#like this is literally genocide and the characters are all way more interested in the inner working of the empire while claiming

[pinepickled]

I don't hate Scott. I think he is an interesting character on occasion (like when the narrative challenges his ideals) and I wouldn't bother watching the show if I didn't find him funny.

But also, you're just wrong. Malia thought correctly that Scott wouldn't support her. Teen Wolf in the buildup to the series finale shows several times that Scott 1. Knows what she's doing, so idk why you say "when he found out he helped her" because he knew at least 10 episodes before he helped, 2. That he disapproves of her path and thinks she's getting too much blood on her hands, and 3. Only helps when it's clear she's not going to take another path and the desert wolf will not spare her, which btw is another lesson in hypocrisy for Scott.

Scott doesn't want killing to be an answer at all. Like I said in that post you didn't read, there are several instances of justified self defense killing that happen in the series, and whether Scott holds the person accountable seems to rely only on how much he likes them. When the two werewolves from Satomi's pack kill a hunter to survive, again I'm repeating myself because you didn't read, Scott harshly criticizes them and ostracized them for what they did, claiming they took innocent lives just because their eyes turned blue- a phenomenon impossible to reliably track on who is considered innocent and guilty, by the way. Not even to mention that Deucalion and Ethan together killed so many damn people, and yet Scott let him walk free as well as Gerard, but Theo had to go for doing objectively less heinous shit than the lot of them.

That's what I'm trying to point out to you, but I guess you're a Scott stan so you can't take any criticism of your precious baby. He doesn't have a consistent moral compas on who gets redeemed for killing and who doesn't. Just vibes. And again, he never has to make that decision himself. You bring up not wanting to be the monster Monroe sees him as in 6B? Then why did he try to get Peter and Deucalion to kill her for him? In a way the writing specifically acknowledges? Why does Scott bring up that he knows he is failing to take responsibility for the dirty work his ideals need? Is it somehow better that he gets other people to kill instead of himself?

More importantly, how many people does Monroe need to kill, how many lives do her and her gang need to destroy, until Scott pulling the metaphorical trigger is justified to himself? Apparently she's killed enough to put Peter on her path, just not Scott himself.

You say it yourself: *think*. He doesn't want to be the monster Monroe *thinks* he is. Why is he concerned with what a genocidal maniac thinks? To protect his own psyche, like op originally said, so thank you for showing you do actually understand the point. He cannot accept that to keep his pack from literally being wiped off the map, he might have to seem like a monster to like 2 people.

Also, it's very morally ironic that Scott thinks in "good vs bad" "monster vs human" so much because it betrays how egotistical he is. His ideology, like I said in that post you didn't read, demands that he believe there are shades of gray, but he outright rejects that notion again and again. Notice that not once in teen wolf does he ever call an immoral human a monster: only immoral shapeshifters. That doesn't betray something to you?

Some musings about Scott's morality (probably not very common and a little controversial)

Scott McCall’s adherence to his no-kill rule can be seen as both a moral stance and a psychological defense mechanism, shaped by his own fears, insecurities, and desire to preserve his innocence. At its core, Scott’s refusal to kill, even when faced with situations that may arguably call for it, reflects a deeper internal struggle to maintain a clear sense of right and wrong. However, this rigid adherence to his ideals, especially when it leads to others suffering, reveals underlying contradictions in his character.

Scott's moral code is largely centered on protecting his own sense of innocence and moral purity. By clinging to the no-kill rule, he avoids the emotional burden of directly taking a life, even if it means allowing harm to befall others. Psychologically, this allows Scott to protect his self-image as a "good" person. His reluctance to engage in lethal violence can be seen as a defense against the guilt and moral ambiguity that would come with making more ruthless choices.

In the case of the Kanima, Scott's refusal to kill Jackson despite the clear threat he posed to others shows how his need to maintain his moral boundaries outweighs the immediate threat to those around him. His insistence on finding non-lethal solutions, while noble, reflects an almost selfish prioritization of his internal morality over the safety of others.

There’s also an aspect of moral superiority in Scott’s unwavering no-kill stance. He often positions himself as the moral compass of the group, but this also gives him a sense of control over situations. By dictating that no one should kill, Scott maintains his leadership position and moral authority. However, this control is built on a framework that isn’t always flexible or responsive to the nuanced, dangerous situations he faces. His rigid moral stance can put others at risk, as seen when lives are endangered by the Kanima’s rampage while Scott focuses on preserving Jackson’s life.

Scott's no-kill rule can be seen as a form of psychological conflict avoidance. Killing someone would force him to confront the darker aspects of his role as a supernatural leader and protector. By adhering strictly to his rule, Scott avoids the internal conflict that would come from crossing that line. In a way, Scott’s reluctance to kill is an avoidance mechanism that keeps him from fully engaging with the morally complex world he inhabits, allowing him to maintain a black-and-white view of morality.

While Scott views his refusal to kill as a form of self-sacrifice, it can often lead to the sacrifice of others instead. In situations like the Kanima case, where innocent lives are at stake, Scott’s refusal to make the hard choice arguably protects his own conscience more than it protects the people he’s responsible for. This can be seen as an attempt to shield himself from the psychological toll of killing, while others bear the physical consequences of his inaction. It’s a form of indirect selfishness—by preserving his own sense of moral integrity, he unintentionally places the burden of suffering on others.

Scott’s no-kill rule is a complex and flawed psychological mechanism. While it is rooted in a genuine desire to be morally upright, it often causes harm by preventing him from making hard but necessary choices. His strict adherence to this rule can be seen as a defense against guilt, moral ambiguity, and the loss of his own innocence, but it also exposes him as someone who prioritizes his internal morality over the safety and well-being of those he is meant to protect. In this way, Scott's idealism becomes a form of moral tunnel vision, where the desire to remain "good" leads to greater harm for those around him.

[llycaons]

trying to listen to ancillary sword but it's going excruciatingly slow bc it's a sequel, and in fact I think the first sequel I'm listening to on audiobook. even very good sequels (which I expect this will be) will pepper in exposition and background info in the first chapter to catch up readers, which tend to take place in between lines of dialogue. I wouldn't mind except I always forget what was just said and have to go back and check, and it's comparatively much more difficult to rewind an audiobook to the right place than to glance back over a page. so I've been listening very very slowly aha. but I've finally gotten to ch2 and I'm glad I'm reading the sequel right away bc the story picks right up from the finale of the first book and I'm already intrigued by the new characters and entertained by the new plot direction

[muffinlance]

Wait, what’s going on with Embers???? That fic has been on my read later list since 2021, what’s happened with it???

Brief overview, then I'm likely never touching this topic again, because this is not a Drama Blog:

Context: Embers is a super old AtLA fic that was written during the early fandom days, read widely at the time, and was the origin of the widely-used fanon name of "Wani" for Zuko's ship (kind of by default that it was one of the first popular fics to give his ship a name, I think?), even though most fic writers don't seem to realize it's from there anymore.

"What's Going On": I used to include a link in all my stories to it, because I believe in crediting other writers for borrowed elements, and I was using "Wani" in all my fics. But BOY did I not want to be sending readers that way anymore, so I've adopted a new name for Zuko's ship, and removed all Embers links.

None of the criticisms about Embers itself are new; I'm assuming they date back to when the fic was being written, because this isn't an "it aged badly" thing, this is an "actually yeah this gets worse the longer you think about it and I shouldn't have ignored my bad feelings just because some of the worldbuilding was interesting" thing.

An Incomplete List of Why I Made the Change:

I don't actually like the story that much anymore, and don't want to rec it

I tried to re-read it recently to see if some things were as bad as I remembered and it turns out they were So Much Worse Oh Yikes. More specifically, the treatment of Katara and Aang and their respective cultures has... rather a lot going on. One example: The Fire Nation and Air Nomads are both given multiple backstory elements in an attempt to make the average Fire Nation soldier's participation in the genocide/war in large part the fault of the Avatar and the Air Nomads themselves, and also fully justified from the Fire Nation perspective. And I do mean fully. One of its core tenants is "People from the Fire Nation (and only people from the Fire Nation) who don't follow orders Literally Die, therefore murdering pacifists and babies and continuing the war (and their regularly scheduled war crimes) is the only thing it is physically possible for them to do". I cannot emphasize enough how literal that is.

Also the name "Wani" means "Alligator" and is... objectively a pretty lame name for Zuko's ship? Where's the personality, where's the deeper meaning, where's the resonance with Zuko's themes? @tuktukpodfics initially thought I was calling the ship "Wanyi", and that's what I've switched to, because it is Objectively So Much Better. In their words: “Wànyī (萬一): Literally ‘one in ten thousand,’ ‘perchance.’ Used grammatically in Chinese to mean ‘what if’ or ‘just in case.’ I think a ship called ‘The Perchance’ is perfect for a boy clinging to false hope.”

TL:DR; I don't rec Embers anymore, because I don't actually like the story anymore, and there are things about it that get worse the more I think on them. I've removed links to it and renamed Zuko's ship to "Wanyi" ("The Perchance") because our boy deserves a ship name that reflects his character arc.

[dukeofdelirium]

never gonna understand the argument that Katara didn’t love Aang or something.

Katara was 100% more physically affectionate toward Aang. She almost always initiated their physical contact.

She also expresses clear jealousy over him as early as ep4 at Kyoshi Island lol. Aang was literally right when he said “you know what I think? I think you don’t wanna come because you’re jealous” 😂 SHE WAS

Katara was hesitant to start a romantic relationship with Aang because of the war, not because she lacked romantic interest in him. I mean, she quite literally says this on screen.

This is another thing that confuses tf out of me. How can anyone actually watch that scene in Ember Island Players and think it translates to “Katara doesn’t like Aang and is gently rejecting him” ?????

Katara 1) denies viewing Aang platonically and 2) straight up says her reasoning for not pursuing a romantic relationship with him after they kissed during the invasion is because the war is still going on and 3) she then continues by saying she is confused about WHEN they can be together if ever.

Both of these characters expected the war to already BE over. That was why Aang kissed her at the invasion, at least partly. Also partly because, yknow, he could’ve died and never gotten the chance. Which also brings up another thing, the argument that she rejected him kissing her then?

This isn’t true. Katara very much did kiss him back. But once it was over, and once he was going to leave her and face what could’ve easily been certain death, she looks upset. Not really difficult to understand why she looks that way, considering Aang did just tell her “what if I don’t come back” right before said kiss. Katara has already witnessed him die right before her eyes. This is a difficult topic in their relationship. And that fear of losing Aang continues to keep her away from their romantic relationship until she finally feels safe to express it at the end of the show.

Aang’s actions are also not difficult to understand at all. He confronted Katara during that play after she sought him out. He never asked her to follow him. And the only reason he confronted her was bc he was feeling 1) super insecure bc of the play’s depiction of everyone in their group and 2) bc he’s about to face the world’s greatest military force and their leader on the anniversary of his entire people and culture’s genocide completely ALONE and could very easily be killed.

Aang shouldn’t have kissed her at the play. No one says he should’ve and he reprimands himself afterwards. With that being said, though, it’s totally understandable as to why he does kiss her, that being that he’s afraid he is going to die again and he wants to express that he loves her before it happens. Also, the fact that Aang wasn’t there for his own people is surely a driving factor in how he expresses love to others afterwards, that being that he feels the need to “be there” so to speak. And “being there” in this moment is showing Katara that he does love her, and the only way he rlly knows how to is to kiss her bc words did not work.

Like… idc if ppl like the writing or not. Acting like it’s some huge mystery or impossible to comprehend is you essentially saying you’re dumber than the 6 year olds that watched ATLA 😭 like how could I at 11 completely understand this whole thing yet these grown ass adult women can’t wrap their minds around it for even a second? Like it’s actually sad lol

[nthspecialll]

Bill Williamson's racism

(If I have worded anything in a wrong way, if I have accidently said something wrong, you disagree or anything similar, please do let me know and educate me, but I ask that you don't do it in a condecending tone and that you refrain from calling me a fool or similar. I do nothing will ill intent and I want to learn but I cannot if you merely insult me.)

I do want to start of by saying that Bill's racism is not excusable, and that he is not doing it for attention or similarly, that he does in fact have racist tendencies, however what I wish to talk about in this post is the differences between his racism and Micah's which shows more neuance and has peaked some, including my own, interest.

The most obvious difference to me between Micah and Bill's racism is how they act around the people of color. Bill praises both of Lenny and Javier. Bill calls Lenny "son" and yells to everyone about how amazing he is and the proud almost fatherly instrict is oozing. With Javier there is a similar interaction where he is drunk and he is yapping Sean's ear off about how amazing Javier is.

We do not see that with Micah (That I can find), the only possitive thing Micah says to either of them is "you aren't so bad, for a (slur)". Another thing to point out is that Micah is constantly belittling both Lenny and Javier, saying things like "you can write and everything, unusual for one of you. Oh you know, hoodlums," Bill does not belittle them, he calls them names but he doesn't belittle them. Is that okay? No, of course not and it is very serious, but it is just something I noticed.

Now when it comes to their actual racist acts, even there we see a difference. When Bill literally throws Lenny, Lenny just chuckles and says "get lost Bill," meanwhile when Micah just talks to Lenny, Lenny is on alert, he is cautious, watchful. He takes Micah seriously, while he does not take Bill seriously.

A native American I talked to about Bill (mentioning their heritage here because Bill often talks down to native Americans), mentioned that they felt Bill was repeating words like a parrot rather than actually understanding and believing them, which I can see.

Bill fought in the army, very specifically against Native Americans. he has a camp interaction where he is talking about the war and he is fucking terrified, he jumps at the sound of a horse neighing after explaining how he saw people die.

He saw people get murdered, he saw his friends get slaughtered and he was told by the army to turn that anger towards the natives. The army implimented racist ideologies to excuse the genocide they were making and to rile their armies. This also correlates to the scene between Bill and Dutch where Bill says "I saw things!" and Dutch replies "I am sure you do! But I don't think you could understand it" and I think that is spot on. Bill saw his friends dying, he saw his comrades dying, people he was likely as close to dying.

All he saw were these people murdering his friends, not that those people were fighting for their right to exist, and for every body hitting the ground the army framed it all on the natives, that it was all their fault, without mentioning anything that the army was doing to the natives.

Does any of this excuse Bill? No, but while I believe that Bill is racist, I think he is racist because he was told to be rather than because he truely believes it like Micah does. Micah seems to fully believe these ideas, that white people are better and that they will never be on the same level as him, none of the POC characters in camp were his friends, meanwhile Bill saw those POC characters as his comerades, as his friends and he kept in touch with Javier for a good while after he lost all the others.

[sepublic]

Another thing I’ve noticed about Wittebane fans is that they would really rather speculate on an unseen dynamic and how codependent it was, or on Belos having religious trauma or being a socially awkward child (despite this conflicting with him being a confident, silver-tongued politician) over like. Discussing Belos’ character as he actually is onscreen.

And onscreen Belos is about Christian colonialism, he IS the religious trauma. He’s the white saviorism, the racism, the genocide, the arrogant delusions of Puritans. These are actually onscreen, and darker and deeper than like, the Wittebanes being Cain and Abel or Saturn devouring his son because what are you actually discussing here that’s topical?

But fans don’t want to talk about that, they don’t want to talk about what makes Belos his own character and what makes his writing work. They want to make Belos and Caleb into a racist, less interesting version of the Nocedas, Clawthorne sisters, Collector, etc. And when Belos doesn’t measure up to these standards because he’s a square peg being put through a round hole, fans get angry at the writers. It’s alienating to those who want to discuss Belos, the actual Belos.

And I think it boils down to fans being discomforted by topics such as colonialism and genocide, and facing just how intertwined Belos is with depicting it on a large and personal scale; He isn’t even a metaphor at this rate, but a literal example of a Christian white man from a 1600s American colony. These subjects are not something fans can romanticize, so they focus on the dynamic with his brother, on being codependent or tortured or suffering from religious trauma, etc.

It’s very faux-deep, it’s pretentious in a Dark Academia way, Cannibalism as a metaphor for love. It reminds me of fans who claim to love Dark Fics and can handle dark topics, but then implode when you ask them to discuss critical race theory. They think they’re being subversive and even punk but it’s just white guys in the end. It thinks itself deeper just for being ‘darker’ but it’s not even that dark compared to other things, it’s just edgy. King and Steve’s conversation as a stand-in for Dana’s ruminations on God are genuinely deeper than every Cain-Abel Wittebane fic.

There’s a Vtuber who just did an Owl House marathon and while she didn’t pick up on a lot, the discussion on Belos by fans who are explaining it to her is so refreshing, because there’s no mention of Caleb! There’s no mention of Belos being repressed or feeling abandoned. It’s all about how he actually is onscreen and is presented and what he does onscreen. It’s about the delusions and evil of those who practice Puritan ideology. And the actions that have far more impact than killing his brother.

And it makes me think, this is another reason why we don’t see Caleb; Because the writers knew fans would use him as a distraction from the actual things they’re discussing and satirizing through Belos. They would use him as a distraction from the true motives, the banality of evil, as Belos does; And Belos himself doesn’t even do it that much, he’s upfront about how he thinks witches are inherently evil and need to be killed in the name of God so even he is avoiding factoring Caleb into the discussion! Alas, the writers underestimate just how far fandom will go when they get even a scent of a possible white guy.

Can we talk about the Wittebanes as they actually are instead of retreading other characters’ old ground? The tragedy of the Wittebanes isn’t about some lonely orphan just wanting to be accepted by his community, being unable to handle the thought of his brother leaving, and not knowing any better because that’s just how things were back then; It’s about seeing your kid brother embrace the alt-right pipeline because white supremacy makes him feel special, and no matter how many years you spend trying to change his mind, he eventually, finally turns on you too.

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

what are your thoughts on the ministrife situation? imo literally the worst fate for eridan to be damned to tbh

i think he will eventually (after <5 minutes) just shoot cronus and leave. (CW for mentions of abuse and cronus's romantic grossness and stuff under the cut).

Ignoring the extremely creepy and gross fact that Hussie doesn't seem to have a problem with the age gap (it's There, we've acknowledged that it's creepy and weird, i personally think it highlights how immature the dancestors are despite their physical age, and it actually serves to hint at how trash they are, but it's still really uncomfortable in the moment and never gets properly called out. In any case we've talked about it critically, we can move on and talk about characterization now), he and cronus are actually kind of polar opposites. Given that Cronus, along with many of the dancestors, are riffing on what the fandom interpretation of their Alternian counterparts are, it's kind of a fascinating look at all the things Eridan ISN'T.

The fandom (especially at the time) had flattened Eridan down to "overdramatic Nice Guy hipster who won't stop hitting on people," with varying degrees of sympathy. In other words, they took all of Eridan's outward presentation - the narration calling his genuine anxiety and distress "overblown emotional theatrics," the fact that his being rejected was a running gag - entirely at face value, while also missing what sort of archetype he was actually supposed to represent.

At no point does Eridan ever actually mention a hipster interest, like vintage clothes or indie media. It's all entirely in his design and Karkat calling him a hipster (it's not even in his character introduction), so presumably, it IS a part of his character (Karkat knows him really well), but it's probably a part he keeps to himself, like his love of wizards.

Moreover, he isn't really a Nice Guy. The closest he gets is thinking Nepeta owes him a chance for saving her life, but as far as we can tell, he only ever asked her once, got rejected, accepted that rejection, and has never taken out that rejection on her. When he complains about it, he frames it as a bitter "I guess what I did wasn't enough," not "she's an unreasonable witch withholding romance from me even though I'm so nice to her." All other romance attempts are crimes of... just being way too forward.

He bursts into Kanaya's DMs demanding she auspicetisize with Vriska because... that's what she likes to do, right? The same happens to Terezi in [S] Karkat: Wake Up. He comes on strong in Rose's DMs and after getting a little annoyance back, goes "wow, we kinda have something," and does not realize her blowing up his computer is a rejection because she didn't explicitly tell him no and he's a dumbass. And even though he's nasty at Sollux because emotionally, he's still bitter about Sollux "stealing" Feferi from him, at least CONSCIOUSLY he's recognized the rejection on both fronts and has repeatedly told Feferi that he has no more interest in getting back together with her, in spite of her recognizing that he's emotionally not over her. And speaking of Feferi, his confession to her is entirely genuine and respectful toward her feelings. At no point does he indicate that he feels like she owes him a date.

These aren't Nice Guy actions, they're "I have 0 social skills or self-awareness" actions. And also a little bit "due to my trauma and anxiety and desensitization to murder, I struggle to care about other people" actions. He's not even actually casteist or genocidal - I spent an entire essay arguing that.

But regardless, that's what the fandom ran with, in large part because they didn't bother reading between the lines. Ironically, like Eridan, they just believed what he told them. I don't even necessarily blame the fandom - at least part of this obfuscation was intentional, and a clever trick on the part of the writing. By highlighting Eridan at his worst, and having the narration be complicit in his self-delusion and mockery, the story is able to put the audience in the same mindset as his in-universe bullies - Eridan is dumb weirdo whose emotional problems are worthy of ridicule, not sympathy. Let's all point and laugh!

This sets up his meltdown to be more of a twist - even though his literal introduction is him killing something and talking about genocide, the very real danger he poses is forgotten both by the audience and the other characters because they've gotten so used to dismissing his feelings that they ignore his cries for help and the warning signals he gives off. And it makes his character more relevant and meaningful, because this happens in real life all the time - I'm sure we either all either knew, or were, the friendless weirdo at school who, upon reflection, definitely had either some bad shit going on at home or severe and untreated mental illness (or both).

The reason I'm bringing up this fandom misinterpretation is because, like a couple other dancestors, Cronus is very much a riff on the fanon version of his Alternian counterpart. Unlike Eridan, who's not actually casteist, but desperately trying to act the part, Cronus IS a casteist sea dweller who thinks he's better than lowbloods and land dwellers. Unlike Eridan, who seeks emotional connections with others, and accepts rejections, Cronus is only looking for some action, and keeps trying even well after he knows he's been rejected. Unlike Eridan, who's so consumed by anxiety and trauma that he's pretty much unable to function properly, Cronus DOES exaggerate his problems and explicitly leverage them for attention and sympathy. And unlike Eridan, who feels crushed under the weight of duty and responsibility, and tends to blame himself when things go wrong, Cronus refuses to take responsibility for anything, immediately blaming anybody BUT himself.

They're practically exact opposites, and this is, again, a clever trick on the part of the writing. It's an excellent usage of a foil: though superficially similar, the differences between these two really serves to highlight just how much Eridan is NOT the things that Cronus IS.

And it's especially interesting given that Eridan spent his entire life trying to emulate Dualscar, to the point of modeling his outfit after the guy. To him, it was not only his duty, but his inevitable fate, to wind up as Dualscar's successor. And when he finally meets the guy in person, his opinion is "even I think you're trash."

If that isn't a form of rejecting the values his society has told him repeatedly that he has to uphold, maybe in the service of perhaps setting up some sort of redemption arc or something, I don't know what is.

I've seen people point to this moment as kind of a hee haw funny one-off joke, look at how little Hussie cares about Eridan, but that's not what it is to me. You don't really need to say anything more about their relationship to each other. Eridan thinks Cronus (and by extension, everything Cronus stands for - and everything Eridan has tried to be) is garbage, but is lonely and friendless and desperate enough that he feels pushed into accepting it anyway. It's extremely consistent with his characterization and character arc.

So uh, yeah. Join me next time for more deep dives on how this funny innocuous thing in Homestuck actually Means Something.

[iilmunchkiin]

This is in response to the anon's ask about Clover and Martlet's relationship as well as the two sides of the same coin. Explaining this in few words is going to be quite the task as there's so much to talk about when it comes to the Clover and Martlet's relationship, so I'll keep as to the point as possible.

First and foremost from the moment they meet Martlet becomes Clover's morality chain, and depending on their actions prior or after this meeting, will show other aspects of how they see each other. No other monster has this kind of affect on Clover. Likewise Clover's actions will determine how she sees humans, and what stance she should take in regards to Clover.

Clover's actions always spur Martlet into action regardless of the route. It's worth mentioning Martlet is established as being lazy, which she admits herself, but Clover's presence causes her to break out of this completely. Genocide shows her being a lot more proactive when it comes to dealing with Clover, and the other routes shows her making the extra effort to keep Clover safe, simply because this is what she feels is right. Likewise Martlet is shown to be the only monster to have some kind of influence on Clover, considering Clover will always choose her over Flowey.

In Neutral, Martlet is the sole monster that Clover cannot bring themselves to kill/refuses to kill, and all of it is completely unprompted. Likewise Martlet will also refuse to kill Clover despite their misdeeds however big or small. Even if you genuinely try to fight Martlet on Neutral, it will always end with Clover sparing her unprompted. Even on an aborted genocide route, where Clover can quite literally kill every monster they encounter including the likes of Ceroba and Starlo. They cannot bring themselves to kill Martlet, and Martlet despite seeing how dangerous Clover is, still refuses to kill them, which leads to Martlet offering to look after Clover, and Clover always accepting her offer. Plus when Martlet is killed by Flowey, Clover is so enraged they retaliate by trying to kill Flowey, and like with Clover sparing Martlet, it's completely unprompted, the player has no influence in Clover's decision to do this. To top all of this of, do Neutral enough times, and Flowey reveals to you, that Martlet convincing Clover to stay with her is a foregone conclusion without intervention. Essentially no what Clover does in Neutral, no matter who they kill, no matter what lies or manipulative tactics Flowey uses to try and control Clover, it will always end with Martlet offering to look after Clover, and Clover always choosing to stay with Martlet.

The Genocide route, is the only route were Clover and Martlet are both willing to kill the other. Not only that, during this route, Martlet is shown to be the only monster that Clover respects, and is also the only monster they spare unprompted, as well as listen to when they speak. Furthermore she's also the only monster that Clover goes out of their way to find a justifiable reason to kill, they do this for no other monster but her, which even Martlet makes a remark on. Both of them are fighting for literally the same thing, Justice for their kind, for the Injustice that was done to them. Something also very interesting about this fight that was pointed out elsewhere, both Clover and Martlet use yellow themed attacks. Martlet is also the only monster that Clover reveals their name to in Genocide.

Martlet stays by Clover's side accompanying them on three separate occasions on Pacifist with just the two of them. Four if you include the flawed Pacifist ending. The most out of any monster that Clover encounters. During these moments they get to see sides of Clover that the other characters don't really see. Likewise Clover gets to sides to her character that's different from what she usually shows others.

No matter how far gone Clover is, Martlet can always sense the good in them, when other monsters scorn them. Likewise regardless of how Clover sees monsters, as long as they don't go full vengeance they will always ultimately end up seeing Martlet in a positive light, and be drawn to her.

Martlet only tells Clover about the Syringe and the fact the she was planning to kill them using it when she senses the dark aura within them. It's also heavily implied until she came clean to them, Clover was completely oblivious to this fact, which would also imply they trusted her enough to where they didn't suspect her to be a danger to their life. It's also worth mentioning that Martlet is aware of what kind of individual Clover is even if she's not their to witness their actions, and Clover will always trust her to some capacity regardless of how their first encounter goes.

There's other stuff, but these points are some of the major ones.

[kerubimcrepin]

Everything we know about what happened to Khan, Bakara, and Lilotte after the movie

Despite the fact that the second Dofus movie has not been made (and, from the way things are looking, might never be made at all) we know quite a bit about what happened to its characters afterward — the reason for that is simple: they're referenced in the games!

In this post, I will try to compile everything we know for the ease of access — but I implore you, instead of using my abridged compilation, just watch my video archive instead, if you're really interested in these characters! The posts I make on the MMOs are entirely recapping everything I already went over in my videos.

BAKARA JURGEN

The Dofus MMO takes place approximately 200–300 years after the events of the movie, and 70–90 years after a genocide against Huppermages has been enacted by Bonta, which forced their people to go into hiding. (you can read more about this in my posts about the Dofus MMO!)

Despite such a long time having passed, one can still find people who look up to her in the world — including Kerubim Crepin, who reminisces on having known her, her brother, and her sister-in-law, before all of them were gone...

There isn't a lot of that is known about her life (or her involvement with Khan, and whether they ever became a couple...) but what we do know is that she grew to be a very well-respected leader and role model among huppermages, and lived a long, fruitful life.

And also that, just like literally everyone in the cast of the movie, she either lied her ass off about everything that happened in it, or the legends have distorted the truth badly.

By the time of Dofus MMO, Jahash and Julith are both viewed as icons and role models by the Huppermage community. It is quite likely that, at least in part, this is the case due to Bakara's (and then Agata, her heir/apprentice/daughter-figure's) efforts to not let their memory be forgotten.

Agata never discusses Bakara in her dialogues pertaining to Bonta's genocide of Huppermages, and when coupled with Kerubim saying that Bakara is "just a part of the history now" during his own dialogue on the topic, there is a heavy implication that Bakara did not live long enough to see this tragedy — and that her passing is not a fresh wound.

LILOTTE DELAGRANDVENTURE

There is even less known about her fate, but some things are pretty obvious: she had a family of her own — and she is still venerated as a great ancestor even six centuries later, by her great-great-great grandchildren.

You can find a descendant of hers in the Wakfu MMO, as a political leader in a tradition-obiding ouginak tribe, which is a very long cry from the way Lilotte and Indie led their lives as city-dwelling ouginaks.

For context, there is a bit of a... conflict, between these two lifestyles, which makes this development quite interesting:

I feel like this dialogue just speaks for itself, when it comes to the way people like Indie, Lou, and Lilotte are viewed by Ouginaks at large...

Considering the history of oppression that Ouginaks have, it is quite understandable why a lot of them want to live in an independent community of their own people — instead of molding themselves to fit the norms set by the followers of the Twelve gods; and why they may look down on their fellow Ouginaks who do not share this sentiment.

Lilotte's bell is a known relic, and her legend is still known — albeit with major alterations, which are most likely the result of six centuries having passed.

:)

KHAN KARKASS

I have saved all content regarding him for last, because he is the one we know the most about — from the plans to include him in Welsh & Shedar, to his inclusion in the Wakfu MMO.

He is buried next to the stadium, with his Gobbowl cup — the greatest achievement of his life... despite him having years of life after it, as an adventurer. A bit sad, isn't it?

Here's what he says about his life:

And here's him getting Joris's age wrong, lmao:

I debated including what we know about him in Welsh & Shedar in this post... but it's a bit of a beaten horse, by now, so I will just give the simple rundown:

In Welsh & Shedar, Khan and Joris seem to be pretty close, reportedly having adventured together after Khan's knee injury. Khan can be seen spending time together with Joris even in the trailer.

It is easy to assume that by this point, that with Joris being 60-years-old, most other mortal loved ones of Joris's have either passed away, or had their own lives to deal with, not having much time to spend together, which is pretty sad.

Considering the fact that instead of spending his time with Bakara, he is seen alone as an old man, it might be possible that she passed away before him or that their romance did not work out.

Another reason to believe their romance may not have worked out is the fact that neither Bakara's, nor Khan's fans, mention them being an item.

He also had the stories about him morph... but somehow, I really doubt that it wasn't his own damn fault.

[abattre]

It's actually so disappointing that Naruto's narrative took the route that it did. Kishimoto created an incredibly interesting world and premise, and ruined it by having everything amount to a shallow message of forgiveness that undermines almost every meaningful element in the story. And it's like,, I want to appreciate the world outside of the plot, but the moral framing of the story makes it virtually impossible because of how disingenuous it is. It completely undermines the audience's understanding of the tragedy and horror of the world so that Naruto becoming Hokage and being the most powerful person in the world by the end doesn't come across as distasteful as it actually is.

Like it's made abundantly clear throughout the story that the village system, and Shinobi society as a whole, is incredibly flawed. Kishimoto goes out of his way to show us that Konoha's council is made up of objectively horrible people. We see first hand how the council's short-sighted ideas of what 'protecting the village' means results in devastating tragedy for people both in Konoha and outside of it. It's clear in how Danzo and the rest of the council act that their atrocious behaviour is them just blatantly abusing their power to maintain their authority. The council has no remorse in anything they do; human experimentation, genocide, slavery, and blatant exploitation is all fair game to them if it preserves their status quo. And instead of maybe, like, addressing Konoha's skewed morality in a sensible way and setting the village up for reform, the narrative just tries forcing the audience to perceive Konoha's genuinely heinous actions as necessities. Which, you know, will work when you're like 8, but once you've grown up and developed some reading comprehension and critical thinking,,, it just feels annoyingly manipulative.

At its core, Naruto is a story that attempts to deconstruct morality. Like this is abundantly clear in how Kishimoto is constantly paralleling the dichotomy of good and evil literally every chance he gets. In the end though, this dichotomy just doesn't work in the context of the Naruto story because the narrative framing of the village being the good guys is just hysterically ridiculous. Konoha is an awful place, that does awful things, and is run by awful people that refuse to change anything because it benefits them for the village to remain awful forever. To anyone with a developed sense of media literacy the village cannot in any way be framed as morally good, so when the story resolves itself with Naruto becoming next in line to govern Konoha under the same unchanging authoritarian regime, with the same council supporting him because of his sheer physical prowess and complete dedication to their twisted ideology,,, it's honestly just an incredibly underwhelming conclusion to a story that made itself out to be more profound than it actually is.

If I had to guess, I imagine Kishimoto just didn't think through how negatively the world he created would reflect on the plot. Ultimately though, you can't write a moral story that's so deeply entrenched in real world social inequity and decide halfway through that because you don't know how to fix these things your story's going to have to be about how they're actually okay to be doing and perpetuating,,, like that is awful and also a terrible lesson to impart on an audience of children. With how serious the issues are in Shinobi society, trying to resolve things with the power of friendship was always going to fall flat. These broad scale injustices can't be brushed aside in that way without undermining their severity and diminishing the understandable impact they had on the characters that experienced such extreme oppression. That's essentially the trap that Naruto's conclusion falls into though, and so the story just ends up feeling incomplete and unfulfilling because none of the issues brought up are actually addressed or discussed with the gravity they deserve.

[tiredandoptimistic]

Wait now I’m so curious on why you don’t like the Sebastian demon blood plot line !!

I mostly find it frustrating because of how it intersects with the overall themes of TMI.

Jace spends a lot of the early TMI books being treated as though he's some sort of villain because he's Valentine's son. Even Maryse, his adoptive mother, basically throws him out because the memory of Valentine is more powerful than the seven years she's raised Jace for. (She of course comes around by the end of COA, but that initial reaction was still there, and it still hurt Jace deeply!) Valentine himself did everything in his power to increase this feeling in Jace, and tried to position himself as the only one who could possibly understand and love Jace, while also setting Jace up to see himself as a monster because of his attraction to Clary. (There's literally a scene in COA where Luke says that Jace visiting Valentine is proof that the rest of them failed, because Jace clearly feels that the closest thing he's got to an understanding parent is the genocidal maniac). All of this is compounded when Jace learns that Valentine treated his son with demon blood, because suddenly he's got this proof that he's tainted not only by Valentine but by Hell itself. I haven't read COG in a little while, but I remember there being a scene where Jace and Clary make out, but Clary realizes that indulging in the incestuous relationship is basically Jace's way of punishing himself. Being into his sister is just a natural extension of being part demon, and if he allows himself to embrace his worst instincts then he won't have to worry about trying to be good anymore.

And then of course, we learn about Sebastian.

Jace was never the baby with the demon blood, that was Sebastian. Jace gets to learn that not only is he unrelated to Valentine and Clary, he's also got angel blood in his veins. Suddenly he doesn't need to worry about his girlfriend being his sister, and he's safe from the inherent evil that he thinks must come along with demonic contact.

While I do find Jace's internal angst and the ways in which he responds to be very interesting, the thing that bothers me is that rather than accepting that it's not his blood that defines him, he learns that he got good blood instead of evil blood. Sebastian on the other hand did get the evil blood, and so he is inherently evil. The story could have been about how the way that you treat a kid does more to determine their behavior than the way they were born, but instead it seems to reinforce Jace (and everyone else's) initial assumption that whoever has demon blood must be cruel and unfeeling.

Now, I know that a lot of people will claim that Sebastian wasn't inherently evil because of the demon blood, and that it was Valentine treating him as a demon that caused him to turn out that way; but that's just not how I remember it being treated in canon. Again, I haven't read the relevant books in a couple years, but I'm pretty sure that Sebastian is said to be the way he is specifically because of the demon blood. Jocelyn held him in her arms after giving birth, and saw something evil brewing in the eyes of her newborn. That scene could have meant that Jocelyn saw how Sebastian resembled Valentine and reacted in horror because of her feelings towards her husband, but I don't think that's how it was intended by the author. I also remember specifically that "True" Jonathan Morgenstern is treated as a different character in several instances (such as having his own flower card), and this "True" version of Sebastian has green eyes like Jocelyn and Clary and also isn't a terrible person, because he's not influenced by demon blood.

So basically, what I'm saying is that the demon blood storyline bothers me because it takes agency away from the characters. Sebastian is evil because he has demon blood. Jace thought he might be evil because he might have demon blood, but he doesn't have demon blood so he's not evil. It all seems to go against the main thesis of TMI, which is that children are not defined by their parents (and are in fact very capable of rejecting the bigotry their parents believe in). Everyone in the TMI gang is treated as a foil to their parents, and because we know that their parents bought into bigotry at a young age, we know that the kids could very well make the same mistakes. It's all about free will, and how they learn from history to do better in the future (Robert, Maryse, Luke, and Jocelyn all became far better people in middle age than they ever were as teenagers, but because Alec, Isabelle, and Clary have them as examples, they don't have that dark era at all. Stephen died before he could change though, and Valentine lived to prove that he didn't want to change. This puts Jace in a far more complicated position, which is why he clung to the Lightwoods as his true family to guide him towards the person he wants to be). That's a side tangent but I typed it out so I guess it's staying.

Anyways, yeah. I think Sebastian is one of the least interesting villains in TSC, because he isn't given the free will to choose villainy. (This is also why I'm less interested in demonic villains like Belial and Asmodeus). I still do enjoy how he acts as a foil to both Clary and Jace though.

[heraldofcrow]

SOTE haters be like: "boohoo it is all FromSLOP's fault that fans are babyfying Marika and making Miquella a villain, had they not written Marika as an actual person with the story instead of a caricature and had they not put Miquella through tragic descent instead of wholesome hopepunk stuff they literally never did, fans would magically stop ignoring obvious canon clues to make a character into what THEY want instead!!! Bad writing!!!" 🤦‍♂️

So, "good writing" is writing characters like bland caricatures that have nothing to do with how real humans and world we live in are? Honestly I have no idea what's going on in people's heads when they blame realistic writing (nobody is BORN evil @ naive idealism doesn't work on humans so you either give up or force people to be friends) for the takes they dislike

There is this thing that happened in the Elden Ring fandom that keeps reminding me of the DS2 backlash, but it’s not gamer rage over mechanics and the physical experience of the game — it’s that newer (?) (probably not) wave of nonsense that is permeating countless other fandoms that people recently blame on “puriteens.”

Basically, those younger people that haven’t had enough experience to see the world beyond black and white, Tik Tok-based morals; where everything has to be moderated and pure enough, progressive enough, GOOD enough to meet some high standard of ethics.

I’m honestly relying on the Soulsborne fandom as partial proof that this issue HAS gotten worse in some ways because of Elden Ring…but I wouldn’t be surprised if it started and flourished in places like the Undertale fandom, where the game itself trying to teach a valuable moral lesson resulted in younger people that played it becoming extremely hostile online towards anyone who dared to take the Genocide route to see the outcome.

People who wanted to see the end of that route were going to learn the lesson of the game. They were MEANT to learn that lesson and find out why it was the morally unsound path to take within the context of the story. There were also people who could take that route every time just to enjoy the tragedy of it or simply because it was more interesting.

That was absolute heresy to the puritan fans who wanted to control other players and condemn them for even thinking of committing that crime against the poor characters. They didn’t want the “lesson to be learned,” because in their minds, who would ever willingly go kill to learn that killing was bad?? Oh no, anyone who would do that is evil already!

(Forget that all of it wasn’t real of course…or that the Genocide route was essentially just a regular video game lmao.)

And even since then, I’ve seen this blossom in so many big fandoms.

“Just because I like doesn’t mean I condone blah blah”

Nobody should have to say that statement ever again.

Nobody should have to rigorously defend the satire of “my mass murderer did nothing wrong.”

And more people should understand that even the worst of the worst!!…the… *gasp* justifiers!! of fictional war criminals are often just viewers swayed by the villain or antihero’s philosophy or reasoning for revenge. Or mayhaps they were charmed by devilish good looks. How could the young ladies do this??? /s

The people screaming “Thanos was right!” or whatever, are usually….90% of the time…not mass murders in real life. Some of them might be assholes or creeps, and sure, you might have to smack them upside the head with “Hey! Your justification of this character within the story is a bad interpretation and rooted in bias or misunderstanding!”

Yeah, that can be a problem. Those people can be troublesome in the heat of fandom drama. But then again…toxic fans of any kind can be this way too. Toxic shippers are often some of the cruelest, most actively harmful members of fandoms, and even then…cases where people start getting murdered en masse is rare, mind you. Lol.

Fiction is not what affects reality in a negative way, it’s people’s IDEAS about fiction that affect reality in a negative way…IF they choose to not be responsible with how they react or behave.

That’s it.

Their interpretations, their takeaways, their decisions on how to engage with it or be inspired by it, all of this CAN be negative, yes.

The Genocide route in Undertale did not inspire anyone to go commit genocide, but it did create a wave of fandom puritanism that caused harm to others. And that’s ironic isn’t it? That shouldn’t be the case, right? A story that intended to share a moral lesson about why harming others is wrong ended up inspiring people to harm others in fandom. How does that make sense?

Well, it doesn’t if you blame the game and story.

It DOES make sense if you observe how people were choosing to interpret it. The story itself does not have to be taken seriously, engaged with, or even acknowledged. It only has as much power as you give it.

FromSoftware being blamed for people CHOOSING to treat Marika like she did nothing wrong or people not seeing the signs of Miquella’s downfall is taking the responsibility away from fans for how they engaged with the story.

Now, having said all this. Bad writing does exist and authors absolutely can mislead an audience. That’s a fair complaint and that’s one case where fiction causing people to react negatively lies partially with the fault of the writer, but it’s a spectrum in that situation as well. As fans, we still have a responsibility to not act like animals or treat each other poorly when bad writing upsets us.

I don’t believe the DLC was badly written. I think Marika’s story was beautiful and Miquella’s downfall was built up to reasonably well while still creating a nice mystery for us. I think FromSoftware is smart in leaving gaps in the story for us to fill, because that leaves us with room to decide what we think happened.

But even if they didn’t. Even if the DLC was objectively just bad…it sucked ass….that still in no way justifies what’s been going on this fandom since it released. That still would not be something to blame for people justifying the Hornsent genocide or getting too heated about interpretations of Miquella.

“Honestly I have no idea what's going on in people's heads when they blame realistic writing (nobody is BORN evil @ naive idealism doesn't work on humans so you either give up or force people to be friends) for the takes they dislike.”

Why do people blame writing at all for the takes they dislike? Why do they blame writing for OTHER people’s views and reactions?

Because of everything I just said. They shift responsibility off of others and themselves and blame it all on the story.

Video games cause violence, kids.

[valacirya]

Decided to make a post about how most (not all) of Thingol's actions that fans criticize were justified (or at least understandable) and in the interest of his people. I'd recommend checking out warrioreowynofrohan and imakemywings for far more comprehensive meta about the tall boi. Also, no quotes because I'm lazy, but all the canon I mention is from the published Silmarillion.

*************************************************************

1. Quenya ban

I've seen the Quenya ban be described as cultural genocide which icks me out. First of all, maybe don't use genocide to describe fictional characters in a fictional universe, especially when it's happening to real people and cultures. Second of all, that term is still inaccurate. Quenya was spoken in Gondolin, probably in Hithlum and Nargothrond too, and no one was punished for it. Earendil could speak Quenya. The Numenoreans could speak Quenya. Bilbo fucking Baggins could speak Quenya.

The ban was a nonviolent way for Thingol to enact some sort of consequence for the people who murdered his brother's people, stole their ships, and then took advantage of his hospitality while keeping this heinous secret. And it was a way to make sure that Sindarin remained the lingua franca of Beleriand, because the Noldor had already proven their disdain towards the Sindar and their intent to establish their own kingdoms. I think it was imakemywings who said that the ban was also a soft power move to show how all the Sindar who worked with/under the Noldor were still ultimately loyal to Thingol and would obey his decree.

So no, the Quenya ban was not racist or xenophobic or cultural genocide. Again, don't use those terms to describe fiction, and if you insist on doing so, at least look them up in the dictionary first.

2. Isolationism

No he wasn't. He was friends with the dwarves, the Laiquendi, and the Falathrim. He made a mutually beneficial alliance with the Haladin. He was rightfully wary of the (armed-to-the-teeth and hiding something) Noldor but even after he learns about the kinslaying he says he won't cut off relations with the Nolofinweans indefinitely because he recognizes that they're in the fight against Morgoth together.

The Girdle of Melian was only put in place after the first battle when Denethor was killed and it was absolutely the right decision strategically. Thingol knew immediately what it took the Noldor 400 years and countless deaths to understand: there was no defeating Morgoth without the Valar. So he took his people and anyone else who was willing, and he created a kingdom with a semblance of peace where they could thrive. Doriath was a fortress and a symbol of hope for Beleriand. As long as Doriath stood, Morgoth hadn't won completely. No one who cared about Beleriand would have sacrificed that hope for some fanciful ideals of vengeance and glory. And don't forget, he let Beleg and Mablung participate in the Nirnaeth. The fact that only those two went means that no one else in Doriath was willing to fight.

3. Maedhros's comment about a king is he who can hold his own

The arrogance. I'm sorry, Mr. I Got Fooled By Morgoth, were you able to hold your own? You'd be a skeleton hanging from a cliff if Fingon hadn't rescued you. Thingol was filling his armories while the Noldor were still chilling in Valinor. Thingol was battling Morgoth while the Noldor were betraying each other and abandoning their home. He literally said: "...elsewhere there are many of my people, and I would not have them restrained of their freedom, still less ousted from their homes." Those are the words of a king who feels responsible for the people outside of Doriath too. Also, check out the difference between Maedhros's "we'll go wherever we want" comment and Thingol's "I don't like them but they'll be the deadliest foes of Morgoth".

His decision to retreat and put up the Girdle was strategically sound. Many Laiquendi joined him after Denethor's death and the Falathrim came and went freely. He had a choice between spreading out his already depleted forces to help the northern Sindar/Falathrim (and likely get annihilated) or retreat, recover, and wait for a better opportunity (the arrival of the Noldor was not a better opportunity; like I said, he knew only the Valar could defeat Morgoth, and Melian also sensed the Doom). Again, Doriath was a symbol of hope. "Gondor wanes, you say. But Gondor stands." Its survival was essential.

4. Attitude towards Men

Look I'm not going to defend his less-than-stellar attitude, but I do think it's exaggerated by the fandom. Before Beren came, Thingol still agreed to let the Haladin dwell in his territory. He even sent the marchwardens to aid them against orcs. And the minute he realizes Beren's loyalty, bravery, and true love for Luthien, he changes and welcomes him (and also appreciates his humor). He treats Turin like a son, and honors and pities Hurin even when Hurin disrespects him. Turgon otoh refuses to let Hurin into Gondolin even though they were actually friends.

5. Didn't join the Union of Maedhros

See: reasons above. Doriath had to survive. Elves could not defeat Morgoth without the Valar. Also, afaik he didn't actually have an army, just the marchwardens and his guard. Also also, Maedhros had subtly threatened him, Celegorm and Curufin had openly threatened him, and this was after they kidnapped and tried to forcibly marry Luthien. Also also also, he "went not to war, nor any out of Doriath save Mablung and Beleg" meaning the general populace didn't want to fight either.

6. Didn't accept refugees

As far as I'm aware, this is completely fanon. The (Noldorin, just fyi) refugees of Nargothrond are accepted into Doriath, as are the Sindar after Bragollach. Curufin and Celegorm's people join Amrod in Ossiriand I believe after the Nirnaeth. There's no canonical basis for this claim.

7. Responsible for Finrod's death

Nah dude. I'm not saying he was right in setting the quest, it was absolutely a horrible quest. But Finrod decided of his own free will to help Beren. You can say that he wouldn't have died if Thingol hadn't set the quest, but that's like saying if Morgoth hadn't stolen the Silmarils, the kinslayings wouldn't have happened. Objectively true, but missing a whole lotta nuance and absolving the Feanorians of their culpability. And I'm not comparing Thingol with Morgoth so don't start.

*************************************************************

The criticisms I don't mention are the ones I agree with. He should have listened to Melian. He should have reasoned with the dwarves instead of insulting them; honestly, his death was pretty stupid. He probably should have been a little more willing to establish relations with the Nolofinweans, but I understand completely why he didn't. He definitely shouldn't have fucked with the Silmaril but tbh, that seemed like one of the parts where a bigger force was determining things, like it was written in the Music already, because that Silmaril did play a key role in Morgoth's defeat.

In conclusion: Thingol rocked, fandom shocked.

Obligatory disclaimer: I meant no offense to anybody, and everyone is entitled to hold their own opinion on the Silm and its characters.

[billpottsismygf]

Space Babies! Weird episode, but it had a charm. I had already prepared myself for the fact that RTD's era was notoriously camp and weird, and that I would for the first time be experiencing new episodes by him as an adult rather than as a 9-13 year-old, so it's not news to me that there would be some campy nonsense with a deeper message, and that this might be more jarring than I'm used to. The deeper themes were really thrown out (refugees, anti-abortion hypocrisy, genocide, capitalism) without being dwelt on, but that's not necessarily a problem.

The babies themselves were... a little unnerving? The mouth movements were quite uncanny, along with their voices and the general "I love you, Ruby!" of it all. I've just now made the connection that the latter puts me in mind of adverts for baby dolls.

The gunky snot monster felt very early 2000s British children's TV. If you weren't there for that, just know there was so much slime; think Slitheen exploding. I am very glad it got rescued. Nice message with the Doctor not usually running from things just because they look scary and, even though this is a creature specifically manufactured to be scary, it still deserves a shot at life.

It feels like a strange story to start with because I suspect it'll have mixed reviews. I would think you'd want a slightly more solid episode to draw people in with. Anyway, there was still a lot of thought put into making this a proper jumping off point with all its Doctor Who 101 stuff. Funny for a long-time viewer hearing it all rattled off in record time, but important to establish for new people, and I do think it's important for the show to remain accessible to people who haven't been obsessing over it for twenty years or more.

As a jumping off point, it very specifically reminded me of The End of the World. There's the big observation deck on a space station where the new companion, in her second episode and first off-world adventure, gets her phone updated so she can call her mum, in particular. The parallels to Rose are interesting, especially with the lecture the Doctor gives Ruby about how they can't travel back to meet her missing parent(s).

Speaking of that, there's some intrigue there with the snow appearing and the memory changing. I didn't like the Doctor doing a DNA scan of Ruby without her knowledge. It feels very 11th Doctor, especially when he literally scanned Amy and withheld medical information, but also the way he treated all his female companions as mystery boxes to solve without telling them. I guess we'll see what that's all about at a later point.

I'm still not completely sold on Millie Gibson, but Ncuti Gatwa is wonderful, and I do really appreciate their chemistry.

Small things:

Jocelyn was a good character, and the Nan-E filter made me laugh several times.

That place name before the Doctor turned the translation circuits off was absolutely not in English. Slightly weird way to phrase that line if it's going to be called Pacifico del Rio.

This is a very early point in the series for Ruby to get a TARDIS key! We're really speedrunning the usual steps here.

[number-1-kuaidul-fanboy]

Which yugioh villians seems to have undeserved redemption arcs?

The abusive parents

That is my immediate answer. All of them, aside from Fuya/Nelson's mother who in the dub at least took accountability, changed for the better when she realized she was hurting her son, and was just never to the level of these other jerks I'm gonna talk about. None of these jackasses deserved redemption.

Gozaburo and Judai's offscreen parents thankfully didn't get the "redemption" treatment so I won't talk about how awful they are but from 5Ds onward, Yugioh has been doing this constantly and it pisses me off. Don't believe me? Here's a list off the top of my head. Spanning every show from 5Ds through Go Rush! Aside from Sevens.

Aki's father

I've been over this before but Yusei and the narrative itself forced Aki to forgive her emotionally and physically abusive father because this episode thinks her forgiving him was the only way to be "whole and good." This is still the most disgusting example of this pattern in Yugioh to me since at least none of the other characters were forced by characters in the story to forgive their abusers, they just did of their own volition for reasons I'll never understand.

Byron Arclight and Dr Faker

The former was quickly forgiven by his three kids who he used as pawns to gain number cards without so much as an onscreen conversation.

And the latter meanwhile was forgiven by Kaito and Haruto just because he's their dad I guess? Even though he was the villain of Zexal I and didn't give a single fuck about Kaito, his older son.

Eliphas

Maybe not forgiven by the characters (though possibly it's been a while since I've seen Zexal) but he was a shitty creator/father to Astral and a shitty leader to his people as he was constantly making all of them suffer with his awful decisions that did not have their best interests at heart yet his death is treated like some "noble sacrifice." NO. Too little too late. Rest in Hell.

Leo Akaba

This one's probably self-explanatory but he was a neglectful father to Reiji/Declan, abandoned him to start a war, disrespected his dead daughter's wishes, imprisoned four girls because they look like his daughter, and in doing all this, caused the revival of a literal DEMON who nearly destroyed the world. Declan rightfully stands up to him for this but in the end, Leo STILL otherwise gets off scott-free, not in jail or dead or anything, just vibing with the rest of the cast and the son he abandoned doesn't even seem to hold any ill will anymore. WHY?! He did all this world endingly horrible shit, didn't do shit to make up for it, and he ends the series with no consequences because?! What?! He "apologized"?! He "had reasons"?! NONE OF THAT JUSTIFIES GENOCIDE.

Himika Akaba

This bitch does not get nearly enough hate for grooming a traumatized child into a tool for war. She does NOT get to act like she's some "caring mother" to baby Reira/Riley after pulling that shit and roping her son into doing the same. He didn't, thankfully, he wanted Riley to have her own thoughts and feelings and not just the unfeeling vessel his mother groomed her to be but still. She STILL gets off scott-free for this and it's disgusting.

Kiyoshi Kogami

Okay, I'm cheating a bit since this guy was never redeemed or remotely treated as a good guy, thank god, but he fits this trend because Ryoken/Revolver, the son he neglected and traumatized, DID forgive him (even if the narrative/other characters don't) and continued to fight for his shitty ideals while being presented as a character we're supposed to sympathize with. This is more of a Ryoken character problem but it ties into this theme of shitty parents getting off scott-free in this franchise.

And if I had to guess, the next example of this disgusting trope is gonna end up being the Creator

Aka Otes's Earthdamar and the unnamed creator of the Velgearians. I hope he's not redeemed or forgiven. I hope he's condemned for creating an entire species just to be his pawns, MERGING WITH ONE OF THOSE PAWNS, and showing preferential treatment to Yudias over Kuaidul as well as a fucking card game over Kuaidul and the other Velgearians, both of which wrecked Kuaidul's mental and emotional state and contributed to him going down his villainous path. I know Yudias is known for forgiveness but come on he has to draw the line SOMEWHERE right?! Draw the line at the douche who basically ruined Kuaidul and Zwijo's lives, and sees them and the rest of you as things to use!

[six-paths-of-jeanmarco]

Thank you for killing me slowly by a thousand mental cuts the ask, anon! First of all, lemme apologize for taking so long to answer, but in my defence, you asked me quite the question here.

I want to say first that I used to be a big snk fan. And then the final chapter was released. It was so bad that it made me look at the whole series with a very critical eye, which made me realize that snk has never been that great to begin with. What really made this story good was the anime produced by WIT, and what really carried the story was its big mystery box. The moment we opened it, everything went downhill bc this was no longer a fantasy world, but a lazy parody of ww2 Germany & Japan.

But more importantly, and referring to the final arc, I started to notice all the rot hidden in plain sight: its fascist and antisemitic undertones, the awful writing, the lackluster worldbuilding, the braindead politics and the inconsistent treatment of characters.

Despite my newfound interest for the cautionary symbolism of Reiner and his character arc, I still think it was handled poorly. I have the same problem with characters like Gabi, Annie, Magath, and Pieck. Their individual arcs ended with them facing no real consequences for their crimes. Magath, despite being a literal representation of the nazi, was rewarded by the plot with a heroic death (a baffling choice when you think about who he is and what he did, and just how brutal and meaningless all of the Scouts deaths were pre timeskip). Reiner, Annie, Pieck, and Gabi were all rewarded with the promise of a new, happier life ahead of them, despite being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths directly or indirectly.

Gabi herself is proof of just how bad the writing is: RBA lived inside the walls for around 3 years, and yet they still went on with their mission. They still killed Marco. Annie still massacred those Scouts. It took Reiner 7 years to fully acknowledge that what he did was wrong and to finally make amends ... by joining an alliance that had the same goal as that of the warriors for the whole goddamn arc: take down Eren. However, Gabi realized she was wrong in like what, just a few months at best? Their development is dictated by however the plot needs them to be or act. But there's more:

Marco, the Levi Squad, Sasha, and -- as victims of similar circumstances -- Pixis, and Hange, the embodiment of pacifism, were all condemned for being good people, and some of them for believing that there is good in everybody, even in their enemies; and punished for believing that conflicts could be solved in peaceful ways. Does the cautionary symbolism of their brutal deaths still holds up when the story rewards violence and crushes pacifism?

I don't think it does.

Showing that even the worst of the worst are capable of change and doing the right thing in the end is an important message, but. The idea that everyone is just a victim of their uprising or their circumstances is simply wrong. Ideologies don't exist without people, cowardice does not justify orders carried out that lead to attrocities. This idea fails to acknowledge that evil exists. Not just nuanced evil, but pure evil as well. It also goes the other way around. This idea also fails to acknowledge that good can exist.

And also to sympathize with Pieck, who was still loyal to marley despite what they're doing to her own people. And Magath, who in his final moments, revealed that he actually cared about the kids he was indoctrinating and instructing to commit genocide all along. I can't ignore the similarity with the way neonazi like to bring up hitler's friendship with Bernile Nienau, a girl of Jewish origins, as an attempt to humanize him. Heck, even Zeke's final moments painted him as more sympathetic than he was. Such is the case with Floch, and the way Jean reacted to his death. All those characters were redeemed in the audience's eyes without facing any substantial accountability.

I also have a huge issue with the false equivalences that were supposed to show us how morally grey everyone and everything is.

-> The link to the post in the screenshot

Jean and Connie and the Scouts that attacked Liberio aren't just wrongfully presented as something they're not, they're also used as tools to rationalize what Reiner and co have done to them throughout most of the series. Jean briefly does that with what Reiner did to Marco before he punches him to a pulp. Then again with the "we're the same" bs. Then again with implying Reiner is one of them as a Scout. There's also no real tension between the warriors and the Paradis side of the alliance. What the warriors did to Paradis is truly horrific, so their only way for redemption is through their victims.

The mistake that most people do when they interpret their relationship or the characters themselves is to only look at the characters' in-story intent. But there's also this thing called the author's intent that overrides everything. Sometimes, you cannot separate an author from their work. Especially when it comes to the final 12 chapters, where the quality of the writing is in the sewer.

But there's actually another way through which these characters were redeemed: the introduction of a much greater evil and a much horrific event that makes everything else pale in comparison. The main conflict of the story was revealed to have always been Eldians vs Eldians. But that wasn't always the case. Not until isayama retconned Eren, and then treated him the same way he treated the warriors. Eren's friends refused to condemn his actions, and instead repeatedly rationalized, then absolved and thanked him for what he did. It doesn't matter that they still did what was right in the end, that Mikasa killed him, or that Armin admitted they're both going to hell for the atrocities they've individually committed. In the anime. Which came out almost 3 years after the release of chapter 139+the extras and the massive backlash that followed. Let's not forget how that conversation went in the manga:

None of that matters because there's a dissonance between their actions & words and their attitude. isayama couldn't condemn any of his genocidal characters in a way that matters, in a way that would leave no room for moral ambiguity. But perhaps the greatest injustice isayama has committed to his own characters, story and messages was to retcon Eren, the character that was at the center of a message as powerful as the idea that we're all special because we're simply born in this world, into a genocidal maniac that cared about no one and nothing (if he actually cared about his friends, he wouldn't have put them through living hell, not when he actually had the power to prevent it, and if he actually cared about his mother, he wouldn't have killed her) through one of the worst executions of the time travel trope I've ever seen.

Snk is not a story that condemns fascism, let a lone a "masterpiece" when it comes to social or political themes, because it's centralized on justifying the oppression of the Eldians and making it an integral part of the plot. Not only are the Eldians an obvious metaphor for Jews, which is antisemitic on its own given how it's executed, but isayama ends up making them truly horrific because he takes real world antisemitic conspiracies and turns them into factual realities in his own story, all while seemingly acknowledging that Jews have been oppressed and the victims of the worst genocide in history. Moreover, the Eldians also seem to be ideologically inspired by imperial Japan, Paradis in particular. As @ shangyang points out in their essay, we shouldn't forget the fact that this is a manga authored by a Japanese man, nor that Japan has its own history with fascism. (Plesse don't skip any of the posts linked here)

All that being said, isayama's true intent is more than clear: violence is praised because his characters were written so to see violence as their only option, and the fascist mentality of eternal warfare as the status quo. Pacifism is not presented as an option. There's no nuance, only extremism. Even the cycle of hatred at the very end only serves as proof that the intent of the story is to present an extremely narrow worldview in which the human species is only capable of perpetual warmongering, hatred, destruction, and death. Which is wrong and is the very opposite of what I'd call "nuance", imo. And the reason this bothers me so much is because snk and other "morally grey" works alike aren't portraying evil people as just that, people, and evil as something that exists in all of us - no, what they're doing is making the unlikeable likeable, the unjustifiable justifiable, and they're making people sympathetic towards things they shouldn't be sympathizing. Such narratives are banalizing evil (if I had a nickel for how many posts I've seen justifying what Magath did or outright saying they love the guy, well I'd have a lot of nickels) and depreciating good (lots of nickels for all the posts I've seen bashing the Scouts). Such narratives serve as propaganda for the things they claim to condemn.

The result is that such stories beget ignorance, and ignorance is a fertile ground, whether is the case of people who are only interested in shipping and blorbofication, or the people who are not properly educated to know what they're dealing with.

And there's a reason actual fascists and neonazi are circling the series like flies, identifying with the yeagerists, and saying that "Eren was right". They're not taking control of the narrative, they're seeing it for what it really is. The progression of Eren's character arc, his motivations, the retcons, the conclusion of the story, Ymir's motivation, the undeserved redemptions, the characters not behaving in ways they should based on their history, none of those things make sense because they don't have to make sense. They're only pretexts meant to mask the actual intent of the story. The cycle of hatred didn't end because the rumbling truly failed. Because "the enemy" (the people outside Paradis, all of them, as Eren made it very clear) wasn't completely obliterated. Because as long as there's "the enemy", there can't be peace. Fascists have a complex relationship with war. They don’t like it, but "the enemy" is always forcing their hand. The rumbling was meant to succeed.

This is not a cautionary tale for anti-fascists.

Snk is a cautionary tale for fascists.

Now recontextualize all of that in present-day fascist politics, and see where it takes you. But ofc, this is only my interpretation, based exclusively on the story itself.