#is something likeable in them even if theres nothing morally good in them. you can dislike a morally good character if theres nothing

[citrusinicake]

ppl who dont understand loving a character while also hating them fascinate me, clearly youve never stanned a complete and absolute dickhead before

[steelycunt]

i’ve always thought regulus black and draco malfoy are essentially the same character except instead of cowering in the corner like a pussy the whole war regulus actually did something (and failed spectacularly ohhhh my god imagine talking so much shit in a locket and then dying before you even get the chance to destroy the first horcrux like be so serious right now.) but do i still like both of them? yes! is that because i’m a bully and draco malfoy in particular is very much pathetic and a joke? yea!

ohh yeah i mean. well i take ur point absolutely but i feel like its had the adverse effect for me in that as a result i do not like either of them. i love r/s and i think they are both pathetic in a good way like they are good people who just happen to be a little pathetic but to me draco is just pathetic in an unlikeable way. he is pathetic in a self-serving spoilt irritating way there is no affection to his patheticness. and as for regulus well i don't know that guy ill be so real with you rn but like idk. i am not fond of that guy. not when his brother is right there

[stellocchia]

Honestly, I'm a lot harder on and a lot harsher at characters that are in a position of authority.

Like, I'm aware that they're still a person with faults and shit. But I will also be more aggressive about them just because their mistakes have much more severe consequences

It's why I love dragging techno and exile era tubbo.

Tubbo because, yes. He was a child president and was manipulated by dream. Believe me I'm aware and thats a big factor in how I judge them anyways. But he was still the president. He tried to do what was right for his country but most of his decisions were still shit. Still. Great guy. The second that role as president was obliterated all my loathing evaporated.

Techno because.... Holy shit... Holy shit...

Like, you know how much I adored pogtopian techno (please come back. I miss you. Please-) but honestly. Maybe it wasn't just that. Maybe he became so much less likeable when it became clear that nothing was keeping him in check. That his "mistakes" and bad judgement will always go unchecked because he is at the very top.

It's also the reason I've been ready to deck Sam since Tommy was locked in with dream all those months back. I understand that he's still a person. But man. That's so much less of an argument when his incompetence keeps getting my faves killed.

Like. That'd kinda why I have a love hate relationship with cPhil? Because. I think it's hilarious how... Pathetic he is. This man is a tool. It's hilarious how an ancient angel of the goddess of death has no clue what's going on like a senile old man finding out that mobile phones are more than just small portable telephones. "Wait, you can write to people with this?" "What do you mean there's more games than candy crush?" "Internet? I've heard of that on the news! They say people become victims of crime on there!"

Like. Holy fuck. I'd say that I've never seen a more ignorant character in my life but he lives with technoblade so theres the actually most ignorant character right there.... Maybe... Then again, techno DOES know about the pogtopia stuff... Then again... He does gaslight himself so he might as well not have been there at all...

I've gotten sidetracked.

Anyways. Phil is hilariously flawed, incompetent and has never made a good decision since he's joined the server. I'd say inviting in ranboo is a neutral decision... Just because that's too complicated.

So Phil is pretty fun to think about! Until I remember that he's the servers biggest fan of assisted suicide, keeps helping out the tyrants and destroyed most of the servers lifes. Is a fucking asshole to Fundy.... He's just.... Yeah...

And Phil doesn't even have authority the way the others I mentioned had! He just hangs with that one fucker all the time!

So imagine my frustration with the characters who actually do have authority!

Like. Yknow how society's kinda based on the principle of: I limit my freedom (like. Not killing and not stealing. Yes. That's limiting your freedom.) And in exchange I am protected and cared for (people that kill and steal aka harm people like me are persecuted (this is not about how well this gets executed irl. This is a base principle))

With authority it's kinda similar

When you get a position of authority you get freedom and control over something and people have to listen to you. Sam has total control over the prison, people have to respect his authority as the warden. And in exchange you get the responsibility for the things that go wrong. No matter what explanation. No matter how out of control the situation was for you. It's on you.

With great power comes great responsibility and shit.

Idk where I was going with this but in short: I will always be way more critical of the mistakes and faults and flaws of people in powerful positions. So fuck you Technoblade. Go suck a dick.

Yeah, I get your point. I also don't really have anything to add, but I'm the same way honestly. Just, characters that are in positions of power and put up a pretense about being somewhat righteous (like Techno and Phil saying they were destroying a nation and traumatizing everyone involved to "free the people" as if they hadn't just destroyed the lives of the people they were supposed to be freeing...) frustrates me often. Like, I'm fine with someone like Dream because I can openly call him a dick for abusing his power to ruin other people's lives and normally I don't get harassed for it. Same with Quackity actually. Just... everyone else... not really.

So yeah, I guess I'm less harsh with authority figures who aren't depicted as "morally gray" just because talking about their canon actions is generally not considered criticism worthy of harassment... (with the exception of Twitter).

[misterbitches]

Dude yong jie’s character is literally unbearable this is like how not to write a vharacter 101

Our first intro to him is stalking, then PUNCHING someone in the LIVER bc the person he “loves” was fucking drunk and he blames his best friend? Then his mom is like “lmao actually um hes psycho” so anything they try to do retroactively like how they peppered in HIS DAD DIED A BLOO BLOO but previously it was also his OWN MOM going “im afraid he’ll lose his humanity” so not only was there no breathing room then it’s bumrushing him into their lives as best friends and it doesnt work. This dude sucks and he isnt even fun to watch. You know how breaking bad has one of the most abysmal main characters of all time but all of us were fucking ENGROSSED but the show made it clear that every enemy he faces, even the DEA, we want THEM to win (it is also a class analysis but woreva) so i am like wtf they show us literally nothing here. He’s just there. Wasting space and being awful. What is the purpose of his character in ssu’s life? Once you rape someone it is fucking over full stop but he didnt even fucking manage to start off in any compelling fucking way. Absolutely bonkers dude Esp bc theres at least a base moral code ie DONT HARRASS GIRLS UR “INTO” and thats why mei fang the absolute mad lad beaut was like “lmao nah i hate u”

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo?????????????????????????????????? WHERE IS THE WRITING HERE? WHAT IS THE SCRIPT? awhat is the PROGRESSION? This is such an insanely fucking dumb plo5 point i rly cannnnjnnntoeiwijshsgsgsgsgsgsgeggwiwowiw GORL

Lets talk abt the good things in the characters (theres none for yong jie hes just there being a little bitch)

Li cheng - himbo dumbass “manly” cutie and the manly stuff is fun cos it gets heaped on and yet every bit of him can be extremely “feminine” and jubilant. Great.

Muren - seems >:O but i rly like that hes actually pretty open in his own way. Side note: he is so thin and willow-y i rly loke tall pretty boys (and all women lmao) and he doesnt do it for me but He suits the character like his body and the way his character is. Also u gotta be weird and he is

Hsinng ssu (girl im never gonna learn how to spell their names it’s too much work cos the eng alphabet andnromanization is terrible) - mild mannered, good son, a homosexual confirmed confirmed g”(awesome!) great friend, good brother (and i guess his reward is being raped, great message!) and someone ppl like

The establishment of the three of them and their distinct personalities happens within minutes and then we meet

Yongjie - what about him? He may have an MI, okay, but we dont know for sure and oh gee that doesnt matter actually bc u have to get urself treated and also not be terrible. Not even psychopaths do the shit he does BC THEY HAVE TO GET HELP. Why the parents didnt get him help and are just realizing their son is terrible? Who knows . His purpose seems yo be “boy obsessed with brother like his actual brother” i dont care id they arent related in that way bc that’s not the fucking crux of incest and it is so insanely Fucked every thing to do with incest is almost always a disgusting powe r issue. WHAT PURPOSE DOES HE SERVE? WHAT DO WE ONOW ABOUT HIM OTHER THAN HE IS A FUCKING JERK AND AN IDIOT AND SUCKS AND I HATE HIM AND THAT HE WANTS TO STALK AND ATTACK THIS REALLY AWESOME FUCKING DUDE OK

There’s no returning point deom rhe line they croased byt theyb set him up for failure. Even in the fight hes a fucking cheater hes a goddamn immature rat they know he fucking sucks but he just sits there and waits for everyone else to move around him. A fucking selfish prick with nor edeeming qualities snd hes also a violent rapist stalker. Really great that thry have no clue how to make this dude actually have any humanity or likeability. Hes the man from 365 days basically except not even that hot and at least he kidnapped her but “WAITED” for “CONSENT” but in that movie’s world nothing mattered and it was bad and the point was to have a horny movie. But this show is for younger ppl and also IT HAS RULES AND IT KNOWS WHAT BAD ACTIONS ARE???? Soooooooooooooo in all these other dumb salacious books there seems to be just a mutual agreement that it’s fucked up but totally normal i their movie’s universee (it isnt and it is still just bad filmmaking)

Also it is up to yong jie to figure put how to get over it and understand that his brother is concerned for him. Bc it is. His brother. There’s a reason that incest is never advisable and thays bc there is no way in that situation that people aren’t somehow being coerced. There has to be a sort of split in the pursuer and the person being pursued bc one person is not thinking that way. (This is why people who find out they are related after the fact and havent grown up together is something thatms really unfortunate. They had no idea and they have to grapple with that but that is another scenario and it happens bc THEY DIDNT GROW UP TOGETHER.) i have experienced this from a (not immediate) fam member and i was the vulnerable one, had less powr, that is how it must go.

Thats why the power imbalance is scary and none of this is acceptable but it begs the question how did they get to this point? But the show doesnt even address that bc they cant bc theyre not original. And power imbalance does not mean automatic absolutely not territory. Theres things we dont like (in my casee i hate age gaps a lot) but i will avoid that.

I havemt seen “right or wrong” and i have no desire but from what ive garnered from ppl i like who liked that episode, the show outlined the moral issues with it. Idk if they did it in a way i would have preferred (again no desire) but at lesst from what ive heard it...tries? Idk i dont see the need for these if they dont give us a reason why these ppl should be together and there’s several lines that cannot be crossed that were. Basically it’s like stockholm syndrome now and there’s no choice for him, it goes beyond power imbalance and “legality” so to speak and now it’s just entrapment.

Theres not even avoiding or enjoying. Even for MODC as stupid as i found the secondary rship and negligent even like ok. Fine. Whatever. His boyfriend is 100 but at least it was semi agreed upon. It is what it is, go forth. I will criticize it but at least it was the story and as stupid and gross as i think it is and they will probs break up (idc what the show says) at least there are set ups that can make us see “why” it works and oh, gee, their whole rship relies on a different fucked up but at least at some point it could possibly be transcended. The foundation of youngjie is “rape entrapment and aw now they are in lvoe” BITCH NOOOO???? Where is the REASON? And why should we root for them? (There is none and when the Thing happens it is now impossible for that not to be absolutely foundational to their rship lmao and that is never something that goes away.)

I would like to say theres nothing romantic int he flashbacks i know thats what theyre trying to twll us but the actor is 30 and that child is like 8.

Im not missing the point bc i see it with my eyes and it sucks. If you cant even write the character well then how do you interest something heavy and work out the links? The only solution is yongjie dying i mean fucking off forever and hsing ssu not letting him into his lifeXni doubt we will get that but at the very least they cannot end up together and that will be their crowning fucking achievement over the waste of time bullshit plot this was. Imagine actual conflict that wasnt so deeply fucking traumatic and, oh, again WHERE ARE THE PARENTS? They fucked up SO FUCKING BADLY. This gives people the wrong idea about how these things work. God he is truly a shitty character and his ass isnt even fat so wtf bitch why am i here!

[gayregis]

if you've read season of storms is it any good? i read a sample and was kind of bored but i don't want to spend money on it if it's going to be like,,,,,,,,,lady of the lake

reading this i was like “wait lady of the lake was good though,” then i paused to actually think about it as a cohesive narrative for a bit, and went “actually wait never mind :/...” it was good thematically, and there were a lot of great scenes, but like as a whole book... if you could only read that book on its own... it would be very long and confusing. i just think lotl’s good because i do the uncivilized thing of skipping around to the parts i like and then i don’t read the parts i dislike

but luckily i have already ranted about season of storms before, and i’ll post that rant here now. for context, i actually read season of storms from cover to cover... yeah.

overall, it's a disorganized and aimless plot. it's set inbetween tlw and sod, so there's no quest to find ciri, because geralt hasnt met ciri yet, he's still our free bachelor geralt. which means hes still quite directionless and when it comes to his personal life it's mostly preoccupied with romance. but more importantly it means the plot is incredibly aimless and NOT PERSONAL to geralt, like all the stories in TLW and SOD and all the saga books revolve around events and people super meaningful to him. what happens in the plot is a whole JUMBLE of things that feel like sidequests from the witcher games, not a story from the witcher books. nothing really means anything for geralt's character development, and it suffers from being so long because there's like a lot of different settings and characters and everything just seems completely thrown together, mashed up, and not coordinated. 

i will admit that baptism of fire & tower of the swallow followed a style of “random encounters” in which geralt and the company traverse on and just interact with whatever they happen to find, but it felt like they were accruing knowledge (and also. members of the company) as they travelled on. in season of storms, it feels like geralt starts over and the entire book resets itself every time there is a new scene. none of the plotlines fit together, so it is just a super confusing and exhausting reading experience, unlike in bof & tos, where you can follow the action quite easily and it’s very pleasant to read because it’s all one continuous storyline.

in addition, all of these mashed up stories are pointless, because they dont END with the reader learning anything about the universe the characters live in or their relationships with each other. we might learn that sorcerers are power-hungry, but we already knew that. we might learn that people are violent and corrupt, but we already knew that. we might learn that geralt loves yennefer, but we already knew that. in the short stories, you learn so much about the world and geralts relationships (for example: we learn so much about the situations surrounding the elves in edge of the world, so it’s worth reading because otherwise you will not understand anything when the scoia’tael show up in blood of elves and later in the saga). and in the saga, this continues and more worldbuilding/relationship building occurs (geralt and ciri’s relationship grows from a question of price and then becomes crazy right around baptism of fire when they’re super linked by destiny). it really doesnt in season of storms. you don’t learn anything meaningful about the world or the characters like in the other witcher books.

another large flaw is that in the stories and saga, sapkowski was really good at creating likeable, enigmatic characters no matter how few pages he had to create them. they were deep and almost lifelike and also usually told a larger message. the NPCs- sorry, "characters" in season of storms are SUPER flat and uninteresting.

coral is h*rny for geralt and jealous of yennefer, like every sorceress ever to exist, pratt is a dick and corrupt, degerlund is corrupt and evil, mosaik is timid, the werewolf guy is JUST THERE, the auguara isn’t super interesting despite being cool, nimue feels flatter as a character than usual, even dandelion- okay actually jk i liked dandelion he was the sunny part of this book AS ALWAYS ... ofc he felt one-dimensional but he usually does so you know, EVEN GERALT feels a little one-dimensional and not his typical introspective self

one of the worst things sapkowski did was [SPOILERS] make the major villain character of the book gay and feminine... like its mentioned SO many times that "ohhhh this is a man that looks like a woman WOW HOW EVIL!" and he literally does the worst things like rip ppl to shreds and want to kill geralt painfully by torture with syringes, also he uses his sexuality to ?? seduce an older sorcerer to be his favorite so he can keep his job as a sorcerer?? 

and OK vilgefortz and bonhart arent complex villains. but theyre despicable and it feels a little deeper bc vilgefortz has that backstory and hunger for power, and bonhart is just terrifying and the embodiment of wretched evil, this guy from season of storms is just annoying and anime villainy like “OOHOHOH watch how i kill you now >:)” also theres a lot of crass humor like fart jokes and villains that are described as really super ugly like omg wow never saw that one coming!!! it just feels super bland and basic and almost like the antithesis of The Witcher as short stories and a saga, super out of place with the rest of the series. [END SPOILERS]

in my opinion, the BIGGEST FLAW with season of storms is that since the plot is so all over the place, and since the characters are so flimsy, the entire book feels meaningless. it feels like it would appease games or netflix fans who just want to read about geralt going on some crazy adventures, and it does serve that purpose, but it is NOT a “book belonging to the witcher series.” it has no depth where there should be... i do not feel like sapkowski is trying to tell me something as a reader about human nature, or the nature of parent-child relationships, or society, or violence and war... 

it just feels like geralt is doing all of this shit just because sapkowski had some remaining ideas and wanted to get all of them out into the world all in the same book, like sewing a vest out of fabric scraps. it was not refined like the witcher saga, because none of them were really meant to fit together anyways, and because they weren’t meant to fit together, there is a distinct lack of message and substance to it.

TLDR: no cohesive narrative and a confusing plot, no deeper underlying message or arguments about humanity or society or nature being made by the author, cheap new side & background characters, no ciri and no yennefer so geralt is quite directionless and stupid

other remarks that are just my personal preferences and comments:

geralt & dandelion:

geralt mostly works alone in this book... which is... not my favorite. this is why i got bored with tw3 after i read the witcher books, because i can’t stand geralt being alone, the world feels so... lonely! although he meets up with dandelion and has an affair with coral in season of storms, most of the book is him waffling about with side and background characters that i couldn’t care less about because sapkowski put no effort into developing them to be enigmatic or at least lifelike and likable (unlike some really minor characters in the witcher saga that, although they were so minor, were incredibly likable: for example, applegatt and toruviel i quite like). 

of course, i also have a preference for when geralt hangs out with dandelion, because it usually creates more of a lighter tone for the scenes and a more humorous nature overall, plus geralt changes his personality to be not in such a bad mood and we get to see him being kind and friendly. so it annoys me that although dandelion has some scenes with geralt, they never really have deep conversations like they do in a little sacrifice, or witty remarks & banter like in the edge of the world... i feel like dandelion was quite in-character for the whole book, which is good, but also, he’s dandelion so he’s pretty easy to get in character. he’s just easy-going, arrogant, preoccupied with earthly delights, cowardly, and friendly to geralt. but it annoyed me that their scenes together were both not very deep, and that they didn’t get as much interaction as i think they deserved. usually in a witcher book or story in which geralt and dandelion have met, they stay by each other’s side for like, the whole book or story, lmao... 

that being said, they do have some fun moments in this book and dandelion has some funny lines which i quite enjoy. like. they are eating at an inn, and the innkeeper asks them “how are you finding the pork?” and dandelion replies, “we’re finding it among the kasha. from time to time. not as often as we’d like to.” and somehow i just find that line so fucking funny... i think it’s just because it’s really relatable

sorcery:

coral is SOOOOO one-dimensional, she really is just like the same character as fringilla vigo or some other sorceress that’s jealous of yennefer for getting to bang geralt, and this lack of characterization is super transparent. people laugh about how many affairs geralt has had, but they never discuss how all of them have been super uneasy and unfulfilling.

already said that i hate degerlund as a character and all of the sorcerers being morally wack is predictable if you’ve read like, anything from the saga about the sorcerer/esses. also geralt talking with sorcerers is like, interesting if the sorcerer in question is vilgefortz, but everyone else is just super boring

other:

i didn’t really like ferrant de lettenhove until the very end of the book (which i won’t spoil) but because of this end, i wished that he got more backstory/development

NIMUE I LOVE YOU and it was nice that nimue got some more backstory in this.

i do enjoy the end of the book. not to say “my favorite part is when it ended,” but it’s true, because the ending in kerack is interesting and full of drama, the moments in the inn are alright if a little void of substance, the ending with geralt and dandelion on horseback is beautiful, and the epilogue with nimue is wistful and beautiful as well.

sheer pettiness:

oh my GOD why are the CHAPTERS so SHORT? it’s like, 20 chapters plus a bunch of interludes and an epilogue, and the book is only 357 pages long. it feels like as soon as i was getting into a scene, it switched to another chapter. i mean, idk whether i prefer this, or the haphhazard long as fuck chapters from baptism of fire where i’m not quite sure when a chapter begins or ends because i memorized the scenes and not when a chapter occurs. 

i dislike how coral is on the cover of it, even though it’s fitting, because if there was a work about... oh idk... the hansa... then angouleme could have been on the cover... and then i could have had geralt + yennefer + ciri + dandelion + the hansa on the covers... like wow that would be cool...

this book would have functioned much better as a series of short stories... i think sapkowski has talent for the short story medium, but novel-length books are more desirable by publishers, but this is literally just a guess, i don’t have anything to back this up

my recommendation: don’t buy it if you are just looking to read the witcher books as in, get a feel for the book canon world and characters. it’s pretty unnecessary for that. do buy it if you are a completionist like me / the witcher is something you’ve been into for years and you’re about to buy all the books as a set and it would feel weird to not have all eight books on your shelf and it’s only like $5 more to buy the set of 8 as compared to the set of 7. don’t read it and expect perfection, it’s basically like “drabbles” but canon from the author. there are like 2 or 3 nice gerlion moments if you care about that.

[jewpacabruhs]

bruv im still jus. wow. theres so much to say but. do u kno how good it feels... to be jewish, to accidentally fixate on one eric cartman & love him more than any other fictional character for almost seven years now, and then to see him in a little yarmulke, standing at kyle's side while he recites from the torah? do you know how validating that is?

i gotta get personal for a second here. idk how, but in the last few yrs my relationship with my own jewishness has been deeply influenced and intertwined with south park, as ironic and ridiculous as that sounds. i grew up secular, completely nonpracticing; as a child, i was only ethnically jewish, and saw jews as strictly an ethnicity, and a popularly hated one to boot. and it scared me. ive talked about it before, but as a child hearing about the shoah and about antisemitism, i couldn't understand. i thought it was looks for a while, which confused me, because ive got blonde hair and blue eyes and all my family that got caught up in nazi europe did/do too. i remember thinking as a second grader that i would've been spared for that reason; why didn't a good chunk of my family? but i grew up in a mormon neighborhood, with plenty of other blonde kids, and they stayed away from me like i had a disease. this was before puberty, before my hair got a little frizzier and my nose got a little bigger, when i looked just like any of them. but already, at age 8, i was an outsider. i wasn't one of them and i never would be, and they wanted me to know that.

and then i started to get it. it clicked even more once i got to high school and got called a kike every other day - but prior to high school, you know what i found, and you know what really pushed me towards understanding what being a secular jew in america meant? south park. and as a dumb little sixth grader with no critical thinking skills, you know what shaped my opinions on my own people? south park.

and that's good and bad. good because i do sincerely think kyle broflovski is excellent fictional representation for jewish people, maybe one of the top few ever shown on television. he gets on my nerves at times, but he's good through and through, he's well written and multi-dimensional, he's not a walking stereotype but he still has prominent jewish features that jewish viewers can look at and see in themselves, his morals and viewpoints and beliefs are obviously deeply influenced by judaism, hes deeply proud of his heritage and culture... and that all means a lot to me. and by the amount of jewish sp fans that adore kyle, it means a lot to them too.

the bad thing is, yeah, i can't deny it, during older seasons, cartman's treatment of kyle probably taught a lot of young and dumb viewers how to view jews in real life. have i, as a kyman shipper and cartman stan, justified that within a fictional and narrative context? yes. but it doesn't change the real-world effect; south park, but specifically cartman, since he's the mouthpiece, likely did cause some easily-influenced people to pick up antisemitic beliefs. did this contribute to the rise of the alt-right? debatable, but to some extent, possibly. was that m&t's intention and should south park be canceled and denounced? fuck no, i'll always love it lol, and fuck censorship. but it is something that should be taken into account.

matt and trey clearly regret that, and understand that it's no longer acceptable or fitting or needed in today's sociopolitical climate - or, okay, maybe they don't even regret it; they just understand that when fiction becomes reality, the fictional jackass isn't necessary when there's one right there in real life, sitting in the oval office, yeah? old cartman doesn't deserve or need a voice, not when real, awful people actually have one right now. and m&t are actively trying to change cartman for the better and really, really backpedal on his bigotry, while still doing it in a way that makes sense from a story-telling perspective. it's not a complete uncharacteristic change of character; it's shifting with the times and writing it into the character's arc so that it's a logical and plausible development in cartman's story.

cartman's behavior in the last few seasons is consistent character development. m&t themselves are pushing it, and clearly it's sincere; cartman's not faking. unless they're building up a surprise twist over the last, what, three to four seasons, that he was faking the whole time! woah! if so it better be a damn good pay off, because that's a lot of time invested. though that seems more forward-thinking than sp tends to be. they're intentionally stuck in the short-term, aren't they? plot-wise. but their character development is pretty long-term, and right now, cartman is consistently decent, and if it comes across as faking, it's because cartman's over-dramatic in how he speaks, and trey does that intentionally.

that's a tonal thing, and it's hard to say in a fictional character, but as someone who struggles with empathy myself, empathy and sincerity don't go hand in hand. you can lack empathy while still caring enough to sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize for something and mean that apology. not feeling remorse doesn't mean you can't apologize genuinely; the two don't go hand in hand. you can be mentally ill in any capacity, even a psychopath, and still deeply care about things or people, just not in the way someone else might. so you can headcanon that cartman's still a psycho/sociopath, though right now that's actually kinda going against canon, but don't rain on other's parades if they're happy he's exhibiting healthy growth. besides, and i repeat: what could cartman exploit out of faking sincerity for several seasons? nothing, so why bother? he wouldn't, unless it's literal in-show subconscious growth.

does that mean he's magically developed empathy? no. is it becoming less probable he's a legitimate sociopath/psychopath (while still possibly having better-disguised antisocial tendencies)? yes. does he seem to have better coping or anger management skills? somehow, yes! he seems to be legitimately healthier. does this mean he's no longer accountable for his past misdeeds, and even his present, less-severe ones? of course not! and you can still hate him all you want, but modern cartman is not the same as older cartman, and shouldn't be treated as such. because is this growth? absolutely.

he's clearly healthier, even happier. he's less angry, he's still a little shit but he no longer relies on bigotry or cruelty or anger to get the negative attention he thrives off, rather he gravitates towards being simply annoying. you know why he called ice? pettiness, immaturity, a little bit of spite, and a need for silly revenge. he's being intentionally petty, but going about it in a sly but no longer psychopathic way. less hannibal lector and more, idk, regina george, lol. extremely different on the antagonist scale. and cartman's been both.

and maybe it's personal bias on what type of human is worse within fiction, someone unstable and bizarre with violent tendencies (which is how he's come to be viewed in pop culture & some of the fandom, as a result of eps like scott tenorman must die), versus someone inclined towards pettiness and more silent and, i dunno, social-status-and-pride-driven types of revenge (cartman in general when he's not being particularly awful, tbh)... but i think it'd be pretty universally agreed that the latter is at the very least more tolerable, manageable, and even likeable - and certainly more redeemable. let's put it this way; if cartman continued on the path he was on, he'd be one of those tiki holding fucks, wearing a confederate flag hat, and he'd treat kyle soooo much worse. instead, m&t have turned him into a hypocritical false-woke ignorant dumbass - but that's strongly less problematique than it's counterpart, and it works.

because cartman simply serves a different narrative purpose now. and that's not sloppy writing; it's well-timed evolution of a character that stepped into a pre-9/11, pre-trump, pre-social media world! so much has changed, and south park is reflecting that in its characters, most notably in a character who was stuck in the, what, 1960s with his beliefs? that was fine way back when, but matt&trey are smart dudes - they understand that sometimes things have to change. besides, they love cartman, too. he's their favorite. but they understand that when real people act like him, it's not so comedic or satirical or funny, & they don't want to look at cartman, at their creation who they've invested twenty-two years in, and see the all-too-real hate of modern radical white america.

i think we know enough about matt&trey's social stances these days, and the empathy they've seemed to develop after having kids, to understand that they're no longer in their "apathy is best, everyone is stupid" phase. current south park is left-leaning and admittedly preachy at times, but i wouldn't want it any other way. g-d knows it's better this way than if they'd embraced and decided to appeal to their right-libertarian following instead. cartman's evolved in a progressive and positive way, and it's fucking dope, especially to us cartman stans who so badly want him to be good. and he is good right! he's doing so good!

and i know im up my own ass rn but yall know how much i myself have campaigned for jewish kyman/cartman and how much i just deeply and truly adore it, and to see it actualized in a canon episode to some extent? that meant the world to me. i couldn't believe my eyes. i was tellin lai - that's the most genuine, pure, almost violent happiness ive felt in my soul in years. that was like a straight shot of serotonin to the heart. that simple little scene made me so fucken happy yall dont even know. & theres a lot to be said about the political commentary and plenty of other people are analyzing that, but im a simple jewish kyman & cartman stan and boy ive been fed good fjskfkdkdkfk!!!

[kelvintimeline]

Sorry for this dumbass question, but I'm more of a Marvel TV gal, and have only payed attention to Black Panther basically lmao so I was kinda wondering what's up with the Tony hate? Is it because he's a man that literally profited from terrorism and wars and is an Ayn Rand wet dream? Because if it's cuz of that, then yeah, I agree/get it. But I was wondering if he did something else, just to know. Thanks, boo!

I mean it’s mostly that on like the moral ground but I think there’s also an element of the fact that having him as the face of Marvel just... doesn’t work? I think the additional context is the fact that Tony Stark manages to butt into almost every other movie--he took over the last Captain America movie, making it about him and not Steve, he took over a significant chunk of Spiderman, every avengers’ film is about HIS emotional arc--and it just feels like I’m being forcefed a character archetype that’s just insulting at this point.

Even if we ignore the “literal war profiteer” element, having “Super smart asshole is allowed to be a fucking asshole because he’s super smart about geek shit” as the narrative intruding on every fucking movie is fucking annoying. “Rich man taken down by his own hubris, drags everyone else down with him, and then comes out relatively unscathed” isn’t what a lot of people can handle right now because real men like that irl are the villains. Flat out, they’re the villains. Centering him as some sort of moral heart and empathetic character because he has characters we like surrounding him (Pepper and Rhodey in his own films, all the other avengers in the films he takes over) is wasteful.

Almost every character in the franchise is more likable and sympathetic in this film. A significant portion of the characters in the franchise are sympathy-worthy because of what he did to them (like his weapons were use to kill Pietro/Wanda’s parents).

So, while I could make a laundry list of every awful thing Tony has done (the “I Didn’t know my weapons... killed people!!” shit, the building an AI that killed innocent people despite being told not to, imprisoning his friends, teaming up with Ross who fucked over Bruce, trying to murder a POW), that’s... not the point.

The point is Tony is a very, very privileged character. Worse than that, he is privileged AND entitled. He’s entitled to the emotional moments, he’s entitled to his guilt trumping over everyone else’s autonomy, he’s entitled to spend his wealth on whatever he wants, he’s entitled to demean women, he’s entitled to recruiting he wants even actual children, he’s entitled to forgiveness.

Most of the people who hate Tony have a Tony in their life. Someone who has everything and still manages to want more. Someone who makes you feel like shit because they know more than you on some arbitrary topic. Someone who finds a way to fuck you over just because they don’t want to be miserable by themselves.

There is just nothing redeeming about him. Every good trait about Tony is something someone else in the franchise does better without doing half the evil shit he does. Even at his blandest, least offensive moments... theres nothing that ever makes caring about him worth it.

And having him shoved into every movie makes you resent the fact that he’s wasting the time you could have with someone better.

Beyond his actual bad deeds, he’s just not a likeable character. Not when in real life people like him are always, ALWAYS the villains in the lives of everyone they touch.

[def-march]

🔥🔥🔥 /chinhands

Send me a “ 🔥 “ for an unpopular opinion.

TOPIC: Problematic Characters

ALRIGHT I HAVE A LOT OF FUCKING OPINIONS

1. Not every character needs a redemption arc. Let characters be "problematic," let characters be assholes, let characters be the absolute scum on the bottom of your shoe without any positive character development. Not every person in real life is going to change for the better, and sometimes, people just don't change at all and theres absolutely nothing you can do about it. Sometimes being "evil" is such a core aspect of a character, that by giving them a redemption arc, you can destroy they aspect of a character, especially if done incorrectly; which is pretty much why I personally don't want Minamimoto to get a redemption arc in TWEWY at all-- if its not done correctly, it could ruin the parts that make Sho, well, Sho.

And that doesn't mean villainous characters can't get development, absolutely not. Their development is going to be different from a hero's obviously, but that doesn't mean their development has to end. Let characters fall to the hands of corruption, let characters go into a downward spiral of their own demise!! Character development doesn't always have to be positive for fucks sake!

Also, back on the topic of TWEWY, it is absolutely BULLSHIT that every character is going to come out of the Reapers Game better than they were before going into it. Ya'll realize how absolutely terrifying the Reapers game in retrospect is? You're being attacked by magical animals on a plane of existence that's invisible to the world you know, and you're fighting for your own goddamn right to exist, not even always come back alive, to just stay existing, to stay as SOMETHING of importance. The Game brings out the best AND the worst of people, and I think a lot of people actually forget that. Problematic shit happens during the Game all the time I bet you, and theres definitely going to be characters who are changed negatively afterwards because that's just how people and their experiances can vary!

2. Tying into the last opinion, gray characters are not always inherently problematic. I don't think people realize that. Gray characters (in both actions and morals) are my absolute FAVORITE because they're as close to human as you can get. Humans do both good and bad, and while my last opinion was more or less "let evil characters remain evil instead of throwing sugar and icing onto them."

Theres differences between problematic actions and problematic morals; which therefore end up making or breaking a character who could be considered "problematic." Fuck it, let's use my own character Raekai as an example. He's my most problematic character, and I have 0 shame admitting that. He is not gray in either actions, or morals. He cannot justify neither his actions, NOR morals aside from enjoyment, which is a shitty justification honestly. Raekai is aware of his morals being wrong, he's aware of his actions being wrong, which is what makes him problematic as a character. He knows he's making the wrong choices, but ultimately, it's his own choice to decide what path he takes, and he chooses the "bad" path.

The common theme I find with gray characters is that they can justify their actions, because it aligns with their morals (which, hey, are actually coming from a good place of heart MOST of the time.) we can take Megumi, who I will argue is one of the, if not THE MOST morally gray character in all of TWEWY. (I could also analyze Hanekoma, but ya'll should probably just ask Willow about him then lol.) Megs wants the city to be better, to be HAPPY, and the only way he can see that working out is by essentially brainwashing the city. His characterization here follows the "good idea, poor execution," method that a lot of characters who are morally gray have. Joshua felt unhappy with the city, and the only way to make it better in his eyes was to either destroy it or see neku go through 3 weeks of hell to change as a person a person of his choosing change. Again, good idea, TERRIBLE execution.

That, of course, is when the morals are good, but the actions to justify their morals are problematic. Does that mean Megumi and Joshua are problematic? Not necessarily. I mean, they're mostly good people if you really think about it. A lot of what each person was doing was for the greater good.

Now, for the opposite of Megs and Josh, we're going to look at "terrible morals with a well execution." You know what fits into this category? Murderers. Specifically, ones who don't get caught, and cases with few suspects. (Honestly if you want some ideas of what I mean, just look at Buzzfeed Unsolved's true crime series lol.) I think we can all agree that condoning murder isn't, ah, really ethically acceptable. Hopefully anyways. Yet, these people can preform a plan and not get caught. (Its impressive, honestly.) There are definitely characters who can do this, but honestly, I can't think of anyone probably because I've been working on this "rant" for a few hours now and my brain is slowly turning into salty mush.

This is where I would consider the morals themselves to be problematic, and problematic actions CAN follow suit in these morals which the character in question can justify. Sometimes a character can totally be okay with murder, but never personally execute it, and possibly say something along the lines or "They had it coming," and/or "they deserved it."

Is this character problematic? To an extent, but that's the thing with humanity-- we're naturally problematic even though we don't think we are. I love gray characters because of this fact, they can be written realistically. Like I said earlier, humans both have good and bad in them. Sometimes one side shows more than the other and that makes a character "problematic," by fandom definition, but in my opinion, they aren't inherently problematic if their actions are explained and the character can justify them. I would consider this a good type of problematic, compared to, again, Raekai.

On the opposite side of the scale of Raekai, you have the goody two shoe characters who have hearts of gold and their actions pretty much justify their "good natured" morals. They can be a bit hard to read, because they can be unrealistic, but can be done right imo and can bring some interesting aspects like they're being horrified at the thought of doing harm to one person to the point they end up sacrificing themselves. The difference between these characters and not gray characters, is that these ones are not represented as morally gray, and are more often than not, the protagonist/hero of the story. HOWEVER, even though their actions and morals are neither considered problematic, but that doesn't mean they're completely exempt from problematic actions, as it adds character growth.

Which brings me entirely into my next point:

3.People gotta stop freaking out when their favorite, "pure" character does something "problematic." It's a plot point, Karen, it was supposed to happen, god fucking dammit! Not every character is going to be "uwu sweet cinnamon roll," inside and out-- that doesn't get the story anywhere and that doesn't develop any characters!

The best example I can think of, believe it or not, is what happened when Bismuth from Steven Universe came out. I'm not even part of the fandom, but a lot of my friends were/are and GOD, I didn't hear the end of it. It was either people mad at Steven for being problematic, people mad at Bismuth for being a "seemingly likeable character" that turns out to be problematic, or Rose Quartz being the problematic one??? It was a fucking MESS, and I'm honestly just throwing the word "Problematic" around now, but damn, I didn't hear the end of things until like a week later and that was with tags blacklisted.

Actually, it went as far as me watching the fucking episode out of curiosity of what to actually make of that shit storm. It was a pretty good episode (I've watched SU with my brother before, everyone shut) for the sole reason it was "problematic," it showed the different morals of the characters it showed emotions and it showed that people would literately rip into anything that isn't "pure."

Let good characters do problematic things and LEARN from them. Let characters develop. Nothing stays innocent and pure forever, and just like humans, characters should develop and grow as time moves on.

TD;LR: LET VILLAINS BE VILLAINS AND NOT GET A REDEMPTION ARC BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK LIKE THAT! JUST BECAUSE A CHARACTER IS MORALLY GRAY AND THEIR ACTIONS REFLECT THEM DOES NOT MEAN THEY'RE INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC! EVEN "GOOD CHARACTERS" CAN DO BAD THINGS BUT DON'T HOLD IT AGAINST THEM!

THANKS FOR COMING TO MY FUCKING TEDTALK