#loki by definition is the opposite of a narcissist

[ineffably-graham]

see, i think one of the core issues with loki is that to make sylvie as a character, the writes combined loki's ex-girfriend (the enchantress) with loki. that was a recipe for disaster.

also i know that if sylvie was a dude everyone would be screaming about how loki and sylvie were like brothers and how gross it is. but yknow. to each their own.

[onewomancitadel]

Saw someone else express my (apparently deeply unoriginal) sentiment that if living redemption enemies-to-lovers is so 'overdone', where is it, and the solitary response (in a populated interaction) was 'Loki/Sylvie' from the Loki television show. That was it.

Don't continue reading if you're a Loki/Sylvie fan lol. Not using an anti tag because people will be scouring those for different reasons from me lol.

I'm going to be a little mean and say that dynamic was made possible because a) Loki is the protagonist and no longer structurally an antagonist, b) there's kind of the implication that Loki is a narcissist going with the diva characterisation (I don't care how the pairing is actually characterised, it takes self-love way too far that it's not even a metaphor anymore, it's actually deeply depressing - the idea that the only person who can understand Loki is solely Loki is not the type of thing I enjoy at all; it literally the opposite of my ideal romance which is perhaps best expressed by For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known), and c) it's not even very good anyway.

To circle back around to the first point, the romance between two morally gray characters and a corrected antagonist/occasional ally to protagonist basically 'makes' the enemies-to-lovers romance okay; tonally it's the sort of thing we might expect for Loki (his romances can be complicated). Idk, it definitely doesn't scratch my itch for anything hero/villain related.

Notice how I didn't talk smack about M/arvel once! I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of the argument even if they can never be truly radical.

By 'enemies' I don't just mean false tension or hatred; there actually has to be discord, enmity, and the general assumption one or the other will kill the other or will be killed by each other's sides. By 'redemption' I also don't mean 'mean man becomes soft/reveals he had a mean mummy or daddy who made him emotionally stunted so he was really good all along'-type reversion, but actual character change and coming to challenge their own worldview.

So some may say that these ideas are 'common' because weaker, improperly named and ill-defined versions of them persist, which are then used to argue why actual enemies-to-lovers ships and actual redemption are 'overdone' because they don't know what they're fucking talking about.

It really is damnably scarce out there. Like, actual paradigm shift stuff just almost doesn't exist.

[avatar216]

More Tropes and Things I hate

Daddy issues. Yup, I’m really starting to hate characters who have daddy/mommy issues. I don’t get why so many MMCs need to have them, especially in romance novels. I feel like cheering everytime I find a book where the MMC doesn’t care about their dad’s opinion of them to the point of whining every couple chapters in their head or to someone else. I won’t lie this is something I find irksome about MCU Loki and Netflix Lucifer sometimes. I know both Odin and God suck as fathers but it doesn’t stop me from sighing at the characters’ fruitless efforts. I more so hate when creators give God Loki daddy issues and other insecurities when he’s farely self-confident, down right brazen arguably, perhaps has less self-preservation than MCU Loki, and definitely isn’t as emotionally vulnerable besides showing anger. I know people say that this trope is common because a lot of people don’t have a good relationship with their fathers, which I do get but I still prefer drama steming from others like not agreeing on certain things or getting over their shared bad history. I rowl my eyes when the MMC tries to seek approval from A-hole daddy by trying to be the perfect son or trying to rebel against AD by being reckless and stupid and having a Pikachu face in response to having to be saved. Nevermind the ones who try too hard to be the opposite of AD. I honestly mostly hate the whining consistently in their head or otherwise to someone usually the FMC. I see you Farrendel Laesornysh from the Elven Alliance series. 

FMCs have to hate wearing dresses/skirts/no talk of why dresses might be favored practically. This is a bit complicated but let me try to explain. I’m someone who prefers wearing dresses and skirts to pants. I’m not small chested/waisted, so pants/shorts often ried down and that’s just uncomfortably embarrassing, so in warmer months I wear dresses/skirts. Nevermind it makes going to the bathroom somewhat easier. I’m mentioning this stuff because I see a lot of books shitting on dresses and women who wear them. Women can kickass in a dress. I read a book where the FMC used her heel to stab somone while running in a skirt and I loved it. I know people say we need more tomboy characters and I understand why, but I want to find more books where the heroine isn’t comfortable in pants because they just don’t fit her butt right to stay up, she actually has to go to a bra store or online because she doesn’t wear a size or style easily found at Walmart, thinks skirts and dresses fit and hide things better than pants and they don’t go around their whole leg comfortably. Dress wearing isn’t all about dressing up since there are casual dresses and not all women wore dresses that went to the floor historically, which I sometimes hear people saying in movies, books, and online. When I say I hate FMCs who hate wearing dresses I mean I hate this i’m superior to women who prefer wearing dresses and their just lying about not liking pants attitude I see sometimes in fiction and online.  

Casual/inappropriate {incorrect} use of the words Narcissist and Codependent. I’ve seen this in a couple books and some fanfics and I can say I hate it every single time without exception. I find it to be a DNF worthy offense too. The Duke Sebastian in the Duke and the Lady by Jessie Clever just casually labels his mother a Narcissist when it makes no sense for someone in that time period to use that word like that, let alone a Duke. It took me right out of the story. Nevermind all the other inaccuracies like useing the words hello, okay, horse back riding, and mate among others. In other media I think creators and audiences confuse NPD with the casual usage which is more so based on the Greek figure than the disorder, which is unfortunately named after him. That’s why we get Loki being described as a Narcissist because he fell in love with a female version of himself I think. I honestly wish they would change the name of the disorder. I hate people using this word casually and I do and will continue to unsob from and DNF anything tasing around psychological labels like they’re lollipops without any consideration to real people even if it’s a psychologist doing it because I’ve begun really not liking certain psychologists over the past few years of researching positive psychology among other things on my own. As for codependent I hate this term because it’s not actually a clinical term. It’s a term that comes out of addiction recovery circles originally. Melody Beattie originally used the term to describe enablers of addicts who would “sacrifice” themselves in helping their loved ones usually by giving them money and spending maybe much of their time driving around looking for them in crack houses or bars to the point they were losing sleep, time, and other relationships in an effort to save/keep that person around. By doing all of these things among others they were considered co-DEPENDENT. Addicts are/were considered dependent, so a spouse/family member giving them resources that would enable them to get their stimulus of choice which would by extension be basically partaking in the SOC so they would be essentially counted as an addict/dependent themselves, which would be to their own detriment of course since much of their own resources would go to the SOC. They would be an addict/dependent by proxy, which is what codependent basically means. Codependent does NOT describe two people who would die for each other or are obsessed with each other to the exclusion of everyone else. That would be toxic INTER-DEPENDENCE.  I’m looking at you Loki-Thor centric fandom for both words being used incorrectly in fanfics and meta. On page 35 of For Butter or Worse by Erin La Rosa, the heroine Nina uses this word to describe herself when there are no addicts around her and I just cringed and DNFed because I suspect the author did no research. Please people do your research before using these terms and others. 

 I grew up with/was raised by addicts, so I find the term Codependent to be insulting to my grandparents, my uncle, my mom, my sister, and myself because we should not be blamed and shamed for trying to help our family members. Hitting rock bottom is not the end all-be all of addiction recovery. Most people don’t have to fear every phone call wondering if someone is dead, especially if it came late at night or early in the morning but when I grew up this was normal,                                                       

[iamanartichoke]

People argue about what even is canon in the first place anyway. Even the starting point can't be agreed upon.

Including the 2nd ask bc I'm assuming they're from the same nonny? (pfft like more than one person would send me asks in one day lmao)

Anyway ... I mean, I'm mostly ambivalent on the first point re: people disagreeing over canon, bc ... like, idek where to start on all the shit that I could say about fans' relationship to and interaction with canon or even what canon technically is, like, by definition (and therefore what even qualifies as canon).

But I did want to address the second point bc I think it's a good opportunity to just sort of toss this hot take into the void: "Stating that fiction is subjective will ruffle some people's feathers at the minute" - so what? So. What. Fiction is subjective, all art is subjective, and that's something that is true, has been true, and will be true regardless of some fans' decision to just decide that things don't work that way.

They can get their feathers ruffled as much as they like, but people need to learn that their personal emotions and feelings about A Thing don't mean that they can just decide that That Thing is suddenly something else (or decide something else is suddenly That Thing). It's just like how words like gaslighting and narcissistic and abusive and torture and trigger have become so diluted bc people a) don't actually understand what gaslighting, for example, is, and therefore cannot possibly call it out with any real degree of accuracy, so they just end up throwing a really weighted term at something as basic, human, and everyday as telling a lie. Or an emotional argument becomes abuse, or being squicked by something makes it a trigger.

OR, on the opposite side of the coin, b) maybe they actually do know what gaslighting or abuse is, but then they will categorize anything that remotely falls within the realm of the same definition as being gaslighting or abuse. I, personally, for example, really hate the way that some people claim Mobius tortures and enslaves Loki. It drives me up the wall when I see those takes because - okay, are these terms technically correct? Yeah, technically, which is what they use to justify it - "Well, this source defines "torture" as xyz, and Mobius is clearly doing z, so Mobius is a torturer." But words mean shit, so are you really asking me to accept that Mobius tortured Loki just as Thanos tortured Loki? Yes? Okay, how? No? Okay, why not?

Here's the thing - Mobius never laid a hand on Loki, nor did he sadistically, literally play with Loki's mind. Remember, Loki was being influenced by the mind stone in Avengers and the Other had a constant connection to Loki's consciousness. Thanos (and the Other) tortured Loki. Mobius ... was mean to him during an interrogation and also lied about Loki being responsible for Frigga's death (and I've said it before, Mobius was being an unreliable narrator in this scene and anyone who believes - because of Mobius - that Loki actually killed Frigga is both factually wrong and also an idiot). Like, Mobius is shitty to Loki but Thanos is torturous to Loki. The two are not the same, regardless of how they may technically be defined. By calling the former torture, consistently, bc his behavior meets some arbitrary technical definition, you're actively diluting the word bc you feel like its weight lends credibility to your argument that Mobius sucks.

... I got off-topic for a second there, I'm sorry. But back to my point: fiction is subjective and I don't care whose feathers I ruffle by saying that. It's true, and acting like it's not so that you can feel like you have the "right" interpretation of the character (thus giving you personal validation which, I'm sorry to say, the Emperor thought that he was wearing fabulous new clothes but that didn't change the reality that he was butt ass naked) is just ... *gesticulates wildly bc words fail me* shitty.

[musclesandhammering]

“Sylki isn’t even a m/f pairing cause they’re both genderfluid!”

↘️ I really really wanted Loki to be canon genderfluid, but the problem with that is that in Ep 5, they do everything in their power to make both Loki and Sylvie seem Very Very cis. All the Loki’s straight up say they’ve never seen a female version of themselves, and Sylvie says that she was born a woman (and never shows any sign of presenting as anything else). Even if Ep 5 hadn’t happened, though, the only mention of anything gender-related is a little Easter egg in Loki’s file that says “Sex: Fluid”. Easily missed by a casual viewer, so not much confirmation at all.

“You’re biphobic if you have a problem with Sylki!”

↘️ Putting aside the fact that I’m actually bi myself… In real life, it’s totally valid for a bisexual person to only date the opposite sex, but on screen “Show, don’t tell.” is the golden rule. There are plenty of problems with Sylki other than the fact that it’s a m/f ship. However, it’s extremely frustrating for queer people to see the writers patting themselves on the back for giving us one (1) throwaway line that can be easily edited out for homophobic audiences, and then to see absolutely no further acknowledgment of Loki’s supposed attraction to men, along with him being shown openly flirting with 2 different women. It just seems awfully convenient to be able to tell and not show where m/m is concerned and then to show m/f where it isn’t even necessary.

“You just hate that a woman got in the way of your two white dudes kissing!”

↘️ If Sylvie was the main character and she had pretty good chemistry with a woman, and then all of a sudden a male variant of her was introduced and a romance was forced between them, I’d be pretty pissed about that too. I don’t want Sylvie out of the picture! My ideal scenario would be her and Loki being Chaos Twins. And I don’t even want Lokius to be canon! Again, my ideal scenario would be Chaos Twins with their best friend/handler Mobi. This isn’t about her getting in the way of another pairing, it’s about how this pairing in particular is just Not It.

“You just want Loki for yourself, you’d be mad at anyone he was paired with!”

↘️ No I… really don’t? I’m gonna get mauled for saying this, but I don’t even find Loki particularly attractive. Tom? Sure. But Loki? Mmmm… not exactly. Aesthetically pleasing maybe. Intellectually I know that he’s pretty hot, but he doesn’t do anything for me :/ I also really really hate reader inserts sooo yeah lol. And if you’ve seen my blog you’d know I ship him with a lot of people, both male and female.

“Sylvie is her own person so it’s not really selfcest!”

↘️ Except the writers have gone out of their way to make it clear that they are the same person. Not exactly the same, but they’re similar enough that it’s clear that they’re versions of each other. Plus they canonically have the same parents, very very similar DNA, and essentially the same basic origin (adopted, Asgard, etc). They’re not exact clones of one another but they very much are slightly different models of the same person.

“Selfcest isn’t the same as incest!”

↘️ No, it’s even worse lmao. Imagine two people that share parents, DNA, and some life experiences, but they’re even closer than twins…. Lol yeah.

“Ok but you gotta admit selfcest is pretty in character for Loki lololol”

↘️ No it’s not… One of my favourite things about Loki in all 6 movies is that he never had a love interest. Never even a hint of a love interest. And even in this show he makes it clear that he’s never really been in love before- never had anything “real”. And, this considered, people saying that it makes sense that his first and only canon love interest would be a version of himself implies that he’s incredibly narcissistic. Which, despite what some shitty writers try to tell us, he’s not. His narcissism is performative. It’s posturing. He’s incredibly insecure and self-loathing and that ends up manifesting as violence in some instances, and that’s his whole problem. The exact opposite of narcissism. Quite honestly, Loki would never trust or even like himself enough to be romantically interested.

“You just want Loki whump, you hate to see him happy!”

↘️ I do enjoy Loki whump on occasion, but at this point we maxed out on the whump meter about 3 movies back… I absolutely want this poor man to be happy, for once in his damn life. And the show gives us everything but that. Just like people said Ragnarok gave us a happy Loki, when in reality all we got was a humiliated Loki that was beaten down even further to build other characters up and give the audience a laughs… which is pretty much exactly what’s happening here. Not all the time! There’s some super progressive moments for his character development and mental health, but overall? The show isn’t giving us a happy Loki at all, and Sylki definitely hasn’t resulted in a happier Loki so far.

“They have great chemistry though!”

↘️ I’m sure any two characters could have good chemistry if the writing team put 85% percent of their effort for the whole show into squishing a man and woman together and making them kiss, even going so far as to build the plot around it, when they could’ve spent their time and energy improving other aspects of the series.

“Ok you have to admit the blanket scene was pretty cute!”

↘️ Yes, I will admit that! It was adorable actually! But given the myriad of issues I listed above, one cute scene isn’t enough to make me hate the ship any less.

[lucianalight]

I’m so confused as to why some people reacted to the Loki series the way they did? Like, before the show I was firmly in the camp of “Loki is a great character, but he is a villain and ppl need to remember that” to convincing me that he is so much more because of the series, and most of my friends feel the same, and one friend said they hated the series cause it made Loki not a villain, and ppl on here feel the opposite

The main reason for the different reactions is how differently everyone sees and interprets the character.

You believed Loki to be a villain. The reason for it is perhaps the narrative framing of the character and the hero/villain coding. Because if Loki is a villain then so are many heroes. I recommend reading my "Spot the Hypocrisy" series for more detailed explanation. What the series did to convince you that Loki is so much more, was probably softening Loki's ambiguity and dark side(to the point that it made him ooc sometimes), and directly addressing some of Loki's traits that fans missed because of Loki being an introvert and his tendency to guard his emotions and also his villain coding. Like Loki expressing that he doesn't enjoy hurting people or him loving and caring about other people deeply. Which were things that many fans already knew about Loki. This is also the reason your friend thinks the series made Loki not a villain.

Some of us who didn't like the show though, believe Loki wasn't a villain to begin with. Sure he did villainous things and was in the role of the villain sometimes, but he wasn't evil. Personally I don't see Loki as villain or a hero. He is both and neither. But imo Loki has more heroic tendencies when he is in his right mind.

It is not that we think Loki was turned into a villain in the series. It is that Loki's motivations, trauma and his tragic past was retconned and ignored in favor of regressing the character to a shallow caricature of himself. For example Loki never wanted a throne, and certainly not for its power. Instead the series showed him as someone power hungry. He was shown as someone who hurts people for laughs in the scene with Sif. While I can see Loki doing sth like that, it is always because of a reason like the person hurt or mocked him before. He was called a narcissist while he is not. He was shown as someone who lies and betrays people for no reason other than it's in his nature and that he has betrayed his family and his home, while it was his family who betrayed him and caused his trauma(the only person Loki betrayed was Thor. Definitely not his father) and he never betrayed his home. These are some of the main reasons that fans disliked how the show handled Loki's characterization. You can read more about other reasons on this masterpost.

[gdcee]

Mum: I don't like a lot of the new stuff Marvel is putting out. I only liked the What If T'challa episode.

Me: Yeah, I didn't like the Loki episode after that either. Why would he even want to take over Earth?

Mum: The series was pretty good though. Kind of weird and quirky?

Me: Nah, I thought it was pretty bad.

Mum: Really? You seemed to like it so much. And you like weird stuff.

Me: Yeah, at first, but then things got too weird. Like Loki making out with his opposite gender counterpart at the end.

Mum: Yah, didn't like that either, but not surprising, right? He's a narcissist, he's in love with himself.

Me: He committed suicide at the end of the first Thor movie.

Dad: Yah, he doesn't love himself, his problem is self-loathing. He wants other people to love him, not just his mum. Particularly his dad.

Me: Oh definitely, but Odin is a bad father.

Dad: Yup. Very emotionless grumpy old man. Doesn't show any affection for his son.

Me: Besides, if he was actually a narcissist, why would he fall in love with his opposite gender version with dyed hair who doesn't look like him when there's that President version who looks identical to him?

Dad: Oh yah, hor? Doesn't make sense.

Mum: I don't know. -makes a face- I don't like either of those things.

Me: Yep, but they made you watch one of those things on screen.

Mum: Ugh, the romance was so unnecessary. I take it back, everything after episode 3 was mediocre.

[skaldish]

hey, anon from a few days ago. (I asked about agnostic paganism/archetypes and you mentioned soft polytheism; someone else mentioned apatheism, which I resonated with heavily). I know this is probably a more personal viewpoint/experience thing and don’t expect an Ultimate Truth answer, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on this.

I go heavily back and forth between polytheistic belief and general non belief (part of the non belief is Problems With Authority, and that directed at religion is probably some christian influence I need to unpack). knowing myself, I doubt that I will ever definitively believe in the existence of spirits & the gods; but I also can’t discount the possibility. and my practice is helpful to me either way, so I don’t plan to stop.

basically wondering here, is it possible to foster a relationship with a deity if your belief waxes and wanes? would that create a barrier in the relationship, or is that something human that they could see past?

Short answer is yes, you can foster a relationship with deities without being convinced they exist. It can be stressful though since it can impact the quality of your relationship with them.

The long answer is this:

The function of deities in a polytheistic view is not identical to the function of divinity in Christianity. Gods are not "authority" figures that we serve or even answer to. The way I see it, deities are our "upperclassmen." They have wisdom and experience beyond us similar to how adults have wisdom and experience beyond children. But like caring adults, they interact with the young and learning human species because they find us enjoyable and want to help our growth.

(The reason people call the Christian god a malignant narcissist is because that's what the relationship dynamic would be in a human-human context. The dynamic of "serve me to earn my love, or be punished" is 100% abuse.)

Deities understand human nature and don't fault or shame us for it because it's something they've experienced themselves. There's literally no relating to beings who don't intimately understand the human condition and how human social function works.

I give you all this background because you cited your issue with deities as an issue with authority. Wherever you end up in your spiritual beliefs at the end of the day (atheistic, apatheistic, soft or hard polytheistic), it's very important to make sure you've disambiguated your understanding of deities from the Christian understanding.

Now, with that out the way, let me talk about faith.

I was raised in a science-minded agnostic household. Because of how I was raised, my brain needs to have data behind something in order to believe it exists—the very opposite of "having faith." The data I receive in my spirit and deity work is significant, regardless if it's objectively real or not. The way I see it, something doesn't have to be "real" to be significant. (For example, the events in fictional stories aren't real, but that doesn't mean they can't be profoundly meaningful and even formative to people.)

I have a working, healthy, long-lasting relationship with Loki despite the fact my spirituality is not, and has never been, built upon blind faith. Which is basically a long roundabout way of saying, no, you don't need to have blind faith in deities at all to have a relationship with them. And I know that because I live it.

Now, these are all my worldviews. There are other people who will have different ones and who will disagree with me about things. But I subscribe what makes sense to me, and they subscribe to what makes sense to them.

Developing your views takes time. Allow yourself to explore. You don't need to worry about upsetting deities for being unsure or doubtful about things; they understand.

[darkficsyouneveraskedfor]

I feel uncomfortable related to the mental state of the read in Stranger at the Door.

Like I was in her place mentally, but I got good mental help, even my family (mother) isn't the best at least isn't that abusive.

So this fic makes uncomfortable but in good way, like, the worst way that I can ended...

And some details that I have seen and I don't know if I image:

The unhealthy and abuse mother, like when reader told her that she wanted to look for a job, the "mother" makes her feel unable and he emotionally blackmails her.

How the mother likes her now out of her way, but no out, like don't break my illusion of perfect romance, but say and complet my "perfect family". Like mam, isn't normal to engage to some one that your child isn't uncomfortable, yes, she is an adult but lives under your care and home.

It's. Not. Normal.

Because your child is an adult your work isn't done, you still in charge of them (and more in the case of the reader, because if I'm correct, the shitty psychiatrist gives her the legal guardianship, that makes me think that this case have been even worse) and that doesn't give you the right to abuse them.

We don't have here good sides here only bad and worst. Bad Loki because being a and abuser (and Thor too) and worst the mother for being one AND bring home another abuser plus be a horrible mother overall.

Her shitty psychiatric, like, your patient who was remarkably improving suddenly has an episode and regresses significantly, blame her; do not pay attention to the fact that a strange man walked into her home, her mother needs more therapy than her, and that, very importantly, she has just confessed to you that she was sexually abused. Like, is a textbook example! A young, vulnerable and dependent girl with a recent entry of a male relative into her home has a horrible regression to the point of being in a catatatonic state, and the first thing that crosses the mind is that she is being abused; it literally checks all the points of sexual abuse.

(Sadly sexual abuse occurs in the family, to the weakest members, and is well known by any health and legal professional)

I hate mental professionals that do their work like shit, that's even worse than the mother, he knows it's wrong and chooses to ignore it. The one how professionally trained, chose to do the exact opposite of all that is been recommended and taught.

I have been in her position, depressed and auto isolated, but I have been lucky to find the best psychiatrist for me (I have been to countless mental professionals but I didn't connect with them) who I can trust and have treat me with respect and decency.

Yes, my mother haven't change, but at least I have some one who understands that I not broken (and, said in my family, mad) and has the right training to help me.

Sorry for the TED talk, but I see myself in this reader (with the distances that, fortunately, I did not have to go through sexual abuse)

I love this fic, and I know that this is a tragedy, but I don't expect a comedy either (a play with a good ending), I hope for that but I know that you don't write that. I love your tragedies ♥️

Firstly, thanks fo sending this and thank you for reading!

I'm happy you go appropriate help and the therapist in this story is not a good doctor at all. I hope we all can have good help one day.

The mother sets up the reader to be stuck. Somehow she is encouraging bu discouraging. She no doubt has her seeing a doctor who feeds into her own self-righteous opinion that she's her daughter's keeper and has kept her safe. The mom is very selfish and borderline narcissistic.

Loki definitely doesn't help. He's opportunistic and cruel. He sees reader as vulnerable and knows the mom is easily sweet talked and fooled. He easily uses mom pent up resent against the daugter and for his own ends.

Im sorry your mother hasnt taken the effort to look inward but it's a hard fact to sccept that not everyone wants to get better or change. Sadly. And i know for a fact how toxic parent can be.

Wishing you peace 💗

[iamnmbr3]

So, this is going to be a long, two-part ask (apologies in advance for that). Thank you so much for your Loki series thoughts. I discovered your blog by accident, and I am so glad I did. I was trying to figure out why I felt so hollow/not-great after watching the episodes each week, and your posts helped me find the answer. I was so looking forward to this series, to see more Loki, but what we got...wasn't Loki. I tried to see past the flawed writing and absurd 'plot', tried very hard, but eventually I just stopped lying to myself, and finally let myself think 'I did not enjoy this'. It is very clear that Waldron didn't bother watching Thor and TDW, and it also seemed like he only skimmed Avengers, because the characterization comes off like he only watched Ragnarok (and somehow made it worse than it was in that film). It was a huge disappointment that in a show titled 'Loki', Loki wasn't even the main character after the first (or second; everything blended together for me) episode. (Side note: I like the concept of Sylvie, but like...she didn't need to have that much focus, or take over the plot. Also...I don't understand why she was named the way she was; Sylvie Lushton was a completely different character in the comics. Show!Sylvie seems like Waldron tried to mix Sylvie Lushton--in terms of looks--with Lady Loki, and even a bit of Amora the Enchantress thrown in there. Which is...a strange choice. It would have been so cool to see Amora get an MCU appearance, especially given her ties to both Loki and Thor, but I digress.) I even, slightly, shipped Sylki for a bit due to the concept of it being interesting to me, and even did some art for it, but as the show went on, and Sylvie started taking over as the main protagonist, my interest in it waned. (I am much more of a LokixJane fan, anyway. -shrug-) I also shipped it because I just...cannot ship L*kius at all. Like you, I cannot stand Mobius as a character; you are absolutely right: he is what Pierce was to Bucky. Except this show paints that in a 'positive' light, and even worse, that Loki deserved it. I have no problem with darkships or darkfic. My issue lies with the majority of people shipping it treating it is if it is a healthy, fluffy relationship in canon, when it is clearly the opposite. (Also, ever since Mobius told Loki that his only purpose was to basically be a stepping stone for others to reach their full potential, I knew that I would never like him or ship him with Loki. Perhaps it is personal, but a toxic person I used to associate with said basically the same thing to me in terms of my role in my friend group, and it messed me up for years, at least regarding how I thought my friends saw me. It got better when we no longer were close to them, and of course it wasn't true, but still. It screwed with my sense of self esteem for a long time. So seeing my favorite character being told essentially the same thing made my stomach twist.) 1/2

2/2 (continued) And don't even get me started on how Loki's mistreatment is used for comedy. Or how he is shown as incompetent, while in his earlier appearances in the MCU, he is clearly very intelligent. (These asks are all over the place, sorry about that.) That whole 'narcissist' comment also infuriated me. Because Loki is not a narcissist. Mobius, on the other hand... His trauma also constantly being erased did not sit well with me, either. Ugh. And of course, I have to mention how, while Wanda, Sam, and Bucky got new outfits for their shows, Loki did not. Just a few of those drabby TVA outfits. (Which, I am fine with him in Midgardian clothes. But like...these did not suit him. Even Ragnarok did 'Loki in Midgardian clothes' better. :/ Now, there were some things I did enjoy, like meeting the other Loki variants in episode five. Episode one was okay, too, since I thought it was going in a different, darker direction. And there were bits and pieces of some other episodes I enjoyed, too. But as a whole? Definitely disappointed. However, I flipped through my art book of TDW and immersed myself in the beautiful designs and characters, and fell in love with them and their world all over again. (Sorry, these got so long!)

Very eloquently put! Also so sorry that happened to you. <3 So many people have been hurt by the toxic and dangerous messaging of this show. Just remember that regardless of how the show presents him, Mobius's behavior is not justified at all. Not only is he not a good friend but in real life he would face very serious repercussions for what he did to Loki and would probably end up going to jail for a very long time. Torture and slavery are heinous acts that are against the law for a reason. The fact that this is normalized in the show doesn't meant these acts are ok and I just a reflection of the moral corruption of Mike Waldron and Kate Herron and the Disney execs that okayed this. Thanks for this very thoughtful ask! And yeah. Going back to the good Loki movies is a great way to deal with this. I rewatched Thor 2011 and Avengers and I'm going to rewatch TDW soon. And read my favorite fics. And forget about this. And so glad you’ve enjoyed my blog!!! <3 

[notallthosewho-wanderarelost]

Since it’s Tuesday and we get Loki 1x05 tomorrow and then I’m seeing Black Widow the day after, and I guess I’m doing these now, some thoughts on Loki 1x04.

Hopefully this will be a shorter post due to me not knowing wtf is going on. This show is so chaotic and it’s perfect but that makes trying to predict it impossible. How VERY LOKI OF IT.

NOPE, NOPE THIS IS NOT A SHORTER POST, I have no idea what is going on plot wise but this episode gave me a lot of character stuff to talk about apparently.

Alright, let me get the big one out of the way. I’ve already said this in various places, mostly tags, but if I’m gonna make this post it’s gotta be here. I’m uncomfortable with Loki/Sylvie being romantic. Would prefer for Marvel to stay away from selfcest. PLEASE. I’m kind of hoping and wondering if it’s a fakeout for a reveal that Loki has finally learned to love or at least accept himself through his care of and admiration for Sylvie, which would be VERY Agent of Asgard-esque and I can see it being very probable.

I think giving Loki a love interest of any kind was always going to be difficult to pull off, but especially Loki as he is at the point in time when the show finds him- fresh off his attempted takeover of Earth and probably still deeply reeling from the revelation of his adoption and also likely mentally affected by any torture and/or mental manipulation Thanos might have done on him. Loki’s self-loathing is probably still close to an all-time high here and he’s questioning who he even is. I’m not saying that you have to love yourself before you can love someone else- I don’t think that at all; in fact I think loving someone else would probably encourage someone to value themselves more- but Loki as he is here I think would need to work through some of his own issues before he could get involved with anyone else. I think that Loki would need to learn to love himself first, to accept that he’s worthy of love, before he could genuinely fall in love with anyone else. (Remember this, I’ll come back to it.)

I got major sibling vibes from Loki and Sylvie on Lamentis. Like I said last post, they felt like alternate universe twins to me. They’re the same person from different universe, but also very much not the same- I feel like twins is the closest description? I can admittedly be pretty awful at picking up romantic vibes when I’m not expecting them, but I did not get romance vibes at all.

I also feel kind of annoyed that we would never be having this conversation or having this as a canonical ship option if Sylvie hadn’t been female. Loki is now officially canonically bi, (which means Sylvie is too btw) but in comics Loki is both bi and also genderfluid. Lady Loki is just Loki when Loki is identifying as female. So having Loki fall in love with a female version of himself feels both unnecessarily heteronormative and kind of...awkward in terms of 616!Loki’s genderfluidity, to put it lightly. (Note: I am not genderfluid, this is just my opinion, please prioritize actual genderfluid people’s opinions on the subject over mine.)

That said, after I finished the episode I was genuinely confused if they were actually going there and had to go look up interviews to see what the Loki team was saying about it. I found this interview with head writer Michael Waldron, also featuring quotes from director Kate Herron and from Tom Hiddleston. Relevant quotes below:

“That was one of the cruxes of my pitch [for the series], that there was going to be a love story,” head writer Michael Waldron explains to Marvel.com. “We went back and forth for a little bit about, like do we really want to have this guy fall in love with another version of himself? Is that too crazy? But in a series that, to me, is ultimately about self-love, self-reflection, and forgiving yourself, it just felt right that that would be Loki's first real love story.”

Loki reassures her that while they might lose, they don’t die — they survive. He goes on to call Sylvie “amazing” for how she almost took down the TVA on her own, and it’s clear from the look on his face that even though they’ve only been together a short while, Loki’s already come to admire and respect her. As the moon literally crumbles around them, Sylvie places a hand on Loki’s arm, and that’s when it happens: A branch on the Sacred Timeline. These two Lokis are having a moment they were never supposed to have, which as Mobius puts it, is “pure chaos.”

“The look that they share, that moment, [it started as] a blossoming friendship,” continues Waldron. “Then for the first time, they both feel that twinge of, ‘Oh, could this be something more? What is this I'm feeling?’ These are two beings of pure chaos that are the same person falling in love with one another. That's a straight-up and down branch, and exactly the sort of thing that would terrify the TVA.”

...

“Who’s a better match for Loki than himself?” director Kate Herron chimes in. “The whole show is about identity. It's about him, and he is on a very different path, and he is on a different journey. He sees things in Sylvie that he is like, ‘Oh, I've been there. I know what you feel.’ But she's like, ‘Well, I don't feel that way.’ And I think that was the kind of fun thing about it. She is him, but she's not him. They've had such different life experiences. So just from an identity perspective, it was interesting to dig into that.”

“When Loki meets Sylvie, he's inspired solely by curiosity,” reveals Hiddleston. “He wants to talk to her and understand her and try to discern what was similar about their experiences, and what was different. He keeps asking her questions because he wants to see if his experience was also her experience. I think he realizes, and she realizes, that while they're the same, they're not the same.”

Aside from the parts where Michael Waldron says “...have this guy fall in love with another version of himself...” and “the same person falling in with another version of one another,” everything they talk about in this article could be read as Loki and Sylvie caring for each other in a way that’s not necessarily romantic. Waldron even says that the series is specifically about self-love and forgiving yourself.

(Coming back to the thing from earlier about Loki needing to love himself now.) The way I’d read Loki and Sylvie’s relationship, especially from Loki’s side since we know more of his history, is that this is the first time that either of them actually cares about themselves. Because of their trust in and their love for each other, they’re each able to see themselves as a person worthy of love. I think that’s what the Nexus Event was. I think that’s why Loki and Sylvie’s moment of connection destabilized the timeline. Because Loki’s self-loathing is a deep root of his villainy, and the sacred timeline needs Loki to be a villain, two versions of Loki feeling self-worth, at the same time and place, created a HUGE nexus event. Loki even says it himself in the first episode: he doesn’t enjoy hurting people, he does it because (he feels) he has to, in a desperate play for control. He lashes out and hurts people because he thinks it’s the only way for him to have some control over things.

What Loki starts to speak to Sylvie at the end, he says, “This is new for me,” and references the nexus event on Lamentis. We never get to hear what it is that’s new for him. The episode sets it up to make us think that Loki’s about to tell Sylvie that he’s in love with her. But I think (or hope) that he was about to say something more along the lines of how the time he spent getting to know Sylvie on Lamentis helped him learn to care about himself and see his own self worth. That’s certainly a new feeling for him, since Loki seems to have always been an outsider and been looked down upon. And actually saying out loud that he’s starting to gain a sense of self worth would definitely be new for him. Loki knows that he and Sylvie will figure this out because he’s figured out the nexus event on Lamentis- that when they accept themselves and their own self worth, they can do pretty much anything.

I think it’s also worth mentioning that we never actually hear from Loki himself that he’s in love with Sylvie. We only hear it from Mobius, who’s feeling pretty betrayed by Loki and uses the entire concept to write Loki off as a huge narcissist. That way, he won’t feel as bad about Loki betraying him, or about sticking Loki in a time loop jail. Not that Loki would be the type to shout any romantic feelings to the world, especially in this situation, but the way he kept denying it didn’t seem like it was something he had to lie about.

This episode also called Loki a narcissist a lot; I assume to set up the “reveal” of his feelings for Sylvie and explain why he would fall in love with an alternate version of himself. But while Loki is many things and sure has a lot of issues, I do NOT think narcissism is one of them. When the time loops really start to get to him, he says to Sif: “I crave attention, because I’m a narcissist. And I suppose it’s because I’m scared of being alone.” But that second sentence completely contradicts the whole idea of narcissism! According to a quick google, the definition of “narcissist” is “a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves.” But Loki is the exact opposite. He has such a low opinion of himself that he acts out to get attention, because he’s so used to being overshadowed, overlooked and alone that he’s afraid that if he doesn’t do things for attention then nobody will give him any. He can be arrogant, yes, but even a lot of that stems from well-earned confidence. Loki is very talented magically and is used to being the smartest person in the room. He knows what he’s good at. But he sure isn’t attention-seeking just for its own sake. Any narcissism he’s displayed, he’s done since becoming a “villain” in Thor, and it’s actually been a mask to cover up his massive inferiority complex.

I also think it’s definitely worth mentioning that when Loki calls himself a narcissist, he’s repeating what Mobius said to him earlier. Loki clearly does care about Mobius and his opinion of him and feels bad about how things have fallen out with him. He’s also been through the time loop dozens of times now, and there’s a reason the TVA picked that memory. Because what Sif says to Loki really reflects his deepest fear. He doesn’t want to be alone, but he has such little love for himself that he might very well think he deserves to be. Loki’s emotionally exhausted at that point and just wants things to stop.

Okay. I think that covered most of my character analysis of the episode. I have some theories about Sylvie and the Time Keepers/TVA, etc, but they won’t be anywhere near as long as THAT^ was.

To start at the beginning of the episode: Sylvie’s backstory is SO SAD. I want to hug her. She spent almost her entire life on the run, growing up and living in apocalypses so the TVA wouldn’t catch her again. She didn’t deserve any of that and I’m so upset on her behalf.

Especially because as I said in another post, I think that the reason Sylvie got taken by the TVA was because she was never going to be a villain. Sylvie was kind and wanted to be heroic in the clip we see of her as a child, and she knew she was adopted. She was never going to be the Loki the TVA needed her to be for the Sacred Timeline because nothing would have ever pushed her to do what our Loki did.

The scene with Sylvie and B-15 was so good. Sylvie was kind to B-15, because her natural instinct is to be kind, and I have so many feelings about that. I love Sylvie. And then B-15 coming to the rescue to uncollar Sylvie and Loki and give Sylvie her sword was EPIC. She’s so cool.

Small aside, I got emotional seeing Asgard again in Sylvie’s flashback. I miss Asgard. :(

Also, if a kid can escape the TVA just by biting the agent holding her, the TVA have really got to step up their game. That’s kind of pathetic. Good for Sylvie though, that was very clever of her. The most juvenile yet effective tactic.

The Time Keepers being fake robots was an excellent twist, and one that I kind of saw coming as soon as they didn’t show Ravonna’s conversation with them earlier in the episode. It immediately made me feel like there were no Time Keepers at all. (And I was wondering if the no-robots rule from episode 1 would be plot relevant! I wonder if it has anything to do with the Time Keepers actually being robots?) It was also really clear that Ravonna was lying about what happened to C-20. As of now I think that Ravonna might actually be the real power behind the TVA. Or possibly a designated lieutenant to the real power behind the TVA:

When I was looking up interviews about Loki/Sylvie in this episode, I stumbled across an article about Ravonna’s comic counterpart and started kicking myself so hard for not recognizing her. In comics, Ravonna Renslayer is Kang the Conqueror’s wife. (Now, in my defense, my previous exposure to Ravonna was in Avengers: Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, in which she spends most of her screentime in a coma.) For anyone who doesn’t know, Kang the Conqueror is a time traveling classic Avengers villain. His whole thing is that he time travels, and wants to take over all of time. So it’s possible that Ravonna runs the TVA to benefit Kang somehow (maybe because Kang needs a certain sequence of events to assure a future victory over the Avengers?) or even does it on his orders. Kang the Conqueror is also set to be in Antman and the Wasp: Quantumania. (Aka Antman 3.)

(I don’t know if it’s relevant, but Kang the Conqueror also happens to be the reason the Young Avengers form. The very first member, Iron Lad aka Nate Richards, is a teenage Kang who meets his future self and decides he doesn’t want to be evil, so he travels back in time to get the help of Kang’s nemeses, the Avengers. However, he lands when the Avengers have disbanded and winds up putting together a team of Avengers-affiliated teenagers instead. The team gets bigger over time and a later version of it notably includes Kid Loki. I’m not going to go off on a Young Avengers tangent here but I LOVE the Young Avengers, please read Young Avengers volume 1 by Allan Heinberg and Jim Cheung and all of its associated tie-ins. It’s fantastic. Unfortunately Kid Loki is only in volume 2, which gets a very solid “no thank you” from me but ymmv. Imo if you want Loki, read Agent of Asgard instead; I keep bringing it up for a reason and that’s because it’s amazing. Kid Loki is also in Journey into Mystery prior to his appearance in Young Avengers, and I haven’t read that yet but it looks very good.)

I’m VERY curious as to what the deal is behind the TVA. This could go a lot of different ways but they all seem exciting.

This show is definitely gearing up for a finale in which the TVA no longer exists or at least no longer decides everyone’s fates, which is exactly what I predicted back in episode 1.

Final thoughts on the episode: I was just wondering after Mobius was pruned if maybe the pruning sticks are actually teleporters of some kind, instead of time tasers, and then we got THAT CREDITS SCENE. I am so confused but also VERY EXCITED. I almost screamed when I saw Kid Loki. MY CHILD. I just had this thought but oh, I would kill for a Thori reference. Best murder dog. Classic Loki’s costume looks so terrible, it’s absolutely on purpose, and I love it.

THIS SHOW HAD BETTER END WITH MOBIUS GETTING A JETSKI. AND BOTH SYLVIE AND LOKI HAPPY.

I’ve been wondering since the show was announced if this show would somehow end with a version of the comics Kid Loki + AoA Loki storyline, where this Loki gets reborn into the main MCU as Kid/Teen Loki so he can join the Young Avengers, and I still don’t know how I feel about that, but with how things are going I can still see it happening.

LET EVERYONE WE LOVE BE HAPPY AT THE END MARVEL.

[filmbuffsassemble]

The Avengers’ Journey (spoilers)

I just watched Endgame again yesterday and I think this time, it sank into me that we will never see the OG Avengers together again which is a greater loss than anything I can ever imagine.

Hawkeye

We first saw him in a short cameo in Thor and then he went on to be possessed by the Tesseract. I loved Hawkeye but he was not my favourite Avenger. He did went through a lot and he did so with mostly a bow and arrow. I look up to him because of his love for his family. He was willing to sacrifice everything in Vormir to get his family back and his friendship with Nat was his greatest redemption; he brought her back from her past violences and she brought him back from his present self. They were an iconic duo and they did not deserve to lose each other so soon after being reunited. Hawkeye may not have super strength or a suit of armour, but he still was every bit as heroic.

Bruce Banner/Hulk

Dr. Banner; a man at odds with who he is, who hated who he could become and eventually embraced it with finality. Bruce was always afraid of being Hulk, especially after the events of Age of Ultron. Until Infinity War, I’m fairly certain that he was scared of going rouge. Even though I was not a fan of Nat and Bruce romantic-wise, it must have been a solace that Bruce had Nat to bring him back to himself. He was the second brain of the Avengers, the peacekeeper (ironically) between them and his journey does not end here, we’ll see him soon.

Thor

I adore Thor, he’s one of the most complex characters in Avengers. Thor was the character who could be surrounded by a million people and still feel lonely. Family issues, girlfriend issues, he had them all until he lost everything. Thor is synonym with Loki despite their always-hurting-each-other-but-i-love-you-relationship. Thor was absolutely in depression in Endgame and who could blame him honestly. He’s the Avenger who lost his entire family; he literally has no blood by his side. It’s understandable why he spiralled and I think it was important for fans to see that instead of pretending he was fine. He went through the most emotional turmoil but was always trying to hide it. Even the strongest Avenger can only take so much. It will take some time for Thor to be back to his usual self but we can look forward to it.

Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow

The only female Avenger but with the heaviest emotional baggage. Nat does not get enough recognition that’s all I can say. She went through shit after shit but she’s ultimately the one who held the team together. She was the only one working her ass off 5 years after Infinity War and her breaking down was the most heartbreaking thing I’ve watched. She’s always been strong but her short reprieve showed us how much she truly cared for the only family she ever had. She’s always hated herself but she embraced it with the Avengers because they accepted her for who she was. Her relationship with Clint was also tear-jerkingly beautiful. He was there with her from the very beginning, from freaking BUDAPEST, all the way to her last moments. There are no words to describe their friendship. Clint’s children treated her like a second mom and we can only imagine how they will react when Clint delivered the news that their Aunt Nat will no longer meet them for lunch and teach them how to throw knives. Her friendship with Cap was also the best. When Clint was not around, Nat poured herself out to Cap and he to her. Nat told Cap “I’ll see you in a minute” but he never saw her again and he never got the chance to say goodbye. That alone was enough to get me sobbing. Nat has always been determined, she was never afraid of dying to bring everyone back and she ultimately crossed off her red ledger (she saved a billion people that’s more than enough) There are so many words to say about Nat, and this could go on for another 1000 words but ultimately she was selfless, she loved fully, and she will never be forgotten.

Steve Rogers/ Captain America

Cap might be my second favourite Avenger. He fought the Nazis, was frozen for years and never once did he stop fighting. He was the glue that held the Avengers together. I do think that his ending was perfect; he loved Peggy with all his heart. Their relationship was a staple in the MCU and it was only fitting that he spent the rest of his life with her. Cap was the definition of selfless, he was willing to die for Bucky in CATWS, he was there for Nat when she needed someone and he was the leader of the Avengers. He brought the group together; he was their morale, heart and soul. The bromance of Cap and Tony really struck me even though his best friends are of course Bucky and Sam. They were polar opposites, and were fighting tooth and nail almost all the time. Yet the trust they had for each other was breathtaking; they worked so well as a duo and when Cap cried at Tony’s death, it ruined me so much. I don’t think we can fully appreciate Cap’s existence in the MCU. He would forever be irreplaceable. He had the strongest principles, he was even willing to fight Thanos’s army if the rest of the Avengers had not arrived. It was only fitting that he wielded Mjolnir. Thank you Chris Evans, no one could ever play Captain America better than you did.

Tony Stark/ Iron Man

My one true love, the best Avenger, the saviour. Tony started of as a narcissistic, arrogant and sarcastic person. Then he became Iron Man and the rest was history. There’s always this thing called hero-complex that everyone supposed a superhero has but Tony was different. It was in his nature to save the world or he would be ridden with guilt and he would not be able to rest. No one could say that he’s selfish when he was the most fucking selfless person ever. He had nothing before Pepper and then he had everything; a wife, a daughter, a family. He lost his parents so early into his life and he finally earned his own family. But he knew the cost of joining the fight, yet he did so willingly. He could not live with himself if he did not join in the fray. That’s who Tony Stark was, plain and simple. He risked everything to save the world even though he was happy and finally content. When he saw Stephen Strange holding up his finger, he knew what he had to do and you could literally see him bracing himself for what was to come. And when he said “I am Iron Man”, that will go down in history. He suffered the most from Thanos, he had PTSD from the New York battle and it haunted him forever. Yet his love for his family which includes the Avengers triumphed over everything. His relationship with Pepper is something I will write about but for now just remember that his last words were “Hey Peps” and how he smiled right before dying when she assured him they were going to be fine. I was absolutely depressed when he died but him killing Thanos was the only ending I could imagine. RDJ started the MCU with Iron Man and he ended its biggest phase as well. He was my favourite movie character and looking at my username I have watched a lot of films. It felt like saying goodbye to a piece of me. I love you 3000 Tony Stark and RDJ.

The Avengers gave me so much; they formed my childhood and I will always go back to them for solace. It’s not just fiction, the culmination of 22 films and 11 years were a better part of my life and it provided me comfort in ways I could not imagine.

[palemoonpersephone]

60 Question Tag Challenge

So I’ve been tagged by @kaffeinic to answer these questions. Here we go!

1: Selfie.

Gonna have to decline this one as I’m very shy but I’ll describe myself a little to make up for it - very long dark reddish-brown hair, brown eyes, pale skin, fun size.

2: What would you name your future kids?

Can’t say for certain, I feel it would depend on what name felt right for that baby but I like many Italian and Celtic names.

3: Do you miss anyone? 

Yes, definitely. Old friends, old pen-pals/online friends who just seemed to disappear. And I miss my partner and my friends when we’re apart.

4: What are you looking forward to?

the weekend Seeing my partner again, working on my writing projects, starting third year of uni, and unashamedly the new Witcher series on Netflix!

5: Is there anyone who can always make you smile?

The lovely @kaffeinic for a start! My best friend, my partner, my doggy 🐕

6: Is it hard for you to get over someone?

All depends on the context. I’ve had crushes in the past that have been relatively easy to get over but then I’ve lost a couple of close friends and that had a pretty traumatic affect on me. Other times it’s been very easy because it’s been the right thing to do because the person I cut off was very toxic/bad for me.

7: What was your life like last year?

In some aspects very similar, my interests are all pretty much the same, my mental health was still difficult to manage and I was looking forward to my upcoming year of uni. But this time last year I wasn’t in a relationship and hadn’t began a really amazing journey of self-discovery.

8: Have you ever cried because you were so annoyed?

feel so attacked rn yes, I very much have. Crying tends to be my natural response to most high-running emotions.

9: Who did you last see in person? 

Within my household, my mum as I’m currently home for the summer. Outside of that, my partner when he last came down to visit

10: Are you good at hiding your feelings?

I can be. I’ve found it depends on how well other people can see. Over the years I’ve had to hide all sorts of things, especially from my family. For years they didn’t know I was severely ill with anxiety and depression but that might be testament to poor observation and parenting skills, or maybe I just became that good and hiding things. I’m striving now to be more open about how I feel rather than bottling things up because it’s like drinking poison. 

11: Are you listening to music right now?

Not at this minute.

12: What is something you want right now?

a hug a life without crippling mental illness  probably inspiration to work on my novel

13: How do you feel right now?

Quite tired, a bit lonely. Really craving some energy and pizzazz

14: When was the last time someone of the opposite sex hugged you?

Probably the Monday before last at 4-ish in the morning when my partner had to leave for work.

15: Personality description?

Shy, careful, introverted, open, understanding, affectionate, creative

16: Have you ever wanted to tell someone something but you didn’t?

Pretty much the story of my life. For the last 10-12 years I’ve had to keep so many things to myself, especially regarding my family. I could never say what I thought/believed because it would all spiral into a catastrophe, wasn’t a very safe environment emotionally-speaking. There have been so, so many things I’ve wanted to say but haven’t for the risk of rocking the boat.

17:  Opinion on insecurities?

Most people I know have them, including myself but I think people can be misled to think that others don’t have them because of the outward images they display. And from my experience they’re usually there for all the wrong reasons (if there’s such a thing as a right reason to have an insecurity)

18: Do you miss how things were a year ago?

No, I’ve only gained things since then.

19: Have you ever been to New York?

Not so far but I can’t say I have any desire to

20: What is your favourite song at the moment? 

Perhaps Ring of Fire by In This Moment

21: Age and birthday?

21, born 18/09/97

22: Description of crush?

(also my partner) 6″1, dark/black hair, brown eyes, built like a brick shit-house, tan skin. He’s intelligent, considerate, honourable, principled, fierce, indomitable, funny, supportive and respectful. 

23: Fear(s)?

I’m just gonna say most things

24: Height?

5″3

25: Role model?

Not sure I have one. I aspire more to qualities like goodness, kindness and innocence

26: Idol(s)?

see above

27: Things I hate:

Small mindedness, cruel/selfish/narcissistic people, exclusion, organised religion (as more of an abstract concept), people not getting what they deserve, when people aren’t willing to listen and learn, having plans ruined, seeing people upset, people who don’t put in effort/only take and never give back

28: “I’ll love you if...”

Lots of possible answers as there lots of sorts of love. In short, if you give back. But then love shouldn’t be conditional, so I guess I should say I couldn’t love someone (in any way) who never gives back. 

29: Favourite film(s)?

Beauty and the Beast, Peter Pan, The Lion King, The Other Boleyn Girl, most Marvel movies

30: Favourite tv show(s)? 

Call the Midwife, Brooklyn 99, QI, The Last Kingdom, Doctor Who

31: 3 random facts.

I’ve been writing for almost 12 years now. I sleep with cuddly toys and make bed forts. I use fantasy to cope with reality.

32: Are your friends mainly girls or guys?

Right now, girls but when I was in secondary school most of my friends were boys.

33: Something you want to learn. 

In a physical/skills sense I’d like to learn how to dance. In an emotional/mental sense I want to learn how to unburden by troubles and let go of things holding me down.

34: Most embarrassing moment?

With an anxiety disorder many, many things feel hideously embarrassing. Don’t think I could pick out one exact moment.

35: Favourite subject? 

History

36: 3 dreams you want to fulfill?

Becoming a successful author. Make lots of money so I can give it to charities. Overcome/beat my mental illnesses. 

37: Favourite actor/actress? 

Probably Tom Hiddleston

38: Favourite comedian(s)? 

Stephen Fry, Dara O’Brian, Sandi Toskvig, Aisling Bea

39: Favourite sport(s)? 

Riding, archery, yoga (still physical activity so I guess it counts), swimming, running

40: Favourite memory?

Right now I think it’s when my partner told me he loved me for the first time

41: Relationship status?

If you haven’t guessed by now I’m concerned 😋

42: Favourite books?

Too many to choose from.

43: Favourite song ever? 

Probably Lithium by Evanescence

44: Age you get mistaken for?

Always younger than I am. I really haven’t changed much since I was about 16. Still get ID’d almost everywhere because I look younger than 18 apparently

45: How you found out about your idol.

Not really applicable.

46: What my last text message says.

That’s no one’s business.

47: Turn-ons?

Maturity, experience, intelligence, someone who knows themselves and is in control, someone who can give care and guidance, someone who can bring my out of my shell.

48: Turn-offs?

Idiocy, lack of self-care/hygiene, someone who isn’t willing to listen, entitlement, intolerance, confidence when it hasn’t been earned. 

49: Where I want to be right now.

The New Forest

50: Favourite picture of your idol?

Kinda need an idol first...

51: Star sign?

Virgo

52: Something I’m talented at.

anxiety? I’m quite good at riding and hopefully my writing isn’t too shabby

53: 5 things that make me happy.

Animals, people I love, random acts of kindness, smells that awaken nice memories, creative passion 

54: Something that’s worrying me at the moment.

Guess at random and you’ll probably be correct.

55: Tumblr friends?

@kaffeinic I feel we clicked really really fast and they are possibly the bravest person I’ve ever met and I hope we stay friends.

@alittleandherdaddysworld they’ve been really kind to me and we seem to have some things in common, I hope we get to know each other better!

@xxdaddyslitttleprincessxx they’ve also been really kind to me when I needed someone to turn to and I hope that we too can turn our acquaintance into a friendship!

@thorkingofasgard I think we’ve known one another for just over a year and have had many lovely talks over that time, they’re always a friend I can turn to.

@mblargh-its-me-loki a friend who I sometimes don’t hear from for long periods at a time and I often miss them and hope they’re doing okay

@c0ffeebee their artwork and dedication is second to none and I like to think we got on well when I commissioned them for some art

56: Favourite food(s)?

Love curries and stir-fry, anything involving noodles, Italian cuisine and I’ll never say no to cake

57: Favourite animal(s)?

Dogs, horses, deer, bunnies, foxes, otters, dolphins, mice (I really could go on so I’ll stop myself)

58: Description of my best friend.

5″5, dark blonde hair, brown eyes, tan skin. She’s lovely, intelligent, determined, hilarious, gorgeous and we know each other back to front

59: Why I joined tumblr?

At first it was to connect with more people and spread my fanfiction work but over time it’s become more about just sharing and interacting with what I like and trying to make more and more lovely friends

60: Ask me anything you want.

Hold nothing back

I’m going to tag my listed tumblr friends so that’s @alittleandherdaddysworld @xxdaddyslitttleprincessxx @thorkingofasgard @mblargh-its-me-loki @c0ffeebee and any of my followers are welcome to take part

[philosopherking1887]

wafflediaries

replied to your post

“wafflediaries replied to your post “wafflediaries replied to your…”

Yeah, sorry, I didn’t know you were a fic writer. If I had, I wouldn’t have said that. I didn’t mean to personally attack your writing or anything. However, I will address the points raised in this post. I literally have no idea where you are getting your Trump vibes from. Loki in Ragnarok is a perfectly reasonable development from Loki in Thor.

Loki wants love and admiration, which is unrelated to him being a Jotunn. He found love when he became Odin, however it was unsatisfying because the people loved him for Odin, not for Loki. He is also motivated by the love for his family (opposite of love is indifference) and was taken aback by Thor’s apparent indifference. Both of these drove him to save Asgard in a grandiose fashion, to earn Asgard’s love and prove Thor wrong. I don’t see anything Trumpish about these

Also, people in Asgard don’t like him because he’s a dick. Like, Thor was a dick (in a thoughtless/oafish way) while Loki was an even bigger dick (in a ‘I’ll trick you into doing something and punish you for it’ way). Remember how he thought it was hilarious to let Jotunn into the treasury to ruin his brother’s coronation? And when has Loki ever been a good diplomat? Ragnarok was the height of his diplomatic skills, because his situation with the Grandmaster was way better than his situation with Laufy [sic] or Thanos

It has been explained many times that his portrayal of Thor is due his culture. In Maori (and Australian) culture, the worst thing someone can do is take themselves too seriously. Allowing a character to fall on their face and learn from their mistakes is a form of respect. So yeah, I consider it racist when people ignore Taika’s culture and straight up call him disrespectful or unprofessional. Seriously, even if he disliked Loki, why would he show that in his work?

The classism thing was a response to other comments in the post, which I already noted. Like Jesus, how can one 'rich boy’ joke be offensive, especially considering MCU Loki and Thor are the epitome of rich boys who haven’t done anything to deserve their wealth. It was stolen from other realms by their father. Also, in response to your other points, Taika is a comedian and gives funny answers. His funny answers are the more well-known ones because people like sharing funny things. However, from his non-comedic interviews, it is clear that he is familiar with the source material (Thor films, MCU, comic books) and he was passionate in creating Thor Ragnarok.

Where am I getting the Trump vibes, @wafflediaries? How about from the giant fucking Jesus statue? (Seriously, it looks like the Cristo Redentor statue in Brazil.) Or that ridiculous self-glorifying play? Or just the fact that Loki is being portrayed as a textbook narcissist, as his detractors are happy to point out, and in the present political environment it’s hard not to think of the other textbook narcissist elephant in the room. The effect of this portrayal is to make into a punchline, mere fodder for ridicule, the very traits that literally drove Loki to suicide in the first movie. Hooray, mental illness is funny…!  “Seriously, even if he disliked Loki, why would he show that in his work?” I don’t know, why don’t you ask him? Taika, why did you make Loki’s entire character into a punchline? And no, I’m NOT talking about the slapstick/physical humor; I’m talking about the fact that his character traits, his psychological and emotional problems, all the things that made him complicated and sympathetic and (in the first film) tragic (as detailed in this insightful post), are reduced to a punchline.

Um… where are you getting the “I’ll trick you into doing something and punish you for it” bit? Not the Jotnar who came to steal the Casket, surely; yes, Loki knew the Destroyer would kill them, showing a reprehensible indifference to their lives, but punishing them definitely wasn’t the point. You mean Thor? It didn’t take a lot of “tricking” to get Thor to charge into Jotunheim with guns blazing; all Loki said was “There’s nothing you can do without defying Father.” It’s really on Thor for being so predictably belligerent, which is exactly why Loki pulled the stunt in the first place: he was making a point to Odin about Thor’s unfitness for kingship; and if he was “punishing” Thor for anything, it was for the general pattern of arrogance and aggression, not for the specific action Loki prodded him into. Or do you mean Laufey? If you were paying attention, you would realize that what Loki is “punishing” him for is not the attempt on Odin’s life that he explicitly invited, but abandoning him to die as a baby. Yeah, Loki is a manipulative asshole, but at least get right the more sophisticated respect in which he is a manipulative asshole.

But I’m not the only one who got the impression from the first movie that Loki is more than just “a dick,” that we’re not supposed to think all his problems are self-made, and that when we meet him he isn’t already a villain. Thor tells the parallel stories – or should I say the perpendicular stories? – of Thor’s rise and Loki’s fall: not only his self-destruction, but his fall into villainy, precipitated (ironically) by his desperate desire to prove his worth. Yes, of course, he needed to already have some of the traits (the manipulative tendency, the willingness to sacrifice others to his ends) that would lead him into the drastically wrong actions he ended up taking. But I probably can’t say anything to convince you that we’re supposed to read other people’s mistrust and dismissiveness as not entirely earned. Maybe it’s just that I was reading so much commentary from fans familiar with Norse myth and culture about how seidr (witchcraft, effectively) was traditionally regarded as the province of women, and men who practiced it were considered effeminate, incurring a stigma called ergi, translated as “unmanliness” (associated with the assumption that they bottomed during sex with men). Or maybe it’s that I recognized the dynamic between Thor and his friends and Loki the tag-along little brother: they’re jocks, and he’s a nerd. Thor was a dick, too, but he was the right kind of dick: the brash, physical, always ready for a fistfight kind of dick. In a patriarchal warrior culture like Asgard, many of us can absolutely see how being a thoughtless, aggressive asshole is much more acceptable than being a scheming, too smart for your own good asshole.

As for Loki being a good diplomat: unfortunately, they don’t show a lot of that in Thor, but I think we’re supposed to assume it from the fact that he volunteers to sweet-talk Heimdall and Volstagg makes that “silver tongue” remark, invoking the “Silvertongue” epithet of the Loki of Norse myth. And actually, he does perfectly well with Laufey: he would have gotten them out of the situation at the beginning if Thor hadn’t had a violent reaction to being called “little princess,” and he successfully talked Laufey into doing what he wanted him to do later on. He also demonstrates the power of his words in The Avengers, not by winning people over to his side, but by sowing doubts among them, hitting them where it hurts.

Congratulations, all the people who have chimed in to say that they didn’t like the characterization of Thor, either: we’re all racists!! We’re just Too White to understand the genius of the Maori people that Taika Waititi channels, straight from the Volksgeist itself, with no admixture of his own peculiar sensibility; any objection to his work is therefore an objection to the entire Maori culture. Kenneth Branagh didn’t do the “high brought low” trope correctly in Thor, because he, too, was Too White. Screwing up and learning from your mistakes isn’t enough, making a fool of yourself in an unfamiliar environment isn’t enough if you maintain your basic poise, dignity, and decency; you have to be made into an actual, honest-to-God dumbass.

I don’t deny that TW was familiar with the Marvel comics, and he must have watched the other movies before he made Ragnarok (though maybe not before he took the job…). And yeah, I guess he was “passionate” about something (maybe creating the 80s aesthetic of Sakaar, which was pretty cool). But it wasn’t doing justice to the characters he inherited from the rest of the trilogy.

[lucianalight]

I really appreciate the efforts you put into your posts about the mcu, especially Loki. So I wanted to share this with you.

I really really really hate this scene. Why did TW put this shit in the movie? It's disgusting and it underlines the way straight cis men see a character like Valkyrie.

I just wanna know if you feel the same

Thank you so much! :)

I'm glad you mentioned it. Because I've never had a chance to analyze this particular issue.

There is a not so subtle theme of using phallic symbolism in the movie, to show  a character's personality/power. Which I find rather crude and distasteful.

At the start of the movie we have Skurge who is boasting about his achievements, talking to two young women. His self-praise is crudely shown by a movement similar to self-gratification.

Then we have Loki, who is shown to be vain, narcissistic, exaggerating his achievements and his role in saving Asgard by that stupid theater, making a huge golden statue of himself...

Which if you look closely, has an obvious bulge on his crotch. Considering the TR's characterization of Loki, this is a hint at him overcompensating for his masculinity.

And finally Valkyrie. Let's take a look at the complete shot of that scene.

The phallic symbolism of this scene is so obvious that I don't think there's any need for more explanation. But what do you expect from a director whose idea of a strong female character is someone who is more of a "guy" than the guys.

“[With Valkyrie] I wanted to make sure we weren’t making a female character that was boring and pretty. What I wanted was someone who was going to play the opposite and be even more of the ‘guy’ character than the guys.”

I think the phallic weapon trope is used in this scene. The weapon obviously is a symbol for penis. Using phallic symbolism, the toxic masculinity idea that it represents power, specially for a female character is sexist and misogynistic. Strong female characters don't need to be like men and they definitely don't need this imagery to show their power.

[lucianalight]

Hey, I read your "Why Loki is not a narcissist" post a while ago, which drew me to your blog. And I do agree, and would defend him to death, especially because I was lifting my definition of narcissism from DSM.

However, I went reading further. And do you think he could be considered as a vulnerable narcissistic subtype? They're categorically the exact opposite of the grandiose subtype.

This was a difficult question to answer. Because if you consider the traits of covert narcissism on a surface level, you can see Loki having many of them. Actually when I was reading about it, I even thought I relate to many of them and what if I am a covert narcissist? Which was odd because I usually score on the empath side of the scale. So I took the Maladoptive Covert Narcissism Scale test and found out that I wasn't a covert narcissism either.

When it comes to Loki though, since he is a fictional character that test is useless because we have to headcanon many of his inner thoughts and feelings and we can't get accurate answer.

What can get us an answer though is the fact that both overt and covert narcissism are diagnosed based on DSM-5 definition and symptoms of NPD.

“Both individuals need to meet the same clinical criteria to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, whether they are extroverted or introverted. Both have deficits in their capacity to regulate their self-esteem.” [1]

Because the difference between them is more about their outward behavior. But their core characteristics are the same. This means my analysis about Loki not being a narcissist is still true.

“Covert narcissists are only different from overt (more obvious) narcissists in that they tend to be more introverted. The overt narcissist is easily identified because they tend to be loud, arrogant, and insensitive to the needs of others and always thirsty for compliments.” [1]

Not to mention that if we consider how covert narcissists behave, Loki still doesn’t share much with them.

“The covert subtype is less obvious. A person with covert narcissism may come across as shy, withdrawn, or self-deprecating. However, they will still be self-absorbed and believe that they are better than other people.” [2]

Loki isn’t shy. He seems withdrawn but that’s the result of being constantly silenced or mocked. Not being aloof or considering himself better than others to not want to socialize with them. Which is the reason for covert narcissists being distant. It’s because they see themselves as having a superior importance in comparison with others.

The overt narcissist will demand admiration and attention, where the covert narcissist will use softer tactics to meet those same goals. The covert narcissist will be much more likely to constantly seek reassurance about their talents, skills, and accomplishments, looking for others to feed that same need for self-importance. [1]

Loki is not self-deprecating either. His main goal in the first movie is to be seen and treated as an “equal” to Thor. Notice that he doesn’t want to be seen “better” than Thor which would have been the case if he was a narcissist. A covert narcissist when showing self-deprecating behavior wants people’s reassurance than he is good. But Loki is sure of his abilities, he just want them validated.

Some of the other traits is that they’re neglectful, making you think that you’re not important. In both Thor 1 and TDW we see Loki talking to Thor about his problems. He tries to calm Thor down when he is anxious or angry and even when talking about Jane he mentions that Thor gets hurt after Jane is gone. He still cares about Thor’s emotions.

One of the other traits associating with covert narcissism is hyper sensitivity to criticism. Which we can definitely say that Loki doesn’t have. He is been mocked, silenced and treated differently for hundreds of years and he tolerated all that in silence. And none of those behavior count as “criticism”. Until the lie about his race made him snap and have a mental break down after all the emotional toll.

Talking from personal experience dealing with narcissists, Loki doesn’t have some of core traits of narcissism, which whether overt or covert are shared by them. One of them is black and white thinking. As long as you agree with them, you’re good. You’re treated with care and respect. But as soon as you disagree and criticize them a little, you’re become the worst person in the world in their opinion. Another is their self-absorbance and their lack of empathy. Only they matter the most, their needs, their wants, their pains. They never understand or empathize with yours. Loki on the other hand not only have the self-awareness about his flaws and mistakes, he doesn’t have that black and white thinking. And he also cares about people and their needs. He is self-sacrificing to a fault. And he has empathy for people. In conclusion he is not a narcissist, neither overt nor covert.

Sources:

1. How to Recognize Someone With Covert Narcissism 

2. Signs of covert narcissism