#my main point though is: there is no right or wrong way to interpret a specific character

[inkykeiji]

Thank you so much for answering my question! I'm kinda new to fanfiction (not that I didnt know it existed but I literally have never seen or engaged with any until like a month ago lol) and so I just wanted to get your perspective on something I dont really understand yet. I'm autistic so I guess sometimes it's just hard for me to see/imagine characters as anything but how they are in canon, but I understand that it would be totally boring to write fanfic that only follows canon! I kinda see fanfic as that writers version of the character, like that's your specific version of Dabi and other writers have their versions of Dabi and maybe they're completely different 🤔 and I guess in my head it made more sense to me to just make a new character to make them exactly how you want and then you wouldn't have to worry about canon at all lol (because my mind wont let me see characters differently sometimes) but I get it now that you explained :) so if you dont mind me asking in your au's what happened differently in dabi/ touyas life to make him a sexual person? In canon I dont really see Dabi as a sexual person like he couldn't be bothered with relationships or anything sexual, like I almost see him as being asexual. So what kind of changed for him in your au's to make him more sexual and willing to have relationships? And thanks again for taking the time to explain for me, I really appreciate it 😊💕

hello again!! c: oh i’m glad i could help! <3 i mean, ultimately, just like all other fiction, it’s all personal preference. some people only like to read in-canon fic and some people only like to read AUs and some people like both, etc etc etc and it’s all totally and completely fine! i think you seeing fanfic as that specific writer’s version of a character/characters makes complete sense and, in a way, is also true—we are each expressing our own interpretations of him! so i absolutely get where you’re coming from there c: and i think your reasoning for being confused makes sense, too!

oh that’s a good question! unfortunately, i don’t have an answer for you, though, because i personally have always interpreted canon dabi as someone who would use casual sex (and drugs!) to try (and fail) to fill the gaping void in his chest. it is 100% fine if you disagree with me, and i will always encourage anyone to interpret any character however they’d like to. the beauty with art and fiction is that there’s technically no wrong answer to a lot of this stuff—if you personally see dabi as someone who is asexual, then he is asexual! if i see him as a sexual being, then he is a sexual being! we can have our own conflicting views on him and who he is, because he isn’t real, and he can be whoever we want him to be. does that make sense? let me know if you have any other questions or something seems unclear and i will try my best to further explain myself! <3

[stardustizuku]

Unfortunately I came across a very strange and misinformed video about Black Butler.

It’s not good. Don’t watch it. Unless you wanna ruin your day, in which case have fun.

Despite it all, I watched it. What left me wondering, however, was how off the mark the person who made the video was on, well, everything.

From their insistence that the Book of Circus Arc theme or point is non existent, to reading Ciel’s character so badly they genuinely thought the Green Witch Arc did nothing for his character development.

While baffled, it also made me think on how someone could read Black Butler so badly.

Sure, you can say that there’s no real way to read or interpret something “in the wrong way” but interpreting The Hunger Games as a pure battle-royale action story would make you believe it’s bad.

“Why are we focusing so much on how the capitol preps them?” Or “Why isn’t Katniss winning everything?” Or “I wanna know more about the rebellion” All questions that miss the actual point of the story - which is criticizing (not solving or ignoring) the way that media distracts us from violence via spectacle.

The same thing applies here. While there is no “right” way to consume media, there’s things that the author makes clear they wanna focus when creating a story. Things that, if you understand, make the story you’re reading actually make sense.

And in Black Butler there’s three things that you have to understand to properly get what Yana is saying.

Sebastian is the protagonist

Ciel and Sebastian’s relationship IS the story.

And that relationship is, fundamentally, a positive one.

A quicker version of it would be:

Black Butler is a love story from the POV of Sebastian, and you have to ship it to get it

- but that’s not entirely true.

You can still look at it as a complex but ultimately positive rship and get in broad strokes of what it’s conveying. It doesn’t have to be romantic. Although, it helps much more than a platonic framing.

(That said, interpreting their rship as father and son, still isn’t the best way to go about it. Mostly because by its very nature of “soul consuming” their relationship is extremely sexually charged. And hey, if you’re into that I don’t judge. However, if you’re desperately trying to interpret their rship as NOT romantic to the point you fall back on heteronormative patriarchal ideals of nuclear familiar as framing device, I don’t think this interpretation bodes with you)

Now, having all that ground work:

Why do I say these are the key components to understand BB?

Okay so, first,

1. Sebastian is the Main Character. The protagonist.

There’s a lot of people who wanna argue against it, claiming he’s either the villain or the antagonist. Both wrong.

He does not function as an antagonist. Even if, and an emphasis on if, you consider Ciel to the protagonist, Sebastian isn’t a narrative antagonist.

If you wanna go back to Creative Writing 101, be my guest. An antagonist is directly defined by the protagonist. It’s the opposing force. If the protagonist wants A, the antagonist wants to stop them from getting A.

Sebastian’s catchphrase is “Yes, my Lord”. He never opposes Ciel, in fact quite the contrary. By the mere fact they’ve created contract, it means that they’ve both agreed in the inevitable outcome.

People want to frame Sebastian as the villain, because Ciel having his soul taken by a demon, would be a BAD END in the context of their moral compass. They see Ciel as a frail victim of abuse, who’s being tricked by Sebastian, who wants Ciel’s soul.

Which is an. Interpretation. A bad one. But still one.

The narrative (and whether the narrative fits your personal moral compass and lack of critical thinking is irrelevant) treats Ciel as an agent in his own destiny. The abuse he suffered was the moment in which he had no control. It’s only after he meets Sebastian that he can rid of both his guilt and his despair, and do what he wants.

In this case though, it’s revenge.

The famous “Asthma” scene shows this. If Ciel is taken back to his past, he becomes helpless. Swarmed with pain and memories that make it so that he can’t even react. Sebastian is his saving grace. If Ciel didn’t have him, and the power he wields to rebuilt what’s broken, he would crumble once more.

If Ciel has a panic attack, because of all the pain he has, Sebastian picks him up and says “you are not a helpless child anymore, you are not a victim anymore, you have the power to do anything. So, what do you wanna do?”

Ciel’s answer is to kill them.

A proper analogy would be to say that, if Sebastian offers a gun, Ciel pulls the trigger. They are both at fault. Sebastian, strictly speaking, is not here to directly cause Ciel’s downfall, but as a tool Ciel uses to plunge into the abyss.

If, again if, you were to frame Ciel as a protagonist, Sebastian falls closer to the “Voice of reason” character. Not a literal voice of reason, but a literary one. If you have a protagonist and an antagonist exchanging ideals, the Voice of Reason serves to engage with the protagonist on their own ideals.

That said, Ciel isn’t the protagonist. The story quickly falls apart if you interpret it as such.

Things such as Ciel’s character arc being…shall I say odd?

It’s not that his character arc isn’t there, but it’s never lineal. His goals stay the same, the only thing that happens is that we start to peel back the “why”s of his goals. Throughout the series it’s never about Ciel understanding himself better, he knows who he is, he knows what he wants, he knows why he wants it. He doesn’t ever need to uncover these, but simply remember them. Because it’s always about the audience understanding Ciel.

He knows he wants revenge.

In the Circus Arc: He knows that he needs Sebastian because without him, the pain of the abuse he suffered would be too much to bear. But WE are introduced to it.

In the Book of Atlantis: He knows that with this new lease he does not want happiness and peace, he wants revenge. The one being told this is the audience.

In Green Witch Arc: He knows that their revenge isn’t for his family, the real Ciel or guilt. It’s because he wants it. He’s angry, he’s upset, and this is entirely for him. The one being told this is the audience.

Except. Not really. The one either discovering or remembering these key moments - is always Sebastian.

Sebastian is the one who reassures him that he now holds the power of a demon to override the pain. Sebastian is the one who remembers that to override that pain, Ciel wants revenge. And Sebastian is the one who discovers that that revenge isn’t built out of grief or guilt, but for himself.

We are witnessing it all, through the eyes of Sebastian.

This is why we have an extremely vague idea of who Ciel is, Sebastian does not have the whole picture.

If you haven’t been reading this manga with your eyes closed, you’ll realize we have a better grasp at Sebastian’s character than that of Ciel. We get a lot of insight on how he thinks and what he values through light hearted dialogue he has with the servants. You even see the character development in these little interactions.

Think about how when he first arrived to the mansion he magically created food with no regards to taste, but when he meets Bard he states that food is created to see whoever will eat it, smile.

That is character development, more than you will be able to see from Ciel.

Because Ciel’s character, while not static, doesn’t go from point A to point B. Mostly, cause it doesn’t need to. He went through that when he lost the real Ciel and got Sebastian. Everything we are watching is the falling out.

Now, given the fact that I’ve told you that it makes more sense for Sebastian to be the protagonist/main character, and that he 100% isn’t either a villain or antagonist in ANY of the interpretations you can get:

Do you believe me?

If you don’t, you’ll probably believe Yana herself.

This is from the first Volume, where Yana herself describes the process of making Black Butler. The primary idea behind the creation of BB was a butler as a “hero”.

If you go back to the introductory chapter, you notice that Ciel is barely mentioned. He’s simply the one to give Sebastian impossible tasks and standards that Sebastian must find how to overcome.

Ciel is properly introduced until the NEXT chapter. The second chapter has this formula too, introducing Lizzie as a problem to overcome. Although, to Sebastian the best way to “get rid of the problem” is simply to indulge her.

The issue here being that the problem isn’t as simple as a business meeting but something directly tied to Ciel and Ciel’s past. Each time that Sebastian has to solve a problem, it chips away at Ciel. While with Lizzie he shows a persona, once he’s alone with Sebastian he acknowledges the toll it took on him. It serves to build Ciel as Sebastian’s master, and how some problems aren’t as simple as discarding a tablecloth.

The third and the fourth, are a unified narrative, with a similar premise to the first chapter. Ciel gets kidnapped and Sebastian must find a way to retrieve him without raising suspicions.

If the first chapter is to set up what Sebastian must do as a butler, the third and the fourth serve to set up what he must do as a demon.

The entirety of the volume, and up to Book of Circus Arc, is about how Sebastian tries to follow the increasingly absurd orders that Ciel has - it is not about Ciel trying to solve them.

That’s how they work, we follow Sebastian for the most part, because he’s the one having to come up with the solutions.

If anything, in early Kuro, where the emphasis was more on a slice of life conflict, Ciel is the antagonist. He’s the one creating problems for Sebastian to solve.

What’s more, in the second volume, the very first chapter is one from Sebastian’s POV. So far, we hadn’t gotten an entire chapter from Ciel’s POV. In fact, I would find it hard to point to a single chapter where Ciel is the POV throughout. The reveal of real Ciel and the flashback is the closest contender.

But once we move past early Kuro, and into Book of Circus, this set up changes.

It’s fairly easy to assume that Ciel is the main character, because from this point on the conflict of the plot sorta surrounded him. We spend a lot of time with him and with his story. The enemies start being people directly tied to Ciel and Ciel’s trauma. Rarely, if at all, we get to see Sebastian before he met Ciel.The framing device for the story, is Ciel.

This is where point 2 gets intertwined.

2.- Sebastian and Ciel’s relationship IS the story.

The story begins at the point where Sebastian and Ciel met. Who Ciel was before he met Sebastian, informs why he’s the way he is when he does. You have to know all he went through to understand why he’s a brat, why he lashes out. However Sebastian’s past doesn’t matter…because Sebastian himself doesn’t care much for who he was, before he was “Sebastian”. That’s also part of the narrative.

Unlike Ciel, he doesn’t seem opposed to revealing information from before the contract. He talks about how pets from where he is from are gross, he talks about how he knows how to dance because of other places he’s been to, and alludes to the life he's lived before.

Just that, to him, they're footnotes.

He makes allusions to a very bland, uninteresting life, up to the point he meets Ciel.

That’s why we don’t know more about his past.

As for why we focus on Ciel’s story…okay maybe we need Creative Writing lessons 102

I studied Dramaturgy for about 3 to 4 years. And something you notice is how play-writing is the quintessential story telling. It’s making it work with the bare bones of a story.

Some other mediums have more finesse, more depth, or more spectacle - all amazing things that work for whatever they’re created for. But understanding a play, how and why it works, helps understand the fundamentals of any derivative story telling medium.

Particularly, conflict.

Conflict is dialogue and dialogue can take many forms. A story, in its essence, is a dialogue between two opposing ideas.

Take Batman, for example, who embodies the ideas of justice and order. On his own, he’s not a well rounded character.

If you ONLY present him, in a vaccum with nothing else, you don’t have a character. You have a list of characteristics that you’re supposed to know.

You only know who he is when you have dialogue with another character.

I say Dialogue, but it doesn’t necessarily mean spoken language at one another. Dialogue can mean fist fighting, playing tabletop games, talking to other people about the other, or even just a competition. The idea is to simply to compare and contrast both ideas.

If you want an example on how tabletop games serve as dialogue, watch the video “Well, Someone Had to Explain the Liar’s Dice Scene” by Lord Ravecraft

Another example, were we to retake Batman, you have him fight Joker. Who’s the embodiment of chaos and randomness.

In the following picture, you get far more information than the one previously shown. While the Joke fights with daggers and fake guns, Batman only uses his fists. He doesn’t use the tricks that Joker does. His serious demeanor, contrasted with Joker’s glee at the dangerous situation. The fact that Batman has a deathly grip on Joker’s shirt, while the Joker doesn’t, which shows a desperation to catch him.

You are being shown, through a dialogue, who Batman is.

It’s so much easier and much more effective to explore a character through another character.

This is the reason why Shonen has a tendency to make incredibly good gay ships. If you want to explore Naruto’s personality, and his feelings of inferiority, you HAVE to have him interact with Sasuke.

If you wanna understand Hinata’s passion for volleyball, you have him enjoy himself the most with the only other crazy motherfucker who’s as obsessed with volleyball - Kageyama.

And I think that originally, Yana had this problem.

Sebastian was the protagonist, but she had little room to develop him as a character in the confines of the manor, dealing with random enemies.

She likely tried to create Grell as someone of the same stature as Sebastian. Someone who could be this other person to engage dialogue with and show or allude to his past a bit more.

The problem being that Sebastian didn’t care for his past. Or really, engaging with anyone. He sees everyone as below him, but when confronted with Grell who isn’t below him, he doesn’t wanna talk to her.

So you’re stuck in conundrum.

How do you have dialogue with a character, that as a character trait, doesn’t really wanna have dialogue?

Well, Grell also solves the problem. Because only the moment she gets him to start any semblance of a dialogue - is questioning why he’s serving Ciel.

And this is the moment when it’s perfectly cemented that the focus of the story is their relationship.

Why is Sebastian here? Why does he stay? What did he see in Ciel that made him want this extremely convoluted contract?

THATS the dialogue.

THATS the conversation we’re having in Black Butler.

We need to know Ciel because understanding who he is, let’s us know WHY /Sebastian/ is here.

Then slowly, with the introduction with the Undertaker, we find out Sebastian’s conflict.

Which is…

He’s scared of losing Ciel. It becomes apparent with the constant imagery of the Undertaker taking away Ciel and at some point even obtaining r!Ciel’s body, that he’s worried it might happen.

But he can only be worried that Ciel might be taken away if he wants to stay near Ciel.

And that’s his character arc.

Realizing that he actually likes Ciel, cares for him and the role he plays a butler that he doesn’t want this to end.

In the first chapters, he doesn’t feel a need to protect Ciel anymore than what’s strictly necessary. Just don’t die, that’s about as deep as his involvement in chapter 4 gets.

But by the Green Witch Arc, he feels a need to protect Ciel from ANY harm.

This is why I also said

3.- Their relationship is fundamentally a positive one.

In broad strokes, Sebastian to Ciel is the person who allows him to survive. He’s not worried about giving up his soul since he’s already dead. While Ciel to Sebastian, is someone who’s making him have fun. He’s slowly becoming more and more attached to Ciel and the life he has with Ciel.

Their relationship is not that of just a predator and prey, but also of master and pet.

In the terms that Black Butler itself would call: Sebastian is a wild wolf acting like a collared dog.

Ciel is aware that the wild beast will eat him at the end of the day, but if he clings hard to leash for now, he might just be able to have Sebastian maul his abusers.

Sebastian as a dog, currently finds that he enjoys being a chained dog.

(This is demonstrated in the Green Witch arc where he quite literally says, he doesn’t wanna be a wild beast and prefers to be a butler)

And much like the actual DOG Sebastian, Ciel constantly interprets his attempts to get close and protect him, as an act of aggression.

This push and pull of Ciel’s perception of Sebastian and Sebastian’s true motives is what feeds the story.

And the briefs interludes were that isn’t the case (what other people call the “plot”, but I would refer to as the connective tissue) such as Sullivan and Wolfram, the other servant’s past, the grim reapers and the like, serve as a parallel to Ciel and Sebastian relationship. Either to signify how they care for each other, highlight their weaknesses or fears, or explore how they feel.

It’s no surprise that Sullivan and Wolfram are parallels to Ciel and Sebastian. A sheltered sickly child who seeks the protection of a cold hearted machine that only knew how to kill, but who eventually found he cared for her genuinely.

Undertaker and Claudia’s relationship being heavily paralleled with them, even though we aren’t 109% sure what they had but heavily implied it was a romantic attraction from the undead supernatural creature and a Phantomhive.

Everything is a parallel.

That’s why, like the approach of the terrible original video, is flawed.

Trying to interpret Black Butler as action scene after action scene, with mystery after mystery with the only connective tissue being the mystery of who burned down the mansion - is missing the trees for the forest.

That’s not the point.

And if you’re too much of a prude to engage with gothic horror in its gothic horror game, I see little point as to why you even bother to engage with it at all.

A lot of people, including the person who create the video, simply refuse to acknowledge Black Butler IS the story of Sebastian and Ciel as a close and positive relationship, romantically and sexually charged. The reason for it being that they’re “put off” by it.

Part of me wonders how much that is genuinely true, and how much is just performative outrage. It’s like ignoring the fact that Cersei and Jami are in an incestous relationship and try to frame it as “platonic love”, because the idea of it is THAT off putting.

But regardless of that, if you don’t like the fact that it’s as canon as canon can get, I would reccomend you don’t engage with the story at all.

As I’ve explained, the entirety of the series is about them. If you refuse to see Sebastian and Ciel as, at the very least, a duo that cares deeply for the other - you aren’t reading Black Butler.

I have no idea what you’re reading.Perhaps your own biases and subconscious stigma with British aesthetic. At that point, watch the fucking British Royalty Gossip Magazine. You’d find more substance there.

Just don’t be like the person in the video, please? Don’t play dumb. Don’t ignore the fact that Yana is a Shotacon, don’t ignore the fact Sebastian is a hero, don’t ignore the fact that the entirety of the story is based on Sebastian and Ciel’s dynamic.

Because if you do, you are ashamed. You are ashamed of what this story is about. You don’t wanna engage with the text, you want to engage with yourself. You wanna project into Ciel whatever traumas and experiences you have, for the sake a vanity project, where you come out as the morally superior.

You don’t wanna talk about Black Butler, you wanna talk about how good YOU are. How you “don’t sin” by watching it “without all the gross unholy stuff”.

Which is the exact opposite of what BB is about.

So, if you don’t want to, save us all the humiliation fetish and leave.

[deswhomst]

Canon Regulus was not this evil person you all make him out to be and I am tired of the Regulus-hate

First of all, Regulus Black is not a character we have an in-depth explanation of but he isn’t completely unknown to us, either. However, a lot of his canon self and motivations are up for interpretation and you are free to your own assumptions as long as you remember that at the end of the day, they are just your assumptions and not concrete facts and someone else is well within their right to have a different idea. 

What we know about him is that he was the youngest Black, and after Sirius was disowned, he became the heir. Unlike Sirius, Regulus was obedient and he believed in the pure blood ideologies. He wanted to join Voldemort and talked about it for years. Seeing as he joined the Death Eaters at 16, it would mean he was extremely young when he formed that ambition. 

From Deathly Hallows, Kreacher’s Tale —

"Master Sirius ran away, good riddance, for he was a bad boy and broke my Mistress's heart with his lawless ways. But Master Regulus had proper order; he knew what was due to the name of Black and the dignity of his pure blood. For years he talked of the Dark Lord, who was going to bring the wizards out of hiding to rule the Muggles and the Muggle-borns... and when he was sixteen years old, Master Regulus joined the Dark Lord. So proud, so proud, so happy to serve ...”

Over here, Kreacher mentions Regulus’ will to join Voldemort but nowhere does it say that Regulus was going on about wanting to murder innocent people—his intention, from what we are told, was to live out of hiding and rule over the muggles and muggle-borns, not execute them. And it’s not an insanely crazy idea because if you’re forced to hide who you are, and if you’re fed the fact that muggles drove you into hiding, then you’re probably going to want to get back on top. 

And now this quote from Sirius in Order of the Phoenix states that many people (including his parents) supported Voldemort’s rule before he showed his true colors: 

'Were - were your parents Death Eaters as well?'

'No, no, but believe me, they thought Voldemort had the right idea, they were all for the purification of the wizarding race, getting rid of Muggle-borns and having pure-bloods in charge. They weren't alone, either, there were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his true colours, who thought he had the right idea about things... they got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power, though. But I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at first.'

It’s just to say, if grown ass adults were naive enough to get swept away with Voldemort’s influence, a boy years younger than 16 could not have known better. Not to mention Regulus was quite literally described as an idiot by Sirius himself. 

'Because I hated the whole lot of them: my parents, with their pure-blood mania, convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal... my idiot brother, soft enough to believe them... that's him.'

So now my main point is actually yet to be said. For now, I have given evidence from the books that support my interpretation of Regulus and your interpretation may wary but you cannot sit there and tell me I’m wrong for the way I see it. Regulus’ death is what’s the most defining part of his character, and the most annoying take yall haters have is that he simply died because Voldemort hurt his “property”. That’s such a shallow take I’m sorry it says more about you than me when you bring up that argument. 

This is how Regulus was described after he find out about the Horcrux. Strange, worried, disturbed, unlike himself. Not angry or spiteful. Not evil or vengeful. 

"Master Regulus was very worried, very worried," croaked Kreacher. "Master Regulus told Kreacher to stay hidden and not to leave the house. And then ... it was a little while later ... Master Regulus came to find Kreacher in his cupboard one night, and Master Regulus was strange, not as he usually was, disturbed in his mind, Kreacher could tell ... and he asked Kreacher to take him to the cave, the cave where Kreacher had gone with the Dark Lord..."

And proof that he didn’t view Kreacher as his property but rather as a friend: 

"And he made you drink the poison?" said Harry, disgusted.

But Kreacher shook his head and wept. Hermione's hands leapt to her mouth: She seemed to have understood something.

"M-Master Regulus took from his pocket a locket like the one the Dark Lord had," said Kreacher, tears pouring down either side of his snoutlike nose. "And he told Kreacher to take it and, when the basin was empty, to switch the lockets ..."

Kreacher's sobs came in great rasps now; Harry had to concentrate hard to understand him. "And he order-Kreacher to leave without him. And he told Kreacher—to go home—and never to tell my Mistress-what he had done— but to destroy —the first locket. And he drank —all the potion-and Kreacher swapped the lockets— and watched ... as Master Regulus ... was dragged beneath the water ... and... "

Like, he could have made Kreacher drink it—Harry certainly assumed that he had, but he didn’t. He knew he was going to die, and Kreacher told him about the potion, so he willingly chose to hurt himself more before dying a horribly painful death. 

And now, THIS is Harry and Hermione’s interpretation—that Regulus did change his mind. It’s from the canon books and it wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t true, since the haters care so much about canon. This is literally how Regulus’ sacrifice was described, by Hermione.

"Harry, Kreacher doesn't think like that," said Hermione, wiping her eyes on the back of her hand. "He's a slave; house-elves are used to bad, even brutal treatment; what Voldemort did to Kreacher wasn't that far out of the common way. What do wizard wars mean to an elf like Kreacher? He's loyal to people who are kind to him, and Mrs. Black must have been, and Regulus certainly was, so he served them willingly and parroted their beliefs. I know what you're going to say," she went on as Harry began to protest, "that Regulus changed his mind ... but he doesn't seem to have explained that to Kreacher, does he? And I think I know why. Kreacher and Regulus's family were all safest if they kept to the old pure-blood line. Regulus was trying to protect them all."

This is literally how it’s described in the books. He was trying to protect them all even if no one ever knew what he did. Even if the world had an awful image of him and forgot all about him. 

He was 18 years old when he died. Fresh out of school. And, listen—he was plenty privileged. On paper, he had everything. Money, talent, looks, status, plus Voldemort was very much in power and he was a DE so he was on the stronger side of the war as well. He chose to give that all up and sacrifice his entire life, and that doesn’t just happen for no reason. He couldn’t have left the Death Eaters anyways. We are told more than once that you cannot leave the DEs, it’s a death sentence, and Regulus could not continue being one so he literally left the only way he could—by dying.

'Was he killed by an Auror?' Harry asked tentatively.

'Oh, no,' said Sirius. 'No, he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person. From what I found out after he died, he got in so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do and tried to back out. Well, you don't just hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death.'

See, now if you say that he didn’t change his mind, that’s fine—there’s no concrete evidence that he did but ALSO, there is no concrete evidence that he didn’t. There are multiple ways to perceive a character we don’t have too much information on but my interpretation doesn’t violate canon so you cannot tell me that Regulus Black was evil or bad. He was morally grey at worst in my opinion and I have all the supporting text in the post. 

I read the books when I was 14 (in 2017), and I was not in any fandom space. I don’t know what things were like back then but I loved Regulus as a character from the moment I read his backstory. I acknowledge that he was a Death Eater and he willingly joined them but I also see the fact that he was a child who was surrounded by people who pushed him in that direction. Sirius being loud and rebellious probably made Regulus more quiet and obedient just to oppose him, or maybe seeing his parents’ reaction.

Also, Sirius had a lot of good influence to help his already rebellious personality but Regulus had no outside experience past the Slytherin dungeons and the pureblood society. Siblings often react differently to their parents in general, also the heir and the spare thing probably comes into work here as well but that’s a conversation for another time. Just like I do not blame Sirius for doing what he needed to, I do not blame Regulus either.

(I also strongly believe that Regulus was suicidal but that’s also a conversation for another time.)

Ultimately, I do not see Regulus as a hero or a villain but as a tragedy. It shows how people on both sides of war suffer and no one is safe or a winner in those situations. Reducing his character to “an evil Death Eater” is so weird to me, when you could explore the complexity of it all. Anyways, canon Regulus is my favorite character and I actually prefer him over fanon Regulus so I don’t need anyone to tell me I should read the books or liking him makes me evil or awful.

While we’re at it, I think it’s so unfair to lump him into the same category as Peter, Barty, Bellatrix, or Petunia, etc.. like WDYM how can I like Regulus and not Petunia? One was a 18 year old who killed himself and the other abused her dead sister’s son?? Those people are evil and Regulus is morally grey. There is a difference, and I am allowed to love him while hating others.

(All the canon quotes are from Deathly Hallows, Kreacher’s Tale or Order of the Phoenix, The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black)

[jikookuntold]

What Is Like Crazy About?

Since the day "Like Crazy" was released, I wanted to post about it, but couldn't get the time to focus and do a comprehensive analysis. Finally, right before the first anniversary of this masterpiece, I got the time, and the post is ready now. Before starting off, I have to remind you of the fact that a work of art can be interpreted in many different ways, and none of those interpretations are necessarily right or wrong. Every work of art contains a message that is the artist’s main intention from that creation, but the artist doesn’t have to explain it to the audience because a true work of art speaks for itself, even though not all audiences can receive it thoroughly.

I know that in the past year, so many different types of analyses and theories were made by fans to explain this song, and most definitely, I couldn’t keep up with all of them. Therefore, I’m not claiming my analysis to be a breakthrough, and you might have read most parts of it somewhere else. In this post, we are going to discuss “Like Crazy” from a lyrical and conceptual point of view, trying to find out what message or messages Jimin wanted to convey by creating it.

About “Like Crazy”

“Like Crazy” as the title track for Jimin's first solo album, "FACE", stole the hearts of millions of fans and locals around the world, and inarguably became one of the most successful pop songs of the year 2023. I can talk for hours about how beautiful and successful “Like Crazy” is, and how it broke KPop boundaries and countless records. But, in this post, we are going to break to the surface and talk about the meanings and motivations behind this song and answer the questions like “How this song was made?” “What was Jimin's intention in writing these romantic lyrics?”

As I mentioned earlier, artists usually don’t directly address their main message and their intention in creating a form of art, but many of them speak about the motivations and inspirations that led them to the creation. Jimin hasn’t talked much about the sources of inspiration behind individual tracks of “FACE”, but I guess “Like Crazy” was an exception for him because he revealed on several occasions that he was inspired by “Like Crazy”, the movie. And this piece of information is the key to our analysis:

"I tried to express the feelings of that movie. You know, the somewhat complex, somewhat lonely, somewhat happy emotions. I tried to express all these ambiguous and subtle emotions in a slightly sexy way, but I’m not sure how it’ll end up being received by people.”

Like Crazy, The Movie

First of all, we need to keep in mind that “Like Crazy” is a completely original song, and Jimin has not used or sampled any songs, lines, or dialogues from the movie in his lyrical or visual concepts (even the intro and outro dialogues in the song were original and not from the movie). If Jimin had not stated his source of inspiration directly, the only hint that could have led us to it would be the title of the song, which duplicates the title of the movie since the title never appears in the lyrics.

So, Jimin chose this specific name for his song and announced his source of inspiration to make it clear that there is a straight and strong connection between the song and the movie. He made it clear that this connection is 100% conceptual and emotional, and if we want to know what “Like Crazy” is about, and what ambiguous and subtle feelings Jimin is talking about, we have to redirect the analysis to the concept of the movie, “Like Crazy”.

As we all know, “Like Crazy” is a romantic movie, and Drake Doremus directed it casting "Felicity Jones" and the late "Anton Yelchin" as the main characters, Anna and Jacob. Doremus based the storyline of this low-budget movie on his experience being in a long-distance relationship with his partner and developed it into a 90-minute-long movie, which was released in 2011 and became relatively successful.

Anna and Jacob

A few days before the release of “FACE”, I was informed that the title track, “Like Crazy” is based on a movie of the same name. After learning this fact, I had to re-watch it because I couldn’t remember anything after a decade, and I had some questions like: “What was in this movie that made it so special for Jimin?” “How would Jimin feel watching this?”. Having this mindset helped me to see the movie differently, but before explaining those new insights we need a short storyline of the movie:

Anna is a British exchange student in LA, where she falls in love with Jacob, an American student, and they start dating. Anna, blinded by her love for Jacob, overstays her student visa and consequently gets banned from re-entering the United States. After experiencing a forced LDR, Jacob flies to London to visit Anna, and her father suggests that getting married might resolve the issue, but they are not ready for this big step. Jacob goes back to LA and basically chooses his job over Anna, but after some time, they realize that they can’t be apart, and they decide to get married. Six months after the marriage, when the time for the appeal of Anna’s ban comes, it gets rejected, and they lose their last hope of being together. Again, they go back to their sad lives, but after some time, Anna is finally offered a visa, and she leaves everything behind to reunite with Jacob. The ending scene shows how this separation has damaged their relationship, and things will never be the same.

The movie portrays the hardships of a long-distance relationship and the damage the separation can do to two souls and their connection. I think the recent movie by "Celine Song" named "Past Lives" was partially similar to like crazy, but also there was a big difference; unlike Nora and Haesung in “Past Lives”, Anna and Jacob don’t leave it to fate, they don’t forget about each other and don’t settle down with others just because their love seemed difficult or impossible.

They found true happiness only next to each other and did everything against all odds (especially Anna) to take that back. Maybe if Anna and Jacob weren’t in love like crazy and were more mature and realistic, they would end up like Nora and Haesung (Sorry if this spoiled that movie for you), but they didn’t and made their own bittersweet ending.

Many people claim that “Like Crazy” is a breakup movie with a sad ending, therefore, Jimin’s song also must be a breakup song. But, first of all, the ending can somehow be considered an open ending. We don’t know what happens after the shower scene, but we see them together, in each other’s arms, and this is not a totally sad ending by any movie standards. Other than that, Anna and Jacob became separated a few times, but they don't officially break up by choice, their separation is the result of contractual rules and laws, made by society.

This movie, as its director explained, might be originally about a long-distance relationship, but also the main relationship in this movie can be seen as a relationship that gets strained by laws and regulations, it’s about the rules and imaginary borders that decide if two people can be together or ban them from it. It’s a story of the “love against law”.

A Heterosexual Love Story?

When “Like Crazy” was released in theatres back in 2011, it got positive reviews for good acting that made the movie feel sweet and intimate with mostly improvised dialogues. Meanwhile, the negative reviews were focused on the plotline of this drama, calling it far from reality. Other than the fact that Jacob could have easily resolved this issue by taking his job from LA to London, in reality, the couple wouldn’t have faced this much difficulty over the legal complications, especially after getting married.

The fact is, straight couples usually never face this kind of hardship, and governments take that easy on them otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many sham marriages around the world just to get citizenship. So, the idea of a couple getting separated by law is not common, and that’s why many people called this movie implausible. But, a queer person can familiarly receive this implausibility, like when they want to be with someone forever, but the laws don’t let them.

Could it be this feeling that made “Like Crazy” special and a source of inspiration for Jimin? Or was it something smaller like the Santa Monica beach scene? I have no answer, I only make theories, and I think it’s better to leave the movie here and start the lyrical interpretation to see how these words and feelings can get connected.

The Lyrics

[Intro]

(I think we could last forever (I'm afraid that everything will disappear Just trust me)

As I said earlier, this intro is not a dialogue from the movie, but the narrators were told to do it based on the audio from the movie that was sent to them. So, hypothetically, it’s Anna and Jacob having this conversation. He is afraid of losing everything, but Anna assures him that if he trusts her, they can last forever. In the MV, we see Jimin standing in the crowd, but the time goes in reverse, and through a transition into his eyes, we see him sitting alone. Weirdly, the outro of the song is playing in the background here, but we will figure out the reason later.

[Verse 1]

Korean Version, Translated

She's saying Baby, don't think about it There's not a bad thing here tonight Baby, it's fine if you leave Stay with me, just for today

English Version

She's saying, Baby, come and follow me There's not a bad thing here tonight Save your reasons all for later Stay with me a little while

Anna asks him to follow her and assures him that everything is fine, it’s fine if this is not going to last long. It’s not the time for reason and overthinking. The gendered pronoun here refers to Anna, but we will know more about her in the next verses. It is worth mentioning that in the primary handwritten lyrics by Jimin, there was no “She” and it was modified later considering the dialogues added to the intro. Anyway, we know Jimin didn’t release these drafts in his album for no reason.

In this part of the MV, we see Jimin sitting alone in a room, and with a flicker of lights, the room is filled with mud. Suddenly, a muddy hand of a girl grabs Jimin’s hand and leads him to a party. There are several symbols in this part, the lonely room is Jimin’s reality, and the party is his dream. The mud symbolizes dreams and desires that leave their trace on your life and soul.

[Verse 2]

Korean Version, Translated

Watch me go Drenching myself all night (Away) So that even the morning Gets drunk and doesn't arrive

English Version

Watch me go Now, I sink down, all alone away Where am I? A dark haze clouding up my eyes

From here, we don’t see the girl because Jimin and the girl became one. She was her reflection from the beginning, the side that leads him out of his loneliness, and allures him to his dreams and desires, tempts him to be careless and stop thinking too much. Some say she is Jimin’s Anima, but these lyrics never go to the deep levels of the subconscious to reach the Anima. She is his feminine side that is a tangible side of him, and Jimin’s asymmetric makeup gives it away. Also, the mirrored moves between Jimin and the female dancer in “Like Crazy’s” choreography made it clear that the feminine presence in this song is Jimin’s reflection.

[Pre-Chorus]

Korean Version, Translated

As the loud music I get faded out A cliché story like a drama I get used to it Have I come too far to find the me that you used to know Yeah, I know You know I know (Ooh)

English Version

I can hear the voices listening Don't know who they are Trying to take the pressure off Been reaching for the stars Tell me, will I find myself again? When I go too far? Yeah, I know You know, I know (Ooh)

Jimin enters the party and starts drinking, dancing, and having fun with the others. He laughs and enjoys himself in the crowd and trusts the supposed strangers, but the confusion doesn’t leave him alone. He feels lost, and as the lyrics say, he is worried about going too far and not finding himself again. The two opposite sides of him are conflicting. It’s the contradiction between "fear and desire", between "pain and numbness", between "loneliness and losing yourself", and between "reason and dream" that leaves him confused.

[Chorus and Post Chorus]

Korean Version, Translated

I'd rather be Lost in the lights, Lost in the lights I'm outta my mind Hold onto the end of the night Every night You spin me up high The moon with you in its arms Let me have a taste Give me a good ride (Oh, I'm fallin', I'm fallin', I'm fallin') Oh, it's gon' be a good night (Oh, I'm fallin') Forever, you and I

English Version

I'd rather be Lost in the lights, lost in the lights I'm outta my mind Can you help me numb the pain? Each night, you spin me up high Emotions on ice Let me have a taste Give me a good ride (Oh, I'm fallin', I'm fallin', I'm fallin') Oh, it's gon' be a good night (Oh, I'm fallin') Forever, you and I

In this part, he confesses which side he really wants to follow. He wants to go out of his mind, lose himself to the desire, and leave the reason behind. It’s the escapism that saves him from loneliness and the pain of real life. The chorus is the sexy and at the same time, the most poetic part of this song, especially where he is spinning up high in the arms of the moon.

The last line of the post-chorus, “Forever you and I” which also repeats in the last part of the interlude, is crucial because it declares that Jimin is not talking about vagrancy or promiscuity. He wants it all with his significant other, the only one who can help him numb the pain of real life and escape it. But this escapism has its consequences, and we see all that mud flush out of every corner symbolizing it. This scene artistically ends with Jimin facing his reflection in the crowd. The question is, is this reflection the same significant other, or is it Jimin himself? We will get the answer in the next part.

[Verse 3]

Korean Version, Translated

The me, reflected in the mirror Is going crazy endlessly I'm feelin' so alive, wasting time

English Version

All my reflections, I Can't even recognize I'm feelin' so alive, wasting time

His fear of losing himself was true, and it's happening now. This duality confuses him and makes him question his reality. Which side is the true Jimin? He doesn't care anymore because this escapism makes him feel alive.

Here in the MV, we see Jimin facing the reflection, and it immediately cuts to the restroom scene where he faces his literal reflection in the mirror and talks to him about not recognizing him anymore. Then, the restroom being dismantled symbolizes his state of mind. "The reflection of myself in an unfamiliar appearance" was the concept of "his "FACE" which was a whole album about Jimin himself.

[Outro]

This will break me This is gonna break me (Break me) No, don't you wake me (Wake me) I wanna stay in this dream, don't save me Don't you try to save me (Save me) I need a way we (Way we) I need a way we can dream on (On, on, on) (Alone again What's the point?)

Jimin knows the consequences of losing himself but embraces it. He knows it's gonna break him but doesn't want to wake up from his dream. He knows everything will collapse but doesn't need a savior. He wants to stay in that dream, but he knows it's impossible, and sooner or later, he will be dragged out of it.

Is there a way to cut all the connections to the real world of loneliness and stay in this dream forever? We get the answer in the MV, and it's not positive because suddenly, everything goes backward in speed, to where we started (remember the outro being played in the beginning? That was the clue).

He goes back to his lonely room with a muddy hand. Did his hand get dirty from a touch of his reflection, or was the muddy hand in the beginning his own hand? Is he trapped in a loop? Maybe. Maybe this wasn't his first or the last time coming back from that dreamland, and it was the reason for so much mud accumulated in his room. He is a regular in that dreamland and he can't quit.

Conclusion

It's understandable if this analysis of the movie, lyrics, and the MV didn't guide you in any direction, and maybe you are even more confused after reading it all. But don't blame yourself because Jimin already told us that, his emotions for this movie are complex. So, don't look for just one answer, maybe we are not supposed to end up with one conclusion, and this song also can have multiple interpretations and meanings. But what are these meanings?

If you pay attention to the lyrics and the MV you will realize that despite them being aligned and in sync, the lyrics have more connection to the movie. While filming the MV, Jimin mentioned that things (scenes of the MV) didn't happen like this in real life, which was an obvious fact, because this song is clearly not about being the life of the party and stuff like that, and has more internal meanings.

In "Like Crazy", Jimin talks about the loneliness of his real life, the isolation and limitations he experienced during the pandemic, and maybe other times. But Jimin finds an alternate reality, where he can be himself, be free and careless, and forget about the future. This alternate reality is rooted in two possibilities: The feminine side, and the significant other. The feminine side is what we face in the MV, and there are not many signs of it in the lyrics.

The feminine side appears as a muddy hand and a presence at the part that faces Jimin and becomes one with him as his reflection. The idea of "bigender" is nothing new in the concepts that Jimin has offered on different occasions, from his fake tattoos in ARMY-Zip 2019 to the performance of "Filter" in 2020 and his photopholio in 2022, he has expressed this fluidity in his work, and I think the visual concept of "Like Crazy" with his different makeup in the MV and the choreography was the epitome of it.

What about the significant other? As I mentioned in the analysis of chorus parts, "Forever You and I" Can only be interpreted as his exclusiveness to someone who is his significant other. This person is the one who saves Jimin from his loneliness and assures him about their happy ending. This person has no doubt in them lasting forever and only wants Jimin to trust him to take the lead and let that happen.

He keeps saying to his significant other that there is no future. They can't be together forever, this is just a temporary situation, and despite finding comfort in each other, they should not get attached because they will forced to be separated. It's not like Jimin doesn't believe in this love, he does and has the same wishes and dreams, but he keeps getting dragged to the real world where the rules govern.

This part is just a personal opinion as a Jikooker, but I did this analysis in my head last year when "Like Crazy" was newly released and had no intention of making a connection between this and Jikook, until "Seven" came out. We all know JK had no hand in making the sexy lyrics of "Seven", but after watching the MV (which had nothing to do with the lyrics), I couldn't unsee the fact that the concept of Seven's MV looked so much like a response to "Like Crazy's" lyrics. Still, we don't know if JK gave any ideas for the concept of the MV, but considering his record of working as an MV director, it's not impossible.

The End.

This is all I could say about "Like Crazy", a masterpiece that is still thriving in the charts and still touches people's hearts because it comes from real and deep emotions that Jimin had in his heart. That emotion got us the moment we listened to it for the first time, even though verbalizing it, is never easy, no matter how many analyses and reviews we write.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

HI RAVEN!!!! 🤔 kinda a random thought not really but would you consider ace and sebek to be like? RIVALS? or to have a strong dislike towards eachother compared to other first years/students? 🤔🤔 haven’t read much sebek stuff or book 7 so maybe it’s just the way I interpret things……..

🤔🤔 for me at least I feel like ace brings up sebek especially a handful of times? and to bash on him too or at least poke fun at him. can’t think of a lot off the top of my head but in ace’s birthday jacket vignette he picks at sebek specifically when going thru dorm choices. WHICH LIKE……. I DUNNO ITS GIVING VERY “I BEEF W HIM” VIBES. I figured it could just be because he’s a fellow first year but ?? jack or epel don’t get mentioned when he was talking about their dorms so i’m not sure 🤔

👁️👁️ but I wanna hear your take on it!!! are ace and sebek ACTUALLY beefing or was it all just a headcanon??? 😭😭 hopefully I didn’t yap too much. btw

Sorry for the lack of screenshots; I don’t own all the relevant cards in EN and didn’t want to include screenshots sporadically 💦

But!! I did my best to cite where I’m pulling my information from (main story, vignettes, etc.) and directly quote from the official localization. Hope that’s okay!

I mean… Sebek is pretty much always pissing off his peers because of the condescending way he talks to them. It’s no wonder why he rubs people the wrong way. As for Ace, he has indicated that he finds Sebek to be a pain in the ass. I don’t know if I would personally call it “beefing” though?? I see it more as Ace just wants Sebek to shut up and chill out (though Sebek would definitely shout at Ace and fight him) 😂

Point is, I don’t see Sebek having a particular disdain for Ace (he is abrasive toward everyone), but I do see Ace having a particular dislike for Sebek. They aren’t “rivals” in the same way that Ace and Deuce are, as Ace and Sebek don’t really compete for anything or get into many instances of bickering—at least not from what we see. That might just be a product of Sebek being formally introduced later than the other first years, but even counting vignettes and event interactions, it’s still pretty one-sided; often we see Ace commenting on Sebek but not the other way around.

According to Ace in 7-11, he knows Sebek because they’re in the same Magic Analysis/Enigmics (EN writes this class as both of these so it can get confusing) elective. He also implies (in 7-34) sharing other electives with Sebek. This means Ace has regular direct experience with Sebek compared to the other first years (except maybe Deuce?)… ie more opporunities to be annoyed by Sebek’s arrogant loner attitude.

Ace reports (again, in 7-34) that “[Sebek] insults people like, all the time. He even says stuff right to my face when we're in the same group, like, 'Don't you dare slow me down, human!' And he always finds some way to make every subject about Malleus, then drones on and on about how great he is." In regards to those intense feelings about Malleus, Ace says "[Sebek] takes it to a whole other level [...] I can see why people would idolize [Malleus]. But, like, you don't have to make it your entire personality, y'know?" Ace repeats these ideas in his Birthday Boy vignettes. “[Sebek]’s always yelling something or other about his precious Malleus. Oh yeah, and he talks down to us for being human. Dude's a total fae fanboy.”

In Sebek's School Uniform vignette, Sebek yells at Ace for running in the halls. Ace responds by calling him an "uptight nag" whose yelling will disturb other students. Ace also points out how pathetic Sebek comes across as after witnessing him trip over himself to apologize to Malleus. “Dude, nothing you say's gonna impress anyone after that sorry sight.” When Ace tries to leave the scene to make it to class, Sebek shouts at him. “You wait just a minute! I'm not finished! COME BACK HERE!” It should be noted that Ace is someone who always tries to find shortcuts or ways to get out of work whereas Sebek is strict and diligent. Their mindsets and values naturally clash.

This, I think, is a very good summary of most people's problems with Sebek. Ace is just saying what's on everyone's mind--and this makes sense for Ace's character, as he has consistently been the type of guy to call others out. He also encourages Yuu to do the same (in his Birthday Boy vignettes). This detail at least implies Ace finds it amusing on occasion to tease Sebek for his shortcomings.

We see Sebek’s behavior in class for ourselves in his Dorm Uniform vignettes. Ace actually appears in them too, remarking that Sebek is a “loudmouth”. This is something he echoes in his Birthday Boy vignettes; “Loudmouth doesn't even begin to describe him.” When Sebek starts arguing with his group members (some mobs) and refusing to work with them while simultaneously extolling Malleus, Ace says “Here we go again with Sebek and his ‘liege’… Man, imagine being grouped with that guy who […] All he had to do was play nice and let [the mob students] help. He CHOSE to make things harder. How does that guy even function in society?” Side note: In Ace’s Suitor Suit vignettes, he calls Sebek the “number-one worst contender” for a groom. Ace clearly thinks Sebek is unfriendly and annoying in areas extending beyond academics or school life. This is, of course, in addition to Ace finding his loud voice grating.

Later in the same vignettes, Ace and Deuce are forced to sit close to Sebek in the crowded cafeteria. Sebek insists to Lilia that his classes are going well, to which Ace starts snickering and reveals the truth: “Dude... No problems whatsoever? You've got nothing BUT problems, bro! Haha!” Deuce pitches in: “He got into a loud argument with some classmates during our defensive magic lesson. He called his groupmates ‘burdens’ and insisted on doing their entire project by himself.” Ace then says Sebek must think highly of himself and gets annoyed when his words are taken literally. “Do you not understand sarcasm either?” He tells Sebek to fix his attitude, but it doesn’t seem to work. Ace sighs and says he’s just wasting his breath on this.

Sebek’s Dorm Uniform vignettes illustrate Sebek’s general struggles to get along with all of his classmates, not just Ace or Ace specifically. Deuce notably also calls Sebek out for causing trouble for his peers, even stating “[…] as an aspiring honor student, I can't condone your behavior. Having confidence is fine and all, but you shouldn't make things harder for others. That's just being obnoxious.” Sebek pisses off the other first years in 7-34 too, calling them “shallow” and making a terrible first impression. Ace, who is also present, says that no one wants to be chummy with him anyway—not if he’s going to act like that.

In conclusion, Ace has explained his rationale for disliking Sebek many times over. Rather than saying Ace has a problem with Sebek, I think it would be more accurate to say that Ace has a problem with Sebek and is simply relaying the opinions that everyone else holds directly to Sebek’s face. (He gets annoyed that Sebek takes none of it to heart though.) As for the other party, Sebek chides Ace no differently than he would anyone else stepping out of line, not appreciating Malleus, or… just existing as a human 💀 He doesn’t seem to have issues with Ace other than his lax attitude (which could also apply to many other characters such as Leona).

In my opinion, Ace and Sebek are not rivals (at least not major ones), nor do they have specific beef with each other outside of one-off instances or whenever Ace is in the mood to lay down The Truth and embarrass Sebek. I see Ace and Deuce as your classic rivals and Sebek as like… a villain of the week who cameos here and there after his first appearance to cause shenanigans.

[rayclubs]

Which tf2 merc do you think gets mischaracterized the least?

Good question! Let's do a rating.

In my opinion, there are three aspects to characterizing someone.

Facts - you have to get basic character backstory right. This includes all objective canon truths, events, and, well, facts about said character.

Behavior - you need to understand how the character acts, how their interpersonal relationships function, what they're like in their day-to-day life. This is the nitty-gritty of fanfic and fanart, this is dialogue, line-to-line characterization.

Integrity - you need to understand the character's core beliefs and principles, what their values are and how they view the world around them. This isn't something you can easily quote or point to as a mistake in fanfic, it's more of an overall idea of a character.

Each of these is going to be worth up to three points, with zero for terrible characterization that gets everything wrong. This would ideally total to nine points. I'll be awarding an additional bonus point for character interpretation that doesn't make me scream "he would not fucking say that". Let's go.

Scout:

His backstory is fairly simple. He has an absent father, half a dozen siblings, and a crush on his boss who doesn't reciprocate. People mostly get this right, except they also call him a virgin despite the fact he canonically lands the fried chicken queen, and seems to do it with ease. 2/3.

His behavior is also mostly portrayed accurately, in that he's loud, obnoxious, self-absorbed, and can be kind of a dick, though not completely without endearing qualities. The fandom is, admittedly, guilty of making him more insecure and self-conscious than he actually is, to amp up the drama. 2/3.

His core values, however, are completely off. The main interpretations I see of him are "depressed Scout", "homophobic Scout", and "baby Scout", neither of which is true to his character. This is a grown man with a force-a-nature complex. The homophobia is just projection and internalized prejudice, but that phenomena is too complicated for me to dissect here. I talked about it before and might make another post later. Anyway, 0/3.

Scout does not get a bonus point. He would not fucking say "poggers" but he would say "daddy-o".

Overall characterization score: 4/10

Soldier:

Very little is known about Soldier's backstory so there isn't really any room to be wrong about it. What we do know is also vague and unreliable, so it's open to interpretation. Given how little room for error there is, I'll give him a 3/3.

His behavior is completely off in most cases, often shown to either be overly aggressive or so dumb you start to question how this man functions in his day-to-day life. Canon Soldier has plenty of endearingly stupid moments but a lot of them can be read as deadpan jokes on the character's part, and many turn out to be secretly clever moments, such as him infiltrating the robot base with a goofy cardboard disguise. Likewise, canon Soldier has plenty of aggressive and mean moments, but he's not cruel and very clearly not a threat to his teammates, which isn't captured at all in fanworks that decide to go that way. 0/3.

Soldier's core ideals are mostly captured well, as in - yeah, he calls people communist as an insult in fanfics. I feel like he should mention God more often than he does in fanon, it's, like, one of the two ideologically meaningful things he ever talks about. The importance of "America" as a concept to him is mostly preserved but left unexplored. 2/3.

Soldier does not get a bonus point, he would not fucking say [homophobic slur] yet here we fucking are.

Overall characterization score: 5/10

Pyro:

His backstory is nonexistent yet people still fuck it up. His technical knowledge is clearly extensive and impressive, as shown by the complexity of his weaponry - which, mind you, looks HAND MADE - but people treat him as if he's altogether incompetent and maniacally stupid all the time always. He also ran an engineering company for hell knows how long and people just forget about it because they're allergic to adults or something. God this pisses me off so much. I mean for fuck's sake, people act like his full job description is "Pyromaniac" and not "Pyrotechnician". I'm so tired. 0/3.

His day-to-day characterization and dialogue is also completely off. People treat him as if he's INCAPABLE of communication, make him obsess over childish things he's only shown a moderate liking to in a manner that's borderline creepy and insulting, and take away his whole entire agency in everything he ever does. I will literally not give y'all a single point, you do my man Pyro so dirty. 0/3.

His ideology is complex and vague in canon, and I don't blame people for getting confused by such things as Pyrovision, but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. In my time on Ao3 I've seen animal Pyro, cryptid Pyro, monster Pyro, alien Pyro, evil mindless maniac Pyro, incompetent baby Pyro, nonbinary Pyro (HENCE MY PROBLEM WITH THE HEADCANON, do you see how it looks next to all these other interpretations?) but I've rarely, if ever, seen competent adult Pyro with actual hopes and dreams and agency. 0/3.

Pyro does not get a bonus point because he would not fucking say "uwu" but he would say "fuck", let Pyro say fuck.

Overall characterization score: 0/10 are you fucking surprised

Demoman:

Oh poor lad what have they done to you. So, Demo's backstory is arguably the most detailed and fleshed-out in the entire canon. Too bad nobody fucking read it. Admittedly, in the recent years I've seen people mostly manage to remember he has several jobs and is overall a competent and successful man, but it's rarely - if ever - explored, I've seen exactly one fic where the author bothered to explore what one of his other jobs might be (and it was not a good fic for many other reasons, don't ask me for a link), and it honestly feels like people don't want to dwell on it? Like, they mostly mention it to fill a quota, y'know? Here, I'm not racist, I've acknowledged one of this character's achievements, leave me alone. Also the subject of him being fucking adopted as a kid never comes up. 0/3.

His day-to-day characterization suffers a lot because people think alcoholism is the most morally repugnant thing that can ever happen to a human being. This man honestly barely even has a presence in the fics he's in. Are you wondering where Demo is? Well, he wasn't there! He was BUSY! He couldn't come! There is a handful of writers who bother to write his actual inner monologue and point of view, and this point goes out to them only. Also there was a pretty good Boots and Bombs fic in which Demo was a dick to Soldier but then got better, and it stuck with me. 1/3.

His core character is fucked up by fandom because he's either all flaws or not allowed to have any flaws, and there's no in-between. Ever since I joined the fandom I've seen a lot of critique floating around, and people mostly seem to listen and realize they've been mistreating the man for long enough, but it created a whole separate problem of Perfect Demoman which is bland and boring. People don't want to write an offensive caricature but don't feel like fleshing him out either, so they just make him great at everything and never let him fail and grown in ways that are meaningful. Except that one fic I mentioned earlier, but I've already awarded a point for that. 0/3.

Demo does not get a bonus point. I couldn't find a meaningful example of bad dialogue because, like I said, he has no presence in any of the fics he's in. He would fucking say something.

Overall characterization score: 1/10 and honestly it's too generous on my part.

Heavy:

Okay so Heavy's backstory really confuses people. I've got like a dozen asks in my inbox when I called his father a revolutionary AND a counter-revolutionary. Wait till I call him a royalist, it'll blow your tits clean off. I don't feel like explaining the history of the communist regime in the USSR on this post, let's just say people are mostly faithful to canon but don't really "get" Heavy. 2/3.

His day-to-day characterization is plain bad. He's treated like a mother hen to the mercs when he's more of a stoic friend with a mean streak and a crude sense of humor. I think the main problem is the dialogue, people just can't give him the dignity of speaking in an intelligent manner. It's honestly also pretty bad in the comics. 1/3.

His core ideals are fine, if oversimplified. He's not a complicated man, he loves his family, his guns and his doctor. People rarely give him any more depth than that but it's not offensive to his character or anything. I feel like he should have more political opinions than people give him. I also feel like people make him way more protective of Zhanna's romantic pursuits, to a creepy degree. I mean, yes, he's annoyed by her marrying Soldier, and seems horrified for a brief second, but it's not like he's against it or anything, he's just kinda surprised? Anyway, 2/3.

Heavy does not get a bonus point because he would not fucking say "da". Pizda.

Overall characterization score: 5/10

Engineer:

Yeah people mostly get him. He's got 11 Ph. Ds. Some treat him like he grew up as an actual cowboy or something but most remember he's a nerd. I'd actually give all the points here because Engie's backstory is NOT complicated. 3/3.

His dialogue and day-to-day characterization is also okay, though people really mellow him down a lot. I had a bit in one of my fics where he said something like "let's teach those sumbitches how the real killin' is done" and like three different people commented on it saying they liked or were surprised by his mean energy. It's not even that mean, I think it kinda shows my problem with his interpretation. 2/3.

I asked about mischaracterization once and a lot of people replied "Engie is the most mischaracterized because people treat him like he's good but he's actually evil" which I think pretty much covers it? It's hard to write someone who is not implicitly strictly good or strictly evil. Engie treads this balance really well, I'm actually convinced his demeanor is not a facade, he is nice at times and mean when he wants to be. Fanon Engie can only be one of two things and neither is right. 0/3.

Engie gets a bonus point as an exception. I actually can't tell why, people just have his voice on-point. Is his accent and manner of speaking really that easy for you? I struggle to write him a lot. I think he should say "bitch" more.

Overall characterization score: 6/10

Medic:

People focus on the fact he lost his medical license more than on the fact he HAD a medical license in the first place. Other than that he really doesn't have a backstory. I dislike that people try to give him a sad one, I think he grew up loved and maybe even a little spoiled, but I can't fault others for not following my headcanons, so. 2/3.

His dialogue is the WORST because it's written phonetically. His goofy yet self-confident energy isn't captured well at all. The best I can put this is "people wife him" but it sounds kinda mysogynistic so really I'm at a loss. Submissivepilled breedablemaxxer. 0/3.

His core values are also all over the place. The complicated thing about writing Medic is that he actually doesn't come with pre-packaged drama. His backstory is vague, his demeanor is optimistic, his vibes are fun, and the worst thing that happened to him in canon was working with the classics for a bit - people amp it up to squeeze hurt out of it, which is fine, but not many people actually like going there. Thing is, fanfic writers aren't that good at writing drama when it hasn't been established before. They have to warp his character, make him edgy, self-conscious, or plain mad evil without redeeming qualities. I remember really struggling with my big Medic fic because I wanted it to be dramatic but had to put a lot of work into actually building up the emotion, because Medic is fine. He's fine. He's alright. He's fine. He's doing well. 0/3.

Medic does NOT get a bonus point, he would not fucking say "babygirl" and I'm not even sure if he would say "yass queen slay" I'm SORRY

Overall characterization score: 2/10

Sniper:

People mostly get his backstory right, probably because it's the most well-explained in the comics and it gets the most "screentime". It's also literally a Superman parody which is funny and memorable in concept. 3/3.

People can't find a good balance between stoic professionalism and social anxiety. I think Sniper is actually pretty simple, in that he's a little self-conscious which pushes him to actively better himself as a professional, but also makes him a little awkward so he comes across as standoffish and a little mean. He's a solid bloke that's balanced and feels real. Fandom has to go for the extreme every goddamn time with him. It sucks. 0/3.

People kind of get his drama, his relationship with his family and whatnot - mostly because a lot of us losers can relate, I bet - but, again, go for the extreme in making him anxious, whiny, and sad as a wet kitten. Unless it's a porn fic in which case he's an absolute freak that growls at people. I don't know what it is about Sniper that makes him so difficult to characterize. Manic pixie dream boy. Dark and moody lover love me like no other. 0/3.

Sniper does NOT get a bonus point because he doesn't say "cunt" nearly as often as he should. Also send me asks about my Sniper takes I want to stir up some shit.

Overall characterization score: 3/10.

Spy:

The only piece of his backstory we actually know is that he fathered the blight of the earth that is Scout TF2. 3/3.

His obnoxious and insufferable demeanor is mostly captured well. A lot of his portrayals aren't nearly as classy as people think they are, but that's because most authors are themselves proletarian, myself included, which is fine. Not many make the effort to pepper his speech with French words it would actually be natural for him to say, and blame it on the nonsensical complexity of the French language, but I'm not buying it as an excuse. 2/3.

His core values are off in regards to Scout - he's often portrayed as soft, mellow, overbearing, and critical of Scout's love life to either a comical or an uncomfortable degree. His fandom portrayal often also lacks the self-confidence he's demonstrated in the comics. Spy is not above strangling a man with a chain that holds the shackles around his ankles, he wouldn't consider it a blow to his dignity to fuck any of his coworkers either, come on. He's also funny and goofy but the fandom tends to neglect that. 1/3.

Spy does not get a bonus point because he would not say "perchance" but he would say "your mother".

Overall characterization score: 6/10

The final scores are:

Spy - 6/10

Engineer - 6/10

Heavy - 5/10

Soldier - 5/10

Scout - 4/10

Sniper - 3/10

Medic - 2/10

Demoman - 1/10

Pyro - 0/10

There we go! Pyro is the most mischaracterized, Demoman is a close second, and nobody is characterized well. Cheers!

[myfandomrealitea]

I really wanted to ask you about this:

Do you have any advice of how to develop critical thinking and media literacy?

There are many, many ways you can practice critical thinking, evaluation and media literacy. At its most basic, you can access student resources for lower levels of education like earlier high school years and look at the examples and guidance given there. Rehashing this will often give you a good foundation to build off of and apply.

One of the main aspects of critical thinking involves discerning what is fact and what is opinion. A good portion of media analytics is opinion. What is 'bad' by one person's standards is 'sub-par' or even 'great' by another's. Similarly, the majority of fandom space is opinion-based. The main pitfall of fandom spaces is that everyone wants their opinion to be taken as fact, which is where critical thinking and even basic communication begin to fall away.

"I'm right and you're wrong" and "this is the way it should be, if you do it or think differently, you're wrong" are common roadblocks people run into when engaging with things like media analysis and even basic fandom activities like fanfiction.

'Mischaracterisation' is fanfiction is one popular topic, especially here on Tumblr. What people often fail to recognize is the true creative depth of fanfiction and using someone else's pre-existing characters. Characters as they are in the source material may not make the choices or behave in the ways necessary to activate or validate certain plot material or author intentions in fanfiction. Which is, inherently, one of the main points of fanfiction. Exploring the alternate.

While you might immediately recoil and say "he'd never do that!" you then have to sit back and recognise that that's exactly the point. That this iteration of that character is not meant to directly reflect the source material. Its a re-imagining, a re-interpretation. That doesn't mean its bad. Its simply different.

'Mischaracterisation' is only actually applicable in fandom spaces when someone is trying to insist as a blanket fact that a character would do something or behave in a way that blatantly contradicts their canon behavior, opinions, morals and perspective or deliberately interpreting an action in biased bad faith. It is not actually applicable to fanfiction where creative liberty dictates you can do whatever the fuck you want with a character because you're not trying to claim it as part of the source content.

Questions To Ask Yourself

Am I reacting to [media] emotionally instead of rationally? Is my emotional response to [media] blinding me to the rational or critical approach(es)?

Am I allowing my expectations to get in the way of me understanding [media] fully? Am I forming a biased negative opinion of [media] because it isn't meeting my expectations?

Even if I disagree with [media], do I actually understand it? Can I recognise the reasoning behind choices made or actions even if I don't agree with them?

Am I searching too hard to hidden meaning or purpose in absolutely everything? Can I recognise what is simply passive information/detail and what is active information/detail? (E.g; English tutors saying a character's curtains are blue because they're depressed when throughout the literature its passively reinforced that blue is the character's favorite color.)

Even though I disagree with the statement or opinion shown, is it necessary to argue against it? Is there any benefit to making my counter-opinion known or is it simply a no-end argument? Am I just using arguing as a means of release/fulfilment? Am I treating this person poorly because of their opinion/statement?

Resources

Critical Thinking Exercises & Explanations #1 The Critical Thinking Activity Workbook Early Stage Critical Thinking Games Five Media Literacy Activities Six Media Literacy Ideas

[madelynhimegami]

Sig Guide

That this was finished on Crimmus was basically a coincidence, but honestly I've put it off for long enough. accompanying image is in Puyo 20th style instead of my normal style because this continues to be the best Sig I've ever drawn.

Also, your regular reminder that these posts are not intended to be the absolute truth of these characters, but based on my observations of them in official media. You are encouraged to re-interpret as you see fit.

Sig is a tired boy that doesn't want (and doesn't want to be) trouble.

He's actually a transfer student that relocated to Primp between Fever 1 and Fever 2.

What prompted his transfer is currently unknown.

When I say he's a tired boy, I mean he is tired. He moves and acts and speaks like he just rolled out of bed. He has similar levels of energy, too (read: not much).

Sig doesn't really talk a whole lot. Just enough to get straight to the point, when he can be assed to speak up in the first place. And when he does, it's usually pretty simple. In Japanese, he speaks with the simplest possible grammer using the simplest and fewest number of words.

Still, Amitie once pointed out that Sig's not the type to say something he doesn't mean. If he decides to speak up, it's to say something that he feels is important enough.

All that said, he can infodump very extensively about bugs when he's properly incentivised to.

As you might guess, his entomology knowledge is very extensive. He can rattle off scientific names of whatever bug he's got in front of him (and then some, a lot of some) from memory.

When he's especially engaged in infodumping, he actually speaks quickly and uses bigger words. In Japanese, he even says complete sentences!

Speaking of how he speaks in Japanese, Sig is unique among the cast-- and most people that speak the language in general-- to never use a personal pronoun/identifier. If he absolutely has to refer to himself in a way to make himself clear-- for example, "stay away from me"-- he'll say "right here" instead.

He struggles with studying, unless the subject is bugs.

Sig seems to really want to discover a new species of bug-- or, failing that, extensively study the behaviors of a bug that isn't as well-documented.

He can sleep pretty much anywhere. And while standing. He can even fall asleep with his eyes still open if he can't be bothered to close them.

Apparently his antennae actually are antennae. At the very least, they aren't just part of his hair.

His red left arm is not only bigger than his right arm, it's also much physically stronger. Careless use can cause injury to others.

It's also slowly getting redder. This is generally interpreted by fans to mean that the red part is spreading to more of his body.

Sig is very bothered by his red arm. The idea that it may spread all over his body (even as a joke) visibly stresses him out.

The soul that sticks out of his body seems to be visible to others. Sig may or may not be able to see it himself, though.

I've seen it interpreted by more than one person that it means he's dissociating. Makes sense to me, honestly.

Sig is has the ability to commune with other worlds. Part of that means he can interact with extraplanar entities around him.

Sig isn't lazy or apathetic, he's just tired and needs to be properly motivated to step up.

He actually knows Raffina and Klug's names, he just gets the former wrong and calls the latter "Glasses" as his way of teasing.

Teasing aside, he dislikes actively causing trouble, even going as far as to not communicate what he's struggling with so it won't become somebody else's problem.

(He's gotten a little better about it, but…)

His main method of coping is to just ignore the problem. If he acts like he doesn't care, neither will anybody else.

His secondary coping method is to stay far away from the something causing him trouble. And if he's the trouble, he isolates himself.

Sig enjoys banter, whether it be watching or participating. It's fun to see his friends bounce off each other.

Of course, sometimes he'll say something weird while not actually engaging in banter. He's just on his own train of thought. Or genuinely not paying attention. He might be too tired to try.

(this extends to getting Raffina's name wrong. Sometimes he genuinely can't be bothered to say it correctly)

He doesn't really try bantering with Lidelle, though. He tends to keep himself fairly grounded around her.

It seems that Lidelle does like to learn about bugs from Sig, especially butterflies.

He claims that Lemres gives him a bad feeling. What kind and for what reason isn't clear.

Sig's normal laugh is just him saying "ha ha ha ha" in his monotone. Despite it sounding that way, it's not fake.

(He also has a soft, more genuine-sounding giggle when he sees or hears something especially funny. As far as we know, only Amitie has heard it)

He genuinely does want to help people, especially his friends. He'll take more initiative when he's decided he's capable of helping.

Sig does not take kindly to acts of cruelty and will bite back at people that hurt others.

He also considers violence towards bugs acts of cruelty, whether it be feeding them to animals or using them as material components.

He once tried to hype Amitie up the same way she does to others. Energy-wise, it was still very Siggish, but he found it embarrassing to do.

Like Amitie, Sig often has supplementary classes after normal school hours. He's not especially happy about it.

Sig can think quickly on his feet in the face of immediately-impending danger, letting him fast-talk his way out of it. We saw this in the second Tetris 1 dream story, when he managed to trick Schezo into not taking his arm.

Speaking of which, him saying that he has bugs live in his left arm was a translation mess-up. In Japanese, he claimed that he was holding a bunch of bugs clutched in that hand. He then basically tells Schezo, "no backsies," so to me it sounds like he was bluffing to creep out the creeper.

[charmac]

forgive me if i get anything wrong with what i say; i only very recently finished my first watchthrough of iasip and much more recently started interacting with the fandom.

out of curiosity, is there a general consensus on how the fandom views the possibility of macdennis being canon? it feels like scrolling through tumblr and other social media there’s people who are in love with the idea of it being canon and those who abhor it, along with everything in between. reading through your previous ask, for me it begs the question: is there any reason why sunny fans or macdennis enthusiasts would discourage the idea of the ship actually being canon?

Nothing incorrect with what you've said; great question. And the funny thing is it's so confusing because there isn’t really a (good) answer as to how the fandom as a whole views the “possibility” of canon Macdennis, because there isn’t a general consensus on whether they should be/are considered canon already.

I think, to some extent, almost everyone has their own micro interpretations on Macdennis being canon or not based on what already exists between the two of them, though there are two undeniable facts: It’s canon that Mac is in love with Dennis and it is canon that Dennis (as Johnny) knowingly became Mac’s boyfriend this season. For a chunk of people, that is canon Macdennis; for others, it’s not canon until they’re in an official relationship, and for most (?) it's an in-between that leads to micro labels and conditional sentences before and after the word "canon"

For the sake of your question, I'm going to split the difference and say "Canon Macdennis" is an undeniably-reciprocal, on-screen hook-up. And why would Macdennis shippers not want that?

In my experience, I tend to see three main/popular explanations as to why:

RCG cannot write it. This is the most simple and maybe least popular (?) reason of the three that I see. The argument being that, whether they have the inability to or people believe they don't have the right to, R(C)G as cishet (allegedly) men can't write or act a canon queer relationship in a way that would be conducive to the characters, a gay ship, and/or the show, and therefore they should not write it at all. Don't trust it = don't want it.

It will permanently alter Mac and Dennis' dynamic. This is the most based (in canon) reason as to why people don't want Mac and Dennis to more-explicitly hook up. Their current dynamic (which has arguably existed this way since before MADBU) has always been pseudo-sexual, toeing the line of "are they fucking..?" for over fifteen years. It is true that Mac and Dennis hooking up, both fully conscious and aware that the hook up is happening with each other, will alter their relationship in a way (that's potentially destroying). There's no going back once Dennis' acts on the sexual tension between them with Mac fully aware of it happening, and some people don't think on-screen gay shit is worth ruining what they currently have. Some people are satisfied with the ambiguously sexual edging of these middle aged men and don't want Canon Macdennis because, for however it's written, there's no way to have them hook-up while retaining the unique ambiguity of their sexual relationship. Don't rock the boat.

Macdennis' current relationship is too toxic and canonising them would be unenjoyable. This reason is probably the most popular but definitely the least based (to the point of canon), stemming from the fact that a chunk of the fandom only likes Macdennis based on flanderised characterisation. If you haven't encountered this (as it's really mostly on Twitter) there are people who ship Macdennis only in fanon (either they found out about the ship through edits, fanart, fics, whatever) and they dislike the toxicity of their canon relationship (and the general idea that the Gang are bad people). Macdennis in this sense is treated more as if it were a typical sitcom ship, where the idea is that they finally hook-up, become boyfriends, and (mostly) happy together. Knowing the actual nature of the show, however, they understand RCG would never "let them be happy" and thus believe Canon Macdennis would suck to watch and would only ruin fanon Macdennis. Fanon > Canon.

I know people out there have other reasons for not wanting Canon Macdennis (i.e. Rob is too ugly to be kissing Glenn), and surely some combine a number of these reasons, but I think these three encompass the majority of what you may be seeing from anti-canon Macdennis shippers.

And I am actually interested in finding out where the divide lies over this, honestly! Right now I would predict the majority of the fandom here would like Canon Macdennis, point blank... but maybe I'm wrong.

[eri-pl]

It will be chaotic, because I can't force myself to make a structured post about it, I don't know why. Also sorry if my autocorrect does something stupid, I'm writing on the phone.

So, the Legendarium and causality, and good deeds, bad deeds and their results. This is the main topic of this post.

Is this post about the Legendarium? About real life? Both? Well, it surely is about the Legendarium, but not only. It's fuzzy. One of the things I like with tolkien is that such discussions get fuzzy and thinking about the books gives me insights about life.

There is a rule which I try to follow when writing or even planning something more serious (in the Legendarium context, but in general too, unless specifically going for a genre that's different): if a long-term success (in something that matters) is achieved by doing something morally wrong, those conditions must be fulfilled (not necessarily all clearly written out, but I must at least have a vague idea):

1. It could have been achieved in a good way, and it wouldn't be lesser. Or it wasn't really that important. (Because I refuse to accept "necessary evil")

2. Either something bad came out of it, or someone has to put effort into it not happening. I'm not sure how to explain it better (see later about handling other people's bad choices)... Anyway this makes the story feel more satisfying, more interesting.

3. How much of 2 is needed is proportional to how bad the thing was. Also if the character couldn't be expected to know much better, point 2 is less intense, though it's often still more interesting to have it.

I wonder how close to canon is this rule. Anyway I like it. Also, I tend to assume at least 1 when interpreting the canon, which likely influences my opinion about the Feanorians and the whole Silmaril business.

I'm not saying this is a 100% rule in real life, or even a technically 100% rule in te Legendarium, because omniscience is tricky… but it is a good rule in writing, I think, and even more so it definitely is a good rule in approaching decisions. If something can't work in a moral way, it won't work anyway or is not worth it. Nothing really worthy can be permanently lost by making the right choice. And so on.

It seems like there would be a symmetrical rule of good deeds not resulting in bad events but then we have the Children of Hurin. And what did Hurin do wrong? I have no idea.

But then, the Men are generally... And you could also look at Maedhros, but then, the exiled Noldor, and SoF in particular are also, hmm, I think "marred" is the word I should use here.

Still, I really prefer if there is something good coming of from good deeds, even distant and not seen by the person doing the good deeds.

Also, there seems to be is another rule, it's outright said. Things always turn out into a good ending, and you can either go with it or fall under it.

Example: gollum. He could have cooperated and jumped with the Ring willingly. He chose to betray Frodo, fell with the Ring anyway.

You also can, obviously, do a creative mix of going along and falling under. (Must I say: the two oldest Feanorians, it is this obvious?)

And falling under makes things more difficult for everyone, not just the person doing it.

Darn, I made this sound ugly and tyrannical. It's not. But I remember when I would say it is, and I can't explain why it is not. It's kinda like when you do a weird thing with your eye muscles and start seeing double. It's just not. I just can't explain it in a way this deserves. My apologies.

Anyway, bad choices make things difficult for everyone. Because we are connected to each other. I've already made a post about it long time ago, but generally...

Maybe if Saruman wasn't such a jerk weed have a Sauron redemption. (Maybe, it's always a maybe)

Maybe if Maglor didn't take pity on the twins, Númenor would fall much earlier and Sauron would be more successful. And so on and do forth.

It's always a maybe, and nobody determines anybody else's choices, but still, we do impact each other. It's hard to think about, because it's over if the places where a) it's worth to try b) there's no guarantee of anything... (Which are most places, I guess). Both on the Silm and in life, people are interconnected. But also everyone is responsible for their decisions.

It's hard to not blame characters (or people) too much. It's hard... In general it's wonderful but difficult, the whole concept.

And another thing tired to this very closely, tied to the interconnectedness (is this a word?) is unearned suffering and Hurin and Nienor and Miriel (both tbh) and Feanor back before he was a jerk and many others.

Sometimes we get the outcome of someone else's bs without even consenting to it. Why? I suppose it's because the connectedness is now important than "not getting random bs thrown in your life". Maybe. Probably. I'm not wise, ok? I'm not sure it's my heart, but something's telling me it's something like this reason.

And what can we do

Argue. Rebel. Just take it. There are many things we can do. I'm not going to go on a rant about what Feanor (or Finwe) should have done and so on because I don't want dfw and others to have a bad time listening to me criticizing their guy, and also I wasn't in his position so I shouldn't be ranting. I should go rant at myself or something.

But the things aren't going to solve themselves or disappear. So yes, just taking it is a very noble and beautiful thing to do (and hard as... Idk what's hard. A Silmaril is hard, I guess)

Because it's so very infuriating when someone else's bs lands on your head.

Oh how I wish I could handle it better.

Back to the Legendarium. Someone handling it better generally yields results, see: the Long Peace. And probably many other situations.

And of course there are situations when the bs you have to handle is your own and if you don't handle it, it will fall of everyone else's heads. This doesn't necessarily make it easier to handle. :( Sometimes someone helps, and that's nice.

Yet another question is how realistic a book should be.

Should it portray lots of undeserved suffering, of badly handled undeserved suffering (CoH), because it's part of life? Should it portray hope triumphing against reason (B&L, and remember that Beren was just as much a Man as Turin was), to give people an escape?

I think (maybe it's rather obvious) that we need both, because depending on personality and circumstances, we need both validation and acknowledgement of our pain, and hope that things can be better. Both kinds of stories are necessary.

It may sound untrue, and sometimes I wish I was a kind of person who can live with only hopeful stories, because the day ones are what I need when I'm not doing well— but no. We do need both, at least in terms of "what most of the story consists of". We need ways to express pain without an immediate answer.

It's a sad song.

But we're gonna sing it anyway.

Until we finally get it right and the sad parts start making sense.

And let's not even get into "sad stories where people mess their lives up so much because that's how freedom works, yes, they can do that" because I have absolutely no idea what to say about those.

[tenrousei-kuroi]

Hi. I was just wondering how do you perceive canon Sirius? I haven’t read any of the books and I keep seeing different interpretations (psychotic bully top, Regina George, woke gen z etc etc) of this character it really makes me wonder.

Oh, that's a really good question...and you have no idea the novel-length response it's going to prompt from me, lol.

I'll give my short response first and only the brave and masochistic will need to venture below the cut...

Sirius was as good a person as most people can reasonably be. He suffered a lot in his life and didn't handle it very well. While he showed that he logically understood right and wrong, the moral complexity of the world, etc., he was ultimately someone who struggled to live by his own standards. A hypocrite, really, though I say that word a bit more softly than most. He spent half his life in prison for a crime he didn't commit yet still felt guilty for and was never really given the chance to properly mature.

Ultimately the words I would use would be immature, depressed, selfish, and regretful. Very much the poster child for displacement, ie: someone who has been hurt taking that anger and acting out towards others.

We learn directly who Sirius is after Azkaban, through his appearances in the first five books. And we learn indirectly about his Hogwarts years through a few flashbacks and lot of very biased recollections...

Because Harry Potter is the point of view character for the series, we don't ever get to see anyone else's thoughts, and so any interpretations of character motivations are going to get run through two filters: one is Harry's perception, and the second is the reader themselves.

That's a longform way of me admitting that my interpretations of Sirius Black may actually say more about me than they really do about him.

So I can't claim to be right or anything like that when I spout off how I personally feel about a secondary character like Sirius. But I do like to think my ideas are grounded in pretty solid logic. I guess I'll start off with what Sirius Black really isn't:

A woke gen z-er, as you put it lol. There's of course nothing wrong with someone going this route in their fanfics, it's all just for fun, and I like a lot of these works, personally. And I can see how and why people gravitate towards them. But I will warn anyone whose entire experience with the Marauders is coming from fanfics where Sirius Black is helping Timothee Chalamet his brother navigate his trans awaking and calming his lover Remus Lupin down from a panic attack using Tik-Tok approved counseling tricks to not go diving into the actual canon Harry Potter series expecting that....because you will not find it, lol.

An incestuous and abusive psychopath. I gotta' be fair and throw my own works under the same bus here. As much as I think I stick closer to canon Sirius in a lot of ways....the Sirius that pops up in my fanfic shenanigans is just as out of left field. As much as Sirius/Regulus has been my OTP for basically forever, I could never actually see canon-Sirius displaying the level of deliberate, active cruelty or complete lack of basic morality that I like to attach to him. Like other people giving him the vocabulary of a 2020's Tik-Tok star, it's just a fun fantasy on my end.

So I guess that leaves us with trying to figure out what exactly Sirius Black is. At least as far as we can surmise from his canon behaviors.

Full disclosure that I am not including Pottermore or any of JKR's random tweets. As far as I'm concerned, canon is the 7 main books and I don't pay attention to much else. So let's break it down book-by-book:

Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone: He's mentioned once here, just in passing. Hagrid talks about Sirius lending him his motorcycle to get Harry to the Dursleys' faster. With the context we later gain from book three, we can plausibly assume that Sirius Black is incredibly reactive, and quick to go all-in on things in the wake of a huge emotional upset. With his friends dead and Hagrid refusing to give him his godson, Sirius essentially 'throws away' his most prized possession and only getaway--his motorcycle--and then goes away with the Aurors, laughing loudly instead of trying to proclaim his innocence.

Prisoner of Azkaban: This is Sirius's book and he spends 80% of it as the villain, at least until the Truth(tm) is revealed at the end. But even though he's proven not to be a Death Eater or murderer, he still behaves alarmingly. It's explained that Sirius's innocence was the 'unhappy' thought that kept him sane in prison, but it didn't stop him from becoming obsessive. He's so consumed with the desire for revenge against Peter Pettigrew (not necessarily saying I blame him, lol) that he is willing to endanger and even outright hurt Harry and his friends to do so. He does make mention that part of his motivation was to 'save Harry' as he felt Peter being in disguise as a rat living at Hogwarts was dangerous to his godson. But he did almost choke the kid out in that shack when he got in the way of Peter Pettigrew Murder Time, lol. So Sirius was somewhat emotionally volatile. It's clear he doesn't always think things through before he acts.

This is further reiterated with the whole Snape-Lupin-James werewolf fun times fiasco. We don't get a direct and honest retelling of "The Prank" events ever, instead having to make due with different characters giving their opinions on decades-old memories. Dumbledore first presents the issue without mentioning Sirius at all, merely telling Harry in the first book that Snape "never forgave" James for saving his life and then trying to pass off all of Snape's behaviors towards Harry as a sort of begrudging protective role and half-assed effort to make even with a ghost. By book three we get more context and learn that James "saved" Snape after Sirius told him how to get to the Shack. Sirius clearly has a habit of razing things down in anger without thought towards the consequences, and then hiding from the responsibility, possibly from selfishness or guilt or both. We know that Remus, Lily and others were able to forgive him for nearly getting Snape killed and Remus imprisoned, so it's likely that his guilt over the situation was genuine.

Basically here we have someone who does not handle emotions well. Possibly an environmentally learned trait from growing up with the kind of parents that burn pictures of you and loudly declare you're not welcome at home anymore yet never actually disown you from their will...can't say for sure, but...ya' know...

Goblet of Fire: After the immediate chaos of breaking out of prison fades and Sirius has a support group of friends who know and believe he's innocent, he gets to transition a bit, and we see that he is also very protective and eager to be involved. He has a couple moments where he goes full Dad-mode on Harry, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Dumbledore finding him a good hiding spot in Hogsmeade was less of a "hey Sirius come hang out near the school" thing and more of an "okay I know I can't stop you from getting as close to Harry as possible, will you please at least stay in this safe hiding spot I found for you?" concession.

We also see Sirius criticizing Barty Crouch Sr. for not being there for his son. Sirius is able to connect the dots and comes to the logical conclusion that much of Barty Crouch Jr.'s behavior is the fault of his father for being uncaring in the first place. He sees that those around the Death Eaters do--in some cases--bear some blame for not paying attention, for not reaching out, and for ultimately setting them up to join Voldemort. Yet...Sirius does not seem willing to connect this realization to his own treatment of Severus Snape, his younger brother, or even Peter Pettigrew.

Order of the Phoenix: This is where we get the most of his character, I feel, and some of it is subtle. I'll admit that 90% of my characterization of Sirius as actually caring deeply for his brother comes from the sixth chapter:

"...my idiot brother, soft enough to believe them..."

...

"Was he killed by an Auror?" Harry asked tentatively.

"Oh no," said Sirius. "No, he was murdered by Voldemort...from what I found out after he died, he got in so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do."

Harry asks if Regulus has been killed. And as Sirius corrects his assumptions about Reg being offed by an Auror, he also corrects the verb, from killed to murdered. And generally you don't describe a just killing as a murder. Death Eater or not, Sirius didn't think his brother deserved to die. He also admits that he went actively looking for information about Regulus. Again not the mark of someone who doesn't care.

And while I would describe Sirius as immature, that does not mean he was completely without maturity. He takes a lot of hits in this book, a lot of very harsh words get flung his way. He has to deal with Snape's constant snide remarks about how cowardly Sirius is for staying at home cleaning all day instead of fighting Voldemort, hell, he has to sit there and let the Weasley twins call him a coward to his face just because they're upset that their father has been injured and they're angry that Sirius is safe under house arrest while their parents aren't.

And all this because he's still a wanted fugitive, unable to venture outside safely. He wants to fight but can't. Powerlessness and depression hit him hard in this book.

In the chapter where Harry dives into Snape's pensieve we get our one and only 'objective' view of Sirius as a teenager, where it becomes clear that he was arrogant, handsome, talented, and very popular. He also liked to start altercations. This is actually our first big fissure between Harry and Sirius, and between Harry and his dad.

While James and Sirius are shown as going out of their way to pick fights with someone they don't like, Harry is such a passive and much more emotionally aware character that this causes significant pain to him. To find out that Sirius and James really were bullies is a big blow to Harry, who would never behave that way. He spent most of his childhood being bullied, after all, and I think that in that memory, Harry realized just how much more he identified with Snape as opposed to his own father and godfather and that really freaked him out.

Not to mention how uncomfortable it is to realize that these "bullies" were people Harry loved. Because once you have to come to terms with finding out someone you respect and love has done something cruel, it leaves your opinions on others shaky. This moment wasn't just about making Harry realize there was a "bad side" to Sirius and James, but also the first step towards helping him understand there may be a good side to people like Dudley Dursley or Draco Malfoy.

Sirius is quick to dismiss his past mistakes, he rarely owns up to them. This doesn't mean he's got no conscience, just that he--once again--does not deal with emotions easily. He clearly doesn't respond to his own guilt very well. So he brushes off his treatment of Snape and even his dismissal of his own family. In Sirius's mind, he and James are "allowed" to have matured out of their past bad behaviors and deserve to not be criticized for them...yet Sirius is unwilling to extend this grace to others. Everyone else around him is permanently stuck as how he first perceived them.

Sirius never finding out the full truth of Regulus's death is a huge disappointment to me, as I would have loved to have seen how he reconciled his inability to change his mind about his family with such an obvious act of heroism.

Ultimately book 5 shows that Sirius is, like a lot of us, very susceptible to "being a good person in theory". He very easily falls prey to cruel behaviors against "bad" people. He treats Kreacher the house elf terribly and uses his position as Kreacher's master to control and belittle him, using it almost as an opportunity for revenge against his family for what must have been a rough childhood. Yet he would never do that if Kreacher were nice to him.

It's a sort of complicated hypocrisy. Sirius treats people based on his personal feelings towards them, not based on what is right. Snape was "a little oddball up to his eyes in the Dark Arts", and that is how Sirius justifies his and James's behaviors. The reality is that Sirius wanted to be good, clearly saw himself as a hero, and was more than willing to die to protect the people he loved (he literally does die in this book to help Harry). But he still gave into the same kind of selfish cruelty he complained about growing up with.

It's not just that he was "an idiot at the age of fifteen", as he describes it. Most of us were. Anyone who claims they were always an enlightened progressive-minded justice fighter constantly standing up for the marginalized is just not remembering age twelve very well. The true mark of Sirius's character is that he can't handle the guilt. When the topic comes up, he hides from it, brushing people off quickly and making excuses. He is unable to openly and honestly confront his own mistakes.

Sirius himself told Harry "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters" and those are probably the wisest words in the whole series. Yet...he was unable to actually live by those words.

Do as I say and not as I do, right? Lol.

Ultimately this character flaw was his downfall. The climax of book 5--and consequently Sirius's death, as well--comes as a direct result of Kreacher's betrayal, a betrayal he was only able to pull off because Sirius, in one of his many fits of anger towards the elf, ordered him "OUT."

He was definitely one of the good guys. I'm not here with any edgy take about how Sirius was somehow worse than the literal wizard nazis. But also...he wasn't perfect, either, and he did and said some very bad things.

A lot of people I think find comfort in that binary split, where characters are either perfect angels or the worst monsters ever. And the meta that get the most clicks are going to be the ones that take those crazy stances of "'[Character You Hate] is Actually a Perfect Angel and Here's Why" or vice versa.

I know that I personally used to write like that, as well. It's actually a touch painful to look back at some of my earliest writings and see just how badly they lacked any nuance...(but boy did I feel like I was making some serious Statements(tm) at the time lol). So it's safe to say my idea of Sirius has definitely grown with time. As have my interpretations of the rest of the characters, too. The more life experiences you have, the better context you can bring to the stories you read. The more diverse people you meet, the more you can start to understand. As your real world grows, so too do the fictional worlds you read about.

So that's my idea of Sirius Black in a very large nutshell. This is the first time I've ever spit all these thoughts out at one time and it was fun to do!

I've seen a lot of different interpretations of Sirius's character over the years and I hope I didn't come across as dissing on any of them. What the reader brings to the table is key. My ideas of why Sirius did the things he did is heavily influenced by my experiences with friends and members of my own family. And the specific areas where my stories jump off from canon into my own little world is equally born of my own life. They come from my memories and from my interests. What ideas I personally like to explore. So when I see someone else's fanfic be just radically off base from how I would have ever conceived of writing the character...I get it.

He's not a real person. So no matter how you see him you can't really be wrong. Each different Sirius Black that pops up on tumblr or Ao3 is just a little window into what's interesting or important to that author.

っ◕‿◕)っ ♥

Love, Ten

[ganondoodle]

I am sorry to hear that the depression has stolen your spark.

I want you to know that you are the sole reason I gave Skyward Sword a chance. Your art was so beautiful and compelling that I just had to know about the media it came from.

Your art introduced me to an incredible community that years later, I am still benefitting from. Your art was the gateway, and I've always been thankful to you for that.

I hope your spark realights, and I hope you can kick depression right in its ass.

i- i did that????? qoq

yes im reviving old reaction pictures

i hope im not ruining the mood bc .. this legitimately made me tear up and i kept thinking of this ever since receiving the ask-

but bc i cant keep my mouth shut (i apologize if you are already well aware of all this i just .. like to talk i guess), i ... idk i have said this before but i feel incredibly conflicted about demise (am i allowed to like him??? do i even like him when i changed him so much??? am i a fraud fan????) and the game he comes from, i .. dont actually like skyward sword that much, or, not as much as it may seem like (my favorite is windwaker, second is botw), every now and then i even feel guilty for demise being my blorbo tm- as much as i love him im under no illusion what his introduction to the series did, the games lore is not .. great, it seems to have kickstarted the decline of the series writing and completely torpedoed any sort of fandom discussion by making zelda a literal reincarnation of the good tm gods of love and light and peace and everything good tm uwu and pit her against an evil demonnnnn that just crawled out the earth one day (??) and was only evil and bad and dark and hate incarnate an hated the good tm gods bc hes jsut so eviiiil, it gave rise to the utter dissmissal of any sort of ganondorf related discussions (funny how it only seems to apply to ganondorf, and none of the other villains hmmmmmmmmmmmm) bc, while not confirmed confirmed (though the fandom likes to pretend that), hes now widely seen as a reincarnation of demise and thus, doesnt need nuance or be given any grace or thought bc apparently when you say someone is a demon (or its reincarnation, which i dont believe ganondorf is, to be clear) that means its fine to not give them any thought bc demons are just evil tm and thats ok and good writing actually (wat????)

(if you take skysw as canonically how it all went down bc my interpretation makes it all be a fabricated lie so the gods can play their little games, there is no godess reincarnation, that was a lie to make way for an opressive kingdom belivieing itself to be irrevocably good no matter what they do etc)

it also cheapens any of the past entries, all of them have been flattened by this, why disscuss ganondorfs motivation lol, he just be a demon/demons puppet, zelda could never be wrong or do bad things bc she literal incarnation of goodness uwu etc- (and then totk, only the second game after skysw, retreads its points and makes it even worse while ALSO trampeling over that game imo)

i dont like saying it, but i do feel a little alienated even from ganondorf fans (i love him too!!!!!) bc they hate demise, and rightfully so, it feels weird having your main blorbo be the reason your second fav is constantly done dirty, why you cant even talk about anything critically bc 'iTs jUst a sIMpLe fAiRytALe' now and part of the reason the lore in general has gone to shit, and i dont know how much i can talk about that before i become an obnoxious 'well ACTUALLY my blorbo, who is the reason for all this, is ALSO done dirty and im gonna explain away the bad stuff via my completely noncanon reinterpretation-' guy, or if i already am what im doing with destiny is like .. my way of trying to fix it and make it interesting again? though at this point i guess im falling into the category of people who change their blorbo so much that there really isnt anythign left of the og, which worries me alot, though i wonder if thats even possible given how little there is to him in the first place, i so often see viral posts that make me feel guilty or conflicted for the way i work with media, "actually my blorbo did all those crimes and thats good you all who need to explain away the bad things are weak and annoying!!" "people who change their favs until they barely resemble the character anymore should just make an oc instead!!"-

i dont know if i take these types of posts too literally, i dont know when or how they apply, but it always circles around in my head, i know not everyone can like what you do, but i want to work with the material i have in an interesting way, not a puritanical way (or however you call that), its not in my mind every second, but it nevertheless makes me doubt what i do with my fanworks anytime i talk about them-

... this wasnt really the point of the message was it ... apologies, i hope not every ask will devolve into a sort of mini rant ;__; i dont mean to invalidate what you said, (and im not saying skyward sword is all bad, its full of charm, from characters to designs, just the lore is .. damaging) it is incredibly touching bc me or my art having a positive impact on people blindsides me every single time like "WHAT??? IMPOSSIBLE you MUST be thinking of someone else, no way i could do that", when something gets brought up my thoughts just kinda start pouring out, i thought about deleting everything i wrote, but then felt like that wouldnt be as genuine anymore (i am not normal tm after all and im long past a point pretending otherwise) and have wasted another hour for nothing, so im gonne leave it in and hope, pray even, it comes across correctly

q-q

[ronearoundblindly]

Valentine's Ask Game: ...without a motive It's allowed to be abrupt, languid, bizarre, out of context, IN context but only you know what context it is-- it can too soon, start too late, anything!

I choose this work-weary space man from @larissa-ann's gif! Divider by @cafekitsune

James Mace x reader, one of my 2024 Valentine's Fics!

Warnings for not being a happy/roses-and-unicorns type of kiss fic, but I think it's still really cute and addresses that kind of numbness we can all feel from time to time. WC 418

Saying space is lonely is akin to calling water wet; it's accurate, sure, but it's also wildly understating the conditions as a whole.

There's fear and pressure, sleeplessness and fatigue, a never-ending schedule and infinite time to zone-out into the void.

You knew that going in. You've pulled your weight, stayed focused, remained practical, and been cordial.

No one on the crew hates you, but no one loves you either.

Space is truly lonely.

You've reached the point of acceptance. You can still bark orders during drills and smile over dinner. It's all...empty, though, meaning you never see it coming.

Mace just bumps right into you coming out of his quarters.

There are moves back and hands up, mumbled apologies, stated destinations, offered excuses. Then neither of you get out of the way because suddenly he is your way and you are his way.

Space doesn't contain slowed inertia. Space doesn't produce heat. No sound. No air. No gravity.

His head tilts and his lips meet yours, gentle but firm, the perfect middle ground, the most inoffensive action.

He exists with you. You exist with him. How can you mistake that for romance? How can you interpret that as passion?

If this were desperation, he'd grope and tug at clothing between you. If this were lust, he'd shove his tongue down your throat and moan. If this were love, he'd hold you in his arms.

There's no motive here. Space has nothing for either of you.

Soft and consistent, he doesn't break away. Your eyes never fully shut. Neither do his. It's a sort of experiment. You're evaluating reasons why you shouldn't, why you're wrong, why you can't, but he doesn't break away.

Like the ghost of a embrace, a whisper of a past life, James lowers his fingers to barely brush your arms. It's the first non-essential contact you've had in months, and a shiver races up your spine, pulling your neck taut.

The kiss is over, your head bowed and tucked to his rough chin, a rush of confusion and guilt lights through your nerves to make your breath catch.

His own breath shakes when it blows across your forehead and ear.

Mace takes a stable grip of your shoulders and shifts you to one side.

"See you later," he says as he walks by, turning to step into the mess compartment.

You finally close your eyes.

Space is lonely like water is wet, but even the depths of Earth's oceans hold other, unexpected discoveries.

➡️ Bucky Barnes and a kiss, casually

[Main Masterlist; Light Masterlist; Ko-Fi]

@supraveng @1950schick @patzammit @whiskeytangofoxtrot555 @yiiiikesmish @ashesofblackroses @spectre-posts @jaqui-has-a-conspiracy-theory @brandycranby @buckysprettybaby

[hazelnut-u-out]

Something that’s always bothered me is the presentation of the infamous ‘Mr. Jellybean’ scene in Meeseeks and Destroy versus the Planetina plotline in A Rickconvenient Mort.

(TW for grooming)

On first watch, we know Mr. Jellybean is terrible. In my opinion, I always thought they handled that whole plotline rather well. It wasn’t played for laughs or made light of, we see the emotional effect on Morty, they don’t attempt to make the predator sympathetic, and we see Rick step up as ‘Grandpa’ for one of the first times ever— to kill a pedophile, no less. Pretty strong morality alignment on that one.

Suddenly, though, when the predator is no longer an older man, but an older woman, it’s… shitty, sure, but not explicitly wrong.

On my first watch, I thought A Rickconvenient Mort was pretty blatantly a statement piece on grooming. Planetina follows textbook grooming tactics, including lovebombing, isolation, manipulation, and gaslighting. She plays into the classic ‘very mature young man.' We even have Beth as a voice of reason, finally stepping up to the plate to protect her son after what seems to be years of emotional neglect. We watch that very neglect backfire on her concern and push Morty further into this relationship. I initially thought it was a play on grooming the viewer, as well, because of the way it’s told essentially from Morty’s ‘puppy love’/‘first love’ point of view and leaves you feeling just the right amount of unsettled after the ending.

So, you could imagine my surprise when I realized that not everyone (in fact, less people than I had expected) initially clocked Planetina as a sketchy/predatory character.

So, I did what any great journalist would do— rewatched. And rewatched. And rewatched.

I wanted to form a nuanced opinion, but I came out on the other side wondering why we never got a moment with Planetina that clearly shows us she’s a condemnable character in the relationship with Morty and not just because of her methods of activism.

I think we’re actually supposed to agree with Morty in this scene, which was not my first reaction.

The age difference is obviously something they intended to be a main plot point for this storyline, as well. The explicit references to it (Morty's age, in particular) were put there for a reason, from the beginning of the episode all the way to the climax.

In a lot of ways, it makes sense to assume that maybe they didn't want to explicitly state it was wrong (though, they do through Beth, in my opinion).

That would explain why so much of A Rickconvenient Mort is set up using textbook grooming tactics; why we never see Planetina outright condemned, but see Morty emotionally destroyed and confused; why we’re (arguably) supposed to agree with Morty over Beth; why we follow Planetina all the way up to when her facetious face of peace and ambivalence crumbles.

Of course, I’m not trying to assume anything, but it does make me wonder what leads someone to write a character in this way— and even promote her as a character at times (like this post, which is captioned 'Tag your Planetina').

Then again, maybe my initial interpretation was correct and all of this was the result of a conscious choice to write and direct an episode from the point of view of Morty as a victim. I mean, it wouldn’t be too far off to assume something like that as we’ve seen them do it time and time again, just with Rick as the abuser. Think of Mortynight Run, The Vat of Acid Episode, and the new infamous episodes: A Rick in King Mortur’s Mort & Ricktional Mortpoon’s Rickmas Mortcation, just to name a few.

Maybe A Rickconvenient Mort is another one of the episodes intended to show Morty’s perspective and frame his loss of innocence as he views it, not as adults/outsiders view it.

It could be a cool contrast between how Rick protects Morty from these sorts of situations versus how Beth does.

(Disclaimer: I’m NOT saying that there aren’t different types of abuse and different appearances to abusers/predators! I just feel like both of these types of abuse/assault can be explicitly depicted as wrong.)

[project-sekai-facts]

Asking this because I genuinely need an explanation, not as a counterargument.

I'm 100% aware of the queer erasure going on in JP → EN translations. The shameless hiding of LGBTQ+ subtext is ridiculous. However, some examples have been bothering me lately ("bothering" as in, I've been thinking about them a lot), these examples being the lack of usage of the word "love", especially in one of Minori's.

In one of Minori's dialogues, she states that she loves Haruka (originally using "daisuki", if I recall correctly). The expression "love" in this case gets translated to "have feelings for", which is considered to be erasure. That's what bugs me: why would it be queer erasure?

In my first language, Spanish, we have the expression "te quiero" (literally "I want you", though it has no possessive connotations and it's a more toned version of loving), and the stronger "te amo" ("I love you"). The latter is generally used romantically, though it can be used in other contexts (I tell my deepest and closest friends both "te quiero" and "te amo", for example). From my understanding, English doesn't have an equivalent to "te quiero", so "I love you" can apply in any context.

However, and again, to my understanding, "having feelings for someone" is only ever used romantically. Maybe it's weaker than loving someone in a sense, but still, you wouldn't say you have feelings for someone who you wish to have/maintain a platonic relationship with (correct me if I'm wrong).

So, to my understanding:

"daisuki" → [strong] loving someone, with vague connotations (generally interpreted as romantic)

"I love you" → [strong] certainly used romantically, yet it can be platonic or familial too

"I have feelings for you" → [weaker] used romantically.

Does that make sense or am I being ignorant?

Ah sorry if I confused you with that example from the MMJ main story. I don't think it's erasure because the EN translation keeps the pretty much the same meaning, I pointed it out because of EN's refusal to translate the words suki/daisuki as love in certain instances.

EN seems to be willing to translate suki/daisuki directly when it's being used to talk about things or aspects of a person, like in these instances:

However, when it's used directly about a person, the translators always find some way around it, like in these instances:

(An/Kohane are an exception and iirc siblings are too?)

(Also in the Asahi example he uses a conjugated form of horeru but it means pretty much the same thing)

Whilst most of these convey the original meaning to some degree and don't really count for erasure, it's still odd that EN will not let the characters say they love each other. It's not even like it has to be interpreted romantically. Like it's firmly established that Leo/need are childhood best friends from the start, I don't think a lot of readers are going to jump straight to romance if the girls said they love each other. It's like they're removing it as a "just in case" so that no one can view it as romantic at all.

Yeah, you're right that "having feelings for someone" is by far more commonly used in a romantic sense. Whilst some people irl probably use it platonically (most likely aspec ppl), in media you're really only going to hear it used romanitcally. It's not weaker than "I love you" imo, but it depends on who you ask because to other people it might be weaker/stronger.

[thylacinetears]

I'm still deciding how I feel about The Acolyte ep7, but I think I overall liked it. It's interesting seeing everyone's different interpretations on it. But I'm getting pretty annoyed by people who are like "X did nothing wrong, Y was totally at fault!". Because here's my hot take:

Every single main character in The Acolyte ep7 had good intentions, but made bad decisions that contributed to the tragedy. Every. Single. One. And that is the point of the whole episode.

Starting with the Jedi - Indara is one of the most level-headed characters in the episode. She consistently demonstrated the best values, and tried to defuse the situation whenever possible. But she underestimated Torbin's pain, and clearly did not do enough to make sure her own padawan was okay - leaving a vulnerable spot for Aniseya to exploit. And she should have done more to find out about the coven besides "ask a little kid some leading questions"I also think that her continued insistence on waiting to contact the Council was more of a weakness than a strength - because no good decisions could be made, until it was too late and the situation was dire.

For the most part, Sol really was just motivated by trying to ensure the twins' safety. When he looked at the coven, he saw a dangerous cult - and in a lot of ways, he's right. (As shitty as the Jedi are, at least padawans get other kids to interact with, and get taught other things than just fighting.) But he let his emotional attachment to Osha cloud his judgement, which was the source of many problems. And he was often reckless, especially when talking/testing Osha, and he probably should have tried some other way to deal with Aniseya rather than just stabbing her.

Torbin was thrust into a difficult situation, that his master clearly did not properly prepare him for. That allowed him to be manipulated by a Force user far more powerful than him. All the same, the final confrontation would not have happened if he hadn't run off. It's okay to be inexperienced, but it's not okay to decide that you know better than all the experienced people. (Though evidently they made terrible decisions too).

Mother Aniseya obviously wanted to look out for her kids and her community. Despite her people's history of discrimination, she was willing to let Osha follow her dream, even if it meant she'd never see Osha again. But she harmed Torbin - intentionally targeting the weakest (and least responsible) member of the group. She essentially threw the first punch, and if she hadn't done that, the Jedi wouldn't have been so concerned. Not only that, but her choices in the final confrontation were very much a mistake. It was a tense situation, Sol and Torbin had about 20 archers with deadly weapons pointed right at them, and she decided the best way to defuse the situation was to use dark magic on/with a tearful Mae. There's no way it could have been interpreted as anything other than a deadly threat.

Koril... is probably the least sympathetic character in the episode, but she also was generally motivated by protecting the twins and her community. She decided that the best way to ensure their safety was to teach them defense, which isn't a bad thing in itself. But she was way, WAY too hard on them, which is what concerned Sol in the first place. Not only that, she encouraged Mae's temper, unhealthy attachments, and paranoia, which is what led Mae to start the fire.

And, whilst they can't really be responsible because they were just children, Osha and Mae contributed as well. Osha should have been able to follow her dreams, and in some ways she seemed to be a bit of the unfavourite in her family. But she knew, to some extent, that revealing herself to the Jedi would endanger her family, and that decision caused the rest of the events. Meanwhile, Mae just wanted her family to be together. But she was possessive and unhealthy about it (encouraged by Koril), which of course led to her starting the fire.

It's a perfect storm, a tragedy that seems avoidable to the viewer, but was inescapable to the characters. So it's definitely annoying me when people reduce that to just "Jedi bad" or "Jedi good"!