#it is the skill issue of the other person

[dcxdpdabbles]

DCxDP fanfic idea: Beyond the Grave

Danny Fenton gets the surprise of his life when the Justice League accepts a mission in Amity Park.

No, they were there for ghost issues. lt turns out that if people aren't exposed to shock waves of Ectoplasm radiation, they don't get fun side effects like seeing the dead. That's why the town people had called his parents loons up until the portal was open.

There hadn't been enough death energy to make them visible, let alone corporeal enough to touch the human world. Even Danny had thought his parents were chasing an unrealistic dream until that fateful day when Sam convinced him to walk through the portal.

What the Justice League was there to do was stop this company that had been kidnapping meta children all over the country. They had hidden them a little outside Amity Park, where people rarely drove by. Danny had only gone through those back roads twice, and he's lived in Amity Park all his life.

No one had the slightest idea that a secret lab was operating underground, forcing experimentation on children. Danny felt horrible he had missed this, as the self-proclaimed hero of the area, but his expertise was in ghosts. They were pretty straightforward and loud in their evil plots.

Something like this required resources, training, and detective skills that Danny didn't have. What made him feel a little bit better about all this was that Danny had found the children before the Justice League.

He just won't tell them that because it made his own kidnapping rather embarrassing. Somehow, the scientists- if that can even be called that- had detected Danny's hidden powers. While he was busy crawling out of a dumpster- Dash had thrown him in there- a van had pulled up and thrown a collar onto his neck.

Danny was so stunned by the action that he could not stop a taser to the neck in time. His entire body had cramped up, but not before he had sent a burst of energy to the broken security camera, tuning it on and broadcasting the video to Tucker's laptop.

He got a bit better at controlling technology using ectoplasm, especially after the many fights with Technus, and his friend had set up a laptop in a close circuit that could tap into Danny's frequency.

The kidnappers probably thought that they were in the clear when making grabs at meta children since most came from areas that didn't have surveillance. Tucker had gotten home to a three-hour-long video from Danny, clicking it open and spitting out the ramen he was eating when the first few minutes of it was Danny getting educated.

He panicked and called Jazz to ask if his friend had gotten home. When she denied seeing her brother, Tucker contacted Sam and informed her what was happening.

The pair had immediately mobilized, tearing through the city on the hunt for the van. Jazz had joined them after letting her parents know Danny was missing. They had gone straight to the police station to report that their son was gone.

Tucker had sent them the video, claiming it was from a Panic App. The pair had been in the beta stages, which was why no one had such a helpful app, but it was enough for the Fentons to make their case. The police had placed an Amber Alert and had practically locked down the city.

In a small town like Amity Park, getting the people to band together to help each other was relatively easy. Even Flash, the last person to have seen Danny, had called his football friends to get in a car and help them find the youngest Fenton.

Sadly, by then, the scientists had taken Danny well out of the city, even with multiple people calling to place tips on the black van. Four days passed, and with each passing hour, the likelihood of Danny returning home alive grew dimmer.

No one thinks they have ever seen Jazz Fenton cry that much before. Jack and Maddie were on a rampage, tearing through the city for hints of their son. They had even ignored a ghost attacking the mall, too busy stopping every black Sprinter van they could find for clues of their son.

The video was somehow leaked to the public - Tucker and Sam had allowed it to slip into public domains with a scrambled VPN, hoping to get someone to report anything- and this video had made its way to a certain billionaire in Gotham.

Batman had been working the case for months, looking for a pair of twins that had vanished from Daminan's class. They had gotten the boys back, now able to see in the dark as their meta genes had been forcefully unlocked, and realized they were rescued before they were able to get to the primary base.

The only clue the Bats had was a symbol of a two-headed snack on the collars found around the twin's necks. The same collar that had been forced upon Danny Fenton when he was taken in the video.

Bruce had called his co-workers the second he noticed the mark. They had geared up and gone to Amity Park to investigate. Clark, Diana, Billy, and Bruce had arrived at Amity Park in their civilian personas. They came separately to avoid suspicion, hoping to use Billy as bait.

The Justice League was still coming to terms with Captain Marvel being a fourteen-year-old kid, but none could call into question the good work Billy did.

The three had different stories about why they were in the middle of nowhere in Amity Park.

Bruce had been in town to set up a new outreach for the Wayne Foundation. Clark, a news reporter investigating the missing child case of Danny and Diana, had chosen to tour the most haunted cities in the United States for her museum curator.

Like a charm, Billy had gotten the attention of the kidnappers, and only three days after arriving in Amity as a homeless kid, he had been taken. The moment Billy pressed the button on his bracelet, the three were notified that he had been kidnapped.

Clark kept an ear of the van, listening to the bracelet's beeping that no human could pick up. Just in case, the Leauge had embedded a tracker into Billy's left arm, and Bruce had followed it to the secret Lab.

A message to the Watch Tower had backup zapping down in seconds. They waited until nightfall before springing a rescue mission. Flash, Black Canary, Red Tornado, and Vigilanete had been sent in to find and bring the children home while Bruce, Clack, and Diana worked on taking out the guards.

Danny had woken in a test tube with multiple needles and wires digging into his skin, facing a group of superheroes that stared back at him in horror. The last thing he remembered had been the passing cells of meta children before he was taken to a room with a glass tube.

After being shoved into it, Danny was put to sleep with a gas. He had not been conscious for the entire time he was taken. That means he was not awake when the scientists had accidentally caused his heart to flatline.

They had thrown his body into an unmarked grave, intending to bury him with the three other nameless victims. Danny had not been awake when his survival instincts had triggered his shift to Phantom and floated out of the grave.

Like a balloon with helium, Danny had drifted far from the grave, flouting in the wind unconscious due to the gas.

He had awakened for only a few seconds, floating above the road that led to Amity, confused about how he got there. Sadly, the very same van that had just finished burying him had driven down the street, spotting him in the air and choosing to capture the famous Phantom.

They had stolen some Fenton Tech on a stakeout while waiting to take the Fenton Boy and were happy to see it had knocked out the ghost. The men had taken Phantom back to the lab, setting him up in a tube so their scientist could pull out his green blood for tests.

The Justice League had broken in that night. After the raid, Bruce hacked the computers, looking for clues about the missing children. His heart fell to his feet when he read the reports.

The children had died in the experiments. Danny Fenton was on the list of failed experiments, his time of death marked in the conclusion section of a report like he wasn't a young boy who had just finished his first year of high school.

Bruce had only been able to pull himself together long enough to find information about Phantom being held in a deeper part of the lab. Clark, Barry, and Bruce had gone to the lower levels, intending to set the ghost free.

What they found was Phantom in his most basic form. A young ghost with his jumpsuit cut open, showing the same markings the other rescued children bore.

Lichtenberg scars around the neck, torso, and arms.

Phantom had been a new ghost. Bruce and Clark had verified that in their investigations. They had never thought to question what had created him, only that he had appeared a few months ago wearing a hazmat jumpsuit and seemingly unable to leave Amity Park.

The same jumpsuit the other meta children were forced to wear to contain their experiments.

Phantom had been a meta child that had been killed by these people. He was recaptured and placed in a strange ghost coma, leaving the Justice League baffled about how to help him.

Besides blinking, his eyes opened for only a few seconds when he was rescued; he had remained unconscious after muttering, "There are more. Fifty-seven kids....help them, please."

The League had taken him back to their headquarters while working through the labs and digging up the bodies of the other victims. The people involved with this heinous crime had all taken their lives, having snuck a cyanide tablet into their teeth.

None of them faced justice properly, not for the deaths they caused or the angst that Phantom had been dragged into. The ghost had been unable to move on, sticking around even after everything they had done to him.

He had likely been attempting to get help for the remaining prisoners because every place he had attacked had been involved with this lab.

The Justice League would later reveal this information to the horrified townspeople.

Valerie Gray would be throwing up in the bathroom after watching the news. Her father's previous employers had been half on staff with the people who had killed Phantom.

They made a list of potential children to test for the meta gene. She had been on there, and had Phantom not gotten her dad fired when he did, she would have been kidnapped. He saved her life, and she had shot at him in return.

Dash Baxter would be found drinking and sobbing in the school parking lot. He had been drowning in guilt for dragging Fenton behind the mall, where he had thrown him in the dumpster. He had nothing to do with the kidnapping, but he blamed himself nonetheless.

Those people had been attempting to take Fenton for weeks, and he created the perfect opening. Now Danny Fenton was dead by the same people who made his hero. Dash vowed never to bully anyone again, even as Kawn took him home and helped nurse him through his hangover.

Sam Madison and Tucker Foley moved about like zombies. They kept sending messages to someone who would never answer, searching the sky for Phantom's glow, or had their phones on just in case they found Danny. With each uncovered grave, the pair grew hopeful as Danny had not been among the recovered bodies.

People were slightly heartbroken for them. They would wait on a best friend that was never coming home.

Not to mention the Fenton's reaction to Danny's fate. The funeral had been one of the hardest ones any of them had ever attended. The cries of the three remaining Fentons had echoed in their nightmares.

Worse, they had closed their portal. The Fentons had sealed everything to do with ghosts away, no longer able to stand the research now that they knew Phantom had been attempting to prevent Danny's death.

Maybe if they had stopped to try and communicate with him, they might have been able to save their son.

Jack and Maddie were still certified geniuses and were able to fall back on working for Wayne Enterprises as engineers. They moved away, with Jazz looking lifeless without her brother.

People in Amity Park passed by the old Fenton Works sign, never to see it glow again. They also realized that Phantom had vanished, many assuming that now he was at rest due to his murder being solved.

They were unaware he was floating above them in the Watch Tower's medical wing, locked away in slumber.

John Constantine had noticed his ectoplasm levels had not moved since his rescue. For some reason, Phantom's body was not producing it properly like other ghosts- most likely due to experiments they had forced him through.

This caused a coma, with every Justice League Dark member scratching their heads. In every way, Phantom seemed fine, but his core did not react correctly.

It was almost as if it had never been adequately formed, as if Phantom was still alive somehow.

After months of trying to figure out how to stabilize the ghost's core, John contacted a ghost doctor from the Infinite Realms. It took calling in a few favors to get the information, let alone the actual communication with the ghost doctor, but he could do it.

He was a magic expert, not a medic. This was the only chance Phantom had to ever wake.

Thankfully, Frostbite seemed to know exactly what to do when his large eyes landed on the floating figure in the medical incubator the League had placed him in.

He had assured them he could help Phantom but needed to take him back to his hospital to properly treat the ghost. After the Yeti agreed to an Oath Vow stating he would not allow any harm to fall upon Phantom while under his care.

Another agreement of having John present for Phantom's treatment had solidified Justice League into letting the being move Phantom into the Far Frozen.

A year after Danny Fenton's death, Phantom's eyes snapped open to the relieved Frostbite and the beaming trench coat man.

He had never been so confused when the first thing his doctor said was, "Great One, I am sorry to say the humans believed Daniel Fenton has passed while you were in a coma."

Well.

How was he going to bring himself back to life?

[dailymanners]

I am neurodivergent myself so I really do understand the struggle, which is why I mean this in a nice and helpful way when I say: if you lack the skills to say something without hurting other people's feelings, this is quite literally a skill issue, and something that can, and should, be worked on.

It's taken me reading books on manners and years of practice to get better at this, but it is possible. If you're someone who struggles with accidentally hurting other people's feelings I recommend reading any books by Ms Manners, How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie, or How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable by Suzette Haden Elgin. (check with your local library!)

As others have said in the notes, brutal honesty isn't more honest, it's just brutal. If you are unable to say what you want to say or make your point without hurting someone's feelings, the most likely result is that the other party will be less receptive to what you're saying due to their feelings being hurt. Having your feelings hurt makes most people less receptive and more closed off. In the few times that someone might seem more receptive to what you're saying because you said it in a way that hurts your feelings, often that's due to the other person being traumatized so they may seem more receptive in the moment as a trauma response, but that doesn't mean they're actually more receptive to you under the surface. Fawning is a common response to being hurt and upset if someone is traumatized, but a traumatized person fawning to you after you hurt their feelings doesn't mean they necessarily agree with you or got your point.

Or, in some cases, after you hurt someone's feelings by the way you delivered what you want to say, they might pretend to agree and get your point just because they want to try to end the conversation with you as quickly as possible after having their feelings hurt. There is some overlap here between an unconscious fawning response, or some people just consciously doing what they think is the easiest way to end the conversation as quickly as possible.

I get it, I really do. When I was younger I struggled a lot with accidentally upsetting people because I just did not realize what I was saying and doing was upsetting. Part of that was neurodivergence, part of that was being raised by people with the social skills of a rabies infested polar bear, so I did not get proper guidance on speaking with tact growing up. And it has also caused a lot of lasting social anxiety for me that I am still working on.

But speaking with tact is a skill, and any skill can be learned, even if you don't have the same foundation others might have. You can learn it, I promise you can, and it will make your life easier and better if you make some effort to learn even some foundational skills on speaking with tact.

I take issue with how many people conflate being rude with being more "honest" "sincere" and "real", while the same people will often conflate being nice and polite with being "fake" "insincere" "two faced", and even though this line of thinking has always existed, I think it's gotten worse in the last decade or so.

Don't get me wrong, brown-nosers and people who try to use a veneer of "kindness" as a manipulation tactic are very, very real. And they give kindness and good manners a bad name.

But I take issue with the idea that in order to be sincere and honest with someone you have to be rude and inconsiderate. It's a very childish view on human interaction and human relationships IMHO. You can be honest and sincere with someone while being considerate of them and their feelings as a fellow human being.

I also think it's incorrect to conflate kindness and good manners with being fake and insincere because, at least the people I've met who are fake and insincere people (brown nosers and manipulators if you need a more concise definition of what I mean by fake and insincere people) yes they can be good at making first impressions. They can come across as quite nice, at first. But if you spend any amount of time around them and actually pay attention, they are actually rude as hell. And it will always show at some point.

[altschmerzes]

omgggg shipping is not arophobic in the LEAST but keep making us look like whiners with no real problems by continuing to complain about it I guess

yeah that's definitely what i said in any post ever man great job

average person who has made shipping their entire identity will see a post where someone says 'hey please don't say these specific types of things that are degrading and cruel about nonromantic relationships while enjoying your ships and maybe examine the thought processes and beliefs and prejudices that led to saying them' and be like 'oh so you're a whiner with no real problems who thinks shipping is arophobic?'

telling on yourself there bud

[mareastrorum]

As a known villain-enthusiast, I figured I’d write up how I assess them as storytelling devices. Like, whether they’re enjoyable characters is up to taste, but whether they’re good writing requires critical assessment. This is a rather long post, so here is a summary:

Learning how to critique villains is a great way to identify skilled and passionate storytellers. They embody the ideas and decisions that the writer feels are incorrect. While some narrative devices are more subtle (local politics unfolding in the background, color or song cues, scene settings, etc.), villains are dramatic. That is a person designed to be wrong! They intentionally draw the audience’s focus for important steps of the story. When a writer stumbles on that, it reflects poorly on the entire work precisely because of that focus.

This post is going to get into the following key components of an effective villain:

They highlight the wrong conclusion about a key issue in the story.

They should be a symptom of either a larger issue in the narrative or the one they fixate on.

They don't need to be evil, and, in many cases, that label is a hindrance.

As the average age of the target audience and/or the length of the story increases, villains should be more frequently correct in their beliefs and choices.

They evoke strong emotion appropriate to the genre.

They don’t need to be antagonists, and antagonists don’t need to be villains.

They raise the stakes: the world will become worse if they are left unchecked.

Their strengths and weaknesses should be directly tied either to the central theme of the story or their opponent's character arc.

Their ending is consistent with the theme of the story.

If included, a villain redemption arc must have 4 components: (1) an external stimulus causing (2) a choice to deviate from their plan and (3) a corresponding shift in their worldview, and those result in (4) action that matches the strength of their new conviction.

They should not be included in a story if any of the above causes distraction or discordance with the main plot line.

Of course, there’s spoilers to follow, so reader beware.

First, some definitions. These are definitely not perfect, but they're how I keep these narrative issues separated in my own head.

A villain is someone whose wrong actions/beliefs are relevant to the plot/themes. An antagonist is someone who acts in direct conflict with the protagonist. The protagonist is the character that the audience follows in a story. Sometimes villains are protagonists, sometimes they're antagonists, and sometimes they're neither. This post addresses villains regardless of their other roles in a story.

I am intentionally using a vague word like “wrong” in that definition because villains are versatile tools. What is the core message or theme of this story? What is the wrong conclusion? What did the villain get right before they fucked up? At what point did this take a downturn? Can this be fixed before it’s too late? How can it be fixed? A well-designed villain can be used to answer most, if not all, of those questions without any reference to another character. When a villain is included in the story, each of the topics below is a point where the writer should be using that character to bolster the narrative.

Villains highlight the wrong conclusion about a key issue in the story.

The point of a villain is to be a bad example. A job well done requires the author to have a thorough, intimate understanding of the themes, plot, and other characters, and then showcase each of them through that villain.

In other words, the villain cannot be conceived before the protagonist's arc is decided. The author needs to have a plan for the protagonist's character arc and plot because that is going to be the audience's focus for the entire story, and the villain is meant to emphasize a key problem for that character. Even when the villain is the protagonist, their purpose as the protagonist must be determined first before any villainous aspects should be addressed.

That said, villains should be minimized or omitted for any issue that doesn't culminate in a climax. Villains are dramatic: once outed as a villain, the audience will watch everything they do. That level of focus is difficult to match with other narrative devices, so the optimal use is to direct it at key issues. For other topics, antagonists are a better fit (discussed further below). If the writer does not intend to address some core aspect of the story or worldbuilding, then it shouldn't significantly involve the villain.

A poorly done villain often reveals how the author failed to grasp something, either as a concept or in execution. Again, by definition, a villain is someone the author disagrees with. People are usually much better at making themselves and their own opinions look good than they are at portraying people with opposing viewpoints. A skilled storyteller commits to giving villains a good faith dissection rather than merely attacking a strawman.

Of course, more complex stories may warrant the use of minor villains, an ensemble, or a Big Bad Evil Guy standing above the rest. The depth and time spent on each villain should match their overall importance to the main storyline. Perhaps a lesser villain will feature in a particular episode/chapter addressing their connected theme, but they shouldn’t be emphasized by the writer outside of that relevance.

Villains should be a symptom of either a larger issue in the narrative or the one they fixate on.

This is one of the more common flaws that I've encountered. Most villains believe they are solving a problem. A lot of stories fall short of answering, "what is a better conclusion?"

Caveat: this isn’t necessary for all genres. Genres that rely on gaps in understanding don’t need to supply answers. Comedy, horror, short fiction, and any other story focusing entirely on a plot about “stuff went wrong” don’t necessarily benefit from telling the audience what the problem is. Eldritch horror stories, for example, are specifically about encounters that the characters and audience do not understand, but they may still feature villains.

This facet is more noticeable in stories about problems that affect large populations. Whether it's a social heirarchy, a government structure, a natural disaster, resource shortages, etc., it's something that requires more than removing villains from seats of power or ending a plan. The nature of the solution will vary widely, especially across genres, but the writer should be concerned with the exact thing the villain had been.

As an example, in a lot of contemporary stories involving revolutions by lower classes against an oppressive upper class, the key conflict of the story is that the revolutionaries have resorted to an unconscionable option for the sake of success. Whether it's genocide, biological warfare, nuclear escalation, etc., the climax is about stopping a villain from successfully employing that option. However, a solid number of those stories end with the status quo or with minor concessions by the upper class. Each of those is a problem. If they stuck with the status quo, the story is that the oppressed should accept their station, even without hope or promise of improvement. If there were minor concessions, then the message is that drastic threats of violence are necessary for even the smallest concessions. Neither of those is a very satisfying story, and in most cases, neither were the writer's intended takeaway. Unfortunately, that sort of message often gets baked in because the unspoken implication of “don’t resort to these tactics” is “accept your place”—unless an alternative is presented within the story.

Of course, the challenge for these sorts of stories is how to convey a better option without getting on a soapbox in the narration. Villains are an efficient option to challenge the protagonists (or their opponents if they're protagonists) on these issues. “If you're so determined to stop me, then what are you going to do about [XYZ]?” It's a great way to weave in the author's intended message through some exposition or by seeding internal conflict for the protagonist to grapple with after the two separate again. This can even be brought up by other characters in discussions about the villain, without requiring a direct confrontation. Whether the opposition achieves that goal isn’t necessary either; it’s enough to introduce it and start the path toward it, letting the implication become “that’s not happening yet because that would be the next story.”

While stories don’t need to answer every question, ignoring the villain’s concern conveys that the writer doesn’t care about that issue. In that case, why include it as the villain’s motivation? What benefit did that complication bring to the story? Useless or unintended elements should be cut from a story to avoid muddling the themes, and failure to do that with a villain demonstrates subpar storytelling.

Villains don't need to be evil, and, in many cases, that label is a hindrance.

Evil is a moral label. Some stories aren’t concerned with addressing how to be a good person, what should happen to bad people, etc. That is certainly a most common framing for a villain in Western media, but it’s not the only one. Stories don't need to convey a moral to be great.

Sometimes the villain cares deeply for others, is motivated by saving people and doing good, and checks all the boxes for a hero, but the means they resort to are absolutely fucked up. Their arc often involves realizing a terrible act is “necessary” to achieve their desired result, and because they believe that result is worth the travesties, they commit. The audience can debate whether that means the villain is good or evil, but that is beside the point; the problem is that they’re doing something they shouldn’t, regardless of the moral label attached to it. Stories like this often include a message that there aren’t good/bad people, only good/bad acts, which also means that people cannot attain a moral label, and therefore the villain cannot be evil. (The Dune novels are a fantastic example of this.)

Sometimes the villain is someone dedicated to a cause that has long since careened into villainy. Their personal morality doesn’t match with what they do because duty or honor requires them to act this way, and to forsake that obligation is also failure. No matter what they choose, they will be trampling their moral ideals. Pretty much any story about well-meaning military, police, government, or other duty-bound characters following a chain of command after the bad guy takes control is an example of this. Some stories focus on the interpersonal conflict arising out of that, and others stories might focus on the internal cognitive dissonance and psychological fallout of such circumstances. These stories often posit that there is no such thing as pure good, and since everyone must commit evil on some level in the course of pursuing a moral standard, we cannot assess anyone (including the villain) on morality alone. These also tend to be stories that include a redemption arc (discussed below), though they very frequently involve some sort of dramatic sacrifice in the process.

Other stories ignore morality entirely because it just isn’t the point. These villains tend to be more subtle because their presence isn’t as offensive to the audience. Bureaucrats ruthlessly enforcing the rules in spite of unique circumstances, then getting overruled by a superior after a big display by the protagonist, are a fairly common villain trope in media aimed at children and young adults. It does happen in media for adults as well, though most often in comedies (My Cousin Vinny, Ghostbusters) or legal/political/professional dramas. These stories usually criticize overzealous commitment to systems, not because the systems or villains are inherently evil, but because excessive enforcement can unhelpfully inhibit good, health, fun, freedom, etc.

Villains can absolutely be moral/good/neutral people in the author’s perspective, framed as such in a story, and still be the bad guys.

As the average age of the target audience and/or the length of the story increases, villains should be more frequently correct in their beliefs and choices.

This is such a frustrating thing when writers muck it up. As stated, villainy highlights a wrong conclusion. Do you know what would ruin that effect? If they’re wrong about everything.

The thing about highlighting is that it’s only useful when done sparingly or with clear methods of differentiation. Highlighting a single line with one color or multiple lines with different colors can each be effective methods of focusing attention, but highlighting an entire page is a waste of effort. The audience doesn’t know what to look at anymore. The purpose is lost when it's overdone.

So too with a villain. A well-constructed villain needs to get some things right. That is a signal that those aren't the parts the audience should be concerned with. That works both for focusing on themes (if indeed that side issue isn’t important) or as obfuscation for a reveal later on (related to plot, motive, identity, etc.). This wealthy villain pays his taxes without complaint, donates to charity, and tips generously, so the story message isn’t about whether businessmen pay their fair share to government, give back to the people generally, or pays people for their labor. Instead, when the businessman turns out to be a financier of a warlord plotting a coup, we can ignore the question, “should the wealthy use money to help people?” and instead focus on “the harm of using wealth to enable oppression far outweighs any generosity that coincides with it.”

In most media, I prefer main villains to be correct on so many things that, at some point in the story, they would have been capable of swaying me to their position if not for a key theme. That is the gold standard because it points the audience right at the villain’s narrative purpose and explains why no one has managed to stop the villain before this plot line. After all, if a person is tolerable, useful, or personable except for this one thing, then they are likely to have many allies and defenses to prevent anyone from stopping their plans. While not every villain needs that level of honing, it is vital that the villain associated closely to the main theme is the one with the most clarity.

When a villain is wrong about most things, that clarity is lost. That extremism is only expected in children’s fiction, comedy, and short form fiction because those genres usually don’t explore any other facets of the villain anyway—the audience rarely gets a comprehensive look at that character. A villain is a portrayal of a person, and people are complex. Any longer forms of media require more time spent with the villain, and a two-dimensional character doesn't hold up well in those circumstances. When an author decides to structure a villain who is incorrect at every step of a story, there is meaning there: this villain is intended as an extreme example of everything the author dislikes. This story is intended to be propaganda.

Propaganda invites heavier criticism: What ethnicity did the author choose for this representation of someone getting everything wrong? What gender? What sexuality? What nationality? Social or economic class? Level of education? How does that compare to their opposition? If there’s someone who does everything right, what differences are there between that one and the villain? Those choices are just as intentional as the decision to frame the villain as so egregiously wrong about everything. Writers don’t get to pretend such decisions are meaningless. More often than not, when this happens, the writer's bigoted views are put on display. The villain absolutely did its job, so it's not an ineffective villain: it told me what the writer disapproves of and that the theme of the story is that type of person is inferior. It just turns out that now I have an entirely separate reason to dislike this writer and their works.

Villains evoke strong emotion appropriate to the genre.

I expect that most discussions about villains will include something about making that character entertaining or fun, but that isn’t quite the right mark. A proper villain is evocative in a way that matches the genre. There’s a lot of flexibility in this, so entertainment value is a safe bet. Some stories need a villain that raises tension in every scene, and others just need a laid back asshole to quip at the hero and be an obstacle. That said, sometimes a villain would be better if they aren’t fun.

For example, in Pan’s Labyrinth, Captain Vidal (played by a well known Spanish comedian who had never previously ventured outside of comedy) in fascist Spain confronts a potential spy who claims that he was hunting rabbits with his son. Indeed, the man was carrying a weapon and a bag of supplies, and he has a younger man with him. Until that point, the Captain had been presented as extremely strict and hierarchical in every facet of his life, even with his new wife, but not necessarily bad. In full view of the man’s son, the Captain personally kills the hunter, declares him to be a traitor to Spain, then discovers the dead rabbits in the pack and ignores that he may have been wrong. The son is taken away without apology or aid—not even the food and supplies they had been carrying. Any audience expectation of mercy is shunted out the window because fascism involves seeing common people as either resources or threats, and nothing else. It’s a brutal, terrifying way to establish Captain Vidal’s role, that this character will not be fun or comedic, and what type of story the film will entail. We know without a shadow of doubt that if Captain Vidal discovers what the child protagonist has been up to, he will kill her. He would kill that little girl without remorse for the slightest infraction against his control. An unavoidable dread surrounds Captain Vidal’s presence through every subsequent scene, even when he isn’t shown on screen. That brought the terror of fascism to a personal level in a horrifically efficient manner. Excellent use of a villain.

Because the core purpose of a villain is to highlight aspects of a story, stoking the audience’s emotion is a surefire way to guarantee everyone is paying attention. The most commonly used options are anger (unjust acts), disgust (socially unacceptable traits), and fear (unflinching violence). Regardless of which emotion it is, it should be something either unexpected or more extreme than encountered otherwise. These cues should be in contrast to the emotions evoked by positive developments. If the rest of the mood of the story is somber, inappropriate lightheartedness is an excellent contrast. If the rest of the story is tense action, an eerie calm is incredibly upsetting. There are many options for creating a discordant tone, and doing so not only emphasizes that this villain is wrong somehow, but also ensures that any dialogue or narration in that scene carries that same sense of wrongness.

Obviously, some stories involve villain reveals, so those high-intensity scenes shouldn’t occur until the right moment. In those instances, the method and circumstances of the reveal are a great vehicle to emphasize the villain’s narrative purpose, especially when done close to or during the story’s climax. That said, a shocked audience may have difficulty parsing complicated dialogue; sticking to a simple, overarching topic is a much better option for those particular circumstances. That’s why a villain monologue is such a common trope: it works.

When this sort of emotional turmoil is absent, I get the sense that the writer doesn’t know how to structure a scene to reinforce themes. This sort of narrative device isn’t necessary for every villain scene, but if only one scene in an entire story were to stoke the audience’s feelings, it should be the scene where the villain’s conclusion is front and center. Denouements and moments of triumph also obviously warrant strong emotional responses, but I prioritize the villain for a simple reason: why would anyone add a villain to a story if they weren’t going to demand the audience’s attention? If that type of scene takes away from the story’s purpose, then the villain does too, and they should be removed.

Villains don't need to be antagonists, and antagonists don’t need to be villains.

This might seem contradictory to the preceding points, but the fact is that protagonists cannot be expected to fix every problem they encounter.

Villains are supposed to reach the wrong conclusion about something core to the theme or plot. Antagonists are just people who work against the protagonist. For a lawyerly analogue, my opposing counsel is the antagonist (working against me, a plaintiff litigator) and their client is the villain (that fucker did Wrong, even if they never interact with me and haven’t done anything since). The lawyer isn’t wrong for simply being on that side; they’re doing their job, and their job is to be in my way. I’m not right for simply being on my side; I’m just the one telling the story. When assessing a villain and protagonist, we look at both characters in those conflicts. In comparison, an any conflict with a non-villain antagonist is entirely focused on the protagonist; the antagonist’s values, beliefs, etc. don’t really matter.

All that said, villains are usually antagonists. It’s a very efficient way to structure a story, so it is a preferred option for shorter or simpler narratives. That isn't a flaw. It's a completely valid way to handle these roles. Whether the villain should or shouldn't be an antagonist depends on the themes. Is a person versus person conflict necessary to resolve the problem that the villain is highlighting?

For example, if the key theme is about the catastrophic damage caused by climate change, a direct conflict with the villain could distract from that. Many disaster movies focusing on climate change feature villains that ignore or exploit it, and rather than meet their end through conflict with the protagonists, they usually end up ruining themselves. That makes sense given that climate change is a phenomenon that cannot be stopped by an individual and that it doesn't discriminate as to who is affected. There's plenty of other themes where similar story structures are more effective than the protagonist causing the villain's downfall. Those stories don't benefit from direct conflicts with the villain, but that character added to the narrative regardless.

Sometimes a character is necessary for the protagonists to have a concrete victory at a certain point in the story, but there’s no thematic conclusion yet. Villains would distract from that, but antagonists wouldn’t. For example, a middle point in the story has the culmination of a coming of age arc for a main character, but the final conflict is still on the horizon: a sports competitor has to end their growth arc by winning at regionals before shifting to the main rising action involved in going to nationals. Introducing a local rival with no significant bad qualities would allow the audience to focus on the protagonist’s growth, and the villain in the later arc doesn’t lose any presence or effect by having a predecessor.

All that said, some characters shift over time, especially in serial media. An antagonist of the week in a superhero comic might be the dastardly Big Bad villain in a special release and then back to a background problem in the next. Villains should only be used to extent that they will help the audience understand the full scope of the themes. Regardless of genre (except maybe satire/parody), the villain shouldn’t be causing problems “on screen” beyond the scope of their purpose, so unless the dramatic brawl between villain and hero adds something other than cool visuals, antagonism is just wasted time.

Villains raise the stakes: the world will be worse if they are left unchecked.

Any villain that fails to raise the stakes is an example of poor writing. Why should the audience care about a villain if there is nothing to lose should they succeed? It is a complete failure to use such a dramatic narrative device to highlight a non-problem. Even if a villain is not an antagonist, they need to be a threat.

In order to achieve that, the villain needs to have strengths necessary to achieve their goal. When villains don't have a skill or a resources necessary for their plan, there should be a relatively straightforward method for them to fill that gap. For example, a warmongering monarch might lack the manpower from her own lands to continue conquering neighbors, so she has her army conscript soldiers from annexed territories to put on the front lines. Of course, these power gaps are also excellent points for conflict with the opposition, and that can be worked into the plot. By shaping the villain into a formidable power in the world, the protagonist (or their faction, allies, etc.) has to step up and find a solution to the plot problem before the villain ruins everything. It adds time pressure to the protagonist’s goals and allows for logical opportunities to foil the villain’s plans.

When the villain is incompetent, that tension is lost. Within the story itself, of all the possible characters in this made up world, this was the one the writer focused on. Why hasn’t someone already stopped them, and why should the audience care what they’re up to? Why is the writer wasting the protagonist’s time on this character? That reflects poorly on the story because that conveys that there’s not a real a risk of failure or a bad ending; if there was, the writer should have focused on that instead! So, why include the villain at all?

Unless the story is parody, nothing is as disappointing as a story where a villain succeeds or fails because of something stupid. It can be funny, it can be an oversight or mistake or gap in knowledge, but it should never be because of stupidity. That tells me that the writer couldn’t up with something clever because they’re stupid—they used a complex narrative device without thinking it through—and they expect me (a member of the audience) to applaud. Absolutely not.

Villains' strengths and weaknesses should be directly tied either to the central theme of the story or their opponent's character arc.

Building off the last point, a villain should be competent in a narratively convenient way and have convenient weaknesses. In many story structures, a villain antagonist is a wonderfully efficient option for the protagonist hero to grapple with a key character development or plot climax. The best villains are those whose weaknesses are ones that the protagonist is capable of exploiting; it helps establish the protagonist as an appropriate perspective for this story. However, that logic needs to work both in the direction in which it was planned, and backwards from the opposite view.

First, the writer needs to choose a villain that suits the protagonist and the plot. I’ve lined out plenty of reasons for that above, but in short, the villain should be actively engaging in behavior or building to a turning point that will impact the ending that the protagonist desires. It doesn’t need to impact the protagonist directly, but there must be a clear motivation to interfere with the villain’s plan. Thus, the villain’s strengths should be relevant to the theme or opponent’s arc—it’d be a waste of opportunity otherwise.

Once the protagonist’s needs are established, the writer needs to change perspective: the villain needs to make sense within the narrative whether the protagonist does anything or not. Generally speaking, any person would prefer a plan with requirements they would not struggle to complete. People like to do things they’re good at. A mad scientist is going to prefer mad science over politics. A corrupt politician is going to prefer bribery over a ray gun. If the plot demands a particular course of action, the villain should be designed to be someone who prefers that method and is damn good at it. Even in situations where a villain is forced to resort to something they don’t excel in, there should be a logical explanation for how this arrangement came about. Failure to achieve this breaks immersion.

The difficult part of discussing this facet is that it is the most versatile aspect of villain characterization, so there aren’t any rigid requirements. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say that a villain should be a foil because that limits them to mirroring a specific character. They don’t need to be foils! Sometimes, a villain should be bigger than that: Sauron in The Lord of the Rings trilogy could be compared to numerous protagonists, but he is not a direct foil of one, while lesser villains (Denethor, Steward of Gondor) in the books are.

For a vague example, let's say I want to write a story about a slave who is leading a revolution. The obvious themes would be the necessity of violence to wrest freedom from oppressors, that legal systems are always biased in favor of those already in power, that most people will accept oppression of others for the sake of economic benefit, and so on. There are many potential villains, but the best ones would be the owner, the lawman (chief of police, sheriff, judge, etc.), and/or the head of government (mayor, governor, etc.). Regardless of which one I choose, their respective strengths (color of law, weaponry, support of the ruling class) will require the protagonist to address his own weaknesses (lack of legal authority, resources, and social capital), which gives the plot shape. Those are the parts that will be addressed in the rising action of the story. In addition, the villain's weaknesses (over-reliance on demoralized slaves, personal immorality, bigotry, cruelty, apathy, etc.) each give options for what strengths to give the protagonist. Perhaps the protagonist's unfailing courage and camaraderie stokes the other slaves' will to resist and fight back, and it becomes a story about greater numbers overcoming the villain's strengths. Another option is that the protagonist stoops just as low and has no moral or social high ground, and the point of the story is that freedom should be achieved by any means necessary by anyone willing to fight for it. Yet another option is that the protagonist makes contact with a third-party, and they cooperate to overthrow the villains, because the villains' institution of slavery could not be tolerated by anyone with an unbiased view (outsiders with no stake in it). Whichever possibility is chosen, the strengths/weaknesses of the villains put a tint on the overall message: the owner would focus the story on individuals and allow for more intimate exchanges between characters, the lawman would be more of a philosophical story with impersonal distance, and the head of government would focus on social values and how to change the will of other people. I need to choose the villain that allows me to explore my preferred protagonist arc, and I need to choose the plot line that matches well with that conflict.

But that’s a bit cerebral. A simpler example: Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. He’s sexist, only wants Belle because she’s the prettiest girl in the village, and his ego demands the best of everything. There’s literally nothing else he finds attractive about her. He’s charismatic and appeals to the toxic masculinity culture of the town. He does not value intelligence or kindness, so many potential options for getting what he wants are closed to him. In the climactic conflict, Gaston whips the town into a mob by using his charisma to deceive them, has Belle and her father imprisoned in their own home, and goes to kill the Beast so that he can claim the mantle of hero and Belle for himself. Belle uses her intelligence to improvise an escape, and her kindness spurs the Beast out of inaction after it was established that nothing else had ever swayed his heart. While there may be other things to criticize in this story, Gaston is an excellent example of making strengths and weaknesses relevant to plot, themes, and other characters. Everything he did was as bad as, if not worse than, the Beast, his conflict with Belle allowed her agency and traits to shine, and his devotion to violence and ego caused his own death rather than Belle resorting to his methods.

When that doesn't happen, it feels like a plot hole. Why hype up a villain to excel at worming his way into powerful social circles and then he never attempts to manipulate anyone in any scenes? Why make a villain so egotistical as to ignore security flaws in a key scene and then never have anyone take advantage? I’m not talking about trope subversion; I mean when a strength/weakness is added and then ignored. It's such an intrinsic part of the process for constructing a villain that failing to flesh it out demonstrates poor writing skills.

The villain’s ending is consistent with the theme of the story.

I truly do not care if villains get “what they deserve” in a story. Can it be satisfying to see villains contribute to their own failure? Yes, but they don’t deserve anything. They’re not real. Even if they were, people don’t deserve anything. You can’t earn an ending. The world doesn’t work that way, stories don’t work that way, and that line of thinking isn’t interesting. Catharsis is not about a character getting what the audience thinks they should, it’s about evoking emotional satisfaction, and limiting that assessment to whether characters get what they “deserve” is narrow-minded.

Because stories are not real, everything is on the table. The writer can do whatever they want to every single character. The most important issue is whether the outcome makes sense for what issue the villain was highlighting.

For example, if the villain is meant to be a focal point of corruption in a government structure, and the highlighted problem is that this person was tolerated by others because of the benefits they provided, deposing only that villain doesn't really fix anything. The people that let this happen are still there, and they'll find another person to do it the same way. Instead, a better resolution would be to turn that villain against their enablers, whether by threat or force or agreement. Maybe the villain is willing to testify against co-conspirators in exchange for a lenient sentence in a court of law. By definition, leniency means that the villain does not receive a fair punishment, but the problem is resolved and won't happen again. That demonstrates that the writer actually understands the issue they chose to address and that they're telling a story about a solution to a problem rather than fulfilling a base desire for punishment.

Of course, sometimes a key point of the story is wish fulfillment for punishment. The Count of Monte Cristo is probably the best revenge story ever written, with every single villain getting their comeuppance due the machinations of the wronged protagonist after returning from imprisonment and exile. Even better, the protagonist orchestrated the events so that each villain ultimately causes their own end through willful greed, ego, and cruelty. However, the key question is whether or not the protagonist is a villain too: at what point will he stop? When is it no longer justice? What about innocent bystanders? When faced with the decision whether to legally kill the only son of both his hated enemy and his former lover, Edmond Dantes finally decides to stop. This differentiates him from the villains, and the story allows the audience to determine whether to attribute it to morality, love, duty, etc. The story includes wish fulfillment because the ongoing audience consideration is “How many more times are you going to wish for this?” It felt good, it felt just, they “deserved” it, the world was better for it, but the point was that Dantes had other needs that he was ignoring by focusing solely on revenge. A core theme was that a desire for revenge is not inherently wrong—it springs from injustice and a desire for equitable results—but it isn’t the right answer to every problem. The villains’ ends fit in perfectly for the characters individually, the themes of the story, and the cultural backdrop of France before, during, and after the tumult of the Napoleonic wars.

Further, sometimes the “end” is just a pause. Many serials need the villain to remain a threat for future use, so that thread is left unresolved. This isn’t necessarily poor writing. However, those villains shouldn’t be intricately tied to a theme that requires a definitive resolution by the end of that phase. This type of arrangement requires extra planning because bringing back the villain will evoke those old themes, so either reviving the question or tying it into a new one is vital to a good story.

If included, a villain redemption arc must have 4 components: (1) an external stimulus causing (2) a choice to deviate from their plan and (3) a corresponding shift in their worldview, and those result in (4) action that matches the strength of their new conviction.

A proper villain redemption arc always has the same core message: people can change. It has absolutely nothing to do with earning anything because change comes from within; as soon as external approval comes into play, it’s no longer about change, it’s about relationships. The quality of a redemption arc has nothing to do with anyone other than the person being redeemed. If this type of arc doesn’t suit the story, it should not be included.

The four points listed above are necessary because they tie the villain’s arc to the plot. Why is the villain changing during this story? What does the writer believe is needed to correct course? Does the writer actually believe that people can change?

The external stimulus is necessary because of the above point that the villain should make things worse if left unchecked. That check doesn’t necessarily need to be the protagonist, an opponent, or even a character; it could be a sudden change in circumstances, like war breaking out or a new faction coming into play. Maybe the villain achieves their goal and something goes horribly wrong. Regardless of the specifics, the cause should something other than internal rumination. A villain coming to a sudden epiphany in a moment of daydreaming is too convenient, to the point that it lacks any dramatic effect. That tells me the writer doesn’t actually understand why the villain would choose this course of action in the first place. Demonstrating what would shake them out of it is not easy, but it is vital to a proper redemption arc. Something new needs to break the villain’s intentions apart.

The next two parts can happen in any order: shifting perspective first and then a choice, or choice first while ideas solidify, or both at the same time. Maybe there’s multiple steps along the way for each. Any of those can be believable.

The shift in perspective means that the villain understands that they had made the wrong choice. Whatever the new problem is, they couldn’t stop it, can’t fix it, or need something they had discarded, and the reason for that deficiency is their current course of action. The new development is undeniable proof that they were going to fail or already had failed. They don’t need to accept this psychological change immediately—the timing and fallout should match the genre—but it should happen in response to that external stimulus. In addition, even if they grapple with it as the story progresses, the villain should not fall back into old ways over minor problems. They can ruminate or even obsess over inconsequential issues, but actions should be taken only for something significant.

Once the dramatic revelation has occurred, the villain needs to have agency for how to deal with this dilemma. Maybe the story even involves the villain fighting for that agency before they exercise it, and that may happen in tandem with coming to terms with their shattered perspective. There should be at least one moment (perhaps several) where the villain has the opportunity to revert to their original plan or take a new path. That said, making such a choice under threat of death or harm isn’t very effective. Choice also requires more than one option, so I don’t find “you’re going to die anyway” circumstances to be powerful redemption arcs. They can be suitable for tragedies, but they carry the implication that villains have to face death before they will change, which is not going to mesh well with many themes absent some other redemption arcs in the same story to compare it to.

Finally, there needs to be action that matches both the villain’s new beliefs and the theme of the story, and the scale needs to be appropriately comparable to the villain’s prior intentions. Maybe the villain drains hoarded resources to support the protagonist’s gambit, emphasizing the need to collaborate with and trust in others. Maybe the villain becomes a double-agent and sabotages the corrupt empire from within, demonstrating that good is not served by people refusing to engage with an ongoing problem. Maybe the villain redesigns their ray gun to kill cancer cells, so the message is that technology is only as harmful as the people using it. Whatever they do, the villain’s redemption arc will be just as important to the audience as the protagonist’s arc. They need to make an impact worthy of that effect.

I’ll also note what I omit from this: emotion, forgiveness, and justice. Emotions are irrational, so I don’t buy into the idea that any character needs to experience a specific kind of emotion for a certain kind of arc or story to be high quality. Choices do not require emotional congruence. As for forgiveness and justice, redemption comes from within, and these two facets require input from other characters or social groups. Redemption does not need someone else’s permission or validation. While these three things can certainly add to a redemption arc—and I’m sure people have preferences—they are not necessary aspects. It is entirely possible to construct a quality redemption story without them.

Schindler’s List is essentially a villain redemption story: Oskar Schindler (the protagonist) was a businessman who joined and benefited from the rise of the Nazi Party. He held fascist leaning ideals (people as resources, efficiency and profit over all else, etc.) and bribed officials to get his way, but he wasn’t overtly cruel. His experiences with the Jews forced to work for him gradually changed his perspective, and he took small steps to make their lives easier or safer—against the wishes of the Nazi government. Eventually, he reached the point that he decided to engage in treason to try to save as many as he could, not only spending his ill-gotten fortune on selfless bribes, but also risking his own life, freedom, and station. There are several scenes that emphasize what would be done to him if his plots were discovered. Schindler ultimately saves hundreds of Jews and is not destroyed for it. Those he saved even work to protect him from the consequences of his past deeds. But his final scene shows that Schindler is crushed by his own conscience and laments that he could have done more. He was introduced as an apathetic, greedy villain, and his gradual change to a man genuinely heartbroken by the genocide and remorseful for his participation was well-paced and cathartic. In particular, his role as a villain (a “bystander” profiting from genocide) contrasted well with his later choices (sacrificing his fortune to save those he exploited).

In addition, the villain switching sides does not mean that it’s intended as a redemption arc. Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds absolutely betrayed the Nazis, but he did it to save his own hide and talked his way into a rather comfortable retirement over it. There was no internal crisis, no new belief system. Landa simply realized that he had a better chance at a preferred future, so he remorselessly served up people to be killed, just like in the opening scene. Nothing had changed. That worked wonderfully in a film about stopping violence with violence and the emotional dissatisfaction of letting vile people live after they had terrorized and slaughtered innocent people. So the protagonists carved a swastika into Landa’s forehead as a warning of who he was. Is any of that good? That isn’t even the right question for a Tarantino film, but again, it was not intended as a redemption arc; it was very clearly intended to mean that some people don’t change and we may have to let them live anyway.

Redemption arcs don’t suit every story or villain. They take a lot of narrative focus to pull off well, and many of the thematic implications can be handled in a protagonist’s arc anyway. A lot of writers tend to fuck up by making the protagonist’s forgiveness or approval a necessary part of the story, ignoring that they’ve then added a message that change is only legitimate when recognized by others. (Note: Schindler’s List dodges this because Schindler denies himself the catharsis of forgiveness.) That said, many audiences like that message. They like the idea that their permission is needed for a bad person to change. I have a strong aversion to that mentality, especially when it conflicts with other themes in the story.

Is the writer telling a story about redemption, or is it about a religious concept of sin and atonement? Forgiveness and acceptance? Is this really about change, or is it about punishing people who hurt your favorites? Change is something we do, and there is value in that even when there is no atonement, forgiveness, or punishment waiting at the end.

Villains should not be included in a story if any of the above causes distraction or discordance with the main plot line.

Villains aren’t necessary for every story. If you want to go with conflict structures, a person vs. world or person vs. self story doesn’t need a villain. Villains can be added to those stories, but they need to represent something about the world/self for that to make sense. They are too dramatic and time-consuming to toss in as an afterthought. If there is nothing else you take from this post, take this: if a villain doesn’t add substance to your story, don’t include one.

I can tell when the writer is just checking boxes. None of these things can be done well without a certain level of affection for both the art of storytelling and the story being told. It’s not even difficult; it just takes effort. There’s an incredible amount of stories out there to engage with, and I’m never going be pleased to put up with a writer’s checklist villain.

Write what you want, and if you don’t want to include a narrative device that requires effort, then don’t.

[vaguelyaperson]

the more i think about it, the more i like that izuku becomes a teacher as a quirkless adult, and that he supposedly never takes on full-time hero work

... it just wouldn't feel like such an odd ending if it wasn't such a sharp turn from the themes of the story.

it would beat a dead horse to get into such themes: the insistence that izuku could be a [pro] hero too, save to win win to save (implication of bkdk as hero duo), go beyond to achieve your dreams, ect. others have commented on this eloquently enough. i want to contemplate how 430/431 are a valid ending... if the story matched the conclusion.

bnha has themes that could've been developed to make 430/431 make more sense. there's the excellent theme that average citizens can be heroes through 'mundane' actions, and a suggestion that an ideal future would be one where heroes have too much free time (ie, pro heroes overall would be a defunded profession). i personally adore these themes, and was disappointed that the ending didn't explore more of what a better quirk culture should look like beyond 'uraraka reforms quirk education classes.' those themes (plus the commentary on villains) suggested an eventual overhaul of the current quirk culture - which we didn't get. which sucks. because these themes, properly developed, would make PERFECT sense of a protagonist who decides to be an 'average citizen.'

yet these ideas weren't quite attributed to izuku's character. he's the protagonist. he was set up for the big flashy future, right? which is why it feels like such a sudden slap to so many fans that he was supposedly content working as a teacher for eight years, that he wouldn't jump at the opportunity to become a full time hero.

now, a good bit of this can be attributed to story medium. bnha was skewed in the beginning to function as a standard shounen (boy has powers, boy works hard, boy achieves big dreams), and that it wasn't until about the last hundred chapters or so that horikoshi dug his heels in about writing the story he wants to write. so clearly if the story's endgoal changed in his mind (which stories often do, and manga is extremely restrictive in that an author can't rewrite the full story to make the plot consistent), then he only had so much leeway to lead to the eventual ending of a quirkless citizen izuku without taking the hardest turn from the standard shounen tone at the beginning.

but even then. even then, that's about a hundred chapters that bnha could've introduced the idea that IZUKU could be a hero in ways unrelated to professional heroism. that it's so unhealthy for this kid to sacrifice so much of himself that it would actually be better for him to pursue a different career.* or that it was even a valid career path for someone who initially dreamed of being a pro hero.

like, take lemillion; izuku's literal mirror. the story could've kept togata functionally quirkless, could've explored the full grief of such a big dream lost, could've explored the sheer injustice that this KID was put on the front-line and thus his quirk and dream were snatched from him... and then introduced a way that togata could use his skills to help people in a different career.

or take all might; izuku's mentor and cautionary tale. maybe have all might talk to izuku about grappling with being quirkless again. maybe have him find who he is beyond being of service to others (which is clearly these two born-quirkless fuckers dealing with massive self-worth issues, trying to justify their existence with heroics), and find relief in that. maybe have him wonder aloud if it might have been better for him to choose such a profession outright from the beginning, rather than repeatedly almost DIE as a pro-hero. maybe have the two revisit that conversation from the first episode, that being a [quirkless] hero IS dangerous, but that there is genuine fulfillment in other work - as all might has found in teaching.

then when it happens to izuku, it wouldn't be such a shock to the audience. and even if we don't see him change over those eight years of the epilogue, it wouldn't be such a shock that he turns down full-time hero work. we'd get it.

*because continuing off this point: the story very much established that izuku CAN'T be trusted 'unsupervised' as a pro hero. that ofa is almost a curse. how many fuckin fanworks reference an adult izuku who never stops putting himself into harms way, who keeps nearly fuckin dying (or does die) cause he never thinks of himself? the story could've EASILY built on this to the point that it would feel like a blessing that izuku loses ofa and can't become a pro-hero.

(instead of it being played in this.... extremely weird.... grieved not grieved, katsuki's sobbing but izuku 'started out quirkless' so it's fine??? like??? the tone??? is in shambles???)

instead, the story said "you don't have to fight alone, izuku, cause your friends are here." most especially that katsuki inserted himself as izuku's primary protector and competitor. that katsuki developed a whole ass power-up that could MATCH ALL FOR ONE'S power, that he CAUGHT UP to izuku as a hero. at large, class a showed the fuck up, more than once, to throw down on izuku's behalf. the story said, yes izuku is recklessly selfless, and ofa only exasperates this, but his friends are so determined to work hard to make sure there's always someone at his back. this will be the new generation of heroes.

... which... should've led to a completely different story conclusion. one that would've been just as valid as 'izuku finds more stability and meaning in being a teacher.' it would just need to be an ending that would have fit the established themes. i would've loved that ending too.

in conclusion! there's more to being a hero than flashy heroic acts. izuku is a selfless maniac who's probably safer in the classroom tbh. manga is a restrictive medium that can't be rewritten into a more consistent plot. nevertheless, given the amount of chapters horikoshi had to play with the story he wanted to tell, there was time to develop pre-existing themes that would better anticipate the conclusion we got. 430 and gods 431 especially - despite being arguably a valid ending for the characters - didn't have to feel like such sharp left turns.

... and despite learning to appreciate izuku turning down katsuki's agency offer, i still don't like 431. lmao

[vi-arcanes-left-biceps]

Yeah it's the inability to understand characters changing or the complex nature of humans. They need a character to stick to their archetype -if they move from that, then it's "bad writting" instead of understanding that characters can change.

If they need the hero to be a morally perfect example throughout the story in order to understand them/root for them, I'm afraid these folks should stick to shows for todlers, but hell, even in shows like that there are complex heroes. And not all protagonists are heroes nor they need to be. An animation show for teenagers and adults is not meant to teach you basic morals with perfectly heroic characters, it is not Dora the Explorer.

And some here love to use political words to criticise Arcane (and Caitlyn in particular) as if they are knowledgeable and committed, but I'm sorry, with this level of understanding of narrative, characterization and actual politics they would be the first to be manipulated into hell by Ambessa because they'd be unable to understand ANY sort of propaganda. First lesson to not fall into populist discourse is developing basic critical thinking skills and understanding people are more than just good or evil.

Also, I can see an issue with projection but that I'd link it with the Vi criticism that I've seen around. Many people are just sooo angry that she became an enforcer for two episodes and keep saying "other characters would not forgiver her ever" blah blah. Fictional characters are not real, they are not your friends and they are not meant for you to project either your person or a whole other person onto them. If a cartoon drawing you identify with does something you would not do, that doesn't mean they are poorly written. They are not you. They are chess pieces used to tell a story that is not your story, they are not betraying you, for the love of god.

I'm glad you're not judging charls, but I'm afraid I am, every day I see more and stupider takes about these two characters, and I need these people to stand up or go watch cocomelon 😭

So... I wanted to write about the Caitlyn hate train because it's flooding my twt.

First I'd like to start by saying that you're entitled to dislike a character. Arcane is a work of art, but it's also just cartoons -whatever, just hate the cartoon character. I don't even like Caitlyn that much, mostly I find her arc very compelling.

But. The amount of hate and the shape it takes, for me, is very clearly influenced by a few factors.

With Caitlyn I feel like half of the folks are just regurgitating discourse they read before and try to earn internet morality/politics points while very much forgetting to touch grass. There is no"I don't like her", there is a sense of rightgeousness in disliking her that doesn't make much sense. "She's literally Hitler!" Please think. There are real life fascists and nazis over here. This is a cartoon who's the bad guy for like four and a half episodes.

There are interesting conversations to have about how Caitlyn's actions mirror real life oppression, as many also point out as a reason to hate her. It's fair that you dislike her those actions, to be honest. But 1) stories are not made to be morally perfect but to explore themes and emotions -characters will do bad, even evil things; 2) critical consumption of media exists; 3) using political language to hate on a fictional character with no real political critique/analysis behind makes me think you don't really believe that much what you're saying & you just want to use buzzwords you learned on the internet.

Takes like this are tinted with some sort of attempt to a moral high ground for disliking a fictional character for political reasons, while simultaneously refusing to understand the narrative of the character and think critically about what it is trying to say about real world politics.

To analyse a story you have to engage with it. See what it wants to tell you. See how it does it. See how it fails. You can dislike Caitlyn and tbh disliking her because of her role in the story is more than fair. But that doesn't equal media analysis. And I'm sorry but not liking a character doesn't make you more politically committed than the rest.

There are so many interesting things to say about Arcane's flawed portrayal of politics. How it uses the aesthetics of oppression to tell a story without deeply analysing the oppression itself within the narrative, how the context in which it was created and the beliefs held by its authors afect the portrayal of themes... Among all these, "Caitlyn is evil and irredeemable because we saw a montage of her and Vi doing police violence" is a very superficial take. Please, please, pleeease analyse those montages frame by frame and discuss how they showcase police violence, what bias they have, what purpose it serves. Analyse how it takes from real life events in a way that is insensitive. I'd love it sooo much to see posts like this.

On the other side, I've seen people say both that say Caitlyn is evil because of the acts she commits and then say that Silco is a revolutionaire. What? Silco WAS a revolutionaire, and he still had a motivation to make Zaun free, but his motivations do not match his actions and that's pretty obvious. "Sometimes revolution requires violent resistance" = "Silco is a revolution hero" showcases a very shallow level understanding of the first phrase there. Silco flooded the streets of Zaun with drugs. The Firelights were born out of willingness to defend zaunites from Silco and Jinx. Silco did not do violent resistance against Piltover, not since the rebellion he had led with Vander. He tried to invent shimmer as a weapon to fight again and the only thing he managed is to make many people misserable and dependent on it -and he didn't care. His character and his actions are quite more complicated than "he's doing everything for revolution"; but again, another character reduced to a catchphrase that fails to actually engage with his story. Only difference between these people's opinions on Silco and Caitlyn is that Silco's character has the word "revolution" near in the script and Caitlyn's script includes "cop".

Another thing is, why hate Caitlyn so much and not say a single thing about Ambessa? I can think of a few reasons but I'll summarise like this:

1) Not being aware that Ambessa is always the one calling the shots here even if Caitlyn is given the title of Commander. Even though the show is very much making this clear.

2) Because Caitlyn gets a redemption and Ambessa gets "punished" aka is a villain and dies. As if humans where not more complex than good and evil.

3) Caitlyn's more popular than Ambessa I guess? It's always more fun to hate on the popular character. Also she's a main character so she'd obviously get more more attention.

3) Some people just want women to be perfectly moral all the time, and in wlw relationships even more. I didn't want to bring up fandom misoginy & lesbophobia but I can tell if it was Jayce having her narrative and redemption the discourse would be quite different.

Anyway. Acab and long live critical thinking. I guess I just want to say please send some nuanced Caitlyn takes my way because I'd really love to read those.

[fireheartpages]

free falling | b.d.

bodhi durran x reader one. two. three. part four. five. summary: everyone has their demons, you just chose to run from yours. straight to basgiath war college. and definitely not towards the grinning tall, dark, and handsome marked rider that seemed too kind to be in a hardened place like the rider's quadrant. when you catch his attention and bond a conundrum of a dragon, you finally feel like you can catch your breath. word count: 2.9k ish maybe a bit more note: second person pov--reader has she/her pronouns, a nickname stolen from dirty dancing, and a last name for continuity purposes. warning for daddy issues, and not xaden's. use of surfing techniques to ride a dragon. someone tell me to shut up why is this chapter so long. i havent even gotten to the point yet. another one is probably coming if not tonight, tomorrow. warning for my proofreading skills theyre really bad even when im not drunk and tired

This boy was everywhere.

The mess hall at breakfast. Battle Brief. Challenges and gym. The flight field. The courtyard after class.

And every time you saw him, he had that lopsided grin, like he was saving it just for you.

Sometimes you two would talk. Sometimes it was just a fleeting look or glance, stolen in between moments that made your gravity shift until you were orbiting him. Sometimes, when you did interact, it wasn't for very long--there were always people around you. Rhiannon and Sawyer pulling you to the library, Garrick and Imogen pulling him to the gym. Your conversations took the back seat to Xaden and Violet's bickering (you would pick sides and place bets on the conclusions when this happened). But sometimes, in a rare moment when you would catch each other and you were both alone, he would walk you to your next class, or your dorm. Sometimes he would leave his friends to do so. Sometimes it all gave you a fuzzy feeling, right in the center of your chest.

It was one of those rare moments. He had seen you across the courtyard and said a quick goodbye to his friends--who proceeded to laugh and wolf whistle as he jogged over to you.

You weren't blind, and you weren't stupid. You knew what this was, this growing spark between you. Knew a boy didn't just walk someone to their dorm because they wanted a friend. You just weren't sure you were ready to admit it to yourself yet.

"Hi," he said.

"Hi."

"Hi." That had become a game between the two of you. It always made you giggle, and you really liked the way he looked at you when you were laughing.

You wrung your hands together, tightening the gloves you wore, more as a nervous habit than anything. Shocair had insisted you get better gloves, even suggested you take her scales and make some yourself. And when you had pointed out that you wouldn't know how to do that, she had scoffed and given you a mental eye roll. She was really good at that.

"How are your hands?" Bodhi asked. "Is the balm helping?"

The balm he had gotten made for you. To help the cracking and peeling skin of your palms. The one he had noticed you had a need for, gone to a healer to have made, and brought directly to you.

"Yeah," you said. "I think it is. A lot, thank you."

"Yeah," Bodhi said. "How much do you have left?"

You cocked your head. "About half."

He just nodded, and slid you one of those lopsided grins before offering to walk you back to your room.

And a month later, he had shown up at your door with a new tin of it, and you let him walk you to breakfast that morning.

You hadn't really been alone together, though. If you weren't with one of your friend groups--which had melded together by now, considering the way Violet and Xaden tended to revolve around each other--you were walking through crowded courtyard and buildings and hallways. Which was fine. You weren't expecting anything.

"Liar." That was Shocair. She had taken a liking to Bodhi.

It was comments like that that had prompted you to figure out grounding and shielding prematurely. Turns out, you’re a natural, and one of the strongest in your year. Shocair was annoyed by the development, but nonetheless impressed.

“I chose you for your mind,” she had said. “Do you expect me to be surprised when you excel?”

Despite her grumbling and chiding, and pretending like she wasn’t happy with your progress, Shocair was the most supportive relationship you’d ever had. You’d answer a question in a class that no one else had thought of and receive a hum of approval in your chest, and she never chided you for making mistakes during flight maneuvers—and there were a lot of them—just gently corrected you until you figured it out.

When you had succeeded as a child, your father had always acted like you met expectations, and your mom was never around long enough to counteract it. So maybe a mother-henning dragon was nice. Kind of. Just a little.

The flying was your favorite though. When you weren’t sitting in the field with her doing work, or dancing around whatever was going on between you and Bodhi, you were on Shocair’s back, flying over the field. Sometimes for practice, sometimes for fun. You’d see Tairn putting Violet through the wringer with incredibly difficult maneuvers, and Shocair would mimic them with more grace, making a dance out of it. An art.

You’d gotten ballsy with it, much to her dismay, but you had the sneaking suspicion she enjoyed it as well, considering the contentment she radiated after every practice and class. You’d taken to walking around on her back, one of the more enjoyable tricks you would pull.

That had started out slowly, and with a lot of protests from Shocair.

“Slow down!” you’d called. Then, mind to mind, “Slow down just a little. Please.”

You felt a flair of curiosity, edged with confusion, but she did as asked.

Slowly, you released your grip and braced your thighs until you had your balance.

“What are you doing?” Shocair snapped.

“Trying something.”

You placed your hands flat on her hide, moving with the dips of the flight and the wind around you until you were able to push to stand. You slipped one foot under yourself, leaning into it and steadying your center before bringing the other one up so you were in a crouch.

“This isn’t as easy as the third years make it look,” you mumbled, more to yourself than anything.

“They have two and a half years of riding experience over you.” The panic that was taking root in your chest wasn’t yours. You ground your feet into the sand of your mental beach, turning your back to the wind of the choppy waters until you had blocked out the feeling, but still leaving the bond open enough to communicate with her.

Slowly, meticulously, you shifted your weight back until you were able to stand, your feet grounded on Shocair’s scales, and you raised onto your fingertips. And then your hands were up.

“I need to know how to do this,” you said to her. “My hands aren’t always going to work like I want them to.”

“And standing mid-flight is your solution?” she growled.

“Do you have a better one?”

There was no answer down the bond, but you could feel the disapproval—and you didn’t need the bond for that.

You kept a bend in your knees, shifting your weight when there was movement, leaning into it to keep your balance. This was it, this was what you excelled at. This was what you were made for.

“Do something,” you said to her. “Let’s test this.”

“I’m not catching you when you fall.”

“Then, I won’t fall.”

You did fall, and she did catch you, and then you tried it again, until you could get the hang of it.

Your biggest hat trick had turned into barrel rolling while standing. That had impressed the fuck out of Kaori. It had been an accident the first time it had happened. Shocair had banked too hard, and you’d gone tumbling, free falling, but she had caught you on her back when she had been able to straighten out, soaring over you before diving under to catch you.

Your landing had knocked the wind out of you. “Do that again!”

“Do you not value your life?”

“Just try it!”

You stood again, getting quicker each time you were able to do it until you were practically able to hop up. She tilted, and you leaned into it until you were practically sliding off of her, and then you jumped.

You fell as she soared over you, and then she banked, finishing out the barrel underneath you, and you landed in a crouch. Your hands had grappled for purchase on the pommel, almost slipping off, but you’d done it. And then did it twice more until you had it down pat.

You’d landed to a multitude of back pats, high fives, and even a handshake from your professor. And despite her grumbling, Shocair was puffing out her chest with pride.

So, you were the best at flight maneuvers, top of the class at battle brief, and fighting with Violet and Rhiannon for top grades in other classes. But it had been nearly five months, and you still didn’t have a signet.

Everyone else did. Sawyer could bend metal and Ridoc could wield ice and Rhiannon could make things disappear and reappear at will. And you had nothing. The power from the bond would make your skin itch sometimes with its intensity, and still nothing.

“It’s fine, Baby. I don’t have mine either,” Violet said with a lightness you did not feel, one day when it was particularly weighing on you. The two of you had shared a look that said everything it needed to.

You were pretty sure the excess magic was triggering the dry patches on your skin. Bodhi had taken to getting you more tins of the balm much more frequently. You had offered to fetch it yourself, asking him to put you in contact with the healer that was making it, but he’d waved you off with some sort of excuse, and kept showing up at your door whenever the tin was low to give you a new one and walk you to class. You’d written the healer—Ané, he’d told you—a thank you note anyway and given it to him to deliver.

It was six months now after Threshing. And you still had no signet to account for, not matter how open the bond was, or how much Shocair channelled into it.

“It will develop in time,” she had said, one day when you’d asked, more full of anxiety than anything. “I know you.”

So you waited. You were sitting in the flight field, leaning up against Shocair’s neck as she dozed. You had a book open in front of you, something you’d found in the archives to study up on signets—since it didn’t seem like yours was coming anytime soon. You flipped the page, the sun smoothing your skin and warming you from the inside out as you lounged.

A rustle through the trees drew your attention, and there he was.

Bodhi stands a few feet away from you, and Shocair stirs, blinking open a golden eye before shutting it again.

“Hi,” he says.

“Hi,” you say, and like clockwork:

“Hi.”

“Are you coming out for a flight?” you ask, shutting the book in your lap.

“Nah,” Bodhi says, moving closer to you. “Cuir was around here, but I don’t think she’s in the mood. So, I’m just… taking a walk.”

You nod, a smile tugging at your lips. “I see.”

“What are you reading?”

“A Study on the Magic of a Bond,” you say. “Reading up on signets.”

“Still nothing?” he asks. He sits down in the grass across from you, stretching out his legs, and for a moment, you’re mesmerized by the way the sun reflects the dark strands of his hair, the dark bronze of his skin. He looks like he’s glowing.

He’s beautiful.

“No,” you say after finding your tongue. “No, nothing yet.”

“Has she started channeling?” he asks, glancing to the sleeping dragon behind you.

“Yes.” Your gaze drops.

“It’s okay,” Bodhi says. “It can take a while sometimes.”

“I would just rather not burn up from it if it doesn’t.” You laugh, but it’s a humorless thing.

“You won’t.” His sincerity strikes you straight in the chest, with the surety of it.

You blink. “How long did it take yours?”

“A couple months.” He picks at the grass. “I think it took me a while to figure it out.”

“How so?”

“I had to wait until someone used their signet on me.” He grins, and you get that funny feeling in your chest again. It makes you suck in a breath. “Xaden, actually. He had sent some shadows around me as a joke, and we were all a little surprised when they burned up, basically. Thought light was my signet for a while. Sunlight, or something, but then a fire wielded had thrown something at me, and I blocked it with water, and even then, it took a few more tries for me to figure it out.”

You nodded slowly. That made sense, countering signets would require a trigger. “Do you have strong shields?”

Bodhi cocks his head. “Yeah, I guess. Why?”

You shrug. “I feel like it would come with the territory. Being able to counter any sort of cognitive signet.”

He seems to sit on that for a second. “I don’t think I’ve actually ever tried that. Never needed to, I guess. Or, If I have, I didn't realize I was doing it.”

You hum, and your mind whirls.

“I’ve seen you fly, though,” Bodhi says, surprising you. “You’re amazing up there.”

“You’ve seen me fly?” you repeat, a furrow in your head.

He folds his lips, suppressing a grin, and you’re once again hit with the urge to press your thumbs to them until he smiles again, until he turns those pretty brown eyes on you again. “Yeah. It’s hard not to look. You’re incredible.”

A giggle twists out of you. “Thank you. It’s… fun.”

“Yeah. You enjoy it in a way I’ve never seen before, though.” He’s grinning in earnest again, that invisible string tugging one side of his mouth higher than the other, but his gaze is elsewhere, and you take it as an opportunity to surveil him from head to toe, from his dark curls to the lean muscle to his flight leathers. His very tight flight leathers. Gods above, this guy’s thighs. “You look more comfortable on the back of a dragon, flying at a hundred miles an hour than you do with two feet on the ground.”

You laugh, and his gaze snaps to you. Something in it softens. “I’m serious,” he says. “I’ve never seen it before.”

“It’s nice,” you say. “It reminds me of home. It’s like I can understand how a bird feels now.”

You really hoped Shocair wasn’t privy to that comparison.

“Do you wanna go get dinner?” Bodhi asks, standing, and before you can even answer, he’s extending a hand.

You aren’t wearing your gloves, and you hesitate for a moment before taking his hand anyway. You stand and quickly take yours from his grip, swallowing hard.

“Sorry.” You shake your head.

“For what?” he asks in earnest, and when you meet his eye, you’re suddenly, brutally aware of how close you’re standing.

“I’m not wearing my gloves. I know my hands aren’t very soft.” You laugh it off, but it comes out strained. A mimicry of what it should have been.

A furrow suppresses his dark brows. “Did I hurt—”

“No!” you say quickly. “I just—the skin is scratchy—”

You cut yourself off when he takes your hand in his, cupping the back and facing your palm up. He runs a knuckle along the cracking skin, as if he could smooth it out, and your breath catches in your throat.

“Do you have the balm?” he asks, and it’s quiet. Like he didn’t want to disturb the space between you.

“Yeah.” You use your other hand to pull the small tin out of the pocket of your leathers, and he uncaps it, dipping a finger in and cradling your hand again as he rubs it over the conjunction of your finger and your palm, right where it was beginning to split. He massages it in, and the relief is nearly instantaneous, surpassing the slight sting of the cold. He repeats with your other hand, until he hands the balm back to you. You tuck it away back into your pocket, and finally, finally look up at him.

He’s already looking at you, and being under his scrutiny like this, all close and personal as you’d imagined a million times, sends a shiver down your spine.

“Thank you,” you say, and it’s more of a breath on the breeze floating between you than anything else.

He nods, but his gaze had drifted down, and now he’s looking at your lips. You swallow, he tracks the motion, and you hope he can’t hear how your heart is beating out of your chest.

“Are you finally going to kiss me?” you ask, unsure where you found the courage.

“Please,” he breathes. “Baby, can I?”

Your name is a plea on his lips, but it doesn’t sound like you name—it sounds like the term of endearment. An honorific. You barely even nod before he’s leaning in. His lips hover over yours, and you can feel his breath fanning your face as you tilt—

Shocair chuffs behind you, and you jump apart.

You’re shaking, and you don’t know if it’s in adrenaline or anticipation as his gaze finds yours, and that lopsided grin is tugging at his lips again.

“Dinner?” he asks, and he extends you his arm.

“Yeah, yeah!” You’re a little too eager to take it. And he leads you back to the school.

“That was on purpose,” you send to Shocair.

“Of course, it was,” she says into your mind. “Make him work for it.”

“I thought you liked him.”

“I do.” She sounds snide in your mind. “But he better be worthy of you.”

You send her an eye roll.

“You’re already falling for him. I can’t catch you if you do,” she says, and you nearly scoff aloud.

“I am not falling for him.”

“Sure.” Good gods, are dragons always this sarcastic?

[unforth]

Revelation: my whole life, when I've responded to sarcasm seriously, people have been like "uh...why you so serious... I was being sarcastic..." and it makes me insane because like... duh? Why am I not allowed to respond to sarcasm seriously? Why does it have to be treated as hOw DiD yOu MiSs ThAt I wAs KiDdInG? Basically: why is it framed as me failing when I absolutely knew it was sarcasm?

Anyway, this just happened with my wife (no shade, it's very rare with her as compared to like, my uncle, and I told her it made me uncomfortable, we're good, it was just the spur to the revelation) and I think I've realized why it happens and why it bothers me so much.

It's always framed as me missing something, but it's not.

I knew they were being sarcastic, and I chose to respond seriously.

THEY failed to interpret MY response.

Or: damn boy (genderneutral) sorry my Yes, And game is just SO FUCKIN SUPERIOR yall should work on recognizing deadpan. Skill issue.

[arsenicflame]

happy "our marriage is never gonna recover from this" day

[pyreflydust]

Yes BOTH because *extreme* attachment to fiction is unhealthy AND because the stress anxiety are detrimental to your health.

Which is to say that I don't know if I'd call it extreme if it doesn't risk causing Actual Mental Health Issues (And I mean at that point it's likely cause *by* mental health issues but if it makes them worse, then it's extreme.)

I think people can have what looks externally like "extreme" attachment to fiction without this being an issue, but that's someone knowing their own comfort and boundaries better than others. I also think people can externally look like they have a normal attachment to characters and still have anxiety about their potential deaths and such.

For example self shipping isn't inherently unhealthy, but if you end up with Actual Emotional Reactions to someone else shipping themselves with the same character or seeing them shipped with another canon character, that's unhealthy.

Yeah fiction is supposed to cause Actual Feelings but there is a pretty big difference between being sad about a character dying and then being able to put it down and go do something else because at the end of the day you know they're not a real person and reaching the point where you have a complete and total breakdown because a character you love died.

I'm saying this as someone who has been all over the place with this and who at multiple points had to take a step back from certain media because I recognized it my over-investment in it was causing Actual Emotional Damage. It's a coping skill, but not all coping skills are healthy and you have to determine if it's doing more harm than good and if you're willing and able to redirect if it is.

We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.

[louismygf]

some louis tomlinsons i never posted ^_^

[quins-makeshift-menagerie]

Why are you so closed off with your story? Other Mewtwo creators are very open with a lot of their plans.

That’s their choice! It’s mine to be more secretive about details.

[chellychuu]

Me; when I stare at a blank canvas for hours instead of actually drawing something

[prettycottonmouthlamia]

>Good post! Really well-put together analysis of the branch.

Thank you! Like genuinely, it's actually a good feeling.

>But i find it difficult to even look at Wiš'adel as a Flinger. She just ignores the identity of the branch so much by dealing incredibly high damage to high defense enemies all by herself, hitting flying enemies (I didn't know Rosmontis could bypass that limitation with a future Branch, but even then she needs another operator helping her to do it) and I agree that flyers aren't an issue, especially not when you're not in IS and have access to your entire roster, but it is still part of the branch's identity. Even her attack animations don't sell her as a Flinger to me. Going by the module short, the original name of the branch is probably something like "Bombardment Sniper", but both Greyylter and TRC throw something in the traditional way and Rosmontis throws something non-traditionally with her big invisible hands. If I didn't know what Wiš'adel was and you showed me a clip of her without revealing her attack range, I'd think she was still an Artilleryman Sniper. Because of this, I don't consider her a win for Flingers. They made her a Flinger to let her abuse the upsides they have while letting her ignore the drawbacks that come with the branch. Which yes, could be described as her being a look at what the branch could be, as you said, but blowing past the limitations just isn't it for me.

So there's a few things I want to bring up here because I think they're important. I do consider Wis'adel to be a Flinger at heart. Her kit would be noticeably worse if she wasn't one. It wouldn't just be in terms of raw damage either, it would also be in consistency. Wis'adel is ultimately designed to make the most use of her class's quirks, and you can see that if you look at her S1 and S2.

Wis'adel's S1 and S2 are also quite good skills, and they actually follow the design perspectives that you would expect them to. They get overshadowed a lot by her S3, but S1 and S2 are good, honest, Flinger skills at their core, and their helped by Wis'adel having good numbers.

Ultimately, I think this is more a result of how just how barebones the class is, so the result you get is the class having these long stints between releases of operators.

Rosmontis: 11/1/2020-11/15/2020 || 4/30/2021-5/14/2021 Greyy: 7/5/2022-7/19/2022 || 3/14/2023-3/28/2023 Wis'adel: 5/1/2024-5/15/2024 || 8/31/2024-9/14/2024

I've also included CN dates because when we're talking about Greyy, that means Dorothy's Vision, an infamously delayed event lol. The difference between Rosmontis and Wis'adel was three and a half years, which is kind of absurd. There are other classes with pretty big gulfs between 6-star releases and they honestly have that same sort of feeling too: look at Pozemka versus Schwarz, Typhon vs Rosa, Mountain vs Chongyue, Hellagur vs Zuo Le...you know.

If we had gotten a solid intermediate between Rosmontis and Wis'adel, one that wasn't dealing with the insane numbers Wis'adel is but wasn't necessarily hampered as badly by her kit as Rosmontis, I think Wis'adel would have been a lot more understandable, especially in terms of kit design. As it is now though, yeah it's pretty massive whiplash. I'm not gonna sit here and be like "You need to agree with my opinion or else" though because this ultimately is just personal opinion and taste.

>The branch on a surface level is designed to clear crowds of weak enemies, not to nuke down elites or bosses. Similar to Splash Casters (who are also quite disliked in an overblown manner).

So I'm not disagreeing here per se, I just think it is a little funny that Rosmontis's one CC clear is...nuking down elites and bosses lol. I'm going to link the Risk 31 clear that uses her (alongside Bagpipe) to take out the Bladehelm Recruit and the Risk 30 clear that uses her for that same Recruit but also to kill the Withered Knight. They're neat clears! Definitely a window in the possibility of what Rosmontis might have done in a CC like CC6 if it wasn't for the release of Chen the Holungday.

>Also about Dusk: She was considered pretty bad until her ModY came out. She wasn't that bad, her S2 in particular was/is quite powerful, but ModY really elevated her and helped her fulfill the phantasy of using her S3 to put up a mass of summons to hold back groups of enemies.

Yeah I didn't touch on Dusk much because I couldn't exactly remember what the hype level was around her release. I think it was initially positive but less positive than I remember Mostima being lol.

>On release, people were disappointed by how "bad she is at levitating enemies" when that isn't even really the point. The levitation is just a means to an end, that being activating her silence and damage boost, as well as disrupting attack windups. Her S2 deals really good damage (450% atk per attack), S1 is way more consistent in actually levitating enemies than you'd think, because enemies tend to enter her range one by one and S3 is alright. It has good use-cases and excels against large bosses, cause she can hit them with three tornados at once.

Yeah Ho'ol is the one that's the "wife" in that sentence. I think even calling Silence the Paradigmatic bad is a little mean, even though her kit is very strangely designed.

Ho'olheyak suffered a lot from aesthetic complaints, my least favorite kind. People wanted the tornadoes from her S3 to levitate entire groups of enemies instead of just one, and this bugged them enough to call her bad by extension.

I have rather poor views of the wider community's ability to discern whether Operators are good or not, if this isn't clear lol. I actually really like Ho'ol, she's well designed in that all three of her skills have uses but she definitely suffers from not being the most consistent of the Core Casters. When you're competing with Eyja and Ceobe, it is ultimately a little rough. Her S2 is secretly her goat skill I'm pretty sure tho

How the Arknights Community was Wrong on One of Arknight's Most Powerful Classes

Or, alternatively, you all need to apologize to Rosmontis right now.

Flingers are experiencing a modern Renaissance right now. Thanks to the release of Wis'adel and the introduction of Rosmontis's absolutely busted IS module, it seems like things are on the up and up for Flingers. Even Greyy the Lightningbearer is a common sight in high level IS runs, and he doesn't even have a broken module.

How on Earth did this happen, when it wasn't very long ago that Flingers were the butt and punchline of their own joke?

The Original Let's start with how the archetype was introduced into the game: Rosmontis. Rosmontis was released alongside Mudrock for the Chapter 8 release event, and the reception was pretty mixed. Rosmontis was a limited operator, and to this point, limited operators in Arknights had been pretty middling. Nian wasn't really conclusively better than Hoshiguma, and W was good but nothing special. We were not at the point yet where Dusk or Skadi the Corrupting Heart had been released, so the running joke was typically to roll on the other operator on a limited banner. Mudrock was a really strong laneholder that still sees a lot of use today, and Weedy is by far the strongest shifter operator ever released.

It's also worth noting that Rosmontis was released during a general downturn of opinions on AoE ranged operators. Leonhardt and Meteorite were considered actually quite strong in the early days of Arknights, and I know this must sound crazy, but Mostima and W were actually super hyped for their release. People thought Mostima, base-ass Mostima with no modules, was good. But after CC Blade, and a general stint of CCs where AoE operators made relatively poor performances, the tide had shifted. Operators like Eyjafjalla and Angelina (god remember when Angelina was considered really good. Well I guess she is now. Regardless) had AoE capabilities but were much cheaper in DP and had solid secondary skills for dealing with single enemies. So people were generally pretty down on AoE operators, which wasn't helped later on by the release of Passenger, an operator considered so bad it resulted in several attempts by Hypergryph to make him better (the retrospective view is that while Passenger was bad, he was made out to be a lot worse than he was, a view I agree with).

These two factors did not help the views of Rosmontis as an operator, but it was also further not helped by what content was available to use Rosmontis in: Contingency Contract. Rosmontis, tragically, released after the first theme of Integrated Strategies came and went, and so the only high level content available to use her in was CC. CC is particularly harsh to Flingers as we'll discuss, but this is also something that Wis'adel has managed to avoid as there hasn't been a CC since her release. The only difficult content since Wis'adel's release has been IS and RA, two game modes that honestly favor Flingers as we'll discuss later on. There was just nowhere to use Rosmontis in more difficult content where she didn't feel bad.

Flingers are a pretty interesting subclass, and Arknights has really not designed any subclasses to be like them, ultimately. They have a very impressive attack range, higher bulk than other ranged operators, and a unique gimmick to their attacks: they will deal an additional hit of damage, but one that only has 50% of their ATK. In addition to this, Flingers are the only Sniper subclass that cannot hit aerial enemies without certain conditions being met (Wis'adel's S3, Rosmontis S3 with an aerial blocker).

In general, this results in a class that is very good at dealing with large groups of enemies with only modest DEF stats. This is because DEF ends up having an increased effect on Rosmontis' damage, because it will apply to both of her hits. An enemy with 375 DEF will, after the 175 Def ignore from her talent, reduce her attack damage by a total of 400.

This for a lot of people was sort of the final straw that broke the Rosmontis back. Her vulnerability to enemies having DEF was a problem, and it was generally stated to be in a way that other DPS checks would avoid. In addition, if we take a look at ideal DPS scenarios with the introductory 6-star for each Sniper class:

Ray: 1,346.22 Narantuya: 1,062 Schwarz: 880.28 Exusiai: 815.99 Chen the Holungday: 647.17 Rosmontis: 601.71 Fartooth: 583.88 Rosa: 539 W: 373.93

Rosmontis is very middle of the pack, losing in particular to Exusiai. Now, Exusiai also had the problem of being very soft to enemy DEF stats. Honestly, it should be noted that Rosmontis was always hitting higher DPH than Exusiai would for her normal attack damage.

(I've been getting really into Desmos lately)

Now this is all just auto-attack stuff and I don't want this to be exclusively a Rosmontis analysis by any means (although it's coming). The point here is that there was a pretty common conception that Rosmontis didn't really have a place in the meta, because Exusiai was so dominant in that spot. It's not hard to understand why. If we look at their S3 DPS really quickly...

At low DEF values, Exusiai is overdominant. This isn't super surprising, as she has a lot of factors working in her favor: a busted 5 hit S3, an attack interval reduction as well as a sizable ASPD buff from her talent. But it doesn't take a huge amount of defense for Rosmontis to come out on top. The specific DEF number is 580, roughly. Then, the perks of Rosmontis's S3 come to light: it's larger DEF ignore, it's halved attack interval, and it's much larger ATK buff.

This being said, there are still things working against Rosmontis, like her skill cycle being very long, and her own ATK buff resulting in Warfarin's buff being diluted compared to Exusiai. If you take a look at CC results, it is true that Rosmontis only has one top to her name: CC Spectrum, where she is part of a Risk 31 clear alongside Exusiai, which is pretty cool. But CCs, which often increase enemy DEF while reducing friendly ATK, are just very harsh to Flingers. Given that it is a class so sensitive to DEF and ATK changes to hit breakpoints, most CCs just hit Rosmontis in a double bind.

Funnily enough, Exusiai also doesn't have any top clears in CC past this point too, which is interesting to point out.

(For those counting: Rosmontis: CC5 Exusiai: CC1, CC5)

Rosmontis' position probably wasn't helped past this point by the release of Chen the Holungday either, and the rest is history. Rosmontis goes down as one of the weaker 6-stars in the game. People feel bad when they roll her. People on this website nurse weird ass grudges against her.

The Blip

It would be remiss of me to not remind people about Greyy the Lightningbearer. Greyy was a 5-star, which means that 99% of players ignored his existence, Gamepress made a dogshit summary about him that was made by people who don't play the game, and life moved on. We're going to talk about Greyy in more detail later on because he is important to talk about...

Oh well right now

Lone Trail: The Update That Should Have Changed Everything

Lone Trail was a super massive event, releasing three 6-stars that can be kindly regarded as "good but nothing amazing, bad, and my wife". It also introduced to the game the Flinger Modules, and I'm going to tell you all a secret. You and me, real close now.

It's fucked up these modules didn't receive more hype.

These modules gave Flingers a second shockwave hit. Now that doesn't seem all that impressive. After all, you might think to yourself, that shockwave still deals 50% damage. But the addition of an extra shockwave really changed the numbers of the game, because it meant a huge chunk more damage.

At minimum (673 DEF roughly) this module improves her damage by about 45%. That's pretty crazy for a module as it stands, but if you want to see the full chart, here you go. Arknights Youtubers hire me.

The extremely high peak there, where Rosmontis is doing more than triple the damage she was originally is actually getting to the exact point where Rosmontis without a module moves towards dealing scratch damage. This is pretty common with modules involving physical DPS operators, such as Blaze, to have very unique high points.

But this is 45% just off of, what is essentially

An extra shockwave

60 more points of DEF Ignore

+75 ATK attribute

This is a remarkably tame talent upgrade. The base effect, the second shockwave, is pulling so much work here. These numbers will be a bit more tame when you compare with S2 (already comes with +2 shockwaves) or S3 (already has some DEF shred) but this is still a very impactful module.

It also impacts the stun chance on her S2. Without her module, and having 4 total hits per attack, this puts her stun chance at roughly 59.04% per attack. The additional hit raises those chances to 67.232%. Not a massive increase, but it does help to patch up her odds.

This is also why Greyy's module was so important. Greyy's slow is tied to his talent, and hence the jump from 2 hits to 3 hits is very notable. Without his module, Greyy has a 64% chance to slow the enemy with every attack. With his module, those chances go up to 78.4%! That's pretty significant! He also deals 15% more damage to Slowed enemies too, which is a pretty strong mod on top of the extra shockwave. I haven't actually done Greyy's numbers, but it really does make him a lot more consistent at slowing enemies.

So now we're here, with Flinger's getting a surprisingly good module. They now deal 3 hits per attack, with Rosmontis dealing 5 hits per attack with her S2, which is actually relevant for Lone Trail (Rosmontis can remove a clean 250 DEF with every one of her attacks during her S2 against Arc Screenguards). So what happened?

Well...Flingers weren't popular, were widely regarded as a flawed class, and mostly passed over. It just wasn't worth it to people to raise Rosmontis or Greyy the Lightningbringer even if you had some inkling their module was good.

The Return of Integrated Strategies and Reclamation Algorithm

A miracle the likes of which Hypergryph may never do again...well okay maybe they will, they do be kind of nailing it on the alternate gamemodes, we have the return of Integrated Strategies and Reclamation Algorithm. These modes are actually uniquely situated in comparison to CC to benefit Flingers over other classes. This is largely because of how these modes chose to scale difficulty and the tools they give you to combat this.

In IS, enemy difficulty typically results in scaling HP and ATK buffs, and that's it. It's rare to see enemy DEF buffs in IS. In addition, many relics in IS focus on increasing ATK or ASPD or improving damage dealt. Flingers get much and much better when they deal damage with their shockwaves, and it is pretty easy to do that in IS. Rosmontis's S2 is of special note here: with her module, it deals 5 hits of damage, which means it benefits from ATK buffs to the same degree as Exusiai does, but with a lot of added perks. DEF ignore, a moderate AoE radius, and a chance to stun. This skill is way more dangerous with additional ASPD.

Greyy also benefits a ton here. Extra ASPD allows him to basically permanently lock down entire groups of enemies with slow. This is something that can also sort of be done with Chain Casters, but notably, Chain Casters can only slow down a certain number of enemies at a time with each of their attacks. Since slowed enemies tend to create clusters, Greyy can slow down entire waves of enemies with his attacks, while still dealing pretty impressive damage.

The only issue is the aerial enemies. I haven't mentioned this up until now, because in my opinion, it is the single most overhyped drawback in the entire game. There are tons of events and chapter releases where this basically doesn't matter. Aerial enemies are, for all intents and purposes, rather rare in Arknights. But in IS this is important. Flingers need some degree of map knowledge to use well. But your Sniper ticket is not necessarily the only solution to aerial enemies in any IS, and chances are you'll find more than one. For IS3, you can pick up Kroos Alter and Rosmontis and in the grand majority of situations be completely fine.

Of course, if you play IS5, this basically isn't an issue and Rosmontis is the second stronger Flinger in the game, and I think arguably the second strongest Sniper pick?

I almost forgot RA by the time I went to post this, so it's a good thing I went back because, yes, Flingers and Rosmontis are also good there too. It's literally designed for Flingers to be good, it's huge mobs of enemies all clustered closely around each other. You can use Provisions to give Rosmontis a ton of ATK or ASPD and watch her go ham on like 115 exploding spiders. They also have amazing range for vision on resource maps and have multi-hit mechanics for those stupid locks.

It's like, impressive how nicely Flingers slot in here. I'm really curious how Greyy feels when you give him one of the ASPD provisions so he has +60 ASPD.

Rosmontis CRAVES your Coagulate Supplements!!!!

The End-Times: Wis'adel and Rosmontis's Busted Module

If you've ever wanted to know how we got to this renaissance, it was Wis'adel being released, having absolutely busted numbers on her kit that basically ensured that her shockwaves would always do damage, and then going and soloing IS3 A15 like it was fucking nothing.

Wis'adel proved Flingers could be fucking fantastic.

Rosmontis has actual problems in her kit, she's ultimately a pretty early Limited operator with all the design choices that carries. Wis'adel is what you get when you ask "how far can a Flinger go?" The shockwave mechanic works well with her huge numbers and her shadow status effect. Her summons work to keep as many enemies as possible attached with a shadow. Her blast radius is massive. Honestly the fact she can blow up the UFOs in IS3 barely matters.

Soon after that, Rosmontis got her specialized Module. I've seen people complain about this. You're wrong. There's no fucking way this module should be allowed to be used in general content. It is, in fact, maybe the most busted specialized module they've released. It completely changes Rosmontis as an operator. Benefitting from Caster relics is insane for themes like IS3 which has a ton of genuinely broken ones, her new and improved equipment are insanely powerful, and the fact that she allows every Sniper and Caster to create a free rather tanky blocker with a crazy debuff effect is like

You understand this module is nuts? Surely?

The trait wouldn't really make Rosmontis meta anyhow. It would improve her damage by a lot but puts her, rather frustratingly, into the camp of mixed offensive operators who now have to worry about enemy RES values coming into play. Plenty of the enemies with decent DEF stats that Rosmontis struggles with now also come with sizable RES stats. As I've mentioned in my brief thoughts on Dagda, there are a ton of enemies Dagda hits harder by brute force than Indra does by trying to side-step the bigger stat.

It's also okay that the module is IS only, because IS is where Flingers are just at their best. Nothing is stopping you from using Rosmontis in general content, especially with her still really good BOM-X module!

Flingers, ultimately, are just a well-designed class. They have great range, AoE, and having extra instances of damage is always incredibly powerful. I do think Rosmontis has some kit issues, but I also think that a lot of people immediately dismissed her as bad based on community consensus. You want to know a cool thing about Rosmontis I haven't brought up yet? She can attack invisible enemies with her S3. Invisible enemies feel a lot more common than aerial enemies do, hell Lappland the Decadenza's event is literally a bunch of invisible enemies.

But like, that's never seen as a positive to Rosmontis unless you're a Sniperknights player and then you might just say Totter is better (and I get that, he is a bit more consistent). Rosmontis can hit an entire enemy type with her S3 that Wis'adel can't, but it's seemingly never mentioned. It's just...this community is very strange, you know?

Try Rosmontis out, hell try her out with Shamare or Warfarin. If you use Exusiai a bunch (godspeed soldier it's been rough since the Chen days), you probably already have those operators. Try Greyy out too. Then, if you really want the challenge, E0 Level 1 Wis'adel. Come on. You know that's better than like half the cas-

[secretagentspydetectiveninja]

(Alright, going to stop procrastinating and finally make this post.) After playing through the new trilogy in French to see what was different, here are some things about the French localisation of Spirit of Justice I thought you should know:

First of all, I usually like the French and English versions of the games equally. This marks the first time I've actually enjoyed the French version... more than the English one?? Especially Turnabout Revolution? Don't get me wrong, I already loved it in English, but I think the next time I replay it I'll actively choose French. Idk man it just hits different when a bunch of French people are talking about revolution and overthrowing the tyrannical regime etc

Oh yes, speaking of which, yes, the "Japanifornia" parts of the game take place in Paris, France, as usual. No, I have no idea how Kurain village can be next to the mountains and also the sea while also being in the vicinity of Paris. I also don't know why the entire population of a small country in the Himalayas are fluent in French and use it on a daily basis. But seriously, the main characters mention SO OFTEN that they're French and from France, like, all the fricking time. Remember the incredibly Japanese rakugo case? Imagine that taking place in France.

The Khura'inese pun names are hysterical in French. An example that English speakers can get too: the first culprit's name in French is Sterh'uey Tu'heiven. I'm not making this up. That's his name.

RAYFA'S FRENCH VOICE ACTUALLY SOUNDS LIKE A TEENAGER INSTEAD OF A 30 YEAR OLD, THANK THE HOLY MOTHER

Unfortunately the Holy Mother giveth, but she also taketh away, and they gave Nahyuta a crunchy old man voice that doesn't suit his ethereal appearance at all...

Athena has now added German and Italian to her random English and Spanish phrases from the prev game. I mean... it made sense before, since she was meant to have lived in the USA in this version, but now I guess she just does it for fun? Who knows

French Roger Retinz uses €50 notes (euros) to fan himself instead of dollar bills

Inga's full name is "Inga Karkhuul Kel Nomh Bowkhou Tro'lon Pohm'peu Eh'Duhr Apronh Ons'ai Khura'in III" ("quel nom beaucoup trop long, pompeux et dur à prononcer")

Nahyuta's nickname in French is just "Yuta"

Ema and Apollo now use informal pronouns for each other, so do Ema and Trucy now, Maya starts using informal pronouns for Apollo from almost the first moment she meets him (though he uses formal pronouns for her lmao), and yes Dhurke and Apollo use informal pronouns with each other the whole time, even when things are awkward at the start. Rayfa and her mother always use formal pronouns for each other, which is a little depressing.

AS FOR NAHYUTA AND APOLLO... HOHOHO. Obviously they're both using "vous" (formal) in court, but in the scene afterwards Apollo switches to "tu" (informal) when he asks Nahyuta if he remembers him. Later in Turnabout Revolution, Apollo has gone back to vous but he's at least saying "Nahyuta" rather than "Prosecutor Sahdmadhi" or whatever (I think that happened in the English version too). Then during the final trial, after that one insanely angsty scene, Apollo starts using tu again and even (internally) uses the nickname Yuta once! Nahyuta eventually starts referring to him as Apollo and starts using tu after finally openly acknowledging Apollo as his family aaauuuuuugh ;o;

(Listen Apollo usually always tries to be formal and professional in court so this is a big deal!!! It's a big deal to me at least!!!!!!!!!)

In the English version there were a few times our good ol' American Apollo had a sort of "haha I'm just a foreigner I don't know anything here" vibe which... no you're not lol. The French version didn't have that (or at least toned it down a lot) and made him feel less like a tourist and more like an immigrant returning to his old home country with complex feelings, which he is. It makes it more personal that he's the one to bring about the revolution imo -- he's not some random foreigner swooping in to save the day, this is his home and his family, he belongs here. (As an immigrant myself I find aspects of him relatable and will defend his Khura'inese backstory to the death DON'T TEST ME)

The "what's crack-a-lackin' homie" line in all its glory:

[nellasbookplanet]

The funniest kind of critical role "critique" is always going to be the 'they present themselves as if they aren’t rich/a company no I will not give any examples' crowd. Like what does this even mean. They start literally every single episode with informing you they are professional voice actors. They have clearly advertised sponsors. They have an entire line of merch and an animated show. The production value of the set is bonkers. They run a charity foundation. Do you want them to start every episode with a blaring siren and a warning saying 'beware! company run content! we make money!!' Are you just angry that they are friends having fun as they make a living. Do you have any understanding of how money works.