#the only way they can justify their actions to themselves (2/2)

[tea-cat-arts]

Man, I really miss when Mihoyo would actually let characters be in the wrong. It’s just kinda weird to me how a game that quotes philosophy as much as Honkai does also refuses to explore moral complexities and contradictions.

[a-star-that-burns-brightly]

I'm not gonna lie, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me when people say that Eden being the culprit doesn't make sense from a narrative/story perspective, or that they "don't see her killing someone" I mean to-each-their-own obviously, but like, at the same time...the entire theme of this chapter is that not everything is as it seems. Your preconceived notions of the people around you based on the parts of themself they present to you are bound to be contradicted by an action they take, or a side of themselves that's kept hidden away. This theme was set up in the first episode of Chapter 2 with J's secret, which I elaborate more on in this post, where she is revealed to have a completely different identity that nobody in the cast was aware of, and that identity of hers is met with spectacle and admiration when J's life is really nothing to admire. Another thing that sets up this narrative is also just the secrets motive in general. From a meta standpoint, I think the secrets motive is meant to challenge us the audience and the preconceived notions we have about these characters, what we believe they are capable of doing to others, to themselves, and in general who they are as people. I remember back when the episodes were still being released seeing paragraphs of defenses in comment sections in regards to David, how he wasn't a manipulator because of this that and the third, how he was only trying to help and that he couldn't had been malicious in his intention. And I can attest to that, because I was one of those people lmao. And as we know now, David did end up being the one with the manipulator secret and showing a much more ugly side of himself that many didn't take kindly to, because it contradicted what we knew about who he was, or more accurately, what we wanted to believe he was. And I use David as an example here, because this pattern can be seen with multiple characters throughout the chapter. Arei, who up until this point had been portrayed as nothing more than a mean, merciless bully, had her past and true-feelings spilled out on full display, leading to her allowing herself the chance to become a better person. This is almost the exact opposite of what happened to Nico, who was portrayed as a timid, defenseless individual constantly catching the brunt of Ace's assault, only to show that they are a much more nefarious person than you would first assume, more than willing to tie a wire around Ace's neck if pushed to their boiling point. And the funny thing about these two examples is that even after these sides of their characters were revealed to us, people still allowed their established notions of the characters to overrule it. People theorized that Arei was lying, or just putting on another manipulative show again. People theorized that actually Nico was just trying to take the wire off of Ace's neck, that Ace actually killed himself and was just pinning it on Nico, or that Hu was somehow responsible and that she was manipulating Nico into doing it, or was just straight-up the one who tried to kill Ace. And there's nothing wrong with any of these theories in the moment, even though I'd say with present information that all of them have been de-confirmed. The reason I'm mentioning them is that it goes to show that if you have a certain view of a character that you have become attached to, and something comes along and contradicts that view, your brain searches for ways to justify the previous view you had. Even in the case of Arei and Nico where, to be fair, the previous perspective wasn't entirely wrong, people still feel strange when they see something that contradicts it.

All of this brings us to David, who as I mentioned previously, was continuously defended in the weeks before CH2-11 dropped because people didn't want to believe he was as manipulative as a lot of the fandom made him out to be. And then CH2-11 actually dropped, and possibly the most unsavory side of David was revealed to us in full display. And despite the fact that the legitimacy of how much of David's true colors is being shown is still a big question mark to this day, and the fact that this side of himself gets approximately seventeen minutes of screen-time, a lot of people were incredibly quick, and I mean quick, to immediately dismiss it as bad writing. Instead of actually thinking for a moment about why this writing decision would be made, they wrote off David as a one-dimensional bad guy to the point of even calling him a cartoon villain. It's hard to believe now considering how much effort the community has put into the past year to dissect every aspect of this blueberry-haired motherfucker, but there were people who were genuinely pissed when CH2-11 dropped. "Hey, this is all well and good but uh...I thought this post was about Eden? Why are you bringing up all these other characters?" Well I'm glad you asked, voice that I made up in my head to transition cleanly to my next point. The thing that all three of these characters, Arei Nico and David have in common, is that they all serve to challenge what we know about these characters and introduce a side of them that goes against our current knowledge, and it's up to us as an audience to either accept this as part of who they are as a person, or deny it in favor of the narrative we've grown comfortable with. And I really do think that is an intentional part of the story being told within Chapter 2, especially when characters like Hu also exemplify these tendencies in how she defends David and tries to see the good within him, deflecting away from the uncomfortable truth that he is not all he presents himself to be. All that glitters is not gold, not everyone is as they appear to be. Which brings us, finally, to Eden Tobisa. And how a lot of the arguments against the theory that she is the one who killed Arei greatly confuse me, and why I think a lot of it falls along this line of thinking.

I see quite a few people implying that the idea of Eden being the CH2 culprit is inherently, as a concept, bad writing, how it doesn't fit with her character, and other things along those lines. It's actually very similar arguments that I saw used to deny the idea that David was manipulative. But I do not see this to be the case. In fact, I think out of everyone currently alive in the cast, Eden being the culprit is what would fit the best with the narrative and story that has been established. This chapter, as I've mentioned previously, has challenged our perspectives of these characters and what we know about them, emphasizing that what we see of them might not be the full-picture of who they are as people. So quite frankly, why wouldn't the culprit be the most positive, seemingly hopeful girl in the entire killing game cracking under it's pressure and resorting to murder? An aspect of Eden's character that I think goes overlooked quite often is that, though she is not by any means naive and her optimism is genuine, her positivity can definitely seep into toxic positivity on more than one occasion. Specifically when applying it towards herself.

(x) Teruko: You seem quite chipper this morning, even though you were distraught last night. Eden: ...Yeah, I know. I'm really sorry about yesterday. Eden: I was in a new, scary situation, and I let myself get too upset. But that was a mistake, I'm not going to let myself be weak like that anymore. Eden: I'll do my best to encourage everyone from now on!

(x) Levi: I suppose I could say the same for you, can't I? Today you're just as cheerful as you've ever been. Eden: I'm glad you think so. I'm wearing my brave face, see? Eden: Everyone is probably going to be sad for a while. For their sake, and for mine, I'll put on a happy smile!

(x) Eden: [Sniff] Whit: There, there. Pat pat. Do you want to sit down somewhere else? Eden: ....... Eden: I'm fine! I just... needed a second to deal with it. Eden: I'm super ready to investigate! I'll do whatever I can to help find Arei's killer.

I want you to pay attention to the third scene I linked especially, because I think it re-contextualizes the other two scenes mentioned. I hope this does not need to be spoonfed, but just to be clear: I am not at all saying that Eden's positivity is fake or fabricated, I think her optimism is a very real aspect of her. That being said, despite her believing that the best way to make it through this killing game is to express grief and rely on others and how she does acknowledge the severity of the situation on multiple occasions, she has never really allowed herself to grieve her current situation. She refers to her very reasonable response to the death game as a weakness, and she outright admits to Levi that she is putting on a brave face for herself and the others. And in the third clip, it's not even being hidden from the audience anymore, especially with how the line is voiced. It's like Eden's VA was specifically instructed to sound as if she were forcing a smile. What this all means, to me anyway, is that there is a lot of stress, fear, and sadness bubbling under Eden's skin that she's purposefully keeping hidden, for herself but especially for the others. That doesn't mean she is good at it, mind you, as Eden at the end of the day is still someone who's feelings are practically sewn into her sleeve, but she is trying. And it's clear it is having an impact on her. Couple that with the fact that Eden very clearly wants to escape really fucking badly, if her constant attempts to find a solution to end the killing game are anything to go by. Especially in Chapter 2. (credit to @/venus-is-thinking for pointing this out in their post)

(x) Eden: So uh... I've been spending a lot of time investigating around, looking for a potential exit

(x) Veronika: You know, Eden once thought of an interesting plan to end the killing game. Based on everything we know, it could theoretically work.

(x) Hu: Eden and I have a continuous alibi from 7 PM to 10 PM. It has become a bit of a tradition for the two of us to clean up after dinner together Hu: And after we were done, we talked for quite some time, brainstorming ways to deal with the motive.

Eden has been more obsessed than anyone else over the prospect of ending, dealing with, or escaping the death game. (just as a side note cause it goes outside the scope of this post, this is also why it doesn't make sense when I see people say that Eden doesn't have a motive to kill, because...she does? Fuck if anything she is probably the person who currently wants to escape this death game the most. I understand if that doesn't sound like a satisfying motive to you, but she does have a motive.) Also couple all of this with the constant arguing of the rest of the cast, and her literally witnessing Nico try to kill Ace in front of her eyes, all the while she is trying to put on a positive smile for everyone else and herself. I really do not see why it is so unbelievable that she would break and try to commit murder. And really, I do think it's primarily because of how the fandom as a whole views Eden, which is why I spent a large majority of this post talking about the themes of Chapter 2 and how they interact with how the audience sees the characters. Another theme that has been explored in this chapter is the idea of a Good Person. Specifically, what makes someone a good person, and the desire to become one. And how is this theme introduced into the chapter?

(x) Levi: Perhaps I messed up yesterday. But I want to move on. I want to keep trying to be a 'good person,' like you, Eden.

Through the existence of Eden. With every other character in the DRDT cast, there is at least one attribute about them or action they take, that would reasonably warrant them being disliked, or seen as not the best person. Even other characters serve a similar role in the narrative, like Whit and Hu, have things about them that could result in this opinion. Like Whit's insensitivity and uncaring behavior towards the dead, and Hu using other people to make herself feel useful. But Eden is viewed, both within the story and outside it, as an undeniable good person. There's a reason why you basically never see a genuine Eden hater in a wild because...well, what is there to dislike her for? She's kind, she's caring, she's helpful, and she tries her best for everyone around her. In the midst of a story where the characters are constantly being pushed to the brink and fucking up, Eden has done literally nothing wrong. She has been a victim of circumstance or other people victimizing her. And the one time she is antagonized in the story it's by a character who, up until a few minutes after, we have basically only seen as a mean bully. Eden has done nothing wrong. Eden is the picture-perfect presentation of a good person. But I think by the end of Chapter, as a climax to both of the themes that permeate it's narrative

That will no longer be the truth.

[ofbreathandflame-archive]

stans are actually very funny bc they often time talk themselves into the weirdest corners.

the whole point of criticizing acosf and its handling of nesta's character is to prove the point that sjm...doesn't like nesta as a character. that's is literally THE point - that sjm often abandons her moral themes (abuse, trauma, assault, etc.,) for character's deemed as undesirable or villainous to a capacity - and its through the handling of those 'vilified' (i.e. main character opposed - not even villianous) that we can gauge the extent to which sjm actually believes the ideals of her story. like - it is alarming that the only tolerable, empathetic parts of the a court of silver flames were the moments you could tell where ripped straight from sjm's own life (the hiking, training, mind-stilling etc.,). any actual characteristics about nesta weren't explored...like at all. her relationship with feyre and elain, with her mother, her trauma from her sexual assault, her conflicted relationship with her grandmother, her life before the cabin, her life during the cabin. in 800 pages - i still don't know mama archeron's name. what was life like in the cabin? what did nesta do all day? what was the dynamic? what was going on between elain and nesta?i don't know anything about her and nesta, we don't know anything about nesta's human life, her conversation with clare bedor, her relationship with clare beddor, moments with her dad - not even touching moments with him (and part of this story is her finding love for her dad). mind you we read 800+ pages and we learned absolutely nothing about her.

we essentially read sjm's emotional journey in one part, and a taming of the shrew narrative in another. i think the only way sjm had genuine interest in exploring nesta's story is through essentially self-inserting herself and avoiding the actual plot-points she set up in the first three books. like did nesta have childhood friends? if losing the wealth so drastically affected her life wouldn't she reminisce about it a lot? would she yearn for her mother? who were her childhood friends, how did she function at court?

and the whole point of saying alll of that is to argue the misuse of these topics - serious discussions abuse are only reserved for certain situation, and others its completely undermined in a way that only reinforces the negative ideals to begin with. (i.e. nesta needs to abused bc..." "the intervention was harsh but" - pair that with discussion around what feyre needed in acomaf - and it makes much more sense).

nesta antis often jump between the fact that nesta is so favored that sjm nerfed feysand to 'redeem her' and arguing that sjm secretly does everything in her power to embarrass and secretly laugh at people who like nesta's character. (1) we've gotta pick one or the other (2) in my humble opinion - sjm would have always given feyre a pregnancy plot like this regardless of whether this was nesta's book or elain. its literally so sjm. im shocked people are surprised she pulled the pregnancy as she did.

as with the tamlin discussion we had under this post - i think the story undermines its discussion of abuse with feyre/tam by essentially insinuating that tamlin (when placed in the same victimized position as feyre) should have sucked it up and braved out his abuse with amarantha (and the same with rhysand as well - esp with the deliberate foil of rhysand's 'willingness' v. tamlin's unwillingness). and when we start to have a real conversation ultilizing our own irl analysis and standards we really see how harmful and rather sisyphean the conversation becomes. instead of engaging with these topics earnestly, they only engage in them to prove a point - which is how the issue began in the first place. the whole issue with rhysand isn't the fact that he engages with harmful, potentially villainous positions. no - its that the book wants to prove that tamlin is wrong by justifying rhysand's actions. so even though rhysand and tamlin almost always have the same written and expressed intentions in their abuse of feyre, the book flocks to justify one, and eschews the other. and thats why we get so much reactionary critcism of rhys that is surface: people only admit the problems because they know antis will, not because they actually believe their are issues in the story.

and perhaps im still speaking into a void here but i can tell there's tension between pro stans wanting to have these serious conversations but understanding they can only really introspect so far until the conversation begin to prod at the validity of the topics being brought forth. so stans have to jump between invalidating the romantasy genre ("its just faeries") and treating this book as a serious topic (cue: "sjm put a hotline in the back of the book"). this is also the exact reason why the racism conversations stall (i.e. why inherent superiority is always passively emphasized - despite cc1 + 2 centering human oppresion there is no human in the ensemble cast. despite the fact that illyrian women are the most oppressed - rhys has no illyrian women - or reg illyrians (not his brothers) in his inner circle. aelin 'sacrificing' her human body).

[drama-glob]

SPOILERS FOR "APOLOGY TOUR!!!"

Oh this episode hurt, especially the ending. ;_; ;_; ;_;

I figured Stolas and Blitz wouldn't be back to normal or even amicable and that Blitz would need to learn about how his past actions when it comes to relationships have hurt people, but it's just so sad to watch the consequences some to fruition. ;_; Stolas holding onto his anger and hurt from what Blitz yelled at him as well as likely still blaming himself for the arrangement is justifiable since it's barely been any time since "The Full Moon," but him still not taking Blitz point of view on the matter and realizing where he messed up too didn't aid in their progress towards coming back together; Blitz playing up that he wants to just keep things sexual between him and Stolas while mocking relationships and refusing to admit that he did any wrongdoing only exacerbated the matter. :/ I didn't expect the Striker secret to come out and I don't blame Stolas for being upset about that. :/ It's too bad Blitz ruined his apology with a f*ck you and taking his lack of apologizing as a challenge rather than an actual call to change, but I did love the little mentioning of Fizz. ;)

The apology tour Blitz did was hilarious and I love that he actually was thinking about texting Stolas an apology, but of course, he didn't since it's the one he genuinely feels bad about; the surprise cameo of Martha and Mrs. Mayberry was probably the most shocking and hilarious! XD At the party, it was crazy that Blitz had been with and hurt that many people (and that's just the ones that attended O_O), and while I'm glad Stolas got out of the palace and seemed to be enjoy Verosika's company for the most part, seeing him continually drink was heartbreaking, especially because we know he's done it before. ;_;

"All 2 U" was an amazing song with Stolas just laying out all his feelings and pain with him even seeing how his past actions were wrong/contributed to Blitz not reciprocating his feelings. It was also practically unbelievable to see just how much Blitz actually took Stolas's words to heart and legit felt terrible. I love that Blitz showed concern too for Stolas being drunk (likely thinking about Verosika getting to that point and seeing the parallels) as well as him admitting his insecurity about no one being capable of loving him; Stolas then drunkenly pointing out that them throwing a party about how much they hate him every year showed they did care enough about him at one time was funny and true. XD I definitely teared up at Stolas's confession of just being wanting to be wanted and that he didn't even need the grand show he laid out to Blitz initially; the fact that Blitz did attempt to offer comfort to Stolas before he snapped back up made me go awww so hard. ;_; ;_; ;_;

Even though Verosika had such vitriol for most of the night, the fact that she uses the parties to bring those Blitz hurt some comfort that they aren't alone and can even find someone new from those he rejected is in a way comforting; it's sad though that she got dumped for just saying she loved Blitz. ;_; I'm glad Blitz admitted he has been terrible to people and that he wants to change, which definitely made it surprising that the line from the trailer was said to Verosika and not Stolas, but the impact was still great. :)

My heart broke at that incubus asking Stolas to dance because it gave me a bad feeling and sure enough, him and Stolas kissing hurt so much even though I know Blitz and Stolas aren't together anymore right now and this is part of the consequences for Blitz's actions. Him not ruining Stolas's fun hurt as well as at the same time showed he wasn't being selfish, so progress and pain. ;_; ;_; ;_; Hopefully it'll just be a one-night stand, but who knows since Stolas does seem to still want Blitz, but having a break may help both of them work on themselves. ;_; ;_; ;_; Well, if the shorts don't add anymore to the main story, here's me looking forward to "Ghostf*ckers" in October to find out how these two will handling things/change hopefully for the better next time. <3

[circyexistforcontent]

The boys with a succubus/incubus god?

CULT AU WITH A DEMON READER

❀ synopsis: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” 2 CORINTHIANS 11:14

❀ warnings: slight suggestive content, biblical themes, cult themes, yandere themes, just dark content ahead. Remember you're trespassing on big boy/girl/kid territory, so just be aware of what you're reading ok?

❀ notes: This will contain a lot of dark themes since this is a cult AU and Sagau. But again, thank you all for 400 followers! I don't know how to thank you all (maybe I do, I want to start a event, but let me clear my inbox real quick). spoilers for genshin lore guys...

Being summoned to another world is...certainly interesting...

You didn't expect the moment you open your eyes to be greeted with such colorful characters, and in an RPG game no less. But you aren't complaining of course! This just makes things more entertaining for your part. And being worshipped as a god? This is an entire amusement park!

Your poor, poor acolytes...they have no idea what they have just brought upon this world. If you really were the creator of all no wonder Celestia decided to just one day order the archons to commit genocide. Your influence must have also greatly affected your creations which can explain why some of your acolytes have a questionable history.

Being in your presence just heightens their obsessive tendencies, if they weren't the type to hesitate to kill for you they sure aren't hesitating now. Some might even go as far as to kill in public in front of other devotees. It doesn't matter if it's supposed to be a joyous occasion, you were in danger (or at least they try to justify their actions..) and as your devoted acolyte, they should protect you. (Shenhe, Traveler, Heizou, and Childe)

There are already ones that kill for you, but with your dark influence, they start to get a little bolder with their feelings. It would just start with lingering thoughts of your touch before it gets more provocative and they start imagining it more often. If they were brave enough, they would think about it while you were still in the same room as them. How sinful, but you don't mind♡ (Cyno, Gorou, Ei, and Zhongli)

They are the ones who know something was wrong with the supposed "Almighty one". They can just sense that something was not right and will immediately distance themselves from you as much as it hurts them too. They would observe you from afar to confirm any of their claims, but it backfires. Your voice is one of a siren, and like a pirate, they follow your voice only to be drowned in the very ocean they loved. But they didn't know drowning in the ocean can be this...euphoric (Dainslef, Venti, Ayaka, Kazuha)

This batch has more control over their yandere tendencies, but their acts of worship intensify. Festivals/Holidays will be hosted by them, and while some of them don't have the influence and money to host an event they will be helping with the preparations for the event (Jean, Noelle, Ayato, Ningguang, Diluc)

They will worship you, but some may take a step back after seeing you out of character. You were always so considerate and kind, they didn't think you would order them to draw your symbol with the khanreian's hilichurls blood. At the end of the day, they will still do what you please in hopes you will have a reward for them.

If you have any features from your demon form (slit pupils, horns, claws, sharp teeth, wings, etc) they won't think anything ill of them. If anything some would adore them openly. Dragons exist, and hybrids aren't uncommon on Teyvat. They would assume you might be a hybrid of a greater celestial species, and it would have many legends based off of it. The acolytes that have horns or any sort of similar feature would feel connected to you in a way and are honored to even have something in common with you.

But no matter how they claim to adore you or how honored they are to worship you, they can feel themselves hurl at your mere presence. Some even feel ill when they stay beside you for too long, and they would assume they are being punished. Or you are feeling negative and one of your powers is to project your emotions onto the environment around you.

But is it really? You have the same smile on your face while they choke on their own blood. You laugh at them after they confess to you about the night terrors that they get every time they spend a day with you. You left them to die after you "trained" them to get stronger.

They are foolish to convince themselves that you care, but some like to believe that you are doing this cause you care for them, how pitiful of them. I'm going to give an example, Venti would try to argue with you if you ever try to spur trouble on Monstadt, saying how it's not right and that the people should have a say in your decision. But after hours of gaslighting convincing he would shut his mouth as you declare a new law that restricts basic human rights. His people will understand, this is normal for sure...right?

The other archons like Ei and Zhongli, mostly Ei, will not think twice about your new changes in their nation. Nahida would be the ONLY normal archon who would know that you are no god. You're just a poser, a demon, a vermin from the underworld taking advantage of your follower's obsession. She will try her best to make her nation aware of who you really are, but what's the guarantee they will listen to her?

[frandomgorl]

I’ve decided to write about my Outsiders pet peeves

TRIGGER WARNING: Dally’s suicide

1. Saying that Ponyboy is bratty or over dramatic. First of all, he’s a freshman in high school. Mostly everyone I know was annoying as a freshman too. He JUST turned 14 in the book, so yeah some of the things he says are petty or rude, but he’s a child. Not only is he a child, but he’s established from the beginning as a character that feels things deeply, he contemplates things that he can’t really vocalize with a majority of the people around him. He has no parents, and he feels lonely after their death. I personally have siblings but if my parents died, especially at a young age, I’d feel lost and lonely too. Him having brothers doesn’t make the gravity of his parents death any less saddening.

2. People who watched the musical and said anything along the lines of “I don’t like that Dally committed Suicide”. Because he committed suicide in the book too. And it wasn’t like some secret that he did it, it wasn’t “heavily implied”. He wasn’t just lost and confused so he made trouble and was reckless. Because Dally was not unintelligent. He knew if he robbed the store, the cops would come after him. He knew that if he pointed the gun at the police, they’d shoot him. There was nothing accidental about his death, and to imply that is insulting the characters intelligence and minimizing his feelings. Assisted suicide is still suicide.

3. Anyone who demonizes Darry, wasn’t paying enough attention to what ever version of the Outsiders that were reading or watching. I mentioned earlier that I didn’t like how some people talk about Pony, but Darry also tends to get demonized by a lot of people. A lot of people think that you can’t like both Darry and Pony, but that’s not true. Darry was doing his best in his circumstance and always had Ponyboy and Soda at the top of his list of priorities.

4. People who write Dally in a way that glorifies his actions in life. I understand that everyone wants to think of the gang as these sweet little guys with an adorable found family. Hell, I love those fanfictions, but you can love a character and also understand that objectively they aren’t a good person. I love Dally, and I’m sympathetic to him because of his past, but I won’t justify the things he does. Dally does, and has done a lot of bad things in his life, and he has a lot of flaws. I’m not going to make excuses for him. I can be sympathetic to him, and also truthful about him.

5. I have seen some people talk about Randy’s redemption in a negative light. A lot of people saying it felt like too little too late. However, Randy having that redemption is so important because it emphasizes the similarities is the social classes. His arc also serves as a reminder that’s the docs were human too. He was an example of positive change within the series.

6. I understand if the outsiders isn’t your cup of tea, but just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it bad. I don’t like rom coms, but that’s not because they are bad, it’s because they are rom coms, I can’t sit through the genre. The outsiders is at its core a coming of age novel that still rings true for a lot of people today. So my last pet peeve is people saying it’s “it’s just a school assignment”. At its core it is an assignment but a lot of people see themselves in these characters and that’s something no one should feel bad about.

Thanks for coming to my TED TALK

[thephoenixandthecrocodile]

Adar the All Father

I’m still mourning the death of Adar, our All Father, maybe the most beautiful character in Rings of Power so far.

When we first meet Adar, we are introduced not to a dark lord or powerful general. We are introduced to a grieving father who loves his children. When we lose Adar, we lose not a dark lord or general. We lose a grieving father who would have risked everything to protect his children – even sacrifice them to escape enslavement.

Before Rings of Power, I never thought I would cry at the loss of an Uruk or even consider the tragic nature of the Uruk race. Even now, after watching the first two seasons of Rings of Power it is hard for me to think of Adar and the Uruks as villains. Yes, they did terrible things to the Southlanders and attacking Eregion wasn’t great, but they were not the actions of villains. They were the actions of a desperate father and his children who wanted to find a safe home. One of the greatest tragedies of season 2 (and maybe all of Middle-Earth in the Rings of Power universe) is that the Elves would never seriously work alongside Adar in destroying Sauron. For most Elves, Adar and the Uruks were synonymous with Sauron and Morgoth and Adar knew better than to expect any kindness from them (despite reaching to Arondir, Galadriel, and Elrond during both seasons).

Joseph Mawle, the actor who played Adar in season one, must receive the most credit for creating the Adar we know and love. Mawle created the mystique, the internal pain, the despairing love for his children, the hopeless desire for peace, and the unwanted, but familiar ruthlessness to achieve his goals. When we first meet Adar, we learn first about his love for his children, his bittersweet memories of his Elven life, and his unstoppable commitment to provide his children with a home. His conversation with Arondir is soft and sad and mesmerizing, intriguing us all with this strange introduction of one of the first Uruks. He is not the mindless, cruel animal we are used to. This father of the Uruks knows love, knows sacrifice, and knows how to yearn for peace.

His children trust him unquestionably because he gives them a vision and the hope for a future where they can live and exist without fear or pain. He tells them they are loved and deserve life as much as any other race. They are not animals destined for extermination. They are people and they will claim a homeland for themselves, damn all who dare stand in their way.

Mawle’s Adar gives his Uruks a dignity that was missing from any of the previous LOTR related adaptions and is one of the reasons he became a fan favorite. One of Tolkien’s core tenets in LOTRs is the power of mercy and pity and giving people the choice to do the right thing, even when previously they’ve only caused harm and pain. We want Adar and his children to find a home. We want Adar and his children to escape Sauron’s clutches. But we also don’t want the Southlanders to lose their home.

The battle between the Southlanders and the Uruks is supposed to serve as proof that Adar is still a servant of Morgoth. He does not plan to share this land with anyone. He does not approve the Southlanders with any sort of deal or compromise. He invites and he kills and he decimates the land so only Uruks can call it home. Many of our heroes are caught in his rampage and are endangered or wounded by his actions. Yet, is the destruction of the Southlands the act of a villain or it is more of a Magneto-esque act of liberation based on the knowledge that no one would ever willingly accept Adar and his children? Adar does not attempt the peaceful methods because no one ever used peaceful methods with Uruks. It is a lost cause because of the prejudices and racism of Middle-Earth. Why should he care for those who would kill his children as first sight? Mawle’s Adar is not interested in justifying his actions. Instead, he turns the mirror on the heroes of our story and reveals they are just as violent and bloodthirsty as Morgoth, especially our main heroine Galadriel. Is she someone he can find a compromise with? Is Waldreg, who really wants to serve Sauron, Adar’s prime enemy? The Elven commanders of the Watch?

No, there is no one willing to treat with Uruks and so the Uruks will do what they do best and claim the land that has been overrun by their enemies.

               Mawle’s Adar suffered under Morgoth and it is a pain he cares for the rest of his life. Unlike most characters who have undergone extreme torture, the pain is represented by a scar or “flashbacks”, but Mawle’s Adar walks as if his entire body is in pain all the time. His movements are stiff and calculated, as if every movement sets his nerves on fire. He bears himself with the angry pride of someone who has never been welcomed anywhere, but he is worth as much respect as the High King in Lindon damn it!

               Finally Mawle’s Adar is queer because he subverts many expectations one would have from a male character, whether he be a hero or a villain. He is soft spoken, gentle with his prisoners, loving with his children, and cries when they die. His acceptance of his Urukness when all others think it’s wrong. His demand for a place for his children when all others think they are disgusting animals. His refusal to accept definitions placed upon him and his children by others. His celebration in what others deem to be macabre or disgusting. He also has chemistry with every character he interacts with (no matter their gender)

               In season 2, Adar is played by Sam Hazeldine who does a fantastic job add layers of complication to Adar’s character while still referencing the core components defined by Mawle. The first episode of season two starts with Sauron (played by Jack Lowden) selling himself as Morgoth’s successor to a gathering of Uruks. Adar is there and it’s clear Sauron thinks Adar is on his side. However, Adar betrays Sauron and he and his children “kill” Sauron. In this episode, we see the same pain, the same weariness, and the same love for his children that Mawle portrayed, but we also see Hazeldine’s addition of deep-seated rage for Sauron, rage over his own fate now that Morgoth is gone.

               When we see Adar in the present, he is sitting on his throne, with his big sword, surrounded by Uruks, and he is powerful. His presence has changed from the almost elemental spirit like quality Mawle personified to a stronger, more present, more dangerous presence. It’s almost as if now that he has achieved his goal of a homeland, he is on edge, waiting for it to be taken away. This Adar is still in constant pain, still queer as hell, but more determined and leans into his old role as a ruthless general/warrior.

               When he finds out Sauron is alive, we see Adar response to a severe trauma trigger that clouds all thoughts of peace and compassion. Similar to Galadriel’s reaction to Sauron in the finale, Adar cannot live in a world where Sauron still exists. He is not safe. He has too much anger to ignore. He has scores to settle. He has children to protect. He cannot wait in Mordor for Sauron to play everyone else for fools. He knows Sauron will come for him and his children. It is better to hit him now when he is weakest. And so he gathers his children and his marches to war once more – despite the misgivings and doubts of a handful of Uruks.

               Once Adar discovers Sauron has made Eregion his home, Adar writes off the entire city and its people. Similar to the fate of the Southlanders, Adar doesn’t care what happens to those who stand between him and his goal. He will destroy the tormenter of his children, even if he has to destroy the most beautiful city of all Elvendom. When he reunites with Galadriel, we see that Adar can be as manipulative and cruel as Sauron. He plays her like a fiddle to get all the information he needs and then he uses her to trap Elrond into his own morality conundrum. While he is still gentle and charming when dealing with both Galadriel and Elrond (flirting with both of them the entire time. Seriously, he calls Elrond beautiful and stares at Galadriel with heart eyes as she threatens him as knife point), they are just tools to use against his real enemy Sauron. His drive to destroy Sauron taints even his love for his children. He sends them wave after wave against Eregion’s defenses, watching them die in the hundreds and sends in Damrod, a troll who kills just anyone and anything in his way – Uruk and Elf alike.

               In one of the most heartbreaking moments in the show, after a particularly costly charge, Glug, one of his children, says “Father, you said you love us.”

               Adar turns and replies, “With all that is left of my heart. Too much to let you be slaves to Sauron.”                In his moment of fear and trauma and pain, he can only see the extremes: either his children are enslaved by Sauron or they die but are at least free from Sauron’s control. He cries as he says goodbye to the dead and dying Uruk, forced to face the terrible price they must pay to be safe. Galadriel sees his tears and, maybe, in that moment she understands who her true enemy is: Sauron, not the victims of Sauron and Morgoth’s cruelty.

Sam’s Adar is the battered spouse who desperately tried to escape their abusive partner and instead learns that the world doesn’t care about the plight of the abused. The world will cast you back to your abuser because “that’s where you belong.”

               In the finale, Adar, wearing Neya, Galadriel’s ring, reverts to the man he was before Morgoth. An Elf with a “meaningless name. A name given to him” Adar is the name he earned and one he wants to keep. Nenya, whose power in the show is to heal and provide visions, gives Adar the first true hint of hope he has had since before Morgoth. He realizes his rage and his trauma turned him into Sauron’s puppet, as Sauron intended, and he realizes he’s lost the trust of his children, but even in the midst of all that darkness there is still hope. Nenya represents hope. Galadriel, who tells Adar that if he helps her defeat Sauron, there will be a place for his children, represents hope. Even though she admits she has killed more of his children than any Elf alive, he forgives her.

               “I forgive you. No more flames. No more darkness.” He tells her as he hands her the ring, “Let us heal Middle-earth and create a lasting peace between the Elves and the Uruks.”

After handing her the ring, he reverts to his true form, Adar the Father of the Uruks.

A wounded Glug is brought to him and he bends down, begging his son for forgiveness. Glug tells it’s too late and Adar replies, “It’s never too late. Not even for me. And not for you, my son.”

And Glug stabs him, followed by several other Uruks. Sauron appears and watches with smug satisfaction as Adar is killed by his own beloved children. Even in death, Adar is only considered about his children, calling out to them in Black Speech, but it’s not enough. He may have found peace within himself and with Galadriel, but he couldn’t undo his betrayal of his own children.

In anger and trauma of his own, Glug saw his father as an enemy, as the wolf in sheep’s clothing, as someone who claimed to be different but was just as ruthless and terrible as Morgoth. In Sauron, he found someone who was kind and made grand promises and was the original creators of the Uruks. And so, Glug took his chance and doomed his entire race to enslavement.

Adar and the dream of a free Uruk race may have died in the finale, but Adar lives on in our hearts and as an inspiration for everyone struggling with their own darkness, their own strangeness, and a society that does not want them or respect them. I hope he also continues to live on in the hearts of the Uruk. They may, by and large be enslaved by Sauron, but I hope we see just how tenuous Sauron’s hold truly is. I hope we see small Uruk rebellions and whispered stories of Adar and Glug and their dreams of peace. I believe in the book, the Uruks complain about their lot and hate the fact that they have to answer to the Nine Wraith as well as Sauron. Maybe Sauron needed the Nine to keep order amongst the ranks of a disgruntled mass of Uruks who stubbornly preserve the memory and hope of a better world – someday. And maybe that is just one more dream Sauron tries to twist and corrupt to suit his own purposes, which is why the Uruks never truly break away from him. But I hope we see that internal struggle through the remaining seasons. And I hope, we as a fandom, can imagine a Middle-Earth after Sauron’s fall, where Aragorn, Eomer, and their descendants learn from the mistakes of the past and finally see the Uruks as Morgoth’s and Sauron’s victims and Adar’s children can finally know peace.

Thank you Joseph Mawle, Same Hazeldine, JD Payne, and Patrick McKay for brings such a beautiful and inspiring character to life.

[the-meat-machine]

In Defense of Ultimate Dirk

I am going to be honest: I have a hard time understanding why people think Ultimate Dirk is out of character. Because if there is one character I can believe would willingly take on the role of the villain if he thought it meant saving everything he held dear, it's Dirk.

See, Ultimate Dirk isn't Dirk just randomly becoming a villain. He's not suddenly acting mean for no reason. It's not even that he was destined to be a villain (though Dirk believes he was, and that plays into it). Ultimate Dirk is Dirk deliberately playing up his own worst traits in order to make himself the villain because that's the only path forward he can see -- not just for himself, but for everyone.

The way I see it, in the post-canon, Dirk's growing powers make him uncomfortably aware of several massive problems.

Problem 1

Dirk is a fictional character. All of his friends are fictional characters. And the story he's from is over. Without more canon coming out, Dirk is convinced that everyone and everything he loves is doomed to a slow slide into irrelevance. They will fade out of the public consciousness. Everyone will forget about them. And outside of the minds of the creator and the audience, Dirk et al. have no existence. Without more stories about them, there is no more of them. In Dirk's view, the end of canon is tantamount to death -- and not just for him. For everyone he cares about. This is the fundamental problem driving Ultimate Dirk. Nothing could be more important than ensuring that his friends' stories get to continue.

Problem 2

Dirk's growing Heart powers mean he is becoming intimately familiar with his friends' internal lives. More familiar than anyone would reasonably want to be. More familiar than anyone can be while retaining their own sanity and their respect for their friends. Dirk sees all the ways they're failing to live up to their potential. In fact, he can't NOT see all their little flaws, all the mistakes they make, all the bad decisions they justify to themselves, all the ways they could be more than they are but fail to live up to. To someone like Dirk, who feels intensely driven to guide his friends toward self-improvement, this must be absolutely maddening.

Problem 3

Dirk knows that his splinters are a Problem. Ultimate Dirk is the sum total of all Dirks, and that means that his consciousness now includes such luminaries as Bro Strider, Doc Scratch, Lord English, and Lil Cal. Ultimate Dirk knows intimately what his influence has wrought on Paradox Space, and it's not great! Splinters of his have had a hand in pretty much every awful thing that happens in Homestuck and in particular have deeply harmed Dave, the person who is perhaps most important to him in the universe. And now those splinters are part of him. He understands how they thought, why they did what they did. There are parts of him that feel that they were justified, even as he hates himself for it, hates himself for everything that he feels that he is. Everything he can see is pointing to him fundamentally being a callous, sadistic puppeteer. He's drowning in his own dismal persona and can't see any way to escape from it.

(One thing I'd like to note here is that Dirk's abilities as a fully realized Ultimate Prince of Heart, though extremely powerful, still have limitations. In particular, he cannot see the future. He can see what other versions of himself became, but he cannot see what he is going to become. But I don't think he notices that there's actually nothing that destines him to have to repeat his splinters' mistakes. His powers make him feel as though he already knows everything there is to know about himself. They make him inclined to see the Self as an immutable whole. It doesn't occur to him that the actions of his splinters don't have to dictate what he becomes. It doesn't occur to him that he could change.)

The "Solution"

So. Here is what I think is going on with Ultimate Dirk:

Dirk needs there to be more Homestuck. He wants his friends to live up to their potential. Forcing them to do so would be villainous… but a new villain is exactly what the story needs in order to continue. So, why not kill two birds with one stone? He can embrace the villainy he thinks he's destined to fall into anyway, puppeteer his friends to drag them in the directions he thinks they should go, and thereby spark a conflict that will kick off new stories and make his friends into even greater heroes. Really, he has the power to save his friends from oblivion. What sort of dick would he be if he didn't?

And if the course Dirk is planning ends with his own Just death at Dave's hands, well, it's only what he deserves... isn't it?

[revolutionarygirlkaasy]

Thoughts on sympathy for James in SH2

I was originally going to write this in response to somebody else's SH2 post, but I think I should start my own to say this. Spoilers ahead.

Silent Hill 2 depicts misogyny. It depicts ableism. It depicts abuse and murder. And we know depiction is not endorsement, but neither is approaching a wrongdoer's story with nuance and sympathy.

For the record, in the 20+ years since SH2 came out, I've never seen anybody seriously argue that James was justified in killing Mary, or even that what he did is excusable. In the old days it was actually pretty common for people to say James is a murderer, that's all there is to it, and the only appropriate punishment is if he kills himself or whatever. And to be fair, James himself may agree with that depending on the ending you get.

Fortunately, the average player's interpretation of SH2 seems to be maturing with time. Nowadays there's greater acceptance of the idea that the nightmare Silent Hill shows to James does not depict the whole truth, but rather what James hates about himself and cannot accept. Fans are also more willing to consider what terminal disease is like from a caretaker's perspective, or the expectations (and entitlements) of manhood, or the secret suffering within the modern family unit, or even the disaster that is the American healthcare system. The game doesn't offer an exact explanation for why James broke, which is on purpose: it's up to you to imagine that grim situation and pepper in the details on your own. It's up to you to imagine what would push you to make that kind of choice. James' suffering is not suggested to have eclipsed Mary's, of course, yet you are meant to acknowledge that it was there.

And so James killed Mary. Much like in Crime and Punishment, one of the inspirations for SH2, the protagonist's situation had gotten so bad that killing seemed like a reasonable solution. But despite the grumbles I've been hearing, if SH2 wasn't condemning James' actions, then why would this story be told in the form of a horror game? And if the game didn't think it was worth knowing the ugly truth, or asking whether James can be redeemed, why would we have this story at all?

I guess what I'm saying is that if current fans seem overly kind to James for your tastes, it's fine to feel that way. And if you hate James because you personally really relate to Mary, I'm sorry. Still, I won't miss the days of zero sympathy takes on James. While it's definitely not true that anybody would do the same in his shoes, this is not the story of an evil person showing his true colors when put to the test. This isn't a story where we explore the circumstances that justify a murder. This is a story about people, not just James, reaching a breaking point and fighting to live with themselves afterward. These are tragic characters, and they should be treated as such.

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

For my first thought about “Saw X” (once again, highly recommend), I’m really impressed with how the movie managed to make their concept work. It’s mainly because the story of “Saw X” is really hard to pull off.

Not a lot of movies and shows can portray the kidnapper/torturer/evil mastermind as the protagonist while the victims are the main villains. Because, obviously, no one wants to be rooting for a character who is tormenting other people. It’s like making a version of “Squid Game” where you’re supposed to root for the VIPs, that’s a hard sell.

But, there are the rare few that manages to pull this off. “Hard Candy” is one of the best examples of this since the victim is a pedophile murderer while the torturer is Elliot Page. “Don’t Breathe” is an accidental example since even though we’re supposed to root for the victims, they’re not so easy to side with since they’re burglars who robbed a blind man.

So “Saw X” had a tough sell since we’re supposed to be on Jigsaw’s side for once. But honestly, I thought they nailed it. Not only are the victims horrible people (scammers who prey on the terminally ill), the story doesn’t force you to like John Kramer. John is entirely unapologetic about his actions as Jigsaw and the movie doesn’t try to justify him, especially by having Amanda question John’s choice of putting Gabriella into a test (she was a drug addict). Instead, the story naturally puts you on John’s side by focusing on his internal dilemma; fighting his cancer.

The first third of the movie was entirely devoted to John dealing with his cancer and how he was dreading that he was almost out of time. It humanizes John and makes you feel really sorry for him, even knowing who he is. What I like about this is that it’s not forced sympathy because the audience has known about John being a cancer patient for over a decade by now. Focusing on John’s disease and mortality makes sense is what I’m saying.

Even Jigsaw’s friendship with the little boy Carlos makes sense since John wanted to be a father. The one thing that people can say was a little forced to make you sympathize with Jigsaw STILL has precedence in the series, which is really rewarding for people who’ve watched every “Saw” movie. Nothing felt out of place for John’s character, it’s like a legit tribute to the character.

So when you learn that the doctors were all scam artists, it’s natural to side with John since:

1) They did it to themselves

2) You feel for John since you watched at least 30 minutes of him trying to fight the disease

3) You feel angrier towards the doctors since they’re arguably worse people than John

4) The lead doctor reveals that she knew John was Jigsaw and continued the grift anyways, so they have really no excuse

It’s like “Don’t Breathe” again, where both sides are horrible people, but the more sympathetic one gets to be the hero. And I’m all for it, because fuck medical malpractice/grifters.

(Side note: I feel like another way the movie got us on John’s side was that he stayed true to his word. If you pass the test, you get to live. During the movie, he makes sure Diego survived since he passed and asked that Gabriella be taken to a hospital after she freed herself. It’s honor, but in a fucked up way, which is appropriate for the character)

[mdhwrites]

if you've seen Steven universe how would you compare it to TOH? I've seen many takes that TOH is Steven Universe 'done correctly' which drives me up a wall, especially since TOH has a lot of the same flaws as SU (pretty much everyone has to be tied to steven in some way- the same way everyone's gotta tie into Luz, White Diamond pisses me off for the same reason the collector does and dear god both finales are messes and the worldbuilding is also kind of messy) but pretty much everyone can agree that Steven Universe's themes of restorative justice are good, its themes surrounding interpersonal relationships and intergenerational trauma is good- I've seen people justify how TOH handles its villains 2 ways "its doing steven universe's restorative justice but like correctly" or "its about killing your oppressors, which steven should have done" which is dumb. Idk this fandom has a huge hate-boner for SU and Amphibia in general though. I also saw someone have the take the collector and belos where foils which... Is weird I can see where they come from but they never are put together in a way that highlights their similarities and differences. So what are some actual comparisons that can made between the shows outside of LGBT characters and surface level stuff?

Sadly I have not seen Steven Universe so I can't really comment on much of it. I've seen the first episode (both halves), decided the gems were insufferable to me and Steven was okay and went on with my life because at the time, I was a full time college student and a part time Walmart employee. I do like some of the songs that have reached me but I never got an in with the show, especially since my early experience with it was much like Gravity Falls where I heard a lot of high concept stuff about it but not much about why I would actually enjoy a given episode, what was enjoyable about the characters, etc. like that. Honestly, the only criticism I know of for it is that people hate the ending.

BUT.

I have seen one other thing. I have seen about twenty minutes of the Steven Universe movie. With that I can say one thing definitively even if it's not clearing a high bar: The Diamond's turn to good is better than the Collector's because they have literally ANY reason to listen to the person preaching at them. The Collector doesn't. In fact, he has no reason to reform and it is drastically out of character for him to care about... Anyone?

Let me start on the Diamond's side because I don't have a lot to say about this but it is something I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone talk about: They were clearly traumatized by the loss of Pink Diamond. Whether or not you think this is a good part of the plot isn't what matters, the point is that this is a literal fact to the story. This grief has gone unresolved for literal decades (just going by Steven's lifespan, someone in my Discord provided the context that they blamed themselves for her DEATH, not just disappearance, for CENTURIES which only bolsters the point I'm making) and has festered in them a desperation for their old comrade? Friend? I don't 100% know but you get the point. So when her son arrives and can't be kept by force, they're going to be pretty amenable to listen to whatever demands means keeping him around. Is that great? No, I wouldn't say it is as the question of what happens when Steven dies is there but it works for forcing them to consider the consequences of their actions and how they may need to change to have the life they desire. It is a compelling force for the first step of change. It's not amazing but it is at least functional from a narrative standpoint, an emotional standpoint and from a character standpoint. Not that it's great but that it is functional. You can string together how this works without having to just invent bullshit.

The Collector has none of these three because he's the literal fucking worst.

I've talked about this before but the Collector isn't the child the fandom treats him as. Even if we try to disconnect the second season version of the Collector, who very much so knows what death is and the consequences of his actions, S3 Collector does have a foil to Belos: He's an actual colonizing piece of shit. Not in that he is literally colonizing places but in mindset. Everything to him is something to be used for his entertainment or enrichment or it is to be stripped of all rights and brutally oppressed until it fits the role he desires. This is what happens when you become a LITERAL. FUCKING. DOLL. And he even has enforcers like the armies colonies would use that have wildly more powerful magic, i.e. technology, in order to make that oppression more seamless. Remember: Hexside is actively hiding from roaming stars that he just has going around the Isles that hoover up people, making at least those who resist into dolls immediately without question, and then bringing them to him to be new play toys in his game. That is explicitly what he has been doing to the entire Isles for MONTHS once S3 episode 2 happens.

People do not matter to him and this even extends to King. When King steps out of line, The Collector cracks the whip. He's even willing to KILL KING for having the gall of caring about anyone other than him. Those death games would be just as lethal to King as it would be to Eda and Luz after all. And if you actually do divorce S2's "PLAY AMONGST THE BONES!" line (which is fucking awful because you have to remove literally all of the first appearances of a character which is usually considered, you know... Bad) and believe that he doesn't know what death is... He knows what pain is. He knows what torture is. He knows the despair of being trapped in a space where you can't move or act or do anything except watch as an observer on a world that could destroy you at any moment because your prison is all of your being.

And then he makes people into dolls, with consciousness, without a second thought. He is willing to BREAK people in order to make them play along. His literal plan was to shatter the bodies of the Owl House trio over and over and over again until they were subservient to his desires. That is WORSE than just wanting to kill them. And he only stops to throw a tantrum because he fails to succeed and starts whining about it like any selfish asshole not getting his way. Not like a child: Like a selfish asshole.

So with ALL of this, what does the show do to try to make him consider the consequences of his actions? Well... Nothing. It claims it's trying to do something but the tour with the trio is much more a circle jerk about how amazing the show was and how much could have happened if not for the shortening ("That sounds like something that could have been its own spin off!" Or whatever King says to Eda talking about her and Raine's time at Hexside) than it is about talking to the Collector. There's a couple lines here and there, talking to him about what works for making friends but does it stick?

No, the Collector learns nothing and in mocking Steven Universe, they make that clear. The Collector is told that people are complex and you must show compassion. Rather than actually believing this, he uses it like a blunt hammer, just like all of his other solutions, to make a problem of his go away. That's why he hugs Belos and assumes it will work. He is not considering the complexity of humanity or the person he is applying this to. It is just to solve a problem so he'll get praised and go back to playing his games. Nothing. More.

And then he fucks off instead of fixing the damage he'd done because why would he stay? Why would he help? He hasn't learned anything and he doesn't want to help these people. He has NO motivation for why he helps save the Archive except otherwise he loses his sweet crash pad. So afterwards? He's gonna go somewhere where he can be himself and not be scolded for it because this toy is no longer fun.

Edit: He does stay to change everyone back from dolls. That much more falls into the "It's the ending, we have to have the problem only he can fix be fixed by him" despite the fact that he is responsible for so much more destruction that would theoretically be pretty easy for him to fix as well. He only does what is demanded of him for the sake of a happy ending, not because of character motivation, not from how I see it at least.

The most condemning part of this is that it's all around Luz. All around someone he doesn't like. He sees Luz as trying to take away his only friend after all and, you know, he is correct about that. They don't even try to hide that fact during the tour. They're still clearly upset with him and not even trying to be his friend, they're just lecturing him. It doesn't work from a character perspective, a narrative perspective or an emotional one. King MIGHT have with better writing, there's a reason I always wanted the Collector redeemed by one of his games forcing him to have to kill King by the rules he made before breaking it and having to face how that's unfair and cruel to others since they wouldn't get that leniency, but that's not how the show plays it. King is an unwilling servant for one episode and then VERY against the Collector in the next until after the death games. When he first shows up, King isn't trying to mediate, he is ready to fight just like the other two. He's not the Collector's friend and he never was so why would the Collector bother listening to him?

That is why me saying the Diamonds, even with my limited knowledge, works better than the Collector is almost literally the worst you can do when it comes to something like this. All the setup is wrong, the catalyst requires explicit retcons and don't work with the character and the payoff is... Nothing. Literally nothing. The only way to have done it worse is to have had everyone praise the Collector before he then stabbed Amity and no one acted like that was a problem. It can only function because we are TOLD he's redeemed even if he never shows it.

Andrias standing alone as a farmer, accepting the punishment for his actions and trying to make better on them, is such better payoff to a redemption arc than anything the Collector gets and his redemption was in character and setup by his past. So then let's get to one of your last points: Why is it that the TOH fandom rags on SU and Amphibia so much, especially for their endings, when theirs is such shit?

Well... Because that's the reputation of TOH. That it is the 'good' one. That it is better than almost all other media. The show itself, with moments like the Collector mocking the SU ending by hugging Belos, reinforces this. As such, for you to criticize TOH as failing in a department that other shows are not rapturously praised for is to fall out of sync with the show itself. As such, all other works must be placed beneath it, especially if those are widely believed to have a flaw in an element to then raise TOH up with. This is part of why so many people want to say the Amphibia ending is wrong because the Amphibia ending is brave and controversial and saying something while the TOH ending?

I mean... Do you really think the Collector's the only part of it objectively flawed like this? Because if a major redemption for your big bad is botched this badly, you can bet other problems exist. I've talked about them at length. But there are probably people out there who would call me the Lily Orchard of TOH if I was better known.

See you next tale.

======+++++======

That last line isn't an endorsement of Lily Orchard btw, just that I have to imagine it's the label I would be given. What little exposure I've had to her works is... YIKES. Just fucking yikes. My Discord has really enjoyed every time I've live reacted to a video of hers they've posted there. sigh

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[munchkinmarauder]

Let's talk Magneto's letter!

I'm not marking this as spoilers because we've probably all seen the panels from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver floating around the internet at this point (but I do apologise if I do accidentally spoil it for someone - take this as your warning to scroll past and not read this post).

So after many months of speculation as to what the letter could be and if it has big reveals the contents of the letter is not a lore changing or retcon inducing reveal but .... Drum roll please.... that Magneto thinks the twins should stay apart, that they are dangerous together (particularly that Pietro is dangerous to Wanda and Wanda coddles Pietro) and that Pietro should have stayed dead after Magneto murdered him.

Wow isn't Maggie father of the year? What a girldad!

Jokes aside and let's get this out of the way because I know a lot of the Magneto is right crowd have been calling for Orlando's head over this character assassination or trying to argue Magneto is in fact right about the twins (despite the story and the twins themselves saying otherwise) - Magneto being an abusive douchbag to his kids is the norm, we only have 60 years of their relationship in the 616 verse alone to prove this. Yes there is nuance to this that makes it all very interesting, one of the most interesting dynamics in Marvel, and I personally never expected to hear Magneto saying the silent part out loud because I do think cannon shows that he loves all his kids Pietro included (but is incapable of loving them the way a parent should), but this is simply an over exaggeration and not out of character. Its no surprise he says this to his son. It's also of note that Magneto never actually intended for the twins to see the letter or Storm would have given it to Wanda when she visited in SW#2 to deliver the news of Magneto's passing, it might have been Magneto trying to work out some feelings and opinions rather than protect them as he claims (cause again he didn't actually intend for anyone to see the letter, he sealed it shut in a box). He is justified in feeling frustrated that his last words were weaponised against his children (lol Mags being like how dare my own hurtful words were used to hurt my kids - no one hurts them but me)

Magneto is one of those genderbended boymoms that is jealous of their daughter and views then as competition. Only in this case it is with his son and the competition is for Wanda's affections. The fact is, Magneto is always going to loose that fight and he knows it.

The more I think about it the more I like that this letter wasn't a big reveal (though I'm sure the recton everyone is hoping for will come some day -I'm glad it wasn't today) but something that played into the themes of this series. Their father, the Wizard and the Giver are all saying the twins should stay apart and the story and the twins say no and prove them wrong. A lot of the twins greatest feats are reactive and evolving, tying back to the red queen hypothesis mentioned in issue 4.

On a side note if the Giver really wanted to deal with the twins she should have gone to dear old daddy Mags and he would have nipped that problem in the bud in a jiffy seeing as he and the giver are of a like mind when it comes to the twins. Technically you just need to get rid of one of them seeing as the Givers worry is about the twins together but let's see what the new Scarlet Witch solo has to say about that (I hope Pietro's role in this isn't forgotten but you can never tell with Marvel)

What the letter is is a classic case of a narcissist parent setting up a golden child and scape goat dynamic. Seeking to isolate the twins from each other. It's very clear he's self projecting onto his son (and Lorenzo Tammetta deliberately emphasises the similaries the two have in appearance to drive this fact home) and blaming Pietro for moments that happened that can apply to himself and are in fact caused by his actions for example his willingness to abandon his daughter to die and murder of his son in HoM. Both the major trigger points for the creation of the HOM verse and no more mutants. I'm not saying Magneto is souly to blame here but he does have a big contribution to what happens that he never has taken accountability for (along with the X-Men who play as victims and the avengers who did own up to what they did but otherwise keep silent about the blame the twins get from the X-Men).

A lot has been said about the impact of the letter on Pietro and I don't think I can add much more other than to emphasise how crushing that has be to hear from a parent and abuser even if you hate them. The twins helped each other survive for a very long time and we're each others everything parent, twins, best friend, protector, etc. You've spent time and energy and dedicated a portion of your life to protecting someone to the degree of making it your reason for living for a long time (please note I am not saying this is a healthy mindset for Pietro- hes taken it too far sometimes) and in a hypocritical tyraid are told it's all for nothing. Pietro handles it really well and comes out this with his head held high. Reacting calmly, expressing his love for his sister and throwing Magneto's words back at him. I think as a Quicksilver fan we can be reasonably happy with this outcome (but I do understand some fans frustration to hear Quicksilver be degraded that way and told he's bad for Wanda while she gets forced to interact with men that did treat her like shit like Vision and Magneto - however the point is that Magneto is WRONG and Wanda herself reiterates this point).

Now the one person who's screwed over by the writing and out of character in that scene is WANDA. Sure she tells Magneto he is wrong but that gentle response (even if she does react with a degree of unhappiness to see Magneto back) and effort to be neutral is so odd for her given that she sent the Wizard to a hell dimension for hurting her brother a few pages prior and has been even more vocal than Pietro in calling her father out in the past. She's as protective of her brother as he is her and I can't believe she would be written as a daddies girl and standby while a man who abused them both continues to abuse her brother.

The contents of the letter is also not great for Wanda. And I would argue is a subtler abuse tactic. Like a lot of the focus is rightly on how shitty it was for Magneto to say what he did in his letter to Pietro but we're also not considering the the negative implications it has for Wanda as well. Wanda has been working to establish herself as independent and not defined by the men in her life for so long and here is her "father", infantalising her and saying he knows better than her about her own life and what keeps her safe, that is seeking to take away from her the one pillar of support she's always had and one of if not the important relationship to her, a lot of Wanda's lowest moments did happen when Pietro wasn't even around, when everyone including Magneto abandoned her, her brother was there. The twins do have a codependency and that codependency does have it's toxic elements, Magneto touches on it but doesn't go into detail. Wanda is codasended to and told she is "coddling" her brother and everything else is Pietro's fault. The letter is worse for Pietro but it's shitty for Wanda too, she is a grown woman& a mother here is a man that abused her talking down to her, saying he knows best for her and her opinions are wrong, seeking to isolate her and undermining her authority.

The twins are right for saying Magneto is wrong but wish Wanda would get more angry at this undermining. Maybe like Pietro she is just very jaded and tired of the whole thing with Magneto. These words would be upsetting if they didn't in their own way love their father too as fucked up as it all is.

Now to be fair - does Magneto's letter have any merit? That isn't to easy to answer but in the interests of equal analysis let's try!

So I think one think that Magneto touches on but doesn't go into or outright say is the twins codependancy. He is a few years late to the party but he's been dead and their not dad for a while so well give him a small amount of leeway in his old age. I don't think the twins codependency is necessary a wholly bad thing but it does have it's nagative elements and in some cases has held the twins back. If we are to adopt a charitable approach her Magneto in his own twisted and emotionally constipated way may be trying to encourage the twins to be independent, to discourage his son from defining his self worth around his ability to protect his sister. Ofc I am reaching a bit here as Magneto could have just said this (though we'll never see the full contents of the letter - both Wanda and Mags may be summerising the worst parts of it) and done so in a way that wasnt cruel.

I also do believe that Magneto in writing those words to a degree did believe or convinced himself that he was not writing those words out of Malice and that it was an attempt to protect the twins (though I will reiterate how much it was actually intended to protect them when Magneto didn't actually intend for the twins to see the letter but at least he owns up to the fact he did write those words). In his mind he was being cruel to be kind but the narrative makes it clear that even if he had "good" intentions - he is nevertheless still fundamentally misunderstanding his children and self projecting onto his son. I'm not mad about this -its in character and I feel this letter is set up for a longer plot thread and I hope it's explored but let's see!

It certainly makes me feel that Pietro's lack of mention in RoM was extremely deliberate as was his lack of appearance in last week's FoX issue despite his cameo in the previous one to save the Magneto and Pietro reunion for this comic (the Xoffice are collaborative)

Is the writing for this scene perfect? no! Is Magneto potentially a tad one note? Yes but being a dick to his kids is in character and it's unsubtle but sometimes it needs to be.

[tokiro07]

Ichi the Witch ch.2 thoughts

[Woo-hoo! Witchy...Man...]

(Contents: character analysis - Ichi/Uroro/Desscaras, predictions - narrative progression)

Okay, chapter 2, and once again I feel compelled to talk about it! I'll take that as a good sign for my engagement with the series going forward

Not only is ch. 2 even prettier than ch. 1, but it expands on a few things that I felt were missing last week, helping to strengthen the story in my mind

Where last week felt like it was meant specifically to set up the high concept of the series (boy becomes first male witch) and the basic philosophy (killing with purpose is hunting, killing without is murder), this week gives us a bit more depth into the cast themselves and their greater purpose

Ichi the Healer

Naturally, the most noteworthy exploration of the chapter is certainly Ichi himself, at least to me. I said last week that his philosophy of "death for death" seemed like a thin veil separating him from his base desire to kill, and given the gleam in his eye when he heard the word "hunt" in this chapter I stand by that as a possibility, but his actions this week imply a much greater commitment to his claim of respecting life than I initially gave him credit for

He didn't seem too broken up about it when he was shown the damage he had inadvertently done to the land, but the moment he was told there was a way to fix it, he did so without hesitation. Ichi was likely capable of forgiving himself for something he did completely unintentionally because it was on such a grand scale that he didn't think there was any use dwelling on it, but with the capability of making reparations came the responsibility to do so. The cost of being unconscious for a few days is paltry in comparison to bringing back the lives he inadvertently took, and that speaks to his opinion on life far more than the circumstances that allow him to justify killing

I don't know how or if Nishi intends to develop the dichotomy of Ichi's desire to hunt and his desire not to do unnecessary harm specifically, but I'm glad we got to see both extremes so early

Likewise, I think that there's a bit of a dichotomy in Uroro's character as well, though a bit more subtly

Shoulder Devil

As I predicted, Uroro isn't dead, he's more sealed within Ichi, presumably a familiar pactbound to the one who passed his trial. I don't know if other Magiks behave the same way, but I could go either way on it. If they do, that would give us a Shaman+Guardian Ghost or Weapon+Meister style dynamic, but that could also carry the risk of overloading us with new characters when a Witch has acquired multiple Magiks. I imagine they tend not to since there's no indication that Desscaras has a bunch of familiars hanging out with her, but they might also just not be inclined to come out at the moment

In the meantime, Uroro immediately tries to use his familiar status to manipulate Ichi into putting himself in danger, which would theoretically get him killed and allow Uroro to be released. When he gets called out on it, he notes that he has more motivations beyond trying to regain freedom: he also doesn't want to be forced into serving the Witches

While Uroro looks down on humanity, he doesn't seem to be a heartless monster, as he refuses to turn on his own kind. We'll need to see him interact with other Magiks first to get a clear picture of his opinion on them as individuals, but considering that he cites the depth of their history, we can reasonably assume that he holds the species itself as a whole in high regard

This sets up a strong conflict of interest for Uroro going forward, as he will be forced to face off against other Magiks, and there will most likely come a time when he needs or wants to do so. Like how Ichi won't kill until he's given external justification, what will it take for Uroro to justify turning against one of his own? Will it be because a particular Magik angers him? Will one stand between him and his freedom? Will one have clearly sided with humanity or disrespected Magik culture?

Whatever happens, how will Uroro reconcile that? How will he forgive himself? Will he even need to, or is he a hypocrite who's perfectly willing to fight his kind so long as it's not on behalf of humans?

Of course, this projection is assuming that Uroro is meant to be Ichi's partner who will develop alongside him, rather than the series' main antagonistic force deliberately trying to thwart his development at all times. Obviously, he's going to think he's that for the foreseeable future, but the question is whether that will always be the case or if sooner or later he'll turn around. I always thought Sukuna would have that kind of development, but ultimately that wasn't the case, so I won't make that assumption at face value this time

Now, if Uroro is the Sukuna of this series, then Desscaras is likely the Gojo

The Strongest Teacher

Ichi's situation is a little different from Yuji's, in that if Ichi dies, Uroro goes free, while Yuji's death would weaken or ultimately erase Sukuna. However, to keep these ultimate monsters in check, the ultimate sorcerers of these respective worlds decide to take these vessels under their wings

Unlike Gojo, though, Desscaras immediately loses control of the situation, with Ichi doing his own thing and getting her into trouble with her superior and making her regret her decision to look after him. They're both goofy characters, but Desscaras' power doesn't protect her from getting comeuppance for her self-aggrandizing and transparently nasty personality, which to me makes her a more endearing iteration of the same basic trope

While we don't know what her teachings will look like at this exact moment, this chapter does give us at least a little glimpse into what to expect for the series going forward

On the Hunt

I probably should have seen this coming when the narrator called the Witches "hunters," but of course the Magiks need to be literally hunted. It's what Ichi is best at, so it would be odd to make him learn a new skillset to use in an unrelated context

With hunting solidified as the feedback loop, I think we can expect something akin to Toriko, an adventure where the cast needs to determine the locations, personalities, habits, weaknesses etc. of the various Magiks to facilitate passing their trials. However, since we learned of an academy in the first chapter, it's also possible that it'll be more of a mission-based structure like early Soul Eater, using the school as a hub until a Magik has been located

Personally, I would rather the locating be a big part of the hunt, but I can see how that would slow the pacing, so I won't be too broken up if it isn't part of it. Plus, having the rest of the core cast be students rather than professionals makes it a bit easier to incorporate them into the story, so there would certainly be benefits if it ends up happening. Whichever way the chips fall, I'll talk more in-depth about it when we get there

Whether it's a school or a business, though, I highly doubt that Ichi is just going to accept organizational regulations at face value and go along with "tradition." He's the first and only man ever to become a Witch, and he possesses the King of Magic; even before being introduced to the world proper, he's already a shakeup to the established order, so his methods must not only be outside of the norm, but a necessary addition to reform outdated ways

As Uroro says, Magiks are "an indigenous species" being preyed upon by the Witches, who certainly are trying to further their own power. It's all well and good for Desscaras to say it's for a noble goal like protecting people from rampaging monsters, but it's undeniable that Witches grow in strength after acquiring a Magik. There's simply no way that all of them are trying to make the world better, and based on her personality, I highly doubt that Desscaras is either (though she may surprise me). Even if they are, they definitely don't hold the life or well-being of the Magiks in any regard

This is where I think "death for death" comes in; Ichi will absolutely respect the Magiks. Whatever locations they hide in, however they interact with nature, Ichi will undoubtedly take the time to respect and understand them, even if that understanding leads to him deciding that there's no value in hunting them. The prejudices of the Witches likely equate to "Magik = target," but Uroro suggests that they have their own society and culture, so a fresh perspective like Ichi's will likely be necessary for finding mutual peace between the two races

Or at least, that's what I hope. It could easily turn out that the Magiks are wholly malefic and only introduced spells to the Witches to sew discord among humanity, and they're ultimately no different from the Curses of JJK or the majority of UMAs in Undead Unluck. I would much rather this series, with its themes already reminiscent of the circle of life ideology, find a way to work in an angle of coexistence, but I won't proclaim that the series is bad if it goes a more common direction

Conclusion

I...did not expect this post to go this long, honestly. I figured each segment would be one paragraph and I'd move on, but apparently I'm incapable of being concise. Oops!

But again, the fact that we're two-for-two on this series' chapters making me write reviews on par with those I write for Undead Unluck each week is a great sign for how much I currently like and can expect to like this series in the future. It could end up losing me sooner or later, especially if it gets overly complex in its power system and geopolitical worldbuilding, but for now looking forward to how both of those subjects develop

[fushiglow]

I wonder what would happen if Saturo hadn't killed Suguru would he be expelled or banned from the jujutsu school?

The higher ups would only be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so. I don't think they'd risk someone as powerful as Gojō becoming a curse user by alienating him like that. Plus, although they don't see it this way, they *really* need him on their side because he's their strongest weapon against the 'wave of power' that's approaching — until his students are strong enough to take it on themselves.

The relationship between Gojō and the higher ups is incredibly fraught. They despise him because he actively works to undermine the status quo, but they're powerless to stop him from doing so. He despises them because they needlessly throw away lives, but he knows that forcing compliance through fear won't achieve anything in the long run. So, they're in a stalemate until Gojō can build up 'strong and intelligent allies'.

Because of his overwhelming strength, Gojō can afford to only carry out orders that he wants to. That includes refusing to kill Getō, despite the execution order. I think Gojō only takes on so many missions to protect his students — hence why the higher ups go out of their way to distract Gojō so they can send the first years to the juvenile detention centre and, hopefully, their deaths.

If Gojō just decided not to bother exorcising curses any more, can you imagine how many more students would die like Haibara every year? Gojō is almost the one man army preventing the prospective 'pile of corpses' that drove Getō into becoming a curse user. The mayhem that breaks out after he's sealed in the Prison Realm is evidence of that — exactly like Ino predicts!

So, on the one hand, I can't actually imagine they'd choose to banish him and, on the other hand, I can't imagine he'd pay the order any heed even if they did. Everything we've seen suggests that Gojō could have found and killed Getō at any time, so I think they could have already banished him on those grounds if that was what they wanted to do. It just isn't convenient for them — but having him trapped and powerless inside the Prison Realm is, which is why they put all those measures in place to *keep* him in there.

Although your question is based on a hypothetical, I also want to add that I personally don't think there was any scenario where Gojō wouldn't kill Getō at the end of Jujutsu Kaisen 0. As much as I love fic and art which explores an alternate timeline where Getō is welcomed back to jujutsu society, it could never happen and Gojō knew that. I think his decision to kill Getō was entirely his own in the end, and it comes down to two reasons:

1. He didn't want anyone else to do it

Getō was heavily injured and there was a risk that someone else would find him and finish him off if Gojō let him go. There's a popular headcanon that anyone else killing Getō is an unthinkable idea to both of them, and while I like playing with that idea, I actually don't think Gojō wanted to be the one to kill Getō at all — because of the below panel:

I think it really comes down to the fact that Gojō would allow Getō far more dignity in death than anyone else who found him, aside from perhaps Yaga, Shōko, Nanami etc. We already know he went out of his way to prevent Shōko from having to deal with Getō's body, so I can see Gojō coming to the self-sacrificing conclusion that he's the only person who can execute Getō, both for Getō's sake and for the sake of their friends and allies.

2. Gojō couldn't look away from his crimes any longer

More importantly, I think Getō finally went far enough that Gojō could no longer justify turning a blind eye to his actions. While Gojō *is* more morally grey than most characters in Jujutsu Kaisen, the one thing he always seeks to protect is youth. I think he probably resigned himself to the fact he could no longer avoid the issue as soon as Getō declared war, knowing the death and destruction he would cause.

Because of that, I've always thought there's more nuance to Gojō's words here than simply an expression of long-standing trust in his best friend:

I think Gojō *did* trust Getō not to kill young sorcerers, but does that excuse what he did to Gojō's students? To Maki especially? I don't think so, and I actually don't think Gojō does either.

I think it's possible to read his words about 'trust' from a purely pragmatic standpoint. Gojō is an incredible tactician and I actually think he played on Getō's weakness here, sending his own students to certain defeat on the basis that he *trusted* Getō not to finish them off. He trusted that Getō's desire to create a world of sorcerers would prevent him from needlessly killing his students — and he was right!

That doesn't make his actions any less uncomfortable to think about, which is why Getō implies Gojō is cruel — despite the fact that *he's* the one who beat up a bunch of kids lol. I don't think reading it this way takes away from the feeling between the two of them, but I think it's important not to overlook the ability to be cold and calculating in either of them.

From a less practical point of view, I think Gojō making the decision to kill Getō is a painful metaphor for Gojō finally choosing to 'free' himself of the 'curse' called Getō Suguru. I've talked before about how Gege Akutami parallels Gojō and Getō with Yūta and Rika and this is perhaps the biggest parallel — both Gojō and Yūta make an active choice to 'free' themselves of the curses of their pasts (bearing in mind that it was written before the main series which calls that into question on Gojō's behalf at least).

I went a little (a lot) off course, but I hope you don't mind! Jujutsu Kaisen has such fantastic politics and I wanted to paint the full picture in my answer! Thanks for the question ♥

[eerna]

Ok Ok so I've been thinking this for. quite a while like even before Stolen Heir was released. it's kind of controversial because I might be making mountain out of a molehill but -

I think Jurdan fans border on being disrespectful to Holly Black at times... the problem isn't what one chooses to focus on even though that annoys me too, like it's not like people can control the fact that they focus more/love a character more than the other. But I'm starting to see this especially on Instagram and Goodreads, and I think I have good reason to believe HB is more active on insta and Goodreads is like, the book reviewing site, if there's any place she may look for comments or critique it's that.

and my problem lies with the language used . HB can announce she's working on something and can give hints about it and I've seen soo many people just outright tell her "I don't care about [x] and [y] just give me JURDAN!!" or anything along that vein , there's also "I'm only reading this for Jurdan lol I kind of couldn't care less about []".

It genuinely annoys me a lot !! And I wish I could say to each their own but ykw? At some point it starts to feel like if these two characters aren't involved people don't even try to make an effort to connect with the other characters, the new protagonist, etc. To be honest your page was a breath of fresh air because I don't even see a lot of folks focus on ANYTHING in TFOTA other than this ship.

There's also the irony that so many people pride themselves on loving Jude, their morally grey female rage character, but refuse to discuss Taryn with nuance. Or Vivi, sometimes. It's weird how so many people love Madoc (justified, I like him too) then refuse to think that hey, maybe Taryn's way of coping with faerie is different than Jude and that affects her actions! something something fandom misogyny

The above unrelated paragraph is just to say that a Nicasia focused book is something many people just absolutely will not be able to handle lmao and I so dearly wish Jude and Cardan's 'screentime' is few and far in between just so that it's less palatable. But oh well.

(And after Prisoner's Throne it worries me because with the implication that the Nicasia focused book might have Jude and Cardan POVs I feel like she's catering more to these people now.

If that's how things turn out that would genuinely make me really sad because I didn't pick up her books after reading TCP, I started with Spiderwick Chronicles, then Modern Faerie Tales, and I love the way she creates atmosphere, her worldbuilding, her depiction of the weird and creepy and magical. I especially think that's her strongest suit, more than characterization, so something like this that hinges more on specific characters genuinely turns me off.)

AGREED SO MUCH WITH ALL OF ITTT I too noticed the really dumb people in her comments crapping on everything that isn't a new Jurdan book... Like, the woman was writing books and enjoyed fame 15 years before Jurdan happened. She obviously has a lot to say about her world. Why the hell would you want her to stop developing it and only focus on 2 characters??? I was a big Spiderwick fan as a kid, and when I read TFOTA I had no idea it was by the same writer but I could TELL the vibes were all there. I too think that is her specialty and I'd rather get 10 stories on different characters than 5 on Jurdan.

I want the Undersea book to be about Nicasia and part of it is because I agree, I think most of the fandom would HATE it and it would fry their brains, and I want to see it. It is dumb and petty of me, but it would be sweet vindication for all the clowns screaming into my ear that Taryn is problematic actually in case I didn't notice. Ultimately I know it is a fruitless endeavor. TFOTA has the misfortune of being too good and complicated for its main audience of tiktok book fans, but also too bad and simplified to spread into more general, unspecified fantasy circles where its themes could catch the attention of people who would know how to appreciate them. That means there is only a small portion of fans who both like the books AND have the critical thinking skills to appreciate all the things they do right outside of romance/basic female wish fulfilment.

In the end, judging by TPT, we are gonna have to take the L and accept we bet on the wrong horse and minority does not make the money. But at least we will be there together to make a mountain out of a molehill!

[dailyanarchistposts]

Militant about joy

We want to connect joy to militancy for a number of reasons. We are interested in how the capacity for refusal and the willingness to fight can be enabling, relational, and can open up potentials for collective struggle and movement, in ways that are not necessarily associated with control, duty, or vanguardism. We want an expansive conception of militancy that affirms the potential of transformation at the expense of comfort, safety, or predictability. A common definition of militancy is to be “vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause.”[29] We are interested in the ways that putting joy into contact with militancy helps link fierce struggle with intense affect: rebellions and movements are not only about determined resistance, but about opening up collective capacities. With joyful militancy we want to get at what it means to enliven struggle and care, combativeness and tenderness, hand in hand.

However, the historical associations and current renderings of militancy are complex. Historically, militancy is often associated with Marxist-Leninist and Maoist vanguardism, and the ways these ideologies have informed revolutionary class struggle and national liberation struggles. These ideals of militancy have been challenged, especially by Black, Indigenous, and postcolonial feminists, who have pointed out the pitfalls of rigid ideology, patriarchal leadership, and the neglect of care and love. The traditional figure of the militant—zealous, rigid, and ruthless—has also been challenged by situationism, anarchism, feminism, queer politics, and other currents that have connected direct action and struggle to the liberation of desire, foregrounding the importance of creativity and experimentation. From this perspective, the militant is the one who is always trying to control things, to take charge, to educate, to radicalize, and so on. This kind of militant tends to be two steps behind transformations as they manifest themselves, always finding them lacking the correct analysis or strategy, always imposing a framework or program.

The contemporary discourse of counterterrorism associates figures of militancy with ISIL,{2} the Taliban, and other groups named as enemies of the United States and its allies. In this way, the specter of the “militant extremist” helps justify further militarization, surveillance, imperialism and Islamophobia. The suspected presence of one militant is enough to turn a whole area into a strike zone in which all military-aged men are conceived as enemy combatants, and everyone else as collateral damage. Within this discourse, the militant is increasingly the ultimate Other, to be targeted for death or indefinite detention. In all of these representations—from the Maoist rebel to the terrorist extremist—the figure of the militant tends to be associated with intense discipline, duty, and armed struggle, and these ways of being are often posed in opposition to being supple, responsive, or sensitive. It’s clear that militancy means willingness to fight, but in its dominant representations, it is cold and calculating.

At the same time, there are other currents of militancy that make space for transformation and joy. When we interviewed her, queer Filipino organizer Melanie Matining spoke about its potential to break down stereotypes:

The word “militancy” for me is a really, really hard one. It was used a lot in Filipino organizing. I would always connect it to the military industrial complex, and I didn’t want to replicate that. And then as I started peeling back the actual things we need to do… As an Asian woman, to be militant—that’s really fucking rad. It breaks down sterotypes of submissiveness. The concept of militancy is a new thing for me, and to embrace it I’m unpacking notions of who I’m supposed to be.[30]

Artist and writer Jackie Wang argues that militancy is not only tactically necessary, but transformative for those who embody it. In the context of anti-Blackness in the United States, Wang shows how the category of “crime” has been constructed around Blackness and how mass incarceration has led to a politics of safety and respectability that relies on claims of innocence, contrasted implicitly with (Black) guilt and criminality. Rejecting the politics of innocence means challenging the innocent/criminal dichotomy and the institutionalized violence that subtends it. This form of militancy, Wang argues, is “not about assuming a certain theoretical posture or adopting a certain perspective—it is a lived position.”[31] Drawing on Frantz Fanon, Wang writes that militancy has the capacity “to transform people and ‘fundamentally alter’ their being by emboldening them, removing their passivity and cleansing them of the ‘core of despair’ crystallized in their bodies.”[32] Living militancy, from this perspective, is inherently connected to a process of transformation that undoes the knot of subjection around innocence, challenges the carceral logics of anti-Blackness, and opens up new terrains of struggle.

When we asked Indigenous political theorist Glen Coulthard about his conception of militancy in the context of Indigenous resurgence, he called it an “emergent radicalism” that destabilizes relations of domination.[33] Coulthard’s work focuses on Indigenous resurgence and resistance to settler colonialism. He reveals the ways that Empire represents Indigenous peoples’ oppression as a constellation of personal failings and “issues” to be addressed through colonial recognition and reconciliation. He also focuses on Indigenous refusal and resistance, the revaluation of Indigenous traditions, and a rise in Indigenous militancy and direct action. Militancy, in the context of Indigenous resurgence, is about the capacity to break down colonial structures of control, including the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force; it is a break with the colonial state’s attempt to subjugate Indigenous people and ensure continued exploitation of Indigenous lands. This emergent militancy isn’t based on a single program or ideology, but comes out of relationships, as Coulthard says:

It’s emergent in the sense that it’s bottom-up. But it also emerges from something, and that’s those relationships to land, place, community. So that is the emergent part. Emergent doesn’t mean entirely new, because those relationships to place are not new. They’ve always been there, and are always re-emerging. It comes in cycles. The always-there emergent militancy is acted on through management strategies, recognition and accommodation, whatever. That has its effects: it dampens the crisis, it overcomes contradictions temporarily. And then the militancy will emerge again. And we’ve seen this four or five times in the last half-century, these series of containment/management strategies. …What’s always prior is agency of Indigenous peoples, and capital and the state are constantly on the defensive, reacting. As opposed to thinking that we’re always reacting to colonialism, when we privilege it. It’s this resurgent Indigenous subjectivity that the state is constantly trying to quell or subdue. And it’s successful, but never totally successful. And it boils over, comes to the surface, and some new technology is deployed in order to manage it, and reconciliation is the latest tool that is doing that work. But it’s always because of our persistent presence: we’ve never gone away and we’ve been articulating alternatives in words and deeds.[34]

This conception of militancy as emergent is important because it doesn’t come out of thin air, or from an enlightened vanguard of militarized men who suppose that they can see things more clearly than common people. It comes out of the ongoing refusal of Indigenous peoples to give up their ways of life. As Kiera Ladner and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson write in their introduction to This is an Honour Song,

The summer of 1990 brought some strong medicine to Turtle Island. For many Canadians, “Oka” was the first time they encountered Indigenous anger, resistance and standoff, and the resistance was quickly dubbed both the “Oka Crisis” and the “Oka Crises” by the mainstream media. But to the Kanien’kehaka (Mohawk) people of Kanehsata:ke, who were living up their responsibilities to take care of their lands, this was neither a “crisis” at Oka, nor was it about the non-Native town of “Oka.” This was about 400 years of colonial injustice. Similarly, for the Kanien’kaehaka from Kahnawa:ke and Akwesasne who created “crises” by putting up their own barricades on the Mercier Bridge or by mobilizing and/or mobilizing support (resources) at Kanehsata:ke, this really had nothing to do with Oka, a bridge or a golf course. This was about 400 years of resistance. Like every Indigenous nation occupied by Canada, the Haudenesaunee have been confronting state/settler societies and their governments since those societies began threatening the sovereignty, self-determination, and jurisdiction of the Haudenesaunee. It was not a beginning. Nor was this the end. This was a culmination of many, many years of Onhkwehonwe resistance resulting in a decision to put up barricades in defense of, and to bring attention to, Haudenesaunee land ethics, treaty responsibilities, and governance.[35]

Indigenous resurgence and events like Oka are not joyful in the sense of being happy, but in the sense that they are deeply transformative and able to catalyze solidarity across Turtle Island. But unlike Marxist conceptions of militancy in which the vanguard is supposed to usher in a global revolution, it is clear that Indigenous struggles do not implicate everyone in the same way. As it breaks down colonial structures of control and dispossession, Indigenous resurgence implicates us, as settlers, in complicated ways: it unsettles us and our relationship to land and place, and throws into question received ideas about who we are, our responsibilities and complicities, what it means to live here, and our received ideas about what “here” is. It compels us to learn, together, how to support Indigenous resurgence and resist settler colonial violence.

Joyful militancy has also emerged in spaces where people generate the capacity to move with despair and hopelessness, to politicize it. In her study of the queer movement ACT UP, queer theorist and activist Deborah Gould shows how their militant tactics not only won institutional victories that prolonged and saved lives; they were also a process of world-making:

From its start and throughout its life, ACT UP was a place to fight the AIDS crisis, and it was always more than that as well. It was a place to elaborate critiques of the status quo, to imagine alternative worlds, to express anger, to defy authority, to form sexual and other intimacies, to practice non-hierarchical governance and self-determination, to argue with one another, to refashion identities, to experience new feelings, to be changed.[36]

The militancy of ACT UP was not only about a willingness to be confrontational and defy conventions of straight society and mainstream gay and lesbian politics; the movement also created erotically-charged queer atmospheres and sustained networks of care and support for members who got sick. Catalyzed by grief and rage, it blew open political horizons and changed what was possible for people to think, do, and feel together.

When we asked the Argentina-based intellectual Sebastián Touza about militancy, he discussed the danger of defining it once and for all:

I don’t know if militancy can be defined “as such.” Probably it is not a good idea to define it that way because that would entail a general point of view, an interchangeable and abstract concept, valid for all situations. But, on the other hand, I would say that a militant is somebody who struggles for justice in the situation … Thus we have to pay attention to the situation, to the encounters that take place in it, to how meaning is elaborated there, to the subjectivities that arise as a result of those encounters.[37]

This “situated” militancy does not start from a prefabricated notion of justice. It is an attempt to intervene effectively in the here and now, based on a capacity to be attuned to relationships. An example of this could be Touza’s discussion of the struggle of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, a feminist organization that formed in resistance to military repression in Argentina in the 1970s:

Mothers grew up not from strategic plans but from below: from the pain of mothers seeking to recover their children who had been kidnapped, tortured, and “disappeared” by the state. Because they have not separated affects from political activity, Mothers never consider each other means toward ends. Nobody has to be subordinated to strengthen the organization. Rather, they regard each other as ends in themselves. What bonds them together is not an idea but the affect, love and friendship that arises from supporting each other, sharing intimate emotions, moments of joy and sorrow. They organize themselves through consensus, understood not as a system of decision-making or conflict resolution, but as a direct engagement with the lives of one another. As in a now long established feminist tradition, for them the personal is political. Mothers guide themselves by an ethics of intimate conviction whose exercise cannot be detached from everyday life. They have a profound distrust of ideologies and party lines and are proud of their autonomy from the state, political parties, unions and NGOs. Their autonomy does not consist in fighting against a dominant ideology, which might summon the need for the specialized knowledge of a vanguard party, but rather … in the affirmation of liberating aspects of popular culture that already exist among them.[38]

The Mothers are a powerful example of how militancy often springs from everyday life and the bonds of kinship, rather than abstract ideological or moral commitments. These struggles eventually waned or were absorbed by Empire, at least partially. The Argentinean government eventually began using the discourse of human rights and began to offer money and services as an attempt to relegitimize the state and regain control, causing deep divisions between the Mothers and other movements in Argentina.[39] The Canadian government used treaty negotiations, reconciliation discourses, and other formal processes in an attempt to quell Indigenous resurgence and militancy. As Coulthard explains above, new forms of militancy tend to provoke new strategies of containment and absorption by the state, leading to the invention of new forms of struggle. None of these movements stayed frozen in one form: in various ways they transformed, dissolved, shifted, or were institutionalized. But the fact that Empire always invents new forms of containment is not evidence that movements have “failed” or that they were misguided. Joyful transformation sometimes ebbs and flows, becomes captured or crushed, grows subtler or percolates into everyday life, but always re-emerges and renews itself.

Militancy is not a fixed ideal to approximate. We cannot be “like” a militant because militancy—in the way we conceptualize it here—is a practice that is based in the specificity of situations. We cannot become these examples, nor should we look to them as ideals. Rather than boiling joyful militancy down to a fixed way of being or a set of characteristics, we see it arising in and through the relationships that people have with each other. This means it will always look different, based on the emergent connections, relationships, and convictions that animate it.

In relation to this, we believe it is important to hesitate, lest our understanding of militancy become another form of rigid radicalism. Not everyone we spoke with has been enthusiastic about this word. For instance, in our interview with them, writer and artist Margaret Killjoy was ambivalent, emphasizing its connection to armed struggle:

I guess I see it as being someone who is “actively” involved in trying to promote radical social change, and in a non-reformist way. It’s dangerous as terminology … I don’t use it much myself … because of course the first implication it seems to have is that of armed struggle, which is far from a universally applicable strategy or tactic.[40]

We hope that joyful militancy allows for questions and uncertainties that are too often smothered by conventional conceptions of militancy. We also recognize that many will still prefer different language. We are not suggesting that all joyful struggles share an ideology, a program, or a set of tactics. What the above examples have in common is that they express a form of militancy that is attuned to their local situations and arises from people’s needs, desires, and relationships. What we are calling joyful militancy is not a shared content, though we do think there are some shared values and sensibilities. Rather it is an attunement and activation of collective power that looks different everywhere, because everywhere is different.

Besides these highly visible examples, joyful militancy also lives in art and poetry that opens people’s capacities for thinking and feeling in new ways. It is expressed in quiet forms of subversion and sabotage, as well as all the forms of care, connection, and support that defy the isolation and violence of Empire. It is not a question of being a certain way, but a question of open-ended becoming, starting from wherever people find themselves.