#trapper meta

[majorbaby]

let's talk about trapper's flaws then:

in s02e03 radar's report he contemplates how easy it would be to kill a patient who he perceives has caused the death of another patient. this is commentary on how state propaganda affects civilians because in the opening scene, trapper states "they're all brainwashed to see any american as the enemy", in reference to the same patient, a chinese soldier - his single most plot-relevant lapse imo.

he's stepping out on his wife and she's probably not cool with it but it's hard to link to an obvious overarching flaw because he's shown to be otherwise honest, loyal and selfless, just not towards louise. the flaw here for me is marrying her in the first place instead of living by his values, so maybe even connected to the previous bullet point - dishonesty to oneself as a result of outward influence

misogyny. no two ways about it, but kind of boring because it's not unique to him.

he shares a personality with hawkeye - but this is a concern that the audience might have, not a concern other characters might have. unless you're frank burns i guess, in which case, the flaw is being a bleeding heart liberal (which would make for an interesting fic imo)

he's not quite passive, but he's less active than Hawkeye, so maybe he could fall into apathy without a spark to set him off - but again, this is me trying to find a watsonian explanation for the Trapper character being the follower half of the HawkTrap duo

there's a handful of other instances where he does some unsavory stuff, but they're almost always one-offs that are contradicted by other consistent behaviours:

stealing hawkeye's watch in s03e22 - I mean, he steals hawkeye's watch to bet in a poker game, but it's a good thing he does because hawkeye uses the winnings to get the army off his back. also like, hawkeye bet Trapper's face for a chance to fuck Margie so shrug

i feel obliged to mention the note thing but again, it's a one-off, and what's the flaw here? avoidant? nope, he waited around as long as could. not anticipating a need that even the audience couldn't have anticipated at this point because there's never a mention of it up until s04e01? but he's steadfastly stood by hawkeye at every turn up until this point, it's hard to imagine what could have led the writers to write such an exit except for the fact that wayne rogers unexpectedly left the show. in this way, trapper's exit is not unlike henry's death: bad luck, bad timing

he's dismissive of hawkeye at first in pierce/hyde instead of, idk, playing along with the delusion or whatever the good option was here. the epilogue kind of negates this though because it implies he knew what was "wrong" with hawkeye the whole time... but i suppose we can pretend it only occurred to him when he saw hawkeye drive off hauling the general in the latrine

[majorbaby]

Trapper's dialogue in Kim speaks to how he tried to handle the war - by trying to find some good or some meaning in it. If his plan was to compartmentalize his experience in Korea in order to move on with his life, why would he take home a constant reminder?

One might say all his tomfoolery w/ Hawkeye is also an example of Trapper trying to make the best of a bad situation. I think that's a fair read. But Kim would've been a postwar commitment, so that gives us a look into postwar Trapper.

Though not devoid of good intent, I think it was misguided attempt by him to reconcile how he feels about wasting his life in the war.

I don't think Trapper is good at compartmentalizing his emotions I think he just wants people to think that

[ichayalovesyou]

Why Do Old-School TV Duos Have SUCH MLM Vibes?!

I think there’s something very specific about the formula and writing style of non-serialized/semi-serialized shows from the 60s to 80s that featured two grown men going on wacky dangerous adventures that makes my gay little literary analysis brain go absolutely off the wall bonkers. I’m trying to figure out why!

I’m writing this on my Trek blog because I don’t think this pattern in people actually shipping these types of relationships the way they do if fandom as we know it wasn’t born via TOS in syndication. That being said! I also think it has to do with the way these shows are designed that makes myself and others OBSESSED with a specific character dynamic that feels (to me) damn near impossible to replicate in modern television. In a way that’s more than just fandom, it’s in the way TV like this was written at the time!

Further explanation under the cut!

🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

I think what it usually boils down to is this. There’s a charming protagonist whom without the series could not operate, frequently top billed or the title character! (See: Wild Wild West, Starsky & Hutch) BUT he doesn’t have anyone to play off of! So what do they do pretty much every single time? Give Mr. Idealized Vision of Time-Period Masculinity For Genre a second guy to rhyme with!

See but the other guy has to play opposite but parallel to our hypermasculine protagonist. So what frequently ends up happening is that in order to play off our “normal” guy, even though he’s also a white dude, is that he’s still somehow Other.

They’re always perfect for each other, and they always get into scenarios that would be written, shot and interpreted by conventional audiences as romantic IF either one of those characters were a woman! Especially at the time these shows were made in.

If the one is aggressive, the other is gentle. If the protagonist is violent, his counterpart is intellectual. If the one is stoic, the other is emotional. Which (while one size def doesn’t fit all) usually makes the second guy come off as much more queer-coded (and sometimes other minorities like neurodivergent/disabled etc) than the other because of the traits associated with masculinity vs gayness at the time! Our prime examples in these gifs are Spock, Hutch, Artemus, and also *BJ!

*(M*A*S*H is a bit of a unique case since the show flirts with queerness more openly in ways that people more into the series have explained better than me but I think it still fits the formula I’m discussing.)

Here’s the thing though right? We’ve got two best friends, and the show NEVER really feels right if one of them is missing unless the focus of the story is how A & B operate without each other while trying to find the other one. They stick with and rescue each other unfailingly in scenarios that might destroy a regular friendship.

Hell, there’s often stuff that would emotionally/physically destroy a regular person/character in modern media. But because it’s not serialized they always seem to pull through seemingly through the power of friendship alone or dealing with it off-screen! Emotional consequences? Yuck! (Unless it’s M*A*S*H or Starsky & Hutch, like I said, not monolithic)

Here’s the thing that some people might say throws a wrench into the interpretation I’m discussing. What about the absolutely non-stop parade of conventionally attractive women the main protagonist (and less frequently the supporting man) goes through?

I would reply: how many of those female characters actually emotionally impact our protagonists as characters long term?

The answer is of course, because it’s NOT serialized, almost none! Kirk can watch Edith Keeler get killed by a car accident and still be making eyes at Spock the next episode. Hawkeye can have a “life changing” romance with a Vietnamese humanitarian woman, then share a blanket with BJ next episode like she never existed!

The Doylist explanation of course is not just the fact it wasn’t serialized but also just, constant, blatant 20th century sexism. Which SUCKS!!! As well as not wanting a long term love interest to throw off the character dynamic of our duderagonists. It’s the 20th century tv equivalent of bros before hoes.

However the Watsonian explanation always seems to result in no love interest EVER being more important than what the two protagonists have no matter whether you think they’re queer or not. No attractive woman could make our reputed babe-hound protagonist abandon his buddy. There’s no earnest romance our more queer-coded supporting man doesn’t end (or get ended for him) often for the protagonist’s sake.

Now some of these women are incredibly well written and straight up GOOD matches for our guys. So why wouldn’t they get involved in something long term UNLESS!! They were in love with each other the WHOLE time?

What if protagonist (frequently the babe hound) doesnt know he’s queer, or knows but doesn’t know he’s in love with his bestie, or any number of similar fruity explanations? The supporting man also runs into this explanation but people tend to believe he’s already aware that he’s queer but either also doesn’t know he’s in love or is keeping it to himself because time-period homophobia and/or thinking (probably not unreasonably) that babe hound is straight?

Between the inherent closeness of being narrative foils. The regularly scheduled life or death drama creating sometimes insanely romantic (in the narrative if not a literal sense) drama between the two. The revolving door of weekly women they never seem to get attached to enough to leave one another. The non-serialized nature resulting in sparse personal information/history about the protagonists as a result.

I think between the very NATURE of the way tv shows were written at the time. Plus the way fandom was shaped by a dynamic that has rippled through how media works and is interpreted by fans for decades upon decades. It’s not hard to imagine getting really emotionally invested in the possibility of the protagonists being in love is a fantastic way to enjoy the media!

In conclusion, it’s really fun and easy to go “these bitches gay! Good for them good for them!”

[marley-manson]

Hawkeye and Frank are the two most diametrically opposed characters on Mash. They clash politically, ideologically, emotionally, intellectually, and even physically on more than one occasion. There is virtually nothing they agree on. But they do have one significant similarity: both Hawkeye and Frank are notably, pointedly effeminate.

Hawkeye is the central protagonist, so he's written to be likeable, even admirable, especially in the first five seasons of the show when satire dominated rather than character drama. He's the character who makes the correct political points and voices the show's ideology, and male audience members are encouraged to identify with him and aspire to be like him. He's witty, he's smart, he's charismatic, he dodges consequences a lot, he's highly skilled in his work, and he has a strong personality and natural leadership qualities.

Frank is the main antagonist up until the end of season five. He's written for audiences to hate him, mock him, and occasionally be horrified by him. He's dull-witted, incompetent, awkward, easily led and manipulated, and always gets his comeuppance. Few audience members are likely to aspire to be more like Frank Burns.

And yet, while most likeable protagonist/detestable antagonist duos in American popular media would also be differentiated in terms of gender performance as a matter of course - the effeminate villain being a standard stock character, always set against a ruggedly masculine hero - Mash takes a different approach.

From his core personality as a sniveling, weak-willed follower, to the way other characters, including Hawkeye, routinely make fun of him by comparing him to a woman or insinuating that he's gay, Frank Burns certainly fits the part of weak, emasculated villain. What's more interesting, and much less commonly seen in Hollywood media, is that Hawkeye is portrayed as just as unmanly, and just as, if not more prone to having it pointed out in the show.

Often Hawkeye's jokes at Frank's expense include the implication that Hawkeye is attracted to him himself, and not necessarily as "the man." He jokes, "Guess it's a marriage, Frank. I know I can do better, but at my age, can I wait?" in Hawkeye, Get Your Gun; he switches from calling Frank one of his vampire brides to taking the feminine part in post-coital pillow talk after siphoning his blood in Germ Warfare; he kisses or tells Frank to kiss him in Major Fred C. Dobbs, For the Good of the Outfit, and Bulletin Board, etc.

Other times, the jokes Hawkeye makes about himself are virtually identical to the jokes made at Frank's expense - their respective attractions to Margaret as a potentially dominant sexual partner, eg, with both Frank and Hawkeye portrayed as eagerly submissive. For instance, in 5 O'Clock Charlie Hawkeye jokes about tying Frank to Margaret's tent, then dismisses the thought with, "He'd probably love it. I know I would." And Hawkeye/Trapper and Frank/Margaret are sometimes paralleled as dual couples, Hawkeye and Frank usually being framed as the more feminine partner in each.

And of course, unconnected to Frank, there are many, many more examples of Hawkeye's effeminacy, both in jokes and in personality traits.

Hawkeye is a self-professed coward who is loud and proud about how terrified he is to be stuck in a war zone. He's emotionally open and highly empathetic, always willing to listen to others' problems and discuss (or scream about) his own. He abhors institutional violence and faces every enemy combatant with his hands firmly in the air. When authority is thrust upon him he strives to relinquish it, and uses it as little as possible.

More shallowly, he has little interest in sports and exercise, derides masculine hobby magazines like Field and Stream and Popular Mechanics, is incapable of performing mechanical tasks to the exasperation of others at least four times (Comrades in Arms which explicitly frames this emasculating, In Love and War, Patent 4077, and Hey, Look Me Over), mocks traditional masculinity in many ways, and enjoys musical theatre and Hollywood gossip. And he makes and takes literally hundreds of jokes about being unmanly and having sex with men himself, many more than he makes at Frank's expense.

But while the jokes are at Frank's expense and meant to belittle him, they're rarely made at Hawkeye's expense, especially in the first five seasons. Hawkeye doesn't make the jokes out of self-deprecation, he makes them out of pride and a desire to differentiate himself from the army men he's surrounded by. He's almost always in on the jokes others make about him, rather than offended - Potter telling him to file a paternity suit against his rival in Hepatitis makes him laugh delightedly, and Trapper's remarks on his effeminacy, such as Miz Hawkeye in Hot Lips and Empty Arms, are sometimes lightly teasing but always a regular aspect of their dynamic that Hawkeye enjoys playing up. Frank doesn't make any jokes directly mocking Hawkeye's masculinity that I can recall, beyond vague "pervert" and "degenerate" remarks, which, while often historically homophobic, in the show's context tend to be treated as a reference to his heterosexual endeavours.

Frank's effeminacy is a point of mockery and derision, but Hawkeye's is a point of pride, and not intended to make him any less likeable to an audience. Antagonists don't get to score points off of Hawkeye by mocking his feminine traits, but Hawkeye makes fun of Frank regularly by mocking his feminine traits.

This difference in framing can partially be explained by the nature of their respective gender performances.

While Hawkeye and Frank are both effeminate, they're effeminate in many opposite ways. Frank is weak-willed while Hawkeye is strong-willed. Frank is unappealing to most women, while Hawkeye is something of a lady's man. Frank cannot face his fears to rise to a challenge, but Hawkeye can. But on the flipside, Frank refuses to admit to fear while Hawkeye openly proclaims it. Frank strives to attain authority while Hawkeye refuses it or takes it on only begrudgingly. Frank is obsessed with guns to a freudian extent while one of Hawkeye's most famous monologues of the show is a speech about refusing to carry one. Frank worships the concept of traditional masculinity even while he can't perform it himself, while Hawkeye mocks the concept and would refuse to perform it even if he could.

The Sniper is an excellent case study of these contrasts. In this episode, Hawkeye is effeminate and at ease with it, while Frank is desperate to prove himself masculine. Frank and Margaret flirt with strong Freudian overtones while Frank shoots a gun while nearby Hawkeye flirts with with a nurse with a line about "tasting" her. Hawkeye connects with the nurse he's wooing by relating to how scared she is and huddling in fear with her, while Margaret demands that Frank prove his masculinity by going out and taking down the sniper himself. Frank carries a gun while trying to approach the sniper, while Hawkeye carries a white flag. Frank tries to make fun of Hawkeye for wanting to surrender, but he can't bring himself to approach the sniper while Hawkeye does.

This contrast of gender performance is a consistent aspect of Hawkeye and Frank's dynamic throughout the show, but The Sniper makes it a central theme so it's a useful example to show how their relationships to masculinity are a deliberate aspect of their dynamic.

And while Hawkeye makes fun of Frank's femininity, it's significant that he also regularly makes fun of Frank's masculinity - his love of guns (eg The Sniper), his sexual affairs (eg the exchange about Frank as a "fantastic performer" in Yankee Doodle Doctor), his numerous attempts to exert authority (eg Welcome to Korea), his desire for socially approved success (eg Hot Lips and Empty Arms), etc.

Both masculine and feminine sides of Frank are comprised of negative character traits, while Hawkeye embodies the best of both - emotional expression and healthy ways of coping by talking about his feelings; bravery but not machismo; intelligence and skill as a doctor rather than an officer; empathy and a willingness to listen; sexual prowess but largely through his love of foreplay rather than his dick game (which, in the context of the early 70s, is a somewhat feminine attribute that distinguishes him from a typical traditionally masculine man); etc.

Hawkeye demonstrates some of the most appealing and healthy qualities of both masculinity and femininity while Frank demonstrates, or strives to demonstrate, the more toxic qualities of both. Through including a few positive masculine traits in the mix, the narrative is able to depict Hawkeye as likeable, admirable, and desirable in his effeminacy while Frank is depicted as loathesome in his. Hawkeye gets one of many, many women in The Sniper by showing vulnerability, while Frank only appeals to Margaret, and Margaret is portrayed as borderline pathological in her sexual attraction to violent masculinity (the scene where Frank excites her with his gun, for example, also includes an electra complex joke, and there's a running rape kink gag in this episode as well).

Another aspect to consider when it comes to differentiating Hawkeye and Frank's respective femininities is hypocrisy. Similar to how Frank and Margaret's affair is mocked because they can't admit to it while Hawkeye and Trapper's affairs are glorified, part of what makes Frank's effeminacy so mock-worthy, while Hawkeye's feminine qualities are a source of pride and rebellion, is that Frank refuses to admit to them.

Frank desperately wants to be the ideal heroic army man and often play-acts the part, poorly. When Hawkeye mocks him by calling him a woman, for example, he's drawing attention to Frank's failure to live up to his own ideals. And when Hawkeye calls himself a woman, he's mocking those same ideals. The message is that Frank is pathetic not so much for failing to be traditionally masculine, but for wanting to be traditionally masculine at all.

Ultimately the ways Hawkeye and Frank perform masculinity and femininity are pointedly in opposition, from which masc and fem traits they embody, to how proudly they embody them. The show itself draws attention to these gendered similarities and differences between Frank and Hawkeye through a constant barrage of jokes, and even whole scenes and episodes. In this way the show portrays Frank as a hypocritical loser who wants to be masculine but fails to embody all but the worst traits, and Hawkeye as a cool, admirable guy who disdains the traditional pillars of masculinity and embraces his own effeminacy.

[swampmartinis]

idk why it gets to me when people say that hawkeye and trapper were ''basically the same person''. i mean yeah i get it they're tweedle dee and tweedle dum and they share the same brain cell, but they weren't ever the same character

there's differences between them, a lot of them subtle but differences all the same. trapper can bring out the soft caring dad energy and adores kids, meanwhile hawkeye is more of a wine aunt who brings all the good presents every time he visits. trapper can be fiercely protective of his friends/lovers/patients, a fierceness that nearly made him kill a man over his patient dying. he's a lot less touchy feely than hawkeye and tends to keep his emotions to himself until they spill over

hawkeye is an open book compared to trapper, how many times have we seen him cry and breakdown? he agonizes over things and wears himself down to the point that they need to sedate him. he's also very protective over the people he loves and cares about but when they leave they take a part with him. he's usually always the one to initiate a prank or to take a stand on something he believes in, trapper usually goes along with it but the ring leader is usually always hawkeye

not to mention the big differences like how trapper has a wife and kids back home waiting for him, he's got more at stake, more reasons to get out of that hell hole. I could list more but this post would end up too long so just add your favorite differences in the tags if you want

[raywritesthings]

Trapper: Maybe this is why I was sent to Korea. Hawkeye: Maybe, but I wouldn't underestimate your draft board. Trapper: Up until now, I felt my being here was senseless. For the first time, I think I have a real reason for being here. Father Mulcahy: That's the beginning of faith, Trapper. Hawkeye: Father, you made a big score this morning. Don't press. M*A*S*H, "Kim", s02e06

This exchange between Trapper, Hawkeye, and Mulcahy really sets up the ending of "Kim", because as soon as Trapper says his lines you know the episode won't end with him adopting Kim. M*A*S*H's entire thesis statement on war is that it is senseless and pointless and results in basically nothing good, especially the early seasons. There is no grand vision to why Trapper was sent to Korea, no true purpose or higher calling, spiritual or otherwise.

Interestingly this scene also flips the usual Hawkeye-Trapper dynamic on its head; whereas Hawkeye is usually the idealist and Trapper the realist who helps keep him grounded, here it's Trapper who's letting himself get carried away (and nearly re-converted if Father has anything to say about it) while Hawkeye is reminding him of the truth about their situation, albeit in a joking enough tone that the scene comes off as lighthearted for the most part. At least until the end.

[death-is-no-escape]

Right okay so mini meta about Dwight & Evan as foils, specifically in regards to how they handle mistreatment and their places within the capitalist machine they both lived in, this is based off tome lore for the record.

So both Dwight & Evan's tome stories are about them dealing with mistreatment & abuse from someone with power over them (Dwight's boss, and Evan's father respectively) and their connection to the workers that also deal with thay abuse (Dwight's co-workers & the group of fired employees, and the miners that Evan befriended along with the Union Rep), but what happens is very different.

At first they react in ways rather alike, quiet disapproval and suffering, Dwight internally making fun of his boss and venting in private with co-workers, and Evan quietly suffering and listening to the woes of the miners in private while they try to encourage Evan. Though I'll note that beyond a surface level there is already a gaint difference, Dwight understands that he is a victim like his co-workers, meanwhile within the tome it doesn't appear as though Evan sees that he is an abuse victim, his fears and hopes are for others, not himself, the union rep will help his friends, not him.

But then their stories differ even more, Evan continues his quiet suffering, puting his thoughts into art, meanwhile Dwight is moved to action after another co-worker is fired and Dwight is invited to a party the fired workers throw every year to catch up & make fun of the old boss, at which point Dwight & Evan's pathes really split.

Dwight choses to go on the offense with a prank (which goes wrong and I'll get to in a second), meanwhile thoughout Evan's tome he is passive, and seems to internalize the lessons his father wanted him to.

I point to two large reasons for this, firstly Evan in his tome is around 14 if I remember right, at least a young teenager meanwhile Dwight is an adult during his, we don't know his exact age but it's been enough time for him to have had multiple jobs in the past & he looks like he does in the fog, so he can't be that young, obviously a young abused teenager whose being victimized by his father is going to react differently than an adult who can chose (with bad consequences but still) to just not interact with his abuser & leave the job, Dwight also had the benefit of having others cheering on action meanwhile Evan's friends were waiting for union rep to show up, taking action would have been unneeded risk, there is also the physical risk his father poses to him, especially because Evan suspects him of multiple murders.

But secondly, Evan had already been trained, goomed by his father to become his enforcer onr day, Evan was put in a situation where he felt like he had power when he had none so he won't lash out, or well moreso that his father would be able to control who he lashed out at, meanwhile Dwight had no illusion of power in the situation, he knew that compared to the ways his boss could fuck him over he was nothing, so he felt vindicated to lash out at the boss, the right person, Dwight was able to see clearly who was fucking him & his friends over meanwhile Evan lived with the wool over his eyes.

That does bring me to another common point of their stories, betrayal, Dwight was in all likelihood lied to about what the drugs did, the scene where Dwight is told about and given the drugs really reads to me that the guy that gave them to him lied to Dwight so he'd do it since they didn't have access to the old boss. Meanwhile in Evan's tome his father reveals that he paid off one of the miners who then told him about the drawing Evan had been doing against his father's wishes, I do have some doubts that his father was being honest, I personally think it is possible he threatened the miner or found out some other way, but that's besides the point, the point is both Evan & Dwight reach a point where they are put in some very bad fucking situations due to others that they trusted.

And the pair react wildly different, making it so clear how they ended up on the pathes of one becoming the unwilling but prime example of a killer in the fog, while Dwight ended up leader of the survivors, a prime example of someone who won't give up hope to escape.

Dwight is revealed in a later tome by thr Observer to have been offered a large settlement from the company due to the workplace abuse to keep it all hush hush, but... Dwight didn't take it, refused to take it unless he & the others got an apology, as far as we can see and tell from canon so far, Dwight doesn't blame the person that gave him the drugs he used, and he doesn't feel guilt over what happened or if he does it isn't clouding him to the abuse that lead to that moment, he knows that he & the others are deserving of an apology, showing a strong moral backbone and he is ultimately punished for this, living in poverty and having to take dangerous and demeaning jobs because he won't go along with the capitalist machine.

Meanwhile Evan lashes out at the miners, without even a second thought to what desperation might have made them betray him for money, he aids his father in shutting down the attempt at bringing in the union and it appears this is the first of many times Evan helps kill or does it himself, in short he ends up doing exactly what his father wanted him to do, he takes his role in the capitalist machine and still is unable to see his own victimhood.

[jilyandbambi]

labels like psychopathy and sociopathy are too hastily ascribed to Shauna Shipman not least of all because, A) all of the #unhinged behaviors & actions we've seen from her are more accurately attributable to a combination of 1) PTSD, 2) post-partum depression, 3) grief, 4) arrested development

AND-- more importantly insofar as it concerns definitions:

B) the key hallmarks of antisocial personality disorder (the clinical term for sociopathy/psychopathy) distinguishing it from mere jerkass behavior are 1) lack of remorse/regret or guilt for past actions, 2) inability to feel empathy* for others.

*empathy: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another

two things Shauna is not are unempathetic and unable to feel remorse.

From the moment we meet Shauna as a kid she's writhing in guilt, and--I would argue--empathy. The whole reason she can't bring herself to tell Jackie she's planning on going to Brown is that she knows the disappointment will devastate Jackie and she doesn't want to hurt her best friend's feelings. Yes, she resents herself and especially Jackie for this but Shauna's empathy is what paralyzes her and keeps her from being honest.

Adult Shauna is just as capable of remorse/guilt and empathy:

When Tai shows up at her house and confides in her that she's started sleepwalking again, without Tai even having to ask, Shauna invites her to spend the night and promises to watch over her

after Callie shares with her how Shauna's unwillingness to discuss her past has deeply hurt Callie, Shauna acknowledges how her inability to confront her trauma has hurt her child and immediately tries to make amends by giving Callie what she needs and opening up.

And this is without getting into how Shauna's immense guilt and shame over her actions in the wilderness compelled her to punish herself post-rescue by not going to Brown (her dream school) and instead transforming her life into a living memorial to her dead friend.

Even adult Shauna's most violent action--killing Adam--wasn't an act of cold-blooded murder but rather happened as a result of PTSD-induced psychosis, as evidenced by her hallucinating that her journals are missing from the safe in the first place, and the flash to teen Shauna right after she guts him. She wasn't in her right mind. Does that excuse her? No. But killing someone during a bout of psychosis brought on by untreated PTSD is not the same as intentionally killing someone to solve a problem or in a fit of rage.

Is Shauna a violent person? Yes. Is she a selfish person? Yes. Is she self-destructive? Yes. Does she often behave irresponsibly and inappropriately? Yes. Is she dangerous? YES. But these qualities don't make her a psychopath. She's got too much empathy and is too burdened by guilt to have APD.

Shauna Shipman is what 2 1/2 decades of untreated PTSD & PPD + unresolved grief does to a person

[hesgomorrah]

sorry i'm always on my hawkeye/gonzo parallels bullshit i need to do a fresh mash rewatch so i can make a post about that that's actually coherent

[spocks-kaathyra]

Trapper barely gets to be a distinct person before he leaves but I think one little tidbit of character we see from him is during that conversation with Hawkeye when he thinks he’s leaving bc of the ulcer. Hawkeye is so open and vulnerable and has no qualms abt baring his heart and directly telling Trapper how much he cares abt him. And Trapper is clearly moved but he just listens and then responds with a joke. He can’t stand the emotional intimacy and has to immediately lighten the mood. I think that’s why he leaves without a note. Bc he can’t bring himself to write down in words what he feels for Hawkeye. I think sometimes saying “I love you” is harder but writing it can be harder too. Bc it feels permanent. You’re creating physical proof that you feel. And that can be scary. I think he sat down to try and write the letter but couldn’t. If I loved you less I might be able to talk about it more type beat

[variousqueerthings]

Watched the 'if i dont like a movie i leave' scene and i regret not talking about the Trapper as a god angle you mentioned too. Like?? 'i can catch it any time'?? Is that right bestie? You can can you?

decided to connect the asks because of that last line!

what is the power of knowing the narrative, when you cannot change anything? "I can catch it any time" now makes me think about a fic in which some version of trapper is constantly re-transplanted into the narrative (or maybe different versions of the same narrative) and can't change it/save anyone before being yanked back out

somethingsomething getting into promethean territory? greek divine punishments? EDIT: sisyphean perhaps, more than promethean... hawkeye feels like he’s getting his liver eaten every day, and trapper could be the person who’s fruitlessly trying to change the narrative over and over and failing

if you do remember the title of that fic I'm 👀👀👀

[majorbaby]

idk if anyone is saying 'repressed trapper' anymore but in addition to my thinking that that is a shallow read of him, we might also trust hawkeye on this one, because he knew trapper best.

hawkeye says of trapper, to trapper, "you were open and honest, you let me lean on you" which is the opposite of repressed.

[thebreakfastgenie]

You know how in Maximum Ride there was the Max/Fang romance but then to add drama they introduced Dylan, who was created in a lab to be Max's perfect mate? The M*A*S*H writers centering the first three seasons on Hawkeye/Trapper and then creating BJ.... idk I never finished Maximum Ride this post is a sign for me to go to bed.

[fan-of-chaos]

SO I was just rewatching “Hunting Palismen” for umpteenth time and I’ve noticed something.

The knife in hunter’s room. It looks awfully familiar doesn’t it??

This knife...

Looks awfully familiar to the knife Belos used to kill his brother.

[ruiination]

// I am unfortunately very attached to Trapper, Wraith, and Hillbilly emotionally now so I'm screaming into my pillow

[angstandhappiness]

INTERESTING

Owl House thing I discovered

Omg omg guess what. Now I'm not sure if this has been covered in the fandom yet, but I was watching OWL House 2x08 for the first time (yes, yes, I didn't fully watch it before now, I blame my executive dysfunction), and I noticed something interesting.

When the Titan Trapper dude sends that letter to King, there's a potato beetle on it, or at least the Boiling Isles equivalent.

As you can see, it's right on top of the letter, in a similar shade of yellow as the words, almost. Now, I found it weird, so I looked into the symbolism of potato beetles, and guess what I found.

...the potato beetle was often seen as a harbinger of doom....its appearance signalled impending famine or disaster.

Well, there you have it folks. That beetle was some sneaky little foreshadowing by the writers. That's so freaking cool omg.