#in fact his plan to basically commit genocide makes no sense either

[maddyshome]

some of yall have such low standards that you think getou is a well written villain. no, no he is not susan.

[itsclydebitches]

so ironwood was confirmed to be dead by Miles in a $42 cameo session, where the person who bought it had asked for "comforting words to soothe our anguished souls" bc she was an ironwood fan and wanted a pick-me-up after that devastating finale. miles' response was to essentially mock his fans (it really sounded like that, especially since he ended with "thank you jimmy, may you rest in pieces, crushed beneath the weight of the kingdom you tried so hard to hold up above your head."

apparently the VA, jason rose, confirmed it in DMs w the same fan who sent in the cameo ask. so like, quite apart from how rude and disrespectful it was of miles to make a mockery of james in a cameo where he'd been specifically asked for comforting words regarding the character, ngl but i think that if you have to confirm a MAJOR CHARACTER is dead outside of canon bc you failed to actually show it on screen.....you've failed as a writer. and also that kind of thing shouldn't be confirmed in an expensive and exclusive interview lmao like how hard would it have been to just talk about good aspects to james' character instead of calling him a dickbag and saying 'don't do a genocide, guys!!'

it reeks of unprofessionalism and also it just makes everything surrounding ironwood's character arc even worse since apparently 'his fate was sealed' from the moment he was introduced to the show.

Me, who received the first Moderna shot yesterday (🎉 🎉 🎉 ): Ugh I feel too crappy to answer asks today

Me, upon hearing this news: You know, I have suddenly found an untapped source of energy

Okay, all joking aside, I watched the vid and it’s definitely a lot. I don’t have any information about the request itself except for what Miles mentions in the recording, so I can’t speak to what the fan may have been looking for outside of that, but some highlights include: 

“This is for the filth in my degenerate discord server” - Yeah, that’s how a lot of us (fans) talk about ourselves. It sounds like someone who really enjoys Ironwood and makes joking, self-deprecating comments about their love of a character. That’s familiar to me and speaks to the expectation that they hoped for something other than what they got. At least, if I’d sent in a request like that I wouldn’t be happy with the vid, but that’s obviously my own perspective and not this fan’s. I’d be very curious to know their own thoughts though... 

“Sometimes a character we like doesn’t make it, does something we don’t agree with... or both!” - That is indeed how characters work! The real question is whether their death/actions make sense within the story, which is not addressed here. Many fans who enjoyed Ironwood don’t have a problem with him dying or turning into a villain  — I’ve been honest about my acceptance of either/both, regardless of personal preference, provided it was written well  — and that was always the issue. Not what happened to Ironwood, but how it happened. 

“James Ironwood’s fate was sealed the moment his character was conceived many years ago.” - Personally, I don’t believe this. RT makes a lot of grand, sweeping statements about what’s been planned “for years” or “since the beginning” and too often we’re faced with writing that directly contradicts that. Though it’s unlikely we’ll ever know the truth, neither option paints the writing team in a good light. Either they’re straight up lying about what’s been planned (or twisting tossed out possibilities into assurances after the fact. For example, someone once suggested Ironwood might become a villain somehow at some point and now that’s presented as, ‘We’ve deliberately been working towards this specific ending for years’), or they’re being truthful and just... can’t write what they want to write. It doesn’t sound good when a writer says, ‘I’ve planned this the whole time’ and a good chunk of the fandom responds, ‘Then why couldn’t we see that planning this whole time?’ 

“When James was introduced we intentionally made him look like kind of a big dickbag, but then we realized that dickbag had a heart and was also half metal, and that was pretty cool!” - I don’t even know what to make of this. I’ve deconstructed his introduction before, but to summarize here, he’s presented as no more of a “dickbag” than Ozpin who may not be doing enough to protect the people, Winter who allowed herself to get taunted into a fight on campus, or Qrow who deliberately started that fight while drunk. Glynda is the only one who is arguably innocent here. The implication seems to be that obviously Ironwood became a villain because “we intentionally made him look like kind of a big dickbag” but then... does that mean Qrow will become a villain too someday?? 

The comments about them realizing he had a heart and was half metal just speak to that lack of planning. No, you obviously didn’t plan this downfall from the start if you “realized” something as basic as him caring for others partway through writing him and then allowed that care to drive his character for so long that the decent into villainy read as OOC, rather than inevitable. You obviously weren’t writing him with a backstory that influenced his character  — of which his semblance is a major part  — if you “realized” he was half-metal... whenever that happened. The fact that we never saw that backstory, or the semblance on screen, or returned to his half-metal nature outside of a ‘That’s coding for evilness’ theme again speaks to the fact that either a) none of this was actually planned or b) the execution is seriously lacking here. 

“Let us all take a moment to thank General James Ironwood for his service to the Kingdom of Atlas, but... at the end of the day, don’t do a genocide [laughs]” - I’m having trouble articulating why I dislike this. I’m really too tired to be unpacking this right now (lol), but it has something to do with  — as you say, anon  — that mocking tone. Something else to do with the surge of purity culture in recent years. The tone feels like it’s tied up in an unsaid, ‘You like the character who tried to commit genocide?’ accusation when, you know, he’s a fictional character. People can like characters who do bad things. More significantly, he’s a fictional character Miles wrote. There’s something particularly distasteful about writers who feel like they’re laughing at fans for liking something when they created the thing with the intent that we would like it. And many did. So they gave attention, time, money, passion, etc. to the work and then when that part of the work finished, the creator appears to make light of that investment? Idk, I’m speaking about more than just this one line  — the tone of the vid as a whole, really — but it feels much less like “You enjoy Ironwood! 😄” and more “You enjoy Ironwood...  😬” Like yeah, fans enjoyed the character that you wanted them to enjoy who you wrote to have a heart and then suddenly commit genocide instead. There’s definitely nothing complicated in all that. 

“Thank you, Jimmy. May you rest in pieces crushed beneath the weight of the kingdom you tried so hard to hold above your head. Amen.” - All of the above x2 with the added issue that this was never shown on screen. Miles presents Ironwood’s arc like this seven year long plan when in fact they couldn’t even manage the basic move of telling the audience what happened to the character in his final hour. The fact that a fan had to pay to find out whether Ironwood is dead is not a gold star for the writing. 

Every time the RWBY crew speaks about the story in supplementary material the canon itself gets worse. Hyping Clover/Qrow on social media pushes the canon closer to queerbaiting. We’re way closer to that with them hyping Blake/Yang. Long ago comments about Ozpin’s cane suddenly make Volume 8 a retcon. A Q&A about Ironwood’s semblance makes his arc a thousand times more confusing about how we’re supposed to read his character  — to name just a few. Now this. When a friend first told me this info had dropped I thought, “Thank god. He’s not coming back then. I don’t want them writing Ironwood’s character anymore,” but really... can we believe anything the crew says? “Crushed beneath the weight of his kingdom” doesn’t mean Ironwood won’t show up in Volume 9 if it’s a spirit world type adventure. It doesn’t mean he won’t show up three years from now with even more metal in his body and a, “We said he was crushed, not that he was dead ;)” explanation. Hell, it doesn’t even mean he won’t show up with no explanation at all because, as established, what’s said in supplementary works and what happens on screen are two entirely separate things. Iffy as the vid may come across to those who did like Ironwood, I was initially happy that it at least gave us some closure... but now I’m not even sure about that. 

[sapphic-sasuke]

So i was watching those fillers about kakashi’s anbu days and an question came to my mind Why did tachi directly choose to kill the clan instead of trying to warn their parents and/or the uchiha clan first did he think they were too prideful to back down or completely leave the village or maybe he didn’t trust his OWN family

I mean if i was in that kinda of a situation (or heck even in any kinda of situation) the first thing I would’ve done; go to mom dad warn them/ask them what should i do, what should ‘we’ do and cannonically speaking itachi was 13 at the time and fugaku really seemed to be the most reasonable person to go to(while other uchihas were unnecessary being harsh to civilians during taking them into custody fugaku was the one to warn them) so itachi either, A) was kinda of an idiot who didn’t really think things through (wich I don’t think so cause he was supposed to be a genius at the very least a very smart person) or B) he was so arrogant thet he thought (an exceptional 13yo kid A FUCKING CHILD) he might be more suited and experienced! to handle the coup instead of going to his parents and I know ppl say that he got manipulated n stuff but c’mon wasn’t he basically the king of manipulation I don’t understand how he couldn’t thought anything besides killing everyone, wouldn’t taking sasuke and running should’ve been an option to what do you think

Also sorry for the long ass ask and I just realized ur one of my favorite fics authors i hope u update looking for forgiveness soon didn’t read such a good fan fic in a while i like ur writing sm <3

HI!! don’t ever feel sorry for long asks i love reading long stuff . and AHHH WOW thank you so much i do plan to update my fic very soon. the chapters almost done but i had some rly funky writer’s block hope u like it <3

no ur so right anon the way itachi handled the massacre was so strange? and that’s why i like to headcanon that itachi had a really strained relationship with his parents (albeit slightly better with fugaku) where he never came to them with any of his emotions/problems growing up and internalised that until the massacre. i think the second option is more probable. we know he didn’t like most of the clan members and we even see him fighting some. what with all his achievements as a shinobi and his anbu status, itachi seems like the kind of person.

i think taking sasuke and running away would have halted the coup, with the clan heir and second son gone, however i am of the belief that the coup would have been inevitable. maybe due to strained relations or danzo’s machinations, konoha doesn’t help out much with trying to find itachi and sasuke and that increases tensions even further. we know that uchihas love fiercely and it could even lead to the clan more determined to go forward with the coup and then use further resources to find sasuke and itachi. it seems like a short term solution to marginalisation that’s been simmering for decades. it’s a far better alternative to him outright committing genocide however.

maybe itachi did think telling them he was being pressured into killing the clan would have gone badly. he’s very against the coup and has made this clear with his antagonistic actions after shisui’s death. i’m almost certain people in the clan didn’t trust him at all. he was definitely of the belief that more vocal members of the clan would use that as a further incentive to go ahead with the coup, even kill danzo and the elders. (danzo’s root however would be a major obstacle)

i think fugaku would have listened to itachi though. the uchiha coup is one that could be interpreted as a last ditch retaliation from a clan who were shoved to a corner. fugaku clearly loves the village—the coup was intended to be bloodless if it went according to plan. the elders wouldn’t even be aware of it if itachi stayed silent. (but i do think the other clans would not support an uchiha hokage because their reputation worsened after the kyuubi attack) and let’s be real, the elders were insanely corrupt. (but I am of the belief the corruption is only possible because of the shinobi system in place but then that’s a whoooole other topic) itachi’s spy status already puts him as a traitor to the clan which would be a huge betrayal for fugaku who believed in itachi when others didn’t. itachi would be disgraced by his people for even being considered as someone who would be asked to kill them, you know? in that sense, itachi must have seen everything as a lose-lose scenario and went with the option that wouldn’t hinder konoha that much and as such the “peace”

leaving the village is an interesting option. i feel like unless the uchiha clan find a secure place to hide (they do have those hideouts) that ultimately konoha is the safest bet for them at the moment but the possibility of even konoha being unsafe is very real with the threat of danzo. the fact that the elders even considered genocide shows the uchiha’s standing in konoha. hidden villages must have loads of safety measures in place to stop shit like kidnappings for bloodline limits (hinata’s kidnapping attempt was only possible to happen because of the treaty being signed) and state secrets, that i’m sure the uchiha clan have. in short, the uchiha are way too intergreted into the village’s foundations to simply leave without repercussions. it’s interesting because they aren’t actually intergreted into the village at all. i’m sure they don’t know that many actual secrets about the village. they aren’t trusted—tobirama mentions this. but if they ever decided to turn against konoha or join another village their insight into how konoha shinobi and clans work as previous comrades would be invaluable. essentially, the only way for the uchiha clan to survive if they decide to leave would be to go into hiding, really insane crazy genjutsu hiding (which i believe is possible with such a strong clan) in that case, then Yes, the uchiha clan leaving would work. but i think itachi’s of the belief that uchiha pride would prevent them from ever considering hiding. so i’m more inclined to agree with the second option B

the genocide just doesn’t fit with a child who supposedly loves his clan. you don’t kill a clan you love for the village. moral standing aside, solving peace with violence isn’t peace. how can he call himself a pacifist but then have so much faith in the system he’s willing to kill his own people for it? i’s stupidity. there’s so many inconsistencies to itachi’s character because if he really did all of this for sasuke then why torture him? that’s unnecessary mental damage. he could invoke hatred without torture. he’s stated to have the wisdom of a kage at 7 but then makes really stupid decisions that don’t fit in with his whole master manipulator like you mentioned. with all of this ive just come to the conclusion that itachi was probably originally intended to be an antagonist but shit Happened like a popularity jump or smth and suddenly the narrative’s calling him a hero lmao, way to go against the original anti establishment themes from part 1 naruto kishi u bum

this got long really fast omg im sorry? but i hope my insight helped in some way? (or not i tend to ramble a Looooot) anyways ty for the ask i could honestly talk about the uchiha clan all day

[hubblebubblehub]

yona 197 thoughts

Firstly, behold. I am alive. This chapter honestly made my brain malfunction for a good minute or so, I legit had something akin to a stroke. I honestly believe this chapter encapsulates what has gone wrong with Yona’s storytelling. I understand this is a ‘memoir’, but even backstories whose existence is to deliver exposition require decent consistent characterisation, and a balanced mixture of ‘show don’t tell’ mixed with foreshadowing to result in something... bearable. This chapter was legitimately almost unbearable to read because I think Kusa herself has lost the plot.

To organise my thoughts Imma just put some lil subheadings.

Yon-hi

You know what? Ever since chapter 190 I realised that Yon-hi didn’t have much of a character other than that of an exposition clown. So this lame wrap up on her character was bearable to read, because it’s not as if she had the potential to be anything more than a ye old exposition dump. It’s still frustrating to read her ‘acknowledge’ her own faults, which also make no sense since we haven’t seen a proper build up in a change of thoughts. Yes, she acknowledged her husband was a brute to a certain extent, but apart from this chapter I don’t see her recognising the IMPORTANCE of her position and how her passiveness is stopping her from wielding more influence to prevent tragedy that so clearly hurts her. Sure, she notices that as a country bumpkin amongst nobles she stands out, but even 10 years after the genocide of the priests she never once confronted her husband about it. Or anyone really. Why the change of heart now? The excuse that her husband and Kashi (whom she wasn’t really friends with in the first place?? Honestly I think she was just attached to her out of guilt for what happened) are dead doesn’t explain why she would suddenly have the urge to take some sort of action since the past decade proves she thrives in complacency.

Additionally her relo with her son... I don’t even understand it anymore. She claims she loves Soo-Won but then she writes a letter to her brother-in-law basically asking him to ‘watch out for him’ like MA’AM HE IS YOUR SON. What happened to the role she devoted herself to, as a MOTHER?? I honestly give up trying to understand it.

Il

Oh boi. I thought Yon-hi and Yu-hon had an awful characterisation but Il really takes the cake. I thought I could accept Il’s cowardice since it his duality has been hinted at throughout the whole manga, but honestly it makes close to no sense here. I’m surprised no-one decided to assassinate him the first few years into his reign. I would’ve done it tbh.

This chapter just brings more questions into his passive nature. Why the HELL did he just sit and wait around for something to happen after hearing about the future? Yes, as a religious devotee, he probably accepted the future as fact, but why didn’t he do ANYTHING about it? It seems like he banned weapons out of guilt of his murder, not to actually stop Soo-Won (since he ‘accepted’ that destiny of dying by his nephew’s hands). 

If he knew that Yona would not only face hardship from her position as a reincarnation, but her own freaking family, why didn’t he take counter measures? I don’t understand why he wouldn’t try to empower her so that when he would eventually leave her, she would be able to take care of herself. His attitude to Soo-Won also makes no sense too. If he already accepted he would die by his hand, why didn’t he ban/prevent him from visiting the castle? And if he already accepted his fate, why didn’t he just let the marriage go through anyway? He could clearly see that Soo-Won didn’t detest Yona and would care for her, Yona would be happy with him (provided the murder wouldn’t happen lmfao).

Oh and also, if he knew all these shitty events were going to happen? What was his excuse for not taking care of the country, leaving more than hundreds to starve, live in poverty and die? ‘I’m a placeholder and my brother must not become King. Also I leave everything to the gods’ divine will because I’m a really great religious follower uwu’. Not ‘I’ll properly communicate with my brother, nephew and court to make this country a better place while I’m here to prevent the mistakes of the past.’ He acknowledges he’s not a great King. Why doesn’t he acknowledge and humble himself asking for advice from his advisors. Like whAT

Il & Kashi

Poor Kashi lmfao. Kusa in this chapter really trying to convince us they had a loving relationship and Il was simply just trying to avenge his wife. Sure, let’s say Il did love Kashi. He did a really awful way of expressing it, to the point Kashi genuinely believed he only married her to make the designer baby that is Yona. And I don’t see proof of otherwise tbh. I guess you could argue that Il  & Kashi had some chemistry during the garden scene with Ik-Soo... but also Kashi was a ‘kid’ apparently so call the FBI lmfao. There are honestly no scenes or buildup that convince me that Il loved Kashi without the involvement of the divine. Kashi, maybe. I think she admired him but I see none of that from Il. Even when he flat out murders his brother, his defense isn’t ‘YO THAT WAS MY WIFE YOU JUST MURDEREDDD’ It was ‘THAT WAS THE MOTHER OF THE RED DRAGON’. I think these are self explanatory.

Also to that anti-Soo-Won translator who was saying how this line by Il basically disproves everyone who thought he didn’t love Kashi- it really doesn’t. If anything it just shows how terrible the writing has been for this arc because it’s nowhere near believable enough to accept as truth. Show me scenes where Il is actually.... showing affection and being in a loving and equal relationship with his wife smh

Romance

Il’s reliance on ‘love’ also makes no sense as well, and also highlights how problematic romance is in this series. Considering how ‘girl power’ this series is with Kouren, Lili & her bodyguards, Yona and even Kashi to a certain extent, it makes no sense that Il would choose to leave everything to a man who simply ‘loves Yona and will never betray her’. Like,,, did the events that transpired TEACH HIM NOTHING?? 

Sure only men can become Kings but it seems Queens have a significant position as well. And since Yona is the red dragon... wouldn’t like,, everyone know and respect and hold her on a higher level regardless lmfao like WHAT IS IL THINKING?? He knows that Yona ended up as a superficial spoilt princess as she grew older, but what did he do to rectify that?? n o t h i n g, except attempt to throw another man (Hak) to help solve the (future) problem.

A great grey point this manga has made since the beginning of the series is ‘Prioritising one individual will cause an entire Kingdom to fall to ruin’. So this is why I don’t understand Il’s actions. Yu-hon committed genocide for his wife, whom he loved (also a really poorly built up romance but this chapter ain’t about them), and APPARENTLY murdered Kashi too (dang it... such a weak and predictable outcome, I’m disappointed in you Kusa). Il killing Yu-hon caused Soo-Won & all the Yuhon stans to seek vengeance (although he also did kinda murder him for the sake of Kouka, but nonetheless her adored his father). SO WHY ON EARTH DOES IL THINK LOVE FROM ANOTHER PERSON IS GONNA SAVE HIS DAUGHTER. MAYBE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE BUT CERTAINLY NOT THE ROYAL DAMN FAMILY.

Also just because Hak clearly was devoted to and had affection for Yona, did not mean that Yona would feel the same way, which is arguably is ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR IN A RELATIONSHIP. It seems like Il doesn’t give a damn about his freaking daughter honestly. But maybe who knows, Il has 500 IQ and decided to be passive so Yona would develop feelings for Hak. It was all part of his master plan, while he left most of his kingdom to suffer, no biggie.

Writing

This was such a painful arc to read. I swear Kusa tried to engage her fanbase by constantly making plot twists every chapter. Yu-hon is a good guy. SIKE he’s not. SIKE Il is kind of worse. SIKE Yu-hon bad and should never be one the throne. Il is an okay guy. SIKE he’s borderline religiously fanatic. SIKE Yuhon the crazy one. SIKE Il weird af because he marries Kashi to have baby dragon Yona. SIKE he actually loved Kashi he just DiDn’t MAkE HiS FeElings KnoWn.

Honestly that doesn’t even cover how inconsistent other characters like Yon-hi are either. Bleugh

Predictions for 198?

Maybe Yona will take it upon herself to rectify the wrongs done and pull herself together. Perhaps also do something more substantial than have a deus ex machina bunch of books deliver to information right into her hands. Also maybe show what Soo-Won thinks of this memoir? Surely he’s read it... if he hasn’t then like bye. This series is honestly breaking my heart with every monthly update I swear.

///might rant more later

[laryna6]

Thinking about the title of Magician in Xanth - 

Magicians are supposed to go to war for the crown, so you’d think you’d get Goku power level stuff.

In actuality, only one Magician with a talent that was ‘cast on the battlefield’ ever managed to become king, and when Trent went to war for the crown he got his ass handed to him because having an OP talent meant he hadn’t learned the concept of ‘when people are trying to kill you set a watch’ which should have been a basic ‘how to not die’ strategy for someone growing up in a death world. He was later granted the crown because the previous king had died of old age, he’d spared the life of the son of the head of the council, and the other options were extremely annoying. (Like, there was a speech re ‘you’ve earned this’ but like, the council didn’t know about any of the stuff Trent had done that made him actually qualified, all they saw was that at least he wasn’t stupid enough to underestimate someone w/o magic anymore. I’m betting that before Trent showed up Roland’s Plan A was to ask Iris to illusion herself a beard bc Xanth would not have survived a second Humphrey reign - now I want that AU. Bonus if there is Queen Totally-Not-Evil-Magician-Trent). 

Every single other person who won the crown up until series start had a talent good on the strategic/logistical/troop-generating/medical level, not direct combat. Trent with his six foot instant death radius couldn’t win the throne but a woman whose talent was ‘longevity’ took it and held it for almost seventy years. Her successor was an actual ghost who died before her reign began, so she may have stepped down on deciding he’d make for an even more stable-longlasting reign, since the dude wasn’t the type to have challenged her for the throne.

A magician who is next to unbeatable in direct combat didn’t challenge Trent for the crown bc by that point Trent had the powers of ‘understanding demographics,’ ablity to organize supplies and logistics for a small army, etc. Stuff actually useful in being king of Xanth.

The ways someone can qualify as a magician, and therefore be eligible to become king, and the tradition of competition for the throne, make sense given the context of the founding of the line of kings and what the kings are actually for.

Every human born in Xanth has a magic talent - originally it’s thought that if someone is a magical being, they can’t have a talent in addition to that but that’s found to be incorrect.

Being a magician and what qualifies someone as one is a Big Deal that becomes important and gets dug into in the sixth book, because they’re getting invaded and someone’s taking out their kings - anyone who can take out magicians is qualified as a magician and that means that if the defenders can’t keep the throne filled, they’ll have to cede the crown to the invaders’ assassin. 

The strength/amount of magic tied up in someone’s talent can be assessed and is a way to qualify for magicianhood - Magician Trent knows that Bink has to either be a magical being like Chameleon or have a magician-level talent when it’s revealed Bink contains more magic than Trent does. (It can’t be that Bink has a spell on him and that’s what’s being detected bc they just got back from the mundane world and spells go poof without magic to draw on.)

Meta-magic also qualifies someone as a magician - not all magicians have meta-magic, a talent that lets them control magic other than that of their own talent, but anyone who has meta-magic is a Magician - this is discussed explicitly when a centaur is labeled a magician for his talent which lets him create an area around him with a higher magic level than that outside the area - he’s moving around/controlling magic. 

‘Versatility’ is a means of qualifying - Irene originally fails to qualify as a Sorceress because her talent of rapid plant growth isn’t versatile enough, but over time she’s able to gather an arsenal of plants with specific effects. It’s not meta-magic since she can’t control the magic of the plants, just use her own talent to make them grow, but she use the talent-grown plants for a wide enough variety of different effects she qualifies on versatility - she doesn’t have raw power or metamagic, but she can get the same level of shit done as someone who does. In fact one of the things noted as the Main Achievement of one of the Kings is something that Irene could make happen. 

To answer the question of ‘why do those things qualify you’ you have to look at ‘what magicians are for’ and the job of Magicians is to go to war with each other for the crown. In the modern era, most people consider Magicians like Murphey and Trent who incited wars to try to take the crown villains, which makes sense because Xanth is a death world as it is, the cause of human survival does not need that shit, but the Council of North Village (largest human settlement) and King Roogna (the king Murphey was going after) consider that complete bullshit and approve of Trent and Murphey’s actions. 

If the purpose of a Magician is to become king or die trying, proving the victor is the one most qualified for the job, what makes that a role vital enough it’s worth killing off members of a small population? What makes the kings so important?

Well, what was going on in the 6th book that made having a king so important they were desperate for Magicians? 

A Wave.

Xanth was periodically discovered and invaded by armies from our world. Like in the Irish Book of Invasions, most of those invaders have committed genocides of the people already living in Xanth 

The Third Wave left the women already living in Xanth alive. The first Magician King was instrumental in helping those women organize to kill their ‘husbands,’ free themselves, and find and bring in men who could be trusted to not pull that shit - his talent was recorded as knowledge, which, yeah. He ended up moving to our world and entering folklore for helping an island nation resist invasion...

King Roogna was the child-by-rape of one of those women. Murphey, if not a child by rape, would also have been born to a mother who went through that. This may explain why both of them were so determined to become the one in charge of Xanth’s defense that neither would concede to the other, but they both liked the other and respected their drive to be king (to protect their families...). 

So what ‘are you a magician’ really means is, ‘can your talent fight off an invading army/help the citizens fight off an invading army,’ and yeah, a small civil war would be the best way to put that to the test. 

Interestingly, while having a talent that’s good in a fight/on a battlefield can qualify you as a magician, that type of power is discussed as ‘really fucking useless’ for winning the crown, much less being king, in Book 1. 

[maevelin]

So I have been receiving some lovely reviews for my story including some constructive criticism which I acknowledge fully. That been said I think that one of the good things that comes from such reviews is the chance to not only think about certain things but also to be able to have a constructive discussion too.

Some of the reviews I have gotten are not showing as of now in the site once I accept them but I have read them from my email too. Fanfiction net is malfunctioning so I assume all the reviews eventually will show up. 

Anyhow... Now since the two reviewers that left me basically the same review (are you two or one?....sorry I had to ask lol) were on guest and I can’t reply to them by private messaging I am going to do it from here so they’ll know my mentality over the things they are questioning and how I see things as I write the story and my characters. Replying on tumblr is not ideal and possibly they won’t be able to see the answer here but eventually when I post a new chapter in my story I will point them towards this post.

That been said I have a few things to cover mostly.

This story is a parallel to Seasons 1-3 and somewhat 4 of TVD. I haven’t watched TVD after that point and neither anything connected to that universe. I found the show to be doing a disservice to its characters and I found the writing poor so I stopped watching. So any allegory that can be found in my story that is connected with TVD and its characters is up to S4 of the show. 

After a point my story is going to diverge from that and for now there are parallels and I am trying to not write the characters extremely OOC but after breaking a certain word limit the characters you write, either they are part of fanfiction or based on some other characters that inspired you...well they start to get a voice of their own.

I acknowledge 100% the fact that a reader may not like some of my characters. It happens. We can’t all have the same perspective or taste and so on. 

So this is not me being critical over the reviews or trying to change anyone’s opinion. I am just here to point out how I view certain things and characters as I write them.

But let me clarify some things because this may not be a story for you after all.

1. If you are expecting Klaus Mikaelson to have a redemption arc in my story then this is not a story for you. Yes there are some glimpses of humanity where Caroline is concerned and as I will get into the second phase of the story and as Klaus’ background and main plot will get into the forefront more of these glimpses will appear. Along with more of his darkness.

This is why I chose this particular alternative universe as a setting for my story. Because vampires are monsters so I wanted a human version of despicable monsters too. 

I also chose an environment that is steeped in misogyny and is not progressive because if I wanted to parallel TVD I had to have such elements in the story since the writing in TVD was awfully misogynistic, racist and homophobic. My plan though, and I hope to be able to succeed on that, is to eventually subvert those tropes in my story which is exactly it is set that way in the beginning.

Back to Klaus now...I am not going to woobify the villain. I am not going to have love ‘save’ him. He isn’t going to change for the sake of love. Any development that happens to his character and to his relationship with Caroline won’t turn him into another character. He is an adult, a criminal, a psychopath really. Those aren’t traits to change.

2. I NEVER ever saw Caroline as a good or moral person even in TVD. So don’t expect that in my story either.

The fact that the writing in TVD told us so doesn’t make Caroline a good person. Since the narrative of her actions and character contradicted it. Yes she had good sides. She may have wanted to be good too. But she was still a Vampire. Which came along with a certain darkness despite the writers wanting to have their cake and eat it too by writing the vampires of the inner circle of TVD as Mary Sue vampires while they still murdered and killed and yet they somehow were the good guys.  

Caroline’s potential for me was that she was meant to have agency. To be a vampire and relish in the dark parts too. That was one of the reasons why I liked Klaroline so much. Not in order for Klaus to become better. Or Caroline to simply become worse. But in order to show the true nature of vampirism will all that came along with it. To focus on the mythology, the legend, the immortality and freedom, to the creatures of the night. And you know...blood, desire, gore and slaughter. Simple every day stuff really.

I wanted Caroline that sided by the ripper of Monterey because he was her savior but did so despite knowing that he ate children. Caroline that was raped by Damon but overcame the horror, that stood by Elena when she committed genocide, that took Mason down, that was tortured by the werewolves and then said goodbye to girly girl Caroline and said screw it all I will be cheery but I will be a survivor too and thrive. The Caroline that fought the tomb vampires. The Caroline that tricked Katherine. The Caroline that in order to save her friend murdered 12 witches in cold blood. The Caroline that manipulated Klaus’ affections to save herself and despite seeing the good parts in him was never fooled by those and saw him for the villain and menace he was and never coddled him. The Caroline that distracted the worst monster of them all and had fun while doing so. The Caroline that traded a date for the life of another person (a friend of the man she loved back then) because it suited her purposes. The Caroline that joined a game of life and death with Klaus Mikaelson and found the silver lining and was pulled towards him despite how much she fought against it. The Caroline that was a hypocrite in believing she and her friends were better than Klaus and still got the plan to put him Rebekah’s body and bury him forever. The Caroline that when Klaus saved her in the corridor she still toasted over his demise later on the same day. The Caroline that Silas saw how she wanted her perfect feathers ruffled. The Caroline that screwed Klaus despite him having murdered Jenna and Carol Lockwood, and Elena and having tortured all her friends. The man that despite doing all that and sending her boyfriend to exile she still wanted and was still attracted to him. Because she couldn’t underestimate the allure of darkness no matter how much she tried. Because it was a part of her too with or without Klaus.

That Caroline that for me was never a good person. It is just too simplistic to claim that she was. 

3. Sometimes sexual desire and connection is not translated by good actions. You don’t have to be a good person to feel lust for someone. To be infatuated. To be tempted. 

Sometimes it is physical. Sometimes it is intellectual. It doesn’t have to be love. It can be desire. Some times you can desire assholes too. It is instinct.

Do Klaus and Caroline love each other in my story? No. Not yet. Don’t know about the future.

Do they have the hots for each other and want to bone each other? Yes. Definitely.

And if we are being honest ...did that desire came out of nowhere? 

I don’t know ...didn’t it came out of the blue in the show too?

Here in my story the slow burn has been building up for more than 200.000 words. Maybe you feel I failed on communicating that correctly. Maybe I did. But I wouldn’t say that desire is always reasonable or gets there in a straight line step by step.

This is still a story based on the trope of enemies to lovers so of course those two are enemies now. Maybe you don’t approve or like that stage or makes no sense to you. But some times enemies can have desire for each other even without reason. If that isn’t a trope for you I digress.

Even in TVD though Caroline was never head over heels for Klaus. She covered her darkest desires and their connection with hostility. She always had walls up. She had put herself on a pedestal against him despite her own terrible actions and her own darkness she still wanted the villain. She was still at the beginning of the journey that give or take 1000 years would turn her into Klaus’ door as she by them she wouldn’t be that different from him. 

4. Is Klaus dragging Caroline to darkness in my story? Yes. In her own darkness that was already there to begin with all the potential. In the same way in TVD he was an Original and she was a baby vampire and he saw in her parts of himself. “We are the same Caroline”. “The allure of darkness.” “The darkness desires.” and so on. Klaus that in TVD his version of mercy and kindness also equaled darkness and pain.

So those are things that inspired me to write my story so here we are. Caroline is unlocking emotions in Klaus. Emotions that he never had before and he doesn’t know how to deal with or what they mean and gets destructive and confused because of them. While he still basically worships the ground Caroline walks on while he also still plays his fucked up mind games. In the same way Caroline is finding freedom in the darkness he opens up in her too and still wants to bring him down.

5. In the same way love can’t change a person fundamentally but show the best and worst versions of one’s character which is something that applies for Klaus in my story then in the same way the same counts for Caroline.

Her agency won’t be forgotten. She is not all of the sudden going to forget her plans and her desire for freedom because she feels desire or even love for a man. It doesn’t work that way. And she won’t be simply good, the vanilla version of good or simply evil or pulled to darkness. There is going to be a struggle of what she feels. Both for Klaus and for herself. That won’t change. It won’t be sacrificed in my story.

Caroline for Caroline comes first. Klaroline comes second. At this point I would even debate that comes third after her family too. 

Caroline won’t change to a doormat for any man. Not in my story. Not simply because I ship Klaroline.

If that makes her unlikable. Then so be it. If it makes her selfish then good.

If this is somehow lost in translation for you I get it. Maybe I didn’t write it as clearly as I could. 

But if you want to get a better feel of who Caroline is through the Klaroline ship in my story and her connection to Klaus and all her reactions to him and the ship in general then I am afraid you’ve lost the meaning of my story. You won’t be able to get who Caroline is only through shipping goggles here. I am not writing her like this despite this being a Klaroline fanfiction. 

And of course she is confused btw and not certain for things and is still building up her character through mistakes and uncertainty. Her age, her background and her current situation add to that. 

6. Disclaimer:  If anyone is expecting anything similar to what I have seen from TO in gifs (I didn’t bother watching those seens) regarding Klaroline then ...NO. I don’t know how more forward I can be with this. I cringed beyond belief by what TO had shown for Klaroline from what I saw here in tumblr. I double tripled cringed by any gifs I have see from TVD after S4 when it came to Caroline (O_O) and there is no level of cringe that can describe how I felt when it came to TO in general. So if anyone is expecting that or is basing their opinion of what they see in my story over THAT perspective...then I get it...yeah..my story will most definitely disappoint you. No questions asked about that.

And last but not least.

I get what you are saying about the long descriptions and not as much dialogue in my story but then again I am afraid that’s my writing style here. I won’t change that anytime soon.

Let me be honest here by saying that IF I was publishing this as a book I would probably be trying to contain the long winded texts more, to make a better pace and so on. The descriptions would still be longer than the dialogue though. Because that’s my style. That been said this is still fanfiction and I am writing it in order to have fun so this is me having fun. Letting go and even writing all this writing vomit lol...I get it. It is not always easy to read. It can be tiresome and jarring. But that’s how I write and I do feel that my writing is not for everyone. I am not saying you are wrong in your criticism here. Objectively you are right. I recognize that too. But it is what I like and feel inclined to write so...yeah.

Anyhow. This is my long winded answer too (see? That’s HOW I WRITE lol...if it is not dissertation what’s the point ha ha)...I hope I’ll get more reviews from you and thank you for your compliments in those reviews too. I am always open for more discussions of this sort either you are on guest or not.

Thank you and take care.

[aotopmha]

Attack on Titan Chapter 123 Thoughts

I feel like this chapter was actually the most straight-forward chapter since Eren got his head blown off back in chapter 119 - for real this time.

The nuanced character writing and the context-driven, interpretation-based storytelling is still there in moments - I feel like Eren's character and the current situation needs that to work, but other than that, I think it's really self-explanatory and I actually welcome that.

AoT's meta level narrative structure is once again connected to the story's point, themes, emotional beats - after several chapters of a lot of fairly complex and dark material we get a little bit of a breather and so do the characters.

The chapter still has some heavy material (it kind of does end with Eren basically declaring to commit mass genocide) and you might argue the lightheartedness might be a little jarring in light of all the dark stuff that came before it and comes after it, but I really did welcome this as a breather.

As I said in my initial post, I think it also does have thematic significance in that it once again reminds us of the good in the world, I'd add to that, though, that, not only from the perspective of Eren picking those that are innocent to have this horrible fate, but also from the perspective of those he sees are worthy of his protection and showing what he sees as the good that is worth protecting.

He declares to commit mass genocide, but does it with the purpose of protecting those he loves.

This is also a twisted version of the standard "Shounen protagonist fights for everyone he cares about" idea.

I really admire how the story manages to twist these standard tropes while still feeling sincere, making sense and having a point character writing-wise - again, so many stories that try to twist tropes this way feel like they are just dark and shocking for the sake of being dark and shocking and with that comes insincerity and non-believability of the drama in the story and ultimately lack of investment in it.

I’ve seen comparisons of him to Lelouch around, but that series drove me away from the very first episode, so I can’t comment on those (I know the ending of that series, but I feel like I’d need the whole picture to truly comment), but I could talk about possible comparisons to Light Yagami (Eren even almost looks like Light in this chapter, too). While I think it fits in some ways (self-righteous young man executing his justice) and I think Light is an entertaining villain, I don't think he's nearly as complex as Eren or even as complex in a general sense as I often see people claim he is.

I feel like Light didn't really have an arc and had his mindset basically set from the start, he just gradually executed it on a increasingly larger scale. Light’s goal of justice didn’t really ever have any sort of goodness to it. Eren genuinely wishes to protect those he loves, Light’s “justice” is just unnuanced self-righteousness with a dash of god complex thrown in there. I’ve seen the argument that it’s the power of the Death Note that corrupted him around, but I feel like he had the same perspective from start to finish.

I think it’s an interesting comparison.

I think you could technically make a similar argument for Eren - you could see this as just an reinterpretation of his character, rather than development, but I myself feel like his path to this point is much more complex than that and depends of several factors and events leading up to this point in the story.

Despite all the talking about how Eren might've "never changed" by the characters, I think there was a character development process that lead Eren here.

He wasn't so accutely aware of the humanity of the "other side" he was fighting against back when he was a kid.

Again, I don't think Eren ever fought for freedom at specifically the *cost* of others before Marley. His desire for freedom back then felt much more neutral to me:

(Chapter 14)

There were elements of his cynical side showing here and there, just not to the extremes he goes to here.

He wasn't this pragmatic as his 15 year-old self, in fact, at one point, he was the one looking and wanting for other ways out than plain sacrifice:

(Chapter 25)

Chapter 25 specifically concerns him, but you can also see this in much more recent moments:

(Chapter 90)

Most importantly, though, here:

(Chapter 107)

I feel like, both, him understanding the impact of what he's about to do and the choice to destroy the world are character development results.

Him seeing the humanity of his enemies leads to the positive conclusions he comes to (his current, more nuanced world view) and him being surrounded by all this negativity and more importantly, his hyper-focus on this negativity induced by the many horrible things he has experienced himself and in his father's (and the other shifters') memories leads to him being unable to see any other way out of this than the one he chose here.

In this chapter, Eren couldn't see the beauty of the world and the one time he chose to do so, he did it with a sort of sense of finality and decisiveness.

He waited as long as he could bear, but from his perspective ultimately just didn’t see any other way out.

His negative and positive growth also sort of contradict each other - he understands what he's about to do is so horrible, but does it anyway.

You could see it as a contradiction coming from how his mind has twisted because of everything negative he has experienced, ranging from his trauma from loss to him gaining his father’s and other shifters’ memories. 

You could also, though, see this as a contradiction that might have more to it.

If Eren has enough perspective now to know what he's doing is horrible, why doesn't he have enough perspective to not commit mass genocide? Then, perhaps he does and there is more to his plan?

It's either that trauma and negativity is one hell of a mindscrewer and it's just his mind coming to very twisted conclusions or there is more to his plan.

My guess in the case of the second option would be that he's attempting to unite humanity against him (Willy already started this) and the purpose of his announcement is for all the Eldians across the world to inform everyone else and with that help them evacuate before the rumbling arrives at their location, giving the rest of the world more positive actions to go off of when judging the Eldians.

This could paint even all the Eldians on Paradis as victims of the "main villain" Eren Jaeger and the Titans and since this is something world-wide, this perspective could spread.

It's unbelievable everybody would listen because of the discrimination, but it's also unbelievable that nobody would listen as there are always at least some understandable and kind people out there.

We’ve seen this with the volunteers growing to see the Eldians as more human, we see this in Magath’s character arc and even in the small moment of the guards protecting Gabi. There is good in here, it’s just buried.

Perhaps there could’ve been peace at some point with some countries if Eren hadn’t acted as he did in Liberio. But at the same time Marley had their plan to attack Paradis in the near future to begin with, so even the small moments of goodness come with the constant caveat brought up over and over again of there being very little time.

What would you expect from Eren in this situation?

Eren framing himself as the villain could change nothing and it could change everything depending on how it's done and how deep the hatred against Eldians truly runs.

Perhaps some Eldians wouldn't even want to tell anyone anything because of how poorly they've been treated.

This plan would rely on the existing goodness on all sides.

Taking Eren down might need the combined strength of the Titan society in Marley, the Paradisians and the collected army of the world and the losses here might be massive enough where the aftermath might force some sort of changes to happen for this to never happen again, the only (very large) side note here, again, being that those proposed changes might just still involve the complete extermination of all Eldians after this.

Moving on from the larger scale stuff though, the other big, a little bit more interpretive scene of the chapter was Eren's moment with Mikasa.

I've been iffy about the possible romantic nature of their relationship since Grisha called Mikasa his daughter back in chapter 121 - if there was already a familial bond like that there, it really veers into squicky material to me, but it's still ambigious enough that I'm still letting it slide for now. It's only on Grisha's part still and Mikasa never calls Eren's parents her own parents - Carla is always auntie and Grisha is Dr. Yeager.

It's always been sort of awkward because of how Mikasa's backstory worked out, but for now I still consider it fine.

As far as that scene, though, as it's been like across the story, I feel like it's definitely shown as romantic on Mikasa's side, while I think it's similarly neutral as it's always been on Eren's side.

Much more important here is what it means, though - what could the subtext here be?

Did Eren look for confirmation for putting the idea/plan he had in mind in motion - confirming that Mikasa didn't care that strongly for him and thus wouldn't miss him that strongly/could defeat him when the time came for him to die (if that's the plan he's going with)?

Was it confirming to himself that what he's about to do would be worth it for if not nobody else, then at least her because she cared, not even necessarily about him, but in a general sense was a source of goodness within all this negativity he's been seeing, confirmation that Paradis was worth protecting at the cost of the rest of humanity because they were good and the others were bad, then actually looping back to his old attitude in some ways, basically looking for confirmation for his faith in the goodness of humanity?

Did he in his desparation turn to Mikasa to somehow give him another option to the one he saw or did he hope her answer would somehow change his mind when it came to executing his plan?

Maybe it was partially all these, maybe it was something entirely different, but I'm leaning on the third option the most myself.

It might just have been a secret cry for him to be protected from himself.

The gist of it seems to be him asking about the sincerity of Mikasa's feelings and whether she cares about him, doesn't matter if you see it as romantic or not.

I'm not sure if she could've changed anything because Eren was already isolated and stuck in his negative thoughts - a simple love confession wouldn’t fix all the baggage Eren has been collecting.

On the flip side, Armin thoughts when switching back to the present involved believing in the goodness in Eren - that he was on their side and he is, the problem is that Eren took his gained pragmatism too far.

Personally, I lean on the option of there being more to Eren's plan, but I can also see him just being stuck on just not seeing another option. He got his view of there not being another option confirmed many times across the 4 year timeskip and this chapter continued to show that to him.

Putting Eren aside, though, as said, this chapter was also the funnest and lightest since forever - the group reacting to a car, the group reacting to ice cream, Levi's interactions with the clown and everyone getting drunk was a blast.

It amplifies the tragedy, but is also fun.

As said, a lot of this chapter was actually very straight-forward. They all visit the outside world and have some fun and strange encounters with it. It was nice, but pretty simple so there isn’t actually much more for me to say about the more light-hearted elements of this chapter.

Finally, again on a less lighter note, I think this chapter sadly might've confirmed Historia's pregnancy. She seems to be in the Paths with a belly and since everyone's bodies seem to correspond to their real bodies in paths, unless there's something else to it, it feels like a pretty clearly-defined confirmation.

I could see Ymir undoing it, but I don't see how it could be fake now unless that girl in one of the final spreads of the chapter is a red herring and not Historia.

I think the best way the pregnancy could go to me is if it genuinely was Historia's decision (not her going back to her sacrifical self, but her very own sincere decision). You could still nitpick it to death and this plot point would have messy implications no matter what you do, but I think that would probably the best way it could go aside from her pregnancy being removed because it would at least in the very basics align with her arc.

Meanwhile, AoT continues to at least have my undivided attention because of Eren's very unique arc and the gripping plotting.

I thought this was a great chapter as what kind of chapter it set out to be - equally a breather and a setup chapter.

It had great staging, great lightheartedness and a great cliffhanger.

[sepublic]

Was Nocturn actually a bad guy?

           I’m being serious here, guys. Let’s just look at his ‘crimes’, firstly...

           Okay, there was that whole incident where he shattered his home island. Sounds pretty bad at first, but then you hear it was a total accident.

           And it wasn’t like he was committing one bad crime already, and it just so happened to spiral into an even bigger one (like the Elemental Lords during the Core War)! All he did was just punch some random, seemingly harmless part of the island because he was mad, and before you know it his home is gone! It’s not Nocturn’s fault he didn’t know his strength and overestimated the integrity of his home.

           So we already have one questionable ‘crime’, but then the Order of Mata Nui comes along and things get even more dubious. Nocturn gets imprisoned into the Pit over an accident, and it’s by a black ops organization that operates under no jurisdictions (intruding on others’ as well, such as the pre-corruption Brotherhood of Makuta), lacks any liability, and frequently commits ethical crimes- Again, like that one time they killed just about anyonewho knew where the island of Artakha was, including no doubt several innocent people and even several of their own agents, many of whom were definitely loyal members.

           Again, I keep stressing it, but… what Nocturn did was a total accident. Even if he never apologized for it, the Order of Mata Nui definitely has no right to just kidnap someone and imprison them for what could’ve easily been forever. Such a thing would be under the jurisdiction of Nocturn’s fellow residents, and adding to that, it’s highly unlikely Nocturn even got a fair trial and an attorney.

           So Nocturn is in the Pit, he has no idea if his sentence is ever going to be over, and based on what we know there probably wasn’t any rehabilitation programs within the Pit. Honestly, the Pit is beginning to sound less like a facility meant to keep the universe safe and dole out proper justice, and more like a convenient prison full of powerful people that the Order can force into committing dirty tasks for them without any accountability whatsoever. They’re basically slaves, in that sense.

           Then the Great Cataclysm comes along and Nocturn escapes, because why wouldn’t he, and even if he did kill any guards in the escape (not that it wouldn’t be justified) it was probably only Maxilos robots, as we know Hydraxon was killed by Takadox. Afterwards, Nocturn just minds his own business, eating Razor Whales and whatnot, and ends up in Ehlek’s legion.

           And I’m sure it’d be easy to fault him for joining a war criminal, but keep in mind that Nocturn has nowhere else he can go to. He’s already an outcast, and he probably doesn’t trust any authorities after what the Order put him through. Sure, maybe he could side with the Matoran of Mahri Nui, but they’re unable to defend themselves against actual threats like the Barraki, and we also know that Matoran can even be bigoted to the point of genocide, as the Dark Hunter Poison can attest to.

           Plus, the only times we know of him aiding the Barraki was when Takadox hypnotized him against his will, and then later when Pridak forced him to guard the Ignika under the very credible threat of tearing off more than one of his arms. Both times he works for the ‘bad guys’, it’s under duress. There’s also the time he made Pridak’s Shark Tooth blades, but at this point, I don’t think we can consider him a terrible person for serving the Barraki, especially since a similar situation happened to many citizens under the League of Six Kingdoms’ rule.

           Now, you could argue that Nocturn willingly trying to murder several Zyglak over a perceived insult is pretty bad, and it is… But still, everything that happened to him beforehand, he didn’t really deserve, so it’s not surprising he turned out to be hostile, violent, and aggressive. Plus, we know the Zyglak are more than willing to kill innocent people who are minding their own business, and Nocturn was already in their sights before Takadox made his claim. This, and the fact that we never have confirmation of the Zyglak’s deaths (only their presumed ‘defeat’), hardly makes Nocturn that much of a villain.

           Then Nocturn gets cursed with a death touch by the Ignika, and all he really does is kill a few harmless animals with it, and even then he gets bored and refrains from going on a total killing spree. He muses about killing Pridak, because who wouldn’t, and decides to do his own thing when Dekar-Hydraxon attacks him.

           At this point, Nocturn can’t really be faulted for defending himself. As far as he knows, Hydraxon is technically a criminal who is complicit in the illegal, unethical imprisonment of multiple entities from their own sovereign lands. He was the warden overseeing the prison, no less, and Hydraxon wasn’t exactly trying to be negotiable- Nocturn has no idea he’s there until the dude literally shoots him in the tentacle.

           So, no wonder Nocturn fights Hydraxon, but then he gets defeated, escapes, and reunites with Ehlek and helps the guy, and as far as we know Ehlek is the only person with power and authority who gave him any kind of a chance (Plus, Ehlek and his species themselves were once modified by the Order of Mata Nui, probably without consent). The Barraki fail to get the Ignika and are quickly reimprisoned, Nocturn included.

Nocturn tries to escape a second time –which at this point isn’t exactly a moral failing on his part- and Hydraxon straight-up kills him. And keep in mind, Nocturn upon escaping the Pit the first time was fully capable of returning to the Matoran Universe and interacting with both aquatic and terrestrial society, but didn’t and stayed alone in the waters of Mahri Nui, because he knew society didn’t want him. And he just minded his own business until the Barraki bullied him into submission, so…

           (I mean, at least he was revived on the Red Star. But then again, we know the revival process can be extremely traumatic to the point of messing with one’s mental functions, even a being with a mentally-shielded mind like Botar. And based on Greg’s plan for the Red Star story to be about ‘zombies on a space station’, it’s possible Nocturn’s revival didn’t work correctly in the physical sense either.)

           Really, Nocturn’s story just comes across as very mean-spirited. It’s not like his terrible life was meant to be seen as tragic and undeserved either, as the narrative ceaselessly treats him (in the comics, books, product descriptions, etc.) as a villain. And even if he was a bit of a violent brute by the time we saw him in the story, when you keep in mind everything that’s happened to him beforehand, and what he actually did following his initial debut, it just feels like a blatant dissonance of morals in a story about good triumphing over evil.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Psycho Analysis: Kefka Palazzo

(WARNING! This analysis contains SPOILERS!)

Final Fantasy VI is a beloved SNES entry into the soul-shatteringly popular Final Fantasy series, renowned for its engaging story, diverse cast of characters, and the ease at which you can completely and utterly break this game and make it the easiest thing you’ve ever played. But perhaps the most iconic element of the game, and the thing about it that has stood the test of time the best is its villain – no, not the generic evil emperor you spend the first half of the game trying to stop from waging war, but his maniacal, cackling lackey, Kefka.

Kefka is a unique villain for sure, for a variety of reasons. There’s the fact he is very much a bait-and-switch antagonist, in that you are very much led to believe that Emperor Gestahl is the true villain and Kefka is just his right-hand man. There’s the fact that he is completely laughable in some moments and then utterly, horrifyingly reprehensible in the next, doing things such as pettily abusing soldiers in one scene and committing the brutal genocide of a kingdom via poisoning in the next, all while cackling like a madman. There’s the fact his character development actually parallels that of the heroes, going in the opposite direction.

And, of course, there is the fact that ultimately, unlike so many other villains even in his own franchise… Kefka ultimately wins.

Motivation/Goals: Kefka starts as nothing more than a lackey serving Emperor Gestahl, the first Magitek Knight created, but as the first in that experimental procedure, it made Kefka end up going a bit batty. As the game goes on and he goes to more and more extremes in the name of Gestahl, Kefka goes from a slightly nutty evil jester to an unstable madman, which culminates in his actions on the Floating Continent, in which he kills the emperor, upsets the balance of magic, and ascends to godhood, causing an apocalypse that splits the continents and causes untold deaths. Kefka proceeds to spend the next year blasting the ashes of the world, relishing in the suffering of those below.

In short, Kefka ultimately lives to bring misery and suffering to the world, relishing in the pain and misfortune of others. He is the ultimate nihilist, completely unable to comprehend why anyone would cling to a pitiful existence that must ultimately end, and so he decides to enforce his view of existence onto the struggling people of the ruined world. He’s just an utterly sick, monstrous individual.

Personality: As you can see, Kefka goes from a hammy loony to a nihilistic god. But beyond that, there is a rather depressing air to Kefka’s personality, an underlying tragedy to all of his actions. Kefka ends up becoming so utterly nihilistic he is unable to even comprehend things like love and hope; there seems a moment at the game’s end when the heroes reach through to him and he begins to understand the cruelty of his actions if only for a moment, but as quick as it comes he rejects it, famously quipping “Bleh! You people make me sick! You sound like the chapters from a self-help book!” Beneath the veneer of madness is a truly tragic figure, one of the most darkly tragic figures out there.

Final Fate: Despite wishing to create a monument to nonexistence and despite pulling all of the stops in trying to stop the heroes, throwing dinosaurs, behemoths, deadly super-weapons, legendary dragons, literal gods, and even symbolic imagery invoking The Divine Comedy before flying into battle himself with naught but a strip of cloth covering himself and what appears to be a massive boner, Kefka ultimately falls to all of the things he derided and denounced as Terra and her companions band together and destroy him.

Best Scene: While I would very much love to say it’s his final showdown, sadly this isn’t the case; despite all of the symbolism that makes the final boss a better adaptation of Inferno than the Dante’s Inferno game and despite his impressive bulge that he sports as he faces his sworn enemies, his boss battle is ridiculously easy by the time you reach him that for all of the spectacle it doesn’t really amount to much.

Frankly, his best scene in my book is his poising of Doma, because in that moment Kefka truly establishes everything about himself: his sadism, his sick sense of humor, and his willingness to go to any lengths to get what he wants, as well as his capacity to disobey and forge his own path, as he was ignoring orders from General Leo.

Best Quote: If there’s one thing Kefka has over other Final Fantasy villains like Sephiroth, it’s his veritable gold mine of excellent quotes. Almost anything out of his mouth is either hilarious, quotable, or awesome. But perhaps his best is the truly badass boast he gives before his final battle, a quote that sets the standards for the fight unreasonably high and leaves you a bit disappointed as you Ultima him to death in a couple of rounds: “Life... dreams... hope... Where'd they come from? And where are they headed? These things... I am going to destroy!” Then again, what boss could possibly live up to a boast as impressive as that?

Final Thoughts & Score: Kefka really is the perfect JRPG villain, but a lot of that isn’t actually thanks to Square, at least not originally; in the original Japanese version of the game, Kefka was one of the most despised characters and they just found him annoying. Ted Woolsey took Kefka during the process of translating the game and molded him into the wicked clown with an undying hatred and a bottomlessly nihilistic outlook we all know and  love today, and his interpretation not only won over America, it actually helped influence Kefka’s portrayals in all media from that point onward.

There’s just a lot to Kefka. While we don’t get a lot of backstory on him, just enough to know why he is how he is, enough to elicit some sympathy but not enough for you to ever forgive all he does. His character development, which has him go from a kooky subservient general to the nihlistic god who destroyed the world, is in stark contrast to that of the heroes, who go from being lost, wayward folks desperate to find a reason to fight to a fire-forged group of true companions who would do anything it takes to fight for the fate of the world, making him a thematic home run. Then there’s all the brilliant symbolism in his final battle, his endless quotes… hell, his crippling nihilism and inability to understand concepts like love and hope ultimately giving something of a reason as to why his final boss is so easy, as being confronted with things he literally cannot comprehend may have driven him to such a suicidal extreme that he basically turned his hatred and desire for nothingness inward, allowing himself to be killed.

And then there’s the fact that, even in losing, Kefka still wins. Kefka already slaughtered millions, gained ultimate powers, destroyed the world, ruled over the ashes for an entire year while the heroes struggled to survive, and drained the power of the Warring Triad to become the sole source of magic on the planet. And when he dies? All Espers and all magic go away forever. Kefka manages to do what so very few villains in fiction are capable of doing: he makes everything, even his greatest failure, into a victory after a fashion.

Kefka easily gets a 10/10. If I can criticize anything, it’s that his presence is sorely missed in the World of Ruin portion of the game, as he takes a backseat to the open-world nature and sidequest-oriented gameplay of that part and does not appear again until the final dungeon, unlike in the World of Balance in which he was a constant antagonizing force, but it’s really hard for me to deduct any points from a villain who was not only successful in their plans, but even in losing was still able to claim some sort of victory. Kefka is one of the few Final Fantasy villains to rival Sephiroth in popularity and belovedness, and it’s easy to see why.

And perhaps most importantly, it’s easy to hear why.

[ravenaveira]

People that say Taka was the best team/friends for him is like saying a drug addicts friends who are also drug addicts are whats best for them simply because they went along with and encouraged their habit rather than trying to get them help and off a toxic lifestyle

Just because you have friends that support your bad habits doesnt mean their good friends and whats best for you

Friends who try to get you out of that toxic lifestyle to a better place where your clear-headed and healthy THOSE are real friends who want the best for you

I know this is a weird topic to touch on after the previous episode which I'm not downplaying because I thought it was wholesome, but the fact that people blatantly ignore how toxic and unhealthy Taka was for Sasuke AT THE TIME really just rubs me the wrong way

Do I think his relationship with Team 7 perfect? course not, but you can definitely see the difference between how TRUE friends behave and how enablers behave

Whenever Sasuke talked or thought about Team 7 he viewed them like family and precious bonds he had to cut in order to focus on and pursue revenge

Whenever Sasuke talked or thought about Taka he treated them as strictly subordinates, we never see him bothering to interact with them other than pursuing his goals and once they were no longer needed? he discarded and abandoned them without a second thought, he didnt even know Karin was an Uzumaki or that he even met her in the past which shows how little he cared about any of them on a personal level, the only one I can say Sasuke even remotely cared about to that degree is Jugo

None of them tried to empathize with Sasuke, none of them tried to talk to him about his struggles or problems and let him suffer alone, none of them cared for Sasuke to that point and if they did then they had one hell of a way of showing it

So my point? yes I think Sasuke cared somewhat about Taka in his own way and yes I think Taka cared for Sasuke as well I'm not saying they didnt, I'm just saying they didnt care enough

And it seems crazy to me that the same people who complain about the injustices done to Sasuke and his clan are the same one who support Taka and them supporting Sasuke and his crimes against pretty much everyone

Yes killing Danzo was a good thing but it was still a crime, Sasuke and Taka joined Akatsuki and tried to kidnap the 8 tails which was a crime against the Cloud village, Sasuke attacked the 5 kage summit and every single kage there making him an international criminal regardless if his goal was just Danzo it was still a risk of them getting involved, Sasuke just being a rogue ninja joining another rogue ninja is a crime, Sasuke attempting to kill all the 5 kage after the war would have been a crime

Yes some injustices can be resolved through violence but that is not the one and ONLY solution, Sasuke going rogue unfortunately even from a narrative standpoint yea it needed to happen for him to train with a Sanin etc but the only way to resolve Konoha’s injustice was to go through the right channels and expose to corruption that was in it, once Sasuke left and started committing crimes he lost the moral high ground and anything he said or did would easily be ignored and just thought of as another crazed Uchiha who deserved to die

You can argue yes but then Naruto and Kakashi could have said something once they found out but by that point it was like Temari said, it was FAR too late for Sasuke and even with the truth revealed how does that excuse his actions at the summit? against Bee? joining Akatsuki? killing Itachi and Danzo MIGHT have been able to be excused but the rest? there's no way that was getting overlooked even with the corruption exposed Sasuke was still just as much in the wrong now

I'm a huge Sasuke fan but even I can acknowledge that not every single one of his actions was 100% right and just, his actions towards the people who actually wronged him WERE in the right, but his actions in everything that didnt? yes he was in the wrong no ifs ands or buts about it

So for those who think Taka is so much better for Sasuke because they supported his criminal actions [except Jugo I believe he’d be fine either way] but not Team 7 who wanted Sasuke to stop his criminal actions and return to his senses and be in a healthy condition again, truly make me wonder if they actually care about Sasuke’s well being or just think everyone who isnt a yes man to everything Sasuke did somehow dont care about his feelings or the injustices done to him and just wanna change him

Yeah, change him for the BETTER not worse, if anything Taka tried to do the opposite of that but hey I guess being a bad influence is better than being a good one

And listen we can go back and forth all day about Sasuke's situation after the war because I agree wholeheartedly that thats bullshit, but realistically speaking the fact that some things about the Uchiha massacre are unresolved like those two elders even being allowed to breathe, realistically speaking what CAN you really do? the Uchihas are dead and the main man responsible is dead and Hiruzen who failed to stop it is also dead so what would exposing everything do at that point? everyone directly involved is DEAD so exposing it really is pointless even if only to clear Itachi’s name which I'm gonna say something alot of you wont like

But the Uchiha’s were not all innocent victims, atleast not the ones involved and planning the coup, yes they were treated unfairly but does that mean the best approach to fixing this is to overthrow the government? how does that make you look? your proving their suspicions of you right by attempting to be the threat they all think you are, that is NOT how you get your point across and demand justice for your clan by planning a coup that would result in many lives lost including your own

Does that mean do nothing? course not, but if you want their trust then you have to EARN it and if you want justice and equality then go on strike and refuse to serve them until their willing to talk and compromise, seriously the Uchiha was a HUGE asset to Konoha so them refusing to obey and offer their services definitely would have gotten their attention and force them to listen and find a compromise, if that didnt work they could have tried spreading the word to fellow citizens and gain their support as I'm pretty sure not EVERYONE in Konoha felt the same way towards them and would have joined their cause for equality

But no, they chose the path of violence and it resulted in their entire clan's downfall and they end up with NOTHING but a bad name, so what did they gain? absolutely nothing, so was it worth it? NO

So lets stop acting like Konoha’s the big bad villain that did nothing but wrong and the Uchiha’s were pure innocent souls that did nothing wrong to deserve what happened to them because Ima say it THEY DID and their downfall was entirely their own fault for their approach, was it right? of course not genocides never ok and just as the Uchihas could have found another method Konoha could have as well so they were both in the wrong not just one or the other

Itachi also isnt a saint for the same reason the Uchiha’s and Konoha isnt and thats choosing the wrong approach to resolving the problems, there were many other paths he could have chosen but he chose the worst ones every time so just clearing Itachi’s name because of his good intentions wouldnt be right because his methods were beyond fucked up on so many levels

So my point is Sasuke was a victim of both sides wrongdoings, Taka didnt help with that at all, Team 7 tried to empathize and tried to understand and console him and save him from himself, its just that Sasuke didnt let them and pushed them away and thats of no fault of theirs since they did try but mainly Sasuke and them being mostly in the dark about everything

Yet Taka knowing almost everything didnt even try to reach out to him or help him cope in any way, Karin you’d think would understand and get through to Sasuke the most, cared more about her lust for him and seeing his ‘smile’ than actually empathizing with him and helping him through the turmoil he was in, Suigetsu made it clear he was out for himself from the start and Jugo is just wholeheartedly loyal to Sasuke no matter what

The fact that in the end, Sasuke makes no attempt to visit them until he needs them for something speaks volumes of his attachment to them, I think Taka thinks more of Sasuke than Sasuke does of them

He didnt even say goodbye to them before he left for his redemption journey nor did he bring them along on his years-long mission which again speaks volumes

So all Im saying is, Taka being the best team for Sasuke and his true friends is complete bull because I have yet to see any argument or reasoning for this be anything other than he chose them and that they went along with everything he did without question

If you have a better reason for why you think this then please share with me I welcome it maybe you can change my mind, but as of right now all the arguments I see is bullshit or occasionally shipping based which isnt a legitimate reason btw, so if you can be civil then I'm all ears

Note: I didnt mention the other Kages because it should be obvious their ways were screwed up as well and ruined a lot of lives, however what does Sasuke’s idea of basically ruling as a dictator resolve? how does that fix and reform the system? Sasuke wont live forever so what happens when he dies? he cant be the enemy that unites everyone once he’s dead and gone it’ll return back to how things were and thus mission failed another Uchiha dies for nothing, Sasuke’s approach to the situation was just a temporary solution not a permanent one and one that wouldnt last long anyway so lets not pretend Sasuke had the best solution to the problem when in all honesty both his and Naruto’s solutions were flawed and it makes sense that they’d work together using both methods rather than one and compromise, again we can argue about Sasuke’s situation after the war all day but fact of the matter is just gotta accept this is what it is and move on, at least Sasuke achieved partially what he wanted which was a bright future for the next generation and the villages to be at peace with one another without the need of a common enemy anymore, are things completely resolved? no, but its progress, and 15 years is nowhere near enough time to fix decades worth of damage so its still a work in progress and will be for a long time

[scholarofstories]

10 Years of Marvellous Women

Favourite Line: ‘I think I had a life here.’

           Many people have said to me they don’t know what Carol’s power is, and when I explained, they told me she was overpowered (‘So Captain Marvel’s basically God?’). Comments like these don’t only disregard Carol’s character, but also the plot of the infinity stones. The stones are thought to have ‘unlimited energy’ or ‘unlimited power’, but it’s never been considered that something or someone could equate to that energy until Infinity War. Wanda and Thor are the closest characters to that sort of power, being thought to be the ones who are thought might destroy the stones during Infinity War. Wanda even succeeds in destroying the mind stone, as her power originated from that stone in the first place, which is returned to in Vison’s statement: ‘I think if it were exposed to a sufficiently powerful energy source, something very similar to its own signature, perhaps...its molecular integrity will fail.’ The definition of ‘integrity’ echoes a lot of what is explained about the infinity stones and Captain Marvel’s personality in her trailer:

Integrity

1 The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.

2 The state of being whole and undivided

           The condition of being unified or sound in construction.

           Internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data.

           Choosing over love and a moral compass is a motif throughout Infinity War, and as far as we have been told, the infinity stones choose a moral compass over love, which is why Thanos supposedly gets the soul stone. This would suggest that whoever created the system of the stones doesn’t care how twisted your moral compass is, as long as your ability to carry out your moral compass’ will is strong. If the stones value the will of a moral compass over the contruct of the moral compass itself, as the idea of ‘will’ is also a key theme in Infinity War either way, that breaks down the amount of power Thanos has over the stones, even if he can use them at his will. Thanos believes that his way is the one way, without actually exploring any other options. He assumes that he is right, however obvious it is to everyone around him and to the audience that he is not. But Thanos is also sadist in the way that he kills people; sometimes killing out of no reason other than malice and cruelty. So, the question is, does the system of the stones care if you choose a personyou love over a moral compass, because it clear that Thanos loves murder. Thanos’ goal is to give more resources to other half of universe that doesn’t die, and his will to forefill that idea is what the system of the stones will be focusing on. Wouldn’t the fact that Thanos has already killed millions offset the universe from his goal of ‘balance’? So, if the stones found someone whose will doesn’t only surpass Thanos, but has love as part of their moral compass (Wanda and Thor are clear examples), wouldn’ the system of the stones choose that person or group of people over Thanos, as he has actually breached the goal of his moral compass multiple times for love?

Enter Carol Danvers.

           Since the stones were created in the beginning of the universe, and they are large entities that represent different aspects of the universe like time, destroying them could potentially have just as bad an impact as Thanos destroying half of the living universe. Doctor Strange and Wong were sworn to protect the time stone, even before they knew Thanos was part of equation. The stones must keep some kind of balance with the universe, or why would Thanos need them to make them suit his idea of balance? So, if the avengers/guardians can’t destroy the infinity stones, then what should they do with them if they take them from Thanos? All the stones have been assigned a power, so someone who can absorb and reabsorb pure energy might overwhelm them, breaking their ‘sound construction’. What if the stones need be overpowered instead of destroyed? Carol can reabsorb energy, so she might be able to reabsorb the power of the infinity stones, and redistribute it to somewhere else. Wouldn’t it be ironic, and the most suitable punishment for Thanos, if the avengers/guardians used the stones as a resource by retributing it,showing Thanos just one in million things he could have done instead of committing mass genocide? They could do very quickly what he has been trying to do for decades. Instead of looking for daughters to torture for years, he could have looked for someone like Wanda, Thor, or Carol, who could manipulate that the energy of the stones to give more resources, without anyone dying. Bringing up Gamora and Nebula is something he thinks he did out ‘love’, but something like raising children takes so much time and energy, taking away time from the goal of his moral compass. Again, Thanos chose ‘love’ over the will of his moral compass. One of the most terrible things is that Thanos may be aware of other choices he could have made, but the joy he gets out of killing may have blinds him. If this is true, then not only does Thanos chose a terrible version of love over his moral compass, but he ignores much more humane, and in many ways practical (which what the system will care about) methods of completing his goal.

        If the system disregards Thanos, what does Carol have that a universe of people doesn’t? What kind person could be associated with ‘energy’, particularly with the Captain Marvel trailer in mind? Since Marvel tend to connect their characters’ powers with their personalities, already cutting Carol out of the ‘overpowered’ idea. If Carol is fleshed out as character, she won’t therefore be overpowered, as the Captain Marvel trailer shows, with echoes other films.

         In The Guardians of the Galaxy, there is a constant motif of people grabbing the power stone. Cabrina grabs the power stone to commit suicide. Ronan grabsthe stone to put into his hammer. Peter Quill grabsthe stone in mid-air in the final battle against Ronan. Wouldn’t you want to handle one of the most powerful energies in the universe delicately? Cabrina wanted to die, Ronan wasn’t intelligent enough to think of the consequences, and in Peter’s situation there was no choice but to reach out and grab the power stone, but that doesn’t stop the motif being in the film, linking it to other Marvel movies.

        The Guardians of the Galaxy explains the infinity stones to the audience, while Captain Marvel plans to explain the character who is meant to challenge the stones. One of the main segments of the Captain Marvel trailer is that there are constant cuts in the Captain Marvel trailer to Carol making a fist. Thanos also had to close his fist with the gauntlet to activate the power of a stone in Infinity War; a film which shows each stone’s power being used. Doesn’t it seem appropriate to have the same motif in the films that explains the creation of the infinity stones, what effect they can potentially have, and how to overpower them?

       A fist can symbolise strength, which links the idea of the infinity stones having ‘unlimited power’. But are power and strength the same? A fist’s symbolism of defiance/resistance, which also fits in well in what the audience have been shown of Carol’s characterisation, and so the idea there is a parallel between her personality and her power works. Since Captain Marvel is going to be an origin story, her personality can be explored and fleshed out in full detail.

        The sun hides part of the images of Carol’s flashbacks to her training in the air force and later when she flying the spaceship, bringing back the idea of energy. The main mentions of the sun in Infinity War are Loki’s line ‘the sun will rise on us again’ and Thanos’ line ‘I’ll watch the sun rise on a grateful universe.’ Both lines could easily be foreshadowing Carol’s return.

With the air force flashbacks in mind, there is the idea that to have energy, you also need resistance. The ‘fall down seven times, stand up eight’ mindset rings true for Carol. She’s shown to fall several times with her energy sparking from her hand in one shot. In that moment her power is exposed. She’s vulnerable. However, she stands up for each time she falls, with two more fists. She fights back, in spite of vulnerability and the chance she might fall again.

        Thor and Wanda have the same mindset throughout previous films. Thor goes to save his people in Thor Ragnarok and builds Stormbreaker in Infinity War, despite several characters telling him it was impossible. Wanda’s line ‘I can’t control their fear, only my own’ shows the same resistance when Vison told her that if she left with Clint, people would only fear her. All three characters have the same self-strength inside them to manage the amount of physical energy they actually have.

          The flashbacks also bring attention to Carol’s identity with the military. Fury and Coulson were not picked out of hat to be in the film. Carol says to Fury when asked where she came from: ‘it’s hard to explain. I see flashes. I think I had a life here.’ The scene with Carol’s training shown during her explanation, reminding us the reason she is so honest in telling Fury about her backstory. Being both trained in the military, there is a mutual understanding between them. Many of the Avengers have military training (Cap, Sam, Rhodey, Bucky etc), so it also makes her good uniting force in Avengers 4.

         Fury also calls Carol a ‘renegade soldier’, and since Carol is shown as a prisoner, he seems to be right. She’s a captive (assumedly by the Kree), which makes sense if she was going to warn Earth about the Kree’s planned invasion. It is also worth noting that Carol is specifically is held by electrical current at her head. There is a chance that they’re wiping her memories of Earth, so she doesn’t feel the need to save it.  She is, after all, shown to have a life with the Kree in the trailer, and she may have seen something she wasn’t meant to, or did something against the Kree’s will.

          Will and determination link to Carol’s power of energy. Assuming the Kree took away her memories, Carol still had the will to remember them. She wanted her memories back, regardless of what the Kree wanted. She wantedto come to Earth, regardless of defying the Kree. It looks as though she ticks the box of having a sound moral compass that is shaped out of love, and so she breaking the system of stones. Thanos never he does what he is doing out of love: it’s not a part of his moral compass. According to him, he wants a better future for the universe, but that doesn’t equate to love. If it did, he wouldn’t have considered the idea of genocide. He enjoys torturing and murdering the people in universe he thinks he cares about so much. He even says ‘fun is something considered when balancing the universe, but this does put a smile on my face.’  

       The will of Carol’s moral compass is projected through her energy is ultimately what’s going to defeat Thanos, because it is made out of love. Again, Thor and Wanda definitely both have that quaility, which is what why they will also likely have important role in defeating of Thanos (time travel might mean Wanda is resected). But because Carol has pure energy, her power will have the most similar ‘signature’ of energy to all infinity stones, instead of just one like Wanda.

       Carol may be the closest being to not only equal to the power of an infinity stone, but to overpower them to extent where she may have will power over what they do, even without the gauntlet. ‘Higher. Further. Faster.’weren’t chosen likely. She excels beyond what the infinity stones can do, because the infinity stones do not have free will. The system that they were built around dictates what they do. They can be personified as shown in Age of Ultron, but only with the help of another being. Unlike Thor, Wanda, and Carol, the infinity stones do not have their own purpose or will. They constantly need to be willed by someone else. Thor and Wanda’s power and will were shown in Infinity War, but they never combined their powers together. Doctor Strange, who has seen the one future where they defeat the infinity stones, told Thanos ‘I think you’ll find our will equates to yours.’ Those may have been more carefully selected words than first appears. At this point in the MCU, the heroes will equatesto Thanos’. They need Carol to make their will excel past his, and do that, she need to create unity that was broken in Civil War, as well as use her power with Thor and Wanda to win against him, to the point where they overpower the unity that the gauntlet gives the stones, breaking their integrity (‘the state of being whole or undivided).

      The infinity stones can’t be destroyed, but maybe they can be controlled with the will Carol’s energy. She might be able to make contact with the stones and take the resistance within them, and Wanda and Thor together will finish them. Wanda, Thor, and Carol may very well be the Holy Trinity that saves the universe from Thanos’ will.  Tony, Vison, and Thor had a similar combination of powers to defeat Ultron, and with theme of time travel, the idea of history repeating fits in well. Vison and Tony’s will was also a big focus in Infinity Warand in previous films, suggesting that kind of will is very likely one reasons that avengers/guardians succeed. Tony’s will to protect others has been one of key features of the MCU. In Age of Ultron, Vison’s will meant that he wouldn’t allow himself to become ‘Ultron’s child’, and by doing so, turns the Battle of Sokovia in the Avengers favour. The message may echo in the fourth Avengers film. Thanos may see the sun rise over a ‘grateful universe’, but it might not be the sun he had in mind.

[whentheynameyoujoy]

Kylo Ren Is Getting a Zuko Redemption Arc, and This Reylo Shipper Is Anything but Thrilled by It

If you’ve been around for the past two years and participated in discussions about the Star Wars sequels, you might have encountered people who said something like this:

„Boy, this Darth Vader look-alike sure resembles Prince Zuko, doesn’t he?”

It’s certainly a flattering comparison since Zuko’s story features what is generally considered one of the best redemption arcs ever portrayed in any medium. For those who happen to be unfamiliar with Avatar: The Last Airbender (well first, what the hell is wrong with you, stop reading this and go watch right now, it’s awesome), here’s a spoiler-heavy summary:

Prince Zuko is the crown prince of the Fire Nation, an authoritarian regime which has been waging war and genocide on the other elemental nations for the past 100 years. Mutilated and banished by his tyrannical father at the age of 14 for speaking against a military plan that would see a division of young recruits cynically sacrificed, Zuko spends the next three years wandering the world with his uncle Iroh and trying to “restore his honor” by accomplishing the impossible task given to him by his father: capture the Avatar, a lost godlike being, the last airbender, and the only one who can defeat the Fire Nation. After the Avatar actually resurfaces, Zuko relentlessly pursues him which includes things like repeated kidnappings or burning down a village. Then, circumstances beyond his control force him to stop the pursuit and go into hiding. During this time, he’s forced to see how the war has destroyed the lives of ordinary people. At a moment when he finally starts to come to terms with the idea of being an unimportant exile, he’s faced with a crucial choice: either join the Avatar, or help his psychotic sister Azula and get everything he’s been trying to achieve. He chooses Azula which results in Avatar’s temporary death and Zuko’s return to the Fire Nation where he’s hailed as a hero. However, the victory feels hollow: he’s rejected by his beloved uncle who feels Zuko lost his way and chose evil; Zuko’s inner turmoil remains as he’s starting to realize he’s made a horrible mistake and his father will never love him no matter what; and finally, he cannot reconcile the idea of his nation’s greatness with all the suffering he’s witnessed around the world. At last, Zuko realizes he’s been trying to destroy his true compassionate self in favor of becoming someone he doesn’t want to be anymore. After confronting his father, he joins the Avatar, helps him end the war, reconciles with Iroh, and devotes the rest of his life to righting the wrongs his country committed.

As you can see, there’s a LOT of similarities between Zuko and Kylo Ren, both story and character-wise. In fact, there’s so many of them it sometimes feels like Avatar must have been playing in the background when J. J. Abrams was developing the character of Kylo Ren:

Both Zuko and Kylo Ren start their respective stories as clear antagonists, yet it soon becomes apparent they’re complicated people with complicated motivations;

Both are commanding, domineering, and wear their emotions on their sleeve: they’re impulsive, hot-headed, arrogant, and socially awkward;

Both have a penchant for making stupid decisions that sabotage them;

Both have the exact same plethora of psychological issues, be it mommy and daddy issues, or severe anger-management issues;

Both are privileged people of high standing: one is a crown prince, the other a member of the most important bloodline in the galaxy;

Both struggle with feelings of inadequacy as they compare themselves to those more accomplished than them (Azula in Zuko’s case, Darth Vader in Kylo’s);

The lives of both are controlled by an authoritative father-figure who doesn’t care about them (Ozai for Zuko, Snoke for Kylo);

Both have people on their side of the conflict who are trying to usurp their position (Hux in Star Wars, Azula and Zhao in Avatar);

Both have close relatives who physically harmed them (Ozai burned Zuko’s face, Luke seriously considered killing young Ben);

Both have close relatives who try and fail to turn them to the good side (Iroh and Han Solo, respectively);

Both hunt down a vanished, almost mythical enemy who’s perceived as the only threat to the regime they’re propping up (Aang and Luke, respectively);

Both do many highly questionable things to achieve their highly questionable goals, some of those things being downright identical;

Both mirror the hero and feel profoundly connected to them;

Both are constantly struggling with their understanding of right and wrong and feel like they’re being pulled in two opposing directions;

After being pulled closer “to the light” and becoming morally greyer, both are offered to join “the good guys” and both refuse; both are soon plagued by this decision and are written off as a lost cause by the people most important to them (Iroh and Rey, respectively).

Assuming that the parallel continues to hold up in Episode IX as it’s done until now, it’s not inconceivable that Kylo Ren will eventually make a deliberate, unprompted, principled decision to leave his role as an antagonist despite the developments in The Last Jedi. Just as Zuko at the end of the second season, Kylo Ren is now in a position where he wasted all the good will others were willing to extend to him. Instead of choosing what he perceived as second best, he dug in his heels on the side of evil in order to get what he thought he wanted; yet if the ending is anything to go by, his inner turmoil rages as strongly as ever, even though he’s now literally the most powerful person in the galaxy.

Additionally, the sequels have been strongly hinting at a redemption arc since the very beginning with the deliberate comparisons between Kylo Ren and Darth Vader. I mean, if Anakin “The Genocidal Fascist Child Killer” Skywalker could be redeemed, then why not Ben “Linkin Park Blares Whenever I Enter The Room” Solo?

It goes deeper than that, though: for two movies now, the series has been implying that the general understanding of what it means “to maintain the balance of the Force” is not only seriously flawed, but may be actually THE cause of the in-universe strife. Up until The Force Awakens, “the dark” and “the light” have essentially served as a shorthand for “good” and “evil”; to restore balance simply meant eradicating evil. Yet in the sequels we have a conflicted antagonist who constantly feels the calling of the light, and an equally powerful protagonist who has a natural connection to the darkness (it’s also worth noting that due to her passionate nature, Rey is a horrible candidate for becoming a member of what is an order of celibate monks repressing their basic humanity). Furthermore, Luke’s inability to accept the darkness within his nephew due to his own simplistic worldview of “pure good fights pure evil” pushed Ben away and solidified his turn to the dark side. Kylo later suggests to Rey a complete rejection of the past, both of the Sith and the Jedi, which is echoed by Yoda’s destruction of the Jedi sanctuary and his claim that the Jedi have nothing to teach Rey.

As shown by the events of the past eight movies, neither good or evil can be permanently done away with, and if they try, it will have destructive consequences (see the resolution of the throne room scene in TLJ).

Thematically, it simply makes no sense for Kylo Ren and Rey not to meet somewhere in the middle and usher in a new future where a more yin-yang interpretation of the Force is accepted.

So all is good and well, right?

Yeah, about that…

(cut into two parts due to length)

[metallicarules5]

Had there not been 3 full seasons of development of Katara and Aang’s relationship, and had their not been documented evidence that their relationship was ingrained in the show’s DNA and part of the plan from the beginning, then fine, you might argue that it was just done to fulfill a particular trope. But here’s the thing, that’s not why it happened. Sure it can still fulfill that trope, but that’s not a satisfying argument because it does have the development to support it. And I highly doubt that Avatar being a kid’s show had anything to do with it, mainly because that barrier never stopped the writers and creators from including everything else. This was a show that, within the first three episodes, depicted genocide, the main hero coming to the realization that he’s all that’s left of his people and culture, imperialism, sexism, and early hintings of Zuko’s abusive relationship with his father. The rest of the show goes into several of those themes much more in depth, and tackles more on top of it, including Zuko’s redemption arc. So it doesn’t make sense that the writers all of a sudden would chicken out and just have them get together because it’s a supposed safe option and that they felt the audience couldn’t handle it. It doesn’t add up with everything else in the show. 

The enemies to lovers thing in regards to Zuko and Katara just doesn’t work in the context of the show. To my understanding and interpretation, the basic premise of the enemies to lovers trope is that there are two characters that start off as enemies (obviously), and they are either forced to work together or end up on the same side, and in doing so, come together in realizing their similarities that eventually result in them getting together. Another interpretation is that the enemies to lovers has one of the characters play some sort of role in the character arc or development of the other, that their change from enemy to something more can be largely attributed to the other character’s influence. The first one, on the surface, could be Zutara, but doesn’t hold up to further scrutiny, and the second has no application whatsoever. 

In regards to the first one, yes, the two bond over the loss of their mothers in Crossroads of Destiny, and eventually start working together when Zuko joins the group in Season 3 despite Katara’s continuing distrust towards him. But the main issue, and this goes as well for a lot of enemies to lovers relationships in general, is that it doesn’t magically erase the wrongs that were committed in the past. Can they be forgiven, sure, and we see that in The Southern Raiders, but it doesn’t erase them completely. And when Zuko does finally join the group at the end of The Western Air Temple, there’s 10 episodes left in the series, four of which are the finale, one is a recap, and 3 have Zuko with either Aang or Sokka. One is spent with Katara, and the overall point of the episode was tracking down Katara’s mother’s killer. The only other times Zuko and Katara had one on one interactions with each other were The Waterbending Scroll (where he kidnaps her and tries to bribe her), Siege of the North (where they fight), Crossroads (the first time there was any non-antagonistic interaction between the two), and Part 2 of the finale (before Zuko goes into Iroh’s tent). So in reality, we really didn’t see Zuko and Katara working together all that much, in fact, they barely shared any actual screen time. Even their conversation in Crossroads, after Katara originally brings up her mother, isn’t even shown. It shows her yelling at him, cuts to a couple different scenes, and then her apologizing, but we never actually saw the context of it, it happened off screen. The first time we actually see them fight alongside each other was during the training in Part 1 (Southern Raiders doesn’t count since Katara did most of the fighting in the episode and it was mainly her journey, Zuko was there mainly as backup). Even the Agni Kai had them fighting Azula separately. Compared to the amount of times we have seen Aang and Katara work together, them share in emotional and supportive moments, them help each other in their lowest points, I just don’t see the comparison. Hell, I’d argue Zuko and Aang would fit this trope better, considering Zuko and him working together in The Blue Spirit, Aang’s mercy in Siege of the North, them being foils for each other, Aang being the first to accept him into the group, and them working together in their field trip episode. Why aren’t we shipping them together (don’t answer, it’s rhetorical)? 

The second definition just doesn’t work for the relationship they did have. Some enemies to lovers involves one of the characters playing a sort of pivotal role in the other’s character’s main arc and transition from enemy to ally. They aide in their redemption and show them another way (note that this is not to be interpreted as being only a prop for the other character’s journey, but another aspect to their character as a whole). This has absolutely no tie in to Zuko and Katara, because Katara had no role in Zuko’s character arc as a whole. When we look back at Zuko’s character, we can easily pinpoint the moments, and characters, both positive and negative, that led him to his climactic decision in The Day of Black Sun to finally change sides. No where in there does Katara, or anything she does, play a role. We know the impact characters like Iroh, or Ursa, or even Azula (in a negative way) played and how they shaped him as a person that eventually led him to his conclusion. Moments like the entirety of Zuko Alone and his time back in the Fire Nation are essential to him seeing that the way he was raised, that the Fire Nation was superior, that they were sharing their wealth and success with the rest of the world, was nothing more than lies. Largely absent from that list, is Katara, because again, they didn’t really share that much time together, they didn’t have any moments of deep character reflection or growth because of the other. Katara didn’t aid Zuko on his journey, and Zuko didn’t change Katara. When you look at Aang and Katara, their relationship is defined by them helping each other. Katara helped Aang become more mature and accept his responsibility as the Avatar. Aang helped Katara loosen up and remind her how to be a kid. Both supported each other, both admired and promoted their strengths, and both respected the other because of it. Aang and Katara had that foundation, it had that base that allowed for their relationship to grow and expand, Zuko and Katara just never had that.

A common argument that I hear alongside the main hero get the girl trope is that Katara became nothing more than a trophy for Aang, a reward for his journey. Not only is that incredibly belittling to Katara’s character, and Aang’s for that matter, it’s just plain untrue for the reasons I listed above. However, I do find that if Zuko and Katara had ended up together, this argument would fit more, again, for what I just said. Katara doesn’t play that large a role in Zuko’s arc, nor he for her growth and development, but they just end up with each other despite such little time together. It feels like Reylo all over again.

But that’s in regards to the “enemies to lovers” argument, I’ll try and be a bit more brief with my thoughts and opinions on the rest of your post. 

You acknowledged what is wrong with the “Katara is motherly to Aang” argument in your post, she does it with everyone. She did it with Sokka, she did it with Toph, she did it to Aang, and hell, I can argue that her encouraging Zuko to go see Iroh in the tent was being quite motherly towards him as well, so you can add him to that. It stands to reason then, that Katara is not motherly to Aang because she views him as her son or because they just have that dynamic, but because that’s just who Katara is. She had to grow up fast after the death of her mother, she took on that responsibility for her family and the tribe, and she was doing that for years. It turned her into the great character that she is, someone who is kind, nurturing, has a strong sense of right and wrong, protective, etc. It’s who she is, and it comes to her naturally. That was the premise of an entire episode in Season 3 with The Runaway, Katara can be overly motherly, and while Toph originally criticizes her for it, she also says it’s one of the things she admires most about her because she never got that treatment from her own mother. It’s the reason I can’t stand this argument and why it doesn’t apply to Katara and Aang’s relationship. Especially when one can point to moments in the show where Katara does show her feelings towards Aang and how they go far deeper than any mother/son dynamic, and what she has with other characters in the show. And again, Aang was the one that helped her break out of that. She was still motherly, but she never got to have a childhood because of the events that happened to her. When Aang tells her that she’s still is a kid in the first episode, he’s right. Aang promotes the aspects of Katara that make her who she is, but he still helps her ease up and have fun, something she didn’t have for years before he showed up. They support and benefit each other. 

“I mean, he even let her touch his scar, which is something we don’t see anyone else, even Mai, his girlfriend, do.”

You want to try that again? And besides, you’re ignoring the context of the scene. Katara offered to heal Zuko’s scar with the water she got from the Northern Oasis, so of course Zuko allowed her to touch it, the scene had no romantic context of chemistry. The scene above has Mai holding his scar affectionately, no other motivation than that, and Zuko allows it. Compared to the Earth Kingdom woman who helps him and Iroh out in Season 2, where he immediately grabs her hand as she starts reaching to touch his scar, him allowing Mai to touch it here with no other motivation has much more impact than Katara. But fine, Katara touched someone’s scar, like she didn’t do that with someone else. 

“When Aang and Iroh suddenly burst into the room, the two instinctively stop closer, as if to protect each other. Why would someone want protect a former enemy and almost total stranger, you might ask, except if you cared for their well being?”

Look, I know Avatar is a deep show, but it’s not THAT deep. I’m sorry, but this is nothing. I just rewatched the scene, that does not happen at all. She steps forward a little bit, but certainly not in a protective sense. If there was an explosion that happened right behind you, chances are your first and natural reaction would be to jump forward a little bit. But mostly, her movement was to turn her head to the side and look over to the source of the explosion. I’m less inclined to believe that she jumped to “protect” Zuko because of who I know worked on the episode. It was directed by Michael Dante Dimartino, the co-creator who had planned on Aang and Katara with the rest of the writers. The writer of the episode was head writer Aaron Ehasz, who has had to come out multiple times to tell people he did not write the scene in a romantic sense, that he didn’t support Zutara, and that he has no complaints about how the series ended. 

“Later, when Zuko finally joins them, it’s Katara who is the most hurt over his betrayal. Because it was betrayal...”

Yeah, that’s kind of a normal human reaction to being betrayed. Again, Katara is very protective, not only of the people she cares about (she outright threatened to murder Zuko if she thought he would come even close to hurting Aang), but her emotions. As hopeful as she is, she keeps things close and tight knit. She had been holding in her anger at her father for years and broke down in front of him, and when she goes to find her mother’s killer, all the anger and pain she’s been holding onto for several years is finally coming to the surface. So when Zuko, someone that had actively chased them around the world, had thought might have finally turned over a new leaf, only to side with Azula and come back a couple of months later saying he’s for real this time, yeah, she’s going to be distrustful of him and feel betrayed. That’s not a sign of romance, that’s just an understandable reaction and who Katara is. 

“And then, don’t get me started on the Agni Kai. I mean, solely the fact that Zuko risked his life and threw himself in front of the lighting is like,,,,you don’t risk your life for just about anyone. And yeah, it can be argued that Zuko would do that for anyone from the Gaang, which I believe he would...”

First off, the intention was to get in the way to redirect it, but due to him being off balance and not being able to ground himself, he was unable to do so. Sure you can still argue it was self-sacrificing, but not to the extent you’re making it out to be. The intention wasn’t “I will die in her place,” but “I need to stop you from hurting my friend.” Secondly, again, you just went against your whole argument, you acknowledge he would have done it for anyone. He helped Sokka sneak into the most maximum security prison in the Fire Nation (run by his girlfriend’s uncle), allowed himself to be captured, and risked their own escape plan to help Sokka try and find his dad, with no guarantee that they would and that they would be throwing away their once chance to escape. He did that for Sokka, who he barely knew and had even less screen time with before those episodes, I feel pretty confident he would have done exactly what he did had anyone else been there, even without them showing it. 

“What we see is him throwing himself in front of Katara and I think there must be a reson why the show writers decided to go for that particular scene.”

Yeah, because it’s the culmination and conclusion of his character arc. The Zuko in episode 1 would never have done anything along the lines like that for anyone, not even Iroh I’d imagine. Having a moment like this shows not only how far he’s come, but fulfills what Iroh said to him in Part 2. “Someone new must take the throne. An idealist with a pure heart and unquestionable honor. It has to be you, Prince Zuko...You've struggled; you've suffered, but you have always followed your own path. You restored your own honor, and only you can restore the honor of the Fire Nation.” Zuko is that man of unquestionable honor, we’ve seen that since the first episode when he defied the general’s plan to send rookie soldiers onto the front lines as a distraction. It was after the Agni Kai that he became confused and disillusioned with what he thought was right, where he thought he lost his honor. His mistakes have finally brought him to this moment and confrontation with Azula, who has shown her own dishonorable qualities before (her deception and lies, attacking Iroh so she could escape after she surrender), all for it to be shown in the final Agni Kai. Azula attacking Katara is just another dishonorable action, Zuko trying to protect her was an act of unquestionable honor. And that’s also how I know he would have done it for anyone else. This is also my response to you questioning why Azula would have done this. She cheated, plain and simple. It was dishonorable for her to attack Katara, but that’s who Azula always has been (again, attacking Iroh to escape). 

“That is, unless she thought attacking Katara really would hit differently for Zuko and give her the upper hand.”

Why would she think that? Even if everything you said was true, Azula would not have any knowledge of any of this. She was never there with Katara and Zuko in the catacombs, she wasn’t there during their time at the temple or in The Southern Raiders. I don’t even think Azula knows Katara’s name. How could she have possibly known about any sort of relationship, platonic or otherwise, between Katara and Zuko? Azula attacked her because she hoped it would give her an advantage, but it has nothing to do with it being Katara there. Much like with the lightning, had that been anyone else there, the same thing would have happened. 

“Even when we do get a few Kataang moments in season 3, they are always initiated by Aang while Katara seems kinda reluctant until that very last scene in 3.21.”

All of these are scenes of Katara reciprocating Aang’s feelings or her initiating moments. I can still provide more. 

“It seems as if the show writers intended for it to be canon, yet changed their minds somewhere along the lines towards the end of show.”

By the time the show had entered production and the storyline was pretty much set in stone, it was always meant to be Katara and Aang, as confirmed by the creators. 

“I even dare believe that, if they had decided to go through with book four instead of the sequel comics and LOK, Zutara would have been endgame”

There was never going to be a Book 4. The creators always intended it to be 3 seasons, Aaron Ehasz has also dispelled the idea that a Season 4 was cancelled or was going to be made (he has mentioned that some story ideas had been discussed, but it never went further than that and that a 4th book was never seriously considered at any point), and Bryan Konietzko recently confirmed that the rumor of a planned 4th season was false. 

Zutara is real you can’t convince me otherwise

[avelera]

Maggie analyzes Voltron Season 3, episode 1...

--

Including analysis of Prince Lotor’s introduction:

So far this episode’s opening is  a bit heavy on the exposition and telegraphing of what everyone has been doing and thinking since Shiro went missing. There’s also been a couple of awkward transitions of dialogue like “oh, btw, how is that main plotline going??” non-sequiturs when random people ask why the paladins can’t perform their emotional plotline - which is form Voltron/find Shiro.

That being said, I’m actually overall ok with all that. It really is the difference between adult and children’s programming where we need to be a lot clearer about what everyone is thinking and feeling, in my writing class it was basically summarized as the need to use “signposts” more in children’s fiction to guide the audience through what they’re supposed to be thinking and feeling about all this. This is in contrast to adult programming, which puts a greater emphasis on allowing the adult viewer to draw their own conclusions when presented with the more subtle actions and thoughts of the characters. 

That being said, this is also a first episode of a new season, which means they need to catch people up after several months away, and get everyone up to speed as quickly as possible. I’ve seen shows for adults that were far more awkward at the start of a new season when it comes to the reminder info-dumps. So actually Voltron is doing a very good job given its constraints.

What got me thinking about this was the “palace intrigue” scene where Galra Whathisname “He clearly isn’t going to matter because his character design isn’t interesting or distinct enough” decides to have a “secret” meeting in a public stadium to solicit his fellow officers to join him in a coup. The dialogue is painfully on the nose as he lays out a children’s version of a palace political plot, but because I eat plotlines like this up with a spoon and some whipped cream it was actually instructive to see how a children’s show introduces the idea of complex political backstabbing by having the characters be as blunt about their intentions as possible.

That conversation also gave an interesting, if blatant, opportunity for an info dump about Prince Lotor. Lotor has been a subject of controversy since he was announced, since there’s such a broad range of possibilities on the kind of person he could be. He could be even more evil than Zarkon, a sort of Ramsay Bolton of sadism, or he could be a total good guy who instantly aligns with everything the Paladin good guys believe (the latter seeming less likely since it prevents us from having a character arc). Every shade of gray in between was possible, and the fandom tied itself into knots with speculation. 

During the Palace Intrigue dialogue we learned a lot of details very quickly:

- Lotor is a political outlier - specifically, he stands at odds with the more warlike and conservative Galra planning this coup. He has liberal views of racial purity which are not limited to pureblood Galra, and often allows planets to rule themselves. So, he’s being set up to be a good guy, or at least a lighter shade of gray. 

Every since the Blade of Marmora was introduced, a lot of things have started to make sense in the VLD universe. Like with Avatar: the Last Airbender’s Fire Nation, we have an “evil” nation that has taken over a diverse world. However, since the bad guys aren’t zombies or otherwise mindless monsters, we probably can’t commit genocide in a children’s show in order to get rid of them all and free the universe. Which means there must be good Galra out there to whom the good guys can hand over the original Galra territories after the other worlds are freed. The Blade of Marmora was our first hint of this sort of schism existing within the Galra Empire which allows for a happy ending with Good Galra ruling. It adds a shade of complexity to the Galra which is an opportunity for drama - they must fight enemies from within as well as the paladins.

- Lotor is a half-breed, but most Galra don’t know this. 

Lotor was a half-breed in the original Voltron show, and that’s hinted at with the note that his closest officers are also half-breeds. So, it’s likely he is as well, but this fact is hidden. This likely means Haggar is in fact his mother, and since her true origin as Altean is hidden, Lotor’s must be as well (which also, interestingly, means Galra and Alteans can interbreed). 

This also sets up Lotor to be Keith’s foil, at least for a time. Without Shiro, Keith has clearly been set up as the show’s main character, which means the new introduction of a villain is going to be someone who opposes him but also mirrors him. In my opinion, Lotor is being set up as more of a “Zuko” villain, he’s going to fight the Paladins but mostly because he’s been told to and as he gets to know them better their differences will decline until, most likely, he ends up as an ally or at least a sympathetic enemy. Which brings me to the next observation:

- Lotor presents himself as honorable and representing the best qualities of the martial Galra culture. 

Lotor is a fighter. In his display in the stadium, he announced himself as someone who won’t stab you in the back, but he will cleverly stab you in the front. He doesn’t just confront Galra Whatshisname about his intended coup in private, even though he he already knew about it, and instead challenged him in a public place in a way designed to win the crowd and loyalty. So, Lotor’s a tactician of the mind as well as of warfare. We know he’s a warrior, he wants to expand the Empire but he does so in a way that lets people rule themselves, implying that he sees this manner as more efficient anyway (whether or not he sees it as morally better). 

So he’s presenting himself as someone who holds to the original “values” of the Galra Empire, its raison d’etre, which have since been corrupted by absolute dominance and power. The Galra couldn’t have expanded as far as they did if they didn’t at least seem like the good guys at first, which means they had a national myth they told themselves and their subjects about how their Empire spreading was a good thing, and I think Lotor buys into that mindset and still operates with it, even as many more jaded and cynical Galra including Zarkon are really just about the power and have no altruistic beliefs in their Empire anymore.

Edit: Ok I had to edit this a bit after finishing the episode. Lotor probably has a cynical view of the original Empire’s expansion. So, he may on some level believe that loyalty is a better way to expand the empire, but he may just see that as efficiency too. Either way, for practical reasons he’s a more reasonable despot than Zarkon, which is at least a little bit of an improvement?

So basically: Lotor is everything a Good Imperial Galra can be at this stage of the show. He’s still opposed to the Paladins because he’s still a wiling agent of the Empire’s expansion, but he can mostly likely be talked down from this eventually, unlike Zarkon. He’s probably being set up to rule the “Good” Galra Empire in the future OR to be the Black Paladin, albeit temporarily. He’s clever and devious too, which is something of a gray virtue, but at the moment he’s using it to defeat the REAL bad guys which are Galra hardliners, so I’d still say he’s set up to be a Good Imperial Galra, even if he is somewhat two-faced.

Lotor’s speech confirms pretty much his entire worldview: being overly aggressive is a weakness that is costing the Empire. This is his character’s opening mission statement - it allows him to be an adversary without being a monster. He’s still an aristocrat though, he has benefited from the system, and he speaks in elevated tones. He’s clever and devious, not above manipulating public opinion through grandstanding and we’re not entirely sure yet what his deeply held beliefs are. 

Actually, he could just as easily be the foil to Allura, he talks like her and looks quite a bit like her too. He’s clearly inherited some of the Altean skill at diplomacy, which he uses to blindside his more blunt Galra political enemies. An interesting  and formidable combination of skills.

However, he’s not naive, he doesn’t keep potential traitors around. So, he’s clever, devious, and two-faced. He’s got some things to learn to be a good guy.

His followers are good guys:

- They have a cat - pets are quick visual shorthand that people are good guys in any fiction medium. 

- They’re half-breeds, which means they’re probably not Galra hardliners.

- They’re women! Honestly, they’re the first women we’ve seen on the Galra side besides Haggar. Which implies that Galra don’t have their own women, maybe? All the women are half-breeds? I’m not sure but it’s something I’ll keep an eye out for.

A couple final notes:

- I was totally wrong. I thought the Galra Keith fought was his own mother, but I guess people were right that it really was Lotor. Damn I hate being wrong.

- I expect a ton of Keith/Lotor stuff guys. He’s giving off a serious Sesshomaru vibe, he’s going to be shipped with everyone.

- If they don’t put Allura in the Black Lion I’m going to be seriously peeved. 

[newsnigeria]

Check out New Post published on Ọmọ Oòduà

New Post has been published on http://ooduarere.com/news-from-nigeria/world-news/the-war-makers/

The War-makers

[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]

Between the US strikes on Syria in April and the recent developments on the Korean Peninsula, we are in somewhat of a lull in the Empire’s search for a new war to start. The always helpful Israelis, in the person of the ineffable Bibi Netanyahu, are now beating the drums for, well, if not a war, then at least some kind of false flag or pretext to make the USA strike at Iran. And then there is the always bleeding Donbass (which I won’t address in today’s analysis). So let’s see where we stand and try to guesstimate where we might be heading. To be honest, trying to guess what ignorant warmongering psychopaths might do next is by definition a futile exercise, but since there are some not negligible signs that there are at least a few rational people still left in the US White House and/or Pentagon (as shown by the mostly “pretend strikes” on Syria last month), we can assume (hope) that some residual degree of sanity is still present. At the very least Americans in uniform have to ask themselves a very basic and yet fundamental question:

Do I want to die for Israel? Do I want to lose my job for Israel? How about my pension? Maybe just my stock options? Is it worth risking a major regional war for such a “wonderful” state?

A lot depends on whether the US military leaders (and people!) will have the courage to ask themselves this question and, if they do, what their reply will be.

But, first, let’s begin with the good news:

The DPRK and ROK are in direct talks with each other.

This is indeed a truly great development for at least two reasons. First, of course, the main and objective one: anything which lowers the risks of war on the Korean Peninsula is good. But there is a second reason which we should not discount: Trump can now take all the credit for this and claim that his (empty) threats are what brought the North Koreans to the negotiating table. I say – let him. In fact, I hope that they organize a parade for Trump somewhere in the USA, with confetti and millions of flags. Like for an astronaut. Let him feel triumphant, vindicated and very, very manly. MAGA, you know?!

Yeah, that will be sickening to the thinking (not to mention counter-factual), but if a little bit of intellectual nausea is the price to pay for peace, I say let’s do it. If Trump, Bolton, Haley and the rest of them can feel that they “kicked ass” and that their “invincible military” is what brought “Rocket Man” to “give up his nukes” (he never said any such thing, but never mind that) then I sincerely wish them a joyful and highly ego-pleasing celebration. Anything to stop them from looking for another war to start, at least for a now.

Now the bad news.

The Israelis are at it again

Amazing, isn’t it? The Israelis have been whining about “imminent” Iranian nukes for years, and they are still at it. Not only that, but these guys have the nerve to say “Iran lied”. Seriously, even by the already unique Israeli standards, that is chutzpah elevated to a truly stratospheric level. If it were just Bibi Netanyahu, then this would be comical. But the problem is that Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.

So what are these guys really up to? Listen to the one man who knows them best, and whose every single word you can take to the bank, Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah (ever wondered why Hezbollah, which has not committed anything even remotely looking like a terrorist attack since the 1980s is called the “A-Team of terrorists”? Just saying…):

The first event is the Israeli blatant and manifest aggression against the T-4 base or airport on the outskirts of Homs, that targeted Iranian forces from the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution of Iran who were present there, hitting them with a large number of missiles, causing 7 martyrs among its officers and soldiers and wounding others. This was a new, significant and important event. Maybe some people do not pay attention to its importance and magnitude. In this operation, Israel has deliberately killed (Iranian soldiers). This is an unprecedented event. In the past, Israel has struck us [Hezbollah] for example in Quneitra, and it turned out that coincidentally Guardians [of the Islamic Revolution] officers were with us. Israel declared hastily that they did not know it, and thought that all (targeted soldiers) were Hezbollah’s. This is an event that has no precedent since 7 years, it is unprecedented since 7 years, that Israel openly targets the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution in Syria, killing deliberately, in an operation that caused a number of martyrs and wounded (…) I want to tell the Israelis that they must know – I wrote that statement accurately and I read it to them – they must know that they have committed a historic mistake. This is not a simple blunder. They committed an act of great stupidity, and by this aggression, they entered in a direct confrontation with Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran. And Iran, O Zionists, is not a small country, it is not a weak country, and it is not a cowardly country. And you know it very well. As a comment on this incident, I stress that it constitutes a turning point in the situation of the region. What follows will be very different from what preceded it. This is an incident that cannot be considered lightly, contrary to what happens with many incidents here. It is a turning point, a historic turning point. And when the Israelis committed this stupid act, they had some assessment (of the situation), but I tell them that their evaluation is false. And even in the future, since you have opened a new path in the confrontation, (you should ensure) not to be wrong in your evaluations. In this new path you opened and initiated, don’t be wrong in your assessment, when you are face to face, and directly (in conflict) with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I can only agree with this evaluation. As does The Jerusalem Post, NBC News, and many others. Regardless of how crazy this notion might sound to rational people (see below), there are all the signs that the Israelis are now demanding that the USA start a war against Iran, either by choice or more likely, to “stand by our Israeli allies and friends” after they attack Iran first.

Israel is truly a unique and amazing country: not only does it openly and brazenly completely ignore international law, not only is it the last overtly racist country on the planet, not only has it been perpetuating a slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians for decades, it also constantly uses its considerable propaganda resources to advocate for war. And in order to achieve these goals, it does not mind allying itself with a regime almost as despicable and evil as the Zionist one – I am talking about the Wahabi nutcases in the KSA. And all that under the high patronage of the United States. Some “Axis of Kindness” indeed!

What is their plan? Actually, it is fairly straightforward.

The Israeli plan “A” (failed)

Initially, the plan was to overthrow all the secular (Baathist) regimes in power and replace them by religious nutcases. That would not only weaken the countries infected by that spiritual rot, it would set them backwards for many decades, some of them would break up into smaller entities, Arabs and Muslims would kill each other in large numbers while the Israelis would proudly claim that they are a “western country” and the “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Even better, when the Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc types commit atrocities on an industrial scale (and always on camera, professionally filmed, by the way), the slow-motion genocide of Palestinians would really be completely forgotten. If anything, Israeli would declare itself threatened by “Islamic extremism” and, well, extend a couple of “security zones” beyond its borders (legal or otherwise), and do regular bombing runs “because Arabs only understand force” (which would get the Israelis a standing ovation from the “Christian” Zionist rednecks in the USA who love the killing of any Aye-rabs and other “sand niggers”). At the end of all this, the Zionist wet dream: unleashing the Daesh forces against Hezbollah (which they fear and hate since the humiliating defeat the IDF suffered in 2006).

Now I will readily agree that this is a stupid plan. But contrary to the propaganda-induced myth, the Israelis are really not very bright. Pushy, arrogant, nasty, driven – yes. But smart? Not really. How could they not realize that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in Iran becoming the main player in Iraq? This is a testimony of how the Israelis always go for “quick-fix” short-term “solutions”, probably blinded by their arrogance and sense of racial superiority. Or how about their invasion of Lebanon in 2006? What in the world did they think they would achieve there? And now these folks are taking on not Hezbollah, but Iran. Hassan Nasrallah is absolutely correct, that is a truly stupid decision. But, of course, the Israelis now have a “plan B”:

The Israeli plan “B”

Step one, use your propaganda machine and infiltrated agents to re-start the myth about an Iranian military nuclear program. And never mind that the so-called “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” was agreed upon by all five of the UNSC Permanent Members, and Germany (P5+1) and even the European Union! And never mind that this plan places restrictions on Iran which no other country has ever had to ever face, especially considering that since 1970 Iran has been a member in good standing with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Israel, of course, is not. But the Zionists and their Neocon groupies are, of course, quite exceptional people, so they are constrained by neither facts nor logic. If Trump says that the JCPOA is a terrible deal, then this is so. Hey, we are living in the “post-Skripal” and “post-Douma” era – if some Anglo (or Jewish) leaders say “highly likely” then it behooves everybody to show instant “solidarity” lest they are accused of “anti-Semitism” or “fringe conspiracy theories” (you know the drill). So step one is the re-ignition ex nihilo of the Iranian military nuclear program canard.

Step two is to declare that Israel is “existentially threatened” and therefore has the right to “defend itself”. But there is a problem here: the IDF simply does not have the military means to defeat the Iranians. They can strike them, hit a couple of targets, yes, but then when the Iranians (and Hezbollah) unleash a rain of missiles on Israel (and probably the KSA) the Israelis will not have the means to respond. They know that, but they also know that the Iranian counter-attack will give them the perfect pretext to scream “oy vey!! oy, gevalt!!” and let the dumb Americans fight the Iranians.

You might object that the USA does not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel. You are wrong. It does, it is called AIPAC. Besides, last year the USA established a permanent US military base in Israel, making it a “tripwire”: just claim that “the Ayatollahs” tried to attack the US base with “chemical weapons” and, bingo, you now have a pretext to use all your military forces in retaliation, including, by the way, your tactical nuclear forces to “disarm” the “genocidal Iranians who want to wipe Israel off the map” or some variation of this nonsense.

You might wonder what the point of all that would be if Iran does, as I say, not have any military nuclear program?

My answer would be simple: do you really think the Syrians have been using chemical weapons?!

Of course not!

All this nonsense about Saddam’s WMD, the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian chemical weapons or, for that matter, Gaddafi’s “Viagra armed raping soldiers”, and before that the “Racak massacre” in Kosovo or the various “Markale market” atrocities in Sarajevo for that matter: these were just pretexts for aggression, nothing more.

In Iran’s case, what the Israelis fear is not that they will be “wiped off the map” (that is a mistranslation of words originally spoken by Ayatollah Khomenei) by Iranian nukes; what really freaks them out is to have a large, successful Muslim regional power like Iran openly daring to denounce Israel as an illegitimate, racist state. The Iranians are also openly denouncing the US imperialism and they are even denouncing the Wahabi dictatorship of the House of Saud. That is Iran’s real “sin”: to dare defy openly the AngloZionist Empire and be so successful at it!

So what the Israelis really want to do is:

inflict a maximum amount of economic damage upon Iran

punish the Iranian population for daring to support the “wrong” leaders

overthrow the Islamic Republic (do to it what they did to Serbia)

make an example to dissuade any other country who dares to follow in Iran’s footsteps

prove the omnipotence of the AngloZionist Empire’s

To reach this objective, there is no need to invade Iran: a sustained cruise missile and bombing campaign will do the job (again, like in Serbia). Finally, we just have to assume that the Zionists are evil, arrogant and crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on some Iranian facilities (which they will, of course, designate as “secret military nuclear research” installations).

The Israelis hope that by making the USA hit Iran really hard, they will weaken the country enough to also weaken Hezbollah and the other allies of Iran in the region sufficiently and break the so-called “Shia crescent”.

In their own way, the Israelis are not wrong when they say that Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They are just lying about the nature of this threat and why it is dangerous for them.

Consider this:

IF the Islamic Republic is allowed to develop and prosper and IF the Islamic Republic refuses to be terrified by the IDF’s undisputed ability to massacre civilians and destroy public infrastructure, then the Islamic Republic will become an attractive alternative to the kind of repugnant Islam embodied by the House of Saud which, in turn, is the prime sponsor of all the collaborator regimes in the Middle-East from the Hariri types in Lebanon to the Palestinian Authority itself. The Israelis like their Arabs fat and corrupt to the bone, not principled and courageous. That is why Iran must, absolutely must, be hit: because Iran by its very existence threatens the linchpin upon which the survival of the Zionist entity depends: the total corruption of the Arab and Muslim leaders worldwide.

Risks with Israel’s plan “B”

Think of 2006. The Israelis had total air supremacy over Lebanon – the skies were simply uncontested. The Israelis also controlled the seas (at least until Hezbollah almost sank their Sa’ar 5-class corvette). The Israelis pounded Lebanon with everything they had, from bombs to artillery strikes, to missiles. They also engaged their very best forces, including their putatively ‘”invincible” “Golani Brigade”. And that for 33 days. And they achieved exactly *nothing*. They could not even control the town of Bint Jbeil right across the Israeli border. And now comes the best part: Hezbollah kept its most capable forces north of the Litany river so the small Hezbollah force (no more than 1000 man) was composed of local militias supported by a much smaller number of professional cadre. That a 30:1 advantage in manpower for the Israelis. But the “invincible Tsahal” got it’s collective butt kicked like few have ever been kicked in history. This is why, in the Arab world, this war is since known as the “Divine Victory”.

As for Hezbollah, it continued to rain down rockets on Israel and destroy indestructible Merkava tanks right up to the last day.

There are various reports discussing the reasons for the abject failure of the IDF (see here or here), but the simple reality is this: to win a war you need capable boots on the ground, especially against an adversary who has learned how to operate without air-cover or superior firepower. Should Israel manipulate the USA into attacking Iran, the exact same thing will happen: CENTCOM will establish air superiority and have an overwhelming firepower advantage over the Iranians, but other than destroying a lot of infrastructure and murdering scores of civilians, this will achieve absolutely nothing. Furthermore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is no Milosevic, he will not simply surrender in the hope that Uncle Sam will allow him to stay in power. The Iranians will fight, and fight, and continue to fight for weeks, and months and then possibly years. And, unlike the “Axis of Kindness” forces, the Iranians do have credible and capable “boots on the ground”, and not only in Iran, but also in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have the missiles to reach a very large number of US military facilities across the region. And they can also not only shut down the Strait of Hormuz (which the USN would eventually be able to re-open, but only at a cost of a huge military operation on the Iranian coast), they can also strike at Saudi Arabia proper and, of course, at Israel. In fact, the Iranian have both the manpower and know-how to declare “open season” on any and all US forces in the Middle-East, and there are plenty of them, mostly very poorly defended (that imperial sense of impunity “they would not dare”).

The Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years (1980-1988). It cost the Iranians hundreds of thousands of lives (if not more). The Iraqis had the full support of the USA, the Soviet Union, France and pretty much everybody else. As for the Iranian military, it had just suffered from a traumatic revolution. The official history (meaning Wikipedia) calls the outcome a “stalemate”. Considering the odds and the circumstances, I call it a magnificent Iranian victory and a total defeat for those who wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic (something which decades of harsh sanctions also failed to achieve, by the way).

Is there any reason at all to believe that this time around, when Iran has had almost 40 years to prepare for a full-scale AngloZionist attack the Iranians will fight less fiercely or less competently? We could also look at the actual record of the US armed forces (see Paul Craig Roberts’ superb summary here) and ask: do you think that the USA, lead by the likes of Trump, Bolton or Nikki Haley will have the staying power to fight the Iranians to exhaustion (since a land invasion of Iran is out of the question)? Or this: what will happen to the world economy if the entire Middle-East blows up into a major regional war?

Now comes the scary part: both the Israelis and the Neocons always, always, double-down. The notion of cutting their losses and stopping what is a self-evidently mistaken policy is simply beyond them. Their arrogance simply cannot survive even the appearance of having made a mistake (remember how both Dubya and Olmert declared that they had won against Hezbollah in 2006?). As soon as Trump and Netanyahu realize that they did something really fantastically stupid and as soon as they run out of their usual options (missile and airstrikes first, then terrorizing the civilian population) they will have a stark and simple choice: admit defeat or use nukes.

Which one do you think they will choose?

Exactly.

Going nuclear?

Here is the paradox: in purely military terms, using nukes on Iran will serve no pragmatic purpose. Nuclear weapons can be used in one of two ways: against military assets (“counterforce”) or against civilians (“countervalue”). The point is that by the time the Neocons and their Israeli patrons come to the point of considering using tactical nuclear forces against the Iranians, there won’t be a good target to hit. Iranian forces will be dispersed and mostly in contact with allied (or even US forces) and nuking an Iranian battalion or even a division won’t fundamentally alter the military equation. As for nuking Iranian cities just out of savagery, this will only serve one purpose: to truly get Israel wiped off the map of the Middle-East. I would not put it past the Neocons and their Israeli bosses to try to use a tactical nuclear weapon to destroy some Iranian civilian nuclear facility or some underground bunker with the very mistaken hope that such a show of force and determination will force the Iranians to submit to the AngloZionist Empire. In reality, this will only infuriate the Iranians and strengthen their resolve.

As for the currently “macronesque” Europeans, they will, of course, first show “solidarity” on the basis of “highly likely”, especially Poland, the Ukies and the Baltic statelets, but if nuclear weapons start going off in the Middle-East, then the European public opinion will explode, especially in Mediterranean countries, and this might just trigger yet another major crisis. Israel wouldn’t give a damn (or, as always, blame it all on some totally mysterious resurgence of anti-Semitism), but the USA most definitely does not want the Anglo grip on the continent compromised by such events.

Maybe a Korean scenario?

Is there a chance that all the huffing and puffing will result in some kind of peaceful resolution as what seems to be in the works in Korea? Alas, probably not.

A few months ago it sure looked like the USA might do something irreparably stupid in Korea (see here and here) but then something most unexpected happened: the South Koreans, fully realizing the inanity of Trump’s reckless threats, took the situation in their own hands and began making overtures to the North. Plus all the rest of the regional neighbors emphatically and clearly told Trump & Co. that the consequences of a US attack on the DPRK would be apocalyptic for the entire region. Alas, there are two fundamental differences between the Korean Peninsula and the Middle-East:

On the Korean Peninsula, the local US ally (the ROK) does not want war. In the Middle-East it is the local US ally (Israel) which pushes the hardest for a war.

In Far-East Asia all the regional neighbors were and are categorically opposed to war. In the Middle-East most regional neighbors are sold out to the Saudis who also want the US to attack Iran.

So while the risks and consequences of a conflagration are similar between the two regions, the local geopolitical dynamics are completely different?

What about Russia in all this?

Russia will never *choose* to go to war with the USA. But Russia also understands that Iran’s security and safety is absolutely crucial to her own security, especially along her southern borders. Right now there is a fragile equilibrium of sorts between the (also very powerful) Zionist lobby in Russia and the national/patriotic elements. In truth, the recent Israeli attacks in Syria have given more power to the anti-Zionist elements in Russia, hence all the talk about (finally!) delivering the S-300s to Syria. Well, we will see if/when that happens. My best guesstimate is that it might already have happened and that this is simply kept quiet to restrain both the Americans and the Israelis who have no way of knowing what equipment the Russians have already delivered, where it is located or, for that matter, who (Russians or Syrians) actually operate it. This kind of ambiguity is useful to placate the pro-Zionist forces in Russia and to complicate AngloZionist planning. But maybe this is my wishful thinking, and maybe the Russians have not delivered the S-300s yet or, if they have, maybe these are the (not very useful) S-300P early models (as opposed to the S-300PMU-2 which would present a huge risk to the Israelis).

The relationship between Russia and Israel is a very complex one (see here and here), but if Iran is attacked I fully expect the Russians, especially the military, to back Iran and provide military assistance short of overtly engaging US/Israeli/NATO/CENTCOM forces. If the Russians are directly attacked in Syria (and in the context of a wider war, they very well might be), then Russia will counter-attack regardless of who the attacker is, the USA or Israel or anybody else: the Zionist lobby in Russia does not have the power to impose a “Liberty-like event” on the Russian public opinion).

Conclusion: Accursed are the warmakers, for they shall be called the children of Satan

The Israelis can eat falafels, create “Israeli kufiyeh” and fancy themselves as “orientals”, but the reality is that the creation of the state of Israel is a curse on the entire Middle-East to which has only brought untold suffering, brutality, corruption and wars, wars and more wars. And they are still at it – doing all they can to trigger a large regional war in which many tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die. The people of the USA have now allowed a dangerous cabal of psychopathic Neocons to fully take control of their country and now those, who Papa Bush used to call the “crazies in the basement” have their finger on the nuclear button. So now it all boils down to the questions I opened this article with:

Dear US Americans – do you want to die for Israel? Do you want to lose your job for Israel? How about your pension? Maybe just your stock options? Because make no mistake, the US Empire will not survive a full-scale war against Iran. Why? Because all Iran needs to do to “win” is not to lose, i.e. to survive. Even bombed out and scorched by conventional or nuclear strikes, if Iran comes out of this war still as an Islamic Republic (and that is not something bombs or missiles will change) then Iran will have won. In contrast, for the Empire, the failure to bring Iran to its knees will mean the end of its status as the world Hegemon defeated not by a nuclear superpower, but by a regional conventional power. After that, it will just be a matter of time before the inevitable domino effect breaks up the entire Empire (check out Richard Greer’s excellent book “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” for a very plausible account on how that could happen)

Okay, unlike Russia, Iran cannot nuke the USA or, for that matter, even reach it with conventional weapons (I don’t even think that the Iranians will successfully attack a US carrier as some pro-Iranian analysts say). But the political and economic consequences of a full-scale war in the Middle-East will be felt throughout the United States: right now the only thing “backing” the US dollar, so to speak, are USN aircraft carriers and their ability to blow to smithereens any country daring to disobey Uncle Sam. The fact that these carriers are (and, truly, have been for a long while) useless against the USSR and Russia is bad enough, but if it becomes known urbi et orbi that they are also useless against a conventional regional power like Iran, then that’s it, show over. The dollar will turn into monopoly money in a very short span of time.

Wars often have “Nietzschean consequences”: countries which wars don’t destroy often come out even stronger than before they were attacked, even if it is at a horrendous price. Both the Israelis and the Neocons are too dialectically illiterate to realize that by their actions they are just creating increasingly more powerful enemies. The old Anglo guard which ran the USA since its foundation was probably wiser, possibly because it was better educated and more aware of the painful lessons learned by the British (and other) Empire(s).

Frankly, I hope that the ruling 1%ers running the USA today (well, they are really much less than 1%, but never mind that) will care about their wealth and money more than they care about appeasing the Neocons and that the bad old Anglo imperialists who built this country will have enough greed in themselves to tell the Neocons and their Israeli patrons to get lost. But with the Neocons controlling both wings of the Uniparty and the media, I am not very hopeful.

Still, there is a chance that, like in Korea, somebody somewhere will say or do the right thing, and that awed by the potential magnitude of what they are about to trigger, enough people in the US military will follow the example of Admiral William Fallon and CENTCOM commander at the time who told the President “an attack on Iran will not happen on my watch”. I believe for his principled courage, the words of Christ “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt 5:9) can be applied to Admiral Fallon and I hope that his example will inspire others.

The Saker

[teachanarchy]

One of the oldest, most consistent and most offensive cliches about Syria is that “there is no alternative to Assad".

That regime loyalists would claim such nonsense is a given. But that it would be repeated ad nauseam by various governments and mainstream media is ludicrous, especially when millions of Syrians have now paid the ultimate price for begging to differ.

Should Syrians be treated like minors, made to parrot lines in unison and show good behaviour before they can be considered as part of an alternative to a genocidal regime?

The Syrian opposition did not magically appear in 2011. Civil society movements have attempted to establish dialogue and demand changes for decades, even knowing full well how this notoriously brutal regime was likely to react.

In fact, much of what happened in the first decade of Bashar Assad’s reign was a precursor to how today’s larger opposition would form itself, because way before the Syrian revolution, there was a Damascus Spring.

The threat of pens

Syrians always had the right to remain silent, and anything they said could and would be used against them, not only in the repressive 1980s and 1990s, but at the turn of the century when the Syrian regime graduated to a new level, becoming the modern era’s first hereditary republic.

Bashar al-Assad waves to supporters as he marches behind the coffin of his father, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, during his funeral in Damascus on 13 June 2000 (AFP)

On 10 June 2000 - the day “the eternal leader” died - a parliament of minions changed the constitution in minutes to proclaim: Assad is dead, long live Assad. This blatant, formalised inheritance of power left no room for maneuver, but civil society activism persevered nonetheless.

Many of those 99 found themselves invited for the infamous cups of coffee in intelligence buildings

In September 2000, 99 Syrian intellectuals, writers and artists published “The Statement of the 99”, a restrained yet incredibly bold open letter to the regime calling for increased freedoms. Published in Al Hayat and circulated in hushed tones by stunned Syrians, it was ignored by Assad as many of those 99 found themselves invited for the infamous cups of coffee in intelligence buildings.

This warning did not subdue them, and they penned a bolder statement known as “The Basic Document”, this time signed by 1,000 Syrians in January 2001. Demands then were already formulated around the basics of a more democratic and pluralistic system, including freedoms of speech and assembly, democratic practices, open elections, liberation of political detainees, equality of citizens, and independence of the judiciary.

While this document may seem tame in today’s context, it was a phenomenon and a testament to growing political maturity. As always, their pens were a threat to the regime, and in an interview with Asharq Alawsat a few weeks later, Assad claimed that these signatories thought of themselves as elites but represented no one, and that they were either simpletons or foreign agents hurting the country, a leitmotif from which he never veered.

The “simpletons” and “foreign agents” dared to continue with the publication of the “National Social Contract” of April 2001, but Bashar Assad was already killing the Damascus Spring, closing the civil society forums and throwing well known dissidents into jail for “threatening state security".

After relative quiet during the invasion of Iraq, with a state of regime alert palpable all over Syria, the opposition demonstrated its tenacity with its “Damascus Declaration” of October 2005, signed by over 250 figures of whom several ended up in jail.

When hundreds more signed the brave “Beirut-Damascus Declaration” of May 2006, as dissidents were jailed in Damascus and assassinated in Beirut, the regime’s wrath was fully unleashed on those who dared to question its authoritarianism in Syria and beyond.

Hard to miss

These events, and many other details of serious Syrian activism over the years, have been either forgotten or ignored when discussing the travails of the opposition today as it tries to effect change in the most difficult of circumstances. Adding insult to injury, it is often claimed today that “we don’t know what the opposition stands for” or that its commitments to democracy and pluralism are unclear.

These events, and many other details of serious Syrian activism over the years, have been either forgotten or ignored

Yet, it was those same opposition figures, now joined by a new generation of bloggers, activists and revolutionaries, who helped carry the voice of the uprising to those who were willing to listen in 2011, and whose troves of statements and positions are readily available to anyone willing to read them.

The first major post-uprising document on which most in the Syrian in opposition agreed was the “Cairo Document” of July 2012. In essence, it repeated what Syrian activists had been demanding for years, in very different conditions: democracy, pluralism, equality, good governance and the works.  

The Syrian Opposition Conference in Cairo in July 2012 (AFP)

Further iterations of all these principles and outlines of transition plans have been issued at various stages of the uprising by different formal groups. To name but a few, the Syrian Coalition issued “Basic Principles for a Political Settlement” in February 2014, and the High Negotiations Committee a “Transition Plan” in September 2016.

These documents and others have been tirelessly circulated amongst Syrians, delivered to UN officials and governments, and distributed through mainstream and social media. One would have to try hard to miss them - or to miss the multitude of principles and positions which have been issued by increasingly active civil society groups, demonstrating acumen and commitment.

False logic

As the Syrian opposition’s decades-long civil and political struggle continues, there is much room for improvement in both planning and consensus, and accusations of disunity and lack of cohesion, even from exasperated supporters, are routine.

But Syrians never wanted to replace the regime with another, exchanging one set of leaders with a custom-made alliance supposed to tick everyone’s boxes; the whole point of their struggle, as idealistic as it may have once been, was for transition to an equitable, participative system - not regime change.

On 16 July 2014, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is sworn in for a new seven-year term, during a ceremony at the Presidential Palace in Damascus (AFP)

Observing the politics of any senate or parliament true to its name is a reminder that democracy can be chaotic, noisy, adversarial and, at times, infuriating. Having only recently found an open stage to air their similarities and differences, should Syrians be treated like minors, made to parrot lines in unison and show good behaviour before they can be considered as part of an alternative to a genocidal regime?

Syrian opposition and civil society groups already agree on the fundamental issues and already commit to a transition to democracy, as they have written and declared repeatedly, a transition which takes into account the integration and adaptation of current state institutions into the new system of governance to which they aspire. Demanding much more of them at this stage neither makes sense, nor saves Syrians from unabated horror.

There are a multitude of reasons why a transition has not yet been approved by those in control, but it is certainly not because there are no alternatives to Assad, and it is certainly not because nobody knows what the opposition’s aspirations are.

- Rime Allaf is a Syrian-born writer and political analyst. She was an Associate Fellow at Chatham House from 2004 to 2012, in the Middle East and North Africa Programme. She has published numerous analyses and articles on the region, with Syria being the focus of her area of expertise, and continues to write, speak and advise on Syrian affairs. She is on the Board of Directors of The Day After, a renowned Syrian-led civil society organisation working to support a democratic transition in Syria, with grants from several Western institutes and governments. She is also on the Board of Directors of the Syrian Economic Forum, a think tank working on building a strong economy to support a free, pluralistic and independent state.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photo: Unidentified Syrian opposition activists chant in Antalya on 1 June 2011 during the opening session of a three-day meeting to discuss democratic change and voice support for a simmering revolt against President Bashar al-Assad's regime (AFP)