#my intention is not to woobify him

[dazais-guardian-angel]

Well, at least Fukuzawa got his wish granted, I guess.... he's finally inside Fukuchi <3

[wickmitz]

was once again glancing at the lackadaisy reddit and i genuinely feel a little crazy about how people perceive the wick and mitzi arc from retinue to sneakthief? or, honestly, their arc in general. to act as though wick is some patron saint greatly amuses me when it’s implied by mitzi and the comic that wick had either proposed a business deal himself or had been very amendable to talk about it after their kiss and / or other intimate acts last night … mitzi didn’t pull this out of her ass! she did not put this upon wick randomly. it was something they mutually agreed to do, and given how hard wick tries to wiggle away from the conversation without outright saying no ( aka giving excuses to stall ) i would even guess he essentially already agreed to such a deal, in the throes of passion, only for him to not fully mean it later. this doesn’t mean it was right at all for her to then steal from wick! this isn’t me excusing that! but wick isn’t some poor meow meow either in this scenario, even if he is the ‘lesser’ evil overall.

and tbh i also think the conversation was doomed from the start : wick was horrifically exhausted and was still too shaken up by rocky’s ‘joke’ to fully engage with mitzi, as well as finally having church’s warning start to weigh on him … and then there’s mitzi, who wasn’t faring any better! what with viktor out of commission, asa turning on her, mordecai threatening her, and then having spent most of the afternoon hearing her dead husband’s name be thrown around. in order to hurt her and scare her into obedience, mind you. like, neither were in any state to discuss business or romance!! so it’s no surprise it went poorly. especially when both of them were equally sore and testy during their date.

[karaokekittycat]

i give up this man cannot be captured well in my style

[oflgtfol]

“obi-wan couldnt have known the anakin survived the fight on mustafar because that would make him cruel” even if anakin had died it was still cruel to leave anakin burning without putting him out of his misery. like the fact obi-wan left anakin there is so near and dear to my heart let this man be a lil messed up

[amberdawn]

having tsukishima feelings as usual

[masqueradeoftheguilty]

man. scrolling through a0.3 makes me realise just how fucking picky i am about kaeya interpretations fjdkjkdlks

[maxwellhauskaffee]

Spamton’s Personality and Complex Morality

Incoming autistic tl;dr ramble post while drunk concerning Spamton being woobified to the point of lacking any semblance to the original character.  

For some reason, many people forget or ignore Spamton's more of an “asshole victim” or “evil victim” by the time Kris and the gang met him. It’s interesting how frequent this is too. 

Of course, Spamton is not a woobie. He's not some innocent man caught in circumstance through no action or fault of his own. Neither is he someone who does things for "teh evulz". Spamton's more layered and complex than that imo, even with the limited information.

With that in mind, my interpretation of Spamton's entire being and arc through time has been inspired by several fictional characters I love. Those characters are: Kevin Lomax, Walter White, Seymour Krelborn, and Shou Tucker.

( I swear to god all of them wearing glasses and having themes associated with green was not initially intentional in my selection lmao. )

Currently, there's little to go on concerning Spamton's prior lore and who he was as a person through his actions. All we know is he was determined. He was anxious and desperate concerning the circumstances of this life. Of the lack of success in what it is an addison's meant to do. Those traits are expressed to varying degrees with each referenced character throughout all of Spamton's eras.

Kevin Lomax is a successful small-town lawyer whose innate pride makes it easy for John Milton, Kevin's future benefactor from NY, to exploit through tempting offers. Walter White's a brilliant and prideful chemist humbled by and chained to a more moderate and financially troubled life until given the choice to rejoin his former company or go his own way making meth. Seymour Krelborn's a meek, socially neglected / abused, and impoverished florist longing for a better life whose dreams turn to greed with the influence of Audrey ii. Shou Tucker’s a timid and desperate man who succumbs to harming those he loves to feed into his desperation and pride.

My take on Spamton encompasses all these traits into one little white fluffball. He's neurotic. Forever fearful of his misfortune and how others perceive him. This even extends to his big shot era where, despite his success, Spamton's aware of his incompetence and that the admiration's surface level is thanks to his benefactor. This is a trait and aspect of his arc he shares with Seymour in the 1986 LSoH film. He's a failure at what he does before his benefactor similar to Shou. No matter his attempts, he just can't cut it on his own. Like Walter, Spamton lives in obscurity compared to his peers with financial troubles far beyond his capacity to properly cope. And like Kevin, and later Seymour to some extent, when Spamton does obtain success through his benefactor, he pushes people away and causes strife through his hyper-focus on work and maintaining success.

All four men share aspects of greed and pride alongside Spamton. Kevin is successful on his own. Yet his wife Mary Ann, ironically a car salesman, and Milton both feed into his pride unintentionally ( via Mary Ann ) and intentionally ( via Milton ). Kevin, wanting more and knowing his capacity as a lawyer, accepts. While in NY, Kevin excuses his actions to explain and justify the consequences of them to continue the upward climb. It goes so far at the expense of his wife's life, though entirely unintentional on Kevin's part. Walter's similar, so I won't get into his arc.

Seymour's interesting in that he's also woobified by fans when in reality, he's a greedy and envious person, even if it's subtle. Greed allows Seymour to reluctantly excuse his actions to gain fame. His greed, envy of Orin, and resentment of Mushnik motivate Seymour to do horrible things. And of course, Shou needs little to no explanation. Greed tied with desperation fueled his actions...

I think Spamton's aspects of greed, envy, and pride were more subtle like Seymour's in the beginning. His personality and desperation more akin to Shou's. And honestly, a pinch of pride is good concerning self-esteem, determination, and motivation. It's when it's detrimental to one's self and others that it becomes a disorder.

Once Spamton gains a benefactor and becomes a big shot, his pride and greed metastasize to that of Kevin and Walter.

The other interesting thing of note is Seymour and Kevin both had benefactors giving them free will concerning choice laced with temptation.

Both Seymour and Kevin blame their benefactors for their inevitable misfortunes. When this happens, both benefactors correctly state they, Seymour and Kevin respectfully, made their choices with either clear knowledge of what could happen or knew their prior action's consequences and ignored them anyways.

"You blamin' me for Mary Ann? Oh I hope you're kidding… Mary Ann - you could've saved her any time you liked. All she wanted was love. ... Stop deluding yourself! I told you to take care of your wife! What did I say? 'The world would understand.' Didn't I say that? What did you do? 'You know what scares me, John? I leave the case, she gets better, and then I hate her for it.' Remember?" - John Milton

I think something similar occurred with Spamton and his benefactor. Despite his complaints and awareness of restrained free will, he still had some level of it. Even if he was controlled in a manner akin to Seymour, Spamton chose things that caused him and others harm along with his success. During this time, he also began rubbing his success in the faces of colleagues and friends who doubted or mocked him. Eventually, it got to the point that it caused his closest loved one, Blue, to disengage.

I think Spamton, despite the limited lore, has the potential for rich complexity concerning his more sour traits as a person. Like both games, there are many realities and routes. What you do decides what innate traits grow.

Spamton, to me, is in all paths of the game, corrupt on some level. None of them show a reality in which he is, by all accounts, a good man. And this is to not dismiss the reality that he is a victim of society, best explained here. We don't know much about his big shot era beyond him becoming a bit pompous. But... Wouldn't the best addison be that? A braggart of their wares and a confidence man? But he's also a culprit of his own demise while being potentially exploited by other entities.

With this in mind, Spamton best mirrors Seymour in the totality of his arc.

Both Spamton and Seymour are pathetic men by societal standards. While Seymour has a talent as a self-taught botanist of sorts, he's relegated to a basement at a struggling florist shop. His meekness and apathy are mirrored by his living conditions.

Spamton's similar in a different way. Unlike Seymour, he's determined, but like Seymour, is likely too meek and neurotic to be effective in his goals. Spamton can't keep a clear head nor direct himself convincingly.

Both men are forced into societal roles with limited choice. Seymour by Mushnik is pushed around and then later so by Audrey ii. Spamton, despite his passion to be a salesman, is seemingly limited to that alone based on what he is, an addison. It is likely taboo for an addison to have any passion outside of that. In one of my fics, Spamton was a mailman before attempting to work in sales and admits to loving that job.

Seymour and Spamton have benefactors. Seymour's is Audrey ii. Spamton's the person on the phone.

Both operate under the commands, suggestions, and temptations their benefactors provide. And both find success with their benefactors.

Seymour clearly loses aspects of free will with his due to his meekness and their relationship. I imagine Spamton, on some level, endured something similar. Especially with his theme being the loss of autonomy the more he pursues it.

Both are seen as tools by society and exploited as such; living in poverty in some regard with Spamton becoming homeless.

I think what makes Spamton woobie fodder is the state we find him in. The fact that by all accounts, he did what he was expected to do as an addison. That when he needed help the most, he was neglected and worse still, everyone knew and did nothing.

His friends and colleagues knew where he was as they show up at the end of the battle. They did nothing for years.

And it's this I think that blinds people to the fact that Spamton knowingly sold harmful and useless wares at his shop. That he tried convincing Kris to commit to his delusional murder-suicide pact so they'd both be free. That, in the Snowgrave run, he takes over Cyber City like a virus to the harm of its citizens. That the thorn ring "might sting" instead of "it literally takes away your life" when selling to Kris for Noelle to use.

At the end of the day as a said before, Spamton's more akin to an "asshole victim" than a full-on woobie. But maybe we can get the best of both. He can be the "asshole woobie".

Thanks for coming to my autistic Ted Talk.

[fiivela]

The way the fandom is reacting to Aidan in particular having to shoot the Five and Lila scenes in particular is...peculiar.

The only thing that we ever see them do is kiss. There is nothing extremely sexually charged, the kisses are set to look romantic. With other characters, such as Diego and Lila, the scenes are much more sexually charged. But it just isn't with Five and Lila.

Kissing is a part of acting! It is something you are taught to do in a high school drama class. Kisses between actors are done in a professional way that is not at all sexual in nature. I think it is fully intentional that they only keep the extent of Lila and Five's relationship limited to kissing as a means to make Aidan more comfortable with the role.

However, you have to remember that Aidan is a twenty year old person. He is a young adult. In my country, he can legally drink, he is two years passed the age of consent, he could be finished college by now. Is he young? Absolutely. Is he a child? No! In general I think it is good to protect young actors, absolutely, but acting like he was traumatized by having to kiss someone on screen when he is twenty years old is actually atrocious. Where is this energy when seventeen year old girls have to kiss much older men on screen? It is okay to say you don't like the relationship, or it makes you uncomfortable because of associating him with how he looked in season 1, but implying that he is a child who couldn't make an informed decision about whether or not he was comfortable kissing someone on screen (which again, is generally done in a very professional way because they are ACTORS) definitely gives woobifying.

If Aidan came outright and said that he was highly uncomfortable, that he felt pressured to do this by the writers, or if they had cut more sexually charged scenes, I would for sure change my tune about this, but the reality is is that Aidan supports the Five and Lila storyline and all he had to do as an actor was kiss her. So please stop throwing around the word p word to describe an actual adult. Words. Have. Meanings.

[atropinenightshade]

RAFAL in Relation to Other People

Warning: I won't be woobifying Rafal here or really putting him as a victim, so this may offend or bother people who stan him and forgive all his faults. Additionally, this has some toxic stuff here so if that is a trigger then I recommend not going through with it. And if you will go as far as to AGREE with it just because "my blorbo could have possibly said it", then I'm afraid you are missing my point and would rather have you click off.

So we already know how Rafal is as a brother, but how could he act in different familial relationships, like being a lover/spouse or a father?

As a lover/spouse: I'm sorry, but whether Rafal means to or not, he would easily be that toxic person in your life. He always is right (and you are wrong), and he appears to be the type to disregard one's feelings. If he hurts someone, he hardly ever apologizes, but you have to apologize to him. The closest he'll come to is a bullshit excuse. ("It wasn't my intention.") He makes you question yourself and the validity of your opinions, because, again, he is right. You can never get through to him or call him out, because at the end of the day, you are the problem, you are inferior, you have a childish mind, you are too sensitive. He slowly picks away at your self esteem, which was already low when you met him in the first place. (People drawn to him tend to have confidence issues??)

You don't leave him maybe because he doesn't have bad intentions, because he instilled in you codependence and now you don't know what to do without him, or maybe Rafal somewhat regretted hurting you, so you accept that. And ultimately, you trusted him, you believed in him, so, stupid you has to face the consequences. Everything that happened is your fault because you should have seen Rafal wasn't a good person!

Rafal just seems wayy too sheltering and overprotective and he'd take away his lover's ability to make most of their own choices or have their own lives-- slowly but surely, and perhaps, unintentionally.

Not to mention, he is possessive af! Red flag right there.

I hope that any lover of Rafal leaves him and they see their own worth, instead of running back to him. Because to be honest, he seems like a hypocritical, arrogant, and insufferable jerk. (most of the time) Either that or Rafal gets his act together and has some self reflection. He isn't a vampire for crying out loud!

As a father: oh. The father who is very, very, VERY overprotective and sheltering. A helicopter parent, even. He makes you think sometimes, "why do I have this curse of a father??" and sometimes you wish something could happen like a virus doing its job and you are "free." (Please don't actually wish this on your difficult parents unless they are really shitty!) Rafal embarasses his kids but being rather ultrastrict and old-fashioned and they probably don't know much of the world because of him. Everything has to be "educational" (which isn't a bad thing in itself but for the love of whatever please don't overdo it and make it corny) so no video games, etc. Also if Rafal reads an article with research on how veggies can give cancer, your salads will be taken away!

Rafal will also go like, "I'm your only friend. You don't need friends because you have me," and he may break up some friendships you have. Oh also: no boys.

I feel like Rafal fits dad energy more, though even there he would be WAY too much. (Go away Rafal! Go adopt orphans and make their lives miserable instead of bothering other people.) But who knows? Maybe as the years go on he would cool down, or back off when they become adults. Unless they form a codependent relationship with him and he has to be the center of their lives, which is very possible. Let's watch Rafal slowly destroy a home because he's in the way! And of course, instead of giving his children's household space, he defends himself and puts himself in the right. His kids may call Rafal every day in a modern context and totally neglect their family. Or the family is going out? Rafal has to be there too, and his kid says nothing.

If Rafal comes home from work in a bad mood, I'm sure his kids try to run off because if they don't he will find something to criticize and they will get hour long lectures. I also feel like he'd lecture on other occasions and then get mad when his family doesn't care and they want to get back to what THEY have to do??

[newapocalyptia]

I gotta be honest, I feel like you can’t really kill Sal because he’s kind of the glue of the whole thing? He’s the catalyst for a lot of plot it seems, and if it wasn’t for him, a lot of the characters wouldn’t have met each other (probably?), had their kids, and idk I know you keep saying he’s a bad guy but I really like him. He has redeeming qualities *to me* lol. (I totally understand it’s your universe and you’re of course deciding what happens in the end! If this was a Real TV Show™️ though I would definitely be the one on AO3 woobifying Sal in my fanfics. I just love a morally ambiguous/‘evil’ character and everyone else is so nice lol)

oh, I have no intentions whatsoever of killing Sal! jokes from the time traveling bits about his future demise aside, he’s a load-bearing asshole— you’re right, he’s almost as much of a plot catalyst as the apocalypses are. The core of the narrative is Marian’s irresponsible loyalty to her scumbag brother, they’re essentially the two main characters.

I love my little bastard conman, and his nihilistic fuckboy bestie lmao

[flower-boi16]

Forgot to add, but Stolas basically guilt tripped him into doing it.

"The one who wants me is my first ever friend..."

Blitz was perfectly willing to just leave Stolas there tied up, but instead gave him pity sex.

Yeah sure...Blitz was the one to make it all about sex. No Stolas....no....that was ALL YOU! The only thing Blitz did was do a little bit of flirting and steal the book, he didn't make it about sex. From beginning to end, that was all you.

People like to defend this kind of shit with "Oh it's intentional because it's meant to show Stolas lacking self-awarness!", which is very funny because 1. You are actively acknoweledging that Stolas' perspective here is invalid and Blitz's is which goes against the whole idea that both sides are suppoused to be in the wrong and 2. The show is not calling this shit out and every time Stolas says something like this (The final scene in Full Moon and the begining of Apology Tour) it's never called out nor is it ever frammed as that, and in Apology Tour specifically it is very obvious that we are specifically suppoused to take Stolas' side here and see Blitz as purely in the wrong.

I also do need to acknowledge that there are people who think that Blitz's feelings are portayed as valid by the narrative. They are not. The final scene in Full Moon and the begining of Apology Tour have Blitz rant about Stolas being a prince and considering that Oops established that this is a bias Blitz has towards Stolas it is very clear that these scenes are intended to be read as Blitz being blinded by his biases against Stolas due to Stolas being a prince, and he's too consumed in his biases to see that Stolas has real feelings for him. That is how these scenes are being frammed and clearly how they are suppoused to be read.

So no, the show doesn't see Blitz's perspective as valid. There is that rant in the begining of AT where Blitzo awkardly spells out his self-hatred keeping him from believing that a prince could possibily love him but the rest of the episode frames Stolas as someone hurt by Blitzo's actions and Blitzo as an asshole who hurts others. So his self-loathing isn't really something that the episode really wants you to sympathize with, only as another reason for why Blitz struggles to see that Stolas loves him.

Blitzo isn't a character that the show wants you sympathize with in this situation; the point of the episode is Blitz realizing that he isn't a good person and he needs to change. That's not a set up for a sympathetic character.

The show is directly outlining people information like this yet people still make bullshit excuses for Viv's writting based on some tweets. Blitz's perspective is never treated as valid by the narrative at all, sure, it acknowledges that Stolas was wrong for making this deal in the first place, but that gets rendered moot because that's not the reason for why Blitz hates Stolas; Blitz hates Stolas because of a bias he had against royals that completely came out of nowhere in season 2 solely so the show could make him purely look like an asshole consumed by his biases.

The narrative doesn't see Stolas SAing Blitz as the reason he hates Stolas, rather it sees Blitz's bias being a reason for that. It doesn't actually look at Blitz's perspective and how Stolas' actions may have affected him, hell it shows that it doesn't even affect him at all!

It's another instance of the show demonizing the people who Stolas has hurt so it could make them look unreasonable and further woobify Stolas. It's made even worse with the implication in Apology Tour of Blitz gaining feelings for Stolas and since Blitz really wanted to fuck Stolas it's not unreasonable to assume that the show may go in the route of "Blitz liked being SA'd by Stolas but he was just too comsumed by his biases to realize it!" because then you are fully painting Blitz as an biased asshole and any argument that the show understands his perspective gets thrown out the window.

Stolas' feelings are treated as valid by the narrative, how hurt he feels that Blitzy doesn't love him, that Blitzy doesn't see that Stolas loves him back, that Blitzy is "making him uncomfortable". Meanwhile, the narrative purely treats Blitz's feelings about Stolas as completely invalid, not using Stolas SAing him as an reason for Blitz hating him but rather him being too comsumed by his own biases.

There's a strong inbalance here that makes the argument that the show wants us to see them both as in the wrong completely fall apart. Blitzo is treated as the problem by the narrative and the fandom, that he's hurting poor Stolas' feelings with how he's treating the bird boy. And here's the thing; Blitzo having this bias came out of nowhere. There as no hint of this in season 1 or the first five episodes of season 2, it was only until Oops where this thing came up. This was never shown to be a character trait Blitz had nor is there even any reason for it, why Blitz has these preconcieved notions about Stolas going in. It's because the writters pulled this out of their ass so they could have an easy way to make Blitzo look like a complete asshole. Nothing more.

It's further accentuated by the show using "tell don't show" in that scene, where we are told that Stolas did all these nice things for Blitz rather than shown, and not to mention these nice things do not line up with Stolas' behavior at all in season 1. It's all just completely and utterly lazy. It's a lazy way to make Blitz in the wrong here. It's a lazy way to absolve Stolas of his behavior again so the narrative could coddle him.

It's a lazy way for the show to pretend this relationship has naunce when it doesn't. Oh, and fans have the fucking gall to say "you don't understand the nuances" when people critisize this shit. Oh, I'm sorry, what naunces? This relationship isn't nuanced in the slightest; it's a victim and abuser relationship where the victim is strawmanned and portayed as wrong and the abuser is coddled and woobifyed. Whether it was intentional or not, that is how the relationship comes across as.

The show needs to see that BOTH perspectives are valid for the "their both in the wrong" thing to even work, but it doesn't. Blitz never gets any slack and Stolas is babyed. That is how this relationship is frammed. You can not ever convince me otherwise.

[quirkyfries]

I feel like I should mention that I am not a Ruin defender or apologist because a lot of my thoughts recently have been picking Ruin apart and if you weren’t me you could say I was woobifying him. I like to think of myself as a Ruin understander? I try to understand him as best I can with the means I am familiar with—which just so happens to be speculation.

Ruin is one of those Morally Ambiguous™️ characters that lands on a spectrum in the extremes. The worse a character’s crime, the more dire a reason or event(s) that pushed them to do it. The worse a character’s crime, the more they will try to cope with whatever they did, or they don’t cope at all. (Nevermind additional factors like environment.) That is what I like to think about. Crimes are not excusable no matter the reason; what makes a character like this interesting is how they think they were justified in what they did. It makes them varying degrees of sympathetic, but not correct. This goes for a good handful of the cast!

That being said, the fact a character committed a crime is not always a justifiable reason for other characters to commit crimes against them. In the case of Nexus’ treatment of Ruin, you could argue that it was a little bit justified in the beginning, Ruin killed Solar, but as that went on it was overkill and no longer about Ruin. In the case of Dark Sun’s treatment of Ruin, you can’t tell me that was done out of solely righteous intent. In the case of Molten, that was a direct consequence of the dimensional collapse, and Ruin had that one coming.

“Ruin kinda deserved how he was treated post Dimension collapse” and “It’s kinda messed up what happened to Ruin post Dimension collapse” are two statements that can (and should) coexist. Furthermore, there is no one correct interpretation of a character! But that’s just me

[acerikus]

What’s wrong with psoutertale <- has never seen it but wants the tea

Gonna put this under a read more bc this is about to become a hater zone. Anyone who doesn't wanna enter the hater zone this is your last chance to back out 🥰

Short answer (this might not look short but TRUST ME YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE ALTERNATIVE YET): the game was made with the intent of being 'undertale but wholesome' essentially. The dev has talked before about how they originally just wanted to make a lv0 ending for undertale (basically frisk is so Perfectly Nice And Wonderful that everyone loves them even more and they magically save Asriel AND save Chara and nothing is sad or bittersweet) and then decided people would probably rather play a full game, basing it on the outertale au and adding in neutral and several geno routes too. The murder routes are incredibly edgy yet at the same time, the Dev admits they didn't really care about them when developing them at all. (And there's. More of them than in undertale???? Like there's three separate murder route variations and even more neutral variations than undertale's 90-something versions. It's wild). They even went back and made a 'peaceful mode' that's just the same game again except you can ONLY play pacifist and they take the fight button away. I honestly think they should've just done this from the start and left it at that.

There's parts of ps!ot that are decent. The equivalent to the omega flowey fight is incredibly fun, despite the tone and vibes really not feeling flowey at all and kinda missing the point of his character (much like the rest of the game). There's a handful of really fun bosses amongst a bunch that just seem Hard And Unfun For The Sake Of It, but not enough for me to recommend it.

The characterisation is.... Really really bad. Everyone is flanderised pretty extremely, asgore is woobified, chara is woobified, frisk is woobified, alphys is treated like a cool badass and yet when you look beneath the surface there's nothing to her and nothing about her is alphys at all, there's absolutely no justification for floweys existence in this au (also they made him a star for no reason but establish in his backstory that they still injected a flower with determination. It makes no sense), and overall they just took away everything that made every character interesting and compelling and made them one-note, boring, occasionally just there for yaoi, and in some cases just treated certain characters like shit for seemingly no reason. (Mainly the women. Mainly toriel. Stinks of misogyny even if not their intent.)

There's also so many bits that just kinda feel like they're trying to passive aggressively 'fix' undertale in ways I really don't vibe with. It makes me sad.

Long answer? Here's an essay I wrote a few months ago going over my gripes with it (as well as some very good additions someone added in the tags). Be warned, it's incredibly long so you might wanna make sure you have time for it lol

The long answer breaks down every single main character and some of the minor characters and exactly what pisses me off about their treatment, I talk a lot more specifically about how they fucked up flowey in the narrative, the misogyny and the woobification in it so if you want more details on that, check it out!

[recreationalfanfics]

After watching the Penguin, I just think about the tragedy that is Alberto Falcone

*Please be caught up with episodes 1-5 before reading so you don't get spoiled* Not really an analysis, just some of my thoughts about him.

To clarify, the intention of my post isn't to woobify Alberto Falcone. I just think the role he plays in the story of the Penguin and his dynamic with Sofia and his father is interesting.

There is something about his role in the story of Penguin that kind of haunts the narrative. The first and last time we see him alive, he has just finally taken over as the head of the Falcone empire. He's nervous, he's scared that he won't live up to his father's legacy, and he's got a lot of pressure on him. He's a former addict and alcoholic and he was only in charge of the Falcone's for 8 days before Oz shot him to death.

And it makes me think, what if that didn't happen?

What if he came away from that incident and got to meet Sofia, what if he was able to get that drug operation going with her? Would he have stepped down and given Sofia what was originally supposed to be hers after he realizes he's not cut out for it? Would he still be in charge but value Sofia's word over the other words of the Falcone family because he saw first-hand how they all sold her out? Or would the power have gotten to him and would he have gotten cocky?

Another thing too is that, as each episode is released, we get more glimpses into their life and more information about when they were kids. Alberto and Sofia were packed up and ready to leave with their mother "for vacation" until Sofia finds their mother dead. As they got older, Alberto obviously has to deal with Carmine and constantly getting compared to Sofia. But he doesn't hate her. He cares for her, deeply, and he knows that she's not to blame for the way Carmine treats him and doesn't really display that much jealousy or envy.

We don't see him outright call out the family for selling out Sofia but it can be implied that he made efforts by the way he defeatedly told her that she isn't getting that trial and was so desperate for her to not turn away from him, as if he didn't want to feel like he had failed her (I might be reading too much into it though). Not to mention that he could only do so much considering the entire family siding with Carmine but also, if Carmine was willing to put Sofia through all of that torture despite seeing her as a future heir to family, imagine what he would've done to Alberto.

From the first episode, we know that Alberto's death is what starts the events of the Penguin and we watch as it eventually leads to the death of the entire Falcone family by Sofia's hands. Because the only real family that she had that she could trust was Alberto himself. Which makes her discovering his mutilated body so much more tragic.

AND ALSO, I'M SUCH A SUCKER FOR DOOMED SIBLINGS CONTENT. SO THAT'S WHY I CONSTANTLY THINK ABOUT WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPEN IF SOFIA STILL HAD ALBERTO. Would they have killed the Falcones together? Would they have killed Oz a lot earlier on? What things would've been changed dramatically if Sofia still had the one man she trusted in her life.

[necrotic-nephilim]

Before reading the comics, thanks to sladixk fics, i genuinely thought that dick always lost to slade, now I know that most times when he's and adult he beats slade no problem but it got me wondering how you feel about this canon-fanon difference

OHH this is a good question!!

i think sometimes fanon makes Slade a little... too badass. i think something some fanon fans don't understand about Slade in the 80s/90s is that he was like... kind of a loser? like don't get me wrong he was a main villain of the Titans for a while and he was certainly meant to be a formidable villain but this reputation he has in fanon almost supersedes him. (for example with specific plots: the fandom interpretation of the Judas Contract is Slade as the mastermind, but the writers have said that Terra was supposed to be the big villain manipulating everything. which is a ridiculous thing to put on a teenage girl getting groomed but, it does depict the intention of who was supposed to be "at fault" in that story) and don't get me wrong, i definitely love playing up the reputation and aura Slade has, but he really is a general contract killer on the level of like, Deadshot. personally, i wouldn't even put him on Lady Shiva's level, i think she far outranks him.

and to be fair to some fanon, recent comics have... tried to badass-ify Slade. some of his more recent Deathstroke runs are really trying to put him as this guy with legions of men underneath him who's this *deadly* killer who can take on Batman and Superman and all the like. and i just find that... boring? like, do i enjoy him being a smarter-than-average villain with a lot of connections? yes. but i don't think anything in his backstory really lends him to being as formidable as he appears in some fanfiction that puts him on this untouchable level. i would personally go as far to say i think *most* of the Batfamily could beat him in a fight under the right circumstances. bc Slade really is just Some Guy who got a serum from the military and went AWOL. (there's certainly more to his backstory than that, but at a glance, he's really not a trained fighter from birth like other characters are) and whilst i do enjoy Slade being formidable i have to admit, it was sort of fun when he was a loser? and i've gotten a kick out of certain comics that point out he's only a terrifying villain when he's up against teenagers. (Ghost-Maker calling him out on that is one of the funniest things, to me) like could Slade give Batman a serious fight? sure, but i don't see him ever winning unless you *really* nerf Bruce. and i really don't see him ever winning against most of the Batkids once they've got some years under their belt. Slade's scare factor was always tapered by who he was against, and he was a *Teen Titans* villain. so he's a little ridiculous and sometimes just sort of a weird loser. and i say that affectionately.

furthermore, on the flipside, i think... sometimes, we woobify Dick a bit too much to my tastes. or, really any Robin who gets shipped with Slade but of course Dick is the standout in popularity and i find it's more prominent with him. it's really a general slash problem, in which one man must be the Strong Top and then other must be the Weak Bottom. and that manifests in Slade being physically larger than Dick (which in canon, ehhh i think the size difference would be largely negligible) and him being able to beat Dick. bc it makes for more fanfic scenarios where you can put Dick at Slade's mercy for porn, for angst, for whatever you'd like. Slade is a good pick if you want to really put Dick on the weaker side, bc you can play with healing factors and strength enhancements. so on a physical level, Slade will be stronger than Dick. does that mean Slade can beat Dick in a fight? historically, no. i mean, Slade trusted Dick to train his own daughter in the Renegade storyline, so i think this is a fact even Slade is aware of.

i don't think it's a bad thing fanfiction likes its big top/small bottom tropes. if you want to make Dick a submissive, pliant bottom who is going to lose in a fight to Slade for your dead dove porn, get it. i've probably written or will write the same. it's appealing and it's a very common trope for Dick. but it becoming the fandom norm does sort of nerf Dick, occasionally. i think some fans don't fully comprehend the actual level Dick is on, where he's very close to being an equal to Bruce, if not already Bruce's equal. in fandom Dick is sort of trapped in this "post-adolescence but not full adulthood" state that does not acknowledge he has been an adult running superhero teams for years. he was filling in for Bruce in the Batman mantle all the way back in the 90s. he can defeat villains like Slade, and usually without a lot of difficulty. to me the only time you can realistically make Dick lose and it be "in character" is either 1, to have Dick *very* early on in his Robin years (i think if he's past 16, he can beat Slade) or 2, very deeply wound Dick/have him in a psychologically altered state via drugs or something. otherwise yeah, i think Dick wins 99% of the time.

but fanfiction is fanfiction, and it doesn't *have* to be canon. esp if Dick losing to Slade is just a sexy prerequisite to porn. do i wish more fanon explored Slade as kind of a loser? absolutely. do i think Slade is *too* cool in most fanon? also absolutely. but those are my tastes and i don't begrudge anyone who just wants a strong, mean man to whump the shit out of their blorbos, which usually, is the purpose of Slade. i find most fanfic with Slade tends not to be exploring Slade's character. they're simply using him as an easy stand-in for a metahuman who's morally grey and very mean but has a nuanced history with Dick, or whoever else. which, very valid. not all fanfic needs to be a character study, but i do think it'd be cool to see more Slade-centric fics that *do* want to be character studies.

[willothewispwisteriadawn]

Charles is both an abuser and a victim, and I think this is important for reading the other characters.

I think sometimes when I talk about Francis and Charles as characters it comes across like I think Francis was the worst one and that Charles did nothing wrong, and that’s really not the case. It’s more that I feel that fandom tendencies make the discussions about them just inaccurate? And my thoughts here are not about memes and silly posts purposely woobifying characters. It’s like based on… legit theories and fanfics that weirdly depict the characters.

I think my issue with the Charles discourse is how much Charles is seemingly held up as a scapegoat so people can safely adore other characters in the book. And it’s all just inaccurate to what happened. For example, the concept that Henry was benevolently trying to swoop in to rescue Camilla from Charles is something I see framed a lot. And that phrasing of it seems more intended to be ship fodder than anything because that’s honestly a really watered concept of what happened, in my reading. Charles did wrong, but that doesn’t mean Henry was just the good guy in the situation. He definitely had selfish motives; he wanted Camilla, and it wasn’t pure saviorhood. If it were, he wouldn’t have antagonized/pressured Charles into insanity and kept him drunk on purpose. Camilla wanted Charles to get better— she said so. But Henry convinced Francis and Richard to keep Charles intoxicated. And he didn’t tell Camilla that Charles was still drinking.

(Side thing, this also indicates Francis could be wrong that Charles is faking memory loss— either by genuine mistake or because he’s wants Richard to feel sorry for him. I guess we can’t know for sure, but we have it presented as valid by Camilla and not by Francis).

Anyway, this isn’t exactly honest, helpful behavior on Henry’s part. And Camilla definitely wasn’t ok with everything he was doing. He lied, at least by omission, to her.

It’s very likely Henry intimidated Francis when he visited Camilla (Francis seemed rattled and said Henry wouldn’t leave the room), and I suspect he said things to Francis when they were alone before Richard called about finding Charles in the snail. This is why Francis echoed Henry’s bullshittery about detoxing being bad. I do think Camilla wanted to date Henry and that she asked him for help— their relationship had been going on the whole book— but it’s also highly implied she was wary of some of his behaviors and that she wouldn’t have wanted her brother to get murdered. I think Henry did help Camilla. But I also think his manipulative actions show that his motives were self-serving and that, by the end of the book, he’s using violence as his modus operandi. Henry is a pretty horrible guy. He has a sort of joking coldness about Bunny’s death as well as the death of the dog he killed, and he openly admits to not caring much for others. He’s a super incredible character, and I do find him charming and fascinating. But I feel like I’ve seen this whole situation with Charles become about how Henry just adored Camilla so much and was willing to protect her from evil. I’ve even seen it insinuated that everything Henry did from the start of the novel was really just to liberate Camilla. As if he isn’t a selfish bastard who did the bacchanal as means to rid himself of his conscience so he can do what he wants (again, from his own mouth).

Henry himself was clearly— and by his own intention, I argue— a factor in Charles’s insanity and using Charles’s sins to his advantage. Just because Charles was rotten doesn’t mean he’s at fault for the entirety of what happened. It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t used too. He was bad but also really sick. Henry and Francis both knew this and manipulated it. Again, it’s not that he’s innocent, it’s more that the conversation around him often becomes about acquitting other, more beloved characters by invoking the name of Charles for everything. But Henry’s motives for the bacchanal were selfish and Francis was a spineless manipulator at points.

(Hopefully I’m not strawmanning people here!!! I think it’s easy to find fake groups of people to argue with in posts like these. And I admit fault if I’ve been taking theories and posts I see too seriously, but this is my issue with a few specific theories I have seen that seem to depict Francis as too inculpable and Henry as too selflessly in love)