#narrative redemption vs narrative condemnation for characters

[devotedlystrangewizard]

character hyperfixations suck actually because theyre the only way i can be invested in media but also they will have me going "hey where are they" "i wonder how theyre doing rn" right up until either the character or my interest dies

[buffaloborgine]

Before reading, I want to emphasize, I don't hate Sephiroth as a character, I hate how some people dismiss all of his heinous acts and cling to "He is a victim" and shove the tragedy he caused onto other characters. About that one post about Sephiroth and someone replying to it, let me be clear: I don't deny Sephiroth was a victim. Like many, he was the victim of Shinra and Hojo, that's undeniable. But to write like he is a good person and all the bad things he did were influenced by his upbringing? NO. Sephiroth is selfish, and no matter what you try to bend the narrative to fit your imagination, it is a fact. When the theme of FFVII is about "imagination/illusion", if we use the structure of protagonist vs antagonist, Cloud is the one that was affected by the illusion but he accepted help from others and got over it. Sephiroth would simply be the reversed version of that, he wasn't even illusioned, he knew for sure what he is but deciding that it was better for him if everyone else, and even himself stayed in that illusion forever. Sephiroth wasn't the only character to be affected by Shinra's evilness, but then let's take a look at those who also were affected: - Zack once learned and accepted that Shinra is evil had started running away with Cloud. - Angeal and Genesis don't share the same reaction but eventually once accepted the truth, they both rebelled against Shinra (also Lazard). - The Turks and Rufus are easy to see, I don't need to explain. - The massacred 1st SOLDIER unit mentioned in Dirge of Cerberus, fighting against the creation of inhuman Deepground facility. - Deepground themselves, they know what they are and they fought against Shinra, knowing they would even die if they do. So many would say, but Sephiroth does disobey Shinra and that he wanted to leave Shinra. Vetoing orders onto co-workers' heads doesn't seem to be a good way to protest, rather that's just push the responsibility onto others. And about "wanting to leave Shinra", as far as I remember, Sephiroth just said he would consider the idea, not that he would ever leave, and even till the event of Nibelheim, he didn't leave Shinra, not at all. So let's put this together, should we just see Sephiroth as a victim and say he isn't accounted for other tragedy happened in FFVII? Personally? Of course not. There are other victims and they fought back their abuser in different ways, maybe causing mayhem on the route but they still fought for their freedom. Sephiroth has never once given a single thought for others, and he was comfortable staying in Shinra, after all, he got the privilege for 1st Class, can veto orders and get admired by other SOLDIERs. To debunk people who claim that Sephiroth was thoughtful about Genesis' injury: Who was the one causing that mess in the first place? And even when you look at the cutscene, it was less of caring thought but more of "Why I am inadequate for this?" If he was sincere, he would have gone to check on Genesis later, but nope, he assumed Genesis was fine, like really, what kind of friend is that? No fucking friend would just assume friend is fine knowing they are hurt, no fucking friend would just condemn friends as traitor while not knowing the reason why they leave, and no fucking friend would keep their friends in the dark while knowing they are being tricked, abused. In conclusion, please stop saying Sephiroth is a good friend to anyone. If he cannot earn Zack's forgiveness, he is a prick, but if even Weiss stood against him (in DFFOO), consider he surely won't get any redemption.

[aydafigs]

ooh I have so many thoughts on The Rat Grinders discourse okay

on the one hand, I think it's completely reasonable to be disappointed that there was no attempt from The Bad Kids to engage with TRG beyond just killing them as quickly and bloodily as possible, or no effort from Brennan to present that as an option. I agree that it sucks that these teenagers, who have been corrupted by rage crystals and are presumably being manipulated by authority figures, are being treated as irredeemably evil and therefore condemned to hell forever for their crimes - and I agree that it feels incongruent narratively, when a big arc this season involved 'redeeming' a corrupted goddess, and a key theme has been the power of utilising doubt to overcome rage. I also think it's a shame that Fig's past attempts to engage with Reuben were ultimately forgotten about and rendered useless (and I definitely got the impression that Emily herself was also frustrated about this).

however! I do also completely understand it from a gameplay, genre, and storytelling perspective.

firstly, mostly just as a sidenote, I think it's worth acknowledging that a lot of 'real-world' thinking and logic surrounding death and ‘redemption’ and the moral complexities of 'good vs evil' don't always work within Fantasy High or d&d. death is treated much more flippantly in a world where characters can and do regularly plane-shift to the very real and tangeable afterlives. it's harder to think of death as truly an end to someone's life when it is known for certain that those who die are actually continuing to live alternate lives on different planes of existence - and I think from a meta perspective this inevitably affects the way players think about killing NPCs within a story. no one is ever truly gone; they're just living somewhere else now.

additionally, in-universe, the prospect of dying or being killed is an accepted risk for those attending Aguefort. they're training to be adventurers, and as fucked up as it is, a key element of the universe and genre that this story takes place in is that people - including teenagers - die on adventures, and this risk is entirely normalised and considered unfortunate but necessary. it's one of those genre-specific tropes that you have to accept for the world to function. this is d&d, this is fantasy adventuring high school, teenagers have to save the world from other, villainous teenagers. it's every teen supernatural/fantasy drama. it's Teen Wolf. it's fucking Riverdale. as Brennan has put it before, "it's adventuring school. people die."

The Rat Grinders are not the heroes of this story - and what is so interesting about them, at least to me, is that they know that. there's a lot of excellent analysis of TRG as existing on a meta level even within the story; they're power gamers, they're XP farmers, they know they're NPCs; and this is the source of Kipperlilly's anger. Kipperlilly's rage stems from knowing that she is ordinary; that she doesn't have a tragic backstory, that she will never save the world, that she and her friends aren't a notorious adventuring party or 'found family' or anything other than regular. so she set out to become Not Ordinary by any means necessary - and if she and The Rat Grinders couldn't be the heroes, they had to become the villains. whether or not TRG 'deserved' to die or not is a moot point, I think. it's not about what they deserve. their story, and especially Kipperlilly's story, is a tragedy in this way; she was doomed by the narrative from the moment she started to write herself as the villain.

The Rat Grinders are, narratively, the Big Bads of the season; the Final Bosses of this game of d&d. this final battle is necessary to conclude the story in an exciting and climactic and satisfying way. it would simply not be as exciting, either for the players or the audience, if this season ended with The Bad Kids talking it out with The Rat Grinders and convincing them to switch sides. at the end of the day, this isn't a movie or a TV show. this is a game, being played in real time by real people who are improvising and having fun while collaboratively telling a story together. of course, the storytelling on this show is phenomenal - but it's never going to be able to do everything. they don't have a room of writers pitching ideas to write perfectly timed and paced scripts for character arcs and resolutions. they're a group of improv comedians playing a roleplay and combat-centric game together. they're playing d&d. they’re playing heroes fighting bad guys.

I do think there's a lot of valid criticism around rage and manipulation and who is considered worthy of 'redemption'. I just also think there's a middle ground somewhere between "The Bad Kids killing The Rat Grinders is awful and evil and bad storytelling and everyone involved should feel bad" and "haha suck it Rat Grinders fans, told you they were always evil". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ idk. it's all love now. [smooch]

[metabolizemotions]

The creative choices on the show are as subjective as each of the viewer's interpretations.

I think a lot of why I personally feel deeply uncomfortable n resistant is the asymmetry.

I get the need for variety. The same thing may be expressed differently for different characters. A healing journey will differ from person to person. Each step is also taken on a personalized timeline.

But I can't help but think of the asymmetry of how the show dealt with Mason vs Beckett n even Dixon. They condemned Mason immediately at his worst but dug deep to show the sides of Beckett n Dixon that were still human despite it all.

The trigger shot scene with Beckett felt like 0 to 100 in his reconciliation with Maya. It felt like a 12-step program of which he skipped many steps when it came to Maya. From the get-go, we saw a sexist, incompetent captain who was demeaning to his team n constantly put them under stress n in danger, on top of endangering civilians n even equipment. For months, we saw this middle-aged man in a position of power, take perverse joy in bullying a younger female subordinate to appease his ego. That was workplace harassment. He also took out his unresolved trauma on the people around him, in this case, people he had authority over. Alcoholism was not the sole reason for all his bad behavior. Even if it was, it should not be used to excuse it.

The team, esp Maya, was trapped in this hostile work environment sanctioned by the female chief. This was a more common n insidious manifestation of toxic masculinity, one that was amplified by his position of power, n sometimes even supported by women, when their goals aligned in the power struggle.

Yet the show gave so much more grace n compassion to the bullies than the bullied. The team treated Beckett n Ross with more kindness n respect than they earned, n less kindness n more apathy towards Maya than she deserved.

Then he was given a long, carefully constructed redemption arc, while Mason, a rushed condemnation arc.

It felt like 100 to 0 with Mason. We saw Mason briefly in earlier seasons, mainly thru the eyes of Maya. We missed a lot of the in b/w. We caught him again at his worst. We only saw the side that was full of hate ideology, but not his side that was also human. We knew about his addiction n homelessness. But we didn’t see how as a young abused person w/o positive role models n a support system, he was vulnerable to these hate groups, which he clung to, when offered him just a semblance of belonging or respect. He had not learned to let go of his resentment of their parents n Maya but taught to transfer this unresolved hate to fill a meaning void.

The scene itself b/w Maya n Mason was great. It was an urgent n imperative story to tell. Maya's actions were right n necessary. But in the bigger scheme of things, it felt like a quick tie-up of loose ends, of a once-beloved brother, who came n went abruptly. Despite it being a logical narrative choice to wrap up the nature/nurture discussions of Marina n discovery that Maya's deepest fears about herself manifested in her bro instead. It's heartbreaking n yet disheartening that it was again about queer hate when it came to another main queer character on the show.

It is just jarring to juxtapose Mason with Beckett in 703 then 707. Also juxtaposing his empathy towards Maya with the lack thereof from the others, despite everyone having just been thru 706 n having witnessed Maya's breakdown. So, in a way, I see the actions of these characters as being designed with the goal to emphasize Beckett's empathetic side, in support of his arc.

When looking at a scene with 2 scene partners, what it is really about? Who it is really for? Would the scene be the same if one is replaced?

There are many different takes on this. For me, it was really about Maya, but choosing Beckett as the scene partner made the scene more for him. If it were for Maya, other scene partners would be more meaningful n realistic. Esp those who earned their right for her to be vulnerable with. Maya, who bottled her feelings, let alone spill her deeper emotions, to someone whom she never had a proper conversation with, not to mention a fraught shared history. To add, alone in a small enclosed space, while administering a shot that made her even more vulnerable.

For the realism argument, this was not more realistic to me than having Carina, for a show which took a lot of liberties. It was a choice to design the circumstances to make Carina n the others unavailable n combine 2 scenes together. Carina's also Maya's life partner n best friend. A more realistic choice for Maya to share this devastating heartbreak n grieving process with. It was a big aspect of their marriage. We saw many discussions b/w them yet when it finally came to the conclusion, it was with the least likely person, an almost stranger.

I see the trigger shot as part of Marina's baby journey I wish we get to see them undergoing together. It reminded me of 5b in that Marina's story about their own baby journey - again with someone of a fraught shared history, of a different nature - was more about him n to lead to his own bio family story. Marina's story was messy n got nowhere. And here we r, seasons later, rushing thru it.

It's not that Maya/ Carina or Marina should not have scenes with others. It's that it's usually more about the others even if it's their storyline. Or they r the backdrop for others' drama. They either isolate Marina or suddenly include them or one of them in an in-depth discussion of their private matters with others, usually something we hear about for the first time. I just don't remember something like that happening with other characters. Is it too much to ask to see a married w|w couple, with little screentime, share a meaningful conversation or moment first, also or exclusively? We so rarely see such a rep on TV. The show is not about Marina, but shouldn't their own story reasonably prioritize them?

[edwardsissyhandsthtdanceslikeabb]

if azula needs redeeming, why wasnt she?

i read this analysis of Azuko? Zukla? idk but a critique of their sibling dynamic, particularly within the context of doomed siblings, and tho i don’t agree with it, it’s a testament to its writer that there’s innate value in carving out my thoughts from their own.

so a lot of my disagreement boils down to the fact that the way the analysis construed zuko & azula, from characterizing them as doomed siblings, to the way azula’s breakdown is framed, is a problem of taste and inferences, and how these interpretive elements can be incongruent with technical aspects like intent, convention, medium, or the functional mechanics of art overall.

firstly, i think its very important to highlight that while elite art is holistic and multifaceted, it is doubly focused and premeditated, and its constituents all occupy a purpose and position within it, as they are narrative elements first and foremost. which complicates things when creation and consumption are both such human, evocative processes, but i think looking at the rudimentary layers of a story are the north stars in subjective landscapes like this. and most salient of these, is the story’s anti-colonial roots, centering indigeneity explicitly, and the cultural, spiritual and earthly relationships therein, with the main conflict being restoring the dignity and autonomy of the subjugated, alongside the internal work and opposition that are necessitated in doing so. everything stems from that, and though there is complexity and nuance therein, and the story itself is immensely liberal in execution, it is also ultimately a good vs bad narrative, which it has every right to be, bc colonialism is bad, and colonialists are bad.

therefore, atla inherently adheres to convention, and has a preestablished idealistic framework. to illustrate this, it utilizes two central characters, both encapsulations of the dualistic nature of oppressor and the oppressed, and navigated thusly as foils to one another. zuko is thereby, the deuteragonist, and the depth or lack thereof, of his environment are equally conditioned by his position, as the confines of the kid’s tv medium, serialization as well as narrative structuring itself, craft him. kill your darlings and all that lol.

however, these positionalities, while abiding convention, are not binary, and while conclusive, they are not absolutist. zuko for example, is antithetical to a Madonna, stressed by him even having a redemption to realize, and azula too is done an injustice by any reduction to a whore / imperfect victim archetype. this compartmentalization, is luckily ill-fitting in accommodating their totality, and doesn’t incorporate the fact that consequence, in avatar, is not a condemnation of personhood, but a retaliation to action, and has mangled indiscriminately, with azula’s case actually, being the reclamation of principles and in-world intentionality.

to begin with, zuko, while most recognized for his redemption, is not functionally the redemptive character™, he’s an example of the sacrifice, sincerity and labor that are inherent to anti-colonial action facilitated by an absconding oppressor, of the inborn empathy and active resistance that are needed for a system to change, and how you don’t just get there through platitudes or amicability. those thematic niceties are ofc inherent to his story bc he’s fleshed out and the things that inspired him thusly are too, but that emotional and relational floweriness is a consequence of his actions, not their driving force (being embraced by imperial idolization, by his royal family, was not fulfilling), what drove him is a fundamental and intrinsic ideological disdain for the imperialist war machine — it was ultimately, an abstraction of self – by acting in service of others, which unlike letting imperialist standards (e.g. chauvinism and parasitism and “honor”) puppeteer him as an instrument of violence, is ironically, an act of true autonomy and discernment. deriving your value from mutualism and earning one’s stature, instead of asserting yourself on others and letting corrosive and paternalistic worldviews (and by extension the selfishness & self absorption i.e “honor” innate to that) rule your destiny.

azula, however, is meant to be an inversion of that, is meant to reflect what happens when you reject morality or connection, instead letting control and superiority entrap you. she is explicitly a cautionary tale, which also comes with its own oversights and inelegant implications, but she likewise, greatly exemplifies the internal decay and loneliness inherent to alienating yourself through cruelty and stratification. and is it not possible then that a girl who has valued herself by what she can inflict on others, would then have the very sanctity of existence warped at no longer being able to dominate, no longer deemed the ideal? is infection not a thing that savages, before it spreads? in this way, azula is poignant.

as the more intimate face of imperialism, she is humanized in her parasitism, but it is not used to soften her behavior, nor is it used to hand her redemption. it is not smth that she is owed for the very coincidence of her birth or blood, its earned, and she did not earn nor want it.

so when a character that suggested the utter evisceration of marginalized groups, and thereafter tried to murder a personification of colonial survivor’s guilt and endangered practices, is consequently left to mourn her superiority, just as her father before her, its smth we sympathize with within reasonable boundaries. when her brother, who she abused, doesn’t martyr himself to azula’s interiority, instead laboring towards his own destiny and happiness, rather than the genesis of azula’s redemption, that is not inconsistency, it’s peace. its making peace despite the fact that some would rather rot in the entrails of imperialism than afford its victims value, would rather hurt others, and in turn themselves, than embrace healing and progress

— (plus inflicting his values may not in fact heal, when healing is not inherently uniform, and growing is not innately moralistic).

now, there’s a whole nurture vs nature angle to this as well and these ontological arguments are often touchy, yes zuko had ursa and iroh. yes zuko was forced to challenge his preconceptions, but zuko wasn’t diametric to these things, and the supplementations he did receive were always compensatory. zuko was deemed genetically inferior by ozai and thusly ostracized, hence ursa’s gentle partiality, zuko was then mutilated and exiled, and naturally needed supervision, which was provided by an overseer who mirrored his disgrace. if denied these safeguards zuko would’ve been denied even palliative care, whereas azula was perceived as needing none when she was revered positionally and familialy.

yes being pit against zuko was toxic and destructive but its not at all equivocal to the outright abuse zuko suffered. ofc the threat of it was implicit but those who abet or orbit abusers are not inherently under threat, and i think azula is characterized similarly. it's not fear that colors her outburst against ozai, nor coerces her silence, its entitlement and a sanctifying of hierarchies: “i deserve to be by your side.” - it’s respect that earns her silence and it’s the promise of respect that goads her acquiescence, the prospect of accumulation. this is ofc not a healthy mindset to have bc azula hinges her value on perfection, performance and status, and it's evident how the pressure of that collapsed her, but it was a pressure she had embraced before. it was her adeptness that ozai latched onto, and before the inviolability of it was challenged, azula took advantage of her nature, she weaponized it, and it was that eagerness that ozai exploited.

as viewers we process this as the objectification it is, but its reality, is a systemic natured dehumanization, ingrained in any culture that seeks to mechanize its constituents (which is all societies actually. we are all complicit). ozai thinks he is honing her as did his father and his colonialist forefathers prior, and herein is not abuse in the conventional sense, but rather a tradition of commodification that extricates skill and hegemonizes personhood, it’s an existential death necessitated by imperialism. it’s the death of agency. azula embraced this necrotic philosophy until she was confronted with the consequences of her rot, and *that’s* what she got. consequences. of which she was spared throughout.

it was never personal.

sure we get glimpses of her humanity, her vulnerability, but they’re paltry and muddied too by an undercurrent of duplicitousness. azula flaunts zuko’s impending demise, yet later, includes him in her outings. azula relishes zuko’s mutilation, but also fetches him from the beach house. she falsely welcomes zuko back, then implores he join her sincerely. and azula shares her pain from ursa yet spurns softness still, from MaiKo’s juvenile fondness to ursa’s own guiding attempts. azula is ceaselessly cruel to zuko, then spontaneously benevolent to him once he has seemingly subsumed the apparatus of colonialism. and gives him credit for killing the avatar, yet shows a sly inclination of his revival. this isn’t to insinuate that azula is ontologically evil or that she’s an unnuanced, mono-faceted individual. and she was a child. yet zuko’s youth didn’t spare him from the grotesque terrors of death and alienation, and it didn’t temper her perpetual antagonism and bloodlust, she is demonstrably self-serving, and this is evidenced throughout.

this is not to shame her in her passivity, nor an expectation that she martyr herself or even commiserate with her brother. rather, her downfall is a reaping of autonomy, made subject to the tendency of one’s active leanings. in which the choice of her sibling abuse exacerbated her societal abuse, all festering, foremost, the abuse of her own soul.

so, relatedly, is it not possible that a character of her cunning, who emotionally degraded her own sibling while gleefully championing his attempted imprisonment, before graduating to attempted murder by preparing to electrocute him while he was enfeebled on the ship, then later tried to kill aang, tried to kill katara, gloated abt intending to kill zuko at the air temple, injured iroh while making her escape from the gaang + zuko. also endangered and coerced ty lee into joining her, imprisoned mai, nearly killed zuko as he tried to save katara (which was likely her intent, or at least meant to cripple zuko’s composure — dishonoring the agni kai) — need i go on. azula’s benevolence is conditional, and consistently transactional, and so is it not possible then that she gauged zuko’s swaying allegiances against her own armaments - when faced with iroh, a waterbending master, an earthbending master with groundbreaking abilities (>_-), and the literal avatar, after observing their – plus aang’s growth, and having been cornered before, then decided rather, that having another asset, puppet, contingency plan, in her pocket wouldn’t hurt.

maybe she was being benevolent, or maybe, azula, who too sat in liberated territory and was gifted a chance for growth and morality, rejected that chance over the value therein, tenderized for extraction, parasitizing instead. maybe azula too, was acting in the imperialist tradition of exploitation. maybe she holds the capacity for compassion and care — which we have gleaned regardless — but the tangentials and hypotheticals of the world are often not what is actualized, and they are not a thing that can be affected. empathy is an active pursuit, and it is mutualistic, provisional — and so there is not a ‘who’ of azula’s redemption, but a what, the ‘what’ that is to be influenced. the personalization of one’s own form, of an internal receptiveness to commiserate with. bc as is, azula is merely a husk of colonialism, and being a husk of colonialism is meant to be sad, its deliberately tragic, unflinchingly pitiable. disorienting. life shattering. that’s what you’re meant to feel, it is not an inadvertence of zuko’s arc, and it is not a coincidence of the narrative.

she is a trajectory within herself, and her fate is a whole within itself. just as zuko labors towards rectifying his nation bc he needs to, bc there is value in dismantling colonialism, not bc the imperialists are owed it, but bc everyone else is. zuko also watches, not with apathy or boredom as his sister implodes at this, but with pity, with grief, bc azula manipulated herself a bed of corpses, and it is not him who must choose not to lie in it. when healing is intentional, is active, and zuko has chosen to heal. when azula cannot be handheld and shielded from her war crimes and systemic violence bc she wasn’t hugged enough as a child. zuko too lost a core sense of support mournfully young, and moreover at many points in his development journey, but the inclination that told him to speak up in the war room is doubly the same inclination that told him to afford jin affection, or help the earth kingdom family, and save his crew member in the storm, despite this very vulnerability catalyzing his banishment.

azula had friends and she had adoration and she had paternalistic validation, but contentment is unattainable when accumulation is your driving force. and the only thing left to cannibalize is yourself. with this, azula’s downfall was not only inevitable, it was natural, foretold even. and just as iroh doesn’t adhere to whatever deficits were sewn unwittingly into ozai, nor is it demanded — it also isn’t azula’s fallibilities that now damn her. azula isn’t the “bad sibling”, devoid of nuance, she’s the bad person™. despite it all.

katara has ptsd and toph is blind, sokka is a non-bender and zuko was deemed handicapped then maimed thereafter, instability is not azula’s punishment, its an externalization of her decay, and its meant to be unrelenting and all-encompassing, because abstraction and objectification are totalitarian afflictions. likewise, her condemnation is not a consequence of gender marginalization, tho the undertones of spoilt brat tropes and somehow unconventional, inevitably crazed women sully our palates. we taste bias even where it perishes, even as the fire nation is seemingly meritocratic, and unabashed, imperfect girls are idealized story-wide. from toph to azula herself, who may be conflated for a sanist archetype, yet challenges gender roles and infantilization in her prowess and militancy, as she’s sterile and calculating and impassive, where zuko is feeble and undermined, aimless, emotional. she is far beyond any trope, contrivance or embellishment, and doesn’t flourish or encumber zuko’s arc, as he equally isn’t made to for her’s.

azula is a force beyond zuko, until she can no longer deny him, and azula haunts zuko until she doesn’t, until her own crossroads loom, her contrived dualism of failure or victor, aggressor and victim. and she is forced then to reckon with loss. azula’s end is not a reductionism at hands other than her own, her fall is not zuko’s win, nor does the show frame it gloriously, there is no joy in her misery, no minimization of her tragedy, from the score to the tone, in her chilling, animalistic pules, azula languishes in her self-destruction, and it is one entirely independent of zuko. with this, we are shown azula’s nuance, the unthinking allyship she inspired, yet the coercion and dereliction it veiled. the camaraderie and kindness she offered, to warn zuko against visiting iroh, to credit him unduly, yet the threat it masked, to stay unadulterated, to stay unctuous. the vilification she detested, and yet the love she scorned for its fragility and irrepressibility. ursa doesn’t confirm azula’s worst fears, ironically, sadistically, any love she may have held haunts her, is nearly derisory. impossible.

and while no debate exists that ursa neglected azula, or that she failed her duty to nurture and cater her parenting to azula’s needs and interiority, the factors that complicated that, such as ozai’s own domineering hold, alienated mother and child from any means of cultivating real love, and thusly the influences azula did ingest were brutality, unchallenged in nature, entirely singular. it’s a self-flagellation, a ritualistic and sustained self alienation, amputating any vulnerability, all perceived pluralities.

so azula, despite not consistently having her perspective expressed, still encompasses the products of colonial rearing, and its destructiveness isn’t meant to be contested, sugarcoated, not with others and not with the self. fascism has denied us azula the person, and that may be a consequence of format, but it isn’t a consequence of the narrative. nor realism. we are meant to acknowledge azula’s complexities in the intentionality of their artful crafting, while not undermining that architects of oppression still bleed. one can see themselves in azula’s struggles, in the humanity of her endeavors, while not decontextualizing the tenets of her positionality, while not undermining that every character that claimed their redemption, did so by choosing another, by loving.

and azula’s journey to love, to embracing her own humanity, is a journey solely her own. this isn’t to say that she doesn’t deserve support or guidance or love or care, but that’s not the point. that wasn’t the intent of her character, and that wasn’t the thematic priority of the show. it's an extrapolation. bc some ppl suck and that’s ok. and there are ppl you cannot help and that is ok. and sometimes the ppl you love will suffer, and that has to be ok. bc sometimes you choose yourself, sometimes you choose what you can, and that is ok. it is okay to grow, and it is ok to move on. that’s the point. it is ok to spit out the poison. forgive any tactlessness therein, but it’s a tough pill, and its meant to have an aftertaste.

however, it's not cynicism that one is meant to internalize, and it's not intended to inspire fatalism either, although the symbology of azula’s toxicity is excised, the human struggles she encapsulated remain, the intimacy of our empathy persists, and it will color the fire nation’s vices and pitfalls. bc when one can’t just will away indoctrination, as we saw with both azula and zuko, and even still with paku or toph’s parents, as hierarchies are intersectional and multifaceted, and in the trials of decolonization there will thusly be azulas’, but there will also be zukos’, and pakus’, and sokkas’. all with their very intimate, equally human complexes to confront, unravel and rectify. just as there sit your perspectives, as there too exist my own influences.

and while zuko may merely be a beneficiary of the prevailing zeitgeist (tho imperialism explicitly requires non-consent lol), where azula once functioned, and he may be no more ontologically owed redemption than azula, or deserving love over her, when in the forever-war of subjugation, it isn’t abt ontology or criteria, nor logicisms or hypotheticals, its abt action. so zuko tries. and that resistance, that anti-colonial praxis, is a good start, it’s the most meaningful start. zuko isn’t king, or redeemed, bc he’s genetically “good”, its bc he tries. that’s the point. not how efficient he is or how proficiently he embodies apparatus.

reparation. that’s. the point. the triumph of resistance juxtaposing the tragedy of complacency. bc nothing is immutable, and so nothing is too far gone.

.

.

Besides… it’s only a kid’s show heh.

[kishimotomasashi]

A symptom of having been in the online Naruto fandom for a few years now and having Sasuke as my favourite character means that I’ve been incessantly exposed (at the very least, on Tumblr) to arguments about Sasuke not receiving his due justice, being condemned by the narrative for expressing anger at the crimes committed against him and his family, and how the ending of the Naruto manga completely dropped the ball regarding any and all of its political plot threads, leaving the status quo intact, and the only change regarding Sasuke in particular is that he is now complacent with it.

These are arguments that I entirely agree with! And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with their frequent discussion, seeing as Naruto is a very popular manga and new fans will take the place of the old ones. It doesn’t surprise me that the discourse hasn’t slowed down, because new people are discovering it and will want to chime in. This is fine and natural.

But for me, from the perspective of someone who’s been here a while and has seen talk of this happen over, and over and over and over and over again, it understandably gets a little... exhausting. Especially since, as far as I’ve seen, the discourse rarely goes outside of “here is how Sasuke was wronged, here is how the shinobi military industrial complex is fucked up”, and so it feels like I’m seeing less interesting conversations regarding it and more parroting the same universally agreed upon ideas over and over.

It’s just... boring. Because even when the discussion goes outside of “this is why it’s wrong” and enters “here’s how it should have gone” territory, I rarely see it go anywhere beyond “Sasuke should’ve remained angry” “Sasuke should’ve never gone back” “Sasuke should have rejected—“ etc, etc. Sasuke and the Revolution discourse rarely goes beyond Sasuke’s personal vindication regarding Konoha. And to me, it’s just... is that really as far as our imagination extends? Is Sasuke’s anger really the most important thing to focus on? Should anger be the main driving force behind changing a world that is undoubtedly unjust?

My answer to all of those questions is, obviously, no. And I’m writing this to explain why, to propose an alternative to the vindication tunnel vision there happens to be regarding Sasuke vs Konoha/Shinobi System discourse, that I believe even the ending of Naruto (barring chapter 700 and onward to Boruto) provides a solid basis for.

First let’s talk about chapter 699, and Sasuke’s decision not to stay in Konoha but to journey around the world instead.

Now when people talk about Sasuke’s journey, they mostly focus on the part where he calls it a “journey of redemption” and so a lot of discussions concerning whether or not he should have stayed in Konoha revolve around that line and its reasoning. It’s all “he doesn’t NEED redemption” or “oh please journey of redemption is bullshit, stay in Konoha to heal with your friends”.

Which is a damn shame because what he says in the panels above? Before the “you have nothing to do with my sins” thing? Is significantly more interesting. In fact, I consider it a monumental statement for him to make, indicative of his development; it’s the culmination of all he’s been through to get him to this point.

This line is Sasuke recognizing his own limitations related to the volatile emotional state he was nearly constantly in beforehand; Sasuke’s view of the world was incredibly selfish. It was selfish in the sense that his own goals mattered before anything else, that anything slowing him down in his hurry to reach them was an obstacle; it was an incredibly unhealthy view of the world, one that ended up making him hurt himself and others. That his goals are sympathetic and understandable doesn’t really change the reality that he did put himself in danger and was a danger to those closest to him. When we meet him for the first time in Shippuden, at Orochimaru’s hideout, he says word-for-word:

“I don’t care what happens to me or to the rest of the world, so long as I can get my revenge. Nothing else matters.”

And even when the truth about Itachi is revealed to him, this doesn’t exactly change. It’s only his range of targets that expand, and what he did to get to those targets in the 5 Kage Summit arc are unarguably his lowest points in the entire series. While there is a double-standard regarding how Sasuke’s anger and hatred are treated in the narrative, it’s not incorrect to say that his laser focus on them were ultimately harmful in the end, and that to grow he could not continue to rely on them indefinitely.

In fact, Sasuke is always shown to be at his best when he’s not so angry his view of the world is only concentrated on what he alone can see. Sasuke when observant of others is kind, has compassion and understanding and a willingness to prioritize others’ safety: we see this when he protects Team 7 all throughout part 1, and when he protects Team Taka in the Killer B fight. When he’s not clouded by his own rage, Sasuke also has a better willingness to learn: when Itachi left him after their fight against Kabuto, he went out of his way to learn more about the village he’d come to justifiably despise, to understand Itachi’s own point of view, and to learn the point of view of those that had built it. Sasuke in general is someone who doesn’t accept things so readily and is constantly questioning things even when he’s set his mind to them, and he is also someone who does have a clear idea of justice: needless human suffering on a large scale is something he’s disgusted by (see how he reacts to Itachi before he learned the truth and to Orochimaru). When he’s truly of the mind to sit down and listen, that potential is increased tenfold. He came out from under the Nakano Shrine after speaking with Hashirama and the other Hokage seeing the shinobi system as something that causes needless human suffering on a large scale, and though he’s not quite at the ideal point yet, the idea to do something about it (to dismantle that system) is there.

And now here we are, chapter 699: Sasuke’s anger is no longer his main driving force, and he is learning to accept love back in his life, and what does he say? That he’s going to look at the world, now, with new eyes. That he’s going to take advantage of this new healing state of his, to properly observe the world because his perception of it isn’t obstructed by his unhealthy vengeance fixation anymore. Sasuke, who already has the capacity for compassion, who already has a sense of justice, who knows how to listen and observe, is now going to take the time to use these foundations to build himself a more expansive perception of the world. He’s showing willingness to look outside of himself!

Now before I talk about the point I really want to get to, I want to talk about anger. I know anger is often portrayed as something awful in many stories (including this one), as something that is a personal failing next to those who can just endure what is thrown at them with little complaint, and that it’s a narrow view of it. Anger is a very useful emotion, and sometimes a necessary one: anger helps you perceive injustice done to yourself or others, anger can help you prevent people walking all over you and help you to recognize that you’re not getting something that you deserve. I’ll never condemn anger.

And I don’t condemn Sasuke’s anger! I am very firmly in the “Sasuke was right” camp; I don’t think he has to kiss up to a government so cowardly it wiped his people from the face of the Earth in the dead of night, I think a system that can justify a crime that outrageous while it continues to perpetuate itself needs to be entirely dismantled. And I believe that though there are limits to how seriously you should take this shounen animanga, the fact that these plotlines were introduced in the first place as well as every other time shinobi militaristic violence was clearly shown as being evil but were given shitty resolutions means that it is both normal and in fact encouraged to point out that these introduced plotlines were given really, really shitty resolutions.

Though while anger and pointing out how wrong things are are incredibly useful, when you really want to start talking about revolutionary action, incentive to change the world, I think that anger alone is insufficient.

Specifically in Sasuke’s case, as I’ve said above, Sasuke’s anger is ultimately selfish. He sees how he himself was wronged, and that’s great, but like... he’s also not the only one who suffers under the shinobi system. He’s not the only one it’s brought incredible wrong toward. Even when he demonstrated growth during the 4th War and was willing to expand his own knowledge to better understand why Konoha exists as it is, he wasn’t sharing what he’d learned with others, he wasn’t reaching out to build connections, to build solidarity— he was working on his plan entirely alone.

(And yes, we can talk about how the narrative purposefully makes the villain characters seem more unreasonable though they have justified feelings on why the system cannot continue as is, but again, as I’ve said at the start, we’ve had those conversations at length already.)

I believe genuine change, the desire to see a better world, has to fundamentally come from the desire to see people in a better place, not from vengeance. I think to get there, you need to see how other people live aside from yourself, you need to work at helping them see their lives becoming better as well. “No one’s free until we’re all free”, etc. I think your outrage at injustice has to extend to everyone outside of yourself, and your fight against the injustice be also a fight for them.

As I’ve demonstrated, Sasuke in chapter 699 in the space where he can actually work at doing that, to work at doing direct, radical action. Travelling as he wants to do will introduce him to more people, to more perspectives, to more ideas on how to meaningfully combat the injustices of the shinobi system and to directly help people to escape suffering the worst of it.

Recently I watched the Sasuke Shinden anime, and though it was still incredibly imperfect in its politics, it introduced the idea of Sasuke doing the closest thing to everything I am saying right now: it introduces shinobi being forced to fight in a human trafficking coliseum, and Sasuke being told by one of the characters, Chino, that being an inactive third party to injustice makes you just as guilty to it, which leads Sasuke in the end to free all shinobi forced to fight in the coliseum.

It also introduced the idea (and I was genuinely surprised that anything Naruto-related was actually willing to go there) of the Uchiha Clan, and by extension Sasuke, being victims but also being perpetrators of the same system that got them killed. In Shinden, they were hired by a feudal lord to deport another oppressed kekkei genkai clan called the Chinoike (that Chino is apart of) to a land unsuitable for any human to live in, and rather than help the Chinoike escape this fate, they simply carried out the mission order, which caused suffering for the clan. While I don’t think that that plotline was handled as well as it could’ve been, it really hammers in the point of it being important to learn about the position and suffering of others and to do something about it, because despite your own suffering, your participation in the system that perpetuates it still makes you complicit. And Sasuke accepts this! When he learns about the Uchiha and the Chinoike, he relates it to when Chino told him about being an audience to injustice making you just as bad if you don’t do anything about it. I think Sasuke Shinden is a good, if imperfect, snapshot into the very potential I’m talking about.

In fact, all of this is why I really believe it to be important that Sasuke travels and works outside of Konoha rather than within it; because as we’ve seen with Nagato and Amegakure, being apart of the Hidden Villages themselves, fighting in their wars and participating in their ranks, makes you complicit in the crimes they commit against the other smaller nations. Everyone we’ve seen fight in the wars, the Sannin, Kakashi, everyone in allegiance with Konoha and yes, including the Uchiha Clan, share responsibility in the crimes the village commits, even if they’ve personally suffered at its hands as well. Nagato, Konan and Yahiko are certainly justified if they don’t care that your war buddy died in front of you since you both had a hand in the destruction of their village for your military village’s interests.

This is also why on my blog, I am constantly advocating for the potential Team Taka represented. They were all shinobi working outside of the framework of the Hidden Villages, with little allegiance to them, and given that Sasuke in the ending is open to apologizing for his behaviour and accepting bonds again, they could’ve easily travelled together again in the ending and done just exactly everything that I’ve been talking about in this post. And they could’ve become closer than ever!

I think it’s telling, in a way, that what finally got to Sasuke in the end was genuine empathy; acceptance to realize there are other people around like him, that might share what he feels, and this is done through Naruto, someone who saw his own loneliness in him but that Sasuke rejected because he felt (understandably) defensive that anyone should get how he felt at all. Sasuke healing in learning that he can understand people other than himself, safely, is a big step into learning to properly observe and accept others, and then that’s another step that could lead into genuine revolutionary consciousness.

My conclusion here isn’t that any of this was something Kishimoto was actually going for. It’s that despite everything, there are already interesting building blocks in Sasuke’s canon characterization in place where you could create a meaningful story about resisting oppression and fighting for change, one that doesn’t surround a myopic, vengeful idea of it. I dont think of that as an interesting path for Sasuke’s character, especially since he already spends most of the series with nothing but vengeance in mind. I think he has the potential to do better, and we have the potential to write fix-it stories in which he does better than that.

[misrepresentedmorallygrey]

And Round 1 is Done!

PROPAGANDA

"Picture this: the love of your life betrays you and causes your death, then you're brought back to life later against your will and your lover is with your reincarnation. Anyone would feel bitter! She tries her best to keep living her half life and helping people. She's hated just because she's not the main character and gets in the way of the show's OTP."

"Kikyo was such an interesting character. She was murdered by the villain, who tricked both her and her love interest into thinking the other had betrayed them, brought back to life against her will only to find that fifty years had passed, the world had moved on without her, her baby sister was now an old woman, and she'd been condemned to an awful half-life in an unfeeling clay body where she was stuck in her worst moments and basically a vengeful spirit, but she eventually managed to move past it, gave up her one chance at getting revenge on her murderer to save the life of a child, and achieved some measure of inner peace before she died for good. But, she also has the misfortune of being the first love of the male lead, so of course the only thing anyone seems to care about is how she supposedly did him dirty and wasn't good enough for him. The whole fandom is chock full of meta posts about how she didn't trust Inuyasha enough and should have known he'd NEVER betray her like that. Meanwhile, Inuyasha fell for it just as easily when the villain framed HER for attacking HIM, but nobody ever tries to claim that HE didn't trust HER enough. (For further context, when she thought he'd betrayed her, she retaliated by pinning him to a tree and putting him in an enchanted sleep. He retaliated by destroying her village.) In at least 90% of the fanfics that she appears in at all, she's either the Bad Girlfriend or the Evil Ex, who either previously or is currently abusing the hero, or cheating on him, or trying to coerce him into turning human, or dating him for years only to break up with him by telling him he disgusts her because of his demon blood (huh???), none of which she did in the actual canon, solely so the preferred love interest can swoop in and kiss it all better. People will claim they're just making valid criticisms of her actions (which, to be fair, aren't always great), or saying she didn't properly earn her redemption (which is actually pretty standard for a shounen series) because she didn't apologize enough, but them multiple male characters who did far worse than she did somehow miraculously managed to escape the constant criticisms that she's subjected to, this despite having a so-called redemption that's literally just "He stopped eating people because he wanted to get into the heroine's pants", and remain very popular characters both in their own right and as alternate ships for the female lead. The double standards are so glaringly obvious, yet people will bend over backwards and jump through mental hoops that would give a gold-medal Olympics gymnast pause to insist that they're being completely objective and fair and that this isn't just about trying to score points in a ship war or holding female characters to completely different standards from male characters."

Kairi Propaganda

"The Kingdom Hearts game series is about Mickey Mouse battling the forces of Darkness with an alliance of fashionable anime boys. Kairi is a major character, and one of the few female characters. She is part of a trio of childhood best friends, with the protagonist Sora and their other friend Riku (who had a villain arc and then a redemption arc). Though Kairi is constantly and clumsily sidelined by the canon narrative, she arguably has more backstory going on than any other major characters. She is a refugee from another planet. She implicitly lost her beloved grandma at five years old in the traumatic destruction of their hometown. She was kidnapped and experimented on by an evil wizard-scientist—she escaped thanks to having a magic charm that basically teleported her to her soulmate(s). Then she had to adjust to living on a new planet and being adopted by a new family. In the very first game, when she's 14, she turns out her pure heart is one of 7 in the entire universe to be free of Darkness—she shows a full emotional spectrum of fear, sadness, frustration, defeat, but she isn't vulnerable to corruption. In KH2, she becomes one of the Chosen Ones who wield a magical weapon called a Keyblade. She loves her friends very much, and she has the unique talent to instantly recognize them even when they've been transformed into monsters. She has saved them several times with nothing but the Power Of Love in her heart randomly manifesting in, like, telepathy and teleportation and resurrection—she doesn't even consciously know that she has powers, her love is just so great that it's accepted as a tangible force of nature. She is frustrated and ashamed by her role as a damsel in distress, and she wishes to be stronger and combat-capable so that she join her male friends on their adventures instead of waiting around where it's safe. Also she was kidnapped by an evil assassin clown who's ten years older than her, and then they became friends. NOT ONLY does the fandom plug its ears and claim there is nothing interesting about this character and no potential in her story—Kairi has been demonized by the fandom for about 20 years. Somehow Kairi is useless and boring while also being a Mary Sue at the same time. She was called a bitch and a slut and a whore. She was hated for wearing too much pink and wielding a girly weapon with a floral design. She was criticized as a slut for wearing a short skirt, and for THE PLAYER being able to manipulate the camera into a contrived angle to look up her skirt to see her panties in the first edition of KH2. You can find nearly 20-year-old fanfiction and fanart of her being twisted into an evil schemer driving her friends apart, and of her being gleefully brutalized and insulted. Haters STILL comb for every crumb to make elaborate anti-canon theories about why she's an agent of evil, even though canon has FIRMLY ESTABLISHED for TWENTY YEARS since the very beginning that she's THE ONE CHARACTER incapable of growing Darkness in her heart. The theory is that she exists only as a puppet sent by the main villain to sabotage her friends (the plot for two out of the four main female characters) for all ten years of their friendship. The theory is that she's been using her powers to force her friends to love her—and their Power Of Friendship that is the EMOTIONAL BACKBONE OF THE STORY, and THE MAJOR FORCE OF GOOD IN THEIR UNIVERSE, and THE MOST CONSISTENT MOTIVATION FOR THE HEROES is all Just Misdirection LOL building up to a shitty Plot Twist. The theory is that she's secretly a custom-manufactured Chirithy (a cute talking animal companion that serves and guides humans)—and not a human girl with her own natural feelings and aspirations. AND THEN after stripping her of every important trait and role, these fans claim they're making Kairi more important and interesting than she is in canon. I don't know what causes the fandom to so desperately hate a sweet 14-year-old girl who literally canonically never did anything wrong."

[themattress]

Narratively, some claim his turn around happened too quickly. Here I both agree and disagree as AM did lay down the proper narrative beats to set up for the plot-turning point for anyone paying attention, but I do think it could’ve been improved. 

The beats were there, but as we know from SS, beats fall flat if the execution doesn’t do them any justice. And in this case, it was a self-inflicted wound, since Dimitri’s turnaround originally took an entire chapter longer, with the betrayal of Felix and Annette combined with the truth about his stepmother’s role in the Tragedy of Duscur bringing him down lower emotionally and then Byleth helping him begin his recovery and redemption. For some reason or other, the developers changed their minds about this and changed things, including cutting out Felix and Annette’s betrayal altogether even though their lines still exist in the battle map’s data. Tellingly, even in the finished version, Dimitri is still using his “evil voice” on that map, which now makes no sense given that he sounds normal in the cutscenes before and after.

AM takes more advantage of the characters than other routes. Character conflict and development drive story beats in AM far more than the other routes.

Does it? Does it, really?

Chapter 13 - Byleth finds Dimitri. Byleth goes along with Dimitri without any conflict despite initial unease. Dimitri largely ignores his old friends in favor of listening to Gilbert's exposition. Byleth then listens to more exposition from Gilbert.

Chapter 14 - Dimitri brushes everyone off and no one really argues / conflicts with him, they just talk amongst themselves about how concerned they are. Dimitri communes with the dead. Byleth mercy-kills Randolph rather than let Dimitri torture him to death, then has no argument / conflict with Dimitri even when Dimitri point-blank says he will continue to use them and his other friends without any concern for their well-being. More Gilbert exposition and more of Dimitri just ignoring anything his friends say rather than converse with them.

Chapter 15 - Dimitri gets a letter from Rodrigue. Everyone just immediately accepts Dimitri's take that the enemy can't be reasoned with and has to be killed. FINALLY some genuine character conflict between Dimitri and Rodrigue. Long strategic discussion mostly between Rodrigue and Gilbert.

Chapter 16 - Talk between Byleth and Rodrigue. Byleth continues to fail at actually arguing with Dimitri, but thankfully Felix succeeds at it. Dedue might still be alive, and it affects nothing since it's optional.

Chapter 17 - More strategy discussion between Rodrigue and Gilbert, with Felix calling out Dimitri again. Another lengthy talk between Rodrigue and Gilbert. Rodrigue dies and it's treated as more sad than a literal child's death. Dimitri and Byleth have a heart-to-heart.

Chapter 18 - Dimitri snaps back to sanity and Felix completely underreacts to his father's death. Return to Fhirdiad. Dimitri is officially crowned King of Faerghus. Another heart-to-heart with Byleth.

Chapter 19 - Exposition at a meeting. Claude takes a gamble. Dimitri and Claude amicably part ways. Dimitri finally opens up with his friends while Edelgard makes the choice to condemn herself.

Chapter 20 - Fort Merceus Battle.

Chapter 21 - More plot revelations and talking between Dimitri and Gilbert. Conflict between Dimitri and Edelgard. Preparing for the final battle.

Chapter 22 - The Final Battle.

In terms of meaningful character conflict beyond fighting enemies in war, we only have three: Dimitri vs. Rodrigue, Dimitri vs. Felix, and Dimitri vs. Edelgard in a parlay. Byleth is ineffective at arguing with Dimitri or convincing him of anything until after Rodrigue's death, Dimitri brushes all the other Blue Lions off entirely (even fucking Dedue should he come back!), and Gilbert is a total yes-man. Dimitri's conflict with Rodrigue ends with Rodrigue sacrificing his life for him, his conflict with Felix peters out into nothing because of the aforementioned axing of Felix's betrayal, and his conflict with Edelgard goes nowhere because it can only fail so that Edelgard can be the Final Boss. From what I see, "character conflict" doesn't drive shit.

And while Dimitri's development (and Byleth's by extension) drives story beats, it does so at the expense of everyone else. Again, Felix amounts to nothing by the end despite the build-up. Mercedes gets nothing with Jeritza unless you've recruited Caspar and done a Paralogue. Annette gets nothing with Gilbert unless you intentionally build up their Support points. Dedue surviving is optional and as a result his optional presence affects nothing. Sylvain? Ingrid? Ashe? Zip. Really, beyond Dimitri and Byleth, it's Gilbert and Rodrigue who get the most attention: two old dudes who are static characters, with the one who is treated as the huge emotional lynchpin of the piece barely having factored into White Clouds at all.

The poorly written and cartoonishly evil TWSITD are side-lined and killed off almost by accident. Edelgard is the main villain, and is far more interesting.

First off, I'ma remember this, it might come in handy later.

More importantly, side-lining and killing off a major component of the story as if it doesn't really matter is not justified because you deem them "poorly written and cartoonishly evil" and just want to focus solely on someone else (Edelgard, who is deemed "poorly written and cartoonishly evil" by OP's circle of fans anyway). That's as if Game of Thrones decided to just unceremoniously end the whole White Walkers plot thread built up since the first episode in favor of focusing on Cersei and/or Daenerys! ............................OH. WAIT. IT DID.

AM is the only route that utilized the Flame Emperor reveal and the time-skip. In the other 3 routes, these two story aspects fall flat. No one really reacts to the Flame Emperor reveal or seems to care - even Byleth and the Black Eagles. In AM, it's an emotional highlight that greatly impacts important characters. AM also takes the best advantage of the time-skip, as it's the only route where things actually happened during the 5 years Byleth wasn't around rather than seeming like everyone inexplicably hit pause until Byleth came back.

The problem is that it doesn't utilize anything the Flame Emperor actually did. Dimitri overhears Thales linking the Flame Emperor to the Tragedy of Duscur in a roundabout way, and that's enough for him to make the leap to "The Flame Emperor Did Duscur!" The emotional highlight is all centered around an obvious logical fallacy that nobody calls out. Also, I'm pretty sure CF also utilized the time-skip well given that the situation Byleth awakens to is vastly different from in SS, AM or VW, complete with "things actually happening when they weren't around", plus the continued usage of Garreg Mach makes more sense.

Byleth also functions as a character and a self-insert well in AM. You, the player, are allowed to express frustration with the cast - unlike elsewhere.

"Express frustration"....in a line or two of a dialogue choice, which is followed by not being able to really do anything about that frustration. That's kind of worse than not expressing frustration at all. "But Thou Must!" is a problem both AM and SS particularly suffer from.

The biggest success AM had was its willingness to engage with negative emotions and take risks. Three Houses often seems at war with itself - wanting to be both a serious war story where things aren't black-and-white, but also unwilling to make the player question their choices. This results in some odd emotional dissonance and mood whiplash. AM took risks other routes shied away from by prioritizing telling a story rather than making the player feel good. This escalates the conflict and allows for greater character development.

This final sum-up has three major fallacies. The first is the insinuation that engaging with negative emotions is something unique to AM when it's plentiful in every route, plus AM veers largely back into positive emotions for its last few chapters. The second is the claim it "takes risks" - there are some, but for the most part AM is the least riskiest route and the most traditional Fire Emblem style route (and wouldn't you know it, OP is a longtime fan of the series, I wonder if that has anything to do with how much they enjoy AM). And the third is that it's trying to make the player question their choices. Um, no. At no point does AM do anything to suggest that Faerghus is in the wrong or that Byleth is doing wrong sticking by Faerghus and by Dimitri. Everything regarding how Byleth feels about Dimitri's mental trouble is framed with sympathy, sadness and concern: you're clearly supposed to be motivated to double down on your choice to side with Dimitri because Dimitri really needs your help. How is Dimitri's recovery, redemption and ending as the Savior King alongside Byleth anything but "trying to make the player feel good"? Especially given that in every other route Dimitri meets a tragic fate? And concerning "being a serious war story where things aren't black-and-white":

Hegemon Edelgard is the ultimate cop-out. Because before this, the story was trying to be gray-shaded. The parlay between Dimitri and Edelgard wasn't about casting any moral judgements, but was merely a clash between two opposing, incompatible ideals. Edelgard and Dimitri still acknowledged that they understood where the other was coming from even if they disagreed, and that both of them do genuinely believe they're doing good for Fodlan's future. They ultimately agreed to a fight to the finish, each promising to respect the other by going all-out. And then, what happens? Edelgard goes through with her plan of transforming into a Hegemon Husk, a black-scaled, red-eyed, crooked-winged, distorted-voiced demonic monstrosity, with the power she gains basically meaning she's cheating and dishonoring her pact with Dimitri. Leading to this moment where Dimitri does cast moral judgement on Edelgard and her ideals, saying outright that those ideals were inherently bad and wrong all along given that they led her to becoming a monster. It's as clear-cut black-and-white as you can possibly get, all so that the player feels no shame in killing Edelgard (or rather, watching Dimitri, the Good King, kill her, the Evil Emperor) given that she is unquestionably a villain. And given how much AM fans let this shape their entire view of Edelgard and of her conflict with Dimitri, Faerghus and the Church of Seiros, it was successful in its lack of nuance.

Azure Moon Review

My final review! I saved the best for last.

FYI AM, CF, VW, and SS were all my first route since I played them back-to-back one "in-game" week at a time.

Before I started playing, I was the least interested in Azure Moon, but to say it came back with a vengeance is both a pun I'm proud of and an understatement. If asked to rank all four routes, I'd struggle choosing #2-4, but #1 I'd write as easily as my own name - Azure Moon. AM takes the best advantages of what Three Houses excels at while minimizing its weaker areas, uses 3H's narrative structure to the best advantage, and avoids issues other routes run into. It's not without fault, though, so I'll start with those first.

Like Crimson Flower, Azure Moon bit off more than a Fire Emblem game can currently chew. The genocide of Duscur is not given the attention, resolution, or weight it deserves. Like Fire Emblem Elibe series's genocide of Sacae, it takes an incredibly serious topic and uses it as a background tool for plot and character backstory rather than treating it with the seriousness such topics demand. With Duscur, things get even stickier and ickier because one of the "good countries" rather than the war mongering one did it. At this point, I think FE should quit including genocide in its storylines unless they hire the Tellius team to write it.

Permadeath also kept AM from living up to its fullest potential. AM has the most tightly knit group of characters, but those bonds are limited in their narrative potential because of FE's (in)famous permadeath feature. This forces the plot to revolve around a small handful of characters and has hamstrung the storytelling throughout the franchise's history. It's felt the hardest in AM, though, because of how intertwined the cast is.

The portrayal of Dimitri's mental illness has also received mixed reviews. I've yet to see a mentally ill character get universal praise, likely because mental illness is such an intensely personal experience. There are valid critiques like the harm of associating mental illness with violence while others praise AM for not romanticizing mental illness and not giving Dimitri a happy ending because he's "cured" but will achieve happiness and success despite his ills. Narratively, some claim his turn around happened too quickly. Here I both agree and disagree as AM did lay down the proper narrative beats to set up for the plot-turning point for anyone paying attention, but I do think it could've been improved. 

However, AM is still, overall, the best written route. There are many, many subjective reasons this route ended up my personal favorite, but I'm going to stick to somewhat more objective (though still debatable) points. So I could endlessly gush over how the Blue Lions are all my babies, but I won't do that here. And for anyone reading wondering if I see AM objectively the best because of subjective reasons, I can only ask, what came first, the chicken or the egg? (I don't know) The strength of AM's writing let its characters flourish in a way other routes did not. Because of that, did I like them better? Going into this, Dimitri was my least favorite lord - but boy did that change once I actually engaged with the game's writing. Personal preferences are what they are, but there are undeniable aspects of AM that are superior in terms of pure story construction compared to the other routes. 

AM emphasizes what Three Houses excels at while minimizing the weak spots. It's widely agreed that character-writing is one of FE3H's biggest strengths. Every character in Three Houses is both unique and reads like a natural result of the world and situation they lived in. Supports are often engaging and varied, adding layers of interest to even the most minor of characters. 

AM takes more advantage of the characters than other routes. Character conflict and development drive story beats in AM far more than the other routes. Dimitri gets the most fleshed-out and focused-on character arc among the various leads, the Blue Lions have the most connected cast and thus have the highest number of complicated and complex relationships, minor Blue Lions get the spotlight in various chapters (Ashe and Sylvain in the pre-timeskip), and just about everyone has some piece of the overall plot tie-in to their personal arcs (such as Mercedes dealing with Jeritza or Annette with Gilbert). Because it's the most "personal" and intensely character-driven story, AM takes the best advantage of the game's strong suits. 

This character-driven focus extends to the route's antagonists too. The poorly written and cartoonishly evil TWSITD are side-lined and killed off almost by accident. Instead of them, a mindless zombie, or Rhea randomly going evil, Edelgard is the main villain, and is far more interesting. Her dispute with Dimitri is ideological, personal, tragic, and compelling. Because of this, she's humanized in a way the other routes' antagonists are not, making the conflict with her more engaging in comparison. 

It's a pattern AM continues to follow through on - making the best of what's there. AM is the only route that utilized the Flame Emperor reveal and the time-skip. In the other 3 routes, these two story aspects fall flat. No one really reacts to the Flame Emperor reveal or seems to care - even Byleth and the Black Eagles. In AM, it's an emotional highlight that greatly impacts important characters. AM also takes the best advantage of the time-skip, as it's the only route where things actually happened during the 5 years Byleth wasn't around rather than seeming like everyone inexplicably hit pause until Byleth came back.

Byleth also functions as a character and a self-insert well in AM. You, the player, are allowed to express frustration with the cast - unlike elsewhere. There is plenty of romantic teasing with Dimitri, but Byleth also functions just as well as a mentor. It gives the player some choice in how they want to view the relationship while maintaining an emotional and important relationship between the two. Byleth is also a bit more active here than elsewhere, taking direct actions that help flesh them out as a character. 

While all of this is part of what made AM's story so strong, the biggest success AM had was its willingness to engage with negative emotions and take risks.  Three Houses often seems at war with itself - wanting to be both a serious war story where things aren't black-and-white, but also unwilling to make the player question their choices. This results in some odd emotional dissonance and mood whiplash. AM took risks other routes shied away from by prioritizing telling a story rather than making the player feel good. This escalates the conflict and allows for greater character development. 

While far from perfect, AM ended up the best-written route in Three Houses because it uses 3H's narrative structure to the best advantage and avoids common pitfalls other routes fall into. While it may have started out as the route I was the least interested in, it ended up my absolute favorite.   

[quotes-ig]

i think Eret’s betrayal was really the turning point of the SMP, and it deserves more credit. like, before that we had conflict (of course) but it was all fairly standard. hell, the Revolution was one of the most vanilla stories you can possibly tell; a group of underdogs rise up against the tyranny of rulers and establish their independence. it’s such a basic conflict, and was defined by very clearly established good guys and bad guys: L’Manburg good, Dream SMP bad. this is exemplified by the L’Manburg national anthem, which is a fantastic piece of propaganda that idealises L’Manburg as a “special place”, free from the “tyranny and bloodlust” of the Dream SMP. this was a narrative that the audience never really challenged, and the streamers didn’t either.

but Eret’s betrayal began the spiral into moral relativity and clashing ideologies that defines the SMP today. suddenly, those good guys and bad guys weren’t so clearly defined. suddenly, motivations went deeper than just ‘fighting for our country’, and the pursuit of power became a common theme. it took some time for those ideas to take root (for example, the second version of the anthem dismissed Eret entirely: “fuck Eret”. he’s a bad guy, now. we’re still the good guys). but the ideas were there, both for the audience and the streamers. people began to question the narrative they had been fed, the notions of right and wrong, leading to an election arc where Wilbur and Tommy - our initial heroes - were very openly undermining the democratic process. even as the audience was overwhelmingly on Pogtopia’s side, questions were raised as to the fact that they were staging a coup against a democratically elected leader simply because they felt entitled to it, because they were the heroes. the story began to embrace this: Wilbur wondering if they were the “villains”. it culminated, of course, in Techno’s bid for anarchy and rejection of systemic power structures, his assertion that power corrupts, and that L’Manburg was never the paradigm of goodness that it painted itself as, and perhaps never will be.

and that’s just on a meta level; in character, i honestly believe the effects of Eret’s betrayal can be felt in practically every major L’Manburg character decision since. it’s most obvious in Wilbur, of course. the dude never recovered, never quite learnt to trust again. Eret’s betrayal was the first crack in his image of a perfect L’Manburg - the L’Manburg from the anthem - a crack that would spread after Schlatt’s rise to power, and eventually shatter in his corruption arc. in the culmination of this arc - the destruction of Manburg - he purposefully mirrors Eret’s “It was never meant to be”, thus returning to the first moment he realised that good and evil weren’t quite so black and white.

but Wilbur’s not the only one: all of the original L’Manburg boys struggle with trust nowadays, and all of them have strayed from the vanilla perception of morality that the L’Manburg revolution represented. Fundy’s very existence conflates Wilbur and L’Manburg into one being; Fundy is the first child of L’Manburg, and thus is Wilbur’s son. as he grows to acknowledge Wilbur’s flaws as a father, then, he’s also rejecting L’Manburg. he’s revealing, retroactively, that the perfect L’Manburg from the early days never existed, or could only exist in the simplified perspective of a child. Tubbo, meanwhile, is the third president of L’Manburg, and Wilbur has already lampshaded the fact that things don’t usually go so well for the president. Tubbo has begun to make dubious decisions in the name of his country, the power leading him towards increasingly out of character actions. he’s (arguably) turning into the very tyrannical ruler the anthem condemned, making weapons a bigger and bigger part of the supposedly peaceful nation. and Tommy, the one who secured L’Manburg’s independence. he was the protagonist, the force for good. he was supposed to be the paragon of what L’Manburg stood for, giving up his selfish desires (the discs) for the good of the nation. now, he’s prioritising those discs over everything. he’s been exiled from L’Manburg, unable to align with their morality anymore, and is working alongside their number 1 enemy in pursuit of his goals.

even Eret themself, after a brief attempt at redemption arc, has embraced their place of power despite it putting him at odds with the ‘friends’ he tried to prioritise on November 16th.

look, moral of the story is that Eret’s betrayal began the steer the story away from the typical good vs bad narrative it initially mirrored; began the turn away from Hamilton, to the slightly more morally grey Heathers, to bloody Greek mythology (home to some of the most morally complex stories around). it shattered the characters’ perception of the world around them and what they fought for, and resulted in all of them turning away from the idealistic L’Manburg they once fought to establish. it even made them realise that said idealistic L’Manburg may have never existed in the first place. that’s why Eret’s betrayal continues to be such a prominent feature in fan material, and the most memorable part of the Revolution; it changed something fundamentally in the moral framework of the narrative, and broke something that can never truly be fixed

[mylieutenant]

REDUX: Roy regaining his vision was the right narrative choice [META]

The idea that Roy should have stayed blind as punishment for his crimes is far too prevalent, and I believe this misses the point of Roy’s journey. Here’s why.

As a preface, I’m going to add a bit of a disclaimer that disability as a punishment is a bit of a sensitive issue, and I don’t subscribe to the mentality that disability is a valid form of punishment (or inherently a punishment altogether). This stems from prior discussion so I think it’s important to set this straight.

In the context of the series, Truth takes away something a person values (most often an ability of some sort) as toll for performing Human Transmutation and seeing past the Gate. The characters often interpret it to be their punishment for committing the ultimate taboo, and readers often interpret it as narrative punishment for hubris. I will be discussing it in that context regardless of my own moral stance. To counter that, though, the series introduced theme that every character who lost an ability gained something unexpected out of their adventures, implying that disability shouldn’t be interpreted as unequivocal punishment.

When viewers say “Roy should have stayed blind”, they are often using disability to punish him. Furthermore, they are using it to punish him for the one crime they did not commit. In fact, he categorically refused to perform Human Transmutation, against great temptation. He did the right thing there. If we take this into account, the narrative would be enacting revenge, not fair retribution, if it left Roy blind because of a misguided sense of karma. This is exactly the sort of revenge Arakawa consistently painted in a negative light.  A clear message this series sends is that an eye for an eye accomplishes nothing, and that the cycle of violence must be broken. Scar is a good example of this. Winry breaking the cycle of violence drives this home. Roy refusing to kill Envy after being so close is the last straw. This series pushes the idea that revenge is fruitless, violence brings more violence, and it expects the viewer to internalize that. Using disability as retribution for an unrelated crime was never to be expected.

Now, Roy has committed acts of true evil. It is not my intention to justify, condone, approve or downplay the Ishvalan genocide (nevermind that there are rarely similar clamors for punishment regarding other war criminals like Riza and Hughes). Arakawa makes it clear Roy and Riza will face justice. That said, whether one as a bystander thinks that they can be forgiven, that is entirely personal, and not the topic of this meta. Arakawa doesn’t condemn the reader for either opinion. I’ll go as far as to say that we’re forced into the role of bystanders. I’ll go a step further in that the viewer’s say is irrelevant altogether - Roy’s actions are powerful because they are not dependent on forgiveness. It’s not something he’s after, not something he believes to be entitled to. He’s doing the right thing for its own sake. That’s all there is to it. He’s not seeking for redemption - at the end of his road, he still expects he’ll be condemned.

An argument can be made that it is perhaps unfair for a man to choose his own path to justice. However, by this point, the Military dictatorship is likely to continue if Roy doesn’t accomplish his goals. If he never makes it that far, his crimes may never be recognized as such. He’s digging his own grave, and doing so with his eyes open (pun intended). I don’t think it can be said this is an easy fate.

I will admit that I’ve seen interesting takes on how a blind Roy could have been given a fitting ending, but in all of these, Roy still finds a way to be of service for the greater good. And thus, in this angle, the permanent loss of his vision has little narrative significance that isn’t achieved by letting him regain his sight (unlike, for example, Edward never recovering his leg and keeping the one Winry made for him to stand on). We got the one moment of Riza being his eyes, which made a great point, but making it permanent would have implications for Riza that I don’t believe would be for the benefit of her journey.

Sure, there’s plenty a blind Roy could do for his country, but there’s no denying this path would make his way forward harder. This is also why I’m so Brotherhood-critical on this subject - Brotherhood glosses over the massive difficulties a blind man in the Military would have to go through to have the amount of power Roy would need for his plans.

The different endings (Manga vs. Brotherhood) give a different take on Roy before accepting the Philosopher’s Stone. I originally wrote this meta based on the manga, but it didn’t occurred to me then that Brotherhood alters these interpretations. The manga shows us a lonely, defeated Roy that doesn’t know how he’ll push forward. Meanwhile, Brotherhood has him surrounded by his trusted ones already determined to act for the betterment of Ishval (and he also asks Marcoh to restore Havoc’s mobility, but that’s mostly irrelevant to the point and meta for another time).

Brotherhood’s fate for Roy is the generally preferred version because it’s so feel-good, but I personally find that Roy being offered a new purpose makes Marcoh’s gesture, and Roy accepting it, all the more powerful. It also gives him a bit more justification in doing so too; if Roy doesn’t know what will become of him, he’ll be more willing to accept to use the Philosopher’s Stone. Either way, the point still stands that him using the Stone is part of a deal.

On that matter, ambiguous morality exists within the FMA-verse and general usage Philosopher’s Stone is the perfect example of this. Often the takeaway is that using the stone is inherently evil, but it really isn’t quite that simple. It’s been used for evil, and the Elric brothers refuse to use it to gain their bodies back, but Alphonse and Hohenheim recognize that these trapped souls have agency and allow them to act for the greater good. This sets precedence for Roy’s decision to be potentially interpreted as a morally sound alternative. Him using the Philosopher’s Stone for the benefit of the reconstruction effort is a pact. He’s vowing to be the voice of the Ishvalans trapped within it. So Roy’s trade-off might be morally ambiguous, as he still derives personal benefit from it, but it’s not devoid of integrity. He’s not being “rewarded” with his sight, but it’s a bargaining chip in a deal that will come at great personal cost.

I think the true power of this moment stems from the fact that we don’t really know what happened next. Arakawa cleverly cuts off this narrative before Roy has to deal with the opinions of those who actually matter - the Ishvalan people. Scar and Miles have their stance, but we don’t know the rest. The implication Arakawa makes with Scar and Miles is that any Ishvalan reconstruction would have to feature Ishvalan voices on the forefront, and for all many of the aspects of their portrayal are a bit questionable (meta for a different time) this is something she got right. In the end, it would be the Ishvalan people’s choice how to deal with Roy’s crimes against them. I respect her narrative choice in not taking this away from them (and by extension, from real-life minorities that have gone through a genocide) by deciding Roy’s punishment/justice should be left for the future.

So that’s where this leaves us. Roy regaining his sight is the narrative refusing to use his blindness as revenge or punishment for a crime he did not commit, instead leaving his fate to be decided by the people he oppressed, and letting him go forward with willingly marching to his own grave. I don’t forgive Roy for the part he took in the Ishvalan genocide and I don’t make excuses for him. The question is, on the grand scheme of things, is it worth for the story to take narrative revenge on him at this point? What are we, the bystanders, accomplishing by enacting punishment on a man that has so clearly changed for the better?

[curious-sootball]

Cw: mentions and discussion of abuse and violence; spoilers for the entire Guardians of Ga'hoole series.

Alright, I went over my screencaps/notes about legends of ga'hoole to roast lord Arrin, and realised that I almost forgot how ridiculously snobby Grank is (on top of the series's fantastic racism) and how nobody calls him out on that during the main timeline, when Soren, Coryn and the band are reading the legends. (The second half of the series really swerves into "Owls vs owls is bad, but owls vs everyone else is okay", and it frustrates me to no end. Yes, it was present from the start, i'm aware, this doesn't make it any less annoying)

One of my biggest problems with this arc and the rest of the series from book 9 onwards is the simplification of both conflicts and characters; even if you try and temporarily take the disturbing real world parallels from the picture, the fact that the series went from more nuanced to more simple conflicts and characterisation as its (assumed) target demographic was growing up is kind of disappointing. Did Lasky expect her readers to loose their reading comprehension after six books of "There is no such thing as inherently good or inherently bad species, and even 'good' characters can have biases they have to work through"??? There was a tendency to give antagonist characters relatively little depth before, but the Legends swerve into it hard, and it is pretty disappointing to me because those are the setup for the rest of this series; they are supposed to show that hagsfiends are formidable threat, and I have trouble suspending my disbelief when author repeatedly uses "tell, not show" for that, especially when I know that author is capable of doing it better, writing a believable and genuinely terrifying setup for their antagonists. Think about it: st. Aegolius is basically a cult(it seems to have been an abbey or a scolar community at some point, but it horrifically strayed from its original purpose), the Pure ones hunt and kill owls of other species for sports as part of their training and use a murder of a family member as a graduation test, and what do we get for hagsfiends? "Evil, evil, evil; scary, scary, scary; their only braincell processes only spite, rage and hunger; they behead their enemies and use heads as trophies;" this may sound cynical, but after eight books of brainwashing, cannibalism and infanticide carried out by owls this doesn't sound all that terrifying, especially paired with "tell, don't show" and keeping them intentionally one-dimensional. I was convinced that the previous antagonists were horrible people because you've shown it, Kathryn: someone willing to kidnap hundreds, possibly thousands kids and turn them into mindless thralls without batting an eye, or willing to murder their younger siblings in a loyalty test and only regretting not straight up killing them after they turn out to be alive is legitimately terrifying. Also, both in st. Aggie's and among pure ones there were somewhat amicable characters – Grimble saves the sanity of our two first main characters, Philip is genuinely good froend towards Nyroc; I'm not entirely sure whether Ginger was supposed to be a character who failed a redemption arc or just a straight up spy; but all allegedly "good" characters associated with hagsfiends are condemned by the narrative in one way or another: Lutta gets killed after being discovered, Kreeth (Lutta's parental figure after Pleek and Ygreek abandoned her) agressively rebutts all family-like affection (chewing Puffowl out when he calls her "mom", insisting that Lutta calls her "aunt(ie)", you get the picture), Ygreek and her husband abandoning their (admittedly stolen) child after she turns out to be a changeling, and not straight up owl or hagsfiend. Also, a very minor point compared to the rest, bit you can count named hagsfiends with fingers on one hand(Penryck, Ygreek, Kreeth, Ullryck and Mycroft. The last one never fails to make me chuckle.) Pleek, the great horned owl and Ygreek's husband, is said to become "more haggish", whatever the hell that implies. The narrative treats haggish traits as something inherently evil, a point of no return, and I hate this so. freaking. much.

Another element of the legends that falls apart if you think too much about it: the framing device for this arc is three chronicle books written by Grank, Theo and someone else, and the further we go, the more actual content of the book strays from what the pov-characters could've known. However, the band acts like they read the same text we did (The most glaring example, at least to me, is Lutta's story – she's a changeling who was manipulated into impersonating Emerilla and got killed almost immediately after real Emerilla showed up. There is no way anyone among the Hoole's supporters could've known her life story, especially the way its written in the 11th book.).

[ironwoodprotectionsquad]

Yes!!! Like Hazbin does an incredible job showcasing just how unique Charlie is while also showing us while her people don’t necessarily believe in her dream it’s really not impossible. Yeah she doesn’t stop the extermination but she was right that sinners can be redeemed and death isn’t the end for them. We can see she’s on the path to changing things even after hitting an extreme low at the end of the season. And like can we just talk about for a second how Charlie feels much guiltier for things arguably for more out of her control then Ruby does for direct actions she takes? Because Charlie laments about how she could have done better “instead of letting you down” her direct words while Volume 9 kind of just…hand waves it all away in a poorly baked “choose yourself” narrative that falls very flat given how most of the problems Remnant is facing is directly her vault vs Charlie who is very much reacting to what others are doing and trying to navigate a difficult and terrifying situation.

We could have had a Ruby who was faced with a current generation trapped in a cycle of hopelessness and students who have just accepted that hopelessness vs Ruby who is bright eyed and full of hope and belief and is determined to make things better to do things the right way. Like lean into the massive corruption of the hunters and show Ruby faces with people who have given up and accepted it is what it is and have her stubbornly working to change things just something to show she is a simple soul who is uniquely positioned to make things better.

But in the end we just…don’t. We have no solid reason to root for Ruby besides the camera is pointed at her and that’s it. And with an ever growing cast of “good” guys it’s hard to justify it being Ruby specifically who will save everyone. Between her consistent failures and lack of strong victories to her very…hypocritical decisions. I’m so sorry I keep going on tangents but I have so many thoughts about this like with offering forgiveness Ruby is so inconsistent for someone who is supposedly a “simple soul” it seems like the only thing she really cares about is if someone is a sad looking girl and that’s what makes them worthy of redemption and trying to help them. Meanwhile when looking at Charlie it’s easy to see when someone is going to be a person she is willing to offer a second chance to and who she is not going to be so open to. But even with those characters she still shows mercy like when Lucifer was beating Adam she doesn’t let him go to far, she offers far more kindness then he ever intended to has the positions been swapped meanwhile…well we’ve seen Yang and Blake kill someone in what is supposedly self defense but even so I still sometimes find myself side eyeing it due to how poorly it was set up and we’ve seen the mains repeatedly only being willing to help people when it’s convenient for them despite their repeated declarations that huntresses “help people who can’t help themselves.” But when they do things like condemn a man for trying to live to fight another day, then turn around sitting in a mansion drinking tea and later…running to live another day in a scenario far less deadly then one they previously condemned they just do not feel at all like actual hero’s we should be rooting for.

Or even comparing them in how they inspire people. Ruby sends out a message that realistically would send everyone into mass hysteria and panic while Charlie believably rallies a group of people to fight by her side.

The list goes on and on and on but I’ll stop blabbering on your post sorry ^^;

Okay, so I saw this RWBY meme made by a fan and I can't remember it completely but it was about Emerald switching sides. What stood out to me was the language used and how Ruby's group was specifically referred to as "The Good Guys side" and if that doesn't show how broken this show's morality is then I don't know what does. Emerald switched to the side of good, not just Ruby's side. The side that is specifically good because it's Ruby side. You're either with Ruby or against her with no in-between. Compare this to Aang's group in ATLA, affectionately called The Gaang by fans. A term that collectively refers to the group without proclaiming them as THE good guys. We know they're good because their actions show they are good. It isn't just a title grafted on because they're the stars of the show. And while they have an official grouping in the form of Team Avatar. It still isn't used in the same manner as RWBY fans calling all who agree with Ruby "The Good Guys".

Decided to start answering backlog asks! We've officially entered the post-RT discussion era. Fun! 😬

You know, RWBY is compared (unfavorably) to Avatar a lot, but this comparison is particularly interesting to me because Avatar is, well... Avatar. That's a title. And it's a title built into the fictional world, one that's so significant it's worthy of being the name of the show. The Avatar is a combined destiny/job description that, in the words of the wiki, is the "human embodiment of light and peace." Obviously free will still comes into play - I'd never ignore the significance behind Aang's personal choice of how to bring balance to the world - but there's an element of fate here, of self-fulfilling prophecy, and fourth wall-breaking knowledge. In-world, benders are (presumably) not chosen if they're unsuited to be this embodiment of peace. Once someone knows they're the avatar, they can more easily find the courage/determination to meet such high standards because this is how it's "supposed" to be (regardless of whether anything cosmic is actually ensuring their success). And the audience knows, by virtue of that title and our opening, how we're meant to view Aang: as the Good Guy of the story. All that already exists outside of the actions he takes within the show, helping to soften anything potentially suspect with a "Well, he's just a kid" or "Well, everyone makes mistakes," or whatever explanation that's technically true in any harrowing story featuring a young protagonist... but continually falls flat with Team RWBY.

Because RWBY didn't do that same work. RWBY doesn't have a handle on its own identity the way Avatar does. It laid some of the groundwork early on but then never capitalized on it, which is why I'm endlessly groaning over the failure of not doing anything with Ruby's status as a SEW/simple soul. Those could have easily been titles the way "Avatar" is a title, something that the people of Ruby's world see as cosmic evidence of her purity and inherent ability to lead them in this war. Instead, it's just a one-off, ambiguous statement and a very badly used skill.

So yeah, Emerald joins The Good Guys, which wouldn't be bad if, as said, the show had shown the group unambiguously being Good people in a war with black and white solutions. Or, if we had some reason to believe that Ruby is The One True Leader, destined/worthy of bearing this burden no matter the number of mistakes she's made. But RWBY even undermines the title aspect by making Ruby herself fairly inconsequential in later volumes. Yeah, the show is also named after this team/our protagonist... and yet that began to feel incidental as the cast grew AND many of the characters brought new - arguably better - perspectives + powers into the fray. Avatar made the simple but VERY important decision to say, "This is the ONLY GUY who can do this job. Sure, he's going to need a lot of help and saving the world is absolutely a team effort, but that team revolves around him because he is, again, the ONE PERSON who can accomplish this." RWBY failed to set that up and (arguably) failed to show the group being The Good Guys, at least to the extent that the whole world would understandably put their faith in a teenager who, frankly, just keeps making things worse. Like, that's a big consideration imo. Ruby's intentions have always been good and most fans are fully on her side regarding justifications for her choices, so in that sense she is absolutely The Good Guy, but beyond that she's just really bad at saving the world. So if she's not somehow ordained to do it and continually shows a severe lack of skill in this regard... why are the characters/the viewer rooting for her again?

[david-talks-sw]

Fixing Darth Sidious in TROS.

Was it a dumb idea to bring Darth Sidious back for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker?

A lot of people say “yes”. I say: not necessarily. If well executed, if he was given more dimensions as a character beyond “he’s the evil Emperor and he’s back!” it could’ve been cool.

Here’s a few ideas:

Palpatine’s back, and being kept alive by unnatural means. Cool. First off, I’d specify that he’s kept alive by a combination of cloning technologies and arcana. All you’d need is one line, which was in the movie until it was cut. Kylo asks if he’s just a clone, Palpatine responds he’s “more than a clone, less than a man”. That’s all we would’ve needed. On originaltrilogy.com, a forum where SW fan-editors exchange ideas, there’s been the idea of adding a green mist, of sorts, around the apparatus keeping him alive, hinting that maybe it also has to do with Nightsister-related magiks.

I’d specify that every moment of his existence is pure agony. It gives back some impact to Anakin’s sacrifice (he may not have killed him, but at least he condemned him to 30+ years of pure torture). Let’s see a scene where he tries to maintain focus as he tries to telepathically speak to Kylo, and he’s bleeding from his nose, crying blood, or his arm just falls off from the effort it takes him. Let’s make it vivid, in the confines of PG-13. Let’s show his days are numbered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Palpatine is all the Sith? What if that’s literal? Let’s play on that, a bit. What if, Palpatine’s clone body was unstable, and would’ve died in only a few years… if he hadn’t been posessed by the spirits of the Exegol Sith, which have been keeping him alive against his will? What if he’s constantly hearing their voices, unable to sleep, thus motivating him to have Rey ritually strike him down, so that these spirits can go into her and he can finally die. That would turn him into a tragic/pitiful figure, like Gollum. He’s no longer the evil Emperor, he’s a dude who should’ve died decades ago, survived through his own arrogance, lived to regret it, and now just wants his suffering to end.

And when he finds a dyad, he absorbs their power, and gains controls of the spirits, ending the suffering his own way and rejuvenating himself.

I personally prefer Rey Nobody, but if we have to make Palpatine have a relationship to Rey? Cool. Have Rey be his modified clone. Like Laura, in Logan. It would make so much more of an impact if, instead of being just related to Palpatine, Rey technically is Palpatine. You can still have the same dynamic, but now it’s heightened. She is literally a reincarnation of the man who single-handedly fucked up the galaxy. Does that mean she’s destined to do the same?

That way, you can also safe-guard an aspect of what was great about the “Rey Nobody” premise, which was that her parents didn’t love her, they friggin’ abandoned her. In TLJ, Kylo thinks it’s because they didn’t care about her… in reality, it’s worse: they were scared of her.

On originaltrilogy.com, someone made an edit making it so that, rather than her parents having been killed by Ochi, she accidentally killed her parents when she was telling them to come back, similarly to how she did with Chewie in TROS. This would align with how Palpatine killed his parents in Legends. We could even have Palpatine point this out (“you killed your parents as I killed mine… I am what you will become”).

If you wanna do Palpatine being her grandfather, specifically? Fine. Have him full-on haunting her. He's a voice in her head, and he's slowly telling her “kill this, choke that, use your anger, they deserve to die”. And while she tries to ignore that voice... slowly but surely that voice is making sense.

And, get this, Kylo is the only one who relates to what she's going through, because Palpatine did the same thing to him for years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, settle on the narrative you’re going for. If the Sith Eternal brought him back? Have them call him Sidious, his Sith name. Them chanting “Palpatine” makes no goddamn sense.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

More importantly:

I’m of the opinion that if you bring back Sidious, you gotta bring back Anakin too. A lot of people say Anakin should be the one to redeem Kylo…

I think the Han scene works beautifully as Ben’s final push towards redemption.

So how about this instead:

When Ben and Rey face Palpatine, for just a second, Palpatine thinks he sees Anakin in Ben’s stead. He blinks and sees it’s Ben, not Anakin. He gets irritated and says “stand together, die together”.

or/and

After Ben is thrown in a chasm, let’s see him at the bottom of that pit, his leg broken, staring at the sky too, mirroring Rey (they are a dyad after all).

And as Rey says “be with me”, we intercut with Ben, who, in a moment of hopelessness, says:

“Please… one last time… show me the way… Grandfather.”

Silence. Suddenly, Rey starts hearing the voices of Jedi past.

Down in the chasm, a glowing figure walks next to Ben, crouches down, heals his leg… then offers his hand. Ben looks up… it’s Anakin, smiling down at him. Ben recognizes him, hesitates, then takes his hand--

-- CUT TO: Rey standing up and facing Palpatine, backed by Jedi of the past.

Pics are from jon h’s “Rey vs Palpatine (Force Ghost Edit)”.

She defeats Palpatine with Anakin and the other Jedi spirits standing besides her, thus emphasizing that when Rey is defeating Palpatine, she’s doing so in the name of all the Jedi.

Any of these would’ve worked for me.

[autumn-foxfire]

ooh I'd really like the idea of Midoriya and Shigaraki's next confrontation (I assume there's going to be at least one more before the big fight) to end up mirroring Hawks vs Twice (and the potential of the opposite ending of him not bringing himself to do it, leading to someone important dying... oof. I wonder if Hori has the balls to do anything like that?). Though I'm still waiting for the resolution to the Hawks vs Twice drama in the narrative (will probably happen at the press conference)

it seems like the story isn’t going to condemn Hawks for his decision the way SOME fans want it to. If it were to actually justify it? Delicious. On another note though I seriously doubt with like every bone in my body that Deku and Shigaraki are going to team up at the end to take down AFO. Like, the way this chapter framed it makes it feel like a race against the clock for Deku to try and reach the part of Shigaraki that is still Tenko before he surpasses AFO as the greatest evil,

with an understanding that he’ll do whatever it takes to take Shigs down if he does. And I fully expect AFO to die at some point - probably close to the end of the story and probably by Shigaraki’s hand. Idk. I just don’t really think there’s going to be an automatic redemption for Shigaraki after all he’s done, or them joining forces or whatever. MHA just seems to take a more realistic route when it comes to consequences, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Shigs really died in the end.

I can’t wait for the Twice situation to be brought up again because I’m really curious about how the other characters will react to it. While I still firmly stand by the fact that a hero killing a villain isn’t illegal or wrong (heroes have been shown to go for the kill on multiple occassions after all), it’s still highly frowned upon because the image of a hero is that of saving.

Deku this chapter says how much he wants to try and save Shigaraki because he felt a crying boy deep down (...Yeah, I have a lot to say about that and none of it good but whatever) so I wonder how he’d feel about Hawks actions, especially when he learns that Hawks wanted the same thing for Twice that he wants for Shigaraki but had to face the reality that it’s not what Twice wanted anymore.

And that’s the crux of it isn’t it? Deku says he sees the boy deep down but that doesn’t mean that’s how Shigaraki feels anymore, the same as how Twice once wanted people to help him but he rejected it when he finally got it because he felt like he didn’t want or need it anymore. And then what is Deku going to do then? He can say he’ll stop or maybe even kill Shigaraki if he reaches that point but that’s easier said then done and it’s a lot for a 16 year old boy to handle.

Now whether Hori actually has the guts to make Deku face such a situation and make it so that Deku actually faces the loss of someone important (and making it even more personal for him) we’ll have to wait and see. I’ll admit I’m not holding my breath for it though considering it’s too good to be true.

I definitely don’t think, or well I hope not, that Deku and Shigaraki will “team up and defeat the ultimate evil AFO” in the end like some people will think. Most likely that Shigaraki will end up killing AFO and take over his legacy and make it even greater, or worse considering what he was planning to do. I still do hope that the “saving Shigaraki” angle will lead to Shigaraki ultimately taking over the role of the big bad of the series but that’s because I think it’ll be a really tragic but interesting route for Shigaraki to take.

Shigaraki dying but being content with returning to his family once and for all (a throw back to how he originally walked away from them and death for his anger) and signalling that he’s finally let his anger go would be a pretty good ending for him in my opinion.

...Though I guess many Shigaraki stans will disagree... 

[frumfrumfroo]

Saw an argument presented that the Skywalker saga is actually about violence vs nonviolence, and not about redemption; because redemption is 'a given' in SW. They also state that Rey is the main character, not Ben, and the ST is basically about her choosing the Jedi way and following the nonviolent path. Rey's character to me has never read as non-violent/ non-confrontational, so this reading of the ST doesn't make sense to me. Would be interested in your thoughts as you have good insight

SW is about compassion (’love people, that’s all Star Wars is’- George Lucas), but you’d find yourself tied up in knots fairly quickly trying to argue it preaches non-violence. All of the aspirational characters use violence and they are not condemned by the narrative for doing so. The moral line which it is never okay to cross is murder (you are never justified in killing anyone in cold blood for any reason whatsoever- no one deserves to die), but armed resistance to tyranny is celebrated. And armed resistance to tyranny will result in casualties among those who fight to preserve it. Those deaths are considered so morally acceptable that it gives no one any pause whatsoever.

Star Wars does not allow its heroes to ever kill or attempt to kill a humanised character without it being a very bad thing, but it is 100% okay with them killing faceless mooks by the thousands. If it were about non-violence, this would not be okay. The story never questions that use of force can be necessary, in fact it condemns complacency and neutrality, it only insists that violence isn’t the answer and will never solve the problem. Or it did, until TROS told us that violence is the answer.

Rey never learns a single lesson about non-violence and never chooses a non-violent path. In this movie she explicitly trains to be a warrior intending to use those skills, endeavours to be worthy of a ‘legendary’ weapon which is revered in spite of its history as the sword Anakin used to mow down children and murder Jedi, the Force is changed from pure Being and an expression of one’s spiritual connection and relationship to all life into an inherited superpower you can charge up to fight bad guys, and she never chooses selflessness or compromise or non-violent resolution of any kind. Rey is the aggressor in every single fight and the story has no problem with this.

Luke threw down his sword in RotJ, Rey picks up an extra one because to really defeat evil you need two lightsabres.

The Jedi way is not non-violent, it is the judicial use of violence. Leaving aside the prequels and their entire plot, Yoda and Obi-wan tried to manipulate Luke into killing his father without him ever knowing the truth. They told him there was no hope for Vader and violence was the only answer, that pragmatism must come before love and love would not be enough to help anyone. It is Luke who rejected that and chose a third option. It’s Luke who consistently refuses to sacrifice people when his Jedi masters try to teach him it’s necessary.

It’s about redemption (and by extension the idea that it is never right to sacrifice someone else) not pacifism because these choices are personal and are about our attitude to individuals. The previous films never condone passive martyrdom. Luke doesn’t lay down his life and the fate of the whole galaxy at Anakin’s feet because ever fighting is bad, it’s because killing his father is bad. It’s because the ends don’t justify the means and he believes love is stronger than fear- he’s willing to die to save Anakin, to avoid becoming him, to show another path is possible, not to avoid fighting. He has faith his grace will change the outcome, it’s not suicide to avoid impurity.

He rejected the terms of the argument Palpatine set out, he rejects Palpatine’s worldview that power and pragmatism are the only means of victory. And he’s vindicated and the impossible tide turns because this is an idealistic story about absolute right and wrong. Luke could not win with might, his attempts to use might ended in total failure or becoming the very thing he was fighting against, he wins with right.

But Rey’s path of growing in conviction and forging her own identity so she could have the same kind of faith Luke had and thus the same kind of spiritual power (strength in the Force is about FAITH not training) was abandoned so she could ~train~ in fighting and lifting rocks. Because apparently now it is about who has the coolest lightsabre skills, the biggest muscles, and the highest Force Power Level. She doesn’t take a third option like Luke did where he is neither victorious because he was mightiest nor is he a pacifist sacrificial lamb; she gets a power up, then she kills the bad guy with violence and she’s suddenly a sacrificial lamb out of nowhere (with NO AGENCY) solely so Ben can take her place on the altar and DIE.

There is no good message to dig out of this movie no matter how hard you try or how much charity you give it and the idea that Rey became a non-violent hero in it is frankly laughable.

[jonroxton]

Can you share with us some things you like about a friend in need?

:) sure

1. my tag for past-Xena is 'love her feral' and the reason for that is her journey to redemption for me is given (even) more nuance when the show explores her history (as the destroyer of nations, literally killing whole towns/villages) in a new meaningful way. yes, we've had this exploration before (her dynamic with callisto is entirely about this, and her emotional destruction with borias). what gives it new meaning this time is that xena is at peace with herself. she is fully trusting of gabrielle, both as a romantic partner and as her war general. she is willing completely to meet the consequences of her actions without the burden of her guilt. she is at her most evolved, I believe, when she makes the choice to pass on. I don't think it's said enough in fandom that xena wasn't just a bad person atoning. she was an awful, violent and megalomaniacal human being. what began as pure defense when she protected her village turned to something brutal and bloody. we're talking hundreds of thousands of people. In AFIN alone she killed 40,000 people. BY. ACCIDENT. in her rage and her recklessness. her unthinking. we know she can overcome these things because she is one of the smartest and most empathic warriors, but time and time again we have seen her choose not to. she knows right from wrong, she always had, but in AFIN her concern is simply about righting her wrong for its own sake, with what she's learned from gabrielle's spiritual quest for peace.

2. gabrielle's spiritual quest and xena's spiritual quest were always opposing forces within the narrative. the show always always explored how xena's violence countered and affected gabrielle's pacifism and vice versa. some of the shows best moments are when these roles are challenged in big (end of s4 with the ides) and small (xena's many skills are all considered peaceful, she's a physician, a seamstress, she has a lovely voice, etc) ways. AFIN is when the roles are no longer just challenged but fully reversed. it begins this way with gabrielle star gazing and xena miraculously joining her, joyful, sweet and optimistic, and gabrielle being the one surprised and alert, listening for intruders. AFIN ends with xena choosing the peace of death and atonement and gabrielle deciding having xena alive justified letting those forty thousand ppl suffer in eternal torment. it's bittersweet and even a little messed up lol but it's not out of the blue or strange that it happened. it's the culmination of the show's exploration of violence vs. nonviolence through xena and gabrielle in a way that condemns neither and honors both. and challenges both characters. so up until the very end of the series, they have agency and they have tough choices to make. that’s brilliant.

3. I love love loooove japanese samurai movies so a lot of the concepts and landscapes of the episode were familiar to me. im american so obviously can't speak to the samurai warrior's code or japanese culture in a meaningful way. what I understood from watching these films and reading books like myamoto musashi's book of five rings and sun tzu's the art of war is that the warrior's way is very different and much more introspective, quiet, solitary and dignified than the western/american way. weapons like katanas are much more spiritual in their very creation and they have more meaning in the hand of a samurai, and in AFIN even more meaning in the hand of a non-samurai warrior, a foreigner, an outsider. xena has been in this space all through the series, in her own way. similarly, things like death by suicide (called harakiri) and seeking honor through a swift beheading by the enemy who defeated you are all things that hold much more spiritual importance irt honor and retaining it than here in the west. in western culture, suicides and beheadings are all considered ignominious defeats. the ultimate proof of loss of dignity, pride and power. in japanese culture as I understand it, it is the exact opposite. so while many see AFIN as xena's defeat, it is actually the most honorable meaningful death for a warrior like her. at the hands of a strong, relentless enemy and for the honor of her soul. in AFIN she has reached a meaningful existence as a warrior and found peace in that life. in western culture, her death is a loss. but in the framework of the episode, it is an apotheosis.

4. it's one of the shows strongest episodes narratively and visually. beautiful to look at, full of expressive shots and wonderful acting. there's such resonance in this episode back to the themes and plots that made the show. it's about xena's past, as it has always been. it's about protecting people. it's about the warrior within us and the peace as well. it's everything that is great about xena writ small. xena and gabrielle don't physically get their endgame but they are together always. there's no separating them. I never saw xena's death as an end to that connection, especially not when the mythology of the series says that the dead can hear the living and that xena and Gabrielle are destined to meet again and again and again through resurrection. so we know for a fact xena will indeed be there, listening, guiding Gabrielle, and that they will meet again and have different roles. the show always played with these concepts and AFIN is no different imo. gabrielle has essentially taken xena iin entirely. she's the girl with the chakram now. the difference is that there's no burden of guilt, no self-loathing, no noise. it's a beautiful episode precisely for this dichotomy and bc it’s just a beautifully made episode..

5. XENA AND GABRIELLE KISS FINALLY OMFG