#there's a much bigger narrative and a more nuanced take here but I don't feel like writing it atm. this post is about found families and

[chaoticvictorianspirit]

Actually, I like codependency in fiction. Let people love each other exactly in the way they long for and need. Just because they are capable of functioning seperately doesn't mean they have to when all they want to do is spend their days together and share the tiny blip of existence they have left with one another. And I'm sorry but I'm tired of screenwriters pretending that learning to be miserable on your own is somehow a superior story arch as well as a moral virtue somehow. Maybe you want realism in your fiction but I for one want my comfort characters to morph into a singular entity. I want to treat them the way I did gummy bears as a child and just leave them out in the sun until they melt together into one solid block of sweetness. Reality is already depressing enough. Friendships end. Love fades. Life gets in the way and seperates people who aren't ready for their journey together to be over yet. Loved ones leave us all the time and sometimes there's no good explanation and it's unfair and painful and too often there's nothing you can do about it. And sometimes the one person you wish you could talk about it with the most is the one that's leaving and it fucking sucks. [And I get that this is precisely why we need these themes in fiction to confront these feeling and cope with them in a setting removed from reality but that's not what this post is about damn it.] I just wish this weren't the only angle we got. I wish we also got the "easy" happy endings, the unrealistic friendships, the kind of closeness that isn't portrayed as weighing you down but rather lifting you up. I wish fairytales weren't only for children and I wish adults didn't take such pride in forgetting they were children once, too. Can't we at least have the nice things in our little made up worlds?

TL;DR: Girls should get to have their little escapist delusions. As a treat.

[ialwaysknewyouwerepunk]

Hey Ella. I thought I'd come to you with this because you always give off a kind and sympathetic nature so at the very least I won't be treated like a shitty person for what I want to say.

I'm really struggling with Harry atm and it's actually kinda devastating because I never saw this happening. There is so much around Harry that I vehemently dislike, from the people around him to aspects of his public image and narrative. I was so good at separating all that from Harry himself but lately I've been feeling my bitterness bleeding onto Harry. I've seen this happen so much. People who were originally fans getting annoyed at small things and that growing bigger into bitterness and hate. I don't want to be one of these people.

What is making this worse is that I as a person do not place a high value on things like career and ambition. Not in my own life and not in others. So it's getting hard for me to relate and support Harry in his ambition as to me there are infinitely more important things in life. This wasn't a major factor before because his fame and success wasn't at the level it is now.

I honestly don't know what I'm trying to do with this message. I guess I would just appreciate some perspective if you're willing because I genuinely do not want to start resenting Harry. Honestly just typing this is making me tear up.

hi kind anon, i think you're dealing with a pretty common problem in the fandom these days. it's tough to feel like you don't relate to someone you really always felt comfort with. maybe a first step is to take a breather from the fandom as well as gp/main media talk about harry. no twitter (and i'm not saying this bc i have a weird biased thing against twitter. it's a place where opinions are thrown around like it's something ppl have been begging for, like it's fact, and it's really hard to keep reading opinions and debates without getting influenced), no harry content on instagram, no tiktok. i am not interested in anything others have to say about him, and i actively shield myself from it. i don't watch videos others have made with commentary, i don't read articles, i don't even read discourse on here usually. i think the habit of picking everything apart, of making sure you focus on the negative to properly enjoy the positive, is unhealthy, or at least for me. i know myself enough to not fall into blindness or naivety when it comes to what's wrong with enormous success and the industry. i just don't feel the need to get into it every time harry achieves something.

when it comes to harry's ambition and success, i just know (from what he's shown over the years, but the full extent we never will) how much it means to him. i think it's also a mix of actually wanting to be big for him and getting as high as he can to prove that he can to everyone who told him he couldn't. i don't relate to it either, and i don't think it's cool to have all those riches, but i still cry with harry when he cries of joy at his madison sq garden banner. i'm okay living with that nuance without always debating it. i love his music, i love his artistic vision, i love his lyrics, i love the way he carries himself. i also know i don't know him, that i never will, and that there are things he does and says i don't agree with. i have the exact same thing with some of my lifelong best friends, as they have with me. i'm okay with that. happy, even, of how unique and imperfect we all are

what i do, and what keeps me so in love with harry beyond the noise of the gp and the fandom, is focus on what makes me love him. remember that this is an interest, something that makes you happy, and not your object of study, or your career in politics. enjoy it all for you, enjoy it offline as well. and then, i guess, if that doesn't do the trick, a few steps away from harry and all that surrounds him might be necessary to let go of the bitterness. bc you can also just stop liking something, and that's also okay

[starlightshore]

Thanks for the Measured Response™. Unfortunately the character limit doesn't allow for much nuance in asks. My issue isn't so much with the character's actions as the way their conflict is framed. It always feels like we're supposed to judge Asriel way harsher - for ghosting the person responsible for their trauma - than Chara, who is actively trying to hurt them. I know you don't want to trivialize abuse, but the story still botches the subject pretty badly. Still, good luck with the rewrite.

(sighs) please anon, while I do appreciate the effort to acknowledge the lack of nuance in the previous ask, I would much rather you approach me more reasonably. I don't appreciate you coming to me, a complete stranger to both of us, with this attitude of already guilty. can you please learn to talk to people more reasonably? like, I'm living my life out here and you come and accuse me in a really rude way of promoting abuse or whatever the far-fetched conclusion that ask could come across as.

I am more than happy to accept fault over my writing and do my best to improve, but I want to do so on friendly, acceptable terms. please withhold condemnation and explain how and why you feel the story was mishandled. You do so really nicely in the second ask and I appreciate that.

Ultimately, regardless of my intent, my story didn't convey the message and that's, at the very least, mostly my fault. I can try to explain why I'd argue I didn't fuck up as badly as you paint me as, but I will accept that the story I wrote was not emotionally paced well made it weigh more towards cruelty without the hope and understanding I wanted the story to be read as.

I want to stress that I take abuse deadly seriously. I'm a victim of emotional abuse myself and this is something I am desperate to portray in all of its ugly, dirty detail and I want to do it without hurting people. I obviously failed when I first wrote this and I want to say thank you for coming to me about it, even if I feel there is still some friction here I want to express that gratitude. But also please be aware of how you approach people. (referring to the OG ask here).

Anyway

i wanna defend myself here a little and say I think you're missing the bigger picture of the framing of that scene. I feel you forgot the context of that scene and where it's placed in the story. It's this post.

Previously, that entire chapter had Chara idolizing the Asriel they knew as a child. Their timetravel ability being removed meant they longed for that power to control the narrative and live in the past. its like, metaphorical shit for how when growing up its hard to move on from the past and accept that you're aging.

That scene was the point where Chara realized that Asriel wasn't perfect -and has never been. The story is framed by Chara's POV exclusively and navigates Chara's feelings about their separation from Asriel. The "abuse" of that scene is the feeling of an older sibling telling them to "fuck off" and "stop acting like a victim" which are like... like devoid of the context of Asriel's perspective (which we didn't have at this point in the story) is a very hurtful and emotionally damaging thing to say to someone. I can see how someone reading that, who could have been through a similar situation, would react very badly to seeing that in the comic. Thus the content warning. I honestly don't know if "abuse" is the right word here, but what is someone going to have blacklisted for this? Like I said, my goal is to avoid hurting so I'm not going to not tag it. It's an issue of vocabulary vs. accessibility. I still wouldn't know what to tag this tbh.

the overall narrative of the comic is that Chara's perspective of Asriel was holding themself back. they were wallowing over a perfect picture that never existed -which reflected how they hate themselves for not living up to the perfect angelic ideal that they obviously could never have lived up to.

Chara condemning Asriel for being Flowey and being a jerk is the first step towards chara acknowledging their own blame in the equation. pretending the problem doesn't exist and that you're inherently awful doesn't fix things. Immediately after tossing out Flowey, they realize they are a flower as well. (literally becoming the thing they just condemned Asriel)

Once The two reconcile with the help of Actual Adults in the situation, the story changes POV to Asriel. It's then we're given context to Asriel's perspective and to show, that yeah, both of them Suck as people. That both are capable of majorly fucking up. And that's because the tools they're given a life of trauma and being reborn into a world that doesn't understand your damage is in itself traumatizing.

so idk man. the framework here serves a purpose and while I plan on showing a more nuanced and balanced pace -I really need to show the characters having more things going on than their larger conflict + be happier with each other. (the problem with writing for an askblog is that its very reactive and its easier to lean into tension and relationship drama than focus on the lighter but necessary moments. I know for sure the redraw will be better at this)

But yeah the framework, as it stands, feels good to me. Maybe in the details of how it's shown I'll be able to handle the nuances more gracefully but with the larger goal in mind, I'm not sure how I can change that? I would really love to hear your thoughts on that.

[sapphire-weapon]

Alright, Aeon Anon. I'll throw you a bone, because I get it. I know what it's like to genuinely be interested in/curious about something while also not wanting to lose face. But in return, I'm gonna ask for you to start talking to me like a normal goddamn person because there's absolutely no reason we can't all just fuckin be cool here, man. Nothing that we're talking about actually matters. It's all make believe.

Here's why I don't like Aeon:

It's all telling and no showing, and as a result, I don't know what those two see in each other or what a fucking loser like Leon has to offer someone like Ada, who is objectively smarter, more mature, more independent, and more stable than he is.

We're told everything about their relationship, but we never get to see anything play out. Ada tells Leon that she fell in love with him in RE2. Leon says he's still attached to her in RE4. Ada says that they met up to bang prior to Damnation. Helena says that Leon has feelings for Ada in RE6. But we don't get to see any of that, because their on-screen dynamic after RE2 has been reduced to ACTION HERO POWER HOUR!!11 with absolutely no depth or nuance outside of the actual mission objectives that they're both pursuing.

Like -- say you're at a party, and someone comes up to you and tells you that some drama just went down and now a girl from your class has retreated to a room by herself to cry. Now that you've been told that, you know that. Intellectually, you know that that's happening, and you can form an opinion of "well that sucks" but you probably won't think about it much deeper than that.

But say you're at a party and you go into another room just to take a quiet moment for yourself, and you're met with a girl from your class sitting on the bed all by herself, sobbing into her hands. Now, you've seen it, and you're in the room with her so you're a part of the moment with her, and you feel that.

That is what's missing from Aeon. We, as the audience, don't get to share those quieter, emotional moments with them. We just have to trust that they're happening because the characters keep telling us that they are.

And so when a writer treats a relationship as something to be told, not shown, and then tries to do what RE6 did and have Leon's feelings cloud his objective, professional judgment, it feels out of character and unearned. It's the payoff for something that was never built up -- and that's all that storytelling really is. It's just a series of build up -> payoff over and over and over again, for every part of the story. So, when you skip that first step, you'll end up with a huge chunk of your audience looking at your payoff and going "how the fuck did we get here?" That's why so many people were pissed about Leon's characterization in RE6. The relationship didn't earn the reaction from the character, because the on-screen writing never put in the work to actually receive catharsis from the end result.

But that leads into another, arguably way bigger issue with Aeon, and that is:

We only ever get to see the relationship from Leon's perspective because Capcom treats Ada like an accessory to Leon's character and doesn't allow her to be her own person in her own right. Ada's relationship with Leon holds her back so much from a narrative and character advancement perspective.

I would probably be much warmer towards the ship if the two of them really were their own separate people living separate lives that sometimes crash into each other unexpectedly – but that’s not what the ship is. It’s what Capcom, I think, intends for it to be, but that’s not how they write it. 

Leon is his own independent person doing his own independent thing, but Ada very much is not. Ada does not exist in the story without him with her. And I don’t fuck with that. It makes her less of a character and more of just an extension of Leon, and Ada as a concept should rightfully be so much more than that.

Think about all of the really important plot things that Ada is actually involved with. She worked with/for Wesker for at least 6 or 7 years, and we don't know why. She then went into RE4 already intending to betray him and actually goes through with it, but then we never get to see the consequence of her doing that -- despite the fact that she just threw away a years-long relationship with Albert Fucking Wesker, the single pettiest man on the planet. Then she gets involved with Derek Simmons and gets him so completely wound up over her that RE6 happens, but we don't know how or when or why that happened or what her goal actually was.

We don't get to know any of that, because the only time she's ever allowed to be shown on screen is for the explicit purpose of creating melodrama with Leon.

And because so little of her backstory and personality is actually written out and tacked down, Capcom uses her simultaneously as a melodrama dispenser and a "Get out of jail free" card for anything they need to wave away or explain in the plot. How the fuck did xyz happen? Oh, Ada did it. How why or when? Doesn't matter -- hey look, Leon's being sad over her again! Isn't that more interesting???

No, Capcom, it's fucking not. It's not fair to Ada's character to make her so damn important and then never let her actually play out that role, because Capcom's writing staff would rather use her screentime to serve as a vessel for Leon's manpain.

And, as an unintended consequence of that, it also hurts Ada's character in the sense that she's woefully underdeveloped and -- despite being arguably one of the main characters in the series -- has no backstory, no character motivation, no observable character arc (post-RE2, at least), no personality outside of "ooh she's mysterious~", and no character flaws that would make her more human and sympathetic to the audience.

Every single part of Ada's character suffers because she's forced to serve as Leon's love interest. It's sexist and fucked up and reinforces her racist Dragon Lady stereotype, and the entire narrative of Resident Evil as a whole is worse because of it.

My beef with Aeon has absolutely nothing to do with "weh weh Ada's mean to Leon" or whatever stupid bullshit braindead Leon simps come up with. My beef with Aeon is one that has its roots at the most fundamental level of the crafted narrative and the character writing. This is not a ship problem. This is a writing problem. This is a sexism and racism problem.

Leon, Ada, and Resident Evil as a whole would all be so much better off if the entire series was rewritten from the ground up to remove their romance, and that's why I have so much hope for the Remake series taking this franchise to far greater heights -- because that's exactly what it's doing.

[breitzbachbea]

Now that you mentioned it I am very intrigued by your human Hetalia au, go on

Thank you very much anon!

So. Basic concept: A world very much the same as ours, but acting mostly hidden from the public eye, are national crime syndicates in every country. Pretty much all are spearheaded by the boss of one noteable family that ensured that position some generations ago (those bosses are the Hetalia nations, ordinary Humans here) and two right hands. The AU is called Like Father Like Son.

Now, these syndicates are very much globally connected and when it comes to each other, act less than actual organized crime organisations in real life and more like monarchies or other types of state conducting diplomacy. Also, as is very unlikely for real life and much more common for royality, the bosses have usually inherited the business and had no option to opt out/felt it was the right thing to do. This is nuanced along the way, but again, stark difference to the volatile infighting and general hierarchies from real life organized crime (where the successor is probably NOT the 17 year old son, but a trusted right hand).

But they are, at the end of the day, gangsters. They fight for their own survival and supreme status within the other criminals in their own country and amongst their peers. (Alexa, play 741 Millionen by Tüsn). They don't represent states or governments or even people. They're in it because power is nice and the sunk-cost fallacy is too great to get out.

But because I am a history nerd, they still reflect certain phases and struggles and ideas about nationhood, like their Hetalia counterparts actually would. And here is where it gets interesting.

The protagonists of the AUs mainseries, called also called Like Father Like Son with the subtitle Sangue cattivo non mente on ao3, are the Irish and the Sicilians. So it's my Hetalia OCs (though I borrowed the Sicilian from a friend) Harry O'Connel and Michele Vento, plus Harry's younger sister Sophie O'Connel, and the Human-from-the-start right hands Paddy O'Neill, Charlie Higgins and Marco & Lorenzo Bontade.

And if you're looking for an Irish villain, where do you look to? England. Always the Brits. 'May the enemies of Ireland never meet a friend'. Which is why Arthur Kirkland, along with his right hands Robert Bailey and Tahir Rashid, serves as antagonist to the Irish in many stories. And of course, this makes it easy to present the fight as underdogs vs powerful evil empire, along the line of actual historical conflict. (I am oversimplifying, but we aren't here to argue details right now and in broad strokes, it IS right). If the reader has an inkling of Irish or British history, they will see the parallels. I, as the author, work it into metaphors by the narrative entity (usually occupying one character's POV, tho not to be confused with the character being the narrator). I work it into the general themes, with characters talking about history or historical/cultural backdrops. And of course, by that the characters themselves draw the parallels and pull on old stereotypes to rage against their enemies. Arthur likes to pull out the old stereotypes of the Irish being a belligerent, backward and unreasonable race when he paints Harry as a troublemaker. Harry will paint Arthur a tyrant who can't stand to see another man free when he feels entitled to his property and life. It's so enticing to believe that you know where to stand, to know where's right on the merits of history and the real world alone.

But as soon as you take a step back, you realize how they merely use something bigger and greater than themselves to fight their petty wars. Paddy and Charlie rail against the English after they've kidnapped Harry, they say Arthur thinks the world should grovel before him because it's his righ as an Englishman. But they're never alluding to anything bigger than themselves; yes, Irish are being kicked down, but it's just them. And sure, they may say an Irishman doesn't give up and that's what the English shall see, but it's the rhetoric of revolution without its goals. There's no British threat to Ireland - no fight they can align themselves with, because Arthur certainly isn't aligned with any either. Truly, if they were so committed to it, they would look with more sympathy to Tahir, whose parents came from Pakistan in the 1970s. They'd appeal to him, see the parallels of history with Ireland and the British Colony of India. But while the English tyranny rhetoric is usually reserved for white Arthur and Robert, at the end of the day, Tahir's also an 'English pedant' and haughty prick to them. And Tahir, similiarly, doesn't have much sympathy for the Irish, seeing them as annoying obstacles to their business dealings. He's in this to give his family a better life, he knows there is nothing grand about their enterprise. They all know that. In quiet moments, amongst themselves, they even express it. The farce they play; that the ideals they want to hold they betray; that they are a cancer on the people and country they love.

And I just. I love that. I love how it still has the themes one can ask in more substantial explorations of Hetalia - the constraints of free will, bearing the sins and burdens of the past, how much you can be an individual and how much you are a role. I love how it makes them true individuals, in the end, how it employs history as something that is interpreted from the witnesses we have to the past and told through our own eyes. How it seemingly creates this parallel to real history, but when one steps back, it shows that it's play pretend and it makes the reader sympathize while also keep its distance at times, enjoying a story that is fundamentally about a lot of people making the wrong decisions and living with the consequences. It's a tragedy, a meta-level of mourning - with none of that hope for a future that any reading of history can have.

Thank you for coming to my Ted-talk. I am currently rewriting the main series, because what is up on AO3 was written by a fourteen to sixteen year old and therefore, isn't very good. However, you can still check out my other writing (and the not very good mainseries) here. I also like to make lots and lots of AUs with the many Human characters and the Hetalia characters where they're not burdened by being organized criminals. You can find my ramblings about many of these AUs on my sideblog @i-centri-degli-universi . You will also find a few written works for some AUs on the ao3 already linked.

Thank you for your attention. I hope you have a grand day, anon, as well as everyone who read through this.

[mchiti]

oh you're so right about the fairytale underdog narrative. they view these players as one-dimensional and they have no capacity to have a nuanced view of them like normal people or give them any benefit of the doubt the way they do with other footballers. it makes me sick. during the aboukhlal situation, a fairly popular football blog here posted '*extremely cautiously* at least we still have ghazali right?' and i was so confused bc i thought she was talking about the song lol. turns out she was talking about sabiri but of course couldn't remember his name lol and she said some people call him ghazali...ok sure. i sent a polite message that what she said was weird even if it was about sabiri because she was basically saying 'oh this one moroccan player has done something let's hope this other one i like is not the same'....as if they're a monolith.....anyway she ignored my message and then turned off anon when i sent a follow up lol. and made a post like 'i can always tell when someone actually cares about issues and when they just want to feel better about themselves'. like bro i have more in common with these muslim mena footballers than you (a white girl) do, why would i need to make myself feel better. i care about this because when you're racist against them it affects me. sorry for ranting but it's been weeks and this still bothers me so much and just makes me feel so disheartened. you don't have to post this if you don't want to, i know that situation caused you a lot of distress too. i think you understand me though

"some people call him ghazali" mmmmmmmh sis!!!!

in all seriousness anon ❤️

I'm thankful I haven't seen that post because I would have gone absolutely crazy wallah. I get angry at many things on here and I try to not dwell so much on it. I get angry at double standards, I get angry at (white) people clearly not understanding there is another side of the world that is not western, I get angry at people expecting people like me or you to distance ourselves from everything, as if white players didn't do lots of questionable shit all the time too. If mudryk hypes israel up more than once that's not a big deal, but hakim gets cancelled for a poor choice which was, unlike the other one, certainly not a political statement anyway. That really tells you pretty much what you need to know about what western, europeans and white people in general perceive as issues, and what they can blatantly close their eyes at. I see casual shit on here all the time and it's sooo normalised. And the world is so much bigger, with so much injustice, with so much struggles and genocides the football world often even finance.

They truly thing of the "Arab world" as one single monolith as someone even told me on here the other day so what do you expect (it's all Arab to them). They are going to see an entire group of players as one. And if your from any mena country you're thrown in that too. I can distance myself from them as I certainly do not go post about hak*mi. In other cases, like aboukhlal, I certainly don't agree with them but I try to be empathic of what might have lead to that (which is not even Islam in reality, it's diaspora struggles). With Ziyech this time around I'm just so annoyed at the general response because truly, you can say he made a poor choice by going to russia but he hasn't made any political statement and you see all those dutch white people talking about him as they would talk about any moroccan there...cause he's a thug "hanging out with criminals" to them. Cause he's maghrebi, muslim, son of immigrants. You know this is the same shit a lot of people have internalised, even when they think they don't, even on here. but yeah. They are the one who want to feel better about themselves, cause they joined the morocco bandwagon so they we could all say thanks to them for being "progressive" - yeah sure. Take care and apologies for the rant ♡♡

[mrs-monaghan]

is it weird if it makes me glad you post about jk and his little "jeonlous"/possessive moments towards jm? i tried talking about it on a few jikook blogs in the past and got called out for it and i don’t really get why some jikookers are so careful to even suggest jk might be a bit possessive of his bf.. meanwhile some other jikookers greatly exaggerate those moments or see them everywhere. jm is insanely attractive, he has this sort of special aura and magnetism that makes both men and women be drawn to him, i don’t find it weird that jk could be a bit worried about that. i honestly found it quite cute, but i was told i should question myself if i find display of jealousy cute cause it’s toxic blah blah blah so i started doubting myself. but i wasn’t talking about toxic behavior, jk never came across to le as controlling or creepy or anything like that but just madly in love and probably a bit insecure. much less now it seems, i’m happy he seems more confident. for some people it seems that there is no nuance, it’s either good or bad.. i like reading your posts, you don’t seem to be constantly on the edge it’s appreciable really

Is JK more confident, or has he learnt how to hide it?. Thats the question

First of all, people who say Jikook don't get jealous.. fuck these people with a cactus. People be shouting Jikook is real from the rooftop but nitpick which parts of their relationship are worth acknowledging. Some have been brainwashed by big accounts that hate the jeonlous, Jimlous narrative. Which I get. Alright? I understand. This has been greatly exergerrated but it doesn't mean it's none existent. And I already touched on this before; it's not even jealousy its mostly annoyance. Or irritation. Jikook can't Jikook without members having aneurysms but its okay for other members to be all over Jimin? All over JK? Of course it's gonna make them feel some type of way. I for one don't think JK worries a member is gonna take Jimin from him. Not even Suga. 😂 (we don't talk about Yoonmin 🤫) I think he trusts his man 1000% so his reactions are not about that. And there is nothing wrong with pointing this out. It doesn't make u a bigger person to pretend that Jikook don't get jealous it just make u a hypocrite.

I'm gonna go ahead and drop this Jimlous moment simply because I can and because I feel like it.

JK doesn't say "I love you" often unless it's to Jimin. He says "I love you too" to the members, but he rarely says "I love you" first. Infact I'm having a hard time thinking of a time that has ever happened. During this festa JK even admitted its hard for him to say "I love you"

But we know that's not true, i'nnit?

OG tweet here

Anyway, that Jimlous moment up there could have been because JK never says I love you but suddenly he just goes "Jhope I love you" I can see why that gave Jimin pose. Even Jhope was surprised 🤭🤭 BTW that TT hasn't been edited or manipulated. OG moment here.

Also while I was looking for the OG moment I have to point this moment out as well.

That was Jimin being embarrassed by his boyfriend's behaviour and I find it hilarious.😂😂 that moment sits at the same table as this other moment of Jimin apologising for his hyperactive boyfriend 😆

Gosh. The way I love them 🥺🥺🥺

Also I'm glad u like my blog. Bless 😘😘💚

[agonycrossbow]

Why I don't like Aeon:

It's all telling and no showing, and as a result, I don't know what those two see in each other or what a fucking loser like Leon has to offer someone like Ada, who is objectively smarter, more mature, more independent, and more stable than he is.

We're told everything about their relationship, but we never get to see anything play out. Ada tells Leon that she fell in love with him in RE2. Leon says he's still attached to her in RE4. Ada says that they met up to bang prior to Damnation. Helena says that Leon has feelings for Ada in RE6. But we don't get to see any of that, because their on-screen dynamic after RE2 has been reduced to ACTION HERO POWER HOUR!!11 with absolutely no depth or nuance outside of the actual mission objectives that they're both pursuing.

Like -- say you're at a party, and someone comes up to you and tells you that some drama just went down and now a girl from your class has retreated to a room by herself to cry. Now that you've been told that, you know that. Intellectually, you know that that's happening, and you can form an opinion of "well that sucks" but you probably won't think about it much deeper than that.

But say you're at a party and you go into another room just to take a quiet moment for yourself, and you're met with a girl from your class sitting on the bed all by herself, sobbing into her hands. Now, you've seen it, and you're in the room with her so you're a part of the moment with her, and you feel that.

That is what's missing from Aeon. We, as the audience, don't get to share those quieter, emotional moments with them. We just have to trust that they're happening because the characters keep telling us that they are.

And so when a writer treats a relationship as something to be told, not shown, and then tries to do what RE6 did and have Leon's feelings cloud his objective, professional judgment, it feels out of character and unearned. It's the payoff for something that was never built up -- and that's all that storytelling really is. It's just a series of build up -> payoff over and over and over again, for every part of the story. So, when you skip that first step, you'll end up with a huge chunk of your audience looking at your payoff and going "how the fuck did we get here?" That's why so many people were pissed about Leon's characterization in RE6. The relationship didn't earn the reaction from the character, because the on-screen writing never put in the work to actually receive catharsis from the end result.

But that leads into another, arguably way bigger issue with Aeon, and that is:

We only ever get to see the relationship from Leon's perspective because Capcom treats Ada like an accessory to Leon's character and doesn't allow her to be her own person in her own right. Ada's relationship with Leon holds her back so much from a narrative and character advancement perspective.

I would probably be much warmer towards the ship if the two of them really were their own separate people living separate lives that sometimes crash into each other unexpectedly – but that’s not what the ship is. It’s what Capcom, I think, intends for it to be, but that’s not how they write it. 

Leon is his own independent person doing his own independent thing, but Ada very much is not. Ada does not exist in the story without him with her. And I don’t fuck with that. It makes her less of a character and more of just an extension of Leon, and Ada as a concept should rightfully be so much more than that.

Think about all of the really important plot things that Ada is actually involved with. She worked with/for Wesker for at least 6 or 7 years, and we don't know why. She then went into RE4 already intending to betray him and actually goes through with it, but then we never get to see the consequence of her doing that -- despite the fact that she just threw away a years-long relationship with Albert Fucking Wesker, the single pettiest man on the planet. Then she gets involved with Derek Simmons and gets him so completely wound up over her that RE6 happens, but we don't know how or when or why that happened or what her goal actually was.

We don't get to know any of that, because the only time she's ever allowed to be shown on screen is for the explicit purpose of creating melodrama with Leon.

And because so little of her backstory and personality is actually written out and tacked down, Capcom uses her simultaneously as a melodrama dispenser and a "Get out of jail free" card for anything they need to wave away or explain in the plot. How the fuck did xyz happen? Oh, Ada did it. How why or when? Doesn't matter -- hey look, Leon's being sad over her again! Isn't that more interesting???

No, Capcom, it's fucking not. It's not fair to Ada's character to make her so damn important and then never let her actually play out that role, because Capcom's writing staff would rather use her screentime to serve as a vessel for Leon's manpain.

And, as an unintended consequence of that, it also hurts Ada's character in the sense that she's woefully underdeveloped and -- despite being arguably one of the main characters in the series -- has no backstory, no character motivation, no observable character arc (post-RE2, at least), no personality outside of "ooh she's mysterious~", and no character flaws that would make her more human and sympathetic to the audience.

Every single part of Ada's character suffers because she's forced to serve as Leon's love interest. It's sexist and fucked up and reinforces her racist Dragon Lady stereotype, and the entire narrative of Resident Evil as a whole is worse because of it.

My beef with Aeon has absolutely nothing to do with "weh weh Ada's mean to Leon" or whatever stupid bullshit braindead Leon simps come up with. My beef with Aeon is one that has its roots at the most fundamental level of the crafted narrative and the character writing. This is not a ship problem. This is a writing problem. This is a sexism and racism problem.

Leon, Ada, and Resident Evil as a whole would all be so much better off if the entire series was rewritten from the ground up to remove their romance, and that's why I have so much hope for the Remake series taking this franchise to far greater heights -- because that's exactly what it's doing.

[plesstandby]

holy sht Whiplash 5🌟

and it was directed by the same director of La La Land?? that makes sense. sorry help- I am legitimately struggling to form my words, so excuse me as I'm just using whatever reason and logical conclusion I can gather to cover up my utterly impressed backside because WHAT DID I JUST- NO WAY THEY WERE ABLE TO CAPTURE THAT

dear God. that was mindblowing. the film clearly depicted the self-destructing path towards attaining perfection. Visuals of the overflowing blood on Andrew Nielman's hands; veins popping from taut skin as Terrence Fletchley unleases another onslaught of swears; the sweaty and degenerative state of the drummers as they are being pushed to their limit; the slow melt of passion into all-consuming rage. that movie set a fire to my soul that I do not think I can extinguish. It is insane and unbelievable to me that such a movie exists.

ever since the "his eyes softened" trend, I could not stop noticing the delicate sensitivity and nuanced expressions of actors in films. It is almost as if I had been granted lenses to see the world more tenderly. The brief and very real flickers in their eyes evoking a humanity that can not else be replicated in a snap of a finger. The art of subtle acting, they call it. And oh how I am so in love with the intimacy of those last few scenes when Andrew and Terrence locked eyes, their gazes fiery with condemnation. they were unflinching as they dared each other in their silent duel to be better, to be one of the greats. it takes my breath away. there are layers upon layers of meaning in this movie, and if you strip away the extremisms and the nuances from the acting, there laid in all its glory is the stock of it -- this enthralling story that has been intuitively planned out. And it must be because as I have read in here that the director, Damien Chazelle, had gone into painstakingly detailing how each of the shots were going to go and he did that by hand-drawing 150 storyboards while chasing after deadlines. He was able to effectively story tell what I personally think is a very demanding and usually misrepresented narrative of a gifted loner whose fire for drumming gradually scorches him alive. I love how personal the director took the story. Like this is genuine storytelling. The uneventful and awkward blips transmitting echoes from a bigger story that is muddied with the strong and emerging characters from another plane of reality. This movie never fails to entrap the notion that there are multiple stories going on. By using the silence of the protagonist, they pull the audience into this disorienting sweet spot of being in your head while your body exists detachedly in an outside place in the world. This zoning out brought by the protagonist's want to be someplace else other than here was never pointed out in the story, but I felt that it was in these sceneswas the soft, vulnerable and hurt side to Nielman revealed. And it was that side of him that drew me closer and made me feel sympathetic for him. When he struggles to form conversation topics because his whole world is drumming and music so he hides behind a jaded and uncaring pretense to appear cool and still fitting societal norms. In that sense, I identify some parts of myself as like him because I more or less do the same thing. I zone out a concerning amount because I find myself wanting to work on my personal projects rather than, well, learn about polynomials? Then there is also my ambition and the self-sacrifices I make on my health to feed my creative obsessions, to reach my high expectations. All my free time and efforts I pour into my personal endeavors and whenever people don't cast as much as a glance on my ideas, my plans or even as me as a person, there is this burgeoning volatility that runs hot beneath my skin, waiting to burst. This I suppose is why I like listening to Eminem's alter-ego "Slim Shady" (I was just enjoying his Marshall Mathers EP earlier this morning). Whenever he lets his mouth run, a river of coarseness and horridness flows out and circles round my ears in a way that makes my heart flutter. I am so happy when people are themselves. And fury is an emotion that I do not emit often, but I'd imagine that if I cared less, womanly rage (with all its might and power) would radiate from each and every spur of my alighting body. I yearn for that full release. For rage to take over my body so that I may feel fluid with my punches and shouts. Anything for my anger and repugnance for all of everything that deserves it to be felt like a universal shockwave. And whenever masterpieces like this gets produced and especially when rage and ugly desperation are the main emotions-- I feel it. the universal shockwave

Then, the fact that this is also a bit autobiographical as the author has identified himself as a jazz drum prodigy in a similarly competitive environment (Princeton High School Band). so he knows firsthand how it felt like. and I find it so beautiful how Chazelle seamlessly makes the transition of his personal experiences and incorporates it into the movie, making it realer and more fleshed-out. It is a success on all levels. This movie has inspired me to make fanart or perhaps a fanfic of it... someday. It is that cool.

[pinkroseblooms]

THANK YOU!

Seriously, not to harp but this is the exact sort of thing that kind of keeps coming up in JJK that keeps me from loving it. Like, I love it, but also...there's a pattern here I dislike and megumama is a prime example of what that is and some bigger issues I have when it comes to how JJK handles characterization, particularly when it comes to the women.

It just irks me how female characters like mamaguro are so central to the plot, to the motivations of male characters and their arcs, heavily influence how they act, etc. but damn this woman doesn't even get a name. She's just Toji’s dead wife and Megumi's dead mom. We don't know anything about her except how her death impacted their lives.

Don't get me wrong, Gege generally has this habit of introducing characters and then they get sidelined or, ya know, unceremoniously killed/gravely injured, but his male characters get so much more focus and development in comparison and they hardly are ever used as plot devices in the narrative for female character's stories/arcs. There's literally a scene where Momo is about to fight Nobara in the tournament and she's like "I'll teach you what it means to be a female jujutsu sorcerer!" and it is immediately interrupted by Panda and Mechamaru's fight and the story goes into their back stories and stuff 😐.

That sort of sums up how Gege views a lot of his female characters. They're mainly there to serve as plot devices, background, or eye candy. They will always take a back seat, maybe a passenger seat, in comparison to their male colleagues. Gege has no problem writing these interesting, nuanced, compelling, three dimensional, and quickly iconic male characters (Yuji, Sukuna, Gojo, Geto, Toji, Megumi, etc etc.) and as much as I do love Yuki, Shoko, Nobara, and Maki, they feel so overlooked and underused by the story.

Genie's Rambles

I think Megumama is the true MVP of JJK, period.

Cause just imagine JJK verse if she were still alive. Toji wouldn't have spiraled down to his self destructive lifestyle, he wouldn't have left Megumi, wouldn't have returned to being the sorcerer killer, wouldn't have taken the commission to kill Riko, Riko wouldn't have died, Gojo wouldn't have awakened early, Geto wouldn't have a midlife crisis at 16 and become a racist mass murderer, Megumi would've grown up with a complete happy family because you bet Megumama would keep Toji tame, Toji would've given up on gambling and fucking around because he'd be too smitten with her and maybe that way he'd have a better relationship with Megumi, Riko could've enjoyed her youth a bit longer before assimilating with Tengen so Tengen's state would've been more stable, Geto wouldn't be killed, Kenny wouldn't have gotten his hands on his technique, and if still by sheer shit luck shibuya still happened we could've had Daddy Toji making a bitch out of every curse user/curse, Geto wiping the floor with Mahibitch AND GOJO WOULD NEVER HAVE GOTTEN SEALED! And there's SO much more!

We don't even know Megumama's name, but SHE is a BIG catalyst of JJK and people don't talk about this enough. We could've had it all if only Gege was a bit less of a sadistic kitty... *sigh*

Rest in power, Megumama. Throughout heaven and earth, you truly did no wrong.

[hamliet]

I'm very sure you might've answered this somewhere, but what is your take on Eren's character arc in total?

Do you think the story was too kind to him?

Do you think his actions should've had more positive consequences?

I've been revisiting the story now that a pretty good amount of time has passed and I think my biggest true issue is that the ending was so 'selfish'.

AoT generally acknowledges all perspectives, but I feel like the ending was too skewed towards the main cast and the "bigger picture" suffering was kind of an afterthought.

Somehow I just can't imagine the more empathic characters like Jean and Connie not even mentioning the grander suffering Eren caused by the end.

It feels like rather than including another perspective on the matter, the narrative was skirting around it a little for at least a somewhat hopeful ending for the cast because if realistically 80% humanity gone means 80% Earth gone, there is no hope for a future for *anyone* in the longer run and that really does make the Alliance's effort of stopping Eren pretty pointless.

And that's fine for the point that blind, selfish genocide doesn't really solve the issue of people being people or racism or anything like that, but I feel it's more as a result of the narrative being selective than natural theming.

I love that it breaks the whole cult of personality thing with Eren, though and depicts him as this pathetic, screwed up dude in his manbun form.

It really is only him and his friends who benefitted from his actions in any way.

Also I feel Annie's line about him not caring about himself has been a pretty overlooked element of this whole thing.

His actions are destructive in many ways, including self-destructive and his genocide still didn't prevent Paradis from being at least war-torn.

He gave his friends the rest of their lives, but it was at the cost of literally the rest of the world.

I can see people being uncomfortable with the scene of people going to see his grave, but he also did save Paradis from certain destruction for a time.

I get it, but I also wish the story really had at least one of his friends be more critical of the consequences *after* he was gone.

Something like "he saved us, but at what cost?"

A little more "telling" in that aspect?

In general, I think it was fair to Eren, definitely not too harsh, but neither was it too light. I don't think his actions should have had any more positive consequences at all haha.

I think I am in the "it was fair to him" category, but I do think the final conversation with Armin could have been framed a bit better, like with a comment much like you say here (at what cost?). Isayama himself said he felt he oversimplified it a bit there, and I think this is the case.

That said, I think people being uncomfortable with people visiting his grave is missing the point to an extent--or at least, the fact that Eren's loved ones visit his grave is, I think, important to the themes.

There's the deep humanity of SnK that made me actually like that, even if I think the majority of people won't accept visiting his grave. I think people tend to live in black and white this day and age, welcome people in or out. The reality is that even if someone you love turns out to be a fascist or a monster or any number of things--it doesn't change your feelings immediately. The "right" thing for you to feel is not necessarily hate--it's obviously a moral imperative not to deny it or to excuse it. And some may hate or cut ties, and that's okay. But that doesn't happen overnight, and even if you end up cutting contact, that doesn't change the impact a loved one has had on you. You will always have once loved them.

So, I think the end message of Mikasa's arc captures this nuance beautifully. Even if Eren is a monster whom the world justifiably loathes or honors for his monstrosity (which means his evil continues long after his death, so he's still harming the world), he saved her once, and that's something she refuses to forget simply because she doesn't want to forget it; for her, that moment was beautiful in a sea of horror. She didn't excuse him: she executed him for his crimes, to stop him, and she and the others live their lives to stop him post his death by telling everything. But because she loves him, she's glad he existed. It's not about morality.

It's just that he was born, and he existed, and she loved him. She accepts that without moralizing or justifying or faulting herself for this love, or feeling pressured to shrug it off and forget, or pretend it wasn't love.

[starbright-cobweb]

spaces for people with shared political goals and material oppressions are all well and good; but it also means a constant source of microaggressions like "I do still feel my relationships are lesbian ones - because men are incapable of love and tenderness" and "I don't entirely relate to being a man because I am gay and also feminine" and "I feel like there's something so much safer about loving women and queer people instead of men" and "isn't identifying as binary a non-radical recapitulation to straight culture when you could identify as something cool instead?"

being a man in radical communities is like seeing this additional frequency to the world because you don't have that personal/political escape hatch of "you know what, I'll just label those parts of me/my politics that are complex as not-a-man"

it feels like a real gap in a lot of people's theorising. When the topic is abuse, failing to consider men as potential victims/and non-men as potential perpetrators leads you to theory that is just wrong. You have to look for a bigger narrative, a deeper truth, beyond the superficial.

& with stuff like "men don't love" and "gay men aren't men", it just feels like missteps and missed opportunities to consider manhood as an expansive category; and that, in turn, leads to "man isn't a radical, nuanced or politically confrontational identity". Well, no, not if one is persistently pretending "man" is a synonym for "the worst person i have ever met".

but when your personal gender place is, "there but for the grace of God, a cis man", it does feel like a stronger vantage point. Because you can't go through the escape hatch. You're stuck in it.

Beyond a point, it just isn't radical or true to take such a reductive view of manhood. I feel like I'm in the zone of experience alongside cis men who are both comfortable in their gender (personal) but in tension with their gender (cultural), & i suspect that this experience is not just common, but close to universal. & that man does, in fact, have infinite space inside it to be and do and feel these other things, and that it should be a goal of gender radicalism to express and celebrate that, to make every man feel he can unknot a little tension and relax into it and expand a bit. Especially because the fear of "not being a man" is the fundamental animating force behind cis men restricting their gender expression. Casually implying that expressing tenderness, treating women well, being gay, being feminine un-mans you is in many ways just a re-stating of patriarchy.

(& i want to stress that the critique here isn't people experiencing and articulating personal relationships to gender - which will always be nuanced and individual; it's not unreasonable for individuals to be like "look, i do live in a society, and so long as culture defines 'man' like this, i don't feel welcome at that party and i'm gonna stay home and do my own thing". It's more the way that those relationships then lead to political perspectives, both formal and casual, that take as given that 'man' is a venn diagram of Elon Musk, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Harvey Weinstein. There's a lot of people in the man category, who are comfy in the man category, who are more-than-aware of its challenges and contradictions. The request is not for people to change their personal gendered expressions, experiences, relationships or words, but to be a bit more thoughtful when stating general truths about the world and ensure the framing is accurate and kind. Considering man as a contested and expansive category richens and strengthens gender politics.)

[thecoleopterawithana]

Honestly, I really never had much interest in John and George's relationship not even their lsd experience I don't find it all that fascinating considering they both acted like huge jerks to Paul and acted foolish. Also George sure could be a great guy goodness, did he opinionate his feelings onto his and John's LSD experiences well, this "me and John had takes on thing Paul bever understood" Childish and unnecessary. Paul wouldn't have that if he were on the other side. Gross

Hey there! Sorry for the somewhat long period of radio silence, but this past week was filled to the brim in ways I’m not very used to dealing with, and online leisure activities had to somewhat go down in the priorities list…

But thank you so much for reaching out and for giving the chance for there to be some exchange of opinions on this subject! For while I accept and understand your point of view, I have to remain by my initial statement of fascination not only in George’s and John’s relationships but also George’s and Paul’s, and perhaps more importantly, George’s dynamic with the astounding force that was John & Paul together. 

Actually, all the dynamics within the family unit that was the Beatles, and between them and the people that came into contact with the ‘four-headed monster’, are what sucked me into this rather recent obsession in the first place. They lend themselves wonderfully as subjects for the examination of human nature and all its interacting intricacies… 

The comparison of this particular band to a tightly knit family is nothing new, and you’ve probably come across various analysis on their respective roles within it before. Labelling John as the ‘father’, Paul as the ‘mother’, George as the ‘son’ and Ringo as the ‘uncle/cousin’ makes it so people can quickly grasp the interplay that occurred between them. But on the other hand, trying to fit people into boxes of easily understood tropes is terribly reductive, and a lot of the little nuances and complexities are lost along the way. 

In the same way, trying to hold people up to an image of themselves they try to present or one we try to impose on them ourselves will inevitably end in unmet expectations and disappointment. People aren’t perfect. There is often a disconnect between how they innately react to stuff and how they ideally wish to be. This inconsistency may come across as hypocrisy if we try to hold them to a certain version of themselves and find that it doesn’t always fit. All the Beatles, like the human beings they were, exemplified this one time or the other. 

George could wish to always be his wise enlightened self, who understood the illusions of this world and how loving and accepting one another is what it’s truly important. He could know all this but still, there’s always an ego. He can both enjoy the advantageous position of a quiet observer and feel frustratingly muted by it. He can both look up to John and covet his approval and attention and be hurt and bitter when faced with the other looking down on him. He can both love Paul and expect him to take care of Stuff, and still lash out when feeling smothered or infantilized. A lot of people wish to be put-together, mature, know how to best deal with their emotions. But the emotions are there still, and they may manifest in attitudes we may deem as childish. And they were, for quite some time, practically children. Of course they knew they were hurting and alienating Paul! But still, as I’ve said before, George felt he was now being both seen by the person he always admired and sticking it to the one who always treated him like a kid. 

(And it’s curious to see that while John seemed in public commentaries and other known anecdotes to be far more dismissive of George and his talents/contributions than Paul ever was, the younger man appeared to resent the latter far more for patronizing him… Maybe it was because Paul was about as young to John as George was to him, and the first pair chose to hold themselves on the same level while still justifying looking down on George himself. Again, see? Repeating patterns of inconsistencies breeding disappointment, and with it, hurt and resentfulness…)

Though please don’t also try to hold Paul himself up to a perfect, mature ideal. You too will find yourself disappointed… As the human he was, he too couldn’t help but have his flaws, despite his life-long effort in ignoring/covering them up. He knew he was talking down to George. (Has admitted it several times!) And he knew how that made the younger man feel. But he still did it! 

So the idea that Paul is always the bigger man and if the situations were reversed he wouldn’t alienate George in order to have John’s complete attention? Well, that was pretty much the status quo, even if most times hurting George was an unfortunate consequence rather than the main goal. (But let me add that Paul wasn’t exactly above petty retaliation and hurting George back rather purposefully following what he did to him with the whole LSD stunt. Though he was more of a ‘sneakily tearing his parents drapes as revenge’ kind of guy.)  

The point is that none of them was perfect, and even if Paul tried to control himself and act/present himself as completely composed, he was actually more successful at this because he was so sensitive to what was going on around them. He knew what others were feeling, but that not always overpowered what he was feeling. 

(That was, in fact, one of the big challenges for Paul while working in a group: balancing all the egos involved. Getting things his way, because that way is better? Or sacrifice his vision so as not to step on the others’ feet? Maybe try to nudge people along so as to still get his way but in a way that feet aren’t felt to be trampled on? As we well know, the others started to catch up to the latter move in the later years, hence all the added tensions and the ‘Paul is a manipulative controlling bastard’ narrative. Which is neither completely true nor completely untrue… It was all a matter of complete disequilibrium and perception on the various parts…)  

But I feel as though I might have gone off topic here… All in all, this was just to illustrate how fascinatingly complex people can be and that we might lead a more peaceful and happy life if we exercise our empathy and try and understand where others are coming from and accept them as they are for it. 

As George himself put it:

Scan not a friend with a microscopic glassYou know his faults, now let the foibles passLife is one long enigma, my friendSo read on, read on, the answer’s at the endDon’t be so hard on the ones that you loveIt’s the ones that you love we think so little ofDon’t be so hard on the ones that you needIt’s the ones that you need we think so little ofThe speech of flowers excels the flowers of speechBut what’s often in your heart, is the hardest thing to reachAnd life is one long mystery, my friend 

Oh, we think so little of the ones that we love, sometimesIsn't it a pity how we hurtThe ones that we love the most of allThe ones we shouldn't hurt at allYou know my faults, now let the foibles pass'Cause life is one long enigma, my friend 

- George Harrison, The Answer’s at the End

[cthulhu-with-a-fez]

Um. Okay so. I don't know if you remember when Dishonored first came out, but the previews were going for what felt like a good half a year before. It was the link in every banner, every recommended advertisement across the internet. The exact same trailer was at the start of every single youtube video. Long story short, I have never actually been able to bring myself to play it, just because their advertising was so aggressive that it actively turned me off and stressed me out.

p.2: They managed to make me sick of the game a solid month before the game even came out. But all of your posts have been so cool and so interesting, I’m almost starting to want to try it? But any time I look at it, I just get this feeling of… I don’t know, oppressive weight. I guess what I’m saying is, if I was going to start fresh with this game, and never have seen a single ad for it, what would you say about it to recommend it?

you’re the second person to tell me that dishonored’s aggressive advertising turned them off of the game, actually - i somehow managed to miss ALL of that. like dead serious i didn’t even know dishonored existed at all until last summer, and then only by virtue of vague news-by-osmosis about it getting a sequel.

so i guess by virtue of my extreme ignorance and/or conveniently bad (good??) timing i actually do have a fresh perspective to give you!

(just a quick note: i didn’t actually play it myself, i watched cryaotic’s let’s play, but he played it pretty much the same way i would have done. also better people than me have written way better meta about ALL OF THE BELOW, i’m sure…)

so the thing about dishonored.

honestly i could ramble on for like a solid hour listing off all the things i, personally, liked about it, going anywhere from the scenery to the mechanics, but i guess i’ll start out with the heart of it all.

dishonored is a story about the balance between vengeance and justice, and the difference between forgiveness and mercy, and it’s ultimately a story about What You Are In The Dark. and depending on the choices you make, and the kind of protagonist you are, the game CHANGES to fit that. there are actual consequences to your choices and your morality, which means that your choices matter. and that’s the blessing of the medium, i guess - the happy ending you can get is made all the better by knowing you worked for it, and the darkest one delivers its own sort of retribution because you brought it down on your own self. this also means that it has remarkable replay value - between detailed level design that offers innumerable paths through any given area and the changes in the narrative itself depending on your choices, there’s so much content to be had.

the game’s exploration of mercy as separate from forgiveness ties in with Good Is Not Nice and A Fate Worse Than Death a lot, too, which is fascinating - the kind of poetic reprisal you can take against your targets really brings into question whether just out-and-out killing someone is better or worse than making them suffer according to their crimes. there’s a confrontation about three-quarters through the game that really highlights the mercy vs. forgiveness thing to absolutely extraordinary effect that i won’t give you the details of because spoilers, but it left me absolutely shook. like, the most shook i’ve been since the true-pacifist ending of undertale. the flooded district arc is a doozy, let me tell you.

asides from the mechanics of the game - both narratively and physically (ie what you can actually do as corvo) - my favorite part has got to be the worldbuilding, hands down. it’s well worth your time to listen in on the ambient npc conversation, it says a lot. it really gives the game a sense of… i don’t know if there’s an actual term for this or not, but. broader horizons, i guess? like, dunwall has more in it than just you and your story. npcs don’t feel deliberately placed, like they’re just sitting there waiting for you to come along and do things. the world has depth to it, there’s stuff happening that has fuck-all to do with you going on, and i really like that.

and even moreso than the npc conversations, it’s REALLY WORTH IT to look for the collectible documents. they add so much more depth to the world than just the conversations. letters, ledgers, literature - it all adds up to marvelous effect. and one of my favorite things about it is, like. you can tell just as much about dunwall and the people living in it by how something’s written as you can through what’s written. you can peel back the in-universe author bias to get a look at the various prejudices and agendas and whatnot, and it adds a surprisingly nuanced and realistic-feeling sub-narrative about the racism and classism and various flavors of imperialist xenophobia in the world of dishonored. 

it isn’t even treated as an actual plot element that gets attention called to it, because dishonored isn’t a Story About That. all that stuff is just kind of there to be picked up on if you’re paying attention and it adds so much subtle context and depth to both corvo’s role in the story and the political landscape in dunwall tower before the events of the game, between the documents and how the various characters treat him, and i’m just gonna stop myself right here because i could talk about this one specific thing forever. (ask cassiansfuzzyjacket, she can confirm.) 

and from a purely visual aspect, i absolutely loved the scenery. the level design is super detailed, there’s so many different ways in and out of places, and there’s so many places that have nothing really to do with the plot they just make the world feel like a world, and despite dunwall being full of rats and also plague and decrepitude it’s still beautiful. like seriously the scenery is so nice. the character models sit… a little closer to the uncanny valley than i would like, but honestly you get used to it after a bit. and just… honestly the whole aesthetic of the game is really unique?? i’ve heard the world of dishonored described as a fantasy world in the beginning of its industrial revolution, and that’s a pretty apt way of putting it. it’s got this really neat not-quite-steampunk vibe about it that i found really appealing, and the alleys were satisfyingly grungy, and there were posters and stuff pasted to the walls, and just overall i really enjoyed the Look of the game in general.

so i guess in summary:

i love dishonored because it’s a story that confronts morality, choice, and agency in a way where your choices actually matter, set in a world that lends immersion by the sense that it’s bigger than just you and your story, that also has really nice scenery.

also because i’m a massive sap and anything with a tragic warrior x diplomat OTP where the warrior is also a scruffy, protective father-figure was bound to absolutely destroy me from the get-go because I Have A Type but i figured that was a little more personal-preference than you’re looking for.

basically if you think you might like a gaslamp-fantasy political thriller about a scruffy, lethal dad bent on poetic justice, then dishonored is absolutely the game for you. 

i hope this was a satisfying answer - sorry it’s so late! (if you ever do get into it please feel free to hit me up because i am always up for yelling about this game)