#then you excuse his actions in a way that can cause harm to real life poc & women

[ravi-is-my-beloved]

"You have to think about Tommy's past—"

No, I don't. Not when we don't even know his past. You can't say he's had a troubled past filled with oppression when we don't know that. A throwaway line about his father being like Gerrard is not confirmation that Tommy was discriminated against by his own father for being perceived as a gay man.

"It was a survival instinct—"

No, it wasn't. It wasn't a survival instinct when he called Hen bitchy or was racist towards Chimney. Because you don't even know if he was doing it to protect himself since again, we don't know shit about his past before he was with the 118. The survival instinct y'all claim he had as an excuse against his racism and misogyny is fanon.

Some of y'all to talk about toxic fans and then excuse racism and misogyny because your favorite character is a gay man. Being gay doesn't excuse it, being oppressed doesn't excuse oppressing other people.

[thechekhov]

I think for a lot of the people who Really Like characters, it's easy to forget that they had to like. HAVE their character arcs and time to be interesting. I like Kabru, but his introduction is certainly not why! Itzumi is a fun character, but she is a standoffish person and a little bit of a brat. I get why people are racing to defend her actions, but it'd be best if we remember the point of the story is to let them come into their own the eyes of the reader (you, atm).

Idk just a thought looking at people's asks.

I think that's a very good point! I do understand the urge to jump to a favorite character's defense, but I am also eagerly waiting for her to grow on me. I'm sure a lot will change once I get used to her antics and she has more chances to just BE with the party without butting heads with them every other chapter.

To that point, another ask I got also says this very eloquently:

I agree that she's a catalyst for more family/party drama in what was otherwise a pretty chill dynamic. She's caused a lot of fun plot advancements already, and all the conflicts she gets into have been very well written and entertaining!

Yeah, I love that!

I see people rushing to excuse her actions by saying she's had a hard life or she's young. And while it's true that her being 17 makes her reactions to things more reasonable - 17 is by no means an early age to start understanding how your actions may harm or hinder others. I think it's far more likely that the real reason she acts the way she does is due to her upbringing, not an inherent immaturity.

And in my opinion - she doesn't need an excuse to be a brat!

She can just be a selfish cat character. That's a very common animal trope! I think she was created to be a little bit annoying to those who dislike those traits, while still being hilarious and having a fascinating backstory. That's a good character!

I feel like I may have made some people bristle when I called her selfish and admitted that she annoyed me. And I apologize if that came across as personal somehow.

Someone else mentioned having a high tolerance for that type of character - I am the opposite, where I have a very low tolerance for this trope of characters. It's just a preference!

That doesn't mean her character is bad or unpalatable. It's just me giving my own honest reactions in the moment! And it's definitely not a judgement call on her story or personality as a whole.

[saintsenara]

💚 💖 💀

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

what does everyone else get wrong about your favourite character?

that lord voldemort is legitimately emotionally intelligent.

i encounter a lot in fics the idea that voldemort doesn't have any idea how to understand or relate to other people's emotions - that he can't, for example, understand why one his minions is upset by a hard work day or a rude comment, since he considers both of those things to be unimportant if they occur in his own life - and that any interpersonal skills which he possesses are performative, a chameleonic mirroring of other people's emotional responses which he has no real knowledge of the deeper meaning of.

a lot of this is due - of course - to the idea that voldemort is a "sociopath" and/or "psychopath" [both of which are controversial terms]. and he's a great candidate for the pop-culture versions of these labels - which tend to present the person in question's "empathy deficit" as connected to a complete lack of understanding of how other people feel and a concomitant failure to appreciate or anticipate the emotional responses their actions will cause.

but, in many cases, the "empathy deficit" associated with antisocial personality disorder [the clinical umbrella term under which both "sociopathy" and "psychopathy" fall] isn't so much an inability to understand how other people feel... as it is an ability to understand this profoundly, use it for personal gain, and simply not care if this approach causes the other person harm.

[that is, they are capable of cognitive empathy - the ability to recognise and understand emotions in others, read social cues, and predict and influence others' emotional responses to their behaviour. this isn't a dangerous, abnormal, or disordered trait - it's what people who describe themselves as having "good intuition" or "good gut instincts" are talking about - but it can become so when it combines with other aspects of a person's personality to make them manipulative, exploitative, and entirely self-centred.]

and this - rather than an "empathy deficit" caused by an inability to understand human emotions - is what we see in the canonical voldemort. he is extraordinarily good at correctly identifying, dissecting, and influencing other people's emotions, and a failure to take this ability seriously often causes problems for the heroes of the series.

[dumbledore - for example - is caught out when the potion guarding the locket reveals that voldemort sincerely understands the power of love, grief, and guilt. his entry into the cave is hubristic - he dismisses voldemort's initial safeguards as crude, unimpressive, and not frightening, he then discovers that the final safeguard is extremely impressive indeed...]

the canonical voldemort is also someone whose own emotional performance isn't entirely fake, or entirely drawn from mirroring those around him. i talk a lot about how the fandom overlooks the fact that he's very, very funny - and how he's also [for narrative reasons, since the text needs him to deliver information to harry that neither snape nor dumbledore can if they're to maintain their cover until the end of deathly hallows] often found telling the truth in ways which render him considerably more authentic in conversation than many other characters in the story.

that his charm is performative [he's the centre of attention at the slug club, he's dull and subordinate when he goes to see hepzibah smith] is another example of him using his emotional intelligence to exploit other people for his own gain - and the fact that he's able to modify his affect so easily [and that, even when not performing, he doesn't have a reduced or shallow affect - he's someone who registers his genuine emotions very clearly on his face] is connected to his ability to understand, predict, and influence emotional expression.

and i do think that voldemort is more interesting - and his crimes much more difficult either to excuse or to dismiss as a monstrosity someone like us could never be capable of - when he's treated as something other than the caricature of the pop-culture psychopath, pretty and outwardly charming, with nothing beneath the surface.

and recognising that he understands other people very well - and still doesn't care about them in the slightest - is one way of doing this.

what is your biggest unpopular opinion about the series?

that - while its morality is individualist and its politics are neoliberal and both of these things are incredibly tedious - its central thesis, that redemption is possible, forgiveness is achievable, and love and mercy are triumphant, is a legitimately good one, and the vast majority of fandom arguments about which characters "deserve" to be liked become irrelevant when these basic, human principles are taken into account.

if you had to choose one major character to die, who would you pick?

i think arthur weasley should have died in order of the phoenix - not only because it makes my best girl nagini look like a flop that he doesn't, but because i think it would be really interesting to bring the experience of a grief to which harry is peripheral forward in the series.

in canon, this is the purpose served by fred's death - and it comes as part of the arc that harry undergoes in the last third of deathly hallows, in which he begins to get over his earlier belief that he's central to everything about resisting voldemort. but i think something really interesting could be done with forcing him towards this realisation earlier.

[rizzoreads88]

Acotar Unpopular Opinion/Rant.

You’ve been warned it’s going to be controversial

Rhysand, Nesta, Aelin, & Tamlin were all abusive by todays standards at different points. This isn’t even opinion. This is a facts. If they were in the real world their actions would be considered abusive at different points.

In my honest opinion I don’t think any of the characters other then the obvious villians are abusers. I don’t hold these characters to todays standards. Fae are not human. Prythian isn’t the real world. Trying to compare them to your exs or your mean older sibling is like trying to compare the Hybern war to ww2. Apples to oranges BUT I see the fandom likes to apply modern day morals and standards to certain characters only…

Why is Tamlin the only character people like refer to as an abuser? Why is he and Nesta the only ones who are “irredeemable”?why are him and Nesta the only ones this fandom holds to todays standards?

*Rhysand-forced feyre to get drunk to the point of vomiting, grabbed her broken bone causing her physical pain to force her into his bargain, made her expose herself even though she asked for more clothing and was ashamed and embarrassed, forced himself in her, kissing her and licking her when he knew she didn’t want him to touch her, withholding life threatening information about her own body and her baby from her ect… Rhysand also explodes a room because he’s angry at nesta in hofas

(Yes i know the Rhys stans will excuse everything he did UTM because he was helping feyre.. ok but no one made him help feyre in those ways. Amarantha was watching tamlin, rhysand didn’t have to help feyre in the ways he did he could have helped her in other ways. )

*Aelin- literally tried to murder her boyfriend and would have if Dorian didn’t magically restrain her,,, physically harms his face

You can’t say well whoever had good intentions and they have trauma so it’s different… besties they all have trauma…in canon text everything tamlin did in his head he was protecting feyre. He had good intentions too but went about them in terrible ways obviously. Abuse is abuse regardless of intent.

At the end of the day you can try to excuse the abuse for your fav characters however you want but it is STILL abuse by todays standards.

SJM herself has said tamlin is not a villian. She has also said there is more to Tamlin then what we see from feyres lense. She has also said he is on his own journey. SJM wrote a whole book of Nestas growth and she changes and literally saves feyres whole little family and still people act like she is the worst.

** I also think it’s important to remember when we in the fandom are talking about tamlin, nesta, rhysand, aelin or whoever we are talking about those characters specifically and their actions within the context of it s fantasy world. We are not talking about whoever they remind you of in real life. We are not talking about what you or I went through we are referring to the story and what’s going on within prythian. **

When people pick and choose which abusive actions they excuse and which abusive person is a abuser and who isn’t it kind seems like you don’t actually care about the abuse rather just who is doing it.

Be consistent. Either all characters who are abusive at times are abusers or their not. Either all abusive actions or wrong or it’s not.

To me I don’t consider any of these 4 characters abusers over all but we’re they abusive at points? Yes. Were all their abusive actions wrong? Yes. Intention does not matter when it comes to abuse. It’s all wrong.

[whathorselegs]

Thinking about those posts that point out when something's not medically accurate in fiction and while, yes it's fun to know what is medical accurate, it's not always a needed.

This is specifically about injuries not disabilities or mental health.

There are times in fiction where it's probably best to have an understanding what's medically or historically medically accurate. Example: You're writing a surgery scene, your character's a doctor, you plan for this injury to have lasting effects on your character, ect.

But for the most part, injuries aren't there to be accurate, they are their to serve a narrative purpose first and foremost. It's important to acknowledge why an injury is currently happening in a story and what it's narrative purpose is, over whether what is happening is accurate.

A famous example would be when characters are stabbed/shot in the shoulder/stomach. This can either be debilitating for a character or they walk it off like it's nothing. Both options are there to elicit a reaction from the audience. The big bad get stabbed and then walks it off like it's nothing is supposed to be scary because how are the heroes going to defeat something so impervious to harm. The heroes get stabbed and are temporally out of action, it's a serious wound, they might not recover, we are scared for them! But look, a few chapters later, they've got some bandages on now and they're are ready to try again, what a relief!

A character being stabbing in the back is usually symbolic over medically accurate. This is about betrayal over anything else. But if the character being stabbed is fine later, that's fine, it's about what that stabbing did emotionally to them. And if you want to get accurate and have physical lasting effects on the character, then do proper research into that would look like. Both options are valid depending on what you want from your story!

Blood coming from a character's mouth despite the fact what ever wound/illness they have wouldn't cause that? That's the universal sign that uh-oh, this character is not coming back from this wound/illness. Doesn't matter that it's inaccurate, we all see blood coming from the mouth and go "Oh this is serious, we're about to watch a death." It's for the drama of it.

A character passing out from their injuries, or getting knocked out by being hit over the head. That's just a way to change the scene or take that character out of action for a while. Oh they woke up without a concussion from a head wound, doesn't matter, the real question is how are they going to get of this cell now? That previous scene needed a hard cut so the author used the bonking stick, it's fine. Their wounds were so serious they passed out, but now they're fine with a little limp, shhhhh, the author just needed an excuse for them to wake up in their love interest's arms.

Sometimes a character getting injured is just an excuse for characters to bond and be vulnerable. It's not important that character B isn't using accurate stitching methods, it's important that character A is letting them embroider their wounds together again.

Injuries, like most things in fiction are plot devices and that's okay. Not everything in fiction needs to be accurate to real life, all the time. There are definitely times it should be! If your character's injury is going to lead to a disability, that should be researched and as accurate as possible. But if the injury is just a slash across the stomach for dramatic effect, then it's ok all his organs didn't fall out, we're having hot homoerotic swords fights over here!

[twistedtummies2]

Top 15 Portrayals of Dr. Frankenstein

“What makes a monster, and what makes a man?” This quote from a Disney movie, of all things, weirdly sums up one of the central themes of Mary Shelley’s masterwork, “Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus.” In my previous countdown - where I discussed my favorite versions of the Frankenstein Monster - I said that Shelley’s novel is widely considered the first piece of sci-fi horror, not only because its title character is a scientist who attempts to use science to create life, but because the themes and ideas present in the novel are ones most common in science fiction, and especially “science horror,” to this day. In Shelley’s original novel, Victor Frankenstein is NOT a doctor. (Although I will be calling him “doctor” throughout this list, for various reasons. Deal with it.) Instead, he is a medical student studying to BE a doctor, who becomes so obsessed with the idea of not simply saving but CREATING life it drives him practically to madness. While Victor in the book is NOT the villain, you’d be hard-pressed to call him a hero, either…and that is the point. The book is filled with a lot of morally gray elements and ethical questionability, especially on the part of Frankenstein himself; while the Creature he constructs ultimately does turn out to do terrible things, it is largely because it has known nothing but scorn and neglect. This all begins when his “father” - after driving himself to bedlam creating the fellow in the first place - outright abandons him for, to be blunt, really petty reasons. Victor, in the novel, isn’t necessarily evil, but he IS extremely irresponsible and…well…frankly a bit of a drama queen. (I can relate, sadly.) His personal flaws and bad decisions lead to his own self-destruction, and the ruination of everything he holds dear. It is largely through him that a lot of the questions of the story we now associate with science horror come through: what happens when someone seeks knowledge too fervently? Do the means of gaining greater understanding of the world justify the ends? If we explore in certain directions, and don’t know when to hold back, will we find things out we really aren’t prepared to know? Are there, frankly, just some things man shouldn’t tamper with…and if we DO tamper with them, will we be capable of dealing with the consequences of our actions? That’s essentially the basic point of nearly every work of science fiction, especially of the darker variety: whether the “Monster” being faced comes in the form of advanced technology, extraterrestrial entities, unknowable cosmic forces, or biological scourges…it all seemingly begins with Frankenstein and his poorly-handled Monster. It’s for this reason you’ll sometimes find memes and posts that say, “Frankenstein IS the monster,” referring to Victor: the line between good and evil in the story is an extremely thin one, and while Victor never INTENDED to do any real harm, that does not excuse the harm that IS caused by his actions and inactions alike. Throughout different adaptations and reimaginings, Frankenstein has, as a result, been depicted in varying states of moral standing. Some versions take the flaws inherent in Shelley’s novel and go all the way with them, making the mad scientist into a villainous cad who will stop at nothing in his self-centered, arrogant attempts to basically play God. Other versions actually soften the character, giving him more redeeming qualities as he actually tries to do genuine good with his work, only for things to inevitably and unfortunately go awry all the same. Victor is neither of these in the novel, but both directions - and many more - can be fascinating in different ways. Keeping this in mind, it’s time to delve into the heart of darkness: these are My Top 15 Favorite Portrayals of Dr. Frankenstein!

15. Tim Curry, from Frankenstein: Through the Eyes of the Monster.

I’m going to presume most of you know about Tim Curry’s star-making performance as Dr. Frank-N-Furter in the musical “Rocky Horror Show,” and its film adaptation “Rocky Horror Picture Show.” This cult classic musical was effectively a parody of Frankenstein…but, just like with the previous countdown, I didn’t think it was fair to include it, since I feel it’s really a bit more of its own thing, even if the parallels are obvious. HOWEVER, that doesn’t discount the time Curry played the ACTUAL Dr. Frankenstein, in this point-and-click adventure game. “Through the Eyes of the Monster,” as the title implies, puts the player in the role of Frankenstein’s Creation, as you have to explore the mad scientist’s castle and escape to the outside world. Based on that premise, and the casting of Curry, the version of Frankenstein here is one of the more villainous ones, and it really is Curry’s performance that makes the game: I’ve never actually played this title (it’s EXTREMELY rare and hard to get ahold of, by all accounts), but I have watched a couple of walkthroughs/Let’s Plays of it, and…well, let’s just say they don’t say much to its quality. It’s typically considered a bad game. Curry’s wry, morbid, delightfully wicked and predictably over-the-top Frankenstein, however, is very, VERY fun to see in action. If he’d been in a better game, this entry would have been a lot higher.

14. Grant Moninger, from TMNT (2012).

In the 2012 version of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,” there was a four-part story arc where the Turtles - alongside a time traveler named Renet - had to face the Universal Monsters, who were being led by a demon called Savanti Romero. In the third part of the story, Romero and his monster army traveled to Castle Frankenstein, where they manipulated Dr. Frankenstein with plans to use his Monster as part of their team. Both the doctor and his creation were voiced by Grant Moninger; a casting choice that does not appear to be mere coincidence. There was a lot of promise to this version of the scientist, but I don’t think it really reached full maximum: as much as I loved this story arc, the stuff with Frankenstein, in particular, seemed a bit rushed. This version actually makes the good doctor…well…a GOOD doctor, as he befriends the Turtles and actually comes to genuinely care for his Creation, despite his initial disgust. Unfortunately, we never really got any closure for the “Frankenstein Family,” and the shift from horror to acceptance seemed rather quick, as all of the doctor’s stuff was shoved into this one chapter of the four-part tale. I liked seeing a more sympathetic take on Frankenstein, and the interactions he had with Donatello and his Monster (nicknamed “Frank” by Mikey) were really nice, but I wish they’d just done more and given him more time.

13. Donald Duck, from Disney’s Frankenstein Starring Donald Duck.

I’m hoping a lot of you will remember, from my past Dracula-related lists, the time Disney made a graphic novel version of “Dracula,” starring Mickey Mouse as Jonathan Harker and the Phantom Blot as the Count. Well, in that comic adaptation, none of the characters from the Donald Duck universe appear. This is because they were all saved for another graphic novel that was made concurrently: Disney’s Frankenstein. (Also, no, I’m not counting Runaway Brain here, just as I didn’t count it on the previous list. Sorry.) Just like the “Dracula” comic, this book actually sticks pretty darn close to Shelley’s story and text (though it naturally softens up some of the nastier bits), and there’s a lot of little in-jokes throughout the story that you’ll really only understand if you’ve actually read the book. In this version, Donald plays the role of the mad scientist, except instead of stitching together a monster created from cadavers out of rifled graves (bravo if you got that reference, by the way), he makes his Creature out of cardboard. While this was a very fun and funny entry, I personally prefer the work on “Dracula” a bit more: I just think it’s funnier (as well as even weirder, to be honest), and the casting there is even more enjoyable. Still, this is definitely a charming companion piece.

12. Boris Karloff, from Mad Monster Party.

This Halloweentime film was a rare cinematic release by Rankin/Bass: the company best known for their holiday TV specials, such as “The Year Without a Santa Claus” and “Here Comes Peter Cottontail!” This is essentially a Rankin/Bass Halloween special, but expanded to feature length and released on the big screen. In it, Boris Karloff (whose animated puppet is a caricature of himself) plays the role of Dr. Frankenstein, rather than his Creation. It’s revealed that Frankenstein is actually the leader of an organization of famous horror icons, including Dracula, the Invisible Man, and his own Monster, just to name a few. However, the old doctor is getting on in years, and decides it’s time to step down and choose a successor in the form of his nephew: a wimpy, shrimpy clutz named Felix. The Monsters, appalled at this suggestion, plot to steal Frankenstein’s newest experiment - a special explosive - and assassinate Felix, so they can have the league to themselves. Then, without the good doctor to keep them all in check, they shall - what else? - take over the world. Karloff essentially plays a sort of exaggerated version of himself in this movie, which is, on its own, very fun to watch. His Dr. Frankenstein is a morbid and spooky soul, but he’s not really evil, unlike the Monsters he apparently controls. SPOILER ALERT: he even ends up sacrificing himself at the end of the film, to stop the villains from enacting their wicked schemes. The moment where he does so, for the record, is pure awesome: a word to the wise, DO NOT MESS WITH BORIS KARLOFF.

11. Robert Foxworth, from Dan Curtis’ Frankenstein.

Dan Curtis - famous for his work on the Gothic soap opera “Dark Shadows” - did a whole bunch of TV film and miniseries adaptations of famous works of classic horror, throughout the late 60s and early 70s. Among these were “Dracula,” “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde,” and, of course, “Frankenstein.” At the time, Curtis’ adaptation of the lattermost story was probably the most accurate that had been put to the screen, taking significantly fewer liberties with the source material of Mary Shelley than any other. Foxworth’s Victor Frankenstein, appropriately, sticks mostly true to the source as well, though the movie seems to paint him more as an idealistic scientific dreamer who gets in over his head than anything else. This carries over into one of the biggest changes to the film, the ending. SPOILER ALERT: instead of vowing to hunt down his creature to the ends of the Earth, a mortally wounded Frankenstein instead realizes his many mistakes, and apologizes to his “son,” telling him to learn to forgive both himself and others with his dying breath. Of course, we can’t give the Monster a happy ending, - we’ll have no joy and justice here, thank you - so the poor Creature, still in a state of mourning, ends up shot and killed anyway before he can put this into practice. Scientist and creation thus die in each other’s arms. Poetic in its own way, I suppose.

10. Barret Oliver & Charlie Tahan, from Frankenweenie.

A sentimental parody of the 1931 Universal classic, the original “Frankenweenie” was a live-action short subject, created by Tim Burton while he was working at Disney. The story featured Victor Frankenstein (played then by Barret Oliver) as a young boy living in contemporary America. The boy is heartbroken when his beloved pet dog, Sparky, sadly dies. Inspired by a science demonstration at his school, Victor decides to try and bring his petn back to life. The short subject was released in 1984. It was honestly a very sweet story, albeit obviously one with a dark sense of humor, but Disney was dissatisfied with the results, and claimed that Burton had wasted company resources on the project. This led to Burton being fired from the company, which only gave him the chance to strike out on his own. Burton had supposedly always wanted the story to become a feature-length film; many years later, he came to Disney with a proposition to try and remake the short as an animated movie. By now, of course, Burton was a household name, and Disney agreed to give the project the go-ahead, provided he also made a couple of other movies for them at their stipulation. Burton agreed, and in 2012, a stop-motion animated feature of “Frankenweenie” was released. This time, Victor was voiced by Gotham’s Scarecrow himself, Charlie Tahan. It followed the same basic beats as the short, but - by virtue of being longer, as well as animated and having the benefits of modern technology - it was able to go much further with its subject matter. Without going into too much detail, in the film version, Victor’s experiments get even more out of hand than anybody could have anticipated. Both versions are very fun and very cute, while also having a delightfully decadent style to them only Burton could bring. I highly recommend you check both out, and pick a favorite for yourself.

9. David Anders, from Once Upon a Time.

“Frankenstein” was a bizarre choice of story to reimagine in this Disney-based show of family, love, and fairy-tales. However, the series found a way to make things interesting, and while I don’t think the Frankenstein story elements are perfect, David Anders in the role of the obsessed scientist is definitely a winning interpretation. In the series, it’s revealed that Victor Frankenstein comes from a world called “The Land Without Color,” where everything is in monochrome (a reference to the classic Universal movies). His experiments with creating life take on a new dimension, when he decides to try and use his theories to bring back his brother, Gerhardt, blaming himself for his sibling’s demise. However, no ordinary heart can withstand the intense electric energy needed to give his brother life…which is where things start to get particularly unusual. Frankenstein gets roped into a deal involving Rumpelstiltskin, the Evil Queen, and the Mad Hatter (wow, what a trio of characters) to gain a special heart from their own world in the Enchanted Forest. Only the “magic” of that heart is able to function properly and serve Victor’s purpose. The series blends science and magic together in a fun way, seemingly taking on the old idea of Clarke’s Third Law: “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Anders’ portrayal of Dr. Frankenstein was extremely fun, giving the character a more sympathetic bend but also injecting a sort of eerie, icy, creepy composure to him. In the modern day scenes, Frankenstein goes by the alias of “Dr. Whale.” (Another reference to the Universal pictures, referring to James Whale, the director of the first two movies.) By both names, he was a recurring character throughout the series; I only wish we’d gotten more closure on how his experiments really went, or else he could have ranked much higher.

8. Kenneth Branagh, from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Released in 1994, this big-budget feature film was a direct response to the success of Francis Ford Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” released earlier in the same decade. While both films have a lot of similarities - generally staying true to the source, but also inventing a few new twists and really hyping up the sensuality of some characters (which I think works much better with Dracula than Frankenstein, for the record) - most agree that Coppola’s movie is the more successful one, and critics and box office records of the time seemed to agree. However, it does have its fair share of fans, and I suppose I’m among them. It’s not perfect, but to be blunt, neither is its “sister film.” Kenneth Branagh both directed the film and plays Victor Frankenstein - not uncommon with this Shakespearean-acclaimed performer. Branagh’s version of Victor has a raw, somewhat manic intensity in his passions, contrasted by the moments where he has to keep it all together and in-check for polite society. The most significant change to the plot is that, unlike in the novel - where Frankenstein never completes work on the Bride for his Monster - Victor actually goes through with the experiment, albeit for his own unique reasons. I won’t go into further detail for reasons of spoilers, but suffice to say, this version focused a great deal on Victor’s tragedy, while still making him the morally and ethically questionable obsessive of the novel. Never has the question of who is the real monster been more shrouded in gray area.

7. Benedict Cumberbatch & Jonny Lee Miller, from the National Theatre Production.

In 2011, a stage adaptation of Frankenstein was produced by the prestigious National Theatre in the UK. The play is a sort of semi-accurate retelling of the Shelley novel (it follows most of the major story beats, but cuts or slightly alters various elements), and has a lot of merits to it…but by far the most interesting part was the casting of Victor Frankenstein and his Creation. Throughout the run of the show, both roles were tackled by Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller. (Both actors were popular for playing Sherlock Holmes at the time. Probably not a coincidence, though it’s an odd leap to make.) The two performers alternated parts over the course of the show’s time onstage, with Cumberbatch playing Frankenstein some nights, while Miller played the Creature, and then swapping roles the next round, over and over. Two nights of the show - each featuring different revolutions of the two leads - were filmed and shown on various screens around the world. As a stage actor, I can safely say no recording can PERFECTLY capture the beauty of any live theatre show, but at least it allowed folks who never got the chance to see it live a chance to take a peek for posterity. While both actors do an amazing job in both roles, I personally most enjoyed seeing Miller in the role of Frankenstein, with Cumberbatch in the role of the Monster. There was a brusqueness to the way he handled the part that Cumberbatch didn’t quite have; given how the stage version here ends, and what we learn about Victor (I’m not giving it away here), I feel that’s more appropriate to the character. Again, though, both performers are to be commended: if you get the chance, try to watch both versions and judge the performances for yourself.

6. Ian Holm, from “Mystery & Imagination: Frankenstein.”

In 1968, the UK-produced horror series, “Mystery & Imagination,” made their own adaptation of Mary Shelley’s classic novel. It’s actually one of the few episodes of this show I’ve seen, and of the few I’ve witnessed, it’s definitely my favorite. A big part of the reason why goes to the gimmick the episode used: casting both the Monster and the Doctor as the same person. That person, of course, was future Bilbo Baggins himself, Ian Holm. Before he ever ventured into the Shire, Holm had a long and storied career, playing everything from Richard III and other Shakespearean roles, to a couple of the most famous writers in history, such as J.M. Barrie and Lewis Carroll. It’s perhaps only natural that he would get to play not only Frankenstein’s creation, but Victor Frankenstein himself. Holm does a brilliant job in both parts, and it’s a worthy adaptation overall, mostly following Shelley but with a few unique twists. Holm would not be finished with Frankenstein once this production ended, either; he later played a supporting part in the 1994 film adaptation. I highly doubt this bit of casting was coincidental.

5. Alec Newman, from Frankenstein (2004 Miniseries).

Alec Newman is a name some fans of dark video games may recognize; among his body of work, he was the voice of Simon Belmont for the “Castlevania: Lords of Shadow” reboot trilogy, and also Jack the Ripper for “Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate.” It’s therefore somewhat unsurprising to learn that, before either of those came to be, Newman played one of Gothic horror’s most famous figures. This two-part miniseries is a highly underrated adaptation. It’s arguably the closest to the book ever made, at least that I’ve seen, as the longer running time and two-part structure allows for not only virtually everything in the novel to be given space, but allows for a few innovations and changes unique to this interpretation. Newman’s Victor Frankenstein, however, sticks more or less true to the source all the way through to the end, in terms of writing and general portrayal. If “definitive” can be taken to mean “truest to the original material,” then he is arguably the definitive version of Victor Frankenstein: starting off as an idealistic and romantic youth, whose passions become twisted as his naivete and rebellious obsessions ultimately lead to his downfall. His health declines, his fortunes decline, but perhaps most importantly, his very soul is effectively despoiled by his own negligence and imprudence. While he’s not the first person most people will think of when they think of the character, he’s definitely one of the most interesting portrayals to date.

4. Gene Wilder, from Young Frankenstein.

There have been several characters over the years who were not meant to be the actual Dr. Frankenstein himself, but rather his successors or descendants. Examples include Wolf von Frankenstein, the titular character of “Son of Frankenstein,” and Victoria Frankenstein, an upcoming female take on the mad scientist made for Universal’s “Dark Universe” attractions. (Look into that, by the way, seems like it could be interesting…unlike the last time Universal attempted a “Dark Universe” rebranding, but I digress.) However, I left such characters out of the running because…well…they’re not Victor Frankenstein. They’re his sons or daughters or general followers. I made an exception with Gene Wilder’s delightfully daffy Frederick Frankenstein, the title character of the Mel Brooks dark comedy classic “Young Frankenstein,” for one simple reason: it felt like a crime to leave him out of the running. This is mostly because, while the film does state that Frederick is the original Frankenstein’s grandson, the movie more or less follows, beat-for-beat, the familiar Frankenstein story: it takes the story beats we recognize from both the novel and the first two Universal movies and transforms the tragedy and horror into zany, satirical humor. The result is probably one of the greatest horror comedies in the history of movies, with Wilder’s Willy Wonka - I mean, Dr. Frankenstein at the very center of it all. He is HILARIOUS in this movie; I would argue quite possibly the funniest performance of his whole career, which is saying quite a lot. There was no way I could have forgiven myself if I didn’t include him in the Top 5.

3. Colin Clive, from the Universal Monsters Series.

While the iconography of the original Universal version of Frankenstein’s Monster (and the work of Boris Karloff in the role) cannot be denied, I often feel that Colin Clive’s work in the role of Dr. Frankenstein gets somewhat overlooked. In the first film, 1931’s “Frankenstein,” Clive is really the main character, and gives us a really strong intense performance that actually still really holds up to this day. The Universal Frankenstein is just as obsessive and ethically questionable as the one in the novel, but he’s a BIT less morally problematic. Unlike Victor Frankenstein in the book, HENRY Frankenstein (as the film strangely decides to rename him; the name of Victor is given to another character, for some reason) actually DOES try to care for his Creation and teach him. Henry even defends the Monster for a while, against his own skeptical mentor figure, Dr. Waldman. However, after the Monster commits his first bit of homicide - which was ENTIRELY justified as self-defense, I should add - Frankenstein is led to believe his experiment has been a failure, and feels he has no choice but to destroy his creation. I really, REALLY love Clive’s Frankenstein: he has lines and moments that are just as memorable and masterfully handled as any of Karloff’s pantomime in the first movie. It was also nice to see him return in the second film, “Bride of Frankenstein,” although his role in the sequel is strangely much smaller. You can tell they really wanted to focus on the Monster, realizing he was the moneymaking character; by the time the third film comes around, Frankenstein has died offscreen, and his adult son (played by Basil Rathbone) is in the process of…ahem…inheriting the family business, shall we say? As the man who made “IT’S ALIIIIIIIVE!” such a well-known bit of dialogue, Clive more than earns his place in my top three.

2. Peter Cushing, from the Hammer Horror Series.

While the ethics and moral standing of both Colin Clive’s Frankenstein in the Universal films, and Mary Shelley’s Victor in the original novel, are certainly up to discourse…there is no such debate with Peter Cushing’s take on the mad doctor. This is the second (and last) Frankenstein on this list, after Tim Curry’s version, who is just straight up EVIL. In fact, I may be wrong here, but I THINK this was the first time anyone depicted the character as an out-and-out villain before, at least in movies. Cushing’s Frankenstein is almost a Richard III sort of character, at least in his first outing of “Curse of Frankenstein.” We actually sympathize with him at the start of the movie, but as the film goes on, he becomes more and more of a dastardly scoundrel. By the end of the movie, even though his Creation certainly does their fair share of murder and mayhem, there is no doubt that Frankenstein himself is the REAL monster. And, like any great monster, Frankenstein seemed almost indestructible: in every single film, he would narrowly escape his own demise, and come back in another ready to try his experiments again. As the films go on, we see Frankenstein’s character change and shift, as he bobs in and out between a sort of sympathetic villainy and just being a cruel, callous, coldhearted cad. By the end of the series run, we realize there really is no hope for the mad doctor: he is lost in own obsession, unable to escape from it, even if he secretly sort of wants to. Never had the warnings of Shelley’s novel been so explicitly elaborated on, and - through good scripts and bad - Cushing carries the role with incredible power, dignity, and precision, his work just as meticulous as the character’s onscreen. While I personally will always think of him as Van Helsing from Hammer’s equally popular Dracula franchise, first and foremost, his Frankenstein is certainly nothing to scoff at, and is still widely considered one of the greatest.

1. Harry Treadaway, from Penny Dreadful.

On the previous list, I mentioned how Rory Kinnear’s take on the Creature (whom I shall henceforth refer to as “Caliban” for this description) was somehow one of the most faithful to Shelley’s version, despite the story of Penny Dreadful being obviously different from the original novel. I also mentioned that the Frankenstein characters of the series were probably my favorites of the whole show. (This is saying quite a lot, with icons like Dorian Gray, Count Dracula, and - most terrifying of all - Simon Russell Beale in the ranks.) Harry Treadaway’s Victor Frankenstein is not only no exception, he is the epitome: this was my favorite character in the show. Treadaway’s Frankenstein captures the spirit of Shelley’s original version, and mingles it with a number of new ideas and concepts, in a way that is absolutely spellbinding. This version of Frankenstein didn’t give up after his first “failed” experiment, and continues to look into creating life, for various reasons. The relationship between himself and Caliban is one of the most intriguingly twisted in the entire show (which, again, is saying quite a lot), as are his relationships with several other characters. Most notably, this one has Victor not only coming to grips with his own faults and actions, as he is lost in a cycle of poor-decision-making throughout the show, but also has him facing the idea that there are some things science just cannot explain or overcome. It was a great way of bringing the philosophies of a character and their story into a new medium, and it made Victor easily the most fascinating figure in a show filled with so many other interesting, dark, disturbed characters. I have no problems or hesitation whatsoever naming Penny Dreadful’s Dr. Frankenstein as my favorite take on the character. Case closed.

HONORABLE MENTIONS INCLUDE…

Samuel West, from Van Helsing.

As I’ve said in the past, I do have a soft spot for this very, VERY crazy “monster mash” movie. The opening sequence where we see Dr. Frankenstein’s deal with Dracula, and the creation of his Monster, is arguably one of the best parts, but West’s Frankenstein is killed before the 10 minute mark.

Dr. Henry Blackbrew, from V-Rising.

Just like with Adam the Firstborn, this game’s version of the Frankenstein Monster, “V Rising” created their own version of Dr. Frankenstein, and you’re even able to face him as a boss. Very fun, but I just didn’t think there was enough here to give him a slot.

Robert Powell, from Frankenstein (1984).

I mentioned this one on the previous list. This made-for-TV adaptation tries to follow Shelley’s novel in a truncated format, and has a very good cast. Powell does a decent job as the doctor, but the low-budget and untidy script don’t do his Frankenstein any favors.

Augustus Phillips, from Frankenstein (1910).

The very first film version of the mad scientist and his story…though, as I said on the past list, the film seems to misunderstand the entire crux of Shelley’s novel, reinterpreting Frankenstein’s quest for knowledge as more of a Faustian bit of black magic than actual science. Still, credit for kicking things off.

[multifandommadnessblog]

Narilamb; an in-depth(ish) study by Rachi that is totally deranged but maybe someone else will like it :) - aka it's her headcanons and stuff (with videos from other creators)

okay so why am i so obsessed with narilamb? uh... look i can explain i swear

Okay first off: my opinions here are probably very similar to many others and I know I'm not original in any way, shape or form. BUT, I like to talk (or type I guess).

SO... why is narilamb so good?? Most of us agree it's kinda pretty toxic. I see it as a relationship that was (heavy on the was) built on unhealthy power dynamics, manipulation and overall nuh uhs. To be clear it's kinda toxic on both sides, Narinder and lamb both at some point in the overall relationship do bad things and that's just how it is. it's complicated

but anyways

Idk how many of us actually chose to spare Narinder versus kill him at the end of the game (I personally spared him) but this is where a lot of these headcanons (and I'd argue the ship itself) starts.

When spared Narinder is escaping the jail that he was held in for thousands of years, but then forced to adapt to a new life in the cult. Which kinda sucks, and most of my headcanons center around Narinder going through some deep character arc (not excusing his previous actions) and learning to live life again basically.

and obv the lamb's personality is supposed to be based off the player since we play them, but I picture them in two ways:

Classic sunshine, happy go jolly. Their "cult" personality if you will - they're silly and goofy and meme worthy

Numb, cold and just trying to get by. Without proper support they withhold all of these negative emotions and experiences. They didn't want this - they just knew this was their only chance at life again (this video by Paper SU conveys this)

Part of me thinks that the lamb never wanted any of this cult business, they probably had a simple life before. The only reason they are here is because they truly don't have anything else. Their cult members don't really have the depth to help them, and lamb sees them more as children to live for than a companion or someone who truly understands their experiences.

then black cat babygirl Narinder comes in and BAM.

The two have been harmed by deep trauma without a proper outlet for it. I picture both having to live with these and just kinda hide that part of them (for Narinder it comes out as anger and falsely guarding himself so he doesn't get hurt again. For lamb they just hide behind this happy facade they put up, Ratau and his folks are the only ones who see some of what the real lamb is like)

When first interacting in the new dynamic (Nari is in the cult now) it's messy to say the least. Lamb finally realizes someone could potentially understand what they had been through for the past uh.... many many years. Ofc, Narinder kinda started it all but he also gave them life again. It's complicated, and lamb's feelings about it are also complicated. Narinder is just sassy and mean like usual, refusing to accept lamb as the new god, still angry from their (and others) betrayal, blah blah blah, kinda wanting to just live his new life but he has lived for so long in anger it would be weird to not...

and for a while lamb thinks it's not going to work :(

But then MmMMMMMMMM THE IMMORTALITY OF IT.

Okay look look, can we all agree that Narinder is canonly immortal (cause of his trait if you spare him) and Lamb ascending to godhood is immortal? Yes? Cool.

I love the idea that these two got literally all of the time in the world to figure out their dynamic and help to heal each other after all of their traumas. Even if they go through rough patches they have all the time to work it out and that just gives me so much hope :,) Cause in the real world relationships can't work like that so I almost feel like there is a pressure on relationships to rush through and never have extreme conflict bc there isn't enough time in life to work through it and still enjoy the time together (existential crisis)

A really great video I watched that (in my opinion) demonstrates this idea is this animatic by Strawdool on youtube! (it's also just really cute please watch it)

So even if these two are as different as can be, both mentally damaged and overall not doing so hot, one is angry as hell, and the other is in denial and just sad THEY GOT ALL OF ETERNITY TO FIGURE IT OUT. They can learn to live together because they know they will always have each other :>

I mean there is a tumblr post i saw where someone complied the official art of Narinder and it shows him just being kinda silly n goofy

i'm sure it's for the sillies BUT PERSONALLY I see it as Nari finally being comfy in his life (maybe a very long time after he is indoctrinated) - finally working on healing and he's just chilling

i wanna thank lamb for that, and i hope lamb also is doing just as good because of nari

please i need to write more of this its so unhealthy all of these ideas sitting in my little brain - for now i must shut up

(also I have SEARCHED FAR AND WIDE for fan content of this ship so if any of y'all are up for fanfiction or fan art reccs hmu I have many)

okay thanks

bye

[ca-suffit]

Do you believe lestat would've saved claudia if he had the strength to save both cause i saw alot of people say that Jacob too

I'm combining this with this other ask too

Did you see Jacob saying that in the trial (where they are gonna die where Claudia is gonna die) Louis hates Lestat but also falls in love with him again? Like what is that... :/

a) re: Claudia. It was not my initial reaction to agree with hearing that when Jacob said that, but having read the books and based on some other things I'll explain in a sec......yes, it's prbly true.

I don't remember if this was a fandom post here or not, but wherever I saw it, there was a post once getting into how someone can care about u but still harm u. This is usually the biggest disconnect between the fandom (and sometimes Sam Reid himself) and the character of Lestat. In his book, he talks about how he cares about Claudia. U do see examples of it in the show as well. But overall how much did *she* rly feel that from him? How much did he explain the motivation of his actions that hurt her? How many times did he chose the cruelest way to do anything? The fandom is ready to always excuse everything away bcuz of whatever reason in his backstory explains it. Does Claudia ever know this tho? What does his trauma matter to her when he's only passing it on to her in different ways?

There's been a lot of good comments I've seen regarding how he defends her in the trial rehearsals too. How he's allowed to abuse her but nobody else is. How he can compliment her there finally bcuz she's under the scrutiny of others and *now* that's his daughter, *now* that's his blood. I mean, he was always seen bragging when she'd "take after him" before too, but u know what I mean. There are multiple ways to look at all of this and I think they all should be considered. That is the point of the show. Book ppl who are only looking to excuse their fav character are missing a lot of commentary regarding patriarchy, race, father / daughter relationships and whatever else.

The trial, to a degree, does follow the books and Lestat *is* shown being distraught at Claudia's death there too. It's not an act but we haven't gotten more of the pieces yet from the show canon. It also doesn't mean he's going to suddenly change to become another character. A majority of what Louis is haunted by regarding Claudia is based in all the ways he feels like he failed her. That will most likely be Lestat's perspective too. A lot of their shared grief is how much they fucked up someone else's life bcuz of their relationship and how she ultimately suffered the most bcuz of it. This is a common struggle for parents to examine as their kids grow up and give feedback on the experiences of being raised by ppl who maybe didn't have their shit together v well.

b) re: Loustat at the trial. This again ties back to their history as a couple and as parents, as well as both coming from abusive pasts. On the surface, it makes no fucking sense why Louis would be sitting there having *any* positive thoughts about Lestat in that moment. But he's been hallucinating him for so long and waiting for him to be real again that some part of it is still a relief. Circumstances being what they were, when they first made eye contact, u can see and feel the shift. It's even timed in Armand's notes.

Louis has always struggled to "hate" Lestat. He wouldn't have been able to kill Lestat if Claudia hadn't been there, u see him struggle in the 70s interview, u see him struggle in the Dubai interview. Lestat is the first real relationship he ever had. Louis comes from trauma and is drawn to trauma and he passes on trauma to Claudia too. This is Lestat too. This is a large part of why their relationship and all of these relationships are so compelling. It's real, it's tragic, it's fucked up. Louis continuously wants to be with Lestat but also kill Lestat and it's for so many different reasons. Some are all about Lestat and some are about Louis and his own self-loathing.

Being raised in trauma makes u easily susceptible to codependency. Abuse can deepen this bcuz it can make a relationship feel more "real," especially if that's what ur brain has associated with "this is what being loved feels like" (which is what happens if ur abused as a kid by ppl u rely on to survive). It's been established that Louis doesn't like "boring," but stuff like this is not sustainable either, even for vampires. We're still in the "idk wtf I'm doing" stage of anything for all of them and we'll have to see where the show is taking us for what direction this goes in over time.

I mean, this scene sums it all up p well.

[rabbiitte]

I admit I only tolerate Ray cause I love Khao. but irl I'd run from a guy like Ray and never look back 🫥

Hey Anon!

Thank you for talking about Ray, I'll take this opportunity to give my opinion on the subject.

I feel like a lot of people only tolerate Ray because it's Khao who's behind the character, so you're not alone! Your thought regarding real life is valid, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's essential to understand that choosing not to want to be with someone who has addictions doesn't automatically imply thinking that person is a bad person. A person's first instinct is always going to be to protect themselves and setting clear boundaries is a big step toward that. It's not necessarily related to dehumanizing the person with addictions, but to recognizing one's own limits and needs. After all, addictions are complex and can affect the dynamics of a relationship in a variety of ways. While it's important to offer compassion and support to those struggling with addiction, it's valid for others to choose not to expose themselves to situations that may be detrimental to their well-being.

Still, the dehumanization of people with addictions (whether real or fictitious) is a real issue and it's critical to remember that people struggling with addictions deserve compassion and support too.

In this context, Top and Cheum's scene helps us to reflect on the matter. Cheum refers to Ray as some kind of animal they can only hang out with if they have him under control. Without having it under control, Ray doesn't deserve to hang out with Mew?

Personal responsibility: Understanding and supporting someone with addictions involves acknowledging the struggle, but not excusing actions that harm others. Seeking help and taking responsibility for one's own behavior is crucial.

However, it's essential that the audience understands the difference between understanding and supporting someone with addictions and excusing harmful behaviors.

Here are some tips to ponder whether we're excusing or supporting and understanding a person (real or fictional) with addictions.

Setting limits: Support involves fostering growth and positive change. If someone excuses harmful behaviors without the expectation of change, they are more likely to be crossing the line into the excuse.

Awareness of consequences: Understanding does not mean ignoring the consequences of actions. Those who excuse harmful behaviors can minimize the repercussions, while those who understand recognize the difficulties but do not underestimate the negative consequences.

Fostering growth: Supporting someone with addictions involves encouraging personal growth and looking for constructive ways to address challenges. Excusing harmful behaviors could involve passive acceptance of harmful actions without a clear drive toward improvement.

I'd like to add, much is said about how addictions affect Ray's personality but little is said about how trauma contributed to the origin of much of Ray's behavior patterns. In fact, many of Ray's behaviors (intensified by being intoxicated) are inherent to his personality. Ray's inclination toward violence, disregard for others' boundaries, possessiveness, desire to purchase affection, and stereotypical affluent behavior constitute his inherent traits. Even if Ray abstains from alcohol or drugs, these behaviors persist. Sobriety primarily enhances his capacity for reflection and attempting behavioral changes. The origin of Ray's behavioral patterns isn't in his substance dependencies but in his experienced traumas. His possessiveness, willingness for multiple relationships without preference and attraction to maternal figures like Mew or Sand stem from a deep fear of abandonment. In contrast, his violent tendencies trace back to the affectionless and hostile environment of his upbringing.

In conclusion, let's reflect and understand the way in which addictions affect Ray but let's not ignore that addictions aren't the cause of the problems but a way to cope with the inner real problems. In this regard, rehab can help treat addiction itself, but therapy is crucial to addressing the underlying roots of those behavior patterns. If the origin of behavior patterns is not addressed, unhealthy coping mechanisms may continue to emerge. Coping with and overcoming trauma, learning healthier coping strategies and changing those patterns takes time and ongoing effort.

[boxoftheskyking]

@shayvaalski FRIEND

I'm so excited to talk to you

So I saw this play, which was really lovely, and it's essentially about the writer and their relationship with their father, who was emotionally withdrawn and never really connected with his child, never talked to them, impossible to please, etc. Not a good relationship, caused a lot of harm. And as a result, the writer and their family did not have a memorial for the father when he died. So the play kind of functions as the memorial, dealing with the realities of who the man was, but also enacting a ritual - with the writer playing their own father in the piece. And at the end, he gets a really lovely and moving sendoff into death. There's acknowledgement of the harm that was done and never resolved, but then there's still this acknowledgment that this person has died, and a reverence and tenderness about that.

And I also have been seeing some arguments on the internet about certain characters in fiction who continue to have relationships with family members who have harmed them. People saying "characters should be allowed to just cut these people off, it should be normalized to not interact with people who have harmed them." Which, I mean, I feel some kind of way about bc they are fictional characters and cutting of the source of the major conflict in the story seems.... antithetical to storytelling. But whatever, I get the thing that they mean in terms of real life.

But then in engaging with this play, I saw this writer wrestling with the contradictions of this very harmful and painful relationship, while also feeling a need to acknowledge the death of a person in a ritual way. And it's Not "forgiveness" (which is not a thing I believe in personally - I get that the framework is helpful for some people, but to me it's super Christian and not useful for me, it's not the same thing as "healing" or "picking up and moving on" to me). And it's not really about the person who did the harm, it's about the person dealing with how to think about that person. It's not about the father, it's about the writer - the father is dead and is not watching the play.

But it really made me think about the principle of the Inherent Worth and Dignity of Every Person. And it's so easy to frame that is "it means unhoused people and people who are different from you." But it also means Assholes and Dipshits. And people who do harm.

And like even the person who has committed the most vile acts has inherent worth as a living being. And it actually makes the actions worse, I think? Because you have this spark of the divine in being Animated Meat and THIS is what you do with it? You have the tools to do good and all the potential in the world to nurture and wonder and care and you choose to hurt instead. But even after the action (since I don't believe in sin), the badness is not Inherent. It's chosen, sometimes repeatedly. And so when a villainous person (or abusive person, or person who has harmed willfully) dies, there's still a body-to-body instinct to acknowledge that the body that once had life no longer does.

It doesn't excuse and action and doesn't mean you should be Sad about it, but I think a thing religion does for me is challenges me to live with uncomfortable questions and in ambiguous spaces. Where maybe I'm not sad that a person is gone, or that they hurt, but I still believe that they are not Worthless, and that the fact of life within their pile of cells is still divine.

And to me it's different from like a Martyrdom thing where we suffer and say You can do bad things to me and I Forgive you and it makes me Shinier. But we can be like "What the fuck are you doing you dipshit, cut it out" and still believe that they have capacity to make other choices. Engage with the reality of harm and reduce the ability to harm people, but not decide that this still-living person is fully defined forever and could never act differently. Because harmfulness and callousness and all these negative things aren't inherent and born into people, they're actions chosen. Which we all have the potential to choose and need to work at not choosing. But the life and sentience itself is worthy of acknowledgment.

I don't know, I guess it's kind of basic when you think about it, but it's a challenging thing for my mind to hold, and makes me pull away from easy good/bad thinking, which I think is good for me. Which is I think what this old minister of my church from before the UU days mean by "freedom, fellowship, and character in religion," which I've always liked.

ANYWAY I always tell people I'm religious but not spiritual bc I don't really care about anything metaphysical/truths of the universe but I do find religion helpful as a way to make choices and spend my time and pursue integrity.

Blah blah

[ordonianhero]

Wild’s actions in the Sunset arc

DISCLAIMER: I would like to say I am not a licensed doctor or psychologist. I am taking this information based on things I have read and a bit of some personal experiences. Also like to note we are talking about fictional character, though we may feel a deep connection and see them as real through our own eyes, based on how we connect to them. So please dont take this too seriously.

So everyone remembers how Wild reacted when the shadow took Twilight down. He failed to listen to the Captain’s orders, and acting purely on emotion. Reckless. Most of wild’s reaction stems from his experiences with loosing people he cared for. PTSD if you want to call it that. However is you want to get much deeper into it beyond just “Oh well he watched all his friend’s die”, there’s a very deep underline reason as well and this is where in time with healing his impulsiveness will no longer be so and he will better think things through. An unconscious mind is never logical. It where all our feeling are driven by. It how we love,desire,fear,jealousy, sadness anger, and more. It drives our emotions and desires. His unconscious mind was working without the knowledge or control of a conscious mind. Our bains actually prepare for action 1/3 of a second before we consciously decide to act. Hence Wild acting with an unconscious mind. But who can blame him. I sure all of them wanted to react the way he did, he just happened to be the one who did what he did. Even if it ment putting his own life in danger. He just wasn’t thinking clearly and saw “red” as we can call it. So I even if he was to be thinking he was using his conscious decision, his unconscious mind actually made the decision for him.

Our conscious mind doesn’t control our emotions.

Now with that said, when it comes through experiencing things as traumatic as all the Links have experienced though their journeys before this very moment, it understandable why for some can be like Captain who knows they need to wipe out the rest of the enemies and avoid anyone else being injured, before taking on the challenge of taking on the shadow. Where as wild witness this evil thing hurt someone he deeply cares about and narrow focused on that instead of worrying about anything else. He was going to take revenge. Acting on emotion based on past experiences. There was nothing logical about it and its hard to understand this kind of behavior. Some might even want to say it could be about maturity as well, but I think no matter the age, we all been in a situation (and dont brush this off like “oh I would never do that, I would be like the Captain and know strategically they need to take on the rest before taking on shadow.”) where we responded through an unconscious mindset. Causing more harm then good in a situation. This how we get into emotional battle with friends instead of well communicating calmly in an emotion moment. I have done it and I have lost a few good friends cause of it. We make excuses like “Oh well-“ it doesn’t excuse the behavior. The lads havent had proper time to heal all their wounds and so their actions often reflect that of a unconscious mind. Why the Captain seem like he has a conscious mindset, cause he is trained in battle situations to know going in recklessly wont accomplish anything. Not saying he’s not emotional. Oh he is plenty emotional and probably hides it because in that moment emotions can not take part in that situation. At this point I think I have explained Wild behavior in the sunset arc.

So how can wild train to think more consciously then unconsciously? By liminal thinking, he can influence the unconscious mind. Giving back their ability to make rational and logical decisions. No longer influenced by illogically, emotionally,or irrational behavior. Reconditioning their unconscious mind. But again these are all fictional characters we are talking about, but in irl we as people can even train our minds to a more conscious way of thinking in emotional situations. WE are limited by what we pay attention to. Only noticing the things specific to ones immediate reality. The society someone grew up in, influencers in their lives and life experiences. Based on experiences and how one sees things, one makes assumptions. Through assumptions one draws their own conclusions and that how ones beliefs are formed. Beliefs being from everything what someone “knows’ to be true.

So wild in his reaction is was in the belief Twilight was dead, from the only info he was given. That he couldn’t be healed. There for dead. And that my friend is why Wild acting how he did, even when confronting Four. His unconscious mind was driving him.

Once he got away and mulled over it in a more conscious mind set, did he make something in hopes it could help. His emotions still there, but he was no longer being influenced by them. Thinking more logically. Not saying being emotional is wrong. I think everyone is allowed to feel their emotions, it more about what you do with them. You can be sad, mad, etc….and still be able to respond to thing in a less irrational way. Anywho. I think i said enough on this. I am curious what you all think? Feel free to share your thoughts. It’s encourage actually. Also there is no wrong answer here, everyone will have a different way of seeing things and that is completely valid. I just wanted to shared kind of a cool thing I learned that had me processing the whole sunset arc and wild’s behavior.

And as to what sparked this? I myself am going through therapy and going through the process of leaning to think with a more conscious mind then unconscious one when in tough situations. Just learning this stuff I find it pretty interesting and challenging at the same time. So that what got me thinking about Wild and is actions.

[paperstorm]

Your tags on that gifset hit home a bit for me, I think.. something I've found very difficult this season is seeing sort of a lack of compassion from some people in this fandom toward Carlos' tendency to avoid difficult situations and conversations. I understand that things are dialed up for dramatic purposes, but as someone who can relate to that tendency and also struggles with it, it's been upsetting to reckon with the idea that TK showing him kindness, grace, and compassion is too much, or that he shouldn't be. I understand people being upset by his actions and I don't want to invalidate those feelings, but I'm left wondering if the wishes for TK to have been harsher are a reflection of how these people treat individuals in their real lives who struggle with this as Carlos does. Again, I don't want to dismiss anyone's feelings, this season has definitely been polarizing, I just wish people would be more careful with the words they use.

I have a lot of compassion for anyone not enjoying his story this season because I don't think anyone wants to feel that way. I think there are people who have loved Carlos and were excited for this season and feel really let down by how he's been written this year and that's not a place anyone would be by choice. It's just how they feel, and that's gotta be really awful.

Idk. The writing has been somewhat sloppy with some of this, I don't deny that. But at the same time, Carlos is a person who spent his whole life until he was 26 years old feeling like he couldn't be fully honest about basically anything. Feeling like he wasn't safe to tell people his truths. That's not a thing you can just shake off or something that magically goes away the day someone falls in love with you. That's a lifetime of trauma and learned behavior. Of course he should have been more honest with TK but that's not a simple thing, for a person who's spent their whole life being guarded as a necessary defense mechanism. It's not an excuse, but it's a valid reason, and a little bit of grace is not unreasonable. Especially from someone who loves him. Sometimes it feels like the internet at large likes to talk a big talk about how supportive they are about mental illness right up until the point that someone starts displaying symptoms of mental illness, and then it's too far or they're problematic or they should've gone to therapy and fixed themselves or they're using it as an excuse or they're causing harm by daring to not be perfect. And Carlos isn't real. You can't hurt his feelings by not offering him any compassion. But other people are real, and they see those harsh and uncompassionate reactions, and that's where feelings get hurt.

[marshmallowprotection]

Here thinking...

Hello Kait, I hope you are well. It’s been a while since I visited your blog, but it’s always nice to see how you keep the MysMes fandom alive with your incredible character analyses. I would like to share a thought that has been on my mind for some time, but recently I feel the need to express it; Like everyone here, I am a lover of fictional stories… And what makes us immerse ourselves in these imaginary worlds? The characters! They are like the heart of every story, inviting us to explore alternative realities with their conflicts, dreams, and challenges. They make us laugh, cry, get angry, and sometimes even question our own perceptions of life.

Between the lines and dialogues, characters take us by the hand through their lives until we reach a turning point, an unexpected question. A while back, while discussing the details of my favorite characters with a friend, some heroic and others with more questionable behaviors, he asked me a question that left me speechless: “Would you still be enchanted by those characters if they were here, in the real world, in front of you?” At that moment, I found myself silent, without an immediate answer. It was a question I had never considered, making me reflect deeply on the line between fiction and reality, especially when it comes to characters who, though fascinating in narrative, could be problematic in real life. As fans of fictional stories and characters, we are often captivated by their complexities, traumas, and even controversial behaviors. We immerse ourselves in their lives, empathize with their motivations, and sometimes even hope for their possible redemption. Take the example of Saeran Choi (specifically in AS) in Mystic Messenger, a deeply wounded character whose toxic behaviors, though reprehensible, can be explored with depth and nuance. The game never justifies his violence towards the protagonist but provides contexts that originated it, inviting us to understand him without necessarily excusing him. It is precisely that level of understanding that can sometimes blur the line between fantasy and reality. 

We must remember that Saeran, like any other fictional character, exists within a carefully constructed narrative world. His circumstances and opportunities for change are predetermined events that cannot be directly transferred to the real world. If we were to encounter a person exhibiting similar toxic behaviors, it would be a mistake to directly equate them with our favorite character or any other fictional character. Every human being is unique, with motivations, traumas, and life trajectories that will shape their behavior and capacity for change in unpredictable and unrepeatable ways. More importantly, we should never justify, minimize, or romanticize violence and abuse, neither in fiction nor in real life. If someone is causing us harm, our unwavering priority should be to preserve our own well-being and set boundaries, regardless of possible explanatory reasons. It is true that some find in fiction a space to explore extreme behaviors and personalities, and I suppose they have the right to do so as long as they are fully aware of the line separating reality from fiction and do not desire such things in real life. Now, each of us has the personal freedom to decide whether or not to give a chance for change and forgiveness.

But that can never be an external imposition, but an act of personal healing that only we can determine based on our experiences.

I would like to pause here to talk about my personal experience with Ray’s route. Although Ray and Suit Saeran hold a special place in my heart, I cannot ignore that both have shown behaviors that are, let’s say, less than ideal. Their actions, though explained and contextualized within their story, are not excusable. That’s what draws me to this route: it allows me to walk in MC’s shoes, who remains firm and composed, without resorting to violence or submission, unless one is seeking a bad ending. I admit that at first, to unlock Ray’s route, it was challenging for me to adopt a rude and distrustful attitude towards the RFA. But I consoled myself by thinking that, after all, in the story, MC thought they were just artificial intelligence in a dating game, with no real emotions at stake. But when Ray confesses that they were real people already in the route, I would feel embarrassed with all of them! 

Haha. But as I progressed in the route, I was able to regain my kindness and earn magenta hearts by helping and supporting the members and Ray.In my first playthrough, I chose not to suppress my feelings when Ray showed his more obsessive side. His comments, like wanting to hack my mind so I only thought of him, or claiming that I was ‘his’, made me genuinely uncomfortable. I couldn’t just please him by telling him what he wanted to hear all the time. Therefore, I responded honestly: 'I’m suffocating ’ or 'I’m not yours’. And yet, I managed to get his route. It was a relief to find that balance where I could be honest about my feelings towards unhealthy behaviors without being rude and move forward in the game. Regarding Suit Saeran, this character emerges when Ray is forced to take the elixir for violating Mint Eye’s rules imposed by the Savior. Under the pain and suffering caused by the drug and everything that has happened, Suit Saeran takes control, and the situation becomes complicated for MC. 

Despite insulting them and locking them up, and although his actions are inexcusable, deep down, it is understood that he does it to protect them and Ray. In a state of extreme fear, fearing being hurt again as they did with Ray, Suit Saeran thinks that by locking up MC and maintaining the facade of a torturer, he will keep them safe from the Savior (still struggling to understand what he wanted or not with all this), who planned to get rid of them. Despite everything, Suit Saeran realizes his mistakes and, towards the end, tries to do the right thing, without expecting forgiveness from MC. This is something that deeply moves me: even in the darkest moments, there is the possibility of change and redemption without forcing forgiveness, a theme that is further explored in Ray’s After Ending.

This is my experience and perspective on the character and his story, and it does not imply that everyone should feel the same. Each player has their emotional journey and reactions to the story. For me, forgiving Saeran was an act of understanding towards the character and giving him a chance to do better, not an excuse for his actions. 

And although I chose to forgive, I understand that others may not feel ready or willing to do the same due to heavy experiences, which is VERY VALID. The important thing is that each person has the opportunity to understand the story in their way and make their own decisions, whether to stay and explore the character’s redemption or walk away if their hearts so desire. In real life, we also face decisions about whether to forgive those who have hurt us or give second chances. Each person has their process for dealing with pain and harm, and each must have the freedom to choose the path they feel is right for themselves and others. No one else can dictate how we should feel or act in response to the harm we have suffered. 

Forgiveness, unforgiveness, reconciliation, permanent resentment, distancing or closure are personal and deeply individual choices. What is important is that each of us make choices that lead us toward healing and wellness, whether in fiction or in our reality. Don’t forget the importance of taking care of your personal well-being in all aspects of life! Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts, Kait, take care of yourself!

—SUBMISSION

That’s the ticket. It’s important to ask ourselves what feels right for us. We can’t focus on others all the time, and while what we choose may not be what others may choose, we have to do what’s right for us. If you decide to forgive someone, that’s your choice, and nobody can take it from you, just as you can’t take what another person chooses away from them. If you can’t forgive someone, that’s a choice for you, but if someone can forgive them, that’s a choice for them. That’s something that’s hard in this world when we’re confronted with forgiveness. So many societies teach us to forgive and forget.

But, you don’t just have to do that.

Forgive and forget is only one answer, not the whole.

I am sad when people claim that there’s no choice in Ray Route, or within the After Ending, when the theme embraces the notion that your autonomy is yours and nobody can take it away from you. You don’t have to forgive Saeran, nor do you have to forgive Jihyun or Rika after that, but the game gives you choice for that and it doesn’t shame you for it. I’m glad Cheritz took the response from V’s After Ending to heart because forgiveness is your choice, just as much as your judgement is. You shouldn’t be shamed for being angry, nor for choosing to be someone who never forgives, and vice versa.

I forgave Saeran with the knowledge that he proved to me that he was willing to better for himself. I saw the remorse in his actions, not just words, and that’s the path that compels me to have faith in him. I’m not the forgiving type in real life by any means, I’m more akin to Saeyoung’s belief in hard lines when I’ve been hurt a great deal. But, I’m more likely to muse on my feelings if someone is actively... and I mean, ACTIVELY, trying to do better. 

Suit Saeran apologized and promised to get you out of Mint Eye to start his journey of atonement. Before his apology, he tried to do what he could to get Rika away from you, but when that failed, he knew something had to give and that was his fear of the outside world v.s. his fear of the Savior. Those actions don’t excuse his wrongdoing, but it proved to me he wanted to do better, and it wasn’t to make himself feel better.

Ray began to realize he was wrong near the start of the Route, and he tried to backtrack on the worst of his actions. He was afraid to see you leave, but he did what he could after damning you to Mint Eye seemingly. He made a fake elixir to protect you, he lied to the Savior knowing the risk, and he came close to thinking about leaving willingly before the kiss. Again, it doesn’t excuse his choices up to that point that were wrong, but he began to do the right thing once the pieces in his life became clear.

I choose to love and forgive them because I saw them try to do what’s right, and I could see underneath their pain that they were good people who wanted to do the right thing underneath the manipulation, drugs, and torture they suffered at Rika’s hand. That was my choice. I know what they are and I know what they’ve done. But, in my heart, I forgive them and accept them into my life knowing they proved to me they could do better than their lowest moments.

Does that mean anyone else has to forgive them?

Nope!

You don’t gotta forgive those boys for anything.

This is a game where we can suspend our belief in reality and that means how we feel towards the story may not apply to our real world. Would I feel the same about these two if I lived the situation? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone in the fandom could know for sure unless they were thrown into the story without a drop of insight on the matter. I’d like to think I would still have my heart ready to choose kindness but never ignorance. I’ll never know for sure, and neither will any of us. But, that’s an interesting thought!

[corvosdaughter]

curious about your doto thoughts. i only played it once and reasonably enjoyed it (if anything, i had more issues w dh2) so im interested to read about your experience

sure thing!

first off i want to be absolutely clear that this rant is 100% petty. doto didn't, like, burn down my crops or (to my knowledge) influence any kind of shitty trend or real world harm. i don't have issues with gameplay, art etc which are ultimately bigger draws in the series. and the story was straightforward and mostly internally consistent, so ignoring the prior games, even that could be worse. but despite arkane claiming it worked as a standalone, much of the narrative's weight DOES rely on previous games. so i think it is fair to measure it up against previously established aspects of the series, and find it wanting.

when i saw promo material i thought the concept was... flawed. to be exact, i mean the idea of a) daud and billie going to b) kill the outsider because c) he's responsible for the awful shit in the world. any one or two of those points wouldn't have given me pause, but all three together seemed pretty contradictory to what we knew about the setting and the characters.

the outsider isn't responsible for the awful shit in the world. he just isn't. i do not think the previous games could possibly have emphasised this more. his direct actions are giving a handful of people magic powers and some hints, but what those are and how they are used (IF they are used) are shown to be completely reflective of the individuals both in story and gameplay. the average person in the empire is not affected by the existence of the marked at all. there is no evil magocracy. the closest thing, delilah's reign, is a takeover of the entrenched power structure and it can be defeated with the protagonist's own outsider-given abilities.

gangs, corruption, police states, religious control, wealth inequality, spreading of disease - these are the real issues that the citizens of dunwall and karnaca face daily, and they are completely independent of the outsider. time and time again we see that casting him as the source of society's ills is a hollow excuse for the perpetrators; it's exactly what the abbey does as it kidnaps children and murders "heretics". as a player, why would i think about killing the outsider when there are so many rotten institutions right there? it's even worse when dh2 portrays him as a historical murder victim himself, who seems to prefer it when people don't abuse their powers, even if he cynically expects they will.

and no one should know more about human choice than daud, post his dlcs. like, his entire character arc was realising that whatever the outsider gave him, he alone was responsible for his actions, so he must bear the consequences. it all comes down to his canonical low-chaos speech in dh1, after seeing corvo deliberately NOT slaughter his way through life: "you took a path i could have followed, but did not... you choose mercy. extraordinary." we are given every reason to believe his desire to retire peacefully is earnest and something he follows through on. the story's premise would be cheapened if he didn't.

as i see it, the key theme of dh1, its dlcs and dh2 is that, while privilege may blind and power may corrupt, there is always the choice to do better, and it is often the harder choice. and look, i think the doto writers may have been trying to expand on that. what about the root causes of privilege and power? who draws the lines? who can best try to take the system down, and what happens when they do? fair questions! but doto looks for the answers in all the wrong places, and so is at odds with the other games instead of in conversation with them.

it's kind of perfect that doto is so resolute in downplaying agency, really. if you're going to ignore the details of the stories you're building on, why not go the whole hog and make your message completely antithetical to theirs.

billie is the player character, but she is not in charge. she pretty much just goes along with whatever daud says, though she's not his young protegee anymore, and she had plenty of autonomy back when she was. there's so much focus on what daud's done and his mission and his angst about how he turned her into a killer and she's the one who has to carry out this job because he's dying etc. when they first reunite he asserts that he knew she'd come find him. because her life is supposed to revolve around him, i guess? ugh. a sprinkle of sentimentality is fine and even heartwarming, like the writers intended it to be, but to have it as The Story in this way just gives the impression that she's little more than an extension of him.

sure, you CAN technically question daud's idea of the outsider's culpability at the end, but 1) daud's dead and 2) the conversation goes straight back to whether the outsider should die for what it's asserted he's done. anyway, one argument in favour of saving him is "this wasn't his choice, he never asked for this power" lmao. it's just like how billie's void powers are forced on her (in an awfully uncharacteristic fashion by the outsider, i might add) and we're not supposed to worry too much about any carnage she causes with them.

the chaos system was one of the most interesting ways to deal with the violence = bad problem in violent video games. in doing away with it, doto pays lip service to the idea by having daud and billie wallow in guilt about their pasts, but there are no external consequences that might prompt actual introspection and a change in behaviour for them and the player. this means if you slaughter entire buildings of people, it's no biggie, nothing changes, never mind the fact that the story is trying to pose some ethical questions about murder. it also means daud is extremely annoying the whole way through. but hey - it's totally compatible with the theme that choices don't matter that much.

yet for something that's trying to be so different from its predecessors, i do think that doto relies a little heavily on nostalgia. if you aren't attached to the characters at the start, i doubt the game comes close to the emotional peaks it does otherwise. the narrated splashes aren't gonna do it alone - imagine if dh1's prologue didn't let you play with emily and simply told us that corvo looked after the empress' daughter - and there's not much character development throughout. i was definitely moved at times, i'm not going to pretend i wasn't! but often i felt it was despite the execution, not because of it.

also, "black-eyed bastard" was said way too much.

another issue was that i felt a lot of the script was written and delivered in a manner that wants to make you go "hmm, how thought-provoking", but the questions raised are never explored or answered meaningfully. even the ending is a stubbornly vague "i don't know..." i got a little sad when i noticed just how often potentially meaty bits of dialogue were redirected. it made those moments come across as insincere and non-committal even if they sounded good on their own. as an example, mid-game billie asks "is the outsider to blame for what we did? does corruption come from the void or from our own hearts?" then keeps talking about her plans to kill him. if she'd instead reflected on who was responsible for her current actions, even if there was no firm conclusion, i could believe that the story was trying to have a genuine discussion about the blame game that we could learn something from. but it's not that deep :(

overall i just feel like doto tried to take Cool parts of dishonored without always considering all the details that made them Good. a gruff assassin who has beef with god is a cool character, but he's a good character because of the specific arc he went through, and the version that shows up in doto is even less self aware than the one at the start of dh1; billie is cool because of her badass checkered past, but she is complex because her desire to be part of something bigger often conflicts with her independence and businesslike practicality, characteristics that doto doesn't really touch on; the outsider is cool as the powerful inhabitant of a supernatural dimension, but it's the distance from his devilish portrayal in the empire that makes him unique and interesting.

on a meta level, i've never seen anyone indicate a dislike of the outsider as a character, and to me the implications of his existence in the void is the most iconic part of the worldbuilding. killing OR removing him means arkane gives up the easiest, most sensible way to make a future dh game feel like Dishonored. it might never happen, but why close that particular door?* there was lots of speculation that the game was tying up the series for the forseeable future, which was probably true, but simply closing off the kaldwin era would have been enough for that. plus a smaller scope would also have been better for a small game. cosmic upheaval really deserves more gravity than doto was able to give.

what alternatives do i think might have worked? well, going back to the three points i mentioned earlier:

not centred on daud and billie, aim is still to kill the outsider who is believed to be responsible for everything - maybe a particularly zealous young overseer tries to actually do something about the outsider

centred on daud and billie, aim is not to kill the outsider, who is believed to be responsible for everything - maybe they can bring about the downfall of the abbey for good

centred on daud and billie, aim is to kill the outsider, who is not believed to be responsible for everything - maybe they have to reluctantly mercy kill the outsider for some void-related reason, or save him from someone else trying to assassinate him.

could work with any concept (i.e. i totally thought this would happen) - either billie or daud replaces the outsider in the void.

i did have issues with dh2 as well, and honestly they laid the groundwork for much of what i didn't like about doto. while i think the series always has fantastic incidental writing (whatever the collective word is for audiographs, journals etc.) the main stories have never been masterpieces, and dh2's attempt to lean more into character study wasn't super successful imo. to make some characters more sympathetic they sanded off some awesome unpleasant edges - why sokolov of all people got sad-dadified i'm still puzzled by. there's a lot more exposition. i preferred the more detached outsider from dh1. some references to dh1 and the dlcs were too fanservicey for my taste. but i think the biggest hint of things to come was the time travel mechanic - the focus was clearly "this will be really cool to play" and not "this is going to open a huge can of worms on the narrative level which we should try to address thoughtfully", the same way priorities probably were when it came to doto's "kill a god" setup. i get it, they're video games, not books. but this is how you get the insanity that IS the dishonored books. lol.

* i'm not counting deathloop as a dh game, and i haven't played it, but i read that the connections to the dh universe are more than just a couple of easter eggs. imo that does neither any favours - the dh timeline gets boxed in, and it makes deathloop look like its developers don't have faith in it as a standalone ip.

[writingsbychlo]

Please don't take this wrong, i'm not trying to be rude at all, it's just curiosity but how can someone love a book that romanticizes rape? Because Zade literally rapes her with a gun and the author confirmes that he did it. I know it's dark romance but rape is a real thing and there are so many victims of rape. They're struggling with it and sometimes it leads to suicide. I live in a country that women being murdered and raped nearly everyday and it's a scary topic for me.

Also I grew up with the stories of women who had to marry their rapists :/ Romanticizing something like that is just feels strange.

I'm not judging you or anyone. Judging is not my right to do, im just asking. Please pleeasse don't get me wrong <3

I’ve popped some trigger warnings on this, but please skip this answer or skip of these are sensitive topics for anyone seeing this!!

hi! so, I absolutely get what you’re saying, and I have to be honest, I had no idea just how dark it was and that those were prominent themes when I picked it up! I’d seen a very romanticised version of it on tiktok and I was so unprepared; which is why I stressed a build-up to it so much on my other ask about it!

I do recommend this book, though! firstly, while I do not excuse or condone any of the behaviour in this book, and I appreciate that the writer confirmed it, but it’s always read more like non-con and dub-con to me! now, I’m not saying a woman is ever ‘asking for it’, but Adeline toed a very dodgy line in the first book, she really played with fire, constantly pushing the limits with Zade to see just how far he would push back. she did not respond in the healthy way either. she tempted and pushed and let her curiosity get the better of her.

again, not saying that what happened is at all right, but the settings and features of this book aren’t at all as black and white as real life is. it’s very blurred here.

secondly, I think one of the underlying themes here that drives so many people crazy is the obsession part. Zade is absolutely obsession with her, wholly and completely, and some people crave that kind of dedication and adoration. Zade never had malicious intent behind his actions, and I think that’s the difference.

He used very very bad ways in an attempt to show her his love and to get her to love him back. He never wanted to hurt her, and that’s also a difference here. In the real world, these things happen because someone wants to take and hurt and abuse, in fiction, Zade is just a very dark man who wants to love and cherish and protect. He wants to take her for himself but not to harm.

Despite having very little boundaries with those kinds of things, and I know it sounds so ridiculous to say in the face of it, Zade is actually very respectful and caring. It sounds fucked up and out of place, I know, and without dissecting the whole plot to explain it you’ll just have to trust me on it, but the difference is that we (as readers) inherently understand that Zade is a good man, who just does that particularly bad thing, which is part of a grey zone.

it’s a very dark, very blurred book, and you can only really understand once you’ve read and thought about it.

however, I do not have your daily experiences and life, and so I cannot fully understand your perspective either. thank you so much for your kindness and respect in the face of something that must’ve been difficult for you to see, and it’s my bad for not trigger warning them, which I will do now, using the tag #tw: dark romance — which you’ll be able to blacklist.

I’m sorry for any upset I might’ve caused you, I hope this ask can at least explain a little of my POV, and I hope you’re happy & healthy & safe my lovely 🤍

[be-the-glenn-to-my-maggie]

You know I like to think of myself as a pretty open-minded person. Fanfiction, in my opinion, has always been about exploring whatever you find interesting within your fandom. You're allowed to write about anything that you want and if someone doesn't like it then they don't have to read it. But let me tell you, this mindset has been severely tested by some of the Quaritch content I've seen. I'm totally fine with fics that portray him as a villain and person at the same time because even bad guys brush their teeth and all that, but guys. He is not a good person. I want people exploring him as a villain, not as some redeemable or misunderstood person. That's not what anyone working on the movie intended for him. The way he destroyed Hometree without a second thought? The way he obeys a horrible corporation mindlessly? The way he rubbed Neteyam's death in Jake's face? The way he had literally no problem killing and hurting those around him in order to find Jake and his family? The deaths of hundreds of people both na'vi and human rest on his shoulders! You don't get to justify that with "oh, well he's just misunderstood".

I try and find the good in everyone but I just can't see anything good in this man. Anyone who causes the type of pain he caused and feels no guilt (or even worse: thinks that they're justified in their acts of hatred or that the other party are the people deserving of punishment) has no good in them. And that's okay! People are allowed to acknowledge a good bad guy, and I think Quaritch is pretty interesting as far as bad guys go and there is a lot of fic potential for that very focal point. But that's it. There is no excuse for his actions and no redemption in his future and the day karma finally catches up with him (again) will be the best day in movie history.

I am very curious as to what fandoms you've been a part of before if this is the first time you've seen this phenomenon. By that, I mean the phenomenon of a fandom excusing the actions of a (typically white and male) villain. I find it to be pretty common. To me, it's one of the scariest things in media and fandom today. I've made a ton of posts about it, but I like to call it the Darth Vader trope. The idea that one good act or one scene of past trauma can wipe a slate clean, with no regard for the systematic harm caused, no reparations, and no work done to actually change and evolve as a character. I find it to be a really dangerous thing to show. The idea that so many people can rally around these actions just being swept under the rug, that they will get mad at you for even reminding them they occurred, is really terrifying to me. Media does not exist in a vacuum, and if so many people are that eager to move past genocide in fiction? It is for parallel reasons so many do in real life.

Trauma is not an excuse, it is an explanation. Change is a long process, and with serious, real world issues such as the ones Quaritch represents, time and effort are owed to the marginalized groups affected. If Avatar is really supposed to be a movie inspired by the beauty of indigenous cultures and the horror of what happened and is still happening to them, then I think fans excusing Quaritch are really doing something quite disgusting in ignoring that.

(If you want to spend as much time freaked out by genocide as I do, Genocide Watch is the place for you! They don't have the US on alert rn, but they fucking should! Also they're a lOT Pro-Israel in their alert on that, but there aren't many places to keep up on current genocides sorry).