#this applies to villains not antagonists who aren't villainous

[bam-monsterhospital]

(sadly) unpopular/controversian opinion: i can't stand villains who are 'right'.

it's overdone and boring.

it's misunderstood, misinterpreted, reduced to being non-thinking lazy shorthand for 'look i made a DEEP™ villain'.

it inevitably leads to the narrative and cultural/paradigm shift vilification of neutral (at worst) to good ideals.

morally myopic.

upholds the status quo.

if you're going to make your villain 'have a point', just make them a hero. 'good intentions, just went about it in extreme way' is the language (and thus thought pattern accepted as utter truth of reality) used to snuff out all resistance to structures of power.

it's deeply irresponsible propaganda. dangerous even at its best.

and did i mention it's boring?

[thr0wnawayy]

How Corrupt Is Hero Society?. Part 2

Nomu and Endeavor, a cause for concern

To add to the today's chatter about Endeavor and his excessive force and how that applies to the rest of MHA's "heroics". I'd like to point something out

It has always been this way

Excessive violence against Nomu isn't anything new, ever since Hori downgraded them into punching bags so the audience wouldnt question the morality of it all.

It does, however bring into light just how desensitized Hero Society is, how they view villains and may display some quirk-ism. Allow me to elaborate.

To the publics knowledge this is a PERSON.

The general public, hell most heroes. Had no fucking clue what a Nomu was. To their knowledge this was just someone with a heavy mutation quirk.

And they just, carry on.

Endeavor's gut instinct here was to burn his head off to stop him from regenerating and no one bats an eye.

But don't worry it gets worse.

Gran Torino is someone the community has dug into countless times for his attitudes towards Shigaraki and belief that "killing is another way to save"

So when Torino does this:

it doesn't really help his case, especially when Endeavor tried to kill that Nomu prior to this by incinerating him alive (almost killing 2 civilians. But I'll get to that)

Such a move would at the very least, sever someone's spine rendering them paralyzed for life. While I can see what Torino was trying to do, the ends do not justify the means here.

I'm not saying the Nomu are innocent, but it's blatantly obvious that they should be aiming to detain them rather than resorting to lethal force right away.

The worst part is the public has no reaction to this. No one asks anything and the authorities sure as hell aren't telling them squat.

We see it again during the Hood Fight and what's worse is that Hood can talk, bringing into question of how sapient is Hood.

Again Endeavor incinerates the Villain and no questions are asked.

Alright remember what I said about the two civilians?. well it gets worse, Firstly, they didn't even know if they were alright until near the end of the Hosu Incident, just letting them run off.

After Endeavor recklessly unleashes a wall of flame, the Nomu absorbs it and processed to reflect the same attack.

(on a second note: Torino and Enji even refer to the Nomu as if they were fighting a Human!?)

What does this mean?. Well that Enji ran into that fight without thinking!.

He didn't even so much as think up a strategy (just like a certain blonde we all know and despise) for what would happen if the opponent just, didn't die.

In Vigilantes he opts to bathe an entire city block in fire because he can't find the Villain (6)

He creates a fucking fire tornado with no thought for collateral damage

(The reactions of his sidekicks concern me, though knowing how Burnin' reacted to Dabi's exposé I'm not suprised.)

Given that he's this destructive and openly antagonistic in public, I don't even want to imagine the state Rei was in after every "training session" spent protecting Shoto.

This is why looking back, I can't say I'm suprised how some of the civilians dove back into worshipping heroes, even after Hawks killed a man and Heroes left them to fend for themselves.

Because as the saying goes

A bird stuck in a cage believes flying to be an illness

_______________________________________

Additional Info:

As pointed out by @gecmi09 (thank you for bringing that up), Endeavor did indeed refer to Crawler and Popstep as villains, as seen here:

I'd like to draw attention to the fact that he is drawn in a similar manner to Number Six, who is also often drawn in a silhouetted fashion, especially when his true colors are exposed.

The two characters are ironically very similar. Both are willing to resort to destructive means if it means achieving their goals.

Both willingly hurt those around/close them and use flawed logic in an attempt to justify their actions.

Both pretend to be something/someone they're not

Both of them brought about their own demise through one of their victims (Dabi and Knuckleduster [who took in Koichi] respectively. Though Six's was more indirect.)

Even though Vigilantes is loosely attached to MHA, I find it interesting that these two characters are so similar. Really makes you think.

[picturejasper20]

One thing i want to talk about is how Danny Phantom A Glitch in Time is pretty similar on themes and character arcs to Steven Universe Future.

In general in DP A Glitch in Time there is this whole idea of searching for a new purpose-¨emotional drive¨ as it get called in the story- in a era where Danny managed to save the day and ¨earn his happy ending¨.

You get a lot of panels of Danny just feeling unhappy with his new status quo, not because he has tons of problems, in fact he has more than he could ever dream of. It's that he feels like he isn't needed as a hero anymore since there are other people that could fight for him. He isn't ¨useful¨, or well, in the way he used to be. He feels like people don't need him to be Amity's protector.

This itself shares a lot in common with the arc that Steven goes through in Steven Universe Future. He feels like people don't need him anymore and still tries doing the same thing he raised himself to be: a ¨helper¨, someone who is defined by his role to help others. This causes Steven to feel lost in his own sense of identity and purpose in an Era that is supposed to be ¨his happy ending¨.

You can see this applied in DP A Glitch in Time with Vlad Masters too. From the start of the story he sends off these vibes that he has been aimless since post-Phantom Planet events. When he returned to his home he found that ¨he had nothing to return to¨ as in the sense nobody missed him nor cared he was dead or alive. He also became enemy number 1 considering how he tried holding the world hostage, making him lose most of the power and position he had.

What it is interesting is how Vlad tried going back in time to ¨fix his mistakes¨ by asking Clockwork to give him that chance. From the beginning of the story he admits that he did something wrong, just not what. There is this idea that he isn't interested in being in role of the ¨villain¨ anymore. The worst he does in the story is probably looking forward to keep the origin of ghost powers for himself, aside from accidentally realizing Dan during his fight against Clockwork.

Much like Steven Universe Future, you have these characters struggling to see where they could fit in this new status quo. Their character arcs involve finding a new purpose and learning more about themselves in the process.

Lets talk about Dan Phantom's role in the story. He is the main antagonist from A Glitch in Time. He absorbs Clockwork, master of time, to become more powerful, thus causing terrible time glitches for the rest of the characters. A lot of Dan Phantom's arc in the graphic novel has to do with self-destruction. Him being obsessed with ¨winning¨ and continue fighting even when the fusion with Clockwork is very unstable, is hurting him and destroying the reality at the same time.

Dan's obsession with ¨winning¨ reminds me quite a lot of Jasper from Steven Universe as well as Steven's arc in SU Future. There is a lot of repeating what the same thing over and over even when it isn't working anymore. The character themselves struggle to be something beyond the the role them or others pushed them into and they don't know what to be outside of that.

In fact, there are some panels Dan reminded me a lot of Jasper, such as when he is getting time glitched/corrupted.

Another main theme in Danny Phantom A Glitch in Time is about the characters getting second chances- the characters in case being Vlad Masters and Dan Phantom. Both characters do the terrible things they do due to their circumstances. They have certain pretty bad things that happened to them that lead them to become evil and hurt people. In addition to this, there tons of mentions of how ghosts aren't evil and they have reasons to do what they do. During the fight against Dan, Danny tries persuading him into stepping down and stopping the fight, pointing out that the timeline is getting destroyed. At one point he asks to Dan ¨why are you so angry?¨.

I want to bring up that, yes, this theme is a continuation from the main theme of The Ultimate Enemy episode from the series. But, at the same time, when reading the graphic novel i couldn't help but think about how Steven Universe has these similar ideas of looking into what motivates an antagonist and them being given a second chance to do things right. What really made me think about this more is seeing Dan Phantom, the main antagonist from the novel getting a second chance. Because in any other show, a character like Dan would probably be destroyed but this is something that wouldn't happen in Steven Universe, since it isn't so much about if someone ¨deserves¨ it or not as it is if they choose to change.

I'm not saying that Danny Phantom A Glitch in Time ¨ripped off¨ things from Steven Universe. That would be an absurd conclusion to come to. What i'm discussing here is that it is possible that the graphic novel was influenced by Steven Universe, mainly Steven Universe Future to some extent, in terms of themes and character arcs.

[utilitycaster]

I listened to the WBN Fireside on my way to work and there were two things Brennan said, one of which stood out to me as something I really agree with and one of which I really disagree with so I figured I'd make this post (the disagreement one) first and then the agreement one.

The latest episode of WBN had a scene that the characters were not present for nor viewing in any way. It was recorded without their knowledge, though they did listen to it when the episode came out, and on the Fireside Brennan said that such scenes should be used quite sparingly, given the nature of actual play, but (and I apologize, I haven't relistened and the transcripts aren't out) because the antagonists aren't present where the PCs are, it's useful at times to have a scene to keep them in the narrative for the audience.

I firmly disagree. I think that while it's true that actual play has a limited POV (if the characters don't see it, you don't see it), I have, in a lot of actual play fandom, never once seen a situation when it added to the story. Granted, WBN is ongoing, so I may eat my words here, but I am doubtful for a number of reasons.

Speaking as one small fraction of the audience, I am in possession of narrative object permanence. I do not in fact assume that when the PCs are in one part of the world, the rest of it grinds to a halt. In fact, something that skilled GMs do (including, frankly, Brennan himself most of the time) is quietly advance the plans of people who are offscreen. This is also not abnormal for the genre. Lord of the Rings has multiple POVs at different times, but never that of an antagonist; we learn of this through rumors, espionage, and Gandalf's retellings. Sprawling epics like A Song of Ice and Fire or the Stormlight Archives or the Wheel of Time make use of a wide range of third person limited viewpoints as well, not all aligned, but we don't see every move by every faction (and frankly, as a fan of that kind of book...I still think most of them could leave a bit more on the cutting room floor). Limited third person POV is not a weakness of Actual Play; I'd argue it is both a strength and a requirement. The story is driven by the player characters, and they cannot act on something they do not see.*

I'd also add that in this very specific situation, the audience saw the subject of the cutscene, The Man in Black, literally three episodes ago, which was a day ago in-game. He was brought up extensively in the discussion two episodes ago. If someone forgot? That's on them. We have not gone months and months without him making an appearance. I do think it's possible for villains to be poorly developed because they do not cross the paths of the characters enough (this is, as many of the people reading this likely know, a blog that loves to dunk on the cardboard-like nature of Otohan Thull's virtually nonexistent personality and motivations) but The Man in Black is sufficiently a banger of an antagonist as to not be so easily forgotten.

Finally, and this might just be me, but because I know how Actual Play and D&D work, I must admit the second I realized this was a no-PC cut scene I found it pretty hard to pay attention. In fact, it did the opposite of what was intended. Instead of eagerly awaiting news of how The Man in Black was waging war, filtered through whatever information Suvi, Eursulon, and Ame could obtain, I was zoning out while he talked. I think part of why I like Actual Play is that it usually leaves me, even with 4 hour episodes, wanting more. Cut scenes leave me wishing the cut scene hadn't happened.

*brief tangent: this doesn't, in my opinion, apply to the scenes in Downfall that the viewer sees but which weren't captured in the Occultus Thalamus. The story of Downfall is ultimately a story about the gods - they are the PCs - and the dramatic irony enhances the story-within-a-story aspect. It's important to the audience understanding of the gods to see the whole thing, and it's a valid choice that Bells Hells only see what occurred while the avatars were physically in Aeor. It does, however, apply to contemporaneous happenings in Worlds Beyond Number.

**This also doesn't apply to long DM monologues in the presence of players. The C3 solstice scene has been compared to a cut scene, but actually it's important that Bells Hells sees it. If one of the Wizard, Witch, or Wild One had managed to find a way to, even at a low level, scry or similarly learn of the Man in Black's doings? I wouldn't have minded it. I adore the Hakea vision scene. It's specifically that I'm in fact here to see what the characters see.

[mcskullmun]

What's red valley about

*takes you gently by the shoulder and looks deep into your eyes somewhere vaguely near your face*

Buddy I am so glad you asked.

In the hopes of this essay answer convincing you to listen to Red valley it will be relatively spoiler free and ambiguous. Full disclosure I am incredibly bias towards this show because it currently has a death-grip on my brain, mind and soul.

Broadly, Red Valley is a fiction podcast, similar to tma, spanning two and a third seasons plus three fun little mini series. I say "a third" because season three is split into three parts, and we currently only have the first. The second is due to be released later this year I believe.

The premise behind Red Valley, in a sentence is, "In all the sci-fi shows you see, where people can go into pods and wake up 10,000 years later just fine, how did we get there?" It's about the messy stage of theoretical science being applied in unethical ways, in the hopes of changing the world. Its about the early development (and testing) of cryonic preservation tech.

It follows two main protagonists, Warren Godby and Gordon Porlock (who are widely shipped throughout the fandom, though nothing is canon yet) as they investigate, and eventually endure the Red Valley seed vault. Although, as it becomes rapidly apparent, "There aren't a lot of seeds in the Red Valley Seed Vault". The show deals with themes of isolation, memory loss, distrust and mental deterioration. But also friendship, endurance, and uh... weird cruises.

It's characters include:

Karen Godby. Ngl I hate this bitch. She is Warren's controlling, abusive wife and she deserves everything that's coming to her. She uses concern as a way to guilt Warren, and seems generally dismissive of his concerns and feelings.

Aubrey Wood. Initially presented solely through tapes, she fits the "mad scientist" archetype. After something goes horribly wrong with her work, we get to see more sides of her. By the end of season three part one, she is an incredibly well fleshed out character with uh... quite the name for herself. She's also in a canon lesbian relationship, which admittedly does not get enough love here on tumblr.

Bryony Halbech. Cunt/aff. She is the mad scientist. She is the driving force behind the Red Valley project and truly the antagonist of the podcast. In so far as this podcast has one, at least. One brilliant thing about her, is that while she presents as your typical, "heartless, mind over emotions, complete control villain" this is a front that she wears, to hide how excited she is about what she does. How much she cares about her work. She is a "truly evil" villain who still maintains layers and depth.

Clive Schill. Now, if your asking me about Red Valley it's more than likely because you've seen the truly embarrassing affect Mr. Schill has had on me. If you want an in depth character analysis feel free to scroll back on my blog or look for asks I have sent to other fans, there's a LOT. In short, he is an irritating embodiment of capitalism with a flair for creative insults. He's like if Elias Bouchard was a fortnight adult/pos. But his character has so much more to it than that! He loves his family, he is deathly afraid of being forgotten, ect. ect. I'll spare you the essay. He's a morally fucked, incredibly likeable man. He's also responsible for the piece of official Redval merch named "Piss Mug" and Red Valley's sugar daddy.

And for the main events,

Warren Godby: He's just a Guy. Real wet cat of a man. Bitter about his place in the world with no idea how he got there. Of course that's not uh entirely true but just... just listen to the podcast.

Gordon Porlock: Fucking insane/pos. I mean not insane insane, but he is a conspiracy theory, nerdy redditor who canonically has no friends. He's also gay for Warren. He is a very interesting character in that he is Obsessed with cryonic preservation, and seems entirely unfazed by the more gory aspects. He is on the "good team", but isn't vastly different to the Redval scientists.

The podcast itself mostly takes place within Red Valley, a remote and seemingly abandoned research facility in The Middle Of Nowhere, Scotland. This is where some of season 1 and almost all of season 2 takes place, and where isolation is a heavy theme. I personally love it, its got great Vibes and possesses the perfect spooky atmosphere.

Season three is all over the place and follows (Soft, slightly irritated sigh) Clive Schill. It's a wonderful dive into his character, and the attitudes of the common man and the rich towards cryonic preservation. 10/10, no notes. The frogs are great.

Overall the voice acting and writing is amazing. At no point did I feel it dragged, and while I was initially confused when Warren and Gordon were talking (similar accents) they got easier to distinguish real fast. It's funny and sad, perfect combo. There's also some... gnarly sound affects.

Pay Attention To The Content Warnings. For The Love Of Schill Pay Attention To The Content Warnings. Please. There are some pretty heavy moments that took me completely off guard, big mistake.

Final notes, you will see me shipping Clive Schill and Warren Godby a lot. THIS WILL NOT MAKE SENSE WHEN (if) YOU LISTEN TO RED VALLEY. They are, at first glance, the two least shippable characters. I don't mean like Lonelyeyes crackship where it kinda makes sense, I mean AWFUL. TRULY DISGUSTING. My fic, "And I think we're all glad it wasn't me" explains everything, but contains just so many major spoilers for season 1. Just trust me, I'm not mad. The fic explains everything. I promise.

Anyway uh feel free to ask more or talk about it if you decide to listen. I uh. am normal about this podcast. As you can probably tell.

~ Peter

[sailorblossoms-snowbaz]

“Heroes always get the girl,” “pretty girls are only valuable as a guy’s romantic interest,” “villains and antagonists are meant to be defeated and/or destroyed in the end (especially if the guy seems gay)” … these are things applicable to so many stories they’re pretty much clichés. They apply to the stories Simon has been told. The stories told about him. In such stories, the guy is supposed to desire the girl. What the girl wants is “not the point”—she exists only to be desired.

When Simon “catches” Baz and Agatha holding hands, it causes such a strong reaction Simon teleports to the humdrum. Several things happen here: Simon is the villain. The love life he cares about it’s not Agatha’s. It’s a big moment, and it breaks the narrative in several ways. The hero gets the girl, but the girl doesn’t want to be here, and the hero might have wanted to be like her, but has never truly desired her. The hero wants a guy—he wants the one who’s meant to be undesirable and destined to be destroyed. The hero is also a villain.

Romantic love and sexual desire aren't easy to manage. It makes Agatha safe, because Simon doesn’t have those feelings for her, and it makes Baz painful and dangerous, because he awakens those feelings to the point it overwhelms. The person who is safe, who is supposed to be trusted with not awakening anything at all, is going after the person who awakens too much. It’s a “betrayal” that forces Simon to feel.

Simon is fight or fly—he literally grows wings. If they’re connected to his queerness (and his feelings for Baz) this is where he first grows them… (they’re fragile, as he has yet to realize what he’s truly feeling). With Agatha, he just wants to pretend nothing happened. They don’t talk, they don’t feel (except they do—they’re miserable together). There’s a silent agreement to ignore anything that rocks the boat. Simon tells on himself when he thinks “we have only ever been friends” when he should be thinking of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. It’s Baz who truly gets his feelings and his jealous scenes. Agatha doesn’t get them, unless it looks like “she’s getting closer” to Baz than Simon. It’s Baz who doesn’t need to be “holding someone else’s hands” or “having milkshakes” or going “anywhere more private” with someone who isn’t Simon. Baz, knowing Simon is looking, grabs Agatha’s hands, because he wants Simon’s attention on him. He doesn’t know he doesn’t need to do anything at all to get Simon’s attention—existing in his proximity is enough. Baz believes in the roles of heroes, antagonists, and beautiful girls. He doesn’t know what hurts Simon the most is not the danger of having his girlfriend “stolen away” (if dating the prettiest girl is a way to “prove yourself” and “belong and succeed,” then if she walks away that’s “a failure” and “proof” you don’t belong). What hurts Simon the most is Baz not being his. It’s someone else being closer to Baz than him.

[sammy8d257]

Hi!

İ want to attend the "everybody wants to rule the world"

but I'm not sure because I don't know what to do or how the animation will be etc.

So what I mean is, can you clarify this activity a little more?

I'm sorry if I took up your time so bye

Hey it's no problem at all!

I understand that MAPs/Multi-Animator Projects/ Multi-Animator Collabs probably aren't as common a thing in the AvA/M community, so I don't mind go over it a bit!

The AvA "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" MAP is a beginner friendly "Anything" Project

What that means is that I have cut up sections of audio (as seen in the MAP Call video) that I will be assigning to people who have filled out the Application form! Once a person receives their audio portion, they can start animating what they thing would work with that section!

Because this is a Beginner Friendly MAP, I'm not too concerned about how complex or professional your ability to animate is

(Although I will say that if you apply for a more complex musical part section or a part that has multiple people applying for, having examples showcasing your art will help me make a decision on who should get it)

Being an "Anything" MAP means that there isn't a script or animatic that needs to be followed for your part. There is however a Theme that should be followed (AvA/M Villains and Antagonists, yes Purple counts too) but aside from that, you can pretty much draw whatever you want for your part!

There is a Discord server set up for organizational purposes and theres already a bunch of people from a previous AvA MAP (Breezy Slide) on there that are very kind and I'm sure they wouldn't mind helping newer people with stuff!

This is also a great video to watch to get a quick rundown on what MAPs are and what to do or not do when applying to them!

[suzannahnatters]

Trope Talk: Villain Romance

So, I was watching a villain romance cdrama again lately (GOODBYE MY PRINCESS) and it has been forcing me to think about what makes some villain romances work for me so well, and others…not so much.

First of all, a lot of my comments on romance at large, and on enemies-to-lovers as the broader trope to villain romance, apply here. For me, GOODBYE MY PRINCESS failed on a few different levels. It failed as a romance because the male lead so rarely, if ever, allowed himself to be vulnerable to the female lead that I couldn't believe either of them could genuinely be falling for each other. It failed as an enemies-to-lovers story because the female lead didn't feel like a match for the male lead in terms either of power or of morals: he was irredeemably awful and held all the power in the relationship, while she was unquenchably pure and naive, holding no power at all. But then, it also failed for me as a villain romance, and because I eat up villain romance with a spoon (WUTHERING HEIGHTS? THE LAST JEDI? LOVE BETWEEN FAIRY AND DEVIL? TILL THE END OF THE MOON? That ONE SCENE in RICHARD III? yess?) I've spent a lot of time thinking about different kinds of villain romance, how some are easier to "sell" to an audience than others - as a convincing HEA, I mean - and how each of them can and can't be made to work.

So far, I think a lot of it has to do with how the villain is built. First off, how does the villain present himself to the audience and other characters? Second, does the villain get a character arc, and is it for the better, or for the worse? Finally, does the villain have genuine feelings for the heroine, and does he achieve a happily ever after with her? Or, in other words: where does your villain come from, where is he going, and how does he get there?

There are a few different choices awaiting the author here, and some of them are, I believe, easier to sell an audience than others. Let's begin with the villain's character arc over the course of the story.

POSITIVE CHANGE VILLAIN This one is the classic: your villain love interest starts out bad, but gets better. See: Erik from THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, Kylo Ren/Ben Solo in the STAR WARS sequels, Nux in MAD MAX: FURY ROAD, Dongfang Qingcang in LOVE BETWEEN FAIRY AND DEVIL, Thyme in F4: THAILAND.

Redemption arcs are honestly not easy to write, because they need to satisfy both justice and mercy; and authors, like everyone else, tend to want to prioritise one over the other. It's interesting that of the five examples of this trope I listed above, not one of the three the Western examples end in a HEA; two out of three equate redemption with death. Meanwhile, I could also note how the Asian examples pull their punches when it comes to facing the villain with the consequences of his actions, and these are some of the BEST examples.

Still, audiences can pull for a character who's clearly capable of learning from his mistakes, and we all want to inhabit a fantasy where a terrible man learns better and earns his happy ending. I've written this kind of villain romance a couple of times, notably with Vasily in my gaslamp books. Basically, if you plan to have a HEA as an endgame in your villain romance, a positive arc is the best way to make a longterm relationship convincing.

ANTIHERO WITH IMAGE PROBLEMS This one is a bit more complicated. The love interest starts out well and gets better, but along the way he struggles with a dark side and an unfortunate predilection for angry black clothing and eyeliner. He isn't so much as a villain, as a well-meaning antagonist desperately trying not to live up to his dark reputation. See: Tantai Jin from TILL THE END OF THE MOON, but also Galadriel Higgins from THE SCHOLOMANCE books by Naomi Novik, who is in a very similar predicament though not part of a villain romance.

This one is tricky to write, because there aren't a lot of ways a genuinely well-meaning person is going to convincingly pose as an existential threat to the universe. Both TTEOTM and the SCHOLOMANCE books pull it off by invoking the future, either through time travel or through prophecy: the antihero is going to become the Dark Lord/Lady and destroy the world. This makes them a target in the present, and gives them a threatening dark side to struggle against. In TTEOTM, Tantai Jin is torn between his vindictive impulses to revenge himself on those who have wronged him, and his natural longing for the love of others. In this case, it's not so much that he's a villain intrinsically, as that he plays that role in the heroine's head.

I've never written one of these, except as a stage in a positive change arc, but it's a really fun character type that I'd genuinely love to see more of.

NEGATIVE CHANGE HERO This is another classic: the hero who lives long enough to see himself become the villain. See: Anakin Skywalker from the STAR WARS prequels, Heathcliff from WUTHERING HEIGHTS, or Wang So from SCARLET HEART RYEO. If the Antihero With Image Problems withstands the temptation to become a villain, then this character succumbs with more or less struggle. He ususally also doesn't get the girl. In face, the heroine often doesn't survive this sort of story at all.

Audiences have less trouble with this kind of story, because it can come across as properly cautionary. "If you fall in love with someone who gets a villain arc, you will die, and it is probably your fault." Everyone is happy, except the characters. Personally, I think this is realistic, because I don't think a thorough-going villain CAN be a stable longterm relationship; but just once, instead of dying, I really would like to see the heroine nope out and go to live her life in peace and quiet, as happens in the wonderful Daisy Ridley OPHELIA film.

I've actually never written one of these, either, mostly because I've never been able to bring myself to write a tragedy. But I do love reading them.

UNREPENTANT VILLAIN Or, Bad Man With a Crush. This is another really common iteration of the trope, but it's usually played from the point of view of the male hero, and the heroine usually doesn't reciprocate the villain's interest in any way. The great exception to this, of course, comes in Shakespeare's RICHARD III, where the unrepentant villain convinces the widow of one of his murder victims to marry him because he's THAT GOOD. Watching Laurence Olivier in this role at 13 may have been a formative moment of my life. Other examples are thick on the ground: Frollo from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, Scarpia from TOSCA, the Darkling in SHADOW & BONE. Heck, I've written at least one of these myself.

Again, audiences expect this kind of villain either not to have his feelings returned or, if they are, to see either the heroine or the villain die by the end. In fact, this villain is the sort most likely not to have genuinely romantic feelings for the heroine at all; it's usually simply lust. The only example I mentioned where the villain arguably does have more complicated feelings for the heroine than a mere appetite for sex and power, and where she is tempted to reciprocate, is the one written by a woman, SHADOW & BONE - because a female writer is going to treat her heroine as a more fully orbed person, and insist on male characters treating her the same way.

-

The second question to ask when writing a villain romance is: how does the villain present himself to others, including the audience? Again, there are a few options here, but in any case I think one of the most important ingredients, if you're going to make the audience care about the villain, is a sense that the villain COULD be a better person than he is.

SHEEP IN WOLF'S CLOTHING The villain projects a terrifying image, but deep down he has a heart of gold. Note that this is not about character arc (for instance, this describes both Tantai Jin, who is an antihero on a positive arc, and Wang So, who is a hero on a fall arc). Rather, it's about how other characters, and the audience, view the character throughout most of the story.

A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing is easier to "redeem" because half the work is done when you show that after all, the character is better than we thought, and doesn't need as much work to be redeemed. For this reason, it's a really good choice in any sort of villain romance, because you get someone who LOOKS bad but is in fact plausible as someone who IS capable of changing and learning.

Vasily from my Miss Dark series is definitely a sheep in wolf's clothing, which is extremely fun to write. Vasily's had a traumatic change of heart which has taken away his taste for blood, treachery, and power. His habits haven't quite caught up with his heart, yet, and his determination to hold onto a semblance of power and terror makes him desperate to playact as a villainous vampire prince even though he's none of those things any longer.

SHEEP IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING I was nearly not going to include this variant at all, because where's the villainy in that? But then I remembered Anakin Skywalker. Anakin has a dark side, like Tantai Jin, which he gives into on occasion, but the prophecy that he will bring balance to the Force seems to predict a bright future for him. And he genuinely is a well-meaning person, who only wants to protect the people he cares about. For most of the story, Anakin is a good person and an upstanding Jedi with a bright future. This only makes his eventual downfall more tragic.

While how the villain presents himself is not always linked to a particular arc, this one is, since it requires a genuine hero to begin with. As I mentioned above, this kind of fall usually spells death for the heroine. I think this particular villain romance tends to be underexplored, because the freaks who like villain romance aren't into the aesthetic of a genuinely good man being corrupted, while those who write the downfall arc usually aren't into the aesthetic of villain romance. Nobody has ever written a romance about the Macbeths, and this strikes me as a missed opportunity.

WOLF IN WOLF'S CLOTHING This villain is exactly as bad as he appears on the outside, but if he's lucky, big changes are coming for him. In LOVE BETWEEN FAIRY AND DEVIL, Dongfang Qingcang is about to have his cold dead heart magically melted. In FALLING FOR INNOCENCE, Kang Min-Ho is literally given a new one. As a Christian, I love seeing fantasy elements used to explain why the wolf in wolf's clothing is suddenly forced to trade a heart of stone for a heart of flesh, because in Christianity the only way this ever happens is through a literal miracle.

And I do think this kind of villain IS difficult to redeem for his HEA without some kind of miracle, because he's genuinely done some dreadful things, and he's determined not to repent for any of them. Kylo Ren from the STAR WARS sequels is a really excellent example of a Wolf in Wolf's Clothing: when Rey spits at him, "You're a monster!" he responds almost proudly, "Yes, I am." In a way, the Wolf in Wolf's Clothing's honesty is his one redeeming feature: he may be terrible in almost every way, but he never pretends to be a good man. This is something that the next option on the list lacks altogether.

WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING This villain looks like a good and upright person, but it's all a facade. In reality, he's conniving, ruthless, and manipulative, and whether he's a "hero" on a negative arc or a straight-up Unrepentant Villain, the story is about to unmask him as the bastard he is.

Western literature has a whole array of this type of character, and they're usually the smooth hypocrites of the canon: TOSCA's Scarpia, HUNCHBACK's Frollo, MEASURE FOR MEASURE's Angelo, KNIVES OUT's Ransom. There's just something particularly evil about someone who sees and experiences true goodness and sees it as his opportunity to mask his evil deeds, and that's why we recognise such people as irredeemable. This is why BLUEBEARD is one of the trickiest fairytales to retell, at least if you're interested in a HEA - because Bluebeard, unlike the Beast or Hades or any of the other dubious bridegrooms of fairytale literature, commits awful crimes while pretending to be an ordinary, upright businessman.

This is also where we find GOODBYE MY PRINCESS's Li Chengyin, who marries this with a corruption/fall arc. Very early on in the story, we see that although Chengyin has genuine feelings for the heroine, he's fully capable of betraying her and murdering her family for purely political motivations. At first, Chengyin is neither experienced nor hardened in evil, but he absolutely will betray anyone in his path if it will benefit his plans.

This sort of villain is particularly difficult to redeem, because he's someone who has approval and love already but chooses to destroy everyone around him anyway. He is also uniquely enraging, because we've all known people this terrible in real life - from high profile teachers and carers being caught in ongoing sexual predation, to that crumby ex-husband who traumatised your good friend. I don't think I've ever seen a character like this be convincingly redeemed, and while I think it COULD be done - I do have a Bluebeard retelling of my own up my sleeve - I do that, as with the Wolf in Wolf's Clothing, it would have to come with some kind of fantastical/miraculous explanation.

And in the end, let's face it, it's always most cathartic to see this sort of person get their comeuppance.

-

Third and finally, is your villain romance going to get a happily ever after? I'm one of those people who will get a lot of fun out of a romance that ends badly, like SCARLET HEART RYEO, or even something that isn't a romance at all, like RICHARD III and the ill-fated Anne Neville. But whatever you pick, I'm begging you, be very clear about whether the villain has genuine feelings for the heroine or not, and don't reward some horrible person who's never convincingly expressed care for another, with any kind of romantic validation.

HEA VARIATIONS Maybe your villain and heroine make a match of it. Most of the time this is because the villain undergoes a positive character arc to earn his happy ending, and I've got to say, this is a very sensible choice. I personally do not need to see an unrepentantly terrible person get any kind of longterm romantic relationship, either because he's trapped/deceived the heroine or because he's corrupted her to become as bad as himself; I honestly don't think that terrible people CAN have a successful longterm relationship. That said, I've written a relationship where the villain DOES make the love interest worse, but where ultimately the genuine love, empathy, and trust between them ultimately does drag both of them back to the light.

TRAGIC VARIATIONS There are a great many more options available here. The main thing I would say is that you have to give an ending that is justified by what comes before.

A common choice is to give the villain a positive arc culminating in a heroic death. I've seen this done well (FURY ROAD). I've seen it done terribly (RISE OF SKYWALKER). Personally I feel that unless the themes absolutely demand this, you should avoid it, because too often it comes across as the writers arbitrarily ridding themselves of a character they don't know what to do with.

Another common choice is to give the villain a negative arc culminating in the heroine/love interest's death. I've seen this done in ways I don't hate. In RICHARD III, Richard kills literally everyone he touches. In SCARLET HEART RYEO, death is a realistic result of the heroine's trauma and closes the door definitively on the villain's hopes for reconciliation; but it also returns her to her far better life in the future, so it becomes a glimmer of hope for her (though not quite enough). Too often, however, this choice carries with it sexist overtones. Death becomes the heroine's punishment for the crime of loving a bad man (or something else equally fatuous), while the villain is "punished" only by having to live without her.

What about a negative arc culminating in the villain's death? Well, I strongly disliked the choice made in SHADOW AND BONE, in which the heroine guts the villain while hissing "there is no redemption"; to me it was lacking in either tragic catharsis OR eucatastrophe. I think you CAN have a satisfying ending in which the heroine or somebody else kills the villain, but it needs to be an expression of catharsis or eucatastrophe, and we definitely need to feel that the villain is beyond saving - which, if you've made him a genuine romantic possibility, is often hard to feel.

I love the ending of WUTHERING HEIGHTS, in which the villain dies frustrated after realising that after all, cruelty and abuse DIDN'T have to turn him into a villain; he then reunites with the ghost of his equally terrible love interest. I also love the ending of OPHELIA, in which Ophelia, realising that Hamlet cannot be redeemed from his quest for vengeance, quietly nopes out and goes to live a happy life on her own. And then, there's the gold standard for bittersweet endings, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, in which the villain doesn't get the girl, but neither of them have to die, and her compassion for him causes him to go off and live a better life on his own. I think the thing all these have in common is that even though none of them end with the couple together, they afford the whole story a sense of hope: cycles of abuse are broken, some people get better than they deserve, and even those that don't are doomed by their own actions, rather than being killed off in a way that feels punitive or vindictive. And I feel that this is an essential ingredient of tragedy: that justice arises naturally out of the villain's own actions rather than being imposed by some righteous warrior.

PUTTING IT TOGETHER Some of these options are easier to sell the audience than others. For instance, a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing on an Unrepentant Villain arc is absolutely not good material for a HEA romance, while a Sheep in Wolf's Clothing on a Positive arc is probably your best bet (it's a classic for a reason). Others, like a Wolf in Wolf's Clothing on a positive arc, may require careful handling to ensure that the audience is happy to come along for the ride. Whatever you choose, however, it pays to be conscious of which tropes you're using, where the audience has seen them before, and what they expect to see happen to the characters that enact them. This doesn't mean that you can't defy audience expectations, of course; just that it might take a little more work to bring the audience along with you on the journey that you've planned, and that it might not be wise to pick all the worst possible options and expect the audience to embrace the character in question. (cough Li Chengyin cough).

[tgammsideblog]

This fandom needs to understand the difference between villain and antagonist

Often the words can be applied to mean the same thing. However, there is a key difference. Antagonist is someone who opposes the main protagonist. The antagonist doesn't have to bad nor evil. In fact, they can be a good guy trying to stop the villain protagonist. Antagonists can be misguided in their actions believing that they are doing the right thing and are helping people. Example: Abuela Alma from the movie Encanto. She cares about the town and her family but doesn't realize how much pressure she is putting on her family until near the end of the film. She isn't evil, she is someone who believes that is doing the right thing without realizing that she is hurting people she cares about. Villain is more of an antagonist whose motivations and goals are usually evil. They hurt people, often enjoying inflicting pain on others. It's possible that they lack any positive qualities. There are cases they can have a tragic backstory that motivates their actions. Example: Maleficent from the Sleeping Beauty. She is revengeful, cruel and merciless. She doesn't have redeeming qualities much like other classic Disney villains. In the Chens' case, they act as antagonists. They aren't evil, as they are very misguided. They believe they are helping people by capturing every ghost they see. Outside their ghosthunting, they are potrayed as people who care about their community and really nice overall. They just happen to be antagonists because they have a different misinformed view of ghosts that the Mcgees don't share. Meanwhile, Jinx falls more in the definition of what a villain would be: She enjoys being a joy hunter, is very pitiful, doesn't regret her past actions and she is still stuck in her old ways. She wants the old Chairman back because that's when she could go joy hunting and now she isn't able to do that with Scratch as the new chairman.

I hope this helps with clarifying things

[darkonekrisrewrite]

There was something I was thinking about it's about the hero's mindset in hero society. I want to talk about the hero mindset and heroes in general, when heroes preach to villains or try to beat them into submission there is something about the hero's attitudes that irritates me. Though I know that some heroes are not like endeavors, there is a mindset about heroes that makes them worse than endeavors. 

Yes very much, that does seem to happen a lot with the heroes.

Pre-Final war deku (not current deku) shows this mindset and tone, being an accurate example.

Though he has very recently developed a bit to have more nuance, before this happened, deku's role in the third bnha movie encapsulates this:

The third movie's villain - Flect's plan is pretty stupid even by filler movie antagonist standards, because even though the quirkless will survive his plan to destroy all those who have quirks, that doesn't mean that they won't then have children with quirks after that.

But just be because the one-off movie villain's plan is bad does not mean the main hero's response should be equally bad.

From the bnha wiki: Izuku pointed this out himself, saying that Flect could have tried harder to connect with others instead of giving up to his misery and despair.

And: Deku begins to dissect the reasons behind his motivations and beliefs, telling him that he just gave up on his Quirk instead of finding a way to control it, and that if he had tried he might be able to get along with people.

So basically Flect just shouldn't have given up is all, right??

Even though it took like hundreds of full power ofa strikes to finally nullify his powerful reflect quirk and free Flect from it's effects.

Whether deku realizes this or not, his ideals are similar to the rest of hero society and the heroes that protect it, which boils down to:

"If a hero doesn't or won't save you and you don't somehow rise above your circumstances yourself then you're screwed...But don't you dare make it anybody else's problem!!"

And that is in no way an exaggeration, because nobody before this final Arc was talking about helping the villains, before (when they were kids that hadn't done anything wrong) or after they started committing villainy.

(Again this is Pre-Final arc deku, really hoping current deku doesn't drop the ball with the villains/future ending of bnha.)

It's the same thing with Shoji and his answer that boils down to: "If you shine bright, eventually those who are cruel to us will feel so bad, they'll stop being cruel."

Extremely bad plan (can't stress that enough) and coming from a hero as strong as shoji is, feels completely tone deaf.

Being held to such a high and powerful standard that there's no way there wouldn't be casualties of that path.

It seems like the heroes in these cases aren't really thinking about others when they say things like this are the answer, only applying all of it to themselves and not considering that other people can't follow their path at all.

[jumpscaregoose]

The Asakura Twins are Neat Basically

just me shoving a bunch of thoughts together with basically no structure so I can have words to look at when I force my english classmates to deal with this later (and also because I'm a dumb nerd who likes being a dumb nerd)

I probably talk in circles a lot here so be forewarned

tldr: Yoh and Hao are fundamentally the same person except for a couple things which makes them excellent foils and characters and it's cool and I love them and

I think Yoh and Hao work so well as protagonist and antagonist because on a fundamental level they are the same person. This isn't even me making stuff up, they're frequently described as each other's "other halves" or as originally being the same soul.

They're both even called the same thing as kids.

In his chapter of Zero (one of my favourite Shaman King spinoff manga. Go read it if you haven't it's only like ten chapters and is brilliant) it's shown that Yoh even acted like Hao when he was younger (between the ages of four and ten based on other flashbacks). This Yoh openly hates everyone, and wants to isolate himself from them.

This panel specifically really reminds me of Hao. Not sure if this is canon but my hc is that Yoh was born with the same soul as Hao (without some stuff like memories or Spirit of Fire) but acts differently because of his interactions with Matamune and the ghost girl from Zero.

When they talk in the Shaman King's commune near the end of the manga, Yoh even expresses that he does still hold the same views of humanity, he just applies them differently.

This is so cool because on the surface level the Asakura twins read as stereotypical shonen characters: the power of friendship paragon hero and the pure evil villain. They oppose each other on principle, but so much about them (views of humanity, genetics, appearances, and even personalities) are or were the same. These characters only really differ in their mindsets and applications of their views. Hao has given up on humanity and just wants them gone, whereas Yoh believes in the good in people and that things can be better.

They don't have the same dynamic you'd expect from the aforementioned shonen tropes either. Every conversation they have is surprisingly civil. The cafe scene, onsen scene, and even Kurobina's intro scene; they just talk. It's cool.

I've talked about how Yoh acts like Hao in his Zero chapter, but Hao also displays traits we associate more with Yoh (these names are losing meaning by the second. By that I mean Hao is ridiculously chill. This is probably in part because he's so much more powerful than everybody else that he doesn't need to be worried, but I think it's also because he's just built like that. He brings a baguette and binoculars to the Shaman Fight and randomly shows up to hang out with his brother a couple times (including the one where he just invited himself to sleep over). He displays the same laid-back vibes as Yoh, he's just more murdery when he's not doing that.

I feel it's appropriate to call them narrative foils, but I think it's a bit deeper than that. The Asakura twins aren't just similar, they are the same in every element except what makes them oppose each other. And it is very interesting to watch these two characters interact with each other.

I mentioned the Shaman King commune scene before, and I think it really shows what I mean (it's also my favourite scene in all of Shaman King, period). At this point, Hao has basically won. He's the Shaman King, everyone's dead (but this is Shaman King so that's far from permanent), and he just wants to talk to his brother before he consumes his soul. It's a great scene because it reveals how identical they are, specifically the apathy they share. They just sit and talk for a couple of minutes before Yoh rejects Hao's offer to stay in the commune (demonstrating their difference in mindset yada yada) and the (cool part) of the scene ends.

And I think it's neat.

They're neat.

That's it.

(for now)

[tricksterlatte]

Fandom ask, 5, 11, 21, 14

5: something you see in fics a lot and love

Any fanfic that explores the nuance in which immense capability for anger and rage can go hand-in-hand with an equally immense capability for love. I adore any story that shows how an antagonistic or even villainous character can and will burn it all down for the sake of someone who has shown them love and they love in return, or how this could even be seen as an expression of love itself. I will read many angles on this idea, but I appreciate any time the emotions themselves aren't seen as wrong. Bonus if the "heroic" one is more than okay with this, and if this surprises the other character.

Yes this applies to some absolutely amazing P5 fics I've read, but also several other ships of mine (especially TGCF).

11: if you're an artist or a writer, what fic are you proud of making?

I never shut up about it and feel kinda bad at times, but it'll always be my Chase the Joker universe, and all the accompanying pieces I haven't gotten to publish yet! Hand in hand with the first answer, I also adore writing about fics that humanize mental health, from Akechi's intrusive thoughts and bouts of obsession in the original, to the struggles Akira faces regarding his own depression and trauma after everything that happened in canon and the fallout as a result.

Also proud of that Waffle House parody, ngl. In another life, I was perhaps a sitcom writer.

21: a fandom you're not active in anymore but you still really enjoy

Tales of the Abyss, always and forever one of my all time favorite games!

14: the ship that always makes you smile

All the cute art of teenager Damian and Anya has been absolutely adorable, and everything of them becoming friends too. I grin every time.

Thank you for the asks!

[twistedtavern]

I would love to hear about your fairy tale au!!!

YES OK SO

I basically took some basic fairy tale villain archetypes and applied the dorm leaders, those archetypes being:

Stepmother (gender neutral): Vil

Giant: Riddle

Just a straight up talking lion: Leona

Witch: Azul

SATAN HIMSELF: Kalim

Dethroned king: Idia

Dragon: Malleus

Everything is under the readmore because good GOD

And I made them all the core cast. I hear you asking, "But Deli!! If all the villains are the heroes, who's the antagonist?"

No shit it's gonna be the fucker who's usually the protagonist in these fairy tales. By way of what he stole from everybody else, he's a prince now. Also he's Neige. This becomes important later, but for now, take note of the general behavior of your typical Grimms' edition fairy tale protagonist, what's the pattern here? They're all assholes and thieves 90% of the time and should probably have gotten murked. They steal shit, they kill things they shouldn't, they just wreck shop wherever they go and run off laughing like the gremlins they are with little consequence. Trust me, I have witnessed protagonists do some fucked up things and get away with it or be called right, I have a book of these things abt as thick as my arm. TLDR: Neige is a motherfucker. Well. Stepchildfucker. If you want to be specific. Almost. Let me go into detail about that.

~✨ The Actual Story ✨~

We set our scene long ago in a pleasant little village with a family of two. Vil and his nearly-the-same-age-because-marriage-back-then-was-fucked-and-we-AREN'T-getting-into-it stepchild Yuu, who he treats very well actually, are on a pleasant little walk to the market to go buy some essentials for the household, chatting and laughing and remembering what they needed, when suddenly a beautiful white horse bursts out from the treeline and its rider snatches Yuu right up off the street and whisks them away. Obviously in shock and anger because his stepchild was kidnapped right in front of him, Vil tries to give chase, running after Yuu's cries. He managed to get the barest glimpse of the kidnapper, recognizing the face of the newly crowned Prince Neige, just before he escapes into the wood.

From that point, Vil just basically goes on a quest that boils down to him going "hey you. if you've gotten your shit snatched by this fucker in particular, you may be entitled to coming with me to jump him." six times before rolling up on Neige to get his baby back. The following things everyone wants from Neige are as follows:

Riddle: Green goose that bakes golden cakes that Neige stole from him

Leona: Decapitate the bastard and take his head back to the woods so he can claims his brother's throne as forest king

Azul: Neige's firstborn (he ends up settling for some magical artifacts because he can't have a firstborn if he's dead lmao)

Kalim: Neige's soul

Vil: His stepchild (that Neige also stole from him)

Idia: His castle (outright swindled rather than stolen)

Malleus: Dragon egg (yoinked baby #2)

As you can see, there's a Lot that he's gonna get his shit kicked in for

[spacevixenmusic]

Like... redemption arcs on a fundamental level challenge viewers on the baseline assumption that XYZ antagonist will always be trouble no matter what. Hell, I remember when the Diamond discourse for SU started to take root with "What's The Use In Feeling Blue?"

The episode's music number of Yellow and Blue mourning ruffled a few feathers by way of humanizing whom Steven Universe viewers considered to be the Big Bads. A uniform authority that would be a physical threat down the line, one Steven couldn't engage with in words.

What the song did was send the message that it won't be as simple as "punch evil until it dies" and some felt that it was, by proxy, sympathizing with fascist tyrants in a whitewash-y way.

I hate talking about this stuff in a vacuum, like the universal idea of a "redemption arc" is supposedly doomed to failure just because people aren't thinking critically about media anymore. Talking about media exclusively in TvTropes terminology helps no one.

The redemption arc in Steven Universe is based on the show's main theme: healing through empathy. It's a fantasy story, not a political commentary. The show is not built around presenting a realistic solution to real-world fascism, it's a fantasy story about a boy who is thrust into an ancient conflict between aliens and the worlds they've invaded or colonized, and the show's main gimmick is having Steven use his natural inclination toward empathy and understanding to resolve his conflicts. That's the THEME of the show! It's just a fucking fantasy cartoon!

Redemption arcs are fun because they are designed to force you to think about your so-called enemy as a fellow human being. How did they end up where they are? What makes them think that what they're doing is right? Do you know anyone like that in your own life? Would you be able to convert them like this villain got converted, or do you think it wouldn't work like that? There are no wrong answers, because art is all about thinking critically and coming to YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.

I'm begging people to stop treating the media they consume like it's supposed to be some kind of religion or dogma. It's just art. You don't have to agree with it if you don't agree with it, and you can't just generalize everything based on tropes and patterns. You have to apply things on an individual scale.

Anyway, thanks for reading. Here is a gif of a jiggly girl jumping rope in her underwear as a reward.

[utilitycaster]

A lot of people who try to analyze religion in Exandria need to watch the Adventuring Academy episode where Brennan and Matt talked about worldbuilding, specifically when Matt said “In a game like dungeons and dragons, or a lot of role playing games where ultimately part of the game is to overcome villains and rise up and become a hero, there has to be some level of universal antagonism… there is a pure and defined entity or force that is evil, it may not be realistic to some stories out there, but that’s [how it works in DND].”

This is true, and it's really interesting to watch this happen because Matt will make a huge, unambiguous evil like Lucien or the Vanguard, or Brennan will do so with Asmodeus and people will do everything they can to try to come up with reasons to woobify them or argue why they're justified...but I haven't seen this happen in most of the D20 seasons, and I think it's because the villains in most D20 seasons have been things that reinforce people's beliefs, namely, capitalism and abuse of religious power. And to be clear, capitalism and abuse of religious power fucking suck, but it's telling that people assume the villain is capitalism in places where that doesn't apply on a wide scale, or in some cases, exist (EXU Calamity, Neverafter); or that the Ruby Vanguard or Tomb Takers, both of which have pretty much every single hallmark of a cult but just aren't affiliated with the main pantheon, are actually the good guys.

Incidentally: this is like, quite literally how people get sucked into cults. One of the leading cult researchers in the world, Janja Lalich, is a survivor of a now dissolved explicitly leftist/anti-capitalist cult. Abuses of power, which is, ultimately, what both Brennan and Matt lean on as their Universal Antagonist traits, rely on confirming people's existing biases and exploiting them - even if those biases are broadly good! This is in fact why I can get so fucking adamant about what is mostly silly fandom shit, because I do, on some level, look at some takes that completely lack critical thinking and am like oh you'd 100% buy into all kinds of dangerous patterns of thought if someone packaged it nicely; even something as stupid as the Caleb Werewolf Theory relied on circumstantial evidence and false information that you could easily verify was false. And it's annoying but mostly harmless in the context of fandom, but it always makes me wonder - does this person do this with political posts on social media?

Anyway getting back to the main point, I think watching/listening to Brennan commentary on Adventuring Academy is generally a really good idea because he is a very smart guy with a philosophy degree and has a strong grasp of the genres in which he works as well as TTRPGs as a storytelling medium, and talks to other people who also have a good understanding of the morality of fantasy stories. And if you listen to this, you will in fact get that the basis of evil in these stories is not something as specific as "capitalism" or "religion"; it's quite literally as basic as "exploiting other people simply because that is an option available to you and you don't care about them." And obviously that's the whole basis of capitalism, and it's a serious problem that exists within organized religion, but like...not to repeat myself from this weekend but I keep thinking about the "Suvi without the imperialism" and it's like...she is a 20 year old woman whose parents died for a cause and we have had ONE episode with her as an adult. We know nothing about the Empire except that it's an empire and it is at war. Like, can you look at imperialism and understand why it's bad? Can you separate the concept of imperalism - which, to be clear, is based on power structures - from say, your 21st century understanding of empires in the real world? Or do you see the word Empire and go "Bad Thing" without any capacity to analyze because that's how you end up looking at two flawed things in a story (well, if we're lucky; see the middle paragraph) and deciding one is perfect and correct for no reason other than because it opposes the thing you think is worse. And Brennan is REALLY good at skewering that, and Matt is REALLY good at portraying multiple complicated and flawed perspectives, but you do have to like, use your brain slightly.

[ladyhindsight]

All CC's "Characters" are just shells of characters and fandom likes to fill in with their own imaginations. That's why there are soo many fanfiction characters that are more amazing than the Og characters.

Jace is just a shell of a character: he has no personality at all! he's just the bad boy trope from the early 2000s and a love interest. Will is the same trope applied in Victorian aesthetics and a love interest, Emma is the typical vengeful heroine with a Sword and a love interest. Kit is a traumatized young boy in love (yes, we haven't seen this before in the same series) and James (under the influence of Gracelet) is a perfect example of how bland every other TSC character would be if they are not in a "forbidden romance" trope. Jem is a good boy and explains a great deal about his relationship with Will to Tessa, Alec is gay with a bow. Isabell is Jace&Alec's hot sister, and Clary is your typical self-centred heroine and love interest. Lucie is an amateur writer with a love interest-Jesse is the Love interest ..etc.

Are there any morally grey characters among the characters that actually matter to the story? Morally grey characters are not inherently good people who did mistakes under some sort of influence. I can't go into detail about Grace because of Chot Spoilers. CC sucks at writing morally grey characters. None of her morally grey characters is intentional, the characters that were supposed to be hated but were loved by the fandom so she let them get a redemption arc.

No character in TSC has a personality to them. No characters (especially the mains) in TSC are solid characters. They are just love interests with tropes added to them.

All the TSC characters can pretty much be summed up with couple traits. In many occasions, fans have had a greater capacity to deepen and broaden the characters that returning to the original works feels terribly lacking.

The one morally gray character that comes up to mind is Robert, but he is one of those unintentional ones that gets a form of redemption arc. Stephen also edged that misguided but good the more we learn from him, though Tessa dismisses him completely. Kieran and, now I suspect, Grace both end up being good but were forced out of their circumstances to commit questionable or antagonistic things. The greater villains like the Unseelie King and Tatiana eventually end up taking the fall for the actions of their influencees because they were the main bad guys behind it all. Or that Kieran's or Grace's intentions were ultimately good but they appeared bad at first. Similarly Gabriel and Alastair are not fundamentally morally grey characters though their actions aren't always necessarily good either.

I guess Clare tried making a morally grey character when she wrote Julian, but Julian is just an asshole who goes above and beyond to protect his family and Emma. There's nothing morally grey about his ways, his actions are just portrayed as "ruthless" but. in the end, Julian still stands on the same moral ground as the rest of the good guys. Maybe Jessamine? She did what she wanted and wished out of her life, despite the Shadowhunter brainwashing, and sided with antagonists and villains to achieve that.

I think the reason readers find so much to discuss about Clare's characters and stories is because all the ingredients and sometimes subtext is there, but as Clare loves to wave at those as they pass by, the readers and fans are able to see the full potential and emotional depth Clare is incapable of executing. My favorite pieces of fan writing (unsurprising because of my main complaint always) are those that have the honest conversations and interactions and acknowledgements the series fails to externalize because it some way would not serve the characters like Jace who Clare wants to coddle.

Jace has always been nothing short of a power fantasy, a character that is so oohed and aahed at by other characters because anything happening in the series need other characters as the audience to validate whatever the tragic main hero is going through. Jace and Clary's position in the Clave is majorly overstated and poorly justified in Queen of Air and Darkness, that the reveal of them being alive and the rest of the Nephilim being gobsmacked by this doesn't really hit the notes Clare intended.

Alec clapping back at Lazlo in the election meeting was on point, but Alec's words cannot stand on their own without a random person commenting, "wow, he's good." As if Clare does not trust the effect to be delivered by her own writing, she needs to resort to writing someone giving a commentary on any given occasion or major reactions from other characters for emphasis. Similarly Alec invoking Michael's name to Sammael was pretty cool on its own, but no, Magnus needs to give his two cents on how cool it was. And it was way cooler than Jace doing it to Lilith in CoFA.

I went on a tangent again, but I agree with you. Jesse probably has even less personality than James. And that's not a lot to begin with. Clare's approach to her characters is very external, having a lump you attach things you think are cool to instead of creating a solid character that extends from the inside out.