#not my meta

[the-obnoxious-sibling]

I saw post with link to theory that Oda used speech bubbles to hide shanks actual and I can’t find it

It definitely used the moment where Whitebeard asks about buggy and some other

Do you think there is a point in that theory? Would it be intentional? I do think the placement is weird for an accident but I am shuggy obsessed so….

It also would go nice with the fact that we still didn’t see shanks reaction at their “breakup “

ah, i gotchu, i saw that ask too, these are the tweets in question:

i've discussed previously that there could be a number of reasons shanks' reaction to the roguetown fight with buggy is obscured/hidden from us, but these panels… really did not need to be arranged this way?? like, i agree with goingbuggyy, it definitely feels like an intentional artistic choice and one that must have been a pita to adapt to the anime.

and given these panels are shanks

trying to convince luffy that it's nbd shanks just lost an arm

telling whitebeard that he hasn't seen buggy in twenty-plus years

i think their “hiding vulnerability behind lightheartedness” take is a totally valid interpretation

[anghraine]

I honestly don't remember who I saw the link from, but I just found Bret Devereaux's analysis of the Siege of Gondor in the LOTR films and the book (the part most relevant to my Stewardist interests is here, but I read the whole thing once I started!). I don't agree with all his interpretations on the literary level, but they're generally defensible and the military analysis is fascinating.

An excerpt:

In contrast to the film, the book shows Faramir and Denethor’s handling of the battle as nothing short of a masterful execution of defense in depth. At each stage, the army of Mordor is forced to sustain casualties and disorder to surmount one set of defenses, only to be presented with fresh defenses and troops. At the end of it, Denethor’s sortie shatters Mordor’s vanguard and buys the escape of Faramir’s force. Thus for all of their pains and delays, the Army of Mordor faces a Minas Tirith fully defended, having lost the chance to destroy a good part of the army of Gondor in the field.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Expertise can't help you here.

[bakedbakermom]

plz reblog for science

[trainwreckgenerator]

a face you'd find on the side of a milk carton

[teaandcrowns]

To add on: why is it considered "darker" when Katara expresses anger toward her mother's murderer? Let's be clear about about Katara's identities in the group and the narrative first: "mom friend," hero's "girl," for all intents and purposes the last southern waterbender, a woman, and a BIPOC woman. All of these identities are ones that aren't generally "allowed" to express deep anger—it's "too dark" or makes them "too unrecognizable," or, perhaps even, feels threatening to others. Many of those identities are generally not "allowed" to express their own grief in any meaningful or deep way, often because they are comforting others who are allowed to grieve more deeply. Women who have many of these identities in the real world also experience similar reactions, particularly Black women.

Why is anger, rage, desire for justice to be served, desire for revenge against those who hurt them or those they love, considered "dark" for women to have? For BIPOC women to have? Why is it "dark?" What makes it "dark?" Why is Zuko, as in OP's post used as comparison, not seen as "dark?" Why is Aang's rage at the Southern Air Temple upon finding Gyatso's remains not considered "dark?" Why is Aang's rage in the desert against the sandbenders–so intense he goes out of his way to take down (potentially kill) a fleeing wasp vulture—not considered "dark?" Why is the Ocean Spirit's rage and decimation of the Fire Nation naval fleet at the North Pole not considered "dark?" Why is Hama's revenge against the Fire Nation that imprisoned her and all the other grown waterbenders in inhumane conditions framed as "dark" and originally released as a Halloween episode (that is, the "horror" or "spooky" episode)?

It's important to consider the answers and associated implications, biases, and double standards of the answers to these questions.

The Southern Raiders: so, demon Zuko brought out the worst in poor, innocent Katara…

What did Zuko do to deserve this accusation coming from some people among the fanbase? I rewatched The Southern Raiders the other day and spend close attention to catch up on what they could possibly mean.

So, what does Zuko do to Katara after the Gaang flees from Azula?

He looks after her and is holding an appropriate distance while asking her, calmly, why she still can’t trust him.

After her response he realizes: Oh yeah, I wronged her the most. Followed by asking how he can make it up to her and understanding what she needs, even though she is giving sarcastic answers.

He offers Katara a chance to face the killer of her mother, so she will be finally able to receive closure and begin the process of healing. This is an exact parallel of Zuko facing Ozai on The day of the black sun. He could’ve just left and join the Gaang, but instead he chose to face his father first: because he needed this.

(Furthermore, he spared Ozai, the same way he spared Zhao even back in S1; that goes against the frequently used argument that he definitely expected Katara to kill Yon Rha coming from some people.)

As I mentioned before, I paid close attention during my rewatch

At no point is Zuko pushing Katara to do anything she doesn’t want, nor does he do anything else to release her dark side.

Am I the only one picturing an incubus-like Zuko whispering in Katara’s ear, every time someone claims that?

On the opposite: He is listening to her and is offering support while facing her biggest trauma. The same goes for the actual field trip: he is nothing but supportive, doesn’t push her to do anything and is standing aside, so that Katara can receive closure under her own conditions—which she did, and she forgave Zuko because of it. Not only that, she even gives him a tight hug out of deep gratitude. Would a person act like this towards somebody who brought out the worst in them? I highly doubt it.

But then why is Katara showing a dark side, some might even say, she is OOC?

I genuinely don’t get the OOC-part... She is very in-character, and her dark side has nothing to do with Zuko. It’s Katara being presented as an actual human being with feelings. Imagine that...

Why is Aang allowed to show a dark side? I never heard anyone complain about him in those specific situations. But Katara, despite raising her voice before and showing her rage in many situations during the show, is suddenly acting OOC when it comes to The Southern Raiders.

She is about to face her trauma and to meet her mother’s killer, of course she won’t be the happiest person in the world, more nervous and angry, lashing out if someone tries to stop her. Yeah, and even going as far as to use bloodbending when finally meeting the (wrong) man.

Doesn’t mean her feelings aren’t justified, and it wasn’t Zuko who brought them up, but the situation alone.

That’s all this is

A person facing her trauma, thus showing very natural darker feelings in this situation, after suppressing them for years. Of course, it was hard for Katara, but she agreed on this trip because she knew she needed it. It was the right thing for her to do—and Zuko is the one who gave her a chance on this, nothing more, nothing less.

[meyerlansky]

ON the subject of undernegotiated kink in fanfiction. i think we should talk more about how the concept of "not talking about it" is just as much wish fulfillment for some people as "in-depth, therapy-speak conversations where everyone is clear and understood" is for others

like yes, in reality the antidote to shame is open honest conversation with someone who will validate your feelings and wants blah blah blah but SOMETIMES what i want out of my fanfic is characters being understood without having to expose themselves in that way. SOMETIMES it's fun to not dismantle the shame and repression all the way and to instead treat that understanding-despite-not-being-clear as the fantasy

[aficionadoenthusiast]

yes, percy rose through the ranks of new rome disturbingly fast. no, jason did not do the same at camp half blood. yes, percy's rise to leadership at both camps took about two weeks and was completely unplanned. no, the same cannot be said for jason. his rise was carefully planned and took over a decade. they're both children of the big three, but where percy thrums with raw power, jason is a sword honed by zeus and hera. where percy is a survivor, jason is a weapon. where percy is a cycle breaker, jason can't get out. jason's fatal flaw was temptation to deliberate because he never managed to make his own choices. he was every classic definition of a hero rolled into one, and he never questioned it because his happiness came after the responsibility. jason was never going to ascend as fast as percy because jason was raised on hard work and discipline while percy, an abuse survivor and child of poverty, knew when to fight dirty. where jason was a transplant, percy was an invasive species. jason was always going to die because he was never more than a tool for the gods to throw away when he outlived his usefulness, or when he started to question his place. if someone as locked down as jason can question the system, anyone can. now that luke has put thoughts of overthrow in everyone's heads, zeus has to be very careful because while jason was expendable as his weapon, percy was unexpected in every way. zeus has no plan for him. when percy dies, he will become a martyr, so he can't die, except now everyone knows that percy doesn't want to be a god either. jason had to die, and now percy has to live.

[gossippool]

*steeples hands under my chin like i'm sherlock* so you see,

[teaandcrowns]

I love the way they approached Ozai and how they are showing him manipulating his children against one another even though they're hundreds and hundreds of miles apart. The way the original animated series approached Azula by showing us her perfect façade first and then cracking it was phenomenal, but the live action series showing us her doubts and how she works to forge that perfect façade is also phenomenal so far, because it gives her additional depth that wasn't as explored in the og series, but in all honestly, who's to say what they're showing in the la didn't happen that way off screen? It probably did.

I feel like a lot of the criticisms of giving this greater nuance and humanity to Ozai are wanting there to be a clear delineation of "who is a villain" and "who isn't a villain" for someone who has done such terrible things as Ozai has. But the truth of the matter is: there are no monsters. There are only humans. And humans do terrible things to one another. Humans can be loving and doting to one child and horrifically abuse another for no seeming reason. Humans who comport themselves rationally to everyone else can be absolutely terrible to their families in private. They can be insidious about it. They can believe they're showing love or "building character" or shaping someone into a better person, but it's really abuse.

People who commit heinous acts to individuals—including ones they [claim to] love—sometimes have convinced themselves that it was for the best, or for the other person's benefit, or that they were acting in the best way they could have. And they look and act like everyone else.

SPOILERS for Episode 6 of the Avatar Live Action series

AKA why this episode makes me SO grateful for this adaptation (re: the Zuko flashbacks and the Agni Kai).

----

Wow.

I admit, I was really worried at the idea that Zuko might potentially fight back in the Agni Kai against his father in the live action. I expected to HATE it, and it's certainly a bold change, but it fits in SO WELL with why Zuko is the way that he is (and why he works so hard to push down his empathy whenever Aang tries to reason with him).

The Agni Kai - Zuko obviously did NOT want to fight his father. He still tried to apologize and beg for mercy, but in the end he was just too terrified of his father to disobey a direct order.

But when Ozai left him an opening to see what he'd do with it, Zuko couldn't bring himself to actually land a blow that might burn him. Making his lack of ruthlessness the weakness that Ozai ends up mutilating him for - even straight up telling Zuko that compassion is weakness and then demonstrating by holding his own child down and lighting him on fire - adds a layer of depth that only enhances the original scene (and in another stroke of genius, we see Ozai nearly in tears himself. He's convincing himself of this lesson as well as Zuko, which was likely passed down to him by his own father). Honestly, this to me is even more heartbreaking than Ozai burning him for refusing to stand and fight. Zuko did everything his father asked and he still failed, because his family has distorted what it means to be honorable and believes Zuko's capacity for mercy to be a shameful weakness unbecoming of an heir to the throne.

The 41st Division - And here come the waterworks. Assigning the very people Zuko was hurt so severely for trying to save to his ship as it's being cast out of the fire nation (presumably forever, with the Avatar not having been seen in 100 years) is SUCH a brilliant addition. His crew resents Zuko for being stuck on this impossible mission with this bratty, angry child. And Zuko is too ashamed of his "weakness" to explain why they were assigned to him.

I can totally see Zuko's hurt at their lack of respect making him even more angry (especially after everything he went through to save them from being sacrificed), and his seemingly irrational anger at them just continuing to make them resent him more in a neverending feedback loop of anger and disrespect that's been growing and festering for 3 years.

Which makes the scene at the end when Zuko's crew finally learns about how he saved their lives (as well as why he's obsessed with the avatar, why he's banished, what his scar means and why he's trying so very hard to rid himself of empathy, even if he can never quite manage it when it counts) so much more impactful. I SOBBED when the 41st Division stood at attention and showed him their utmost respect and loyalty, possibly for the first time since they've been on that ship. Zuko's soft "what's going on?" at finally being honored by his crew is just imprinted on my brain.

The seed of the idea that his compassion may NOT actually be what was shameful about his banishment afterall can finally begin to take root.

I just, damn, I love this episode so much.

[anghraine]

I read an interesting post this morning about the rhetoric around "trauma porn" and "misery porn" and so on. It's here.

I'm not reblogging directly because my response is fairly tangential, so I'm handling it in ye olde journal fandom way by making a separate post. But the short version of the other post is that "porn" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in those formulations in ways that reflect on cultural discourse around pornography, tragedy, exploitation, and spectacle. Also, there's something iffy about the way things like trauma or tragedy are conceptualized as intrinsically flawed and excessive if they don't directly further the core of the story or have a clear "point."

That's all true, though I think the "x porn" formulation extends faaar beyond dismissal of tragedy or misery or dark fiction. In these formulations, "porn" becomes a convenient shorthand for "this exploits [something, usually real] for the benefit and enjoyment of others, frequently others who are not otherwise involved with [thing]."

For instance, as someone with a disability, I'm accustomed to hearing criticism of "inspiration porn"—in which actual or fictionalized disabled people are exploited and reduced to hopeful inspiration for other, usually non-disabled people (in short, so others can feel good). You could say "inspiration exploitation" but ... meh. So it's important to be clear that this terminology is far from just disapproving of grimdark or whatnot.

That doesn't mean that "[x] porn" isn't worth interrogating as a catchphrase in terms of how it relates to cultural perspectives on pornography etc etc. Just that it's used in a much broader context than this particular issue.

Secondly, some of that insistence on trauma/tragedy/unhappiness as intrinsically excessive unless there's some clear point sounds very much to me as a sort of New Criticism approach as overheard on the bus. Maybe this leans a bit towards conspiracy theory, lol, but I can explain.

The OP probably knows this, but New Criticism is a now largely outdated theory of literary criticism which is, among other things, deeply concerned with the unity of literary texts. Elements of a text which do not further the core themes and ultimate coherence of the text are often seen as weaknesses or excess from this POV. It owes a lot to previous traditions and takes on What Art Should Be, going back at least as far as Aristotle's Poetics:

The plot, being an imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole.

So trauma or tragedy or misery that does not seem fundamental to the unity or wholeness of the piece and doesn't seem to make much difference to what the text is about or thematically preoccupied with can feel disjointed. It's not difficult for otherwise hardline anti-intentionalists (which also smacks of overheard New Criticism) to assume this arises out of a lack of discipline, control, or critical thinking about subject matter.

Of course, it frequently depends on the case. There's often a certain amount of "if I like it, X element is necessary to The Unity, and if I don't, it's a disjointed and problematic mess." But still, the emphasis on coherence and conservation of detail as intrinsic to artistic merit of literature is also a much bigger conversation than "misery porn" discourse. Aristotle himself, for instance, argued that tragedy is a higher art form than comedy. I think the discussion is at least partly as much about minimalism/a NC-influenced value for unity.

(FWIW New Criticism is very much out of style, but the impact on how literary criticism is taught in at least the United States, especially in K-12, is very profound.)

[ladyantiheroine]

I’m thinking about Wicked tonight, specifically why Elphaba ends up with Fiyero instead of Glinda in the musical despite Elphaba and Glinda having the more well-rounded relationship.

You could chalk it up to the writers wanting a heteronormative ending (and I’m certain that’s part of it) or the fact that Elphaba and Fiyero had a love affair in the book. But I think there’s a bit more nuance to it.

The whole point of Glinda’s character is that she upholds the status quo of Oz. No matter how much she loves Elphaba or sympathizes with the plight of the Animals, she will always align herself with the current system and those in power. And as long as that remains the case, a relationship between her and Elphaba is futile because Elphaba will not give up her cause.

Elphaba and Glinda represent to different ends of a spectrum. Elphaba resists the oppressive forces in Oz, while Glinda upholds them. But Fiyero is somewhere in the middle. He starts out privileged and carefree like Glinda, but quickly turns to Elphaba’s side. He does become Captain of the Guard, but only to find Elphaba and help her evade arrest.

And therein lies the difference between Glinda and Fiyero as love interests to Elphaba. Glinda would never sacrifice her title as “the Good Witch” and all her power granted from the Wizard, even if it meant helping Elphaba. Fiyero, on the other hand, does give up his privilege, his title, and even his human form for Elphaba. Glinda clings to what the status quo gives her, while Fiyero ultimately rejects it.

Yes, the writing around Elphaba and Fiyero’s romance is a bit rushed and doesn’t have the same gradual development that Elphaba and Glinda have. And yes, I have no doubt heteronormativity played a role in giving Elphaba a male love interest in the end. But I see a lot of people write off Fiyero and his relationship with Elphaba and I just don’t agree.

Why does Elphaba end up with Fiyero instead of Glinda? Because Fiyero makes the sacrifices that Glinda wasn’t willing to.

[in-g-major]

Once I noticed this aspect of their relationship during my last rewatch, I HAD to reference it in one of my fics.

One head canon that I’m unreasonably passionate about is Zuko MUST have help Katara with the domestic work like cooking and cleaning. You can’t tell me he didn’t, I will not listen to you.

[saints-who-never-existed]

“In the war film, a soldier can hold his buddy—as long as his buddy is dying on the battlefield. In the western, Butch Cassidy can wash the Sundance Kid’s naked flesh—as long as it is wounded. In the boxing film, a trainer can rub the well-developed torso and sinewy back of his protege—as long as it is bruised. In the crime film, a mob lieutenant can embrace his boss like a lover—as long as he is riddled with bullets. 

Violence makes the homo-eroticism of many “male” genres invisible; it is a structural mechanism of plausible deniability.”

–Tarantino’s Incarnational Theology: Reservoir Dogs, Crucifixions, and Spectacular Violence. Kent L. Brintnall.

[hickeygender]

tragedy enjoyers when a character perpetuates the cycle of violence they themselves were a victim of

[lemonspades]

She's so helpful in the remake isn't she?