#it's a complex issue and that's kind of simplifying it

[solvskrift]

oh I would so so love to commission fic and compensate u properly but are we allowed to do that with copyright laws n all?

ah a very good and often asked question!

strictly speaking, no not really, but there's a spectrum of opinions on if it's an 'okay' thing to do anyway ranging from 'obviously that's technically illegal and it should never, ever happen' to 'you're simply paying someone for their time creating content that otherwise wouldn't have been made by the original creators.' it's a bit of a messy subject. tons of fan artists offer art commissions without anyone batting an eye - some people are comfortable with that, others aren't.

this reddit post is a pretty good forum discussing your exact question. one of the best ways I've seen it put is: "Generally, what I've seen is along the lines of 'hey, do you really want a specific fic to exist, without you having to write it? I can do that for you. Here are my prices, if you're interested' and then the fic, once done, is posted publicly. So, more paying for the fic to exist than the fic itself, if that makes any sense."

[fantastic-mr-corvid]

whats the thing thats like "americans call english ppl weird then english ppl say at least their kids wont die in school shootings"

anyway i may have been passed up for an engineering opportunity for programmers but at least my area of work isnt gonna be taken over by llm and chatgpt 😁. at least in 10 years i wont have a job thats coaxing large language model's into not doing a fuck up because when only the bottom line matters who cares about good code and maintainability😁😁.

at least im not fervently in denial about the collapse of the area i want to work in😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁.

[ruinofchimera]

Lily’s quick retort wasn’t a ‘hurtful, isolated reaction’ that was otherwise free of systemic prejudice and not indicative of anything deeper, it was emblematic of her classism. She threw his otherness in society right back at him after he did the same to her. You can argue this is no real issue, because Lily’s prejudices aren’t going to get anyone killed, but classism is part of their dynamic from the start. It’s why she’s comfortable scapegoating him for stealing Petunia’s letter, and why she doesn’t consider that he hasn’t got the luxury of antagonising people like Mulciber. Petunia didn’t emerge from the womb looking down on Spinner’s End, she learned it from the same parents who raised Lily. She’s never more Tuney’s sister than in that moment mocking his poverty.

* it’s also relevant I think to point out that JKR has said that many purebloods would also consider halfbloods like Snape a mudblood. Bellatrix certainly doesn’t consider him as one of her kind. He can’t pass as anything other than what he is - he has a muggle name and looks like his muggle father and he’s stuck sleeping in the house of pureblood supremacy. He’s, to use a very clumsy analogy, a mixed race kid who’s been abused by his POC father and has internalised self-hatred. It’s a bit more complicated than saying Snape has political privilege and Lily is the oppressed.

In my defense, I’m a paragon of laziness, which is what kept me from spoon-feeding why exactly Lily’s so-called knee-jerk reaction constitutes participation in systematic class pressure, much like Severus’s slur does. Actually, if I had decided to explain it, I couldn’t have put it better than you did. You nailed it. So while it’s not entirely necessary, I can’t help but offer a few more examples to back up your point.

Sugar-coating Lily’s behavior certainly shows that fans overlook the complexity of classism in the series. Discrimination in the wizarding world isn’t one-dimensional—it operates on multiple levels, with poverty acting as a form of ‘otherness’ that cuts across even pure-blood lines. Rowling actually depicts how deeply ingrained class prejudice is through Ron Weasley. Ron’s pure-blood status didn’t shield him from the bullying he faced due to his family’s poverty. Despite being part of one of the oldest wizarding families, Ron is belittled and looked down upon by wealthier pure-bloods, particularly Draco Malfoy. Classism in the wizarding world operates on a nuanced level, where even pure-blood characters like the Weasleys are subject to scorn from wealthier families. We see Ron systematically oppressed by this for seven books, yet some still believe blood status is the sole axis of discrimination in Wizarding society. Isn’t that curious?

Now, I want to expand on the concept of pure-blood supremacy, which is often simplified in this fandom. As I mentioned in my previous posts, Severus Snape is, in fact, a mudblood in the eyes of the pure-blood elite. The term ‘mudblood’ doesn’t just apply to Muggle-borns; it refers to anyone whose bloodline isn’t considered ‘pure,’ especially those with close Muggle relatives. Severus’s Muggle surname only highlights his deviation from pure magical lineage in the eyes of blood purists, even if he had wanted to hide it. His ‘tainted’ blood status made him just as much a target for discrimination among pure-blood elitists, complicating the idea that Snape had political privilege.

You’ve already covered this topic perfectly, so as promised, I’ve just thrown in some extra fuel to highlight your point.

[solarpunkwarlock]

I really want to talk about how important it is for us as a people to start making proper city design a priority. I also want to talk about how the privatization of land is the first major barrier to having proper city design.

A lot of seemingly complex issues and tasks can be simplified or made easier to deal with by organizing our cities: Food distribution, commute times, housing, neighborhood safety, public transportation, business/practice regulation, emergency preparedness, general accessibility, mental health, access to medical services, public health, and probably a ton of other things I can't think of right now.

All of that and more could be made much easier if we organized our cities with things like mixed-use-development, the standardization of public transport over personal vehicles, a grid structure, prioritizing walkability on surfaces safe for the disabled (sidewalks over cobblestone), designating districts for certain kinds of services, mandating better minimum (and maximum) size requirements for homes, requiring a certain percentage of greenery or some form of nature for every square footage, and other tactics that I'm probably not even aware of since I'm no city planner.

All of this gets shit on when land can be privately owned, though. Businesses, rich folks, the greedy, and the ignorant buy land without any planning in mind for their community which leads to disorganized, unoptimized, and community-unfriendly cities/towns. Our efforts should always generally lead to the betterment of our community over the selfish betterment of our private circumstances.

[mightymizora]

I’m not putting this in any tags but I really am struggling to put into words my general dissatisfaction in the direction of draggy ahge into words past “it doesn’t seem to trust its audience with complexity anymore.”

But that kind of is it? In origins, awakening, 2 and even the early TTRPG adventures and novels, there was a distinct feeling of grey morality, of difficult and unsolvable issues, even when you could choose the middle road. There were a lot of questions around systemic injustice and interpretation of history and power through the church and other such themes that were given a lot of space for interpretation.

But the fandom made things more black and white and rather than allowing that to be fan interpretation (which is legit, I think it’s fine for fan works to be more trope led and simplify things for fun) it feels like it was really adopted into the franchise? Everything is so over-explained, trope-led and surface level now and it’s a real shame to me.

[cipheramnesia]

Hey, just say your tags about TME/TMA language being problematic. Genuine question: what is the issue with them? Is it that transmisogyny can be directed at people who aren't considered "TMA"?

I've talked about it here and there, but maybe this will be the time my thoughts are organized.

Up front, let me note there could be more elements involved the TME/TMA than I'm familiar with. I also feel it could be a useful tool in the right circumstances (for example, if you pursued research specifically focused on transmisogyny). My subjective experience is that TME/TMA are not used in this way, and the functional use of them isn't beneficial in general to trans people.

For those unfamiliar, TME means "transmisogyny exempt" and TMA means "transmisogyny affected." Now, as a thing that happens, these make sense. However, as commonly used, TME/TMA describes innate traits, which is where they stop being useful for me.

To start at the broadest scale, TME/A is often used reductively, with the principle that general bigotry against trans folx is in effect all derived from transmisogyny. I'm simplifying a little bit, but if we cut through some of the theory mechanics, we end up left with a broad generalization of transmisogyny as the primary and defining feature of the effort for trans rights, transphobia, and such. And, not to undermine the substantial effect transmisogyny has on the whole community, but this is not completely different from treating misogyny in general as the defining characteristic of all inequality. Misogyny is a significant form of inequality, but reducing all inequality to misogyny is kinda radical feminist territory. What with radfems generally wanting to wipe trans people off the map, I'm not comfortable standing on an ideological platform that close to theirs.

Related to this, there's no terms like "Transandrophobia Exempt," nothing at all addressing what kind of exemption / effect would apply to anyone off the gender binary - if it's going to be used to examine different kinds of bias against different kinds of trans people, or if it's meant to represent a state of being for trans people, there should be versions of it which apply to other people affected by bigotry who aren't trans femme. I suppose it can be argued that it's only to define one category of people (TMA) versus any other people (TME), which is true but again defines away the experiences of a large number of different trans people, or necessitates other trans people's experiences being defined through transmisogyny. To me that's not useful, because it excludes a significant amount of the complexity of the trans experience for the sake of only understanding a narrow band of it.

This leads into some further difficulties with the term. As a group, trans people have a great deal of insight to share with one another about our positive and negative experiences. The great variety and range of experiences in our community is fantastic, because I can find the experience of people who are trans men, agender, genderqueer, nonbinary, or anything else very relatable. I don't need to limit my understanding of gender via my specific experience as a trans woman either to share in how other trans folx view gender, nor to share my experience with the trans community at large.

We're getting deep down into it now, but related to the above and your note, I see TMA/E used as interchangeable with AFAB/AMAB, while being affected by transmisogyny isn't particularly limited to your assigned gender at birth. Bigotry expressed against trans people is not complex - it's a matter of a person or person who thinks any expression of gender they perceive as out of sync with what they assume is an intuitive understanding of innate gender characteristic should be must be resisted in the strongest possible way.

Or, more succinctly, transphobes do not care your agab, where you fall under the trans umbrella, or if you're trans at all. If a transphobe sees a cis woman and thinks she looks like a trans woman, they'll be transmisogynistic. If they see a trans woman and thinks she looks like a trans man, it's transandrophobia for them. They don't believe they ever have or ever will encounter anyone intersex, because they're really bad a statistics (fun fact, a small percentage is still a huge amount in any kind of city or town population). Bigots do not slow down to decide what kind of specific form of hate they're expressing, because the only thing important to them is that they're seeing someone who deviates from their internal belief system, and that person must be penalized for deviation.

We can certainly dissect how bigotry affects us all after the fact, the particular and (importantly) varying social lenses people are experiencing when they direct prejudice based on gender. I think that's a very complex and interesting question but it can't be examined via transmisogyny alone, because it's not limited to trans feminine people. Gender is one component of the many facets of how society can exert controls over disenfranchised groups, and it's tied into race, income, religion, nationality, and so forth. It's not impossible to examine one facet, it's just important to recognize that one facet is neither universal nor exclusive.

So far, the issue I have with TMA/E is that in a broad sense it seems to be used in an exclusionary way, as well as used in a way that re-creates a gender binary, and limits understanding bias towards trans people clearly. But all of this overlooks one very important issue.

We don't define who we are by how we are hated. I don't want to define myself as TMA. I'm a trans woman, I'm awesome. My gender isn't defined by someone who hates me for my genitals, my gender is defined by how much I love who I am, how much better my life is for being a trans woman. I do not find it useful to define myself by whether some specific kind of hatefulness is directed at me. To me, that's the component of TMA/E I cannot find a way around.

I am a depressed lady with massive anxiety, sometimes to the point I can't function, okay? I don't want to designate myself by another reason to be unhappy. So I don't find it useful, I kinda get why it's used, because it feels like a more inclusive way to talk about being trans and being expected to conform to an idea of femininity but not doing so. I do not think it succeeds in that capacity, and my overall experience with the term is that it does not usefully serve the trans community. My personal feeling is that it makes me uncomfortable. Despite being TMA by technicality, I haven't experienced much in the way of transmisogyny, and I would rather use a positive term to describe who I am.

(i haven't checked this for typos or spelling or inconsistencies)

[notexactlyrocketscience]

Love, Theoretically by Ali Hazelwood: a critically kind review from a femme acespec physicist <3

> scroll to the next section for my review on the physics academia content in this book!

First, a quick romance novel review!

spoiler: it wasn’t my favorite but I gave it a ⭐️⭐️⭐️.75 because being a writer has made me a generally more appreciative reader + I am so starved of woman in physics rep.

the good

It just felt good to read about a woman physicist, who are still incredibly underrepresented in fiction, especially as protagonists. (I’ll go off about that in a minute.)

The romance is so swoony with shoujo manga vibes, I haven’t read straight M/F adult romance novels in a while and I just loved the flutteriness of it.

A couple of chapters were so soft with excellent pillowtalk. There was something about the ambience of the snow, the hypnotic sadness of failure, the prescence of a comforting person.

I enjoyed identifying the relatable parts about physics academia. Hazelwood clearly did a lot of research, and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It definitely kept me reading!

the bad

The academia issues are so over-simplified it’s almost juvenile. For an adult novel, even one marketed as a romcom, I expect more nuance, more explanations, more explicit lingering in tight positions.

And then the romance tries to be complex (and has a lot of potential!) but not a lot of conflict really happens.

A fictional physics fued between theorists and experimentalists is a really fun (and actually not far off) concept, but I would have expected some things to be the other way around. (More on that later!)

Okay this is personal but the main couple both have terrible taste in movies. Twilight vs white male rage movies??? There is no lesser evil here

Elsie’s hardships aren’t put in a very serious light. Her diabetes and lack of access to health insurance is used as a plot device to engineer romantic momentum between the characters and/or comic relief.

Just overall, the book tried so hard to remain “light” that I think it fails to garner depth. Because adult lives really aren’t that light all the time, and a book can bring relaxation and joy whilst including real worldly negative experiences.

There were aroace and sapphic side characters, but I wanted so bad for Elsie to be demisexual. It's set up so perfectly only for it to be averted—As a demisexual person myself, Elsie’s feelings about attraction felt acutely familiar to me, and every other reader I've spoken to has agreed that the book took a dissapointing and unexpected turn. I understand Hazelwood may not feel equipped to write queer protagonists but if I were her editor, I would have flagged that and recommended she make it canon. It would have added so much more context and dimension to Elsie, and would’ve put hetero demisexuals on the map. </3

Following up on the above: The smut tries so hard to be meaningful but it ... really is icky, stereotypical, unrealistic allocishetero stuff. Think: the shy inexperienced girl vs the man who knows exactly how to advise her. The characters try to subvert the trope by calling it out, but it feels performative because all is forgotten in the next second. The PiV sex is weirdly conventionally idealistic considering the pairing’s size difference. I’m picky about smut but also forgiving when I do like the dynamic. I just didn’t here.

Following up once again: I was ready to ignore all the repetitive comments about how sexy Jack’s height and muscles were, because sure, I guess Elsie has a type. But the sex scenes solidified the redundancy of it all. I've read this same dynamic in countless smutty heteronormative M/F paperbacks. And I have also been made aware by every Hazelwood reader that all her books focus on this kind of physical build pairing. I just want more diversity, you know?

IDK, I just wanted more physics in here than complaining about teaching, glossed over toxic mentors, and using some quirky physics term in every other sentence. (More on that below!)

I just wanted ... more? It’s not an extremely short novel, but both the plot and the character development fell flat. The ups and downs were too fast and easy, and the placement felt off. I finished the book and wondered, “That’s it? That’s all that happened?” It just wasn’t fulfilling. The side characters aren't expanded upon, and don’t get enough pagetime. My other romance reads this year were Bellefleur's The Fiancee Farce and Mcquiston’s One Last Stop. In both of those novels, the drama was fleshed out with so much care and detail. In comparison, Love, Theoretically may mention similar social difficulties in passing, but failed to really, really show us.

Overall ... the novel was fun for being about physicists but I really don’t see myself picking up another Hazelwood book, especially considering this isn’t even a debut novel. The conventional white steminist vibe and the particular allocishetero M/F dynamic just isn’t my thing.

But perhaps a reader wanting more of a novel and its characters is a good problem to have. Never say never, I guess! I look forward to keeping tabs on what Hazelwood publishes in the future!

Now, onto the physics!

First, most physicists, as good scientists, understand that theory and experimentation are fundamentally linked. It’s true that we each are often biased towards our own methods of research, but it is quite a stretch to imagine full professors so blatantly feud against others solely because of theory vs experimentation. Regardless, I was happy to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the plot that was framed in a genre-specific, lighthearted, humorous way.

Secondly, both theory and experimentation have sources of funding that are motivated in different ways, and Hazelwood's decision to have the theorists struggle with funding cuts due to declining interest in pop culture/the general public is actually quite credible. Experimentation garners a lot more interest from the application and engineering end of society, parts that are easily fueled by capitalism.

However, I think experimentalists in general are far less likely to be mean to theorists than the reverse scenario. Dr Fatima Abdurrahman has a great video essay about that called on her YouTube channel called “Quantum Physics, Feminism, and Objective Reality: What Physicists Don’t Want You to Know About Quantum Mechanics.” Dr Fatima outlines how old white men in physics have maintained this image of unwavering scientific objectivity in the name of rigor, despite studying a field that fundamentally is barely fathomable for humans. In simpler terms: Men, even in theory, pretend to be better, smarter, and more valid as physicists despite being in an infamously iffy field. And I would have liked to see that represented. It was just really hard for me to buy narcissistic grad students mansplaining Elsie about her field, and Elsie’s righteous feminine rage, when the field in question is … physics theory? It just didn’t make sense to me, when all of my personal experiences point to the opposite.

But every cloud has a silver lining, and having a woman theorist in a physics field that’s less popsci-oriented is actually … really cool. And having her love interest be a man in experimentation … sort of subverts gender roles and conventional media expectations.

Let me explain. The reality is that when women are represented in STEM, media prefers to put them in biology, like a nurse to a doctor, a people-oriented nurturer, a mere sidekick to the real “objective” scientist—often a mathematician or an astrophysicist who is always a man. And when women are placed in physics, they are automatically assigned to observational astronomy, which is dismissed as passive and easy. (This is wildly untrue—though styles of research in astronomy has interestingly allowed a somewhat more diverse array of researchers in history. Even today, you’ll see a higher frequency of women and queer people in every astronomy department.)

I think my ideal version of this novel would be retaining Elsie in theory, while also making theorists the overall bad guys in the feud. I would love to have her talk about the unique sexism she faces as a theorist. I would kill for a scene in which Jack gets gobsmacked by how fucking good at math she really is, compared to him (instead of, like, only making fun of it like it’s easy). I would love to read about her getting a tour of his lab, and just more physics content. But maybe I’m the only one saying that, because I’m a physicist. Maybe Hazelwood simplified it all to keep the book appealing to the general masses.

Still, it all read more like a girlpower!!! chant rather than a real commitment to represent a woman in STEM. I savored every moment Elsie or George would go off about physics. I loved Elsie’s conversations with Olive, a different STEM academic. (Monica was more complicated and actually quite interesting, and I wish we could have seen more of her. Heck, I wish we had actually been given any tangible info about Jack’s mom, even.) But I genuinely felt these instances were rare. Elsie referred to being a physicist a lot (and frankly, her mind is more physics-y than any IRL physicist considering the sheer number of physics-inspired figures of speech she uses … but I excused that as silly comic relief, a quirk in Hazelwood’s writing style). But she didn’t tangibly do physics on page. It was disappointing, considering women characters in STEM is what Hazelwood is known for.

And there are physicists who love teaching—even physicists who solely want to teach. Physicists who do pedagogy research. I know the book was mainly trying to criticise the adjunctification and dismissal of physics higher education, and it’s actually quite accurate in representing that most physicists in academia would prefer not to teach. But the excecution also ends up erasing physicists who aren’t in academia just for research. And I say this especially because the validity of teaching physicists as physicists is dismissed in real life. It’s used as justification to further force all physics academics to try to juggle between both research and teaching, whether they want to or not.

Which leads us to bad mentors. I’ve had a bunch of those. As Olive pointed out in an excellent quote, “Academia is so hierarchical, you know? There are all these people who have power over you, who are supposed to guide you and help you become the best possible scientist, but . . . sometimes they don’t know what’s best. Sometimes they don’t care. Sometimes they have their own agenda. […] Sometimes they’re total shitbuckets who deserve to step on a pitchfork and die.” And the thing is, the novel really doesn’t show us any of that (perhaps other than in Monica). We don’t fully get to know what happened to Jack’s mom, or Olive. We are not shown what Dr L’s agenda really was. Their final confrontation was so quick, when in reality shitty mentors are often sticky and entwined with your work, hard to cut off and scarier to talk back to even after you’ve finally realized they’re toxic.

Which isn’t to say the novel is just inadequate about everything. It’s correct in how goofy physics faculty are, and how white man-dominated the field is, how students try to mansplain women profs, how theorists madly work on their computers (as an experimentalist, I could never understand), how publishing is finicky (to put it kindly), and how tenured faculty fail to understand the reality of the job market in academia today. There are certain parts (like the quote above!) where I felt incredibly seen as part of a minoritized identity group in STEM academia. It’s rare to have a book written from this PoV, and as a first I think this novel will always be special for me!

If you’re interested in reading about more fictional women physicists, I would highly recommend skimming through this list I made on GoodReads (and feel free to add more!).

And if you’d like to support memoirs and science communication books by IRL women physicists, then look to further than this other list I’ve also made. (We’re actually currently seeing a boom in these which is inanely exciting to me, so again, contributions are always welcome!)

[mbtiblogfun]

"The INFP Archetypes"

What makes INFPs different from each other? Well there are many factors. Obviously not all INFPs are the same, and other parts of typology like enneagram, ivs, and socionics do affect this. Some INFPs are also more in tune with their weaker functions (Si and Te) than others. Like the other types, INFPs also have different "archetypes" that are often seen as "general representations" of them. Obviously because mbti is so nuanced and complex, don't fret if you don't identify with any of these! They're very simplified, so not relating doesn’t mean you're not an INFP!

So now let's get into some of the most notable archetypes

1. The Dreamer

The most notable INFP archetype, one could call it "the INFP poster child." The dreamer is a pure, innocent, curious, sensitive, and idealistic INFP. The dreamer looks at the world with wide, starry-eyes, and wears their heart on their sleeve. Usually the dreamer is also very romantic poetic, and/or artistic, and they have a wild imagination. The dreamer sees the good in everyone and might often merge with/be present in tropes like the manic pixie dream girl, or the soft boy. They have a tendency to be portrayed as mysterious or misunderstood.

Examples of the dreamer: Belle (Beauty & the Beast), Aurora (Sleeping Beauty), Amelie, Juliet (Romeo & Juliet), Anne Shirley (Anne of Green Gables), and Celine (Before Trilogy)

2. The Mediator

The mediator shares the same traits as the dreamer (pure, sensitive, kind-hearted, etc.) but plays a different role in the story. Typically the dreamers are protagonists, while mediators usually have secondary roles. The mediator often acts as a voice of reason, to keep the protagonist in touch with their humanity or to just listen whenever someone needs to let it all out. The mediator is typically very quirky and non-conformist. The mediator is empathetic and usually soften-spoken, but they're not afraid to stand up for others or what they believe in.

Examples of the mediator: Silvermist (Tinkerbell), Mantis (MCU), Luna Lovegood (Harry Potter), Ami Mizuno/Sailor Mercury (Sailor Moon), and Lucy Pevensie (Narnia)

3. The Seeker

The seeker, once again, shares the same traits as the other two but has an emphasis on curiosity and imagination. The seeker is not afraid to ponder life's deeper, more complex questions.

As said by @dragonflymage, the seeker often asks themselves questions like

Why do I exist?

Who am I really inside?

How do I fit?

Where do I belong?

They also go on to add this explanation: "A seeker, continuously looking for answers that we never may find, but that we must keep searching for anyway. "

(If you wanna read more from her post I've reblogged it on my page) While they search for these answers, the seeker oftentimes will go on a "hero's journey" in hopes of finding the answer along their quest

Examples of the seeker: Merlin (BBC), Newt Scamander (Fantastic Beasts/HP), Luke Skywalker (Star Wars), Edward Scissorhands, and Frodo (LOTR)

4. The Emotional Villain

As you can see this one is a complete 180 compared to the other three lol. This pattern doesn't exactly have a name, so I just made one up.

Pretty much all INFP villains I've seen are driven by their emotions. Afterall, Fi is our dominant function. The emotional villain is driven by personal reasons and experiences, they're not just evil for the sake of being evil. Typically the emotional villain is very moody, disturbed, and/or unstable. They are usually the direct opposite of their other INFP counterparts: they are selfish, ruthless, and blood-hungry.

Examples of the emotional villain: Wanda Maximoff (MCU), Joker (2019 ver), and Kylo Ren (Star Wars).

5. The Angsty Teen

Another really common portrayal of INFPs in media is the angsty teen. This archetype is pretty self explanatory, an angsty hormonal teenager. The angsty teen often struggles with social anxiety, and/other another mental illness. They also might have trust issues, be really moody, or hurting from unrequited love or some other trauma. The angsty teen often copes through artistic means, like poetry or painting.

I feel the feelings on this archetype are very divided. While a lot of people don't like having that image as a representation of their type, some argue that it's a realistic portrayal of the darker side of being an INFP. I personally feel like the angsty teen represents my inner conflicts, while the dreamer, mediator, and seeker represent my outward behavior most of the time. What are your thoughts?

Examples of the angsty teen: Shinji Ikari (Evangelion), Will Byers (Stranger Things), Cassie Ainsworth (Skins), Kou Mabuchi (Blue Spring Ride), Violet Parr (The Incredibles), Nico di Angelo (Percy Jackson), Charlie Kelmeckis (The Perks of Being a Wallflower), Elio Perlman (Call Me By Your Name), Todd Anderson (Dead Poets Society), Fischl (Genshin Impact), Lydia Deetz (Beetlejuice) and Cry Baby (K-12)

There's plenty more archetypes but I thought I'd just focus on these 5. Also remember that these archetypes don't represent all INFPs as a whole, they’re just like "INFPs in a nutshell."

What are your thoughts? Which archetypes do you relate to? Which one's your favorite? Which one's your least favorite?

[theerurishipper]

I think anon was referring to what zuko said in response to aang telling katara to forgive yon rha. While aang came across as a bit patronizing even if he meant well and that was obviously unhelpful, I can honestly see why that would count as zuko mocking him. that being said, I agree with everyone else you said and anon shot themselves in the foot when they mocked Zuko;s scar and they engaged in azula apologismwhile using the fact that she's mentally unstable as a shield.

I mostly interpreted that as Zuko saying Aang is being naive rather than his disagreeing with the actual teachings themselves. Zuko isn't one for revenge either, or else he would have killed Ozai, or let Zhao die. And he's never been shown to disrespect the Airbender's teachings in this way before. He's listened when Aang has talked about the monks before. But he understands Katara's feelings in a way that Aang doesn't seem to (which is not to say that Aang hasn't suffered through tragedy or that Aang doesn't understand loss, but Zuko and Katara are specifically paralleled through the fact that they lost their mothers, and it's something they connect over because they feel similarly about it), and it's also a little personal for him in that way. I'm not going to justify what he said, it was a shitty thing to say regardless, but he wasn't being racist. Even Aang doesn't take offence to it because he knows that, and they're on good terms at the end.

I think decrying it as a racist comment simplifies the issue and shifts the conversation. Zuko had a point, but he said it in the worst way. But calling it a racist comment because Zuko think Airbender philosophies are inferior is the wrong interpretation, and it sort of changes the way you view the scene and removes any fault from Aang in the situation. Aang was telling Katara to forgive the man who murdered her mother. That's not really a small thing. And he was quoting the monks verbatim without trying to understand Katara herself and without trying to take into account the real situation they are in, which can't be fixed with a quote that Aang hasn't learnt to put into practice when something comes into conflict with it, as happens in the real world. This is not anti-Aang or anything, this is literally the conflict he deals with at the end of the episode and in the finale, of how to reconcile the monks' teachings with the reality of his situation.

Zuko didn't say Aang was naive because he wanted Katara to get revenge, he did it because he understands her pain, he knows how facing his father gave him closure, and he's angry that Aang is trying to tell Katara to not have the same chance. So when Aang uses "revenge is a two headed rat-viper" line, it makes him angry because Aang clearly doesn't understand. Zuko is saying Aang doesn't understand the reality and is resorting to quotes from the monks, simplifying a complex issue, which is... not wrong. Zuko himself never once pushes Katara towards violence or revenge in this episode. He himself is not that kind of person. If he had been completely wrong or if he had been a bad influence on Katara, pushing her towards a destructive path, the episode shouldn't have ended with her forgiving him, not just by words but with a loving hug. And it also ends with Katara saying she didn't take Aang's advice and ends with Aang being torn between the reality of his situation and his commitment to upholding the beliefs of his people. Simplifying it to "Zuko is racist" just because some people think Aang can never be wrong is reductive and misses the whole point. You're free to disagree, that's just how I see it.

Thank you for your ask!

[matan4il]

Just wanted to send some love your way 🩵 Im a left-ish diaspora Jew who had, up until really recently, taken the stance that the conflict between Israel and Palestine was too complex for me to fully understand. I appreciate blogs like yours because they have genuinely helped me understand and see through the narratives that both sides are equally at fault, or that Israel is some colonialist war machine bent on gobbling up all available territory at the expense of everyone else’s lives.

It’s kind of frightening for me to have a stance at all, when the people around me were all silent on October 7th but have no issue hanging Palestinian flags outside their homes and filling their social media with slogans that they claim are simply “anti Zionist” but are absolutely anti-Semitic.

I don’t know how to explain to them that YES my heart bleeds for every average human in Gaza who genuinely does want to just exist, but that doesn’t meant that I think the onus for peace lays exclusively on Israel’s shoulders, and I don’t support disbanding Israel as a country. I worry a lot about being too one-sided or simplifying things too much; I still feel very much like I’m sitting in a middle position, due to those concerns. And it’s scary that it still wouldn’t be enough for people — FRIENDS, even — around me.

Sorry for the ramble. Thank you for your informative posts. Speaking as someone who finds a lot of joy in fandom stuff, I really hope the tides turn so that kind of thing can occupy more space in your mind than worrying does 🩵

Awww, Nonnie! I am hugging you SO MUCH!

My heart aches, because you're absolutely right. It doesn't matter how much we'll denounce racism, they will still call us racist. It doesn't matter how often we state that we want life and dignity for both Jews AND Palestinians, they'll still accuse us of supporting genocide. It doesn't matter if we'll criticize the government, they'll still claim we're brainwashed to silence our voices.

So if it's not about our actual beliefs and positions, what's it about?

It's about the fact that we're Jews. And we're told that we can only be "good" Jews if we throw our fellow Jewish people under the bus, even though for every other minority, solidarity is encouraged and celebrated. We're only "good" Jews if we give up our native rights by adhering to a narrative that paints us as colonizers of our own ancestral land, even as native rights are upheld as vital for every other indigenous group. We're only "good" Jews by doubting the multiple testimonies of rape and baby beheadings, even though every victim is supposed to be heard and believed. We're only "good" Jews if we agree to give up the right to self defense, which means we give up the right to live safely, to live peacefully... really, if we give up the right to live, period. All while telling us this is due to the value of all human life. They're literally gaslighting us with "All Lives Matter," and it's the same crowd who could recognize the issue with that slogan, when it was used to silence black people demanding that very same right.

We do not have to go along with this modern "witch test," where they try us by dunking us into water, and the only way to be "innocent" is to die drowning, so if we didn't, then we're witches, and we die still, because they burn us at the stake. I refuse to collaborate with the erasure of Jewish identity, history and rights, which leaves all Jews stripped of protection, vulnerable to abuse, and I will keep speaking, even if they call me every dirty name they can think of for recognizing the Jewish right to live, and to live in our historic homeland, especially as we have always been willing to live here side by side with others. Whatever they say about me, at least I won't be a tokenized Jew, that they can use to bully other Jews into silence.

We absolutely can be pro-Israeli AND pro-Palestinian, rather than turning anti-Israeli to "prove" we're good, pro-Palestinian Jews.

I'm sorry, IDK if I'm actually helping here! Just know that you're not alone in feeling this way. Actually, the fantastic Mayim Bialik also talked about this recently, so I'll give you her eloquent words:

(this is just a part of the vid, you can find the whole thing here)

Thank YOU for the kind words! And may we all get back to just being able to enjoy fandom as the fun, escapist hobby it should be. Sending you lots of hugs and love! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[hexelein]

Little rant about biphobia in fandoms and the possibility of Eddie being bi below. You think Eddie is gay ? Perfectly fine but don't start arguing with me in the notes about it, especially if you haven't actually read what I said here.

Look I have nothing against gay Eddie but I think it's super weird how people insist he has to be gay. He's not even confirmed queer yet, and people already come at bi blogs for hc him as bi... Unless he is confirmed gay in the show or by the writers outside of it can you just leave bi people alone ? It's always like this when gay hc get popular in fandoms, and I'd like to remind all of you that bi people can have complex relationships with the opposite gender, and that up until now Eddies issues with relationships were all related to Shannon and the trauma he's had from how their relationship ended, and him wanting so badly to recreate what they had before their problems started. That's pretty much canon as of now and everything else is your personal interpretation. If he had relationships with other men he'd probably have the same issues. Hell even if he ends up with Buck he'd struggle a bit at first if these issues don't get resolved beforehand. I genuinely do get why people hc him as gay, but I also think it's extremely biphobic to say he can't be bi at all and that reducing and resolving the problems he has as just related to his sexuality wouldn't fit how his story was written before and would simplify it too much. Even if he was gay that point would still stand but a lot of you don't seem to treat it this way.

What bothers me most about this is the reactions of the fandom, and also the fact we already had a gay and married to a woman storyline with Micheal. And besides Buck pretty much everyone that is queer on the show is monosexual. Like all of that is once again a reminder how bisexuality is often treated in shows and fandoms: the last resort kind of queerness and less queer than monosexuality. Better not have too many bi people on a show, too complicated for people to understand how not every bi experience is the same. People have such a problem with the concept of bisexuality, the reactions to bi Buck also show that: we've had queer characters on the show, but when Buck came out a lot of people said they'd stop watching. This was specifically biphobia, not just homophobia. Buck also fits the bisexual stereotype so well, he's a womanizer, he's been very promiscuous in the past. He hasn't actually talked about his label either or specifically called himself bi in the show yet. People had hc him as bi right away, but with Eddie who has never shown any interest is other men it's he's gay cause he has problems with commitment and forming lasting relationships. It's just very disheartening to see even other queer people follow this weird pattern of who can be bi and who can't, mostly based on stereotypes and who was more promiscuous (this is also often the case in other fandoms ). Despite Eddies romantic relationships not working out we see him being intimate with woman, having interest in them and never any direct indication that it's genuinely his sexuality that is the problem here. Again I can see why people hc Eddie as gay as well, but to say he can't be bi is just denying that bisexuality can be complicated too. I've also seen a lot of people hc him as demi, which is also fitting but often enough it was demi and gay. Why can't he be demi and bi ? We've had so many stories about comphet and heteronormativity preventing gay and lesbian people from being true to themselves, and I'm not saying we shouldn't have those stories anymore, but I think fandoms tend to go with monosexuality by default instead of thinking about how bisexual people can also deal with similar issues in relationships, or that not all of our relationships have to be good to count. It's also just very annoying that stuff like that always ends with peoples reasoning for their hc going into biphobic territory... All I ask is until we have a confirmed sexuality for him, if we even get one, stop being so nasty about bi people seeing themselves in Eddie and stop treating your hc as canon. I swear this pattern is so common in fandoms... Maybe you should examine why you feel so threatened by the possibility of more than one bi character in a show that is or would be in a same gender relationship.

Obviously if he ends up actually being confirmed gay I won't argue with that. I guess what I'm saying is that the biphobic views some of you have and the way bisexuality is treated in general everywhere annoys me more than the possibility of Eddie being gay. And no being bi yourself doesn't mean you can't have weird views about bisexuality btw... Bi storylines always have the same mold and that's cause people aren't willing to listen to bi people and their different experiences. I also can't remember lots of shows that have confirmed bi4bi couples, especially not mlm ones. The ones we have people love to erase all the time. His story could fit someone who is bi and demiromantic/arospec very well (though I don't think they'd actually go anywhere in canon that isn't monosexual or bisexual) and we don't have much bi rep in the show, I'm just kinda hurt that this seems hardly an option for anyone....

I just think having Eddie be bi and his issues not being a result of his sexuality would be a break in how bi characters are usually portrayed and also make people realize that maybe there is a lot underlying biphobia in the community and fandoms.

[jackwhiteprophetic]

My controversial 9-1-1 opinion is that Buck is one of the least interesting characters on the show. Don’t get me wrong, he is complex and interesting but the type of character he is and oftentimes reduced to (sunshine golden retriever boy, abandonment issues, humour to cope and uses false confidence and cockiness to hide the fact he’s deeply insecure) is common and you can find at least one character in almost any media who pretty much matches that description. Usually those characters are also a fandom favourite and you can never escape them.

The clear favouritism for Buck in the fandom also undermines a lot of the incredible things this show has done for representation. “Omg the white guy kissed another white guy! This is revolutionary and the greatest thing to happen on the show!” (Ik I’m simplifying it).

That’s cool, personally I think one of the greatest things to happen on the show is the representation of an abusive relationship and how that trauma impacts a person for years and isn’t fixed in a night after finding the perfect guy. I also think representing postpartum depression was also quite revolutionary and made my mum feel comfortable enough to open up to me about how she had postpartum depression after my sister was born. Like my mum is 50 years old and this silly firefighter show made her feel seen. THAT’S what representation is for.

Regarding LGBTQ+ representation, I think the HAPPILY MARRIED BLACK LESBIAN COUPLE WITH CHILDREN (Mara we’re getting you home) is something never seen in mainstream media, firstly because there are hardly any sapphic relationships and secondly because those sapphic relationships hardly include women of colour.

This is an ensemble and I feel like a lot of people forget that. I’m also still annoyed that when Buck was confirmed bisexual, major article companies acted like this was the first time 9-1-1 had established 1) a queer character and 2) a queer couple.

Henren ran so BT could stumble around and fall flat on its face.

Interesting... We definitely share some of the same views on things, but I do find Buck really interesting as a character now!!! I find Buck and Eddie soooo interesting mainly because I have read probably millions of words of character study on them. Also when I first watched I didn't find Buck suuuper interesting up until the saviour baby arc, which adds so many layers of complexity to his behaviour across all seasons!!!

I really hope there is a greater focus on Maddie next season!!!! Also I think one of the major flaws with S7, because it was written very quickly and they knew they would have to move scenes across episodes is that they didn't really mix storylines massively, so it wasn't very cohesive and we didn't really get to see the 118 as a whole family properly. The pairings we had were Buck and Eddie, Henren and Madney and Bobby and Athena, and that was kind of consistent throughout. Next season I'm really hoping that they can switch up dynamics at least for a few storylines, BC I miss when we would see scenes of like Buck and Chim, or Athena and Hen, which they stopped doing as much once Bathena happened, because they no longer needed Hen as a link between Athena and the 118. WHICH IS SO SAD! I LOVE THEM SO MUCH.

ALSO SORRY THIS ISNT VERY WELL STRUCTURED BUT CAN THEY LET HENREN BE HAPPY PLEASE!!!! Kind of sick of their storylines being "oh no someone is threatening our family" because it just paints their family as unstable and they don't deserve that!!! I want silly storylines PLEASE!

But yes the centering of Buck (and sometimes the other guy who I will not name BC I don't wanna piss ppl off) by SOME people in the fandom ANGERS ME GREATLY. ESPECIALLY with the whole Gerrard thing, where the comments on the IG post were FLOODED with people talking about Tommy (named him here oh well). And people talking about how everyone is gonna defend Buck because if Gerrard even looks at Buck they're gonna throw hands! I'M SORRY WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU MORE DEFENSIVE OVER BUCK THAN CHIMNEY OR HEN, WHO HAVE ALREADY BOTH BEEN TARGETED AND HARASSED AND BULLIED BY GERRARD? WHY ARE YOU MORE DEFENSIVE OVER TOMMY THAN CHIM OR HEN? It fucking disgusts me. The way that Tommy literally was introduced in S2 as a PLOT DEVICE to show how 'bystanders' (he was barely a bystander, more an active participant) in workplace racism and bullying are still so fucking dangerous and disgusting and wrong. And he was so fucking disgusting to both Hen and Chim, bear in mind they have a fucking dangerous job, if CHIM had been in that building Tommy would have absolutely left him to die. WORKPLACE RACISM IN LIFE OR DEATH JOBS LEADS TO PEOPLE BEING FUCKING LEFT TO DIE. And people are more defensive over Tommy being potentially harassed by Gerrard and than they ever were over Hen or Chim. As a white person I am so fucking sorry, this fandom has not lately been a safe space for pocs and the fucking lengths people go to to justify both the character and the actor are so fucking strange. White queer people should do fucking better than this. It is the bare fucking minimum to not be racist or not have been publicly racist in the past. Why not ask for a better fucking standard? ALSO with the actor, if you're trying to fucking argue that he's not like that any more, SHOW ME that he is a fucking anti racist and that he is fucking defending minority groups and that he understands the weight of his actions. SHOW ME how he understands his privilege and uses his platform and the money he is given to donate to and fund the protection of these groups. It is fucking sickening that people have decided they can defend or ignore or tolerate this man and it DISGUSTS ME that they have happily created an environment where people can't feel fucking safe or supported or heard.

The focus on that character is so fucking weird given the lack of screen time he has had, I'm really gonna stop talking about him at all soon because it gives him way too much weight. But it's disgusting. The way some people have to find a way to write Eddie and Chris out of Buck's life and rewrite over canon to bring more focus onto this man astounds me.

As a (lesbian? Idk not currently sure but kinda) queer person, Henren are such beautiful representation and I love them so much and ALSO the foundation of the whole show is basically found family. If you want to only focus on Buck then that's fine I guess, but it is literally written into canon that the family around him mean FUCKING EVERYTHING TO HIM so it's weird that people barely fucking look at it at all.

Anyway sorry I greatly appreciated your message and idk if all of this is related or relevant and it is not well structured but I was just feeling ranty and was inspired by you! I love you and I hope you have a brilliant day!

[adobe-outdesign]

May I request a Xerneas/Yveltal review ? Those two are among my favourite "game mascot" legendaries (too bad that X and Y weren't really interested in building a plot that would have done them justice)... Alternatively, I was thinking about the Talonflame line. (I've also been in quite a Spheal mood as of late, yet I couldn't find a review of the line on your blog, which feels a little odd, I must say...)

Xerneas is pretty neat looking, and my personal preference between these two. Conceptually, it represents life itself—kind of an abstract theme, but they did a good job getting the point across. It also arguably takes some influence from the deer that fed on Yggdrasil, what with it up and turning into a tree now and again (with the antlers becoming branches, which is a nice touch).

I like how it's kind of a deer, but also has a lot of uncharacteristic elements, like a canine-ish tail, pointed feet that remind me of Arceus a bit, and antlers that bleed right into the head without a clear division between the two. It gives it a very powerful, somewhat unearthly look that's befitting of a creature representing life itself.

Visually, the multi-colored antlers are the focus point of the design and stand out nicely. The light yellow accents on the body also create a sense of upward flow that's also reflected in its blue collar, antler shape, and tail. While the antlers are somewhat complicated, they're not hard to read; beyond that, the design is pleasantly simple and clean.

My only nitpick is that it has these random colored speckles on its back that don't add anything and kind of take away from the antlers. They're not even present in its neutral mode either, making them feel all the more like an afterthought.

Speaking of which, it also has a neutral mode. I like it when legendaries don't have a bunch of different forms, so it's nice that it's the exact same design, just with slightly simplified antlers and a different accent color. The active form looks better—the yellow compliments the blue much better than this more monotone look does—but it does get across a "inactive" feeling well enough.

There's also Yveltal, which integrates its letter considerably better than Xerneas does. The tail-hand thing it has is pretty cool, and the intense red-and-black color scheme certainly makes it look ominous and like a creature that Literally Kills Everything when it dies.

My only issue with its design, and the reason I like Xerneas a bit more, is that it feels a bit too busy and visually messy—it takes a while to figure out what's actually going on with it. This is because its vein-like markings don't really break the body apart, and actually make the design more busy instead.

This is especially apparent in the head, as while the chest line suggests it should go straight up under the chin, it suddenly reappears past the mane in a different spot, and then gets lost among four (4) pairs of black horns. It's not too bad, especially when it's posed more like the above screenshot, but it does cause the details to get a bit lost. Other than that, however, it's pretty solid.

(Actually, come to think of it, Yveltal looks better in like literally any other pose that isn't the one in the official art. I think it's both of a combo of it looking more bird-like and its head reading clearer when it's not right against the wings).

Anyway, overall, these two are good legendaries—they're not too overly complex in concept, they don't have 200 forms, they're not overworked and overly busy, etc. They're just powerful, cool looking creatures that convey their themes nicely.

[anarchywoofwoof]

Hello again! I'm the beginner that asked you the gun control question. This question is a little more hypothetical. So, obviously absolishing capitalism would decrease the crime rates a lot. But in an anarchist society, what happens to people who do crimes not caused by capitalism- things like murder and that? This is probably gonna be my lsst question don't worry.

let me address your last comment first.

please never stop sending me asks. i love this type of engagement. this is one of those unique things about tumblr that i actually appreciate tremendously, so please do not think you're bugging me. i answer when i find the time, if i feel that i can provide some kind of meaningful answer. or a funny one.

anyway, about your question: what happens to people who do crimes not caused by capitalism. let's add another layer to our conversation about crime, specifically murder, in an anarchist society.

it's important to emphasize that while we often try to separate crimes into those caused by capitalism and those that aren't, the reality can be more intertwined than it first appears. in many cases, even acts like murder can be linked back to the systemic issues inherent in capitalist societies. some theorists believe that capitalism can create mass murderers by causing people to 'malfunction.'

it may be hard to accept or seem like a stretch (i am sure someone will send me an anonymous ask letting me know) but it's really not if you break it down. capitalism, by its very nature, breeds inequality, poverty, and social alienation. these conditions create a breeding ground for various forms of violence, including murder.

think about it - a lot of murders aren't committed by inherently 'evil' people. instead, they're often the result of desperation, untreated mental illnesses, or a life measured in crime and violence as a byproduct of poverty, racism and marginalization.

for instance, studies have shown that areas with higher poverty rates often see higher rates of violent crime. it's not a coincidence. people living in poverty, facing daily struggles and systemic - often racist or classist - barriers, can find themselves in situations where violence feels like the only option. it's the tragic type of outcome you get in a system that fails to address basic human needs and inequalities.

this is before addressing mental health as a whole, which is massively underfunded and often completely ignored, especially in capitalist societies. many who fall victim to violent acts suffer from mental health issues. we need to do a better job at understanding the context of incidents like these and realize that with better support systems in place, such tragedies might be preventable.

much like gun violence, an anarchist society would aim to tackle the root causes. by removing the regressive structures of capitalism, we would work towards a system where resources are distributed more equitably, where people are supported and integrated into their communities, and where mental health is addressed proactively.

beyond this, you start getting into prison abolition, which i've covered in prior asks a few times if you're interested in checking that out.

this is all a very simplified overview, and the real world is messy and complex. but these ideas and concepts are about envisioning a society where we address the causes of violence at their roots, rather than just dealing with the cleanup work. i certainly don't have all the answers and these thoughts should be considered minor grade contribution to a broader, ongoing discussion by minds much greater than mine.

[mintacle]

I have this little gripe with any reading of Batman 1940 #416 that ends its analysis of Bruce and Dick's conversation by concluding that Bruce took Jason in to replace Dick. Because yes, but more importantly no. Let's break it down.

The panels that lead to the abovementioned conclusion are these:

Bruce admits to having missed Dick and to having felt lonely. This can to some extent be read as in Jason replacing Dick. But I think a reasonable argument can be made that being lonely and missing one specific person doesn't mean everyone new you let into your life is just an attempt to fill in the exact position of the former person. More on how Jason is not Dick later.

But first let us consider the fact that Bruce also gives Dick a whole 4 other reasons for taking Jason in.

1. Jason seemed like the right guy for the job.

2. Bruce sympathized with Jason.

3. Bruce wanted to help Jason

And Dick calls "Bull" on these (literally), which prompts Bruce to give another reason:

4. Bruce needed another set of hands on the job.

Only after Dick calls Bruce out again does Bruce admit to having missed Dick.

Now I believe you have to give all these former reasons just as much credit as the final one. The final one isn't last because it's more true, it's last because it is the one reason Bruce doesn't want to admit to Dick. In support of my theory to all being true in different ways, we have the parallel of Dick and Bruce unmasking.

Dick begins the conversation by unmasking.

And then insists upon Bruce unmasking as well.

(I'm not gonna rave about the significance of the background color changing. I'm not gonna rave about the significance of the-)

In the same way Dick asks Bruce to reveal more and more about his reason to take Jason in. The interpretation if these panels hinges vitally on understanding that Bruce is Batman. That part of his identity is true. Ergo, his reasons related to Batman for taking Jason in are true. His reason as Bruce to take Jason in (sympathy, wanting to help, missing Dick) are equally true. Bruce is still himself with the mask on, he is hiding behind the truth (I am Batman) and just in the same manner he is hiding behind the truth when Dick confronts him too. All the above mentioned reasons for Bruce taking Jason in are true. Saying it was only to replace Dick is reductionist.

Now let's get to the part of my alternative interpretation of Bruce admitting he was lonely and he missed Dick. Some people have chosen to see this as meaning that Jason was there to replace Dick, but again, I think that is reductionist and simplifies the complex human connections we have with one another. There is no such thing as one person replacing another.

I'm going full death of the author with my headcanon (based on canon argumentation though) that I'm about to give, since this issue was written by Starlin and it's probably safe to assume he intended to portray Jason as a mere replacement of Dick, but less skilled at the job. (Ffffuck you Starlin.)

Dick and Bruce have a.. non-conforming realtionship. They matter a lot to one another. They are partners, the dynamic duo, but it's hard to justify labeling them as any specific kind of relationship. Bruce was too young and inexperienced to take Dick in as his son and while he did ultimately raise Dick, their relationship was too equal to really be considered as a one-way father-son relationship. Dick has left (been fired) and Bruce is left missing him. Not only missing Dick, but also mourning the opportunity he had to become a father to a young boy and he now feels he has lost. He meets another young boy. Just as parentless, just as burning with a sense of justice and willingness to fight for it. Jason and Bruce's dynamic has always been far more of the parental-child nature. Starting with the fact that Jason was actually legally adopted, but also simply going from their interactions. Bruce realized he wishes to be a father and nurture someone through Dick and he is fulfilling this desire with Jason because he feels it is too late to be a father to Dick.

And full disclosure, this last part is 100% my own wishful thinking, however there is nothing in canon that would contradict my interpretation and enough supporting evidence for it to be a possibility.

Final conclusion: no Robin, Jason, Tim, Stephanie or Damian can or should be reduced to being a replacement for the one who came before. While there will always be that aspect at play that Bruce operates with a Robin, there are always more reasons for Bruce taking in the sidekicks he ultimately does.

[fitzrove]

7 Common Tod & Rudolf relationship interpretations and what I think of them

1. "Tod was only using Rudolf to make Elisabeth depressed"

0/10 take. Not only does it simplify their relationship in a way that I feel does a disservice to the complex themes of the show, it also points to a worldbuilding view in which Tod is the cause (not a symptom or manifestation) of mental illness. Which I feel would trivialise the historical character's struggles and mental health issues in general.

2. "Tod is the manifestation of Rudolf's (and Elisabeth's) suicidal ideation."

7/10 take. I like it but it isn't as spicy as some others - just points to Rudolf having a very vivid and particular imagination. Lends itself to a lot of "that's kinda gay<333" takes which is A++.

3. "Tod is a supernatural figure that does what he does because he wants to consume Rudolf's life/soul, kinda like a vampire, or because taking people when their time comes is his duty."

8/10 take. The "sexy grim reaper" take. Can be combined with other takes that I enjoy.

4. "Tod is Rudolf's friend and confidante first and foremost and genuinely shares his wish for a better world. He doesn't want him to die, he wants him to live and succeed - and it's a terrible tragedy that even with all his power, he can't control the fate and time of death of humans that he cares about."

10/10 take. The Bruxellons take. Makes me feel so many tender and painful emotions.

5. "He literally just wants to f -"

11/10 take. The Máté Kamarás & Oliver Arno take. Fjödjfösld I'm only half joking.

6. "Tod does exist, does care for Rudolf, and wants to keep him/tempt him to join him in death/the afterlife/whatever."

6/10 take. A pretty uncommon take, tends to be more common for Tod and Elisabeth. I like it in fanfic, but I really hate it for Tod and Elisabeth, and sometimes it exists for both Elisabeth and Rudolf at the same time in fics XD And you do have to kind of explain away why Rudolf stayed and Elisabeth didn't, if you choose that route. This one also isn't really supported by canon in most productions.

7. "Tod doesn't exist and the Rudolf we see in the musical is not a self-directed agent but a fabrication of Lucheni's. This is why he's portrayed sympathetically (the irl Lucheni received a letter from a fellow anarchist that called Rudolf "a friend of the people" and said that Elisabeth's murder was justified because it was her and FJ who caused Rudolf's death). The reason Tod and Rudolf interact as they do in Schatten is because Lucheni is projecting his own... uh, goals and desires (he seeks death and wants to change the world) onto their relationship and onto Rudolf as a character."

900/10 take. Serkan Kaya's Lucheni is my favourite fanfic author ❤️

the last one isn't really common, it's just a take i've been rotating in my head recently