#no matter the villain’s sympathetic backstory

[teafiend]

Am a fan of the character of 蔣簥 and despite my many issues with the show and its unremarkable writing, am rediscovering the reasons why it left an impression in my mind. Quite a few lessons to be gleaned here.

[danganronpusassholefactory]

If you like Emet Selch get the fuck off my dash I've had enough of yall

[writingwithcolor]

What Makes an Ethnic Villain "Ethnic" or "Villainous?" How Do You Offset it?

anonymous asked:

Hello WWC! I have a question about the antagonist of my story. She is (currently) Japanese, and I want to make sure I’m writing her in a way that doesn’t associates [sic] her being Asian with being villainous.  The story is set in modern day USA, this character is effectively immortal. She was a samurai who lost loved ones due to failure in combat, and this becomes her character[sic] motivation (portrayed sympathetically to the audience). This story explores many different time periods and how women have shown valor throughout history. The age of the samurai (and the real and legendary female warriors from it) have interested me the most, which is why I want her to be from this period.  The outfit she wears while fighting is based on samurai armor, and she wears modern and traditional Japanese fashion depending on the occasion. She acts pretty similar to modern day people, though more cynical and obsessed with her loss. She’s been able to adapt with the times but still highly values and cherishes her past.  She is the only Asian main character, but I plan to make a supportive Japanese side character. She’s a history teacher who knows about the villain and gives the protagonists information to help them, but isn’t involved in the main plot otherwise.  Are the way I’m writing this villain and the inclusion of a non-antagonist Japanese character enough to prevent a harmful reading of the story, or is there more I should do?

Why Does Your Villain Exist?

This makes me feel old because David Anders plays a villain with this kind of backstory in the series Heroes starring Masi Oka. 

I think you want to think about what you mean when you say: 

Villainous (In what way? To whom? To what end?)

Harmful (What tropes, narratives and implications are present?)

I’m relatively infamous in the mod circle for not caring too much about dimensions of “harm”. The concept is relative and varies widely between people and cultures. I don’t see much value in framing motivations around “What is less harmful?” I think for me, what matters more is: 

“What is more true?” 

“Are characteristics viewed as intrinsic to background, or the product of experiences and personal autonomy?”

“Will your portrayal resonate with a large audience?”

“What will resonate with the members of the audience who share the backgrounds your characters have?” 

This post offers additional questions you could ask yourself instead of “is this okay/not okay/harmful.” 

You could write a story where your antagonist is sly, sadistic, violent and cold-blooded. It may not be an interpretation that will make many Japanese from combat backgrounds feel seen or heard, but it’s not without precedent. These tropes have been weaponized against people of Japanese descent (Like Nikkei Japanese interned during World War II), but Japan also brutalized a good chunk of Asia during World War II. See Herge’s Tintin and The Blue Lotus for an example of a comic that accurately showcases the brutality of Japan’s colonization of Manchuria, but also is racist in terms of how Japanese characters are portrayed (CW: genocide, war, imperialism, racism).

You could also write a story where your character’s grief gives way to despair, and fuels their combat such that they are seen as calculating, frigid and deeply driven by revenge/ violence. This might make sense. It’s also been done to death for Japanese female warriors, though (See “Lady Snowblood” by Kazuo Koike and Kazuo Kamimura here, CW: sexual assault, violence, murder and a host of other dark things you’d expect in a revenge story). 

You could further write a story where your antagonist is not necessarily villainous, but the perceived harm comes from fetishizing/ exoticizing elements in how her appearance is presented or how she is sexualized, which is a common problem for Japanese female characters. 

My vote always goes to the most interesting story or character. I don’t see any benefit to writing from a defensive position. This is where I'll point out that, culturally, I can't picture a Japanese character viewing immortality as anything other than a curse. Many cultures in Japan are largely defined by transience and the understanding that many things naturally decay, die, and change form.

There are a lot of ways you could conceivably cause harm, but I’d rather hear about what the point of this character is given the dilemma of their position. 

What is her purpose for the plot? 

How is she designed to make the reader feel? 

What literary devices are relevant to her portrayal?

(Arbitrarily, you can always add more than 1 extra Japanese character. I think you might put less pressure on yourself with this character’s portrayal if you have more Japanese characters to practice with in general.) 

- Marika. 

When Off-Setting: Aim for Average

Seconding the above with regards to this villainess’s story and your motivations for this character, but regardless of her story I think it’s also important to look specifically at how the Japanese teacher character provides contrast. 

I agree with the choice to make her a regular person and not a superhero. Otherwise, your one Asian character is aggressively Asian-themed in a stereotypical Cool Japan way (particularly if her villain suit is samurai-themed & she wears wafu clothing every so often). Adding a chill person who happens to be Japanese and doesn’t have some kind of ninja or kitsune motif will be a breath of fresh air (well, more like a sigh of relief) for Japanese readers. 

A note on characterization—while our standard advice for “offset” characters is to give your offset character the opposite of the personality trait you’re trying to balance, in this case you might want to avoid opposites. You have a villainess who is a cold, tough “don’t need no man” type. Making the teacher mild-mannered, helpful, and accomodating would balance out the villainess’s traits, but you’ll end up swinging to the other side of the pendulum towards the Submissive Asian stereotype depending on execution. If avoiding stereotypes is a concern, I suggest picking something outside of that spectrum of gentleness to violence and making her really boring or really weird or really nerdy or a jock gym teacher or…something. You’re the author.

Similarly, while the villainess is very traditionally Japanese in her motifs and backstory, don’t make the teacher go aggressively in either direction—give her a nice balance of modern vs. traditional, Japanese vs. Western sensibilities as far as her looks, dress, interests, values, etc. Because at the end of the day, that’s most modern Japanese people. 

Sometimes, the most difficult representation of a character of color is making a character who is really average, typical, modern, and boring. 

- Rina

[menofsweaters]

I've been thinking a lot of deep thoughts about the end of MHA, so I've decided to spit them all out here rather than letting them live in my brain 24/7.

The more time that passes, the more satisfied I am with the ending, particularly with the deaths of the villains. The ending is definitely not what I would write or choose if I had the option, but I think I'm savvy enough these days to recognize the difference between "this is not my preference" and "this is poor writing." I'm also looking in from the perspective of consuming MHA for enjoyment and entertainment, whereas I believe the author was writing this ending in an attempt to make a political/literary statement, not to please the masses.

All of the most sympathetic and tragic members of the League of Villains met grisly ends by the time the manga wrapped up, and I don't think that's a coincidence. Twice, Toga, Dabi, and Shigaraki were all fan favorites with deeply moving backstories, but that didn't save them from dying. You can say they were all doomed by the narrative, but I think these characters were doomed by their own choices at every turn.

All of these characters - to varying extents - had the opportunity to stop their villainy, but were too dedicated to a certain cause or obsession to do so. Dabi is the most obvious example, as he could have returned to his family at literally any time and saved all of the Todorokis a lot of strife, but the others were also offered outs by the heroes they interacted with, and they all chose death and destruction over surrender.

I'm trying to make a point here but it's kinda hard to verbalize.

Basically, I think Horikoshi wanted to show us that it doesn't matter how "good" or "bad" you are as a person, it doesn't matter how moving your story is, it doesn't matter how deeply you believe in your cause, it doesn't matter if you love your comrades - your actions are the things that matter. As beloved and tragic as all of these characters are, they still murdered and maimed many innocent people, they still destroyed cities and hospitals, they still tortured families and loved ones.

Those innocent people are the ones who really suffer in bloody coups. I genuinely do not give a shit about anyone's ideals if they consider everyday people as acceptable canon fodder for the revolution. The LOV's ideals, Stain's ideals, the PLF's ideals, whatever you want to call it, are not worth the abject destruction of society over.

AFO and other power-hungry dictators feed off of people like Twice, Toga, Dabi, and Shigaraki. People who suffer from mental illness, who are estranged from their families, and who are rejected by society. The LOV was used by more powerful forces to commit horrific acts. As engaging as those characters are individually, they still fell prey to a violent ideology that offered nothing for them and everything to the person in power.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's easy for even the best of us to get wrapped up in some "cause" and end up suffering over it, or causing others to suffer. I think Horikoshi was trying to make a statement about who ends up paying the price in war and I'm finally accepting that statement. Those deaths were meant to hurt and they did, and I think that's why some readers hate it so much.

I've got more to say about the whole "they didn't fix hero society!!" stuff, but I'll gather those thoughts later.

[haine-kleine]

when I attempt to analyze Todoroki Touya's character, I get a distinct feeling Horikoshi's spreadsheet for him before chapter 290 looked like this:

'DABI IS TODOROKI TOUYA (hint at him being Todoroki Touya as much as possible) (make something up for his backstory later)

that's not how you write a secret evil relative subplots. the goal shouldn't be making the reveal as dramatic as possible. especially in the corruption 'break the cutie' type of stories. to make the readers feel for this character, you shouldn't be dedicating your time to teasing them with the possibility of the reveal, you need to also tell the actual damn story.

and Horikoshi just. forgot to do that.

to make the reveal hold any weight and not just serve as a delayed gratification clickbait after years of teasing the readers, you have to establish who the character actually was before they became the villain. if you don't do this, the reveal alone won't do anything to make the audience sympathize with the character, because by that point it will be too late to sway the established opinion with an angsty backstory alone.

Arcane tells a very similar story of the family conflict, but to have the audience be interested in the sisters reunion, to have them feel bad for Jinx despite the horrible acts she commits, you have to first see Powder, the troubled unfortunate and insecure child who loved her sister. only once we are emotionally attached to that innocent and unfairly suffering character, we will start questioning her motives and our emotions once the corruption starts.

if you show the before as a sympathetic character, the after becomes painful not only to the in-universe characters affected by what their once close person had become. if you show the after and hold off the before until after the characters have already reacted to the identity revealing event, your audience will react with 'cool motive, still murder', because they never developed any emotional attachment to said character, no matter how much you make them cry in the flashbacks.

loose reimagining of the family arc under the cut.

and it was so stupid to skip this step because Horikoshi didn't even have to do much. the first point of view we have on the Todoroki family history is Shouto, the youngest sibling who had been isolated from the rest for most of his life. he didn't know much about his siblings, but let him know something! especially with how closely his and Touya's stories are paralleled by design, he should know about Touya the most out of anyone, and Touya is the sibling he should be most curious about.

think about it from Enji and Shouto's pov. Touya was the heir Endeavor created for fulfilling his dream, and after Fuyumi he wasn't planning on having more kids. it was Touya's incompatibility with his own quirk, the eugenics experimentation failure, that is the only reason Natsuo and Shouto even exist. and Shouto is the chosen heir, perfectly fulfilling all conditions demanded by Enji. so he trains him like he wanted to train Touya, but that's not all of it. while Shouto is genetically fit to be a perfect replacement for the role Enji had prepared for Touya, his father had never emotionally connected with him the way he did with Touya. and he made sure Shouto was aware of that, because he talked to Shouto about Touya.

Shouto, who had been miserable because of his father for most of his life, knows that Touya was the older brother who should have been in his place, and he escaped that place. he stopped his training and left the dojo to live a normal life, together with his siblings. and Shouto wanted to have that life more than anything. he begged his father to let him join his siblings, he wistfully observed them through the windows, he imagined what his siblings are like, he asked his mother about them. and the entire time, the sibling he knew the most about was Touya, his eldest brother whom he had to replace as father's training dummy.

there's so much space for depth in there! you can do so much by briefly sharing the intensity of Shouto's complicated feelings, by giving a bare glimpse of his rumination about his siblings. just don't lump them all together into a faceless blob of happy children that unhappy little Shouto wanted to join, because their history is so much deeper than that.

inserting the flashback of Enji talking to Shouto about Touya during the Sports Festival arc would have been the best way to set up the intrigue. just a bare glimpse of Enji using Touya as the example little Shouto was failing to follow, cut to Shouto observing his three siblings through the window.

and that would be enough to connect the initial story threads of the Todoroki family and nudge the readers in the right direction. Iida also has an older brother who is a hero. with that example in mind Shouto not mentioning Touya at all would be suspicious enough to have people start questioning the mysterious older brother's identity, because surely, if the number one hero, who trained Shouto to be the most proficient hero in his class trained his older brother as well he would be a licenced hero already?

then, the lack of said brother's presence in the story starts to become glaring. the simple mention for Enji having trained Touya and telling Shouto how good his brother was with his quirk, separates him from the faceless group of Shouto's civilian siblings who are out there doing their boring civilian stuff and not necessarily needed to be in this story about kids becoming heroes. Touya being dead is a reveal put away for later, but to drive up the intrigue, he needs to be a ghost haunting the narrative. make it inconsistent and confusing, make characters talk about him and omit saying anything outright.

then you can use Natsuo as a red herring by not introducing the siblings by names when they visit Rei together. he's Shouto's older brother, he is weirdly hostile to Endeavor, he lives away from the family. well, this checks out. but wasn't this weirdly anticlimactic?.. also didn't he say he doesn't do well in hot temperatures?

later, during the Todoroki family dinner arc introduce Natsuo by name and confuse the readers even more, because the new brother turned out to not be Touya whom we have been anticipating to meet since Shouto had first talked about his family. make Shouto, who is still adjusting to being able to interact with his siblings, start asking about their childhood. he wants to express that happiness he feels about being together with them, so he wonders out loud if Touya also felt this happy when father allowed him to play with Fuyumi and Natsuo more. his brother and sister's faces turn weirdly grim at that remark. Fuyumi offers some stories from their childhood, trying to lighten the mood. that's the readers first proper glimpse at Touya in the flashbacks. Fuyumi talks about him always being on his computer, how impossible it was to drag him outside to play. Natsuo reminisces how the slightest stretch of intense activity was enough to have him fall to the ground and refuse to get up. Fuyumi talks about the time Touya and herself made 8 years old Natsuo carry both of them. Natsuo proudly reports that he didn't even break his back. the atmosphere in the room is light and comfortable, Shouto listening to their stories with undivided attention, his eyes glistening. after a moment of idle silence, Natsuo glances at him. he tells Shouto how usually it's hard to read his face, because he is so unexpressive. but he remembers when Shouto was little he was a total crybaby, just like Touya was.

with the picture of Touya the child painted and the question about adult Touya up in the air, Enji can join the dinner. Natsuo storms off and Shouto follows him and Enji, not understanding what caused his chill older brother to act like this. Fuyumi attempts to hold him back, to no avail. she doesn't want Shouto to hear what Natsuo has to say to their father. she also is no longer sure that keeping him in the dark is the correct decision. she sighs, 'mother, what should I do?'. she is too young for this.

insert Midoriya into the family dinner if you want your dramatic storytelling, and have him timidly ask Fuyumi why did their older brother not join them for dinner. cut to Shouto hiding behind the door, listening to Natsuo's shouts about Enji abandoning him and Fuyumi, stealing their mom and Shouto from them, ruining Shouto's childhood. 'but you know what you will never be forgiven for, not even in hell?' Natsuo asks, tears streaming down his face. cut to-

'Touya is dead', Fuyumi tells Midoriya, his pleasant smile frozen on his face, eyes growing wide.

cut back to Shouto, hyperventilating behind the palms covering his face. he doesn't even notice sliding down the wall. he barely registers the heavy footsteps of Enji going back in his direction and he can't be bothered to care about his eavesdropping being discovered. his mind is still echoing Natsuo's words on repeat.

'you can play hero all you want, but you know what you really are is a murderer'.

boom. hook, line and sinker. no need to have the characters spell out who thinks what, the '[Natsuo thinks that] Enji killed Touya' was so stupidly unnecessary it turned a mystery drama thriller Todoroki subplot into a Law and Order episode. let the characters speak their minds and reach their own conclusions! when they learn something horrible, don't send the good and righteous character rushing to correct their assumption. let Shouto be actually curious about what happened to the members of his family, let him learn their different perspectives! dont make the Todoroki Touya reveal into a singular event, an award for the readers who have been arguing about it for years. turn it into something that holds weight for the actual characters inside the story, a mystery, an investigation with the reveal being at the finishing line the characters themselves need to reach, not an inescapable event that will happen despite the characters' actions.

letting Dabi interact with the non-Enji Todorokis wouldn't have ruined the mystery, it would have given much more depth the all the characters, defined the actual drama they are going through, given them more individuality by allowing them to have different opinions on the situation instead of joining them into a Frankenstein mindless blob of 'family' taking their collective 'responsibility'.

make Dabi and Shouto's first meeting an uncomfortably long moment of staring, Dabi looking at Shouto with sad condescension, Shouto being visibly confused by the villain's loaded expression. make this about the characters themselves, and not about the readers being smart enough to connect the only villain with a flame quirk to the only family of flame quirk users.

let Natsuo and Dabi meet, make Dabi kill Hood for attacking his brother because his father was too late. make Natsuo question the villain's identity together with the readers, make him and Shouto join their efforts to unfold the mystery of what had happened to their older brother.

the question should never have been 'is Dabi Touya Todoroki?' asked by the author to his readers. it should have been 'what does Dabi being Touya Todoroki mean to the characters associated with him?'. and it should have been answered by the characters themselves.

[agender-witchery]

It hurts

After talking with people in discord for the week that this has been going on, I think my feelings on the Project Moon situation are just. Like, this was a company I felt was "safe". Obviously corporations are not your friends, but this was a studio that consistently pushed out games with progressive - and at times even radical - messaging. This was a studio that has consistently written solid characters with gender as an absolute afterthought. Emma is a boy! Harold is a girl! That's how little gender matters, which, ironically, is something that matters.

I can't think of another franchise I've engaged with that just... writes women as people. I've heard George R.R. Martin is like that, but I never engaged with the TV series that introduced the US to the concept of filler or the book series it was based on. I'm gonna gloss over Lobotomy Corporation a bit here because the story only has 13 characters, but 12 of them return for Library of Ruina. In Ruina you have Binah, Angela, Nikolai, and Elena as assertive women that take control of the situations they're in. You have passive uwu smol beans like Hod and Eileen! You have characters who are war criminals and that's not a mark of a villain, that's just a part of their backstory! Some of the women here have just Done Crimes! One of the women IS a crime! And men are treated the same! There are characters with traumas and behavioral disorders who act like real people would! Lesti saw the aftermath of Love Town and started talking about food! Beef intestine no less! Philip saw his colleagues get murdered and physically manifested a mental breakdown! Xiao saw her husband get murdered and physically manifested literal burning rage!

All of the writing has been good! All of it! And it has consistently written women in a way that is flat out rare, even in 2023. And Limbus has been doing the same! Outis is assertive! Ryoshu is assertive! Hermann is assertive! Don is an idiot and Faust refuses to talk half the time! Heathcliff is assertive! Meursault is assertive! Gubo is assertive! Hong Lu is an idiot and Sinclair is/was a pathetic sop! Across the board, the character writing is just GOOD. As Lobotomy Corporation progresses, Ayin's shitty behavior becomes more and more apparent! And that all culminates with Angela being tossed aside like garbage once she's no longer useful to him, as you hear her desperate wishes to just be seen!

All of that, or at least most of that, was Kim Ji-hoon. But Kim Ji-hoon is also the person who hastily fired VellMori at 11 PM, over the phone, while he was out of office in Japan, because some incels accused his company of being sympathetic to feminists in 2023.

And it fuckin hurts that the source of those stories, the stories that I just spent three paragraphs praising, the stories that are so important to me, could turn heel in half a second like that. As if he was writing completely different stories than the ones I've been reading. And I hate that? I hate that. Because there isn't a replacement! I don't get Grandma War Crimes and Dumbass Justice Enactor in other stories! Like, maybe some will come close, maybe some will have the same exact character somewhere, but never all of it together. Never written as amazingly as the City is.

So it hurts. And the silence is loud.

[m3nt4llyr4v3d]

Miraculous and Redemption

You know, I think I understand what my issue is with this show’s stance on redemption. It’s not specifically who gets the redemption, even the hypocrisy of who does or doesn’t get redemption/forgiven is only one part of the issue.

It’s specifically how they treat the characters who don’t get redemption.

I have seen, in media, where terrible characters who’ve done terrible things get a redemption, and the mean characters, who are just mean, don’t change at all. That’s fine! People are complex, some change and some don’t, some have done horrible things and some are just school yard bullies. It’s fine to showcase this, I mean hell, in the Owl House, Boscha was still an asshole in season 2, and this was past the point that characters like Lilith were forgiven (Lilith isn’t really terrible in Season 1, she just has done a lot worse than Boscha)

Miraculous’s massive issue with this, however, is that the narrative/the authors treats those mean characters as worse than those characters who’ve done horrible things.

I mean, what other media has one of the creators say that some high school bully is comparable to Trump when her literal rich, corrupt, politician father is right fucking there?

Usually the media where a terrible person is redeemed and the mean character isn’t doesn’t treat it as a moral issue. It’s not “oh well this person can’t change” or “oh this person is even worse!” It’s usually “they’re mean, and that’s annoying, but oh well”. That media never treats the character like Satan incarnate, or treats their meanness compared to actual villainy as a moral issue. When characters are around them, they aren’t treating that mean character as literal scum compared to the former villain, the narrative doesn’t treat them as more than an annoyance or, for lack of better words, “small fry”. I mean, while Owl House acknowledged that Boscha was still a prick in season 2, they didn’t act like she was worse than Belos.

Miraculous treats Chloe and Lila, some petty, mean teenagers, as the literal devil compared to other characters. Lila is a master manipulator who somehow convinced 3 people she’s their daughter and has a trillion disguises! It doesn’t matter that that twist came out of nowhere, and it makes it a little weird that this teenager has multiple disguises that she uses around the city apparently, one where she looks like a 20 year old, making people theorize she’s an adult because how on earth is she smart enough or resourceful enough to do this. Chloe is a villain comparable to Gabe, even when she was a hero! Her backstory doesn’t justify any of her actions, but for literally everyone else, we are going to justify their actions! If they don’t do that, they’ll just sweep their actions under the rug completely! It doesn’t matter that she’s consistently being manipulated by the fully grown adults around her, she’s terrible don’t think about it! She neglected her father somehow (???????????????????) so it’s fully justified to send her off with her abusive mother! We aren’t even going to acknowledge that Andre literally had a part in raising her and her turning out this way, because somehow he did no wrong! And what sucks is that it’s succeeding at making those characters appear that way, because some fans are completely genuine when they say that Gabriel is more sympathetic than them. I mean, if you frequent the Reddit (which you absolutely shouldn’t, one way or another it will melt your brain), you’ll consistently see character rankings with Gabriel, Lila, Tomoe, and Chloe in the same category. Somehow the show put the bullies in the same categories as the literal abusive terrorist and his helper in these people’s eyes. You will constantly see these literal teenagers be put on the same category as adults who have done infinitely worse. Even Andre, who is a corrupt politician and terrible role model and literally RAISED CHLOE… is “woobified” by some fans, even going as far to say that Chloe abused him! Nevermind how that would even be possible when she was like, 5-7 when her mom left! I can’t point my fingers at the fans for this though, because the show goes out of its way to place all of its sympathy on the adults, even when they don’t deserve it, EVEN WHEN THE PAST WRITING LITERALLY PAINTS THEIR ACTIONS AS BAD

(It also doesn’t help that the fully grown adult’s actions are all forgiven but god forbid you’re terrible as a teenager, then you’ll get sent off to live with your verbally abusive mother while your basically deadbeat father adopts your half sister literally right after wiping his hands of you)

I will talk about the hypocrisy in redemption at some point, and how bias and forgiveness is handled, but godDAMN, this sucks

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

(spoilers for infinity train s3, read at your own risk!)

thinking about how infinity train treats tuba's death in comparison to how spop treats angella's death. in both these shows, the main antagonist (catra and simon) kill a main character's mother.

infinity train treats tuba's death with the seriousness that it deserves. grace and hazel are horrified when simon admits to murdering tuba, grace gets mad at him and lashes out, hazel is so overcome with shock and grief that she starts morphing into her actual self.

later, hazel and grace hold a funeral for tuba, we see grace finally start to question the way she treated the train's denizens. tuba's death wasn't all in vain, it wasn't forgotten, instead it was given the narrative importance that it deserved and simon was held accountable for it till the very end.

keep in mind, simon was also a sympathetic villain and the show manages to keep that sympathetic part of him, while also reminding us that he is still a villain and that his actions have consequences.

meanwhile in spop, angella's death is kinda relevant in s4 but not really because yes, glimmer's grief is a huge part of that season but also catra isn't held accountable for it at all?

even in double trouble's big speech towards the end, they never once mention angella or glimmer, but they mention shadow weaver.. for some reason? and hordak?? i mean sure, catra betrayed hordak and whatnot but are they really telling us that catra lying to hordak about entrapta was worse than her directly causing angella's death? what even is this show's priorities??

the first episode of s4 honors angella and treats her death with narrative importance but for the rest of it, her death only matters to glimmer. yes, adora and bow are sad about it but it isn't treated with that much respect. it's just there to give glimmer a mini corruption arc and to drive a wedge between her and adora.

and y'all know i don't even need to mention s5. it's crazy because catra and simon are basically the same character (except catra has more backstory because she was apparently the protagonist of spop /s) but infinity train actually knows how to tell a good story in just 10 episodes, while spop struggles with 5 whole ENTIRE seasons.

[danmei-confessions]

I don't like JGY but I think I would like him if his defenders weren't so annoying, weird, and aggressive. Your fav did some really horrible shit, get over it. The weird theories about how he's 'actually innocent' are what made me start to really hate him. I like all the other villains in MDZS but none of the other fans try to deny what their fav did.

Yes, JGY is undeniably a tragic figure who experienced terrible things that were both unfair and terrible, but I have a very XXC reaction to his tragic backstory "oh your pinky got run over? cool motive, still murder".

I have empathy for the real discrimination that JGY faced, I don't have empathy for him murdering sex workers. And with every "5 reasons that JGY is the REAL victim" post that I run into, my empathy dwindles. I do actually believe that to fight against extreme discrimination, extreme actions are required. But while I think murdering his father was absolutely justified, I don't think murdering the innocent sex workers was justified. Or NMJ for that matter. Or betraying LXC. Or murdering QS and JRS. Or the genocide he helped with. (also if I see one more post saying "oh i know he confessed to doing it but he was obviously lying" I might rip my hair out. No. It is not 'obvious' that he was lying. In the full context of the story, his characterization, the position he was in, and the other things he's said about them including the scene where he says that JRS death was inevitable, it's pretty obvious that he did indeed do it. I'm really tired of the copium. If you like JGY that's fine but the weird nonsensical theories that 'prove' he's innocent are ridiculous.)

All that to say I don't think that JGY is the 'worst' or the most 'evil villain'. He's a complex character with a genuinely sympathetic backstory and a tragically difficult position. Every character in MDZS has done some horrible stuff for morally nebulous reasons. His character is fascinating, well-written, and multi-faceted. He does some very good things for bad reasons, some very bad things for good reasons, good things for good reasons, and bad things for bad reasons. He's got depth to him. I don't think he sucks or he should be bashed or anything. I'm just tired of the "JGY did nothing wrong" squad. He did a lot of stuff wrong, guys.

.

[maxwell-grant]

Reverse Unpopular Opinion: Noriaki Kakyoin

I really like that he's a bastard, might actually be my favorite thing about him. He's designed to be "the thin and sensitive one", he's made to be pretty and attractive to an extent the others aren't, and of course he's given a very sympathetic and tragic backstory and death, but a lot of the time the spotlight's on him, he's kind of a mean jerk but in a really understated fashion that makes it funny. There is a line of succession among Araki's pointedly villainous heroes that starts with B.T and is embodied in the current protagonist Jodio, and I think Kakyoin is in there, predating the likes of Rohan and Giorno. It's not for nothing that he is our first villain Stand user, and why they make a point of contrasting his charming honor student personality with his horrible gross tentacle puppet power.

I also like that this ties into his prideful personality, and the reasons why he's tagging along to defeat DIO. He's a guy who's grown used to being disconnected from people and ostracized and self-reliant (much of what I love about Death 13 retroactively is that it's hitting Kakyoin hard with this before we understand why this is a personal button for him, and it's not a beat that would work with the other Crusaders), having maybe the closest bond with his Stand that we see among the Crusaders, and his dynamic with DIO is interesting to me because he blames himself for falling victim to DIO more so than he blames DIO for it. It comes up more prominently in the D'Arby fight and the finale that he's pushing through not just a deep fear, but also a form of self-hatred whenever he thinks about what DIO did to him. He feels ashamed and humiliated and even abused, even knowing about DIO's power and the flesh buds and having seen others in his situation, seeing what happened to Polnareff and Enya, and it doesn't really dissuade him from this thinking.

It's that whole speech he gives to Jotaro in his debut about how evil is determined by who wins and who loses: people tend to forget it because he's being brainwashed, but the flesh bud doesn't alter personalities like that, Polnareff refutes this in his first encounter. That wasn't the fleshbud, that was Kakyoin talking, and he'd come back to that sentiment later. He lost to DIO, nothing else mattered, he was the loser and thus the evil one. And so he wants to make up for it, to stand up to DIO again and not give in, to be freed from him. He's constantly putting his friends first during the journey but at his most personal, when he's steeling himself, he thinks back to that and swears to overcome it. People talk a lot about how Kakyoin was a mega hit with the female demographic because he's pretty and charming in a way the sweaty buff men aren't and because he makes a good pair with Jotaro, and okay sure that's part of it, but I think the fact that his arc being that intimate, that tragic, and panning out into a story about overcoming abuse and standing strong in the face of your abuser, even if all you can do is save others from him, that was the secret ingredient. Intentionally or not, that stings pretty deep.

But mostly I like him because he is a bastard, and he's the character who's not supposed to look or act like one, so the fact that he is makes it better. "Tricking your friends into feeding a baby his own shit" is not a beat that would work with the others, or even something you could land, no matter how evil the baby was, if the guy doing it wasn't capable of selling it as a cool and funny and karmically satisfying thing to be doing.

[rebeccaajc93]

Here is my Top 10 Aardman Villains List:

*10. Lord Nooth from Early Man (2018) - He is maybe the hilarious Aardman villain, But He is not my forte, Because He is too cowardly for my taste. *9. Anthony Trumper from Shaun The Sheep Movie (2015) - He is maybe more dangerous than Lord Nooth, But He is too boisterous for my taste. *8. Piella Bakewell from Wallace and Gromit: A Matter Of Loaf and Death (2008) - Because She is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a serial killer. *7. Victor Quartermaine from Wallace and Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit (2005) - Because He is an arrogant hunter, who wants to hunt the rabbits for sport and wants to marry Lady Campanula Tottington for money. *6. Preston from Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave (1995) - Because he is a canine equivalent to The Terminator. *5. The Toad from Flushed Away (2006) - Because He was originally the royal pet amphibian of the young King Charles III, But He was replaced by the pet rodent that made him very angry and upset, then He was flushed down the toilet and sent to the London Sewers. *4. Agent Red from A Shaun The Sheep Movie: Farmageddon (2019) - She maybe has a cold exterior, but She has a tragic backstory that made her feel very misunderstood and sympathetic. But thankfully, she redeemed herself in the end by giving Lu-La’s parents a hug. *3. Queen Victoria from The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists! (2012) - She is maybe the Queen Of England from the 19th Century, But She is a pirate-hating, katana-wielding ninja warrior. *2. Mrs. Melisha Tweedy from Chicken Run (2000) and Chicken Run: Dawn Of The Nugget (2023) - Because She is the most threatening out of the human Aardman villains and She is armed with an axe, She married two husbands, chicken meat products businesses and different outfits from the different decades, The First Movie’s case is wearing Burgundy tweed dress and black wellies, When she was with Willard Tweedy and doing the chicken pie business in the 1950’s. While for the sequel’s case is wearing the Pink Penelope Pitstop-Styled Go-Go Boots, black leggings, dark red gloves and plum-purple sleeved dress, When she is now with Dr. Marcus Fry and doing the chicken nugget business in the 1960’s. She is the first Aardman villain is returning for her revenge against her arch-enemies. *1. Feathers McGraw from Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers (1993) and Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl (2024) - Because He is the most iconic Wallace and Gromit villain, as well as his silent, but deadly nature. He is a diamond thief of the penguin, Who is disguised as a chicken and he is armed with a pistol. He is using Wallace’s technology and inventions for his evil purposes/intentions, For The Wrong Trousers (1993)’s case is the techno trousers. While for Vengeance Most Fowl (2024)’s case is the smart gnomes. Like Melisha Tweedy, Feathers McGraw is the second Aardman villain is returning for his revenge against his arch-enemies.

[an-excellent-choice]

While I like thinking about how the dead three's chosens (Ketheric, Orin, Gortash) could be redeemable. Today, I want to think deeper and talk about how they are irredeemable. (i like villains being villains oki)

So, all three of them have tragic backstories that you can sympathize with Ketheric losing his family and being ignored by his goddess, Orin being indoctrinated from the very start and her mother trying to kill her, Gortash being sold off and fighting for his life every step of the way.

So, these three experience the worst in life and thus also started doing horrible things. Generally, people in pain can cause great hurt to others but these three had specific actions that made them irredeemable.

These actions for me is inflicting the same pain they have experienced but worst. They didn't just continue the cycle of pain but they multiplied the pain in their cycles.

They had this pain and rather than think that nobody deserves the pain I experienced because it destroyed me. They decided that I experienced this, now it is your problem and your turn for it.

Ketheric lost his faith because he lost his family. Ketheric then proceeded to subjugate and murder families for still having faith in Selune. Not only that but he also cursed the very lands that were once filled with by families and friends.

Orin's mother attempted to murder her on Sarevok Anchev orders for Bhaal's approval. Orin ended up murdering (or attempted to murder) durge because she wanted to be the chosen one on nobody's orders.

Gortash was sold off by his parents and had fight his way to freedom/life. Gortash sells Karlach into slavery knowing full well that she will be a prototype to the engines. Karlach can never be free because of it, no matter how hard she fights or runs she still an engine for a heart that needs to stay in hells.

They are great villains. Sympathetic but still monsters in the end. Maybe redeemable but unforgivable for their victims

[the-ellia-west]

How to Make a Villain for Dummies

Sorry Lovelies, this one will be long - But each section will be segmented by a picture if you want to skip through (Go to Badass Baddies for a villain goal tutorial) - Feel free to message me to brainstorm or for help to build up anything writing-related, I can help! I'm also just here to chat

(Admittedly, no matter what you do someone on the internet is going to think it's sexy so don't let it bother you! Unless... you want your baddie to be sexy, then you do you lol)

Anywayyyy, You're here for a new baddie! How do we do that? I'm glad you asked!

There are multiple different types of villains. There's sympathetic ones, Redeemable ones, and then there's the Ultra baddies. We will be walking through the best strategies and tips I have for each one.

Fundamentally you need two things to make them a 'baddie'

They need to have morally wrong actions.

They need to cause some harm whether it is intentional or not.

Misunderstood

First up: The best type morally and the one I'm best at writing. These are your simple Misunderstood baddies. - Either they Did something bad on accident - They are being framed - Or they did something Bad for a good reason (Antihero)

These guys are easy because they technically aren't villains!

We will start with the first two because the Last one is technically something different.

Anyways, your Misunderstood baddies are just heroes who have been mistaken for a villain. Depending on whether they are deceiving the protagonist or just generally misunderstood they will react differently.

If they are deceiving the protagonist then they will act like your average evil villain, but you should give foreshadowing that they are lying

But if they are just generally misunderstood, then depending on their personality, they may cry, plead, accuse someone, give up, ect.

Misunderstood villains who are doing the things they do because they are being forced will probably cry or sound defeated when they speak. They are more likely to plead with the protagonist to save them or believe them, but if they're kind of a dick then they may accuse the Protagonist of being one of their captors

But on the other hand, Misunderstood villains who are framed and trying to make their way out, they will be less likely to be defeated and more likely to fight harder no matter the cost to prove their innocence, they may sound more desperate because they know there is still a chance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now! Antiheroes!

These guys are kind of misunderstood, kind of hero, kind of baddie.

Basically for those of you who don't know, an Antihero is a character who does bad for a good reason, say killing someone for medication to cure cancer

They can or cannot fit depending on your situation but they're generally pretty moody and Angsty.

Despite not really fitting into any category, they still deserve an honorable mention. If you're planning on writing one Make them have a good goal but be set on doing bad things to Achieve that goal

Sympathetic

Next up we have the tragic or somewhat morally okay ones: our Sympathetic Baddies which I cannot stop making. -Either they have a really Traumatic backstory enough to justify their actions - They have enough morals to justify their actions - Or so many bad things happen to them that it makes them sympathetic

These ones are The Same as Misunderstood but with a bit more dramatic flare and evil mixed in there

The main Thing about a Sympathetic Baddie is that we need a reason we can justify their actions be that 'They have a traumatic backstory' or 'They didn't want to do it' I'll leave that to you

(Skip ahead for 'they looked good while doing it' villains)

Now For sympathetic the main part of their characterization is Evil. They're bad. If you want not really bad, go back to misunderstood.

They must have functionally evil morals and/or actions to fit into this category, but what sets them apart from the other villains on our list is their puppy dog sad backstory/tragic plot points in story.

You need a specific cause to explain 1. Why They're evil 2. Why should we feel bad for them/ maybe like them?

Yes these ones are generally the sexiest

Once you have enough tragedy to throw at them you should make sure they are give of an 'oh poor baby" reaction or a "You're a bitch but I feel bad enough for you that I like you"

The more trauma, the more angst, and the more chance your readers will sympathize with them.

Here's a special section for your "But they looked while doing it" Baddies. Because I know at least some of you want this.

They're horrible

They are assholes

What they've done should be irrideemable

But they're hot (looks or personality)

And that's all that matters

So how do we elicit that response?

You make them cocky bastards, that's how.

- Sarcasm cranked up to as high as we can get it before it gets annoying - Intelligence - Banter - Badass/cool - And by far the most important, Fashion

This villain or antihero (These guys can also technically be heroes) should do or say some pretty shitty things, but they need to have a vibe that makes them likable.

Examples: Adair from Not even Bones - Haymitch from the Hunger games - Zemo from The Avengers

What do they have in common?

Sass

Bad boy personalities

The occasional good deed

Selfishness (On most occasions)

The Occasional good deed can be incredibly often or far between and they usually only do it for personal reasons, but it's still a good deed that they didn't have to do.

(It's also usually a man because men are awesome)

Saved a cat from a tree but only did it to gain a favor from a rich old lady? They could have totally done something else, but you saved that cat!

Regular - Badass (Motives)

After that, We have our Badass Baddies. Not exactly likable but not exactly horrible. You appreciate them as the villain they are and how cool they can be in fight scenes but ehhhh.

These villains can have a variable level of Tragedy, but they must always have a motive. MUST.

Give these bois a reason.

Power? Why do they want power?

Money? Why do they want money?

Come up with a basic motive, then figure out why they have that motive.

For example:

My villain wants power. He wants power because he wants control. He wants control so he can avenge his dead family, and make sure the humans don't do any more stupid shit.

After that workout their plan to achieve that.

My villain's plan is to do this by harvesting the souls of people after building up their power, and transforming humans into creatures he can control.

Then Why is that their plan? Why not something else?

Now, For badass baddies, make sure their actions are unredeemable and make it so that they're completely over their tragic backstory by now. That's what separates them from sympathetic. While sympathetic are still depressed and drowning in misery, these guys are like, I'm gonna do bad shit. Maybe it started with my tragic backstory, but now I'm doing it for me.

Make it so that they're a dick but not so much so that they're hateable. Make them a bad person, but not that happy about it.

Like they're doing it for themselves but it doesn't feel good to them, it feels necessary for their goals

All villains are fundamentally selfish unless you want to make them redeemable. Oh HEY LOOK AT THAT

Redeemable

Redeemable Baddies - These guys are a mix of sympathetic and anything else you want

The only requirements for these guys is that they're selfless enough that they will be or COULD be redeemed.

They have to do good things, and have some morals at least if you want them to be super likable.

But here's where the interesting thing I want to talk about for these guys comes in.

Redeemed vs Potential to be Redeemed

Redeemed is a redeemable villain who becomes a good guy and abandons most if not all of their evil villain tendencies - These guys are standard and I'll talk about them when I get to redemption arcs in a week or two

Now the potential to be redeemed is Sad and Angsty. It's a character who could have been redeemed. But because of the circumstances of the story they weren't. Maybe they fell back into their bad habits, maybe they died, maybe they left the story in some different way, ect.

These have the potential to create really good stories and I personally am a fan of crying my heart out over fictional bitches. So........ yeah

Unredeemable

Unredeemable/Unlikable/Jerk Baddies. These guys are absolute Dicks, and they generally work better for a more minor baddie, but they can also work for a main one. (Idk how to use trigger warning but mentions of some touchy stuff in a list)

The thing that makes these baddies this specific type is that they're dicks. We hate them. We root for them to be tortured or killed. We want them Gone.

So... how do you make one?

You make them do some really awful things, and I mean awful shit. as such in the list below:

Abuse

Rape

Murder

War crimes

Generally Prick attitude

Racism

Child murder

Genocide

Cannibalism

Disembowelment

Horrible accounts of arson

Laughing at puppies getting killed

Well not exactly that last one, but you get my point. These Guys need to be mega Dicks, and they need to enjoy it.

They should have some really dislikable traits in a character, Arrogance, manipulation, a little too much hostility, smugness, ect.

Make them an Unapologetic Asshole

Pure evil

Snakes aren't that bad, but Lastly, we have our ultimate pure evil overlords with no good qualities at all.

Just make them a generally shitty human, then add a few good traits and twist them.

Examples of twisting good traits:

They like clean things? They kill off everything that isn't 'perfect or clean'

Empathetic? They're only empathetic so that they can manipulate you and use you for their own things later

Stuff like that.

If you want to make a pure evil baddie because it's a breath of fresh air from all of the sympathetic baddies out there these days, listen up.

You can either do this Really well, or really poorly.

To do it well you should give them - A good motive - specific character's they're not always a dick to - No spilling the plan to the good guys. Just don't

If they need to monologue, make it about insulting the heroes and hyping themselves up without SPILLING THE PLANS geez guys ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outro

Now finally, Remember what I said at the very beginning, I'm available to help with anything writing related because I don't have shit to do most of the time.

Anyway, A post on Redemption arcs should be here before the year ends, and Look out for My book sometime!

I love you all, my writers and my weird people who just like reading random writing posts! See you eventually! Put in the comments what else you want me to make guides on! Love you! <3

[sonic-hot-takes]

New Sonic media needs to introduce more heroic male characters to the lineup.

Normally I like my takes quick and spicy and let people come to their own conclusions with them, but out of all my thoughts on the series that I’ve shared with fellow Sonic fans, this one tends to get the most ire. Bellow the cut are my more in depth thoughts on the matter.

I may be forgetting someone but I’m pretty sure the last character the series introduced that was simultaneously a guy, a hero, and had any sort of staying power was Silver all the way back in TWO THOUSAND SIX. This applies to ALL Sonic media/canon, by the way (be it the games, comics, spin offs like Boom, etc.)

The closest character I could think of that fills this criteria is Razor from the post-reboot Archie comics—he did appear in both the main comic and Sonic Universe, and was the only new character to get his own SCO backstory—but for obvious reasons he’s not showing up again any time soon. I don’t count Chip or Yacker since they’re pretty blatantly meant to be one off characters that fill a specific niche for that game’s plot. Also let’s be real they’re both mid as hell

Compare this to the girls: Sticks, Tangle, Whisper, Sage (who is framed as more of an antihero in Frontiers than a villain), Trip, this new girl from Dream Team…

People scream sexist at me whenever I bring this up, which is ironic because I am a Girl™ myself. My favorite Sonic character, Blaze, is a Girl™. Sticks is one of my favorite additions to the series in a long time, and she’s a Girl™. I’m not against Girl™ in Sonic.

BUT it does make me raise a brow looking at the track record of new characters that have been introduced to the series, specifically when it comes to gender and morality alignment. This is a lot more prevalent in the IDW comics than in the games, but it’s present in both.

Since Colors (which signaled a shift in direction in the series), the new antagonists we’ve gotten in the games are: Orbot and Cubot, the mostly male Deadly Six, the Hardboiled Heavies (if you wanna count them), Infinite, and Sage (kind of). In the IDW comics, we’ve gotten Rough and Tumble, Dr. Starline, Mimic, Clutch, Kit, and Surge.

In the same time period, the new leading/supporting protagonists we’ve gotten in the games are Yacker, the Forces OC, Sage (kind of), Trip, and Ariem (the new girl from Dream Team). You can also squeeze Sticks in here since she’s the only Boom character to get any extra relevance or spotlight on her outside of that spin off. In the IDW comics, we’ve gotten Tangle, Whisper, Jewel, Belle, and Lanolin.

Sure, there’s a little overlap here and there. But you should notice a pattern.

Do not interpret this as me saying that Sonic Team or the writers at IDW have some kind of anti-men agenda going on. That’s not what I’m suggesting. BUT I am getting tired of every new hero being a girl and just about every new villain being a boy. Can’t we switch it up a little?

Even the most prominent female antagonists in the series have some kind of sympathetic edge to them. Surge was brainwashed and experimented on by Starline. Sage’s character arc is supposed to be the focal point of Frontiers, and she only does evil things under Eggman’s command. Trip isn’t even evil in the first place, she just ends up working with Eggman and Fang for…reasons, and ultimately turns against them and becomes a playable hero. They’re not framed the same way that most, if not all of the male villains are. Not even Merlina is fully immune of this.

Outside of the sexist allegations, I usually get one of two responses whenever I bring this up:

A lot of Sonic fans are girls, so the series should introduce more female characters in order to appeal to their female fans.

The series already has a lot of male characters, so they need to balance out the cast with more girls.

Both of these points have their merits and flaws. I think that both of them are/were true up to a certain point, but nowadays they don’t hold up as well after we HAVE gotten tons of new female characters. When Sticks and Tangle were first shown off, I was ecstatic! Sticks being a fourth wall breaking conspiracy theorist is both tons of fun and a character archetype that the series hadn’t explored until then, and Tangle has one of my favorite designs of any Sonic character. But at some point, I started to notice the trend of every new hero being a girl and every new villain being a boy, and it really started to bother me. For IDW Sonic it was around the time Belle and Clutch were introduced (with Lanolin ultimately being the straw that broke the camel’s back—she insists upon herself), and for the games it was after seeing Ariem in Dream Team (I probably would’ve been more annoyed by the Fang/Trip dichotomy if I wasn’t absolutely joyous that the Nack Is Baaaaack). The whole “we need to introduce more girls to the series” angle doesn’t hold up as well when the series seems reluctant to commit to a straight up evil girl. Sonic desperately needs to flesh out his rouges gallery in the games, so why not add an absolutely psycho female antagonist?

Also this is a more personal note but I hate hate HATE it when people allege that girls can’t relate to male characters, so franchises need to introduce the Girl™ character so the Girls™ can relate to her. Can girls not relate to boys? Can boys not relate to girls? Once again, not against female characters in general, but that particular mindset has and will always bother me.

Who knows, maybe Ariem will end up being the main villain of Dream Team. It’d be cool, but I don’t see Sonic Team taking that route, especially not on an Apple Arcade exclusive. I don’t expect any big twists in that game.

Those are my two cents. I just think it’d be cool if we got a new boy as well as all the new girls we’ve been getting.

[dirty-bear-rick-sanchez]

Marta is to our Morty what Evil Morty is to the Central Finite Curve - both represent the part of Morty that wants to be free from Rick, no matter what the cost. Marta wants to stay in the video game and live out her full life away from Rick, and doesn't care about the fact that this means that a piece of Morty is now missing. Similarly, Evil Morty wants to escape from Rick, even if that means torturing and murdering thousands of Mortys in the process.

I would argue that Marta is a more sympathetic depiction of this than Evil Morty, which I think makes sense since we see her start out as being extremely loyal to Rick and then having her position challenged, whereas for Evil Morty we jumped into his arc once he was already well underway with his plan to escape Rick once and for all. If we are getting his backstory (as seems to be more and more likely), it will be interesting to compare this with Marta's.

Also, we see the nobler side of Marta's intentions - she does want to help save all the pieces of Morty, she is trying to advocate for Morty as a whole in his relationship with Rick, and she truly believes that she's making the right choice by staying behind in the video game if it means that all the other parts of Morty get saved. With Evil Morty, his only intention seems to be to save himself, no matter the cost to the other Mortys. However, when I spoke about this to @hazelnut-u-out, he made the very good point that Evil Morty does seem to consider his escape from Rick/the CFC a win for all Mortys, despite the harm he's causing to them. I think Marta and Evil Morty represent very similar parts of Morty's character, just at different stages/intensities.

It's also worth noting that Marta exists within Morty, whereas Evil Morty exists within the show itself, which is arguably reflective of Rick's perspective. From this angle, it makes a lot of sense that Marta is portrayed in a much more sympathetic light, since we experience her character from Morty's perspective, whereas Evil Morty is played as a villain because this is how Rick sees Morty wanting to break free of him.

[muninnhuginn]

genuinely lowkey fascinated by how scissor seven approaches the role of 'villain' because, like, the main characters are literally assassins. they kill people. we know both seven and thirteen have blood on their hands. but that doesn't prevent them from being sympathetic.

obviously, with seven, it's a lot easier as most of the time he doesn't remember his past as a killer and when tasked with killing as his amnesiac self he either fails or self-sabotages once he gets wind of a tragic backstory.

but despite that, he's still the same person as his pre-amnesiac self in a lot of ways. from the glimpses we see of his backstory, his one big choice was to make a connection and to then protect that person with his life. post-amnesiac seven chooses to protect the island and thirteen just as his past self chose to protect the brown-haired girl. in the same way, thirteen chooses to protect seven as she wishes she'd been able to protect her mother.

but it's not even just them. we also see with several other characters. say, white fox in the beach scene. he's jealous of seven's new life and we see that even he has the capacity to help others. he chooses not to, in the end, but the show very much raises the question: if white fox had lost his memory and ended up on chicken island, could he too have started anew?

for a show about 'villains' it lands firmly on the side of people not inherently being evil. that if given a chance to grow, if given an escape from an environment where their only choice is to survive no matter what, that people *can* be better.