#it's about the mindset we as a fandom have toward these things

[renthony]

On "Consuming Content"

Every now and then a post crosses my feed that follows the vein of, "you have to do things other than consume media or else you'll be a dumb person who doesn't know anything about how the real world works and does nothing but pointless fandom stuff."

I hate those posts for three major reasons, not counting the inherent ableism and classism of "you must have approved Smart People hobbies or else you're worthless" rhetoric:

You don't know what people do or talk about outside of what you see on their social media. Responding to fandom communities on a fandom-driven website as if all these people are one-note cardboard cutouts of people is asinine. In many cases this genre of post feels like repackaged 2012 tumblr "not like other girls" and hipster discourse. Yes, yes, you think you're better than everyone else on this website because your hobbies are less mainstream, more morally pure, and have greater intellectual merit, we get it.

What do you even mean by consuming content? As someone who purposely avoids using the phrase "consuming content" because I find the term too vague to be useful, please be more specific. Are you including every single form of media engagement and art enjoyment? Are you just talking about mainstream TV and film? What about novels? Plays and scripts? Nonfiction books and instruction manuals? Do you mean to imply that going to a book club is a worthless non-hobby? Are you including academic reading? Are you including going to the art museum? Going to the theatre, concerts, or other performances? Taped liveshows? Watching sports events on TV? Are you including news media? Are you including YouTube tutorials about how to do various tasks, crafts, or other hobbies? Are you including trade magazines? Are you including industry publications in various fields? What constitutes "content," and what constitutes "consuming" in this discourse? Define it. "Consuming content" is a nothing phrase that people use to mean multiple different things depending on what they, personally, judge as valid media. It's a buzzword at best, and when the same buzzword can be used to describe both "idly scrolling social media" and "reading and discussing a book," it's a meaningless phrase.

As an artist and author, if engaging with media is bad and worthless, am I supposed to conclude that making it is equally worthless? If "consuming content" is a bad, lazy, worthless, fake hobby, what makes creating art a worthwhile pursuit? If I am constantly being told as an artist that engaging with media isn't a worthwhile pursuit in its own right, and the people who want to engage with my art are just brainless fandom losers, what incentive do I have to make that art anymore? Furthermore, to everyone reading this paragraph and thinking, "that's not what content creation is," I refer you to bullet #2: If the phrase "make content" can be used to mean "low-effort posts made to advertise cheap and useless products" as well as "being a novelist" or "getting a gig as a writer on a TV show," it's a meaningless phrase.

None of that is even getting into issues such as the way influencers are preyed on by both brands and targeted harassment from trolls. Influencer culture has major issues, but boiling those issues down to "stupid vapid young people who are too lazy to make real art or get real jobs" (which is a mindset I see frequently online) is unhelpful. So many people pursue influencer deals because they're living in poverty but are skilled at various social media and advertising related tasks, and just like any worker, they're being exploited because they need to eat. Labor rights for influencers are a huge topic that entertainment industry unions have been actively discussing and working toward. (Related links for further info: [x] [x] [x] [x])

"Consuming content is not a hobby" is a worthless statement unless you define what you mean by both "consuming" and "content." Quite frankly, you also need to define "hobby," because if you're putting requirements on what is and isn't allowed to be a "real" hobby, you mostly just seem like you're moving goalposts and defining "worthwhile hobby" as "hobby I, personally, think is good." Use more specific language to articulate your actual problems with the entertainment industry, the art world, influencer culture, or whatever else you're actually upset by.

Media and fandom can involve any number of enriching, satisfying hobbies that take up a perfectly acceptable and healthy space in someone's life. If you aren't into it, go find hobbies you do like and stop policing how other people spend their precious free time in this nightmare hellscape of a world.

[thankskenpenders]

Today we got some news regarding a big change for the Ian Flynn's Q&A podcast, the BumbleKast. As outlined in a blog post by Ian, starting in 2025, all Sonic-related questions submitted to the show will first need to be screened by Sega. (I have to assume this is also why Ian announced they'll no longer be doing live Q&As starting next year.)

Frankly, I can't say this is particularly surprising.

While the BumbleKast is ostensibly a podcast about Ian's work as a freelance writer for all sorts of things, and also just a place for him to shoot the shit about stuff he likes, he's still predominantly seen as The Sonic Guy. Sure, he also does a bunch of other freelance work for other series, and original comics like Drogune, and he's also the narrative mastermind for the whole Rivals of Aether franchise these days, but it's his insights into what goes on behind the scenes with Sonic that people really care about. Your average Sonic fan can't just go up to Iizuka or whoever and ask him a question about the current state of the lore, but Ian's inbox is always open.

Because of this, I've thought a lot about the BumbleKast's place in the fandom and The Discourse in recent years. Ian wants to be as open and honest as he can about his work, and I think that's admirable. To me, hearing about creators' struggles and the shit they go through just to get a story out the door tends to make me sympathize with them more. Sometimes a story just doesn't turn out as well as you'd hoped, but you're on a tight deadline and all you can do is move on to the next project. I've even softened a bit on Penders over the years as he's shared more about the absurd situations and odd creative demands made behind the scenes at Archie. Unfortunately, not everyone has that mindset.

Ian's basically always had obsessive haters who were eager to take everything he says out of context to try and stir up shit, but that used to be contained by the niche nature of the Archie comics. Most of the fandom didn't give a shit about what Ian was doing with Sonic and Sally's love life or whatever. Most of the fandom wasn't even reading those comics. But Ian's gone from being a writer for a non-canon spinoff comic, to being the initial lead writer for the first ever canon Sonic comic series, to being the new main writer for the games themselves as part of the official Sonic Lore Team. Way more Sonic fans care about his work now, and when he's so open about his work that makes him an easy scapegoat.

It feels like damn near every week on Twitter Ian's personal trolls have posted yet another BumbleKast clip out of context to rile up the fandom and make it look like he has no idea what he's talking about or like he has some kind of agenda. And, unfortunately, people often fall for this. Of course, it also goes the other way, with people more sympathetic towards Ian taking things he says about Sega and framing them as proof that Sega has no idea what they're doing with the brand. Which, well, let's be real, isn't always the most unreasonable thing to think, given Sonic's rocky history. But I'm surprised it took this long for Sega to start paying more attention to what gets said on the BumbleKast when fans use it so regularly as a source of drama.

I've also often felt that they just need to be WAY more selective about what messages they respond to on the show. Questions Ian can't actually answer due to NDAs, questions that are borderline incomprehensible, "questions" that are really just fan ideas. And the haters, oh, the haters. Ian does not need to put up with angry rants about how he should make SonAmy canon or what the fuck ever. Even if Ian's willing to put up with it, as a listener it can make the show just super unpleasant at times when someone aggressive pops up with an inflammatory question. There have been entire BumbleKast Mini episodes I had to skip because they were just obsessive critics of Ian's paying to grill him on a dozen different things and treat him like an idiot.

But at the same time, I get why the show got to be this way. It's become a part-time job for Ian with multiple new episode a week. Given how piss poor the pay tends to be for freelance writers, I can't really blame him for wanting to keep this secondary stream of income open, and to not have to refund people left and right for rejecting their questions. The man's got bills to pay. (And so does Kyle, for whom managing the BumbleKast seems to have become a full-time job.)

I dunno. The man's got the patience of a fucking saint. I would've quit the franchise if I was in his shoes, with people wishing he would die for shit like minor disagreements over Sonic's characterization or him misremembering an obscure old lore thing. While I do hope that Sega doesn't keep too tight of a leash on him moving forward, and I hope that he's still able to speak his mind about his work, part of me also hopes that having to be much more selective about Sonic questions results in less bullshit like this.

[joejhang]

my unasked-for input in the jeremy discourse

been seeing a lot of jeremy knox discussion as of late while mindlessly scrolling thru the aftg tag so i've decided it's time to step in. spoilers ahead continue at ur own risk.

the main criticism of jeremy i've seen in the fandom is the way he treats/deals with jean's situation. a lot of people think he's just not doing a good job and can be insensitive or thoughtless at times. i'd like to counter this by saying: he's doing his best, and he's actually doing pretty well.

the aftg fandom at large has this superiority issue where they seem to always know the right thing and the right way to go. i'm gonna remind y'all that we are very used to the foxes and andreil, and the trojans are a totally different environment to the one we've been acclimatised to. the foxes are not well-adjusted AT ALL and to an outsider's eye the way they deal with each other is probably really cruel and rude at times. it works for them because they're in similar positions in life and have no time for politeness and courtesy, and the only way for them to work together is to work out all the fights and issues head-on, with little concern for hurt feelings. it works for them, but that doesn't mean it's the best or only way to go for anyone else.

jeremy may have an untold backstory of his own, but i think we can all agree that he's much more well-adjusted than jean, who has been living in an abusive cult environment for years. the trojans and jeremy are completely unfamiliar to jean, but so is jean to jeremy. jeremy has no idea the full extent of jean's past and history of abuse, so you can imagine his shock and horror when he finally begins to realise the ugly details of what happened to him.

there's a lot of emphasis on action and reaction in the way the fandom sees characters and relationships, but not a lot on intention. i think, no matter the mistakes jeremy makes, his intentions are good. he wants to support jean and help him in his healing journey. was it wrong of him to tell cat and laila what happened in jean's freshman year without his permission? yes, of course. but i think people need to consider that jeremy is literally only human. he's a 22 year old boy who has unresolved issues of his own that's just trying to do the best he can with what he has. he shouldn't have talked about jean's past without his consent, but it's important to know that he didn't do it with malicious intent or just to gossip. he probably genuinely thought it was the right way to go to let cat and laila know, so they can help jean better by knowing what happened. it wasn't the right thing to do, but honestly i think people in the fandom are more pressed about it than jean is. jean remarks on it and seems a bit annoyed, both with himself for telling jeremy and jeremy for telling the girls, but he doesn't hold it against jeremy and clearly still trusts him. jean knows that jeremy wants the best for him, and is doing his best, and the fandom should remember that too.

i think a lot of the issues the fandom has w jeremy and also jerejean is that they seem to think jeremy is going to "heal" jean. i cannot explain how much this take boils my blood because people can't "heal" other people. healing is a complicated and long process that requires, yes, help from others, but also changes in perspective, environment and core belief. jeremy alone is not going to fix jean and make him good as new, and that attitude towards them is unhelpful when analysing the narrative. jean's slow journey of healing comes from the combination of: a huge change in environment (the mob mindset of the raven's nest -> the sunshine court), a support network (jeremy, cat, laila, wymack, the trojans, occasionally kevin and neil), a change in mindset (both towards exy as a sport and towards relationships with others and a relationship with himself) and simply time. no one person can heal another, and no matter how large a role jeremy plays in jean's healing, he knows he can't do it on his own. so do the other people around jean. it's why cat takes him on a motorbike ride, just to let him relax and see the world. it's why renee doesn't get jean to stay with her, because she knows how good the trojans will be for him. jeremy is not going to heal jean, but he can definitely help him with it.

the last and arguably most important thing is this: jean trusts jeremy. y'all can talk about how jean is traumatised and unfamiliar with the world outside the nest but i swear to god this fandom babies and uwufies him to unbelievable extents. jean may be unspeakably traumatised and at the end of his rope, but he is an adult, and he does have agency. he understands that jeremy cares about him and his wellbeing, and he trusts jeremy. jeremy isn't perfect. he's inevitably going to make mistakes and do questionable things along the way, but i don't think he's at all impeding jean's healing or growth, and he is doing everything with genuine good intentions. one person's definition of the "right" thing to do is not objective and all-encompassing. jeremy may do things that offend you, and that you would hate, but everyone has a different opinion on these things. do you guys remember the conversation between andreil after dr*ke's attack, when neil pushes andrew just to see him crack? if u think about it on an objective level, it was wrong, even cruel, to press someone about their history of trauma after a horribly traumatic event has just happened to them. but andrew doesn't hold it against neil, and doesn't even seem all that bothered by it. i think the aftg fandom would do well to look at things and events that happen in the books in context and stop thinking that there is only one right answer to every question and only one correct solution in every situation. just because something would be a no-go for you, doesn't mean it would be for everyone, and that goes for fictional characters as much as it goes for real life.

anyway i just find it so interesting how critical and quick to judge people are when it comes to jeremy, when, objectively, the foxes and even andreil have done probably more pressing and objectively "wrong" things to each other. if u read the series back, there are a lot of times when they push and challenge each other's boundaries, but there's an understanding that that is the best way for them to engage with each other. it would do everyone a lot of good to apply the same attitude to the sunshine court, considering how vastly different of a context this new series is in.

[auraee]

This maybe potentially controversial, but I’m choosing not to take part in the Lnd boycott. My reason behind this is as a poc fan of the game with criticisms towards the very same game, whenever someone like me speaks out on this various issues regarding the fandom (the racism and colourism) and the company itself, we get ignored, blown over, pushed aside, told that it’s not that serious, and told that we’re lucky that we even get to PLAY the game.

Lnd is a game that’s accessible to EVERYONE. The very least they could is people of colour to be able to self-insert and immerse themselves fully. And Infold hasn’t even done that fully. It’s not right that you lot tell us that we should consider ourselves “lucky.”

Not only that, but I’ve also noticed the obvious difference in engagement between black/brown content and white content. For a fandom that claims to be lovely and peaceful you can tell there’s distain. We get a fraction of the engagement that white fans get and that much is obvious. With that being said you want us to support you with this boycott? Nope, count me out.

We’ve been pleading to have our, frankly , more serious issues acknowledged for aeons only to receive crumbs and you expect us to bend over backwards and help out? No.

Is the fact that it’s increasingly harder to be f2p? Sure. Is Sylus being tried unfairly? Potentially yes. Is the fact that there’s no option for curly coily hairstyles for poc to use horrible? Obviously. Does it suck that there’s only one body type? Also yes. Is it weird that there’s no diversity amongst the npcs in Lnd’s world? Definitely.

I’ll only consider it fair when ALL issues and acknowledged and acted upon. Not just some, just because it doesn’t affect YOU personally.

Edit- I’d also like to add that the guys who also play the game had a right to want a male MC. Again, they should be able to express themselves and their frustrations, without being told to “stop complaining” or to “not play the game.” The same issue occurs when some problems are acknowledged because it is convenient for a prominent group in the fandom and not everyone else when it should be everyone.

Edit 2 - I've also had another thought. I think the reason why people have been saying Westerners are entitled is because it comes from a mindset of having everything catered to them from baseline. Do you have white skin and straight hair? Well, you can find that in customisations in every game. You've never had to reach out or felt uncomfortable about being unable to express yourself in customisable games. However, if someone with coily hair comes along and asks for options to include them as well, it's now viewed as an entitlement. That we're suddenly demanding too much. I don't think asking a company that makes an obscene amount of money off of their audience and who's catering to the same audience, for additional hairstyles and body sizes. I think it's because those who are in the default category (except for a few) simply can't fathom not being included in things. They literally can't or refuse to even attempt to see things from another's perspective and likely don't care for those who are constantly excluded. Which is why they create excuses for these companies.

[elfwreck]

heyo, i was looking through the proship communities bcs i have a question and saw you run one?

i don’t rlly consider myself anti or pro, but one of my issues with the proship community the fact that real children in public fandom spaces can see it? im aware that you tailor your own internet experience, don’t like don’t read, etc, and i agree with that mindset and abide by it, its just that when it comes to kids coming across proship communities they don’t really know better and can get like, fetishes and stuff related to it. i was just wondering how the proship community really feels about that. don’t feel pressured to answer btw, im just curious.

The first thing to be aware of, is that "proship" does not mean "extreme kink and explicit sex and abusive relationships." It means, "in favor of a non-censorship approach to fiction."

Which does not mean "it's fine if small children read explicit sexual content." It means, "it is not the job of the WRITER to prevent children from reading fiction that's not age-appropriate to them." It's the job of their parents to manage their media intake.

Parents should have help - which is why AO3 has a warning for "this work could have adult content" on M and E fics, why they have required warnings for gore and non-con, among other topics. But it's not AO3's job to prevent kids from ignoring those warnings; it's the parents' job to steer their kids towards age-appropriate reading material.

(When my kids were under 18, I told them some parts of the internet were off-limits. And because my kids trusted me - because we'd had talks about why - they agreed not to visit those parts of the web. Parents who don't have that degree of trust can invest in software that can restrict some of the internet.) (I will happily provide the same kind of support for other people's kids. I will not provide support based on the morals of strangers. If they want me looking out for their kids, they get to deal with my ethics.)

The proship community I run on tumblr is not age-restricted, because we're not talking about anything that's inappropriate for 13-year-olds to see. (That's the youngest age allowed on Tumblr; if there are younger kids than that, that's outside of my scope to manage.) We talk about the arguments against censorship, and sometimes about the poor logic some antis use. Sometimes we talk about the history of censorship in fandom - what's changed, and what hasn't. Sometimes we talk about the terminology involved.

Most people who are proship are not involved in "extreme kink" discussions. Many don't like extreme kink or sexual content at all - they just don't think it's a problem if other people do. For those people who do like that kind of content, they're not looking to entice kids into joining their interests - they want to talk with people who already share them.

And while most actively labeled "proship" servers have a channel for extreme kinky/horny content - that's locked to 18+ people, and nobody's trying to sneak kids into those channels.

Nobody is picking up fetishes because they saw a post online. At most, they are discovering an interest they already had but didn't know how to name. And if they discover it in a kink-friendly community, they can learn about the risks involved, what's safe and what's not, and how to acknowledge a potential interest years before it's safe to try practicing it. If they are kept away from all "extreme" content, they can wind up hurt by trying something without knowing the risks, or running into predators because they're desperate for information and acceptance.

They are far safer if they know there are communities that say, "there are some people who are into this thing, and some who enjoy reading about it but don't want to do it in real life, and some who just want to ponder it at a distance from both of those - and all of those are okay." (...Assuming the kink in question is something like fisting or bondage, not necrophilia or breathplay, which are both in the category of "actually do NOT do this in real life; if the idea of this gets you off, stick to text and pictures about it.")

But most proship communities are not sex-ed communities; they're just people who like some kinds of fiction. And the reaction to new people is not "you should JOIN US in our omegaverse breeding kink cbt omorashi fic exchange" - it's "here's the list of kinks in our upcoming fic event - if you don't like all of these, please don't bother joining."

There is a very solid "Don't like? Don't read!" ethic in the actively proship communities. Nobody's trying to entice kids into reading or writing kinky stories.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Ei Raven primeira vez que mando pergunta, desculpa não estar falando em inglês é que eu realmente não sei inglês eu sinto muito,mas eu gosto muito do seu Tumblr e a maneira que vc expressa seus pensamentos, e eu gostaria de falar sobre os alunos de RSC que sinceramente eu sinto que o fandom as vezes os trata um pouco ríspido demais,tipo eu sei que irrita quando eles vencem os meninos de NRC,mas ainda sim que o fandom as vezes pode ser muito rígido com eles,o que vc tem a dizer sobre isso?

Here is a translation of the Portuguese (?) ask from a friend of a friend 👆 (Shoutout to Monokuma, lol)

I don’t think I’ve seen too many fans being critical of RSA students recently?? Maybe it’s just the circles I’m in, but I don’t recall there being a spike in RSA hate since book 5, where Neige prominently featured as our rival. I think that’s where most of the RSA vs NRC discourse comes from. I recall many fans being upset that NRC lost to such an unpolished performance, especially knowing how Vil pushed himself to the point of emotionally breaking to triumph over Neige. Chenya definitely did not warrant the same anger back in book 1 because he wasn’t portrayed as a rival or threat to a NRC boy. Instead, Chenya was an ally that pointed us in the right direction to help Riddle.

I think the anger and disdain that some people might feel towards RSA is, like you said, the result of being frustrated that our boys lose to them so often. However 💦 I really think it isn’t worth being upset about, as this was for sure an intentional writing decision that serves the themes of the game. What do we know about fairy tales? The villains tend to lose to the heroes—and although NRC and RSA aren’t schools that exist specifically to foster villains and heroes, they still retain this expected dynamic. In theory, this is because NRC students are too prideful to work together, and that has always granted RSA a competitive edge. That’s why Yuu is introduced with the hopes of being the one to teach cooperation and bring the NRC student population closer. With RSA’s 99-win streak in magift/spelldrive and the big end-of-year tournament coming up soon, it’s pretty clear to me that Twst is setting things up for the 100th win to be NRC’s, showing that they have changed for the better over the course of the main story. NRC losing has to happen before then so that the payoff at the very end will be more significant.

What I think a lot of people may fail to realize is their own biases in evaluating NRC versus RSA. We spend like 99.9% of our time in the game with the NRC boys and seeing things from their perspective. Of course we’re going to sympathize with them. Of course we’re going to take their sides. But we never spend time with RSA students, so we never get to see their perspective. How can you be so sure that they didn’t also train hard to earn all their victories? Neige is just ONE example of a seemingly “low effort” win—and even if you see it that way, how do we know that it’s actually “low effort”? We don’t know how much practice Neige and the dwarves put into their performance. Maybe they worked just as hard as the NRC Tribe did. Why are we assuming they didn’t?? Just because their performance wasn’t as flashy as NRC’s?? I think that’s a little unfair to say… You never truly know what another person is going through.

As we later learn from Rook, Neige has difficult life circumstances—he seems to be an orphan and lives in a cottage with the dwarves, doing many of the chores. But Neige continues to practice and dreams of bringing smiles to everyone’s faces, even donating most of what he makes to the less fortunate. Context like this helps add depth, but because this is a villain-centric game we often don’t get to hear as much about the non-villains and it’s therefore up to the fans to grant grace to the characters who lack in lore. I don’t know, I think it would help a lot if we distanced ourselves from the purely NRC mindset and considered a more objective POV.

[calliecopper]

Ian Gallagher Being His Own Person, and Why That's Controversial

A meta about Ian's story during his time away from Mickey, and the hate his character receives for it. Inspired by @dazzle02 :)

How many times have you heard somebody say that they skipped season 8 of Shameless because Mickey wasn't in it? How many times have you heard somebody say that season 7 is only good during Mickey's episodes, or that the story is boring without Mickey in it, or that Ian's S6-8 arc was boring without Mickey? How many times have you heard somebody proclaim that Ian wasn't a good partner to Mickey?

Mickey is undeniably THE fan favorite character of the show, and with that comes a tendency for fans to defend him tooth and nail, even when he is in the wrong, and refuse to see any other points of view. Characters who go against Mickey in any way receive a harsh amount of criticism that sometimes is not fully justified. This applies even to Mickey's main connection to the story: Ian.

During season 5 and onward, some fans hold Ian's actions against him very harshly when I feel he deserves a bit more empathy. Of these, there are three main things people criticize his character for during seasons 5, 6, and 7 that I feel are not given proper analysis and thought by fandom.

Disclaimer before we get in because people feel very passionately about these two: Every interpretation of a character is entirely unique to each individual viewer, and these are just my opinions. This is in no way an anti-Mickey post, so as you read, keep in mind that any criticism toward him is not meant to make him out to be a bad character. Don't bite me.

Season Five: The Breakup of All Time

I think a large part of why people get so upset with Ian for the breakup is because of the growth Mickey experienced in seasons 4-5 leading up to it.

Mickey in seasons 1-3 is in extreme denial of being gay, and when he grows feelings for Ian, he lashes out and treats Ian like shit. Seeing Mickey's slow growth starting in season 3 brought interest to his character, and in season 4 with his major growth during his coming out, he becomes very compelling to a viewer. After all the angst that it took to get Mickey to finally open up, there's a natural desire to see that positive growth and relationship development continue. When Ian throws a wrench in that by breaking up with Mickey in season 5, people get upset, and they're going to direct that toward Ian because he is the easiest to blame.

There's the sentiment of, "Mickey came out for Ian, took care of Ian, and supported Ian when he needed him most despite his faults. Why is Ian leaving Mickey in the dust when he now needs him most?"

This is honestly not an unreasonable thing to feel when looking at things from Mickey's perspective.

But, when you take a look at Ian's character, and you really think of his motivations in that moment, his decision to break up is actually very understandable. Ian didn't break up with Mickey because he thinks Mickey is a bad partner or because he doesn't love Mickey enough. He broke up with Mickey because he thought that's what was best FOR Mickey.

I think comparing the breakup to their fight over marriage in season 10 to be an effective way to understand Ian better.

In season 10:

"How do you know you love me? Huh? How do you really know? I'm bipolar, right? I don't know who I am from one day to the next, and I can't guarantee shit. So why do you wanna spend the rest of your life with me?"

- Ian to Mickey, S10E9

Compare this to this conversation during the breakup:

"You used to love me. Now you don't even know who I am. Shit, I don't know who I am half the time... You don't owe me anything."

"I love you."

"The Hell does that even mean?"

- Ian and Mickey, S5E12

I feel that Ian's mindset is pretty similar in these two moments. In season 5, he is still grappling with his diagnosis, and he has no frame of reference of how a healthy life with bipolar can look. Everybody has been comparing him to Monica, and he himself seems to oscillate between thinking he is like her and not like her, so in his mind, he has nothing to offer anymore.

Then, in season 10, in his mind he proved himself right. He tried to get his shit in order, lived happily and found peace with his diagnosis, and then he fucked it up. He had an episode, and he lost everything he fought so hard to have. He has practically ruined his life because he DID what he FEARED he would:

"I hate the meds. You gonna make me take 'em?"

"You get fucking nuts when you don't."

"Are you gonna want to be with me even if I don't?"

- Ian and Mickey, S5E12

That conversation isn't Ian saying he isn't going to take his meds, given how in season six, he IS taking his meds. I interpret his above statement to be a warning to Mickey. Because Monica has tried to get on her meds before, has tried to get better, and has failed many times. IAN has gone off his meds willingly twice now. This is him telling Mickey, straightforward, "I do not like the meds, and there will always be a risk of me deciding not to take them."

And in seasons 8-9, he does exactly that. He goes off his meds, and he destroys everything he built for himself. That's part of the reason why he hesitates to marry Mickey in season 10, and part of the reason he breaks up with Mickey in season 5.

Ian views himself and his disorder to be a burden on the people he loves. He believes that Mickey will be better off without him.

"I don't want you sitting around, worrying, watching me, waiting for me to do my next crazy shit."

- Ian to Mickey, S5E12

Because Mickey HAS been doing that. Ever since he was diagnosed, Mickey has been watching Ian like a hawk, acting like a nurse, which frustrates Ian.

"Fuckin' nurse now?"

[...]

"I'm sick of your whiny, pussy crap. I don't need a fucking caretaker, alright? I need the shit-talking, bitch-slapping piece of Southside trash I fell for. Where is he? The fuck is he, Mickey?"

- Ian to Mickey, S5E10

But, of course, Mickey doesn't see it that way. To Mickey, Ian is anything but a burden he wants to unload.

"It means we take care of each other. [...] It means thick and thin, good times, bad, sickness, health, all that shit."

- Mickey to Ian, S5E12.

Mickey would do anything for Ian. He confronted his worst fear by coming out, stayed with Ian even after the infidelity, defended Ian after he kidnapped his son, and tried his best to understand a mental illness he had no prior knowledge about. Yet, Ian still won't commit to him. After everything, he still isn't good enough.

"I'm not saying never!"

"No, you're just saying you don't love me enough now."

- Ian and Mickey, S10E9

And Ian, meanwhile, thinks that HE isn't good enough for MICKEY. He has been diagnosed with a lifelong condition, one that he has seen ruin lives firsthand, something that will be a part of him for the rest of his life, and he doesn't wanna tie Mickey down to that life.

It's all one massive miscommunication.

Finally, I think the part that is the most confusing to fans regarding Ian's mindset during the breakup stems from his moments with Monica in S5E11 and S5E12.

Specifically, the parallels between these two conversations.

"Ian, there's always gonna be people that are gonna try and fix us. And you can never make those people happy. Like it breaks their heart just to look at you."

"Yeah, um, even Mickey now."

"He's your boyfriend, right? [...] I'm sure he means well, but you need to be with people who accept you for who you are. And they're out there. You should never apologize for being you."

- Monica and Ian, S5E11.

Vs.

"What the hell is wrong with you?"

"Too much! Too much is wrong with me. That's the problem, isn't it? Too much is wrong with me, and you can't do anything about that. You can't change it. You can't fix me, 'cause I'm not broken. I don't need to be fixed, okay? I'm me!"

- Ian and Mickey, S5E12.

Monica's interpretation of the relationship seems to paint Mickey in a negative light. "He means well, but he doesn't get it," or something along those lines. Based on her previous experiences with the diagnosis, she has come to the conclusion that people like Mickey or Fiona, who try to get them to take medication and are saddened by the diagnosis, are being controlling, and do not love them for who they really are. That's why she always went back to Frank; he actively tried to get her to NOT take her meds or get better, and did not encourage her when she DID try to get better. So, to her, being off her meds IS the TRUE version of herself, and the people who can not accept that do not accept her.

But I think, while Ian's lines parallel Monica's, that he does not think the same way that she does.

Toward the end of season 5, Ian seems to do a complete 180 from his previous statements on his similarities with Monica.

"You flushed your pills? You get thats a full-on Monica move, right?"

"I'm not Monica."

- Ian and Fiona, S5E8

Vs.

" [...] Cause they all say how alike we are."

"That's probably not a compliment."

"Uh... No, I think it is."

- Ian and Monica, S5E11

This happens in the wake of his arrest, after Ian's siblings talk about him to the military police. Many of their comments seem to hit Ian in a way that makes him feel misunderstood or like a burden.

Debbie: But he's been acting crazier for longer than that.

Lip: Yeah, at least this past year.

Officer: How would you characterize his behavior?

Debbie: Compared to how he used to be... He's different.

Lip: He'll go back and forth from, you know, being depressed, to, you know, incredibly wound up. I mean, he ran off with a baby for no reason.

Debbie: He almost hit me in the head with a baseball bat.

Fiona: Our mother was bipolar, so we know what it looks like. She put us through Hell, and- I'm not saying you put us through Hell, but when they're manic they can be destructive.

Officer: In your opinion, does he require medication?

Fiona: Yes.

Officer: Is he unable to care for himself?

Fiona: Sometimes, yes.

So, when Ian talks to Monica when they reconnect, Ian expresses loneliness and a feeling of isolation.

"I'm really glad you came, yknow? I just... I needed someone to talk to who... gets it."

- Ian to Monica, S5E11

When Monica tells Ian to not be ashamed and that she loves him for him, she is kind of acting like his Frank. The meds have been taking a toll, and recovery is so difficult that running with her and getting validation from the only other person who could "get it" is an easy choice to make. I think the combined factors of Mickey treating him so delicately, his siblings laying out his flaws so plainly, and his mother's open acceptance creates a feeling of bitterness or shame, and Ian is hoping to find comfort in his mother.

But it doesn't go the way he expects it to.

At the diner, he thinks that Monica is going to prostitute herself for money, and is relieved when she doesn't. It's likely he was thinking of his own stint at the Fairytale in this moment.

Then, he recalls a moment from his childhood that he does not look upon fondly, only for Monica to refer to it as "good times."

He meets Monica's partner and discovers he is an aggressive teenage meth dealer that she is helping to sell the meth.

I think Ian has a true moment of clarity during this. He had thought that he was vindicated, that everybody else was wrong, that they didn't understand, that Monica was right, and that he was perfectly fine just the way he was. But then he sees what Monica considers to be "a happy life."

"Ian, I'm finally happy. People like us, we can be happy. I love him, and that's the most important thing, to find somebody to love, right? Who loves you back for who you are. I want that for you. I love you. We're gonna be okay. We're gonna be okay."

- Monica to Ian, S5E12.

Monica's perception of life is warped. What she considers a good life is living in a trailer selling meth. Good memories are traumatic memories for those around her. True love and support is an aggressive teenage dealer, or Frank Gallagher.

A simple drive to Ian was a horrifying kidnapping to Svetlana. Doing a porn that was no big deal to Ian was a betrayal of trust to Mickey. Joining Monica and ignoring the calls of his well-meaning but ignorant family to Ian was a painful and worrisome disappearance to them. Ian's perception HAS been warped, and he's crashing back to reality, realizing that he has run off with MONICA, realizing that he can't continue down the same path as her, and needs to go home.

He's come to accept that he is bipolar. He's internalized what his family has kept repeating, that he is just like Monica, and looking at her living like this, believing that she is living well, is terrifying to him.

So he goes home, believing that he is just like his mother, and he's doomed to be a piece of shit. He goes back, and he breaks up with Mickey. Because he doesn't think that people like him can be happy, and he doesn't think he'll be okay. And that isn't something that Mickey can change. Too much is wrong with him, and Mickey can't do anything about it.

Really, it's just a matter of Ian operating under the "if you love them, let them go" mindset, and Mickey interpreting it as a rejection. It's the two of them both believing they are not good enough for the other and internalizing it instead of properly communicating.

TL;DR: Ian's breakup with Mickey in S5E12 is not done in a healthy OR selfish mindset. To him, he will do nothing but drag Mickey down, and in his unmedicated and clearly altered state of mind, he thinks the best thing is to let him go.

Season Six: Dating Caleb and Other Blasphemy

The first time we see Mickey in season six, it's behind a pane of glass in an orange jumpsuit.

Mickey had tried to murder Sammi, Ian's half-sister, and had been sentenced to prison for 15 years. It's established that Ian has not been to visit Mickey much and is trying to move on past that time in his life. But, upon being bribed by Svetlana, Ian visits, and during this visit Mickey asks Ian a question:

"You gonna wait for me?" - Mickey to Ian, S6E1.

And when Ian shows hesitation:

"Fuckin' lie if you have to, man, eight years is a long time." - Mickey to Ian, S6E1.

So, Ian replies:

"Yeah. Yeah, Mick, I'll wait." - Ian to Mickey, S6E1.

Before even meeting Caleb, fans absolutely tear into Ian for his decision to not commit to Mickey in this moment. They call it selfish, or out of character, or unfair to ice Mickey out when he is going through this difficult time.

But, let's look at it from Ian's position.

Ian has dealt with abandonment issues his entire life, with both Monica and Frank being unstable and infrequent providers during his adolescence. Throughout his relationship with Mickey, they had been separated on three separate occasions, one of which was entirely voluntary on Mickey's part. Now, due to committing a major crime, Mickey has been sent away for up to fifteen years. They would both be in their thirties by the time Mickey would be released, or close to it if he got out early, and that's not even considering that he was actively taking part in jobs / activities that could extend his sentence, like stabbing people.

Ian has dealt with recurring disappointment and abandonment his entire life, and throughout their time together, Mickey hasn't really established himself as stable.

Now, before you bring out the pitchforks;

"But Mickey was there for Ian and supported him through seasons 4-5. He grew as a person and proved he IS reliable."

Yes, that's true. He did undergo massive development that allowed him to be a better partner and more reliable person to Ian. But, canonically that period of time only takes place over a few months.

Mickey, for the better part of 2-3 years, was NOT a good partner to Ian. Multiple years of an unsteady situationship is not so easily forgotten. Yes, Mickey 1000% had valid reasons for acting the way he did. It's made very clear in S3E6 and S4E11 why Mickey hides his sexuality and lashes out when forced to confront it. But that isn't an excuse. His reasons for acting in a negative way towards Ian the first three seasons is understandable, but he went about it in a bad way.

Not to mention that, despite his growth, Mickey has just been sent to PRISON. No matter how you spin it, his decision to go after Sammi was NOT justified and does not necessarily bring forth confidence in his reliability and stability.

It's not unreasonable for Ian to not want to wait for over a decade for a man who has not always been the best for him. It sucks as a viewer who is invested in them, but Ian was not in the wrong.

Beyond (justifiably) selfish reasons, Ian also already thought that he was bad for Mickey, was worried that he would ruin his life, and with Mickey's justification for his torture attempt being that he did it FOR Ian, that Sammi had it coming because of what she did TO Ian, Ian probably felt responsible for that as well. There was probably a level of guilt in Ian from the whole situation, both for Mickey being in prison and for leaving him there.

But from his point of view, it's better for everybody to try and move on.

What really bothers me about this criticism toward Ian is the sense that he OWED Mickey his time and loyalty. Because Mickey had given and sacrificed so much for Ian during seasons 4-5, it's like people think Ian is then obligated to return that for Mickey, no matter what Mickey did. It's a very transactional way to view the situation, and it just leaves me with an icky taste in my mouth. Nobody owes anybody anything in that situation. Ian does not owe Mickey companionship, and Mickey did not owe Ian support when he got put in prison in season 9. Returning to Ian was Mickey's decision to make, and not a decision Ian was obligated to make in season 6.

Now, onto the actual "dating other people" part of the conversation.

For months, Ian has done nothing but get his meds on track while working at Patsy's, then at the janitors job on Lip's campus. During this time, Ian expresses having a very low sense of self-worth.

"He as smart as you?"

"No."

"Yeah, he's smart."

"Lip is the genuis of the family."

"So that gives you an excuse for not finishing [high school]? You seem plenty smart, and Dav's uniform doesn't really suit you."

- Ian, Lip, and Professor Youens, S6E3

And:

"This is it for me, Lip. This job. This is where I land."

- Ian to Lip, S6E3

Which Lip comments on in a very concise way:

"Yknow, he thinks... Being bipolar means he's doomed to be a piece of shit like our mother."

- Lip about Ian, S6E3

Ian feels no sense of purpose during these months. He feels he has no worth and that he is doomed to work a dead-end job and have no happiness. He thinks he is just like Monica.

That only changes when he witnesses an accident on the highway, and he saves a woman's life by pulling her out of a burning car.

This leads us to Caleb.

Now I'll admit, this is where I take issue with the storytelling, because this would've been a PERFECT way to segue into Ian's EMT arc, but regardless of what I personally think would've been better, the way it plays out in canon does actually still make sense for Ian's character.

After saving the woman from the burning car, Ian collapses due to smoke inhalation and exhaustion. A firefighter on the scene provides Ian with oxygen, thus saving his life. Ian immediately fixates on this particular firefighter.

Now, Ian has a very complicated relationship with feeling his emotions post his diagnosis. In season five, when he is numbed by his meds, the only way for him to feel again is through pain, via self-harm or starting physical fights, and sex. In fact, sex plays a major part in many aspects of Ian's life.

From the age of fifteen, Ian had been consistently subject to sexual abuse. He's been used for his body by countless men throughout his teenage years and has been oftentimes reduced merely to his sexuality and what he can provide to his partner. Even Mickey, in season 2, tells Ian as such in a panicked rage.

"You think we're boyfriend and girlfriend here? You're nothing but a warm mouth to me."

- Mickey to Ian, S2E8.

(No, I'm not saying Mickey sexually abused Ian. But he did contribute to the way we see Ian default so heavily to objectifying and sexualizing himself.)

So, due to this recurring trauma, Ian has a tendency to default to sex as the primary way of getting satisfaction, be it emotional or physical.

So, when Ian gets a rush of adrenaline from the crash, after months of that numbness, he chases the emotions in the most effective way he knows how.

Ian goes to the firehouse with cookies to give as thanks to the firefighter who saved him, but with a clear ulterior motive of getting laid. When he finds out that the particular firefighter (who happens to be part of the "gay shift" which is an odd writing choice) he saw on the highway is married, Ian meets Caleb. In this scene, they speak all of one line to each other when Caleb invites Ian to a firehouse softball game. The next time we see them on screen together, Ian acts very flirtatious toward Caleb, which sets forth their relationship.

"You ever pitch?"

"... Usually, but I'm open depending on what you're into. Where we doing this?"

"Follow me."

[...]

"Wait, we're actually playing softball?"

- Ian and Caleb, S6E5

I think Ian receives hate for this simply because he's expressing interest in a guy that isn't Mickey. Fans get the impression that Ian is moving on too fast or that his interest in Caleb is sudden or rushed. However, I think the rushed nature actually works to show Ian's intentions. In this moment, Ian is not really looking for a full-on relationship. Given how little they interacted thus far, the fact that Caleb wasn't even who Ian was originally interested in, and how Ian's comments consistently err on the side of sexual, its safe to say Ian was just looking for a hookup. In fact, it's Caleb who pushes so hard FOR the relationship.

Mickey, in a deleted scene, hooks up with an inmate right after talking with Ian. If Ian's relationship with Caleb had only been a fling or hookup, I don't think Ian would've been as heavily criticized. As it is, fans get upset at this relationship because it IS a relationship. They go on dates, Ian starts staying with Caleb, and really they seem to be very domestic.

But I don't think Ian was as dedicated to the relationship with Caleb as fans make him out to be.

From the jump, Ian seems uncomfortable with the quick-moving pace of it. At first he only seems interested in sex with Caleb, but upon the negative reaction that provokes, Ian conceded to going on a date with Caleb (which is a bit of a slap in the face to Mickey fans after Gallavich's ruined date.)

"[...] I was hoping to get my hands on your hose."

"Is that what this is to you? A fuck?"

"You say it like it's a bad thing. Come on, let's get out of here."

"No. I knew you were younger than me, but I thought you were a grown-up."

"Fuck. Okay. Okay. Hey, I'm into you, alright? I thought you were into me."

"I am."

"Then what's the problem?"

"I don't stick my dick in just any guy."

"What do you want, then?"

"Seriously? Do I have to spell it out for you?"

"Yeah."

"A date."

"With, like, flowers and chocolate and shit?"

"No, we could skip the flowers."

"Okay. You're on."

- Ian and Caleb, S6E5

(Side note, pulling a "is that all this is to you" after two non-romantic interactions is not just quick in terms of hookup culture, which Ian is more attuned to, but is quick in any terms. More on that later.)

During this date, Ian is visibly very uncomfortable. Some would chalk this up to him having never been on a date before, and the writing even seems to imply that,

"Okay, look, I have no idea what I'm doing. My last boyfriend wasn't much of a talker, his idea of a conversation was to insult me a bunch and then punch me right before we banged."

- Ian to Caleb, S6E6

but that's actually not true, DESPITE the writers forgetting that.

"You know, Mickey and I never went out on dates. Ned never took me out, Kash and I fucked in the back of a convenience store, and I don't think jerking off strangers in a nightclub counts, so..."

- Ian to Lip, S6E6.

He actually HAD gone out on a "date" with Ned in season three, where he was visibly less uncomfortable than on his date with Caleb. He also went to many loft parties during his time dancing at the club, wherein he blended in very well and was able to sorta chameleon himself with the northside crowd. I think the show wants us to believe his discomfort is from him "never having been on a date before" or being unfamiliar with a "slower" pace, but I think his discomfort actually would stem from him just genuinely not being interested in Caleb in a romantic way, and thus feeling awkward on a date that's in a more romantic setting (compared to his one with Ned, which was undoubtedly more sexual.)

I also think his discomfort stems from being completely out of his element. Ian has taken a massive hit to his confidence since his diagnosis, so his Southside roots bring about a bit more hesitancy in him than it might have before, and he may be less confident in his ability to chameleon. That's why, during the date, Ian shows discomfort with Caleb when he shows more "class" than Ian.

"Usually, I get a bunch of apps to share. You good with that?"

"[Uncertain hum] ... Appetizers! Sure, yeah, big- big fan of apps."

[...]

"You seem like a very pensive kinda guy. You an only child?"

"Uh, no."

"Brothers and sisters?"

"A bunch, yeah."

"Older or younger?"

"Both."

"What about your parents? Both still alive?"

"... Yeah."

"... Fantastic. I'm learning so much."

[...]

"Where I'm from, people communicate with their fists."

"Where's that?"

"Southside."

"Mmm. Hands of steel. Okay, so you're a street rat. A brawler."

"Is that a problem?"

"Only if you make it one."

- Ian and Caleb, S6E6.

Then, beyond their first date, we have the actual relationship to dive into.

Throughout his scenes with Caleb, Ian seems to oscillate between neutrality, discomfort, or mild enjoyment in the situations he finds himself in.

There's this interaction, for example, where Ian lets Caleb take charge in defining their relationship:

"So what are we doing?"

"Whatever you want, I guess."

- Ian and Caleb, S6E7.

Or this moment:

"What are you smiling at?"

"I like having you over here. What are you smiling at?"

"I like having a purpose."

- Ian and Caleb, S6E8.

Or when Caleb invites Ian out with his friends, and we see Ian slip into his chameleon persona, mirroring the petty mannerisms of the most vocal participant of the conversation, as well as avoiding diving too much into his personal history.

"You haven't told me which one is your ex."

"Guess."

"Old guy, pink sweater."

"How'd you know?"

"Ooh, a redhead, Caleb? Does his carpet match his drapes?"

"You're a good sport."

- Ian and Caleb, S6E8.

[...]

"If we had known you were bringing a middle school student, Caleb, we wouldn't have come to a place that cards."

"Oh, no, it's cool, I don't drink. I hear it makes your skin old and leathery."

"That's-that's how we're playing this?"

"Hey, you threw down first."

"Where you from, kid?"

"Back of the Yards."

"Local boy. What's your story?"

"Story?"

"Who you are, what you do, how did you meet this chocolate bundt cake?"

"Met him at the firehouse."

- Ian and Gregory, S6E8

[...]

"We like this one, Caleb. Don't we, Gregory?"

"I mean, If young, beautiful, and kind of a smartass is something to like, sure, fine, I guess we do."

- Caleb's friends about Ian, S6E8.

OR, in a deleted scene where Caleb expresses frustration at Ian keeping the distance between him and Ian's family, as well as Ian's lack of communication, while Ian seems unbothered or even perplexed by Caleb's frustration.

"So, where'd you sleep last night?"

"Home. Got done at three, told you I'd be late."

"Yeah, like nighttime late, not next day late."

"Well, I didn't wanna wake you, and I had to go back there to grab some stuff: clothes, towels..."

"Where's there?"

"Home, you mean?"

"Yeah."

"Back of the Yards."

"Right. You did mention that once. I still don't know where it is or who I'd call if there was an emergency?"

"Uh... my brother, I guess? Or my sister."

"Brother or sister. Okay. I'll just track down Ian Gallagher's brother or sister on the internet."

"I'll... put their numbers in your phone."

"Great."

- Ian and Caleb, S6E11 deleted scene.

OR any of the follwing:

When they go to get Ian tested for STDs, he is visibly uncomfortable having Caleb in the room with him.

He is only comfortable revealing his bipolar disorder if it is done in exchange for another secret from Caleb.

He isn't very comfortable sharing his past, only references his previous relationship in a lighthearted manner, and he only reveals his sexual history upon feeling pressured to do so, which he purposefully presents in a callous way.

To me, the entirety of Ian and Caleb's relationship reads as Ian's desperation for validation through sex, which leads to him putting up with a relationship he isn't entirely comfortable in or commited to or ready for. To me, it seems like he's truly just looking for companionship in any way he can get it.

Out of everything, though, I think what really gets to fans most about this storyline is the constant comparison of Caleb to Mickey as a means of demonizing Mickey.

Throughout the entirety of Ian and Caleb's relationship, there is a constant comparison between the two relationships, seemingly with the intent of painting Mickey as a horrible partner.

When Ian tells Lip about his upcoming date with Caleb, he remarks that he never went on dates with Mickey, which comes off as an unnecessary jab.

During his date with Caleb, Ian talks about his lack of effective communication skills, which reflects negatively on Mickey, to the point Caleb brings forward the idea of domestic abuse.

During the wedding that Ian attends with Caleb, Ian mentions Mickey's marriage to Svetlana, and he uses a tone that comes off as belittling the situation and how difficult it was for Mickey.

There's this line, when Caleb asks Ian to kiss for the first time:

"Can I kiss you?"

"I thought kissing comes after you've had sex a bunch of times."

"Ian, kissing comes whenever you want it to. Even now."

- Ian and Caleb, S6E6.

Then, there's Mandy stating that Caleb was better than Mickey.

"A hot black fireman. Also an artist."

"Upgrade from my brother."

"I miss Mickey, but uh... This new guy's nice."

- Ian and Mandy, S6E9

These near constant comparisons to Mickey are frustrating to fans, because it can often feel like Ian, or even just the writers and the narrative, are trying to belittle Mickey's character and reduce him to a one-note toxic ex, which completely spits in the face of the development that he went through. THAT is what is most frustrating to fans.

Because it's true that Mickey was not always the best partner. In real life, Mickey would be a walking red flag, and Gallavich would be undeniably toxic. But that applies to EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER in Shameless. That is the entire point of the show. None of them are particularly good people. They all do shitty things, but they all have compelling reasons for doing it. That's why we can look at these characters and feel connected to them instead of just absolutely hating them.

It's a really odd writing choice for a show that focuses on morally gray characters, or the idea that nobody in the show is really a good person, to decide to play moral high ground in this particular instance, and have Ian suddenly turn his nose up at Mickey's behaviors.

But is this really how Ian feels?

Because, as established, Ian is VERY good at playing chameleon. He is good at shaping himself into whatever a partner wants him to be. He mirrors his partners mannerisms, beliefs, and attitudes.

And Caleb, for all that the story wants to make us believe he's better than Mickey, is actually not the best partner either. Not just for cheating on Ian in season seven and then gaslighting Ian about it; he shows some toxic behaviors in season six as well, including being lowkey judgmental about Ian's Southside roots.

Take, for example, Caleb implying that the Southside is trash, but that he can see the beauty in Ian despite being from the Southside:

"That's my latest. I love to find the treasure inside the trash. Trying to find the secret life in things. What it wants to be instead of what it is."

"Is that what you're doing with me?"

"Good question. Can I kiss you?"

- Ian and Caleb, S6E6

(Which, funnily enough, this line from Caleb goes pretty against the sentiment that Monica had in season five, of Ian finding somebody who loves Ian for who he already is, as Mickey did.)

Or, for another example, Caleb judging Ian pretty heavily during the softball game for being "not grown-up." Simply because Ian expresses sexual interest in him above romantic.

"Cmon, let's get out of here."

"No. I knew you were younger than me, but I thought you were a grown-up."

- Ian and Caleb, S6E5.

Which, as I pointed out before, is really strange behavior. Participating in hookup culture isn't something that Ian needs to be shamed over. There's a sentiment of "Hooking up is beneath me, it's immature," to Caleb's tone, which is unfair. Now, he has reasons for this, that being his experience with getting HIV from a hookup who lied to him, which draws a pretty interesting parallel to Ian.

"Don't worry, guy I did the scene with said he was clean."

"He didn't use a rubber? Are you out of your fucking mind?"

- Ian and Mickey, S5E5.

Vs.

"Guy in college. He lied to me."

- Caleb to Ian, S6E8.

(Which I actually find to be a very interesting plot point and is actually a pretty good scene.)

So, while Caleb was not wrong to put forth a boundary by not hooking up, he was wrong for acting as if IAN was the problem in the situation. Not to mention, his behavior at the game is very strange when taken into account how little they've interacted thus far. He had understandable reasons for his negative reaction, but he went about it the wrong way. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Anyways, I could talk about the relationship between Ian and Caleb more, but that's not what the point of this is.

The point I'm trying to make is that Caleb, however covertly, expresses a negative or biased view toward the Southside lifestyle. And Ian, being the type to mimic his partners, follows along in that.

Ian already fears that he is going to be left. He is afraid that showing Caleb who he really is and not being the idealized version of himself will lead to Caleb breaking up with him.

"I'm enjoying it while it lasts."

"You think he'll dump you?"

"Well, I've told him I'm bipolar, and my family's screwed up, and he took it pretty well. But it's one thing to hear it and another to live it, so... We shall see."

- Ian and Mandy, S6E9

So, he chameleons. He makes himself the treasure in the trash. He distances himself from the image of a brooding, Southside street rat.

Because, after so long of constant pain and numbness during and post his diagnosis, Caleb is the first good thing he's found.

"I haven't been this happy in a long time."

- Ian to Caleb, S6E8.

And really, everything that I just talked about doesn't matter when you think about it that way.

No matter how dedicated or invested Ian was in his relationship with Caleb, it still provided him with companionship and validation, which as we know, is something that Ian has an unhealthy dependence on to find self-worth.

And I don't think Ian was wrong in searching for that connection simply because that connection wasn't with Mickey. He could've been well and truly in love with Caleb, and he wouldn't deserve some of the hate he receives for his canon actions.

It's easy to look at Ian's relationship with Caleb and get frustrated because of all the time that was put into Ian and Mickey's relationship. But beyond the instinctual negative feeling that comes with seeing Ian with anybody other than Mickey, his relationships outside of Mickey deserve to be analyzed and observed for what they actually do for HIS character, and not just immediately cast aside as unnecessary or ooc.

So, to summarize:

Firstly, Ian wasn't selfish for not waiting 15 years for somebody in prison. Whether he was serious about Caleb or not, Ian was under no obligation to dedicate himself to Mickey. Ian did not owe Mickey anything simply because Mickey was there for Ian when shit got tough. If they had been together, sure, Ian would've been a lot shittier for leaving Mickey alone. But as it was, they were broken up, and even if they hadn't been, Ian would've had every right to not want to continue seeing Mickey after his decision to harm Sammi, just as Lip was justified in not wanting to be with Mandy anymore after she ran over Karen.

Secondly, Ian dating Caleb wasn't bad for his character. In fact, I think their relationship in season six was actually a very interesting way to progress Ian's character and get more insight into his mind and how he operates.

Thirdly, Ian and Caleb's relationship deserves to be analyzed for what it is, rather than what it isn't. Just because Ian is not with Mickey doesn't mean that he doesn't undergo some huge development in this season, both in and outside his relationship with Caleb. Furthermore, Ian entering a new relationship gives us the opportunity to see more sides of his character, and as such the relationship should be analyzed as it's own separate entity, and not just as a hurdle in the way of Gallavich.

Fourth, Ian was not just waiting to cast Mickey aside to jump on the next dick possible. I've seen this criticism before, and when looking at his actual arc at the beginning of S6 and analyzing his general character, that's just simply not true. Entering a new relationship is not equal to immediately disregarding Mickey.

TL;DR: The hate Ian gets from this season mainly stems from "Ian date somebody aside from Mickey, bad Ian" without any further thought behind why he enters the relationship and what the relationship actually means to him. There is no separation in the minds of fans between Ian and Mickey, and therefore, Ian having experiences and an identity outside of Mickey is negatively perceived.

Season Seven: Putting His Own Wellbeing First

This one will be less long winded than the previous one, because I have less to say on it, honestly.

During the entirety of Ian's bipolar arc, it is pretty clearly shown that to maintain mental wellness, Ian needs stability.

When Mickey shows up and asks Ian to run away with him to Mexico, that's threatening to uproot every amount of stability Ian has managed to secure the past two seasons of the show.

I honestly don't see as much hate directed toward Ian for his decision to leave Mickey at the border as I see for his previous decisions. I'd say the main thing I actually see directed toward this season is just that Ian's story is boring without Mickey in it. Mostly because he enters another new relationship with Trevor after his relationship with Caleb, which really just follows the cyclical Shameless cycle of, "Don't know what to do with a character? Give them a new love interest!" But because I talked about the judgement for non-Gallavich Ian relationships above, I don't particularly feel like doing a deep dive into the Ian and Trevor relationship in this meta.

What I want to talk about relates to the Mickey Mexico storyline, though, and that's the hate other characters recieve for trying to dissuade Ian from going.

After finding out that Mickey escaped from prison, Fiona and Ian have the following conversation:

"What are you doing up?"

"Couldn't sleep. You ever, uh, think about about what would've happened if you'd run off with Jimmy-Steve?"

"Lying sociopath Jimmy-Steve? My life would be a nonstop psycho-thriller. I definitely dodged a bullet with that one."

"What if nothing ever gives you that same thrill again? Still feel like you dodged a bullet?"

"I don't know. Probably. Where's this coming from?"

"Things have been weird between me and Trevor since Mickey got out."

"You mean since Mickey busted out of prison and has got half the Chicago Police Department circling the Southside looking for him."

"Can't get him out of my head. Just trying to stop myself from doing something I shouldn't."

"You turned your life around. Mickey would set a match to it. You've done really great without him, and I'm really fucking proud of you."

- Ian and Fiona, S7E10.

I've seen this conversation criticized many times because of how "unfairly" Mickey is treated in this scene. But I truly think that nothing said in this scene was wrong, and Fiona was 100% right.

In the past, Fiona has definitely shown a prejudice against the Milkovich family before. Specifically with Mandy, Fiona seems to look down upon her and disapproves of the relationship between her and Lip. This on its own is unfair treatment and is annoying to witness.

But in this particular case, absolutely nothing she is saying is wrong or biased simply because Mickey is a Milkovich.

People take the line, "Mickey would set a match to it," and compare it to his behavior in late Season 4 through season 5, where Mickey is taking care of Ian, and say that Fiona is being untruthful or hypocritical. If Mickey had never been sent to prison, or even if he had just been released legally, and Ian was simply thinking about cheating on Trevor and getting back with Mickey instead of running away with him, then the criticism toward Fiona would be more justified. But as it is, Mickey is a wanted fugitive, and Ian running away with him would make Ian a fugitive as well, and WOULD effectively set a match to the life Ian had spent the past two seasons working toward. He would be giving up a career he worked hard for and fought to have, he'd be living in stressful conditions on the run, he'd have no support system, and he would have less ease of access to his medication. Running with Mickey would have been the wrong decision for Ian's wellbeing, and honestly, Mickey should never have asked Ian to go with him.

I think that many people have rose colored glasses on when it comes to Gallavich, specifically with Mickey, and that makes it harder to view these moments unbiased. But, looking at it objectively, Mickey was so wrong for asking Ian to come with him to Mexico. He KNOWS that Ian needs stability with his bipolar diagnosis, and he KNOWS that this would be a stressful life he'd be forcing Ian into.

Simply put, he's acting selfishly in that moment. Having your own interests in mind is not always a bad thing, but in this specific case, Mickey would have thrown a huge wrench into Ian's life is Ian hadn't made decisions in HIS best interest.

Again, I have less to say on this as I did other subjects, because to me it feels much more cut and dry. Mickey was in the wrong here 100%, Fiona was not being wrongfully judgmental toward Mickey, and Ian was not in the wrong for not going with Mickey.

After so long of seeing them apart, it makes sense to want to see them together again. So when Ian, again, is the one making the decision to end their relationship, fans are going to lash out at him and those around him.

But it's important to put aside biases and allow your favorite character to be in the wrong occasionally. Mickey is not perfect, and criticism against him, both from characters in the show and fans, is not unfounded nor unjustified.

TL;DR: Mickey was wrong for asking Ian to uproot his life and run to Mexico, and calling that out isn't defamation of his character.

To End This Yap Session:

Ian is by no means a faultless character, and he is not exempt from criticism both inside and outside of his relationship with Mickey. However, I often feel that the criticism he faces is for the wrong reasons, and not much contemplation or exploration is done on him as much as it is for Mickey.

I love Mickey. He's an amazingly complex character, and his relationship with Ian is one of my favorite parts of the show. But in being a complex character, he is also an imperfect character.

I feel that many fans get very protective over their favorite characters, to the point that anything that goes against that character's interests is labeled as bad, and any criticism toward his character is disregarded immediately.

In this particular case of Gallavich, I feel that post season three, fans often see things from Mickey's point of view without looking at Ian's as much. This meta was simply to give my own thoughts on Ian's most "controversial" moments among fans. Obviously this is mostly condensed to season six and his relationship with Caleb, which I feel is the biggest example of jumping to conclusions and only seeing the surface level of his character.

However, I would like to acknowledge that Ian is also an insanely popular character in the Shameless fandom. While he is misunderstood in many instances, he is given much more sympathy and understanding than many other characters in the show, especially many of the female characters. This long-winded meta is only focused on the concerning tendency for fans to link Ian's identity to Mickey entirely without allowing him to be an individual, but a majority of the time he is still a beloved character who is treated favorably by fans. Compared to a character like Debbie, Ian sees much more support, and I feel that the energy I put toward this meta and trying to understand Ian should also be applied to (almost) EVERY character in the show.

Anyways feel free to leave thoughts.

[raynaisanerd]

Too much of the fandom really likes Renee. I hate her. I can understand that people find her attractive, because she is, but I can’t stand her. Obviously each to their own, and I can acknowledge that if you don’t particularly like both Andrew and Ashley you will find Renee’s actions less hate-able. This is just my thoughts shoved into text format. Sorry for any errors.

Abuse of Andrew

₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ Renee made Andrew into a parent for Ashley, which in turn didn’t allow him to have a proper childhood. It’s also teased in the Episode 3 trailer that there’s rumours of incest between the siblings around school which is no doubt stemmed from the two being forced in such close proximities due to the mother and fathers neglect. This more than likely affected a lot of Andrew’s social life, pushing him towards other women to ‘prove’ he isn’t ’like that’, which isn’t particularly healthy for a teen boy.

₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ Renee and the father are likely the cause of Andrew’s anxiety in fear of pissing her off, or generally bothering her. Andrew represses his true feelings so he can please his parents, Both parents seem to brush off any concerns Andrew has, making him internalise his feelings and not seek any mental or emotional support for what he is going through.

Abuse of Ashley

₍⑅ᐢ..ᐢ₎ Renee forcing Andrew to be Ashley’s caretaker tore away any form of other support network for the young girl. This is clearly shown with how she struggles to make friends and genuine connections with others outside of Andrew, seen with Julia and Nina. It is also why she never sought out support for herself, Renee would never get help for her clearly neurodivergent or somewhere on the ASPD spectrum, so Ashley in turn also did not.

₍⑅ᐢ..ᐢ₎ Renee not allowing Ashley to have birthdays may seem like a small and insignificant detail but it speaks volumes of what she was like as a parent to me. She never allowed to have nice things and Renee made sure of that. Or didn’t. She didn’t care enough to even check up in the girl, probably didn’t even remember her birthday.

₍⑅ᐢ..ᐢ₎ Renee calling her a problem and an annoyance, again, something insignificant to some that I am reading into far too much. Your parent is supposed to be your biggest supporter in life, the one that brought you to life, who is supposed to love you unconditionally. Ashley has none of that. The only unconditional love and support she has is from her older brother. Not having support from your parents, your mother actively calling her an annoyance doesn’t help with her obviously festering insecurities and self hatred.

₍⑅ᐢ..ᐢ₎ Renee thinking and openly expressing that the only way Ashley could have value to anyone (specifically Andrew) is if she is having sex with them. Ashley’s mindset about sex is very contractual (I will probably go into further detail about this in a later post) and I believe that that has been taken from her mother.

—

🌺 Selling her children to the organ harvesting scheme is just generally fucked up, and how she shows absolutely no remorse is even more concerning. She happily collected the life insurance money, moved to a nicer home in a nicer place intending to forget about the two whole children she had.

🌺 Renee may not be the cause of all of the siblings problems, there are external influences as well as the father, though I feel with the lack of content we have around their father that I am unable to judge him on his actions, bar being equally responsible for his children. I just find the fandoms treatment of Renee to be odd considering how fandoms usually absolutely flame abusive parents in fiction. As I said, each to their own, if you like her this isn’t a post to try and change your mind, it’s just my opinion.

[animebw]

...in retrospect, I shouldn't be surprised that Re:Zero was capable of pulling off an episode like this.

Like, this show's always been about the toxicity of the otaku mindset. It's always been critical of the misogyny and objectification that defined the worst of Subaru's instincts and refused to let him off the hook for them.

But I don't think I expect it to be this naked about it.

Like, there's no sugarcoating the parallels here. There's no misinterpreting the common ground between Regulus' attitude toward Emilia and how Capella's calling out Subaru. The Archbishop of Greed outright says that Emilia's physical attractiveness and desirability is the only thing that matters about her, that she exists to be objectified by him in every sense of the word. And on the other side of the capital building, here's Capella confronting Subaru with the same subconscious way he's been looking at her.

It would've been so easy for Lust to be an evil seductress like basically every incarnation of her in fiction. But instead, she's something genuinely horrifying: a reflection of how our physical desire poisons our sense of morality. For all Subaru's high-minded talk of being her gallant knight and loving her honestly... I mean, let's be blunt, he wants to have sex with her. He's attracted to her on a sexual level. And that lust is as core to his morality towards her as his more nobler intentions, maybe even more so. Like, would he still love Emilia as much if she wasn't attractive? Would we? Is the fact that she's a cute anime girl the actual reason we become attached to characters like her? How many of anime's iconic Best Girls would still earn so much affection without their adorable faces, their moe voices, their frequent flustered blushing to show how innocent they are, their breasts shaped at whatever size their artists deem the most desirable?

And if that sounds extreme, just consider how many incel gamers have been losing their mind lately over Western games choosing to design their female characters with actual realistic bodies and features (that are often plenty physically attractive in their own right!) instead of making them all look like Dead or Alive extras. Look how quickly this "fandom" turns on fictional women for the simple fact that they can't jack off to them, regardless of context. It doesn't matter what stories those women have to tell, what human connections they offer through their trials and growth. It doesn't matter whether they're well-written or not. If these chuds can't beat their meat to the Star Wars Outlaws lady, or the Silent Hill 2 trauma victim, or how Lara Croft looks in the Netflix cartoon, then as far as they're concerned, these characters are fundamentally worthless.

And Capella has their number dead to rights.

Do we actually love Emilia? Do we love her courage, her kindness, her refusal to give up, her willingness to brave the deepest darkness to believe in a better world? Or do we just love the bombshell beauty all those traits are served packaged in? And how can we disentangle those feelings to love her- and characters like her- for who they truly are instead of becoming just like Regulus?

In other words:

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[raayllum]

Moon Arcanum Callum + Sun Arcanum Claudia in S7?

Callum getting the Moon arcanum has been a fandom... not theory, but shall we say, prospect, since even before S4. Some of this was because of the seeming set up in previous seasons, such as:

Callum having a hunch that the cube wasn't glowing due to the Moon, and being our first hint at illusions on the Cursed Caldera (1x09)

Lujanne explaining the secret of the arcanum (as she understands it) to him in 2x02

Callum doing moon arcanum spells (3x08, Through the Moon) much the way he did Sky spells before unlocking that arcanum

Callum employing aspects of the Moon arcanum in his plans (3x01 with tricking Sol Regem, creating the illusion pearl in 6x01)

His growing relationship and understanding with Rayla, and potential involvement with her family/village

But especially:

This is of course already reflected in spades in his arc as a mage. Everyone, Lujanne included, believes that humans can't do magic. She treats this as absolute fact and destiny, but Callum perceives it as subjective truth; why can't he just make his own connection and do magic anyway? And in doing so, he changes the world. He creates a radically new, better reality.

With season seven's synopsis on sacrifice and life and death, both things we see tied heavily to Moonshadow culture and the Moon itself, I could see Callum connecting to the Moon arcanum next season for a few reasons (and potentially Claudia with the Sun arcanum, which I'll get to after). So let's get into it.

Precursor

Previously, if Callum was going to connect to the Moon arcanum, I'd speculated it'd mostly be around ideas of the consistency of Love (light or dark, the moon is always the moon) and his love for Rayla being his light in the darkness / the one constant truth of his life. I don't think this anymore, obviously, because we got all those things through the Star truth light ritual beat for beat and we're not going to be repeating, but I did think it'd be worthwhile then to revisit what a Moon arcanum could mean for Callum under new context / emotional epiphanies. I've also always thought either Earth or Sun would suit Claudia, but leaned more towards the latter, so we're gonna talk about that, too.

Truth and Lies and Aaravos

As Lujanne explains in 2x02, the Moon arcanum is understanding the true nature of the relationship between appearances and reality, and we can only understand the appearance itself. This feels like a very fitting idea to come back to with Aaravos, who ostensibly never lies but routinely withholds or presents not entirely correct information. "How may I serve you?" when you're just going to be a pawn. Not telling a mourning Claudia that he was indeed the one who killed Viren so that she'll continue to do his bidding, with Claudia asserting that Aaravos "didn't lie" about the ritual in 6x01, and he didn't. We also see him wield the truth as a weapon with people like Khessa ("would you like to know the truth of her fate before you meet yours?") and Sol Regem (more on that here.)

Everything that he says is truth to him, and then he lifts it up as being objectively true (i.e. you're destined to play into my hands) even when it isn't necessarily true. We can also see Callum veering into mindsets that Claudia and Viren have had, where he believes he's past the point of saving ("I'm ruined, it's too late for me" "Promise me you'll kill me") or removing his own agency by admission ("Finnegrin was going to kill you, I didn't have a choice" / "Every step forward is a choice").

Callum understanding Aaravos' or others' actual truths versus their lies and the ones he's believing could be very fitting in S6, especially if he might be learning more about the existence of the Cosmic Council and who made their world the way it is. I think his existence may help lead to that "slow spiral of chaos" but that it won't be just or even Bad at all the way they'd feared, etc.

Claudia is also linked to lies and truth. She lies to others, but Aaravos notes that "If you tell the truth you will lose her," and she goes looking for her own deep truth in S6, but doesn't seem to fully find it. Terry asks her "What do you need to find your one deep truth?" and Claudia says that she needs her dad, but she and her mother have also made it clear that she "needed to stay with Soren" and her family (vs Viren telling her to pick the egg over Soren). With Viren gone and Aaravos manipulating her, Soren could easily be one of her guiding lights next season or in future seasons.

The Pearl

The moon is analogous, framing/appearance wise, to the prison. This is alluded to in 5x09 through framing, and then made even more direct in 6x09: Aaravos escapes his prison thanks to Claudia and (unbeknownst to her) she has become the prisoner, much like how Callum may physically free himself from chains in 5x08 but magically/emotionally chains himself further to Aaravos, or Viren shouting while in chains that he's finally free of the dark puppetmaster.

Basically, when Callum says in 6x01 that he's inside the pearl, I don't think (as of S6 / probably first half of S7 at least) that he's ever gotten out of it. Aaravos uses him even after his nightmare, and we know thanks to the pawn intro that Aaravos' final machinations for Callum also haven't yet come to play. I've been wondering if the Aaravos intro is going to change in S7, since he's out of his prison — and it still may — but if we look at it from the angle of Callum and Claudia both being stuck within the moon/pearl rather than just Aaravos himself, maybe it could stay.

And if Callum is stuck inside the moon-pearl, shattering it by understanding the arcanum ("the whole world is like a giant primal stone, and we're inside of it, and it's also in us") and/or with Claudia moving to the opposite of the moon could be useful, especially since Karim is a corrupted sun in his own way. Speaking of which let's talk about

Light and Dark

We know thanks to Claudia that black and white, or light and dark, are not always clear cut. Her hair thanks to her dark magic use changes like phases of the moon, with the light being bad and the dark being good. Conversely, her path is a dark one with the path of truth and light being withheld from her. In a similar manner, we see Callum's light (Rayla) being what led him into dark magic use and what led him out of it, and will likely see this pattern play out again. Aaravos is a representation of a path of darkness, but we also see the cube flashing a bright light in the pawn intro, tying light and darkness together for him as well.

Callum's understanding of himself that he gained through the Ocean arcanum can not simply become untrue or disappear, so I think recognizing that darkness isn't all he is ("I'm ruined" / "your heart's not full of darkness" "Neither is yours") even if there are dark parts of him and of his life would be fitting. It also seems that could be helpful with Claudia as well, and even characters like Ezran, who will have to wrestle with darker parts of his emotions/personality next season as well with Runaan. They've all got light and dark inside them, and learning how to walk in that balance and still break away from the Cycle / Aaravos is useful. As Ezran said in 4x03:

I just want to yell stop. But that’s not enough. It won’t work. I think about a positive vision, a faith we can all share, that we might build a future together in hope. A future where we can be safe with each other.  But… It’s not that easy or simple. Because people are still hurting and they are still angry. We can’t ignore that, or pretend it will go away. Somehow, we have to hold it all in our hearts at the same time. We have to acknowledge the weight of the pain and loss, but open up our eyes and allow ourselves to hope and maybe forgive and love again. We have to give today’s children a chance to inherit a future filled with peace. To give them that, we have to hold pain and love in our hearts at the same time.

Claudia's love for her family led her to ruin, but it can also save her through Soren. Callum's love for Rayla led him to ruin, but it has also saved him (and again, we'll likely repeat this pattern). Ezran's love for his father will lead him to anger but also pull him out of it, just as Viren's love for his son caused him to begin his journey of terrible things, but also guided him to do one final, truly right thing by the end.

Love is light and dark. Claudia, who's been walking in shadow, needs the full light - the sun, in the form of her brother. She needs to accept and see the truth of what's happening and step fully into the light. Callum, who has been routinely worried of the dark within him, needs to the reminder that he's not all he is, that he has light of his own inside. In doing so, he can break Aaravos' control over him and give hope to any other dark mages / humans in general that no level of corruption is too late to come back from, and that there is always light amid the darkness.

Life and Death

The stakes have never been higher as Aaravos and Claudia are on the warpath, determined to destroy the Cosmic Order and invert life and death. With the world’s fate on the line, our heroes must be ready to sacrifice everything to save it.

In Bloodmoon Huntress, we get a very different peek into how the secret of the Moon arcanum can be thought of through Runaan, who is peak Moonshadow-sacrifice elf man:

Moonshadow form is only achieved when we understand the balance of life against death. Balance is weight against weight, and to understand the weight of death you must feel the weight and value of another's life. Think of those you love, of who you hold most dear. Now think of the souls who have touched your life. Understand that each time your weapon meets its target, each time we fulfil our duty, the potential for that soul to change a life—to love another—is gone. We may remove hate, but we remove the potential for love as well. Moonshadow form is only achieved when we reconcile this balance between life and death.

While Claudia with her hair and dark mage-assassin parallels could unlock the Moon arcanum—especially if her perspectives continue to change—I think Callum as the Protagonist is better placed at this time to be the one to understand the balance between life and death in a season where the antagonists are trying to invert/destroy it. Him therefore understanding appearances and changes, how to control his own and see through others', understanding that balance between life and death, feels very fitting.

Callum's fear of Aaravos and dark magic comes from the fear that he's changing—"I hope you're careful, cause [magic] can change people" / "the corruption takes innocent creatures and changed them"—and that death would be better for him than life if he goes too far. Learning these things aren't the case and that he can get back to the middle (and indeed, "real trust is about accepting even the dark parts we will never know" could be about Rayla accepting he may not entirely swear off dark magic again, the same way Viren kept that door open to do Good) would be useful.

It would also mean the two mage characters most drawn into Aaravos' darkness get the Moon and Sun—the arcanums most associated with light—to banish said darkness as well. Claudia finally being an uncorrupted light and chasing life, not death, and Callum, learning how to be balanced and that he can maintain his identity / use Aaravos' book and key without fearing that he'll lose control.

The fact that Claudia's eclipse imagery only started the same episode she lost her brother, and that her Laurelion dragon-scale necklace is very Sunfire-y looking...

Conclusion

TDP for Callum and Claudia has always felt like a parallel coming-of-age mage story between the two of them, leading to the amount of similarities and diverging plot beats the two have, down to doing the same spell at the same time but in different locations in S6. The Sun arcanum is associated with truth, light, and healing, whereas the Moon arcanum is associated with change, life + death, and secrets/love. All of these things could be nicely brought to a head with Callum and Claudia each unlocking an arcanum of Moon and Sun respectively, showcasing their differences, their continued room to grow, and light amid the darkness.

While I could see alternatives like Sun for Callum and Moon for Claudia, Stars for Callum or no arcanum for either of them, I think these are the ones that fit best at this time / Stars will likely get saved for arc 3 given that arc 3 will probably focus more on rewriting destinies and the Cosmic Order as antagonists.

As always hope you enjoy and Dragons out!

[acerikus]

Isat deconstructs and shuts down a lot of frustrating tropes and annoying fandom quirks but one I don't feel gets talked about much is the classic fanon trope of 'character has a canon favourite food. this is their personality now, also they will never be seen cooking or eating anything else ever again'.

Food is such an important part of isat, and Siffrin has a very obvious favourite food! His reaction to first seeing bonnie offer malanga fritters is even pretty similar to what people kinda end up reducing characters once they know their favourite food - the wild, cartoonish excitement that they don't really express at and other point - but the way things are handled from there REALLY stops them being reduced to a caricature for it by fans.

The more you go through the snack areas, the more each and every snack starts to lose its novelty. Depending on how many loops you've done by that point, that probably starts to become pretty clear for the average player - malanga fritters aren't till the end of the third floor, you've had plenty of times to get used to this game and how siffrin's mindset is affected when they repeat things too much.

I think I even found myself actively avoiding picking malanga fritters too much when picking their third floor snack - just because it felt too cruel to have THAT repeat too much, for something they hold so dearly, something that is later shown to be one of the few things they have left from their culture - end up so tainted for them like that.

And they DO get tired of it! They start to notice the little details that feel wrong to them - bonnie didn't get the correct ingredients, or the recipe they're using is wrong - where are the chillis? They tried so hard but these aren't perfect. They can't help but notice now even if they feel bad about it. And as it goes further they barely taste like... Anything at all to him. He just can't appreciate his favourite food any more.

And that has a wonderful side effect on the fandom - he may have a favourite food, but this traumatised enby needs VARIETY. When people DO depict him eating fritters it's usually a sad moment, a realisation that the loops took away the joy he felt towards something that was once so dear. People depict him enjoying a variety of foods instead - things that never even showed up in the game, even!!!!

It's kinda counteracted w bonnie too - we know their three favourite foods and I think I still see them depicted eating pineapple most, but it never really gets reduced to a one-note thing. I think them being the team chef is what solidifies that in the writing too - they love cooking and baking all kinds of things! They love vegetables and they love sourcing fresh ingredients, too. There's still so much variety with them!

There's definitely still some annoying fandom things that still ended up happening despite the game pretty firmly avoiding them (like the nuclearisation of found family - there's STILL people who unironically try to make odile a mom, or who try to shove nonexistent sibling dynamics onto siffrin and loop then scream that it's gross to ship them because of it), but the one-note favourite food trope just... Really doesn't exist in this fandom. This one was airtight and I love it.

[lttleghost]

okay I'm like complaining again but I wanna hear other ppls thoughts on this because I'm too impatient to wait until I've gone through all the commentary for BrBa and BCS in search of answers to confirm or deny my suspicions but GOD A FEW THINGS ARE DRIVING ME INSANE and I apologize for this ramble being maybe a lil disjointed in advance

so like, first, this scene-

if I look at this realistically it reads as Jake misinterpreting his and Jesse's parents talking about how Jesse's actions reflect back on them as genuine care, he's young, and I can imagine him having some insecurity in his parents care for him since we do know it is conditional, just Jake is currently meeting those conditions, but sensing that instability could've maybe influenced how he understood his parents talk of his older sibling.

but I just am having a hard time convincing myself that was intended when it was written... and this assessment from me could be unfair because - while I'm not quite sure at what point Jesse was no longer planned to be killed at the end of the first season - this does come from that first season, and I've heard there was a change in how Jesse was written after the first season and throughout the rest of the show there is NO evidence that Jesse's parents like, actually give a fuck about him, they actively make his life worse like when they kicked him out of his own goddamn house, and that all seems like those things have to be intended to make you think "wow Jesse's parents are awful!!!"

but then, not for me to complain about these two scenes in El Camino again but I'm gonna complain about these two scenes in El Camino again -

followed by this not too long after

because while if this movies thing of having blame being squared on Jesse's shoulders was just him talking to his parents it'd be easier to say "oh this is just a kid who was abused in a socially acceptable way not recognizing the abuse he went through and how that really did have a major effect on his life trajectory" but when these two scenes are put so close together it makes it really hard for me to not think that it's TRYING to say that Jesse is responsible for where he ended up even if they don't necessarily want bad things to happen to him

cause like I know, I know the writers are sympathetic towards Jesse but I don't think being sympathetic towards a character like him makes you immune to having harmful beliefs about addicts and criminals when they're so prevalent in wider society, like especially the idea that changing actions taken by individual people is the main problem that needs to be dealt with wrt addiction and crime instead of changing the structural problems that result in addiction and crime, like I've seen this mindset present in the fandom as well

I mean I know I have some evidence that at least Vince's ideas on justice aren't great with this bit from an interview about El Camino (also him having Jesse specifically say "I'm no cop killer" when Jesse would definitely know how cops are just another violent gang, like he could've just said "I don't want to kill anyone" instead of having cops on some higher level of innocence)

like I dunno believing at all that there's a good way to end with Jesse in prison (and not as a way to show how awful prison is either, since he talked about the idea of Jesse finally finding some sort of peace in prison sleeping) is kinda fucked up!!! I do want to fight him for this alone!!! even if like glad he changed it but I dunno the fact that he believes this just makes it easy to believe that he really would!! blame Jesse to at least some extent for what he got into, like I think that he understands Walt manipulated Jesse but I just, I dunno!!! things in BCS kinda bother me too irt just general ideas of crime and drug use ect... but I'm much less familiar with that show in comparison to BrBa so I don't feel as comfortable pointing specific things in it

like... do Vince Gilligan and the writers of Breaking Bad see Jesse’s parents as shit parents who were abusive in a socially acceptable way? or do they really think that they really did their best? is it somewhere in-between? like "they were abusive but they still didn't know any better"? or maybe is it as bad as believing Jesse's parents tried their best and them being rich is supposed to show that he had all he needed to succeed and was just a fuckup (instead of it showing that his parents had all the resources they needed to help him and... didn't) am I just overreacting because I am protective of my girl and the people that I know exist like him and am suspicious of those writing about them if I don't know all their politics behind the subject? I know I've talked to some ppl who have vindicated me w/ some of this but please share ur opinions I want to know the wider ideas on this since I feel like I just don't see it discussed that often

[wings-of-fire-confessions]

Sometimes I feel that the wof fandom hates imperfect victims. I’ve seen a lot of people express hate towards Anemone, Winter, Flame, Arctic*, etc. (*foot note at bottom)

Like yeah, they can suck sometimes, but like I feel some people only like characters that come from a history of abuse if they’re almost perfect, like the DoD.

And like whenever I hear “I liked Anemone before arc 2” I can’t help but think about how she was still under Coral’s influence (and Blister’s and Whirlpool’s) and how her lashing out is heavily restricted under the threat of being punished by Coral (ie a muzzle for speaking out).

Idk sometimes I think people just don’t like the fact that characters with trauma can do bad things, especially when they have no positive outside influence to help them get out of a harmful mindset.

*Before you ask why I added Arctic or say “he can’t be a victim he just sucked!”, I’d like to say that Arctic was in fact a victim both in the Ice Kingdom and Night Kingdom.

In the Ice Kingdom, he was subjected to a cruel ranking system that constantly put pressure on him (and other icewings) to be “perfect” and his own Mother was very controlling over his life. He, himself, was placed into an arranged marriage he had no choice in.

When he ran away with Foeslayer, he was expecting freedom in a way that the Ice Kingdom couldn’t provide.

However, the Night Kingdom, while providing him a place to stay, did not hold the freedom he craved. Instead, he is constantly pressured by the society around him to do things that he doesn’t want to do (having children asap, fighting Icewings in the war, using his animus magic [Vigilance wanted to use his magic. We learn this later in Darkstalker and based on it, would be likely to try and get Arctic to use his magic to win the war if he had of agreed to work with her or lived in the palace with her]). Most Nightwings hate him in the Night Kingdom as they blame him for the war, and he doesn’t really have any other place to go to destress, not even his home has a place to cool down.

What he does still sucks, and his one truly horrible act of enchanting Whiteout is unforgivable, but tbh I don’t think he was thinking with a clear mind. By the time we actually get to him running away with Whiteout, he is seen to be desperate and paranoid. His wife is gone, he learns more and more terrible things about his son as time goes on.

I think just as how Albatross “snapped,” that point in the story was Arctic’s snapping point. He has no reason to stay, no reason to not flee. Vigilance tried to kill Darkstalker, whose to say she wouldn’t try to kill him as well?

While Arctic is certainly toxic, I think his personality in Darkstalker is often exaggerated in fanon. It’s one of those things where he gets seen as worse than what he actually is.

Also people saying that he pulls the “I sacrificed everything for you” card on Foeslayer, tell me exactly what page. Give me evidence. The worse he does that I remember is accuse her of only caring for his power, which is likely a response from her accusing him of not caring for her and her tribe. And where exactly does he blame her for him killing the Icewings in Runaway? The most he does is snap at her that he isn’t okay and that his soul is none of her concern, which she responds with “your soul is of my concern if I’m going to be with you.”

Also having your wife almost get sentenced for treason and needing to be pardoned must’ve really set the tone of how things were going to go for him.

And Prudence (Foeslayer’s mother) was the one that always looked down on Whiteout and Darkstalker being hybrids.*

.

[royboyfanpage]

Can I ask your thoughts and opinions on Mia?

Thank You 🙂

Oh I have SO many thoughts and opinions on Mia Dearden.

I feel like a big issue I've seen with how people try and fit the Arrowfam family dynamic is that they end up erasing a lot of aspects of Mia while doing it. Don't get me wrong, I have seen some brilliant analysis of Mia in fandom, but things such as Mia's early supposed crush on Ollie and her kiss with Connor tend to get ignored in the fandom, or in some cases I've seen people try and use the "DC stands for disregard canon" mentality against these events, which I think are just counterproductive.

In the case of Ollie, Mia having a "crush" on him at the beginning of their relationship IS very important to their father/daughter relationship, both in how Mia views herself and what she believes she deserves and how Ollie is able to disprove her preconceived notions of what a caregiver is supposed to do. It's important to note this panel in particular-

Because this mindset that Richard taught her is very influential for how Mia assumes Ollie will be and what Ollie will want. Because obviously Richard is manipulating and grooming Mia when he says this, but those things Richard claims to be doing- loving and caring for her- are what Ollie actually does do when he takes her in.

The biggest examples of Mia's "crush" on Ollie both take place in #11- her dream where she kisses Ollie, and her outright saying she has a crush on him. In terms of the dream, it's important to take into account that this was the same dream wherein she became Speedy. Mia's lived a significant part of her life at this point where everything has a price- the supposed protection Richard gave her came at the price of sex. Since Mia's dream at that point was becoming Speedy, she automatically assumed that becoming Speedy would come at the price of having to have a sexual relationship with Ollie when we know this isn't what she wants- like she told Richard, all she really wants is to be a kid and be treated like a kid, but she's not used to the idea that that could be a possibility. As for her saying she has a crush on Ollie, that was directly following Ollie expressing genuine paternal affection towards her, something she doesn't have experience with. She doesn't know how to respond to that, so her response is a mix between trying to downplay the genuine moment and saying what she still somewhat believes Ollie wants to hear.

In addition, I was talking to @lesbian-cowpoke recently about this actually, and in their words, "Mia views him as a father and that's WHY she had the "crush" on Ollie. Oftentimes, victims of CSA (especially incestuous ones like mia) will engage in inappropriate behavior and thoughts because of the severe damage sustained to their psyche. There are studies upon studies on how CSA survivors externalize their behaviors and have issues with interpersonal relationships, and sometimes (like in mia's case) go sorta in search if relationships that replicate that behavior" which is really the perfect explanation.

As for Connor, I don't think it takes much reading comprehension to understand that scene. It explicitly says in the scene that the kiss was a gesture and not one of sexual or romantic intent. In that scene, Mia was telling Connor she’s worried she’s dirty and nobody would want to love her because of her HIV, and Connor kissing her was proving to her that there will still be people out there who want to kiss her and give her physical affection in a romantic sense, and to prove that he isn't afraid of her diagnosis. He was co-opting a typically romantic gesture to use in a non romantic way to prove that she is capable of being loved, which is Such an important aspect of her HIV storyline.

I think Mia's story is genuinely one of the most well written stories in DC history. The development of her relationship with the rest of the Arrowfam- particularly with Ollie- is so compelling to read. I love the way their relationship is built because there are so many scenes that just feel so real. Ollie and Mia don't have the perfect father/daughter relationship. They have their ups and downs. But the important thing is they're able to resolve these issues with communication.

I'm also a really big fan of the way Mia inherited the name Speedy, and the parallels between her and Roy are so poignant. Speedy as a name repeatedly humanising stigmatised groups in society- addicts, sex workers, and people with STIs specifically. I also love the fact that to Mia, Roy's one of her biggest heroes not in spite of his addiction but because of it- because he managed to overcome his addiction and survive. Speedy means survival and perseverance and it's the perfect mantle for Mia to take up.

So yeah, those are some of my thoughts and opinions on Mia Dearden :) hope this is okay!

[ingravinoveritas]

Following up on this excellent post from @nightgoodomens, it really is astonishing to see so many people in the GO fandom misunderstanding the characters/personalities of Aziraphale and Crowley. While I by no means am against people having head canons or differing interpretations, it has become frustrating to see people pushing their ideas about Aziraphale and Crowley onto others and declaring them to be official canon, leaving no room for any kind of discussion.

One of the things spoken about in the above linked post is the denigrating of Crowley, which seems to be a near constant in the fandom at this point, particularly in relation to the "apology dance" scene. (Which, to be fair, is chock full of soft!Dom Aziraphale vibes--thank you, Michael Sheen.) What seems to keep getting missed is that the entire apology dance routine is something that Aziraphale and Crowley do to each other. There is just as much of a possibility that Crowley sat there with a similarly smug look on his face and let out a guttural, snakey "Very nice" when Aziraphale did the dance in the years he listed off, because they play this game together.

Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship is one of equals, and I think this is also something people seem to not understand well. It seems as though a lot of fans who project themselves onto Crowley want to be taken care of, and so they want to believe the same of Crowley, and that the reason he wants to be taken care of is because he is broken. But someone doesn't have to be broken to want someone to take care of them. Sometimes the people who are a shambles on the outside can be dominant, just as sometimes the most buttoned up, put together people can also be submissive. And sometimes the people who look in control on the outside can feel not at all that way on the inside.

But this nuanced thinking seems to increasingly be difficult for many GO fans, particularly those who spend a great deal of time on social media, a place where people are either blindly praised or denigrated and torn down, and where such behavior greatly reinforces that binary, black-and-white mindset. We so badly want the world to be clear-cut--good vs. evil, heroes vs. bad guys--but very often that just isn't how things work. And it is exactly what Terry and Neil were trying to speak against in the GO book (and subsequently, the TV show).

The other thing that I think influences a lot of fans' perceptions about Aziraphale and Crowley is their chosen corporations (i.e., Crowley being thin and Aziraphale being plump). There is an automatic assumption that thin somehow equals more vulnerable, and for all of the emphasis that is placed on Aziraphale and Crowley being genderfluid/nonbinary/not subscribing to traditional gender roles, it's Crowley who seems to be viewed as more androgynous/femme, and is therefore looked at as inherently vulnerable. Meanwhile Aziraphale is thicker and viewed as more masculine, and therefore he is somehow inherently not vulnerable. Yet if the body types were reversed, it seems highly likely that fans' attitudes toward them would be much different.

(It also saddens me that this seems to mirror the fans' treatment of Michael and David, where Michael serves as a target for the fans' venom and is seen as less desirable/more threatening because he presents more traditionally masculine, while David is not targeted or attacked and is seen as more desirable/less threatening because he presents much more androgynously. Consequently, many fans find it easy not to sympathize with Michael, and when you can readily disregard someone's feelings, it becomes easier to see them as "less." In the case of Aziraphale and Michael, it leaves no room for either one to be vulnerable and is unfair to both of them.)

What I have always taken away from Good Omens--and from Michael and David's portrayal of Aziraphale and Crowley and how deeply they both understand these characters--is that Crowley doesn't need to be a perfect angel for Aziraphale to like him. He just needs to be a little bit of a good person. And Aziraphale doesn't need to be a perfect demon for Crowley to like him--he just needs to be enough of a bastard to be worth knowing. Neither one has to fully subscribe to the other's outlook or point of view to listen to what they have to say.

Aziraphale and Crowley meet in the middle. In the place that becomes their side, and where they take care of each other, fight with each other, and love each other. And that's more than most of us could ever ask or hope for...

[aristaspark]

Notice how Darius didn't look at Brooklynn's arm?

It's not me who's saying this. That's a conversation that's happening in the fandom that I wanted to talk about because I find it truly...idk, kind of icky, and of bad taste.

I decided to speak about it after having stumbled once again upon a post using Darius' lack of "notice" of Brooklynn's arm as an argument for the ship, but it's far from being the first time I've seen people bring it up.

Don't get me wrong, my problem isn't that they're supporting the ship, even though I believe Kenlynn to be endgame, I can admit that there are elements that could point towards dinostar possibly being endgame, my problem is with this argument specifically, because it looks like the ones using it are purposefully being obtuse, and are missing the point. To me it's a really disrespectful outlook on the work of the writers and their handling of Brooklynn's disability.

For context, Brooklynn explains to Soyona that she doesn't like the way people look at her ever since she has lost her arm. I love this scene. We get an insight into Brooklynn and her struggles, into how she is still adapting to the way people perceive her now that she's "different". The loss of her arm isn't brushed aside, it has lasting consequences that the writers don't shy away from. They consulted people with limb differences to make sure that they'd show an authentic representation of their expericences, and you can see the care that they put into telling that aspect of Brooklynn's story.

Now that we established that, yes, Brooklynn is struggling with the way she is perceived, let's talk about why I hate what the fandom makes of it.

There are two characters who react to Brooklynn's arm: Ben and Kenji. And from Brooklynn's reaction, we see that she feels some type of way about it, even though she has very different reactions to the two of them, because the two interactions are VERY different.

During the scene with Ben, we can see that Ben's gaze, despite himself, is drawn to her arm. That's mainly because he had no idea that she'd lost it, but since they were both very stressed and there were millions of other more "pressing" matters he should have focused on, it hurt Brooklynn that his eyes kept ogling at her arm. Neither of them were in the right mindset. He was slightly insensitive in the way he approached the subject, which caused Brooklynn to react negatively. But it's never shown as a black and white thing. Ben apologizes and afterwards, Brooklynn is able to focus on something else because she's an actual intelligent and social being who's aware that simply because Ben looked at her arm didn't mean that he thought of her as less than. It was a human interaction, realistic, and in no way was it implanted to say something about Ben and Brooklynn's relationship, to imply that Ben having a reaction made him a bad friend somehow. This is simply realistic.

Now, Kenji. He first notices her arm when she's talking to Ben, and we can see that he focuses on it for a hot second, before looking up at her face. Needless to say that in that moment there's a million things going through his mind. Brooklynn is alive, she's there, Ben knew Brooklynn was alive, she has lost a limb... We can see he is hit by all these informations which are way too much for him to process. It's NORMAL, EXCPECTED that he'd have a reaction to seeing her missing arm. Any other reaction would have been stupid. It's as if your lover left for a few days, came back with a missing limb and you said nothing. This doesn't happen. Them writing this into the show says nothing about Kenji's status as a love interest, he shouldn't have to ignore it to be considered a suitable partner and I find it kind of disgusting that people imply this. His lover has lost a limb, of course it will have an impact on him.

Now, the second time he looks at her arm is when he's finally reunited with Brooklynn. But simply reducing this interaction to "Kenji looks at Brooklynn arm -> Brooklynn scared -> Bad = Darius better" is a thought process I'd expect from a pre-schooler.

Kenji spends a very long moment staring only at Brooklynn, at HER FACE, expressing his emotions (beautiful scene by the way). Then he WILLINGLY looks at her arm. Kenji's aware that she's looking at him and he has already seen her arm, the only reason he looks down at her arm is because he wants HER to be aware that he has seen it, and one shouldn't have to be a genius to understand this. And he looks incredibly sad because, I know that's crazy, but as someone who love(d)s her, this impacts him. And Brooklynn has a reaction, I know that's crazy. But unlike with Ben, she looks scared, not mad. I won't spend too much time on this because I already did a brief "analysis" of this scene, but I took it as either she was scared that he'd see her differently, either it was the manifestation of all the hurt she's suffered (yk, often when you open up about something, you feel the emotions as you tell the story, and to me this could be Brooklynn allowing herself to show someone she's suffering for the first time, as if a silent conversation had taken place. Kenji asks what happened to her arm with his eyes, and all the hurt comes flooding back as she's reminded of everything she's been through).

Now, some people use the fact that Darius didn't even glance at her arm as, idk, a good thing, patting him on the back for it (which, on its own, is incredibly weird to me). Yasmina and Sammy didn't look at it either, but since they're not shipped with Brooklynn most don't care, it's not about disability but about somehow gaining points in the battle for Brooklynn.

But I'm like, you have to purposely being obtuse to use this as an argument. If I was Brooklynn and I was presumed dead for a long time, and when I came back I had a limb missing (implying an immense amount of suffering) I would absolutely want my partner and my friends to notice it ??? ESPECIALLY the person I love?? Actually, if he didn't notice I would straight up hate him because that would just mean that he DOESN'T CARE.

Implying that strangers looking at Brooklynn's arm and her loved ones reacting to her evident trauma are the same thing is wild, but using it as an argument for shipping is worse and, to me, an insult to all the work the writers have done to tackle the subject of disability. There isn't some checklist of people who looked at her arm and people who didn't, Darius (as well as Yaz and Sammy) don't deserve a cookie (or Brooklynn's love for that matter 🙃) because they didn't look at it. Ben and Kenji reacting to her arm doesn't mean that they somehow care less about the fact that Brooklynn's alive or that they love her less than the others, and Darius isn't "special" for not having looked at her arm, because Sammy and Yaz also didn't. It simply means that they are well written characters who react to things in their own, sometimes clumsy way.

What bothers me is that these scenes clearly weren't implanted for shipping matters, but are part of the characters' journeys with Brooklynn's disability, and her own journey. Them being present doesn't somehow put a definitive stain on Brooklynn's relationships with Kenji and Ben, things don't work like that. If anything I find Kenji's scene with her to be very touching, because you can just see how devastated he is for her, and how frightened she is.

It's not the fact that people look at her that hurts Brooklynn, it's the reason and the manner in which they look at her.

Idk to me it's kind of disrespectful to the work the writers did because it's implying that they tried to say Darius was the one for Brooklynn simply because he didn't care for his friend's severed limb. I think there are better arguments to make for dinostar, and less insensitive, than to reduce this very important topic to shipping.

Anyway, thanks for coming to my ted talk 😭