#so inherently him referring to people just by their given name implies he's on a more casual basis with them

[aroaceleovaldez]

honestly, boldest move the fandom could go for is collectively deciding to characterize Nico as the type to like, never use pet names in ship stuff. itd be kinda funny.

[julietasgf]

Can you elaborate more on your thoughts about jokes on Coriolanus having a type? Tbh I find endearing that he would have a soft spot for people with specific physical traits, like brown eyes, but that’s me choosing a more favorable (?) interpretation because I’m fond of him. I’m not blind to his canon character though, and I can definitely see how it can be interpreted as him fetishizing a specific kind of people…I don’t like it but I can 10000% see where you’re coming from, and like I say, I don’t mind the discussion :)

hello anon!! ty for the ask, and ofc I can!

warnings for this post: this post will contain discussions of racism, xenophobia and fetishization.

(before starting, I think it's valid to highlight two things: one is that ofc my opinion can be biased, because I don't like coriolanus. second is that my opinion is also influenced by some real life experiences, so it's very personal and it's completely understandable and valid if people don't share it or don't have the same vision over it!)

I feel like tbosas can be interpreted in various lenses (and ofc you can disagree with me at any point of this text), but particularly, when reading a work (specially a dystopic one), I prefer applying real life situations and comparisons. for tbosas, regarding coriolanus and his thoughts, the interpretation I usually go for is: coriolanus is racist and xenophobic. of course we can say that it comes a lot from his context, from his family, considering that his grandma says that district people only drink water because it doesn't rain blood (and though this is a line a lot of people remember, one less reminded of is the one about how she at first confuses mrs. plinth with a servant by the end of the book).

coriolanus is not favorable on district people, even more so than plenty of his capitol colleagues. and still, despite showing clearly his despise for them, we have two cases of him interacting and forming a close bond with two district people:

sejanus and lucy gray.

since this post is about fetishization, let's start with his relationship with lucy gray, since it's his canon love interest and in which we can see some of these signs manifestated.

the biggest difference between just having a type vs fetishizing someone (in specific, poc) is that fetishization comes from an idea that these people are not really people. they are ideas. they are attractive concepts. these are not real life persons with tastes, they are just a hot thought. fetishization takes root in dehumanization. and knowing this, here are some lines with how coriolanus refers to lucy gray:

"His filly in a race, his dog in a fight. The more he had treated her as something special, the more she’d become human."

"Here in the Capitol, it was a given that Lucy Gray belonged to him, as if she’d had no life before her name was called out at the reaping."

"A second-class citizen. Human, but bestial. Smart, perhaps, but not evolved. Part of a shapeless mass of unfortunate, barbaric creatures that hovered on the periphery of his consciousness."

coriolanus doesn't see lucy gray as human. he doesn't see people like lucy gray as human. and it's from that where the issue comes from: when feeling attracted to lucy gray, he likes the idea of her, and the idea of staying with her. in D12, in some parts, he comes close to even romanticize the thought of a "free" life with her (and of course, leaving aside the fact that she has a life herself, and that life is not wasy; it's once again the idea of the thing, and an idea that sounds almost "exotic" to him, because lucy gray is different from anything he has seen in the capitol).

(I also think it's important to highlight that fetishization has inherent roots in sexualization. coriolanus makes points in D12 about lucy gray's "questionable past" and the idea that it's implied she have done sex work before.)

now, let's talk about sejanus, the second district person coriolanus has a bond in the book. this is how coriolanus talks about sejanus and his family int he book:

"Ma might be pathetic, but she was something of an artist in the kitchen."

"The thought of blackmailing old Strabo Plinth had definite appeal."

"You could put a turnip in a ball gown and it would still beg to be mashed" (referring to the way ma plinth was dressed)

"Sejanus had already usurped his position, his inheritance, his clothes, his candy, his sandwiches, his privilege due a Snow."

"[...] well-fed district boy with the cloddish accent" (referring to sejanus)

"Coriolanus' first impulse had been to join his classmates' campaign to make the new kid's life a living hell." (referring to thinking about participating in the bullying of sejanus for him being district; coriolanus decided to ignore sejanus, but only because he thought it would be a waste his time bullying sejanus)

in specific, it strikes to me that coriolanus mocks district traditions. what he says about the death tradition of D2 is, word by word: "Primitive people with their primitive customs. How much bread had they wasted with this nonsense?"

I could go further in how coriolanus' intense hatred for the plinths and sejanus doesn't come mainly from a class struggle feeling, specially because coriolanus hangs out with other kids from the capitol and the academy (extremely rich and powerful kids), but he doesn't show the same intense hatred in the same way. however, this is a discussion for another time. the point now is exactly how despite coriolanus not seeing sejanus and his family as human beings... in D12, he still hangs out with sejanus. he still hugs him, and still goes out with him.

and in the moment sejanus acts just a bit out of how he expected him to (even after sejanus have been a good friend for him so many times in D12), coriolanus got him killed.

coriolanus hates district people. he sees them as primitive, he sees them as uncivilized, and still. still, he hangs out with them. he forms bonds with them, that, in the end, are just harmful for the people in question, because he doesn't see them as humans.

I searched just to be sure, but just like sejanus, lucy gray got no concrete book description besides her clothing + some small aspects (her having dark, curly hair, for example). sejanus being poc coded can be discussed (though I have strong opinions on this, and how I really think the plinths were meant to be poc immigrant coded, as there's a literal line in the book where someone says: "go back to two, then! who'd miss you?") but it's been pointed out so many times and by so many people how lucy gray is romani coded, and though I won't go deep into this because I'm not romani and it's not my place to speak on this topic specifically, this only highlights some of the stuff coriolanus says and thinks about her, considering the extremely harmful stereotypes and portrayals of romani women. this is the way coriolanus' grandma talks about her (reminding that lucy gray is just 16 years old):

"She's district. And, trust me, that one hasn't been a girl in a long time."

before heading to the end of this, it's important to say lucy gray doesn't identify herself as district. she identifies herself as covey, and it's one of the reasons on why coriolanus can handle "better" the thought of him falling for a girl that comes from the districts. more than once, he tries to make mental gymnastics to convince himself that lucy gray isn't district, she's different, she's special, she's an exception to the rule, therefore, it's okay for him to fall for her:

"She seemed to have no love for District 12, always separating herself from it, saying she was, what was it... Covey?"

again, all of these thoughts and views come from a very specific interpretation, and you're free to disagree with me, specially because I don't think collins intended to make a criticism on fetishization of poc. however, specially translating these to modern setting issues, I can't help but feel a bit offput by the thought that (considering a shipping context) coriolanus would clearly have a type, yes, but it comes from a very specific place, and it only causes harm to the ones he gets in relationships with.

again, anon, tysm for the ask! I hope I expressed my thoughts in an okay way (specially because english isn't my first language, so sorry for any typos or confusing expressions). again, this is just my opinion, and you're totally free to disagree! take care <3

[ghostybreads]

okay so, some thoughts/a theory on Shidou in light of the new info??? I haven't seen this idea in particular yet but I'm sorry if it's been said!

So with the new voice drama it's confirmed that Shidou transplanted organs from braindead patients, attempting to convince their relatives to pull them off life support. Given the beginning mortuary imagery with the names and flowers wilting as he walks by, his references to having killed a large number of people, and the new voice drama strongly implying it, I'm going to assume this is a practice he started before his family was involved. I think the older son was left braindead in an accident, where his wife was in critical condition and would need a transplant to survive, and Shidou was put in the same position he'd been putting numerous families through in the past. I'm going to assume the other son was just killed.

The flower person in throw down seems to be visibly an adult, plus the voice line of him saying "she's not dead", generally implies the person he was trying to save was his wife. But the tag that falls is marked XY (for a man), with the name Rei, so potentially his son was the donor instead of the recipient. Then in Triage there's that imagery of Shidou passing down the item label/price tag to his son. We've seen them on the pomegranates and fruit (and lobster????), and we've seen them scattered around him in large amounts in a similar manner to the price tags of the previous MV. Notably all worth 0 yen. I feel like he's giving his son that label bc symbolically his son's worth is becoming just an organ, an item, the same way as Shidou's previous victims. Not that I think Shidou feels that way about his son, but that him doing this practice inherently means he considers his braindead patients less valuable, and he's now forced to apply that to his own son. Potentially the son was the only donor that would match the wife, and she had a greater chance of survival than he did. So in his mind he could lose them both, or intentionally let go of his son in order to try and save his wife. Then, right after there's the bedside and heartbeat scene. He reaches out in horror to his past self, and it feels like he's in the position of both himself, the doctor doing the killing (like he has been in the past), but now also the devastated family left behind. Especially since in the voice drama he explains that he didn't realise how cruel it was until the end, and specifically mentions that it's different when it's your own family. Then, again immediately following that, is the scene of pomegranates with those same labels, stabbed and rotting. As well as a specific set of flowers wilting, which we've seen before, but this one is given special attention, like his crime is personal now. I also think his voice line "I finally understand the value of what I've been robbing people of" makes a lot of sense in this context. I don't think it's true that he only feels guilty about this one killing, though, but that it put into perspective all the others he'd committed. Anyway that's what makes the most sense to me right now I think?? I'll add onto this later if I've missed something.

[favvn]

The Conscience of the King: A Closer Look at Humanity and Tools

Initially, this was to be a post using excerpts from Georges Bataille's writings about work and tools as the things that contain humankind's urge for violence paired with how Jim Kirk and Anton Karidian/Kodos view tools and what that reveals about each character. I made the post but kept typing up the meta since this episode has so many layers to examine. As a warning, yes, this is long. I do not know brevity :)

Something that I keep thinking back to is how Kodos/Karidian confronts Jim Kirk for using tools and argues that Kirk's adherence to a society built by tools is not only "mechanized" but "not very human" as a result. Kodos' argument is that humans don't need tools, lest humankind grow weak and accustomed to devices aiding them. It is humankind's struggle against life itself that defines humanity for Kodos as a eugenicist. Only the strong may survive in this scenario, by their own innate strengths. The use of tools and technological developments gives everyone a chance at living, not just those who fit Kodos' ideals, so tools and the progress made with them are to be rejected.

Yet Spock's research into the Tarsus IV massacre reveals that it was "painless," which suggests some tools were used to prevent the pain of death, be it lethal injection or disintegration chambers like those used by Eminiar VII in A Taste of Armageddon.

As an aside, it is possible the official record is incorrect, although I argue against that idea if only because it makes sense for each survivor (be it Leighton, Riley, or Kirk) to speak of the massacre as a butchering or outright murder. They witnessed the events, saw their loved ones die, and were to be killed themselves. It is not so much a bias on their part but their own humanity decrying the inhumanity of Kodos. It would be shocking if they, of all characters, were to not refer to the massacre in explicitly violent terms. (Of course, by referring to the event and naming it as a massacre, the cruelty and violence inherent to it becomes implied, even if pain was absent.)

This would suggest that Kodos is not only a hypocrite (tools can be used so long as they serve his goals alone) but that Kodos is also projecting his own crimes and moral failings onto Jim Kirk as a Starfleet Captain. ("I find your use of the word mercy strangely inappropriate [...] You've done away with humanity.") Kodos had to be merciless and inhuman to choose to kill the people he was to govern. (He was not the elected governor of Tarsus IV given his statement in the death summons, "The revolution was a success." He seized power.) When Kodos specifically calls Kirk's mercy into question before declaring humanity has been done away with by Kirk's mechanical society, he inadvertently links the two concepts together: to have mercy is to be human. (This claim is further supported by Kodos' later conversation with his daughter once it is revealed that Lenore has been killing the survivors. He exclaims, "By killing seven innocent men!")

Jim Kirk, of course, views tools as they are: not something to hinder humankind but an aid to help. He argues that society has "armed man with tools," which is an interesting phrasing for him to use. (Consider: "society has given man tools") One hopes the intent is arming for defense rather than murder or war, but with an episode like The Conscience of the King, one which uses Shakespeare to hide the plot in plain sight and extended metaphor to recall the horrors of the Holocaust, either intent can be accepted. Kirk could also be recalling the revolution of Tarsus IV, arming oneself against further despots, or admitting to his own desire to kill Kodos. ("If I had gotten everything I wanted, you might not walk out of this room alive.") For all of Kodos' vitriol to Kirk and the tools of society, it is Kirk who ultimately shows him mercy by not yeilding to vengeance (or to Kodos' goading for it).

It is important to note, however, that Kirk is not above using other people for his personal gain. He puts on the act of a charming love interest for Lenore just to get to her father. Lenore is correct when she confronts Kirk about being used as a tool and referring to his cruelty as a result. Of course, there is a dark irony to this in that Lenore is using Kirk in order to fully close the chapter of Tarsus IV in her father's life by killing the survivors. She's the pot calling the kettle black.

The episode ends with Lieutenant Riley sneaking backstage to kill Kodos during the Karidians' production of Hamlet. Kirk stops him, but it leads to a larger confrontation between Lenore and Kodos, and it reveals her to be the murderer all along.

In what is perhaps the most striking three-pronged twist of irony, Kodos is killed:

He is killed by his daughter, Lenore. ("The one thing in my life untouched by what I'd done [...] I never wanted the blood on my hands ever to stain you.")

He is killed by a phaser gun—a tool of the society he rejects—and a highly mechanized tool at that.

Kodos steps in front of Jim Kirk, the same Kirk who he planned to kill 20 years ago, and takes the shot that was intended for Kirk.

As an aside, Kodos had to die due to the Hayes Code. Evil can not go unpunished according to it. However, I think Barry Trivers, the author of the episode, did a fantastic job to make what could otherwise have been a black-and-white morality tale into something compelling, nuanced, and wonderfully human. (In other words, the layers. Wow.)

One can wonder if the ending is meant to push beyond the limits of the Hayes Code with the questions it raises. For example, did Kodos intend to protect Kirk, or did he assume his daughter would never shoot him? Does Kodos' death change anything 20 years after the fact, when his daughter has killed seven of the nine survivors? How can Lenore Karidian survive yet lose part of her memory, enabling her to forget her father's death and (possibly) her own crimes by extension? How can Jim Kirk live with knowing his life was saved by the man who wanted to kill him in the past? How can Kirk live with knowing the woman who tried killing him has survived and possibly doesn't remember any of it?

The show, of course, does not and will not answer these questions owing to its self-contained story format. In the end, it is up to the viewer to draw their own conclusions as to the humanity of these characters.

[epicspheal]

"I was reading different reviews on the Pokemon rivals and a lot of the criticism for Silver is in how much of a jerk he is, never tries to fight Team Rocket, keeps calling the player weak even when you beat him, he repeats his mantra like an obsessed emotional parrot and stupidly challenges you to a battle on Rocket grounds then ruins your disguise, hands off buddy? Which yeah, his writing was messy but I love him anyways. He's my trash gremlin son. "He don't bite." "Yes, HE DO?!" Eight-year old neglected kid logic is a mess. Which brings me to trying to figure out why exactly he so desperately wants to prove that you don't need bonds to be strong. I think that Giovanni does care for his Pokemon, and to some degree, the TR goons working under him. And I think Silver saw some of that growing up, maybe even the loyalty people like Archer had towards his father, and they called that "strength." But then that strength failed. And Giovanni left him. So it goes like this. "If I don't prove that it's possible to be strong on your own, then that means what my father was doing was right, but I hate him! He left me, that can't be right! He used bonds (between the Rockets) to stomp on the weak, but couldn't face challenges on his own. That must mean HE was weak, and that's why he ran away. Team Rocket says the weak are worthless and should be let go, so it's me who doesn't need him. It's not that he didn't need me, right?!" 😅 Trying my best, what do you think?

Anonymous Ask

Hi there anon! First off I want to apologize for the lateness of me answering this ask...I thought I could get to it sooner but medical school said "Nope" But on to your ask, I think Silver's a great character but like most characters pre-gen 5 he suffers from writing problems. Namely, a lot of stuff happens in off-screen land. Now off-screen development isn't inherently bad as you can always fit everything into the on-screen narrative. But it has to be balanced and I think a lot of the criticisms about never seeing him fight Team Rocket would've been solved if we did get to see him fight on screen more. As you mentioned, he's a kid with daddy issues. The fact people expect him to...not act like a kid in some regards and criticize him for being childish will forever baffle me (but then a lot of the criticisms lobbed at characters from Blue to Hop can be countered with "They are a child what do you expect from them? I know grown adults who would act just like that or worse" So yeah he tends to still call the player weak even after they beat him multiple times. He does eventually stop doing that it takes a while...like how most habits and worldviews take time to change. And yeah he repeats that mantra because again he has a very strong worldview tied to some really personal events in his life. Sounds like a good majority of people regardless of age happen to hang on to something that maybe isn't the best or healthiest thing to hold on to. I mean people are free to like or dislike Silver as a character but you know I swear some of the criticisms that are lobbed at him and 90% of the kid characters in Pokemon could be countered with "they're a human child, they're not grown and even if they were grown they're not perfect". To your question as to why he held on for so long that bonds aren't needed to be strong, I think you hit some solid points about what the cause is. Growing up Silver watched Giovanni cultivate an underground empire via Team Rocket. Any organization to succeed needs bonds, although they don't have to be buddy-buddy in nature. And as we see in Pokemon Origins and to a lesser extent in the Pokemon anime that Giovanni perhaps does genuinely care for his team. Although in multiple media Giovanni definitely refers to Pokemon as tools, so his thoughts may have changed as he grew older (as was implied in Pokemon Origins). Or he could be bluffing. Who knows? And then as you mentioned Giovanni ditched him. One of the strongest bonds in the world is supposed to be between a parent and a child and yet Giovanni gave the middle finger to that and Silver. I also wonder if Silver heard that Giovanni was taken down by a lone child (Red) which if he did would likely help to further his belief that one person on their own is strong enough So young Silver saw how much Giovanni relied on others in order to make his dream come true. And he also felt the sting of abandonment firsthand at a young age. That right there is enough to give him that outlook on bonds and be wary of relying on others when they can drop you at any time. Which as you mentioned would've motivated him to try to become strong without them. It's flawed and childish, yes, but given what he grew up with it makes sense why his mind would come to those conclusions. A lot of times kids aspire to be not like their parental figures and will try tactics opposite their guardians. The thing is, Silver is missing a lot of nuance. He is right though in that you can be a weak person if you find yourself overly reliant on others. Sometimes you have to stand on your own two feet when no one else is around (or willing) to help out. You have to be willing to stand on your own, but also stand together (and have the discernment to know when's the best time to do either). And because Giovanni's bonds with his organization are built up on more nefarious connections it's a lot easier for him to be betrayed and potentially crushed by those bonds. Yes, I know in general Team Rocket has a lot of loyalty to Giovanni, but I always think of the Masked Marauder from the 4th Pokemon movie who was an elite rocket agent who eventually wanted to overthrow Giovanni, so the loyalty of his subordinates is not absolute.  

[paragonrobits]

some other stuff from the original outline of Avatar The Last Airbender’s plot that’s kind of interesting:

- Zuko’s character development is ultimately the same, indicating that his character trajectory was always the same, but it seems to have functioned differently; he would have come to sympathize with Fire Nation citizens driven to poverty by the war, and during the early bits of Season 3 at that. This is a contrast to how Zuko’s season 2 development is all about him learning the same lessons, through people in the Earth Kingdom victimized by the war, which i think most would agree is a better reason for him to turn against the whole cause of the war; feeling more bad for your countrymen, rather than those hurt BY your countrymen, is fundamentally more selfish and less worldly.

- There was no original idea for anyone ending up with anyone, romantically. There were no endgame ships. I think in some respects it might have been more useful to go this route, much as i love Katara and Aang winding up together, since leaving it open ended might ironically have headed off some shipping wars. (After all, a definitive ending didn’t curtail any ‘it SHOULD have happened this way!!’ complaints.)

- The fate of the Air Nomads was more open-ended. At the end of the series, Aang would have journeyed on his own to find surviving Air Nomads that he believed survived in remote, unexplored parts of the world, and honestly i REALLY wish they’d done this, since its the most simple explanation for how the Air Nomads could be reborn in some way or another.

- Toph and Azula were both boys (named Toph and Azul); with Azul seeming to have a MUCH smaller role in the story, only being mentioned a few times as a strict antagonist, and Toph being a love interest for Katara who would inspire Aang to be tougher to stand up to him and look cooler to Katara. This is particularly interesting since the Toph we got doesn’t have the massive ego the beta product Toph was implied to have; yes, she’s proud of her power, but its largely treated in-series as a running gag at worst, and she’s a lot more spiritual and wise to the point that her wisdom is more a pat of her character.

- Iroh was ultimately an antagonist here! He was meant to teach Zuko bad firebending on purpose, so that Zuko would be unable to teach Aang properly. Aang would have learned Firebending on the spot during his battle with Ozai, observing his movements and how he fought. The Sun Warriors did not exist in any form. Ultimately i think the series did better on this one, since we got more of an interesting ethical issue with the Fire Nation practicing a corrupted, inherently flawed form of Firebending that nicely illustrates the error of their imperialistic philosophy. Also Iroh being a bad guy all along is WEIRD, I do not like it

- It’s also pretty likely, given the elements mentioned with Iroh, that the show’s use of him as a father substitute, loving parent and wise guru of sorts were not present in this original idea. It’s likely that Iroh was originally going to be a much more morally ambiguous figure and probably not the Zuko’s role model we ultimately did get.

- Aang did not bond with the Ocean Spirit to save the North, instead he just flooded the navy with water tornadoes, driving them away.

- Wan Shi Tong and his library don’t appear to exist in any form here. Instead the plan was one belonging to the Emperor of the Earth Kingdom (an early form of King Kuei, i think) Spirits as a whole seem to have much less of a role in this version of the series.

- Appa was captured by Zuko at the beginning of season 2 and given to Ozai as a present, thus forcing the team to travel on foot. This goes to show that the original plot arc of Appa going missing was present the whole time. Apparently nothing bad happened to Appa since I infer he showed up again later.

- Zuko doesn’t seem to do a lot in season 2 otherwise??

- Energybending is briefly referred to as a special technique only the Avatar can perform. This means Ozai’s method of defeat was always on the table; at no point was he to be killed, or otherwise defeated in a more conventional manner, at least from the POV of someone who usually sees a series where ‘slay the villain’ is the default end.

- Zuko joins Team Avatar significantly earlier than he did in canon; he apparently was intended to join up near the beginning of season 3, but given that he cannot teach Aang Firebending, a lot of elements core to his dynamic are not present.

- Zuko and Katara don’t appear to have any real dynamic or are mentioned to interact with each other much in this pilot series of events, if at all. This casts some doubt on the assertations by cast, or those who CLAIM that cast said it, that they were meant to get together at some point. The only relationships ever brought up are Katara with Aang (with him having feelings for her) and Toph (with Katara having a rush on Early Boy Toph).

- Toph’s original concept has shown up a few times over the franchise as a whole; Roku’s Earthbending mentor is explicitly based on Toph’s original personality and design, and other elements of him was reworked into Bolin in Legend Of Korra.

- at the end, as mentioned, Zuko reigns as Fire Lord (as per what they ultimately went with), Katara and Sokka go home to rebuild, and Aang journeys off on his own to find the Air Nomads. (I don’t recall if they specify what Toph does or not.) All of these are things that make for good endings, and I think they can be logically inferred as what they all most likely did after the events of the series, and I’d be lying if I said i didn’t prefer these in some way. A good, romantic ending is great and sweet, but again these all feel like good responses to the war ending.

[worstloki]

please read the article 'How White Fandom is Colonizing "Character-Coding"' by Shafira Jordan and quit while you're ahead

Okay, so I read it and see the problem, and I’ll try to address all their points in order because I don’t wholly agree with the article. I know it’s a lot to read so I’ve put tldr; sections at the end of each :)

Misusing the Term Reinforces Negative Stereotypes for Marginalized People 

The article essentially argues that labeling characters which are villainous as POC-coded is bad because they’re not morally pure and doing so "reinforces the idea that people of color are naturally dangerous and not to be trusted.”

Which is fair as you don’t want all the representation to be of ‘bad’ characters, but I also don’t believe all representative characters have to be ‘good’ either as it would be equally racist to divide good/bad in such a way. Not that I would place Loki under ‘bad’ to begin with, but arguing that characters shouldn’t be labelled as POC-coded for reasons unrelated to what’s presented in the narrative or because they did bad things is :/ even if lack of good representation is a prevalent issue in current Western and influenced media. 

Ideally there should be a range of representative characters that fall into ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘anywhere in-between’ because variety and complexity in character types should, in theory, be treated as common practice (which can only happen with a multitude of representation!).

And a bit unrelated but... within the fictional context of Thor 1, all the Jotnar (sans Loki) are presented to the audience as ‘bad’ by default. They desperately want to get their Casket back to the point of attempting stealing it (from the ‘good’ characters), they fight the heroes and even when the gang and Thor (’good’ characters) are enjoying or going overboard with taking lives it’s inconsequential, Laufey wants to kill the opposing king (who just happens to be a ‘good’ character) and will resort to low-handed methods to do so, etc. The narrative itself is from the frame of reference of the ‘good’ and we only see warriors of Jotunheim though so we understand why it’s like this, because regardless of their race/experiences the narrative carries, even if it most definitely would be seen as racist from our real-life perspectives if the ‘monstrous’ race were presented by actual people of colour, even if it would make sense for the people on on different realms living in different environments to be different from each other, and realistic even for that to be the root of some conflict. 

tldr; not using a specific label to prevent negative presentations of the characters seems a bit strange to do when the coding would be based off the text, but with limited representation available I see why it would be done, even if I still believe minority-coding is free game to expand/interpret.

Improperly Labeling a Character as “POC-coded” Suggests the Experiences of All People of Color are the Same 

The article argues that labeling Loki as POC-coded “suggests that all people of color have the same experiences, when in reality, people of color come from different places, have different cultures, and have different traditions.” And while it’s true that the term doesn’t go into detail about which particular experiences (and these experiences can vary vastly due to diversity!) the appropriate measure would be to remove the umbrella term POC altogether as people of colour tend to also vary. But that’s also exactly why it’s an all-encompassing general term? It’s a way to denote anyone who isn’t “white” and has the associated cultural privilege that comes with the concept of white supremacy.  

And, obviously, in the fictional setting presented, the concept of white supremacy is not prodded at, but cultural supremacy is definitely one that makes recurring appearances, right next to the parts about Asgard being a realm built on imperialism with ongoing colonial practice. 

My take on this is that Loki’s narrative features a struggle with identity after finding out he’s of a different race and was being treated differently his entire life and being Jotun was presumably a part of the reasoning even if he didn’t know it. He’s basically treated as of less worth for inherently existing differently. I do believe that racism is a common-enough POC experience, but that while Loki was born with blue skin he passes/appears white which is why I don’t say that Loki is a POC, just that he has been coded/can be interpreted this way. 

There’s also the entire thing with Loki trying to fit in and prove he belongs by trying to fit the theory and be The Most Asgardian by committing genocide (which ultimately makes no difference as he’s still not the ‘acceptable’ version of Asgardian), and the denial/rejection of his birth culture in destructively lashing out towards them (which even Thor is confused by because Loki isn’t typically violent), and the fact his self worth plummets and he is passively suicidal upon finding out he’s Jotun (internalized racism? general drop in self-worth after finding out he’s adopted and has been lied to? Bit of both?), but what do I know, I’m sure none of those are, at their base, common experiences or relatable feelings for anyone or decent rep because we see such themes on-screen presented wonderfully in different lights all the time. 

tldr; every set of experiences could be different, some types of discrimination could overlap, if you limit an umbrella term to only very specific circumstances then it’s no longer an umbrella term.

Suggesting that White Characters are Meant to be Seen as People of Color Ignores the Actual Characters of Color that are Present in these Stories

I don’t agree with most of this section, but that may just be the way the arguments are put together, which I don’t blame the author for.

“ Implying that Loki is a person of color completely ignores Heimdall and Hogun, the only Black and Asian Asgardians who appear in the movie. ”

Characters such as Hogun and Heimdall which are played by actual people of colour have smaller roles in the films and any prejudice they could face for being POC in-universe isn’t made apparent, while Loki at the very least comes to the realization that something he couldn’t change (race, parentage,) was having him treated differently his whole life and had to come to terms with it. The Vanir/Aesir are also both treated similarly on-screen, and Heimdall having dark skin isn’t plot relevant, whereas Jotnar are treated as lesser consistently and are relevant through the movie (breaking into the vault, Thor and co. attack Jotunheim, Loki’s deal with Laufey, the attempted regicide (and the successful one XD), destroying jotunheim, Loki saying he’s not Thor’s brother,). 

I also see including characters as POC-coded as... more representation? In all canon-compliant interpretations of the characters Hogun being Vanir is always explicitly mentioned because it’s a fact that just is, up to the appearance and even the world-building of Vanaheim in some fanworks use particularly East Asian culture as inspiration. I have never come across a Marvel fandom Heimdall interpretation where he’s not Black... but because these characters are more minor/side-characters of course they get less attention! 

“ In Loki’s fandom, Heimdall’s name sometimes gets thrown in to suggest that it was he all along who was the real villain due to his “racism” against Loki and the rest of the Jotun. It is, of course, ironic to suggest that somehow the only Black Asgardian to appear in the movie can oppress the privileged white prince. “

I... don’t know where to start with this. But the example of theorizing given in the article wasn’t suggesting Heimdall was bad or trying to explain his actions in Thor 1 by saying he is Black... and just looking at a character’s actions shouldn’t be done less or more critically because of skin tone in my opinion. Heimdall may have been trying to do what was best and protect the realm but if the audience didn’t know that Loki was up to dodgy things then the coding would be switched around because he was trying to spy and committed treason and then tried to kill Loki. People... can hold feelings towards others... regardless of skin... and suspect them... for reasons other than skin... although I do still have questions about whether Heimdall knew Loki was Jotun or not. (Even if I personally don’t think it’d make a difference to how he’d treat Loki?)

Some Loki fans have also suggested that because Jotuns have blue skin that this alone makes him a person of color (even if the audience is only allowed to see Loki in his true Jotun form for mere seconds of screentime). This, again, shows a lack of understanding when it comes to race. It doesn’t matter what skin color the Jotuns have. 

Race can differentiate between physical and/or behavioural characteristics!! Not being blue all the time doesn’t make him any less Jotun!! He’s got internalized stuff to work through and is used to being Aesir!! At least 1 parent is Jotun so even if Loki was passing as Aesir he’s probably Jotun!! (I don’t know how magic space genetics work for sure but Loki being Jotun was an entire very important jump-starting point in Thor 1!!). It’s a fantasy text and typically things like having different coloured skin indicates a different race or is sometimes if a species has multiple then is just considered a skin colour. That’s how coding works!! The Jotnar are very specifically the only race we see in the movie with a skin-tone not within the ‘normal’ human range, which alienates them to the audience from the get-go!! They’re an “other” and on the opposite side to the ‘good’ characters.

Both Loki and his birth father, Laufey (Colm Feore), are played by white men, and it is impossible for a white man to successfully play a character of color. 

The specification of men here bothers me, but yes, you don’t get ‘white’ people to play characters of colour if it can be avoided. (And it can be avoided.)

This also connects with the previous point made that people of color come from various places. There is nothing specifically about the Jotun that could be traced to any specific person of color, and even if there were, there would be no way for white men to portray them without being disrespectful.

This is where arguments about the definition of coding and how specificity/generalizations and do/don’t come in. I know I’m subjective and lean towards the more rep the better, but while I agree ‘white’ people wouldn’t be able to respectfully play a POC I don’t think that rule should have to carry over into fantasy-based fiction. I know texts reflect on reality and reality can reflect within texts, but if contextually there is racial discrimination and there are similar ideas which resonate with the audience’s own experiences I’d say it’s coded well enough to allow that.

tldr; Thor 1′s narrative revolves mainly around Thor and Loki, of which race is kinda kinda a significant theme in Loki’s part of the story. Not so much explored with less-developed side characters such as Heimdall and Hogun, even though their actors are actual people of colour. 

How Much of this is Really Well-Intentioned?

In the fantasy space viking world Heimdall and Hogun don’t face any on-screen prejudice and their appearance is not mentioned (which is nice, for sure! good to have casual rep!) but adding on to the roles they play in the narrative the explicit fantasy-racism in the movie isn't aimed at Asian/Black characters, but towards the Humans -to a lesser extent- and the Jotnar, including Loki, who only just found out he comes under that bracket.

The article mentions how fandom space toxicity often “reaches the actors who portray the characters,“ which is true, and it’s shameful that people have to justify their roles or presences are harassed for the pettiest things like skin tone/cultural background, but I don’t see coding characters as removing the spotlight from interesting characters such as those which are actually POC, rather expressing a demand for more rep, since well-written complex characters which are diverse are often absent/minor enough in the media, and therefore can get easily brushed aside in both canon and fandom spaces.

tldr; It’s obviously not a replacement for actual representation, but, if a character is marginalized and can be interpreted as coded, even if they would only be considered so within the context of the textual landscape, I don’t see why spreading awareness through exploring the coding as a possibility for the character shouldn’t be done, even if the media is being presented by people who are ‘white’ or privileged or may not fall into the categories themselves, as long as it’s done respectfully to those it could explicitly represent.

[air-in-words]

Badger Snakes and The "Red-Stained Ledger"

Since my recent announcement identifying as a Badger Snake (don't @ me if I change my primary at some point lol still going back over that one,) I've looked up some characters that have been identified as Badger Snakes, and found two things:

1) There weren't very many in fiction and

2) most go through the same personal journey I had described in my previous post.

By that, I mean, a very similar feeling of self-loathing or feeling as though you have some dirty secret to hide, AKA the Red-Stained Ledger Natasha Romanoff refers to. The two main ones that have been agreed upon I'll be focusing on are Woody from Toy Story and the aforementioned Black Widow, but I'll also be bringing two new characters into the fray, one that's been sorted as such based on the portrayal, and one that I've discovered on my own. They are Selina Kyle AKA Catwoman and Dewey Finn from School of Rock.

It's interesting to find the similar plotlines that certain sortings are given consistently in media, and The Power Behind the Throne AKA Badger Snake seems to pretty much only have the one: They fight for the group that they are loyal to, but they can't seem to help but do so in a way that they aren't proud of, one that they're sure would lead said group to shun them.

I'm sure someone could point out a character I'm not referencing here that doesn't have that plot, but at the very least, this plot dominates the sorting.

Woody in the first movie goes through exactly that issue. He only wants to fight for Andy's toys, and in many ways, all toys he comes across. He makes choices that he believes will benefit everyone, and prides himself on being able to make the "tough choices." But, he ends up having to do so in a "duplicitous" way, when he seeks to manipulate Buzz Lightyear out of his group. This is a horrible, dirty secret to him, and he feels almost as if he could never return to them, never show his face again because of how he chooses to fight. In the end, he reaffirms that his actions come from a good place, a place of love for his group, and finds ways to use his crafty talents that are slightly more constructive and a little less "cloak and dagger."

Natasha Romanoff has given me the namesake for this Badger Snake element: the Red-Stained Ledger. She describes her desire to fight for her country, for her family, but struggles with what she knows she's good at. She believes she's inherently a bad person and is determined to remain a loner due to her "badness," due to the "monster" she is. Good people don't lie or manipulate. Good people... uh... I dunno, bake cakes or something? Work humble jobs? But, her contribution to the world, her ability to be clever and tricky, means that holding her group, her country, her family, the Avengers themselves, only in her heart and not in her hands. But, her true colors are shown in her never-ending dedication to the cause, down to her being willing to give her life so that no one else has to do it. In a way, it's sad, because she died believing she in some way deserved it. But, none of her teammates felt that way about her. She may have been crafty, a master manipulator, and a skillful liar, but she was the farthest thing from bad.

Now, onto the two newer additions. I've seen Selina Kyle sorted as Double Snake, and I would agree that there are many interpretations that could fit the bill. But, if you ask me, the truest interpretation of her is as The Power Behind the Throne, the Robin Hood with no loud cause to shout from the rooftops; only a desire to help the people of Gotham. She uses her skills as a thief to act as a sort of "guardian angel" to the poorest in Gotham, but she has no grand statement to make. She sees people hurting, her group, the underdogs of Gotham, and came to their aid. But she does so quietly, secretly, because she believes in her heart that the way she has done so is not worthy of praise. She's a con and a thief, but, she places people above all else. She, in some interpretations, is one of the main people to open Bruce's eyes to the fact that not all criminals are necessarily bad people. Some of them are just in terrible situations they can't get out of. And yet, she won't afford that benefit of the doubt to herself, believing she is simply a broken toy not worth fixing. Her occasionally lackadaisical attitude towards killing may seem to make Badger primary unlikely, but Badgers are not always loyal to ALL humans. Her group is the poor and downtrodden, and those who act against them are less than human in her eyes.

Now, we come to my personal favorite, my own personal discovery: Dewey Finn from one of my favorite movies, School of Rock.

Dewey is a fabulous example of a Badger Snake, in my personal opinion. His chosen group is Rock with a Capital R and "the band," whichever band that may currently be. He may have some sort of Burnt Snake primary performance/model going on, wanting to play the part of a "rock star" that truly only cares about himself, but his true loyalty is very clear. He is worried about doing his chosen group justice in every way, making sure that Rock is being well-represented and that he's serving his current band the very best he has to offer. Being kicked out of his band at the very beginning is earth-shattering to him, not because he has a Snake primary style devotion to only them, but because they told him he let them down, and implying that he wasn't representing Rock the way he should. His Snake primary performance/model melts away as he bonds to his new band, the kids he teaches. He brings them into his chosen group of Rock and creates a new bonded group with them in particular as they form a band. He actually finds himself liberated by taking a backseat to the children (a very Badger primary thing to enjoy,) allowing Zack to play his song, guiding Freddie away from making bad choices, helping Tamika find her voice, encouraging fellow Snake secondary Summer how to use her shrewdness, and, using a method I believe is best utilized by Badger Snakes, helping Principal Mullins find her chill. Lol.

Badger Snakes, more than any other Snake secondary type, will rely on the "we aren't so different you and I" approach to get what they want. He finds out Mullins also enjoys Rock. This is something they have in common! Let's create a situation where we "naturally" find out we have this thing in common, placing us both in the same group. Although other primaries don't glorify groups as much as Badger primaries do, all people are more likely to listen to or help out someone they feel is like them in some way. So, Dewey puts some Stevie Nicks on the jukebox and gets Mullins on his side.

In a similar fashion to the characters listed above, Dewey believes he is truly a loser and has nothing of any actual value or goodness to provide. But, the children help him see he's wrong, and he finds a way to utilize his talents in a way that truly fulfills him.

In conclusion, although seemingly unrepresented, I think there actually may be quite a few more Badger Snakes hiding in media, and, perhaps, they can be outed by looking for the Red-Stained Ledger plotline. Badger primaries are more likely, in my opinion, to be disturbed by their actions than say a Lion primary, due to where their loyalties truly lie. Although Lions may fight for the right thing, and that right thing may involve people's rights or serving a group, they serve that right thing before any of the people they may steamroll over to achieve it. Badgers, by definition, serve things. And, usually, lying, cheating, or otherwise being crafty is viewed as the worst possible way to serve someone or something. They do care about the things they may hurt or damage through their actions, and how they use their talents does, in fact, matter to them immensely.

So, to my Badger Snakes out there struggling with their own so-called "Red-Stained Ledgers", just remember that Dewey Finn would think you're kick-ass.

EDIT: Sorry, was thinking about it, and had to put an edit. Another way to think of this plotline/character archetype is mentioned in School of Rock as well as in a musical I know very well. I wouldn't use this moniker as the name for this plotline, only because it describes a very specific Snake secondary, one that is playful and light-hearted, and not all Snake secondaries are like this.

Zack's song refers to Dewey as The Magic Man, a person that swoops in and, almost by magic (in actuality, manipulation) brings out the best in the people around them. In the aforementioned musical, this character is called The Music Man.

Harold Hill may very well be another Badger Snake, although one more heavily disguised than Dewey Finn. I won't go too deep into his characterization here, but know he's a conman who claims to be a band instructor, while he has no musical talent himself, planning on taking the money for the uniforms and instruments and running. Instead, almost without realizing it, he encourages and manipulates the people of the town he enters into becoming better versions of what they are now. And, the most tragic part of his character is revealed once another character, one of the children he's conned, points out that there isn't a band, and never has been one. Harold tells him "I always think there's a band, kid."

It's interesting that, in both of these cases, they are associated with music and an almost mystical ability to bring out the best in others. I might do a more in-depth look at Harold Hill at some point, since I've been planning on doing some musical characters for a bit.

If thinking about having a Red-Stained Ledger is too negative for your own self-image, think of yourself as The Music Man. Your friends and the people around you may actually see you as an almost mystical force for good, someone who always seems to know the right thing to say or do to bring out the best in them. :)

[commentaryvorg]

Digimon Data Squad Dub Comparison Episode 2 - Marcus’ Inner Strength!

This is a companion to my commentary on the original Japanese Digimon Savers! Reading my commentary on the original version of this episode (which you can find here) is recommended before reading this dub comparison.

Original name ~ Dubbed name

Masaru Daimon ~ Marcus Damon

Yoshino Fujieda ~ Yoshino “Yoshi” Fujieda

Tohma H. Norstein ~ Thomas H. Norstein

Sayuri Daimon ~ Sarah Damon

Chika Daimon ~ Kristy Damon

Captain Rentarou Satsuma ~ Commander Richard Sampson

[Since several characters share the same name between the original and the dub, quotes from the dub will always be in italics, while quotes from the original will not, in order to distinguish them.]

Kudamon:  “Satsuma, what must be done with Raptor-1?”

~~~~~

Kudamon:  “Tell them what will happen to Raptor-1, Commander Sampson.”

Originally, Kudamon was asking, making it somewhat more sensible to think that Satsuma is not actually planning on sending Agumon back, despite the way he awkwardly implies as such by going on to demonstrate it with the Cockatrimon egg. In the dub, it sounds a lot more like Sampson and Kudamon have already firmly decided that Agumon is going to be sent back, which should not actually be the case.

(Granted, I found this whole aspect rather awkward in the original, but the dub is not helping.)

Satsuma:  “Digimon who cause problems in the human world…”

~~~~~

Sampson: “Any Digimon who break the real-world law…”

While I didn’t appreciate the original calling it a “crime” for a Digimon to be in the human world, at least this line got to the actual point – that a Digimon being in the human world is simply a problem that they need to clean up. The dub leans even more into this “crime” idea by claiming that there’s some sort of explicit law about this, even though Digimon from the Digital World should have no way of knowing about such a law.

Also, do you notice another key difference here? The original calls it the “human world”. The dub calls it the “real world”. The latter is a term that Savers never uses to refer to the human world, which I appreciate a lot. Calling the human world the “real” world implies that the Digital World is somehow less real and less important than the human world, and by extension so are Digimon. That is extremely the wrong attitude to have about it, especially for this series in particular, and I appreciate that the people in DATS, and the writers of Savers, understand this. To be fair, the dub almost always gets this right, too! But apparently someone was sleeping on the job this time.

Satsuma:  “We simply sent it back to the Digital World, where Digimon live.”

~~~~~

Sampson: “What you’ve just seen was the Digimon you defeated being sent back to the Digital World.”

The dub’s version of this line sounds a lot more unnecessarily expositiony, as if they think viewers couldn’t have picked up which Digimon this was from the flashback to the egg appearing after the fight.

Agumon: “Boss, please do something, I don’t wanna go back!”

What does he mean, go “back”? Agumon doesn’t remember ever being in the Digital World in the first place.

Sampson: “It’s a Digivice.”

Kudamon: “Marcus dropped it when he fled.”

The dub fills a silence to establish another obvious fact that definitely nobody could ever have picked up through implication.

Satsuma:  “I see. That man must’ve…”

~~~~~

Sampson: “That kid. Full of surprises.”

Since the actual word Satsuma used in Japanese was “person��� and not “man”, apparently it completely went over the dubbers’ heads that Satsuma was meant to be referring to the old man who gave Masaru his Digivice, not Masaru himself. Way to miss the point there and lose out on the implication that he knows the guy.

Agumon: “Good idea, Boss. No-one will think there’s aaanything suspicious about a walking cardboard box!”

Pfft. The thing is, I don’t think Agumon’s being sarcastic. That’s kind of a trait that dub-Agumon has that’s a not quite there in the original – a tendency to unironically say dumb things that most people would only mean as snark. I kinda like it; it’s cute and amusing and fitting for his character.

Agumon:  “If this is junk food, then I’m happy to be a garbage dump!”

And here’s that other dub-added trait of Agumon’s that I don’t appreciate as much: somehow knowing about human concepts he really should not know about yet. Though calling this one a “trait” is debatable when it’s more like the dubbers not thinking things through.

Sayuri:  “Really, where were you last night? I thought you got in trouble with the police again! I was so worried!”

~~~~~

Sarah: “Well… you’re busted, that’s what’s going on. Fess up! While you were out getting into trouble, I was up all night worried sick! Now where were you?”

Sarah’s line here has a bit of a difference from Sayuri’s, which you can also hear in her voice – she was still worried, but she’s focusing this a lot more on being stern and angry at her son for misbehaving. I liked that Sayuri wasn’t really that angry at Masaru despite having plenty of reason to be, and I’m a little sad to lose that.

Sarah also doesn’t imply any prior trouble with the police, but the dub of episode 1 did add in a few little things that already implied that, so I don’t mind.

Marcus: “Hahaha! What trouble? I don’t even know the meaning of the word! You really oughta buy me a dictionary!”

I enjoy this line. It is appropriately dorky and ridiculous and obviously-trying-to-distract-from-the-truth.

[Agumon tumbles out of the closet he was hiding in]

Agumon: “Why d’ya keep shoving me into small places?”

Aww, of course Agumon wouldn’t like being kept in small places after his time being held at DATS! The original implied something like this with the animal cage, but it didn’t bring it up for the closet (and implicitly also the box), too.

Sayuri:  “Masaru, remember our promise?”

~~~~~

Sarah:  “I hope you’re not forgetting the promise we made.”

Sarah, again, sounds sterner than Sayuri here. It’s like she thinks Marcus would potentially just forget all about the promise because he never really cared about it that much. Like she had to nag him into even agreeing to keep it in the first place. That’s absolutely not the point of their promise to tell each other everything until his dad comes back, not in the original; it’s a way to help keep the family together in his absence that Masaru would have been 1000% on board with wanting to keep, in principle.

Kristy: “You don’t mistake a thing like seeing a giant lizard, *Mom*!”

Kristy has a lot more attitude here than Chika did.

The Japanese kushikatsu that Yoshino compliments Sayuri on gets called a corn dog in the dub, which is fair enough localisation; they do look similar.

Yoshino:  “So that’s why I’ll be freeloading off you here for a while.”

~~~~~

Yoshi:  “So I guess we’ll be seeing a lot of each other, since I now have to keep an eye on you two guys.”

Sadly, Yoshi does not make a point of the free food she’ll be getting out of this.

Marcus:  “No way! You’re not taggin’ along with me, toots!”

Can we not? I thought this stopped after the first episode; I guess I was wrong. Sigh. It does still stop soon, I’m pretty sure.

Marcus: “Just great. He even eats in his sleep.”

This makes it seem a lot more like Marcus is only disgruntled because of Agumon’s loud sleep-eating, and not because Yoshi is sleeping in his bed and he gets the floor.

Agumon: “And what is school again?”

Marcus:  “…A place where there are tons of people to fight.”

It’s basically the same line as the original, but Marcus’s tone sounds a lot more bitter, less like he’s actually trying to make Agumon think this, and more like he’s just grumpily thinking “I wish it were but actually it sucks”.

Yoshi: “And safety rule number one says: Keep your Digimon stored!”

I doubt this is an actual written rule anywhere at DATS. And if it is, surely it should be a secrecy rule, not safety? It’s not like a well-behaved Digimon, like all partners of DATS members should be, is inherently unsafe just by being out and about.

Marcus’s squawks as he rushes out the door because he’s going to be late, again, sound a lot more bitter and grumpy, like he just hates going to school. There was none of this impression given with Masaru! Sure, I don’t think school is particularly Masaru’s favourite thing either, but it doesn’t come across like he’s upset about having to go there. Apparently the dubbers have just decided that, because Marcus is A Jock™, he’s obviously meant to be the kind of teenager who hates school, right.

Marcus:  “If you’re gonna follow me, you could at least give me a lift in your car!”

You know, he has a point here. Masaru didn’t think to ask that.

This car conversation is the first point at which Yoshino starts calling him Agumon, but meanwhile Yoshi is still calling him Raptor-1. I guess sharing a meal with him as if he’s actually a person or something didn’t do anything for her.

Yoshino:  “I won’t have to look after you guys either… but I guess that’ll never happen.”

~~~~~

Yoshi: “And, the best part of all is that I wouldn’t have to babysit you guys any more.”

Despite having the same snarky look on her face for this line, Yoshi is not actually snarking at them here. I am disappoint.

Kristy: “When he came in to feed the chickens and rabbits this morning, they were all gone. Nobody knows where they went.”

So the dub is going for the insistence that the animals definitely just disappeared mysteriously. No Animals Were Harmed, guys. I guess the Kunemon just… kidnapped them?

Which… is fairly understandable. It does mean we lose out on that cute line where Masaru commented that it was terrible.

Agumon:  “I couldn’t get used to being inside that cramped Digivice!”

~~~~~

Agumon: “Please, Boss! All these cramped places are making me claustrophobic.”

The dub makes more of a point of connecting together all of Agumon’s experiences in being put in cramped spaces, which is some extra nuance that I appreciate!

Yoshi: “You know, Agumon, there should be a rule about leaving your Digivice without permission.”

…I thought there literally was? Safety rule number one, wasn’t it? This should count as part of that. Yeah, I figured that dub “addition” wasn’t going to be an actual thing that mattered.

Lalamon: “Frankly I don’t know how you slept with all his snoring, but…”

Lalamon has some added sass here, wow.

Marcus & Agumon: “The ultimate team! It’s fightin’ time again!”

“The ultimate team” is a cute thing for these two to start calling themselves, but I find it a little bit of a stretch that they’re doing so this soon.

Marcus: “Kristy! Don’t! Worry! We’ll! Get! Whoever! Did! This!”

Marcus somehow manages to be even more embarrassingly dorky than Masaru was here. Maybe it’s the lip-flap’s fault that he’s yelling it so awkwardly like this?

Agumon: “What is it with you and these cramped spaces, Boss?”

This is as Agumon is locked inside the animal cage. I still appreciate how they’re connecting all these together.

…Though at this point, since Agumon has expressed his dislike for these so many times, it becomes more of a dick move deliberately ignoring Agumon’s wishes for Marcus to still be doing this anyway.

Agumon:  “I hate being cooped up. Locked up like a criminal.”

Connecting it even more to Agumon’s experiences at DATS! Without actually explicitly saying that this is why!

You know how I brought up in my commentary of the original episode that Agumon not liking this is probably to do with that? It’s actually only because the dub made more of a point of this that I picked up on it. Though I still believe that was probably meant to be the point in the original, it was perhaps a little bit too subtle about it. The dub being actually good at subtlety in ways that weren’t there in the original is very decidedly not going to be a common theme here, so let’s appreciate it while we have it.

Masaru:  “What are you doing out here so late? Did you come to check on the cages?” [The kid doesn’t respond.] “Hey, say something!”

~~~~~

Marcus: “You come to check on the cages or somethin’? Well, thanks, but you shouldn’t be here. Now go home.” [The kid doesn’t respond.] “Hey, did you hear me? Get outta here!”

Marcus is a little harsher to this kid than Masaru was; it’s there in his tone of voice, too. It does make sense to tell him to go home, because Digimon secrecy etc, but I do like how Masaru didn’t actually care about that and was just curious as to what was up with this kid. Masaru is good with kids. It comes across like Marcus is significantly less so.

Takashi:  “I wished they would just disappear! And then, this guy…”

~~~~~

Takashi:  “I wished they’d all just disappear, and then they did! Thanks to him…”

(Takashi’s name is not actually mentioned in the dub, so whatever, let’s assume he’s still called Takashi.)

Something about the way dub-Takashi expresses this reads a little differently to me. It feels slightly less like he’s conscious of the fact that the Kunemon came and got rid of the animals because of his wishes, and more like it was just a happy coincidence. The fact that he actually admits that the animals disappeared and says it’s “thanks” to the Kunemon also suggests more like he’s actually happy about that happening.

…Though, him admitting “and then they did [disappear]” might be part of the dub scrambling to reassure viewers that No Animals Were Harmed. And since that is apparently literally what happened and they really weren’t killed, I guess Takashi would be less traumatised and more just satisfied that he got his wish.

If he is less traumatised, there’s less explanation for why he passes out, but, eh.

Yoshi: “Stay back.”

Marcus:  “Do *what*?!”

I love the incredulity in Marcus’s response. What do you mean, don’t fight a thing?!

Masaru:  “Don’t be stupid! There’s no way I’ll turn my back on the enemy and run like a coward! No matter how difficult it gets, I’ll stand firm without taking a step back! That’s… how a man should live!”

~~~~~

Marcus: “No, I’ll never run away! An ultimate fighter never shows cowardice! No matter how difficult the fight might be, I stand my ground. That’s what a winner does! Fightin’ time agaaain!”

I’m going to be doing a lot of complaining about the dub messing up most of Masaru’s manly speeches that I adore. This one, though, is okay – it’s pretty simply don’t-give-up stuff that there isn’t much to mess up about.

However, what is very different, you might notice, is the lack of this being about what a man does. I pointed out a couple of bits in episode 1 where the dub basically kept the mentions of manliness or even added one in where it wasn’t there before, but I also mentioned that this is very rare for them. Because this here is usually what they do – remove the references to manliness altogether.

They probably mean well with this? They probably think Masaru’s manliness thing is some kind of toxic masculinity that they don’t want their kids’ show protagonist to be espousing. But here’s the thing: it isn’t toxic masculinity. If the dubbers assume that’s what it is just because they heard the word “man” being used a lot, without even bothering to, you know, listen to what Masaru is actually saying when he talks about this, I am very disappointed in them.

Masaru’s concept of manliness is one of the most interesting and distinctive things about his character, and I’m sad to see the dub water it down. Even while removing the references to manliness, some of the general principle of it can still be kept (though the dub will often be losing even that, as we’ll see), but without one central word that he always connects these ideas to, the whole thing seems a lot less pointed and cohesive, and it’s a lot harder to realise that it’s A Thing about him in the first place.

(And we also lose the delightful connection that it has to the thing with his dad, which I could already pick up on the implication of at this point on my very first watch. Without the specific mention of manliness here, I wouldn’t have figured out what makes Masaru tick nearly so soon, and I wouldn’t have enjoyed my first viewing of this series quite as much.)

Marcus: “Ready to fight, Agumon?”

Agumon: “Yeah!”

Marcus: “All right, then!”

Marcus’s tone of voice with the “all right, then!” sounds weirdly sinister and not at all like an excited dork ready to go win a fight alongside his new best friend. What on earth were the voice directors doing here.

(I’m tentatively not going to blame this on Marcus’s voice actor, because he’s generally really good at his job.)

Old man:  “This human world must be too small for you to swing around these fiery fists of yours. How about it? In the Digimon’s world, you’ll find plenty of formidable opponents to fight to your heart’s content.”

~~~~~

Old man:  “If you want to become the ultimate fighter who fights the ultimate battles, then you’re not going to find it in this world. But in the Digital World, there’s an unlimited number of opponents who will test your fighting skills, and make you the best fighter on *two* worlds!”

Um. He was not originally supposed to be literally talking about the Digital World here. This is supposed to be, at least on an in-universe level, just the old guy saying something that’ll help Masaru realise he wants to join DATS. The Digital World has nothing to do with that, because DATS isn’t supposed to involve him necessarily ever going there.

Marcus: “Then I’ll be… the ultimate…!”

Credit to the dub, they are actually remembering that change they made in episode 1 where Marcus just wants to be an ultimate fighter and doesn’t feel like he is one yet. This is still consistent… for now.

Masaru:  “Please! Let us join DATS!”

~~~~~

Marcus: “Well… Guess what. We’re gonna do you a favour and join DATS.”

I liked how sincere Masaru was about really wanting to join, knowing that they have every reason to refuse him. But Marcus? Is just being an arrogant prick about it. Apparently he doesn’t know how to swallow his pride. And this is despite him having the same humble, pleading body language as in the original, which this attitude does not remotely match with.

Satsuma:  “Daimon Masaru, I figured you would come to us one day.”

~~~~~

Sampson:  “I knew it would happen. Frankly, I’m surprised that it took you this long to ask, Marcus.”

With Sampson’s phrasing about Marcus asking, this is specifically just about him expecting Marcus to want to join since he met Agumon. The implication the original had that he’d already been expecting to Masaru to end up here before Agumon even showed up is completely missing. Another implication that apparently went right over the dubbers’ heads.

Masaru:  “Now we can fight against as many strong guys as we want!”

~~~~~

Marcus: “And just think of all the bad guys we’re gonna get to beat up!”

Marcus specifies that their opponents will be bad guys, which is not the point in the original. Masaru isn’t particularly doing this to feel like a hero; he’s just doing this because he wants to challenge himself.

I imagine the dub made this change because they want to emphasise that, hey, our kids’ show protagonist who fights people a lot is definitely not a bad person, really, see, because it’s only bad guys he fights!!! But that isn’t necessary. Masaru’s fighting thing is already perfectly honourable, because he only fights people who want to fight him.

Tohma:  “It’s been a while since I’ve last seen it… Mom’s homeland, Japan.”

~~~~~

Thomas: “After so long… I’m coming home… at last.”

Tohma’s words implied that he didn’t quite think of Japan as his own home, but apparently Thomas is completely fine in seeing it that way.

We also lose the mention of his mom being from Japan, which is a little nugget of information that I think we otherwise wouldn’t have for quite a few more episodes. Though I suppose simply the fact that he thinks of Japan as home implies that part of his family must be local despite his more prominent Austrian heritage that we’re going to learn about soon enough.

Overall differences

This episode isn’t that significantly different overall; most of the differences are just the usual lost nuance or less sense-making or Marcus being less interesting, and also people generally being a bit sassier.

I genuinely like the added focus on Agumon not liking cramped spaces, implicitly because they remind him of his time imprisoned at DATS. An actually good addition, and decent subtlety!

Marcus is vaguely more of a jerk in some bits, and also I guess he hates school because he’s A Jock™ or whatever.

The mention of being a man is removed from his speech. I’m specifically noting it here because this is the first time we’re seeing it happen, but this is also going to be a regular thing that I’ll probably stop mentioning in these summaries before long.

I suppose technically the biggest change in what actually happens is that No Animals Were Harmed. Which is something I understand them doing, but it also does mean Takashi loses a bit of interesting nuance because he’s not accidentally a murderer.

[buildacatboy]

I posted 5,392 times in 2021

92 posts created (2%)

5300 posts reblogged (98%)

For every post I created, I reblogged 57.6 posts.

I added 355 tags in 2021

#tf2 - 104 posts

#wwdits - 36 posts

#yeah - 35 posts

#reference - 31 posts

#futurama - 30 posts

#fav - 28 posts

#french tw - 24 posts

#nudity - 23 posts

#eye contact - 22 posts

#smoking - 22 posts

Longest Tag: 140 characters

#yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

My Top Posts in 2021

#5

i stg one of these days im gonna make an essay about engineer tf2 woobification “and ooooh hes everyones dad hed never hurt anyone!!” and how much i despise it and none of you mother fuckers can stop me

42 notes • Posted 2021-08-10 22:38:28 GMT

#4

my twin brother once told me that if you told medic he was based he would bolt you to the ceiling and leave you there and honestly i believe him to this day

42 notes • Posted 2021-08-20 04:47:59 GMT

#3

finally getting around to modeling mein veiner dog

but you wont like why nor the result

48 notes • Posted 2021-08-17 02:21:45 GMT

#2

heres why i think engie fanon is objectively wrong

So basically, the Engineer is one of the the three defense classes in Team Fortress 2 and tends to be subjected to Woobification a lot, people view him as kindly and polite and someone who greatly cares about his team.

While I do think he does care somewhat for his team, as all team members generally care about one another to a degree that they’re not trying to kill each other outside of their jobs about half the time in the comics, I think the assumption that he’s not a mean man is wrong.

first of all, HAVE YOU EVER EVEN PLAYED OR SEEN SOMEONE PLAY THE ENGINEER IN TF2?

Now, don’t get me wrong, the Engineer has a LOT of friendly lines to teammates, he offers to buy people beers and even tells them he’s proud of them-- but have you seen his non-friendly lines?

For example, it is implied that he may have a Napoleon complex or perhaps even a God complex if not both, and you can tell this mainly through lines you hear in the game itself. I’ll drop a few examples here with links to the actual voice lines themselves.

"I am a god!"

"I'm a killer of men, doc. That is the God's-honest truth."

"I'm wolverine-mean, you son of a bitch."

"I just beat on your sneaky ass like a mule, boy!"

"I'm done playin' games with you, boy."

Despite what you may think, the Engineer finds himself to be quite menacing. Also, I would like to mention, his main melee voiceline is "Take it like a man, shorty." which is hilarious given the fact that he is the shortest man out of all the mercenaries, further feeding into the idea of a napoleon complex. He’s very joyful and laughs a lot on the battlefield at death, which is kind of worrying regardless of whether or not he’s got a napoleon complex, just because he’s.. he’s not the one playing a video game? Ah?

As well as this, he’s canonically close friends with what most people would call the evilest character among the mercenaries, Doctor Ludwig Humboldt, otherwise known as Medic. MEDIC! 

That’s not for no goddamn reason, the Engineer is more than fine with doing brutal and horrific experiments on people in the name of science and he simply found someone to do them with! The main difference between him and Medic is that he’s a lot better at hiding his inherent madness than Medic is, and a lot of people in the fandom friggin buy his nonsense!

Though I’m sure if he wasn’t wearing his dorky goggles and hard hat all the time, people would be less inclined to buy it, because quite frankly, the Engineer without his goggles is a god damn nightmare. In the comics it looks fine, amazing even, but have you ever seen it in-game?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Ironically, the only other mercenary with a look scarier than that is Medic’s “Evil Grin” that’s actually just his normal smile. 

And I’m sorry but a lot of people tend to forget what actually happened in the comics? Sniper was fully willing to merc Demo and Ms.Pauling, Sniper DID end up dying, and Engie was COMPLETELY ABSENT! Now you could argue that this wasn’t necessarily his choice, but the point remains that he’s more loyal to the Administrator than his friends to the point of very possibly knowing about letting them ‘die’. Not to mention that he either does know that he’s missing a soul (AND DOESN’T CARE???) or willingly let his friends throw themselves at certain death while he was missing in action attending to the administrator-- contracts just mean more to him. I mean, unless of course when Medic was talking about having 9 souls in total, he was counting Miss Pauling and not Engie which is also pretty likely but that’s a debate for another day entirely, dear god.

I’m sure there’s more points I’m forgetting here, but I’ll add on later if I remember anything. Feel free to have discourse below.

91 notes • Posted 2021-08-10 23:29:59 GMT

#1

happy birthday mister Ludwig :]

350 notes • Posted 2021-06-23 21:53:27 GMT

Get your Tumblr 2021 Year in Review →

[shortnotsweet]

The Allegory of the Tin Man, the Dictator, and the Knight: a Dissection of Ironqrow and a Character Arc of Failure

“There lived in the Land of Oz two queerly made men who were best of friends. They were so much happier when together that they were seldom apart.”

— L. Frank Baum

A brief Ironqrow meta and character analysis of James Ironwood, the ultimate screw up, in three parts.

I. Qrow and Ironwood’s Homoeroticism in Canon Source Material and its Translation

II. Ironwood’s Repressed Characterization and the Inherent Chivalry of the Dictatorship

III. Ironwood, Alone

Qrow and Ironwood’s Homoeroticism in Canon Source Material and its Translation

Within the Oz series, the Tin Man and the Scarecrow are layered within homoerotic subtext, even if it is included unintentionally. Tison Pugh’s analysis Queer Utopianism and Antisocial Eroticism in L. Frank Baum's Oz Series posits that the land of Oz as portrayed within the series is a largely asexual environment of suspended adolescence that involves the deviation of binary gender norms, and of performative heterosexuality. Pugh refers to it later as a “queer utopia”. Men are portrayed as a lesser military force to women, and heterosexuality is a flimsy presence at best; all signs of procreation within Oz are stifled. While this could be chalked down to Baum not wanting to get into the subject of sex and exploration in a children’s series, it does contribute to a particular tone with real-life critiques of capitalism and a particular deconstruction of gender norms. Ozma, who will become the ruler of Oz after the Wizard and the Scarecrow respectively, for example, is originally a boy named Tip (the name itself holds phallic implications) who is “transformed” into a girl. The strongest military force is one of all-women led by a rebellious female general. Pugh observes, “At the same time that Baum satirizes...women as leaders…he consistently depicts women as more successful soldiers than men, and female troops appear better capable of serving militarily than male troops…[the] male army comprises of twenty-six officers and one private, and they are all cowards…” and cites the Frogman’s declaration that “Girls are the fiercest soldiers of all...they are more brave than men, and they have better nerves”.

RWBY itself isn’t opposed to this kind of subversion, either in its characters or its relationships. There’s an obvious effort to include LGBTQ+ representation (albeit primarily in the background), strong female characters are prevalent and make up most of the main and supporting cast, a character’s gender is not strictly reliant on its source material, and BlackSun, while cute and a valid ship in its own right, is treated as a heterosexual red herring to Bumbleby. Additionally, there have been a lot of hints by the voice actors, writers, and creators on social media that Qrow himself is queer, the infamous Ironqrow embrace included.

Admittedly, if I wanted to write an essay about the likelihood of Qrow being LGBTQ+ or having some kind of queer identity, I would probably focus more on his relationship with Clover, which had a lot more overt and probably canonically intentional Gay Vibes, and despite having known Qrow nowhere near as long as Ironwood has, it has just as much, if not more, to extrapolate. Unfortunately, that’s not the main point of this essay, although it remains relevant. While I personally don’t doubt that Qrow has had sex with women or experiences valid sexual attraction to them, I get the feeling that it is, to a degree, a performative act and a masculine assertation of enjoyment intended as a coping mechanism. It plays into the trope of the handsome, tortured alcoholic (best exemplified, perhaps, in the MCU’s Tony Stark, Dean Winchester in Supernatural, and critiqued in the superhero episode of Rick and Morty) who sleeps around just to recall the feeling of intimacy, or because he associates sexual ‘degradation’ as a reflection of his worth. Real self-deprecating, slightly misogynistic stuff. Qrow’s recall of short skirts, as well as his brief exchange with the waitress in an earlier volume, reminds me of one specific interaction between the Scarecrow and his own love interest. Within the series, the Qrow’s source-material counterpart, the Scarecrow, has one canonical love interest, the Patchwork Girl:

“Forgive me for staring so rudely,” said the Scarecrow, “but you are the most beautiful sight my eyes have ever beheld.”

“That is a high compliment from one who is himself so beautiful,” murmured Scraps, casting down her suspender-button eyes by lowering her head.

Pugh points out that the two of them never develop this relationship further than flirtation, and heterosexuality is reduced to a “spectral presence” lacking the “erotic energy [driving] these queer narratives in their presence”. Specifically, Qrow never reveals a serious or long running heterosexual love interest - he is not the father! [of Ruby] (despite much speculation that he and Summer Rose were involved) and he and Winter never really moved past the stage of ‘hostility with just a hint of sexual tension’ - and there is no debunking of potential queerness. His interactions with Clover (deserving of an entire essay on its own) seem to support this interpretation, and is more or less a confirmation of some kind of queer inclination or identity. Again, the “queer utopia” of Oz comes at the cost of the expulsion of the sexual or the mere mention of reproduction - still, through this device, same-sex relationships gain a new kind of significance with the diminishing nature of heterosexuality. Speaking of queer narratives, the Scarecrow and the Tin Man have the most tender and prolonged relationship of perhaps all the characters in the series, exchanging a lifelong commitment:

“I shall return with my friend the Tin Woodman,” said the stuffed one seriously. “We have decided never to be parted in the future.”

Within the source material, the Tin Man and the Scarecrow voluntarily live together, and are life partners in nearly every sense of the word. The second book in the Oz series is The Tin Woodman of Oz. In summary, the Tin Woodman recalls that he had a fiancée before the events of the first book, forgot all about her, and now must search her out so that they can get married. Who does he ask to accompany him in this pursuit? None other than his no-homo life partner, the Scarecrow. Although this sounds like a stereotypical heteronormative storyline, “this utopian wonderland...rejects heterosexual procreation...First, the Tin Woodman does not desire...Nimmie Amee...” and even acknowledges that due to the ‘nature’ of the heart that the Wizard had given him, he is literally incapable of romantically or passionately loving or desiring Nimmie, and by extent, women in general - to me, that works perfectly as an allegory for a gay man who is literally incapable of experiencing legitimate heterosexual urges, but ‘soldiers on’ out of obligation and societally enforced chivalry. “The Tin Woodman excuses himself from the heteronormative imperative...Only his sense of masculine honor, rather than a heteronomratively masculine sex drive, impels the Tin Woodman on his quest to marry his long-lost fiancée.” Again, Ironwood’s character follows the lines of propriety within the sphere of the wealthy elite, and his persona as a high-ranking military man and politician, as well as the conservative values instilled within Atlas, prioritize duty and obligation. This kind of culture is stifling and in a lot of ways aloof, as the upper class deludes itself into believing that it is objectively better and more advanced than its neighboring territories. *ahem the myth of American exceptionalism ahem*

“There lived in the Land of Oz two queerly made men who were best of friends. They were so much happier when together that they were seldom apart.”

I think it’s funny that the characters that Ironwood and Qrow are based off of are canonically the closest of friends, who coexist almost as a unit. In contrast, the first introduction we get of Ironwood and Qrow is a hostile exchange where they’re at each other’s throats, never on the same page, and never in sync, not when it matters. Indeed, Qrow snaps at Ironwood for his lack of communication, which is a recurring issue between the two of them on notable occasions. If the source material is anything to go by, there should be a significant relationship between the two of them, or at least some kind of connection, even if it goes unspoken or unacknowledged. To be fair, in RWBY’s canon, I think there is.

I’ve seen this joke that while Qrow hates the Atlas military, the only people he really seems to flirt with is Atlas military personnel. “Ice Queen” is something I interpreted to be partially hostile, partially mocking, and partially flirtatious, in equal spades - the voice actors and creators have indicated that it was flirtatious, and there was a whole Chibi episode dedicated to the concept of Qrow and Winter’s extrapolated sexual tension, albeit in jest. I might argue that his use of abbreviates aren’t reserved for people he dislikes, but for people who bring out his playful side. “Brat”, “Pipsqueak”, “Firecracker”, and “Kiddos” are all drawn from a place of affection, however short or mocking it may seem, because that’s what crows do: they mock others.

Qrow has little nicknames for people; while it’s not exclusively a sign of affection, I do get the feeling that ‘Jimmy’ is an informality that irks Ironwood, but can also be interpreted as Qrow giving James what he needs, rather than what he wants.

Glynda is by no means a pushover, but in assuring him that while he does questionable things, he’s still a good person, she’s softening the blow and probably further enabling deeply rooted and pre-existing traits, many of which contribute to his problematic control complex. It is established early on that Qrow resents the military (as he should), and it is implied that he’s spent a fair amount of encounters harassing and provoking military personnel (Winter being the most evident example of this), and has insulted the military numerous times to Ironwood’s face. He lectures Ironwood about the way he conducts his operations, his inability to communicate, and basically what a complete, inconsiderate asshole he really is.

What Ironwood needs is someone who operates outside of the pretense that he works, breathes, and lives under, and just tells it like it is. Jimmy isn’t all that - he’s a person, just like the rest of us, and he can flaunt all the titles that he wants, but James stripped down is still just Jimmy.

Qrow also is the kind of person who pries, who is insistent, and not particularly sensitive. For someone like Ironwood who has a lot of (physical and emotional) barriers, logically, in order for him to receive genuine understanding, Qrow fits the profile of someone who is invasive but not exploitive, who sees past the cracks in his armor and takes him for what he is. What is just important is that whoever Ironwood is with is someone who makes him want to try not only to be better, but to be real; thematically, General Ironwood seems to have a great respect for but a deep struggle with authenticity. He clearly resents the ignorance and frivolity of Atlas’s wealthy elite, as evidenced by his support for Weiss at the dinner party in announcing that “she’s one of the only people making any sense around here”, while struggling to project the facade that he’s carefully created.

See, we don’t have evidence that there is something going on between Ironqood and Qrow so much as we have enough evidence to inconclusively say that there’s not not something going on. I think there’s enough evidence to support the idea that something could be going on, or was going on.

When Qrow saves Ironwood at the Battle of Beacon, who is under the false impression that Qrow believes him to be the culprit of the attacks, his eyes follow Qrow and we get a closer shot of his awed expression; we the viewer can only imagine what he sees as Qrow arcs through the air and slices down a Grimm from behind his back. The focus on Ironwood’s expression portrays something like shock (so Qrow wasn’t trying to attack me after all, but then what the hell is he doing?), maybe wonder (I can’t take my eyes off of him, I can’t look away), maybe respect (I know he’s a good Hunter, but I’ve rarely seen him in action), but it is unfiltered nonetheless. In a show where fight scenes are vital to the progression of the story itself, the dynamics of these fights are at their best when they are character driven, whether it is revealing or reinforcing something about the characters and their relationships, or it is deciding their fates. There’s something to be said about characters being given moments together in battles, and what that says about the significance of their relationship. The best example of this might be the battle between Blake and Yang vs Adam; it served to give Adam what he deserved, help Blake and Yang reach closure in certain aspects of their own trauma, and solidify the bond between the girls. Similarly, Qrow and Ironwood’s moment is meant to reveal a theme that will later be revisited in volume 7; trust. Ironwood is startled but not shocked when he believes that Qrow distrusts him to the degree of attacking him, and is ready to attack or defend as needed.

Qrow tells him what he needs to hear, more or less: YOU’RE A DUMBASS. Ironwood is, indeed, a dumbass. While he does extend the olive branch of trust and good will to CRWBY and co. this trust is highly conditional and proves to be, while from a place of desperation and sincerity, at least partially performative.

When Ironwood snaps, he snaps hard.

Amber’s voice actress tweeted early on, joking that Qrow has two Atlas boyfriends, and Arryn has made comments, too. It’s one of the older ships, and the crew is certainly aware of it (“...extended chest bump...”).

Kerry has stated that he finds the Ironqrow relationship interesting, and wishes it had been explored more (additionally, allegedly lobbying that Ironwood’s arm in the Ironqrow hug scene be slightly lower). I’m not saying that they’re going to both make it out alive, or canon, or even that romantic subtext was intentionally woven into the script. All I’m saying is that I think their relationship is interesting too, especially when the subtext of their source material relationship is taken into context, and the way their characters are positioned is suggestive of some sort of compatibility, even if it is a hit or miss kind of opportunity, and I have the sinking suspicion that it was missed on both accounts.

The Tin Woodman of Oz concludes,

“All this having been happily arranged, the Tin Woodman returned to his tin castle, and his chosen comrade, the Scarecrow, accompanied him on the way. The two friends were sure to pass many pleasant hours together in talking over their recent adventures, for as they neither ate nor slept they found their greatest amusement in conversation.”

Ironwood’s Repressed Characterization and the Inherent Chivalry of the Dictatorship

“I don’t give a damn about Jacque Schnee...what about the other two? Do not return to this office until you have Qrow Branwen in custody.”

“And that’s not all we’ve lost...I had Qrow in my hands, and I didn’t do what needed to be done.”

Observe: Ironwood, at this point, does not care about politics. I doubt he’s ever wanted to, or ever liked it (if his tired outburst at the dinner party is any indication) but his Knightly qualities (we’ll get to that) have, up till this point, prompted him to adhere to them for both power and etiquette. James surrounds himself in a world that he understands and despises; more than anything, he’d like to be a general, a commander, and the Knight in Shining Armor archetype, because warfare is something he understands. It is a testament to his (superhuman) willpower that he forces himself to become fluent in the language of politics, and to live and breathe in it. To clarify, Ironwood sees himself as a man who does what needs to be done; if he wants to change and control Atlas, he will have to involve himself in its politics.

Likely, his resilience has contributed to the way he views himself and what he deserves, as someone long-suffering and almost martyr-like, a silent hero doing what needs to be done. But at the moment, he’s lost his goddamn mind coming undone. He’s murdered and jailed his political dissent (and might have considered executing prisoners), but at this point, that’s all that Jacque and Robyn are to him. First he dismisses Jacque, narrows it down to the two escaped prisoners, and finally reveals what’s really on the forefront of his mind: Qrow, free and out of his hands.

[ When recalling this dialogue, please do so while imagining a bad recorder cover of the Titanic music playing over the background. Here is a sample. ]

In the most recent episode, Ironwood seems to have gone off the rails even further. The fact that Winter, his most faithful lieutenant, is losing her unshakable faith in him, says a lot about how hard he’s fallen off the deep end. In Winter’s mind, I think that she sees him almost as a surrogate father figure, or at least a patriarch who can be positively compared to Jacques in every way. The previous volumes go to lengths to compare the two as adversaries and showing James in a favorable light; Winter is in her own personal horror right now, because she is beginning to understand that Ironwood is a man who may not be her father but is just as susceptible to corruption, and may have been that kind of person all along. Skipping over the...ah, genocidal tendencies, and the fact that he’s proposing to kidnap Penny’s friends to force her to obey him and likely is starting to realize that Winter is the perfect bait (let’s just say that “Ironwood is not good with kids” is the understatement of the year) Ironwood wants Qrow back (in captivity), I think that it’s significant that while Ironwood registers that Robyn is gone as well, his first priority is Qrow, probably for two reasons. On one hand, he still refers to Qrow by his first name, instead of the formal Branwen. Of course, that doesn’t have to mean anything at all. They’re colleagues within the same age range, both members of the same secret brotherhood and similiar skill sets.

On the other hand, it reminds me of the moment when Qrow and the kids first fly into Atlas, and they see the heightened security, and Qrow mutters, “James...what have you been doing,” under his breath, sounding concerned, apprehensive. He’s not addressing the kids, he’s talking to himself; he regards James much more seriously both as a potential threat and a friend than he’d rather the other know, and I think that James’ focus on Qrow at this point is similiar, only not only is this a sign of them knowing each other well, but of Ironwood’s slipping control. He offered Qrow his trust and camaraderie, his last attempt to keep a handle on his humanity (or, his heart). Qrow, in return, withheld vital information, got close with another operative instead, then allegedly killed him and and escaped ‘rightful’ imprisonment.

The Tin Man is offering Qrow his heart, at least proof of it, and the Scarecrow [and co.] steps back to observe the situation, and assesses that no, what you are going to do is wrong, and I cannot agree with it.

Ironwood is not an objective person, as much as he wants to be. He’s angry, desperate, scared, and humiliated. Worst of all, he’s rebuffed, and he’s taking Qrow’s escape personally. First, he understands that Qrow is a threat. He’s Ozpin’s best agent, he has years of field experience, and he knows too much, probably more than James knows. Second, they have history.

My personal interpretation of Ironwood is something this:

He’s a sad, sad, lonely bitch. What Ironwood longs for, just like his source material counterpart, is a heart. He will go to any lengths to achieve this, because he believes that he has self awareness and therefore is able to check and balance himself. He treats his subordinates well, is diplomatic, skilled in a variety of trades, fighting the good fight, and longs for the affirmation that yes, he is a good person, and yes, he’s had a heart all along. He just strays from the path, and loses his way.

This is symbolically represented by his partially mechanic exoskeleton; we have no idea how far the cyborg extremities extend, or how deep, but we do get the visual notion of humanity in conflict, or a man’s soul deconstructed and split between the cold efficiency of machinery and the very real warmth of a human body. Ironwood wants to appear human, and benevolent, and genuine, and in return, loved; he is human, and he could be all of these things. If my reliance on the source material holds any merit (although I highly doubt it), then there is also a potential struggle with sexuality, (Glynda herself even explicitly and exasperatedly references a testosterone battle between Ironwood and Qrow, suggesting a regular overassertation of masculinity) and a further incentive to achieve love and subsequent acceptance.

To clarify, I do believe that there were less-than-subtle allusions to Ironwood and Glynda having a vaguely flirtatious history, taking their shared scenes and background dancing into account, but this, again, does not “debunk” the presence of queerness within a narrative; it could be an assumption of heterosexuality, or performative itself, or just not an exclusive interest. Besides, Ironwitch isn’t what this essay is about. I’m not trying to persuade or dissuade someone of the notion that Jimmy is gay, or straight, or something else, only that the potential ambiguity exists. What I do think is most important is that James doesn’t openly ward people away, not when those people aren’t under his command and are technically outside of his jurisdiction. He’s friendly with Glynda, tries to extend trust to Qrow, is kind to people in the aftermath of battle, and overall clings to diplomacy as his first weapon. He wants to be accepted, to be liked, and to be welcomed. This is not an outrageous want, nor is it uncommon. Unfortunately, Ironwood’s understanding of love and acceptance is entangled within the concept of control, and he associates unquestioned compliance with this Want.

Ironwood’s introduction into the series shows him being openly cordial, and very considerate, especially his interactions with Glynda and Ozpin. He’s a gentleman, he’s apologetic, and, as Glynda assures him, he’s a “good man”. She doesn’t really elaborate on what a “good man” is, exactly, but we might presume that a “good man” is a person with good intentions, who strives to do what’s right, regardless of his options.

Here’s the thing - one similarity between Ironwood and the Tin Man is that they both have the capacity to love, but they fool themselves into thinking that they don’t; before the Wizard gives him a ‘heart’, the Tin Man suggests that he is only kind and considerate to everyone in Oz because he believes he needs to overcompensate for what he lacks, and is therefore doubly aware of how he treats others. However, the Wizard knows no real magic, only tricks and illusions, and what he gives the Tin Man is essentially a placebo that enables the Tin Man to act towards and feel about others the exact same as he always had, only with the validation that what he feels is authentic. Similarly, Ironwood has always had the option to be empathetic and not fucking crazy open to collaboration, which he’s very aware of, until his own paranoia cuts into his rationality and compels him to cut himself off from all allies and alternative perspectives. He then uses his difficult position and responsibilities to justify unjustifiable actions, to rationalize irrational urges, and to gaslight and brainwash his subordinates into compliance.

The Tin Woodman knew very well he had no heart, and therefore he took great care never to be cruel or unkind to anything.

“You people with hearts,” he said, “have something to guide you, and need never do wrong; but I have no heart, and so I must be very careful. When Oz gives me a heart of course I needn’t mind so much.”

Qrow sees through this, however, and not only seems incapable of following orders himself, but disrupts the decorum that Ironwood is used to. In return, I think we see a little more of James that he’d like to reveal.

“If you were one of my men, I’d have you shot!”

“If I was one of your men, I’d shoot myself!”

In case this entire ass essay doesn’t make it obvious, I do really ship Ironqrow. I’m open to other pairings, definitely, but this one in particular is just more interesting to me. It feels more revealing, more subtle. I have more questions.

In hindsight, maybe the dialogue example above ^ didn’t age well, considering where they’re at, but I do like how their professional animosity is flavored with a kind of camaraderie, and understanding. This exchange isn’t exactly playful, but they’re taking each other seriously - and, like repressed schoolboys, taking the piss at each other in a childish way, and isn’t that part of the fun of banter, when they’re so focused on each other that they forget to act their age? In a lot of ways, this is a really fun dynamic to watch. They’re opposite-kind-of-people, which I like, at least on a superficial level, and I can easily imagine them tempering each other in ways that would make them ultimately happier people.

They even look well-coordinated, with similar color schemes that lean on the opposite sides of the shared spectrum (white, grays, reds and black); I think the decorative design on Qrow’s new sleeves are supposed to be more ornate simply to communicate that Qrow is committed, and willing to be sentimental, but some viewers have suggested that it resembles the pattern on James’ weapon, Due Process (the revolver is based off of the Tin Man’s pistol, although, curiously, in The Wizard of Oz, the Scarecrow was the only character to carry a pistol, and the commentaries suggest that the 2007 Tin Man miniseries was the “basis of the allusion”. Does that mean anything? I don’t know. Probably not.). Still, it raises the questions: who was in charge of designing the team’s new clothes and gear? How much input did Atlas get, and was this intentional? Personally, I think that the vine-like pattern on Qrow’s sleeves also bear a resemblance to Ozpin’s staff, a subtle reaffirmation and foreshadowing of his allegiance in contrast to Ironwood, but I digress.

They can also deliver that UST kind of banter that takes up their attention, and get up really close to each other, in each other’s faces, and just be pissed, which I think is very sexy of them, mhm. Enemies to Colleagues to Reluctant Friends to Lovers is a trope that I very much appreciate. Gaining some sort of common ground at the Battle of Beacon only to reunite, tired and battered, after the shit has already hit the fan? Slow burn kinda vibes.

That hug between them was something genuinely vulnerable and a sign of Ironwood letting his guard down because he is tired as fuck. It also was uh...kinda fruity.

Ironwood approaches closer, and Qrow scratches the back of his head, a characteristically nervous gesture that he’s made before; it’s a nervous twitch, manufactured nonchalance. He has no idea what Ironwood wants, but he does know that Ironwood wants something. James is the one to initiate the hug, and Qrow startles and even freezes up before relaxing into it. He seems suprised, but gives the bisexual eye roll of grudging fondness. This is out of character for James - Jimmy - but Qrow doesn’t think that Ironwood is a bad person. He leans into the hug, and the camera cuts out before they separate, suggesting that they probably end up standing there for a long ass time. You can also see from the side shots that it’s a close hug; their torsos are pressed up against each other, front to front, and there’s not a lot of wiggle room. James must be really goddamn depressed. It’s a long, manly, intensley heterosexual hug. Like I said, kinda fruity.

Other people have analyzed the hug shot for shot, so I won’t get too into it, but I think that it was intentionally left as a double red herring; some people thought that maybe he bugged Qrow, and after finding out that he didn’t, we were forced to conclude that this is a genuine olive branch. To find out that Ironwood is sincere but was still susceptible to corruption is that second subversion that I didn’t really expect. I hadn’t prepared myself for it, at least, and neither did Qrow. I wouldn’t go as far to say that Ironwood’s descent into fucking craziness paranoia is triggered by Qrow not ‘reciprocating’ or something, but I do think it’s interesting how the volume opens up with a signifigant interaction between Ironwood and Qrow, only for Qrow to spend the rest of the volume homosexually bonding with Clover, while Ironwood basically has no one as emotional support (again, his subordinates do not have the power or the place to be viewed as equals and the veil of formality is one of isolation). Qrow initiates nothing further, and nothing further happens.

Ironwood’s downfall, in a thematic sense, is that what he Needs is a heart, and when he gets that chance to demonstrate tolerance and empathy, James ultimately rejects his Need (a heart) and his arc reverts into one of villainy. To be specific, Ironwood is essentially a fascist dick, and that is not very sexy. (Speaking of dicks, the thought of Ironwood’s dick makes me laugh. I bet in the RWBY universe, people have made memes about that. I do not accept criticism because I am correct. Anyway,).

Dictators are charming, charismatic, and one of the pillars of their method is absorbing potential political opponents into their own administration to reduce the threat of rebellion, to appear openly tolerant to their supporters, and to further consolidate power. A good example of this would be Mean Girls, which runs on a comedic commentary of dictatorships as a political structure of power. I hate to compare James Ironwood to Regina George, but Regina’s posse includes Karen and Gretchen, two of the only girls who might take away from the authority she holds over the rest of their school, both in their wealth and attractiveness, and Cady’s interesting backstory and conventional attractiveness is the main reason Regina draws her into her own sphere - because she detects a potential threat. Much in the same way, while Ironwood likely has good intentions, his efforts to win over team RWBY and co. - including Qrow himself - is a logical way to consolidate resources. His willingness, at first, to cooperate with political opponents (ie Robyn) is because he’s not inherently evil, and he has nothing to lose. It’s when he is openly opposed and diplomatic gestures no longer hold the necessary weight that he snaps.

In one really interesting meta about Ironqrow’s archetypes (that I reread occasionally just because I really love it), @onewomancitadel posits that Ironwood is framed within the archetype of the Knight in Shining Armor, which should inform us of the moral consistency of his character. The meta was written around the beginning of volume 7, I think, and obviously we have a lot more character development and information to go off of now, but I think she makes a really interesting point about the nature of parallels and how that might help drive Ironwood as a character. I love her analysis of the visual of Ironwood stepping out of an airship wreckage, onto the street, the smoke billowing around him to reveal his cyborg prosthetics, and of the intentional framing. Once his uniform is stripped back, we see a man who is literally half-armor, which could be indicative of a lot of things. He’s emotionally guarded, he’s used as a human weapon, and he wants to be a line of defense. In her words, “The symbolism is really obviously put into perspective of his actions in trying to do the right thing: in the flesh (his true physical self) he is literally a knight in shining armour. From the ground up. Even if it's unseen or distorted by his uniform, his nature is still true.”

While Ironwood clearly has gone down a darker path in the most recent volume, I think this analysis holds true in a crucial way. “Ironwood is working with different information, and he’s doing exactly what he knows: stick to his knightly virtues, even disgraced.” Disgraced, indeed. Ironwood is holding onto his knightly values, and doing what he believes is right. If not right, he believes that it is necessary. The problem is that these values are manifested within Atlas’s sociopolitical-military culture in an inherently toxic way - his response is, at this point, neither rational nor empathetic, but it can be explained partially due to his cultural (flawed) understanding of justice, and because of the extenuating circumstances. The harsher the conditions become, the more difficult it is for anyone to project a facade that is not sincere at its core. If James is to uphold his Knightly virtues, he needs to be a protector, a leader, and a servant all at once while operating under limited intel with dwindling trust. All he has left are the few key players still in his grasp, and the control of the people he is responsible for.

To digress: generally, knights take an oath. It could be to a King, or Lord, or some noble, but Knights are supposed to operate on a code of honor, and chivalry, and to uphold these values throughout the land as an extension of whoever they have pledged themselves to. The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a really good example of the way that, back in the day, chivalry and honor was supposed to place knights on a moral high ground compared to the common people.

In the middle of a celebration in Camelot, an obligatory tradition that has since lost real value but is rehearsed because Camelot fears that failure to uphold traditions that once had meaning is disrespectful, a Green Knight interrupts the celebrations and offers a strange challenge that boils down to a fight to the death. Gawain volunteers because accepting this challenge is what is expected of him, and Arthur would be humiliated if his knights, supposedly the best in the world, would not rise to the challenge. Gawain - and to a certain extent, the rest of Arthur’s knights - are fickle, in a sense, because their adherence to this code is performative, and it allows them to delude themselves into moral superiority and lie both to the commoners and amongst themselves; their identity as knights is based on a falsehood. Gawain is offered the first blow, and after beheading the Green newcomer, is horrified to see him become reanimated and immune to mortal blows. He invites Gawain to receive his own - likely fatal - blow, and gives him a time in which to meet, before promptly leaving.

Throughout the story, Gawain is tested in a variety of ways - in his final test, he fails, and allows his greed for self preservation and the fear of death to lead him to lie to his hosts and proceed to his meeting with the Green Knight under dishonest pretenses. While he is spared at the last second and becomes a better person (after it is revealed that Morgan le Fay orchestrated the ordeal to spook Queen Guinevere) - and by extent, a truer Knight, by the end of the story, the superficial and hypocritical nature of Arthur’s court is still in question, and still unanswered.

See, the entirety of Gawain’s trials was a test, not necessarily for him, but for Arthur and his court as a whole. Morgan wanted to prove the fickle nature of Arthur’s knights. The Knights of the Round Table were considered the best in the land, and to discredit one was to discredit all. What use is tradition if the meaning is empty, what use is chivalry if it is performed for reward instead of merit, and what use is loyalty if it is blind and unearned? Returning to Oz, the Tin Woodman, or Tin Man, grew to be made of tin because his axe became enchanted by the Wicked Witch of the East to sever his own body parts instead of the lumber he tried to cut down. A nearby tinsmith replaced each amputated limb with one of metal, until his entire body became tin and his meat body had been entirely discarded. Something to note is that Nick Chopper’s, (General Ironwood’s) wounds are technically self-inflicted. Each time he swung his axe, he made the decision to continue, knowing of the end result each time. In losing his bodily functions, the Tin Man believed that he had lost his humanity and ability to love.

The tragedy of his origin story draws a pointed correlation to Ironwood’s current dilemma; his unwillingness to stop, his self-imposed isolation, playing into the hands of the witch, and finally, the decision to let go of his ability to love remain consistent throughout both stories.

Watts even refers to Ironwood as a “Tin Solider”; a reference to the Tin (Woods)Man, no doubt, but could also evoke a soldier clanking around in metal armor. Ironwood is a Knight in Shining Armor, through and through. He wants to save the world, but at the terrible cost of civilian autonomy and possibly life. The problem is that he’s pledged himself to a discriminatory and hypocritical system, and his code is something that can easily be misconstrued by fear ( @disregardcanon ), much as Gawain’s own values. The Tin Man is, after all, still a man, and if we’ve learned anything from real fairytales, it is that men are fallible, whether or not they are made of metal.

Ironwood, Alone

he’s a lonely bitch

I know I f- up, I'm just a loser

Shouldn't be with ya, guess I'm a quitter

While you're out there drinkin', I'm just here thinkin'

'Bout where I should've been

I've been lonely, mm, ah, yeah

— Benee, Supalonely (2019)

You do get the sense that Ironwood is riddled with self-loathing conflicting with pride, with self-doubt clashing with competence, and that he is the kind of person who longs for things without verbalizing. Maybe his dad never paid enough attention to him as a kid. Maybe he suffered some terrible physical and emotional trauma, which might as well be assumed, given the extensive nature of his cybernetic limbs. Maybe (probably) he’d be more well-adjusted and would’ve made better decisions if the people around him trusted him and were a little more open. To be fair, though, he is the one at the wheel, and he is making the calls; no one else is to blame for his mistakes, and to pretend otherwise is to deny him accountability. I think we do enough of that in everyday life, in excusing powerful men of their responsibilities. To his credit, I do think he wants to help people. I think James also wants to project the personality of a leader who is stoic, controlled, and measured. He is charming when he wants to be, sympathetic when it suits him, and influential in just the right areas. He is not a sociopath, but he is a politician, and in a lot of ways, those are the same thing. We see in his brief flashes of temper, often prompted by Qrow, or most notably by Oscar, that this is not a calm, stable person. This is someone is on the verge of exploding, who is so fucking angry that he is not in control that it’s killing him, and so he is going to lash out and kill the things that are not within his grip. If the people beneath him will not reciprocate the heart that he offers, then he has no real use of it. James Ironwood does not begin this story as a bad person. This is a tragedy, in however many parts it takes.

I read, in one very smart and very put-together analysis that I cannot find and properly credit at the moment, that part of Ironwood’s (many) failures can be seen in Winter, and how, like Ozpin, he has appointed a woman as his talented, no-nonsense, second chain in command at his right hand. In this way, Winter is an intentional parallel to Glynda, who is, without question, a bad bitch. In theory, surrounding yourself with strong individuals is a demonstration of self restraint, in implementing your own checks and balances. James wants to project that he is powerful, yes, but he is reasonable.

I take this to mean that, to some degree, even if it’s unintentional or subconscious, Winter serves to boost Ironwood’s ego.

The issue with this is that within the inherently hierarchical structure of the military, Winter cannot question, undermine, or challenge Ironwood in a way that is particularly meaningful and their relationship is one of commander and subordinate before colleagues or equals (link to a fantastic post about Winter’s role as the Good, Conscientious Soldier by @fishyfod). Whereas Glynda is free to argue with, converse, and be as combative as she needs to be with Ozpin (although their power dynamic is arguably one of commander and subordinate albeit informally), Winter cannot temper Ironwood effectively, and through the illusion of equality, Ironwood is further isolated.

His head and arms and legs were jointed upon his body, but he stood perfectly motionless, as if he could not stir at all.

Dorothy looked at him in amazement, and so did the Scarecrow, while Toto barked sharply and made a snap at the tin legs, which hurt his teeth.

“Did you groan?” asked Dorothy.

“Yes,” answered the tin man, “I did. I’ve been groaning for more than a year, and no one has ever heard me before or come to help me.”

The Tin Man needs oil to lubricate his joints; without it, he cannot move, and he is rendered helpless and inanimate. When Dorothy and the group find him, he is entirely isolated with no one in sight, and he has been there for such a long time that he has begun to rust. Similarly, Ironwood needs valued voices of dissent to keep him in check. His colleagues were able to serve that purpose in the beginning, and out of them, Qrow is the best example of someone who doesn't take his shit, openly questions him, and looks down on the performative decorum of the military culture that Ironwood is surrounded by. What Ironwood needs is to be flexible and adaptable; his Semblance, Mettle (heh, metal, very nice pun, RoosterTeeth), is a double edged sword in that it gives him supernatural focus and willpower - enough, perhaps, to flay/chop off your own limbs - but it blindsides him, and is only further prolonging his pain.

There is a lot of sympathy to Ironwood’s character, as much as I’ve ragged on him for being an authoritarian, kind of a dick, and bad with kids. There are moments, such as the previously mentioned dinner party, where he shows his colors a bit, and when he assures the students at the Vytal Festival that there’s no shame in leaving before the battle begins, and in giving Yang a prosthetic arm before her father even has to ask. As far as Generals go, it seems that he’s seen soldiers come and go and understands, at least in his best moments, that not everyone is the same, and not everyone has power of unflinching determination to rely on. Ironwood performs his best when he tempers himself because he understands himself, and others. It’s when he fails to self-reflect that his hypocrisy shows through. Glynda points it out, too, as does Qrow; Ironwood advocates for trust but often fails to give it himself, going behind Ozpin’s back, being absolutely shit at field communication, and now the whole fascist, borderline-genocidal keruffle he’s gotten himself into.

I think that Ironwood reaching out to Qrow was his ethical last stand, his last chance and conscious effort to choose the right path. Qrow is unequivocally an equal, not like how Ozpin is the Big Boss, the authority that James becomes disillusioned with and tries to overthrow. He wants someone to trust, desperately so, and Qrow wants that too, but narrative subversion has hands. The Scarecrow and the Tin Man have no brain and heart respectively, and are in need of them. As it turns out, Qrow is actually a pragmatic guy with solid principles angled against authoritarianism, and Ironwood is a dick who would rather enforce martial law than to empathize and tame his military-shaped boner for one second.

I might conclude that someone like Qrow might be best for Ironwood, but that does not mean that someone like Ironwood would be the best for Qrow. Qrow has a brain after all, but Ironwood does not choose his heart when it matters, case in point. Even the intro of the current season features Salem and Ironwood on a chessboard; his white pieces are disappearing, dissolving into dust, as hers transform into Grimm. Ironwood is isolating himself by depleting himself of allies. As this post by @hadesisqueer points out, Ironwood isn’t even positioned as King, the supposed commander, but the Queen, the most versatile player on the board that is so far underused, since he hasn’t moved from his spot. Ironwood’s refusal to unify against Salem is his failure to strategically utilize the best resources that were available to him; soon, the pieces will be swallowed by the dark.

James is guilty of something that a lot of us are guilty of: doing a Bad Thing for what we have convinced ourselves is a Good Reason, when in reality, it is actually a lot of Very Bad Reasons. James Ironwood is a Knight archetype, through and through, and he is charging forward to do the right thing. He is afraid, he is lying to himself, and he will never surrender.

“All the same,” said the Scarecrow, “I shall ask for brains instead of a heart; for a fool would not know what to do with a heart if he had one.”

“I shall take the heart,” returned the Tin Woodman; “for brains do not make one happy, and happiness is the best thing in the world.”

Dorothy did not say anything, for she was puzzled to know which of her two friends was right, and she decided if she could only get back to Kansas and Aunt Em, it did not matter so much whether the Woodman had no brains and the Scarecrow no heart, or each got what he wanted.

The lesson of James Ironwood is a lesson of failure, and of the way that we succumb to fear, because that is Salem’s agenda, really, in the end: fear. It’s the negative emotions, fear being first and foremost, that draw in and empower the Grimm, and it’s fear and uncertainty that causes chaos. It is when Dorothy’s friends give into their fear that they are truly defeated. FDR’s assertion that “The only thing to fear is fear itself” holds true here; it’s not so much that these characters are afraid of losing their lives, their loved ones, and of the dark, but that they do not have the love or the resources to be brave for themselves or for others.

Qrow as a character is introduced as one who is already defeated, in a sense. Half of his team is gone, dead or estranged, he’s forced into the shadows of espionage to protect a world he knows is darker than it should be, and he’s fighting a losing battle with alcoholism. As charismatic as he’s written, he’s referred to as a “dusty old crow”, a hunter of renowned skill but past the prime of his life.

Dorothy’s three titular companions are defined by what they lack; in the same vein of the Disney I Want song (a main character’s main monologue song in which their wants and desires that motivate them throughout the rest of the film is laid out in song; ie Part of Your World, Reflections, How Far I’ll Go), the Lion, Tin Man, and the Scarecrow want bravery, a heart, and a brain respectively. RWBY relies on flipping the script of its characters based on what the audience might expect from the source material; Ruby is not just a helpless little girl - her introduction is a badass with a scythe. The Scarecrow is a chronic alchoholic. Cinderella is a victim of abuse, and is also a villain who wants to set the world aflame. Subversion, subversion, subversion.

There are obviously parallels between the characters in RWBY and in their own fairytales to keep them in character, and part of the fun is spotting those clues and occasionally connecting the dots to anticipate the direction of the narrative and certain connections between characters and the significance of their arcs. While I’m not aware of Dorothy Gale’s RWBY counterpart, if she has already been established or is yet to be introduced, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that Ruby has adopted a Dorothy-eque persona and can act as a surrogate in a way. She begins as a sweet, naive child eager to join a world of color and excitement, who initially believes that she has “normal knees” and is thrust into a political scheme full of powerful and older players. She even has a small dog as a companion, Toto Zwei, who seems like an odd addition, since he’s usually sidelined and basically forgotten about except in a few spare moments, unless he’s there to draw further comparisons to Dorothy. She may not be from Kansas, but she is first helped by Glynda (the Good Witch), and later expects assistance from Ozpin, Qrow, and the later Ozian counterparts. I find it a peculiar detail that for Ruby to be Little Red Riding Hood alone, she is surrounded specifically by Dorothy’s companions. This, of course, only increases the importance of the relevance of the Oz series in particular and the characters that are borrowed.

In the case of Ozpin’s inner circle, Dorothy’s closest comrades (sans Toto) differ in crucial ways to their source material. (After finishing this essay, I found a much better, condensed explanation by @neopoliitan )

Disillusioned by the Ozpin, the Wizard (who has been projecting an illusion of a failsafe) and overwhelmed by the rise of the Wicked Witch of the West, Lionhart (the Lion), gives into his cowardice and ultimately forgoes the arc and redemption of his character from the source material; as such, he is by all definitions, a failure and a premonition, as Ironwood eventually follows. If RWBY is a dark take on classic fairytales, then it is only fitting that these characters are charred husks of their fairytale selves - these are people, and some people are selfish, scared, and cowardly, and they do not overcome these traits.

This is all opinion based, pure speculation. I have no idea what will happen in the next episode, and whatever goes down will be...shit will hit the fan. I’m under no delusions that Ironqrow is going to be canon in a healthy, tender, endgame sense. They’re both kind of losing their minds, and Ironwood is shitting absolute bricks. No, they’re going to try to kill each other, and I personally cannot wait for Qrow to cleave this man in two. (Not sexually, just, literally. Like, with a scythe.)

On that note, I think that the RWBY writers are good at callbacks, at drawing attention to their own connections, and if Ironwood and Qrow’s inevitable confrontation is scheduled, then it will include visual callbacks to Qrow saving James at Beacon, maybe shot for shot. Their visuals have only gotten better as time goes on, and I imagine Ironwood’s eyes widening as Qrow leaps through the air, scythe drawn, in recal of a moment so long ago when they weren’t on the same page, but they were at least on the same side. When Qrow brings the blade down, there will be no enemy behind him. Only Jimmy James. The difference between the two of them will be that Qrow isn’t fighting out of fear, but out of love, for what happened to Clover, and to what could happen to his girls.

Qrow’s reliance on alcohol, as well as his (mostly) feigned nonchalance is meant to fit with the motif that the Scarecrow has no brain, and, had he a mind to desire anything, would desire it most of all. His role is, also, notably, gathering intelligence for Ozpin (his character is also based on Munnin from Norse mythology). There is so much about Qrow that is an act and so much that is not, and I think that this act is born both from this motif and from his own cynicism, and the alcohol contributes to this act. However, he eventually gets sober after Ruby expresses legitimate frustration, and he understands that he’s putting their lives at risk. While one could say that he gave up drinking for the kids, I would argue that the kids - Ruby in particular - made him want to give up drinking for himself, to better himself.

While Lionhart and Ironwood betray the people depending on them, Qrow’s love for his nieces (and for the kids) allows him to deviate from this pattern. The answer to fear is perhaps not merely bravery - Qrow’s triumph is love.

Ironwood knows triumph in the context of a military state, but he’s backed himself into a corner. Soon he will find himself alone and friendless. Hopefully, his last stand will not be in vain.

[lichbarry]

A host’s perspective on Molly, Lucien, and approaching identity (spoilers for c2e117)

This is NOT going to be as eloquent as I want it to be and I can only speak for myself and my own opinions, but this is for @creativside and anyone else who wants to hear this particular perspective. Again, I’m speaking only for myself, not for every single system, especially not for Molly or Lucien fictives. I’m also referring only to DID systems here but OSDD systems, I see you. 

I don’t really advertise it on this blog (or anywhere), but I’m the host of a DID system. My relationship with the system is not quite the same as other systems we’ve gotten to talk to but nevertheless communication has greatly improved since our diagnosis and I dare say that I feel “valid” enough to try to sludge through how I’m feeling about the whole situation with Molly/Lucien. Put under a cut b/c it’s long 

For anyone who might not understand the connection I’m trying to draw: a situation where there is one body that has been inhabited by two different consciousnesses who are not otherwise aware of each other and who have different personalities, abilities, and ambitions is a situation that directly parallels the textbook DID experience. Having people call you by a different name, talk about things you supposedly did with them but have no recollection of, and having people ask or expect that they will be able to talk to this other person in your body whenever they want are all things that pretty much every system goes through. I’m not saying that Lucien has DID, but there are a lot of identical and/or incredibly similar terms and concepts being thrown around regarding him, so for the sake of this thinkpiece I’m essentially going to be acting like he does.

I’m going to make some bullet points and just try to give my two cents on how everyone is approaching this situation:

Molly was a real person, just as much as Lucien. This was discussed by some of the characters, but I’m just validating it. Lucien called Molly a “fragment” of himself-- fragment is a term systems use to describe a certain “type” of alter. DID fragments are alters who typically aren’t as “developed” as some of the others in the system, meaning that they may only exist to feel a particular emotion, store a certain memory, or carry out one very specific function. In my experience, fragments do have names just like any other system member, but likely don’t have much distinguishing personality beyond that. From what we know about Molly when he first “woke up”, calling him a fragment would be accurate. He was, originally, a consciousness who only knew a singular feeling-- emptiness. That’s all he was. But he was still his own consciousness, his own unique person, and as we all saw, he was able to grow beyond his emptiness and develop into a fully realized creation (to borrow a term). His being a fragment wouldn’t have invalidated him as being his own separate person in the first place, but the Molly we knew was no longer a fragment; he was just... a person! By the time we parted ways with him, he was just as complex and unique of an identity as Lucien is. He is not as simple as Lucien is making him out to be, we know this. 

Lucien implied that Molly integrated into him and is not dormant. What do these terms mean? Dormancy (or becoming dormant) is experienced a little bit differently for each system, but generally an alter becoming dormant means they no longer appear in the headspace/inner world, cannot communicate or interact with any system members, and will not be able to front/switch out (take control of the body). In our system, becoming dormant is equivalent to becoming comatose. Due to the way our inner world is constructed, we do know where the “body” of our dormant alter is, but we cannot interact with her in any way, nor does she interact with us or appear anywhere else in the headspace.  Integration, on the other hand, is better explained in the context of fusion from Steven Universe. A few years ago, I (the current host) integrated with our gatekeeper & primary protector (basically the one who managed the functioning of the system). Where once we were two separate consciousnesses who inhabited the same headspace, we are now joined together into someone who is a little bit of both of us, just like when two gems fuse in SU. I also happen to be the core (the consciousness who was in the body when we were born), so it could be seen as her simply “returning” to me, or fusing back with me after having broken off during her formation. Complete system integration is the end goal of some therapies, but there are some alters who view integration to be the same as dying, since the alter as a singular unique consciousness no longer exists but is instead “merged” into the consciousness of another system member.  Lucien said something along the lines of his soul having been fragmented but now fused back together. He appears to believe that he is the only consciousness currently in his body. This means that Molly is not “trapped” inside somewhere waiting to be set free. It also implies that it would not be possible to “get Molly back” as we remember him without finding a way to fracture Lucien’s soul again. Depending on your view of integration, you can view this two ways: 

Molly is Lucien, and/or Molly is dead. Matt’s slips of the tongue in continuously calling him Mollymauk further supports the idea that Molly is integrated, not dormant, and therefore is Lucien in one way or another. Molly was, after all, a part of Lucien all along, and despite having developed into his own personality in the wild 2 years he was fronting for, all that he was are now part of what Lucien is. That being said, it is clear that Lucien, just like Mollymauk, is his own person with his own goals, quirks, abilities, and personality traits. Aspects of Mollymauk do live in him, but being fused does not mean that we’re going to recognize all parts of who Molly was in who Lucien is now. Lucien (we’re assuming) is the core, the original consciousness of the body, and is thus far more developed than Molly ever had the chance to be. They’re the same person in the sense that Molly is no longer a separate entity, but not the same person in that Lucien has any of Molly’s memories or would suddenly feel compelled to start acting more like him just because they integrated. 

Mollymauk is not back; Lucien is. The Mollymauk we knew is not there anymore, and it’s a good time to mourn him. I don’t know what kind of DND fuckery Matt or the cast might be able to do, but from my perspective of what’s going on, Molly isn’t going to suddenly pop out or break free or anything like that. Mollymauk as an individual died when we saw him die, and I think the Mighty Nein are at least starting to realize that. Lucien even genuinely offered his condolences. Again, it’s DND, there’s always some chance that they might find a way to talk to their friend again, but by this point the idea is making me uncomfortable. Trying to separate Molly from Lucien again at this point feels... unnatural and disrespectful. No one has ever sought to de-integrate the alter that I integrated with, but I would be very disturbed if they did, and the idea of doing that even in this context unsettles me. Find hope in the possibility if you want to, but I’m probably never going to support it. Molly is a part of Lucien now and I think both we and the Nein need to accept that. Lucien may be evil, but he has just as much right to be in control of his own body as Molly did (arguably more, but I’m not getting into that debate). Whether you like Lucien or not, it’s his body, now only his, and no one has any right to take that away from him.  I know it’s not exactly the same and it’s probably not how people mean to come off, but I can’t help imagining me in this position. If someone was very close with the alter I integrated with and did everything in their power to try to make her split off again, even if it meant harming me or making me lose autonomy over my mind & body... you can see how that’s a very uncomfortable thought, at the least. Again, I’m not saying anyone is inherently bad for wanting Molly back or missing him, I’m just saying that the situation we’re being presented with is that it’s only Lucien now and we & the m9 should respect that. If you want to mourn Molly, now’s as good a time as any. You even have Lucien’s blessing. That being said...

Lucien doesn’t want to know about Molly, and that’s fine. As someone pointed out (I think Jester?), Molly didn’t want to know about Lucien either. As is the case with a lot of systems who don’t have well-developed communication, they’re practically strangers to each other. All they knew about each other is what was on their body when they woke up and what other people (also strangers) told them they supposedly did once. Again, parts of Molly exist in Lucien, and I’m sure aspects of Lucien existed in Molly, and even now there are some similarities to draw. But neither Lucien nor Molly have any obligation to feel kinship towards each other. In their eyes, they are two completely different people who have never interacted. Systems only start to feel like families after a long time of having good communication, of developing relationships, of working through trauma or the complications that come with having DID. From what we’ve been told, Molly and Lucien likely never even developed a headspace or been in a situation where they would’ve had the possibility of actually meeting. People are just talking to them about someone they didn’t know and honestly the typical response is to just nod along in the moment and decide if you really want to unpack that later. And not wanting to explore who this stranger who inhabited your body was is a completely valid response! Especially given that Lucien doesn’t explicitly have DID-- he doesn’t have the goal of trauma recovery, nor does he have any reason to find out more about who Molly was given that he’s now supposedly fully integrated.  Again, it’s more a matter of autonomy. Lucien is his own person, and to him Molly might as well have been something he called himself when he spent 2 years blackout drunk (which, let’s be real, is a pretty accurate comparison). Sometimes it’s fun to hear accounts of what other system members got up to when they fronted, but that’s only after years of therapy and working through my own feelings about having DID. Before that, there were times when it felt like a frustrating invasion of privacy, or an unnerving sense of losing control of not only what I did, but what it meant to be me. I don’t really see Lucien struggling with these things, but I’m just saying that there’s only so much he can be expected to care about who Molly was given his circumstances. 

This got super long and I’m never sure how to conclude these things, or if that’s even all my thoughts on the matter. Send me asks if you want to I guess, just please be respectful. I’m not trying to start any arguments, I’m just giving my perspective/how I feel about this situation as a system host. 

tldr; Molly integrated with Lucien and it’s more respectful/probable to assume that he’s not coming back the way people wanted him to. Getting Molly back the way people expected is incredibly unsettling to me because it takes away Lucien’s autonomy and basically says that Molly is more important than Lucien’s control over his own body because we like Molly more.  Their situation does resemble the experience of being part of a system in a lot of ways and I don’t know how to feel about it besides just kind of awkwardly going “ahaha” and looking around to see how singlets are approaching this. 

Again, not saying there’s a right or wrong way to feel about this, nor am I “diagnosing” Lucien with DID. Just talking about connections I’ve made and the things that I relate to/make me uncomfortable. Whether Matt is aware of how much this situation resembles DID or not, I think that he’s handling it incredibly well and have no complaints about Lucien or Molly’s characterizations. 

[kob131]

I would love to give a link to help prove this is what this person is saying given how much fluff his word for word explanations have but I don’t exactly trust people to not vote bomb him and cause shit.

You’re on your own there.

The first part is basically the OP saying why vagueness is normal in writing (namely that it’s there so the audience doesn’t get bogged down with details..and to avoid plotholes as he says which is gonna cause a problem). ... Too bad this part will not be referenced or used a structure for the arguments ahead. 

And one of his statements ‘ As long as the leap of logic that is required to be made is not too high it is fully acceptable‘ is gonna set a precedent for later arguments. Namely, notice how he doesn’t actually explain WHAT a ‘too high leap of logic’ is...

Onto the second, we have a bit about him saying that the narrative is showing that James does care about Mantle through Penny and the Atlesian Knights’ presence but the show doesn’t through the open wall and the out of data electronic grid so that’s...vague? contradictory? I dunno, his post says the first but his tone says the second.

Same problem with both- contradictory info is not inherently bad writing. For example, having a character say they care about someone and doing nice things while beating them and berating them are not inherently at odds, as it can show that the person is being affected by something, they’re delusional, they’re abusive ect. We can tell from the tone of the story, people’s reactions and how they are portrayed-

OP does none of that. ... No really, he doesn’t go on to show that Ironwood has contradictory attitudes or feelings about Atlas and with it no one commenting on it. He just presents the argument with nothing else to it. And KEEPS doing it, presenting seemingly contradictory info in a vaccum with no context or explanation. He has a bunch of words but most paragraphs can be boiled down to a single sentence and lose nothing.

He also keeps using ‘other people’ or ‘people’ in his arguments. Problem is, even though part of his post is about ‘the fandom’s tendency to justify/explain it’, he does not explain why they are wrong when specific arguments are used. He just states them and acts like it’s SOOOO OBVIOUS when the vague ‘people’ get an explanation. To be blunt, it feels less like an argument and more like a built in defense against rebuttal. Because if anyone tries to point out stuff that could logically explain the writing- the post has a built in dismiss of such things. To avoid this, he should have systematically broken down the arguments, explain the other side and then break each point logically.

Then we move onto the third, explaining why this is bad. And remember when I said that his ‘plothole’ inclusion was gonna bite him in the ass? Well, guess what his first argument is? Yeah, he says it encourages bad writing behaviors but the point itself doesn’t really support this with RWBY (it mostly rambles about Harry Potter and gay Dumbledore) before pointing out the writers say they keep things vague to avoid plotholes...which his first part implies is fine.

The second is that it breaks immersion and suspension of disbelief. ... Again, he never defined what is a definitively bad ‘leap of logic’ (which this is what that refers to) so it’s completely reliant on the reader’s perception. Which is NOT a sign of a good argument.

The third is that it ‘makes the story hard to analyze’ and we run into the explanation problem again as he speaks about the time in mansion being contradictory through what the creators say and the movement of the sun. ... I have no idea what he’s referencing and considering the rest of his post, I don’t buy him.

Then we have...the last part. Which is basically him saying ‘Well, the fandom is divided on info!’ using a scenario about sleet and three people: one who loves Ironwood, hates Ironwood and neutral.

... And he completely misses how the two severe sides might try to twist information to suit their biases and even the neutral party can have other braises affecting them. All this does is show me he doesn’t understand how so many people’s minds work.

The whole thing can be cut down to single sentences and lose nothing, the person uses very shallow criticism techniques that it’s reliant on me agreeing with him to like this, it’s ironically vague itself to the point of having an implied circular reasoning (’people just justify the writing’ ‘you’re wrong’ ‘you’re just justifying the writing’) and it uses undefined people instead of defined arguments-

It’s just a really bad criticism.

[dragimal]

now that s5 is over and I’m starting to wind down from the high of the finale, I think I can finally grasp *exactly* why I have mixed feelings on s5. to be clear, I absolutely ADORE TMA as a whole, and still consider it one of the best pieces of horror media I’ve consumed. but s5 left me feeling... not bad, but off, even when there’s plenty I still rly like abt s5

it mainly comes down to 2 things for me: 1) the severe tone shift, and 2) Martin being Fucking Weird for a lot of the season

a lot of ppl have talked abt how s5 just wasn’t as scary as the previous seasons for various reasons. one kinda inevitable reason was simply that a lot of the mystery of the horror had been revealed at that point, and a monster is never as scary once you can see it clearly. but I think the bigger reason is that the format shifted from horror anthology to.... sociology anthology. like, every statement of s5 felt like a sociology paper on fear and systemic abuse, rather than something meant to chill the reader

this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, honestly-- like I said, much of the mystery had been revealed, so I think it was an understandable move to try to shift the narrative somehow. also, I love sociology papers! I think they’re interesting to read, and s5 gave us some rly creative frameworks for some of them (the poetic carousel, Oliver’s professional assessment, Jared’s garden--)

however, I do think the tone shift was still a bit jarring, esp considering what the audience was used to up to that point. perhaps that’s an appropriate move, to match a plot point as game-changing as the literal apocalypse. BUT that doesn’t mean the tone shift still wasn’t a bit of a let-down, in terms of horror and tension

like, yeah a lot of the mystery was gone, but Hill Top Road ended up being the big mystery of s5... and we weren’t even fully aware of it til almost the end of the season? sure, there was plenty of fan speculation, but we were also considering SO many other possibilities, Hill Top was never rly a core theory until VERY late in the game. like, the mystery seemed to take a backseat to the sociology papers, if that makes sense, lmao

literally the ONE episode to give me chills down my spine like the good ol’ days pre-s5 was MAG196: This Old House. Annabelle vaguely threatening Martin, and ending on, “You have no idea who’s listening, do you?” fucking SUPERB, I was absolutely DELIGHTED by the possibilities of that one line! like, what did it mean? were we gonna go full meta??

but the last few eps after that were... frankly kind of a letdown from that spike of tension? I think those last eps are what rly cinched this idea for me-- that s5 was literally like reading a sociology paper. it rly all was just, arguing about the possibilities, considering the consequences, and making decisions. which, again, isn’t necessarily bad, but it’s not horror-- it’s a thought exercise with an apocalyptic garnish

EDIT-- I forgot to say, I think this is part of why MAG200 simply didn’t hit me the same way it hit others. it was intellectually satisfying-- it tied up loose ends, closed character arcs/relationships, left some delicious ambiguity-- but not emotionally cathartic, if that makes sense? like, I was expecting to cry, but I didn’t even rly get teary? I was grinning and delighted by all the satisfying conclusions, but I didn’t feel that emotional RELEASE that I was expecting and hoping for

as for jonmartin, I want to be clear here. I am NOT one of those ppl that thinks jonmartin came out of nowhere in s4-- I think the buildup pre-s5 was excellent, and their finally being together at the end of s4 was so so earned and rewarding. I’m also NOT one of those ppl that thinks arguments = abuse. I think when I briefly criticized jonmartin in s5 in the past, ppl got this impression that like, I think that jonmartin miscommunicating and having bad coping mechanisms... means that they’re bad for each other and abusing each other? and that’s just not the case?? 

I admit that my initial response to some of the jonmartin weirdness may have been a bit harsh, but even at the time I still loved jonmartin and was simply looking at their relationship with a critical but loving lens

what I have a problem with is that Martin pulls just as much bullshit as Jon in s5, and NEVER gets called out for it

this post I made a while back gets more into the details that bother me, but essentially, there’s always been this rly uneven “accountability scale” (idk what else to call it) for Jon vs. a lot of other characters-- in that, Jon always gets called out for his bullshit, while a lot of other characters don’t. now a lot of this is perfectly explainable as Jon being the main character, so we simply see his fuck-ups AND the subsequent consequences more often than any other character. and there are plenty of characters that I absolutely do NOT blame for going a bit overboard (I give Melanie and Tim in particular a ton of leeway here, given their respective situations. they more or less have full rights to bully Jon imo)

but, the problem is, there are also a LOT of moments where other characters say something absolutely horrific to Jon (namely Basira and Georgie in s4), like imply that he’s responsible for problems he had absolutely no control over, or fucking blame him for literally being groomed into an Archivist by people/powers he couldn’t even grasp... and those accusations are just left to sit and fester in Jon, completely uncontested

the nice thing abt s5 is that most of this is addressed-- like Basira’s completely unfair double-standards for “monsters”, and Georgie unknowingly blaming Jon for his trauma, etc.-- in very satisfying ways.

.... except for Martin.

without rehashing that linked post too much, Martin’s main problem in s5 is that his go-to response to trauma is denial. he denies the fact that he wants to kill avatars for his own satisfaction (which is a completely reasonable desire on its own tbqh!), and instead continues to lie to himself (for quite a long time) that killing avatars is actually helping anyone but Jon and Martin. he denies that Jon’s become a real full-fledged “monster”, and refuses to acknowledge all the baggage that comes with that

this denial unintentionally projects a lot of rly fucked-up messages at Jon, like: Jon is now a freaky horrorshow (even when he’s doing something completely innocuous, like talking casually about his powers); Jon’s fears over losing his autonomy/identity to the Eye, and his fears over his proven abilities to hurt others, are invalid; monsters inherently deserve to die, despite Jon technically being one; Jon not being able to use his powers “well enough” is some failure on his part

now, none of this is to say Martin’s characterization on its own is a bad thing-- I actually think it could’ve been interesting! it’s a perfectly reasonable trauma response, it tracks for Martin’s character pre-s5, and could have been a rly interesting perspective to explore.... if it was ever actually challenged by the narrative or other characters

I think the closest we got was Martin’s conversation with himself in his own domain, when his double calls him out for fantasizing a happy ending where Jonah is dead and Jon and Martin kiss (OUGH.... JONNY YOU HURT ME..), but that still never rly addresses the hurt that Martin’s denial causes Jon

and god, I was rly holding out-- Martin seemed to chill out on the denial a lot after the first third of the season, and I was hoping it might go a similar route as Basira, where it would just take a while to rly address Martin’s issues. but then Jon and Martin have their argument in MAG194, and I was fully on Martin’s side of it, UNTIL he said, “You weren’t meant to enjoy it this much!” (in reference to Jon killing avatars), and when Jon calls him out, Martin just brushes over it! 

BOY when I tell you I went BALLISTIC.... FUCK YOU Martin, YOU’RE the one that went all Kill Bill and PUSHED Jon to feel the same way!! JESUS. like I get that that wasn’t the core of the argument there, but oh my god that one bit...

and once again, to make myself perfectly fucking crystal clear here, this is coming from someone who relates heavily to both Jon and Martin. I can see exactly where Martin is coming from for many of his decisions, and the trauma that’s led him to mentally protect himself like this. so it only makes me more frustrated to see him refuse to face his own issues, while still (understandably) expecting Jon to face his issues. yes, Jon pulls a LOT of bullshit in s5 that he deserves to be called out for (and called out he is!), but accountability goes both ways, Martin! you can’t demand responsible behavior from others if you’re not willing to extend the same courtesy!

[simptasia]

neurodivergence in abc’s lost

i’m gonna be listing off and talking about the canon neurodivergent characters in lost. i won’t be adding characters that i personally headcanon as neurodivergent in some way, what i’m writing here is elaboration upon what has been given to me by the show. please note that none of these people’s conditions or disorders were named in the show, so such diagnoses being named here are me taking that extra step based upon their symptoms

first of all i wanna point out that based on what i’ve seen the show, that the island’s healing powers applies to conditions inflicted upon the mind, not ones inherent to the mind. thats why daniel’s brain damage heals, but people like hurley and locke will always continue to have depression

hugo “hurley” reyes

schizophrenia and depression

our most prominently featured mentally ill character. it might seem bold to label him with schizophrenia when it’s never said that that’s what he has. but during his time on lost, he displays many of the symptoms: paranoia, pathological self loathing, delusions and hallucinations. now, it’s a fictionalized depiction of schizophrenia and that’s probably not even what the writers had in mind but it’s none the less a really, really good and respectful portrayal of it

it would take too long to list off all the times when hurley displays paranoia (heck, it’s easy not to notice how much its a part of his character) and self loathing. delusions? the situations regarding the numbers and his bad luck (canon never ever Proves what hurley believes to be true regarding that stuff)

they did an episode dedicated to hurley having hallucinations. a man named dave who drives him to self destructive behaviour, self hatred and attempted suicide. fun fact: when people with schizophrenia in real life have hallucinations, they tend towards just auditory. hurley gets visual as well as per Rule Of Drama. this is not a bad thing, just a narrative tool

(steering slightly into headcanon for a bit here but i personally ignore the dharma made Hurley Bird they revealed in the epilogue and just take hurley hearing that bird say his name as an auditory hallucination. for two reasons: one, hurley hearing/seeing things that don’t exist is already consistent with his mental state. and two, that bird literally, genuinely did not fucking say hurley)

extra notes

to be clear, in case there's confusion, hurley really does have magical powers. he can talk to dead people. that isn’t a delusion or hallucination. you can understand how confusing and distressing this must be for hurley

he's had a compulsive eating disorder since he was ten due to the pain of his father abandoning him. his struggle with this is well documented

at several points during the show he’s shown to have trouble spelling. he especially confuses his “y(s)” and “ies”. it’s not clear if this is due to poor education or a learning issue. or both, really. it’s safe to assume with him being poor, mexican and mentally ill, that school wasn’t easy for hurley

hurley has unjustifiably lived at mental health institutions on at least two occasions (the first time was against his will, second was volunteer)

john locke

depression

locke suffers from severe self esteem issues, and i know most lost characters do, but i mean to the point of irrational and destructive behaviour. he has an obsession with being deemed special in order to justify his existence. he also suffers jarring mood swings. (he can switch from calm and jovial to angry and defensive at the drop of a hat). when he was wheelchair bound, this threw him into a depression. when he failed to convince anybody to come back to the island, he attempted suicide. he would have gone thru with it too. he will go to extremes to make sure things stay the way he wants them to (killing an innocent woman so they can stay on the island, tying up and drugging boone so he won’t tell anybody about the hatch), and will fall into despair if he fails

also note that the things im saying about locke are not a comment on people with depression. i don’t think all depressed people kill and drug people. those were statements on locke’s character that i believe are a part of his mental state. my point is: he’s emotionally unstable and he tried to kill himself. and i think his extreme need for validation (from people and the universe in general) is especially concerning

to me, this all says to me that locke has clinical depression

locke isn’t as easy as the other people on this list to classify as Canon Neurodivergent but at least to me, i think it’s very obvious. like i feel bad being so vague but like, basically, watch any locke episode

daniel faraday

acquired brain damage, severe memory degradation as well as other neurodivergent behaviours (i’ll go into it)

he’s played by jeremy davies. enough said

okay, jokes aside. at some point in the past daniel and his assistant theresa were involved in some vaguely referred to time based experiments. while she was catatonicized, the accident left daniel severely brain damaged (also daniel spent years doing radioactive experiments without head protection, which would not have helped and indeed that is foreshadowing of this whole debacle)

apparently this left him in a state where he can no longer take care of himself, having been assigned a carer. his most outstanding symptom is that his ability to process short AND long term memory has been impaired

short term: he’s shown to have issues retaining memories from day to day. he wasn’t sure if he had met charles widmore already (he hadn’t). charles lays some exposition on him and when daniel asks why he’s telling him this, charles says, with sureness, that “because by tomorrow you won’t remember this”. counting on that to be an absolute fact seems silly to me but that does seem to the case. again, Rule Of Drama is in play here

long term: he can no longer access memories he formed many years ago, famously the memories he formed with desmond in 1996. all in all, this condition is highly plot convenient. can’t argue with results, really

no, i can keep going, i got more, this is daniel fucking faraday we’re talking about: his ability to remember 3 playing cards has been impaired (note that this is a skill most 4 year olds master), he forgot the secret code the science team were all taught and when he introduces himself to jack there is a long pause, in hindsight implying that daniel forgot his own name

like real life memory conditions, theres varying level to how much he does and doesn’t remember. he’s thankfully not in a 50 first dates situation and doesn’t forget everything day to day. clearly he remembers people if they’re around enough, like during his time on the boat. charlotte, miles, frank, naomi...

upon landing on the island, his memory slowly gets better (considering his condition beforehand, the fact that nobody comments on this is staggering)

when dan is fully healed? i could not say, i could theorize, but such things are nebulous. but still, the times we see dan without his brain damage, he still behaves like a neurodivergent person. just not like he was when he was brain damaged. he stims near constantly, has a tendency to repeat names and words (echolalia) and it’s shown that dan compulsively counts in his head. he counted up to 864 beats, if i remember correctly, which is about 10 minutes of counting in his head. by no stretch of the imagination is that neurotypical behaviour

(im not trying to sound defensive. and i don’t think anybody, anywhere, is arguing that daniel faraday is a neurotypical. unfathomable)

going into headcanon territory again, his ND traits, when not brain damaged, say to me that he’s autistic and/or has OCD and possibly anxiety. thats all theorizing on my part tho. but the fact of the matter is, damage or no, he’s neurodivergent

notes

his apparent need for tactile sensory input is legendary in the lost fandom. in layman’s terms: him pet pet. not just people but objects too. humans, overall, tend to touch things to process input better. many ND people do it more, and it seems daniel is a case of that (i am not making a solid statement on jeremy davies’ neuro state. that’s his business)

he shows an inability to properly process grief

he also shows shocking indifference to his own safety, resulting in reckless behaviour. how much of this is a result of his mental state or his upbringing is up for debate. i think it’s a combo of both

without his brain damage, he appears to have an eidetic memory

danielle rousseau

trauma induced mental illness

pretty self explanatory. the loss of her expedition, husband and daughter, as well as 16 years of loneliness (on THIS island) has resulted in emotional instability for danielle. she’s prone to paranoia, trust issues, irrational behaviour

she’s just not well. she’s right most of the time but she’s not well

libby smith

indeterminate mental state 

libby was institutionalized (the same place hurley was sent to) and placed on medication (which seemed like sedatives to me, based on her expressions). in the show it’s not what clear what put her there, but having just done some research, i’ve discovered that Word Of God says that libby became mentally unstable after the death of her husband dave smith. so this is probably another case of trauma induced mental illness. she must have had a pretty extreme episode to cause her to be sent to a place like that. something to think about

but alas, it’s libby, so not much info. moving on

benjamin linus

anti social behaviour disorder (is my best guess)

oof. depictions of mental illness with characters who are immoral are depictions of mental illness nonetheless. i feel almost silly saying this but: ben is not... okay

ben displays issues (at best) with empathy, compassion and morality. how much he cares about other people is highly debatable but one thing that's certain is that he does genuinely love his daughter. everybody else is ????

but the loving alex thing rules out him being a sociopath or having narcissistic personality disorder. and it is genuine because when he loses it with grief, it’s not a performance, because the only audience is us...

he’s a compulsive liar, lying even when it doesn’t benefit him. lying just because. ben is highly unpredictable, which isn’t inherently a neurodivergent thing, but when a person goes from a calm discussion to strangling somebody, all roads point to Uh Oh (i don’t know the technical terms for Uh Oh). many of his outward emotions are performed (the difference between his fake smiles and few real smiles is noticeable). he’s manipulative, he treats people like objects for his benefit/plans, he’s self absorbed, he has zero issues with murder unless it’s a child. he does have some moral standards. but overall, uh, [just gestures at ben]

also ben is repeatedly offended when other people don’t trust him, which is HILARIOUS, but also shows a cognitive dissonance on his part

hmm i need more here, im gonna break out the big guns

that’s some basic info there and doesn’t that line up with ben?

the article goes on to say that people with this can put on superficial charm. that is, behave friendly and “normal” when they have to. which ben is shown to be able to do

and this

“Serious problems with interpersonal relationships are often seen in those with the disorder. Attachments and emotional bonds are weak, and interpersonal relationships often revolve around the manipulation, exploitation, and abuse of others.”

reminds me of his situation with juliet. and locke. and his “friendships” in general

i snipped the wikipedia article for this because unlike the rest i felt,,, underequipped to talk about this sort of thing

ben being mentally unwell is clear enough in canon and i think this disorder is what lines up best with it. please note that ben is capable of change and growth (like people in real life who have such issues) and like the show i’m not gonna paint him 100% evil or irredeemable. i’m just saying what’s true

notes

ben says at one point that he doesn’t dream anymore. it’s highly probably that this is a lie, but if it isn’t, well that's not good. it’d mean his brain isn’t entering into REM sleep properly, which can lead to emotional problems

ben doesn’t blink as much as most people do, something michael emerson did on purpose. this can apply to some neurodivergent people

it’s shown that he was quite nonverbal as a kid. in the flashbacks in “man behind the curtain” little ben barely speaks

honourable mentions

pretty much all the survivors suffer from PTSD due the trauma of the crash

a great deal of the characters suffer from PTSD from trauma in general due to their awful lifes. like, abusive parents, war, loss of loved ones, etc

and i must note that ben, daniel and locke suffering from parental abuse, ranging from emotional to physical, is something to factor into their cases

claire, similar to danielle, also suffered trauma induced mental illness due to the loss of her baby and feeling like she was abandoned

sayid is depicted as dead inside during season 6 due to The Sickness, so thats like a magical form of depression. and one could argue that he already had regular depression beforehand

boone joked about shannon having bulimia. (whether or not it’s true, boone is an asshole) if it’s true, shannon has an eating disorder, which is considered a form of mental illness. espech one so self image based

self harm

self harm is not an inherent part of mental illness but such concepts are often linked so i felt i should mention some of these, it’ll be quick

hurley’s aforementioned eating disorder

charlie takes heroin as a form of self harm (that isn’t a theory on my part, it’s clear as day that charlie started taking it because his sense of self worth was so low that the drugs felt like the only option)

locke, hurley, (both as mentioned above), jack, desmond, michael and richard have all attempted/nearly commited suicide

so what can we conclude from this? well that's up to you, really. that i love lost a fuck ton? that the actors and writing in lost is amazing? that all the neurodivergent based depth got saved for the boys? yeah

but i wanna conclude with this: a part of what makes lost really special to me is that these people i’ve talked out here? they’ve suffered, and oh boy it was tasty suffering, but all of them, yes even libby, were more than suffering

these people have nuance. one way or another, these people (to varying degrees) were happy at times. silly. funny. angry. opinionated. they loved. they were loved. they lived and breathed as human beings. that means a lot to me

lost is a story of broken people given a second chance. take that as you will

thank you for your time

[maverick-werewolf]

Werewolf Fact #51 - Magic Skins

Well, I broke 50 werewolf facts! But there’s still so much to cover! So here’s another one.

You’ve probably heard a lot - in media or otherwise - about werewolves in relation to magic skins, and vice versa. What’s up with that? Just how do animal skins relate to werewolves? Let’s find out...

Dat jaw workout tho.

Anyway, magic skins are actually pretty commonplace in werewolf folklore and mythology. The biggest source about them that you’ll hear of, no doubt, is Norse myth. Norse myth is pretty loaded with all kinds of stories related to animal skins - not least of which are the berserkers, of course, and the ulfhednar/ulfhedinn (depending on plural/singular). But I have a separate post on those. I recently expanded it a little! Be sure to check it out, because “berserker” doesn’t refer to a “bear warrior” like you probably think it does.

But I won’t go into that here; check the other post for that. For things bear-related (and more on magic skins, but not in relation to werewolves), also be sure to check my post on bear shapeshifters/”werebears.”

All that aside, though, one of the biggest actual stories we have that talk about magic skins is a story involving legendary figures Sigmund and Sinfjotli, who donned wolf skins one night that turned them into wolves - and then they couldn’t take them back off and reassume their human forms. They went on what’s now occasionally referred to as the “wolfs-ride,” (originally gandreið, which has nothing at all to do with wolves because it means more like “wand ride,” and means basically “staff ride,” more in association with the Wild Hunt - and again we see the negative bias inherent in modern scholars and translators against wolves), basically giving in to their bestial instincts and challenging each other to kill a certain number of people within an allotted time.

That, of course, didn’t always happen to everyone who turned into wolves using wolf-skins. Nor did everyone who donned a wolf skin directly turn into a wolf/werewolf, like Kveldulf, a warrior who was never actually described as changing shape (though he was said to do so!). He didn’t have to change shape, either, to have the strength of many men and beat up tons of people who made him mad. He’d get grouchier as the day went on, until, in the evening, his temper was terrible. But he was considered noble and good. I totally love Kveldulf, he’s awesome.

Generally speaking, a lot of werewolves and werewolf-like figures in Norse myth were associated with magic skins. You can find many lineages of various folks with Ulf (Norse for “wolf”) names, all of whom could turn into wolves. Or, as they say, “don the wolf shape.”

Now, not all werewolves and wolf shapechanging of any type in Norse myth involved skins! Sometimes it involved transporting one’s mind and/or soul into an animal’s body, entering a shamanic trance, and sometimes it was totally different than either example. But all of that is details for another time.

Generally, these skins - which could come in many forms, but generally were cloaks, cowls, and girdles - were somehow magically enchanted, cursed, or both, depending on whom you asked and whom was in control of them. Others, like Kveldulf, clearly didn’t necessarily need these skins to gain the might of the wolf and had it even in their human form. In fact, it’s implied most berserkers did.

Turning into a wolf with the skins and/or any other variety of werewolfish things, rituals, and shapechanging acts - including becoming a berserker - wasn’t always considered necessarily “bad” or “evil,” nor was it directly always considered “good.” Wolves themselves in Norse myth are perceived very mixed. Often, they are considered good and people and warriors all look up to them for their cunning, ferocity, strength, wisdom, and all their other amazing majestic incredible strong and brave qualities (can you tell I’m biased? But really, they loved them, too, for - in a word - their sheer badassery).

This can be seen in the case of Odin having dominion over wolves, as well as having his own two wolves, Geri and Freki, who were meant to be the progenitors of wolves everywhere. But then, conversely, you have not so good wolves - you have evil wolves like Fenrir, destined to swallow Odin and slay him during Ragnarok (basically he was the scariest thing about Ragnarok, don’t let any movies tell you otherwise...), and there were plenty of other bad wolves, too.

To a warrior, though, having the strength and ferocity of a wolf was pretty desirable, and plenty of positive figures in Norse writings had wolf associations. So, no, they weren’t all always evil by any means, and they were also frequently associated with wisdom and sages.

Much later in history, other werewolf legends began to re-adopt this concept of wolf skins. Specifically, in the Renaissance/Early Modern period, the concept of wolf skins arose again in several werewolf trials - most notably Jean Grenier, who claimed he received a wolf skin given to him by the “man of the forest,” a big creepy dude who was quite possibly Satan or, at the very least, some kind of demon or guy with lots of very close demonic dealings. He didn’t exclusively use this wolf skin, though, as there was a salve and some other ritual involved to assuming his wolf form.

This was also, as I’ve mentioned, the time period when concepts of werewolves (and wolves themselves - real ones, actual living animals) began to be warped forever - and they’re still that way today. In that time period, they became associated with crazy people, cannibals, serial killers, etc., and all other variety of undesirable people. Werewolves, essentially, became associated solely with madmen and often with Satan. This was not an exclusively Christian doing, either, as there are plenty of positive Christian portrayals of werewolves (not all of which are covered in this post, either). While Christianity certainly warped many legends, werewolves were not actually one of them, despite what some people might tell you. There are many, many positive Christian depictions of werewolves, and you can find several covered in other werewolf facts (I did one just recently on the werewolves of Ossory). And then there are werewolf knights, whether they were all directly Christian or not.

But I covered all that in other posts, too - most of them, in fact. But most specifically in these two posts here (Part I and Part II), on the descent of the werewolf into what we think of them as today (unfortunately). I think the honestly rather crappy modern perception of werewolves was shaped entirely too much by this shoddy time period and that helped people forget all the original legends and assume they know them without really knowing them at all.

Oops. How’d that soapbox get there? Let me move that.

Anyway, getting back to the skins, that mostly covers it! There’s so much to be said, of course, but that’s the basic overview.

(If you like my werewolf blog, be sure to check out my other stuff! And please consider supporting me on Patreon - you get goodies, get to help me decide what the next werewolf fact will be, and every little bit helps me so much!

Patreon --- Werewolf Fact Masterlist --- Twitter)