#that post about a character's flaws stemming from their virtues

[moralesmilesanhour]

Even though I don't really vibe with the idea of writing Miles or Miles G as "toxic" (read: one-dimensionally possessive and threatening but make it """sexy"""), I think a story where either Miles isn't able to be the best friend or partner they could be because they don't know how to healthily deal with their circumstances would be rlly interesting. Like, it's a realistic and complex premise to explore! I just haven't seen it done in a way that doesn't romanticize or fetishize it very often. What do y'all think? In general I don't think I've seen too many works where Miles is given character flaws that impact the story and his relationships (which is understandable given that most of us are writing fluff but still), so I'm curious abt that too

[applepie2523]

" HOTD's Issues Writing Women Part 2: The Whitewashing of Rhaenyra

**This is part 2 of my analysis on the issues with the writing of the two main female characters. If you haven’t already please read my part 1 post where I analyze Alicent’s character assassination which you can find on my profile.** I think many fans on the Blacks and Greens and in between regarding HOTD have been concerned and disappointed with the way the two main female characters: Rhaenyra Targaryen and Alicent Hightower have been written in HOTD seasons 1-2. This is very understandable. Female characters in general in HOTD and I think a lot of Hollywood films nowadays are not being written as well as they used to be and could be. Go on Youtube or Google and you'll find many film reviews/tv show reviews that critique the Mary Sue and Girlbossification or just poorly written in general female characters that are taking up a chunk of characters in Hollywood. Rhaenyra and Alicent to me were such great characters in F&B. They were two different kinds of medieval women in a fantasy setting. One, the medieval queen who gains power/influence through her relationship with men and advocating for her son. Two, the medieval queen who sought power in her name and defied some norms that make her compelling but also immoral in their eyes. They are two deeply flawed and complex characters fighting on opposite sides of a dynastic civil war.

This post is here to address the main issues of whitewashing when it comes to writing Rhaenyra Targaryen.

\***Some disclaimers: This is no issue with the actor themself. Emma D'Arcy while I may disagree with their opinions from time to time, they are a wonderful actor who is doing the best they can with the scripts they're given, so this is by no means a critique of them. I am going off of the show canon although the book will be mentioned.**

**So firstly... What is whitewashing?**

The modern definition of white washing is to cast in a show/movie or rewrite a character of a minority and make them white. For example, if someone decides to do a movie about Rosa Parks and they cast Emma Stone. However, white washing has another definition. It means to essentially remove or hide negative unpleasant facts or traits of a person or thing. I think Rhaenyra Targaryen suffers from this problem as many of her written negative traits or deeds so far are either not shown, projected onto another character close to her (Daemon Targaryen mostly), or severely downplayed. This results in a character that is almost too virtuous and bland for the setting she is in and a far cry from who she should be. A character whom doesn't seem to fit in the ruthless at times immoral world of Westeros. A character whom is almost a close to a Mary Sue. As I am very much on the belief that flaws versus virtues are what make a character compelling and human.

**I will say not every change made to Rhaenyra story arc and personality are necessarily all bad. Some are good ideas just poorly executed (ex - exploring more of Rhaenyra's hinted bisexuality, as there are hints in F&B that her close relationship with Laena may or may not have been more than platonic) and others are just good changes in general.**

*1. Victims vs. Villains - Biases in Writing Female Characters*

In the words of the iconic Grey's Anatomy actress Ellen Pompeo, ���Women are one of two roles. You’re either the victim or the villain. But the victims are only victims because they don’t have what it takes to be the villain.” I think she states the major issue with writing female characters nowadays that HOTD has an issue with. Women must either be victims or villains. The character assassination of Alicent and white washing of Rhaenyra to me stems from this: Alicent is the villain in Rhaenyra's story to Rhaenyra's victimhood.

*2. Rhaenyra's Negative Traits: Arrogance, Hot Temper, Frivolity, and Bad Decisions to Peace-Loving and Plainness*

Rhaenyra had many great qualities in the book but it is only when coupled with major character flaws are we truly compelled. She was a loving mother, passionate, intelligent to a degree, etc. However, she was also very ambitious and power-hungry, arrogant at times, quick to anger, slow to forgive, and frivolous at times. **As a writer myself, I firmly believe that characters are truly humanized and compelling when they have major character flaws coupled with their virtues. Flaws they either have to overcome or use to their advantage. Flaws that make them who they are. Flaws create layers of complexity in a character. Or Flaws that help foster the characters downfall.**

I'm not saying the Rhaenyra in the show isn't flawed. She is! For example, I think what's great is that a flaw they gave Rhaenyra is something show Viserys also had: the ability to ignore or downplay potential conflicts or hard truths versus facing them head on. Viserys refused to see the potential conflicts in naming Rhaenyra heir or pretending her elder three children are trueborn. Rhaenyra in the show refused to listen to Jace whose concerns regarding his parentage as her successor and the dragonseeds were ignored or dismissed. The issue is thought, Rhaenyra is not given the flaws that she most certainly had, **flaws that helped lead to her downfall**. She's not flawed the way she's supposed to be.

Similar to many other Targaryens including her half-brother Aegon II, Rhaenyra was quick to anger and slow to forgive. We have some brief moments where we see Rhaenyra's temper and quick witt, but we don't see the major moments where her major character flaws are shown. Alicent provokes Rhaenyra for example in season 1, having her take Joffrey to her moments after he is born. We never see Rhaenyra provoke Alicent back. Any times where we should have seen Rhaenyra's sharp temper at the slightest of remarks are not shown.

Rhaenyra's actions herself were also very whitewashed with how they were portrayed. We either see their negative consequences downplayed, not shown, or the actions were projected onto another male character. In the books due to how similar Laenor and Rhaenyra were in looks (I mean they were both white) there was still a tad more ambiguity as to whether or not Jace, Luke, and Joffrey were bastards. Race changing the Velaryons made it even more obvious her elder three boys were bastards. I took issue with the writing of Rhaenyra's dialogue and that of the characters around her, not truly showcasing why having bastards, especially as a woman, is a truly egregious thing. The potential chaos Rhaenyra could cause was completely downplayed.

A few actions for example that were incredibly violent and evil were butchered. First example being the murder of Vaemond Velaryon. I was disappointed with this scene. Firstly, we only see Vaemond protest Luke inheriting Driftmark which sets it up as more so an ambitious second son seeking power versus a man who doesn't want his house to be run by someone not of his blood. We don't see other Velaryons protesting with him. After Vaemond made his little speech, Rhaenyra orders him dead and Daemon kills him on **her orders**. She then viciously has his corpse fed to her dragon Syrax. I think this scene was crucial as it foreshadows the danger Rhaenyra would be in the future to House Velaryon and sow more seeds of discontent that are crucial to the house's eventual turn to the Green side. Not only is Vaemond killed more viciously, Viserys orders the tongue removal of even more Velaryons who sided with Vaemond with Rhaenyra's consent! Instead, the show projects this entirely onto Daemon. Daemon goes Rogue (see what I did there) and kills Vaemond on his own accord. Rhaenyra stands there shocked and doesn't even order the body fed to her dragon. Rhaenyra is absolved from all blame to Vaemond's unjust execution without trial.

The thing about B&C is Rhaenyra was paralyzed with grief for her son, Luke. The moment her child died was the moment where her descent into madness and powerful wrath began to truly manifest and she would stop at nothing. I was very disappointed in the fact that she has one episode of grieving and then continues to be so level-headed. I couldn't feel her grief, rage, and resentment towards the Greens for her son's death that makes the war even worse. Daemon tells Rhaenyra that he would avenge her son. I loved the acting of Matt and Emma during their argument about the aftermath. However, I felt like Rhaenyra wasn't acting on character with the book. I don't think book Rhaenyra was 100% okay with a child dying as her vengeance, but I do feel with how angered and filled with grief and hatred Rhaenyra should be, Rhaenyra should be a bit more hardened. She should have not been so sorry about the child's death.

I also think that one of Rhaenyra's most controversial and evil decisions in the future are going to either not be included, blamed on someone else, or downplayed. It's very clear at the end of season 2 episode 8 that my favorite dragonseed Nettles is being cut and given to Rhaena who had her own plot and dragon hatchling. After Ulf the White and Hugh Hammer betray her, Rhaenyra's paranoia goes overload and declares that all the dragonseeds are traitors. Corlys advocates for Addam Velaryon and Nettles and Rhaenyra responds by having him arrested. He warns Addam, and is then bound, beaten, and thrown into the black cells. One of her most powerful allies is now thrown in the black cells. This causes the fleet of House Velaryon to turn against her. Later, she attempts to violate guest right, which is sacred in Westeros (which is why the Red Wedding was so horrific to Westeros even more so), by plotting to have Nettles murdered. As Nettles is being cut, I doubt they'd show this truly negative action as Rhaena can't have Nettles's complete plot. Rhaenyra's unjust arrest of Corlys and House Velaryon turning from her from what they're doing so far might just be blamed on someone else, have a different excuse that is not the one that the book gave, or not shown whatsoever.

I also think they might just be setting her up to be innocent of the torture of Tyland Lannister. After the Greens flee with most of the treasury leaving Rhaenyra in Kingslanding pretty broke, he refused to tell her where the gold was sent. Under Rhaenyra's orders he was tortured and castrated and blinded and disfigured to point of being disgusting. They might just have him be tortured by Mysaria or Daemon on their own accord without Rhaenyra's orders, leaving her innocent, or they will have him tortured by the Triarchy or something. Maybe after Mysaria and/or Daemon torture him, they'll frame it as vengeance for Jace and then Rhaenyra might let him go to appear merciful to an audience. As they cut Maelor whose murder was the breaking point that caused Helaena's suicide, we might not see how another child under the war was murdered by her faction. I worry that they won't show how how her cruelties that she did on her own accord caused her to be hated just as much if not more than her half brothers Aegon II and Aemond. They might not truly set the tone and show actions that lead to her being "Rhaenyra the Cruel" and "Maegor with Teats" they might not show the actions, or blame them on someone else or something else. They might not have her tax into oblivion the smallfolk or send her knight inquisitors to execute dozens upon dozens of supposed or proven Green traitors. I was also confused by the characterization of the smallfolk as these naive little lambs who will follow whatever. There is no famine or riot against the Greens at the point the show showed it. I was pleased with the fact that we saw the book-accurate support the smallfolk gave to Helaena after her son was murdered and how angered they were at Rhaenyra and the Blacks. However, days later they are singing her praises. It makes no sense to me that they would forget something so easily. Of course, I argue in another post on my profile why the riot and famine made no sense. So they might continue to get rid of her all of her negative actions.

**These evil actions make her even more compelling and even more realistic in a violent medieval world. It shows how both sides commit great evils as both Rhaenyra and Aegon II were not remembered fondly by their own descendants, smallfolk, and nobles alike.**

I also hate how they hardly showed just how feminine almost girly Rhaenyra was. Rhaenyra notably loved fashion and wearing beautiful intricate gowns that always showed off her beauty and figure. She dressed very richly as befitting her station, wearing gowns of purple with maroon velvet and Myrish lace. Her bodices often had pearls and diamonds. She always wore rings on her finger that she'd play with and turn when anxious. I honestly found these traits very endearing and relatable as someone who is a girly girl. Finally, a "strong female character" who is a leader who is also very feminine and girly. She doesn't need to be a tomboy and wield a sword to be a badass. But no... we don't see that. Yes the costumes Emma D'Arcy wore were nice I guess on the show but they didn't feel like something book Rhaenyra would wear. I get they had budgets but still... you couldn't have made something else? Like where is the purple and maroon? She's mostly wearing just red and black. No rings. No nothing!

*3. Unequal Screen Time and Too "Modernized": Rhaenyra is the Main Modern Girl*

I feel like HOTD has a problem with perspective. GOT had it perfectly done! The original ASOIAF were written from the perspective of multiple characters so we got a perfect ensemble cast with writing that highlighted the stories and perspectives of many different characters. Jon Snow's narrative didn't overtake Daenerys's screen time and vice versa which is just how it should be. However, I feel HOTD makes a mistake especially in season 1 with framing. Rhaenyra as the main with secondary-main perspectives of Alicent and Daemon. We get most of season 1 from Rhaenyra's perspective and to a lesser extent Daemon and Alicent when the show should have been formatted like GOT as multiple perspectives were given in F&B. We should have gotten an ensemble cast with equal development and perspective from multiple characters, especially an equal development of both Aegon II and Rhaenyra. We get both of Rhaenyra's weddings, two births, her raising her children, many scenes with her dragon, her perspective, and her interactions. Our first intro to her sets her up in a more heroic light as she's a beautiful princess riding her dragon. We don't get Aegon II's wedding or Alicent's. No birth scenes for Alicent or Helaena. We hardly get their perspectives compared to Rhaenyra. We should have seen more of Aegon II's childhood and perspective versus just him being a bully and later a rapist. While they improved perspective a bit more in season 2, it's not enough to take away from what was done in season 1. Rhaenyra is the protagonist and **THE main character versus A main character.**

What I think they should have done is showcase the real dynamic of Alicent and Rhaenyra more. They can start off with their friendship but then transition it to the dynamic that both women had at court: competition. Both women wanted to be First Lady of the Realm and first priority to King Viserys. The Queen vs the Princess and named heir.

Rhaenyra does at times come off as more modern than she should be. I think her and even her aunt Rhaenys. For example, in the book Rhaenyra is at times very homophobic by our standards to Laenor. When she discovers she's to marry Laenor Velaryon in the show, we see her initially not too excited about it, but not fully antagonistic. She in fact has a very decent and friendship like conversation where she uses the metaphor of preferring roast duck to insinuate she understands and accepts Laenor for being gay, deciding to do their duty and support one another, while pursuing their own pleasure with each other's consent with whomever that may be. They appear to be very supportive of one another times, at least on Rhaenyra's end. She compliments him deeply when he says he wishes he were different.

While I'm sure on some level Rhaenyra wishes Laenor was bisexual at the very least so they can have more than a friendship and have trueborn kids together, Rhaenyra is almost too accepting for her medieval context. In the medieval world, same sex relationships were a HUGE no-no. In fact being gay was considered a mental illness and sickness up until the 20th century! Rhaenyra appears too accepting of Laenor, appearing too modern in just how accepting she is. In reality, while I'm sure Book Rhaenyra cared for Laenor on some level and had some kind of respect for him and affection, it wasn't this deep and this accepting. Laenor did mean something to her on some level, after all he is still the man she married, and very important to her storyline---however Rhaenyra in the book as a much more medieval reaction and medieval view on his sexuality. She was notably very unhappy about her betrothal to him. It took serious threats from King Viserys to remove her from the line of succession in order to get her on board and she did so reluctantly. She notably even said that "My half brothers would be more to his taste." This is a very cutting and almost homophobic statement. I mean her half-brothers were still toddlers. However, we never get any true antagonism, frustration, or even subtle or outward homophobia on Rhaenyra's end. While this statement is mean and homophobic, that is a more medieval response. It's sad, but it's true. Rhaenyra is a medieval woman in a medieval setting. She is a product of what her society raised her to be, which is being gay isn't something one should accept.

The same issue occurs with Rhaenys having an almost too modern point of view or opinion that doesn't fit with her medieval setting. When she discovers her husband Corlys Velaryon has bastard children, Addam and Alyn of Hull, she is neither furious nor disappointed or horrified. In fact, Rhaenys advocates that they deserve to be "raised up and honored not hidden in the tides." This is an incredibly unrealistic and unfitting reaction on Rhaenys's end. In our modern day society, even, if a woman finds out her husband cheated on her and sired kids off his side chick, she'd be furious. Of course, I think a moral modern woman wouldn't take her anger out on the children, but still. Rhaenys's reaction is almost too modern and too gracious. Characters are products of their circumstances. Despite Westeros being a fantasy world, we feel how medieval the characters are through their beliefs and behaviors. Catelyn Stark or Cersei Lannister's reactions to their husband's bastards is far more realistic---specifically how Catelyn and Cersei hated what their husbands had done and felt it was an affront to them personally. Corlys in the books was terrified of Rhaenys finding out as it would dishonor him, her, and their dead children together which is why he tried to pass them off as Laenor's no matter how ridiculous is sounded. Rhaenys should have been more realistically horrified at Corlys and angry. She shouldn't be advocating for them to be anywhere near her house or imply they should have been raised amongst their own trueborn children.

I think this does two things: 1) Makes it though Rhaenys is fully on Rhaenyra's side when raising her bastard children of Harwin as if they are her trueborn grandsons and 2) Modernizes her too much. That is a main issue. The show attempts to modernize her and make her appeal to a more modern audience. However, there is a way to do that without modernizing her so much that she doesn't seem to fit with her medieval context.

was very disappointed when I heard that the directors told Olivia Cooke to portray Alicent as "woman for Trump" and Rhaenyra is this "punk-rock Hillary Clinton." Modern day politics and movements and ideologies have little to no place in the way Westeros should be written as its a **realistic medieval setting with realistic medieval characters in a fantasy world**. Rhaenyra is too modern in her interactions and beliefs that she doesn't seem to fit well in Westeros. Rhaenyra as well is also presented as this more feminist character.

*4. Two Things Can Be True At Once: Women Can Be Victims of Sexism AND Still Do Terrible Things, Be Self-Serving, and Wield Significant Amounts of Power*

**What I ultimately believe that Condal and the HOTD production seem to get wrong is that in a medieval setting like Westeros, women are ALWAYS overlooked and dismissed and cannot take so much significant power. I feel like they believe that women can't do terrible things in the patriarchal system of Westeros while being victims of sexism.**

Women in the real middle ages and Westeros in Martin's story are not feminists by our definition. At times we see women take advantage of and gain power from the sexist patriarchal society they live in. We see it with Cersei Lannister, Margaery Tyrell, Daenerys Targareyen, Catelyn Stark, Olenna Tyrell, Ellaria Sand, Lysa Arryn, Melisandre, Arya Stark, Sansa Stark, every woman in the original GOT series were victims of sexism and an oppressive patriarchal system of Westeros just like real women of the Middle Ages AND YET they still were able to wield some power and do terrible or morally gray things. We can view them as victims of a horrible system but still see how they take advantage of it, gain power and agency as they have no choice to use the system versus fight it, do horrible things, but still view them as victims.

Rhaenyra is one example! I will say that this is partly more so the interpretation of the modern casual audience versus a writing issue, but it is still a writing issue that there are people who believe her to be a feminist. She's not! Of course just because she isn't one doesn't mean you can't root for her, but don't root for her if you think she's a feminist. We might never see the moments where Rhaenyra herself is denying women rights of inheritance from Lady Stokeworth to Lady Rosby. We should have been emphasized that Rhaenyra is not the closest thing to a modern day feminist. She is not advocating for women's rights or to make the world better for women, but to be an exception to the rule. Like most medieval woman in power, she takes advantage of the patriarchal system and gets power from it. Laena Velaryon is older than Laenor. She takes advantage of patriachal rulings to install her (bastard) "son of Laenor" as future Lord of Driftmark versus advocating that the eldest child, Baela Targaryen, daughter of Laena Velaryon, the elder sibling, to inherit Driftmark.

Victims can be villainous too! Soft power. Rarely in the Medieval world do we see women wield a hard power in their own name. Of course we have outliers, but in the end most medieval women wielded a soft power---gaining influence and power through manipulating their relationships with men (their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, etc.). Did real Medieval women know they were oppressed? Perhaps they did, and perhaps they accepted it. Did real Medieval women make efforts to change it? I wouldn't say so. Many women upheld the status quo of men being dominant.

For example, in keeping with British history that Martin is so inspired by, going off of blood-ties alone, Lady Margaret Beaufort had a stronger claim to the English throne via her Lancastrian blood than her own son Henry VII, and yet she advocated for her son not herself to be the next ruler of England. Queen Elizabeth Woodville had three daughters (Elizabeth, Cecily, and Mary) before she had her son Edward V. Like any medieval woman with three daughters alone there was growing pressure to secure her husband's line and her own position by producing a male heir. She never tried to name any of her elder daughters over her son once she had him nor did she ever try to advocate to her husband King Edward IV that he didn't need a male heir, he had his eldest daughter Elizabeth of York.

Rhaenyra Targaryen as well is presented almost like she's pursuing power to make Westeros better and that she has more altruistic and kind intentions behind her actions. I mean this weird "Aegon Prophecy" contributes to it. I think we should have seen a more realistic medieval and Westerosi character by having Rhaenyra, just like Alicent or Aegon II, pursue power because she can! Pursue power and queenship for the sake of having it and because she believes herself entitled to it versus these more "virtuous reasons." I mean in the book she never considered accepting the peace terms despite how generous they were because she refused to renounce her claim and back down! She wanted power because felt entitled to it and because every character in Westeros wants power to some degree. Ambition is a theme and characteristic that unites every character in Martin's world.

**My Takeaway? The Writers are Biased and Fail to Understand the Medieval Context of Westeros and Martin's Female Characters. Don't implement modern politics and biases into a medieval show**

I love that Martin tries to write his women the way he writes his men. He has explicitly stated that he writes his women the way he writes his men. He states that women are people too. They can be driven by the same things men are in Westeros and/or the real world: love, anger, hatred, a desire for power, vengeance, grief, guilt, bringing glory to their name and themselves, a desire to protect their family, etc.

Most of all: **Westeros is a realistic medieval world with realistic medieval characters in an unrealistic fantasy setting.** So you have to look at it from primarily a medieval lens in order to fully understand it and its character. While its okay to analyze using some modern concepts and lenses (ex - analyze how Daemon is a pedophile) you have to couple it with a lot of grace and understanding of their medieval context and morals that impacts the way the characters behave as we are products of our own historical context (ex - remembering that pedophilia and child grooming isn't much of a concept in the medieval world. The moment a girl has her first period, they are a consenting woman in his context).

So I find it disingenuous to write off all of Rhaenyra Targaryen's negative traits as just nothing but maester propaganda and due to sexism. I disliked how they downplayed her ambition, arrogance, rage, and cruelties to make her appear more modern and peaceful and the most virtuous character on the show. Yes, perhaps sexism could have had some tie into how Rhaenyra was viewed in Westeros. However, historians in the real world can't just dismiss reports about what a medieval woman was like simply because of the sexist world they were living in. By that standard, perhaps a woman like Queen Anne of Brittany wasn't all that bad or Margaret of Anjou. By that standard anything that was negative about the personalities of any medieval woman in power is all just rubbish and not true.

I felt we should have seen more of the kind of women that Martin writes. The kind of women that fit with his medieval-fantasy narrative that showcases how pursuing power at all costs leads to nothing but ruin. We should have seen layered women. We should have seen a more book-accurate Rhaenyra. We shouldn't have to settle for a lackluster story where Rhaenyra is nowhere close to her book counterpart.

**And most of all, the HOTD team shouldn't subtly or outwardly bash the original source material as nothing but sexist propaganda to excuse the lackluster writing of the female characters being nothing like their book counterparts or subtly or outwardly write off critics and fans like myself as toxic for pointing it out.**

**If you like this analysis, read on my profile my part 1 when I delve into the issues with HOTD’s Alicent.** "

[rfallfish]

One of the things I love about MLP G5 is how all the characters' flaws and strengths are directly linked to each other.

I think the best example is Hitch Trailblazer. He's a very cautious person, and he's very invested in things being sturdy and dependable, and he's leaned into being a police officer for this. Compared with the other four in the Mane 5, he's the slowest to abandon the things he was taught as a child, and this makes him hesitant to help the good cause that Sunny and the others are trying to put forward. And, I mean, this makes sense. He was the only "regular guy" in the group of social outcasts and royalty.

But he's motivated by caution and trust in his community. It'll take a lot to convince him that everyone in his town is wrong, but once he is convinced, he's hard to shake from that. This dedication to his community leads to some people-pleasing tendencies, especially with his sense of duty, often to bad results. He also has a habit of wanting one solution to fit all, figuring that things working in the past is a good indicator of them working in the future. This can lead to him to apply rules and bylaws to situations that don't call for them.

But again, all these things stem from his best traits of caution, pragmatism, and dependability.

On the other hand, his flaws can turn into strengths. In the movie, he can't really learn how to actually "be a unicorn" like the others can. He's completely unable to adapt. But in the end, he's the one who thinks to use the forbidden words to escape Bridlewood.

I can't talk about all the characters in this post, but this is true for them all. I think that some works of fiction don't have characters whose faults and virtues are so inextricably tied, and I love that they are here.

[raayllum]

In regards to the post about people occasionally misunderstanding Callum and Viren's flaws, what have you seen people do with there characters that stood out to you as wrong? I only ask cause I'm very much a pantser of stories and write based of what vibes, so I want to know what kind of things to look out for.

Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert but I have been writing/analyzing for a long time, and now in a somewhat professional capacity, so here's just how I personally think of it / what I've personally seen in fandom. I also don't think pantsers are more inclined (from the writing friends I know, they tend to be more intuition based, which can serve you very very well) even if I am definitely a planner.

With all that out of the way, it basically boils down to ignoring all of Viren's virtues / good intentions, and modifying or ignoring Callum's vices and 'bad' intentions i.e. assuming that Viren's motivations are nothing more than being power hungry and selfish, and that Callum's motivations are always pure and good.

One of the things that I think that's really elevated my writing and analysis is digging my heels into like, examining things from a pyschological basis. What this means is looking not only at how a character's flaws or strengths manifest, but figuring out why and where they're stemming from. This is important for like, you can only write a character if you understand where they're coming from, as this process forms the basis for knowing character motivation (and therefore justification).

Because yes, Viren is power hungry and selfish, and we see in 4x02 he kind of knows that, but he's not admitting that or thinking that way for the bulk of the series. That may be how other characters / the audience sees his actions, but how does he see his actions? Understanding how a character can justify/rationalize things to themselves is important if you want to portray them as well rounded. Viren can say something contradictory like "We must be ready to sacrifice, even the things we love" about his family and "I have always been ready to do anything to protect my family, however dangerous, however vile" and have them both be simultaneously true, because most people — or at least, compelling characters — have contradictory notions or conflicts, and it's the war between opposing wants and desires that causes their internal arcs to well, happen.

Same thing for Callum. He doesn't mean to be a jerk to Ezran in either the beginning or ending of S1, we already know how much his little brother means to him and how nurturing he is, usually. But loving someone deeply isn't the same thing as always treating them kindly, as I'm sure most of us know. So Callum blows up, immediately regretting it in 1x02, and remaining far more of a jerk about it in 1x09 until he apologizes. If the takeaway is just that one of Callum's flaws is his temper, that's all well and good (and it very much is) but it fails to consider when and why his temper comes out. (Which, if you're interested on something more in depth, meta on that here.)

For example, for me, a lot (if not the bulk) of Callum's characterization comes back to a Core of wanting to protect/help his loved ones. Which sounds vague, but that's why the specificities are what matters. Callum's temper tends to come out, specifically, when he's frustrated that he can't do anything to help someone he loves, and he either lashes out at the person getting in his way or someone who is (unintentionally) reminding him of that helplessness. Callum's curiosity / ambitious pursuit of magic is also, to me, tied to that same core. He wants magic because he wants agency, and he wants agency because he wants to be helpful / useful.

If you understand why a character is doing something, it leads to being to extrapolate and place them in different / more intense scenarios, but still retain that main core.

For example, Claudia's primary core is to keep her family together. That's not a main motivation in S1, but it's shown in the way she takes care of her family (being Viren's listening ear and trusted with the more important task; trying to cheer up Soren and giving him hot brown morning potion) in ways that they don't really do for her (Soren goes along and helps out with her plans, but there's never an instance of him taking care of her in the same way, even if we still see that he cares and wants to protect her, i.e. doesn't tell her the truth about Viren). Then in S2 it becomes clear that Claudia's main motivation is to keep her family together, and that Core Want stays true even in increasingly insane or worrisome circumstances (S3, S4, S5) as well as explaining some of her more contradictory behaviour. Of course she's going to believe Viren over Soren with the gaslighting the second she's given an option to, because believing her father lets her keep them all together, and believing her brother means losing Viren.

Which is to say, maybe, that most of the mages we've seen in show (with the exception of Lujanne, perhaps, who's built a life among literal solitary ruins for the express purpose of leaving them as ruins) have a Fixer tendency. Magic allows them to fix the issues they see in the world - that's why they chase it.

Viren believes he has to fix the issue of an empty throne and the knife held at humanity's throat, and he's uniquely suited to know how to fix it (hence why he should be king); Claudia leans on her preparedness and perfectionist tendencies because if she's good enough, nothing bad ever has to happen to her family again, right? She can keep them together, she can fix this; Karim wants to fix the issue of humans and losing their way of life, "I will banish that darkness [...] We will be whole again"; and Callum wants to fix issues for his family (the assassination, the fake coup, Rayla's binding, Rayla's family, etc); "And he's my father. It's my duty to help him".

But what fixing looks like, of course, is also a matter of perspective, and that's where you get variety.

But if you look at Viren's desire to fix things - in his case, to ward off weakness - you can understand the through line of his actions. He wants to fix the danger they're in of killing Avizandum and leaving an heir; his desire for more power and knowledge (tools he can use to create solutions and thereby inflate his self importance) tempt him away from killing Zym; he holds onto the egg so that elves and dragons can't 'use it' the way he would. "An empty throne is a beacon of weakness" "[A child king] will make weak choices!" And Viren is man of strength; a man who can get a grip and compartmentalize and repress and do whatever needs to be done to protect humanity. To fix the magical inequality and banish the Xadian threat.

Whereas when you look at our non-mage characters, they tend to have different cores. Rayla and Soren are clear cut Protectors, for better or for worse. Ezran and Janai both continually seek Change and healing. And often times these goals can go hand in hand! Wanting to protect someone can be a Fixer urge (Claudia, Viren, Callum); wanting to fix your mistakes by Protecting someone can also work (3x09 with Soren; Rayla with Zym). But that could be a whole dissection/analysis for another day.

Back to Callum and Viren.

I think sometimes stripping them down to more monstrous or angelic forms comes from people thinking only one thing can motivate a character at a time, even though we as humans obviously have multiple motivations or responses at a time, particularly for villainous characters.

Viren can turn back to help the Queens of Duren because he feels guilty (this was his plan), he wants to help and knows he can make a difference, and because he wants to feel like a hero. Callum can be accepting Rayla unconditionally and be hurt about it and still trying to protect himself a bit in 4x09 by saying "I know" while not going after her; the same action can be growth and regression simultaneously.

When you write a character, you have to approach them from an interior to exterior process - the old phrase "everyone is a hero in their own mind" is certainly true, or rather, "everyone justifies their actions some way or another" - which is largely the opposite of how you view a character as an audience member. Not that the two can't be conflated or overlap, they certainly do (and you do want to be aware of how your characters may or may not come off to well, your audience) but it is a different kind of process.

For example, for Viren, he genuinely believes that what he's doing is what's best for humanity > his own gain. And while he's clearly lying and doing a lot of things out of self importance / convenience, the fact that he Believes the lie means that the lie doesn't really matter, internally, because it's something he either dismisses or doesn't think about at all. And Viren does have admirable traits: loyalty (and I would say most people have conditional loyalty anyway), cleverness/intelligence, ambition, hardworking, globally minded, etc. But a lot of this stems from Wanting To Be Special/Important (his core, arguably, and one I think a lot of people would relate to) and when that doesn't often pan out, he crumbles. Him having an inflated sense of self importance means that he's used to thinking he probably knows better than other people (and gets very frustrated when they don't listen and/or agree with him) and thinking you know better than other people also bodes very well with, if taken to extremes, blatantly dehumanizing them (omg dark magic ideology hi!). He presents as being confident and smooth and knowledgeable, but every time we see him alone/internal he's almost always a hot mess or wracked with guilt/doubt, and he's not very good at adapting to shit, like at all, even if he's great at being cruel/brutal and pragmatic. He's also often times awkward when presented with openly joking/teasing affection, is a guy who waves to little kids, makes dorky jokes with his best friend, and genuinely loved (loves?) his kids once upon a time.

For Callum, a lot of his traits are a double edged sword as well. His attention to detail is born from his curious and observant nature. This allows him to be incredibly nurturing and considerate, but also lets him go for the jugular and what would hurt the most in a fight when his temper gets going. He wants to make his loved ones lives better/easier, but this can sometimes be at the expense of what they need or being overprotective. This can sometimes tie a bit into Viren's own "I know better than you" even if Callum doesn't usually go that far, as he has more self awareness. He has a strong sense of right and wrong but is willing to bend without defense if he thinks the ends justify the means (i.e. never defending his dark magic use, and unlike Claudia, believing/knowing that dark magic is wrong - whereas she doesn't think anything of the sort - but using it and being tempted by it anyway, even if he rejects it in 2x08). His determination is great but can lead to him being obsessive, even if he's also good at knowing his limits / when to yield and fold on things, and will often fold first. While this is great in his relationships and doing relationship repair, it's not so good for his goal setting, as it means he can have a defeatist attitude and then grow frustrated when that "I can't do the thing I want to do / do anything" comes in full swing. This makes him lash out because he hates feeling helpless, particularly when it comes to the people he loves, and all of that circles back to what I've said above, in that he loves his self proclaimed "inner circle" more than "anyone or anything". Just cause he's sweet and goofy and caring doesn't mean he doesn't have teeth (a temper, a ruthless side, etc).

TLDR; characters contain multitudes in their internal psychology and if you can figure out what a character's psychological core is, you'll have a much larger but more cohesive range to write from, emotion / action(s) wise. Feel free to give your happier, more sunshiney characters an edge / claws and fangs (just because someone is nice doesn't mean they're good; external presented attitude is not everything and certainly not necessarily morality) and your edgier, evil characters some redeeming and/or admirable qualities.

[roadandruingame]

RAR Musings #31: A look in the mirror; Social Roleplay

In my time frequenting tabletop game spaces on reddit, I've seen a lot of trash. People jaded with DND who pivot to making their own game rather than explore other options (hey that was me), asking if anyone has any ideas about unique mechanics or certifying if their idea has ever been done before, and so, so many people asking for recommendations on systems that handle social mechanics. But lately I stumbled on a post asking for full review of their design PDF, and I was shocked, and in no small way dismayed, to see an incredible number of my own design philosophies and ideas reflected, some not quite there without some needed polish or refinement, but still others that gave me the notion that they were better than what I had.

Distraught, I had some back and forth with the designer, pointing out certain issues, but mostly focusing on his 'roleplay' system. It took some time, but I would eventually identify the line between his roleplay philosophy, and my own that stemmed from games like World of Darkness. It's not that his is wrong, but the idea there could be a wrong way to go about it is precisely where the line falls.

Road and Ruin fundamentally discourages that there is a binary morality. Every culture and tradition has beliefs they take for granted, that are seen as strange or appalling to others, held up by a spectrum of individuals who are each bastions of independence in their own right. World of Darkness itself once held that a character should regain their meta-currency, Willpower, in bites when the character affirms their virtues in a way that requires effort, up to once a session or chapter, but all WP when the character entertains a vice in a willfully self-destructive way that causes problems for the group, but in later editions equated the two, such that a virtuous person could sabotage with a flaw, while a flawed individual could sabotage with a virtue. This other person's system, after much digging, seems to hold the opposite; that players, and their characters, are either fundamentally virtuous, and so shy away from vice behavior, or, more often, there is simply no advantage to roleplaying sub-optimal behavior, and so they just simply... wouldn't. They wanted to encourage players to engage in this behavior (whereas I have to drag my players kicking and screaming off their vices, who believe getting to engage in this behavior with no lasting consequences is a power fantasy), and on it's own, that's a fine objective. The problem I had with the system was that for a character to benefit from their virtues AT ALL, they would have to activate their vice, sabotaging the setting more often than actually advancing through it, and benefitting from said virtue in tiny bites, compared to carpetbombing with their vices for maximum consequence, only rewarded at the discretion of the DM if it was "good enough".

At the very least, I developed a concept that designer didn't want, and I might choose to use for Road and Ruin's faith-based builds, but it still stuck out to me in an odd way. Their "rock paper scissors" combat initiative system is profound, using mechanics I had only barely conceived of myself a few months prior, in ways that felt like if only I were to steal them, I could leap ahead in design of my own game, but then casting to the side a roleplaying system they insist has succeeded with flying colours in their own playtest groups, while denying my very real, very lived experience with players who would shred his system to pieces due to gaping vulnerabilities. Granted, his system only needed to bridge the gap from combat to combat, as a combat-based simulation game, and not a storytelling one, but it very much feels like I passed my doppelganger on the street, or maybe a weird, better me from an alternate universe, only to see through the veneer and catch sight of a few critical flaws that undermined everything else I thought was important.

____________

For the sake of documentation and sharing:

Road and Ruin's 'morality' system, determined by Beliefs and measured in Conviction, is one component of a larger social system, alongside Reputation. A belief, defined by Law or Tenet, Tradition, Interpretation, and/or Compulsion, defines a character's instinctual response to any situation. They can fight it, pivoting to entertain a different belief, but depending on their success, there may be hesitation, or, often, a tell at the very least.

Even before RAR shifted toward a game of resource attrition, social play was measured in Spirit, spent to give commands to allies, emotionally express themselves and compel a change in others. It's also used in bargains and contracts with demons and spirits, and the initial idea was to treat it like a health bar that can drive far below zero, inflicting situational penalties for every span, waivable with spending even a single additional Spirit, in a death spiral of emotional exhaustion.

A Belief's Conviction score determines what advantage the character gets in situations where communicating that belief may have a positive influence, as well as their resistance to influence from others. It also determines the difficulty of acting against their true selves; a roll to act in opposition to their beliefs is subject to a penalty based on that Conviction score as well, and failing the roll results in hesitation in an initiative check, buying potentially several seconds of shock and fumbling important actions, or at the least reveals something about the character's true beliefs, unable to disguise their emotions and intent. Reputation plays a hand by connecting together faces, names, and actions, that the character in question may have strong feelings about, as well as allows you to wield influence you may otherwise not deserve, but that your target believes in. Conviction can also be damaged through repeated neglect, and broken to introduce a semi-persistent Doubt, and possibly even be made to produce and grow a new Belief altogether.

These mechanics are important to social play for several reasons. A warrior's beliefs may shield him from the effects of fear or surprise, while a merchant or noble with a bad poker face can send long-planned secrets up in smoke. A fervent zealot isn't likely to be convinced to betray their cult, but if you can sow a deception in their mind, that you are a new member of the cult, their zeal in faith may extend to even offering you assistance in your schemes. But above all, the morality-ambiguous nature of Beliefs means that there can be real social conflicts, between two groups who believe themselves to be in the right, and, from an outside perspective, both very may well be. It allows players to more clearly define their character's desires, as well as features a mechanical system for benefitting from those beliefs, whether you're a hero whose belief in doing no wrong conflicts with the horrors they've visited upon others, or a criminal whose dedication to self-interest leaves them questioning when they need to dive in to save the day.

So many stories become so much more interesting when characters are treated like living, breathing things, that can change and grow, and who have depth and nuance. While not an excusal of real-life atrocities, a virtual exploration of the horrors of belief can be a safe environment to gain perspective, in a guided experience toward doing what someone else might do, and thinking how someone else might think.

[sweetbitterimpossiblecreature]

A Brief And Concise Summary Of Is Wrong With The ACOTAR Series

I think we can agree that a lot of ACOTAR is pretty iffy. Consider this a very brief refresher.

What's Wrong With Feyre/Rhysand (juxtaposed against Feyre/Tamlin)

Rhysand drugs and sexually assaults her in Book 1

This is "for her own good". Because he "has no choice". Despite the fact that, from what we know of the plot, Amarantha thinks that Clare Beddor was the one Rhysand was diddling, and is only interested in Feyre because Rhysand, "her" man male, has taken an interest in her.

If we extrapolate from this we can figure that Rhysand is the one directly putting her into danger.

Now, let's be clear: drugging someone is bad. Sexually assaulting someone is bad. One could argue there were extenuating circumstances. But if, in such a situation, what your mind goes to is "I know, I should assault this person... for their safety" I have questions about your moral qualities. There were a million things he could have done. He could have done whatever he did to Clare - that is, remove her ability to feel any pain - easily. He could have helped her escape. Under The Mountain, he - while still there unwillingly - has a lot of power, as Amarantha's side piece. Maybe this would have resulted in him being punished- however, he is hundreds of years old and a badass motherfucker, and she is a nineteen year old human girl.

Now, onto Tamlin. Obviously not a lot of people really ship F/T anymore after ACOMAF, because compared to F/R, it's boring. I read another person's post about it, which was very enlightening: they said that Feyre's personality is essentially a mirror. When she is with Rhysand, she's snarky and malicious- because she is "bouncing off" his energy. When she's with Mor she's super feminist and "in awe of her strength". On the other hand, Tamlin is kind of an empty character. He's a pretty boy with anger issues, which should be more interesting than it is. SJM manages to make him bland. Because Feyre has nothing to bounce off of, (a lot of this is from the person's post), she and Tamlin together is mainly just him introducing her to his world.

What Tamlin Does: prevents a skinny twenty year old from going on dangerous missions with him and combat-trained soldiers, accidentally blows up a room with her in it, and, at the end, prevents her from leaving the house.

This is not a Tamlin apologist post. Obviously it was really fucking gross of him to do that, and their relationship was toxic. However, a lot of his abuse stems from their inability to communicate, as well as own negligence. He does not knowingly and purposefully sexually assault her or rape her mind. And tbh, leaving a girl without combat training at home while he goes on missions with a bunch of muscled sentries is... kind of reasonable?

Again: not a Tamlin apologist post. It was abuse. However, if Rhysand is "allowed" to sexually assault, mind-rape, and drug Feyre "for her own safety", why is Tamlin demonized for preventing her from leaving his mansion "for her own safety"?

Another pertinent point: Rhys is never punished for sexually assaulting her. It is brushed off as part of his "mask" or that his hand was forced. Jesus Christ my dudes, his hand was not forced under her skirt. If he has to maintain his gross rapist abuser tyrant oppressor mask... why? Who did that benefit beside him? None of his actions remotely helped Prythian. They were done solely for his buddies - five people safe in a rich hidden city - and no one else, which is explicitly stated.

Finally, the power dynamic is fucked up. Feyre is less than twenty five years old. Rhysand is 500. There is a tendency in fantasy romance to romanticize a centuries year old man with a young girl, because the man does not show symptoms of age, and so it is easily ignorable. However, can we just briefly acknowledge how fucked up it is? Rhys is over five times older than Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and other known predators/abusers. She is twenty. That is really fucking gross. She is in a vulnerable position and he takes rampant advantage of that.

If he had wrinkles, liver problems, and erectile dysfunction, more people would acknowledge it.

Let's be clear: I'm not saying writing a book with an uneven power dynamic is automatically bad. For example, in The Locked Tomb series, which is in my opinion THE BEST FANTASY SERIES THAT HAS GRACED THIS EARTH (lol i'm starting fires), one main character Harrowhark Nonagesimus is in a position of power over Gideon Nav, the other main character. However, this is not glossed over or romanticized. Gideon resents Harrow for this- there is a relationship of mutual antagonism, fraught with unwilling familiarity and intimacy from growing up together. They are roughly the same age. While there is a certain power dynamic (in that world, there is a dynamic of necromancer and cavalier, i.e. sorcerer and sword) the "empowered" character (Harrow) emphatically respects her and does not abuse this power, although both would of course deny this, and she does make a show of threatening and being aloof. In short, while Gideon obeys her, Gideon also has power over Harrow, and the idea of what is essentially slavery is not romanticized.

Feyre Doesn't Face Any Consequences For Her Own Actions

Let me present a radical notion: a guy preventing you from leaving his house does not justify completely fucking ruining his country and harming the people inside it.

In other words: Tamlin does not deserve what she did to him.

I know that sounds iffy. We're conditioned to think that if someone is an abuser, then they are the scum of the earth, they deserve to die, torturing/murdering/doing anything to them is completely A-OK. However, here's another radical notion: someone harming you does not justify you doing worse.

Obviously, the effects of psychological abuse can cause you to hurt other people (see: Nesta), but Feyre deliberately and maliciously (oh, God, that insufferable POV of her in Spring Court; she reads like a cartoonish Disney villain) dismantles his country. She uses sexual manipulation (Lucien), torture (causing the sentry to be whipped), and mind-rape (who didn't she do this to? lol).

A summary of the entire first half of ACOWAR: "It smelled like roses. I hated roses. For this capital offense against my olfactory system, Tamlin and the entire Spring Court deserved to burn in hell. I knew exactly what I was doing. I smiled at him sweetly: no longer a doe, but a wolf. He didn't see my fangs.............." *aesthetic noises*

Man. I'm starting to think SJM had a horrible experience at a Bath & Body Works and took it out on the rest of us. Don't do it, Sarah!! I know Pink Chiffon and Triple Berry Martini are way too strong, but don't take it out on an innocent population!!

She steals from Summer Court (there are, yk, other solutions to theft. Like maybe asking politely) and ruins Spring Court. Her boyfriend - yeesh sorry, MATE - does nothing while a dozen Winter Court children are murdered.

Now: moral ambiguity is not automatically bad. Again using The Locked Tomb as an example, in the second book (spoiler alert), Harrowhark has a sort of moral ambiguity. She was raised from the beginning to worship the King Undying as God, and so she obeys him without question. Because of this, she commits a lot of crimes in His name: she "flips" - i.e. kills - the life force of planets, and she plots murder (albeit the murder of someone who tried to kill her first). There is no attempt to justify this. There is also no attempt to paint her as a virtuous and yet also badass Madonna figure. She is desperate, plagued with the "wreck of herself", and the book clearly displays her moral pitfalls. While her POV is of course colored by her mindset, it also is limited by her lack of information, and we as readers can acknowledge that.

BACK TO ACOTAR: Feyre is seen by everyone as gorgeous, formidable, and essentially perfect. Rhys sees her as flawless, "made for him", wonderful, beautiful, blah blah blah. (THEY ARE SO BAD FOR EACH OTHER; THEY EXCUSE AND GLORIFY EACH OTHER'S CRIMES, IT'S SO BAD, GUYYYS). Tamlin is insanely batshit in love with her, or whatever. To the Night Court she's the High Lady. In this way she personifies the Mary Sue character. (Excerpt from the TV Tropes page on Mary Sues: "She's exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye color, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She's exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or her "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing. She has an unusual and dramatic Back Story. The canon protagonists are all overwhelmed with admiration for her beauty, wit, courage and other virtues, and are quick to adopt her as one of their True Companions, even characters who are usually antisocial and untrusting; if any character doesn't love her, that character gets an extremely unsympathetic portrayal." Sound familiar?)

There is the Ourobous scene. And yet, paradoxically, while presented as an acknowledgment of her flaws, it is in fact a rejection of them. She sees her own brutality... and instead of recognizing that she has these deep, deep moral flaws and realizing that she needs to grow and be better, she in fact "accepts" them.

Guys: Self love means: "I'm important to me, so I'm going to get a massage today after work", or "heck, why not splurge on some expensive lotion, you only live once" or "you know what? I had a tough day today. I'm going to get that strawberry cupcake". SELF LOVE DOES NOT MEAN "oh, I accept all the war crimes I have done, I love myself". LOVING YOURSELF DOES NOT MEAN ABSOLVING YOURSELF OF ALL WRONGDOING.

It's this refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing that is so grating about ACOTAR. It's so goddamn one-sided. And you can tell that after Book 1, SJM decided to completely change the trajectory simply because of how jarring Book 2 reads compared to the first one.

Also: Feyre is a very, very young girl (compared to the other ruling fey) who did not know how to read for the majority of her life. She has no experience whatsoever in politics. Her being High Lady is not a win for feminism.

Rhysand: He Sucks

First, he is 500 years old. He should be written as such, not as some 20 year old virile frat boy feminist. Fantasy is all the more compelling for its elements of realism, which is a concept that SJM does not appear to grasp.

Second of all, his morals are absurd. He is written as the Second Coming of Christ, as someone who can do no wrong, ever, and his flaws only serve to make Feyre love him more. Anything shitty he does is written as part of his "mask" and she can See Beneath It and knows that it "hurts" him to maintain this "mask".

Fellas, WHY DOES HE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THIS MASK???? There is no reason for it. If A) he does not give a shit about Court of Nightmares (we'll get back to that), only about Velaris, and B) Velaris is hidden/protected from the world, what is he pretending for?

It would not hurt him politically to be seen as someone who cares about his country.

"Pretending" to be "Amarantha's whore" does not in any way shape or form benefit the macro-world that is Prythian. In Amarantha's name, he commits atrocities. He commits war crimes; he systemically oppresses entire societies. It doesn't even really benefit Velaris, because Velaris is already hidden.

Let me put this in a real-world perspective. This would be like if Donald Trump was suddenly like: "I know I was a shitty president but IT WAS ALL PART OF MY MASK, WHICH WAS TO PROTECT THIS MICROCOSM OF PRIVILEGED PEOPLE THAT I CARE ABOUT". Like: okay? Sorry, or whatever, but I don't actually give a shit. What about the parents of the children who died? What about Clare Beddor? What about the people who were held in slavery, murdered, tortured?

Rhysand: omg it sucks that my cousin Mor was oppressed by this toxic misogynistic culture from the Court of Nightmares.

Also Rhysand: lol whatever, who gives a shit about Court of Nightmares. They all suck. They meanie. Lol what did you say? That there might be other girls just like Mor who are oppressed by this system? Lol whatever. I can't do anything, I gotta maintain my Mask. I gotta sit on this throne and show the entire Court that not respecting women is completely okay.

In summary: by parading Feyre around as his "whore" (!!) he demonstrates by example that it is completely okay for the Court of Nightmares to abuse their women.

A good ruler cares about all his people. Rhysand cares about a tiny tiny fraction of his people: those who were fortunate enough to be born into Velaris.

God, I'm exhausted. Onto Nesta:

The only character who successfully breaks the Mary Sue effect Feyre exerts on her people is Nesta. Her POV for the first half is a joy to read.

Obviously it sucks that Nesta was a huge bitch to Feyre for the beginning of her childhood. However, it was wrong for Rhysand to threaten her- he is a man male with a huge insane amount of power, and it is not okay for him to threaten to bring the brunt of it down on a young girl because she was a bitch to his girlfriend.

I've seen a lot of discourse on the morality of F/R sending her out of Velaris. Here is my two cents:

It was okay for them to cut her off of their money. If they don't want to enable her self-harm, that is their choice. Again, it's their money, even if it wasn't fairly earned (Rhysand born into an enormous fortune).

It was not okay for them to banish her from Velaris with the implication that she was an embarrassment. Let me explain.

If Rhysand and Feyre are talking to her as sister/brother-in-law, then that is that. They have the complete right to express disapproval and try to help. However, they should not be using their royal privilege against her.

If they are talking to her as ruler to subject, then they have the power to banish her from the city. However, a ruler would not give a shit about a random subject getting drunk and having sex. So, they should not be talking her about her problems as a ruler to subject.

I've heard it compared to her being sent to rehab. However, rehab is a system designed to help people with certain problems. It has specialized medical centers and involves therapy. Nesta gets her life threatened multiple times. It is not rehab.

In summary: why did SJM inflict this upon us. Throne of Glass was actually good! GAHHH! After the first few books she completely whipped around and introduced the idea of males and mates and fey and that C is actually A and the quality took a huge nosedive. Sigh.

Final horrible but unmistakable truth: The entire ACOTAR series reads like a bad A/B/O fic. I hate to say it but it's true. We're lucky there were no heat cycles. OH WAIT

[renegadewangs]

Van Zieks - the Examination, part 11

Warnings: SPOILERS for The Great Ace Attorney: Chronicles. Additional warning for racist sentiments uttered by fictional characters (and screencaps to show these sentiments).

Disclaimer: (see Part 1 for the more detailed disclaimer.) - These posts are not meant to be taken as fact. Everything I’m outlining stems from my own views and experiences. If you believe that I’ve missed or misinterpreted something, please let me know so I can edit the post accordingly. -The purpose of these posts is an analysis, nothing more. Please do not come into these posts expecting me to either defend Barok van Zieks from haters, nor expecting me to encourage the hatred. - I’m using the Western release of The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles for these posts, but may refer to the original Japanese dialogue of Dai Gyakuten Saiban if needed to compare what’s said. This also means I’m using the localized names and localized romanization of the names to stay consistent. -It doesn’t matter one bit to me whether you like Barok van Zieks or dislike him. However, I will ask that everyone who comments refrains from attacking real, actual people.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10

Bring on the game's credits! BRING IT! The Resolve of Ryunosuke Naruhodo part 2 is here!

Episode 2-5: The Resolve of Ryunosuke Naruhodo, part 2

This is the first time in a while that I actually want to try other options to see what happens. The 'accusation' leads to some witty banter with a frustrated Stronghart, but 'report' is one that gets a reaction from Van Zieks himself. Ryu theorizes that 'since Klint was a well-bred and fastidious man, and knowing the end was near, he might have wanted to tie up some loose ends in all of his outstanding business'. Van Zieks immediately replies that his brother had no outstanding business.

DID I JUST GET PENALIZED BY THE DEFENDANT??? Just for implying his brother might've had some loose ends to tie up? Van Zieks really hates it when people show his brother even the slightest bit of disrespect, huh? Well, it's about to get a whole lot worse. Let's go for the confession option! Van Zieks definitely doesn't take kindly to this one.

“What are you saying? Do you even realise?! A confession...about the true identity of the Professor... That, that would mean...”

He fumbled his speech, there. We've never heard him do that before. And he's gone back to that bobbing, unsteady animation halfway into the above dialogue. Ryu insists it's the only explanation that fits. The man who murdered those members of the aristocracy wasn't Genshin Asogi at all, it was the one believed to be the fifth victim, Klint van Zieks himself.

Welp. We broke him. Stronghart remarks that Pandora's box has opened at last, making it clear he already knew what we just revealed. The gallery is outraged.

We've gone from well-bred to thoroughbred, have we? Susato feels very bad for Van Zieks, but Ryu asks himself whether such a brilliant prosecutor never suspected “what his older brother really was”. To clear up doubt further, he asks whether Klint Van Zieks owned a dog. Barok doesn't intend to dodge the facts of the situation, it seems.

Not what the concept art says, but it's possible Klint owned a different, smaller dog before Balmung. Van Zieks talks about how loyal the dog was and how it wore a jewel-studded collar which was stolen from the house “some years ago now”. This implies it was less than ten years ago, and must've been kept in the house as a keepsake even after Balmung passed away. Ryu and Susato bring up that they've seen such a collar; it was Selden's loot in case 2-2. They note the fancy B emblem on it, and this is the first time we find out that Klint van Zieks was a married man. His widow's maiden name was Baskerville. It's a little odd to me that for someone who thought so highly of his brother, Van Zieks never mentioned his sister in law before now. Conveniently, it never came up for the sake of a twist, I suppose. Either way, the emblem confirms the collar they saw was Balmung's. Ryu notes there was a considerable amount of blood on the collar (nobody washed this thing?) and while it could've come from typical hunting trips, it could just as well have been human blood. With that, the gallery begins to lean towards the truth that Klint van Zieks really was the Professor himself. Stronghart seems to have realized there's no way out of this now and announces that 'they may have the truth'.

Here comes that 'true nature' thing again, just worded a bit differently. Van Zieks doesn't intend to shirk away from it, though. He's open to the insinuation that his brother was, in truth, something truly horrible. Stronghart explains that Klint attempted to fight the growing darkness in London, only to end up being consumed by it. He also admits that after the fourth victim fell, Genshin showed up at his office, putting forth the accusation that Klint was the Professor. He didn't have any evidence and needed a warrant to get some, but Stronghart refused to anger the aristocracy based on the accusation of a visiting student, so he sent Genshin away. As a result, the man headed over to the Van Zieks mansion and Klint perished. Stronghart continues to admit that he was responsible for pinning the Professor's crimes on Genshin, right down to ordering Gregson to fabricate evidence. Sure enough, the late inspector's earlier claims ring true: it seems he did genuinely believe Genshin to be the killer, but was reluctant to falsify anything until Stronghart strong-armed him into it. The jailbreak agreement was also part of Stronghart's plan; he manipulated Genshin into agreeing by proverbially dangling his 14 year old son in front of him. Van Zieks brings up one more point: that Stronghart was the mastermind behind the Reaper organization. Not only does he admit to it, he calls it a “brilliant idea” and even takes credit for how his “minions” worked tirelessly to ensure Van Zieks was never accused of being the Reaper himself. What a smarmy bumhole. He insists it was all for the preservation of law and order across the empire, and the gallery is actually suckered into falling for this ploy. It seems as if he's going to get away with his masterminding without decent consequences. Kazuma now has one more question for Van Zieks, and it's the exact one Ryu asked himself earlier; did he never have any doubts about his brother?

“My brother's sense of justice was extremely strong. Perhaps...too strong, I observed. […] During the time of the Professor killings, my brother did not appear to be himself. But it was only once. Not more. Klint wasn't the culprit. That was my conclusion at the time. And I still believe that now. […] The third victim...was the Lord Chief Justice at the time. It was he who had recognized my brother's potential and trained him as a prosecutor. No matter what the circumstances, it's unthinkable that my brother could have killed his friend and mentor!”

So here, we learn that Klint wasn't an infallible paragon of virtue in his brother's eyes. Simply by saying that his sense of justice was “perhaps too strong”, a flaw is being brought to light. Younger Barok saw that Klint's need to ensure justice was overpowering him, and he also saw that during the time of the killings, something was off about his behavior. Enough to have the younger Van Zieks consider, for a brief time, that perhaps the Professor was him. However, the death of the third victim was like a lifeline to him, a flotation device keep him from going under- or perhaps more like a straw to grasp. It offered a sort of justification to him; a firm belief that Klint would never kill his own mentor and therefore he couldn't possibly be the Professor, and Barok was wrong to ever doubt him. However, it was just a very meager excuse to put his suspicions at ease and blind him to the truth. There are, after all, plenty of reasons why Klint would kill that Lord Chief Justice if indeed he were the Professor.

So Stronghart now tries to wrap everything up with a neat little bow, saying that's all the truth they'll be able to get from this trial and he'll present himself at the Ministry of Justice for whatever sanctions are deemed necessary. Since he's the Lord Chief Justice, I can't imagine the Ministry of Justice will give him more than a slap on the wrist. However, he says just a bit too much in his closing statement and Ryu jumps on that immediately. A third page of Genshin's will was hidden from everyone! Turns out, it was a personal message to Kazuma that they never bothered to send to Japan. Governor Caidin conveniently brought it with him and the contents are read aloud after some pressuring. With this last secret message left behind by Genshin, Ryu manages to find Klint's last will and testament hidden inside the Asogi clan's sword. GASP.

Oblivious to the shenanigans playing out in the Court Record section of the game, Stronghart once again tries to end the trial and even goes so far as to say Klint was basically insane when he took his mentor's life (to which Van Zieks objects fiercely). Ryu interjects, saying he has one more piece of evidence to present. When Stronghart calls the very notion absurd, Van Zieks once again raises an objection, pointing out that “this gentleman has an uncanny habit of producing evidence at the final hour that had escaped everyone else's attention.” Which, y'know, is true. That's how Ace Attorney works. I do want to draw attention to the fact that he said “this gentleman” as opposed to “this Nipponese” or even something like “this barrister”. He considers Ryu a gentleman now! So with that, Ryu has the opportunity to shove Klint's will in everyone's face and things escalate very quickly.

Ooh, his speech faltered again. He is shook! And it gets even better when he gets a closer look at the document.

Stronghart panics and demands Ryu hands the document over to him at once. When that fails, he even tries to forcibly adjourn the trial and get everyone to clear the courtroom. If that isn't suspicious, we don't know what is. It sure is satisfying to watch him squirm. Naturally, he can't actually put an end to the trial now- not with so many people watching, so the document is read aloud. It's revealed that Genshin challenged Klint to a duel, so that he might “depart this world with honor”. Klint goes on to write that he finds himself undeserving of this honor and that “the Japanese are a truly merciful people”. So here, already, we get the final nail in the coffin for Van Zieks's entire motivation for racial prejudice and for hating Genshin in particular. Klint never thought ill of Genshin, not even in his final moments. If anything, he was grateful for being put out of his misery and being allowed to 'depart the world with honor'. Genshin's actions were not betrayal; not ever. They were merciful. (COOL MOTIVE, STILL MURDER.) What we also learn is that while Klint did indeed take the life of the first victim on his own accord, he was then immediately identified as the culprit and blackmailed into the next three killings by someone else. You guessed it, it was Stronghart! Despite his earlier panic, he now has a myriad of justification ready, talking about how sacrifices have to be made for the sake of justice and whatnot. He also explains that he was the one who pressured Jigoku into shooting Genshin in the graveyard when Drebber showed up there. He acts like Jigoku is the only one to blame, but considering Stronghart was basically screaming in Jigoku's ear, I wouldn't be surprised if this poor man pulled the trigger by accident simply because he was startled by the shouting. Stronghart was the one who decided that Genshin needed to die and forced Jigoku to act, so Stronghart is the one ultimately responsible. Naturally, Ryu and Kazuma both attempt to argue Stronghart's justifications into the ground. At one point, Stronghart plays the victim card and asks them to acknowledge his 'struggle', but Kazuma insists that this jerk has done nothing and:

WELL. Okay. Looks like we've finally convinced Kazuma that Van Zieks is a victim in this whole ordeal, as well as someone who 'acts justly'. That's a wonderful way forward. With all this out in the open, though, Stronghart offers a literal round of applause. It's true; he's “done nothing” and “merely been surrounded by fools who've acted very rashly indeed”, which means he can't be charged with any crimes. We can't even prove he threatened anyone into doing his bidding, as he says it might as well have been “bargaining”. Thing is, bargaining with someone to end a third party's life is known as “contract killing” and is, in fact, illegal. I can't find any sources to verify whether it was already illegal in 1900 England, but I can only assume so, or people would've gotten away with murders very easily. I guess the bottom line here is that we can't prove Stronghart really did extort or pay anyone to take a life, since there's no material evidence for that sort of thing, nor anyone who can testify on it. Stronghart claims that the minutes of the trial will be heavily redacted to remove matters not related to Gregson's death, in the interest of preserving law and order, as well as to protect the queen. The gallery has now turned against us as well, chanting Stronghart's name.

Here we have a singular opportunity to deviate into the closest thing to a bad ending this game series has. Anyone who remembers the iconic 'the miracle never happen' ending in AA2, or even the bad endings in AA5 where either Trucy or Athena is implied to be killed by Aura, will be sorely disappointed by this one. First, to compare... In the standard ending, no matter how far along you've gotten in the trial- including proving that Stronghart was the Reaper- Van Zieks will still be found guilty. Stronghart will utter the words that he “would like to think however misguided, [Van Zieks] acted out of a sense of justice nonetheless”, and then pronounces the poor man guilty of crimes we've already proven were never committed by him. Now, in this slightly different ending, if you run out of all your penalty points because you fail to present Harely, the dialogue is tweaked. Stronghart declares that for the sake of justice, “the only correct course of action has been unanimously acknowledged by the clear majority here present. All mention of that which has been discussed in this courtroom today will be struck from the records. Barok van Zieks – Or should I say, Reaper of the Bailey... The heinous crimes committed by your brother, Klint van Zieks, will be lost in obscurity, this time forever. May you also find peace now as you join your sibling in the eternal darkness.”

And then, just as in the standard ending, Van Zieks is pronounced guilty and the doors slam shut. So effectively, the only real difference here is that Stronghart really rubs it in our faces that Van Zieks is taking the fall as the Reaper in the eyes of the public. He knows Van Zieks isn't the Reaper- everyone present in the courtroom knows it. However, since the entirely gallery is siding with the real mastermind, the minutes of the trial will be confiscated and destroyed so that the truth will be lost forever. Neither Kazuma nor Ryu reacts to this turn of events on-screen, which is a shame. Van Zieks doesn't fight the adjudication either, he simply accepts the verdict in silence- Hang on, where have we heard that before? Genshin? And didn't Van Zieks say that so long as his death served a purpose, he wouldn't mind dying over being called the Reaper? Stronghart certainly seems to feel that Van Zieks ought to be thrown under the omnibus and sent to the gallows for the sake of minimizing crime in London.

But we're not going to let the true antagonist of this game get away with his bullshit! Time to pull Harely's ears! Cue another (S)Holmeus Ex-Machina where it turns out the entire secret trial has been livestreamed to the Queen of England through holograms. By royal decree, Stronghart is stripped of his title and will be prosecuted for his crimes at a later time. FINAL BOSS, DEFEATED.

With Stronghart out of the way, Van Zieks has some closing sentiments to offer.

“Is that my brother left this world without a word to me.”

I can see why that might bug him. Van Zieks always looked up to his brother and shielded him from disrespect even a decade after his death, but Klint in turn didn't seem to want to leave any parting sentiments for him, not even a simple farewell. That's not the case, though! Susato points out there's actually more to Klint's will than was read aloud, so let's hear it now.

“Barok, you have always looked up to me, and now, you follow in my footsteps to become a prosecutor. It is my fervent wish that my unspeakable deeds should not hinder your advancement. I ask not for understanding, for none could understand my depravity. I ask only for forgiveness. Asogi is a fine detective, and a hunter worthy of respect. He has agreed to honour my final two wishes. The first is that this document survives. The second... I cannot commit to paper. I have confessed my sins to my wife. May she find resolution in my death. With my eternal gratitude to my Japanese friend, I rest my quill.”

Imagine how different things would've ended if the will had found its way to Van Zieks shortly after Klint's death. It would've prevented so much grief and so much prejudice, because if Van Zieks had learned that Klint still regarded Genshin with so much respect and gratitude even in this situation, he would never have blamed him for Klint's death nor considered it too great a betrayal. Everything that happened was in line with Klint's wishes. As it stands now, the words in Klint's will basically serve to scold Van Zieks for his attitude and hatred these past ten years.

Yep, there we go. The final straw. He's been truly, utterly embarrassed and made to confront his mistakes. When Stronghart explains how his ambition to become Attorney General is what prompted him to silence people like Watson and Gregson. Van Zieks asks him whether he ever bothered to count the number of brilliant people he had killed. Kind of a questionable remark, since Stronghart mostly had criminals killed. We don't even know for sure whether Watson was a good person or not; he comes across as a cowardly skeeve. I guess Van Zieks is mostly talking about Genshin, but even that is... Uh...

I received an Ask a while back, bringing up the matter that Genshin appears to be exonerated of any wrongdoing when the truth of Klint's death is revealed. That despite duels being outlawed and it being literal murder, Kazuma seems to take this truth as his father's name being cleared. Indeed, going over everything we've learned so far, it feels as if the narrative has set up both Klint and Genshin, and even characters like Jigoku and Gregson, as victims of Stronghart's manipulation. The thing is, though... Both Genshin and Klint took at least one life of their own free will, Jigoku pulled a trigger twice for the sake of his own career (and recruited someone into an assassin plot), Gregson conspired with a notorious assassin to commit over a dozen murders just because his boss told him it was the right thing to do... Feeling bad about murder or resorting to it because 'the other person is even worse and needs to be stopped' doesn't change that it's murder. It doesn't seem as if Kazuma or anyone else outright says their loved ones are absolved of any responsibility/their names are cleared, but it does really come across as if the narrative wants you to forgive them. So uh... Yes. This is something the game should have properly addressed, instead of just going 'oh, these poor people, all used as puppets by the final boss'.

Anyway, (S)Holmes takes the time to remind Van Zieks that he's the defendant in this case, not the prosecutor. Our old friend Santa Judge returns for the adjudication! Turns out, he was in the gallery all along. (Was he chanting Stronghart's name too?) He talks about how the darkness of the past ten years has lifted, in part thanks to a bright young star from the East. Awww, we've completely won over the judge! Van Zieks now also has something to add.

“I had the faintest of intimations. That if British justice, so warped and twisted over its long history, was finally to know change... This might just be the man to do it. But at the time, I wouldn't allow myself to acknowledge the possibility. I couldn't overcome my hatred of the Japanese, after the circumstances of my brother's death. Mr. Naruhodo...”

He takes a flourishing bow here, an acknowledgment that Ryu is worthy of his respect and perhaps even that Ryu is superior to him, then stands up straight again for the final whammy.

Ryu is shocked and Susato is brought to tears. We did it, y'all. We've secured the full, heartfelt apology. I'm not sure there's really anything to add to this, nor anything we could want from it at this point in time. Ryu doesn't say he forgives Van Zieks for his discourtesies, but considering how hard he worked to get this guy cleared of murder, that would feel kind of out of place. The forgiveness happened long before Van Zieks apologized, or so is the implication. (Is that the correct narrative path? Not at all, but I'll get back to that in the conclusion.) So after some more closing words from Ryu, Van Zieks gets his not-guilty verdict and court is adjourned.

In the defendant's lobby, Ryu feels a bit conflicted about how this whole thing went down. Susato tries to cheer him up by saying that everything will seem much better once he sees Van Zieks's smiling face. Indeed, in most other Ace Attorney games, this would be the point where at last, an emotionally distant defendant/witness drops their walls and allows themselves to smile (or cry). Just think of Gina, Lana Skye or even Athena Cykes when she cries tears of joy during AA5's ending. Hilariously enough, Van Zieks is not one of those characters.

This is a really fun subversion of expectations and Ace Attorney tropes. And I still believe his face got frozen like that. Even so, he's got something heartfelt to say.

“For you to have risen to the level of excellence you demonstrated today... Well, it's quite remarkable.”

Sounds like a hatchet job of a compliment at first glance, but the sentiment is there. It is extremely remarkable for a foreign exchange student who's only been in the country for about 9 months- and who only spent like 2 of those as an active lawyer- to rise to such a level that he not only uncovers the truth of the current case, but of a cold case from 10 years prior, which was part of a huge cover-up. Ryu points out that he exposed a most 'unpalatable truth' in court and that he feels as if he robbed Van Zieks of something precious. Van Zieks doesn't seem to agree. He reminisces on Stronghart's words.

“But that... That was just the feeble excuse of a coward. Only those with a steadfast eye for the truth have what it takes to fight the dark forces of crime. You made fine work of establishing that fact in court today.”

So once again, he's complimenting Ryu's courtroom performance. Not only that, but he's acknowledging (in different words) the earlier sentiment that the truth needs to come out, no matter how painful. Perhaps, indirectly, he's calling himself a feeble coward as well. Ryu and Susato are proud of Van Zieks's growth, with Susato saying that surely Kazuma would be smiling if he were here. Naturally, when he shows up at that very second, he isn't smiling at all. Like mentor, like disciple! Kazuma takes a polite bow before Van Zieks and congratulates him on his acquittal. Naturally, after watching Kazuma prosecute so ferociously for two whole episodes, that doesn't feel sincere. Van Zieks asks him whether he doesn't instead want to curse him. Kazuma apologizes for his earlier behavior, which does feel 100% sincere.

“Your father, Genshin... If I had been stronger, then perhaps... I made an unforgivable error of judgment. … I can offer no excuse.”

One more apology to add to the pile! And here we once again reach that question of whether the narrative is acting like Genshin should be absolved of all blame. In a technical sense, Van Zieks wasn't wrong to prosecute Genshin, since he did seriously murder Klint. That alone is already warranting of the death penalty, so the added crimes of the Professor on top of that don't change too much. However, I don't think Van Zieks's lines truly relate to the Professor trial itself. The error of judgment, in my eyes, can also be seen as the blind acceptance that Genshin betrayed him (as well as Klint) when there was actually far more at play. This notion that Genshin was a horrid traitor who abused their trust and hospitality was then allowed to grow into an irrational hatred which festered for a decade. Regardless of whether Genshin killed Klint, the insistence that the man's true nature was that of a monster was wrong, and I think that's what he's apologizing for. To be clear, he's not apologizing for racist sentiments uttered towards Kazuma or anyone else from Japan with these lines. This purely relates to his treatment of Genshin. However, he already apologized for his many discourtesies back in the courtroom and I think the racist outbursts were part of those discourtesies.

Kazuma says he can offer no forgiveness, which is totally fair. Kazuma isn't obligated to forgive this man. He does, however, admit that he has respect for Van Zieks, since he “fought for justice and the truth”.

Awww! Remember how in my very first 'strong thought about Barok' post, I pointed out that Barok almost appears to have been designed to be Kazuma's rival prosecutor instead of Ryu's? Yeah. Here we see it very clearly. The reconciliation conversation between these two feels like a much better resolution than the conversation between Van Zieks and Ryu.

So now Kazuma brings up that Genshin promised to do two things for Klint, but the second wasn't mentioned in the will. Mikotoba shows up to share a very heartbreaking tale about Klint's unnamed widow, the lady Zieks-Baskerville, who was hiding out in Dartmoor and passed away from childbirth very shortly after Genshin was executed. The newborn baby girl survived, though! Van Zieks blurts out that that makes no sense. “Why on Earth wouldn't Klint have entrusted the child to my care in that case?!” And that alone is already kind of tragic, but what really packs a wallop is this:

This means Klint and his wife deliberately kept the pregnancy from him. It's never explained why. Genshin showed up at the manor in the spur of the moment and Klint died that very same night, when his wife must've already been around 8 or 9 months pregnant. (she gives birth about a week or two later, after all.) Klint says that he 'confessed his sins to his wife', but that also must've been very recent, if not that very same night, since Stronghart was threatening to tell Klint's wife and brother of his misdeeds. Stronghart's hold on Klint would've weakened if he'd told her the truth months ago, which in turn implies the both of them decided not to tell Barok while she herself was still oblivious to the Professor truth. Honestly, it all feels like a vague plotconvenience.

What is explained is why the newborn baby wasn't entrusted to Van Zieks. It isn't because Klint had the amazing foresight to know his younger brother would become a salty, loner alcoholic; it's because he and his wife feared the truth of the Professor might come out. Heck, if Genshin had never been arrested for Klint's death, perhaps it would've come out for certain. “The girl would be forever branded as the daughter of the infamous mass murderer.” So the baby girl was distanced from the Van Zieks family as much as possible, with all of London unaware of her existence. This girl is, of course, Iris.

Right on cue, the Harely plushie activates to receive a call from (S)Holmes and Iris. She invites everyone over to 221B for a feast and makes sure to invite “Mr. Reaper” too. He very awkwardly declines the offer.

Humanization? Humanization! He does, however, give Iris his word that he'll present himself at 221B in the near future to express his gratitude. I think a big part of why he declined the offer was because he wouldn't feel at home during the big celebration when a whole group of people is there. He'd much rather visit Iris during a more quiet, private moment and that's sweet too. Plus, I don't think he's in the mood for a celebration, considering all the horrible truths he's learned in a single day.

So now Kazuma prepares to leave and asks Van Zieks to accompany him. The wording of “would you care to-” makes it very clear this isn't a demand, it's a very soft request that Van Zieks is free to decline. Not that he hesitates for even a second. Here's some more parting words.

“I believe... You saved my life.”

He takes a deep, flourishing bow and honestly I've lost track of how many times he's praised/thanked Ryu by now. More than Edgeworth thanked Phoenix, most likely. The prosecutor duo prepares to walk away, but Ryu calls after Van Zieks, asking him to wait. Which he does. Ryu asks him what he intends to do now.

... “Prosecutor van Zieks chooses death”??? In a way, he's thinking of pulling a similar move. He intends to publicize the full truth of the Professor, and I can only imagine that includes Stronghart's involvement in what went down 10 years ago. Maybe he'll even share the truth of the Reaper who's haunted the courtroom all these years. He believes that “once that's done, the Van Zieks family will be ostracised completely from London society.” (I don't think he means living family members, but rather, the legacy of the Van Zieks name and the rights associated with it.) So because of that, he intends to leave the capital as soon as he's free of his employment. Considering how easily this man took a five year sabbatical and adding in the fact that the Lord Chief Justice just got arrested, I expect his resignation could be as easy as packing his desk and leaving his office without saying a word. Kazuma, however, calls him a fool and a coward. He basically dares Van Zieks to keep going now that he's finally freed from the pseudonym of the Reaper. Van Zieks neither agrees with the sentiment nor shoots it down, instead saying it's unexpected to hear those words from Kazuma of all people. With that out in the open, they leave for realsies.

Just as Van Zieks doesn't attend the Baker Street party, he isn't there when Ryu's at the docks to return to Japan. I like to think Kazuma did bother to tell Van Zieks that Ryu is leaving the country, because withholding that information seems like a bit of a jerk move, but... Well. Not showing up at the docks to say some final farewells is even more of a jerk move on Van Zieks's part. Though it's possible he felt he wasn't wanted there, and may eventually ask for Ryu's address so he can write a letter (which is far less imposing than invading a heartfelt farewell with a scowling face). It's a shame, though. I would've liked to hear his thoughts on Ryu's departure.

We learn that Kazuma will “stay in Lord van Zieks's tutelage for the time being” to become a full-fledged prosecutor. Which is fine, I guess. It doesn't matter whether he's a defense attorney or a prosecutor; all that matters is the pursuit of the truth. What catches my interest is that even with all that bad blood and refusal to forgive Van Zieks, Kazuma still agrees to keep studying as his disciple. This implies to me that he sincerely doesn't believe Van Zieks to be a bad person anymore, and acknowledges he can learn a lot from this man. Which is not the same thing as being on friendly terms with him, but at the very least he's giving Van Zieks the benefit of the doubt when it comes to improving their... Well, their dynamic, I suppose I should call it.

On to the credits scenes we go! This time, Van Zieks legit does get a scene of his own, but before we address this one, I want to skip ahead real quick to Albert Harebrayne's scene.

“He sent me a very nice letter saying he'd like to show me around now that everything was settled. B-But what have I done? I was so excited, I picked this splendid hotel and now I can't afford the bill! Oh Barok! Come to my rescue again, please! I, I wish I could just vanish into thin air sometimes!”

Several things of note can be taken out of this little scene. First of all, with the Reaper nonsense behind them, Van Zieks seems to have wasted very little time with asking his best buddy to return to London for that sightseeing that was promised. Presumably, he even paid for the trip (again), since Albert still seems to be very low on money. This, coupled with the fact that Van Zieks was reading that letter with quite a bit of dedication in his jail cell, indicates to me that he's longing for the good old days, when he could smile and have friends. He's trying to return to a sense of normalcy and since Albert is still considered his closest friend, it makes sense he'd reach out to him instead of a relative stranger like Kazuma. Baby steps. Now, the fact that Albert says “come to my rescue again” sets the very clear tone that this guy believes Van Zieks has helped him before- during the trial, of course. It's another reinforcement of the notion that Albert is thankful Van Zieks chose the role of prosecutor in order to defend the teleportation theory, even if it meant that he himself would be branded a murderer. Despite his gruff exterior and blunt words, Albert thinks of Van Zieks as a sort of knight in shining armor who will come save him. … With cold hard cash, in this case, but it's the gesture that counts. Van Zieks might allow Albert to stay in his mansion instead, but it depends how high the risk of assassination is at this point in time. People are probably hating on the Van Zieks family now that the truth of the Professor is out.

On to credits scene of Van Zieks himself! We have confirmation by now that he hasn't retired as a prosecutor, since Kazuma already expressed his intent to keep studying under him. So we see Van Zieks in his office, addressing Klint's painting.

“In those days, when I was known as the Reaper, I felt your presence at my side. Once, unable to bear the burden of that grim pseudonym, I even retired from the courtroom. Despite everything, I still wear your prosecutor's badge with pride. But the darkness that beset me is no more. As you, too... Are no more.”

The first two sentences of this bit feel very disjointed and barely related to me, so I had a quick look at some fan translations. First is the sub translation on Youtube: “I could feel you standing by my side through the days in which I was called the Reaper. Yet there were times I could not bear the burden of that name, and left the courtroom far behind me.” The “yet” is very crucial, since it makes the insinuation that feeling his brother's presence was very important to Van Zieks, but the burden became so overwhelming that he retired anyway. Taisa the Gamer's script doesn't have a “yet” in it, nor any equivalent, but the sentence structure still flows well enough not to cast doubt on how he felt about Klint's supposed presence. Contrasting that, the localization's wording with “even” almost makes it seem like feeling Klint's presence was a negative thing- that he was overwhelmed by it and that this was the burden associated with the Reaper name, as opposed to the killings. Which can't possibly be right; he already admitted to us that the idea of his brother's ghost helping him was one of the main reasons he kept on being the Reaper. So long story short, the localization's take on these first two lines is a little off.

The prosecutor's badge thing, however, is spot on. Despite everything- despite the 'true nature' of Klint now exposed, Van Zieks still wears the badge with pride. We know the badge is symbolical, of course. He still believes in Klint's sense of justice and he's still going to openly admit to being Klint's brother- to being a Van Zieks. That's sweet. He goes on to say that the darkness within him is no more. To really grasp what that means, let's go back to the end of case 2-3 for a second. There, Van Zieks says that after his brother's death, he found himself in “a very dark place indeed”. In case 2-4, he mentions that he refuses to trust others to protect himself against betrayal, but has now sunk into a proverbial mire which makes it impossible to breathe. All of that is the same darkness he's referring to now, I'm sure. I don't believe depression can lift this easily; there's no way that darkness is no more. However, I think what he means to say is that it no longer has such a strong hold on him that it manifests in paranoia and irrational hatred. He has a chance now to start fresh and that's what he intends to do. He's striding away from that darkness, towards a brighter future. In order for a person to change for the better, they themselves have to want to change, and it looks like Van Zieks is all for that. Which at last brings us to the conclusion of this essay series! The conclusion, which looks back on the original query posed in Part 1, will once again include a load of screencaps. To keep the post size lighter, I'm going to put it in a separate post. I hope you'll look forward to it!

[itsclydebitches]

I found your post about character bashing tags intersting. In the modern Harry Potter fandom on Ao3, they are still in use because I think it's become such an integral part of that fandom's culture as a relic of early fandom. But you can see in some more modern fandoms a sort of convergent evolution, for example, in the Sanders Sides fandom, the tags 'Sympathetic' and 'Unsympathetic' get used to warn of character portrayals. I find it interesting how some fandoms have these tags and others don't

It really is fascinating, especially since Sanders Sides isn't exactly a traditional canon, yeah? I mean, just the format of Sanders' vids feels, to me anyway, like it shouldn't produce the need for sympathetic/unsympathetic tagging. They're very archetypal characters that belong to short comedy sketches and aren't following a standard plotline. So my guess (and I'm not in the fandom, so I really am guessing here), is that these more complex portrayals stem from the fandom expanding on the characters past what Sanders actually produced? There just seems to be a fundamental difference between tagging for, say, an unsympathetic Snape when the ethics of his actions are a focal point of the canon vs. taking a character like Patton and going, "But what if we depicted him like an evil stepfather instead?" (With perhaps some comedy-based details for justifying that in the vids. Again, idk the sketches well.) Though there is something intriguing in the idea that, since they're all only one part of a whole personality, each will inevitably cause problems simply by virtue of, you know, not being a "real," balanced person...

Anyway, yeah, I'd love to know how and why each fandom does/does not develop such warnings, though it's notoriously hard to trace that sort of work back to its beginnings. Especially for a fandom as old as Harry Potter, given that so many works have been lost to purged accounts and dead websites, to name just one challenge. My guess (and this is another guess) is that it's a combination of whether the canon is inclined towards needing such warnings and whether the more popular fic writers end up using them. Harry Potter certainly needs them. I can remember the intense conversations surrounding Snape, Ron, Dumbledore, and how much each deserves the readers' sympathy after various types of failures. Again, that was the point in the story, to demonstrate those flaws, but the radically different conclusions fans came to meant that many wanted to warn when their fics were using an "obvious" reading of the characters that others might not agree with. And those fans, likely, had some sort of standing within the community. The golden age of Harry Potter fic (so to speak lol) was also the age of Big Name Fans, so if any of them utilized such warnings, their massive audience was likely to follow suit. And at that point it just perpetuates itself. Yeah, nowadays it's such a staple of the fandom that unless we were to get an influx of new fans who don't bother to read previous fics/emulate them (which is not only really unlikely in general, but feels particularly unlikely as communities like tumblr push for a complete rejection of anything Harry Potter related), then those trends will just keep popping up.

Newer fandoms like RWBY though... they don't have that history. More importantly though, it looks like there's some difference between its community and something like Sanders Sides, which is comparatively new too. I mentioned in the last post a lack of respect and though all fandoms absolutely have their problems and though RWBY absolutely has wonderful pockets (hey, friends!) I stand by my claim that it's one of the more bullheaded fandoms I've come across. Harry Potter has its insane discourse simply by virtue of its popularity, size, and subject matter, but back in the day, debating the actions and worth of characters was fun. Friends online and off got into heated debates specifically because we enjoyed providing evidence, hearing new ideas, and testing our convictions. Arguing (in a respectful manner where everyone implicitly understood that none of us were truly mad) was a Saturday night pastime. Now, it feels like more fans believe in a right and wrong answer, perpetuated by RWBY's black and white canon in recent years. The idea is no longer to acknowledge the complexity inherent in these characters and likewise acknowledge that individual fans will react to them in vastly different ways, but rather to say, "No. They're 100% bad (or good) and that's all there is to it." The tagging acknowledges that this is just one interpretation, whereas many recent fandom pockets believe that one interpretation is all that exists.

[cavehags]

i realize this will probably bring up old drama so you might not want to answer it. but do you ever regret, however on purpose or on accident, bringing all that unnecesary hate towards Katara? i'm really sad and dissapointed tbh. i'm a woman of color and katara was so important to me growing up. my favorite animated woman ever. and then this resurgence comes and theres so, so much unnecesary hatred for her and everyone ignoring everything that makes her a good character.

(2/3) 2- and you know, i expected this from the male side of the fandom. they were misogynistic to her and the others even back then so i would expect it to be even worse with how internet culture is more mysogistic now that ever. and i wasnt wrong. male atla fans had some truly horrible takes and views that just came across as racism and misogyny. but, i expected these circles to be better. to be a safe space for us woc who love this character. but i found the same weird hatred for her.

(3/3) 3-i just, i cant believe i feel less welcome now that i did even back then. and back then i didnt even paricipate really. but at least i could enjoy fandom content without stumbling into misogyny and racism every other post. also sorry for sending this to your personal blog b i just wanted to let you know you controbuted to that too even if it wasnt your intention. at least you realized that and arent contributing to it anymore right? cause honestly the hate has only gotten worse not less.

hey anon. thanks for asking this question, because i hadn’t addressed this topic previously and this gave me an opportunity to do so. 

no, i don’t regret publicly interpreting a character whom i love through a nuanced and human lens. and i don’t regret combating the one-dimensional interpretation of this character, which posits that she’s merely an vaguely defined object of attraction for some boy or another, and a singularly gentle, mature, maternal figure whose sole purpose in life is to nurture others. those interpretations suck. they rob her of the humanity and complexity that make her character unique and they stem from misogynistic tropes that reduce women to the services they can provide to men. the thing in the world that matters most to me is fighting misogyny, and this trend to diminish a proud and powerful and angry teenage girl by exaggerating only her most socially acceptable traits is misogyny. 

unlike you, i did not grow up watching avatar: the last airbender. the shows i watched growing up did not have a lot of girls who felt real to me. the girls i saw on tv growing up were simple. they were the main characters’ crushes. they were simple, desirable, usually sweet and loving, and not much else. if they had a flaw, it was that they were, at best, “awkward.” whatever that means. or if they were the protagonists, which was rare, they were nice enough and tried to do the right thing, but they never had strong feelings like resentment and anger. they weren’t allowed to be unfeminine which meant they weren’t allowed to be bitter, angry or in any way flawed. they didn’t look like the version of girlhood i knew to be true for me personally, which included a lot of anger and frustration and powerlessness. 

that crappy representation left me with internalized misogyny that chased me for longer than i’d like to admit. i did not learn to think of girls as humans who could be as interesting and flawed and messy as the boys were. i did not value myself as a girl, and later a woman, because i thought the best thing a girl could be was... bland. boring. pretty, but empty. passionless.

it would have meant the world to me to see a character like katara. 

because katara is angry. she has every right to be: she’s had so much stolen from her, including her mother, her people, and her childhood. katara has a short fuse. she yells. she snaps. she fucks up. sometimes she makes mean jokes! i never saw a single one of those dreamily perfect cartoon love interests make mean jokes when i was a kid. she is extremely idealistic--it’s her defining character trait--but we see the bad side of that as well as the good. we see that her need to help others  leads her to act rashly, to get herself into danger, to put others in danger too. 

and she has her very own arc. it’s not about her love for another person, either (what a snooze of a storyline); it’s about growing up and learning to break down some of that stubborn black-and-white thinking that we all indulge in as children. it’s a true coming-of-age arc and it belongs to a fourteen-year-old girl. 

when i, to use a phrase i find crass, “entered the fandom,” i quickly realized that other fans’ perceptions of katara did not line up with the things i valued most about her. other fans seemed to valorize her most socially acceptable feminine qualities: her generosity, her kindness, her dedication to helping others. and of course i love those parts of her--i love everything about her--but what is really remarkable about avatar: the last airbender is that katara’s many important virtues are also counterbalanced by equally significant flaws. a good character has flaws. katara is a good character, and a deviation from the characters who made up my formative media landscape, because she has flaws. her temper, her idealism, her stubbornness--these are flaws. flaws make her seem real and human and challenge the mainstream sentiment that girls are not real or human.

it simply did not occur to me that celebrating these aspects of katara that make her a realistic and well-written teenage girl would spark ire from other adult fans. it absolutely did not occur to me that i would then be blamed for somehow causing misogynistic interpretations of this character, particularly given that misogynistic interpretations of this character are the very thing i sought to correct when i began to blog about this television show.

i’m told there are “fans” on instagram and tiktok who think katara is whiny, annoying, and overly preoccupied with her trauma. i do not use instagram or tiktok, so i wouldn’t know, but i’ll take your word for it. respectfully, however, they didn’t get that from me. misogynistic takes on katara have existed since before i came along. i have never, ever called katara whiny. and seeing as i have been treating my own PTSD in therapy for nine years, you can safely conclude that i don’t think anyone, katara included, is overly preoccupied with their trauma. that’s not a thing. do i think she’s annoying? of course not! as a character, she’s a delight. does she sometimes find real joy in aggravating her brother and her friends? yes, because she’s 14. i, an adult, am not annoyed by her. sokka and toph often are, because that is katara’s goal and katara always succeeds in her goals. she’s not “annoying.” 

if there are “fans” who are indeed following lesbians4sokka and somehow misreading every single post and interpreting them to mean that we hate katara and they should too, i don’t really know what you want me to do about that. l4s has over ten thousand followers and we have already posted so many essays disavowing katara hate. our feminist and antiracist objectives in running the blog are literally pinned with the headline “please read.”

furthermore, you cannot reasonably expect my co-blogger and me to control the way our words will be received. we should not have to, and are not going to, add a disclaimer to every post saying that when we critique or make jokes about a teenage girl we are doing so through a feminist lens. our url is lesbians4sokka, and we are clearly women. if that alone doesn’t make it obvious, then refer back to that pinned post. 

it is indescribably frustrating, and really goddamn depressing as well, that people are so comfortable with the misogynistic binary of Perfect Good Women and Flawed Wicked Bitches that they perceive any discussion of a woman’s flaws to be necessarily relegating her to the latter camp. if that is how you (a generic you) perceive women, then i’m sorry, but you’ve internalized sexism that i cannot cure you of. and it’s unjust to expect my friend and me to write for the lowest common denominator of readers who have not yet had their own feminist awakenings. we do not write picture books for babies. we write for ourselves, and with the expectation that our readers can think critically. reading media through a feminist lens is my primary interest; i have no intention of excising that angle from my writing.

as i go through my life, i am going to embrace the flaws of girls and women because not enough people do. as long as the dominant narratives surrounding women are “good and perfect” and “unlovable wh*re,” you’ll find me highlighting flawed, realistic, righteously angry women in the margins. and for what it’s worth, it’s not just katara. i champion depictions of angry girls in all sorts of media. that’s sort of my whole thing. my favorite movies are part of the angry girl cinematic universe: thoroughbreds, jennifer’s body, hard candy, jojo rabbit, et cetera. on tv, in addition to katara, you’ll find me celebrating tuca and bertie, poppy from mythic quest, tulip and lake from infinity train, korra, and more. i adore all these women and see myself in them. i hope you find this suitably persuasive to establish that i have sufficient Feminist Cred, according to your standards, to observe and write about these very flawed and human fictional women. 

what i’m saying is this: i decline to take responsibility for the misogynistic discourse orbiting a children’s cartoon. as someone who writes about that series from a perspective that seeks to add humanity and nuance to the reductive, one-dimensional, overwhelmingly sexist writing that already exists, i am pretty taken aback that i am the one being blamed for the very problem i sought to address. except not that taken aback because i am a woman online, haha! and this is always how it goes for us. 

finally, i think it sucks that you’ve chosen to blame me for a problem that begins and ends with the patriarchy. i can’t control the way this response will be perceived, just like how i can’t control the way anything will be perceived because i am just one human woman, but i do hope you choose to be reflective, and consider why you’ve chosen this avenue to assign blame. 

[noncanonfan]

Hi there! 😀 I just saw a few of your posts about your interactions with some Lizzie fans and obviously I can’t speak for everyone but as a Lizzie fan I’m so sorry! I completely agree with you that Lizzie is by no means perfect she has her flaws just like everyone else, so whoever says “she’s perfect” or anything similar is obviously is lying. To be honest with you maybe it’s just because of who I follow or interact with but I think somehow I tend to see more hate towards Lizzie than support for her. A lot of the times from my experience people who don’t like Lizzie go after her focus on her mental illness and agree that any negative treatment she receives purely due to her mental illness is deserved, which sucks for so many reasons. It also sucks because of how poorly the show portrays it or shall I say barely address it, they find it easy to ignore it and bring it up in passing in a weird way🤦‍♀️ The majority of posts that I see as I said attack Lizzie for her mental illness tend to weaponize it to demonize her and unfortunately also try to demonize some people with mental illness. Also, I totally agree with some of the things that your saying. Not gonna lie I was rooting for Mizzie a while ago but I don’t feel like they’d be a good couple and should stick to being friends. Either way, I’m so sorry you’ve had poor intentions with some Lizzie fans. Honestly, I just wanted to send this because I saw you talk about other Lizzie fans and wanted to give you my take as being a Lizzie fan and what I’ve seen over the years. Also, I’m sorry for how long this ended up being, I straight up wrote you a paragraph 🤦‍♀️ I hope what I’m saying makes sense because I’m hella tired and I know I’m not always at my best when I’m tired. I hope you have an amazing rest of your day 😀

Yeah I️ guess I️ can see why people might get a bit defensive about criticism of Lizzie if they’ve seen a lot in the past focused on her mental illness. Personally, I️ actually do like Lizzie as a character. I know I️ do use the anti Lizzie Saltzman tag, but that’s just because if I’m criticizing her then I️ don’t want to put negativity in the regular tag and also want to give people the option of blacklisting. I’ve even used the anti Hope Mikaelson tag before and I’m not a Hope anti either. I️ just use anti tags very liberally because I️ think they're useful for filtering out negativity and avoiding arguments (although some people will always just want to start something regardless). I️ haven’t had any really awful experiences with Lizzie fans. I️ just feel like they tend to exaggerate how much hate Lizzie gets by saying she’s the most hated character in the fandom when sure there definitely are people who dislike her but I️ don’t think she’s the most hated character by any means. And, like you said, criticizing her for being mentally ill is a shitty thing to do, but I️ feel like some (not all) Lizzie stans act like there is no valid criticism against her and that all of it stems from ableism. Also I’ve noticed that Josie stans paint Lizzie out to be evil while Lizzie stans paint Josie out to be evil and there is a lot of argument surrounding who is the better twin and I️ just don’t understand the necessity. I️ probably can’t talk though because I️ did make a post awhile back about how while they’re both flawed I️ feel like Lizzie has more self awareness so maybe I️ even contributed to that. And you’re good I️ don’t mind the long ask and I️ realize that I️ ended up straight up writing a paragraph back. You’re making perfect sense but to be honest I don't know if I️ am just by virtue of it being 3 in the morning

[bigskydreaming]

I honestly think Infinite Crisis was supposes to make Dick a Christ figure. His morality literally saves the world. Your thoughts?

Eh, to be honest, I wouldn’t have been a fan of that (and I hiiiiighly doubt that’s where Didio was going with that because he likes people being LESS focused on Dick’s impact, not more).

I’ve expanded on this a LOT in the past, too often to really want to go into it all that much again, but hopefully this will bring up a lot of those older posts as “more like this” options.....

But I really really REALLY dislike the emphasis canon and fanon tends to put on Dick at times as being so much more moral and pure and just GOOD than other characters, especially when its framed as something that’s innate to him, like its fundamentally just who he is.....

Because to me, that devalues it and him so much.

Doing the right thing, being good, its a choice one makes with every single choice they make. And our tendency in society to try and sort people into “good people” and “bad people” just glosses over that and ends up excusing so many of the bad CHOICES people make as they just go “oh I guess I’m just an asshole” and like....hiding behind that as though they never really had a choice in the matter, doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing was never really an option, because they are who they are and who they are is just an asshole, y’know?

And at the same time, it actually takes away from the triumph that is Dick Grayson consciously, willfully making the choice to do good with so many of his actions when there’s so much temptation and justification for him caving to making a less moral choice most of the time. I think this is a huge contributor to people hyping up the one good deed various villains or antiheroes make at times in the comics, while paying no real attention to the ten heroic things Dick does for every one of those....because there’s nothing really impressive about making the right choice, the hard choice, when its because you’re just innately a good person, a ‘better’ person than everyone around you. There’s nothing to celebrate or honor about someone making the decision to be helpful and healing and positive with their actions and contributions to stories if there was never any doubt that they would go that route, and they never really had the option to make a bad choice there and then instead.

Which then culminates in so much of the nit-picking we see in fandom (and with characters in canon) as people attack and condemn every single little thing Dick does wrong even at the exact same time they gloss over other characters in the same stories going around committing murder, betraying and backstabbing other friends or family, and a hundred other things. Because Dick is SUPPOSED to just be ‘better’ than everyone else, and innately just a good person while everyone around him has to STRUGGLE with their morality, any time Dick does anything that’s less than 100% noble or that prioritizes himself in a selfish way or even just is him expressing bitterness or resentment at his own mistreatment.....this is framed and contextualized as a FAILING of his. He’s failing to live up to the standard of “the best, most moral person in the DC universe, the multiversal constant” instead of accepting that he’s just a man like any other character, and every choice he makes is the end result of his own internal struggle against right or wrong. The fact that he so often makes the right choice or the more positive or helpful choice, even at his own expense a lot of the time....THAT is what makes him Dick Grayson....and that IS to his credit.....but the problem is, he never gets that credit when he’s just cited as being so good and pure and noble, because people are like “well duh, what else was he going to do? The wrong thing? The selfish thing? LOL, that would be OOC.”

And so he’s put up on a pedestal he has no reason to be on any more than anyone else does, and condemned every time he fails to live up to the impossible expectations that come with being placed up there......which means, he either never slips up and does anything that would go against the idea he belongs on that pedestal....in which case he’s rendered two-dimensional and cast as ‘impossible to relate to’ given that nobody is just so innately good that they make the right choice all the time, no matter what......

Or else he does slip up and does things that go against the idea he’s supposed to be on that pedestal and STAY on that pedestal....in which case people call him OOC or write essays about how what he did was so fucked up when what he did was like....have one fight with someone where he said mean things to the person saying mean things back, and somehow this ends up magnified to being on an equivalent level to actual murder, torture, cheating, betrayal and other things that are associated with other characters as their ‘flaws’....

Because this is what people point to as his flaws, and thus when talking about characters and flaws in general.....these things end up on the same level as those other things and thus get blown entirely out of proportion, when those same choices or flaws on display with any other character would barely warrant a second glance with fans.

So I just really really really dislike any association with Dick and Christ-like imagery or symbolism or implications, and extend that to pretty much any and all talk of him being so much ‘better’ as a person than even other DC heroes, or just innately good or kind-hearted or virtuous....

Because Dick Grayson is all of those things, I think, yes....but he’s all of those things by CHOICE, because he makes the choice to do things and act in ways that lead to him having that reputation, even when he has every reason in the world to lower himself into the muck and roll around in it like every other character gets free rein to do when they’re recovering from trauma or facing someone who’s hurt them or taken a lot from them.

And that’s not easy, but the difference between him and so many other characters isn’t that its any easier for him to make those choices.....its that he does it any way, despite the difficulty.

And that’s why I always spend so much time focusing on the fact that Dick killed the Joker, and that he was originally intending to kill Zucco before he decided he had more to lose and nothing to gain from it. And why I talk so much about the fact that killing didn’t break him, and likely wouldn’t break him if he felt he had to do so in the future in defense of his own life or to save someone else, or even to avenge another family member like with the Joker and Jason, or if he did so under someone else’s control or while brainwashed by the Court of Owls, etc....like, he’s not ‘too good’ to kill someone without it destroying who and what he is, the way that’s often framed with him.

And its why I’m so defensive about Dick’s infamous temper, and never because I think its OOC for Dick to be angry, but because I think the problem is he’s never ALLOWED to be angry, never considered justified, with his anger portrayed as something readers and other characters understand and support him expressing, and instead is pretty much only ever just labeled a character flaw, with it coming up in the context of him being TOO angry, TOO hot-tempered, TOO hair-trigger. Unreasonable, irrational anger, the kind that makes him hard to deal with instead of someone you root for when they get angry because they SHOULD be mad, the situation calls for it.

Because Dick has the same spectrum of emotions as any other character, and to deny him the same access to all of those emotions, not just the good or happy or positive ones, is to cut him off from a full half of his potential portrayals or depictions.....which y’know, pretty inevitably leads to a less realistic, less fully rendered or three dimensional character....which is what people often cite as why they don’t like him as much as other Batfamily characters, why he’s harder to relate to. Well no duh, when you restrict him from displaying or acting on half the emotions that make up the human experience! He’s going to seem less human, more ‘pure/noble/above it all’ - and nobody’s going to find someone’s struggles as compelling when the likely outcome of those struggles is expected to be Dick making a choice that’s so good, so honorable, so PURE, the mindset required to make that choice would be virtually unattainable for any of us - thus there’s no incentive, or even the possibility, of placing ourselves in his shoes, trying to view a situation through his eyes.

And Dick has the same option to make the negative choices, the harmful choices, the toxic or vindictive or vengeful or selfish or self-centered or callous choices that are available to every other character and every reader when following his stories and picturing themselves in that situation.....but when Dick never ever makes any of THOSE choices, and indeed, is never given even the option by the narrator, of making those choices - and has no chance at the forgiveness or understanding of readers, SHOULD he make those choices.....then again, of course you’re going to wind up with a character people find harder to relate to, and see little reason in putting in the extra effort to do so. 

Because who wants to follow the stories of a character who makes them feel bad or dirty or ‘lesser’ than him by virtue of the fact that he never acts on a situation in any of the more negative ways people feel they might act if they WERE in his shoes....who wants to actually project themselves into those shoes if the end result is just going to be them feeling UNHEROIC simply BECAUSE they tried to relate to the hero and came away with the impression that this was a wasted effort, because they could never be as pure and good-hearted as that, they’d be too tempted to make the more selfish choice at times, the more vengeful choice, the more HUMAN choice....

And all of the above stems from just one simple thing, one sole mindset....

The idea that there are some people who are just innately good, and who don’t have to struggle to MAKE the good choice, the noble choice, the heroic choice....because they’re just so pure, so down-to-the-bone honorable by virtue just of who and what they are......and thus, if we’re not that way ourselves, if another character isn’t similarly regarded....there’s not even any point in trying to relate to that first character or be more like them....because its impossible.

You’re either that good by nature, or you’re not. You’re either Dick Grayson, or you’re no Dick Grayson and by extension there’s no point in even TRYING to be. No point in aspiring to be more like the example he sets in-universe or out, no point in trying to view him as an ideal to strive for instead of a benchmark for how far from a good person you are by nature and should just make your peace with being less ‘good/pure/noble’ than.

And so I’m always going to be knee-jerk UMM NO and also BUT HOW ABOUT NOT any time any discussion of Dick’s pure-of-heart status, too-good-too-noble-to-kill-and-not-be-just-shattered-by-it status, or any allusions to Christ-like symbolism or messianic narratives come up. I’m just always gonna be like, NOPE, no and also thank you but I like my Dick Grayson the same as any other hero, anti-hero, villain or just casual lookie-loo watching the superhero brawl happening downtown on their lunch break.....just a person, no innately better or worse than anyone else, with the same temptation to do wrong, be selfish, inflict retribution as the next person, and occasionally falling prey to his worse inclinations or instincts or behavior....

Because THAT’S what makes all the times he DOES rise above that behavior and set a standard in-universe for what a hero should be like, COULD be like, an example that actually CAN be followed, and met by others striving to make similar choices to him because they’re inspired by the fact that he makes those choices rather than resentful because they can’t imagine ever even being capable of making those choices....

THAT’S what makes all of that actually mean something, IMO.

Not his status as the DC universe’s multiversal constant and just all around best, most virtuous or good-hearted guy, an unreal gift that no mere mortal could ever actually hope to match or live up to.

[veliseraptor]

Any thoughts on Jiang Yanli and the two heads of the Jiang house?

“Well this family is a mess!” sums up a lot of my feelings about the Jiangs.

I mean, I love them! I really do! Mostly the kids, but...just in general the family dynamics are fascinating. For all Yunmeng is like...presented as this idyllic, wonderful place, pretty much right off the bat we see how fucking dysfunctional it is underneath.

Like...Yanli. She’s a treasure, clearly - she’s a sweetheart, she loves her brothers very much, she has deep wells of compassion for people, she gives a lot of herself. But on the other hand, she gives a lot of herself. Both Yanli and Wei Wuxian play the role of conciliator, though in different ways. She’s used to being the person to defuse conflict, to build bridges. She often places her worth in the service she can provide other people and what she can do for them. She struggles to stand up for herself. (For others, she can do, when it’s called for - but for herself, not so much.)

In the same way that her kindness and generosity is a virtue, it’s also part of her flaw, and it stems from the role she has learned to play as caretaker, as mother-figure and sister both, as mediator and conciliator and conflict-manager. She carries a lot of responsibility, especially emotional responsibility. And that is...not actually good.

Then - I am fascinated by Madame Yu. I mean, she’s - pretty clearly horrible for/to her family. She shows up and within less than five minutes manages to eviscerate everyone in the room by cutting directly to the heart of their insecurities, and then is like “Yu Ziyuan OUT” and exits, leaving awkward silence and trauma behind her. And just...she’s so bitter and vicious and angry, and her ferocity and rage and iron will are just...well, there’s a part of me that can’t help but like her even if, like. She’s abusive to her children. Both Jiang Cheng and Wei Wuxian consider it plausible that she might legitimately agree to cut off the latter’s hand. And yet I’m...pulled toward her, in a weird way.

I read this very good character study of her that I really liked and I would love to read more like that, just...digging into her and the complications of her feelings that are less straightforward than they appear? I mean, the level of commonality between her and Jiang Cheng and the way that Jiang Cheng expresses himself, especially later on as he acquires his layers of bitterness about the course of his life...there’s a lot to be dug into there.

Jiang Fengmian...I have fewer feelings about him, except that I feel like he is not absolved of blame for the dysfunction. I mean, obviously - his mess of a relationship with Yu Ziyuan is a big contributing factor in how that dynamic with the kids plays out, but also the way he treats Jiang Cheng as a proxy for Yu Ziyuan and Wei Wuxian as a proxy for himself/Cangse Sanren is...not great. He seems to generally be...hmmm. I saw a good description of his position in the family but I cannot find it now. Dumb. 

Well, there’s a post here that expresses a lot of good thoughts on the failures of both Jiang Fengmian and Madame Yu (the more obvious of the latter and the less obvious of the former) more coherently than I have here - it’s in my queue but you’re getting to see it early via link.

[rosecorcoranwrites]

Heroes and Villains are Not the Same

That's right, I hold the controversial opinion that heroes and villains are, in fact, not the same thing. Crazy, I know, but I stand by it. Let's step back a bit. Recently, I've come across a few writers and commentators saying something along the lines of "who the hero or villain is depends on who's telling the story". This sounds provocative, I guess, but it disregards a lot of standard terminology surrounding storytelling

Let’s talk about four types of character.

First, you have your protagonist and antagonist. The protagonist, obviously, is the main character. The antagonist is the character who works against the main character. Wikipedia puts it rather eloquently: "The protagonist is at the center of the story, makes the key decisions, and experiences the consequences of those decisions. The protagonist is the primary agent propelling the story forward, and is often the character who faces the most significant obstacles," while "an antagonist is a character in a story who is presented as the chief foe of the protagonist".

It is true that who the protagonist and the antagonist are depends on who’s telling the story. If Les Miserables were from Javert's perspective, then Valjean and all the revolutionaries would be antagonists. If there were a book series starring Draco Malfoy and his two cronies, then Harry, Ron, and Hermione would be the antagonists. And, yes, in these two instances, I think you could call Javert and Draco heroes; the first has a classic Greek heroic flaw, while the second goes through a long redemption arc.

Let's look at another example. If L were telling the story of Death Note, he would be the protagonist. And yes, the hero. Unlike in the other examples, he already was the hero. If you're unfamiliar with Death Note, it features a high school student, Light Yagami, who obtains the book of a Grim Reaper. If you write the name of an individual in that notebook, that person will die. Light, deciding to rid the world of horrible criminals, goes to town with it. But lest the audience see him as some tragic hero who goes down a dark path, it's made clear early on that he has a god complex—assuming the name "Kira"/"Killer"—and is willing to murder anyone who gets in his way, including the famous detective, L, who has been brought on to catch Kira. L is the antagonist to Light's protagonist, specifically, his villain protagonist.

That's why the idea that the villain and the hero are just the same thing from different perspectives is so confusing to me. We have villain protagonists. That is the other perspective. Though I feel like the insistence on heroes and villains being the same stems from our relativist culture, I think it also comes from a misunderstanding of what "hero" and "villain" mean.

A hero is a character who, generally speaking, struggles with some flaw or conflict. Their main arc deals with either overcoming this conflict or eventually capitulating to it. Greek tragedies are built around a "heroic flaw" that undoes the hero no matter how much they struggle against it. Modern superhero stories do the opposite, where the hero fights against internal vices or external foes, eventually winning the day, proving that virtue wins out over vice.

And that is the important thing about heroes: virtue. Whether or not a hero follows the path of virtue to its conclusion or ends up failing and falling off it at the end, they are at least seeking it. They are trying to be good. This is why you can essentially say that a hero is the Good Guy. The Good Guy might fail at the end, but that doesn't mean he wasn't trying his hardest until that point.

What makes a hero different from a villain? Well, obviously, the villain is the Bad Guy. No, really. A villain is "a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot", “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot". While a hero concerns himself with trying to lead a virtuous life, even if they fail, the villain doesn't. Maybe they actively pursue selfish and evil ends. Maybe they just don't care. Maybe they do think they're the hero (a popular idea in writing circles that will get its own blog post later), but are willing to do evil actions to achieve those good ends. The point is, while the hero pursues the good, a villain pursues evil.

So, with these as our criteria, let's look at a recent example: the 2019 film, Joker. Is this protagonist a hero or a villain?

I'll go ahead and say spoilers, but I actually don't think spoilers matter for this movie. I watched about two dozen reviews of the film before seeing it myself—to see if it would be too intense for me—so I knew every plot point going in. It was still amazing! The way those plot points were presented made them intriguing and fresh. Nevertheless, if you want no spoilers, I would bow out now.

Joker is the story of a man beaten down by society and circumstance. Arthur Fleck, as he is named at the beginning of the story, is a mentally ill man working a low-paying job at a clown-for-hire agency. His life is pretty awful: he gets beat up by teenagers, his coworkers don't respect him and even fear him due to his illness, he lives in a somewhat shabby apartment with his elderly mother, his therapist doesn't listen to him, and so on. All this pressure and anxiety finally come to a head when three jerk businessmen on a subway start assaulting Arthur while he is still in his clown costume. He shoots two of them in self-defense, then runs down the final one and shoots him in the heat of the moment.

Due to the swirling unrest in the city—there's a garbage strike going on, the social service budget has been cut, businesses are closing down, and so on—this nameless clown striking out against three rich men starts a movement. The unhappy masses don clown masks. Then they start protesting. Then they start rioting. While all this is happening, Arthur soaks it in. Though he states that he’s not political and doesn't believe in anything, he clearly likes seeing people imitate his look. He likes seeing the story of the killings in the news.

Eventually, through several more dark turns in the plot, he learns that his mother has lied to him about who his father is (maybe? The story kind of suggests that maybe his birth certificate is forged? And there's the writing on the back of that photograph? I don't know...), and that she allowed him to be mercilessly abused as a child. He makes a speech here, about how he has never in his life been happy, but that he realizes his life is not a tragedy, but a comedy. Then he smothers his mother with a pillow.

This is truly the moment he throws away "Arthur Fleck" and becomes the Joker, underlined by him dyeing his hair green and donning an orange and purple three-piece suit. He kills again, on television nonetheless, then basks in the rioting and burning he has caused. He thinks it's funny. Now, we not only have Arthur Fleck turned into the iconic Joker, but we have the city turned from an admittedly grimy and unjust place into the mask-clad-murderer infested burning hell hole that is the Gotham we know.

So, is the Joker a hero or a villain? Does it matter how you look at it?

One of the reasons this movie was so popular—aside from being about the most famous comic book villain ever—was that different sides could see what they wanted in it. Those in favor of movements like Antifa could point out the economic injustice that led to the riots; the movie makes no attempt to hide how unjust the society in Gotham is. People who see such movements as dangerous can say that, even if there were reasons for the protesting, at the end of the movie innocent people were murdered and the city is literally on fire, which the film also presents as a pretty bad thing. Maybe if Arthur was helped to get proper medication and counseling, he wouldn't have felt so hopeless, and thus wouldn't have become the Joker. True. Maybe if Thomas Wayne or child protective services had stepped in—since they both apparently knew Arthur was being abused as a child—and removed him from his mother, his life would have had a totally different trajectory. Yep.

No matter what particular political message you want to take from it, the fact is that Joker, the movie, is about the failure of society to address wrongs and about the chaos that comes when no one does anything about it. Remember, at this time in Gotham, there is no masked vigilante looking out for the little guy. Not yet, at least.

It's also a movie about one of the most iconic villains ever. The fact is, Arthur does not care about starting a movement. He likes that he did, because at least people are noticing him, but he doesn't care. He doesn't care that people are rioting and that the city is on fire, but he likes that the rioters look up to him. He doesn't care that he killed three businessmen on a train, or smothered his mother, or hacked up a colleague and got covered in the guy's blood, or that he shot a talk show host on live TV, or murdered his doctor at the end of the movie, because he liked doing it.

Yes, he does have a motive beyond that: revenge, for being lied to, or made to take the fall, or for being made fun of. As he says: What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a system that treats him like garbage? You get what you deserve. He has a point, and he's bitter, but he also really likes killing people. Throughout the movie, he laughs uncontrollably at inappropriate times— almost always when he is nervous or uncomfortable with the situation. But what does he do after he kills? He dances. Because he likes it. He may not be happy, but he still thinks he's in a comedy.

And that is why we can say that he is not the hero of his own story nor the hero of a Batman movie where it's told from the Joker's perspective. Because as sad as Arthur Fleck's story is, he's never trying to be virtuous, he's just trying to get by. In the end, the way he chooses to get by is through murder. It's tragic, but, as he himself says, it's not a tragedy. He's not a tragic hero. He's a comic villain. The only thing that depends on who’s telling the story is whether or not you get the joke.

[bigfan-fanfic]

What I’ve Learned from Disney Princesses

Sorry - super long post that isn’t a fic and doesn’t have anything to do with much. Just a rant - something I thought about and had to write down.

I firmly believe that in life, we are always learning. And from a young age, I have been learning from Disney - I think that my rather large vocabulary comes from learning Disney songs by heart at a young age - there are some pretty complicated words in there, people!

I was born and currently identify as male, but the Disney Princess movies have taught me valuable lessons over my life. The Princesses espouse admirable qualities, teach life lessons, and introduce us to the harsh truths of life. I’d like to share with you what I found the message these characters send to be, and maybe see if anyone feels the same?

So, under the break, I’m going to discuss all 12 of the official Disney Princesses, as well as Elsa and Anna, because I feel they have a lot to offer as far as life lessons go.

1. Snow White (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs)

Snow White does teach valuable lessons. She is just a young girl during the movie, but she shows remarkable fortitude in her ordeals. She does put herself in a servant role to the Dwarfs, but think about it -she’s been made a servant by her stepmother, so it’s likely the only thing of use she knows how to do. Not to mention she’s paying for her lodging and food by working. Snow is a princess, but she shows remarkable humility by being willing to work and earn her keep. 

Snow’s story also teaches us the downfalls of seeing the good everywhere. A little bit of cynicism is healthy, and keeps us alive. Snow’s willingness to see the good is what allows her to be so cheerful and loving towards the Dwarfs, but also makes her an easy target for a certain apple salesperson.

Be humble. Be fair. And don’t be so trusting.

2. Cinderella (Cinderella)

Cinderella might seem to be a passive, submissive example of a princess who “needs a man to rescue her.” But I think differently. Cinderella shows courage and strength in doing the only thing she can: surviving. Think about it: Cinderella has basically no other option but to be slave to her stepfamily. Her mother and father are dead. But does she complain? Does she give in to the idea that there might not be a single human left in the world who cares about her?

No.

Cinderella teaches us the quiet strength of endurance, of compassion and love even when we don’t receive any. Cinderella remains positive and hopeful in the face of adversity, and she is rewarded. 

Cinderella teaches us the harsh truth that sometimes, we have no other option but to muddle through and hope. Dreaming and wishing can be our refuge, and we must not let ourselves be broken by our circumstances. We must always show compassion and love where we are shown none, to those that need and deserve it. Cinderella cares for her animal friends, even though they can not conceivably do anything for her, and this “paying it forward” is rewarded.

And yes, Cinderella does have to depend on the kindness of others. But this in itself is a lesson. We, like Cinderella, do not always have agency over our lives. Sometimes we are kept from the ball. Sometimes the spell has to end at midnight. But Cinderella’s endurance and spirit is what sees her through.

Be strong. Be kind. Be like Cinderella.

3. Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)

True, there isn’t much to take from Aurora’s actions, due to her getting little screen time. But, Aurora teaches us the power of intent. She has been sheltered all her life and cut off from contact. And yet, she is unafraid to dream of finding more. And she does, though probably not how she expected to.

Aurora teaches us the harsh truth that we can be punished for something we had no control over. She was cursed to effectively die for an insult her parents gave! (Incidentally, a lesson I learned from Sleeping Beauty was to show respect at all times, to avoid grudges) 

Aurora may not teach us much directly. Her lessons involve having no control, and just having to deal with it.

So, yes, there will be times when your life won’t be fair. And, sorry, but you’ll just have to hope for the best. Hold on to your dreams for when life hits you hard.

4. Ariel (The Little Mermaid)

For a long time, Ariel was my least favorite Disney Princess. She’s the “girl who has everything” but can’t appreciate it.  She’s got material goods, family who cares, friends, a killer singing voice, but she takes it all for granted. Not to mention she skips out on prior commitments for selfish reasons. But Ariel teaches us a lesson about parenting that we would do well to remember:

Share with your child. Ariel’s curiosity about the surface world stems from her father’s insistence that she should never come in contact with it. Triton could’ve avoided a whole lot of trouble by maybe showing Ariel the human world a little at a time, or told her about why Ursula was so bad. 

Ariel also a lesson of her own: that it is okay to depend on others. Yes, she needs Sebastian to help her romance Eric. Yes, she needs Eric to help her defeat Ursula. But these do not make her weak. Ariel’s pure love and curiosity for whatever she happens to come across is her strength, and is what charms everyone around her. She is willing to selflessly defy her father in order to save a surface person from almost certain death. We all need to realize that we are not alone in this world, and it is okay to rely on those we can trust. When, like Ariel, we are voiceless, we should be able to count on our loved ones for support.

So, parents, share and be honest with your children. Kids, know that you aren’t alone, that it’s okay to rely on your parents and friends for stuff. You aren’t weak. We all need each other.

5. Belle (Beauty and the Beast)

Belle is possibly my favorite Disney Princess of all time. She’s got it all: brains, confidence, beauty. But the real virtue she shows us as people does not come from her book learning. It comes from emotional intelligence. Belle’s greatest quality is her understanding. 

Belle lives in a small town full of “little people,” and she is insecure about how different she is from them. The repetitive life they lead is not enough for her, and she wonders if anyone can understand her. There’s “no one [she] can really talk with.” And later, the villagers will state in “The Mob Song” that “we don’t like what we don’t understand; in fact it scares us, and this monster is mysterious at least.”

She is the only one who can see through the facade that Gaston puts on for all the villagers. She is able to see through the Beast’s posturing and get him to become the man inside. Belle sees Cogsworth’s pride and uses it to get him to show her the castle, and recognizes that the Beast won’t hurt her. Her understanding of people, and her ability to look past the outer shell is her greatest power, and ultimately allows her to break the curse by recognizing her love for the Beast, despite how mean and vicious he may appear. Belle shows us the value of attempting to understand those that may look and behave differently from us, and how reaching across that divide may not be as difficult as we think.

Belle’s story also teaches us the harsh truth that talent and wisdom often go unappreciated compared to beauty and looks. No one believes “Crazy Old Maurice” when his word is against Gaston, the village golden boy. None of the villagers see anything other than a scary, mysterious castle with a vicious beast in it. Even the Beast himself was cursed due to his inability to look past the Enchantress’ disguise. 

So seek to understand those you meet, both their flaws and qualities. And don’t judge a book by its cover. 

6. Jasmine (Aladdin)

Jasmine is pretty cool. She has a pet tiger, so... 

Anyway, Jasmine shows us how to be free. She doesn’t want to be wed to someone she doesn’t love, and so she tries to escape her life. She has Rajah attack suitors who try to get too close. She doesn’t take anything from anyone. Jasmine is generous and righteous, and although she might get into trouble due to her sheltered upbringing, Jasmine teaches us that we can’t let people deny us our freedom.

But Jasmine’s story teaches us the harsh truth that there are people out there who will stop at nothing to get what they want. Jafar resorts to manipulation, mind control, and then outright force to get what he wants. Even Aladdin uses the Genie’s incredible power to deceive his way to Jasmine. But even though Prince Ali seems perfect, Jasmine doesn’t really start to like him until he semi-reveals himself as Aladdin by asking her “do you trust me?” And Jasmine defies Jafar, even when he has the Genie’s power, even when he has her father under his power.

So, even when the greedy and selfish seek to use you, remember to hold on and exercise your freedom. It’s your life.

7. Pocahontas (Pocahontas)

Pocahontas is possibly the most controversial on the list, but I think that she is important in the lessons she can teach.

Pocahontas is independent and true to herself, but she also wrestles with tough inner conflict from duty. She wants to hope that something “waits just around the riverbend” but is in conflict with her tribe’s mantra of keeping steady and not rocking the boat. But her greatest virtue is her commitment to peace.

 Pocahontas not only promotes peace between cultures, but peace between man and nature. “We are all connected to each other/in a circle, in a hoop that never ends.” Pocahontas believes in this value of peace so much that she is willing to sacrifice herself for love rather than live in a world where war has broken out among the two sides. Her main adviser is not a human, but a spirit of nature itself. 

And the movie reveals harsh truths about how people treat those they do not understand. The song “Savages” is especially poignant, as Pocahontas deals with her inability to save John Smith while both sides abandon any hope for peace/cooperation and prepare for war. A strain from “Listen With Your Heart” plays before the second part of the song, showing that Pocahontas will either prove that peace is possible or die trying. As the end of the song arises, Pocahontas throws herself onto John Smith, forcing her father to either choose to back down or to kill his own daughter. 

Yes, Pocahontas sanitizes a lot of the struggle of the period. But the idea that one selfless act has the power to affect change is a powerful one. Pocahontas shows us that peace is an ideal worth dying for, even when it seems that no one will listen.

8. Mulan (Mulan)

Mulan starts her film chafing against her society’s constraints, unable to be herself and attempting to force herself into the mold of “perfect porcelain doll” that she is expected to be. Mulan’s love for her father is what motivates her to join the army in his place. Ironically, as her story deals with deception and deceit for the greater good, Mulan teaches us to be true to ourselves.

While she masquerades as Ping, Mulan is largely ineffectual, starting a camp-wide brawl on her first day and earning enmity from her comrades by adopting an overly-macho facade. It’s only when Mulan uses skills from her true personality that she thrives. Her ingenuity is foreshadowed in the way she does her chores by setting up Little Brother to do them, her sense of fairness is shown when she gives a little girl back her doll, and her incredible persistence is shown in the way she steadfastly goes through with the matchmaking ceremony, even when she has to resort to cheating to get through it. 

Mulan’s creativity allows her to climb the pole to retrieve the arrow, and her victory against Shan Yu in the mountains is brought about by her creative use of the cannon to cause an avalanche.

Mulan teaches us the harsh truth that there are things in life that we will just not be good at. Mulan does not excel at the memorization and graceful movements that other girls in her society are expected to use. But she does excel at tactics, thinking creatively, and adapting to situations as they come. And though her society prevents her from using her true talents, she finds a way to break out of that box and use her abilities to their fullest extent.

We all have our strengths and talents, and we must find a way to use them rather than be constrained by the norms of society. “The flower that blooms in adversity is the rarest and most beautiful of all.”

9. Tiana (The Princess and the Frog)

Tiana is different from the other Princesses because her best quality is also her flaw - she is focused and hard-working. Tiana is so diligent towards achieving her goals that she doesn’t allow herself to enjoy life. Tiana mostly teaches others how to focus on what they really want, but she’s got her own lesson to learn. 

“I remember Daddy told me/”Fairy tales can come true,/ But you’ve got to make them happen/it all depends on you.” Tiana has learned this lesson that blood, sweat, and tears are dependable - fairy godmothers are rare. It is hard to determine what Tiana needs to learn because she has so many good qualities - responsibility, self-sufficiency, diligence

“Blue skies and sunshine” are what Mama Odie recommends to her, and Tiana realizes that she doesn’t have to deny herself fun to achieve her goals. She starts out with several jobs to save up for her restaurant, and it all turns out to be for nothing. Tiana already knows that she must rely on herself to make her dreams come true, but she needs to learn to stop and smell the roses. She learns that she doesn’t have to solely dedicate herself to one thing. She can take time for fun, time to dance with her mother before getting back to work.

But Tiana’s story also teaches us the harsh truth that people are often far too open to temptation. “This whole town can slow you down/People taking the easy way...” Dr. Facilier and the Friends from the Other Side take advantage of what people want but don’t want to work for in order to manipulate them. “You got what you wanted/But you lost what you had.” Tiana, however, recognizes the value of hard work and does not give in to the Doctor’s manipulations. Even when Facilier gives her her restaurant, where she is loved and respected and dressed up, she quickly realizes it is nothing but an empty offer. Tiana does what none of the other characters tempted by Facilier have been able to do - say no.

So, work hard, but don’t forget to play sometimes. And know that your dreams won’t come true overnight - hard work is often needed.

10. Rapunzel (Tangled)

Rapunzel’s story teaches us perseverance. Every year, the king and queen send up lanterns for the lost princess - never losing hope that their daughter is out there. And it is these very lanterns that draw their daughter back to them. Rapunzel perseveres in her tower, waiting for her life to begin. And when opportunity finally strikes, Rapunzel seizes it. She doesn’t just grab the bull by the horns, she swipes it upside the head with a frying pan!

Rapunzel teaches us the harsh truth that trust is never to be taken for granted. Even the people who are supposed to love us and care for us might not always have our best interests at heart. Rapunzel spends much of the movie fearful that she is betraying her mother, only to find out she was lied to her whole life. The folks at the Snuggly Duckling encourage her to chase her dreams, but also inadvertently set Gothel on her trail. And Gothel is easily able to manipulate Rapunzel into distrusting Eugene.

So never give up, and be sure that those you place your trust in deserve it.

11. Merida (Brave)

Merida, like Mulan, struggles with societal constraints. Like Ariel, she can be flighty and irresponsible. But ultimately, Merida teaches us about the give and take of relationships, even among parents and children. Merida feels her mother lacks understanding. And her mother feels the same. Their relationship, once so close, is broken by the divide between them, represented by Merida’s damaging of the tapestry her mother made.

As Merida and Eleanor go through their journey, Merida learns about her mother’s strength and power, which comes from calm words and the bearing of a leader

12. Moana (Moana)

Moana is a really great addition to the lineup. She’s strong, funny, and smart, and she is wise. Moana, unlike Mulan, does not struggle with fitting in to society. She is able to competently assume the role of chief under the guidance of her father. And it is important to note that when Moan first tries to go to the sea, she fails. It is only when she does so in order to save her people that she succeeds. 

So, Moana’s virtue is also her tough lesson. There are things in this world more important than ourselves. Maui’s need to be loved is also the source of his great insecurity, and led him to steal the heart of Te Fiti. Te Ka’s anger nearly prevents Moana and Maui from restoring her heart. Moana’s grandmother and mother teach her the power of selflessness. Moana’s grandmother is the one to teach her about their people’s past as voyagers, and Moana’s mother - though she may fear for her daughter’s life - allows her to go and helps her pack for her journey. And Moana teaches Maui about doing things for others, not for gratitude, but because it is right. 

And Moana leads her people into voyaging once more. Not because she desired to go to the sea, but because it is the way of her people that was forgotten. Because it was the only solution to save her people when they began to overfish and helps spread them across the world. Moana’s motivation grows from a selfish one to a selfless one. And in a weird way, this comes from self-acceptance. “I Am Moana” is what she learns, that she can do things, and her talents are to be used to help her people, not just herself. 

Be yourself. Use your talents and follow your dreams. But never forget to use your abilities and gains for the good of others.

13. Elsa (Frozen)

Elsa is forced for much of her life to live in isolation, even from her beloved sister, which practically destroys their relationship. “Let It Go” may be a song for accepting herself, but it also occurs in isolation. Elsa feels the only way she can be herself is through this isolation. “Yes, I’m alone, but I’m alone and free.” She’s not really accepting who she is, but rather accepting the idea that she’s a dangerous monster, but when no one’s there for her to hurt, she can be happy.

Elsa learns through her sister’s love that she isn’t a monster. And she learns that love is how she can control her powers. Her parents worry that her powers will make her a target, but the fear of herself instilled in her makes them more uncontrollable. After all, if Elsa’s had these powers all her life (and shows remarkable control over them at a young age), the loss of control is directly linked to self-suppression. It is only when Anna sacrifices herself that Elsa regains true control -  because Anna repeatedly shows that she loves her sister, no matter what. And this unconditional love makes Elsa truly believe that she isn’t a monster.

So, Elsa teaches us that to truly accept ourselves, we need to accept others. You don’t have to be as cheery and personable as Anna, but isolation isn’t healthy.

14. Anna (Frozen)

Anna, meanwhile, learns a similar lesson. Also forced into isolation, Anna desires to have experiences, to live life. “For the First Time in Forever” really indicates Anna’s longing for connection and experience. Part of why she’s so willing to love Hans and believe he loves her is because of this isolation. In her point of view, Elsa rebuffs her one day with no warning, and practically never even sees her again for years. “Do You Wanna Build a Snowman?” shows Anna’s regret and sadness as the years pass, and is heartbreaking as she slowly stops trying to communicate with her sister.

Anna teaches us about trying to communicate, about showing unconditional love. “Please don’t shut me out again,” she begs Elsa. And even though her sister has (accidentally) hurt her, Anna consistently tries to bridge the gap. 

Anna’s arc shows us the tough truth that relationships, even close ones, can decay. The close sisterly bond has all but faded between them. But Anna also shows us that no matter the difficulty. At the final scene, when the tune of “Do You Wanna Build a Snowman” plays, it signifies that Elsa and Anna have finally repaired their relationship, that they finally can be family again.

So, we learn from Anna to give our love unconditionally. Because forgiveness, trust, love, and most importantly the desire to make a connection all help us repair our broken relationships.

[sapphire-weapon]

theggning replied to your post: I’ve been out of commission for the last few days...

HEY SIREA WRITE ABOUT CHARACTER FLAWS

Give your characters flaws.

Create post.

okok no but for real, seriously, if you focus on making any one of your characters as unproblematic as possible, 9 out of 10 members of your audience will fucking hate them. That isn’t how real human beings act or are when they’re out in the world, and especially not when they’re under duress -- which your characters should be, since stories cannot exist without conflict. If you’re lucky, your audience will walk away from your story thinking that your main character was an annoying, pretentious asshole. Chances are, though, they’ll walk away thinking that you, the author, are an annoying, pretentious asshole who cared more about grasping for cheap “woke” points rather than telling a compelling story with compelling characters and dialogue.

On the flipside of things, one thing that you should never do is sit down with a list of flaws in an attempt to meet some kind of arbitrary quota. When crafting a character, you put yourself (and the character) at a detriment by going, “Okay, I need five positive traits and five negative ones.” Don’t do that. We’ve already spoken about how authors shouldn’t put things in their stories just because they think stories should have XYZ thing -- everything should have a reason and purpose for existing within the confines of the story, including character flaws.

I tend to think of character flaws as consequences or effects. When you’re crafting a character’s backstory, it’s important to take into consideration what effect certain aspects of their lives would have on them and how those events would manifest as behavior later in life. The fun part is that you can have both a positive effect and a negative effect stemming from the same event.

Let’s take Juli Kidman as an example. She had an abusive/neglectful family life growing up. A negative effect of that was that it made her susceptible to the cult-like atmosphere of Mobius as an organization in her never-ending need for belonging and validation. A positive effect of that was that she was able to sympathize with Sebastian losing his own family, which then made her rethink her allegiance to Mobius.

Any character flaw that you write should be something that your character either A. sees as a virtue or B. purposefully ignores. In Juli’s case, she fell into the category of B. She purposefully ignored her eagerness to work within the oppressive cult-like environment of Mobius, because she wanted so badly for a place to belong. Character flaws like drug addictions typically fall into this category, as well. "I can stop whenever I want” is a common mindset for a drug addict, and it’s an example of a character purposefully ignoring their flaw.

In terms of of A. seeing a flaw as a virtue, let’s keep using The Evil Within as an example and look at Sebastian. As a result of losing his daughter and his wife one right after the other, Sebastian becomes an emotionally closed off, paranoid, neurotic conspiracy theorist. He alienates the people closest to him and even puts his own job at risk at one point, but he honestly 100% feels he’s right to do so. He sees his own neurotic paranoia as a virtue to help him find his missing wife and get to the bottom of a massive conspiracy within the Krimson PD. He knows that he’s breaking rules and pushing people away, but for him it’s a means to a justified end. He can’t see how much he’s hurting others, because in his mind, he’s helping.

There does also exist a C-type flaw -- one that the character is aware of, knows is a problem, but doesn’t know how to stop. Maybe they don’t want to stop their flawed behavior or mindset because it’s a form of defense mechanism. However, these types of flaws are less common and more difficult to write because they frequently act as distractions away from the main conflict of the story. If you’re writing an epic fantasy story about going on a big journey to save the world, and your protagonist is a berserker who hates the fact that they hurt innocent people when they berserk, then that becomes a secondary problem that requires near-constant attention during and after every fight. It detracts from the main conflict, and to a certain extent, your story almost becomes a dual-conflict narrative -- it’s simultaneously man vs man and man vs self. This isn’t to say that this can’t be done well; Xenogears does this very well. It’s just a lot harder.

This can happen in reverse, too, when you’re character building. If you’re not starting with a character’s backstory, but you as an author have a general idea of, “I want to write about a character who’s smart and brave, but they’re a little awkward in social situations” it’s always beneficial to determine why the character is awkward in social situations. Were they sheltered and/or bullied as a child? Did they undergo some early trauma that caused them to grow up too fast? Are they an orphan who never learned how to socialize with people in a normal setting? Did they grow up in a small town with very rigid social norms that might not actually be normal in the greater world? Their backstory will develop from there, making your character feel more fleshed-out as a result.

Once you know why a character has a specific flaw, then determine how it manifests and what sort of attitude the character has towards it -- if it’s an A-type, a B-type, or a C-type flaw (if the story calls for a C-type). Once you have that squared away, your character interactions will start writing themselves. Conflicts will develop on their own. Stories start and finish with character flaws.

Giving your characters flaws doesn’t make them into abusers. It makes them human.

Was this helpful? Buy me a coffee!

[ellawritesficssometimes]

Introduction:

I’ll open things with a quick reminder that the practice of judging characters because they don’t live up to the perfectionist and fictional [unrealistic] standard that we hold them up to is hypocritical. Real life interactions and relationships are full of flaws, blemishes of the character, mistakes, and regrets.

Instead of holding up characters to this impossible pedestal, I believe that we should devote our efforts to appreciating how their life experiences reflect that of our own. Cliché as this saying may be, it’s something that’s always held to be true: no one is perfect. This includes fictional characters.

The fact that America and Canada’s relationship consists of several moments of jealousy, selfishness, and resentment is what makes their characters so developed. To get from point A to point B, a required component of character development is to overcome some sort of personal, emotional, spiritual, and physical struggle.

The scenarios in which these characters attempt to negotiate through these hurdles can be messy. Mistakes are inevitable and they will say things that they don’t truly mean. It’s important to recognize this rather than singling out a panel as evidence to prove that a character is “rude.” That’s a very simplistic way of looking at things. Not only that but context and motivation are needed if you’re to understand the true reasoning behind these outbursts, which are far more complex than merely painting the picture of a character lashing out for no particular reason.

That said, I’ve organized the breadth of America and Canada’s relationship into three main themes: Identity, jealousy, and autonomy. Let’s explore them.

 Theme: Identity (or the lack thereof) 

The most prevalent theme coursing through America and Canada’s relationship is identity. Canada’s struggle to overcome his invisibility primarily rests on his inability to form a stable and memorable self-concept, something distinct that he can use to formulate his own unique identity.

The problem is that he lives in the much larger shadows of England and America, albeit mostly the latter’s.

Ex: America is described as the source of all of Canada’s woes [x].

Ex: Kumajiro advises Canada to find something that shows who he is.

Ex: He’s often mistaken by other nations for America and has to deal with repercussions and hatred that isn’t even intended to be directed at him. In this case, Cuba assaults Canada, thinking that he’s America.

Another problem that Canada has by virtue of his invisibility is that he lacks an assertive presence. Remember that this is an old trope in the manga, so the humour will be a bit more exaggerated than something you would see in recent strips.

Ex: He has trouble “getting in a word” to America. Here, he had hoped to tell America to quit acting so “domineering” to other nations, as he ends up on the receiving end of other nations’ hatred.

Ex: Canada reflects on how, even as a child, he wasn’t that memorable.

Ex: Canada’s sat on by Russia during a meeting due to lacking a certain presence and charisma.

Ex: France and England both don’t remember Canada right away, as there is nothing distinctly remarkable about him. Again, I’ll repeat that the manga is based on stereotypes. Canada’s invisibility reflects how he’s still negotiating his national identity—what he’s known for. 

Note: Canada’s anger here is justifiable. I want you to remember that when we look at other examples where he snaps and becomes angry. The emotions don’t simply emerge in a vacuum (i.e., out of nowhere). It’s pent-up emotions that he’s suppressed, having been pushed down, taken for granted, and ignored for most of his life.

One scene that I’ve noticed has been grossly misrepresented in the past is this baseball scene. The gist of it involves America throwing a baseball too fast and hard for Canada to keep up with. It’s not meant to be abusive on America’s part.

If you look at the panels it’s meant to represent how symbolically, America pushes Canada too hard, operates at a much faster pace, and expects a lot from the latter. In particular, the differences in their paces will be important, as it’s something that Himaruya brings up again in World Stars.

Notice how it’s only after Canada has been pushed enough that he strikes back at America. The two get into a heated argument and both call each other names. It begins with America expecting Canada to do a favor for him and Canada responding that he’s not America’s “handyman,” as in he’s not someone who can be taken advantage of to do the latter’s dirty work.

America’s criticisms fall short when Canada loses his temper and criticizes America’s flaws for three hours straight. It’s enough to make America cry.

While America may take advantage of Canada, he also acts as Canada’s greatest support. On several occasions, he encourages Canada to form his own unique identity.

Ex: He advises Canada to be more receptive to welcoming immigrants to his country. Canada later becomes known for his multiculturalism.

Ex: After Seychelles remembers that Canada’s a member of the G8, Canada overcompensates in his gratitude by dressing up as his stereotype. America tells Canada that he’s fine the way that he is, amusedly remarking how Canada went out of his way to stand out [x] [x].

As mentioned, it’s not just America that causes Canada’s identity (or lack thereof) to be obscured and insignificant. England too overrides Canada’s sense of self.

Ex: Canada at one point once used England as a mouthpiece to negotiate treaties with America [x].

Ex: Post–American Revolution: America attempts to visit England, who fell ill following the conflict. Canada gets angry at America for one; barging in, and two; only worrying about England and ignoring how Canada was also implicated in the war [x].

“I’m Canada! This is Canada!

Can’t you see anything else besides England?!”

Canada refuses America entry, which ignites another argument. America criticizes Canada’s will and his inability to separate himself from England. In this case, America touches on how Canada eats marmalade instead of maple syrup to appease England.

Once again, it’s only after Canada is pushed far enough that he returns America’s insults. This scene is especially important because it culminates in Canada asserting himself by forcefully shutting the door on America.

Theme: (Mutual) Jealousy 

In light of being ignored, Canada unhealthily compares himself to America. This hopeless endeavor is a major contributing factor to his poor self-esteem.

Ex: Canada thinks that he’s plain and not good-looking. This conclusion stems from comparing himself to America, who’s well-known and described as a good public speaker [x].

Ex: Canada being overshadowed by America is crudely portrayed when America sticks his own flag on Canada’s forehead [x].

Ex: Canada takes an interest in American pop culture and media entertainment. America doesn’t reciprocate [x]. Keep in mind that Canadian media is a more recent phenomenon, as Canadians used to consume a lot of American content before things like CBC.

It’s symbolic of how Canadian content is often mistaken as something produced in Hollywood. This is seen in the Hetalia of the Dead strips, where New Zealand mistakes a Canadian film as American.

Ex: After realizing that America doesn’t know anything about his pop culture, Canada wonders if America has no interest in him and reflects on their childhoods [x].

Take note of the fact that they play in a field of flowers, as it will turn up as a metaphor in later chapters. Similarly, the idea of America aging quickly is reflected in the fast pace in which he makes decisions and excels versus that of Canada, whose growth and path to independence is hesitant and slow. 

This is a brilliant and covert connection made by Himaruya, as it links back to the baseball strip [Fly Canada-san, fly!] where America pushes Canada too hard.

Lastly, it’s crucial to mention that the jealousy is mutual between Canada and America. Canada is jealous of America’s large impression and status in the world, whereas America is jealous of Canada possessing a personality that allows him to get along with people [x].

Theme: Autonomy (or the lack thereof)

The final theme I would like to touch on is autonomy. The premise of this layer of characterization is twofold. On one hand, it involves America self-interestedly expecting too much of Canada and pushing him too hard until they both explode and feed each other a piece of their minds. On the other hand, it involves the two of them unequivocally supporting each other, regardless of where their political interests lie.

As mentioned, America is Canada’s biggest supporter. He’s the one who encourages Canada to fight for his independence.

Ex: America urges Canada to gain his independence from England and gets angry when he perceives Canada’s wish not to pick a side as being indecisive [x].

Ex: They speak to each other, despite technically being enemies in the aftermath of the Revolution [x].

Canada’s sheltered life as a subordinate to England is revealed in his naïve perspective of world politics. He has trouble wrapping his head around how England and America are able to keep trading with each other while in the midst of a fight. Having never been in control over his own affairs, Canada doesn’t recognize that practicality comes above personal issues in politics.

Ex: After improving his relationship with England, America attempts to establish a treaty with Canada. The way he does so is abrupt and rubs Canada the wrong way. He’s both spoken for and spoken over [x].

Another link is made with older strips. America “drags” Canada at his own pace without realizing that Canada operates and does things differently.

America’s opinion that he never voices out loud after Canada reprimands him is particularly important. He knows that Canada is slow and won’t make any moves on his own. It’s because he recognizes that Canada’s grown accustomed to living in England’s shadow.

Ex: The second time America asks Canada about his independence, he gets a response…more or less [x].

What disgruntles America is that Canada expects to gain his independence by being on good terms with England. As someone who had to fight for his autonomy and has experienced the harshness of the ‘real world’, America can’t control this next outburst. It’s out of concern for Canada’s naïve, childish, and softened perspective of the world.

Remember that childhood metaphor I mentioned earlier? This is it.

“Is your head a field of flowers?!”

Ex: To get Canada a more immersed understanding of the world, America encourages him to do some travelling instead of simply focusing on domestic issues [x].

In the same strip, he pushes Canada to become independent again. His rationale is that without England in the mix, the two can be closer. What doesn’t sit well with Canada is America’s self-interest; what he has to gain by improving their relations.

Regardless of how much he wants to deny it, America’s influence on Canada is profound. Canada even recognizes this as he declares his independence [x].

Ex: It’s no secret that America “underestimated” Canada and believed that the latter wouldn’t be able to support himself [x].

On the other hand, when he does visit Canada to congratulate him on his independence, the progress they achieved in their relationship is unmistakably present.

Rather than shout and get into a fight, as illustrated in a sequence depicting what they would have liked to say to each other, the two accept their differences in opinion, enjoy the congratulatory moment, and remain civil. They were always best friends in their hearts. This reconciliation confirms the sentiment [x].

Conclusion:

In sum, even though Canada may still struggle over his identity in modern times due to America’s overbearing influence and frequently get into arguments with America, it doesn’t do their relationship any justice to characterize them as hating each other. America cares very deeply about Canada and acted as his biggest support, regardless of his egotism. Canada too cares very deeply about America despite getting frustrated with the latter when his boundaries are pushed too far. Siblings are siblings, and while they may fight and get on each other’s nerves, the two are still very close.

Why else would they host a cooking show together? [x].