#rather than saying they can’t be seen through that lens at all | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ms-demeanor · 8 months ago

Note

You posted about adhd and I was hoping to follow up to clarify something. I’ve explained to my partner a million times about how the borderline-hoarding mess of his space is very mentally draining to me, and he understands but we’ve both essentially accepted he won’t clean his mess because he can’t because of his adhd. You’re saying he’s actually being a shit head?

This isn't necessarily an issue of him being a shithead, but it also isn't a sustainable situation. It's not good for you and there's a level of clutter that's probably not good for him either.

Large bastard is a lot more clutter-y than I am. The solution we've come to is trying to keep our messes at least isolated from one another; he can have his messes and I can have mine, but he can have those messes in his spaces, not all over the place. Sometimes those messes migrate, and that's when it's important for him to make the effort to rein them in rather than trying and failing to make a daily effort to keep our entire shared space tidy.

I think when you say "we've both essentially accepted he won't clean his mess" what I'm hearing is resignation; you're not happy about this but you don't know what to do so you've thrown up your hands and he feels helpless and unsure of what to do to improve the situation. This is the kind of "it's fine" that isn't really fine.

I think it would be worthwhile for you to each separately think about the mess and talk about it together. Are there areas that YOU *need* to have not-messy? Both for utility and your mental health? Are there areas where you can tolerate more mess than otherwise? Are there areas that are going to be harder for him to keep the mess out of than others? Are there things he doesn't *know* about cleaning up the mess?

I'm obviously a big "communication communication communication" person so I'm going to recommend a lot of talking about stuff, which is probably going to mean a lot of thinking about and interrogating stuff. I'm going to say "talk to him about why the mess bothers you" which means you also have to really articulate to yourself why the mess bothers you (for instance I'm not actually *bothered* by a messy kitchen, but I know it's going to reflect badly on us - and me specifically b/c of presumed gender roles - if someone pops by and the kitchen is a disaster, AND a messy kitchen is going to be harder to use). Genuinely, sometimes knowing *why* something is a problem might make it easier for someone with ADHD to do something. And it's not that he doesn't care that it upsets you, it's just that "Oh if I don't wash my breakfast dishes Anon won't have clear counterspace to make lunch" might be stickier in his brain (and less hard to look at emotionally) than "this thing I forget to do upsets my partner so I should do it."

For the record, I think that people with ADHD should read up on Demand Avoidance and see if it might explain some of the issues that they have in their day-to-day life; I've seen some really unfortunate situations with friends where trying to do things that their partner needed became the subject of demand avoidance. *I* have experienced negative outcomes of demand avoidance. The solution to that, however, isn't to stop making attempts to do the thing OR to simply try harder to do as they're asked/told (which reinforces the demand), it's to work on setting up a situation where the partners' needs are not interpreted as a demand. This is fuck-off difficult and requires a lot of patience and care and many attempts to succeed and will be different for each person and relationship.

(Also for the record demand avoidance isn't *super* strongly linked to ADHD and it's not a definitive symptom; like Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria, it is something that occurs in some number of people with ADHD and can be a useful lens through which to examine various behaviors; you don't need to have DA or RSD to have ADHD, and having DA or RSD also doesn't invalidate your diagnosis; they're symptoms. For me, DA often feels like "if I don't look at it, it can't get me" - If I ignore all the messages I've got they aren't real and don't have real consequences so I'll just ignore my texts. If I don't look at the vendor email about the order, the problem with the order isn't real and it won't get added to my task list. If I don't look at the requests in my inbox I can't let people down when I don't do them. It's a self-protective coping mechanism but it's *maladaptive* and I can't just ignore the vendor email or all my texts. I need to work on a way of doing the stuff that I'm avoiding in a way that makes it less stressful and doesn't hurt the people relying on me. That takes a lot of effort, personal insight, trial and error, and )

But before I dive into specifics I want to be really really clear about one thing: sometimes people are simply incompatible. Sometimes one person has such a low tolerance for "mess" and the other person has such a high threshold for "mess" that it can't be reconciled. It sucks that this can end up being a thing that people break up over, but it is MUCH better to acknowledge incompatibility as early as possible instead of spending years and years building resentment.

There used to be a great forum called MiL's Anonymous that I spent a lot of time on. It had a lot of people in a lot of difficult situations struggling to get by and hold their relationships together. The question that was used as a litmus test to approach each situation was simple: If you knew today that everything about living with this person would be the same in five years, would you stay?

Because you can't control your partner. You can't control the future. You can only control yourself and your proximity to situations that are harmful to you. If you knew, 100%, that things wouldn't get better in five years, would you be okay with staying in this relationship? If the answer is "no," then that's that. Don't worry about questions of whether or not your boyfriend is a shithead, start the process of ending the relationship because there's a good chance the situation is going to be exactly the same in five years.

If the answer is "yes," and you'd stay in the relationship regardless of whether or not things changed, then it's time to take actions to improve your life within the context of the relationship.

(No judgement on that yes or no, btw. If you would hate living like this for another five years, and you would feel like you'd wasted your time and hadn't done the things you wanted to with your life, get out. Bail. Go. It will be better for you and better for your partner if you split instead of spending half a decade building resentments and and problems that you'll have to spend another half a decade healing from.)

Also, a note: you describe your boyfriend's mess as borderline hoarding - is the issue *mess* or is the issue *clutter*? I have friends who are very tidy, but whose homes are very cluttered. They like things, they have many things, they keep many things around, but their houses are always clean and well-dusted and orderly, just with a tremendous amount of *stuff.* I am addressing all of this as though the issue is mess, not clutter. If your boyfriend's situation is clutter (the space is busy and packed with things but it is functional and clean) and your issue isn't with *mess* (things out of place, things not having a place, things that need to be cleaned up gathering in stacks, falling behind on regular chores like laundry and dishes and taking out the trash) then you definitely need to assess whether or not you are compatible.

For instance here's a room that is messy but not cluttered compared to a room that is cluttered but not messy:

That first room is a *mess* but it would be very easy to clean up in under an hour. The second room is fairly tidy, but would take significant effort to pare down and declutter. BOTH of these can be difficult to live with but the second one is not dangerous or threatening to anyone's health. (The second one is QUITE cluttered and if every room in a house looks like this it can be overwhelming to live with; this is actually harder to deal with in a relationship than the first one in a lot of ways. I don't have a lot of advice for what to do if your partner is a high degree of tidy-but-cluttered because I don't actually think it's a problem or wrong to have thousands of books or bins full of lego or a million kitchen appliances as long as you have the space and can keep it safe and well-maintained; this is a really significant compatibility issue)

Okay, all that out of the way, here's the hard work.

Talk about this shit

Talk to your partner and define "mess." Make sure you are on the same page about what you mean when you're talking about what a messy room looks like versus what a tidy room looks like. Gather reference pictures. DRAW reference pictures.

Explain not just that the mess upsets you, but *why* and *how* it upsets you. In this context don't think of it as your boyfriend's mess, think of it as an unpleasant roommate. Discuss this using "I-statements". "When I have to pick up laundry all over the apartment, I feel like a parent more than a partner." "When there are piles of miniatures all over the table, I feel like I don't have anywhere to do things I'm interested in." "When there are dishes in the sink, I feel frustrated because I have to clean before I can feed myself."

Discuss, frankly and openly, whether he knows how to clean. I'm not trying to make excuses for him here but a lot of people with ADHD have a lot of stress and avoidance around cleaning because they spent a lot of time getting yelled at for not knowing how to clean properly.

Discuss your needs, be firm about what you require but willing to compromise. You *need* some spaces to be clean, and some spaces may be harder for him to keep clean than others. It may be MUCH harder for him to keep a bedroom tidy than it is to keep a kitchen tidy; if you need a clean and empty bedroom with everything put away and he simply cannot do that, that is a compatibility issue. But perhaps you need *your* side of the bedroom to be very orderly and can tolerate a moderate level of mess and clutter on his side. Maybe you're really really bothered by a messy kitchen, but it doesn't bug you if the dining table is covered with projects and papers. Figure out something more workable than "his mess goes everywhere and i live with it because he's incapable of cleaning" because he probably is not incapable of cleaning and you deserve to have places in your home that are comfortable for you.

Reduce friction for cleaning

Sometimes the problem isn't cleaning, the problem is the many many steps before cleaning, or not knowing where something should go when you are done cleaning. One of the absolute best things I've done for myself for cleaning my space is getting a broom holder and mounting the broom to the wall. Sweeping is now essentially thoughtless. I don't have to find the broom or pull it out from a pile of fans or go scrounging around for a dustpan it's right there on the wall, frictionless. So here are some ways to reduce the barriers to cleaning:

Make sure you and your partner both know how to use your cleaning supplies and know where those supplies are. When I switched dishwasher soap I had to re-show Large Bastard where I was storing it and how it was used, because to him what happened was the dishwasher tabs just vanished one day and he didn't know what I was putting in the machine or the process I used. He sometimes puts tools away in places that I can't see (he's more than a foot taller than me) so sometimes I can't get started on a maintenance project until he shows me where he put the battery pack for the drill.

Consider making a how-to chart to or having him make a how-to chart to keep someplace accessible so he can reference it while cleaning. Goblin.Tools Magic ToDo is great for this. Basically a lot of the time people with ADHD have trouble knowing what to do from step to step even if they've done something before, so having a step by step guide can make it easier (I have notebooks full of step-by-step guides for everything from paying for my tuition to removing licenses for my customers to weeding my yard)

Remove obstacles; don't keep cleaning chemicals in the garage in a box that's behind a stack of parts, keep them in the room you'll be cleaning. Don't keep the cleaning supplies that you use to clean the bathroom in the kitchen. Sometimes this means buying two bottles of bleach solution and two scrubbers and two sets of cleaning gloves but having fewer steps (fetch the windex, fetch the paper towels, fetch the gloves) is often the key to getting things done (open under-sink cabinet and grab windex, gloves, and paper towels that are there instead of in the kitchen).

This sort of overlaps with the next category, which is:

Create Dump Zones

One thing that I've found that seems very different between people with ADHD cleaning and neurotypical people cleaning is that neurotypical people are good at getting to a point where the cleaning is "done." They have checked off their tasks and they have finished and it is over. There are *SOME* chores that are like this (taking out the trash is a binary state, the trash has been taken out or it has not) and some chores are perpetual (horrid cursed dishes) but I think with people with ADHD, some chores that are binary for neurotypicals are actually perpetual chores. For instance "clean off the counter" is not a one and done for me. "Clean off the counter" may involve a three day reorganization project. "Clean off the counter" does not mean "wipe down the tile and put dishes away" it means assessing whether or not I need to make vegetable stock and bleaching three tea containers and reconsidering whether or not the sharps container should live somewhere else and going through the mail and figuring out what needs to be responded to and taking out the recycling and on and on and on.

We have had company at the house for the last two weeks, so I asked large bastard to clean off the dining room table, which is largely a project zone for him. Cleaning off the dining room table meant putting away his meds (and since he's a transplant patient that involves a 30 gallon rubbermade tote), throwing away some trash, and totally reorganizing his workshop. It also incidentally involved picking up a table from facebook marketplace and moving my plants, which has now involved moving my former plant rack outside (moving buckets, finding and organizing planters and gardening tools) and taking the former table to the thrift store (not done yet) and cleaning the rug that was under the former table. So "either the table is clean, or it isn't" isn't really true for us.

HOWEVER "hang on we can't eat until the table is clear so let's drive to Pico Rivera to get that console table right now" isn't a workable plan, so you create dumpzones as areas of holding between the start and the finish of the chore.

A dump zone can be a laundry basket. It can be a craft bin. It can be a back room or under your bed. It is a place to put things that you are going to deal with later because if you deal with them now it is going to derail the thing you are actually trying to do, which is set the table for dinner.

Dump zones are vital to cleaning with ADHD and I recommend them for day-to-day cleaning as well. The day-to-day dump zones might be more for you than for your boyfriend. For instance, Large Bastard works with bullets and he sheds bullets all over the house. I used to get stressed when I found bullets when I was cleaning because are these work bullets? Are these recreational bullets? Are they in testing? Do they need to be pulled? Do they go in the workshop or the office or the garage or does he need these today so they have to stay on the counter? And the answer now is "that's not my problem naughty bullets go in the jar." Which is perfectly sensible because he gets to say "mystery yarn goes in the bin" and "art supplies go in the bucket."

I feel helpless when cleaning a lot of the time. I'm frustrated and lost and I don't know where stuff goes and everything I pick up spins off into three projects in my head and every step feels like a wall to scale. Dump zones help me with that when there's pressure or a reason for cleaning beyond day to day home maintenance. People are coming over? The bedroom is a dump zone, I'll deal with that later. I'm just cleaning up because I need to? Okay I can find a permanent home for this new dish soap.

AS A VERY IMPORTANT COROLLARY TO THIS:

Active projects do not go in dump zones while you or your partner are cleaning. This may mean designating a project sanctuary area like a corner of the table or one particular chair in your main room where a project can be placed so as not to be disturbed. (if my current crochet project ends up in the yarn bin, that may mean that I don't pick the project up for another three months, it lives on the windowsill behind the couch because that's where it'll get worked on)

Do not put things away for your partner, put them in the dump zone for your partner. Your partner has to be the one to put their own stuff away in a way that works for them. I tend to find that this naturally puts a limit on the time stuff sits in the dump zone, because eventually you'll go "hey where's my thing?" and will put stuff away. If that doesn't happen, it's still generally better to have stuff in a dump zone than all over the home.

Do not decide you know what things go together from your partner's stuff and try to "put like things together." The neurotypical urge to put like things together is the mindkiller(j/k). You do not know which things are "similar" in your partner's organization schema and attempting to organize things on your own is going to end up with all of the things "organized" being functionally lost forever from your partner's perspective. Large Bastard's mom would do this and it was infuriating, she'd say "oh I put all the electronics stuff in one box" and she would mean soldering irons, transistors, ham radios, HDMI cables, and cellphone chargers. We are *still* going through boxes of stuff that she "tidied up" when he was hospitalized in 2020 and 2021.

To prevent the need for quite so many dump zones over time, you can work on setting up landing zones and "homes" for projects and tools.

Landing Zones

Landing zones are places where things go when you come inside from doing various things. Sometimes your landing zone only needs to be a tray for your wallet and keys, sometimes your landing zone needs to be a place to take off muddy boots and put a trowel and gloves down before you shower.

To make an effective landing zone, consider what behaviors you're trying to minimize and whether the people using it are ACTUALLY going to use it. For instance I was tired of the corner of my hearth getting cluttered with random junk so I hung up some hooks and put a shelf and a basket there and it became a really effective landing zone for my bag and keys and the mail, but it was VERY ineffective for Large Bastard because it's by a door that isn't the primary door he uses to enter the house. As a result I always know where my keys and bag are but he has trouble finding his keys and wallet. He tends to enter the house through our bedroom and has an overloaded valet next to the door and that's usually where his wallet ends up. Mounting a shelf to the wall above the valet and putting a basket and a hook on it will be a better place for his stuff to land. It's not that he's not using the first zone because he doesn't know that it's there, or because he doesn't care about lost time when I'm searching for my car keys after he borrows them, he's not using it because it's not by the door he uses. That's all.

I have a landing space for when I come in for gardening that's different than the one when I come in from grocery shopping. I have a landing space for when I walk into the dining room instead of the kitchen when I get home.

Landing spaces prevent stuff from piling up all over the place because they are a limited functional space that should be used frequently. Mail ONLY goes in the landing zone. If you have mystery mail or if you're not sure it's safe to toss, you put it in the landing zone. You can't let the mail get piled up too high or you won't have a space for your keys. You can't let the change in your wallet tray get too deep or your wallet is going to slide off, etc., but you also don't just put change on the coffee table or your nightstand because the landing zone is right there.

Homes for items are just what they sound like. They're the place the item goes. It lives there. My meds live on my nightstand. You would not believe how poorly I did with taking my meds on my vacation because they weren't on my nightstand. A while back large bastard lost one of his sets of sorted meds and we tore the house up looking for them because he couldn't find them in his nightstand, which is where they live. *I* found them in his nightstand because I emptied out the entire top drawer (he had only looked on the top layer) and found them underneath a radio and a hammock. Even though they were *hidden* they were in their home, so they were findable. I recently needed ink for an art class. Art supplies live in a dresser by my desk. Ink lives in the art bin or the top left drawer. The ink was not in either of these places (it was on a cabinet in the dining room behind a teacup) so it took me weeks to find it.

Sometimes the reason that ADHD spaces are so messy is because objects have been assigned homes in places that are visible and if they get moved they get lost. This is a genuinely difficult problem that requires a lot of effort to solve and can involve a lot of trial and error for creating a tidy living space. For some people, open shelving and visible storage might be a good solution. For some people, assigning a VERY clear home and inculcating that location by habit is the only way to clean up a space. For some people one very cluttered corner to at least isolate the chaos does the trick (for me and large bastard open shelving doesn't work because anything in one place for too long becomes invisible; that means that I rely on assigning things homes and large bastard relies on having contained chaos and a general idea of where to search but what that DOES NOT mean is that he is clean or tidy. His spaces look like an explosion. But he can mostly find his stuff and do what he needs to do and as long as that's limited to specific places in shared spaces I can live with it; the dining room table can be a disaster, the kitchen cannot).

People organize things differently. It often takes a while for neurotypical adults to settle into an organizational style that works for them and ADHD adults may need to settle into a new system every few months for it to continue working. The cleanup and declutter is most likely going to be a permanent project that is always going to demand some level of attention from everyone in a shared space, but "my ADHD means I can't do it" is not really going to fly. Maybe his ADHD means that he can't keep his space tidy, but it doesn't mean you can't move stuff from shared spaces into dump zones or that he can't do stuff around the house.

If he's insisting that his ADHD means that he can't clean it is possible that he's not being a shithead, he just feels helpless and doesn't know where to start and has adopted the belief that he's a useless piece of shit who can't even keep a tidy space like a grownup because he's internalized a lot of shitty attitudes (hello, my internal monologue about keeping a clean house). But it's also possible that he's just being a shithead.

It's something that's worthwhile to investigate with him. If he's unwilling to make an attempt, then he's being a shithead.

It is also not your responsibility to rehabilitate another person. If he wants to clean and it's something he feels bad about and needs some help and support with the way that someone might need help or support for learning to use a mobility aid, that is fine but you don't have to be the one who gives him that support if it's detrimental to your health, and you don't have to be the one to teach him that stuff if it's not something you're capable of. And if he is NOT interested in working on making your shared living space more accessible for you, that is not your suitcase to unpack and you just have to ask yourself the question from the start: would I stay with this person if I knew the situation was never going to change?

IDK, I'm sure a lot of this reads like "anon you must take on the emotional labor of training your partner to be an adult" but it's really meant to be more of a way of assessing yourself and your relationship. If you created landing zones do you think he'd use them? Would he get angry if you assigned a laundry basket as a dump zone for his stuff while you tidy the living room? Is living with him long-term going to be comfortable for you if nothing changes? Do you have enough of a shared definition of "mess" that you're at least in the ballpark for what counts as a clean house?

anyway good luck, and a reminder to folks that I'm compiling a bunch of adhd resources and other information on my personal website, ms-demeanor.com. It's coming along slowly but it will eventually include stuff like ADHD cleaning tips and how to tackle a hoard, so maybe keep your eye on that space.

2K notes · View notes

patronsaintofelsewhere · 1 year ago

Text

Thoughts on Angel Crowley & Healing from Trauma

(Minor Good Omens S2 Spoilers)

As someone who’s endured my own Trauma and dealt with the resulting PTSD, watching Crowley’s journey from a joyful, silly, and entirely innocent angel to a withdrawn, lonely, hyper-vigilant demon as a result of the Fall both shattered my heart and confronted me with the fact of myself, and I’d like to talk about it.

When you* experience Trauma, you experience an existential disorientation and a profound sense of grief over the world you thought you knew–one where you were safe and nothing bad had ever happened to you. “Innocence died screaming,” and all that.

You're also therefore mourning the loss of who you were, and struggling to make sense of who you are now. Which is why this conversation is so gut-wrenching:

“I know you.” “You do not know me.” “I knew the angel you were.” “The angel you knew is not me.”

This dialogue admittedly still makes my eyes swim. It’s reminiscent of the many conversations I’ve had with people close to me who knew me Before and After. Not only are you grieving the loss of your own innocence, so are those around you, and it feels like you’re wearing their loved one’s face like a mask.

And then underneath the grief, there’s a river of–what you’ll later discover is misplaced–guilt. They want you to be who you were. Fuck, you also want to be who you were -- to not have experienced what you did -- but you can’t.

And when they catch a glimpse of something that reminds them of Before-You -- because it's not like that you has just up and vanished, you've just changed -- they say things like, “I feel like I have you back!” Like the After-You is a consolation prize, something to be tolerated while they wait for the Before-You to return.

It’s not malicious. They love you. They want you to be happy. But it just serves as a reminder of your loss and suddenly you’re acutely aware of how alone you are with the Thing that hurt you.

After trauma, you’re lonely and you're afraid. But those emotions make you feel quite naked, because both of those things would require you to depend on other people to feel better and, at this point, the thought of doing that is far too scary, so to the world, you’re angry. Thus begins the cyclical self-fulfilling prophecy.

And that cycle goes a bit like this: People see the mistrust and the bitterness and the volatility (the shield that keeps people at an arm's length and helps you feel safe). They don't see the profound sustained fear underneath, the desperate need to feel seen and accepted. And so people pull away.

And that real or perceived abandonment feeds the monster that’s taken up permanent residence in your ribcage and screams at all hours that you’re not worthy of love, that you’re irreparably broken, and you’ll always be alone. And you pull away from the people that love you. And the cycle repeats. And you start to believe all of the bad things about yourself that the monster tells you.

Being confronted with a character who you adore and who you also relate to closely is bittersweet in that it’s both immensely painful, but also offers you an opportunity to interrupt that cycle, to explore a different -- perhaps more forgiving -- lens through which to view yourself. To practice self-compassion by proxy, if you will. After all, we tend to extend far greater empathy and forgiveness to others than we do to ourselves.

Angel Crowley, "who squeaked and squealed when he was happy; who flailed his arms around and made explosion noises with his mouth to explain nebulas; who preened when told his stars were pretty,” (joycrispy) reminded me a lot of “Angel T,” or rather myself before Trauma.

And Crowley's story is tragic. I was heartbroken and angry for him; I felt the depth of the betrayal he experienced at the hands of someone he loved who he'd believed loved him; I found myself wanting to protect him, to comfort him. Crowley did not deserve what happened to him.

And, over a decade later, I realized that I’d finally accepted that I’d been an innocent, just like Crowley had, and I didn't deserve what happened to me, either.

And -- if you find yourself relating to this post -- neither did you.

Once we can tell ourselves that and actually believe it, we can start to lower the shield. We can allow people closer, including ourselves. We can bring the parts of ourselves we may have hidden away back to the surface. We can soften again. We can truly start to heal.

Crowley, at his core, remains the same. He is still kind, deeply loving, playful, silly, and – against all odds – hopeful. But his trauma has changed him; his innocence is gone.

He struggles to trust others; fears abandonment; engages in unhealthy coping mechanisms; finds it easier to prioritize and tend to Aziraphale's needs and desires than his own; and has difficulty expressing his emotions.

But he also gained an abundance of empathy, a deep love for humanity, and a strong sense of justice.

We adore Crowley exactly as he is now; we don't wish for him to be who he was before the Fall. And neither does Aziraphale.

In kind, we won’t be who we were — nor should we try to be — but we can be something new, a different version of ourselves that is equally good, equally worthy, and equally deserving of love.

After over a decade, I think my Trauma wound has mostly healed, as much as Trauma wounds can, anyway; it’s a dull ache rather than an acute pain. Yet Crowley's story assuaged that remaining hurt like a salve I hadn’t realized I needed.

So thank you to @neil-gaiman for giving us such a beautiful story, and to David Tennant, Michael Sheen, and the rest of the cast and crew who bring the characters we love to life on screen.

Good Omens truly is a gift. May it continue to inspire us to offer kindness and love to ourselves and one another. 🖤

* I am aware that I say “you” when I should use the singular first-person “I,” but I still struggle with this when talking about my own trauma. So I’m using “you” and you, reader, will deal with it x

#good omens #good omens season two #good omens 2 spoilers #aziraphale x crowley #anthony j crowley #angel crowley #anthony crowley #crowley #crowley good omens #good omens crowley #crowley trauma #gos2spoilers #go s2 #go season 2 #good omens 2 #aziracrow #david tennant #good omens character analysis

2K notes · View notes

nattikay · 2 years ago

Text

Jake is a Good Dad and I will Die On That Hill

Howdy Avatar fandom. Over the past six months or so I’ve seen a lot of criticism directed toward Jake Sully as a father, ranging from him simply being a little too strict at best, to outright neglectful and even abusive at worst. This, my friends, is some grade-A nonsense, and today we’re gonna talk about why. Strap in, lads, this is gonna be a long one. Let’s roll.

So before we get into breaking down the events of the main storyline, let’s address the idea that Jake was always the super-strict “military dad” throughout the kids’ lives: put simply, bullcrap.

Out of the film’s over-three-hour runtime, we get to see very little of the Sullies’ lives before the RDA’s return—only about six minutes’ worth. If Jake was meant to be this strict militaristic dictator during this time period, especially in a way that would significantly impact the kids’ character development and their relationships with him, this would be the time to show it, or at least hint at it. But instead of any of that, we really get quite the opposite. Jake laughs and plays with the kids:

Jokes around and cuddles:

Teaches Neteyam to fish:

He even says in his narration:

“Happiness is simple��whoever thought that a jarhead like me could’ve cracked the code?”

Guys, this is quite literally the best time of his life. This man absolutely adores his family with every fiber of his being, they are his whole world. Like, look at him! He has stars in his eyes!!

We have zero reason to suspect that Jake was overly harsh or strict in a way that would impede his relationship with his kids during this time. The Sullies appear to be a normal, healthy, close-knit family.

It’s only when the RDA returns and reignites war that things change.

I’ve seen some people claim that Jake’s personality changed it the second movie. I disagree—it was not his personality that changed, but rather his priorities.

A1 Jake was a disabled marine vet who was offered his brother’s contract after said brother was unexpectedly murdered by some thug on the street…and part of the reason he agreed to take that contract was that there really wasn’t much else left for him back on Earth, so why not go? A1 Jake had just about nothing left to lose, and therefore could afford to be more reckless.

A2 Jake, however, is another story altogether. A2 Jake can’t just run around poking and prodding and taking risks like A1 Jake did because now he has a wife and four children who rely on him and who he loves more than anything else in the world. It’s not just himself he has to look out for anymore, it’s them. He now has everything to lose. He says as much himself:

Not to mention that he’s older now. Did you really expect the 37-year-old father of four who’s been leading the clan for 15 years and is suddenly thrust back into a brutal war to behave exactly the same as the 22-year-old fish-out-of-water ex-marine sent to fill in for his scientist brother out of the sheer convenience of sharing a genome? A2 Jake’s behavior is not a sudden 180 from his personality in A1, it’s a natural progression and reaction for his character given the changed circumstances.

“A father protects. It’s what gives him meaning.”

This is essentially Jake’s thesis for the movie. This is his #1 priority, his purpose, the lens through which all his actions must be viewed in order to understand them, and it’s important to establish it upfront because it sets up everything else.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the train raid sequence as its aftermath. Jake begrudgingly allows his now-teenage sons to participate in the war party—from a distance, as spotters. Neteyam seems content to fill this role, but Lo’ak, against orders, eagerly insists that they “have to get in there”, even goading his brother:

Tailed by an exasperated Neteyam, Lo’ak grabs a weapon from Tarsem and lets out a half-hearted warcry:

...let’s be honest here, Lo’ak doesn’t really seem to be taking this raid anywhere near as seriously as he should be; he’s treating it more like a game—on which point, y’know what, let’s pause to talk about Lo’ak for a moment.

Because the primary purpose of this post is defending Jake, it may at times appear that I am being overly critical towards Lo’ak. This is not my intention—I love Lo’ak as much as I love the rest of the Sully family (which is a lot lol). I think the things he struggles with are reasonable and valid struggles to have considering his circumstances. However, that does not always mean that he is in the “right”. Jake and Lo’ak’s conflict through the movie is not as simple as “son right dad wrong” or vice-versa; rather, it stems from a generational/age gap in experience and priorities.

In this case, for example, Lo’ak is treating the raid more like a cool action game than a real battle with real stakes. Which may not be much of a surprise—he’s 14! He’s young, he’s naive, he’s never experienced anything close to real war until the past year or so—he probably genuinely does not fully grasp the stakes of this situation just yet. And why should we expect him to, really? He’s never had to before.

Jake, on the other hand, knows the stakes all too well. This ain’t his first rodeo. He was a solider both on Earth (where he was injured severely enough to become paralyzed from the waist down) and then again on Pandora driving out the RDA in a battle that killed several of his friends and allies, including almost completely wiping out the entire Olangi clan.

Jake understands the risks of war and doesn’t want his kids anywhere near it. We see this not only in the film where he only allows Neteyam and Lo’ak to participate in the raid “from a distance” and ultimately fleeing his own clan altogether once his kids are directly threatened, but also in the comics in which he consistently turns down Neteyam’s pleadings to participate in the war efforts. Unfortunately for him, his sons do happen to be coming of age at around this time and there’s only so much he can do to keep them out of it, so he tries to let them participate in relatively safe ways, like as spotters.

Lo’ak…doesn’t understand this. Not really. And that leads to him recklessly taking unnecessary risks—be it out of curiosity, to get in on the action, or even simply to prove himself. Which understandably scares the crap out of Jake.

When the raid is over, Jake desperately searches the rubble for his sons. He finds Lo’ak quickly and makes sure he’s alright:

…before taking off to search for Neteyam, who he also promptly checks over for injuries.

which is something I’d like to point out here: although Jake sometimes gets gruff with his sons, he never leads with that. He always always always makes sure they’re ok first. That’s important. We’ll come back to it throughout the post.

Anyways, it’s only after making sure that Neteyam is ok that Jake’s initial bout of fear subsides and morphs into frustration and anger: what were you thinking?! And it’s a fair question. If the boys had followed orders, they wouldn’t have been at such risk in the first place. Once the party returns to High Camp, Jake addresses this point with them, reminding them that by disobeying direct orders they put themselves in very serious danger, and reiterating to Lo’ak in particular that his recklessness nearly got his brother killed and grounding him.

In other words, Jake’s response to his sons going against his orders was…a lecture and a grounding. That’s…a pretty reasonable parental reaction, actually. Sure, you could nitpick and say his tone was too harsh, but given the situation, I struggle to blame him…

…which leads into the next relevant scene: while Mo’at and Kiri tend to Neteyam’s scratches, Neytiri gently chides Jake for being too hard on the boys, concluding with the infamous line: “This is not a squad. It is a family.”

Now, what I find interesting about this scene is that neither party is really in the wrong here. Jake is doing his best to fill his role as a father by watching out for his kids’ physical safety—even if it means being a little strict. Likewise, Neytiri is filling her role as a mother by looking out for her kids’ emotional well-being. As she should!

That said, I think people who use this line as proof of Jake’s supposed parental failure are forgetting the context. While Neytiri’s line is true in general, when the boys sign up to participate in a war party, they kinda do become a “squad”. In that moment, in that context, they are a squad, they have to behave like one lest someone gets hurt if not killed.

I also think they forget Jake’s reaction to Neytiri’s line:

Look closely. There are tears in his eyes. This dude was terrified of the possibility that he may have just lost one of his sons in the raid, and all his strictness stems from that. And Neytiri seems to recognize this as well, as she can’t seem to decide how to respond. She probably worries about the same thing, after all, even if she handles it differently.

On that note, let’s look at the next time Lo’ak disobeys instructions: going to the old shack with Spider, Kiri, and Tuk, where they first encounter the recom unit.

Something interesting about the aftermath of the recom rescue is that no one gets lectured this time actually. Remember what I said about how, no matter how upset he is, Jake always checks to make sure the kids are ok first and foremost? Sure enough, that’s what he does here:

Not only for his daughters, mind you, but also both his sons (we’ll address the daughter-favoritism claims later):

With the recoms now targeting the Sully family specifically, Jake, feeling out of other options, makes the difficult decision to flee and find refuge among the Metkayina clan.

whoops, there’s that “protection” theme again

When their request for sanctuary is somewhat reluctantly accepted, Jake calls a family meeting and tells the kids this:

Remember how earlier we established how “a father protects” is essentially Jake’s thesis for this movie? Well, this is an offshoot of that: Jake believes that hiding amongst the Metkayina is currently the best was to keep his family safe; therefore, throughout the Sullies’ time with the clan, Jake’s primary goal is to lay low and get along with the clan so as not to tread on their hospitality and get kicked out (even if and when that means setting aside one’s own pride). This, then, is the lens through which Jake’s actions must be analyzed while his family is staying with the Metkayina.

The first time this becomes relevant is after Neteyam and Lo’ak’s little scrap defending Kiri from Aonung and his posse. Jake is clearly not thrilled about Kiri being bullied, but again, his top priority is keeping his family safe and right now this entails maintaining a good standing with the chief, which in turns means that his sons getting into brawls with Tonowari’s son is a very bad look. Which is why, after a moment of internal conflict, he asks Lo’ak to apologize to Aonung (he even tries to explain when Lo’ak protests:)

On that note, while remaining on good terms with the clan has to take precedence at this moment, Jake is clearly quietly proud of his boys for kicking butt, as we see from his exchange with Neteyam (though yes, it is unfortunate that Lo’ak didn’t get to see this bit).

…which brings us to one of the bigger moments that people point to when accusing Jake of being a bad father: the “you bring shame to this family” line. Now, I can understand why this line doesn’t sit right with viewers initially, especially since we have just seen firsthand the truth about what Lo’ak experienced over the past few hours. However, when you consider what’s going on from Jake’s perspective, the line is not quite as unreasonable as it first seems.

Let’s back up a bit to when Lo’ak first returns to the village after meeting Payakan. At first Jake is just relieved that his son is ok (remember: he always checks first)

In fact, once it’s clear that Lo’ak is ok, it seems Jake just wanted to let it go and head home…the real conflict didn’t begin until after Lo’ak lied to take the blame for Aonung.

Up until this moment, Jake only knew Aonung’s side of the story, that he’d taken Lo’ak outside the reef and he got stranded there (it’s unclear whether Aonung specifies that he abandoned him out there on purpose, the little punk, but I digress). But when Tonowari (rightfully) declares Aonung’s responsibility for the incident, Lo’ak speaks up to take the fall, claiming that the whole ordeal was all his idea, which Aonung had tried to talk him out of.

Lo’ak does not have a reputation for lying…but he does have a reputation for pulling reckless stunts that put himself and others in danger, so for better or for worse, Jake has literally zero reason not to believe this claim.

In other words, for Jake, the situation has just gone from “my son got taken advantage of by the local bullies and put into a precarious situation but he’s home safe now” to “my son dragged a bunch of other kids to a dangerous location where he knows he’s not supposed to go despite the chef’s son trying to talk him out of it, endangering both his life and theirs, getting lost in the process, and thereby worrying and inconveniencing the entire clan on whose hospitality we rely by making them go out of their way to arrange a whole search party in the dead of night just to find him.”

…yeah, no wonder he was flippin’ ticked. No wonder he “didn’t want to hear it” when Lo’ak tries to explain that he was “only trying to make friends”. We as the audience know that’s true, of course, but as far as Jake knows in that moment, based on what Lo’ak himself claimed just moments ago, he was trying to “make friends” by…dragging them out to a dangerous location despite their protests thus jeopardizing both his and their lives as well as his family’s standing in the clan who can kick them out at any time. Yeah, I wouldn’t want to “hear it” either.

When you look at it from that perspective, “you brought shame to this family” doesn’t really seem quite as extreme, does it?

And yes, I feel for Lo’ak here, really, I do; he’s just been through a lot and yes based on the actual events that just occurred his father’s anger is the last thing the poor kid needs and I totally get why it would upset him…but at the same time, I can’t help feeling that he kinda brought this particular lecture on himself by voluntarily taking the blame for Aonung. Not really sure what he was expecting: that Jake would somehow read his mind and understand the way things actually went? That he would see through his lie and praise him for being so amiable towards Aonung by taking the fall perhaps similar to how Neteyam so often claims the blame for Lo’ak’s own reckless shenanigans despite how rude Aonung had been to him thus far? Or perhaps he just blurted out the blame claim as an olive branch of sorts to Aonung (genuinely trying to “make friends” in a way) without really thinking about the consequences of doing so. Who knows. But regardless of how Lo’ak did or didn’t think things would go, I think it’s a little unfair to blame Jake for his reaction. Based on his knowledge of the circumstances, which in turn were based on Lo’ak’s own account given only moments before (remember, Jake had zero reason to suspect he was lying), his reaction is actually pretty understandable.

Speaking of Lo’ak’s adventures with Payakan, the next time we see him clash with his father is when Tonowari lectures him for bonding with the outcast, and Lo’ak defends his new friend. Remember: Jake’s top priority is keeping his family safe which currently means not getting kicked out of the Metkayina. Lo’ak, regardless of whether or not he was in the right, was clearly upsetting Ronal and Tonowari in this exchange—Neytiri is actually the first to step in and warn her son:

…and when Lo’ak persists anyways, Jake has to step in in hopes of smoothing things over with the chief.

It sucks that this upset Lo’ak, especially because we the audience know that Lo’ak is right about Payakan, but again, Jake is currently more concerned with not getting kicked out of the clan than with his son winning an argument about the validity of a tulkun’s outcast status.

...aaaand here comes the hardest part of this essay to write. Admittedly I wasn’t aware of this argument until recently, but now that I know it’s out there I feel obligated to address it here. Apparently some folks are out there claim that Jake did not display a sufficient amount of emotion at Neteyam’s death, and this somehow proves that he wasn’t as attached to his sons as he should have been. And all I have to say to that is: did we watch the same movie??

That man broke upon his son’s death. Did he wail and cry like Neytiri, no, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t heartbroken—wailing and crying simply aren’t how his character responds to trauma. He’s a solider, he’s probably trained to delay any external breakdown at least until a given battle is over.

But you can still see it in his face. You can hear it in his voice which breaks and shudders when he realizes that Neteyam is dying and tries to give him a few last words of comfort, wanting so desperately to ease his pain to the best of his abilities.

...yeah. This man is broken in this moment.

…but his job isn’t over yet. The battle is still raging. He still has three more kids who still need him. As much as he may want to, he cannot take the time to fully grieve in this moment.

…which brings us to the big one, the main line people point to when arguing that Jake is a bad father:

Now, let’s be honest: was this an awful thing to say? Yes, absolutely. Should Jake apologize to Lo’ak for it after the fact, if he hasn’t already? Definitely, one-hundred-percent. I’m not disputing that in the least.

however…

In this moment, Jake has just spent the past however-long locked in a vicious battle, and hardly minutes before watched his firstborn son bleed out in his arms. And now he learns that his daughters—one of whom is a pre-pubescent child with no chance of defending herself—are still caught on the “demon ship” with the recoms, who have just very clearly proven that they have absolutely no qualms with killing these kids. Quaritch taunting in his ear certainly is not helping.

The only thing Jake could properly focus on in that moment was getting Kiri and Tuk off that boat. Repeat: he wants to get his kids OFF the demon ship, not risk bringing any of them back ON. On top of that, Lo’ak, as established very early on in the film (see: train raid), has a reputation for struggling to follow orders…even when not emotionally devastated by the death of his brother.

All these things considered, is it really any wonder that Jake did not want Lo’ak coming along on this mission? He’s already lost one son, why in the ever-loving flip flap would he want to risk losing the other by intentionally bringing him back to the danger zone with no guarantee he’ll come out again, especially given his apparent propensity to ignore orders and throw himself into danger?

Heck, the only reason he lets Spider come is that Spider knows where the girls are and, unlike Lo’ak, Spider doesn’t have that same reckless reputation. Spider, in that moment, appears to be able to compartmentalize the fresh trauma well enough to focus on the task at hand, and can be trusted to do as Jake asks. Lo’ak…can’t. So, Jake wants him to stay behind.

Did he express it horribly? Absolutely. But saying one stupid insensitive thing in a moment of numbness underlaid by grief, pain, and fear does not make him a horrible dad overall, and I think it’s a little unfair to say that it does.

On that note, I do not believe for one moment that Jake genuinely blames Lo’ak for Neteyam’s death. Now, Lo’ak may well view it that way and I’m sure it’ll come into play for his character arc in future movies, which can be a topic for another day, but as for Jake’s perspective, no. I don’t think he truly blames Lo’ak. Even if he couldn’t necessarily process it all right away, I think he knows that Lo’ak is going through as much heartbreak as the rest of the family…especially given that Jake himself has firsthand experience losing a brother. He just said something dumb in a moment of pain.

(On the topic of Lo’ak being unable to follow orders, less than five minutes after Jake, Neytiri, and Spider leave for the ship, Lo’ak…immediately disobeys the order to stay safe on the island and heads back out to the ship anyways. Obviously in the grand scheme of things it’s good that he was there to save Jake from drowning after the scuffle with Quaritch, but still, good gracious son. Way to spectacularly prove your dad’s point.)

So now we come to the point where Lo’ak saves Jake’s life. After a mutual choke-out with Quaritch, Jake is left to drown until Lo’ak finds him and pulls him to the surface, at which point he gasps for air and chokes out Neteyam’s name.

This can be interpreted in a few ways. It could be that Jake is so accustomed to Neteyam being the “responsible” one that he irrationally thought it was him coming to the rescue, momentarily forgetting he had died or somehow thinking maybe by some stroke of fate he pulled through after all—this seems to be Lo’ak’s assumption, given that he promptly corrects him.

Now, some may take Jake’s “oh, Lo’ak…” as a show of favoritism, or proof that Jake values his first son above his second. I don’t think this is the case though—I don’t think Jake’s apparent disappointment is about Lo’ak being there so much it’s about Neteyam not being there. In other words, it’s not a personal slight against or disappointment in Lo’ak, but rather a form of still-very-raw grief for Neteyam who, remember, only just died, like, an hour ago.

It could also be that Jake is still so distraught following Neteyam’s death that it’s consuming his thoughts…he was able to shove it down and compartmentalize long enough to fight the recoms and get Tuk and Kiri off the boat, but that compartmentalization broke down while he was literally drowning and it took him a minute to focus and put things back together (which he manages to do a moment later when Lo’ak tries to apologize for his brother’s death):

The most excruciating interpretation I’ve seen is Jake thinking he had drowned and is rejoining Neteyam in the afterlife. ouch. Though that is, of course, just speculation.

Regardless, at this point Jake has just about given up. He’s exhausted, he’s in agony, both physically and emotionally. He’s completely drained. He wants Lo’ak to live but is ready to give up on himself (“I can’t make it. You can.”). It’s only when Lo’ak insists:

...that Jake realizes he still needs to press forward. Because his other kids still need him. His other son still needs him and he’s not willing to give up on him. So he takes a deep breath (literally), puts his trust in Lo’ak, and lets his son lead him through the flooded passageways out of the wreck. When they finally break the surface, we have this lovely moment:

This moment is a resolution to one of Lo’ak’s primary emotional conflicts throughout the movie: living in the shadow of his legendary war hero father and prodigious older brother, finally getting the recognition and affirmation he so craved from that father. Some might argue that in terms of “ideal” parenting that this kind of moment should have come sooner, or that Jake’s recognition of his son should never have been in doubt in the first place, and while there may be some truth to that, I struggle to really blame Jake for it for reasons I just spent the past 4000 words discussing. I think the fact that this moment happened at all shows that despite their clashes and struggles and miscommunications, Jake does and always has cared very deeply about Lo’ak; his lectures and frustrations come not out of malice or some personal distaste, but out of fear for his well-being.

We see Jake comforting Lo’ak again after the family returns to Neteyam’s body on the rocks.

As I said before, I don’t think for even the briefest moment Jake genuinely blames Lo’ak for Neteyam’s death. I don’t think he would be comforting him like this if he did.

…which, I suppose, brings us to Neteyam’s funeral, and Jake and Neytiri visiting his spirit within Eywa. No parent should ever have to bury their child and good golly gracious this scene ripped my heart out but I digress. I don’t even really have a lot of commentary to add to these scenes…just…just this. It speaks for itself.

look me in the eye and tell me this man “doesn’t care about his sons”. I flipping DARE you.

Well, that concludes the debunking of scenes that supposedly make Jake a bad father. But before we go, let’s look just briefly at this scene of him being a good dad with Kiri. I didn’t mention this earlier because while I’ve seen a lot of complaints about Jake’s interactions with Neteyam and especially Lo’ak, few people have qualms with the way Jake treats Kiri and Tuk—in fact, many people claim that he shows favoritism to his daughters, going out of his way “baby” them and treat them more gently and lovingly than his sons. I disagree and hope the above has done a thorough job dispelling that notion: Kiri and Tuk don’t go around throwing themselves headlong into the same kind of danger that Neteyam and Lo’ak do. They aren’t begging to participate in battle, they aren’t disobeying orders that land them in mortal peril.

In other words: Jake lectures his sons more than his daughters out of necessity, not nepotism. Remember: Jake’s #1 priority is protecting his family, keeping them all safe and alive. That means that when one of his kids pulls a stupid stunt that puts them in danger he feels the need to crack down on that in hopes of preventing it from happening again. Lo’ak is, quite frankly, prone to pulling those kind of stunts, so he gets lectured a lot. Kiri and Tuk do not typically pull such stunts, so they don’t get lectured. It’s as simple as that, really.

Buuuuuut now that we’ve cleared that up, let’s talk just briefly about Jake comforting Kiri.

Like with the scene of visiting Neteyam’s spirit, I don’t have much commentary to add to this scene—it’s a very sweet scene and it speaks for itself really. Jake is very gentle and doing his best to listen to Kiri, even if he is a little unsure about her claims. He doesn’t criticize or invalidate, he just tries to be there for her. What can I say, that’s a good dad right there ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

One last little point before we wrap up for real: the fact that Lo’ak and Neteyam occasionally refer to Jake as “sir”. I was originally planning to address this earlier but it didn’t quite fit in with the flow of the discussion and I consider it such a minor point anyways, I figured I could save it for a side note—but seriously, it baffles me what a big deal people make of this.

It would be one thing if “sir” was something that Jake strictly enforced, if it was the only thing he allowed the kids to address him as, if one of them called him “Dad” and he barked back, “no! it is sir!” But…literally none of that is the case. He never explicitly asks them to call him “sir”, and they call him “Dad” just as often if not more.

The kids referring to Jake as “sir” in tense moments is a simple show of respect, nothing more. I recall my own dad also wanting to be called “sir” when we were in trouble and it was never really an issue. And I suppose your milage may vary depending on where you live, but growing up in the southern US, “sir” and “ma’am” are just very common basic courtesy in many situations (not just familial).

Sooooo….yeah, the idea that Neteyam and Lo’ak occasionally calling Jake sir is somehow proof of Jake being too strict or cold or whatever else is really making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s not that deep y’all.

…aaaand I suppose that’s it for this post.

In conclusion:

Look guys, Jake does not have to be your favorite character. You don’t even have to like him, or agree with everything that he says or does. He isn’t perfect (which, by the way, literally no one is). But if nothing else, I hope this behemoth of a post has at least helped you understand his character and why he acts and reacts the way that he does.

Jake Sully may not be a shining beacon of parental perfection from a psychological development perspective (and all things considered, expecting him to be such is, quite frankly, a little silly), but good golly gracious he is trying his absolute darnedest in incredibly difficult and precarious circumstances beyond his control i.e. the RDA coming back to quite literally take over. This man’s family means absolutely everything to him and I’m done sitting back and watching y’all slander him just because he didn’t react to x situation the way you think he should have.

thank you and good night

#avatar #avatar 2 #way of water #jake sully #lo'ak

995 notes · View notes

ms-scarletwings · 1 year ago

Text

Endearing through the Alien Lens: A Clue About the Primitive Irken?

I love literary xenobiology. I love it a whole lot, in fact. There’s a paradoxical line I dance across, between criticizing intelligent fictional aliens for their likeness to our species, and criticizing them for their unlikeness. It’s a pretentious and laughable dance between “Come on, the sky’s the limit, there’s no real reason for a bucket of different extraterrestrial races to just all be more flavors of quirky humanoids! Boring, show me something actually alien!!” and the yearn for the use of alien races as a funhouse mirror of mankind’s own evolution. I think the way Irkens nonchalantly dwell somewhere on that subjective tightrope is a good part of why I can’t seem to stop thinking about them.

They are inspired and yet creatively original. They are truly alien, and yet, they can still play foil to the bottomlessly decadent humanity that Vasquez’s Earth has set the stage for.

Before, in the very first brain dump I let loose about them, I noted a few of their parallels to the worst in Homo sapiens and the insects they resemble. This time, something is chewing on me that i haven’t seen another put into perspective. A something that seems contradictory to our collective view of the heartless, sexless, atomized conquerors that all of the cosmos will fear:

They… have parental instincts.

I didn’t necessarily say drives or wants; however, they undeniably havewhat seems to be an actual, instinctual “cuteness response”. Like us, like social pack animals which invest a great deal of resources and time into their young. Given that the closest thing that 100% of smeets born on the home world get to call a parental figure is a literal cold, unfeeling, automated machine, this seems kind of weird, doesn’t it? They’re not even born like mammals or nested like birds, they’re mass produced, like hived wasps or ants, miles beneath their actual society and out of the business of the adults. So, what the heck with them being written to be humanized with this baseless, arbitrary trait?

But, ah ah ah, nitpicker Scarlet, it’s not baseless. It’s only ✨vestigial✨

Y’all could probably make a good guess to what the cuteness response is and why it exists in Homo sapiens, but to sum up- it’s the phenomenon of when we see something we find “cute” and it makes us react to it in a protective, nurturing fashion- or also want to bite/squeeze things, weirdly, if it’s just too damn cute. Well, what do humans find cute? Things that resemble human infants, basically. It’s a biological reflex that makes us want to defend and provide care for our kind’s absurdly dependent and slow-developing young, rather than abandon them in the shrubbery like they’re just screamy, food-leeching paperweights.

“Pff, really? Well I must be special cause I don’t even LIKE babies. I think babies are icky gross, not cute! So, genetic instinct my ass!”

I hear you, sure, but what about… harp seals? Or koalas, or pandas and puppies and fawns and kittens? Or funny little cartoon blorbos? At bare minimum you’d have to be an alien yourself to feel nothing looking at photos of young hedgehogs

See, the fact that a lot of us may often find baby animals a great amount more endearing than even humans’ is not even in conflict with this understanding of cuteness.

The concept of the “baby schema” was formally proposed in 1943 by Konrad Lorenz, an Austrian ethologist. Fun fact is he was also the same researcher who originally observed and described imprinting behaviors, as seen in newly hatched waterfowl. Point is that his “Kindchenschema” idea grouped together a handful of infantile traits that make fireworks go off in the parts of your brain that wants to keep things alive and baby-talk to them. Included on the list were features like proportionally large heads, big eyes, round faces, short noses, etc. despite the name, the baby schema’s effect is something applied not to just actual babies, but children generally, and even in our reactions to non-human animals.

It’s the hypothesis behind both why we’ve jacked up the skulls of so many small dog breeds in the name of aesthetics and why we generally find the portraits on the left side of this image more appealing to look at than the ones on the right.

The consistency of these features across many species may also give some hint that they experience a similar phenonemon, especially given that these are traits shared among bird or mammalian offspring which require significant attention and protection to survive. And, it may also explain why this image likewise gives me a huge dose of that sweet, sweet response.

Awww, look at that lil’ mans! Look at his teeny noodle arms!! I just wanna pinch him like a marshmallow!

YOU are not immune to cuteness psychology, and neither are the proud Irken warriors. I’m going to cite Zim’s proclivity to what I can only describe as paternal bonding as a demonstration of this response, but before you go reminding me about his pak defects, it’s far from the only evidence that this is a natural Irken trait.

Check out little Timmy (importantly, the surrounding response to him), a hilariously out of place youngster who appeared briefly in the trial transcript for the sole purpose of a dark gag and to get us some lore revealed.

Take further note of the complimentary nature of smeets themselves.

Suddenly finding themselves alive, fresh Irken babies too, like the hatched gosling, begin to immediately seek an emotional attachment with the first animate thing they see. While mobile and fast learners, smeets are far from being able to truly fend for themselves. They’re tiny and naive and they need lots of mental enrichment/teaching. They also play and form something akin to friendships, much like human children. In the bygone era before Irkens were so reliant on Paks and all of the advanced technology of the modern empire, smeets would have been exceedingly vulnerable. All signs point to a phase in Irk’s natural history where they were once nurtured after by adults of their own kind, and commonly bonded with their caretakers. This could mean compact family units, or maybe even a communal raising situation, akin to penguin crèches (Personally I like to headcanon that the tallests/queens were traditionally the only breeding members of the population but that’s neither here or now). Either sense, the evolutionary remnants of a parental creature are still around.

Taking all that to note, instead of perceiving Zim as the bizarre outlier to the Irken condition when it comes to having this soft spot, I instead see him as an opportunity to see natural behaviors in action without the suppression of his militarized society and its distractions. Even someone as warped and selfish as he can be is still very, very full of love to give that he doesn’t even understand enough language to describe. He pretty clearly shows he has no cultural understanding or reference of cuteness, and still, he’s not so different in this “weakness” than the very humans he manipulated into fawning over Ultra Peepi. It just took an example his own sensibilities could relate to instead of an unfamiliar, repulsive alien rodent.

And when he’s given the rare circumstance to show that potential, well-

*(With the rough shape/size down, no nose, and huge, bug-like eyes, Li’l Meat man may actually be a great approximation of the key “smeet schema” features. More importantly, it was made to specifically resemble Zim himself)

- I feel that’s downright adorable.

#invader zim #iz #iz headcanons #iz theory #irkens #iz comics #iz analysis #Li’l meat man #long post #scarlet talks about things #baby schema

178 notes · View notes

creator-chaos · 7 months ago

Text

Iruma & Kirio as foils, or: Why does Iruma still want Kirio?

TLDR: they want to own each other, mind your business

This won the poll of which meta to write up first, so let’s get into it. I’ve seen plenty of fan complaints about Iruma being “too forgiving” towards Kirio or blinded by love, and I think that misses the actual point of Iruma’s experience here, which is grounded in the way he and Kirio are not only foils, but fundamentally opposing forces.

(Disclaimer that I’m not saying “Kirio did nothing wrong” “uwu poor little meow meow” etc. I’m fundamentally not interested in whether a character “deserves” redemption, I don’t believe in punitive justice, justice is not even a major theme in Mairuma, and I think if any sort of justice is being brought into the interpretation, Kirio is most compelling when considered through a lens of transformative justice and societal-level questions.)

General Parallels & Kirio’s Side

We see them start from similar places: most highlighted is the way they are both basically disabled in terms of their magical ability, and rely on assistive devices provided by a “guardian figure” (loosely interpreted for Baal). What is highlighted less, but I think can be inferred from narrative framing, is the ways in which their ambitions are mirrored, based on their trauma/fears. We see in the Harvest Festival that Iruma’s trauma centers on his loneliness–that people will leave him, particularly if he can’t live up to the role he’s been given (more on that when I write up how psychological dehumanization plays into the story, but the narrative is quite explicit on Iruma’s trauma & abuse/neglect).

Extrapolating, we can see how loneliness is also at the root of Kirio’s choices. He’s been shunned by everyone, especially his own family, for his weakness. His mental break comes when the one person who would “smile at him” looks at him in despair. He explicitly approaches Baal “to look for those who are the same as me”--interesting that he seems to be reinterpreting his isolation as due to his “twisted nature” rather than his weakness now.

So, both Iruma and Kirio are given a place to belong from a “guardian figure”. During this time, Iruma begins to unlearn some of the unhealthy ways he coped with loneliness (doing anything for anyone for any ounce of positive attention), while Kirio is encouraged to deepen his (seeking others’ despair, pulling them down to his level; more on this and Baal’s manipulation in another essay).

Moving on, we can see how Iruma is antithetical to Kirio’s ambitions. Iruma is evidence that people can resist despair. He needs to make Iruma despair–it's not just "I want to see people despair and he won't give it to me"--for Kirio, despair is the organization of his life, explicitly stated as his “reason for living”. Kirio approaches Baal for community, says "I am broken," and Baal tells him that he is not a mistake, he is not alone, that the way he is is natural. Iruma calls all that into question. If despair is a choice people can avoid, then his identity collapses. It's not everyone's true nature--it's just him, he is alone, and he is a mistake. He could have chosen to resist despair, but he was either too weak or too twisted (either way, too broken) to manage it. The fandom gets distracted by the eroticism of cannibalism, but it is Iruma’s despair that is Kirio’s real goal. Whether Kirio realizes it or not, he needs Iruma to despair to justify his very existence.

Iruma’s Side and Existential Conflict

It may seem like Iruma cares so much about Kirio because of his issues prioritizing others over himself, but I believe his desire for Kirio is when he is at his most self-assured, and most selfish. After all, Iruma's ambitions are also impossible without Kirio returning to his side.

Iruma wants to belong in the netherworld, wants to remain by his friends’ sides, and ultimately wants to create a kind netherworld where people are encouraged to grow–basically, to protect and spread the love and opportunity that he was given. Meeting Kirio is his first real glimpse at these ambitions (@naoke666 has a great tongue-in-cheek analysis of this), and also the first time he must confront the true opposition to this ambition.

Here, I believe Kirio comes to represent the ultimate reality of demons for Iruma. He was warned about demons eating him from the beginning, but Kirio is his first actual exposure to the potential evils of the world that would make it uninhabitable for him.

Kirio wants a cruel world. Sure, he's not the only one, but the others are adults who have chosen this path again and again. It's not just what Kirio does or wants, but the idea that he represents demon nature. So it’s not that Iruma wants Kirio back because he doesn’t see how fucked up Kirio is–Iruma needs Kirio back specifically because of that. If Kirio really is what he says he is–fundamentally and naturally sadistic–if demons really will always naturally be like him, then Iruma existing in the demon world he wants is impossible. Sure, he could become strong enough to fight them off, but that wouldn't be a kind world. Iruma could kill Kirio, but that would only prove that Iruma must kill to survive. If Kirio is right, then even if Iruma defeats him in terms of power, Iruma still won't have the world he wants. If Iruma gives up on Kirio, he will admit that there are times he will have to give up, and he declared in their first conflict that he wouldn’t give anything up.

For both of them, it's not enough to defeat each other--each one needs to prove the other wrong to survive on the path they've chosen. They are locked in a tug-of-war, trying to pull each other to their side because that is the only way their "side" can continue to coherently exist. If they don't pull the other to their side, then the new world they want to create can't come to be. While Kirio needs to pull Iruma down to him, to feel the same despair he does, Iruma needs to pull Kirio up with him to be able to create the kind netherworld he wants.

I think it’s very narratively interesting to acknowledge that they are both epistemic/existential threats to each other. Obviously, Iruma’s is the happy outcome, but their desires for each other are still paralleled. In Kirio’s mind, Iruma “winning” would destroy him just as much as he plans to destroy Iruma–after all, Kirio believes that he can’t be anything other than what he is now, and if that were true, there would be no place for him in Iruma’s world.

Ultimately, though, I don't think this is a story that believes a child can just be fundamentally evil, and despite what we’re told about demon nature, what we’re consistently shown is that demons and humans aren’t very different–we all want to be loved, want to be acknowledged, want to strive. And even if you don’t buy any of this, Mairuma is a story about Iruma getting what he wants, and he wants Kirio. After all, Iruma declares that he loves demons, loves the demon world–Kirio, as the first person he truly recognizes as a demon, has to be there as well. (@mx-88 just posted a good Kirio redemption analysis you should check out as well.)

Anyway, that’s one Mairu-meta essay down. Hope to hear your thoughts/additions/polite contradictions!

#mairuma #m!ik #mairimashita! iruma kun #ami kirio #mairuma meta

52 notes · View notes

girl4music · 5 months ago

Text

So I’ve been spending these passed couple of days off work researching cast/crew interviews about ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ and a good few of them I’ve found have been Renee O’Connor interviews where she talks about the significance of Gabrielle as a character and how she relates to Xena. How she personally perceives the nature of the relationship between them. Renee has always perceived it as definitely romantic but not necessarily sexual. She’s always perceived Xena and Gabrielle as best friends in love rather than an actual official couple. Rather than sexually involved lovers. And it’s interesting to read her views of the characters and their relationship together through this lens because she - like me - seems to come at it from a much more profound and spiritual perspective. It really does make me wonder what she would think and tell me if she ever read my character study thesis because I think she would agree with it to be honest. She’d resonate with the theory that the characters were so intertwined with each other emotionally and intimately that they were one soul inhabiting two bodies that became each other at the conclusion.

It’s just the way she talks about the characters and their relationship together makes me think that way. Take for example this interview from way back in 2010. The way she expresses her views about both Xena and Gabrielle here and their love relationship.

WVM: “As I wrote on my blog today, to a true Xena fan, I’m probably the nightmare, because I’ve never seen the show. Now I’m intrigued, and I want to catch up on the series. So tell me: who is Gabrielle? What should I look out for as I watch?”

ROC: “In the beginning, she is very naïve, with an intense desire to search for who she is. Then she starts to be the counterbalance to Xena’s pragmatic warrior, so she becomes more of the peaceful, compassionate, loving partner to Xena’s person-seeking-redemption. Xena the Warrior Princess is looking for redemption, and Gabrielle is guiding her there in some profound way. I think that if you thought of the whole arc of the series, that’s what you could say. Xena discovers true love in Gabrielle. What else should you look for? In the beginning, she’s one of those people who can get herself out of any situation through fast talking. By the end of the series, she actually gets herself out of situations by using her own physical strength, fighting alongside Xena.”

WVM: “She’s also a bard. What does that mean, in Xena terms?”

ROC: “Gabrielle is a great storyteller. She loves to meet the poets along the way. Even at the end of the series — she admires Sappho’s poetry, and so Xena gives her this gift, a poem to her from Sappho. Gabrielle is the person who writes down and archives the adventures of Xena all along the way. Then she puts them in these scrolls, which are her prized possessions, and she carries them on all their journeys. So one great piece of humor is when Xena discovers that she can’t find any paper in the forest, so she uses one of the scrolls, rips off a piece of one.”

WVM: “That kind of paper? Toilet paper?”

ROC: “Yes! There was a wonderful lightness in the series. There were feminist themes, anti-war themes. But also humor. I still remember that scene: “Scrolls? You used my scrolls?”

It’s still the ultimate buddy movie, too. [Gabrielle and Xena] could always rely on each other. We always loved each other, too, so whenever a tragic flaw came over one of us, we always came through to the other side still loving each other.”

WVM: “But it’s my understanding that they were never depicted as lovers outright.”

ROC: “That was asked today. Someone said, “Do you think they ever basically made love,” is what the question was. That’s been the question of subtext for all these years. There was an incredible intimacy between Xena and Gabrielle. I don’t know if I said, “Yes” or “Probably.” If so, Lucy [Lawless, who played Xena] and I never defined that in playing the characters.

It’s a relationship I don’t think I’ve ever had: it’s best friends, it’s maternal, it’s combative — such as in warfare when you have to rely on your partner to think quickly.”

WVM: “There’s also an element of big sister/little sister, isn’t there?”

ROC: “Yeah, and yet I felt Xena was quite maternal, too. Xena defended Gabrielle. I don’t know if she sacrificed herself. It’s more than just a sexual intimacy. But that’s what people saw, so that’s what they could resonate with the most.”

WVM: “We don’t often get to see women’s friendship treated in this kind of depth. Usually the depictions are pretty superficial, or they don’t take up much screen time. And men — myself included — are always certain that there’s more going on and much more said between women when we’re not in the room.”

ROC: “Interesting. That’s the mind of a man!”

Renée recalled a scene between Xena and Gabrielle that demonstrated the characters’ closeness.

ROC: “We were around the campfire talking about a recap of what happened in the episode, some sort of change in the character had happened, and it was an intimate, vulnerable moment, and it happened around the campfire. I think there’s a moment of intimacy when people are vulnerable and open and loving, and I guess that’s where the “dot dot dot” comes in.

It’s funny you say that [about women’s friendships], because I think women are probably more threatened [than men] by seeing someone they love in an intimate relationship with someone else. Women feel that way. As opposed to something that looks — something that might just be a lustful projection. Isn’t that true?”

WVM: “I think guys tend to congratulate each other, rather than feel threatened. Maybe they’re hurt when feeling left out, like “I can’t hang out with my buddy because he’s out with his girflriend.”

While Renée reflected on this, I observed that, at the convention, it was clear that a number of the women present at the convention considered Xena and Gabrielle as models for their own loving relationships with other women. Renée cautioned that her perspective shouldn’t be taken as authoritative, merely because she played one of the characters, but she does understand the interpretation.

ROC: “I have to embrace that, because truly the lesbian community is still our most loyal following, definitely, after all these years. So if that’s what they want to see, absolutely, go for it, sure.”

WVM: “Is it flattering to be viewed this way by a community, that you’re telling their stories?”

ROC: “You know, I come at it from the other angle. I’m almost worried — and I’m not a worrisome person — but I worry about misrepresenting the community, because I don’t expect to be iconic. I can’t represent them in a way that is truly truthful, and so I don’t know that I should be the spokesperson. [That is to say, because she’s a straight woman in real life.]

I think people resonate with me personally because of the person I am. I care about the fans, I really do. I want them to be happy. I want them to feel like they can stand up and say, “I’m gay,” and be fulfilled in so many ways and never be discriminated against. That’s what’s important in what they see in me. I don’t want them to feel isolated or feel like they have to hide or feel ashamed. And I think the young girls feel that way because they don’t have anyone to talk to and they don’t know what to do. I have felt that in my life, and so I feel like I want to say to them, “You don’t have to do that, you can stand up and be who you are.”

WVM: “A lot of people identify very closely with Gabrielle’s spiritual journey.”

ROC: “I don’t know that she meant it to be a spiritual journey. I think she was trying to search for her individual way. There was an element to the spiritual quest there, but I don’t think it was isolated around spirituality. You know, there are just some people who feel incongruent, they have different aspects and they don’t line up. They feel conflicted. [Gabrielle] was in love with someone who was a warrior and was killing people, and yet Gabrielle wanted the life of a compassionate pacifist. So how does she do that? That was how I came at it.”

WVM: “I should probably use the word “meaning” rather than “spirituality.”

ROC: “Yes, yes, looking for meaning, sure.”

Left the link to the original source if you’d like to read the whole interview. I’ve just transcribed a small part of it. But isn’t it interesting though that Renee views the characters and the way they relate to each other in their friendship romantically but not sexually. I obviously perceive Xena and Gabrielle as a couple so I do think they have sex - it’s just not for us to see on-screen - but I do think they focus more so on the emotional and spiritual connection between them - which I do believe is what makes them an epic romance/love story as opposed to any other WLW ship that there is that is represented to be explicitly sexual.

Xena and Gabrielle really are a very special WLW ship in that you can either view them just as friends and completely platonically if you like… or not. At the end of the day what matters is the love they have is so real and deep and strong that it goes beyond sex and romance. It’s not just Renee that will tell you this out of the cast/crew of ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ regardless of how they personally perceive the characters and the nature of their relationship together. They all will. But I just think Renee is the best at explaining this because she really gets down to the core of who the characters are and how they relate to each other which is why I think she would agree with my thesis.

SOURCE: http://billmadison.blogspot.com/2010/09/interview-renee-oconnor.html?m=1

#xena warrior princess #xena and gabrielle #xabrielle #xena #lucy lawless #gabrielle #renee o'connor #interview #character study thesis #epic romance #epic love story #wlw representation

22 notes · View notes

dolphin1812 · 1 year ago

Text

The passive-aggressiveness towards the chief justice in the description of the house of the Rue Plumet is kind of funny:

“but behind the pavilion there was a narrow courtyard, and at the end of the courtyard a low building consisting of two rooms and a cellar, a sort of preparation destined to conceal a child and nurse in case of need”

The “in case of need” makes me laugh when it was clearly intended to be used that way, given that the paragraph begins with the note that the chief justice used this place for his mistress.

This detail was hilarious:

“Only the birds beheld this curiosity. It is probable that the linnets and tomtits of the last century gossiped a great deal about the chief justice.”

It simultaneously sets up the house as one tied to nature (it attracts lots of birds) and gives us the image of avian gossip circles.

The house is an escape from the convent. Aside from the general creepiness of it when we first read about it and the comparisons to prisons there, here, Valjean being “condemned” to the galleys is explicitly equated with Cosette being “condemned” to the convent if they’d stayed. This choice offers Cosette freedom, even if she benefited from the convent’s education and the shelter it provided for all of those years.

While “give Cosette freedom” is a noble goal, Valjean’s way of thinking about it is sad. His fear that Cosette will hate him is heartbreaking, and rather than conceptualizing the matter as what’s best for her, he imagines keeping her in the convent as a crime - more specifically, as a “robbery.” Even his relationship with his daughter is analyzed through the lens of his “crime,” with Valjean seeking to avoid being a thief again rather than to act in her best interest. He does do so in the end, and he does love her. The issue is more that his problems with his own self-image (seeing himself as a criminal) affect his ability to provide for Cosette in a way that’s healthy for himself. Cosette still gets the freedom she needs, but Valjean can’t think about that in a way that doesn’t make her rights a reflection of his morality. Worst of all, he doesn’t begin to think about Cosette’s freedom because of something she says or does; he thinks about it because he feels “too happy” in the convent:

“It will be remembered that Jean Valjean was happy in the convent, so happy that his conscience finally took the alarm.”

Leaving the convent is a good thing for Cosette, but unfortunately, it’s a move fueled most of all by Jean Valjean’s lack of self-worth. Having felt happy, he decided that something must be wrong – because how could he feel happy? – and sought to “rectify” whatever it was, with the constant fear that Cosette would hate him lingering in the background.

Moreover, while the house is freer than the convent, it’s not without its problems. Hugo’s phrasing in describing how this house was used for affairs may be funny, but it does reveal this place’s ties to an older social order, one embodied by M Gillenormand. That the house is run down may imply that these ties have eroded, but it’s nonetheless true that Cosette and her father will have to navigate the existing social order here to a much greater extent than in the convent. And having seen what being treated as a “mistress” in this time led to for Fantine, that can be dangerous, too.

Jean Valjean also can’t shake his old habits of isolating himself. Again, these habits are based on legitimate fears to an extent; not having neighbors and having various safehouses shelters him from the scrutiny of others and from the police. At the same time, he himself knows how unlikely it is that anyone’s looking for him after disappearing for so many years, especially with how much age has changed him. It’s difficult to evaluate how much his precautions are reasonable and how much they illustrate his constant need to hide, but they certainly leave both him and Cosette isolated. Being out of the convent may have actually limited her social circle, since she now only has Valjean to talk to instead of having the other pupils as well), and both of them are likely grieving Fauchelevent to some extent. This isolation is, again, understandable, but it’s not good for either of them.

Spoilers below:

The introduction to this house feels so representative of all it comes to be as well. It’s “solemn” and secretive because that’s what Valjean is. A house made to conceal is ideal to him. And yet what it’s supposed to hide is an affair, which is somewhat fitting for the place where Cosette first experiments with romance. The garden not only serves as the site of this, but symbolizes her youth as she enters the “spring” of her life. It combines Valjean’s sad secrecy with her blossoming youth and need for change, just as the plants in a garden transform each season.

#les mis letters #jean valjean #Cosette #lm 4.3.1

26 notes · View notes

darkfictionjude · 9 months ago

Note

Yes, Hello, My name is Elder Grant and I’m here to ask if you have time today to speak about our lord and savior Nia—

In all seriousness, I’m just here to pop in with some Nia love. Mostly because it was getting me thinking, I believe you said at some point that sometimes Nia is hard to love, and it’s just been kinda slow table turning like a microwave plate in my head and part of thinks it’s by design (of also hers, not just yours). And then another part of me thinks it’s a conclusion she’s come to herself. And part of me wonders if she’s selfish in love because she kind of knows what it’s like already to have all of someone’s attention, and for it to be real attention. Not, attention for this sort of façade that she built (still very much her, but a her for the masses, a her that won’t get stained with any of their messy fake ideas of her), but attention on the most transparent version of her she’s ever been willing to show. She’s literally mc’s only friend, and perhaps it wasn’t normal attention, or maybe it didn’t seem like it was total the way someone else’s attention felt. But she has to know that it was as total as total can get, when mc who can’t be paid to remember normal shit about their family or their lives, and regularly forgets things that happen to them and that they’ve done has this little mental notebook with her name on it, just living rent free in their head. It’s been a year, a hellish year, mc can’t tell you shit about what Percy gets up to, only that it’s “Percy stuff” but mc can still clock a lot of her behavior. But only as they understand it, maybe not as it really stands. Part of me thinks, it doesn’t so much make her hard to love because as much as she might have double standards about certain things, it feels like her main focus is that reciprocal balance of selfishness and love in a relationship. She wants all that she can get for herself, and she wants to be held on that pedestal as well for like an mc in a relationship. But in a way, doesn’t that kind of mean that she does the same with mc (don’t get me wrong, I’m hardly saying Nia is the poster child of equality)? Like, wanting this from this mc more than she does from anyone else, doesn’t that also kind of put mc on this pedestal? Like finding someone you finally think is worthy of you almost? And doesn’t it make sense too kind of? (And don’t we kind of see a bit of that if mc runs after her?) And what does it say about her strength of emotion and the regard she holds mc in, that she isn’t afraid of them (and she’s certainly seen some shit) when mc’s own dad is? Mc will never be her meaning in life (and they shouldn’t be) but if Nia believed in that weird soul mate shit even a little, their probably as close as anyone will get. A, “I breathe with you, rather than for or because of you.” And I find that more compelling.

Like it feels like most of the relationships she has, the ones that aren’t her choice, are dictated by what they can do for other people more than for herself. She’s routinely told/talked to about how amazing and better she is, and how it will benefit other people and get her the things she wants. She’s got like a direct value type of interpretation for herself. If her presence is going to be used for the benefit of others, why shouldn’t she take them for all they have? And why wouldn’t she feel this desire to hoard as much genuine feeling as she can get from someone she respects and wants to be around? She’s spoken to by her parents like a living investment, a living legacy of them, not even of herself. Who wouldn’t want to be a little selfish faced with that?

(Lo siento por el ensayo, pero no porque Nia es un tesoro. Bien hecho con este. Cuídate prima 💛)

Damn this was a whole character analysis essay. You should’ve started this off with “in this essay I will”

Yeah to me Nia is the most mysterious of the ROs. You don’t get much from her, only through the lens of how mc interprets her words and actions. I think it’s an interesting interpretation to think that Nia holds mc on a pedestal, it could be so. Or it could be that Nia can’t love unselfishly. She was never taught and doesn’t want to learn. Like a succubus she wants every last drop without giving much away herself. Some people might say that isn’t love but I believe that if you’re a person who can feel romantic love, then it’s coloured by your personality. Love isn’t only pure, if it were we’d all be the same.

Gracias por tanto amor a esta que es más helada que un témpano de hielo 💜

#Nia-MC #1.000 questions #we wretched creatures

11 notes · View notes

i-am-minty-fresh · 1 year ago

Text

(The ask at hand being: “I'm really normal about robin (<- lying) and I want to hear about her and chopper because their relationship is so important to me” from @noisypitta)

Okay, so I took my melatonin before committing to this so I apologize if I get incoherent about halfway through. I finally get to address Robin and one of the many fascinating elements of her personality and relationships. Not only Robin, but I also get to talk about the world’s bestest boy, Chopper! What a good day for me! And this analysis is going to be about self-image and what makes us monsters.

Hilariously, Chopper doesn’t have that much to his character…because he’s a child. He’s best understood through the lens of a still-developing child. He’s not old enough to commit to his insecurity in the common strawhat way (Sanji, Nami, Robin), but he’s also inexperienced enough not to understand shit like Usopp’s betrayal in Water 7. He’s yet to make a proper mistake because he’s going in completely blind. His only understanding of himself was brought on by either his dad or his adoptive mom. Up until meeting Luffy he always understood himself to be a monster, something no person in their right mind would want anything to do with. Hiriluk takes care of him cause he’s a crazy old man (who paid the price for taking care of him later) and Kureha only takes care of him out o obligation…this is a lot for a child to put up with. Hated by reindeer and people alike he can only associate with the kinds of people that even other people don’t like (i.e. crazy doctor and greedy witch). Chopper thought himself an unlovable monster and rather than being told that he wasn’t a monster, he came to meet other (worse) monsters. He joins a crew of insane monsters who embrace all that makes them strange and offputting because that's the strawhat way, and after Marineford Chopper vows to become a real monster to protect his crewmates from losing like that ever again.

Another thing to keep in mind for Chopper is his development, which is something I brought up a little bit earlier. He’s never really had a comforting parent figure, much less for very long. He’s a child who seeks validation and comfort at every turn because he’s used to violence and hatred. He’s not used to someone treating him like a child meant to be protected rather than a monster to be feared…and Robin…

Robin knows a lot about being a monster. About being hated and hunted and laughed at and being seen as nothing more than devil spawn. She has spent her childhood being chased for just being herself and learning to never fully trust anyone but herself because everyone else will just hurt her in the long run (or her past will end up hurting them). He keeps people at arm's length because she can’t trust herself not to hold everyone too close. She’s so desperate for comfort and safety that it makes her uncomfortable to be too friendly. She’s a textbook manipulator who hides behind the lies told about her because if she becomes the evil thing they call her at least it’ll stop being a lie about a helpless child. Robin is done being a child, or so she says. She’s matured with her terrible self-image and until Enies Lobby was more than willing to let her piss poor perception of herself kill her…but it didn’t. Luffy wouldn’t let her. He made her admit just how desperate she was for a real family. She’s got stupid dreams she’s willing to die for, she finds the crew's antics ridiculously charming, and she loves being both looked after and respected as a powerful member of the crew. She’s cared for in the way that she needs to be at this point which is to feel intellectually important (hands down she’s the smartest member of the crew), and valued as a strategist. She doesn’t need to be coddled, she just needs to feel like she takes up the proper space on hr crew, and she does…but for Chopper….he’s something different.

Zoro and Sanji are stubborn and bull-headed and unwilling to accept help even when it best suits them. Nami has her being more of a sister than a dotting mother, on an equal playing field in terms of trickery. Usopp’s similarly stubborn and does best by learning through his mistakes so not much she can do there. Luffy loves being cared for, but not as the unique god-child savior he is but rather as an extension of how every member of the crew should be cared for (which is to say efficiently). Chopper though is little. So little he hasn’t learned to take compliments in stride or mask his enjoyment. He doesn’t have up all the walls that Robin or Nami built to try to put everything that has happened to them into a context in which it doesn’t hurt as much rather than just admitting that it wasn’t fair and they should be mad. Chopper wants validation from his peers and attention from those he sees as more experienced…but he also wants to be cared for. Similar to Robin, he wants to be respected in his field and as a fighter, but only because that respect can be translated into cool points with older brother Zoro and dad Franky. He’s a textbook case of a little sibling who wants to feel just as important as everyone else and it’s devastating to him but adorable to everyone else. Robin doesn’t want him growing up too fast, because that’s what she had to do. The world turned her into a monster and now she sits comfortably with that title making sure to use it against them when they try to hurt her family. Chopper does the same. He knows that no one will look at him and not see a monster, but it doesn’t mean he can’t break his Hippocratic oath to kick some ass if need be.

Robin treats him like how she wishes she was treated. She hangs on every word and carries around his favorite food because she wants to give him what she never got but wanted so badly. He wants to be looked after because the world is full of stuff that he knows nothing about and he doesn’t have his dad around to wrap his wounds anymore.

Their relationship is one of the teacher and the student. Robin gets to pass on her wisdom through her terrible lived experience at the hands of people who call her a monster and Chopper gets to learn that maybe being a monster isn’t so bad if it means you get to protect the people you care about. If Robin’s a monster, maybe being a monster isn’t that bad.

Not as long as I would have liked it, let me know if you think I missed anything! I’d love to discuss them further because I love my antlered son and his bloodthirsty mom but it is now bedtime.

Sorry for taking so long!

#one piece #minty musings #character analysis #nico robin #devil child nico robin #tony tony chopper #one piece chopper

18 notes · View notes

erisenyo · 10 months ago

Note

4, 2 and 7???

2. How do you come up with your plot ideas?

For me, it usually starts with a particular scene or moment that catches my interest and builds from there by thinking through what would bring events to that point.

To use my Zukki series as an example, it started (via chat with Ash haha) with a scene--Sokka and Suki are trying to pick Zuko up, Zuko is oblivious to the point of absurdity, like they could skinny-dig in front of him and he would find a way to think it was just a friendship activity, and probably try to drown himself from embarrassment, and they'd try to rescue him and do CPR, and he'd be like moaning into it but also trying to hide his not-friends-boner--

So okay, we have this scene, and it's comedic. What would make it funnier? > If Sokka and Suki have been trying to pick him up for a while and they're at their wits end, just getting naked in front of him and seeing if that works.

Why would Zuko be oblivious to that extent? > Because he's actively working against himself, because he thinks he's going to ruin their friendship.

Why would he be worried about ruining friendships when Suki's practically sitting on his face? > Because he thinks his desire would be unwanted--like if he thinks Suki and Sokka are dating.

Why would he think they're dating? > Because he misread some exchange years ago and has been rolling with the assumption.

Why hasn't that assumption been corrected by Suki and Sokka? > Because they also misread an exchange years ago and have been rolling with their assumptions, and now they're scared to use their words.

And now we have a plot to start putting together :)

4. How do you channel characters' voices and personalities?

I start by writing down statements about the character, describing essentially their vibe and their major concerns. So when I was writing S1 Zuko for the first time, I had things like:

Z is into rules cause doing things the right way means you are safe- predictable - also need power to break the rules

Things unspoken are a big deal in Zuko's life - he shouts and rages but he never says the quiet part out loud

Z views things through the lens of all the ways he is inadequate - he doesn't take risks to bridge interpersonal things - his father and Azula taught him it never works out - the one time he did he got banished

Doesn’t lie because he can’t – gets shouty and avoidant instead

Does not ask for help, doesn’t beg, doesn’t say please

So this starts to give me a frame of reference now for how Zuko views the world, what he cares about, and how he'd react to things at this point in his journey, which I'll then translate into basically a set of notes and words and phrases for writing the character:

Zuko voice - more run on sentences, ands, long trains of thought

Zuko names the sensations and physical responses then slowly starts acknowledging emotions behind them

Z – emo angst, depressed, feeling useless awkward, short,– ellipses rather than dashes – overly full of emotions he doesn’t know what to do with

Thinks in degrees - curses like FN sailor - PTSD around water

Thinks in terms of waves washing over him, drowning him

Zuko actions/descriptors

Unimpressed looks, flat looks, blank, empty, impassive, still

Tentative, hesitant, uncertain, cautious, shy, wary

Concentration still, Awkward frozen, Rage immobile, Fear motionless

Huffs – exhales – silently laughs – blows out emotion

And then, to make Zuko's POVs feel distinct, I'll make sure other characters have different actions/descriptors and voices - if I compare character voice notes and they're too similar, I need to do more work. Sokka's, for example:

Sokka – protective, feels inadequate and that he needs to prove himself; persistent worry about inadequacies because he sees all the way things can spin out of control

Wants to be rational but really ruled by his heart – emotive

Tries to be buttoned up and macho but romanticism breaks through

Conflicted over what he wants vs needing to be seen as a leader

Thinks in terms of being lit on fire, consumed

Names his emotions

Thinks in hours

Talkative, rational, stressed, cynical, romantic at heart

Big gestures – talks with hands – emotive

Jokes to diffuse tension

Good of many > good of one individual

And now I have a lexicon of actions and descriptive words and ways of thinking/reacting that are unique to each character, to build up the feeling of each character and POV being separate and distinct.

7. How do you handle writer's block or moments of creative stagnation?

These are two different things for me! If I'm just feeling uninspired, wanting to write but not having inspiration for what, I'll turn to other people in the fandom. I take a lot of inspiration from other people's enthusiasm, so art can spark ideas, tag rambling, shit posts, screenshots of text exchanges someone tags with a character - I've made fics I really love off of all of that. I want to say at least 13 of my fics are gift fics or inspired by another work. Enthusiasm begets enthusiasm for me :)

(Which means it's pretty easy to inspire me to write something you want to see by just being really enthusiastic about the idea and like shit posting back and forth about it with me haha)

Usually when I'm stuck in a fic, though, it means that one of the character arcs isn't flowing right. I've found what works for me is to...

Go back to the start of the scene - is it starting in the right place? Too early, so it's taking too long to get to the relevant/fun stuff?

Write down what the scene is supposed to be doing - taking a step back to think technically about the purpose of the scene (to advance plot, characterization, conflict, etc.) often helps me see where I need to take it or how I need to reframe it

Write down what the larger portion of the is doing - this is more for longfics, but if I'm still stuck I'll step back even further and write down the themes, how the characters are growing, what their arc is supposed to look like - this frequently helps me realize that an arc itself needs to be reworked because of how I've written preceding scenes vs how I've planned

Scene map the whole fic - this is a dire last resort because it takes TIME, but if it still feels off, I step back even further and map chapter by chapter, character by character and interpersonal relationship by interpersonal relationship, what is happening vs what I think should be happening - and when I can see it all visually, I can see that something doesn't have space to breathe, or that a certain character isn't present enough, or that I'm not laying the groundwork for an arc - and then I can work on fixing things from there (example of what this looks like below the cut)

From this Questions for Fic Writers game!

Example of my trying to un-fuck my draft lol.

In case anyone was wondering, the solution was "you focused too much on Hakoda and forgot to give Sokka and Katara arcs" which does, somehow, feel very ironically appropriate

#asks and answers #ask games #fic writing #Probably wayyy more than you thought you'd be getting lol #(hopefully you meant this and not the choose violence game - let me know if I mixed it up!)

7 notes · View notes

warrioreowynofrohan · 1 year ago

Text

Explore my bookshelf!

Thanks for the tag, @theghostinthemargins, this is fun!

An estimate of how many physical books I own: By my count, 396. Split between fiction, nonfiction, and travel guides.

Favourite author: I would say Tolkien! My three favourite books, all tied for first place are The Silmarillion/LOTR (I refuse to separate them), Les Misérables, and Jane Eyre. They’re the ones I can reread an uncountable number of times and never get tired of, and they all speak things that I find true and meaningful. But Victor Hugo and Charlotte Brontë have written other things I don’t care for as much, so Tolkien would be my overall favourite author.

A popular book I've never read and never intend to read: I’m sure there are a lot, I don’t tend to really get into a lot of contemporary non-speculative-fiction novels.

A popular book I thought was just meh: The Queen’s Thief series didn’t really catch me after the first two books, so I stopped. Though I didn’t catch all the twists in the first one, I felt a lot of it was telegraphed too heavily and I’d read another book that did the same thing but better. And the writing style didn’t pull me in; at times in the second one it felt like I was reading a Cliff Notes summary of the book rather than the book itself, or a brief history textbook from the book’s world. It’s a shame because I liked the relationship twist, I wanted to be into the book, but I wasn’t.

Longest book I own: Probably Complete Shakespeare (1164 pages in small font) in word count. Les Mis has more pages (1222) but larger font. My World Book Encyclopedia for the letter ‘A’ is probably also a contender in total word count (980 pages, small font, larger pages than the others).

Longest series I own all the books to: Either The Stormlight Archive or A Song of Ice and Fire depending on whether we’re going by word count or number of books.

Prettiest book I own: I’m very fond of The World of Ice and Fire, it’s a real visual treat. Fandom is making me want to invest in an illustrated Silm or LOTR. I’d have bought the nice version of Sanderson’s Tress of the Emerald Sea if shipping costs weren’t so ridiculous, it’s gorgeous and I love it, but I really can’t justify a hundred-dollar price tag when I already own the ebook.

A book or series I wish more people knew about: Several recommendations, including Piranesi (gorgeous, fantastical writing, some of the most beautiful and creative fantasy I’ve read in a while), The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova (excellent vampire story, the only one I’ve seen that is as good as or better than the original Dracula, and plays off the original’s use of documents (diaries, letters, etc.) by having three histories nested within each other: the main character, her father in the ‘70s, and his thesis advisor in the ‘30s). If you enjoy the way The Historian is written even apart from the vampires, you will probably also love People of the Book by Geraldine Brooks, which tells the story of an old and precious book and the Jewish families who owned it through history, via the modern plot of a woman carrying out document analysis of it the book the context of the 1990s Yugoslavian wars. It is very, very good.

For non-fiction, some recs are:

The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800 by Christopher Ehret, the best textbook on pre-colonial African history I’ve found, extremely interesting

The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan, a history through the lens of Eurasian connections (the parts between the fall of the Roman Empire and the later Middle Ages were especially interesting and novel - did you know Ethiopia invaded the Arabian peninsula? or that there was a Jewish (converted) state in Central Asia? or all kinds of stuff about the Zoroastrians?)

Paris 1919: Margaret MacMillan’s breakdown of the personalities involved in the Treaty of Versailles, and how their decisions set the stage for the rest of the 20th century; still a classic.

If you’re at all interested in Canadian history or in the Great Depression, and want to see how bad it can get in a country that didn’t have an FDR, Pierre Berton’s The Great Depression is a brilliant, passionate, and scathing text on that period in Canada, with a lot of idiots and brutes in power and some truly inspirational figures outside of power.

If you’re interested in US Reconstruction history, Capitol Men is a great book on the first Black members of Congress post-civil-war.

Book I'm reading now: Jurassic Park, Agrarian Socialism (about the rise of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, a socialist party that gave rise to the present-day social democratic NDP; I’ve gotten stalled, I need to finish this), Ovid’s Metamorphoses, History of Middle-earth vol 9 Sauron Defeated (I got it out of the library for the epilogue and I’ve read that, but I want to check out The Notion Club Papers before I return it), and just finished a reread of Mansfield Park.

Book that's been on my TBR list for a while but I still haven't got around to it: Shantaram; it’s a novel based on the author’s very eventful life.

Do you have any books in a language other than English: Have yes, have read, no. 😔 In various fits of ambition I’ve bought Les Miserables, The Hunchback of Notre-Dame and Journey to the Centre of the Earth in the original French, as well as a couple French-language histories, with the intent of using them to practice, and then my French is too weak and I just don’t stick to it. I’m only a few chapters i to any of them. Les Mis is too much for me to do more than try to enjoy a handful of passages in the original, but I really would like to finish Journey to the Centre of the Earth and one of the histories that interests me.

Paperback, hardcover, or ebook?

Mainly paperbook or ebook. I prefer reading paperbacks, it’s easier to focus and better for my eyes than ebooks (screentime is…most of my waking hours, it’s not good) and I find it more enjoyable, but ebooks have the benefit of convenience and being very fast to acquire; if I want to read a new release right away and the ebook is cheap, I’ll take it over the hardcover. I’ve only purchased 23 ebooks but have a huge stash of free ones from Project Gutenberg.

#ask game #books

17 notes · View notes