#subversion

[minsungincorrectquotes]

Minho: What's for dinner? Jisung: It's a soup-prise! Minho: Is it soup? Jisung: I soup-pose it could be Minho: Your puns are lame Jisung: That's soup-er mean *At dinner* Minho: It's fucking tacos?!?!

[wearepaladin]

The Forsaken by

JiminH99 She had refused to accept that the sword had refused her, for was she not the Chosen One? So she exhumed it, sword and stone and all. But little did she know, the sword had long been corrupted, and lured the prideful to their doom with the promise of the glory it would bring.

[blackflash9]

That Time When AC3 Flipped Indigenous Portrayal

I always liked that AC III flipped familiar tropes about Native Americans in media, particularly regarding the language barrier and cultural awareness. Ziio mocks Haytham for assuming she can’t speak English, subverting the usual narrative where the comedic effect of not knowing the 'language of the land' is on the indigenous.

It is also Haytham - not Ziio - who causes the bar commotion despite his rather arrogant and baseless assumption that her culture would make her more prone to violence despite only being in the country for roughly a couple days. This also highlights that she understands the land and its people far better than he does.

Redcoat: "Oi, where you goin’, cully?" Redcoat: "No. The other cock robin." Haytham: "Well, I uh… I WAS leaving." Redcoat: "Oh? And now?" Haytham: "Well, now… I’m going to feed you your teeth." Kaniehtí:io: "And you were worried I was going to be the problem."

This also extends to Connor, as he regularly defies expectations by displaying more morality and virtue than many of his colonial counterparts. He criticizes the manipulative nature of the media for countering lies with more lies.

Sequence 5: Stop the Presses (Transcript)

Samuel Adams: "So now you've had a chance to see how it all works. Untoward actions will upset the citizens and inevitably lead to the guards being called. Depending on the severity of your transgression, they may simply search a bit before giving up and returning to their posts. But should you offend them severely or repeatedly – they'll become much more aggressive in their pursuit. I've shown you three ways to turn the tide. Remove wanted posters, bribe town criers, or visit a printer to create your own propaganda." Connor: "This feels wrong. Why not just speak to someone and explain my innocence?" Adams: "You can't be serious?" Connor: "We counter one lie with another. Words on paper instantly taken as truth. And all of it without question."

Calls him out on his hypocrisy in fighting for freedom while owning slaves.

Sequence 6: On Johnson's Trail (Transcript)

Samuel Adams: "Of course. I'm headed to a meeting with some men who should be able to help. Why don't you come along? It's good to see the people finally taking a stand against injustice..." Connor: "Says the man who owns a slave." Samuel Adams: "Who, Surry? I practice what I preach, my friend. She's not a slave, but a freed woman... At least on paper. Men's minds are not so easily turned. It is a tragedy that for all our progress, still we cling to such barbarism." Connor: "Then speak out against it." Samuel Adams: "We must focus first on defending our rights. When this is done, we'll have the luxury of addressing these other matters." Connor: "You speak as though your condition is equal to that of the slaves. It is not." Samuel Adams: "Tell that to my neighbor—who was compelled to quarter British troops. Or to my friend who's store was closed because he displeased the Crown. The people here are no freer than Surry." Connor: "You offer excuses instead of solutions. All people should be equal and not in turns."

And even stops Israel Putnam from kicking a dead enemy’s body - emphasizing that even someone as ruthless as Hickey was still a man.

Sequence 8: Public Execution (Transcript)

Israel Putnam: "At ease, men! At ease! I said lower your goddamn guns! This man's a hero! The General can be so stubborn sometimes. Piffle, he said, when we warned him something like this would happen! Piffle!" *Israel Putnam kicked Thomas' body* Connor: "Stop." Israel Putnam: "He wanted to kill the Commander. Nearly killed you as well. He was a scoundrel." Connor: "But still a man." Israel Putnam: "Hmph. You're nothing, if not consistent."

Assassin’s Creed III challenged the traditional portrayal of Indigenous people as either savages or passive victims, instead presenting them as individuals with intelligence, morality, and deep cultural awareness. The narrative highlights their ability to navigate complex social and political landscapes while exposing the hypocrisy and shortcomings of colonial figures. Rather than being depicted as primitive or completely naive, characters like Ziio and Connor demonstrate a greater understanding of their environment and the moral contradictions of their time. The game doesn’t just critique the British - it questions the American revolutionaries, revealing how their rhetoric of freedom often excluded those who did not fit within their social order.

Through Ziio and Connor, AC3 asserts that Indigenous people were not merely bystanders in history but active participants who approached their world with wisdom and integrity.

[crimson-and-clover-1717]

Chauncy’s character assassination of Stede Bonnet in 109 is brutal. I want to explore the imagery and connotations of monster. Typically, we think of monsters as grotesque, ugly and something to be feared. Monsters are deemed anti-normative by the majority who set the standard for what is considered desirable, normative.

Stede has been ‘monstered’ by everyone his whole life. His father others and bullies Stede for being a gender nonconforming boy; Mary cannot understand Stede’s desperate need to ‘break the monotony’ in their marriage; the Revenge crew can’t initially comprehend this new, life-affirming approach to piracy and consider mutiny. To the likes of Nigel Badminton, Stede has been a ‘monster’ since childhood with his gentle, crying, flower-picking ways. Ed is the first person to see beauty and worth in the monster. When Ed attempts finally to shed the costume of toxic masculinity worn as protective armour for so long, he is accused of being a monster too: ‘This…you’ve become’. This. Unnamable. A whatever. All because Ed isn’t performing masculinity to Izzy’s expected standard. Effeminate behaviour will not be tolerated. Emotion outside of anger is weakness.

But this show loves to confound and it confounds well.

In 203, Ed’s mind subverts the trope of the monster into something transcendental. And by doing so rescues his own self from the Kraken-monster imagery that has imprisoned him, the stone falling from his waist, albatross-like.

Because what is more monster than a human-hybrid. A scaly, underwater-breathing, half-man, half-goldfish. Merstede is a monster. An effeminate one. And a beautiful one! Ed reclaims the word from Chauncy, rehabilitates it, and allows the wonder of Stede Bonnet to blaze across his dying consciousness. This enigmatic man, frequently reviled for being unashamedly himself, turned Ed’s world upside down and inside out. Who challenges Ed’s own perceptions of self again, and again, and again. Whose anti-normative qualities are not grotesque, but rather exquisite. This undefinable, miraculous creature who left Blackbeard completely and utterly undone.

Stede mirrors Ed. I am you and you are me. Let’s be anti-normative together. Let’s redefine the trope.

Here be monsters, both.

[hookedpike]

Heehee - Check out my story. It’s a subversion 👀

[twopoppies]

https://www.tumblr.com/twopoppies/775565357490569217/part-of-me-thinks-sometimes-that-one-of-the-main?source=share

I had thought something similar because Harry loves performing, touring, and making music, and I think he's a workaholic, so it does seem odd that he'd take such a long break, even though he totally deserves it. But I discarded that theory because the last stunt (hussell) happened during his break, and he was seen with Stringer last year.

I wonder what his plans are. I still remember the insta story he posted and then deleted ('why do I like chess?'), and I think a big part of his life is like a chess game. I hope they're winning.

I really think Hussell was to help repair his image after Holivia. It was all the things fans pointed out that made the others seem fake (although they really can't help themselves, and they still follow the same dumb playbook, so it still looks fake to anyone paying attention).

And I think being seen with Stringer is part of the game. Just like when we got that photo in 2015 of Harry at Irving's office. I think it was posted in order to send a message to Simon/Sony/whoever was working against Harry that he had big guns behind him. I don't know what he's thinking or planning, but after giving them three successful albums, winning AOTY, winning three other grammys, winning a bunch of Brits, mounting a hugely successful tour, and generating millions and millions of dollars for everyone, I think he's got some leverage to negotiate with.

I could be totally wrong, and he just likes not working, but it's very unusual for him. The chess post (which, for some reason, I don't have. Can someone please send it to me?) wasn't a mistake, either. It's all a chess game, and I really hope he's winning.

The deleted chess video can be found here.

[spockvarietyhour]

Robert Carlyle as Nicholas Rush in Stargate Universe's "Subversion"

[jareckiworld]

Louise Cherry — Subversion III (acrylic and oil on canvas, 2021)

[tentacion3099]

El Salvador President Nayib Bukele on the USA decay.

[physalian]

How to Subvert Expectations Without Compromising The Story

Whoo boy, is this a contentious topic with the last few blockbuster franchises. To “subvert expectations” is to do the opposite of whatever your audience expects to happen. Your audience expects the story to go a certain way based on the archetypes and tropes your characters follow, the tone you’ve set for your story, and the level of mature themes that tone allows.

It might mean your long-lost princess doesn’t actually reclaim the throne she’s been fighting for. Or the presumed hero (or any of their straight friends) of the story dies halfway through their arcs. The mentor pegged for death actually survives to the end credits. The villain’s plan actually succeeds, or the heroes fail to deactivate the bomb before it explodes. The “will they/won’t they” is never fulfilled.

Supporters of SE argue the following:

It’s refreshing, novel, new, a fun twist on a classic tale

They like that it’s unpredictable and bold

They’re tired of stories fitting within the same wheel ruts of every other story that came before and like to see creativity thrive

It gives audiences something they didn’t even know they wanted

Haters of SE argue this:

It’s only done for drama at the cost of fulfilling character arcs

It’s a cheap gag that only works once and has zero rewatchability with the same impact

Tropes and archetypes have stood the test of time for a reason - to entertain

Plot holes ensue

When expectations are subverted and the story changes in a more positive light (like a beloved character who doesn’t die when we all think they will), the reaction is not nearly as emotionally charged as when the story changes negatively. Thus, the haters have plenty of evidence of bad examples, but minimize the good ones. Good SE is novel, or a pleasant surprise, or a quaint relief. Bad SE trashes the story and spits on the fans and destroys the legacy of the fandom.

What makes a bad subversion?

Like killing any character for shock value, bad SE takes all of the potential of a good story and gambles it for a string of gasps in the movie theater. It exists only to keep the audience on their toes, or because the writer went out of their way to change the direction of their work when fans figured out the mystery too quickly and now *must* prove all the clever sleuths wrong.

So, say your subversion is making the hero lose a tournament arc when they made it all the way to the final round and the entire story is riding on this victory. They may have stumbled along the way and had some near-misses, but they must win. Not just so the audience cheers, but because this is the direction their arc must take to be at all entertaining and fulfilling.

Then they lose, because it’s *novel* and irreparable consequences are reaped in the aftermath. They lose when, by rights, they were either stronger or smarter or faster than their opponent. They lose when the hand of the author rigs the fight against them and everyone notices.

Sure, it’s not at all what audiences expect, but you, writer, your first responsibility to the people consuming your content is to entertain them. So what purpose does this loss serve this character? How does it impact their arc, the themes that surround them, the message of your story?

Even if mainstream audiences don’t care on the surface about themes and motifs, they still know when a story fumbles. It’s not entertaining anymore, it’s not satisfying. Yes, crap happens in reality, but this is fiction. If I wanted to read about some tragic hero’s bitter and unsatisfying demise, I’d read about any losing side in any war ever in a history book. I picked up a fiction book for catharsis.

On the topic of “gritty fantasy/sci-fi anyone can die and no one is safe” – no author has the guts to roll the dice and kill whoever it lands on. Some characters will always have plot armor. Why? Because you wouldn’t have a story otherwise, you’d just have a bloody, gory, depressing reality TV show with hidden cameras.

What makes a good subversion?

Now. What if this character loses the final round of their tournament, but it’s their own fault? Maybe they get too cocky. Maybe it’s perfectly, tragically in character for them to fall on their own sword. Maybe the audience is already primed with the knowledge that this fight will be close, that there might be foul play involved, but still deny that it will happen because that’s the hero, they won’t lose. Until they do.

Then, it’s not the hand of the author, it’s this character’s flaws finally biting them in the ass. It’s still disappointing, no doubt, but then the audience is less mad at the author and more mad at the dumbass character for letting their ego get to their head.

If you write a character who’s entire goal in life is to win that trophy, or reclaim their throne, or get the girl, and they *don’t* do those things, then the “trophy” had better be the friends they made along the way, that they learned it wasn’t the trophy, it was something *better* and even though they lost, they still won. Even when expectations are shredded, the story still has to say something, otherwise the audience just feels like they wasted their time.

A good subversion does not compromise the soul of the narrative. You might kill a fan favorite character or even the hero of the story, but their impact on the characters they leave behind is felt until the very end. The hero might lose her tournament, but she still walks away with wisdom, maturity, and new friends. Heck, sports movies leave the winner of the big game a toss-up more often than not. Audiences know the game is important, but they know the character they’re following is even more important. Doesn’t matter if the *team* loses the battle, so long as the protagonist wins the Character Development war.

Good SE that should be more popular:

The “Trial of threes” – your hero faces three obstacles and usually botches the first two and succeeds on the third attempt. Subvert it by having them win on the first or second, lose all three, or have a secret fourth

Not killing your gays. Just. Don’t do it. That’ll subvert expectations just fine, won’t it?

Let the villain win

Have your hero’s love interest not actually interested in them because they realize they deserve better / Have the hero realize they don’t want the romantic subplot they thought they did

Have the love triangle become a polycule / have the two warring love interests get with each other instead, or both find someone they don’t have to compete for

Mid-redemption villain backslides at the Worst Moment Possible

Hero doesn’t actually have all the MacGuffins necessary at the Worst Moment Possible

Hero is simply wrong, about anything, about important things, about themselves

The character who knows too much still can’t warn their friends in time, but lives instead with the guilt of their failure

The mentor lives and becomes a bitter rival out to maintain their spot at the top of the charts

Kill the hero, and make the villain Regret Everything

More deadbeat missing parents, not just dead parents

Let the hero live long enough to become the villain

—

Why write a crown prince that never becomes king? What’s the point of his story if all he does is remain exactly who he was on page 1 and learns nothing for his efforts? Why write a rookie racer if he spins out in the infield in the big race and ends his story broken and demoralized in a hospital bed? Why should we, the audience, spend time and emotional investment on a story that goes nowhere and says nothing?

Cinderella always gets a happy ending no matter how many iterations her story gets, because she wouldn’t be Cinerella if she remained an abused orphan with no friends. We like predictability, we like puzzling out where we think the story will go based on the crumbs of evidence we pick up along the way, we like interacting with our fiction and patting ourselves on the back when we’re proven right.

Tragedies exist. There’s seven types of stories and the fall from grace is one of them… but audiences can see a tragedy coming from a mile away. Audiences sign up for a tragedy when they pay for the movie ticket. We know, no matter how much we root for that character to make better choices, that their future is doomed. Tragedy is still cathartic.

What’s not cathartic is being bait-and-switched by a writer who laughs and snaps pictures of our horrified faces just so they can say they proved us wrong. Congratulations? Go ahead and write the rookie broken in the hospital bed. I can’t stop you. Just don’t be shocked when no one wants to watch your misery parade march on by.

[cat-appreciator]

There’s a meme that goes “humans are space orcs”, comparing our various abilities (mostly stamina, healing etc) to other species on Earth and extrapolating that compared to aliens we are super-strong war gods. I don’t particularly like it, largely because it smacks of exceptionalism (there’s a strong crossover with the “humans fuck yeah” anthropochauvinist space opera subgenre).

I will grant that, as pursuit predators, our stamina is probably above average (the only other pursuit predators I can think of are wolves, with which humans have a long and productive history (to the point that a human society without dogs is a bizarre anomaly, and the only ones I can think of are in Micronesia for a thousand years or so after the initial settlement of those islands by the Lapita culture)).

So humans are probably remarkable for our stamina and the fact that where you find a human you will also find a dog (which is sometimes extrapolated to “humans are remarkable for our pack bonding in general).

With that introduction out of the way, I think there’s an argument to be made that we are actually space elves, and the real space orcs are sadly extinct:

[poltergirlst]

groping your cute butt subtly as we’re both praising the lord at the altar in front of a full and fervent church. it’s just a little reminder of whom you need to praise the most.

[ikathz]

To be Hero X, Madoka Magica, and Evangelion : The Triad of Subversions

So are we just gonna ignore how To Be Hero X is doing to the superhero genre what Madoka Magica did to the magical girl genre?? Utterly subverting the tropes that has become the staple of the genre?? And To Be Hero X, with how popular it is right now would most likely make the whole superhero genre scenery be dark and edgy for at least a few years like those dark edgy magical girl shows!?

Actually, why not add Evangelion to the mix too, with how it's a subversion of the mecha genre! The chaos that would happen if the worlds collide! I can already imagine Linling, Homura, and Shinji sweating bullets at how messed up their world had gotten!

main point is i just love crossovers a little too much don't @ me

[spockvarietyhour]

Stargate Universe "Subversion"

[jareckiworld]

Louise Cherry — Subversion II (oil on canvas, 2021)