readers will know, I hate the Hannibal fandom.

As to the Chilton question!

So, I think the most important thing to begin with was to take him as he is (or was at that point in canon). He's annoying, he's arrogant, he's not qualified for his job -- those are just facts on the ground. They don't have to be explained away.

What else is he? Well, despite the fact that he clearly should not have been in his position at what my old friend gamesiplay dubbed CrazyJail™️, he advanced this far as such a relatively young age somehow. He and Zeller have in common the quality of being overachievers in high-stress and high-risk occupations. I figured right away that he would be continuing to work as much as he could after the Gideon kidnapping, not just to take his mind off things but because that's his personality.

What does he want? In some cases he wants what everyone else can see is the wrong thing; he cannot help trying to get back to the BSHCI despite all his disastrous mistakes. But since we're seeing him outside that frame as well, we also see the quite ordinary human things he wants that were taken away, in some cases permanently, by Gideon (and Lecter): to enjoy food and sex, to hang out with normal people, to have one goddamn night of good sleep. To drink a cup of coffee.

What Chilton endures in "Rôti" is so extreme, from the point of view of the real world, that I feel like simply exploring its effects is more than enough to make the reader sympathize. Because Chilton is annoying, but he's not evil, and he lives in a world deeply infected with true evil. Hannibal Lecter thinks being evil is superior to being annoying, and I guess Bryan Fuller does too, but they're both wrong.

So, I think part of the answer is vulnerability, and mainly just the vulnerabilities already opened up by the text. (I guess the text didn't inherently suggest the humanizing effect of discovering a character's embarrassing sexual fantasies, but I think I ripped off that trick from Terrence McNally [Love! Valor! Compassion!, 1995].)

I think Zeller's POV, and Zeller being himself someone who alternates between brilliant overachiever and human disaster, also helps kinda equalize them. Like, yeah, here's a dude that makes bad decisions, I too am making bad decisions, who the hell would even be making good decisions at a time like this.

They -- and the others in that story -- aren't normal people, obviously. But what they are is people with normal kinds of flaws. And when you are just regular messed up, when you may have thought you were ready for the worst because you're very clever and you've done so much research, how do you deal after your own life is changed by extreme evil? That was the kind of question that interested me.

[musical-chick-13]

I understand the need to complain, so 7 and 12 for that violence ask game!

Thank you for your solidarity, I appreciate it. :)

7. What character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because how how the fandom acts about them?

I answered this here. But I'll talk about another one. Ava from LoT. Like the previous answer, she was originally just kind of there to me. But I felt like she kind of took over the show, and I wasn't really happy with the development regarding her relationship with Sara (and apparently they decided they had to destroy Sara's friendship with Rip to make this ship happen? or something?), but I liked the other characters enough to just go, "Eh, not for me" and move on.

And then there were just...too many things I saw that bothered me. People tended to act like anyone calling Ava out was inherently...bad? I never really even saw a specific reason for this, it just seemed like people didn't want to admit a character in their preferred ship could make mistakes or be wrong. There was such a horrific level of biphobia I saw regarding Sara, too (which, big surprise, eventually spread to other characters who people wanted to be confirmed as not being straight onscreen). And like I mentioned before, Sara and Rip's working relationship got caught in the crossfire, and the things I saw from too many stans of this character about how horrible Rip was for basically...daring to ever be traumatized? Or how little sympathy they had for the show killing off a grieving, deeply hurting man with a thinly-veiled death wish/suicidal ideation just...really created some not-great associations regarding this character in my brain.

12. The unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them?

Lmao.

So Idk if y'all know this but I REALLY love Cersei Lannister, yeah, shocking, I know. I've talked about her at length, but she's my Ultimate Fave so I can't NOT mention her here. Her interior emotional world is so rich and layered that I learn new things about her (and, very frequently, about my own relationship to my mental illness) every time I think about her. All of her choices make sense narratively in accordance to what we know about her, even if they aren't good ones. Her mental illness and trauma seen as a tragedy worthy of sympathy, and it is her refusal to constructively deal with them and her insistence of externalizing her pain that leads to her horrible behavior toward others, not the presence of the mental illness or trauma itself. And like...yeah, we weren't supposed to root for her (even though I did because I'm me, lol), but we were supposed to feel for her. And she was allowed to continue to exist in the narrative. For better or worse, her story still mattered and was still worth telling, and, Idk, it was the first time I'd ever seen that being afforded to a mentally ill character. She processes everything in a very ugly way, that's not societally-palatable, and I cannot begin to tell you how utterly refreshing that was. She's capable of great love, but that love is tinged with all the negative and deeply unhealthy things she's held onto. She's a villain, but she is so clearly still a hurting person under there, grieving for all the things that were denied to her. Everything she does can be tied back to an overwhelming, all-consuming desire to Avoid Being Hurt Again. She keeps going out of spite. Her paranoia is understandable, but she deal with it in increasingly unhelpfully hostile ways. She flips between being cold and angry and sad and impulsive and even, occasionally, soft, and unlike usual ""evil queen"" archetype characters, she feels so much. She thinks love is literally being as close to same person as someone else as humanly possible. SHE KILLED A WHOLE MASS OF PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO RUIN HER, GOOD FOR HER. She's fascinating.

In the interest of saying something that's NOT repeating myself for the billionth time: Martha Jones from Doctor Who. Truly the most competent companion The Doctor ever had. She didn't suffer nonsense, she was INCREDIBLY resourceful and intelligent, she extended compassion to everyone she met, even those who could (or did) easily pose a hostile threat. She was the only companion in all of RTD or Moffat-era DW to leave completely on her own terms and break away from a lifestyle that was hurting her. The characters I love don't generally tend to be people I'd want to be like irl, but as a teenager, I wanted to be her when I grew up, and I still do. (Sadly, people are racist. And they couldn't get over the fact that she wasn't her predecessor, who was half of a fan-favorite ship involving the conventionally attractive white man. I'm still mad, I'll always be mad.)

I Choose Violence asks

[translationandbetrayals]

Eyes and morale in BSD: : visual storytelling done right

In Bungo Stray Dogs, one of the most important plot lines revolves around the characters' moral alignment and how their actions and pasts influence their values and behavior. These characters tend to be really complex, mixing their complicated backstories with beautifully written personalities, even those who play minor roles in the story. Sango Harukawa, the manga's illustrator, has revealed part of the way in which he portrays this part of his characters' psyche: through their eyes.

In the inside of the cover from volume 5, he states: "This is a decision I've come to myself, but in my drawings, I draw bigger pupils for crazy people. I try to show how tainted a person is by reducing the whites and darkening the eyes. People on the side of the Mafia probably have larger pupils. In the character settings, if the character hasn't gone too far and can return to the good side, I try to draw their eyes brighter. (...) I won't tell you whom, but there is a character whose eyes cloud over whenever they show their true self. I think it would be a more interesting experience if you re-read the manga using each character's eyes as a measure of their psychological states."

Of course, this is quite the subject for debate within the fandom community. Some people speculate that the color of the eyes has more to do with a character's inner perception of morals, instead of an universal notion of what is good or wrong. This is why many characters who don't seem to be doing anything morally questionable still have a darkened gaze, in many occasions because of the deeds of their past which they consider to be unforgivable or that makes them inherently corrupted. On the other side, one can easily watch a character's personal journey as they navigate complex emotions by simply looking at the way their eyes change through time.

In this image we can find many examples of this. First, we have Atsushi, the character with clearer moral values, who would consider himself to be "one of the good guys" without any hesitation. Then we get Yosano, Higuchi, Tanizaki, Kenji, Kunikida, Naomi, Rampo and Fukuzawa, all of them characters whith a bit more complex relationship with morale, although none of them considers themselves inherently evil or corrupted, even taking into consideration the fact that some of them have lived through hardship and moments in which they questioned their own worth. Next, Kyouka, a girl who is undoubtedly one of the good guys, but because of her traumatizing past and the violence she was forced to take part in, has more of a clouded sense of self, which is reflected in her somewhat blurry gray eyes. Finally, Dazai and Akutagawa. Both of them have a deeply disturbed state of mind (you can probably guess who's more troubled by looking at their eyes only) and a sense of inherent corruption in their souls. You can see a bit of hope in Dazai's eyes though, because of his redemption arc, but for Akutagawa, it's completely lost.

There are characters with even more complicated relationships with morale. They can actively ignore their wrongdoings or become obsessed with the repercussions of their actions, and this can impact their eyes as well. It's also important to remember that characters are not stagnant, their values and perceptions change all the time due to their circumstances and their life stories as well.

This is just a small piece of what makes BSD one of my favorite manga of all time, and I strongly recommend that you check it out if you have the time.

- Melián Trujillo.

[themself]

i think the idea that it's a "teenage fandom thing" to read protagonists as inherently good misses the point. like, i think thats actually a very common reading of works. see the way many people responded to breaking bad in it's heyday, for example. i think instead it's more human nature to relate to people when we see a story from their point of view, and it's a learned skill to recognize an unreliable narrator or when a characters action is being criticized

further, i think that when creators make a work, we have to be conscious about the fact that an audience will inherently empathize with a protagonist, and design our work and target audience accordingly. there are far too many works about Nazis being evil that have become beloved by Nazis. i don't think that makes a work useless or the author a bad writer, but i do think it means maybe we should be conscious of the way we write and the audience who will receive the work.

i also think as readers it's important we talk to each other in a way that's not mean or condescending about this kind of thing when the discussion is being had in good faith. we can teach an audience signs that a narrator unreliable, or that their behavior is being critiqued. then we can have an audience that's more receptive to these kinds of stories. there's nuance in all of it y'know. i also don't think anybody's *wrong* about art. but we can have audiences and texts change to help improve that understanding, since art is ultimately a way of communication

[taking-your-hand]

I'd like to talk how about how much fandom bullies target autistic people like me

Dark stories are always how I have learned about the world and usually the first thing I do when I come across a new idea is make a story about it

I had a bit of harassment growing up over my characters but it would be significantly worse now

Often anti's use words like "weird, creepy, and gross" to describe things that aren't really hurting anyone but that I enjoy

They trigger RSD and POCD by calling us pedophiles and making death threats.

They hate adults in fandom. Even though fandom is inherently autistic.

I just wanted to talk about this

Thanks for the ask! If it's okay, I'll add some of my thoughts as well because I'm also on the spectrum. Sorry if my thoughts are unorganized haha.

I totally get what you mean about writing stories in response to new things. I did this so much more often as a kid (I just had more energy and free time), and many of my stories were dark and even a bit edgy at times. But it was so fun, and I do remember feeling fear that people would judge me for not writing happier things.

I very much relate to the RSD issue especially. I have pretty intense fears of that nature too, and I think that could be what makes it so hard for me to avoid preemptively defending myself against insults I think I might get, before I ever get them. One particularly unhealthy way I used to do this was by insulting myself in the way I feared others insulting me, in hopes I would appear self-aware and "beat them to it".

I agree about the terms "creepy, weird, gross". I definitely use the word "creepy" in reference to either specific horror vibes or behavior that I think is targeted and inappropriate, but I don't like how people will use it to imply predatory intent where none has actually been presented.

I also really don't like the use of "weird" and "gross" in this context, especially because "weird" is like... a word we as autistic people would sometimes "reclaim", like when I was in school and someone tried to insult me by calling me weird, I'd act flattered and say "Yes, thank you!" Because I was proud of being "weird". In a similar vain, I will occasionally jokingly call myself (or my characters) "freak", but I try not to use that as an insult, especially because it's normally used to vaguely paint any abnormal behavior as evil or wrong (even though abnormal does not equal bad, and literally any person in fandom should already know that).

I'll also admit that I'm still struggling not to use "gross" or "disgusting" for stuff like predatory behavior or csem, but I would like to start finding better terms for those things, because as I've seen other people put it: Preying on people isn't "icky uwu", it's genuinely harmful and violating.

Those are the thoughts that come to my mind, anyways! I don't always realize that the language I tend to use for different things can potentially reinforce harmful ideas in my head. Sorry for rambling about each word individually xD.

And I hope you have a good day, anon!

[nekropsii]

what are your interpretations for those classes and aspects, out of curiousity? (or a link to an interpretation thats good)

[Re: This post.]

Okay, that's an incredibly complex, multi-tiered question. I'll try my best to summarize it as briefly as possible, though!!

FOR THE CLASSES:

The fact that Bards are the Wildcard Class is true, and I'm not going to dispute that... But I think the way that some people go about interpreting Bards is a bit weak. Oftentimes, they're made out to be forces of pure, unpredictable chaos, when... That's not the case at all. That has, in my opinion, never been the case. From my observation, the role of a Bard in the greater context of a Session isn't that they create Pure Unpredictability within the field of that Aspect, but rather that they're representative of Instability within the field of their Aspect. Those are two entirely different things. Bards do, in fact, have some greater purpose and reasoning behind their actions- it's just that those reasons might not make sense to someone who is particularly mentally stable- or, "hinged", as some might like to put it. Their status of being rather Unhinged and/or Unstable individuals is why they're known to Make or Break Sessions- especially since I'd argue that their existence may hint towards a general feeling of instability within that Aspect throughout the entire session... They are Passive Classes, after all.

Pages are not "Baby Knights", because that would fundamentally defeat the entire purpose of their journey and existence as a Class. Pages represent Lacking, and their journey revolves around Deficit- both in themselves, and in those around them. When their Deficit in their Aspect is healed or resolved somehow, they are stated to be one of the most powerful Classes from the viewpoint of baseline power. If a Page evolved into a Knight upon their full realization, that's not a victory. That's the start of an entirely new journey as a character with a power level that many, many people were able to start with. That's just a cruel joke, at that point. I have so many choice words for the whole "Pages evolve into Knights" theory that if I enable myself any more space to talk about it here, that's what the entire post will turn into, so I'll forcibly stop myself there.

FOR THE ASPECTS:

Doom is a very complicated Aspect, and it hurts my heart to see people boil it down to Misfortune and Death. That is... Nowhere near the full picture, and it's so saddening that no one ever seems to truly take the effort to dig deeper. It's also about Control, Self-Sacrifice, Restriction, Necessity, and so many other things. It's fascinating!! There's pros to being a Doom player- it's not all bad!! Also... The Doombound do not bring bad luck. Think of them like an Absol, from Pokemon- if one of them starts hanging around you a lot, their presence isn't going to kill you. It can, however, serve as an omen- the Doombound are attracted to those that are already Doomed. Come on.

Hope is not inherently good, nor is it inherently positive. In fact, we have yet to see a single example of a Hope player who is a happy person... Lol. Hope is about Belief, and that's an entirely neutral concept. My personal pet theory as to why Hope was elevated to be this paragon of good in the eyes of the fandom is that it has to do with the western world's relationship with Religion- especially the USA and its relationship with Christianity. That's a topic for another day, though... But anyways, Hope can very much so lead to toxic idealism, an inability to accept reality, and suffering... And quite easily, too! I'd argue it's actually a key part of the Aspect! It's not an inherently wholesome or fun Aspect. No Aspects are. That is how they work.

Rage is not "The Hope Aspect, but Evil", it is representative of Disbelief... Which is, you know, the actual opposite of Belief? I'm not sure why Rage gets so commonly misinterpreted as "The Evil Aspect", nor do I understand why they're so heavily related to Demons. Demons are a construct of Hope, actually, and so are Cults. Sorry! It's also not an inherently bad or negative Aspect- it's just Skepticism, Anger, and Pessimism... Which would sound bad, if you forget the fact that those are necessary parts of life in order to have an even moderately healthy experience with being alive.

I'm going to plug one of my besties here, because I will take literally any excuse to do so, and you kind of asked for it. @scalematez is an absolute scholar on the subject of Hope and Rage as Aspects, and she is the only person I've ever seen actually understand them on a deeper level without defaulting to some of the most common, rather egregious stereotypes regarding those Aspects. Here's an essay of hers about their dichotomy, go give her a follow!

[esther-dot]

i don't understand why people say dany burning kingslanding is misogynistic. we've seen her burning people that has gotten in her way. her dragon even ate a child! was fine with drogo saying he'll have his people r*pe their enemy's women.

i am honestly confused. can't women be villains as well. no one takes issue with cersei as a villain. heck a lot of people demonize catelyn and even sansa (who i think has yet to do anything that's i consider terrible in canon aside from telling the lannisters about ned's plan but like, was it her fault that ned bit more than he could chew?)

I didn’t like how they wrote Dany’s massacre and death in s8, but her villain arc as a concept isn’t inherently sexist. How D&D did it in s8 felt sexist to me, but Dany was always going to burn KL and a lot of BNFs now admit she will too, they just don’t think it makes her a villain. 😬 So, really what people are objecting to isn’t a woman committing atrocities, they just don’t like us saying that makes her a bad person.

Personally, I like a female villain. I really enjoyed show Cersei, so I'm with you. It bothers me that so much of the conversation was not "did the show do a good job progressing Dany to her inevitable end?" and instead, "it's sexist to make a woman do this." As you point out, there were things to indicate it early on and if anything, D&D backed off and tried to make it a more sympathetic version of her ending than they had once intended.

I don't find fault with Sansa going to Cersei behind her dad’s back because no one cares when other characters are willful and perfectly obedient children aren’t characters we uphold as ideals or favorites. I can’t stop them from blaming her for her father’s death, but in doing so, they’re acting as if she were supposed to know that this time, there would be dire consequences to disobedience when her entire childhood and several times in AGOT, her sister disobeys and doesn’t suffer. That’s the context for her choice there. And Sansa is linked to the innocents suffering due to the decisions of the powerful, so I also think in the process of misinterpreting her they’re missing out on important themes. The fact that people include Sansa alongside Dany as both victims of misogynistic treatment by the fandom, as if they’re on par morally, as if we didn't end the first book with Dany personally burning a woman alive, as if we didn't watch her threaten to burn cities season after season, as if in the books she didn't use forced labor or profit from the slave trade etc really bothers me. Sansa had no reason to believe the family that was meant to become her family by her father’s choice was evil, but Dany saw the cost of war and decided it was all worth it. Childish naïveté isn’t the same “crime” as accepting the rape, enslavement, and death of others as the necessary cost for a pointless conquest. It’s reasonable to point this out and take issue with Dany’s choices.

The fandom pretends it’s all awash for their own reasons, but it’s ludicrous to think that Robb (who initially had a justified war) was punished by the narrative for not choosing peace when he could have but the story will reward Dany’s war campaign. It isn’t sexism that Dany dies too after doing far worse than Robb. It’s thematic consistency. And considering how many male characters we have who are cruel and evil intentionally, I don’t think we can argue that having female villains as well is sexist. There are just a lot of bad people in ASOIAF. Some of whom you know upon meeting are evil, others are sympathetic but gradually do worse and worse things. I understand she isn’t thinking she will intentionally do evil things so book fans ignore what she does, but that’s their choice. Dany orders the death of children, and the fandom actively defends (or did at one point) her for it. Why were they fine with the kiddie killing but not the massacre of KL? How can they act like her burning KL is totally ooc as if when it happens in the books they won’t do the same shit they currently do and defend all her other mistakes? IMO, their issue isn’t that D&D had Dany do a bad thing, Dany has done bad things all along. It’s that this time, there was no way to defend her actions, no way to pretend it wasn’t what it was. Their objection is to other fans saying if you do villain things it makes you a villain. We can criticize certain aspects of the writing without going wholesale “female villains are sexist” and I wish that’s a distinction fans could make.