#not disagreeing with you dear-massacre but not entirely agreeing

[haletostilinski]

I think both are true. Jeff truly is not an amazing writer, and all the really good things that came from his writing came, in my opinion, accidentally.

Also the way others treat Derek really feels like Jeff's outlook on him too. Also his constant need for Derek to be in pain and to suffer (and ultimately die 😡).

Derek's journey on the show is both badly done and wonderfully done. I don't know if I can explain it well. I'll try.

Jeff wanted him to be seen as as a villain in season 1 - and perhaps season 2. He wanted Derek to suffer and he boy does he, at almost every turn. He also thinks Derek needed to be taught lessons he didn't really need to be taught. He also looked at Scott as the ultimate hero and (True) Alpha and so sacrificed Derek's growth in some ways in order for Scott to achieve that.

But he also, perhaps on purpose, perhaps accidentally, I don't know - put him on a heroes journey. The character growth for Derek is so wonderful to see (and wild as barely any of the other characters, even main characters, got the same character growth Derek did, or they barely moved from point A to point B, as characters should in a story, which makes me feel all the more that it was accidental, or how well it turned out was accidental)

All this to say - if they had let Derek get close, truly close with someone (yes I would have liked Stiles, but anyone would have been fine), then I think he could have talked about his trauma. Or hell, if Jeff even remotely cared about his characters, he could have gone to therapy eventually and talked there. There are ways for Derek's trauma to have truly been explored that did not mean just us having to do a lot of interpreting most of the time.

Yes, Derek himself would not want to talk about his trauma with anyone, especially in the earlier seasons, but the show could have brought it up and really explored it and had Derek deal with it, once and for all, in much better ways.

Like yay, he went on a personal character growth journey into a true hero, and I love that. Yay, he learned to let go of some of the worst parts of the trauma Kate inflicted on him and not let anger rule over him anymore -

But he never truly healed - at least, not in a true, real way that I think some fanfics out there have done very well.

It is my opinion that this show never really had characters deal with *any* of their trauma. Not in any real, substantial way. How Derek was depicted as a survivor - yes, it was good. His character development was so good.

But the show exploring the trauma he went through - truly exploring it - and having Derek heal in a healthy way and facing his trauma head on instead of pushing it down and ignoring it (until it was forced on him)? Well...there, the show did gloss over a lot.

Derek doesn't necessarily need to even spill his guts to anyone for the show to have explored it properly, which it never did.

All this to say - I'm not disagreeing with you in that Derek's trauma was portrayed overall fairly well. But I also think the previous commenters had a point in that...if not brushed over, Derek's trauma and what he went through was never properly addressed or explored.

The show had a serious problem with actually having their characters deal with any trauma they went through. The aftermath of Stiles' being possessed is a very good example of that, for one.

The depiction of Derek, the rape survivor, might have been (accidentally or not) very well done. But exploring his trauma from them and his journey to healing? Eh, well...yes, that was very shaky at best.

isn’t it weird how Teen Wolf brushed over the fact that Derek was basically groomed ??

like, they don’t ever mention that Derek was like 16 (??) and Kate was an adult (i think she’s supposed to be in her 20s) 😭

[autisticcassandracain]

The streamlining of Cass has other issues: I DON'T WANT her to get along with Jason BECAUSE of his history with killing. I mean, Dick shows remorse, but Jason? (And I can hear the clickety-clacking about how Jason is an antihero already.) Maybe he does now, he saw a kid who was basically him in a former life, and now he's been rethinking things. But before that? lolnope

I agree with you she shouldn't get along with Jason while he's killing people, I've talked about that before and other Cass fans have as well, but that said, I honestly haven't followed Jason's character post-flashpoint enough to really have much of an opinion on how Cass and Jason's relationship was handled in canon. From my understanding post-flashpoint Jason rarely actually seems to kill people, and has recently had a storyline in which he decided to swear it off. If my impression of that is correct, then in that continuity, honestly, I don't necessarily mind Cass and Jason having a decent relationship in that continuity. Cass has repeatedly shown to get along with people who have sworn off killing, and has, on occassion, been cordial with people who do kill (there's that guy with the wind powers whose name I keep forgetting who was fighting against a government who was massacring his ethnic group, for example, who was Cass's love interest for a short while).

I think what makes preboot Cass and Jason uniquely unlikely to get along with each other is not just the fact that he kills, but also that his reasons for it suck really bad. Jason had the bat ideology and a place in the batfam, but swore it off because he thinks killing is the only way to control Gotham's crime. This is fundamentally counter to everything Cass believes, including her belief in redemption. Like, obviously, I don't think Cass can ever have an uncomplicated relationship with people who kill, but she's been willing to reach out and have relationships with them that aren't just 'drop kicks them off a building'. Jason in particular though would be VERY difficult for her to swallow because he's a corruption of the bat symbol she holds so dear. But in the new continuity, where Jason has currently sworn off killing and killed much less liberally before that? I don't think that version is one Cass can't have a decent relationship with.

That said, I don't disagree that it's a symptom of 'streamlining' Cass, but tbh, it's also a symptom of streamlining Jason, as well as the batfam as a whole. DC has been going hard on the idea of the batfam as a literal family post-flashpoint, likely because they've realized there's a very large audience for it. But like, the batfam just. Doesn't work as a big happy family. 90% of the people in it have baggage with each other and 99% have massive mental health issues that get in the way of healthy relationships. In order to arrive at a 'we have a collective movie night in Wayne Manor' set-up, you need to defang and streamline like, all of them. It's actually really funny to me that DC was handed a perfect opportunity with a complete universe reboot to remove a bunch of baggage and bad blood, but decided to recreate a lot of those events instead. And adding new ones. And keeping loaded character dynamics born from bad blood similar, even without the events that would've lead to that bad blood. But then STILL pretend that these bitches go to a fast food restaurant together lmao.

The result is that a vast majority of the batfam feels like they have much less depth than they did preboot, because the priority is no longer creating strong individual characters, but to create familial/friendly relationships. It's why, though Cass and Steph have had more screentime together post-flashpoint than they did preboot, their relationship feels like a much more shallow gal pal friendship. The difficulties their relationship had (born from them being seperate individual characters with different histories and reactions to it that sometimes clashed) have been entirely erased for a 'let's hug and support each other' relationship.

Like I'm not one of those people that's like 'let characters be dysfunctional together it's so much more interesting than boring bland healthy relationships' or whatever, like to each their own and all that but I've got too many dysfunctional (family) relationships irl for me to have much patience with them in fiction. But you can't just write people as deeply dysfunctional for years and then pretend it didn't happen while not fundamentally changing much character history. Like if you want good dad Bruce PLEASE do that but for the love of god you can't still give all his children massive perfectionist complexes and have him routinely tear them down emotionally and even physically and then pretend that a movie night wouldn't be fraught with tension. All that accomplishes is a flattening of everyone's characters by disregarding logical human emotions.

And if you DO change character history to facilitate better relationships you need to actually replace it with something substantial, otherwise you end up with Wayne Family Adventures or, you know, fanfic.

Anyway TL;DR Cass having a decent relationship with Jason in the post-flashpoint continuity is a symptom of the entire batfam being streamlined to force them into a happy family they have literally never been before and should not be within the canon DC has presented us with.

Also as a last fyi, I don't think it's fair to class Dick as a murderer, since he's killed one (1) person, it was the Joker, in a fit of rage after being lead to believe he'd killed another one of his little brothers, was immediately wracked with guilt once coming to his senses, and also the Joker was resurrected via CPR immediately after. Like man I just don't think that counts, and I very highly doubt Cass would be anything but sympathetic about the situation, especially since it's not like Dick thinks killing is okay, and although he's not AS rigid about it as Bruce or Cass, he very much does believe in and abide by the no killing rule, so like. I really don't see why Cass would have issues with him on that front.

[we-are-knight]

You are correct in bringing up the Valentine’s Day Massacre; however, while there have been incidents of mass murder in American history prior to Columbine, these tended to have a motive beyond indiscriminately killing as many people as possible. I do agree, however, that it is an issue with culture. I see it as the opposite problem, however: traditional male outlets have been labeled as toxic and harmful, leading to a generation of frustrated young men who feel the need to lash out at society.

Follow up: it’s the same logic as equating all Muslims to being terrorists leading to a rise in radicalization. These young men, full of the anger and frustration so many of us feel at that age, have become convinced that society no longer has a place for them. And, bring so convinced, they feel the only way they can vent their frustration and make themselves heard is through an act of often-suicidal mass violence. So yes, toxic masculinity is to blame. Just not in the way you think, I believe.

---

RE: Valentine’s Day Massacre, I did agree that while massacres have occurred prior to recent years, they have been on the rise, and what you have said here expands upon the reasoning.

I...actually don’t disagree with your assessment? I’ve said these things myself at other occasions, and added that along with the feeling that ‘traditional’ masculine behaviour is demonised (not entirely correct) and a sense of tribalism (both online and in society) has contributed heavily toward the frustration and anger at society at large.

So, I actually concur with your thoughts here, though I did not expand into that as I had to preface: this is a complex and huge matter that requires historical and social deconstruction to explain, and I can only focus on so many parts before we launch into a 10 hour lecture without toilet breaks. >_>

I think it’s important to notice what you have raised here, too: the idea that “traditional” masculine behaviour or culture is ‘wrong’ in the current age, frustration that a standard that they feel no longer exists, leading to hate and violence. It’s a pity when this does apply as I understand the adoration of an ideal, romanticised past (that in truth, never was) and values, and yet I find that those who cling so tightly to those things without recognising the negative aspects often can become embittered and aggressive; which is exactly the thing the rest of modern society condemns. That is to say: traditional masculine behaviour is not inherently bad or wrong (though it should be put under a lens of scrutiny), when sufficiently deconstructed so that the negative elements are done away with. It is, of course, perfectly possible to love one’s nation, own firearms and train with them, give support to one’s military and so forth, wanting to be a breadwinner and so forth, while being aware of wider issues connected to the traditional model. It is therefore, disappointing and indeed, even pitiable that some cannot suffer the very notion that one may deconstruct the values they hold dear, to be the exemplar of the best aspects they find, while living in the modern age.

But that is itself a lecture for another time.

[cirrocumulus-cloud]

Hmm can you response to all the point demon0496 comment on your post like "It was for survival for him and Touka. It's a lot harder to condone Mutsuki when her actions are irrational." and other big point ?

Of course, dear! If you’d like me to, I’d certainly love to go into more detail and unravel said comment in a way that makes sense without turning a blind eye to the themes that demon0496 tried to convey! In fact, let me respond to all of the comments under one post. (This is a response to this meta regarding Mutsuki and the way people view them.)

The main theme of this response meta will be a well-known saying!

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

marcheliox said this:nah he is not iredimeable, i just want someone to put him in prison for a while and give him help before continuing the operation, at this point he is going to get everyone killed                            

What they are saying is true. Mutsuki shouldn’t walk around like a bomb ready to explode, and I’d say the ones that should be responsible for keeping them safe from themselves are Urie and Saiko especially, but also the entirety of the CCG in general. We can’t expect an organisation which directly profits from having abused children be made into killing machines to care for Tooru’s emotional wellbeing though, which is why Urie and Saiko should pay closer attention to their comrades. Not being ready to handle a situation correctly ended in them losing Shirazu, they shouldn’t have to lose another person who they hold close to their heart.

This is one of the main reasons why I am also pro a Tooru redemption arc. We’ve seen these characters deal with the death of a loved one and being abandoned by another beloved person before, everything that Mutsuki’s death could explore pales in comparison to the growth that Urie and Saiko could go through if they could save someone for once. Also, as I have stated in my meta post, if Mutsuki can be redeemed then so can Kaneki. If Tooru is a lost case, then the narrative implies that Kaneki is a lost case as well. And we all don’t want that, so go get Tooru a good psychologist, please.

pennyinheaven said this:agree that for Kaneki to be forgiven, another irredeemable should be forgiven, they are parallels of each other after all. But what makes Mutsuki hard to swallow is that he doesn’t think of others. I know he has mentioned that he wanted the Qs family to stay but he didn’t show enough care/concern for the others as they had for him and just singled out Kaneki. Kaneki thinks about everyone, tries to. Narrows it down to fewer people but it still wasn’t enough. He had to resort to single out Touka to finally push himself to do something. Plus, Furuta pushed him to the edge where there’s no escape but do what Furuta wanted him to do, massacre thousands of people. But I guess it can’t be helped for Mutsuki since he only felt kindness after getting into the Qs program. He didn’t know any of it prior to meeting those people. Kaneki had Hide at a young age and being shown kindness and reciprocating evolved when he met Anteiku.   

I wholeheartedly agree that Mutsuki is currently only thinking about their own being, they even say that they don’t care about anything else to Touka. What I disagree with is the concept that Tooru didn’t try to keep the Quinx together but Kaneki did.

Tooru never really had a chance to properly explore the concept of keeping the remaining family that he has had together, because before we could get a proper look into how Saiko, Urie and Mutsuki handle being without Shirazu and Kaneki Tooru already got kidnapped and had to endure terrible torture that lead to them snapping and turning violent again. That doesn’t paint Mutsuki in a nice picture but it drives home to point that for Tooru, Kaneki was their home. Do remember that this is a character who never had a proper father figure in their life. What one clings to are the things that they never had. The Quinx were important, but the abuse that Tooru had to endure as a child lead to them clinging to Ken, not Urie and Saiko.

Likewise, I have to disagree with the point that Kaneki thinks about other people to a great extent. He doesn’t, he clings to a select few people and he abandons new groups whenever it is convenient for him. Ken thinks about himself and only relies on himself, but I do have to admit that Ken cares. In fact, Kaneki cares way too much, which is why he ends up abandoning so many people. Kaneki’s inherent good hearted nature also leads people like Hide, Tsukiyama and Touka to flock to him and forget themselves while they do it.

Kaneki has never been a villainous person and he didn’t throw his morals out the window because he likes being evil. It is totally right to say that Kaneki was pushed to this point, but it was still Kaneki who jumped off a cliff. Even when faced with this despair, he had no need to kill one hundred children who are basically carbon copies of himself with just as much pain under their masks. Likewise, the same goes for Mutsuki, of course. 

demon0496 said this:I agree with pennyinheaven. Furuta had to bring Kaneki to the brink of death, and destroy all of his options to get Kaneki to do what he has done.    It was for survival for him and Touka. It’s a lot harder to condone Mutsuki when her actions are irrational.              

It’s true that without Furuta, Kaneki wouldn’t have ended up in this situation. But his actions prior to being brought to his knees were still not of any substance. Instead of trying to fix the problem that ghouls in this society have to face, instead of being a king who reigns he decided to instead flee with his people underground and let them starve because he didn’t know how to handle conflict.

That’s one of his major character flaws, his wish to always avoid conflict. It’s what leads him to abandon Hide, to abandon Anteiku, to abandon the Quinx. Kaneki is such a people-pleaser that any conflict needs to be avoided at any cost and if it is something that cannot be achieved then he blames himself, breaks down and starts to wear another personality mask. Kaneki does this because these are things that people do to survive abuse.

We regularly see this sort of behaviour in peer groups in school, where you either fit in and avoid conflict or you don’t and you get shot down for it. As someone who had to endure eight years of being bullied it is certainly a technique that I tried to do: Do everything in my ability to not end up angering people. The problem lies with the fact that abuse of any kind doesn’t stop just because you try to become invisible, it just becomes less.

Likewise, we cannot say that Mutsuki is different from Ken here. Mutsuki was presented to us at the start of the manga as a person similar to young pre-ghoul Kaneki. Shy, meek, meant to please people by staying out of conflicts and arguments. They did this because over time they had learned that staying in the shadows leads to less abuse. When they had to face the same abuse once more they simply snapped. Not in an entirely realistic way because this is a work of fiction and thus makes use of some tropes, but in a way that is logical for what abused people can end up doing if they once more are met with abuse.

You stay silent for the longest time and that is what Mutsuki did when they still had hope that Kaneki would come and rescue them. And when you find out that no, no one is going to come to your rescue that’s when you lash out and explode like a time bomb that should have gone off years ago. It’s what Kaneki did when he turned into Centipede and it’s what Mutsuki did when faced with the cold hard fact that their beloved father figure doesn’t care enough to rescue them. They aren’t different.  

mywifeforhire6us said this:ALso isn’t Touka comment for Mutsuki is like BASIC logic so she doesn’t scew everything up .No matter what they have to find Kaneki anyway?  

True, I never said that what Touka says doesn’t make any sense, it totally does make sense for her character. That doesn’t mean that she isn’t using double standards here, though. She should be more concerned about her life that Kaneki became a monster for in order to protect. And yeah, they have to find Kaneki to drive the narrative forward! I indeed stated that we should side with Touka here, it’s what the narrative implies. I’m still going to call her out for her double standards though, even though she is one of my favourite characters.

amoboshi234 said:Why r you blaming everything on Kaneki ? This is Kanou’s set up and Kaneki is a victim himself           

Uhm, I’m blaming things on Kaneki because he, you know, happens to be a giant Centipede who caused hundreds of innocent people to die, because he is constantly abandoning people left and right and because he walked to the edge of this cliff that is “losing your morals” on his own two feet. Furuta cornered him, but Kaneki was the one who, you know, actually ate 100 orphan children.                                        

Mutsuki is entirely illogical in his envious behaviour, but it is born from Kaneki giving them a father figure for the first time in their lives, only to take that away from them without looking back. Doesn’t excuse the murder, but it doesn’t excuse Kaneki’s murder either. They are standing on the same stage.     

Kaneki doesn’t think about other people in the same way that Mutsuki doesn’t think about other people. Kaneki clings to a person because without someone to cling to he becomes suicidal. Doesn’t mean that his love for Touka isn’t real or pure, but it isn’t healthy. If it were, then he wouldn’t have had to resort to becoming a giant Godzilla wannabe. 

I never stated that Kaneki is a villain. Kaneki is a victim in all of this as well, but I’ve been bullied for years, that doesn’t give me the right to go out and, ya know, bully other people. In the same way Kaneki doesn’t get a free pass for murder just because someone turned him into a ghoul against his will. 

himawari-9 said:Mutsuki is not a child anymore for the father figure thing to work. He is over 20 already and has to take responsibility for his own actions. Kaneki never intended to hurt innocent people but Mutsuki doesn’t care about that. He dragged an innocent Yoriko into a death sentence and treated the Oggai like trash, willing to wake Kaneki so that he will go on another rampage. Their personality and way of thinking are too different.  

Mutsuki is a psychopath who enjoys murder while Kaneki himself avoids killing innocent human. He turned into a monster is Kanou and Furuta’s fault.                                                                                                                                          You are right - Mutsuki isn’t a child. But they are a person who grew up without a father figure, just like Kaneki. Lacking a second parent in your life or having them be an abuser will give you bad behaviours later in your adulthood. Get treated badly during your diaper phase and you likely end up as an incredibly overly clean person or a very dirty one. Being abused as a child makes one act in extremes - that’s a psychological fact. As someone who reads psychological studies weekly and had it in school I am no expert, but I know a thing or two.       

Kaneki is a victim as much as he is someone who wreaked havoc on Tokyo. Just because he got turned into a ghoul against his will and got pushed into a corner doesn’t give him a free ticket for murder. You can’t condemn Tooru for treating the Oggai badly but then are perfectly fine with Kaneki killing them.  

solidms said:       Look at what Kaneki’s revenge did to Jason and Mutsuki’s revenge did to TorsoYou will know who is the redeemable one.

Both of them or neither of them. The reason why I think so should be clear by now.