#it's not at all related to how I view him as a character it's just really fun

[iasirene]

Anya at her most basic is a representation of women under patriarchy, rape culture, and capitalism. Rape culture doesn’t just include the rapists. It also includes the “good” men- who have never raped/sexually assaulted anyone but don’t do anything or call out their predatory friends. Rape culture is a product of toxic masculinity- which views women as nothing more than a sexual conquest. That your inherent value as a man is how many women you can fuck. It should also be noted that rape is not about sexual attraction, it is about complete and absolute power, humiliation, and degradation. Under capitalism, women are not only exploited for their wage labor, but for their sexuality as well. Think about how many people have an onlyfans to make ends meet. How many women have been forced into sex work to survive in this society. The fact that so many women can relate to Anya’s character is alarming but at the same time not shocking. I think fans like to headcanon Swansea saving Anya because fuck it’s what we all want, she suffered horribly under Jimmy and you just want to see him get taken the fuck out. But in a realistic situation? Most men wouldn’t have done anything unfortunately. This is not me saying that all men are perpetuators of rape culture, not at all. There are women who also perpetuate stereotypes and victim blame other women victims. Rape is not only the fault of the individual, but also a systemic marker for an extremely sick and depraved society- because rape culture is not only the crimes- it is also the jokes, downplaying, and normalization of misogyny. I love this game because everything is hauntingly real and well done.

OK IM SORRY I LOVE SWANSEA BUT I GOTTA SAY SOMETHIGN

ive seen SOOO many people saying "if swansea knew, he wouldn't have ignored it like curly did!"

but thats the thing. HE. DID.

Two months after the crash, jimmy walks in on anya and swansea having a private convo - this is later revealed by swansea to be "her telling me really interesting things about you [jimmy]." anya told him TWO MONTHS IN.

and when does swansea try to kill jimmy? Five months in. and ONLY AFTER JIMMY LEADS TO DAISUKE'S DEATH.

It took DAISUKE being harmed for Swansea to take action! He knew for three months!

Mouthwashing is about how inaction only causes further harm and this is present in SEVERAL characters! Both Curly and Swansea failed to take action immediately, and this failure only ended up hurting THEM.

its unknown how long curly knew - he was only told about the pregnancy a day before the crash, but anya explicitly says 'i told you.' when asked who the father was, implying curly knew beforehand, which couldve been days or years - so for all we know, curly couldve known about it for less time than swansea had, and any opportunity he had to act was taken from him.

swansea is not better. curly is not better. there is only the fact that they both failed anya and the consequences that had

tldr, i love swansea but pleasseee stop saying he'd be better than curly because he wasnt and thats the whole point

[avelera]

Hi, I wanna say I really like your posts and enjoy your meta's about jayce.

So I wanna ask a question: How do you interpret jayce's behaviour here?

Personally, I have always believed that since jayce came from a family of blacksmiths, he would at least know how to negotiate or essentially haggle to an extent so do you think that it's on purpose that jayce isn't particularly shown to haggle when it comes to his interactions with zaunites?

Also, aside from that I think silco and Jayce's last scene really goes unnoticed by many epssically when jayce genuinely chooses to be fully transparent and honest with silco admitting that he is scared.

Short answer: My interpretation of this scene is that it is meant to show how privileged and naive Jayce is.

Just to be clear, I adore Jayce, but I will still admit to his flaws as a character. But, I will also point out when "flaws" like privilege can also lead to generous or otherwise laudable behavior, because it's easy to be a saint in paradise.

As for the longer answer, Jayce doesn't haggle for a few reasons:

1 ) Jayce doesn't haggle because he's never known real hardship. He's from a family of blacksmiths, yes, but of a particular flavor. He's actually from a family of factory owners and toolmakers. He's middle class shading to upper middle class either by virtue of being the son of a factory owner or certainly by the time Hextech takes off. What Benzo was charging probably didn't cost that much to him, especially with Kiramman money backing him up. He needed the items more than he needed a bargain to have them. It probably didn't even occur to him to try to get a deal because of how little the items cost to him.

2 ) Jayce doesn't haggle because of cultural differences. To a Zaunite, it's unthinkable not to haggle. To a Piltoverian of a certain class, it's probably unthinkable to haggle.

I've felt this cultural difference as a person from the US while traveling. You would never haggle in the area I'm from (I don't claim to speak for the entire US), because most shops have an established price and that's what you pay. It would be incredibly rude in most instances to haggle. But when I've traveled to other parts of the world, Turkey for example, it's not considered rude at all, but expected. In places like the Istanbul Grand Bazaar, it's expected and there's etiquette governing it, and US customers are regularly fleeced for 10x the actual price if not more.

But you have to understand too, in relation to Jayce and as referenced in point 1, one reason US customers get fleeced in those places is because the amount being demanded as 10x more than the cost of the item is still a negligible amount for them. An item that they could haggle down to 50 cents costing $5 instead isn't really a big deal. Especially if you're on vacation anyway, you can afford to be generous, even if it means getting mocked behind your back as a sucker.

And for some there's an element of generosity to not haggling. Why would I haggle to get a $5 item down to $2, when it's a negligible difference for me, I want the item, and the person I'm haggling with needs the money more? Which leads into:

3 ) Jayce doesn't haggle because he's a good person at heart. Zaunites from Ekko to Silco are aghast at Jayce's lack of haggling, so it's not just a financial thing, it's a cultural thing. But even with the case of Silco, I'd argue one reason Jayce doesn't haggle is because he sees himself in a position of strength. He knows that independence matters more to Zaun than it matters to the Councilors in Piltover, who might whinge about it and the potential profit losses of losing sovereignty over Zaun, but they've been neglecting Zaun for years so boohoo, they can suck it up and get over it.

That to me is Jayce's view. Jayce admits that Zaun is asking for a lot of privileges that probably should be haggled over, like access to the Hexgates and blanket amnesty, but all that would do is drag out the process, possibly lead to more conflict if tensions rise again during the negotiations, and it would still lead to the same conclusion: Zaun deserves to be its own nation after Piltover neglected it. Jayce is a direct thinker and he decides it's better to just rip the bandaid off and let the chips fall where they may, rather than try to nickel and dime Zaun's negotiations when it would cost nothing AND be the morally correct choice for Piltover to just let them go.

One a final note: I think one reason we're seeing Jayce become a more beloved figure in S2 is because we can now see how radical and progressive his negotiated peace with Silco actually was.

When we only had the context of S1, Jayce's negotiation can come across as too little, too late, or even foolish. But when you see at the end of S2 that, as far as we can tell, without the negotiation going into place, Zaun doesn't have independence and only gains one seat on the Council, you can really see why Jayce using his position of authority while he had it to cut through the bullshit and right what he saw as a systemic wrong in one fell swoop might have been naive but it might have also been the radical change that the city desperately needed. Granted, we'lll never know if the Councilors were right and there could have been negative consequences to not negotiating more. Maybe handing an independent Zaun to Silco and the Chem Barons without haggling would have led to further disaster.

But as the show's theme constantly reiterates, "What could have been?" I think we can see better now that Zaun didn't get everything Jayce was willing to give them at the end of S1, and that's a tragedy. If nothing else, Jayce's willingness to not haggle even when he could wasn't just foolishness, it was because his heart was in the right place and he thought they deserved it. It might be a long time before there's another chance at that kind of progress again without the Man of Progress.

[lesbiandreamriso]

What I really like about Pluto is how morally gray almost every character is (with the exception of my baby Pim). I wanna talk about Kosol and May and why I think Ben is the MVP.

As a certified May defender my favourite ship is still Kosol x Jail. However alot of Kosol haters would be Kosol. Think about it. Your best friend is almost murdered and has to live the rest of his life disabled. His mom who is also a parental figure in your life kills herself. You want revenge but you cant go after the criminal who has all the resources to get himself a slap on the wrist so you go after the shady lawyer that got him off because in your mind its the lawyers fault.

She didnt hurt your friend but she let a criminal back into the streets. Her defense got him a win in the court of public approval. Instead of being seen as the murderous bastard he is he's seen as a hero now and your friend is a nameless motorpunk who deserved it.

Its terrible but it is realistic and the profession of law is fundamentally immoral. The job of a lawyer isn't to seek justice its to defend their client and while we the audience can understand this because we are far removed from the repurcussions of May's actions if it were your friend or your family you would be tempted to get some payback even if you didnt do it.

Cases like this cause me to have a huge amount of cognitive dissonance because i love stories about vigilante justice. I know if this story was from Kosol's pov I probably wouldn't feel as bad for May as I do.

With Pluto alot of the central characters have some sort of logic behind what they do no matter how shaky. The difference between villian and victim depends on the point of view and the amount of informatiom we have at any given moment. Kosol is wrong no matter how you slice it but the only reason why we think May didnt deserve it is because we know and love May.

May knows this too. She may not have hurt Ben or killed his mom but she set his attacker free. Her crime was enabling and she feels terrible about it because under normal circumstances she wouldn't do it. That's why she wont turn him in. She believes those who do wrong deserve punishment. In her mind she did wrong and the universe punished her. The specifics dont matter anymore especially when you factor in Ai oon's relationship with Kosol.

Back to Ben. I say he is the Mvp because he has every reason to hate May and hold what she did over her head forever. He has an idea of the guilt and anguish she's facing because he no doubt blames himself for his mom's death the way May does and he not only frees himself from the prison of guilt and pain he likely lived in for years, he freed her too. If I were in his position I wouldn't have the strength to do it.

This is very much an explanation not an excuse. As a May lover my favourite ship is still Kosol x Jail but as a person who sometimes lets thoughts slip through when I watch shows I have complex feelings about Kosol. No love or hatred just confusion and because of that he may be one of my favourite gl characters in 2024. In terms of writing.

Side note: Ai oon's reaction to finding out the news also reinforces this point. She was far removed from the repercussions of Kosols action. She saw only the "villian" side of May and decided to pass judgement, determining what she did and didnt deserve. Then she meets May and falls in love. Now she is haunted by the fact that she not only enabled the crime that caused the person she loves most to become blind. She inspired it. She planted the seed. We can say she did nothing wrong. I maintained that stance till i found out she knew exactly what Kosol did and didn't stop him. Now I think she is partially guilty but ultimately Kosol is a grown man who makes his own choices and he choose to do what he did. The real question this episode is asking is how do we measure guilt. Does being a bystander make you guilty? An enabler? Or a perpetrator? The answer is all but only sometimes. Everything is relative it just depends on who is telling the story.

The last thing I'll say is there is no villian in this story just people doing questionable things for love and getting mixed results. I know the gl fandom loves a black and white hero vs villian narrative. I have fallen victim to this in the past when talking about kosol and oom but pluto has shown that its a show that requires a more critical lense. Lets ignore personal feelings about the characters for a minute and really examine their actions as objectively as we can. The discourse around the show could be so fun if we did.

[dykedvonte]

Something something perhaps the reason Curly lacks a truly undamaged ID where his face is visible is to represent how much damage Jimmy had already affected on him throughout their relationship and the way Curly obscured part of who he is and what he stood to unintentionally cater to this toxic influence in his life.

[littlelicho]

i've been called! i analysed it way too much not to say anything

Just A Man and its role is something i've been pondering over a couple of days ago, actually, and i came up with a little something. a little theory, if you will

the Just A Man bridge is not about being a man, nor about being a monster - it's a question about the tipping point with a hint of foreshadowing

when you look at this bridge - as transcribed in the original post - and at how it is composed in terms of structure and imagery, it's relatively easy to notice it revolves around quantitative questions. even those that seem (rightfully so) qualitative at first glance, 'comet to meteor' and 'reason to blame', can be framed as quantitative: how long distance in earth's atmosphere has to pass for a comet to be considered a meteor?* to what degree of intensity does the reason have to accumulate to be seen as blame for things?

*factually speaking, a comet becomes a meteor while burning up upon entering the atmosphere

quantitative questions that are asked to point the line between A and B would have, ideally, a precise answer. but if the boundaries of two sets are blurry, how can you pinpoint the exact moment A becomes B?

(normally that's where a fun little word "discrete" comes in, but i'll spare you the details)

if psychological notions are somewhat more up your lane, may i suggest linking this to the problem of categorisation in theories of concepts and mental representations of objects? i find Eleanor Rosch's prototype theory to be especially helpful here (the prototype is most similar to other members of the category and least similar to members of other categories)

with me so far?

even though we can't find the specific point in time or other measure for one thing to become the other, those two things are unequivocally separate and different objects, which suggests there is at least a relatively narrow space where the transition happens.

the bridge hinges on the question when? which suggests we're looking for a point in time aka an event.

so what event can show us how a ripple becomes a tidal wave? when a flame is big enough to be a fire?

the answer is, i daresay, none.

no one event is that transition. instead, one situation builds upon another. until they reach the tipping point.

pushed to their limit, the individual reaches the point of transition by being put in a situation - aka forced to make a choice, because what moulds a situation more than the choices made? - where the consequence is to either let the thing break you or change so that it won't.

the narrow space of transition we were looking for is this tipping point where a situation, a choice, or both, significantly propel the character in a new direction, transform them.

let's take a little break from that - for just a bit - to notice another thing: how the bridge begins. the transition from the first part of the song to this one goes, lyrically, like this,

I'm just a man But when does a man become a monster?

it makes a coherent sentence, doesn't it? but musically, those two verses are significantly different. the first one is almost a capella (sung without instruments), while the second is more intense, with a new beat and lack of earlier legato strings, even if the whole range of instruments (and voices, interestingly) takes a while to unravel. i would see it as a hint that even though the concepts presented are related - heavily - they are not identical. Odysseus' view of himself as "just a man" is, of course, linked to the question of the tipping points between different versions of his character, but the question isn't exclusive to the transitions of his attitudes and approaches. it's still general, nearly rhetorical: where's the line? or, more specifically, how much can you push him to his limits until he's either broken or changed?

and that, i think, is foreshadowing to what Odysseus' story is exploring, among others

now let's tie it all back to the story

the first time we heard the bridge - and its motif of the question - is both the introduction of the concept and the first tipping point: Zeus, the king of gods, demands Odysseus to kill a child.

he complies. he also doesn't mention it again until literally half of the whole musical (song Monster)

the second time we hear the motif is during Ruthlessness after Poseidon kills over 500 of Odysseus' men and is set on striking him in just a moment. but more specifically, it's sung as a background for a very interesting exchange:

odysseus, sounding broken and terrified and in shock (understandably), asks poseidon what have you done?

when does a ripple become a tidal wave? sings ensemble

forty-three left under your command, Poseidon points out

when does a man become a monster?

Odysseus' own words from Remember Them get repeated back to him: I am your darkest moment / The monster that always draws near

and then Poseidon adds, almost like an afterthought, any last words?

and here's the thing - the underlying message is: you're dying in a sec, bud, no way around it. say your goodbyes or your manifesto, whatever is fine because you won't be here in the next moment.

then the most fascinating thing happens - Odysseus, seemingly broken only a few seconds ago, now confidently and forcefully exclaims that no, he is not dying, thank you very much. he opens the windbag and yeets himself and the rest of the survivors the hell out of there.

i believe that short second of silence between Poseidon's question and Odysseus' answer, alongside a build-up to it, is the second tipping point, where Odysseus makes a very fateful choice: to put up a fight and come out on the other side alive. the motif appears to foreshadow the defining choice that is about to be made.

i think the contrast of Odysseus' responses between the first and the second tipping point tells us a lot about the way it influenced him - choices he makes after them both even more so, which could be the whole essay in itself, to be honest. from my perspective, he finds the strength to fight in Ruthlessness because the choice to obey the gods and kill a child broke something in him - and he can't afford any more of that if he's to come back to Penelope and Telemachus

the third time the motif appears is during Thunder Bringer.

specifically between Odysseus' begging Zeus by repeating the lines from The Horse and The Infant (Please don't make me do this / Don't make me do this) and his exchange with Eurylochus ("Captain?" / "I have to see her." / "But we'll die." / "I know.")

this conversation is how we find out that Odysseus made his choice and what it is, the bridge once again coming right before and/or during a defining moment in his story.

what, for me, also cements this as another tipping point, is that Penelope's/siren's promise to free him from suffering is incorporated in-between the lines as well - this promise can easily be, and often is, read as luring Odysseus to give up and die, and therefore be freed of his turmoil. so the choice between himself and his crew is not only the choice of who is forced to die but also who is forced to live. and just as with Poseidon, Odysseus refuses to give up.

it's easy to assume the motif is there to showcase Odysseus truly "becoming a monster" - which is the idea i deeply dislike, i don't believe he actually ever did that - but i argue that his decision to sacrifice six of his men to pass Scylla would be a way better of an example of such a behaviour, if one were to assume this transition.

interestingly enough, the motif doesn't return in either Monster or Six Hundred Strike, which are often framed as events when Odysseus "embraces the monster in him" and therefore should be, theoretically, considered a tipping point. again, i don't agree with this interpretation, and for me, that's another argument for why a so-called villain arc is not a story in EPIC.

to sum up: i believe that Just A Man bridge serves as a question of "where's the limit that incites change?" and appears as a foreshadowing or a companion to a choice that not only pushes Odysseus to his limit in one way or another but also changes something for him, influencing the direction of his character development.

that's all just a theory, of course. i thought of something, of a way to interpret the story, and analysed the whole thing to see if it was there, but that also means i may have fallen for the confirmation bias. there's also a good chance there's something i didn't consider that would invalidate either most of it or some crucial part

i am eagerly waiting to see how the Ithaca saga will conclude the story, what it'll tell us about Odysseus and the ways he's changed - and maybe it'll prove me partially or completely wrong!

i do believe the idea is worthy of at least consideration, though, and if anyone is still here after this long, labyrinthine essay, i want to thank you so so much for reading, it means the world to me. have a great day, and lots of love! 💕

There's something interesting about the chorus of "Just A Man" being used in different sections when Odysseus is facing off against two different gods.

The original full chorus is:

"But when does the comet become a meteor?

When does the candle become the blaze?

When does a man become a monster?

When does a ripple become a tidal wave?

When does the reason become the blame?

When does a man become a monster?"

We hear the words just a man being used in different contexts - Athena telling Odysseus he's just a man, Odysseus calling himself Just A Man when facing Circe and when he deals with what he's about to do to Astyanax, but the only two moments a part of the Just a Man chorus were used were in:

Ruthlessness - right after Poseidon kills most of his men.

The only section we hear then is "When does a ripple become a tidal wave, when does a man become a monster?"

So in this case, what comes before it's excluded, and the sentence "when does the reason become the blame is too"

Thunder Bringer - right after Zeus tells Odysseus he can choose who lives and who dies.

This time around, they bring back The Horse and The Infant and then they bring back: "

when does the comet become a meteor?

When does the candle become the blaze?

When does a man become a monster?

When does a ripple become a tidal wave?

When does the reason become the blame?

When does a man become a monster?"

And the thing that makes me wonder about the symbolism - allegory if you will - of these moments.

In the first one, it is pretty clear that he's questioning at which point he'll become a monster if he does this and at what point will this child become so much of a threat that a god comes to warn me about it.

In the second one, Odysseus isn't making any choices - but rather having someone else inflicting something onto him.

In the third, he's again being offered a choice - that's not really a choice at all because both he and Zeus know what he'll do.

I'm not entirely sure the point Jorge is making with Just a Man - because I need to check and see in what context it'll be used again in Ithaca saga, but I couldn't help but notice the pattern when relistening to all the sagas.

It doesn't seem to strike a parallel of Odysseus becoming a monster - because I discussed this already, and he's not going through a villain arc -, because of the moments where he chose to reimplement the themes of the song, but I'm also not entirely sure of the connection - or if there's one - at this point.

Do you guys have any thoughts?

[lattuce]

shoutout to media with only one female character that’s just a vessel for a sexual assault and/or pregnancy plot line with very little or no characterization beyond that

[sweetandsourcookies]

lying here in bed and thinking abt how alienated out i feel in the cookie run fandom. and then theres a polish sitcom playing in the background from a different room.

[kindest-little-fella-in-town]

i want to clarify that when i say autistic morris i dont mean like “stimmy socially-inept infodumper” autistic morris. i mean like “too paranoid to get too close with anyone without cutting them off, starts thinking about suicide if the jojamart layout is changed and starts drafting a plan if the schedule changes, would drink an entire bucket of small needles in one gulp if it made him appear normal and would refuse to see a doctor afterwards” morris.

[cluescorner]

Randomized Robins AU - Ages + Worst Trait Exercise:

Steph (25):

Says her worst trait is her murderous rages (she is exaggerating for dramatic/comedic effect, she’s killed 3 people tops and for very good reason)

Thinks her worst trait is her spitefulness (one of the few traits she definitely got from her father + one that prevents her from fixing her relationships and living her best possible life. She’ll refuse to interact with someone she dearly loves after an argument (happens significantly less after Tim’s death) or will say things she knows are hurtful just for the sake of having the last word. This trait will worsen in some ways as the list of people who have wronged her and those she loves grows, but will also ease up as she matures and realizes the harm it’s doing to her relationships with those she loves most.)

Her worst trait really is her spitefulness

Cass (26)

Says her worst trait is her self-righteousness (she believes that her goals are righteous and, as a result, she is righteous. Cass becomes very defensive whenever someone questions the mission and often does not second-guess herself. This is a trait she only develops later in life as she grows closer to Bruce/learns to understand herself more/starts to love herself more. But she knows she isn’t perfect and when somebody she trusts criticizes something she is doing she is willing to listen. She just usually isn’t the one to START the introspection.) 

Thinks her worst trait is her self-righteousness. 

Her worst trait actually is her obsessiveness (she gets it from Bruce and, while not as bad as him, she will easily become preoccupied with her night-life and the mission if someone isn’t there to pull her back. She will do this to the point of self-destruction and it hurts her relationships with the people she loves, especially Steph.)

Tim (24)

Says his worst trait is his spitefulness (he actively rejects the idea of mending his relationships with the older members of the family and this causes him to also lack good relationships with the younger ones)

Thinks his worst trait is his obsessiveness (similar to Cass, if he gets fixated on a task or idea he will neglect everything else in his life in order to dedicate more time to it. Unlike Cass, he will almost never be dragged away from it unless Pierrot snatches control of the body and forces them to take care of themself.)

His worst trait actually is how manipulative he is (the KING of guilt-tripping and using people’s emotions against them. He’ll do whatever he needs to do to get what he wants, he’s not above crocodile tears. And he will do it to whoever he needs (or wants) to with little care for how his actions impact others.)

Pierrot (Insists: “Age doesn’t apply to me! And even if it did, I'd probably be the oldest. Or the youngest! I’d never be a middle child, though.” Mental assessments by the Bats have put him around 21, with a margin of error of 3 years. Pierrot has called this “blatant character assassination by my eternal rival!”)

Says his worst trait is that he is an irredeemable psychopath without any regard for the wellbeing of others (this is a lie and everyone who's important to him understands this). 

Thinks his worst trait is his parasitic nature (he literally would not exist had Tim not suffered the way he did. Plus he is a living reminder of one of the worst things that happened to many of his loved ones. He is a parasite injected into a functional person's body and contributes to his continued suffering. This is also a largely incorrect judgement of himself, caused by his actual worst trait.)

His worst trait actually is his limited sense of self (he doesn’t really know who he is outside of ‘inheritor to the legacy of the Joker (a man he despises yet also views as a father)’ and ‘chip in Tim’s brain that became sentient’. He slowly develops an identity over the course of his life and relationships with other people, but he lacks the foundations of identity that most people have. Pierrot will often almost become a caricature of himself and what others perceive him to be because it's the only person he knows how to be. This causes wild swings in how he behaves and relates to others, sometimes to the detriment of himself and others.)

Dick (17) 

Says his worst trait is his clinginess (he is a very extraverted person who likes to be around others, which mixed with his fear of abandonment after his parents died means that if he goes a few days without seeing/talking to a friend he will get very anxious.)

Thinks his worst trait is his anger issues (he gets ticked off very easily and will explode on people. He’s kind at his core and is usually very nice, but he has a temper that can escalate significantly. Spoiler (and later Twist) help him channel this anger into something positive.)

His worst trait actually is his anger issues.

Barbara (18)

Says her worst trait is her disability (internalized ableism, she thinks of herself as less valuable than the other Bats because she cannot be out there in the capes like they can. She will grow out of this as she matures and as she learns how invaluable her support for the team is.)  

Thinks her worst trait is her disability 

Her worst trait actually is her overly-independent nature (In an attempt to overcompensate for everything she can no longer do, she has resolved to do literally everything that she possibly can without any help from others. This results in many instances where she either takes on too much and winds up not being able to fully realize any of her tasks or where she makes her life and the lives of others significantly harder by refusing help when offered/not asking for it when she needs it.)

Damian (16)

Says his worst trait is his perfectionism (he is overly critical of both himself and others, taking any flaw or problem and amplifying it to an absurd degree. This is due in part to his life with the LoA (where even a brief misstep could lead to death), in part to how others treated him initially as Spoiler (any flaw was fixated on and used as a reason to either mistrust him or portray him as unworthy of the mantle), and in part due to the fact that he is Bruce’s son (the only person with worse perfectionism problems than Damian). Gradually, Damian has improved in this regard but it’s still a massive barrier to both his own happiness and his relationships with others.)

Thinks his worst trait is his perfectionism 

His worst trait actually is his perfectionism

Duke (16)

Says his worst trait is his definitely-real secret evil side (says this as a ‘my dad is a villain so who knows??’ joke)

Thinks his worst trait is his impulsivity in his words (Sometimes he will crack a joke or say a remark without thinking it through, leading to a LOT of hurt feelings and drama. He’ll say something without thinking it through and wind up seeming insensitive. This isn’t done because of malice, rather because Duke is someone who’s quick to act and speak. But while the mantle of Insight and his awakening powers have helped him with his actions, they do not always help with his loose tongue. As such, Duke gains an unfair reputation in the media as an instigator and will accidentally cause family drama through what he says.)

His worst trait actually is his impulsivity in his words

Jason (14)

Says his worst trait is his bad manners (he grew up on the streets and has no idea how rich-people society works, which he’s pretty insecure about considering he’s now the youngest kid of Bruce freaking Wayne). 

Thinks his worst trait is his reactiveness (Jason never got the privilege of planning ahead for various events in his life, so he instead needed to rely on being swift and harsh in how he could react to situations. It’s saved his life on multiple occasions and helps significantly in his role as Spoiler, but it can also lead to extreme overreactions (accidentally causing kidnapping scare after Jason ran away following a fight with Dick) and a struggle to plan things out ahead of time. As he grows more secure in his place in the family and in life, this trait will lessen but never fully dissipate.)

His worst trait actually is his reactiveness

[hanzajesthanza]

nooo like reading maria janion's such comprehensive overview of vampires and what defines a vampire and how the myth changes through times and authors, as entirely expected, has contributed to my regis brainrot.

because though it's obvious how many tropes regis subverts as he literally talks about himself, it's more overwhelming when they're all summarized focused on examples from across history and the literature canon, and pretty much hitting none of them or fucking with all of them. because it's not that he just doesn't fit in within his own fantasy universe, but that he doesn't fit in within the broader canonical definition...

"my personal vision of fantasy (...) he is not the typical vampire bloodsucker, according to the dictates of the canon" ... uggghhhh sapkowski, in his witcher, by challenging all genre expectations and tropes, creates all of these characters that don't fit in anywhere, neither in their universe or in the broader canon. and thus, can only find fraternity with each other

i was just reading like 'so... so he doesn't fit in *anywhere*... 🥺'. regis in baptism of fire explaining how he doesn't conform to either vampiric expectations of vampires (socially, for his personal principles) nor of human expectations of vampires (biologically, for his literal existence). but it even goes farther when you look beyond the witcher and to the broader literary and mythological canon. in practically every understanding of a vampire he would not be recognized as one of them... and does he even want to.

[im-gonna-be-weird-about-it]

Me, a casual viewer of BFU: True Crime and Puppet History, clicking on the Making Watcher playlist: Oh, its so nice that the boys got to start their own company :)

Me, 40 minutes later, no longer a causal viewer after seeing Ryan Bergara talk about his anxiety and then almost cry on camera because he is so happy that his friend agreed to work at his new company: 

[mad-hunts]

no, but have i talked about this on here before? because i don't think i have yet. though i was just thinking about all of the different people that barton has been interested in romantically, and one of them that definitely stands out to me is auriel. because even he doesn't really know what it is, but in the main story for barton, she's been missing for quite some time. i'm talking like ever since his final year of undergrad. so, it's been more than a decade since barton has seen her and yet, he still checks whether anyone with her physical description has suddenly shown up again in gotham.

and he has actually made an effort to compile whatever evidence he could pertaining to auriel's disappearance, which... although there hasn't been anything new as to where his character is in the timeline of events right now? barton may be the only person in gotham who is actively looking for her anymore. plus, before auriel went missing, she had actually lent one of her coats to him and i swear to god... this man has never taken care of an article of clothing better than he's taken care of her coat. so, this kind of makes me wonder how barton's usual behavior could be so contrary compared to him doing something like this.

i mean, judging by how he behaves around most people (which is basically TERRIBLY, to put it simply jsjsj), i think that he must've felt like they had a deeper connection between each other somehow. though auriel herself is certainly not a villain. so i'm saying this in terms of barton perhaps trusting her enough to tell her things that he wouldn't normally tell a soul, like how he was (and still somewhat is) afraid of his bio father as a kid. but yeah — seeing as i know what had happened to her character, this hits especially hard for me 😭 because she may not be dead but auriel certainly hasn't been in a good spot for a longgg time

[angelsdean]

my tags on my prev reblog re: dean's misinterpreted attitude toward monsters just got me thinking abt sam and the bloodfreak stuff in general and like, as we know a lot of the early seasons were framed in sam's pov so a lot of the time it' him who's feeling like a monster and projecting that onto others to confirm his own beliefs abt himself. like when he finds out abt john telling dean to kill him if he goes darkside sam suddenly is in agreement w/ john saying john's right and dean has to do it because dad said so !!! anyways that's just preface to what i want to say which is, sam isn't really a monster. what i mean is, he's not a monster in the inherent sense that he seems to think he is, and that's part of the reason why dean pushes back against the demon blood stuff because he knows sam can be saved and for dean his number one job is to save sam because the alternative is following john's order and that's something he just cannot do. so it makes sense that dean would do whatever it takes even if that's being a little mean or forceful (calling him a monster, echoing john by telling him not to walk out that door to give sam pause, forcing him to detox) because he does not want to kill his brother.

but anyways, sam is not a monster in the way he (and a lot of fans) thinks he's a monster. he was Not born a monster, it's not something that is intrinsically and inherently part of him. and i'd argue there's really nothing special or "chosen one"-esque about him (aside from the lucifer bloodline making him a better candidate for vessel purposes), he was just a regular baby who was dosed with demon blood, which in the text is treated as a drug / addiction. there was nothing special about any of the babies azazel dosed, they were just the children of people he'd made deals with. i think pretty much any baby (possibly even adult) who's fed demon blood from a powerful enough demon (like a Prince of Hell) would develop psychic powers. so it's not something completely out of his control that's turning him into a monster like a virus or a vampire / werewolf bite where he can't stop the progression. it's not happening to him he's making active choices to strengthen those powers and the more he feeds the more he wants it. everything w/ ruby is framed as him knowing he's doing something "wrong", the sneaking around, the lying. and i think dean's response is along the lines of "we need to get you help. we need to stop this because it's something that can be stopped. and if we stop it then i won't have to see you lose yourself or go too far. because if you go too far and start hurting people then i might have to kill you and i can't do that so please just let us save you." and i think that's fair. yes he and bobby maybe go about things the wrong way but i think it's born out of desperation. and also it's not a rejection of "this is who you are and we hate you for being a monster" it's "you're making choices that are leading you down a dangerous path and we're scared we may lose you so we're trying to stop you from going too far down that road."

like the end goal of all the bloodfreak stuff (ruby's end goal) was to free lucifer and freeing lucifer would mean sam becoming his vessel. they obviously don't know all that at the time, but in hindsight it's like, yea we should've curbed that bloodfreak stuff sooner. also heaven was telling dean to stop sam too and that he was going down a dangerous path and that if dean doesn't stop him they will (likely meaning death) so again, of course dean's gonna try to do whatever he can to stop sam even if it's by not great methods. (also heaven was playing him too bc they also wanted lucifer to be freed so that Destiny could come to pass)

[pand1on]

I don't know why I like drawing shadow being cool or whatever because I do not view him as cool. he's a funny little guy to me. I guess it's part of killing the part of me that cringes or something

[agoddamnrayofsunshine]

I’m sure someone has talked about this before but one thing I absolutely love about tbosas is how Snow’s descent into villainy is never once presented as something that was inevitable

So many villain origin stories portray this idea of a person who tries incredibly hard to be a good person, who takes every opportunity to be kind and to better themselves, but are ultimately doomed to fail by the narrative. Their environment and their circumstances make it impossible for them to be a good person, and while this is effective from a storytelling point of view it’s not exactly accurate to real life

In real life there is always a point where a bad person makes the decision to do something bad, they make the decision to prioritise themselves, their own power, money or desires over someone else. That’s how real life dictators are made, they are presented with every opportunity to be good, and they purposefully choose to not take it

This makes Snow’s storyline so effective because he is given so many opportunities to do the right thing and yet, at every single turn, he chooses to serve himself instead, exactly like how real dictators are made

Snow, unlike most people we see in the capitol, is in a unique position where he could genuinely have the chance to understand and relate to the people from the districts. He, unlike his classmates, is poor and spends most nights going hungry, he witnessed firsthand the cruelty of the capitol when Clemensia was bitten by the snakes for nothing more than lying about doing her homework, when his sister was forced to sell herself on the streets in order to feed the both of them

Throughout his book, the three people he is closest to are Tigris (who dislikes the hunger games, is a rebel, and a victim of the capitol forced to turn to prostitution), Sejanus (who is originally from district 2, dislikes the capitol and knows he will never be accepted there, and also a rebel) and Lucy Gray (who is a victim of the hunger games, from district 12, and is also treated horribly by the capitol). These are all people who gave him an opportunity to realise the cruelty of the system he was in, a chance to directly confront his prejudices and see that people from the districts are just the same as him, and yet he still refuses to take the chance to change

He is given every opportunity, he’s sent away from the capitol to be a peacekeeper in the districts, he forms personal connections with people from the districts, he helps Sejanus perform funeral rites, and yet at every moral crossroads he comes to he makes the wrong decision. He didn’t have to become a villain, and yet he made the choice to do so anyway, despite every chance he was given

I think it’s a really effective portrayal of Snow as a character, and it’s a very effective villain origin story for the type of villain that Snow is. It never once excuses him from his actions because it highlights just how accountable he was for his actions

[ender-of-the-sender]

YOU PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND-

HOUSE IS AUTISTIC.

They acknowledge it in S3 E4. Wilson heavily suggests to Cuddy that House has Asperger syndrome, but they decide that he can't possibly because he's just a jerk.

Let autistic people be jerks. Let autistic people be assholes WITHOUT USING AUTISM AS AN EXCUSE. IM AN ASSHOLE SOMETIMES. NOT BECAUSE IM AUTISTIC, IM JUST A PRICK. Yes I understand that one of the reasons for him being such a dickhead is because of his leg, he's in pain all the time. But thats even more of a reason to believe that it is a separate issue.

They say that he wants to relate to the kid because then he can get away with being a dick, but he does relate to the kid. He hates change, he thrives on consistency, he needs stimulation or he gets bored and frustrated, he isolates himself- and when he does have to interact, it's with the same people he sees everyday.

House can be autistic AND an asshole. Those two things do not cancel each other out.

(Edit: as a disabled autistic person, I see myself in House in ways that I never have in canonically autistic characters. I am aware it's never confirmed in the show. I am aware that not everyone agrees with this headcanon, and genuinely that is all it is, a headcanon. I'm not Hugh Laurie. This was just a rant about how House is treated while showing, what I and many other people, including characters inside the show, view as symptoms of ASD or other such disorders. I apologise if it came across as lying or spreading false information.)