#narratives considering age difference only seems to mean one was a minor and one wasn't (this is not the case in PB)

[divinekangaroo]

falling - pettiot - Peaky Blinders (TV) [Archive of Our Own]

PART ONE - DAY ONE

Ch 1 | Ch 2 | Ch 3 | Ch 4 | Ch 5 | Ch 6 | Ch 7 | Ch 8 | Ch 9

PART TWO - MONTH ONE (Or Maybe Month Two, Or Three)

Ch 10 | Ch 11 | Ch 12 | Ch 13 | Ch 14 | Ch 15 | Ch 16 | Ch 17 | Ch 18

PART THREE - A YEAR (Or So)

Ch 19 | Ch 20 | Ch 21 | Ch 22 | Ch 23 | Ch 24 | ??

A Modern AU take on Tommy's immediate return from military service, and the period between his demobilisation and the start of S1.

(Tags shall be progressively updated)

.

Tommy Shelby/Lizzie Stark, Tommy Shelby/Freddie Thorne, Arthur Shelby, Polly Grey, Ada Shelby, John Shelby, Johnny Dogs, Various Lees, John Shelby's Children, Zhang, S1E1 Red Dust Girl, Sergeant Moss | Alternative Universe, Modern AU (ish), No iPhones (yet), Awkwardness, Age Difference, Disassociation, Miscommunication, Banter, Fast Food Vendor of your Choice, Pre-Season, Past Trauma, Flirting, Have I Met You Before, Heckling, Cars, Drug Use, Past Childhood Trauma, Mrs Shelby Lives, Gender Role Dynamics, Small Neighbourhoods, Past Greta Jurossi, Brotherly Dynamics, Sibling Dynamics, Class Issues, Attraction, Casual Sex, Car Sex, Military Transition Program, Wilful Medical Noncompliance, Melodrama, Illegal Bookmaking, 90s Fashion, 2000s Fashion, Slow Reveal, Slow Burn, Coming Home, Dysfunctional Family, Lasting Legacy of Catholicism, Bad SMS Etiquette, Gang Activity, Domesticity, Booty Call, Guilt, Shame, So Much Marijuana, Arms Dealing, Crimes & Criminals, Ill Informed Economic Theorising, Wanking, Ethnicity, Stereotyping

.

[aquaburst3]

I'm starting my own take on Pomefiore. That means Neige is coming into play a lot more. While I seen posts saying why they enjoy him and think he's a fleshed out character, I still think he's the complete opposite.

He has almost no personality. His good personality traits are similar to the Golden Aged princesses and princes. Charming, kind, gullible and easily forgiving. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. I enjoy Cinderella. I don't mind Snow White for what she is, especially given the fact it was one of the first animated movies ever and was created at a time when male writers didn't know how to write female characters yet. The problem is that none of Neige's similar traits are examined or developed. He is as static and bland as they come. Hell, Snow White from the 30s movie is a better developed character than him! That REALLY says something...

He has done some pretty shitty things in the arc. He picked his buddies to be on his team, slamming the door on anyone else at RSA with actual talent. Instead of working on his routine, he came up with a half assed on. He relied on the dwarves' cutesiness and childlike appearance to win over the crowd, going against everything the competition stands for. Do I think Neige is a bad person for this? Absolutely not. However, like Kalim, I think he's an inconsiderate, thoughtless and selfish person, who is like a Disney prince who just skipped straight to his happy ending without earning it. Unlike Kalim who learns that how he's acting is hurting others, especially Jamil, and tries to improve himself, Neige is treated as being in the right and never learns anything, despite hurting many other people. That is anger inducing.

He's also rather dumb and gullible. He takes the drink from Vil without even questioning it.

His connection with Vil is all "tell" and no "show." We only get Vil's perspective on the situation. While I love Vil and he's one of my favourites in the game, even I admit he's extremely biased. We never get a chance to learn anything about Neige from his own words. Vil and Neige never directly interact till the climax, despite Neige being the antagonist of that arc.

The same goes for his acting ability. We're told that he's an amazing actor, but are never shown any examples other than two commercials. Let's face it. Acting in a commercial is different than in a movie or tv show.

Honestly, the canon doesn't show us anything that proves that Neige is more talented than Vil in regards to acting and singing. If anything, it seems like the exact opposite. It comes across like Neige is coasting by on only his looks.

I'm 95% sure that Yana pulled that info about Neige right outta her ass after Rook's VA received death threats from the Japanese fandom. For one, all of that info came out AFTER this incident instead of being woven in organically into the previous book. None of it was even remotely hinted at in advanced nor makes any sense when you think about it more than a few seconds. It's so tacked on that I don't even consider it canon. (Seriously, why the hell wasn't Neige taken away by Child Protective Services if he was a minor living with seven other kids, who don't seem all there? What the hell happened to his parents?)

Any opportunity to give them a deeper connection is completely dodged by the narrative. Again, why aren't they stepbrothers? It would make them resemble the original story more and have Neige's backstory make far more sense.

At the end of the day, Neige is just a cardboard cutout for Vil to sneer at and that's it. Ironically, Neige's such an underdeveloped and boring character that Vil is better Snow White analog than him, despite technically being based on the Evil Queen. Both Vil and Snow White are adaptable, capable, stern, value hard work, and want to help out other become their best selves.

Honestly, it's a damn shame. Neige could've been an interesting and fun character, but that was all dodged in favour of lazy and shitty writing. Hopefully my take on his character with his new backstory will improve him a lot, including making Neige Vil's stepbrother.

[and-damntheconsequences]

Yes!! This is the coherent version of something I've been trying to find the words for, for ages!! Nimueh was a FAR better person than Uther even came close to being, as were most of the sorcerors without any question at all. And even before Morgana turned against ANYONE else, her attempting to have Uther killed in 1x12 for (among a whole load of other things) having her best friends dad murdered, is framed as morally incorrect — JUST as morally incorrect as the things he did to deserve it.

And Merlin's magic is "good" because he turns against other sorcerors. Because he's not bad like them. But they're (mostly) not bad, they're terrified and angry and have every right and reason to be those things. Merlin is only shown as "one of the good ones" because he ISN'T angry about cultural and literal genocide, because he turns against his own people. (Same with Gaius, Gaius is literally rewarded for this). The concept and idea that leads to, a minority denouncing their community because "I'm not like them!! I'm one of the good ones!! Go after them, they're bad, but that's not me!!"... I mean it's not intentional on anyone's part in the show, but there's a history and a reality behind that way of thinking and while the show is about magic... that has been suggested to be seen as a metaphor in some ways and the parallels are there. If you're going to put genocide and tyranny in a show by any means and then make those comparisons so strongly, the narrative could have at least shown that it was doing that....? But maybe that's just me and I'm overthinking...

Now obviously there are reasons and nuances with Merlin's actions, and he wasn't alive to see the worst of what Uther had done, or actually that the kingdom wasn't evil before that. So okay yeah, his character development into slowly understanding how awful Uther really is — that could have been really interesting. Realising that magic is good and should be good, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to use it in rightful anger. But we didn't get that character arc. Or Arthur changing his mind on sorcery really at all... except that he forgives Merlin, specifically.

All of that character development of both of those two is stripped away. And while Arthur was better than his father, he wasn't so different from him. He can't claim to have been a good man despite him. And honestly, the way sorcery was framed both within the show and by the show, it would NOT have been a canon logical conclusion for Arthur to have repealed the magical ban immediately after Merlin was revealed as a sorceror. That would have taken time, because the groundwork for it just wasn't there. At least not fully. Its more likely that he would have viewed Merlin as the exception to the rule, not immediately considering that the rule was wrong. Because before then, while he'd changed his view on the druids, he'd never really challenged the beliefs he'd had from his father and it didn't seem like he was going to (later, he did a little, but not openly and he dismissed the thought when it no longer directly impacted him). More than that, it wasn't Merlin's place to "prove" that sorcerors didn't deserve to die, because how could he ever do that without putting himself in danger — that was something Arthur NEEDED to reflect on and realise by himself. Arthur deserved to have the strength of character to do that. Perhaps that's part of the sadness of his death, that so much was unfinished, but it would have been a lot more satisfying to know that he had thought about this (in depth!! and for non-selfish reasons!!) before Merlin's reveal. If he'd told Merlin that once Morgana was defeated, he was going to try and change the laws. Not because of Merlin, or to appease his guilt over specific instances, but because its the right thing to do.

Idk and I'm really taking over this post and shouldn't but.... for a show where the ban on sorcery is seen as something bad to overcome, and Merlin, who is magic, is seen as someone good... the show really does not make the effort you'd expect, to show us that that magic is inherently not an evil thing.

Here's the thing. Uther having nuance and being able to have complicated relationships, being able to love his children while also abusing them, isn't the issue. In fact, thats conceptually the gold standard of writing interesting villains. Its an opportunity to explore just how complex and insidious child abuse can be, and could lead into a narrative about how loving someone and being kind to them are not necessarily synonymous. (Reflected, perhaps, by Arthur's somewhat poor treatment of Merlin as a means to fuel Arthur's arc)

The issue is that the narrative treats Uther's complexity as a means to excuse the rest of his crimes. The show frames it as "yes he was a fascist, abusive tyrant who caused immeasurable death and suffering, but he loved Arthur so maybe he wasn't such a bad guy after all." Meanwhile other villains, despite being much more sympathetic, don't get this same level of apologism.