#it was SUCH an injustice to the story and characters!!!!!!!!!

[thatswhatsushesaid]

the story just becomes so much more interesting and heartbreaking if you choose to take jin guangyao at his word on those points where the truthfulness of what he is saying can't be verified through other clues in the text, but it always does just delight me so much when people revisit the text and see for themselves just how much he is telling the truth much of the time. like you don't even have to assume it! he just doesn't lie nearly as much as people think he does!

#i'm doing a reread of mdzs right now where i assume he's fundamentally honest and telling the truth pretty much always #and let me tell you #so far he's really only lied once #the lie was minor enough that i don't even remember what it was lol #his character is soooo much more interesting this way #and it really drives home how much main character energy he has (via @weebshit-sideblog)

inb4 "are you seriously trying to say that jin guangyao never lies, why are you misleading people" 1) 🔫 do not put words in my mouth, 2) the point is that, for those claims that jin guangyao makes where his honesty or dishonesty cannot be definitively proven in either direction, assuming that he is telling the truth more often than not reinforces the injustices experienced by wei wuxian, which makes for a stronger, more interesting novel.

"Ugh, people actually BELIEVE what Jin Guangyao said about his situation in the temple scene?"

Apologies, I'm sure it makes for a far better story if He's Just Evil, Actually and The Witch Hunt Just Picked The Wrong Guy Last Time Around; I'm sure the witch hunt in and of itself is not the problem and I was a fool for thinking Wei Wuxian's "Hey, they did the same thing to me back then" had any significance whatsoever.

[cosmicjoke]

hi, I have a question in mind, do you think Isayama making the entire world hate Eldians made it harder for the audience to view eren’s actions as evil? There is this argument thrown around that the lack of world building outside of Paradis island made it harder to sympathize with the people outside the world because the story kept hammering down that everyone wants the eldians dead thus making it harder for the audience to view erens actions as selfish and instead more understandable?It’s the same argument for other medias like X-men or castlevania where every human is portrayed as unreasonably hateful towards mutants, thus making magneto’s and Dracula’s wrath towards humanity totally warranted. The entire criticism in general is that the media wants you to think that these characters are the bad guys but the circumstances in the story makes it impossible to view them as such. It’s why some people slander the alliance for wanting to stop eren. Do you think this is a valid criticism?

No, not really. The point of the Marley arc isn't so much to make the audience sympathize with Marley, or the rest of the world, but to demonstrate the cyclical pattern of prejudice and hatred, violence and war, and how this cycle perpetuates itself and leads to more of the same. The Eldian Empire perpetuated these things, which in turn led to Marley perpetuating the same, and on and on. Marley's destruction at the hands of Eren is a direct result of their own perpetuation of this cycle. The audience is meant to understand that Marley brought it upon themselves, and I think it's plainly clear that the worldwide hatred of the Eldians is also a direct result of Marley's utilization of them as weapons. Marley becomes the very thing they hate the Eldians for, or what they've convinced themselves they hate the Eldians for. War mongers. The rest of the world viewing Eldians in a negative light is because of Marley's utilization of them as weapons to conquer other nations. The Eldians end up taking the blame for Marley's actions. The rest of the world's prejudice is therefore understandable, because their own nations are being torn apart and taken over through the use of Eldians being turned into Titans. So their anger and hatred is being unfairly focused onto the Eldians, even though it's actually Marley's responsibility. AoT is a story that doesn't shy away from showing human frailties and faults. People often make unfair judgments against others without having the full context, which is one of the core themes of AoT. We see that from the citizens of Paradis, too, even from members of our main cast, casting unfair judgments against others without having the full context of their stories or circumstances, delegating certain groups of people as their enemies, and convincing themselves of their own, moral righteousness in the process. And that of course is how wars often ignite, and is so often the root of prejudice and injustices being committed against others. The Marley arc is meant to demonstrate that in war, both sides always think they're in the right, that both sides always think they're justified, that their grievances against the other justify their actions, even when they very plainly do not. Marley, in particular, the Marleyan government, has convinced itself that its treatment of the Eldians is justified because of the way the Eldian Empire treated them in the past. The fallacy of this lies in the fact that it's generational punishment, blaming people who weren't even born when the Eldian Empire existed, and making them pay for the sins of their ancestors. Marley's own, horrific actions are meant to demonstrate how the Eldians being able to turn into Titans doesn't in itself make them monsters. It's people that can be monsters, or devils. All people. Because it's human nature that is so often monstrous. The way people are, the way violence is such an inherent part of the human condition, the way people constantly pit themselves against one another. This is a point and a theme that's driven home again and again in the story.

But we also see plenty of people from outside of Paradis who are clearly sympathetic and I think that's plenty enough to convey the message that Eren's actions aren't at all justified. It's not the people of the world who are to blame, but the institutions of power and the people who run them which propagate this cycle of death and destruction. The refugees inside Marley are a good example. Yes, we see prejudice against the Eldians from the Eastern forces, but we also see the humanity and kindness of these people through the 104ths interactions with them when they visit Marley for the first time. The way they invite the 104th into their camps and celebrate and dine with them. We also have it driven home to us that Eren's actions aren't justified by Eren himself, numerous times. When Eren is walking around Marley and realizes that none of these people are actually his enemy. That none of them pose any, actual threat to him or Paradis, that none of them are actively seeking the island's destruction. The only country that was actively seeking Paradis' destruction was Marley itself, before Eren orchestrated a world war against the island through his own actions. So while there was a lot of prejudice and hatred toward Eldians in the world, the world in general posed no, actual threat against Paradis. Even Marley didn't pose any, immediate threat against the island, as they had no plans to invade or attack Paradis until, again, Eren intentionally instigated hostilities, along with Zeke.

People that try to claim that because all of the world "hated" the Eldians, and therefore Eren's actions were "justified" also fail to acknowledge that countless Eldians were also murdered in Eren's genocidal attack. They fail to acknowledge how that alone is proof that Eren never cared about the Eldian people. He was just as willing for all of them to die as he was every other group of people that supposedly wanted them dead. We even see his actions lead to the deaths of numerous people from Paradis, with the walls coming down and crushing anyone within range of the falling debris. Countless people from multiple nations all across the world were murdered. People we never saw demonstrate any sort of prejudice against Paradis or the Eldians. All of this should be more than enough to make clear to the audience that Eren's actions are wrong, and were driven not by any sort of justifiable grievance, but by Eren's own, selfish nature and inability to accept the world as it was.

It's a fundamental failure in understanding Eren's character when people think he actually did what he did to protect anyone. The story drives home in numerous ways, and multiple times, how that wasn't ever the case, and that's plain about Eren's character, from his very first appearance, to his last. AoT is one of those stories where you can't just passively engage with it. You have to actually think and use your brain to see what's happening. But then you get people who don't, and then they blame Isayama for "bad writing", when really, what it is is their own laziness or stupidity that's at fault. Because the story doesn't spell things out in the most literal terms possible, they blame it for them not picking up on what's actually there, but which requires work to notice. They blame their lack of reading comprehension of the writing. But it's not the writing. It's their own media illiteracy.

Beyond that, it should just be common sense that genocide isn't ever justifiable. That there can be no situation or circumstance which justifies the murder of entire groups of people. The very fact that Eren murdered countless children, for example, who had no say and no power in the world's actions against or hatred for the Eldians, should be enough to clue people into the fact that the Rumbling wasn't justified and never could be. Once you start killing children, then you lose any moral argument or moral standing for your actions, because children aren't responsible for anything. We see Ramzi's death, and the death of his brother, and it's particularly gruesome, particularly graphic, because it's meant to demonstrate unequivocally the wrongness of Eren's actions. The same with the baby that we see being lifted up by the people who are being pushed to that cliffs edge. We see demonstrated their own goodness in attempting to save the life of this innocent baby, even while all of them meet their horrific ends, and thereby, the true evil of Eren's actions are put into stark relief. None of these people are truly evil or bad, none of these people ever actually did anything wrong to Eren or Paradis, and yet, Eren is snuffing them out without hesitation, without mercy. I don't think it's possible to come away from witnessing these moments in the story and then claim with any, real honesty, that Eren's actions were justified or understandable. Eren knew what he was doing. He knew who he was killing. His interaction with Ramzi earlier in the story is meant to show this to the audience. He was fully aware that his actions were going to lead to Ramzi's horrific death, to the horrific death of an innocent child, and countless other, innocent lives, and he knew it wasn't justified, and he did it anyway. All of Eren's self-loathing comes from this understanding, that what he's going to do has no basis in reason or righteousness. The story makes this clear and explicit. Anyone who claims the Eren's actions were justifiable or understandable is either lying to themselves because they can't bring themselves to admit or accept that Eren was the villain all along (and I think this really has to do with the fact they see a lot of themselves in Eren, and admitting that Eren is a bad person is tantamount to admitting they are, too), or they're really just too stupid to get it, and they need to majorly scale back the level of sophistication in the media they consume.

The themes and messaging of "Attack on Titan" are clear and concise and I think Isayama crafted a genuine masterpiece that's easy to understand, as long as you're being honest with yourself about it. If you're not being honest with yourself, if you're coming at the story with some preconceived notion of right and wrong, or some preconceived agenda, or if you're trying to project onto the story what you think the themes and messaging should be, or if you disagree with the themes and messaging, then you probably aren't going to understand it at all. People that think the message of AoT should have been that oppressed groups should be allowed to take any and all action, including committing genocide, against their oppressors, and that their actions should always be portrayed as justified and righteous, no matter how horrific, and no matter who against, are going to have a problem with AoT. Those people want to view the world in terms of black and white. Good versus evil. They want simple, easy to digest tales of heroics and moral clarity. They want to be told who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are, so they can easily understand who to root for. That's not what AoT is, and it never was. AoT is a story that deals in moral complexities and nuance. It was never going to make it easy for the audience to say who was right and who was wrong, because it's not even about that. It's not about hero's and villains. It's not a superhero comic. It depicts a much more realistic view of the world, and of people, and all the layered contradictions and duality's therein, than what you'll find in most Western media. There are no cartoon villains or hero's in this story. Because it's an examination of the human condition and the repeated cycle of that condition, throughout history. It's an exploration of our own, destructive natures and the ways in which that manifests. It's a story about the tragedies of war, and prejudice and hatred. It's a story that's meant to engender empathy and understanding, that promotes kindness and mercy and compassion, and that asks its audience to listen first before casting judgment or condemning others without first attempting to understand.

So, no, I don't think there's any validity to the criticism you've laid out here. I don't see how AoT could make it any more clear that what Eren did was wrong. The only people who would argue otherwise are those in denial, or those who can't handle works of art that depict morally complex scenarios and themes the way AoT does.

[sunfyrisms]

having one faction being written as only heroic and awesome and the other being written as only villainous and awful negates the original message of grrm’s original work, btw. it’s kind of interesting to see how these characters are written (the greens being a dysfunctional family who don’t seem to like each other vs the blacks being given positive traits that belong to the greens in the books, or simply not writing things if the source material that could make the blacks seem not heroic) and how fans take this very seriously. it’s partly a result of the marketing strategy for season two, the whole “everyone much choose a side thing” because that’s… not the point of this war, at all. but it’s also the writing and it’s very deliberately very obviously pro targaryen, especially with the whole “aegon conquered westeros for the good of the world” thing they have going on. which is an incredibly strange take. i think it’s really telling when you compare how the tragedies are written. rhaenyra’s loss of her children is obviously and rightfully tragic. her journey in episode one of season two was so tragic and so beautiful because you don’t hear her speak until the end of the episode, when she finally realizes her son is gone. but you also have her riding a dragon immediately after giving birth to her stillborn daughter, who is never mentioned again, if i recall correctly, and that doesn’t seem… possible. but with the greens, you have a very horrific and traumatic event via the brutal murder of jaehaerys being reduced to two silly men committing a crime, when that crime was the beheading of, like, a five year old. you then have his grandmother having sex while this is happening, in an attempt to blame her for it, which is genuinely so infuriating. idk why i made this post, i saw that season two wasn’t even nominated for best television drama and i was just like. yeah i know that’s right. you cannot expect an show adaptation of a very well-known series from a very well-known author to do well when you completely ignore the original source material and then claim your interpretation is better or the truth. it’s simply insisting on itself and it’s simply pissing on the tragedy of the dance of the dragons and it’s simply exhausting.

[thechthonicherbalist]

You know. That sums it up really well and I'm gonna stand behind it. This post summed up everything that is wrong in this fandom. We could all just get along and like who we like and be happy about the diversity of characters and their different personalities and imperfections. And like. You know. Save our anger and energy to battle real world problems caused by real world people. And find happiness and refuge from all these real bad things in fandom. I actually wonder if people and society are experiencing a collective trauma response to all the injustice in the world going on right now, so they get triggered by fictional scenarios, characters and stories, that are supposed to be our collective safe space from all this.

I'm going to regret this.

Sometimes the iwtv fandom makes me worry about the future of diversity in media. I mean I expect the racist assholes to pop up and bother everyone. That happens all the time and while it sucks, there are ways to filter those people out.

My big worry is honestly on the other end, where people are so desperate for harmony they end up treating minorities like monoliths of purity. Seriously, we have a show with morally grey characters of a variety of colors, a color conscious writing team, actors who constantly discuss the nuances of their characters, and people still find a reason to fight about this. Wasn't this the ideal we were asking for???

How are we supposed to evolve the representation in media if we can't go 2 seconds without fighting about which characters you're "allowed" to like?

You can't like Lestat because then you're condoning his behavior, but you can't condem anything Louis does cause then you're racist, but also you can't like Louis more than Armand because Louis was a pimp, but also you can't like Armand because he killed Claudia, but also that was all Lestat's fault and Armand did nothing wrong and if you don't ship Loumand it's because you're racist and if you do ship Loumand it's because you just hate Lestat and Anne Rice and puppies??? or something, and Clauida is the only character you're actually allowed to like except you are not allowed to like her unless you hate Lestat or Louis because as we've established it's really Lestat's fault she died and also Louis was a bad father and is responsible for Clauida's death so you cant like him either but also you are racist for thinking Louis did something wrong because black characters are not allowed to make mistakes or be nuanced or be human but also you don't get nuance if you like 1x05, you have to hate 1x05 because that episode of the toxic abusive vampire show dared to show toxic abusive vampires and ruined your precious precious perception of Lestat but also if you still like Lestat after that then you must hate Louis because Louis is 5 fucking years old and needs to be coddled but also he's a piece of shit and you cant like him and idk i don't really hear people argue about Daniel but maybe I'm just not looking hard enough and who ever cares cause I lost the plot about 100 fucking words ago.

Like jesus fuck we'll never weed out the racist people in the fandom cause we're too fucking busy fighting each other about, like, if we should let black characters be nuanced and interact with white characters who are mean??? Istg half this fandom thinks Louis (and Jacob Anderson for that matter) is like a battered helpless child who has never been able to stand up for himself. Louis is a character built from very real pain, he's always going to be kind of sad by virtue of that, but he's not 5, he can make decisions for himself.

How the fuck are we supposed to normalize diversity in media if we can't be fucking normal about diversity in media.

Fuck. Everything. And. Everyone.

[lonestardust]

carlos' eyes in the meeting room........ carlos' eyes at the hospital..... at the IC room..... his guts are boiling with hot rage!!! this very stubborn hope. it's in the clench of his jaw since the funeral. the lump in his throat that he swallows back every time because that's how the gut-wrenching vestige of murder that hasn't received its justice yet feels like."i see it now. the eyes.." because that's the glimpse of the resolute unswerving gabriel in him that echos 'if there are tears to weep we do it when the time comes, not before'. you grief but you don't get defeated when there is still work to do in order to rest in that grief. and GODDD carlos is so righteously resolved about getting there. i want him so so bad to solve the case. finally bring that retribution and avenge his family and himself. he's been in the waxing and waning throes for too long he only deserves the purgation and finality of it more than anything!!!!!

because no way all of this relentless endeavour and sharp stubborn wit would culminate to anything but cracking it. even storytelling wise that would be disheartening not to bring it to its desired ends. because imagine. all this time carlos was so right about the rangers from the start. then he looped in. was kept so close under their wing. and then he now realises that he wasn't really truly '''stuck''' but he was trapped and misled instead and it's all tumbling down now over their heads and he's seeing through the cracks. finally the darkness makes sense and he can move in action through the pinnacle and into the resolution!!!

[sameteeth]

in s3ep2, eleanor tells mrs. hudson she doesnt come from privilege, which mrs. hudson immediately denies. but i think its SOOO telling of eleanor's character! she sees herself as a woman in a world full of men, which she is, but she completely ignores the class and racial divides she obviously benefits from. she claims she has no privilege to mrs. hudson, who comes from no money and works as a chambermaid to woodes rodgers, leaving behind her beloved children to make sure eleanor has clean clothes and to empty her chamberpot. eleanor had power on nassau, power she wielded for her own benefit and to the severe detriment of others. obviously she experienced misogyny, but she was never forced into poverty, never forced into sex work, never forced into service of any kind, because her father was wealthy and she was born into a higher class. her experiences of misogyny and oppression are vastly different than mrs. hudson's. but for her to tell a chambermaid she experienced no privilege? it's laughably untrue. eleanor oversaw and directly profitted from the trade of hundreds if not thousands of slaves on nassau, was raised by "chattel property of the guthrie estate" mr. scott, who is never even given a name in his own tongue (on screen, at least), never showed kindness to anyone but those who put money in her pocket because she was born with that money and that trade empire already in the guthrie name. she had to fight to get it, and fight she did, but the fact that those things were so close to her reach just by virtue of the circumstances of her birth? that's privilege, whether or not she sees it that way

[blimbo-buddy]

Using what’s considered Bad/Mediocre and Amazing artwork/stories very loosely here since it’ll really just depend from person to person

[midniteowlet]

I love your mind. So. So. Much.

Virginia Woolf loathed the oppression of women during her lifetime. While some parts of society have changed to afford women more opportunities, I don’t doubt that if she were alive today, she’d be sitting at her desk writing about the many inequities and injustices of modern society. This is why we leave our world for fiction, or as Woolf says to Vita in the movie Vita and Virginia, “I wrote them down, scored them into my heart, and in Orlando I set you free.” Fiction is freedom from our purgatory. It’s why we consume it. We’re desperate for a happy world. The problem is that Mafin’s story is meant to portray the real world and those discussions are as important as happily ever afters.

In the real world, “happiness” exists but can never be found in society as a whole. Even the most mundane of issues conspire against us. We must sacrifice or compromise. For example, I would love to spend an eternity with you in my arms, but we must eat eventually and if we are to eat then we must work. Similarly, Marta and Fina must give their other relationships time and effort, familial or friendly, lest they wither. Life isn’t happily ever after with one person. It’s intermittent moments of happiness when we reconnect with people we love while fulfilling obligations.

I think Marta and Fina’s relationship parallels the real world. Bad things happen to them because that is what life is. I have bad days. You do too. We ache for each other. We celebrate each other. The point of a relationship is to spend a lifetime trying to set “Orlando” free. To set each other free. To be the enduring light of a trillion stars in the vast darkness of space for someone else. Love isn’t only happy moments. It’s watching someone fall to pieces when their father dies. It’s being irate when they’re a victim of SA. It’s contradictions of character that surprise you and make you smile. It’s a hug when you most need to be held. We store our happiness in each other for safekeeping and return when the world allows it.

Ergo, Marta and Fina are already living their version of happily ever after because this is what happily ever after is like in a world filled with intolerance. I think, if we asked them, they would say that these brief moments of happiness are enough because that is exactly how I feel about you. I take any and every moment with you and treasure it. I give thanks to the cosmos because the world is so much easier to live in knowing you’re in it. I think we expect too much from fiction by asking it to solve the world’s problems when it’s goal is to get viewers to empathize with the struggle for balance we all feel. I think it’s wonderful that this show proves that two women can continue to be each other’s rock when bad things happen - which is much more than most period films seem to think women are capable of.

And this is one of the countless reasons I love chatting about Mafin with @midniteowlet: she's my very own toma a Tierra and grounds me, so I can approach things more rationally.

Upon concluding our debate of the current turn of events on the show, Mafin on the whole and their narrative? I've come to look at things as follows. The show very much reflects society as it is: a sad state of affairs where good people hurt and unsavory characters often prevail. The fact that we want everything good and wholesome to triumph at every turn? Idealistic, not realistic. Not to mention lofty expectations actually prevent one from truly appreciating the show, with all its ups and downs and winding roads. And personally, I'd like to keep enjoying it, without getting dragged down the utopian rabbit-hole.

For the most part, the representation we get is actually well crafted: Mafin feels organic, tried and true, and the chemistry between them is undeniable and thrilling. More so? Their story doesn't feel forced and thus, can be promoted to any viewership without it coming across as preachy and condescending, or having an agenda. If anything, Mafin is by far the best developed, healthiest relationship on the show. I, for one, much prefer the portrayal of good communication, heartfelt romance and overcoming obstacles together than a deluge of r-rated scenes. And honestly? We are being offered a damn good story here, even as it fails to satisfy everyone's hopes and demands (which in all honesty, it never could - at the end of the day, someone will always be disappointed)

I'm also reminded of Marta B. mentioning in a recent interview that the show is not aimed exclusively at the sapphic community. As such, it will not depict or cater to its particular needs. It's part of a larger ensemble and needs to appeal to a broad audience. And, when all is said and done, it actually manages to accomplish more with this kind of storytelling: one that's simpler, one that doesn't try to be pedantic. Ergo, they will not linger and preach to the audience. What they will do instead is allow the characters, their circumstances and actions, to speak for themselves. And they will trust they're doing a good enough job to let people draw their own conclusions. So far, I think they've achieved that: there’s heterosexual people watching the novela who love Mafin and think they’re the best couple on the show, there’s elderly people learning to be more open-minded, everyone loves Damian's character development, everyone hates Santiago and acknowledges he is a despicable lowlife etc. The show is moving the pieces along the board quite deftly and it makes for an interesting, if not always gratifying, game.

As for today's episode? There's no doubt that Marta and Fina only have eyes for each other. They're an established couple who will face anything thrown their way as they always have, as one. No mustachioed men will ever change that. Marta and Fina's narrative will never be whether they desperately adore each other. That they do couldn’t be more obvious. Their story? Ever has it been, and will continue to be, about their fight to attain freedom: freedom to live their love in a society that forbids it.

Therefore, I've reached the point where I'm not worried at all about either Santiago or Pelayo. Based on Pelayo's reaction upon learning Marta is a lesbian? I doubt he'll help Santiago in his attempt to sink Marta's ships. To me he comes across as a calculated businessman, but not a heartless one. He stands to profit more from a partnership with the de la Reina family than throwing Marta to the wolves. He also didn't bat an eye at Santiago's reveal, wasn't surprised or outraged. Which, I'll go out on a limb and say, is telling. He's either gay himself or simply plans on advancing his business / political career by securing a partner that won't demand his attention or affection. The first scenario ensures he remains socially upstanding while the second allows him to live as he pleases. To a man like Pelayo? It's a jackpot either way. Hopefully, the benefits outweigh the costs for Marta as well, should the plot move in that direction. And given all the signs? It's already halfway there.

That being said. It remains to be seen what happens to Santiago. I assume, and hope, his little ploy at denouncing Marta to the Civil Guard will cost him, dearly or otherwise. His own thirst for vengeance pushed him to make the wrong move which is, in my opinion, seeking out Pelayo. And while there's plenty of outraged cries that Marta & Fina don't need another man to save them? Let's not forget it's 1958. The likelihood of neither of them attracting a suitor, fake or otherwise unwelcome, is as doubtful as improbable. The fact they managed to successfully evade them so far? Quite the feat.

As for what awaits? Marta won't go to jail, I think, since that card has already been played. Or who knows? We might be surprised. The fear they need to instill in her requires new heights, in order for Marta to reluctantly accept another cage. Mind you, she's still trapped: as much freedom as she currently wields, Marta remains a woman whose very social status entraps her, singling her out as prime real estate. She's the proverbial golden goose, especially as dictated by the mores of society back then. Marta and Fina's shared dream of freedom remains, for now, a dream. One they've almost had at their fingertips, which makes their current circumstances all the more painful. I will say: it stings that Fina won't be the first to read Marta's journal. Undoubtedly, at some point, she will. After all, that journal is a mirror of Marta's very heart. It lays out her deepest fears, her innermost longings. It chronicles the fiercest battles Marta has had to wage with herself, her losses and triumphs, her meditations and hymns, the anguish and the deliverance of her love for Fina. To have it fall into the wrong hands? A violation of the utmost personal, a desecration of what is deemed sacred and untouchable. The diary symbolizes Marta having a safe space to call her own, one where she was allowed to embrace her true self, one that initiated her journey to freedom, her quest to rid herself of her shackles. Santiago has no honorable bone in his body and his hatred towards women, and Marta in particular, drives him to invade and vandalize her privacy, this blessed sanctuary she got to call her own. Let's see if Pelayo rises to the occasion and proves himself as a noble character. You can never have too many allies. Do I still take issue with how certain things are handled, with the inconsistencies and shoddy character work? Definitely. But I’m also able to simply sit back and enjoy. Let's see where all this goeth, shall we? Hello pain, let's go again.

[escxelle]

i saw an article the other day that had the headline along the lines of 'baldur's gate 3 fans are sad to hear that you there is no lord gortash romance plot' and i'm usually a very open-minded person but... maybe i will second guess the bg3 fans in question...

i was geniunely scared of him when i first had a conversation with him in act 3... he's a creepy, slimey, horrible, disgusting man and yes i know he's fictional but his whole presence just made me nervous, sick even. i can't see why anyone would like him let alone want to romance him...

he's a fantastic villain yes. his actor (idk who he is sorry - please tell me!!) did a wonderful performance, the way that he's written and the story-telling is insanely good but it's because of that excellent performance from the devs, the actor and writers that it just feels too real...

of course, if you're doing an evil playthrough then it makes sense to be nice to him and whatnot but do you really have to romance him too? :/ there was a reason why the game didn't come out with a gortash romance and there's a reason why the devs still aren't putting one in, maybe think about the reasons behind that other than "but he's hot" or something??

[nokingsonlyfooles]

The Future is Allistic?

Murderbot is the best thing about All Systems Red, and I think the author knows that. That's cool. The humans don't need much for development, this isn't their story, they're just another thing Murderbot has to deal with. We've only got about 150 pages for this, and it's book one, so we're going to gloss over some aspects of the world to focus on the character.

Murderbot does not wish to exist in the sort of well-meaning institution where the humans would put it, a place where being "cared for" means a loss of autonomy. Murderbot would like the ability to get up and microwave a burrito at 0100 hours. ...Or whatever "passing the burrito test" means in the future, for a robot. So would we all!

But, uh, where are "we"? Where are the autistic humans who would read a book about Murderbot, go "oh, it me" and then talk about it with other humans, autistic and allistic both?

There are "humans," who may be well-meaning but clueless or openly hostile towards Murderbot, and who produce media with happy robots coexisting with humans and some level of personhood. (Either robots do not produce media in the future, most robots are not like Murderbot, or we just never see robot media or robots like Murderbot. Not much time for world-building!) There are robots, all of whom have no autonomy and are hostile cannon-fodder - although Murderbot doesn't feel great about that, it'll still kill them and move on. And there's Murderbot, who appears to be the only autistic thing in the universe.

And, I get that. I get how that feels. I get how someone in the YA audience who masks and passes like Murderbot probably feels like the only autistic thing in a hostile/clueless universe. It was like that for me and often it still is. For a book of limited scope, maybe that's enough. An author can't fix everything, and sometimes you gotta play the ball where it lies. But the real world is so much bigger than how it feels: there are lots of us, we have communities, we are seen, and we talk about ourselves.

We are human beings! We don't have to be created autistic like a robot, because we are naturally-occurring, and you would need to do some serious fucking eugenics to make us go away. (Even then, it probably wouldn't work. Eugenics hasn't been the society-purifying, scientific success so many people wanted/still want it to be.) It's not like you could just stop vaccinating kids, or abuse them a bit less, or abuse them a bit more - just until they're normal! - or any of these other "solutions" that have been floated to deal with us. You'd have to change how we function on a fundamental level as we develop in the womb, or shortly thereafter, or kill us, but I repeat myself.

On some level, in general, I think we do know that "curing" someone of autism, even if nobody physically dies, is a type of murder. Here, I am thinking of another future where autism doesn't seem to exist and nobody knows how to deal with it. Julian Bashir, in Star Trek: DS9, is the closest thing we get to an autistic human being who has a regular job and just gets to exist and interact like another person. And he's the illegal result of eugenic experimentation! His parents didn't like that he was underperforming in school, so they did some eugenics on him, and he calls that murder. That plotline is criminally underdeveloped, but it is there. It was there in the 90s, when the general view of autism was a nightmare disease with no cure that ruins children. We still knew that rewiring someone's brain to make them more convenient was wrong.

(Funnily enough, we do grab children who are underperforming in school and force them to mask better, like Julian. But it involves putting them in a Skinner Box and training them like Pavlov's dogs, with punishments for acting autistic and rewards for acting less so. It doesn't make them stop being autistic, but it makes them easier to deal with. And in so many cases, that's all we care about!)

If the public at large figured out that Julian was created autistic (because autism doesn't just happen), if he didn't mask like Murderbot, he'd go in an institution like the Jack Pack. Like where they wanted to put Murderbot. He clearly doesn't need to be there, but that's where society has decided he belongs, because he should not exist. He's only like that because someone made him that way, and they shouldn't have.

Just recently, I got smacked with the realization that people with complex intersections can't just happen in fiction. If I knew a queer, deaf person, I would write them the funnest queer and deaf character to play. It wouldn't be hard to write that character! They would fit into Hyacinth's house or the Black Orchid just fine! Calliope could've been deaf (along with being GNC, and multiracial, and autistic), instead of just growing up where there's a deaf school with a deaf friend whom we only meet briefly. ...So why didn't I do that? Why didn't that occur to me in the first place? I'm trying to create a diverse world like the real one, but we don't see that person.

Part of it is that I didn't see media with that person. But the reason it's hard to see that media is, it's hard to justify that character. We, the audience, have a default "blank" character in our heads (it's not blank at all, it's cis, het, white, male, and a lot of things the usual protagonist is), and the artist needs to tweak that into an individual with words or paint or a performance or something. The more tweaks someone has to do, the more likely the audience will get bored or confused and wander off. Beyond the privileged default, everything that makes a character has to be relevant, and stay relevant. That's why they say "murder your darlings." The worst sin is boring the audience, so don't involve them in unnecessary shit. Pare down the story until it bleeds.

Now, think how much space explaining something complex like "queer AND deaf" would need. And how much research from someone who isn't both of those things, or doesn't at least have a patient queer and deaf friend. And if, say, they were Black too? In the real world, a person like that can just exist and be seen. Probably they just live their lives without including you, it's not about you. But maybe they sit down next to you on the bus, you say hi, they speak with a specific accent or sign or hand you a card, and they have dark skin and a rainbow flag pin. Existence confirmed! In writing, I have to do pages and pages of work to get you to see them as a whole person, because they need me to create a place where they fit. If they don't have a place where they fit and we need them, why are they there? Real people don't have to justify themselves, they just are, and everyone else better fucking work with it. Everyone doesn't, but they should. You can't just ask someone why they're Black! But in fiction, you do, you must, you're supposed to, and if there's no reason, well, maybe they ought to stop being Black.

So, if I'm going to write a story in which Murderbot is autistic, especially if it's a short and simple one, it fucking well better be ABOUT Murderbot being autistic, or else why spend all these pages explaining what it's like to be autistic? "Autistic people exist" isn't a plotline, that dull and preachy. I need something better than that... Ah! "Murderbot hacked its chip and became autistic!" Yes! That's relevant for the plot and lets me do all kinds of worldbuilding about robots and how they work and how they are seen! There's my elevator pitch and a significant portion of the jacket plot summary right there!

"Autistic people exist in a community" isn't relevant to "autistic robot fights society and other robots." It should be, inasmuch as autistic people are part of society, but it would add pages to the story if the humans who are so clueless and stress-inducing weren't also the nice humans who live with robots and treat them like disabled people. Why add another type of human when we've already got the corporation and the other surveyors and the evil surveyors and a whole world to explain? There's no room!

But that means that, somehow, a group of scientists (!!) living in human society haven't met an autistic person and have no clue how to treat one. There can't be an autistic scientist who goes, "Why the FUCK would you look at someone to PUNISH them, what is WRONG with you?" That would make it less likely Murderbot will wander off to explore the galaxy and find itself! This is Book One! Where's the story if Murderbot finds a community right away and hangs out? That's boring!

So, in the future, there isn't a community among the "free" robots that we just don't see, because it would derail the plot if there were. The world wouldn't look like that if the robots alone talked about their way of being and the humans who lived with them listened. If there were also human beings who existed like Murderbot and they added their voices, it would blow Murderbot's adventure to find itself out of the water, and the point of the story is the adventure. It's not as fun to watch an autistic person look for friends by paging through websites and social media, and then they have lunch and go back to work. That's not a YA novel, that's just life.

If I pick up this series, and I'm not sure I will, I suppose there's room for a Planet Autism. Perhaps as a happy ending, or perhaps as just another place Murderbot doesn't fit in (this would be more realistic, it's hard for us to connect with each other, but much less happy). But they're not out there producing serials and saying they exist and shaping society. They probably hide, so Murderbot has to find them. As one does! One does have to find a community where they fit, and that's hard. But there are lots of us who don't hide, and can't hide. The first time Murderbot mentions a popular serial in a public forum, we ought to come running. Regular autistic people, who are not institutionalized, and who work regular jobs and have lunch. I'm almost positive we won't, though. There's no room. That "darling" needs to die.

It's systemic and it sucks. Like must systemic problems that suck, I've had to spend paragraphs just beginning to unpack it, and probably no one will bother to read it because I don't get seen. If I wrote a whole doorstopper about this, I couldn't get it published because I'm too autistic to navigate the system and too anarchistic to want to anymore. And Tumblr ain't gonna care because they're primarily concerned with short takes that get likes, just look at their app. The world doesn't elevate Murderbots and listen, that much is true, but we find each other and are seen, regardless.

If we want to change what we see in media, we have to change how media works. "The correct way to tell a story is to get from A to B as efficiently as possible and we must create everything that way" is a darling that will have to die, so other darlings can live, and people can just exist as they are without having to cough up a reason. I have no idea how to fix this, but that's how it seems to me.

And this is probably full of typos and awkward phrasing because I got distracted by it and needed to find some way to say it. I'm not gonna go back and edit it until it looks shiny, smooth, and efficient. I exist like this, messily. You may not see me, but I'm here.

[transrevolutions]

as much as I can appreciate the interpretation of enjolras as being a naturally kinda quiet and calm guy, I tend to prefer the idea that he had to teach himself to be charming. he isn't necessarily cruel by nature, but he's intense. the force of his passion can scare even his closest allies as well as his enemies so he learns to file the edge of his knife sharper and smaller and sharper and smaller until he can hide it in a bouquet of flowers.

[sga-owns-my-soul]

IT SO IS!!!!!!!!

the last scene of sga on the balcony is bullshit

i said it

[florbelles]

finished hera & started lady macbeth and we have got to start blaming women for shit again for real

[epickiya722]

I like some fanon things, too, but sometimes fanon just ain't it.

[prettyboykatsuki]

i'd like to hear ur interpretation of hawks if u are open to sharing 🤲🏽 i love hearing you talk abt media and analysis stuff

BELOVED!!! HELLOO AND YES i would love to talk about it though i think i might genuinely ruffle some feathers ajkdkjs but this is just my personal opinion of hawks ! !

one of my main like. gripes with keigos character and how people write hawks is the way they handle his moral reasoning. i think the bnha fandom does this quite a bit where a character who is very obviously meant to be multifaceted is like washed out by one or two actions when those actions aren't derivative of his character.

i find this to be the most egregious in the instance of hawks killing twice. this fight is extremely, extremely complex and i must make it clear that is one of the cruelest actions in the entire series and it is one of hawks worst moments of betrayal and people are allowed to not like him over it

but it doesn't stop me from sympathizing with his character in anyway because this death unlike many before it, starts to change hawks fundamentally (seen in chapter 374)

i think hawks is a character worthy of criticism, but not nearly as much as he is usually subjected to. he's not quite like deku in which he's unable to grasp that hero society needs reform especially because he feels a sense of distaste for the hero commission.

nor is he deluded at any point about the positions of heroes and villains. he is genuine in his effort for reforming, and his compliance with the hero comm. doesn't erase his intent. he prioritizes the public because he is hopeful to the point of denial

his biggest character flaw is more than other things, the sense of detachment he's garnered as a result of his trauma. he's a character who has intellectualized his emotions for nearly his entire life, as proven by his backstory. his sense of victimhood and of being saved is very, very warped because his tactic of survival since childhood has been in some aspect - compartmentalizing his reality. running away. severing his connections much like his parents did.

this is one of the main ways that he and dabi differ. they are quite literally two different responses to intense physical and verbal abuse with dabi being fight and hawks being flight (ironically enough). hawks takes on the role of the good victim, convincing himself it's better to endure everything. he spends his entire childhood like that, and he is only free from that abuse when endeavor comes to save him.

hawks' idolization is another one of those things that people pretty consistently use to derail his character. but i think it's important to recognize that hawks and dabi view endeavor in similar but opposite lights.

their perceptions of him are exacerbated by their circumstances. each of them, respectively, have a relatively extreme / exaggerated view of him. for hawks it was the idea of endeavor and being a savior that allowed to him to survive, and for dabi it was endeavors abuse and the need for vengeance that motivated him to stay alive.

all of that to say - hawks was groomed nearly his entire life to become a hero. he was never given room to process the things he endured, and perhaps the most substantial difference between hawks and dabi is that he is so unbearably isolated from everything. dabi being in the league plays such a huge role in his life but for hawks. he has no friends and his only semblance of self-worth is derived from the idea of Endeavor giving him the time of day and being 'helpful'. he spends nearly his entirely life chasing after the idea of being good and it ruins him in almost every way.

hawks will always be a victim worthy of sympathy to me. his participation in a system that failed him over and over and his hope for that system to change will never allow me to dislike him, even despite the heinous atrocities he's committed against loved ones. he isn't a good person but i don't think he's a bad one either. his obsession with leisure always clues me into the fact that there's probably some part of him that didn't want all this and that sincerely wanted to be good that was absolutely snubbed by the hero commission and it breaks my heart. that's the part of this thats personal and controversial probably.

he feels a lot like a war vet to me. my hope for his arc is that he will realize much in that same vain that this level of corruption needs major reform and that he is able to reflect on that and use his influence in the future for good.

[emjoyy]

I wish they weren’t rushing Carnival Row so much. I want the original 3 season arc god damn.