#i will be suffering the consequences of my hubris

[utenixx]

Holding closely

[chrometheraptor]

the conses are quencing

[velvetineblue]

I couldn't sleep so I Bedazzled tai's carrd .

[tiredassmage]

also i need my people to know, the only thing keeping me from punching this project i'm doing for one of my classes thru a wall is that it's due tomorrow and uhm. idk what it did with the progress i'd made in class last week but that bitch is GONE so. hello sleep deprived me fumbling in the literal dark to try to rehash said progress and make enough new progress to have something. feasible. to submit by 8am tomorrow.

this program sits upon a throne of lies. do you know how many times i told it to save? do u know? i mean, i don't, i wasn't counting but i KNOW i did. lIES.

[queerpyracy]

the problem with baking my own bread is that even when it's not my best work it's really hard to moderate the amount of bread i'm eating because i have a loaf of fresh baked sourdough right there i mean it's still warm!!!

[antiqua-lugar]

this is the last time I shitpost on the terror and go on holiday I read a good addition that made my braincells go vroom vroom but do I have time or a keyboard? no.

[mythology-void]

okay so I was doing a Research™️ about ancient Greek etymology as one does and I found some Things that made me want to Violently Claw My Arms Off please allow me to force feed you my discoveries

So there are 2 words for "not" in ancient Greek, depending on the context: ou and mē. Having introduced himself in the Cyclops episode as " ou tis", or No-man, he then stabs Polyphemus in the eye. When Polyphemus' brothers come to check on him, they say this:

"... surely no man [mē tis] is carrying off your sheep? Surely no man [mē tis] is trying to kill you either by fraud or by force?"

Right after this, after the other cyclopes ditch Polyphemus, Odysseus's inner monologue goes something like this:

"Then they went away, and I laughed inwardly at the success of my clever strategem [metis]." (pronounced mEH-Tis)

Now, there's a difference between mē tis and metis. [mē tis] (pronounced mEH-Tis with a space between the syllables) is the literal translation for "no man". Metis is a word for extreme intelligence/cunning, which is something Odysseus is famous for.

Now, there are several examples of abuse of metis/intelligence in the Odyssey, but I think the juxtaposition between [mē tis], or the concept of anonymity, and metis, or extreme intelligence, is REALLY interesting. Odysseus's adoption of the title "No-man" was characteristic of metis--it was a really smart move that simultaneously hid him from the cyclops and avoided any future consequences. It was a highly effective strategy all wrapped up in a nest little package with a bow on it.

But when he revealed himself as Odysseus of Ithaca, effectively throwing off No-man (anonymity and [mē tis]), that was characterized as idiocy--he's essentially doxxed himself, and now he's doing to (spoiler alert) get tossed around the Mediterranean by Poseidon for the next 10 years.

This is really interesting because it lets you see the parallels/codependency between metis(intelligence) and humility. When Odysseus refused to allow himself to go unnoticed (hubris) he suffered for it. BUT when he declined instant glory/satisfaction (kleos) in order to achieve the long term goal of survival, he was rewarded with Athena's favor (pay attention. This part is important).

And this situation repeats itself MULTIPLE TIMES in the Odyssey--the EXACT SAME THING happens near the end of the book, with the suitors. When. Odysseus is dressed as a beggar and the suitors/Antinious are abusing him, he ACTIVELY CHOOSES not to react--he doesn't stand up and rip off his disguise and start hollering "TIS I, ODYSSEUS OF ITHACA! FEAR MY WRATH"

No. He sits there patiently and waits. He plans and schemes and quietly orchestrates their downfall without alerting them of it. Why? Because he learned his lesson the first time this happened. He buried his rage and adopted what was, according to Grace LA Franz, a more feminine form of metis, weaving a web of destruction for his enemies that ultimately resulted in their total annihilation (see Weaving a Way to Nostos: Odysseus and Feminine Metis in the Odyssey by Grace LaFranz). His patience allowed him to win the whole prize--no questions asked, no 10-year-long-business-trip strings attached--just the sweetness of a full victory. And he is, once again, rewarded with Athena's favor--both in the battle with the suitors and in the aftermath (cleanup/reuniting with Penelope).

This really reinforces the idea in the Odyssey that Odysseus's defining characteristic is not just his intelligence--it's his ability to learn from his mistakes. He used what he learned at the Lotus Eaters Island against Polyphemus--the Lotus Eaters drugged his men, so he drugged Polyphemus. He used what he learned from Circe and Polyphemus against the suitors--Circe used false sweetness and honeyed words to lure his men into a trap, so that's exactly what he did to the suitors. His hubris on Polyphemus' island cost his whole crew their lives, so he intentionally left well enough alone until the right time. He didn't just learn from his failures--he turned them into BATTLE STRATEGY.

i don't care what anyone says that is completely totally and objectively awesome

[whimsyprinx]

people with dietary restrictions have a special relationship and understanding with hubris

[great-axepectations]

What must it be like to be on a server with Doc? Every time he posts in the Hermitcraft Discord server must be absolutely insane.

Is anyone available to help me kill 3 wardens that got loose on the nether roof? Sorry actually it might be more like 20

Hey if it's not too much trouble, could no one log on for the next 30 minutes? I'm trying to transport an ender dragon I pulled into the overworld and loading chunks could mess it up

Anyone want to play a children's card game? I outsourced my deck building to a think tank made of hundreds of people and I want to absolutely destroy someone in a match

Does someone know a good rap artist to collab with? I want to make an anthem for the nation I founded in my massive hole of a base and Snoop Dog never got back to me

So we're not having a team meeting, just an informal brainstorming session? Cool, can I invite Christopher Paolini? Yeah the guy who wrote the Eragon books

If you see any ghasts flying over spawn town, I released like 30 of them as a prank. There should be like 2 left so don't kill them, they're an endangered species

I left that shulker at spawn FOR A REASON. Whoever took it, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M CAPABLE OF. RETURN IT OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES

Just a heads up guys, I'm inviting some Mojang devs on to the server so I can show them the cannon I made that can shoot an arrow through 3000 solid blocks in one tick and immediately destroys a full set of netherite armor

Grian was annoying me so I built a cannon that shoots charged creepers at his base with startling accuracy. Then he used it for his own gain so I build a goat mech that poops explosives to guard my base. What do you mean that's not how normal people handle disputes? He's clearly the unhinged one!

Be careful going into my base, I have a pet warden at the bottom of the perimeter. No, a PET. Yes it's there on purpose, his name is King

No one touch the chunk loader at spawn, I'm using it to transport items thousands of blocks instantly. No, of course it's not an intended feature but I still managed to pull it off in vanilla, didn't I?

How did the world eater go? Well I needed to use 3 minecraft accounts so it would run properly and at one point it was disrupted by solar flares, which I think might have been God trying to strike me down for my hubris. But other than that, yeah it went well!

Please note that these examples are ONLY FROM SEASON 9

[physalian]

“Likable” vs “Compelling” Protagonists

Protagonist does not mean “good guy” it means “the person the story is about”.

Antagonist does not mean “bad guy” it means “person in opposition to the protagonist”.

We know this, yes?

So when I’m talking about “likable” protagonists I do not mean that your MC has to be witty, funny, charming, etc—they have to be compelling.

I didn’t much care for Death Note, I thought Light got away with way too much without consequences for his actions, but he was very much the villain and the protagonist. He was an arrogant narcissist with a god complex and you watched the show not to see him win, but to see how badly he would eventually lose.

This was because, despite my dislike of his story, Light was a compelling character. You don’t necessarily agree with his motivations, but you do understand why he does what he does and why he believes what he does about himself and his world.

In contrast, one of my favorite anime is Code Geass. Lelouch (who is often compared to Light) is *constantly* getting kicked in the ass by his own hubris. He's arrogant as well, but he makes mistakes everywhere and suffers if not immediate comeuppance, then drastic consequences later down the line. Which, to me, made a far more compelling character than someone like Light playing with cheat codes.

Most of the time, “likable” and “compelling” go hand in hand, because your protagonist is the “good guy” that we’re supposed to root for.

So one of the worst mistakes I think you can make is writing a hero who just doesn’t want to be here.

—

I recently read a story where MC needed to win a competition, baseline unsponsored underdog story, and everyone loves an underdog. The problem was the MC’s attitude. Nothing pleased them and in their internal monologue, nothing was good enough and everyone else was the problem. They actually hate competitions and can’t wait for this to be over…even though no one forced them into it with a gun to their head. They hate all their competitors for behavior they themself exhibit. They hate their lone sponsor for being a sleezeball, and yet, chose to enter a voluntary competition, knowing this sponsor’s behavior, and still blaming the sponsor for their problems.

The entire time I was reading all I kept thinking was, “Then go home, bitch!”

This was not a high-stakes competition, and the MC didn’t have dire enough circumstances for the reader to believe this was a "life-or-death, even if it sucks, MC has to win," type situation. Not like Hunger Games. This was all completely voluntary.

So I started wondering if the author meant the MC to be the villain with all these personality flaws, but they’re still the underdog with no wins under their belt to support their level of entitled arrogance and no notable skills that make them inherently better than the competition.

So I was rooting for the MC to lose, and I don’t think I was supposed to. Even if I was, the mixup between “underdog hero” and “catty bitchy villain” was too confusing for too much of the story. MC didn't have to be here, didn't want to be here, so... why was MC here?

—

Some suggestions for compelling motivations for your protagonist boils down to this:

Define as quickly as you can these three things for your protagonist of any walk:

What the protagonist wants

How the protagonist plans to get it

And what’s in their way

Specify the stakes, if not physical, then personal. It doesn’t have to be life-or-death, but if they’re entering a risky situation, whatever it is has to be extremely important to them. Luca doesn’t have as high stakes as, say, Toy Story 3 but the moped race is important to the heroes, thus a compelling motivation.

Make this a journey they actually want to be on. Even if it’s grimdark or horror, if your hero is complaining the entire time and wanting to go home, yet plowing forward anyway because the plot’s dragging them on a leash, your audience will be as invested in the story as that character. If they don’t actually have the commitment to see their quest through, why should the audience care?

Alternatively, make this a journey they cannot afford to walk away from. Whether that be pressure from without or within. Frodo didn’t have to take the One Ring to Mordor. He chose to, because it was, in his mind, the right thing to do. He suffered his entire journey with the Ring and got homesick and depressed and discouraged, but he never called his own journey stupid and dumb. He could have put the Ring down and walked away or given it to somebody else, but he chose to carry on, because that’s who he is.

Even reluctant chosen ones have an ulterior reason for remaining in the story. Your long-lost princess might not want the throne being thrust upon her, but she’s chasing something else that accepting the throne and going along with the plot will give her. Maybe it’s power, respect, vengeance, money, protection, connections. So she’ll tolerate the nonsense so long as it still gets her what she wants and her struggle might be trying to not let herself get corrupted by the allure of politics and “the game”. Or, she's playing along merely to stay alive and actively trying to escape and return to her simpler life.

Popular example: Percy Jackson is a reluctant chosen one throughout his entire story in every book, even Last Olympian where he insists that he's the unknown prophecy child. In The Lightning Thief he doesn’t give a damn about the quest for the Master Bolt, he’s there to get his mom back, and cooperating with the quest will give him the means to achieve his goal, and along the way, finds that he doesn’t quite hate it as much as he thought he would.

—

So. Yeah. In no way, shape, or form does your protagonist have to be “likable”. If someone tells you they aren’t, they probably mean that your protagonist is contradictory, or lacks compelling motivation and drive, and lacks a clear goal or aspiration that will define their story. Or, they lack drive to even participate in the story at all.

Or they simply mean that your charcater, who you intend to be likeable, has a nasty flaw that would turn readers off, but a beta should be able to tell you that one easily. If they can't come up with a solid reason why your charcater is unlikable, it's probably a motivation issue.

The earliest draft of a WIP that shall never see the light of day had my protagonist sent on a glorified space field trip by her parents, and wasn’t happy to be there. This not only made her unlikable, but also uncompelling. She didn’t want to participate in the plot and only did it to hold up her end of the deal, she wasn’t excited about the actual trip nor making friends, and eventually grew into it far too late in the story.

I then changed it to have the trip be her idea, and she ran away from home to chase this dream she had. Doing so gave her much more agency as an MC and gave her an immediate motive and goal so you wanted to see her succeed right from the get go.

Even villain protagonists have a goal, and generally they very much enthusiastically want to be in this story. You don’t have to like them, but you do have to want to root for them, if not for their success, then their eventual downfall in a blaze of glory.

—

Interested in a fantasy novel without a "chosen one" protagonist? Eternal Night of the Northern Sky is up for preorder in ebook, paperback on sale 8/25/24. Subscribe for updates if you'd like~

[kriz-smthn]

I love it when I do shit like this when the theme for an assignment is vague enough I can leap out the window!

(unfortunately, I then have to suffer the consequences of my own hubris)

[bisclavret]

like many who have suffered at the hands of bbc merlin before me, i recently indulged in a thought experiment in which i outlined my own version of seasons 3-5 that stay thematically and tonally in line with the show (except they're less fucking stupid). but then i quickly realized that focusing on details is pointless: all you need is to solve the one Big Problem the show has, and the rest will follow. the problem in question? ✨morgana✨

i like the first two seasons. s1 achieves what it sets out to do and has fun while doing it, and s2, while flawed, sets up a ton of potential that the following seasons unfortunately squander, beginning with the insidious season 3. you can only distract me with cute knights and goblins and fart jokes for so long before i start seeing through you, evil, evil season of television.

my hypothesis is that if the writers had crafted s3 morgana into anything more sympathetic than a violent half-alive poltergeist that can never be reasoned with because she's suddenly terminally off her rocker, everything would've fallen into place. a sympathetic morgana would've made real, valid arguments against uther (and arthur) that wouldn't just be the ramblings of a woman possessed. her betrayal of arthur would have stemmed from her feeling increasingly morally superior to him because of his complacency in the face of their father's tyranny. under morgause's guidance she would stop believing that arthur is capable of change, and the whole point would be that she might actually be right. arthur would have to actively try and prove her wrong, instead of getting praised for doing the bare minimum because the bar is on the floor.

furthermore, morgana's prophetic dream about arthur and gwen becoming king and queen and her decision to prevent this however she can is a direct parallel to merlin learning about that same prophecy and making it happen by any means necessary. merlin's desires about his and arthur's futures are subtextually fueled by gay love and devotion, so why couldn't morgana's be? why couldn't she properly express her bitterness that arthur gets to be with gwen in a way she can't "took gwen away" from her, instead of suddenly declaring that gwen is nothing more than a servant, after two seasons of demonstrating again and again that she loves, values, and respects gwen more than anyone else in that godforsaken castle?

following this, an angry and emotionally volatile but still sensible morgana asking gwen to stay by her side during the coup of the castle in the s3 finale and gwen going behind her back to help arthur and the knights would've hurt like a bitch. double-sided betrayal! gwen having a real plot! the proper beginnings of a toxic yuri that would shape a generation!

then there's the utter hubris of having morgana shoot arrows at the same civilians she worried herself sick over for 2 seasons — even morgan, her medieval counterpart that was rooted in every sexist trope in existence, doesn't just go around killing senselessly but instead has (often petty!) personal vendettas against gwen, arthur, and the knights. morgana had every right to be sick of the pretensions around chivalry in camelot (she was always quick to mock it, even in s1), and to lash out at the knights and soldiers after years of feeling powerless in a castle full of armed men that blindly followed her oppressor. the show conveniently forgets that morgana was victimized as a woman as well as a sorcerer those first 2 seasons.

but like i said, this is not just about morgana. allowing her to remain a real and multifaceted character even as she betrays everyone in pursuit of her ambitions would've given the rest of the core four more interesting conflict to work with: merlin because he would have to experience real consequences to his actions, arthur because he would watch his sister go against his father (and his knights, and his birthright) and experience some actual internal dilemmas about it, and gwen because she would be forced to choose between morgana and arthur without the pretense that it's an obvious or easy choice for her to make.

even morgause and gaius would come off more interesting as mentors: neither one inherently evil or inherently good, both jaded by events that happened before our protagonists were even born, both heavily influencing morgana and merlin into fulfilling roles that they think are appropriate, but that morgana and merlin may not have chosen for themselves had they not been under their care.

you get the gist. if the show followed its own setup, morgana's mistakes wouldn't lie in cheap and senseless acts of violence but in alienating the people she loves because she is too hurt and jaded to trust them. meanwhile, everybody else would feel guilt over "failing" her and yet they would be too caught up in their own (sometimes flawed!) beliefs of right and wrong to truly see her point of view.

arthur would convince himself it was sorcery that corrupted her. merlin would know that isn't true but he wouldn't be able to argue without confessing everything, which is the defining conflict between him and morgana and it's cheapened when she's just an evil witch caricature and merlin is framed as inherently virtuous in contrast. gwen, too, would become a more active participant in her own life by choosing arthur over morgana and choosing to rule camelot with him instead of just waiting politely to see where things go.

and, of course, uther's downfall and death would be quick, final, and completely earned — when and why did the show even decide he of all people was the sympathetic villain, anyway?

lastly, and perhaps controversially, i think morgana should've learned merlin's true identity by season 4. her being the first of the main characters to find out makes perfect sense considering their shared history and their interconnected and mirrored arcs. even the show seems to agree, considering she does find out a little before arthur. but the narrative itself tried pointing flashing neon arrows towards this way earlier — there is a whole entire episode in s4 where merlin being emrys is repeatedly spelled out for morgana and she still isn't allowed to see it. that episode makes her look like the stupidest person to ever live, which is pretty funny im not gonna lie, but also another frustrating thing in the endless string of frustrating things that make up this show.

morgana learning that merlin has magic would've transformed the source of merlin's anxiety from a crippling fear of being outed someday to the crippling fear of knowing she could out him at any moment. this would make him want to beat her to the punch (perhaps he'd consider killing her for a minute and decide against it because she isn't a cartoonishly insane evil person in my version of events) and maybe he would even feel some tentative excitement at the idea of coming clean, now that it seems inevitable. after all, he always intended to tell arthur eventually! and i think gaius would have to admit outright that he does not want merlin to tell arthur he has magic because he, gaius, simply cannot risk such a gamble. it would be so interesting to see gaius and merlin clash and disagree once it becomes obvious that it's not merlin that isn't ready for the reveal, it's gaius. delicious!

with morgana's knowledge looming, things would inevitably spiral into a magic reveal by the end of season 4. i picture this season as an absolute mess of miscommunication between everyone at camelot, which is, y'know, canon. growing increasingly cunning and vengeful, morgana would use this tension to her advantage, destabilizing the court from the outside while she creates alliances with other sorcerers outside of camelot (instead of living alone in a hovel for no reason — morgana le fay i'm sorry i'm so sorry they gave you agravaine instead of your all-female entourage oh my god).

and here's where the events would change beyond recognition (aka here's where the meta becomes the fanfic i refuse to write). picture it with me: a militia of sorcerers infiltrates camelot and arthur and gwen have to set aside their differences (assuming gwen kissing lancelot and arthur overreacting happens, which it should) for the good of the kingdom as well as for love. picture high priestess morgana in her element, side by side with a bunch of misfit sorcerers that aren't so easily vilified, chopping down camelot's soldiers and knights and assuredly making their way to the newly-minted king.

then, just as it starts to seem that all hope is lost, in swoops merlin (the actual merlin, not his old fart disguise) on dragonback (kilgharrah hates morgana so much i know his sexist ass would stoop to anything to stop her)!!! imagine merlin showing off the extent of his powers in front of everyone and preventing the sorcerers from getting any further, declaring loud and clear that camelot is protected by him, by emrys. imagine that display of power alone being enough to send everyone home.

imagine the loyalties clearly drawn: merlin on arthur's side, morgana on the sorcerers'. imagine arthur, feeling confused and betrayed by everyone at this point, banishing merlin despite everything he's done for him in the angstiest, most emotionally dysregulated scene the show had ever put to screen. imagine merlin starting season 5 free at last but very lonesome, an embittered dragonlord like his father. imagine the absolute mess camelot would become without him, even with gwen — now queen guinevere — there to pick up the slack. imagine arthur actually earning merlin back, finally growing into his role as king as he does so. imagine the reunion.

all this and more could've been not just possible but inevitable if morgana was allowed to remain a complex character that is neither inherently good nor inherently evil: it was undeniably the biased and one-note treatment of morgana's downfall by the writers that set the precedent for literally everything else that happened after merlin chose to poison her. the show wouldn't have even had to jeopardize its tone or the monster-of-the-week vibe, all it would've had to do is admit that even the "good guys" are capable of mistakes and what makes them good is the ability to feel remorse and change for the better. (as opposed to uther, who was miles beyond redemption since way before the pilot and deserved to lose everything and die alone. OBVIOUSLY???)

in a world where morgana remains multifaceted and sympathetic, mordred would get a better arc as well, so if we really wanted to, we could still end on the same tragic note that the show ended on. with so much harm inflicted onto so many innocent people by the pendragons for so long (including mordred and the many druids and sorcerers that raised him), it could realistically end up being a little too late for anything more than one shining glimpse of king arthur and the sorcerer merlin's short-lived golden age before fate catches up to them. glimpsing that reality just to immediately lose it would've been far more satisfying and far more tragic than whatever the writers thought they were doing with all that pointless carrot-dangling.

and finally, an ending in line with morgana's new and improved arc. in this version, rather than bleeding out on the forest floor alone, she would channel the morgan le fay we know from the legends: sobered up by the reality of her brother dying, she would use her high priestess status (and perhaps also her pendragon status) to be granted passage over to avalon alongside arthur on the boat — a one-way ride — just to make sure he gets there safely. this is her penance for the harm she has caused, the same way arthur's penance is to die and leave the true ruler of camelot (gwen) behind to achieve everything he was too slow and indecisive to build while he still had time.

merlin's penance, then, would be to stay behind and watch them cross over without him, waiting and waiting and waiting until they come back or until he can finally join them. which is a bit fucking harsh if i'm honest, so i'd at least make it slightly more faithful to the legends by having him return as an old man and letting him take a long nap under a tree by the shore, his body slowly enveloped by vines like the cobwebbed fisher king in 3x08, never fully sure if he's dreaming or if there really are strange shapes fading in and out of the fog over the lake. still tragic, but nevertheless a little more open-ended and whimsical than [TRUCK NOISES] THE END!

[dotthings]

Okay, strap in, I'm going deep dive on Dean and Cas during their S15 breakup and going to address some things about The Trap. (It's long, there's a lot to unpack).

Castiel: What he did wasn't bad. It was the absence of good. And I saw that in him. But we were a family, and I didn't want to lose that, so I thought I could fix it on my own. Felt like it was my responsibility. So I left. And I didn't tell you. If I could go back and just -- just talk to him right then and there, I would. But I can't, Dean. I failed you. And I failed Jack. And I failed --

(14.18, Absence)

What Cas was about to say it seems, when Dean cut him off, was that he failed Mary, along with Dean, and Jack.

Cas is fully acknowledging his culpability and his failures.

His clinging to the idea he had to fix it on his own is similar to his S6 mindsets, but with way less hubris. This isn't about his hubris, but it's a holdover of Cas's stubbornness.

It's not true there was no growth. There's no arrogance in Cas now. That doesn't mean he's over all his neurosis. That's not how this works. But it's not the same as the past.

Why is Cas expected to be over everything and never backslide from some people, while Dean gets sympathy and understanding when he does? Neither of them cleanly break from their traumas and old patterns, they do grow, they do move forward, it's not repeating the same.

It's also patently untrue that Cas never owns up to his mistakes, never apologizes, never suffers consequences. Cas has owned up to his mistakes. Even sometimes pulls penance down on himself on purpose.

He doesn't just play at being sorry.

Dean's subjective pov from years ago (from late S7), at a point where Dean was understandably and rightfully hurt, frustrated, angry, but also scared for Cas, so he lashes out, terrified because Cas was suffering from PTSD, unable to fight, and he isn't the Cas he knows. He knows something's wrong. So Dean threw a board game onto the floor. It was all completely understandable to me and I felt for Dean. But it's interesting how this gets weaponized against Cas so people can claim Cas isn't actually sorry he just plays at being sorry, as if this is exposing some deep objective Truth, just like people take Dean's words in The Rupture that Cas is always the screw up as some deep objective Truth. When Dean is speaking from hurt, anger, fear.

Cas repeatedly apologizes to Dean in early S15.

He is not huffy because Dean didn't insta-forgive him.

The moment that broke Cas, where he decided to leave, was when he perceived Dean's walls against him to be so high and so rigid, Cas lost hope that anything would get better, that he could ever be forgiven. He really thought it was all over.

Remember that Dean already said, if Mary's dead, "you're dead to me" Remember Dean just said to Cas, "why does that something always seem to be you" about things going wrong, saying Cas is always the screw up.

Cas did not leave because Dean was mad at him.

Cas endured Dean being mad at him for how many episodes, late S14 through early S15, he didn't tell Dean he had no right to be, he didn't run away from it, he endured, and he repeatedly apologized.

Why did Cas leave, why did he leave, not because he saw Dean was angry. But because he lost hope.

Cas wasn't wrong to put some space, that's right for Dean as well as Cas, at that point, but he was wrong in his perceptions, and Cas's perceptions are heavily driven by his insecurities.

The same reasons that partly drove why he latched onto Jack so hard--loneliness, a need to feel useful, a need to feel needed.

While he's away Cas realizes he was wrong to give up. He gets a tiny sign that Dean still cares, and he comes back to try to fix it instead of running away.

It's not true there is no growth.

Cas goes back, things are tense but they are able to work together for a greater good and greater emergency.

And Cas volunteers to stand at Dean's side and return with Dean to Purgatory, where the leviathans who very specifically and personally hate Cas's guts and they all want him destroyed exist.

Don't tell me!!! Cas doesn't care about Dean!!!!!!

Dean wants to split up. He's still mad at Cas, he's allowed. But Cas rightfully points out that's more dangerous than staying together.

Don't tell me there's no growth!!!

In their first trip to Purgatory, Cas ran from Dean, to try to protect Dean. Despite Dean regarding it as abandonment, before Dean knew why Cas ignored his prayers every night, he still ransacked Purgatory, torturing monsters, looking for Cas. Refused to leave Purgatory without Cas. Even though he was angry and hurt.

When he finds Cas and Cas tells him the reason he hid from Dean--trying to draw the leviathans, to keep them away from Dean to protect Dean, Dean is absolutely gobsmacked.

This time, Cas knows it's better if they stay together. That he can protect Dean better if they stay together.

They have this conversation in Purgatory:

CAS: Well, this place will bring that out in you. Guilt. It was my fault the Leviathan got out. It was my fault we were here the first time. I carry that guilt every day. DEAN: I know you're sorry, Cas. About Bel, about Mom. CAS: I was talking about Jack. I already apologized to you. You just refused to hear it.

Let's unpack what is being said here. Cas comments on how Purgatory is a place that brings out feelings of guilt. He then acknowledges his culpability for S6, the leviathans, and that it was his fault he and Dean wound up thrown there at the end of S7. Dean says he already knows Cas is sorry about the screw up concerning Cas impulsively burning up Bel, and about what happened to Mary. Cas says he was thinking of his feelings of guilt about Jack, that he already apologized to Dean for the other things. And accuses Dean of not listening to him. Which isn't really true, but as far as Cas knows it's true because he has no way of knowing Dean really heard him, because Dean was putting up walls of iron.

DEAN: Sorry I brought it up. Maybe if you didn't just up and leave us. CAS: You didn't give me a choice. You couldn't forgive me. And you couldn't move on. You were too angry. I left, but you didn't stop me.

Getting down to the real roots of it now, Dean lets out a little confession. He's hurt about Cas leaving.

After Dean said "you're dead to me," after Dean said Cas is always the problem. Dean's mad at Cas, he's also mad at Cas for leaving. Get out--no wait, where are you going why are you leaving me.

Again, Dean is understandably hurt and he is really going through it with the inner conflict. He has rights to all his feelings. Pushing Cas away and wanting/needing him to stay at the same time, I can understand how Dean would be so conflicted.

There's nothing from either of them I don't understand, or that isn't understandable or sympathetic.

And Cas points that out, that Dean was putting up such high walls, Cas didn't know what else to do except leave. Is Cas being completely fair in how he words it? No. He's not immune to subjectivity and speaking from a place of hurt and frustration and fear of being rejected and making assumptions.

But he's not mad at Dean for being angry and this isn't canon saying Dean is wrong to be angry. "You couldn't move on" "you were too angry"--This was not a reprimand on Dean being angry. This was Cas explaining why he left. Cas left (as Cas explains) because a) it seemed self evident to Cas that Dean was never going to forgive him b) it seemed self evident to Cas that Dean was so angry at Cas there was no hope to fix it and that Dean no longer wanted him there.

It seems like a really bad faith reading to me to accuse Cas here of lecturing Dean on his anger, when what is actually happening is Cas is explaining why he left, because he can see Dean is hurt that Cas left.

And why is it from some people Dean is allowed his insecurities, his anger, his fears, but Cas has to be absolutely perfect and has to speak perfectly and without any subjectiveness, projections, or misunderstandings, at all times?

Cas feels deeply, as Dean does. He has feelings. He's a fully fleshed out character, as Dean is. A complicated character, and like Dean, with his own buzzing nest of trauma and insecurities in his brain.

"I left but you didn't stop me" finally Cas really getting to the heart of the thing. The actual root thing bothering him. Not that Dean was angry. It's that Dean let him leave without saying anything to try to stop him.

While Dean is hurt and feeling abandoned because Cas left.

This isn't about anger shaming Dean at all.

Cas isn't angry at Dean for being angry.

It is as simple in fact as Cas's fear of being unwanted, and wanting Dean to ask him to stay, and Dean's fear of being abandoned, and wanting Cas not to leave.

And then there's Dean's desperate prayer to Cas, which is another highly misunderstood scene, which gets taken as Dean "groveling" begging for Cas's forgiveness when it's entirely about Dean's own need to give forgiveness to Cas. Maybe, somewhat, saying what Cas needs to hear so Cas will stay, but it is most of all about what Dean needed to say, the same as Cas's happiness was saying what he did to Dean in 15.18. Just getting to say it. And having it be heard, is enough.

Because beneath all that absolutely justifiable anger and hurt, Dean doesn't want to lose Cas, he never actually meant for Cas to leave, didn't actually deep down want Cas to leave, and he doesn't want to lose Cas forever to Purgatory.

And Dean has a lot of fears about his anger. That he's nothing but anger, that he's only good for killing monster. This is Dean, who thinks he's "poison," who thinks people he loves are better off away from him. That isn't authorial voice. That is Dean's own fears. He can't see his own love, his own big heart. He can't see his own kindness and empathy and how deeply he loves and feels and his own goodness.

But Cas can. Cas never doubted that Dean was good or that Dean is the most caring loving human ever, what Cas doubted was about Dean still caring about him.

And then he realized he was wrong. Before Purgatory II, before hearing Dean's prayer even, he already figured out he was wrong in his assumptions on how Dean felt about him, but Dean still needed to say it, and I think Cas did need to hear it even if he already knew.

How people think Dean's anger is a late seasons invention utterly baffles me. But it's not that Dean being angry is wrong, it's that how people express their anger has ripple effects. Because that's true of everyone!!!!!!! If this reads to people as "anger shaming" then they are endorsing the idea that people should just let their anger eat them alive and destroy everything, burn it all down, no matter how much harm it does for the person who is angry.

What Dean is scared of is that his anger, the way it expressed, the hard walls he put up, the words he said, going against what was actually deep in his heart, chased Cas away when he didn't mean for that to happen.

Dean could have yelled at Cas and giving him the cold shoulder in the bunker and Cas would have endured it, if Cas hadn't gotten the impression Dean absolutely no longer wanted him around.

Is Cas completely blameless? Of course not. He made his mistakes. And he could have been more perceptive about Dean and not let his own insecurities dominate how he views things but given how driven by insecurities Dean's pov on Cas is, how is it people want to turn Cas into the monster, and only comprehend Dean, when Cas is a mirror to Dean?

Some truly can't let go of the idea that Cas into an unfeeling monster who doesn't really love Dean, that Cas is selfish and manipulative and abusive and that he doesn't care about Dean.

I want to go out into the woods and scream.

[qiu-yan]

I think if MDZS was truly about moral good, then Cultivation Society would have been fundamentally changed and everyone who tried to change it wouldn’t be dead. The fact that XXC and SL wanted to change cultivation sects from being dynastic to more merit based and they got such horrible fates is tragic. JGY wanted to use his power to help the more common folk, but he was struck down and any good he’s done is going to be tainted. WWX and LWJ choose to walk away rather than do anything in the novel, so I’m not sure if their actions can be considered a net positive. There’s only so much good they can do as wandering cultivators, there needs to be some kind of structure to help the community but most sects are unwilling to put in a lot of effort if it doesn’t benefit them specifically. There was no social change in MDZS.

thank you for the message! and sorry it took me five million years to get to it...

from a utilitarian point of view, i think you're completely correct: the one individual the novel holds up as the most righteous out of everyone has a far greater negative than positive impact on the world at large; society and the plight of the common folk are in a worse state at the end of the novel than they are at the beginning. postcanon, no matter how much individual nighthunting wei wuxian and lan wangji do, the life of your average commoner is probably going to get more dangerous. you are correct that there was in fact no social change in MDZS. shit did not change on a major scale.

two comments about this: first, the moral framework employed by MDZS is decidedly non-utilitarian. second, as you said, MDZS is not About Moral Good.

first, the moral framework employed by MDZS is not utilitarian at all. wei wuxian and lan wangji are not "righteous" in the way that someone who pulls the lever in the trolley problem can be called "righteous" via utilitarian reasoning; rather, wei wuxian and lan wangji are "righteous" in the way that someone who walks away from omelas is righteous. from a utilitarian perspective, walking away from omelas doesn't accomplish shit because the child is still suffering and one person's absence is not going to change that. from a non-utilitarian perspective, though, walking away from omelas isn't about bringing about a certain result but rather is about living in accordance to your own ideals and code of honor. it's not about helping as many people as possible or about bringing about the best possible outcome, but rather about living your own life without any regrets.

this isn't a philosophy i (a utilitarian) really buy into, but many people do find it persuasive. and though there are still some logical holes induced by protagonist-centered-morality, i do think that MDZS is overall thematically cohesive if analyzed through this non-utilitarian lens. unfortunately, one side-effect of this lens (as well as the general non-utilitarian sorts of philosophies this lens is based in) is that the story ends up somewhat handwaving actual negative consequences.

second, MDZS is not Purely About Moral Good. it has an internally consistent moral framework and it has a lot to say about what it thinks is righteousness, but it isn't a "ringing endorsement of the Correct Course Of Action" book in the same way many other works of fiction are. MDZS is about a certain kind of righteousness, but it's also a cynical condemnation of society, a remark upon the role and unreliability of rumors and hearsay, a subversion of typical xianxia/wuxia genre tropes, an interpersonal tragedy of love and duty and sacrifice and hubris, and a thorough rejection of the just world fallacy. it's also a romance.

i say that MDZS is also a social critique and a rejection of the just world fallacy because, in my view, we aren't meant to read characters like jin guangyao as "unambiguously evil characters who got what they deserved." i do think we're meant to see the way in which society turns on jin guangyao, the way in which that parallels wei wuxian's unfair downfall, and the way in which the genuine good jin guangyao did for the world is now at risk, as a tragedy. as a rather depressing insight upon the morally bankrupt nature of society. MXTX wrote it that way on purpose. you're not meant to read jin guangyao's downfall and go "he got what he deserved;" rather, you're meant to look at the black-and-white, hypocritical, and classist way in which society turns upon jin guangyao as a criticism of that society - one that builds off of the social criticism baked into wei wuxian's character arc.

there is no structural change in MDZS because MDZS is a criticism of society, not a story about how society got better. MDZS posits that this polite society is classist and morally bankrupt, and then does not fix said society. MDZS says "this polite society was hypocritical and self-serving then, and it still is now." in that sense, then, the ending is deliberately rather tragic.

in that sense, then, wei wuxian stepping away from the cultivation world does also feel like him giving up on society. which, from an interpersonal perspective, is fair: he already set himself on fire and literally died trying to do the right thing, so i don't think we can really begrudge him for not wanting to risk it a second time. maybe this time someone else can try to fix things (and die in the process). also, given his and lan wangji's absolute lack of any political ability, it's probably also for the best that they not try to involve themselves in politics to better the world, because realistically they'd probably just make a bunch of enemies and solve zero of the problems.

MDZS tries to give us some hope for the future of its fictional society: both the novel and the fandom (including me myself) posit that said hope for the future lies in the juniors, by whom wei wuxian's generation tried to better than their parents did for them. jin ling's generation certainly seems kinder than wei wuxian's generation. i think we're meant to conclude that things aren't completely hopeless because jin ling's generation, kinder and nobler than the previous one, will try to fix things.

but personally, i'm not sure how i feel about placing the hopes of social reform on the specific personalities of citizens and leaders, rather than the structures those people exist in. instead, i'm reminded me of what i wrote a few months ago about the granularity of morality in MDZS being the entire individual and not the action, by which i mean that MDZS seems to assess and conclude entire characters as "good people" or "bad people" or "complicated and morally grey people," rather than analyze the morality of specific actions. and i think it's because MDZS treats the unit measurements of morality as people rather than actions or policies, that MDZS is ultimately able to posit that the future will be better because a specific group of individuals from the next generation have kinder personalities - even though there was no structural reform. as if the state of a society is determined purely by the personalities of a select group of future leaders within it, rather than the laws and institutions that bind it and the material conditions its populations live in. to put it in other words, this is peak "we replaced the evil king with a Wise And Just king (and made no other changes), so we've saved the day!!!" thinking.

.

i feel like i rambled a lot in this response, so i apologize for its relative lack of cohesion. i hope i haven't misinterpreted your points and that i've continued the conversation in a relevant manner.

[taylor-titmouse]

Non/dubcon?

this one is such a "it depends" that i'm going to skip the number rating because the lines between what some people consider dubcon and what they consider noncon and what some people consider morally objectionable and what they're fine with are so personal and different. not even getting into factors like 'who is making the work' and 'who are you expected to identify with in the work' and 'how is the work framed' and so on and on. this is the grandaddy of all Nuance Required kinks to talk about.

i like it when a character who hasn't expressed interest in sex is made to have sex anyway. i like characters in peril, i like them chased and captured, i like them punished for their hubris, their bad attitude, or a bad choice. i tend to prefer the perspective of the person forced to have sex, over the person doing the forcing, but not exclusively. i like the thrill of it being "wrong", and characters enjoying something they're not supposed to, and it not mattering whether they do (but still: they do). i like resistance and bondage, and i like contexts in which sex is a natural consequence for actions taken.

but i don't enjoy suffering, real terror, or trauma. i'm not interested in those aspects, and generally keep them out of my work. i'm interested in indulging the safe thrill of a fake, often impossible scenario.

a dragon can fuck you whether you want it or not. luckily, dragons aren't real

[evelynquack]

Me too fr.

I need to get huge tits so when I see someone with huge tits I don't want to die of envy.