#ppl in world should be more engaged in it

[frownyalfred]

Why is it so hard to find ppl that actually understand bruce? I am tired of either finding ppl that see him as an abuser or others that only love wfa version of him I am really tired of this like really I can't even join a Fandom without getting my favorite character not getting mischaracterized left and right 😔

I'm going to rant a little bit here, and I apologize in advance. This isn't really directed at you. But I'm kind of tired of this flavor of ask. I get it a lot -- half of these asks are praising me for having a "good" interpretation of canon, and the other half are blasting me for being too "fanon" and bending too much to fandom tropes in my posts and writing. And of course the nonstop WFA hatred in my inbox is tiring.

Be the change you want to see in the world. If you don't like what the fandom is doing to your blorbo, write him your way. But sitting at the edge of the playpen complaining about how someone else is playing with their toys isn't useful. And it's really getting annoying to me, as a content creator.

I'm also tired of the superiority some canon-adherents have over those who write/draw more fanon tropes. So many of you are SO bitter over the idea that fandom is "ruining" Bruce or your other Batfamily blorbo because how DARE they write your blorbo in that way that is so OOC. How DARE they! And yet, you sit on the sidelines and create bitchy tumblr posts about how those fandom participants are stupid, or ill-informed, or simply don't have the higher thinking ability to understand your blorbo like you do.

And yet. You don't write Bruce the way you "enjoy." You don't create content or share posts or promote those canon characteristics you so highly value. Instead, you write posts complaining about the others in this fandom and deride them for being stupid like adhering to canon strictly somehow makes you better than anyone else. You mock their acceptance of fanon tropes as canon as if there is required reading in this fandom, entirely dismissing the idea that the line between DC fanon/canon is confusing as hell on a good day, and ignoring that the natural progression of engaging in fandom is finding out -- sometimes on your own timeline -- what actually happened in canon. Especially when canon is so vast.

And guess what? At the end of the day, we are all on the fandom website(s). You're still reading fanfiction at the end of the day. Canon or fanon or some blend of the in-between, you are still a fan participating in fandom content in some way or another. And we are all equal in that respect.

We are all here to enjoy these characters. Fanfiction is a medium that allows us to further explore canon, yes, But it is also a way to explore the OOC, the what-if's, the out of character but fandom-fave ideas and tropes people want. The fact that OTHER people enjoy those things should never impact your enjoyment of fandom.

If you cannot handle someone else playing with the same toys as you, but playing with them in a way you don't like, you need to go back to preschool. And if someone won't give you your toy back, find another one. Write the story. Create the post. Build your own engagement from the ground up, finding likeminded people if you can. They are definitely on here.

But I get the impression that when people complain about fanon "ruining" fandom, what they're actually saying is "I'm upset that canon content isn't as popular as fanon content." And that, I can't help you with. We can't always change what other people love or want to engage with.

I'm sorry that this rant is blunt, but it's been simmering inside me for a while. I'm really tired of getting and deleting this ask 15 times a day. You will not find much sympathy on this blog for canon purism and the derision of fanon/fandom, and for that I apologize. But it's the truth.

I enjoy consuming content about both "fanon" and canon Bruce. I like the contrast and complexities. But I have seriously had to stop following a ton of blogs in the last year who don't create "canon" content anymore and instead spend their time complaining about other people in the fandom who are just enjoying themselves and creating their own content. It's incredibly disheartening and frustrating.

[shattered-pieces]

Dream last night -

President Bush was doing some sort of official visit or speech and afterwards he appeared outside on this sort of hilly lawn in the dusk. He talked to me about something then I said "what do you think about the war?"

He said "Israel-Palestine?" (Like. Of course what else would it be)

I said, "no, the war in Ukraine."

He was like, I don't know about that war. (Like, why should i? - implied)

I was a bit annoyed he didn't know about it as it is important.

He said, "well, there are 2 scenarios. Either the US and allies wants to win and drive the bad guys out, or we are looking for a way to end it, slowly withdraw so we don't have anything to do with it anymore."

I said, "well. The 2nd one probably. Because we can't get to putin. It is unlikely we can get that far. We won't want to go all the way. We can get to the leaders in Donetsk and Luhansk, but they're just putin's people he put in place. It takes too much effort to get to him."

He said, "you should go into foreign policy."

I was happy that I could get this boost from his recommendation and gain some connections rather than starting from the bottom and I could fulfill my dreams of going into foreign policy and affecting world events.

[puppyeared]

i feel like im not making any sense but does anyone else feel like there are stories that let u run with them and ones that spell everything out for you

[macbethz]

Yes. Gay sex. Obviously

[dxxtruction]

Part of me feels like if you enjoy and/or are involved in the fandom of IWTV, knowing how a rather significant part of the show is set in Dubai (a part of the UAE), you should be aware of, and taking action about what's going on in Sudan.

To explain: the UAE has been exploiting Sudan for its resources in gold (mostly), and in many ways actively fueling the war there to get it. Making the UAE a responsible party for the multiple humanitarian crisis happening there; over 6 million displaced peoples, genocidal massacres, extreme sexual violence, etc. - just look into it.

There's been a demand not to travel to the UAE/Dubai for this reason. Luckily, from what I gather they don't film those scenes on location, except for the aerial driving sequence in Season 1 episode 1. This would've also been before the war started in Sudan where this such demand wasn't in place (as far as I'm aware). Which is good for fans as it means enjoyment can just be critical and not reason to turn it off.

Anyway, just something to very much consider.

[the-acid-pear]

It's not easy to be a guy with a weird gender and complicated relationships with its sexuality and romantic attraction and fat and autistic and traumatized to the bone but someone has to do it

[agp]

unfortunately im a chaser for cis dickgirls that arent so invested in transmisogyny. the harder they are to find, the more precious they become, and the more of a chaser i become

[magnoliamyrrh]

okay enough of the rants im logging off last thing ill say is that identity politics is largely a disease 👍 its point with the extremism its been taken to in part due to cia postmodernism being to wreck class conciousness though the wokeificstion of fragmentory policies and identity👍 bipartisan politics also serve to divide the country (all countries) incresingly so that people cant come together👍 having the worlds most stupid useless fragmentory identity politics discussions doesnt help it keeps us from coming together and focusing on real shit 👍wars pit the resources and labour of the working class against each other for the benefit of the rich 👍"im iranian youre american, you and i have more in common with each other than our governments with us, and our governments are more similar etc etc."👍 if racism stopped and if sexism stopped and if classism between the working classes (which, everyone has forgotten what the term "working class" means, its not abt economic bracket, low, middle, and higher class can all b working class yes including the doctor whose making a lot of money bc it is the exhange of labour for wages) stopped the working class could stand united not divided aginst the system 👍differences in race, class, and sex have Always been used to pit the working classes against each other, and to give people a sense of "well at least were better than Those people" (opressed middle class disdain for lower class, opressed mens disdain for women (at least they have power over someone!), opressed peoples disdain for other opressed peoples)

i may bitch and complain about kinds of people on here bc its a way for me to get my frustrations out, but ultimately i do think it is vitally important to have hope and to try to bring unity between people. ultimately i think it is unity which is the only way this planet, species, and every other species on this planet may see a better futute. ultimately, more than anything, i think despite everything we, for everyones sake, have to understand the deep interconnected nature of everything, have to truly understand that one cannot be free without all, and have to try to build bridges.... it is very easy both as both members of the opressive and opressed class (and yes most ppl occupy both in some way) to fall into disdain, fear, and wants of separatism. ive done it plenty myself and at times i still do. trying to "be better" is absolutely exhausting. but. i do truly believe that we have to try. i do not believe hatred is forever. not classism not racism not sexism not abelism not anything. it is not a curse people are doomed to from birth. people can change, we all can. we at least have to try

[opens-up-4-nobody]

...

[ramenheim]

Op you. You realize the entire point of this moral exercise is to force you to confront the reality that BOTH OPTIONS LEAVE YOU WITH BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS, yes?

With the two options being: TOUCHING (& diverting the violence of the status quo onto a NEW TARGET THAT WAS *SAFE* BEFORE, orchestrating their death by your own hand) or NOT TOUCHING (& allowing the status quo to continue its trajectory of violence against the multitude of ppl it's STRUCTURALLY INTENDED to target— but without bearing the personal burden of choosing to kill someone, instead bearing the "'lighter'" burden of passive negligence/ignorance).

This exercise HAS NO CORRECT ANSWER bc it's not INTENDED TO ELICIT A '''CORRECT''' ANSWER— YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO INTERROGATE PERSONAL CULPABILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS & THE HARM THAT COMES OUT OF THAT CHOSEN (IN/)ACTION.

I think you're dishonestly framing this as Voting Blue = Lesser Evil = Pulling Lever when both parties are **well within the status quo**, except Repubs want to multitrack drift to maximise damage.

Voting NOT REPUB means less blood is on your hands; not voting at all likely means more blood than voting against Open Fascism; but voting Covert Fascism is **still voting for the status quo** bc your dems are a centre-right & moving rightward party THEMSELVES.

Your 'first past the post' system means that by any other nation's definition? You are already not a democracy. You need to stop having a kneejerk defensive reaction everytime somebody expresses this opinion of your country. You need to rehaul your entire electoral system for personal voting to have the impact your magical thinking claims it does— & pretending otherwise is /choosing not to engage with the problem/ & turning your back on the lever so you at least don't have to Watch the Outcome.

All y'all fuckers when you say you ain't gonna vote

[autogyne-redacted]

Let's Talk About Security Culture: Why Keeping Secrets is Cool and Sexy

It's a natural impulse -- if you love crime -- to want to talk about how great it is. And if you hate America, it's only natural to want to share your dreams for its future with the rest of tumblr dot com. It can feel brave and transgressive. And there is a drive to share your soul with the world at the heart of social media. Surely I should be posting the most concrete implications of my politics, right? This is the poster's curse.

Security Culture refers to a set of "best practices" developed over the past several decades, largely (in a US context) coming out of radical environmental groups as they faced intense state repression, infiltration and entrapment. If you're not familiar, there's some fascinating crimethinc write ups to give you a window into that world:

Much of it boils down to: don't talk about crimes, past or forthcoming with people who don't need to know about them, and be mindful of the possibility of surveillance and infiltration. And, we can support each other as a community in minimizing risks, with an eye towards enabling bold action rather than getting bogged down in fears and anxieties. The guidelines that make sense for AG-based trouble-makers are different from the guidelines that make sense for posters, but plenty of common principles apply. To speak briefly to our position here as posters:

First, it bears saying that long term anonymity is nearly impossible to maintain. Unless you've never accessed Tumblr without a vpn, and avoided connections with other ppl who can be associated with you/your location, and never shared pictures without scrubbing metadata, and a bunch of other 100% consistent steps, it's trivial for the state to know who you are.

Second, just because something isn't actively being prosecuted now doesn't mean it can't be prosecuted later. The priorities of the state change and a shift in power towards the right or a growth in radical action from the left can suddenly make it a priority to destroy anarchist networks or just find a few ppl to prosecute as examples (who probably weren't that plugged into larger networks before getting arrested). Advocating for specific anti-government crimes or declarations of intent to commit such crimes are likely prosecutable, and even if charges don't stick, they're an easy vector for legal harassment.

Third, it's worth thinking about heat as separate from prosecutability. There are modes of engagement that may not be directly criminalized but signal that you are someone worth watching. Some people choose to be public in ways that make heat unavoidable. But it's worth noting that heat isn't strictly individualized, that it persists over time but also is going to shrink over time.

It's easy on here, ime, to see yourself as a proud member of the crime fandom but not much of a content creator. And it's easy to feel like you've generated an amount of heat where you're locked into that role. But heat you generated 10 years ago is probably pretty well gone. Heat you generated 5 years ago has faded substantially. It's worth thinking about how the world might shift in the coming years and what doors you want to keep open.

The non-individualized nature of heat also means that leaning into the spiciest of anti-state positions will make it a bad idea for people who are acting out those positions end up tied to you. Loudly talking about how "more people should be doing [X/Y/Z]" unfortunately sets you up to remain distant from people who might be doing or thinking about doing such things.

Which brings me back to: keeping secrets is sexy. Not spelling everything out builds intrigue. You can lay out a theoretical position and leave working out the practical implications of that as an exercise for the reader. There's value in opacity. The poster's curse and the drive to confess are extremely convenient for the state, but we can resist them. We can hold dreams in our hearts that we refuse to offer up to the posting spectacle.

[jewish-sideblog]

hey, so im Palestinian and a strong activist for my people's liberation. i wanted to ask for some info/advice on avoiding antisemitism in my activism for Palestine. im on anon bc i don't want to be called a racefaker for caring about Jewish ppl. i know antisemitism is on the rise right now (and generally over the past few years) and i want to make sure i'm not unintentionally contributing to it.

Hey there! I wanted to start by genuinely thanking you for asking this question. Partially because I don't actually get any well-intentioned or helpful questions in my inbox anymore, but also because I understand the amount of bravery it takes to reach out with a question like that at a time like this.

Next, I want to apologize to all my followers who hate long posts. Judaism is a very complicated ethnoreligious group, antisemitism is a very complicated form of bigotry, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is arguably the most complicated international issue that has ever existed. I'm going to try to go through everything as succinctly as possible below the cut-- I am also going to ask other Jews to contribute to and make edits to this list as needed.

And finally-- I'm writing this as though I were speaking to someone with very little knowledge of the subject. I understand that as a Palestinian, you probably know a lot about what's going on here. But I want to make sure that I'm covering bases for anybody else who might need to use this post. So if you're like, Yeah, Obviously I Knew That. Please remember that a fuckton of people on tumblr are engaging in Israeli criticism without obviously knowing that.

There are two primary forms of antisemitism in anti-Zionist spaces-- antisemitic conspiracy theory, and criticism of Israel that no other country receives. The first kind is the easiest kind to pick out, and it makes a nice bulleted list, so we'll start there.

Dual Loyalty. A global stereotype that has skyrocketed since the establishment of Israel, but it's been around for a lot longer than that. Simply put, it's the idea that Jews are more loyal to Israel (or some global secret kabal) than we are to the countries we currently reside in. With I/P, it manifests as the idea that All Jews are directly responsible for Israel or the idea that All Jews secretly support Israel. If you see a Jew who isn't directly engaging in I/P topics, don't ask them what their stance is. Plenty of us have never even been to Israel, and it's fucked up to assume that we're all experts in geopolitics.

The Holocaust was a Fabrication or a Lesson. The idea that Jews made up the Shoah has been around since the Shoah was still happening, and it's always been ridiculous. Today, you'll see three primary lines about this. Either it's that Jews made up the Shoah as an excuse to establish Israel, that the Jews deserved the Shoah because of what's happening in Israel today, or that the Jews "should have learned their lesson from the Holocaust" because now Jews are "the new Nazis". Frankly, I wish goyim would stop treating the deaths of millions of Jews like a TV show. Palestinian deaths are genuinely horrible, but this isn't some kind of "narrative parallel" to the Shoah.

The Kazars Theory, or All Jews are White. This is the DNA test nonsense. The idea is that Israel (or Jews at large) are only pretending to be indigenous to the Levant and that secretly Jews as a whole are actually indigenous to Eastern Europe. It's a lie, started by a German professor of Russian history in the early 1800s. Meanwhile, the vast majority of genetic, historical, and archaeological evidence points to Jewish origins in the Israeli/Palestinian region. There have been literal hundreds of genetic studies on this. Most of them suggest that Jews, even "white" Ashkenazim, are nearly genetically identical to Palestinians.

World Domination. The idea that Jews control the world began with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in 1903. If you're encountering criticism of Israel that suggests that world governments, particularly European or American ones, are being controlled by Jews, you've got yourself antisemitism. White supremacists like to use the term "Zionist Occupied Government" or "ZOG" as shorthand for this conspiracy. The next two points are born out of this same ideology.

Controlling the Media. The idea that Jews are in charge of Hollywood and/or major news organizations around the world. Regarding I/P, I've seen a bunch of people say something like "Western media outlets won't cover this! (Because you know who controls them!)" only to look online and see... Western media outlets covering it. See also: "My source is tiktok! I don't trust the news!" While it's obviously a fair criticism to say that some Western news outlets certainly have a pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian bias, it's certainly not every single one of them. Reuters and the AP are once again my go-to's here.

Controlling the Financial World. I haven't actually seen this come up regarding I/P, but considering how things have been going, it's only a matter of time. We don't control the banks. We don't control the stock market. We're not in charge of American aid being sent to Israel. HaShem knows that if we controlled all the money, I'd certainly be living larger than I am now...

Those Bloodthirsty Jews. This one arguably started with Blood Libel in the 1100s, when Christians started accusing us of stealing and eating their babies. Straight up, I have met Christians who still believe this in 2023. You see this a lot with I/P-- the Al Ahli Hospital is the biggest example. More than a month later, most reliable intelligence organizations agree that a misfired Hamas rocket landed in a parking lot, killing about 100 people. But a ton of people are still saying that Those Bloodthirsty Jews intentionally bombed the hospital dead on, killing 470 people. I want to be clear-- Israel is killing a lot of civilians. But if you see a bandwagon of people focusing on the one group of deaths that Israel probably actually didn't cause? Consider why.

Causing wars, revolutions, and calamities. Hamas has straight-up got this one in their founding charter. No, the Jews are not responsible for any major global conflicts, revolutions, or counter-revolutions that don't directly involve Israel. We didn't do WWII. We didn't do the October Revolution. See above-- we're not secretly plotting massacres on Shabbat. A lot of people are saying that Netanyahu and Likud let Hamas in to justify the invasion of Gaza... I'd be shocked if that was the case. All evidence points to a classic intelligence failure. We're not orchestrating bloodbaths.

Section 2: Criticisms only levelled at Israel

It's important to recognise that Israeli civilians are no more collectively responsible for the actions of the Likud coalition than Palestinians are collectively responsible for the actions of Hamas. No Palestinian deserves to be stripped of their rights to self-determination in their ancestral lands because of the October 7th attack. Likewise, no Chinese person deserves to be displaced from China because of the CCP's human rights violations in Tibet, Uyghur and Hong Kong. No Russian person deserves to be ethnically cleansed from Russia because of the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine. But plenty of people do believe that Jews should be stripped of their rights to self-determination in historically Jewish indigenous lands because of the actions of the Israeli government.

After October 7th, I've seen people argue that Israeli babies deserved to be kidnapped because of their national origin. I've seen people argue that Israeli women deserved to be sexually abused because of their nation of origin. I've seen people argue that the seven million Jews living in their ancestral homeland deserve death or displacement because of their nation of origin. Justifying or allowing brutal harm against people because of their national origin is hateful.

I want to make this part very clear-- I do not have an issue with calling out Israeli war crimes or crimes against humanity. But I do have an issue with treating Jewish civilians differently than civilians of other nations responsible for similar horrors. Amplifying bias against a particular group because of that group's nation of origin is called bigotry. Taking a stand against Israeli settlements in the West Bank is anti-Zionism. Collectivizing the label of "white colonialism", and forcing that label upon refugees forced to move to Israel, or Mizrahim with uninterrupted 8,000-year histories in Israel, is antisemitism.

Part 3: Moving Forward

So where do we go from here? If advocating for the destruction of Israel is advocating for the elimination of Jewish self-determination in our ancestral lands, but advocating in favour of the Israeli government is advocating for the elimination of Palestinian self-determination in your ancestral lands, then we must find some middle ground. A solution that allows seven million Jews and five-and-a-half-million Arabs to share the same holy land, without fear of persecution, displacement, or death. For me, this means a few things.

First of all, the recognition that most Israelis disagree with Netanyahu's approach to Palestine, and most Palestinians disagree with Hamas's approach to Israel. And that brings up a question-- why are Likud and Hamas in charge of Israel and Gaza respectively if most people disagree with them? Without getting into the complicated intricacies of the Knesset and the PNA on an already very long post (and without explaining your own government to you), the simple answer is international funds.

Israeli crimes against Palestinians are bankrolled by American Evangelical Christians, who believe that when Palestine is gone, all the Jews will go to Israel, and Jesus will come back to kill the world's infidels. They actually fucking believe that. Meanwhile, Hamas is bankrolled by Iran, which believes that the more often Jews and Sunni Muslims kill each other, the easier it will be for Iranian Shiite Jihad to take over the world. They actually fucking believe that.

So what steps can we take during our advocacy? Not for the destruction of Israel nor the destruction of Palestine, but for America and Iran to get their noses out of our damn business. I genuinely believe that a defunded Likud and a defunded Hamas will allow Israelis and Palestinians to work together for a peaceful two-state or joint-rule solution. Something that will keep my Palestinian friends from feeling like they can't safely travel from Jaffa to Tel Aviv. Something that will allow my Jewish family to visit and pray at the Cenotaphs of Isaac and Rebecca and the Temple Mount. Something that will let Israeli children from Kibbutz Nirim and Palestinian children from Khan Yunis play on the same playgrounds together, instead of sheltering from missile fire.

Frankly, we nearly had that when the Supreme Muslim Council and the Assembly of Representatives began collaborating against the British Mandate instead of against each other. Clearly, it's possible, we just need to stop being pitted against each other by foreign powers.

[artgletic]

PREVVVVVV THANK YOUUUUU i drew another for you ( :

so theres this embodiment of deception...

[misqnon]

Thoughts on Sanji enjoying feminine things?

short thoughts: i love it and think he should do it more often esp because i feel like he definitely does in canon and just won't actually let himself do so. i don't draw him in drag all the time for no reason

long thoughts: [breathes in]

i could write an entire essay on sanji's character in terms of femininity, queerness, and misogny BUT we don't have time for all that so let's just focus on the fact i feel like there's actual evidence he enjoys traditionally non-masculine things and oda actually puts him in situations to highlight this pretty frequently

-i am guilty of calling sanji a metrosexual . it's a stupid word but it fits him. he's the only guy on the ship that showers every day and the only other ppl on the ship who do this are the two girls. man also wears suits like mad and has a fairly...daring fashion sense outside of that (granted, most ppl in one piece do.) but he just cares about these things more than most guys! and that doesn't even seem like something that came from his upbringing at baratie bc...no one else dressed like that. he just does that himself. i also can't stop thinking about the sbs where someone suggested sanji would be a stylist in real life and oda went "yes agreed"

-the kamabakka moment...okay terribly offensive and transmisogynistic (won't get into it bc i have several times before) BUT if we can take one thing from that it's that sanji *did* dress up in makeup and a dress and like. frolic with the okama. it's framed as "against his will" but he definitely could have torn that shit off quickly and easily enough, yet oda decided to imply sanji enjoyed it for at least a time before he chickened back out and called the place hell for 2 years. yea, it was probably for oda's idea of 'comedic effect' but this is, once again, one piece. sometimes the humor is part of the plot. sometimes very real information is given through the guise of humor. going off of this u could mention that (also offensive but meant to be funny) joke with the blood donation scene from fishman island

-idk just something about the way oda writes him fighting lots of queer or non-conventionally masculine characters. i feel like it says something about sanji having his own internal struggle about his masculinity- which we know must be true bc of his whole list of virtues he never breaks a la women because of his upbringing with good ol' fashioned zeff and uh. "men should be war machines" germa over here. he fights bon clay and queen for christ sake.

-the scene where he's like happy as a clam to be in nami's body in punk hazard is another comedy gag that's also a little . interesting. I could say oda just keeps accidentally coding him but I feel like oda's very intentionally with his characterization and the subtlety of it

-overall he's just clearly so interested in masculinity since zeff raised him to be that way and he holds zeff in such high regards in combination with his background with germa, his mother and his sister, leading to a I Have To Be A Perfect Gentlemen And Also Respect Women by Putting Them On the Highest of Pedestals. and this in turn has made him reluctant to engage with femininity in any way that could be perceived as Not fitting this manly persona he's made for himself, yet he keeps getting put up against it in various small moments in the series whether comedic or not. I don't think oda frames sanji's relationship with masculinity entirely as a character flaw or weakness to be fixed, bc oda seems to respect sanji's views/they align with oda's own views. BUT I do think he knows it's partially susceptible to change and....he makes Sanji encounter these things so often for a reason. does that make sense?

in my ideal world sanji 20 years in the future is a bit more feminine even if he's still a casanova ladies man. like he accepted the okama influence in his life, he's just more quiet about it, lmao. I mean did u see his hair for oda's 40 yr old design

so yeah. he does, I think. quietly and deep down.

[obscure-entity]

in a veeeery theoretical world where engagement has no incentive to be measured do you think social spaces on the internet would be more bearable if like counts and follower counts were never a thing. i cannot think of a reason off the top of my head as to why we need those. "big artist vs small artist" more like "guy at a screen vs guy at a screen." i also just really dislike the notion that having a number attached to you makes you "appear" more responsible

who knows i would probably still be limited in my interaction anyway bc i think my brain might be different. but the prospect of having heightened/dramatized influence even in like otherwise-insignificant gestures freaks me out

i never knew how to communicate it but i think especially younger ppl on the internet should be taught more to not idolize people. like yea you can be a fan of someone but that's different than having heightened expectations for them as a person

[teatraps]

Would it make sense if I said that it feels like when people interpret Edgar, they’re more interested in Edgar as a concept than his actual character? Sometimes it feels like they’re fascinated with the idea of this guy who’s completely consumed by his love of art but then don’t go in depth on the actual build up to that love, his morals, his values, or his motives.

Whenever there’s an artist in idv, their art is usually an extension of a deeper desire. Phillipe uses his wax sculptures to embody his sense of justice and righteousness (it’s a flawed idea of justice, but that’s a different discussion). Vera’s perfumes are tied to her desire for acceptance and acknowledgment in the way that her perfume would’ve been the ticket to getting attention and the way that she’s now trying to use Euphoria to erase herself and become Vera which would give her acceptance. Aesop engages in the art of embalming, but it also acts as his way of trying to “preserve” people while they’re in their “best state” and spare them from life. Anne likes to make toys, but it also works as a way to show her desire for motherhood and her attempts to cling to childhood (I think, I don’t know Anne that well). The ripper uses the art of murder to subvert the minds of others and make a statement. Galatea uses her sculptures to try and obtain the physical maturity she knows she’ll never get.

All of these characters, and many more that I didn’t mention, use their art form as an extension of themselves and the art is tied to their goals. But when I see ppl interpret Edgar, it’s like his motives come second and the art comes first. People understand that Edgar is incredibly fixated on art, but why he loves art so much seems to get lost in translation a lot of times. It makes his character seem aimless because he literally only exists to paint. They don’t elaborate on why he paints or what significance it has for his overall character. If a character is going to be so centered around their obsession, then there should be a reason why they’re so obsessed, but a lot of the interpretations I see don’t go deeper on that part. That’s not to say he doesn’t have a reason, I’d argue he does and it’s stated in his deductions with the whole “life is beautiful and the brush can preserve that beauty.” People usually ditch this part of his character, writing it off as a part of his personality that’s just gone now because of all the bad stuff that happened to him. But then the question becomes, why does he still paint? If he really doesn’t have any hope for this world and thinks everything sucks and doesn’t even want to engage with it anymore, then what is he still picking up the brush for?

(Also this is just provably not true because the last thing he says in his deductions is “life is always odd, yet pleasant,” showing he still does like life and appreciates the beauty it holds.)

I think this is why people are chill with the idea of Edgar basically only existing to die in the narrative and don’t question his actions further. People accept the idea of Edgar sacrificing himself for his art while not asking how that helps his art in the first place. Since they don’t look deeper into Edgar’s motives outside of “he wants to create a masterpiece and he likes to paint,” they can blindly accept the idea that he just dies for his art. He doesn’t need to have a motive outside of that because his only motive in a lot of ppl’s interpretations is just painting. It feels like a bit of a cop-out because he literally has no reason to be doing all of this. Since they disregarded all of the parts of his character that involve why he started painting in the first place (being his love of life and a desire to capture its beauty) it makes it feel like he’s just messing around and waiting for someone to come along and just kill him. Since he has no real motives, values, or desires, he essentially becomes fodder for Patricia to kill. As it stands with this kind of interpretation, he can’t do much else. If he’s not fighting for anything or trying to achieve or maintain anything, all he really can do is die. And not even die with a purpose because again, this type of interpretation doesn’t elaborate on how his death helped his art at all. It comes off as some random edgy ending to a character with no defined goal. Then they explain it away with “he’s unhinged” as if that actually explains anything about his character or motives.

When he said “I don’t care about anything except art” a lot of people took that at face value. They didn’t take into account the symbolism of art in Edgar’s narrative, or the reactionary nature of that statement as a response to Edgar realizing he’s being groomed. I say this a lot, but Edgar’s art symbolizes a lot of things in his storyline. It represents his psyche, like with his paintings egging him on to kill Sarai. It represents his love of life as I stated earlier. It represents the bonds he forms with others like how he relates colors to people he cared about. He uses art metaphors a lot to explain his thoughts and how he processes events, like when he says he had a dream of Sarai guiding his hand across a canvas being one of the main first signs of Sarai grooming him. People take Edgar’s word very literally but often times when he’s talking about art, it can be extended to mean something else.

In general, it just feels like people don’t ask why enough when it comes to their Edgar analysis. Why does he paint? Why couldn’t he find inspiration in his home? Why does he think going to the manor will help him? Why did he hate the aristocracy so much? The answers to these questions are in his plot, but people don’t seem to engage with them. When Edgar says he hates the aristocracy people tend to hone in on the fact he says that they don’t understand or respect art, but going back to the whole art metaphors thing, that’s not all he’s mad about. He’s constantly talking about their greed, hypocrisy, and gossiping. He finds them shallow which shows Edgar’s values. He values people genuinely caring for one another. He doesn’t like when people make up stuff about others and ostracize people based on it. His criticisms of his father in his 3rd letter could extend to the entire aristocracy as a whole. They’re all more focused on status and wealth than the actual content of their character. But this all gets lost under the idea that he literally just didn’t like the aristocracy because they didn’t like art enough which I’m sorry but that is such a garbage and shallow reason. Especially when, again, most people cannot actually pinpoint why Edgar even likes to paint in the first place. It doesn’t do the complexity of his character justice. When Edgar says, “life is beautiful and the brush can preserve that beauty,” it gives him a motive. He’s not just painting to paint, he’s painting to make the overwhelming love and astonishment he has for life tangible. When Edgar is clocking his dad’s tea, it shows his morals. It shows that he thinks it’s wrong to use and/or neglect people for fame and status. However, all of these things are expressed through metaphor, which is when things start getting lost. His resentment of the aristocracy is said through saying they don’t respect art. Edgar’s adoration for all life has to offer is shown through his dedication to his art. Edgar’s frustration with his father is described by him as his father using his art. And even though Edgar is talking about art, it means so much more than that.

People play with the concepts of a rich kid who resents his peers but don’t look into why he does. People play with the concept of someone who’s unhealthily committed to his craft, but don’t examine why he is. People like the idea of Edgar, but they don’t seem to engage with the actual character of Edgar. They see the concepts but don’t see what the writers are saying with these concepts through Edgar and this results in having what feels like a shallow, bratty kid who has no actual motivations or goals and then dies for an unsatisfying ending to his story. It gives no closure, says nothing about his character, and feels like it was something an edgy 12 year old came up with as a “cool and controversial” finale for an underdeveloped character.

I could go even further as say this is why there’s such a big shipping scene for Edgar but very little content regarding how he interacts with others in his actual canon lore. Because this type of interpretation of Edgar is so far removed from everything and everyone else, basically living entirely in his own head until he dies, people put him in ships with basically every character to fill the perceived void of interactions Edgar has in canon. They seek to expand his character and who he could be with all these ships because it feels like he doesn’t have much of a character in canon. Now this isn’t true, but I believe it is perceived that way by the fandom. I also think this is why a lot of people who aren’t fans of him find him shallow. His general demeanor off put them (and it was supposed to, he is a character built on misdirection) and when they try to look deeper into him through what his fans say, it sounds more like a list of concepts than an actual character. This again makes him seem underdeveloped and boring to them, so they go on to call his character shallow and boring. Probably why you also see people go to the furthest extremes when characterizing him, either making him downright deplorable or overly sweet and kind. People don’t investigate the things that formed him into who he is outside of the very surface level, leading people to portray him in an almost caricature of his actual traits. He’s arrogant? Then he must be a complete jerk to everyone and have zero regard for other people. He cares deeply about his art? Then his art is quite literally number one priority, no matter who has to get hurt to achieve that. He can be a bit standoffish? Then he must go out of his way to be rude to people he views as lesser. And who does he deem lesser? Everyone apparently, because when he was talking about the way people don’t understand art, people don’t analyze what understanding art even means for Edgar. They don’t analyze what Edgar’s critiques of the aristocracy are when it came to the way they consumed art outside of this vague idea of “they just don’t get it” which is so devoid of actual meaning that people just assume that idea projects onto literally everyone. He’s mentally ill and struggles with psychosis? Then he’s an absolutely deranged and unhinged freak who can barely function (and that’s not even covering how toxic of an interpretation that is when it comes to mental illness as well as completely disregards the fact that Edgar is explicitly stated and shown to be rational and good at taking in his surroundings).

Edgar is a character that requires a lot of engagement, especially since his character is built on misdirection. The audience has to be willing to accept that the writers are misleading them about his character and try to look deeper into his words and actions to understand his true character. Unfortunately, it feels like a lot of ppl don’t want to.