#not a fan of the concept of the live action either i think it’s entirely pointless and a very obvious cash grab

[dotcircledot]

toothless doodling

[papercranesandpride]

I've never actually talked about why I identify as loveless, have I? I want to do that. I think my experience with it is interesting.

A lot of time lovelessness is paired with aromanticism and aplatonicism, and that's interesting because while I am both, it isn't about either of them for me. It's really just a consequence of my schizophrenia. I have pretty much always been apl and aro, but I definitely used to feel love.

I had a pretty sudden psychotic break. It dulled all my feelings pretty much immediately. For a while there, they were pretty much gone, and they're still significantly less strong. That includes love. I did used to feel love. And then suddenly, I didn't.

I panicked a lot. A lot, a lot. I cried about it. For a while I only sent people orange heart emoji to signify the lack of real love. The only way I eventually got past it was by concluding that I did love other people. Clearly I did. I continued talking to them. I did things for them. I maintained relationships with them. I worried about them. Obviously if I did all of that, I still loved them. All of that is love. Love is a choice. It's a continuous action. It isn't just a feeling.

Except that's bullshit. It took me years to realize, but it is. Why did I need to feel love in the first place? Why was love something I needed to have? It's just a feeling. It's one thing that a person can experience. Nothing more and nothing less. Yes, it means a lot to a lot of people. That's great for them. So do football, and Star Wars, and Jesus, and Disney. None of those are mandatory, though. None of them are claimed to be universal across the human experience. No one says that being a fan of any of them is what makes you a good person. If you woke up one day and suddenly stopped caring about any of those things, the sudden change would definitely alarm you, but you wouldn't need to find a way to like them again. You'd be okay without them. The same should be true of love.

Because you know what? I used to feel love. And for about five years now, I pretty much don't. It really hasn't made a difference. A lot has changed in my life. Some things are better. Some are worse. I've certainly discovered a hell of a lot about myself that I didn't know when I was 16. But if I got love back? I don't think it wouldn't improve or worsen any of it. I wouldn't mind feeling love again. It wouldn't cause any problems. If tomorrow I started feeling it again, it'd be weird as hell, but I wouldn't be upset. But I don't particularly want it, either. I'm used to living this way. Having an additional feeling seems unnecessary.

There's nothing wrong with not feeling love. Period. End of story. Whether you demonstrate any kind of devotation or caring towards other people or not. Whether you still have friends, family, and lovers or not. Whether you can pass as someone who does feel love or not. It's just a different experience. That's all. Deciding that any one experience is the one that counts, that matters, that is universal and makes us human, is pointless and ridiculous. We all experience and define and feel things differently and that's the entire point.

That's why I don't use that word anymore, even for the handful of people who I do genuinely still feel something warm and fuzzy for (pretty much just family — my sister, my brother, my grandfather, some aunts and uncles). I'm still not over how fucked up it was that I needed to make up a way that I did love all the other people in my life when I just didn't, just to feel like I was a complete person. That's bullshit. I don't like it. And as a result, I reject the entire concept. I don't need it. It isn't my experience. It isn't useful to me. I don't love. That's fine, actually.

(Also please don't have your takeaway from this be "schizophrenics don't feel love." I've never heard another schizophrenic have this outlook on love. Love is experienced and defined in different ways by different people, and schizophrenia manifests differently for everyone. This is just about me.)

[saintsenara]

How are you able to enjoy toxic/unhealthy/“problematic” ships/characters without feeling weird (for lack of a better word) about it?

I ask this because I want to be able to do this myself as it seems like a much more enjoyable way of engaging with fiction to me. I can get over some ships just being toxic and the characters not being good together and still enjoy their dynamic but I have trouble with the other ships that feel morally wrong. I know it’s just fiction but I can’t seem to get over the ick feeling I have when I think about those ships/characters. I feel like I’m being too puritanical about these things but I don’t know how to stop feeling like something is gross when I feel it’s gross…

Do you have any tips to stop jumping to moralizing ships/characters?

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

i'm going to be upfront that this reflexive gross feeling isn't something i've ever really struggled with - both in fic and more broadly. this is due to various personal idiosyncrasies, above all the fact that i've got disengaged boomer parents who didn't police our media consumption [my favourite book when i was eleven? lolita...] and that i'm a doctor, which is a profession which requires you to develop a very high threshold for what you find disgusting. the human body - at all stages of its life-cycle and its cycle of decomposition - produces a lot of different fluids... and it's also the case that [just as if you can think of it, there's porn for it] if an inanimate object exists, somebody somewhere has got it stuck inside them...

and so the situation that i find myself in is that i consider it infinitely less weird that i enjoy the odd bit of hot tomarrymort action than that i actively enjoy cutting through bone with a saw...

but, obviously, "get a medical degree" isn't particularly helpful advice...

i am a ride-or-die fan of the concept of stepping outside of your comfort zone. this is why i'm such an avowed multishipper - i think it's good for us as fandom citizens to examine the potential of our faves in relationships [romantic or otherwise] which are either not their canon endgames or which aren't our preferred pairings, and in situations which don't align with their canon experiences [whether that means making them suffer or giving them full-on fluff]. it draws out the multiple aspects of a character to consider them from these different angles - and it prevents us from getting so stuck in one interpretation of a character or configuration of a ship which means that it puts our backs up to stumble across stories which approach things differently.

but stepping outside of your comfort zone doesn't mean that you have to go enormously far. it may be that a reader decides - having only ever read teen-rated fics where characters' sex lives don't extend beyond hand-holding and forehead kisses - to take the plunge into an explicit piece filled to the brim with watersports and age play. it may be that a reader decides - having only ever read teen-rated fics for one canon pairing - to read a teen-rated fic for a non-canon alternative. both of these are entirely valid approaches.

by which i mean, our comfort levels and our thresholds for discomfort are subjective, they're personal. if there are ships or themes or characters you don't want to read about because they don't feel good... you're not doing something wrong if you avoid them. exposing yourself to fics you expect to make you uncomfortable can be useful - and fiction is certainly a way to explore discomfort which gives you much more control over the experience than encountering it in real life - but it's not something you're obliged to do to be active in fandom.

the thing you are obliged to do to be active in fandom is to be nice to other people, no matter what their tastes in fiction. this means, at its fundamental level, that when you see people who ship pairings or like themes which make you think "ew"... you keep it to yourself/the group chat rather than putting it on the timeline.

but, once this is something you've got the hang of [which takes a bit of time! but practice makes perfect!], something i feel can be a really useful way of overcoming a tendency towards knee-jerk moralising reactions is to just vibe in the vicinity of people you know like the content you instinctively feel is gross.

this doesn't mean you have to read any of this content - but you'll learn just by hanging out near them that the people who do are just... normal. one minute they might reblog a rec for a pairing you think "absolutely not" about, the next they might reblog a cat picture which makes you squeal with delight. you'll like some of their content, but not all. you'll agree with some of it, but not all. you might like progressively more of it as you spend time in their orbit - maybe they'll explain why they like the pairing or character in question and you'll think "huh, i've never looked at it like that" - or you might not. this is absolutely fine.

all of us - at one time or other - have made a black-and-white moralising pronouncement: people who think x are gross; people who like y are fucked-up, you'd never catch me doing z. and these pronouncements are different from our wider, societally-influenced moral codes - which are good things, otherwise we'd live in the purge - in that they're fundamentally ways for us to feel good about ourselves and our families and our friends by defining ourselves as better than a faceless other. we say "you'd never catch me reading that, it's foul" when we know [or think we know] that the friend we're talking to would agree with the statement. we are far less likely to say it if we know that the friend - whom we see as a human being who is beautiful in their imperfection and inherently worthy of love simply by virtue of being alive - was reading and enjoying that just the other day.

and so the best way to train yourself out of reflexively moralising ships or characters or tropes is to put a face to the faceless other who likes them. be intentional in sharing a space with fans of the stuff you feel uncomfortable with and, eventually, it just becomes background noise. you'll scroll on tumblr, say "well there we are, jane's written some more of her sirius/harry piss kink fic - although i'm not interested in clicking on it" and go on with your day.

because the other thing i think it's really useful to do is to train yourself into reframing your disgust as disinterest. there are plenty of things which i don't seek out to read - and some of these topics are completely benign and some are darker [i don't enjoy reading explicit non-con, for example] - but this is because i try to frame it as that i don't think these things would interest me.

this is still the maintenance of a personal comfort zone, but thinking of the content outside this zone as something you are disinterested in turns it into something neutral. when you think of it as something to be disgusted or grossed out by, it naturally provokes a visceral response which makes you look through a moral lens. thinking in terms of disinterest, instead, gives you sufficient detachment from this visceral response to recognise, interrogate, contextualise, and control it.

and - in time - this neutral reframing may result in you feeling more interested in taking the plunge into the ships and characters and stories you currently don't vibe with, once you don't have an instinctive disgust response as a barrier.

or it may not. and this is absolutely fine.

[synergysilhouette]

10 Disney hot takes/unpopular opinions (Part 8)

As usual, these opinions of mine are something that the Disney fandom may or may not agree with. I think some things here might poke a nerve or two. If it does--see title of this post. Check out part 7 here.

The fanbase is kinda overrun with toxic nostalgics--Probably my most argumentative hot take. While I disagree with Disney doing live-action remakes for most of their films and would LOVE to see a return to 2D animation (without neglecting 3D animation), I feel like some people just dislike remakes and 3D simply as a concept. I've ran into people who say a Disney movie would've been better as 2D, and while that's up to personal taste, I never really understood why they say it like it's a fact, like having 2D automatically makes for better storytelling. And I remember talking with people who say Disney "isn't as good as the renaissance." I think it's VERY clear that we're not gonna get another renaissance, but that doesn't mean successive works aren't as good (plus the renaissance did have flaws, imo; still one of Disney's best eras, though, if not the best). While Disney has had some creative issues since the 2010s with writers/directors/songwriters, when they're allowed to explore and create, they soar.

2. Disney should make another superhero film--I know superhero fatigue has been present since the mid-late 2010s (ironically, this is also the time when some people fell out of love with Disney Animation), but making it animated would probably get some attention. Given the success of "The Incredibles" and "Big Hero 6," Disney making another superhero film has great potential--though it should probably be an original film, since BH6 was a rare case of a short-lived, mostly unknown comic (as far as I know). And personal bias, but I'd prefer they have superpowers; it's more engaging for me, personally. And a unique and distinct costume is a must!

3. Kingdom of the Sun could've prevented the end of the renaissance--When "The Emperor's New Groove" was still being planned as an epic musical called "Kingdom of the Sun," it was noted that Disney execs were iffy about the concept. They felt like doing ANOTHER epic musical would've made the studio feel redundant after the 90s, as well as "Pocahontas" and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" not making as much as they hoped and making them feel concerned about undertaking another one. Post-renaissance Disney films ended up staying away from musicals, and were either underperforming serious films or comedic kid films that most people stereotype with animation. That said, if KotS had been released as intended and brought successful musicals into the modern age, I think the trajectory of the post-renaissance would've changed, with some films never being made and others being changed to ride the successful coattails of KotS. Can't say how or where it'd stop, though.

4. "Brave" should've either been moved to WDAS, or at least kept Brenda Chapman--As many Pixar fans will tell you, "Brave" felt more in-line with the fairy tale/medieval fantasy stories that are made by Disney. It doesn't feel ENTIRELY Disney to me, but I do agree that it felt more Disney than Pixar, especially keeping in mind that Brenda Chapman said it took influence from the Brothers' Grimm and Hans Christian Anderson stories. I definitely would've enjoyed seeing Disney accept this project over Pixar, though the odds of Disney accepting it and it not being a musical nor having a love interest at that point in time were kinda unlikely (to be fair, "Frozen" came out the next year and Elsa was single, but Anna had romances; we didn't get a non-musical, single-at-the-end Disney princess until Raya in 2021). Or at the very least, I would've preferred Pixar kept Brenda Chapman on the film as sole director, rather than bringing in Mark Andrews, who removed a lot of fantasy elements because he felt it affected the environment.

5. Petty vendettas shouldn't affect creative output--I'm talking about two situations in particular, even though I'm sure there are more: "The Prince of Egypt" and "Tam Lin." Originally, Disney had Stephen Schwartz doing the music for "Mulan," but when Disney discovered he was working with Dreamworks on TPOE, they gave him an ultimatum of working on their film or working on Dreamworks'. When Schwartz refused, Disney kicked him off the project, and while I LOVE the 4 songs we got, I do wish we'd gotten to see what he would've done with the film. Then there was the situation of "Tam Lin," where the director of "The Lion King" pitched the fairy tale to Disney, but CEO Michael Eisner rejected it since he was in a corporate struggle with Roy E. Disney and saw the film as Disney's baby. Such a shame that their quarrel resulted in a film being rejected despite it being pitched by the co-director of their most successful film (at the time). Ironically, the film did move to Sony with Brenda Chapman working on it, but it didn't end up being made.

6. Pixie Hollow was a missed opportunity for a theatrical film--While I'm not saying we need to directly connect this with Peter Pan, it astonishes me that Disney hadn't decided to make an animated theatrical film about fairies. I'd EASILY take this film over "Bolt" (which came out the same year as "Tinker Bell"), and with some polish, it could've definitely been a memorable epic film, perhaps something nostalgic with 2D animated like "The Princess and the Frog."

7. Disney should look into more (grown) adult leads--This is kind of the crux of my other issue that major animation film companies in the west don't really cater to young adult/adult fans of animation, and this is something that ties into it. I really wish we'd get more Disney adults, perhaps some in their 30s. Life doesn't end at that age, and you can still have an epic adventure (and you don't need to already be married/have a family, but there's no shame in depicting the lead as such).

8. Disney needs to stop shoving comedy into their films--I'm not saying every film needs to be dark and brooding, but it does feel like they just use comedy for the younger audience, and they don't do it well. The only time I really enjoyed their comedy was when it was with "The Emperor's New Groove." It's almost like comedy is a prerequisite for Disney, Dreamworks, and Pixar. NGL, even some of Disney's classic films have comedy that I either don't care for, or I like but suspect it may be tied to nostalgia (like would I still like it if it was made now?)

9. Disney needs more serious opening songs--I CANNOT stress this enough. I feel like "Wish" really showed me this. Upbeat opening numbers can be very addictive, ie "Where You Are" (If you count that as the opening song instead of "An Innocent Warrior") and "The Family Madrigal," but I feel like some of Disney's musicals could've been better-suited for a more serious vibe. I rave about the openings for the "Frozen" films, but it's true; I want something haunting, something soaring, something that sets the scene for an amazing tale.

10. Disney making a new movie every year isn't helping them right now--They've done this for decades now, but I don't think it's helping them to make a new film almost every year now, seeing how so many films seem to be sabotaged during production. I feel like it'd be less stress on their teams to have a bit more time between movie releases, especially if feedback can be used to better the next movie.

(Oh, and don't get excited about this image; I pulled this off of Deviantart, and Penelope/Bluebeard have just been rumors for a few years now. Of course, Jennifer Lee said in 2023 that 10 projects were in development, so they could be possible--but "Bluebeard" is SUPER unlikely to me unless they massively change the story. It'd make for a good parody film, but I'd prefer we get a "Rumplestiltskin" musical; it fits with Jennifer's desire to make a Disney movie about a mom.)

[practicalsolarpunk]

is material consumption ok if it's for hobbies?

I want to start by thanking you for asking this question. It's an important one, and it leads to an idea that we don't really address much on practicalsolarpunk. But we definitely should discuss it more, and this is a good place to start. This may or may not be what you want to hear, anon, but I hope this helps a little bit. (Long post ahead.)

When I started this blog, most of the solarpunk content I could find was aesthetic, fiction, and political action. All of those are very important! Political action and resistance is how we will actually make changes on a systemic level. Aesthetic and fiction content are essential because it lets us imagine a better future, and it's impossible to create a future we can't imagine. But what I wanted was a blog of small things I could do right now or soon to reduce my consumption in general, learn new things, opt out in tiny ways, and make both the world and my own life a little better. This blog is about little things (and sometimes slightly bigger things) that we can do as individuals. Composting, gardening, foraging, and building community may make your life and the lives of those around you better, but they won't change the exploitative and destructive foundations of capitalist society.

practicalsolarpunk is not the definitive guide to solarpunk. It's not even the end goal. In my view, solarpunk has three interlocking aspects: Individual actions towards making a better future, building communities to make a better future together, and political action and resistance to move societal structures and systems towards a better future. On this blog, we mainly focus on individual actions and a little bit of community-building. Individual actions are great, but they can only go so far.

Coming back to your main concept, consumption: It's easy to come to the conclusion that consumption is bad, evil, wrong, destroying the environment, etc. If you hang out in solarpunk spaces, you've probably heard the "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism." And that's true - it is impossible to find anything created under capitalism that is not somehow exploiting the environment or people. However, consumption is required to survive. Eating food is consumption. Wearing clothes is consumption. Living indoors is consumption. Using any method of transportation besides walking is consumption. Even outside of capitalist systems, we must consume to live.

We are prone to black-and-white thinking. We want to sort things into "entirely good" and "entirely bad." When we have those boxes, we can do all of the things that make us good and none of the things that make us bad. It seems especially important to know what's good and what's bad to do when the future and the fate of the world are at stake. But in reality, almost nothing is fully good or fully bad. Everything is somewhere on the spectrum in between.

My guess is you want permission to buy things for your hobbies. (That's my guess because I have wanted the same thing - I hoped permission from someone who knew more than me about what was going on would help me feel less guilty about consuming.) And the reality is that I cannot give you that permission. There are reasonable arguments for either side. Material consumption for hobbies is good because hobbies are great for mental health and you can't change the world if your mental health is terrible. Material consumption for hobbies is bad because even though the consumption reduced is small it can build up to a greater effect over time.

Overconsumption is destroying the planet. We must consume to survive. There is no way to consume ethically under capitalism. All three of these statements are true. That means there is no "right" answer to your question. You can only make a decision based on your values, your needs, and your knowledge. I know what my choice would be in your situation, but I can't say what the best choice is for you.

I'm a huge fan of Maya Angelou's quote,: "Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better." Make the best decision you can with the information you have. If and when you get more information, you may need to reevaluate it. Perfection is impossible. Even when the stakes seem terrifyingly high, your best is good enough.

And one final note, because this question has reminded me a lot of myself and I don't want you to fall into the same trap I once did: Don't let guilt dictate this decision. Guilt tells you that you're doing the wrong things, you're not doing the right things, and you're definitely not doing enough. It says that making yourself happy is a moral failing, that it's wrong to do things just for fun while people are suffering and the world is burning, and that you are partially to blame for the state of the world because you chose to consume. Guilt is a liar, and you will destroy yourself before you ever do enough or sacrifice enough to satisfy it.

Ultimately, solarpunk is about creating a better future for people. A future where humans are extinct might save the environment from human overconsumption, but that's not a solarpunk future. Excessive material consumption isn't solarpunk, but denying yourself consumption that would improve your life isn't solarpunk either.

- Mod J

[literary-illuminati]

2024 Book Review #8 – The Only Good Indians by Stephen Graham James

This has been on my tbr for long enough that I entirely forget what originally put it there – the only thing I actually knew going in was that the author was ‘the My Heart is a Chainsaw guy’ (I have not read My Heart is a Chainsaw yet either). Given the genre, that was honestly probably ideal. As was the fact that a blizzard hit a couple days after I started it and I’ve been reading it looking out on a frozen snowscape – it’s very much a winter sort of story.

The story’s told in five parts of wildly varying lengths, each with it’s own endearingly cheesy b-horror movie title and each following a different protagonist. The first four each follow one of a friend group who, as a bunch of fuckup teenagers, trespassed on hunting grounds that were really supposed to be reserved for elders and shot a bunch of elk they had no right to – including a pregnant young cow who was for one reason or another special. Ten years later, the Elk-Headed Woman drags herself back into the world, and begins getting her vengeance for the death of her and her child on each of them (and everyone they care about) in turn.

I have a longstanding opinion that a full-length novel is just too long to sustain a real horror story – by 300 pages things have fairly reliably collapse into urban fantasy or action or farce. The breakup into different parts solves this very well – they’re all very much connected and interwoven, but each feels like its own distinct narrative unit with its own tension and rising action.

And this is very much a horror story in the classic, just barely short of shlocky sense. A trespass against vague but understood sacred laws that leads to horrific and bloody retribution against everyone involved is as close to archtypal horror as you can possibly get, after all. The last section is even focused on a Final Girl! Specifically, it’s a subgenre that I can’t really name but feels very familiar to me – and one I’ve always been a huge fan of, anyway. It’s somewhere downstream of The Count of Monte Cristo, a story where the agent of supernatural doom spends the majority of the story consciously working in the background, manipulating events and exacerbating the protagonist/victim’s flaws to lead them to a contrived but tragic end? Think the netflix Fall of the House of Usher, but like about the exact opposite end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

Class is very much something the book cares about. All four protagonists grew up poor on a reservation with little in the way of wealth or opportunity, and by the time they’d turned eighteen all four of them were the kind of young asshole who made life just a little bit worse for everyone around them dealing with the same shit. Ten years latter the three of them who’ve survived that long have gotten over themselves and matured in their own way (and to their own degree), but none of them are exactly flush with cash or living lives of bourgeois respectability (though Lewis comes close). The precarity and only tenuous connections to the society around them just make them better prey for what’s hunting them, of course – in every case, death comes after the (either metaphorical or very viscerally literal) destruction of the few close ties they have, and the only one to survive is also the only one who could really expect people to come rushing to their rescue.

Speaking of close ties the protagonists have – the book’s conception of gender is fascinatingly weird, or at least fascinating in the sense that I’m not at all sure how intentional it is. Of the four main victims, one dies alone at eighteen, and the other three who survive the next ten years are all pretty much explicitly saved (or at least improved and uplifted) by a relationship with a woman who, if not flawless, is basically strictly his moral and practical better. Even the most consistent fuckup of the group has a redeeming feature of being willing to do just about anything for his daughter (despite having lost the chance to really be a big part of her life several times over). With one exception, these women all then die, messily, entirely and explicitly to fuck with and ruin the lives of their men. It’s like someone read Women in Refrigerators and went ‘well there’s an idea...’. It’s blatant enough that I feel like it’s got to be making a deliberate point, but (unless it’s just genre emulation) what the point is does escape me slightly.

Also on the note of stuff I’m quite sure is going over my head at least a bit – basketball! It’s a pretty vital thread running through the entire book, to the point that one of the big set pieces of the final act is literally a basketball game with the monster. Which, like, I watched enough bad anime as a small child to find contrived game-playing under unclear mythic rules with things that really want to kill you instinctively endearing, but I can’t really do anything with this except just point at it.

So as the title might imply, this is a novel that’s concerned with race – all but I believe exactly one character is either is either Blackfeet or Crow, more than half the book takes place on a reservation, and a chunk of the rest is spent having to deal with racist assholes of varying severity. Now, I admit that I have at this point a probably overly cynical view of books that end up on breathless ‘socially conscious horror’ or ‘s/ff from diverse creators you NEED to read’ lists online, but I was still rather pleasantly by how matter-of-factly this was handled? I suppose the best way to put it is that culture, upbringing and racialization deeply inform everyone’s characters, but it never feels like the book is preoccupied with providing some assumed naive and impressionable audience any Important Lessons or provide Good Representation to valourize or emulate? Which is probably just a sign I need to raise and re calibrate my expectations, but.

The monster doesn’t exactly work as, like, a coherent character in terms of her skills and abilities, but as a monster the Elk-Headed Woman is great. But then I love contrived fucked up tragedies and am a longstanding partisan of Spooky Deer Horror, so I suppose I would say that.

So yeah, fun read!

[troius]

I just want to say a few things before you get to the end. First up, it's been a pleasure to read your thoughts on the series; like any fan, you have your own unique interpretations and it's always good to read how fans see certain scenes. It's also been fantastic to see fellow fans respond to your posts adding on to what you've written, again bringing your thoughts out more and generating discussion.

Also, seeing your thoughts has made me appreciate scenes and characters I never thought I would -- Yamamoto for instance, who would've thought?! They've also reminded me of why I fell in love with the series as much as I did, from the artwork to the themes to the incredible bonds between the characters. You've reminded me that BLEACH has it's flaws that can sometimes take you out of the story, but when it hits, it 100% HITS! It's a manga that's about the bonds we form, how they can help us overcome challenges and be a source of light in our lives. It's about the ways we overcome grief and the fear of death, whether it's literally fighting your way through it or slowly coming to a state of acceptance as time goes on. It's about the 'hearts' of people, about what they look like and how they're shared between those you choose. I could go on and on, but then this would become an essay and we'd be here all day.

All of this is to say, thank you for choosing to create a Tumblr account and deciding to read the series and give your thoughts along the way. I can't believe you've finally reached the end, it almost feels like I'm saying goodbye to the manga again!! I don't think I'm the only one here who sees you as a big and valued part of the community on here, so I hope you'll be sticking around! :)

Thank you so much Rays! Response under the cut because it went long.

This won't surprise you, but I too have grown in my appreciation for the series over the course of the uh three years that I've run this blog. Bleach has character concepts I've never seen elsewhere. It has moments of storytelling brilliance. It has truly, phenomenally astonishing art.

But more than anything else, I, like you, am impressed by the heart. For a story that's largely about the afterlife, Bleach is shockingly humanistic, locating virtue not in any system of belief, in any group or faction in the various conflicts that provide the setting for the manga, but in people. All people, whether they're our extremely relatable teenage protagonist and his friends, the occasionally sketchy adults in his life, or the various adversaries ranging from evil monsters to supernatural samurai to a regular-ass gang to a foreign apocalypse cult. Bleach never, not once, lets the viewer fall into the comfortable childish space of believing that there's good people and bad people in the world.

There's just people. Sometimes these people want to do bad things, like execute their sisters, or kidnap your girlfriend, or isolate you from your family, or destroy the entire world. Bleach doesn't flinch away from that either. But it (again, very humanistically) locates those bad actions not in the individual human beings, but in our relationships with one another through the systems and structures we've created to organize ourselves.

And yet in the face of the idea that humans do their worst work through other people, that's also where Bleach locates its greatest virtue. Alone, we're nothing. It's the bonds that we have with others that are what make life worth living, that are the source of everything good in this world. And navigating that dynamic, between spiritual bonds and structural shackles...that's really what adult life is all about, isn't it?

Anyhow, my adult life has been greatly enriched by all of you on here. But I'll take the chance to thank you specifically Rays, for being such a source of joy. Your positivity and passion are the sort of thing that makes a humble blogger want to come back for more, and I've deeply enjoyed hearing all of your thoughts, not just on my liveblog, but through your own posts and writing. I'll be sticking around for sure.

[theheirofthesharingan]

Anti Itachi people are weird and I honestly don't understand them. I saw some ppl say Itachi doesn't deserve sympathy because he killed Gaara, joined Akatsuki and tortured Kakashi.... outside of abusing sasuke. So they don't get why he's so popular among fans. 🙄

People really just single out Itachi so randomly among the many characters to shit on because of morality and then crib about their favorite characters as if their favourites are saints. What is it that they feel entitled to hate on Itachi because of his morality and then defend people who did worse than him? Gaara himself is one fine example.

Who'd tell them morality isn't a binary or one-dimensional concept in a fictional world where child-soldiers are common and kids are subjected to being a victim of it and causing it from a very young age.

He killed Gaara

Okay? Gaara killed people for fun. He and his siblings attacked Konoha, killing people. What this fandom believes in is that the lives that Itachi took — no matter who that is — are more important than the lives that other characters took. Which is why Madara, Obito, Pain, Gaara etc., shouldn't be seen as villains and they act all pissy because Itachi isn't seen as a villain.

Here, people, I'll yell it out for you: conscience. Itachi was burdened by his conscience and never justified his crimes. It's literally canon. He wouldn't go out of his way to kidnap a child, manipulate him so the said child could fulfill his dreams after he was dead. He wouldn't unnecessarily attack an unsuspecting village with innocent population and murder them because he hated the world and was heartbroken that his childhood crush who didn't like him back was dead because she chose to. He also wouldn't make the world worse than it already is because he thinks his pain is worse than others.

Endurance, admission of one's mistakes, regrets/guilts etc., are some of the many redeeming qualities Itachi has. Of course people can see that and love him for them.

joined Akatsuki

Unbelievabl that people think this is a bad thing, lmao. On one hand they simp for Obito, Pain, and Madara who are the main ideologues of this extreme philosophy which works on nothing other than violence, then simultaneously have the audacity to be upset why is Itachi a part of this group. Make it make some sense, people. I can't see past your hypocrisy.

and tortured Kakashi... outside of abusing sasuke

Look, there's no justification for any of what he did to either Sasuke or Kakashi or anyone else. But when he came to the village, he had a reputation to uphold, that too that of a criminal who had single-handedly murdered the entire clan that was supposed to be the strongest of its time. He avoided fighting Asuma and Kurenai. He only took on Kakashi because Kakashi was the only one with Sharingan (and Mangekyo Sharingan). Idk if something in an Uchiha's brain goes off when they sense Mangekyo in someone else, or Itachi just did it to keep up his façade. But Kakashi did start to use his MS after his encounter with Itachi.

Either way, Itachi coming to the village, then avoiding fighting the mediocre jounins, taking on only the strongest one, inflicting enough pain to paralyse (in this case coma), but not killing him... That's what one would expect from a "dangerous criminal" like Itachi. Kakashi straight up wonders why Itachi didn't just kill him.

In regards to Sasuke - Itachi didn't plan to meet Sasuke. It doesn't excuse his actions afterwards, but the narrative that he's irredeemable and his love must be questioned as a result is pure unadulterated bullshit. If he wanted to hurt Sasuke he would have done it at that dango shop. When it was only going to take less than a second, then why not do it right away? The only people present there couldn't even touch him with Kisame by his side.

Gai and others also wondered why Itachi was taking so long to kidnap Naruto when he knew what Naruto looked like. Simple. He wanted to get out of the village. He didn't want to come across Sasuke. Traumatizing him again was the last thing he'd want to do.

they don't get why he's so popular among fans

Good thing is, those who love Itachi doesn't exactly need permissions or certificates from the people who don't like him. It's as simple as that. They don't have to get it. We don't care.

[cross-d-a]

Skeleton Crew is such a fun show so far! I love that it’s accessible to both Star Wars fans and non-Star Wars fans! It’s a really pleasant deviation from what we’ve seen so far in the SW live action universe while still full heartedly remaining Star Wars. The 80’s nostalgia hits strong and makes it just that more enjoyable (and accessible in my opinion! :) ). I adore that’s it’s cute and fun and simple, but also has some deeper layers that people can delve into.

The Utopian-like society is very intriguing, but not too surprising! The concept of a planet completely cut off from the rest of the galaxy is not new to the wider Star Wars universe but it’s still super cool to explore. It’s got a bunch of markers that make it a society bent into the concept of Utopia (“we all have a place”; everyone’s path is chosen for them as a child; service droids for EVERYTHING including constant patrols??; the obvious Barrier; etc.) I’m assuming that At Attin has been cut off from the wider galaxy in order to create a kind of Utopia. At Attin, as far as we can tell, is untouched by war and conflict- and considering what’s happened to the galaxy even since the Clone Wars, it’s not surprising that at least one planet decided to pull away and hide themselves for the good of their people. I’m also assuming that though pirates consider At Attin to be a planet of unparalleled treasure, the real worth of the planet has been warped and misinterpreted over the years- and so At Attin’s treasure is NOT because of actual treasure, but because they are a supposed Utopia. (Though it’s obviously not! Who makes kids test into their career path at such a young age?? I get the sentiment behind it, but still!! And though At Attin’s population is not entirely human, they’re shocked by the aliens they see at the space port) It’ll be super cool to see where they take this not-quite-Utopian society. I especially want to know exactly how long it’s been since they’ve been cut off and WHERE exactly they are (Mid Rim? Outer Rim? Western Reaches? Unknown Regions??).

I was expecting Jude Law’s character (Captain Silvo/Jod Na Nawood/Crimson Jack (LOL) to be Force Sensitive but I somehow forgot until right before he did his little trick at the end of the second episode, haha! The question, of course, is if he actually used to be a Jedi or if he’s some other kind of Force Sensitive. Going with the 80’s/pirate nostalgia theme, it wouldn’t surprise me if he used to be a Padawan but left the Order before Order 66 (either willingly or bc he sucked at being a Jedi haha). But! If the character is supposed to be Jude Law’s age, that would make him a little older than Anakin. So another Order 66 survivor would be intriguing to explore! (I’m always a slut for Clone Wars references) Especially if he ends up caring for the kids and them relying on him/looking up to him reminds him of who he used to be. Either way, it’s very Treasure Planet/Treasure Island vibes!! Especially with SM-33 and his lil rat (my Beloved!).

I was expecting to enjoy Skeleton Crew and so far I’m enjoying more than I thought I would! I think it’s both fresh and nostalgic and I’m excited to see where it takes us :)

[catlady48]

Last night I came across a post from a series fan talking about the way the series approached the concept of godhood. I then realised that I had a few points to make about why I don't think the way the series did so actually fit Loki as a character, even if some of these concepts are interesting to explore. Warning, this is very series negative, so if you like the series, I don't have a problem with that, but this might not be a post you want to read.

The series tries to have it's cake and have it too. They claim that Loki is this super arrogant narcissist and that he needs to be humbled (apparently through torture, degradation and other forms of humiliation). The fans act as if this results in a change of perspective for him and allows him to open himself up to emotional bonds and heal from his trauma. There's a few things wrong with this. Firstly, the people he supposedly forms these bonds with are either not shown interacting with him onscreen much, constantly being rude to him or even actively harassing and/or torturing him. This, of course, makes it very weird that these people suddenly become his friends. Either that or it gives it very dark undertones that I know were intended by the creators. Secondly, when you compare this particular arc to the arc Thor undergoes in Thor (2011), you see that when he is humbled, it is because he learns how Midgardians, as an example of a species considered less than the Aesir, live their lives and that they feel similar things to the Aesir. He also learns that his actions have consequences. He didn't need to be actively humiliated to do so, other than the act of being banished in itself, and he certainly didn't need to be tortured or verbally degraded. Thirdly, there is zero sign of Loki overcoming his past trauma and issues in the series, most of it either isn't even adressed or it's just used to mock him.

The show assumes that Loki was always powerhungry and didn't have a sense of duty and responsibility. We know from his introduction in Thor (2011) that this is not the case and that he was actually one of the more responsible Asgardians before the events of said movie went down. This makes the lessons the series tries to teach him about the burdens and responsibilities that come with being a god obsolete, because these are things he either already knew, or are not things the other Asgardians are particularly concerned about either, such as protecting mortals. Furthermore, his arrogance is mostly a mask to cover up his lack of self-esteem. Remember that Loki is the god of lies. The writers assume, due to a lack of communication between them and their predecessors, that this means that he lies to improve his position in the view of others or for his schemes, but he actually often makes himself look worse in the eyes of others in order to protect whatever pride he has still left. His arrogance is really more a basic need for some form of respect after all he's been through. He does, rightfully, think himself smarter than some of his opponents, and this sometimes and this leads to him sometimes underestimating them, however it is not as extreme as in the series. This misunderstanding comes from an interpretation of Loki in The Avengers at face value, while there is actually more going on in the background, such as Loki having been tortured and to some degree influenced by the mindstone. Therefore his actual motivations were likely different from what he stated and a lot of it was an elaborate production. No, depending on your interpretation, this does not have to mean he is entirely innocent, but the "he needs to be humiliated because he is arrogant and powerhungry" thing is simply untrue.

The Asgardians were initially not portrayed as actual gods, but as a highly advanced race of aliens that visited Earth and then were mistaken as gods. Remember, at the start of TDW, Odin says that they are not gods, but live and die as humans do. It isn't until TR that they start actually referring to their godly titles. Nevermind that Odin himself is a hypocrite who views himself as "protector" of the "lesser" realms, which he himself acquired through conquest. If we view Loki's actions as unbecoming of a god, we need to adress those of the rest of the Asgardians as well, but the show deems them in the right.

In the actual old Norse mythology, the gods don't act according to what the series deems the role of gods to be. They are constantly infighting and often more of a hindrance to humans than actually helpful. They just often wind up causing natural phenomena, which is why they are deemed gods. They can be helpful but must also be feared, which is why according to old religions, the gods often needed to be appeased. I think that the way this series portrays the role of a god as needing to take responsibility for mortals is a very earth-centric and christianised concept. There are different types of gods and many don't have this role, or at least not at all times. It would've been interesting if there was a bigger conflict about this in the series, which adressed the different kinds of functions that gods have.

Furthermore, Loki is a trickster god. It would have been better if the series actually wrote him as one and explored what this means. He is not supposed to be this responsible figure, and no, this does not mean he is evil. You could argue that there are elements of this sprinkled in the whole order vs. chaos thing as well as in the final episode but they didn't explicitly make this his character arc. The best interpretations of the ending I've seen here on Tumblr do actually take this into account, which is why I'm more positive about the ending. However, I feel like the series should have had Loki grow into this role instead of this humiliation to learning to be responsible arc they had going on. It would have also fit with Loki's characterisation in the movies better, with him learning to appreciate himself for who he is rather than what someone else tells him to be(something which we are constantly told happened during the series, but we don't actually see happening, see point 2). Maybe they could've even adressed the things that were done to him by other characters, which the series conveniently forgot about. A lot of concepts introduced in the series could've worked very well with this had they been reworked. The conflict between a system of total order and a chaos god could've been very interesting when viewed through this lens, if the framing had been different. The ending could stay the same, but we would've had a totally different journey to get there and it would've actually done him justice.

So in conclusion, the concept of godhood and what it means is a very interesting one, but I would've preferred if it had been explored in a broader manner rather than the very christianised view we ended up with, even if it made sense with the series' plot. I argue that Loki was not the right character the use for this kind of plot both due to his role in mythology and his previously established characterisation. If they truly had to use him, a different approach based on his mythological role as a trickster could've actually worked well with certain plot elements introduced in the series. I think this would've been a more interesting approach to this topic. If they really wanted to use the concept the way they did in the series they should've used a different character.

[mdhwrites]

The Grimwalker as a concept was so weird. Mainly that Hunter was all 'ohhhh no we cant tell them im a spooky Grimwalker!' But... why would anyone care? The only reason given is that hes a reincarnation of a guy nobody even knows or cares about. Theres not even like, a spooky myth about Grimwalkers because its got such a vague ruleset and premise. He's barely different from a demon.

That COULD have linked to the demon discrimination plotline youve talked about, but there is none so it cant be that. Which i understand was partially because Dana wanted the gays to just exist, so she scrapped discrimination in general. But, a big part of forming cultures and identity is 'Otherness'. People compare themselves to others and define themselves by how theyre different. So scrapping discrimination ends up making the witchs and demons feel like nothing. They have nothing to compare their identity and culture against because theres just no conflict to spark comparison.

This lack of substance also means the fans don't care about Grimwalkers. See the moring comic where the Grimwalker was turned into ANOTHER way to say 'haha Boscha so cringe amirite? point and laugh because she has nobody who loves her.' even though the grimwalker is to reincarnate the dead.

OH MY GOD I'M SO HAPPY SOMEONE ELSE NOTICED THAT! *SCREAMS BLOODY MURDER* Like I know Mark just writes Boscha how the entire fandom sees her (which hasn't helped me enjoy A Hint of Blue, not that I think it's good regardless) but seriously what the fuck!? Why do that to her except just to be mean!?

*sighs* What were we talking about? OH RIGHT! Grimmwalkers.

So for why Hunter has anxiety, it actually is because TOH is doing a very basic clone/artificial human storyline with Hunter and those arcs are actually a lot more internally motivated than externally motivated. Clone lives a life believing they're their own person, then one day finds out they're not, perceives themselves as less because of this distinction but then in the end decides that regardless of their origin, they are their own person and so throw off their shackles, embrace who they are and become better for it. It has nothing to do with race and while it is baby's first clone story, I also still like it conceptually because, well, there's a reason why it's the default clone story. It especially is good for kid's media because while the clone can struggle with the anxiety of it, their friends never have to actually be bad or discriminatory against them because the point is loving yourself for who you are and not who you were made to be.

But I've talked before about how this basic framework actually has a Catch 22 built into it when it comes to Hunter... Which apparently Tumblr wants to tell me I've never done before. Thanks search function. The short version is that this template requires not only a rejection of what they were made for but for them to become distinctly different, usually opposite, to their purpose/original. For Hunter, he only knows Belos so this takes shape in trying to be the opposite of him. The problem is that the opposite of Belos... Is Caleb. Who Hunter mimics in every action he takes after getting away from Belos. There's literally no way to follow this template without adding complexities like him accepting his true origin and being okay/happy with that, something that was probably unlikely in general but especially wasn't going to happen with the shortening, which I will actually give people for. Because the Grimmwalker twist happens so late, they either had to cut it or had no time to actually do anything with it which like... Why not cut it? You did nothing with it and it actually made sure you didn't have the time to actually have Hunter reject Belos' morality so that his redemption doesn't come across as self serving and for survival more than an actual, you know, change to his beliefs.

As for how interesting Grimmwalkers are... They're just clones. Boilerplate, boring clones. Make a body based on another person, put memories in, BAM! Got yourself a clone. Doesn't get more classic than that. It's hardly even magical honestly besides the components, especially with how it actually doesn't give them magic despite those components, or have weird quirks since they're not actually made of flesh and blood, elements that the fans have had a lot of fun with that the show never does, though admittedly part of that is due to how late it happens. Then again, all magic in TOH is boring so it's not likely they would have anyways. Also, you know, a lot of shows will do a single clone episode and have more fun and magic to it than TOH does with one of their core cast members being one so *shrug*

Now, for the final part, I do want to also touch on the 'other' aspect because while discrimination is one way to do it, you can get this across in other ways. One such way is the core defining trait of the Grimmwalker from a tangible standpoint: He doesn't have magic. In a society that mostly has magic, him not having it is a big deal. It's literally what gives him and Willow their first connection as a couple, as insulting as that scene actually should be to Hunter.

And then Hunter is 'fixed' when he gains his magic. His 'other' status removed because he's a real boy now. *SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH*

I have so much more I could say about TOH and 'The Other' (made a blog about a lot of it between writing this draft and publish) but I'll leave it at that so it actually stays on topic instead of the half a dozen tangents I've deleted. None of this makes it good by the way and with how TOH tackles most subjects like this, it's incredibly unlikely that more time would have made it better. After all, being a Grimmwalker is only one of like a half dozen TANTALIZING character/arc concepts for Hunter that are never addressed. The fact that he is trained to kill witches and likely has. His relationship with the Isles because he doesn't have inherent magic. The fact that he is filled with such care for the nation and its government that it blocks out all else in his world. How a sheltered child reacts when they suddenly have freedom and are thrust into the wider world. Etc. etc. that are just footnotes to the writers more than anything to actually build a complete arc around or else they wouldn't have just keep adding to the angst bucket without actually resolving any of it.

So of course Grimmwalkers are bland while being a fine to good concept that's then made terrible by narrative implication or neglect. That's EVERYTHING to do with Hunter.

======+++++=====

Sidenote for this one: It is funny that Dana wanted there to be no bigotry in the Isles when her villains entire scheme is through religious persecution. You know, bigotry. Whole other blog I could go into.

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[poisonousquinzel]

Listen, I'd have less of an issue with Elseworlds concepts for Harley in live action if we'd EVER gotten an accurate showing of her origin story, the manipulation that runs throughout every second of every session they had together and the sheer and graphic brutality of the abuse she's endured at his hands, but we haven't.

And I doubt we're going to.

Regardless if you want to face it or not, the live action films reach a much larger audience than the animated shows or movies or comics. They're popular, but these live action films have a chance to bring in a Huge outside audience and that's apparent with Harley's surge in popularity after Suicide Squad.

And right now, every version of her origin that's been shown in live action is either a watered down little montage with heavy censoring that can (and Did) leave audiences with a horrifically skewed perspective on the actuality of their relationship, or is reported to be a completely changed and altered dynamic where she's not even a fucking psychiatrist at Arkham, she's a fellow patient.

Like, an important aspect of Harley's origin and the entirely of her character as a domestic abuse survivor is that it's showing that no matter who you are, no matter how much you think "I wouldn't fall for that, I'm smarter than that", or believe that you'd easily pick up the red flags, or that you're trained to see these things so it couldn't happen to you-

That's just not always true. You can still fall victim to these types of people.

Anyone can fall victim to an abusive, manipulative mastermind.

"You little fool. The Joker doesn't love anything except himself.

Wake Up, Harleen.

He had you pegged for a hired help the second you walked into Arkham."

"That's not... No... No!

He told me things, secret things he never told anyone!"

"Was it his line about the abusive father? Or the one about the runaway mom? He's gained a lot of sympathy with that one."

"Stop It! You're making me confused!"

"What was it he told that one parole officer? Oh yes, "there was only one time I ever saw dad really happy, he took me to the ice show when I was 7."

"Circus... He said it was the circus."

"He's got a million of them, Harley."

/ also I think it's important to point out based on Batman's "You and the Joker?" reaction that, despite her relationship with Joker being near the 7 year mark in this episode, he did not Know this "thing" with them was anything more than the standard henchmen/henchwoman type relationship most rogues have with their goons.

And the minute he does, he tries to get through to her. He tries to get through to Harleen. And then in the end, when he's almost got it, she's almost convinced and seeing the truth, he calls her Harley. He calls her by the name she's going by now, not the woman he believes to be trapped inside, but the one in front of him who's crying while her world is crumbling before her eyes.

It does not matter how trained you are, or how prepared you believe yourself to be, it can happen to Anyone. And it's No One's fault except the abuser for the actions the abuser takes.

But you can be the smartest person in the room and still be abused.

However, now, instead, we've got yet another film that's going to completely miss the mark and make a mockery of her journey. And instead of it being a first Live Action appearance for her and many others and whatnot like Suicide Squad was, this film is different.

This is a sequel to a film that's already got a fan base full of apologists for him. A fan base full of incels who have taken him on as their icon, as their role model, and we all fucking know it.

However they portray her character in this is going to stick with people and a lot of those folks are going to happily believe and treat this as if it's the true reality for her origin. No matter what other medias say, this is the accurate one. This is the one that's finally just allowing them to be together and not toxic. This is the one that's "not butchering his character so she can be the victim", he just gets to be his goofy little self and isn't changed so her story can exist.

And the only other live action movie that these people will or have watched that's got her character is Suicide Squad, as it's apparent so many of them clearly do not care about the 3 decades worth of evidence showing their actual relationship.

Cause facing the fact that that crusty ass disgusting man Is, and Has Been, a domestic abuser would make their constant woobification of him all the more difficult.

And why would they do that when they could just keep pretending he's not the fucking problem.

[reel-fear]

You guys just can’t pick a side can you?

This is one of the most idiotic asks I've been sent and someone once told me if a character is designed to appeal to children that character themselves must be a child. However I will still try to respond to explain why this is not the same situation in a calm manner.

The fnaf novels tied into the games in a way where in my opinion you don't need them to understand the lore, The mimic is a pretty simple concept a robot that copies voices the only thing you miss out on with the books is the backstory which I don't think is super vital but could also be explored in a future game so I don't mind the books being canon. Batim back when DCTL had first come out only revealed a major character's identity in that book. That is bad and I don't agree with it. But I am also against retconning the books entirely since it means said character now has No identity. I am literally not the kind of person this is meant to address...

HOWEVER

The bendy books are beloved, they have great stories, characters and add fun things to Bendy's lore that doesn't exist without them. I personally believe they're not only great by video game novel standards but great by general horror novel standards as well.

Most important though, is that Bendy is a "character-focused" series, but despite this the games lack any kind of interesting characterization, most of the cast don't have established relationships and the ones that do are often relationships that are minor and unimportant. The cast ranges from basically cardboard cut outs who had interesting ideas that were not executed well to basically having nothing interesting about them. See how Henry the main protagonist of the first game BATIM does not have much of a personality nor reacts to much through out the game, thus making it hard to really feel for what he is going through not to mention how he doesn't seem to have been friends with anyone he's encountered.

The books added substance to characters who needed it. They gave Joey a compelling backstory, motivation and a peak into how his mind worked via Illusion Of Living which filled in holes and gaps in Joey's story that the games left wide open despite the fact he's a main villain and very important. His character is vital to BATDR & BATIM, as it is his actions that literally caused all of this besides Henry who could arguably also be said to have started this when he left. The games don't tell us much about either of them. Not to mention unlike Scott who I believe never fully stated whether or not the books were canon, the bendy devs DID say the books were canon until recently which is confusing and frustrating for theorists who kept up with them to be able to know the lore and now feel cheated.

But now without the books Bendy has even more holes in its story, we now don't know who Boris is, why Thomas was suddenly being ominous and evil in BATDR [In The Lost Ones he was shown to be morally grey however since those aren't canon anymore, it seems Thomas just suddenly turned evil bc he felt like it], not to mention Joey now lacks a backstory and everything a lot of fans loved about the way he was written in the books has been thrown away. A lot of relationships, interesting traits and cool ideas about Bendy's narrative and its characters are now suddenly gone leaving us with once again the cardboard cutouts that the games claim are well-written characters. Kress is just a way better writer than the Bendy devs so to see her work tossed aside when she had been told it was canon to this franchise she liked feels offensive and hurtful.

This was only made worse by the fact this news only truly came out in response to multiple instances of whitewashing characters who were previously thought to be people of color in the graphic novel for Dreams Come To Life which itself also was just very poorly drawn, was basically just a worse version of the book it was adapting and had coloring mistakes that made it to the final print.

Meanwhile Fnaf is not a character-focused narrative, at least not to the degree Bendy is. For a while we didn't know who the protagonist of the games was and it also didn't matter. Fnaf's story was fairly simple and more focused on the events that caused the animatronics to attack you as opposed to say how the nightguard was feeling about all this. Thusly Fnaf's books which all told their own stories [most of which were received with pretty mixed reviews might I add] were also kinda wild and strange in the lore they added? Like robot children that also grew up and thought they were human and a lot of stories that didn't feel particularly related to FNAF? More like generic horror stories that sometimes had animatronics instead of any other generic monster.

It was completely natural for people to assume the fnaf books weren't canon, for a while it just didn't seem likely. They also weren't supplying key story information since the games themselves explained their stories well enough for everyone to at least have an idea of what was happening. Fnaf just isn't a character-focused narrative [or at least until Security Breach it really wasn't] the most important thing about its characters was their roles. William Afton as a person isn't super important for you to understand you just need to know that 1. He's the killer 2. He's the father of the main protagonist and 3. He died and is now coming to get you. Run. All of his children are the same, in fact a lot of them don't have names bc their names aren't super important their roles are. The crying child, the dead kids, you don't need to know their whole backstories for the story to work, it's a simple eerie and well written horror story about children dying and becoming vengeful ghosts.

Fnaf then released Security Breach which already made a lot of people frustrated and upset. Not only had it been delayed a lot but the story was confusing and not well written, the game was buggy and nearly unplayable in spots. Etc, etc, the fandom was already rather upset.

Then the dlc came out and while it was WAY better and honestly it's one of my favorite mascot horror games EVER, a lot of people had already long before it came out, placed their bets on whether or not the mimic would show up and therefore make the books canon. A lot of people at that point felt frustrated with how vague and hard to deconstruct the lore already Was so when it turned out the books [or at least the ones with Mimic in them] were canon it was frustrating and I understand why. The books are kinda bloated and have a lot of hit or miss stories so now everyone is wondering which stories are canon and which aren't which is frustrating when you just want to enjoy a story in a game you bought without having to watch an hour long theory video or read the wiki.

Honestly the biggest thing is this ask is very passive aggressive to me for a belief I don't even hold. I'm not super upset the fnaf books are canon, I'm very disinterested in fnaf due to scott cawthon's... Actions but personally I'm of the opinion that as long as a future game explains the mimic's backstory and what it is, then it's fine the books are canon.

Besides fnaf recently made a game literally out of one of the books people liked and it received great reviews [I loved it]. The books are not the problem people had it was the confusing lore. You're literally making up people to get mad at, most of the people who were upset at the fnaf books being canon didn't mind the bendy books not being canon and the opposite was true for others as well. Not to mention you're completely disregarding [in both cases] Why people are mad. It was far more complicated than just books not being canon it was what was In those books.

To imply I'm being hypocritical when you're comparing two game devs who I both dislike and don't support in their actions is very insulting. You just assumed I held this position cause I guess you thought I was stupid? Or you thought that because I don't like the bendy team I must be hypocritical and like fnaf? Either way you literally just assumed something about my beliefs then came to my inbox to mock me for it. I hope you realize how immature and stupid you look right now.

And for the record that goes for all the fnaf fans who mocked or disregarded people being upset about the bendy books not being canon anymore too. If they had simply listened to Why people were upset they would realize it was way more than just people being mad at a retcon.

Anyways of course you're a h*lluva boss fan, that makes perfect sense with how rude you are and the fact you use "antis" unironically. The way you fought so hard to pretend like the poppy playtime devs are the worst people in the world before I had to correct you on all of your info having no evidence, meanwhile you support someone who has been well known for being an abuser, hurting their workers and even transphobic says everything. So long as someone made something you like they can do no wrong right? Well heres some stuff abt Vivzieshit you might wanna look at.

I'm gonna go enjoy thanksgiving with my family now. I hope you learned something about sending weird passive aggressive stuff to strangers about shit they don't think or have ever said. Lmao

[moistvonlipwig]

i think fandom people are generally not very good at analyzing the behind the scenes workings of tv productions largely because fans (like most people) tend to make assumptions & inferences that support their own biases. the reality is that the television industry is a mess and there are many hands in the pot and all of them have different agendas -- network execs, showrunners, producers, writers, actors, etc. sometimes decisions are made for storytelling reasons, sometimes they're made to make money, sometimes they're made because one of the execs/showrunners is a petty bitch and wants to take it out on someone.

the other reality is that it is very rare for (network) live-action tv shows (though this is changing w/ streaming & it's different w/ animation) to have a longterm plan and that's not a bad thing. jms had a 5-year-plan for babylon 5 and then the network that aired the show looked like it might go under after season 4 and he rushed to fit everything into the end of season 4 (+ tv films) and then the show got renewed for a fifth season anyway and he had no idea what to do. babylon 5 is well-regarded by sci-fi fans but to tv writers jms is a cautionary tale. when people speculate about what the "original plan" was for a tv show they are most likely talking out of their ass. either that or one of the writers mentioned a half-baked concept they tossed around in the room for five minutes at a convention one time and the fans took that and ran with it. there is almost never an "original plan". and again. that's not a bad thing if you understand how tv is made.

oh and i also think fandom people are way too quick to spread narratives crafted by other fandom people without evaluating the source of the narrative. i have seen so many myths get repeated -- some of them obviously false, some that are quite possibly entirely true -- that have nothing to back them up except that people in fandom keep believing them. and i don't want to be too harsh but uh. i don't like that sam i am!

[rise-my-angel]

Confession: I sometimes hope that Martin never finishes the books so that Targ stans are forced to accept that the show one is all they're ever gonna get. Like, yes Dany becomes Mad Queen, yes Bran becomes King, yes the North becomes independent. That's what happened, and you'll have to live with that now, your dream of a book ending where Daenerys gets to rule the entire Westeros unopposed and gets a happily ever after is not real.

My stance is pretty much: I think the Mad Queen arc will not go down the way the show portrayed it, but it will happen. I think to the outsiders of Westeros, it will appear that Dany went mad like her father, but to the readers, it will be clear that she is not mad, that this was an inevitability from who she is and what she beleives in. But the perception of Westeros remembers her by that name.

I don't know what I think of Bran being King in the end because I personally think that the abolition of the Iron Throne is the right way to go for the realm, but I do think the North remains independant, but also done differently.

That being said, and especially after how ungrateful some people showed themsleves to be towards grrm after his blog post about hotd came out, I think some of these people just dont deserve to have the books come out. I think some people have proven that they do not respect him enough anymore to be worth putting the series out for them. These people were so ungrateful they said his opinion on the adaptation of his own work, didnt matter. Those people don't deserve to have the books come out.

Some people too are also just so obnoxious about what they think will happen. I can't tell you the amount of times I've seen people say they can't wait until the books come out so they can rub in it peoples faces who say Lyanna was raped, when its proven it was a love story, and its like? You shouldn't be eager to insult and talk down to people who believed an event weve been told was rape was actually rape..

Like, Dany in the book is interesting because no matter what her thoughts say to herself, her words and actions all show she is not a good person and she is only getting worse. She's interesting because you start the story rooting for her, only to suddenly watch and realize that you didn't really know this girl you were rooting for the way you thought you did. She's interesting because you're watching someone turn into a dangerous, violent, and cruel leader who beleives that she both is owed the Iron Throne and thinks she has some divine right to it, both things which in a person who freely uses such cruelty, is such a dangerous thing.

I personally don't like her, but I like watching her descent and where she's going because thats interesting to me. But, a lot stemming from show fans have devolved into defending her every step of the way and not engaging with her on the level of cruelty she repeatedly has portrayed.

At this point, I just think it's a mistake to assume that the series would end with anyone on the Iron Throne. I think the way the show did it was stupid, but I think the concept of destroying the Iron Throne, either literally or figuratvely, is where this series would be headed.

But I think thats an unpopular stance at this point, so I don't really expect people to agree with that. At this point, I've made my peace with the shows ending to the point if its the only one we ever get, thats fine. It'll just be funny to me to watch people still complain about it years later.

[sol-consort]

question about your femshep: how would she react if confronted with her private affairs by the media and what do hackett and anderson think of her having multiple children and affairs/ how did they react?

I love your character, so different from what people normally do with paragons!🩷🦑

thank you! I like the concept of characters who make the best heroes yet are bad in their personal life.

It really makes you feel conflicted about how their scaled heart would weigh against a feather. On one side, they save people's lives, on another side, they break their lovers' hearts.

They make mythical legends, great leaders, even good friends, but terrible partners.

One of the benefits of going paragon is the high persuasion. A paragon Shep is effortlessly charming, the media's darling even. When it comes to the extranet viral interview vids, it doesn't matter what she's really saying as long as how she's saying it is seemingly convincing.

A reporter tries to corner her about another spouse who filed for divorce after catching her in bed with another? Femshep mentions how, yes, that did happen, and she takes full responsibility. That it's their right to divorce her if they feel like it, that's their freedom, isn't it? The same freedom she's been defending for decades, the freedom everyone almost got robbed of by the reapers not so long ago, the entire galaxy would've been wiped wasn't it for her stepping up and convincing everyone to put their differences aside and work together.

Do tell her, reporter, do you have a family? Are they from earth or an outer colony? Who do you think kept it safe? Kept your family and friends safe while you were spreading high-school lockerroom gossip about her. You should be ashamed of yourself. She is not perfect, yes, but who is?

Or something along those lines. As if those unrelated things excuse her actions.

Evading the question, speaking with confidence, appearing charismatic on camera, and she's got every viewer in her pocket. Die hard fans ready to defend her wrongdoings because "She is commander Shepard!" and "we should be asking what the ex-spouce did to cause her to cheat? It can't be her fault." as if it's ever the fault of the person who gets cheated on.

-

Admiral Hackett

He is shown to have looser morals than the rest of the alliance multiple times in canon. He understands how messy the real world can be, how you can't achieve results without getting your hands dirty and sweeping things under the rug.

Not only did he massively stall the alliance investigation on Shepard back when joining Cerberus, replying to every email sent to him—presented with hard evidence of Shepard's treasons—requesting permission to open an offical case, with "negative."

He is a seasoned vetran, a decorated admiral who has seen everything the world has to offer. If the saviour of the galaxy is a serial adulterer, then so be it. He genuinely could not give less of a shit what Shepard got to in her own free time, as long as it doesn't make the alliance look too bad, as long as her legacy remains unblemished, then everything could be overlooked.

But he still went to Shepard for help when it came to rescuing an old friend. In the aftermath of the mission, he promised to keep the government officials off Shepard's back until the collectors threat is no more.

Hackett is one of the first people to completely dismiss and shut down any interviews with him trying to expose Shepard's infidelity. He denies every all and all allegations, offers no comment, and ensures no printing press would ever accept these "baseless" articles or host them online.

Thanks to him and the alliance PR team, Shepard's inner life conflict is kept hush-hush on the down low. The average person wouldn't know about it, you have to really dig deep and look through courtroom records and deleted inteviews and articles to find out about it. To do that, chances are you're either an obsessed fan or a nosy reporter, reporters can be bribed and fans are too deep in denial to face reality.

This isn't the first or the last time an important public figure fucked up, a little corruption is needed to grease the wheels of the goodness machine. Shepard's risking her lives for people and doing it with the efficiency of an entire fleet. As long as she keeps at it, Admiral Hackett has no qualms cleaning her messes.

Paragon or Renegade, in his views, the world needs a Shepard. If anything, he's relieved it's just being a shitty partner & cheater and not like money embezzlement from the government, legal matters are always annoying to cover up.

-

Captian Anderson

He feels...immensely guilty, as if he failed Shepard, as if it was him who led her down this scummy path. Especially after their conversation in ME3 ending, where he tells her she'd make a great mom.

She is a mom now, an even decently good one... but at what cost? Being a terrible wife.

He always defended her against the crew, always sang her praises in front of superiors. How could he not? She was the textbook definition of the perfect soldier, diligent and hardworking, she was the best XO he has ever had.

With that rough uprising she had on earth, he expected her to have a million problems he'd have to sort through, attitude, stubbornness and prejudices... yet to his surprise, there was nothing. Shepard was a squeaky clean slate, even when he tested her faithfulness to the alliance on multiple occasions.

Turns out, it was a different kind of faithfulness she lacked. The kind that breaks families, he should know, the mention of his ex-wife's name still leaves a bitter taste in his mouth.

So he blames himself for not knowing, for not paying much attention to the different people she'd mingle with during shore break, only to abandon them for a new shinier person. Maybe if he was more observant, he could've prevented this, he could've had a serious talk to her about it.

the way he views it, of course, it is his fault, for how could it be hers when she never had a father to sit her down and explain love and trust? How could it be hers... no, it can never be Shepard's fault. It must be his own.

He was there for her as a captain, but he failed her as a friend.

Is what he tells himself to take the blame from her.

It's never mentioned why he divorced his wife, but from the huge amount of responsibilities he had, I assume she left because she was feeling neglected.

Only for him to find out she "met" someone else back when they were still together through a Facebook post where she's gushing about their anniversary, the timeline not adding up, until things click into place in his head.

He used to be in denial about Shepard's "predicament," just reporter drama. Until catching up with one of his old crew—be it Kaidan or else—and hearing first hand of how Shepard broke their trust and betrayed their love. How she showed no remorse yet still maintained a friendly relationship with them after the breakup, how it didn't take her much to immediately move on to a new person. For the cycle to start all over again before their eyes.

The immense disgust and disappointment he felt in that moment, the stained glass painting of Shepard in his mind shattering into a million pieces. It was almost as if it's his own heart she broke, a person he proudly called a friend, one of a kind.

It stung even more with the knowledge that Shepard kept repeating the same mistakes despite Anderson entrusting her about what happened between him and his ex-wife, venting to her like an old friend, how uncharacteristic it was for her to just sit there and not say a word, changing the subject afterwards.

And now he carries that guilt with him akin to a ball and chain, mulling it over a glass of whiskey...or three. Nursing his glass as he wonders if it's too late for an intervention, Shepard is well into her 40s by now...is it too late for him to step up as a guardian again?

Does she even see him as a father figure anymore? They drifted apart after the reapers incident. A peaceful life was never Shepard's style, and so she was determined to make the most out of her field days before old age forces her into a retirement or an admiral uniform.

-

As for Shepard herself, she doesn't grant herself excuses or justifications, the charismatic speeches she gives to reporters don't work on her own mind.

She is forced to stare into the brutal truth of her being rotten at the core, that despite all of her virtues, her mortal sin resonated in the most hurtful way possible to the people closest to her hearts.

Whatever new relationship she starts, she dreads the eventual breakup once her old habits creep up again. She doesn't know why she does this. It simply feels right during the moment to give into temptation. The mere idea of her being chained to one person makes her skin break out in hives.

Their love is never guaranteed. In her perspective, it's better to just hop on whatever new opportunity presents itself.

She is guilty over her lack of guilt when it comes to infidelity. How it feels like second nature for her to shamelessly break her oaths of devotion and love for a one night stand with a lovely woman she just met at a bar.

Because deep down, she knows she's lying through her teeth when she admits to her partners about her cheating being a bad habit.

Deep down, she genuinely has no problem with it. She's only saying what she learned to say to appease the other person, to mediate the situation.