#like. how did you miss that the protagonist’s arc directly parallels the narrative’s arc

[akitossohma]

just read a letterboxd review that described lawrence’s crisis of faith as “underdeveloped and intrusive”, which is baffling considering the institutional crisis of faith afflicting the Catholic Church is the philosophical conflict that underpins the entire story

[thinkingisadangerouspastime]

I hate to be an asshole, but I see this a lot and I'd like your take because while we have differing opinions on some things, your metas are spot on (and I binged half your stories last weekend, oops) and I know you'll be straight up with me on this. What "chemistry" between Zuko and Katara? I keep seeing that and not getting it? The chemistry when he roughed up her grandmother and threatened her village? The chemistry when he tied her to a tree and violated her boundaries? (1/3)

The chemistry when he hired a trained assassin to stalk her good friend and if collateral damage happened, oopsie? The chemistry when he stabbed her in the back after she was nice to him in the crystal catacombs? The chemistry when he demanded that she accept him? Or the chemistry when he showed he didn’t know her at all? The chemistry when both of them were grossed out being thought a couple? Or is it the chemistry when he saved her and Katara couldn’t wait to kiss another guy? (2/3)

I dislike r/eylo from Star Wars fandom. I think it sends the wrong message. But as much as I hate it, there was chemistry there from the first. Rey is attracted to him and Kylo is attracted to her. They don’t want to be, but they are and it plays out in the next two movies. There was none of that in ATLA and I can understand z/ks saying it but other people? What am I missing? Where am I not looking? I’m not even that huge on Katara/Aang but Zuko/Katara chemistry where? (3/3)

Obligatory disclaimer: this is my personal response to anon’s questions and my personal thoughts on Zvtara’s chemistry. I’m not going to put this into the main tags - much less the Zvtara tag! - because while I believe this is a genuine question, I don’t doubt there’s at least one person out there who will misconstrue it as “hate” because the A:TLA fandom is, uh, aggressive in its ship wars lol. However, if I have any Zvtara shippers following me, I encourage you to reblog this post with your own thoughts! Please refrain from sending your commentary on anon unless you’re going to be friendly about it, lol; I like to keep my blog positive and welcoming! Thank you :)

Firstly, I am EXTREMELY flattered that you enjoy my metas so much and binged half my fics!! I was grinning so gleefully as I read that part of your asks,, y’all are too sweet to me. 💛

Okay. Moving on.

So, the main question here seems to be this: What chemistry exists between Zuko and Katara in A:TLA?

Short answer? None, in my opinion.

Longer answer? For all the reasons you outline in your asks, I do not perceive any romantic chemistry between Zuko and Katara within the series run of A:TLA. Note the qualifiers: “romantic” and “within the series run.” I’ll try to break down what I mean!

“no romantic chemistry”

For one, a romantic interest with anyone in the Gaang would have undermined Zuko’s entire redemption arc, full stop. Yes, I mean anyone. For Zuko to have joined the Gaang because of romantic interest* would have been… counterproductive. Zuko joined the Gaang because he realized - to put it very simply - that the Fire Nation was wrong. He realized how he’d been indoctrinated since birth. He realized that he could help the Avatar (instead of trying to, uh, kill him lmao) by teaching him firebending. He realized he could help Aang defeat the Fire Lord and bring peace to the four nations. Zuko realized he could help end the war. He could help break the cycles of violence and abuse that had in part made his own life so miserable. For him to join the Gaang because of romantic interest? Completely takes away from all of that. A key theme of A:TLA is dismantling imperialist power, propaganda, rhetoric, etc. Zuko’s decision to fight against Fire Nation imperialism is crucial to his redemption. He could not have been redeemed without making that choice. Thus, if Zuko had joined the Gaang because of romantic interest, it would have been completely counteractive to his redemption.

(*That is, the relatively popular [? I think?] implication that Zuko and Katara’s moment in “The Crossroads of Destiny” was romantic-coded and thus Zuko should have joined the Gaang at the end of Book 2 because he had romantic interest in Katara and she in him. I genuinely am clueless how people interpret that moment as romantic - like to me it’s honestly heartbreaking! Katara offers Zuko tentative sympathy only for him to stab her in the back minutes later - so if someone would like to share some thoughts, please feel free to do so!!)

On a similar note, for Zuko to take the lightning for Katara at the end of the series because of romantic interest would also undermine his redemption arc. Please note: this does not mean Zvtara shippers cannot interpret the Agni Kai as being romantic-coded. Of course they can! That’s what fanon is for! Transformative works! But in terms of canon, Zuko did not try (and fail, rip) to redirect Azula’s lightning because he was romantically interested in Katara. (I mean, in terms of canon, Zuko and Katara were both romantically interested in other people, too, so… Moot point, lol? But I digress.)

Zuko taking the lightning is about him learning to earn forgiveness and accept unconditional love from his family (both Iroh and the Gaang). It is a selfless act, and it directly parallels Zuko’s selfish act in “The Crossroads of Destiny” to stand silently while Azula strikes Aang with lightning, thus becoming complicit in Aang’s death. The point of his “sacrifice” is that Zuko would have taken the lightning for anyone (and don’t get me wrong - the moment is doubly powerful with Katara, as she’s a primary protagonist!). Zuko did not attempt but fail to redirect the lightning because it was Katara he was protecting; he took it because it was the right thing to do. Zuko has learned to differentiate between “right and wrong” on his own. To at last put others before himself. To make his decision about romantic interest? To make Zuko’s most selfless act in the series (not to mention one of his only 100% selfless acts!) about out-of-the-blue “romantic love”? That not only lessens the impact of his decision, but it is also reductive to Zuko’s entire character and arc. There’s no romantic chemistry there.

Again, of course, fanon exists for purposes such as interpreting Zuko’s failed misdirection of the lightning to protect Katara as romantic. Go wild!! I’m talking strictly about canon.

So that pretty much summarizes why romantic interest with anyone in the Gaang would have been detrimental to Zuko’s redemption, hence why Zuko doesn’t have any canon romantic chemistry in the Gaang. It just ain’t there! It would have screwed over his arc! And again, because of all the reasons you outline, I cannot comfortably interpret any romantic chemistry between Zuko and Katara within the series run of A:TLA. Personally, romantic Zvtara would have been too sudden, too unexpected, and too… well, as I said: uncomfortable. Why would Katara have romantic interest in a guy who’d hurt her so many times? Who she’d only just forgiven? Why would Zuko have romantic interest in Katara, a girl he barely knew for most of the series? Especially when he already had feelings for a childhood friend? I, personally, just don’t get it.

But. You know what Zuko and Katara do have in canon?

A phenomenal platonic bond.

It develops very late, admittedly; Katara has only forgiven Zuko for the last five episodes of the series (5 out of 61… Katara was only on good terms with Zuko for 8% of the series, lmao). But Zuko and Katara are very, very similar personality-wise, so it follows that (eventually) they’d be great friends! Yeah, Zuko acts like an entitled dick for a good portion of “The Southern Raiders” lmao, but he ultimately respects Katara’s decision to spare Yon Rha (love that scene so much 🤧). Katara recognizes that Zuko is trying his best (if sometimes falling short) to redeem himself and earn the Gaang’s trust, and she also understands how - while she is completely justified in her anger! - holding that hatred close to her chest isn’t good for her. So she offers him a third chance (and honestly, Zuko should be forever grateful for that lmao!).

So what can a strong platonic bond lead to? Well, if it’s in your taste, a romantic relationship!

“within the series run”

As aforementioned, I don’t see any romantic chemistry between Zuko and Katara within the series run of A:TLA. I think Zuko has hurt Katara in too many ways - and again, she has only just forgiven him by the end of the show - for there to realistically have been any blossoming romance between them. I think romantic interest for anyone in the Gaang would undermine Zuko’s redemption. I also think M@iko and K@taang are well-implemented romances into A:TLA, so romantic Zvtara would not have fit into the narrative. (Doesn’t mean someone has to ship them!! I just mean they made logical sense and had narrative purpose within canon. That’s all.) But again, Zuko and Katara have a great platonic bond. So while I don’t see romance within the series run, I can understand why people might be attracted to Zvtara in post-canon!

Post-A:TLA (disregarding LOK, which I haven’t even seen lol) Zvtara has some solid potential. I’m personally intrigued by the idea of how they’d navigate their relationship amidst all the politics! Basically, any relationship with a strong platonic bond can have potential for “more.” That’s why people ship T@ang, that’s why people ship Zvkaang, Zvkka, M@ilee, etc. So while Zvtara may not have romantic chemistry within the show - in my opinion! - they’ve got one of my favorite platonic bonds, so I can totally get people wanting to explore that bond in post-A:TLA and possibly translating it to romance.

So for some people, then, it might be less about “chemistry” in A:TLA itself, but more how their relationship could grow and change after the end of the series!

Quick sidebar: I mentioned that while I do not interpret the final Agni Kai as romantic, I’m fine when other people do. It’s fanon! Ain’t no big thing! But also, Katara has forgiven Zuko by that point. I, personally, am not comfortable with reading any of Zuko and Katara’s TSR-and-earlier interactions as romantic because of the imbalanced power dynamic. Example: I don’t think Zuko tying Katara to a tree and manipulating her with her mother’s necklace was romantic, and I don’t like the resulting implications when people do treat it as such. Zuko was still so indoctrinated by Fire Nation propaganda… Yeah, from Book 1 to about halfway through Book 3, I personally don’t feel comfortable shipping Zuko with anyone outside of the Fire Nation. Pre-redemption Zuko was not the most fun person to be around if you were non-Fire Nation.

But as I’ve said, these are all just my opinions! Again, if I have any Zvtara shippers following me, please feel free to reblog with your own thoughts! I would love to know where the idea comes from that Zvtara had chemistry within A:TLA, since I personally don’t see any romantic vibes (though platonic chemistry, of course, abounds.)

(For the record, I don’t know anything about Star Wars, which is why I haven’t brought up R.eylo, lol.)

TL;DR - To me, there isn’t any canon romantic chemistry for Zvtara. Narratively, I think it would undermine Zuko’s arc. Logically, because of how Zuko treated Katara for 92% of the series, I personally cannot interpret any of their interactions as romantic. But their platonic bond? Beautiful!! Thus, if people want to explore post-A:TLA, fanon Zvtara, I am all for it.

[hashtagartistlife]

Do you have a license for all these hot takes? ▲ Unleash the other meta conversation. Please give use Ichigo.

Or not, apparently I don't know how to read and missed that you already did one for him. Oh well.

Even though I’ve already given my Hot Take about Ichigo (see here), I figured I can take this chance to write that meta I promised re: ichiruki’s double protag status, the meaning of ichigo’s name, and what it means to be a shounen hero. This will also sort of addresses the debacle a few months ago in regard to the Only well-worded, moderately coherent and somewhat valid IH meta I have read, which is also primarily about the meaning of ichigo’s name and how that ties in with the overall theme of protection throughout the manga. (I think the basis for the IH meta – that Ichigo only ever uses the serious form of the word ‘to protect’ for ORIHIME as an individual, and that the other times he uses them are for broader swathes of things—has been debunked in the comments, but since I don’t speak Japanese I really can’t figure out the validity of either side of the argument so I’ll take it as it is. Also, when I say ‘somewhat valid meta’, what I mean is in the context of the narrative I don’t think it’s valid at all, but at least there aren’t major glaring logical fallacies in the meta itself. The bar is so, so low for IH meta. I’m not even sure we can call most of their…. text-vomit… meta at all. 

Anyway. Petty and off-topic.) 

So, here goes: the meta about ichigo’s name and how it correlates to the theme of protection throughout the manga, what it means to be a shounen hero, and why and how those two things tie in with ichiruki’s double protag status! 

Ichigo’s name is comprised of two kanji – one obviously the kanji for the number one, the other a kanji that means ‘to protect’. We all know this. This leads to Ichigo’s name potentially having two interpretations: ‘one protector’ (or as the official eng translation put it, the one who protects), or ‘to protect one thing’ (the translation used in the scanlator’s versions + official kr translation). Both would make sense given the context of the entire story, but I tend to think the latter version is slightly more relevant (not necessarily more accurate— just more relevant), mostly because in chapter 19, straight after hearing the meaning of his name, Ichigo goes on to single out one thing (one person) that he wants to protect—his mom. 

(And why does he single out his mom for this honour? Because his mom always protected him. This is relevant a little later.)

He then does go on to say that as his sisters were born and he went to the dojo and got stronger, the list of things he wanted to protect grew, so it’s absolutely valid to read his name as just meaning ‘protector’. But, despite that, it’s very clear in the text that Ichigo always has one thing (person) that he wants to protect above all no matter what. This is the ‘one’ thing that he associates his identity of ‘protector’ to. Initially, it’s his mom—because when she dies, despite the ‘growing list of people he wants to protect’ still existing, Ichigo loses his sense of identity as ‘the protector’. Sure, he still protects his sisters, but it’s duty driving him— he no longer thinks of himself as a protector. How can he, when, in his view, he’s the one who practically killed his mother? His ‘growing list of people to protect’ halts to a stop, and years later, we see him telling Rukia that he’s ‘not a good enough guy to stick his neck out for other people’. This is a lie, as we all know, but it’s important that Ichigo is espousing this rhetoric. He has stopped actively wanting to protect. 

So, despite Ichigo having an innate desire to protect, I would argue it’s conditional – 1) dependent on the one person he wants to protect the most (e.g. his mom, and, as I will argue in a moment, Rukia) being alive and well, because otherwise he just falls into despair and rejects his identity as protector, and 2) initially dependent on the subject of protection being someone close to him. Ichigo, despite having progressed to ‘I will definitely protect everybody’ by the tybw arc, did not start there—it was a progression! He starts off very small and quite selfish – first, the person most important to him, his mom. Then his family. Then his friends. Then friends of friends, then acquaintances, then—and so on. This is why I said Ichigo is self-centred: everything he does is dependent first and foremost on the things and people that are most important to him. (Which is fine for a normal person! Maybe not so fine as a shounen protagonist, though that part comes later.) Ichigo doesn’t start off with some lofty ideal to protect the whole world – compare that to Rukia, who lands in the story and immediately demands him to protect everybody, regardless of distance or convenience. As dux put it in his excellent meta, this is an instinct towards protection versus a philosophy of protection. Ichigo has an instinct to protect, like most people do! But Rukia has a philosophy of protection, which most people can’t even begin to fathom or try to emulate. (This will, again, be important for a later point in this post, but for now, back to ichigo’s name.) 

So basically, we have established so far that: Ichigo’s name means one who protects or protector of one thing. But whichever interpretation we go by, it’s evident in the text that Ichigo has a… tether person, of sorts, that he ties the meaning of his name and his identity of ‘protector’ to—a person he wants to protect above all. Initially it’s his mom. But after his mom dies? 

It’s Rukia. 

It’s blatant. Ichigo being unable to save Rukia in ch56 broken coda is DIRECTLY paralleled with him being unable to save Masaki. At the end of the arc, in having saved Rukia, Ichigo regains his identity as protector finally gets some closure re: the Masaki era of his life: ‘the rain’s finally stopped’. It’s very clear that Rukia’s importance to his identity as protector is equivalent to the importance that Masaki had on it. Rukia has now become his ‘tether’; Rukia is now the person he wants to protect above all; Rukia is the one, who, should he fail to protect her, he would fall into despair and reject his protector identity again. He WAS a little down about being unable to protect Tatsuki, Chad, and Orihime in the HM arc, but it was nothing like the abject despair he experienced at Masaki’s death + Rukia being taken away for execution, and as soon as RUKIA comes back and affirms his identity, despite the fact of his failure still existing, Ichigo perks straight back up. Basically, failures to protect people other than Rukia get Ichigo down, but it’s not enough to keep him down as long as Rukia’s still standing. 

Ichigo also consistently goes apeshit over Rukia’s safety in particular. He’s not spurred into action re: going to find the Vaizards until Rukia becomes hurt. He thinks of Yammy and Ulquiorra, but his eyes don’t glaze over black until he thinks of Grimmjow, who has hurt Rukia. He refuses to split up and Rukia specifically calls him out  that it’s out of concern for HER safety. As soon as he feels Rukia being cut down, he immediately throws away the mission to go save her instead. And most importantly – what’s the main criteria for Ichigo deciding on the one he wants to protect the most? It’s the person who protects HIM. Rukia is one of the only people in the text who consistently protects Ichigo, physically, mentally, and emotionally. (She is also the only person that the text refers to as having ‘saved’ Ichigo. Nobody else gets this distinction.) 

Alright! So Ichigo’s instinct towards protection has a self-centred bent to it, and the person at the centre of this instinct has gone from being Masaki to Rukia. So what now from here? 

A little bit of a tangent: when I first read the chapter regarding the meaning of Ichigo’s name, I was a little taken aback, because – what a selfish name for a shounen protag, for someone who’s supposed to go on to become a hero of the world. Heroes don’t get to protect just one thing, they have to protect everybody! How is Ichigo going to be a shounen protag saving the whole world, if he’s only going to protect one thing? 

To answer this question, we need to have a look at what makes a typical shounen protag. Look at Naruto, whose ‘ninja way’ has rehabilitated countless people, who eventually became Hokage, so that ‘his ninja way’ officially became adopted as the whole Leaf Village’s ‘ninja way’. Look at Luffy and his crew, whose carefree attitudes and ride-or-die comradeship between their crew members is widely admired and emulated. Look at Fairy Tail, where Natsu’s guild is the ideal for what a guild should be, and many guilds have reformed in their image with their values. What makes a typical shounen protagonist, I would argue, are two main things: an indisputable, unshakeable, almost inhumanly good ideal widely recognized within the canon as the way that things should be, and the faith, power, and drive necessary to rehabilitate people to this ideal and change the world so that it becomes closer to this ideal. 

Naruto is the ideal of a ninja. Luffy and his crew are the ideal of a pirate crew. Natsu’s Fairy Tail guild is the ideal of a mage guild. 

Is Ichigo the ideal of what a Shinigami should be? 

Not initially! Initially, he’s just a prickly little kid with a shitload of trauma and depression to boot! Initially, his instinct to protect has a self-centred bent to it! Initially, he’s not even a Shinigami at all! 

This is where Rukia comes in. Rukia and her philosophy of protection is the ideal of this series – she is what all Shinigami should be. The text isn’t even subtle about this—Rukia canonically has the most beautiful sword (soul) in all of Soul Society. Realistic or not, Rukia is the ‘absolute good’ of this universe—her ideal is, theoretically, the universal ideal. 

But idealism alone doesn’t make Rukia the protagonist-- Rukia lacks the faith, power and drive necessary to turn people to her way of thinking and enact change, which is the other key component of a shounen protag. This is the part that Ichigo supplies—his complete and utterly unshakeable faith in Rukia and her values, the power necessary to back those values, and the ability to spread these values far and wide so that other people start to take up these values as well. I said above that Rukia’s philosophy of protection is so far-fetched that most people can’t even begin to fathom or emulate it—but Ichigo is not ‘most people’. He’s a shounen protag, goddammit! He has the ability to take up an ‘ideal’ that for most people would be impossible, and actually enact change towards that ideal. 

This is why Ichigo and Rukia are double protagonists. Not because they were designed to be matchy-matchy or because of their avalanche of matching titles or whatever else. This is why. They are literally two halves of one shounen protagonist. Kubo called them sand and rotator in the side A and B poems, and he could NOT have picked a better analogy for them. Think of a watermill (or a sand mill, as the analogy is given), which is used to grind grain. The mill by itself cannot perform its purpose any more than the water by itself can magically grind the grain. The water needs to be driven by the wheel through the right mechanisms, and the wheel needs the water to actually function. Rukia drives Ichigo, points him in the right direction with her values, and Ichigo supplies the force necessary to enact change. Rotator, and sand. One protagonist, split into two. 

(As a completely unrelated aside, I don’t know what it’s like in Japan, but in Korea ‘grinding the grain’ is a euphemism for sex, and watermills are inextricably associated with illicit liaisons. They’re the eastern world’s equivalent to the western world’s stables- any raunchy business conducted outside is usually conducted in a watermill.) 

This is also why Ichigo’s name wasn’t something more all-encompassing. He can ‘protect one thing’ and still be a hero – as long as the ‘one thing’ he protects is Rukia. He wants to protect Rukia above all else, to the detriment of others, even (as evidenced by him turning away from rescuing Orihime to rescue Rukia)—but Rukia tells him no, no, I refuse to be protected by you, you have to protect the whole world. This is why it HAS to be Rukia for Ichigo – anyone with less than the absolute selfless ideal that Rukia has could never make Ichigo into the hero. Rukia turns Ichigo’s head to the whole world, opens his eyes to the possibility of protecting more than those in his immediate circle, makes him selfless enough to go through with it. Rukia makes Ichigo the hero. (Big aside: I’m not using ‘hero’ and ‘protag’ interchangeably here. Ichigo is the ‘hero’ of the narrative, but BOTH ichigo and rukia are the ‘protagonists’ of the story.) 

But that isn’t the end of it. I have mentioned, in the past, that Bleach is not typical shounen, that it is structured more like YA lit and should be analysed as such. ‘But Sera! You just spent like 2 A4 pages talking about why Ichigo and Rukia are Standard Shounen Protags together!’ Ah but you see, that’s only initially. INITIALLY, Ichigo and Rukia need each other to become One Whole Stock Standard Shounen Protag. Rukia lacks faith and drive, Ichigo lacks ideal. They need the other to support their flaws, initially. To be completely honest, this is an excellent way to start an unhealthy codependent relationship. The most beautiful part about Ichiruki is that they don’t go down this path at all. They start becoming a whole shounen protag individually, by adopting the other person’s strength as their own. Rukia’s ideals inspire Ichigo, and by tybw, he is as avid about protecting everybody as Rukia is. Rukia sees Ichigo’s unrelenting faith in the fact that she is a good person worth saving, and starts believing in it herself and reciprocates in kind in HM and FB arcs. This is where the YA component comes in—YA protags, unlike typical Shounen Protags, don’t start off with an unapproachable ideal and the power+faith+drive necessary to change the world with it. They GROW into it. That is what Ichigo and Rukia are doing—they are both growing throughout the whole story to fit their protagonist roles, so that eventually, they can become One Whole Independent protagonist on their own. 

It’s a beautiful, perfectly balanced, ironic jigsaw puzzle: Rukia had the ideal, but didn’t have the ability to turn others to this ideal. The only person she turned to it was Ichigo, but that was enough—Ichigo turns everyone else to it as well, overcoming centuries of tradition. Ichigo had the faith and drive, but no-one to put it behind. The only person he put it behind was Rukia, and that was enough—she and her values guide his choices and actions, and he becomes heroic. Ichigo and Rukia each failed one criteria for being a shounen protag, except with each other, BUT THAT WAS ENOUGH. Affecting and changing just one person—each other—was enough to set everything in motion.

A couple other points that I couldn’t find a place to fit into the essay cohesively, but think they’re still worth a mention:

Rukia says ‘all souls should be protected’, and she enacts this by protecting Ichigo, who is a hybrid of all the different soul types present in the narrative: human, quincy, hollow, reaper. Ichigo, despite being such a mixed entity, identifies firmly as shinigami, not because the shinigami convinced him with their ironclad, lofty morals but because Rukia did. 

If Ichigo’s main flaw is being self-centred and tunnel visioned + a weird sort of superiority/hero complex, then Rukia’s main flaw is probably the exact opposite - despite having this incredible ideal, her lack of faith in herself + her tendency to obey the system in all but the most dire, life-threatening situations. Even their flaws are a perfect balancing act, mitigating each other out. (Rukia’s main flaws I probably want to go into in a bit more detail some other time, since it’s not something the fandom in general has much discussion on.)

So! In summary, the tl,dr version: 

Ichigo’s name means ‘protector’ or ‘to protect one thing’ (both versions have been used in official translations). The latter is more relevant, as I have explained above. This ‘one thing’ initially is his mom, but by the end of the SS arc, it has very firmly become Rukia, again evidence listed above. 

This had the potential to be problematic, as it’s not very heroic of someone to want to protect just one person, to hell with everyone else. BUT the narrative sidesteps that by making Ichigo and Rukia two halves of one shounen protagonist, and making them work best when they are together.

Shounen protags require two components: an ideal, and the ability+desire to enact that ideal. Rukia had the former, Ichigo had the latter. That’s why it’s not problematic for Ichigo to want to protect just one person most— because that one person is actually the ‘ideal moral standard’ of their entire universe, and she keeps telling him to use his powers for good and not just her. 

But that’s not even all. Initially, they need the other to become ‘whole’, so to speak— but they don’t stay that way. Ichigo and Rukia have an immensely positive impact on each other, and help each other grow to adopt the best traits of the other and become a hero in their own right. Again, this is why they are both protagonists— because both of them kept growing and changing, right up to the final arc. 

So, even though it’s been said a million times before, it bears repeating: Bleach genuinely is a story about Ichigo and Rukia, both of whom felt a little displaced in their own worlds and had trouble making connections. They connected with each other, and only then could their immense capacity for good could start changing the world. That’s really the crux of it— that it had to be each other for these two, not anybody else. Nobody else could bring out the best in them except for the other. They would never have become this extraordinary had it not been for the other person recognising their inherent value. It absolutely had to be Rukia for Ichigo, and vice versa. It’s always going to be the Ichigo and Rukia show.

[lizacstuff]

Sen Çal Kapımı / Edser Asks

After the fragman, I got a few anons this afternoon, my answer are under the cut. 

(Also my initial reactions are in this post.)

Anonymous said: In the spirit of optimism- when Eda broke up with Serkan in 25, everyone freaked out but by the end of the next episode, she proposed LOL. Maybe just maybe they won’t do the “everyone pretends Selin and Serkan are a thing for medical reasons for multiple episodes” route and someone gets her kicked to the curb in 29. I wonder how much of the 2.5 hrs will be before he comes back and how much is after.

LOL, I certainly would like Selin to be back for only one episode. I hope my speculation is right (this post,)and her narrative purpose is to make Serkan distrust Eda from the start and once she’s done that she can exit stage right. 

As for the theory you mention, which I have seen on twitter, I don’t see people pretending they’re together for medical reasons. That makes zero sense to me (not that medical diagnosis on a silly romantic dramedy dizi would be accurate, lol) why would that be necessary? Why would anyone go along with that? Especially when all he would need to do is google himself to find out about his relationship with Eda.  They were all over the tabloids and on the cover of a magazine. Plus it seems like he knows about Eda, Selin tells him "she turned you into someone you’re not and dragged you into a different world.”  He has to know they were in a relationship.

There is a lot of knee-jerk hysteria over there right now which is leading to completely neurosis-induced, nonsensical, worst-case scenario speculation. I recommend avoiding for awhile if anyone is easily upset by that type of thing. 

As for the timeline of the ep, great question. I am hoping that the walk into ArtLife is not the end of the episode. We’re going to need to see Serkan and Eda meeting face to face before this episode is up in order to survive! We know almost the full cast (including Hande and Kerem) were shooting at a cafe yesterday, and the cast looked dressed up. Most thought it was for 1x28, so that seems like there are scenes with Serkan and the full cast in this ep. 

Though, the show has a lot of questions to answer.  How in God’s name did he end up in that cabin? Did he get on the plane or not?  Was he held captive and got dropped in the woods with only Selin’s phone number? Has he been in a coma?  Was there foul play involved?   Was there a brain injury or did Babaanne arrange his kidnapping and give him some experimental drug to wipe out his memories of Eda? 

Not sure if this Deniz is a law enforcement official or some sort of private detective, but there would have been some sort of official inquiry and search when he went missing. So he can’t just be lazing around for 2 months, easily findable. And Selin can’t have been with him for anything length of time without the others knowing he’s alive, because that would pretty much be kidnapping. So what HAPPENED? 

Anonymous said: I hope we get good Eda and Aydan moments. She didn’t get married but she is still Aydan’s daughter now. He’s going to come back and find that this woman has his mother, his company, his dog, his car, his friends.....there’s no way that he doesn’t just know that Selin has been a snake.

Yes, please!  I’m sure we will get Eda and Aydan moments, it looks from the first trailer that they will lean on each other while he’s missing. Which they should, they’ll be the two that will hold out hope and give one another comfort. 

I am LOVING that Eda is driving his car and taking care of his dog. As she should, they were hours away from being married! And yes, you’re correct, he’s going to find Eda so deeply embedded in everything he remembers (except Selin) that it’s going to drive him crazy. Who is this woman and how did she ensorcell him so thoroughly? Can’t wait for him to find out. 

You know what I’m most looking forward to in regards to Aydan? Serkan’s shock that his mother has conquered her agoraphobia. Can’t wait for him to find out that Eda was instrumental in helping her do that. 

She is going to hit him like an emotional freight train. A second time. 

Anonymous said: i know most of the fandom has already accepted it as fact bc they can't wait for the actual ep to make conclusions, but i'm less inclined to believe he's been in that cabin w/ selin for 2 months.. idk HOW he gets there, or how selin ends up there.. but for some reason i think they find him first, and he takes off by himself for a bit as he's overwhelmed with the whole situation.. and then selin enters. idk, we'll have to see it, but i think, like all trailers, it's confusing on purpose.

This theory is definitely possible. That he’s found and freaks out and goes to the cabin. Perhaps the last he remembers he was still with Selin so he reaches out to her for answer about what’s going on.  That would make sense why he accepts her comfort, and she gives it, but can’t help herself from trying to do everything in her power to make him distrust Eda. Even if she doesn’t have hope of reconciliation, just to cause chaos because she doesn’t want them to find happiness together. She’s said it more than once, she didn’t want him happy, while she was not. 

Anonymous said: I am not emotionally prepared to watch the look on Eda’s face when Serkan walks in holding hands with Selin after being missing for the last two months....😭😭😭. Also even if Serkan & Selin are purely platonic watching their scenes together are going to be brutal. I am prepared to cry ( both tears of joy & sadness) & be very mad at various points in this episode. It will be an rollercoaster of emotions for sure.

Yep, pretty much all of this!  I don’t think I’m going to enjoy watching this episode at all. However, my hope is that I will really enjoy watching the storyline that it sets up where we get to watch Serkan fall in love with Eda all over again.  Think of all the delicious, UST-y, sexy, funny, fiery, passionate scenes that are in store for us! 

Off the top of my head, things I want:

Serkan opening Madonna in a Fur Coat and finding their photo

Serkan’s deep-seated memory kicking in and mindlessly tearing the crusts off bread for her without realizing it or knowing why

Finding out his computer password and what it means

Seeing photos of them from their matchmaking party. Looking so in love and surrounded by friends and family and everyone looks so happy

One of the friends, Engin or Piril snapping and telling him the big change Eda brought about in him was just that he was happy

Serkan seeing media clippings of them and their relationship

Eda handcuffing him so they have to spend time together while trying to jog his memory

After being suspicious and trying to keep her at arms length, Serkan finally breaking down and asking her questions about their relationship

Serkan being mistrustful of her, but still unable to say no to her

Anonymous said: So I get that SCK is going through a reset and now we will get to watch Eda & Serkan fall in love again but seriously they brought Selin back like that...WTF? Now she is even worse than Balca. Plus the entire world thinks Serkan is dead but somehow Selin found him and never bothered to tell anyone else...that should send up some red flags for sure. Regardless of the explanation, this situation is going to crush Eda. And it seems like a lot to go through to have him immediately get his memories back so we could be stuck with this storyline for a while.

Yes, poor Eda is going to be crushed no matter what.  However, I know that people have been theorizing that the memory loss would be short, but I never thought it would be.  What’s the point of this reset unless they’re going to follow through with it and milk it for as many episode as possible. They’re trying to find ways to keep this show going and this is their big swing. 

The entire point is to recreate the magic of Eda and Serkan falling in love, and, honestly, I'm not sure why anyone would want that to be over in 2 episodes. I don’t see it as being stuck with the amnesia story, I’m excited for all the parallels, watching Serkan get struck by lightning a second time when he first sees her.  Watching him be suspicious of her, of her motives of her abilities, but then finding out all the same things that he found out the first time, that she’s fierce, kind-hearted, loyal and talented. And just a bright shining light for him. 

My heart melts just thinking about it.  We just have to get rid of that opportunistic, malevolent, bitter hag. 

Anonymous said: one complaint that i've seen in regards to sck is that characters aren't sent off properly.. but outside of maybe fifi (which we don't know how they'll explain her leaving) am i the only one that doesn't... really care? everyone that's left has been unsubstantial or in a villain role, and personally whatever way they leave i'm fine with lol.. i know when selin left ppl were mad bc they wanted a redemption story arc for her.. but not every character NEEDS that by default, if that makes sense.

For context, this ask was sent before the fragman.  I agree with you, no side character needs redemption by default. I’ve said it many times, but on this specific show, really only two characters matter: Eda and Serkan. This is their story. Their love story. Everyone else is supporting in the truest sense of the word. They all exist to prop up the A story. So for most of them their journey doesn’t matter unless it directly affects Eda or Serkan. (Aydan’s growth and redemption has directly impacted Eda and Serkan and that’s why time has been spent on it). Selin is a tool. She’s behaved erratically at time because she only exists for the writers to use her to antagonize the protagonists. Her story in and of itself does not matter. 

I laughed hysterically when some on twitter were thinking Serkan might really be dead and Kerem was leaving the show. 

Seriously? You think they would try to keep this show going without Edser? That anyone would pay money for it, without them?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If one of them were to leave, the show would be over. Dead. Cancelled. There is NO reason for this show to keep going other than for more Edser. Everything else is an after thought, filler, or characters that prop up Eda and Serkan either literally or symbolically or thematically. Nothing else stands on it’s own.

They devised this storyline in order to go back to the magic of these two people falling in love. Full stop. That’s why we’re seeing this reset.  Because no other characters or their storylines are compelling enough to carry the show.  I applaud the writers for creating a situation where we could watch Serkan fall in love with Eda one more time. (just get rid of Selin, please, so I can enjoy it... and do it quickly.)

[thegildedcentury]

What We Talk About When We Talk About Luv: The Beauty and Horror of Blade Runner 2049′s Tragic Antiheroine

“I’m the best one.”  Luv declares as she struts away from K, fresh blood from a stolen kiss adorning her face as she departs, having again reduced her opponent to helplessness and having again decided, bafflingly, not to kill him.  

If we think of Blade Runner 2049 as a pretentious yet inferior movie, a pale imitation of its source material lacking all the intellectual and emotional resonance of the original, these four words spoken by Luv mean nothing, existing as a tossed off line spoken by a tossed off character in a film that accomplishes nothing aside from looking pretty and making you wish you were watching the original.

I disagree.  I think Luv is incredible, one of the most fascinating, nuanced, and profoundly tragic characters I’ve encountered in a very long time, a figure who both deserves and rewards our attention.  Though it’s easy to miss during an initial viewing (I certainly did) Luv has a rich, deep story arc that branches through the whole of Blade Runner 2049, one that both parallels and intersects with K’s story, the two characters informing each other even as they violently ricochet off one another.  Once understood, the tragic depths of Luv’s story don’t just reveal a remarkable character but enrich the movie as a whole, adding an extra dimension to a narrative already dense with meaning.

Luv, like our central protagonist K, is a Nexus-9 Replicant model, a product of the Wallace Corporation.  When we first meet her she is in the process of selling other Replicants as Off-World slave labor.  This may seem like a betrayal of the first order but, as we will soon learn, Luv does not see it that way.

Luv works directly under CEO Niander Wallace himself, acting as his personal assistant, assassin, and all purpose fixer.  While Niander Wallace is the face Technological Capitalism chooses to show the world--brilliant, eccentric, full of glorious and high minded ambition, a Ted Talk come to life--Luv represents it’s actual real world consequences: empty sadism, nihilistic violence, and ignorant self-aggrandizement, which is not to say that Luv is stupid.  Luv knows she is a slave but nevertheless exalts in her position because she is the best slave, Niander Wallace’s chosen instrument.  If Niander Wallace is God, and he certainly seems to think he is, Luv is his "First Angel”, the chosen means by which he enacts his will on the world.  Luv knows this, but she can’t bring herself to fully comprehend its ramifications, a failure of understanding that ultimately leads to her tragic destruction.

Any discussion of tragedy would be incomplete without at least a brief detour to account for the Ancient Greeks, the originators of Tragedy as Western Civilization knows it, so let’s get it out of the way now.  All tragedy results, on a fundamental level, from a failure to obey the message inscribed above the Oracle of Delphi: “Know Thyself”.  When you don’t understand yourself, you open yourself up to becoming prey of the Gods, what today we might call the Passions, though few Greek Tragedians would have recognized a distinction between the two.  (Euripides being the notable exception.)  The most famous embodiment of this kind of tragedy through self-ignorance was Oedipus, the subject of the tragedy Oedipus Rex by Sophocles.  Though a prisoner of fate, Oedipus effectively strolled into his own cage by letting his passions rule him, first by giving in to his wrath by killing a stranger he met on the road, and then by giving in to his lust by marring the wife of the man he killed.  When wisdom finally comes to Oedipus in the form of the realization that the man he killed was his father and the woman he married is his mother, it arrives too late to save him, and instead destroys him.  

The character of Luv in Blade Runner 2049 bears less direct blame for her own tragic fate, yet the mechanisms by which it operates are fundamentally similar.  Luv does not understand herself.  The result is pain and suffering, yet it is far more nuanced than it first appears.  What superficially manifests as depraved cruelty is, in fact, the result of a more fundamental lack, the sort of profound misunderstanding of her own nature that elevates her from the status of a mere hired goon to a character worthy of our consideration, and even our sympathy.

Unless I’ve overlooked something (which is entirely possible) Blade Runner 2049 makes no mention of whether or not Luv has the sort of artificial memory implants that prove such an integral part of K’s personality and story.  Knowing this is vital to understanding her character, and while there is no way to be absolutely certain, I believe Luv’s actions clearly demonstrate her lack of a synthetic past, maliciously depriving her replicant mind of what Eldon Tyrell in the first movie called “a cushion or a pillow for their emotions”.  As a result I believe, despite her often cold exterior, Luv is a raging tumult of conflicting, contradictory emotions she can neither understand nor control, paramount of which are her feelings regarding K.

Luv expresses interest in K during their first meeting, her fascination paralleling the sparks that fly between Rachel and Deckard in the old recording they both listen to.  Unlike the meet-cute that occurred thirty years prior in the first Blade Runner, the attraction isn’t mutual, and when Luv attempts to inquire further into K’s life he rebuffs her.  This quiet, polite rejection will ultimately have devastating consequences for both characters.  K makes a powerful enemy, while Luv becomes divided against herself, afflicted with powerful feelings she has no context for or understanding of.  As Kierkegaard said, life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards.  Without any history there can be no understanding, we become disconnected and begin to float, easy prey for any passing impulse.  Knowing this doesn’t let us absolve Luv of her misdeeds, but it does give us a chance to reach a better understanding of her, as well as the more enigmatic aspects of her behavior.        

We see Luv cry twice in Blade Runner 2049. The first time is when she sees her master Niander Wallace stroking and bidding happy birthday to a newborn female replicant (credited only as ‘Female Replicant’) who he then proceeds to murder by stabbing her in the womb, a brutal crime committed for no real reason other than vent his frustration and illustrate a point in a monologue he’s delivering more or less to himself.  The second time is when Luv tortures and kills Lieutenant Joshi, K’s master.  Both instances involve a woman being murdered, stabbed to death specifically, their body violated with a piece of metal in a grotesque pantomime of the act of heterosexual lovemaking. (When Blade Runner’s symbolism isn’t Judeo-Christian it’s Freudian.  Freud would have diagnosed Luv with the three A’s: Ambiguity, Alienation, Ambivalence.)

When Luv cries with Niander Wallace it is in response to the nameless female replicant shedding her plastic birth caul and spasming into life.  Luv casts a fleeting glance upward as the tear rolls down her cheek as if in acknowledgement to a higher power that bestows the transcendent spark of life, but if that’s the case any pretense to the sacred is destroyed when Niander Wallace murders the newborn replicant, an act that serves as a vulgar reaffirmation of his own mastery over life and death.      

When Luv cries a second time it’s in response to her torturing Lieutant Joshi by crushing shattered glass into her hand, an act of sadism that concludes with Luv murdering the Lieutenant outright.  

The fact that Luv sheds tears in both instances despite their profoundly different circumstances may lead us to the conclusion that Luv’s tears have no real emotional resonance, instead being an involuntary autonomic response to any extreme stimuli, what is little more than a bug in her design.  It’s a natural assumption, but one that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Luv is the best one, at least as far as her status as a consumer-grade product is concerned.  She is the pinnacle of Wallace design, the closest to perfection he’s yet managed to come.  If Luv had a fault in her genetic architecture that made her cry at inappropriate times, Niander Wallace would likely have disposed of her with the same dispassionate matter-of-factness  he disposes of everything that mildly displeases him.  Yet if Luv’s tears are genuine, how can we make sense of them?

The answer is the absence of her memories.  Without the mental foundation of memory that would provide her with a chance to ground the violent events she experiences and violent emotions she feels in context, Luv is helpless to control how she reacts, a condition her judiciously maintained cool exterior can only do so much to hide.  

The tears she sheds while witnessing the nameless female replicant’s birth and the tears she sheds while torturing and killing Lieutenant Joshi are both genuine.  This is naturally confusing since the situations are so different, but as the author Leonard Richardson writes in his book Constellation Games, (which I cannot recommend highly enough) crying does not mean you’re sad, it means you’re experiencing an emotion that’s too large to keep inside of you.  Blade Runner 2049 throws us off the scent because the first time Luv cries the cause is obvious, then when she cries for a second time it seems completely inappropriate to the situation, yet when we appreciate the emotional tumult storming inside Luv, both reactions begin to make congruous sense.  The first time Luv cries it is out of empathy and a sense of the sublime.  The second time Luv cries it is out rage fueled by a mix of resentment and jealously. 

When Luv first strolls into Lieutenant Joshi’s office she says in regards to K “I like him.  He’s a good boy.” an evaluation Lieutenant Joshi’s silence seems to affirm.  Lieutenant Joshi is a character who, let us not forget, is for all intents and purposes K’s owner and master, having the same power dynamic with him that Niander Wallace has with Luv.  Killing Lieutenant Joshi not only serves the practical purpose of giving Luv free reign to access Lieutenant Joshi’s computer and find K, but it also gives Luv a chance to eliminate a romantic rival, experience the catharsis of killing a human master in a way she never could with Niander Wallace (who she needs to reaffirm her status as the Highest Angel), and eliminate the person that has enforced rigid control over every aspect of K’s life.  She’s acting out of a very warped sense of duty to K, not quite the sort of redeeming "kinship” that led Roy Batty to save Deckard’s life at the last moment, but a kind of solidarity nonetheless.

When viewed from this perspective, the desires motivating Luv are very fundamental and very human.  She wants solidarity with her fellow replicants. She wants revenge on those who’ve enslaved her.  She wants to experience romantic love.  The fact that she gets none of these things, that she has been explicitly denied the capacity to understand what these desires are and how to act on them and is instead forced to derive comfort from her status as the best one, the best product, the best slave, is what elevates her as a character beyond the stark dichotomy of victim or villain to the higher echelon of tragic antiheroine.

Luv spares K’s life twice in open defiance of the spirit, if not the letter, of Niander Wallace’s commandments.  The first time is when she and her fellow Wallace fixers storm Deckard’s Las Vegas sanctuary and abduct him.  K fights back despite being wounded thus forcing Luv to beat him into submission, though when the time comes to move in for the kill, she holds back.  Instead she kills Joi, K’s holographic A.I. companion, crushing the emitter that contains her consciousness beneath her radiantly polished boot.  

Immediately before doing so she says “I do hope you’re satisfied with our product.”  Luv looks at Joi when she speaks the line, though it seems to be intended for Joi, K, and Luv herself, all three of whom are themselves commercial products of the Wallace Corporation.  It’s a line that can be read as pure sarcasm, yet when considered in the context of what we’ve been talking about, we can view it as a sort of question, and a sort of appeal as well.  Joi and Luv are both Wallace Corporation products, but Luv knows herself to be the best product.  There is an implicit “Why?” in Luv’s words and actions, an inquiry that demands an answer from K.  “Why Joi and not me?  Am I not the superior model?”  K choosing Joi over her is an insult to her attraction and an affront to her pride, yet the only way she can express her outrage is with violence.  By destroying Joi she demonstrates her preeminent status as a product, while also eliminating another rival for K’s affections.  

Luv departs without another word, leaving K alive.  It’s safe for us to assume that Luv hasn’t simply fallen victim to the classic bad guy cliché of incorrectly assuming the good guy’s dead.  They are are both the same model of replicant, there’s no reason for us to think she isn’t precisely aware of both K’s limits and his potential.  Luv is still intrigued by K in a way she doesn’t understand, and lets him live secure the the knowledge that they will meet again under similarly unpleasant circumstances.  By then the scales will have completely fallen from K’s eyes and he will be endowed with an unshakable sense of purpose, his own personal raison d'être.  Luv will not be so fortunate.

K, at great cost, comes to understand who and what he really is in time for him to act on it in a way that gives purpose to his life and, more importantly, his death.  Like all great villains Luv is K’s antitheses, a distorted reflection of him, what C.G. Jung might identify as his shadow-self.  K begins the movie doing the same thing Luv does, namely killing on cue in accordance with his design.  The difference is K encounters people who change his worldview, making him aware of the possibility of altering his circumstances.  Luv never gets that chance.  

The name ‘Luv’ is obviously dumb, the kind of dull platitude you’d find on a candy heart or in a rushed-off text message, and the fact that it is the name Niander Wallace chose to bestow on his First Angel shows the true indifference he feels regarding her, how the contempt he has for all life extends to her as well, despite his lofty rhetoric and empty praise. 

Names are powerful, but they aren’t enough to imbue one’s life with meaning and purpose, a fact illustrated when a massive advertisement addresses K by his adopted name, the name Joi gave him, calling him “A good Joe.”  Not only does this show that even something as personal as a name bestowed by a loved one can be corrupted and co-opted by Technological Capitalism, but that both Joi and the advertisement are probably making decisions based on the same artificial intelligence program, leading both of them to pick the same name out of thin air.  This works to expose K to the artificiality of the relationship he had with Joi, forcing him to seek out something more authentic and human.  It’s the sort of epiphany Luv is denied, so while she does seek to form a sort of relationship with K, the why and how of it completely eludes her, leading her to act on a sort of animal instinct that can’t distinguish between aggression and affection, two very different human Passions that appear to her as indistinct aspects of the same raw emotional yearning she becomes less and less capable of containing over the course of the story, a compulsion that climaxes with her beating and stabbing K nearly to death, then following it up immediately with a deep, soulful kiss. 

The final battle between K and Luv at the sea wall isn’t just a grim parody of the iconic scene of two lovers passionately entwined in the surf from From Here To Eternity.  (Though it is at that.)  It’s a baptism.

Christian baptism is a ritual where the physical is sanctified and thus made to represent the spiritual, its invocation of grace elevating the ritual to transcend the mundane and evoke the divine.  When Luv and K fight they are also sanctified by the symbolism surrounding them, which renders the conflict more significant than two people beating each other up.  It is the physical versus the spiritual, the sacred versus the profane, the meaningful versus the meaningless, an elemental confrontation between the loftier and baser aspects of reality.  For Luv the thing that matters most to her and carries the most meaning are her Passions, which aren’t in themselves bad, but when misunderstood and uncontrolled lead to destruction.  In her fury she attacks and defeats K, and in her infatuation she yet again neglects to kill him.  Her mercy is rewarded with death.

The final contest between K and Luv is their mutual attempt to drown one another, one that ends by demonstrating the ultimate disparity in their respective personalities.  Both Luv and K forcibly hold one another underwater for what are at first roughly equivalent amounts of time. K survives because he is able to exert enough control over himself to hold his breath until he can turn the tables.  Luv in contrast dies because she is a slave to her Passions.  Instead of holding her breath and waiting for an opportunity to regain the upper hand she rages, clawing and growling, resisting with all her unchecked strength until her life is totally spent.

K and Deckard partake of the waters, die, and are born again.  Luv is subjected to the same trial, but she is denied such grace.  She is the First Angel, the most raw and brilliant and terrible, and as such, she must fall in all her dreadful glory, our horrible, beautiful, drowned Lucifer.

Like the studio-mandated happy ending of the original Blade Runner that everyone loathes, there could be another ending to this movie, a more conventionally satisfying ending where K and Luv gain a deeper understanding of themselves and, in doing so, find the capacity to care about and even love each other.  It would be nice, but it would also deny Luv her final tragic grandeur, and us the vision of a true antiheroine.      

The actress Sylvia Hoeks’ portrayal of Luv is as eerily perfect as the character herself, a performance that easily ranks among the best popular depictions of uncanny quasi-humanity ever rendered, on par with Christian Bale’s Patrick Bateman, Anthony Hopkins’ Hannibal Lector, and Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty.  Luv is also different, a step beyond but also a step removed.  The sheer virtuosity of Sylvia Hoeks’ performance is largely based in restraint, the sort of illusion of control that Luv is so good at deceiving herself with that it’s easy for us, the audience, to be deceived as well.  It is right and good that we bemoan the lack of good female roles in popular cinema, but such objections can come to ring hollow when they come from an audience that routinely overlooks outstanding exemplars like Luv, a rendering that’s brave enough to not be obvious, whose peripheral status in the narrative does nothing to diminish.  I don’t think we’re going to see a great many characters equal to Luv in the future, not only because it’s rare for a concept this good to be executed this well, but the demographic of people who were once most inclined to notice such things are now largely intellectually hemmed in by an ideology that Blade Runner 2049 does not neatly fit into, and who thus deem it unworthy of consideration.  It is my ardent hope that it will eventually find a public worthy of it, just as its predecessor did.  It’s the reason why I’m writing this, why I’m proselytizing for Luv, who is, after all, the best one.  

OTHER PUNS I CONSIDERED WHEN TITLING THIS ESSAY

All You Need Is Luv

Luv Will Tear Us Apart

Luv Story

Luv Actually

The Luv Guru

Me Luv You Long Time

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (semi-stream of consciousness) Thoughts Part 3: Spider-Miles and his Amazing Friends/Foes

Apologies for not getting this out sooner. I’ve been/still am unwell so I was physically too energy drained to crank it out.

For this outing we’re going to discuss the characters not named Miles Morales. Spoilers ahead.

 As I have said before, Miles might be the primary protagonist but he is not the sole one.

Alongside him we have the Peter Parker who died (who, in what is surely a Clone Saga reference, is blonde), the older washed up Peter Parker, Spider-Gwen, Spider-Ham, Spider-Man Noir and Peni Parker with her SP//dr mech...with a cameo by Spider-Man 2099 and 1960s Spider-Man.

Going up against them are Kingpin, Prowler/Aaron Davis, Doctor Octopus/Olivia Octavius, Tombstone, Scorpion and Green Goblin with cameos by the Lizard/Spider-Gwen’s Peter Parker and some versions of Doc Ock and a reference to Electro. Honestly there were probably more villains too I just missed them because this movie is such a feast for the eyes that you need to see it more than once to take everything in. For example my friend caught a Ditko reference I missed.

I already gushed about how impressive it is that the movie balanced so many characters so lets not go over that again beyond saying that it is honestly mind blowing that us Spidey fans got all THOSE villains (some of whom have never been on film before) in this movie and what is essentially a Carolin Trainer Doc Ock reference rendered as a really cool villainess.

For real Olivia ‘Liv’ Octavius was bad ass. If Kingpin was the Big Bad she was his ‘Dragon’ to use TV Tropes terminology. Her design was unique to Molina’s Doc Ock and her unveiling was one of the movies best twists that I really didn’t see coming. Also Aunt May seemed to know her which means in my headcanon they were like old friends and had tea together sometimes. It is also worth of note she is technically one of the relatively few Marvel movie villainesses.

Sticking with the villains for now Tombstone and Green Goblin were the least interesting. Goblin here existed essentially to serve as reference and honour to the Death of Spider-Man arc from the Ultimate comics as he is very much involved in Blonde Peter’s death and dies himself. Tombstone was just...Tombstone. He was just Fisk’s bodyguard and nothing else. Still the fact that there even exists a Spider-Man movie WITH Tombstone in it is something of a marvel. Scorpion is elevated somewhat beyond Tombstone and Goblin by virtue of his interesting redesign and the quirk that he speaks Spanish, thus connecting him to Miles. Whilst the movie doesn’t use it’s relatively even hero and villain count to just pair the characters off, it should be said that Tombstone and Scorpion do exist specifically to give Noir, Ham and Peni something to do in the second and third act climaxes.

This is not a detriment to the movie though. Although this is an ensemble movie, it is Miles movie primarily, Peter and Gwen’s secondarily and the other Spider-Heroes’ behind them. This point is accentuated when we are given their origins simultaneously in a three panel sequence. It is understood that these three characters are to be regarded somewhat collectively, sort of like the Warriors Three from Thor.

Getting back to the villains though, I have little to say on Prowler I didn’t cover last time. All I will add is that his visuals are very cool. Even though he is based upon Ultimate Prowler his look is more 616 Prowler influenced, but imagine if instead of a misguided antagonist he was a scary slightly Spawn inspired villain. So he was totally bad ass.

However hats must go off to Kingpin. He was the main and best villain of this story. It is funny this year has been oddly Kingpin focused in terms of Marvel content.

He was brought back superbly for Daredevil season 3. He was a notable figure in the PS4 Spidey game. He was the main villain of the PS4 prequel novel. He got a lot of play in Daredevil and Spider-Man comics where he was the mayor and he is now serving as a Marvel movie villain for the second time. For me personally I complimented all this by checking out Daredevil Born Again and Last Rites, two very Kingpin centric stories.

As far as his portrayal here is concerned, the central conceit of the movie again creates a potential get out of jail scenario for any direction the writers want to take with the characters. This is an AU version of Kingpin and so is at liberty to deviate wildly from the 616 version as Liv Octavius did.

How interestingly what we wind up with is an interesting rendition of Kingpin who’s deviations from his canon counterpart’s personality are relatively minor and his overall portrayal is different more in where it places the emphasis as opposed to what the specific traits of his personality are.

Comics Kingpin is defined by his cold controlled and sophisticated demeanour hiding a thuggish, cruel and raging temper beneath the surface. He is the boss of bosses, the biggest criminal ever in more way than one.  

Spider-Verse Kingpin is a little more ‘street’ in his dialogue and vocal performance than we might be used to with classic Kingpin and ever so slightly more prone to making jokes, but beyond that his personality is very similar. Essentially he is Kingpin with a bit more Tony Soprano injected into him. The idea of his calm exterior hiding a cruel raging monster beneath is very well realized though via his gimmick of clicking his pen as a kind of stress ball to maintain his temper and his beating Spider-Man to death with his bare hands. Not to mention his flying into raging bull mode at the climax of the movie when things go all wrong.

Where the key deviation lies for this rendition of Wilson Fisk though lies in his motivation for the movie. Whilst various stories in comics and other media depict Kingpin’s motivation to simply rid his criminal empire of one superhero or another, or else further expand and secure that empire, Spider-Verse Kingpin is all about his family. The entire reason he is investigating parallel universes is in order to find alternate living versions of his dead wife Vanessa and son Richard. They died fleeing him in horror upon witnessing him fighting Blonde Spidey, so Wilson feels guilty and heartbroken over their deaths.

What is ingenious about this take upon Kingpin is that you could entirely see his canon counterpart doing something like this and it serves to add a note of sympathy to him in spite of his directly murdering Spider-Man and Miles’ uncle. Whilst it is perhaps not as nuanced or multilayered as the Netflix Kingpin, it still serves to make him more than a two-dimensional, black and white gangster. So as a villain he is simple, yet effective.

  Kingpin, like all the Spider-Heroes sans Miles, also has a backstory flashback sequence that  explains his history with his family. These are strategically placed throughout the movie and are reminiscent of the origin sequences from the Suicide Squad movie. However what worked so poorly there works magnificently here.

These origin sequences do much more than simply drop exposition for each character. Putting aside how the movie does enough to build up and endear us to most of the characters who get such sequences, the sequences are actually in aid of conveying to the audience the primary conceit of the film, that of alternate realities.

And the best way to convey this idea is to prevent the familiar with deliberate changes.

What I mean by this is that the movie sets up these origin sequences in deliberate contrast to one another and signposts this fact with repeated dialogue and visual cues in each sequence. This even applies for Kingpin as the visuals of his origin sequence are evoked for the climax wherein he briefly does see flashes of his wife and son from other realities.

As far as the Spider-Heroes are concerned though, the first of these sequences is at the top of the movie with the background information for Blonde Spidey.

This helps immediately hint that the world we are watching is both similar to yet different to the ones we might be familiar with, noticeably the world of this Spider-Man is more similar to our own as Blonde Spidey (surely a Ben Reilly reference unto himself) is a beloved and highly merchandised celebrity. Even the iconic upside down kiss with Mary Jane occurs for him with MJ upside down. A fun little in joke for the audience, or sly easing in of the idea that this Spider-Man is not the one we know?

A little of both probably, but that one scene illustrates what I mean because the second origin sequence we get is about the older Spider-Man. Like I said it plays itself in deliberate contrast to the Blonde Spider-Man, retaining the same narrative/dialogue structure within the short vignette to convey for us how this Spidey is different and thus develop his character. E.g. he is older and yet less successful, he is underappreciated and in bad shape and his marriage to MJ (whom he shares a more traditional upside down kiss with, see what I mean, it slyly hints this Spidey is more like the ones we recognize) has ended in sad divorce and he is a wreck.

Further origin sequences repeat for Spider-Gwen (she is similar to her comic counterpart, but her hang up is distancing herself from her friends), Noir, Peni and Ham.

As I said before Noir, Peni and Ham have their origin sequences play out simultaneously on the screen. This cements their lesser status within the movie compared to the other protagonists.

Collectively the sequences not only use the individual Spider-Heroes to mutually develop and build up each character on the most basic level to the audience (Spider-Man but a Looney Tune pig, Spider-Man but if he was a drummer Gwen Stacy, Spider-Man but if he was Humphrey Bogart, Spider-Man but if he was an anime girl from a mech anime, etc) but also serves to hold the audiences hand as it gets them to accept the conceit of parallel universes.

Of course the concept is first broached at the start of the movie where Blonde Spider-Man’s origin sequence concludes with him declaring himself the one and only Spider-Man (a sentiment echoed in other origin sequences too) and is then immediately followed by Miles’ introduction. We also have the topic raised in Miles classroom.

When combined with the other origin sequences, this opening obviously challenges the audiences idea that there could only ever be one Spider-Man and that it would have to be Peter Parker (a fair presumption, most audience members would be unaware of any other Spider-Heroes). This I think is part of the ingeniousness (forgive my repetition of the term but it is true) of featuring the two Peters in this movie.

See both Peter Parkers are as much positioned as deliberate deviations from the norm general audiences would expect as Spider-Ham or Spider-Gwen. Whilst one Peter is blonde and a successful married celebrity with essentially his own Spider-Cave, another is the oldest on screen Peter Parker we’ve ever had, pot-bellied and a divorcee. Outside of some video games and two 20 year old cartoons general audiences have never even seen a married Spider-Man so presenting not just one but two, and one of whom is post-marriage to boot, is a brilliant way to sell ‘this isn’t the Spider-Man you know’.

But these Spider-Men ARE Peter Parker. So if there can be versions of the Parker Spidey audiences are familiar with that are so different to what they know, the idea of Peter Parker but an anime girl or a 1930s noir character or a cartoon pig becomes easier to accept as does Gwen Stacy (whom audiences ARE familiar with from the recent Marc Webb movies) as ‘Spider-Man’ becomes yet easier to accept.

All of which build to what is second half of the question the start of the movie raises.

The question is partially ‘Does Peter Parker have to be the one and only Spider-Man’ (obviously not there are alternate versions of him as well as Gwen Stacy in the role) and, perhaps more poignantly, partially ‘Can Miles be Spider-Man’.

And this is the the most important purpose that the origin sequences serve. They are all building towards the climax of the movie which bookeneds the start wherein it is at last Miles turn to relay his own origin, allowing the movie to put to rest the question it raised at the start and cement in the audience’s minds that YES, this kid can and now IS Spider-Man.

As Stan Lee said, part of the appeal of Spider-Man is that under that costume anyone can imagine themselves to be Spider-Man. This movie embodies that message, embeds it into itself and in that sense serves the fundamental ethos of Spider-Man or him being the relatable everyman, even whilst Peter himself is not the heart of this movie.

And it did all that via having comic book style flashback exposition dumps!!!!!!!

I might have said this before or elsewhere but this is the most ‘comic book’ comic book movie I’ve ever seen! As in it is a movie that looks like and plays out like a comic book!

And just like the best comic books and comic book movies it always remembers that these stories are someone’s first so whilst it presumes a certain amount of foreknowledge (like you know who Spider-Man is) it leaves nothing to chance and organically walks you through everything you need to know. Again, those origin sequences by being placed in contrast to one another walks audiences gently through the massive concept of multiverses which no other theatrical comic book film before this to my knowledge has ever touched (sorry DC..).

Sticking with the Spider-Heroes for a moment, what should be understood is that the characterization of them is all geared towards the needs of the specific story being told, which obviously has Miles at the heart of it.

What I mean by this is that whilst the movie doesn’t give you the most detailed or faithful rendition of Spider-Gwen or Spider-Man: Noir ever they are the right takes for the movie’s story, for selling the concept of parallel universes and Miles development.

Blonde Spidey is not just hyper successful in order to contrast with Old Spidey. His success and competency (his brief action scene is incredibly impressive) is designed to also contrast to Miles inexperience and to sell him as almost a Superman/Captain America figure within Miles’ world. His death is mourned as the passing of a great and revered hero, a national day of mourning and even made me tear up a bit. This is done to accentuate the guilt Miles feels and the burden Miles feels to live up to his dying wish and shadow, the latter of which could fuel a potential sequel. His specific death scene itself is played as very different from the Ultimate comics. There his death was the grand finale (we thought) to the saga of a hero we’d been following and gave him a fittingly grand death. In the movie since his death is primarily the launch pad for Miles’ journey it is less grand, even cruel in how quick, blunt and undignified it is.

Old Spidey’s failure is not undertaken because the filmmakers believe Spider-Man is or should be some abject loser or failure, as I and others have feared. It is a direction taken because it gives him an arc for the movie. His hang up is wrapped up with his divorce from Mary Jane. But refreshingly for comic fans their separation occurred because MJ wanted children and he couldn’t bring himself to go there. It is through his tutelage of Miles (and hilarious confession to Blonde Spidey’s widow, a reflection of his student’s poor attempt to woo Gwen earlier) that he works through his issues and gets his happy ending of reuniting with his MJ. He thus has an arc intertwined with Miles even as he serves as his reluctant and somewhat haphazard mentor. If you think about it, having a version of Spider-Man more akin to the ‘default’ version would have made for a boring and underwhelming movie as far as Miles and Peter’s relationship is concerned. In this dynamic though master and student mutually grow.

Moreover his arc is interesting on a meta level as his pot belly somewhat resembled Tobey Maguire in some infamous and unflattering post-Spider-Man 3 images and Peter and MJ having a child and divorcing were in fact concepts toyed with for the aborted Spider-Man 4. All of which lends credence to the idea that Old Spider-man could very well be the actual Maguire Spider-Man. Indeed Maguire was apparently considered to be cast for this Spider-Man.

Between them Blonde and Old Peter represent something of the best and worst case scenarios for the ‘standard’ Spider-Man that broadly exists in the popular consciousness of general audiences.

Also one of these two Peter Parkers is explicitly Jewish. They have a Jewish wedding with Mary Jane which is a lovely touch as both his creators were Jewish and it has often been said the character embodies certain characteristics that recognizable within Jewish culture.

Spider-Gwen is changed into being more snarky than her earliest comics depicted her mostly because she has to be a more in control and experienced counterpoint to the in experienced Miles, serving as the subtextual second-in-command of the team. Her character’s conceit of being distant from her friends was something sort of present in her comics but is played as her central emotional problem in this movie that is also worked out through the course of teaming up with others. Additionally the film, seeking to connect her and Miles romantically (perhaps unnecessarily, but it is a sweet enough young romance nevertheless, helped by their similar age for a change) draws a parallel between how both her and Miles lost a Peter Parker. Parker in her universe was the Lizard as in the comics which further helps sell the idea of ‘Spider-Man’ being flexible.

The other Spider-Heroes are again, bodies to pad out the team and all of them are geared towards comic relief which helps balance out the team and movie over all, even if it goes against how Peni and Noir were originally characterized in their solo outings. But again this isn’t a solo outing, it is a team outing centred around Miles.

And the key thing to note here, as I noted in previous instalments is that all these other Spider-Heroes NEEDED to be in here and (to a lesser or greater extent) needed their own arcs because Miles was not going to hold the movie all on his own.

As for the other characters not much to say really. Miles parents are done well though his Dad gets more focus, a biproduct think of the movie focussing upon his brother Aaron. Aunt May has a small but lovely role as the keeper of Blonde Peter’s legacy. There is a touching scene which adapted Spider-Men better than the actual story. In the comic book 616 Peter meets Ultimate May in the relatively recent aftermath of Ultimate Peter’s death. In the movie, apart from Blonde Peter being older (meaning more years with Peter), Old Peter has also lost his Aunt May meaning the moment is much more emotionally packed as bereaved aunt and nephew reunite.

Then there is Mary Jane. Again a small role and she is somewhat relegated to a motivator than her own character but in a movie this packed where the heart isn’t Peter Parker you can understand why. You do feel bad that every (good) character in this movie got a happy ending or at least a happy final scene except her...well sort of. She is just left as the widow of Blonde Spidey but she gets a nice scene where she reunites with Old Peter. So ONE version of MJ has a happy last scene.

I will say this, the movie treated the character with respect. It is MJ who delivers her husband’s eulogy that prompts Miles into action and sums up the message of anyone being Spider-Man. It is made clear MJ was not the root of her split with Peter because ‘she couldn’t handle it’ or some shit like that. So whilst the movie didn’t give her much to do it also didn’t punch down on her or disrespect her legacy the way Homecoming did. And if nothing else how cool was it that we got not one but TWO Peter/MJ marriages on screen in a major motion picture. Take that Marvel!

But I cannot talk about the characters in this movie without talking about the three best cameos in any comic book movie.

The first was the surprise post-credits sequence where Spider-Man 2099 showed up! Of all Spider-Heroes he was the one I wanted most to show up. I love Mayday of course but I never deluded myself she could show up and in fact Old Peter’s story opens up that possibility for her more down the line.

2099 shocked me (how appropriate) and I thought we were going to get some nice sequel bait. That was until that was subverted for the second cameo that made me and my friend split our sides with laugher.

1960s cartoon Spider-Man, specifically with him and 2099 recalling the ‘Spider-Man pointing at himself meme’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is how you integrate a meme right!!!!!!

They even paid the 1960s show homage by referring to it as going back to the beginning since the 1960s show was in fact the first time Spider-Man was ever adapted into animation.

The third and best cameo goes to the Stan Lee appearance.

I am not ashamed to tell you dear readers that when I saw Stan Lee, even a cartoon version of him, saying in his own voice that he was friends with Spider-Man and will miss him I genuinely cried a little.

Even seeing the grave of Blonde Spider-Man shortly afterwards, a scene I’d already seen as the after credits scene for Venom, hit me hard and felt very different in a post-Stan Lee world.

And of course there was that ending title card crediting Lee and Ditko. Beautiful, no other word for it.

And given the movie’s fundamental message I can think of no more fitting way to honour the fathers of Spider-Man.

[runawaykotaro]

hi i have a weirdly specific question about the benizakura arc cause im rereading it. irt katsuras "death" do you think gintoki ever ended up, even for a small portion believing kataura did die, or did he always hold faith? its probably a silly question but i keep vacillating between gintoki having strong faith in his friends abilities vs being pragmatic after his fight w nizou that he himself only got out of because of shinpachi so i wanted to know your opinion cause your meta is fun to read

Thank you!! I’m glad that you enjoy reading my meta posts! I really enjoy writing them!

You’ve posed a really interesting question, and one that I’ve been vacillating on for a while. Unfortunately, I don’t really have a definite opinion. I’m inclined to believe, however, that Gintoki believed that Katsura was alive the whole time. My rationale gets kind of long though- so the rest of this post is going to be under a read more.

This comes first from taking Gintoki’s dialogue, parallels to later confrontations in the arc, and shonen genre conventions. First, you have his initial confrontation with Nizou where he tells Nizou “Zura would never be killed by a lame-ass murderer like you.” Then, after being shown Zura’s hair, “Don’t make me repeat myself. Zura would never be killed by a nobody like you.” (admittedly, this was before Gintoki almost died but,) In the manga at least, Gintoki never contradicts this or expresses any doubt about it past this. Second, the way that Zura going missing is mirrored (paralleled? I’m not quite sure what the correct literary term would be lol) later in the arc also suggests that Gintoki believed that Katsura lived. The first moment is when Katsura jumps out of and slashes takasugi- then immediately says ‘I could not rest knowing that I had been killed by a former comrade. Isn’t that true for you as well, Takasugi?’ The second moment is Katsura and Takasugi watching Gintoki battle Nizou on the roof, while Takasugi comments that fighting the benizakura is like fighting a battleship with your bare hands. Neither of those situations DIRECTLY match up with how Nizou claiming that he killed Katsura, but they all convey the Joui 3′s confidence in the others’ abilities to survive. Each of them believes that the others can’t die except in specific circumstances. Because Katsura and Takasugi believe that of Gintoki, and because of the way the narrative hints at their understanding of each other, it implies that Gintoki would hold the same faith in Katsura even faced with the heavy realities of his confrontation with Nizou. You can also say here that Gintoki is familiar with the fact that Zura is “Runaway Kotaro” too (I’m still so glad i got this url) and knows that Zura is the kind of combatant who would play dead or hide, and doesn’t feel the need to engage with an aggressor to the end of the confrontation. That leads into the shounen genre conventions- the protagonists Believes in their Companions, unless something Actually Happened to them, in which case the Protagonist is able to Instantly Distinguish that what the antagonist is saying is True. I’m not sure how to explain it better but basically, metatextually, as the protagonist, Gintoki gets to believe that Katsura is alive as long as Katsura is alive.

Of course, if that was all there was to consider, then it would be a pretty clear cut question to answer. There are significant conflicts with those arguments. For Gintoki’s thoughts, in the manga, he doesn’t comment on Zura’s life status after “Zura would never be killed by a nobody like you,” however, the movie has the conversation with Tetsuko: ‘I can’t help you. I got beaten up, and my friend was killed.’ With this line in mind, Gintoki does seem to think Zura is dead. However, his sincerity when delivering his line is called into question when it’s revealed that he was intending to help Tetsuko all along, he was just trying to shake off Tae. But why say that to her at all? Neither Tae nor Tetsuko know Zura at that point, and saying that to Tetsuko when she’s already torn up about what Benizakura is being used to do just seems pointlessly cruel. So if it wasn’t part of the deception, why say it at all if he didn’t believe it? (There’s just A LOT to discuss with this line, and I feel like its the line that called Gintoki’s belief in Zura’s survival into question the most.) Another piece that could easily be interpreted either way is the panels after Gintoki sees that Katsura is alive:

(First of all, don’t even get me started on that line but) He doesn’t look shocked, which would imply that he believed that Katsura was alive the whole time, however, Gintoki isn’t a very open person, and his expression could ALSO be interpreted as relief, implying that he was worried that Katsura was dead.

There’s also the element of rationality, like you said. Gintoki almost died fighting Nizou- would have died if Shinpachi and the police hadn’t intervened. Nizou also showed him Katsura’s cut off hair, which is solid evidence there was a confrontation that Zura didn’t escape from unscathed. The rationality argument conflicts with the shounen conventions, because the protag usually just Believes what is correct, without regards to pesky things like logic, reason, and the possibility of death in a combat situation. However, Gintama has violated shounen conventions plenty of times before- Gintoki just being who he is stomps all over the idea of what a shounen hero is supposed to be. However, it does tend to stay pretty close to the power of peoples’ bonds- which is why I believe that the protagonist power of Companion Well-being Radar is in play here.

So there are a lot of different factors at play, and while I do believe that Sorachi intended to convey that Gintoki kept faith in Katsura the whole time, there’s a solid argument that that’s not the case. Personally, I change my interpretation every other drabble I write about the benizakura arc, so…? I can’t really give you a definite answer. I think that Gintoki could have been in a possible middle ground. Maybe he believed that Katsura was alive but was worried that he wasn’t? Or he might have been too focused on Tetsuko, Shinpachi, and Kagura to focus on thinking about whether or not Katsura was alive? I don’t really know, but I feel like it’s more likely that Gintoki believed that Katsura was alive for the duration of the benizakura arc.

[mild-lunacy]

The Raven Cycle and the Role of Bluesey

So many times, it comes down to this: Is it important to understand the underlying message or 'point' of the characters' actions or the feelings that are portrayed in a story? Is there an inherent meaning, or just a progression of actions and reactions, which makes up a story?

It's not a totally straightforward question. Sometimes the story doesn't entirely make sense the way the meanings are intended to line up, particularly in the worst cases of queerbaiting. And sometimes the het couple is just dropped into the story without much of a deeper basis for it, and we're supposed to fill in the blanks when other aspects of the story conflict (I feel that way about John and Mary's relationship in BBC Sherlock, but this is a broader point about perhaps the majority of het romances in action or blockbuster movies these days). So I understand that as a savvy audience, we're used to questioning the obvious or surface layer of the narrative, analyzing its attendant biases. However, often enough, breaking the surface layer (and its attendant subtext) creates a rift, and the narrative breaks. And people (particularly shippers) don't seem to have an awareness of when this happens or a sense that it's important not to break the story in the first place.

I'm talking here specifically about Blue and Gansey's romantic relationship in The Raven Cycle, and the way most people in fandom seem unaware that making it about Blue/Gansey/Henry would actually break the story rather than fixing it. People are aware that Ronan/Adam is important, and Adam's arc in particular bends directly towards Ronan (and vice versa), and this is more or less accepted with the occasional caveats about how well Maggie Stiefvater *portrayed* this progression. However, even though Bluesey is arguably as much if not *more* intertwined with the plot (through the prophecy), that sense of narrative necessity is markedly missing.

The question remains whether it's important to see that Bluesey is essential, entirely equivalent to Pynch. I shouldn't need to write meta to prove or support it, in this case. Bluesey is canon more or less throughout The Raven Cycle (even when they weren't together yet and Blue was dating Adam, that was mostly a failure), so is it simply that the narrative failed for those readers who don't see the relationship's unique importance, or is it that they are misreading? I thought a lot about that with Johnlock, 'cause of course overall, most people didn't see Johnlock as being canon one way or the other. People could (and do) understand the text without it; I just thought it was important, it added a lot of meaning. And it did, though this doesn't mean all that meaning was intentional. Does that matter? The meaning behind the romantic pairing of Blue and Gansey is certainly intentional, but if you don't feel that adds the most meaning for you as a reader, does it matter?

To me, the underlying drive of the characters' actions and reactions is broken unless you see how important Blue and Gansey's feelings for each other are. That is, the story still works in many ways, but not in others. It may be subtle, but certain choices or events won't quite have the right context, as a consequence. This is what I learned by playing around with seeing John and Sherlock's relationship as romantic or platonic: different things (actions and reactions) break in both cases. Unfortunately for the show, I think fewer things break or seem unsupported when you see romantic Johnlock, particularly after Sherlock's hiatus, but this is not the kind of narrative that The Raven Cycle is. Nothing breaks if you don't see Sarchengsey, and a number of things do break if you don't really see (or accept) Bluesey.

The most important thing that seeing Bluesey as a uniquely romantic pairing supports in the narrative is the difference between romantic love and friendship that the entire series plays with. I think a lot of people don't quite get the distinction drawn in the books (judging from people genuinely seeing strong romantic undertones between all the boys' friendships, sometimes stronger than the canon of Ronan/Adam, not just in shipping non-canon ships). On the one hand, this is understandable, because people have their own understanding of what romantic attraction entails, and the books actively play with the fuzziness to the point where Blue observes they're all a bit in love with each other. On the other hand, it's important to understand that you can love your friends intensely and passionately, with the entire range of feeling devoted to romantic love except for just a few aspects. That is kind of the point of the entire narrative.

I suppose it's difficult because it's not necessarily that Gansey loves Blue *more* than his male friends, or that it's about physical attraction and lust or even the desire for a home life (which is what we're used to with other stories where the male protagonist has strong friendships and a love interest). In fact, their relationship *can't* be primarily physical because of the curse, and they both want to travel and study rather than settling down, and they're not even doing that alone. It's much more nuanced, because in a sense, Blue *is* Gansey's best friend, the person closest to him, in a totally different way than Ronan, Adam or Henry, who address and fulfill different aspects of him but not others. And Blue *is* Gansey's lover even though they've only kissed once and will probably never do so again, because she is his beloved Jane. Because she is the person he wants.

In many ways, romantic love in The Raven Cycle is about fit, and people who make perfect sense together, but in another way, it's inexplicable and it simply... is. It is what it is, and it allows Blue and Gansey to lose every other thought, fear and expectation, in favor of each other. It's bigger than either of them, the feeling between them, and they stretch to fill it. That's how Blue thought of it, with Gansey under the stars: this was a self she was unfamiliar with, a different Blue. It's not a hidden, quiet self like she brings out in Gansey, but it's similar. The feeling between them is what creates this unnameable space inside them, and then fills it up. It's not something that can stand for convenient substitutions, the introduction of other people who she can actually kiss (Blue doesn't need Henry for that, as she learned that with Adam). The feeling is indelible and undeniable, and in the end it's impossible to resist. That is romantic love. I do think it's important to understand, personally.

[mostlyshalune]

notes on You Get Me

(Netflix film)

(spoilers ahead)

genre: high school thriller

overview: - strong theme, sometimes pretty visuals - weak pacing, plot, characters

- theme: secrets

- Ali

- secret past

- tyler

- secret affair

- shares secret with guy friend

- holly

- secret past

- taunts Tyler with secret

- manipulates Ali with secrets

- tone - does not feel like high school at first, jarring when guy needs to check in with parents

- main conflict not introduced until 30 minutes in

- use of old, tired tropes

- wild seductress vs the chaste partner

- ye olde cautionary tale about dangers of casual sex

- unstable, obsessive woman complete with shrine

- characters barely exist until convenient

- sister

- Tyler's parents never even shown, absence from plot too doesn't make sense

- friends

- overly convenient writing

- Lydia and Ally wouldn't notice Holly as they walk directly by her while talking about her

- Holly able to enter Tyler's house to talk to an unattended young child

- suspends student based on uninvestigated report

- able to find girl's criminal past on google with name revealed

- parents at Ali's house every time except when Holly comes

- she even has a phone in hand and doesn't call police, family, or friend

- mother (in law?) only ever appears to let Holly demonstrate how threatening she is

- only introduce gun at the very end, would have been very easy to show it earlier

- Tyler calls friend at the end, but he's completely absent until a distraction is needed, but not planned

- visuals

- Tyler's bed surrounded by trophies - significance unclear

- nice long shots, but don't often seem to serve a narrative purpose

- color transitions later done well, darker unsettling palette as movie gets darker

- contrast in Tyler's room, always brightly lit previously

- strawberry shake dripping off table after allergy as blood-parallel

- ending makes no sense

- 'I had been searching for a fantasy, but missed what was right in front of me the whole time'

- his affair was a moment of vulnerability, and had nothing to do with him wanting something 'else'

- he spent the entire movie pushing Holly away and trying to stay close to Ali and his sister

- imply that Holly is going to get attached to paramedic and target him next

- she just murdered a woman, and shot a guy with witnesses after being investigated for a previous crime

- no sense of closure

- no punishment for Holly

- no reconciliation shown with Tyler and Ali

- story arc

- weak development

- Tyler only reveals his secret because of extreme stress, and we're not shown that this translates to a growth in character, we don't know he wouldn't have done this before

How to Fix:

Start the movie as Tyler wakes up at Holly's. Party setup is not needed as this is or will be explained/suggested easily when he hashes it out with Ali.

Have Tyler reject Holly and show her reaction as soon as possible afterwards.

Male friend serves no real purpose right now. Have Tyler reveal affair earlier. Friend pushes Tyler to come clean about it to Ali, but Tyler resists thinking it's not necessary, and won't harm anything. This establishes Tyler's initial attitude towards secrets, something that can change with the story.

Have Ali place more faith in Lydia's distrust, but have the sticking point be that it feels conspiratorial because she can't understand any possible motivation. Now as the plot moves we see that Ali, whom Tyler loves, could be spared this danger if he had chosen to tell her. The audience becomes invested in wanting Tyler to change.

Cut Tyler's sister. We can establish his being caring more genuinely, and build the investment in his relationship by showing him and Ali together in a more normal environment. During this time establish that Tyler wants to move faster than Ali, driven by a desire for emotional closeness. We see that what he wants is at odds with his behavior regarding the affair. He wants a deep, trusting relationship, but is not yet mature enough to be able to reciprocate that. Even if he does not know it, we now know that the coming change is what he wants too.

Holly's dad doesn't need to be dead. Instead establish that one of them has frequent affairs that Holly is aware of, but the other is oblivious to. We show that Holly resents the cheating parent, and blames them for her own, and other parent's unhappiness. The cheating parent will be the one that is murdered. Now we may understand that Holly is partially projecting her family's issues onto Tyler and Ali, and there is a thematic purpose to the parent being murdered. The parent must still be seen as sympathetic, but simply flawed so that the death cannot be seen as deserved. Perhaps we glimpse their own struggles in a scene.

Now we have a full array of characters representing different attitudes towards secrets in relationships:

- Holly appears to thrive on secrets, but we see this comes from a warped understanding of her parents

- Holly's parents show the damage secrets can cause, and foreshadow what could become of Tyler and Ali

- Ali and Tyler are two sides of the normal and flawed coin, they have dark secrets, but choose to hide them to very different degrees, and for different reasons

- guy friend (seriously his name was mentioned maybe twice?) believes in stark honesty, and Lydia is about uncovering secrets, each highlighting Tyler's initial choice not to share his secret, and its consequences

Cut a lot of the pseudo-horror stuff. Stick to it being a thriller. Things like hanging Ali from the ceiling was over the top.

Instead of assault, have Holly accuse Tyler of rape. That they did have sex, and rape being a crime much more reliant on victim's testimony makes it more believable that Tyler would face consequences before even being convicted. The accusation can also elicit disgust from the community, giving us a very clear lowest point for the protagonist, in part due to his own unwillingness to reveal the truth. Perhaps Holly tells Ali, and in turn it's reported from Ali's house. Then Tyler comes, finally willing to tell about the affair. His confession on Ali's front steps is met with a cold stare. The door is opened further by a police officer, behind whom we see Holly who's been crying. From here Tyler and the audience learn of the accusation at the same time setting up a misdirect that Tyler might have been able to start fixing things with this.

The ending.

Instead of an EMT, show Holly getting attached to someone at a police station or jail. It gives us the payoff of consequences for her actions, but still suggests her story of manipulation may not be over. 

Show Ali and Tyler together in the hospital, both are still dazed and watching a movie together quietly at night. Without prompt or context Tyler begins slowly "When I was a kid..." and tells Ali some small story about a mistake or something he wished he'd done differently. Ali's a bit confused and asks why he told her. There is no reason other than just wanting to tell her, perhaps he explains he was always ashamed of it. Here we see Tyler really has grown and is not afraid to share secrets. And we can cut as Ali pulls him closer, a visual indication that his vulnerability and flaws are not punished, and that their relationship is growing stronger.