#if you interpret characters in a certain way that i personally disagree with that is a-okay

[themyscirah]

Complaining abt Suicide Squad yet again but the fact that they have Waller exposing the alien community to space racist attacks and talking abt how she got to her position through deceit and being a terrible person and stuff is just. Ahsfiwueh JUST SAY YOU DONT KNOW WALLER.

Anyways literally the 3rd mission of the Squad ever (and the first framed as smth Waller picked and not orders from above) was the Squad discrediting and stopping a rogue vigilante who was only arresting POC and funneling white people into white supremacy groups (of which he was the most prominent member) in SUICIDE SQUAD #4. and it's explicitly framed as this mission being personal for Waller that she's hiding from the government bc its illegal like. Guys. Please why are we having her incite (space bc comics) racist attacks now

Also the whole "Amanda got her position through deceit and being a terrible person" NO. she KEPT her position through being shitty and playing complicated political games!!! She wasn't always that way like there is a difference and it is IMPORTANT ppl PLEASEEEE. In Secret Origins #14 we learn Amanda's backstory and she used to be a normal, caring person! Like even after she entered into working in government and politics she wasn't automatically morally bankrupt like please people. She was originally given control of the Squad by Reagan (*sigh* 80s comics...) to distract and get rid of her because she was so successful at pushing progressive social policy in Congress. Acting like she's this static pillar of evil is such a waste of her character and so fucking uninteresting and disrespectful to her arc it drives me MAD.

Like I am NOT saying Waller is all sunshine and rainbows, she fucking SUCKS (said w love <3) but like there's a human being there. It's a progression, she has a character arc like please, DC, please!!! They've fucked up Waller so bad and made her so opaque and uninteresting she can't even be the protagonist of her own story for fucks sake!

Like I don't know how many times I have to scream it until DC hears me or remembers but WALLER IS THE MAIN CHARACTER OF SUICIDE SQUAD. ITS HER BOOK. yet right now she's a cutout to be used as the villain wherever the writers please. Even in her book we get none of her perspective really displayed, no exploration of her thoughts with any kind of understanding of the role she traditionally has played and was made to play in the story.

[messiahzzz]

while it’s perfectly fine to have your own headcanons that are non-canon compliant — by all means, go wild. recognizing pieces of yourselves in fictional characters can be a very healing and validating experience. this is nonetheless a casual, well-intentioned reminder that gale, in fact, does not have bpd.

bpd is a pervasive pattern of instability affecting interpersonal relationships, self-image, and mood. the disorder is marked by impulsivity beginning in early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts. a diagnosis requires at least 5 of the following 9 criteria to be met:

Fear of abandonment

Unstable or changing relationships

Unstable self-image; struggles with identity or sense of self

Impulsive or self-damaging behaviors (e.g., excessive spending, unsafe sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating).

Suicidal behavior or self-injury

Varied or random mood swings

Constant feelings of worthlessness or sadness

Problems with anger, including frequent loss of temper or physical fights

Stress-related paranoia or loss of contact with reality

source: [x]

i highlighted the criteria that do apply to gale in one way or another in a pretty purple.

i personally believe that it’s rather harmful to equate his relationship with mystra with her being “his fp”. she is a deity, his goddess, and the source of his powers, who is in in full control of the magic he wields.

gale: mystra commands all magic. salvation, if such a thing exists, is hers to bestow or withhold.

gale has been effectively groomed and conditioned to serve and revere her at every turn since early childhood. imo this comparison really undermines a lot of crucial points in gale’s story that deal with his overall trauma and abuse. after all, you wouldn’t call shar sh*dowhe*rt’s fp either.

gale doesn’t revile mystra, nor does he commit benevolent deeds solely motivated by the secret hope that she will somehow notice and take him back. when you meet gale in the game he has already fully come to terms with the fact that he has been abandoned by mystra with no hope of reconciliation whatsoever. he also had some very fitting lines in ea regarding this topic that i'm sad haven't been repurposed in the full release in some way.

gale: [the tadpoles] don't know that some things are impossible. they don't know that... they don't know. player: what is impossible about what you're being shown? gale: forgiveness. gale: it is mystra i see. and yet it cannot be her. there was a time when i would have believed - but no longer. gale: suffice it to say she would not bestow upon me the favors promised in these dreams. that is how i know they are delusions.

he has already reached the stage of acceptance. moreover, gale only starts to realize that mystra might have been in the wrong for requesting his death once the tadpole squad & tav speak some sense into him. and even then he doesn’t ever show that his emotions regarding mystra are anywhere along those lines. he is instead rightfully angered that she only saw value in his death, after he had been worshipping her loyally for years.

gale: i worshipped mystra loyally for years, and in that time she granted me the barest sliver of the power i was ready to wield. gale: even with the fate of the world at stake, she had little more to offer me than the means of blowing myself up at a more convenient time. she's done nothing to help us.

gale: you abandoned me in my hour of greatest need. i had no obligation to help you in yours. gale: because you had no right to ask that of me. you cast me out, remember?

gale doesn’t display rapid changes in mood either. he is a character who is generally very composed and has been known to remain nonchalant even in the face of utter horror. tim downie himself even commented on this once. source: [x]

the only instance i can think of is his sudden switch from resigned-to-death to utter-eye-sparkling-enthusiasm once he spots the crown of karsus. apart from crucial story reasons that i won’t touch upon in this post, i’d also like to add that it’s a rather common phenomenon for people who have just barely survived a suicide attempt to suddenly be filled with zeal and unbridled energy. he doesn't display impulsivity without thorough consideration when it comes to its acquisition either. he considers this a golden opportunity and is positively enthusiastic and elated that this might prove an alternative to him ending up in a cloud of netherese smoke. nonetheless, he knows what he is doing. evident in him actually succeeding in ascending in one of his endings.

gale: this is no passing whim, trust me. if i can obtain that crown, it will affect us all. it is not a decision i'll take lightly. gale: it's our future that i'm thinking of - we can't rely on anyone else to do it for us. gale: for now - we've learned all we can.

neither are his relationships that we do know of (namely elminster, tara, and morena) frequently changing. they are marked by years of mutual respect, care, and consistency. there is nothing unstable about them. while it's important to note that his relationship with tav is still in its honeymoon stages during the main game, there is no inclination of any push-and-pull dynamic between them whatsoever.

gale isn’t preoccupied with keeping up some sort of benevolent act in order to win (back) affection — he genuinely IS a good person and he proves this at every turn. moreover, to have a tressym become your familiar you must be of Good alignment.

(taken from tumblr user galedekarios's post.)

there is never a moment where his ideals or alignment suddenly change. in fact, i’d argue that he and wyll are most consistent in this regard when compared to the rest of the companions. gale makes his moral standpoint very clear from the beginning on and also explicitly states that he believes that in order to survive this entire ordeal it would be selfish of him if he wouldn’t be willing to compromise on his morals. this isn’t a sudden bout of ✨muahahaha wizard hubris✨ that he barely contained to hold in before, this is yet another act of selflessness — it is what he’s willing to do for the group and subsequently, the welfare of faerun.

player: i love unsavoury things. don't feel guilty on my account. gale: that's good to know. although i should say i do what i do out of a sense of utility and pragmatism, not a love of the unsavoury. gale: we're up against the greatest threat faerun has ever faced. i don't mind getting my hands dirty if it gives us a better chance of surviving. gale: whatever advantage i can gain for us. i will. and i refuse to feel guilty for it, no matter how much mystra's chidings might echo in my skull.

this is him, once again trying to be useful in whatever way he can. to give them an advantage, a slither of hope against seemingly impossible odds, so they might make it out of this in one piece. gale wouldn’t approve of those actions under normal circumstances, but their predicament is as far from any definition of “normal” as it can get.

gale is no fool, he realizes this is essentially about survival. he knows that he has no option left other than to tolerate, which is why he can be convinced to not immediately depart tav’s company even if they choose to commit atrocities. this is no character flaw of his or him displaying a previously dormant openness for cruelty, this is about recognizing the necessity.

player: you don't stand a chance alone. you're free to go. i dare you. gale: gods damn you - you're right. few things are more powerful than the will to live.

gale: i thought the orb to be the greatest of my sins, but i see now that there are darker depths to which i might yet sink. you may be content to sink into that abyss, but i assure you - i am not.

gale doesn’t lead a split existence. he has a very strong sense of identity. he knows what he wants, what he doesn’t want and he isn’t shy in expressing his boundaries either. which he has especially shown when it comes to his relationship with tav. i originally had intended to touch upon this in another post entirely but: i firmly believe his entire Gale of Waterdeep™ persona is more of a performance than him struggling to find a sense of identity and trying them on for size. it is an intentional decision to separate gale dekarios from the great wizard of waterdeep, to create distance and make sure his family name remains untarnished in case things should ever go sideways.

gale: i agree. and on the plus side, if i get myself into any truly cataclysmic straits during the remainder of our journey, my family name will go untarnished.

there is also a deep-rooted feeling of unworthiness and his firm belief that love and praise are conditional resources that he will only be granted through his talents alone, naturally. presenting himself as gale dekarios, the man, would mean highlighting his shortcomings and very human flaws, while distracting from the aspects of himself that are deemed praiseworthy, the ones that actually matter: his magical prowess.

i personally believe that part of the beauty of gale’s story is him realizing just how “little” it takes for him to be truly content. he gets his happy ending, with someone at his side who truly sees him, understands him and unabashedly commits to him. they worship and adore him in return — and it is well deserved. he isn’t reduced to be constantly and restlessly searching for some unattainable ideal to fill the gaping void within himself. he doesn’t secretly thirst for more power still or believes that in being with tav he is settling for something. instead, he is finally happy to just be. be and be accepted. teaching a class of unruly wizards and coming home to his spouse each day already fulfills him.

gale: that's how i feel with you - content. it's a rather unfamiliar feeling, i must say. not something gale of waterdeep ever craved.

even if he doesn’t pursue a romance with tav, he reaches a realization of “oh, it appears i am not irredeemably flawed and only able to reach true redemption through my own death. what i needed was actually with me all along.” throughout their journey and through his friend's support. i think that’s a very powerful and comforting message. he is very well capable of finding peace within himself.

devnotes: his default state is that he returned to waterdeep and became a professor of illusory magic at his former school, blackstaff academy. general vibe here is that this is a gale who's found peace with himself - he's a great teacher, one his students are mostly in awe of.

to repeat myself: sharing your headcanons is all in good fun, nor should you ever be discouraged from doing so. this is your personal tumblr experience, after all. but i personally think we should be mindful of unintentionally perpetuating negative stereotypes, such as narcissism being a general indicator or being deemed a classic depiction of bpd. i think we can all agree that the continuous longing for acceptance, connection, praise, and approval is something we all have in common deep down, regardless of whatever disorder we may have. [insert victoria justice meme here]

gale may be many things to many people, but he is no entitled narcissist.

[transmutationisms]

how do i know what’s right?

i feel like i have zero critical thinking skills ;-;

a lot of the time when someone poses an idea or a theory they think they’re right, and so they use language that enforces that. but then someone refutes it, and uses language affirming what they believe and i see the point in their argument. and then it gets refuted again and again and again and im just confused.

hi great question. i would love it if there were a single easy litmus test to figure out who's 'right' and whose info i should trust! unfortunately things are rarely this easy, and it's actually completely normal to be overwhelmed by the amount of information being produced and shared, especially when it comes to topics you haven't researched/lived/etc. for most of us, this will be most topics!

i'd preface this by saying that i think your overall attitude here is actually a good one. you're framing it in a pretty self-deprecating way—but actually, imo this type of openness to discussion and disagreement is a really good place to start, esp when dealing with topics that are new to you. nobody enters a contentious debate with a fully fledged, defensible viewpoint. you might feel like you're just treading water here, making no progress toward being able to evaluate arguments for yourself, but i highly doubt that's true.

all of that said: while i again cannot give you a single litmus test for figuring out what's 'right', there are four pretty basic sets of questions that i automatically run through when encountering a new idea, source, topic, or argument: we can call these origin, purpose, value, and limitations.

origin: who's the author? do they have any institutional affiliations? who pays their salary? is this argument or paper funded in any way? is the argument dependent upon the author's social position or status (race, class, etc) and if so, are those factors being discussed clearly? does the author have ties to a particular nation-state or stakes in defending such a nation-state? what's the class character of the author and the argument? what's the social, economic, and intellectual context that gave rise to this argument or source?

purpose: why is this source or person disseminating this information or making this argument? are they trying to sell you anything? are their funders? are they trying to persuade you of a particular political viewpoint? keeping in mind the answers to the 'origin' questions, are there particular ideological positions you would expect to find in this source or argument, and are they present? what are the stakes for the author or source? what about for those who cite the source or further disseminate or publish it?

value: what does this source or argument accomplish well? what aspects of the argument are new to you and strike you as insightful? are there linkages being made that you haven't encountered elsewhere, and that you think are effectively and sufficiently defended? are there statistics or empirical data that might be useful to you in forming your own argument, even if you disagree with how this source or author is interpreting them? what does this argument or source tell you about the types of debates being had, and the rules of those debates?

limitations: where does this argument or source fail you or fall apart? are there obvious rhetorical fallacies you can identify? is the author forgetting or overlooking some piece of information that you know of from elsewhere? which viewpoints may be omitted? keeping in mind the answers to the 'purpose' questions, if this source is defending a particular ideology or political position, is that one you agree with? is it only defensible so long as the author omits or distorts certain pieces of information? are there points where the argument jumps from evidence to a conclusion that the evidence can't fully support? are there alternative explanations for the evidence?

over time you will often find that it becomes more and more automatic to ask yourself these questions. you will also find that the more you read/hear about a particular topic, the faster you can determine whether someone is presenting all of the evidence, presenting it fairly, and using it to fully defend the argument they ultimately want to make. and you will probably also find that at some point, you're able to synthesise your own argument by pulling the strong parts from multiple other people's viewpoints, combining them with your own thinking, and fitting them together in a way that adequately explains and materially analyses the issue at hand.

[khaire-traveler]

As a devotee of Demeter, I sometimes feel that people only worship Persephone for the aesthetic.

I feel horrible for saying and thinking that but I can't help but feel that way. Certain pagans portray Persephone as some overpowered Mary Sue, downplaying the importance of her mother and sometimes even her husband.

I feel like people really ignore her as a agrarian deity. They claim to love her but feel the need to change everything about her - if you need to change her did you ever like her in the first place?

It honestly just feels like they're talking about a Wattpad main character instead of a religious figure at times it's so jarring to me. Imagine if someone on tiktok described their deity as a dark and daddy figure bad boy with piercings and then its literally just Jesus Christ.

And its not just Persephone, it's the whole pantheon! Some worshippers talk about the deities and their myths like characters and tropes from a telenovela. They are rarely treated like religious figures, they are more than just their myths.

Im sorry i just wanted a place to complain and see if i am not alone

---

Khaire, Nonny,

Honestly, I agree with this sentiment. I've seen this time and time again where Persephone, and many other deities, get "fandomized" which can be problematic for others, even if it's ok in that individual's practice. Sometimes it feels like our religion isn't taken seriously, even by the people who actively practice it, but I also understand that people have different forms of practicing that work better for them. It's frustrating, however, when Persephone is depicted as this Mary Sue characterization of her where she's seen as, like, super edgy, badass, and powerful in a really fandomized way. It comes across as this person using Persephone as an avenue of self-expression rather than worshipping who she actually is as a deity (not to say she's not badass or powerful, to clarify). While it's ok to use a deity as an avenue for self-expression in worship (some trans folk, for example, view Apollon as trans-masc, and it actively plays a role in their worship), it's a lot less ok when you're making this deity into a cartoonish characterization of themselves. The gods present themselves differently to people, but I don't know; I guess I find it far-fetched to believe that Persephone would present herself in this sort of way. I can't speak for her, obviously, but I just disagree with this interpretation of who she is as a deity - putting herself above others, hating her mom, being a rebellious "wild child". I think that, psychologically speaking, some people might just find comfort in this representation of her and see themselves in it which is likely why they gravitate towards it. It's fine to have that experience, but I STRONGLY encourage these people to actually read the myths about Persephone, do the research on how she was worshipped, and actively try to better understand where she actually came from as a deity because this isn't just a character in a show that you relate to; this is a goddess that you're trying to worship, no?

Some people finding more success in their practice with this representation doesn't negate the harm these misconceptions and misinformation can cause. I've met multiple people who believe that Persephone willingly fled to the Underworld to "escape" Demeter (which is untrue), and that is endlessly frustrating to me, especially due to the cultural importance of the Hymn to Demeter (the myth of Persephone being kidnapped). The gods are not their myths, in my experience, but their myths still hold a heavy importance in the way they were worshipped in the past, and the way we worship them in the present. Demonizing an entire deity is the equivalent of trying to cancel a constellation of stars; it's pointless, extremely bizarre, and very "online" behavior.

But yeah, I think some people care more about the "character" than they do the deity, and I will say that confidently. I've met people who "ship" deities with each other, who make their experiences with deities sound - as you said - like a telenovela, and who actively spread harmful misinformation about deities in a way that legitimately disgusts and disturbs me. I've once had someone tell me that a deity [insert reprehensibly immoral act here] them, and to this day, I still cannot believe they said that to me when I was a beginner, just to dissuade me from worshipping that deity. The lengths some people will go to drag a deity is honestly both sad and ridiculous.

I wish some people took the religion more seriously in the sense that they didn't just make random shit up about deities, actively disrespect and disregard the culture the deities stem from, and demonize some deities while bolstering others. It shows a level of immaturity and indifference towards the culture these deities come from. It's not a fandom; it's a way of worship.

---

✨ Bonus round!! ✨

Some ridiculous things I've heard people say that sound like a fandom and/or telenovela (I will put the phrases in "" to express that these are things I've heard, not things I'm saying or believe in):

"Hermes and Aphrodite constantly gossip to each other about the other gods. No one fucks with Hermes because he knows everyone's dirty laundry."

"Ares is starting a revolution on Mount Olympus against Zeus to take the throne." (Yes, I have really heard this)

"Hermes is starting a revolution on Mount Olympus against Zeus to take the throne." (Yes, I have really heard this, too)

"XYZ deity has done [insert reprehensibly immoral and highly traumatic act here] to me."

"I caught XYZ deity cheating on their spouse in the astral realm, and I'm going to tell their spouse."

"The reason the gods haven't been communicating as much lately is because Hades ran away from Mount Olympus (?) and Hekate is going after him. Everyone is panicking a little bit."

"Zeus is such a playboy." (Bruh, do you really have beef with a thousands of years old god who came from an extremely patriarchal society? What, are you trying to cancel him?)

"Poseidon is such a playboy." (Now this take is wild; I don't really understand where it came from at all)

"Apollo is such an UwU ��👈 shy boy! He's so cute and flustered all the time." (???)

"Persephone has a lot of emotional trauma from Demeter, who was extremely controlling." (No. No for so, so many reasons.)

"Apollo is a himbo."

People say the darnedest things. You really have to wonder what possesses someone to talk about religious figures in such a way, but you know what, if it works for their practice, then good for them. I'm not a big fan of the fandomization of the gods, and I definitely agree with you, Nonny. I won't say these people don't love these deities, but I can understand where you're coming from. It feels like they love the deities in an obsessive fan type of way sometimes, but that's not for me to say, really.

[openphrase123]

i just finished this fic! it's good!

and because it's all done i want to like... be a LITTLE self indulgent and talk under the cut about some miscellaneous things that i ran into while writing it. don't click the readmore if you're interested in the fic and haven't read it yet i'm about to spoil the Whole thing.

also there is an epilogue to this fic now - go read that before this post if you're getting to this before the update!!

so!! i haven't written fanfiction in like FIVE YEARS. it's been a while! part of that is because i was doing original stuff and part of it was i was in a creative slump. so isat kind of dug me out of that and i owe it my thanks. i've been able to do a crazy amount of original work since starting this fic, it's brought back my creative discipline. in like seven years when my video game comes out you can thank isat for that probably

i originally set out thinking this was the only fic for isat i was going to write. and then as i was writing this i fell deeper into it. i kind of got out of isat a little disappointed in how it ended?? but now that i'm here i'm like ah it's fine. just cause i would have done something different in dev's position doesn't mean it's bad. it does mean i can write a bunch of fanfiction exploring things i wish had been tackled more in the game though LOL

i said this in one of the chapter authors notes but i DID start out curtain call hating loop with every fiber of my being. (as in i liked them as a character UNTIL the act 6 reveal which i thought was lame) and then i played through the game a second time knowing the loop twist and went "oh nvm this makes sense" so a lot of the loop stuff in this fic was actually written twice. originally i was just gonna have them soulmerge with siffrin and not be present at all but then i was like. no. i do want to keep this lighthearted and that's too depressing of an end for loop. i do have a loop postcanon doc so i'll go repay them for their slapdashed involvement in curtain call someday

i'm in a weird position with curtain call in that i wrote the themes and major conflicts Directly After playing through isat the first time. before i could really marinate and analyze the characters fully. so there are a lot of scenes and points where i think i wouldn't characterize certain people like that if i were to rewrite this from scratch? however i don't disagree with what i've written either - it's just an interpretation that i don't necessarily think is my favorite anymore.

neither is any of the worldbuilding i did for any of this - it works for curtain call and i think it was nice but i don't necessarily think it's my current interpretation of what the culture and people were like? i like the wishes being permanent thing, i like the language stuff, but i'd probably go in a different direction if i went through this again

i do actually still think "the forgotten island was destroyed by a volcano" is my solid headcanon explanation of what happened to it. in my heart. i think like - with siffrin as a character especially it's very important that he's always missing something, that it's not idyllically happy for them at the end of everything. so even if he can remember more from their own past, it's - you know - there's no way to go back. only forward.

in the vein of this i probably could have killed siffrin/loop's entire childhood family but i did not. mostly because i did think it was fun for him to have to explain all of those cultural taboos they broke to survive. which, of course, was not a big deal - any good parent would rather their kid be alive than lawful - but what is isat other than a vehicle to make siffrin work through every moral compulsion and spiral they experience

i had a thought halfway through writing the fic that i was stepping on the very good and beautiful odile friendquest by making the island real and having a lot of siffrin's personality dictate how it went. but i ultimately decided on keeping siffrin very close to their country, more than odile is to vaugarde, because siffrin actually DID live on the island when he was a kid and that i think is a Different type of "longing for your country" trauma than odile's. i think they can still drink over the feelings together though

writing bonnie is very fun but very emotional for me. the bonnie&siffrin age gap (preteen to late-20s) is the exact age gap between me and my niece so every time i need to sit down and write something for them i think about her and how much she's a little baby growing up. this has nothing to do with bonnie it just makes writing bonnie really hard for me

if the entire history of my ao3 account was not an indicator, i'm a very big fan of writing romance, but i did not want it to take over curtain call at all. i also could have left out sloopis entirely and almost did, but thought "you know. with the way loop functions in this fic. i should at least let that be open ended" cause sharing a body with a version of you who is dating some other guy is gonna get messy no matter what. it's just not necessarily something i had time to or the urge to explore here. think of it as a fun spiritual nod to the fact that isafrin is technically open ended in isat (<- cop out answer)

i think i'm pretty vocal in how much i am absolutely insane for the flashback "happiest i can remember being" conversation. who let them do that. i think a lot of how i worked with mirabelle and siffrin's relationship in this fic kind of revolved around that. important to me that it ends with mira checking in on him and getting the answer she was looking for all along <3

overall i'm happy with curtain call. glad i am done with it though. there's so much that's running in with it at once. i'll probably wait a month and reread the whole thing to myself front to back before i start having fond memories of this. i mean it's always gonna be the fic my nephew was born during and i'll always remember having a panic attack in the airport right after posting chapter 7 but it's gonna be weird letting this one sail off into the ocean of the internet. however feel free to ask anything about the fic, i wrote this in a lil hurry on a bad day and probably didn't cover everything

goodbye, curtain call!! i love you!!!!! i'll miss you!!!!

[looks both ways, waiting for most people to leave]

also. if you've read this far. i hope it's not too gauche of me to link my personal project. if you've read over 100k words of this you might enjoy the game i'm developing? i've been working on it for almost a year but i just started the devlog last month. it's still in early baby stages as far as a full video game goes but if you liked this you'll like the game when it comes out (similar nickname culture, timeloop trauma, petty interpersonal drama, very stupid jokes, natural disaster angst)

also there isn't a lot on the devblog yet, i've mostly been doing programming on it, i JUST started visdev i'm sorry if it's uglyyyyy (FOR NOW)

anyway i'm trusting you with that link. i'm going to use my professional name on that project when it airs don't cross the wires pretty please just pretend that's a butch-y cis woman's game <3 guard the closet door babeyyyyy

[pizzatowerconfessions]

Re: hot take Fake Peppino anon I kinda both agree and disagree, in a way? Yeah, Fake Peppino is indeed popular, and he's also a mysterious blank slate in terms of personality... but it's not like he's got nothing else interesting about him to spur that appeal. I think that does a disservice to the game's portrayal of him.

Fake Peppino's ingame presentation is a character who is intentionally hidden in the intro, and then introduced in a very explicitly surreal, "what the fuck" horror boss fight that is a surprising twist on classic doppelganger bosses. It's unexpected and stood out to a lot of people!

It's also a noticeable tone shift and contrast with the game leading up to that point, which is maintained into Floor 5 as the game becomes more of a horror-comedy, so the fan intrigue around Fake Peppino almost certainly arose from that context and the general shock factor / mystery around him. I feel like the lack of solid characterization is intentional to convey a certain unsettling, unknown vibe around him as well, considering his lack of overworld appearances compared to the other bosses.

Of course, I agree the fandom interest is maintained because of how easily you can mold Fake Peppino into whatever you want. Everyone has different ideas around Fake Peppino's true nature beneath his canonical horror presentation (is he a sweet froggy guy who is just misunderstood? a horrifying malicious monster? a complete weirdo? something in between? intelligent, or acting purely on instinct?) but I don't think the appeal of Fake Peppino is all projection. I'd say it's equally split between his canon portrayal being memorable, his design being a humanoid monster that relies heavily on surreal body horror and uncanny valley, and his deliberately-vague characterization leaving wide open gaps for people to fill with specific interpretations and headcanons.

TLDR; What Fake Peppino lacks in character, he more than makes up for in weird atmosphere and tonal contrast, and the fandom's fascination with him started from there rather than him just being an unremarkable fill-in-the-blank (although him being mysterious and easy to interpret in various ways is certainly part of the appeal)

‎

[myfandomrealitea]

I really wanted to ask you about this:

Do you have any advice of how to develop critical thinking and media literacy?

There are many, many ways you can practice critical thinking, evaluation and media literacy. At its most basic, you can access student resources for lower levels of education like earlier high school years and look at the examples and guidance given there. Rehashing this will often give you a good foundation to build off of and apply.

One of the main aspects of critical thinking involves discerning what is fact and what is opinion. A good portion of media analytics is opinion. What is 'bad' by one person's standards is 'sub-par' or even 'great' by another's. Similarly, the majority of fandom space is opinion-based. The main pitfall of fandom spaces is that everyone wants their opinion to be taken as fact, which is where critical thinking and even basic communication begin to fall away.

"I'm right and you're wrong" and "this is the way it should be, if you do it or think differently, you're wrong" are common roadblocks people run into when engaging with things like media analysis and even basic fandom activities like fanfiction.

'Mischaracterisation' is fanfiction is one popular topic, especially here on Tumblr. What people often fail to recognize is the true creative depth of fanfiction and using someone else's pre-existing characters. Characters as they are in the source material may not make the choices or behave in the ways necessary to activate or validate certain plot material or author intentions in fanfiction. Which is, inherently, one of the main points of fanfiction. Exploring the alternate.

While you might immediately recoil and say "he'd never do that!" you then have to sit back and recognise that that's exactly the point. That this iteration of that character is not meant to directly reflect the source material. Its a re-imagining, a re-interpretation. That doesn't mean its bad. Its simply different.

'Mischaracterisation' is only actually applicable in fandom spaces when someone is trying to insist as a blanket fact that a character would do something or behave in a way that blatantly contradicts their canon behavior, opinions, morals and perspective or deliberately interpreting an action in biased bad faith. It is not actually applicable to fanfiction where creative liberty dictates you can do whatever the fuck you want with a character because you're not trying to claim it as part of the source content.

Questions To Ask Yourself

Am I reacting to [media] emotionally instead of rationally? Is my emotional response to [media] blinding me to the rational or critical approach(es)?

Am I allowing my expectations to get in the way of me understanding [media] fully? Am I forming a biased negative opinion of [media] because it isn't meeting my expectations?

Even if I disagree with [media], do I actually understand it? Can I recognise the reasoning behind choices made or actions even if I don't agree with them?

Am I searching too hard to hidden meaning or purpose in absolutely everything? Can I recognise what is simply passive information/detail and what is active information/detail? (E.g; English tutors saying a character's curtains are blue because they're depressed when throughout the literature its passively reinforced that blue is the character's favorite color.)

Even though I disagree with the statement or opinion shown, is it necessary to argue against it? Is there any benefit to making my counter-opinion known or is it simply a no-end argument? Am I just using arguing as a means of release/fulfilment? Am I treating this person poorly because of their opinion/statement?

Resources

Critical Thinking Exercises & Explanations #1 The Critical Thinking Activity Workbook Early Stage Critical Thinking Games Five Media Literacy Activities Six Media Literacy Ideas

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

Hey Gwen! Can I ask you something? What do you think of this post? https://www.tumblr.com/philhelaena/757011234089566208/thinking-about-how-hotd-introduced-adult-aegon-as?source=share

I don't really agree with it since Dyana is still present in this season and even in the previous season he was the punching bag and scapegoat of the family, but I can't find the words to explain how I disagree. What do you think?

Hi anon. With no disrespect intended to the OP of this post,. I've seen this take floating around for awhile now, that Aegon is somehow completely different from his S1 character and that it's somehow of fandom pandering, and I disagree.

First of all, the idea that half the fandom decided to ignore the fight pits and the sexual assault and focus on Aegon being drunk and funny is just flat out incorrect. At the end of S1 it was hard to write a single sympathetic word about Aegon without someone accusing you of being a rape apologist, and even now, while the casual audiences are more sympathetic towards Aegon, people can hardly say they've been enjoying his character without issuing a disclaimer, "he's a terrible person but ...". Team green has always been in a minority (I think in the polls HBO puts out team green is consistently under 15%), and even among people who enjoy team green, until recently it wasn't uncommon for people to say they loved all the greens except Aegon. On AO3 were more Lucemond fics than there were fics featuring all of the Aegon ships combined. So the idea that the showrunners were somehow listening to the 10 people who admitted to enjoying Aegon back when they were writing the S2 scripts and changing his characterization accordingly is pretty silly.

That said, I do think the show toned down Aegon's awfulness a bit. I think TGC himself probably had as much to do with this as any of the fans. That man is relentlessly advocating for his character, stating again and again that he not simply a villain, that that he is capable of empathy and love, that he is someone who feels too deeply rather than the opposite. The way he talks about Aegon and his children makes it pretty clear that he has a vision for this character and has advocated for certain character choices, and good for him! He cares a lot about Aegon and takes his job seriously and it shows because he has gotten heaps of praise for bringing depth to a character who could easily veer into cartoon villainy, and is winning over the sympathies of people who 2 years ago wouldn't have pissed on Aegon if he were on fire. In fact, recent poll on the main HotD subreddit of all places placed Aegon as the best written character so far and it wasn't even close.

And this is good! Considering what happens to Aegon in S2, as well as the endgame of the whole entire story, it's pretty important that the audience be able to connect with him on some level and feel some level of sympathy for him.

And to be honest, I'd challenge the idea that Aegon had some huge personality switchup between S1 and S2. People have to remember, we had a grand total in S1 of about 8-10 minutes with Aegon. He was not, at that point, a fully realized character. Some people envisioned a much darker character than the show ended up settling on, but those headcanons are as much headcanons as the silly goofy drunk Aegon was, as "good loyal brother" Aemond was. And I have to stress, people can interpret characters however they like, and they can certainly disagree with the direction the writers go with a character, but a character who has 8 minutes of screentime ending up having more facets to him once he appears in a primary role in S2 is not the same thing as a character assassination. And perhaps, just perhaps, the child fight pits were the OOC part and Condal etc. pulled back on that characterization because it was incongruous with the guy who was genuinely baffled when Aemond threw him under the bus for the bastard remarks, the guy dying of embarrassment when his sister roasted him at dinner, crying over a slap from his mother, trying to run away rather than take the crown, and asking Alicent "do you love me?" before crying his way through his own coronation. Aegon was a depressive alcoholic in S1 and remained a depressive alcoholic in S2. Was there a chaotic element to him? Certainly! He's got massive substance abuse problems which completely skews his judgment and inhibitions, making him self destructively impulsive. Is there a darkness in him? Of course! If nothing else, he's a Targaryen prince, someone who has grown up with the power of life and death at his fingertips. And we see this! The show has not allowed us to forget about the ratcatchers (and as you mentioned OP, Dyana is still there too)!

Finally, I will say that people who think Aegon is being shown to be a pure buffoon this season haven't been paying attention. Aegon was gaslit by his family members for four episodes straight because they wanted to keep him weak, and the way to do that was to undercut his confidence and trash his self worth. He was correct about nearly single issue he raised -- Harrenhal, the blockade, the smallfolk, needing to be informed about the battle plans Cole and Aemond were making. Hell, even the assassination attempt is something that Otto himself was planning, and Otto himself ordered landed gentry executed for refusing to bend the knee before Aegon was even crowned, a much bigger deal than executing a few ratcatchers! Aegon has a class clown demeanor a lot of the time, but he's not stupid. The thing is, Aegon could have been spouting the most eloquently worded arguments and they were still going to resist him because they whole entire point was to discourage him so that he would lose interest, Alicent even says it point blank to Otto. The thing is, Aegon has good instincts but lacks the confidence to not second guess those instincts because he knows he doesn't have the experience or the training necessary to be an effective king on his own. Aegon's ability to listen is one of his better qualities as a king in fact (I'm sure the council is missing it now that they have Aemond), but he is too concerned with winning the approval of not just his subjects, but the people he cares for, including Alicent and Aemond. Aegon is remarkably perceptive, and he does have a good sense about people, but this is his weakness and unfortunately his family has zero problem exploiting it. Now, will that continue going forward? Unlikely! Aegon is still evolving! In the span of a few months he's been crowned king, lost a child, been undermined and diminished, and has become permanently disabled due to the betrayal of his own brother. Certainly, he is going to change, for better or worse.

[rachelfloof]

Caramel Arrow being Dark Cacao’s daughter is a bad headcanon.

I’ve been keeping this to myself for a long time, but there are so many things about this headcanon that bother me, both obvious and less obvious things. There’s certain things about it that I’m surprised people don’t consider and don't realize. I can tolerate it because I can totally understand why people would hc this, but the more I thought about it, the more problems I found with it. I feel like they need to finally be pointed out because, in my opinion, this headcanon does not deserve the popularity it has.

Before I start explaining my thoughts, I want to emphasize that this is JUST MY OPINION. you DO NOT have to change your own opinion after reading this. These are simply my PERSONAL thoughts on this, and you DO NOT have to agree with me. Also, if you DO agree, I DO NOT condone sending hate to or attacking those who disagree with me and/or continue to use this headcanon.

The family headcanon directly conflicts with Caramel Arrow’s character in two major ways. The first is in regard to her ancestors. Following in her ancestors footsteps and honoring their legacy is one of Caramel Arrow’s main motivations. Caramel Arrow currently has one piece of cutscene art, depicting her praying to her fallen ancestors, as well as several quotes where she mentions defending the kingdom, just like her ancestors did (1 star promotion quote). If Dark Cacao is her father, then what ancestors is she talking about? because I know damn well it’s not Mystic Flour.

The only way this headcanon works without conflicting with the canon is if you ship Dark Cacao with a mortal who has a long history of serving the Dark Cacao kingdom (like the Second Watcher, for example). Despite this, Caramel Arrow being biologically related to Dark Cacao in any way brings up the second major issue and, in my opinion, the most damaging issue.

Caramel Arrow’s loading screen trivia states, "Caramel Arrow Cookie became the First Watcher at a young age…" Which is something I feel like has to be one of Caramel Arrow’s biggest achievements in her life. First Watcher is a really highly esteemed role; she’s essentially the top general of Dark Cacao’s most elite troops. Therefore, she likely had to work really hard to be able to become First Watcher, especially at so young.

However, with the added context of Dark Cacao being her father, I feel that it heavily reduces the gravity of this achievement. Dark Cacao is the king; he could’ve easily been biased in Caramel Arrow’s favor when deciding who to make First Watcher since she’d be his daughter. Dark Cacao’s kid being in such a high position at such a young age makes the earning of that role seem like a blatant display of nepotism.

Yesss, why not add taking away positions from people who actually deserve it more to the list of reasons why Dark Cacao is a bad person? /s

By making Caramel Arrow seem more undeserving of her position, you’re essentially weakening the strong woman character. Turning her from “hard-working girl boss” into “daddy’s girl.”

Speaking of Dark Cacao being a bad person, Dark Cacao treating Caramel Arrow like a daughter makes him look even worse when you factor in what he did to Dark Choco. So essentially, what’s happening is that Dark Cacao emotionally neglects Dark Choco while at the same time treating his younger child with the love that Dark Choco originally deserved.

All of the previously mentioned problems go away if you just interpret Dark Cacao and Caramel Arrow’s relationship for what it is. Which is NOT BIOLOGICALLY RELATED. By making them family, you’re heavily simplifying her character; her motivations for standing by the king and the prince go from “this is my sworn duty, and I want to honor my ancestors.” to “oh, it’s because the royal family is my family too.” So it makes her motives seem more like an empty obligation and expectation rather than something she’s worked for and voluntarily committed to because she’s genuinely just that passionate and dedicated about the homeland that her ancestors have fought and died for over generations.

The only way this headcanon works is if Caramel Arrow becomes Dark Cacao’s daughter AFTER everything is said and done with her becoming First Watcher and Dark Choco taking the sword. Which can only really happen if you ship Dark Cacao x Second Watcher or Dark Cacao x Dark Cacaoian OC while having the two characters fall in love AFTER Dark Choco leaves, making Caramel Arrow his stepdaughter. Or if you headcanon Caramel Arrow as his ADOPTED daughter rather than biological, of course with the adoption happening after Dark Choco leaves.

Even then, Dark Cacao adopting his First watcher after everything already happens would just be super random and weird. That’s like if a worker climbs the ranks in the company they work at, becomes COO, and then the CEO just decides to adopt their COO because they become close. Based on the Cookies of Darkness flashback, Caramel Arrow would likely be a full-grown adult by the time Dark Choco leaves with the sword, so Dark Cacao adopting this grown woman would just be kind of weird and unnecessary.

Despite everything I just said, Dark Cacao CAN still see Caramel Arrow like a daughter, and Caramel Arrow CAN still see Crunchy Chip like a brother WITHOUT any of them actually being on each other’s family tree. They can just have a close platonic relationship with each other where they kind of see each other as like a second family, except, of course, they’re not actually related. Rather, they're almost like a family-like friend group or in other words, a friend group with a family-like bond.

This is the end of my little ramble, in case you forgot about the disclaimer at the top, this is just my opinion. Re-read the disclaimer in big red text if you need to. you don't need to agree with me. and I hope everyone has a good day. <3

Also, remember to never be a hater to anyone, hating is cringe ngl.

[notur-dreamboy]

Assinging the endless to dead boy detectives characters because I can. (With explanations using a mix of comic and tv show lore)

Edwin - dream This was a hard choice, and while Despair was the more Canon choice as she claimed him as her friend in the 7th episode. Alternatively, I like exploring the similarities in dream and Edwin's character arch. In the comics edwin died in 1916 and escaped hell in 1989 much like the show, in the comics dream was kidnapped from 1916-1989 as opossed to the show where he escapes in 2020 or 2021 (I am unsure as to which one) they also both go through archs of finding companionship/acecpting people into their life and finding a greater purpose/finding peace with the one they're given. They're also both the bitchy intellectual type and hate most people.

Charles - destruction. I see so much fan content with him and desire, and while I see the vision, I have to disagree. (I also wanted to save them for the much more obvious choice) Destruction abandoned his position after he saw science being used as a tool for destruction because he didn't want to be the cause of massive devastation or obliteration (paraphrased from destructions page on the sandman wiki) and if that's not so incredibly Charles I don't know what is. Charles arch, we see him deal with this destructive type of anger he wants nothing to do with, so much so he represses all of it with a smile until it becomes too much.

Crystal - destiny. I gave her destiny because her arch and plotting in so intertwined with Edwin and Charles's it feels like it was nothing but destiny. Without her they wouldn't of even noticed the Becky Jackson case, the start of everything. Nothing would've happened without her. Because of her charles faced things he was hiding from himself for years, edwin let other people into his life, they wouldn't of saved niko if Crystal never had that quick interaction with her in episode one. She is so intertwined into everything I wouldn't be surprised if she was crafted by destiny himself.

Niko - death. There are multiple reasons why I gave niko death (including and in spite of the obvious). The biggest one is her future role as the principal, an employee of the afterlife and death. This is also another case of the personalities lining up. Death is seen as welcoming and kind despite being hated and feared as a concept. Death is also seen as wise and understands her role in life she is also the endless dream is closest with. On the sound of her wings when dream is feeling down about his quest for his tools being she allows him to shadow doing her job and offers him advice about his own state. I also just think death and dream's relationship is so similar to niko and Edwin's.

The cat king - desire. Really, this one is obvious. I don't know what you want me to say. His kingdom is all about want and pleasure, wuth is literally desire. His entire role is just to wake edwin up to his own desires. This is such a common concept that the most popular head Canon for him is that he is desires child.

Jenny - despair. I almost gave despair to edwin along with dream given their Canon interaction, but I decided otherwise. We don't know much about Jenny's backstory, but things can be assumed and interpreted certain ways. She owns her family's butcher shop but no family is ever mentioned (outside of a quick anecdote about her father in episode 5 but more on that later), she doesn't seem to have any friends or a social life for that matter. The letters, she reads them and follows up on the but is immediately off put on the idea of a date, which ended horribly. Her father, described as an acholohic and raging narcissist, couldn't have been a man who provided a great childhood either, yet she still took up his butcher shop. We can assume he's out of the picture for one reason or another as Jenny runs the shop herself. The first piece of advice she offers essentially boils down to people who are selfish, it can be assumed this is pulled from personal experience. Jenny is a character surrounded by despair and has grown so comfortable in it she doesn't even notice it anymore.

Tragic mick - delirium. The only endless to have 2 forms, delirium used to be delight before she evolved to delirium for reasons unknown to even destiny. Mick initially seen as comfortable in his human for until we learn about the washer woman. Niko gives him a piece of sea glass in hope it will help but instead we see him descend further into the quite madness he's proven himself into. Then we hear his story, a tragedy about a walrus forec to live the rest of his life as a human because of a bad decision. He's winds up mad (or delirious if you will) by thus decision, now wanting nothing more than to go back to being a walrus.

Bonus (Esther, monty, and the night nurse as various sandman characters) (little explanation, sorry)

Esther- the Corinthian. Created (or blessed) by a god-like deity for a certain purpose but took it too far out of pure selfishness

Monty- Mathew. Simply because they're both anthropomorphic birds.

The night nurse- lucienne/ lucien. A loyal assiant to their respective endless. Certain events cause them to drift from what they've always done or thought.

[heyclickadee]

More Massive Fandom Salt under the cut

If I see one more condescending post about how people who don’t like Tech getting killed off just don’t get it, I’m going to mcfreaking lose it.

Like, okay. I think Tech is alive. I think I’ve been clear about that. If I haven’t, then I don’t know what else to do. I actually even get why taking him off the board for season three could be a good move (give Crosshair time to decompress and Omega time to come into her own and be the hero of her own show, while also maybe setting Tech up for another plot line to come later), and think it’s possible that bringing Tech back later could actually work much better than what I originally wanted to happen. In fact, if it really is a fake-out I think it’s kind of immaculate. And I still get angry reading those posts.

Because, first, a lot of people upset by the handling of Tech from “Plan 99” onwards are upset because Tech meant something to them. It goes a lot deeper than just losing your favorite character. Tech was a fantastic piece of autistic representation and losing that hurt. Losing that and then never getting the catharsis that comes with on-screen emotional processing from the characters, no closure, no real in-show impact besides inconveniencing the others hurt even more. It left a lot of autistic people in the fandom feeling like we were told that we weren’t welcome in Star Wars at all.

And most of us still love the show! The Bad Batch is still my favorite show and I adore basically the entire thing up through season three, right up to the point where everything just kind of stops without resolving anything but Hunter and Omega, and not getting Tech back before the end hit me so badly that I almost dropped Star Wars completely. People are upset for a reason.

Second, I get that it can be annoying seeing criticism of your favorite show. I do. I actually disagree with a lot of criticism of TBB and do tend to get a little annoyed at certain takes. The other thing about the “Tech’s dead and that’s good”/“You thought Tech could come back because you were delusional” posts that makes me want to fight everyone, though, is that they tend to be incredibly dismissive. They’ll bring up arguments people made during the airing of the show for why Tech could come back, or arguments they made afterwards for why they thought he should have, and then either misunderstand or talk right past them.

It gives anyone who made those arguments, or who was upset by the ending, a general sense that we’re not being listened to. That people have already decided we’re irrational and that nothing we say or experience matters, that we saw patterns that weren’t there, or that we care too much about this specific thing, or that we’re being immature. Maybe. Just. I don’t know—consider for a second that a lot of the people who are most upset about Tech belong to the noticing patterns/caring a lot about specific things/dismissed for noticing things that are really there in real life/frequently infantilized neurotype. Again, there’s a reason some of us are upset and having a hard time with fandom right now.

I actually don’t have a problem with people thinking or making posts saying someone needed to die or that Tech “dying” was well handled as a death. I will always disagree, and I think we’re too close to the “bury your disabled” trope with most of the batchers for me to be okay with any of them dying like that, but one person will interpret fiction differently than another and I can’t and shouldn’t police that. I do, however, have a massive problem with the condescending way a lot of those posts go about it. Think Tech ought to be dead? Fine. Call anyone who thinks otherwise a child? Instablock, I don’t need that in my life.

[claus-trophobe]

Hey can we like stop making "rules" for how to enjoy the mother series? I can understand some people might be mad their interpretation of a certain character isn't the same as everyone else's but who genuinely cares bro... It's fanon for a reason...

If you don't like something someone is making, block or ignore them. If they're actually a bad person though, that needs to be addressed. But some people are making others feel bad for thinking a certain way that isn't even hurting anyone.

We can all agree to disagree and be respectful to each other, y'know.

[mageknight14]

I made a whole Twitter thread about this a few months back but I figured that I might as well bring it here as well.

Today I want to take some time to make another NEO TWEWY analysis post on the Identity Crisis sidequest revolving around Eiru and how it actually provides extra insight into Nagi and Fret’s characters.

Basically, the main gist of the sidequest is that Nagi and Fret are debating on how to imprint confidence onto Eiru, who’s suffering with his physical insecurities, and this is where we see the differences with Nagi and Fret's philosophies on life.

Fret's response is to tell Eiru to ignore the haters and even more so, ignore confronting the insecurities; life is better when you don't have to concern yourself with anything or try; don't take anything seriously. Nagi, however, believes that insecurities should be understood and harnessed so that they can ultimately be turned into a strength that can be used as a tool for success; accept your weaknesses and come to terms with them so that you can weaponize your strengths better.

On a surface level, these might read to be the same thing. Fret’s advice can be read positively as "don't let others judge you for something you can't control" and Fret certainly thinks so, hence why he thinks that he and Nagi are on the same page even though she disagrees.

However, when you read between the lines and think about it some more, there are notable implications that Fret's advice is more of a dismissive approach to dealing with emotional struggles as opposed to Nagi's own methodology. It’s no coincidence that Fret used to be a fan of the Eiji "the Prince" Oji in his ennui/apathy phase. The Prince in the original TWEWY was beloved for his “don’t give a damn attitude” and how he expressed that both in person and in his blog “F Everything.” Fret claims to have grown out of it but with certain reveals about his character later on, there are some implications that Fret latched onto the Prince and aspired to his attitude due to his own struggles with feeling genuine and wanting to embracing apathy instead.

However, if you recall in the original game, Neku and Joshua came around and helped the Prince sort out his own issues and in the process, helped him to become more genuine and true to himself in the process. With all of this in mind, you can interpret Fret’s response as him seeing the process of the Prince’s reconciliation with his genuine emotions happening in front of him and didn’t want to confront the possibility of that happening to him as well so he "grows out of it." It also acts as a neat parallel to Neku and his own thing with CAT. Whereas Neku latched onto his misinterpretation of CAT’s words in order to cope with his trauma, Fret turned away from the Prince changing so that he wouldn’t have to deal with his own trauma just yet.

To get back to the quest, if player had decided to choose Fret's philosophy, Eiru ends up doing just that, spinning Fret's stance on the situation into self-motivating positivity. However, there's a element of emotional responsibility lacking in Fret's way of processing struggles in that he doesn't seem to have the awareness to recognize the difference between overcoming adversity and just ignoring it (or maybe he does but refuses to confront that truth). In order for someone to truly not care what other people think, they need to do what Nagi suggested first, which is to find acceptance with their insecurities and build a stronger foundation for their character through that acceptance.

If the player chose Fret's approach to solving Eiru's issue, his dialogue afterwards shows how he feels about not having to face issues head on, with Nagi lamenting that her approach was not used despite being glad that Eiru's mood was visibily improved.

I also really like this moment here for how it subtly foreshadows what caused Fret’s attitude and way of thinking to happen in the first place.

Stuff like this is why I always tend to roll my eyes whenever I hear the claim that "Nagi is mean to Fret for no reason" when moments like these show why she acts the way she does towards him: their philosophies on life are complete polar opposites.

In Nagi’s eyes, Fret acting the way he did screamed to her that he seemingly had no regard for how his attitude and actions towards others made other people feel in service of his own self-interest and she fundamentally cannot get along with other people of that nature, as shown with how she dismisses Motoi entirely off the bat when the crew first meets him because she could tell that there was something off about his attitude. However, once it was revealed that Fret’s attitude was due to him trying to unhealthily cope with his trauma and not because he was seemingly unconcerned for the feelings of others, she’s far more understandable towards him and empathizes with his grief.

That’s when Nagi learns to understand that she does not need to dismiss people right away and that they, like Fret, might be going through struggles of their own and trying to cope with it via other means, even if she doesn’t agree with it at first. Hence the friendship they start up at the end of the convo.

The characters in NEO have a lot of internal flaws they need to work through, some that might not be immediate obvious at first compared to the original, but when you look back at it all, the game goes through a lot of painstaking detail to flesh out their struggles and mindset and aspects like these is what makes the game a joy for me to replay whenever I go back to it.

[curseanon]

The Issue with Eden Polycule

So I wanted to articulate my thoughts on a relationship that ive seen in fandom spaces and lots of fan art or fanfiction. I don’t have any opinions or problems with Adam/Eve/Lucifer/Lilith, but I feel like there are some implications and tropes that we should be more careful about when it comes to Eve/Lucifer/Lilith or even just Eve/Lucifer. Before getting into it though, just a disclaimer: this post is not about polycules in general. It’s not my cup of tea personally, but ship whatever you please! This post is just me rambling about my own thoughts. Feel free to have your own interpretations. ALSO! None of this justifies Adam’s behavior. He is responsible for his decisions, including his cruelty towards people, language, and his decision to essentially wage mass genocide each year. And this post isn’t to say that this relationship drama is the sole reason why he ended up doing exterminations.

1. I don’t really like portrayals that have Lucifer/Lilith (L/L) sleeping with Eve and having her cheat on Adam, especially when it takes place in Eden. I’m afraid Vivzie might have this narrative take place in HH, but doing so does a real disservice to Eve’s (and Lucifer’s if he acted alone) character by having her be willing to cheat, and also does a disservice to Adam by having him be cheated on for reasons that are probably not entirely his fault. Not to mention a lot of media where this happens often has the tone of just “haha let’s cuck Adam twice,” which comes off to me as petty and unfair. Not only is it not a funny joke, but it essentially reinforces and justifies Adam’s misogynistic tendencies later. Especially the ideas that women are promiscuous, always willing to cheat and be unfaithful. The narrative would do nothing to disprove this if BOTH of Adam’s wives did in fact cheat on him.

2. Another thing about Eden. Lilith was Adam’s first wife, literally created for the purpose of being his partner. This is also pre-Apple, meaning that Adam has no concept of right vs wrong. The way he acts, if he truly was controlling and mean and the story book wasn’t exaggerating (which I doubt), is entirely the programming of the angels and the way they tolerate or enable his behavior. Assuming we went with the theory that Adam never ate the apple, it’s the same situation with Eve if she left him and/or cheated with L/L. The way I see it, Lilith’s cheating on Adam is not justified, even if she disagreed with Adam on certain things.

3. I also want to note that cheating on one’s partner is not a justifiable punishment for Adam’s behavior. Whether pre or post apple (now assuming he did eat it), I see it as fighting fire with fire, and all it usually does is create even more hostility and problems than if the person just clearly broke off the relationship first. L/L/E runs the risk of inadvertently encouraging unfaithfulness in relationships and marriages as solutions to a problem, but this is rarely the case. As stated earlier, it only makes Adam justified in acting the way he does. And with that justification, is he really in the wrong for how he treats women? What reason does he have to change his behavior if he is right about them? I could probably accept both wives leaving him if the purpose is to justify Adam’s behavior and not just mock him, to show how morality is not just black and white and the villains sometimes have justifiable reasons for thinking the way they do. But it still seems very shallow on Lilith and Eve’s parts.

4. This part is just my opinion on L/L/E, but I don’t find the idea of Eve getting with the people who caused her to lose Eden very convincing. L/L are the reasons her and Adam were cast out of the garden and made to live for centuries laboring to survive, farming cursed ground and painfully delivering several children. Not to mention the bringing of sin and death into the world, losing Abel at the hands of his brother and Cain being cast away to wander the Earth. All the suffering she faced in life and the suffering of all of her descendants, all of humanity. Her sleeping with Lucifer makes no sense to me unless he seduced her (when she was more naive, maybe even pre-apple) intentionally, either for the purpose of hurting Adam or if he did just love her also, which makes him complicit in ruining someone’s marriage. None of this fits with Lucifer’s character, a malewife who adores his Tall Queen and comes off to me as being very loyal. The idea of open marriage is better, but Adam does not seem like the type of guy who likes to share anything, and his marriage is very clearly between Adam and Eve. That controlling personality indicated by the story book leads me to see him as likely having some jealousy and possessiveness (though not in extreme ways).

5. The only other option is Lucifer sleeping with Eve after her death and if she goes to hell, since we know Adam and Eve lived a thousand years married together on Earth, starting humanity. But I don’t see any reason for this. We need much much more information about Adam and Eve’s relationship and all four of their relationships’ to each other in general first before we can talk more about this. But until then, I don’t see any reason to break up Adam and Eve unless there’s some importance to it in the narrative. For me, I see Adam’s womanizing in heaven as a sign that Eve is probably not in heaven. And thinking that he’ll never see her again because “Hell is forever,” he eventually becomes bitter and jaded over thousands of years and decides that his relationship with Eve must be over then. Possibly the same case with Eve in hell, somehow leading up to sleeping with Lucifer. But considering she’s no where to be found with L/L and Lucifer only references her once, there seems to be zero indication of anything between them.

6. To briefly touch on the idea that once in heaven, Eve eventually left Adam because of his horrible personality and womanizing. This is still possible, but it seems like WAY too big of a personality shift to go from married and raising a family for a thousand years to suddenly being a massive asshole and a philanderer. Something must have happened that magnified all the worst aspects of his personality. There’s no way he is the same today as he was in Eden or on Earth. If he is, that’s just shitty lazy writing on Vivzie’s part and Adam is nothing but a one dimensional villain with no depth at all. Massive waste of a character with huge potential.

Tl;dr This post is already too long so I’ll just summarize everything. Although I agree that Adam is definitely an arrogant and annoying villain, Lilith and Eve cheating on adam is unjustified imo, there is no reason for Eve to cheat on Adam or leave him at all from what we can tell now, and her having any relationship with Lucifer also makes no sense considering what his choices turned her life into. But let me know your thoughts on all this, if there’s some point you want to make or a disagreement on something else!

[magpod-confessions]

When I first got into the fandom (late) I was really disappointed by the design homogeny for the characters, even more so to find out that artists who drew/wrote a character 'wrong' are fandom policed to meet fandom standards, or just an individual's personal standard

Podcast media is so unique in how much is left to visual interpretation, and it was clearly intentional to leave character appearances/traits as vague as possible to allow diverse interpretations.

Stop demanding a race/religion/body type/sexuality expression/whatever for a character from artists, it's THEIR artwork and it's a fucking fictional podcast

Someone isn't racist or fatphobic or ableist or ANYTHING just because they drew an under-described fictional guy in a way YOU didn't like. Stop watering down horrifically hateful views to 'you disagreed with my opinion of how a fictional character should be drawn ur fundamentally evil >:('

If you don't like the way someone interpreted a character, ignore them or block them---leave them alone; if you want a character done in a certain way do it yourself, commission someone to do it your way, or look for someone who is OPEN to requests.

.

[ilynpilled]

ive been thinking about this a bit and i feel like i have some very different feelings towards certain things and strongly disagree with the implications present in the ways i see them discussed. i do not like to simplify these themes to “vengeance/punishment bad wahh”, because it does not at all feel complete enough to convey my true feelings, or the themes of the text itself for that matter imo, but like… ofc i personally cant read things like cersei’s walk of shame, where she is punished, humiliated, and dehumanized through the one thing she was unfairly condemned for her entire life— jaime’s brutal maiming and torture where he is humiliated, fed things like horse piss which he forces down because he is so thirsty before vomiting it back up, gets repeatedly beaten unconscious, and is nearly driven to passive suicide— theon’s excessive physical and mental torment that would take too long to list that breaks him entirely— and even a man as deeply evil as vargo hoat (who is not at all three dimensional) having his hands and feet and arms and legs cut off, be cannibalized, and even be forced to eat parts of himself, causing the pov character that swore to enact brutal vengeance on him to feel ill and repulsed once he finds out— and experience much, if any, catharsis, personal feelings about these characters aside. asoiaf is a series where the author pretty often deliberately places us inside the heads of bad people that have done terrible things, who some readers may feel a certain hatred for, as they are put through torment. not to make the reader feel good and satisfied about it, but to present it as something that should not really be a thing that we revel in, and encourage us to be critical about what is even gained through what they are going through. even a morally dark antagonist without a pov like joffrey and his death was meant to have elements of tragedy. during, tyrion notes that he is a young boy with fear in his eyes that he had never seen in the eyes of his father. whether you feel a certain way about it (and i am not arguing that you are morally flawed for not sympathizing with a fictional character, this isn’t real life, i am just discussing themes that i am identifying), the goal was not really to provide us with a feel-good “justice at last!” emotion through the brutally violent death of a 13 year old boy. it makes me genuinely wonder how some ppl come away with the idea that this series is intended to be a celebration and glorification of punitive justice. i am not saying justice in general is not a huge theme, and some catharsis, especially for victims, over the death/defeat of their abusers & tormenters is present in the text as well, understandably so, because it can mean safety. take pia smiling through broken teeth when jaime has her rapist executed and presents his head to her while setting a precedent with gregor’s men. some people need to die, and deserve it, but what does that look like? who decides it? why? by contrast, the instance of jaime actually feeling good when he hangs a bunch of random outlaws reads as something more tied to his current relationship to the self and certain selfish desires at this point in his story than real justice, and it is further elaborated upon and taken apart in the book. anyway, all these questions are present and the answers are not near as simple as i often see them made out to be.

it doesn’t feel like to me that most things that can be interpreted as enactments of punitive justice or moments of karma are these epic events that should just make the reader blindly cheer and applaud, or even feel good about. there is a reason that some things go awry (like with oberyn), and it isn’t cynicism. there is nuance, and not in a way where victims are condemned for fighting back, or a pacifist ideology is idealized. there just really isn’t a glorification of brutal punishment, ‘eye for an eye’ vengeance, and the needless causing of suffering. same with a blind upholding of duty and law based around flawed feudalistic constructs. and all these things should not even be conflated. not to mention that punitive justice exists also in a way where it is connected to institutions. take the faith and organized religion for example. the whole process is interrogated: what is sin? what sins are being punished? how? why? and what are the actual effects? be it jaime’s and brienne’s conversations/interactions with a bunch of different tertiary characters in affc, or cersei’s punishment in adwd. at the end of the day, she is punished for her body, for being a woman. she does not suffer “consequences” for her actual wrongs and the suffering she causes. she doesn’t really learn anything, and it will all just make her spiral more. the whole concept of punitive justice gets focused on especially with theon’s entire identity being withered away through torture. he experiences so much torment that there comes a point where he is robbed of his mind and agency. what does the “criminal” learn? how can a person change in these circumstances? what is the point, and why should we feel good about this? he is not even really “punished” for his crimes, and certainly not by people with any moral high ground over him, he is just being brutalized. same is the case with jaime in asos: it is a bad person being brutalized by men even more vile than he is, and they are not doing it because they want to deliver any justice to his victims. also, though the maiming does kickstart crisis with him specifically, it is not the determining factor when it comes to his reformation. this story is not actually saying that people can be, and should be, tortured into becoming better people, and if they can’t the solution is to just axe them. there is nuance, sure, mercy is not something everyone is entitled to in all circumstances. sometimes “mercy” towards certain evil people will lead to the enablement of the suffering of others, even entire populations. there are certainly circumstances where compromise isn’t an option. but, again, i dont think george is ever holding back on actually interrogating the moral quandaries when it comes to identifying cycles and ending them, and he is for sure not treating every single aspect of these conflicts as black and white. even tyrion murdering his father, who purposefully does have a very ironic and humiliating death scene, which is important thematically, doesn’t end in easy and feel-good catharsis, especially for tyrion, which doesn’t equal “oh, tywin should be forgiven and spared”.

all of this is also why i do not really see how events like the fall of house lannister (first of all, we know it is gonna include the likely very brutal deaths of two innocent small children), red wedding 2.0, valonqar etc would be these grand and glorious moments of justice and pay-off, treated as just the good guys finally getting an epic W. they will very likely be filled with tragedy, so i am genuinely curious about where these expectations for this kind of catharsis come from