#it's... perhaps patronizing isn't the perfect word for it but something akin to it

[fullmetal-scar-simping]

Average fma fan talking about 03 positively: Man, it's such a miracle that the 2003 anime is written even halfway decently! After all, the writers who, as we know, have never written anything in their lives before [citation needed], they had to work while locked in individual underground cells [citation needed], only fed scraps of fma lore by Arakawa herself [citation needed] while her story was actually fully formed by the first printing of her manga in Monthly Shonen Gangan [citation needed] but they were adapting the initial first volume of manga and oopsy-daisy shot past it [citation needed], so they made up every plot beat, character arc, storyboard, and lore change completely on the fly and very randomly [citation needed]. Even though they tried to 1:1 adapt her story [citation needed, contradicted by existing sources], they fumbled the job and butchered her story, characters, and lore. Arakawa sagely forgave them [citation needed]. But somehow it's a cohesive story?! Wow! Even though the story is sad, dark, scares me, makes me cry, violent, gorey, and my fave ships aren't endgame, so -50 demerits. Still, good job team! A treat! A treat for the monkeys working the typewriters at Studio Bones circa 2002-2004! #fullmetal alchemist brotherhood

[hurremsultanns]

hello. going around in the mc fandom on tumblr i saw a point on Hürrem i think interesting, although something about it doesn't convince me: her supposed darwinism. knowing your perspective of Hürrem, perhaps nothing like who i saw with the point i'm talking about, i wanted to know your perspective, mainly for Hürrem as an analysis, but with the sultanate of women in the franchise, too, as they were related to her whereas to represent a patron with whom followed the ideology, or to compare them with whom was contrary to it. hope the ask isn't confusing. thank you.

The thing with Hürrem and Darwinism is that it's the perfect case study of actions speaking louder than words. Because she will say things that on the surface endorse that worldview, but her actions aren't the actions of someone who genuinely believes in a Darwinist ideology. Although I do think that her legacy did get warped and distorted within the universe of the show to suit a Darwinist ideology.

Yes she is very willing to step on and murder people to get her way. Even innocent people. However, rather than viewing this as OK, she sees herself as a 'sinner' for doing so. This obviously doesn't justify or mitigate her crimes, but the fact that this is how she sees them is very telling of where she genuinely falls ideologically.

We can also see how this relates to how she views Ibrahim and Mustafa's deaths specifically. If anything, her view on Ibrahim's death is far more akin to a David vs. Goliath narrative - which is if anything the polar opposite of Darwinism. She concedes that Ibrahim may be stronger and more powerful than her, but that doesn't stop him from losing himself to his hubris or her from being the more strategic player. Her line of 'If he is an eagle and I am a pigeon the one thing I can do is send a message' highlights this point. Not to mention that the profound difference between these two foils is that he loses his way due to hubris and the belief that his power justifies anything that he does where she does not.

And when it comes to Mustafa's death, in spite of her outburst at the funeral everything else shows her to view his death as a necessary evil and a tragedy. And her season 4 arc is if anything about her going from anger and revenge in the wake of Mehmet's death to realising that Mustafa still has to die because his allies pose a serious threat to her own sons. Ultimately she is right, they were never going to be on the same side and things were always going to end like this because he was not her son. Because even unwillingly he represented a genuine threat to her own sons. He couldn't control his allies in the army who were dangerous and fanatical and absolutely would have called for his brothers' executions if Mustafa took the throne. And if that happened, would he have been able to prevent them from going ahead? It seems very unlikely. She is reacting to a real threat for the sake of her sons' survival. Not to mention the fact that we see her crying in her room alone with no-one to perform for tells you a lot. She doesn't believe that this is OK because it's how things are. When you actually look deeper, it's because she's always on her sons' side and no matter what happens she will never abandon them.

And this is after all the same woman who does charity work for the poor and for women and children. And does so from a sense of genuine solidarity with them because of her own experiences of being enslaved. She is willing to connect with other people through her empathy - which is a trait that she stands out for in comparison to much of the rest of the main cast of the show and a trait that Darwinist ideologies usually eschew. Her approach is far more empathetic and human.

Not to mention her reaction to Cihangir forgetting his lines at his janissary ceremony. He takes this as a weakness and a personal failure. Not only does she not, but she reassures him that he doesn't and of the fact that he is worthy in her eyes. She lets him know that she is proud of him because he is her son and because he has his own share of talents. Going as far as saying that 'true bravery is fighting when you're scared.' None of this really squares with a Darwinist worldview. Rather it shows that what she respects the courage to face something even when you're going up against the odds and even when you're scared. Not simply raw strength and victory.

I think in a lot of ways even though Nurbanu respects strength and victory, she still has that human and protective side to her much like Hürrem. We don't see much of her relationship with her children (not nearly enough in my opinion), but it's clear that she loves them fiercely. Just as she loves Selim. The desire to protect the people she loves is also a motivation. Even though she does also want power, greatness and to follow in Hürrem's footsteps. Which effectively she does.

Safiye does take more of a genuinely Darwinistic approach and she cites Hürrem's example in doing so but this is based on more of a game of Chinese whispers than it is in Hürrem's actual ethos. If anything it goes to show how Hürrem's legacy got misinterpreted and warped over time and the very thing that made her stand out - her humanity - got forgotten by her successors along the way. I have discussed this idea before with @mc-critical

Kösem is a complicated one. Because while Safiye is an anti-Hürrem ideologically, Kösem is almost an inverse-mirror of her. It's almost as if a bait-and-switch is done with them. Because the audience is led to believe that Hürrem will complete her corruption arc whereas Kösem comes off as nicer. But in fact it's the other way around. Hürrem refuses to give up on the very things she stands for and gets the bittersweet ending of episode 134 whereas Kösem's corruption arc completes to deeply tragic consequences (if you saw episode 60 of MC:K you are entitled to financial compensation for the emotional damage in my opinion). I don't think Kösem is ideologically 'about' raw power. What she always wants to do is to save the relatives who she thinks she can. Even when she's 'gone evil' she justifies Mehmet's death by saying that she thinks doing so will save her other grandsons. Although I could write an entire meta in and on itself about how if Hürrem is the anti-Livia (I'm referring to Livia from I Claudius, the iconic scheming soap opera villainess who is essentially who Hürrem's enemies think she is), Kösem's arc parallels that of Michael Corleone in The Godfather.

Turhan doesn't really have all that much characterisation but she is basically all about power. So she is very different from the kind of person who Hürrem was.